Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Linky no worky...?

Posted by PizzaHog at June 27, 2007 01:05 PM

Works fine fer me...interesting article.

Posted by CJ at June 27, 2007 02:16 PM

Good article. The Glenn and Helen Show podcast (Instapundit) is a good listen today too. "We talk to Jim Dunnigan, publisher of StrategyPage.com and author of numerous books on war, intelligence and security, and Austin Bay, who blogs at AustinBay.net." Recommended.

http://instapundit.com/archives2/006648.php

Posted by Bacchus at June 27, 2007 02:19 PM

The "(not so)loyal opposition" is always eager to point out every failure or perceived failure but never see any of the MANY success stories coming from Iraq. Case in point Harry Reid declaring the surge a failure before it was half implemented and that the war was lost as well as Bill White just yesterday on this site declaring Arrowhead Ripper a failure in his "post op", issued prior to "post" op.

All one has to do to see this is review the headlines of the past week. Add up the mentions of insurgent bombings VS the mention of even the term "Arrowhead Ripper".

The media is avoiding even the apperance of any American success in Iraq at all cost. Do acknowledge such success would be counter to their agenda.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 27, 2007 03:30 PM

Actually, I agree with the primary observation of the linked piece, that things are not so bad in the Middle East after all. In part, this is because the Islamic threat has always been over-hyped.

Also, the vast majority of Muslims simply do not wish to lose fingers for smoking cigarettes. And that has nothing whatsoever to do with US policy.

And because things are not so bad, there is no pressing reason to "do something" about Iran. The mullahs might well be thrown out of power without our dropping any JDAMs at all.

Likewise, long term, our continuing occupation of Iraq may not much matter, either way, except to get American soldiers killed and exhaust our ability to engage threats other than Islam.

Posted by Bill White at June 27, 2007 03:38 PM

Very well said Bill. I like your more combative tone. ;-)

Especially the fact that the positives have nothing to do with us but are rather a conflict-resolution within Islamic factions, Sunnis and Shias, Persians and Arabs etc. that is ongoing and orthogonal to what we are doing. If anything, we are only making things worse by hanging around and getting blown up, providing target practice for every thug with an IED. Not to mention the sound bites : "the Jews are occupying Iraq ," used by the Islamic radicals in their recruitment efforts.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at June 27, 2007 04:32 PM

"there is no pressing reason to "do something" about Iran. "

Actually, we (the West) ARE doing "something" about Iran, and for pressing reason -- to forestall the Persian Empire from acquiring / exporting nuclear weapons and technology.

By accident, opportunity, or design, the Persian Empire may have been maneuvered into "overstretch".

Consider that they are funding:

Hamas in Gaza
Hezbollah in Lebanon
Assad in Syria
Qods, Sadrists, and Al Qaeda in Iraq

AND:

Rationing gasoline in Iran
Facing an oil production decline
Facing an increasing demand for refined oil products (and therefore less export income)
Facing unrest in their Azeri and Arab provinces
Facing student unrest in their universities
Learning to refine fissionable uranium to HEU levels

It seems to me (and not only me) that the mullahs' position has similarities to the OB South in October, 1942.

Iran has its factions jockeying for the captain's chair of a ship nearing capsize.

Just a thought. Anyone care to dismiss these trends as irrelevant? Mr. White? Anyone?

Posted by MG at June 27, 2007 04:37 PM

Bill "there is no pressing reason to "do something" about Iran."

Of course not Bill, no big deal if Ahmadinejad and the MadMullahs get a nuke or two in their arsenal. Who cares if a few million Israelis get vaporized, a few dozen million Iranians likewise in reply and who knows how many more millions if things really got out of hand due to a little Iran-Israel exchange of nukes.

TNT: "the positives have nothing to do with us"

Other than without us none of the positives would have had an opportunity to happen. Saddam would still have every Iraqi citizen under his thumb. In all likelihood the UN would have lost what little will it ever had and the sanctions would be a faint memory by now and Iraqi WMD programs WOULD be back in production (they never lost the desire or knowhow, regardless of what was or was not found in way of material).

