Is the U.S. winning in Iraq?
By on Jul 15th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
Is the U.S. winning in Iraq?
“I think I would answer that by telling you I don’t think we’re losing,” Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, told a Capitol Hill briefing. He added, “I think we’re closer to the beginning than we are to the end of all this.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Yes the begining.
The begining of civil war in Iraq.
Not losing does not equate to winning.
July 15th, 2006 at 8:06 pmYe gods, the beginning? Really?
What was all this Mission Accomplished hooplah about then?
July 15th, 2006 at 8:11 pmNot only have we lost the war in Iraq, most of us have lost faith that the leadership of this country can prevent us from further losing our way in the world. This isn’t nor should it be a partisan problem, this administrations failures on so many fronts is going to affect every man, woman and child for decades to come. For the first time in my life I can see that the galss is half empty.
July 15th, 2006 at 8:20 pmComment by Vance — July 15, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
At least there is a glass.
Tell me, if you pour all the water out of the glass, is it empty? Or has it been filled with a different substance?
If you understand, you will know that the cup is always full.
I urge all to think peace right now. It couldn’t hurt, and it just might help.
July 15th, 2006 at 8:45 pmworld wide chaos – and look who’s leading the USA.
July 15th, 2006 at 8:49 pm“I think…that I don’t think…”
Voila! He’s saying NOTHING.
July 15th, 2006 at 9:26 pm“Not losing does not equate to winning.” it does in Bush world, where ignorance is celebrated.
July 15th, 2006 at 9:37 pmNot losing does not equate to winning.
Two things Spudge …
1) Our own Revolutionary War says differently. We never won … we just held off losing enough for the British to grow tired of dying and spending. This has been stated by General Washington himself.
2) Unfortunately … looking at the above, the terrorists in Iraq are in a very similar situation. They don’t have to win militarily per se, but not lose long enough for us to tire. Vietnam speaks directly to this. I’m not sure any country could defeat the US militarily if we waged a war of attrition. We, at least recently, lose the battle of wills and thus withdraw tired and disillusioned. Say what you want about Vietnam, but our withdrawal created a void filled by those who butchered millions. I don’t want to repeat that mistake in Iraq .. in spite of the mistakes already made. We have to win outright to “win” … the terrorists have to not lose (and they very much understand this fact). This is one reason why the military gets upset when they perceive the MSM not reporting about “successes” … the war for Iraq is waged as much in the hearts and minds of the US population as it is on the battlefield. We “lost” Vietnam when the public perceived that cause heinous and lost … the military withdraw was inevitable after that. I think Bush understood this long ago … I vividly remember him saying (almost ad naseum) that the “battle” would test “our resolve” and would be “long” (he said this long before we went into Iraq). I can remember thinking “it’ll never work, then … all of us will go back to life and we’ll want nothing to do with a protracted battle”. It appears I was right …. we’ll see.
- Cheers
July 15th, 2006 at 9:44 pmIt’s a slam-dunk in the green zone.
July 15th, 2006 at 9:48 pmGiacomo, you keep equating our revolution to the occupation of Iraq and their civil war. I really don’t understand how you can do this? Anybody with half a brain would not make this connection and even though you are thoroughly right wing you are not stupid. Stop the BS.
July 15th, 2006 at 9:53 pmGiacomo – We have to win outright to “winâ€
How do you do that against an enemy that will not surrender? The Shiites and Sunnis have been killing each other for centuries. They are driven by Islamic religious fanaticism. Now we have added our own Crusade, evangelical Christian fanaticism. If are in a war with religious fanatics on all three sides how do you win outright without committing genocide of at least two of the factions?
July 15th, 2006 at 10:02 pmGiacomo, you keep equating our revolution to the occupation of Iraq and their civil war. I really don’t understand how you can do this?
Did you actually read my post? I’m not equating them beyond what I said … the “patriots” only needed to not lose to win … this they did. That’s US history, so I’m not sure what your quarrel is.
Similarly, the terrorists in Iraq can “win” by avoiding losing over a sustained period of time … I’m not sure why this is BS to you. It’s what most of the miltary strategists are saying … there’s really nothing inflammatory in this concept … what gives? It’s an observation based upon the relative strengths of being indigenous … nothing more.
How do you do that against an enemy that will not surrender? The Shiites and Sunnis have been killing each other for centuries. They are driven by Islamic religious fanaticism. Now we have added our own Crusade, evangelical Christian fanaticism.
