We have victory in Iraq due to our brave military members, the brave Iraqi’s who stood and fought for their country, and President Bush. But where is the MSM on this great day?
Iraqi government TV has been playing patriotic music to celebrate the U.S. military withdrawal from cities, towns and villages across the country, officially set to be completed by Tuesday June 30th.
Iraqi military vehicles were also covered with flowers to celebrate the event, and military parades, complete with band music, were organized in Diyala and Diwania provinces.
The government declared a “Day of National Sovereignty” to mark the event, and has invited ordinary citizens to join evening celebrations at Baghdad’s Zawra Park for a festival of music and poetry.
Interior Minister Jawad Boulani told journalists the U.S. withdrawal is almost complete and Iraqi forces are capable of maintaining order across the country.
He says he believes Iraq’s security situation is under control. “I do not think we need to declare a curfew,” he insisted.
Why, their hiding because they said this day would never come. The left and the MSM (synonymous really) believed Bush would ruin everything he touches and now that they have been proven wrong they just ignore it or believe Obama fixed it, by doing the same thing as Bush of course, but why ruin a fantasy. They tell us all that Obama inherited this recession, its not his fault while at the same time trying to sell the case that he did not inherit the Bush victory in Iraq….it’s all him baby…..sigh.
Anyways, congrats to the Iraqi’s for proving that human beings, no matter where they live, DO want to live in freedom.
June 30 is being declared a national public holiday in Iraq… while the scant media coverage of this date may not parallel its significance, Newsy provides a summary of the media’s coverage thus far.
I read about it on Yahoo! this morning and was so elated, I text messaged all my friends!
Nice to see site up and running again, btw!
Don’t sign up for the health program; we need to have somebody still alive 20 years from now tostand up and tell the truth about June 29, 2009.
I’m sure if it had been a Saigon type withdrawal all three alphabet news anchors would have been live from Baghdad, and would have done interviews with the defacto dictator whom ever they may have been
They are reporting it – and everyone agrees that this is wonderful! The only argument is who’s getting the credit. I say it’s the men and women in US military uniform.
old news or new news….it’s GREAT NEWS !!!!
I’m going to church today to pray for those who gave everthing, those who gave their limbs and those who returned home with scars that can’t be seen.
Bush 43, thank you.
Victory? Who is saying it is a victory???
How about the Iraqi premiere just a couple of days ago? Just as he called the most recent election another Iraq victory this past Feb.
Certainly the Iraqis, hanging on to their new government, consider it a victory.
Who’s not considering it a victory is you liberal/progressives… who fought tooth and nail for defeat. The only way you’ll claim it as such is if you can figure out a way to give Obama the kudos…. which requires “the willing suspension of disbelief”.
Commenters like herman will never cease nay-saying. There will be further setbacks and future negative headlines because it’s part of the process (and herman will be happy to be there, flapping his arms about, hyping how the sky is falling; I’m sure he’s been doing so since 2003, every single step of the way); but the process continues, and it continues to trend in a positive direction.
MataHarley,
No. Tell me someone on our side, the armed forces that says it is a victory, not a politician.
Has Petraeus, Odierno, any of the other Generals called it victory? You even has Cheney calling the withdrawal ‘a waste of’ US troops.
Also, you now have celebrations not of victory is Iraq, but celebrations of our leaving Iraq.
How does all that square with Iraq having victory???
Your defining victory via “elections” is highly debatable. If you followed the distribution of political power in Iraq you’d see it’s marred by a lack of equality, representation, and justice. You’d of course say: “It’s not perfect, but a beginning”. Quite simply, you can’t equate that with victory–especially when it’s not articulated by our higher brass.
I’m simply saying, where is our military brass that is declaring victory. Curt has taken it upon himself to declare it.
herman,
Iraq will be dysfunctional for years to come. It’s only been 6 years, for crissakes!!! In the absence of an insurgency and foreign elements fomenting chaos and not wanting to see democracy take root, it amazes me how much has been accomplished in a country that saw 30 years of rule under Saddam’s thumbnail. Of course “change” won’t happen overnight. It takes an average 4 years just to graduate from college with a undergrad degree. The business in Iraq is over when it’s over, and not a day sooner. Not unless we want to set expiration dates on all future conflicts.
The point is, Bush “stayed the course”, by staying in Iraq until we left on “our” terms, and not the enemy’s. There will be no peace treaty signing, no ceremonial surrender from those we fought and defeated in Iraq. There is no specific “victory day”, for us; of when we actually “won”. I think the situation in Iraq is comprised of different phases; and there will be future such “phases”, as life itself is a continually evolving process.
There will be future setbacks in between continuing successes.
Developing democracy in a country that’s never known it is a process.
Okay, 6 years for crissakes; yet Curt has declared victory …prematurely, then.
Herman, what’s all this “I’m” celebrating, “I’m” defining an election as victory crap? You asked a simple question… who is calling Iraq a victory. I gave you the simple answer. The Iraqis.
If they hold on to their government and beat down any upcoming attempted seizures by jihad thugs and Saddam ex-pats, they will continue their success and victory.
The US and coalition military have many successes… from toppling Saddam to each and every time the Iraqis improve in defending themselves, and each time they thwart an attack, or confiscate a weapons cache. As far as I’m concerned, they’ve already won, and continue winning daily. The long term victory is up to Iraqis.
Considering how your side loves to parse words, I doubt any official will label Iraq a victory, as they know the fragility of a new government, and the enemy that prays for their downfall. That enemy would be, of course, both the jihad movements/Saddam ex-pats, and the US Democrat Party.
It’s already been 6 years- not talking about another 6 years (although I believe it will take another generation or two to get to your apparent level of standards).
Curt’s not alone in this; and others months ago have been echoing the same sentiments.
The fact that we are even in a position to leave Iraq, under the current conditions, is a victory.
What the hell do you think we’ve been trying to do, by restoring infrastructure, training security forces, etc.?
Less than that, Word. The Iraqis didn’t elect their permanent government representatives until October, 2005. Prior to that it was an interim government, while they finessed their Constitution from scratch and sussed out the groundwork.
That means it’s just three and a half years. We’re over two centuries in, and still trying to get it right.
You’re right Mata. But along the lines I was thinking of, is “Mission Accomplished” of major combat operations, as the first victory (I think of the insurgency as another phase of the war in Iraq). The critics were lining up, wailing about the body count back then, too.
@MataHarley:
I’m totally with you guys – this is a great victory. But am I reading you correctly as saying, “We’ve accomplished our mission, and now it’s time for a steady, gradual withdrawal” ???
THAT’S WHAT THE LEFT HAS BEEN SAYING FOR A WHILE NOW…
http://barleymash.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-iraq-war.html
Just look at the two Presidential platforms in the last election….. Obama = timed withdrawal, McCain = 100 years.
So, now that both sides are in agreement, with victory declared, and withdrawal in place – why the partisan rhetoric?
Pingback: America Should Be Celebrating Iraqi Freedom Victory, Media Silent | Politics News
Cary, you are reading incorrectly. A withdrawal, as conditions on the ground dictate. If they hit an onslaught, and need the US military, we stay at their request… as per the SOFA. There is no “slow, steady, gradual” to it. Dictated by on the ground demands.
And that is the big difference between what the left has been saying. They wanted “slow, steady, gradual” withdrawal in 2006… which would have guaranteed a failed Iraq. They also wanted a “slow, steady, gradual” withdrawal no matter what the conditions on the ground were…. which also can result in a failed Iraq.
That the withdrawal is commencing is as per the Bush plan from the start. Depose Saddam, let the Iraqis get their government together, let them get their security together, then back out as ground events dictate.
The left… like a broken clock… are only correct because the time and ground events are friendly to do exactly what has been planned since day one. And for that, they can take no credit. They fought for defeat.
Part of this is a game of semantics, as voices on the conservative side have also made similar distinctions as barleymash’s has, regarding the war phase having ended, and that what we found ourselves embroiled in soon after Bremer’s arrival was an insurgency brewing.
I think the places where we truly got it right, are places where we had long-term commitments.
Michael Yon also declared Iraq a victory last year; and conservatives also rallied to proclaim a Victory in Iraq Day.
DoD:
Mata:
I asked a simple question, but there is now simple answer. I can say the Iraqis are celebrating our leaving, the end of an occupation, instead of a “victory.”
If the answer were simple, it would be clear, with no dispute …and Curt could marshal significant evidence as witnesses for such a victory. Yet even here at home, your own Dick Cheney is against him here –worrying that withdrawal is concerning. And in Iraq, their celebrations are not tied to “elections”, not to Sadaam’s capture and death, but to our leaving– the end of an occupancy.
The answer is NOT simple, it is open and debatable who is calling for victory. There are few who are.
Word:
He practically is alone; him and a small handful of politicians.
