Willisms
Navigation

Buy WILLisms

XML Feed


Featured Entries

The Babe Theory Of Political Movements.
Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM

Iran's Sham Election In Houston.
June 20, 2005 5:36 AM

Yes, Kanye, Bush Does Care.
Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM

Health Care vs. Wealth Care.
Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM

Americans Voting With Their Feet.
Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM

Idea Majorities Matter.
May 12, 2006 6:15 PM

Twilight Zone Economics.
Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM

The "Shrinking" Middle Class.
Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM

From Ashes, GOP Opportunities.
Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM

Battle Between Entitlements & Pork.
Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM

Let Economic Freedom Reign.
Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM

Biggest Health Care Moment In Decades.
July 25, 2007 4:32 PM

Unions Antithetical to Liberty.
May 28, 2008 11:12 PM

Right To Work States Rock.
June 9, 2008 12:25 PM



Donate





Links

Blogroll Me!







Search



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
December 2004




Social Security Reform Thursday.
March 13, 2008

Caption Contest: Enter Today!
Due: July 29, 2008

The Carnival Of Classiness.
Mar. 14, 2006

Quotational Therapy: Obama.
Apr. 4, 2008

Mainstream Melee: Wolfowitz.
May 19, 2007

Pundit Roundtable: Leaks.
July 9, 2006

A WILLisms.com(ic), by Ken McCracken
July 14, 2006




Credits

Powered by Movable Type 3.17
Site Design by Sekimori




WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy):











The WILLisms.com Gift Shop: Support This Site

giftshopbanner.gif











This Week's Carnival of Revolutions: carnivalbutton.gif



Carnival Home Base: homebase.gif

























Willisms

« Hillary Clinton & Karl Marx. | WILLisms.com | Quotational Therapy: Part 138 -- Chris Dodd, On Social Security. »

The Defeat Agenda Is A Trap For Democrats

The Brookings Institution, not known for its conservative leanings, had several of its players hit the ball out the park yesterday in two articles: 'Political Cover For Whom?' by Peter W. Rodman and 'A War We Just Might Win' by Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack.

Rodman first tells us that because things have vastly improved in Iraq, it makes it much harder for the anti-war types to end the war in a way that does not make the Democrats own the inevitable defeat that follows:

The huge strategic stakes in the Middle East argue for resisting calls for any U.S. withdrawal not warranted by conditions in Iraq. The irony is that whoever is elected president next year -- from whichever party -- will come to understand this better than anyone.

Well, is a withdrawal warranted by conditions in Iraq? Not according to fellow Brookings wonks O'Hanlon and Pollack. Breaking out of their previous deep pessimisms regarding Mesopotamia, the two see real changes for the better and greatly improved morale for our troops due to the effectiveness of our efforts.

None of this is good news for the Democrats who profit politically from the Iraq 'quagmire'. Bush, savaged by the left for invading Iraq, is not letting them saddle a defeat on him as well. If the Democrats want defeat, they have to ante up - which they have wisely refused to do. Much better to drag out the 'quagmire' while it hurts Bush politically than to actually, you know, end the war. Bush is, after all, the true enemy.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 30 July 2007 02:59 AM

Comments

There's a great editorial in IBD from Saturday on Iraq -- required readin' in my opinion:
For the record, the surge is working..."

Enjoy!

Posted by: k2aggie07 at July 30, 2007 08:30 AM

The guys have been pro-admin cheerleaders since the beginning. And like Bush and you, they have been wrong on EVERYTHING. Face it, you guys have been made suckers of by The Bush Crime Family.

Remember how you whined and yelped that Clinton was involved in nation building? Remember how you cheered when that filthy liar Bush swore he would not engage in nation building? Now you have to be the cheerleader's cheerleader because you are unable to admit what suckers you are. Ha!

Posted by: tommo at July 30, 2007 10:04 AM

You need to read Glenn Greenwald's column on this at Salon--next we need a column on how Petraus has been saying everything has been going great in Iraq for the last few years--no credibility, just like these guys from the Brookings Institute.

