Redstate

"terrorist's dwindling impotence"

Did you mean importance? Is it just me or does 'dwindling impotence' mean they are getting less impotent (ie getting stronger)? Although as pretty much anyone can tell, grammar isn't my strong suit.

Our men and women in uniform are dying, and for what?

There's absolutely no reason we should have a military presence in the southeast quadrant of Washington DC.  

Detroit, either.

We don't have a plan to win the peace in either city, and we should pull all troops out without delay..  

Just finished my last final, though, so I'm excused.

when I first read that, my mind immediately concluded that the terrorists impotency problem was in a dwindling state.  I'm sure sympathetic legislators will be lobbying for prescription drug benefits to accompany the new rights extended to foreign terrorists by McCain, and with that provision, the drug company lobbyists will get Viagra authorized for distribution.  Hey, if convicted sex offenders in prison can get it...

Given the events on the ground, I'm beginning to wonder if "quagmire" doesn't mean what they think it means.

is being wasted in Iraq when it could be used to more advantage on our borders.  Although it is nice to see that the people of that occupied country roused themselves from sleepless nights of being terrorized by American troops to march bleary eyed to the polls.  Then there is the possibility that BushLied about these elections, if he can phoney up 120,000 votes in Ohio what else can he do?  that's the sort of thing you might expect from some dumbo who lives in a bubble, as compared to hard headed realists who listen to NPR.  

 is between real "terrorism" and just common lawlessness.  I am sure the press will not distinguish between the two but when you are speaking of such low numbers (3 injured, 2 killed) it should be an issue.  Carjacking, domestic violence, robbery, mugging, arson, murder and copycats for profit are surely occuring (they still happen here), but most likely are being classified as terrorism to satisfy the MSM's burning desire for negative news.

. . . To move those goal posts once again. I am sure the Defeatocrats are scheming right now and we will have a brand new set of goal posts by the time the sun comes up. What else can they do. The alternate reality that they have fabricated for themselves leave them no other option.

Once upon a time, the Democrat party stood for freedom for the opressed, then along came Jimmuh Carter and it's never been the same since.

Just finished reading "Fighting Back" by Sammon.  He recounts how the media and democrats called Afghanistan a quagmire.  

They did the same thing when the first gulf war started.  I remember a couple of years before going into Panama being treated to the idea that Noriega would make Panama a Vietnam if ever we went there.  Iraq today is the same thing.

You would think the dems would shut up on the eve of the elections.  Nahhh.

Just remember though, Wartime leader's party's who enjoy great victories in war (as Iraq is clearly turning out to be) often get turned out by populations ready to move on to other issues.  Churchill and Bush I being perhaps the most noteworthy examples.

We know Bush might be seem as a Churchill, question is, who will get the ugly Chamberlain title?

I don't remember the Balklands being a quagmire. I guess quagmire only applies to conflicts that furthur our national interests. That seems to be their main criteria for supporting or opposing military action.

..."Defeatocrats"...it encapsulates exactly what they have become...defeatists for supposed political advantage.

I think it by far a fair trade. If current events are the measure of men I find the democrats lacking in almost every category compared to an Iraqi.

 I am also still at a loss as to how it is most reporters have been deemed qualified to tell me what a victory or defeat looks like in Iraq when they can not recognize a biased report from an unbiased report flowing from their own pen.  What special intuition have they attained that a soldier who is fighting this war, or a common citizen for that matter, does not have?

Apparently in regards to the war in Iraq. One soldiers victory is just another journalist defeat.

You don't remember the Balkans being a "quagmire"?  Were you not in America from 1990 to 1998?  

Hard to say that the American military involvement in Kosovo was a quagmire, since it only last about 8 weeks with Milosevic capitulating, and then being ousted 2 years laters, IIRC.

1. Everyone works for the government or is deendent on the government. The most beautiful sight in the world are long lines of dependants waiting to see a social worker to be told what they can and cant do.
   
2. Remember the photo of the last american soldier grabbing the helicopter from the top of a Saigon building? dem win

Have you ever served in the military?  

I ask this not to question your patriotism, since I have little reason to question that, but to determine whether you much experience as a soldier.

Soldiers are some of the LEAST informed citizens we have.  They are told precisely what the military leadership wants to tell them.  Their news sources, particularly in a deployment, are very limited.  

That's not to say that a soldier's opinions are meritless.  They see many things we could not even imagine.  But most soldiers have only a limited understanding of bigger picture issues.

