Posted on 12/07/2006 5:45:08 AM PST by SJackson
theory of the thing is very peculiar indeed. You are in the middle of a war -- a hard war, a war that is going badly. If the government has bogged down, if the people inside have gone stale, you would say that the sound thing, the Churchillian or Lincolnian or Rooseveltian thing, would be, first, to fire a bunch of officials (generals as well as top civilians), promote or bring in fresh talent, and put together a small group of people to take a new and unillusioned look. Those people would report back in secrecy to the president and his most senior advisers and aides.
They would consist of experienced soldiers and civilians in whom the president (who, after all, has to make the strategic decisions, and is the accountable executive) has trust. There would not be many of them, a half dozen or so, and they would have to be hardy enough to visit the war zone for several weeks, talking not just to politicians and generals but to captains and sergeants. They would go see things for themselves. They would visit a forward operating base near Tikrit; they would spend some time with Iraqi soldiers in Taji; they would take their chances in a convoy to al Asad, or even a patrol in Tal Afar.
They -- not their staff of a few soldiers and secretaries -- would do the probing, digging, thinking, discussing and, above all, the writing. The chairman of the group would insist that they air their disagreements candidly and thoroughly in front of the president, engaging in a debate that might last a day, perhaps longer. The rest of us would not find out about the panel until months, or even years, after it reported back; maybe not until the war was over.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Look, winning militarily, and winning the propaganda and political battle are different. We as a nation have demonstrated we don't have the will to fight, so we LOOSE the propaganda and political fight. And there will be hell to pay for this for decades. No one needs to take our threats seriously. I would be very afraid if I were an Ally depending on us right now.....
"so we LOOSE the propaganda and political fight."
So very much agree with you. Most think this is a "diplomatic" or "military" fight, well, it isn't and never has been.
Those Islamists are and have been far ahead of us in both propaganda and political fight, because they understand the dimensions of the war and fight us not only on our terms but their own. They know that "militarily" they wouldn't stand a chance, at least not at present.
Pls see Post #21 & 22.
Thanks for ping.
Something else to clarify after re-reading my previous post #22: I think the Islamists will only be defeated by “force”. However, in the case of Iran, for example, I believe “force” has more than “military” meaning. They should be fought on multiple levels, which include “force” through political and propaganda means. After all, this is largely a war of ideologies and military force should not be used in isolation.
Diplomacy alone has a separte definition. As Reza Pahlavi says: "Washington now underwrites tyranny by diplomacy in Iran." Whatever one may think of him, I believe he has a point there.
http://www.rezapahlavi.org/articles/?english&id=46
Nah Congress as it was
Ahhhh..........the authorative words of an illiterate.
You really need to start paying attention to who is doing what. If you think President Bush has 'collapsed' you are out of touch with reality.
THESE are the 'experts' that Congress came up with to evaluate the war (with not one military rep at all).
The commission COULD have been put together by Phyllis Diller. It's a joke that's not funny.
Anyone who thinks Bush has collapsed and the Iraq War is a failure is relying solely on the MSM for information.
TRUTH is a beautiful thing.........and I thank you for it!
We're not winning the peace.
1. Muqtada al-Sadr should have been shot 3 years ago the first time he caused trouble. The military wanted to but Bremer put the stops on that.
2. Fallujah should have been taken down immediately. The delay embolded the enemy.
3. Iran and Syria are safe havens for building, training and supplying the terrorists in Iraq. Our failure to confront Iran is currently the biggest problem. Bush may be doing stuff behind the scenes, but if he communicated the problems to us better, support would be better. I'm not sure he's acklowedged publicially of Iran's involvement.
4. He shouldn't have forced Israel to stop its war on Hezbollah.
5. He brought in a Baker-lakey as Secretary of Defense
6. On the domestic front, he seemed happy the Dems won so he could past his amnesty plan.
Your final sentiment is well founded. Find out where the Mosques are and keep yer powder dry, it may come down to exactly what you are suggesting.
