Redstate

I have to say it would be nice if Democratic leaders for once took a position because they believed it was the right thing to do, not because they thought it would help them in the 2006 elections. While I would have preferred staying out of Iraq, at least Bush doesn't seem to be changing positions to help his party next year.

But don't bet the farm on it.

That is a bit over the top, no?   Nobody is talking about waving any white flags that I am aware of.  The mission was accomplished, I recall.  What we are talking about now is the length and focus of the rebuilding effort.  

There are only a few select politicians out there right now who would put the right thing over politics.

Inserting your "[Pelosi joining the unconditional surrender camp]" inside a quote that you reference from a news source could be considered a sleazy trick by some.  Some could mistake your words for being part of the quote, from the credible source that you reference.  

CEO's often re-evaluate plans and change positions.  Whats wrong with changing course as the situation dictates?  Whats wrong with looking at results and saying "we need to go in a different direction"?

The description was in brackets, though, so it was clearly an editorial insertion.

If you believe that labelling Pelosi's stance as a call for unconditional surrender is incorrect, please explain why.

Brackets exist for a reason, and not judt because God looked on the haughty parenthesis and said, This one shall I bring low.

I'm pretty sure that the terrorists/insurgents in Iraq won't be ruling the United States were the President to follow her position.

When Clinton took us to war in Bosnia, many Republicans, including Sen. Warner, pushed hard for a quick exit, even if leaving weakened the chance for victory.  Based on the fact that these same Republicans had been strong supporters of wars by Republican presidents, it seemed like an opportunistic move to for political advantage rather than a principled stand for America's interests.  Only McCain and a handful of other Republicans argued that once in the war, we had to fight it to win, regardless of whether the president leading the charge was a Democrat.

While I hope the Democrats come around to a principled position in favor of the Iraq War, especially since the stakes are much higher now than during the war in Bosnia, let's not forget that both parties, when not in control of the White House, want to do everything possible to regain the White House, even if what they do isn't necessarily good for the country.  

with the Democrats' actions stems not from a belief that you can't change your mind, but a belief that you can't make it so obvious that you're only doing so for political purposes. I think a lot of them don't even realize how obvious it is...there was a link on this site a while back to a post on Daily Kos or MyDD where they discussed how drumming up opposition to the war and taking advantage of a growing public sentiment in favor of withdrawal was the key to victory in 2006. On the front pages of those two blogs, at least, whether or not withdrawing is actually the right thing to do is rarely if ever discussed. Same goes for elected Democratic leaders, at least as far as I've seen. The Democrats' plan for Iraq seems to be, as it has been for 3 years now, "not what Bush is doing."

Now, it may be that Bush is just as callously political as the Democrats. Certain members of his administration give me reason to believe that they are. But at least they don't make it so darn obvious.

For the record, this is the last time I can remember a Democrat taking a principled stand on Iraq.

when that particular conflict was going on, I can't really comment with any authority on the specifics. I certainly don't deny that Republicans do things for crass political purposes too.

is a figurative expression, pulling out of Iraq is quite literal, a difference that should be kept in mind.  If we did pull out the so called insurgents would not need a white flag to get the message, neither did the North Vietnamese.  As to over the top  comments; you might try and use what ever influence you have to tone down the many beauts we've heard over thepast few years, outrage late is outrage meaningless.  A withdrawl now would be seen as and taken as a surrender, so the term is certainly more appropriate than the Halliburton, Bush lied, U S Army resembles the Gulag, etc slime we've been subjected to.

is that it's vaguely unclear who put the brackets in, since newspapers use them just like RedState writers do. Luckily, the...um...distinctive rhetoric makes it clear to regular RedState readers that this was a recent addition.

Sounds like a late Sixties rock band.

I seem to have missed the War in Bosnia that Clinton took us to.

the mission of taking Baghdad and defeating the field army of Saddam's Iraq was accomplished. Quickly, amazingly so, a feat overlooked by the ankle-biting pundits who even then looked to create a quagmire.

Is the "unconditional surrender camp" over the top? I dunno, what conditions are the Murtha et al setting? None that I know of: unconditional seems a fine descriptor.

As to surrender, if "we" are losing the war as that camp seems to think and they want us to leave now, how is that different than surrender?

Many Democrats have been making ad hominem attacks on the President and Vice-President, i.e., Bush and Cheney love making wars now, but when the country was at war in Vietnam, they found ways to avoid service.  Now, Bush and Cheney are not beyond criticism for avoiding military service in Vietnam, but the logical conclusion of this line of reasoning is that only those political leaders who have served in the military have the right to take the country to war.  Putting aside the ridiculousness of this argument in light of American history (Lincoln, FDR, Wilson), it is a strange argument for liberal Democrats to make because it's pro-military in the extreme.  When have liberal Democrats ever been so pro-military, or pro-military at all?  Not for nearly half a century have they been even modestly pro-military.  Why are they so pro-military now?  It is only proof that they have nothing to say by way of actual argument.  They don't know how to form a military and diplomatic strategy to respond to the terrorist threat, but they do have in their ranks military veterans of Vietnam.  So they compare their military service to the lack of service of Bush and Cheney.  Call the Democrats weak on terror and they pretend you are questioning their patriotism (so as to avoid any argument.)  Then they attack  by making ad hominem arguments themselves, and ones with which they have never themselves agreed!  (Only military veterans can take us to war?)

Whether they are attempting to defend themselves, or attempting to attack the Republicans, the liberal Democrats resort frequently to ad hominem attacks.  That they do so, and that these ad hominem attacks are often based on principles contrary to their own beliefs, shows how pitifully they lack any serious policies about our national security four years after 9/11.

that he has made changes along the way, the Dems and the left just don't want to see them.