I am talking about our military involvement in the conflict being called a quagmire, not the conflict in general... since that would have absolutely no bearing at all on the question at hand.

I recall plenty of criticism, but not really of the "quagmire" variety - probably because no ground troops were put in any position to get stuck under fire. In all honesty, most of the criticism was either the isolationist variety or the simple anti-anything-Clinton-does form.

In the present case the left seems at a loss as to a commonly understood basis of their dismay. Some few are isolationist, another some few are genuine pacifists, but most seem stuck in general BDS. Say what you will about Hilary, but she at least seems to understand the virtue of shutting up if you don't have anything to say, for the time being.

But I don't often see soldiers quoted by the pro-war journalists (a rare breed indeed) saying that the war in general is being won or commenting on Iraqi politics.  You see them quoted to provide anecdotes that counter media garbage like the idea that all Iraqis hate us.  They are also quoted to show morale is still high among the troops, which belies the claims of media darlings like Murtha and the editorial board of the New York Times that they are "broken" and "living hand to mouth."  

I completely agree that the anti-war Left really is just an echo chamber saying the same thing over and over again without much thought about reality.

I am sure that our soldiers anywhere in the world can have access to news stories similar to what we have.

I would actually have a lot more respect for them if they were consistent in their response to Clinton's interventions. They would still be wrong, but at least their position would be principled.

is that someone can cherrypick the anecdotes of the people they WANT.

Not sure what the living hand to mouth comment refers to.

that knife cuts both ways.

Part of the criticism from the left is generated by envy, jealosy, etc. The latest broadside from Pelosi shows clearly that she could do a much better job at managing the war in Iraq than the military. After all she is a graduate of West Point-no wait, thats not right. Oh yes-Trinity College.

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles?id=n20051214182909990006&cid=1291

I just don't see how anyone could've possibly been against the first gulf war while supporting intervention in the Balklans, and be basing those positions on some guiding principle. Unless that principle is "not unless it ISN'T in our national interests."

most people supported the first gulf war.  And the opponents of Kosovo weren't, generally speaking, Leftists.

Hmm..Bush or Kerry as CIC from Yale. I choose Bush. BUT the war is run on-site by the professional volunteer military-fortunately NOT by some extreme left wing liberal from San Francisco-The City By the Bay that hates the military.

The vote on authorization of force in the Senate was 52-47-1. You can guess which party all but one of the Nays (and the single NV) came from.

There were plenty of grassroots protests as well. I was in school at the time, so I remember the "No Blood for Oil" shirts and armbands and posters. I don't remember the "No Blood for ???" paraphernalia a few years later.

You're earning respect around here. Seriously. I never thought it would happen, but there it is.

However, this is a classic "old-school" flyerhawk moment. The original commenter was discussing (mocking) Pelosi's creds for managing the war, and said, sarcastically, that she must have gone to West Point... get it?

(Has nothing to do with how fine of an institution Trinity College is).

That's right... in a quagmire near you people are dying at 5500+ a day! Yep the ole' USA. Dying from eating that Cheeseburger @ McDonalds, while driving SUV's on the way to Football practice and dropping dead right in the shoe department @ Walmart.

It's time to pull out! It's time to end the occupation! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

his point.  He was suggesting that since Pelosi went to Trinity and not a military college that means she  is unfit to comment on Iraq.

That is extremely flawed reasoning.  

It is a variant of the Chickenhawking you guys generally abhor.  

Pelosi is an elected official in our Federal government.  As such she is REQUIRED to be involved, to some degree.  War and politics will forever be intertwined and to suggest that our politicians cannot speak about our wars because they didn't go to West Point is just as silly as saying that someone who never served cannot speak about the military.

Then it shouldn't matter if the CinC only went to Yale (in essence, I'm agreeing that the West Point-Trinity comment was unnecessary)...but basically, it's an argument that "cuts both ways," so don't bother with it.

But the point of that comment was not that Nancy Pelosi, even as a member of the federal government, isn't entitled or even obligated to comment on the war.  It was just a hyperbolic illustration of Ms. Pelosi's belief that she is the foremost authority on happenings on the ground in Iraq (by virtue of her enlightened liberal political philosophy) and is therefore unquestionably right in anything that she says on the matter.  Of course, to be fair, Ms. Pelosi has not really come out with such a declaration...it's just a reflection of the fact that the content and tone of her commentary leads one to believe that she is quite sure it's still 1968.

