Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Of course General Batiste is not just "a dog face" soldier. He was one of the people who you know lead off the war.

The problem here is that well a couple of things are ending.

The perception use to be that "the Democrats" would be careless with the lives of American fighting folks. Not so much anymore. When you have people like Zinni who are saying that "four years" to adapt is far to long (he said this on MTP) and attributes it to bungling civilian leadership.

when one has endless deployments with ZERO attempt to raise the crewing level of the armed forces, when the supplies are being burned and drawn down at rapid rates...

WHEN there are four years going by with "dead enders" and Rummy explaining to all how his plan "is working"...then the perception grows that the current crop of GOP geniuses are not much better then Clinton who is percieved as having "wasted people" in Somalia.

The only difference between the people wasted by stupid tactics in Somalia and in IRaq, is well the numbers.

It is hard to argue that Bush or Rummy were listening to the "Commanders" before the war or until Rummy was fired. The "roar" was getting defeaning that "this isnt working" (of course common sense was saying that as well).

There is "more" listening going on now. Gates is not an indiot and Bush still is in over his head, but he is at least listening to Gates. Who isnt.

The GOP era on Foreign policy expertise is kind of drawing to a close...with the American people and maybe the military stars.

As a noted American said about British Generals in WWI, "some were merely stupid".

That line is being applied by a lot of folks on mil blogs to well the civilians in this administration.

INcluding "Piggly Wiggly", Mr. Cheney's nickname.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 05:50 PM

And the voices of thousands of soldiers begging for support fall, once again, on deaf ears. Well done Robert, you shame our troops again.

Posted by Mac at May 10, 2007 06:48 PM

'The perception use to be that "the Democrats" would be careless with the lives of American fighting folks. '

I agree. The perception of "carelessness" is fading.

Now "the perception" is that they are willfully endangering the lives of American fighting folks by broadcasting to Zawahiri, Iran, and everyone else that they can't WAIT to get a "date certain" for the beginning of withdrawal. Oh, and defeat, which follows it.

Mind you, I don't blame the Democratic "leadership". They are doing exactly what their party name says -- they are polling their fiercest supporters, and giving them what they demand.

Regrettably, that will screw all of us, but since I don't "pay" them, I don't get to "play" them.

Posted by MG at May 10, 2007 06:54 PM

they are polling their fiercest supporters, and giving them what they demand.

I saw a new clip about this - they were saying that congress doesn't care too much about what the majority want, they are primarily concerned with what a vocal minority want really badly. They put it like this: for supporters of the war, the war in not necessarily the most important issue in the next election. For those against the war, it is the only issue in the next election. Therefore, Congress favors the vocal set.

I can see how this would work, but it worries me. What they are saying is that people that sit around bugging congress all day are more important than people like me that work - our votes just don't count as much. Looking at it this way, surely the terrorists are the ones that should be running things - they are willing to die for their politics... Actually, maybe that explains a lot!

Posted by David Summers at May 10, 2007 07:24 PM

Posted by Mac at May 10, 2007 06:48 PM

sorry, has nothing to do with my point.

Imagine if Bill Clinton was President.

IMagine if he had done the "smoking mushroom thing", if Les Aspin had stood by for four weeks while riots broke out because of a lack of troops, imagine if Les Aspin had said the things Rummy said, imagine if it took Bill Clinton until the midterms to change course and get new people.

The far right would need tranquilizers. That is how The General feels.

And he is not the only one.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 07:38 PM

Posted by MG at May 10, 2007 06:54 PM

LIke the GOP was arguing to "cut and run" from Somalia??

look the Congress should give Bush a clean supplemental. BUT I imagine that you bought Bush's line in the campaign that "we were winning"...and my guess is that you didnt say a word negative as Rummy was making his stupid statements.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 07:40 PM

Posted by David Summers at May 10, 2007 07:24 PM

Were you against Clinton's impeachment? The GOP listened to its "vocal minority" then...whats the difference?

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 07:41 PM

Mr. Oler,

"That is how The General feels."

I am unclear on the reference. Are you referring to the film, or to the steam locomotive that is its title character?

"BUT I imagine that you bought Bush's line in the campaign that "we were winning"

At least you aren't imagining me in a pink boa and fishnet stockings.

Seriously, though, we were winning then, and we are winning now. The differences between now and if the military status quo ante November 2006 had continued are:

1. American soldiers will die at a higher pace.

2. The various groups of irhabis will die more quickly.

I approve of the accelerated deployment of the five brigades, the change in ROE, and the dispersal of units to create permanent presence in the various neighborhoods. These changes would have been meaningless two years ago -- the indigenous security forces were too small, too green, and the Iraqi government was not yet ready.

