Poorly Thought 'Republican' War

[Dr. Shane]

• Incompatibility between new weapons and old battlefield tactics causes 970,000 casualties
• Freedom of speech suspended
• Freedom of press suspended
• Habeas corpus suspended
• President ignores Supreme Court

Who was the terrible President that led a nation into this war?

[Bravus]

Because someone else did it, and got away with it, does it make it right?

[there buster]

Quote:

Because someone else did it, and got away with it, does it make it right?

Except for the KKK and some slave owners, the consensus is that the American Civil War was -- to use your term-- 'right.'

Of course, had we listened to the Democrats in that war, it would have been lost in Washington at the very time it was being won on the battle field.

And then there's Harry Reid

New York Post

IRAQ: WHO'S WINNING, HARRY?

By AMIR TAHERI

April 26, 2007 -- WITHOUT meaning to do so, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has pushed the debate on Iraq in a new direction.

Reid claims that the war is lost and that the United States has already been defeated.

By advancing the claim, Reid has moved the debate away from the initial antiwar obsession with the legal and diplomatic controversies that preceded it.

At the same time, Reid has parted ways with Democratic leaders such as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who supported the war but who now claims that its conduct has been disastrous. What they mean, by implication, is that a Democratic president would do better than George W. Bush and win the war.

Reid's new position, however, means that even a Democratic president wouldn't be able to ensure a U.S. victory in Iraq. For him, Iraq is irretrievably lost.

Some antiwar analysts have praised Reid for what they term "his clarity of perception." A closer examination, however, would show that Reid might have added to the confusion that has plagued his party over the issue from the start.

Because all wars have winners and losers, Reid, having identified America as the loser, is required to name the winner. This Reid cannot do.

The reason is that, whichever way one looks at the situation, America and its Iraqi allies remain the only objective victors in this war.

Reid cannot name al Qaeda as the winner, because the terror organization has failed to achieve any of its objectives. It hasn't been able to halt the process of democratization, marked by a string of elections, and it has failed to destroy the still fragile institutions created in the post-Saddam era. Al Qaeda is also suffering from increasing failure to attract new recruits, while coming under pressure from Iraqi Sunni Arab tribes, especially west of the Euphrates.

In military terms, al Qaeda hasn't won any territory and has lost the control it briefly exercised in such places as Fallujah and Samarra. More important, al Qaeda has failed to develop a political program, focusing instead on its campaign of mindless terror.

What about the remnants of the Saddamite regime? Can Reid name them as victors? Hardly. What's left of the Baath Party has split into four warring factions with rival leaders in exile.

The remnants of the Republican Guards have also split. Some have joined Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, now the Loch Ness monster of Iraqi politics. Others have set up crime syndicates and/or death squads with no discernible political ambitions.

Reid may believe that Iran, either alone or with its Syrian Sancho Panza, is the victor. If that's the case, Reid shares the illusion peddled by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Convinced that the Americans will run away, mostly thanks to political maneuvers by Reid and his friends, Ahmadinejad has gone on the offensive in Iraq and throughout the region. By heightening his profile, he wants to make sure that Iran reaps the fruits of what Reid is sowing in Washington.

But even then, it's unlikely that most Iraqis would acknowledge Ahmadinejad as winner and bow to his diktat. The Islamic Republic cannot act as victor solely because Reid says so.

It's possible that Reid imagined that his analytical problems are over simply because he has identified the war's loser. The truth is that his troubles are only beginning. He must tell Americans to whom they wish their army to surrender in Iraq.

That Reid is desperately trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory isn't surprising. His party requires an American defeat in Iraq in order to win the congressional and presidential elections next year.

What is generically known as "the war" is, in fact, three wars.

The first war was about changing the status quo in Iraq. America won by destroying Saddam's regime, ending Baghdad's stand-off with the United Nations and establishing that Iraq was not pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Victory in that war was achieved in 2003 with the completion of the U.S.-led investigation into Iraq's alleged WMD programs.

