Monday, January 28, 2008
|
|
Bush And The Surge
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
10:36 AM
|
In his guest-post below, Clark Judge Refers to Fred Barnes' new article on how the surge came to be, "How Bush Decided On The Surge." It is riveting reading, and underscores how Bush's resolve on victory carried forward by the American military was the key to the turnaround in Iraq.
Like Truman, Bush will leave office with loud, angry critics hurling invective at him and his record. But historians won't be waiting thirty years to reassess the importance and success of his presidency. That turnaround has already begun.
The article underscores, though, the perilous transition ahead. The next president will be another wartime Commander-in-Chief, which requires a rare combination of capacity and humility, a willingness to listen and an ability to act with resolution even against overwhelming partisan opposition and fractured public opinion. Here's one example of Bush consulting his critics:
To stimulate fresh consideration of Iraq strategy, the NSC staff organized a panel of experts to address the president and his war cabinet at Camp David in mid-June. The two-day meeting at the presidential retreat loomed as a potential turning point in the Bush administration's approach to Iraq.
The four-man panel wasn't stacked. Kagan spoke in favor of additional troops and outlined his plan for pacifying Baghdad with a "clear, hold, and build" strategy. American soldiers, along with Iraqi troops, would do the holding, living in Baghdad and guarding its citizens, Sunni and Shia alike. Robert Kaplan, the foreign correspondent and military writer now teaching at the Naval Academy, talked about successful counterinsurgency campaigns in the past. (Kaplan's books are among Bush's favorites.) Kaplan neither advocated a troop buildup nor opposed it.
Countering Kagan, Michael Vickers, a former Green Beret and CIA operations officer, explained how Iraq could actually be won with fewer troops, not more. Vickers is now an assistant secretary of defense. The fourth panelist was Eliot Cohen, now a State Department adviser. Bush had read his book on wartime leadership, Supreme Command. Cohen reemphasized its theme: Leaders should hold their generals accountable if a war is being lost or won.
Bush's reaction to the panel offered no hint of his thinking. After the first day's session, he secretly flew to Iraq to attend the inauguration of Maliki's government. Bush's advisers, still at Camp David and expecting to see him in person, were surprised when he spoke to them by teleconference from Baghdad.
Read the whole article. No matter who succeeds Bush, they will have a lot to learn from his example of wartime leadership.
|
|
|
Large Time. God Bless his steadfastness and resiliancy. A Great & Good Man who let the constant hatred and invective roll right off his large shoulders. |
|
..this guy ain't Truman, nor is he Churchill. He is a callow and self-satisfied Boomer conservative, singularly overmatched by the Office.
The success of the surge is in fact the success of soft power and diplomatic outreach--and indeed, making a very bad, even disgraceful, situation a little better. Bush just wanted to punt Iraq upfield to his successor so that he could whine to history that Iraq was not HIS failure.
Bush will be remembered as a savvy operator, a skilled politician, an incarnation of sorts of a type of conservatism that crested and crashed with his Presidency. But he will not be remembered as a great man, a great leader, or a great President. Rather, he will be seen as a guy who was not up to the job.
|
|
I do believe that McCain was critical to defending the surge in Congress this year. . but clearly George Bush and other players were far more important in crafting a surge strategy that could work.. . which involved also a very significant change in tactics.
Put this together with the recirculation of January 2007 reports about McCain himself considering proposing specific timetables. .me thinks the good Senator has overplayed the credit he is due for the initial surge stragegy. |
|
|
John McCain was the author, defender, and instigator of the surge. He gets all the credit for it.... just ask him...lol. |
|
Amen and from your lips to God's ears! They cannot bring him down to their slimy level. His record will be one of courage and strength in the face of an worldwide evil,ruthless,and false theocratic Marxism that is currently holding 250 school children hostage in Pakistan. Their brave leadership hides in dark caves afraid of justice. Nancy Peolsiana and Sharry Reid got where they are by tearing a great man down,but they are now standing on shifting sand. I am afraid, our enemies will believe their kinsmen in the MSM, and make another blunder.
Meanwhile,the whining of the waggers of finger, continues. |
|
Here we go again----your arrogance only trumped by your blindness.
This is it:
I readily admit I have no crystal ball, no real vision into the future as to how GWB will be perceived in a rear view mirror.
NOT THE CASE WITH YOU!
You have fingertip, sage advice as to how the conservative party needs to change.
"Older and Fresher"
You possess stellar wisdom in how people are going to think 5, 10, 20, 50 years from now.
You're is not only pathetic sufferings of the chatter variety------yours is also pomposity of the vaulted Liberal Speak.
Yeah, I know, you have a "conservative streak" coursing through those vapid veins which provides keen insights, perspectives, and untold ('cept you oft tell of it) wealth of knowledge.
DO US A FAVOR:
Go use that incredidble breadth and wealth of vast "knowing" and "seeing" in guiding your own party to rise from the ashes. Give them a bit of your "Older and Fresher" and see what uncaged response you receive. Seriously, dude, you need to share yourself, with a much broader audience, of the broken-democrat variety.
