ALARMINGNEWS_1_1.jpg

November 21, 2005

I feel like I've seen this someplace before

Over on Talking Points Memo, Josh posts an email from a Democratic reader, someone who observed the Kerry campaign 'fairly up close', on the GOP response to Murtha:

I was not the least bit surprised by the attack on Murtha (remember how they attacked Kerry). I'll bet you a dollar that the Democratic response (if there is one) will be a) unorganized (from Biden through Dean), b) incoherent (or at least internally inconsistent), c) slow, d) measured, and e) cerebral. All the wrong things to do. What they need to do is show some blood and gore, use a couple of veterans, and ask the question -- is this worth it? If it is, why are the families of Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Delay, Hastert, Rumsfeld et. al. not on the front lines? As we say in Marketing, an anecdote is worth a thousand data points.

Blood and gore? Howard Dean was the angriest little man in the land back in '03.

Using veterans? Kerry did plenty using of veterans. Then the veterans didn't like that and Kerry's Swiftboat Vet nightmare began.

The chickenhawk argument at the neo-cons? Oh c'mon. What is this, 2002?

Asking if it's worth it? Kerry said Bush 'misled every one of us' back in June of '03.

The Democrats really need some new material if this is considered innovative enough advice to post on TPM.

Via Ragged Thots.

Update: Welcome Instapundit and Vodkapundit readers. Just a quick note, my comment section is a little wonky. If you get an error message, that just means your comment is being held for my approval. Please do not repost the comment. Thanks for visiting!

Posted by Karol at November 21, 2005 02:27 AM | TrackBack
Technorati Tags:
Comments

As I said in the last thread on this: the myth of the invincible antiwar veteran is unkillable on the left. Hilarious.

You know what might actually work? Stop advocating surrender. Let Bush win the war, so that by 2008 the fickle populace has moved on to the next issue.

They'll never go for it, though.

Posted by: someone at November 21, 2005 03:18 AM

I'd like to know how we can win the war especially since I have now changed my travel plans for the holiday to spend some time with someone close to me who has been ordered tO Iraq. Any ideas ?

Posted by: Von Bek at November 21, 2005 09:29 AM

I'm glad I'm not the only one who caught the phrase "use a couple veterans".

Posted by: ccs178 (Chris) at November 21, 2005 09:58 AM

The MSM treat Vietnam war vets as experts on today's warfare. However, technology has so changed the battlefield, using those vets as experts is like using the War of 1812 vets as experts for World War II.

Thus both Kerry's and Murtha's military experience count for nothing in this debate. Especially since they both learned the wrong way to conduct a war.

Posted by: Jake at November 21, 2005 10:35 AM

Disagree wholeheartedly Jake. I think there are some virtues that men of war have that always have relevance despite changes in technology: duty, honor, courage. Murtha has shown those to say the least in his career in the USMC and they remain relevant today.

Posted by: Von Bek at November 21, 2005 11:37 AM

Democrats have been running as the Anti-Evil-Republican party since the Summer of Love. (Never mind that it was Kennedy who turned Vietnam into a war, and Nixon who got us out....) Anyway, I get the sense that a lot of people think Vietnam was good for Democrats, and what was good for the "me, me, me" generation can be good for the young'uns too.

BTW, everytime I hear the Chickenhawk chatter, I get Yes' "Starship Trooper" going through my head....

Posted by: Mark Poling at November 21, 2005 12:36 PM

If it is, why are the families of Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Delay, Hastert, Rumsfeld et. al. not on the front lines?

Ah, comments like this make me nostalgic for the days when Chelsea lead the charge of Sarajevo.

Posted by: Marco at November 21, 2005 12:49 PM

"Starship Trooper"

Great song.

Posted by: ccs178 (Chris) at November 21, 2005 01:14 PM

I totally disagree with you Von Bek.

Today's marine has the destructive capability of 1000 Vietnam-era marines (with the help of smart bombs and smart artillery ).