The other side of the equation is that CEOs do change direction, but not if the situation  don't warrant it. It is the Dems interpretation that the situation has changed sufficiently to warrant a change i.e. quit and pull out the troops. I submit the CEO and Board of Directors pf Bush and Company do not see the situation as having changed in that direction, quite the contrary.

get over the "Mission Accomplished" banner/speech. The mission of that ship was accomplished, they were returning home having completed their deployment.

Besides, the "end of major combat operations" was a legal nicety that officially moved us from combatant power to occupying power. It would be nice if you guys knew anything, anything at all will do about matters military.

First, I don't think anyone has overlooked the job our military has done to date.  I think all Americans are proud of how they have performed.

But Iraq is now a nation building exercise pure and simple.  If we leave, we are not surrendering, we are simply leaving.  We will leave at some point, the only arguement now is when.  But when we leave it is not surrender. Wwe don't cede any US territory to someone, we don't have US soldiers taken as prisoner of war, we sign no papers, with pay no reperations.

I would love to see the MSM Media actually take a few minutes and look at the many different positions the democrats have had on IRAQ and show the public. But we know the MSM will not do that.

The GOP should start running ads with Kerry wind surfing again and include the other DEMS on and off again statements on IRAQ.

Lets take a look at the DEMS over the last few years on IRAQ.

1. When Clinton is President Saddam is a grave threat to the USA and they support Clinton on making regime change as the national policy.
   
2. Then Clinton does nothing to address the threat he told the American Public existed and did not follow through on the policy he wanted.
   
3. Bush wants to remove Saddam after 9/11 and the DEMS want to debate the issue.  Even though many had only a few years prior claim Saddam was a threat many were not so sure this time. The difference is the WH is occupied by a Republican.
   
4. The DEMS stick their finger in the air and realize the public wants to remove Saddam, so they vote to support the war so they do not look weak on defense.
   
5. After voting to support Saddam's removal many DEMS immediately attack Bush on the war.
   
6. 04' elections are near and the DEM Presidential Nominee Kerry is unable to decide if he supports or is against the war and then forgets to vote in favor in funding the war he
   

voted for.

7. 2005 and the DEMS stick their finger in the air again and see the public support has weakened on the war in IRAQ. They call for immediate/partial/sometime next year/ withdraw of the troops. Also they continue the President lied mantra at a time of war.
   
8. The President stands firm on IRAQ and promises to stay and fight until we win.  The DEMS fear the public will see them weak on defense again and claim the party is unified to win the war.
   
9. Liberman and Nelson support the war and see progress. Others want a gradual withdraw, Murtha and Pelosi want a withdraw in 6 months. Next week we will see where Ried and Kerry are. Then make sure you listen the following week because Reid and Kerry will have a different opinion.

How can these people actually look in the mirror and expect the American Public to trust them in protecting our nation.  

another rousing victory, right.

I'd agree with you that the terrorists won't be running the U.S., but do you also contend they won't be increasingly likely to try to blow us up?

Question number 7 on the recent FoxNew/Opinion Dynamics poll

(RANDOMIZE 7-8)

7. Do you think the world would be better off or worse off if the U.S.

military had not taken action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein were still in power?

....................Better off...Worse off...(Same as)...(Don't know)

29-30 Nov 05 ....27%..........52...............8..............13

Democrats ........41% .........34 ..............8 .............18

Republicans ......10% .........78 ..............6 ...............6

Independents ....29% .........47 .............11 ............13

We have some 49% of Democrats who think that the world would be better off/same with Saddam in power, compared with 41% of Independents and only 16% of Republicans. When asked about Iraq in particular the Democrats 'better off' dropped to 29% but the 'same as' rose to 11%.

perhaps because of type limitations, newspapers (incorrectly) use parenthesis where those of us clad in pajamas can use [haughty] brackets.

TO WIT: You'll find brackets in weblogs but likely not in newspapers.

it was OK to stay in Germany and Japan and do nation building but it isn't OK to do this in Iraq?

In those countries you had citiznes that wre receptive to our efforts, or at the very least cowed by their own surrender.  How many casualties did we have in those countries during our occupied rebuilding phase?

were fully behind Clinton's saber rattling because they knew there was zero chance he'd actually do anything beyond give speeches.

Murtha says WE are the problem

WE are the enemy

WE incite the insurgency

If you were Zarqawi, what about Murtha's statements would you change?

Well, WE were the enemy in Europe and the Pacific OF OUR ENEMY  as if

WE were a problem FOR megalomaniacs

WE incited nazis and kamikazis to attack

The issue is not about time for reconstruction. The main diversion, is that dems want the US mission to be perceived as a failure. Period.

My question is, when will pelosi and murtha become human shields in Iraq? Will they sit on a suicide bomber ala jane?

how long did the US Army run Germany as an Army of occupation and why should we expect better results in Iraq in less time?

....the current strategy backs the same people the Iranians are backing. The Shiites will likely end up in power whether we stay or go. I don't think a longer stay in Iraq will change all that much whether that coming-to-power is done by force or by Constitution. Iraqis overwhelmingly desire our exit, which indicates that perhaps they will stand up when we stand down, not the other way around. Considering the expense of staying, and considering that staying represents the best possible recruiting poster for al Qaeda, there is a certain logic in deciding to leave. The only question is how you do it without appearing weak, which is a major concern even for those like Murtha and Pelosi who wish to pull out. We will appear even weaker, however, if we stay longer, devote more resources, and still don't "succeed," which is increasingly being defined as the establishment of a Western Style Democracy.

you know that Iraqi citizens are not receptive to our efforts? NYT subscriber are you?

