Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Patrick Ruffini :: Townhall.com Columnist
Shhhh... The Surge is Working
by Patrick Ruffini
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



A gloomy haze has settled over the nation's prosecution of the War on Terror as of late. It seems like we can only watch helplessly as Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha size up new angles of attack for undermining the war effort. The media is chomping at the bit the tell the story of an America, bruised and humbled and exhausted, heading for the exits in Iraq.

But something interesting is happening on the way to the "new direction." Early indications are that the troop surge into Baghdad is working. It hasn't been reported on widely, but murders in Baghdad are down 70%, attacks are down 80%, Mahdi Army chief Moqtada al-Sadr has reportedly made off for Iran, and many Baghdadis who had fled the violence now feel it's safe enough to return. The strategy that Congress is busy denouncing is proving to be our best hope for victory.

In Iraq, there's a sense that change is in the air -- literally. Omar of Iraq the Model spots a B-1 Bomber in the skies of Baghdad for the first time since the end of the major combat. On the ground, Omar writes that the signs that Iraqis are getting serious about security are more palbable. With the help of Compstat-like technology, security forces are cracking down at checkpoints (even ambulances are getting stopped) and getting nimbler about locating them strategically so the terrorists don't know what to expect.

This turnaround in Baghdad is confirmed at home by the media's near-deafening silence. If it seems like you've heard less about how Iraq is spiraling into civil war in the weeks since the surge was announced, this is why. Even some discordant voices in the media are starting to wonder what's happening. Time magazine worries that it's "Quiet in Baghdad. Too quiet." That's right -- a dramatic reduction in violence is actually bad news.

It's too early to claim victory just yet; the operation is just two weeks old. But U.S. troops have been able to accomplish all of this with just one more brigade in-country, with four more on the way by May. These encouraging early returns show the potential for success when we apply concentrated military force to the security problem. When the Army and Marine Corps are on offense, carrying out combat operations and clearing out insurgent strongholds, we win. When we lay back, carrying out routine patrols and playing Baghdad beat cop, we lose.

The key to success is staying power. The always incisive Daffyd ab-Hugh has a good read on this dynamic. Counterinsurgency in Iraq has often been compared to a game of whack-a-mole -- secure an area, only to have the insurgents pop up somewhere else. But if we slammed a mallet into the hole, and kept it there, then picked up a new one... and did the same?

This is a new game called Seal-a-Hole , and it has a very different dynamic from Whack-a-Mole: the normal game is one of futility; the game continues until the player gets tired and quits or he runs out of money. But Seal-a-Hole actually has a victory point: when all the holes are sealed, the game is over -- and the player, America, has won.

Even though Seal-a-Hole is not futile, it nevertheless requires a great deal of patience; there are many, many holes, and each hole has a mole who must be whacked. Some of the holes, such as Sadr City, are very big and will require many mallets to properly seal. But if we have the courage and fortitude of our American forebears, we will seal those holes... and we will win.

On the political front, the White House also seems to have dislodged a major roadblock to victory: Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's reluctance to allow U.S. troops to take the fight to Sadr and his militias. Returning American troops have expressed their frustration at having to walk on eggshells when it came to came to entering Shi'ite areas, a backbone of support for the government. Thankfully, the rules of engagement are changing. American troops are now freer to take on all comers, and the results are clear in both Sunni and Shi'ite areas.

In the coming days and weeks, these rules of engagement will face their ultimate test with the decision to enter Sadr City, the Mahdi Army's key stronghold. And enter we must. Those intent on turning Iraq into a breeding ground for al-Qaeda won't be convinced of our seriousness until we confront the key sources of violence on both sides of the sectarian divide.

When things don't go well in Iraq, we see the endless B-roll of chaos and carnage. When things are on the upswing, we tend to hear more about Anna Nicole Smith. The media will never acknowledge victories in Iraq, so we'll have to settle for an absence of bad coverage. But even in this relative lull in Iraq, it's important to understand and appreciate the short-term victories so we can create more of them. And finish the job.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Patrick Ruffini is an online strategist dedicated to helping Republicans and conservatives achieve dominance in a networked era. He has seen American politics from every vantagepoint — as a campaign staffer, activist, and analyst.

cost-benefit once again
whether the surge is working is irrelevant. it probably is working - but at what cost? if we spend 50 trillion dollars and send millions of solders the situation in iraq will probably improve. and so?

please focus on the cost-benefit analysis and not on positive effects only.

surge is working?
That's funny, because my understanding is that most of the troop increase has yet to make it to Iraq and will not until May.
And the 80% decrease # thrown out would be laughable if it was not so pathetic.
This is my first visit to this website and I can't believe my eyes. It's a joke, but I guess these days we all need a laugh. Especially fun are the musings of Mr. Coulter.

Jabelson
What about "Buh-Bye" don't you understand? No answer is expected, nor will it be read.

Jabelson
I never said the AP doesn't have reporters in Iraq. They largely have not been "on the ground," but have been noted far and wide as staying within the Green Zone and (blindly) relying on stringers to tell them what is happening. Do that too often, and you get made-up crap like the Burning Mosques and the Burning Sunnis.

That shows how little you are comprehending, and how out of arguments you are.

The AP WH reporterette's name Jennifer Loven, who is married to a Roger Ballantine, who was John Kerry's chief environmental adviser, and who has been shown to deliberately slant her coverage of Bush, esp on environmental issues.

The AP reporter wanting to take out George Bush in 2004 is Scott Lindlaw:

+++++++++++++++

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007762.php

His anti-Bush prejudices are well-known; our source has heard him say that his "mission" is to see that Bush is not re-elected.

+++++++++++++++

The false story is about the crowd booing at a Bush rally, where Lindlaw, who contributed to an article by another reporter, falsely wrote:

**************

Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them.

**************

I don't have to "smear" the press, J. It smears itself almost daily. All one has to do is chronicle the obvious. Buh-bye......

Jabelson
..... has run out of substance, and the ability to respond to points made.

Ah, Jabelson
Nice try pal -- no sale.

You sound just like Jonathan Klein who ridiculed the Rathergate memo-busters in their "pajamas."

If the AP, Reuters et al were interested in the truth, they WOULD have "reporters on the ground in Iraq." Unfortunately, all too often they are relying on unvetted stringers whose loyalties, let alone their objectivity or even casaul interest in the truth, are questionable. They wouldn't be knee-jerk defending the indefensible in fauxtography until their backs are pushed against the wall and they have no choice but to give in.

At home, they wouldn't have a reporter covering the presidential campaign and the presidency whose spouse worked for the other campaign in a high-level capacity in the last election. They wouldn't have a different reporter covering the Bush campaign in 2004 who openly stated that it was his mission to in essence take Bush down.

Sorry, my friend -- the AP and its wire-service compadres have long since abandoned their noble missions, and the world has been worse off for it for some time now. Perhaps with someone watching over them, both there and here, that will change -- or at least their biases will be more subtle, which will represent progress.

As for me, it would appear that you should know better than to misportray my work. Perhaps it's because you haven't read enough of it. I praise those who I think deserve it, and rip those I think deserve it regardless of their party or ideology -- just like Malkin and Kurt. You just don't like the truth when it smacks you in the face.

DS
Sorry for the sarcasm about lesbians - I really did misunderstand what you were saying.

Jabelson:
I'm no military expert - nor are you - but it's
crystal clear that crushing the terror states of
the Middle East would be impossible without
including Saddam in the cleanup.
You don't like the war? I don't either. But I
like the alternative even less. We didn't ask
for this conflict; in fact, the US tried for
decades to avoid it - a disastrous mistake, as
it turned out. 9/11 convinced me that arrests
and pinprick missile-lobs are inadequate as a
response to these murderous thugs. What will
it take to convince you? A mushroom cloud?
Because it's not going to stop until the US
puts a stop to it.
One more thing: those American soldiers died
"for nothing" only if we bug out and abandon
the job before it's done.

B1 over Baghdad
I couldnt tell you for sure, but from my military experience it is something of an on site, on call air support. If that b1 is gonna have to do circles to stay close to potential action, then you might as well do it in earshot of insurgents.

Jabelson
You could not be more wrong, and the fact that you won't admit, or that the AP won't admit it, does nothing to change the fact that you, and AP, were as wrong as the day is long about the Burning Sunnis/Burning mosques story. The botch of this story places others attested to by "Jamil Hussein" (roughly 60) into question.

A free bonus -- The AP tells the military that their source is indeed named Jamil Hussein; then when the military and the Iraq ministry of Interior could find a "Jamil Hussein," they said, "nyah, nyah, his name is really Jamil (redacted), and you couldn't find him." Well of course not, the mil and MOI were given the wrong name. Then the AP declares "victory."

Sorry. Complete, total, BS -- and AP knows it, whether they will admit it or not. Further, they and the other news orgs know that future BS reporting has a decent chance of being outed by people who are there and others who are checking things out. The forced improvement in reporting out of Iraq would appear to reflect that. Let's hope it continues. Let a thousand milbloggers and embeds bloom.

B-1 over Baghdad???
OK you military mavens...why a B-1 (s) in Iraq???
Is it time to start laying the pain on the insurgents?? or a launching area into Iran???
Let me hear some righteous speculation!

Jabelson
You'll "love" this comment, so be forewarned:

-- AP is to an extent cleaning up their reporting act because they're being watched by homies like Kurt at Flopping Aces and Confederate Yankee, brief visitors like Michelle Malkin and Bryan Preston who saw first-hand how AP lied about the burning mosques, and the longer-term milbloggers like Michael Yon, Ardolino, and several others.

IOW, AP has to be much more careful now and is on a shorter leash. If they go over the top, those I just mentioned will calll their BS. I'm lovin' it. Finally, at least some accountability.

Tom Blumer
BizzyBlog.com

Cece
I didnt mean it that way, I have nothing against lesbians, but i was pointing out the hypocrisy of the blogger. When she wants something about Islam she quotes an adversary of islam and when she wants something about Chrsitianity or conservatism she quotes the most friendy. Anybody else's comment she dismisses?


DS,CeeCee:
So glad to have you both back! Unfortunately,
it seems that in my absence you've backslid
into personal attacks and vitriol. Instead,you should have spent the time actually thinking
about, and formulating an answer to, my
question:

How many dead American civilians will it take
to convince you that we MUST deal the barbar-
ians of the Middle East NOW? 3000 didn't
convince you. Would three million?

HOW MANY???

Liberalgoodman....? well, polite anyhow
Yep, hearts and minds must be all that we need to win, huh. I wish that were true, but if it were, then we should have just left after taking Saddam out of power, right? Im sure the world and especially Iraq would be better off.
Sorry, but that line warrants essays of critique. If I am beating my wife and you rush in and wrestle me to the ground, is that violence your fault? of course not.
If you want to know whose 'violence' it is, do the math:
If we stop attacking insurgents/leave will they stop attacking us or other Iraqis? NO
If the insurgents stop attacking will we stop attacking them/leave? YES
Dont gimme that 'we are attacking civilians not insurgents' junk...
At least in 'Where is Waldo' he had that striped shirt and cap on...

DS must mean diligently spun?
Do you honestly believe that islam is a religion of peace?
Do you think that they want people to be happy if it means that they do not abide by their ways?
Do you think that Islam allows for people to live the way that they want and believe what they want?
Do you believe that Christianity is a religion of peace?
Do you think that Christians want people to be happy if it means that they do not abide by their ways?
Do you think that Christianity allow for people to live the way that they want and believe what they want?
Try answering these questions directly. No spin plz.

tanabear... u are quoting a reporter?
I worked with a Shia refuge for a couple years and he just recently went back to Iraq. Your facts are WRONG. The Mahdi army is by far the strongest force inside of Iraq excluding us. He isnt making us or Bush look bad, he is KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE. Drop your pathetic politics and try to see the reality. I doubt that you can...
The COUNTRY is trying to win this war. Not for ourselves. Our image is tarnished either way you look at this situation. I dont care about the premise for the war; I dont care about international opinion; what I do care about are the millions of people that people like you and the rest of the whack jobs on the far left, would abandon to a true civil war with ouside influence from the Saudis and Iranians.
Dont kid yourself. This isnt about politics, it is about leaving Iraq and the people that we freed/invaded/how ever you have to put it to suit your politic mind with the best possible situation for success. If you honestly think that the Mahdi army has peaceful plans to get along with the Kurds and Sunnis then you need to join Britney in rehab.

