Here's a transcript of a CNN interview; Dana Bash is the interviewer:
BASH: Arlen Specter, a Republican, but somebody who, in many ways, is like you, a critic of the president's Iraq policy. He said this. He said: "For men and women who are over in Iraq to have somebody of Senator Reid's stature say that the war is lost, it is just very, very demoralizing and not necessary."
Is there something to that, an 18- and 19-year-old person in the service in Iraq who is serving, risking their lives, in some cases losing their life, hearing somebody like you back in Washington saying that they're fighting for a lost cause?
REID: General Petraeus has told them that.
BASH: How has he said that?
REID: He said the war can't be won militarily. He said that. I mean he said it. He's the commander on the ground there.
BASH: But, sir, there's a difference...
REID: Are they critical of him?
BASH: ... between that and saying the war is lost, don't you think?
REID: Well, I — as I said, maybe it's a choice of words. I mean General Petraeus has said the war cannot be won militarily.
Doesn't every soldier going there know that he's said that?
I think so.
Jules Crittenden looked for what Gen. Petraeus actually said on the topic, and he believes the closest Petraeus has come to is in this (I pulled it out of a longer version of the transcript):
Q (Through interpreter.) ... You said that the host country can determine who are the reconcilable groups. But everybody should be under the supremacy of law, and all military activities should be cancelled. So how are these people going to be part of the solution?
GEN. PETRAEUS: ... With respect, again, to the — you know, the idea of the reconcilables and the irreconcilables, this is something in which the Iraqi government obviously has the lead. It is something that they have sought to — in some cases, to reach out. And I think, again, that any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq. Military action is necessary to help improve security, for all the reasons that I stated in my remarks, but it is not sufficient.
A political resolution of various differences, of this legislation, of various senses that people do not have a stake in the success of the new Iraq, and so forth, that is crucial. That is what will determine in the long run the success of this effort. And again, that clearly has to include talking with and eventually reconciling differences with some of those who have felt that the new Iraq did not have a place for them, whereas I think, again, Prime Minister Maliki clearly believes that it does, and I think that his actions will demonstrate that, along with the other ministers....
Two questions: (1) Was Crittenden mistaken, and did Gen. Petraeus say something else that fits Sen. Reid's statement?
(2) If Crittenden is right, and this is the statement that Sen. Reid is alluding to, then isn't there a very big difference between Gen. Petraeus's
[T]here is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq. Military action is necessary to help improve security, for all the reasons that I stated in my remarks, but it is not sufficient.
— which is to say that the war cannot be won solely militarily, but requires a combination of military and political action — and Sen. Reid's characterization of that statement, which is "He said the war can't be won militarily" as support for the proposition that "they're fighting for a lost cause"?
Related Posts (on one page):
- This Sen. Reid Statement, on the Other Hand, Is Likely Just a Joke:
- Did Gen. Petraeus Say "The War Can't Be Won Militarily"?
The sad thing about the current state of our politics is if he does change positions, watch how Bill Kristol and others who effusively praised this guy a few weeks before will savage him as a "coward" and being for "surrender".
I think that both GEN Casey and GEN Petraus will agree that war is just a violent extension of politics and at this point in the conflict, there is no war in the classical sense since we don't know who the enemy is - AQ?, Sunnis?, Shiites?. Sadr? - it seems to be no one and every one. Also, our troops don't seem to have an end goal so progress on the ground is impossible to measure.
The solution is clearly political, not military, and for GEN Petreaus to say that is only a reflection of reality (plus all of his training and his own intellectual product says the same thing.) He is only stating the obvious. What he is not stating, but is available if anyone bothers to look at the massive work on this type of conflict, is that any solution will take years if the desired solution is peace and order in addition to a prevailing of whatever goals we might have.
Using GEN Petreaus' words to make a partisan political point fails to look at the complexity of the problems in Iraq for the US. Unfortunately, that is what both sides are doing and the Republican side has been doing all along. In the end, the only solution to this Gordian problem is to cut the knot since it is apparent that the political side of the solution has not been addressed very competently for the past four years and probably won't be.
Of course, I do not remember President Bush being forthcoming about having to maintain a sustained military presence either which made me doubtful about the whole operation before it started. Either he knew and was being misleading (who would have supported the war if they knew what we were getting into?) or he did not and lacked strategic understanding of what would be involved. Why start a war which lacking political support is not taken to its conclusion only to make the situation worse?
For example, the first-implemented critical part of this "surge" was getting a promise in writing from the Iraqi government to NOT override military captures based only on political connections -- too many insurgent higher-ups had been captured but had to be set free simply because political pressure had been placed on the Iraqi gov't. Now they don't have the power to do that.
The major change is, of course, strategic; we changed from our combination of whack-a-mole/capture-and-hold strategy to a classic counterinsurgency, in which the goal is to stabilize territory so that the people in it recognise that they can be safe with their current government. Such a strategy's results can be measured by the areas converted from terrorist-held (red zone) to government-held (pink zone), and from government-held to terror-free (white zone). The same strategy's been used with good success several times in the past; it's failed as well, although usually the failures were the result of an abrupt withdrawal due to ongoing political pressure rather than actual lack of success.
This new strategy, unlike the old one, is objectively measurable; unlike the old one, is primarily political with military means (in the pink zones, the presence of the military is largely to support civic projects).
Senator Reid said we've already lost and then justified it by saying it's consistent with what Patraeus said.
Senator Reid has delusions of being the Red Queen.
Petreus is saying that war can't be won by military force alone. Not even Bush or Cheney would disagree with that.
