Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Someday Petraeus will likewise explain Kagan, his assorted family members, the family business (promoting wars) and all the other Kagan clones (Kristols, Krauthammers, etc.) in an autopsy of the sewer Petraeus was asked to drain. My hunch is that the explanation won't be very well received by the subjects.

Posted by Offside at June 28, 2007 07:36 AM

Your point?

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 28, 2007 07:38 AM

Few in Congress are listening, fewer still care.

Is Offside the new erudite nom de plume for BS? The message sounds vaguely familiar.

Posted by Steve at June 28, 2007 07:47 AM

My point is that there is a great lack of credibility in what the Kagan's say, purely given their past record, which is one rosy prediction after another, none of which hold up. So, why should anyone listen? Second, they are responsible for the policies that have handed the sewer to Petraeus. Credibility isn't a Kagan strong point. You would therefore have to forgive the quizzical looks radiating from their audience.

Steve, Brian isn't back as far as I know. Thank you for the gracious compliment on my erudition though. ;-) Now I'm going to have to work harder.

Posted by Offside at June 28, 2007 08:26 AM

Well Offside, if we consider past performance as a guarantee of future failure, AND we look at all opinions expressed by the given person I think the only people whose opinions meet your implied standards will be those who so completely and habitually qualify their statements that their predictions also have no value.

In short, I am completely unimpressed by the actual content and disgusted by the chosen expression of your sentiments.

Yours,
Wince

Posted by Wince and Nod at June 28, 2007 08:47 AM

Wince,

Please consider your stement above when you next need to see a specialist for the inevitable major medical issue you will face. You might have to Nod in agreement with me and seek the practitioner with the best track record. Until then, feel free to visit the Quacks.

Posted by Offside at June 28, 2007 09:25 AM

I find this amusing:

...The Petraeus surge, authorized by the executive branch, was not “improvised.” Its fundamental planning dates from early in Donald Rumsfeld’s stint as secretary of Defense, where it was developed as a contingency plan should a “light footprint” approach fail. It deserves its day in the sun.

Back in the day, commentary that the "light footprint" wouldn't work was roundly condemned as idiotic by the very same people who are now saying we need to give "clear and hold" a chance.

Why did we need Arrowhead Ripper? Because the Iraqi forces in charge of Dihalya Province let AQ slip in under their noses and set up a local government. The idea that AQ was chopping off smokers' fingers -- in Iraq -- 4 years after "Mission Accomplished" is astonishing. The WW2 analogy would be finding out that a West German town was under Nazi local rule sometime in 1947 or 1948. A real "WTF?" moment.

The fact that Arowhead Ripper was even necessary demonstrates the pathetic failure of prior policy.

That said, going forward, "clear and hold" is indeed the right strategy (IMHO) and Arrowhead Ripper demonstrates that we can perform the clearing operations brilliantly with minimal casualties.

But to clear and then "not hold" is merely a variation of catch and release and the hold prong needs to be done by Iraqis (or perhaps another 50,000 or 75,000 US troops). And Colonel Townsend, a combat officer on the ground with Arrowhead Ripper, has already expressed serious doubts that the Iraqis are ready to "hold" the territory hat the US has cleared so brilliantly.

Also, what Kagan misses in Lugar's position is that after September 2007, politics related to the 2008 elections will make bi-partisan consensus on strategy impossible. Right NOW is the last opportunity to forge a bi-partisan plan that perhaps can be given two years or more to be carried out. Not September, not December, NOW.

If there is a landslide for the Democrats in 2008, Iraq policy could very well pendulum too far towards immediate withdrawal, even for me.

And, a GOP political strategy of "bend but don't break" makes that less likely than the Bush-Kagan strategy of don't give the Democrats a single inch of compromise, anywhere.

Posted by Bill White at June 28, 2007 09:33 AM

Back in the day, commentary that the "light footprint" wouldn't work was roundly condemned as idiotic by the very same people who are now saying we need to give "clear and hold" a chance.

And what's your point, Bill? That people's shouldn't learn from their mistakes, and their views shouldn't evolve?