In Murtha's time, he had to determine how to move a brigade into place to fight the enemy, today a major just has to move one man with a laser sight into place.

Also, if Murtha had any military qualifications left, he would realize that America has not lost one battle in Iraq and for every 1 of us they have killed, we have killed 40 of theirs. We have won and Murtha wants to cut and run. He has forgotten what is to be a marine.

Posted by: Jake at November 21, 2005 06:34 PM

Ralph Peters does a much better job making my point than I did today:

What do the Democrats fear? An American success in Iraq. They need us to fail, and they're going to make us fail, no matter the cost. They need to declare defeat before the 2006 mid-term elections and ensure a real debacle before 2008 — a bloody mess they'll blame on Bush, even though they made it themselves.

No punches pulled.

Posted by: Mark Poling at November 21, 2005 06:43 PM

Another instance of the "we Democrats lose because our ideas are just too intellectual for Joe Sixpack" idea that I've seen for at least the past four years. Nonsense - he was more on the mark with "incoherent". When John Kerry comes out with a "major foreign policy speech" that calls for both more and less troops in Iraq, "overly intellectual" is the least of your problems.

Posted by: Yaron at November 21, 2005 08:14 PM

The ratio of insurgents to Coalition soldiers killed or a scoresheet of battles won and lost has very little to do with our progress in Iraq. There isn't a finite number of insurgents. Our victory will depend on whether or not we succeed in building a unified Iraq army that is stronger than all of the various regional militias and can function without overwhelming Coalition support. In addition, without a proper political agreement that provides for majority rule while protecting the rights of minorities, we'll be unable to plausibly claim victory.

Body counts and winning battles only count in conventional warfare against a national Army, not a counter-insurgency campaign. Even Sec. Rumsfeld himself noted that killing insurgents won't make much difference if more continue to join their cause.

Posted by: Matt at November 22, 2005 04:47 AM

-
Dear Folks,

As I see it, it's partisan politics cut and dried, The Democrats want this to be a bloody mess so they can get elected come the next election. Mark Poling has hit the nail squarely on the head. AND as for peace, why not win the damn thing and get it over with. Churchill was right when he said winning the war is no trouble, but getting them to let us win is.

What are we going to do about Iran?

Chesshire by Severn
Canada
.

Posted by: Augurwell at November 22, 2005 05:56 AM

Oh yes, Iran. What the Democrats fail to realize, is if they get their wish, losing in Iraq, they will have to deal with Iran. Regardless of how it is phrased, this is NOT another Vietnam. The potential consequences are much, much bigger and closer to home. They are attempting to dig their own graves.

Posted by: Christine at November 22, 2005 06:58 AM

As much respect as I have for veterans...can we finally admit that simply showing up to war doesn't necessarily make one a military strategist?

Posted by: Dorian Davis at November 22, 2005 12:07 PM

And furthermore, who the hell is Murtha? Why is this news?

Posted by: Dorian Davis at November 22, 2005 12:08 PM

Jake:

Whenever I read someone using the phrase "cut and run" I ususally stop reading because the writer is writing nonsense. The U.S. should only fight wars abroad that are necessary for our vital interests. If it is not in our interests, we should get out. We should not sacrifice more American soldiers so as to not "cut and run." The question is whether the war is worth the money and lives spent, and not whether pulling out is a macho thing or not.

Posted by: Dan at November 22, 2005 01:23 PM

Dan -

Ok. Yes. Yes it is. What we've done in Iraq would have been worth orders of magnitude more money and troops than the relatively small price we paid.

It's obviously impossible to see into the future and know with certainty what would have eventually happened had we not cleaned up that hornets nest, but there were plenty of indications in the 90s that it would eventually lead to massive loss of life. The attacks were clearly escalating as our "leaders" continued to demonstrate their innate fecklessness through strong words followed by zero action.

We're arguably in the finishing stages of this battle, but the war will (MUST) continue. To deny this is to play ostrich with our national security.

Just my $.02. YMMV.

