70 Comments

1. Ron Wrght:

The Truth, the Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth!

The LL and the MSM are guilty of lying to the American people by telling only partial truths and by ommission of other facts and details.

I say publish the whole NIE and let the people decide who’s telling the truth. These gov’t and committee reports have become partisan hack jobs anyway.

For example see Scott Malensek’s excellent point by point rebuttal of the Senate Intel Co’s Phase II Report.

Read More Here

Sep 26, 2006 - 7:39 am 2. Charlie (Colorado):

I don’t think Condi could avoid having to comment on Clinton’s asse3rtions, especially since a number of them were “flatly false.” Even Sunzi wouldn’t suggest not blocking a blow.

Sep 26, 2006 - 8:23 am 3. mrbones:

Roger, perhaps you were joking — it’s hard to tell — but a) the 9/11 Commission, which Rice admits is authoritative, repudiates her remarks to The Post and b) just because what The Times reports doesn’t fit your narrative, do you really believe that The Times — or any other publication — ought to jettison the mandate of reporting news and shoulder the responsibility of “finding solutions”?

Isn’t that why you voted for Bush? It’s his responsibility, no?

Sep 26, 2006 - 8:27 am 4. Charlie (Colorado):

MrBones, could you possibly point the interlocutor to a reference? Richard Clarke certainly did not refute Rice’s point about there not being a plan:

ÔøΩThere was never a plan, Andrea,ÔøΩ Clarke answered. ÔøΩWhat there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.ÔøΩ

(Quotes by Byron York today at NRO.

Sep 26, 2006 - 8:35 am 5. mrbones:

Here you go:

http://tinyurl.com/fz932

Sep 26, 2006 - 8:52 am 6. Ron:

What a shame that the once great Democrat Party has degenerated into what it is now and have two living Democrat ex-Presidents like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton who continue to play the fool for the world to see. Jimmy Carter a President that never saw a dictator that he wouldn’t grovel to and Mr. Clinton who made the White house his personal bordello and motel $6 for big contributors and Korean criminals. The Democrats want to try it one more time now, wonder if the country would survive their brand of political correctness in time of war.

Sep 26, 2006 - 9:04 am 7. Lem:

The next time one of these comes up do, the likelihood of declassification will color the content making it more difficult for the policy makers to have real and honest assessments of the war on terror.

http://tinyurl.com/pmwxx

This is a mistake.

Sep 26, 2006 - 9:37 am 8. David Thomson:

Bill Kristol suggests that the former president deliberately pretended to be outraged by Chris Wallaceís questions. This is very doubtful. On the contrary, Clintonís TV performance has opened a discussion which can only help Republicans. I suspect that historians will look back at this interview as a major contributor to the Democrats disastrous results in the 2006 elections. The odds now slightly favor the GOP picking up an additional two U.S. Senate seats.

Sep 26, 2006 - 9:38 am 9. markus:

“Rather than blame each other, we should roll up our sleeves.”

Oh, I get it. Now that McCain, Warner and Graham have folded their tents on the matter of torture, its time to get beyond politics for the sake of the nation.

Sep 26, 2006 - 9:49 am 10. Matthew:

Roger,

Hello, Condi, time to reread Sun Tzu. This tawdry self-involved debate, naturally arising as an election approaches, is an example of American partisanship at its most self-destructive. The present objectives disappear in a blur as people turn backwards and rage.

Condoleeza Rice was not engaging in a tit-for-tat with Mr. Clinton. If she were, she would indeed be violating Sun-Tzu’s precepts.

What she was doing was more subtle. Bill Clinton was like Wile E. Coyote in that special moment between racing off the cliff and finally yielding to the pull of gravity in a dramatic plunge. By publicly fact-checking only a few of Mr. Clinton’s most outrageous claims, she was were merely emitting the Road Runner’s “Beep, beep!” as the cue for the coyote’s fall.

Without that discrete but necessary rejoinder on the part of Condi, Mr. Clinton might have remained suspended indefinitely over the chasm of his shameless dishonesty.

Sep 26, 2006 - 9:54 am 11. Charlie (Colorado):

MrBones, that Think Progress thing is kinda cherry-picked. I can’t fisk it in detail right now since I’ve got a day job, but I’ll note that, for example, the warning about bin Laden using a hijack neither gave any specific time range nor and other information to allow a real intervention; it’s essentially background, and should be read with an immediately following “Well, duh” since we’d known about bin Laden’s training sites in, er, Iraq for some time.

Sep 26, 2006 - 10:02 am 12. Steven Mitchell:

“Oh, I get it. Now that McCain, Warner and Graham have folded their tents on the matter of torture, its time to get beyond politics for the sake of the nation.”

And here’s why it’s hard to get beyond the politics. Some people can’t help but issue their propaganda characterizations in unrelated topics. This is second time in two weeks. What’s the matter, markus, didn’t see an entry wedge to make a comment about universal health care?

I’ll get beyond politics when the other side shows the slightest ability to at least shut up when they’ve been shown to be idiots. I’ve given up on admission of error, but simple silence would be an improvement right now. There’s my stopgap plan for the Dems November prospects–shut up, and probably gain 5 points in the polls by then.

Some people earn disrespect.

Sep 26, 2006 - 11:09 am 13. ricpic:

Gee, I thought that Condi finally grew a pair. You go, girl!

Sep 26, 2006 - 12:22 pm 14. dclydew:

For once I agree with some of what you say Roger…

I propose that we elect new leaders. Completely new leaders. Throw out the Rebublicans currently inpower, and replace them with different Republicans who can look at the issue without worrying about saving face. Do the same with the Democrats.

Toss out every incumbant, replace them with whomever the citizens want (same party, different part, independant, whatever), and then let them try to see their way through this mess. And be honest, we are in a mess. A mess from the minority, who are more concerned with getting back into power than with maintaining the country. A mess from the majority, still unable to admit that they made a really big error (and still keeping the people that made the errors in power). Rumsfeld, for example, has a job that makes him responsible for the success of our military strategy. No matter of anyone personal opinion, no matter what people may have thought was going to happen, no matter who had what WMD or who was snorting yellowcake… the final responsibility lay with Mr. Rumsfeld.

Now, four years later, did Mr. Rumsfeld do his job? Was his plan correct? Did he do his job successfully?

The answer, to any non-partisan person would have to be no. We did not jump in and out, we did not have a plan for staying, we did not have enough troops, we are in a long war, not a short one.

