Maybe just listen to the uber-liberal Brookings institute. Either way the "surge" is working.
If victory in Iraq was oversold at the outset, there are now signs that defeat is likewise being oversold today.
One of the earliest signs of this was that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said that he could not wait for General David Petraeus' September report on conditions in Iraq but tried to get an immediate Congressional mandate to pull the troops out.
Having waited for years, why could he not wait until September for the report by the general who is actually on the ground in Iraq every day? Why was it necessary for politicians in Washington to declare the troop surge a failure from 8,000 miles away?
The most obvious answer is that Senator Reid feared that the surge would turn out not to be a failure -- and the Democrats had bet everything, including their chances in the 2008 elections, on an American defeat in Iraq.
Senator Reid had to pre-empt defeat before General Petraeus could report progress. The Majority Leader's failure to get the Senate to do that suggests that not enough others were convinced that declaring failure now was the right political strategy.
An optimist might even hope that some of the Senators thought it was wrong for the country.
Sowell Continued
34 comments:
Might as well get it out of the way....
Sowell is a stupid hack.
Ok now back to reality. The current dem position is eerily reminiscent to the oft compared platform of the 1864 (election year) dems who were in favor of "compromise" aka surrender in the Civil War.
...not to mention that Reid himself suggested a surge, that is before he was against it of course (read: Moveon.org told him to)
Actually Sowell is an intelligent hack. As for the Brookings guys Salon has a piece on their long history of optimistic statements on the war in Iraq.
I don't doubt that there may be a cautiously optimistic report in September, and that this would present political difficulties for the Democrats. But the surge is temporary and any progress made is limited if not imaginary. The war remains a doomed cause and I am sure that will be clear by November 2008.
From todays news:
"Iraq's largest Sunni Arab political bloc announced its withdrawal from the government Wednesday, undermining efforts to seek reconciliation among the country's rival factions, and two bombing attacks in Baghdad killed at least 67 people.
In one attack, 50 people were killed and 60 wounded when a suicide attacker exploded a fuel truck near a gas station in western Baghdad. Another 17 died in a separate car bomb attack in central Baghdad.
The U.S. military announced the deaths of four American soldiers, three of whom were killed by a sophisticated, armor-piercing bomb. Britain also announced the death of one of its soldiers, by a roadside bomb in Basra."
Yes, the surge is working.
You must be very happy.
Once again, you moron, predicting disaster as a result of stupid policies is not the same as hoping for disaster. Take off the rose-colored glasses and stop drinking the neocon kool-aid. There is no light at the end of the tunnel.
I don't even like to address you because you take such glee in the death of your country men and allies because you THINK it proves your point.
It doesn't surprise me of course, and in fact it's to be expected from you and your ilk, but i find it disgusting none the less.
Well, that settles it. If gary says it's a lost cause well then by God it must be. Thank you gary anonymous from somewhere land for opening up our eyes.
Also i would like to thank you for explaining to us that nobody ever landed on the moon, kennedy was killed by the cia, and of course a special thanks for telling us that the world is actually run by a secret society of freemasons.
Anyone else have anything to say?
And Rhino, I don't like addressing you because you are such a scumbag. I do not take glee from the death of so much as one American soldier (or Iraqi civilian for that matter) nor am I a traitor, and your constant accusations of such reveal your lack of character.
And I only subscribe to one of the conspiracy theories you mention, regarding the Kennedy assassination, and that based on much research of my own.
Like I said, you must be very happy.
I hate to be the one to interrupt your daydream about lollipops and unicorns but people die in war and disasters happen. We lost soldiers in Panama fucking Panama for fucks sake.
The good news is that although there have been pussies such as yourself protesting every war that we have ever fought, and despite your treasonous political schadenfreude Uncle Sam still has a winning record.
Now if only you and your leftover hippie ilk would pipe down get out of the way and let the men take care of the dirty work we will allow you to continue to enjoy the freedom we provide to hate your country and gloat at her casualities.