Reid seems to be saying that everything is lost, since military force along can't win it. Or, he is just completely mischaracterizing Petreus' comment.
If things turn around dramatically in Iraq in the next year, the republicans will be blessed with some major soundbites to use against the dems--On the other hand, Reid and Schumer are probably right--quite a gamble! of course, Reid does represent Nevada and some of that gambling atmosphere may have rubbed off.
But at some point doesn't the debate just dissolve into silliness? Did Reid really say that? did Petraeus really say this? and all the other trifles aren't going to be remembered by anyone five years from now, but what assuredly is to be remembered is the utterly pointless disaster that was the Iraq war. And yet right now the first refuge of far too many scoundrels (among whose ranks I don't count Prof. V.) is this sort of minutia, or any other distraction that allows those who support the war to cast some specious argument of fault on those who either opposed it all along or have long since come to their senses.
It's pointless. I completely fail to understand how someone could be really very interested in whether or not General Petraeus said, out loud and in so many words, that the war was unwinnable, and yet appear to be completely uninterested in the far more obvious point that the Iraq war is actually unwinnable. I really can't imagine anyone's grandchildren looking back at this time and holding this temporary moment of thoughtfulness up as a partial defense to the scorn our generation will have earned for its complete loss of judgment on the latter point.
Reid could and should have used a more positive phrase - such as we have won what we can win with the assets we have, so now we can and should leave.
Keeping US troops in the Mid East for contingencies is fine, but not at the cost of 10-20 US soldier lives a week. Once Iraq gets evacuated by US troops (after Bush leaves office), a division or so of US troops needs to be in some safer place, like Qatar, ready to swoop in as needed.
Too bad the debate cannot focus a bit more on the merits - Reid and Gen. P do not seem far apart about the limits on what US troops can and cannot do for Iraq.
Classic counter-insurgency strategy (from a US Army War College paper about the US success in Greece vs. non-success in VN) would call for 10 to 1 numerical superiority over the bad guys. That ratio does not exist if one counts just US troops and assumes there are more than say 14,000 bad guys in the 24 million. Someone might want to ask Gen. P how many bad guys he is up against (best estimate). I suspect something on the order of 45-50,000. If that is the real (conservative, prudent, professional) Pentagon estimate of what we face, then Reid seems like he is speaking truth to power.
If anyone has read what Reid has been saying, it is that Congress is insisting that there be a change of course in the conduct of the war. All Bush has done is to up the military ante. He won't negotiate with anyone in the middle east and he has no credibility with any of the parties in Iraq. This President has created the conditions that have lost this war.
And this President thinks, if his wife is to be believed, that he has suffered more than anyone as a result of this war. That's sick.
They are being ethnically cleansed by Shiite militias and death squads, who are doing this as the only way to protect their families from murder by Sunni Arab and Al Qaeda terrorists.
This is what General Petraeus said by there not being a military solution. The Shiite majority in Iraq is winning the war for us by getting rid of the Sunni Arabs, who are almost all the problem. This war is close to over due to ethnic cleansing of Iraq's Sunni Arabs. It couldn't happen to a more deserving group.
I predicted this three and a half years ago.
And now Reid's defenders are going to attack Petraeus, who is by all accounts doing a wonderful job over there. Without his leadership, our victory would be more difficult or even impossible.
Reid and his defenders want the situation in Iraq to get worse so they will have an excuse to pull out sooner and so Democrats can take the White House and expand their majorities in Congress. When Reid makes a statement about believing the war to be lost, he goes beyond passively wanting us to lose. His words give aid and comfort and encouragement to our terrorist enemies.
Blow up one marketplace full of civilians, and you're a Very Bad Man who should be punished. Blow up 100 marketplaces, and apparently Reid thinks we should surrender to you.
Unpatriotic Dems like him thought the whole "war on terrorism" thing was a great idea until he realized that our terrorist enemies were a bunch of terrorists who would keep terrorizing people until they were defeated. Which is, after all, the whole reason we declared war on Islamofascist terrorism in the first place. The fact that they blow up marketplaces and assassinate politicians and murder women is the reason we're fighting them, not a reason to give up!
(Yes, yes, I'm sure Eugene would prefer to say that Reid may have been mistaken or some such - that there is no evidence that Reid intentionally misrepresented what Petraeus said. But after you hear lie after lie from Reid, I think we can now know pretty well what Reid's intentions are here.)
It is comical to watch those argue that Petraeus and Reid said "the same thing" when everything they said has different meanings.
At what point to Petraeus say we lost and should leave?
No point.
Reid said we lost and should leave.
See the difference?
I remember a number of folks, with names like Rumsfeld and Rice, saying something to the effect that victory in Iraq could not be achieved solely by the military--back in 2004. Hasn't this been the Administration's position all along?
And yet, "We can't win this with guns alone" has been distorted into "We can't win this with guns! We've lost and must surrender!"
I just don't get it.
Reid and the Democrats are to be praised for insisting on a change in tactics. That's why most Americans (about 60%) support the Democratic efforts, and only a faith-based minority, in the face of four years of total failure, thinks pushing ahead for a military solution is adequate.
For those who are so sensitive about the morale of the troops please first define what "winning" would look like. Because what Mr. Reid spoke is at least the truth. In the absence of any concrete definition of winning (in a "real" war one wins when the "enemy" surrenders), there can only be loss.