In any corporation, if an exectuive screwed up that badly, they would be fired (or they would resign to ‘explore new oppurtunities”). The fact that Rumsfeld is still at his job indicates some serious cognative dissonance somewhere. Not, particulary because anyone is evil, or has some secret NAZI plan… but because we have two parties fighting each other and protecting their own, to the detrement of this nation. Every member of Congress or the Senate, who is more concerned with “getting the Republicans”, or with “stopping the Democrats” than with helping all Americans, needs to go and they need to go now.

In almost every issue, the differences between our political parties are not wide. We do not suffer from serious political problems… indeed, most of the issues we have today really come down to how much involvement the Federal government should have in our personal lives. Compared to Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Isreal, Palastine, Eastern Europe, Russia, Most South American countries, Most Asian countries… we’ve got it made.

Yet, it seems to me, from my perceptions about governments around the world, that we are more divided, more partisan and more vitrolic than most other nations where serious, SERIOUS issues exist.

If your representative is a Good member of Party X, throw him out. Find a good member of the American Citizenry to replace him.

Sep 26, 2006 - 1:10 pm 15. Terrye:

I don’t know Roger, a lot of epople on the left are feeling big and bad cause Slick Willie took on the vast right wing conspiracy. Perhaps Condi Rice thought it was time to bring them back down to planet earth.

Fat chance.

Sep 26, 2006 - 1:27 pm 16. Godzilla:

Ron, as despicable as Clinton is, he is a piker compared to Carter. Carter didn’t only screw up on the world stage while he was president (IRAN), he also gets star billing for North Korea’s present nuclear capability. And what were the interest rates at during his presidency..up to 18% at times. What an unfit individual to put behind the helm of leadership. What decrepit reasoning. How sickening that we coexist with people who elected him. And how sad that these same people are, in many cases are our spouses, friends, and relatives. How can there be hope when such as Carter can get elected. And look how close that loon Gore got.

It is best not to dwell on the fact that people like Carter even exist, let alone can become president.

Sep 26, 2006 - 1:51 pm 17. AlanC:

Godzilla I’m afraid I can’t agree with you completely about people that voted for Carter.
They (me) need some slack cut.

He was the only (to my everlasting chagrin) Demoncrat that I voted for at the Federal level.

Considering what we were coming from in ‘76 he had one position which I felt swung the balance. Anyone remember “zero based budgeting”?

I had no inkling that he would turn into the buffoon he did. He had some credentials; governor, nuclear navy, etc. that did much to hide his insanity.

NOW anyone that voted for him a SECOND time……

Sep 26, 2006 - 2:29 pm 18. Godzilla:

They (me) need some slack cut…NOW anyone that voted for him a SECOND time……

I can go along with that. What’s really depressing is that 30 years after the debacle of his presidency, he still holds a position of esteem in the Democtatic Party. Even with the hindsight afforded by time, and even though his two diplomatic international efforts, regarding Iran and North Korea, were horibble and abject failures.

THAT is what is unfathomable. That he is STILL prominent. There can be no hope when one party is so devastatingly illogical. The result is there for us to see. We eke on, day by day while the world gets worse, our enemies more numerous. We will continue to keep them at bay, with a cell getting through from time to time to kill some of us. And one day our kids, or our kids’ kids will have a war like no other on their hands.

Sep 26, 2006 - 3:02 pm 19. Syl:

I disagree with both Roger and ddydew.

I think you both miss the point that politics in America IS THE WAY IT IS.

Wishful thinking will not set aside the stupidities, the propaganda, the insane sound bites, the bickering, or anything else.

And this occurs inside Congress no matter who is involved.

It’s something I’ve reluctantly accepted.

BESIDES, getting the NIE out there, the fight over ‘torture’, tribunals, Iraq, and terrorism IS a NECCESSARY fight for the American people to have.

No matter how silly, bullying, inane, strident, unfair, the arguments are.

It’s the way Americans sort out their views and alliegiances.

Throwing the bums out will not change anything, there’ll just be new bums. Wishing people would just shut up and be nice will not change anything either.

The problem that I see is not that our politics happens, it’s that it becomes a fulltime job. Which leaves a lot of people out of the equation.

But, still, the arguments eventually get through to the voters.

And, believe it or not, the American people ARE interested in terrorism, its causes, its possibilities and what to do about it.

De-Classifying the NIE was the right thing to do. I figure the jihadis will scratch their heads over it then just continue to do what they’re doing. They know we know. We know they know.

The greatest gift our democracy has given us is the ability to scream and shout at each other while at the same time debating the ideas.

Let the politics continue!

Sep 26, 2006 - 5:32 pm 20. Knucklehead:

dclydew,

Now, four years later, did Mr. Rumsfeld do his job? Was his plan correct? Did he do his job successfully?

The answer, to any non-partisan person would have to be no. We did not jump in and out, we did not have a plan for staying, we did not have enough troops, we are in a long war, not a short one.

If those had been the criteria for “doing the job” then you might build a case for “failure”. “Jumping in and out” and “short war” were not the criteria.

The “Powell Doctrine” – overwhemlming force + exit strategy – was pretty clearly rejected by the administration as a viable way to proceed. IMHO, “any non-partisan person” can see why clobbering the entire portion of the world where terrorist organizations were (and to a large extent remain) dispersed into submission with “overwhelming force” was not necessarily the preferrable (or even a plausible) option.

The Powell Doctrine was developed for a different enemy, a different sort of warfare, in a different age. It had its time and was properly supported during that time.

You’ll need to pardon those of us who don’t find the pissing and moaning by those who believe the Powell Doctrine remained a viable doctrine in the current situation.

Rumsfeld was stuck with armed forces built to enforce a doctrine that had did not match the needs of the times.

And NOBODY had any plan for tearing out the poisonous weeds and deadly vipers throughout the Islamic world and building something approximating sanity to take its place. Not the US, not the UN, not the EU – nobody. Therefore the “plan” had to be “engage, improvise, adapt”.

And, BTW, POTUS made it quite clear that this would be a long, not short, war.

Sep 27, 2006 - 7:06 am 21. markus:

“You’ll need to pardon those of us who don’t find the pissing and moaning by those who believe the Powell Doctrine remained a viable doctrine in the current situation.”

No, I want an explanation. Why was the Powell Doctrine not viable or appropriate in 2003?

Sep 27, 2006 - 7:23 am 22. AlanC:

Markus,
on the off chance that you are serious …

The choice of tools always needs to depend on the goal desired.

The Powell doctrine is a good tool to defeat a conventional military opponent with clearly defined enemies fighting according to the Geneva Conventions. It was suitable for dealing with Saddam in ‘91 on that basis.

It is NOT the right tool for trying to cleanse a country and reform its culture (see the NIE). That requires different tactics and strategies.

We basically have 3 choices in this war.

