« IRS Plays Scrooge in $1 Mil Firefighter Donations | Main | Hate Crime to Hate Speech: The Road to Perdition »
December 10, 2006
The Iraq Study Group Report: Pompous, High Brow Idiocy
That's exactly what the 160-page Iraq Study Group report -- prime fodder for the talking head shows this weekend -- is. There is no other way to put it. An exercise in feel-good mental masturbation (and very little of that) that shows us -- and our enemy -- just what a bunch of conflicted weeny-asses the purported "elder statesmen" who created it are.
We have a thing in Des Moines, Iowa called the Great Ape Trust. As I'm writing this it is all of 10 degrees outside, down from a high of 18. Suffice it to say it took one local philanthropist with too much money and too little brains to decide that a smallish city in the butt-ass freezing cold Midwest was a great place to bring a bunch of baboons and apes to study them.
The purpose of this Great Ape Trust, or so it seems, is to study the apes and attempt to train them to do things that humans might ordinarily do – eat with utensils, watch TV, use sign language to communicate – some have even learned that it creates quite a commotion when you pull the fire alarm. Anyway, you’ve probably heard it said that if you leave an ape in a cage with a canvas and paints and eventually he’ll create the Mona Lisa. Well, it seems to me that if you put a group of baboons in a cage with a computer and enough paper, eventually they could produce something more intelligent than the intellectual bilge from the Iraq Study Group that is right now passing for a thoughtful solution to the situation in Iraq. (I wonder if the editors of the New York Post had this same thing in mind when they put the “surrender monkeys” on their cover the other day?)
Of course, co-baboon -- er chairman of the ISG -- James Baker couldn't disagree with me more. He thinks this muddled bunch of gibberish -- a "consensus" on why we should talk to our enemies while developing a cut and run strategy from Iraq -- is the end all and be all of solutions to the War on Terror as it is currently being fought in Iraq. He started out saying that he hoped parts of the document would be helpful but by the time this idiotic exercise in futility had been hyped beyond belief in the media the, he was saying this before the Senate Armed Services Committee:
"I hope we don't treat this like a fruit salad and say, 'I like this but I don't like that,' This is a comprehensive strategy designed to deal with this problem we are facing in Iraq, but also designed to deal with other problems that we face in the region, and to restore America's standing and credibility in that part of the world.
Yes, it's clear that the esteemed Mr. Baker thinks that this is indeed the end all, be all -- the absolute best, most thoughtful solution to the situation in Iraq and that the president ought to use every last bit of it. He's starting to sound like he's got fruit salad where his brain should be.
The “best” the liberal intelligencia has to offer in foreign policy brilliance thinks that this solution is just peachy keen as well, given that the main objective in the report is to talk to those who want to see us dead. For instance, take this comment from Madeline Albright on Larry King Live (really, he’s still alive) the other night:
You have to talk to your enemies. You make peace with your enemies, not with your friends. And there is no question that both Iran and Syria, especially Iran, has a great deal of influence in the region. So I do hope that they consider talking with Iranians and Syrians. It does not have to be in a one-on-one as has been pointed out, but I do think they need to be brought into the process.
I wonder how the little Clinton foreign policy troll would have liked it if we would have sat down with Adolph Hilter or perhaps conducted a summit with Benito Mussolini to ask him to help us figure out how to get along with Adolph? Perhaps we should have conducted a summit with Emperor Hirohito to beg him not to bomb us anymore. Yes, make peace with Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito; what a wonderful thing that would have been. Speak German or Japanese or take a bullet: What a wonderful choice that would have been for Americans of the 40’s and 50’s – an outstanding “consensus” that everyone could agree on because if there’s one thing we all agree on is that we should all agree.
World history tells us that you can only make peace with evil after beating it to a bloody pulp and making it beg for mercy first. But this basic axiom of international relations apparently escapes the twit Aldumb who is considered a Democratic foreign policy heavyweight and who might just have a prominent place in the next Democrat presidential administration. Whoa is us should we choose to put people in high office who hold this moron in high esteem.
Of course the media is completely enamored with this report. They've been doing nothing but talking in fawning terms about it since its release. The Clinton News Network happily reported the sudden bestseller status of the bound copy of the report in an Associated Press story on its site. Anyone who is stupid enough to go buy a copy of this fish wrap when they could simply download the PDF is probably stupid enough to take every reccomendation in this idiotic report seriously.
As but one example of the media's adulation over "the process", witness this colossal load of unmitigated BS in a Washington Post article concerning the "consensus" represented by this ISG report:
Whether the end result will prove meaningful is another question. A plan emerging from the middle invariably unsettles those at either end who view it as wholly inadequate. Even some of the authors consider the report released yesterday a "messy compromise," as one put it. But the story of how a little-noticed commission created by Congress evolved into a political powerhouse and a symbol of national unity harks back to a different time, when for better or worse "Wise Men" advised presidents and shaped policy.