I've met plenty of Iraqis that thank the Coalition military everytime they see us for what we did and are doing there every day to improve their lot in life at the expense of our own.

the current strategy backs the same people the Iranians are backing.

Which makes you think we'd want them to be grateful to us, instead of Iran, for the help.

I don't think a longer stay in Iraq will change all that much whether that coming-to-power is done by force or by Constitution.

The clause at the end is the key.

Considering the expense of staying, and considering that staying represents the best possible recruiting poster for al Qaeda, there is a certain logic in deciding to leave.

Historically, bugging out at lightspeed at the first drop of blood has been the "best possible recruiting poster for al Qaeda."

The only question is how you do it without appearing weak, which is a major concern even for those like Murtha and Pelosi who wish to pull out.

For one of those two, possibly.

We will appear even weaker, however, if we stay longer, devote more resources, and still don't "succeed," which is increasingly being defined as the establishment of a Western Style Democracy.

"Increasingly"? I understood you guys thought we'd defined it that way from the start.

What I wrote was that the battle for Iraq has been described by many Deomcrats as a lost cause. If so, and we leave, we are surrendering. Pure & simple as you put it.

You "don't think anyone has overlooked the job our military has done to date"? How about 'the New York Times' R W Apple [who] declared in late March [2003] (on the front page) that Central Command's attack was a "quagmire." Of course, CENTCOM pulled off one of the most successful military offensives in history.' Fact is, I don't think "all" Americans are proud of how the military has performed (many, most, but not all).

As to that nation-building exercise notion, we have had soldiers, thousands of 'em, in various parts of the world, Germany, Korea. First of all, are you and have you been as adamant about them coming home as well? Second, you see no point in having American forces in a strategically vital area of the world helping an (as of now) ally? And third, you think that the Iraqis wouldn't appreciate our continued help? I know the South Vietnamese did after '73, until the Democrats decided to stop that. Cue Pol Pot.

...the current strategy backs the same people the Iranians are backing.

Evidence? Oh, they are Shi'a and the Iranians are Shi'a, ergo, the Iranians are backing the Shi'a. Simplistic and counterfactual. In fact, the Iranians are only backing one faction, Moqtada al-Sadr.

The Shiites will likely end up in power whether we stay or go.

Safe bet. They are 60+% of the population. We should hope that's the case.

I don't think a longer stay in Iraq will change all that much whether that coming-to-power is done by force or by Constitution.

Sort of mindboggling. Given the choice between a peaceful accession to power via elections and a bloodbath/pogrom you really don't care. You should get a job working for Brent Scowcroft.

Iraqis overwhelmingly desire our exit, which indicates that perhaps they will stand up when we stand down, not the other way around.

Evidence? I keep hearing this BS that they will suddenly have fully formed police, military, and civil institutions the moment we leave. That didn't happen in Somalia, or Bosnia, or Kosovo what makes you think it will happen here?

Considering the expense of staying, and considering that staying represents the best possible recruiting poster for al Qaeda, there is a certain logic in deciding to leave.

Again, got some evidence of this? The number of al Qaeda operations worldwide is down. The number of foreign fighters, once estimated at about 3,000 is now estimated to be below 1,000. Even the Iraqi insurgents are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. Where is this "best possible recruiting poster" stuff coming from?

The only question is how you do it without appearing weak, which is a major concern even for those like Murtha and Pelosi who wish to pull out.

How does running away make you not appear weak?

We will appear even weaker, however, if we stay longer, devote more resources, and still don't "succeed," which is increasingly being defined as the establishment of a Western Style Democracy.

Read the objectives again (they are hidden under the header "Victory in Iraq Defined", I don't know why they put them there) and find "western style democracy."

It only exists in the rhetoric of you guys on the left who are setting a predicate for failure. That is not our objective in Iraq and no amount of saying it is makes it so.

flight suit stunt may have been one of Rove's most brilliant moves- witness how it drove the left absolutely bats**t and became one of their #1 issues to fume about when discussing the war, when they could (theoretically at least) have been talking about substantive things.

Maybe for Act II Bush could visit Halliburton in a flight suit- do that, sit back and watch Moonbat heads explode. Smells like victory in '06, no?

He probably did tell the DEMS no troops would be involved.

I know I'm not alone in this:  President Bush looked like an awesome specimen in that suit on that carrier.  For us left brained women, it was a PR success.

And yes, it drove the Kosers insane, so it was a success there as well.

But you're wrong about doing it at Halliburton (or any other boring spot).  Go back to the carrier.  And play the theme song to Top Gun.  Oooooh Lala!

I don't even get the NYT so give your Bill O'Reilly spiel a rest.  The Iraqis hate us now.  They view us as an occupier now.   Look at the interviews with GIs.

... that it's not as cut and dry as anyone who ever talks about this war will tell you.  On the one hand, Iraqis had approximately zero civil liberties, faced immediate death for dissent, were brutalized at the whims of two spoiled kids, and ruled by a leader who was not concerned enough to worry about the effect of international trade sanctions.  On the other, bombings, beheadings, and a general fear of terror were exceptionally rare for the politically inactive, placid, going-about-his-life Iraqi.  It was a nation that, by and large, featured day-to-day living that looked like any other in the Middle East.

Whether the world as a whole is better off depends on your point of view, too.  To some, Saddam was a dangerous, brutal man capable of great harm to other nations, a harborer and abetter of terrorists, and a builder of a massive WMD arsenal.  From this perspective, the elimination of that threat in favor of creating a foothold for democracy in the region is an obvious positive.  To others, Saddam was certainly brutal, but as an international presence, he was a paper tiger.  He talked tough to maintain his grasp on Iraq, but he wasn't stupid or crazy enough to really try us again.  He knew he'd only survive in power by keeping his hands to himself.  Deposing him created a breeding ground for terror that did not exist before, and thousands of lives were lost in the process of deposing him.  From that perspective, it's pretty easy to say the world is worse off today.