DS
God knows we can't expect anything worth listening to from a lesbian. They have different brains from the rest of us.

I guess the only people we can trust to tell us the truth is Bush and Cheney.

Most disturbing
Most disturbing to me is the utter glee with which Tannabear, Merry-Go-boy, etc. greet news (or their belief in) US failures. Why would anyone be so delighted that their own country is suffering a setback?

And, why are they so ready to discount any good news while trying to find "hidden" bad news? Are they that eager to see the US fail?

Why?

And how is this different from what people a generation ago were not afraid to call treason?

Duh
Sending reinforcements to help struggling and dieing troops, works.
Who'd a thought.
If twenty thousand can help, fifty thousand 'combat' troops might fix.

What makes WWII a 'good' war and the war on terror (including Iraq) a 'bad' war?

Nothing, all war is tough, unglamorous and the cause at the time always seems in doubt.
Such is the way of perseverance through hard times.

It was certainly true that during WWII the same range of emotions existed then as now.

All Americans though no matter their feelings then knew they had a job and if they didn't do their job, their loved ones would suffer or die.

The stakes are every bit as high now as then.
Our naturally wide range of feelings must be put aside, we all have a job to do.

The only "noble war" is the one in which we die.

Every war is painful and has a price to be paid, to win.
Every war lost is more painful times ten and has an unimaginable price, exacted by those who write about how noble we were.

continuation to my previous post
Walid Pharis is Christian lebanese

Brigette Gabriel is Christian


Ayaan Hirse Ali former Muslim somalian


Noni Darwish, and Walid Shoebat, are former Palestian Muslims and now Christians.

Out of 1.6 billion muslims you picked a lesbian to speak about Islam as a reliable source. Wonderful.


I dont think so
"I even backed it up with quotes and brought up Muslim writers and speakers such as Brigette Gabriel, Irshad Manji, Walid Pharis, Noni Darwish, Ayaan Hirse Ali, and Walid Shoebat"


None of those mentioned above are Muslim except maybe for Irshad Manji, because she calls herself a Muslim. Actually many of them are liars and opportunists.

Its interesting that you mentioned a Muslim lesbian when its convinient for you. I wonder what you think of christian lesbians and feminist movement who speak agaisnt conservatives and traditional christianity/christain religious leaders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irshad_Manji


"The most horrific act in modern history is the Holocaust,” he writes in an opinion piece. “The scandal of pedophilia rocked the Catholic church. Did we ever debate whether Christianity is an evil religion? We did not, and we should not. Leaders and ordinary people used religion throughout history to promote political ideologies.”

The key, says Abdelaziz, is not religion but ideology, because the extremism we confront today is really not religious, but political.




AAnderson:
You have the wrong idea, sir. We don't need to
"fix everything we broke" in Iraq. Indeed, we
need to "break" more stuff there, and across
the entire Middle East, culminating in break-
ing the will of the bloody-handed murderers
who run the region. Don't let yourself be
blinded by narrow partisanship - like it or
not, America is in a fight for its existence.
The sooner we all recognize that fact, and
behave accordingly, the fewer of our fellow
American citizens we'll have to bury.

Just got this across the wire
Syria-Iran-Iraq Syrian FM calls up Iranian, Iraqi counterparts
Damascus, Feb 26, IRNA

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Moallem in telephone contacts with His counterparts Iran's Manouchehr Mottaki and Iraq's Hoshyar Zibari consulted them on the preparations of a meeting of Iraq's neighboring countries.

According to Syrian foreign ministry, in seperate talks on phone, the Syrian official held talks with Mottaki and Zibari on setting the stage for organizing this meeting in Baghdad.

Restoration of diplomatic ties between Baghdad and Damascus after 25 years highlights the importance of the next month meeting of the foreign ministers of Iraq's neighboring countries in Baghdad.

The rapprochement followed by Iraqi president's reportedly "fruitful" trip to Syria, and Syrian promise to do its best to help establish national reconciliation in Iraq show the importance of the coming meeting in Baghdad and its consequences.
-----------------------------
See there is hope that we will all just get along

Don't give up Hope
It will all work out in the long run. We will either get our act together in Iraq and fix everything we broke. Or we will be in a bigger mess with Iran in a few weeks. And who knows after that maybe another Clinton can come in and clean up a Bush mess. That was just a joke for now. We got a real problem on our hands if we think we can make things better with Mr. Bush dictating what to do in Iraq. Remember those failed companies he ran. Oh, and that baseball team. He just needs to find someone smart enought to fix it. That person is out there, Bush just needs to ask him to come help.. Then life here will get back to normal.

WJC

You never know....
Maybe, just maybe, if we keep trying, ignore the
personal stuff and stay on the crucial message,
somebody will wake up, even help spread the
word. I refuse to believe that America will
allow petty political bickering to lead to
national suicide. Some of the goings-on in
Congress (and elsewhere!) can be pretty dis-
couraging, but I'll never give up.
Bottom line: in the long run, America and the
capitalist/democratic paradigm cannot - will
not - fail. What makes my heart ache is that
"in the long run" will almost certainly be too
late for many thousands of Americans.

Let's keep trying, Lynne.

the surge is working...???
Sure.. That is on the outskirts of town... We haven't made it out there yet.

the surge is working...???
43 killed by woman suicide bomber on outskirts of Baghdad...and the surge is working?

Fool me once, twice, thrice, (quadrice??
Republicans have been proclaiming victory around the corner since before the invasion. How long ago were the "final throes"? We should have learned our lesson about believing them.

I'm not saying it can't happen. I am saying I'll believe it when it does. Find the latest on http://juancole.com .

It seems US planes are bombing civilian parts of Baghdad. This surge in US created violence is not exactly the way to win "hearts and minds". (Please don't jump on the "US created violence" line. I'm well aware that there is insurgent created violence and militia violence. It's that we should try as much as possible not to add to this.

Thanks Lynne
Just trying to get people to see that there's
a real, honest-to-goodness confrontation
brewing that we're not going to be able to
avoid w/o a BIG fight. It can be now, or it
can be after more American innocents lose
their lives. The Islamic barbarians will not
stop - until and unless the US stops them.

Lynne
You write about media bias and then discount some journalists as being automatically biased.

No argument there, except that my list and your list would probably be significantly different.

There are a lot of writers that I might disagree with the philosophy, but I still feel they present a reasonable, intelligent approach to subjects. George Will, William F. Buckley and others.

At the other end of the scale you have people that you can discount before you even start with them. Most people on Fox, Rush and especially Anne Coulter. It's truly impossible for me to tell if these folks really believe what they are saying, or if they simply say these things for their shock value.

Bush financing al-queda?
Has anyone seen the interview with Seymour Hersh by Wolf Blitzer where he claims Bush is indirectly financing sunni jihadists linked to al-queda. What in the world is going on?

Regarding the surge - just declare victory like Britain and leave already. We really need to focus on bringing down al-queda in Afghanistan and Pakistan because the intelligence community is sounding alarms and we need to pay attention this time.

I hope that what Hersh has to say cannot possibly be true.

CeeCee, DS,et. al.
I am in no way suggesting a "final solution" -
that seems to be the idea behind Iran's pursuit
of nuclear weapons. If you consider my wish to
send very clear messages to the suicidal nuts
who run the Middle East that there will be no
more terror attacks on America a "rant", then
tell me your ideas. In my opinion, the half-
measures we've been employing for decades, if
continued, will inevitably lead to thousands,
even millions of American deaths. I came to
that conlusion after the unprovoked murder of
innocents on our soil.
So, what's the deal? Do you think if only we
were nicer, or gave them lots of money, they
might leave us alone? I don't believe it, and
I don't think you do either.
DS, I am indeed comfortable at this screen. I
wish I could say the same for my fellow citi-
zens who were murdered at their jobs on 9/11.
Or for my family members in Iraq who are try-
ing to keep you, me and this country safe
from murderous thugs that would destroy this
country.

Both of you, answer my question: How many Amer-
icans must die before you believe that the
Islamic militants are serious, and that we
must respond as if our survival is at stake?

CeeCee
COme over to my blog (click on my handle). I have some great photos of US troops oppressing those poor Iraqis.

bullgod
How many more? Well, I guess Bush is willing to spend at least 12,000 more, and he seems to be the one who Can Do No Wrong, so who am I to aruge?

I'm not defending terrorists, whether they are religious or secular, but statements like "sending these savages back to the stone age they prefer" is not a very useful way to look at the problem. It may feel good, but in the end its just a rant, and sort of short-circuits any kind of insight.

When you say "deal harshly with these freaks" can you elaborate? You must have some specific idea of how that would look. You must be able to explain how you see that happening in the real world.

And, if after the 12,000 additional troups and myriad checkpoints we are still unable to accomplish any real goals there, then what? Will it be the fault of "defeatist politicians and citizen's"? And what do you think should be the goals, anyway? Do you think we should just make our policy a kind of "final solution"?

bullgod
How many??? You should ask yourself this question . According to your logic the number of American causilities doesnt matter . You are the one suggesting more wars and more bloodshed behind the confort of your computer. Iraq, Iran or Syria didnt attack America. We invaded Iraq, dont forget that. Us soldiers can hardly bring Iraq under control to the pre-saddam era. I really dont know what you are talking about, the region was relatively calm before the invasion. Either you or Bush are not saying the truth.


US generals ‘will quit' if Bush orders Iran attack


Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter, Washington
SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece


DS
The statement "I dont believe that these people are in a mission to convert anyone to Islam, but I do think that they want radical Islamic states in their own countries" seems to be just a tad naive. If it is political, why blow up the WTC,Khobar Towers? Why not sit down at a Round Table for talks as everyone suggests? Extremists don't want it. Look, I know the majority of Muslims are normal, religious folk. But how will you get any of those things in the Middle East...the extremists would rather kill than be equals and go along their merry way in life.
As you say conservatives talk both ways, so do liberals to suggest taking stabilizing an oil rich country is why we are in Iraq. Sadaam is gone. So too, is the oppression he wreaked.

Yes, the religious strife exists, but at least now the people of Iraq can hope and dream. If the British and the US can begin to rebuild their oil Industry, then they gain economic independence and much more stability.

If one rather large Mid-eastern nation can do it,then perhaps Iraq becomes the saving force of the rest of the Middle East. Then there might be more civil liberties, justice,etc..what goes on now only creates more room for the people to become educated and prosper in their own right and without persecution.

The policies of Washington have some bearing as the war is currently being conducted. Ultimately, Iraq will be the one who will institute change and policy to better serve it's people. We are not choosing oil over liberty, over democracy. But, with economic freedom, it only enhances what they can do with the freedoms and liberties earned.

Will
I haven't been on this site very long and I hope you are right, that Lynne isn't representative of the average conservative - it seems far more enlightening to exchange ideas and points of view that insults, which is pretty limited and self-defeating.

CeeCee:
The only way it would come to a "nuke job" is
if we allow the mad mullahs of Tehran to obtain
those weapons. I suggest that the US military
is more than capable of preventing such a dis-
aster if only defeatist politicians (and citi-
zens, not to name names) at home would stop the
hand-wringing and send these savages back to the
Stone Age they evidently prefer. As for the 3000
plus American dead, my whole point is that it's
only a drop in the bucket unless we deal harshly
with these freaks NOW.

Again, CeeCee: How many???

Bullgod
What do you mean, "serious" - are you talking about a nuke job?

what does "serious" mean to you?

The deaths of 3,000 plus Americans sound pretty serious to me.

