Tonight's Presidential Address

It will be a performance. And the clips used from it over this year will grind what people still stick to him into the ground.

----

Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror – and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America’s course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.

When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together – and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.

But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq – particularly in Baghdad – overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq’s elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam – the Golden Mosque of Samarra – in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq’s Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people – and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.

It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group – a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.

The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq’s sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.

Let me explain the main elements of this effort: The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad’s nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort – along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations – conducting patrols, setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.

This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence – and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them – five brigades – will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents – but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods – and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people – and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: “The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation.”

This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad’s residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq’s Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace – and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend 10 billion dollars of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws – and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.

America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units – and partner a Coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division. We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped Army – and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.

As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists’ plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq’s democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.

Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders – and protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. As a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to step up the pressure on the terrorists. America’s men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda’s safe haven in Afghanistan – and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq.

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing – and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

We will use America’s full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists – and a strategic threat to their survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors – and they must step up their support for Iraq’s unity government. We endorse the Iraqi government’s call to finalize an International Compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform. And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region – to build support for Iraq, and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy – by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom – and help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.

From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists – or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?

The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security. Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue – and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.

Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world – a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them – and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.

Our new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq. Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States – and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq’s borders and hunting down al Qaeda. Their solution is to scale back America’s efforts in Baghdad – or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.

In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress on our new strategy. If Members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust. Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their criticisms. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed.

Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. This group will meet regularly with me and my Administration, and it will help strengthen our relationship with Congress. We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the Armed Forces we need for the 21st century. We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas – where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.

In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary – and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty. We mourn the loss of every fallen American – and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.

Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve. It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom. Yet times of testing reveal the character of a Nation. And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail.

We go forward with trust that the Author of Liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you and good night.

Actually I am amused at the Lieberman call out.

YOU'RE THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, DIPSHIT

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40759000/jpg/_40759395_abusocarcel.jpg

He's standing at a lectern, Ned, books in bkgd. (xpost, Soto's answer is better.)

so if you show what's happening you=enemy

Maybe that is just me though.

He visibly squirmed as he uttered this. I suspect Josh Bolton is holding up a picture of the prez in Top Gun gear off-camera.

agreed. esp. pls not to laud the "justice" we gave saddam.

He wanted to help me make signs, so he suggested making signs that say "Stop the Army" and "We don't want the War" and asked me how to spell those things.

Then while he was watching Bush, he said "hey mamma, he wants to make the army bigger! We don't want that!"

I'm feeling proud and uncomfortable at the same time, because I want my kids to make up their own minds about politics, but I want them to understand where I stand, and this seems like such a clear issue, and like such an ever-present issue -- he's always hearing news when we watch it.

How was this different?

:(

Our troops were't allowed to skin people alive and use lasers or whatever

People disagree but they suck

Joe Lieberman = bipartisan

The Iraqis suck

Trust me

I miss anything?

http://www.mysupplementstore.co.uk/images/prods/52.jpg

uh hello where have u guys been the last 5 years?

kimberly iverson.

http://home.usaa.net/~kimheadlee/graphics/kim1.gif

As Bush spoke for 20 minutes from the unusual setting of the White House library, the sounds of protesters amassed outside the compound's gates occasionally filtered through.

Senator Lieberman was the only senator who gets mentioned in the president's speech. If this surge works he can take credit and run for president as a third-party candidate

This is pathetic.

More interesting was this -- Hewitt's comment is the usual, but it was the responses to him that intrigued me. If even most of his fans won't play along...

i couldn't hear this at all but then again my ears are fucked.

In a post last year (link), I related how a WFMU listener serving in Iraq had requested some MP3s of the band Happy Flowers (mp3 sample) so that he could use them as audio aids for his interrogations of Iraqi prisoners.

Well, the listener in question is home now between his second and third tours of duty in Iraq, and he stumbled across that blog post. He sent me an e-mail discussing his use of the tunes, and he indicated it would be OK to print them here as long as I didn't reveal his name:

"I just came across your Soundtrack for Torture blog entry. Just a follow up. I finally found a couple of Happy Flowers records from a seller in England, thanks for the link, by the way. I wasn't able to convert them to MP3 until I got back to the states but I did use them during my second deployment to Iraq.

