Excellent post, Dafydd. Always glad to see anyone help dispel the Viet Nam myth. We were winning when I left and still winning right up to the time the Watergate congress surrendered. Excerpted and linked.

Excellent post, Dafydd. Always glad to see anyone help dispel the Viet Nam myth. We were winning when I left and still winning right up to the time the Watergate congress surrendered. Excerpted and linked.

That part is true. The MSM of today, as then, seeks to see this declared a defeat and for us to abandon the Iraqi people to the genocides and terror we did the Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians.
The part that you did not mention is the MSM/DNC/lefties have succeeded in getting us to fight this war on a very political basis, instead of whole heartedly.
The President had best get in control of his message and make sure that the part of Vietnam he is not going to repeat is the cut and run part. People in America are still justifiably angry over the lefties imposing defeat on us. It is up to the Presidential leadership to see that the invitation to victory is made plain.

In other words, the president correctly understands that the only sense in which the enemy in Iraq is "winning" is in the propaganda that they inspire and provoke among the persistently anti-American news media...

Hey, I don't think you (or Bush) can lay all the chaos in Iraq now at the feet of an all-powerful Al-Q pulling the strings of the three ethnic/religious groups killing each other with reckless abandon. They're proving themselves perfectly capable of domestic mayhem without Al-Q's role as sectarian violence cheerleader and facilitator.

I also think we are largely responsible for the chaos because of the lack of sufficient occupation troops after taking Bagdad, and our total mismanagement of the situation thereafter. Maybe the situation can be salvaged, and I sure hope so - see today's Wash. Times article "'Dramatic change of direction' coming for Iraq" by Sharon Behn - but the reason we're in this mess is not solely because of Al-Q and an MSM 5th column, but rather due to our own hopeless fumbling after "Mission Accomplished" in 2003.

Thomas E. Ricks' book Fiasco makes for most depressing reading, and I'm not going to blow it off as a MSM plot in the Uncle Walter mold. Looking back, it makes a lot of sense to me as a description how we got to this sorry state.

“ ... we are largely responsible for the chaos because of the lack of sufficient occupation troops after taking Bagdad, and our total mismanagement of the situation thereafter.”

I don’t buy the argument that the US is responsible for every bad thing in the world because we don’t pour out enough blood and treasure to solve every miserable a..hole’s self-induced problems. We didn’t loot Iraq after we overthrew Saddam. The Iraqis did. We didn’t disband the Iraqi army. The Iraqis did. We didn’t destroy Iraq’s electrical grid. Saddam and the Iraqis did. We didn’t destroy Iraq’s oil infrastructure. Saddam and the Iraqis did. Why should we be responsible for “rebuilding” something that was never built in the first place, we didn’t destroy it and when we rebuild it, they blow it up. We are not stealing Iraq’s oil. The Iraqis are. If the Iraqis wanted to get Al-Qaeda out of Iraq, they can kill all of them in a in a month. Every damn Iraqi has an AK 47 to shoot off at Coalition troops and weddings. They could shoot the Al-Qaeda if they wanted to. They know exactly who they are while we’re at a disadvantage sorting out who’s who. The Kurds are keeping their areas under control. The Sunni and Shia could do the same thing if they wanted to. It seems like the same people who believe that the government should take care of everybody on the domestic front believes the US should take care of everyone on the international front.

It’s important to note that the President's answer demonstrates his myopic posture regarding the war. While Stephanopoulos was attempting to have the President comment on the growing opposition to the war...asking if voters might be at a tipping point...the President sought to make the point that the terrorists might be attempting to create a Tet Offensive moment. Essentially, his answer virtually ignores the political implications and suggests that he is holding fast to the strategy that connecting the Iraq war to terrorism will produce GOP support. I don't think voter sentiment is moving in the direction that the President may think it is or hope it will.

In 2004 most GOP candidates were traveling downstream in their "swiftboats" attacking every Democratic candidate that dared to criticize the Bush administration's war in Iraq. In 2006 you not only can't find the GOP "swiftboat", you can't find a Republican candidate willing to jump in and try to navigate the hapless dingy against the strong current of voter dissatisfaction with the seemingly never ending war.

One, voters appear to have decided that the President's plan is a failure. Two, despite the fact that the Democrats haven't actually offered a cohesive or comprehensive alternative plan, voters are convinced any change might be better than more of the same. That stands to help Democrats on November 7th...but it also means that voters are hoping for change come November 8th...and that may prove to be the beginning of an even larger problem for both parties.