The latter is my stance, anyway, but this debate has been played out to the Nth degree through vehement, vicious vitriol.  I'm not here to start that discussion.  I'm commenting here because I hope to see some sort of moderation.  The discussion of the war gets way too "violent imperialist wingnuts vs. anti-American terrorist-hugging moonbats."  And I'm just tired of it.

Anyhoo, back to REAL comments...

This Fox poll is exactly the sort of "false choice" that we liberals have turned into a buzzword lately.  Ceteris paribus, the world IS better off without Saddam, Iraq IS better off without Saddam.  But this is actual, not theoretical.  Ceteris paribus does not hold true here.  My above paragraphs contain just a scraping of why asking this question yields bad results.  We didn't just remove Saddam from Iraq in a vacuum and replace him with someone better, more benevolent.  Other things happened, too.  It's not a cut and dry thing, but when the question is worded as it was here, this is the sort of mindset people have.  "Oh, yeah!  We're definitely better off without that guy!"  If that's how one thought about his answer, then you weren't being fair to the other issues at play.

I read a dozen or so milblogs regularly. Nothing I read, much less the emails I get from colleagues now in Iraq, comports with what you're saying.

Historically, bugging out at lightspeed at the first drop of blood has been the "best possible recruiting poster for al Qaeda."

To be fair, there's evidence for both sides of that argument. One of bin Laden's central arguments is that if challenged, the Western powers will collapse like a house of cards. One of bin Laden's other central arguments is that Muslims should carry out jihad against the "far enemy" (us) rather than the "near enemy" (secular Arab states) precisely because of our "invasion" of Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations (see, for example, his 1998 fatwa). The contradiction doesn't have to be resolved for both of those arguments to be convincing to certain Muslims.

When given the choice between disorder and injustice, it's always interesting to see who comes down firmly on the side of injustice.

Now, Bush and Cheney are not beyond criticism for avoiding military service in Vietnam

So anyone who didn't serve in Vietnam is fair game? My Dad was on his second tour in Korea during part of the Vietnam 'unpleasantness.' A lot of military I know were in Germany, Japan, Alaska, all over the place. And far more people didn't serve in the military during Vietnam than did. Are they all due criticism too?

Can't we let Vietnam rest in the history books and get on with our lives?

Just this past weekend on 'Going to War' Us troops were fired upon by a sniper (more like a dude who took 3 crazy shots and ran), when they waded into a crowd to try and find out what direction the guy took off in, nobody would tell them anything.  The US troop said that the Iraqis in the crowd knew but wouldn't say.  He then said, "These MFs hate us and we hate them."

happened in Southeast DC last weekend.

Almost half the Iraqis say it is okay to kill US troops and 80% want the occupation ended.  That is pretty sobering.

We are going to have to plant a ton of rosey news stories to change those numbers.

I'm sorry, but I thought posters on this site were better than that.

...a "violent imperialist wingnut" my observation was not with respect to some clever analysis of the nature of the question "is the world better off with or without Saddam."

I was remarking on the disparity between those of who unequivocally see elimination of Saddam as a good thing versus those who can self-justify a way to argue maybe not.

----

"Ceteris paribus": with all due respect, plain English 'things being equal' would have done quite nicely.

-------------------------

You may be right about increasing hostility against U.S. forces, but that's just about all we read about.  There are almost no stories with documentation of everything we're doing to rebuild the country and protect Iraqis.  There are also hardly any stories about how much the Iraqis hate the insurgents, and the statistics on this fact I find more sobering than their supposed hatred of the U.S.

The point is that we have a very imbalanced view from most newspapers and television reporters, so it's difficult for me simply to accept statistics such as the one you cite.  We hardly ever hear alternative statistics or an alternative viewpoint.  

until I read your post I thought the same thing.

Your whole idea of "they all hate" us is just silly.

First, it demonstrably isn't true. Second, were it true it is irrelevant because we are there until their government says it is okay for us to go. Third, your purusing of a handful of lefting blogs and interpolating that commentary as meaning something more than you cribbed it from a lefty blog is just insulting to anyone reading it.

but only a few

Historically, bugging out at lightspeed at the first drop of blood has been the "best possible recruiting poster for al Qaeda."

Really? Where? Afghanistan maybe? Perhaps you are correct. Maybe it is more true in areas where al Qaeda actually existed before U.S. engagement.

All things being equal, I prefer to pretend I can speak Latin.

Somalia. Bugging out serves no purpose but strengthening our enemies.

Bin Laden:With Allah's grace, Muslims over there, cooperated with some Arab "Mujahideen" who were in Afghanistan. They participated with their brothers in Somalia against the American occupation troops and killed large numbers of them. The American administration was aware of that. After a little resistance, The American troops left after achieving nothing. They left after claiming that they were the largest power on earth. They left after some resistance from powerless, poor, unarmed people whose only weapon is the belief in Allah The Almighty, and who do not fear the fabricated American media lies. We learned from those who fought there, that they were surprised to see the low spiritual morale of the American fighters in comparison with the experience they had with the Russian fighters. The Americans ran away from those fighters who fought and killed them, while the latter were still there. If the U.S. still thinks and brags that it still has this kind of power even after all these successive defeats in Vietnam, Beirut, Aden, and Somalia, then let them go back to those who are awaiting its return.

What about "lefting blogs" and cribbing?

Evidence? Oh, they are Shi'a and the Iranians are Shi'a, ergo, the Iranians are backing the Shi'a. Simplistic and counterfactual. In fact, the Iranians are only backing one faction, Moqtada al-Sadr.

