I agree with Derb's take on the speech:

So-o-o-o:

—-We can't leave Iraq without a victory.

—-Unless Maliki & Co. get their act together, we can't achieve victory.

—-If Maliki & Co. don't get their act together, we'll leave.

It's been a while since I studied classical logic, but it seems to me that this syllogism leaks like a sieve.

...The President: "Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria." We haven't been doing this? We haven't been doing this?

And despite the president's statement (not highlighted in any way last night) that Iran and Syria have been waging war on us by proxie, Andy McCarthy says they apparently don't have anything to worry about.

It's a bloody disaster. David Brooks piece today..apparently Maliki is very much NOT in favor of an increased US troop presence in Baghdad..in fact he wants us OUT of Baghdad. Good Lord how is this thing going to work?

On a related note, we've got Ryan Crocker, arabist and opponent of the initial 2003 war in as new ambassador to Iraq. I guess that's a sign of how Bush is ready to do pretty much anything to make something work. It's also a sign of complete desperation.

Jim Webb's analysis of the speech was spot on. I don't have a link to it unfortunately. Jeez it is depressing....I see no alternative to a partition of Iraq that can possibly offer hope both to them and us. There is no point dragging this out when it is obvious where it is going to end.

There is a story coming from the White House and other right-wing quarters that Iran and Syria snuck in through back doors to try to make the United States lose in Iraq. Indeed, the story goes, this is the only reason that the United States is losing the war in Iraq, since after all we liberated the Iraqis, and we gave them the gift of democracy.

But this isn't what is really going on. Iranian "proxies" didn't sneak in through the back door, they marched in through the front door. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is one of them. He has been allied with Iran, or rather with Iranian Islamists, for 35 years. The idea that Maliki is our ally up at bat against the opposing team, just maybe a lousy player, is a sham. And Maliki is just the tip of the iceberg. Most of the Iraqi government is pro-Iranian, even if it is some semblance of democracy.

Basically, when the US invaded Iraq, it reopened the Iran-Iraq war and handed victory to Iran. The Iranians didn't have to "meddle", they just had to watch and celebrate. That is why it would be wise to negotiate with Iran, instead of blaming it or, worse, attacking it. It's not because the Iranians are good guys; they aren't. It's because they hold the cards.

The Democratic "response", offered by Dick Durbin, D-IL, wasn't much more logical.

According to Durbin, the only way we can "win" is with more troops, but 20,000 isn't enough, so we should start pulling out instead.

According to Durbin, the only way we can "win" is with more troops, but 20,000 isn't enough, so we should start pulling out instead.

There is nothing illogical about it. Any good military strategist can tell you that you shouldn't reinforce defeat.

There is nothing illogical about it. Any good military strategist can tell you that you shouldn't reinforce defeat.

Read what Durbin said a little closer. He stated that, if we used MORE than 20,000 troops, we could win. But since Bush only pledged 20,000, we should pull out instead of asking for more troops.

He stated that, if we used MORE than 20,000 troops, we could win. But since Bush only pledged 20,000, we should pull out instead of asking for more troops.

That's right. If we sent 350,000 more troops to Iraq and kept all half-million there for five to ten years, we would have a chance of stabilizing Iraq. But that is not a reason to send only 20,000 more troops for one year, because it will only reinforce defeat. Instead, it's time to leave.

If Simberg were in Charge at Dien Bien Phu, he'd have added
2 more battalions.

If simberg were in charge at Chosin, he'd have added
2 more brigades.

If Simberg were in charge at dunkirk, he'd have added
two more divisions.

if Simberg were in charge at Bataan, he'd have added
two more corps.

Wouldn't have helped.

anonymous,

Iraq isn't a tiny parcel of land defended by a tiny force against a much larger force. Your analogies hold less water than the faulty "Iraq = Vietnam" meme.

give it time henderson

But that is not a reason to send only 20,000 more troops for one year, because it will only reinforce defeat. Instead, it's time to leave.

That still doesn't respond to John's point.

Any good military strategist can tell you that you shouldn't reinforce defeat.

blank_name, I think you are confusing 'strategy' with 'tactics'. Any military pro will tell you there is a world of difference between them, and 'defeat' at the strategic level is a whole 'nother kettle of fish from defeat at the tactical level.

But sure you reinforce defeat. If one of your rifle companies is taking a pasting (defeat) you might consider using your reserve element to reinforce. If you don't you might not _have_ the rifle company as an effective unit.

When the US Army was being defeated in Korea in 1950 they were reinforced with (among other units) the US Marine First Division.

If the Texians had gotten their act together to reinforce the defeat of the Alamo garrison that fortress need not have fallen. And so on.

Military aphorisms are dangerous to the uninformed - be wary of using them.

well not that Simberg and the other Chickenhawks
know anything about the military.

"well not that Simberg and the other Chickenhawks
know anything about the military."

That the posters who do choose to agree with them and not you must irk you to no end.

quote from anon: "not a reason to send only 20,000 more troops"

I bet we can take Iran down with 20,000 troops.

Josh

you feel so confident about taking down Iran with 20,000 troops.

You go, you sign up, you volunteer for the line.

Get puckett to load ammo for you and Simberg to
type press releases from the front.