I was on vacation last week, scuba diving with ex-Gitmo detainees in St. Croix. Just trying to catch up.
Didn’t I read somewhere that we won WWII? I know they bury that pretty deep in the History books now, but I’m sure I read it somewhere. Anyway, I know for a fact that we still have troops in Germany and Japan. Hell, I was stationed in Okinawa for a while, I’m pretty sure there were some other people over there with the same uniform I wore. What does pulling our troops out of country have to do with victory?
@herman:
Odierno just said it is a day for all Americans to be proud of all the troops and civilians who worked and sacrificed over the past years. That would include President Bush, btw. So, tell us herman, are you proud?
Oh, can you say that? How about all the Iraqi security personell trained by our troops? How about all the vendors that will no longer be selling their goods to our troops? Or, Iraqis and their children that were treated in our medical facilities? Or the children treated to clothes, sports equipment, school supplies and candy by our troops? How about Iraqi families who made a practice of inviting our troops into their homes for dinner? How about the Iraqis that were financed and guided through their legal, banking, education, hospital, infrastructure systems, etc. by our civilian personell? You think they are celebrating our leaving? I don’t think all Iraqis are as unappreciative of what we sacrificed for their country as you are. Quiveling over a word, try some Preparation H and get back to us.
@Cary:
Now Cary, you and I both know that that is not a fair and accurate representation of what McCain said.
You and I also both know, at least you should know by now, that you won’t get away with that sort of distortion here without being challenged.
Also, in the interest of intellectual honesty it must be pointed out that Obama, and the Left at large, was calling for date certain withdrawal without regard for what was actually happening on the ground.
@Aye Chihuahua:
You are correct, Aye – I was presenting it as a quick summary. McCain’s position was indefinite occupation, even if it meant 100 years.
Obama’s position was a gradual pullout by 2010 – which seems to be happening, be it his doing or not. I don’t think there are many people who believed that wouldn’t change if the the situation there changed drastically. So now we’re at 2012 – not too off at all.
@Cary:
You’re still not being honest about what McCain has repeatedly said regarding Iraq.
Why are you choosing to distort his position?
Aye, I’m not distorting his position, in fact -if his strategical position had been followed in the first place, we may have seen this day much sooner.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/washington/12shinseki.html
I’m pointing out what the political rhetoric has been.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/17/mccain-we-have-succeeded-in-iraq/
What Obama said was that we would complete our pullout by 2010, however making “tactical adjustments” based on what’s happening on the ground in Iraq…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0NLyx83v3Q&feature=related
And here we are now – starting our withdrawal, with a completion date of 2010 – with provisions to continue if there is a drastic change (if asked) – everything the left was pushing for to happen is happening, and liberals and conservatives are pleased – yet WE (the Left) were wrong all along?!
@herman:
What’s the distinction? It’s a “victory”, because the conditions on the ground make it feasible for us to begin withdrawing and allow Iraqi security forces to take charge of protecting their own interests.
@Cary:
Here’s what you said:
Yes, that’s a blatant distortion of what his position has always been.
.
@Cary:
Many of the critics on your side of the fence were calling for withdrawal in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, holding up negative headlines as the reason to pull out and abandon Iraq to an uncertain fate. Democrats in Congress, like Harry Reid, declared the “war is lost”, and attempted to draw up white flag surrender resolutions. Senator Obama opposed the troop surge.
I’m in the middle of Doug Stanton’s “Horse Soldiers”; and it again brings up the perception that the American public doesn’t have the stomach for war nor the political fortitude to sustain losses and setbacks in order to stay on the road to winning.
What happens today has only been made possible by the positive trending in Iraq. It is a victory.
If we’re to honestly get it right, though, then our withdrawal- desirable to everyone- should not be done hastily and recklessly. There has been so much political pressure to do things “on the quick” and rush things. But what is needed is patience, resolve, and a long-term commitment to succeed.
@Aye Chihuahua:
Okay, it may not have been his position, but it’s what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk
Courtesy embed by Mata
But this diverts my main point.
@Cary:
In the interest of intellectual honesty here is the entire exchange:
Kindly cite for me where McCain called for “indefinite occupation”.
You state that was his position. If so, it should be easily cited.
McCain repeatedly and consistently said that we would withdraw when conditions on the ground allowed that to happen. No date certain, no calendars, but instead, when the enemy was defeated, when the Iraqis were able to stand on their own, and when the overall success of the mission would not be endangered by doing so.
So, please cite for me where McCain said something other than that.
I’m more interested in getting you to correct your distortions before moving on to other matters.
@Wordsmith:
Aside from a few loons, I think most of us agree on this – including Obama, as recorded on the above YouTube link I provided. And, thankfully, that is not what is happening.
@Aye Chihuahua:
Somehow that translates to me as “indefinite occupation”, even if the actual words aren’t used.
And here we are now with a date certain (12/30/2011), pending circumstances (as Obama provided for in the above linked speech), and you’re still saying we were wrong. That’s what I don’t get.
Pingback: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Closure for Six Wounded Warriors
I tended to ignore the “100 year” comment by Cary, Aye… glad you have the patience to revisit this with him. There are many ways to say “we stay until the job is done, and if the Iraqis want us to have a permanent base there, we’d be happy to”. (which they don’t, and we’re cool with that too)
Then, of course, the lib/progressives never can seem to grasp what “the job is done” means… despite the fact they have been told since day one, over and over, that it means when the Iraqis have a government and security in place, and are partners in intel and world trading.
For those that want “exit strategies”, let me ask this. On what day are you going to buy your next car? Or perhaps what day is your daughter or son going to marry? What day are you going to die? One might be able to plan when you’ll pay off a loan, but daily events can prevent you even from making that goal…. a loss of a job, change in employment, illness. All the best plans gone awry by the unexpected.
The exit strategy has always been we go when the Iraqis can stand up for themselves. But as we slowly withdraw, AQ and the Saddam ex-pats will be filing in to our wake, and testing this new government. This is from the mouth of Zawahiri himself via his forum/interview in Jan 2008. I did a post on some excerpts when I was still on Sea2Sea, called Zawahiri: In his own words, visions for the Middle East.
If, Cary, you want to know the mind and views of those we fight, I suggest you read the 48 page translation of Zawahiri’s open forum. They are just waiting for the US to leave the heart of their Caliphate. They will swarm in on our wake… perhaps to take a few shots at our warriors backs, and most certainly to try and destroy what the Iraqis have given their own blood to build (with help from the US coalition). Iraq may be “forgotten” now, but I will not be surprised if the Iraqis call upon us to slow down, or lend a bit of extra help.
Can’t help it if you don’t know how to “translate”. No foreign base exists without a SOFA. It’s no different with our current Iraq bases in Germany, Japan, Cuba etc. Don’t see you worried about “indefinite occupation” there. So what’s your problem with the Muslim world?
Yes… you are wrong all along. As I pointed out, in my earlier comment INRE the broken clock. You liberals wanted to pull out in 2006, when it would mean the fall if Iraq. You were wrong. This withdrawal is going per Bush’s original plan, as preserved in the SOFA negotiated without the chosen zero in Dec 2008. This withdrawal, done in 2006, would have been disasterous.
There is a time and place for everything. Let’s put this in a more simple fashion for you. You can tell me that I need to replace my tires on my car because they will blow out. But my tires are new, with only a few thousand miles on them. Three years later, my tires… now with over 40,000 miles …do indeed blow out. And you go… “see? I was right all along!”
duh wuh
I’m arriving late to the party, but I noticed an old blog post had been quoted so I wanted to see what the excitement was all about. I find discussions like this fascinating because I notice everyone seems interested in who gets to claim victory, but no one has really addressed the definition of “victory” in this conflict.
At its simplest, victory means defeating an opponent. No one on the planet believed we’d have any trouble defeating the Iraqis. Including the Iraqis. So Woohoo! Victory! We beat a country that had already been tenderized to a pulp throughout twenty-five years of military humiliations.
But victory also means accomplishing a goal. What was our goal? Our STATED goal was to eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But there weren’t any. And our leaders knew that. So where’s the victory? What did we do? We bombed the living crap out of a country that had never attacked us, then spent hundreds of billions of dollars and, more tragically, thousands of gallons of American blood, rebuilding it while our own cities drowned.
Of course we could beat up Iraq. Our military is magnificent, courageous and skilled. Of course, given hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives, we could help Iraq stand up again. Why is this a surprise? Why are you arguing over who can celebrate the victory of a war that should never have been fought?
We might as well fight over who gets to pick the color of the emperor’s new clothes.
@MataHarley:
We do not have combat brigades there.
I’m sure you have a fair idea when your tires will need to be replaced. And yes, I do have specific dates for reaching certain goals – even if I don’t reach them exactly when I plan to, having a plan helps – which is what we’ve been saying all along. I guess it’s good that we now agree.
