Thread: Democrats: What is the most politically-advantageous number of dead US troops?

Originally Posted by Julie

Ask Mr. Spector and Joe Biden who had meetings with Bhutto prompting her to return to Pakistan and run in the election.

The root of all of this terrorism evil has been, and is still being, bred in Pakistan, and fueled and financed by the Saudis. Look it up. The Government has the facts and figures in reports. With that said, we are allied with Saudi and Pakistan. Lunacy? I would say ludicrous.

I'm asking you. You implied it would be a good idea (let alone just plain feasible) to "remove" the sitting leader of a sovereign nation who is nominally allied with us. So what happens if we were to somehow do that?

-dale

Usual disclaimer about yelling... :P
=========

...the jihadis inherit the ruinous mess that Pakistan becomes when the only source of order - Musharraf - is 'removed' (such a sterile-sounding word, giving no hint of either an assassination or a coup, prompted by the US against yet another ally, as Democrats are so eager to do), and, in the blink of an eye, aQ becomes a nuclear Power.

Well Mushy has hardly done anything to support us and is far more interested in doing just enough for both sides to keep in office. For the money we have thrown at him we haven't got much in return compared to say threatening to bomb him got us (which he claimed was the reason he got on board in the first place).

Isn't a left-right issue that a dictator who allows the enemy a safe zone, blames us for his problems, cracks down on secular opposition (making him the only horse in town) and so forth - ain't terribly useful. Giving this guy weapons to point at another nation in exchange for half assing (at best) ain't the best policy.

As for him getting "removed" the radicals taking over the nuclear weapons is just as likely a scare tactic for us to keep backing him. They poll low in elections and the PA is likely to find a successor.

Originally Posted by dalem

I'm asking you. You implied it would be a good idea (let alone just plain feasible) to "remove" the sitting leader of a sovereign nation who is nominally allied with us. So what happens if we were to somehow do that?

-dale

Replace him with a more brutal and more loyal dictator. And give up the ridiculous label of fighting for democracy. That way you'll even have an honest foreign policy.

Originally Posted by dalem

I'm asking you. You implied it would be a good idea (let alone just plain feasible) to "remove" the sitting leader of a sovereign nation who is nominally allied with us. So what happens if we were to somehow do that?

-dale

Sorry Dale...."remove" is a bad word. Shame on me.

What I gather is that members of the US Foreign Relations have been having meetings with opposition candidates, and giving our support to her/him, to run against Musharaff in the election.

After the release of the Dossier prompted by Bhutto, I do not foresee the elections being fair, unless of course, a neutral party was brought in to oversee and mediate the election.

After watching a recent interview with Joe Biden, immediately after Bhutto's assasination, he said he had spoken with her just that night, so I feel the Dossier is legitimate, and not "hogwash" as Pakistan's government says it is.

Poor Democrats. The word is getting out about the surge's success. It's getting harder everyday to lose a won war.

THE SURGE AT ONE
By RALPH PETERS


January 11, 2008 -- AS you read these lines, our troops are in the midst of Operation Phantom Phoenix, a "mini-surge" to squeeze al Qaeda and its fast-dwindling band of allies out of their few remaining safe havens in Iraq.
Iraqi troops fight beside us against a common enemy. Vast swaths of the country enjoy a newborn peace. Commerce thrives again. At the provincial and local levels, the political progress has been remarkable.

As for Operation Phantom Phoenix, our commanders expected terrorist dead-enders to put up a fight. Instead, they ran, leaving behind only booby traps and disgust among the Iraqis they tormented far too long.

Well, they can run, but they can't hide. We dropped 20 tons of bombs on 40 terrorist targets yesterday, including safe houses, weapons caches and IED factories. In a late-afternoon exchange with The Post, Gen. David Petraeus characterized our current ops as "executing aggressively, pursuing tenaciously."

The headlines at home? "Nine American Soldiers Killed." No mention of progress or a fleeing enemy on the front pages. Just dead soldiers.

Determined to elect a Democrat president, the "mainstream" media simply won't accept our success. "Impartial" journalists find a dark cloud in every silver lining in Iraq. And the would-be candidates themselves continue to insist that we should abandon Iraq immediately - as if time had stood still for the past year - while hoping desperately for a catastrophe in Baghdad before November.

These are the pols who insisted that the surge didn't have a chance. And nobody calls 'em on it.

Meanwhile, "Happy Birthday, Surge!"

One year ago, "the surge" kicked off as a forlorn hope, our last chance to get it right.

The odds were against us. Terrorist violence was out of control. Baghdad was a toxic wreck. Militias ruled, with ethnic cleansing rampant. And Iraq's leaders couldn't even agree about which day of the week it was.

