Comments Posted By B.Poster
Displaying 281 To 290 Of 397 Comments
GOSSIP AS POLITICS: WOODWARD'S WHITE HOUSE HIT JOB
While, in an ideal situation, I would like to commit more troops and financial resources to Iraq, which we could do, if we wanted to, it may not be consistent with American national security interests. We need to remain flexible enough to handle threats from Russia, China, and Venezuela.
This government won't even actively work to secure the borders. Both Republicans and Democrats are fundamentally unserious about national defense, at this time.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 29.09.2006 @ 20:44
Salty
Like you I'm concerned about how much we are borrowing from China. We can move away from borrowing money from China by cutting most of the social well fare programs we have. We are trying to run a quasi nanny state and trying to fight a war on multiple fronts. Also, the pork barrel spending needs to go.
We spend much more money on fruitless social programs than we have on the Iraq war. The country should be placed on a war footing as soon as possible, much like in WWII. This should happen even if we withdraw from Iraq. We still have Afghanistan, Venezueala, and other threats to deal with. Also, we need to have a "Manhattan Project" of sorts to achieve complete energy independence. Alternatives to oil are not feasible, in the short term. So we will have to develop more of our own oil and gas resources. The enviro-whackos will need to take a long hiatus.
Apparently some folks thought we could run the war on the cheap so to speak. They thought wrong. You are right about Donald Rumsfeld. If the Democrats will put forward a replacement, they can probably get Rumsfeld out. I suggeest General Eric Shinseki. At a minimum, to win in Iraq will require more resources. Congress which includes the Democrats need to excersize the proper over sight to make sure that Don Rumsfeld or who ever is Sec of Defense does what they need to do.
Given the current domestic political situation, we will not be commiting the resources to this that it needs. As such, we will be withdrawing soon. The bottom line is the mission never got the resources it should have. It is unlikely it would have gotten the resources it needed had they been asked for from the beginning. This is up to Congress. Even if the Republicans wanted to do it, which I don't think they did, the Democrats would have filibustered it. After all, we can't take money from the children. We must continue the nany state. If we don't continue the nanny state, the media will shriek like stuck pigs.
By withdrawing to Kurdish areas this will give us some flexibilty to intervene to prevent the formation of terrorist bases. I hope and pray this works because it will be the strategy of choice. If it fails, we will have to go back into Iraq in masse.
What no one really wants to address is an Iraq war that began as a war of choice may have morphed into a war of necessity due to horrific mismanagement. I prefer to commit the resources that would be necessary to get this done properly now. It will only be even more difficult later, should we have to go back into Iraq later. We can do it. It just needs the proper commitment from the Government, the American people, and the news media.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 29.09.2006 @ 20:29
Rick
Thanks for the reply to my post. I remember reading some information about trends turning positive for the Republicans. I did not see the internals to the polls or anything like that. I just don't see how issues such as terrorism or Iraq can be helping the Republicans in any way. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not going well right now. In a long war, such as this, there will be ups and downs. Things can be turned around but it will likely require changes in strategy, furthermore, the Republicans have largely allowed the Democrats to define the debate on Iraq, Afghanistan, the interogation bill, and the survellience bill.
If the polls are to be trusted, the only thing that could possibly be helping the President or the Republicans is the price of gasoline. Contrary to what some people believe the war in Iraq is not the most important issue to most people. For better or worse most people are worried more about "will I keep my job?" "Can I buy school supplies?" "Can I pay the home heating bill this winter?" "Can I pay the kid's college tuitiion?" "How much will it cost to fill the gas tank this week?" In other word's, economic issues are the most important to America's voters. The irony of this is while lower fuel prices may be helping the Republicans and the President this is the issue they probably have the least control over.
Salty
You are right some people are sick of hearing about the war in Iraq and they are tired of hearing about it. The news media is not tired of hearing about it. After all I think the saying goes "if it bleeds, it leads." If we withdraw from Iraq, it will likely bleed even more profusely than it is now. This will give the media plenty to talk about.
The way not to hear about it is to commit more troops. This will get security under control. There will be much less for the media to talk about. They will lose interest. Also, we will be able to disarm the militias much sooner. This will end the war quicker.
As I've said before, we are going to completely out of Shia and Sunni areas by mid 2007. The only thing that can change that dynamic would be another terrorist on the American home land. When this happens, the Iraqi civil war will turn more violent. This will give the media plenty to talk about. If we don't want to hear about Iraq any more, commit the resources to get it done and give Democracy a chance to succeed but alas we are not going to make the commitment necessary hence the prediction. Btw, if my prediction is wrong, I will come here and admit it.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 29.09.2006 @ 18:37
If the Republicans had gained any momentum it was not been because of how they have handled Iraq or how they have fought the GWOT. It is becuase of declining gasoline prices. Actually I think any so called momentum is wishful thinking on the part of Republican partisians and does not reflect reality.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 29.09.2006 @ 14:30
Salty
We can win. It will require a greater commitment of troops and resources. I'm hoping the Democrats will step up and take the lead on this issue and push for more troops for Iraq and Afghanistan.
we can leave. If this is the option that is chosen, we should invest more heavily in border security. This is a good idea any way. Since we are unwilling to make the necssary commitment, we will be withdrawing most of our forces from Iraq and Afghanistan very soon. This will happen no matter who wins the House or the Senate.