@Barleymash:
Congratulations on fitting so many Leftist talking points, half-truths, and outright distortions into such a short, pointless post.
I’ve seen some fine efforts in that regard but yours is truly a prize winner.
@Aye Chihuahua:
Thanks, Aye Chihuahua. Whenever the phrases “leftist talking points, half-truths and distortions” get thrown around it’s usually evidence that I’ve made a good point. I appreciate your affirmation. Listen, it’s your party, so I’m really not interested in picking a fight or messing up your day. But if you disagree with my points, you might want to either ignore them or refute them. Name calling is just pathetic. I’m fairly certain that, while there are PLENTY of left-wing talking points in there (as if the rest of this thread isn’t 95% Right Wing talking points) there’s not one point in my post that’s less than 100% supportable.
Barleymash
@Barleymash:
Hmmmm….not so much.
Yeah…..
How about this one for starters?
Show me, oh Wise One, which of our leaders “knew” that there were no WMD.
Show me.
@Cary
Oh we most certainly do. The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines aren’t in those countries to visit the countryside. They are all fully armed and ready for combat. They may not be on the same alert conditions as they are in Iraq, but they are on alert. Well, the boyz in Korea are probably on the same alert condition as those in Iraq.
You betcha, Aye!
I posted this earlier, but it didn’t show up. I realize now I probably clipped too large a quote.
Here you go: http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/
@Barleymash:
Let me get this straight.
Tenet, who told Bush that the whole WMD thing was a “slam dunk” also allegedly told Bush that there were no weapons.
In the face of all of the evidence Tenet had to the contrary that is what you’re expecting us to believe?
Laughable.
Those are two completely different screw ups. Tenet said that building a case for war would be a slam dunk. He also said there were no weapons. Only an honest, ethical person would require ACTUAL weapons be in place to build a case for war. Fortunately for the neocons, no such person was in the room at the time.
To clarify — Bush CLAIMED Tenet said the WMD thing was a slam-dunk. Tenet has repeatedly insisted he meant building a case for war was the slam-dunk. Now, you may question Tenet’s honesty, as do I. I find the man despicable. But why would he make himself out to be even MORE of a scoundrel (i.e., I can build case for war with NON EXISTENT WMDs) than just an incompetent?
This has to be good news for everyone. No one wants large numbers of US troops to stay in Iraq indefinitely. The problem comes when the US does finally pull out – if Al-Qaeda/Iraqi insurgents step up their attacks and destablise the Iraqi government. Would the US return? Let’s hope that doesn’t problem doesn’t arise and Iraq becomes a fully stable, independent and democratic country.
@ Barleymash
I will let Aye and Mata kick your butt on this point. I personally don’t care about the WMD issue. I know there are other ex-military people that post here and some non-military that are war buffs/historians. Going into Iraq was one of the single most brilliant strategic moves in military history. Going into Afghanistan only would have produced way more U.S. military casualties than going into Iraq produced. Every idiot in search of 77 virgins would have showed up and been in much more defensible positions. Fighting in Iraq brough the nut cases to us in an arena would could handle much easier.
Now, go drink some kool-aid and read Catcher in the Rye again.
“Going into Iraq was one of the single most brilliant strategic moves in military history.”
That’s one of the most astonishing pieces of prose I’ve ever read. Even better than Catcher in the Rye (which sucked, BTW). What did we accomplish? We know the cost. But what did we gain? We killed hundreds of thousands of people, enabled Iran to become the most powerful force in the region (with increased nuclear capacity, no less), wiped out trillions in US funds, overstretched our military and nearly bankrupted our VA… for what? This is a serious question. You’re saying it was a brilliant “move” because going into Afghanistan (where the people who attacked us LIVED) would have been more difficult. But we DID go into Afghanistan, and we DID still fail to get the guys who actually attacked us. What did we gain? You say we made a brilliant move and won something. What did we win that was worth the cost? Again, I’m completely stymied here and looking for a serious answer. What’s the prize?
Oh boy, someone just bit off more than he can chew and, I’m going to miss it all. Darn.
You’re right, Catcher in the Rye did suck.
We’re going to have to agree on a few things here for this to work.
1. We were going to kick someone’s ass for 9-11, right?
2. That someone was Al-Q, which at the time was being protected by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
3. We immediately went into Afghanistan to destroy Al-Q and the Taliban.
4. Fighting a war in Afghanistan is like playing football against the Packers in Green Bay. Ask the Russians.
5. We went to Iraq and most of “enemy combantants” came to Iraq to fight us.
6. In the end, the Iraq war, no matter what you think of it, destroyed Al-Q’s leadership and their war-making capabilities.
7. Yes, we went to Afghanistan and we’re still there. Will be for a very long time. A war in those mountains is going to take a very long time to complete.
As for the people that died, that usually happens in war.
Iran? A 6 flight sortie of F-117′s will reduce their nuclear capabilites overnight. Someone just has to have the nads to make the call.
Now *that*, bar none, is truly one of “the most astonishing pieces of prose” *I’ve* ever read.
*We* killed hundreds of thousands of people? You blame the US military and coalition for suicide bombers? Because I’m damn sure our collateral damage doesn’t even come close to that claim.
Enabled Iran to become the most powerful force in the region? Looked at a map lately? Got a clue how many US troops are sitting on Iran’s border?
Wiped out trillions in US funds? Sorry, that dubious honor belongs to the Eunuch in Chief, accomplished in the short span of six months. In fact, the percentage of military spending to national debt has been halved since the 80s, and welfare spending by Congress – never the Constitutional intent of the Framers – doubles our national security/military spending.
Nearly bankrupted our VA? Makes you wonder why the big Zero is bent on further bankrupting the nation by moving us toward a single payer health care system… they do health care sooooooo well.
Overstretched our military? Funny, the only one I hear complaining is you… not our military personnel who do tour after tour with nary a complaint.
You’re stymied? No surprise there. When you are so devoid of facts and strategic perspective, what else can you be?
So what did we accomplish? Ask the Iraqis. I’m sure they will be happy to tell you they are a free nation and an upcoming Muslim democracy that is no longer an enemy of the US. But I guess a friendlier Iraq, as well as Libya, in relation to our national security means little to you.
“that usually happens in war.”
Interesting. Of course, this wasn’t the Iraqis war. It was our war. Your argument is that we had every right to reduce our casualties in Afghanistan by moving the battlefield to a more practical location, in effect using Iraqi civilians as human shields. I guess you don’t feel any moral compunction over dragging our battle into the schools and homes of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
I’m not sure I’ve ever had a conversation with such a cheerful war crime buff. You guys are fascinating!
BTW, I had to go monitor my burn pile and didn’t finish with you, barley.
In additional to the geographical proximity brillance of a Muslim democracy in the heart of the Caliphate, AND it’s importance as the jewel of the ME with the fresh water and oil reserves… all being kept out of the hands of the global Islamic jihad movements (either directly or by proxy), there is the decline of jihad in the Muslim world.
Some reading for you:
The Bush Legacy
Increasing animosity towards AQ because of Iraq
Islamic World rejecting AQ
More quiet success in the war on jihad
But Saddam was not a jihadist.He wasn’t even particularly religious. Here’s the funny thing with Muslim democracies: they tend to vote in Islamic theocracies. Hamas. Iran. (sure it was rigged, but what are YOU gonna do about it?) Pakistan is voting in Shariah law in more and more of the country. Even proudly secular Turkey is having trouble keeping Islamist factions from controlling the government. So sure, Iraq is a semi-secular democracy today. But all it takes is one charismatic Mullah and we suddenly have another Supreme Leader and Islamic Council to deal with.
Feh. My posts keep getting lost or delayed and retyping on my iPhone is more tedious than Salinger. One quick note before I sign off: Saddam was not a jihadist. He WAS the buttress against the caliphate. Beware of Muslim democracies. They never fail to elect Islamic theocracies. And that’s pretty much a one-way trip. Cases: Iran. Hamas. The rise of Shariah law in Pakistan. Turkey’s struggle today to remain secular. Devout faithful vote to make their faith the law. Islamic democracy is not a safe bet.
Be back later after commute and dinner.
Let’s help you out with your reading problem, barley. No one said Saddam was a jihad warrior. What I said was:
Saddam, as per the Iraqi Perspectives Report IV, was utilizing jihad groups as an unofficial state terror weapon since the early 90s, and up until his desposition. Thus the word “proxy”.
You can find all five volumes available at the FAS site.
Incorrect. Pakistan consistently keeps their militant parties that want to change the nation to Sharia law in a small minority. Additionally, the militant Islamic groups lost even more ground in Iraq’s last election, despite a Sunni turnout as high as 60% in some districts.
So much for that….
