Say Anything Blog

Why not tell this to Harry ‘Hands Up’ Reid and Hillary Clinton as BOTH have already surrendered!

So our objective to establish a place where the people of Iraq can stand up and govern themselves has been an abject failure to this point then?  Or have we simply moved the goalposts and decided that simply lowering the level of violence in the country is what now defines a “success”?

Abject failure?  This isn’t an argument you can win by defining terms, Jay.

The mission in Iraq is a process, and the objective is a stable, representative, self-sufficient Iraqi government.  That we haven’t reached that yet doesn’t mean the mission is an “abject failure,” it means we aren’t done yet.

I don’t remember anyone putting time limits on the mission when we started the war, and it’s certainly not fair for you to conveniently implement them now because it’s advantageous to your particular political outlook.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Jay,

What is the record (shortest duration) for putting down an insurrection and leaving a stable government behind?

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

I don’t remember anyone putting time limits on the mission when we started the war, and it’s certainly not fair for you to conveniently implement them now because it’s advantageous to your particular political outlook.

First, there weren’t “time tables” to begin with, however, I distincly remember assurances from proponents that it would be much shorter than it has been, and it would cost drastically less.  And while you seem to be satisfied with the open-ended, ambiguous success point as being simply when the administration declares this “stable, representative, self-sufficient Iraqi government” is in place, I am not.  When is this supposed to occur?  They obviously aren’t any closer to doing so than they were the last time we asked.  And considering this was the intial “mission” and barometer of success for the “surge” (before it was changed to “decreasing violence") I’d say we’re no closer than we were before when the arguments against a troop pullout were that it would cause civil war. 

Second, it’s no more convenient for me to implement said time tables now than it is for the war proponents to change the “mission” objectives to suit the current trend.  The original “mission” and the accompanying lead up to the war had NOTHING to do with establishing is “a stable, representative, self-sufficient Iraqi government.” It originally had to do with finding the dangerous toys, and linking their leader to them, remember.  But when we captured that guy, but the former didn’t occur and the roses weren’t laid out at our soldiers’ feet, the objectives began to change.  And now, through convenient political metamorphosis, we’ve ended up with this objective, which obviously hasn’t been attained and, based on the progress we’ve seen so far and by the statements of the GOP’s own candidate, may not be reached in my lifetime.

The proponents of the war always rail about “artificial timelines” from the left.  But they refuse to accept the fact that the exact opposite, the “we’re there when we get there” type explanation that they keep giving, isn’t going to cut it either. 

It’s amazing to me how the war proponents can take an article like this...one that essentially says that despite being there for 5 years and losing numerous lives, that the Iraqi government is no closer to policing itself than it was before...and somehow use it to bolster their argument to REMAIN in Iraq.  And all this from fiscal conservatives who know it’s costing us a cool 12 billion a month to do it.

I distincly remember assurances from proponents that it would be much shorter than it has been, and it would cost drastically less.

I think you’re remember left-wing talking points.  I remember my President telling me that it was going to be a long, hard slog.

And while you seem to be satisfied with the open-ended, ambiguous success point as being simply when the administration declares this “stable, representative, self-sufficient Iraqi government” is in place, I am not.

Well we aren’t going to agree on everything, but thankfully this is a democracy and you’re in the minority.

They obviously aren’t any closer to doing so than they were the last time we asked.

And what basis do you have for saying this?  Political progress in Iraq is slow, to be sure, but they have made significant progress in uniting the country.  Just because this is inconvenient for your politics doesn’t make it any less true.

Second, it’s no more convenient for me to implement said time tables now than it is for the war proponents to change the “mission” objectives to suit the current trend.

I’d really like to know what mission objectives have been changed.  If, as you suggest repeatedly, mission objectives in Iraq had been changed to merely stopping the violence would President Bush not be pulling out troops now and not giving speeches rededicating himself to the cause he’s support all along: A stable and self-sufficient Iraq?

Honestly, I see little factual analysis going on in your rant here.  Rather than thinking about the Iraq you seem merely content to be angry about it, and to make facile points based on nothing but misinterpretation and obfuscation.

In short, it’s hard to take criticism like this seriously.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

President telling me that it was going to be a long, hard slog.

And I remember the Vice President saying “Six days, six weeks, I doubt six months.” Were they not on the same page or were they trying to sell the war?

Hawk,

Do you also remember that WWII ended 63 years ago?  You’ll notice that we still have a noteworthy presence in Japan (Okinawa) and Germany?  Do you also remember that Korea went into a cease fire nearly 55 years ago?  Note the presence there of our troops as well.

Perhaps you would care to answer the question Jay ran away from: “What is the record (shortest duration) for putting down an insurrection and leaving a stable government behind?”

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

Perhaps you would care to answer the question Jay ran away from: “What is the record (shortest duration) for putting down an insurrection and leaving a stable government behind?”

US
Civil war was done in four.

Hawk,

That was a conventional war (albeit a civil war) vice an insurgency.  Guess again.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

That was a conventional war (albeit a civil war) vice an insurgency.

An insurgency is an armed uprising against a civil or political authority.  US Civil War was an insurgency, a very large one.  What you are really asking is when has an occupying force been able to accomplish establishing a stable government.

Hawk,

I see you’re struggling here, so I’ll narrow it down for you.  Post 19th Century, what guerrilla style insurgency was defeated by the existing government they sought to overthrow in the shortest duration?

Note also the Vietnam was NOT a triumph of an insurgency.  That insurgency was slaughtered during Tet, and when South Vietnam finally fell, it was to the second conventional invasion by the North after U. S. forces had left the country.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

30 years, the British in Malaysia.  Not sure I want to wait that long.

Hawk,

Actually, the British and Commonwealth troops were withdrawn after about 10 to 12 years, with the remainder being handled by the Government of Malaysia.

Whether you want to wait that long or not matters not in the least; 10 years is the historical minimum expectation.  We, you should note, are at the five year mark in Iraq (less, since the insurgency didn’t really kick in for about a year after Saddam’s fall).  We may very well set a new record.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”