I'm hoping a Democrat will step up and take the lead on getting more troops for us for Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately this does not seem likely to happen. I don't think either party is as serious about this as they should be.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 29.09.2006 @ 14:12
I WOULDN'T WISH IT ON MY WORST ENEMY
You would think someone would proof read these articles before they are published. Apparently in this case they did not.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 27.09.2006 @ 21:05
ONE LITTLE, TWO LITTLE, THREE LITTLE TERRORISTS...
tofubo
Great post. I completely agree. You are managed to express my sentiments much more articulately than I seem to be able to in far fewer words.
Option A is clearly unsustainable over the long haul. I think every one is aware of this. If not, the the report from the Iraq Study Group will point this out for all to see.
Option B is the one I would choose, as long as it is consistent with American national security interests. Unfortunately I would not expect our coalition partners to contribute more troops. I'm not even sure they can. The US could make up the short fall of troops, if it wanted to, however, the will is lacking. In order to make option B work, the Aemrican people and the news media would need to be on board and the American government would need to be unified. Barring a major change in the domestic political situation the will to make this commitment is lacking. This makes option B unworkable.
Ultimately option C will be chosen. This option will be the one that is chosen because the will to implement option B is lacking. By the middle of 2007 there will be no American or Coalition troops stationed in Shia or Sunni areas. There will be fewer than 10,000 troops remaining in the Iraqi region. These will be primarily special ops forces who will be backed up by air support and will be prepared to intervene in the Iraq civil war, as necessary, to prevent the formation of terrorist bases. Hopefully this strategy for fighting Jihadists will work becuase barring major changes in the American political landscape this is the strategy that will be employed.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 28.09.2006 @ 09:58
It is clear that Donald Rumsfeld should be replaced as Sec of Defense. The Democrats are right to point this out. They should follow this up by suggesting a replacement. I suggest retired General Eric Shinseki.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 27.09.2006 @ 16:14
Salty
I'm not aware of any right wing attempt to unjustly blame Bill Clinton for anything. Clinton and some of his officials rightly challenged some of the inaccuracies in "The Path to 911", however, the general premise that neither party took terrorisim seriously enough with a few exceptions is a valid one.
I'm not aware the Republicans are making the election a refernedum on President Bush. The Democrats seem to be trying to do this. Instead of being so obsessed with President Bush I would suggest the Democrats forcefully explain to the Aemrican people that more troops are needed for Iraq and Afghanistan and then set out to work on getting them. Also, the Democrats should get to work on securing the borders. They should make it plain that there will be no amnesty for illegal aliens. They should expose the shameful Senate Republican effort to grant illegals amnesty. In addition to this, working on getting a reliable missle defense system would be a good use of Democratic party resources.
Instead of misrepresenting the contents of an NIE report the NYT and other main stream news media outlets should explain to the American people that the Marxist/Islamic extremist enemy we face is an existential threat to the US and they should be calling for an increase in troops for the GWOT.
Finally the Democrats should be calling for prosecutions for the people who leaked the NIE program to the media. Unfortunately neither party is serious about the GWOT. Both are more interested in trying to affix blame than they are in trying to come up with actual solutions.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 27.09.2006 @ 16:10
Salty
No they are not dead enders. As I stated, from the beginning, we under estimated the capability of the enemy and we over estimated our own capabilities. Making mis calculations, at the start, the is understandable. Failing to make the appropiate corrections is not understandable. We should have realized we did not have enough troops sometime around June 2003. We should have commited more troops at that time.
Unfortunately we are still under estimating this enemy. This is hard to believe but this is the case. The optimal solution for Iraq would be to commit more troops. I discuss, in the previous post, how we can do this. For better or worse, we will not be commiting more troops. The American people will not support it. The Iraq mission will be scaled back to one that consists primarily of special ops who will be supported by air support. They will intervene in Iraq, as necessary, to try and prevent the formation of terrorist bases. Maybe this will work to prevent the spread of Islamic terrorism or maybe it won't.
In any event, barring a major change in the domestic political scene which seems very unlikely the attempt to bring liberal democracy to Iraq is over. It probably would have worked had it gotten the proper commitment from the American people and both political parties. Unfortunately the commitment was not and is not forthcoming. The Iraqis may ultimately achieve a liberal democracy but America will have had nothing to do with it. We are withdrawing regardless of who controls the House or the Senate.
rabid
The Administration has made its share of blunders to be sure. No one is excusing any thing the administration did wrong. The biggest blunder was a failure to commit the appropiate number of troops to either Iraq or Afghanistan. The Democrats should have stepped up to the plate and called for these additional troops. They didn't. The NYT and others bear some responsibilty also. The enemy learned from the Vietnam war that a psy ops campaign against the American public can be very effective. The NYT and others have played right into the hands of the enemy. This is either because they are 1.) willing accomplices or 2.) they rely on stringers to do much of their reporting and don't have first hand knowledge. I think it is 2.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 27.09.2006 @ 13:30
