Centerfield

Good work, indeed. But this was Shia on Shia, with the apparent cultist goal of bringing on the complete destruction of society. It shows that the "enemy" is multi-faceted and not always known. There are no quick fixes right now.

There are no quick fixes right now.

And yet Bush has allowed himself to be pushed into the "last chance" phase of the war. If we don't see some very concrete progress in 6-9 months staying the course will become an untennable position. We have met the enemy and he is us.

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

Great Dennis, that really says alot. Yes, Bush the great fumbler has made the difficult more difficult, but extremist militias, Iran and Syria, AQ and the Brotherhood are the enemy. Have you forgotten that, or is Bush the real evil?

How about encouraging the progress made in the last several weeks? How about denouncing the Europeans who sabotage the only remaining peaceful means to avert Iranian nukes and their terrorism support? How about demanding Syria submit to UN investigations into their terrorism? How about defending the idea to confront AQ and other terrorist organizations wherever they are?

It isn't about Bush anymore, is it? Perhaps intellectual honesty is the best place to start fresh. This was always going to be a long struggle and the present Democratic declarations are quite lame. I think the American people will begin to see the lack of a game plan by the Democrats beyond their self-defeating willingness to run against Bush and Iraq in 2008.

And your plan?

a plan? Numerous things I agree with, but the central solution remains International support and negotiating with Iran and Syria which Gates (ISG) has rejected for now. The anti-war groups reject this Hoyer plan. Obama and Hillary are now moving Left of this and others are falling off the radar.

Does Hoyer see the international community engaged in Darfur, Somalia, Gaza, Iran and Syria or even Russia and China to the degree "fixes" will ever happen? I put this right up there with "the Iraqis will greet us as liberators". Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumber.

Sorry Jon, I just wanted to close out the thought I was making about "fixes"

Democrat positions

Not to promising, though I supported the Democrat surge of 2006, which did indeed place pressure on our Decider. And I knew what would happen next: I posted here the day the ISG report was public that Bush would reject surrender and favor the position he is taking now. Thank God Bush is changing course a bit for the better (far from clear yet) and sad that Democrats are hoping to use their recent campaign model for 2008. Let's hope positive news on the ground, international reality checks and Blue Dogs can let more positives take hold.

It says a lot to me. That perception matters, and that the heart wants what it wants. The untenability Dennis mentions is likely to be a function of the public's perception as the 2008 election approaches.

And that's troubling. The only thing that consoles me is that the candidates'necessity to pander to his or her base, which includes the luxury of being grotesquely simplistic, must inevitably give way to the responsibility of the President to govern responsibly. Honestly, if we elect a democratic president in 2008, I don't expect that he or she will act anywhere near as precipitously as he or she might have given the base reason to think.

Bush stuck in the jagged knife, and it's likely to still be in the wound for some time. It's easy to insist he must pull the knife out. But we'll see what happens when the insister takes a position with one hand on the handle of the knife and the other on the thready pulse of Iraq.

Brian, no doubt Bush was a poor choice from the start. We have to move away from the damage he did and look coldly at the big picture. It is way beyond payback. These DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN Senators and Representatives have a duty no matter what, to defend this country against all threats. Democrats have made Bush our greatest threat and that is pathetic. Bush did not stick the knife in all by himself. The Democrats showed signs of opposition even as Bush was here in NYC atop of the rubble that once was the WTC. I know, I was here listening to what people were saying. The stories about Cheney in a bunker directing the attack surfaced months after the attack. Hillary, Schumer and others showed solidarity with Bush, but the cracks were already forming as Leftists invaded the Democrat base. Abandoned was what even Clinton knew and other Democrats knew. Now many Democrats want Iraq to be lost. They want us to forget going after Iran. They want us to withdraw from military force. What they will set in motion could haunt us long after a mess in Iraq.

I have always considered national security to be beyond partisanship. I was rudely mistaken. Is Biden going to blame us for the recent Chinese ASAT test? Will Boxer blame us for Bin Laden and the Brotherhood? Does Pelosi's Intel pick even know the difference? We have a small window to contain the technological horror of modern terrorism, which will change our open society. Sorry I sound a bit fanatical. I justify my passion with the belief that as someone who has never voted Republican, I can assail Democrats over this central issue. And I am not alone. Many Democrats are involved in making 24. Do they not share a sense of things to come? Many Democrats serve in the Gulf. I'll be damned if the Democrats can chase away a liberal hawk.