I know that's the way most Democrats are, but I don't know why you think that it should apply to everyone, or why you continue to whine about it when it occurs.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 28, 2007 09:39 AM

I can't help but notice - if you wanted to convince the "arab street" that al queda was really bad news in 2003, there would be no better way than to "allow" al queda to govern a more modern country - while insuring that said country made the news every day.

If you look at the war as "US vs Terrorists", we are not doing stellar. But if the real war is "US wants Arabs on their side" we are kicking butt.

Sometimes the way to win the war is to lose a battle or two...

Posted by DS at June 28, 2007 10:01 AM

The part that *would* be amusing if it weren't so tragic is that the "light footprint" stuff was done largely to placate those who are now howling over the surge.

Posted by Big D at June 28, 2007 10:03 AM

I read ALL of Senator Lugar's speech, and for once in my life I agree with Harry Reid; it IS brilliant and it DOES come at the right time. Despite what some news outlets have reported, his speech does not call for a withdrawal, and neither does it call the current plan a failure.

Although he does discuss a wide range of issues, including the importance of planning for an eventual withdrawal of forces to some much lower level (which would seem to be inevitable given either victory or defeat) his main thrust is to highlight two very macro concepts: 1) The war in Iraq should be seen within the larger context of long-term US strategic interests in the Middle East, and 2) Political conditions at home, i.e. the wide-spread unpopularity of the war, will not permit us to persue a stay-the-course strategy indefinitely.

Note that neither of these two points are in direct contradiction with the current policies, but they are warnings that we need to think bigger than victory in Iraq and start planning now for the phase of Middle East diplomacy that will follow the war -- whenever that comes.

And I've always been impressed with lugar :P

Posted by chester at June 28, 2007 10:19 AM

The part that *would* be amusing if it weren't so tragic is that the "light footprint" stuff was done largely to placate those who are now howling over the surge.

Heh!

The light footprint came primarily from Don Rumsfeld's over-sized ego. Plenty of generals told Congress that we needed a larger ground force and they were shouted down by the Administration.

We also need a larger ground force, today, to hold what we clear and if in 2004 Bush had adopted Kerry's proposal to increase the size of the regular Army and Marines, we'd have the troops to supplement the surge and to hold what we clear.

Posted by Bill White at June 28, 2007 10:26 AM

Sometimes the way to win the war is to lose a battle or two...

To take that on a tangent, if an American business man helped CHINA beat NASA back to the Moon perhaps it would light a fire under the American people and aerospace industry.

Posted by Bill White at June 28, 2007 11:11 AM

Offside,

My doctor deals with relatively simple, well known and predictable things caused by unintelligent deterministic forces, not wars between large numbers of intelligent beings.

Can you say '10 orders of magnitude more complex'? I knew you could!

That would be a logic fallacy on your part. It's called a weak analogy.

I'm less impressed than I was before.

Yours,
Wince

Posted by Wince and Nod at June 28, 2007 12:12 PM

BTW, I'm very happy to hear that chester, upon reading all of Lugar's speech, found it to be well done.

I'm always more impressed by people who give politicians proper credit than those (far too often my self) who do the reverse.

Yours,
Wince

Posted by Wince and Nod at June 28, 2007 12:16 PM

"The light footprint came primarily from Don Rumsfeld's over-sized ego."

I beg to differ.

SecDef Rumsfeld certainly pushed GEN Franks to change his OPLAN into something other than "Desert Storm, Part Deux(TM)". I doubt it had anything to do with Mr. Rumsfeld's ego. If it did, Mr. White has presented no evidence to substantiate his claim.

Here is my analysis.

In 2003, the US Army was unready -- doctrinally, organizationally (including end strength), and equipment-wise, to sustain GEN Shinseki's 350,000 (IIRC) soldiers on the ground.

Rather, to sustain 350,000 soldiers, we would have to build indigenous forces. THAT task takes years. The pre-existing Iraqi Army was essentially:

1. Sunni officers, ready to execute,
2. Shia enlisted, should they do anything objectionable (including complaining).

It takes YEARS to build a professional commissioned and non-commissioned officer corps when no such thing has existed. It takes YEARS to inculcate sufficient professionalism in an army to reduce the corruptive influences of tribe and sect.