Im curious, has there ever been a war that you think was justified?
This is a trap so no need to answer, as the point is if you do, then I can almost guarantee that this war is going better so shut the fuck up and focus your attention on Gonzalez and Rumsfeld like your party leaders want you to do.
these are not the droids you are looking for, carry on
Ok sparky, i'm a scumbag. That's cool. You alright there champ?
I will step into your trap. Some wars are justified. World War 2, for one, in which my father fought. Now you are going to say that a lot of people died in that war. Yes, people including brave
American soldiers die in good and bad, justified and unjustified wars alike.
You must be awefully uncertain about your masculinity to have to constantly put on the uber-macho act. Your inner pussy, I guess.
what is the victory you hope for?
surely, you must aim higher than sowell:
But victory is not even defined the same way in Iraq as it was in World War II ... The point when it is safe to begin pulling out is the point when the Iraqi military and police forces are strong enough to continue the fight against the terrorists on their own.
ahh, yes.
so now war supporters are redefining victory as not an end to the fighting or defeat of the terrorists in iraq, but as the point when it's safe to withdraw our troops.
i think this is what a certain former president called "peace with honor."
oh, the irony.
by the way gary, i didn't even mention that you went back to your same old technique of attacking the messenger rather than addressing the message. The guys from the brookings institute have done the research, they've done the homework, they've been to Iraq numerous times and they think the Surge is working.....You've done.....? well you've been to......? ummm i mean you read the.....?
Oh yeah that's right, you're a code pink member so you must be right.
I could be wrong, but I doubt it. There were similar, numerous light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel statements in the Vietnam War.
Obviously there will not be a significant troop draw down until 2009 at the earliest. (Barring a wildly unlikely "victory". We cannot sustain a "surge" longer than that. If you are right, all will be well in Iraq. We will "win" and can then withdraw with "honor", followed by a stable and relatively peaceful Iraq. If that happens I will admit that I was wrong and you were right.
My prediction, based admittedly only on reading and reflection, is that Iraq will go to hell. You will not admit that YOU were wrong. You will blame the liberals.
silly donsky, tricks are for pussies.
You conveniently left out the rest of the sentence which was;
"American troops do not need to stay in Iraq until the last vestige of terrorism has been wiped out."
Which of course makes sense. You're not fighting a traditional army like in WWII. They don't even come from one country. I do believe the Israeli's have won every war they've fought but they are still attacked from time to time by terrorists. They can't be completely wiped out. Once the government in Iraq is strong, and the enemy is weak, our work is done.
You mean the WWII where we declared war on Germany after Japan bombed us when we compromised our neutrality by placing a naval blockade on their country? Hmm interesting.
So since your father fought in it and Tom Brokaw told you it was the GREATEST GENERATION EVER you romanticize the Duece in order to, as Anita oft points out, justify your own flawed moral equivalency.
Now that you have admitted that you are not anti-war, just let it out man, we know its all about Bush with you. You can say it. It will be okay.
Dsky, if you are talking about President Richard M Nixon who ran as the anti-war candidate, who accomplished that goal and who has since been villified for achieving what the dems were incapable of and the ensuing guilt over the blood on dem hands over the slaughter of millions in Southeast Asia directly tied to their policies? Thats not irony, thats the democrat politics.
We could always build a wall right downt the middle of Baghdad and station our troops there for the next fifty years as we did in Gary's justified WWII.
Holy shit gary, there was light at the end of the tunnel in vietnam!!!!!!! Are you really that dense???????
TET was the last surge! it was their last hope and they got CRUSHED!!!! They were decimated!!!!!
The only reason why we "lost" in vietnam is because we surrendered!!!!!!! We left because the pussy hippies and the liberal fags in the media like walter cronkite turned the rest of the public away from JFK's war!!!!!!!!
And even then, the south could have probably done it without us if we hadn't cut off all the funding and weapons assistance!!!
wake up.
