Join The Debate!

More Reasonable positions

So 'moderate' Republicans and Democrats in the Senate would go along with the more 'reasonable' position that reduces troop levels but still leaves as many as 70,000 there. Moderate is a word that defines those whose positions are not 'extreme'. Extreme defines positions that are fanatical and drastic. Mr. Morris and Ms McGann are working the old spin game very well indeed.

Extreme in this situation is a position that leaves Iraq in the hands of Islamic extremists, the region in chaos and America's towns and cities in flames from terrorist attacks. Is that an extreme view? Hardly. These folks have been here and many other places in the world to kill anyone possible with total determination. They have shown how they would govern, we have Afganistan as clear evidence. We know what Saddam would have done had he the second opportunity to complete what he failed to do in the first Gulf War and we know what the mad man in Iran would do given the slightest sign of weakness or lack of will on our part. Put those very clear outcomes together and you have the region in chaos, the world economy in dissary and America at much greater risk from an emboldened and more powerful enemy. Moderation is required?

When you are in a conflict with a vicious enemy intent on destroying you and your way of life you cannot afford to spend time wallowing in moderation. Our young men and women cannot be now told that they can fight Al Quida but not other warring groups. McCain has this on right-the enemy are NOT going to wear t-shirts identifying them readily so our folks will know who to run away from and who to pursue. We are not going to see the issuance of National ID cards so our folks can check to see who they are dealing with.

War is a nasty vicious business. To win you must become extremely committed to victory. Moderation is only appropriate once the victory is secure and the time has come to deal with the vanquished in a humane manner. To use a sports analogy can you think of a single sport where one can expect to win by pulling back, reducing your committment and only trying to win one inning out of 9, one quarter out of 4 or 2 rounds out of 10? Now is not the time for moderation nor the time to abandon extreme committment to victory.

If a Nader candidacy is

"...enough to destroy the Democratic chances", then it is somethong to be devoutly wished for.

A new [democratic] world

Ah yes...the world is a village.

And, if my memory of history serves me Kennedy promised a new world order and then preemptively invaded Cuba, escalated Viet Nam, and then Johnson continued the democratic goals of killing off our enemies...and 50,000 americans in the process. Nixon promised an end to the war and then invaded Cambodia. We had different cats in charge but the same stripes.

The democrats never saw a war they didn't like and Lord help us from "progressives" like Roosevelt who incarcerated american citizens without due process.

those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it.

Bush, et al, are history. Concentrate on the new administration and don't get bogged down in being defensive.

Be careful what you vote for.

Change in policy

You war supporters criticize Democrats for micro managing the war but now also criticize them for not tying the administration down to a definite and inescapable time frame. But you can't have it both ways. Furthermore, if the Democratic effort only does as Morris and McGann suggest, why did the Republicans fight it so vigorously?

While normally I would prefer to see an administration have flexibility to implement policy, this administration has been so incompetent that it requires some micro-management and a specific date for withdrawal.

Phil Byler

"it puts our troops there at risk;"

To date approximately 3600 of our troops have been killed and many more injured for a disaster. Talk about putting troops at risk!

ii) "it undercuts totally the judgment of the gifted General Petraeus in achieving the mission that our troops are putting their lives at risk to achieve;"

Which is what? Tell me precisely what it is we are trying to achieve and exactly how we are goiing to achieve it.

"it is part of an effort to impose defeat on America for what Democrats think will be partisan advantage;"

This is just crazy. No one wants defeat. This is just a tactic of those who support the war to discredit its critics.

"it will put America at risk."

I would argue that the current policy puts America at risk. The report of the National Intellegence Report the other day highlights the error of taking our attention from Al Qaida in Afghanistan-Pakistan. Because of our involvement in Iraq we are limited in our ability to deal with Iran, Lebanon and Pakistan. Clearly our war in Iraq has inflamed radicals throughout the Middle East. All of that has made us less safe.

While there are no good solutions in Iraq, staying the course seem the worst of numerous bad options.

Phil Byler

All wars are fought for political reasons and subject to political restraints. To ignore political realities would do untold damage to the country. For example, while we could drop a couple of nuclear bombs on Iraq and perhaps Iran and prevent any furtheloss of troop lives, the damage to the US in the world would be so great that it would not be worth it. We would probably also have a larger terrorist proble than ever. In WWII Patten was reprimanded for saying that we should take out the USSR. Similarly, MacArthur was removed from command for publicly advocating a military position that was at odds with the political goals of the war.

