No Union In The States

'St George Fighting the Dragon' by Pieter Pauwel Rubens, ca.1606-10 Museo del Prado, Madrid

 

"OK, let's do it" were the President's starting words to Nancy Pelosi, moments before the official SOTU speech began.

Do what? Plenty:

The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security … we must.

But how?

Shortly after 9-11, President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair accepted, that western diplomacy, including all of UN Security Council posturing, couldn't even touch a single nerve of the growing threat of so called Islamic radicalism. Both men realized, that the number one priority was to prevent a further escalation of jihadist attacks; that they had no choice but to lead the charge to alter one particular, theretofore well established perception of the West among the Islamofascists, namely that the West is militarily impotent. 

Consequently, both men understood that military action was unavoidable and necessary, because it was, what the murdering thugs feared the most, but expected the least -- and thanks largely to our opposition's irresponsible, because politically motivated, defeatist rhetoric, this sense remains unchanged today among all members of the Iranian Mullahcracy, thus in effect prolonging the conflict.

And therefore, irrespective of all successes and mistakes combined, something else was unavoidable and equally necessary, nay, critical for the survival of the enemy: Bloody resistance against the threat of a secular society allied with the Great Satan in the West. The President summed it up for us:

A thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics, and in 2006 they struck back. In Lebanon, assassins took the life of Pierre Gemayel, a prominent participant in the Cedar Revolution. And Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran, sowed conflict in the region and are seeking to undermine Lebanon’s legitimately elected government. In Afghanistan, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters tried to regain power by regrouping and engaging Afghan and NATO forces. In Iraq, al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam – the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia – and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day.

To all, who resort to predictable, but no less contemptible I-told-you-so tactics, I shout out, it is time, for you to realize, that these so called Islamic radicals or extremist, be they Shia or Sunni, are in fact Islamic purists, promoting in essence a return to the original teachings of the Qur'an and obedience to the law of Shari'a, which is of course the Islamic canonical law, based on the teachings of the Qur'an and the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (recorded in the Hadith and Sunna); that they are in fact reformist much more in the Lutheran sense than they are 'radicals' or 'extremists'; that they most certainly have not 'hijacked' the 'religion of peace', but want to return it to its glorious heydays of medieval dominance.

I shout out to them, that any military campaign, no matter how well planned and executed, would have encountered this kind of resistance; I shout out to them, that in the circumstances, the now so easily advocated 'alternative' not to engage militarily, has never been anything else than a completely fictitious scenario.

And as such, I applaud the President for choosing the words, "And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure." Because if you did, you will be disappointed. Every one of the Presidential Candidates, both Democrat and Republican, knows they won't stand a chance if abandoning Iraq, if handing over the Middle East to religious war lords of the dark ages, and thus, if abandoning the pursuit of world economic security, would be their proposed solution; if 'cut and run' would form the core message of their Presidential ticket.

Which is why nobody is able to come up with an alternative and why Hillary is sidestepping to Afghanistan and why Obama is keeping the backdoor open when he is calling for a 2007 withdrawal whilst arguing "that the threat of an American pullout is the best leverage Washington has left in the conflict". So, it's a threat not a promise... neat.

And then there is the mother of all wild-cards, which would be changing everything: If Iran were to conduct an underground nuclear test in the next 12 months, we'd all enjoy the spectacle of Democrats falling over each other, reassuring the American people that a nuclear Iran would not be tolerated under their watch....Yeah right.

After all, leading Democrats understand the need to succeed, but are busting their brains, figuring out how to deny the Bush Administration every bit of credit, and how instead to claim any future glory as their own. Tom Barnett voices what leaders from both sides of the isle are thinking, "I would caution everybody in this process to admit to the fact that there is no exiting the Middle East, until the Middle East connects to the outside world."

Amen.

Comments

[stevie]

... yeah sure, why not...

["... namely that the West is militarily impotent. "]
It pretty much is now, toots. You can thank your 'hero' for that.

["Republican ideologues simply deny one thing after another until they can deny no more."]

I disagree, as evidenced extensively here, they love to swim in that filthy river of denial.