@Barleymash
Wasn’t us using civilians as shields. Wasn’t us fighting from schools and mosques. That was your team. As for location? I personally wouldn’t care if we had chosen Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Syria. As far as I’m concerned every one of those countries contributed to 9-11 as much as Afghanistan and Iraq. I’m not a diplomat nor a politician, for me it was a “them” or “us” situation. I won’t apologize to you or any other beta male out there. If D-Day occured in the modern media driven world we live in now, people like you would have screamed bloody murder. And yes, location is vital in any military operation. As for me, I choose the lives of the men and women in our military over appeasing code pinkos.
You should read MacArthur’s autobiography and maybe some Sun Tzu instead of Salinger.
That should also answer your question about my “moral compunction.”
I’m still trying to figure out where he’s getting this “hundreds of thousands” we – the US – killed, Aqua… Even the notorious Iraq Body Count site only has 92,435 – 100,911 “documented civilian deaths” to date.
Of course, since the enemy doesn’t wear uniforms, how do we know if they were civilian or jihad fighters and/or supporters? And, when you read the incidents that comprise those figures, the US cannot be held responsible for roadside bombs, or the mutilated bodies of hospital workers, stabbings, truck bombs, etal.
Which, of course, begs a clarification from barley, after he gets off the mash, as to just how he manages to inflate the numbers he attributes to the US, and not the enemy… or perhaps even just random Iraqi crime?
That aside, let’s take the high number 100,911, and the pesky fact that there are 2294 calendar days from the day OIF commenced on Mar 20, 2003 to today (June 30, 2009). That would be just shy of 44 deaths every single day of our presence in Iraq. If this were the case, and the result of the US military, that news would be cried from the mountaintops everywhere.
Someone’s really operating on less cylinders than usual here… and it’s not me.
@Barleymash:
Fact check Aisle 49.
Fact check Aisle 49 please.
Ummmm…not so much.
Ummmm…no, here’s what he said:
The “slam dunk” comment was clearly in reference to the WMD issue:
Actually, no, he didn’t. See the quote above in addition to the one below:
Tenet says he believed that Saddam had WMD:
Watch CBS Videos Online
It’s amusing to hear people say that Saddam was “secular” or not “particularly religious”.
Especially in light of his personal Quran written in his own blood.
Yep, Saddam was so “secular” that he placed the words “Allahu Akhbar”, in his own handwriting, on the Iraqi flag.
Furthermore Osama’s Islamism is not that much different than Saddam’s Baathism.
More on that here:
It’s a shame that on your very first day here you chose to wander ’round so unprepared.
Perhaps the pummeling you have taken from every direction on this thread will encourage you to be more aware of the subject matter before you dive in over your head again.
@Aqua
Ah so Iraq was just an alloted playing field? Why fight in mountainous region when you pick another country which is flatter and easy to maneuver your tanks around. Now just need an excuse…
…. even if I don’t reach them exactly when I plan to…. in other words, subject to events that happen daily or, as in Iraq, events on the ground.
The notion that your party”s insistence for a firm, drop dead withdrawal date is superior to the original, and now followed plan all along, that we go when the Iraqi’s can secure and govern themselves is pure fantasy.
The Dems wanted to drop dead leave in a “tough love” scenerio. It’s the “Iraqis responsibility” and screw them, they said. That’s YOUR plan.
THE plan is exactly what’s happening. You may try and take credit for it all you want, but it still doesn’t make it true. Why not go back and pull a few statements of your Congressional leadership about their insistance for withdrawal date that proves they were flexibile for ground events, and get back to us? I’m done doing your homework, guy.
And BTW… “cute” does not become you.
You leap to conclusions, or perhaps demonstrate little perspective of military strategy and potential theatres of operation, Gaffa. It’s what I call “the cockroach theory”.
Lest you think my analogy is far fetched… allow me to quote from one pest control site on how to kill cockroaches:
The resemblence is uncanny, yes? It’s why I call them human cockroaches… which, if I remember rightly, some PC lib type took great offense. LOL
Fact is, when you “dry up their food and water supply” (aka their Afghanistan digs), and monitor monitor monitor to stay on their backs, they tend to run to neighboring homes that are friendlier to their presence. Since Iraq had been a revolving door for years to the jihad movements, and Zawahiri had a long standing relationship with Saddam from his EIJ days, Iraq was a very logical first choice.
Pakistan is great for serving as an emergency back door where they could lay low and supervise, but hardly a high profile battle ground for either side. In Pakistan, tribal border villages would harbor them out of fear and reprisal, or by common hatred of the west…. depending on the particular village.
Baghdad is also the historic Caliphate, and the jewel of the ME in natural resources. Much better for fund raising and superior to Pakistan for a home base. But of course they figured the Iraqis… Muslims… would side with them against the evil US.
Then of course, there are those 17 UN resolutions ignored by Saddam, and Clinton’s Iraq Liberation Act in the mid-90s that make regime change a US and Congressional policy… at least in lip service.
Since it is wise to plan your war strategy with locations advantageous to your troops, and assessing where your enemy will retreat, Iraq was a perfect choice. Saudis weren’t about to let them in again. Syria perhaps, but not nearly as much of a coup as Iraq.
As Aqua said, brilliant strategy. Especially since it placed the US smack dab in the heart of the ME with Iran to the east, and Syria to the west. To our north and south were quasi-allies… Turkey and Saudi Arabia. HA! Check!
Of course the jihad movements blew it…. murdered enough of their own Iraqi Muslim brothers and sisters in the name of jihad, and in plain sight of the world’s media, all while trying to incite a civil war. The only result was that they muddied their rep as jihad “freedom fighters”. Couldn’t uh happened to a better group of guys.
@Aqua:
Yes, I realized after I left for work that I misstated this, and was sure I’d be rightfully called on it before I got back home to correct myself. Of course troops stationed in various parts of the world are ready for combat, that’s what they do. However, in the places mentioned, they are not deployed for active combat operations. Which is different from what I’ve always understood was previously proposed for troops in Iraq – thus my concern.
@MataHarley:
Yes, just as Obama said in the speech I linked. Just because you ignored it doesn’t mean I didn’t provide it. But in order to save you the trouble of scrolling back up to find it, here it is again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0NLyx83v3Q&feature=related
Your side fought against his plan tooth and nail, and now that the plan is actually happening – in nearly the exact time frame he called for, with the provisions he called for (thus negating your “broken clock” argument), you still maintain that your side was right?! Whether Obama is directly responsible for the current outcome or not, and I agree he’s not, your side cannot honestly take credit, either. Again, you fought against it.
I’m not really sure what you mean by this, but it kinda sounds like a personal dig, which would be unbecoming of you. In case I’m misreading, I’m going to ask you to explain this statement before I respond.
@Barleymash #40:
Please cite for me the justifications put forth by the Administration in the case for war.
Not even close to “bombing the living crap” out of Iraq. And what’s with the strawman “that had never attacked us” phrase? Who said Iraq had attacked us? (Setting aside such things as an assassination attempt on a former U.S. president, no-fly zones…).
And you can’t see why Aye called you out on hitting lefty talking points? That last part is just rich in “2+2=5″ logic….it’s the “books not bombs” canard, as though if it weren’t for our military spending, we’d have more to spend on education (as if spending is the issue). Iraq war=apples. New Orleans=asparagus. What’s the correlation?!
Is that what you think our military has been doing in Iraq? “Beating it up”?!
@Barleymash #46:
In regards to your Salon link, we’ve been through all this before:
Also check comment #58.
Any more sources regarding Administration officials who supposedly knew there were no wmd in Iraq (as if wmd possession was all that the case for war was built around)?
You might find this of interest, as well:
Ah yes… Obama Sept 2008
Obama July 14th, 2008… just a few months earlier in a NYT’s Op-Ed titled “My Plan for Iraq”
uh hummm… long advocated withdrawal even when the Iraqis did NOT want the US to withdraw in 2006-07, and before their security was more solid after the Surge… which, of course, Obama confesses he opposed, and still opposes.
And then there’s that bit about redeploying our troops in order to “press the Iraqis” to take responsibility and step up. Yeah… that’s “flexible”. NOT.
Here’s your hero when he introduced his bill, the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007. This was Jan 2007, when Iraq was raw and still bleeding mightily from the violence. The Pentagon and Bush are pushing Surge. Obama’s trying to pass legislation to bolt.
Naturally, as usually surrounds Obama and his records, his floor speech in introducing the bill no longer appears on GovTrack. History… with the missing sock in the dryer or down the cyber toilet. So we’ll have to live with some excerpts:
Yeah… that’s a plan that’s dictated by events on the ground fer sure… He was still on this one trick monkey path eight months later… thru another bloody year and the battles for a Surge…in Sept 2007.
mmmmm yeah… that’s some flexibility, and withdrawal dictated by events on the ground… Say, Aqua? How many brigades in Iraq now, six months into “Obama’s withdrawal plan”, as Cary calls it?
