General Petraeus goes to Washington

[Pangloss]

Just to follow up on this thread's original subject, people have disagreed with me on the notion that Democratic candidates are going to back off from insisting on pullout. But just look at Obama's statements this week:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/us/politics/13obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

He's basically saying "we have to pull out now", then going on to explain that he wants to do everything BUT pull all the troops out! What he wants to do is police and train -- something that will take a 50-75,000 troop presence in Iraq. Indefinitely. Until those elusive goals are met.

 

So basically what Obama is really saying is "I want to do exactly the same thing that George Bush has been trying to do, only I can do it with 1/3rd the troops and this time it'll work".

 

What, that'll happen just because he's black and a Democrat? Riiiiight.

[iNow]

Republicans argue that bringing our troops home is a recipe for disaster and failure. Seems odd since the last 5 years have been one big failure orchestrated by Republicans that they would use this as mud for slinging.

 

On Meet the Press, September 9, Ret. General James Jones, one of the main authors of the Report of the Independent Comission on the Security Forces of Iraq, stated that there is no military solution to this problem. The solution, he stated, must be political and diplomatic. This is a reinforcement of the Jones' report findings. It's time to reframe the issue.

 

Sure, we can increase little pockets of security by keeping troops (and increasing numbers here and there), but this does not address the root issue that Sunni and Shia want to run the state on their own. They either need to come to the table and agree to move forward as a unit, agree to split the state and part ways, or kill each other until the problem is solved by lack of bodies to shoot at each other.

 

 

Petraeus, as honorable as he is, and as much character as he has, is stating that more troops is what we need, and again, this does nothing to address the root of the issue.

[Pangloss]

"Reframe the issue"? Dude did you read my last post by any chance? I don't mean to be rude it just sounds like some awful doublespeak. Aren't you just saying "we want to do the same thing Bush has been doing only we promise we'll get it right and you should believe us because we're not Republicans"?

[ParanoiA]

What's with this tired old logic about lack of a military solution? There's not a military solution the american public is willing to live with. I guarantee you if we quit being nice and level cities like in WWII we'll have cooperation or corpses in return - either way, no effective insurgency.

 

But that's not a solution I'm willing to live with. So, rather than toy around with our youngsters lives, let's bring them home since we don't have what it takes to let them solve this militarily.

 

But stop perpetuating the idea there is no military solution.

[iNow]

"Reframe the issue"? Dude did you read my last post by any chance? I don't mean to be rude it just sounds like some awful doublespeak. Aren't you just saying "we want to do the same thing Bush has been doing only we promise we'll get it right and you should believe us because we're not Republicans"?

First, to be clear, I don't identify with either party. I vote on the person I think is best for the job, regardless of political affiliation. Now, to your point about double-speak, I think you may not have perceived what I intended when posting. Let me try again.

 

Where has Bush shown diplomacy to move this situation forward? Where has the leadership been in bringing the factions together and getting them to speak about solutions? Where has been our attempt to bring in other countries to assist with the problems? The US can't make this work alone, and can't make this work by military action alone. The diplomacy part is the reframing part... I'm sorry, but in business you wouldn't get 2 quarters of performance like this. Five years should be plenty, yet... hmmm... Board of Directors would have fired his ass, as the market wouldn't allow it. The definition of insanity is making the same mistake over and over yet expecting different results.

 

 

 

What's with this tired old logic about lack of a military solution? There's not a military solution the american public is willing to live with. I guarantee you if we quit being nice and level cities like in WWII we'll have cooperation or corpses in return - either way, no effective insurgency.

 

But that's not a solution I'm willing to live with. So, rather than toy around with our youngsters lives, let's bring them home since we don't have what it takes to let them solve this militarily.

 

But stop perpetuating the idea there is no military solution.

 

You can fire your ballistics at me all you want with your "tired old logic"... I was simply sharing the report from General James Jones who said that there is no military solution to the problem.

 

So, since you posted with such certainty, how about you explain to me how the centuries long conflict between the Sunni and Shia can be resolved via our US military without total nuclear destruction (since that would actually cause more problems than it solves in my view). Next, how would Sunni and Shia be able to live together long into the future as a result of our military actions?