CeeCee:
Spare me the personal attacks, please, and pay
attention. Iraq (and Syria, and Iran, and others)
are part and parcel with the ENTIRE REGION's
bloodthirsty brand of anti-American lunacy.
It is no longer possible to believe, or even
hope, that arrests and occasional bomb-lobs
will stop those people - Islamic nutjobs,
since you pretend not to know who I refer to-
from continuing to murder innocent Americans.
So I'll ask you the same question I asked DS:

How many more Americans have to die before you
would be willing to GET SERIOUS in the Middle
East?

Lynne, Polly, whoever
You guys are so lucky to have the "MSM" - you can keep telling yourself that everything you read isn't really true, the real truth is to be found on sites like this one, where everybody is so up to date and clearly has a direct line to the Real Truth! In fact, the column that spawned the thread is a perfect example.

Rule: If you don't like the news, say that it's been reported by the MSM and therefore you can say it's not true.

2. If you don't like the news, make up some new news.

3. Celebrate victimhood.

Bullgod
I think you need to spend less time on your mother ship - Iraq did not need pacification; it was not at war with anybody until we got there.

You went on to say, "Further, as for your comment: He, and the others of his ilk, need to be dealt with if we are to make those people understand that there will be no more murdering of American citizens without severe consequences. "

Settle down...the Iraqis didn't kill any American citizens; in fact 11 of the 13 terrorists on 9/11 were Saudis.


Saddam may have been a murderous thug, but that's about the only thing you said that made any sense. (Who are "those people"? Who are "others of his ilk?)

Another thing, DS
I did not say that the purpose of the invasion
was to "rescue" the Iraqi people; in my opinion
the purpose was to pacify a region badly in
need of it. Syria and Iran should be next, in
no particular order. The message must be, now
or later: NO MORE MURDERING AMERICANS. I want
that message delivered now, BEFORE the next 9/11.

DS:
I did not say that Saddam was an Islamic extremist. I said that, like most of the
"leaders" in that benighted region, he was
a murderous thug. He, and the others of his
ilk, need to be dealt with if we are to make
those people understand that there will be no
more murdering of American citizens without
severe consequences. As for Iraqi casualties,
they would come to an end if the bloodthirsty
lunatics of that country would lay down their
arms. Until then, I'll save my tears for the
innocent American victims of Islamic terror.

Again,DS; how many?

Lynne
Slightly off note but in keeping with the MSM's inability to publish anything bad on libs.

Check my blog for the story on a former ACLU leader getting busted for child porn! The lack of morals on the left surfaces again!

Drat
That's "despite the 'surge.'"

And I forgot to add, Halliburton.

Jabelson
I do not expect the MSM to mention anything positive, ever, about Iraq. I expect to hear about the 40 dead in this suicide bombing over and over.

I have not yet heard that any Americans died in this attack; perhaps I missed that. But whether or not, it's important that Americans KNOW that dispite the "surge," the insurgents/freedom fighters ARE still winning. We are--or at least George Bush is--completely unable to stop them. All attempts are futile. Bring the children home.

Oh, and Bush lied!

bullgod
Saddam was an islamic extremist? thats news to me. I know that he killed all the religious figures in his country and whoever spoke against him. And tell me how many Americans Saddam killed?? or better yet, do you know of any Iraqis who attacked Americans before the invasion?

If you are referring simply to any murderer, then there are much worse murderers than Saddam. Bush should have made it clear that was the purpose of the invasion, i mean to rescue the Iraqi people. dont you agree?

Dont forget that the insurgents are IRAQIS and we are foreign occupiers. they can lay low for months then strike again.

No, i dont want anymore deaths for the iraqis or US soldiers. Do you? you seem to support the war. You seem to forget the tens of thousands of Iraqis who died during this war too.


Americans underestimate Iraqi death toll

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070224/ap_on_re_us/death_in_iraq_ap_poll;_ylt=Au.Izm9temF_upuoD15fM7PMWM0F

DS:
The war in Iraq had/has everything to do with
Islamic extremists. Nobody claims that Saddam
was responsible for 9/11; however, there can
be no doubt that an effective response to that
attack must include dealing not only with him,
but with all the murderous, thuggish regimes in
that region, including, eventually,Iran and
Syria. Piecemeal arrests of pipsqueaks like
Bin Laden, or an occasional bomb-lobbing in
their general direction, will not suffice to
put an end to the decades-long, gradually-
escalating terror attacks on America. If you
disagree, please tell me- how many Americans
must die to convince you that drastic measures
are needed? 3000 wasn't enough. How about
300,000? Three million?

Let's end it now, before one more American has
to die at the hands of these maniacs.

Jabelson
Thanks for the consise and almost certainly accurate explanation for why the MSM doesn't bother reporting all the feel-good stories out of Iraq:

"I'm much more concerned that some kid from upstate NY is dead from an IDE, or some car bomb just killed 80 people in a market place than some story about soldiers handing out candy, rebuliding a school house or getting some Iraqi child medical treatment in the States - because that's feel good puff that serves little purpose..."

There definitely is NO purpose in telling the American people about courageous/generous/selfless things those guys and gals do or how many Iraqis appreciate them. Americans are too emotional; they might start to have positive, uplifting, hopeful thoughts about this war.


The New Blue Dogs "Get It"
More evidence that conservatives won in November even though the GOP lost.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/24/AR2007022401420.html

I'm betting that the Blue Dogs will be there for the main cause of 11/06 too, illegal immigration. There is a good reason why that bill hasn't been put to the floor yet, the votes aren't there. Let's see that wall.

Nee
In my opinion the War in Iraq had nothing to do with those extremists.

Had Bush intent was to deliver the iraqi people from Saddam, I would probably have supported the war, and even then, I would have preferred a different strategy.

Its much more complicated that just "they hate our freedoms or way of life" slogan. Honestly, I dont think they care much about our culture or freedoms. Its more political than religious. I dont believe that these people are in a mission to convert anyone to Islam, but I do think that they want radical Islamic states in their own countries.

Our current GOV has failed to move aggressively enough in the war of ideas against Muslim extremist groups since the invasion of iraq.

In the US especially some conservatives speak from both sides of their mouth. on one hand they claim to support helping the iraqi people get a better life, and on the other hand, they dont miss an opportunity to demonize Islam and Muslims. Keith Elisson's decision to use the Koran during his swearing in ceremony drove some conservatives nuts. Hannity called the koran, the book of Hitler, Mein Kampf . How can we claim that we care about the iraqis well being and want them to succeed when we treat our own Muslims in that fashion! How can you claim that you want to help the people who use "Mein Kampf" as their religion??

Such double talk would only further alienate main stream islam, and make their task even harder in speaking against these extremists.

This also caused a growing distrust of the conservatives among Muslim Americans.

Painting a single stroke brush of another group doesnt help defeating Muslim extremists. On the contrary, you make them win by default.

American Muslims tend to be politically conservative. A whopping 70% voted for Bush in 2000. The exact same number voted agaisnt him in 2004.

You can only defeat these extremists by supporting civil liberties, equality, justice in the middle east, economic and political reforms and free press regardless of these governments position vis a vis Wishignton's policies. You will find the vast majority of Muslsims responsive to such initiative.

US foreign policy should not opte for stability in the oil rich region over promoting liberty, and democarcy.


'They hate our policies, not our freedom'

Pentagon report contains major criticisms of administration.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1129/dailyUpdate.html

There is still a war in Iraq?
Well heck from all the news I heard this week on every news channel known to mankind I didn't even realize The Iraq War was still going on. Anna Nicole and Brittany was the Top story on every channel all week long. So are we winning in Iraq yet? Did we bomb Iran yet? What's going on out there? J/King. Let's write our news agencies and tell them what we really care to see

Later Bloggers

Government Figures
I think anyone who has dealt with the government on any level knows to take their figures for anything with a grain of salt.

With Vietnam you found out that if a North Vietnamese was blown up, they counted each body part as a separate individual. With Iraq, the number of Iraqis killed vary hugely by whose numbers you look at.

When you start seeing numbers thrown around, as in this article, with NO support for the numbers, you really have to question the authenticity.

Then when you get folks posting things about how they are the only ones getting the TRUE numbers because they have sources that only they can access, again you have to totally question their authenticity. Both the poster, and the potential source.

re: DogJudge, Jabelson
As well, the Iraq Study Group found that there was a significant underreporting of violence by the DOD:

"For example, on one day in July 2006 there were 93 attacks or significant acts of violence reported. Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence. Good policy is difficult ot make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals."

My point being that if people are going to claim that accuracy of reporting is affecting the big-picture, it cuts both ways.



SF Heath
Thanks for responding to my questions about your post - I did indeed miss the last sentence, and to be honest, I had read other posts of yours and couldn't really believe that your statement wasn't purposefully intended as irony.

more for Lynne
Here's some advice for trying to understand a complex and multi-faceted issue:

1. Put away your pre-concieved ideas
2. Open your brain
3. Do some reading and research
4. Make up your own mind

Lynne
(Quoting someone else):

RE:Ben
"I get my news DIRECTLY FROM SOLDIERS FROM IRAQ."
-----------------------------------------------
Eagleone, unfortunately where you get your news is the ONE and ONLY reliable source.. Good for you! Their analysis IS UNSPINABLE!

------------------------------------------

Does this mean, Lynne, that one GI can speak for 140,000 others since they all have the same opinion? Isn't this a little naive?

DS
Why would you use the word divulge? Just reply as a converted American Muslim...I believe that radical Islamics/Muslims are a threat and therefore, believe in the war. I believe we are nuts not to think that those factions want us dead, people, culture and all.
You are living from both sides...what is it you see?

Troops in the field (Eagle One)
I'm sorry, but your comment about getting news from troops in the field that only YOU can access is just about as reliable as Ruffini's statistics. Not worth anything.

First of all no one can verify whether what you are saying is truthful, or not. More to the point, depending on the level of the "people" that you are talking to, they may or may not have a true picture of what's going on. "They" may be losing a battle, while the war was being won and vice versa.

By posting things such as this, you lose any credibility that you might have.

Nee
Thats alright. Each time I divulge my religion to someone Im asked the same questions over and over again, but I understand. Im a Muslim convert, born in the US of Italian/Irish/swiss heritage.

"Do you believe there is a radical Muslim faction?"

The answer is yes.


DS
The first link you provided had only negative quotes and I read the article. The quote I provided was from a news link. I have not looked at the second link.
I would like to ask you a question or two. Were you born here? If so, were you born Muslim? Do you believe there is a radical muslim faction?
I believe that there is, and I also have Muslim friends who agree They live in fear of speaking out, even though they live here.

Nee
Im an American Mulsim and I sincerely hope that our soldiers along with their Iraqi counterparts succeed in curbing the violence for the sake of the Iraqi pople who are suffering the most. Although Im against the war.

nee
I'm kind of rethinking my opposition to letting the State Department do the job instead of Halliburton.

It's too late to see Ms. Albright in a hard hat, but wouldn't it be fun to see all those State Department employees doing Halliburton's job?

Maybe they could do what they do best and "talk down" those oil fires?

Nee
I didnt cherry pick, I provided the link so people could see for themselves.
http://www.appealforredress.org

I never said that there arent servicemen who are for the war. I just provided the link about those who are against the war.

DS
You forgot to point out that the redress petition has soldiers who also want to keep with the mission and feel that they are not supported the way they should be.

Don't cherry pick to suit... there are two sides...

Here you go...
"These GIs and others Logan spoke with expressed frustration with their efforts in Iraq and believe there is no end in sight to the war.

Other Iraqi war veterans still on duty there believe Appeal for Redress MISSES a larger point. "As an American soldier, I feel like we took an oath to obey the orders of our commander-in-chief and officers appointed over us," says Army Spec. James Smauldon.

Said another serviceman in Iraq, Army Capt. Lawrence Nunn, "I know what I'm here fighting for, to give the Iraqi people some democracy and hope, so I am 100 percent behind this mission. You don't sign up to pick which war you go to."

Watch 60 Minutes: Military Members Speak
Out against The War
2/23/07



"As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq . Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home."

http://www.centeronconscience.org/UAA/02232007.htm

Lynne...
There are some great webs out there....blackfive.net,Micahel Yon, and then these sites all have links. I have a direct link or 3 myself...I have conversed with Ben before. I think he has some good points, but overall, we disagree on many things.
Sam the Cat read "Biased" by Bernard Goldberg since you are quoting Dan Rather's former place of employment which is a blinded insititution.