So, during those YEARS, does one leave the entire deployable strength of the Army in Iraq? Does one do so, even though what one needs in Iraq is intelligence networks developed?

Or does one "go light", so as to sustain the US presence in Iraq indefinitely? Because "indefinitely" is how long it takes to ensure that the indigenous institutions can handle the rigors of combat. "Indefinitely" is how long it takes to build up intelligence networks in country. "Indefinitely" is how long it takes for the locals to shed their fantasies about American omnipotence, about pan-Arab brotherhood, and about the tender mercies of AQI and AIG elements.

Now, 4+ years on, the Army is in better condition than in 2003. The doctrine is now appropriate, the equipment, organization, and training now match far better the needs of the fight. There are a whole raft of successful battalion commanders now becoming brigade commanders, of successful company commanders become battalion executive officers, and of successful platoon leaders becoming company commanders.

In short, this time was essential for transforming all the 1990's jabber about "expeditionary Army" into a reality.

This is the core of my argument about why "going light" made sense until conditions on the ground supported doing otherwise. Those conditions included:

1. Sufficiently capable indigenous security forces.

2. Sufficient maturity developed in the political factions.

3. Sufficiently developed intel networks.

4. Sufficient numbers of Sunni sheiks realizing that backing AQI and their Baathist tribal members was a one way ticket to Jordan or the afterlife.

GEN Petraus is in a position to assess whether conditions 1-4 above were met. I am not in such a position. I suspect Mr. White isn't, nor are any other commenters on this thread.

OTOH, if someone wants to post their DD214 to buttress a claim that they ARE in a position to assess the four conditions, AND disagree with GEN Petraus' decision, please, school me.

Posted by MG at June 28, 2007 09:23 PM

Perhaps the situation should have been explained thusly (in 2003) to the American people. But Rumsfeld's "the army we had" comment now makes more sense.

To the extent MG is correct, we should have known that the "real" struggle was only beginning with that Mission Accomplished carrier photo-op.

But it does appear that POTUS #44 will have a military better suited for the missions we now face and that is all for the good.

Posted by Bill White at June 28, 2007 10:02 PM

To the extent MG is correct, then the comment I was responding to all is NOT correct:

The part that *would* be amusing if it weren't so tragic is that the "light footprint" stuff was done largely to placate those who are now howling over the surge.

I will accept that Rumsfeld's ego was not the cause of going light to the extent others accept that Rumsfeld also did not "cave in" to liberals who demanded a light footprint, which actually is a terrible thing to allege against a SecDef.

Perhaps a light footprint was a sub-optimal strategy but the best we could do with a military that had not been focused on COIN and nation-building. I can accept that but that fact also affects the wisdom of the timing of our invasion.

And, since I was an advocate of the need for COIN and nation-building capability pre-9/11 I am gratified that this position now seems to be more widely accepted.

Posted by Bill White at June 28, 2007 10:12 PM

"And, since I was an advocate of the need for COIN and nation-building capability pre-9/11 I am gratified that this position now seems to be more widely accepted."

And properly so, Mr. White. I was one of those uniformed folks in the mid-1990's who wanted to "save" the Army for "big wars". Hence, I was very leery of our Balkan adventure, and of hunting Somali warlords under UN auspices. In both cases, I could see extreme aversion to casualties, and had no confidence in the Chief Executive.

I was not thinking ahead, but rather looking in the rear view mirror -- at AirLand Battle '86, and then at Desert Storm.

Fortunately for the Republic, the USMC experimented with urban operations, and I was not in a senior executive position.

On the other hand, the senior generals of the Army WERE in the senior executive positions, and it distresses me to no end to learn that GEN Petraeus headlined the COIN doctrine update that all too recently got done. We really needed one of those done ten years earlier, with all the implications that had for force structure, equipment, training, etc.

It falls to my peers who are still on active duty to think broadly and deeply about the nature of future warfare, and of the American political system's capacity to face that future.

