A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
January 30, 2007Obama is WrongI like Barack Obama, I might even vote for him, but I don't like this: The time for waiting in Iraq is over. The days of our open-ended commitment must come to a close. And the need to bring this war to an end is here. Maybe this is an ideological debate and not set in stone, but I feel that Congress should approve wars and approve budgets for wars. I have a problem when politicians in Washington DC are setting timelines and capping troop levels for a conflict that they have little field knowledge of. Sure, they can hold hearings and gather information, but it isn't the same as being the Commander in Chief and having the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of Defense at your side. The President should be running the war right or wrong... That is why we elected him. I wonder if President Obama is going to allow Congress to have the ability to plan withdrawal dates and set troop level caps? Somehow I doubt it, and if he did I would question his leadership. IMO, Senator Feingold is one of the few Democrats being a man on this issue by proposing to cut funding, an action that I oppose but believe is within the authority of Congress. To oppose the war and not support cutting its budget is nothing more than fence riding. If they aren't going to have the guts to do that, then I wish Congress would let the President and military leaders do their job. Comments
Ford on the DLC Protesters storm Hillary's office. Sean Penn threaten Democrats, Biden threatening impeachment. A Full court Press to where? I wish Democrats applied such a broad surge in Iraq. Obama is swimming his way through the swamp. I see a few Republicans dog paddling too> Posted by: Maxtrue at January 30, 2007 10:26 PMI disagree with you. I feel Obama is the first one to do what needs to be done. this stupid president will continue to throw away lives and congress will continue to wring their hands and do nothing. What did he do? There are others leading a tougher charge against Bush. Even your post can't help but call Bush stupid, suggest he is throwing away lives carelessly and finding something novel and inspiring about Obama. Courage would have been Obama explaining just what the Democrats mean by pulling out of Iraq and really fighting the war on terror. Please explain. Obama heard Petraeous, Fallon, Gates and Negroponte all support the general thrust of the administration and instead of supporting ANYTHING they said, he plays to the anti-war crowd. He must have been thrilled to see them storm Hillary's office demanding she move to the Left. You really think Independents will find this a positive thing? I repeat: Democrats declare we need to pull troops out of Iraq so we can really fight the war on terrorism. One plan please. There is a civil war brewing in Lebanon and another in Gaza. Shia militants are attacked by Shia soldiers in Iraq. While the forces that wish us harm are engaged in the Middle East, the Democrats are retreating into a war with Bush. To make us safer? To advance our security? Or to pander for votes? The great comparison was the irresponsible assault on Clinton as he tried to contain Saddam and hit AQ. Remember? Almost 100,000 Americans die each year from negligence in US hospitals. Put a price on that loss of life and productivity. The focus on Bush now, despite the unanimous approval of Hayden, Gates, Fallon, Patraeous, Negroponte and even our UN ambassador is a clear move to consolidate political power at the expense of national security. The Democrats could hardly care if the taliban came back to power. I will predict this: if Obama goes dove, he will not be the next President. This is perhaps the finest example of over reach because reality will not conform to what Democrats paint. They will not cut funding, events will only support our intelligence assessments and Americans will listen to the sound bites from 2007, weeks before November 2008. Obama declares Iraq is lost as US and Iraqi forces go after Shia and Sunni insurgents. Generals did not tell Pelosi, Nelson or Hillary that Iraq was lost. Democrats are clearly rejecting our military experts and anti-war prays we will fail. In 2008, people will ask how the world got even worse and guess what? The Democrats were in charge. You mean things can get worse????? "Democrats could hardly care if the taliban came back to power" Who's the absolute moron that turned away from the Taliban and went after SECULAR Saddam? Saddam who was not doing much at all. Did you just smoke the largest opium crop they've had in years? The Taliban has retaken large portions of Afghanistan.
You know, there's an old bumper sticker that made fun of military procurement, asking what if the Pentagon had to hold bake sales. The sad thing is that with a GOP President and GOP Congress that there really are bake sales conducted by family and friends to send critical items to their loved ones serving overseas. Here's an article about defeating insurgencies. The short of it is that we may finally have a winning strategy, but Bush probably acted too late, especially in terms of domestic support. Do you have a cite for the Taliban retaking parts of Afghanistan, Marcus? If you're going to make the accusation, please back it up. Posted by: JonBuck at January 31, 2007 03:20 AMCut & run. I don't know why anyone's surprised. Posted by: Tully at January 31, 2007 10:11 AM"And screw your "prays that we can fail" crap, max Oh, we are in failure mode RIGHT NOW? Is that what our military experts say? And your plan will get us out of failure? Read your own words carefully. Is failure mode, having FAILED? And how is your idea WINNING? Don't spout misdirection, just tell us all what WINNING requires. Asking the Mullahs to help us? Asking Assad to stop sheltering insurgents? And tell us that all those experts I mentioned are wrong and how you are right. Let me remind you of a few things. Many in the anti-war left DID NOT WANT TO GO AFTER THE TALIBAN. Many actually think Cheney directed 9/11 and that the the WTC was a controlled demolition. LOL Many on the Left attacked Bush for not accepting NATO's original request to deploy to Afghanistan. Now you make Bush responsible for the opium crop? Poppycocks! Instead, the more-than-liberal crowd, while claiming the lack of troops hurt us in Iraq at the start are crying that we need more in Afghanistan. Not really honest, most Leftists want us out of the region altogether as some wishing to sound patriotic even suggest we go after AQ in Pakistan. Democrats have also demanded Bush "solve" the Israeli/Palestinian "problem" and ignore the Civil War there. I suppose we started the Civil War. Does the anti-war crowd support sanctions against Iran? Sanctions against Hamas? Do they mean "redeploy to the Sudan? The EU and NATO promised to replace our forces and keep the lid on after WE ousted the Taliban. The UN approved our mission presently in Iraq. Where is the money the international community promised? Why don't you ask the EU why there are problems there and in Afghanistan. And remove our troops from Iraq and put them in Afghanistan? Won’t they get caught in another “Civil War”? Explain the logic in that. Yes, compare WW1 and a slugfest of trench warfare with Iraq. Could you pick any better example? LOL How about Viet Nam? And yes, the Brits in 1914 were far better prepared than our troops are. I have pictures of my grandfather's outfit and let me tell you, there was almost zip equipment. He had to stop mustard gas with a wet rag. Yes Saddam was far better than the Taliban. He didn't have the resources to build WMD or fund terrorism. He wasn't directly responsibile for millions of deaths. He had every reason to renounce his wmd research and pursue only peaceful technology with the Russians. He was very sorry to have used WMD on his own people. What you are really saying is that we lost, we screwed everything, let's retreat, let's ignore our military experts in charge, let's blame everything on Bush, let's beg our adversaries for help so we can go home and most importantly, let's blame our present and future mess on that moron Bush who is the greatest threat to the