Shall we recap now, Cary? Obama’s trying to take credit for a withdrawal that the Iraqis themselves didn’t see as feasible discussing until after the Surge demonstrated results. That would be, of course, THE SURGE THAT OBAMA OPPOSED AND STILL OPPOSES. (can ya hear me now? :0)
In 2006, when Obama was demanding the US leave Iraq *now* and “pressure” Iraqis to deal with a civil war (which they weren’t having) themselves, the Iraq Body Count stats that everyone so loves to quote had an average of 16 deaths daily from suicide bombings and vehicle attacks, and 50 daily from executions and gunfire.
In 2007, when Obama was introducing legislation to usurp the Commander in Chief and withdraw troops by Mar 2008, Iraq Body Count was reporting an increase in suicide bombing attacks… up to 21 daily, and 40 dead daily from gunfire and executions. Yep… Obama wanted to bolt when the Iraqis needed the US the most.
In 2008, with the Surge troops starting to arrive late Jan and fully in place a few months later, the average of deaths dropped to 10 per day from suicide attacks, and 14 from gunfire/executions.
And by Obama’s timeline, he should have been out of Iraq a year and three months ago… or right when the US Surge troops finished arriving to stablize the country. So I’d say that “exactly the timeline” crap of yours is just that… crap.
Oddly enough, it was about that time McCain challenged Obama to actually go visit Petraeus and Iraq, instead of dodging the General when he was in DC to present status reports. When Obama returned, he started softening his stance, and falling more in line of the “careful coming out” bit you’re locked into now.
Was that “his plan” from the beginning? Hell no, as I’ve just proven to you. Bush and US troops success in Iraq shamed that muther f*#ker into changing his tune. Nothing more.
Now… the icing on the cake. YOUR hero, so desperate to cover his cowardly track record to legislate defeat and overstep Congressional boundaries, had the chutzpah to attempt to stall the SOFA agreement until he was elected.
No, no and more no. The Iraqis did not want to negotiate with a man that advocated throwing them under the bus at their bloodiest moments. They negotiated this with the Bush admin, and this is the withdrawal both Bush and the Iraqis planned for… i.e. when Iraq was ready to secure and govern itself after the success of the Surge and Awakening, and NOT A MOMENT BEFORE. That only happened late 2008… years after Obama already stuck his foot in his mouth.
Obama’s 2006 thru 2008 plan to turn tail and run when the violence was at it’s height is NOT what is happening now. Obama’s plan now is exactly what Bush planned after Iraq was secure enough to take over. And in fact, Bush admin negotiated the withdrawal terms…. *with flexibility*.
So I trust you will understand now when I say to you, “cute does not become you”. Because unless you have the memory of a gnat and cannot remember Obama’s historical stand on Iraq and troop withdrawal, you are attempting to be “cute” when you say “…even if I don’t reach them exactly when I plan to, having a plan helps – which is what we’ve been saying all along. I guess it’s good that we now agree.”
I believe blatant ‘effin’ lie fits that statement.
Mata’s comments read like frontpage posts.
So sorry, Word da man. Just couldn’t depend upon Cary actually being able to decipher the pattern of Obama’s Iraq withdrawal history. If he thinks this is what Obama’s been saying all along, ya gotta spell it out in depth, and say it several times to sink in. So sorry to be so drawn out on it.
No need to apologize. Your comments are just works of art. If it sounds like I came off complaining, it’s ’cause I get cranky when I run out of microwaveable popcorn.
Do cary on.
@MataHarley:
With all your words, you “snipped” the following from Obama’s NY Times opinion article you cited:
I say again, although I am not giving him direct credit for the outcome (yes, he did oppose the surge, which worked – see comment 28) the plan he proposed is what’s coming into fruition. You opposed it. To say otherwise is a “blatant ‘effin’ lie.”
Told ja, Word. Even trying to spell out the ever morphing Obama lie on withdrawal to Cary, he goes back to the July 2008 op-ed where Obama’s still grasping on to the tough love “pressure the Iraqis”, but just starting to add the “talk to the commanders” bit. And of course, that’s about careful withdrawal for troop safety… not a flexibility for the ground situation INRE the Iraqis.
Cary, you need to get your head out of elementary screenplays and start learning to think cohesively. Take, for example:
I “opposed” it? I “opposed” what, Cary?
I supported staying in Iraq until the Iraqis could handle their own security and governing.
Was that possible in 2006? NO
Was that possible in 2007? NO!
Was that possible in 2008? Not until VERY late in the year.
Did Obama want to desert Iraq in bloody 2006? YES
Did Obama want to desert Iraq in bloody 2007? YES
Did Obama soften “go now” tone on the 14th of July when his bags on the O’jetliner were packed and he’d be with both Afghanistan and Iraq commanders within hours? Yes. Where was his “LEAVE NOW” plan that he’s been blowing out his rear end since 2006 and 2007?
I opposed Obama’s desertion. I supported staying until Iraq was secure. Obama’s starting to agree with me, and I’ll take that. And you are still engaging in lies…. or stupidity. Take your choice.
@MataHarley:
You’re arguing points I didn’t make. I brought up the position he campaigned with, which you opposed. Continue with the personal attacks, and my part in the conversation will be over.
Cary, you never brought a brain cell to this conversation. Especially if you think you can neatly divide candidate Obama from Senator Obama from President Obama. They are all the same Eunuch in Chief…. the guy who’s been campaigning since 2007.
So ta ta, bubba. This level of “conversation” with your self-imposed rules to make you look informed doesn’t interest me.
@MataHarley:
I guess a conversation devoid of ad hominem attacks from you is too much to ask for. I’ve respected you, through our disagreements, and have not attacked you personally, I expected the same in return from you. Thank you for admitting your lack of interest in civility. I’ve made my points, and stand by them. We can both move on now. Have a good night.
Wow. Don’t you “alpha males” ever sleep or go to work?
I swear it’s like playing Whack-a-Mole in here.
Aye, you might not want to be so quick to claim you “pummeled” me. The problem is, you don’t even understand your own proof-points. Yes, as you establish ad nauseum, Tenet sId the case for WMDs was a slam dunk. The CASE for WMDs. As I’ve said all along, Tenet said he’d be able to support the WMD argument for going to war. That’s not the same thing as saying the TRUTH of WMDs is a slam-dunk.
And to clarify the Alpha Male thing: first, I’m pretty sure that if you have to type on a blog that you’re an alpha male, well then, you ain’t. More importantly, alpha males lead and protect the pack. The behavior this pack has in general been endorsing is the slaughter of children and women as a tool to secure their personal safety. In fact, someone referred to the Iraqis as cockroaches. That’s more akin to PREYING on the pack. Behavior that would identify you as the Omega males — the outcasts, scavengers, pariahs. Funny thing about Omegas — they THINK they’re Alphas and so they slink around the edges of the pack at night displaying faux-alpha behavior until they get challenged.
So, on to Saddam. He was secular until nearly his downfall, at which time he played the religion card to scrape up some support in the Arab world. I would dig up sources for this, but I’m fairly sure you dug past dozens of them already on your way to the apocryphal and meaningless “Q’uran of Blood!” (Cue Night on Bald Mountain). (“Hey, didya know Adolf was a devout Christian? Yeah! he had the Spear of Longinus so it must be true.”)
like I said, it’s like playing whack-a-mole in here, but unlike you alphas, this poor beta actually has to work. I’ve found out what I was curious about. You don’t feel there’s a moral component to war. You consider foreigners to be expendable cockroaches, and you don’t mind being lied to by your government. (that last one, by the way, would identify you as the ” subservient” rank in the wolf pack. Just FYI.)
Later!
@Barleymash:
Is that the best you can do?
Seriously?
Yeah, you were pummeled. Now, you’re so punch drunk that you don’t even realize that you’re continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Laughable.
Absolutely. Laughable.
Not being one to continue to kick a guy while he’s down, I’ll move on now.
In post 43 you were whining about name-calling being pathetic (even though no one had called you any names) yet, in your latest screed, you engage in….wait for it….name calling and ad hominem attacks.
Hypocrisy, line one.
Hypocrisy, line one please.
All while ignoring the cited, documented facts that are raining down around you.
To use your own words….“if you disagree with my points, you might want to either ignore them or refute them.”
Heh.
By the way, yes, I work. Successfully self-employed. I could give you more details but, quite frankly, it’s none of your damned business. Nor is it cogent to the discussion that we are having.
@Mata
I know, but I caught this in post #55 and knew arguing numbers with BM was a lost cause.
With that statement, he justifies every casualty in the war was our fault.