Now, those indigenous elements are in far better shape, and the changes in American operations will be effective.

PS: Who is "Rummy"?

And what statements did this "Rummy" fellow make that you assert to be "stupid"?

Do you actually agree that these statements were stupid, or are you asserting it to be provocative?

If you do agree with your assertion, what made them "stupid" at the time they were uttered?

Posted by MG at May 10, 2007 08:31 PM

Seriously, though, we were winning then, and we are winning now.

Posted by MG at May 10, 2007 08:31 PM

yes of course...naturally. That is why the commanding general was sacked...

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 08:34 PM

Mr. Oler,

Of which commanding general are you referring? There been a large number of them, ranging from 1 to 4 stars.

Posted by MG at May 10, 2007 08:37 PM

And the voices of thousands of soldiers begging for support fall, once again, on deaf ears.

A classic case of confirmation bias. There are as many soldiers who think that the war is botched, or a bad idea from the beginning, as there are who beg for more money for it.

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php

But obviously, if you eliminate quantifiers from your thinking, and just say that "soldiers support the war", then you can take the fact that some soldiers support the war, and talk as if it's all of them. It's rhetoric over reason.

Posted by at May 10, 2007 09:23 PM

A classic case of confirmation bias. There are as many soldiers who think that the war is botched, or a bad idea from the beginning, as there are who beg for more money for it.

Posted by at May 10, 2007 09:23 PM

not so much. thinking that the war was a bad idear or botched from teh start is not the same as saying "dont pass the money".

I think that the war was a bad idear, botched from the start, run by incompetents...but think that Bush should get his money.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 09:30 PM

One thing you all have to know about Oler is that, like a lot of liberal Democrats, he likes to point to the handful of soldiers who want to raise the white flag and ignore the overwelming majority who want to fight until victory. If he had been alive in the Civil War, he would have been a great fan of George Brinton McClellan, quite a popular guy in his time, but horribly wrong about what to do about the Confederacy. Who are Grant and Sherman anyway, he might say, but a drunk and a lunatic.

And I'm not sure what the GOP had to do about the Somalia debacle. That happened on William Jefferson Clinton's watch, with Democrats still in charge of Congress as Les Aspin mismanaging DOD.

Posted by MarkWhittington at May 10, 2007 09:32 PM

Mark.

you cannot find a single statement of mine where I have advocated "leaving" Iraq NOR have expressed anything but support for the surge.

Finally after four years of mismangement of the DOD that makes LEs Aspin look fracken brilliant we have a man (Gates) who knows what he is doing. He might be the only one in this administration but he does.

Your post makes no sense. If you can find a place where I have advocated leaving Iraq then post it. If not then I suggest you go back to the Whiners for Bush club. It must really frack you that this person (Bush) is on the verge of imploding the GOP!

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 09:41 PM

"..but think that Bush should get his money."

Here, I think, is an implication of personalization that is very harmful to the Republic.

The United States, not just its chief executive, is at war. The money that the Democrats are withholding funds operations, maintenance, personnel, R&D, etc.

A more respectful, professional comment would be, "The Department of Defense should receive the funding it has requested."

Posted by at May 10, 2007 10:00 PM

A more respectful, professional comment would be, "The Department of Defense should receive the funding it has requested."

Posted by at May 10, 2007 10:00 PM

rah

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 10:03 PM

Oler, your career as a political chameleon is so epic, it cannot be said for certain what you believe from one moment to the next. You have, however, supported candidates who want to bug out of Iraq, so it can only be supposed to you support that too even while you don't support it, doing John Francois Kerry one better by believing two opposite things at the same time.

I also wouldn't be so sure that Bush is going to "implode" the GOP. Observing how much in knots his opponents have tied themselves, it appears to me that the Man from Crawford may well come out on top once again over people who persist in underestimating him.

Posted by MarkWhittington at May 10, 2007 10:06 PM

not so much. thinking that the war was a bad idear or botched from teh start is not the same as saying "dont pass the money".

Given that the surveyed opinions of soldiers have never been all that different from American public opinion, almost certainly a fair fraction of the troops support the Democratic effort to impose a timetable on the war in Iraq.

The Republicans and the Rand Simbergs would like to reduce the discussion to: either you're with us or you're against us; either you want to pay for the war as long as it takes, or you want to leave the soldiers naked and unpaid in the field and make them lose. However, General Odom said it right: It is impossible to win a war that is not in your interests; therefore the first step to victory is an orderly retreat. Because Odom is both correct and has conservative credentials, the Republicans have said little in response to him and the Rand Simbergs have said nothing at all.

