We can’t keep the lights on consistently in Iraq, we can’t properly secure the Green Zone – the most fortified area in the entire nation – but somehow this detailed and far reaching strategy being proposed/implemented by Gen. Petraeus is supposed to work?
This thing is like lining up a row of dominoes from Miami to New York City and assuming that nothing at all is going to interfere with them until you choose to kick start them. We have failed at every turn in Iraq due to the incompetence of the civilian leadership (President Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) as well as the military leadership (Tommy Franks).
It would literally take magic and a time machine to fix things beyond royally screwed.
Please stop pretending. All of our lives are at stake.
You know what’s amazing here? When it comes to global warming or evolution, you run to the scientists, and fall into line.
But when it comes to warfare and military strategy, suddenly General Petraeus, who has spent years in Iraq, is unreliable.
Amazing.
False equivalency. It’s what’s for dinner.
Scientists: People who study stuff objectively to reach an insight about something.
Gen Petreaus: Long-time General responsible to a President for his job, needs to find the pony in the bullshit to keep his command position.
Apples.Oranges. They are not alike.
Remember, the only Generals whose words count are the ones who agree with Oliver.
It’s amazing how he resorts to fallacy of appealing to authority when it suits his purposes, but ignores that same authority when it conflicts with his own point of view.
On another note, Dem Bob Kerrey just said Iraq id an essential component to the war on terror. Better get Murtha to threaten his state too.
Stop questioning General Petraeus’s patriotism!
It IS an essential component to the war on terror now that it’s been destabilized and overrun with terrorists. (It wasn’t before, but whatever.)
It is an essential component that we thus far have had little idea how to utilize and which our enemies have capitalized on.
1, We won the “WAR” part of this in April 2003.
2. We lost the “OCCUPATION” part of this in May 2003, when it became very clear to Iraqis we were not going to ever be able to govern Iraq or even establish order and the rule of Law.
3. Petraeus has been given the mission of setting up a credible exit strategy for Bush and the GOP. He is a political ploy, not a commander in charge of a military mission or objective.
Of course, if you are a wingnut, he is Douglas McArthur, George Patton, and Dwight D Eisenhower rolled up into one.
He could probably call out Liberals and make it OK to global warm, drill in ANWR, and fix that pesky problem of Democrats voting out Republicans if he were allowed free rein, right?
Republican Conservatives: When you want to be a fascist, but just want it under a different name.
“Remember, the only Generals whose words count are the ones who agree with Oliver.”
Not that there’s any point in pointing this out to you but he never really said that, you know.
Cinderella’s castle looks Russian. I thought she was French. OMG BURN IT
Not that there’s any point in pointing this out to you but he never really said that, you know.
He doesn’t have to say it. He links to and approvingly laps up anything a General critical of the administration and the war has to say and dismisses the opposite. Actions Ringo, not just words.
I didn’t realize Oliver was in Baghdad to report what’s going on there.
Jay, you have noticed that every single politician/pundit/person who predicted this war would go well for us and would be winnable (or at least corner-turnable) within a matter of months has been, to date, entirely, utterly, completely, profoundly, stupefyingly wrong, right? Greet us as Liberators, Mission Accomplished, Shi’ite and Sunni getting along easily, We’re only minutes away from finding the Chemical Weapons, Last Throes that have lasted longer than the war has, War critics being humiliated as wrong, the War itself bringing Americans together, Middle East embracing democracy, War bringing down terrorism by showing the world how tough we are, Iraqi Oil funding the entire operation, and myriad other insane and asanine predictions based on no evidence whatsoever made by people in power. Now you want to continue to trust them to administer this military action in spite of their being objectively, demonstrably wrong about everything so far? Its the critics of this war (people like Scott Ritter in particular) who have, since the beginning, basically been right about the war, and their voice was, and to no surprise continues to be, marginalized and attacked, again based on no evidence, and the argument is, as ever, just shut up and trust that the president understands the situation better than military professionals who see, like most people across the world, a deteriorating situation.
Of course I would love it if this plan somehow this surge managed to work wonders in Iraq. I’d also love it if drinking Mountain Dew made me shit diamonds. Prior evidence though suggests that neither is going to happen, and given that the surge-fans have been so impressively, demonstrably wrong about everything so far, I’m doing the dew.
That’s called “insinuation”. A distant relative of the strawman. It’s not considered good form.
“I’d also love it if drinking Mountain Dew made me shit diamonds”
Jesus Christ that would be painful.
I’ve had worse.
“Actions Ringo, not just words.”