The second war was triggered by forces that wanted to prevent America from creating a new status quo that favored its interests along with the interests of a majority of Iraqis. This second war also ended in victory for America and its allies with the holding of free elections and, eventually, the emergence of a democratic Iraqi government in 2006.

The third and current war started toward the end of last year when the disparate forces fighting against the democratic government found a new point of convergence in a quest for driving America out. The Bush administration understood this and responded with its "surge" policy by dispatching more troops to Baghdad.

Unlike the two previous wars in which anti-American forces pursued a variety of goals, their sole aim this time is to drive the Americans out. In that sense, al Qaeda and other Islamist agents in Iraq have forged an unofficial alliance with residual Saddamites, criminal gangs, pan-Shiite chauvinists and small groups of Iraqis who fight out of genuine nationalistic but misguided motives.

Despite continued violence, America and its Iraqi allies are winning this third war, too. Their enemies are like the man in a casino who wins a heap of tokens at the roulette table, but is told at the cashier that those cannot be exchanged for real money.

The terrorists, the insurgents, the criminal gangs and the chauvinists of all ilk are still killing many people. But they cannot translate those killings into political gains. Their constituencies are shrinking, and the pockets of territory where they hide are becoming increasingly exposed. They certainly cannot drive the Americans out. No power on earth can. Unless, of course, Harry Reid does it for them.

Iranian-born journalist Amir Taheri is based in Europe.

[bevin]

Quote:

This second war also ended in victory for America and its allies with the holding of free elections and, eventually, the emergence of a democratic Iraqi government in 2006.

Obviously not - because if the majority of Iraqis were so unified, they would have no trouble dealing with these al Qaeda and other Islamist agents in Iraq have forged an unofficial alliance with residual Saddamites, criminal gangs, pan-Shiite chauvinists and small groups of Iraqis who fight out of genuine nationalistic but misguided motives

/Bevin

[bevin]

For the USA's own General Petraeus contradictory assessment...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070426/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_military

Quote:

Petraeus also said that, while the fledgling Iraqi government is often billed as a unity government among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, it actually is not.

"It is not a government of national unity. Rather, it is one comprised of political leaders from different parties that often default to narrow agendas and a zero-sum approach to legislation," the general said.

He said that was one reason why progress has been so slow on deciding how to divide up oil revenues and pass budget and emergency powers laws.

[there buster]

And we should have 'no trouble' getting rid of gangs and organized crime.

[bevin]

Quote:

Rather, it is one comprised of political leaders from different parties that often default to narrow agendas and a zero-sum approach to legislation," the general said.

It ain't gangs

/Bevin

[there buster]

Actually, sounds like the interest groups that control the Democrat party.

[Dr. Shane]

Saudi Arabia also has trouble with terrorist groups. If victory is defined by getting rid of terrorist groups, then victory indeed is impossible.

[bevin]

EDD:

Just to make sure I understand this...

You think that we should indefinitely spend hundreds of billions of dollars and a thousand lives of American soldiers per year supporting a government that you think is just like the Democratic party.

/Bevin

ps: By the way, it is the Democratic party. I know that the man in the White House doesn't know better, but I expected more of you.

[bevin]

Quote:

Asked how many troops he thought would have to remain in Iraq — and for how long — to finish the job, Petraeus said, "I wouldn't try to truly anticipate what level might be some years down the road." However, he noted historical precedents to long U.S. peacekeeping missions.

Yep, we have really built a shining star of democracy...

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

By the way, it is the Democratic party. I know that the man in the White House doesn't know better, but I expected more of you.

This has been an item of controversy in the past. Some Democrats have stated that calling their party the Democratic Party is insulting. I guess because it sounds too much like demonic :sad They have stated it is the Democrat Party - without the ic. So in an effort not to offend anyone, many, like me, try not to add the ic on the end of Democrat.

[there buster]

If Democrats belong to the Democratic party, then Republicans belong to the Republicanic party, Whigs would have belonged to the Whiggic? or Whiggish party, and Federalists to the Federalistic party.