Posted by at May 10, 2007 10:16 PM

Posted by MarkWhittington at May 10, 2007 10:06 PM

And Karl Rove really had the right numbers for the 06 election.

Support for some politican in the past does not imply continued support. I have been consistent in my view that the move into Iraq was the wrong war, at the wrong place, done by idiots.

You may not agree with that, but while we are friends, I would stand with General Zinni, Admiral Owens and the like.

Your refusal to face reality is indicative of what has driven the GOP to near oblivion. And severely hurt The United States of America.

To be clear. YOu cannot find a single post where I have advocated since this stupd war started, "cutting and running" or indeed anything less then total victory. To continue to make statements to the contrary is indicative of your inability to reflect reality and instead illustrative of a fantasy world. A world that you Cheney and Rummy and the like seem to have in common.

You were wrong about every thing you said about Iraq. One more thing you and Rummy have in common.

I was correct on just about everything. Go figure.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 10:21 PM

An implication of personalization that is very harmful to the Republic.

It's not just an implication of personalization, it's the reality. Bush has staked his personal reputation on the war in Iraq. It is therefore in his interest to fight and promote the Iraq war for the duration, no matter how bad it is for the Republic. If nothing else, he is kicking the stone of blame down the road. The next president will withdraw from Iraq, and Bush's base will accuse that president of treason.

Posted by at May 10, 2007 10:26 PM

Posted by at May 10, 2007 10:16 PM

Not so much.

The troops, particularly the ones doing the heavy lifting, The Marines are indicating their support for winning in Iraq in large numbers. The reup rates are enormous. The troops in the field seem to grasp what is at stake and why it is at stake better then the far left or far right groups.

The "normal" Americans the non far left and far right probably grasp in as well. Just now however there is no spokesperson for them.

General Odom is a fine man and a good soldier. His view I dont share. Neither do most of the folks who have a pretty good grasp of the mideast...you know people who have spent a lot of time there.

The far right is not better or worse then the far left. They are all ideological toadies who really are not troubled by facts. Because life is not "black and white" it is shades of gray. What is black and white is "right and wrong" and how to implement that is "gray".

The "support the troops" line was dumb when the far right said it and it is stupid when the far left says it.

The REpublics Armed Forces stand to serve The Constitution and protect it from all enemies both foreign and domestic. The question is two fold. what is in the best interest of That document and how to implement it competently.

The cut and run dems are as stupid as the stay the course GOP...

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 10:30 PM

Posted by at May 10, 2007

BTW I can rebute General Odom. But I'll let Zinni do it.

Zinni...USMC...

take care

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 10:32 PM

PS: Who is "Rummy"?

Robert seems to imagine that it lends weight to his arguments, and makes him look clever, to come up with nicknames for government officials he doesn't like. He doesn't realize that it just makes him look juvenile and, when he can't even get the name right (e.g., "Greggie" for Doug Feith), ignorant.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 11, 2007 04:24 AM

Robert,

Do you REALLY like seeing your name, ROBERT, in print so much that MUST type "Robert" at the end of every comment, Robert. I mean Robert, the redundancy of having your name in the comment and in the "posted by", Robert, is so tiring that I think it would be nice, Robert, if you'd give it a rest. ...but that's just me Robert. Maybe it's because referring to one's self as "Robert" sounds a bit like puffery. But it's perfectly clear to all who read the comments that you are not a "Bob" (although many of us suspect that your are secretly a "Bobby"). Wink wink, nudge nudge, eh?

A few retired Generals are bent out of shape about the politicians controlling the military is neither new nor news. Generals trying to manipulate the media to exert control over the political process (any amount of control beyond casting a vote) now that's news and quite disturbing.

Gungaladore

Posted by Gunga at May 11, 2007 05:08 AM

This discussion is absurd and has a cyclic recurrence that elicits the same string of comments from the same people.

We can't be the people capable of bridging the divide between the Sunni and the Shia. It isn't going to happen as a result of how many troops we have there. Meanwhile, a Kurdish state will be attacked by Turkey as soon as it looks likely to happen so the division of Iraq doesn't look that good either. There is no way to WIN in Iraq, because every acceptable definition of victory requires a reconciliation between groups that we are not capable of effecting by force. For those who love to bring up the Germany and Japan analogies, were we trying to heal a 1400 year religious rift in either of those places. And, how do you think we can effect that when one of the favorite descriptions of our troops over there is "The Jews" ?

So the Dems and Repubs can keep fighting all they want and we here can argue and trash each other about the various reporting tactics of the MSM, the traitorous Dems or whatever, but the essence of this is that we are watching a farce.