Which is a hilarious thing for you say given that the plan Oliver is criticizing is just that, a plan. In other words, it’s just, um, words. Everything we’ve done to date has lead to the current chaos and confusion. Nothing we have done has moved us one iota closer to stability and peace. Now Petreaus comes up with yet another new strategy that sounds great on paper but so what? Every other plan we’ve put into action has failed. All Oliver did was look at the results of past ACTIONS to gauge the potential of Petreaus’s latest WORDS and found them wanting. What exactly is new in this plan? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. But now were supposed to believe it will work this time because Petreaus says it will? How many times do we have to hear that before we realize that the situation is, as Oliver points out, beyond our influence anymore?
It’s not whether I agree with Petraeus personally or not, but the fact that we can’t provide basic services to Iraq but somehow are going to be able to get 300 factions of Iraqi society to all of a sudden play nice with each other is kind of ridiculous no matter how many stars the general who says it has on his soldiers.
And Sen. Kerrey was wrong on Iraq before, and he’s wrong now because he’s just repeating right-wing talking points.
I was going to add some more snark, but then I clicked the link. Look on the bright side, lefties.
According to the article, the Bush administration is finally coming around to some rational thinking: political, not military solutions, defusing civil conflict, and finally looking around for the nearest exit.
That’s good news, isn’t it?
Is there one of you antiwar folks out there who can see any good result for the United States and / or Iraq if we leave precipitously?
Don’t think for one minute that clichés and talking points will suffice for an answer.
“Don’t think for one minute that clichés and talking points will suffice for an answer.”
Jesus, and you say this without irony after using the phrase “leave precipitously” after we’ve been there for four years and accomplished absolutely nothing?
“Don’t think for one minute that clichés and talking points will suffice for an answer.”
Says the living Talking Points iPod.
Frankly, at this stage, Iraq is fucked and the Americans, Britons, Australians and YouForgotPoles there are all basically targets, capable of achieving nothing except getting killed. Pulling out won’t solve Iraq – in fact the situation would be more or less the same except Coalition soliders wouldn’t keep dying. If there’s a solution to Iraq, we can’t be part of it, because we fucked it up. It’s a matter for, I guess, the UN.
Is there one of you antiwar folks out there who can see any good result for the United States and / or Iraq if we leave precipitously?
“Can any of you naysayers name for me a single good result of not throwing more virgins into the volcano?”
Burden of proof isn’t on the antiwar folks, friend. Its on the pro war folks. The people who want to commit more time, lives and resource to an endeavor that seems for all the world to be failing miserable the more we put into it. I’d ask if you can name a single good result of staying, but odds are, like every other statement made by prowar advocates, it would be completely and utterly false.
“That’s good news, isn’t it?”
About the only thing that seems any different/encouraging in theis latest plan was this comment in the article:
That and other comments in the article are the first time i’ve heard someone suggest that we are actually going to be leaving iraq at some future, approaching date. But how exactly is this “bridging plan” going to accomplish its goals of shoring up the Iraqi government in preparation for our departure? Says one expert:
I’m sorry but doesn’t that sound like in order for this to work we have to take sides and force our will on internal iraqi politics which show all the signs already of a civil war?
THe internal inconsistency of this plan is best summarized in this passage:
Okay. So if I understand this correctly we need to weed out “abusive” sectarian actors while supporting, for pragmatic reasons, a leader beholden to abusive sectarian actors.
At the same time, this plan keeps our military presence exactly as is. The whole idea of an announced withdrawal timeline is to create a space for political negotiations which is currently impossible because no one trusts us and everyone believes we are stacking the deck in our favor regardless of iraqi interests.
In other words, the plan is same old same old.
Is there one of you antiwar folks out there who can see any good result for the United States and / or Iraq if we leave precipitously?
Less dead American soldiers.
Is there one of you antiwar folks out there who can see any good result for the United States and / or Iraq if we leave precipitously?
That’s great logic. Let’s keep bashing our heads against the wall because we can’t think of anything better to do. Let’s destory the country in order to save it.
I have a rock that prevents polar bear attacks. Can any of you pro-war figures prove to me that it doesn’t? And don’t think for one minute that clichés and talking points will suffice for an answer.
Is there one of you antiwar folks out there who can see any good result for the United States and / or Iraq if we leave precipitously?
Oooh! Oooh! Me! Call on me!
If we “leave precipitously,” then the tribal militias can turn their attention to getting rid of the next group of foreigners–al Qaeda.
Okay. So if I understand this correctly we need to weed out “abusive” sectarian actors while supporting, for pragmatic reasons, a leader beholden to abusive sectarian actors.
