Bluesman

Good back-and-forth, fellas. I enjoyed reading those posts very much.

My own opinion was that the Iraq operation WAS a good idea, that was made horrible by poor execution and far-too-optimistic assumptions. If I were playing the Great Game, I would have gone for the same play that Dubya made, and hope I didn't roll snake-eyes like he did.

If we win this enormous gamble with the massive bet we have out on the table (and I stand by my assertion that we really can't lose, unless we fold our VERY good cards), we will be in an overwhelmingly dominant strategic position, and US prestige, so damaged by the useless, unnecessary internal fight amongst ourselves, will absolutely soar. Nothing succeeds like success, and that's as true now, with the world waiting to see if we have the guts and brains to win, as it did back when the gutless among us lost their nerve when things didn't go as well as we were told they would.

IF...the saddest word in the English language...IF things had not turned from stunning success into manageable but unanticipated difficulty, there would've been no start-up excuse for the first mentions of a 'quagmire'.

If there wasn't the first rumbles of discontent on the farthest-left, there would've been no nascent political opportunism from the war's former supporters, who could now play to their basest self-interest, and give rise to the ridiculous and debilitating internal fight that was borne of what history will judge as simple and all-too-common errors that happen in EVERY war, but which may be blown completely out of any sense of proportion by a mendacious political class that plays to a historically-ignorant population.

If there were not a growing discontent (carefully nurtured and fed fertilizer by an opposition party more loyal to its own interests than it was to its country's) against the war, the insurgency would have had no sense of hope that it could prevail, and the dead-enders that had nowhere left to go and had determined to go down fighting would've done just that, instead of becoming the nucleus around which aQ, criminal gangs, Syrian and especially Iranian agents, and religious extremists could coalesce. The insurgency was dead on its feet, all but finished by the incredible mastery of the military, and although the LEADERSHIP failed to get on top of it, the men in the field dominated and dam' near destroyed the enemy anyway, just through their sheer professionalism and heart.

If those Bad Guys had not had any hope on which to pin their plan of rising from the chaos they caused, they would've collapsed utterly. But with a Western press all too eager to show what an almighty mess Iraq had become, it almost became exactly that. The way was shown to the enemy: more civilian casualties, more chaos, more corruption, and ALL of this was re-paid by the media by faithfully reporting it in lurid detail, even if most of the detail was hyped out of any context or sometimes just flat-out WRONG.

If the press had not rewarded the enemy by giving him exactly what he needed, it may have been choked off as a strategy to continue pushing an increasingly-allied opposition party to reward the terrorists' perserverance and their viciousness by making sure they got exactly what they were fighting for: a failed Iraqi state, a humiliated, defeated America, and a stunning, come-from-behind upset victory for Allah's holy warriors.

If the press had decided to report the incredible successes that were occurring all over Iraq, perhaps the fringe political movement would've stayed on the margins, unable to defeat its own country's vital interest of winning a huge victory, in the heart of the region that has been such an intractable problem for the entire world. An attempt was made to shift the entire region into a new orbit, a massive undertaking, but centered around the lever that we had control over; it was POSSIBLE, and it was NECESSARY. If successful, it would've been a political, cultural, economic and strategic MASTER-STROKE. It could've re-made the world, freeing more people than even the victory over the totalitarians of the 20th Century, and would've reverberated down the centuries like nothing since the founding of democracy itself.

If all of that had not been willed into the reality that we find ourselves in by power-hungry, grasping fools that couldn't - still can't - see what might have been, and what they've wrought by their hostility towards their country's interests, and their seeking power for their own ends.

If only half of us had not conspired to defeat ourselves. And for what? Transient, ephemeral political advantage, and the right to say 'I told you so.'

God damn all liberals. If only they weren't blind fools. IF...

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

dalem

And if true, a fine plan it was. I think the biggest failure of the effort was on the home front. No one in the administration really believed, understood, or acknowledged, the deep-seated hatred that the leftist mainstream media has for this country and its works.

