Hooray! Another baseless statistic!

[scottrobts]

..as long as we listen and learn from it. Popularity has nothing to do with this. WWII wasn't popular. Our civil war wasn't 'popular' once small towns started losing almost all their sons. Righteous purpose is what sustains us.

We had purpose in our war for independence. We had purpose in WWII. We had purpose but lost it in Viet Nam.

What is our present purpose in Iraq? Saddam? WMD? Nation building?

WW2 wasn't popular? You are joking, right? We had just been attacked by Japan and declared war on them, then had germany and Italy declare war on us, so we responded in kind. People flooded the recuiters offices, the nation was 100% behind the war.

 

[Larry Gude]

Psy...

...this is REAL simple and has never, ever changed in war; A monopoly on the us of force is the defining characteristic of success. We HAD to attain this in order to depose Saddam and verify the WMD program status. Mission accomplished.

We HAD to maintain this in order to provide the Iraqi people the time they needed to sort things out and assume control. We have NOT done this.

Precisely because of all the valid reasons you assert about the unpredictability of war, success has always been about attaining subduing the opponent and rendering him unable to do anything but give in or perish.

So a 'plan?'; Yes, attain a monopoly on the use of force and maintain it until the secondary objective, the re-constitution of Iraq is attained.

We have not secured the borders. We did not kill Sadr the day he started his militia. We waited far to long to wipe out Fallujah.

Whatever you do, you have to consider the political and international ramifications of it.

...and the political and international ramifications of blowing it. I have to go to a meeting but I will be back.

 

[SamSpade]

We almost never have the "will" to continue to pursue a war. Affluence will do that to you - gives you a sense that war is an adventure that we can ill afford to participate in for long. Unlike, say, the Israelis, who are continually surrounded by enemies determined to destroy them - and who keep trying. We're surrounded by two large oceans, two mostly peaceful neighbors and very little daily sense that we are in danger.

Everyone had the "will" to fight after 9/11. For about five months. Then it was gone. People were writing songs saying "have you forgotten?" because - we had.

Osama isn't caught; Afghanistan may fall again to the Taliban - and the American public is already willing to give up any fight against terror. They have never possessed the "will", but they had the desire for a short time.

Popularity. It does matter. I have faith in the American people but only so much. I cringe when I hear it, but Mencken's words still ring true - "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." - it still bothers me that they can be so gung-ho for their ideals - for about five months. Then they give up.

 

[vraiblonde]

There you go again. Play politics with it. Make me regret saying a word.

And I'll just pile on, here:

Republicans have been critical of George Bush and his policies, but it's difficult to want to be honest and do that when you know you're going to be faced with a barrage of Leftist nutjobs with their torches and pitchforks. The only thing Democrats ever criticize other Democrats for is not being tough enough on Republicans.

Yet it's always the Democrats who accuse their opponents of partisanship. And the fact is that George Bush may not be perfect, and I may not be 100% behind his policies, but he's still better than any Democrat.

 

[PsyOps]

...this is REAL simple and has never, ever changed in war; A monopoly on the us of force is the defining characteristic of success. We HAD to attain this in order to depose Saddam and verify the WMD program status. Mission accomplished.

We HAD to maintain this in order to provide the Iraqi people the time they needed to sort things out and assume control. We have NOT done this.

Precisely because of all the valid reasons you assert about the unpredictability of war, success has always been about attaining subduing the opponent and rendering him unable to do anything but give in or perish.

So a 'plan?'; Yes, attain a monopoly on the use of force and maintain it until the secondary objective, the re-constitution of Iraq is attained.

We have not secured the borders. We did not kill Sadr the day he started his militia. We waited far to long to wipe out Fallujah.




...and the political and international ramifications of blowing it. I have to go to a meeting but I will be back.

Larry, what exactly does this mean “attain a monopoly on the use of force”? I don’t disagree with you on this, but what you are asking has been tried and has already had severe political consequences. Every time our military tried to assert their overwhelming force the left launches into their negative ad campaigns about how our military are blood thirsty murderers and terrorists. And then there is the daily body count. The enemy is not the insurgents and terrorists at this point; it is the media and the left wing propaganda machine. So how do you employ this “monopoly of force” without having the left and cooperating media use it as political talking points? You can’t deny it’s effectiveness given the fact it has probably lost the GOP power in this next round of elections.