Wise men (allegedly) who have fewer testicles among them than the one woman on this panel -- this ill-conceived excuse for a thoughtful exit strategy from the global War on Terror. How lucky we are that one of the eunuchs who had a hand in the creation of this report is about to become W’s defense secretary.
The praise of the report from rabid leftists and the media hype is to be expected, but as far as the recommendations go, you don't have to read the whole report to know that it is filled to the brim with the best of leftist blithering idiocy. Just check out a couple of these stunning gems of wisdom from the best liberalism and “consensus” has to offer. Take recommendation #5 for example:
The Support Group should consist of Iraq and all the states bordering Iraq, including Iran and Syria; the key regional states, including Egypt and the Gulf States; the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council; the European Union and, of course, Iraq itself.
We're supposed to take this sophomoric garbage seriously? This recommendation sounds like it could have come from a political science paper written by a freshman college student rather than a group of supposedly esteemed American statesmen and politicians making serious recommendations about issues of war and peace to the leaders of the most powerful nation on the face of the earth. These folks had nine months and undoubtedly a whole compliment of writers, editors and assistants and this is the best they could do? How long did some editor labor over this piece of editorial malpractice before they decided to include it as the lead sentence in one of their recommendations?
How about recommendation #19:
The President and the leadership of his national security team should remain in close and frequent contact with the Iraqi leadership."
Wow, now there's a stunning recommendation! How much of the collective brain power of this massive brain trust did it take to come up with this one?
And of course there's this unique assessment of the situation in Iraq that was a major headline in all the major media outlets over the past couple of days:
After four years of war and the deaths of more than 2,900 U.S. troops, the situation is "grave and deteriorating," and the United States' ability "to influence events within Iraq is diminishing," the commission warned in an unsparing report.
Reading a few more of these pearls of wisdom is all you need to do to figure out that James Baker is right on at least one point: This is a fruit salad, it's a rotten fruit salad, and the whole thing needs to be thrown out. What we have here is a bunch of long-winded gasbags completely caught up in themselves and their "process". This idiotic report has about as much to do with the War on Terror in Iraq as this month's issue of Playboy magazine. It's about a bunch of pompous, self-congratulatory jackasses caught up in their own self-importance at the expense of our status as the world’s superpower and the sole defender of democracy and freedom around the world. This document doesn’t even deal with the fact that we are waging a global War on Terror. Instead, it is a political compromise – a “consensus” – designed to give the leaders of the only nation capable of leading the fight against radical Islam around the globe cover to turn tail and run from a particularly unpopular front in the War on Terror.
Yes that’s right – SURPRISE!! – Iraq is just one part of the overall global War on Terror. In case the “intellectual heavyweights” who conceived this mumbo jumbo of a report and their slavish followers the “consensus” commie libs haven’t figured it out, the radical Islamist nutcases don’t care WHERE they fight us. Right now it just happens to be in Iraq but it could just as easily be somewhere else – in Europe for instance, or perhaps even here if we keep heading down the path we are heading – and what we are telling them in this document is that we want to get out and furthermore we’d just love to talk to them about HOW they think we should get out.
Consider this absurdity from page 43 of the report:
In order to foster such consensus, the United States should embark on a robust diplomatic effort to establish an international support structure intended to stabilize Iraq and ease tensions in other countries in the region. This support structure should include every country that has an interest in averting a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq’s neighbors—Iran and Syria among them. Despite the well-known differences between many of these countries, they all share an interest in avoiding the horrific consequences that would flow from a chaotic Iraq, particularly a humanitarian catastrophe and regional destabilization.
Iran and Syria have an interest in averting a chaotic Iraq? I don’t know where these “wise” numbskulls have been hiding out for the past three years, but creating chaos in Iraq has been Iran’s objective since the end of the formal hostilities and it is exactly our failure to deal with that problem correctly that has caused the majority of the problems we are having in Iraq right now.
Furthermore, were these high-brow idiots not paying attention to Iran’s president on the manifold occasions when he has sworn to see the destruction of Israel and furthermore, all of us in the U.S.? This guy denies the Holocaust happened while at the same time planning another Holocaust to occur this time in the Middle East. How can anyone in their right mind even think about “talking to” evil such as this? What are we to expect, however, from a group of folks who basically recommend throwing those dastardly Israelis overboard in an attempt to appease the radial Islamists?