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 27, 2007 05:23 PM

Cecil, the positives from Saddam removal have all been achieved already. Further occupation doesn't add anything to the very real benefits of Saddam removal.

If George W. Bush had removed Saddam and given the keys to Sistani six months after Bahgdad fell and kept a few brigades of airmobile infantry in theater for Sistani to call in if he needed them (plus F-16s, as needed) Dubya'a approval ratings would be in the 60s or 70s today and Karl Rove would have his permanent GOP majority.

In and Out -- Mission Accomplished.

But no, the neo-cons were snookered into believing the Iraqis would proudly fly that blue & white flag. Remember that idea?

Posted by Bill White at June 27, 2007 08:47 PM

Let us not forget Pakistan in all this happy talk:

WASHINGTON - While the U.S. presses its war against insurgents linked to al Qaida in Iraq, Osama bin Laden's group is recruiting, regrouping and rebuilding in a new sanctuary along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, senior U.S. military, intelligence and law enforcement officials said.
The threat from the radical Islamic enclave in Waziristan is more dangerous than that from Iraq, which President Bush and his aides call the “central front” of the war on terrorism, said some current and former U.S. officials and experts. Bin Laden himself is believed to be hiding in the region, guiding a new generation of lieutenants and inspiring allied extremist groups in Iraq and other parts of the world.

When al Qaeda says Iraq is the central front in the jihad and they quietly start building up in Pakistan (which already has nuclear weapons) why should we believe what al Qaeda says?

Posted by Bill White at June 27, 2007 08:59 PM

BW uses an article with this "... said some current and former U.S. officials and experts...."
I really like to see a name associated with U.S. official and expert before I put much faith in such statements. Musharraf has a vested interest(staying alive) in keeping track of such groups. Was this a NYT article? Their writers really like that some experts phrase. AQ said what they were going to do in the 90s and we didn't listen. Darned if they didn't go ahead and do what they said they were going to do.

Posted by Bill Maron at June 28, 2007 12:36 AM

Bill: "Further occupation doesn't add anything to the very real benefits of Saddam removal."

Really? What about preventing the very real possibility of the entire Iraqi system falling into anarchy if we were to pack up and leave, is that a benefit? If we do that, what would have then been accomplished? Why would 3200+ Americans have died? Do we just add their names to the 58195 already on the Vietnam Veterans Wall as Americans who died for a cause that the country tired of and decided not to follow through on?

Bill: "Dubya'a approval ratings"

This isn't about Dubyas or anyone else's "ratings" this is about peoples lives and the future and security of the middle east and the United States.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 28, 2007 04:31 AM

Further occupation doesn't add anything to the very real benefits of Saddam removal.

Training their police forces to actually stand up to terrorists instead of running like they used to...is worth nothing? Helping a fledgling government draft a constitution that allows a society to be free isn't anything added? It's not occupation Bill, its assistance. Nothing worth doing is easy, but you would have us go in, dethrone Saddam and leave, letting the country fall into anarchy and emerge as another Somalia with warlords vying for power and the citizens even poorer than they are now, with NO chance of improving their lives. With us there, they have a chance to become free and properous, or is that worth nothing to you too?

Posted by Mac at June 28, 2007 05:24 AM

The Iranians are rationing gasoline, because despite the fact that they have oceans of oil they have no technical expertise to actually do anything with it. Maybe that's because their most prestigious schools teach nothing but the ravings of a paedophile warlord from 1300 years ago.

In any event, isn't this a perfect potential force multiplier? The Iranian public are rioting already. They only have one oil refinery, I believe. Make that zero, and the riots may well become uncontrollable - and the torrent of cash going to assorted terrorists may well dry up, and their jihadists exported to Iraq may well dry up as well.