John Galt
"You are wrong to suggest that conservatives believe that Vietnam was a win. It was a win that was turned into a loss by the Democrats and the media, just as they are attempting to do now."

This is just spin - to get yourself out of your previous claim that VietNam was a win. You said so right down below!

And I still stick with my assertion that all your really saying in your posts with your 'you're wrong's' is that you disagree with me. So what? Who cares - I was trying to be nice by pointing out to you that that's why nobody bothers to talk to you, but now I wonder why I bothered.

Just to give you a sense of how your arguments present your opinions as fact I'm going to counterargue them using the tactic you employed:

You are wrong that the vast majority of Iraqis long for a democratic government.

You are wrong that democracy existed in Japan before we re-established it.

YOu are also wrong in your assertion that the majority of Americans believe that the war is unwinnable.

You are wrong to say that VietNam was a win that was turned into a loss by the Democrats and the media.

Afghanistan was a "quagmire" within the first 2 weeks.

Lib media constantly reports military vicories or heroic actions by our troops

Democrats and liberal pundits were correct when they said the formation of the Iraqi constitution and the massive election turnout was meaningless

You are wrong when you said that when the Iraqi PM addressed both houses of Congress, the Democrats staged a response speech as if he were a political enemy they trashed him.

You are wrong to say that Dems reacted to the death of Al Zarquwi as bad news, spinning furiously.

Dems constantly assert that it is not possible to win in Iraq, despite the fact that we have not lost a single military engagement and that we have suffered less losses than in single engagments in previous wars, and less losses than murders in 16 American cities because some people refuse to deal with facts and reality and we don't know how to get that message through except through repetition.

You are wrong when you say it was a key Dem talking point as recently as Dec, 2006 that we have too few troops in Iraq, followed by opposition to reinforcements now.

So it is the inescapable conclusion that you are either incapable of dealing with reality or are just looking for a scapegoat so you can save face because you're losing.

PS I actually have FACTS to support my assertions.

- Iraq Study group found that 61% of Iraqis approve of the killing of US soldiers

- Japan had democracy from 1912 to 1928

- CBS poll showed 57% of those polled believe the war is unwinnable Dec. 11, 2006

- etc, etc . . .

Also, if you have it all figured out then why are a couple of insurgents giving a superior military of a 150,000 such a run for their money 5 years, 3100+ US casualties, 50,000+ Iraqi casualties, and billions of dollars later?

Polly...
The thing you stated about Halliburton...I have repeated this alot around the threads when I hear that Bush Put them in Iraq so he could hve kickbacks...and Kimberly loves to talk about how Cheney was getting deferred paymants, blah,blah, blah.
Here is the low-down...(and I still don't understand Ben's suggestion that the State Dept and Powell were ignored...not based on this information.)
Backtrack to 1992- the Clinton administration also gave Halliburton a no-bid contract to continue peacekeeping in the Balkans rather than go through the expense of revamping. Halliburton maintained that until 1997. It was re-bid on for LOGCAP and won in 2001. Their ability to fight oil fires was what was needed. And the no-bid contract was to maintain what was in place because of imminent war. Then with other situations on the horizon-Halliburton’s capabilities to perform other “clean-ups” exceeded the other companies out there. These are facts and make economic sense since people are always whining about government waste.

It makes sense to me...

Baghdad
"Now, anyone that follows the daily murder rate in Iraq knows that Friday is usually the least violent day of the week. So this is clearly possible. The murder rate dropping from Wednesday to Friday is something that happens almost every week in Iraq. "

You're kidding right?!? I spent a year patrolling Baghdad-Friday is insane, not as bad as Thursday night-but certainly the most violent "day" of the week. I think it's because everyone is off that day.

silence indeed
the surge...BOOM !...is...BOOM !...wor..KA-BOOM !!

Lynne
You had written (7:28) "with the liberal bloggers there is indeed, little or no search for the truth." I was responding that I, for one, am here asking questions and trying to find answers that make sense. I wasn't necessarily asking for you, personally, to convince me, but next week when you bring out your nutcase anecdotes maybe you'll remember me, and mention that someone who didn't agree with you already wasn't actually a nutcase.

Blogs bring out a lot of nutcases, on both sides of any issue. I don't want to joust with you, I am coming with an open mind, reading what everyone says, doing my own research, and making up my own mind. If you don't want to have anything to do with that, don't reply to me. I'm fine with that.

Ben
I get my news DIRECTLY FROM SOLDIERS FROM IRAQ. Sorry, they dont provide newsbites I can provide fancy links too and I certainly believe them when they say that the good things happening in Iraq are not only under-reported, they are UNREPORTED. They also tell me of the bad things. Yes, in Badgdad and surrounding areas, it is bad. However, that leaves 80% of Iraq that is ignored by the MSM.

I consider their analysis UNSPINABLE.

A candidate with foreign policy cred...
The GOP candidates each have foreign policy strengths - well, Romney is a question mark.

But one stands head and shoulders above the rest:
Congressman Duncan Hunter.

Research for yourself:
http://www.gohunter08.com

Why?
1. He knows how to win - has won big re-elections many terms in his district.
As a Californian, he may well bag that state's rich pot of electoral votes!!!
2. Relevant experience - former Chairman of House Armed Services Committee.
3. Good speaker - gets his point across, and brings you to like him. Check out the videos on his site.
4. Has the right position on the most important issues.
5. The only candidate who has success dealing with illegal immigration.
6. Solid life history and family background. Enlisted, became decorated Army Ranger, life-long active in conservative Republican circles.

Have a good night everyone.
It has been fun.

Eagleone
Eagleone writes: Saturday, February, 24, 2007 9:23 PM
It Wouldnt Matter If they
throwing flowers at our soldiers feet. The MSM would still find some bad news somewhere in Iraq to report about. That is ALL THEY WILL DO FOLKS. There has been plenty of good news for four years, however, that doesnt make the point the libs want to see.
=================================================
Actually, the Baker/Hamilton report suggested the opposite. They said that the media was under reporting the violence.




“In addition, there is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq. The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases. A murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack. If we cannot determine the source of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the database. A roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn’t hurt U.S. personnel doesn’t count. For example, on one day in July 2006 there were 93 attacks or significant acts of violence reported. Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence. Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals.

RECOMMENDATION 77: The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense
should devote significantly greater analytic resources to the task of understanding the threats and sources of violence in Iraq.

RECOMMENDATION 78: The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense
should also institute immediate changes in the collection of data about violence and the sources of violence in Iraq to provide a more accurate picture of events on the ground.
Recommended Iraqi Actions The Iraqi government must improve its intelligence capability, initially to work with the United States, and ultimately to take full responsibility for this intelligence function. To facilitate enhanced Iraqi intelligence capabilities, the CIA should increase its personnel in Iraq to train Iraqi intelligence personnel. The CIA should also develop, with Iraqi officials, a counterterrorism intelligence center for the all-source fusion of information on the various sources of terrorism within Iraq. This center would analyze data concerning the individuals, organizations, networks, and support groups involved in terrorism within Iraq. It would also facilitate intelligence-led police and military actions against them.”

Baker Hamilton Report, Pg. 62
http://www.usip.org/isg/

Lydia
Im an American Muslim and I adore the prophet Muhammad.

The new fundamentalist Shiite Iraqi GOV that came into place at the expense of more than 3000 American soldiers adore Muhammad. The Iraqi people that bush delivered from Saddam's brutality adore Muhammad.

The Saudi royal family with whom the bushs are very close adore Muhammad.

There are approx 1.6 billion Mulsims who adore Muhammad.

Anything else you wanna tell us beside your book of doom, Armageddon??

You have no debate skills and all your posts without exception have no substance just islamophobic slurs.



Eagleone
Has there been enough good news to warrant hope that President Bush has the policies that will lead to a stable Iraq, given all the bad news that we know about?

sfHeath
sfHeath writes: Saturday, February, 24, 2007 9:20 PM
Ben
I had no idea what you were trying to say by "those in decent should not have been attacked" but Polly's "those in dissent" seems to be what you were saying, so that question is answered.

I'll try to read the substance of your posts and not get hung up on the wording of them.
===========================================

I saw that after I wrote. Typo's do happen.

I try to avoid it.

Frank C
Thanks for the props. I agree with you that Al Qaeda is the enemy, and it's a shame that they now have space in Anbar province to train in that wasn't available to them before we invaded Iraq.

But I'm not here because I am angry with anyone posting here. I'm here because I haven't understood certain points of view, and I got tired with the "I'm right, you're wrong" analysis I was reading at left-of-center blogs.

Polly
Polly writes: Saturday, February, 24, 2007 8:24 PM
Ben
Okay, Ben! 'Bout time someone mentioned Halliburten! (Clinton outsourced to Halliburton, too, and without bids; was that wrong also?)

You wrote: "No, I am saying 1) it should have been more than the neo-conservatives, 2) those in decent should not have been attacked, 3) a plan should have included more than the initial invasion, and 4) our traditional governmental systems (state department) should have been used for Reconstruction rather than outsourcing to Halliburton."

First, I'm going to assume you have absolutely NO idea who Bush listened to. If you had sat in on a few of the meetings, I have a feeling you would have already mentioned it.
-------------------------------------------------
Ben- This is nothing more than a cop out.



Second, I assume you mean "those in dissent," rather than "decent," as "decent" has a whole different meaning. And you really mean anyone who had a plan different from the plan chosen.
-----------------------------------------------
Ben- I guess when you don’t have an answer- do grammar check? What did you accomplish by ridiculing a typo- great job.



Whatever, at least the predictions that we would run out of body bags when we ran into the ruthless Iraqi forces were totally incorrect. If he had listed to those naysayers, he would have called the whole thing off. And the predictions that Sadam would use his chemical weapons (now said to have been non-existent--Bush lied) turned out to be incorrect, too. But those soldiers had to wear those toasty warm protective outfits for ever so long (though as I recall, there were lots of predictions by the MSM that the gear would not be sufficient to protect our guys from horrible, agonizing death).
-----------------------------------------------
Ben- I never heard it – who said it?



Third, the victory was so swift, after-the-victory plans were rushed.
-------------------------------------------------
Ben- Exactly- we rushed into war when there was no necessity for it.



Much of what was reported to have happened turned out to be false. But any plan works--until it's put into action. I'm sure Kerry's "plan" would have worked just as long. It's too bad Clinton never had a chance to execute whatever plan he had in 1998; perhaps 9/11 would never have happened.
=================================================
Ben- Yea, its Clinton’s fault that Iraq is in chaos. Please, Bush ran into this war, no one made him do it. In fact, there were many advocating just the opposite-

I have a link to Clinton's speech for the vote of authorization on my blog- read it. She had a coherent strategy and stated it then. What she is saying today is no different. You can review Joe Biden’s words as well.



Fourth, Halliburton has skills no other company possesses--and certainly the State Department LACKS. Again, it's why Clinton used the company. I'm going to assume you jest when you suggest the State Department could have taken over Halliburton's job.
-------------------------------------------------
Ben- What skills did they posses? What did they accomplish? The State Department dealt with Kosovo fine- maybe different scenario, but to completely ignore their abilities was a great mistake.

Not to mention it was Powell, head of the State Department that was advocating for 1) overwhelming force and 2) an active reconstruction plan. He was ignored. Like many others.

Cee Cee
You did miss the last question of my post, which was "Which of our thought experiments is closer to the reality of today's geopolitical situation?"

I do think America under President Bush is beginning to look a lot more like our enemies than like the America I grew up in - you remember, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" and all that. But I know that most people posting here don't share that point of view, so I framed it as a thought experiment to parallel John Galt's.

It Wouldnt Matter If they
throwing flowers at our soldiers feet. The MSM would still find some bad news somewhere in Iraq to report about. That is ALL THEY WILL DO FOLKS. There has been plenty of good news for four years, however, that doesnt make the point the libs want to see.

