Go Get’em Harry! He’s been pretty masterful at how he’s turned the tables on Republicans and Bush. Slowly but surely, Republicans will pay a very steep price for their failures and corruption over these past six years.

Geoff, why is this posted here at Millennial Star? The only tangential connection the Politico article has to do with religion or the Church is that Senator Reid is a member. That’s it. I really do not want to see every single political move by Senator Reid or Governor Romney or whoever else posted and analyzed here or other LDS blog sites. There are plenty of non church-related sites that do that 24/7.

If Senator Reid writes again about why he’s glad he believed (http://www.millennialstar.org/index.php/2007/03/16/why_harry_reid_is_glad_he_believed), go for it. But please keep plain and simple politics out of Millennial Star.

Yeechang, thanks for visiting here. I actually will be posting the occasional political piece on Romney, Harry Reid and even non-LDS people. My advice would be not to read them if they bother you. But thank you for your input.

In honor VP Cheney’s talk at BYU, I’m going to link his eloquent remarks on Harry Reid’s latest position on Iraq:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjZkOTAwYmJhZDFhZWNlNjVhM2RjZTM5OTlkYzU2MmM=

Eloquent?

Maybe in Bizarro World…

How about the reaction by Reid?:

‘Reid shrugged off Cheney’s remarks but with his own dig at the vice president.

“I’m not going to get into a name-calling match with the administration’s chief attack dog,” he said.’

I’m thinking that perhaps this isn’t the best example of not getting into a name-calling match.

Geoff:

In my humble opinion:

1. There is nothing at all honorable about Dick Cheney visiting BYU as its commencement speaker;

2. Harry Reid’s position on Iraq is much more in tune with the Prince of Peace and His gospel, than is Dick Cheney’s position on Iraq.

There is no shame in changing one’s mind if one moves from error into truth.

Sticking with error for the sheer sake of consistency, however, is no virtue.

Harry Reid understands the former. Sadly, Vice President Cheney seem committed to the latter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/04/06/BL2007040601116.html

If you all believe in multiple mortal probations, there is a serious possibility that Cheney was Gadianton in a former life.

Guy,

“2. Harry Reid’s position on Iraq is much more in tune with the Prince of Peace and His gospel, than is Dick Cheney’s position on Iraq.”

I honestly don’t get this point of view. I could see the argument if this was the beginning of the war and Senator Reid was arguing against it and Cheney was arguing for it. But at this point we’ve already defeated the enemy and helped to install a democratic government. Our troops are already there, and we’re fighting to preserve that new government against enemies that have no regard for the sanctity of human life. The Americans are the ones that are building schools, building bridges, guarding civilians, etc. It’s our enemies that are blowing up children and other civilians and purposely destroying the infrastructure. We want peace in Iraq, they want death and power.

If Cheney had his fondest wish then the insurgents would drop their weapons of war today and Iraq would become a peaceful nation. In other words, he is working towards solidifying a peaceful free country in the middle of the Middle East. That is what he wants, how is that a bad thing? Whereas Senator Reid is working towards our disinvolvement in such a mission. Reid has put himself in a position where it is in his best interest for violence and chaos to continue in Iraq. If things improve he takes a political hit given the positions he has chosen to take. I don’t see anything virtuous in that at all.

“We’re going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war,” said Mr. Reid.

Dan, #1, it is fascinating to note that your first response is a purely political one, implying that Reid has been “masterful” in his political maneuvering. For me, this pretty much sums up the Democratic response, which is politics first, doing what is right for national security and the Iraqi people, way down the list.

This is why Guy’s comment #7 is ultimately not convincing to me. Sometimes as a nation you have to fight. It is more honorable, imho, to support your country’s effort than cynically try to make political points.

But before sending me nasty-grams, Dan and Guy and Curtis, you can take heart with the likely result that a Democrat presidential candidate will probably win in 2008. If you look at the electoral college map at this point, it looks very, very grim for the Republicans. Reid’s political calculations are likely to bear fruit, despite their cynical nature.

So, Bush’s vetoes will keep the U.S. in Iraq through January 2009. Hillary or Obama will then have to follow through on their campaign promises. We will see what happens, but history indicates it will not be a pretty sight for the Iraqi people or for U.S. citizens as they prepare for the next al Qaeda attack on our soil (where we have not had a major attack since 9/11).

I predict that because of Democratic dithering and appeasement, we will need to launch an even bigger self-defensive effort in, say, 2010 or 2011. Hillary or Obama cannot afford to look weak. How many hundreds of thousands — or millions — will die because of that? We will all look back at the crucial 2008 election and ask ourselves why were weren’t able to support Gen. Patreus’ new strategy, which was beginning to be successful. And then we will remember Harry Reid’s cynicism and political ploys. Democrats win but millions die. Just like in 1976. Except then, the enemy was not interested in following us home. This enemy is.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009792.php

“The Five Myths of Harry”

Interesting reading, though I doubt the hard core partisans will be moved by the truth, since the party has become more important than reality.

http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzQ1ZWNiZjhmNGMwNGVlMWRjOTI4ZjU1YTk5MmRkM2U=

Complete text of Liberman’s response to Reid.

Excerpt:

This makes no moral sense at all.

It also makes no strategic or military sense either.

David Broder, a political moderate, offers a scathing review of Senator Reid: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502407.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

I personally liked Senator Reid’s comments about Vice President Cheney, and I think this war is a disastrous morass with no end in sight (until 2008 anyway). I do not pay much attention to the criticisms of Reid by right wing blogs or columnists (I am not sure right wing partisans are any more moveable by truth than left wing partisans). But I do pay attention to careful and moderate writers like Broder. If Senator Reid is offending a moderate like Broder, that says to me he should tone down his rhetoric and perhaps try to shore up his support among his party.

