Posted on 11/08/2006 6:35:06 AM PST by flixxx
THIS ONE IS PRETTY EASY TO EXPLAIN. Republicans lost the House and probably the Senate because of Iraq, corruption, and a record of taking up big issues and then doing nothing on them. Of these, the war was by far the biggest factor. Unpopular wars trump good economies and everything else. President Truman learned this in 1952, as did President Johnson in 1968. Now, it was President Bush's turn, and since his name wasn't on the ballot, his party took the hit.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
Yeh, the President is certainly moving right with the removal of Rumsfield.
"I honestly don't understand how people could put pelosi in power unless they just don't know her or what she really stands for."
Nancy Pelosi does not matter. Even Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not matter.
For the next two years we will be treated to a constant barrage of "Impeach Bush" rallies, complete with Special prosecutors, selective leaks to the New York Times, subpeonas flying everywhere. The end result is that Nancy Pelosi will get nothing done; she will spend all of her time on witch hunts and none of it on advancing anything that even smells like an agenda.
In addition, the "Hillary 2008" camp will not allow Pelosi to rock the boat all that much. What Hillary will require in order to gain the White House is a humming economy, relative peace, and no issues that will bring the red-meat republicans out in force. The second Nancy Pelosi does anything to upset that state of affairs, she will be hammered right back into place, forthwith, and without so much as a how'd-ya-do.
Console yourself with this thought: though the sun seems to have sunk below the hills today, you need not fear the night. NOTHING will get done in the next two years, and in the meantime, Republicans had beeter start worrying not about their opponents, but about THEMSELVES. We lost not because the 'other side' was an attractive option, but because we made ourselves so unattractive.
Hmmm. 26 years in the House, and I've never heard of him. Quite the firebrand, I guess.
I KNEW what the Republicans needed was more immigration! hahaha!
"Barring some unforeseen development, 2006 will mark the second straight year that US casualties have declined. You won't read that in the MSM anywhere."
Spoken like a graduate of the "McNamarra/Rumsfeld War College".
Wars are not won by statistics; they are won by the application of relentless, destructive power by your military machine and the practical demonstration that your system is superior to the other guy's.
If you don't fight wars in this way, you will lose.
If you fight wars with one eye on casulaty counts and the other on press releases, you will lose.
If you fight with one hand tied behind your back (in this case, Iraqi's who's first loyalty is to tribe, sect or scumbag-du-jour masquerading as Today's Savior, in other words, unreliable allies) then you will lose.
If you allow your enemies to not only survive, but to prosper (see Usama Bin Hidin', Al-Sadr, et. al.), you will lose.
If your goal is to promote your system without making the preparations to ensure that your system will take root (i.e. holding elections when democracy and the public/private institutions which form it's foundations, don't exist as even abstract notions), then you will lose.
The goal of this war, from Day One, should have been the complete and total destruction of Ba'athist Iraq, returning it to it's natural,pristine, desert state, erasing any visible sign of the "Old Order", ensuring that the "Iraqi people" (an artificial construct to begin with) were reduced to pre-Stick Age living conditions and under such incredible suffering that resort to Islam, Ba'athism, Pan-Arabism, and a whole host of other "-ism's" were all equally unattractive options in which no one had the slightest confidence. Or the ability to advance.
THAT is war. Not "how many did we lose this month as opposed to last month, or six months ago".
The fact remains that the rush to pass responsibility off to the Iraqis, the indecent haste in which a "Hearts and Minds" campaign was begun before the shooting stopped, coupled with a cake-walk-three-week-bumrush on Baghdad (the Iraqi army can only fight those weaker than themsleves or totally unarmed peasants) blinded those in power to a universal truth; Wars are not won by guys in White Hats running a Public-relations campaign. They are won by the application of brute force.
But of course, Rumsfeld had all that 'Vietnamization' experience behind him, so it's easy to see why he wasn't up to the task. What puzzles me is why GWB didn't realize it a year or two ago. Apparently, the only message that gets through is electoral defeat.
