Politics: A new beginning

[bilmore]

A good blog explanation of the military incoherence of SH so far:

"Smoke and Mirrors Versus Gunsmoke
Those who may have suspected, now know Saddam Hussein's quality as a military strategist. The Ba'athist attack on Spanish intellgence officers, Japanese diplomats and Korean soldiers, now crowned by a catastrophic attempt to ambush 4th ID units in Samarra will be studied by historians long into the future. To fully understand these tactics, one must go back to the beginning of Saddam's campaign to drive out American troops. In those early days, six months ago, Iraqi infrastructure were the prime targets. Oil pipelines and electricity grids were attacked, leading the press to breathlessly proclaim that the reconstruction was going badly, even backward. But the campaign never achieved decisive results. Today, oil production exceeds two million barrels per day and even the press admits that electricity is increasingly available throughout the country. Plan A forgotten, it was on to plan B.

Then Saddam turned to murdering individual American soldiers, shooting soldiers as they bought soda pop or shopped in a Baghdad bazaar. The press darkly predicted that no American could walk the street. He put a bounty on American soldiers, causing the unemployed criminal element to attack US supply vehicles with RPGs and machineguns. But after sustaining heavy casualties, the Iraqi criminals began to demand increasingly higher sums to risk their lives. The Ba'athists began to use trained men to lay mines and improvised explosive devices. But despite some successes, the campaign never even came close to shutting down or even seriously inconveniencing American movement. That being a dead end, it was on to plan C.

This was a murder campaign calculated to intimidate Iraqis working or cooperating with the new government. A prominent Shi'ite cleric was blown up in Karbalah. A female member of the Iraqi governing council was ambushed and slain. Iraqi police academy graduates were attacked. Iraqi police stations were hit by car bombs. The press predicted once again that no Iraqi would "collaborate" with the Americans. Ted Rall wrote a paean to those who slew Iraqi "collaborators". Yet despite this, and suffering casualties all the while, the Ba'athists were wholly unable to stop the reestablishment of the Iraqi police and army, who now number in the tens of thousands, numbers which are growing literally by the minute. They could not prevent the new Iraqi government from being recognized internationally, nor even delay the scheduled transfer of sovereignty to any degree. Foiled yet again, it was on to plan D.

The next thing tried was standoff mortar fire. A number of mortar attacks were launched at US bases, the Green Zone; and some rockets were even fired from donkey carts at Baghdad's leading hotels. Although many Ba'athist died in the counterfire and the military effects of the standoff attacks were negligible, the press darkly muttered that the end was near. But Baghdad continued to bustle. So it was on to Plan E.

When the Ba'athists began to shoot down some American rotary wing aircraft, the Belmont Club at first feared that Saddam had found his strategic footing. At last, he was doing something militarily sensible. Not just a headline grabber, something that would enable other operations. He was going to deny the Americans the use of airspace below 2,000 feet. And that was going to open up a world of possibility. But Army aviation adapted. The Ba'athist counterair was attacked or evaded. The Americans tackled the problem. The Ba'athists moved on. The air corridors remained secure enough to allow President Bush to fly into the Saddam International Airport to serve turkey to troops -- over the supply lines that the press predicted would be interdicted, could they remember their own forebodings. And since the Ba'ath manifestly couldn't keep the US from delivering turkey and cranberry sauce to its troops, let alone ammunition and fuel, then it was clearly time to move to Plan F.

The last box to arrive from the Acme terrorist supply company was the "drive out the allies" kit. The United Nations building was blown up; British military policemen were lured to their deaths; Italian carabinieri were struck by a car bomb. Spanish intelligence officers were ambushed; Japanese diplomats were killed and South Koreans targeted. This is Plan G and the press believes it will succeed like all the others.

In each case, Saddam Hussein has invested time and resources to achieve an indecisive result. He has not materially affected the function of the targeted system in any single case, be it infrastructure, logistics, air transportation, or the organization of Iraqi government agencies. Every thing America has attempted has been sheeted home, despite the churnings of his genius campaign, though much admired by the press. The Saddamite insurgency bears all the hallmarks of his previous erratic campaigns, with their reliance on showy military effects to achieve a political result. To Saddam the battlefield is a theatrical prop to support a political gesture. (Remember Khafji? Remember the intentional oil spills?) But CENTCOM to the puzzlement of the media, fights to win. It has been boringly predictable. It captures enemy personnel, including key officers in the Ba'ath, seizes arms caches, intelligence documents by the truckload and ceaselessly sows informers among the enemy ranks. It has a touching belief in power of arithmetic, especially subtraction as applied to the numbers of foemen, coupled with a traditional attachment to the adage that it is better to do unto others before they do unto you.

Serious historians may recall the fate of combatants who gadfly over the battlefield without achieving serious or decisive results while being pummelled in their vitals by their enemy. It will be the fate of Saddam. The Belmont Club's fearless prediction. CENTCOM by a knockout."

(From http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003...27752913147070 )

((FWIW, copying this much from a blog is acceptable, as long as it is linked and might well increase traffic.))