Are you suggesting that the second world war was not justified? Or are you saying that we were on the wrong side? You are not one of the Hitler lovers are you?
No one likes war (actually, not true, some people do--few people like war) but I thought I made it clear that I am against THIS war, not all wars. I supported going into Afghanistan after 9/11, and I really wish we had finished the job there.
Rhino, are you that dense? Read the new book "Nixon and Kissinger" (I saw the author on television). He proves, from their own words on the tapes, that Nixon and Kissinger knew by 1971 that victory wasn't possible in Vietnam. Kissinger went to the Chinese and the Russians and told them that we needed a "decent interval" between our pull-out of Vietnam and victory by the other side, which he knew was inevitable after we left.
Your comments about Cronkite and the hippies and so on merely reveal your ignorance of history and that fact that you will believe any rightwing bullshit you read apparently.
"Are you suggesting that the second world war was not justified?"
That is exactly what I am saying, and if I were around I would have opposed that war as I did this one, but soon as our soldier's boots hit the dirt I would have supported my Country 100% percent because the safety and security of our nation supercedes any ideological or politcal differences that I might have with it.
.... and havent we already established that I am a nazi, or was it fascist?
Make up your mind.
The BBC had a radio program recently, which I listened to, about the plot back in the 1930s for a fascist coup in America. If that had been successful, and if we had entered WW2 on the other side, we would be living in a very different country and world today.
If if if...
If you had balls you would be a man.
Save the theoriticals for the coffeeshop.
Oooh, I don't have balls! I don't know if you're a Hitler-lover or not, but there do seem to be similiarities. They too made a kind of cult of masculinity and violence, and they too were kind of gay.
Well I cant say its a suprise that a tolerant "gay-friendly" liberal would use accusations of homosexuality as a slur. Whats next, you gonna call me an Uncle Tom?
Let me clarify. I do not acually think you are homosexual (although it is OK if you are). But the constant uber-masculine rhetoric, and attacks on my masculinity, to me indicates a kind of soft underbelly of homosexual panic. Relax, just because you may have occassionally had these feelings regarding other guys, doesn't make you gay.
A lot of the Nazis were gay you know, and many American rightwingers as well. One example from the 60s would be General Edwin Walker. How many anti-gay Republicans of today have turned out to be gay? There is something going on here, a mixture perhaps of denial and self-loathing.
first, donkey, i don't care about nixon's party affiliation, and the failures of democratic (or republican) administrations in vietnam isn't related to my point.
my point, which still stands rhino (because you're apparently incapable of understanding it, nevermind refuting it), is that the pro-war crowd has redefined victory (nevermind the mission) to mean WITHDRAWAL!
if withdrawing from a country where we've created the very real possibility of civil war, nevermind attracted hundreds (if not thousands) of foreign terrorists, and leaving an ill-equipped iraqi army (with a rank and file comprised of conflicting interest groups with questionable competence) to fight them is your idea of victory, i'd hate to see what defeat looks like.
Gary, Putting aside for a minute that you're referencing a book that you haven't read and that you don't have any idea what's in it... you're talking about 1971????
TET was in 1968!!
We kicked the crap out of the commies and cronkite called it a disaster!!!!! We had already pushed the enemy out of their own country and they were hiding in Laos by then! FACT!
The ONLY reason why we lost that war was because we lost the will to fight! That's it! We PUSSIED OUT!!! This is a FACT!
Lets remember this history, lets learn from it, lets not repeat it in Iraq. No matter how you feel about whether or not we should have gone in to begin with, you should back your country and root for victory NO MATTER WHAT!
Realize that WE CAN'T LOSE UNLESS WE PUSSY OUT!!!! This is a fact. There is no way that we can be defeated by these animals.
Well donksy, if you can read then you know that Sowell says, and i agree, that we will leave when the job is done.
There is no redefinition of victory in Iraq. NONE.
Let me explain it to you again.
We have deposed the dictator who was our enemy. We have helped the Iraqi people set up a free democratic government. When they are stable and strong, and the enemy is weak and defeated (note the ref. to Israel) then we will have accomplished our mission.
