Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Rand, its an Op-Ed.

Either you agree with these conclusions before you read it, or you do not.

Posted by Bill White at November 12, 2006 08:46 PM

What's your point, Bill?

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 12, 2006 08:51 PM

Another way to look at it Bill would be that you either agree with it or you have your head stuck in the sand.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at November 13, 2006 05:08 AM

I seriously doubt that media spin, spun the election. Average Americans are smart enough to seek out information about the issues and candidates and make an informed vote for the best candidates to become, or remain, our elected leaders.

(I was laughing so hard I almost couldn't type that)

The current crowd of American enemies is the best educated we've ever fought. Not because of any formal schooling, but because they learned that they have to set off a bomb before 5 o'clock to get it on tonights news. They've also learned, and all too well might I add, that our media is a willing and enthusiastic partner. A partner that is almost as rabid, seemingly, in it's hate for out country as they as our enemies are. They manipulate the American populace via our media goons, in a Madison Avenue style that's as good as GM, Proctor & Gamble or McDonalds.

We get the government we deserve, because we vote the members of our ruling class to govern. Belize is looking better all the time.

Posted by Steve at November 13, 2006 05:29 AM

"By getting the media to focus on the IED-of-the-day, al Qaeda was able to bury the good news (like the training of the Iraqi Army and reconstruction efforts)..."

What. Utter. Bilge.

The reality is that the Iraqi Army IS STILL NOT TRAINED (three years later). And the reality is that reconstruction efforts have failed in large part because the security situation is so frapping bad. The explosions ARE the issue, they're not tangential to it. If bombs keep blowing up and killing dozens of Iraqis and a few Americans, everything else grinds to a halt.

"The failure to immediately find weapons of mass destruction..."

"Immediately"? It's been three and a half years. The WMD justification for the invasion popped like a balloon. How can anybody still defend it?

"The media did not even admit that documents, recovered during the liberation of Iraq, showing Saddam Hussein was pursuing nuclear weapons, until it could be spun in a manner that made the Department of Defense look bad."

Those documents dated from the 1980s and early 1990s. And the controversy that the press became aware of was whether or not detailed nuclear weapons design information should be available on a Pentagon website.

It's a pretty crappy op-ed piece.

One other thing: speaking as a libertarian, I don't want a media that is "sympathetic to the government." I don't trust my government, no matter who is in power.

Posted by Craig Mahoney at November 13, 2006 07:16 AM

Craig says: I don't trust my government, no matter who is in power.

Which is why its so easy for you to write what you did. The Iraqi security force is trained. Keep in mind that when the opposition attacked before, the Iraqi security forces ran. Nopw they shoot back and take out the enemy. That's all training. But, since your government set that into motion, you don't trust it. Its real easy to denounce everything when you can't or won't trust others.

Posted by Mac at November 13, 2006 08:40 AM

The ARVN were trained also, and some of their units really were quite good. The South Vietnamese government and military unfortunately proved that with the absence of the U.S. doing most of the fighting, it couldn't withstand the North.

Compare that with the lesser number of advisors and arms sent to Greece in the post-WW2 period when the U.S./British-backed forces defeated the Soviet-backed Communist forces in the space of a few years.

You can provide the best equipment and training in the world, and it still may not be the deciding factor.

Posted by Matthew at November 13, 2006 09:34 AM

Matthew

Don't mention vietnam, none of these guys served
there. None of them took the proper lessons from that.
The talking points from RNC is that Iraq is doing well,
The Iranian people are aching for freedom, and,
our troops are under attack from Syria and the French.

If there is ever a war crimes trial, hopefully the neocons will
be first in the dock

Posted by anonymous at November 13, 2006 09:57 AM

When President Bush flies to Vietnam later this month and fully supports their membership in the WTO does that mean we finally won?

Maybe the lesson for North Korea and Iran is to flood those nations with western consumer goods and let McDonalds and Brittney Spears and MP-3 players and the opportunity to sell Nike clothing to the West accomplish what the US military might not be able to accomplish with JDAMs and B-2s and tanks.

Give a population rising expectations for the future and they will throw off oppressive rulers in favor of freedom. Threaten invasion and they may well rally to defend their homeland.