1) You make the life expectency of a terrorist as short as possible (I’m not being glib, just honest) and 2) you gain the trust and support of the people who don’t want the terrorists around. The centuries of death not withstanding, the people will have to decide if they want to govern themselves. I’m of the opinion that they do. I’m not sure if you know this, but saying “they’ve been killing each other for centuries”, while accurate, reduces the potential of an entire people to nothing more than the sum of their history … it’s dangerous to say such because it borders on dismissal by virtue of their supposed depravity … can you see that?
If we were in Iraq to convert them to Christianity, I could see your second point … but we’re not. Our country is no more “Christian” than a nation like Italy is … we have lots of Christians, but we aren’t defined nationally by any one faith (we did define ourselves by a “faith” in God (”endowed by their creator”) but not specifically Christianity). When I say we must win outright, I mean we can’t out-wait the terrorists. The above factors I listed must become reality … without them we’re mired forever. I’m not ready to say it’s hopeless just yet, because I see the people voting and I see their elected government doing everything it can to succeed.
July 15th, 2006 at 10:35 pmwhy does Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker hate America?
July 15th, 2006 at 10:40 pmSorry Giacomo, you are absolutely correct in saying that that. I apologize.
July 15th, 2006 at 10:45 pmSorry Giacomo, you are absolutely correct in saying that that. I apologize.
No worries …
July 15th, 2006 at 10:55 pmJust one problem Giaco , The USA is THE terrorist,
Shock and Awe-Terrorism
Torture-terrorism
US death squads -Terrorism
US trained death squads- Terrorism
Torture of women and children -Terrorism
Rape -Terrorism
Leveling entire cities- Terrorism
Bombing of civilian infrastructure-Terrorism
Inciting civil war-Terrorism
Wholesale unwarrranted arrests and imprisonment-Terrorism
Littering Iraq with lethal depleted Uranium-Terrorism
..and Lying the American People 24/7 into their own demise with FEAR-terrorism
Go back to sleep with all your right wing buddies,and I don’t mean to bed, back to your fearful sleepwalk.
July 15th, 2006 at 11:01 pm#8
“We “lost†Vietnam when the public perceived that cause heinous and lost … the military withdraw was inevitable after that.”
We lost that battle log before that. 550,000 troops went AWOL or decided not to report to duty. There were also underground newspapers being circulated on military bases made by the troops. When these troops got back into the populace and let the people know what was really going on, THEN the people rose up and protested.
Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening this time.
July 15th, 2006 at 11:01 pm#4…..Indeed
July 15th, 2006 at 11:02 pmIf we were, would we have had to ask?
July 15th, 2006 at 11:15 pmShock and Awe-Terrorism
Torture-terrorism
US death squads -Terrorism
US trained death squads- Terrorism
Torture of women and children -Terrorism
Rape -Terrorism
Leveling entire cities- Terrorism
Bombing of civilian infrastructure-Terrorism
Inciting civil war-Terrorism
Wholesale unwarrranted arrests and imprisonment-Terrorism
Littering Iraq with lethal depleted Uranium-Terrorism
Look … the assertion = truth concept is really tired. If you don’t have the moral clarity to see that your above comments are rubbish, nothing I say is going to change anything.
The odd part is NONE of the above items NEED to be true to honestly believe that Iraq was a mistake … only a foolish person inflates the trangressions of the object of their disdain to fulfill their own argument (not to mention the willful disregard of Al Qaeda’s behavior).
We lost that battle log before that. 550,000 troops went AWOL or decided not to report to duty.
That number’s a tad higher than I’ve heard … but the idea of your post is accurate. I’m not saying the loss of public support is the only cause, but I think a case could be made that loss of public support could influence military support (remember, there was a draft). As for “what was really going on” … I have some Vietnam vets in my family … they do not echo the crimes purported by others (they say it was the exception).
You’re right about it not happening this time … the lack of a draft is likely the cause. I think the public has a little clearer sense (on the whole) of why we’re in Iraq as well (at least compared to Vietnam) … Vietnam was highly, highly conceptual and out of touch for most Americans. Terrorism, while when connected to Iraq is similarly pilloried, is less vague post 9/11 than the communist “threat” ever was.
July 15th, 2006 at 11:22 pmGiacomo –
But the fight in Iraq is not with terrorists. but a sectarian civil war.
Especially since Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorists.
You do seem to be linking Iraq with terrorists. Are you ignorant of the factions behind the civil war? Or are you just repeating Republican talking points?