While I rarely say it, this administration has shown, from energy policy to Cobra II, a contempt for bi-partisanship or foresight considering how close the elections have been. They took one great cause (national security) and used it politically. Blowback was inevitable. Unfortunately, revenge may cost us a city or our soldier's lives. Radiation drifts, IEDs are exportable, technology is making it cheaper to deliver WMC. Wonder why the military is equipping jets with Patriot missiles along the East Coast? As Tully said, we only know 10%. People are caught selling weapon grade nuclear material.

Last, just as we are boxing in Iran, going after Shia militants, supporting outrage against Chinese behavior (and Russian), the Democrats are choosing to oppose US policy almost as an involuntary behavior, not support it. That makes me angry given their observation of how thoughtless partisan policy can really hurt us.

You are right. Democrats will run on revenge in 2008, unless we can move things to a better place before then. That is why they ignore any good news, any important opportunity, any international outrage against OTHERS. What would you think of a Democrat representative, taking action (or not) to further our failure, just for political gain? I call this impeachable treason. It makes what Clinton did, therapy for stress.

This deplorable situation has gone on for years. Bush might be an idiot, but what the Democrats are fashioning is an idiot’s bazaar for political advantage. One wrong does not warrant another. We, as a nation are running out of time and I do not see Obama, Clinton, Biden or others worried or uniting this nation. They have little message for the world and even less for our children's children. It will take more tragedy to wake us up and bring the various threads of our identity together under a coomon defense of our precious freedom and liberty.

Amen.......LOL

I dunno Max, you seem pretty sure that liberal anti-war democratic pols are out front leading public opinion. Seems just as easy to conclude they're following it.

I think it's necessary to assume some portion of the anti-war blathering is grandstanding. Plus, what would popular opinion be like if the majority of congresscritters on both sides of the aisle had kept close ranks behind Bush. Arguably, civil unrest might be far greater.

You posts make a veritable catalog of serious global events worthy of concern. I don't want to dismiss any of them. It's just that I assume we'll have no choice but to stomach some number of things we don't like but really can't change. And I'm for sure not holding my breath waiting for everyday folks to sit up and pay unrelenting attention to the minutiae of global affairs or to commit to a steadfast, long-term aggressive US presence in these affairs. That might change if we have another serious deometic terrorist event, but even that is somewhat questionable to me.

I think Americans have a strong drive to mind our own business, and see much happening overseas as not our business. Is that a naive view? Yup. Could we be sorry if we get what we deserve? Maybe.

Great Dennis, that really says alot. Yes, Bush the great fumbler has made the difficult more difficult, but extremist militias, Iran and Syria, AQ and the Brotherhood are the enemy. Have you forgotten that, or is Bush the real evil?

Max,
You are talking to one of the last (seemingly) Bush supporters. Unlike the rest of you I don't think he has handled it all that badly with the one exception of caving to public opinion early and often. I still think Iraq is very doable but it will take a long time. Longer than even I thought in '03 which was 5-10 years. There's progress everywhere on almost all levels as far as I can see, but now we have the surge. The big push. The last chance. Withdrawal without achieving the objective -- spreading stability that isn't antagonistic to Western interests -- soon to follow. I'm not so optomistic as I was 3 months ago. Troop increases may be a good thing, but with the last chance meme attached they are a bad thing IMO.

You have read Pogo right? If we could get our sh!t together over here the problems over there are surmountable.

Dennis,
Ironic that urgency makes strange bedfellows. I would strongly disagree that administration partisanship, unprepared ness and condescension DIDN’T fumble the ball. One could smell the blowback years ago.

You might see how VERY concrete gains in 6-9 months might be a bit optimistic and yet I think our position is still tenable. It was easy to read Kos into your last line. LOL.
Again, the irony is amusing

Brian,
here is what Fallon said today. This sober view and the stakes tightening up in the Gulf runs counter to everything the Democrats are shouting. Do you agree that the Democratic candidates consider Iraq lost and any attempt to face Iran nearly impeachable? God, I remember what Republicans did to Clinton when his strike against Saddam broke the Iraq army (in Ricks own words). He was just wagging. Tully, tell us this was not the case.