In my opinion, it will behoove both parties to find some tangible solutions to the Iraq mess if they hope to have any success in 2008. If one thinks voters are unhappy now, imagine their mood if Iraq is still at the top of their list of issues two years from now.

Read more here:

www.thoughttheater.com

If you stick your hand in a hornet's nest, it's the hornet's "fault" that it stings you, too. But it's not a very surprising result, either. It doesn't matter who is doing all the bad things you talk about. The fact is that they're doing them, we can't stop them, and as Colin Powell said "we break it, we bought it." That is reality. Sorry it doesn't play well with your vision of how things should be going.

You are spot on, Daafyd!

Too bad the schools quit teaching history about the time Nixon brought our troops back from Nam. Otherwise, more people might appreciate the fact that Nam was lost by the press, not by the troops.

One of the first creations of tyrant governments is the "MINISTRY OF TRUTH". You may note that the USA does NOT have one of these. The NY Times is, of course, trying to fill that position for Americans and it does a good job with Liberals and Progressives(They don't actually need it because they wouldn't recognize the truth under any circumstances). Anyhow the first function of that Ministry of Truth is to make sure that you only get their 'version' of the truth. If something stands in the way of their 'truth' then, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
This story about the Tet Offensive is an excellent example. A major defeat for communists? The NY Times would have you believe that IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
Is there any logical thinking person out there that thinks the 'solution' to the Iraq war is to quit? Just because we are not happy with the way it's going doesn't mean we WANT IT WORSE by giving up. That's the Dems plan. Cut and Run. Don't for one minute think that because the Dems 'act' as if they don't have a clue, that they don't actully have a plan to SURRENDER. They just want to wait until after the election to spring it on us. Don't be fooled.

Where to begin?! You've created a strawman opponent and lo and behold, had no trouble knocking it down... I don't know which Democrats you're talking to, but the ones I know (and am) do not consider the US to have lost in VietNam because:

"mobs of hundreds of thousands of cowardly American troops fleeing in panic, deserting by the tens of thousands, being gunned down from behind by the victorious NVA."

Children, can you say "hyperbole?"

Our government took the US to war when it did not have to (Gulf of Tonkin), with no strategic interests at stake (little to no trade or assets in VietNam), escalated our position over 4 years resulting in 500,000 troops in country, continually gave out rosy progress reports (false), and the Tet offensive blew the lid off the government's propoganda... Yet, we were there for another 4 years slowly digging our way out of a very deep hole. We spent literally decades in VietNam trying to prevent a communist takeover (from Eisenhower on), spent hundreds of billions in today's dollars, lost 50K men, god knows how many more wounded, launched economic inflation and stagnation, destroyed our political consensus, and for what??

The one thing you can say in favor of this Iraq war is that at least there are strategic assets at stake: oil. But, that still doesn't justify an ill-planned, unnecessary war when other means (sanctions, containment) were at hand and would not have cost over $300 billion so far, cost the lives of 2,700 soldiers, plus 20K wounded, placed intolerable burdens on the army's readiness and material, damaged the international prestige and leadership of the US, led to the empowerment of Iran (Taliban and Saddam as threats out of the picture), and brought back civic distrust on the basic question of war/peace/can we trust what the government is telling us.

If you're trying to convince people who disagree with you, try using reasonable arguments and avoid rhetorical excess. Or, are you just preaching to the choir?

val21:

I was around during Viet Nam, in fact I was an anti war demonstrator and Dafydd is right on about what people were actually saying about Nam back then. So don't try to rewrite history.

He is also right on about the ghouls in the press corps and the Democrats hoping for defeat in Iraq because it serves their purposes. All this crap about needing more troops etc is just second guessing and what is more there is no way of knowing if the second guessers are even right.

The American people do not want to see defeat in Iraq, however, the Democrats do.

This would be the same Democrats who supported the Iraqi Liberation Act when Clinton was president as well as his bombing of Iraq in 1998. The same Democrats responsible for most of the intel they now say was misleading and the same Democrats who overwhelmingly supported the invasion and then began to undermine it the moment was politically advantageous for them to do so.

Speaking of straw men the anti war movement has created a situation here where a few thousand terrorists with AKs and bombs can defeat the US just by blowing something up every day. Too bad Hitler and the Emporer did not think of that. Think of how much easier it would be for them to defeat us today than it was 60 years ago. Look at the help they would get right here.