Posted by: Mike Filancia at July 30, 2007 10:16 AM

Iraq is not a quagmire.
It's a clusterf***.

BTW, Greenwald nails it!

Posted by: Robert at July 30, 2007 10:25 AM

Please show me an antiwar article that either of these two "writers" have written in the past...they have been constantly prowar and brookings is a central-conservative institute.

It's called fact checking...try it!

Posted by: madmatt at July 30, 2007 10:32 AM

As you can see by some of the comments here, the left is up-in-arms about any site or outlet that discusses this article.

This could be a seminal moment, the NYT actually running a piece on the possibility of things going better in Iraq.

Posted by: Eneils Bailey at July 30, 2007 11:01 AM

Couple the NYT article, the Chris Matthews program yesterday, and a rather obscure talk radio host this morning on Sirius Far Left(Alex Bennett) slamming the DailyKos and Moveon.org for being too far to the left, and something maybe happening here.

There may be more statements declaring a correction from the far left to just the left coming about, these are the only ones I have heard.

Posted by: Eneils Bailey at July 30, 2007 11:37 AM

Hey, eneils....how about finding us a antiwar article by either of the writers...if you can't find one, then you are just making crap up for rigth wing scum.

Posted by: madmatt at July 30, 2007 01:19 PM

Why do we have to demonstrate that these guys are anti-war? A quick google shows that they've been not so much pro- or anti- war, but instead critics of the handling over the war.

This is a great example of argument by obfuscation. Ken says this place is "not known for its conservative leanings" and Eneils nowhere calls either of these guys anti-war, and yet you gloat that we can't provide evidence for some standard you made up to back up an argument we didn't make.

The point is these two have been to Iraq, have been highly pessimistic in the past, and now are saying that things are going better.

The fact that you rabid lefty gloom'n'doomers are here hollering over American success crying about Bush and Petraeus is a sure sign to me that something is going well.

Posted by: k2aggie07 at July 30, 2007 02:08 PM

Yep, it is obvious that even the mere hint that the Surge is working is a dire threat to the leftist worldview.

And when it happens, suddenly the Brookings Institution becomes a 'central conservative' institution. According to who - Vladimire Ilyich Lenin?

Posted by: Ken McCacken at July 30, 2007 03:14 PM

Keep listening to ther guys who have been wrong about the Iraq War for 4+ years.
I'll stick with the ones who were right.

Thank God you don't work in the HR Department for my company.
"So I see from your resume you've been a complete failure at your last 4 places of employment. Welcome aboard!"

Re: Brookings Institute liberal.
Now that's funny!

Posted by: Robert at July 30, 2007 03:27 PM

Hate to tell you but you don't advance in the military for failures any more than in the corporate world. In fact, the military is more stringent in its "HR" policies because if you miss promotion three times you're out...something that doesn't happen as often in the corporate world.

Regardless, the only people that have been consistently wrong about Iraq are on the left, not the right. Calling a duck a cat doesn't make it so; the same goes for a war a "quagmire". That drum was beat within 15 minutes of us going in, which shows you what kind of reasoning went into the designation of it as such.

Posted by: k2aggie07 at July 30, 2007 03:33 PM

6 days or 6 weeks, certainly not 6 months.
Funded for about $2 Billion, the rest coming from Iraqi oil revenues.

How's that working out?

Can you point out Patreus' successes?
I can point out his failures.

Posted by: Robert at July 30, 2007 04:00 PM

Oh yeah, just keeping pounding that meme 'failure in Iraq!' even if everyone on the ground now says things are working there.

Just repeat the lie often enough, and many people will believe it.

Now the new meme is 'Petraeus is incompetent' - even though Anbar province has been completely pacified under his watch. Civilian deaths are down, and Baquba is no longer an al-Qaeda stronghold.

Obviously, this meme is going to have a hard time sticking around.

If Petraeus is so 'incompetent' - let's have more of that incompetence. It is working very well.

Posted by: Ken McCacken at July 30, 2007 04:13 PM

Thanks KM.
Glad to hear those ponies are on the way.