anti-war's socialist and self-defeating strategies. I wish you tell Bobby that when returns here for some remarks (provided he still can). Jolly good show. Tell us again your winning strategy in Iraq. Tell us how we are losing in Afghanistan and why America should do all the fighting there. Tell us your plan for the Middle East. Show us all how to prevent Iran from building nukes. Please, the DLC is waiting for your clues..... In the meantime Harold Ford Jr. will pray for you. IMO, in a fair and reasonable world the President at least deserves to have such pronouncements delayed until such time as we can see whether the additional troops have turned the tide. Say 6 months minimum unless it's obvious things are still getting worse, and then another soup to nuts assessment. I do notice that based on the excerpt, the plan begins not by denying that this chance is deserved, but by putting a cap on the current approach, which says "OK, that's as involved as we'll get, and we plan to become less involved on a very quick timetable." Obviously, there's some weaseling in "setting a goal of removing all combat forces by 2008." Because we know that goals aren't always reached, so Obama can say he is simply being ambitous. I'd call it unrealistic. Quite unrealistic. The other weaseling may lie in "combat" troops, which I suggest may have been employed to imply that we might have an ongoing presence of troops in some other capacity, like say "security." If that's what is going on, I call that misleading. Quite misleading. If remaining troops are wearing helmets, carrying guns, and might die by bullet or bomb, those are combat troops. I dunno how the Pentagon defines such things. Personally I look to the possibilty of death from enemy attack as a good clue. The interesting thing here is that if Obama is being unrealistic and misleading, he may be doing so in order to appease the LEFT. He may be setting himself up to say later on that his goal was too ambitous, and that we have a responsibilty to help Iraq with "security." I am happy to concede that I could be way off here. Maybe Obama really does think it's realistic to withdraw all of our guys within less than 2 years, and maybe he's even willing to truly commit to doing so regardless of the impact upon Iraqis and the middle east should we withdraw precipitously and allow Iraq to devolve into the chaos of the power vacuum. I can't say that I can really blame any democratic candidate if he or she chooses to softpedal for the time being the notion that we have a responsibility both to Iraq and to our national security that we cannot shirk just because things have become difficult. What would be the point in that? To mount a Don Quixote run, to be a brave truthteller collecting singlle digit support like Joe Lieberman got? Suppose you are a democrat that is deeply disappointed by Bush's performance and think you're the one who can do better. In this real world, which is the more valiant approach, to speak the truth and get steamrolled by public opinion, increasing the chances of some more liberal democrat getting elected, one who is willing to truly cut and run, to withdraw precipitously regardless of the facts on the grounds and the ramifications for our future? Or to speak with a cleverly forked tongue? Posted by: bk at January 31, 2007 10:46 AMI will predict this: if Obama goes dove, he will not be the next President. I will predict this: the base will like it. This position will help him win his party's nomination, especially if Hillary Clinton shows up saying me too 3 days later. I'll also predict this: if he wins his party's nomination, he'll start talking about our responsibility to Iraq and national security, depending on how things are going then. If they have gone poorly, he has a driver's seat on the right bandwagon. If they have gone fair to middling, he can easily make himself a seat on the wagon full of independents so disappointed by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al that they're inclined to vote against the GOP so long as the Democratic alternative sounds reasonable. So far, I don't think McCain, Romney, or Guiliani has broken ranks with Bush and the hawk club. But if things go poorly and none of these three makes a move, someone else will rush in on the opportuinity, and then all bets will be off. If things improve, then the current GOP big 3 will be in good shape. If not, the early bird probably gets the worm. McCain is the only one of these three who I'd bet on saying that the worm is not an option. Posted by: bk at January 31, 2007 12:33 PMBrian, you are right on target and I suspect Hillary and Obama ARE posturing themselves for the partisan primary. I can almost sense it in their voices. There is wiggle room in their statements as the anti-war crowd and media stirs it up.. I thank you for having the courage to suppose a Democrat might actually want to win, even after the treatment of Lieberman and now Hillary (to an extent). I would place myself in that camp. So what can one do now? Being idealistic and honest might cost the nomination. The problem is that the Independents, Liberal hawks (if there are many left) and even some Republicans must decide which one of these pretenders deserve to take the helm as the crap is hitting the fan through 2008. There is a line one must not cross to maintain credibility with these crucial players. To convince such people requires SOUND STRATEGIC THINKING. Obama and Hillary sound pandering and intentionally vague, apart from irrational. To participate at this moment in retreat, cutting of funding, lying to Americans in the face of extremist belligerence, putting forces at risk (while secretly believing in forward deployment?), and even encouraging impeachment, witch hunts and partisanship, damages the credibility these candidates will need to DO ANYTHING LATER. Sound bites man, sound bites. They are setting themselves up to be scorched by Republicans on the Right AND the neoliberal FAR LEFT armed without the charisma or nine lives of Bill Clinton. I am not sure candidates will survive such posturing and the game now is DARE between Hillary and Obama. If I actually vote for Hillary, it might be that she has Bill to defend her. He is the biggest threat to Obama's sweeping the black vote. He can feel the Far Lefts’ anguish but urge them to “remain patriotic Americans”. Oh Sean Penn will love that. Actually, Hillary and Obama could flip-flop later as the ticket-elect without much “political" damage. Unfortunately the “damage” is starting now (Post-Bush damage, that is). Their remarks presently carry international weight. Their behavior shapes the course of our real struggle in the world far from Hollywood. Their actions in Congress could ignite a Constitutional war. Isn't their claim to fame as being uniters with sensible determined mindsets? Liberals with sound strategic thinking ala la "Iran-will-never-get-nukes" Kerry? And people wonder why he dropped out? LOL There is a limit of false statements you can make before you lose credibility. Ask Colin. Ask Kerry. On this pretender scorecard, I see McCain still ahead. He had better hope Iraq gets better, but if it shows improvement, he has stayed truest to his declarations (forget the religious pandering which is an example of what Brian is talking about). He can replay sound bite after sound bite to Obama And to a slightly lesser extent, Hillary. I actually have regard for Hillary and Obama. This situation they are in is not of their making. The have the hand they are dealt. Niether has engaged in personal attacks or Kossian fantasies. New Yorkers understand the game Hillary is in, but Obama does not have a record to weigh against his remarks. I blast them now, more in an effort to add another voice to the please-listen-to-center-crowd hoping the Democrat discourse will improve. I call it tough love, but I sadly suspect history might repeat itself. Democrats seem to find a way for self-immolation. Just ask Carter .Just look at the meltdown Biden had. The impeachment remarks have not raised his numbers. The danger is that all these "leaders" will become a snowball of idiocy and drag themselves and this country into a further