Now how did the American public become so opposed? Bushism poisoned internationalism. Kossacks jumped all over their historic opportunity with Democrats on their heels (or at least they think it is). You have discussed lame media and the vocal Democrat base for as long as I have been here. Closing ranks would have A. made it harder for Bush not to listen to Democrat military experts B. made the middle more likely to back continued strategy C. isolated the anti-war crowd to a politically doomed group. Clinton absorbed his opposition like a big friggin amoeba. On an issue as important as national security, one co-opts it. I hold the Republican Congress responsible for giving enough votes to the Democrats years ago to force the administration from a dazzling display of incompetence, arrogance and partisanship. Anyway, this is arm chairing at this point. A lot of blame for everyone. Kerry would still be begging Iran to give up nukes and the Taliban to give up fundamentalism.

We can't simply stomach the spread of the terrorist/intelligence networks armed with technology that can radicalize our society and bleed us slowing financially by attacks. I don't think we can turn every hostile group or ideology, but as other “allies” wake up, we can certainly do better to put out the fire before we get burned.

I post the links to show how full of sh#t many on the Left are when they advocate UN or international action v unilateral US action. I’m still waiting for the genocide, the nuke building, the terrorism, the proliferation to stop. Fukuyama has some point in regards to the abdication of Europeans regarding defending the Liberal Democratic “group”. I post them for the middle here to weigh when jumping on any defeatist bandwagon at the very moment our adversaries are beatable. They don't have much at the moment. Iran isn't going to launch a missile at the US, nor would NK. They would glow for decades. But people forget that with 90% hidden and a 6 trillion dollar GDP of organized crime, now is not the moment to let up on our adversary's operations. I do not know where you find the idea that attacks are not coming. Do you think that any number of players would not love to see us hit?

In any case, negotiations with our foes must be based on the resolve of the US and our military options. No one else will do it. Frankly, that is one reason why we are the world's superpower. The fault of unaware citizens must be shared between Democrats, our allies and media. Terrorist attacks will certainly happen. When they do, the Democrat position unnecessarily crumbles. They are building a house of cards based on negotiations, withdrawal and international help. LOL We have let Kossacks and Rove turn what mainstream Liberal is, on its head. Even Hillary is considering dumping six years of centrist imagery to fit into the voter profile that media, anti-war and BUSH has created.

I know, I expect too much of Americans. I expect too much of the DNC. I expect too much of journalism that often focuses on news stories after they are posted on the internet. How many here know WTC was terrorism BEFORE the talking heads did? I certainly expect too much of Republicans. But I expect alot from you all. LOL

If we retreat and are attacked, it won't be “getting what we deserve”. We don't owe others the price of our blood as they mock us. We don't even owe Iraqis anything. We will be getting what we don't deserve, which is why we should be fighting now on their soil and in their waters. The weakness of our war of attrition is energy resources and failing to explain to Americans why their security is the world's security. Americans have small memories. They want to watch reality TV instead of reality news. If the media spends a week broadcasting the words of our enemies, American opinion would change. When an attack happens America will be screaming for blood. Just examine the Corleone Policy. IF anything happens here, we’ll nuke Tehran. How about NK, or Gaza? What if the attack was organized in Caracas or Sudan? Such Koppelian logic leads no where. Let’s see 24 nuke Tehran. It will never happen.

You may be right. We’ll wait until new crap happens and then, perhaps, it might be too late. You would appreciate that I haven’t linked Bio-threats or eco-threats. And remember, NYC is one of the Left’s favorite sacrificial lambs. Not a good situation. I see us squandering the bloody gains of our parents and their parents, not to mention those fighting now to contain Islamists and their exclusive and undemocratic ideology. If our predecessors had our balls we would be speaking German, or Russian, or even Chinese by now. Cooperation and its attendant altruism requires altruistic punishment and enforcement. That is a simple fact of human behavior. Utopia is still a way to go. Against this realism stands the Left’s Intelligent Design for world peace - end Western Hegemony. I find a lot of irony in that.

And I do appreciate your tolerance......

US and France united. Now compare this underreported story with the CBS story tonight claiming Syria is ready to end the Iraq conflict.

Here is what Fallon said followed by remarks of Negroponte. How about a fair hearing over what our military experts think?

Isn't Bobby in Karbala? Now that is a busy place. I wonder what he thinks about negotiating, or even Nelson's opinion on needing 200,000 more soldiers in Iraq (or retreat). I hope B won't become another casualty in a Lost War. And who will we blame for that?

