Sen. Joe Lieberman came out in contrast to his party in support of our remaining in Iraq.

Disregard where the link comes from, for those of you hating Sean Hannity, and read the article.

Interesting read from the Democrats version of McCain. Too bad both parties can't work to the people and a more centeristic road rather than ride the wings of the public fringe.

http://hannity.com/index/lieberman

Fandros

Here's a link to the president's "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" document. 38 pages, pdf.

There will be a test at the end, especially for any dolt in the future who says "But Bush isn't telling us anything."

http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/Iraq%20National%20Strategy%2011-30-05.pdf

Iraq Strategy!

Why is it, when I read that, I am taken back to the dominoe theory of the 50's and 60's?

I just don't buy into this. Too little too late. They got their tit in a ringer and are suddenly coming up with a strategy? It is my best understanding that when one starts a war they should have a strategy in place before the first shot is fired.

What gets me most about this administration is their total and absolute ignorance of history.

But Rover, you assume there hasn't always been a plan.

We didn't just go over there , drop bombs and have the success we see over there now. Life IS better, things are GETTING better and there is a democracy abuilding!!

Again, lay off the mainstream press. For you are being mislead, as are the others. Talk to those that have been on the ground over there and are returning.

You'll likely find yourself awash with the same hope they have for what they worked so hard for while over there.

Actually I will come down on the Bush plan in one major way. They simply keep to much far too close to the vest. This war is being tried in the public and imho they should've been more open about their agenda.

Fandros

Fandros,

All my veteran friends are happy to be home. They don't want to go back and hated every second of it. They often wonder out loud why they have to patrol oil pipelines when the terrorists are in the cities attacking civilians. But, I digress because you have access to the "real veterans" who tell the "real story".

So now, why is Bush who "doesn't govern based on polls" now responding to public outrage by mysteriously producing a strategy so close to an election when for the past 3 years has refused to do so and called anyone who questioned him a traitor? I know it can't be because he is reading polls.....

While I have to give the administration credit for making what is perhaps their most lucid set of PowerPoint slides to date, "the cost of failure" sections tend to describe the current situation and it still does not address the reasons we selected Iraq for an invasion, fixed intelligence to create political backing for it, while ignoring other actual threatening states with real weapons.

The great irony of all this being the liberal attack dogs were going on about blood for oil when it's always been fairly obvious oil was never the reason, and the armchair patriots have been going on about fighting terrorism when the invasion was conceived before 9/11. Meanwhile the real reason still floats in the political aether, somewhere.

Still reading that in depth since it's about fifty times more useful than the normal doublespeak non-information we get, but I'm also not seeing how most of this stuff is supposed to be achieved, just that we need to do it. It also makes hugely specious claims without anything resembling evidence to build up strawman arguments, like "the terrorists, Saddamist, and rejectionists do not have the manpower or firepower to achieve military victory ... they can only win if we surrender"

That's a a big dot dot dot, over. Of course they can't achieve "military" victory, they're not trying to.

Amazingly enough my friends currently served or who have served in Iraq this go around have wide and varying opinions on the administration, the war, and the future. It bothers me when the media or others say soldiers say suchandsuch, or tell me it is this way.

Of course we were all happy to be home from over there. It's an awful tour of duty Phel. It stinks, it's dry and the food is subpar even on special holidays.

And of course if your friends were doing naught but patrolling oil pipelines that they would have that opinion. That's a dog ugly duty and generally boring as hell since most of the attacks are hitting populace centers.

Still pissed at me for the teaching dispute I see. It's okay big shooter, I can take the heat of your vieled stingers. ;)

My so called "better vets" aren't better sources. I would wager a fair bet that I have greater access to a far greater number than you do and as such have a larger slice of info to deal with....

Fandros

Well I know 4 people who returned from Iraq, 2 more who are still there. Not a 1 says that they feel we've accomplished anything. 1 was a documentary filmmaker, 3 were in the Army, and 2 of them were DIA Civilians now back @ the Pentagon. Fandros your friends must have had quite a luxory knowing whats going on when people at the Pentagon just see the whole thing as a shit storm ...

Interesting, I know 8 active duty personnel who have returned, and 3 goverment agents that have come back from tours in Iraq.