Democrats are members of the Democrat party.

Republicans are members of the Republican party.

Whigs were members of the Whig party, and Federalists are members of the Federalist party.

"Democrat" is a noun, "democratic" is an adjective.

[bevin]

Polite people call other people by the name that the other people prefer to be called, Edwina.

http://www.democrats.org/

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

From what I recall, five or six years ago there was a study done that showed most Democrats preferred the term Democrat Party and only the most partisan among them insisted on adding the "ic". The term is often used within the mainstream media and I would think one would have to be hard-pressed to find it offensive when in actually, many Democrats use and prefer it themselves.

[Bravus]

Meh, who cares about the labels? bevin has been saying for a while that the Bush plan is to keep the war going into 2009 so it can be said that the Democrats lost it (assuming they win the election), and the article Ed posted certainly plays straight into that.

I agree that the Civil war was morally right. I wasn't responding to the war as a whole but to the litany of specific actions Shane posted. It's possible to argue that those actions, though wrong in isolation, were justified in the context of the overall rightness of the war. What I was responding to is the constant drumbeat in response to Bush's misdeeds of 'well, other presidents have done it too'. That's not the same as making the argument that it is justified, it's just primary school "I did it because Johnny did it" reasoning.

[Dr. Shane]

The reason the 'well, other presidents have done it too' line is so often used is because Bush is often called the worst President ever. It is said he is trashing the Constitution. It is said he is trying to grab for more power. When in fact he isn't doing anything other Presidents before him haven't done. In fact, he hasn't gone as far as other Presidents have gone.

There are many Democrats that know setting a time line would be disastrous and have only voted for this because they know the President is going to veto it. All and all I think it is good that Congress is holding the President's feet to the fire. Although their reasons for doing so may be dubious and they may be taking a higher gamble than they themselves realize. As I said before, Bush has nothing to lose and they have their paper-thin majority in Congress on the line while the White House is up for grabs.

[Neil D]

The reason the 'well, other presidents have done it too' line is so often used is because Bush is often called the worst President ever. It is said he is trashing the Constitution. It is said he is trying to grab for more power. When in fact he isn't doing anything other Presidents before him haven't done. In fact, he hasn't gone as far as other Presidents have gone.

[Dr. Shane]

What does the story of President Franklin Roosevelt holding innocent American citizens of Japanese and German decent in internment camps do for the "land of the Free and home of the brave"? How about that the Supreme Court even upheld it?

[Neil D]

What does the story of President Franklin Roosevelt holding innocent American citizens of Japanese and German decent in internment camps do for the "land of the Free and home of the brave"? How about that the Supreme Court even upheld it?

It shows that even now, we have not learned from our mistakes, regardless of what we say. It speaks volumes against our hyprocracy of race tolerance, and it speakes volumes against our educational system. It shows that we have not learned our history as we should have. It shows that we have injustices that we perpetuate and that we are not the great people that we claim to be. It brings us shame to remember these things,...it brings greater shame when we perpetuate them.

[Dr. Shane]

It also shows the President Bush isn't the worst President in history and he isn't destroying the Constitution.

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Shane

What does the story of President Franklin Roosevelt holding innocent American citizens of Japanese and German decent in internment camps do for the "land of the Free and home of the brave"? How about that the Supreme Court even upheld it?

It shows that even now, we have not learned from our mistakes, regardless of what we say. It speaks volumes against our hyprocracy of race tolerance, and it speakes volumes against our educational system. It shows that we have not learned our history as we should have. It shows that we have injustices that we perpetuate and that we are not the great people that we claim to be. It brings us shame to remember these things,...it brings greater shame when we perpetuate them.

[Dr. Shane]

Well, if we want to put President GW Bush in the same class as President Lincoln and President FD Roosevelt, I am not sure many would consider that a failing class. But yes, I am willing to put him in that class.

Now let's see... Roosevelt is on the dime. Lincoln is on the penny and five dollar bill. What should GW Bush be put on?