strategic mess, blaming Republicans every step THEY slide (with media’s help -OBERMAN for one). The question is at what point the center must flux and prevent this “failed” course? Or is there a better choice on the Right or Unity Side? The next President may very well suffer the effects of pandering to the Don Corleone School and be forced to lash out as terrorism, proliferation and obstructionism (hey what happened to our GPS?) continues to ratchet up. Isn’t it ironic they are betting against attacks, or do they think an attack before 2008 excuses them and allows them to run more hawkishly? I wish this chessmanship could be deployed to Iraq. Being shrewd seems to be confined to politics and not national security. Your suspicions Brian, for the moment seem the most likely explanation. The alternative is grim.... So much for vacation breaks.....later So far, I don't think McCain, Romney, or Guiliani has broken ranks with Bush and the hawk club. But if things go poorly and none of these three makes a move, someone else will rush in on the opportuinity, and then all bets will be off. If things improve, then the current GOP big 3 will be in good shape. If not, the early bird probably gets the worm. McCain is the only one of these three who I'd bet on saying that the worm is not an option. I disagree to an extent. At some level you are right in the sense that I think Iraq hurts any Republican politically in the short term; however, in the long term I think if things go poorly the big 3 will become the big 2: Romney and Giuliani. The difference is that McCain has made himself so much a part of the current strategy, he will not be able to duck it. Romney and Giuliani, offering only tepid support in my view, have been able to keep the issue at arms length because they are not in Washington, will not be required to take an official position or vote on the troop surge, and will easily be able to say let's talk about where we are going rather than where we have been. If you are right about Obama Tully, than his actions may be an uneccesary evil. I agree the approach you are suggesting is the smartest politically, but Obama's MO is that he isn't supposed to be like other politicians. Even if it wins him the nomination, Max is right, it hurts him in the general if the nominee were to be a strong executive or seasoned politician like Giuliani, Romney, or McCain. I can hear the flip-flopper rhetoric already. Posted by: Starbucks Republican at January 31, 2007 12:53 PMI meant Brian and not Tully in the last paragraph. Here's a fantasy; Reagan attempted to negotiate a new more-powerful role for the VP to entice Ford to run with him. I almost wish Ford had accepted. Cheney shows how powerful a VP can be and maybe this is a good thing. I think it is simply undoable for Obama in 2008. There are a number of reasons why I think he (and maybe Hillary) will have a tough time. I suggest Hillary and Obama unite relatively soon with Obama playing a empowered VP destined to run in 2016 or sooner should he fall out with Hillary before 2012. Can’t beat a charismatic black man behind a empowered white woman. LOL. No Democrat can top that ticket. Think of all the money they would save. You would have an executive P/VP in waiting pulling more to the center. The anti-war crowd CANNOT take both Obama and Hillary down. They wouldn't have to play this stupid base game. McCain would be in big trouble. Republicans would be looking at a sixteen year Democratic run. If the DLC or the DNC had some balls, this would be their move. Edwards would be promised some job as well as Vilsak and Biden (Secretary of State?). Hell, Hillary/Obama could state ahead of 2008, they would pick McCain for SECDEF. Think of the possibilities..... Now with that, my Barak break is over...LOL Actually, Starbucks, I'm off to Starbucks.... The more I think about it, the more I think that it will be Hillary/Obama in 2008 for the reasons I mentioned. They can explain the expanded duties of the VP and not have to worry about pandering. Obama's pretty young. Will someone please tell me where this idea goes astray? Now really.....I'm outta hea Posted by: Maxtrue at January 31, 2007 01:15 PMI will predict this: if Obama goes dove, he will not be the next President. Without knowing the outcome of the troop surge, no prediction is feasible. My prediction: If it fails, a large enough portion of the electorate will conclude, however errorneously, that the whole adventure was just folly and treat anyone who tried to avoid it from the start as a sage. If it succeeds, it will have the effect on its opponents that the Gulf War of 1991 had on its opponents. The third option of course, is that it neither fails nor succeeds enough to celebrate. Couple that with emerging fires or even terror attacks and still Obama flunks. Bailing on Iraq will make intervention elsewhere a huge flip-flop. That is why many hope Iraq CLEARLY fails. Our generals say stability will take several years at best. Also, if other areas start to ignite, or if Israel pre-empts, a dovish view may very well be fatal and old sound bites come back to haunt. This whole affair smacks of a set up. I expect some big events before November 2008, which will question dovish views. And remember, Bush 1 lost despite the Gulf War. Perhaps if Bush had ousted Saddam back in 1991, Obama would be dead on with his date of 2008 for troop withdrawal. I also would like to point out that the new estimate out for an Iranian nuke (2-3 years) does not take into account; 1. The estimate for a weapon has fallen and the present estimate does not include this estimated-rate-of-decrease. 2. Serious sources claim NK is working with Iran, and this is not included in projections. 3. Iran may very well have obtained nuclear material and presently has other wmds. 4. The knowledge Iran is obtaining now is just as important as a final product. Long before 2010, Iran will have mastered many dangerous secrets. 5. Projection does not include tempering with the usual unknown factors such as secret facilities, secret help from Russia and China, etc... 6. The mere fact this projection is so close, failure to slow it down only intensifies the desire of neighbors to acquire nukes as well.
I fail to see what makes it a dovish view. Doves oppose war reflexively as being fundamental wrong, morally speaking. What I have read of Obama's position suggests it's results-oriented. He opposes further escalation, and wants a troop step down which is negotiable based on the Iraqis making progress towards benchmarks. If the current effort neither fails nor succeeds spectacularly, that opens the door later for Obama to speak of our responsibilties to Iraq, national security, and speak of the use of some of our troops as part of a security force. Bailing on Iraq will make intervention elsewhere a huge flip-flop. That's just silly. How hard will it be to say this: Any future interventions ought to be • done with the utmost reluctance • based on much better intelligence than the Iraq invasion • include a better plan, one that meets clearly stated objectives Who would disagree with that? The first candidate who says is likely to get a standing ovation... Posted by: bk at January 31, 2007 03:26 PMBrian, I think you now what is meant by dovish. They are the ones that suggest peaceful means (usually unrealistic) to resolve conflict when the facts support the opposite. Doves would have had us reject Reagan’s effort to end the Cold War. Doves often think negotiations can be concluded without the threat of military force or that fair negotiations can work in an atmosphere of chaos and violence. Security is a prerequisite for negotiations. Chomsky argues against “rejectionism”. You stated what was unrealistic about Obama's suggestions, which should include negotiations with Iran and Syria. Even France balks now on this. Even lead members of the ISG now retract their suggestion "for the short term". Withdrawing our troops and keeping them from attacking AQ in Iraq is hawkish? Redeploying "elsewhere" (home) is hawkish? Sending more troops to Afghanistan without addressing the European retreat is smart? Rejecting Hayden, Negroponte, Fallon, Petraeous and Gates is not dovish?