As for GaffUK’s post and your reply…I’m not a politician. If I were advising the CinC I would have referred to Sun Tzu:
It is not the job of a military to go somewhere with a serious disadvantage and hope for the best. It is the job of the military to gain the advantage and destroy the enemy. Back in the day, we would have had so many B-52′s in the air as to blot out the sun. They would have bombed every military target around; roads, bridges, industrial complexes, and ports. The collateral damage would have been enormous. Now, we have precision bombing that can drop a bomb on a gnat’s butt. In my opinion, this war has been fought with honor and respect for the people whose land we temporarily occupied. I would make no apologies for the actions of the CinC or the Joint Chiefs and their staff.
Good morning, Aye! You’re right — I don’t care what you do for a living. I was just making conversation. But speaking of conversation, you might want to go back and actually READ my post before you accuse me of hypocrisy. I wasn’t name calling. You guys have been tossing around the “Alpha Male/Beta Male” crap. I was simply responding to it. Your posturing is pretty amusing.
But you’re right in the greater scheme; let’s get back to the rebuttals!
Lots of points here will be a matter of your trusted source vs. my trusted source.
ISSUES
1) Body Count:
From John Tirman, executive director and principal research scientist at MIT’s Center for International Studies:
SUMMARY: The human cost of Bush’s war: 1 million dead. 4.5 million displaced. 1 million to 2 million widows. 5 million orphans.
We have a better grasp of the human costs of the war. For example, the United Nations estimates that there are about 4.5 million displaced Iraqis–more than half of them refugees–or about one in every six citizens. Only 5 percent have chosen to return to their homes over the past year, a period of reduced violence from the high levels of 2005-07. The availability of healthcare, clean water, functioning schools, jobs and so forth remains elusive. According to Unicef, many provinces report that less than 40 percent of households have access to clean water. More than 40 percent of children in Basra, and more than 70 percent in Baghdad, cannot attend school.
The mortality caused by the war is also high. Several household surveys were conducted between 2004 and 2007. While there are differences among them, the range suggests a congruence of estimates. But none have been conducted for eighteen months, and the two most reliable surveys were completed in mid-2006. The higher of those found 650,000 “excess deaths” (mortality attributable to war); the other yielded 400,000. The war remained ferocious for twelve to fifteen months after those surveys were finished and then began to subside. Iraq Body Count, a London NGO that uses English-language press reports from Iraq to count civilian deaths, provides a means to update the 2006 estimates. While it is known to be an undercount, because press reports are incomplete and Baghdad-centric, IBC nonetheless provides useful trends, which are striking. Its estimates are nearing 100,000, more than double its June 2006 figure of 45,000. (It does not count nonviolent excess deaths–from health emergencies, for example–or insurgent deaths.) If this is an acceptable marker, a plausible estimate of total deaths can be calculated by doubling the totals of the 2006 household surveys, which used a much more reliable and sophisticated method for estimates that draws on long experience in epidemiology. So we have, at present, between 800,000 and 1.3 million “excess deaths” as we approach the six-year anniversary of this war.
2) Saddam as “Jihadist proxy”:
You note Saddam was utilizing jihad groups as an unofficial state terror weapon since the early 90s. So were we, since much earlier. Really. We supported and armed the Taliban, which sheltered to Al Qaeda. That’s “proxy.”
There’s more but I’ve got to take a meeting.
B
@Barleymash:
Boy, you really do live in a very charming, colorful corner of your alternate reality don’t you?
You, sir, are the one who brought up the whole “Alpha Male/beta Male” thing….that’s your spew, don’t try to credit anyone else.
It’s all yours. Be proud of it.
So far, you’ve made points and multiple contributors have run circles around you while grinding your lies, and and your silliness, into the ground with indisputable facts and documented evidence.
Yet you continue to puff your chest and strut about as if you have something of value to offer.
Thanks for stopping by.
It’s always good to have someone to laugh at.
@Aye
Sorry Aye, that was me. I called BM a beta male. I’ll stand by it though.
As I said in my earlier post, BM called this Bush’s war, or rather “not the Iraqis’ war.” Therefore, all casualties are laid at the feet of the U.S. It won’t matter what anyone says about the hundreds of thousands of people killed, tortured or raped under Saddam. Won’t matter how many American military were spared because we fought on terrain where we had an advantage. Won’t matter that we weren’t attacked again because we brought the fight to them. Beta male.
Hey,Aye — Aqua started the the alpha/beta discussion in post 61. Simple search, amigo.
As I said, I don’t want to mess up your little playground. I DO live in a lovely colorful world where people take responsibility for their actions. They don’t sit behind their keyboards and quote Sun Tzu while real people are dying in a war THEY cheerlead for. And yes, Aqua, if WE start a war then that war IS our responsibility. How could it not be? In what world does shooting first not count for anything? Oh yeah — the world where foreigners are expendable cockroaches.
You guys are clearly having fun nitpicking and parsing your post-facto justifications. But you’re completely uninterested in the bigger, more important questions of “Why?” and “At what cost?” In my colorful little world (i.e. the real one) The decision to go to war is infinitely more important than the strategies employed once the war begins. But that’s what you folks would rather discuss. Go for it. I’m never going to persuade hard-core “people are cockroaches” types anyway. What comforts me is the fact that most of America agrees with me. It’s our side that’s laughing, Aye.
@Aqua:
Thank you Aqua.
I stand corrected.
I searched for “Alpha” not “Beta”.
My error on that point.
@Barleymash:
So many canards, such little time.
The Taliban was formed in 1994 by Mullah Omar:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562262680835357.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1549285.stm
We didn’t found or fund bin Laden or his thugs, either:
Read more:
http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20090505134735atlahtnevel0.5280725.html#ixzz0K1C0XUpS&C
Read more:
http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20090505134735atlahtnevel0.5280725.html#ixzz0K1AmdGaE&C
Gary Bernsten, recently interviewed, was on the ground in the opening of this Afghan war leading his CIA agents through the mountains to lazer critical sites for bombing. Authored “Jawbreaker” his account of those days.
http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/24/taliban-not-going-anywhere/
So Aqua — You’re a soldier? Did time in Iraq?
@Barleymash
I was in the Air Force from 1979 until 1990. I got out because Bush I and congress were trying to remove dependents from our medical coverage, and still paying us little or nothing. When Gulf War I broke out, I volunteered to return but was never called up.
My little brother (Navy) did multiple tours in Iraq during Gulf War I and Iraq and Afghanistan in Gulf War II. He has two Air Medals and multiple other commendations.
By the way, I realize flying an airplane into a building doesn’t constitute “firing the first shot,” but I’m going to go out on a limb and say it could possibly be the start of a war. Once a war is started, we, the U.S. are allowed to do what we see fit to win it. If that means invading a complicit country in the interests of logistics, so be it. After WWII, Patton said we should turn our tanks north and take care of Russia. Turns out, he was right.
@Missy:
Don’t go confusing the poor guy with more inconvenient facts.
He’ll just ignore them, spin himself into a tizzy, or lie and say that isn’t what his argument was way back in his previous posts even though it’s so very easy for us to scroll up and quote his own words.
Actually, Missy, thanks — that’s great info. I’m going to read more of that when I have the time. I appreciate it.
Aqua, thanks, I suspected you were; you sounded like someone who understood military life better than some of the armchair generals. But I fundamentally disagree with the idea that ” Once a war is started, we, the U.S. are allowed to do what we see fit to win it.” I’d love to know how we get a free pass to drag noncombatant nations into our shooting wars. Is that your personal opinion, in which case, well, there’s nothing else to say except I disagree, or are you relying on some legal authority? The International Red Cross, for instance, cites this rule as fundamental to waging war: “Neither the parties to the conflict nor members of their armed forces have an unlimited right to choose methods and means of warfare.” You probably don’t agree, but to what license do you refer? I mean, you do recognize our obligations under the Geneva Conventions, don’t you?
And Aye, you really have to stop declaring Mission Accomplished. It didn’t work for your hero Dubya and it won’t work for you.
B
@Barleymash:
Another factual distortion.
Imagine that.
“Dubya” never declared Mission Accomplished.
You’ve gone and gotten yourself entangled in another Leftist talking point.
ah yes… had to figure that the hypersensitive and delicate barley would take issue with the “cockroach theory”. In his “colorful world”, apparently reading comprehension is an option, while he demands other go back and “actually READ” his posts. Oh my…
Instead, mash takes a discussion with Gaffa about why Iraq was a logical theatre choice to engage the global Islamic jihad movement in war, and conflates that to charge that I “…referred to the Iraqis as cockroaches”, and “…consider foreigners to be expendable cockroaches”..
What has public education come to….
Absorb this, mash:
1: the discussion was about military strategy and theatres after Afghanistan. Therefore the “cockroach theory” relates not to Iraqis, but the jihad movements that fought with AQ, Taliban, etal. And that includes members of all different nationalities.
2: the cockroach theory is that when you disturb their nest, they scatter to other digs nearby
So yes… when it comes to waging war and strategy, the jihad movement is indeed human cockroaches. But I’m sure you’d think they’re really very nice guys, if you met them.