It's even justifiable. Iran could easily be said to be sending troops (albeit irregular ones) to fight against both American troops and those of one of its allies, in that ally's territory. An act of war if ever there was one. So give them an act of war back.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at June 28, 2007 06:41 AM

Cecil, unless and until the Iraqis stand up their own security, we cannot "hold" what we "clear" If Iraqi forces are not capable of holding what we clear, we need to send more troops until they are ready.

Once the Iraqis do "stand up" we can stand down our force levels. can you agree with this one point?

However, the patience if the American people requires some candid discussion as to when we can expect the Iraqis to stand up. One more year? Five more years? When?

"If" the Iraqis cannot stand up within a reasonable time period perhaps we need to re-think the whole idea.

As for Dubya's approval ratings, if he is too stubborn and uncompromising the risk becomes that the pendulum will swing too far too fast towards an imprudently rapid withdrawal.

And, prior "Goldilocks" pronouncements as to appropriate troop levels -- a 20,000 surge is "too small" and a 60,000 surge is "too big" but a 30,000 surge is "just right" Why? Because I'm the Decider, that's why -- does much to undermine his credibility we people like Dick Lugar.

= = =

And remember, this "new" strategy could and should have been implemented 2 or 3 years ago yet even today I am very worried that 30,000 is not enough supplemental force to hold what we clear.

Posted by Bill White at June 28, 2007 10:18 AM

If what I've read about Israel arming to defend a summer offensive from five other countries is true, then that might be the straw the camel's waiting for. If Iran attacks Israel or supplies an attacker and it can be proved, we make take action in support of our ally. That way, we don't lose face to the world as we're defending. That may be exactly what we're waiting for.

Posted by Mac at June 28, 2007 10:36 AM

BW: "unless and until the Iraqis stand up their own security"

They are doing so, in greater numbers and with greater efficiency every day. You would not know that if you get all your news from NYT, CBS or CNN. It is naive to believe that a world class police force and army can be created in 4 years in a country that has never had such creations before, ever.

BW: "Once the Iraqis do "stand up" we can stand down our force levels. can you agree with this one point?"

Yes. But with respect to timetables for this to happen, we cannot rush the process to fit the national medias timetable which seems to believe that such security forces can be created at the flip of a switch. As I said, 4 years is not enough. If Iraq were a country with a history of high standard law enforcement we would only have to bring back the people with such experience. That does not exist in Iraq, it has to be created from scratch. You cannot in short order create the experience, the respect for rule of law, the professionalism that one finds in most US and European law enforcement agencies (and military) as these are a result of decades of growth.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 28, 2007 03:01 PM

Cecil, as a logistical and tactical matter, we cannot fully withdraw in less than a year and if we tried, I believe our casualties would be unacceptably high. There is no way that Obama or Hillary will allow a Dunkirk-esque withdrawal leaving equipment and dead bodies behind.

Therefore, there will be more much time given for the Iraqis to stand up NO MATTER WHO WINS in 2008 and NO MATTER WHAT Dick Lugar says.

As a political matter, very large numbers of the American people believe that very serious mistakes were made in the conduct of this war and to hold those responsible accountable will serve to bolster public support, if only from the perspective that we need to clean up the mess that Bush - Cheney - Rusmfeld created.

Admit that more American will now need die because this GOP Administration screwed up big time, and the support will be there for a while longer. To continue to insist that Democrats are really Defeat-o-crats in disguise will cause public support to diminish.

What Dick Lugar is saying is that IF we what a strategy that will survive January 2009, it needs to be bi-partisan NOW.

If the objective is to kick the can down the road so an inevitable defeat can be pinned on POTUS #44 then continue with the rhetoric.

Posted by Bill White at June 28, 2007 04:18 PM

BW: "Therefore, there will be more much time given for the Iraqis to stand up NO MATTER WHO WINS in 2008 and NO MATTER WHAT Dick Lugar says."

I get the vivid impression that you have no idea how damaging it is to the cause of US and coalition forces in Iraq just by the TALK of withdrawal being bandied about by your parties leadership and presidential candidates. IT DOES MATTER.

BW: "very serious mistakes were made....."