 

[PsyOps]

We almost never have the "will" to continue to pursue a war. Affluence will do that to you - gives you a sense that war is an adventure that we can ill afford to participate in for long. Unlike, say, the Israelis, who are continually surrounded by enemies determined to destroy them - and who keep trying. We're surrounded by two large oceans, two mostly peaceful neighbors and very little daily sense that we are in danger.

Everyone had the "will" to fight after 9/11. For about five months. Then it was gone. People were writing songs saying "have you forgotten?" because - we had.

Osama isn't caught; Afghanistan may fall again to the Taliban - and the American public is already willing to give up any fight against terror. They have never possessed the "will", but they had the desire for a short time.

Popularity. It does matter. I have faith in the American people but only so much. I cringe when I hear it, but Mencken's words still ring true - "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." - it still bothers me that they can be so gung-ho for their ideals - for about five months. Then they give up.

Partly correct. The left never has the will to continue to pursue a war: Their impatient demands for cutting and running, their ongoing desire to give us a daily body count, their constant complaints about how bad things are while ignoring or downplaying the good things that happen (all these things – politically motivated) are reminiscent of the Viet Nam era. It defines the left’s lack of stomach for war. No one desires a long war, but some folks do understand that war has no timeline and is not won until the enemy is defeated. These same folks also believe we have a real enemy; and they always keep a positive outlook and trust in our military and leaders that we WILL win. The left (or more accurately the far left) do not have these traits.

The Osama-hasn’t-been-caught argument is a prime talking point for the left. Well, where is Osama? He is running around, hopping from cave to cave like a cowardly dog while ordering everyone else to die for his pathetic cause. We haven’t caught him but we have definitely made his job very difficult to do; something that wasn’t done in the past. We have picked off his leadership one by one. We have virtually closed down their entire financial network. You have to ask: As compared to previous administrations, have we made it more or less difficult for terrorists to do their job on a global scale?

The only reason the American public is “willing to give up any fight against terror” (which I don’t completely buy) is because of the constant barrage of negativity coming from the left and the media. There is a concerted, politically motivated effort by the left and the mainstream media to cast every bit of negative light on this war they can muster. It has been an extremely successful tactic as indicated in your own words. But despite the sentiments of the American people, the left don’t care about that. They want power back. They will do and say anything to make that happen. So far it looks like it’s working. Americans better take a close look at the left’s motives before they vote.

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

forgot to give u red for bad mouthing my auto-siggie last time. scott. .

...it's about damn time.

 

[Larry Gude]

I wonder how long...

We almost never have the "will" to continue to pursue a war. Affluence will do that to you - gives you a sense that war is an adventure that we can ill afford to participate in for long. Unlike, say, the Israelis, who are continually surrounded by enemies determined to destroy them - and who keep trying. We're surrounded by two large oceans, two mostly peaceful neighbors and very little daily sense that we are in danger.

Everyone had the "will" to fight after 9/11. For about five months. Then it was gone. People were writing songs saying "have you forgotten?" because - we had.

Osama isn't caught; Afghanistan may fall again to the Taliban - and the American public is already willing to give up any fight against terror. They have never possessed the "will", but they had the desire for a short time.

Popularity. It does matter. I have faith in the American people but only so much. I cringe when I hear it, but Mencken's words still ring true - "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." - it still bothers me that they can be so gung-ho for their ideals - for about five months. Then they give up.

...we can keep up a pissing contest over will vs. popularity?

Popularity drives people to go to the gym; it's the in thing to do.

Will keeps you there when popularity has lead the pack to the next big thing.

Willful leadership keeps the pack from trotting off to follow the next shiny thing.

Will is everything.

Your serve.

 

[Larry Gude]

Psy...

Larry, what exactly does this mean “attain a monopoly on the use of force”? I don’t disagree with you on this, but what you are asking has been tried and has already had severe political consequences. Every time our military tried to assert their overwhelming force the left launches into their negative ad campaigns about how our military are blood thirsty murderers and terrorists. And then there is the daily body count. The enemy is not the insurgents and terrorists at this point; it is the media and the left wing propaganda machine. So how do you employ this “monopoly of force” without having the left and cooperating media use it as political talking points? You can’t deny it’s effectiveness given the fact it has probably lost the GOP power in this next round of elections.

...it means no one uses forces except you or those you allow to, in this case the US and whatever Iraqi forces pass the sniff test as to which way their weapons point when the game is on.

It means Syria and Iran and Saudi will NOT allow their borders to be used to infiltrate Iraq because they've decided it is in their best interest.