Val21:

If you're trying to convince people who disagree with you, try using reasonable arguments and avoid rhetorical excess. Or, are you just preaching to the choir?

Hm... could there be a third alternative? Perhaps I'm simply posting what I think and believe, the truth as I see it, as opposed to trying to persuade Democrats to support the Iraq war.

But, that still doesn't justify an ill-planned, unnecessary war... [that] led to the empowerment of Iran (Taliban and Saddam as threats out of the picture), and brought back civic distrust on the basic question of war/peace/can we trust what the government is telling us.

It appears your argument is that in 2002, Iraq was powerless and the Democrats agreed with Republicans on "the basic question of war/peace/can we trust what the government is telling us."

Yet Iran was already desperately developing a nuclear bomb; they already sent Hezbollah around the world and completely owned south Lebanon; Syria was already their client state; they were already working with both Pakistan (A.Q. Khan) and North Korea on nuclear weapons; and they already had imperial ambitions.

And Democrats had already completely lost all trust in the government of George W. Bush by the year 2000 -- before Bush was even elected president. Liberal friends of mine routinely referred to him during the campaign as "Smirky the Wonder Chimp," they called him a moron, claimed he was illiterate, called him a racist and homophobe, and suggested that he intended to abolish the republic and literally have himself crowned king.

I suggest, Val, that you have reversed cause and effect:

• We invaded Iraq in 2003 not only because they were dangerous but also because we worried that they might ally with Iran, Syria, and other radical, anti-American countries in the Middle East, which would enormously empower Ayatollah Khamenei as well as Saddam Hussein;
• Democrats oppose the war because they already despised and hated George W. Bush; had the same invasion been launched by "President" Al Gore, and had it gone identically, Democrats would still be supporting it... and they would call any Republican critic of the war "unpatriotic," which Republicans have never done to Democrats.

(Oh, by the way, the "sanctions" and "containment" you argue were perfectly adequate to keep Saddam in check were about to disappear, as Europe fell all over itself to do business with Iraq in exchange for personal bribes to the European leaders. By September at latest, they would all have been gone. Do you deny that? If so, you disagree with Charles Duelfer and the Iraq Survey Group.)

Had the Democrats not gone to war against the war, had they actually supported it the way Republicans supported World War II (even during the darkest times, when it looked as if we were losing), then the terrorists and insurgents would not have been convinced they could win; they would have thought the cause was hopeless, and they would have fled Iraq the same way they fled Sudan and later Afghanistan.

Instead:

• The anti-war antics and vamping of the Democrats;
• The constant threnody of accusations of "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" supposedly committed by American troops;
• The repeated Democratic attempts to get European countries to force us to pull out prematurely;
• Democrats literally waving the flags of our enemies (Iraq and Iraq, as well as those of Hezbollah and Hamas) at violent anti-war protests;
• The revolutionary rhetoric of "tyranny," "Hitler," "Nazi," "evil," and "unAmerican" leveled by Democrats against the president and other Republicans;
• And the veritable parade of liberals and Democrats traipsing vaguely off to Iraq to volunteer to be "human shields" in support of the terrorists and against us...

All of these have instead utterly convinced the butchers in Baghdad that if they just hang on a little longer, America will pull out of Iraq, abandon the fight, and run home -- leaving Iraq to the likes of Hamza Muhajir and Muqtada Sadr.

Do you deny that what has given the most aid and comfort to our enemies there has been the huge numbers of lefties, liberals, and Democrats who adhere to our enemies?

Dafydd

All of these have instead utterly convinced the butchers in Baghdad that if they just hang on a little longer, America will pull out of Iraq, abandon the fight, and run home -- leaving Iraq to the likes of Hamza Muhajir and Muqtada Sadr.

Do you deny that what has given the most aid and comfort to our enemies there has been the huge numbers of lefties, liberals, and Democrats who adhere to our enemies?

Actually, I do, and more's the pity. To be sure, the Left's hot air gives aid and comfort to our opponents. BUT, what has given them the ability to bring Iraq to chaos has been our own incompetence in assessing the force level necessary to get the job done. If you're going to conquer a place and change its political culture you need to do so from a position of overwhelming force. That is something that Rumsfeld's "transformation warfare" fantasies never allowed us to achieve. You see the results in today's headlines.