Posted by Bill White at November 13, 2006 10:09 AM

Cogent comment of the day,

If there is ever a war crimes trial, hopefully the neocons will be first in the dock

Posted by anonymous at November 13, 2006 09:57

So now, in your opinion we should be on trial in a court of law for war crimes because we support the war on terror? This is the kind of idiot-assed comment that keeps you signing in as the "anonymous" spineless worm that you are. Whether you agree with our ideals or opinions, suggesting that anyone here should be on trial for their their ideals or opinions is outlandish even for you.

Trials for people who disagree with "You", regardless of who that "you" is, is the mark of leftist, totalitarian ideals.

But thanks for playing Comrade.

Posted by Steve at November 13, 2006 10:59 AM

"The Iraqi security force is trained."

If this is true, then why are our troops still there? Why has the security situation gotten worse?

Posted by Craig Mahoney at November 13, 2006 10:59 AM

Craig,
the elections are over, insurgency will now level off. There is also a big difference in "trained" and "experienced". It doesn't matter the Democrats are going to cut off the funds and the whole thing is headed to hell in a hand basket.

Lets see how they want to spend this "Peace Dividend". Issuing bio-hazard suits would be a good idea.

Posted by Steve at November 13, 2006 11:37 AM

My advice to the Democratic Congress?

Loudly propose to work with James Baker and the Iraq Study Group to ascertain a sensible bi-partisan strategy for a successful resolution to the situation in Iraq. Then wait a little while until Baker actually proposes something.

Posted by Bill White at November 13, 2006 11:45 AM

So it's all about political posturing huh Bill?

Never mind security.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at November 13, 2006 12:49 PM

Cecil, there are no good answers for Iraq.

Cut-n-run would be a disaster and I oppose that. Beyind the countless Iraqis would die from the chaos that would ensue from our just leaving, I am not confident that "just leaving" is feasible from a purely military and logistical perspective, without massive US casualties.

Just say "no" to cut-n-run.

That said, America lining up behind President Bush and singing a rousing chorus of "Stand by your Man" has also been rejected by the voters.

Democrats have been the minority party and I very much doubt the Pentagon has shared all the intelligence data. Also, the Iraq Study Group has been at work on this problem since the Spring and they may very well have some good suggestions.

We got ourselves into this current mess thourgh a failure to weigh various options before the Decider decided. To get ourselves out of this mess we need a bi-partisan approach that encourages the elder statesmen of GOP foreign policy to provide significant input.

Demanding that Pelosi (or Murtha) offer a plan today is the real act of political posturing.

And for the record, I prefer Hoyer to Murtha and suspect Pelosi was merely making a symbolic gesture with her call for Murtha. I predict Hoyer will get the job.

Posted by Bill White at November 13, 2006 01:31 PM

Bill,
the Democrats started screaming that they "have a plan" before the 2004 elections. Now they've been asked to show it and it's like smoke in a strong breeze. Gone.

So what many of us suspected, has become fact. They have nothing. Zero, zip, nada, zero.zip, less than something. Soon, as always, they'll scream that it's GWB, Republicans, partisans, elves with pikes, aliens with anal probes etc. that are REALLY to blame. The old,
"...it was on fire when we got here", defense.

I do have a question though about this,

We got ourselves into this current mess thourgh a failure to weigh various options before the Decider decided.

What would they have been? That country was like a sieve. The U.N. was letting them, through the efforts of the Secretary General, do whatever the hell they wanted. Tell us Bill, what other options?

Posted by Steve at November 13, 2006 01:50 PM

Craig,

As a somewhat lapsed libertarian, I don't altogether trust my government either. But blanket distrust is no more a rational view than uncritical credulity. One would think it obvious by inspection of the world at large that not every threat to liberty comes from inside the Beltway. Libertarians, unfortunately, seem largely to believe otherwise.

Nor does the fact of government support for 'A' necessarily imply one ought to uncritically accept whatever 'B' the press, or any other group, has to say in opposition simply because they are in opposition. People in the press often have agendas. People in the political opposition to the current government certainly have agendas. Neither of these opposition camps is, on the basis of their recent records, entitled to any obvious advantage with respect to being taken seriously as truth-speakers when contrasted to the government. True, the government is often no friend of liberty. But the press and the political left are, to say the least, pretty dodgy in this regard as well.

Posted by Dick Eagleson at November 13, 2006 01:58 PM

I want to hear what Jimmy Baker has to say. And suggest.

There are rumors about different ideas the Iraq Study Group has come up with. One idea is a plan for formal partition and I expressed a willingness to consider partition back before the 2004 elections. Maybe its not a good idea. I do not know yet.

