Centerfield

Well if the entirety of Dean's comments mimics those of a column I read this a.m., then the idea that "we can't win in Iraq" was a point that was really just a colossally stupid way of trying to emphasisze the notion that sooner or later the real winning has to be up to Iraqis, not the United States.

Which is true. So if that was his actual point, I've got no problem with it beyond whatever "pandery to the wing" flavor Dean seasoned it with...

So if this is a case of de-contextualizing just to play "sound-bite gotcha" count me out. How about a link to the full text of Dean's comments, so we could find out what the exact point Dean was trying to make was.

I don't mind "money-quoting" so long as the actual quote is a legitmate and fairly complete abstraction of a speaker's main point. But if the "money quote" amounts to misrepresentation of of a more sophisticated point, then that reflects very poorly on the abstracter, no?

Ask, receive. There's the original article. They also have a link to the complete radio interview. Dean was NOT quoted out of context. He was openly preaching for the MoveOn wing of the party. If anything, his remarks in context were underplayed. Another choice bit:

"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."

Someone with more time on their hands could try to count the number of times Dean says "Watergate" and "Vietnam" and "failed" and "misled" in that interview, which runs about 7 minutes or so. Or count the number of times Dean claims he's not saying what he's saying. Make it all into a drinking game, and no one will leave sober.

Dean was equating the Bush White House with the Nixon White House and Watergate, and doing his damndest to equate Iraq with Vietnam. Absolutely NO doubt about it. That's the script that the left wants--to replay their "glory days" of Vietnam. So they're doing their damndest to turn Iraq into another Vietnam. It's pretty despicable, and it's been ongoing for the last two years, it's just that now it's coming out of the Dem party chairman's mouth.

Just out of curiosity, is Rep. Jim Marshall from a safe Democratic seat? A lot of Democrats from safe seats, even in the south, tend to echo the Dean/Moore wing of the party. Another reason for redistricting reform.

Whether he's from a swing district or not, his response is to his credit.

any more dispicable than underarming and undermanning the occupation?

any more dispicable than continuing policies that clearly have not worked and have generated little progress in what is really a civil war?

BTW the real winner in all this is Iran...surprise.
We get rid of their foe, Saddam, we install people friendly to Iran in government. They didn't have to spend a dime.

Wes Clark said it best recently

"Staying the course" risks a slow and costly departure of American forces with Iraq increasingly factionalized and aligned with Iran. Yet a more rapid departure of American troops along a timeline, as some Democrats are calling for, simply reduces our ability to affect the outcome and risks broader regional conflict.

...

While American troops have been fighting, and dying, against the Sunni rebels and foreign jihadists, the Shiite clerics in Iraq have achieved fundamental political goals: capturing oil revenues, strengthening the role of Islam in the state, and building up formidable militias that will defend their gains and advance their causes as the Americans draw down and leave. Iraq's neighbors, then, see it evolving into a Shiite-dominated, Iranian buffer state that will strengthen Tehran's power in the Persian Gulf just as it is seeks nuclear weapons and intensifies its rhetoric against Israel.

I keep hearing the "80% want us to leave" bit. Anyone know where that's coming from...IMO, if that's true, that's a huge problem, and we DO need to consider leaving right away.

But is it true? Are those numbers reliable? Presumedly, if they are, then the immediate aftermath of the next election could conceivably be an Iraqi assembly voting to demand that we leave. If they do that, what's our response? Wouldn't that be the point where the rubber meets the road regarding whether we're fostering a legitimate democracy or installing a puppet regime?

IMO, the meter's running on this.

From what I hear those numbers come from the British military. it's something like 80% want us outta there and 45% thinks its okay to kill GI's.

Even though we won the war to remove Saddam we have been since then an army of occupation. Few people ever like an army of occupation. There's also the perception that the US is there for the oil, that we're creating permanent military bases, etc. and that the conditions that Bush laid down in the 35 page pamphlet leave enough holes for permanent occupation.

I dunno, what if during the Revolutionary War the French decided to overstay their welcome....??

oh well, back to work.

One other item Simon...everyone knows that House vote was bogus BS.

Marcus, no actual bonafide source that allows us to vet its accuracy?

One other item Simon...everyone knows that House vote was bogus BS.