I understand the idea of "get the truth out there and the people are smart enough to sift it from the lies", but in today's info age, it is simply impossible to sit back on a passive information campaign.

I'm not interested in arguing "should we have or shouldn't we have?" or troop levels, or any of that crap. That's warmaking. First of all I definitely think we should have and second of all my opinions on warmaking are as relevant as my opinions on the mechanics of vaginal hygiene.

But to allow the NYT, TV, and their ilk to turn clear victories into failures in the eyes and hearts and minds of the American people is to fall down on the job, and fall hard.

Saddam's dead. Zarwqawi's dead. Casualty rates are historically low. Elections were held. Parliamentarians are squabbling in chambers in addition to and instead of machinegunning each others families.

This is failure?

Bah.

-dale

JAD_333

Good, heartfelt post. No disagreement here, 'cept perhaps a tad on degree here and there.

The quote above got me to wondering whether the kneejerk opposition the dems show for just about anything eminating from the other side got the better of them and led them to completely roll over the tradition of non-partisan unity in time of war. I am not so sure they deliberately sat down and decided to play public opposition to the war for political gain. They may have. But I am convinced they at least saw the political gain coming their way from the polls and relished it instead of taking the high road and standing by the commander in chief. Either way, it's blatant opportunism and put the country at risk.

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

Bluesman

I'll grant you that, and add that some went along out of straight-up cowardice, and a failure of nerve in the face of growing political discontent. Almost ALL of the Republicans that looked for a bolt-hole were of this variety, and a hundred years from now, when the history books are re-written with the perspective that only passing time provides, these shrinking violets will be shown to have missed what could have been their finest hour.

Whatever their motives were for what they did, even if it were for the purest of reasons (and there are but single digits that can claim that), this part is absolutely incontestable, even from today's short-range view: by their actions and words, they made this war more costly in time, treasure, and blood. The true cost of the grand tradition of Western liberal democracies - that of flinching from doing something that is expensive, difficult and ugly, but necessary - will never be known. But a cost there always is, and whenever our leaders' courage fails them when they need it most, that cost goes up, every single time.

THAT is why character counts, and THAT is why, whatever his many faults are, Gearge W. Bush will be remembered by posterity as a GREAT President. Because he almost single-handedly and against the advice or compulsion of almost everybody else simply hung in there, and refused to quit, or allow others to force him to quit.

If all of our leaders had that kind of guts and perserverance, this war WOULD have been the great victory that it seemed to be, a month after if began. And all of those lives could've been spared.

IF...

JAD_333

Yeah, and in an odd sort of way, this whole phase of our history could be a plus if we learn something from it. By "we" I don't mean those who were alert to the danger of partisan wrangling in time of war and resisted it, but those in Congress who failed to realize the risks inherent in politicizing opposition to the war.

They often make the argument that open debate on differences over the wisdom of going to war and how it is conducted is healthy for a democracy. I agree that the forum must always be open for free expression as a safeguard against government excesses. But it begs the question that the forum must be used on every point of disagreement simply because it is there.

One can already sense a shift for the better in our middle east standing that I believe is the result of events now unfolding in Iraq. If it continues to improve, Bush will be treated reasonably well by history. But more importantly, we will emerge with our vital interests protected.

astralis

hello bluesman,

ah, finally back on WAB! good to be back- between my vacation and my dead comp = no WAB time.

much like JAD said, my difference with you here is by degrees. two minor quibbles though, just to keep the spirit of debate alive, eh?

1. i believe we're already in an overwhelmingly dominant strategic position. in fact, i would argue we're more dominant than we were even at the end of WWII, because AQ ain't a patch on even a war-exhausted USSR.