["By the way, GDs approach in December 1944 would be to abandon the Western European front (there was no defeating the SS Panzer Armies on or around Dec 16th) and go instead and beat up on German garrisons in Norway. Yeah, that'd show 'em who's boss."]

Sounds just like what your 'Glorious Leader' did when faced with bin Laden in Afghanistan. Then it's a good thing the Democrats were in charge during WWII, isn't it? (By the way, nice lapping up of every word drooled out of your dry-drunk Leader's mouth).

["America's very existence (is) at risk."]

Wait a minute, this is the cowering Yellow Republicans' battle cry.
Of course, the self-serving cowards try to use it to goad others into going into battle for them.
Which is reminiscent of the Tom Barnett's 'battle cry' to invade Libya (again, not him personally). This, right after wetting himself while complimenting Rumsfeld on his favorite strategy used in Iraq, affectionately known as "Speed Kills".

Oh I forgot, this is where Hewitt, Barnett and Praeger are deemed to be 'intellectuals'.

The new cowering Yellow Republicans' battle cry?
"Islamo We So Afraido".
Good thing real Americans aren't afraid and will protect even the likes of you.

[Ghost Dansing]

So you liked my magik dragon mac Brachman? I do too :)

[mac Brachman]

Wow, first time I've seen GD's blog. Never linked to it before. GD, what's with the animated dragon? Peter, Paul, and Mary's version of "Puff the Magic Dragon" was a hit on Top 40 radio when I was around 8 (1963), which gives away my age. It wasn't until years later that I learned that PTMD was supposed to be a reference to marijuana and "Jackie Paper" was supposed to refer to rolling papers. Anyway, what's up with the combustible-breath reptilian? Shalom, Mac Brachman

[nofate]

Alexandra could no more be GD than my dog. GD is a liberal hack. GD thinks she knows what conservatives, republicans, and libertarians are all about, but can't understand why libertarians and conservatives tend to hang out with the Republican party. Politics GD, pure and simple. Yet you seem to think George Bush is a conservative. Every time I read that I laugh!

By the way, I choked on it, but I did go check GD's site. Impressive, if you like that perspective. I guess GD has links to blogs like ATB and Blue State to let her readers know how active she is in forwarding the agenda? GD reminds me of a troll that used to be on the Newsbusters site, only in a much more refined, civilized way. Sort of like trying to beguile the gullible with "reason" and "civility".

BTW here's a link to Blue State that I got off of GD's website. A short excerpt: "Hillary and Edwards invest heavily on blogs: John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are doubling down on a strategy that is dependent on the internet to build a grassroots campaign...the Clinton Campaign bought space on a number of well-known blogs following her announcement last Saturday: While I am quite sure I did not locate every ad on every blog, the initial buy was worth at least $17,026 across at least 45 blogs. The buy comprised political blogs almost exclusively, liberal blogs overwhelmingly, and primarily those with a national reach". Interesting.

Alexandra: I just checked e-mail last night for the first time in literally almost 2 months. I'm not really an e-mail type, so it's not my top priority. Rest assured, that your devotion to this enterprise comes through every time you post. I'm sure there are many more than just myself checking your site every time we get the chance, looking for new posts, and checking for new comments. You have one of the best, most thought provoking, while managing to avoid the gutter, blogs I have seen.

[Alexandra]

Crusader,

I have to take it as an innocent joke, whilst as an aspiring conspiracy theorist I may listen to such a theory, I have to say that as a closet detective, other than the obvious flaws in that theory (most mentioned above by Gringoman), there are two major ones which would disturb me:

Number 1) To run a weblog like this on a permanent basis and run ATB is too far fetched, I cannot seem to manage the one let alone two. Have you never read Ghost's blog? It's linked to all his/her comments.

Number 2) GD leaves huge gaps sometimes in between but mostly at the end of every comment (note the one directly above) which I constantly correct. It is mostly because for some reason his or her comments in their raw form as I see them in the ATB hub, are full of googlediegeek html which I delete (copying text all the time tends to do that). Now whilst it seems entertaining to think that I would make a character up, to think that I would be able to overcome that as a visual perfectionist is simply not possible for me. Unfortunately, I could not (even as an alter ego) tolerate seeing such huge gaps on ATB, and could not resist the temptation not to have them there in the first place.