Patriot posted a list of State-Sponsored Terrorist acts, to which you replied:
Your “moral clarity” argument smacks of the evangelical Christian self-righteousness that is hell-bent on turning the United States into a theocracy.
Ah yes, “Nature’s God.” Jefferson’s beliefs were closer to contemporary paganism than mainstream Christianity of his day. The challenge is, there is a “Christian” sect that is the driving force behind “conservative Christians.” A sect that seeks to utilize the political process to force its concept of morality onto the rest of the country.
Your first factor is misplaced. It is using violence to end violence. When you make a “terrorist’s” life as short as possible, you create a martyr. And martyrs are powerful recruiters to their cause.
Your second point misses the mark as well. For to win outright, you must also gain the trust and support of those who currently support the terrorists. That is the true victory, and it cannot be won with force. Indeed, force causes the opposite effect.
Quite the opposite – it was a recognition of their tenacity. Your “win outright” statement was in the context of military victory. And a military victory is not possible short of genocide, or something damn close to it. Military might will not achieve victory in Iraq. It is necessary in the short run to instill a just rule of law, but that won’t happen until the peacekeeping forces are from the United Nations.
A victory will not occur until the Iraqi people are governed by a 1. just non-sectarian rule of law and 2. enjoy a reasonable socio-economic climate. Indeed, if just those two factors were granted to people world-wide, terrorists would lose much of their support.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:16 am“I think we’re closer to the beginning than we are to the end of all this.â€
Is he sure?
“What we call the beginning is often the end. And to make an end is to make a beginning. The end is where we start from.” T.S. Eliot.
I’m awfully confused now.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:26 am#4 – Briseadh na Faire,
July 16th, 2006 at 12:53 amThe analogy of the glass was clever. I only wish it were not true.
US is not winning anything in Iraq, and Bush has turned that nation into a cesspool of death and destruction, just like the Israelis are doing to Lebanon and Gaza now! Dubya is a fool!
July 16th, 2006 at 12:58 amComment by WaltTheMan — July 16, 2006 @ 12:53 am
Why do you wish so?
July 16th, 2006 at 1:02 amNot winning could mean anything, it could mean a draw…
The USA don’t want a draw! The USA want nothing less than complete victory, which is unlikely. Just give us an excuse to get out of there.
July 16th, 2006 at 1:58 amWe are at war with the terrorists is Iraq. We have always been at war with the terrorists in Iraq. We always will be at war with the terrorists in Iraq. – Big Brother
July 16th, 2006 at 2:06 amWinning? Winning what?
July 16th, 2006 at 2:18 amWell thats a relief…but do the insurgents know?
July 16th, 2006 at 2:47 amFrank Rich talks about the evils of not big government but virtual government. The man’s on a roll.
July 16th, 2006 at 5:59 am“Iraq’s salvation lies in letting it break apart
The partition of Iraq into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shi’ite areas is the only route to peace”
— Peter Galbraith, former US ambassador with a long involvement in policy on Iraq.
July 16, 2006
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2271755,00.html
“THERE IS NO MORE IRAQ. THERE WILL BE THREE TERRITORIES.”
– Henry Kissinger, unprosecuted warcriminal, briefing his Saudi clients in early 2004.
“The United States is building permanent airbases in Iraq,
and the United States has NO LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN STAYING IN IRAQ.”
– John Kerry, first debate, 2004
The plan has been PARTITION from the start. The PNAC plans to attack:
“(Iraq), Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Somalia” and Kissinger wants to partition Saudi Arabia.
The U.S. either retakes its political system and returns to the rule of law, not men — or prepare for the partition of the entire ME, into bleeding pieces that make GFH Bush, and his racist pals, laugh in their hoods.
Smirking Joe Lieberman, and Hillary Clinton, are championing this policy, because of their beilef in the AIPAC Amendment to the Constitution (”the U.S. must fight Israel’s enemies, and never criticize her actions”).
July 16th, 2006 at 6:12 amAmerica has lost in Iraq – Do you seriously think you can kill and rape them then nick there oil – get real – you have lost the hearts and souls of the Iraqi People – F**K OFF YOU MURDERING THIEFING BASTARDS
July 16th, 2006 at 8:14 amThinks…..or hopes?