You are not perhaps familiar with Chalabi's ties with Iran? Friendly ties between Iraq and Iran are all but inevitable at this point. Again, whether or not we stay or go.

Safe bet. They are 60+% of the population. We should hope that's the case.

Yes, of course that's fine, but I fail to see how our continued presence will make any difference in this regard.

Sort of mindboggling. Given the choice between a peaceful accession to power via elections and a bloodbath/pogrom you really don't care. You should get a job working for Brent Scowcroft.

I would have preferred continued weapons inspections and the eventual overthrow of Saddam by his own people. I give Bush credit for forcing REAL weapons inspections, but then he didn't allow them to finish. I'm not going to speculate why here, but I will say that the President's assertions prior to the war were not borne out by the facts.

Evidence? I keep hearing this BS that they will suddenly have fully formed police, military, and civil institutions the moment we leave. That didn't happen in Somalia, or Bosnia, or Kosovo what makes you think it will happen here?

Somalia doesn't count because we never controlled it. Do overwhelming majorities in Bosnia and Kosovo support the exit of U.S. forces? I rather think the opposite is true.

Again, got some evidence of this? The number of al Qaeda operations worldwide is down. The number of foreign fighters, once estimated at about 3,000 is now estimated to be below 1,000. Even the Iraqi insurgents are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. Where is this "best possible recruiting poster" stuff coming from?

Any number of al Qaeda in Iraq is about that same number higher than the number before we started. There is no evidence that fighting in Iraq has much bearing on al Qaeda operations worldwide, and I'm really not sure what al Qaeda numbers IN IRAQ have to do with whether the Iraqi occupation is or isn't a recruiting poster for terrorists throughout the Middle East.

How does running away make you not appear weak?

We have appeared to be without resolve from the beginning because we have never committed "enough" troops for the operation to go smoothly. As long as we COULD do more but don't, there is an open question as to whether we are weak. If we redeploy to Afghanistan, capture more al Qaeda, etc. I think the perception can be overcome. I'd love to see the cost benefit analysis of continuing the way we are. On the other hand, if we stay there for years and do not "succeed," it will be plain as day that we are weak. The time has come to re-focus on the actual WoT.

Surrendering a battlefield is possible without surrendering the country. She's advocating surrender isn't the same thing as she's advocating turning over the country.

Strawman is the word of the day today.

Bush's approval rating in Kurdistan is over 90 percent, last I checked.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Murderers in Detroit (THE Detroit-Americans) hate American power deployed to oppose them as well and want them to withdraw to Auburn Hills but just as the vast majority of non-murdering citizens of Detroit and the families of the victims of the murderers want the occupiers to stay, so do the 27 million want us to stay and help kill the 10,000 THE Iraqis.

"unconditional surrender" has traditionally meant the kind of surrender forced upon Germany at the end of WWII, as well as Japan (with the single exception of allowing the Emperor to remain as a figurehead, IIRC).  If we were to unconditionally surrender to Zarqawi, by common meaning we would not only be giving up in Iraq, but also turning over control of the U.S. to him.  This is not what Pelosi is advocating.

the murderers in Detroit, or in any other city, never seem to make headline news the way the ones in Iraq do.

If they did, Iraq would be seen as a lot safer than it is currently portrayed.

If the U.S. still thinks and brags that it still has this kind of power even after all these successive defeats in Vietnam, Beirut, Aden, and Somalia, then let them go back to those who are awaiting its return.

So what is the lesson here? That we should have continued wars/occupations/police actions in all these places until we were successful, or that we should never have gotten involved in the first place? It is okay to admit that we do not have the resources to control every place out there. There are many better ways to ensure stability and security.

Shia governing structure be pro-American, pro-Iranian, or neutral?

Here is the information on the governing party of the moment:

"The Islamic Dawa Party (Arabic transliteration: al-Da'wa al-Islamiyya) is an Iraqi political organization. It is one if the main Shi'ite parties. In the lead-up to the 2005 Iraqi election it cooperated with the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and other Shi'ite groups in the United Iraqi Alliance. The party is led by Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a doctor, who now serves as Iraq's Prime Minister.

The party was formed in the late 1950s by a group of Shi'ite leaders, with Muhammad Baqr al-Sadr, the uncle of Muqtada al-Sadr, playing a prominent role. It was created to combat atheistic communism and Baathist Arab socialism which were then ascendant in Iraq. While founded and led by Shi'ites it worked closely with Sunni Islamic groups and a significant minority of the group's members were Sunnis. Al-Dawa rose to prominence in the 1970s when it waged an armed campaign against the Iraqi government. It supported the Islamic Revolution in Iran and in turn received support from the Iranian government, especially during the Iran-Iraq War. Despite this cooperation the Islamic Republic envisioned by al-Sadr differed sharply from that of Khomeini. While Khomeini, and the SCIRI, argued the power of the state should rest with the ulema al-Dawa supported the notion of power resting with the ummah."

The jury is still out on this. To say that there isn't a close history between the current Shia administration and Iran is inaccurate. The question is - will the future government of Iraq be allied with Iran or not? Since we consider Iran to be an enemy, that is something we can't really answer.

Will Iraqi Shia be more Arab or Shia? More secular or more religious? More moderate or more Islamist?

That is a dice throw, Streif. It could easily go the other way on you. You are trying to plum the minds of Shia voters on the street in a foreign country whose language you don't speak. If you're right, then this will be a success. If you're wrong, then we'll be paying the price for this for generations.

I don't pretend to know the answer to this question. It could work out in the end, or we may end up facing a Shiite axis of evil running from the border of Afghanistan to the border of Syria, or even straight through to Lebanon.