1) Act like true imperialists (see Romans or Belgian or British colonialism). Take over set up the new government ala McArthur and very slowly hand over authority to the locals as they learn such things as the rule of law and civilized behavior. The Powell doctrine would work for part one of this. This is the WWII German / Japanese model.

2) Blow the crap out of the enemy without too much concern about collateral damage. Tell the surviors to get their stuff together or we’ll come back. Then leave. This is the application of the Powell doctrine to this situation. Also known as wash, rinse, repeat as necessary.

3) Overthrow the regime as gently as reasonable, turn over the running of things to the locals as fast as possible providing all the training and help that you can. This is what we are trying to do. We are NOT acting like imperialists. If we were we would have done a true Roman on Fallujah & Sadr etc. We are trying to be PC but still change the culture.

Which of the 3 would you prefer? You have to pick one, assuming that leaving the status quo is unacceptable as it was in this case.

Once you pick one, then we can argue the nits.

Sep 27, 2006 - 7:49 am 23. Steven Mitchell:

“Once you pick one, then we can argue the nits.”

I’d like to see dclydew’s answer to this one, as well–in particular regards to why his choice is superior to the administration’s choice, and why it would have played out differently.

Sep 27, 2006 - 8:05 am 24. markus:

AlanC — The status quo was acceptable, and preferable to current situation, from a strategic and humanitarian perspective. Next best choice was to go in with enough troops to maintain order in the crucial months after the tinpot dictator was overthrown. Even Bill Kristol understands we went in with far too few troops.

Sep 27, 2006 - 8:09 am 25. AlanC:

The status quo was acceptable? You’re insane or memory impaired.

Hussein had at the very least WMD programs waiting to start the minute that sanctions were removed. He had contacts with terrorist orgs including Al Q. The sanctions wouldn’t have lasted another 6 months due to the Russians, French and Oil for Palaces.

After 9/11 it was clear that to allow a genocidal (see Marsh Arabs & Kurds & Iranians) madman the opportunity to pass WMD to terrorists was NOT acceptable.

Sep 27, 2006 - 8:30 am 26. Knucklehead:

AlanC,

Excellent summary, thank you. There is no shortage of people who are downright peeved that the rose garden has not been delivered. That it was never promised is imaterial to them.

Sep 27, 2006 - 8:48 am 27. AlanC:

Markus,

So, you appear to prefer option one, full on Imperialism where the US went in and took over the whole country to maintain order? That’s an alternative.

Now, how long would you lefties have applauded that as the correct way to go?

Oh, and since when has Bill Kristol been the ultimate go to guy for military strategy?

It’s always easy to criticize after the fact.
Forsight is rarely 20/20 and no plan ever withstands first contact with the enemy.

What would have happened if the 4th Div. had been able to swoop in from the north out of Turkey? Good chance that the Sunni area wouldn’t have been so much trouble after that, no? And why didn’t they do that? I’ll leave that as a test for the readers.

Sep 27, 2006 - 9:03 am 28. Sandy P:

The status quo?

Or the new status quo since there would have been a nuke race between Iran and Iraq, markus.

Alan – damn frogs!

Sep 27, 2006 - 9:06 am 29. Knucklehead:

The status quo was acceptable, and preferable to current situation, from a strategic and humanitarian perspective.

Nonsense. The “status quo” was an elaborate facade behind which dedicated enemies of the United States (the UN, Saddam, various terrorists, and, IMO, France and Russia) were were dilligently working to their own ends and the detriment of the US.

Next best choice was to go in with enough troops to maintain order in the crucial months after the tinpot dictator was overthrown.

That is nothing more than a restatement of the Powell Doctrine. Beat them into exhausted submission and get out.

The strategy was to eliminate what forced the Iraqi people into being, by and large, unwilling and unwitting accomplises to vile, dangerous, and murderous thugs and then encourage, assist, push, threaten, and cajole them into standing up and dealing with their own problems. More troops would have done nothing but hinder that effort by doing the long-term heavy lifting for them. They must establish and maintain order and they are well embarked on the bitter and bloody effort.

Even Bill Kristol understands we went in with far too few troops.

Sigh… has it ever dawned upon you that we are not a government of the pundits, by the pundits, for the pundits?

Sep 27, 2006 - 9:10 am 30. markus:

AlanC — I can’t believe anyone seriously doubts that Rumsfeld was wrong and Shinseki was right about the number of troops needed to overthrow Saadam, and RUN THE COUNTRY afterwards. Or that socially engineering the transition to liberal democracy without acting like imperialists.

Bremer sure wishes there were more troops in ‘03:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/05/bremer.rumsfeld/

More troops in ‘03 MIGHT have prevented the power vacumn which was filled by sectarian groups and terrorists.

As did the uniformed officers:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june06/iraq_4-13.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12335719/site/newsweek/

Sep 27, 2006 - 9:31 am 31. AlanC:

Markus,

Just how many troops should we have sent? How long should they be there? I’m getting the feeling that maybe you are more of the rinse & repeat option than the imperial. What do YOU say?

And, justify the result. The Wash, Rinse, Repeat option would probably have wound up in a total civil war and/or an Iranian take over via the Shia militia. Do you see that as preferable?

BTW I’ve also seen military men that stated they had everything they asked for. I’m not in a position to judge.

I do know that the status quo was not acceptable and that the French stabbed us in the back so that our plan couldn’t work.

Sep 27, 2006 - 11:38 am 32. Charlie (Colorado):

Markus: The status quo was acceptable, and preferable to current situation, from a strategic and humanitarian perspective.

Bullshit. The status quo was thousands of murders, murders by torture, rapes, and mutilations every year, with Shi’ites being systematically deprived of food, medical care, and education by the Sunni Ba’ath Party while the money from Oil for Food was used to support Palestinians murdering Israelis, subvert the UN, and enrich Saddam’s cronies; as a humanitarian situation, it was execrable.

Strategically, we’ve gone from having a long-term intolerable cost maintaining the “No Fly Zones” while Iraq acted as both a haven for some terrorists, and a path for communications and logistics not just for terrorists but also state actors against the USA’s interests, to a situation in which the major anti-US actor left in the region has at least lost easy communication. (If you doubt this, consider a map of the area. Color all the areas in which Islamists have control of the government, or the govenment is so incapable of acting that Islamists aren’t particularly impeded; now, make a comparable map as of 1 Jan 2001.

(If you do it honestly, you’ll find that we’ve gone from a situation with unbroken lines of logistics from Pakistan to Morrocco, to a situation in which there are big holes at Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, and arguably Egypt [for all his faults, Mubarrak knows his interests lie with the Islamists not winning] and Lebanon.)