Geoff,

#11

Dan, #1, it is fascinating to note that your first response is a purely political one, implying that Reid has been “masterful” in his political maneuvering. For me, this pretty much sums up the Democratic response, which is politics first, doing what is right for national security and the Iraqi people, way down the list.

Ah yes, because Bush and company are perfect angels when it comes to the politicizing of this war. They would NEVER do something like that! Heavens no. They would never force a vote on a resolution to go to war a mere month before a Congressional election. They would never lie before another election that their secretary of defense will stay on the job for the rest of the term only to fire him two days after the election. Nah, not this administration. They NEVER politicize war.

Are you really this blind, Geoff?

Continuing my reply to your comments, Geoff:

We will all look back at the crucial 2008 election and ask ourselves why were weren’t able to support Gen. Patreus’ new strategy, which was beginning to be successful. And then we will remember Harry Reid’s cynicism and political ploys. Democrats win but millions die. Just like in 1976. Except then, the enemy was not interested in following us home. This enemy is.

Ironically in the 70s Nixon and Kissinger laid out their political plan, to delay the ending of the war until after the 1972 election so that Nixon would win. Play up that Nixon will end the war, and take out the winds pushing McGovern’s sails. Nixon even contacted the North Vietnamese (through the Chinese) relaying this message, that after the election, they will turn over all of Vietnam to their rule. Then at home, Nixon and Kissinger would work to portray this “defeat” as a cause of the Democrats, who pressed for the defunding of the war. And what do you know, that’s how it played out. Want the evidence? Read it yourself:

http://thegooddemocrat.wordpress.com/2007/01/12/more-commentary-on-bushs-iraq-plan/

Rosa Brooks wrote in the LA Times:

It’s clear that Bush knows perfectly well there’s no possibility of “winning†anymore, so apparently he’s seeking in Iraq exactly what Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger sought in Vietnam before the 1972 election: a face-saving “decent interval†before the virtually inevitable collapse of the U.S.-backed government.

By 1971, Nixon and Kissinger understood that “winning†in Vietnam was no longer in the cards — so they shifted from trying to win the war to trying to win the next election. As Nixon put it in March 1971: “We can’t have [the South Vietnamese] knocked over brutally … †Kissinger finished the thought †… before the election.†So Nixon and Kissinger pushed the South Vietnamese to “stand on their own,†promising we’d support them if necessary. But at the same time, Kissinger assured the North Vietnamese — through China — that the U.S. wouldn’t intervene to prevent a North Vietnamese victory — as long as that victory didn’t come with embarrassing speed.

As historian Jeffrey Kimball has documented, Kissinger’s talking points for his first meeting with Chinese Premier Chou En-lai on the topic of Vietnam included a promise that the U.S. would withdraw all troops and “leave the political evolution of Vietnam to the Vietnamese.†The U.S. would “let objective realities†— North Vietnamese military superiority — “shape the political future.†In the margins of his briefing book, Kissinger scrawled a handwritten elaboration for Chou: “We want a decent interval. You have our assurance.â€

The “decent interval†strategy worked. By declaring that “peace was at hand,†Kissinger took the wind out of antiwar Democrat George McGovern’s sails, and Nixon won reelection. And though Nixon himself later fell to the Watergate scandal, the Republican Party successfully used the “decent interval†to cast the Democratic Party in the role of spoiler.

In December 1974, tired of hemorrhaging funds to prop up the failing South Vietnamese government, the Democrat-controlled Congress finally pulled the plug on further U.S. financial support. The following April, Saigon fell, just as Kissinger and Nixon had privately predicted. But enough time had elapsed for Republicans to pin the blame on South Vietnamese missteps and, most important, on the perfidy of the Democratic Party.

Geoff has revealed that this is the same strategy Republicans want to use today. Run out the clock on the Bush administration. Force the next administration to end the war. And then blame that administration for not “following through with the plan.” Then in 2012, Republicans can portray themselves as the real defenders of the nation, even though it is their own actions that brought about our defeat in Iraq.

It is a strategy that worked before. And they will try to do it again. Geoff has revealed it.

And you talk to me about politicizing the war! Ha!

Continuing my reply to your comments, Geoff:

We will all look back at the crucial 2008 election and ask ourselves why were weren’t able to support Gen. Patreus’ new strategy, which was beginning to be successful. And then we will remember Harry Reid’s cynicism and political ploys. Democrats win but millions die. Just like in 1976. Except then, the enemy was not interested in following us home. This enemy is.

Ironically in the 70s Nixon and Kissinger laid out their political plan, to delay the ending of the war until after the 1972 election so that Nixon would win. Play up that Nixon will end the war, and take out the winds pushing McGovern’s sails. Nixon even contacted the North Vietnamese (through the Chinese) relaying this message, that after the election, they will turn over all of Vietnam to their rule. Then at home, Nixon and Kissinger would work to portray this “defeat” as a cause of the Democrats, who pressed for the defunding of the war. And what do you know, that’s how it played out. Want the evidence? Read it yourself:

http://thegooddemocrat.wordpress.com/2007/01/12/more-commentary-on-bushs-iraq-plan/

Rosa Brooks wrote in the LA Times:

It’s clear that Bush knows perfectly well there’s no possibility of “winning” anymore, so apparently he’s seeking in Iraq exactly what Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger sought in Vietnam before the 1972 election: a face-saving “decent interval” before the virtually inevitable collapse of the U.S.-backed government.