Speaking of throwing Israel overboard, doing as the ISG recommends plays right into Syria's hand. In case these bimbos haven’t noticed, Syria is funding the Palestinian terrorists who are giving the Israelis a major pain in their ass while the world decries Israel for defending themselves.
As far as “avoiding the horrific consequences that would flow from a chaotic Iraq, particularly a humanitarian catastrophe and regional destabilization” go, do they not understand that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has predicted the end of the world in the next three years through global jihad and has stated his intention to help bring that about? A radial Islamic nutcase who envisions world destruction could give a rat’s ass about “humanitarian catastrophe” because he considers creating a “humanitarian catastrophe” to be his divine province.
Given these facts about Iran and Syria, how in God’s name could any self-respecting elder statesman with a brain possibly think that talking to the premier sponsors of terror in the world about ending the violence in Iraq is a solution to anything? And here we have eight supposed elder statesmen putting forth as one of their major recommendations talking to terrorists about ending terror – something which will work as well as it has every single time it’s tried which is to say – NOT!!
If the product of the ISG, this steaming pile of dog crap with a cherry on top, serves any purpose at all it is this: It demonstrates very clearly just how out of touch with reality the members of the D.C. brain trust are and how dangerous it would be to trust them with recommending strategy in the most important war since World War II – the global War on Terror of which Iraq is a major piece.
Speaking of the War on Terror, reading what little of this report as I have has given me the distinct impression that these folks – like the liberal media and the liberals who are about to run the halls of congress – can’t even go so far as to acknowledge the seriousness of the world situation. If they did understand that we stand on a dangerous precipice and stand to lose our democracy in one or two generations if we fail to take decisive action now perhaps they would have dealt with the important and relevant questions surrounding the conflict such as:
• Since we have been engaging in this huge contorted catharsis about what to do in Iraq, what is the enemy doing? Have we heard about any terrorist groups convening a United States Study Group wringing their hands about how to end the violence in Iraq and fretting about how to get out of there? Of course not. I think everyone would agree that this would be absurd – about as absurd as us convening an Iraq Study Group, wringing our hands and fretting about how to end the violence in Iraq. Why aren’t the terrorists as worried about the violence in Iraq as we are? Because they are in this to win. They don’t care about killing civilians; they don’t care about torturing captives; they don’t care about destroying infrastructure; they don’t care about creating as much mayhem as they possibly can. They are going to win at all costs and are laughing their asses off at the pansy-asses across the pond that have the best and most powerful military in the world but won’t let it do its job because they worry about all of the aforementioned items than they do about winning the major war of our generation.
• Along these lines, do any of the members of this Iraq Stupidity Group really think that “the situation is grave and deteriorating” is some kind of a unique assessment of the situation in Iraq? It’s a frickin’ WAR for God’s sake! War is, by its very nature, a grave situation. The key is to use your military to its full potential to dominate and win the conflict – something our brave men and women are more than capable of doing if only we would allow them to. It is the policies and pronouncements of goofballs like the members of this commission and Nancy Pelosi who consider this not a WAR but a “situation to deal with” that have caused the “and deteriorating” part of the above brilliant assessment that took nine months, eight jackasses and 44 staff members to come up with.
• Why is it that the word “success” appears 16 times in one form or another but the word “victory” appears only three times in 160 pages and those refer to the “propaganda victory” for the terrorists – none of them refer to a strategy for victory for in Iraq or in the War on Terror as a whole. Success can be interpreted in any one of five million ways and the way the ISG obviously interprets it is to gracefully exit Iraq in some kind of pre-determined timeframe. Victory can be interpreted in only one way – defeating the enemy, radical Islam - and leaving the Middle East to explode under the rule of radical Islam upon our exit is not the route to victory. Completely dominating the enemy, bringing it to its knees and ridding the world of the threat of terrorism is the only victory.
Fortunately, it appears that, despite the initial praise for this ridiculous waste of paper – this blueprint for surrender in the War on Terror – President Bush doesn’t intend to implement many of the ISG’s recommendations. Let’s hope he realizes, as all rational people should, that this report is a pompous exercise in surrender and defeat create by a bunch of pompous asses who are too enamored with their own sense of self-importance to act in the best interest the American people and the world community.
Posted by Steve at December 10, 2006 12:43 PM
Copyright © 2007 by author. May not be copied, published, or otherwise used (except for brief quotes) without express permission of author. Articles published with permission by Pardon My English.
-->Comments
Yes, the ISG report is very disappointing. It's really something like a group report handed in at the last minute by a gaggle of grad students who barely care if they pass. There's nothing in it that isn't either already being done or has already been established by the people who have to do it as impossible (like the idea of working with Iran and Syria, who flat out told Baker and Hamilton they weren't interested.)