In July 2004 Newsweek noted that Patraeus' pacification of Mosul was "a textbook case of doing counterinsurgency the right way." Four months later, the police chief installed by General Petraeus defected to the insurgents, along with most of the Sunni members of the police force. Mosul, population 1.7 million, is now an insurgent stronghold, according to the Pentagon's own June report.

Also:
"the embezzlement of the Iraqi Army's $1.2 billion arms procurement budget was happening "under the very noses" of the Security Transition Command run by General Petraeus"


As for "Just repeat the lie often enough, and many people will believe it."
No truer words were ever written.

Example 1: Saddam. 9/11. Saddam. 9/11. Saddam. 9/11.

Example 2: "Everyone thought Saddam had WMDs."
Except they didn't.
Two guys whose job it was to search for WMDs (Ritter and Blix) didn't.
And neither did I.

Posted by: Robert at July 30, 2007 04:33 PM

That clairvoyance must come in handy at the race track, eh Robert?

July 2004 was a long, long time ago in Iraq, both in political and military terms. Its like saying Eisenhower was incompetent because the US lost Kasserine Pass.

I'm not sure if you're trying to pound the "everything the US does is wrong" or the "insurgencies can't be beaten" drum. Either way, you're wrong, so it really doesn't matter.

Posted by: k2aggie07 at July 30, 2007 04:42 PM

He seems to be a hate America type to me.

America can never do anything good, anything right, anything worthwhile.

Just make a suggestion that things are not as bad as they seem, and his Googling fingers go into overtime desperately trying to disprove it.

I guess the pacification of Anbar, Baquba, and most of Baghdad's neighborhoods counts for absolutely nothing - and if Petraeus plays anything short of an absolutely perfect game, that means he is a complete and utter failure.

As for Saddam and 9/11 - who was saying Saddam was responsible for 9/11? Not the President. Not his administration. It is yet another leftist lie that the White House stated Saddam was behind 9/11. Proving my point that the big lie told often enough sticks around.

And yes, everyone said Saddam had WMDs. The Russians said it, the Czechs said it, the Poles said it, the UK said it, Blix said it before he changed his tune. Even Colin Powell said it.

Robert didn't, apparently, because he is indeed clairvoyant and, gee, we all just should have listened to him!

Posted by: Ken McCacken at July 30, 2007 04:57 PM

Clairvoyant?
Us Dirty Fucking Hippies aren't clairvoyant. We're just smarter than you.

He who forgets history is doomed to repeat it.

By the way boys, don't get your pom poms bunched together.

Shorter KM: Give me a U. Give me an S. Give me an A. What do you got...

Posted by: Robert at July 30, 2007 05:10 PM

USA

That is what it spells, and why do you hate it so, Robert?

Why does it bother you so much to think that maybe America does something right once in a while?

Does hating a free and prosperous nation somehow make you 'smart' and sophisticated?

If you are so very smart, why are you a hippie?

Posted by: Ken McCacken at July 30, 2007 05:40 PM

I’m a peace loving hippie and a veteran, that’s what I love about his country… I can be both. Loving this country involves seeing it as it really is not how we imagine it to be. What are the qualities that you admire in our country and do you believe our "war on terror" exemplifies these qualities? How many corners do we have to turn in Iraq before the path leads home? And if the Iraqis unite in a government that is in opposition to what the bush administration desires, is this a victory?

Posted by: ibfamous at July 30, 2007 06:09 PM

Well, I for one have not been one to repeatedly say 'we are turning a corner' in Iraq. I have pointed to a lot of good things that have happened over time there, but I have not been saying this here is the tipping point that turns the whole thing around.

We may have at last found that point now, however, because both the insurgents and the antiwar lobby are losing traction in a palpable way.

You say 'loving this country involves seeing it as it really is not how we imagine it to be' and that is a great quote. Does that not also mean that, if you truly do love America like one of your children, that as with your children, you recognize when America does good as well?

Why, when America has fulfilled the aspirations of liberalism better than any other nation on earth, do liberals persist in trying to tear it down?