Ben
I had no idea what you were trying to say by "those in decent should not have been attacked" but Polly's "those in dissent" seems to be what you were saying, so that question is answered.

I'll try to read the substance of your posts and not get hung up on the wording of them.

for SF Heath
You wrote, "If America were led by an ideologue divinely certain of his mission, who suppressed criticism while expanding his own power; if America disappeared and tortured its captives; if America recognized no international constraints on its actions; if reasoned debate in America were replaced by name-calling and partisan strife; if the U.S. armed forces were beefed up and then struck provocative stances? If all that were true, then both America and the Middle East would be totalitarian in nature and there could be no peace until one or the other were wiped out."

Excuse me, "if all of that were TRUE?"

Is GB not an ideologue "divinely certain of his mission? Have there not been several court battles over the administration's expansion of power? Is the campaign to discredit Valerie Plame and husband not an attempt to stifle criticism? When captives are thrown in jail without habeus corpus or disappeared to other countries for "questioning" does that not fit your description? Did America recognize constraints on it's actions when it ignored the UN and invaded Iraq based on lies to the American public? IF "reasoned debate in America were replaced by name-calling and partisan strife? IF? IF???

Did I miss a joke here?

sfHeath
sfHeath writes: Saturday, February, 24, 2007 8:19 PM
Various Thoughts
Lynne 7:28pm: "You're right, this is ridiculous and with the liberal bloggers there is indeed, little or no search for the truth. Their sole focus is to antagonize and harass, which, right again, is driven by angry limited perspective because "It's all GW's fault.""

I'm here begging to be convinced. I want a stable Iraq. Nothing I've seen (including Mr. Ruffini's column, as I've said above) is convincing me that President Bush is the right man for the job. I'm here because I don't trust the MSM - same as, I assume, most of you. I really don't want to antagonize anyone, I certainly don't want to harass anyone, and you can bet I won't be looking up any of your addresses.

Ben 7:24pm (in particular): please proofread your posts. I have no idea what you're saying half the time.
=============================================

Just proof read it, and it is understandable.
What is your beef with it?

I was posed a question and I gave an answer?

What don't you understand?

Polly
Polly writes: Saturday, February, 24, 2007 8:24 PM
Ben
Okay, Ben! 'Bout time someone mentioned Halliburten! (Clinton outsourced to Halliburton, too, and without bids; was that wrong also?)

=================================================

What have they done?

Outsourcing a job is done by government all the time, outsourcing the entire rebuilding process of a invasion without bids, to a company that apparently didn't know what it was doing was a tremendous mistake.

The State Department’s expertise in the process was completely ignored and that was a mistake as well.

sfHeath
I am very much in agreement with your comments.

Although I am becoming angry because this incessant neocon nonsense could make the 2006 elections look like a minor nuisance.

During World War II, if we made a strategic mistake that helped the Nazis, we corrected it and got back on track.

Fortunately, Al Qaeda does not appear to have regained operational capabilities because of our initial success during the Afghanistan operation. But they did experience increases in recruitment when we invaded Iraq -- which never had anything to do with them. If we hadn’t gotten pre-occupied they most likely would have ceased to exist by now.

It’s time for you people to start checking your egos at the door. Stop getting our 20 year-olds killed for a strategic mistake, and let’s get back to ensuring that Al Qaeda is eliminated.

Also, stop using the phrase “war on terror”. We did not get attacked by “terror.” We were attacked by Al Qaeda.

Thanks to you & yours patsyp
There has been an outpouring of support in these comments for success in the Iraq campaign, a critical part of the war brought on by Radical Islam. Contrary to some comments by team CROPEM, polls show 2/3 of the American people want America to succeed in this campaign. John Galt asked a series of relevant and important questions at 3:14pm 2/24 and as yet no effective response by team CROPEM. There was one, dont remember his/her name who said "he/she was not really a liberal and he/she doesn't have much to say in support of Democrats, but yada ,yada, yada". The uncertain trumpet if you will. You know the drill. I shouldn't be too hard maybe he/she can become a keeper.

The fact is there are about 2 million in our armed
forces with only about 150,000 serving in the Iraq campaign. In WWII we had 15 million in the armed forces with a population of 150 million. We now have a population of 300 million. I believe we can paraphrase Churchill's statement when he referred to the RAF pilots in the darkest days of the Battle of Britain and use it to describe the heroic efforts of our armed forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, around the globe and especially in the "Battle of Baghdad", "Never is so much owed by so many to so few".

Ben
Okay, Ben! 'Bout time someone mentioned Halliburten! (Clinton outsourced to Halliburton, too, and without bids; was that wrong also?)

You wrote: "No, I am saying 1) it should have been more than the neo-conservatives, 2) those in decent should not have been attacked, 3) a plan should have included more than the initial invasion, and 4) our traditional governmental systems (state department) should have been used for Reconstruction rather than outsourcing to Halliburton."

First, I'm going to assume you have absolutely NO idea who Bush listened to. If you had sat in on a few of the meetings, I have a feeling you would have already mentioned it.

Second, I assume you mean "those in dissent," rather than "decent," as "decent" has a whole different meaning. And you really mean anyone who had a plan different from the plan chosen. Whatever, at least the predictions that we would run out of body bags when we ran into the ruthless Iraqi forces were totally incorrect. If he had listed to those naysayers, he would have called the whole thing off. And the predictions that Sadam would use his chemical weapons (now said to have been non-existent--Bush lied) turned out to be incorrect, too. But those soldiers had to wear those toasty warm protective outfits for ever so long (though as I recall, there were lots of predictions by the MSM that the gear would not be sufficient to protect our guys from horrible, agonizing death).

Third, the victory was so swift, after-the-victory plans were rushed. Much of what was reported to have happened turned out to be false. But any plan works--until it's put into action. I'm sure Kerry's "plan" would have worked just as long. It's too bad Clinton never had a chance to execute whatever plan he had in 1998; perhaps 9/11 would never have happened.

Fourth, Halliburton has skills no other company possesses--and certainly the State Department LACKS. Again, it's why Clinton used the company. I'm going to assume you jest when you suggest the State Department could have taken over Halliburton's job.

Various Thoughts
Lynne 7:28pm: "You're right, this is ridiculous and with the liberal bloggers there is indeed, little or no search for the truth. Their sole focus is to antagonize and harass, which, right again, is driven by angry limited perspective because "It's all GW's fault.""

I'm here begging to be convinced. I want a stable Iraq. Nothing I've seen (including Mr. Ruffini's column, as I've said above) is convincing me that President Bush is the right man for the job. I'm here because I don't trust the MSM - same as, I assume, most of you. I really don't want to antagonize anyone, I certainly don't want to harass anyone, and you can bet I won't be looking up any of your addresses.

Ben 7:24pm (in particular): please proofread your posts. I have no idea what you're saying half the time.

Lydia 7:38 pm: "Mohammed is the ideal man whom all Muslims seek to emulate."

And Jesus Christ is the ideal man whom all Christians seek to emulate. But still, Protestants and Catholics have killed each other for centuries over which is the best way to do that. Your statement that all Muslims want terror and subjugation just doesn't convince me of even its own truth, any more than a statement that all Protestants and Catholics are locked in an eternal war to the death. So what "peril" am I in if I "ignore" an unconvincing statement?

cite your statistics
I hope that you're right. But, you really can't throw around claims like, "It hasn't been reported on widely, but murders in Baghdad are down 70%, attacks are down 80%", without letting us know where those numbers come from.

John Galt
"I never said that Dems were responsible for the war, although they were indeed all for it when it appeared to be politically expedient. I believe that their attempts to undermine the war, which they engage in to damage Bush and help their own political fortunes, has hurt our efforts there. Nor do I make the absurd claim that the strawman crowd specializes in that they are solely responsible for our problems there--they are merely a contributing factor."

Thanks for the civil response. I disagree with you that all Democrats are solely politically motivated in challenging the president's prosecution of the military effort in Iraq. If they believe, as I do, that President Bush has had four whole years to stabilize Iraq and the situation has worsened considerably; then it becomes their responsibility (each citizen's responsibility) to seek to end President Bush's failure in leadership, in order to save as many lives as possible.

--------

And to respond to your post of 4:07 pm, regarding the thought experiment (I apologize if this answer is a bit too pat): If all that were true, then our opponents would be a constitutional democracy with the lively political debate we still enjoy in the U.S., and we wouldn't need to be at war with them.

Have you thought about the converse? If America were led by an ideologue divinely certain of his mission, who suppressed criticism while expanding his own power; if America disappeared and tortured its captives; if America recognized no international constraints on its actions; if reasoned debate in America were replaced by name-calling and partisan strife; if the U.S. armed forces were beefed up and then struck provocative stances? If all that were true, then both America and the Middle East would be totalitarian in nature and there could be no peace until one or the other were wiped out.

Which of our thought experiments is closer to the reality of today's geopolitical situation?

Victory in Iraq
Way to go Ruffini! you can always tell when the media has nothing to report from what they do say. What an embarrassment to Pelosi and company it while their plot to derail an American victory in Iraq the surge comes up with a winner.

Lisa- this is what I am talking about
Lydia writes: Saturday, February, 24, 2007 7:38 PM
Mohammed was
Islam's first radical Jihadist.

Ostriches with the rumps up in the air and heads in the sand refuse to deal with the truth that Mohammed is the ideal man whom all Muslims seek to emulate.

This has ALWAYS been so and there is no reason to believe that Muslims REJECT Mohammed's example. Foolish people have convinced themselves that Muslims reject Mohammed's example of violence, subjugation, and terror, they haven't rejected it.

Mohammed was a violent radical Jihadist extremist and all Muslims adore him. Ignore this at your peril.
===========================================

Lisa- this is what I am talking about with using the West Point report. There is no display or understanding that there is a difference between the Arabs and Terrorist.

Until we understand that difference, what we are doing in Iraq will help recruit terrorist.

Stopping this is important to having success or victory in Iraq. Policies that do not take into account the cultural differences are undermining our ability to win.

Lynne
Lynne writes: Saturday, February, 24, 2007 7:28 PM

Just earlier this week, a (new?) TH liberal blogger posted that "all of you who think global warming is a 'myth'....If there was only some way that global warming could pre-emptively kill you folks off FIRST, kill you dead, leaving the sane rational guys to fix the problem. Ah, no such poetic justice I'm afraid."

=================================================

And you can’t conceive of that kind of rage?

Lisa
Lisa writes: Saturday, February, 24, 2007 7:25 PM

=========================================

Your welcome.

It is a great site.

Lisa
Lisa writes: Saturday, February, 24, 2007 7:25 PM
West Point Report
Ben,

All along Bush said we are not attacking the Muslim faith...just the fanatical Jihadis.

"The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war."
Remarks by the President at Islamic Center of Washington, D.C.

September 17, 2001

But still West Point Report is interesting read.

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/atlas/Atlas-ExecutiveReport.pdf

Thanks for the site!
============================================

He also said, "Bring it ON."

He, nor his advisors, understands the culture.

tanabear
tanabear writes: Saturday, February, 24, 2007 7:21 PM

- "Key Dem talking point as recently as Dec, 2006 that we have too few troops in Iraq, followed by opposition to reinforcements now."

This is true. Of course, the same could be said about Jorge Bush who long maintained that we had enough troops and now wants to increase them. To really get Iraq under control we would probably need 200,000 at a minimum over an extended period of time.
=============================================

I would like to add to this that the time frame has changed too. Along with the changing conditions in Iraq, the ability for more troops to make a difference is a real question. Back when the Democrats were calling for more troops (prior to invasion as an overwhelming force or at the start of the insurgency) it may have made a difference.

Thanks, Ethana
for your encouraging post. I'm also inspired by many who post here at TH. I especially appreciate Lisa's Dinesh D'Souza links. He's always been a favorite of mine. Jabelson's assertion that Dinesh agrees with the terrorists is a bit absurd. Check out the links that Lisa provides and find out for yourselves. Also, check out the link to Iraq the Model that's provided in the article for an Iraqi's perspective.