Maybe, but if so, file it under BS that the democrats brought upon themselves. Nothing anyone tries to parse in Murtha's statement will convince me that Murtha's call for withdrawal was not intended to be interpreted as "pretty much right now, without regard for the conseqeunces to anyone other than our troops." YMMV, as I can be sure it does.

As far as the 80% Iraqi poll...are they ringing them up at home in the evening? Or polling them as they stand in line waiting for the next wayward car bomb? Just curious...

Dems go a little one way, a little the other on Iraq

Query: is that a good thing or a bad thing? On the one hand, I don't want to see everyone just toe a party line. On the other hand, I have no idea what the Dems would do if they ever took power.

On the other other hand, I have no idea how Bush plans to win in Iraq either (last week's Victory Talking Points notwithstanding.)

Turns out this poll was a "secret" poll done by an unidentified Iraqi university. That means that it MAY be true, but there is currently no publically available evidence that helps us decide whether its true, or a complete fabrication. In other words, it's hearsay. One british newspaper says it has seen the poll and that it exists. And we have absolutely no information about the methodology. So even if it exists, we have no way on knowing whether the results are trustworthy.

here's a bit, from the link above

The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces. It reveals:

• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;

• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq.

The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it.

Here's the thing: genuine information like this is worth knowing, and I'd love to see some sort of trustworthy unbiased alliance make a good faith effort to collect this info. Done over time using consistent methodology, you could at least determine a trend even if one had to make compromises in the sampling methods for a variety of obvious logistical reasons.

But all we have is an alleged secret military poll of undetermined methodology. Credit such stories however you want. IMO, it counts as an unverified rumor.

Marcus:

BTW the real winner in all this is Iran...surprise.
We get rid of their foe, Saddam, we install people friendly to Iran in government. They didn't have to spend a dime.

Should we just accept that?

Oberon:

On the other hand, I have no idea what the Dems would do if they ever took power.

On the other other hand, I have no idea how Bush plans to win in Iraq either (last week's Victory Talking Points notwithstanding.)

The one exception I would take to that is your monolithic approach to "the Dems" (I would say the same thing if you said you have no idea how "the Reps" plan to win the war if they maintain power after 2008). On determination to win, McCain and Lieberman have both made clear where they stand while on the other side Murtha and Pelosi have made clear that they'd abandon ship. Then there are the likes of Dean who have provided nothing but strategic ambiguity as to what they would do.

I don't think we necessarily need to "win" in Iraq as long as we don't "lose." Our goal need not be an Iraqi client state that is an American ally. But we must prevent Iraq from becoming like Afghanistan was under the Taliban, a state that hosts and provides training facilities for Al Qaeda.

If Democrats are seen as ready to hand over Iraq to a sponsor of Al Qaeda, then moderates will hold their noses and vote for the crooked Republicans running Washington. Democrats needs to present a credible alternate plan that protects American security rather than be seen as throwing in the towel.

As near as I can track down, that "80% want us to leave" meme has been around much longer than that questionable poll, and is a misrepresentation of several polls dating from April 2004 to August 2005, including that "secret" poll offered by the BBC and another from an Iraqi newspaper. The consistent figures actually found that 12-15% of the Iraqis want us out right away, and that about 80% want Coalition forces to leave after security is re-established and the new government firmly in control. Those figures are pretty stable. IOW, Iraqis do not want a permanent major Coalition occupation force. I'm with 'em. (Is that sufficient context?)

We "win" if we don't abandon an ally and its population to the opposition--the Islamofascists and the jihadis. As we did in Vietnam. If they can handle the opposition themselves (the stated benchmark for drawdowns) then our support does not need to include ground troops. Anyone who doesn't realize that our long-term choice is between support or abandonment isn't paying attention.

The Islamofascists and the jihadis have been openly stating that they believe we will opt for abandonment. As in Vietnam. IT's what they're betting on. And that's what the anti-war faction is rooting for.

So where are these stable polls?

One other item Simon...everyone knows that House vote was bogus BS.

I think what you actually mean is that everyone knows that the Democrats are spitting feathers that they got called on this one, and hope that if they impugn the vote enough, no one will notice that they voted against withdrawal. Oops! I guess "everyone knows" that!

any more dispicable than underarming and undermanning the occupation?