I'd like to do everything I could to minimize this result. I am also loath to expand the democracy campaign to other nations in the region when that will unleash similar forces (the Muslim Brotherhood) that we simply can't control and don't know what will happen.

Bin Laden thought he'd be able to attack the U.S. with impunity at least in part based upon our prior track record of no or ineffective responses.  That track record has since changed.  

Bush first responded to 9/11 by invading Afghanistan, the 100% absolutely correct thing to do, even if the Taliban had agreed to turn over bin Laden and his fellow travelers (we owe that country for its role in the cold war, IMO; and if you read Stephen Coll's "Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001" you will cringe).  Bush went one step further and then invaded Iraq, showing that not only were we willing to invade a country that so obviously harbored terrorists that inflicted the first war casualties on the continental United States since the Civil War (I think), but also against someone who we thought (wrongly) had WMD and might give them to individuals of like mind with bin Laden.

Given the corrected track record, you ask if I contend "they won't be increasingly likely to try to blow us up," if we withdraw from Iraq.  As my subject line notes, I don't know.  I think our invasion of Iraq has immensely increased the number of Arabs (and Muslim's in general) who hate the U.S. and who are willing to turn that hate into action.  I think the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is a sufficient condition for never-ending attacks against them (whether that means we should stay or go is a different matter).  

The question is whether withdrawing from Iraq, after invading it and Afghanistan in the first place, will somehow embolden "they" against us.  And therefore I guess it depends on what they want.  If they want the U.S. to keep out of Arab (or more generally, Muslim) affairs, then withdrawing won't make them more likely to attack us.  If they want our ultimate destruction, withdrawing won't move them one way or the other (and too d--- bad for them).  

Also, if we've shown we're willing to invade Iraq on what turns out to be mistaken grounds, and then subsequently withdraw, who knows?  Maybe they'll be more wary of provoking us in the future; OTOH maybe they'll be so angry over the invasion that they won't think about the consequences.  Maybe they'll think it's a great victory for the Arab world and it will further embolden to attack the U.S.  Maybe they will be too consumed with the subsequent situation to pay us no mind.

I guess the bottom line is that 9/11 caused the United States to invade and occupy not one but two Islamic countries, with the second being one that is at the heart of the Arab world.  I can't imagine this is the result bin Laden thought he would get, nor one that he in any way wanted.  If it has redounded to his favor, that is another matter.

I sometimes wonder how a whole bunch of certain-someones will feel if they accomplish their goals and elect a Democrat - only to find that s/he will not be stopping the war.  Much like an English noble in the time of Elizabeth I, I suspect; weary of having to change his outward religion again to fit the court, yet (justifiably) apprehensive of offending the Queen with too-open a break...

native reader of English, it would seem to be evidence that bin Laden, at least, thinks US bug-outs, like that now proposed by the Pelosi wing of the Democrat party, helps his cause. YMMV

When I first started my original comment, I got off on a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington-style tangent about the nature of political arguments that I ended up deleting because it seemed to be irrelevant.  Your comment, though, is actually really great.  Because it's exactly the type of thing I want to see, a point that challenges instead of insults for the sake of insulting.  So thanks.

That's a point that I struggle with a lot.  If you're looking for a certain defense, you won't get it.  If you're looking for a certain acquiescence to your point, you won't get it.  We've heard thousands of arguments on all sides of this war, and not one has ever convinced me that it was cut and dry right or cut and dry wrong.

My only reply in this space will be that I didn't hear the "injustice" pitch made before the war.  In fact, I was hoping the administration would make that pitch.  But it was about security, and I never felt Saddam posed a threat to our security.  Historically, human rights as motive for war gets very little traction within the political establishment.  Since the war, much has been made of Hussein's brutality, but this (it seems to me) comes largely as a result of our inability to locate WMD.  I'm not saying flat out they weren't there, but when we couldn't find them, it became a much more difficult pitch to make.  So the administration changed its tone, and I'm skeptical that this was ever really their concern.

Moreover, as far as Iraq is concerned, I think they probably are better off today; it's the world as a whose betterment I doubt.  The first paragraph I wrote was intended to demonstrate that there is another way to see it, not to demonstrate that I believe the Iraqi people were better off under the Baath Party.  I don't.

First, I hope it's clear that I didn't mean those characterizations; I meant that we spent to much time calling each other that.  I hope that was clear; sorry if it wasn't.

Second, sorry, too much time reviewing some Econ 101-type books lately, seeing "C.P." everywhere.  I'll try to keep my pretention to a minimum in the future.

Third, the only thing I take issue with is the idea that I might have to "self-justify a way to argue maybe not."  I didn't go out of my way to convince myself maybe we shouldn't have invaded Iraq; doubt is my natural state.  Sorry for that flaw.  I will never understand the idea that we can rationally prove this war was good or bad.

I understand there are people who disagree with the war who can't respect those who agree with it, and there are people who agree with the war who can't respect those who disagree with it.  I'm not any of those people or trying to speak for them.  I just thought that uncertainty was a helpful thing to add to the discussion, since I don't understand certainty on this issue.  Let me know if this detracts from the discussion here or fails to add to it.  I don't want to be wasting RedState space.

the people will be more likely to insist their governments not engage in launching terrorists attacks against us and invading neighbors, as free people desire a good life for their family to the wrath of the righteous might of the USA.

The non-democratic strategy brought us more than a decade of terrorist attcaks thru 911 and a tyrannical megalomaniac threatening the region.

The Shia leaders in Iraq will not ally with Iran against their liberators, with one possible exception

the dems return to power in the US. They have assured no nation will ever fear them.