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
I get a headache when I try to read long posts without enough paragraph breaks.

Different audience.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Judge Posner on judicial confirmations:

I don't object to the fact that Senators are concerned about the ideology of judicial candidates; the President is concerned, so why shouldn't the Senators be? Anyone who is realistic about the American judicial process knows that ideology affects decisions, especially the "hot button" decisions that engage the attention of politicians; and Senators are politicians. What is objectionable about the current process is the length of time it takes.

from How Appealing, a most excellent blog

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Different audience.

I am in the audience with the bad eyes.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
[long explanation of how we're kicking ass and taking names in Iraq]

Under this sort of analysis, the Tet Offensive was a rousing success for us.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop

Originally posted by bilmore
[long explanation of how we're kicking ass and taking names in Iraq]

Under this sort of analysis, the Tet Offensive was a rousing success for us.

So what are you saying? That we aren't kicking ass and taking names in Iraq? That cannot be true. I saw it on the Fox News Channel that we were, in fact, kicking ass and taking names, just like Bilmore sez!!!

So no one knows the origins of the term "willy-nilly"?!?!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
What he said -- (and what I tried to say/thought I said). Thanks for the additional specifics, Larry.








Preach it Brother! Praise Jeeeaaaazuus!

To all those on the other side of the debate on these issues:

It would facilitate further reasoned discussion if you don't spend any more of our time going on about:

(a) how the administration clearly leveled with the American people up front; and

(b) how the administration has handled it all as well as could be expected; so

(c) all criticism is meritless partisan bitching;

until and unless you do us the courtesy of actually addressing the substantive points on those issues that LDE and I have attempted to raise, particularly including the specific questions.

Thank you.

S_A_M

So we're clear......you guys are admitting I won, right?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Watch out Hank. Apollo Creed died in an exhibition match, and he was once the Champ. Don't get cocky.

I ain't no gap-fillin champ.
float like a butterfly,
sting like a bee,
I could beat sammy, while takin a pee

I realize that none of us have any reference for how much it costs to fix a country after it has been pillaged for decades and then we knock it over in a few months ("uh, I dunno....a zillion dollars?").

But, with that point made, do you disagree that the admin sent signals that indicated that this process would be relatively inexpensive? e.g. the public contradiction of Gen. Shinseki, projections of oil revenues with no reference to the country's debt that they would have to pay off before those revenues could be used for reconstruction, stuff like that? Or have you felt adequately prepared for how much is costing us, the american taxpayers?

Maybe I was poisoned by the "this war will pay for itself" rantings
of Fluffer on this board, but I sure didn't have the feeling that we'd be this deep in the money pit at this point. Maybe that was my naivete, to expect that my government would prepare me for a somewhat negative type of outcome after a victory in the military campaign.

Fluffer ties to the administration have never been proven to be more than unofficial. Plus, I think as we moved forward towards attacking, the "anti-war for oil"crowd, complicated using oil $$ to pay Halliburton to fix Iraq. In that sense, you should probably be paying my share.

As to the money, in context of the overall military budget, its not that much percent of a single year's spending. As to presenting the question, or facts, to the american people, he repeatedly said it will be tough, long and expensive. We were basically defying a large percentage of the world. You thought it would be cheap?

The country fell quicker than expected, and then we disbanded the army, sending a bunch of disgruntled (and armed) Iraqis home with no paychecks. More knowledgable people than me have stated that we could have kept the army intact and de-Baathified it, while not allowing it to become the destabilizing force that it appears to have become. You apprently chalk that up to "how could we have planned for this." I choose to analyze the decision.

okay. let's call this a mistake. I don't know the reason for the decision, but I'm sure there were reasons. But in a war, you have to make decisions on a timetable. It is like litigation. No one who has managed a big lawsuit is quick to question strategic decisions made based upon available info. Some of my best decisions have proven wrong. I don't personally know anyone who managed a war, but I assume shit like that happens.

So anyway, I don't think its too fair to question a decision w/o the reasons. What I would like to talk about one day is how Eisenhower/Truman fucked up WWII, with that whole Battle of the Bulge glitch.

Was kicking Iraq out of Kuwait "right" back in '91? Because back then we found the time to get other countries (feel free to simplify this to France in your reply) comfortable with our actions enough to foot most of the bill.

Again, my problem is not with taking Saddam out. I feel better that he's not around. My problem is with the manner in which this was done, because you and I are footing the bill. You support the decision and see all of the negative outcomes as mere side effects.

I'm was using France, as shorthand. Please do feel free to underestimate me, though.

Iraq was allowing sham inspections because the US had massed hundreds of thousands of troops on its border. That costs, both in dollars and the soldiers lives being disrupted. We had been "inspecting" for 10 years. France/Germany/Russia were not changing their position with any amount of time.

If the decision was right, however, 90 Billion isn't a factor that should change the decsion.