Unfortunately, in peacetime, the "system" rewards those who focus on equipment readiness rates and DUIs. Those are valid things to monitor, but it really isn't the most important basis of national security.

Posted by MG at June 29, 2007 12:02 AM

To take that on a tangent, if an American business man helped CHINA beat NASA back to the Moon perhaps it would light a fire under the American people and aerospace industry.

Why is that, Bill? Most Americans know that NASA beat China to the Moon way back in 1969.

You still haven't explained what terrible, dreadful thing China is going to on the Moon or how "lighting a fire" (spending $100+ billion to send a few NASA employees to the Moon) will stop that terrible, dreadful thing.

Mike Griffin said the Chinese might still the American flags left by Apollo and put them in a Peking museum. Is that what you're afraid of?

If so, why is it worth $100 billion to prevent it -- assuming four astronauts in an Orion capsule could guard all six Apollo landing sites?

If not, what is it we're supposed to be panicking over?

Posted by Edward Wright at June 29, 2007 12:13 AM

A couple other thoughts.

It is profoundly unwise to tell the American people (and therefore the enemies of the American people) the doctrinal, organizational, training, and equipment shortcomings of the existing military as one prepares for the fight.

It is also a practical reality that we don't get the luxury to build up the forces we ideally want prior to engaging in hostilities. There are a LOT of moving pieces -- diplomatic, economic, NGO, etc, etc, etc. There are far too many such pieces to control in practice, even if one could theoretically control them. And one can't -- these "pieces" are people, peoples, and organizations, all with their own agendae (which also morph with time and events).

Nope. The proper approach is to build a capacity to act, act when judged appropriate, and adjust the capacity to the actual situation one finds once action starts. ANY time we act, we turn over rocks and logs in a stream -- and only AFTER the act do we learn with what we are dealing.

A short example: Plan a home remodel. Work up a bill of materials, a labor plan, a schedule. Then start your salvage and demolition activities. Do you really think your plan will survive unscathed? What do you do if you find (say) asbestos? Or concealed, previous work not up to code?

Do you quit the project? Well, no, you are committed -- the demo work has already begun. You adjust, based on your current capabilities and the capabilities you can augment to your own.

And THAT, folks, is what happens every day, at every scale -- including (and especially) warfare.

Posted by MG at June 29, 2007 05:01 AM

MG, can you agree with this comment? Or this one?

I think Ken White is right and we will be in Iraq for a long time NO MATTER WHO wins in 2008.

For the record there is no relation between Ken White and Bill White and he claims to be a retired paratrooper (while I do believe him, it is the intarweb and one never knows).

MG (Mr. MG?), after reading your very recent comments about why Iraq was done the way it was done (and Ken White's many similar comments at the forvm) I find myself thinking, "Okay. Let's give it some more time" but when I read someone like Fletcher Christian (Nuke Mecca now!) or arguments that ALL Muslims are our enemy, and when I am repeatedly told that ALL Democrats (except Joe L) are immature brats who should never ever be trusted with power, my willingness to cooperate tends to evaporate.

A low point for me came when a NY Congressman said we need to adopt the Bush vision for Social Security BECAUSE we are at war and to oppose Bush on SS was tantamount to wanting the jihadis to win.

Anyway, I believe the underlying political calculus parallels a fascinating comment made by David Halbertstam about Chicago Bulls GM Jerry Krause who desperately wanted to win an NBA title without Michael Jordan, to PROVE it was his skills as GM were the "real" cause to the Bulls repeat-three-peat.

Halbertsan wrote that Krause always sought more credit that he deserved and because of that he ended up getting less credit than he deserved for the Bulls success.

To translate, by seeking more credit than they deserved and by seeking to use the "war on terror" to win US domestic political battles and to leverage a permanent GOP majority, the Bush Administration actually ended up undermining BOTH objectives.

That said, to have removed Saddam with US blood and treasure remains a good and noble undertaking consistent with longstanding US liberal tradition. Too bad (IMHO) that Bush 43 handled in the same manner he handled Katrina, immmigration, Medicare D, etc . . .

Posted by Bill White at June 29, 2007 05:56 AM

George W Bush, during a 2000 debate with Al Gore said this:

The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place.