And, memo to Mister Baker: I don't know what kind of dinners and picnics you go to, but you don't "pick and choose" out of fruit salad. It's too sticky. Perhaps you are thinking of a cheese plate. Much easier to be selective with.
Well, perhaps General Pace can come up with something.
Posted by Kerry ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.pardonmyenglish.com//nav-commenters.gif)
at December 11, 2006 08:58 AM
What can I say? It brings a smile to my face to see Steve so upset over something like this. Now Bush-boosters know how it feels to think the world has gone crazy while you were sleeping last night.
I'm curious to know what course Steve or others would recommend for Iraq. Yes, I know, "stay the course". But let's pose a hypothetical question: what if that strategy doesn't work? What's plan B? And when do we decide that this is the case? Or are we simply unable to imagine that our plans could go awry? I'd like to know what you guys think would consider to be an irredeemable situation, so I can remind you of it when we're there in another year or two. At which point, I'll ask "why did it take you so long to realize this?"
I've already explained why I think it's nigh-impossible to "win" in Iraq, and why the unending torrent of stupid comparisons to the glory days of world war 2 are laughable. I've also explained why I think that if we had a window to make this work, we've probably squandered it. So let's not get too far into "can we 'win' Iraq?". I'm asking what your plan is if we can't, and how we should determine that, and how many people (American and Iraqi) should die until you come to this conclusion. And if this is how things come to pass, then we can talk about "evil".
Posted by Some Fella at December 11, 2006 07:06 PM
Stay the course? Stay the course is a ridiculous bunch of crap. This particular front in the War on Terror would have been done with years ago if we would have just let our military do what they do best -- kick ass without worrying about colateral damage, "torturing" terrorists, respecting terrorist "holy sites", refusing to go after imbedded terrorists and all the other ridiculous PC nonsense we call modern warfare. This is a frickin' war and we are fighting it like like some kind of PC romper room. How many civilians (and military folks) could we have saved had we gone in and mopped this thing up in two years instead of the current four? Our military is the best in the world and are more than capable of wrapping this thing up, they just have to be allowed to do what they are capable of. A bunch of alleged D.C. eggheads have no business recommending strategy in the most important war we may fight for generations.
Posted by Steve at December 11, 2006 10:08 PM
respecting terrorist "holy sites"
Steve,
Do you honestly want to pick a fight with the entire Muslim world? If your stupid enough to fall for dare of some idiotic terorist, and indiscriminately obliterate the wrong historic mosque in Iraq, you will shortly bring down the wrath of 1 billion muslims, and the condemnation of the rest of the world, who at that point will probably have very little sympathy for us, or interests in defending our actions.
But I am not surprised, just like your pals Bush and Cheney, you may know how to start a fight, but having no idea of the fight your picking, you'd have no idea how to finish it.
Posted by ahmanrah at December 12, 2006 05:40 AM
"Do you honestly want to pick a fight with the entire Muslim world?"
They "picked the fight" on September 11, 2001. Since they want to kill us, yes. I think it is best to resist them.
"If your stupid enough to fall for dare of some idiotic terorist, and indiscriminately obliterate the wrong historic mosque in Iraq,"
Okay, you pick it, then. Which one is the "right" historic mosque to obliterate?
I pick the one that's occupied by hidden terrorists and filled with munitions.
"you will shortly bring down the wrath of 1 billion muslims,"
But, wait. I thought only a small minority were violent. What would "wrath" be, but violence? Are you saying that the other 80% are peaceful--but only to a point?
To me, that's violent.
"and the condemnation of the rest of the world, who at that point will probably have very little sympathy for us, or interests in defending our actions."
What? You mean the way they do now? Give me a break. The world hates us. They hated us long before the Clinton administration. They've hated us almost continuously since 1948. They hated us over Korea. They hated us over Vietnam. They didn't even like us during Bosnia (because we stepped in) and Rwanda (because we didn't.)
They just HATE us.
And if they do, so what? Our values are not right because others share them. Others will share them because they are right, if they are capable of discerning that. That's why recently oppressed people actually like us a whole lot more than those who have been living in socialist luxury off the rest of the world for fifty years or more.
The problem we have now is that we are living in a nation in which the majority of those that vote have finally (perhaps irrevocably) lost the notion of what government is supposed to be. For those who rejected victory in November, thirsting for an ignominious defeat--as long as it is merciful--in Iraq, the purpose of government is to make us comfortable, to take care of us, and to supply not only our wants and our needs, but, when necessary, to abandon reality in order to follow the fantasy we dictate to them. They don't care about what's right, or what's best. All they care about is what looks easiest.
I knew we would be in trouble as soon as the children of the sixties came to what should have been maturity. Instead, as they run the world they continue to run down leadership, patriotism, values, and virtue.