The "surge" is just a small but vital part of what is going on right now in Iraq. As someone above pointed out, prior to General Petraeus taking over, it was being fought primarily as a combination of whack-a-terrorist and a holding action. He has switched it to counter-insurgency. This involves a lot of things, including selling the people at the ground level on the Iraqi government, us, and security. Despite the ever bigger bombs being used against innocent civilians by, in particular, al Qaeda, it seems to be working.
Indeed. What we're now beginning to see is a shameful attempt to put at least some blame for the Iraq fiasco on Dems, the "liberal MSM," etc., anybody but the people actually responsible for it. I suppose it's hard for the neo-cons who were enjoying the faux-macho sniffing at the French or contemplating treason trials for war critics at home to admit that the critics of the war were right about a whole bunch of stuff.
But it's sadly ironic that conservatives -- so quick with the "personal responsibility" rhetoric when it involves, say, the sex lives of black teenagers -- are so desperately trying to shift the blame and focus from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.
You have no credibility. You invent stuff. Name one person besides you who ever said:
"They reject the Shi'a as followers of Sadr."
Who is the "they" in that sentence?
Is it the mythical "my colleagues" that Carl Sagan invented in his October 1983 nuclear winter article in the Parade magazine Sunday newspaper supplement who allegedly supported his radiological model that caused his real TTAPS colleagues (Turco, Toon, Ackerman &Pollack) to turn on him lest their scientific careers tank with his?
You can't answer those questions, because YOU are the only one who said that. Because you can't refute what real people really said, and so invent stuff to make yourself and your arguments look better.
The long-term advantage to having soldiers based in a country that borders both Iran and Syria (and having them there essentially forever) is just way too vital to give up. Qatar is too much of a backwater hole in the wall to serve as more than a temporary base. The bad guys figured this out a long time ago. Are Reid and Pelosi too stupid to figure it out as well?
Reid and the Democrats are to be praised for insisting on a change in tactics. That's why most Americans (about 60%) support the Democratic efforts
Uh, please name the change in tactics advocated by Senator Reid. Please, I'm sure your answer will be illuminating.
You "60%" reference is both false and meaningless.
Unless you believe in government by polling, which of course you don't when it comes to issues where the public is against you...
Nailed it in one. And he’s not the only one:
No, just the strawman erected by the administration’s political opponents. Anyone who claims that the administration has ever said that all we needed was military force alone is simply lying.
The "enemy" isn't going to surrender. Some, like the Anbar tribes are just going to switch their allegience. But the foreign born al Qaeda are going to have to be rooted out, one by one, and killed or captured. They are in Iraq for Jihad against the Crusaders, willing to be martyrs for the cause, but are increasingly finding themselves fighting Arab and Kurdish Iraqis instead. Ditto for some, but probably not that many, of the Shi'a militants.
The problem is that they know that a lot of Americans look at things like you do, and are looking for a victory like we had against Japan, with the defeated meeting the victors on our battleship, and Gen. McArthur towering over the Emperor. And, so, a bomb here and there killing mostly innocent civilians is enough to discourage many here, since it is obvious that no matter how many of the enemy insurgents we kill or capture, there are always some that we missed.
My fundamental point of disagreement with the democrats (Senator Feingold and a few others not included) is this: if the war is lost, and a disaster, and resulting in any number of bad things, why then don't the democrats do the right thing, and stop funding the war entirely? That is certainly within their power to do, and even if the President vetos it, which I am sure he would, the dems can at least claim some moral high ground even if they couldnt override a veto.
Funny.
Where did you study your war history? You were in the military I'm guessing, right? Army War College, then?
You people are embarrassing.
I suppose you have some proof of this, right?
I mean, the US has done nothing but pursue a military solution according to you. Could you please then explain this?
OOPS, you can't.
Nevermind.
Make no mistake - it was the war that got Democrats into power, and it is the stubborn continuation of the war that will help them increase that power, if we're still in the same place come 2008.
If the Democrats end the war, they will own the consequences, at least to a significant extent. It could be ugly. If it's ugly enough, voters might change their minds about whether ending the war was the right thing to do. Thus, it takes political courage to bite the bullet and actually end the war.
Elections have consequences, and the Democrats are doing what they were elected to do. Good for them, since the safest course of action from a purely political perspective would be to just sit on their hands and watch the war continue to drag Republican prospects into the toilet.
I understand there are those who believe the surge is working wonderfully, and that Democrats are desperate to shut the war down because if they don't then the Republicans will be roaring in triumph by 2008. I think these are the same people who have been fooled by every other proclamation of "we've turned the corner," "we're starting to see progress," and the like, so I don't expect them to feel otherwise at this point.
Fair enough as to your position. And while I'm no conservative or libertarian, let me stress that I think there are plenty of smart, principled folks who are. That's why I come here and put up with the inevitable handful of "Dems iz idiot traitors" comments.
As for what the Dems should do, it's tough practically and politically. Practically, it's not like a quick withdrawal is will produce wonderful results. The position we're in -- or at least the position many people of good faith honestly and with considerable factual support think we're in -- has no particularly good options. So it's hard to be actively enthusiastic about a hasty withdrawal.
Politically, since even mentioning *nonbinding* goals and timetables gets the Repub. spin machine into full "they're undermining the troops and causing us to lose the war!" mode, it's also hard. Although polls showing that clear majorities would like timetables and think the Dems would be better at handling Iraq than the Repubs should give Dems some courage.
Personally, getting beyond what Reid said Petraeus said trivia, I think the Dems are right in supporting timetables and concrete goals, and setting dates for withdrawal. Bush would probably veto anything remotely like that (since "not governing by polls" apparently means "ignoring what a clear majority of the American people say they want"). But, along the lines of what you said, the Dems could show the country the differences in the approaches of the two parties.
