Our vice president is right about Iraq

[Chilly]

You read this board; how many of these people do you think made it to high school?

809121[/snapback]

 

True enough.

[Johnny Coli]

Hoo boy.

 

According to Conrad Burns (Sen-MT), Bush has a plan for winning the war...but it's none of your damn business.

Burns: President keeping war plan quiet (Mercury News via AP)

Burns, at a debate Tuesday night with Democratic challenger Jon Tester, said he believes Bush has a plan to win - but added: "we're not going to tell you what our plan is."

 

[snip]

 

In a tense exchange with Tester, who has taken a slim lead in recent polls, Burns hammered the Democratic challenger for his call on the president to develop a plan for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

 

"He wants everyone to know our plan. That's not smart," Burns said.

 

"He said our president (doesn't) have a plan. I think he's got one, but he's not going to tell everybody in the world," Burns added. "If you want to go out and spar for a fight, are you going to tell your enemy what your plan is? I don't think so."

 

Burns later said: "There is a plan. We're not going to tell you, Jon."

 

Bush and Rummy pretending to have no idea what they're doing sure had me fooled. At what point does the pretend plan become the actual effective plan, and how much will the new plan cost?

[Bungee Jumper]

Hoo boy. 

 

According to Conrad Burns (Sen-MT), Bush has a plan for winning the war...but it's none of your damn business.

Burns: President keeping war plan quiet (Mercury News via AP)

Bush and Rummy pretending to have no idea what they're doing sure had me fooled.  At what point does the pretend plan become the actual effective plan, and how much will the new plan cost?

809194[/snapback]

 

That's pretty much the same thing I've been saying (and BiB used to say) for years, though. They DO have a plan. It may not be any good, but they DO have a plan. And we can't know if it's any good, because their marketing sucks more than Mike Foley on a Thai fact-finding junket. But they DO have a plan.

[Johnny Coli]

That's pretty much the same thing I've been saying (and BiB used to say) for years, though.  They DO have a plan.  It may not be any good, but they DO have a plan.  And we can't know if it's any good, because their marketing sucks more than Mike Foley on a Thai fact-finding junket.  But they DO have a plan.

809199[/snapback]

They've got far bigger problems than marketing and PR.

[Chilly]

That's pretty much the same thing I've been saying (and BiB used to say) for years, though.  They DO have a plan.  It may not be any good, but they DO have a plan.  And we can't know if it's any good, because their marketing sucks more than Mike Foley on a Thai fact-finding junket.  But they DO have a plan.

809199[/snapback]

 

At what point does the country decide that the plan just sucks and go a different direction? I'm not sure that Bush would be willing to do that at this point, and I'm not at all convinced that the Democrats would be able to put together a successful nation-building effort either. They seem to be of the position that civil war is inevitable and therefore we need to just let it happen.

 

Seems as though military leaders lately have started suggesting we at least switch it up some (and have been implementing some smart reforms in the process).

 

It seems as though, up until this point, Bush has been more focused on building up security in Iraq then he has democratic institutions to make Democracy stick, and some of the newer reforms have been addressing that.

 

I'm thinking that its going to take a new President to have a chance at successful nation-building in Iraq.

[GG]

I hate it.  It's putting me out of business.  If VABills ever starts using it, I'll be devastated...

809055[/snapback]

 

Not to worry, because it still won't catch you're misspellings about you're favorite Bill's.

[Bungee Jumper]

At what point does the country decide that the plan just sucks and go a different direction?

 

Probably when they find out when it is

 

I'm not sure that Bush would be willing to do that at this point, and I'm not at all convinced that the Democrats would be able to put together a successful nation-building effort either.  They seem to be of the position that civil war is inevitable and therefore we need to just let it happen.

 

Seems as though military leaders lately have started suggesting we at least switch it up some (and have been implementing some smart reforms in the process).

 

It seems as though, up until this point, Bush has been more focused on building up security in Iraq then he has democratic institutions to make Democracy stick, and some of the newer reforms have been addressing that.

 

I'm thinking that its going to take a new President to have a chance at successful nation-building in Iraq.

