The Jury Is Out

 

I am baaack!

This may become the first time in the history of the United States Congress that it has voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose his plan that is necessary to succeed in that battle.

President Bush wryly hit the nail on the head when he was referring to Lt. Gen David Petraeus as the 'new commander'.

Only last week did the Senate unanimously confirm General Petraeus as the top U.S. commander in Iraq, full well knowing that his appointment "marks the real start of the new US strategy in Iraq, but is also seen as a last chance to turn things around".

And the new US strategy is what? Is it just more troops -- 21,500 extra U.S. troops, to be precise? Does it mean, that these extra "troops are now going to run out and look for gun battles with insurgents in back alleys", as critics immediately after the President's State of the Union address had us believe?

Of course not.

When both Democratic and Republican Senators unanimously confirmed General Petraeus, they knew that "it will mark the start of an historic turn in military strategy in Iraq and perhaps in U.S. war-fighting doctrine".

They knew, "this isn't a one-off effort as at Fallujah, but counterinsurgency as daily U.S. military policy."

It is the product of an enormous amount of self-criticism and analysis done by military and civilian analysts in and out of government.

They understood and voted for a solid plan; they knew that this was not some last resort botch-up job.

They read the Mattis plan, which is based on Marine Maj. Gen. James Mattis' successful Marine experiment to integrate U.S. and Iraqi forces in Al Anbar province, putting "advisers alongside Iraqi units down to the NCO level".

[Marines] stayed with and fought with their Iraqi counterparts 24/7. And the Marines reported that the Iraqis fought with more confidence and effect, a k a spine-stiffening.

They all received and acknowledged the Army's new Counterinsurgency Manual released in December, the drafting of which was overseen by the very man they now have put in charge to execute the new counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy. They all read at least the foreword on the second page, signed by Gen. Petraeus and Gen. Amos:

Conducting a successful counterinsurgency campaign requires a flexible, adaptive force led by agile, well-informed, culturally astute leaders. It is our hope that this manual provides the guidelines needed to succeed in operations that are exceedingly difficult and complex. Our Soldiers and Marines deserve nothing less.

In short, they voted unanimously for giving General Petraeus a chance to succeed in Iraq with COIN, which includes of course extra troops. Thus, they voted for extra troops, but can't be seen to have done so by their rabid Bush-hating constituents. Hence the introduction of 'nonbinding measures'.

Politics prevents politicians from standing upright. That's all there is to know about this 'nonbinding measure' opposing the administration's plan to increase troop strength in Iraq.

In the words of Rep. Geoff Davis, R-Ky., a West Point graduate who was a flight commander with the Army's 82nd Airborne: "This nonbinding resolution serves no purpose other than pacifying the Democrats' political base and lowering morale in our military."

Let's hope, that such obvious political maneuvers backfire and, that as a result, the President is regaining his footing. My friend Joe Gandelman thinks the President's rebound is rooted in the certainty he portrays -- everyone knows where he stands, take it or leave it.

And that includes our thugs in Iran. The heat is on for the Mullahcracy, for they are facing a difficult dilemma: Fueling sectarian violence in Iraq, they are convinced, is the best strategy of driving American troops out of Iraq and eventually out of the Middle East. But, on the other hand, if Sunnis and Shias don't cease their wrangling, Muslims end up turning to secularism as their savior; the ultimate death knell for the expansionist theocracy.

Comments

[Willy]

Nice post! I thought this part was particularly brilliant:

the President's rebound is rooted in the certainty he portrays -- everyone knows where he stands, take it or leave it.

I'm pretty sure he's in for a BIG rebound!!

[Kenny]

Well, after that logically compelling presentation of evidence and reason, I know I'm convinced. ;-)

Not that Lilac is likely to bother to come back and engage in conversation, but: there is a difference between hating Islamofascists, and hating Muslims indiscriminately. This is not a difficult concept to grasp for anyone other than Islamofascists, who desperately wish to maintain the illusion that they are speaking for all Muslims and that therefore to rebuke Islamofascists is to hate all Muslims.

[Lilac]

Another muslim hating blog I see.

We are right you know. And you are wrong and idiotic.

[gringoman]

I can't tell you how nice it is to read Alexandra's work! And how nice it is to avoid the temptation of hitting the comment button so I don't have to read Ghost Dansing's "blog". You should start charging her a subleasing fee.

Posted by: Darrell | Friday, March 02, 2007 at 01:23 AM

Darrel,

Excellent idea. Her subsidizing of Alexandra's bandwidth would at least make some economic sense out of her hijacking of Alexandra's COMMENTS which in efect is dissrespectful to everyone. Does it take a George Orwell to point out that 'comments' means 'comments,' and not search engine dumping run wild with pseudo-intellectual pretensions? Nobody is even telling her that she can't function here as a Talking Point trooper for the Dhimmicrats. It's a question of respect and common sense. She's already far beyond the Internet pale, and I challenge her to cite a site anywhere, Left, Right or whatever, that is characterized by such search engine landfill, not even respectful enough to substitute URL's. You will notice how she disingenuously tries to confuse the length issue (a separate issue) from her dopey search engine "substance"and "supportive material" ploy. She thinks she can hide from the point that she does not even have the integrity to do her own writing, which is the very soul of COMMENTS. She'll toss in a bit from her own (sic) brain, and then deluge with her search engine swill, and dare to call this "principled." In case you had the time and were patient enough to follow her latest pompous delusions, she hauled out the hoary old platitude of Ho Chi Minh being a "Nationalist"and not a Communist. She can get loads of fodder for this from her "supportive" search engines. She "proves"how "stupid"the U.S. was to call Ho a Commie (conveniently forgetting that her beloved Dem hacks were in control during that critical period.) One problem: She forgets to "ëducate" us with the fact that Vietnam went into a Communist coma as soon as Saigon fell in 1975, in effect disproving her own stupid argument about Ho just being a Nationalist, not a Commie. And of course she will not own up. She will simply continue on her numbing way. She will get away with this because she can.

But I agree: Your idea for Alexandra to charge her a sub-leasing fee, entitling her to hijacking rights, makes economic sense. It would at least make her pay for hiding under a wiki bush.

[Darrell]

I can't tell you how nice it is to read Alexandra's work! And how nice it is to avoid the temptation of hitting the comment button so I don't have to read Ghost Dansing's "blog". You should start charging her a subleasing fee.

[Ghost Dansing]

 Legacies of Colonialism and Racism; the interpretation of a song.... How do people maintain pride in identity while shedding the shackles of past wrongs and grievances?

JOHANNESBURG, Feb. 26 — “Proudly South African” is this nation’s E Pluribus Unum, a slogan stamped on products, echoed in radio commercials and inculcated into the new South African DNA. Much as America’s motto celebrates melding many into one, South Africa says that it doesn’t matter what you look like — we can all be proud of our young country....

.....Since the dispute over “De la Rey” began, a ban on singing it has been issued and revoked at Loftus Stadium in Johannesburg, the nation’s most hallowed rugby pitch; the culture minister affirmed his support in Parliament for Mr. Pepler’s freedom of expression; and Nelson R. Mandela’s personal assistant has defended the song as a youthful cry for direction. Newspapers and blogs have resounded with competing takes on the meaning of its lyrics and its larger significance.

Taken literally, the lyrics are clear: “De la Rey” is a song about Afrikaner history. In the Second Boer War, from 1899 to 1902, a much larger British force overwhelmed the Boers, or Afrikaners, in a scramble for gold and land — but only after Gen. Koos de la Rey inflicted punishing defeats on the British. Nearly 28,000 Afrikaners and perhaps 20,000 black Africans died in British concentration camps during the war, many of them women and children. Their suffering is a central theme in Afrikaner lore....