Thirdly and most importantly, that I would have the time throughout my down time period of almost 10 days just recently, to write such a huge number of comments as GD did, whilst not bothering to write a single post for my beloved readers. Now that would be out of character even for a supposed alter ego, as it would have to sit comfortably primarily with ME.

[gringoman]

Crusader's theory that the ATB Comments House Progressive, known as 'Ghost Dancing,' is really Alexandra, is so outrageous, so un-settling, so counter-intuitive, so appalling, in fact so je ne sais quoi, you begin to wonder if Alexandra has really been found out.

True, at times I do wonder if 'GD' is actually a state-of-the-art version of a spam robot. I'm not a techie, but who can't imagine what one of those ambitious programmers, especially if lured by Soros gold, might be able to devise for Democrat Talking Points, Inc.? You know what top hackers can do. Even the Pentagon has to watch out. Despite the safeguards, penetrating ATB's firewall would be nothing but geek's play for them. Creating an entity that makes you think it's a homo sapien, with some Christian proclivities even, and the latest Dem positions or flip-flops on Iraq? The virtual realists are at work. Who doubts it anymore?

'GD' as robot, or super virus, would resolve nagging questions of gender, trans-sexuality, adolescence, experience after kindergarten, Sunday School attendance etc etc. It would also explain 'GD' as an SUV of Alexandra's bandwidth, an entity giving the impression of saying so much while saying nothing that political hacks---usually Dems or leftniki---haven't spouted a thousand times before.

Far-fetched? Maybe. But compared to what? Compared to 'GD' being Alexandra, her alter-ego, a dire warning of where that fork in the road might lead a Christian today?

I know, Crusader's theory, on the surface, might seem more credible. It does, after all, posit 'GD' as flesh and blood (more or less), rather than a robotic appendage of the DNC and 2008 Election strategery.

Still, I'm reluctant to believe that Alexandra, in her right mind, would perpetrate 'GD'on her faithful readers (and viewers). She'd do it to promote the 'GD' lifeline, wikipedia? Why? And where's the evidence?

Motivation? The only plausibility apparent: Since 'GD' does not exist, she had to invent him. Why? 'GD' is a form of therapy for an undisclosed ailment. What needs treatment, using an alternative approach (other remedies getting inadequate results), could be a recurring migraine, unorthodox sleeping patterns, MSM-nosis, you name it.

A stretch? Maybe. And I'm sure that everyone will join me in wishing that Alexandra has no such problem---certainly nothing that would drive her to such extremities.

On the other hand, who can deny that a 'GD' hoax might soothe her with the balm of comic relief?

[Ghost Dansing]

我們的嘴唇被密封

[Ghost Dansing]

I wouldn't consider you an intellectual failure Crusader... you are one of the finest minds of the 19th Century... keeping in good company with the Republican Party in America.

WASHINGTON -- The US military establishment has quietly undertaken a wholesale reassessment of its war strategy with a goal of identifying the mistakes made in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and remedying them before the next conflict.

This summer, high-level Pentagon officials ordered a pair of secret studies to pinpoint the military's failures in the two conflicts, and, according to one of the authors, ``the results won't be pretty" when the findings are produced this fall. Last week, the Defense Department invited about 50 of the nation's top counter insurgency specialists to a closed-door meeting outside Washington to critique recent operations and chart a way forward.

The studies, according to several Pentagon officials involved, have found serious deficiencies across the board. For example, US troops in Iraq have often used too much force when conducting operations in civilian areas, unnecessarily alienating local populations. They cite US commanders as being too slow to establish working relationships with local allies, and note that providing security and safety for the Iraqi people wasn't an early priority....

....In classrooms, on training bases, and even on the battlefield, military scholars and combat veterans are struggling to teach the world's most lethal military force how to calibrate its immense firepower and avoid the kind of heavy-handed tactics and cultural insensitivity that have engendered so much ill will and helped fuel insurgencies in Afghanistan and, especially, Iraq.

.... it is among the senior officer corps, which includes many veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, where the soul-searching is most pronounced.