809209[/snapback]

 

I'm thinking what I thought in 2002: Iraq as a "nation building" exercise is bull sh--. Throw Iranian-backed Shi'ia, a Ba'athist Sunni minority, and Kurds with hopes of independence into a pot together. Give the Sunni's absolute power over the other two groups. Take it away after 70 years. Now tell me: precisely what nation building process is going to succeed in that mess?

 

And that's above and beyond the ridiculously paradoxical idea of shoving democracy down a people's figurative throat. "You'll be a democracy whether you want to or not!" The major flaw of the administration's Iraq policy was that it put an otherwise justifiable military action (because let's face it, no one shed a tear over Hussein losing power outside Iraqi Ba'athists) in an abstract philosophical context that was utter bull sh-- and made it virtually impossible to "win the peace".

 

And what scares me most is some yahoo getting into the White House on the promise of a pure "cut 'n' run" strategy, thereby throwing the Iraqis to the wolves (btw, bet you didn't know that most of the killings in Iraq these days are in areas outside US and US-allied control. What do you think happens if we un-ass the whole country at once?) and thereby degrading US foreign policy even more in the eyes of the rest of the world.

[Chilly]

Probably when they find out when it is

I'm thinking what I thought in 2002: Iraq as a "nation building" exercise is bull sh--.  Throw Iranian-backed Shi'ia, a Ba'athist Sunni minority, and Kurds with hopes of independence into a pot together.  Give the Sunni's absolute power over the other two groups.  Take it away after 70 years.  Now tell me: precisely what nation building process is going to succeed in that mess?

 

Yeah, I don't disagree here, but in order for us to build a Democracy in Iraq (which is the Bush plan, is it not?), there has to be some solution through a nation-building plan.

 

And that's above and beyond the ridiculously paradoxical idea of shoving democracy down a people's figurative throat.  "You'll be a democracy whether you want to or not!"    The major flaw of the administration's Iraq policy was that it put an otherwise justifiable military action (because let's face it, no one shed a tear over Hussein losing power outside Iraqi Ba'athists) in an abstract philosophical context that was utter bull sh-- and made it virtually impossible to "win the peace".

 

I've always wondered what the hell was the reasoning behind that myself (democracy vs self-determination).

 

And what scares me most is some yahoo getting into the White House on the promise of a pure "cut 'n' run" strategy, thereby throwing the Iraqis to the wolves (btw, bet you didn't know that most of the killings in Iraq these days are in areas outside US and US-allied control.  What do you think happens if we un-ass the whole country at once?) and thereby degrading US foreign policy even more in the eyes of the rest of the world.

809249[/snapback]

 

Iraq as a nation-building exercise is bull sh--, but the answer is nation-building? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Is it nation-building to give the appearance that we succeeded, while really not having a shot in hell?

 

I think a nation-building plan is the only thing we can do at this point, at least give the Iraqi's some semblence of a government and the institutions that come with it. To not do so is, as you said, a complete and utter disaster for US foreign policy.

 

Nation-building, as my understanding, is the process of building up a nation's government and institutions. Are we talking about two different things here?

[smokinandjokin]

That's pretty much the same thing I've been saying (and BiB used to say) for years, though.  They DO have a plan.  It may not be any good, but they DO have a plan.  And we can't know if it's any good, because their marketing sucks more than Mike Foley on a Thai fact-finding junket.  But they DO have a plan.

809199[/snapback]

 

The only problem is, they can't implement their plan until the US military is greeted as liberators. That seems to be the minor hold up at the moment.

[Bungee Jumper]

I think a nation-building plan is the only thing we can do at this point, at least give the Iraqi's some semblence of a government and the institutions that come with it.  To not do so is, as you said, a complete and utter disaster for US foreign policy.

 

Nation-building, as my understanding, is the process of building up a nation's government and institutions.  Are we talking about two different things here?

809263[/snapback]

 

Paradoxical, isn't it? Actually, I didn't say we shouldn't get out of Iraq. What I was saying was: we shouldn't just bring the troops home immediately and without forethought, as a lot of what I'm hearing in campaign ads suggests. I'm pretty sure just packing up and leaving is the wrong way to do it. I much prefer the plan now: a phased hand-over of security tasks to the Iraqi government and draw-down of troops. The problem I see with the plan now is that we're handing control over to a government that's not representative of Iraq, but representative of the American view of Iraqis as simply misguided Americans. And that is ultimately a failure of the aforementioned policy; like most abject failures, the seeds of this one were planted well before its execution, in seemingly sensible and innocuous decisions that no one questioned (i.e. the wisdom of "exporting democracy").

