Posted on 12/16/2006 4:55:13 AM PST by drellberg
One guest who shook hands with Bush in the receiving line told him, "Don't let the bastards get you down." Bush, slightly startled but cheerful, replied, "Don't worry. I'm not." The guest followed up: "I think we can win in Iraq." The president's reply was emphatic: "We're going to win."
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
An alternative hypothesis is that they know or appreciate something that the rest of us do not. It is disquieting that no one stops to ask the question, WHY IS BUSH SO DETERMINEDLY OPTIMISTIC?
I'll speculate. The president said the other day that 5900 terrorists were killed or capture in October - November. With even back of the envelope guesstimates, this number extrapolates in astonishing ways. Suppose one were to add in Afghanistan, the insurgents' losses elsewhere in the ME (e.g., Lebanon this past summer), the Muslim on Muslim killings that go on daily in Iraq, etc., Suppose one were to look at the entire period 2002 (entry into Afghanistan) through 2008 (the earlierst we might depart). Conservatively, there must be at least 300,000 of these bad folks dead by the end, and it is easy to generate numbers exceeding 500,000. That's a lot of radicals purged. That's a lot of husbands/sons removed from planet.
Now perhaps Bush reported the 5900 b/c it was such an aberration. But the evidence and context suggest not.
Anyway, let's continue with this speculation. First, by something called Little's Law, this 5900 figure indicates that either i) there are a lot more insurgents in Iraq than we have been led to believe, or ii) the terror masters in Iran, Pakistan, and elsewhere are sending young men in the thousands every month to rather quick deaths.
Assuming that the latter is true, there are many other implications. First, this level of activity could not possibly be under the radar. Our guys must know pretty much what is going on -- the level of activity is too great to keep it secret. Second, the Michael Ledeens of the world are wrong about Bush. My question to Ledeen would be, why take more aggressive measures against Iran if they are conveniently busing all these guys to Iraq for us to line up and kill? Why make things hard on ourselves when the mullahs are making it so easy? Third, and perhaps most important, it's unlikely that the terror masters can keep this up indefinitely, and the longer they can sustain it the more comprehensive our victory will ultimately be. Iraq is like a big vacuum cleaner or, as I've seen someone else write here at FR, a big bug zapper. As long as the moths are all zooming toward 300 watt bliss, why not leave the switch on for awhile longer?
It's politically incorrect, I'm sure, for Bush to lay out his strategy in these sorts of terms, but I've got to wonder if this isn't exactly what's going down.
The politician leaders need to let the military loose. If we stop this minimalist approach, we could quickly destroy the enemy.
You've completely missed my point. How is 500,000 dead a minimalist approach?
Perhaps 5,000,000 dead would be an even more effective message.
Yes, but Katie Couric tells me that we've already lost and that Pres Bush is a miserable failure.
/s
We are winning.
The media knows it. But theyll never admit it.
lol! 500,000? I haven't seen such pie-in-the-sky pencil whipping since the last time I read a business plan for an SBA loan for a minority business. Of course, I don't read the Congressional budgets, which is the champion, but your calculations are a strong second place!
Why can't they keep it up indefinitely?
Of course they can. Their war is cheap... Ours is determined by election cycles.
One service member is one too many to loose in a war. What gripes my a** is all this liberal talking about the deaths of our military soldiers in Iraq.
Have any of them bothered to look at the American cemeteries in France and, Germany?
We have more invested in human suffering in these two countries than we will ever have in Iraq, but the MSM will not discuss this, nor will a liberal!!!!!!!
OK, keep in mind that I'm talking about back-of-the-envelope.
3,000 killed or captured per month in Iraq. March 2003 through Feb 2009, let's just say, when we're finally out of the ME. 7 years * 12 months * 3K per month equals 252,000. We're half way to 500K.
I'm only guessing, keep in mind, but I'd wager that the terrorist death toll 3 1/2 years into this whole affair has been trending down rather than up, and that for long stretches it was well above 3K per month. Could this number be above 300,000? Again, I can only guess, but why not?