....But while the lyrics as a whole refer to the Boer War, some see in those phrases, and in the soldier’s hopeless plight, a metaphor for Afrikaners’ reduced place in post-apartheid society. His plea for a leader is viewed as a call for resistance to South Africa’s government, which is based on universal suffrage.

Not only blacks have raised those interpretations. “I understand Afrikaans, and I’ve listened to the song,” said Steven Friedman, an independent white political analyst. “It says that ‘we need to follow some sort of general like you,’ which could be interpreted by literal-minded people to be a call to arms.”

Mr. Pepler, 28, a construction engineer from Pretoria, calls that interpretation “totally ridiculous.”

NYT, 27 February 2007

Video 

[Ghost Dansing]

when tomorrow comes

[Train With No Wheels]

What a tragedy that an artist with the obvious talent of "Two-Faced" would waste it on political blarney, and a butt-ugly depiction at that.

Evocative perhaps of the far greater waste of talent by the Bush Administration in waging one hegemaniacal war after the next, of throwing good money by the hundred billions after bad, and waxing eloquent on veteran's care only after Washington Post pointed out how tragically veterans have and will continue to be forgotten.

Anyone who has ever lived within the Beltway and worked the Halls of Congress knows there is more s--t than shinola. Even then, it's shinola, not substance.
There is such a huge gulf between the Beltway and any tangible form of reality.

Anyone who has been in-country in Iraq or Afghanistan immediately realizes there is also a gigantic and wholely unbridgeable gulf between rattling the saber while printing another $100,000,000,000, and actually accomplishing anything more than a holding action on the ground. That's why our own troops overwhelmingly want out.

G-d gave us Time so that everything wouldn't happen all at once. In the same way,
G-d gave us Katrina, so everyone is able to differentiate the Truth from DoD/DHS.
Bush could be Mahatma Mandela, and Iraq would still be SNAFUBAR, ATB au contraire.

[Ghost Dansing]

Perfect example to the point I was maing to gringoman, darth. Republican themes are totally are best swallowed devoid of any historical context.

I was stationed at Myrtle Beach AFB when the Iranian 'supposed students' over ran our U.S. Embassy in Tehran in November, 1979, and at that time we were training Iranian Top Guns.

I can't express how embarrassed I felt as a U.S. Airman seeing Jimmy Carter...succumb...to Iranian 'militants' for 444 days DURING the Cold War with the Soviets and Iron Curtain! The Defeatocrats want you to forget that our 53 hostages were in captivity for 444 days! Yeah - we screwed up the rescue in the desert deal, but I left the Dem Blue Dogs and became a conservative GOPer when the hostages were RELEASED to the minute President Ronald Wilson Reagan was sworn into office.

Really? Why did you feel embarrassed? You were training Iranian pilots in support of the Shah of Iran..... a long standing American policy from the days when the CIA assisted in the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Dr. Mohammed Mossedegh in 1953.... a man who had resisted British Colonialism, and unfortunately moved to nationalize Iran's oil industry. The British and Americans moved against him, and reinstated the Shah as a monarch. The Shah proceeded to attempt rapid westernization of Iran using quasi-fascist modalities and ample use of his Secret Police. It caused a backlash of Islamic extremism that the West is still reeling from today.

You were simply doing your duty in support of American Foreign Policy.The events of November 1979 were simply the crescendo in a long-playing opera of strained relations between Iran and the West.

Mohammed Mossedegh 

I don't see why it would motivate you to change political parties.... The American and British Foreign Policy that set this history in motion dated from the Post WW II era, and was rooted in Colonial-style thinking. 

The 1953 CIA coup in Iran was named “Operation Ajax” and was engineered by a CIA agent named Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt. Capitalizing on the oil-nationalization showdown between Iran and Great Britain, which had thrown Iran into chaos and crisis, Kermit Roosevelt skillfully used a combination of bribery of Iranian military officials and CIA-engendered street protests to pull off the coup.

The first stage of the coup, however, was unsuccessful, and the shah, who had partnered with the CIA to oust Mossadegh from office, fled Tehran in fear of his life. However, in the second stage of the coup a few days later, the CIA achieved its goal, enabling the shah to return to Iran in triumph ... and with a subsequent 25-year, U.S.-supported dictatorship, which included one of the world’s most terrifying and torturous secret police, the Savak.

For years, the U.S. government, including the CIA, kept what it had done in Iran secret from the American people and the world, although the Iranian people long suspected CIA involvement. U.S. officials, not surprisingly, considered the operation one of their greatest foreign-policy successes ... until, that is, the enormous convulsion that rocked Iranian society with the violent ouster of the shah and the installation of a virulently anti-American Islamic regime in 1979.

Link 

So Jimmy Carter appeared weak for  444 days and Reagan appeared "strong". Is that the reason? Did either man have control over the circumstances?

Carter inherited a Nation drained by over a decade of warfare in Vietnam that had divided Americans, bled the treasury, strained the military and fanned anti-military sentiments in the population.

Take a look at what the Financial sector was saying about Vietnam and economics before the war had even ended:

An end to the war would be good, not bad, for American business. War is, as we would say in business, a low-yield operation. —Louis B. Lundborg, Chairman, Bank of America

The myth that capitalism thrives on war has never been more fallacious. While the Nixon Administration battles war-induced inflation, corporate profits are tumbling and unemployment runs high. Urgent civilian needs are being shunted aside to satisfy the demands of military budgets. Businessmen are virtually unanimous in their conviction that peace would be bullish, and they were generally cheered by last week's withdrawal from Cambodia. But they have begun to realize two disquieting facts. First, the real costs of war in Viet Nam and of the nation's total defense effort are far greater than anything reflected in the military budget. And though military spending is declining, the U.S. will have to bear a heavy financial burden from the Viet Nam War long after the shooting stops.

The Hidden Costs of the Vietnam War, Time Magazine, July 13, 1970 

Carter inherited a mess.... military capability was at a low ebb and America's Foreign Policy time bombs were exploding all over the globe, including in the Middle East and Iran. Carter and his policies had nothing to do with this, and in no way could fix this in 2-3 years of a four year term. In fact, he was, in many ways, prescient in that he identified American dependency on Middle Eastern oil as fundamental strategic weakness.

So, Reagan gets elected and the "hostages are released".... big deal.... not so much a coincidence as an Iranian manipulation.

[Ghost Dansing]

Maria

Your heart beats like a subway train.... 

[darthcrUSAderworldtour2007]

I feel honored to be aboard this magnificent forum. I was stationed at Myrtle Beach AFB when the Iranian 'supposed students' over ran our U.S. Embassy in Tehran in November, 1979, and at that time we were training Iranian Top Guns.
I can't express how embarrassed I felt as a U.S.
Airman seeing Jimmy Carter...succumb...to Iranian 'militants' for 444 days DURING the Cold War with the Soviets and Iron Curtain! The Defeatocrats want you to forget that our 53 hostages were in captivity for 444 days! Yeah - we screwed up the rescue in the desert deal, but I left the Dem Blue Dogs and became a conservative GOPer when the hostages were RELEASED to the minute President Ronald Wilson Reagan was sworn into office. Serving under Dutch Reagan and Bush #41 in USAFE West Germany and at the Eagle Wing stateside ...made me and my family feel...PROUD to be an American! I only had wished Gipper hadn't told Gorbachev
(in hindsight)to tear down the Berlin Wall. At least our enemy wore uniforms and there was a ...respect between adversaries, and the Twin Towers were still standing majestically!