Mansoor, who is also author of a history of infantry divisions in World War II, is helping fine-tune a draft of the Army-Marine Corps field manual on counterinsurgency, which will become a 250-page bible for field commanders.

The document is designed to fill what generals acknowledge is a major gap in American military doctrine.

``It has been 20 years since the US Army published a manual devoted to counterinsurgency operations, and 25 years since the Marine Corps published its last such manual," write Army Lieutenant General David Petraeus and Marine Lieutenant General James Mattis in a draft of the document. ``With our soldiers and Marines fighting insurgents in both Afghanistan and Iraq, it is thus essential that we give them a manual that provides principles and guidelines for counterinsurgency operations."....

....the manual combines a heavy dose of military science and basic soldiering with history and politics. Drawing on lessons of the past two centuries, it provides a blueprint for how to run a foreign occupation where the central government is either weak or nonexistent and well-armed insurgents are launching hit-and-run attacks from within civilian areas.

It outlines ways to understand local culture, locate interpreters, train a local police force and army to help provide security, bolster the nascent government, effectively handle detainees, gather intelligence about enemy forces from friendly citizens, and link combat operations with humanitarian and other aid to rebuild the war-torn country -- and peel the local population away from the insurgents to cut off the enemy's source of support.

``The challenge is to train the force not what to think but how to think," Mansoor said in an interview, saying that troops must get inside the minds of the insurgents as well as those of the citizenry. ``Counterinsurgency is a thinking soldier's war. It is graduate-level stuff. There is public relations, civil affairs, information operations. It is not easy."....

....Although the US military establishment has focused largely on fighting a conventional foe such as the former Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites, the armed forces have fought far more counterinsurgencies than armies throughout US history -- from the Barbary Wars of the early 1800s to Vietnam and conflicts in Central America, Somalia, and Bosnia.

But the military as an institution -- backed by a powerful arms maker -- has nevertheless clung to the theory that its forces must be prepared almost exclusively to fight large-scale conflicts with multibillion-dollar weapon systems, specialists said.

``The military culture has been about the big war," said Andrew Krepinevich , a retired Army officer and counterinsurgency specialist who advises Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. ``That's been the case for a long time. West Point studied the Napoleonic wars while fighting the Indians after the American Civil War. These irregular wars were viewed as exceptions to the rule. They thought if you could fight a big war you could fight a little war."

LINK 

And while we're following Crusader in weak historical comparisons, let's take a look at this:

American military action over the past century has been a mixed bag. We've seen some tremendous successes and some catastrophic failures.

Unfortunately, the strategy on Iraq appears to have more in common with the three major American military failures of the 20th century than with the successes.

In the great triumphs –World War I and World War II – the threats to the United States were unambiguous and Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt demonstrated true leadership by not shying away from giving the American public an honest appraisal of the sacrifices necessary: War was hell and it would not be easy.

When Americans heard of battlefield losses, they were overwhelmed with sadness, but did not soften their determination.

In the three failures, however -- the war in the Philippines from 1898 – 1903; Korea; and, Vietnam – Americans turned against the wars amid rising casualty rates and because of lingering questions as to whether war was absolutely necessary.

This reaction stemmed in large part from the way the American leaders had presented the case for war.

As Presidents McKinley, Truman, and Johnson and their supporters in Congress and the media made the case for their respective wars, they spoke of the dangers of inaction in absolute terms – America's very existence was at risk.

At the same time, however, they all deliberately avoided any discussion of how many Americans or others might die.

When American troops got bogged down and when soldiers and civilian started dying in large numbers, American re-examined the justifications for war and concluded they had been duped by their leaders.

The current approach on Iraq has several parallels with these failures.

For example, during the State of the Union speech President Bush again asserted the dangers facing the United States in absolute and uncompromising terms: America simply cannot wait.

But, while the president proclaimed to a rousing applause that America will be triumphant, he did not speak frankly or honestly of the potential sacrifices needed, nor did he provide any sense of how many Americans or others might die.

It seems clear that the leading voices in support of war are operating under the remarkably casual assumption that this war will be quick and decisive.

Much of the commentary following the President's speech, especially that on Fox Cable News, has even seemed downright giddy with anticipation for war.