Dafyyd, there is a telling parallel between Iraq and Vietnam, but it isn't Tet-like disinformation and a leftist-MSM dolchstoss, even though the two wars share that element. What's brought us to the brink of defeat in both conflicts has been civilian control of the military run amok.

Isn't it obvious that Rumsfeld is another McNamara, a know-it-all SecDef who is too arrogant to listen to his military professionals because he knows better, even though he really doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground?

We could have won in Vietnam if an air offensive like Linebacker II had been pursued years before Nixon ordered it in 1972. Instead, we got McNamara's obscenely micro-managed and strategically insane "Rolling Thunder" campaign. The war was lost because we never fought it to win.

Rumsfeld's depressed and insufficient ground force levels from Day One are the modern analog to Mac's aerial madness. Rummy will go down in history as an even worse SecDef because he had less to fear: no competing superpowers. What has brought us to this pass is nothing less than Rummy's arrogance inability to listen to his miliraty professionals.

If we lose this war, like Vietnam it will be because the military professionals' sound advice was ignored, . . . until it was too late.

Redhand:

Isn't it obvious that Rumsfeld is another McNamara, a know-it-all SecDef who is too arrogant to listen to his military professionals because he knows better, even though he really doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground?

What are the generals who were actually on the ground in Iraq -- Casey, Caldwell, Abizaid, Meyers, and so forth -- telling Secretary Rumsfeld about strategy?

It's certainly not that he should have invaded with half a million men! In fact, Rumsfeld chose the type of invasion he did because he listened to his professionals on the ground.

But when you say "[Rumsfeld's] military professionals," what you actually mean are military professionals appointed by President Clinton who had retired from commanding troops in the field years before we invaded Iraq... people like Eric Shinseki and his devoted followers, Wesley Clarke, and other disgruntled former generals -- including Colin Powell.

Powell certainly expressed his preference for a staggeringly large initial invasion, following "the Powell Doctrine," that would in fact have been impossible to mount... and which would not necessarily have done any better.

They say hindsight is 20-20; but in this case, it's not even hindsight. It's alternate history. It is not evidence to pound the table, call the SecDef names, and insist that if only he had listened to you, everything would have gone swimmingly.

Quick, somebody give Harry Turtledove a call!

Dafydd

Val and Redhand, you both must have missed my comment about TRUTH IS THE FIRST THING TO GO and IT DIDN'T HAPPEN because not much of what either of you said has much or any truth in it. And in both cases what you said, it didn't happen. Val, especially beginning with one of the biggest liars on network news, mr dependable Cronkite, he fed the American public a constrant stream of lies and dis-information. Once he decided he didn't like the war, we could do no right and N. Vietnam could do no wrong. A total misfit.
And redhand, NO generals on active duty disagreed on the plan before hand. They were correct, we blew them away initally. Once we let iran and AQ get involved is when the problems started, at that time a large "invasion" force would have made no difference. The invasion was won. Anybody can have hindsight. But the ones that did was, as stated above, all Clinton's retired Generals.
So quit trying to rewrite history. Surrender will not make it better.

Zinni is the worse. In 2001 he says Saddam is our number 1 threat. Three years later he says Bush mislead the counttry. The truth is people like Zinni mislead the country by acting as if they knew what they were talking about in the first damn place.

And redhand, NO generals on active duty disagreed on the plan before hand. They were correct, we blew them away initally. Once we let iran and AQ get involved is when the problems started, at that time a large "invasion" force would have made no difference. The invasion was won.

I agree with the last sentence. I'm not a defeatist, but I think events have proved that we've had a grossly inadequate force level there since taking Bagdad. As for "NO generals on active duty disagreed on the plan before hand," ah, what about Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki . Again, I submit that events have proved him correct. The force level we have there now is not getting it done, even though there are more there now (157,000) than there were when Bagdad was taken.

Of course, after Rummy sacked Shinseki for disagreeing with him on the necessary numbers for occupation, no senior officer on the ground in Iraq would have dared contradict the SecDef on force levels. Rummy's use of that rationale to justify his pre-conceived "strategy" was pure sophistry.

Back to Nam for a moment. No one has greater contempt for Walter Cronkite than I do. I believe the MSM at the time actively sympathized with our country's enemies, and that they have the same mindset and motivation today. But I also can't escape the clear conviction that we've sowed the seeds of defeat and near defeat in these wars due to civilian administrations that made a mess of things.