Only two of the military guys said they hated their tour, but they chalk it up to them being medical and seeing all the bombing victims rolling in at breakneck speed sometimes. The rest had mostly positive things to say about their time in theatre and about the overall mission.

I say "mostly positive" things because when you come right down to it, it's a warzone. People are trying to shoot you and/or blow you up. Of course that isn't exactly a freaking picnic in the park. But they all felt that overall, their tour was worth something valuable to them and to the Iraqis.

Basic history lesson:

To most people in this world there are symbolic icons that represent governments, good and bad. In our own government the symbols we associate with are things such as the Lincoln Memorial, The Capitol, Whitehouse, Supreme Court Building, Pentagon etc...

To most Americans these are symbols that speak of freedom, patriotism, strength and all of the good things in life that being American offer.

In Iraq the symbols associated with the government of Sadam were such things as Abu Gharab, The Many Palaces and statues of Sadam.

When we went into Iraq, we knocked down the statues, ripped down the pictures and blew up the monuments to Sadam. What we did not do was to bulldoze or open the palaces to those who had suffered in the very presence of those symbols. We ran the prisons in the same fashion as Sadam, we allowed our troops to move into the many palaces and turn them into symbols of occupation.

People who had formerly been arrested, interrogated and tortured for doing things such as simply walking or driving to close to those palacial symbols found themselves still being arrested, interrogated and tortured for doing the same things that had gotten them the same result that they were still experiencing. They were arrested, interrogated and tortured for walking or driving too near the symbols, now occupied by the US Military and US Contractors.

The people saw no difference, thus what was created was the breeding ground for the insurgency. It is only as of late that we have started turning over the palaces to the Iraqi's. But, as we know they are really not any better than Sadam as far as torture goes.

When questioned about torture chambers, one of the Iraqi government officials responded with something like: "We don't do things like behead people in them"

Well, thats great fucking news! I would then have no fear of being arrested by the current Iraqi government, I mean, at least I wont get beheaded. I might have my finger nails pulled out or be beaten with steel batons, maybe have some major bruising of my internal organs, walk with a limp for the next 20 years and scream anytime I see a baseball bat, but at least I wasn't beheaded like those damn insurgents do to people. (never mind that a beheading would probably be considered a blessing to me while I was being tortured)

It is the, either by ignorance or arrogance, failure of the Bush administration to look at history that completely and totally has me mystified.

History has some great lessons, those that use it to govern can often achieve great success in their endeavor.

The insurgents are not paid to fight. You never read how any of our troops strap a bomb to themselves and detonate it in an insurgent area. The attrition is the strategy of the insurgents and not 1 single thought was ever directed to that possibility by Bush/Cheney.

They present as Malse said, "A great Powerpoint presentation" But all in all it lacks anything new with the core of the strategy being "Our strategy is to win"

It would have been really cool if you had actually read a few of the 38 pages Rover.

4 whole folks eh Kelraz?

I've met with and talked to and tipped elbows with literally hundreds.

No, they all don't share my political leanings. But nearly to a man(person) they felt as though they had fought the good fight. Of course they'd all rather we didn't have to go and that we should've finished back in '91 ( myself among that crowd). Nearly everyone of them also felt as though we the public back home were being spoonfed mass shit by the press.

Of that crowd there were Marines, Navy, Air Force and Army. Both active duty and activated reservists/guardsmen.

So when I get indignant at the fucking press for playing their headgames and neglecting the realities you understand why.

Luxury? No you mic toting civilian, it's hell over there. But freedom doesn't come free.

Fandros

It's a 38 page read, and I read fast. Fun to hear folks have read it through and found it so lacking already. I haven't judged it yet, but glad the President is taking it public.

Fandros

It would have been really cool if you had actually read a few of the 38 pages Rover.

I did read it. So where is the viable strategy? Where are the lessons we should have learned being implemented?

The document contains the same crap we have been fed from the get go, just a different choice of words used to display it.

Fandros:

I do wholeheartedly believe that 99% of those who serve believe they "Fought the Good Fight" Unfortunately an insurgency is not that simple of a fight, its far from holding ground, it is 50% intelligence gathering, 49% hearts and minds and 1% military strength.

/agreed Rover completely.