If the Iraq Study Group has ideas Democrats can support, then we can reach consensus on how to go forward. If Baker, Gates and Poppy Bush have no new ideas, okay we will need to float some.

I also reject the assertion that many Democrats claimed to have a "silver bullet" plan for Iraq. Iraq is a serious mess right now.

Cut-n-run must be rejected. But blindly stay the course needs to be rejected as well.

We need a third way and forging consensus about that third way so Bush, Gates, Reid and Pelosi can all sign on would be good for the country.

Posted by Bill White at November 13, 2006 02:09 PM

PS -- Several months ago, James Baker told the press he thought the results of the Iraq Study Group should be held back until after the election.

Was that wise? I dunno, but here we are.

Okay, time for the Iraq Study Group to report. Then we talk.

Posted by Bill White at November 13, 2006 02:12 PM

So we have a unelected commision doing the work of the elected officials who are supposed to be doing their job. Great! None of these people dealt with the terror threat we have today. So we are supposed to accept their theories about solving the problem when their best efforts in the past were political solutions to real problems that are still with us and now these same people are going to "solve" them politically again. Please, sign me up.

Posted by Bill Maron at November 13, 2006 05:49 PM

I also reject the assertion that many Democrats claimed to have a "silver bullet" plan for Iraq.

Bill,
the Democrats THEMSELVES repeatedly have said they knew how to solve the Iraq problem. Now they are busy carping and barking at each other about committee assignments. That they had / have a plan is not some "assertion", its WHAT THEY SAID!!

Posted by Steve at November 13, 2006 06:25 PM

the Democrats THEMSELVES repeatedly have said they knew how to solve the Iraq problem. Now they are busy carping and barking at each other about committee assignments. That they had / have a plan is not some "assertion", its WHAT THEY SAID!!

Got link?

Posted by Bill White at November 13, 2006 07:24 PM

Come on Bill, this is too easy. From the DNC website: Democrats Focused on Plan for Iraq

That's the second listing when you do a Google search for Democrat Plan Iraq. The first is the Boston Globe story, the third is Chris Matthews, and the fourth item is a link to Senator Harry Reid's website.

Here's the plan.

I'll agree that the plan for Iraq is really to hold Bush accountable (i.e. impeachment) for: pre-war intelligence manipulation and giving contracts to Halliburton. Other than that, it's the Baker plan for giving control to regional allies. I have no idea which allies they have in mind, but I can't think of a good choice:
Syria and Iran? Iraqis would go ballistic.
Kuwait? The country Iraq most recently attacked.
Turkey? Who would do to the Kurds what Saddam was unable to finish.
Saudi Arabia? Can you say wahhabi?

On the topic of Afghanistan and providing better equipment to our armed forces, the rhetoric is actually somewhat rational.

Posted by Leland at November 14, 2006 07:12 AM

Craig says: "The Iraqi security force is trained."

If this is true, then why are our troops still there? Why has the security situation gotten worse?

Our troops are still there because more training is necessary. Though you would like everything to be black and white, its not. Can you at least acknowledge that the security forces we've trained are better off now than they were? Probably not, that might mean that something went right, and we can't have that, now can we? Lord forbid we compliment anything we disagree with.

Posted by Mac at November 14, 2006 07:20 AM

I like how Jim Webb's campaign website quotes Eisenhower on the Korean War:

"Where do we go from here?" he asked. "When comes the end? ... These questions demand truthful answers. Neither glib promises nor glib excuses will serve. They would be no better than the glib prophecies that brought us to this pass… [a]ny answer that dishonestly pledged an end to war in Korea by any imminent, exact date would brand its speaker as a deceiver. The second and equally false answer declares that nothing can be done to speed a secure peace. It dares to tell us that we, the strongest nation in the history of freedom, can only wait,—and wait—and wait. Such a statement brands its speaker as a defeatist.
"The old Administration cannot be expected to repair what it failed to prevent. Where will a new Administration begin? It will begin with it’s President taking a simple, firm resolution. The resolution will be: To forego the diversions of politics and to concentrate on the job of ending the Korean war-until that job is honorably done.

The words are Eisenhower's and were spoken about Korea. Whether they apply today is for each of us to decide. I believe they do.

Also note that the "Korb plan" was written by a Reagan official.

Personally, I believe that "phased withdrawal by December 2007" is not feasible. But perhaps it is the starting point for negotiations. Never offer your bottom line, first.