My Lord have you not beat that dead horse enough yet? YES, mistakes were made! Let us write a huge banner saying so and fly it over every major US city and get on with it! But now the same people who made the mistakes are making an effort to correct them and YOUR party is throwing roadblocks in front of those recovery efforts at every opportunity!

BW:"it needs to be bi-partisan"

Bu partisan? How can you come to a bipartisan agreement when one side wants to win while the other side simply wants to leave? There is no middle ground here, the sides are polar opposites.

BW: "If the objective is to kick the can down the road so an inevitable defeat can be pinned on POTUS #44 then continue with the rhetoric.

The only objective the democrat party has in this is to make as much political gain out of POTUS #43 failures in Iraq as possible, regardless of how much damage is caused to US and Iraqi security in the process. The democrats are ready, no EAGER, to write Iraq off so long as they can pin it all on Bush and the GOP and grab as much political power as they can in the aftermath.
Their motto has become "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what you can do to strengthen the DNC"

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 28, 2007 05:14 PM

Bu partisan? How can you come to a bipartisan agreement when one side wants to win while the other side simply wants to leave? There is no middle ground here, the sides are polar opposites.

Well okay, then. Good luck at the ballot box.

Bring it on. :-)

= = =

I, of course, disagree strongly with this quote. Instead, I believe President Bush has approached the Iraq war in the same manner he handled Katrina and the immigration debacle and has thus alienated those Democrats who gave him is ~95% approval ratings after 9/11.

Bush really believes he can simply decide and that is that. Take a look at the videos from his immigration defeat today. He seems astonished and in disbelief.

= = =

Also,look closely at what Obama and Hillary and Lugar are actually saying and note that we CANNOT leave immediately for very simple reasons of logistics. What the Democratic leadership is advocating is a symbolic drawdown coupled with increased pressure in the Iraqis to carry more of the burden themselves.

This MUST happen as we lack the troops to HOLD all Iraq even if we can successfully CLEAR all Iraq. If this cannot happen (IF the Iraqis cannot stand up a viable security force) then we cannot win.

I believe we can win, because most Muslims want to smoke cigarettes and keep their fingers. We just need to be more clever at nation-building.

Also, if Dubya would simply drop his "I am the Decider and I decide Iraq policy so end of discussion" approach, public support would go up immediately. Whether rational or not, Bush Derangement Syndrome influences public opinion on Iraq.

But winning in Iraq may be easier than ending BDS in our lifetime.

Once Bush is gone (January 2009) and the more people like Gingrich say his leadership has been "pathetic" then the easier it will be to rally public support for a sensible and prudent policy on Iraq.

Posted by Bill White at June 28, 2007 09:06 PM

Also, Cecil, the people most responsible for those "mistakes that were made" remain in power.

If a stockbroker loses me money, I want more than a mumbled "I'm sorry but trust me next time" answer.

Posted by Bill White at June 28, 2007 09:09 PM

Third answer, despite the whining at Daily Kos, the Democratic leadership have not demanded that the funding for the war be cut off.

Why? They KNOW we cannot cut-n-run.

Regardless of intentions, it is impossible to cut-n-run. 2000 trucks running convoys 24/7 would need 10 months to a year to evacuate Iraq. IF no one was shooting at those convoys.

But now the Right has a choice:

(a) Stand fast with Dubya, link arms and sing "Stand by Our Man!"

(b) Pick someone else to be your leader and send Bush back to Crawford.

As Ann Coulter said earlier this week "everyone" is eager for 2009 so we can get rid of this "nincompoop" -- meaning George W. Bush.

Posted by Bill White at June 28, 2007 09:18 PM

You're simply saying the same thing over and over again. Bush screwed up, Bush screwed up, Bush screwed up. 2009, blah blah.

January 2009 is a long way off. What do we do until then? Gen Petraeus is doing things different, he is winning, but the most powerful democrat in DC doesn't support him.