Moreover, the vast majority of the people of Iran want the freedom that Iraq has.

In the end? There is no end and there is no guarantee of anything. ButI believe in our principles and the nature of man.

But the bottom line is that to survive, we must always retain its will to fight, and so, if Iran and Iraq  align

WE CRUSH THEM.  premptively

We are going to have to take Iran out no matter what anyway.

What we are not going to do is allow threats to gather that could kill millions. But the world is governed by the aggresive use of military force and always will be untill Jesus comes. And to preserve our freedom we must be stronger and have more will than our enemies or we will lose our freedom.

Reagan: Simple, but hard.

My point about "self-justifying" was a generalization that there seem to be a very large number, certainly more Democrats than Republicans, whose mindset is such that moral relativism is perfectly OK. Mussolini made the trains run on time too but look at all the other wonderful things he did.

The Brent Scowcroft 'school of stability is good so don't rock the boat' was practiced in DC for far too long, under administrations of both parties, and unless I miss my guess that's part of how we ended up with the likes of Saddam et al in the Middle East.

We now have an administration that has taken the position that "good enough isn't", human rights are important, and all people yearn to be free, and what do we find? Enormous numbers of people who claim to be liberals (in the philosophical sense of the word) who are ready to pitch real liberalism over the transom because they are upset that the people of this country chose a different path than appeasement. Go figure.

This tired old MSM saw that the Iraqis don't want us there gets rustier each time they unsheath it.  Troops coming back, elected officials returning from trips there, and objective polls all illustrate that the Iraqis are glad to have us there.  It sure beats the alternative.

When your local guard unit comes back from Iraq, take a soldier out for supper and find out for yourself.  

As for the comparison to WWII Japan and Germany it most definitely is apples to apples.

shouldn't overstate the case.

I think a more accurate description is that most Iraqis want us to leave, they just don't want us to leave right now.

This is never going to be a lovefest. Foreign troops garrisoned on you soil doesn't make for bosom buddies. I can tell you that from being stationed in Germany and Korea.

In fact, not only do the Iraqis want us to leave eventually, but we also want to leave eventually.  Even if we decide we want to keep bases there, it won't be as occupiers but as allies.

people are free to vote that they won't vote for anti-American candidates who will pursue anti-American policies.

Remember France? Turkey denying us rights to attack through their territory, despite being a NATO member? Remember Chavez in Venezuala?

Or, how about Brazil which is now governed by a neo-Marxist party:

"In fact, anti-American sentiment has grown so high in Brazil that President Bush received a lower approval rating among Brazilians than Saddam Hussein in an opinion poll conducted during the war in Iraq by the respected IBOPE Institute. This phenomenon has some relation to the Brazilian Workers' Party (known as the PT) regime's attitudes towards the US."

Anti-Americanism can be a very, very successful electoral platform in the Third World. What I am seeing from a post like yours is a sincere belief that, if given the opportunity, an electorate will choose to steer towards a free economy and a peaceful foreign policy.

That is a belief that is, in fact, not supported by historical facts. The facts seem to be that numerous electorates will tend to vote in ways that seem to make no sense looking on the outside.

We saved France from Germany. Less than a dozen years later, De Gaulle pulled out of NATO and began a policy of thumbing its nose at us. Germany, whom we protected from the Soviets, has alternated between hating us and being allied to us.

Look at what happened in Spain as well.

Yes, if Iraq becomes an Iranian ally we could crush them. But, it becomes infinitely harder to crush a state whose DEMOCRATICALLY elected government has undertaken policies to which we are opposed. Heck, almost half our own population votes for candidates like John Kerry or Al Gore, how do we explain that?

What will be the rationale for Iraqi Freedom II, if the government we leave behind is democratically elected and anti-American at the same time? How do you square that with the American people, much less the world? Of course we could kick it over, but then what?

As for supporting terrorism, that can be highly popular in a Democracy. We supported the Contras in Nicaragua, along with multiple other freedom fighters around the world. From the standpoint of an Iraqi, Hezbollah might be freedom fighters. How do we know that won't be a great electoral platform in a future Iraqi election. "Vote for me, I'll back the Jihad against Israel! My opponent is soft on enemies of Islam! He surrenders to the West! Death to the Yankees!" It's possible, because it happens all the time.

Look, I'm only asking for caution and introspection here. I am not a Dem, never have been a Dem, and never will be a Dem. However, on the Republican side of the fence our belief in the magic of representative democracy has become something of an alternative religion.

In Chile, Argentina, and even Iran in the 1950's, the U.S. has supported the overthrow of democratically elected governments that were Marxist and anti-American in orientation. Was that policy flawed? Would we have been better off if Allende had kept control of Chile, rather than Pinochet?

We aren't talking about just Iraq here, though that is the most pressing matter. The fact is that this can end up dangerously wrong, and every time I tune into this site I keep reading Republicans who are urging us to attempt regime change in even more nations, before we even get a sense as to how successful that will be in the one we are already up to our neck in.

You can't.

I said democratic governments are more likely over time to eschew government sponsored terrorism that causes them to have to endure the wrath of the US military.

I favor the outlines of the congressional res approved bush doctrine of pre-emption which is not implicated by mere anti americanism.

Very good discusion guy, but I still dont know what you propose or oppose. I think yopu may discount the importance of the deterrant effect of following thru and how it was disaster to have let saddam defy us so long and that we could not abide it after 911.

I do know that most anti americanism in the world is due to ignorance of the anti americans. And I wouldnt lay my head on a chopping block so more secularist euro weenies or jihadists like me.

The jihadists want to re-establish the caliphate ataturk dissolved and recover all the land once held by it and eventually dominate the globe. It is an ideology wholly unrelated to us, except that we are the only power standing in the way of its megalomanical goals.