Managing perception (spin) is a problem, both at the local and national levels. But even if we had managed the release of information better , the party doesn't control the folks who deliver the information to the eyes and ears of voters. Had we done a better job of making lemonade, I'm sure the media would have STILL found a way of making it lemons again. Many voters all drink from the same poisoned well. I'll throw in some more worthless analogies later.
Stacy, after 20 years on Wall Street, I can PROMISE you, perception IS EVERYTHING. Truth is merely an often inconvenient reality that somehow manages to find it's way into the real world.
What I was trying to point out is that it is possible to have both truth and perception on your side. When you have one but not the other, or in this case, neither, you will ultimately fail.
The perception was that republicans would rein in fed spending, protect the country, operate efficiently and could be counted upon to actually live by their favorite operative words -- responsibility, fairness, law-and-order, national security, morality, conservatism. The truth is that they haven't.
People could forgive Bill Clinton, for example, of all sorts of immorality and illegality, because he never claimed to be a paragon of virtue, and so long as their 401(k)'s kept growing, they could forgive him just about any sin in the book. They knew he was a rascal, he never hid from that appellation, either. The reverse is not so for the folks who promise to be the grown-ups and above reproach.
Had republicans had "the other guys will get you blown up" (a truth), without a positive perception (the War is going well), otherwise they might have survived despite their other obvious faults. Apply this to your pet peeve of the day vis-a-vis republicans and see if it doesn't ring true for you.
I agree...let's blame the VOTERS...not the politicians that totally demorilized the voters by their lack of commitment to conservative ideas and principles! No...CAN'T do that...it's certainly NOT the leadership's fault that they let the base down constantly.
Yep...it's the VOTERS fault! The VOTERS are supposed to vote for the GOP regardless of how many times the GOP leadership stabs the base in the back and spits in their faces. Guess the GOP forgot to give the memo to the voters.
I don't disagree with that. We removed Saddam and defeated his military using a preponderance of force. We won the war against Iraq.
If you fight wars with one eye on casulaty counts and the other on press releases, you will lose.
Precisely, which was one reason why we lost in Vietnam. It is the MSM/Dems that keep track of American casualties in Iraq and note milestones.
If you fight with one hand tied behind your back (in this case, Iraqi's who's first loyalty is to tribe, sect or scumbag-du-jour masquerading as Today's Savior, in other words, unreliable allies) then you will lose.
War is just an extension of politics. We are not fighting in Iraq against AQ and the insurgents with "one hand tied behnd your back." We are working with the democratically elected government of Iraq, a sovereign country, to maintain security and stability. We are not occupiers and our presence there is at the sufference of the Iraqi government.
If you allow your enemies to not only survive, but to prosper (see Usama Bin Hidin', Al-Sadr, et. al.), you will lose.
I agree, which is why I said that was our big mistake initially. The Iraqi government is now coming around to that conclusion.
If your goal is to promote your system without making the preparations to ensure that your system will take root (i.e. holding elections when democracy and the public/private institutions which form it's foundations, don't exist as even abstract notions), then you will lose.
We have been working with the Iraqis from the very beginning to set up their government institutions. I know personally several people who went there as advisers to the various Iraqi ministries to set up the organizational structure. I don't know what other preparations you are talking about. Provide some specific examples of what you mean. FYI: Iraq had elections under Saddam, but he won 100 percent of the vote. There was a parliament, court system. etc.
The goal of this war, from Day One, should have been the complete and total destruction of Ba'athist Iraq, returning it to it's natural,pristine, desert state, erasing any visible sign of the "Old Order", ensuring that the "Iraqi people" (an artificial construct to begin with) were reduced to pre-Stick Age living conditions and under such incredible suffering that resort to Islam, Ba'athism, Pan-Arabism, and a whole host of other "-ism's" were all equally unattractive options in which no one had the slightest confidence. Or the ability to advance.
Now you are being silly. Instead of Wombat, you should be called dingbat. And who would be responsible for providing for these people you have just dispatched to the Stone Age? What would be the international ramifications? Do you believe that the UK, Italy, or Spain would have ever agreed to be a partner to such a policy? Nonsense. Be realistic.