 

And that is the failure of the nation-building exercise; by trying to force something on people that by definition cannot be forced we installed a government that can't possibly be a national government. I personally doubt we ever could have. But that does NOT mean that abandoning the whole abortive exercise is a better plan. Just because you decide to wrestle a leopard, doesn't mean you should stop completely on the spot the very moment you realize what a stupid decision it was. There are right and wrong ways to go about it.

[true_blue_bill]

 

And the Democrats did make the same comments on the Civil War.  George McClellan ran as a Democrat in 1864 on a platform on roughly the same anti-war platform modern Democrats use ("Lincoln bad!  Debacle!  No blood for emancipation!")

808890[/snapback]

Your comparison to the Civil War has a major flaw, doesn't it? Sure, during the summer of 1864 the Democrats felt confident in there chances and the American people were sick of the war that terrible, terrible summer. The war had become a horrible, bloody stalemate, and hence the traction of the peace Democrats. McClellan recieved the nomination of the Democratic party in Chicago during the very last stiff breeze of the anti-war peak. The Civil War, unlike the complete disaster in Iraq, had begun to turn around. Farragot had already stormed into Mobile bay--Damn the torpedoes!--and on the very day the nomination of McClellan was to be celebrated by Democrats in Buffalo news had reached the city and the rest of the North that old Uncle Billy Sherman had captured Atlanta. News boys carrying the old Buffalo Morning Express raced through the streets yelling 'Atlanta is ours!' The tide had turned. Then there was battle of Cedar Ckreek which was an overwhelming victory and closed forever the Shenendoah valley to the Rebels. If you have ever seen the statue of the man on horseback over near Lafayette square it is a monument of sorts to that battle. General Bidwell is the man and died at that battle. He also had led a part of the VI Corp that drove Jubal Early away from Washington at the Battle of Fort Stevens, the only battle to be witnessed by a sitting President. So this isn't just like the Civil War. And McClellan might not have ended the war any=way. He didn't like the platform he was elected with.

[/dev/null]

George McClellan ran as a Democrat in 1864 on a platform on roughly the same anti-war platform modern Democrats use ("Lincoln bad!  Debacle!  No blood for emancipation!")

808890[/snapback]

 

Nobody died when James Buchannon lied

 

But seriously, i nominate catchescannonballs for 'tard of the week

[true_blue_bill]

Nobody died when James Buchannon lied

 

But seriously, i nominate catchescannonballs for 'tard of the week

809370[/snapback]

I second the nomination!

[EC-Bills]

I do not have much to spare, which is why I made the...what was I saying?

808889[/snapback]

 

If I recall correctly, you were talking about how much you dislike the little pepole...

[EC-Bills]

But in his defense...

...well...

 

...uhhh, his spelling's really good.  Must be an only child...

809041[/snapback]

 

Well the spelling rules out VA posting under this username

[Bungee Jumper]

Your comparison to the Civil War has a major flaw, doesn't it? Sure, during the summer of 1864 the Democrats felt confident in there chances and the American people were sick of the war that terrible, terrible summer. The war had become a horrible, bloody stalemate, and hence the traction of the peace Democrats. McClellan recieved the nomination of the Democratic party in Chicago during the very last stiff breeze of the anti-war peak. The Civil War, unlike the complete disaster in Iraq, had begun to turn around. Farragot had already stormed into Mobile bay--Damn the torpedoes!--and on the very day the nomination of McClellan was to be celebrated by Democrats in Buffalo news had reached the city and the rest of the North that old Uncle Billy Sherman had captured Atlanta. News boys carrying the old Buffalo Morning Express raced through the streets yelling 'Atlanta is ours!' The tide had turned. Then there was battle of Cedar Ckreek which was an overwhelming victory and closed forever the Shenendoah valley to the Rebels. If you have ever seen the statue of the man on horseback over near Lafayette square it is a monument of sorts to that battle. General Bidwell is the man and died at that battle. He also had led  a part of the VI Corp that drove Jubal Early away from Washington at the Battle of Fort Stevens, the only battle to be witnessed by a sitting President. So this isn't just like the Civil War. And McClellan might not have ended the war any=way. He didn't like the platform he was elected with.