Posted by: DaveG at November 22, 2005 01:38 PM

Howard Dean the angriset man in the land in 2003?

What did he do? Start an unnescessary and disastrous war against a lameduck bogeyman who couldn't hurt the US?

This current administration follows in the steps of other great Republican administrations (see Reagan, Nixon, etc).

Your party of accountability (sorry, that line cracks me up every time) is the party of PARANOIA!!!

Posted by: Robert at November 22, 2005 02:11 PM

Wow.

Anyone ever check out the Autorantic Virtual Moonbat over at Moonbat Monitor? The typical response bears close resemblance to Robert's post.

To wit:

1) ignoring the point of saying that "Howard Dean was the angriest man in America in 2003"; that point being that getting mad does not of itself bring election results.

2) at least 2 descriptors of the war, at all times("unecessary and disastrous") both of whose characterizations are debatable.

3) Making allusions irrelevant to the subject at hand (Reagan and Nixon), or at least whose context is unclear.

4) unfunny witticism, complete with caps and at least three exclamation points.

It's oddly reassuring to see a stereotype so cleanly validated.

Posted by: Andrew at November 22, 2005 03:05 PM

Start an unnescessary and disastrous war against a lameduck bogeyman who couldn't hurt the US?

Gee, did you come up with all of that on your own?
I ask because it is so original!!
Like, nobody on the left has ever Monday morning QB'd the threat of Saddam.
Ever!

Anyway, anyone suggesting Murtha, who advised Clinton to get out of Somolia which only emboldened OBL, has some sort of insight into operational level war planning is being silly.

Posted by: The Ace at November 23, 2005 09:45 AM

I think Murtha was Kerry's butt-boy in Vietnam, wasn't he? Same who cut the cheese? facial expression.

Posted by: Soak Hinson at November 23, 2005 09:52 AM

Instalance, baby.

Posted by: Sean at November 23, 2005 10:00 AM

Whenever I read someone using the phrase "cut and run" I ususally stop reading because the writer is writing nonsense.

I suppose "exit strategy" is your preferred euphamism.

The U.S. should only fight wars abroad that are necessary for our vital interests. If it is not in our interests, we should get out.

And my Commander in Chief should, once he has determined that an objective is of vital interest, be given the benefit of the doubt and we the armed forces should be given full moral support of the American public. He should have the same right to criticize his critics as they him. Debate over the war should not be predicated on the assumption that America is automatically guilty and its enemies automatically innocent. Debate over war in general should not be predicated on the assumption that the transient cessation of military operations is automatically a morally superior course of action. Debate over the conduct of soldiers should not be predicated on the assumption that they are guilty until proven innocent of the abuse of EPWs.

The question is whether the war is worth the money and lives spent, and not whether pulling out is a macho thing or not.

At the very least, when we're fighting someone who wants us to run away, you could fucking hold off demanding to know when we're going to run away. It's not a "size of our pee pees" thing so much as a "that's why they're shooting at us / blowing us up" thing.

Posted by: scooby at November 23, 2005 10:10 AM

What does McCain know about Foreign Policy?

He spent six years in a bamboo cage in Hanoi and that makes him an expert on the military?

Posted by: kos(just kidding) at November 23, 2005 10:15 AM

kos/just_kidding — Actually, I never thought so. And how many of the people championing Murtha because he's a vet will support Ollie North's next run for office?

Posted by: richard at November 23, 2005 10:25 AM

The current discussion on the 2,000 casualties and withdrawing from Iraq is already having unintended reprecussions in Asia:

East Asia allies doubt U.S. could win war with China

"The governor said the U.S. military could not counter a wave of millions of Chinese soldiers prepared to die in any onslaught against U.S. forces. After 2,000 casualties, he said, the U.S. military would be forced to withdraw."

Read the rest at:
http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/slasheastasia_1.htm

As elections have consequences, so have words. Cut & Run Democrats and their Party of Surrender may actaully be encouraging China and a future World War.