 

For those who didn't read my post very carefully, here is the report to which I refer, and which you, ParanoiA, so scathingly attacked with your infinite wisdom and experience:

 

http://media.npr.org/documents/2007/sep/jonesreport.pdf

 

And here is the General discussing that report a week ago on Meet the Press (confirming that he sees the solution as diplomatic/political, not just military):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7744056920262721556&q=general+james+jones+meet+the+press&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

 

 

I think I was pretty clear in my statement that Petraeus is suggesting more troops to allow more of these pockets of security, but that this does little to address the root problem. Treat the cause, not the symptoms.

[ParanoiA]

For those who didn't read my post very carefully, here is the report to which I refer, and which you, ParanoiA, so scathingly attacked with your infinite wisdom and experience:

 

Would you quit doing that? When I reply to your quote, I'll quote it like this one. I'm not attacking your post or his report.

 

I'm just challenging that phrase I keep hearing mainly from democrats and anti-war folk. Everyone keeps acting like our military is impotent in this war, but it's only because of our own restraint, not because they're actually impotent.

 

So, I think it's good for us to recognize that instead of allowing ourselves to be conditioned into believing silly notions. Oftentimes military action can solve problems, that's just how it is. I didn't say I like it or prefer it, just a statement of fact. So when our military fails over there, it's not because we just can't do it, it's because we won't do what it takes. That may be a good thing. But to say we can't, is a misnomer.

[iNow]

So when our military fails over there, it's not because we just can't do it, it's because we won't do what it takes. That may be a good thing. But to say we can't, is a misnomer.

 

I appreciate your clarication, and apologize for some of my own mis-reading of your point, as well as any improperly addressed quotes. Miscommunications can be resolved by further communication.

 

I agree with your point that we could annihilate them, so it's silly to say we "can't win, but since annihilation is not a rational option, don't we still need to ensure the situation moves forward with what we have?

 

We knew that we would be fighting using ground forces and aireal support. We knew we would not be dropping enormous bombs. We went in with this knowledge, and yet our strategy has not lived up to the needs of the situation.

 

 

It's not fair! I would have won that race against the Camero if I were allowed to use an Aston Martin, but I only owned a Yugo! It's not fair. I know I'm the one who challenged you to a race, but you'd have lost if I had a better car. So there...

 

I'm so bad at analogies... I really need to stop.

[ParanoiA]

I agree with your point that we could annihilate them' date=' so it's silly to say we "can't win, but since annihilation is not a rational option, don't we still need to ensure the situation moves forward with what we have?

 

We knew that we would be fighting using ground forces and aireal support. We knew we would not be dropping enormous bombs. We went in with this knowledge, and yet our strategy has not lived up to the needs of the situation.[/quote']

 

And thus you fell into my trap! Just kidding...

 

But it did kind of lead where I wanted, which is to say this is why we should be forced to declare war via congress - not resolutions. Why? Because then we would be forced to have an answer for each requirement. What country are we declaring war on? And etc.

 

I'm concerned that war resolutions - presidential war powers - have politicized the act of warring. Seems to me if we declare war like we're supposed to, then we'd go in and do it - no screwing around, being nice to anyone - all consideration is given to our people, our troops, our youth.

 

Otherwise, you're not fighting a war, you're enforcing someone else's morality set. Someone else's moral obligation. Were we this nice with the Japanese? The Germans? No. Because we didn't go in to "liberate their people" - that's a morality statement. We went in to "liberate our people", we went to war to secure our sovereignty, retaliation for an act of war. That's the difference. We wanted to punish them.

 

When we did liberate people in that war, it was our allies - more of a support or strategic requirement than a moral obligation, although I think the morality card would have still worked out.

 

The point is, I believe declaring war forces us to look at war that way it should be looked at - a terrible, despicable consequence that should always be last resort. If you're not willing to do it right, then don't do it all. Doing "sort of war" ain't cutting it, as we've seen time again....

[Pangloss]

I think you may not have perceived what I intended when posting. Let me try again.

 

You're right, and thank you.