Wars, however, are not sport. They are extraordinarily complex events with very real human costs.

And they rarely go according to script.

McKinley, Truman, and Johnson rushed into war believing they would win decisively.

McKinley believed the Filipinos would welcome American Troops with open arms after they were liberated from the Spanish.

General Douglas Macarthur persuaded Truman that China would not enter the war in Korea.

Johnson believed a strategy of counter-insurgency coupled with nation-building efforts would lead to victory in South Vietnam.

All were wrong.

LINK COMMENTS FROM 2003 AFTER DUBYA'S SOTU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RunningRoach]

Hey CNR,

Believe me, I am not a conspiracy theorist, however you just made me LMAO.

Your suspicion/assessment of who GD really is and mine are nearly identical. I may disagree with the Al Gore theory, but would not hesitate to pick another high level Dem/Lib operative.

While I believe that Ghost is a bit older than fourteen, there is an unmistakably noticeable and almost forced naiveté there.

And then there is a subtle feminism that runs through his/her rants….however I don’t believe these rants to be his/hers, as they are spoken in too many different “voices”. I have a sensitive ear for a writers “voice”, and GD has a new one with every other post. Some of these rants and voices repeat and are also reminiscent of others I have read. Then there are the barely noticeable references to gender…”as Ghost points her bony finger”…, and a number of others that I mentally made note of.

On top of all this, GD refuses to give a direct response to almost every question asked of him/her with a hint of gaining any insights into this personality or his/her background, history, life.

At any rate I have no doubt that “both” GD and our host are laughing themselves into tears reading this post.

Later, RR

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

I love people like GD. They make me feel so much better about myself.

It's always nice to be reminded that there are far greater intellectual failures out there than me.

By the way, GDs approach in December 1944 would be to abandon the Western European front (there was no defeating the SS Panzer Armies on or around Dec 16th) and go instead and beat up on German garrisons in Norway. Yeah, that'd show 'em who's boss.

GD your military analysis is so damned laughable that I can only conclude one of three things:

(1) You are, as I have always claimed, Al Gore.

(2) You are a bored 14-year old living in Mum's council flat in Leicester, and frantically typing while she's out shopping.

(3) And folks, this is my tantalizing theory.....,

You are actually Alexandra herself, and busily having the Internet laugh of the century at our expense, all the while doing her darndest to keep a straight face while people like me go apoplectic.

I say this, because sometimes GD's arguments sound so obviously contrived to irritate and annoy, instead of inform or debate, and that coupled with the fact that Alexandra is far too smart and erudite to really make her 'GD' persona convincing enough to fool an old Intel shark like me... She so obviously 'gets it', ergo her GD persona comes across as a total Putz.

[Ghost Dansing]

What's sad is that you believe this, when with all your suave sophistication, and artsy fartsy ability to see nuance and shades of gray in any situation, you can't see that: "This war is more than a clash of arms – it is a decisive ideological struggle, and the security of our Nation is in the balance....". As gringoman said, "ISLAM UBER ALLES" is the goal. The state is Islam, and Islam is the state, and the purpose of Islam is to bring the dar al islam to the whole world. Time is irrelevant, and if they have to wait until Bush is out, no problem.

I agree, the Iraqui's are "going to have a bloodbath" if we "redeploy" and leave them hanging. The similarity to Veet Nam that the antique media is incessantly trying to make is just that: there will be a bloodbath if we cut and run.

I actually misphrased that... The Iraqis ARE having a bloodbath, and they are too far gone to find a political solution anytime soon... they are going to have to get war weary and come up with their own solution.

The Iraq problem is only a problem within the context of the "war on terror" or war against Islamofascism because we made it so, and actually delivered Iraq from the hands of one secular, nationalist, "Baathist" enemy that had been defeated and was in a box, to our nemesis Iran, the Shia hegemon, and Sunni extremists.

As far as my "having a clue", I think if one reviews my viewpoints on Iraq for the last two years one will see that I am merely a small voice in the growing cacophony of "We told 'ya so".

Republican ideologues simply deny one thing after another until they can deny no more. The Republicans have delivered a defeat in the war on terrorism... not the enemy. I say get rid of the incompetent leadership and make sure they never happen again.