2. i don't think our prestige "will absolutely soar" now. these things occur very rarely in international politics, and it is usually a result of a sudden, awe/terror-inspiring act (usually military). for example, germany after battle of france. we got this after the 1991 gulf war, the immediate aftermath of OEF and OIF.

however, iraq is going to be a long-term deal for the US- iraq did not and will not change into a vibrant, jeffersonian democracy overnight. i think the most we can hope for at this point in time is evolutionary change: that with US aid, continued economic growth, and national reconciliation, we can push iraq over a thirty to fifty year timeframe towards becoming the model which we originally envisioned. something akin to germany or japan, although the main difficulty of the iraq project, weak national bonds as compared to tribal/religious bonds, will make this a harder and longer proposition.

the problem with the initial occupation was not the lack of guts and perseverance. it was, if anything, too much perseverance (stubbornness), and an overwhelming arrogance that it was the rumsfeld way or the highway. this was bad for making friends and influencing people, either in america, the world, and most importantly, in iraq.

the reason why we're doing so well in iraq now is that to its credit, the bush administration came up with something new, which worked (albeit a change forced by both domestic politics and international politics).

plus, as the saying goes- the enemy had something to do with it too.

bush has got mostly the right ideas; however, it took him years for execution to catch up. how history will judge him depends on if the gap, as viewed backwards, was not too great.

__________________
The human mind cannot grasp the causes of phenomena in the aggregate. But the need to find these causes is inherent in man’s soul. And the human intellect, without investigating the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, snatches at the first, the most intelligible approximation to a cause, and says: “This is the cause!"

-Leo Tolstoy
War and Peace

Bluesman

A Democrat is tireless in his pursuit of defeat, no matter how hard it may be to obtain. But they can be counted on to go to any length in their tireless pursuit of the goal of weakening America.

In a matter of hours, the on-coming shift at NSA headquarters and field sites all over the world will report for duty under a completely new RoE. Their charter and responsibility will not have changed, but the ability to execute same will be altered fundamentally, and will have been made much more difficult.

And WHY? For WHAT? Somebody explain to me the objection to this common-sense measure that is vitally necessary to protect the nation from merciless sworn enemies.

Go ahead, I dare you.

It's happening. It's too late to stop it now, and the Democrats did it.

1 Observer

How did this thread get titled?
Anyone who gains advantage, from ANY number of American troops to ... Hangins too fr... MMmmmm.
Nice day boys... I need to take a breather..

Stan187

A breather? Is that what you're calling Amber Bach nowadays?

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

1 Observer

S'pect I have been called ...

Bluesman

BUMP, because I'm furious.

If you're a loyal American, you should be furious, too.

Bluesman

Direct hit, from Powerline:
If we're attacked again - and we will be - we should all think back to this disgraceful and willful decision by the Democrats to leave us vulnerable, even as we're engaged in a global war.

This is the Democratic Party at work. Don't forget, as you go to vote in November.

JAD_333

Incredible. It's poor consolation, but suits against telcoms may be dismissed even without the immunity provision. It's a fine legal point. On the one hand the court cannot dismiss on the grounds that they were acting at the request of government officials. An illegal act is not excusable no matter who asks you to do it. On the other hand, an atmosphere of unknown danger existed at the time; there was no time to seek enabling legistation. The commander in chief called on the resources of the nation in accordance with his oath "protect and defend"; the telcoms responded to his call. A bit fanciful, but doable.

Bluesman

But the problem is, each telecom has to do right by its shareholders. So, when a CEO is weighing the decision on whether to cooperate with a completely sensible and necessary government request, he's got to assume that he's going to be sued for going along with that request. So...he WON'T go along with it.

Pelosi and Reid wrecked ANOTHER common-sense program, so that they could stick their thumbs in the President's eye. I hope their hatred for one man will prove to be harmless to the country, but we all know that it won't. We'll pay for it, by and by.

JAD_333

I understand that corps have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. But there is a heirarchy of values in times of emergencies. Thinking of the human body when it begins to freeze. The brain shuts down the flow of warm blood to the extremities so that it can continue to function. In other words, screw the shareholders. We had a national emergency. We needed to know whether any other attacks were being planned. Monitoring international communications was a good way to find out, and the telcoms stepped up to the plate. Now the "offended" want their pound of flesh. Bah. A pox in their house.