So I guess you could say, in essence, that I'm also defending the aforementioned comment.

If this is confusing, please understand that, like Leon H, I am also in the throes of final exams.

Hope I can end this thread. Pelosi is unfit to COMMAND any military operation-no matter what she thinks she can do. She may, can, is fit, and should speak policy as her position dictates. Trying to micro-manage milops by politicians is  a disaster that American has already been through. Policy is not milops.

In general (no pun intended) I find Pelosi's comments on milops detracts from legitimate policy conciderations (of which she may have)   regarding the Iraq war. Trinity is a fine college. So is West Point.

flyerhawk,

Mind if I ask you a question - I don't mean to question your patriotism but have you ever servered in the military?  You seem to have an particular idea of what serving in our nations military means for the adverage low ranking service member that is based on the preceptions of combat in past conflicts.

While it may be true that at times the lower ranks were grist for the mill, no conflict has ever been won without cooperation and trust up and down the chain of command.

There has never been a battle plan that precisely detailed the objective down to squad level and I doubt seriously there ever have been that many non-coms who did not listen to what a private might suggest circumstances permitting. More so today.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

It's a land war! In Asia!

are there any Sicilians in the coalition?  If so...then Zarqarwi is DOOMED!

Remember the photo of the last american soldier grabbing the helicopter from the top of a Saigon building? dem win

For the aging refugees from the 60's that can't come to grips with the 4 decades that have passed them by, and who dominate today's Democratic party, Vietnam is the holy grail of their fond memories. They keep hoping to relive those exuberant days of their youth, when they put Jengis Khan Amerika in it's place. As others have pointed out, every time there's a war under a Republican president, Democrats' fading hormone levels spike up in the hopes that again American defeat is inevitable, and evil American militarism will suffer just retribution.

Another image Democrats evoke is Gollum's frenzied quest to regain "My Precious". Vietnam is the Democrat's "Precious", and they're so pitifully desperate to have it once again. "I want my Vietnam! Waaaah!"

Yes I did serve and your assessment off by a good measure.

This is a current media born myth to justify why it is that they can deem Iraq a quagmire when most soldiers would tell you we are winning.

Soldiers often hear situation reports from their command.  The NCO's usually have been in long enough to have formed friendships with NCO's in other units. Believe it or not they do talk to each other.

Actually I will bet you other then the politics of home that NCO's are probably better informed then most journalists.

Also, most soldiers know this war is about attrition, not weapons or IED's.  As long as we still have feet on the ground, we are winning.

to your question is do you really think a reporter or columnist is qualified to give a valid opinion on what constitutes victory?

As to your pretty crabbed view of soldiers, which surprises me since you have claimed to been in 10th Mountain, I think that might have been true 10 years ago. But when you consider soldiers are liveblogging the war from Iraq, right now, it's kind of hard to take your comment about a constricted flow of information seriously.

missing is that while the president has a Defense Department to advise him on national strategy, Pelosi doesn't have that resource and as she has no military experience/knowledge and its a safe bet her staff has less than she does she makes a buffoon of herself offering her opinions.

"Soldiers are some of the LEAST informed citizens we have."

Actually, the least informed citizens we have are those who believe and spout tripe of the sort you just did.

"They are told precisely what the military leadership wants to tell them.  Their news sources, particularly in a deployment, are very limited."

That may have been true in World War II, or even Vietnam. It is most assuredly not true now.

I think that Pelosi is an attention hound who is playing to a specific segment of the Democratic Party and is generally talking out her rectum.

But she's hardly alone on that boat.  There are about 635 people that are mostly talking out their rectum about current military matters.  

My only point is that her educational experience has no bearing her qualifications because if you accept that they do then you go down the slippery slope of chickenhawking.

I don't think it matters one whit where a President went to college, or a legislator for that matter.

A person can be well versed in military operations and never serve in the military.  

the receiving end of the whole chickenhawk argument and considering it is Advent and nearing Christmas I've decided that I'm in the mood for giving.

In all seriousness, if Pelosi had made some statement about the optimal way to perform open heart surgery she would have been hooted from the room as the poseur that she is. On the other hand, she can opine about military strategy in Iraq, a proposition at least as complicated and potentially fatal to the patient as open heart surgery, and we're supposed to give her our respectful attention.

That is the key difference between my objection to Pelosi's, and indeed Murtha's, harebrained opinions and chickenhawking.