By 1971, Nixon and Kissinger understood that “winning” in Vietnam was no longer in the cards — so they shifted from trying to win the war to trying to win the next election. As Nixon put it in March 1971: “We can’t have [the South Vietnamese] knocked over brutally … ” Kissinger finished the thought ” … before the election.” So Nixon and Kissinger pushed the South Vietnamese to “stand on their own,” promising we’d support them if necessary. But at the same time, Kissinger assured the North Vietnamese — through China — that the U.S. wouldn’t intervene to prevent a North Vietnamese victory — as long as that victory didn’t come with embarrassing speed.

As historian Jeffrey Kimball has documented, Kissinger’s talking points for his first meeting with Chinese Premier Chou En-lai on the topic of Vietnam included a promise that the U.S. would withdraw all troops and “leave the political evolution of Vietnam to the Vietnamese.” The U.S. would “let objective realities” — North Vietnamese military superiority — “shape the political future.” In the margins of his briefing book, Kissinger scrawled a handwritten elaboration for Chou: “We want a decent interval. You have our assurance.”

The “decent interval” strategy worked. By declaring that “peace was at hand,” Kissinger took the wind out of antiwar Democrat George McGovern’s sails, and Nixon won reelection. And though Nixon himself later fell to the Watergate scandal, the Republican Party successfully used the “decent interval” to cast the Democratic Party in the role of spoiler.

In December 1974, tired of hemorrhaging funds to prop up the failing South Vietnamese government, the Democrat-controlled Congress finally pulled the plug on further U.S. financial support. The following April, Saigon fell, just as Kissinger and Nixon had privately predicted. But enough time had elapsed for Republicans to pin the blame on South Vietnamese missteps and, most important, on the perfidy of the Democratic Party.

Geoff has revealed that this is the same strategy Republicans want to use today. Run out the clock on the Bush administration. Force the next administration to end the war. And then blame that administration for not “following through with the plan.” Then in 2012, Republicans can portray themselves as the real defenders of the nation, even though it is their own actions that brought about our defeat in Iraq.

It is a strategy that worked before. And they will try to do it again. Geoff has revealed it.

And you talk to me about politicizing the war! Ha!

Fun fact of the day, Senator Reid has a lower approval rating than Vice President Cheney according to the latest Harris Poll. Pelosi isn’t doing much better. (But she is beating Bush and Cheney).

(The percentage is their “positive” rating according to this poll)

President Bush - 28%
Vice President Cheney - 25%
House Speaker Pelosi - 30%
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - 22%

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,95786.shtml

I’m not particularly impressed by opinion polls since I think they hide alot of ambivalence but it is fun to point out since we hear so often about the President’s low approval numbers. Guess what, they ALL suck.

Ah yes, because Bush and company are perfect angels when it comes to the politicizing of this war. They would NEVER do something like that!

One can join in the choruses of “a pox on both their houses.” After all on the corruption issues the Democrats haven’t shown themselves much better than the prior Republican leadership in Congress. Why should incompetence is military matters be any different?

I’ll say this for Bush. The latest General in Iraq appears to be doing a good job. It is debatable whether it is too late. One wishes he was there running the counter-insurgency back in 2004. If things in Bagdad don’t look better by the fall though I’ll probably join in the choruses for a limited pull out. But not until then.

Clark,

Why wait until the fall?

Dan, just to be clear: what I support is continuing our involvement in Iraq at whatever level the commanders on the ground deem necessary until the job is done. How do I define “job is done?” I define it by neutralizing the threat of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, keeping them to a relatively small level of activity until the Iraqi security forces can a)take care of the terrorist threat themselves and b)be strong enough to fend off Iran. This may take years, and I will support this same policy if Hillary Clinton is the president in 2009. If Hillary signs on to some kind of policy like this, I will support her on this issue 100 percent.

I think this is the moral thing to do because it prevents region-wide instability, which will cause greater bloodshed. It is also the moral thing to do because it will cause relatively fewer American deaths than a policy of appeasement.

History has shown us that appeasement means more death, more violence and more instability.

I couldn’t care less if Bush and/or Nixon did things for political reasons only in the past, although I don’t agree with Dan’s spin on this. I am concerned with what our policies should be now and what the choices are now. Harry Reid’s policies (as far as he has outlined them) only mean more instability and death for the region in the long run. There is no way I can support that.

Dan, I will ask you once again as nicely as I can to not make this a personal issue. Your quotes are personal, calling me “blind,” etc. I would like to appeal to your basic sense of decency to not attack me or other people on this board with such personal comments. Thank you.

Geoff,

The commanders on the ground were against the “surge.” When Bush presented Kagan’s “surge” plan the commanders on the ground said it wouldn’t work, so Bush fired them. The commanders on the ground said before the war that you would need at least 400,000 combat troops and Donald Rumsfeld fired them.

Al-Qaida was not in Iraq before we went there. To “neutralize” them now in Iraq would require at least 500,000 combat troops. The sad part about General Petraeus (a smart man) is that he just finished updating the Army Counterinsurgency Field Manual. In it, he states himself that for a counterinsurgency to actually work, you need at least 20 combat soldiers for every 1000 people (or about 1 combat soldier per 50 civilians). In a city the size of Baghdad, that requires 120,000 combat troops. For all of Iraq, before the “surge” began, we had a total of about 70,000 combat troops, plus an additional 70,000 support troops, plus who knows how many private contractors (my sister is one of them). So, Fred Kagan’s “surge” plan for Baghdad calls for an additional 20,000 combat troops (though secretly they increased the number to the 30,000s). The reason for so few? Because there are no more troops available. They have to increase tour duty times and add additional tours to soldiers going home. In fact, they’ve got so few soldiers that they are sending wounded soldiers back into the battlefield! How shameful! In any case, if we were to place ALL the combat troops we have in all of Iraq into Baghdad (70,000) and add Kagan’s “surge” (20,000), that still leaves us 30,000 combat troops short, and that’s just for the six million residents of Baghdad. If we apply General Petraeus’ own numbers for the whole country of Iraq, you require approximately 400,000 combat troops to have a successful counterinsurgency plan. Imagine that, that’s what General Shinseki warned we needed before Rumsfeld fired him.