I, for the life of me, have just never understood that.

Posted by: Ken McCacken at July 30, 2007 06:17 PM

The arguers here show signs of actually being able to discuss matters, and we should give them a try. It is true that much of their commentary is the mere repeating of folklore and insults - but not all.

Let me tell you what we consider informed debate here, robert, madmatt, etc. Putting phrases such war on terror in sarcastic quotes suggests you are a person incapable of discussion, but hey, we all make that mistake when irritated. You may make categorical, black/white statements if you like, but don't expect them to be taken seriously. The evidence cited about Petraeus and Mosul would be an example of an excellent start. Discussing what went wrong there, can any of it be laid at the feet of Petraeus, what alternative strategies might have been better... those are reasonable topics. If you revert to all-or-nothing evaluations, however, as you do elsewhere, you will again not be taken seriously. Very few people in the public discourse on war and foreign policy can manage to be 100% wrong. Even 90% wrong is a significant achievement, beyond the reach of any president I can bring to mind at present.

All actions have costs and benefits, and unusual events - Black Swans if you've read the new book - can upend good plans or unfairly reward fools who guessed right. We try to evaluate all topics here in terms of trends: are economic issues trending better? Do signs look encouraging of ominous? What has been the actual effect of tax cuts, protectionism, immigration, etc.

Regarding the war, we are neither exultant over steps forward nor despondent over setbacks. We want to see whether progress is sufficient to justify staying, and the issues quickly get messy. What if the surge works but the Iraqis still can't form a half-assed government? What is our best course then? Such things are meat and drink to us here.

You bring up many issues, WMD, levels and types of support and opposition for the war, whether the Brooking Institute continues to be liberal or has shifted recently. Each one of them is worth a discussion, but if you bring them all in at once the comment thread becomes scattered. More conservative commenters here are guilty of same. We all tend to want to get all our points in at once.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at July 30, 2007 07:01 PM

Not sorry to double-post. Now I am commenting on the OP.

While it is intriguing that organizations like Brookings and WaPo make even grudging statements of approbation about our efforts in Iraq, I notice that they still are consumed with the idea of how it will play here politically. Will it hurt Democrats? Which ones? Maybe Bush wants to make his legacy clearer... Enough! Maybe Bush's decisions, right or wrong, are oriented toward winning the war and keeping America safer. Perhaps O'Hanlon and Pollack are not engaging in a political CYA or roll of the dice but actually believe what they write. Why is this so hard for mainstream journalists to understand?

My speculation is that it eludes their understanding because to them, power in Washington is everything, and all else becomes mere counters on a board. Also, they can speak knowledgeably about political horse-races, but are completely out of their depth writing about military matters.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at July 30, 2007 07:12 PM

I think Bush baffles the press because he is not putting trivial political or poll-driven considerations ahead of our national interests and principles.

It especially drives the press crazy that Bush doesn't consult them on what he should do next.

It confuses the press also because they think now they have made the case that Iraq is a 'disaster' and a 'quagmire' the only logical thing for Bush to do is surrender Iraq to al-Qaeda.

Perhaps Bush is smarter than the press. Gee, is that the ultimate insult or what?

Posted by: Ken McCacken at July 30, 2007 08:44 PM

Well one thing I've been saying for a while is that the press is simply in over its head when it comes to military matters -- that goes for Hollywood too. I love to watch movies with my buddies from the Corps so we can laugh at them "gaggle" along through enemy territory. The left doesn't serve, so they just don't know...so what you get is what they imagine it to be like. Its easy to understand why they hate America -- because they think the stuff they publish is the way it is. Wouldn't you hate it if our boys really were mass murderers and baby killers? Its sad, really.

I digress. The point I was trying to make is the massive ignorance on the part of the press was readily apparent during the buildup that preceded the current surge. Everyone was talking about it as if a buildup was a military action. They continued to misuse the terms "counterinsurgency" and show that they literally have no comprehension of the difference between "capture and hold," "search and destroy" or "counterinsurgency," all three mission types having been employed in Iraq.