Now, don't get me wrong. Abu Ghraib bothers me. Not that the Soldiers there got caught, but that they were doing the wrong thing in the first place. The problem with being part of an organization is that you are judged as a whole. When one element makes a mistake it makes us all look bad.

As a member of the Armed Forces it is not my place to speak on policy and my comments do not represent current military practices, but I would like to share some of my personal experiences. I did use Happy Flowers effectively during my latest deployment.

Here is the problem in Iraq. The Iraqis understand that we follow a code of conduct and the answer to every question we ask is always "I don't know anything about that" Unless you catch a terrorist red handed, they know you will release them in 2 days. We are not allowed to harm a prisoner and I have absolutely no problem with that, but you have to be creative to get information. That's Psychological Warfare comes in. It doesn't work on the hardened terrorist, but it does work on the guy who knows who the terrorist is, or is involved but not in a major way. Such as the Farmer who hides bombs because he is told if he doesn't he will be killed. If we can make his stay with us unpleasant and make him feel that it will continue until he is willing to give a statement that will allow us to apprehend the real bad guys and put them away, that's all we can really hope for.

For example; We came across a bomb in the road and while waiting for EOD to arrive to disarm it, I noticed a guy on the other side of a canal watching the area with binoculars. So we have a bomb, we have a triggerman... unfortunatly, by the time we can get around the canal he managed to escape. The triggerman was within 50 meters of a house. We go to the house and of course the gentleman living there has seen nothing. We had questioned this guy before and not gotten any information so this time, we put him in the Humvee, tell him we are taking him with us and start playing "Mom, I Gave the Cat Some Acid" over and over.

After about an hour of Happy Flowers and being told that we don't want to take him, and that if he would tell us what he knows we will take him back home, he finally tells us who the triggerman is, where we can find him, where other bombs are hidden and ID's 3 corrupt policemen. All without having to threaten, imprison, or break any of our rules of conduct. I couldn't tell from your article whether you were against the use of music to obtain military goals or whether it was just a talking point, but I wanted to just let you know why we do it, how it works, and to hopefully convince you the as a whole the US Army is not malevolent and we don't just drive around trying to torture innocent people.

Thanks, (name and rank withheld)"

After asking him if it was OK to post his comments on the blog, he replied:

"I just ask that you don't post my name. I don't want to sound as though I have anything to do with current army policy. I am not aware of any restriction or procedure for using music or for questioning insurgents and don't want to come across as someone in authority within the military. Thank you for the response."

dontcha see? he's being ironic

Sorry, but it struck me as a snow job, from an administration that—pretty much like the rest of us—has no clue where to go from here.
The central and most glaring contradiction is the implied threat to walk away... Yoked to the ringing declaration that, of course, we can't walk away. We seem to be saying to the Maliki govt.: "Hey, you guys better step up to your responsibilites, or else we're outa here." This, a few sentences after saying that we can't leave the place without a victory. So-o-o-o:

—-We can't leave Iraq without a victory.

—-Unless Maliki & Co. get their act together, we can't achieve victory.

—-If Maliki & Co. don't get their act together, we'll leave.

It's been a while since I studied classical logic, but it seems to me that this syllogism leaks like a sieve.

Ultimately, I disagree, though I see where you are coming from.

Fisk: "Victory or death. And it shall be death."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2144057.ece

* The Congressional elections just passed

* 2008

The rest is mere shuffling of the deck.

Also, while I realize that I wasn't expecting the speech to have full specifics on everything and anything, I really *don't* have a sense of an 'honest-to-god plan' -- this is reactive, not proactive, and it's quite obvious why it's reactive.

Belgravia Dispatch's various posts on the speech are far more to the point here. Where you see resolution, he sees waffle, and I'm with him.

The 'democracy' we instituted resulted, essentially, in a government by one faction of one section of the population, i.e. Shiites. The Sunni are chary of the government for reasons both reasonable and irresponsible, but we have done little to persuade them.