Flush Them Down The Toilet

[nofate]

Alexandra, another great series of posts as usual.
GD, clueless, as usual. "I would say the Iraqis are going to have a bloodbath.... there is no point in having American forces in the middle of it. We can redirect our efforts back to Afghanistan, try to influence events in Iraq when something emerges there that looks like a viable political structure, and perhaps offer to help pick-up the pieces later."

What's sad is that you believe this, when with all your suave sophistication, and artsy fartsy ability to see nuance and shades of gray in any situation, you can't see that:

"This war is more than a clash of arms – it is a decisive ideological struggle, and the security of our Nation is in the balance....". As gringoman said, "ISLAM UBER ALLES" is the goal. The state is Islam, and Islam is the state, and the purpose of Islam is to bring the dar al islam to the whole world. Time is irrelevant, and if they have to wait until Bush is out, no problem. I agree, the Iraqui's are "going to have a bloodbath" if we "redeploy" and leave them hanging. The similarity to Veet Nam that the antique media is incessantly trying to make is just that: there will be a bloodbath if we cut and run.

"This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory...."

And most of the dems sat on their arses and couldn't find the strength to raise their hands in applause, including Grandmother Pelosi. She just chewed her cud.

"... And ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East … to succeed in Iraq … and to spare the American people from this danger.

This is where matters stand tonight, in the here and now. I have spoken with many of you in person. I respect you and the arguments you have made. We went into this largely united – in our assumptions, and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq – and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field – and those on their way."

And Grandmother Pelosi and all the dems came out of their seats as if shot out of a cannon. "Support the troops. Yeah!!!"
But "turn events toward victory"...nah! What a bunch of absolute hypocrites. How does defeat (the opposite of victory, right?) support the troops? Or is there too much nuance there for us unwashed in flyover country to comprehend? Gimme a break!

And, although our leaders at the highest levels can't seem to get past the PC advisors they are saddled with, even they will eventually be led to what so many of us are shouting ourselves hoarse over, namely that nothing has been hijacked. Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Khomeini acolytes, Hezbollah and all the leading jihadist movements are, in the words of John Werntz, "quite simply the world's foremost practitioners of traditional Islam." We are destined to be the recipients of their largesse if we do not wake up.

[Ghost Dansing]

What is the nature of core constituency supporting this Republican administration, such as they can feel confident while engaging in bald-face lies to maintain their support? Who are these people?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday dismissed as "hogwash" the suggestion that blunders may have hurt the administration's credibility on Iraq and led members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to question President Bush's plan to send more troops to Baghdad....

....McCain, like Clinton a likely presidential aspirant, said last week that President Bush has "been very badly served by both the vice president and, most of all, [former] Secretary of Defense" Donald Rumsfeld.

CNN LINK 

After the bloodiest year in Afghanistan since the U.S. invasion, the Bush administration is preparing a series of new military, economic and political initiatives aimed partly at preempting an expected offensive this spring by Taliban insurgents, according to senior U.S. officials.

Even as it trumpeted a change of course in Iraq this month, the White House has completed a review of U.S. policy in Afghanistan. It will ask Congress for $7 billion to $8 billion in new funds for security, reconstruction and other projects in Afghanistan as part of the upcoming budget package, officials said....

The U.S. politics surrounding Afghanistan offer an intriguing counterpoint to the U.S. politics regarding Iraq. While most Democrats fiercely oppose President Bush's plan to send another 21,000 troops to Iraq, they support a more invigorated battle in Afghanistan. If anything, they say, the administration has neglected Afghanistan, failing to insist that NATO allies assume more of the burden in maintaining stability there....

....Another senior official involved with Afghanistan policy, offering a private briefing recently, said allied troops are facing a "bloody year in the south" in fighting the Taliban and slow progress in tackling the problems in the country, including corruption, opium production, and lack of roads and other infrastructure. "We still can succeed," he said, but "it is going to be a long project."