As to the “more troops” issue, if you look carefully, you’ll find that there are also a large number of officers who felt that a really big occupying force would, wait for it, encourage terrorism and recruitment. They don’t get as much press.

But, other than being completely wrong, nice try.

Sep 27, 2006 - 11:46 am 33. Knucklehead:

Charlie (C),

You don’t really expect him to pick up a map and try to figure out what’s where and why, do you?

Besides, you don’t really believe geography, terrain, distance, and communications actually matter to anything, do you? How Last Century of you.

Sep 27, 2006 - 11:56 am 34. markus:

“Color all the areas in which Islamists have control of the government, or the govenment is so incapable of acting that Islamists aren’t particularly impeded; now, make a comparable map as of 1 Jan 2001.”

Jan 1, 2001: Iran and most of Afghanistan.

Sept. 27, 2006: Iran, most of Iraq, Waziristan, Palestinian territories, Lebanon, suburbs of Paris, neighborhoods of London…

Oh, and now Morocco: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/740boykt.asp

Sep 27, 2006 - 12:46 pm 35. Terrye:

The status quo? I thought hundreds of thousands were dying because of the status quo. Clinton said the status qup was unacceptable and dangerous. But then again that was then and he is a Democrat so it doesn’t count.

Besides we could not babysit that madman and his psyco sons forever. We would have been forced to give it up in any event and there Saddam would have been, dressed like Don Corleone shooting off his AK and bragging how he defeated the infidels and the Great Satan. And you know it is true, that is exactly what he would have done. Imagine how many terrorists against the decadent and evil west that would have engendered.

Sep 27, 2006 - 12:51 pm 36. markus:

The status quo was bad, the situation now is worse. Of cours if one was languishing in prison or being tortured under Saadam, that is perhaps not the case. But the current political violence seems to pose a threat a greater number of people.

Sep 27, 2006 - 1:06 pm 37. Terrye:

markus:

You are missing the point. We could not have maintained the status quo even if we wanted to.

You know the thing that pisses me off the most is the complete self satified and self serving crap from so much of the antiwar camp both here and abroad.

Back in the 90’s, no one not Zinni or Clinton or Blair of the UN Security Council quibbled as to whether Saddam was a dangerous man. It was not until George Bush came to office that all these folks acted as if the fact that Saddam was a homcidal maniac with a history of defying the United Nations and ignoring a cease fire with the United States was a subject for debate.

If they had resolved the situation then we might not be talking about it now. However, they did not and to think we could have maintained that status quo indefinitely is ridiculous. The UN was not going to go for that. Saddam was not going to allow it. The Saudis were not going to let us keep the base there forever. Things were changing and it was Saddam who decided which way they would go.

Sep 27, 2006 - 4:28 pm 38. Bostonian:

“The status quo was acceptable. ”
Bravo to you for your honesty.

I am surprised, though, to find that what remains of today’s Left is imperialist rather than democratic. I guess I got out just in time.

Anyway, thanks again for reminding me why I can never again vote for a “Democrat.”

Sep 27, 2006 - 4:30 pm 39. Terrye:

And markus, ask the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds if things are worse now.

Sep 27, 2006 - 4:30 pm 40. Steven Mitchell:

I guess it goes without saying that I disagree with markus’ answer. I’ll give points, though, for giving a direct answer. By my count, you are the only person here remotely left of center that has ever done so.

I don’t think you want to go back and read what Dems were saying about Iraqi sanctions in, say, middle of 2000.

Sep 27, 2006 - 6:36 pm 41. Luther McLeod:

marcus

It will sound mean though (unusually) I do not mean it so. You need to find a different tack. You float the same tired old tropes. Most refuted, those that remain, justly argued, could be decided for either side. There is no there, there, on your side.

I suppose you are on a quixotic quest. That’s OK, as far as it goes. But, really, you are wrong. Comes a time when the fantasy of youth must give way to the reality of experience.

Sep 27, 2006 - 8:33 pm 42. flicka47:

OK guys,but where do we go from here?
What are the next steps?

And how do we convince the marcus’s and dclydew’s that that is the way forward? Since they seem to be a stuck record,they keep dragging us back into a pointless argument that does nothing to help move us forward.At what point do we finally just get fed up with them since they refuse to commit to any forwardmoving actions?

And if we can’t convince them,then how do we minimize their damage?

The Pope was right by the way…. but it is not just the Islamists that are refusing to act with reason.

Sep 27, 2006 - 9:51 pm 43. Lem:

Markus put it this way.
Iraq is a proxy against Al Qaeda the way Hezbollah is an Iranian/Syria proxy against Israel. Iraq allows us to dictate some of the terms of the fight. The president said as much when he says we rather fight them there than in the streets of NY.

The reward to Iraq is the possibility for the first time to have a say in their future. It will take a while but in the end it’s a win win.
Read the NIE summary.

Sep 27, 2006 - 10:27 pm 44. markus:

As I’ve said before, I’m a sucker for idealist liberal social engineering projects, and I never got around to reading “History of the Peloponeisian War” or “The Quiet American” in college. I ignored the conservative and realist voices that warned we were embarking on a venture based on “maximum feasible misunderstanding.” I thought overthrowing Saadam in 2003 was a good idea, better than the status quo.

Since then I’ve been “mugged by reality”, another neocon catchphrase. So has every other war supporter remotely in touch with reality.

It’s now clear that overthrowing Saadam in 2003 was no more necessary or advisable than overthrowing Stalin in 1947.

Sep 28, 2006 - 7:42 am 45. markus:

One more thing…
Lem — “Iraq is a proxy against Al Qaeda the way Hezbollah is an Iranian/Syria proxy against Israel. Iraq allows us to dictate some of the terms of the fight. The president said as much when he says we rather fight them there than in the streets of NY.”

Lem, please explain how spending hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars herding cats and dodging bullets in Iraq helps us to “dictate some of the terms of the fight” against Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is in mainly in Pakistan, Indonesia and Europe. To the extent it has a presence in Iraq, it is because of the breakdown of order post-2003. There were terrorists in Iraq under the Hussein regime, people like Abu Nidal. Difference is that then they were RETIRED terrorists, hiding from justice, rather than taking potshots at young American men and women, and Iraqi civilians too.

BTW, a nifty article on your taxpayer dollars at work, building the “Baghdad Police College”, a project “so grossly mismanaged [by Parsons Corp., an American company] that the campus now poses health risks to recruits and might need to be partially demolished”:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092702134.html

Sep 28, 2006 - 8:18 am 46. Lem:

Markus conveniently leaves out that Saddam (unlike Stalin) used WMD against his own people and Iran.
Put that and a string of unheeded UN resolutions ordering him to show he had no WMD add to that 9/11 as a backdrop. Bush had to act.