License is the new liberty. Amorality is the new law.
We are in very big trouble.
"But I am not surprised, just like your pals Bush and Cheney, you may know how to start a fight, but having no idea of the fight your picking, you'd have no idea how to finish it."
Oh, we know how to finish it. But the "international community" won't stand for it.
Posted by Kerry at December 12, 2006 12:32 PM
"What can I say? It brings a smile to my face to see Steve so upset over something like this."
I always knew liberals were nasty and unashamed of it, but one so rarely gets such a naked admission of it. Most decent people would be ashamed to admit such a thing.
Posted by Kerry at December 12, 2006 12:33 PM
Kerry,
Lets get real here. How the crap do you think Catholics and Christians in general would react if the US were at war with Italy and deliberately bombed the Vatican and all its historical buildings.
If half or more of the Catholics on Earth didn't want revenge, I would be amazed. So why can't you get it through your thick skull, that blowing up the wrong mosque in Iraq, some of which are revered by the whole muslim world, might have the same effect.
And I don't know what it is, whether your a masocist, or one of these loons that thirsts for armagedon, but the entire Muslim world did not pick a fight with us 9/11, a bunch of crazy nuts did. Your insistence on pigeon holing all Muslims, simply shows your ignorance and bigotry. How Un-Christian of you. Mother Theresa would be disappointed.
Posted by ahmanrah at December 12, 2006 01:14 PM
If Italy decides to hide bombs and terrorists in the Vatican, I expect the military to blow it to smithereens. I don't particularly care what's in it. It's all just stuff. If it saves lives to level it, so be it.
If only a few Muslims "picked the fight" then the rest of them should be even-tempered if we have to obliterate some terrorist nests and munitions dumps that are masquerading as holy sites.
That's how they prove they're not on the side of the terrorists.
Posted by Kerry at December 12, 2006 01:18 PM
"How Un-Christian of you. Mother Theresa would be disappointed."
Since you seem to think this is supposed to wound me somehow, I guess I need to tell you that I don't particularly care what Mother Teresa would think of me. Although she did fine work and was a great woman, she and I have a number of theological disagreements--most notably her vision of Buddhism.
So, if you were aiming for my theological heart, you missed.
But I just know you'll try again.
Posted by Kerry at December 12, 2006 01:23 PM
World history tells us that you can only make peace with evil after beating it to a bloody pulp and making it beg for mercy first.
This is total BS. If history were all about never compromising with your enemy, we'd all live in one big happy world-wide country where goodness reined supreme or everyone would be dead from constant warfare. But we have neither scenario. Instead we still have a bunch of countries (many with a history of fighting each other) all over the world, none of which holds the supreme banner of righteousness, including the United States.
Posted by ahmanrah at December 12, 2006 01:31 PM
This particular front in the War on Terror would have been done with years ago if we would have just let our military do what they do best -- kick ass without worrying about colateral damage, "torturing" terrorists, respecting terrorist "holy sites", refusing to go after imbedded terrorists and all the other ridiculous PC nonsense we call modern warfare.
Way to not answer the question, Steve (or anyone). It just goes to show that democrats aren't the only ones lacking in ideas. You conservatives have literally no idea what to do if your plan doesn't work. And guess what? It's not working.
If you're going to give a lot of silly WW2 examples, I can easily shoot down your complaint by comparing Iraq to Vietnam. We didn't fight a "PC" war in Vietnam, and look where that got us? You think these guys will fold over if we just start kicking ass, huh? Well, history doesn't support that. Remember the VC? We kept killing them by the assload, and they kept coming. Funny how people will do that if you occupy their homeland and fuck up their lives.
If you lay waste indiscriminately, you radicalize and alienate people who would not otherwise be that way. How hard is it to understand this? Your faith in the almighty bullet is without limit.
Your new tactic of complaining that we could have just won this war if the democrats hadn't tied our hands...stop this lame-ass shit. You seriously look like a fool every time you do it. Once again, I'll remind you that your boys were totally in charge of things when they started this war.
Their opposition has been completely impotent. You haven't been held back by "democrats". It's the American people who have limits, DUH! Normal Americans care what you do in their names. There was nothing unexpected here.
Get your head out of the sand and stop playing "we never saw this coming". What happened that could not have been foreseen when we went to war? These are all things that need to go into any decision to go to war. If the only way to win is to do things that will be domestically unacceptable, then you're not going to win! But of course I strongly disagree with your assessment that these measures would have "wrapped things up in two years", which is why I'm one of those American citizens who stands in the way of your insane scorched earth policy.
From ahmanrah's conversation:
This is total BS.
I couldn't say it any better. Kerry's statement here was so blissfully naive that I didn't even know where to start, and just left it alone.