Yeah, OK, they’re coming up with the wrong answers, but at least they’re showing signs of asking relevant questions.
Glass is half full, frame.
then the tribal militias can turn their attention to getting rid of the next group of foreigners–al Qaeda.
DING DING DING!
BINGO!
So Quaker and duros, you are saying ‘good’ things will happen if we leave?? Maybe I’m reading your answers wrong.
It would be advantageous to all sides, is what we are saying, yes, congratulations you can read.
I didn’t realize Oliver was in Baghdad to report what’s going on there.
And you are?
So Quaker and duros, you are saying ‘good’ things will happen if we leave?? Maybe I’m reading your answers wrong.
As more me, not exactly, but worse things will happen if we stay.
I said no clichés and no talking points. You have all failed to meet the test.
Let me make the question more precise:
What good thing will happen if we pull out of Iraq as soon as the Democrats claim they want us to?
{Note to Oliver : “Less dead American soldiers” won’t cut it. The War on terror will continue, and the number of dead American soldiers will no doubt be replaced by dead civilians.}
(And, by the way, has anyone noticed that the Dems have become gun shy now that they’re in charge? “Uneasy lies the head…”, eh? Or maybe they know something they’re not telling their cheering squad).
Point out the “clichés and talking points”, you wretched little coward.
It’s not our country, it’s theirs
And they want us out.
This is the basic contradiction of the pro-war cabal:
1) Iraqis are ready for freedom and democracy. You can tell, because they had elections. A lot of elections.
2) Iraqis are not ready for freedom and democracy. You can tell, because they can’t handle their own security, which is why we need to be there forever and ever.
It’s not that the right wing doesn’t have faith in their crumbling fantasy of an Iraqi democracy, it’s that they don’t have faith that the Iraqis will do it the way we want them to.
“The War on terror will continue, and the number of dead American soldiers will no doubt be replaced by dead civilians.”
Jesus i thought this was a talking points cliche free discussion.
You’re obvious operating under the assumption that if we leave the violence in Iraq will accelerate and worsen. Why are you assuming that? Our withdrawal could also open up a space for real political coalitions to be built among Iraqi moderates because the extremes will lose the rhetorical power of using the US occupation to undemrine the moderate agenda.
At the same time, what is the one good that will come from us staying? Nothing. No good thing will ever come from us staying because we are a polarizing, antagonistic presence in the country and in the region.
In case you hand’t noticed, our presence in Iraq has done anything to stop the violence and death there. If the suggestion is that Iraq will get worse if we leave, I got news for you, it doesn’t matter. The only way it’s ever going to start getting better is if we go.
That’s the fucked up situation Bush’s policy has created. If we stay, nothing ever changes and things could get worse, not only in Iraq but in the region as a whole. If we leave, things may get worse but it’s only way anything is ever going to start to get better.
Hey, Zython (that is your real name, right?) I guess neither you nor that blogger can read:
“We haven’t asked for the immediate withdrawal of multinational forces [emphasis added]; we asked that we should build our security forces and make them qualified, and at that point there would be a withdrawal…”
It isn’t our country, but it is our concern.
Hey, Zython (that is your real name, right?) I guess neither you nor that blogger can read:
“We haven’t asked for the immediate withdrawal of multinational forces [emphasis added]; we asked that we should build our security forces and make them qualified, and at that point there would be a withdrawal…”
It isn’t our country, but it is our concern.
How does that not still translate into “they want us out”?
Nimrod Gently: It “translates” into “Of course, they want us out at some time, but not necessarily now”.
{Nimrod reaches for the Caps Key}
The bottomline is that Iraqis want a timetable for our withdrawal.
Are you ready to accept the will of Iraq’s elected leaders and sign on for a timetable or not?
frameone: Unlike you, and the Democrats, I would like to leave Iraq in a reasonably stable condition before we pull up stakes.
The Iraqi’s statement includes the words, “…we asked that we should build our security forces and make them qualified”.
Would you sign on for that or not?
Frank presumably a timetable could be tied to whatever performance benchmark you want to create. But before you can decide what the benchmarks are you have to agree to have a timetable in the first place. So again, do you support the will of the Iraqi leadership in calling for a timetable or do you want to dodge the question again?
No,I do not support the idea of a timetable that is tied to nothing but the Democrats’ anxiety.
A timetable “tied to a benchmark” is not the same as a timetable tied to the Democrats’ political ambitions.
I’m afraid it is YOU who are trying to get me to answer your question your way, and I will not.