And we will always stand in their way. we will not retreat within our borders and burn wood because anyone wants us to. To hell with them. I believ that iraq, and indeed Iran, shows that its is a minority that has this view. But if every last one of them had the view, it would not mean we should surrender.

Pro-american sentiment reached its apex every time clinton whined and apologized for US power as we were continually hit and which led to 911.

You see, WE are mad at the jihadists for what they did and we are going to do all we can to prevent it and kill it.

There is a lot of anti jihadism in the US, and we can better back our ANTI up that they can. The lesson is being taught.

And, yes, Iraq is not the end. It is the battle before the real war in Iran. And like Germany and japan, we may have to get brutal and break them.

Being strong and resolute makes it less likely, not more, that we would have to resort to total war.

But we will if we must, and we would win.

Our christian heart holds us back as we risk american lives to try and do this in a different way.

YOU DO REALIZE THAT WE COULD WIPE OUR ENEMIES OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH TOMORROW?

THAT WE DONT, WHEN THE ussr OR ROME WOULD HAVE shows our goodness.

This aint the 50's and past sins, if they were, are irrelevant now, unless one suggests their is statute of limitations on justice. i think that the choices we made in the cold war were justified but in most cases they arent now.

WITH AT LEAST ONE EXCEPTION THAT SUPPORTs YOUR CAUTION:

Pakistan - where we cannot allow the islamo-facists to control the bomb

I know that non-democratic governments are no panacea, and history shows our way is best, or, the least worse.

What i do know, is that weakness invites aggression and I know how we won the last war we won, ie wwii

One has to finally choose and act. One of WF Buckleys famous sayings when asked to define conservatives is that

after 5000 years of history, we have reached some conclusions!!

And so, I appreciate your concern that we not be naive. Im not. And Im also cognizant of the disasterous retreats since vietnam that made us a ripe paoper tiger-weak horse to UBL.

The rationale for the Bush doctrine is terror harboring states, etc

Looking at your thoughtful post, you do not name a democracy that has broken the peace with us in any way or violated the bush dopctrine

but look, I admit it could happen

but its LESS LIKELY

agreed?

for instructions on the use of the "Caps Lock" key.

I know that in Kosovo, Clinton was bombing from 60,000 ft, which resulted in few Serb losses and no US losses, and consequently it posed little risk to Clinton politically.

However, it also provided a lesson to our enemies: we have high tech, but lack the stones to close with and defeat someone who can inflict casualties in return.

Now, post 9/11, post Afganistan, post Iraq, our enemies no doubt understand that the lesson didn't apply to the Bush administration, but it was an expensive lesson for the Bush administration to teach.

will attribute you use of caps to less charitable causes then.

We won it, which was the most important thing, but it's true that we won it while taking the least risk possible.  Very poor decision.  

Still, the clearest messages of weakness we sent to the radical Islamists were not the result of our military tactics, but the result of our military retreats:  Beirut, Somalia, USS Cole, etc.

Although I disliked the way Clinton fought the war in Bosnia, the overall message was still that America wins its wars (even if one could argue that he got lucky because the local anti-Milosevic militia on the ground mounted an offensive and decisively turned the tide).

Still have ~3k from the 34th Mountain enjoying European vacations.  IFOR? SFOR? KFOR? What for?  

I never understood the name Noble Anvil either.

These numbers are thrown around by Murtha and every other Dem and apparently come from some secret poll where we can't judge the internals of it - i.e. the questions that were asked, sample size, population areas, etc, etc.

If you can provide the internals of this poll where it can be judged in the open - great. If not, stop repeating the numbers.

I should have asked for that, too.

Thanks.

The 50% and 80% numbers mean nothing given the US casulaty rate. Our casulaty rate would be 10 times what it is if those numbers meant anything.

But the bottom line is what matters the most is what WE want. And we will have it. What is really sobering to me is the deep hatred leftists have for America that they lighten uo at bad "news" for America. The left truly is an enemy of this country in our midst.

I watched a c-span discussion on immigration and patriotic assimilation, and Michael Barone said that assimilating mexicans is easy compared to assimilating the left elites.

Hopw can one be raised in this country and not love and revere it and know that our motives are good and that we are a force for liberty and justice? I'll never understand it except with reference to envy, self loathing and white guilt?

You know, I was a big time dem for 20 years, delegate, county chair, but it was america haters like you in the party that made it necessary for me to leave the party so as not to hear the slurs on this shining city on a hill whose lights you cannot bear.

How miserable it must be to hate ones county. I pity you. If I hated it so much I would leave it.

throughout his presidency was doing minor things that entailed little risk.

based on your paragraph three, that I was unclear.

I'm not referring to anything about the beginning of the war, though it is hard to go back through administration statements about torture, rape rooms, summary executions, and using chemical weapons on his own people and not feel that there was a concern about injustice. I suppose they should have capitalized, bolded, and underlined it.

I am referring to an attitude that says Iraqis were better off under Saddam -- with security and no hope for freedom -- than today -- with less security in parts of the country but with freedom for the taking. Ditto for the rest of us. How were we better off with Saddam in power considering sanctions were on their last legs?

I've never seen a case where a newspaper used parenthesis instead of square brackets. Any newspaper which wishes to be viewed as a legitimate news organization will use square brackets around material added to a quote.

Leftist antics a rest. You give NO evidence that Iraqis hate us, save for some speculation. And to give the blanket statement that "Iraqis hate us" is nothing short of BS. All encompassing statements like that are INEVITABLY false.

Of a tense an emotional situation and use it as evidence that all Iraqis hate us?

I'm callin 'Shenanigans'!!