[Ghost Dansing]

"Congratulations on stepping up in the World of Cut n' Paste by skipping wiki for once and pasting from the integrity and reliability of Encylo Brittanica."

Gringoman, you know that is a lame criticism.... the themes and arguments of modern Republicanism depend heavily on lack of authoritative and historical context for survival. The real problem you have with the wiki and encyclopedic information is that it often undercuts your arguments.

Your argument about Vietnam is nonsense.... America got involved in Vietnam by bolstering the French Post World War II argument regarding their rightful possessions of Indochina.... a Colonialist argument.

Thinking that "just fighting harder and longer in Vietnam" would fill-the-bill is the weak "fact free" argument that simply enjoys the power of mindless repetition.

An argument that cites American policy failures is not an endorsement of Communism.... that is a typical conflation of a seasoned propagandist.

I would encourage you to research the basis for your opinions more.... perhaps you could start with the encyclopedia.... or Martin Luther King's speech.... was he historically inaccurate? Did the Post War Nationalists in Vietnam quote the American Declaration of Independence or the Communist Manifesto?

[gringoman]

GD,

Congratulations on stepping up in the World of Cut n' Paste by skipping wiki for once and pasting from the integrity and reliability of Encylo Brittanica. Still, as Alexandra so accurately pointed out, you are constantly interrupting the rhythm of the conversational flow here. You claim that you want to do no such thing. Apparently all you want to do is be a tedious Truth Teller. If you truly believe that, then it's clearly beyond your control. You're operating on Automatic Pile-On. Too bad. It means that you're oblivious to what someone here pointed out so cogently. You're Scroll-Over Country. Hard to believe you want that. Even harder to believe that you don't get it. It doesn't seem like an ideal position for a Truth Teller, even a specialist in Democrat Talking Points and the silly meme of Dems good, Pubs bad.

#2 Your screed on how "incompetent" U.S. "misjudged" the great Nationalist (not a Commie, oh no) Ho Chi Minh, is such a hoary used-up platitude, it's amazing to think that even a liberal would still use it. GD, I urge you, take a moment to think. I reccommend it. What happened after the "Nationalst" Ho Chi Minh won the war (which of course you neglect to mention that even their august General Giap admitted they had practically lost in Tet '68 until the great anti-war offensive in the Lib-Left West began)? They won the war and lost the peace. The Communists ruled and the economy crumbled. The Communists, ma'm, not the nationalists who, like the southern guerillas, were either wiped out or marginalized. It's only now, after 30 years, when the old Commies have all died out, that the new Commies are wising up to the China model, and Vietnam is beginning to move in the way that it would have a long time ago if the South had prevailed instead of your Commie "Nationalists."

Chrys,

While your analogy of China with Iraq, making China look much less aggressive than Hussein was with Kuwait, may not be completely unjustified, I wouldn't export it just yet. Maybe a certain "renegade province" is not a perfect analogy with Kuwait. How about Tibet?

A tiny anecdote, somewhat relevant: I was in the passenger company of five young Chinese women, not long ago (All of them surprisingly hefty, I thought, possibly another sign of the new prosperity.) I couldn't understand a word they were saying, but I knew they were saying it in Chinese. Something about the tonal flow and rhthym. The one right next to me had very little English, when I asked, "Hong Kong?" which is where I thought they might be from. The other one, who had quite a nice profile, also had very good English. She answered for her friend. "Not Hong Kong. We from China." Apparently they still draw a distinction. The young lady with the English was from Shanghai. The others all from other parts of the mainland. For me it was another sign of developments. Ten years ago, maybe even five, it would be very rare to encounter Chinese like this, outside the mainland.

And I was nice. I did not ask if we could, would or should go to war over Taiwan.

[Ghost Dansing]

I think you were quoting Alexandra's comments that in your words "says it all":

"This one simple paragraph commented by Alexandria says it all: We haven't used one tenth of our military might in Iraq. Is it winnable, we could turn Iraq into a sand box. The problem is the same here as in Viet Nam, the enemy in this country determined the out come of Nam and are trying again. The only way we lose this war is to lose here."

Iraq is like Vietnam in the sense that both created "no-win" situations due to the failed judgment of Policymakers....

The problems are rooted in policy, not lack of military might or capability.

The strategy of modern Republicanism in general is to question the patriotism and judgment of anybody or any group that criticizes their actions or policies.... even when those policies have demonstrably failed.

The point is that this is America, and not only should this Republican administration be criticized, it is our responsibility as citizens to criticize.... it is in fact our TRUE responsibility to the troops; not merely standing on the sidelines being pom-pom girls for a failed Republican administration.

[chrys]

Guess I've talked too much this week or something. The LAST thing Iraq is is Vietnam!! Don't remember using the words Vietnam any where in my comment?! Then again - people can read sideways into to whatever they "think" they say. OR - then there's the fact I may not know as much as others in some realms.

BUT - personally - I see VERY LITTLE like Vietnam other than maybe the desire to leave before a government can take a strong enough hold.

My favorite saying in this is "It's the World Stupid!!" - There are many more countries involved and there is the standing threat to destroy anything non-Muslim or anything Jewish in the entire world.

It is not just Afghanistan, Iraq - but an entire group of Islamic people all over the world - broken down into little "King of the Mountain" factions (gang style). Negotiating takes their "small" attempts away from them and the jump on the word "weak" - applying it to anyone offering compromise. We just embolden their game plan and ad their recruitment every time Senators mention we have to set time tables such as Hillary's (change again) statement of 90 days!!

Negotiations went on for over 12 years to no avail and no answers while the Middle East gained more and more ability - still gaining in Iran.

It's not even "Wake Up America" this time - All free nations are on the drawing boards. Whereas Vietnam was just a small buffer of China. You probably know better than I do - I read a lot but may have missed something. BUT - doesn't China appreciate and respect it's own borders? I don't remember China being an aggressor to own another country as their own the way Iraq attacked to OWN Kuwait. NOT to protect, defend or rid Kuwait of any type of oppression or even Civil War and lack of government - BUT to OWN a sovereign nation.

[Ghost Dansing]

Darth's anecdote about the card game and analogy with respect to to how our troops feel fighting asymmetric warfare is a good anecdote for describing how our troops feel.

The issues of American citizenship is, however, more about taking responsiblity for the conditions under which the American People place troops in harms way.... and that is the discussion Republicans wish to avoid at all cost right now, because we have the pudding in which the proverbial truth resides, and the truth isn't pretty.... strategic blunders and faulty execution.

Chrys makes a classic mistake harking back once again to the Vietnam analogy. Americans are loath to "lose" a fight.... but many have drawn the wrong conclusions about Vietnam, for it too was a strategic blunder that put us in a bad position from which we could not easily back away.

The Korean War had already demonstrated to us that we could not prevail in a conventional asian ground war if the Chinese got involved, and we didn't want to go nuclear. The whole set of "rules" in Vietnam was about preserving the South without getting into a nose-to-nose clash with the Chinese that led us into a protracted war of attrition, and allowed Giap to demonstrate once again how irregular Armies and guerilla tactics can, over time, prevail over a superior foreign force.... a principle well learned by the West from insurgencies against Colonial occupation, and even demonstrated in America's revolutionary war against Britain in the 18th Century.