We had never applied a coherent military or political policy in Iraq. Dithering leaders, civilian and in uniform, squandered American and Iraqi lives. A unique opportunity to jumpstart change in the Middle East had collapsed amid ideological fantasies, a looting orgy for well-connected contractors and Washington's simple unwillingness to really fight.

Even the new US jefe maximo for Iraq, Petraeus, was a dark horse. He'd just signed off on a counterinsurgency manual suggesting that the key to defeating terrorists is to learn to pronounce Salaam aleikum (Peace be with you) properly.

And then it all went right. Confounding Dems who expected him to preside over a retreat, Petraeus took the fight to the enemy like a rat terrier on meth. Jettisoning all the p.c. dogma, he turned out to be the first true warrior we put in command in Iraq.

Luck turned our way, too - and luck matters in war. Al Qaeda had managed to alienate its erstwhile Sunni Arab allies in record time. Former insurgents decided that the Great Satan America made a better dancing partner than Osama & Co.

Although analysts have missed it completely, the execution of Saddam Hussein helped, too: It took away the rallying figure for Sunni hardliners and made it easier for former insurgents to switch allegiance. The shock of Saddam's hanging jarred Iraq's Sunni Arabs back to reality: Big Daddy with the mustache wasn't coming back.

Meanwhile, the rest of the population was just sick of the violence. The merchant class wanted to get back to business. Tribal sheiks felt betrayed by foreign terrorists. And mashallah! We had veteran commanders on the ground who recognized the shifts underway in Iraqi society and capitalized on them.

Petraeus manifested two stages of military genius: 1) He recognized exactly what had to be done. 2) He didn't imagine he could do it all himself.

Our new man in Baghdad had the wisdom to give subordinate commanders a long leash when they caught a good scent.

Without in any way detracting from Petraeus, the indispensable man, our success this past year rested heavily upon field commanders far from the flagpole having the savvy to realize that the local sheik just needed one last bit of encouragement to jump sides.

Oh, and the left turned out to be dead wrong, as usual. We hadn't created an unlimited supply of terrorists. In fact, the supply turned out to be very finite, to al Qaeda's chagrin. And killing them worked. (One of the great untold stories of 2007 was the number of al Qaeda corpses.)

And our former enemies have been killing them for us.

Iraq still faces massive problems, of course. Thirty years of murderous tyranny under Saddam followed by four years of Coalition fumbling left the country a shambles. But Iraqis want it to get better.

The military situation is well on the way to being under control. Now the question is whether Iraq's leaders, especially those from the newly empowered Shia, can put their country above their personal and parochial interests (something that we don't expect of our own politicians these days).

On our side, the immediate problem is that we lack diplomats as visionary and capable as our soldiers. After almost a century, the Foggy Bottom fops still can't see beyond a world gerrymandered by their European idols at Versailles.

So here we are: The surge worked. It achieved all that we can expect of our military. 2008 will tell us whether the politicians and diplomats, US and Iraqi, can do their part.

And a final note: The Post had over a week's advance warning of Operation Phantom Phoenix, but didn't publish it. We don't share our nation's secrets with our enemies.

Ralph Peters' latest book is "Wars Of Blood And Faith."

I highlighted the parts that reinforce what this whole dam' thread has been about.

Thank you.

I'd like to ask Hillary about her "willing suspension of disbelief" right now.

Will anyone in the media?

-dale

I saw the headline about 6 of our guys killed in a booby trapped house on the Washington Post front page when I was in the 7/11 yesterday. That got me to buy the paper. A few paragraphs later, it got around to mentioning that the incident happened during Operation Phantom Phoenix.

That's par for the course for the Post, but then I recalled an old newsroom maxim, "if it bleeds, it leads." That's how papers are sold. The headline got me to buy the paper. It isn't until writers like Peters expand on the news do we get a full picture. Problem is, a lot fewer people read Peters than see newspaper headlines.

Determined to elect a Democrat president, the "mainstream" media simply won't accept our success. "Impartial" journalists find a dark cloud in every silver lining in Iraq. And the would-be candidates themselves continue to insist that we should abandon Iraq immediately - as if time had stood still for the past year - while hoping desperately for a catastrophe in Baghdad before November.

More vomit-worthy material.

The obtuseness and stupidity of the Left in general and the Democrats specifically always produces a head-shaking on my part.

As it seems entirely likely that a Democrat will be sitting in the White House (because it's about the economy, stupid) in 4 years, I'm wondering how fast they'll fire Petraeus and call an instant retreat.

Thus confirming the perception that Democrats are nothing but cut-and-run cowards that wouldn't want anything that George Hitler Bush started to actually succeed, even if it means throwing away years of blood, sweat and tears.

Imbecilic fools, all of them

Originally Posted by dalem

Thank you.