In any case, even General Petraeus was smart enough to state publicly that no military operation will solve Iraq. It is now in the hands of politics. And while there has been a reduction in the violence (more on this in a moment), there has been absolutely no progression politically, the one and only thing that can actually bring about success in Iraq. The political sphere is as intractable as ever. In fact it has gotten worse with the Army’s ill-advised creation of ghettos…er, I mean ‘gated communities’ across Baghdad. You think Sunnis have any better reason to trust Shi’ites now?

Now about that violence. Let’s see, we’ve got bombs going off in the green zone, spectacular, brazen attacks against soldiers stationed outside their super-max bases, car bombs killing hundreds, but hey, Shi’ite death squads are not executing Sunnis like they used to, so the “surge” is showing signs of “success.” You can BET the Shi’ites are remembering these car bomb attacks that kill 150 here and 140 there. You can BET they are marking down just who they want to go after as soon as they can. They are holding back because their leader Al-Sadr told them to. But how long their patience lasts, well, we just don’t know. The more and more these suicide bombers hit Shi’ites, the more and more they will want revenge. But alas, poor General Petraeus just doesn’t have enough troops.

Meanwhile, your other concern is about Al-Qaida, Geoff. The amount of Al-Qaida members in Iraq is quite small actually, though they do lots of damage and are overly-hyped by Americans (who seek all justification possible they can for their war of choice). Al-Qaida loves having us in Iraq. What great target practice! Thousands of Americans to choose from. Hone those skills boys. Learn America’s weaknesses in the battlefield. Meanwhile, the real danger, Al-Qaida in Pakistan, looms large for the future. Here they sit comfortably, protected by more than just the Pushtun tribal leaders. They are protected by Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. We’re not going to ever attack Pakistan. We’re not ever going to undermine the highly corrupt dictatorship of General Musharraf. Because doing so would put those very extremists in charge of nuclear weapons in Pakistan. Yet, at the same time, not doing anything leaves Al-Qaida all the breathing room they need in Pakistan to rebuild. Meanwhile, Iraq, which had nothing to do with Al-Qaida and 9/11 burns to the ground.

You want to fix all this, Geoff? This is what I recommend. Leave Iraq. Shift all our forces back to Afghanistan where they should have been and remained from the beginning. Let Iraqis handle things on their own. They just might get more bloody, but you know what, you’re not going to stop that. Let them at it, and let the strongest come out on top. Meanwhile, focus your power against the real enemy: Al-Qaida in Pakistan. The poison grows there, blackening that poor country. That’s where our real threat is. Not in Iraq, and not in Iran. In Pakistan.

Dan, don’t disagree with your larger point, but I disagree on the timing. Al Qaeda is contained in Pakistan/Afghanistan for now. We need to continue to monitor the situation and continue our efforts there. But our military efforts in Iraq need to continue, for moral, humanitarian and strategic reasons.

In good conscience, I can’t stand by and watch the chaos that will ensue in Iraq if we leave. I can’t stand by and watch Iran invade Iraq. I simply don’t think it’s the right thing to do morally. And from a strategic perspective, an emboldened Iran is not a good thing for us or our allies.

I salute you for thinking strategically, but I simply think you are wrong. But the good news for you is that your strategy is probably what the next Democratic president will do in 2009. You will most likely get a chance to see if it works or not.

Al-Qaida is contained in Pakistan/Afghanistan? Really? I’m sorry, Geoff, but I know your heart is set on us “fixing Iraq” but the reality is that Al-Qaida is not “contained” anywhere, not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, not in Pakistan. They stay in Pakistan because it is a safe haven, but they certainly move around wherever they desire.

Why does our military need to remain in Iraq? It was our military that caused the breakdown of law and order in the first place! Why should we trust it to create that law and order again?

In good conscience, I can’t stand by and watch the chaos that will ensue in Iraq if we leave.

In good conscience, I couldn’t stand watching my country start this war and create the chaos now found in Iraq. How horrible! How utterly utterly horrible. What is worse is that those who lied to us remain in positions of power and influence in our country, continuing the bamboozling act.

Iraq cannot be fixed with America in Iraq. As long as we remain there, the problem will persist. We are the cause of the problem, Geoff. This is something I think too hard for some Americans to grasp. Yes, America can make some awful mistakes. This is one of them.

And from a strategic perspective, an emboldened Iran is not a good thing for us or our allies.

This is something you should have thought about before invading Iraq. Iran is the biggest benefactor of us removing Saddam. We removed the only thing that kept Iran in check for so long: Saddam Hussein. There’s a reason why Reagan supported Saddam during the 1980s.

I salute you for thinking strategically, but I simply think you are wrong.

I’m sorry to say, Geoff, that you are on the wrong side of history then. I implore you to rethink your views of Iraq and Al-Qaida. The longer we stay in Iraq, the more trouble we will create, the more problems we will find, and the more Al-Qaida strengthens. Porter Goss said it best:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28876-2005Feb16.html

“Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists,” CIA Director Porter J. Goss told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Richard Clarke adds:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/04/25/2007-04-25_put_bushs_puppy_dog_terror_theory_to_sle.html

Does the President think terrorists are puppy dogs? He keeps saying that terrorists will “follow us home” like lost dogs. This will only happen, however, he says, if we “lose” in Iraq.

The puppy dog theory is the corollary to earlier sloganeering that proved the President had never studied logic: “We are fighting terrorists in Iraq so that we will not have to face them and fight them in the streets of our own cities.”