I read the transcript of the Kerry/Bush debate that sfHeath provided. Brought back such fond memories. I got another chuckle out of Kerry's silly fabrication about going to Treblinka Square while in Russia. Why would he make such statement? You can't say it's a slip of the tongue like all the Bushisms we hear about. It was just a flat out made up story. Treblinka Square is a Nazi concentration camp in Poland, not a KGB headquarters location in Russia.

But I digress. A point I'd like to make here is that a war shouldn't be executed based on public opinion or on political posturing. The mission here is to stabilize Iraq and to make sure the Iraqis are able to set up their own government safely. The best people to make decisions about the war are military personnel who have been trained to do just that. Millions of Cambodians and South Vietnamese died because our commander in chief let public opinion rule. We don't need to let that happen again. PP

West Point Report
Ben,

All along Bush said we are not attacking the Muslim faith...just the fanatical Jihadis.

"The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war."
Remarks by the President at Islamic Center of Washington, D.C.

September 17, 2001

But still West Point Report is interesting read.

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/atlas/Atlas-ExecutiveReport.pdf

Thanks for the site!

Polly
Polly writes: Saturday, February, 24, 2007 6:39 PM
Ben
Are you saying that Bush should have followed the advice of every expert who voiced a "plan"?
And, further, that if he had done so, we would have achieved success?

Or did you just say that if he had listened to the "West Point Report," that would be success?

Guess I'm not quite seeing exactly what you (would) consider "success."
=================================================

No, I am saying 1) it should have been more than the neo-conservatives, 2) those in decent should not have been attacked, 3) a plan should have included more than the initial invasion, and 4) our traditional governmental systems (state department) should have been used for Reconstruction rather than outsourcing to Halliburton.

As far as the “West Point” report, I said that would be a good starting point. Learning the culture of the Middle East and creating a strategy that takes this into consideration would be more than we have done so far. And if you look, Iraq is in Chaos.

Germany and Japan
Japan and Germany had long histories of political consolidation in their societies. In fact, they had substantial development of constitutional orders before they were taken over by totalitarian regimes. The totalitarian regimes only lasted a little over 10 years.

Restoring cohesive societies with long histories of constitutional orders, and then working with them to create their own police forces and armies makes sense.

But there is no way they are models for Iraq.

Since the neocons think everything happens in a vacuum with no historical context, they never realized the difference.

The mission is over
I have no idea what people think is left for our troops to do in Iraq.

Only neocons think you can form an army before you have a government -- and I mean a real government with political consolidation, not this unity government.

Why? Because the people in the army are not loyal to the government. When you try to create an army too soon, the people in it are loyal to their own factions, in this case the militias.

Consider what we are asking our troops to do? We are supplying equipment and training to the “Iraqi” army which in reality means we are supplying equipment and training to the militias, who will then engage in an even bloodier civil war than they would otherwise do.

In addition, the troops are training the very militias who target them! This is perverse. Only a neocon would think you could build an army at the same time you are forming a government.

Ben
Are you saying that Bush should have followed the advice of every expert who voiced a "plan"?
And, further, that if he had done so, we would have achieved success?

Or did you just say that if he had listened to the "West Point Report," that would be success?

Guess I'm not quite seeing exactly what you (would) consider "success."

Polly
Polly writes: Saturday, February, 24, 2007 5:57 PM
Ben
If that were Bush's only plan, and if it had succeeded, we would have won. So it was a good plan, it just hasn't worked--yet.

And please don't wait for John Galt's answer. The D's obviously (at least, according to you) have their own idea of "victory" and I'm really eager to hear it. In truth, I've never heard a D mention victory, win, or success, other than to say "no way."
================================================

I told you I will.

And, once again, no one on your side will try.
Blowing crap up is not a plan.

Did you read the West Point Report? That is a good starting point on the road to success. They analyzed the situation and set out a course of action.

It takes into consideration the culture we are dealing with- that has not been done to date. The Bush Administration is following the Neo-conservative plan as stated on William’s Kriston’s website. They have never taken into account the cultural differences in the Middle East and what they base will work- most of which are comparisons to Communism, but the cultural influences are not readily comparable.

Listening to that report would be my first marker of success. Listening to the experts, which has also been extremely limited, would be the next step.

The long-term conditions and necessity to would take more time to write.

Maybe I will ignore JohnGalt, he appears unwilling to answer me.

Ben
If that were Bush's only plan, and if it had succeeded, we would have won. So it was a good plan, it just hasn't worked--yet.

And please don't wait for John Galt's answer. The D's obviously (at least, according to you) have their own idea of "victory" and I'm really eager to hear it. In truth, I've never heard a D mention victory, win, or success, other than to say "no way."

This is ridiculous
What is wrong with one positive article? Why do the liberals so vehemently attack such an article? What is the motivation? There's nothing inherently wrong with cynicism or skepticism, they are fine tools for truth seekers.

But in reading many of the above posts by the more liberal bloggers, there is little search for the truth. The sum total of the liberal blogs above is the same as it is all over townhall: It's all GW's fault.

This hatred of all things GW is pathological and at times somewhat frightening.
Publius

Polly
Polly writes: Saturday, February, 24, 2007 5:41 PM
Ben
You wrote: "People posting on Town Hall wish to make believe that Democrats do not understand the War on Terror or don’t wish to fight it, but that is simply not true. We want to fight it the right way. The way that will ensure success."

Now it's your turn. Define success, as the Dems wish it to happen.
============================================

I have asked John Galt to do that. And, I have told him I will answer his questions. After that, I will.


Polly
Polly writes: Saturday, February, 24, 2007 5:26 PM
sfHeath
Gee, that sounds like a great plan. Did JFKerry explain exactly how he would do all those things--especially with Murtha urging that our soldiers be re-deployed to Okinawa?

Perhaps Bush's new plan should be "kill the bad guys."
=============================================

That would not be a new plan.
As far as I can tell, that has been the only plan to date.

Ben
You wrote: "People posting on Town Hall wish to make believe that Democrats do not understand the War on Terror or don’t wish to fight it, but that is simply not true. We want to fight it the right way. The way that will ensure success."

Now it's your turn. Define success, as the Dems wish it to happen.

How CROPEM will deal with a success
I noticed that Hal gave us a preview of how CROPEM (thanks for that, ethana; it's great) will deal with success in Iraq:

Hal wrote: "Bush would still be "staying the course" if he was not confronted by the recent elections and pending congressional action. If his long shot escalation works, it will be because he was forced to at least try some "new" actions in Iraq."

You see, it's only because the Cut-'n-Run Dems FORCED Evil-and-Stupid Bush to do the right thing that we were able to prevail. (No one will remember how much they hated the "surge." No one in the MSM will remind anyone. Much like no one reminds anyone of Clin-TONE and the Dems beating their breasts in '98, calling for, and giving good reasons for, "regime change in Iraq.")


JohnGalt
JohnGalt writes: Saturday, February, 24, 2007 5:10 PM
SF Heath
Thanks for the reasonable response. As I recall, Kerry's plan at the time restated all of the things that we were already doing, such as training the Iraqui troops; he merely claimed that he would do it better and faster. How was left unsaid. The only differnece was that he would magically get the French involved, oil-for-food scam not withstanding.

I never said that Dems were responsible for the war, although they were indeed all for it when it appeared to be politically expedient. I believe that their attempts to undermine the war, which they engage in to damage Bush and help their own political fortunes, has hurt our efforts there. Nor do I make the absurd claim that the strawman crowd specializes in that they are solely responsible for our problems there--they are merely a contributing factor.
=============================================

Kerry’s plan a little more than that. Part of it was concerning weaponry, location of training (in Iraq vs. Outside of Iraq), and other minor differences.

As far as getting the French involved, I think he may have been able to do that- not Kerry himself, any change of leadership may have a chance. I say this because this Administration specifically attacked France prior to Invasion. We chastised a lot of our traditional allies prior to invasion and brow beat others into minimal roles. Bush’s use of Diplomacy in building the coalition has been more than dismal.

Secondly, you have to review the CPA- Coalition Provisional Authority’s rules, laws, and deals that were made immediately after the Invasion. Most of these rules govern the economic system of Iraq- it is valuable reading if you want to understand why we do not have a true coalition. If you’re not going to share the riches, they are not going to pay the price.

I would still like some sources to where the democrats have undermined this war. I would wager that in each case, there is a legitimate reason for concern on the Democrats, and the nations, part. It is completed unfounded that the Democrats are attempting to undermine the War to hurt Bush or Help their own Careers.

I have a link to Hillary Clinton’s speech authorizing the president power on my blog. Read the speech. She is saying nothing different today than she said then.

As I said before, the methods in which we wage this war matter. People posting on Town Hall wish to make believe that Democrats do not understand the War on Terror or don’t wish to fight it, but that is simply not true. We want to fight it the right way. The way that will ensure success.

Bush has failed to listen to experts since the beginning. This surge is a last ditch effort, but he still does not understand the situation. It really is that simple.


sfHeath
Gee, that sounds like a great plan. Did JFKerry explain exactly how he would do all those things--especially with Murtha urging that our soldiers be re-deployed to Okinawa?

Perhaps Bush's new plan should be "kill the bad guys."

Jableson
While the Times may indeed print pictures of every soldier who has given his life, and though these Americans are indeed heroes, the media's purpose is to constantly call attention to our losses. They ignore the heroes who exhibit exceptional bravery in action such as those profiled by Ollie North.

The fact that you are completely unaware of the many victories we have had in Iraq simply prooves the point.

SF Heath
Thanks for the reasonable response. As I recall, Kerry's plan at the time restated all of the things that we were already doing, such as training the Iraqui troops; he merely claimed that he would do it better and faster. How was left unsaid. The only differnece was that he would magically get the French involved, oil-for-food scam not withstanding.

I never said that Dems were responsible for the war, although they were indeed all for it when it appeared to be politically expedient. I believe that their attempts to undermine the war, which they engage in to damage Bush and help their own political fortunes, has hurt our efforts there. Nor do I make the absurd claim that the strawman crowd specializes in that they are solely responsible for our problems there--they are merely a contributing factor.

John Galt
"If you can provide examples of constructive efforts by the Dems and their media allies to win, please do so."

And the blame starts. Even though President Bush began a war by choice, not as a last resort, then failed to provide adequate reconstruction efforts, then didn't react quickly enough as the sectarian violence exploded, and finally sent an inadequate amount of troops to Baghdad as a "surge", and throughout all this Dems were held hostage by a do-nothing Republican majority congress, it's still the Dems that have lost the war.

In contrast, I'll provide one example of a constructive effort by a Democrat to stabilize Iraq. I'm not endorsing it, because I don't remember it clearly enough, but I think you have to admit that it was a constructive plan. I'd link to it, but the website was taken down after the 2004 elections. I refreshed my memory with this transcript of the first presidential debate: http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html
John Kerry's plan involved: 1. Closing the Iraq borders. 2. Rapidly training the Iraqi military and police. 3. Eliminating permanent U.S. military infrastructure in Iraq. and 4. Building a strong multi-national coalition to support the mission. Whether you agree with him or not, the fact is that it is an example of a Democrat bringing a constructive plan to the table - at a time before the sectarian violence spiralled out of control.

Why is it that Dems are responsible for the war, only now that the chance for winning it has disappeared? That seems like the height of partisanship to me.

Zero Credibility
Honestly, this is the first article by Patrick Ruffini that I've ever read.

I may try reading another one, or two, but based on this article I'd have to give him a zero for credibility.

He throws unsubstantiated numbers around as if they have no meaning whatsoever.

I hope that he doesn't plan on convincing anyone of anything with this sort of writing.

John Gault--Combating Terrorism Center-
John Gault, Until I formerly respond to your question, I thought I would share this with you. It is a report from West Point.