Fandros

Having spent more time with the PowerPoint propaganda, the only section that had anything meaningful at all was in the economic reconstruction section -- which had absolutely NO information on what comparable levels of measured values were before the first Gulf War and is as such functionally useless as an indicator of "real" progress since the 91-2004 and especially 2003-4 levels can not be considered normal.

This is nothing more than highlights of the "Stay the Course!" rhetoric as supported by circular logic, not a strategy. Strategies have things like numbers and contigency plans, and comparitive cost analysis. I took a look at the roughly 5 billion dollars we spend every month in Iraq and idly wondered how many countries would have jumped at a 60 billion dollar bounty on Osama bin Laden.

Also, the highlight of 3 million Iraqi cell phone subscribers is nice, I guess, but makes me wonder if opening new markets for Verizon is really a good justification for hundreds of weekly civilian casualties. Cynical, I know.

I just wish he could hurry up the process a bit over there so we could maybe direct some of those resources toward the folks in Mississippi and Louisiana.

Having spent more time with the PowerPoint propaganda, the only section that had anything meaningful at all was in the economic reconstruction section -- which had absolutely NO information on what comparable levels of measured values were before the first Gulf War and is as such functionally useless as an indicator of "real" progress since the 91-2004 and especially 2003-4 levels can not be considered normal.

Give yourself a pat on the back Malse. You've gone from bitching about NO plan (of which there has always been one, you and the MSM have just failed to listen) to bitching about THE plan (which is a hell of a lot more productive to the entire situation.)

Exactly what the Whitehouse wanted yesterday.

Damn, I hit post early.

Anyway Malse, you and others are also confusing strategy with tactics. If you listened to Bush's speech yesterday (and many others previously) you would know the actual tactics used for winning are in the hands of the commanders on the ground over there, as it should be.

Strategy is the overall plan. Tactics are the actual means to that goal.

Sun Tsu had it best, "In making tactical dispositions, the highest pitch you can attain is to conceal them."

Personally I think we should publish our EXACT plans. I'm sure Joe Terrorist over there would enjoy it as much as our folks.

Fandros

Gass, my point was that this plan is not in fact, actually a plan. It's like saying my plan for getting to the store is to drive there, which would be great except it ignores how I get the car, fuel it, avoid the minefield, what have you - there are implicit presumptions to this slideshow that jarringly and violently disagree with the real world.

To say we are going to win an war of attrition on the insurgency is absolutely boggling; To say the insurgency can not win a military victory when they are not even trying and do not have to is willful ignorance of the realities of the war -- we've been killing more of them than they have of us the whole time and yet the frequency and competence of their attacks has been increasing over time. To talk about the economic reconstruction of Iraq from its 2003 state, in which what we hadn't blown up had been left to rot in the sun for a decade because the country was being starved to death economically is absurd -- all that 'dilapidated' infrastructure was not built broken. The "enemy" remains wrapped up in -ists and -isms that ignore the religous and ethnic underpinnings of the civil war there.

Sadly, barring anyone falling off the last helicopter to leave Bagdad on national TV, I doubt we'll ever have a simple summation of the success or failure of this occupation, and that's what I think a lot of people do not understand about our effective troop commitment there. Iraq will be judged a stable state in twenty years, not two, and we have a "plan" that thinks in soundbite seconds and talks about pillars of American military competence? I was mildly surprised it didn't talk about empowering our troops via personal leadership in support of the agile market-driven business of freedom.

Strategy with a backbone, it's working.

http://www.nysun.com/article/23773
President Bush's rejection yesterday of timetables for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and offer of an olive branch to insurgent leaders could open the door for greater Sunni Arab participation in December 15 elections for Iraq's National Assembly.

A 38-page "Iraq national strategy," declassified and released yesterday, states that America's commanders and diplomats in Iraq will "engage those outside the political process and invite in those willing to turn away from violence through ever-expanding avenues of participation."

Sunni Arab organizations such as the Sunni Muslim Scholars Association participated in negotiations regarding Iraq's constitution, which leaders have promised to amend, and on Tuesday met with American military commanders in Fallujah, Iraq, to discuss a ceasefire in the insurgency.

The endorsement from Mr. Bush, however, could go even further toward securing their participation in the December 15 elections.

Just because it's not public knowledge doesn't mean it's not there...