Your sense of "giving" is, well, it's so one-sided. Give, give, give, is all you seem to do here. Your own party beckons for well groundedness----only the kind that you can weave and spin and create.
|
|
|
With his cut and paste DNC support for McCain? |
|
Al Gore, Internet. John McCain, Surge. Freed from any undue influence of facts, I can see it all clearly now.
So much in common... |
|
have gotten the surge. McCain gave Bush the ability to get it because unfortunately Bush almost waited too late to change course. We came very close to losing the Americna public and losing the war.
Americans want to win, but they will not tollerate a slow losing war. They will support winning. Which is what McCain was for.
Mitt Romney? He was a political coward on the war. Mitt avoided the topic, because he wanted it both ways if Iraq went into the crapper. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTU0NzEyZjIzMTI5Y zZiYjgxMjY3MTM4YTIzMjY4NTA= Mitt Romney is better than Hillary and Obama (who are defeatocrats) but he is decidingly weak as a commander in chief.
McCain acted like a man and did what was necessary. And kudos for President Bush for not giving up and doing the right thing on Iraq. |
|
|
|
At a campaign event Aug. 8, 2007, Giuliani told a crowd in Iowa, "I happen to be a very big admirer of Sen. McCain and I can tell you quite honestly that if I weren't running for president I would be here supporting him. If for some reason I made a decision not to run he'd be my candidate."
It was the second time this summer Giuliani voiced support for McCain without much prompting.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/story?id=349244 0 |
|
It says, quite CLEARLY on the second page:
"After the bombing, NSC officials were increasingly dubious. They weren't alone. General Keane kept in contact with retired and active Army officers, including Petraeus, who believed the war could be won with more troops and a population protection, or counterinsurgency, strategy--but not with a small footprint. At the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington, a former West Point professor (and a current WEEKLY STANDARD contributing editor), Frederick Kagan, was putting together a detailed plan to secure Baghdad. But the loudest voice for a change in Iraq was Senator John McCain of Arizona. He and his sidekick, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, traveled repeatedly to Iraq. McCain badgered Bush and Hadley with phone calls urging more troops and a different strategy. Together, McCain, Keane, Petraeus, the network of Army officers, and Kagan provided a supportive backdrop for adopting a new strategy."
Just to make sure you got it: "But the loudest voice for a change in Iraq was Senator John McCain of Arizona. He and his sidekick, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, traveled repeatedly to Iraq. McCain badgered Bush and Hadley with phone calls urging more troops and a different strategy."
What a shocker that Hugh didn't post that graph.... |
|
A) Give me a break. The turnaround is already here? Right. I'm sure Bush will be remembered very fondly. 2 wars, brutal economy, Katrina, etc. Mission Accomplished, Bushie.
B) SEEHAWK, calling Islamic terrorists Marxists is just silly. Seriously. It is as though you are sticking any disparaging adjective to them that you can -- why not effete? Swishy? How are they Marxist? |
|
|
Hugh, McCain was there urging the change in tactics. You don't mention that of course. Mitt was where? "Looking at his shoes!" whenever asked about Iraq -- "uh, we'll have to see how it goes, uh, we'll ask the lawyers, uh..." what a leader that Mitt is... |
|
They are complete economic Marxists! Read Ahmadejad's election speeches. Ask his Commi-Soul Brother,Chavez? Remember the Baath Party? You never bothered to read the BinLaden /Marxist connection article I recommended, anyway. I know you're an admiring fan of the the productive Worker's World Party(who march with the Jihadist's every chance that comes along)but you need to accept your roots,Commrad!
I've been arrested by Fidel's thugs,so I'm more than a little familiar with their dogma and their ways. I'd use "spiritually deceived" as the most decriptive adjective for all things Marxist& and their Soul Brothers. |
|
ly jousted over my calling the despicable butchers "Fascists". (*See:Jan.18th,12:24am post, "Norman Podhoretz on Iran".*)
Jihadist Butchers, Islamist Sewage, Dark Age Scum ALL work for me, as well. However, their lunatic-fanatical millineal nitwitedness, combined with the need to liquidate tham to the last bomber of children, does give them a kinship to the now dead(mostly)pseudoscience of communism. I've found in our friend Manfred an honest-to-Gawd defender of the faith of Leninism. This must be cared for and nurtured, as it has roots in a bygone age of flower power, joints, Weather Underground SDSers, and--leave us NOT forget--PROgressives. Ah,,Yes...This is some good chit, man.
Manny is an artifact, 'Hawk my friend, and such a nice distraction after the Paulbots, Hucksterites and, now, McCainiacs! |
|
|
I merely ask for precision of language. How can they be a) Fascists; b) Marxists; and c) "Dark Age Scum"? These are mutually exclusive. I would be most inclined to accept (c). |
|
|
|