So, I’m asking YOU, would you agree to a timetable tied to the Iraqi’s wishes that they should build their security forces and make them qualified?
Before I am accused of “dodging the answer” again, let me make this clear: The Iraqis want a timetable that is contingent on their goals, not ours.
Whether I agreed or not, I would have to agree that they should have what they want. But they don’t want a hasty pullout. Would you agree, under those circumstances, that they should get what THEY want?
Whether I agreed or not, I would have to agree that they should have what they want. But they don’t want a hasty pullout. Would you agree, under those circumstances, that they should get what THEY want?
The U.S. government would have to agree to the timetable first, which they haven’t.
No,I do not support the idea of a timetable that is tied to nothing but the Democrats’ anxiety.
A thousand pardons for feeling a bit unsettled when tens of thousands of people are needlessly dying. If only we could treat human life so callously like you and “keep our cool”.
A timetable “tied to a benchmark” is not the same as a timetable tied to the Democrats’ political ambitions.
What are these magical “ambitions” pray-tell? Stabalizing the Iraqi infastructure? Reducing the number of insurgant-caused causalities? Building an Iraqi police adademy that ISN’T leaking feces? Because if you want to make those Democratic “ambitions”, we’ll gladly take them.
i sense you disagree with my statement. That’s too bad.
i sense you disagree with my statement. That’s too bad.
Yeah, it’s a real Haruhi-damn* shame.
*goddamn, if you will.
You make no sense, Frank. The Iraqis want us to train their army and leave and they want that done within a specific period of time. The bill the Iraqis drafted called specifically for a timetable to accomplish their goals. I’m in favor of a withdrawal and so are the Iraqis. If we’re just arguing over how long the timetable is, fine, but I don’t seem to recall the Dems proposing anything much different. Both the Dems and the Iraqis want a timeline for withdrawal. Only Bush seems to be resisting that.
“I don’t seem to recall the Dems proposing anything much different.”
Then perhaps your memory is not serving you well. Their cry for a withdrawal / timetable is linked to nothing.
Mr Pipeline: What are you trying to say?
That the White House would prefer there be no timetable? Fine, so they disagree with the Iraqis.
Working out that disagreement is called diplomacy.
I think the administration is entitled to their stance, and they are entitled to negotiate it with the administrators of Iraq. It is not simply, “What Iraq wants, Iraq gets”.
We have a far greater
geopolitical interest in Iraq than simply getting the Sunnis and the Shiites to break bread together.
“Then perhaps your memory is not serving you well. Their cry for a withdrawal / timetable is linked to nothing.”
Wow, Frank. It’s almost like you’re an idiot or
something:
How is that someone could be so obviously misinformed about something they appear to be so passionate about? Do you ever stop to read anything about current events, Frank, or do ou just spew whatever the latest nonsense you hear on talk radio?
What else was I expecting from someone who seems unable to recognize his own contradictions. On the one hand you ask me:
And when I say “Yes” you respond:
It is not simply, “What Iraq wants, Iraq gets”.
So Frank, do you care about allowing the Iraqis to govern themselves or not? Have you not just tacitly admitted that our interests in Iraqi outweigh the iraqis interest in Iraq? Why exactly should the Iraqi’s have to negotiate with us about the fate of their own country? If they want a timetable for withdrawal, on what possible grounds could the Bush administration, which says it wants a free, independent Iraq, say no?
You know what? Nevermind. You’re obviously totally misinformed on the key facts of the debate and you aren’t capable of being intellectually or factually consistent. Why would anyone bother discussing anything with you?
Thanks for all the questions, frameone [the "idiot" gave you away].
It is an essential point of diplomacy that people stand by their own interests, and seek common ground.
It is not as simple as (didn’t I just say this? Now who’s the idiot?) “Whatever Iraq wants, Iraq gets?” Are we negotiating with Iran and Syria? With North Korea? With Mexico?
Then why not Iraq?
Oh, and thanks for the link, frameone. Remember I said the Democrats’ call for withdrawal is linked to nothing?
The opening paragraph:
Frank you are an utter idiot.
The Dem withdrawal was tied to benchmarks and timelines which the president had some influence on. To suggest that it isn’t is just stupid so why insist?
To prove you aren’t completely braindead, however, please tell us all what the difference is between our relationship with Iraq and Syria, Iran, North Korea and Mexico?
From the President today:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070524.html
So you were saying Frank ….
Mr Pipeline, I have a new policy. I will no longer respond to anonymous or obviously pseudonymous posts.
I have changed my mind.
Just like the President, or anyone else on earth, except, apparently, you, can do.
priceless.