So how would you solve Iraq?
And, no, getting the hell out of there is not an acceptable answer, dooming the Iraqis to the civil war many have already declared, and to worsening bloodshed and anarchy. From a humanitarian that is, a liberal perspective, we cannot abandon these people to such terror.
So the most realistic answer – leaving Iraq to the Iraqis while we redeploy to fight the larger war on terror (aka Al Qaeda) is simply off the table for Jeff & Co. Well the only other choice is to stay in Iraq and keep getting killed while Al Qaeda grows and we lose the “big stick” backing up any and all future efforts at diplomacy. Besides that, Jeff is demonstrating the war hawk’s usually firm grip on the important issues.
Related
LiveSearch 2.0
Clueless John McCain Still Can’t Understand That Al Qaeda=Sunni
The Clueless Fred Thompson
It’s kind of hard to warn Iran about “dangerous consequences” when we can’t even keep the lights on in Baghdad. Did you take a dose of the stupids, Frank? Usually you’re wrong, but not unable to comprehend.
Diplomacy? We don’t need no stinkin’ diplomacy!
This time, I am stunned: we lose the big stick backing up any and all future efforts at diplomacy.
What in h – e – double hockey sticks are you talking about?
[...] sagree on where that point is. I think we passed it many yesterdays ago. You don t. Jeff Jarvis is wrong may not be an acceptable answer. [...]
We’re the US of fuckin’ A, man! We rule by sheer force of will! anyone who disagrees is a traitor and a coward! We don’t like talkin’ to furriners, and all “ragheads” (TM-A. Coulter) are the enemy (except the ones who are our friends; trust us, we’ll tell you which ones are the “good” ones).
Diplomacy is for the weak..
And where the hell is “al Qaida”? Rumor has it that today, right now, they’re in … Iraq. And you want to LEAVE there?
Jeff Jarvis is a favorite of Instapollyanna, who on April 11, 2003 said:
Yeah, there has been a lot of pro-war gloating. And I guess that Dawn Olsen s cautionary advice about gloating is appropriate. So maybe we shouldn t rub in just how wrong, and morally corrupt the antiwar case was. Maybe we should rise above the temptation to point out that claims of a quagmire were wrong again! how efforts at moral equivalence were obscenely wrong again! how the antiwar folks are still, far too often, trying to move the goalposts rather than admit their error again and how an awful lot of the very same people who spoke lugubriously about civilian casualties now seem almost disappointed that there weren t more again and how many people who spoke darkly about the Arab Street and citizens rising up against American liberators were proven wrong again as the liberators were seen as just that by the people they were liberating. And I suppose we shouldn t stress so much that the antiwar folks were really just defending the interests of French oil companies and Russian arms-deal creditors. It s probably a bad idea to keep rubbing that point in over and over again.
Nah.
posted at 04:36 PM by Glenn Reynolds
Fer chrissakes, we should certainly be listening to Reynolds and Jarvis now. They’ve been so dead-on thus far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy
..diplomacy is the employment of tact to gain strategic advantage, one set of tools being the phrasing of statements in a non-confrontational, or social manner.
Non-confrontational? Social? Tact? In this administration? Feh.
Some interesting comments here:
Who wrote it?
Why it was Oliver Willis.
Now we need to intimidate Iran by subjugating Iraq? You wouldn’t be attempting to justify an unjustifiable war, would you, Oliver? Careful, now.
Yea, Crazy J it’s not like Oliver wrote that 2 1/2 years ago, before 2,000 more US soldiers had been killed.
Oh, that’s right, it was 2 1/2 years ago. There is nothing now to be gained from staying in Iraq, all that can be done is more soldiers being fed to the meat grinder.
Yea, Crazy J it s not like Oliver wrote that 2 1/2 years ago, before 2,000 more US soldiers had been killed.
So it was 2 1/2 years ago. So what? How does that change what Oliver asks. How does it change:
Isn t cutting the amount of troops in Iraq giving the Saddam loyalists/rebels/insurgents exactly what they want?
How does it change:
Abandoning Iraq will fulfill Bush s proclamations that it is a haven for terrorists. It will give Al Qaeda another place to hide
There is nothing now to be gained from staying in Iraq, all that can be done is more soldiers being fed to the meat grinder.
Then stop being dishonest and framing it as “strategic redeployment” and call it what it really is: “Screw you (Iraq), you’re on your own.” Stop acting as though it’s some kind of real strategy when it’s nothing but, “Let’s just get the hell out of here already.”