Remarkably, in his attempt to embrace the failed Iraqi adventure even more than the President, Sen. John McCain is now parroting the line. “We lose this war and come home, they’ll follow us home,” he says.

How is this odd terrorist puppy dog behavior supposed to work? The President must believe that terrorists are playing by some odd rules of chivalry. Would this be the “only one slaughter ground at a time” rule of terrorism?

Of course, nothing about our being “over there” in any way prevents terrorists from coming here. Quite the opposite, the evidence is overwhelming that our presence provides motivation for people throughout the Arab world to become anti-American terrorists.

Why should we wait until a Democrat comes to power in order to do what is right, Geoff? The surge is not working. The political maneuvering that needs to happen in Iraq is a flop, and I see absolutely no signs of any change in the next few months, let alone next few years.

Barack Obama had this exchange with Condoleezza Rice in January:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

Obama: “Are you telling me that if in six months or whatever time frame you are suggesting that in fact the Maliki government has not performed these benchmarks — which, by the way, remain not sufficiently explicit, I think, for a lot of us to make decisions on, but let’s assume that that surfaces over the next several weeks that this is being debated — that at that point, you are going to suggest to the Maliki government that we are going to start phasing down our troop levels in Iraq?”

Rice: “Senator, I want to be not explicit about what we might do because I don’t want to speculate. But I will tell you this, the benchmark that I’m looking at — the oil law is important, the political process is extraordinary important — that the most important thing that the Iraqi government has to do right now is to reestablish the confidence of its population that it’s going to be even-handed in defending it. That’s what we need to see over the next two or three months, and I think that over the next several months they’re going to have to show that.”

Obama: “Or else what? . . . “

Rice: “Or this plan — or this plan is not — this plan is not going to work.”

That was in January. We’re now approaching May, and no political solutions in sight. What did Ms. Rice say in January? “I think that over the next several months they’re going to have to show that.” “Or else what?”… “Or this plan, or this plan is not—this plan is not going to work.”

Finally, Ms. Rice, you told the truth.

I note that Senator Reid is not the only LDS senator who has had an “evolvement” of his views about the Iraq was. Senator Gordon Smith has also switched from being a strong supporter to an opponent, and was one of two republican senators (along with Senator Hagel) who just voted for the bill with the deadline to begin withdrawals.

Another “hard core partisan[ who can't be] moved by the truth”?

I think the most laughable comment on this thread (it’s equally laughable as a right-wing talking point in general) is that if we leave Iraq there will soon follow another al qaeda attack in America. Evidently, all flights from Muslim countries to the US connect in Baghdad. There are minions of angry jihadists who would come and attack America if only they could, but, unfortunately for them, our army is bogged down in Iraq.
Yes, there are al-qaeda style forces in Iraq–lots of them. And yes, they are there to fight Americans. But they are fighting us there because they choose to, not because we are forcing them to. They care more about controlling the future of the middle east than they do about indiscriminately slaughtering American citizens. Their actions are carefully calculated and strategic–not arbitrary, pointless, masturbatory attempts to drink the blood of infidels. If Osama bin Laden found a genie lamp 10 years ago, he would have wished for America to invade a predominantly Muslim country that hadn’t attacked it. If he had subsequently consulted an oracle, he would have been advised to pray for Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to hold prominent positions in an American administration and then to orchestrate a dramatic attack on American soil. Bin Laden does not want America out of Iraq. Our presence there is the best thing that ever happened to him, and he knows that if we leave, Shia radicals under the direction of Al Sadr and likely with the support of the PM will have a free hand to deal with the Sunni insurgency (including foreign fighters) once and for all.
I’m not saying this speaks for withdrawing immediately, but if containing al qaeda in Iraq and preventing them from coming here is all we want, I think the best thing we could do at this point is leave.

Brad,

They care more about controlling the future of the middle east than they do about indiscriminately slaughtering American citizens

Their ultimate goal is less important than the lesson that was taught on 9/11, that the terrorists will take the fight to the American soil if they believe it will get them what they want. Right now our army is busy fighting and killing the terrorists, were we to leave they will be given the breathing room necessary to make further preparations for attacks on our mainland. Their final goal is not to have us leave Iraq, and if a second 9/11 will get them the result they want they will attempt one.

and he knows that if we leave, Shia radicals under the direction of Al Sadr and likely with the support of the PM will have a free hand to deal with the Sunni insurgency (including foreign fighters) once and for all.

You do realize what this would mean to all the Sunni civilians don’t you? American forces are keeping both sides in check, you would not be comfortable with the results were we to leave no matter what the ultimate outcome was.

Their final goal is not to have us leave Iraq

Hmm…that came out wrong. What I mean is this: “Having us leave Iraq is not their final goal…” in other words, after we’re gone they will still want more.

Why wait until the fall?

Because I don’t think we can tell it the current efforts have failed until then. While I understand Sen. Reid’s pessimism I think it is, at this stage, premature. That is I think the Democrats are doing a lot of the same bad thinking that the Bushies did. Making their meta-narrative control their judgments and not allowing inquiry to take place.

I think the most laughable comment on this thread (it’s equally laughable as a right-wing talking point in general) is that if we leave Iraq there will soon follow another al qaeda attack in America. Evidently, all flights from Muslim countries to the US connect in Baghdad. There are minions of angry jihadists who would come and attack America if only they could, but, unfortunately for them, our army is bogged down in Iraq.

That’s a rather simplistic way to view it. I think one of the big problems with Bush’s Iraq plan, something that in my mind makes him the worst of all recent Presidents, is that Iraq is already training terrorists. But if we leave it really will be somewhat like the Russians leaving Afghanistan. The fighters don’t all disappear. They merely take their fight elsewhere. Thus the rise of Al Queda.