July 16th, 2006 at 9:45 amAlright, I will admit I am puzzled about this. BushCo keeps saying that “As the Iraq people stand up, we will stand down.” Ok, but what are the chances of them ’standing up’, so we can leave, when, at the present time, they seem to be more dedicated to a ‘knocking down’, or ‘off’, if you prefer, ‘policy’. Shia killing Sunni, Sunni killing Shia, while the Kurds are doing… what ARE they doing? Clearly, the Sunnis and the Shiites don’t seem to understand what is expected of them by BushCo. Perhaps the new “Director of Lessons Learned’ could jot this one down, and look into it for ‘us’ (cough). BushCo should refocus on making sure that the Iraqi people are clear about what GWB has decided for them, and their future, as a ‘free country’, Bush-style. Perhaps something got ‘lost’ in translation? Couldn’t hurt to ask, it could save ‘innocent life’! Because that was the reason we invaded them, and continue to occupy them, only 3 short yeas later, with no end in sight! Because we wanted to HELP them! Yeah, a memory refresher would be good here, let’s do it, want too?
July 16th, 2006 at 9:52 amIs the U.S. winning in Iraq?
Nah, is more like “The U.S. is winning ennemies in Iraq!”
July 16th, 2006 at 10:42 amGIACOMO
Yeah, I heard that too, about the British just deciding it was not worth carrying on.
I read it on the AP wire. Where did you get it from?
I think that it speaks volumes when you Google “miserable failure” and up pops the name of our miserable president. At least someone is telling the truth, and it is not the people on the right.
July 16th, 2006 at 10:55 amI was against this immoral, empirialistic war from the beginning. History has proved, that it’s virtually impossible, to win the hearts and minds of any people, when you are dropping 500 pound bombs them.
July 16th, 2006 at 10:55 amThe U.S. is winning enemies in the entire Muslim world. Get the hell out of there!! But wait, they’re not leaving until at least 2016. http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog.php
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog.php
July 16th, 2006 at 10:56 amSee a CBO Iraq spending report that has a scenario keeping U.S. troops in Iraq throiugh 2016.
Only at SSA Blog
Stupid spin.
If you don’t win it you lose it. There’s no middle ground.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:10 amYou either achieve you objectives with a war or you don’t.
And the objective has changed more often in this war than Bush has flip-flopped on global warming. What exactly would be victory? Bush has no idea. His wingnut cohorts have no idea. And Schoomaker has no idea, either.
” When I say we must win outright, I mean we can’t out-wait the terrorists.”
The problem is that the vast majority of fighters in Iraq are not terrorists and especially not terrorists who would come here to blow you up.
They are Iraqi citizens who didn’t plot against you before the start of the Iraq war. The only reason why they started to fight is that the US military invaded their country — while killing a bunch of their countrymen in the process.
Terrorists, as they have been defined by the US State Department or the FBI, are the minority of fighting forces in Iraq. Most of them are Iraqi
nationalist (or patriots as wingnuts like to call those who love their country and hate foreigners who attack it) waging a classic guerilla war. They just can’t stand that the US military is occupying their country. That’s something people like you are unable to understand thinking that the US military has every right to be in Iraq simply because they are Americans.
The Iraqis have every right in the world to kill members of the occupying force, just like you would have every right to kill members of the Iraqi military if they happened to occupy Texas or New York or whatever part of the US.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:20 amBut the fight in Iraq is not with terrorists. but a sectarian civil war.
Are you saying that outside forces aren’t conspiring in Iraq to maintain upheaval? The civil war aspect is certainly apparant, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t external “terrorists” waging jihad … surely you concede this?
Your “moral clarity†argument smacks of the evangelical Christian self-righteousness that is hell-bent on turning the United States into a theocracy.
Theocracy? Are you absolutely serious? Do you know anything about a Republic? This is moronic scare mongering … the only attempts toward a theocracy are muslim derived … point your ire that direction and you’ll be accurate. The list that “patriot” created was pure fabrication … none of th items he/she listed are the “rules” we adhere to … none of them. Trying to strengthen one’s argument by demonizing the opposition is unnecessary. The lack of “moral clarity” is in play because “patriot” inflates the USAs mistakes to a sanctioned practice while ignoring the terrorists outright sadism … he/she argues against USA “terrorism” while avoiding purposeful and intentioned acts by Islamic fascists … thus, he/she has no grounding.
Jefferson’s beliefs were closer to contemporary paganism than mainstream Christianity of his day.
Doesn’t really concern me … he believed in God. Thus, he listed that “rights” are principally “rights” BECAUSE they are endowed by the Creator … thus beyond argument. That’s all I’m saying … his personal theology isn’t really a factor here (you are correct that he was no Christian).