Perhaps in some not very enlightened fashion, the majority of Americans have figured this out to be the case. When we are four years into this and need to build walls in Baghdad to keep folks off each others backs, it is obvious that the endeavour is ridiculous and flawed from the get-go.

We will need plan B, which no one really knows.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at May 11, 2007 06:14 AM

While I will always agree that the human nature is to resist change, I refuse to lose all hope and throw a group of people under the bus. Just because two religious (there's the religion causing all wars argument again) factions have been fighting for so long, nobody can probably remember what started it, does not mean that peace can't be found. When freedom trickles down to the populace and they truly get a taste for what freedom is, those in power will either be forced to change their views, or be forced out of power. People can stand to be subjugated for only so long before they rise up, as we did in America. We got lucky in that reprisal for our actions took a long time. Social Science has never been black and white, give these people a chance to grow. We got that chance and became the greatest country on the earth. Still, we are no different or better than the citizens of the Middle East. We just have our freedom and most of us would fight to keep it.

Posted by Mac at May 11, 2007 06:26 AM

"Winning"

What is the definition of winning?

The Germans roll across France, defeating the French, British, and Belgian armies in 60 days at the cost of 60,000 dead German troops. To this day it is classified as one of the greatest victories any army has ever achieved.

Coalition forces defeat Saddams military in less than 60 days, topple the government, install a new democratically elected government, hold elections numerous times at the cost of some 3500 dead (over a period of FOUR years) Coalition troops. Huge defeat? Only in the minds of defeatists.

The defeat will not come at the hands of the Al Qaeda, Iranian agents or insurgents; if defeat comes will be legislated by the political party controlling the United States Congress.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 11, 2007 06:27 AM

Some anonymous: "Given that the surveyed opinions of soldiers have never been all that different from American public opinion, "

On the contrary the US Military is consistently more "right wing" than the general public. Voting records prove this.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 11, 2007 06:37 AM

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 11, 2007 06:27 AM

Cecil...all that post shows, you dont have a fracken clue about the purpose of war. Not a one.

Stunning but you are right at home with this administration.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 11, 2007 07:24 AM

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 11, 2007 04:24 AM

Rand

DF just reminds me of Niedemeyer from Animal House ...what I should have just labeled him is what Tommy Franks (you know who he is right?) did "the most Fracken stupid person he (Franks) Had ever met"

Another of "rummys" competents.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 11, 2007 07:43 AM

Robert

Posted by Gunga at May 11, 2007 08:45 AM

Mac:

Was that tongue in cheek? Assuming it wasn't...

"Just because two religious (there's the religion causing all wars argument again) factions have been fighting for so long, nobody can probably remember what started it, does not mean that peace can't be found."

-The Sunni and Shia have a very well defined idea of what started it. Many Shia holy days commemorate just that.

-Sure peace "can" be found. Not that a group of guys with guns, whom they call "The Jews" are going to solve their internal differences or find "their peace" for them.

"When freedom trickles down to the populace and they truly get a taste for what freedom is, those in power will either be forced to change their views, or be forced out of power."

-We've given them the freedom and we can see where they want to take it.

-WTF? Who are those in power that the Iraqi people want to force out of power? Maliki?

"People can stand to be subjugated for only so long before they rise up, as we did in America."

-That's why the Shia want to dominate now; they've had enough of Sunni dominance. That's why the Kurds want their own state. All contrary to what we want for them.

"We got lucky in that reprisal for our actions took a long time. Social Science has never been black and white, give these people a chance to grow. We got that chance and became the greatest country on the earth. "

-So we should be there until they "grow?" as in "Let my people grow?" Any ideas how long that will take or whether our presence makes the problem worse?

"Still, we are no different or better than the citizens of the Middle East. "

-Hmm. This has me stumped. Your egalitarian views today are outstanding even if flowering with lovely platitudes.

"We just have our freedom and most of us would fight to keep it."

-Is that what they are fighting for right now?

Cecil:

Your comments make absolutely no sense in the context of what even the administration considers as victory right now. I'm at a loss to understand what in hell you are babbling about.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at May 11, 2007 09:03 AM

The problem is that Cecil doesnt ahve a clue about how to define victory in any war. Much less this one.

I can define it in Iraq, but I think that this administration has about as much of a clue about it, as Cecil does

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 11, 2007 09:30 AM

C'mon Robert, what do you want defined? War, or victory?

War is easy...kill people and break things. Even Rush gets that one right. All the tactics and objectives go right out the window when the enemy is engaged. You were a general once too, right?