As to citing losses to date, it was you who talked about putting troops at risk. All I did was point out that our policy has resulted in deaths for no discernable gain. In fact the situation in Iraq is worse than before the war. So we have risk the lives of soldiers of no good reason.

Regarding your second point the war is about something other than just clearing and holding. The things that must happen for Iraq to be secure are for an oil agreement, jobs for citizens, electricity, petroleum for citizens, health care and education. At this point these are at or below pre war levels. People are fleeing the country and being forced to move internally. The government has reached made no political accommodation with the various factions within the country and is either incapable of unwilling to take the necessary steps. That does not sound to me like it is working.

On point three, you are advocation a stay the course position that has not worked in four years. To continue to advocate such a course must mean that you are more interested in defending your past postions than winning.

On point four, I believe that we would be better off if we had not invaded Iraq. That does not mean that I like Saddam

JPH

1. Your argument that wars are fought for political reasons and are subject to political restraints only goes so far and not very far and certainly does not justify Congress micro-managing any war, whether it be WWII or the Iraq War. You cite Patton being reprimanded for saying we should take out the Soviet Union. Let's take that as an example. That was after Patton's Third Army had been a major factor taking out Nazi Germany In WWII. Congress did not attempt to tell General Patton how and when and with what number of troops that General Patton would employ in sweeping through France and then into central and southern Germany. After WWII, there was the political issue of what to do about our WWII ally, the Soviet Union, with which relations were souring. Patton intruded upon what was then a political question; a reprimand in those circumstances does not advance the argument one bit that legisltors in Washington D.C. should be telling Patton how to fight a war. As for MacArthur, he was removed becaue he appeared to be insubordinate to Truman and appeared not to be on top of the situation on the ground in Korea after the entry of Communist Chinese forces in the Korean War. Read about the Chosin Reservoir.

2. You then go on to defend citing the total number of deaths as not resulting in descernible gain. You show yourself to be a non-believer in the Iraq war. I think you are not recognizing what we have accomplished and are not dealing with what is at stake. America with its coalition partners have removed a tyrant in Saddam from power, handed sovereignty back to the Iraqi people, propelled the Iraqi people to adopt a democratic government and assisted the Iraqis in defending their young government. It cannot be ignored that the Iraqis bravely voted three times, raising the “purple finger,” in the process of adopting a written Constitution and electing their own leadership and that the present Iraqi government is the legitimate, sovereign and lawfully constituted government of Iraq. Nor should it be ignored that the Kurds in northern Iraq enjoy peace and that radical Islamist attacks elsewhere in Iraq on marketplaces, police stations and the like are both terrorist and criminal in nature and are specifically targeted to undermine the Iraqi government’s authority. To me, you appear not to be facing up to the determination of the radical Islamists, both Sunni and Shiite, who do not want democratic government and society to take root in Iraq, and they have caused much bloodshed, death and injury in their efforts to undermine the elected Iraqi government. Al-Qaeda’s No. 1 Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda’s No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri have declared that Iraq is the major front or “greatest battle” in what they describe as the “Third World War” between Islam (actually their radical Islamism) and the West. Al-Qaeda, in opposition to the Iraq government and in league with other Sunni extremists (e.g., the post-Zarqawi Islamic State of Iraq), has engaged in bombings killing innocent Iraqis and has actively sought, with apparently decreasing success, to incite sectarian violence in Iraq between Sunni Baathists unreconciled to the loss of power in post-Saddam Iraq and Shiites who had been repressed by Saddam. The radical Shiites in Iran have been the arms merchant of opportunity, providing a massive supply of IEDs, EFPs and other weaponry not only to radical Shiite militias but also to al Qaeda. And the enemy in Iraq whom we fight should be referred to as the radical Islamists, not insurgents. Senator Joe Lieberman, in his article on June 15, 2007, in the Wall Street Journal reported on his recent trip to Iraq, and among other things, noted the improvements in security and the estimate that 90% of the suicide bombings in Iraq are the work of non-Iraqi al Qaeda.

