Comments on: Buckley’s apostasy – Pick your poison

By: California Dreamer

California Dreamer — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 07:44:28 +0000

“Because there’s a very good strategic argument to be made that a surge-level initial force would have prevented the troops from being mobile enough and, more importantly, gaining the Iraqis’ trust and ultimately turning against al-qaeda.”

This is a sound argument that will be analyzed in due time. I would add to it that if we wanted to go in with a more massive force, it would have taken even longer to assemble–a key failing in the execution of the war as it was. Furthermore, it would not have allowed the ultimate benefit to occur. That benefit is the “fill the swamp before you drain the swamp” turn of events. While I cannot credit either Rumsfeld or any of the military command for planning such a turn of events, it was fortuitous.

By: Mike_K

Mike_K — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:31:11 +0000

“Biden championed liberal interventionism throughout the ’90s, with the difference being that the shakiness of the Iraq effort made him change his mind in the Iraq case. ”

Say that again ? Biden opposed the first Gulf War. He wanted to pay Iran 200 billion after 9/11. Biden is a clown, even without the plagiarism.

By: AlanC

AlanC — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:31:23 +0000

CH & Annabel have it right in my estimation. As several people have showed me over the years, when dealing with intractable opposition you have to wait for the teachable moment.

Iraq was no where near ready right after the main operation which took what 3 months or was it weeks? The reason the Germans and Japanese acquiesed and learned after WWII was that their societies had been totally and utterly destroyed. They had had all resistance beaten from them for all intents and purposes. Short of the same kind of destruction Iraq was NOT ready.

By: Jay

Jay — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:18:41 +0000

Stanley Kurtz, meet Murray Waas:

http://tinyurl.com/4qg2u7

Pick your poison, indeed.

By: Annabel

Annabel — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:12:37 +0000

That’s been my thinking too, Captain Hate. I’m no military expert, that’s for sure. But it seems almost common sense to me that the Iraq war would need more than one, probably several consecutive strategies. Going in small, like Rumsfeld advocated, was smart and avoided massive unnecessary casualties on both sides. The insurgency was probably inevitable anyway, and in some ways necessary, to flush out the enemies of a free and unified Iraq and to allow the Iraqis to come together and fight for (and take psychological ownership) of their new, free country. I don’t understand why people think that wars are static events, with one way to win. To me they seem more like an illness, in which different treatments are required for different symptoms, at different times until, hopefully, a full cure is effected.

By: I, Claudius

I, Claudius — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:35:47 +0000

Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.

By: Captain Hate

Captain Hate — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:21:32 +0000

You’re a joke, Captain, and probably the most aptly named commenter on this site.

Catching flak like that lets me know I was directly above the target.

Biden championed liberal interventionism throughout the ’90s, with the difference being that the shakiness of the Iraq effort made him change his mind in the Iraq case.

So what was the “shakiness” of the effort that made the man that fantasized about the US and France kicking Hezzzzzzzzbolla out of Lebanon and replacing them with UN observers, change his mind? Because there’s a very good strategic argument to be made that a surge-level initial force would have prevented the troops from being mobile enough and, more importantly, gaining the Iraqis’ trust and ultimately turning against al-qaeda. Eventually the history of the war will be written in terms of what was the optimum strategy and I’m fairly confident that Rumsfeld will come out looking better than the current wisdom dictates. And we didn’t even blow up the Chinese embassy.

By: steveaz

steveaz — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:06:28 +0000

Whoa!

Where’d all that come from?

By: Peter G

Peter G — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:03:26 +0000

Jay said, “the blogger constantly holds up Lieberman’s loss as an example of what is wrong with the Democratic party (i.e. there are no foreign policy “hawks” left) when even a quick glance reveals there are plenty of influential hawks in its ranks, from Biden to Bob Kerrey to Sam Nunn and David Boren.”
B. Kerry, Nunn, and Boren are all retired, and I wouldn’t exactly call Biden a hawk. More of a parrot, I’d say.

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:56:00 +0000

Who is “fishmerman Stanlet Kurtz”? He sounds like an interesting guy, based on what you say about him. Is he a professional fishmerman? Is he married to a fishmermaid?