This has me stumped. Your egalitarian views today are outstanding even if flowering with lovely platitudes.

Stumped? Are we better humans than they are? Do you recall that "All men are created equal." That is the ultimate in egalitarian, but its far from platitudinous.

So, since you've determined that they are either too stupid to govern themselves, or too aadversarial, they don't even deserve a chance? Obviously, the only thing you care about is how long we're there, rather than what great things we can do sheparding freedom. No, not a puppet for the US in the middle east, but a free society. Isn't that a worthwhile effort?

Posted by Mac at May 11, 2007 10:28 AM

We win by not turning Iraq over to Al Qaeda and or Iran. We loose by doing just that, as the democrats wish to do.

Robert

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 11, 2007 10:54 AM

Posted by Mac at May 11, 2007 10:28 AM

Rush doesnt have a clue what he is talking about. War is not about "killing people and breaking things" anymore then "guns kill people".

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 11, 2007 10:55 AM

Rush has a wee bit more of a clue than you do Robert....wait a sec...

General Oler! Please sir, define to us the nature of war. What is war General Oler?

Posted by Mac at May 11, 2007 11:18 AM

Let's see... Cecil makes an interesting point about historical context, and the response is:

all that post shows, you dont have a fracken clue about the purpose of war.
and
Your comments make absolutely no sense in the context of what even the administration considers as victory right now. I'm at a loss to understand what in hell you are babbling about.

I get the mental image of a kid in a beeny putting his snot covered finger in his ear and saying "I can't hear you, lalalalala" rather than taking a chance in responding with points to what Cecil wrote.

The war in Iraq is not a defeat in any context of a military action. If you can't understand that, then you are in over your heads trying to debate the topic.

What has failed is the diplomacy of the situation. Instead of assuring that regional powers stay out of the conflict, the diplomatic mission is non-existant. I have no problem putting the blame for that squarely on President Bush. It would be great if we had a Congress (we got rid of the previous inept one) that was intelligent enough to recognize that fact and deal with it appropriately.

Why are we having diplomatic missions to Syria supporting them for...? arming Hezbollah to attack Israel? providing small arms to insurgents in Iraq? using Hezbollah to retake control of Lebanon?

Why do we not have diplomats, via neutral entities such as third party nations or the UN, putting pressure on Iran not to... kidnap soldiers from allied nations involved in action within a war zone? demanding evidence that nuclear develop is for peaceful energy use only? demanding that the government quit threatening the total annihilation of neighboring countries?

These things are diplomatic matters to be addressed. They are not being addressed or are being addressed the wrong way. If this continues, then the absense of diplomacy will lead to the only thing left: more war.

Posted by Leland at May 11, 2007 03:47 PM

Whatever mental image you want to draw is fine with me. Whenver someone makes a comment that is as obvious as his was of a lack of understanding about what the role of war, in a moral society is, the first thing we have to get correct is that.

Then we can move on.

It is about like discussing the BOR and stating that they are "rights the government gives to the people". Before continuing the discussion the BOR as entertaining as it might be, we need to get the basic understanding correct.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 11, 2007 04:59 PM

The war in Iraq is not a defeat in any context of a military action.

Posted by Leland at May 11, 2007 03:47 PM

You dont seem to grasp it either. by your own definition Vietnam was a glorious victory.

I dont know that any other metric makes it so.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 11, 2007 05:10 PM

You dont seem to grasp it either. by your own definition Vietnam was a glorious victory.

Did the US military defeat the NVA?
Did the US military take control of all of North Vietnam?
Did Hanoi fall into the hands of the US military?
Was Ho Chi Minh captured?
Are there Democratic elections held in Vietnam?

I can go on and on. The basic point is that Robert is ignorant about the military, and apparently Vietnam as well.

A better point is that Robert's response still has nothing to do with the thread topic.

2,700 service men and women petitioned their Congress to support them. Before the November election, we (particularly the regular commenters of this blog) that service men, "non-chicken hawks" if you will, were the only opinions that counted. Ok, we now have their opinion, and that should be news, right? Well it isn't. Before the November elections, we (the people of the United States) were provided news stories in various media about a single woman's plight to meet with the President a second time to talk with the President about her son's death. Now, we have 2,700 people who want Congress to listen to them, and hardly any news coverage can be found on the subject.

Why isn't 2,700 service men and women petitioning the Congress with a grievance important news of the day?

Does anyone else have a good answer, because I don't. Rand originally asked the question. Robert doesn't even understand the subject.

Posted by Leland at May 11, 2007 06:52 PM

Why isn't 2,700 service men and women petitioning the Congress with a grievance important news of the day?