Your first factor is misplaced. It is using violence to end violence. When you make a “terrorist’s†life as short as possible, you create a martyr. And martyrs are powerful recruiters to their cause.
I’m not sure where you learned that “violence doesn’t end violence”. That’s a nice platitude, but two world wars say otherwise. Violence isn’t the preferred means to end violence, but it is very much a language the violent understand. Martyrs are indeed powerful … but so is overwhelming force. Again, this isn’t preferable, but you’re wrong if you think a violent person can’t be shut down by stronger violence. I think what you missed is that my two points must occur in conjunction … wholesale slaughter of terrorists without winning the loyalty of the majority of the populace wouldn’t work at all. Both must be accomplished. Neither is enough on their own.
Your second point misses the mark as well. For to win outright, you must also gain the trust and support of those who currently support the terrorists.
That’s a part of what I was trying to say … I didn’t make it clear.
Quite the opposite – it was a recognition of their tenacity. Your “win outright†statement was in the context of military victory. And a military victory is not possible short of genocide, or something damn close to it. Military might will not achieve victory in Iraq.
Recognizing tenacity might make it sound better, but it still amounts to possibility = the sum of one’s history. This is borderline racism … tenuous ground. In “wars” such as these, you are correct. Military “wins” are not possible … we win by gaining the loyalty of those we purport to be fighting for. This why we’re building schools, hospitals, etc. … takes time though (and the sadistic morons within the ranks aren’t helping).
A victory will not occur until the Iraqi people are governed by a 1. just non-sectarian rule of law and 2. enjoy a reasonable socio-economic climate. Indeed, if just those two factors were granted to people world-wide, terrorists would lose much of their support.
I agree and so do most military strategists … getting there requires our support long enough to make these items so.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:21 amYou do realize that by using this comparison, you are saying the Iraqi insurgents are just like the Revolutionary War insurgents (us). That would mean that you are calling the insurgents in Iraq “freedom fighters.” Don’t let your other right wingers hear you say that or you will get treated like a dirty liberal.
Then Bush should have:
1) Never gotten the US tied up in a losing war by providing too few troops and weapons, so we migh thave a chance to win.
2) Should have listened to his military commanders and sent more troops and weapons.
3) Must start a draft, so that right wing chicken hawks get to participate in the war they want so bad and so we have enough troops to send over.
If George Bush announced tomorrow that he was reinstating the draft, two things would happen. Everybody at Think Progress would say “We told you so” including me, but I would have a little more respect for him, because it would mean he is listening to the military leaders finally.
To win the war in Iraq we have to have at least 250,000 troops there, with the latest gear. Otherwise it will just be another Veitnam or worse.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:32 amOh and Giacomo. This part right here is complete and utter bullshit. Bush and friends were preaching about how short it would be before the war. DO you not remember Donald Rumsfeld’s “six days, six weeks, but definitely not six months” statement? Everybody else in the world does. Why? Becuae he is the Secretary of Defense, which means he is in charge of the military and his word is what everybody goes by.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:36 amThe Sunnis and Shia will band together sooner or later to kill the infidels, then they will go back to fighting amungst themselves once they have dispatched the Crusader who are only trying to recover the wood that the cross was built from. This would was lost in the 1100s and the Christian Crusaders have been after it and Jerusalem ever sense.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:40 amThe problem is that the vast majority of fighters in Iraq are not terrorists and especially not terrorists who would come here to blow you up. They are Iraqi citizens who didn’t plot against you before the start of the Iraq war …. They just can’t stand that the US military is occupying their country … That’s something people like you are unable to understand thinking that the US military has every right to be in Iraq simply because they are Americans.
I realize that the argument for withdrawing now is stronger if this were the case, but it isn’t. The “terrorists” are not simply akin to our Revolutionary war “loyalists”. You do realize that there are many (the military asserts that, of the terrorists captured, it’s the strong majority) from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Syria, Jordan and Pakistan.
If they are just trying to oust the US, how do you account for the targetting of civilians as a tactic? Could it be that outside forces are trying to start a Civil War (but have thus far failed). How do you account for the high voter turnout and how do you account for threats of violence on those that vote. You do realize that the “loyalists” are now fighting against a democratically elected government, don’t you … that’s not insignificant if you are trying to legitimize their terrorism. It’s not that they can’t stand “the US in their country” … it’s that they can’t stand a free and liberal society in their country … ALL of us should understand this.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:46 amYou do realize that by using this comparison, you are saying the Iraqi insurgents are just like the Revolutionary War insurgents (us). That would mean that you are calling the insurgents in Iraq “freedom fighters.â€
Well … I made the connection, didn’t I? The comparison was made to discuss the difficulties of a war against an indiginous population … especially one that is willing to wage asymetrically (which the US “patriots” largely did not do). That’s where the similarities end, as far as I’m concerned.