3. You state that more than clear and hold, there are political steps that the Iraqis must take. What I wrote before takes that fully into account. As I stated, the object of the clear and hold strategy is to create a security environment in which the Iraqis can take the necessary political steps. General Petraeus has been very clear on that point. As for progress to date, the report just recently given was that the security benchmarks for the Iraqi government were all met. There is progress, even in difficult circumstances.

4. You state that I advocate a stay the course strategy that has not worked for four years. There you go again, JPH, showing your military ignorance. I was of the belief last year that we did not have enough boots on the ground. An article last October in the Wall Street Journal Online by First Lieutenant Pete Hegseth of the 101st entitled "More Troops Please" explained why; but with General Petraeus taking command, a new strategy including a surge of troops was implemented. Let me give some background. While one may criticize the Bush Administration for not having enough boots on the ground and too long continuing to pursue a “light footprint” or minimalist strategy that contemplated a small American force and Iraqi police and military taking responsibility despite the violence in the country growing resulting from what was a counterattack of the forces of radical Islam, the “light footprint” strategy was conceived with the best of intentions out of concern that we avoid a Vietnam-like situation where we seemed to overwhelm the local forces; and in any event, the “light footprint” or minimalist strategy in Iraq has been replaced by a clear and hold strategy, for which the surge in troop levels is aimed at supporting, and General Petraeus, the U.S. Army’s expert in counter-insurgency, is now in command. All of this is to say that we have changed our military strategy. You cannot be writing about our not changing course for four years.

5. As for your position that we would have been better off had we not invaded Iraq is nuts -- sorry to put it so bluntly. Peter J. Wallison’s “What We Pre-Empted,” Wall Street Journal Online (July 11, 2007), explains the point, which Professor Victor Davis Hanson wrote several years ago, that the world would be a far, far worse place that it is now, as difficult that is, if Saddam were still in power. You do not think through what the world would be like if Saddam were still in power. Quickly saying that Iran and al Qaeda are stringer does not address the dynamics were Saddam still there; and you appear to be blaming the Iraq War for Iran and al Qaeda's strength when those are independent variables. In the long run, the establishment a democratic Iraq would be a blow to al Qaeda and a radical theocratic Iran. As for your statement about not hearing before that we have not taken away efforts from Afgahnistan, you are not appparently aware of what the military specifically does; all you do is to hear a repeated leftist mantra and assume it is true (which it is not). As for your other statements about Zarqawi being a small time operator, that is specious leftist nonsense -- Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No. 2 man, addressed Zarqawi as al Qeda's top man in Iraq until American arms took Zarqawi out. As for your statement that we "galvanized" the radical Islamists with respect to Iraq, we took the step we did in coalition with other countries because of the threat that Saddam posed and his violations of 17 U.N. arms resolutions. Yes, radical Islamists reacted; as indicated above, they don't want democracy. But the fact that they reacted does not mean we erred in taking action in restoring international order and promoting democracy. To the contrary, we did what was right and the better course. Adults understand that doing the right thing may entail costs and doing nothing may cause things to be far worse than the diffulties you face when doing the right thing.

6. You refer to the NIE report saying that al Qaeda is gaining strength. Welcome to the 21st century. We have a fight on our hands, just as we did with German National Socialism in the 20th century. Radical Islamism is an ideological movement that is world wide. We will need another greeatest generation in this country. I think that my U.S. Army First Lieutenant (with Ranger tab) serving as a platoon leader in Iraq is part of the new greatest generation.

Senate Benchmarks

Our do nothing Senate of Resolutions to nowhere is getting old. What have the senate done in the past months and years that is on the positive for the country and it's people. I have been listening to what we are going to do to fix social security since the late 60's. what we can do to improve health care and what to do about ILLEGAL immigration and now all we hear is how the great senate majority is going to fix the war effort in Iraq. Still nothing seems to be getting done but alot of lip service with no results.
The solution is to send the senate to the new embassy in Iraq to discuss the problems facing the American people, possibly being up close and personal will give them the motivation to accomplish more than lip service and retoric.
The bottom line is we have to kill the enemy or the enemy will kill us. The idea of leaving and all will be good is a pipe dream, When the war on terror will end the body count of the enemy will be in the area of 35% of there population, history is here and will repeat itself as it is.