The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Saturday, November 19, 2005

A lighter perspective on the Dems Iraq strategy


Courtesy of Power Line Blog reader David Lunde.


24 Comments:

  • At 6:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

  • At 7:20 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    I am not sure why you think this administration or any conservatives who supported going into Iraq is under the impression the Iraqis would want us there forever. I don't think anyone has been under any allusion that Iraq likes having a foreign military in their land.

    Notice that Iraq is not asking for us to leave immediately. The fact that they are now talking about a timetable means they are seeing positive developments there (the ones our media refuses to talk about). Before, they would not talk about our leaving.

    The timetable they are discussing is the same that has been discussed here. Note that in their statement they say:

    "The Iraqi people are looking forward to the day when the foreign forces will leave Iraq, when its armed and security forces will be rebuilt and when they can enjoy peace and stability and get rid of terrorism..."

    So they are linking the objectives of US forces leaving, rebuilding their forces, peace and stability, and getting rid of terrorism. These have been the same objectives of the Bush administration all along where he stated our troops will be there long enough to finish the job and not a moment longer.

    Your article supports the Bush position, so I am not sure what your point is. Your reference to Cheney does not apply as he called those making false claims that intel was manipulated before the war "irresponsible and reprehensible". Nowhere in what he said does he apply those terms to those wanting us out of Iraq.

     
  • At 7:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

  • At 7:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

  • At 7:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Didn't mean to double post. It said there was an error and the first didn't save.

     
  • At 8:20 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    This has nothing to do with arrogance. If someone cannot see that setting a specific timetime while a strong insurgency is still intact will encourage them to hang on and fight longer until we are gone, that person has no business being in charge of any national security decision making in this country.

    Either the insurgency needs to significantly weaken or the Iraqi forces need to be significantly strengthened before a strict timetable could be set. While there may have been murmurings of a timetable in the past it appears that Iraqi leaders are seeing one of those (or both) two conditions begin to materialize.

    The recent joint efforts between our troops and Iraqi troops I'm sure have been a boost to their confidence that they will at some point be able to take over.

    Believe me, the Dems are in full panic mode that things will begin to go significantly well in Iraq. They have invested so much in its failure that success would really make them look bad. The only hope to minimize that is to position themselves into being able to take some credit for it. The problem with Bush is that he will probably give them that chance to those who do not deserve it. They will take it and stab him in the back while they do it.

     
  • At 10:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Wow, you sure do know a lot about military strategy in the Middle East. Ever been in the military? Ever been in the Middle East?

    General Odom, a highly regarded and decorated war and intelligence veteran and chief of the NSA under Reagan HAS. He argues that staying in Iraq emboldens the insurgency because sovereign people's do not want to be occupied. Duh, really?

    So does General Casey, the senior commander of coalition forces in Iraq.

    It's ironic that the only people advocating for "staying the course" have NEVER been in the military. People like you, Bush, Cheney, Rice, DeLay, Frist, Hastert, Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rove, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and on and on with the chickenhawk parade.

    Meanwhile actual trained and combat experienced military people are advising the opposite. Scrowcroft, Odom, Hagel, McCain, Zinni, Jacoby, Casey, and on and on. And those are just the guys on the Republican side of the fence.

    What is arrogant is that you people are playing wartime dress-up macho with real soldiers and civilian lives.

    What these seasoned military people, people on the ground in Iraq are saying is that the "insurgency" will not end until we leave because the insurgency is made up of Iraqi's who do not want to be occupied. Formerly unpoliticized and unradicalized average Iraqis are now fighting the occupiers, our troops.

    How would you react to foreign occupiers in your Illinois hometown? Foreign occupiers who came in and trashed your town, killed your neighbors and friends and family. Women and children. Foreign occupiers who didn't speak your language and would shoot at you if you didn't approach them with your hands in the air, or didn't get out of your car with your hands in the air when they drove by. Foreign occupiers who destroyed your churches and scrawled grafitti in your Bibles.

    Yes it most definitely is arrogance.

    Republicans for Humility - Country Before Party

    And what's really arrogant is to suggest that anyone in this country wants our troops to die. You are shameless.

     
  • At 11:29 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Your served in the military argument is so lame and tired. So each time we face a decision to go to war or not, we exclude all people who have never served from the decision process?

    You don't have to have served in the military to know what is right and what is wrong.