What makes you think Saddam wouldn?t have given Al Qaeda anything it wanted?
Back then the only thing Bush could count on (as Bush 41 found out) was Saddam?s unpredictability. Thank God Bush acted.

BTW – Before Bush terrorist could count on “retirement” do to old age. Now we “retire” them early and for good.

Sep 28, 2006 - 8:36 am 47. markus:

Lem — Google “great famine+ukraine” to find out about Stalin’s WMD’s.

Sep 28, 2006 - 8:46 am 48. Lem:

How does Terrell Owens of the Dallas Cowboys remind you of todays political opposition?

Terrell got a hefty contract worth millions and contemplated suicide.

Bush’s opposition see a stock market going up as fast as gasoline is coming down; things have never looked this grim. And so the need to go back to Iraq because is the only thing they got.

Markus read this from another Wapo war critic who (unlike you) has been able to move on.

http://tinyurl.com/hwf87

Sep 28, 2006 - 9:08 am 49. dclydew:

Sorry been a busy week at the office.

I’d like to see dclydew’s answer to this one, as well–in particular regards to why his choice is superior to the administration’s choice, and why it would have played out differently.

Let’s look at what I said again:

Rumsfeld, for example, has a job that makes him responsible for the success of our military strategy. No matter of anyone personal opinion, no matter what people may have thought was going to happen, no matter who had what WMD or who was snorting yellowcake… the final responsibility lay with Mr. Rumsfeld.

Mr. Rumsfeld is free to make any choice he wants in regard to our millitary straategy. He can go with force or finesse, he can go with lots of troops or few, with bombs, or small arms, or tactical nukes… I am not in his position, and therefore am unable to determine the “best way”.

However, Mr. Rumsfeld, along with his freedom of choice, has a responsibility to make the right choice. If he chose “small force with no plan for occupation”, thats fine… but, if “small force with no plan for occupation” ends up being a bad choice, then he failed to properly do his job and thus, in a non-partisan world, or a corporate world, he would resign or be fired.

If I were tasked with protecting credit card data for a large corporation, I have many choices. I can choose a small quick algorithm like 56-bit DES, or I can choose a strong and slower algorithm like 256-bit AES. I could choose either, but if someone tries to crack the encryption, I would be held responsible for the success or failure of that protection. If I chose DES, then a sufficiently trained hacker would probably break it in about 4 hours. If I chose AES, well, let’s say the hacker would likely still be working on it long after the sun burned out.

If I chose DES, it would indicate that perhaps I didn’t know my subject matter as well as I should have. If Mr. Rumsfeld invaded Iraq with no plan or intention of a possible occupation, then it appears that he may not have known his subject matter as well as he should have. I would be fired for incompetence, as would anyone else in the business world, and as would many people in the political world….

Sep 28, 2006 - 9:29 am 50. Captain Hate:

It’s now clear that overthrowing Saadam in 2003 was no more necessary or advisable than overthrowing Stalin in 1947.

So you’re saying that the existance of mass murdering tyrants who have acted to expand their sphere of control is just fine with you and that nothing should be done to remove them? Is there any situation in which you would intervene or are you 100% isolationist?

Sep 28, 2006 - 9:35 am 51. Steven Mitchell:

Short answer, since I’m rather busy too.

“…I am not in his position, and therefore am unable to determine the ‘best way’…”

“…If Mr. Rumsfeld invaded Iraq with no plan or intention of a possible occupation, then it appears that he may not have known his subject matter as well as he should have…”

These two things are not logically equal:

1. Mr. Rumsfeld has no plan, or no workable plan.

2. Mr. Rumsfeld did not do what I think he should have done, or what he did failed to cover every contigency as well as I think they should have been covered, even though I really should go read more military history.

Furthermore, the “no plan” meme has been propagated by the Powell State Department. Gee, where have the “Mr. Rumsfeld screwed up” leaks been originating, again? (Despite the general in charge, it was a State plan that used initially. That’s part of their job. When it failed, the DoD had to scramble.) I don’t blame State for failing. It’s hard to do an occupation, even when the opposition doesn’t grumble much faster than you expected. I do blame them for perpetual CYA mode.

I guess it comes down to who you trust more–Rumsfeld or anonymous sources at State. I know who I pick.

Sep 28, 2006 - 10:08 am 52. Steven Mitchell:

“It’s now clear that overthrowing Saadam in 2003 was no more necessary or advisable than overthrowing Stalin in 1947.”

That policeman A fails to shoot or arrest serial killer X (for whatever reasons, good or not)–provides absolutely no reason why policeman B should fail to shoot or arrest serial killer Y, given the opportunity. It is a fallacy (outside of some highly legalistic, abstact philosophic codes, perhaps) that those who do ill and get away with it are setting a precedent for which we are bound to treat others of their ilk.

Sep 28, 2006 - 10:11 am 53. markus:

Lem — I said nothing in support of pulling our troops out. I tend to agree with Ignatius (and Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden) that a quick U.S. pullout would be disasterous. We may actually need more troops in there to keep a bad situation from getting even worse and to allow a sane solution like Biden’s federalism proposal to gain some traction. And to keep the area from becoming a lawless terrorist haven or an Iranian client state.

First though, the arrogant, ignorant, INCOMPETENT people responsible for generating this entirely unecessary mess need to be removed from power, or in the case of the President and Vice President, have that power sharply circumscribed in the upcoming elections.

Captain Hate — “Is there any situation in which you would intervene or are you 100% isolationist?”

Yes, when the likely BENEFITS of the proposed action exceed the likely COSTS (an entirely subjective judgement, as are most political decisions), and when there are no greater priorities elsewhere (such as establishing a decent regime in Afghanistan, or destroying Al-Qaeda EVERYWHERE). Also, when the people planning the intervention are intelligent, and have HALF a clue, and the slightest bit of interest in learning, about the history and culture of the place they are invading, and the likely post-war reconstruction challenges that are to be faced.

Would you have opposed an invasion to overthrow Stalin in 1948 (after the rigged elections in Czechoslovakia), or Khruschev in 1956 (after the invasion of Hungary), or Mao in 1950? If not, does this mean “the existance of mass murdering tyrants who have acted to expand their sphere of control is just fine with you and that nothing should be done to remove them”?

Sep 28, 2006 - 10:51 am 54. Steven Mitchell:

“First though, the arrogant, ignorant, INCOMPETENT people responsible for generating this entirely unecessary mess need to be removed from power, or in the case of the President and Vice President, have that power sharply circumscribed in the upcoming elections. ”

A lot of that happened during the 2000 elections. I agree that it didn’t go far enough, though.