Unlike the guy over at Politburo Diktat, "another conservative who’s been mugged by reality," see http://acepilots.com/mt/ I can't bring myself to vote Democrat this election. But the choice between arrogant incompetence and rank defeatism is not a happy one for any conservative to make.

Lastly, I do recommend that you check out Fiasco by Thomas Ricks. I read and liked his book, Making the Corps years ago and so started reading Fiasco with an open mind. It's food for thought.

Redhand:

Of course, after Rummy sacked Shinseki for disagreeing with him on the necessary numbers for occupation...

Redhand, one thing we don't allow on Big Lizards is a commenter playing fast and loose with the truth in order to win an argument.

You know very well (or you should) that Gen. Shinseki was not "sacked" by Rumsfeld, Bush, or anyone else. In fact, he served out his complete, four-year term as Army Chief of Staff and then retired, which is perfectly normal.

The question of whether we need a huge, World War II-sized military, or a much smaller, faster, more mobile, and faster-evolving military is controversial: but you must understand that just because you support one side of a controversy doesn't make everyone on the other side an idiot.

Secretary Rumsfeld has a vision of the future of the armed forces. You may reject his vision; but he has the job, and he deserves respect for that. And it's hard to argue that we needed 500,000 troops and several months to overthrow Saddam -- when we actually overthrew him in three weeks with a small fraction of that commitment.

You can argue that those half a million troops would have squashed the nascent insurgency; but that certainly was not our experience in Vietnam.

In any event, the insurgents would only have had to wait a year; we could not possibly keep that many men in the theater for that long doing nothing. Then, when we reduced our forces, the insurgents -- who would have had many months to organize, propagandize, and plan, and with the rising rage that naturally comes from such a gigantic occupation -- might very well have been able to create a national front... something they have not been able to do under the Rumsfeld plan.

Just because some guy wrote a book doesn't make him the final word on the subject; if it did, then Richard Clarke would be the greatest hero of American history... just read his book!

Dafydd

Re Shinseki, you're right. It was a poor choice of words. I amend the statement to read as follows:

"Of course, after Rummy [sacked] publically trashed Shinseki for disagreeing with him on the necessary numbers for occupation..."

Per Wikipeda again: Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, called Shinseki's estimate "far off the mark" and "wildly off the mark". Wolfowitz said it would be "hard to believe" more troops would be required for post-war Iraq than to remove Saddam Hussein from power."

Ah, I wonder if he thinks it's so "hard to believe" now?

BTW, why is it that senior US defense officials who do an especially controversial, incompetent and sh*tty job getting us into a war are sent to head the World Bank? As you know, such was the fate of both McNamara and Wolfowitz.

Seems to me like an almost Catholic form of Penance - after others claim (d'oh, perhaps with some justification) that you have a lot of blood on your hands you're allowed to be President of this great do-gooder organization to atone for your sins.

Redhand:

Look at the very language you quote and how it contradicts your caricature of the exchange:

By your own source, what Rumsfeld said was that Gen. Shinseki's estimate of how many troops would be needed to remove Saddam Hussein from power (hundreds of thousands of troops) was "far off the mark."

This you refer to as "publicly trashing" the general.

But what was Shinseki saying? He was saying, in essence, that his superiors' estimate that 150,000 or so should do it was "far off the mark."

Shouldn't you use the same term to describe what Shinseki did, that he "publicly trashed" the secretary of defense? And if it did, then was it really beyond the pale for the secretary of defense to demur?

This is the point, Redhand: you are so far to one side of this controversy that you do not even notice when your side engages in exactly the sort of tactics you accuse the other side of committing.

You need to sit down, take a deep breath, and try to look at this from an outsider's point of view. It can be very refreshing.

Dafydd

Well, after reading a few more posts on this site, I see I’ve landed among the paranoid, the political fantasists, and the conspiracy mongers… But, here goes one more try.

“I'm simply posting what I think and believe, the truth as I see it, as opposed to trying to persuade Democrats to support the Iraq war.”

So, my question remains, are you talking (posting) just for the sake of talking (posting) or is there a point to all this? What is the point of blogging (or writing an article, a book, appearing on TV, making a speech, etc.) if not to put out a thesis, support it against criticism, and convince others of your views?

“It appears your argument is that in 2002, Iraq was powerless and the Democrats agreed with Republicans on "the basic question of war/peace/can we trust what the government is telling us." Yet Iran was already desperately developing a nuclear bomb; they already sent Hezbollah around the world and completely owned south Lebanon; Syria was already their client state; they were already working with both Pakistan (A.Q. Khan) and North Korea on nuclear weapons; and they already had imperial ambitions.”