No amount of additional troops are going to help if our underlying premises don't work. Saddam may have been a genuine nationalist but many of his compatriots are first and foremost Sunni, Shia, Kurdish, etc., and democracy hasn't united them, it seems to have divided them. The country may not be 'organic' (it certainly didn't start organically) and it may very well be that the only way to keep it together is with the brutal kind of oppression that the Ba'athists used, otherwise you end up with a simmering civil war that turns into a proxy war involving Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

The compelling argument that we need to keep Iraq from becoming a failed-state terrorist incubator isn't washing with me anymore. There are plenty of terrorists in Iraq right now, and the issue seems increasingly to be a tactical military one to me. From Afghanistan and Pakistan to Iraq to Sudan to Somalia we need something better than Cruise missiles and faster than mere helicopters with aircover to be able to deal with potential terrorist bases and we need to learn to be able to use that in a way that doesn't make local populations more likely to harbor terrorists. Staying in Iraq isn't likely to do anything now but give terrorists hands-on training in insurgency.

Vietnam presumably taught us that the United States could not serve as the world's policeman; it should also have taught us the dangers of trying to be the world's midwife to democracy when the birth is scheduled to take place under conditions of guerrilla war - Jeane Kirkpatrick, Commentary, 1979 as cited by Andrew Sullivan.

Fwiw, I think that if the U.S. wants to get out with any honor at all, we should publicly state our commitment to defend the Kurds, come what may. The Sunnis, Turks and Iranians may squeal, but they can go fuck themselves for all I care.

i agree with this to a point, but i sort of don't buy the whole "safe haven" argument. the "terrorists" that are in iraq right now do not have any reach outside of iraq, and it's unclear to me whether their strategy would be to do anything outside of iraq anyway. i mean, yeah sure we don't want iraq to turn into an afghanistan-style failed state, where things are so rough that it's actually a staging ground for worldwide reach, but there's too much at stake in iraq for that to happen anyway, i would think. it's not like afghanistan had iraq's oil reserves, for instance. so ultimately a lotta this seems like smokescreen.

And since Goofus both can't listen to anybody who doesn't tell him what he already thinks he believes and rejects anything connected w/ his father(which might be one reason why Dan Quayle was the one neo-con/PNAC-type who never got a new job), he ignored it all anyway.

This is kinda why I started the Presidential Psychoanalysis thread over on the other board. We're in a time where the politics and actions are so fucked up that psychosis and pathology need to be serious investigated.

Neither Iran nor Saudia Arabia will allow that in the long run.

I always try to say it more like we need a 21st-Century LBJ, only without the whole, you know, talking to reporters & staffers while on the terlet.

They can offer a resolution to fund only an immediate withdrawal, just to get the Republicans on record. It'd come close to guaranteeing big gains in '08 for them, and they still won't do it. or as Dennis Perrin sez:

the Dems believe that they have plenty of space in which to maneuver, which is why they are talking about possible action in the near future. They are worthless, spineless, a travesty to even a schoolchild's concept of liberty and justice for all. They should be pelted with garbage whenever they appear in public.

http://redstateson.blogspot.com/2007/01/that-liberal-desire.html

You mean an arrogant Texas president who gets us mired in a horrible land war with seemingly no exit strategy?

-- Shakey Mo Collier (audiobo...), January 11th, 2007 5:32 PM. (Shakey Mo Collier) (later)

uh who has actually argued this?

You mean an arrogant Texas president who gets us mired in a horrible land war with seemingly no exit strategy?

lolz

—-If Maliki & Co. don't get their act together, we'll leave.

I think what they're saying is if Maliki & Co. don't get their act together, there'll be a coup.

Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq’s elections posed for their cause.

On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.

As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists’ plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq’s democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.

Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders – and protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. As a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to step up the pressure on the terrorists. America’s men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda’s safe haven in Afghanistan – and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq.

no, that's the other bit we can do without

my objection is as much.. Frankly, every time someone doesn't do what i want, i don't assume the reason is always "they're gutless."

for instance today's Democrats lack the BALLS needed to totally revamp Social Security and make it into a private account system oh wait they're against it because it would be BAD POLICY + POLITICAL SUICIDE oh yeah, and they don't have the BALLS to commit political suicide and they clearly lack the BALLS to force through as much CRAPSHIT TERRIBLE POLICY as Bush and the GOP congress

it's kind of a core tenet of neoconservatism that vietnam was lost in the media and in congress, not on the battlefield. e.g., bush's line about how the lesson of vietnam was "we'll win unless we quit." i think rumsfeld and cheney et al really believe that if only we'd had more troops, more time and more "resolve," we would have "won."