Oh, and you left out “stupid” from the usual Democratic charges when confronting Republicans. Must be slipping.

Sep 28, 2006 - 11:06 am 55. dclydew:

1. Mr. Rumsfeld has no plan, or no workable plan.

2. Mr. Rumsfeld did not do what I think he should have done, or what he did failed to cover every contigency as well as I think they should have been covered, even though I really should go read more military history.

A bit of a silly number 2, but I don’t expect much from blog comments anymore

Mr. Rumsfeld, or Colin Powell or the Illuminati secretly pulling the strings, or someone had a plan to invade Iraq. Accroding to named sources (not anonymous ones) in the run up to the invasion, Mr. Rumsfeld said “he would fire the next person” who talked about the need for a post-war plan (Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid).

“The secretary of defense continued to push on us that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we’re going to take out the regime, and then we’re going to leave,” Scheid said. “We won’t stay.”

So, here we have someone who, apparently was involved directly in the planning for Iraq, unless you hold that Brig Gen Scheid is a liar. He apparently, along with others felt that a plan for (at least temporary) occupation was needed. Mr. Rumsfeld (according to Scheid) disagreed and made a Decision not to plan for occupation at all. This is entirely within his rights and duties as I see it.

However, this decision, in retrospect was probably the wrong decision to make. We’ve been there 4 years, and will likely need to be there for at least 4 more years, if we have any hope of stabiliazing the mess.

Mr. Rumsfeld made an “executive decision” as we call it in business. In business, he would be held accountable for that decision. In our current political climate, it doesn’t appear that this is the case. I personally think that this is due to the strong partisan bickering (the point of my first post) that has enveloped our political system.

If I were in Mr. Bush’s shoes, with Dems breathing down my neck, waiting for any sign of weakness… I wouldn’t admit that I, nor any of my staff made any mistake. I wouldn’t break ranks. I would sit tight and pray for the best.

However, that is a terrible state of affairs for the nation as a whole. Let us say that something horrific happens and we have to attack Iran. Rumsfeld did not make the right decision over planning (if the generals that are speaking publicly can be believed). It would seem in the best interests of the nation to have someone else lead our next charge. However, because concern, inthis day and age (both in Dem and Rep circles), seems more about protecting the party, rather than the nation, we may find ourselves with people that have not proven to make sound decisions and have not been held accountable for the poor decisions that they made.

If the Dems acted like sane Americans, and tried to support the president more often than trip him… then perhaps he would feel free enough to fire Rumsfeld without worrying about it being considered a sign of weakness.

PS – I bet I’ve studied more millitary history than many people. Consider that I’m proficient in weapons that range from BC to current and have studied SunTzu, Machevelli, Col. Tom Hammes and others. I’ve also avidly studied major battles from about 600 CE up through WW II.

However, I am always looking for more, if you have any suggestions.

Sep 28, 2006 - 11:32 am 56. Lem:

?First though, the arrogant, ignorant, INCOMPETENT people responsible for generating this entirely unecessary [sic] mess need to be removed from power, or in the case of the President and Vice President, have that power sharply circumscribed in the upcoming elections.?

So we can go back to treating terror as a law enforcement issue?

No thanks. Your appeasement at any cost policy is no good here.

Sep 28, 2006 - 11:34 am 57. Captain Hate:

markus, thank you for the civil response; I will try to respond accordingly:

Yes, when the likely BENEFITS of the proposed action exceed the likely COSTS (an entirely subjective judgement, as are most political decisions), and when there are no greater priorities elsewhere (such as establishing a decent regime in Afghanistan, or destroying Al-Qaeda EVERYWHERE).

Yes they are subjective judgements, and you and I doubtlessly view them differently. If there can be a stable democratic state in the heart of the Middle East in place of a dictator spreading instability throughout the region, that is worth almost any price, imo. And it would also be instrumental in destroying al-Qaeda.

Also, when the people planning the intervention are intelligent, and have HALF a clue, and the slightest bit of interest in learning, about the history and culture of the place they are invading, and the likely post-war reconstruction challenges that are to be faced.

I won’t respond to this gratuitous name-calling other than to state that regional experts like Daniel Pipes have a less jaundiced view than you do.

Would you have opposed an invasion to overthrow Stalin in 1948 (after the rigged elections in Czechoslovakia), or Khruschev in 1956 (after the invasion of Hungary), or Mao in 1950? If not, does this mean “the existance of mass murdering tyrants who have acted to expand their sphere of control is just fine with you and that nothing should be done to remove them”?

You’re asking me to respond to hypothetical events whereas in the prior post I was addressing something that did happen with your hypothetical. For a variety of reasons the Cold War was the most effective way to deal with the Soviet Union, give or take the actions of some administrations. An invasion to overthrow Stalin would have been incredibly more difficult than what has been undertaken in Iraq.

Sep 28, 2006 - 11:49 am 58. dclydew:

Capt. Hate,

I don’t disagree with a number of your points, but I did want to make a note here:

If there can be a stable democratic state in the heart of the Middle East in place of a dictator spreading instability throughout the region, that is worth almost any price, imo. And it would also be instrumental in destroying Al-Qaeda.

1. Saddam was a brutal dictator, a horrific human being and one whom I hope get s the electric chair. However, I don’t think anyone could say that he spread instability throughout the region, at least not nearly as much as Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the Taleban and Pakistan.

2. A democratic Iraq doesn’t mean that it “would” also be instrumental in destroying AQ. If the democratic Iraq elected a pro-western secular government… then it might be instrumental in destroying “Al-Queda In Iraq”, but would likely have much less influence in Pakistan, Afganistan and other hotbeds of AQ activity. If, on the other hand, the Iraqi people elect a pro-islamic government, particularly a predominantly Shiite one, then they may not be instrumental in destroying Al-Queda, as they might share similar philosophies.

It’s a gamble, one that perhaps we will, in the end find a good one… or, perhaps we will lose to the house.

Sep 28, 2006 - 12:21 pm 59. Captain Hate:

dclydew

However, I don’t think anyone could say that he spread instability throughout the region, at least not nearly as much as Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the Taleban and Pakistan.

Invading Kuwait and involvement in a prolonged war with Iran seem destabilizing to me.

Regarding your second point, perhaps I’m being overly optimistic that having a say in how their country is governed among a population that is more educated than others in the area will lead to good results. If it fails for whatever reason, so be it; but I think it was an honorable attempt.

Sep 28, 2006 - 2:35 pm 60. woof2222:

“Color all the areas in which Islamists have control of the government, …

Jan 1, 2001: Iran and most of Afghanistan.