Posted by: Timothy at November 23, 2005 10:36 AM

There really is something to the Democratic love affair with total 'moral authority', at least when the figure supports their pov. Needless to say, it is completely fallacious logic to appeal to authority in this way. Sure, a veteran has unique and valuable insights into warfare. But that doesnt make his arguments bullet proof by any means. Attacking a mans judgement is _not_ attacking his patriotism.

Posted by: Mark Buehner at November 23, 2005 10:36 AM

What is the Dem's worst nightmare? That W fails miserably or is fabulously successful?

Posted by: Jim Gillespie at November 23, 2005 10:38 AM

Poor Kerry, still feeling victimized by the "attack" of the Swift Boat Veterans. Can you imagine the MSM feeding frenzy that would have erupted if 95% of the officers who served with Bush in the TANG had joined to declare him "unfit to command"? Somehow I think the TANG Veterans for Truth would have gotten a slightly warmer reception from the likes of Katie and Matt, not to mention Dan and Mary "I have no Vendetta" Mapes.

Posted by: Steve O at November 23, 2005 10:47 AM

Murtha also counselled us to leave Somalia, and used the same patronizing pitying of the troops argument.

Osama said that our running away in Somalia gave him the idea that the Great Satan was vulnerable.

Posted by: Yehudit at November 23, 2005 10:52 AM

Andrew,

Thanks for introducing me to the "Autorantic Virtual Moonbat". I think you are exactly right about Roberts comments. Certainly, debate is limited when the opposing response is so predictable. As Karol mentions, the DNC seems intent, either at the National or grassroots level, of retreading ideas that didn't work in 2002 or 2004. Its a shame, because W has some weaknesses that I would like to see improved upon, but the DNC is not providing a qualified alternative.

Posted by: Leland at November 23, 2005 11:24 AM

Jake said "We have won and Murtha wants to cut and run. He has forgotten what is to be a marine."

Murtha's problem is not that he's forgotten what it is to be a marine. It's much larger. He's forgotten what it is to be a winner. He professes a desire to wage war against terrorists around the world. A scenario in which it is impossible to find an enemy that doesn't want to be found and cannot be fought unless on our on territory. Something happened in Murtha's past that reconciled him to accepting himself as a loser. Sadly one with such potential has aligned himself only with other losers.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at November 23, 2005 11:27 AM

The "chicken hawk" meme is that hemlock the Democrats just can't keep from drinking. (Funny that the emailer mentions Rumsfeld, who was a Navy pilot.)

Besides - does anyone who takes the defense of our nation seriously really want to be defended by Jenna Bush?

Posted by: Crank at November 23, 2005 11:50 AM

Once again the democrats demonstrate their basic misunderstanding of everything involved here, from using veterans (honorable or dishonorable) as having unimpeachable, unquestionable moral authority just on the basis of their service, to thinking the US could just drop our guns and walk out without any negative consequenses, like emboldening al Quaeda to attack us here again. In these precarious times, these people simply cannot be trusted to make the right decision and we mustn't elect them to any positions of authority, period. There's too much at stake.

Posted by: midwest mama at November 23, 2005 11:52 AM

It has become undeniably clear the Democrats and other quislings hate George Bush and the Republicans far more than they do America's enemies. It is equally clear they are more than happy to sacrifice America's security, in both the short and long term, if it enables them to defeat George Bush and the Republicans.

Notwithstanding this fact, it is still unfair for the rest of us to question their patriotism, don't you know...

Posted by: Tim at November 23, 2005 11:59 AM

"As we say in Marketing, an anecdote is worth a thousand data points."

So, the actual truth isn't the issue, it's the front you're putting up?
Anyone who cares about America should vote against politicians like this. They'll twist in the wind when tough decisions need to be made.

Posted by: Half Canadian at November 23, 2005 12:19 PM

Dorian,

We can admit that when the Democrats concede that NO ONE on their side of the aisle has any credibility, and humbly start learning the ropes of military strategy.