It's like neoconservatism can never fail; it is only failed.

-- Shakey Mo Collier (audiobo...), January 11th, 2007 5:32 PM. (Shakey Mo Collier) (later)

uh who has actually argued this?

-- hstencil (hstenc!...), Today 12:38 PM. (hstencil) (later) (link)

pat buchanan made that exact argument on MSNBC two nights ago! i know he's a kook/laughing stock, but it's an essential part of the vietnam narrative for a helluva lot of conservatives!

Why hasn't Rove thought of this?!

Trouble with insurgents in a village? Kill all the adult males. Create gulags and ghettos for the pacified civilian population. Kill 50 civilians for every one of your own soldiers slain. It's not pretty, but it is effective. (See also Caesar's successful conquest of Gaul; the successful restoration of order in Tianenmen Square; or the very successful counter-insurgency carried out in Dujail, Iraq, in 1982 by the recently deceased former leader of that country.)

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents – but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared.

(And it looks like Jessie's already got the most disingenuous part of this: millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists. People who are "sick of the violence" tend not to want you to create more violence, even if you claim it's for their sake -- which is precisely why we're currently dabbling in a Somali war against Islamists no-one much liked but seemed to accept/support because, well, at least they could hold a city.)

-- gypsy mothra (meetm...), January 11th, 2007 5:51 PM. (gypsy mothra) (later)

and that was my point. nobody argues that we should've escalated further in vietnam, which is what shakey mo said. except maybe pat buchanan i guess. so shakey's good at anticipating one kook's argument, kudos.

You mean you've never heard how we shouldhave nuked'em back into the stone age?

It's a myth they tell themselves that's airtight; it's so completely detached from reality that it can never be disproven. They can point to it later and say, "see! you didn't do what we wanted, and so you lost the war!" They can get a sense of righteousness from the failure of a half-formed thought designed to do so.

The raid follows a warning yesterday to Iran and Syria from President George W. Bush in his address to the American people on a new strategy for Iraq. Bush accused Iran and Syria of aiding the movement of ``terrorists and insurgents'' in and out of Iraq and said the U.S. will ``seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a90DLQrWr.YY&refer=us

nobody argued that in '75 or after, dude. nor was it a realistic argument even BEFORE vietnam happened, ever hear of truman rebuking mcarthur?

-- Dr Morbius (wjwe...), January 11th, 2007 6:30 PM. (Dr Morbius) (later)

that doesn't even make any goddamn sense but hey please to keep mixing a fictional character in a movie's statement with politix, it makes for teh roffles (and reveals much about your powers of political "analysis" to be sure).

Similarly, the myth is coming up again, that we're losing the war b/c of the media, the democrats, the american people, etc. In other words, those who have no control whatsoever over how things are done are responsible for them not working.

so we DID lose Vietnam on the battlefield after all?

-- gypsy mothra (meetm...), January 11th, 2007 5:51 PM. (gypsy mothra) (later)

and that was my point.
-- hstencil"

I don't understand your point at all, sorry.

and that was my point. nobody argues that we should've escalated further in vietnam, which is what shakey mo said. except maybe pat buchanan i guess. so shakey's good at anticipating one kook's argument, kudos.

-- hstencil (hstenc!...), January 11th, 2007 6:10 PM. (hstencil) (later)

my point was NOT that we lost vietnam "in the media" or some such nonsense.

Never say never and 'realistic' is in the eyes of the beholder. Anyway, I'm not so much talking about what the military wanted (I mean they got massive aerial bombardment and Agent Orange, ffs) as about the discourse that's prevalent among the who-lost-China,er,-Vietnam type people and how that impacts U.S. politics and thus the positions that candidates take publicly.

I didn't think it was, but just that these idiots always point fingers

At any rate my initial post was pretty much just a sarcastic aside and not intended as a cogent or highly accurate military analysis. But whatever, work that anger outta yr system however you please.

ss, the speech was last night.

