Mistakes, failures & victory?

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

I think W just gave the best speech since his second inaugural. He admitted failure, which he has rarely done, but he also articulated a clear vision of what we can now do.

None of the Dems want to say what their calls for withdrawal actually mean, defeat. They speak in terms of minimizing future losses and removing our troops because they are the cause of the violence. It's garbahj and always has been. Our troops are not the cause of the violence, a dispute about the succession of Mohammed's son caused the Shia-Sunni split centuries ago. The question is can our troops stop the extremists from killing each other long enough for the great majority who would rather live in peace to prevail.

Clear, hold & hang out, let's hope this works. The combined Iraqi-US forces should meet Petraeus' call for 1 combat troop per 50 population. Good luck Sir!

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2819/7452891

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mistakes, failures & victory?:

» The Blogoshere weighs in on the speech from Dawnsblood
No, I didn't see it so this is just a round up. John Hawkins seemed to like it.Summary: I liked this speech a lot because it revealed a workable plan, it gave people a key date to watch (Nov, 2007 for the Iraqis to takeover), and it did seem to... [Read More]

Comments

[Mommynator]

Objectively, I think the president's plan is good. Whether the Iraqis can deliver is up to them, but at least we made it clear that they damn well better try.

Personally, speaking to our son via IM tonight, he said that his redeployment to Iraq will probably be moved up from end of June to sooner, and that he also can be notified within 48 hours whenever they want him to go. And that he may possibly be assigned combat instead of his regularly assigned MOS, which obviously the army has every right to do.

Mom has put a little brandy in the hot chocolate tonight because the hands are a bit shaky.

[Uncle Jimbo]

God I wish we could somehow avoid sending anyone's sons anywhere. We can't, and I can only feel tremendous respect for all who have real personal stakes in this war.

Godspeed to all.

Uncle J

[FbL]

Mommynator,

If I were there with you, I would take your shaking hands in mine, and give you a warm hug. You and the others in your situation will be in my thoughts and prayers as you prepare. "Thank you" is inadequate, but it begins to describe my sentiments.

[Ymarsakar]

The Prez said something surprising. He actually admitted that his soldiers were not allowed into certain areas. He said that he expected those limitations to be removed, completely.

One of the Fox casters said something to the effect that the soldiers were going into Sadr city. Don't know if that is just a rumour, if that is really part of the Baghdad campaign. Because for cert, Sadr city was one of those places that sectarian parties prevented US troops from clearing or holding.

[Bill Faith]

The road to peace with honor runs through Sadr City. I hope I just heard W say he understands that, but we'll see. I'm gathering blog reactions and my own thoughts as they come to me at http://www.smalltownveteran.net/bills_bites/2007/01/the_speech.html.

Prayers on the way, Mommynator.

[Ymarsakar]

Steven Pressfield gave a very stunning description of mothers in warfare in his Gates of Fire book. He said much there, that I think is hard to say in a better way.

I can't think of anything to say.

[armywifetoddlermom]

t-shirt Babe,

Schipperts on the radio, in like 1 minute

http://www.ktsa.com/?

[Dean]

Recently I've heard, again, various platitudes from the Left like "Nothings more important than the lives of our men and women in uniform." Well as an old cold war bubblehead, who put it on the line in a small way, I say lots of things are more important then my life like, OH let me thinck,... 3000 american lives or next time it could be 300K American lives!

As J. said God Speed!

[Jack]

I have a feeling that I know a lot of people who are gonna be redeployed, yet again.

Still, I feel the plan is much better than what we have been operating on thus far, and I am to a certain degree at least reassured. I agree with Ymar that enclave areas must be disassembled and cleared but I also like what he said about Syria and Iran.

I hope to God we stick them both in both eyes this time, and then push hard towards the other side of the skull. For both ourselves and the Iraqis.

Godspeed ladies and gentlemen and to all those currently in service, a Victory we can finally hold and build upon.

[Jack]

I'm sorry, I mistated that, I should have said that I liked what Ymar said about enclave areas, and I also liked what the Presdient said about Syria and Iran. My bad.

[LeeRoy05]

I don't know, y'all... I thought the speech was weak. Certainly poorly delivered, but I guess expecting great oratory from this CinC is kinda unrealistic. I agree that the Dems' counter-plan amounts to an admission of defeat and really leaves the "good" Iraqis up a creek. I tend to think that this plan relies too much on the Iraqi government. I haven't been in theater in a few years (am slated to go again this summer), but from where I sit, Mailiki seems like he's Muqtada's boy. I reserve judgment because I'm smart enough to understand just how much I don't understand. It does hearten me, somewhat, to hear that LTG Petraeus endorses this. If anybody can pull this out, it's him.

[Uncle Jimbo]

I think this represents Maliki's last chance more than W's.