Okay, 9/11 changed that. Good on Dubya and the US military for switching from a "big war" mentality to a nation building and COIN mentality. And actually, with the adoption of the new Petraeus doctrines, the US military is doing this very fast and ably, from a bureaucratic perspective, and I appreciate and respect MG's candor on this.

Good! Very good indeed.

BUT, we Democrats wanted the US military to have a COIN and nation building component before 9/11 and that is what General Petraeus is now giving us.

We Democrats do believe in nation building as an appropriate mission for the US military.

Thus, the Defeat-o-crat nonsense being spread by the Right is nonsense and undermines national unity in time of war.

Let us agree on a COIN and nation building approach on a bi-partisan basis going forward and admit that pre-9/11 the Democrats were right about the need for a nation building capability within the US military.

And go forth and smack al Qaeda and help those Muslims who desire to smoke cigarettes and keep their fingers. If Michael Yon's reports are correct, it appears that many Iraqi Muslims do not support the global caliphate and that is a very good reason for optimism.

Thus it is NOT "West versus Islam" and we need to shout down those who say it is, again on a bi-partisan basis.

Posted by Bill White at June 29, 2007 08:46 AM

"Defeat-o-crat nonsense"

Newsflash: Pelosi and Reid in July to again introduce legislation to end US presence in Iraq.

That is the very definition of defeatism Bill, and it is the leaders of your party attempting it.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 29, 2007 09:02 AM

Leland, after 6 or 7 years of Bush sticking his middle finger in our face, some political payback is coming. I say it again. America will not leave Iraq anytime soon NO MATTER who wins in 2008. And no matter what bills Reid and Pelosi introduce today.

What is going on in Congress is political kabuki and perhaps we need to tell BOTH sides to knock it off. But mutual political de-escalation needs to be mutual and verifiable.

No unilateral political disarmament by the Democrats. :-)

HOW we approach Iraq is the question. More George W. Bush from the 2000 debate:

If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that.

And the Petreaus doctrines signal a 180 degree reversal of course from what Dubya was saying in 2000. And that remains a good thing.

Posted by Bill White at June 29, 2007 09:11 AM

Cecil do you have a link for

Newsflash: Pelosi and Reid in July to again introduce legislation to end US presence in Iraq.

A link that is not the Politico, a GOP spin outfit?

Get back to me when this bill is actually introduced so we can discuss what Reid/Pelosi actually say not what GOP operatives are saying Reid/Pelosi say.

Posted by Bill White at June 29, 2007 09:17 AM

Oh come on Bill, is it so hard to believe? They've tried it already and they have not changed their mind. They repeat their desire to leave Iraq post haste every single day.

And just to remind you, the year 2000 was before 09/11/2001.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 29, 2007 09:39 AM

Leland, after 6 or 7 years of Bush sticking his middle finger in our face, some political payback is coming.

Sticking his middle finger in your face, Bill?

For the last 6 or 7 years, Bush has done nothing but "reach out" to the left.

He's funded your entire social agenda, from free prescription drugs to Apollo II.

He did more for you than Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, or Lyndon Johnson -- none of whom are demonized by your party. More than any President since JFK.

Fiscal conservatives have gotten nothing out of the Bush Administration. You have gotten everything.

Other than surrendering in Iraq, what else could Bush do to please the left, Bill?

A sawbuck says this is your usual "hit and run," and you won't even try to back your statement with facts or logic.

Any more than you'll tell us why you think hand-to-hand combat would be a more effective tactic than guns or what awful thing you think Chinese are going to do to the Moon. :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at June 29, 2007 10:23 AM

Edward, if you truly believe this, well then, see you at the polls in November 2008.

Anyway, as of today, Bush can't do much of anything to help forge a bi-partisan consensus for going forward. Water over the dam and all that.

But that is irrelevant as Bush already is a lame duck, and even more lame after his immigration defeat.

On the other hand, Dick Lugar is taking some small steps to forge a bi-partisan consensus and as November 2008 nears I predict there will be more people within the GOP who follow Lugar's course..