It means individuals (insurgents) have chosen to not fight because it's not worth it to them.

It means any and everything is on the table for death and destruction including vaporising Mecca and Medina if that's what it takes to keep religious motivated individuals on their best behavior.

As far as the politics, make your choice; head or gut. You WILL be attacked by your opponents if you take action. You WILL be attacked by your opp pents in your action fails or isn't doing so well. You WILL be attacked by your opponents if do nothing.

Think of the left as sports reporters; What's the difference between and ill advised deep pass and a brilliant game wining bomb?

Answer; whether or not it worked.

I can't help it if Bush chose to take partial measures for political purposes. Like a good play/bad play metaphor, all that matters is that it works.

Hell, try a death of 1,000 cuts analogy. Here we sit today with X amount of Iraqi's dead, 50 or 100 at a time and Iraq, by all accounts in near chaos. Now, say we killed that many on day 1 or 30 or even day 100. The violence is stopped. The dead are buried. The rebuilding begins. A new day arrives. No one questions who is in charge. No one questions who makes the rules.

The left can then scream bloody murder, which they're going to do anyway because, for some reason, liberating Iraq makes them ill, yet, the job is DONE. At the end of the day, it's still a war, one way or another. At the end of the day, a majority of Democrats voted for it. Let them sort it out. Nothing and I mean nothing succeeds like success.

 

[PsyOps]

I don’t disagree with you on this...

I meant to say I DO agree with you on this.

 

[Larry Gude]

Ps...

...Psy,

The worst part about this is timing. The opportunity to just get on with it is GONE. Bush had the ball, chose to go to war, he got his chance and his way doesn't seem to be working. He has opened this whole thing up to where we are now.

So, how much more money do we spend, how many more wounded and killed US service personel to achieve WHAT GOAL? We can still wipe out Iraq from a standoff position whenver we feel like it. So, what's the point in staying if nation building ain't working?

I need results. I need a return on investment. The troops need to have a mission they believe in and playing patrol cop until your IED number comes up is getting old.

 

[Larry Gude]

Right...

I meant to say I DO agree with you on this.

...I understood you. You asked for my meaning of attaining sole use of force.

Did I miss something here?

 

[SamSpade]

...we can keep up a pissing contest over will vs. popularity?

Popularity drives people to go to the gym; it's the in thing to do.

Will keeps you there when popularity has lead the pack to the next big thing.

Willful leadership keeps the pack from trotting off to follow the next shiny thing.

Will is everything.

Your serve.

We don't disagree - except that I'm saying, Americans have lost their "will".

They were irate over 9/11 enough to say "let's go kick some Afghani butt" but pretty much lost their nerve after a few months.

It's the kind of mentality that causes gym memberships to skyrocket right after Christmas - every single year - only to lapse back to normal after a few months of waning desire to do it. They all want to get in shape and lose weight - but give up once it's clear it's going to take both years, and a permanent change in lifestyle.

It's the mentality that somehow didn't hear our leadership repeatedly say that this struggle against global terror and against Iraq was going to take *years*. That it might outlive us all. It's a good thing the first Gulf War took 100 hours. We still don't have the stomach for long wars, any more. Osama was dead on about that - bloody a few noses and the paper tiger will run away. We'll be fighting mad for a little while, but we'll walk away eventually.

NO will. Just a lot of emotions.

 

[Kerad]

...Psy,

The worst part about this is timing. The opportunity to just get on with it is GONE. Bush had the ball, chose to go to war, he got his chance and his way doesn't seem to be working. He has opened this whole thing up to where we are now.

So, how much more money do we spend, how many more wounded and killed US service personel to achieve WHAT GOAL? We can still wipe out Iraq from a standoff position whenver we feel like it. So, what's the point in staying if nation building ain't working?

I need results. I need a return on investment. The troops need to have a mission they believe in and playing patrol cop until your IED number comes up is getting old.

At least we now have a group of people (Baker's bi-partisan panel) looking for realistic options...finding a way to achieve something that could be considered "victory". Whether Bush will go along with the group's recommendations is a completely different matter.

It's likely that what we will have to accept as victory won't be anything that we were hoping for...but hopefully it'll be good enough to give Iraq some sense of stability, while allowing us to feel that the region is better off than it was before.

I'm not overly optimistic...but I'm hoping to be surprised.

 

[PsyOps]

...it means no one uses forces except you or those you allow to, in this case the US and whatever Iraqi forces pass the sniff test as to which way their weapons point when the game is on.