The one exception I would take to that is your monolithic approach to "the Dems" (I would say the same thing if you said you have no idea how "the Reps" plan to win the war if they maintain power after 2008). On determination to win, McCain and Lieberman have both made clear where they stand while on the other side Murtha and Pelosi have made clear that they'd abandon ship. Then there are the likes of Dean who have provided nothing but strategic ambiguity as to what they would do.

Err...that was my point exactly.

So is it good or bad that the Democratic leaders have such differing positions?

The real problem is with terminology, because, in a real sense, Howard Dean's right, just not very eloquent... We can make the best out of a bad situation in Iraq, we can make lemonade when given lemons... but can we ever "win"?

To use Colin Powell's pottery barn rule, if we broke it, and we bought it, and we managed to glue it back together, is that really winning? Nope, that's living in the bed you made. We didn't want it, but we got it, and we did with it what we could. Maybe, hopefully, we can leave it a little better place than it was when we went in.

From a traditional standpoint, "victory" comes with the collapse of a government, the fall of a capital, etc. The dilemma here is that there is no set victory to be had. Anyone can paint anything as either "winning" or "losing."

If next month the new Iraqi government votes us out, is that winning or losing? I suppose it's relative to the person interpreting the information.

Certainly leaving because the Iraqi government wants us to, during the "height" of the insurgency would be less of a victory than, say, totally crushing the back of the insurgency, catching bin Laden in Iraq, and bringing a lasting peace to the middle east. For some, nothing short of peace on earth would be a victory to justify what we've spent.

Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

re Iran

Yes we do need to stay in, in some manner that is both effective and demonstrates that we mean business. Unfortunately to this administration, business means larding out no bid contracts or contracts with little oversight guided by a DefSec who is incompetent as hell. Pity the next president, Dem or GOP who has to shovel this pile of manure.

In a nutshell I think Wes Clark has the right ideas as to how to use our power more effectively.

as for the the Iraq vote....
Simon it was like voting for George Bush not to masturbate in public.

Marcus, I think it would have been exactly like voting for Bush not to masturbate in public, if only prior to the vote a well-known democratic jerk-off with impeccable masturbatory pedigree had first insisted that Bush pull out his johson in Times square, lube up, and start waxing it, as soon as possible and by any means necessary.

Then it would be the same. The democrats got bold and went for a big grandstand play, and let's face it, they got cut off at the knees.

So where are these stable polls?

Here and here are a couple of examples from 2004. As I said, the concensus is that the Iraqis don't want a permanent presence. They also don't want us gone yesterday. The "tipping points" on continued presence appear to be stable self-elected government and security. Sound familiar? Our goals.

There's some Zogbys and Gallups running around as well--but the problem is there's not much recent that directly addresses the question. Here's a much more recent poll from November from IRI, but it doesn't really hit it head-on.

Also a problem is that polls taken in one province don't tell you much about the others. The "secret" Brit mil poll appears to have that trouble, but since we don't have base data we can't tell.

as for the the Iraq vote....Simon it was like voting for George Bush not to masturbate in public.

Or, are you saying that if the House had passed the bill, it would have stalled in the Senate or been vetoed by Bush? Well, heck, if that's the Democrats' attitude, they may as well stop showing up for work! I mean, it's not like anything they vote on is going to accomplish something, so why keep introducing legislation?

Be specific. The House Democrats voted against immediate withdrawal from Iraq. So immediate withdrawal obviously isn't their policy. What is, and why do you keep defending Murtha for advocating precisely this?

I think it would have been exactly like voting for Bush not to masturbate in public, if only prior to the vote a well-known democratic jerk-off with impeccable masturbatory pedigree had first insisted that Bush pull out his johson in Times square, lube up, and start waxing it, as soon as possible and by any means necessary.

Okay, Brian. You got a big guffaw out of me with that one.

Now, I'm not trying to impuign(sp) anyone's opinion on this stuff, and everyone here seems very intelligent (even those whose bias is different than my own:), but --everyone seems so short sighted!-- I never, but never, see anyone talking about 20 or more years out. No, I don't have a crystal ball. The whole thing may be a really big mistake. Or it may prove to be the single action that changed a downward spiral in the greater mideast. (I know hell in a handbasket when I saw it). Geopolitics is evolutionary, and I see no credence being given to that.