I also think that if he doesn't deliver he is toast. He is Mookie's patron/boy, but if he picks the Mook. BAKOW!

I'm just sayin'

Cordially,

Uncle J

[Allan]

OK, I we should give this a chance. This was a weak speech. Did you notice it was in the library (not the oval office), he was not sitting down, and he was not wearing his trademark red tie? I wonder what that was about. Overall, I found the speech was not compelling and was not well delivered. But, he did lay out a plan.

I do not think 21,000 extra troops will do much. But, I do think that the economic part of the plan will, if successfully implemented, do alot.

I am glad that Bush admitted that his former policy was a mistake (is this a blame Rumsfeld thing by Bush?). I just wish he had seen it 2 or 3 years ago.

I am really afraid of this plan. Bush is putting a lot of stock in Iraq's ability to execute the plan. I am not as confident in the Iraqi ability to do it. I wonder what will happen the first time Malaki tries to arrest someone in his political base and have to mollify the street.

But, at this point, it is the best plan we could have. And it is something different. And the president is having new people implement it. I do hope it works.

One last thing. We need a fallback. What will happen if the Iraqis fail to live up to their obligations? President Bush says there will be ramifications. What wil they be?

[walrus]

I actually feel sorry for Bush. His plan is sensible at last but totally under resourced and three years too late, so it ain't going to work for reasons I've posted elsewhere.

As for Iran and Syria, Bush is still in the same state of stupidity as he was when he invited the insurgents to "Bring it on!" (remember that little gem? I shook my head when he said it.)

Specifically, Iran and Syria can make infinitely more trouble for America than America can make for them, exactly as the insurgents have done.

Contrary to what Bush would have us believe, the Syrians have been very helpful over Iraq, as has Iran. "Whole truckloads" of weapons are not crossing their borders into Iraq with official permission or assistance. What Americans don't understand is the tribal nature of the middle east and the fact that the Governments of Syria and Iran cannot prevent tribal members on both sides of the borders from helping their relatives.

To put it another way, can America seal its border with Mexico? The answer continues to be a big fat NO! Therefore it is unreasonable to expect Iran, Iraq and Syria to be able to seal their borders either - things will always get through.

If Iran and Syria really wanted to make things tough for the U.S., you would be seeing the insurgents using Russian and Chinese made "fire and forget" anti tank and anti aircraft weaponry - something that has been very rare to date.

[Realist]

Same shit different day, unfortunately.

My brief take: Once they take on the Shiites and or Iran (which most here are urging them to do) then all hell will break loose.

All supplies have to travel hundred of miles through Shia controlled areas to reach Baghdad. Once the supply conveys are attacked most of the combat troops in Baghdad will have to redeploy to fight them through. That will end clear and hold, and that’s the end of the war.

[Uncle Jimbo]

OK Realist,

One, two, three, ONE

One, two three, TWO.

If you don't understand, then I am chickenhawking you, bad me.

Matt laughed at this earlier when he linked to Ace's brilliant takedown, scroll.

Cordially,

Uncle J

[Ymarsakar]

Maliki has put his reputation on the line if he really said in public to Iraqis that he supports and is going to annihilate all enemies regardless of sectarian or political allegiances. If he actually believed the US was going away, he would never have said so, because he didn't have the power originally and would therefore simply be issuing his own suicide note in public. With the 5 brigades that Bush is routing from the reinforcements, as well as the 16 Iraqi brigades (intel is a bit weak I think, knowing the exact units, the exact leaders, and performance records would help. But that's hard to get from blogs, lack of information sources inside the Iraqi army and US embedded folks reasonably will not give that kind of information online for the enemy to find), this gives Maliki the power to actually back up his promises. So it becomes a face thing with him. He can't honestly say that he was kidding, this is obviously an attempt. And if it fails, he knows he is going under. And if he tries to back away, then he loses face.

Maliki's always been a problem to profile because I don't have access to his records and the summaries on his psychology and character. He is not someone like Karzai with a record of proven worth in battle after all. But we'll see what he is made up, whether he fullfills his promises.

When the President was talking about Iran and listing what he was going to do them, I was asking him mentally "what happens if the networks are inside Iranian territory, are you going after them". Because if he isn't willing to go and raid inside Iran, then it is just like Sadr and Fallujah. You can hurt such centers if you try to contain them instead of going into them, but in a year or 2 years, it is going to explode on you.

My analysis of President Bush is that he recognized that America's patience was coming at an end, that he could no longer wait around for the Iraqis to do whatever they wanted while he sat in a chair waiting for the other shoe to drop. Somehow, by the grace of God, he found Petraeus and various other people that told him about COIN operations and told him why previous methods to pacify Baghdad and surrounding areas failed. Bush even listed the reasons. There was nothing particularly wrong about Abizaid saying that a larger footprint would make the Iraqis more reliant on us, but the thing was, that wasn't particularly a bad thing. Because the Iraiqs were going to "rely" on us no matter how many troops you had in that nation. The only question was, could you provide security to the civilians so that they stopped caring how many tanks and American boots they saw around their neighborhood? For some reason, that wasn't happening. So it didn't matter that the US had a small footprint, so long as the terrorists had a large footprint, folks didn't particularly care how many US troops were in the nation.