While Jon points out some good news, the focus here is on Iraqi shortcomings and sound bites.

but the central solution remains International support and negotiating with Iran and Syria

No, the central solution is jobs for the Iraqi people and a political settlement between the major Iraqi political factions. The two items you mentioned are worthwhile--as supports for reaching the central solution, not as the central solution themselves.

As for the opposition, I'd like to know why no one has considered approving the additional troops on condition that Congress would have leverage to make sure that nonmilitary lines of operation are pursued forcefully enough.

I hate to think the Democrats are pulling for failure. Hell, take over reconstruction. Work with Republicans to set benchmarks. Go ahead and talk to Tehran. Send Assad Valentine cards.

Clinton would co-opt policy. Democrats seem to want it to flounder until it dies months before the next election.

One other note: I think we are setting the stage for trip wires in the Gulf, warning Sunni governments they had better support any conflict with Iran. My understanding is that if any aggression takes place it could quickly escalate into a termination of Iranian conventional forces taking about 72 hours. This could turn the majority of Iranians who dislike their Mullahs against us.

Despite my pro-action comments here, I do not think the moment has come for a conflict with Iran. If Iran strikes back at Sunni Gulf States, it will trigger a sectarian conflict drawing Israel into Lebanon and Syria. If things go badly one could even expect an impeachment attempt. Next, the nuclear facilities will be hit and you have another huge mess. I understand the psychological effect of showing our stick now, but we can get much more political advantage out of a build up. We need more than promises from Sunni regimes. We can pressure EU to enforce sanctions. I strongly suggest we don't replay the stumbling of Iraq. South Korea is actually demanding we don't pull out troops. Perhaps we can reach a deal with Kimmie and de-escalate the Korean Peninsula. We have time. The worst thing Bush could do now is appear to be running from dissension over Iraq to another war. Republicans can play a good role here, keeping the Bush team from shooting too quickly from the hip. We also may lose momentum in Iraq by a premature escalation. Now no one likes that.

I hate to think the Democrats are pulling for failure.

Unfortunately, just about all of them have staked a claim that "escalation" cannot work. What would happen to them if the new approach, including the additonal troops, does work? Do you think they want to find out?

Scott,
I expect any good news from Iraq will be treated skeptically, or ignored altogether. It may keep the Republicans together. As long as media focuses on THEIR slant, the polls won't change. Media is however, sensitive to the Blogosphere and internet claims of slanted reporting might push them to consider success is possible. Bush is the underdog at this point. And so are the Bears. Iran might drown everything out if that escalates too soon. It is hard to tell.

Privately, I can't believe all Democrats will refuse to except better news from Iraq. Schumer and Hillary might eventually see success as vindication for their former tough stands. I wish I could ask Webb that question, or Biden. Media is already downplaying Shia on Shia violence and focusing on questionable Iraqi army performance instead. A press suspicious that accusations are a ploy to misdirect treats news of Iranian IED skeptically. I know Bobby can shed some light on what is actually taking place.

I think years of being stomped by the Republican media control are justifying Democrat's rather slanted spin. They can be commended for finally pushing the Great Decider to change course, but rather than taking credit and co-opting the fight in Iraq, they prefer to use it for political advantage just like Republicans used the terror issue to claim Kerry would get us nuked. It cuts both ways and I have little sympathy for Bush and company. I don't want them to fail now however. The stakes go way beyond partisanship. See “Fiasco”.

The short answer: Democrats don't want to find out, but Bush will get his last chance. If they cut off funds, they will screw themselves.

My hope is that the DoD knows the consequence of retreat and more failure. It has more power to prevent Iran or Syria from escalating a situation our forces cannot control. Another 93,000 troops should cover Afghanistan, Africa and the Gulf. It will take time.

I doubt we can take out the Iranian nuclear facilities without some expeditionary force (if we know where to look) World opinion will turn against us if next week the oil stops flowing from the Gulf. Eventually we should play their bluff with an olive branch at the end of a barrel (well a barrel for a barrel is fair)

It is ironic, that how this plays out depends greatly on the Republicans sticking together. Republicans hawks are shrinking. I also have a feeling that Hizb'Allah acting on Iran's behalf might upset Syria and pave the way for us to break their alliance with Iran. A major effort to stabilize Gaza should precede any action with Iran. Our warships should further infuriate the Iranians against their President. The fact the Democrats won’t rally behind sanctions is damning. And how they fought for sanctions against Saddam rather than military force.