Posted by: PSGInfinity at November 23, 2005 01:20 PM

Democrats are once again shooting themselves in the foot. Americans have a natural suspicion with Demcrats when it comes to relying upon them for our national defense. They have an advantage when Americans consider populist ideas like education, health care, money for the poor. After Hurricane Katrina and the GM job losses, they could make significant gains in 2006. But instead they choose to make the election about Iraq, thus emphasizing their weakest attribute. Strange. But as a Republican, I hope they keep doing it.

Posted by: Florence Schmieg at November 23, 2005 01:33 PM

After abandoning Vietnam, Beiruit, and Somalia, the impression was made that the United States is unable to endure casualties.

This was emphasized by the Powell Doctrine, which made force protection a major U.S. concern, and which dictated the structure of the Gulf War, our interventions in the Balkans, and the dilatory airstrike "campaigns" Clinton launched against Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Emboldened by this, Osama Bin Laden told his followers that while they may occasionally provoke a sharp response from the United States, the U.S. was unwilling to spend blood to win, and that therefore it was perfectly possible for ill-equipped terrorists, with patience, to defeat the United States. After all, in Bin Laden's analysis, they toppled the Soviet Union with the same tactics.

And the Left in the United States is doing its damndest to prove Bin Laden correct. Two thousand dead is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to any real war's casualties; to retreat because of that few deaths proves the United States will not allow itself to even try to win, and thus that the destruction of the United States merely requires time.

Withdrawing from Iraq will serve as an engraved invitation for terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, the terrorists secure in the knowledge that mere patience on their part, coupled with the Will of Allah, will be sufficient to destroy the United States.

Posted by: Warmongering Lunatic at November 23, 2005 01:39 PM

If the brainiacs in the DNC want to win an election they'll realize that the evident morons who voted for Bush because they're too stupid to vote for the intellectually superior Dem candidates that not only have the ability to survive a life threatening splinter gash in the ass, but to also cleverly vote to support a war that they really don't support but will support unless the support isn't politically expedient at which point they'll withdraw their support, then they'll create a focus group to examine the primary educational system of the United States, run some polls, fund some research and call their local elementary schools to find out that the unwashed masses actually have been taught to read all the way up to and possibly beyond a high school level and can therefore decipher their cynical strategerizing that is designed for no other purpose than to bamboozle us just long enough to vote them into office.

Then they would stop.

Posted by: bb at November 23, 2005 01:56 PM

Matt wrote - "There isn't a finite number of insurgents."

Incoherence spreads quickly.

Christine wrote - "What the Democrats fail to realize, is if they get their wish, losing in Iraq, they will have to deal with Iran."

No problem from their angle. They'll just say that it's Bush's fault because there wouldn't be a problem if we had stayed out of Iraq. A crock, of course.

Dan wrote "Whenever I read someone using the phrase 'cut and run' I ususally stop reading because the writer is writing nonsense... The question is whether the war is worth the money and lives spent, and not whether pulling out is a macho thing or not."

Whenever I read someone using the phrase 'macho' or other childish and imaginary accusations, I respond once and then permanently ignore them because I know the writer is writing merely to insult, not present a reasoned argument.

Posted by: Jim C. at November 23, 2005 02:16 PM

Here's the "exit strategy" that we've used in the past. Win a war with like minded allies, help a new/established government get started, station troops in various locations in that country, financially support the new/established government.

Just a quick examination on the various overseas military installation web sites shows the following:

Germany = 27 bases
Italy = 7 bases
UK = 6 bases
Belgium = 2 bases
Turkey = 2 bases
Netherlands = 1 base
Greece = 1 base
Potugal = 1 base
Spain = 1 base

Japan = 10 bases
South Korea = 9 bases

Other = 7 bases

USA = 216 bases

Posted by: dkj at November 23, 2005 02:23 PM

Just a quick note, my comment section is a little wonky. If you get an error message, that just means your comment is being held for my approval. Please do not repost the comment. Thanks for visiting!