It means Syria and Iran and Saudi will NOT allow their borders to be used to infiltrate Iraq because they've decided it is in their best interest.

It means individuals (insurgents) have chosen to not fight because it's not worth it to them.

It means any and everything is on the table for death and destruction including vaporising Mecca and Medina if that's what it takes to keep religious motivated individuals on their best behavior.

As far as the politics, make your choice; head or gut. You WILL be attacked by your opponents if you take action. You WILL be attacked by your opp pents in your action fails or isn't doing so well. You WILL be attacked by your opponents if do nothing.

Think of the left as sports reporters; What's the difference between and ill advised deep pass and a brilliant game wining bomb?

Answer; whether or not it worked.

I can't help it if Bush chose to take partial measures for political purposes. Like a good play/bad play metaphor, all that matters is that it works.

Hell, try a death of 1,000 cuts analogy. Here we sit today with X amount of Iraqi's dead, 50 or 100 at a time and Iraq, by all accounts in near chaos. Now, say we killed that many on day 1 or 30 or even day 100. The violence is stopped. The dead are buried. The rebuilding begins. A new day arrives. No one questions who is in charge. No one questions who makes the rules.

The left can then scream bloody murder, which they're going to do anyway because, for some reason, liberating Iraq makes them ill, yet, the job is DONE. At the end of the day, it's still a war, one way or another. At the end of the day, a majority of Democrats voted for it. Let them sort it out. Nothing and I mean nothing succeeds like success.

Larry… As I indicated in my last (corrected) post, I agree with you. But the political winds just wont allow it. Unfortunately, we don’t live in the 40s and 50s where Americans actually supported such causes and the media participated in the ideal of victory rather than laureate-based, politically motivated reporting. I like to look at these things in an historical perspective. You and many others keep saying things aren’t going well in Iraq. Compared to what? The success we are seeing in Iraq far-exceeds any success we had in Germany. I believe it took over a decade for Germany to stand up a fully functioning government. In the years leading up to that point they lived in chaos. Iraq has experienced great successes in a short period of time. But somehow the left has succeeded in convincing you things aren’t really going well in Iraq.

For example, your 9th paragraph “… and Iraq, by all accounts in near chaos”… Is it really? The only reason folks believe this is because the media is feeding it to them. I’m not doubting there is a certain degree of chaos in specific places (especially Baghdad), but this is not as widespread in Iraq as the media and left would have us believe. I’ll demonstrate this by asking this: Of these Iraq cities, how many have you heard of any recent violence or chaos? Baghdad, Mosul, Basrah, Irbil, Kirkuk, Sulaymaniyah, Najaf, Karbalah, Nasriye, Hilla? I believe there are about 40 cities in Iraq and we hear about one in the news. Yet we are convinced the entire country is in chaos. What’s going on in the rest of this country? I’m not trying to downplay the importance of getting the violence under control, I’m simply trying to put a more honest perspective on the overall picture in hopes this will promote a more positive outlook and support for the effort. The democrats keep saying we need a change in direction; I believe this is the direction that needs to be changed more than anything else.

 

[Larry Gude]

Dude...

For example, your 9th paragraph “… and Iraq, by all accounts in near chaos”… Is it really? The only reason folks believe this is because the media is feeding it to them.

...please extend me some benefit of the doubt as to the sources of how I come to this opinion. Just trust that it's not just the front page of the WashPost or CNN.

As for general conversation, Baghdad holds 1/4 of the population of the whole country. In a very real sense, it IS Iraq.

I do understand that one of the underlying themes of what we call 'the insurgency' is the PR war in the US. Well, you say that 'the political winds' won't allow it, it being the necessary force to control the country. That is both the top story in that it is true today and the bottom story in that the moment of political will was allowed to go begging.

The administration chose the way they chose to run this thing. They've tried to do it not only with way less troops than necessary but have chosen to fill military jobs with an army of contractors so now we're paying global corporations 8-10 times the cost of a US soldier all while losing direct control over them and their use and building conflict of interest directly into the planning and execution of whatever it is we're trying to do, all in the name of...politics.

Why are over 3,000 Iraqi's per month dying violent deaths? Why is the US suffering well over an average of 500 wounded per month, pretty much from March 04 on? Is that all media spin? Are those numbers ball park compared to our experience in post war Germany? Japan?

All I'm saying is that this isn't even close to what it should be and if the administration won't give me any more than lip service about staying some course, what's it going to do with a public less inclined to support them than me?