Those are my amateur musings based on knowing 10%.....

Scott,
This is what I mean about the media

Max,

Based on your post in StubbornFacts, I think you misunderstand my "do they want to find out" question. You seem to interpret that as "do they want to find out if it would work?" I meant "do the want to find out what effect an initiative working after their dogged opposition would have on them?"

The point is that in the absence of a successful initiative, it doesn't matter whether due to no initiative being tried or to an initiative being tried and failing, the decision to oppose "escalation" would work politically. However, if an initiative succeeds, then anyone's attempt to scuttle it before it was tried might be seen as having been opportunistic. So the question becomes, would the opponents of increasing troop levels take the position of "I disagree with the action, but I'll do whatever I can to help it succeed" or give lip service to doing so while quietly working behind the scenes to help it fail. If they do the former, they would find out what effect opposing an ultimately successful initiative would have. The latter would be more weasely, but it would be one way of not having to find out the consequences.

Sorry, my bad.

From what I gather from friends and the internet many Democrats want to object to the surge for their base support, but will allow it to go through because a. if they block it and Iraq falls apart, they are hurt in the general election b. some actually think it could work c. if they strongly oppose it and it goes through anyway and works they look bad.

These democrats objecting, but supporting a last chance, will face fierce vocal opposition whether secretly trying to obstruct or not. I am not sure how they could secretly obstruct the surge while letting it go through, but I can see how that would let them absolve themselves of public responsibility.

Some Democrats including some candidates oppose the surge and privately want a way to not block it because a. they really play to the base b. are big winners if Iraq fails despite a surge c. they think a surge might work, but don’t want their base to know.. They will try to avoid actually blocking it by claiming Congress does not have the authority which is why McCain is playing their bluff now. If the surge works they look a bit stupid but by then they have won their nomination. If it fails they could say they didn't have the power to block it, but were steadfast in their correctness. Despite what Hillary has said, protestors invaded her office anyway demanding action to block the surge.

Thus I think, Obama and Hillary will try to appear to block the surge to win the nomination and privately let it drag out. I am afraid however, they might set a real snow ball in motion they cannot stop. Perhaps they think the fight will drag out so long that as soon as they win the nomination, if the surge is working they can back peddle. If it fails they can rally their base with I told you so. I wonder what impact this will have later in the general election if the surge works. That was the point I was making to Brian. His point was precisely the scenario I just described. These two must somehow find a plausible excuse for not cutting the funds and the surge despite their appearance of strong opposition. I think this is why Pelosi is willing to take the heat. She can object and take the heat. I think Biden’s fuse blew because he is looking at it more idealistically and perhaps a bit more patriotically. Maybe he is just frustrated..

Do I think Obama and Hillary want to risk seeing if rejecting the plan vigorously; doing everything in their power to make it fail (but not stopping the surge) only to watch success repudiate their prior sound bites? Nope. Petraeous again said today that Iraq is winnable. The man Congress approved unanimously said winnable. Success would ruin Hillary and Obama (separately) facing McCain who would be the big winner. They are playing the present Vegas odds of Iraq failing with or without a surge with enough wiggle room to flipflop as Brian suggests. They are playing to the base now, but watch them shift if the news from Iraq gets brighter. Shift in the wiggle sense. I will be surprised to see the Democrats en masse cut funding. Again. Pelosi has already stated she would not support it. I think she was trying to ensure the candidates and the Party let the blame fall on Bush and save themselves by looking foolish later.

One problem: Kossacks know this strategy and are launching a full court press trying to make the Dare game escalate. They are ramping up the pressure now with help from numerous Democrats who benefit by changing the game Pelosi and the the leading candidates have in motion. Arkin is just one manifestation. AP questionable reports about military preparations for war with Iran are another. Conspiracy? No just a shared Kossian consciousness and a desperate frustration. They are desperate NOW to squash any success before it is reflected in the polls. This is their moment and Moore made that clear months ago in a battle statement I posted here.

I am a bit optimistic tonight for reasons I will explain later. I think favorable winds might just blow in that make our present strategy more likely to succeed. Perez of Israel stated Israel will not strike Iran facilities. The option is not on the table. Something is up. I can sense it. I have a feeling that the 90% I do not know is doing a bit better than I think. Maybe it’s the bottled water I am drinking…..

Did I answer tht one on point?

Interesting comment on "willful blindness"