Yes, in 2002 Iraq was powerless, de-fanged, and bluffing. As we could have found out if we'd given inspections more time and as the war (unfortunately) conclusively demonstrated. Democratic POLITICIANS got cutesy and tried to cozy up to the president so they could put the war behind them and concentrate on the economy (complete spineless boobs!). Iran and North Korea were the countries actively engaged in pursuing nukes and what did we do? We invaded Iraq!! What a total numnuts move.

“And Democrats had already completely lost all trust in the government of George W. Bush by the year 2000 -- before Bush was even elected president. Liberal friends of mine routinely referred to him during the campaign as "Smirky the Wonder Chimp," they called him a moron, claimed he was illiterate, called him a racist and homophobe…”

Wow, Democrats calling the Republican nominee names! What a surprise… I’m shocked, shocked I tell you. I’m sure Republicans never called Al Gore names. I’ll only point to Bush’s 90% approval rating during the Afghan war—obviously that high a figure means that not only Republicans, but Democrats too supported that war. It’s Iraq where we diverge.

“ and suggested that he intended to abolish the republic and literally have himself crowned king.”

Literally? Really? Sounds like hyperbole to me… I can’t remember any such accusations in 2000, 2002, 2004, or even 2006. Accusations of trashing the constitution, yes, of ignoring the will of the people through signing statements that reject the laws passed by their representatives in Congress, yes, of metaphorically acting like a king, yes, but no accusations of literally donning the crown.

“We invaded Iraq in 2003 not only because they were dangerous but also because we worried that they might ally with Iran, Syria, and other radical, anti-American countries in the Middle East, which would enormously empower Ayatollah Khamenei as well as Saddam Hussein;”

Now who’s re-writing history? The stated reason for the invasion was that Iraq either had WMDs or they were developing WMDs, that sanctions and containment had failed, and that inspections weren’t going to uncover the goods. Well, we all know how that one turned out… Oh, maybe I actually do have to remind you—no WMDs or programs to create WMDs remained. What an absolute waste of money, men, and resources.

“ (Oh, by the way, the "sanctions" and "containment" you argue were perfectly adequate to keep Saddam in check were about to disappear, as Europe fell all over itself to do business with Iraq in exchange for personal bribes to the European leaders. By September at latest, they would all have been gone. Do you deny that? If so, you disagree with Charles Duelfer and the Iraq Survey Group.)”

I deny that the U.S. could not have better spent the time, effort, and money to reinforce and restore the sanctions, containment, and inspections rather than launching a $300 billion war. Containment had worked reasonably well for 10 years after the Gulf war, and there was no reason it could not have worked for another 10 with a committed effort. 40 years of containment worked vis a vis the Soviet Union, why not Iraq?

“Democrats oppose the war because they already despised and hated George W. Bush; had the same invasion been launched by "President" Al Gore, and had it gone identically, Democrats would still be supporting it... and they would call any Republican critic of the war "unpatriotic," which Republicans have never done to Democrats. “

#1. If Al Gore invaded Iraq (what a huge IF that is), I doubt regular Democratic party members would have supported it in the same numbers or lockstep ideological fashion that Republicans have supported GWB. (I don’t include Democratic politicians in that because like all politicians, they have their fingers to the wind.) The early and ongoing Democratic party member opposition to the war (hooked into by Dean) was always opposition to the war itself, not GWB. It was opposition to a war on a country that did not attack us on 9/11, that always seemed to be a sideshow to the war against Al Qaida, and because of which we always thought GWB was pulling a fast one. #2. Republicans have never called Democrats “unpatriotic”?? Well, not LITERALLY I suppose… But how about we just ask Max Cleland, John Kerry, John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, or any Democrat who dared question this war or this president if they weren’t accused of not supporting America, hating America, not supporting the troops, giving aid to the terrorists (like in your recent postings?), hating freedom, preferring Saddam, being cowards, cutting and running, being weak, or any number of other rhetorical distortions of their positions and ad hominem attacks?

“the terrorists and insurgents would not have been convinced they could win; they would have thought the cause was hopeless, and they would have fled Iraq the same way they fled Sudan and later Afghanistan.”