In terms of Strategic Blunders, Vietnam also had the earmark of defective political policy that is haunting us in Iraq.... though the specifics vary to some degree, but ironically Colonial legacies are involved in each.... though to a much lesser degree in the case of Iraq.

America became involved in Vietnam after WW II because we backed the Colonial demands of our ally, the French, in the face of Nationalistic calls for independence.... Ho Chi Minh even had a charter based on the American Declaration of Independence that was rejected because there were Communists among the insurgency that had been previously fighting the Japanese.... Long story short, we ended up fighting a war that had its roots in European colonialism, long after the French had abandoned the effort.

In other words, poor, misinformed policy decisions put America in a bad position in Vietnam, just as the blundering of this Republican administration has done in Iraq.

The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1954 -- in 1945 rather -- after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination and a government that had been established not by China -- for whom the Vietnamese have no great love -- but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.

For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam. Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.

Martin Luther King 

 

[chrys]

This one simple paragraph commented by Alexandria says it all: We haven't used one tenth of our military might in Iraq. Is it winnable, we could turn Iraq into a sand box. The problem is the same here as in Viet Nam, the enemy in this country determined the out come of Nam and are trying again. The only way we lose this war is to lose here.

We truly missed our one moment - one place in time - when it would have even been PC to carpet bomb Afghanistan into oblivion a month or two after September 11th 2001. People living in Afghanistan have been existing in a "state" of war for decades. IF these people were against the UBL actions - they would have long ago found a way out of Afghanistan. Keep in mind the leadership of Afghanistan are still in the "kill" anything non-muslim mode. Remember the man who turned Christian? If we would have taken a STRONG retaliation. Saddam would have left Iraq (France would have tried to convince him to stick it out) Iran would stop what they are doing when they were told to stop AND "mini" Il would have kept his mouth and missile production turned off!

I enjoy listening to people who make statements of how peaceful everything was while Clinton was President?!??! Peaceful?! Of Course! IF you haven't answered each attack that grew in the level of destruction - putting us squarely under attack on September 11th 2001 - Thank you for your calm years Willie!

Unfortunately - Conservatives haven't had much of a voice considering the liberal hold on all of our media, theater, print and ALL of our news.

The liberals enjoy protests and screaming - even when they haven't taken the time to really study the situation. Conservatives, as stated in earlier days, remain the "Silent Majority." Gradually changing.

They are starting to realize that the majority of our citizens DO NOT want to "cut and run" - They (even if it's unpleasant) know that we need to FINISH this effort. The "clue" to these desires was the fact that Senator Lieberman was so strongly locked into understanding the need to finish the War on Terror - On all fronts. Senator Lieberman would not have won his Senate seat back IF voters were voting to immediately end the war in Iraq.

ONE of the main complaints held by the voting public was concern for our borders and illegals sapping up our pride, medical care, jobs and jail space! Since there was no strong leadership for stronger borders and both parties seemed to be pushing amnesty - many people didn't bother to vote. AND - in Ohio for one, there were not Conservative candidates, so there wasn't a reason to show up. Where Dems took seats - there were probably other LOCAL questions that needed attention. NOT the War in Iraq OR the War on Terror.

I may sound "simple" as I comment here. I often consider writing something. BUT - there seems to be more than enough information showing up here in the comments all the time from higher levels of thought.

[darthcrUSAderworldtour2007]

During a lunch break I broke out a deck of cards
and challenged my liberal co-worker who detests President Bush and most conservative agendas, and loves the Clintons to no end. Slick Willie Clinton was the ONLY two-term democrat president since...FDR...over the past 61 years?

I dealt Liberal Louie five cards and myself five cards in a poker game of reality. Liberal Louie asked for three cards and I dealt him three cards. In turn, I drew one card after the other, and Liberal Louie turned red and said, "What the hell are you doing? You're cheating!" I smiled at my leftist co-worker and said, "NO I am not, for you have to play by the rules...and I do not!" I looked at Liberal Louie and said, "Now you know how our troops feel in Iraq buddy!" He slammed down the cards and ...surrendered the moment. I asked him if our CHESS match was still on for the next day!
So much for playing a civilized card game like a gentleman? - Conservative Royal Red Flush!

[Ghost Dansing]

 Here's an interesting article in the Chicago Sun-Times suggesting a pattern:

The collapse of the shah in Iran was the beginning of American troubles in the Middle East. The shah was "our guy," an absolute ruler who was secularizing the country and freeing his people from the shackles of religious superstition and obscurantism. It never occurred to our foreign policy thinkers and experts that the people of Iran wanted their obscurantism and old-fashioned religion. The American leadership did not see the ayatollah coming and was unprepared for the defeat of the shah. Educated as they were in the great secular universities, our foreign policy gurus did not have a clue about the importance of religion in Middle Eastern countries....

....The same gurus or their successors have made the same mistake again. They expected the Iraqis to welcome our appearance on the horizon, like the 7th Cavalry riding to the rescue in the old Western movies. They expected the various factions in Iraq to band together in the formation of a stable democracy that would be a beacon of hope to the Middle East. As Paul Wolfowitz, the leader of the neocons, remarked, too much was made of the difference between Sunnis and Shiites.

A few other scholars ominously predicted a civil war between these two largest religious factions....

....The other Arab nations, with their own internal Shiite minorities, could not help but wonder why the United States was following such a stupid and dangerous policy. The Iranians, who are Persians, not Arabs and right next door to Iraq, rejoiced. It was natural for them to ally themselves secretly with their Shiite brothers across the border. They wondered why the United States was following such a foolish policy, yet were delighted that the Americans had eliminated the two most serious threats to Iranian security: Saddam on their western side and the Taliban on their eastern side....

U.S. keeps making mistakes in Mideast

February 23, 2007 BY ANDREW GREELEY

[darthcrUSAderworldtour2007]

Alexandra - My Death Star II crews are torn between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani 21-months before we vote to keep the Oval Office from reverting back to the Oral Office. We feel that the Democratic Liberals of Socialism and Al-Qaeda will not be slamming RUDY and MITT bumper stickers on their yaks behinds. How do you feel?

[Ghost Dansing]

Actually, igout.... I do sense a collapse of modern Republicanism as I've been describing it has begun. I mentioned in one of my posts that the face f the Republican Party in 2008 is not going to be the Republican Party that elected Dubya.

Reagan started down a slippery slope when he denounced Government as "the problem". Interestingly, all he was truly embracing was a pre-FDR economic bent toward laissez faire economics.... ironically the hands-off economics called classic Liberal economics.

Liberalism reformed itself in terms of economic philosophy when it realized that laissez faire tended toward monopolies and wild swings in the business cycle, including depressions. It also tends toward a diminution of the middle class and widening chasms between rich and poor. It is just the nature of the beast.... nor does it tend to defend the interests of labor, since labor is viewed as simply a commodity; a casualty of economic swings.

The realization began at least as early as the era of Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy himself, while quite the wild man, realized that Government actually had to "bust up" monopolies in order to sustain a healthy economy. Certainly, FDR addressed the Great Depression with subsidized work and a system of social safety nets to support the needs of individuals caught in the devastating economic swings, and ultimately insurance against other life catastrophes that in one way or another prevent one from earning a living.

Anyway, Reagan's "Government is the Problem" has culminated in Government that has no expectations of itself other than ensuring business, corporations and share holders make as much profit as possible. Governmental competence is not at a premium in such a political philosophy, and becomes an ideological game of cronyism and despotism.... witness the current administration and its fellow travelers.... apparently not in the service of anybody but themselves.... ideologically desiring the dismantlement of New Deal and Great Society programs.