Posted by: Karol at November 23, 2005 02:38 PM

Congressman Murtha earned the right to be listened to with great attention by serving three decades with the Marine Corps and earning his Bronze Star (with v markings if I'm not mistaken). A medal is no ward against nonsense, senility, or poor judgment and since Congressman Murtha has demonstrated at least two of the above, we should, respectfully, dispose of his arguments quickly and get back to the important business of winning this war.

Von Bek - The President of Iraq thinks the Iraqi army will be ready to take over for us at the end of 2006. Since he's betting his life on that, I think that a further year of our best efforts is worth backing his bet. The war will be won when we've gone and the Iraqi army kicks the insurgents tails to the point where peace breaks out. At that point, Sistani can calmly proceed with his existing plans to erase the fitna of Khomeinism and launch a jihad against Tehran.

And *that* is when things get interesting for the West. Who will France, Russia, and Germany support? Will they really support an authoritarian state against a liberal democracy in order to maintain the Persian Gulf realpolitik balance?

Matt - The suicide bombers are strapping semtex on the mentally retarded. They're whipping people in secret kangaroo courts. Is there any doubt that the people of Iraq hate this and will fight it to the limits of their abilities?

Every month between 7k-10k of trained troops and police are created. The attrition rate on the other end is much lower. That means that every month we're closer to having an Iraqi security sector that can handle its own business. That'll be a major step towrds victory. Final victory is when they win it and demonstrate that arab liberal democracy is more stable than autocracy. That's the brass ring because it'll eviscerate the realist critique. Once the realists are on board, there's a durable majority for supporting ME reform and entrenching our good work in Iraq.

Time will do the rest.

Posted by: TM Lutas at November 23, 2005 02:44 PM

Chickenhawk Argument...

http://boghieonyoursix.blogspot.com/2005/08/i-shouldnt-do-this-but.html

A cursory review of Congress (Senate and House) demonstrates that about 2% of its members have children on active duty in the military. That is about the same percentage as America on the whole. This is limited to children of military age.

However, the same review showed:

Republicans
231 + 55 = 286 - Population of Republican Congress Critters
8 - Republican Critter Kiddies on active duty
2.8% - Ratio of Republican Critter Kiddies serving

Democrats
203 + 44 = 247 - Population of Democratic Congress Critters
2 - Democratic Critter Kids on active duty
0.8% - Ratio of Democratic Critter Kiddies serving

There does appear to be a difference...

Make your own observations...

Posted by: Boghie at November 23, 2005 02:59 PM

Matt sez that we can't use the kill ratio or the numbers of insurgents/terrorists killed as a metric to judge the success or failure of the pacification of Iraq, because "the number of insurgents isn't finite." What utter rubbish!

If Matt is right, the number of insurgents must therefore be infinite... and that is obviously incorrect.

We have made a strategic error by not publishing the #s of insurgents/terrorists killed and by not publicizing the kill ratio. By keeping the population of the Middle East ignorant of how badly we are kicking ass, we let our opponents push the fiction that they can stand up to us and defeat us militarily.

Wars are not started on a whim, and are only won when one side is unable to continue either for moral or physical reasons. Take WWII... the Japanese could have continued to fight (and die) but they surrendered because the Japanese leadership finally realized that the only thing they could control in August 1945 was not whether they could defeat the US or even force us to negotiate on favorable terms, but whether or not more Japanese would die.

Similarly, the insurgents in Iraq are pretty much shot; the reversal of the Sunni leadership position from boycotting elections to urging universal participation in the electoral process is a clear sign that the leadership has realized that they cannot win militarily and that if they are to have any say in post-Saddam Iraq they must engage in the political process. Yes, there are a very few Baathist diehards who will not quite and who must be killed, but the reversal is tacit recognition by the Sunnis that the insurgency is doomed.