Posted by Bill White at June 29, 2007 10:34 AM

Bill what is the purpose of a bipartisan consensus with respect to Iraq when you yourself say that Petraeus is ALREADY doing what needs to be done in Iraq? If your democrats will only get behind Petraeus, the troops and support their efforts we WILL HAVE bipartisanship. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

The only bipartisanship on Iraq that the democrats are interested in is where the dems get to abandon Iraq to chaos with a few RINOS supporting them.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 29, 2007 11:12 AM

Edward, if you truly believe this, well then, see you at the polls in November 2008.

Bill, not only do I believe it, you just proved it!

Just as I bet, you refused to answer my question.

You can't support your position with facts or logic, so you resort to a snappy Billism -- "See you at the polls."

That's not an argument, it's a playground taunt. You might as well say, "So's your mother!"

Dick Lugar is taking some small steps to forge a bi-partisan consensus

So, Lugar's pandering to the Left. Just as Bush did. So what? Do you expect us to believe the Left will vote for Lugar or any other Republican, no matter how "bipartisan" he goes?

Posted by Edward Wright at June 29, 2007 02:16 PM

Mr. White,

MG is fine. My friends call me "M". j/k, but I prefer to retain my anonymity. I emailed Rand several weeks ago with my actual name / email address, and he hasn't told me to drop the anonymity.

I agree with much of the author's writings in the links you provide. However, I have one important caveat.

By 2008, I suspect that it will be apparent to anyone with a pulse that our national interest requires us to remain in Iraq, a la South Korea in the late 1950's.

That does NOT mean our political "leadership" (see footnote below) will do what is in our national interest. James Carter comes to mind as a President who acted counter to the national interest, even though he may well have perceived at the time that he was acting in the best interests of the nation.

Lived history, not contemporary claims of intent, is the real measure of whether an action was in the national interest. Nothing is pre-determined. Poor decision-making, weak will, craven-ness, corruption -- all these can result in our political "leadership" acting against our national interest.

So, nothing is inevitable, and elections continue to matter, especially in wartime.

Your willingness to give our work in Iraq more time should be related exclusively to your perception on whether it can work, whether it will benefit us if it does work, and whether that outweighs the consequences of the other available courses of action.

Politicians will ALWAYS use events to push policies that are unrelated to those events. There will ALWAYS be people (Democrats AND Republicans) who point fingers at the "other guy". Fletcher Christian, for example, presents himself as a Brit, and in past posts griped about how the US is causing so much trouble. I pointed out to him that the US is trying to clean up the post-colonial messes that the UK left after World War I and II.

So, I ask that you carefully consider the entirety of the past six years. Democrats have NOT covered themselves in glory, and some are quite worthy of disrepute. A couple examples over which one can argue:

1. Department of Homeland Security. Democrats wanted to make employees of at least the TSA unionized, and were willing to make big political bets on getting that done. Why? The TSA needs to be maximally effective, and unions are not about maximum organizational effectiveness. Saxby Chambliss won his Senate seat over this issue.

2. In the summer of 2003, before the search for WMD stockpiles was close to complete, the Democrats began backing away from their votes approving OIF. Leading Democrats began to say, "The President failed to make the case that the threat was imminent."

Read that sentence carefully. What does that mean? Does it mean that the President claimed to base his actions on an imminent threat? Does it mean that an imminent threat was the only way to justify our actions?

In fact, the President EXPLICITLY stated in his 2003 State of the Union speech that the threat was NOT imminent, and that the combination of WMD and undeterrable non-state actors (my paraphrase) meant that by the time the threat was imminent, it would be too late to stop it.

The Democrats of summer, 2003, were making a factually accurate, but profoundly misleading statement. Why?

Prior to the vote authorizing the invasion of Iraq, the Administration discussed a variety of justifications for invading. Many Democrats complained that the President was changing his reason, or wasn't giving a single reason. Why? Was it realistic to have just ONE reason, when there were a number of distinct but related reasons? The eventual authorization had over 20 justifications, all valid, all distinct, all related.

Lived history suggests at this point that some of these reasons were not as ripe as they were perceived at the time, but we won't "know" for sure until the classified docs get released. That will take another quarter century, at least.