Bush obviously wanted something more, and decided it was time to switch out Casey. Although Abizaid might have accepted retirement on his own. One wonders, did he get such advice from the Joint Chiefs? Particularly Peter Pace? Where ever Bush got such advice from, it was good. Finally something happened that Bush's "advisers" could no longer keep Bush in the dark about. Bush no longer believed in the 'negotiate' game, it seems. He was taking a more proactive action. Although it remains to be seen whether the rumours are true that Bush got the core of his Baghdad strategy from the recommendation of Maliki himself. Don't know where the reporters are getting that from.

I was looking at Bush when he gave his speech, not for how he gave his speech, but trying to calculate how his views have shifted. I've gone beyond whether a speech looks good in the propaganda sense or not, we already know that about Bush. What I don't know, is what beliefs have changed in relation to Bush's basic nature. I will have a better read of the President and whether his plan works, if I can get an accurate read on how the President sees things in Iraq. For example, if someone is feeding him disinformation and skewing the reality on the ground, it will become pretty apparent soon enough. But I didn't see any signs of that, yet, in his speech. He recognizes the threat from Syria and Iran, finally now that the military intelligence uncovered the BS cloak that the CIA and State was trying to cover Iran with. This might change Bush's stance towards Iran. He did mention he was sending an additional carrier battlegroup to the region. But why? What did that have to do with Iraq? Why does Fallon need another carrier battlegroup to deal with Iraq? Do they seriously need that much more air power for Sadr city? Or is it there for another reason entirely?

I'm pretty sure Bush understands that if he leaves Iran alone like he left Sadr and the "enclaves" alone, that it will bite him again in larger portions later on. Maybe he didn't before, but now he does, in my view of things.

I'm not going to say that Bush "gets it", but I will state as a conclusion that many things have changed for the President, many of his beliefs have changed, and we are seeing the results of that change. For the most part, this change is for the better. Several cloaks that were preventing the President from seeing the reality on the ground, has been removed. You will notice that the President actually went to a very large extent to prepare the American people for more death and casualties this year. He wasn't being the peppy jubilant sort like he was in 2004 with the elections. With the President, you know that what he says is what you get. If he doesn't say something, then you ain't going to get it. If he says he is a compassionate conservative, then you can bet your arse that that is what he is. Ruthless didn't come into it.

But the point is, if the President tells the American people to prepare for more violence, that even if the plan goes perfectly that the terrorists will continue to keep bringing violence to the television, then this means the President actually understands the information warfare objectives of the enemy as well as the problems of time restraints. I think he begins to realize that the terroists can do violence all day and all year long, that they are not operating under a time constraint (he used to say that the terrorists were operating in reaction to the democracy in Iraq, that as more time went on, the democracy would shrink the insurgency but he recognized that that didn't happen). Rather the opposite really, Bush knows he now is operating under a time constraint, that if he doesn't do something soon, it is going to fall apart under him.

One thing I realized about Bush is that he operates well under pressure. When things are stacked against Bush, that is when Bush shines. But if you just leave Bush alone to stagnant, to wait, then Bush acts like a zombie, he allows other people to take control of his policy and government. He reminds me of some rulers i've read about in history. For all that Bush hates micromanagement, he is supremely good at it when he actually does it.

[Uncle Jimbo]

Plus you forgot hang out.

Clear, hold and hang out. Pay attention there is a test.

Cordially,

Uncle J

[Realist]

Dear Uncle J

Nope, lost me.

But never mind. I reckon this 'plan' has about a 10% chance of success. If it succeeds lots of people are going to die and if it goes belly up even more people are going to die.

If I am totally wrong you can take the piss all you like. If you are totally wrong what will you do?

Cordially

Realist

[Uncle Jimbo]

How many will die if we bail?

Cordially,

Uncle J

[Allan]

Here is my position and what I believe is the position of the majority of Americans.

1. The Bush administration has fucked up since the fall of Baghdad.
2. Until now, the Bush administration has not admitted he or his administration made mistakes.
3. The addition of more troops will not make much of a difference, new plan or not, unless the Iraqi military steps up to the plate.
4. We are skeptical about our chance of winning in Iraq. We agree that failure in Iraq will be a bad for the US, but do not see anything that will prevent a failure.
5. We are willing to see what happens. But, if this fails, we expect Bush to turn control of the fiasco to someone else.
6. The failures in Iraq are not the fault of the Democrats, Cindy Sheehan, or the press. The failures are not the fault of the military. The failures are this administration's failures. It has two years to recover.