Then let's add some more numbers. Maybe you pick them:
How many were killed in taking Iraq in the first place?
How many terrorists have been killed by other terrorists? By militias?
How many killed in Afghanistan?
How many did the Israelis kill in Lebanon?
How many have the Saudis captured and killed in their own country?
How many by Mushareff in Pakistan?
How many dead in revenge killings or just plain tribal power plays just within Iraq?
Maybe you can get this to add to 500,000; maybe not. My range was 300,000 - 500,000+. I don't think that I'm being crazy, but maybe you could enlighten me. I'm honestly not trying to be sarcastic. I'm merely extrapolating Bush's one number, and wondering -- wondering -- if we can deduce anything comprehensive from the exercise.
Why can't they keep it up indefinitely?
Of course they can. Their war is cheap... Ours is determined by election cycles.
If we go on this assumption, then all is lost. It's been lost since the get go, and was lost no matter what strategy we might have employed. If they have an infinite supply of free fodder, what chance do we have under any strategy or scenario?
A more responsible approach is to ask what are the limits of their capacity? How many hundreds of thousands must die before they run dry?
I agree that to the terror masters, war is cheap. But only until they run completely out of ammunition. I'm speculating that Bush thinks they'll run dry before the Democrats and other surrender monkeys can force withdrawal. If we assume that Bush et al are not stupid idiots, can you come up with a better hypothesis as to why he's so confident that we'll ultimately win?
Two to three million virgins !
BUMP
New talking point: The number of American Servicemen killed in wars started during a Democrat Administration, (WWII, Vietnam) vs. American Servicemen lost in wars started during a Republican Administration.
Non carborundum illegitimus.
Exactly. In addition, as the Iraqi military become more active -- the situation is more resembling the LA Riots -- and this is what the MSM calls a "civil war".
And in re the "appeasement" vists by Kerry ad nauseum. Plays right into the Plan for Winning. Whether Dems know it or not.
The problem I see, is that we have a choice of either going in with a real will to win, which will entail many more deaths of both bad guys and a substantial amount of innocents, or we can continue with the "compassionate" process and get nowhere. I praise God that I don't have to make the decisions, so I can opine any way I feel appropriate and not have to carry the spiritual burden.
God Bless President Bush and the great Nation he leads.
Wait, please! Before we change subjects, I'm a reasonable poster, I think; I'm asking a reasonable question, and I'm not at all wedded to the numbers I've put out there. The question is, what has the toll been on our enemies in the entire global WOT? I've never heard anyone pose this question in any measurable sense. I think it's a good question. I'm open to anyone challenging my numbers. But please don't dismiss them as crazy or uninteresting.
History is full of examples where men are sent in waves to their deaths (Stalin, Iran-Iraq in the 1980s, ...) so I have no illusions about the terror masters in the ME. But to say that there is no toll or that this can go on indefinitely is simply not true.
Thank you, thank you! Not even so much that you agree that my numbers are plausible, but that you took my question seriously.
I'm not sure I agree with you that we lack the will to win. If these numbers are anywhere near correct, how could we reach any conclusion other than that we are winning decisively?
If our soldiers are this effective, if the militias are doing some of our dirty work for us, if the bad guys are being steadily rooted out of their hiding places around the world, what would you do differently? What bolder actions would expedite matters?
I guess I am of the opinion that this will be a decades-long WOT. If so, then patience and pacing are a virtue -- but a very, very hard sell to the American people.
Ditto!
While our efforts to minimize collateral damage are humanitarian, they also cause us to wend our way towards victory a lot slower than if we went after the bad guys with overwhelming force even if they are using civilians as shields. Since the MSM and other fascist-friendly forces decline to condemn the bad guys for targetting and slaughtering civilians, while beating us up for every conceivable "war crime", we might be better served by actually saving some of our own troops at the expense of higher civilian casualties by being very aggressive. Like I said - I don't have to make the decisions and I praise God for it because I wouldn't want the burden either way.
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.