Bailing on a fight where reasonable people KNOW the horror that will follow, does not present criteria that makes intervention elsewhere anymore reasonable. If we can't deal with Iraq, why Afghanistan or Iran, why Somalia or Sudan? Our military defeated by packs of religious militias? Retreat from the nexus of sectarianism and terrorism? Play to the hands of our adversaries and THEN make a case for intervention or pre-emption elsewhere? Unrealistic proposals, dreaming, calling Iraq lost, championing negotiations with Iran and Syria as the "solution" is about as dovish as you can get. What would be more dovish, -disbanding our military? Apologizing to the world? Again, Gates has said; To reject this and travel a partisan road to la la land is pretty dovish for a contemporary candidate running in these tense times. Cutting funding, capping troops, etc. etc. is driven by polls, not policy. Selecting those Intel facts that support your case and ignore others is Bush cherry picking in reverse. Iran is about to launch an ICBM to put a satellite in orbit. Might as well be a nuke in a couple of years. One EMP blast over the US (no radioactive danger to us and we have tested in space) could knock out our electrical grid for several years. Oopss says who ever, We are so sorry. Would we nuke Tehran or NK? In fact, the Corleone logic rests on unrealistic Intel. Several experts have calculated WMC on our economy. One dirty bomb at Long Beach will be many billions. Well-placed IEDs in Jersey would cost even more because of the material located there. Targets overseas are even more vulnerable. If not Dovish, it is certainly Pigeonish. Escalation of terror will likely get worse. Almost ALL experts agree on that. Look at the plots foiled in England today. How much more unrealistic can Obama get before his credibility sours? He has no terrorist plan now. Hurting our chance to corner Iran, strangle Hamas, repel Hizb"Allah, turn NK, and stabilize Iraq plays to the doves. Certainly, you can see that. Being on the Counsel of Foreign Relations is no match for a former POW, let alone another Senator with a resume. If Obama was a Hagel he could get away with it. Cut and Run. Tim Robbins claims that is what America voted for in 2006. It seems Obama agrees. In NYC, hawks are used to keep the rats under control. Pigeons make a lot of noise, but do little to calm the chaos. Doves avoid chaos and prefer the tranquility of the country. Posted by: Maxtrue at January 31, 2007 04:25 PM I'm in danger of agreeing with Marcus - something's wrong here. The WWI comparison brings up one IMHO huge mistake Bush made, emphasizing the troop increase over changed rules of engagement. He made it sound like they'd be "going in dumb", largely just used patrolling streetcorners. I'm a hawk, and I HATED listening to Bush' speech for that reason. I think WWI IS a fair comparison, then, because it's up to Bush to explain the plan to the country. No planning of charging machine guns is in sight, but AS BUSH EXPLAINED IT, it sounded futile to me, because we'd probably need a draft. Plus, Bush sounded more than a bit clueless/opportunistic when he blamed Al'Qaeda for Shi'ite militia attacks. Weirdly, some Republicans LIKE to look stupid - I saw some rightie disappointment at Bush for even going that far in talking about rules changes before the great unwashed. Given this, distrust is pretty understandable. Interestingly, I noticed that Obama has at least NV on an Iraq vote. I guess he hasn't figured out a proposed Iraq policy yet - he'll almost have to have more of one, but I suppose we'll see AFTER the primaries.... Posted by: Jon Kay at January 31, 2007 11:29 PMFine Max. Call the guy a dove. Then define dove from the perspective of a hawk. Then imagine every position that the worst of such imaginary doves might hold, and associate each of these positions with the guy. Do so regardless of whether he's stated such positions. Assume the worst. I can stand on the ground and talk at you up in the tree wearing your tinfoil hat, But I can't climb down for you. Bailing on a fight where reasonable people KNOW the horror that will follow, does not present criteria that makes intervention elsewhere anymore reasonable. Reasonable people tend to tread lightly when it comes to saying that they KNOW what the future will hold. I think for your own sake you ought to avoid projecting each and every one of your worst and most obsessive fears on what so far is a short description of a proposed approach that includes wiggle room based on real-world outcomes. It's something of a leap to assume that any withdrawal under the aegis of this sketchy plan will necessarily be a precipitous, by-any-means necessary retreat leading inevitably to rout and disgrace. I feel you're prone to letting your fears get the better of you. I say that in full knowledge of the high likelihood that your response will be the usual one, to catalog once again the very many reasons why you are right to be scared to the brink of, well, witlessness.
Asked and answered. Better reasons, a better plan, better execution. The argument that we'll be unable to win tomorrow because we lost today is among the sillier and least credible of arguments, whether you are talking about politics or baseball. Sports commentator clowns love to talk about momentum, but students of baseball know that momentum is as good tomorrow's starting pitcher. Make no mistake, Iraq is just the umpteenth chapter in history further establishing how very difficult it is to win the road game of imposing your will over another nation and reforming its government in your own image. The outcome of possible future battles in the places you mention will rest overwhelmingly upon the same fundamental dynamics that have made past efforts difficult. IOW, the game is settled on the field, not in the stands. So I continue to think that any decisions on how to approach Iraq must rest upon a sober assessment of our likelihood of success given that ultimately it's up to Iraqis to take charge. Ideally, they'll step up as we step down, which is basically the only way it can happen. No one disagrees with the basics of this, that we plan to transfer the hard work to Iraqis and move on to other matters. It's the details that folks disagree over. Success or failure is ultimately not OUR option, it's Iraq's. Steadfastness does indeed have some utility, but not unlimited utility. Posted by: bk at February 1, 2007 09:45 AMLOL "scared to the brink of witlessness" You are a funny guy. If you want to see witlessness, just Google Chirac and read his retraction of remarks made concerning Iran getting a nuke. I suppose the Chief of Staff is witless too when he tells Congress of the dangers in retreating from Iraq. You did read the last chapter of FIASCO, yes? I could go on, but of course you KNOW, what numerous experts have predicted the outcome of a premature de-escalation will cause. Do you argue that the Middle East is not like a maze of rubber bands stretching to the limit? I base my "frightened state of mind" LOL on what I read, what my friends abroad convey to me and a reasonable understanding of historical analogues. I doubt many “frightened” people reside in NYC. "The outcome of possible future battles in the places you mention will