Yes, that was 2 years ago when it seemed like we could salvage something – anything – out of Iraq. I was in the we broke it, we bought it camp for a long time. But I see no possible upside to staying in Iraq anymore. A position I once thought was satisfying but bad for Iraq – staying in, making something out of it – is no longer workable.
I’m not like the cons. I know when I make a mistake, and I was mistaken.
Staying in Iraq as currently configured achieves one goal: more American deaths. I don’t want that, and neither should you no matter how bad it might make Bush seem.
Two views of Operation Swarmer:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188190,00.html
http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/2006/03/operation_overblown.php
Wonder which will turn out to be the more accurate.
JayC, we have made no progress in 2 1/2 years. It’s gotten worse. What Bush has been doing has been a disaster. At some point you hve to reassess the situation. 2 1/2 years ago we had no choice and ample opportunity to put Iraq right. Since then Abu Ghraib, mounting casualties, lack of progress and a slow erosion of our military capabilities indicate the Bush strategy has failed and will continue to do so.
Fair enough.
The same sort of honesty requires other people to stop framing it as “staying the course” and call it what it really is: “We’re stuck without any good choices.”
Stop acting as if it’s some kind of real strategy.
“Its the only option out there.”
Naturally, because Bush’s own “stay the course” rhetoric has completely killed the political viability of putting more troops in because then he’d have to admit he made a mistake.
All this whining about “strategic re-deployment” misses the target again. If you guys haven’t noticed, Al-Qaeda is “redeploying” to other countries as well as Iraq. The “flypaper” theory was nuts to begin with. Please Frank, tell us your next step, now that we have civil war (like we told you would happen over two years ago), and the flypaper ain’t working anymore. Send in more flypaper? Tell us your strategy, o’ king of competance.
“American leftists will scream loud enough that the government will quit.”
Dugger you are such a fucking asshole. You know that Bush has run this war the way he wanted from day one. You know that not a single “leftist” had anything to do with the planing of the invasion or the execution of the reconstruction.
Staying the course is the only strategy that makes sense… the end of the ‘course’ being that point where the Iraqi Army and police are theoretically ready to take over. Its the only option out there. Surrender (AKA ’strategic redeployment’) will encourage terrorists across the globe: “Just get tough, stay tough for a while and American leftists will scream loud enough that the government will quit. Never forget that American leftist were in Iraq serving as human shields (they’ll help us in the short run and then we’ll cut their heads off later).”
Dugger
And they’re not be encouraged now Dugger? And they won’t continue to be encouraged for the next 10 years under the Bush plan?
Never forget that American rightists were lying about the justifications for this war from faulty WMD claims to faulty Al Qaeda link claims.
“Stop acting as if [staying the course] is some kind of real strategy.”
Exactly.
But if the right was honest enough to do that they’d also have to admit that Bush has no strategy whatsoever. Of course, the Bush loyalists long ago put the political interests of Bush ahead of the needs of the Iraqi people.
I’d like to add, that yes, things indeed look grim in Iraq. In all likelyhood if we withdraw they will get worse. Of course they’re getting worse by the day with us there so what’s the difference? Well, one hope is that our presence in Iraq is indeed fueling the insurgency and that if we withdraw militarily we may actually be able to make headaway on the political/diplomatic front. For some reason the every optimistic right wing is only optimistic when it suits their agenda. When it doesn’t suit their agenda, it’s all doom and gloom. Funny that.
Let’s assume that redployment is just “cutting and running” which is a mortal sin. What in God’s name do you propse we do, Dugger? How about something other than “stay the course”? I’ve got news for you: THE COURSE AIN’T WORKING.
Don’t like the leftist plan, fine. Let’s hear yours.
*cricket cricket*
To win, of course.
I want Jessica Alba in a hot tub too, but it isn’t going to happen (this week). Define “win” more than just saying the word “win”. Is winning beating Hussein? We win then. Is winning destroying the WMD? There were none. Is winning having Iraq be an Israel-style democracy? If so, please tell Ms. Alba that I like Mr. Bubble.
Leroy,
Man, those were quick crickets.
Mine (plan) is staying the course and making the Iraqi army and police as ready as reasonably possible and then leaving. Will that guarantee success in Iraq? I don’t know. I’m pessimistic overall, but we still need to do the right thing – and retreating ain’t it.
Shouldn’t have gone in if we were going to ’strategically redeploy’ in the face of insurgency.
Dugger (30 min and I get crickets!?)