Make no mistake. President Bush is putting the life of the Republican party for the next 20 years on the line. If this does not succeed, the Republicans will likely not be able to recover without totally distancing themselves from Bush. This is a great gamble.

President Bush said the change will not happen overnight. Does anyone care to give a timeframe? Will it be in November, when Bush said the Iraqi forces were to take over security? That is 10 months.

[Realist]

Dear Uncle J

I think all these numbers might best be described as "known unknowns"

Cordially

Realist

[Uncle Jimbo]

You ever played Mexican with dice and booze?

I have and I call Speed Limit!

Game On!

Cordially,

Uncle J

[Michael in MI]

Allan - What does this war with Islamism have to do with the Republican Party? Why do so many people look at this through political glasses? I am so sick of reading BS like that.

I am a Conservative who supports the war effort to stop the global conquest interests of Islam and I will support the leaders who will stand up to the responsibility.

The only political party which has lost my vote during my lifetime based on their behavior during the war effort is the Democrat Party.

But the fact is that this is a war that the West is fighting against the Islamist global conquest. This is not America's war. This is not President Bush's war. This is not the Republican's war. This is not Conservative's war. Anyone who looks at this war in that way immediately loses my respect and I know they are not serious about debating it.

This is a global war of a group of people who want to pull the 21st Century back into the 7th Century. Plain and simple. The two sides are those who wish to live in the 21st Century and those who wish to allow our enemies to pull us back into the 7th Century lifestyle.

I do not understand why people continue to refuse to see that.

This is not about politics. This is about survival of our way of life. And Iraq is simply one battle in a global conflict.

The fact that people still refuse to see this is our biggest problem going forward.

[Michael in MI]

"6. The failures in Iraq are not the fault of the Democrats, Cindy Sheehan, or the press. The failures are not the fault of the military. The failures are this administration's failures. It has two years to recover."

Wrong. The military failures in Iraq are the fault of strategy, planning or execution. This includes RoE. Those failures rest with the military and their leaders, including the President.

The Democrats, Cindy Sheehan and the press are fully at fault for emboldening our enemy as the leftists emboldened the enemy during Vietnam. The Democrats have done nothing, but demean the soldiers by focusing on nothing but the negative while also telling our enemies for the last 3 year that America was wrong and America does not have the will to fight them. Cindy Sheehan... ugh... too much to even go into. And the Press. Where do I even begin. From giving 100% effort to spreading enemy propaganda to break the will of the American people to stand behind this war effort, to not reporting success and progress in Iraq, to trying to take down a sitting President during a time of war with a fake story, to using enemy propagandists as sources for their stories, to taking the word of our enemy over the word of our government and military on every single thing. I could go on and on and on.

The lesson of Vietnam is that the battles were tough, because of a failure of military planning, strategy and execution. However, they prevailed and were winning, despite that. However, the other lesson is that we did not lose Vietnam, we gave up because of a lack of will based on the American press lying about the war effort and spreading enemy propaganda and the American left giving aid and comfort to our enemies, emboldening them to hang on against our superior forces.

The Democrats, American leftists and American (and International) Press are using the same template now to take down a struggling, but successful military operation.

So I believe you are 100% wrong. The Democrats, Cindy Sheehan and the Press are 100% at fault for our problems in Iraq. Had they all been 100% behind this war effort from the beginning, we would be far more closer to success right now.

How North Vietnam Won The War

[arrowhead]

Well said, Michael in MI!

[Allan]

Michael,

The war has everything to do with politics. A great majority of the country wants to "win" in Iraq. The President is responsible for winning and is asking for support for himself and for his party. If he fails, it will show one of two things: either we cannot win or we cannot win with the Republicans at the helm.

Americans do not want to withdraw because we cannot win the war. Americans want to withdraw because they believe that Bush, his administration, and the Republicans, cannot lead the country to victory.

This is not a "conservative" or "liberal" thing. Sure, there are hawks out there who would be willing to mobilize 3 million Americans and to use nuclear weapons (if they could avoid destroying the oil) to conquer the middle east. And, there are doves who are against war on any ground. But those are fringe elements.

We have been hoodwinked by this administration. First, we went in with too few troops. While this might have worked, when it did not, there was no back-up plan. Second, the administration did not have broad-based world wide support. Third, the administration screwed up the indigenous civilian and military build-up. Fourth, the administation insisted, for 3 and 1/2 years that we stay the course.

There is no avoiding it. Whether you are a conservative or a liberal, the conclusion is that Bush screwed the pooch. As a conservative, you should be aghast at the ROE, the lack of boots on the ground, and the horrendous cost of the war without results. As a liberal, you should be aghast at the abject failure.

The open question is how many times conservatives are willing to give this administration another chance before you come to the conclusin that this President, this administration, and this party cannot succeed.