They "picked the fight" on September 11, 2001. Since they want to kill us, yes. I think it is best to resist them.
Really, the whole Muslim world? I'm afraid that's just nonsense and there's not much else I can say about that.
They just HATE us.
You seem compelled to make broad generalizations that aren't even right in the first place. I think this kind of siege mentality is what drives a lot of your team, and is getting the rest of us in trouble. As someone who has been outside this country a fair amount and, oh I don't know, picks up a book every now and then, I can say that this statement is just not true. Some hate us, some don't, and most foreigners have a more nuanced view of us than you seem to have of them (but not all, and most of them have their own ridiculous misconceptions).
Posted by Some Fella at December 12, 2006 02:28 PM
They just HATE us.
Kerry,
They don't all hate us now, but if this is what you want, bombing everything that is sacred to Muslims will definitely do the trick. So if you and Steve and you want a self-fulfilling prophecy to come true you are on the right track, forunately nobody is stupid enough to give either of you command of US forces and weaponry.
Posted by ahmanrah at December 12, 2006 04:34 PM
By the way, just to make it clear, what the voters think shouldn't have anything whatsoever to do with how the war is pursued.
Running a war by popularity contest will result in tens or hundreds of thousands dead, not just the few thousand we've held it to so far.
Voters don't know anything about military strategy. So it is not only foolish, but suicidal, to let them decide when to stay and when to go.
"They don't all hate us now, but if this is what you want, bombing everything that is sacred to Muslims will definitely do the trick."
Hmmm. An interesting idea. If they were in them at the time, that would render the question moot.
If you don't think they hate us, you've never seen al-Jazeera or talked to anyone who has spent any time in the Middle East as a non-Muslim (or a Muslim for that matter!). And you've apparently not listened to anything the leaders of the Arab world have said about the Jews. It makes Louis Farrakhan look like Jackie Mason.
Posted by Kerry at December 13, 2006 02:40 AM
You know, speaking of military strategy, how have our other wars ended?
Revolutionary War: The British SURRENDERED.
Mexican-American War: Mexico SURRENDERED.
Civil War: The South SURRENDERED.
Spanish-American War: The Spanish SURRENDERED.
World War I: The German army mutinied, and Kaiser Wilhelm RAN AWAY. The German General Staff negotiated an armistice (not technically a surrender, which, as it turns out, caused a lot of trouble in the long run.)
World War II: Part A: Hitler shot himself; Germany SURRENDERED. Part B: President Truman dropped two atomic bombs; Japan SURRENDERED.
Korean War: Idiot peace negotiators attempted for two years to come to agreement, finally settling on a temporary cease fire armistice. Technically, we are STILL AT WAR with North Korea.
Vietnam Conflict (never technically declared a "war," but we'll count it anyway, since it's the Democrat model for international conflict): Official US involvement ended by Paris Peace Accords, which merely abandoned the South. Congress cut off funding. In other words, despite the absence of military victory, we QUIT. [Result: Fall of Saigon; Pol Pot; victory for Soviet-aligned nation; continuation of Cold War; beginnings of tenured radicalism; rise of MSM cultural hegemony.]
Operation Desert Storm: Iraqi army DEFEATED in 4-day ground war. Mandate satisfied.
Operation Enduring Freedom: Taliban government DESTROYED.
To sum up, America wins wars best when she engages in a sustained military effort with no exit strategy but VICTORY. When the weasel peaceniks get their hands on things, we don't get beaten, but we do QUIT.
Fight them until they have nothing left to fight with. As long as the legitimate and sovereign Iraqi government wants our assistance, we have a duty to continue killing terrorists and insurgents. We will win, if we let the military win. If we let the civilians and the voters decide what to do, we will quit.
And then, we will find out that, this time, the price of cowardice is not mere loss of reputation, or standing in the world, or economic instability, or psychological defeat. The consequence of cowardice in this arena is death.
Posted by Kerry at December 13, 2006 11:13 AM
Kerry, that analysis is backwards. The reason we left Vietnam is because it couldn't be won, not the other way around. It's really simple; when you can't win a war, you stop fighting. It's been done countless times in history by many countries, some of which you mention as our former adversaries. Those countries didn't lose because they quit, but they quit because they lost. That's the USUAL reason one side gives up.
Once again, you demonstrate the sheer inability to imagine that we could lose a conflict. In your arrogance, you assume the only possible way we could lose is if we give up.
Posted by Some Fella at December 13, 2006 12:21 PM
Kerry,
Its time for a history lesson.
It is widely believed by military historians that the reason Hilter was able to rise to power in Germany, is because the allies of WWI forced Germany into a humiliating position of paying the war costs of other countries, which ultimately left the country improvished, and its population angry, resentful and susceptible to influence by extremists.