The Eisenhower / Korea parallel is powerful, IMHO.

Do we stay forever? Either we up the ante and send more troops to start tipping over more dominoes (Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia) or we start planning our exit. Recall that MacArthur wanted to nuke China rather than agree to a stalemate in Korea. Same issue -- do we topple Iran and Saudi Arabia or do we start looking for an exit strategY?

Is there a 3rd choice?

= = =

As for the "blame Bush" compenent of the Democratic plan, yes indeed that was part of the plan but blaming Bush became considerably less important as of 8 November 2006. Mel Martinez will do more to erode support for Bush than Pelosi's subpoenas ever could.

Remove the "blame Bush" aspects from the Democrayic plan and what is left is the James Baker approach. As Leland points our and as I have been saying.

Posted by Bill White at November 14, 2006 07:51 AM

A summary of the argument:

Michigan Senator Carl Levin (D) says, "To begin that phased redeployment and, thereby, to make it clear to the Iraqis that our presence is not open-ended."
But Texas Representative Ted Poe (R) says, "Let the generals finish the job, win, and bring the troops home. Abandoning Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States."

Setting an arbitrary date and just leaving is a VERY bad idea. Asserting that "staying the course" will lead to "victory" is delusional.

Its Korea all over again.

Posted by Bill White at November 14, 2006 08:06 AM

"Our troops are still there because more training is necessary."

I'll say...

"BAGHDAD, Nov. 14 -- Armed men in Iraqi police uniforms and driving police vehicles kidnapped as many as 150 people from a government agency on Tuesday, and several senior police commanders were arrested in connection with the abductions, Iraqi officials said today."

"The abductions were a well-orchestrated reminder of how challenging basic security remains in Iraq at a time when U.S. officials are pressing the local government to assert more control."

"News of the mass kidnapping was announced dramatically on the floor of the national Parliament, and within hours an Iraqi Interior Ministry spokesman said on national television that several police officials in charge of the area where the kidnappings occurred had been arrested."

What's Officer Barbrady's line whenever anything goes wrong? "Move along, nothing to see here..."

Posted by Ronald Williams at November 14, 2006 02:07 PM

Will some Republican defender here please define what "victory in Iraq" means? I'd love to know what we should be shooting for...

By the way seems like those abductors were very well "trained"..they seemed quite professional by all accounts. See we may be training people for something quite different than what we hoped for. Anyway, back to Q.1 please define "victory" ...

Posted by AnonIraq at November 14, 2006 03:59 PM

"True, the government is often no friend of liberty. But the press and the political left are, to say the least, pretty dodgy in this regard as well."

There is, however, a major difference: only the government has the power to take property, freedom, and even life from its citizens.

And without the press, how will you know what your government is doing?

Posted by Craig Mahoney at November 15, 2006 05:57 AM

Ronald says: The abductions were a well-orchestrated reminder of how challenging basic security remains in Iraq at a time when U.S. officials are pressing the local government to assert more control.

Yes, which is why we're still there because more training is needed.

Craig says: And without the press, how will you know what your government is doing?

If the press doesn't tell the truth, how do you know what your government is doing? If the media tells only the dim depressing side of the story, how do you know what your government is doing?

Posted by Mac at November 15, 2006 09:25 AM

"Yes, which is why we're still there because more training is needed."

"If the press doesn't tell the truth, how do you know what your government is doing?"

So your basic message is: "Everything is going okay in Iraq. I trust my leadership. Nothing to worry about at all."

"If the media tells only the dim depressing side of the story, how do you know what your government is doing?"

You don't think that the Iraq story is dim and depressing?

What planet do you live on?

Posted by Craig Mahoney at November 15, 2006 10:38 AM

Craig says: So your basic message is: "Everything is going okay in Iraq. I trust my leadership. Nothing to worry about at all."

Nope, not it at all. Its not everything is going great or that everything is going wrong....its some things are going great and some things aren't, but why is it only the things NOT going great are reported?

Craig says: You don't think that the Iraq story is dim and depressing?

Yes it is, in some respects. But in other respects, there are bright things going on too. Since I recognize that things are not all black and white, I can see more things on each side of a story.

Craig asks: What planet do you live on?

Earth, you? I'll wait for your answer after you let the media tell you where you live.

Posted by Mac at November 15, 2006 11:44 AM

Post a comment