Now, I've said before that the rightful definition of "conservative" in America is by default an advocate of Liberalism, for anyone finding fundamental fault with the nature of governance or the Constitution that established it would certainly not be described as "conservative". They might be instead extremists of Communist or Fascist bent, but certainly not "conservatives".

I suspect even one desiring a more "prescriptive" society might still be a Liberal, depending on what you mean by "prescriptive", and whether or not "prescriptions" involve undermining Constitutional principles.

[jeff stiles]

"The generally agreed upon standard for confirmation is competence: if the nominee is competent, s/he will be confirmed, even if the Senate disagrees with his/her positions. "

Tell that to Judge Bork.

[igout]

GD,

It maybe that your knowledge of the Right is from 30,000 foot altitude, to use a current piece of bizspeak. But speaking as one of the natives below, the most interesting debate is beginning to take place hereabouts. It hasn't coalesced into neat summaries or doctrinal formulations yet, and maybe never will, since one side of the dispute, traditional pre-industrial revolution conservatism, doesn't like intellectualizing.

Now, we haven't heard much from this group in decades, in centuries actually. And here in the US, the Right did all align behind the Republican Party and free market, small government capitalism during the Cold War; after all, we were in a bidding war with the Soviet Union over who could supply the masses with more washing machines and automobiles. In doing so, of course, Conservatives implicitly subscribed to an economics is destiny worldview, which the Old Conservatives hated on sight, whether it came from Betham, Mill or Marx.

These OC's are waking up, and they don't like what they see. They aren't liberals, neither in your sense nor in Ruch Limbaugh's. In addition to the usual bugaboos of the Right, add globalism, the new world order, neocons, big business, suburbs, sprawl, developers, harming the environment, consumerism, materialism, mass culture, libertarianism, wars to bring our way of life to benighted nations. And while I'm not sure what Madame Hillary meant by 'it takes a village', these people say that it takes a traditional, prescriptive society. So, latently, there's an authoritarian streak, which may or may not emerge. If you think it's already here, you ain't seen nothin yet.

Anyway, you can see how these views put them head-on against the GOP that we all know. In fact, if you were to read the comments on the GOP website back when the immigration issue was piping hot, you'd swear you had clicked on the letters to the editor of Pravda. You'd have read one thousand variations on the theme of how the Wall Street Plutocrats want to enrich themselves off cheap labor, grind down American workers and replace our Republic with some international capitalist board of directors.

As I said, this isn't an outright brawl yet, and maybe the antics of the Dem party will unite them against the common enemy, but right now it is really a most interesting time in our neighborhood.

[Ghost Dansing]

If you believe in America and American-style governance, you are a Liberal. America is more prone to insidious Rightism than Leftism.

What darthUSAderworldtour is talking about has nothing to do with Liberalism, or liberalism and is baldly regurgitated Rightest agitprop. At this point in time due to successful rightest propaganda, many Americans haven't a clue about the basis of their government, or what Liberalism even means.... yet for America to stay America and not just devolve into another semi-democratic kleptocracy.... specifically, in the case of modern Republicanism; a drift toward Corporate Plutocracy, it is essential to understand Liberalism as a foundational principle, not only for America, but for Modern Western civilization. The alternatives are totalitarian polarities on the right or left, unfortunately with advocacy on both extremes with those tending toward authoritarian personalities.

It would be nice if someone could have followed my encyclopedic post with comments demonstrating the roots of the modern Republican Neoconservative movement in the demise of the Weimar Republic and advent of Nazism in Germany.... perhaps a little on Leo Strauss

Critics of Strauss also accuse him of elitism and anti-democratic sentiment. Shadia Drury, author of 1999's Leo Strauss and the American Right, argues that Strauss taught different things to different students, and inculcated an elitist strain in American political leaders that is linked to imperialist militarism and Christian fundamentalism. Drury accuses Strauss of teaching that "perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them." Drury adds, "The Weimar Republic was his model of liberal democracy... liberalism in Weimar, in Strauss's view, led ultimately to the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews."

Link 

But I wouldn't want to diminish the quality of conversation flow in any way.

[Alexandra]

Ghost,

This lengthy copy paste is really over the top now! I loathe to delete your comments, but this one I really don't appreciate.

No one here needs a lengthy lecture from The Encyclopaedia Britannica, and it stops the conversation flow, defeating the object of the comment section.

Whilst I have allowed a certain amount of it to continue, you are beginning to take advantage. I still think that your heart is in the right place and you are not doing it on purpose, so chose a couple of paragraphs and give a link. I will wait until you do that and then delete this one. [DONE. I HAVE SIMPLY KEPT THE FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS IN]

[darthcrUSAderworldtour2007]

Poltergeist Dancer 'auf' Liberalism - I don't listen to Maja Rushy anymore like you don't listen to Al Franken Stein's Air America, but at least RU$H didn't go under. Danke for the West German twist on 'liberalism' Herr Poltergeist Meister because my frau is from der Fatherland! Frau Vader is as conservative and patriotic as our First Lady is, and her side of the Fatherland fought for the German Army and Navy in Krieg's I and II. Ironic that WW I was supposed to be the war that ended all wars? Ja?
Ein Reich...Ein Volk...Ein Frau! Liberal elites always have a 'book answer' for everything, but don't possess a U.S. Passport. My U.S. Luftwaffe missions in war and peace made me a better man, a better Christian, a better husband and father...A more grateful American!
Yeah - been THERE and done THAT during a few missions around GOD'S beautiful earth. One thing is for sure - the Democratic Liberal Party of Socialism IS the party of Al-Qaeda, North Korea, China, the EU, and terrorists world-wide, and of the treasonous ACLU (Atheists Communists Liberals United)! Back to my Warsteiners Beer and bratwurst mit kraut und zempf....Prost! As for Rush, he IS a PATRIOT!!

[Ghost Dansing]

 Oh, somebody likes guzzling his beer and listening to Rush better than doing his homework.... tsk tsk....

LIBERALISM. Liberalism is the creed, philosophy and movement which is committed to freedom as a method and policy in government, as an organizing principle in society and as a way of life for the individual and community. As a term it took its origins from the "Liberales," a Spanish political party in the early 19th century, but received its widest currency in the English language. As an idea and philosophy it predates its use as a term, and can be traced back to the Judaeo-Christian-Greek intellectual world, along with the idea of liberty itself with which it is closely linked.

Confusion of Terms.--Some of the confusions about liberalism arise from the various stages of meaning through which the term passed during a history of several centuries, and from the wide diversity of uses to which it has been put. There were in the second half of the 20th century a number of political parties, in Great Britain, Italy, Germany and elsewhere, called by the name of the "Liberal party" or some variant of it; there was a party of the same name active in the politics of New York state; and even a Liberal International which served as a clearinghouse for liberal political movements throughout the world. But while these parties expressed the liberal outlook, that outlook was not limited to them. Their emphasis was on an economic program and policy which minimized state intervention and control, and which sought to carry out the philosophy of economic freedom under the difficult conditions of modern industrial organization. They thus expressed the outlook of a liberal capitalism on the defensive against various forms of socialism and communism on one side, and against conservatism and the totalitarianisms of the right on the other. "Liberal" political parties tended thus in practice to be caught between the upper and nether millstones, and their appeal was for that reason constricted to a middle ground position.

Continued at The Encyclopaedia Britannica link.