rest overwhelmingly upon the same fundamental dynamics that have made past efforts difficult. IOW, the game is settled on the field, not in the stands." Future? Well, anyway, it is the stands that Democrats have motivated to drive policy and your remark makes little sense. Our loss in Viet Nam lead to several situations we avoided BECAUSE of the effect such a loss had on our mindset. Client meeting, but I shall return as frightened as ever to witlessly battle. When the stands pick which pitcher the coach must use, we're in big trouble Brian. And don't discount home field advantage nor the money people pay owners to watch the game. Unfortunately, what is transpiring in the Gulf, and the tentacles of terror that emanate from there is not a game. There are no referees and there is little second chance. Sure thing Max. When you discover how to make a horse drink, you be sure to let me know. :-) Our loss in Viet Nam lead to several situations we avoided BECAUSE of the effect such a loss had on our mindset. All bad decisions, too, right Max? We learned only bad lessons and made solely crappy decisions based on our experiences, right? Do you argue that the Middle East is not like a maze of rubber bands stretching to the limit? No, I'd only argue that it's not like a nuclear reactor whose failure must inevitably lead to a white hot miasma that consumes us all. If a web of rubber bands becomes unstable and collapses or explodes or whatever, some folks get hurt and others do not. It's not a supernova. You seem to be arguing (with admirably unrelenting cocksure certainty) that our best response to the web of bands is to remain woven into the middle of it, becuase you truly think we can fix it. When the stands pick which pitcher the coach must use, we're in big trouble Brian. ROTFLMAO. Said to the wrong guy. I'm a Red Sox fan. My memories of horrifed fans watching Grady Little stick with Pedro Martinez while he blew a 5-2 lead in the 8th inning of game 7 of the 2003 ALCS are still vivid. And I defended Little because he was a guy making a difficult choice in a spot were all options were flawed. Let's just both concede that the manager isn't always right, and that he also isn't wrong simply because the outcome of his choice was negative. My view is pretty simple, Max. I'm not ready to abandon ship, but I acknowledge that we may come to a point where the best choice is undeniably to abandon ship, because it's going down. And I don't see the point of going down with the ship. I understand that the main portion of your view is that the ship can (and must) be saved, which leads you to want to convince as many folks as possible to stay on board. Make no mistake, I'd prefer not to jump ship into the icy waters and dark night. But if I'm sure it's going down, jump I will. Believing that the ship must be saved may indeed be useful or even necessary in order to save it. But it's not sufficent. Posted by: bk at February 1, 2007 11:45 AMGees....I didn't read your last post, so before I do, let me post this. Then I will respond to your latest. Don't take anything personal Brian. I suspect we are on the same page more than not. I just hope no one hates my use of bandwidth here.....(your remarks are in quotes below)
I made it clear that Obama MIGHT be positioning himself to secure the anti-war base. In doing so he not only jeopardizes his ability to win in a general election, but also makes governing once elected more difficult. There is little honor in lying to win, when such lying encourages this country to declare what we are losing as LOST. Perhaps your hemet is lead. Try tinfoil, it lets in more reality rays.
Now who said that those who fail to learn the lessons of history, repeat the same friggin mistakes? If you actually READ the numerous statements issued by the leaders of various sects, terrorist groups, regimes and despots, it is quite clear to a REASONABLE person they mean to defeat us, attack us and acquire the means and networks to do so. If you study the history of terrorism and proliferation you can find evidence that these threats are real, ongoing and escalating. Add to that the fact that modernity is breeching a technical threshold whereby evil people can anonymously deploy WMC to inflict substantial loss of life and financial ruin. I suppose you can either call Raytheon’s dirty bomb sensors and cruise missile defenses as a frightened response or a great way to bilk taxpayers. You know what Kossaks will say. Now what are Iranians doing in Venezuelan uranium fields? And I don’t think Jews in Argentina find Iranian terror imaginary. How about Congress believing an unchecked North Korea means WMD for cash? What you confuse with “being frightened” is a reasonable belief based on evidence that extortion, clandestine terror and intimidation is right around the technical corner. Iran has billions each year from oil to spend on unknown means to advance their hegemony. Warning that we are approaching a point of irreversible consequence is frightened witlessness is a fine example of someone on the higher perches of a red wood. The anti-war crowd calls such warnings and attempt to scare us into giving up our liberty and succumbing to the criminals who lead American domination. Now you don’t mean that, I’m sure. Playing to this sentiment certainly encourages the “stands” from demanding the team forfoet the game and leave the field. To say no, it means better plans and execution is NOT what this crowd is saying and you know it. “I think for your own sake you ought to avoid projecting each and every one of your worst and most obsessive fears on what so far is a short description of a proposed approach that includes wiggle room based on real-world outcomes” B.S. Biden called Edwards plan absurd, Hillary’s confused and stopped short of going after Obama having tripped himself over the word “clean”. Obama has had a long time to develop a “plan” and nowhere has he said Iraq is winnable. He has mentioned FIASCO without appearing to have read the last chapter. He deliberately is vague. He hasn’t even backed the increase in troop size or even mentioned AQ in Iraq, Hizb’Allah in Lebanon or Hamas in Gaza. His incredible solution is to talk to Iran and Syria (which admitted yesterday is a base for Iraqi insurgents). Perhaps Obama would have suggested in 1950 we negotiate with the KKK. Democrats rejected Chomsky’s rejection of rejectionism. “It's something of a leap to assume that any withdrawal under the aegis of this sketchy plan will necessarily be a precipitous, by-any-means necessary retreat leading inevitably to rout and disgrace.” And I should hire you to put a smile on business foreclosures. Who gives a crap about how you call defeat. Obama wants to spin defeat without any serious discussion about the implications of such a move now. He is unrealistic and pandering, plane and simple. “I feel you're prone to letting your fears get the better of you. I say that in full knowledge of the high likelihood that your response will be the usual one, to catalog once again the very many reasons why you are right to be scared to the brink of, well, witlessness” Your personal opinion. You would have said the same thing to me before 9/11 when I warned it was coming. That was clear after the first WTC attack.