    So you are able to muster one general who disagrees with staying. Everyone is entitled to his opinion. We see disagreement among generals in every war.

    You seem to be an expert on how Iraqis think? While there may be some of the insurgency that were formerly unpolitical and are now dupes of Zarqawi, does not mean they are thinking correctly.

    There are two simple steps here.

    Step 1: Based on the evidence we had about Iraqi WMD that spanned across 2 administrations, going into Iraq was the right thing to do.

    Step 2: Having gone into Iraq, to leave before it is secure is irresponsible because it would have cost many lives.

    If you think that Zarqawi's motivations are due to the US occupying and not because of a thirst for power, you have been duped like Zarqawi's underlings.

    If in my Illinois hometown I had a group of terrorist thugs that caused a foreign army to occupy my town, I would fight to remove the thugs so the foreign army would go away.

    Rather than argue the point of whether I am arrogant or not, I will simply claim I am no more arrogant than you. Your comments drip with arrogance, so why are you concerned if I am arrogant?

     
  • At 1:39 PM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    AICS,

    Arrogance is okay when it can be backed up with sound logic and facts. But when it cannot, you have what I call "arrogance without a cause".

    Leftists that demonstrate they have very little knowledge on a given subject, are the worst offenders of this. Those that have no arguments, love to turn those arguments into name-calling. You know you have won the argument, when they start the personal and ad hominem attacks.

    Good work sir, you have sucessfully provided a logical argument, which in turn, has Anonymouse frustrated and confused. So he does the only thing he can in this instance, he calls YOU, arrogant.

     
  • At 1:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "So you are able to muster one general..."

    Sorry, I didn't realize we were only on a kindergarten reading level. I thought the Scrowcroft, Odom, Hagel, McCain, Zinni, Jacoby, Casey list would give you a chance to see the range. 3 generals, 1 lt. general and a couple of grunts who've actually done battle time.

    Is that easier to understand now?

    "So each time we face a decision to go to war or not, we exclude all people who have never served from the decision process?"

    Of course not. However, the current war we are engaged in was conceived of and planned (barely) and launched almost exclusively by bureaucrats and pencil pushers with zero military background. They told us it would be quick. That we'd be greeted with flowers. And then reality struck. Shinseki was ditched for saying we'd need 300,000 and Rumsfeld sends the troops to field without adequate body armor. Yeah, that's great planning.

    Call it lame and tired all you want. You and your chickenhawk ilk are cowards for not serving yet who feel qualified to ignore and dish on those who have.

    I never said I know how Iraqis think. I simply asked you how you would feel if you were experiencing what Iraqis are currently experiencing.

    Another failed AICS dodge.

    "If in my Illinois hometown I had a group of terrorist thugs that caused a foreign army to occupy my town, I would fight to remove the thugs so the foreign army would go away."

    That's pretty clever to try to spin it that way (terrorist thugs CAUSING a foreing army to occupy), but it only works on small children and Rush/O'Reilly listeners. But let's follow your crooked path anyways. OK, so you're fighting the thugs, hoping the foreign army will go away soon. You're on the foreign army's side, even if they've killed part of your family. You hate terrorists. Who doesn't? But the foreign army continues to desecrate your churches, kill more of your neighbors and call you vicious epithets, sometimes to your face. They're tired and trigger happy. They shoot your wife and son "by mistake" one day as they are returning from school in the car. You're under curfew and the electricity you used to have before the war is still intermittent 2 years later.

    The Iraqi insurgency remains largely home-grown, Mr Cordesman added, with 90% or more hailing from Iraq.

    Zarqawi is Jordanian, and of course he's a power hungry egotist maniac. What you are avoiding is the question of nationalism and how that is playing into this whole mess.

    There is no confusion on my part. There is frustration with people like you, who think that simply using the words logic, logical, and truth make them infallable and in posession of the cornerstone of reality. AICS dissuades and LA pats him on the back for his grand "success." This has become quite the self-congratulatory circle jerk for you two.

     
  • At 5:33 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    'You're on the foreign army's side, even if they've killed part of your family. You hate terrorists. Who doesn't? But the foreign army continues to desecrate your churches, kill more of your neighbors and call you vicious epithets, sometimes to your face. They're tired and trigger happy. They shoot your wife and son "by mistake" one day as they are returning from school in the car. You're under curfew and the electricity you used to have before the war is still intermittent 2 years later.'