And, just because the Republican party fails, it does not mean that conservatives will have no voice. The Whigs failed in the 1850s and the Republican party was born.

[Allan]

Michael,

You do not understand. It is possible, had there actually been a chance of succeeding that the Cindy Sheehans of the world would have had an impact. But, with or without her, Bush's strategy would have failed.

As for the Democrats, they were behind the war in the beginning. Had there been success in Iraq, there would have been support throughout.

President Bush and his administration lost the war all by themselves. He now admits mistakes were made, the same mistakes Democrats were claiming were made for the past three years. Bush is responsible for the mistakes of those he appointed. The failure is his and his alone.

[Michael in MI]

Allan - Since when does a politcal party fight a war? America went to war. The Democrats and the American left and the American press decided that they were no longer Americans and refused to go to war with America.

Every elected leader is in charge of this war effort, not just Republicans and not just the Administration. Every single AMERICAN has a responsibility to fight this war effort. The fact that you, and many others, see this as a Republican-led war explains a lot.

That is the reason we are struggling in Iraq in this war effort. Because people like you have decided that we are no longer Americans united in a war effort, but solely political parties divided by ideology.

Very sad.

"Bush screwed the pooch". Is that some military analysis of which I am not aware?

Abject failure. 3+ years into the most bold mission in the history of war and we are calling this an abject failure? Wow. Liberals must have such a high expectation for the cleanliness and quickness of war.

How many times will I give the leaders in this war effort another chance? As many as it takes until they succeed.

Unlike many others, I don't expect war to be perfect. I don't expect the military, their leaders, or politicians to not make mistakes, even catastrophic ones, as I have studied past war efforts and understand that happens in war.

What I do expect is that the military, their leaders, the soldiers doing the fighting and the politicians sending them to fight will give their all to succeed in the mission.

I could care less about the Republican Party, the Democrat Party, the Whig Party, the "Mainstream" Media Party, the Cindy Sheehan Party, the Reality-Based Community Party, you name it. I care about America. I care about the future of America. I care about future Americans knowing that America is on the side of good and does its best to fight evil, oppression, tyranny and terrorism in the world.

Politics will continue to be politics, but only if we succeed in stopping the 7th Century jihadists. The only people who are working to stop them in any way shape or form, whether struggling or succeeding, whether making mistakes or working flawlessly, is President Bush and the US military. For that, they have my support. Those who do not support their efforts, receive my scorn and contempt (and will never receive my vote nor my respect).

[Michael in MI]

Allan - America is at war, not the Bush Administration. When a war in which America is engaged is lost, AMERICA loses, not one person or one administration or one political party "all by themselves".

This mentality is the reason we are struggling in the global war effort against Islamism.

And the Democrats supported the war until it got difficult and then decided to give up. Nice. Great leaders there! Name a war in which mistakes were not made. Name a war in which plans were drawn and executed flawlessly. Name a war in which one could not look back with hindsight on chosen battle plans and strategy after they failed in execution and say "he messed that up big time".

The only time America has lost a war effort is when they gave up.

Mistakes have been made, but the war is not lost. Those who think it is never had the will to fight it in the first place and, in my opinion, should be ashamed to call themselves Americans.

[Ymarsakar]

That was a worthless analysis, Allan, if you could even call it that. It is just a catalogue. There is no money on the table, no down payment even.

The President is responsible for winning and is asking for support for himself and for his party.

The President is not the nation, and you should stop acting as if he has the power to win or lose a war all by himself. It takes nations to win a war, the President simply channels the power of Americans in war. His own personal power is strictly limited, and of little use in warfare.

Americans want to withdraw because they believe that Bush, his administration, and the Republicans, cannot lead the country to victory.

Why don't you start talking about what you believe, instead of what Americans believe.

We have been hoodwinked by this administration.

You've been hoodwinked by this administration, but don't include me in that party.

First, we went in with too few troops.

First you went in with too many tanks.

While this might have worked, when it did not, there was no back-up plan.

You don't even have a backup plan, and you expect someone else to backup your plan?

Second, the administration did not have broad-based world wide support.

That's because Bush wasn't dishonest enough to spend a billion here or there to bribe France and the UN. Different people might disagree on that score.

There is no avoiding it. Whether you are a conservative or a liberal, the conclusion is that Bush screwed the pooch.

how about you try and avoid being the Oracle and leave the seer stuff for future generations.

[Froggy]

I'll tell you what, I'm not feelin' it. I didn't see it in his demeanor that he believed that this would work, and I didn't see anything to convince me that he is prepared to demonstrate the requisite resolve to make this work. I think he knows that the Iraqis won't hang, but this is a way to put them on the hotseat and be able to get out later and say, "Hey, those fuckers didn't sack up and help themselves when we gave them a golden oppy, surge, blah, blah, blah. So we split. Have fun with your genocide bitches."

I wanted to hear that we are going to fucking crush AQ and the Sadrists like a bug and change the ROEs to basically, "Don't shoot civilians on purpose, otherwise get busy." That would work. This punk move ain't goin' nowhere.

[Allan]

Ymaskar,

Here is the problem.

My view in the beginning was that we went in with too few troops.

In March 2003, I would have had 500,000 troops ready to go, or waited until I had them. Or started mobilizing, so that I would have had them within 6 months of the invasion.

I would have raised taxes, instituted rationing, and brought the nation into a patriotic support the war frenzy. If this war was truly for the survival of the country, I would have made sure EVERYONE had a vested interest.

Then, when Baghdad fell, I thought it was a mistake not to stop the looting. A bad PR move not to stop the looting.

Then, I would not have disbanded the Army. I would have coopted it (since I did not have enough troops on the ground) and paid it well.

Then, I would not have gone balls to the wall with de-bathification. Sure, some leaders had to be purged, but the entire professional class was Baath (to be a professional under Saddam, you had to do it), whenther they believed in the party or not.

Then, I would not have supported that nicompoop (was it Chalibi?). He was worthless and the administration should have known it.

Then, I would have told Congress we needed a draft and put enough soldiers and marines into service to win this thing,

Sure, I had ideas two and three years ago. But everyone on this board said I was crazy. Go back and look.

Now, if I believed winning in Iraq was the difference between national annialation and survival, I would treat it as such. I would mobilize the entire Army. I would put this country on war-footing. I would make the iphone look like a frivolous undertaking. 21,000 troops and a billion dollars just won't cut it. Either we are in this war to win or get out.

And, I agree with Froggy. My prediction is that, 6 months from now, Bush will declare Iraq is not meeting its obligations and withdraw, placing the blame on the Iraqis and deflecting it from himself.

The "nation" has not lost this war. This war has been lost by our leaders on behalf of the nation. The nation gave Bush everything he needed to lead us to victory and he frittered it away.

[Allan]

One last thing.

I hope I am wrong. The last thing the US needs to do is withdraw from Iraq without leaving behind a relatively stable democracy. If I am wrong, the Republicans will likely sweep the 2008 elections, and rightly so.

[douglas]

"I would have raised taxes, instituted rationing, and brought the nation into a patriotic support the war frenzy. If this war was truly for the survival of the country, I would have made sure EVERYONE had a vested interest."

Instituted rationing? What the hell for, what is our war effort short of, other than brass (as in balls)?

You'd also have never been elected to a second term after destroying the economy, and your whole plan would go right down the toilet with you. Brilliant plan.

Froggy, I feel ya, but I sure hope you're wrong, and it's just the usual 'Bush is lousy at reading speechs' thing.

[vincenzo4]

Jimbo: Check, spot on. Cowardice has become a manly art.

[Ymarsakar]

Bu winning in Iraq isn't the difference between national annihilation and survival, because Iraq is more or less an elected war, a pre-emptive war, a war in which you fight so that you won't have to fight more wars on American or somebody other's soil.

It prevents terrorist attacks on America, but that isn't something that would automatically destroy America, only hurt her. In order to avoid such, the preemption policy goes into application.

And, I agree with Froggy. My prediction is that, 6 months from now, Bush will declare Iraq is not meeting its obligations and withdraw, placing the blame on the Iraqis and deflecting it from himself.

The "nation" has not lost this war. This war has been lost by our leaders on behalf of the nation. The nation gave Bush everything he needed to lead us to victory and he frittered it away.

Again, nothing's set in stone. You can't have everything you want Allan. The point is not whether you were "right" or "wrong" some years past, the objective is now, what are you going to do about it? How are you going to help the "boss" get the job done, instead of trying to say that the boss didn't go with your plan?

We all have to operate under limitations. I don't agree with Froggy, notably because Bush doesn't act in that sort of hang them out to dry manner. It would be inconsistent with his psychology and past behavior. So we'll see what happens, and whose predictions come true. But the past really doesn't matter now, it is the future that matters. And in the future, if you keep talking about Bush screwing things up, it really will be screwed up. But not by BUsh.

I wanted to hear that we are going to fucking crush AQ and the Sadrists like a bug and change the ROEs to basically, "Don't shoot civilians on purpose, otherwise get busy."

Bush will never say that, not because he refuses to see, but because he just doesn't talk like that. Even if he was doing exactly that, he would never exactly say that. If Petraeus cut through all the Washington red tape and gave the President your plan, Froggy, and said to him that this is the only plan he sees as ever salvaging Iraq, then the President would go for it. But he wouldn't go public with the plan, he would just tell Petraeus to do it. The President doesn't come up with plans in so much as he approves of other people's plans, so if other people all give him things that talk about stuff that doesn't matter, then that is what we see done in Iraq.