[darthcrUSAderworldtour2007]

The liberals haven't a conscience with 47-million aborted babies on their hands since 1973. They have taken GOD out of the Pledge of Allegiance and PRAYER from our public classrooms. They don't know the words to the Star-Spangled Banner...Nor care to learn or sing them in public...
They don't fly OLD GLORY on our holidays but they'll BURN Old Glory as a supposed figure of speech...They don't want you to know that Florida in the 2000 presidential election wasn't really a player, because all the Sorelosermans had to do was just win Al Gore's home state (Tennessee) 'OR' Clinton's Arkansas - and the recount wouldn't have even occurred!
So much for 'Flor I Duh'- eh? They don't celebrate George Washington's Birthday nor the CHRIST in Christmas - but these liberal elites have the gonads to take these days off and not work! They remove Christ from Easter Vacation and rename it Spring Break. The Muslims are right - the liberals ARE infidels, especially in the 19 Blue States of Socialism! And when AA 11 flew into the North Tower and UF 175 flew into the South Tower, these TRAITORS had the gonads to say, "Oh my GOD - Oh NO!" on 9-11-01. Go figure...
"This so called re-deployment is really a vote catching program." ****General George S. Patton Jr. (WW II in 1944)

[Ghost Dansing]

The Constitution specifies that high government officials may be impeached for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Impeachment: A look at the process 

[darthcrUSAderworldtour2007]

Thank-You from the Death Star II! I would have been billed over $250.00 from my intergalactic
psychiatrist for the advice/posting reply that I just reviewed. I do know that Webster's defines TREASON as a violation of allegiance by a citizen to a country or ruler; treachery; disloyalty. You experienced WW II and I fought in the Cold War, Gulf War and Somalia for my country. We know what EVIL really IS..the look...the smell...and the taste. God bless!
"Never stop being ambitious. You have but one life, live it to the fullest glory and be willing to pay any price." **** Gen. George S. Patton Jr. (1945)

[Ghost Dansing]

"I support the troops but not the war...I support the spaghetti but not the meatballs..."

Conceptual differentiation refers to the number of discrete elements of political information individuals utilize in their evaluation of political issues. In contrast with the more commonly used textbookish political knowledge indices, this measure corresponds more closely to knowledge-in-use. Conceptual integration is defined as the spontaneous and explicit organization of ideas and information in terms of abstract or ideological constructs and represents an expansion of Philip Converse's research on levels of ideological thinking in mass publics. These two related dimensions of political information processing emerge from a detailed content analysis of depth interview transcripts. The analysis reveals substantial variation in the way citizens relate the condition of their own lives to those of their fellow citizens and to political authorities. As expected, education plays a central role in explaining these patterns, but there are some surprising interactive linkages between education and patterns of political thought. One specially intriguing finding is that conservatives have significantly lower scores than liberals on indices of differentiation and integration.

The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 86, No. 6 (May, 1981), pp. 1236-1268, Neumann, "Differentiation and Integration: Two Dimensions of Political Thinking"

....abilities people use when encountering information....knowledge style....person's knowledge style is composed of a person's basic cognitive, emotional, and moral development in generalas well as five factors in particular: type of intelligence, field dependency, tolerance for ambiguity, conceptual differentiation, and reflection-impulsivity....

Potter, Theory of Media Literacy; A Cognitive Approach

[darthcrUSAderworldtour2007]

You have to laught at the Skreecher of the House
'In Charge' now and the treasonous actions of the Hanoi Jane wannabes! "I support the troops but not the war...I support the spaghetti but not the meatballs...I love my marriage but not the sex...I'd like to have diversity with more black coaches but no diversity with the players...I support all 47 million abortions but not the guilt....I support the 9-11 victims but not the 9-11 footage on television...I support Christmas but not the 'Christ' in Christmas!" General George S. Patton Jr. said,
"It is the unconquerable soul of a man and not the nature of the weapon he uses which insures
victory." So much for the Woodstock Retread
Pez-Head-Candy-Poppers 1967 / 2007!

[Ghost Dansing]

Oh, I don't think the resolution(s) are insulting the military. The problem is that we've had all these years with a Republican Congress just rubber-stamping anything Dubya said or did.... modern Republicanisms obsession with being "on message".... lock-step ditto heads.

Now it is obvious that Dubya can do things like surge troops, etc. with Congress being insufficiently nimble to stop it or do anything about it.

But since there are Democrats in charge now, at least there might be debate, and the Republican politicians will have to go on record with their true opinion.

With the horrendous track record displayed by this Republican administration on Iraq, more and more Republicans will indicate their reservations or opposition.

[Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report]

Obviously, the only outcomes of the resolution are making the Bush administration look bad, and insulting the military. It is a cheap effort by the Democrats to secure another political talking point for the next election. Unfortunately, President Bush hasn't helped matters. Through the last election, we were being told to stay the course, that the current strategy was working, that media reports on lack of progress were wrong, Rumsfeld is staying, etc. Then, as soon as the election was over, Rumsfeld resigned, there was a serious discussion of what we should do, and a significant change in strategy. Had Bush done these things in August instead of November, we might not be saying "Speaker Pelosi" today.

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

[Ghost Dansing]

The structure of governance is a system of checks-and-balances to prevent any single political, religious or ethnic powerblock to gain absolute hegemony....

The structure of governance is established by the American Constitution.

The "War Powers" issue of the Executive is a long-running debate.

The Theory of Presidential Power .--The fullest expression of the presidential power proponents has been in defense of the course followed in Indochina. Thus, the Legal Adviser of the State Department, in a widely circulated document, contended: ''Under the Constitution, the President, in addition to being Chief Executive, is Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. He holds the prime responsibility for the conduct of United States foreign relations. These duties carry very broad powers, including the power to deploy American forces abroad and commit them to military operations when the President deems such action necessary to maintain the security and defense of the United States. . . .

''In 1787 the world was a far larger place, and the framers probably had in mind attacks upon the United States. In the 20th century, the world has grown much smaller. An attack on a country far from our shores can impinge directly on the nation's security. In the SEATO treaty, for example, it is formally declared that an armed attack against Viet Nam would endanger the peace and security of the United States.

''Under our Constitution it is the President who must decide when an armed attack has occurred. He has also the constitutional responsibility for determining what measures of defense are required when the peace and safety of the United States are endangered. If he considers that deployment of U.S. forces to South Viet Nam is required, and that military measures against the source of Communist aggression in North Viet Nam are necessary, he is constitutionally empowered to take those measures.'' 165  

Opponents of such expanded presidential powers have contended, however, that the authority to initiate war was not divided between the Executive and Congress but was vested exclusively in Congress. The President had the duty and the power to repeal sudden attacks and act in other emergencies, and in his role as Commander-in-Chief he was empowered to direct the armed forces for any purpose specified by Congress. 166 Though Congress asserted itself in some respects, it never really managed to confront the President's power with any sort of effective limitation, until recently.

  The Power of Congress to Control the President's Discretion .-- Over the President's veto, Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution, 167 designed to redistribute the war powers between the President and Congress....

....Aside from its use as a rhetorical device, the Resolution has been of little worth in reordering presidential-congressional relations in the years since its enactment. All Presidents operating under it have expressly or implicitly considered it to be an unconstitutional infringement on presidential powers, and on each occasion of use abroad of United States troops the President in reporting to Congress has done so ''consistent[ly] with'' the reporting sec tion but not pursuant to the provision. 173 Upon the invasion of Kuwait by Iraqi troops in 1990, President Bush sought not congressional authorization but a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member Nations. Only at the last moment did the President seek authorization from Congress, he and his officials contending he had the power to act unilaterally. 174 Congress after intensive debate voted, 250 to 183 in the House of Representatives and 53 to 46 in the Senate, to authorize the President to use United States troops pursuant to the U. N. resolution and purporting to bring the act within the context of the War Powers Resolution. 175

The references are good here: FindLaw 

Regarding the specific issue of Iraq, many in Congress and many Americans do not believe Congress declared War on Iraq.