Then Bush should have:
1) Never gotten the US tied up in a losing war by providing too few troops and weapons, so we migh thave a chance to win.
2) Should have listened to his military commanders and sent more troops and weapons.
3) Must start a draft, so that right wing chicken hawks get to participate in the war they want so bad and so we have enough troops to send over.
I think you might be missing part of the “not enough troops” aspect.
1) Military strategy is similar to “corporate strategy” … tons of experts. Not one “right” way (although often there is a “best” way_
2) One school of thought is that troop levels must be high enough to stop insurgency, but not so large as to appear to be an invasion by those we wish to “win over”. This line is very fluid, but makes logical sense. Too many troops means we lose 1 part of the 2 step process I listed in a previous post (and the most important one … the “hearts and minds”).
3) There won’t be a draft any time soon … the entire “chicken hawk” argument is patently unfair. I can care about the environment and not join greenpeace. I can call for less crime and not join the ranks of the police. We each do what we can where we can … this doesn’t mean support is only validated on the front line. You’re way smarter than that “hawk” argument.
To win the war in Iraq we have to have at least 250,000 troops there, with the latest gear. Otherwise it will just be another Veitnam or worse.
As I said, this appears to be the case as far as I’m concerned, but my West-Point graduate friend says I’m an idiot. He understands the theory of it far better than I … my point to him, if we can’t stop the insurgents, we can’t win over the people. He agreed, but says troop levels are 1 factor out of 100 … and the grunts tend to get “themselves into trouble” (his words).
Oh and Giacomo. This part right here is complete and utter bullshit. Bush and friends were preaching about how short it would be before the war.
C’mon Spudge … I specifically mentioned that Bush’s comments were way before Iraq … years before. And I’m reporting to you what I REMEMBER him saying … I also remember what you’re referring to, but that’s not what I was talking about.
As I said earlier, I vividly remember thinking … “no way do Americans have the stomach for a war against terrorism that’s drawn out”. I’m not sure why you’re arguing against my own memory … I’ll try and Google Bush’s comments … they were likely said in late 2001.
Here’s one of the speeches … December 2001
Our country is united in supporting a great cause — and in supporting those who fight for it. We will give our men and women in uniform every resource, every weapon, every tool they need to win the long battle that lies ahead.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011211-6.html
Here’s another … September 2001
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.
http://www.september11news.com/PresidentBushSpeech.htm
That’s what I was referring to …
July 16th, 2006 at 12:07 pmHe must mean the “beginning of spending another 400 billion”…
This will go down as the biggest fleece in world history.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:09 pm# 44 Spudge:
You are absolutely correct.They only say they said it was going to be a long war when trying to confuse us with the ‘war on terror’.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:15 pmThe administration (Andrew Natsios)said Iraq would only cost @ 2 billion.
Schoomaker reminds mw of westy(GEN William C. Westmoreland) talking about how the situation in Vietnam was turning around in our favor. To me, it looks like we are “winning” in Iraq pretty much the same way that we “won” in Vietnam. Deja vu all over.“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it”–Santayana.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:19 pmGiacomo:
You don’t really believe that election(Iraq)success bullshit do you? That was all smoke and mirrors propaganda.I clearly remember the empty polling places(1st election),then being told how the masses showed up to vote.Never added up to me.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:28 pmAnd you talk about outsiders helping the insurgents;we had the French,who wanted to humiliate Britian any way they could.Same with Iraq’s outsiders.
You don’t really believe that election(Iraq)success bullshit do you? That was all smoke and mirrors propaganda.I clearly remember the empty polling places(1st election),then being told how the masses showed up to vote.Never added up to me.
I guess you were there to witness the empty polling places? I wasn’t there either, but, as I said, I have a friend who was. Is there anything that you do believe or is it if it doesn’t fit into what you already think, you’ll dismiss it as a conspiracy?
And you talk about outsiders helping the insurgents;we had the French,who wanted to humiliate Britian any way they could.Same with Iraq’s outsiders.
Yes, we did. Not sure your point though. Are you comparing our fight for freedom with the terrorist fight against it? Surely, you’re not blind to this reality?
July 16th, 2006 at 12:41 pm