SO WE HAD THESE HEARINGS ON IRAQ, and generals Abizaid and Zinni are arguing against timetables for withdrawal, which has been the Democrats’ main policy proposal.
Did the Democrats know beforehand that this is what the generals thought? If so, were they dishonest in not taking it into account? Maybe they were relying on this sort of thing to keep from having to do what the MoveOn crowd wants, but what they know is wrong?
Or did they not know, making them clueless? Neither one’s impressive. But since the big criticism of Rumsfeld, which led to his defenestration, was that he “didn’t listen to the generals,” what are the Democrats to do now that the generals have spoken?
Indeed. More at the link.
Perhaps someone can explain why these hearings (where Generals said what Mark Steyn and Kate and ET and Maz2 and I- and I’m sure others- have known for months) couldn’t have taken place 2 weeks ago.
It was really interesting testimony given the context.
1) Rumsfeld is gone, and his alleged muzzling of the generals.
2) It is post election and the people have spoken giving the democrats a win. In other words the political climate is pretty clear
3) Bush is gone in 2 years and congress controls the purse strings
So why wouldnt the generals speak freeely? Or maybe they did? Where are the retired ones who were saying that commanders in the field really wanted to say something else about Iraq?
It is a really good question and it needs more analysis.
One explaination, if you look carefully, Abizaid said more troops could be used but it isnt sustainable with the current size of the forces.
The generals were definitely pissed at Rummy becasue he didnt want to build bigger, he wanted to build smarter and more nimble. The Generals and Rummy may not have disagreed about the Iraq strategy after all…..
I don’t know, Terry Gain, if that would have changed the outcome of the elections which were, as has been said by expert political analysts, normal for a midterm.
What these elections did, was to move the Democrats out of the safe haven of rhetoric into the unsafe shoals of being held responsible for decisions. They’ll be judged on that – and I doubt if they will feel comfortable in that role.
As for Iraq, there is no question that the US cannot leave ‘rapidly’ (whatever that means); at the same time, it cannot remain too long for the Iraqi government cannot rely on the US military to provide police services. Iraq has to do that itself.
The Iraqi gov’t has to publicly state, repeatedly, that it won’t tolerate sectarian violence and it won’t tolerate Iran, Syria and SA’s interference by their actually sending these insurgents into Iraq. I think it’s been moving in that direction recently.
We have to remember that no part of the ME has ever been democratic; there are no institutions of democracy, ie., institutions that empower the people and set up a civic rather than tribal society. It takes time; you simply can’t move out of a tribal infrastructure where all decisions are made ‘for the good of the tribe’. You don’t from one day to the next drop your loyalties to the tribe and move into a civic mode which acknowledges all people as equal.
The real problem at the moment, is not Iraqi – which must go through, itself, this period of internal re-formation to move from the tribal to the civic mode. The real problem is Iran, which is, like the local wolf, extremely interested in Empire Building. All those sophist leftists who scream that the US is an imperialist country – which it is not – ought to shake the wool out of their heads and take a good hard look at two countries: Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Saudi Arabia is actively engaged in ideological imperialism, funding the spread of Wahhabi Islam, which is Islamic fascism, all over the world. The West has to fight this imperialist agenda. Why is it doing this? Partly to divert attention from its non-Islamic rule over Saudi Arabia and externalize anti-Saudi rage into anti-West rage. SA has no imperialist ambitions, but the Saudi rulers, corrupt as they are, have no intention of losing power. Externalizing rebellion is one tactic.
Iran is the imperialist nation. Iran is extremely interested in taking over political control of the ME (it doesn’t give a damn about ideology except as a political tool). So, it will have no hesitation in invading Iraq – after the US leaves. It has aligned itself with Syria; it has every intention of taking over Lebanon, from the ‘ground up’ ie by Hezbollah. It has already moved in that direction with Palestine, moving in to control Hamas. That leaves Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia – to fight against Iran.
They certainly don’t want Iran in power – but ..
What would stop Iran? Democracy in the other states – in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iraq…which will spread into Iran as well.
The military brass is definitely not unaminous on this issue.
And the Democrats don’t really want to force a pullout from Iraq. They’re going to mug for their base but they’re only to happy to let Bush and the neocons twist for as long as possible. Although
It’s amusing but not suprising that the war’s supporters are blaming it’s failure on the war’s critics.
And in an ironic touch, Iran wants the US to keep it’s troops in Iraq. Makes you wonder.
The Iraq war was an incredibly decietful and downright stupid move. The situation in Iraq is such an out of control mess it’s very difficult to tell wether or not pulling out will help or hurt. Personaly I think they should stay, prevent what little bloodshed they can and pay through the nose for their stupidity.