I'd like to ask Hillary about her "willing suspension of disbelief" right now.

Will anyone in the media?

-dale

She may be cooking her own goose. The economy is fast replacing Iraq as the leading issue among voters. That's partly due to the improved situation on the ground in Iraq. Public perception is reforming that Iraq will turn out ok. It behooves the dem candidates to stay away from criticism for now lest they be refuted by reports of progress. It's still "safe" to argue that Iraq was a misadventure from a foreign policy POV. But if the trend continues in Iraq, especially if the Iraq government starts showing some backbone, the dems may find their Iraq stand a weight around their neck come election day.

Originally Posted by TopHatter

More vomit-worthy material.

The obtuseness and stupidity of the Left in general and the Democrats specifically always produces a head-shaking on my part.

As it seems entirely likely that a Democrat will be sitting in the White House (because it's about the economy, stupid) in 4 years, I'm wondering how fast they'll fire Petraeus and call an instant retreat.

Thus confirming the perception that Democrats are nothing but cut-and-run cowards that wouldn't want anything that George Hitler Bush started to actually succeed, even if it means throwing away years of blood, sweat and tears.

Imbecilic fools, all of them

Yeah, but if Hillary is the dem nominee, all bets are off. There's a hidden pitfall for her here. The public is being sensitized to the idea that dynasties have controlled the White House for 27 years. If that idea is developed in a negative light, voters may decide that another Clinton is too much for the nation.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

The economy is fast replacing Iraq as the leading issue among voters.

At the end of the day, people will always vote with their wallets. It's all about the economy. Just look at George HW Bush.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Public perception is reforming that Iraq will turn out ok.

In spite of the MSM and the Democrats that is.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

It's still "safe" to argue that Iraq was a misadventure from a foreign policy POV.

Let's call it what is was: A dumbf--k idiotic mistake from the get-go. The reasoning behind it, the planning, the assumptions, the follow-through plan (by the politicos and the military), all of it was a colossal horrible f--king mistake.

But that was 5 years ago and what's done is done. We can't undo the invasion of Iraq. And saying "I told you so" doesn't paint yourself as a forward-thinking leader that has a plan for the future.

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Let's call it what is was: A dumbf--k idiotic mistake from the get-go. The reasoning behind it, the planning, the assumptions, the follow-through plan (by the politicos and the military), all of it was a colossal horrible f--king mistake.

I'll go along with all that except the reasoning. We can readily see that planning was flawed and initial followup a mess, but as to the wider geopolitical reasoning, history will judge that. I think a good case can be made for the basic idea, but we'll have to see how events develop for the next 20-30 years to make even a preliminary judgement. There is no doubt that we faced a national security threat. Whether we handled it right by toppling Saddam, is long term an open question. In the meantime, we need to reassess the extent we can go in launching pre-emptive operations. They're dangerous inasmuch as, we can never be absolutely certain they are justified.

But that was 5 years ago and what's done is done. We can't undo the invasion of Iraq. And saying "I told you so" doesn't paint yourself as a forward-thinking leader that has a plan for the future.

Obama can, but so what. He may have been wrong from the start. But that's not so bad as it is for Hillary types who flip-flopped--first in favor and then not. That kind of flip-flopping is so obviously poll driven that voters may make them pay the price.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

I'll go along with all that except the reasoning. We can readily see that planning was flawed and initial followup a mess, but as to the wider geopolitical reasoning, history will judge that.

As I understand it, from the book Cobra II, the reasoning was "Find a country that we can kick the living s--t out of, as an example and a warning to the rest of the world after 9-11: Do Not F--K With Us."

Iran? Too large
North Korea? Too militarized
Libya? Too weak

Iraq? Perfect.

Originally Posted by TopHatter

As I understand it, from the book Cobra II, the reasoning was "Find a country that we can kick the living s--t out of, as an example and a warning to the rest of the world after 9-11: Do Not F--K With Us."

Iran? Too large
North Korea? Too militarized
Libya? Too weak

Iraq? Perfect.

Yes and no. But aside from the choice of target, the question remains why target any country in the region. That's goes to the geopolitical reasoning. Cobra (which I haven't read) says it was to send a warning. I don't buy that, partly because I was exposed to defense policy too long as a hall walker at the Pentagon. I wasn't there when the Iraq plans were being developed, but I would assume from what I know of how policy moves from the White House that there was a far bigger fish to fry. IMO, it's more likely that the policy makers concluded that balance of power in the Middle East was shifting (or appeared to be shifting) against us as a result of Islamic militancy and we, sensitive to our national interests, decided it was time to reasert it. In casting around for ways to do that, opportunity knocked, at least so we thought, in the form of WMD, and that meant Iraq. Just some meandering thoughts...