    So I get really angry and start killing women and children from the neighborhood? How does that make any sense? How does that warrant any justification. How does that warrant 'trying to understand them'. I don't want to understand somebody that warped. They are like a pedophile, you can only destroy or incarcerate them because they will never be able to function in a civilized society.

     
  • At 9:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You know as well as everyone that the vast majority of insurgent attacks are on military convoys, troops and Iraqi police and recruits, whose reliability has come under question lately, noting that they will likely show more loyalty to their militia commander than the Iraqi federal government.

    Stop trying to mix metaphors of Palestine and Iraq.

    Or are you truly confused and don't know the difference between the two?

     
  • At 12:24 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    What is this most business? That may be true, but it does not change the fact that these savages have on many occassions targeted innocent civilians even recently filling dolls with explosives to kill children (as I wrote about in another post). They are the ones that performed all of those beheadings beginning with Nick Berg, etc.

    I am not the one defending these creeps or trying to picture them as freedom fighters.

    As for mixing metaphors, the similarities between Zarqawi's group and Hamas is far more similar than different. They are all of the same stripe. Only the location, players and a few lines in the script are different.

     
  • At 1:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    See what happens when I follow your crooked path and don't try to straighten you out right away? Back to the drawing board.

    There were no suicide bombings happening in Iraq until the US invasion.

    The US invaded, killed a lot of Iraqi civilians and pissed off the survivors. Those who chose to fight the US (the insurgency) started using roadside and suicide bombs, targeting foreign troops.

    Abu Ghraib and more civilian deaths and the insurgency grows, fueled by foreign occupation and treachery and the growing sense that Americans really hate Arabs.

    "Professional terrorists" enter the picture and do things like put grenades in dolls like the troops give out, in hopes that killed kids will inspire more hatred of US forces.

    Nick Berg was killed "to avenge Abu Ghraib" and was denounced by Muslim leaders who said such an act hurt their nationalist cause. That was terrible, but oddly enough, Berg's father blamed Bush for his son's death.

    The "contractors" burned on the bridge were mercenaries. It's not surprising they were killed.

    Your crooked scenario tries to ignore that this all started because of the US invasion. It tries to ignore that the insurgency is mostly made up of Iraqi nationalists who don't want foreign troops on their soil. Your crooked scenario wants to deny that sovereign people don't want to be occupied and that sometimes they will be willing to fight and die for their homeland, if their family and friends have been killed by the occupier and they maybe have no one left to live for.

    You want to lump these kinds of nationalists in with the "professionals" who contaminate their fight.

    These "professionals" are the only ones you are willing to talk about, and no, they are not the same as the nationalists who are fighting foreign occupation troops.

     
  • At 1:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    And yes, those "professionals" are treacherous savages and cannot be defended.

    The nationalists are radicalized Iraqis who hate being occupied and tortured by the US more than they hated being occupied and tortured by Hussein. Those are the people of the insurgency who attack military convoys, troops and Iraqi police and recruits.

    Yes, I used the qualifier "vast majority" when I shouldn't have. Sorry for the confusion.

     
  • At 11:18 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    "You want to lump these kinds of nationalists in with the "professionals" who contaminate their fight."

    There may be some nationalists that have been suckered by what you call the professionals. I see no distinction, but if there is, I have a problem with both groups.

    - Both groups wear no uniform so in an environment of split second decisions, our troops may inadvertantly kill a civilian.
    - Both groups mingle with the civilian population so that civilians will get caught in the cross fire.
    - Both groups do not recognize the Geneva convention, but are never criticized for it.
    - Both groups are cowards
    - Both groups want power

    They see the people in high numbers risking their lives to go to the polls to vote. If the nationalists were truly nationalalists they would see this is what the people want and lay down their arms. If they have a vendetta, then I guess they will attack until they are killed.

    "Your crooked scenario tries to ignore that this all started because of the US invasion."

    I agree with the invasion to this day. It was the right thing to do. Saddam did not keep his agreement for the cease fire, so the cease fire ended. What good is a cease-fire agreement if neither side keeps it? We kept our side by returning to the battle field. The UN showed its weakness by not supporting its own resolutions. No tough talk in the future by the UN will be taken seriously unless the US is standing behind them.