The war’s most fervent supporters will rationalize the war’s failures on the left, islam, fate, the msm, etc but their republican leadership won’t engage in any grand neocon misadventures for at least another decade or two.
RE: ET wrote,
-We have to remember that no part of the ME has ever been democratic.-
I would add-except Isreal.
“I would add-except Isreal.”
Try telling that to a Palestinian living in Israel.
Talk about setting yourself up for a smackdown, Jose….
Wow. It doesn’t get much better than that.
I’ll stand by it. If you’ve lived all your life in a country and don’t have the right to vote then the country you live in isn’t much of a democracy in my opinion. The fact that you are part of an ethnic group that engages in a lot of terrorism doesn’t change that fact as any Irishman can tell you.
What the fuck are you smoking Jose? Arabs not only have the right to vote in Israel, they even hold seats in it’s government. You really need to pull your head out of the sand, bud.
As for the war, I don’t need to rationalize anything. There’s been failures in Iraq? OH NO! Because, you know, every other war in history has been smooth-sailing. Iraq has had the lowest casualty count of any war in history, but hey man! There’s been mistakes! That means it’s a TOTAL failure! Like, if I weren’t busy smoking my bong, I’d go and protest in front of the white house or something….
Pick up a book once in a while. Seriously.
Proves that the STUPUD DONKEY PARTY prefers to ignore the truth
Alex,
The american’s have sufffered inconsquential casualities in Iraq I completely agree with that. I actually think the US military did a masterful job of taking the country. The mistake isn’t one in their operations but in the political operators who ordered it.
In the end it doesn’t matter whether or not you realize their mistake because they certainly do.
“…..Did the Democrats know beforehand that this is what the generals thought? If so, were they dishonest in not taking it into account? Maybe they were relying on this sort of thing to keep from having to do what the MoveOn crowd wants, but what they know is wrong?…”
The Dems one and only concern was pandering to whatever group could deliver votes. At any cost without any regard fro consequences other than their own return to power.
American Voters prove once again that they are largely a bunch of suckers!
“The Dems one and only concern was pandering to whatever group could deliver votes.”
Agreed. That’s pretty much true of both sides. The whole Iraq War is basicaly a political football wedge issue between the two parties. That was in part is one of the reasons why the war was instigated in the first place(worked beautifuly in the short term, currently backfiring but you never know the republicans could concievably turn it around).
Personaly I’m not impressed with the American Left’s stance on Iraq. They’re right to blame Bush for drawing their country into an expensive misadventure but wrong to assume that they have no moral obligation to the people of Iraq now that they’ve trashed their country. The main reason why America wants out of Iraq isn’t because a lot of their troops are dying because they aren’t or because the war is expensive (they haven’t paid for it yet, China loaned them the money) but because the war makes them feel like stupid losers. It’s like Patton said “American hates a loser” and right now Bush and the Iraq war “feels” like a loser and because of that they want out.
Some of you on the right have correctly identified that motivation and are right to call the left on it. Where you’re wrong is in thinking that this war’s stated goals are honest ones and believing that even the fictional goals are being met.
Some peoples recolection of history is in need of a lesson.A democrat president got the US into the second world war,Korea, Vietnam and they ordered the only use of atomic weapons in war.They santioned thousands of deaths in these conflicts.A republican president,Nixon,got them out of Vietnam,normalized relations with China and got himself impeached for his efforts.Another republican president,Reagan,defeated the Evil Empire without firing a shot.They were both villified for there efforts.
The military guys knows better about such things then do all those politcians who have never picked up a gun in their life
As a retired infantryman, I say that Rumsfeld blew it. Its one thing to build smart versus big. Its another thing to ignore prudent actions that most anybody could recognize. The US Army is the smallest its been since the 1930’s. Why would you go into the biggest war we’ve had since WWII with an Army that small and not think it might be a good idea to increase the troop levels a little. If Rumsfeld had asked for three more divisions on September 12th, the same divisions that were cut in the 1990’s and had existed throughout the cold war, nobody would have argued about it. If he had, today we’d only be starting units on their second tours in Iraq instead of having units on their third tours. But Rumsfeld was sure that he was smarter than those cautious generals. Well he might be smarter, but he was wrong on this decision, and it was a crucial one. I’ll shed few tears for him now that he’s gone.
Biggest war since WW2? Talk to a Korea vet some time. Or look at the Vietnam statistics.
As for numbers, the US army is currently over 1 million active members strong. As a comparison, Canada has roughly 60,000 all arms serving. If the US is under-strength, then they must have a LOT of REMF’s/PONTI’s kicking around on US soil.