Its hard to write a good article about why this strategy is different than the last when you're writing the article before its began. Its like a QVC host trying to describe the difference (and effectiveness) of a new 4-2-5 defense before the game's even begun! They've got the worst kind of ignorance...ignorant ignorance. They don't know that they don't know.

Posted by: k2aggie07 at July 31, 2007 08:05 AM

There's a difference between feeling good about America's actions and just buying the propoganda you are fed.
After all, it was over 2 years ago that the insurgency in Iraq was in its "last throes".

Posted by: Robert at July 31, 2007 09:29 AM

So Robert, you are refusing the discussion? We're here when you're ready.

k2aggie07, I think you would very much like this Michael Crichton essay about decision-making in general. I'm going to do an essay of my own on it soon, but I imagine reading Crichton will be more useful for you anyway.

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-complexity.html

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at July 31, 2007 12:20 PM

I do very much like it. I stumbled across it earlier this summer and enjoyed it thoroughly.

Posted by: k2aggie07 at July 31, 2007 01:18 PM

And the purely domestic insurgency to reclaim Sunni ascendancy may have been in its last throes two years ago, to be replaced with the indigenous backlash against an occupying power, and then to be replaced with a largely sectarian conflict instigated and fed by mostly foreign elements. These were all handled differently, and we may have made very serious mistakes that caused them to morph or to grow. Of course, we can only recognize that after the fact. We seem to be making some real headway now, and not only militarily, but politically, at least on the local level. Whether that will translate into lasting political success on the macro level is anyone's guess.

There are always competing strategies for resolving any conflict. The only way to choose between them is to choose one, implement it, and see if it works. If it fails, which only becomes apparent after some time has past, then a new one is needed. Right now, it appears that we may have found the correct strategy for success. Time will tell. Our past blunders may have used up the time that we need, however. It would behoove those who are in favor of pulling out of Iraq to elucidate how that will affect our national security and how it will affect the Iraqi people, who we now have a responsibility towards.

Posted by: Chris at July 31, 2007 01:51 PM

"The left doesn't serve, so they just don't know..."

are the armed forces completely manned by republicans now. i mean we know very few were in Vietnam, but has it changed so much since then? you and your buddies from the corp had better get your heads out of your asses (or each others asses, being that you are marines) and notice that people of all walks of life have put their necks on the chopping block for this country.

as for decision making process; why was reagan able to help bring down the Soviet Union? he refused to follow the previous, faulty plan of attack. why has George been unable to bring a conclusion to Iraq, (if you said al Qaeda your an idiot), because he can't get out of his own rut of failure and attempt something new (and if you said the surge was something new then your an idiot)

Posted by: ibfamous at July 31, 2007 04:40 PM

ibfamous - that's almost up to a level of being addressable. There're ideas in there, but the oversimplifications and gratuitous insults keep me back...

I'm alert. Ready.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at July 31, 2007 08:54 PM

The Left as a whole does not serve in the military. Note that I didn't say democrats don't. What I mean is this: by and large, the high profiles on the Left abhor and despise the military. Everything they hold as valuable is the opposite to what the military represents.

Contrast, if you will, the Hollywood of WWII and the Hollywood of now. Or even the Hollywood of Viet Nam. Look at the movies, look at the actors and high profiles who served. Its like night and day.

Don't get your panties in a wad by trying to misconstrue my arguments. There are reasons the war movies coming out of WWII were good -- one of them being that most of the actors, directors, extras, etc were actually there.

I know people from all walks of life serve...but the left doesn't. Most people in the left beat the drum that the rich elites in this country survive by the blood of the "poor" military, something which I address here at my blog.

If you can't tell the "surge" (if we must use idiotic terms) is a different strategy than what has been happening before, you're worse than an idiot -- you're flat out ignorant. Go read up on what the counterinsurgency strategy actually entails and get back to me when you've learned something. Here's a good place to start.

Posted by: k2aggie07 at July 31, 2007 09:04 PM

True the WWII movies were more patriotic but you can thank the Office of War Information for that. As for the higher patriotism rate in the Big One, of the 16 million who served in WWII, 12 million were drafted. I think my generation could have pulled that one off.