“attempting to justify an unjustifiable war,”
Frank;
You still want to support a war you say was doomed at the outset?
It seriously depends on who you read. Some people believe there already is a civil war — without evidence. Some people think there isn’t one.
Believe whichever one you wish, we still have to stay.
Why? To win, of course.
We can, and we will, achieve our goal. You can insult me, insult the President, minimize the importance of the mission, pretend that there were never WMD’s , pretend that Al Qaeda was never in Baghdad. Believe what you will, “In for a penny, in for a pound.”
THis President is not caving into left wing pressure. Men and women die in war. They’re not over there tip toeing to win hearts and minds. They’re over there “Breaking things and hurting people.” That’s what armies are supposed to do. Get with the program.
I was in a parade 10 years after Viet Nam fell – a “pity parade”, held at the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge. After the parade, we all got shitfaced using our drug or drugs of choice. Let me tell you, if you have to come home from a war messed up in the head, better to be a winner and messed up in the head, than a loser and messed up in the head.
The messed up in the head goes away when you begin to realize that people are not spending their days and nights trying to kill you. The “loser” never goes away — and neither does the bitterness towards those you hold responsible, whoever they might be, rightly or wrongly.
I’m not saying, “Been there, done that.” I’m telling you, “I am there, I am that.”
>>Mine (plan) is staying the course and making the Iraqi army and police as ready as reasonably possible and then leaving
Gosh. That’s very generous of you Dugger. You’re such a humanitarian. If you ever get pulled over in Iraq for speeding, be sure to pull out the above quote. It’ll be your “Get of Iraq without Dying,” card.
Do you mind telling us how you plan to do that without our troops getting killed daily by IED’s?
JK
What Bush now defines as ‘cut-and-run’ will one day be repackaged and renamed as the WH exit strategy. There will be a few light skirmishes to ‘test’ Iraqi forces and the WH will one day declare that our job is over and our troops can be withdrawn. The first such skirmish is Operation Swarmer.
At this point I’d say he’s worse. The terrorists have already dispersed to the rest of the globe, thanks to the war in Iraq. Chances are we’ll have another city hit in the next couple of years thanks to our guard being down. There are two sets of fighting going on in Iraq. 1) Saddam remnants and “terrorists” attacking us and Iraqis who work with us. 2) Sunni vs. Shia infighting/civil war/whatever. When we leave #1 is likely to go down, but #2 will probably always linger at various levels of intensity.
Define “stabilized”. Iraq could be very stable at the whims of Sadr and Sistani and their ilk, which is most likely to be the outcome. But then 2,300+ Americans just died to create the new Iran. Nice.
Cleo, you still want to go on saying that I said that the war was doomed from the outset? That’s the second time you said it, but you haven’t located my comment to that effect. Are you a) Hoping I’ll have a “senior moment”, and think “Yeah, maybe I did say that, but I forgot,” or b) are you trying to remember where you think I said it, and you’re stalling for time; or c) Are you totally full of crap, and just being your usual annoying self?
Winning is having a stabilized Iraq, where the Iraqis control the last remaining terrorists. Reversing the conventional (i.e., liberal) logic, since the appearance of the Americans brought about the appearance of the terrorist, then the departure of the Americans should bring about the disappearance of the terrorists. Right?
Can that be done before the Republicans regain the House and Senate in 2006? Maybe.
By the end of 2007? Definitely.
I’m sorry, that’s only 291, 500
No. As Tom Tomorrow put it, he’s Nixon without the brains.
World War II was that rare beats, a justified war. It wasn’t quite good against evil, but the Axis certainly were, in no uncertain terms, evil, and had they taken control of Europe, or even the world, billions would have suffered. Whereas Iraq is nothing so much as economists, politicians and capitalists playing chess.
Wait a minute! All the terrorists have already dispersed to the rest of globe?
Just a little while back, you were complaining that the terrorists were pouring into Iraq for the Baghdad Blockbuster Party? Which is it? Are they coming or going?
Of course, you wouldn’t be happy with whoever took ever Iraq — he’d just be an American puppet anyhow.
It so easy to fill in that blank, isn’t? But then 2,300+ Americans just died to _________
So 291.5 million Americans died (between 1941 and 1945) just to ________
March 14th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
YOU:
It certainly couldn t have been a mistake to bring democracy to Iraq. If there was a mistake made, it was a failure to follow Gen. Forrest s prescription to get there fustest with the mostest .
The rest is all rhetoric. The world will never stop hating us, until they imitate us, which is why they hate us.