The fact remains that the rush to pass responsibility off to the Iraqis, the indecent haste in which a "Hearts and Minds" campaign was begun before the shooting stopped, coupled with a cake-walk-three-week-bumrush on Baghdad (the Iraqi army can only fight those weaker than themsleves or totally unarmed peasants) blinded those in power to a universal truth; Wars are not won by guys in White Hats running a Public-relations campaign. They are won by the application of brute force. .
That was the problem. We didn't pass off responsibillity sooner like we did in Afghanistan. We had a deBaathification program that actually delayed the assumption of power by the Iraqis. Bremer should have been there in charge of the CPA for a few months not a year.
But of course, Rumsfeld had all that 'Vietnamization' experience behind him, so it's easy to see why he wasn't up to the task. What puzzles me is why GWB didn't realize it a year or two ago. Apparently, the only message that gets through is electoral defeat.
What did Rumsfeld have to do with Vietnamization policy? In pont of fact, Vietnamization worked. The South Vietnamese fought on for almost two years after the last of our combat troops left. The US Congress cut funding to the South sealing their fate and the NVA violated the Paris Truce Agreement by invading. A sad chapter in our history that put millions into reeducation camps, tens of thousands murdered, hundreds of thousands of refugees including boat people, and millions of Vietnamese condemned to the oppression of a Communist government to this very day. Hopefully, we woh't repeat that regretable act again with the Iraqi people.
" don't disagree with that. We removed Saddam and defeated his military using a preponderance of force. We won the war against Iraq."
You did disagree with that when you quoted that "we lost fewer men this year than last" nonsense. So, we beat the Iraqi army --it means nothing since the goal is to beat MILITANT ISLAM and replace it as a viable alternative with representational, liberal democracy. We have, in effect, won a battle (against an army that couldn't pour p*ss out of a boot, with instructions on the heel), but are losing the war (we have not made militant Islam an unattractive option for millions of Iraqis).
The insurgency is not only driven by various splits within Iraqi society; it is also driven by differing interpretations of the Koran. When the Koran is finally shown to be useless as the foundation for a stable, prosperous society, we will have won. Not before.
"War is just an extension of politics. We are not fighting in Iraq against AQ and the insurgents with "one hand tied behnd your back." We are working with the democratically elected government of Iraq, a sovereign country, to maintain security and stability. We are not occupiers and our presence there is at the sufference of the Iraqi government."
War IS NOT "just an extention of politics". Clauswitz was DEAD WRONG in this assumption, and those who continue to spout this as some sort of universal truism are even more incorrect.
We most certainly are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs; we didn't finish the job before we ran headlong into full-blown public relations mode. You can label the government in Iraq "democratically elected" but so what? It's backsliding; it has now announced that it will reconcile with it's former enemies (the Saddamloyalists will now get their jobs back) and Al Sadr has been elevated to "serious politician" from "just another mullah with a big mouth and riflemen". As for "stability" you assume, along with Brent Scowcroft, Howard Baker and a bunch of others, that "stability" is some sort of Holy Grail. How "stable" was Iraq under a madman? How "stable" is a Middle East where the ONLY unifying force is a murderous philosophy masquerading as a religion? If that's "stability" then why did we invade Iraq in the first place?
Stability for stability's sake is no stability at all. Stability in which the people who mean to kill us or pull us down to their level, are included in a'democrac tically elected' government, armed and funded by our tax dollars is no guarentee of stability at all.
"We have been working with the Iraqis from the very beginning to set up their government institutions."
The institutions must exist or democracy cannot. And we I say "institutions" I don't mean the post office, the employment office, the mint or the national archives. I mean institutions like respect for the law, the belief that all human beings have rights and are worthy of respect, where private property is respected, where free-market capitalism works it's magic, where religious authority is NOT the final arbiter of all things, where free scientific and poilitical inquiry are allowed and where rational secularism flourishes.
THOSE are the institutions that have to be established before democrcay has any sort of chance, purple fingers notwithstanding.
"Now you are being silly. Instead of Wombat, you should be called dingbat."