The surge/escalation did not work the last time we attempted to fight an insurgency on their home turf and it will not work this time because it's not about killing them all or making them kow tow to us. This conflict in Iraq is about nation building and if they're not buying what we're selling then all the bombs in the world can't buy their hearts and minds.

And finally let me apologize to the corp. Having them serving around the world makes all of our streets safer at night… mainly because they’re walking the streets somewhere else.

Posted by: ibfamous at August 1, 2007 12:22 AM

I don't particularly believe that there was something special about the WWII generation. Americans thrive under pressure; they just lived up to the challenge. Thats what we do as a country. But I never said there was higher patriotism. I said that the high profile people who represent the left, and the vast majority of the political left in this country, hate and abhor the military.

If the last "surge/escalation" you're talking about was Vietnam, you're pretty deep in that ignorance territory. Vietnam wasn't quite 180 degrees away from Iraq in 2003, but its pretty close.

Vietnam was a war against an actual army. The North Vietnamese had tanks, and bases, and uniforms, and machine guns, and artillery and SAMs and all sorts of things that the terrorists in Iraq do not. They were a regular army...until we crushed them in the Tet offensive. Or is that the "surge" you're talking about?

Insurgencies do not win, historically. In fact, that only insurgencies that have won have done so via "fifth column" elements in the occupying country. That is to say, you.

As for the Marine corps (there's an S there, by the way)...I'm glad you can say that behind your computer. And I'm also glad our leathernecks are the nastiest, meanest, roughest, toughest, killers in the world. I suspect you'd sing a different tune if confronted with a devil dog face to face.

Posted by: k2aggie07 at August 1, 2007 08:39 AM

first of all, vietnam was a proxie war where the indigenous people had much more to gain than we had to lose, just like the folks in Iraq. and you might want to holster that ignorance talk and look at how our tactics evolved in vietnam over the years. there was no battle of the bulge or midways, it was a hearts and minds campaign. sound familiar?

as far as trying to scare me with your "face to face with a devil dog" routine, save it. i don't scare that eaisly. that's why i don't buy into cheney world and the 1% solution.

so, why are marines like bananas?

Posted by: ibfamous at August 1, 2007 05:09 PM

AVI

"ibfamous - that's almost up to a level of being addressable. There're ideas in there, but the oversimplifications and gratuitous insults keep me back...

I'm alert. Ready."

That is really a good response, points out the difficulties of trying to maintain an intellectual level worthy of a response. I know, at times, I do it, a quick quip reminiscent of the physical slapstick of a "Three Stooges" movie does not prove a point or re-enforce any logical argument.

Some of these people seem smart enough to engage, if only they would dispense with what you have noted.

Maybe, they should watch more "Three Stooges" and less Michael Moore(I like "The Three Stooges.) I know, I am leaving myself open here, but I can take it.

Posted by: Eneils Bailey at August 1, 2007 06:27 PM

"That is really a good response, points out the difficulties of trying to maintain an intellectual level worthy of a response."

while also ducking the content of my argument. as for the "oversimplifications and gratuitous insults," are you being honest when you look at the post before i chimed in and say that there were no gratuitous insults from the right(lefties bad/right is good, liberals hate america/GOP only patriots). i only entered the debate because of these heavy handed dillusions.

as for the oversimplification; it's more mental shorthand due to the limited space format. i unfortunatly assume people learn their history from someplace other than the American Interprise Institute. in the future i'll spell it all out for you.

lesson #1

the hippies didn't lose the war in vietnam and the Iraq anti-war movement is not responsible for the mismanagment of what should have been a simple process lasting "months, if not weeks."

Posted by: ibfamous at August 1, 2007 07:25 PM

sorry, the actual point i was making about the mismanagment of the current conflict (from the second half of post on 7/31/07: 4:40) was; keep doing the same thing failed in the past and eventually, it will sadly fail in the future.