Gee, Clinton forced the terrorists out of the Sudan? I don’t think that’s what you meant to imply… ;-) As to Afghanistan, the Taliban are still around, they’re operating again in that country, and Osama Bin Laden is still alive, free, and taunting us right across the border in Pakistan. Why haven’t we caught and executed the man who was responsible for actually attacking us on 9/11?

“The constant threnody of accusations of "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" supposedly committed by American troops; “

I’ll stand by this: When our soldiers commit crimes, they should be punished. Not only to punish the transgressors, but to reinforce to the other troops what is and is not acceptable even in wartime. Abu Ghraib existed. Crimes have been committed. Not by the majority of the troops, not even by a significant minority, but crimes have occurred. We would be remiss in not owning up to this and accepting responsibility and saying this is not acceptable. Torture is not an American value. Rape and shooting unarmed civilians is not an American value. Breaking the Army’s own field manual code of behavior is not acceptable by any soldier, any time, any where.

“The repeated Democratic attempts to get European countries to force us to pull out prematurely; “

Huh? Never heard tell of that one…

“Democrats literally waving the flags of our enemies (Iraq and Iraq, as well as those of Hezbollah and Hamas) at violent anti-war protests; The revolutionary rhetoric of "tyranny," "Hitler," "Nazi," "evil," and "unAmerican" leveled by Democrats against the president and other Republicans; And the veritable parade of liberals and Democrats traipsing vaguely off to Iraq to volunteer to be "human shields" in support of the terrorists and against us...”

These activities are by leftists, not liberals or Democrats of any stripe. There will always be the ANSWER types who fundamentally believe that America is a racist, imperialist enterprise. I put no weight on what they say, nor should anyone else. It would be like liberals or Democrats pointing to the KKK, CCC, or white power groups and saying “See! There go the Republicans!” Guilt by association is never a convincing argument.

"All of these have instead utterly convinced the butchers in Baghdad that if they just hang on a little longer, America will pull out of Iraq, abandon the fight, and run home -- leaving Iraq to the likes of Hamza Muhajir and Muqtada Sadr. Do you deny that what has given the most aid and comfort to our enemies there has been the huge numbers of lefties, liberals, and Democrats who adhere to our enemies?

I think that the Shiites care more about who the Sunnis down the street have beheaded lately. I think the Sunnis care more about Shiites bombing mosques and murdering imams. I think the daily violence in Iraq is more due to religious and political rivalries run amok than what anyone in America, right or left, is saying in the halls of Congress, on the evening news, in a street protest, a support-the-troops rally (say, what ever happened to those?), or in a blog. I think that once you make a mistake, it's idiotic not to own up to it, to continue to pour your resources into it, to not recognize reality, and to not cut your losses. I think that what happens in Iraq is ultimately the responsibility of the Iraqis, not the U.S.

Now, feel free to pile on.

Val21:

So, my question remains, are you talking (posting) just for the sake of talking (posting) or is there a point to all this? What is the point of blogging (or writing an article, a book, appearing on TV, making a speech, etc.) if not to put out a thesis, support it against criticism, and convince others of your views?

An interesting question. Having also published numerous novels, I would have to say that first and foremost, my purpose is to entertain; entertainers are paid, while bores are not.

But there are many ways to entertain. One is to be a clown; another is to preach to the choir (Daily Kos, Democratic Underground); another is to present an intelligent analysis of some subject that people haven't seen before, at least not put quite that way.

The latter is my goal. Were my goal to convert the great unwashed, I would produce TV commercials; because most people are converted (if ever) by imagery and emotion, not intellectual argument.

I write to entertain those who are attracted to intellectual argument and analysis.

Yes, in 2002 Iraq was powerless, de-fanged, and bluffing. As we could have found out if we'd given inspections more time and as the war (unfortunately) conclusively demonstrated.

Fair enough. You disagree with Charles Duelfer and the ISG, but you are of course entitled to your own opinion, however refuted by fact. (Well, here; you wouldn't have been so entitled in the Iraq you prefer.)

Iran and North Korea were the countries actively engaged in pursuing nukes and what did we do? We invaded Iraq!! What a total numnuts move.

You argue we should have invaded Iran, North Korea, or both?

Now who’s re-writing history? The stated reason for the invasion was that Iraq either had WMDs or they were developing WMDs, that sanctions and containment had failed, and that inspections weren’t going to uncover the goods.

The answer to your first question is: Val21. In fact, every reason currently argued for the war was argued before the war; for example, in the 2003 State of the Union address.