They won’t come by a flight from Bagdad. But they will be embolden by our weakness. (Look at how Bin Laden described our flight from Somalia) And they will take the attack to us.

Bush really, really, really screwed things up. Things today are so much worse than they were even in the days after 9/11. Yes we’ve destabilized Al Queda but we’ve laid the groundwork for much worse. The only hope, in my view, is to stabilize Iraq. I know some, like Murtha, think our pulling out really will stabilize Iraq. However to me this is wishful thinking on par with Cheney thinking we’d be greeting with roses in Iraq like we’d just liberated Paris in WWII. Folks have their ideas of what will happen and aren’t too concerned about evaluating if it is true.

Same problem, different party. (On so many levels - the pork and corruption is depressing. Almost as depressing as seeing that the Republican leadership learned nothing from the last election.)

How on earth is our presence in Iraq forcing the terrorists to be there? Are you honestly so seduced by the militant rhetoric and circular logic of the administration to think that the presence of our army in Iraq is the only thing keeping bin Laden and his cohorts from launching another major attack in the US? If they wanted to attack us here right now, why would our army in Iraq stop them? You simply take as axiomatic–as some kind of self-evident truth–that our overstretched armed forces are somehow holding down an impenetrable battle line, the abandoning of which will instantly grant our enemies unfettered access to American cities. How exactly is it that we are forcing them to fight us there rather than here? I’ll grant that they are fighting us there, but the assertion that we are forcing them to engage us there (as opposed to them choosing to fight us there because we created a terrorist-breeding haven there) requires proving. Or maybe establishing the terrorist haven was part of the grander strategy? Does any sentient person really believe that there are less bin Laden-style terrorists in the world today than there were four years ago?
“You do realize what this would mean to all the Sunni civilians don’t you? American forces are keeping both sides in check, you would not be comfortable with the results were we to leave no matter what the ultimate outcome was.”
I absolutely realize that leaving would result in a bloodbath. But that only means we should stay if it is presumed that we will ever be able to leave without unleashing a bloodbath. I think our presence is doing some good right now (in the sense of keeping sides somewhat in check, maintaining some degree of stability). I also think our presence is doing some harm (provoking anti-American sentiment inside Iraq, galvanizing global support for al-Qaeda style groups, furnishing an excuse for Iraqi political factions to eschew compromise). I think any reasonable person would have to agree that the presence of American troops in Iraq has benefits as well as drawbacks. The question is, in the long term, do the positive consequences outweigh the negative? Does our stabilizing effect outweigh our provocative effect? Will staying longer mean that the ethnic cleansing following withdrawal will be more or less horrific than if we leave now? Right now, we seem to be banking on the hope that the 20,000 soldier increase will furnish enough added stability to enable the political compromise that we view as a necessary prerequisite for turning over security and sovereignty to the Iraqi government. But that presumes that the only thing preventing such a compromise is the current (or pre-surge) level of violence in and around Baghdad. So far, the violence hasn’t substantially decreased. And I don’t see any real signs of progress toward compromise. Maybe I’m just pessimistic, but it seems like all we’re doing is prolonging (and hopefully not exacerbating) the inevitable, and expending enormous amounts of human and financial capital in the process. Whether you are inclined to share my pessimism or not, don’t kid yourself–staying the course now, even with an escalation in Baghdad, is not about dealing a death blow to our enemies. Even Petraeus admits that. So, in the sense of “we have to defeat our enemies there so they don’t follow us here,” we’ve already thrown in the towel–or simply acknowledge the reality that doing so would be impossible without instituting a draft and (gasp!!!) raising taxes.

Those still intent on pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq precipitously, and defending Harry Reid’s unseemly remarks should read this exchange between Hugh Hewitt and Mark Steyn:

HH: I’ve talked with, three hours with Lawrence Wright of The Looming Tower, I have talked with Gaffney, and yesterday with Frederick Kagan. Today, I’m going to talk to Max Boot, I talked to Michael O’Hanlon yesterday. Generally, we are living in extraordinarily terrible times, and it looks as thought a lot of our political class doesn’t know, or will not pay attention in a serious way to it.

MS: Well, they are paying attention, and they’re doing some truly terrible things for the worst possible reasons, for the most silly and trivial short term political opportunism. And again, I speak here as a foreigner, but I know for example during recent decades, there were many messy, unpleasant colonial struggles, or what were perceived as colonial struggles, that for example, the left wing of the British Labour Party had no enthusiasm for. But they never did what the U.S. Congress has done, which is attempt to cut the legs out of the executive in the middle of a war. It’s well known, for example, that the British Labour Party is basically sympathetic to the Irish nationalist movement, but they never attempted to set a deadline for British troop withdrawal from Northern Ireland, and impose it on the executive. I mean, this is an extraordinary¦I think this is an extraordinarily immature opportunist act by the political class in Washington.

HH: And if you read, we had three very serious intellectuals, Fred Kagan, Max Boot and Reuel Marc Gerecht go to Iraq, spend time with Petraeus, spend time in the field, and they all came back, and they all said the same thing, which is it’s bad, it’s getting better, it’s not lost, and it can be won. And that appears not to have any impact whatsoever on Harry Reid and his people.

MS: No, because in a sense, they are, that’s bad news to them. You know, they prefer the certainty of defeat. And this is what’s so terrible. I mean, Amir Taheri, I think it was, wrote a column today saying, well, you know, if Iraq is lost, as Harry Reid says, who’s won? If someone’s lost a war, then presumably, who’s won? Al Qaeda hasn’t won in Iraq, the rump Baathists haven’t won in Iraq, the Sunni minority hasn’t won in Iraq. If America has lost, someone must have won. Well unfortunately, the way the Democratic Party look at it is if America loses, the Democrats win. In other words, if George W. Bush loses the war in Iraq, the Democrats can be the beneficiaries of it. They will be, in effect, the political winners of the war in Iraq. And I think that’s complete nonsense. I think not just Islamists, but every other troublemaker on the planet, whether it’s North Korea, whether it’s the Chinese, whether it’s Hugo Chavez, whether it’s the Russians, indeed whether it’s the European Union, will look on America simply as a superpower that has lost all credibility.