Posted by: ibfamous at August 1, 2007 07:29 PM

On one hand you say that doing the same thing failed in the past, and on the other hand you say that Vietnam had evolving tactics. So which is it?

What past conflict can compare to our invasion of Iraq? (Here's a hint -- a decent one involved the French).

PS I never said lefties hate America. I said they don't like the military. A quick glance over at Kos will back this up pretty dramatically.

Lesson #2 The war in Vietnam wasn't lost by hippies -- it was lost by politicians refusing to allow the military to do its job.

Lesson #3 Iraq has its share of that. Bush held off the invasion of Fallujah for midterm elections. But that doesn't mean that we're doing the "same thing" over and over again.

Lesson #4 Vietnam had major battles. Maybe not like Midways or Battle of the Bulge, but there were campaigns and actual battles between regular armies. Iraq has none of that, because the two wars are not similar in any way. Iraq is a lot closer to the attempted Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Posted by: k2aggie07 at August 1, 2007 10:56 PM

ib

I tend to agree that the political issue of "do the Iraqis, collectively, really want a functioning government or not?" is now the more major issue. It has been a strong underlying issue since day one.

It is true that many, left, right, and center, have pointed this out as the major reason for either A) not going to Iraq, or B) leaving Iraq. They may prove to be right.

Yet if you look at the administration's announced goals from the start, it was always to create a space for the Iraqis, not install a government. I don't think the current timeline is at all out of whack with what my expectations were going in.

The president's opposition has not had that narrow focus of criticism, however, but has preferred to criticise simply everything, looking for things that will stick. Some few, as I noted, have been honest critics who have always focused on the Iraqi rebuilding.

I don't know what most people expected. Maybe, as the left claims, the war supporters were all sure it was going to be over soon. I suspect that is a political sales job by the left, however. I, at least, expect us to have a major - though decreasing - presence in Iraq for another 5 years.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at August 2, 2007 09:35 AM

http://addrdrqfsswrg.host.com desk3 [url=http://addsdrqfsswrg.host.com]desk4[/url] [link=http://addadrqfsswrg.host.com]desk6[/link]

Posted by: Saraipi at August 8, 2007 08:35 AM

http://addrsrdfggwaa.host.com desk3 [url=http://addssrdfggwaa.host.com]desk4[/url] [link=http://addasrdfggwaa.host.com]desk6[/link]

Posted by: Anitadtz at August 8, 2007 10:46 AM

http://addraerfqbgfa.host.com desk3 [url=http://addsaerfqbgfa.host.com]desk4[/url] [link=http://addaaerfqbgfa.host.com]desk6[/link]

Posted by: Bettyndf at August 8, 2007 11:38 AM

http://addrrwrfdqawa.host.com desk3 [url=http://addsrwrfdqawa.host.com]desk4[/url] [link=http://addarwrfdqawa.host.com]desk6[/link]

Posted by: Annnui at August 8, 2007 12:00 PM

http://addrwrefqasaa.host.com desk3 [url=http://addswrefqasaa.host.com]desk4[/url] [link=http://addawrefqasaa.host.com]desk6[/link]

Posted by: Brianrnt at August 8, 2007 06:39 PM

http://adsrsqafaeqbf.host.com desk3 [url=http://adsssqafaeqbf.host.com]desk4[/url] [link=http://adsasqafaeqbf.host.com]desk6[/link]

Posted by: Mikeecy at August 8, 2007 07:18 PM

http://adsrqrsfrfsbr.host.com desk3 [url=http://adssqrsfrfsbr.host.com]desk4[/url] [link=http://adsaqrsfrfsbr.host.com]desk6[/link]