     
  • At 4:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    It's incredible that you have a problem with people who simply want their own country to themselves. If the folks in the 13 original colonies hadn't done exactly what the Iraqi insurgents are doing right now, you would still be paying taxes (much much higher taxes mind you) to Queen Elizabeth. Yes, our beloved colonialist fighters were using guerilla warfare, and as individuals, had no uniforms and made stealth attacks against the Brits to get them to leave. No taxation without representation, no foreign troops and all that. Learn some history.

    The cease-fire was with Kuwait. Hussein complied. Recall that Iraq invaded Kuwait because it was slant drilling their oil to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. Bush knows that slant drilling is enough to get you shot in Texas, so no one should have been surprised it started a war in the Middle East.

    It is the hypocritical US who selectively chooses which UN resolutions to enforce. Using very conservative interpretations, there are over 90 UN resolutions currently being violated yet unenforced, some for over 30 years, and 30 of which are by Israel alone, who also happens to be in violation of Resolution 687. The US is quite guilty of opportunism and has no moral or ethical footing when it comes to UN resolutions anymore. It's irresponsible that people with limited knowledge of these facts want to cherry-pick information to cheerlead an unprovoked war of choice.

    This current war was totally unnecessary and ill-advised and has made us all less safe. I fear that the Bush clan and people with your mindset have created a situation in Iraq (that was not there prior to our invasion) that will keep us there for a very very long time unless we radically change our policies and actions. We have lost the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people and the world through this war, Abu Ghraib, ignoring the Geneva Conventions, eroding US civil rights, distorting intelligence and everything around this.

    Lt. Gen William Odom (Army), Reagan's top man at NSA said:“The invasion of Iraq I believe will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history.” There is no reason to believe he is incorrect.

     
  • At 5:40 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    "It's incredible that you have a problem with people who simply want their own country to themselves."

    And when we have ensured they will not destroy the hard won freedom the Iraqis now enjoy they will have their country back.

    "Bush knows that slant drilling is enough to get you shot in Texas, so no one should have been surprised it started a war in the Middle East."

    I have often wondered if things would have been better if we had not fought Saddam in the first place, especially if he had attacked Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, we never get to see what would have happened.

     
  • At 8:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Iraqis are enjoying hard-won freedom, are they? Where'd you get that piece of information? From the "free Iraqi press?" Because Iraq's Prime Minister disagrees with you as recently as last week. We will never be able to guarantee the Iraqi people anything unless we plan to occupy Iraq indefinitely. That's part of the crapshoot of democracy: nothing is guaranteed for anyone. Are you going to support them if they vote in an Islamic theocracy that is inherently undemocratic?

    It's an exercise in self-delusion to think we can impose democracy. It's an oxymoronic premise to begin with, let alone in the Middle East.

    Ron Paul (R-TX) gets it: "the [January] election was held under martial law implemented by a foreign power, mirroring conditions we rightfully condemned as a farce when carried out in the old Soviet system and more recently in Lebanon. Our government fails to recognize that legitimate elections are the consequence of freedom, and that an artificial election does not create freedom."

    Women are having a harder time.

    Islamic law is gaining ground, which is far less free than Iraq's prior Baathist secularism.

    The Iraqi Constitution? No freedom brewing there either it seems. Really? Really.

     
  • At 9:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

  • At 8:31 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Anon, a lot of the links you provide are nearly entirely opinion or spin from known facts. Or they are presented as facts without any supporting information. With the sheer volume of information that is sent, it will take time to wade through.

    I probably am appearing to dodge, but I am up to my eyeballs in work at work and at home. I may find pockets of time here and there but my first priority is to continue adding new material to the blog. Keep looking and I will try to return to this when things open up.

    Thanks for your continued comments and the information you send.

     
  • At 12:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    What I try to send is solid information containing direct quotes from knowledgeable sources, scholars and news sources. I'll link through blog resources if an only if they point directly to the source material.

    Without first-hand experience of these things (which neither you nor I have), we will always be relying on what you diminutively call opinion or spin. "Facts" become a shady proposition when you are not experiencing them first-hand. You have to trust some outside entity at that point to be giving you real and accurate information.

     
  • At 2:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Let me separate terrorism from insurgency. When I was in Iraq in 1991, president -- or King Fahd said to me -- this was an early morning meeting, like two or three o'clock in the morning, when he normally met with people during the air war.

    And he said: Get your troops out of Saudi Arabia the minute this war's over. You're on sacred ground. You're destabilizing the whole region. I reported that back to the State Department and, as you know, we didn't get our troops out of there. We left our troops there.

