A War We Just Might Win

[Calminian]

Upon some very positive news from former war critics, MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK, A War We Just Might Win, I'm curious how this makes you feel. Many top Democrats have indicated that they feel this is bad news for their party. Among them is House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D). Senator Russ Feingold stated that he wouldn't believe Gen. Petraeus no matter what he says in September. But I'd like to think most democrats would be encouraged by this report. It's okay to be skeptical, but would a victory in Iraq be your top desire? Seems for many democratic politicians it is not. What say you?

[Adam]

Upon some very positive news from former war critics, MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK, A War We Just Might Win, I'm curious how this makes you feel. Many top Democrats have indicated that they feel this is bad news for their party. Among them is House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D). Senator Russ Feingold stated that he wouldn't believe Gen. Petraeus no matter what he says in September. But I'd like to think most democrats would be encouraged by this report. It's okay to be skeptical, but would a victory in Iraq be your top desire? Seems for many democratic politicians it is not. What say you?

Well, with no impeachment yet underway against Bush in spite of his multiple lies, total incompetence, law-breaking, and violations of the Constitution, at least the Iraq War has rendered Bush odious enough that he and Cheney won't find it as easy to establish the dictatorship they have been organizing.
Adam

[Calminian]

Well, with no impeachment yet underway against Bush in spite of his multiple lies, total incompetence, law-breaking, and violations of the Constitution, at least the Iraq War has rendered Bush odious enough that he and Cheney won't find it as easy to establish the dictatorship they have been organizing.
Adam

Yes I agree. After all, we now know he actually caused 911 in an attempt to get more oil from the middle east. Steel just doesn’t melt, ya know. He such an evil genius. And dumb too!

[aardvarkcore]

A politial punk band from the states put the Iraq war a really good way - Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL).

The war in Iraq is not about Iraqi liberation but economic security. Why was there so much looting the day after Husseins fall? Because all the US troops were busy securing the oil fields so they could be privatized and changed back to trading in US dollars (rather than Euros which was driving down the US dollar).

[Calminian]

A politial punk band from the states put the Iraq war a really good way - Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL).

The war in Iraq is not about Iraqi liberation but economic security. Why was there so much looting the day after Husseins fall? Because all the US troops were busy securing the oil fields so they could be privatized and changed back to trading in US dollars (rather than Euros which was driving down the US dollar).

yes yes. this is probably the biggest conspiracy since we lied about landing on the moon! there're no terrorists out there that want to kill us. we brought our own towers down. if you don't believe me ask rosie.

[Tladatsi]

Upon some very positive news from former war critics, MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK, A War We Just Might Win, I'm curious how this makes you feel. Many top Democrats have indicated that they feel this is bad news for their party. Among them is House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D). Senator Russ Feingold stated that he wouldn't believe Gen. Petraeus no matter what he says in September. But I'd like to think most democrats would be encouraged by this report. It's okay to be skeptical, but would a victory in Iraq be your top desire? Seems for many democratic politicians it is not. What say you?

Sorry but LOL! These guys have been spinning the same yarn for four years now. O'Hanlon always calls himself a "critic of the war" and then supports GWB. Every time they write a paper on Iraq it is exactly the same "Gosh we're [i]critics[i] of the war but gee whiz things are just getting better." In December of 2002 O'Hanlon work an op-ed pience in the bastion of anti-war liberalism The Washington TImes calling on GWB to "Prepare Our Cities for War".

OK, here is a "progress report" from 2003 by O'Hanlon

http://www.brook.edu/views/interview...n/20030928.htm

Here is a little tidbit...

"Well, it's obviously tough. It's a little better, however, than I thought for a couple of reasons. One is I think the counterinsurgency effort is going fairly well. Now obviously, you mention the number of attacks per day that continue; it's a real concern. We're still losing troops. Everyone's aware of that. The truck bombings in August were tragic. The assassination of the Governing Council member was tragic, but overall, the counterinsurgency mission seems to be going well in that we are taking out a lot more people than we're losing and I believe we're using force fairly selectively and carefully on balance." (my emphasis)

Can that guy predict the future or what?! And that sounds sooo different from the most recent report cited above.

OK, let's look futher back into the past....an op-ed piece in the Washington TImes in early 2003, before the war...titled "A Time for War"

http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20030205.htm


"Even those of us who have questioned the case for war over the last year, and who do not buy all of the Bush administration's arguments for invasion even today, need to face the fact that there soon will be no other plausible option." (My emphasis)

So every few months O'Hanlon trots out his same old tired "Gee we are making progress in Iraq" and the desperate supporters of the war say "Oh, see even a long time "critic" of the war thinks we are making progress.

It is getting old folks.

[Tladatsi]

Upon some very positive news from former war critics, MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK, [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin"]A Senator Russ Feingold stated that he wouldn't believe Gen. Petraeus no matter what he says in September. But I'd like to think most democrats would be encouraged by this report. It's okay to be skeptical, but would a victory in Iraq be your top desire? Seems for many democratic politicians it is not. What say you?

OH BTW, we already know what Petraeus is going to say, the same thing he wrote in the Washington Post OP-ED piece in September 2004!

We already know what it is going to say, the same thing Petraeus said in his op-ed piece in the Washington Post in September of 2004

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep25.html


"Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up."

"Although there have been reverses -- not to mention horrific terrorist attacks -- there has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security, something they are keen to do."

"Nonetheless, there are reasons for optimism. "

"There will be more tough times, frustration and disappointment along the way."

"Iraq's security forces are, however, developing steadily and they are in the fight. Momentum has gathered in recent months."

"It will not be easy, but few worthwhile things are."

Sound familiar? "We just starting to turn things around...."