Thanks for being Exhibit . . . well, certainly not A, but a telling Exhibit nonetheless . . . supporting my "watch the Repubs try to shift the blame for Iraq to the Dems" thesis.
Ace:
When you write, Where did you study your war history? You were in the military I'm guessing, right? Army War College, then? You people are embarrassing.
You're asking a sensible question about Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the others that created this fiasco, right?
Nice dodge, intellectual coward.
I bet you're one of these people who think that Bush did "the planning" too.
Name one Democrat who campaigned on pulling the troops out in six months.
Just one.
Please.
For reference:
I love the revisionism going on here.
And as to your statement, I bet you're one of these people who think that Bush did "the planning" too., I have no idea what "the planning" is supposed to refer to. Releveant here, Bush obviously didn't do enough planning about Iraq.
Petraeus's job isn't hard to describe: create an environment in which those who are presently attacking our troops and Iraqi citizenry no longer wish to continue, at which time real discussion, negotiation and compromise about the future of Iraq will be possible.
As things presently stand, our enemies believe they have a winning hand - if they just hold on and continue inflicting casualties (they don't care a whit about their own casualties), America (the "weak horse") will tire of the conflict, quit the field and leave Iraq to their tender mercies.
Reid reinforces their beliefs about us every time he opens his mouth. Why would they choose "compromise" when (they think) Harry Reid, et al. will deliver total victory to them soon?
I suspect an honest review of Reid's legislative career will find few - if any - occasions when, with victory at hand on a particular piece of legislation, etc., he said, "No, we're not going to win, even though we can, we're going to give our opponents a compromise they can live with."
Why in the world does he think our opponents would do otherwise?
Can you provide some evidence for this?
I think I may have misunderstood your post, and thus responded to you improperly. Apologies.
Huh?
Uh, in case you missed it, President Bush flew F-102's and was in the military.
But I'm not talking about Iraq here. You said "war" not "Iraq" to repeat: in a "real" war one wins when the "enemy" surrenders
Funny how you're trying to shift that now, huh?
I was wrong to cite Steve, but the right wing blogosphere is full of stuff like, "the blood of every soldier killed from now on is on Reid's hands!" And slightly less obviously insane versions of the same.
You write:
But I'm not talking about Iraq here. You said "war" not "Iraq" to repeat: in a "real" war one wins when the "enemy" surrenders
Funny how you're trying to shift that now, huh?
If it helps, I was not the one who said what you're quoting. So actually, not so funny.
Nice.
More mindless drivel.
Hey, do Presidents usually do "occupation planning" as a part of their job? Do they do counterinsergency planning too?
, I was not the one who said what you're quoting. So actually, not so funny.
No, you just stepped in it trying to defend it.
And, you did a piss poor job.
Try again.
Bush has created the terrible problem that in creating a vacuum of power by removing Saddam, he inevitably invited the contending factions to fight for supremacy, with us in the middle. Bush has done nothing to resolve the factional disputes, and there is probably nothing he can do. The quickest way for the internal war to end is probably for us to leave, leaving the contending parties to shape their future. It is only then that the kind of lapsing insurgency that you envision can occur.
Somewhere in the mindless insults ("intellectual coward," "mindless drivel," etc.) you began to lose credibility. Substantively, the "George Bush served in the military!" line should have clued me in that you were basically a self-parody. But your last post, in which you (i) apparently don't care that you attributed a quote to me that I didn't make AND (ii) seem to argue that Bush shouldn't have thought through the occupation part of his Iraq strategy before invading Iraq seals it. Carry on without me.
Hm, not so telling. I'm a Democrat, and I want to end the war. I just happen to think that, if a worst-case scenario plays out (not that I predict it will), the Dems won't get to pin it all on Bush for starting the war. I'm not making a moral judgment about whether it is, in fact, all Bush's fault.
Name one Democrat who campaigned on pulling the troops out in six months.
Huh? When did the Democratic position become "pull the troops out in May 2007"? The timetables in the proposed Iraq supplemental would end the war sometime next year.
The vote that put the Democrats in power was quite clearly a vote to change the course in Iraq. Had Bush simply accepted the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, that probably would have been just fine as far as the public was concerned. Since he didn't, the Democrats are opposing his surge.
You seem to imply that the Democrats have wildly exceeded their mandate, and yet there is absolutely no groundswell of shock and horror from the public regarding the Democrats' course of action. In fact, the same public which elected the Democrats continues to express approval of them, supporting my claim that the Democrats are doing what they were elected to do.
If the Democrats do, in fact, go beyond their mandate, I'm quite confident that the public has ways to make its voice heard. So far, I'm not hearing the objections.
Right, but you "support" the troops right? I mean, denigrating military service, something you would never do, mind you, is part of that "support," correct?
in which you (i) apparently don't care that you attributed a quote to me that I didn't make
Oh, forgive me, for thinking you made it when you rushed in to defend it.
Don't worry, that doesn't change the fact it is indefensible.
AND (ii) seem to argue that Bush shouldn't have thought through the occupation part of his Iraq strategy
Too bad that was never said. I didn't "seem" to argue or otherwise suggest it, clown.
As I posted above, I misread your original post and responded inaccurately too it. Apologies again.
Uh, I hope you see the contradiction here.
The legislation being written now, has an almost immediate draw-down now to get out by the end of the year.
But don't let the facts get in your way.