I see that reading comprehension is not your only educational downfall. We’ll have to add history.
The US supported Afghan elements in the 80s against the Soviets. They were the mujahideen, who are now known as the Northern Alliance. There was an OBL fighting at their side, pre AQ days. And no doubt, some of those in Mullah Omar’s Taliban were also in the mix. For you see, this was the 80s, and the Taliban was not formed until 1993-94.
The Taliban was created by Pakistan’s Maulana Fazlur Rahman of Pakistan (known in that nation as “The Father of the Taliban”, who orchestrated forming the group with Afghanistan’s Mullah Omar. Their purpose was to protect Zardari’s cotton shipments during the Pakistan drought, that were being raided by Hekmatyar. They were begat, funded and supported by Benazir Bhutto’s admin, as well as the man now holding the Presidency in Pakistan. Musharraf was also involved.
Thus your comment that the US (ala the CIA) “supported and armed the Taliban” bears little resemblence to reality since the Taliban simply did not exist in the 1980s. In fact, the support lent to the mujahideen in the 80s, now known as the Northern Alliance, were those that fought along side the US against the Taliban in our war, as the Taliban overthrew the Alliance for control, starting with Kabul in 1996.
That said, the Northern Alliance is as brutal a group as the Taliban. However they are still two different groups, and at war with each other for power, as the different jihad factions do when they are not fighting a common enemy.
I’ve already addressed your idiocy INRE the claim that the US has “killed hundreds of thousands” of Iraqis. You prefer to pick up some 400,000 to 600,000 number as convenience to your argument and diss the Iraq Body Count. There’s two points to this:
1: It is not the US that is responsible for vehicle and suicide bombings, nor executions. You go thru the incidents on the IBC site and you will find few over the history that are associated with US or coalition collateral damage. That you blame our troops for the enemies kills is not only unconcionable, it’s blatantly anti-American.
2: Using your puffed up number of just 400,000 entails the world believe that in the (as of today) 2295 days since OIF commenced, 174 people have died each and every day in Iraq. It’s 261 if you use your 600,000 deaths claim. None of this is either believable, nor substantiated.
Which of course means that along with your reading and history disabilities, you also have math disabilities. All of which probably qualifies you to have a seat in the US Congress.
@Barleymash
Like I said, I’m not a politician nor a diplomat. Before the war was prosecuted, I’m sure there were many discussions held with the best military minds America has to offer. I’m also sure there was a conversation concerning the very real possiblity of the influx of “jihadists” from other countries joining the fight in Afghanistan. And that conversation surely involved detailing the number of U.S. casualties that would be incurred in a fight in Afghanistan.
To answer you question, it would be my opinion. However, I would disagree with you that Iraq was a country of innocent non-combatants. I would point out several countries in the region that were complicit in the 9-11 attacks. Does that give us the right to invade those countries for logistical reasons? That’s a matter for politicians and diplomats. From a military standpoint, I would say absolutely.
The history of war in Afghanistan is there for everyone to read. Is a military commander supposed to prosecute a war knowing they are at a disadvantage or devise a way to gain the advantage? Like Patton said after out manuvering Rommel, “Rommel you magnificent bastard, I read your book.”
@Aye Chihuahua:
So, how are we supposed to interpret THIS?
@Barleymash #85:
How do you reconcile this statement with your blogpost entry, which Cary linked to? You seemed to be questioning why we were staying in Iraq, when major combat operations had ended, and Saddam removed from power. Would it have been a responsible course of action if “we broke it, don’t own it”, and simply packed our bags and left chaos in our wake? How is that compassionate toward the Iraqi people? How does that enhance American credibility and promote national security interests?
Did Mata call foreigners cockroaches? Way to spin before our eyes. I hope her comment #93 offers you some clarity.
The decision to go to war has been discussed and debated ad naseam; this post wasn’t addressing that. But if you want to hijack the comments thread and rehash it, knock yourself out.
Just realize “the bigger, more important question” of “why” might be the smaller question. Because whether you were for or against the decision to invade Iraq and depose Saddam, reality says: “What do we do, now that we’re there?”
@Barleymash #79:
What did the government lie about, specifically? I’m still waiting for your proof about Administration officials who sent the country to war, knowing the threat of wmds was just a lot of malarkey.
@Mata
Perfect.
@Cary:
Cary, are YOU serious?!?!
Maybe I shouldn’t be so incredulous, but….as a reader here, surely you’ve seen/read previous posts that have dealt pretty thoroughly on this topic? And even if you skipped those, or weren’t here then, I’d think someone who’s as astute as you would already realize what a bogus talking point this is by the war critics.
I can try to dig up some past discussions/posts, if you’d like.
I’ll cite Mata:
@Cary:
Those damned Leftist talking points.
They’ve entangled you and your buddy Mishmash.
Ummmm….My initial interpretation would be that “You’re a dumbass”, but that may insult your overly active sensitivities leading you to threaten to gather your toys and run home to Mommy, so I won’t say that.
Instead, I’ll say this: You are either painfully ignorant of the matter of which you speak or you’re hoping that we are.
(Was that respectful enough?)
@Wordsmith:
Regardless of what it actually tactically or politically meant, and I’m aware of your position of it as a “bogus talking point”. and am not necessarily bringing it up to refute you; but how do you expect any average Joe to look at that and think anything of it as anything other than a declaration that “we got the job done”?
@Aye Chihuahua:
Imagine that I wrote in the same tone to you, and tell me yourself.
Cary,
By listening to the actual substance in the speech.
But Bush agrees with you, that it gave a false impression and opened himself up for political opponents to take full advantage and spin away on it.
But for anyone paying attention to the speech, he spoke nothing about our mission in Iraq being over. He said just the opposite.
By not repeating and/or spreading media distortions and lies, that aid in changing bogus talking points into perceived “facts”, Cary. You know the ol’ saying, repeat a lie often enough….
@Cary:
People who live by six second soundbytes and juicy morsels that are fed to them by an eager Media spin machine are bound to be mislead.
Those who have a hunger for the truth, and a willingness to sift through the garbage and distortions to get to the facts, will truly know what is going on.
Most fit the former description.
The latter, fewer.
@mata:
It’s why I call them human cockroaches…
Your words. And the context doesn’t help at all. When you equate the disposal of bugs to the eradication of humans, well, then, you’re referring to human beings as the tactical equivalent of cockroaches. That’s just completely f’d up.
And I know you’ve got this long convoluted explanation for why the banner was there, and how Dubya didn’t notice it, and so on and so on and so on. On this one, I’m simply calling bullshit. In the non-blog world, leaders make speeches in front of banners they’ve approved. Leaders take responsibility for the props their own employees deploy. Even Rumsfeld acknowledged that the banner was a White House prop. He successfully pulled the phrase from Bush’s speech, but didn’t catch the banner. That says two things: Bush INTENDED to say Mission Accomplished until Rumsfeld stopped him, and yes, Bush’s staff is even more incompetent than we suspected.
http://www.defenselink.mil/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3744
@Wordsmith:
Thank you for providing that info – I was indeed unaware of those posts. My answer in 101 still stands: it sent the wrong message. Surely someone could see this beforehand. I’m glad we’re on the same page about it.
The jihad movement are human cockroaches in their waging of jihad and strategy of hiding behind human shields, and murdering civilians to advance their quest for a Caliphate. I’ll add to that the jihad movements are the scum of the earth as a lifeform and, as far as I’m concerned, long since forfeited their rights to share the planet with others.
This is entirely different than your accusation that I called “foreigners” and “Iraqis” cockroaches.
But as I said, I’m quite sure that you’d get along with them just fine in a personal meet and greet.
Oh yes… not to leave a stone unturned INRE “Mission Accomplished”, never once did I say Bush “didn’t notice”, for in fact he assumed responsibility for the miscommunique…. unlike your hero who always lets someone else take the fall.
You may call “bullshit” all you want, but the sign was the request of the naval crew, who had just finished the longest sea deployment in history. The task of making a banner… a sign business not being set up as part of a battleship’s facilities… came from the WH.
Rumsfeld removed the words from the speech knowing it wasn’t an accurate assessment of Bush’s position. Rumsfeld says “they” fixed the speech, but not the sign. Was Rumsfeld aware that the WH made the banner at the crew’s request? He doesn’t say. Was Bush? We don’t know. Doesn’t matter because even tho it was not their message to convey, they still absorbed the flack for it.
What we do know is that was the crew’s perception of *their* mission, and a well deserved pat on the back. That you want to make it a political issue of ineptitude proves you’re desperate to grasp at straws to support your BDS. Perhaps you would prefer they hid behind the military and blamed the crew instead of taking the heat themselves?
Frankly, I thought it was stellar they took crap from people like you and stood behind their troops.