Your party has no solutions, only complaints about Bush. Your can't get past "Bush screwed up" in order to support the mission for the rest of Bush's term for fear that things may turn around and the people with forgive Bush and credit him with a a win in end. Defeating Bush is more important than defeating terrorism for the DNC.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 29, 2007 04:24 AM

Cecil, the need for an effective counter insurgency and nation building military shall extend long beyond 2009.

There is no way one political party shall stay in power until the threat of radical Islam is finally defeated. The Cold War took decades to win. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan. The basic strategy (with zigs and zags) stayed more or less constant.

Therefore, we need a strategy against radical Islam that is "owned" by both parties and that requires that the parties share the responsibility and the credit.

Posted by at June 29, 2007 07:14 AM

Add:

January 2009 is a long way off. What do we do until then? Gen Petraeus is doing things different, he is winning, but the most powerful democrat in DC doesn't support him.

Yes, I agree General Petraeus is doing things differently and I am pleased that the military understands that we needed to move away from a big war mentality and into COIN. My exchange with MG in that other thread explores this in greater detail.

Of note, in 2000 Gore argued for a nation building capability and Bush argued against a nation building capability for our military.

I deny that the Democrats do not support the Petraeus approach and assert that the Right conflates opposition to Bush with opposition to the Petraeus approach. I agree that Democrats are very very skeptical that Bush is a good leader on Iraq but a bad leader on almost everything else.

But Petraeus cannot win by December 2008 even if this is the right strategy. We need to stay the Petraeus course long after 2009 and therefore we need to groom post-Bush leaders, now.

And THAT is what Dick Lugar is trying to say.

And no 2009 is not really that far away, even if it is way way way too far away for most GOP Congress-critters.

= = =

Many years ago I first started commenting on Rand's blog and posted the thought that insisting that Democrats are really Defeat-o-crats who crave dhimmitude is kinda like trying to win an argument with your spouse by saying:

"Honey, you were really stupid today and let me now explain why."

Whether you are right or wrong, you will lose the argument.

Posted by Bill White at June 29, 2007 07:26 AM

BW: "Of note, in 2000 Gore argued for a nation building capability and Bush argued against a nation building capability for our military."

So? I am THRILLED that Bush was not so eager to delve into nation building. Nation building should be the last resort, not the first as Gore and other dems wanted. 2000 was a different world, and please don't try to tell be that Gore foresaw 9/11 and he was trying to get a head start.

BW:"I deny that the Democrats do not support the Petraeus approach"

Well then you are living in a world devoid of reality. Reid has said he has no confidence in the man! Practically every democrat in congress is shouting that tech surge has failed, that what Petraeus is doing is not working. How can you say they support him?

BW: "But Petraeus cannot win by December 2008"

I am no so sure, but he can definitely make victory look close enough to touch. Remember, Reid has already called the war lost.

BW:"groom post-Bush leaders"

Well duh. Isn't that always the case when a President comes to the end of his term(s)? And you're surely are not going to claim that Clinton, Obama, Edwards etc. are "groomed" and ready. The field of groomed and ready candidates is thin, but what few there are wear GOP campaign buttons.

BW: "insisting that Democrats are really Defeat-o-crats"

The evidence speaks for itself. Clearly, loudly. All you have to do is look and listen.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 29, 2007 09:17 AM

Post 9/11 is only a different world for those who were not paying attention. Google "Arrow Air 1285" for an example.

Islamic terror was very real before 9/11 and nation building has always been the only long term solution.

Posted by Bill White at June 29, 2007 10:51 AM

Yes Bill there were Islamic terror attacks before 9/11. But do you not think 9/11 raised the bar, just a little bit?

And if the problem was so obvious why didn't Clinton/Gore do something about it in their 8 years? You want to go back to what candidate Bush said in 2000, lets go back and see what President Clinton actually did 1992-2000. Hmmmmm..... not much huh?

But here I am falling for your ploy. Re-hashing history rather than living with the current situation.

Today it is clear who is for defeating terrorism and who is for retreating.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 29, 2007 11:05 AM

Post a comment