“Asked and answered. Better reasons (pray tell, what are those?), a better plan (perfect from the start and including contingencies for unknown unknowns? Perhaps a clairvoyant should design military planning), better execution (this is only known after the fact, so how can execution encourage action elsewhere before the fact and when better execution is being rejected now?). The argument that we'll be unable to win tomorrow because we lost today is among the sillier and least credible of arguments, whether you are talking about politics or baseball. Sports commentator clowns love to talk about momentum, but students of baseball know that momentum is as good tomorrow's starting pitcher.” This last comment is silly. If we lose today because the stands don’t think such battles are worthwhile and CAN be won, it follows that other important battles will not be advocated. Many Liberals disagree with pre-emption or prevention which Obama implies are to be avoided. Anti-war groups call pre-emption illegal and you know the Corleone logic which says only strike after you have been hit. And strike with all you have. This is even sillier than what you said, but your view encourages the other. Well, that’s my opinion. “Make no mistake, Iraq is just the umpteenth chapter in history further establishing how very difficult it is to win the road game of imposing your will over another nation and reforming its government in your own image.” Our objective was to 1. Send a signal to regimes that assholes can be toppled. Saddam is gone. As far as imposing our will on others, that is Straw man stuff. The defense of international law, human rights and anti-proliferation is hardly American domination of our particular system on others. In fact, Iraqis welcomed the original promise of a better life. You drift right into Kosworld with that one. The best we can do is give Iraqis an opportunity and prevent the slide into terrorism and extremism. That will require both US help AND Iraqi will. We can lose this struggle, but it is not pre-ordained we lose because of some repetitive book you read from. I see Japan, Germany and other countries building civil, constitutional societies as the result of our persistence. Again, your selectivity is another chapter out of Zinn. “The outcome of possible future battles in the places you mention will rest overwhelmingly upon the same fundamental dynamics that have made past efforts difficult. IOW, the game is settled on the field, not in the stands.” I responded to this already. In fact, the stands are now determining the dynamics. This is largely due to the administration’s neglect of the role perception has. And the outcome is now being fueled by that perception rather than on the field. Our adversaries love this because on the field, they get that asses kicked. The outcome of course, will eventually be resolved politically, but negotiations require security and security requires force. I don’t see where the “stands” play a large role in this other than to guide the better path to stability. “So I continue to think that any decisions on how to approach Iraq must rest upon a sober assessment of our likelihood of success given that ultimately it's up to Iraqis to take charge. Ideally, they'll step up as we step down, which is basically the only way it can happen. No one disagrees with the basics of this, that we plan to transfer the hard work to Iraqis and move on to other matters. It's the details that folks disagree over” You think that I don’t see the trick you’re pulling here? A= our approach is based on a reasonable assessment of future success largely determined by Iraqi effort. B=Iraqis make sufficient effort as we withdraw from our effort. C=no one disagrees with this . D=it’s just the details people disagree with. Obama’s and Murtha’s plan (including an immediate reduction in forces and a new battle order to only train Iraq forces as we depart concludes our effort has been enough whether the Iraqi effort has or has not been sufficient to hold Iraq together. It’s Cut and Run, it’s not our problem anymore. Now I know all about wiggle room. I know what the definition of is, is. You are deluding yourself if you think any Democrat has a sufficient plan at the moment. Biden had one years ago, but who listened. So did Hillary. So did McCain. I find it sad that while Democrats profess outrage over the tragic loss of our troops, Arkin of the WaPo can publish opinions that many on the Left are really thinking. Who do you think the Left is fooling. Playing to them has a limit. Obama found it more compelling to write a book about himself and exclude any real plan concerning Iraq, the Middle East or terrorism in general. Hillary on the other hand, although confused, has spoken about details and the need for a more realistic approach in the Middle East. So has Biden. “Success or failure is ultimately not OUR option, it's Iraq's. Steadfastness does indeed have some utility, but not unlimited utility.” My last remarks concerning unlimited utility was cut off. I simply ended by asking, "who says unlimited?" We still have troops in Germany and Japan. Korea doesn't want our troops to leave. It is those damn fans who follow the spin that are demanding retreat. If the coaches listen, forget the league. Posted by: Maxtrue at February 1, 2007 01:22 PM“Sure thing Max. When you discover how to make a horse drink, you be sure to let me know. :-)” Try keeping it from drinking for a day, then it will drink. Unfortunately, drinking isn’t like thinking. Our loss in Viet Nam lead to several situations we avoided BECAUSE of the effect such a loss had on our mindset. “All bad decisions, too, right Max? We learned only bad lessons and made solely crappy decisions based on our experiences, right?” So far, Iraq shows us that we actually didn’t learn much from Viet Nam in terms of counterinsurgency tactics. Our resistance to military deployment helped create questionable covert operations and failure to stamp out problems before they grew. There was also the context of the Cold War. Had we executed better, perhaps millions more would be alive in Indochina that perished as the result of our retreat. Perhaps Kimmie wouldn’t be testing nukes. Do you argue that the Middle East is not like a maze of rubber bands stretching to the limit? “No, I'd only argue that it's not like a nuclear reactor whose failure must inevitably lead to a white hot miasma that consumes us all. If a web of rubber bands becomes unstable and collapses or explodes or whatever, some folks get hurt and others do not. It's not a supernova” Now this is wishful thinking. Ironic that it is looking like a reactor more and more. Other wars started in rubber band situations and the Middle East is wound tight. The oil alone makes it a nexus of hysteria.. “You seem to be arguing (with admirably unrelenting cocksure certainty) that our best response to the web of bands is to remain woven into the middle of it, becuase you truly think we can fix it” No, I think it is reasonable to expect it to snap given the intentional pulling and our presence might act as control rods. Stupidity on our part may increase the explosion. Or we can cut some rubber bands selectively and release some pressure. To think our vacating will lower the tension, is less reasonable than thinking our intelligent effort backed up with force and money will ignite disaster is wrong, I believe. In the worst case, Israel might have to use nukes in self-defense. When the stands pick which pitcher the coach must use, we're in big trouble Brian. “ROTFLMAO. Said to the wrong guy. I'm a Red Sox fan. My memories of horrifed fans watching Grady Little stick with Pedro Martinez while he blew a 5-2 lead in the 8th inning of game 7 of the 2003 ALCS are still vivid. And I defended Little because he was a guy making a difficult choice in a spot were all options were flawed. Let's just both concede that the manager isn't always right, and that he also isn't wrong simply because the outcome of his choice was negative” Agreed, being more of a Yankee fan. Pats had it, damn it. Now rooting for the Bears is the only option. Kind of ironic, given our conversation. And if the Red Sox had Yankee money you would have more World Series titles. Holy crap, pulling for the Bears and for Bush. “My view is pretty simple, Max. I'm not ready to abandon ship, but I acknowledge that we may come to a point where the best choice is undeniably to abandon ship, because it's going down. And I don't see the point of going down with the ship. I understand that the main portion of your view is that the ship can (and must) be saved, which leads you to want to convince as many folks as possible to stay on board. Make no mistake, I'd prefer not to jump ship into the icy waters and dark night. But if I'm sure it's going down, jump I will. Believing that the ship must be saved may indeed be useful or even necessary in order to save it. But it's not sufficient.” No, as you said, it requires the right rationale, a reasonable plan and execution that is adaptive, sufficiently reviewed with benchmarks that satisfies the stands who are asked to pay the bill in dollars and blood. Agreed. You did summarize my motives well. I am as worried this can screw up as you are. In the end, I will pick a life raft rather than drown with a sinking ship, not of my making. I see my role more of a Jewish comedian who has the luxury of making Jewish jokes. It’s just not the same coming from a gentile. My opponents cannot accuse me of being a Republican. I go over the top in an effort to alarm people while there are options. And as I said, I saw this coming as the Decider was hell bent on myopia, rather than bi-partisan and rational discourse BEFORE politics got WAY OUT OF HAND. Hey Max, I'm a kossack... more of a peanut gallery member, but I occasionally get a wild hair :-P You Said: You know...I've found myself wondering... pushing the veil a little and saying "let's say we bail on Iraq and pull out...what then?" Well, what defines "..pull out?" Would it be "pull our forces back to bases in the southern and northern deserts and neighboring friendly nations"? Would it be "return all our national guard troops home"? Would it be "bring them ALL home, yesterday!"