- - - - - - - - -
Combating Terrorism Center- West Point

Here is a link to the West Point, a unit called “Combating Terrorism Center.” http://www.ctc.usma.edu/

On this site there is a report titled, “Militant Ideology Atlas.” It gages and groups the Middle East into four major categories determined by the amount of support for violence- extremism. While it does not give numbers on militants, it does break down the Middle East into usable Subgroups from the General Muslims, then Islamists, to the Salafis, and then to the smallest group- the Jihadis. This group is a subset of the Salafis.
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/atlas/Atlas-ExecutiveReport.pdf

The Jihadis are the minority and the ones that practice terrorism. They do not represent the entire Middle East. This report shows in clear terms some of the misconceptions we have in how we wage war in the Middle East. As mentioned below, just the use of certain terms can either help or hurt us. Some may consider this being P.C. I do not. I consider it understanding the culture and using this understanding to make better policy.

The methods and tactics we use in the War on Terror and in Iraq matter. They can either benefit us or hurt us. Brutal Force without a coherent plan, strategy, or the use of Diplomacy has gotten us nowhere.

I have not heard of one Democrat calling for the end of the War. They are calling for a better policy. Some of us want new Leadership.

This is a good report for all on this site to read.



One recommendation from the report:
Label the entire Jihadi Movement “Qutbism” in recognition that the Jihadis cite Sayyid Qutb more than any other modern author. Muslim opponents of the Jihadis (including mainstream Wahhabis) use this term to describe them, a designation Jihadis hate since it implies that they follow a human and are members of a deviant sect. Adherents of the movement consider “Qutbi” to be a negative label and would much rather be called Jihadi or Salafi. Calling the movement “Qutbism” would also remove potentially offensive words from the lexicon of public officials (like “Islamofascism”) and disassociate the movement from Islam.


The conclusion of the Report “Militant Ideology Atlas.”
Finally, a word about “moderate” Muslims. The measure of moderation depends on what type of standard you use. If by “moderate” one means the renouncement of violence in the achievement of political goals, then the majority of Salafis are moderate. But if by “moderate” one means an acceptance of secularism, capitalism, democracy, gender equality, and a commitment to religious pluralism, then Salafis would be extremists on all counts. Then again, there are not many Muslim religious leaders in the Middle East that would qualify as moderates according to the second definition. Until there are, the international community should focus on alienating Jihadis from the broader Salafi Movement. While it may be distasteful to work with non-violent Salafi leaders, they are best positioned to delegitimize Jihadi violence and monitor the activities of the more militant elements of their movement.

Why Muslims Hate Us?
O


Muslims "don't hate us for our freedom, either. Rather, they hate us for how we use our freedom."

Dinesh D'Souza


Here's a perfect example that backs up Mr. D'Souza claim....

From a Norwegian Newspaper.


"Norway's most controversial refugee, Mullah Krekar, told an Oslo newspaper on Monday that there's a war going on between "the West" and Islam. He said he's sure that Islam will win, and he also had praise for suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.

"We're the ones who will change you," Krekar told Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet in his first interview since an uproar broke out over cartoons deemed offensive to Muslims.

"Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes," Krekar said. "Every western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries are producing 3.5 children.

"By 2050, 30 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim."

He claimed that "our way of thinking... will prove more powerful than yours." He loosely defined "western thinking" as formed by the values held by leaders of western or non-islamic nations. Its "materialism, egoism and wildness" has altered Christianity, he claimed."

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1247400.ece


Lynne
Lynne writes: Saturday, February, 24, 2007 3:53 PM
Awe geez, JohnGalt,
you have no idea what you've opened yourself up to...

And, you forgot, "Occupation!" Queen Nancy Pelosi has been whining a screeching "occupation" since we've had boots on the ground. The fact is, the US has never, ever, EVERRRRR occupied another country... NOT EVER. But that doesn't stop Queen Pelosli from making that accusation at least twice a day.

Yesterday I asked two easy and direct questions, and it took all day, thousands of words, and the questions were never answered. I had fun, and the folks were reading and getting a chuckle out of it, (we had a few laughs on another thread last night) so I guess it was worth it...

Good luck. I'm out of here.
=============================================

Lynn, I would like to get as many sources that would help with this? Can you provide the oldest account of when Pelosi declared it an Occupation? All accounts you know of would be good too.

Also, we occupied Japan after WWII for a limited time. It was a successful occupation with pre-derived goals created in conjunction with the Japanese. No real point behind this other than the fact that we have occupied. The intent behind the occupation and length of occupation are important questions.

But seriously, any sources for the above assertions would be appreciated.

Jabelson
Like every other Defeatocrat surrender monkey, you fail to answer the questions except to claim that they are "absurd". It is your comical denial that is absurd.

Of course the MSM supported the invasion during the year-long "rush to war"--this was when their master in the DNC still supported invasion, and before they had made their political calculation to undermine our efforts.

Do you actually believe that the NY Times, WAPO, CBS, etc. have supported our war efforts since the Dems turned on the war? Do you really believe that they have covered our victories and heroes extensively? Was the Democrat response speech to the Iraqi PM delivered by a stunt double arranged by Karl Rove? Do you think the elections got 1/10th the coverage of Abu Ghraib? Dems didn't actually say we needed more troops, then opposed the reinforcement? They don't constantly say the war is unwinnable and we have to withdraw?

You, sir, are a fool.

One Last Question
For those of you who doubt that the behavior of Democrats and their media minions has had a deleterious effect on our war effort, consider the following scenario:

Let's briefly imagine that Al Qaeda, Iran and the rest of our terorist enemies were not united in their desire for our destruction. Let's instead imagine that there was a faction supported by roughly half of them that constantly charged that their leaders were liars who had engaged them in the war for their own nefarious purposes. Let's also imagine that they constantly stated that the US was unbeatable, that the terrorists had no chance of winning, and that they should pull out of Iraq immediately.

Let's futher imagine that this group controlled Al Jazeera, and that every edition featured editorials on how wrong Al Qadea was, how they couldn't win and how their leaders were incompetent and evil. Al Jazeera also kept a running tally of every terrorist death in Iraq, but never mentioned any IED or suicide bombings or the deaths of any American troops.

Finally lets pretend that our enemies freely elected their leaders, and that they recently elected the second group to power in their legislature, and that this group began immediate efforts to bring about a capitulation. Imagine also that Ichbindickajad (or whatever his name is--sorry, sp?), Al Sadr, Bin laden, etc. were all up for election in less than two years, that they stood a good chance of losing and that we knew that the victors would immediatley pull all terrorists out of Iraq.

Do you suppose that this would have any effect on our strategy calculations or our morale?

Just wondering.


Lynne
Lynne writes: Saturday, February, 24, 2007 3:32 PM
FrankC

Lynne
"I didn't think you'd be able to define it for me. "

Really?
I ignore putzs such as you. Anyone who asks THAT question at this point either is just too stupid to understand anything, or is begging for a brawl. I don't have the time nor the inclination for either.

NOW, you can go off, fat, dumb, and happy claiming that I just can't define "win" for you. So, run with it...
=======================================

Oh, Lynn is caught in her folly. Yesterday she refused to accept any answer I would give to her questions and today she refuses to answer a simple one- what is success concerning the Iraq War?

I good question that I have never heard the answer too.

John Galt, I am going to answer your questions, can you answer this one:

What is the definition of Win, Victory, and Success? And I don’t believe they are all the same thing, we can have success along the way and still not win, but how would Victory fit in?

Sam
What makes me believe that it is winnable is millions of Iraqis with purple-stained fingers. The vast majority of Iraqis long for a democratic government and a peaceful country. This demcoracy may not look exactly like ours, and may be a little too Islamic for our preference, but that is what most Iraqis want. There is a very small percentage of Baathists, supplemented by Al Qaeda terrorists and killers from Iran, Syria and elsewhere who are fighting to prevent that dream.

You are wrong that we have never before established a democracy where none existed before. We did it in Japan.

You are also wrong in your assertion that the majority of Americans believe that the war is unwinnable. It is true that the insurgency has been more intense than expected, and that Iranian mischiefmaking could have been. It is also true that America has grown negative about the war, thanks in no small part to the constant negative drumbeat of the Dems and their media megaphone. But recent polls suggest that by a substantial majority Americans believe we can win and are against a pullout or surrender.

You are wrong to suggest that conservatives believe that Vietnam was a win. It was a win that was turned into a loss by the Democrats and the media, just as they are attempting to do now. As in Iraq, we never lost a military engagement. Also as in Iraq, the enemy was nearly at the end of their rope just before the Dems succeeded in pulling us out. And as it will in Iraq, a pullout resulted in millions of deaths.

I also noticed that although I asked for a response to the evidence supporting the fact that Dems want us to lose in Iraq, you ignored this and instead went on to declare why the war is unwinnable. I did not really expect a response as I have never had one before.

JohnGalt
John,

I’m not actually liberal. But here’s a response to some of your points for thought.

-- I’m really not aware of people calling Afghanistan a quagmire 2 weeks in, but I’ll take your word for it. There are plenty of liberal media outlets I always double check for accuracy.

-- I am 100% in agreement with you that we have NOT been getting enough coverage of the heroic day-to-day things our troops do.

-- The idea that Iraqi society is going to embrace a version of our constitution, something that is the manifestation of 100s of years of development within our civil society is something no reasonable conservative can believe.
Elections are pointless without a constitution that people really believe in or have a connection to. Just because you show up at the ballot box does not mean you will honor the results -- which the Sunnis did not.

-- The Iraqi P.M. refused to call Hezbollah a terrorist organization. In fact, one of the things the neocons have consistently avoided is the fact that there is universal support for Hezbollah among Iraqi Shiites -- which is the group that will most likely form a dictatorship in Iraq.

-- I don’t know of anyone who reacted to the death of Al Zarquwi as bad news. The idea, however, that foreign fighters or Al Qaeda caused the current civil war in Iraq is absurd. The civil war is the result of our invasion.

-- Either the troops accomplished victory a couple of years ago, or we should never have gone in the first place. Take your pick, but there is nothing to be gained by staying.

-- I know of a Democratic talking point that we used too few troops in the beginning (although it would not have mattered). I don’t know of Democratic talking points regarding using too few in December 2006.

I don’t really have much to say in support of Democrats. The points I have made are points made by a number of conservatives.

The writer of this article claims he helps Republicans and conservatives get elected? Not if he writes stuff like this.

Team CROPEM FUBAR'ed
Many of you inspire me, Phil Byler, Patsyp among many others. Many other comments can "go into the scrapheap of history". But back to team CROPEM. Their recruiting lit. asks for "summer soldiers" and "sunshine patriots". They dont have "cheer leaders" they have "jeer leaders". They look for talent in "fault finding", "finger pointing" and even "finger giving". Bonus for those candidates responding to bad news by saying "it's all America's fault". Fot those candidates saying "its all Bush's fault" they get special bonuses. You get the picture.

Just remember all you who support team CROPEM(the surrender team) the good old USofA has provided more people with more opportunity, with more freedom, with more of the good life than any other nation since the beginning of time. This is going to be a long and difficult war with Radical Islam but for the sake of our children/grandchildren/freedom loving people everywhere America must prevail

Re: JohnGalt
Sorry, I really don't mean to sound so harsh:

I base my conclusion that the war is not winnable on the fact that the US has never successfully established a democracy where none ever existed before and on the fact that very few countries with a preference for sharia and an oil-based economy have ever successfully established a democracy.

So what makes YOU think this war is winnable in light of the fact that the majority of Americans have already concluded that it isn't? Is it because if you believe you will achieve? Is that really all you bring to the table?

Because it's difficult to take somebody seriously when they base their argument on the assertion that VietNam was a win.

55%
You just keep believing that

JohnGalt - I will answer.
JohnGalt writes: Saturday, February, 24, 2007 3:14 PM
Libs, please answer
I've posed these questions several times in the past, but no TH lib as ever addressed them. I'm not expecting nutjobs like Tana (Bush and the Jews destroyed the Twin Towers) Bear or Daily Kossack automatons like Kimberly to respond coherently, but could some of the libs that at least make an attempt at reasoned argument like LG or Phylo please answer:

If the Democrats are not deeply invested in a US failure in Iraq for their own political purposes, how do you explain the following?

