More troops?
 

So you are counting on the last two years of a Republican administration going badly as a way of regaining support?

More troops?
 

That's a good point, but don't pretend that the Rs will not blame all problems over the next two years on a Democratic Congress.

After all, as of November 4 this year there was no chance of a housing slump. Now, it's a virtual guarantee. Ditto rising oil prices, deficits, etc. And we were winning -- nay, had already won -- in Iraq and Afghanistan (just ask Spanky).

More troops?
 

FWIW, with the exception of a comparmentalised respect for the Florida2000 thing, I despise James Baker. I'd take Bill Clinton 100 times out of 100 if the choice was between the two. platonically or otherwise.

More troops?
 

True. Why expect leadership from this White House?

But, if it's now all Congress' fault, does that mean it's no longer Clinton's fault? Or do we just throw them all in the skree together with Kennedy/Carter/That Man and, of course, MCGOVERN BECAUSE HE IS THE QUINTESSENTIAL DEM.

Bring Back Colin Powell
 

Wasn't Powell at State? And he was still at State when the Iraq war started. Rumsfield ran this one. The same team that ran Iraq. As you said, it was a great example of how to do something right and it was done by the same team that brought you Iraq. Exact same players.

This is a joke right. Have you read Bush at War I? How was the invasion of Afghanistan any different from Iraq, except that we used much less troops? Are you suggesting that the invasion of Iraq should have used less troops and more air bombardment? The Tacticians kept control? What the hell does that mean? The Tacticians kept in control in Afghanistand and not in Iraq? Do you know what that word means? The only difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is the subsequent occupation. The invasion of Iraq was textbook perfect. So if, as you say, the "tacticians" were not in charge, whoever was in charge of tactics did one hell of a job. There was a full blown civil war in Afghanistan, not one in Iraq, but Iraq has been harder to hold together. Who could have predicted that?


OK. So we should have had less troops in Iraq so it would have turned out like Afghanistan? Diplomacy? Diplomacy with Syria and Iran? Like they were going to do anything to help us.



The outcome may have been different. But how much different? There is an insurgency in Afghanistan, but it is much smaller than the one in Iraq. Who could have predicted that? Afghanistan is much more ethnically divided than Iraq, they have had civil wars for decades, and the terrorists were already there.


Yes all these people that weren't involved in Afghanistan or Iraq but somehow they are experts.

What was wrong with the invasion. Three weeks not fast enough for you? Don't you mean the occupation?



Even though you refuse to admit it, now that the Democrats are in power that option is off the table.

If Staying the course means not trying to do whatever is necessary to win, then yes. But if Staying the course means that we are going to be in Iraq until the end of the Bush administration, that is the right thing to do and that is what is going to happen. And I think that is what he meant.


I am not dealing with anything, the US military is.

More troops?
 

This is you most substantive post every. Well done!

More troops?
 

That is ripe. Not the children who pulled of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq, but the adults who watched everything on TV, who have no practical experience. Or are you talking about the morons who now run congress, who were calling Afghanistan a quagmire when we were only a couple days into it. They called the invasion of Afghanistan a disaster, the invasion of Iraq a disaster, and the occupation a disaster. But now that the occupatoin of Iraq has not gone picture perfect somehow these people that predicted a disaster are experts? I guess the third time is the charm.

Bring Back Colin Powell
 

What I love about these long-ass posts is that every now and then, just when I've given up on you, you actually show that you've come to understand one or two things you've previously been ignorant of.

Like the fact that Afghanistan was about terrorism while Iraq was not.

There is hope.

More troops?
 

Why do you feel that way?

S_A_M

Bring Back Colin Powell
 

My problem with the Fashion board is that it is cluttered with all these stupid pithy comments. Everyone is trying to be a comedian, and no one is that funny. So in order to read anything worthwhile, you have to scan through all this B.S. of people trying to demonstrate how sardonic and witty they can be. I try and stick with the FB board but I always give up because of all the pointless filler.

What I preferred about this board is people actually posted stuff of substance. They wouldn't just throw a comment out there but they would back it up and then they could be asked for evidence. People could be funny, but they felt a need to back up what they said at least with a rationalization. Now the FB disease seems to have seeped onto this board.

Every once in a while someone throws in a good zinger (usually Gattigap or Dangerfield) but generally these one or two liners are just a waste of space. I really hope the trend doesn't continue here.

At least that is my opinion.

Show me the motto!
 