In fact, the same public which elected the Democrats continues to express approval of them
Hilarious.
You're on drugs, right?
Uh, "the public" didn't elect Democrats, as a majority didn't vote and the margin was by about 200,000 for this "mandate."
Otherwise, gallup has Congress with a 33% approval rating.
You seem to imply that the Democrats have wildly exceeded their mandate
They have no mandate. And that is a fact.
So far, I'm not hearing the objections
You mean other than the fact the Democrats went crazy when they had to actually vote on a non-binding resolution on an immediate pullout, right? Or do you mean that Harry Reid, et. al, won't actually cut off funding for political reasons, correct?
Thanks.
Ace: I really shouldn't, but here's a parting gift.
From your previous post (first sentence is you quoting me).
Bush obviously didn't do enough planning about Iraq
Nice.
More mindless drivel.
Hey, do Presidents usually do "occupation planning" as a part of their job?
So I repliled that you seem to argue that Bush shouldn't have thought through the occupation part of his Iraq strategy
Now you claim that you didn't "seem" to argue or otherwise suggest it, clown.
But you obviously did. Or obvious to anyone trying to follow an argument, instead of just inserting new, lame insults.
The point, of course, is that Bush should have, but didn't, do adequate planning for the occupation.
And I'll leave it at that, puppet.
Send President Bush a reflection of this in their budget.
Of coruse they won't as being re-elected is more important to them than whether or not we're actually winning or losing.
Illeterate:
"Planning" and "thought through" are two different things.
Otherwise it is "obvious"
The point, of course, is that Bush should have, but didn't, do adequate planning for the occupation
Name one President in the history of America that planned for an occupation.
Go ahead. Please. I'm begging you, clown.
And your proof of this would be ______?
Well, aside from the fact that President's don't do this (remember the "listen to the Generals" mantra? Down the memory hole, and yes, you're not bright enough to see the contradiction here), you "proof" is that there is violence in Iraq.
Wow. Overwhelming. "Reality based" and such.
The date in the conference report is March 2008 if the Iraqis meet their benchmarks, and December 2007 if they don't. Neither of those dates is "6 months" from the election in November 2006, so your question about how many Democrats campaigned on a promise to pull the troops out in 6 months remains a non sequitur.
Otherwise, gallup has Congress with a 33% approval rating.
Well, I'm not going to get into the game of dueling poll numbers, but this is interesting. According to the most recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, Congress has a 44/54 approve/disapprove rating, broken down as 39/59 for "the Republicans in Congress" and 54/44 for "the Democrats in Congress."
In any event, there will be yet another national referendum in November 2008 at which the public will have a full opportunity to declare whether the Democratic majority has done right by them.
For your part, you can continue to hold whatever opinion you like on the war, but the insistent denial that a majority of the American public is through with this war is kind of sad. Nah, there was no mandate in the last election, just a little random variance, that must be it.
War is an extension of politics. It is the last tool in your bag when diplomacy fails.
Victory comes when the otherside loses the political will to continue the fight. In WW2, we killed millions and millions of people. We obliterated the industrial complexes of the Axis powers. We nuked two of Japan's cities. We forced them into a corner, surrender or die. They chose surrender.
When the Allies looked back on the war, they felt guilt for all the human suffering they caused in the process of securing that victory. We decided to try and find a new way to fight war. "Limited War" and "Police Actions" were deemed more civilized.
What has been the result:
Korean War: The UN Forces fought Chinese and NK troops to a ceasefire. Nothing changed. South Korea and North Korea are technically at a state of war over 50 years later. US Troops are still in South Korea. Result Stalemate
Vietnam - US Leaders did not fight an all out war to defeat North Vietnam. Status Quo was all that was desired. US fought a hot prolonged war against insurgent elements and North Vietnemese regulars until the US pulled out. Result Victory for North Vietnam, US lost the political will to fight the war.
Grenada - US invaded Grenada in an overwhelming attack. Captured or killed 100% of Cuban troops on the island. Neither Grenada or Cuba had a desire to continue the fight, Victory US
Panama - US invaded Panama to replace the government. The Panamanian people didn't like their leader very much either, no political will to resist. Victory US
Gulf War I - Iraq invades Kuwait. Multi-national force led by US and Britain crush the Iraqi army. Force a ceasefire. US doesn't have the political will to crush the Iraqi government. Result - on going cat and mouse game, with periodic hostilities until Gulf War II. Iraqi government claims victory, because they are still in power. US claims victory because Iraq is no longer in control of Kuwait.
Samalia - US led peacekeeping force tries to restore order. Militant attack causes US casualties. Result - US goes home, victory insurgents.
Gulf War II - US led multinational force crushes the Iraqi military forces. Because of US tactics, insurgents feel they can win. Result, US losing the political will to continue the battle. If we pull out before there is peace, we lose.
History is written by the victors. If we don't defeat the insurgents, 20 years from now, Iraqi children will be taught that the US is a paper tiger with no will to win. That same lesson will be taught in schools every where in the world, except the US. We just won't mention it to our school children.
I don't believe that overwhelming military force is the only solution in Iraq. Diplomacy has its place. People who say that overwhelming military force can't win have never faced military power. Ask the people of 1945 Dresden, Nagasaki and Hiroshima how they felt about becoming insurgents.
But it's truly priceless when Ace labels me: "Illeterate."
The other components are not present. The only thing that is there is the military. So it can't be won militarily.
Also - it is even worse than that since I beleive that the General was one of the authors of the counter-insurgency manual that calls for ratios of soldiers to insurgents that are a multiple of what we actually have on the ground now.