809352[/snapback]

 

Actually, the Civil War never really "turned around". Outside the Washington-Richmond corridor, the Union was basically successful.

 

But the coverage of the war where it mattered (i.e. at the time, the Northeast) focused on the inept performance of the Army of the Potomac around the DC and Richmond environs...hence, a "debacle", a bloody stalemate with no end, an unpopular war with unpopular aims, portrayed by a media pushing their own agenda...

 

...actually, it's a very apropos analogy.

[Chilly]

Paradoxical, isn't it?    Actually, I didn't say we shouldn't get out of Iraq.  What I was saying was: we shouldn't just bring the troops home immediately and without forethought, as a lot of what I'm hearing in campaign ads suggests.

 

Indeed it is.

 

I hate campaign ads. Such limited time, with no real way to get a message out except a sound byte. Its the same exact thing as if they attempted to get a message through the media. Honestly, I think they're worthless for doing an actual evaluation of a candidate.

 

I'm pretty sure just packing up and leaving is the wrong way to do it.  I much prefer the plan now: a phased hand-over of security tasks to the Iraqi government and draw-down of troops.  The problem I see with the plan now is that we're handing control over to a government that's not representative of Iraq, but representative of the American view of Iraqis as simply misguided Americans.    And that is ultimately a failure of the aforementioned policy; like most abject failures, the seeds of this one were planted well before its execution, in seemingly sensible and innocuous decisions that no one questioned (i.e. the wisdom of "exporting democracy").

 

And that is the failure of the nation-building exercise; by trying to force something on people that by definition cannot be forced we installed a government that can't possibly be a national government.  I personally doubt we ever could have.  But that does NOT mean that abandoning the whole abortive exercise is a better plan.  Just because you decide to wrestle a leopard, doesn't mean you should stop completely on the spot the very moment you realize what a stupid decision it was.  There are right and wrong ways to go about it.

809283[/snapback]

 

I think so too, and to be honest, I think that even the Democrats understand this as well.

 

Mr. Lamont, the guy who is stressing Iraq as a campaign issue and portraying it as a failure for Republicans, basically says the same damn thing.

 

Looking forward, I salute the patriotism and wisdom of Congressman Murtha and others who emphasize that “stay the course” is not a winning strategy for Iraq or America. Our best chance of success requires that the Iraqis take control of their own destiny. America should make clear that we have no designs upon their oil and no plans for permanent bases. While we will continue to provide logistical and training support as long as we are asked, our frontline military troops should begin to be redeployed and our troops should start heading home.

 

Schlessinger, the Republican candidate in the race, says:

 

Alan has proposed a plan that would replace 50% of American forces from Iraq within a year. Since the goal of Operation Iraqi Freedom has been to secure the freedom of the Iraqi people, Alan wants to keep the Iraqi government's feet to the fire, and push them towards self reliance by replacing American soldiers with Iraqi troops. However, a more limited international force would remain in the Middle East to monitor the developing situation with Iran, Syria and the Hezbollah.

 

My other thought was that perhaps Schlessinger is moving toward the middle to attempt to compete in the race, so I took a look at the White House "Fact Sheet: Democracy in Iraq" and I saw:

 

Security. As democracy takes hold in Iraq, the terrorists and Saddamists will continue to use violence. They know that as democracy takes root in Iraq, their hateful ideology will suffer a devastating blow, and the Middle East will have a clear example of freedom, prosperity, and hope. The Coalition will continue to hunt down the terrorists and Saddamists and will continue training Iraqi security forces to take the lead in the fight. As the Iraqi security forces stand up, Coalition forces can stand down, and when victory is achieved, American troops will return home to a proud Nation.

 

Seems like broad agreement about that strategy between Lamont, Bush, and Schlessinger. The disagreement would be the way to go about that strategy.