@Cary:
My answer in 101 still stands: it sent the wrong message to those who are easily, or willing to be, mislead.
FTFY
BM, the mission was accomplished. For the crew of the Abraham Lincoln after a long deployment, they were home. As for the war, major combat operations were done. But then what did President Bush say in his speech? Only your partisan brain makes you refuse to accept the reality of the facts. When facts are in the way, you decide to “simply call bullshit”. And I’m still waiting for the supporting evidence on the Administration officials who knowingly lied about wmd.
Also, from the Woodward interview and referencing Draper’s account, there’s no indication the phrase “Mission Accomplished” was exxed out by Rumsfeld; what he disapproved of were statements that suggested a McArthurian finality of victory.
That reads like a “catch-all”- of what the phrase came to symbolize to Bush war critics- and not specifically the words themselves. I could be wrong; but irregardless, the mission was accomplished.
@Cary:
Here’s a good example for you Cary:
Nice shoes Cary
If I posted the above pic and caption some might be misled into thinking that you are an overly eager Mets fan.
Those of us who are in command of the facts, however, know that you are a Yankees fan.
See how easy that was?
I can only work with information in the public domain. Rumsfeld said “I took Mission Accomplished out.” In fact, he specifically CORRECTED Woodward when Woodward suggested he had done something else. I rarely hear people correct a specific with a “catch-all.” Especially when that “catch-all” is already a specific part of the conversation — a specific PHYSICAL ITEM already referred to.
Sure, the ship’s mission was accomplished. But the phrase was in the speech about combat operations. Why would you suspect the banner referred to the ship, while the exact same phrase in the speech referred to something different? Why would anyone do that? Even if you’re entirely correct about the genesis of the banner, and that’s entirely possible, the Bush administration used it as a PR prop AS IF they meant it for the entire Iraqi operation until months later, when conditions on the ground were making them look foolish.
@Aye Chihuahua:
I was trying to distract them from catching the ball. It finally worked!
Glad you like the pic.
It was the Bush speechwriters who inserted the phrase, perhaps referencing the banner. Not Rumsfeld nor Bush. Rumsfeld screened the speech, and removed it as inappropriate. Whatever powers that be did not remove the banner.
That you are confused is obvious. And, perhaps, understandable. However I’d like to point out that the rest of us also “only work with information in the public domain”, and we are well aware of the banner’s origin.
As far as looking foolish, thanks to mentalities that did not find out the story behind the banner, that is absolutely true. And while the Bush WH could legitimately point to the crew as an excuse for the miscommunique, they did not throw the crew under the bus (like the current POTUS does at every instance) in order to save their own face… and instead accepted the criticisms from a lazy and uninformed media and public with grace.
And for that, you call them inept.
@Barleymash:
Like others here, I am still waiting to find out what the government lied about, specifically?
We’re still waiting for your proof about Administration officials who sent the country to war, knowing the threat of WMDs was just a lot of malarkey.
In addition, could you please share with us where Tenet said that there were no WMD.
We have him on videotape saying that he believed that there were WMD.
Where did Tenet say otherwise as you contend?
Careful, Aye… you’re going to get one monster of a headache pounding your kepi against that brick wall.
@Cary:
Which is precisely the point I was making.
Thanks for reiterating it for me.
@Barleymash:
You might be correct. But looking at the context of the exchange, it’s not at all clear he was “correcting” Woodward, but summing up the content of what he disapproved of as “Mission Accomplished”, basically borrowing the phrase with all the negative connotations that came to be associated with it, thanks to the spinmeisters.
The only way to know if it was or wasn’t is to obtain a copy of the draft itself, and what was being specified. And the major combat operations had come to a close, at the time. But what did the speech Bush actually delivered- not the draft versions that were rejected- say regarding our mission in Iraq?
Because it doesn’t look to me like the phrase itself was in the speech.
PR prop gone bad? Sure. And it’s exactly the kind of finality Rumsfeld didn’t think was warranted by the speech writers.
I really encourage you to read the links I provided of previous posts; and re-read the Carrier speech itself.
BM,
Looking through my copy of Woodward’s “State of Denial” (pg 186), I’ll concede the point that the phrase itself was in the original draft. Although from the interview snippet, it doesn’t come across as entirely clear.
@MataHarley:
Yes, I know.
Seeing as how BM told us that he “only work[s] with information in the public domain” I am quite sure that he has some sort of source for what he posted.
He’ll be by any minute now to support his claims by citing something straight from Tenet himself….or, perhaps he’ll finally have the stones to admit that he was deliberately misleading, yea, even LYING, about information that is in the “public domain” while hoping that no one here would notice or call him on it.
Any. Minute. Now.
Yeah.
And… TADA! Aye, it’s not that covert. (You do know what public domain means, right?) I was simply referring to the quote I cited and, thank you, Wordsmith, to my reading of “State of Denial.” Rumsfeld was quoted and then his quote was requoted all over the media. I had no reason to second-guess it since as far as I knew, he’d never disavowed his own statement. Jeez. Sometimes a cigar…
So here’s the post we’ve all been waiting for. Barleymash delivers the evidence that Bush & Co. KNEW there were no WMDs! The problem is, you’re all going to jump all over this as “debunked.” It’s a matter of opinion.
Here are my sources. They all assert that the Bush adminsitration was informed that Iraq had no WMDs and that Bush “didn’t give a fuck.” I’m sure you’ve heard of them:
Scott Ritter
Ron Suskind
Michael Shipster
Carne Ross
David Kelly and, of course,
The Downing Street Memos
So I assume you guys have already gnawed these sources to pieces for years, but I’ve done the same to yours in other venues. Knock yourselves out refuting this testimony, but now you can let go of the “we’re still awaiting…” silliness.
@Aye Chihuahua:
Yeah, I removed that part of my comment knowing you’d jump on it. Of course, I get your point. It doesn’t negate mine that it was a major blunder which sent the wrong message.
And, in all honesty, I root for the Mets unless they’re playing the Yankees. I’m a New Yorker.
@Barleymash:
No, no, no.
A million times NO.
Pay attention man. Focus.
Here’s what you said:
You said that Tenet said it. Where did he say it?
Where’s the video tape? Where’s the interview in the media?
Where’s the quote from Tenet’s book?
Your duck-n-dodge shuck-n-jive routine may may work in the echo chambers you slither in and out of, but it won’t work for you here.
As your credibility reaches its’ nadir, we’re still waiting on you to prove your contention.
@Cary:
The only people that it sent the “wrong message” to are those who willfully ignore the facts surrounding the photo, the event, and the speech itself.
Anyone who is intellectually honest would admit that the banner was nothing more than innocuous.
innocuous
In light of what’s been discussed in the context of this thread, I’ll have to disagree.
@Cary:
If that’s your position, then it’s entirely appropriate to exclude you from the intellectually honest group.
“Your duck-n-dodge shuck-n-jive routine may may work in the echo chambers you slither in and out of, but it won’t work for you here.”
Jeezus! Chill out, ChiChi! Is the Tenet quote what you’re freaking out about? Try post 46, Mr. Pee Pee Pants.
And didn’t we have this conversation last night?
Getting a little lonely on the outskirts, ChiChi?
@Barleymash:
Found that Tenet quote yet BM?
No?
Tick. Tock.
It’s becoming more and more apparent that you’re living up to your initials.
Tick tock? Here’s a funny story to while away you time, puppy-dog. I had a girlfriend many years ago who insisted that every argument be framed to her exact specifications, very much the way you’re ignoring my source for the claim that Tenet told Bush about the lack of WMDs. “It must be in the form of a direct quote or video!” Yap! Yap! Yap! I dumped her because she was a tiresome and petty little bitch. Gee, this story gets more and more relevant every moment, huh?
@Barleymash:
I’ll type this more slowly so it’s easier for you.
You claimed Tenet said there were no WMD.
I’ve repeatedly asked for your proof. Where is it?
Your claim. Your contention. Your burden.
Where’s the proof that Tenet said that? Or were you LYING?
Given that you’re the self-proclaimed master of the “public domain” it should be easy enough for you to cite it….if it exists.
Great story about that girlfriend of yours. Turns out, she’s a very lucky lady….she’s rid of you.
@Barleymash
Not speaking for anyone here at FA or the Bush Admin, but I’ve pretty much laid everything out for you Barley.
So, I have a question for you. You’ve pretty much shot straight with me and I with you, so don’t dodge the question, answer it straight up.
If you were President and the Joint Chiefs told you exactly what you could expect with a war in Afghanistan, (read massive U.S. casualties and a very long Vietnam type war), but offered you an alternative, that being staging out troops in Iraq to lure the jidhadists to us….what would you do? Would you go on CNN and let the American people know, which would also alert the enemy to your plan? Would you just let Al-Q and the Taliban slide, admitting that we couldn’t take them on their home turf? Be honest, I would love to hear your response.