? I still think the Bush presidency has been a colossal failure (more for things that have happened domestically and the throwbacks to the Nixon administration...but that's a totally diff. subject and, if you'll bear with me, I'll let it lie), but I'm beyond the "hate bush, need to see him pay painfully" stage. He's well into lame-duck-dom and we need to move forward, as a nation. I think the new democratic congress has done some good things; in some ways tempering the shoving from the far lefters! (not trying to filibuster Gates, not blocking Petraeus, etc.) Yes left of me... for example, by that crowd, I've been called a war criminal for standing up for our soldiers and have been troll-rated into the weeds for daring to even criticize Cindy Sheehan, to give you an idea. I get the feeling that the strategic picture has changed DRAMATICALLY since the (IMNSHO) foolish kool-aid drinking Iraq invasion. Whatever happened to get us there, we're THERE. Leaving is not as simple as "will the last person please turn off the lights?" This plan for going forward should stand a better chance of working, but I hope we're damned certain that the Shia Iraqis WANT to stabilize the country. If they would rather exterminate the Sunnis, then we should be prepared for another Bosnia. Oh and let's not forget the Kurds in the north and their old buddies, the Turks! That could get ugly if the Kurds decide they want to reform Kurdistan. Regarding the other players in the region... I don't think we can just go, hat in hand, to treat with Tehran. They've got money, a military, and see a great opportunity to take that big chunk o' iraq (oil) they wanted back in the 80's. The military forces we have in country serve as a good disuasion against Iran doing anything overt. We'll need that huge club sitting there to give us leverage with Tehran...but we DO need to engage them in negotiations and start using our tools of diplomacy (NATO, EU, UN, whomever) to apply pressure. If we ignore them, then they may just get that nuke they've wanted...and that can't end well. Syria...well...I frankly read Syria as being a piece of Iran. Iran's where the oil wealth comes from... without that I'm not so certain Syria would be able to continue supporting Hezbollah (which destabilizes Lebanon, thus, Israel) What a totally FUBAR'd region of the world! I dunno, gang... I see the posts from the front pagers (mcjoan, susanG, amongst others) screaming about how we need to be out of Iraq (yesterday), but I don't see it being a good idea, strategically (little voice says "umm...no"). Maybe it's the boardgame wargaming club I've joined recently, but it just seems frightfully shortsighted in light of how the situation there has changed. If we pull out..then we're OUT of the region, and we can't afford that. That's a major chunk of the existing oil assets and a huge source of wealth for whomever controls it. If we stay, we can try to make sure the money goes where it ought to go, instead of it going to terrorists. I still whack my head against the wall (no, not literally) in frustration at the stupidity of so blindly toppling Saddam... but I think I've reached the point where that's really moot, and reality is knocking. How's that for a new year? Oh wait..it's already February...where in the HELL did January go!? Posted by: Patrick at February 3, 2007 02:54 AMOooopsss. Sorry Patrick. Numerous typos. Risks is Ricks. 'interviews "months before AND" after his heart....' Just to mention a few. I think you know what I was saying anyway....As far as the Bears being an example for Iraq, I sure as hell hope not. Still, I am amazed that Syria has the balls to openly admit insurgents operate inside their space AND they declare negotiating with them is the ONLY means to end violence in Iraq. And negotiate with Iran as shoulder launched missiles bring down four US choppers? I am still pondering option 2 and 3. Maybe brighter minds here have some recommendations. Maybe Bobby can give us his view from Karbala. Seems like extremists plan to inflame areas around Iraq as we prepare to dampen the green zone. Wow, Max. LOL You write with a certain flowing momentum...a veritable mimetic mountain! dkos is weird.. I've convinced myself it's like wandering through the Roman Forum in its heyday...you'll hear anything and everything In fact, today they had a HUGE meta discussion (term for "talking about ourselves") wherein Kos again slapped the crowd in the face and said "cut it out, gang" 1000+ comments and spiralling strong Blah whatever... Iraq: So, here's the question... Who's fighting whom? Moreover, when our helos and grunts are being shot at... who's shooting, who's giving them their bullets/missiles/etc., who's providing the means to get those weaps in country, who's bankrolling it? Those are the things I would really like to know, personally. If Iran's actually involved..then we ratchet the pressure on them (and involve the greater community in the world... mid-east stability affects energy prices the world over, no one is immune). Remind them all (the rest of the world) why they should care and force them to take a stand. There's no sense in sticking ourselves out like that and letting them all walk away. Posted by: Patrick at February 5, 2007 05:36 PMWeapons? 500,000lbs Saddam left scattered. International arms merchants including the Mafia, Iran, Syria, stolen from coalition and watchout! here come the Russians! Hell, Saudi Arabia is spending 100 billion this year to counter Hamas, Hizb'Allah, and the Shias in Iraq. Congress is considering a resolution to block any action against Iran. There is a new thread on Liberal anti-zionists above. I thought quotes below would give some context to the war of perceptions taking place now here and abroad. Have the equation of the options you ponder require political will. That is much easier to influence in the Islamic world. Given the clerical control of the Muslim media and the fact 70% of the Muslim world can't read, these broadcasted distortions carry some mass. Hillary gives a Hawkish speech to a Jewish group as her poll numbers rise with an influx of women (more female Liberal with balls than men? LOL). Giuliani outpaces McCain. Edwards neck and neck with Obama (stung from some remarks that he isn't really black, well, from an "enslaved" background). My bet is that 2008 is a battle of hawks, much to the dismay of Kosites. Maybe when the dust settles (terrorist or otherwise), the leaders can debate more realistic options.No wonder the Kossaks are calling. Note their piling on the the Arkin thread. Why do you think they are defacing the Capital now? Anyway, on to some pecuniary delights (after the Bard of course):
William Shakespeare, "Macbeth", Act 1 scene 3
[...] The world of Islam must move in this direction. Otherwise, in this age of the atom and the laser, we will not be able to use a broken sword to fight the atom and the laser, and the other advanced equipment at the disposal of the Western world. Iranian Political Analyst Majid Safataj: We Will Not Be Able to Fight the Atom and Laser with a Broken Sword from an interview which aired on the Iranian news channel on December 30, 2006. Hassan Nasrallah: Bint Jbeil, and before that, Maroun Al-Ras, and all the villages of South Lebanon, which were steadfast, fought, and conducted resistance, have shattered the myth of the [Israeli] army. They came to Bint Jbeil solely in order to take revenge on it, because in one of its public squares it was said that Israel is weaker than a spider web. Today, as we begin a new year, [we say]: Yes! Oh Lebanese people, Palestinian people, and the peoples of our nation, I say once again: By Allah, Israel is weaker than a spider web. The future of Israel is death and perdition. The future of our nation is one of life, freedom, and regaining the holy places. Our martyrs inscribed in blood during the July-August war: Death to Israel. Crowd: Death to Israel Death to Israel Death to Israel Hassan Nasrallah: George Bush wants to punish you because you were steadfast. He wants to punish you because you were victorious. In the American era, you are not allowed to win, you are not allowed to hold your heads high. In the American era, the only ones allowed to live are the ones who bow down in humiliation and submission. George Bush knows, and today, as we commemorate Hussein, I say to him again, so the whole world can hear: We are a people that will not surrender, be humiliated, or bow down in submission. When… When the Great Satan declares his hostility toward us, and declares his war against us, it is a great honor, of which we are proud. It is proof of our steadfastness, of our independence, of our honor, and of our patriotism, because the Americans do not declare war against their collaborators, against their lackeys, or against their slaves. This proves that we are masters, that we are free, honorable, and proud. Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah: Israel Is Weaker Than a Spider Web from an address which aired on Al-Manar TV on January 30, 2007.