Posted by: Emmanyp at August 8, 2007 07:37 PM

Hello. DAYXRABDY5 [url=http://www.tDAYXRABDY3.com] DAYXRABDY6 [/url] Thanks

Posted by: DAYXRABDY4 at August 9, 2007 04:13 PM

Posted by: free online phone directory at August 9, 2007 06:21 PM

Posted by: blonde hair long at August 9, 2007 06:43 PM

Posted by: california teacher retirement at August 9, 2007 06:54 PM

Posted by: engine marketing optimization search web at August 9, 2007 07:04 PM

Posted by: pain pill dictionary at August 9, 2007 07:15 PM

Posted by: abatement asbestos removal at August 9, 2007 07:25 PM

Posted by: computer desk hutch oak at August 9, 2007 07:36 PM

Posted by: arch gateway in louis st at August 9, 2007 07:46 PM

Posted by: stress ulcer symptom at August 9, 2007 07:57 PM

Posted by: airline rapid reward southwest visa at August 9, 2007 08:07 PM

Posted by: quicktime alternative download at August 9, 2007 08:16 PM

Posted by: cheapest cialis generic at August 9, 2007 08:27 PM

Posted by: american civil grant memoir personal s ulysses war at August 9, 2007 08:50 PM

Posted by: adhesion biology cell cell membrane at August 9, 2007 09:01 PM

Posted by: anderson company window at August 9, 2007 09:32 PM

Posted by: lauren phoenix freeones at August 9, 2007 09:53 PM

Posted by: development nebraska office workforce at August 9, 2007 10:01 PM

Posted by: branding corporate design identity logo at August 9, 2007 10:53 PM

Posted by: dcr filter infrared sony trv480 at August 9, 2007 11:12 PM

Posted by: volvo car accessory at August 9, 2007 11:23 PM

Posted by: honda battle of the band atlanta ga at August 9, 2007 11:32 PM

Posted by: corp job minnesota at August 9, 2007 11:53 PM

Posted by: running injury hamstring at August 10, 2007 12:03 AM

Posted by: greek holiday in island at August 10, 2007 12:13 AM

Posted by: book score yankee at August 10, 2007 12:23 AM

Posted by: lemon party pic at August 10, 2007 12:33 AM

Posted by: human resource management in public service paradox process and problem at August 10, 2007 12:45 AM

Posted by: internet offer special at August 10, 2007 12:56 AM

Posted by: life insurance for the hard to insure at August 10, 2007 01:07 AM

Posted by: 2 american chopper full throttle at August 10, 2007 01:16 AM

Posted by: dart nerf refill streamline at August 10, 2007 01:27 AM

Posted by: acer laptop battery charger at August 10, 2007 01:37 AM

Posted by: job maine sales at August 10, 2007 01:47 AM

Posted by: counselor education at August 10, 2007 02:08 AM

Posted by: code generation in action at August 10, 2007 02:17 AM

Posted by: notebook toshiba used at August 10, 2007 02:27 AM

Posted by: 1gb ddr memory notebook pc2700 sodimm at August 10, 2007 02:47 AM

Posted by: atlanta modem scientific at August 10, 2007 02:58 AM

Posted by: discount flight military travel at August 10, 2007 03:08 AM

Posted by: juvenile diabetes statistics at August 10, 2007 03:17 AM

Posted by: beach topless volleyball at August 10, 2007 03:28 AM

Posted by: volvo dealer phoenix at August 10, 2007 03:39 AM

Posted by: advice card consolidation credit debt at August 10, 2007 03:50 AM

Posted by: application citizenship form state united us at August 10, 2007 04:02 AM

Posted by: thoracic degenerative disc disease at August 10, 2007 04:13 AM

Posted by: creating criminal global in issue market people prison series society at August 10, 2007 04:23 AM

Posted by: union plus credit card at August 10, 2007 04:33 AM

Posted by: corporate hoe at August 10, 2007 04:54 AM

Posted by: christian event youth at August 10, 2007 05:05 AM

Posted by: car photography stock at August 10, 2007 05:16 AM

Posted by: 3 arrested beating girl in videotaped at August 10, 2007 05:27 AM

Posted by: alaska mckinley mount at August 10, 2007 05:37 AM

Posted by: finder property tenerife at August 10, 2007 05:46 AM

Posted by: outsourcing payroll uk at August 10, 2007 05:58 AM

Posted by: national discount brokerage at August 10, 2007 06:29 AM

Posted by: child education program theater at August 10, 2007 06:39 AM