The goal of EVERY war is to win, and then bring our troops home. This war is not unique in that respect.
The Tet offensive didn't succeed, I do not dispute that. And yet despite its failure by 1971, if not earlier, Nixon and Kissinger were resigned to defeat. Not at the hands of the Viet Cong, they could not defeat us militarily. You are right there we wouldn't have lost in Vietnam if we had never left, and we likely won't lose in Iraq if we don't leave aka pussy out. Which means that victory on your terms consists of STAYING FOREVER. I do not support staying forever in Iraq.
We don't even know who the enemy is. Bush talks about al Qaeda but there are only about 1200 of them in Iraq. Now the military sees the Shiite militias as the primary threat, and we are arming the Sunnis, who until recently were, and likely still are, killing Americans. Sorry, but for all your bumpersticker patriotism I do not support insane policies. This war will end badly, and it that will be the fault of the people who got us in there, and who executed those policies. As was Vietnam.
Ok Gary, now we're getting somewhere.
Put vietnam aside for a minute.
We agree that we can't lose in Iraq unless we pussy out.
We agree that we don't want to be there forever.
So what's the goal? What's the end game that gets the job done?
My argument has been that we need to continue to kill the enemy while propping up the new government until they're stable and established.
How long that will take i don't know but what we do know is that it should get easier as time goes by. If we continue to kill the enemy and don't show weakness they will either all be dead, or they will move on. Even if they are completely insane (they probably are) and they continue to fight for the next ten years, there's a finite number of these idiots.
As i've said before, i see it kind of like Israel. In the begining they had to fight everyone in the region. It took decades and many wars but they never wavered and they kicked the crap out of their enemies. Now they still deal with the occasional terrorist attack but they live in relative peace.
I could be wrong but that's the way i see the near term. (near term being the next decade or so)
I find that acceptable for what we're getting which is
1. dead terrorist enemies
2. a true ally in the region
3. a base to launch our offensive against Iran
4. a new place to open up starbucks and mcdonalds!!!!! Seriously! It's good for the world economy.
etc. etc.
yes, rhino, we all want the same thing to happen in iraq--where we disagree is the likelihood of achieving a stable govt in iraq.
i hope that gary and i are wrong.
what's more likely, in my view (and many others, including current and retired generals) is that iraq never becomes unified under a competent government.
and when we do finally leave, of course we will declare victory.
and if *this* is what victory looks like--a weak govt that can't actually achieve anything looking like political consensus, an iraqi army that may be engaging in ethnic-centered warefare, and a breeding ground for islamic fundamentalism--then we have an awfully strange definition of victory.
sowell is setting you up to lower your expectations for what's achievable, and it makes sense--soon the GOP will be joining the Dems in calling for withdrawal because, hey, we won.
it sickens me.
They will fight for 10 years because they are in their own country (except for al Qaeda who will fight forever because they are fanatics). We will not fight for 10 years because we don't have the troops.
Who is the enemy anyway? We are supporting the Shiite pro-Iranian government, but not the Shiite militias. We are arming Sunni insurgents who were fighting us, and are fighting the Shiites. All to get at 1200 al Qaeda? Who weren't there before we invaded?
As to using Iraq as a base to attack their ally Iran. Let me come out against that next war now. I oppose the war on Iran now, and I will oppose it after it begins, if it does.
So donsky you and gary are practically the same person and i guess defeatism hasn't been defeated in you guys.
Good luck with that. I hope it serves you well.
We will never agree because you look at vietnam and think it should be a lesson for me that we can't win, and i look at it and think it should be a lesson to you that we can't lose unless we pussy out.
Next topic.
Football season is coming!
yes, we're practically the same person, except that gary is a self-defined liberal (forgive me gary, if i'm wrong) and i'm practically libertarian.
i'm a realist, rhino.
and you... are just surreal.
GO BEARS!
Post a Comment