Fighting wars on the cheap is an unfortunate leftover from the Viet Nam days. And it is costing us dearly in Iraq. We got away with it in Gulf War I and Kosovo, but it was never meant to be the best strategy. Unfortunately, Forrest s advice is still the best.
ME;
Fighting wars on the cheap is an unfortunate leftover from the Viet Nam days. And it is costing us dearly in Iraq. We got away with it in Gulf War I and Kosovo, but it was never meant to be the best strategy. Unfortunately, Forrest s advice is still the best.
Holy Mother of God! Are you telling us you ve known all along this has
been a formula for failure?
YOU: *crickets*
I realize that I did not holler, “Frank!” and although you are a senior
citizen, I previously saw no reason for you not to recognize your
own words.
Anyhew, to keep you on track let me excise the salient point that
illustrates your agreement with Gen Shinseki’s strategy of
overwhelming force. Goin’ on the ‘cheap’ in Iraq was both a
real and conceptual failure.
” If there was a mistake made, it was a failure to follow Gen. Forrest s prescription to get there fustest with the mostest .”
Lessee. in English, that’s if there was a mistake made…
if (-f) pronunciation
conj. 1. In the event that: If I were to go, I would be late.
2. Granting that: If that is true, what should we do?
3. On the condition that: She will play the piano only if she is paid.
You:
Are you telling us you ve known all along this has
been a formula for failure?
Me: No answer. Not yes, not no, no answer.
I repeat my question: Where did I say that the war in Iraq was a failure from the beginning.
You’re irritating tone of feigned superiority is wasted.
Once again, you are crowing before dawn! (How’s that for a kickass metaphor!)
“Let me excise the the salient point…”
You’re so funny when you’re pretentious…
Another ray of hope in the GWoT, from an unlikely source:
http://tinyurl.com/h94dd
It’s great to be a Republican in 21st Century America!
Allow me to break it down for you even further as the ’simplest with
the leastest’ seems necessary once again.
“Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz criticized the Army’s chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, after Shinseki told Congress in February that the occupation could require “several hundred thousand troops.” Wolfowitz called Shinseki’s estimate “wildly off the mark.”
If we take a.)…..”if mistakes were made”. and add;
b.) …”fighting wars on the cheap…” followed by a dash of,
c.) “a failure to follow Gen. Forrest s prescription to get there fustest with the mostest .
Then you have D.) Frank agreeing with Shinseki that there were
not enough troops to do the job in Iraq.
Leaving the conclusion (no doubt, incomprehensible) that FRANK
KNEW IN ADVANCE OF THE WAR IN IRAQ THAT IT WAS DOOMED
TO FAILURE BECAUSE THERE WERE NOT ENOUGH TROOPS——
THAT IT WAS DONE ‘ON THE CHEAP’.
Asbad as you are at thinking, i would prefer you not do mine for me.
You’re on your own here, and you’ve already added stuff to the mix that I’ve never said:
Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz criticized the Army s chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, after Shinseki told Congress in February that the occupation could require several hundred thousand troops. Wolfowitz called Shinseki s estimate wildly off the mark.
Stop the cherry – picking. You’ve already lost. I know what I meant. I said what I meant, and you are incorrect.
You’re forgetting the power of that “pawn of the grammar world”*, the conjunction, “if”. Use it or lose it.
*Another kickass metaphor!
From the mouths of wingers:
So 291.5 million Americans died (between 1941 and 1945) just to ________ >>
Frank, the population of the country was around 150 million at that time. There were approximately 330,000 Americans killed in WWII. Time to throw away that Diebold calculator of yours.
Time for you to read the comments
# Frank_D Says:
March 17th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
I m sorry, that s only 291, 500
cleo, you’re one of a kind. I don’t know what kind, but there’s only one.
You were only off by a factor of 1,000. At least you’re improving. Nobody reads all your comments Frank. No one has that kind of time to read the same drivel over and over.
buma: are you a compete dunce? I corrected it in 6 minutes. It was the next comment!
Are you pissed off because you feel stupid for not noticing?
Anyone can make a mistake — except me, of course. When I make a mistake, I have to take crap from a half a dozen “tolerant” liberals.
And what were you doing for two days — pouting?
[...] we got them into, you cannot abandon policy to those who made the mess. Some, quite predictably, dismissed this. But not Brian Whitaker, Middle East e [...]
rxgeito tlehibxsw auenf srwxie yxsmnh vjbyz crtues
rxgeito tlehibxsw auenf srwxie yxsmnh vjbyz crtues