HH: Now Mark Steyn, yesterday, I had former Congressman Bob Schaffer on the program. He had just come back from Afghanistan. He was carrying with him a recent edition of the only English daily in Kabul, the Daily Outlook of Afghanistan.

MS: Right.

HH: And there above the fold in large caps was the headline, ‘Iraq War Lost, Says Leader of Democrats.’

MS: Yes.

HH: It was like a telegram to the Taliban.

Geoff, it’s not really the Democrats who are crying defeat.

It’s the American people.

The majority of them.

And we happen to live in a democracy, just in case you forgot.

Actually, Seth R, we happen to live in a republic, not a democracy. I am sure you are aware of the difference, but just in case, here’s a good explanation:

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

I’m not just being snarky about this. The distinction is crucial. Popular will is swinging against the war. If you put it to a vote, the majority would probably vote against the war. But the Founders deliberately did NOT set up a system where majority rule automatically causes action. The Founders, in their wisdom, set up all kinds of checks and balances. So the majority of legislators are against the war. They will send that message to the president, and he will veto it. They will have to come back with something else. Eventually, majority rule will win out (most likely after the 2008 election), but not immediately, and the Founders wanted it that way.

Majority rule often means oppression of minorities. Republican rule generally protects minorities.

And, just as a reminder, just because the majority favors something does not mean it is right. The vast majority of British citizens in 1938 wanted peace with Hitler at all costs. Not a great position to have taken.

To follow up on my #35, if you read Civil War history you will find that in late 1863-early 1864, the majority of northerners were in favor of some kind of accommodation with the South that would allow them to leave the union. So, if we had been a democracy then, and the issue had been put to a vote, the union would have been split up. But we are a republic, so Lincoln soldiered on, just a Pres. Bush is doing now. The result was that as the war started looking better Lincoln was re-elected in 1864 and of course the north won in 1865.

It is not brave or moral to give up on a cause that is right because the majority is against you. As any Church member knows, it is brave and moral to stand up for what you think is right even if the majority is against you.

Clark et al

I highly recommend you read the following:

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198

It is written by an active Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling.

“You officers amuse yourselves with God knows what buffooneries and never dream in the least of serious service. This is a source of stupidity which would become most dangerous in case of a serious conflict.”
- Frederick the Great

For the second time in a generation, the United States faces the prospect of defeat at the hands of an insurgency. In April 1975, the U.S. fled the Republic of Vietnam, abandoning our allies to their fate at the hands of North Vietnamese communists. In 2007, Iraq’s grave and deteriorating condition offers diminishing hope for an American victory and portends risk of an even wider and more destructive regional war.

These debacles are not attributable to individual failures, but rather to a crisis in an entire institution: America’s general officer corps. America’s generals have failed to prepare our armed forces for war and advise civilian authorities on the application of force to achieve the aims of policy. The argument that follows consists of three elements. First, generals have a responsibility to society to provide policymakers with a correct estimate of strategic probabilities. Second, America’s generals in Vietnam and Iraq failed to perform this responsibility. Third, remedying the crisis in American generalship requires the intervention of Congress.

That’s just his introduction.

Now before you start castigating him as some loony leftist, know this:

ARMY LT. COL. PAUL YINGLING is deputy commander, 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment. He has served two tours in Iraq, another in Bosnia and a fourth in Operation Desert Storm. He holds a master’s degree in political science from the University of Chicago.

Geoff,

#33,

HH: And if you read, we had three very serious intellectuals, Fred Kagan, Max Boot and Reuel Marc Gerecht go to Iraq, spend time with Petraeus, spend time in the field, and they all came back, and they all said the same thing, which is it’s bad, it’s getting better, it’s not lost, and it can be won. And that appears not to have any impact whatsoever on Harry Reid and his people.

“Very serious intellectuals?” Hardly. They are the worst culprits of this foolish war! But Mr. Hewitt has never been one to be honest to Americans. And in this case he is lying yet again. Kagan, Boot and Gerecht are going to see what they want to see in Iraq, and not what they have to see. So sad that so many still put stock in these intellectually bereft men.

Geoff,

#35,

And, just as a reminder, just because the majority favors something does not mean it is right.

In this case, however, what the majority favor is actually right. Unfortunately, the majority favored the war in 2002 to our utter detriment. But the “majority” has learned the truth: the war was wrong from the start. Unfortunately it will take a long time for the minority to learn this.

Geoff,

It is not brave or moral to give up on a cause that is right because the majority is against you. As any Church member knows, it is brave and moral to stand up for what you think is right even if the majority is against you.

That’s noble and all, but unfortunately such talk is foolish when the evidence is starkly against your view. At that point you stand for your point out of sheer stubbornness rather than for solid reasons. Our war in Iraq is not right, nor was it ever right. It was wrong from the start. It was sold on false pretenses. It was shoddily executed. And worst of all, no one has been held accountable for these grand failures.

Dan, I’m actually pretty sympathetic to a lot of what he says. I had a sinking feeling in those early days when the report of the war gaming for Iraq not allowing insurgencies came out. While the Bush administration deserves the brunt of the blame for how the war was planned (Rumsfeld and Cheney in particular IMO) so to did a lot of the generals. Of course those generals who did speak up were punished. So things are a tad more complex than it appears.