WAPO LINK 

Alexandra, your "shouted" apology for Dubya and this Republican administration serves as a good argument for the well supported military intervention against the taliban and al qaeda in Afghanistan... However it is quite apparent to most that the strategic blunder in choosing Iraq as the next battlefront in the war on terror incredibly reversed gains made in our intitial response to 9/11. I assure you, the wisdom of choosing  war in Iraq at that point in history will befuddle the brilliant and not so brilliant for centuries.

Even our queen of Republican apologists at the NYT is arriving at the following conclusions regarding Iraq:

Iraq is at the beginning of a civil war fought using the tactics of genocide, and it has all the conditions to get much worse. As a Newsweek correspondent, Christian Caryl, wrote recently from Baghdad, “What’s clear is that we’re far closer to the beginning of this cycle of violence than to its end.” As John Burns of The Times said on “Charlie Rose” last night, “Friends of mine who are Iraqis — Shiite, Sunni, Kurd — all foresee a civil war on a scale with bloodshed that would absolutely dwarf what we’re seeing now.”

Iraq already has the warlord structures that caused mass murder in Rwanda, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and elsewhere. Violent, stupid men who would be the dregs of society under normal conditions rise amid the trauma, chaos and stress and become revered leaders....

....The weakness of the Bush surge plan is that it relies on the Maliki government to somehow be above this vortex. But there are no impartial institutions in Iraq, ready to foster reconciliation. As ABC’s Jonathan Karl notes in The Weekly Standard, the Shiite finance ministries now close banks that may finance Sunni investments. The Saadrist health ministries dismiss Sunni doctors. The sectarian vortex is not fomented by extremists who are appendages to society. The vortex is through and through....

NYT, David Brooks, 25 January 2007 

Though he does misrepresent the Mr. Webb's comments after the SOTU.... and suggest American troops can do "some" vague good at this point.... but partition is in order.

I would say the Iraqis are going to have a bloodbath.... there is no point in having American forces in the middle of it. We can redirect our efforts back to Afghanistan, try to influence events in Iraq when something emerges there that looks like a viable political structure, and perhaps offer to help pick-up the pieces later.

Unfortunately, Dubya and this Republican administration have already handed Iraq over to Iran, Syria and Islamic extremists of both Sunni and Shia extraction. The minimum thing to accomplish as occupiers was the establishment of security and stability. That they did not do. The Republican blunders set us up for failure, and they have failed.

Since the Executive Branch will be able to outrun Congressional attempts to limit throwing good troops and money at an impossible cause, we will be able to continue this conversation throughout the year, and probably into the 2008 election season.

 

 

 

[gringoman]

Alexandra. in clarion mode, states a simple theological fact: the Islamofascisti are, of course, being pure muslims, imitating their famous prophet (upon whom they wish blessings), as his growing power in Arabia increased his charismatic warlord powers.

Tom Barnett, of course, is correct in stating that most everyone wants to bring down the USA at least a notch or two (while not mentioning that he himself wants to replace the Nation State with the Market State.)

As for the non-Freudian question: What do muslims really want? The gringoInstitute proposes that a clue might be had by getting the reaction of every muslim, whether moderate, fascistic, ur-jihadi, mystical, ethereal, whirling dervish or whatever is out there, to the following....

ISLAM UBER ALLES

[chrys]

Kept coming back to check for posts - THEN - all of a sudden - I'm two behind! Of course all three are impressive as usual! ;-) BUT - If I get started my typing this night in particular will be TMI so I spare you the flood!

[John Werntz]

Thank you for a marvelous post, Alexandra. How good it is to have you back. Your clarion "shout," that the leaders of the expansionist jihad, from Ahmadinejad through Al-Zawahiri, Bin Laden, Mookie Al-Sadr, the late lamented martyr Zarqawi, on down to the fanatics who achieve martyrdom by slaughtering innocents in bazaars, in an Axis of Horror that stretches from London to Bali and the Philippines are quite simply the world's foremost practitioners of traditional Islam. There must be no illusions regarding this stark, plain truth. Clear-eyed realists can bear the ugly label "Islamophobe" as a badge of honor.

Shout till you're hoarse, Madame.

[rich]

Off topic but . . .

Will Catholic Adoption Agencies close in Britain as they have in Massachusetts?

http://www.nysun.com/article/47257