    Bin Laden said he attacked the United States because of the troops in Saudi Arabia. That's terrorism. Terrorism was in London. Terrorism was in Spain. Terrorism was, obviously, in the United States.

    MURTHA: That's completely separate from what's going on in Iraq. Iraq is an insurgency. At one of the hearings early on, Secretary Rumsfeld denied there was an insurgency. He said it was a gang of something or another. But they wouldn't admit that they were having real problems over there. They kept being unrealistic, illusionary about what was going on in Iraq.

    One of the major problems we have in fighting an insurgency is the military and the way they fight. And I adhere to the way they fight. They send in massive force. They use artillery, they use air and mortars. And they kill a lot of people in order to suppress fire and protect our military. I'm for that.

    But it doesn't make you any friends. That's part of the problem. For instance, in Fallujah, which happened about the same time -- the first Fallujah happened about the same time as Abu Ghraib -- we put 150,000 people outside their homes in Fallujah.

    If you remember in Jordan, the bomber said that the reason she became a bomber was because two of her relatives were killed in Fallujah. We lost the hearts and minds of the people.

    Hamre said: You've got three months to win the hearts and minds of the people, to get this under control, to get the looting and so forth under control."
    John Murtha (D-PA)12-7-05

     
  • At 1:01 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Anon, I said I would try to get back to this. I have had a small breather for the last couple of days, so I will add what may be my final post on the subject for now. I will give my summary and you can have the last word if you wish. After reviewing the exchanges over Iraq here is how I see things:

    - The current political climate has created an environment where those from all sides and positions seem willing to lie in order win political points. This can be politicians, reporters, anchors, publishers, producers, diplomats, the average joe on the street, distinguished persons, economists, professors, military experts (serving and retired), etc. We know lying takes place because of the difference in what opposite sides say that go beyond just a difference of opinion.
    - In addition to lying, eye witnesses can see the same things differently based on their preconceived bias.
    - News has become so polarized that there are very few sources that both the left and right would trust, so quoting sources usually does not convince the other side. The only time may be when a leftist source says something against the left or a source usually associated with the right says something against the right. Still one may just think 'well they usually are ok, but this time they got it wrong'
    - In my opinion freedom and democracy is the only hope against radical religion and spreading this in the middle east is a good thing.
    - Going to Iraq was a good thing and the right thing to do.
    - The charges of Bush misleading and manipulating pre-war intelligence are laughable as we have hours of recorded quotes from Democrats saying the same things before Bush even came into office
    - The Downing Street Memo proves nothing as I have posted before here and can be read. That post may not prove the memo is false but it shows the memo cannot be used as proof of any wrongdoing on Bush's part.
    - I admit there were planning and logistical mistakes in the prosecution of the war in Iraq, just as there were in Afganistan, Bosnia, Somalia, Gulf War I, Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, Civil War and Revolutionary war. I wish they could get things right all the time and that our soldiers would not suffer because of it, but there has not yet been a war free of this yet. When these issues arise, it is a good thing for the media to point out to get it corrected for our boys, but instead they use it as a political weapon.
    - I do not expect a perfect outcome in Iraq. In new democracies there are problems, injustices, mistakes, backsteps, etc. Alternatives such as the Iran revolution, Lenin and Stalin, Mao Tse Dong, and other non-democratic changes make the problems with democracy look very insignificant by comparison. We will see infighting among the 3 major groups in Iraq for decades to come, just as there have been infighting and riots in US streets at times. We will see fanatical remnants continue in Iraq for some time, and mostly women will suffer. The bottom line is that arguing against the short term without seeing what the long term results will be is a typical political ploy. The only benefit is to stick it to Bush NOW without having the long terms successes to counter until long after Bush is out of office.
    - Finally, as we have seen the Democrats and their internet surrogates do is to leap from plan A, to B, to C ... to ZZ in an effort to discredit and take down Bush politically, they can really no longer be taken seriously. Like the boy who cried wolf, the people have heard so much that is later debunked they are practically immune to it. Once Bush starts talking, even as inarticulate as he is, people hear what he has to say and they realize it makes sense. It shows all of the clatter from the left to be what it is: a continuous howling, whining and braying that boils down to a hunger for power to be returned at whatever cost.

    Thanks for your posting. The last word is yours. I'm sure the words "kool-aid drinker" will be a part of it. Cheers.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home