To all of you, I regret the length of the post, but Mr. White asks good questions. In particular, the issue of domestic grandstanding and its effects on supporting the war justifies the length.

Thanks for your time.

Footnote: Political "leadership" is primarily the province of citizens, not elected politicians. The latter are "followers" -- of public opinion; of demands of their base of support; or of those from whom they accept bribes, whether or not those "bribes" are counter to law, marginally within the law, or otherwise.

Don't look to your state capitals or to D.C. for political "leadership". You will almost never find it, and when you do, those politicians will find themselves rapidly marginalized by a political system and a populace that doesn't care to be troubled by the changes the leader is trying to enact.

Cynical? By no means! I prefer political leadership to start from the bottom. That is where solutions can be found. I prefer our elected officials to be followers. That way, the consent of the governed is best retained. I prefer that our unelected officials have their positions be completely dependent upon their supporting the expressed will of the governed -- but that often takes a back seat to their own predilections.

Mind you, I am aware of the weaknesses of my preferences. That's why I "prefer" what I prefer.

Posted by MG at June 30, 2007 06:44 PM

MG: "The Democrats of summer, 2003, were making a factually accurate, but profoundly misleading statement. Why?"

They continue to do the same in the summer of 2007, and for the same reason. Political power.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 1, 2007 05:38 PM

I am grateful for MG's post and his obvious sincerity. Yes, I agree that come January 2009 it will be very obvious that we need to stay in Iraq for a while longer. A careful reading of Obama's platform, for example, provides that the actual withdrawal of troops can be delayed or even terminated if conditions on the ground warrant that decision.

Again, I predict that President Hillary and/or Obama would make a HUGE public display of bringing home a handful of troops and then pursue the clear and hold strategy which is the Petreaus doctrine.

But also, counter-insurgency takes a heavy toll on the troops, it is messy hands on work.

To persist with the Petreaus doctrine in the coming years and decades will require MORE infantry. Highly trained men and women who speak the local languages and who has read and understand the lessons from that 1944 novel "A Bell for Adano"

Winning the hearts and minds of your average Iraqi should be a piece of cake, given that AQ are such depraved monsters.

= = =

Also, a great many Democratic politicians have acted in a shameful manner. True. I cannot disagree. But guess what, they are politicians, it goes with the territory.

But next, if anyone then tries to tell me that when GOP politicians visit the commode, their poop smells sweeter, I will oppose you on general principles. ALL politicians are venal and corrupt, including George W. Bush. It's a prerequisite for working inside the Beltway and no one is immune.

Cecil, tell me Democratic politicians grasp for power and I shall agree with you. Especially Hillary. But, try and tell me that GOP politicians grasp for power less (that GOP politicians are inherently more moral and ethical) and EVERYTHING else you tell me, about everything gets seriously discounted, by me.

ALL politicians are grasping and power hungry -- Democratic, republican, Whig, Tory, Federalist, anti-Federalist and so on. . .

I do not ask the Right-leaning types here to vote Democratic. Rather I assert that a constant drumbeat of "traitorous Defeat-o-crats" coming from the Right undermines national unity in time of war.

Posted by Bill White at July 1, 2007 08:42 PM

BW: "I agree that come January 2009 it will be very obvious that we need to stay in Iraq for a while longer."

It is already obvious to some of us that we need to be in Iraq for quite a while longer.

BW: "A careful reading of Obama's platform.." IE you can't really believe what he says about getting out of Iraq. So what else does he say you can't believe? Same goes for Hillary, in spades.

BW:"But, try and tell me that GOP politicians grasp for power less (that GOP politicians are inherently more moral and ethical) and EVERYTHING else you tell me, about everything gets seriously discounted, by me."

"Inherently" more moral and ethical, no. APPARENTLY more moral and ethical, yes. The front running Republicans are saying up front that we need to keep troops in Iraq, whereas the front running democrats say they want to get out ASAP while you say their secret agenda is to not do so.

I prefer honesty and integrity.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 2, 2007 03:14 PM

Post a comment