Fandros

I say "mostly positive" things because when you come right down to it, it's a warzone. People are trying to shoot you and/or blow you up. Of course that isn't exactly a freaking picnic in the park. But they all felt that overall, their tour was worth something valuable to them and to the Iraqis.

This statement sums it up.... It's a warzone... who in their right mind would say "Oh I would much rather be in Iraq being shot at"..... My brother was there twice (since we invaded/liberated Iraq) and he told me it wasn't nearly as bad as the nightly news makes it out to be.

Oh and BTW the Kuwaiti's love us :)

Oh and BTW the Kuwaiti's love us :)

Heh, funny storry about the Kuwaitis. My unit was deployed to Kuwait Airbase during another troop build up on the Iraq/Kuwait border in 93. One night we were returning to the airbase from Camp Doha and going through one of the gate security points.

WHen going through the gates, you must present your ID, and at the time we had to account for how many weapons we had in the vehicle. So while we were getting a count, the guards were talking to us, just chatting really. One of them said in very broken and accented English, "We glad you here. Bill Clinton is ok, but George Bush is NUMBER ONE!!"

And when he said the George Bush part his face broke out into a big ol grin, it was hysterical.

Strategy with a backbone, it's working.

http://www.nysun.com/article/23773

I guess the insurgents in Fallujah don't understand that they lost that city when we sent in the Marines. 10 dead and 11 wounded Marines by insurgents that continuosly forget that they have been beaten militarily.

Rover, please provide what constitutes your definition of victory, please.

Does, say, losing an FBI officer to a Montana sepratist mean that we haven't achieved victory in the US? Ya see, ZERO is an unobtainable number in nearly everything. There's a certain level of diminishing returns. We're slowly reducing the number of kooks with rifles in a couple countries :)

Rover, please provide what constitutes your definition of victory, please.

Does, say, losing an FBI officer to a Montana sepratist mean that we haven't achieved victory in the US? Ya see, ZERO is an unobtainable number in nearly everything. There's a certain level of diminishing returns. We're slowly reducing the number of kooks with rifles in a couple countries :)

My definition of victory in what area? Victory can have many definitions depending on the situation. In the case of an active insurgency such as in today's Iraq, or in the 80's El Salvador or going back to the Vietnam war the definition of victory would most likely be applied in roughly the same manner. In the case of "Montana Separatists" or in the situation of World war II it can have an entirely different meaning.

All in all a victory has a general meaning of the "Cessation of Hostilities". Now, taking that one step further and looking for that "0" factor you are most definately correct that it is very likely to be an unobtainable number. Even 60 years after Worl War II the Nazi party is still in existence and often has been the point of varying degrees of violent behaviour when its members have overtly shown themselves in marches, rallies etc..

So applying the "Nazi" factor to the equation it brings us to the question of did the allies win World War II? The answer in the "0" factor would probably be no. But in the general sense of the word victory the allies did win World War II, as the governments put in place by the winners have control over all general areas of the country and are accepted by the general population, night and day.

In my opinion a victory by the Americans in Iraq would be defined as an end to the insurgency as a whole. Where it is no longer an accepted way of life, their recruitment of Iraqi civilians is frowned upon by the populace to the point where insurgents are not able to effectively operate in any given location due to the backlash not only of the government and its paid soldiers but by the general population.

Remember, there are two major mitigating factors here: The Iraqi army is composed of individuals who are paid to fight. The soldiers are an identifiable force.

The insurgents are not paid to fight and are not an easily identifiable force.


Theres my book on the subject!:eek: My answer puts me in mind of the TV commercial for the Bank of Scotland where the guy is getting married.

In my opinion a victory by the Americans in Iraq would be defined as an end to the insurgency as a whole. Where it is no longer an accepted way of life, their recruitment of Iraqi civilians is frowned upon by the populace to the point where insurgents are not able to effectively operate in any given location due to the backlash not only of the government and its paid soldiers but by the general population.Fair enough, thanks for answering. [And a big boo to Malse for writing me a short story in the repuation field...I can take the -rep, but sheesh, send me a PM if you're going to write me a love letter.]

So, the question from me is now, "Is victory, by your definition, obtainable?" Not to continue with hyperbole, by isn't it like breeding racism out of Jaw-jah - something that might take generations?