Sept. 27, 2006: Iran, most of Iraq, Waziristan, Palestinian territories, Lebanon, suburbs of Paris, neighborhoods of London…

You are very mistaken if you think that Islamists control most of Iraq.

“”"a recent Brookings Institute report on Iraq, shows the majority (yes, that means more than 50%) of Iraqis are living fairly safe and secure lives:

“Insurgent attacks tended to be concentrated (85%) in 4 of 18 provinces. These provinces contain less than 42% of the Iraqi population. Half of the Iraqi population (12 provinces) lives in areas that experience 6% of all attacks. 6 provinces listed a statistically insignificant number of attacks based on population size. 80% of all attacks are directed towards Coalition Forces. 80% of all casualties are suffered by the Iraqi population.”

Moreover, that same report shows most Iraqis still say that they are better off now than before the invasion.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/06/unlike-murtha-iraqis-say-they-are.html

Moreover your list is historically inaccurate

Palestinian territories – What change has there been since 2001 in the “Palestinian territories other than they voted in the OTHER palistinian terrorist organization?

Lebanon – Since 2001, Syria has been driven out…Hezbollah remains, but Hezbollah was founded in 1982 in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and subsumed members of the 1980s coalition of groups known as Islamic Jihad. It has close links to Iran and Syria.,

suburbs of Paris – Are you saying that Bush and the US are responsible for decades of Muslim immigration to France

neighborhoods of London – Are you saying that Bush and the US are responsible for decades of Muslim immigration to England?

Sep 28, 2006 - 7:02 pm 61. Luther McLeod:

Good job, woof2222.

I would just add, there are those to whom this is just a game. A game of intellectual musical chairs of sorts. There are now to many players, which makes it difficult to see the end game, but there will be a last chair and a last player…

Sep 28, 2006 - 7:51 pm 62. Bostonian:

On the issue of troop numbers used in Iraq, both ddclydew and markus forget that our goal in Iraq was and still is to create a democracy in that country.

This is not something you do without the cooperation of the inhabitants–the majority of the people in the country, not just a handful of rulers like in old realpolitic times.

I haven’t heard anyone yet explain to me how overwhelming force would help attain that goal. (Rather the opposite, I would think.)

And our enemy is at war with democracy itself (that is, rule by man, rather than the Koran). The enemy loses big time by the emergence of a democracy in terrority it considers its own. Given those facts, Iraq is now a central place in the war, which is a war of ideologies.

If you think the war was just about removing Saddam Hussein, no wonder you object to the way it has proceeded.

ddclydew and markus, if you don’t believe Arabs or Muslims are capable of democracy, period, then just say so.

Sep 29, 2006 - 6:16 am 63. Knucklehead:

Saddam’s Iraq was not a cause of instability in the region?!?! That’s quite an assertion. Invasion of Iran and long war complete with the use of chemical weapons. Invasion and destruction of Kuwait. Threatened invasion of Saudi Arabia. Hundreds of oil wells set afire. Deliberate dumping of enormous amounts of oil into the gulf. Brutal repression of Kurds (including use of chemical weapons) and Shia in the south. Destruction of the marshes some believe were the “Eden” of the bible. Payments for Palestinian suicide bombers. Safe haven for various other murdering terrorists. Contacts far and wide with terrorist organizations (OK, a lot of that was outside the “region”). IIS machinations virtually wherever they had an embassy (again, admittedly extra-regional).

Saddam’s Iraq made Love Canal look harmless. Why are environmental activists not lined up to shake George Bush’s hand with a hearty “Thank you!” for getting rid of him? Why aren’t the lovers of “authentic cultures” lined up to thank him for making it possible to save the “Marsh Arabs”? They guy put a volcano’s worth of CO2 and soot into the atmosphere and an Exxon Valdez worth of oil into the gulf – deliberately. Why hasn’t Greenpeace floated a boat festooned with ribbons, ballons, and thank-you banners up the Potomac?

Sep 29, 2006 - 6:34 am 64. dclydew:

Bostonian,

both ddclydew and markus forget that our goal in Iraq was and still is to create a democracy in that country.

Will you please stop putting words in my mouth? The point I made, and have tried to stick with is that Mr. Rumsfeld put together a plan which did not work (for whatever reason). Mr. Rumsfeld did not believe that we would be there for 4 years and did not create a contingency plan for “just in case”. This means that he made a bad decision, since we have been there for four years, we are occupying the country and we did need a “just in case” plan.

ddclydew and markus, if you don’t believe Arabs or Muslims are capable of democracy, period, then just say so.

I Call Bullshit! I never once said, nor intimated that Arabs were incapable of democracy. In fact, I find it rather offensive that you would lay such a racist remark at my feet. I have throughout this discussion tried to remain courteous, honest and focused on the point I made (that current partisan politics seem to be outweighing the need to hold people responsible for their decisions). I find your lack of coherent argument foolish and your base strawman accusation pathetic.

I am not holding a position of anti-war or anti-Bush. I am holding a position that sees accountability as a necessary part of our government and accountability is something currently missing.

It doesn’t matter what the intent of this invasion was, nor does it matter if we wanted to partner with the Iraqis… what does matter is that the plan did not meet the requirements of the reality.

You can make excuses, change the subject or raise all the bigoted strawman remarks you wish, but that doesn’t change the fact that Rumsfeld’s decision not to plan for an occupation contingency left us in a much less valuable situation for the first 1-2 years of this war. In many estimates, this is one of the key reasons the insurgency was able to gain the power it now has. You can hide if you like, but that doesn’t change the truth.

And, for the record, I am not an anti-war democrat. Never have been and never will be, deal with it.

Sheesh

Sep 29, 2006 - 9:48 am 65. Gordon:

Bin Laden’s motivation is essentially to be found in his “strong horse, weak horse” analogy.
All the rest is either intended to guilt trip western liberals or to rally his troops.
He makes this clear in his reference to the Somalia massacre of US forces where there was no effective retaliation. I think that the triggering incident dates back to the killing of 241 marines in Beirut some ten years earlier.
If there had been a massive attack on Iranian and Syrian targets in response, I suspect that Islamic terrorism would not pose the threat that it does today.
Those groups whom we face today are fascistoid. We need to elicit the “beaten cur” response from them.

Sep 29, 2006 - 9:49 am 66. dclydew:

Captain Hate,

Invading Kuwait and involvement in a prolonged war with Iran seem destabilizing to me.

I agree… and if we had invaded and toppled Saddam when those issue were relevent, then I would not have considered them a lesser threat.