[AFSister]

Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but here's all I got out of the speech:
1. I made mistakes, and I take responsibility for them
2. We're staying the course, but increasing US troop strength in Iraq

I just don't see where he said anything new or exciting, except for the apology.

[Ymarsakar]

Officially and publicing recognizing Syrian and Iranian sabotage of Iraq.

Sending an additional carrier battlegroup to the region.

Patriot Missile batteries to "reassure" our allies, whatever that means.

Going into the protected zones in and around Baghdad, that US forces were prevented from doing because of sectarian and Iraqi internal politics.

Gathering enough manpower in order to both clear and hold these "enclaves" of enemies of humanity, as opposed to that is.

That's all the new stuff I can come up with off the top of my head. However, what was really surprising was the manner in which he did it. He did not take the "I'll reconcile with Democrats tone" with Iran. He also didn't try to dodge the question of who and what prevented Americans from doing their job. His rendition of events, is more or less accurate. Meaning, always before Bush had this syrupy view of things, not bad but not good either. Bush would always try to be diplomatic and portray things as requiring more patience. Now that he knows he won't get anymore patience, he is going somewhere else.

He hasn't talked about where America has gone wrong before, in my memories. It is a good path he is on right now. Because to me, he always relied upon the Democrats and his advisers to hash out the problems, he never really tried talking to Americans about the problems he saw. A problem with a lack of communication, yes, but also because Bush doesn't approve of governing by polls, so he keeps things close to his vest. I think he believed that there was no point telling the American people his problems, because the people he listened to in order to solve those problems were not the public, it was his group of whatever. Now that he is facing a problem that has been forced upon him by the American people, he seems to be seeing things in a different light.

He did more explaining in that speech concerning what he was going to do and what previous problems were, than I believe he did in total from 2003 to 2006.

[Greymen]

Defeat? Bush loses a war and you blame the Democrats for not extending it for an eternity? Hell Trent Lott says there are at least ten republican Senators oppossing the war in Iraq. More coming I'm sure.

Besides, what does "defeat mean". Nobody has explained that very well. The Iraqi oil goes to China? We should be happy, the Chinese are our friends, right? Base for terrorists? We can always bomb the piss out of them and re-invade at will. Nothing can stop us.....unless we are bankrupt. Can't do much if you are bankrupt.

[Ymarsakar]

I know that BUsh is doing something good, when the Left goes crazy.

[Darthparrish]

7 out of 10 people think Bush is too incompetent to make sound desicions on the policies of the Iraq war, consequently, 7/10 feel that this troop increase is a horrible Idea.

[Allan]

Ymarsakar,

If Bush does something good, let me know. Last time that happened was in the fall and winter of 2002, when he invaded Afghanistan...

[Esoterik]

Greymen-

“Bush loses a war…”
Where did you buy your crystal ball? Wal-Mart?

“…and you blame the Democrats for not extending it for an eternity?”

Lets do a little historic perception IQ test shall we?
How many years from start to finish did it take the American Insurgents to win the Revolutionary war against their British Imperialist Overlords and indigenous Colonial Tory Loyalists?
And after the shooting war was over, how many more years did it take for all of the American colonies to cobble together a Constitution which could be accepted and ratified by all?
Oh… and bear in mind that the aforementioned Colonial Tory Loyalist, even though many suffered grievously for their loyalty to the King, did not form their own Insurgency after the fact to attempt to continue the cause. Nor were the Shakers, Puritans, Wesleyans, Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, Congregationalists and other various Christian Sects forming their own militias with the aim of eliminating each other as violently as possible as well as anyone else that got in their way. And even though many Christian Sects perceived the Revolution as representing a violation of basic Biblical principles as presented in Romans 13, “…since government is of God, then all government decrees are to be obeyed because they proceed from God;” and therefore was “sinful” and “illegal,” they did not practice a policy of disruption in an attempt to derail the process of forming a new government. Nor did the fledgling United States have multiple countries on its borders, hostile to the concept of a new country being created, importing fifth column agitators and seditionists as rapidly as possible to encourage destabilization which they could exploit to move in and take over themselves.
Yet, how many years did it take to ratify an entire new government and rebuild the entire infrastructure of major cities and rural communities during the process, with out the aforementioned obstacles?
Damn good thing the Democrats weren’t around to complain about how things were being “extended for an eternity!” Our country would never have been born. Of course, self loathing individuals such as yourself would have preferred it that way.

I think your mother ship is calling Greymen, why don't your return to it?

[Allan]

Esoterik,

Methinks it is thou who so needest a history lesson.

You are comparing the Revolutionary War to this one? Good luck.