You and Blue Triangle are perfect for each other. Get a room, already.

More troops?
 

Pot, meet Kettle.

More troops?
 

You're saying that for the last several years, sending more troops has been off the table because Bush did not want to pay the political price, but that he will now try to blame the Democrats?

More troops?
 

If his opinion was being sought for policy purposes it would be done behind closed doors. The fact that it is being done publicly shows that this maneuver is being done for political reasons. He is being used to create support for whatever move the Bush administration is going to make next. He will pretend to listen to all sorts of people (including the Democrats) to make them feel good and to make it look like their opinions matters in an effort to get bipartisan support for whatever happens next. Everyone will feel vested in the solution, and therefore will be less likely to criticize it or to try and screw it up, and in addition, if it goes south the Dems won't be able to use it as effectively as a political weapon in 08.

This commission will in no way effect Bush's policy decisions, but it will effect the perception. And as the old saying goes, perception is reality in politics (but not in policy). Either the commission will create bipartisan support or it won't, but Bush's policy for the next two years has already been decided (and if it changes it will be because of events in Iraq, not because of some opinion floated out in the media).

Bush didn't pretend to include the Dems before because he wanted to take all the political credit when things went well. If everything went picture perfect, and with the Dems complaining all the time, it was a perfect political tool. Now that things are taking longer than expected, he doesn't want it to mess up the 2008 elections. This commission is all about that.

Pelosi is no idiot, she knows exactly what is happening, but I don't think she has figured out how to handle it. The commission is a great political maneuver because it makes everyone feel like they are involved in what is happening. People on this chatroom and everywhere else (newspapers, magazines) will all talk about the Iraq situation and therefore feel like their opinions matter. People want their opinions to matter, and the key in politics is making people feel like their opinion matters (if you ever raised money you know that) and that is what this commission is all about. When people feel like their opinion doesn't matter they get angry and oppose whatever is being done.

When the commission reports comes out there will be a "national dialogue" and Slate, the pundits and bloggers will go crazy talking about it and thinking they are making a contribution to a national consensus and decision. Everyone will be seduced into thinking they are part of the game, thinking their opinion mattered, when the important decisions will already have been made.

Policy is all about getting opinions from people who know about the subject. There are 300,000 million opinions in this country but very few opinions are actually helpful. And as Carville said, the important opinions are rarely expressed in or noticed by the media. Politics is about building consensus and getting reelected. In politics, the opinions in the media, and the opinion of the 300,000 is everything. The mistake is to think the two are related.

That's fascinating. How does the Trilateral Commission fit in?

I never cease to marvel at how a man with such an obvious flair for politics can have approval ratings in the low 30s and is being blamed for causing the defeat of Republican Senators in Missouri and Montana, but I guess Bush is just a misunderstood genius.

But then, perception is reality.

More troops?
 

I don't know for sure, but I think it is possible that Bush has avoided sending more troops because he didn't think it was a political option. Country wouldn't stand for it. It may also be that the Generals have been telling him they don't need more troops because they know how tough that would be to ask for and have been trying to do it without them. You don't get to be a top general or admiral without having a strong political sense. However, these are all just guesses.

What I am sure of is no one really knows what the administration is or was thinking, and what they plan for the future. We won't know for years until after Bush is out of office, and Woodward’s books, like the ones he produced during the Clinton administration, will prove apocryphal. What I suspect is that the Bush administration has formulated a plan for the next two years and is using Baker to help him generate the political support.

It may involve more troops. I don't know. He may say that we need more troops just to have the Democrats turn it down. That would be good political cover. What I am pretty sure of is that the Bush administration is planning on using the "national dialogue" instead of being influenced by it (although he is going to try and pretend he is being influenced by it). Up till now the strategy has been to publicly show that they are ignoring the "national dialogue" because that appeals to the base.

It is important to note that for the people that are really invested in the national dialogue (the media and pundits) it is important for them to show that they know what is going on behind close doors and that their opinoins influence what is going on behind closed doors. Because if both those statements are not true, then they are just blowing hot air. But that is exactly what is happening, they are blowing hot air.

Bush is now going to throw them a big juicy bone to help the continue the charade.

More troops?
 

I dislike the moderating tone he brought to the Reagan administration and I HATE GHWBush. Baker helped Bush I become VP and Pres.

Seems to me that these folks may be confusing correlation and causation. Bush went out to stump late for candidates in trouble -- those who needed help. They lost. Bush's fault for visiting?