What are these timing issues? If no one in the admin was saying that the threat was imminent, why did we have to beat the summer heat? To me the only reason was that Bush wanted to have enough time before the '04 election to get our troops out of there, and invading in the fall would not have allowed for that. I would welcome hearing the other reasons you have, however.

You are smarter than this. If Bush timed this for the election, it would happen next June or so.
You do recognize that the heat posed a closing window, that did make waiting a few months impossible. A decision to wait a few months would be a decision to wait a year. We had soldiers there. We knew they'd be there for awhile if we went in when we did. Is it fair to add a year to how long they'd be there?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I ain't no gap-fillin champ.
float like a butterfly,
sting like a bee,
I could beat sammy, while takin a pee

Good Lord Man! Please keep your sick fantasies on the Fashion Board, where they belong.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Under this sort of analysis, the Tet Offensive was a rousing success for us.

Um, son, you need to read up on the Tet offensive.

But, more to the point, if that's your reaction to the substance of the writing, you need to read up on war in general.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by bilmore
Um, son, you need to read up on the Tet offensive.

(Is it a bad thing when you realize you're replying to yourself?)

A thought occurred to me - your analogy was more apt than you know.

The Tet offensive was and is considered to be, in all military ways, a rousing and costly failure for the NVA. The losses were staggering, and they really gained nothing - no land, no large numbers of ARVN/US dead (compared to what they lost themselves), and no more support from the people. Probably the only impact was the shock that a US embassy could be taken and held for almost a day.

It was only in the eyes of the anti-war US press that Tet had any impact. They sold it mightily as a huge blow against us, and pretty much defined popular knowledge of the event to fit their own desires, but certainly not fact. So now, people speak of Tet as a fable, as if it had been a loss for us, just as people still casually say "Bush lied". It's all in the repetition. Say 2 + 2 = 5 enough times, and make someone's ego dependant upon wanting to believe it, and it will become "fact".

[sgtclub]

Did anybody catch the Howard Dean interview on Hardball the other day. He repeatedly referred to Russia as the Soviet Union. Seems to me this is on par with potatoe and Bush not being able to name certain foriegn leaders, but that's just me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
(Is it a bad thing when you realize you're replying to yourself?)

A thought occurred to me - your analogy was more apt than you know.

The Tet offensive was and is considered to be, in all military ways, a rousing and costly failure for the NVA. The losses were staggering, and they really gained nothing - no land, no large numbers of ARVN/US dead (compared to what they lost themselves), and no more support from the people. Probably the only impact was the shock that a US embassy could be taken and held for almost a day.

It was only in the eyes of the anti-war US press that Tet had any impact. They sold it mightily as a huge blow against us, and pretty much defined popular knowledge of the event to fit their own desires, but certainly not fact. So now, people speak of Tet as a fable, as if it had been a loss for us, just as people still casually say "Bush lied". It's all in the repetition. Say 2 + 2 = 5 enough times, and make someone's ego dependant upon wanting to believe it, and it will become "fact".

I actually knew everything you post here about Tet, and -- oddly enough -- that was my point. Your blog was crowing about how we keep beating the Iraqi insurgents. As we beat the NVA in Tet. But the insurgents aren't trying to beat us in any conventional military sense. They can't. It's why they're fighting a different kind of war.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Did anybody catch the Howard Dean interview on Hardball the other day. He repeatedly referred to Russia as the Soviet Union. Seems to me this is on par with potatoe and Bush not being able to name certain foriegn leaders, but that's just me.

Here is the transcript:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/1000254.asp

FWIW, I don't think you should be critical of Dean for not knowing about the USSR, Bush keeps so much from the public. Here's Dean complaining that he's not sure if Bush did know about 9/11 beforehand, but Bush stonewalling is causing rumors.

Dean said on Monday that President Bush is withholding documents related to 9/11 because they may show he knew what was coming.

"The most interesting theory that I've heard so far - which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved - is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis," Dean told a caller to Washington, D.C's Diane Rehm Show, according to a transcript obtained by Opinion Journal.com.

"Now, who knows what the real situation is?" the presidential conspiracy theorist cautioned

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...2/203631.shtml

and Bilmore's "keep repeating it becomes true" theory has bi-partisan support:

Dean warned that the more theories like his "get repeated," the more people tend to believe them. "So I think the president is taking a great risk by suppressing the key information that should go to the Kean commission" investigating the 9/11 attacks.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I actually knew everything you post here about Tet, and -- oddly enough -- that was my point. Your blog was crowing about how we keep beating the Iraqi insurgents. As we beat the NVA in Tet. But the insurgents aren't trying to beat us in any conventional military sense. They can't. It's why they're fighting a different kind of war.

It's ludicrous for anyone who knows this to buy into it. Tet was a made-up loss, specifically made-up to serve the desires of the writers, and those writers succeeded, because they turned public opinion around with their mischaracterizations and lost the war for us. It's like you're saying that we're not really having any real problems, but the press wants us to think that we're having real problems, so, yeah, we're having real problems, even though we're not having any real problems except for the press telling us we're having real problems . . .