I agree with the comparision to the "defeat" of nazi-ism after WWII - but I just don't think "war" is like that anymore :( -- and I think the religion barrier might be prohibitive in it as well. At least when we shared a common god with our enemy, the furvor of religion was mitigated somewhat.

So, the question from me is now, "Is victory, by your definition, obtainable?"

I don't think that victory by my definition is obtainable. Most definately not if you factor in the religous aspect of the situation.

Take South Vietnam as an example. The arguments are much the same for staying the course in Iraq as they were for staying the course in South Vietnam. In the end, it was destined to have the outcome that it did in 1975.

Shoot ahead 30 years later and Vietnam is not only a friendly country, but has become a trade "partner". So in that end, perhaps we attained victory in some twisted way. But it took the non-involvement of the US to get it to the point where it could have the current outcome.

Remember, the Vietminh/Vietcong was an insurgent force that would not have otherwise existed if France, then the US had not been there. If you give people something to fight, there is a high probability they will take you up on the offer.

So looking at the situation in Iraq, learning the lessons we hopefully did with the war in Vietnam. I would think the best way to achieve a victory would be through "economic combat" vs the military option and we will most likey see the outcome we are trying to achieve with much less death and destruction to all involved.

Seriously, you should read that 38 page strategy.

Remember, the Vietminh/Vietcong was an insurgent force that would not have otherwise existed if France, then the US had not been there. If you give people something to fight, there is a high probability they will take you up on the offer.It wasn't so much France and the US being there that caused the problems, as it was France and then the US imposing real imperialism on them. Whoever thought it was a cool idea that a Christian could head the civic government of S Vietnam was a tool. Read the strategy, it's in there under the political goals.

I would think the best way to achieve a victory would be through "economic combat" vs the military option and we will most likey see the outcome we are trying to achieve with much less death and destruction to all involved.

That's another of the 3 goals. I told you there would be a test at the end.

The problem I have with the strategy for victory in Iraq as presented in the 38 page presentation is this: It smells of propaganda. I've tried to pin down what was bothering me about the document and I think this should help.


Although White House officials said many federal departments had contributed to the document, its relentless focus on the theme of victory strongly reflected a new voice in the administration: Peter D. Feaver, a Duke University political scientist who joined the N.S.C. staff as a special adviser in June and has closely studied public opinion on the war.

So who is the new advisor and why is he in the Whitehouse now:

Despite the president's oft-stated aversion to polls, Dr. Feaver was recruited after he and Duke colleagues presented the administration with an analysis of polls about the Iraq war in 2003 and 2004. They concluded that Americans would support a war with mounting casualties on one condition: that they believed it would ultimately succeed.

Something I find very interesting:

"This is not really a strategy document from the Pentagon about fighting the insurgency," said Christopher F. Gelpi, Dr. Feaver's colleague at Duke and co-author of the research on American tolerance for casualties. "The Pentagon doesn't need the president to give a speech and post a document on the White House Web site to know how to fight the insurgents. The document is clearly targeted at American public opinion."

And this is REALLY interesting:

The role of Dr. Feaver in preparing the strategy document came to light through a quirk of technology. In a portion of the document usually hidden from public view but accessible with a few keystrokes, the plan posted on the White House Web site showed the document's originator, or "author" in the software's designation, to be "feaver-p."

Our friends at Adobe say:

According to Matt Rozen, a spokesman for Adobe Systems, which makes the Acrobat software used to prepare the document, that entry indicated that Dr. Feaver created the original document that, with additions and editing, was posted on the Web.

And the Whitehouse said:

Asked about who wrote the document, a White House official said Dr. Feaver had helped conceive and draft the plan, though the official said a larger role belonged to another N.S.C. staff member, Meghan L. O'Sullivan, the deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan, and her staff. The official would describe the individual roles only on condition of anonymity because his superiors wanted the strategy portrayed as a unified administration position.

And the Army said:

In a news briefing from Iraq on Friday, Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, the top American military official in charge of training Iraqi troops, surprised some reporters by saying he first saw "Our Strategy for Victory in Iraq" when it was released to the public on Wednesday.

So now it has been pinned down in my mind. It is nothing more than an attempt to "Make Shit Shine"

Alcoa stock just went up.

Alcoa stock just went up.

LOL, Akipt. I, too, got a mental image of Dubya applying aluminum siding to his outhouse!

God forbid we start thinking alike.:p