Voters undecided in the final stages tend to break against the incumbent when they vote. If they liked the guy, they would not have been undecided.

In sum, seems like sour grapes and internal bickering, but I'm glad to see it happening on that side of the aisle.

S_A_M

More troops?
 

Do you understand the irony of you arguing on the one hand that more troops are now off the table because of the election when he's had years to seek more troops and has never done so, apparently, based on your characterization, because he's a wimp?

Bush's attitude has been, stay the course, stay the course, stay the course. He hasn't sought more troops because the course was to keep doing it with those we had. Whatever options he once had, he has frittered away himself.

There is a unique opportunity right now to revisit the situation on make some decisions based on a thorough and long overdue reassessment of the situation. No options are off the table, but patience is wearing thin. Let's hope he doesn't blow it. Again.

More troops?
 

I see.

Thanks for confirming how little political common ground we have. So, you despise Baker because he is an effective, pragmatic politician and policy-maker?

I will refrain from engaging in the PoPD.

Wackjob. :biggrin:

S_A_M

More troops?
 

Reagan was pragmatic in his own right but he had a vision and core principles. Baker was strictly pragmatic. Guys like him don't believe in anything but rule by pragmatic elitist beltway insiders.

Reagan, with or without Baker, is no W, he understood compromise to get ahead.

More troops?
 

I was making guesses. Bush's decision up till now, rightly or wrongly, has been not to increase troop strength. The irony here is that if that was a mistake, now that the Dems are in control the option of increasing troop strenght is off the table.

How can you say all options are on the table? On what planet? Mars. Do you really think the Dems are in a position to support more troops? The left wing of the party would lose their minds. The party would explode into a full scale civil war.

You can't separate political discourse from reality. "Stay the course" is a political line, not a policy decision. Bush's policy in Iraq has changed and has been reviewed countless times since its inseption. When he has said "stay the course", that has been to contrast to the Democrats who he was trying to paint as "cut and run".

A unique opportunity to "revisit the situation"? A long overdue "reassessment"? Do realize how much Iraq has been analysed and reanalysed? At any bookstore you can buy thirty books on the subject. Those are hollow words. Those words are political hyperbole but have no real meaning. Who is going to do the reassessment and analyzation?

More troops?
 

Like I think Spanky said earlier, it ain't a "Republican" anything anymore. You're going to hear "lame duck" a lot, and W's going to be a martyr. The Blame Game just became The Only Game. The GOP is going to relentlessly work the media to ride the Dems hard. The media will play along because they want 2008 to be close. The Rovians have 24 months to pin everything on the Dems. And the voting public has a very short memory. My guess is the first party to get tax raising pinned on it gets creamed in 2008. That won't be the GOP.

The "national dialogue" reminds me of the dialogue that surrounds a professional sports team. Everyone is an expert on how the Giants should develop their strategy and what they need to do to have a winning season. And when they lose everyone knows what went wrong and why they are losing. All the sportswriters write articles second guessing the coaches decisions etc. Of course everyone disagrees but everyone is sure their own opinion is right.

The invasion of Iraq went almost perfectly. But now that the occupation has not been up to everyone's expectation everyone knows what went wrong and why. All of a sudden everyone is an expert on the Middle East and military strategy.

If you are the coach of the Giants how much attention do you pay to the opinions of random fans and sportswriters? If your team is not doing well do you turn to random fans with opinions, fans that write editorials about the team or to the sportswriters? Do these people have access to even ten percent of the knowledge they need to make a prudent assessment?

Except, of course, for a few unsecured ammo dumps, some missing equipment, the inability to identify any weapons of Mass Destruction, an inability to effectively police the country once occupied and a few smiliar immaterial items....

By the way, weren't some of those thing the items Gen'l Franks thought we needed more troops to accomplish?

Just correcting a misstatement, since you insist on continuing to make it. Carry on.

Think about how nuts they'd go if Coughlin took his team to the wrong stadium, only played 5 players, and punted on first down.

Stated otherwise, a lot of people who vote probably shouldn't be allowed to, because they don't understand what they're voting about, and couldn't hope to, because they haven't the native intelligence to grasp the full picture (hence the need for things like the WMD story, which creates a "scandal" among people who either suspend disbelief or are actually deluded enough to believe the thing wasn't a pretext for another worthwhile agenda which couldn't be nakedly sold to the idiot public in this country).*

You can't say it out loud, but we all know most of this country shouldn't be allowed to vote for its local school board.