Posted by Leland at May 11, 2007 06:52 PM

Leland.

I understand both the subject of what "war does" and its aims and the reason that the media didnt care about 2700 or so folks from the military petitioning Congress. I seem to understand them both far better then you seem to.

War is, in a moral nation an instrument of the soverign (which in the case of this country is "the people") to accomplish task that are not accomplishable by reasonable and moral means.

Victory is not when another army is defeated or when a battle is won, it is when those "task" are accomplished.

Re the Vietnam war. Our military was never defeated in large scale action (or even regiment scale action) but who cared? That metric is of trivial value because the "goal" of the war, which was the preservation of the South Vietnamese regime (in some form or fashion) was never accomplished. We could get into a "Nit" about how the war was lost, but the "task" for which the soverign sent their soldiers to war was not accomplished.

To that end a victory in Iraq is almost impossible IF (remember that qualifier) the goals were the almost stupid ones laid down by those noble Chickenhawks Mr. Chency and Bush the younger pre going to war. Ie a Democratic Iraq. That is not going to happen.

The rest of the goals are of course meaningless now, because they were never valid ones anyway...disarming Saddam, he was of course disarmed and not a threat to This Republic.

So now we have found ourselves in a quandry. The original goals were unachievable, the new goal the new victory is simply a government in Iraq that is sustainable and perhaps maybe evolvable in a good fashion.

Is victory possible there? I think so, but only with a lot more time and probably a lot more American blood. Sadly victory is needed now. We never should have gone but if we leave an Iraq that is chaos then we as a nation are in trouble.

why doesnt the media care about the soldiers petition? Because in a country where the people are the soverign we only really "care" about the views of the people at election time. A little civics. This is a representative form of government.

It is not a "poll based government" (as a Clinton hater I felt sure that you would have used something like this before!). Once we elect leaders we expect the leaders to do what they promised when they were elected, holding them accountable at the next election time. If they devitate from what the polls are or they do something that we do not like as a "body politic" then we hold them accountable not in term, but at election time. The far right and left seem to have a problem with that at the national level as they both grapple with IMpeachment.

No one should care what the armed forces want. Their job (the armed forces) are to serve and protect The Constitution...which is the document of the soverign. If the people send them to war, they go, if the people bring them home, they come home. That is how it works.

I may not agree with a mission to Darfur but if HRC were POTUS and sent them, they will go cheerfully, that is what they do.

2700 is a trivial number (not even half of a flattop), it is about like saying we should reverse track in Iraq because Casey Sheehan's mom has that many at a rally. who cares.

There are some interesting metrics that the soverign should keep in mind. Marines in Anbar, in the thick of the fighting are reupping at record rates. Marines are making their recuirtment goals, etc etc.

That should tell the soverign that the armed forces, through strained, are not near a moral problem as the far left claims.

If the soverign ever decides that they dont think that the mission is worthwhile then we should immediatly stop whatever that mission is. War in our country is Abraham taking his son to the alter to kill him. We should be moral in how we do that. Sadly Bush wasnt but that is then this is now.

My guess is that the soverign are not ready to run out of Iraq. They are worried that the gang that cant shoot straight doesnt have a clue. I think that at least right now, they are equally concerned about stupid Democrats.

I dont really think that they (the vast majority of Americans) really care about the far right or left.

anyway, civics class is over. The definition of war is not mine. It is a praphrase of a Republican President who actually, unlike the chickenhawks of this administration, went to war. He was awarded the Medal of HOnor for his bravery.

Cheney gets the Dove honor

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 11, 2007 07:20 PM

Rush has a wee bit more of a clue than you do Robert

Posted by Mac at May 11, 2007 11:18 AM

about what? having pain killers or what D. Kagan looks like nude?

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 11, 2007 07:21 PM

Victory is not when another army is defeated or when a battle is won, it is when those "task" are accomplished.

Task would be the Iraq Liberation Act signed by President Clinton in 1998?

or do you mean "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."?

The military completed those tasks and won the war defined by Congress twice.

(as a Clinton hater I felt sure that you would have used something like this before!).

Huh? Where the hell do you come up with this nonsense? Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act that supported regime change in Iraq. I agree with him. I see nothing in my writing that suggests any hatred of Clinton. Indeed, you are the one who seems to disagree with his policy.

Again Robert, you are ignorant. All you are doing is proving your ignorance to everyone who reads you.

No one should care what the armed forces want. - Robert Oler

Geez Robert, for someone who boast about civics knowledge, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that the US armed forces is made up of citizens who vote.