As the CATO institute pointed out in 2002:

It's true that the Constitution makes the president the "Commander in Chief" of the US Army and Navy. But as Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist No. 69, this does no more than make the president the "first General" of America 's armed forces. And generals don't get to decide which countries we go to war with.

In the case of Iraq, Congress has not passed a formal declaration of war, or authorized any military action whatsoever. Even the sweeping Use of Force resolution approved by Congress three days after the attack on the World Trade Center falls short of authorizing military action against Iraq. That resolution would sanction war with Iraq only if it is determined that the Iraqi government "aided" the commission of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. The evidence for that proposition seems far weaker than it did in October, when Czech government officials announced that hijacker Mohammed Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague last April. Recent reports in the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Czech press have cast doubts on whether that meeting ever occurred.

Others have pointed to the anthrax mailings that alarmed the public in the months following Sept. 11 as a justification for war with Iraq. But despite intense investigation, the U.S. government has not found any evidence linking Iraq to the anthrax attacks. As Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge put it recently, "based on the investigative work of many agencies, we 're all more inclined to think that the perpetrator is domestic."

Moreover, even if the government unearths evidence that Saddam Hussein supplied the anthrax, Congress would still need to authorize action against Iraq. By its terms, the current Use of Force resolution only approves military action against those nations, organizations or persons involved in "the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." Thus, Congress has not yet authorized a military response to any subsequent terrorist attacks.

Nonetheless, anyone following news accounts of the current debate on Iraq could be forgiven for thinking that President Bush has all the authority he needs to wage war on that country. Our elected representatives certainly seem to think so. Senatorial hawks, such as Joseph Lieberman (D.-Conn.), John McCain (R.-Ariz.), and Trent Lott (R.-Miss.) have been reduced to pleading their case via the U.S. mail. In a Dec. 5 letter to the president, Sen. Lieberman, et. al., wrote, "we believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later." Even Sen. Daschle (D.-S. Dak.), initially reluctant to endorse military action, now merely bleats that Congress would like to be "included, consulted, and [wants] to work with the administration" -- not that the president lacks the authority unilaterally to wage war on Iraq.

But if the president can take us into war with Iraq without so much as a by-your-leave to Congress, then Congress' power to declare war isn't worth the parchment it's written on. Congressional hawks and doves alike have the power -- and the responsibility -- to vote on the question. And for his part, President Bush ought to acknowledge that until Congress votes him the authority to attack Iraq, the Constitution stays his hand.

Link 

So, as I pointed out, Iraq may force a Constitutional crisis regarding Executive Powers in this regard.

Ironically, if this Republican administration's political strategy was to reinforce the powers of the Executive Branch, it has through its incompetence contributed Iraq as yet another example of why the Executive should be further constrained.

 

 

[carentan44]

We have learned at least one thing from GD [2-16, 9:48 PM].  If GD spells "defense" as "defence," perhaps we have been dealing with a Brit pontificating about the Constitution of the USA.  True, GD, "...The Founders, including James Madison, who is often called 'the father of the Constitution,' fully expected Congress to use these powers to rein in the commander in chief. 'The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it,' Madison cautioned. 'It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.'"

"The question," GD, not the conduct of war.  Unfortunately for your thesis, "checks and balances" appears nowhere in the Constitution.  Like the famous presumption of innocence, checks and balances is a lawyers' slogan intended to incite to litigation and thereby make money for lawyers. What we do have in this country is separation of powers among three co-equal branches.  The  judiciary rules on matters of law and the courts; the legislature makes law--period; and the executive runs the country, with special emphasis on matters of war and foreign policy.  The Congress used up its war powers when it authorized the president to invade Iraq.  The tradition of a strong executive who can be weakened but not removed by a vote of no confidence, is an ancient tradition in this country, going back to the Founders.  When Jefferson unilaterally made the Lousiana Purchase, or when he sent the Navy and Marines to punish Barbary pirates, he was acting as the "decider" that Bush claims to be, and is in fact.  We have become so inured to judicial encroachment on both other branches that a conservative jurist and law professor, Kenneth W. Starr has permitted himself to entitle a book about the SCOTUS "First Among Equals." Not so. The courts of appeal do not have a monopoly of ruling on constitutionality.  It is perfectly legitimate for a president or governor to refuse to ratify a statute on grouns that it violates the federal or state constitution.  That is what President Bush ought to have done but failed to do when presented with the McCain-Feingold BCRA.  That failure has encouraged Senator McCain to go even farther in the direction of incumbent protection by seeking to outlaw 527 groups.  I have strayed far afield from war, but the principle that a show of weakness invites further aggression is independent of context.

In the House of Representatives, a sneaky but blatant example of attempted theft of the powers of the Commander in Chief looms on the horizon in the Pelosi-Murtha "slow bleed" project. This peculiar initiative, concocted in collusion with various unnamed anti-war groups, attempts not only to deceive the public regarding its true intent, but to arrogate to the Congress the power to dictate administrative details such as troop rotation and preparedness for combat.  If it ever reaches the Senate, the measure will almost certainly die there.

This is  hardly the proper venue to dilate upon Murtha's weirdness.  Those interested in learning more are invited to go here.

[gringoman]

FROM GD However this Republican administration has already "Screwed the pooch" (A Vietnam-era term one might recognize)... the situation is FUBAR.... and Dubya is telling the American People BOHICA.

FROM GRINGOMAN. Ma'm, would you disclose what you claim to know about "screwed the pooch"and how you know it? Feel free to use wiki or life experience. It's a term one might NOT recognize, and I spent five years in Vietnam. In addition I just finished reading the first American novel on Vietnam that equals Graham Greene's THE QUIET AMERICAN and may even surpass it, THE EMBASSY HOUSE, by Nicholas Proffit, and I don't recall "screwed the pooch" on any of its 400 or so pages. Divulge, Mz, or retract.

[J. Mark English]

I love the blog that you have. I was wondering if you would link my blog to yours and in return I would do the same for your blog. If you want to, my site name is American Legends and the URL is:

http://www.americanlegends.blogspot.com

If you want to do this just go to my blog and in one of the comments just write your blog name and the URL and I will add it to my site.

Thanks,
Mark

[Ghost Dansing]

Wow Red Violin.... I was waiting to use that as yet another example of the incompetence displayed by this Republican administration.

For all its bluster, Dubya and the boys are being remarkably ineffective on all fronts.

They've actually managed to undermine our military credibility and trash our diplomatic standing in the world...

And as much as Dubya "conservatives" might try, it's not only Democrats that have been saying so.

Several prominent neoconservatives have turned on George Bush days before critical midterm elections, lambasting his administration for incompetence in the handling of the Iraq war and questioning the wisdom of the 2003 invasion they were instrumental in promoting....

....Mr Perle, a member of the influential Defence Policy Board that advised the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, in the run-up to the war, is as outspoken in denouncing the conduct of the war as he was once bullish on the invasion. He blamed "dysfunction" in the Bush administration for the present quagmire....