1. How long it took depends on when you think it started. Assuming it is Lexington and Concord, about 8 years.
2. Washington and Co. were fighting for their lives, literally. If they lost, they would be hanged. In this conflict, if we lose, the soldiers will not be hanged.
3. Washington did not fight for six months out of the year. So, you can reduce the actual was to four years.
4. there was a coalition that helped Washington win. France helped, primarily. But, England was having to put out fires all over the world.
5. In the 1780s, we were the Iraq, England was the superpower. Perhaps, Iran will take the role as the France.
6. The revolution was 230 years ago, for Pete's sake. Valid comparisons regarding the world politic and the way to fight wars is a stretch.

Truly, if you draw parallels, you are encouraging Iraqi insurgents to continue. The US has seldom had a war this long, especially outside of the continental United States. Perhaps the only other one that has lasted this long was Vietnam (which, officially, like this conflict, was not a war). I am not sure how we would determine Vietnam lasted (as the beginning and end dates are murky).

And, you forget, this country was far from united during the Revolutionary War. There were a sizable number of Tories who supported the English. The Tories DID fight with the British. To say they did not is to rewrite history.

As for countries on our borders, what do you call Canada? As a colony, it was certainly not friendly to our cause. And, I do not think Spain, which was to the south, was very helpful, either (but, it was probably too far away to matter).

And, don't forget that the Crown in the 1770s had a depleted treasury (which had as much to do with the revolution as anything).

[Esoterik]

Good grief Alan, I know you’re not that dense. Or maybe you are.

It was simply a loosely construed analogy to point out the fact that nation building does not occur overnight, even when after the shooting war is over you don’t have the disadvantages that the Iraqi Government faces today with militant religious factionalism and outside agitation. You’re simply making a pointless argument for the sheer joy of arguing. Go back to your High School Debate Club for that, maybe you will get some extra credit.

And, you forget, this country was far from united during the Revolutionary War. There were a sizable number of Tories who supported the English. The Tories DID fight with the British. To say they did not is to rewrite history.

Clearly, you didn’t even read the comment if that is what you took away.

I am not going to waist my time further with what should be unnecessary clarification.
Club me or shoot me, but don’t bore me.

[Allan]

Esoterik,

It is just that your comments make no sense as an analogy to Iraq. The Iraqis we are supporting are nothing like our Founding Fathers. To the contrary, they are more like the Tories.

And the 8 years of the Revolutionary War is nothing like 4 years in this war. Wars these days move much more swiftly.

It should further be oted that our revolution was started from within. Iraq's was not.

This war is much more like the colonial wars of the 1950s than to the revolutionary war.

[Esoterik]

The analogy is to the difficulty and “relative time requirement” of creating an entire new government (The United States Constitution) as opposed to “fixing” an old one (Articles of Confederation) in absence of specific alluded to obstacles, which do exist in Iraq therefore complicating a “similar” process.

Analogy does not require that every single detail have a direct corollary. If that were the case, no analogy could ever be drawn.

If you choose to continue to grasp at straws to intentionally “miss the point,” oh well!

Perhaps it is my referral of the American Revolutionaries as “American Insurgents” that throws you out of kilter. That was not intended as direct analogy but as mocking of typical leftist sentiment.

[emjayinc]

I believe the Prez does represent all us Americans, as in "In wartime, politics ends at the water's edge". I also think that he made reasoned decisions, at least during the takedown, and then turned over the aftermath to the CPA crowd and whoever it was in Washington who dreamed them up (methinks, CPA was a committee product, and we therefore got a camel when what we wanted was a horse), so he could get on with governance of the USA. The CPA looked a lot like the structure of post-hostilities military government in Germany and Japan,which didn't take in to account the differences between those situations and Iraq's. Don't care what the "redeployers" say, this is enough of a new strategy to satisfy any reasonable person whose goal is similar to the stated ones. If new goals are what's wanted, well, then, that should be the topic under discussion,and ,I suspect, is being considered somewhere in the depths and back rooms of DoD and State under the rubric "How do we get out if we have to, so there won't be a repeat of April 1975 Huey lift from the US Embassy, Saigon?" But why start public discussion of that, when we've still got a war going on, which is not yet "lost"? Many have made the point, but I feel it worth repeating -- the strategic center of gravity in a democracy is the home front, and ours has been in strategic disarray for far too long.

[Ymarsakar]

It is just that your comments make no sense as an analogy to Iraq. The Iraqis we are supporting are nothing like our Founding Fathers. To the contrary, they are more like the Tories.

The objective should not be to draw direct parallels. The objective is to learn from what happened before, and apply it using personal wisdom to what is going on now and what can occur tomorrow.

You learn from events in the context that they occured. You don't transplant them to Iraq and say "they did this, therefore we should do the same here".

It should further be oted that our revolution was started from within. Iraq's was not.

The way you look at it, Allan, it definitely does not make sense when drawn against Iraq. Because what you can learn from the Revolutionary War is simply a matter of willpower. It is not a recommendation to do what Washington did or do what the British did, for winning Iraq.