[...] [Former Syrian] Minister Mustafa Tlass wrote a voluminous book about this, in which he included all the documents written by the French diplomats and consul in Lebanon. [...] The world loves the Jews. The "ruler" is "Christianity - the Christian West. Arabs, Muslims – why don't you take advantage of something like this? A priest was slaughtered in the presence of two rabbis in the heart of Damascus, in the home of a close friend of this priest, Daud Al-Harari, the head of the Jewish community of Damascus. After he was slaughtered, his blood was collected, and the two rabbis took it. Why? So they could worship their god, because by drinking human blood, they can get closer to God. Where are our diplomats and politicians? Why don't we profit from these historical matters, which are presented to us on a simple, eternal, golden platter? As I've said, these books can be found on the streets of Beirut. There are approximately 20 to 30 such books. I must have bought about 2,000 copies since they were published, maybe more. I'd like to say 20,000 copies, but I don't know. When somebody gets married, instead of chocolates, I give him one of these books. Whoever reads this for the first time feels a chill of horror and disbelief. He cannot believe it. Lebanese Poet Marwan Chamoun: Jews Slaughtered Christian Priest in Damascus in 1840 and Used His Blood for Matzos from an interview which aired on TeleLiban TV on January 30, 2007
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: So What If Two U.N. Resolutions Were Issued against Us? America Cannot Cause Iran Real Damage from an interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which aired on Iranian Channel 2 on January 23, 2007. An aside regarding the war of perception……These are weapons too,,,, I believe Perez was making a joke of sorts He said a couple of weeks ago, that attacking Iranian facilities was "off the table". Still think there is so much we cannot see, and much we see, but don't want to see. We need lots of intelligence about now. Lots. Posted by: Maxtrue at February 5, 2007 09:50 PMAn example of media spin . Its a long way from Obama thread, but in the media's pondering of Iraq options, America often is usually cast as no better than our adversaries. This example goes beyong bad reporting. This is usually the case when media discusses ASATS, nuclear weapons, the use of force, etc...... Armchair generalists can get it right sometimes. Just another interesting example given the reference to Hitler. I'm surprised Bloomberg relays this stuff. Posted by: Maxtrue at February 6, 2007 12:14 AMI know I’m not alone here when I say things aren’t looking great. Is anyone still confused by the direction Russia has been taking?. I do not mean just throwing out human rights NGOs, or involvement in attempted/successful political and business assignations, energy extortion, or “false flag” operations, but more specifically, their direct assistance to those now pitted against the West. New Russian anti-aircraft missiles will appear in Iraq, Lebanon and eventually throughout the world. The Russians have boasted new hypersonic warheads formerly banned by strategic agreement, as well as their own lasers and ASATS. The will field new mobile ICBMs to defeat a European missile defense shield conceived to protect Europe from the very regimes Russia sells advanced technology and weapons. Is there any confusion here about these reported facts? What was an implicit acceptance of International law and a free market defended by US forces, a different tune seems coming from Moscow. Recently Russian officials expressed the frustration that America is Russia’s most difficult partner. The US is more difficult than Iran, Syria, China, Hamas and all the former Russian-controlled nations that now celebrate their freedom? Perhaps it is gnawing to the Kremlin to see Poland fall under the missile shield of NATO. And then there is China. Here is alleged the new Super Power, professing zero interests of the internal affairs of another country. No wonder. That would mean an examination of the Communist use of torture and oppression forming the backbone of their judicial system. This allows them to defy international sentiment and cooperate with Sudan and other African pariahs. They pretend testing ASATS means a dedication to a weapon free space while they build new ICBMs to point at us. Their SDI from the eighties continue to this day. When you add these “former” foes to a multipolar world where former “allies” distrust themselves more than they trust their common self-interest, you find a huge weight for America to carry. This strategic impasse between world powers is what is really behind the conflict in Iraq. It is what is behind the present strife in Africa and the Middle East. Can anybody here honestly imagine that a unified front by the EU, Russia, China and the US could not impose political or military solutions to the world’s conflict and proliferation? Of course they could. Such prospects however, obstruct their perspective hegemonies and competitive edge. Meanwhile, other countries like North Korea move closer to the next more lethal technologies. One North Korea has mobile ICBMs they can sell them for a lot of US dollars, or Euros. The same is true for Iran, Pakistan and other countries where Islamists or Fascists have significant control of State military assets. The global delivery system is already quite sophisticated. Organized crime, extremists, separatists and fascist interests have trillions in assets and currency including a network that rivals the free world. Once the cat is out of the bag, the fear that the world has forever changed will be amplified a thousand fold as politics and security forever melt together. It is in these months and years, that sufficient cooperation will be achieved to safeguard the genies or chaos will be unbottled. It will take only several more years for new weapons (and WMD) and delivery system. By then it will be almost impossible to thwart them. I have often suggested that whatever we do in Iraq, action or inaction should be measured by our strategy to contain the threats aforementioned. It is not what America’s options are in Iraq, but what the Western world’s options are for preventing the ultimate escalation of tyranny. Iraq must fit into this strategic plan. The following links relate to Iraq, but address strategic policy and domestic politics. The plans on the table reveal much of the broader assumptions or delusions. I will let you be the judge: Plan B of DLC’s original Plan B I guess the qualifiers missing in the first post needed some spelling out. Posted by: Maxtrue at February 7, 2007 08:45 PMAssasinations instead of assignations LOL......my bad Posted by: Maxtrue at February 7, 2007 08:48 PM |
Archives
July 2008
June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
July 4: Gasbag Edition
Independent Open Thread: Whatcha Doing This Weekend? Long Tail Controversy and Explanations Canadian Human Rights Commission No, Slavery Wasn't Competive With Free Labor Back online Irish Blogger Charged For Blogging Friday open thread Headline: Obama and Clinton Together in Unity There Is No EPA Document, There Is No EPA Document
|