....Kenneth Adelman, another Reagan era hawk who sat on the Defence Policy Board until last year, drew attention with a 2002 commentary in the Washington Post predicting that liberating Iraq would be a "cakewalk".

He now says he hugely overestimated the abilities of the Bush team. "I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent," Mr Adelman said.

"They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional."

Link 

[Red Violin]

Welcome back. We missed you a lot. GD's incessant cut and pasting on the previous thread was getting on my nerves. Now, I see, he's doing the same thing on this thread...

This is From NY Times:

"The team that once sold the country smoking guns in the shape of mushroom clouds has completely lost its mojo.
Iran is in fact steadily extending its influence in Iraq — thanks to its alliance with the very Iraqi politicians that Mr. Bush himself has endorsed. In December the president welcomed a Shiite leader, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, to the White House with great fanfare; just three weeks later American forces had to raid Mr. Hakim’s Iraq compound to arrest Iranian operatives suspected of planning attacks against American military forces, possibly with E.F.P.’s. As if that weren’t bad enough, Nuri al-Maliki’s government promptly overruled the American arrests and ordered the operatives’ release so they could escape to Iran. For all his bluster about doing something about it, Mr. Bush did nothing."
http://wealthyfrenchman.blogspot.com/

[Ghost Dansing]

Sorry, no it's not.

[jainphx]

Hogwash.

[Ghost Dansing]

 I'm afraid that my comments make sense and are factually correct. American responsibilities as "occupier" under the Geneva Convention, and in accordance with American military doctrine persist until the Iraqi Government is able to maintain security and stability on its own.

The fact that after nearly four years of occupation America is still infusing troops to "secure Baghdad", and that the strategy is to "team" American troops with Iraqis and go live "down town" attests to the fact that the Iraqis are incapable of doing it for themselves.

Now, the Iraqis are quite capable of devolving into Civil War (it is already a Civil War) and participating in wholesale ethnic cleansing.... Sunni and Shia.... assuming the Kurds don't get in on the act with the Turkmen up north....

However this Republican administration has already "Screwed the pooch" (A Vietnam-era term one might recognize)... the situation is FUBAR.... and Dubya is telling the American People BOHICA.

Petraeus' COIN (Counterinsurgency)  formula calls for a 1:50 Troop-to-Population ratio for effective Counterinsurgency. That would mean 120,000 troops for Baghdad alone. The compromise 21,500 number is a logistical and political necessity, but inadequate. Petraeus is going to go for a local suppression of violence in Baghdad (exercise the Whack-a-Mole phenomenon in the Capitol, long enough to provide Dubya and the boys cover to "show success", saddle the fledgling Iraqi government with the "responsiblity" and redeploy troops out of harms way, and maybe out of Iraq in considerable numbers before the 2008 elections.

As combat operations in Iraq wind down, attention is quickly shifting to the plight of the Iraqi population. Looting and violence have broken out in a number of cities, and critics are condemning U.S. and British forces for moving too slowly to restore order. Indeed, Human Rights Watch has charged that “[s]ome U.S. government officials seem unaware of their obligations under international law to act promptly to prevent looting and other disturbances.” Quite aside from the issue of lawlessness, humanitarian organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross are urging action in the face of an overwhelmed medical system, inadequate water and electricity supplies, and the risk of disease.

What are the rights and obligations of “Occupying Powers,” the legal term for countries that occupy an adversary’s territory? As growing portions of Iraq fall to U.S. and British forces, it is a propitious time to review the basic requirements of that body of law.

The Annexed Regulations to Hague Convention IV of 1907, the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, and customary international law set forth the laws of belligerent occupation applicable in this conflict. Both the Nuremberg Tribunal and a 1993 Report of the U.N. Secretary-General characterized the Hague Regulations as reflecting customary international law binding on all States. Since Iraq, the U.S., and the U.K. are parties to the Geneva Conventions, that instrument also applies. Finally, there was extensive State practice of occupation in the 20th Century, particularly after the Second World War, much of which has matured into customary law bearing on the occupation of Iraq. It should be noted that while the 1977 Protocol Additional I to the Geneva Conventions contains the most recent codification of occupation law, that treaty does not apply in this case because neither the U.S. nor Iraq are Parties to the agreement....

These laws come into effect as soon as territory is “occupied” by adversary forces, that is, when the government of the occupied territory is no longer capable of exercising its authority, and the attacker is in a position to impose its control over that area. The entire country need not be conquered before an occupation comes into effect as a matter of law, and a state of occupation need not be formally proclaimed, as General Eisenhower did in the Second World War. Obligations and rights of the Occupying Power obviously extend only to those areas that the attacking forces actually control. Ultimately, whether territory is occupied is a question of fact. That some resistance continues does not preclude the existence of occupation provided the occupying force is capable of governing the territory with some degree of stability. Moreover, it is not legally relevant that the occupiers claim to be “liberating” the population; so long as an international armed conflict is underway, the justification for the conflict has no bearing on whether the laws of occupation apply....

One of the most pressing tasks faced by any military government is the maintenance of law and order. With government buildings, stores, hospitals, and cultural facilities being looted, revenge killings taking place, and general lawlessness preventing the delivery of humanitarian aid, this has become an omnipresent concern for the coalition forces in Iraq. Their responsibility in this regard is unambiguously set forth in the U.S. Army’s Field Manual 27-10: “The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety….” Thus, although there have been assertions that the coalition forces are not police, in fact occupation law imposes policing responsibilities on them during an occupation....

 Law of Belligerent Occupier, Michael M. Schmitt, Global Policy Forum, April 2003

[Alexandra]

Absolutely. Well said.

[jainphx]

Ghostdansing-your comments make no sense,the Geneva Convention dictates what?Where did you hear or read this.For one thing we aren't occupiers we are there at the invitation of the elected Iraqi Government.If the Iraqi's ask us to leave that would be it.This administration has had its hands tied since he landed on the carrier,from that point on it was out right war both on Bush and troops. The fact that the banner read mission accomplished caught the lefts hair on fire.Can't allow for victory at least not by a Rep.No sir this can't stand.The MSM and Dems from that point on ceased to want any type of victory,only a pull out or out right defeat would do.Us Viet Nam vets have seen this before and it sickens me.

[Ghost Dansing]

Georgy Girl

[Ghost Dansing]

I don't know why David is trying to pin this on Democrats.... it is a Republican White House with a Republican Congress that failed to take appropriate measures to ensure victory in Iraq....

The minimum requirement under the Geneva Convention was for America, as an occupying force, to establish security and stability. That was the basis of any good that was going to come of this.

Because this Republican administration encouraged military miscalculation, that minimum requirement hasn't been met. In that regard a fundamental "failure" has already been achieved....

The latest episode will, at best, create conditions in which this Republican administration can gracefully disengage without the appearance of total chaos in the Capitol City of Iraq.... Baghdad.

Military occupation of Iraq: IHL and the maintenance of law and order

Analysis, IHL Research Initiative

[Sissy Willis]

Trackback didn't seem to work. Here's my post in response:

Proof the terrorists haven't won

[david foster]

Democrats and assorted "progressives" like to continually congratulate themselves about their deep concern for people of different countries/races/religions. This resolution, which demonstrates their complete lack of concern for the hundreds of thousands of people who would be killed in the event of a US failure in Iraq, demonstrates just how little they really value the lives of people who can't vote in US elections.

[Sissy Willis]

Great post, and the illustration is totally awesome!!! At first -- before I read the piece -- I thought it was Al Gore, but once I started reading, the megalomaniacal Murtha was revealed.