But I fully agree that one of the greatest failures of the aftermath of Viet Nam was that rather than plan for how to deal with insurgencies the army decides that they would do their utmost to avoid insurgencies. It adopted an out of sight out of mind mentality. Unfortunately the battles of the 21st century will not be big armored battles like the army enjoyed planning for. Our foe isn’t the Red Army. It is insurgencies. Further given American experience in Viet Nam, Soviet experience in Afghanistan, and American experience in Iraq it is clear that any enemy will use the insurgency route.

I think the army is learning and from all the reports I’m hearing the current general in charge of the surge is doing quite well - although given how bad things are it’s likely not to be enough. But certainly the army needs to change.

But by and large I agree with nearly everything in that article and have so thought for quite a long time now.

The biggest problem we face isn’t just so many Generals wanting to ignore insurgencies, it isn’t just the Bush administration not facing up to them (and perhaps still not facing up to them), it is that the Democrats won’t face up to it either. They do prefer to imagine that we can have a conventional war with Al Queda. Reid was right that the war is a mess. Unfortunately his solution isn’t to find a way to defeat radical Islam. It is to give up.

In this case, however, what the majority favor is actually right.

Was the majority right when something like 90% wanted war with Iraq?

One of the many, many failures of the last 5 years has been with the leaders of America explaining things to America. Bush did a horrible job. But the Democrats aren’t doing much better. They are selling it to America like we can just pull out of Iraq the way we did in Viet Nam and the problems will just be “over there” and not affecting us.

While I disagree with the view that our presence is generating more problems than (potentially) solving, I can at least understand that mentality. What I can’t accept is the idea that pulling out would be the end to our problems. As if the Middle East doesn’t remain a huge danger to us.

One can justifiably criticize the so-called neo-Cons who put ideology and wishful thinking above realism and investigation; the Democrats are doing exactly the same thing.

Interesting:

-According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, 61% of Americans oppose denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq, and opposition is up from 58% in February. (3/23-25, 2007).

-A Bloomberg poll reveals 61% of Americans believe withholding funding for the war is a bad idea, while only 28% believe it is a good idea (3/3-11, 2007).

-A recent Public Opinion Strategies (POS) poll found that 56% of registered voters favor fully funding the war in Iraq, with more voters strongly favoring funding (40%) than totally opposing it (38%); (3/25-27, 2007).

-POS found also that a majority of voters (54%) oppose the Democrats imposing a reduction in troops below the level military commanders requested (3/25-27, 2007).

-A separate POS poll finds 57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and “the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.†And 59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm America’s reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (35%); (2/5-7, 2007).

-A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll show 69% of American voters trust military commanders more than members of Congress (18%) to decide when United States troops should leave Iraq. This includes 52% of Democrats, 69% of Independents and 88% of Republicans (3/27-28, 2007).

-According to a recent Pew Research survey, only 17% of Americans want an immediate withdrawal of troops (4/18-22, 2007). That same poll found a plurality of adults (45%) believe a terrorist attack against the United States is more likely if we withdraw our troops from Iraq while the “country remains unstableâ€

-Should a date for withdrawal be set, 70% of American believe it is likely that insurgents will increase their attacks in Iraq starting on that day. This is supported by 85% of Republicans, 71% of Independents and 60% of Democrats. (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 4/17-18, 2007).

-An LA Times/Bloomberg polls reveals that 50% of Americans say setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq hurts the troops, while only 27% believe it helps the troops (4/5-9, 2007).

Yet Reid thinks he’s going to gain seats in Congress with this gamble……

Here was the initial source for the above post.

Ivan, those numbers are fascinating. I just don’t get it — how do you square those numbers with the 2006 results and Bush’s poll numbers? I honestly believe there’s a disconnect of some kind there. You can’t say it’s all the earmarks issue.

Geoff I don’t see the disconnect. Even folks, like me, who are for the war can judge Bush’s management of the war as massively incompetent. As for the 2006 elections, I think that was in part a judgment on the war’s conduct but more particularly the congress’ conduct. On matters of ethics, pork, and maintaining an eye on the Executive Branch. While I’ve no love for the current Democrats, it’s hard to deny the Republicans had it coming on so many levels. What’s very disheartening for me is how the congressional Republican leadership has learned nothing.

Geoff B.

Remember, Rahm Emmanuel’s strategy that was so successful in gaining seats for the Democrats in congress was to recruit social conservatives as candidates who didn’t make the war their primary issue. The only candidate in a contested race who made the war the centerpiece of his campaign, Ned Lamont, had his head handed to him by Joltin’ Joe Lieberman.

Yes, I think the current Democratic position that the election was a referendum on the war is at best wishful thinking and at worst revisionist. Having said that though, clearly had the war been going better Democrats wouldn’t be picking up as many seats. I expect in the next election for Democrats to increase their majorities and probably win the Presidency. (I have hopes for Thompson, but even with him running it’ll be an up hill battle)

Thanks, guys, your comments make sense. I still would have thought poll numbers would be different than what Ivan posted just based on anecdotal evidence among people I know. I am very encouraged with the fortitude the American people are showing on this issue.

I am not sure that the poll figures Ivan linked to give a fair or complete picture of sentiments of the public. For example, the National Review article, which was linked to, does not mention the poll published today by the Wall Street Journal and NBC.

That poll includes the following interesting conclusions:

“the poll shows that 56 percent say they agree more with the Democrats in Congress who want to set a deadline for troop withdrawal, versus the 37 percent who say they agree with Bush that there shouldn’t be a deadline.

“What’s more, 55 percent believe that victory in Iraq isn’t possible. And 49 percent say the situation in Iraq has gotten worse in the last three months since Bush announced his so-called troop surge. Thirty-seven percent say the situation has stayed about the same, and just 12 percent think it has improved.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18312789/