So even if military power alone could solve the problem - we don't have nearly enough troops there to do the job.
By the way, does Reid reject his vote authorizing the war?
Anonymous Reader
So it's the fault of the generals on the ground? And by the way, why did you put "cabal" in quotes, given that nobody in this thread has used that term?
Crunchy Frog -- so the war is for the oil and the bases, eh? And how many lives do we spend for this war? And when will the bloodshed end? The American people didn't sign up for your war of conquest and they are demanding it end. It is Bush's job to solve the political problems in Iraq precisely for the reasons Gen. Petraeus says -- the military cannot win, there must be a political solution. Bush is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and in charge of foreign policy -- that makes it his job.
Holsinger -- I don't understand your problem with what I said. Our government doesn't like Sadr -- I think that's pretty clear. And he leads a large, well armed, faction of Shiites that is likely in the end to have substantial power in the government. We don't approve. Is that better?
Ace -- seems to me that Bush's failure to plan is abundantly clear by the fact that we're losing soldiers and marines at an increasing rate after four full years of war. Neither he nor anyone of his officers suggested before the war that it would last anywhere near this long or be this difficult. He clearly didn't plan for this before; he doesn't have a clue what to do now.
And Ace? You may have missed it, but 60% of the American people prefer the Democrats' approach to the war to Bush's. Don't believe it? Read this. That's pretty much a mandate, I'd say.
More troops CAN help, but that is not the absolute answer. More people can also be a negative thing. Ever heard the saying, too many chefs ruin the pot? Well, locking down Iraq with a soldier on every corner will be counter-productive. Let's be students of history and read about successful counter-insurgencies... THEN will you have the correct perspective from which to judge Reid's comments.
Anonymous Reader
You write: Let's be students of history and read about successful counter-insurgencies... THEN will you have the correct perspective from which to judge Reid's comments.
I'll go along with that, except instead of "Reid's comments" at the end, let's substitute "the Bush administration's prosecution of the war and occupation." Because, to get back to the real point of the thread, at the end of the day, what has happened and what will happen in the near future in Iraq is on Bush, not Reid.
I'm not saying it's the General's fault. I'm just saying that military planning isn't done in a vacuum. I personally know that planning was undertaken for many post Saddam scenarios, but if you cannot plan for every contingency. It's very easy to say, "well, so and so predicted this... and so and so predicted that..." but that's all pissing in the wind. People predict all sorts of things, do we give the guy who holds up a sign, "The End is Near" any credit if he's right? Come on, let's be realistic.
Anonymous Reader
You weren't paying attention, apparently, but fortunately the pipes that make up the internet never grow weary:
I ask ... for your patience in what will be a long struggle. [2001]
Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch. [2002]
War on terror going to be ‘a long war’: Bush [2005]
This war will be difficult, this war will be long... [2006]
I'm pretty sure that Rumsfeld personally threatened to fire anyone who made plans, even a contingency plan, for an extended occupation.
More to the point, I'm not a big fan of the perspective that gives the leaders all the credit for good news, but looks for little people to blame for the bad news. After we've been reminded about 10000 times that Bush is the commander-in-chief, it's a little late in the day to start parsing words and arguing that he's not the guy who actually sits there drafting the plans.
Anonymous Reader
Your deceptive quotes are simply not true, as anyone who was there remembers.
First, I'll repeat that I think wars and even counterinsurgencies are won/lost primarily on the basis of actual tactical realities. Baghdad Bob could claim that Saddam was slaughtering U.S. troops, but folks there knew it wasn't true. And being able to kill a couple hundred folks in or around the Green Zone is motivating the folks that do that to do more of that a lot more than anything Reid says.
I would also refer to the folks earlier in the thread that mentioned things like Abu Gharib as being more of a motivator for the bad guys than anything Reid could say.
Second, we shouldn't talk about this conflict like it's the U.S. vs. a specific bunch of bad guys/enemies. There really is a civil war going on there. Sunnis and Shiites are fighting each other, and to that extent often don't care whether some Senator in the U.S. thinks that the U.S. is winning, losing, or drawing.
And nobody alleged this.
You do know when people are sworn in, right?
but the insistent denial that a majority of the American public is through with this war is kind of sad.
Uh, you citing a sub-set of one poll is hardly proof of anything.
Further, why didn't the Democrats campaign on this?
Funny how you can't anser that, huh?
From the author of:
Your deceptive quotes are simply not true
Yes, you're not bright enough to see the hilarity.
How do quotes become "deceptive" anyway? Oh, when you cut them off.
Sort of like you did, clown.
to say you're intellectually dishonest is being kind.
Uh, what is the "Democrats approach" exactly? Tell me.
I'd love to know.
Repeating "change of tactics" (which is a lie, leaving isn't a "tactic") isn't an "approach." It's the lack of one.
You changing the definition of "mandate" is pathetic and sad as well.
As already noted, ~200,000 votes out of millions cast would have changed the balance of the Senate. Some mandate there.
How about this "mandate"
Right. I mean why actually deal with facts, correct?
Let's all sit here and pretend Bush did, or is supposed to "plan" the occupation because it's "late in the day" or whatever.
I just re-read that.
Funny.
Why would you? It doens't support your false statement. I don't blame you.
What you should be asking yourself is if there is some "mandate" why Democrats didn't win more seats?
Or, why Democrats were running in agreement with Bush on the issue of Iraq?
No matter those pesky facts, talking points man! Talking points.
Webb over Allen by 7,231 votes out of 2,338,111 cast.
Tester over Burns by 2,847 votes out of 393,757 cast.
McCaskill over Talent by 45,811 out of 2,048287 cast.
I actually over shot with 200K. The Dems have a 55,889 vote "mandate"
After a majority of them capaigned as Republican lite.
And Bush and Powell said repeatedly that the war would be over in months, and that 'by August' they would have a constitution and we would be out. Wolfowitz claimed that Iraqi oil money would reimburse us for the total cost of the war. We wouldn't even need many military men because it would be so easy. So: it would be an easy, cheap, war, with few if any casualties on our side. Saddam would be gone, a democracy installed in Iraq, and this would create a domino effect on the region.
Of course, nothing, and I mean NOTHING, went according to this plan. They got absolutely everything wrong. Remember, we would be greeted with flowers? Now it's become bogged down, and Bush STILL has no exit plan. There is no strategy. Remember how generals and others were begging Bush to increase the troop levels, but Bush said no we will keep them the same? Now, after several years, he wanted a surge, which was opposed by a majority of Americans, and the Commission and the other experts begged him not to do it? Yet he did, and we are still waiting for the hopefor results.
At some point you guys have to give it up. Admit that Bush and Cheney got us into a debacle and they have no idea what to do next. Okay, okay -- continue the snipping at Reid and the Democrats.
But at the end of the day, complaining about the democrats isn't going to win you this war.
SO: Our next step should be to discuss, HOW can we either win this war, or extricate ourselves without causing further damage. At least Reid is attempting an answer. it might be right, it might be wrong. It might be supported by American, or it might not be. At least it's a start, though, because up until now Bush has done a piss poor job of prosecuting this war.
If the children can't run this war, then they should step aside and let some grown ups have at it.
"When important people in government say things like that [i.e., what Reid said], it undermines our will to fight."
I hear this sort of thing consistently from supporters of the war and it strikes me as the same sort of easily-made-but-impossible-to-support statement as candidate Bush's "the military is demoralized" refrain. We've been debating this war - often with harsh and "undermining" rhetoric - for the last four years. Is there any evidence that soldiers or commanders haven't worked hard (or as hard as they could) because of it?
And, what if this sort of language is, indeed, "undermining"? If one agrees that Sen. Reid is entitled - both personally and in his official capacity - to oppose this war and that he is entitled to take actions to stop it, how is he supposed to do that without, at first, saying that he thinks it's a waste of time, money and lives? Our process simply isn't such that everyone votes in silence and then it's over. You just can't get from A to B without some measure of politics. If that's somehow "undermining" (a fact that would reflect fairly negatively on what is supposed to be the best army in the world) then so be it.
If the solution to the Iraq issue is diplomacy with whom do we negotiate and what should be our bargaining strategy? If the solution to the Iraqi issue is political, what political steps are required to create a solution?
Forget for a moment that you are a Republican or Democrat and discuss for a moment how either of these two approaches should be used to deal with the enemy combatants... of which there are many: Sadr-ists, Ba'athists, Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Islamists of multiple nationalities and stripes to name just a few. Is there any amount of negotiation that could ensure a stable Iraq and allow a nation to rebuild and defend itself without interference with any of these groups? If there is an answer out there, I certainly would like to hear it... because frankly I would like to see our boys home. But from where I sit (in the cheap seats) I honestly don't see a political or diplomatic solutions with any of the multiple enemies who are hell-bent on seeing failure in Iraq. The reason -- their position is a non-negotiable one: the West must die and we will die trying to achieve our goal.
My understanding of the Patreaus quote is simply: military to push out (or destroy) the enemy... politics and diplomacy to attempt to befriend the non-combatants to give them an opportunity to rebuild. My understanding of the Reid quote is simply: military action doesn't work. The situation is unwinnable, ergo we must leave. He completely ignores the other 2/3rds of Patreaus' ideas. All the backpedaling and deflection he attempts doesn't change the substance of the message he believes... the U.S. has lost.
And frankly, until the war weary interject a solution that would ensure stability in Iraq, hinder the islamists, reign in the Syrian, Iranian, and Saudi governments, quell anger and revenge between the varying Iraqi factions, ensure the safety of our troops, AND ensure the safety of our civilians back home... they should STFU and do their best to see that the only solution present on the table is followed through to the best implementation that can done.
Uh, we were.
More here.
More here.
The only question is, why are you so ignorant to basic facts?
Of course, nothing, and I mean NOTHING, went according to this plan.
You mean other than the fact we defeated Iraq's army in 3 weeks, right?
If victory is possible but not assured, presumably the way to victory is to fight until the other side's will to go on collapses. Announcing an intention to give up at some particular point is just a terrible negotiating strategy.
I suspect its main attraction is that it seems like a compromise. Can anyone defend such a strategy in its own terms (ie with something more than an attack on Bush)?
The problem isn't really demoralizing our own troops, though that is an issue, but rather the opposite of demoralizing (remoralizing? moralizing?) the insurgents. As has been pointed out above, the party that wins an insurgency is the last one still fighting. The last one with a will to win. So, while the American troops may be a bit demoralized, al Quaeda, et al. are energized by it. They now know that if they just hunker down a bit longer, we will leave, regardless of the state of affairs in Iraq. And that would mean that we would lose then.
I disagree that "leaving" - "losing."
The question is: what is better for the long term interests of the United States, leaving now, surging, or doing something else? If leaving is the best thing for us, how is that losing?