I just read that new, rather massive biography of Dean Acheson, and one thing was pretty clear: the threat of nuclear escalation was often enough to dissuade the Soviets, even when Uncle Joe was sitting in the Kremlin. Nobody in the NSC even seriously entertained dropping the bomb again. Eisenhower and Kennedy were especially loath to consider it.

man i wanna read that acheson bio.

Me too.

Tactically they were considered and deployed in Western Europe, hstencil.

dr meth king > lords of dogtown

(I highly recommend the bio, btw)

-- M. White (boeldie...), January 11th, 2007 7:56 PM. (Miguelito) (later)

hrm, you mean for the great western european land war against the soviets that never happened? perhaps you might be right.

I'm a middle-aged American, and I've heard it said by many, for decades that we lost Vietnam because the politicians (read: "liberals") didn't have the guts to finish the job. That we cut and run. That we weren't willing to commit the troops, gear and time necessary. I can't tell you how many times I've heard it said that we should've just gotten tough and nuked 'em all.

The idea that Vietnam resulted from squeamish weakness and a failure military resolve is a big part of the American conservative narrative. And it's playing into the way the Iraq war is framed and conceptualized.

Actually, the whole naming things after Reagan is mostly Grover Norquist's idea, and yes he is a lone nut.

morbs, pls to try to be less bitterish old man, you might have a heart attack or something.

Wait, WHAT? From the music threads I thought you were, I dunno, 19 or something.

Ned: No, I'm just old and distinctly uncool.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/11/iraq.congress/index.html

One of those Republicans, Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, showed his strong opposition to Bush's plan Thursday during Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"Madam Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking about here, it's very, very dangerous," said Hagel, a decorated Vietnam War combat veteran. "As a matter of fact, I have to say, Madam Secretary, that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam -- if it's carried out."

that's fuckin' ballsy - if we have to use that euphemism again.

I like this bit, too:

But Mr. Kristol and Mr. Kagan appealed to Mr. Bush’s ego, suggesting that he might yet be able to rescue his signature war. And am I the only person to notice that after all the Oedipal innuendo surrounding the Iraq Study Group — Daddy’s men coming in to fix Junior’s mess, etc. — Mr. Bush turned for advice to two other sons of famous and more successful fathers?

http://www.cookrepublicans.com/content/img/f24094/SZ200_Bill%20Kristol.jpg

Sixty percent, meanwhile, think it is unlikely that a stable, democratic Iraqi government will be established.

And the majority against the war runs from almost 80% against in the Northeast to 2/3rds everywhere else, which kinda makes sense when you see the map of where every U.S. casualty has come from(and what I can't find at the moment).

This may have been linked (the comment) already, and it's a bit less serious than an active discussion of events.(I learn more, here, by reading than debating, and thank you all!)

Is the plan that is a good plan when they show up Plan B?
Working in reproductive health, all i can think of is that we're sending thousands of packets of emergency contraception (Plan B) to Iraq! Metaphorically, it works, since war is a useful, if brutal form of contraception.I digress.

One thing that has been very startling to me, as an "adult" (old fart) student, is the fact that the 18-22 year olds I get to know in the classroom have lived with the threat, and then the actual waging, of war for ...their entire adult lives. I don't interact with them as peers completely, but we are peers in a classroom setting, and it makes me realize that my experiences were very different - the threat of a huge nuclear war (cold war) at their age. But United States supremacy was so much guaranteed at that point...the fear that the scary Soviet Union would try to blow up the United States! OOOOHHH! It WAS scary then.
That seems so simple now.
I don't think this "hot" war will ever seem simple to them. or to me. It's all a bunch of small, violent wars. I would be more inclined to think of it entirely from my knowledge of past conflicts and my analysis of political manouvers and the information I read hear, there and everywhere.
The realization that the people who are going to graduate this year have been dealing with this war as part of their adult psyche and national identity gives me hope that they will REALLY work to make sure 2008 , and many years beyond, provide us with strong, capable and GREAT leadership.
UMASS has lost several students, and is home to dozens of returning veterans. It's very enlightening to attend class with a returned soldier, aged 20, who is not allowed to go to a bar!