However, when we invaded Iraq they were not using WMD’s on anyone, they were not invading nations, they were not burning oilfields.

Iran, however, was doing something potentially nasty with nuclear weapons, was (according to lots of intel) providing a point of departure for the 9/11 terrorists, was actively supporting Hezbollah (with Syria’s help), was actively supporting the Pali’s.

Syria was in control of Lebanon, supporting Hezbollah and the Pali’s.

Saudi Arabia was and still is happily exporting Whabbism.

Pakistan has Nukes and doesn’t actually seem to have been all that interested in catching that one guy… remember him?

Afganistan was kind of a mess then too (remember, someone had invaded them and hadn’t finished the job of cleaning out the bastards that had been ruling the place).

Iraq was a destablizing force in the ME… in the early 90’s. Syria, Saudi, Iran, Pakistan, Hezbollah and the Pali’ (and Afganistan) were all destablizing forces in 2003.

I fully supported the invasion of Afganistan. I still support the struggle there. When the Iraq invasion began to be a possibility, I had concerns about the feasibility of a ‘quick operation’, I had concerns about what would happen to the Afgan people and I had concerns about the proof we had of Saddam’s arsenel.

I’m not anti-war, sometimes war is necessary. I’m not even Anti-Iraq war, as I think Bush really believed that there were WMD’s and that he might have been a real threat. Hell, I’m not even anti-small force, I figure that if the millitary wants to try a small force solution, they should.

I am against, however, the lack of accountability for the plan not working. And I am concerned about what the next invasion will look like if no one’s held responsible for the errors in this one.

Sep 29, 2006 - 10:11 am 67. Godzilla:

This just in! Nature Backs Dem’s Talking Points!

The crucial quote:

“Wildlife advocates also oppose the unusual measure of killing the animals and said it won’t solve the problem.
“The squirrels will be back,” South Bay wildlife rehabilitator Norma Campbell said. “For every one you take out, two more will come in. It could be a never-ending project that isn’t going to accomplish anything.”

Well, there you go. Out of Iraq now, if not sooner. How will the republican think tank handle this new frontal barrage? The squirrels are out in force!

Sep 29, 2006 - 12:09 pm 68. Steven Mitchell:

dclydew,

Sorry to take so long to respond–been very busy.

“According to named sources (not anonymous ones) in the run up to the invasion, Mr. Rumsfeld said “he would fire the next person” who talked about the need for a post-war plan (Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid).”

If Gen. Scheid said that, then I suspect he was being less than candid–not unlike the recently leaked excerpts from the NIE. *Publically*, Bush, Rumsfeld, and the whole administration said from the very beginning that we would be in Iraq for years. Despite revisionist history from some people, they were consistent about that from the get go. That said, there are different priorities placed on different aspects at different times. Rumsfeld has said all along that they were not prepared for the complete collapse of Iraq in 3 week. *No one* predicted that. Given that the troops in the fields, from Command down to the privates, continue to rate Rumsfeld as one of the best SecDefs ever, I see the gnats buzzing around Rumsfeld’s conduct to be nothing more than Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

“.. However, because concern, in this day and age (both in Dem and Rep circles), seems more about protecting the party, rather than the nation, we may find ourselves with people that have not proven to make sound decisions and have not been held accountable for the poor decisions that they made.”

From where I sit, I see a lot of people that insist that no one’s perfect, but then their examples of mistakes are not the ones I would pick. For example, in the 2004 campaign, when Bush was being hounded unmercifully for being “arrogant” because he wouldn’t admit ever Dem talking point against him, I thought he should have admitted to the mistake of still thinking that politics still stopped at the water’s edge. The MSM and Dems would have howled about their patriotism being questioned, but truth hurts that way. I see plenty of example of Republicans admitting mistakes in their intramural squabbles, but you can’t do that when the other side only wants to play “gotcha”.

“If the Dems acted like sane Americans, and tried to support the president more often than trip him… then perhaps he would feel free enough to fire Rumsfeld without worrying about it being considered a sign of weakness.”

It’s not so much a question of weakness but of good faith on the other side. For example, were I in Bush’s shows, I’d be far less likely to suspect “gotcha games” if the other side would occasionally suggest what they think should be done.

“PS – I bet I’ve studied more millitary history than many people. Consider that I’m proficient in weapons that range from BC to current and have studied SunTzu, Machevelli, Col. Tom Hammes and others. I’ve also avidly studied major battles from about 600 CE up through WW II.

However, I am always looking for more, if you have any suggestions.”

Any of the Greek wars make good examples of what civilan control of the military can be like. Victor Davis Hanson is very readable, and seems to be the definitive source at the moment.

The interplay between Patton/Bradley and Montgomery–with Eisenhower, Churchill, and Roosevelt–is also relevant. Those are just the first ones that spring to mind. The contrast of Grant/Sherman with the conduct of McClellan, Meade, and their other eastern counterparts is very interesting in this regard, as well.

I think most modern military historians believe that Patton did a lot better job than Montgomery at killing Germans, preserving his men, and ending the war. That said, only the most rabid Pattonophiles would claim that Montgomery didn’t have some good points on his side. (Not least of which, he knew the British couldn’t take much more.)

Now, to be up front, I think Patton was leashed to much, and Montgomery prolonged the war (more than once, with Falaise pocket being the first notable example). Still, in a million years, I would never accuse Montgomery of the equivalent of “Rumsfeld had no plan for the occupation”. It’s ludicrous on its face. The DoD is not a monolithic institution. It’s *known* for its cautious generals. You can’t make that accusation without also assuming that Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the civilans, *and* the Joint Chiefs of Staff and their staff, *and* Tommy Franks and his staff, *and* all generals involved in the high level planning of the actual occupation–all either were equally guilty of the same neglect, or were intimidated by Rumsfeld into silence. SecDefs do not have that kind of power.

Sep 29, 2006 - 8:24 pm 69. Bostonian:

ddclydew,

Given what our goal is in Iraq, I have yet to hear anyone even ATTEMPT to explain how overwhelming force would accomplish it. You’re welcome to try.

Your argument with Rumsfeld somehow seems to leave out the 25 million Iraqi people, like they don’t have a dog in this fight or are incapable of helping us, like the whole thing is entirely up to the coalition forces. Hence my conclusions.

I call ‘em like I see ‘em.

Sep 30, 2006 - 2:14 pm 70. dclydew:

Steven Mitchell,

Interesting comparisons, I’ll have to think about that.

Bostonian,

If you call ‘em like you see ‘em and you think I said anything like the pathetic conclusion you came to… I recommend Lasik Surgery or perhaps a seeing-eye dog.

Oct 2, 2006 - 11:09 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: