In Danger Of Complicity

"Sisters of Mercy" by Peter Howson 1989, The Cleveland Museum of Art, Ohio

 

I love clear and concise summaries that accurately portray often highly complex situations. It would be a mistake to interpret this attraction as some kind of lack of attention or, far worse, lack of interest in the nitty-gritty of detail. Far from it, the most successful campaigns in virtually all aspects of our lives have been characterized by a concise and clear understanding and the effective communication of such summaries.

'Iran Hostage Crisis, Take 2', is exactly the kind of clear and concise summary which fascinates me:

If the U.S. backs down in Iraq, Tehran's mullahs will move in and take the Middle East captive.

If the antiwar crowd and Democrats have their way, the United States will be Iran's hostage once again. An immediate pullout from Iraq would be a victory for Iran, a regime that has declared its ambitions to wipe Israel off the map and establish a  caliphate throughout the Middle East. If we allow democracy to be defeated in Iraq, it will only get harder to release Iraq and perhaps the greater Middle East from the grip of its would-be rulers in Tehran.

Decades ago, the United States underestimated the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's appeal to the Iranian masses and his ability to convert the latent hostility to modernism into political clout. Khomeini overthrew the shah and took more than 50 Americans hostage, thus delivering a significant blow to U.S. prestige and clout in the Middle East.

Now the U.S. is underestimating Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his willingness to use proxies — Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Muqtada Sadr in Iraq. In the short term, Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians and Israelis are paying for this sneaky strategy with their lives, but in the long term, it is the United States that will suffer the most. [...]

Iraq is the crucial test of Iran's ambitions. [...]

It makes sense, therefore, that the first line of defense against Iran's ambitions is a stable, democratic Iraq, which would provide a formidable counterbalance to Iran. A pro-Western Iraq that develops its economic ties throughout the Middle East and beyond would compete over growing markets for oil with Iranian economic interests. More important, a democratic Iraq would be a long-sought beacon for the oppressed Shiites of the world, an alternative to the appeal of extremist Iran.

The U.S. military's presence in Iraq keeps Iran in check. An immediate pullout, as prescribed by antiwar liberals and demagogic Democrats, would leave Iraq to Iran — and to the likes of Al Qaeda. And that would be a hostage-taking far more harmful to the United States than the one that happened in Tehran nearly 30 years ago.

Contrast that against the intensifying rhetoric against Israel in the MSM, gradually paving the way for a time, when her existence may be questioned openly by so called respectable members of the chattering classes, always of course under the strictest pretext of wishing to earnestly explore ways to finally return peace to the Middle East. Poppycock...

Hamas mobilized candidates and popular campaigns to win a plurality in Palestinian legislative elections and formed a new government. Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt achieved similar electoral successes. And with these developments, a sudden chill fell over Washington and other Western capitals.

Instead of welcoming these particular elected officials into the newly emerging democratic fold, Washington began a cold war on Muslim democrats.

Calling the murdering thugs at Hamas and Hezbollah 'Muslim democrats' is beyond reasonable debate; it's either ignorant or deliberately and deviously misleading.

To omit the central reason, why far too few enlightened leaders in the West felt a 'sudden chill' in light of Hamas and Hezbollah's election wins, is of course highly indicative. To omit explaining, that these so called 'Muslim democrats', a term they would by the way reject as utterly dishonorable and degrading, only nurture and support their respective electorates in preparation for ultimately bringing about Israel's destruction, reveals the true agenda.

Whether consciously or not, failure to highlight at all times, that their genocidal mission is still their most sacred and solemnly sworn goal, is synonymous with being complicit and in collusion with these murdering Islamofascists.

And statements like "These groups, parties and movements [Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations] are not inimical to democracy. They have accepted electoral systems and practiced electoral politics [yeah, like assassinating scores of opposition leaders], probably too well for Washington's taste [too right]. Whether we like it or not, these are the facts. The rest of the Western world must come to grips with the new reality, even if the U.S. president and his secretary of state continue to reject the new offspring of their own policies," is tantamount to asking us to accept the annihilation of Israel as inevitable.

Little surprise therefore to hear the Iranians say, "Lebanon has proven that there’s no military solution to the problem in the Middle East". Which again means, accept the inevitable.

But we shall not accept any such thing, we shall never abandon Israel and instead will deny Iran the opportunity to ultimately trick the West.

And don't get me started on the war crimes story. What nonsense.

Comments

[gringoman]

GD,

I was looking for your own words, especially to see if there's any difference between your Bush critique and the standard party version of the Democrats and their MSM "helpers" and their other dependable hacks (or do you find the still very powerful MSM more full of Pub than Dem weltanschauung?) But now that Alexandra has caught you out (again, right?) fudging the clear distinction between what is your input and what is taken from somebody else without proper attribution, I'm going to pass on that. Maybe another time. . This is not impulse, and God forbid I get picayune, or seem to pick on you. Others have caught you out too, have they not? So this is an issue. (If I'm incorrect, be sure to correct me.) I've seen this charge against you before, and not just from the steely-eyed Alexandra, and I do not recall a defense from you more persuasive than to tell her she's "value-added," as if the lady were taxing you. I can respond to paste, so long as it's not too pasty.........

(And for clarification, if you've found anything in my critique of The Bashed One which suggests hope or optimism about his bashers and the Dhimmicrats(I mean the usual suspects) I wish you'd point it out. Maybe I missed it.) Could the Dems become relevant again post-9.11? Well, could a Republican have survived Chappaquidick politically in this MSM universe? Could Senator Kennedy have had the decency to retire from political life after his famous "swim"? Could Butch Clinton ever equal the head-to-toe slickness of her life-raft Bubba? Could lefty loonies ever admit that maybe Karl Rove did not invent Osama Bin Laden and that maybe Bush did not take down the Twin Towers as a re-election ploy?......... Sure, these things may be hypothetically possible. But you don't hold your breath waiting for them.

ps. I will get to your Tom Friedman pasties. Doubt not. They're too good to resist. And don't worry about the delay. They've got shelf life.

[Patrick]

GD,

I agree on your responsibilities assessment.

I also agree that mistakes have been made. NO ONE will deny that mistakes were made. What I don't agree with is the judgement of decisions based upon what is the "current truth". As we in the military say, the truth has a date time group (what was true today, was not true three days ago). Unfortunately, we humans never get to arrive at an indisputable truth (unless it is a statement of action, not intention or blame), like our discussions on the use of the A-bomb. Many things continue to be discovered constantly changing what we thought we knew to be the truth. The "truths" about that decision after it happened were different at the 5 year, 20 year, and 50 year marks. The indisputable truth is that an a-bomb was detonated over this Japanese city. That is the action. How about the intent? How about the reasons? Who was the incompetent leader?

When you "judge" someone's decision (military, politician, doctor...), you should judge his decision on what he knew, what his perception of the situation was, etc. We will not have the perspective of today's actions for 40 to 50 years (if ever). One of the challenges for historians is the transition of government agencies from memos (archived carbons) to email. There is concern that historians will never gain a clear idea of what went on in the government in years to come because of the transition to electronic media.

[gringoman]

GD,

Thank you for the response. I want to get to it, and plan to get to it but can't right now. Do hold on. (The opportunities on Tom Friedman alone---from your quotes of him, anyway--- are really too enticing to pass up, and I prefer to stay condensed in response.)

John Wemtz:

A quick reply to Amir Taheri without. admittedly, giving him the thorough examination he no doubt deserves: MSM Kool-Aid? A sober military analyst and expert like Lt. Col. Ralph Peters is not known to have a taste for that beverage. His earlier pessimistic assessment of Israel's not being prepared for Hezbollah in Lebanon has appeared so on target that naturally MSM will follow suit eventually, just as gringovision did much earlier.

I get the sense that Amir Taheri is a pretty sharp and knowledgeable guy on Middle East. But he's talking apples and oranges here. Or maybe we should say dates and pomegranites? (With his expertise, he must surely know the difference.) My point: Sure Hezbollah lost, and sure, Hezbollah won. Sure Hezbollah took grave losses (I'm willing to accept the heaviest loss figures Tahiri can come up with.) But, as everyone knows, the Vietcong and Communists in Tet 68 back in the 'Nam took tremendous losses--arguably far greater than what Israel has been able to inflict on the Hezbos---and the results? Practically the whole world declared it an American loss and a Communist victory. It was not, you say? Of course it was not. We can all quote the Communist General admitting the defeat, right? And yet it was not a "defeat" defeat. Even the most pro-American assessment would have to admit that despite the huge body count, the head of that dragon was never cut off.

And I think everyone by now knows what eventually came back to bite again, and lead Vietnam victoriously into its subsequent Decades of Doldrum and Despair, free of the "colonialsts" and the "ïmperialists" and their "puppets."

[Ghost Dansing]

Well Patrick...the plans don't have to be SO wrong.

There are responsiblities as a soldier, and responsiblities as a citizen...and American Citizens make sure American Soldiers have competent political leadership, and ensure the political leadership is held to account for their effectiveness.

[Kenny]

Just thought I'd say I'm enjoying listenin' in.

A not very important point, but it struck me to wonder how eager Mr. Friedman is to open up the continental shelves for domestic oil production.

[Michael van der Galien]

No plan has ever survived contact with the enemy. We naturally assume that our intelligence and threat templates will be wrong. Not that they will be completely wrong (as in attacking the Faulklands instead of Iraq), but wrong in many of the eaches and alls. The organization that responds to one purpose will react to the changing situation most efficently (only one person steers the ship).

I once read something very much like that. Went something like: the 'party' that will deal with unexpected circumstances best, wins. I believe it was in a book written by a military person, or wíth a military person, something like that.

[RunningRoach]

Patrick,

Very well stated, as usual.

JCC

[John Werntz]

Like many another, this writer has drunk deeply of the MSM Kool-Aid regarding Hezbollah's startling victory in the Lebanon conflict.  Now comes Mr. Amir Taheri to set the record straight. Writing in the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal of Friday, August 25, 2006, Mr. Taheri states flatly that Hezbollah Didn't Win, and bolsters his case with ample evidence observed on the scene in Beirut and elsewhere in Lebanon and the Middle East.

This posting will merely reproduce his introductory remarks and the conclusion:

The way much of the Western media tells the story, Hezbollah won a great victory against Israel and the U.S., healed the Sunni-Shiite rift, and boosted the Iranian mullahs' claim to leadership of the Muslim world. Portraits of Hassan Nasrallah, the junior mullah who leads the Lebanese branch of this pan-Shiite movement, have adorned magazine covers in the West, hammering in the message that this child of the Khomeinist revolution is the new hero of the mythical "Arab Street."

Probably because he watches a lot of CNN, Iran's "Supreme Guide," Ali Khamenei, also believes in "a divine victory." Last week he asked 205 members of his Islamic Majlis to send Mr. Nasrallah a message, congratulating him for his "wise and far-sighted leadership of the Ummah that produced the great victory in Lebanon."

By controlling the flow of information from Lebanon throughout the conflict, and help from all those who disagree with U.S. policies for different reasons, Hezbollah may have won the information war in the West. In Lebanon, the Middle East and the broader Muslim space, however, the picture is rather different. [snip]

Having lost more than 500 of its fighters, and with almost all of its medium-range missiles destroyed, Hezbollah may find it hard to sustain its claim of victory. "Hezbollah won the propaganda war because many in the West wanted it to win as a means of settling score with the United States," says Egyptian columnist Ali al-Ibrahim. "But the Arabs have become wise enough to know TV victory from real victory."

Would  that we all, and CNN especially, could say the same.

Readers owe it to themselves to follow the first link up top and make up their own minds.

Note: This comment is cross-posted from Old War Dogs not because it's on topic, but because it's relevant. There's a difference. John

[Patrick]

CNR,

I will second you. To comment intelligently on military operations requires no military experience.

To "judge" military operations and the decision made, should. I would no more judge a fireman, doctor, lawyer, or even a politician. I will comment on my perspective on their actions, but know quite well I am not capable of judging them.

I think everyone should be able to put forth their perspective, as long as they have an open mind for other perspectives. As we all know, those that do have the military experience will also disagree on the eaches and alls. There is never only one right answer to any problem.

Washington listened well to his subordinates (even those he knew where trying to overthrow his leadership). He, like any good commander, knows the difference of perspectives can create new and more effective options. In the end, it will still be that commander's decision that lives will be destroyed implementing.

We should not pursue the chimera of the perfect decision, but only look for its cousin, a good decision. It is ludicrous for us to attack decision makers after the fact for not finding that chimera. It leads to paralysis through analysis and the gives us the perfect option 10 minutes too late. Too bad he wouldn't accept the 80% solution with enough time to implement it. So let us take more time from the next decision that must be made so that some can hear the current administration publically announce each failure or justify with enough detail why each action was not a failure, thereby violating operational security. This ensures more failures and more public flogging.

If those are the standards we should be judged by, then the French are right. War is always a failure. BTW, I am not French and I do not subscribe to that defeatist rhetoric.

[Patrick]

GD,

Let me put a little piece here on the philosophy behind the unity of command and why we support decisions made. I will be, by no means, speaking for everyone. This is not official Army doctrine, but only my attempt to explain those interactions to a non-indoctrinated individual.

In any operation, there must be a single command and vision for the operation. All subordinates work within this commander's intent and they should know that intent at least two echelons up. We are, after all, a hierarchical organization. We do not need to know the intent at every echelon and how it all meshes together. It would be nice, but if we did, our entire existence would be philosophical debate, what if analysis, and no action would ever happen. If you want to see a truly unhappy military man, just put him in one too many power-point briefings on topics non-related to his mission.

Are some orders absolutely stupid? It depends on your perspective and how organizations work. As someone who has had to give orders that are foolish from my subordinates perspective (2d platoon defend this piece of c*** terrain that has extremely limited fields of fires, and puts you at great risk) that make perfect sense at the battalion level (if 2d Platoon defends forward at terrain that is better, they will unhinge the battalion defense giving the enemy an easy seam to split; if they stay put and we are attacked we can quickly reinforce them with the QRF because of the advantage of interior lines); I know how easy it is to blame everything on those idiots at Brigade (or higher) instead of supporting the commander's vision. If I were just a weasel, I would not “own” the decision, only tell them to do it because Bde said so. Sometimes, there is not time to explain the reasons and integration that went into that decision, and the subordinate only has time to receive his orders, and move out to execute if it will be accomplished in time (this is where lots of the complaining comes from-doing something that looks not too bright at your level, hoping that those who planned it really did know what they were doing). Could someone make a case in that situation that I was a tactical ignoramus (if we ignored everything else/cherry picked the conditions)? You bet. I would be the first to agree with that, but only if I refused to consider the larger picture.

The continued success in training and in combat operations develops a bond of brotherhood, faith, and trust that we hold so dear. It is also why we vigorously punish infractions that in the civilian world would be overlooked. We need these bonds of honor and trust to ensure that orders will be followed without question when needed. Sometimes, there just isn't time to explain anything.

If you look at any of the studies of veterans as far back as you want to go, the trigger is pulled, the sword is swung for his fellow soldier when the fight actually occurs. The reasons why he is a soldier and why he is a soldier at this time and place have to do with multiple individual reasons such as national pride, worthy cause, and sometimes even money; but the reason he stands fast, and pulls the trigger when he lower brain is screaming that it is time to run away because you are about to die, is because to do so would harm the brother on the left and right. Together, you can overcome almost anything. This trust is not given easily and if it is ever abused, the unit morale crumbles. It is why we trust our leaders to be working toward goals we might not know, and we usually understand that we will never have all the information they have. (We could debate democracies and republics here and the trust required to make a republic work.)

Does this mean we have no input and are just stupid automatons? Absolutely not. There are certain orders that are unlawful and we never have to obey. We also deal with anyone who has given an unlawful order quite swiftly. Most of the fellow leaders I have served with have abided by the “Rule of One”. When the order is given, you ask for a brief-back to ensure you subordinates understand their orders and give them a chance to ask questions. Every subordinate is allowed (and encouraged) to voice his concerns and offer and alternative. If they cannot offer an alternative, we precede. We do not allow constant grousing with no proposed alternative. When you constantly point out flaws in the plan but offer no alternatives, all you do is destroy morale. There is a time and a place for those comments (training, after action reviews, but not during the operation). You have one chance to convince your superior of another way (the Rule of One). After that point, execute the mission. Can you revisit this when situations change? You bet, if there is time to listen, and implement a change.

What if that commander's vision is wrong you ask? Generally it doesn’t matter that much. I think I just lost several of you. Let me remind you of a few military truisms. (1) A large, complex entity is more effective at fighting a single foe (having a single purpose). (2) No plan has ever survived contact with the enemy. We naturally assume that our intelligence and threat templates will be wrong. Not that they will be completely wrong (as in attacking the Faulklands instead of Iraq), but wrong in many of the eaches and alls. The organization that responds to one purpose will react to the changing situation most efficently (only one person steers the ship). Clint Eastwood is a good example of this in Unforgiven. He is the most effective gun-fighter because he focuses and destroys one threat after another. He quickly assessed the situation and sequentially addressed the greatest threat, went to the next, then went to the next. His many opponents were worrying about protecting themselves, reloading, etc. Even if that vision is initially wrong, it can adapt more easily if its command structure remains intact. His one purpose is to destroy what is in front of him and then move on to the next threat. Of course, he was also just a mean drunk…:-)

If you have allowed every subordinate element to make its own plans in a vacuum, you cannot shift their course to the new threat. You cannot fight as one. In 2d platoon's case, the enemy might exploit their weak position and they need to move forward. Pretty soon, each subordinate has addressed what is the greatest threat to them and there is no longer a unified defense. So instead of the enemy needing a 3-1 advantage to defeat a defending force, they can beat you at 1-1 odds since you have given up your unity combat multiplier.

This brings me to people who want to revisit decisions. I presented earlier that my support of a higher echelon plan caused me to be a "tactical ignoramus". Let us look at another, more common situation. Shooting of a child in day to day police activities here in the States. The police officer that shot the child aiming a squirt gun at him is judged by his peers and the situation he perceived, not by the mother of the child.

You serve a warrant on a deadly felon wanted for violent murder. Through your police experience you know that most violent criminals keep their guns in two places (bedroom and couch/chair they watch TV at). You serve the warrant, lights are off, felon is not in living room, you precede to bedroom, you see a silhouette with a gun pointed at you and you shoot. Did you shoot a child who was holding a toy gun? Yes. Will you have to live with that nightmare for the rest of your life? Yes. Are you probably now too gun shy to work on tactical teams for awhile (might hesitate and cost someone his life)? Yes. Should you be sent to jail for criminal behavior? No. Everyone of his peers will look at the information he had available when he made his decision and judge him on that. They will not judge him on what was known after the fact. E.g. The police should have known the felon was passed out in the bathtub, high on heroin or crack instead of in the bedroom. SWAT teams hit those two locations first, since that is where the guns are kept, not the bathroom.

Will the mother of that child ever believe that the police officer was not in the wrong and intentionally hurt her child? Never.

So, GD, the difference with the “pom pom pumping cheerleaders” and our judgment of the administration and military “sins” is the difference between the views of those who go in to remove murderous thugs and those that sleep with them...

I guess both points are valid?

[RunningRoach]

Alexandra,

Thank you.

Regards,

JCC

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

I would like to clarify that I do not for a minute place myself above those who do not have any military experience (heck I really don't have anything compared to some who were in Vietnam, the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan), so Michael, please don't feel that you have to look up to me just because I was once a soldier. Dwight D. Eisenhower led a pretty good Operation Overlord, having no combat experience himself, if I remember correctly.

I like to think it isn't military experience that qualifies one to comment intelligently on war. It is the capacity for military experience, that is required. Some people have it (like most of Alexandra's posters here at ATB). Others, like most of the shrieking Left, do not. ;o)

Sorry, couldn't resist that last little dig. Well, we do gotta have some fun!

[Michael van der Galien]

Crusader: I agree completely with you. I'm not in the military, yet would I be in the military, I wouldn't want the 'panic' type surrounding me, whose view is that the battle is lost anyway: we'd better give up now.

However; it's not just a problem in the military, it's also a problem in politics. Especially in times of war.
Constantly talking defeat is of course allowed, but the only thing it can possibly do, is to spread the defeatist mentality and, as a result, cause a defeat. Not because it's necessary, but because people simply give up.
Criticize the political leaders all you want to, but stop talking this incredible defeatist crap. It doesn't do any good, it doesn't serve any purpose...

It's fascinating to see how people like John Kerry are great at saying what other people are doing wrong, but are not able to come up with a good, comprehensive plan themselves. They just bitch and complain, but that's it.
That's also why Kerry will never stand a chance at getting himself elected for President. He's got no plan. Well, that's not true, he's got a plan:
WITHDRAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!
When you ask, okay, but what do we do afterwards, he says:
Umh.. afterwards?... umh... WITHDRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW

That's his 'plan' for ya.

The Democrats will make themselves irrelevant if they nominate Kerry, I can tell you that.

[Ghost Dansing]

Thanks Alexandra... You're a real value-added :)

[Alexandra]

Ghost,

Friedman supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, saying that the establishment of a democratic state in the Middle East might force other countries to liberalize and modernize as well, although he has since expressed alarm over the conduct of the war by the George W. Bush administration. Nevertheless, until his August 4th 2006 piece, his columns remained at least open to the possibility of a positive outcome to the Iraq conflict.

If you are going to copy paste from Wikipedia could you please at least put quotes where they belong. Someone else has written that paragraph at the end of your comment and should have the credit for it, especially as you have taken out the "(see below)" which in the original comes after "Nevertheless, until his August 4th 2006 piece..."

[Ghost Dansing]

"Here's what I'd like you to clarify, if you feel it's not asking too much.....Is there anything in your critique of The Bashed One which you would say is not a Democrat(ic) Talking Point, either actually or potentially? If so, could you kindly specify?"

Gringoman, you are correct.

Most things Dubya does makes for excellent talking points for the Democratic Party. You are right in pointing out his extraordinary fairlures in policy, both foreign and domestic.

In the last year and a half, more and more Republicans have also begun distancing themselves from Dubya politically, because the White House rhetoric lacks more and more correlation to real world events...the Republican politicians can no longer follow the "Party Line".

I like Tom Friedman's recent remarks:

Friedman: "...The Democratic mainstream is nowhere near as dovish as critics depict. Truth be told, some of the most constructive, on-the-money criticism over the past three years about how to rescue Iraq or improve the broader “war on terrorism” has come from Democrats, like Joe Biden, Carl Levin, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Bill Clinton."

Friedman:"But whatever you think of the Democrats, the important point is this: They are not the party in power today."

Friedman: "What should really worry the country is not whether the Democrats are being dragged to the left by antiwar activists who haven’t thought a whit about the larger struggle we’re in. What should worry the country is that the Bush team and the Republican Party, which control all the levers of power and claim to have thought only about this larger struggle, are in total denial about where their strategy has led."

Friedman: "Not only is there no honest self-criticism among Republicans, but — and this is truly contemptible — you have Dick Cheney & Friends focusing their public remarks on why Mr. Lamont’s defeat of Mr. Lieberman only proves that Democrats do not understand that we are in a titanic struggle with “Islamic fascists” and are therefore unfit to lead."

Friedman "... Well, I just have one question for Mr. Cheney: If we’re in such a titanic struggle with radical Islam, and if getting Iraq right is at the center of that struggle, why did you “tough guys” fight the Iraq war with the Rumsfeld Doctrine — just enough troops to lose — and not the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force to create the necessary foundation of any democracy-building project, which is security? How could you send so few troops to fight such an important war when it was obvious that without security Iraqis would fall back on their tribal militias?"

Friedman: "Mr. Cheney, if we’re in a titanic struggle with Islamic fascists, why have you and President Bush resisted any serious effort to get Americans to conserve energy? Why do you refuse to push higher mileage standards for U.S. automakers or a gasoline tax that would curb our imports of oil?"

Friedman: "Here we are in the biggest struggle of our lives and we are funding both sides — the U.S. military with our tax dollars and the radical Islamists and the governments and charities that support them with our gasoline purchases — and you won’t lift a finger to change that. Why? Because it might impose pain on the oil companies and auto lobbies that fund the G.O.P., or require some sacrifice by Americans."

Friedman: "Mr. Cheney, if we’re in a titanic struggle with Islamic fascists, why do you constantly use the “war on terrorism” as a wedge issue in domestic politics to frighten voters away from Democrats. How are we going to sustain such a large, long-term struggle if we are a divided country?"

Friedman: "Friends, we are on a losing trajectory in Iraq, and, as the latest London plot underscores, the wider war with radical Islam is only getting wider. We need to reassess everything we are doing in this “war on terrorism” and figure out what is worth continuing, what needs changing and what sacrifice we need to demand from every American to match our means with our ends. Yes, the Democrats could help by presenting a serious alternative. But unless the party in power for the next two and half years shakes free of its denial, we are in really, really big trouble."

Steadfastness and courage are admirable attributes...but they can only go so far under poor, uninspired and incompetent leadership. Drunks frequently demonstrate strong resolve in a barfight as well...doesn't mean they're effective.

In Iraq, there is one central thing that the U.S. had to achieve, and in fact was our responsiblity under the Geneva Convention: The establishment of security and stability... that was our primary mandate the moment we elected military intervention and occupation.

The minute Dubya and his clan began saying that we could not do that, and that it would ultimately be up to the Iraqis to establish security, they admitted a fundamental failure upon which all other hope of success pivoted.

They also make the foundational argument for Murtha's position: the U.S. can achieve no more militarily in Iraq...it is ALL up to the Iraqis at this point.

Reading Abizaid and Pace we see the same idea... something dramatic has to happen with the Iraqis.

My additional spin on it was that should they desire to attempt a military solution on Iraq, it would take a whole lot more forces... going back to the recommendations of General Shinseki and General Zinni (and others) pre-war... and now, that would only give us a "chance" at succeeding... a "chance" that a Liberal Democracy might emerge from the current culture in the future.

But, I don't see the Republicans going there... regardless what they say about Murtha, the Republicans are looking for the first opportunity, the first sniff of an upward trend in stability, when they will "declare victory" and "get the heck out of Dodge City".

Friedman supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, saying that the establishment of a democratic state in the Middle East might force other countries to liberalize and modernize as well, although he has since expressed alarm over the conduct of the war by the George W. Bush administration. Nevertheless, until his August 4th 2006 piece, his columns remained at least open to the possibility of a positive outcome to the Iraq conflict.

[Alexandra]

Crusader, ditto that.

Roach,

I really appreciate you sharing this with us, and I think of your boys often when I write about these things. My main aim really is to embolden our men and give them strength in the knowledge that we pray for them and support them wholeheartedly and unreservedly. I am not in the slightest interested in criticizing them for what they do, or judge them for all the things they have to do, which we the members of the keyboard brigade, may never have the guts or opportunity to do. To judge someone in combat without being there or for that matter ever having experienced it yourself is an all too common habit we should be condemning more than we do.

Personally I have the utmost respect for them, and what they do for us. I also am all too painfully aware that they will experience things which in normal life they may feel embarrassed about, and things which they will have to live with for the rest of their lives, which will by definition alter their world, and the world of their loved ones. For that sacrifice as well as the ultimate sacrifice to which they by definition subscribe to, I am eternally grateful.

My support for them will never wane and my unreserved respect for them will never stop gracing the posts of this blog. May God bless them and keep them safe, and may we be able to do everything in our power to protect them.

I have been called bellicose for that sentiment alone, and I have become kind of proud of that insult, because I know what it is directed at.

[gringoman]

GD,

I note that you seemed to make some reply---cut-and-paste or not---to all of the well-taken critiques of you as a confirmed Devotee of Defeat. The one exception, alas, was your faiure to answer my polite request for clarification. This surprised me, at least a bit. I don't know whether to feel neglected or flattered. If you don't mind, I'll try once again. On the possibility that you forgot to reply, drew a blank at the moment (it can happen to anyone) or couldn't locate the authority you wanted to paste, here, for your convenience, is a repost of my original request. (Note: While I encourage and prefer a reply in your own words, I'll understand if you prefer cut-and-paste in the manner of current "digital debaters.").............

===========================================================

GD;

A request for clarification, if I may. ( I don't want to play the cut-and-run quote-a-brass game. And surely, despite your civilian status, I trust you understand that generals are also politicians, otherwise few of them would be where they are. Imagine how much time we could take up quoting generals--and civilians too--- on the gross blunders and dumb war management by our two "greatest wartime Presidents"==you know, Mr. Lincoln (widely caricatured as an ape or gorilla by his smart contemporaries) and Mr. Roosevelt, widely thought of as a Kremlin dupe.) That would be a deadly bore, don't you think?

What I'm curious about is what you see as your function on the celebrated (at least by Hollywood/MSM/Soros Industries) Bash Bush Bandwagon (which I think is your right of passage, by the way. Some Pubs may even consider me a Bush basher---even though Dems won't agree.)

Here's what I'd like you to clarify, if you feel it's not asking too much.....Is there anything in your critique of The Bashed One which you would say is not a Democrat(ic) Talking Point, either actually or potentially? If so, could you kindly specify?

Posted by: gringoman | Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 08:09 AM

[gringoman]

RR,

I hear you. My only regret is that despite all my background in Vietnam, and the welcome I got from the Boys in Baghdad at CENTCOM's PAO (see willtoexist.com) the exalted desk jockeys in Washington and/or the Pentagon fixated on a stupid technicality to keep me from independently blogging the story with the troopers over there---and I won't presume to guess how one of them got her rank in today's politcally corrected bureaucracy.)

Oh, wait, that can't be the only regret. Yes, mid-20's again. That might be interesting. And knowing what you know now? Wow.

[RunningRoach]

Yo, Crusader,

Excuse the “kiddie speak”, but I recently learned this “Yo” crap from my youngest son who is one of my two “over there”. Ghost will never appreciate what it’s like to be in combat. God bless him for that. It’s a good thing, really.

War is not for the faint of heart, or for those who care not to serve their country. I sometimes wonder, but for no really good reason, whether any of Alexandra’s followers have ever crapped their flight suits from an attack of shear panic, or vomited in their face mask after taking a few more “g’s” than they were accustomed to, or heard their “back seat” screaming “Two MiG’s on our 6!”… “Two MiG’s on our 6!...Break left!….Break left!” Or, “SAM two o’clock low” “SAM two o’clock low… Break….Break… Flares, Flares, decoys, any freakin thing you got!”. I’m sure there are a lot of guys reading this site who have been there. It’s not something we talk about a lot.

What I feared more than anything else was returning a “dirty” airplane to its owner, my crew chief, who for longer than I care to remember, I addressed ( A Tech 5.) as “Sir”. It was my job to clean it up. It was just a matter of priorities.

I have no regrets over that experience, although I fell victim to “low bidder fatigue” and had to suffer the results of a bad eject, that got me discharged from the military long before I planned on retiring.

My only regret is that I’m not in my mid 20’s now. There is no question that I would be doing what I did then, but for a greater cause, against a greater threat.

My best to you,

JCC

[Ghost Dansing]

ooops...i lost my clever retort...it was a withering harangue with just a touch of penetrating hyperbole...went to bit heaven i guess.

all which isn't singing is mere talking
and all talking's talking to oneself
(whether that oneself be sought or seeking
master or disciple sheep or wolf)

gush to it as diety or devil
-toss in sobs and reasons threats and smiles
name it cruel fair or blessed evil-
it is you (ne i)nobody else

drive dumb mankind dizzy with haranguing
-you are deafened every mother's son-
all is merely talk which isn't singing
and all talking's to oneself alone

but the very song of(as mountains
feel and lovers)singing is silence

ee cummings

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

I think there is a big difference bewteen being "totally uncritical of one's leaders" and doing nothing but undermining morale, and spreading defeatism.

Not many people here are uncritical of US leadership (or Israeli leadership for that matter) GD, but there is a reason many nations who have found themselves at war, have found it necessary to quickly crush sedition and defeatism masquerading as "dissent".

GD, you (along with a great many US generals, on that we are agreed, mate) wouldn't last 5 minutes in a firefight, for the plain and simple reason that you are extremely prone to panic, and just generally bad for morale. I would refuse to have guys like you in a defensive position with me.

It is one thing to grumble and complain - that is often the only "right" a soldier in battle has. It is quite another to run about clucking and shrieking about how "our mission is a c***-up, and we're all gonna die, so we might as well just run away, 'cause like the bad guys have tanks and stuff, and like we can't beat them even though we really need to, and.... " ...BANG!

No offence GD, but you just don't have that quality we in the infantry call "stick-to-it-ness". And you just can't understand the mentality of those of us who understand we must fight hard, sometimes against odds that seem overwhelming.

How glad I am that you weren't in command at Omaha Beach. Or the Battle of Britain. Or Stalingrad, or...

[Ghost Dansing]

"GD, the problem with your attitude is that it's not based on how can we win? The very foundation of your attitude, of your views, seems to be we have already lost, we must pull back now, we'll talk about dealing with terrorism later.
In short, it's a loser, excuse me for saying this, mentality."

And the "problem with your attitude" is that you are totally uncritical of your leadership and you think an unswerving loyalty and Norman Vincent Peale can overcome any amount of incompetence.

America will win the war on terror...despite, not "because of", Republican chest-beating and bellicose talk.

I don't know where the Republicans went wrong...once they had great leaders like Dwight D. Eisenhower...

Now they place incompetent boobs in leadership position, and blindly follow like so many lemmings.

No amount of pom-pom-pumping cheerleaders can overcome a bad quarterback with an inept team.

Sometimes you just have can the employee (yes, Dubya is just an employee of the American People...not a Sun God) to get positive effects.

[Michael van der Galien]

GD, the problem with your attitude is that it's not based on how can we win? The very foundation of your attitude, of your views, seems to be we have already lost, we must pull back now, we'll talk about dealing with terrorism later.
In short, it's a loser, excuse me for saying this, mentality.

Why is that a problem? Democracies aren't built on loser mentalities. On a 'defeatist mentality'. Democracies are built on a mentality that all is possible, if one, or a country, is willing to truly commit to a / the cause.

That is deeply ingrained in democracies, but especially the US.

That's also the reason why someone like Kerry will never win the presidential elections.

I'm sure that with people like you in power of a democracy, the battle - against terrorism and dictatorships - will indeed be lost. Not because the West cannot win, but because we've surrendered beforehand.

[igout]

I don't know a damn thing about military matters, and won't pretend to. But I do have a question for the table.

Agreed. We have a zillion nukes to Iran's presumed and impending few. But seeing that Iran is tucked so near to Russian teritory to the North (?) and Chinese to the East (?), let alone to the oil and gas fields of all those Kakastans, dare we use them?

Do we have any other way in our arsenal to take out that shithole country fast and good?

[john clements]

Alexandra : "adventurous media reporting" What do you think of the "hearts and minds" propaganda being pumped by the media in regards to Lebanon? It goes like this : " All the infrastructure damage done to Lebanon by Israel's going after hezballah, will result in hezbollah winning the "hearts and minds" of the Lebanese people with offers of money and help with reconstruction , so the U. S. and other free countries should hurry up and pour millions of dollars into Lebebanon so we can win their "hearts and minds" instead of hezbollah." This just doesn't make sense! Last year the hurricanes reeeked havoc and devastation on our gulf coast. An area at least twice as big as Lebanon, many people lost everything. But I'M willing to bet the vast majority of survivors would spend the rest of their lives sleeping in a tent than accept money , help with reconstruction, from a terrorist organization! It would seem to me the only way the Lebanese people would be supportive of hezbollah is if they agree with their ideology. Regardless of any offers of money or aid. What do you think? feedback@roadmap-to-disaster.com

[Alexandra]

Yeah Eric, right...:-)

[Good Lt]

Alexandra -

Hey - no sweat. I didn't find out who Hillary Duff was until yesterday. She's that taxi cab guy, right? :-)

[Good Lt]

GD - Guess you missed this, despite its clearly misleading header. I took it apart here so that even you can understand how wrong you are. From the AP article:

(snip)

"In my judgment, we are not in a situation of civil war," British Royal Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Fry told reporters at the Pentagon in a video-teleconference from Baghdad. He added, "I know what a civil war looks like." He said there is no mass migration out of Baghdad, where the sectarian violence is worst; the central government is functioning; and the country's security forces are answerable to the government.

(snip)

Fry said it was important that the conflict not be described as "civil war."

"It is inflammatory language," he said. "It is implying that the situation is worse than it is. It therefore encourages - among other things - adventurous media reporting" and "could encourage a certain degree of despondency in the political constituencies of both of our countries. But above all, I simply don't think it's an accurate statement of the situation that we're currently involved in."

Hmmm. Square that, along with this, with your little anti-victory screed.

[Patrick]

GD,

See: http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060824/2006-08-24T103821Z_01_IBO437417_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-USA-DC.html

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The top U.S. general in the Middle East on Thursday praised a major U.S.-led security clampdown in Baghdad, saying it has brought "great progress" and said that Iraq was far from civil war.

"I think that there has been great progress on the security front in Baghdad recently. We are very optimistic that the situation will stabilize," General John Abizaid told reporters in Baghdad on a day when three car bombs and two roadside bombs were reported in the capital, wounding 24 people.

Abizaid, who met General John Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said comments he made earlier this month before the U.S. Senate in which he said the sectarian violence in Iraq was the worst he had seen had been misrepresented.

"I never said that Iraq was one foot from civil war. It is amazing how you say things sometimes and they get reported differently. I believe that there is danger of civil war in Iraq, but only a danger. I think Iraq is far from it."

The U.S. military has sent reinforcements to Baghdad to help the government take back the streets from sectarian militias and death squads, blamed for killing thousands.

It has boosted the number of its troops in the country from 127,000 to 135,000 as part of the clampdown, which U.S. officials say has already seen a sharp decline in violence in some volatile Sunni and Shi'ite neighborhoods.

[gringoman]

GD;

A request for clarification, if I may. ( I don't want to play the cut-and-run quote-a-brass game. And surely, despite your civilian status, I trust you understand that generals are also politicans, otherwise few of them would be where they are. Imagine how much time we could take up quoting generals--and civilians too--- on the gross blunders and dumb war management by our two "greatest wartime Presidents"==you know, Mr. Lincoln (widely called an ape or gorilla in his day) and Mr. Roosevelt, widely thought of as a Kremlin dupe.) That would be a deadly bore, don't you think?

What I'm curious about is what you see as your function on the celebrated Bash Bush Bandwagon (which I think you have every right to be on, by the way. Some Pubs may even consider me a Bush basher---even though no Dems will agree with them)

Here's what I'd like you to clarify, if you feel it's not asking too much.....Is there anything in your critique of The Bashed One which you would say is not a Democrat(ic) Talking Point, either actually or potentially? If so, could you kindly specify?

[Ghost Dansing]

"...with crucial midterm elections just 2 1/2 months away, Bush and his team are trying to turn the public debate away from whether the Iraq invasion has worked out to what would happen if U.S. troops were withdrawn, as some Democrats and Republicans advocate.

The necessity of not failing, Bush advisers believe, is now a more compelling argument than the likelihood of success.

Using such terms as "havoc" at Monday's news conference, Bush made no effort to suggest the situation in Iraq is improving. Instead, he argued: "If you think it's bad now, imagine what Iraq would look like if the United States leaves before this government can defend itself."

Dubya looks foolish and not credible if he says, 'We're making progress in Iraq,' He probably would like to make that argument, but because that's not credible given the facts on the ground, this is the fallback...

If the only thing you can say is 'Yes, it's bad, but it could be worse,' that really is a last-ditch argument.

Dubya has been ruminating on the different nature of Iraq and the battle with Islamic radicals and how hard it is to define victory. "Veterans of World War II and Korea will tell you we were able to measure progress based upon miles gained or based upon tanks destroyed, or however people measured war in those days," he said in a speech last week. "This is different . . . and it's hard on the American people, and I understand that."

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a strong supporter of the war, suggested this week that the Bush team has only itself to blame for setting unrealistic expectations.

[Ghost Dansing]

Very optimistic sense of "how goes it" in Iraq...

Some "defeatnik" pundits that I listen to:

"Two top U.S. generals said yesterday that the sectarian violence in Iraq is much worse than they had ever anticipated and could lead to civil war, arguing that improving the situation is now more a matter of Iraqi political will than of U.S. military strategy."

"The sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it," Gen. John P. Abizaid, commander of U.S. military operations in the Middle East, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "If not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war."

The testimony from Abizaid and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, was the military's most dire assessment of conditions in Iraq since the war began 40 months ago. It echoed the opinion of Britain's outgoing ambassador to Iraq, who, in a confidential memo revealed yesterday, told Prime Minister Tony Blair that a de facto partition of Iraq is more likely than a transition to democracy.

Both U.S. generals said they think Iraq will be successful in maintaining a stable government in the near future, but their assessment about the possible slide into civil war is something the administration had avoided acknowledging before.

"We do have the possibility of that devolving to a civil war, but that does not have to be a fact," said Pace. ". . . We need the Iraqi people to seize this moment."

The somber mood was amplified by concern about the war in Lebanon and the possibility that it will lead to instability in the region.

"I've rarely seen it so unsettled or volatile," Abizaid said.

"Pentagon announced recently that 3,700 troops who had been planning to return home over the next two weeks will be sent to Baghdad for as long as four months."

"Both generals before the committee said they could not say when the insurgency would be defeated, when Iraqi militias might be disbanded, when Iraqi forces would be strong enough to fight on their own, or when U.S. troops could begin to withdraw. Abizaid said he expects Iraq to "move toward equilibrium . . . in the next five years."

"All three officials said they believe that Iraq will overcome its difficulties and that pulling U.S. troops out anytime soon would sabotage the goal of building a democracy there. They said the key to stopping an insurgency of 20,000 in a country of nearly 27 million is for the Iraqi people to unite, for the government to disband armed militias, and for Iraqi security forces to grow in number and capability."

300-400K Troops, sustained for 10 Years, Martial Law...that's what it would take to have a "chance" things break our way.

I don't think I'm the one deluded here.

[gringoman]

Running Roach,

As a man who not only has served, but has (as you say) two sons in Iraq, it's obvious that you have a sense of reality (which includes military reality) denied to those whose experience is forever limited to their favorite pundits or stat grinders. They don't even see how they are forever limited to the second hand, if not third, fourth and fifth hand. (I spent enough time in Vietnam around soldiers to know whereof I speak. I don't mean that these civilian 'virgins' are uniformly suspect, some even have something to say, but I've found them again and again and again to be naive and rational" in a stupid way. E.g. They don't even see how idiotic they look by comparing a man who's flown a fighter jet in the Guard hundreds of hours toward the end of U.S. combat in Vietnam with common yuppie draft dodgers like the Big Bubba who admittedly loathed the military. You can't make them see. They don't get it, or are determined not to get it.)

But experience has taught me something else too. Men who give their all, who put their lives on the line, rarely can fathom the murky depths of those who put only their opinions on the line. I'm convinced that a study of these pious defeatniks would be worthy of a Sigmund Freud. That's how sloshy it will get if you want to go there. It would be fun to add a few proposed "ïnsights" into what fuels them right now, (and I do mean "them", not just any particular individual) but I don't have the required degree, I'm on 'Don't Ramble Watch' so let me cut this short:

You represent everything that they detest(maybe not you personally, but certainly you symbolically): The American will to win. The defeatniks, fresh from their great anti-American victories in Vietnam,(Bratty Boy beats down Daddy, you see) the hostage crisis and mullahcracy in Tehran, the Hezbollah massacre of U.S. marines in Beirut, the greatest assault on the U.S. mainland in history (9.11), is now, due to continued security problems in Iraq, and Bush's admittedly imperfect execution of a necessary U.S. invasion of the Death Cult Middle East--the defeatnik today is in a state of practically erotic excitement. Watch them. See their excitment as the thugs in Baghdad get away with murdering men, women and children. The Marquis de Sade would underatand. But of course these moralizers aren't really sadists. Just ask them. It's about thy're jihad against Big Bad Daddy==George Buah. They even think the manipulated polls, showing disaffection with Bush (such as I've long had) means that they, the defeatniks, are even loved and admired by "real people." The defeatnik senses the downfall of George Bush,(Big Bad Daddy) who dared--can you believe it?--to act like a man. Unforgiveable! It doesn't matter that Bush has been too much like a politically correct crypto-liberal--in other words, like one of them-- to crush the homicidal garbage in Baghdad. The defeatnik will even dignify these thugs and rent-a=killers as "guerillas." The defeatnik really can't help himself. Why? (Where's Freud when you really need him?) You know about the infantile need to punish Daddy, even Mommy. (Since ShrinkWrapped not only has the degree, but insights to match, maybe he could focus more on questions such as: Çivilizations and its Defeatniks."

[RunningRoach]

Good greif. I really need to use spell check. Sorry about that.