No one is telling them "if you want to comment on the war, then you should join the military". We are simply gobsmacked at the self-absorption that would allow anyone on the national stage to comment on something they have neither the training, education, nor experience to understand and expect to be greeted by anything other than guffaws.

Some soldiers are liveblogging and some soldiers stay in touch with the world.  But soldiers, as a whole, are not terribly informed people.  This isn't a criticism of our soldiers.  Soldiers are generally young.  They live cloistered lives.  And they usually don't pay that much attention to the outside world.

Regardless I think you guys are missing my point.  I'm not suggesting that soldiers don't have an opinion or that they can't catch the news.  What I am saying is that they don't have any more knowledge about the strategic successes and failures than most other people, and oftentimes they know less.  

Not sure why you are tryig to insinuate that I am simply claiming to have been in 10th Mountain.  I served in the 10th Signal Battalion, 10th Mnt Division.  31F and left as an E4p.   My sole deployment was to Haiti.  I did indeed leave 10 years ago.  

How some people idolize our military to the point that even the most tepid of criticisms warrants an ad hominem response.

Can I use the excuse that it was early and I didn't have my first coffee yet? :)

The problem is that EVERYONE thinks they are an expert on military operations.  Pelosi is just a really bad iteration of a common problem.  

Pelosi has every right, and indeed the obligation, to examine the political and strategic goals of our operation in Iraq.  Unfortunately, much like the media, she seems to think that a quick serach on google and a briefing by a military liason makes her Von Clausewitz.  

My original comment in this vein was simply to take a small jab at Lee's criticizing her not attending West Point.  I still believe my point was valid, even if his larger point of Pelosi being a fool is valid as well.

is your misuse of the term ad hominem.

He's right. Your overarching generality here was too much.

First, deployed troops have access to the internet as well as to satellite tv broadcasts of CNN and FoxNews and presumably ITN, etc. in all but the most isolated laagers. There are actually hundreds of troops who blog from Iraq.

Given that over 90% of the military are high school grads vice about 80% in the general population the idea that they are the "least" informed is nothing short of BS.

that your average college student is more informed or less informed than the average American?

Soldiers are some of the LEAST informed citizens we have.  They are told precisely what the military leadership wants to tell them.  Their news sources, particularly in a deployment, are very limited.

I call BS on all counts.

What about LA?

Well then believe what you will.  

If you think the average soldier is well informed then that is your choice.  

Perhaps my views are different from yours because I was enlisted.

at all. And as I was responding to your post you, of all people, should know that.

You said soldiers were the LEAST informed. I say BS. I can go into Southeast DC or Harlan County, KY and pull out 160,000 people who are much less informed any 160,000 soldiers in Iraq.

Now you're trying to change the terms from your indefensible postion by attributing to me a position I have not offered, that they are well informed.

I'd say they are as well informed, on average, as any American and more informed, on average, about the war in Iraq than the average corresponent swilling gin at the bar of the Hotel Palestine.

If this is quagmire, I can't wait to see what victory looks like.  They had higher turn-out in their election than we have in our own.  I hope that some of you, at least, have put purple dye on your fingers to honor the Iraqis  -- I do.  A lot of drugstores have been selling the dye, so it shouldn't be that hard to do.  

Freedom is on the march!

I will concede there was some hyperbole in my response.  I sometimes get agitated when people make the argument that soldiers are the ultimate authority on the progress of a war.

just stick to an easily defensible position and save us all a lot of time?

For God's sake, man, you were Signal!  How many soldiers did you patch calls or internet through for?  You should have had even more access to exactly how informed soldiers were than most do.

We are Particularly well informed.  Especially these days and Especially on successes and failures.  We need to know what went wrong or right and where we might need to go tomorrow or the next day or next week or next month or next year.

Because of these requirements, we are typically more informed than the average civilian.  

Whether we pay attention to all this data coming at us is another question altogether.

No, but far more reliable and knowledgeable than anyone else I've come across in person here in the US.  Especially when it comes to the war.

sometimes we all get caught up going down a debate path we don't necessarily want to.

From the non rates, thru the NCOs and up, today's military is very very informed. Even in the war zone they have access to the internet daily and cable news is a main stay of the diet today.

In base camp and rear areas alike, the flow of information is far and above what it was 10 years ago.

Im a 23 year vet of the military currently on active duty

the ultimate authority. But they are far from the least informed.

Perhaps sticking to that middle ground would have served you better