- Afghanistan declared a "quagmire" within the first 2 weeks by the lib media

- Lib media reporting 24/7 on Abu Ghraib but completely ignoring military vicories or heroic actions by our troops

- Democrats and liberal pundits visibly negative about the formation of the Iraqi constitution and the massive election turnout; attempted to spin these as meaningless or negative

- When the Iraqi PM addressed both houses of Congress, the Democrats staged a response speech as if he were a political enemy and trashed him. Why?

- Dems react to the death of Al Zarquwi as bad news, spinning furiously.

- Dems constantly assert that it is not possible to win in Iraq, despite the fact that we have not lost a single military engagement and that we have suffered less losses than in single engagments in previous wars, and less losses than murders in 16 American cities.

- Key Dem talking point as recently as Dec, 2006 that we have too few troops in Iraq, followed by opposition to reinforcements now.

There are many other examples. If you can provide examples of constructive efforts by the Dems and their media allies to win, please do so. But the inescapable conclusion is that they are doing everything in their power to bring about a defeat in Iraq. It is also tough to argue against the proposition that our terrorist enemies have been greatly helped by the knowledge that they have friends in the US government who will win their war for them if they can just hang on long enough.
======================================

I will, but it will take some time to put it together. I don't want to rush, and it may be one point then another- not in one writing. You are hitting on many topics. But, I disagree right off the bat that libs did most of these things- in the tone that you suggest- can you provide examples?

JohnGalt
You probably haven't received a response because your not being logical - I mean that in the sense that you've arrived at a conclusion that doesn't follow from the 'facts' you have cited.

You make the assumption that the war is winnable, and then you judge your 'facts' in light of your own bias. You've ignored the reality that the the vast majority of people have already concluded that the war isn't winnable.

IE All you're really saying is that you support the war and like to insult Democrats because it makes you feel superior. And if you find my message harsh, then you ought to perhaps consider the possibility that you have a hard time dealing with incomfortable truths.


Twisted Stats
hosekuervo says that 1,600,000 have served in Iraq. Then uses that figure to make the 20,000 troop surge look miniscule. The fact is that about 130,000 are there now, and another 20,000 can make a difference.

FrankC doesn't know the mission we are trying to accomplish. Gee, it's been on TV, presented by President Bush many times. Maybe you should watch!

Surge
The large majority of the American people are against the war in Iraq and against the troops surge and want our troops OUT.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16720627/site/newsweek/

Bushs popularity 31%

Americans approval of the surge 26%

Democratic congress approval 55%


People who are against the surge are NOT democrats alone, but the vast majority of the American people. unless 74% of the country are democrats.

Im NOT saying that sending more troops to Iraq is a good or a bad idea. Im just pointing out to the fact that Not only the democrats are opposed to the surge but most of the American people.



Lynne
I didn't think you'd be able to define it for me.

Libs, please answer
I've posed these questions several times in the past, but no TH lib as ever addressed them. I'm not expecting nutjobs like Tana (Bush and the Jews destroyed the Twin Towers) Bear or Daily Kossack automatons like Kimberly to respond coherently, but could some of the libs that at least make an attempt at reasoned argument like LG or Phylo please answer:

If the Democrats are not deeply invested in a US failure in Iraq for their own political purposes, how do you explain the following?

- Afghanistan declared a "quagmire" within the first 2 weeks by the lib media

- Lib media reporting 24/7 on Abu Ghraib but completely ignoring military vicories or heroic actions by our troops

- Democrats and liberal pundits visibly negative about the formation of the Iraqi constitution and the massive election turnout; attempted to spin these as meaningless or negative

- When the Iraqi PM addressed both houses of Congress, the Democrats staged a response speech as if he were a political enemy and trashed him. Why?

- Dems react to the death of Al Zarquwi as bad news, spinning furiously.

- Dems constantly assert that it is not possible to win in Iraq, despite the fact that we have not lost a single military engagement and that we have suffered less losses than in single engagments in previous wars, and less losses than murders in 16 American cities.

- Key Dem talking point as recently as Dec, 2006 that we have too few troops in Iraq, followed by opposition to reinforcements now.

There are many other examples. If you can provide examples of constructive efforts by the Dems and their media allies to win, please do so. But the inescapable conclusion is that they are doing everything in their power to bring about a defeat in Iraq. It is also tough to argue against the proposition that our terrorist enemies have been greatly helped by the knowledge that they have friends in the US government who will win their war for them if they can just hang on long enough.

Lynne
Tanabear: "Well, first you have to tell me what mission are they trying to accomplish and you have to define "win".
***Been definded, over and over and over and over and over again, and again, and again, and again.


Really? Could you define it for me? I seem to be uninformed.

Samthecat
" Terrorist operations in the Iraqi capital toned down by 80% DURING THE PAST THREE DAYS, an official spokesman for Baghdad's new order-imposing plan said on Saturday, FEB 17TH."

The key words here are "the past 3 days". This is not a complete and accurate account since since the above statment was released few attacks took place already.

http://www.aswataliraq.info/print.php?sid=37537


Jabelson:
Allow me to point out the problem with your
worldview: For decades, the US ignored terror
attacks on its citizens, property, and interests,
with the predictable results of more and in-
creasingly worse attacks,culminating in the
horror of 9/11. It's time-way past time-to put
an end to it. Don't try to single out Osama and
al-Qaeda- the whole Middle East is shot through
with terrorists and sympathizers. I'm far more
concerned about American casualties than I am
about the people of that region who took to the
streets to celebrate their deaths. And if you
don't mind my saying so, I think you should
be too.

Liberalgoodman,
Be honest. Both sides do that.
When someone can't counter a point, they attack the person.
The only thing to do is learn more so that the point can be countered through facts, or realize that you've been wrong.
To brand it as republican only is ignoring reality.

moondoggy and Republican civility
"i normally try to remain civil in my post's"

Republicans seem to think leaving out certain words is the same as civility. I think this as as rude as anything on dailykos: "if you liberals were a little more sincere in your assesment, it would have more stock, but your arguments are based on nothing more than your hatred of Bush.
you want revenge for losing the 2000 and 2004 presidential election, and you want revenge for the impeachment of Clinton.
nothing else matters to you but hate, hate, and more hate. revenge, obstruction, and hate some more.
your hatred is destroying everything you claim to hold dear."

The guy knows nothing about me yet feels free to tell this? As they used to say in more civil times, I beg your pardon!

Statistics
I'd like to see the statistics the author bases his claim that "murders in Baghdad are down 70%, attacks are down 80%".

Accurate reporting also an understanding of the big picture - why leave out the fact that insurgents have just moved out of Baghdad and are now attacking other cities instead?

wahaaaat?
flip about war? are you nuts?
capitulation doesn't stop war. no one wants war.

i'm a civilian, i work as a helicopter mechanic right along side the soldiers, and before you go flying off on that one, remember 800 contractors have given their lives right along with the soldiers. funny thing about mortars and IED's, they can't tell the difference.
and before you get of on the money thing, iv'e been working on military aircraft for 23 years, i'm a professional, not a "profiteer" and a U.S Navy veteran.
i've spent 28 months straight in theatre in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan. so, what do you know about it?
just yesterday, former mujahadeen members held a rally in Kabul imploring the new government to include former enemies.
an amnesty program for those wanting to renounce violence and help rebuild the country has been in place for many years, and many former taliban have taken advantage.
why? because they see a chance for peace for the 1st time in over 30 years. because we stayed and fought and didn't run away.
you can now charter guided tours to bamian, and throughout northern afghanistan.
the taliban is still active in the south and along the pakistan border, but they are losing support. people want peace, not war.
surrender and capitulation will not stop the jihadist's from killing. only making it to costly for them to continue will stop the killing.

Latest Update

How can it work?
Here's a report from the AP today (h/t Cernig):
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/24/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Diyala.php

"Plans call for all provinces to be transferred to Iraqi security control by Dec. 31. But increased attacks by Sunni insurgents could delay the transfer of Diyala province, which lies just northeast of Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon told The Associated Press. Mixon is the commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq, which includes Diyala."
Maj. Gen. Mixon went on to say that the Baghdad surge has "encouraged mostly Sunni extremists to flee the capital for surrounding provinces".

So if a dip in the violence in Baghdad is correlated to an increase in the violence outside Baghdad, what can we possibly accomplish?
"Sunnis understand they need to control areas around Baghdad if they eventually want to control Baghdad," [Maj. Gen. Mixon] said. "We're seeing insurgents shifting elements from Anbar and Baghdad, to ensure they retain control of Diyala," he said.

I wish I could support the surge. If anyone could tell me HOW it could provide for a stable Iraq, I would love to get on board with it. But arguments that don't address these concerns don't convince me. What's going to happen when the extremist Sunnis try again to "control Baghdad?" From moondoggy: "answer me this. would you rather put forth a great effort and fail?" When failure means even more American and Iraqi lives lost, and the "great effort" is actually just smoke and mirrors, I can't support that "effort". Am I a pessimist for thinking that? Am I a partisan? Or am i just someone who hasn't been convinced?

I'm particularly unimpressed with Mr. Ruffini's "Seal-a-Hole" game. Sure, he's solved the "whack-a-mole" analogy, but how does "seal-a-hole" translate back into military tactics? Do we have a specific goal here, and is the goal achievable? Please answer those questions.

moondoggy
Be safe, thank you for yours and your mates service

moondoggy
Talk about hate?? have you read Lydia's posts.

If any average Afghani or Iraqi reads her posts, your life and the life of our soldiers could be in danger if you really are in afghanistan like you're claiming. Dont you agree? Unless you believe that Islam and all Muslims are evil, then please explain to me whats your mission over there. Thanks.

Jabelson
But all those Iraqis who have lost entire families and loved ones, seen their children dismembered, lost their homes, their freedom to even go to the market, --- hey, they shouldn't despair - they have Bush, and he's there to help them.

Whats a few homes, limbs, children, friends, families compared to the Bush-Cheney plan? It's for their benefit, remember?

Vic
I said she as I understand that there are a great number of people who think it is not PC to say he.

Lydia
Here's how it works: Bush took out a secular leader who regularly slaughtered both religious and non-religious people in Iraq, and empowered an entire group of religious and secular minor leaders who regularly slaughter religious and non-religious people in Iraq.

Bush's solution is really working, as more Iraqis have been killed under the multi-leader program than were ever killed by Sadam.

Hooray!

Success Breeds Success
Everything you know about the ongoing war in Iraq is wrong. War is fluid and ever changing. Battle plans are irrelevent once the first bullet flies. By the time the news organizations get the watered down news version to us everything has already changed. Couple that with incomplete and slanted news from the MSM, reporting rumors as news, and partisans on both sides adding opinion and what you get is fiction. Or as they say on current 1 hour dramas, 'a story ripped from the headlines'.
So how is the surge really going? This article gives a sense of early success and confidence. Confidence leads to more success.
It's a shame that many on the left are so blinded by idealogy that they can't share in this success.

Thank You moondoggy for your first hand reports.

Lydia
If Islam and ALL Muslims have one common goal "dominating, subjugating the world", why do you want to help the Iraqis and put in place a religious fundmental GOV at the expense of our soldiers??

Saddam was a secular leader who regularly slaughtered religious poeple in Iraq. Now Bush put in place a shiite religious GOV as close to Iran as can be, but you still want to give "democracy" to the people you HATE??

Please help me figure that out.

more sources for tanabear
as long as you are quoting from CNN, you might as well use al jazeera and possibly the official sources in the iranian media.

like CNN, they are good and reliable sources.

doing
i normally try to remain civil in my post's, but if tanabear and hal would do a little more doing and a little less believing every bit of crap the media and your beloved bad news is good news party feeds you, you might even get some accurate information.
don't take my word for it, come see for yourself.
it's 11PM here in afghanistan, good night!

If, then
IF the surge is working, THEN that means that liberals have already lost. Now I think I understand why it was really opposed so strongly. Its actually a more principled reaction than mere Bush Derangement Syndrome...

moondoggy
From the US, Brit and NATO public releases and troops in the field. Now I hear a lot of folks say that the US lies all the time but hey...