 

 

Where has Bush shown diplomacy to move this situation forward? Where has the leadership been in bringing the factions together and getting them to speak about solutions? Where has been our attempt to bring in other countries to assist with the problems? The US can't make this work alone, and can't make this work by military action alone. The diplomacy part is the reframing part... I'm sorry, but in business you wouldn't get 2 quarters of performance like this. Five years should be plenty, yet... hmmm... Board of Directors would have fired his ass, as the market wouldn't allow it. The definition of insanity is making the same mistake over and over yet expecting different results.

 

 

These are totally reasonable questions and I understand your point now. I don't think this point is unreasonable, but I don't think it's accurate to say that no diplomacy has been done at all, or that there's been no effort to involve other countries. These are tough problems and there is a lot of danger and hypocrisy in the Democratic position of "just hire us, we'll do the same stuff but this time it'll be done right".

 

The reasons for our failures in Iraq have very little to do with George Bush and very much to do with the fact that these problems are just plain hard to solve. After all, if they were easy then President Carter (a Democrat) would have fixed them at Camp David thirty years ago.

 

So I totally empathize with what you're saying, and I don't equate your position with the hypocrisy and idiocy we're hearing from the politicians right now. I just think we have to step above this quagmire and look at it objectively and remind these politicians that their short-term solutions do not amuse or satisfy us. What else can we do?

 

Just to give another example of how these candidates think, Barrack Obama is espousing the position that Iraq was about oil and that if it was actually about moral authority then we'd have 30,000 troops in Sudan. He's absolutely right, but guess what? He's not in favor of putting troops in the Sudan! That's because it's more popular right now for a Democrat to espouse a position of non-involvement. But during the Clinton administration exactly the opposite was true! Bosnia, lobbing cruise missiles at terrorist camps, etc. The point being that they're just saying whatever it takes to get elected, and what it takes is saying the opposite of what your opponent says. Doesn't matter what it is, just OPPOSE it.

 

We need to create a political environment in which that kind of opposition-for-the-sake-of-opposition doesn't profit candidates, but rather HARMS them. They want to criticize the fact that the Bush administration doesn't have a plan? Fine. HAVE A PLAN OF YOUR OWN. Not a superficial, non-sensical, just-to-get-elected one either.

 

And I'm not defending Bush on this ground, either. He stood up in 1999 and said that he didn't believe in nation-building, and promptly embarked in the greatest example of nation-building in the history of this country. Yeah there were reasons for that change (I still agree with regard to Afghanistan), but it was a stupid thing to say and he said it just to get elected.

[ParanoiA]

The reasons for our failures in Iraq have very little to do with George Bush and very much to do with the fact that these problems are just plain hard to solve.

 

Wouldn't it be cool if a candidate actually said that? That, alone, would make me sit down and listen to them.

[Pangloss]

You're in luck! One has.

[bascule]

The point being that they're just saying whatever it takes to get elected

 

Let's just keep in mind that that works both ways:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Romney_Flier_Pride_Weekend.JPG

 

We need to create a political environment in which that kind of opposition-for-the-sake-of-opposition doesn't profit candidates, but rather HARMS them.

 

Not going to happen. I think it's the responsibility of voters to vote for the best slimeball based on their merits and not what they say, help others to do so, and hope that the people who do buy tripe diatribes equal each other out. But realistically the masses of asses will make completely uninformed decisions.

[Pangloss]

Nice catch on the poster. I tell you what, that Romney campaign is getting pretty loony, especially now that Thompson is in the race. See my post in the other thread for his hypocritical reaction to Hillary Healthcare 2.0.

 

Although I do find it amusing to watch the press attempt to bequeath mainstream legitimacy upon a religion that enjoys at least 13 million members (if the wikipedia article on LDS is accurate). Anything that's not based in New York City has to be quaint and befuddling, you know.

[iNow]

Got about five minutes? Here is yet another perspective on the situation from former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Wesley Clark. Just click the link (turn off popup blockers and turn on your speakers) and get past the 20 second ad:

 

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=103042

[Pangloss]

Brief follow-up: The New York Times' Public Editor (read: Ombudsman) filed his take on the MoveOn ad today, saying that the newspaper violated its written policy in allowing the ad to take place, and erred again in giving the discount rate.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/opinion/23pubed.html?_r=2&n=Top/Opinion/The%20Public%20Editor&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

 

As usual, I think the Times will ignore this internal criticism and continue to represent a leftward bias towards news reporting.