Oh, maybe I actually do have to remind you—no WMDs or programs to create WMDs remained.

Again, you clearly have a dispute with the Iraq Survey Group, which found, in its final report, that there were indeed WMD programs that had been suspended but not dismantled, and which would have been restarted as soon as sanctions ended -- which would have been very soon, had we not invaded.

That is why I say that we thought we were invading Iraq at two minutes to midnight -- but we were actually invading at twenty minutes to midnight.

If you choose to ignore the available evidence, you have that right. But don't expect to be very persuasive to those who are actually familiar with it.

Let me ask you a question: If we found a bunch of empty chemical shells and rockets; and nearby, we found drums of cyclosarin; does that constitute a chemical weapon? If so, then in fact we found hundreds, not a couple of dozen, chemical weapons.

That is precisely the problem: the U.N. and the CIA both had vested interests in finding no WMD in Iraq; and both defined the term so narrowly that they made sure they jolly well didn't. It would be like finding a gun in the house of a convicted felon, but not arresting him because the bullets were in a different room.

Gee, Clinton forced the terrorists out of the Sudan?

Nope; that would be the Sudanese. They also tried to hand Osama bin Laden over to President Clinton, but he refused to accept him since he couldn't figure out a legal charge on which to hold him. (This comes from the former president's own account.)

Why haven’t we caught and executed the man who was responsible for actually attacking us on 9/11?

So in addition to invading Iran and North Korea, you also want us to invade Pakistan? If OBL is hiding in Waziristan, as you agree, and if the Paks refuse to hand him over (or even admit he's there), then that would be the only way to catch or kill him.

Crimes have been committed.

Of course. We've had literally hundreds of thousands of people cycle through Iraq, a population larger than any but the biggest megalopolises; it's statistically inevitable that some among them would be rapists and murderers. Others have stolen things, had consentual affairs (which is a crime under the UCMJ), and engaged in insubordination.

But what would make those war crimes, rather than personal crimes, would be if they were done with the knowledge and acquiescence of command, or without consequences when discovered; and that is where your accusation falls apart.

Instead, the crimes were committed without the knowledge of command; and when they were discovered, the criminals were prosecuted to the full extent of military law.

Do you understand the distinction? Every army of every country in every war has had some criminal members who committed some horrific crimes: but what determines whether those crimes were war crimes is not the crime but the relationship of the crime to the government... because an accusation of "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity" is an accusation against the entire government -- not an individual.

See, for example, the Rome Statute:

For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack....

The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

Think of all war-crimes prosecutions you can remember, from the Nuremburg trials to the charges against Milosevic and Hussein: that has always been the point of an allegation of war crimes or crimes against humanity... that command must be complicit in the crime.

These activities are by leftists, not liberals or Democrats of any stripe. There will always be the ANSWER types who fundamentally believe that America is a racist, imperialist enterprise. I put no weight on what they say, nor should anyone else. It would be like liberals or Democrats pointing to the KKK, CCC, or white power groups and saying “See! There go the Republicans!” Guilt by association is never a convincing argument.

Except that prominent Democratic politicians and activists have addressed these rallies, including former Democratic presidential candidate Al Sharpton; and not a single prominent Democrat has denounced their extremism. Many, including "Mother" Cindy Sheehan, have lavished praise upon them.

By contrast, Republicans routinely denounce the Klan and "white power" groups (including the Council of Conservative Citizens), and no prominent Republican supports or has supported any of them.

In fact, oddly enough, all three of those groups were founded by Democrats; the only current member of Congress who was in any of the three is a Democrat, Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia; and the only Supreme Court Justice known to have been a member of the Klan, Hugo Black, was a Democratic senator who was appointed by Franklin Roosevelt.

So it's a bit thick to try to hang the Klan especially around Republican necks. By contrast, show me denunciations of International ANSWER by the current Democratic leadership; I certainly haven't seen any.

Now, feel free to pile on.

I took the time to respond to you point by point because you seemed more or less convinced that nobody would. I don't shy away from open debate. But if you'd like to see what "piling on" really looks like... try going to any of the major lefty websites, from Kos to DU to Juan Cole to TPM and posting even the mildest defense of invading Iraq.

You will not be treated with respect. They will not respond to your arguments with counter argument. You will, in fact, be savaged.

But I suspect you already know that. Doesn't it bother you, even a little?

Dafydd

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)