Hmmm....sounds alot like a few countries in the Middle East with US supported despots.
Oh, and as far as the voters controlling wars. Get used to it. As long as voters control who comes and goes from office, we will control everything else. Some politicians who forget that occasionally, and are shocked back into reality. Like your friend Bush, who is tripping all over himself trying to adjust to the new reality of Washington.
Posted by ahmanrah at December 13, 2006 12:46 PM
SF,
The only way to lose IS to give up.
But, since that is the Democrats' first choice option, we'd better get used to it.
The Congressional leadership coming in 07 is right now in training for the French medal in surrender, the highest honor a liberal can achieve (so to speak--we all know that "achievement" isn't in the lib dictionary. Call it an "award"--they're much more egalitarian these days.)
They're hoping for a world championship next year. And the Vegas odds are with them.
Posted by Kerry at December 13, 2006 12:46 PM
Ahmanrah,
What qualifies the voters to run the war?
Do we want to please everybody? Or do we want to WIN?
Posted by Kerry at December 13, 2006 12:53 PM
"It is widely believed by military historians that the reason Hilter was able to rise to power in Germany, is because the allies of WWI forced Germany into a humiliating position of paying the war costs of other countries, which ultimately left the country improvished, and its population angry, resentful and susceptible to influence by extremists."
Not entirely. The key to that theory is that they were primarily resentful because they were led to believe they were winning and then suddenly quit. The people of Germany never really believed they lost at all. They believed they were sold out on November 11, 1911--hence the widely accepted term of military history, the "November criminals."
PS: Who's this: "'aving a lovely day, are we Mister Hilter?" (Extra points for the slightly related, "Don't mention the war!")
Posted by Kerry at December 13, 2006 01:18 PM
Oh, and they couldn't have been that impoverished--they spent the interim years building tons of secret munitions against the terms of the armistice.
Not fully defeating them was not that great an idea. Not wiping out the totality of their warfighting capacity and monitoring their behavior gave them a window to run a unilateral arms race in which they finished first, ahead of all contenders--who were all busy trying to form a one-world government. Another really bad idea.
Posted by Kerry at December 13, 2006 01:23 PM
Kerry,
What qualifies the voters? Their vote and their control of the governments purse. That is not to say they have the best judgement. I mean they picked Bush and look where that got us. Fight a war half-assed that we need to focus on but aren't (Aghanistan). Involved in a war that wasn't needed, and is now a mess (Iraq). Ignoring a conflict we could help solve (Israel/Palestine). And 4 trillion more in debt, and no where closer to being energy independent than we were years ago.
Posted by ahmanrah at December 13, 2006 02:01 PM
The only way to lose IS to give up.
I guess you should spread the word to the armies of the world that as long as they never give up, they will never lose. No matter how little territory they control, or how many men they can field, or how many actual genuine OBJECTIVES they fulfill...as long as they don't actually surrender, they are doing fine.
It sounds like you've forgotten that we went to Iraq to accomplish certain objectives. If we are unable to complete them, I would call that defeat, failure, or whatever you want to call it. No matter what you think, success is not entirely under our control. There are very determined people out there with goals that run counter to ours and they are capable of making an impact (imagine that...non-Americans, making a difference!). Thus, your analysis is DOA.
Posted by Some Fella at December 13, 2006 08:12 PM
The lack of imagination never ends, here. Imagine that America can be incapable of accomplishing its military objectives...how do we respond? No matter how many times I ask the question, you guys find unique ways to not answer it or deny the possibility.
Posted by Some Fella at December 13, 2006 08:13 PM
You have as much as admitted that the voters are not QUALIFIED (as in, possessed of the necessary experience, expertise, understanding, and intuition to accomplish a particular task.)
They are AUTHORIZED, but it would be wise of them to leave it to the people who actually know what they are doing to run the war.
Opinion polls are not a good vehicle through which to get factual information. The number of people who THINK it's going to rain tomorrow has NO impact on whether or not it does.
Posted by Kerry at December 14, 2006 02:11 PM
"It sounds like you've forgotten that we went to Iraq to accomplish certain objectives."
I'd like to know what the libs think those were. I thought our objectives were met. Now we're working on the objectives of the Iraqi government.
Posted by Kerry at December 14, 2006 02:21 PM
I thought our objectives were met.
If our objectives for being in Iraq were met, we wouldn't be there. As you put it, "Now we're working on the objectives of the Iraqi government." Well, I'd disagree with that facile comment, but it isn't even necessary. If we take it at face value, then our objectives are now to accomplish certain things for the Iraqi government. If you think we've accomplished all our objectives, then what are we fighting for? What are we trying to win? I don't care whose objectives you think they are, if we're spending blood and money on them, they have effectively become ours.