BTW, anybody who doubts the dedication of the troops in the field to the cause for which they're fighting...just ask how many are re-enlisting in-country to continue the mission. Find out if the military is meeting it's recruiting goals. They are despite the msm trying to assert otherwise.
The citizens of the United States need to pay attention to this fact and get out of the way so the armed forces can do their job and come home. That's all they want. They do NOT want a bunch of granola crunching Libs from California or New York crying and whining about the evils of war!
He said that there's purposefully no one on the committee that would be able challenge Baker's "knowledge" of and his long-time "expertise" on the Middle East.
It's not bad being on a jackass study committee if you own the only jackass.
Leni
That makes sense.
I'm sorry if this is an ignorant question, but did Baker handpick the entire committee?
The fact that no one on the committee knows anything lends credence to the theory that Baker's ego led to selecting only morons so that he could get his way.
(The other possibility is that Phyllis Diller DID select the committee...... :)
It is my understanding that Baker and Hamilton both picked the rest of the committee...i am wondering if they also picked the subcommittee....
You and I are both curious!!! Very curious! Personally, I think that it might follow Churchill's old adage:
"In war, the truth needs a bodyguard of lies"
And what those lies were were kept very close. Churchill didn't reveal them to every Member of Parliment, or to all his Generals - the lies, and the truth, were very closely held. Thats why we won!
#21, 22, 23.
Points well taken, BUT, this war on the muzzies isn't nearly over yet.
Look at the Battlefield and ask yourselves how-in-hell did we get a HUGE ARMY right smack in the centre of all the muzzie oil?
Take a look at all the Maps of that region. We're there!
G.W.B. may be playin'-possum now, but not for long. Diplomacy is useless with Islam, and we know it.
When the talkin' is over, the killing will begin..................FRegards
You don't know what you are talking about. Here, General Franks is somebody who does:
Gen. Franks:I don't think so, Joe.... think, if you think back to a time in April when we were engaged with our Marines in Fallujah before, there was a dynamic in Iraq that had not yet taken place, and that is Prime Minister Allawi having been named. Back at that time, we were dealing with a group of 25 people who were trying to sort of fathom the future of Iraq and who should go where and what should the military work be in that country. And so there was enough uncertainty at that time that I actually believed then and I believe today that a wise decision was to cordon that city of Fallujah, pay attention to it, to let our intelligence people work, and I believe, as we see the story of Fallujah unfold today, we will see the fruits of our labors as we did that. The intelligence will, if not be perfect, it will be better. The specific objectives, the tactical objectives of those troopers on the ground, to include the Iraqis, as they go into Fallujah will be much more sound than our objectives would have been last April. And so, I thought it was the correct approach then and I believe we will see the results of that approach as we watch Fallujah unfold now.
What General Franks is saying is that it was decided in our own interest that it was better to have an elected Iraqi government in place backed by a real constitution before we were to go into Fallujah. It was decided in our own interest that it would be better to have trained Iraqi security forces as part of the invasion. It was also decided in our own best interest to have Fallujah become the terrorist/insurgent magnet -- a place where terrorists could go thinking that we were to weak to go in -- so we could than have a centralized place where we could kill them.
Most importantly, in our own best interest, what we did in those several months of delay is gather intelligence on the ground to find out who was in Fallujah and who needed to be killed.
And then what we did for most of that delay, starting in July or August,was we smart bombed safe houses week after week. I recall two or three safe houses were bombed per week with about 10 or 20 terrorist kills per bomb.
The November battle of 2005 was a success. We killed thousands of terrorist/insurgents, we leveled or damaged half the town and we had the Iraqi security forces for the first time fighting and scarifying in an important battle. Every person from that point forward needed an ID card to get into Fallujah.
What Gen. Franks says makes sense. Your knowledge and wisdom of it Barney Gumble doesn't hold a candle to it.
Take a look at all the Maps of that region. We're there!"
You are correct,,,The US Military in Iraq,is like a bayonet in moozzi's gut,,Time To Twist It...
In the end, we, as a nation, get the government we deserve. We are led by clowns because we vote for clowns.
Yeah, whenever I hear the word "realist" these days I translate it to mean "be realistic -- we can't win."
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.