[RunningRoach]

Hey Ghost,
That was an interesting analysis, but I have a few problems with it.
You said; "As long as America is bogged-down fighting an insurgency in Iraq, America cannot confront Iran directly with the threat of military force."..... "Bogged-down in Iraq is EXACTLY where Iran can use surrogates to bleed American forces, and prevent America from threatening a true offensive against Iran."...."I wonder if it has ever occured to anybody here that Iran's strategy might not be to drive America out of Iraq at all...but to hold it there where it can continue to bleed it and tie it down?"
First, we are not "bogged-down" in Iraq. Our progress is moving ahead exponentially. We only have about 15% of our entire fighting force there and in Afganistan.
Second; how is Iran going to drive America out of Iraq?? They are a third world military force and couldn't get rid of a Roach infestation if they tried.
Third; "...America cannot confront Iran directly with the threat of military force."..... Nonsense. Sure we can. We have them in check. Just what does Iran posess that can deter our forces? A nuke? Two nukes? We have about 13,000 of them at last count. When I last made an assesment, with some knowledgable input, one of our Trident submarines is still the third most powerful "nation" on earth.
Fourth; "...bleed American forces..." Again nonsense. Yea, we lost about 2,600 great American kids in this war, but that's hardly bleeding us down.( Remember I have two of my own there, so I am hardly insenitive to our losses.) Our Air Force, in which I proudly served, can decapitate their entire regeme in a day or two.
It's all a matter of timing, and timing is on our side. So, we are going through the motions until the equation is correct, and then we will strike. That nut case in Terhan knows this and all of his retoritc is no more than that, retoritc.
Don't loose faith in our capabilities or our great leadership.
Regards,
JCC

[Ghost Dansing]

"It makes sense, therefore, that the first line of defense against Iran's ambitions is a stable, democratic Iraq, which would provide a formidable counterbalance to Iran. A pro-Western Iraq that develops its economic ties throughout the Middle East and beyond would compete over growing markets for oil with Iranian economic interests. More important, a democratic Iraq would be a long-sought beacon for the oppressed Shiites of the world, an alternative to the appeal of extremist Iran."

This is a NEOCON ideal...it is NEOCON theory. The facts on the ground are that first quasi-democratic activity in Iraq has delivered, as expected, a Shia-majority, Iran-oriented government. They denounced Israel during the Lebanon crisis with America IN Iraq...ostensibly our "allies".

The most powerful militia in Iraq is Muktada al Sadr's...the guy who said he was an extension of HAMAS. In short, the way this Republican administration has prosecuted the war in Iraq has already delivered a victory to Iran...The L.A. Times article is simply political spin laying the groundwork to place the blame elsewhere.

"The U.S. military's presence in Iraq keeps Iran in check. An immediate pullout, as prescribed by antiwar liberals and demagogic Democrats, would leave Iraq to Iran — and to the likes of Al Qaeda. And that would be a hostage-taking far more harmful to the United States than the one that happened in Tehran nearly 30 years ago."

Murtha is right, and everybody knows it. American military activity in Iraq can accomplish no more in this situation. The Republicans, and not even all the Republicans, just this Republican administration, are "kicking the can down the road"...leaving the eventual and necessary redeployment of forces to the next administration...then they'll say Iranian influence is becaused we "pulled out" too early. Iranian influence has already been elected and is established.

Furthermore, having the kind of military effects the NEOCONs envision would require a massive surge-and-sustain to military levels as large as, if not larger than, those originally proposed and planned for by Generals Shinseki and Zinni, among others.

The United States would have to take-and-hold Iraq...NOT play a an infinite game of whack-a-mole, AND impose MARTIAL LAW for a decade or more.

Furthermore...assuming America can surge to 300K-plus forces in Iraq and sustain for ten years, it is not immediately clear that 300K forces can have the same effect quelling an established insurgency, as it could have had in preventing an insurgency at the front end of the conflict. So even a surge-and-sustain strategy may not achieve additional military goals at this point in time.

The following paragraph contains within it the facts undermining the "stay the course" idea, under current circumstances.

"Now the U.S. is underestimating Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his willingness to use proxies — Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Muqtada Sadr in Iraq. In the short term, Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians and Israelis are paying for this sneaky strategy with their lives, but in the long term, it is the United States that will suffer the most. [...]"

Having America tied-down in Iraq is probably a far greater advantage to Iran than any redeployment.

Redeployment means you can reclaim your forces, resupply, re-arm and refresh...

As long as America is bogged-down fighting an insurgency in Iraq, America cannot confront Iran directly with the threat of military force.

America is the ONLY Nation in the world that could conceivably present a threat to Iran, with the possible exception of Russia.

Bogged-down in Iraq is EXACTLY where Iran can use surrogates to bleed American forces, and prevent America from threatening a true offensive against Iran.

I wonder if it has ever occured to anybody here that Iran's strategy might not be to drive America out of Iraq at all...but to hold it there where it can continue to bleed it and tie it down?

That's the strategy for victory of a guerilla warrior...not nose-to-nose confrontations...but taking actions which keep your opponent unable to operate decisively. We keep talking about Iran's intentions and tactics...how 'bout we get a clue?

T.E.Lawrence, best known as "Lawrence of Arabia," introduced a theory of guerrilla warfare tactics in an article he wrote for the Encyclopedia Britannica published in 1938. In that article, he compared guerrilla fighters to a gas. The fighters disperse in the area of operations more or less randomly. They or their cells occupy a very small intrinsic space in that area, just as gas molecules occupy a very small intrinsic space in a container. The fighters may coalesce into groups for tactical purposes, but their general state is dispersed. Such fighters cannot be "rounded up." They cannot be contained. They are extremely difficult to "defeat" because they cannot be brought to battle in significant numbers. The cost in soldiers and material to destroy a significant number of them becomes prohibitive, in all senses, that is physically, economically, morally, etc. It should be noted that Lawrence describes a non-native occupying force as the enemy e.g. the Turks.

John Keats wrote about an American guerrilla leader in World War II: Colonel Wendell Fertig, who in 1942 organized a large force of guerrillas who harassed the Japanese occupation forces on the Philippine Island of Mindanao all the way up to the liberation of the Philippines in 1945. His abilities were later utilized by the United States Army, when Fertig helped found the United States Army Special Warfare School at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Others included Col. Aaron Bank and Col. Russell Volckmann. Volckmann, in particular, commanded a guerrilla force which operated out of the Cordillera of Northern Luzon, in the Philippines from the beginning of World War II to its conclusion.

[rich]

NY Sun articles on the false accusations against Israel are collected at this link. One of the stoutest defenses of Israel is the article by Alan Dershowitz.

http://www.nysun.com/specials/hrw.php

[Alexandra]

Eric,

I had to look that up, I mean how embarrassing is that? LOL...The album went Platinum eight times!!

I collect Peter Howson myself, I should have known that, well in the very least I should have heard of the group....

[Good Lt]

I thought this was going to be a review of Live's Throwing Copper!

Dang it! :-)