When you own a football team, you can tell Monday morning qbs to fuck off. The devil in our system is that we can't tell the fools to fuck off. And sometimes, like this election, we shouldn't, because every once and a while, those fools are right.

* That said, the failure to plan for an occupation is inexcusable.

What were the main goals of the occupation. To secure some ammo dumps? The main goal of the occupation was to conquer Iraq as quickly as possible and to keep allied casualties to a minimun. Do you disagree that those were the main objectives of the invasion? Do you disagree that both those objectives were obtained above almost anyone's expectations?

The occupation is another subject. But how can you critisize the invasion?

The way I look at it, we won the first three games in ten minutes each. We didn't have to run out the clock on these games because the enemy got so demoralized they left the field in the first ten minutes.

Now in the fourth game, we are winning, but we are now in the third quarter, and the enemy has scored one field goal but because of expectations set by the earlier victories, this is viewed as an absolute disaster.

You have learned nothing from posts here. It's nice to write history through rose-colored glasses, but you need a few reality checks here and there.

The invasion and occupation are inseparable. The critical debate within the military over manpower and timing related as much or more to how to deploy troops in a manner that would achieve pacification and permit occupation of the country. Part of the goal was to secure all weapons that could be used in any subsequent insurrection. Indeed, the big reason why the invading forces failed to secure weapons was that they anticipated greater resistence (which would have meant weapons staying put for longer and the need to do fewer things at one time) and, when that didn't materialize, didn't have the necessary troop strength available to adjust their strategy. The troops that were to do things like secure prisoners and weapons were needed instead to occupy and pacify Baghdad proper, because things had moved fast and we had inadequate redundancy (redundancy is a big and very positive word in military circles).

Another key factor in failing to meet some of these specific military objectives on invasion was the administration's diplomatic failures in Turkey. One of my relatives kept getting sent to the Mediteranean so that he could go in through the North, and sent back for redeployment later when diplomatic initiatives failed.

The invasion was successful in achieving some of its key short term objectives, but failed in other identified and important objectives.

That's nice. I think Rumsfeld shares your Rosy perspective. Or did, until last week. Bush may, though Cheney is brighter than that.

But I don't think there's another person in the country beyond that group.

Oh, and the guys who sent out those talking points from the RNC? They were laughing when they wrote them.

More troops?
 

It relates to the budget rules and the overall "cost" of the tax cuts. I forget the precise calculus, but it's something like a 10 year time-horizon, and if the cuts had gone beyond that, then the cost would have made them harder to pass. The Rs for sure would have made them permanent otherwise.

More troops?
 

I would be comforted if I thought Bush was worrying about how to prevail in Iraq rather than how to prevail in the political battles here over who lost Iraq.

More troops?
 

I think they are required to show what the cost is for 10 years out. No requirement to project further (or further projections aren't taken into account under revenue neutrality rules, or whatever is out there). The cost of the cuts, esp. when you extend the ones that were to expire in the middle of the 10-year period, explodes in 2011. I can't remember why. Google EGTRRA and explode and 2011.

ETA per Wikipedia: One of the most notable characteristics of EGTRRA is that its provisions are designed to sunset, or revert to the provisions that were in effect before it was passed. EGTRRA will sunset on January 1, 2011 unless further legislation is enacted to make its changes permanent. The sunset provision sidesteps the Byrd Rule, a Senate rule that allows Senators to effectively block a piece of legislation if it purports to significantly increase the federal deficit beyond a ten year term.

Not familiar with the Byrd rule.

Or:

They declared victory shortly after opening kickoff, because that is all they planned for. Since then, they've left too few players on the field, with no game plan, inadequate equipment, and fired the coaches who suggested different tactics.

And they tortured the other team's waterboy.

More troops?
 

Well, if you do the research, you'll realize it's what I said.

If the bill were brought to the floor under normal rules, they would need 60 votes to stop fillibuster. So, instead they use the budget reconcilliation process, which is not subject to fillibuster. But it is subject to the Byrd Rule. The budget reconcilliation bill was for 10 years, so to avoid objection under the Byrd Rule, the cuts had to be limited to that ten year period.



more

And the development of an irregular war, which then became an insurgency, in virtually every non-Kurdish area almost immediately after our troops moved through (Fedayeen, anyone?)

So, if we immediately pulled out troops and Iraq melted into civil war and a terrorist haven, you would believe that we had a winning (3-1) record in Iraq?

For Penske and Ty