 

Even the Kerry-Feingold "cut-n-run" bill was rather broad. While it said that forces should withdraw "from Iraq by July 1, 2007, in accordance with a schedule coordinated with the Government of Iraq", it then continued, saying, "leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces, conducting targeted and specialized counterterrorism operations, and protecting United States facilities and personnel."

 

Outside of the political BS, I think the issue really is about how we successfully hand it over to Iraqi security forces. Bush seems to believe that taking your time with deliberate training is the best way to go about it, while the Democrats believe that deadlines are the best way to pressure Iraqis into getting the training done.

 

To be honest, I'm not sure what would be the best way to get troops trained - deadlines or slow, deliberate training. What do you think?

[Johnny Coli]

Looks like the plan is to let his father's buddy bail his a$$ out once again.

Former top aide may offer Bush way out of Iraq (via Reuters)

Longtime Bush family friend James Baker plans to give President George W. Bush recommendations that may provide a way out of Iraq, but whether he will take up the offer is far from certain.

 

Baker, who was secretary of state for the president's father, heads the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan commission that since March has been researching and preparing ideas for changing course in Iraq.

 

The plan will not be unveiled until weeks after the November 7 congressional elections, in which Bush's Republicans risk losing control of Congress largely because of deep popular concern over Iraq.

 

 

But one option being considered reportedly would call for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops and another would urge Washington to open a dialogue with Syria and Iran -- both rejected in the past by Bush.

 

Baker, who has a long history of trying to help the Bush family out of tight spots, has signaled that he believes a change in course is necessary.

 

So, "phased withdrawal" mentioned by Dems equals "cut and run", but when proposed by one of the Bush family confidants it's an exit strategy. Wonder how they'll sell "dialogue with Syria and Iran"?

[Bungee Jumper]

Looks like the plan is to let his father's buddy bail his a$$ out once again.

Former top aide may offer Bush way out of Iraq (via Reuters)

So, "phased withdrawal" mentioned by Dems equals "cut and run", but when proposed by one of the Bush family confidants it's an exit strategy.  Wonder how they'll sell "dialogue with Syria and Iran"?

809448[/snapback]

 

I haven't yet heard a Democrat publicly espouse a "phased withdrawal".

 

But then, I haven't heard a Republican recommend it either. Really, I only hear either "We have to complete the mission", without actually explaining what "the mission" is; or "We have to get out of Iraq", without actually explaining when, how, or why. I've assumed in the past that they're all just tossing around sound bytes to entertain the hoi polloi between their bread and circuses...but over the past eighteen months or so, I'm starting to believe these idiots actually believe reality is actually that simple...

[true_blue_bill]

Actually, the Civil War never really "turned around".  Outside the Washington-Richmond corridor, the Union was basically successful.

 

But the coverage of the war where it mattered (i.e. at the time, the Northeast) focused on the inept performance of the Army of the Potomac around the DC and Richmond environs...hence, a "debacle", a bloody stalemate with no end, an unpopular war with unpopular aims, portrayed by a media pushing their own agenda...

 

...actually, it's a very apropos analogy.

809415[/snapback]

Nope, you are wrong. And wrong on several levels, too. There was progress in the Washington Richmond sector before the election. The aforementioned Battle of Ceder Creek was a victory in that theatre, it cut off the grain that went to Lee's army. It was a big victory, celebrated throughout the North. And the people of the North East were very much informed about Sherman's victories. It's beyond ridiculous to say the people of the north didn't pay attenbtion to Sherman's army. Don't believe me? Look up Admiral Farragut's reception he recieved in New York City. He didn't fight at all in the Richmond front. Also, go look at the Buffalo newspapers of early September 1864 on microfich at the library. You will see Sherman's victory was displayed as proof the Union was winning the war. Damn silly point. Your point about the media is wrong, also. There was a strong pro-war and a strong anti-war press, there was no one media. So the overall point that there was an antiwar party, yes. Is it apt to compare the victoriuos Northern Army in November of 1864 to the failing, directionless effort we are now seeing in Iraq? No. If the Northern war effort ws going this bad, Lincoln would have lost. But Lincoln won, he won because the North was winning