But like I said, I disagree that we've accomplished what we set out to do. If you think our objective was as simple as taking out Saddam Hussein, then you've allowed your politicians to define things narrowly enough for you that you can imagine us victorious. The truth is that we went into Iraq to remake the middle east. Iraq was to be our proof of concept that democracy could work in the Arab world. This would serve notice to both despots and religious zealots that they had to watch their step. It would also signal freedom-lovers throughout the middle east that their goals could be accomplished and their time was at hand.
It would ALSO establish for us a very powerful ally in the middle east; one of the most modern states in the region, with a central location ideal for establishing military bases. Someone we could count on to counterbalance countries like Syria and Iran, and maybe even a potential friend of Israel.
At least, that was the neocon dream.
Posted by Some Fella at December 14, 2006 06:00 PM
And no discussion of Iraq as an ally would be complete without mentioning oil. You know, the primary source of industrial energy and natural wealth in our time.
Posted by Some Fella at December 14, 2006 06:02 PM
One more quibble, Kerry. You wanted to know what the "libs" think? I think you need to find out what the "neocons" think. As well as other paleocons. Only those whose eyes are tightly clenched, wishing upon a star, would define our objectives as narrowly as you. If you think your team is united in agreeing with your list of objectives, think again.
Posted by Some Fella at December 14, 2006 06:25 PM
"Only those whose eyes are tightly clenched, wishing upon a star, would define our objectives as narrowly as you. If you think your team is united in agreeing with your list of objectives, think again."
This is interesting. What exactly is MY "list of objectives?" Hint: I didn't give you one. You just projected it into me. A neat rhetorical trick, but not a fair one.
Once again, you prove you are not listening. And you don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by Kerry at December 14, 2006 06:46 PM
Hint: I didn't give you one. You just projected it into me.
Yeah, Kerry, I don't deny that I'm guessing at your list of objectives. Why don't you go ahead and state it? Forgive me if my imagination fails me, this time. It's hard to imagine a set of objectives broader than toppling Hussein that would allow anyone to say we had accomplished them already. I'm genuinely curious.
Once again, you prove you are not listening.
Once again? Wow, I really haven't been paying attention, because I'm pretty sure I haven't proven this.
And you don't know what you're talking about.
Now you're just being mysterious.
Posted by Some Fella at December 15, 2006 03:12 AM
Some fella,
I do not agree that the US was interested in establishing military bases in Iraq. I believe toppling Saddam was the 1st step of an attempt to establish democracy in Iraq as you said.
Bush and his advisors did not take into account religion, culture, ethnic rivary, and utter indifference or even contempt for western values in the muslim world. Not to mention a violent nature and lack of value for human life.
Posted by BenRhodes at December 15, 2006 09:48 AM
I do not agree that the US was interested in establishing military bases in Iraq.
Why not? I mean, why wouldn't we? We've setup bases in plenty of allied nations, like Saudi Arabia. Those bases in particular have attracted a lot of negative attention from hardline Sunnis, so it's always nice to have options if the Saudis are forced to minimize our footprint. I know they've denied it, but you can imagine how much credibility I assign to this administration.
Posted by Some Fella at December 15, 2006 02:15 PM
Actually I suspect, the first objective was to topple Saddam, because he might sell weapons to anyone. But my suspicion is that beyond that our goal was not democracy as an end in itself, but a means to get at Iraq's oil. Cheney's over the top attempts to keep everything about his energy meetings secret, makes me think this.
Plus, if our ultimate goal in the Middle East is to spread democracy, there are far less complicated targets to invade, and bend to our will. The only difference with Iraq I suppose is we had a half-assed excuse.
Posted by ahmanrah at December 15, 2006 02:22 PM
Some Fella,
I do not believe setting up th bases was a principle reason for the invasion. however, at this point it actually seems somewhat likely although probably NOT wanted at this time.
ahmanrah,
to "get Iraq's oil" we only needed lift the sanctions that were previously imposed.
Posted by BenRhodes at December 16, 2006 12:41 PM
I read the president's speech today and immediately thought of this thread. Here's the pertinent comment:
"Our goal remains a free and democratic Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself, and is an ally in this war on terror."
So what do you think the objectives were for invading Iraq, Kerry? So far, you haven't answered either of the questions I've posed on this thread. But then again, you're not alone.
Posted by Some Fella at December 20, 2006 12:47 PM
Note: Comments once posted become the property of Pardon My English. We therefore reserve the right to make use of such in any manner and for whatever purpose we deem appropriate. Please refer to comment policy for further information.