Last time I looked, the other two ideologies which most closely mimic Islamofascism (Nazism, Japanese militarism) no longer exist. They no longer exist because both systems were confronted head on and shoved off the battlefield by the relentless pressure of an unbridled military machine, willing to kill people and break things, and lay waste to entire cities.
"And who would be responsible for providing for these people you have just dispatched to the Stone Age? What would be the international ramifications? Do you believe that the UK, Italy, or Spain would have ever agreed to be a partner to such a policy? Nonsense. Be realistic."
Realistically Spain, and Italy (and by extention, the greater bulk of the EU and other world opinion) don't matter. The UK (Tony Blair) helped bring us to this state of affairs, and the Italians and Spanish ceeded any moral authority on the subject of terrorism a long time ago (the French couldn't even SPELL morality, if you put a gun to their heads). Am I happy that the Brits, Aussies, Japanese and Poles are in our foxhole? Hell yes. Am I happy about having to take their sensibilities into consideration that means my soldiers, Airmen and Marines have to shoulder a heavier burden because they refuse to arm or fight, or because they pay more attention to their more radical elements than we do? Hell no.
As for how do we resurrect Iraq after the devestation; they sit on the world's third-largest known reserves of oil. Let them pay for it.
"In pont of fact, Vietnamization worked."
Which is why there is a free-market,liberal democacy in Southeast Asia, with it's capitol in Saigon, right?. The truth is that Vietnamization failed because the South Veitnamese had no confidence at all in a government that was corrupt, weak and propped up solely by American power and treasure. They had no democratic tradion or knowledge. Just like the "democracy" in Iraq. As to what Rumsfeld had to do with that, he was Asst. Sec, Def under Nixon, who implemented the Vietnamization policy, which led to the disaster of Saigon circa 1975. We HAVE BEEN repeating the disater with the Iraqis (see all that stuff I wrote about democratic insitutions above). The South Vietnamese had no confidence and no history of democracy, and so they failed to fight for it,particularly when the NV Communists seemed to offer a whole lot more to the common man.
In this instance, we cannot expect Iraqis, with very little experience of,or confidence in, "democracy" (which is called such solely because people "voted" for it, without understanding exactly what it is, and with a very little choice in the matter -- what were they going to do? Vote for Saddam to come back?) to do what the Vietnamese were not. It is not enough to have the visible signs of democracy (polls, government agencies, an army, etc) without instructing people in the subtleties and peculiarities of democracy, and then call it such.
Hey, I'm ready for a President Hillary. Are you?
Pretty doggone good analysis.
Which analysis were you referring to? I've made about four of them in this post...lol
Barnes is delusional if he thinks passing 'comprehensive' (i.e. amnesty plus massive increases in legal immigration) would have helped the GOP fare any better. There is not a single lose Senate seat where it would have helped, and it would have probably resulted in more lost House seats. If its true that the base did turn out for the most part, and the losses were instead due to a lop-sided loss among Indepedents, then again, passage of the McKennedy bill would have only made matters worse by depressing the base. And there is no way that independents broke Democratic over a lack of amnesty.
The Graf seat was a pro-amnesty seat, and it remains one. The Hayworth loss was bad, but its probably a safe bet that if not for those other things Barnes mentioned -- Iraq, corruption scandals -- then Hayworth would have won.
Its one thing for a conservative to hold leftwing views on immigration -- as Barnes does -- but its insulting when they try and tell us that adopting those liberal views will help in the ballot box. Belief in never-ending mass immigration seems to border on the religious for Barnes and WSJ-types. Maybe it is this zeal that explains how an otherwise intelligent person like Barnes fails to realize that if illegals are given a path to citizenship, and if more legal immigration is allowed, then it will result in huge net gains for the Democrats in voters; more so obviously than those already taking place with current large-scale legal immigration.
The good one at 144.
I'm another one that's been Roved out and I saw nothing spectacular - just skin of the teeth stuff. Rant off
Won't happen. He's on cruise to beef up his popularity before retiring in Crawford. Rush summed it up pretty well today.
Me too. What a great post! Got any more insights?
Didn't listen. If Bush doesn't stand against Democrat crap, then my disgust meter is going to explode.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.