The terrorists are a different matter. They really aren't playing with a full deck, and while publicizing terrorist defeats and setbacks will deter all but the most fanatic foreigners from making the trek to Iraq (where we can easily kill them), the terrorist leadership really has no choice; this is a war to the knife and it is either us or them. So, the best strategy is to continue increasing the tempo of operations against Al Quaeda in Iraq, killing their leaders faster than they can be replaced, and furthering their isolation from the Iraqi population.

We are winning in Iraq by every measurable standard. The only way we can lose is if we unilaterally abdicate the battlefield. Doing so would mean that the terrorists would be able to pull down Iraq, have control of tens of billions of petro-dollars to fund further operations against the West, and emerge stronger. Winning makes sacrifice heroic; quitting makes sacrifice meaningless. Is that what the Dems want?

Posted by: jgc at November 23, 2005 03:02 PM

I agree with Matt that the ratio of "American Troops Killed/Insurgents Killed" isn't a useful measure of success. After all, we'd be more than satisfied if they had all simply surrendered to us without any fighting whatsoever. There are so many more useful measures, such as "Dictators Overthrown" (at least one) or "Cities with Restored Infrastructures" (I don't know, actually; does anyone else know?) or even "Total number of Iraqi Peacekeepers who Aren't Against The U.S." (this one's seen a lot of growth since the start of the war).

Also, Matt, I'm fairly certain you meant to say that the insurgents are constantly recruting more members; as a mathematician wannabe, I can't let your use of "finite" slide without reprimand.

Posted by: reneviht at November 23, 2005 03:45 PM

"Decorated War Hero" does not equal "Brilliant Military Strategist". Never has. Never will.

Posted by: Laurie at November 23, 2005 03:47 PM

Andrew, you're wrong.
Well, rather, not up to date.

The latest in MB Technology is the 3-part alliteration.

"By misrepresenting the facts, misunderstanding Iraq, and misleading on the war, this Administration has brought us to the verge of a national security debacle." Joe Biden Today

Posted by: Tommy G at November 23, 2005 03:50 PM

Oh, by the way - was thinking on the way home from base about another fallacy in the CH meme.

Those 5 geniuses I spent the gulf war with in the back of a Bradley - yeah, like I'd really want any of them working in the white house.
Hell, I was one of them...

Posted by: Tommy G at November 23, 2005 04:00 PM

Nothing wrong with cut and run. Our enemies will see to that.

If cut and run emboldens them we may very well wind up with a nuke war with a Dem in office. A rather high price for electoral victory. The Dems will deserve it.

Who could see in 1936 that a small short war with Germany at the cost of 10,000 lives would save millions? Are we in the same position now? Unfortunately there is only one way to find out.

Posted by: M. Simon at November 23, 2005 05:39 PM

I wonder. . . had there been just a few less "Aw man, you're just being paranoid" types in the Clinton administration (you know, the post-modern, post-history, Me-generation, military haters we were so in awe of in the 90s), maybe 9/11 could have been avoided? How many writers/analysts talked about the terrorist threat in the 90s only to be told by various leftists that they were being paranoid militarist imperialists?

Posted by: Crotchety at November 23, 2005 06:08 PM

Crotchety,

Unfortunately a lot of the skeptics in the Clinton Administration were Congressional Republicans. Their preference was to wag the dick while claiming the Democrats were wagging the dog.

i.e. The shoes were on the other feet.

Proving once again that we get the government we deserve.

Posted by: M. Simon at November 23, 2005 06:38 PM

Scooby:

I prefer neutral decriptive terms than highly emotional terms. Exit strategy is fine. Retreat is fine. However, 'Cut and run' is a perjorative.

I also do not trust our Commander in Chief. I like to think we still live in a constitutional republic where the president does not have an unlimited right to wage war just because he thinks so. President Bush does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. He exaggerated the WMD threat in the prelude to the war, was wrong about the end of major combat in Iraq, and did not seem to have a well thought out plan about what to do once Iraq was occupied. He no longer has my trust, and apparently has the trust of fewer and fewer Americans.