Posted by Leland at May 11, 2007 08:54 PM

Leland.

Regime change IN IRAQ WAS A GOOD IDEAR.

I supported Senator McCain's "rogue state rollback" plan which is based in no small measure on a "theme" developed at the Navy War College by "some people" during their tenure there.

The problem is that toppling Saddam was the easy part. we probably could have done that with The Puerto Rico National Guard and the Brigade of Midshipman from Canoe U... (a joke).

The trick was replacing Saddam after you toppled him.

And if one simply topples Saddam and leaves chaos then the mission has been a failure.

If we won the war defined by Congress, which you suggest. We should leave.

Do you think we should leave? I dont.

The troops are citizens but they by no means constitute a bulk of the citizenry. There are about 2 million people give or take a couple of thousand in uniform.

Thats Austin, San Antonio and College Station.

Should we make policy based on that number? And all the signatures were were 3000 or so of those.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 11, 2007 09:59 PM

Finally Robert, you have made some decent points that are relevant to the topic. I still disagree with many of them, but at least it deals with Iraq, troop opinion, and whether or not troop opinions about Iraq matter.

If we won the war defined by Congress, which you suggest. We should leave.

Do you think we should leave? I dont.

Yes, we won the war defined by Congress, as they defined it. We shouldn't remove troops until diplomacy efforts have assured a level of peace between Iraq and its neighbors. There is no civil war in Iraq. It is an insurgency that is run by leaders in exile that can often be found in places like Iran and Syria (the US should do more to stop the Kurds from mounting insurgency activities in Turkey). US troops are in Iraq to help provide security until Iraq can muster enough military force to bring other countries to the table to discuss peace. What the military wants is time to allow Iraq to get to that point.

The US historically has given other countries plenty of time to recover from war. We still have troops in Germany that were there to defend against Soviet insurgency. Troops are still in Japan to defend that nation from Chinese and Korean aggression. No one is demanding we bring those forces home on a time table. The troops in Iraq know this, because many have served in these other countries. They know their presence is a positive step toward stability and peace. They want to bring that to Iraq, and they want Congress to know that. That's good news and should be covered.

Posted by Leland at May 11, 2007 11:29 PM

Sorry Leland...it is a civil war in Iraq.

When Americans think of civil wars they think of our civil war. IE a "spontaneous internal national event based completly on the differences of two various sects of the populace" (darn when one attends all these schools that folks like you paid for, well you get all these definitions).

While there is a foreign component, it is a civil war. There would be fighting even without external influences.

We allowed that to occur when we allowed "order" to break down (Rummy's "Democracy is untidy" comment). The problem is that "now" very DEFT forces external to the country have aligned themselves with the sides in the civil war that they hope to win and hence to excersize a lot of "post war" influence with. It is not all that unsimilar to "our" first civil war; ie an outside power has picked a winner, committed some effort and is hoping that in the end it has influence in the "new country". The analogies are not exact but they are similiar enough to show that someone in Iran thought this through where no one in this administration thought it through.

There are "happy signs" in Anbar and some other places that "local" forces are starting to emerge that are resliant to outside influences; but that will eventually include our own. Condi etal are playing checkers while the folks in Teheran are playing chess. Of course I think that condi is playing at about the level she is capable of.

"Yes, we won the war defined by Congress, as they defined it. " This is HRC's position. And a few other people. I think that HRC's position is borne of politics and JRE's position is a stupid one.

Congress signed up for regime change which did not mean taking down Saddam and saying "Goodbye". It meant stabilizing the country. OK some of them might have to stupid to recognize what they were signing up for, and taht is OK BUT that would stop them from being President. They should have figured out what "regime change" meant.

Do you really think simply taking down Saddam was what Congress signed up for? You realize of course that you are agreeing with people like Joe Biden and the folks on the Edwards blog?

"We shouldn't remove troops until diplomacy efforts have assured a level of peace between Iraq and its neighbors. "

Good luck. That aint ever going to happen.

As an aside. Have you ever been to the Mideast? EVER?

Curious.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 12, 2007 12:20 AM

The troops in Iraq know this, because many have served in these other countries. They know their presence is a positive step toward stability and peace. They want to bring that to Iraq, and they want Congress to know that. That's good news and should be covered.

Posted by Leland at May 11, 2007 11:29 PM

not so much.

Where to start.

I really dont give a frack what 3000 uniformed members of the armed forces are saying. If they were saying "get me home" I wouldnt care in terms of national policy and I dont care here.

The Republic makes policy based on what the soverign wants and your line is like saying "Vermont has gay marriage, we should all adopt it". Not so fast.