It seems to that the "leaving = losing" position looks at things from the insurgents'/terrorists' perspective without considering our own interests. If leaving now is best for us in the long term *and* something that the insurgents/terrorists also want, should we stay just to piss them off? Of course not.
Perhaps you'd like Bush to stand in the Iraq Parliament building making speeches? He doesn't seem to be having much success solving the American political problem, does he? Sheesh.
Can't anyone see farther ahead than the next polling cycle?
From the movie Tremors: "Running's not a plan, it's what you do when the plan fails."
Just a (probably lame) attempt to lighten things up.
Yes, some Shia and some Sunni oppose our presense. But you state it as a universal. It isn't. Plenty like us being there - some of the Baghdad Sunni are very happy, as we are the primary force keeping them alive right now, and have recently allowed some to even move back into the neighborhoods they vacated under Shi'a pressure.Well, except for the small problem that if we leave, the Sunni Arabs, esp. around Baghdad, will be butchered. And our "allies" the Saudis, plus Syria, Jordan, and maybe even Egypt may feel forced to intervene to protect the Sunni Arabs from being butchered. And then Iran would have to intervene to protect the majority Shi'a, etc.
The technical term for it is "ethnic cleansing". The Sunni Arabs in Iraq, esp. around Baghdad are being pushed out. They asked for it by aiding and abetting the indiscriminate murder of Iraqi civilians by their terrorists, and are now getting their just rewards. It was happening fairly quickly over the last year before the "surge". Now it is under pretty good control. But if we pull out too quickly, it will renew.
Sure, under Saddam, the country was more stable. But that doesn't mean that most of the Iraqis would prefer to live under him than not. Rather, that honor is pretty much limited to the Sunni Arab minority that ruled over everyone else then. And that rule was pretty brutal and bloody, even by Middle East standards.
Having said that, Reid's comments only embolden the insurgents. Not to beat a dead horse, but they CANNOT win militarily! But they can definitely win politically and when are will to win is broken... they will have won.
Also, you have to stop looking at the Iraqi people through American colored lenses. Try to look at it through their "eyes" understanding their culture and social lives. They know that if they help the coalition, they put themselves as well as their lives at risk. Hell, look at us here in the states, does "Stop snitching" mean anything to you? At least here, there aren't murderous gangs running around killing your entire family, it's not the same there. They don't have the same opportunities to go into a "witness protection program" or anything like that. So when they make a stand with the coalition, they put their lives and that of their family at risk. They deserve our respect and help.
Anonymous Reader
I don't know if this is what Petraeus actually, said, but if it is, Reid's statement doesn't seem inaccurate. Although it is somewhat ambiguous, since it can be seen to mean either: (1) this war can't be won by military means alone; politics and diplomacy will be more important in securing a victory (which is what I think P. basically meant); or (2) our military isn't up to winning this war.
However, the military usually is the element which provides the space--in several senses--for the other elements to consolidate the eventual victory.
Seems pretty straightforward, as is the assumption that Reid--may he rot--would take it as saying the war can't be won. A lie.
This is a lie of course as President Bush did no such thing.
You have every right to your opinion and you may be right for all I know. But, the military people I know (all soldiers who have fought in Iraq) tell me that it is going to be a tough, long job, but that we can do it and we should do it.
I find it odd that soldiers who fight love the Iraqi people while liberals who love everyone can't stand the Iraqi people. When we left Vietnam a million people or so were slaughtered. We don't seem to care. Fine. But, David et al, please be honest when you say you want us to leave and add "and I don't care how many Iraqi's die after we are gone including all of those who have stepped up to build a democracy. Men, women, cildren; I don't care"
Best estimates are 250,000 to 1 million will be killed. If you don't care, that is fine. But, just admit it. And, if we do leave and it happens, don't pretend you didn't cause it and don't wring you hands over it.
Snitching in Iraq - you may be killed, your family may be killed/tortured then killed, your extended family may receive the same fate.
Think about the stakes.
Anonymous Reader
(re your 738 post)
Have you considered the possibility that Senator Reid is correct? Your rule - that politicians should refrain from war-related speech that "undermines" the troops - would seem to include even that speech which is true. If that's the case, the cost to our country, in perpetuating poor policy, far outweighs the immediate on-the-ground benefits.
Yes, I have considered that. But, what credibility does Sen Reid have on fighting a counter-insurgency? He has to prove that he has the knowledge to speak intelligently about the situation. But from my viewpoint, it seems that he's just spouting off talking points that are easy to sell. Anyone who knows anything about counterinsurgencies know that it takes time. Saying we lost just because people are getting killed reveals an ignorance of how this type of war is conducted.
Before you say, "Well, what type of credibility does Pres Bush have on the subject?", well, probably none. But he has a whole lot more smart people who are steeped in warfare to advise him and generate the operational plans. He just has to lay out his strategic vision and the professional soldiers do the rest, with his input and direction.
Anonymous Reader
Pres. Bush may have the ghosts of Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln sitting next to him - but they're not doing him a lick of good. You're right, I am going to say that Pres. Bush has no credibility because he doesn't have any. And that's just not a subjective opinion - it's a fact. A strong majority of the people of this country do not believe this man - not necessarily because they view him as a liar or impute ill motives to him, though some do - but because he has consistently failed to deliver. Why should we keep giving this guy more chances?
You ask, why should he have more chances? Here's how I look at it. George Bush gets blamed for everything... partly rightly so. But he gets blamed for everything, "buck stops here" and all that. But damn, do people actually think he has the time or energy to micromanage everything little thing? People say he didn't