I also do not think America is always wrong in international conflicts, but I do think that the war in Iraq is wrong. I also do believe that peace is better than war in almost all cases.

Tim:

The problem is not the critics of the war on Iraq. The problem is that the Bush administration has overextended the U.S. by involving us in a war that is not a vital interest of the U.S. This war has weakened us, not strengthened us and helps other countries who may be our adversaries.

Jim C:

I call it as I see it. 'Cut and run' is a childish phrase. If it is not used by those trying to appeal to emotions, I do not know what it is.

Posted by: Dan at November 25, 2005 11:28 PM

Dan:

"Exit strategy" or "retreat" suggest something different from what Murtha advocated.

Did you miss the whole separation of powers lesson in high school? Did you miss the Congressional resolution in 2003?

Have you missed the last two weeks?

Wrong.

Did he share this with you? Because I don't remember hearing that speech.

The recent polls are showing a recent general distrust of all politicians, not just Bush.

How do you achieve peace when olive branches are constantly rejected?

But it is. The possibility of destruction of major US cities by terrorism is absolutely a vital interest of the US, and regional destabilization because of illicit WMD proliferation is a vital interest of not just the US but the world. (I trust we won't have to revisit the evidence that proves these points.)

This country has not been weakened by the war. However, the widespread, misguided criticism of the war has strengthened the enemy. Additionally, the war, rather than helping adversaries of the US, has acted to clarify the opinions of countries around the world concerning radical Islamic terrorism. Philosophical alliances are now clear, which greatly helps the US and its allies.

"Cut and run" is, simply, a pithy putdown of a certain mindset.

MakeMineRed

Posted by: MakeMineRed at November 26, 2005 08:32 PM

Dan:

--I prefer neutral decriptive terms than highly emotional terms. Exit strategy is fine. Retreat is fine. However, 'Cut and run' is a perjorative.

"Exit strategy" or "retreat" suggest something different from what Murtha advocated.

--I also do not trust our Commander in Chief. I like to think we still live in a constitutional republic where the president does not have an unlimited right to wage war just because he thinks so.

Did you miss the whole separation of powers lesson in high school? Did you miss the Congressional resolution in 2003?

--President Bush does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. He exaggerated the WMD threat in the prelude to the war,

Have you missed the last two weeks?

--was wrong about the end of major combat in Iraq,

Wrong statement and wrong conclusion.

--and did not seem to have a well thought out plan about what to do once Iraq was occupied.

Did he share this with you? Because I don't remember hearing that speech.

--He no longer has my trust, and apparently has the trust of fewer and fewer Americans.

The recent polls are showing a general distrust of all politicians, not just Bush.

-- I also do not think America is always wrong in international conflicts, but I do think that the war in Iraq is wrong. I also do believe that peace is better than war in almost all cases.

How do you achieve peace when olive branches are constantly rejected?

--The problem is not the critics of the war on Iraq. The problem is that the Bush administration has overextended the U.S. by involving us in a war that is not a vital interest of the U.S.

But it is. The possibility of destruction of major US cities by terrorism is absolutely a vital interest of the US, and regional destabilization because of illicit WMD proliferation is a vital interest of not just the US but the world. (I trust we won't have to revisit the evidence that proves these points.)

--This war has weakened us, not strengthened us and helps other countries who may be our adversaries.

This country has not been weakened by the war. However, the widespread, misguided criticism of the war has strengthened the enemy. Additionally, the war, rather than helping adversaries of the US, has acted to clarify the opinions of countries around the world concerning radical Islamic terrorism. Philosophical alliances are now clear, which greatly helps the US and its allies.

--I call it as I see it. 'Cut and run' is a childish phrase. If it is not used by those trying to appeal to emotions, I do not know what it is.

"Cut and run" is, simply, a pithy putdown of a certain mindset.

MakeMineRed

Posted by: MakeMineRed at November 26, 2005 08:39 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?