We need to stay in Iraq to try and get some stability and to hold faith with the 3500 or so so far and the more in the future who have been sacrificed to this. They went and died thinking that we were in for the long haul. We should be.

They knew what "regime change" meant and everyone else should have (including Condi etc).

We need stability because Iraq being unstable is a very bad thing for the mideast and as long as oil is a commodity that brings wealth to radical forces we cannot let that wealth be used against us.

How we achieve that is very hard.
The various "salvation" groups are a start. They are the best thing after 4 years of mismangement going right now. But sometimes one squints real hard at "what" is happening and one sees a fertile ground for the spawning of an Arab "Hitler" down the road.

Iraq right now is the starkest spontaneous breakdown of societale cohesion since our second civil war. Which was the starkest spontaneous breakdown of societale cohesion since our first civil war.

That this was not even "gamed" by this adminstration is the height of arrogance particularly since folks like Zinni and The US Naval WAr College had gammed it extensivly.

YOu do understand why Bush the old didnt go to Baghdad dont you?

The US Naval War College had very extensivly gamed what Iraq and the mideast would look like when Saddam fell (they assumed by natural death or assasination) and his sons tried to take over.

The results are startling. Are you a USNI member? If you are you should do some searching on the web site. The declassified version of that "game" is there.

Do you watch BSG (Battlestar Galactica)? ANyrate the cast was where I am for a "Battlecon" and we got to see some of their funny reels.

The guy who does Bush so well (the one at the correspondence dinner) had a great line "Unlike my adminstration in Iraq, the Ceylons have a plan"

Yeah baby.

Off to fly. If Rand hasnt banned me pick it up in the latter time...but a 12 hour mission is ahead.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 12, 2007 12:39 AM

"I really dont give a frack what 3000 uniformed members of the armed forces are saying."

No you only care about to 2-3 "with stars on the their shoulder", as you love to say, that you believe agree with you.

FYI: "frack" isn't a real word. It was just made up for a TV show.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 12, 2007 06:48 AM

War is, in a moral nation an instrument of the soverign (which in the case of this country is "the people") to accomplish task that are not accomplishable by reasonable and moral means.

Wrong.

Merriam-Webster: a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations

armed hostilities...killing and breaking things. Morality is not in that definition. Morality enters the picture later.

Posted by Mac at May 12, 2007 07:03 AM

You take the everymans definition of war, I'll take the US Naval War Colleges.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 12, 2007 11:05 AM

No you only care about to 2-3 "with stars on the their shoulder", as you love to say, that you believe agree with you.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 12, 2007 06:48 AM

Well, Cecil..

I dont know which "stars on their shoulders" person you are referencing.

But people who have risen to the TOP of the war making profession, ie people who are at the pinnacle of fighting and winning wars probably KNOW more HOW to execute the subject then say "you" or "me".

Like so many things movies imitate real life.

BSG got a lot of things from "somewhere". As a former USAF neighbor of mine said sometime ago after he and his wife took their first cruise..."I see why you talk the way you do".

If you get a chance go to one of their (BSG)conventions. the blooper reels are pretty "neat".

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 12, 2007 11:08 AM

"I dont know which "stars on their shoulders" person you are referencing."

Well then you ARE a moron because you've raised the names on numerous occasion. Zinni, Shinseki etc.

"But people who have risen to the TOP of the war making profession, ie people who are at the pinnacle of fighting and winning wars probably KNOW more HOW to execute the subject then say "you" or "me"."

Unless of course they agree with Bush, then they're just suck ups huh?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 12, 2007 04:53 PM

Unless of course they agree with Bush, then they're just suck ups huh?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 12, 2007 04:53 PM

Your words not mine.

I was unsure which "General" you were referring to because the one the thread is talking about is Batiste and I understand why he is fracked, I dont necessarily agree with his conclusions as in the ad.

I think we need to win in Iraq and am against a premature withdrawl.

But Batiste is a smart guy, he has earned his stripes (Ie unlike Cheney etc he has been in combat) and because of his background his words have "mass".

I disagreed with Abizaid and a few others about how the "peace" could be won, and events have probed "me" and others correct and them wrong.

People like Batiste and Zinni and others who have earned their expertise through experience coupled with "book" knowledge should be listened to and their opinion explored wheather or not it confirms to the views that lessor mortals such as you and I hold. They are "experts" and a smart person rarely ever listens to only experts who they agree with.

We have seen four years of this administration doing only that to catastrophic results.

A measure of extremism is however only listen to the echo chamber. IN my world it is called whistling to the graveyard.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 12, 2007 06:14 PM

Post a comment