[Calminian]

Ya know it's interesting, everyone is scrambling to discredit this article, its author's, Gen. Petraeus, etc.. Yet the point of the OP was not to lend credence to the report or even speculate on how things will turn out. It was just a simple question. Would victory be your first desire? Obviously there are some democrats who are terrified of this idea. Some admit it outright, like Clyburn, others admit it inadvertently by claiming upfront they will not believe any good news that comes out, like Feingold.

Again, I do not think all democrats are like this. I think most would embrace genuine good news and would not put political gains above military progress. But for those that have already gone out on a limb, claiming the war is already lost (Reid and company), this truly is a dilemma. They actually can't afford to believe any good news.

It's just interesting gaging the reactions to the piece. The fringe will never change. Even if the political and economic conditions follow this ostensible military improvement, there will still be unbelief. Heck, even if Iraq flourishes into a glorious democracy and our troops leave, there will still be unbelief.

[Tladatsi]

Ya know it's interesting, everyone is scrambling to discredit this article, its author's, Gen. Petraeus, etc..

Who is rushing what? Supporters of the war are rushing around touting the aritcle by "war skeptics" as evidence of "success". It is the White House that is pushing this article into for front of debate. Others are merely responding to the big media push.

Yet the point of the OP was not to lend credence to the report or even speculate on how things will turn out. It was just a simple question. Would victory be your first desire? Obviously there are some democrats who are terrified of this idea. Some admit it outright, like Clyburn, others admit it inadvertently by claiming upfront they will not believe any good news that comes out, like Feingold.

These guys went to Iraq and talked with hand picked military and Iraqis in the Green Zone. This is just straw in the wnd. They don't speak Arabic and cannot go out of the Green Zone without heavy military protection. What kind of "reality" is that? You might want to check out a bit of back-peddling by Pollack any way.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...n-and-pol.html

So what is "victory"? What would it look like? A liberal western oriented pro-US government ruling the second largest proven reserve of oil free from civil war? Iraq is further that goal than it has been in decades.

Again, I do not think all democrats are like this. I think most would embrace genuine good news and would not put political gains above military progress. But for those that have already gone out on a limb, claiming the war is already lost (Reid and company), this truly is a dilemma. They actually can't afford to believe any good news.

The same old story, the war is going just fine, it is just the big bad liberals who are preventing everyone from seeing it. The army can win if the civilian traitors would quit stabbing the brave soldiers in the back.

It's just interesting gaging the reactions to the piece. The fringe will never change. Even if the political and economic conditions follow this ostensible military improvement, there will still be unbelief. Heck, even if Iraq flourishes into a glorious democracy and our troops leave, there will still be unbelief.

The response IS interesting. You can see how desperate the supporters of the ware are, they are grasping at every tiny hint of progress. Mind you, this was not a news story but an opinion piece. The two were just drven in heavily armoured vehicles to carefully control meeting sites to talk with a very select group of people. The piece is about their opinions of how "things have really changed". There are no actual facts here, just feelings.

[Calminian]

Who is rushing what? Supporters of the war are rushing around touting the aritcle by "war skeptics" as evidence of "success". It is the White House that is pushing this article into for front of debate. Others are merely responding to the big media push.



These guys went to Iraq and talked with hand picked military and Iraqis in the Green Zone. This is just straw in the wnd. They don't speak Arabic and cannot go out of the Green Zone without heavy military protection. What kind of "reality" is that? You might want to check out a bit of back-peddling by Pollack any way.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...n-and-pol.html

So what is "victory"? What would it look like? A liberal western oriented pro-US government ruling the second largest proven reserve of oil free from civil war? Iraq is further that goal than it has been in decades.



The same old story, the war is going just fine, it is just the big bad liberals who are preventing everyone from seeing it. The army can win if the civilian traitors would quit stabbing the brave soldiers in the back.



The response IS interesting. You can see how desperate the supporters of the ware are, they are grasping at every tiny hint of progress. Mind you, this was not a news story but an opinion piece. The two were just drven in heavily armoured vehicles to carefully control meeting sites to talk with a very select group of people. The piece is about their opinions of how "things have really changed". There are no actual facts here, just feelings.

Still won't answer.

[Tladatsi]

Still won't answer.

Of course you won't, you can't.

[Calminian]

Of course you won't, you can't.

Impressive. A step below "I know you are but what am I?"

[Tladatsi]

Impressive. A step below "I know you are but what am I?"

Your OP asks how the O'Hanlon article makes me feel. I responded that he is a just a shill, parading about saying "Oh I am a war critic but gosh GWB is going a great job" and that he has along list of previously published articles where he basically the same as in this article so I do not believe him at all.

You did not respond to me but did post that you found interesting how everyone is scrambling to discredit the op-ed piece. I responded to your comment that it was the White House that was scrambling to hype up this article as evidence. I also pointed out that these guys were shuffled about in a bubble, the Green Zone and US military compounds with carefully selected people to talk to. I also asked what "victory" might look (no answer there).

Then you responded "still not answer" to my posting. What answer to what question? The only question you posed how I feel about the article (in your OP) which I gave an answer to. None of your other postings asked any questions.

So, my reply was whimsically posing the question, of course you did not get an answer, you did not ask a question.

What don't you know that I can give you the answer to?

[Alchemist]

Tossing about terms like "victory" in this conflict is just plain silly. We are not fighting a single force which we can either obliterate or cause to surrender. We are trying to stabilize the country enough to start removing our combat forces.

Any news toward that goal is good news, though until they start talking about real reductions in the number of troops patroling Iraqi streets, then there is no real way to tell actual progress from propaganda.

How about we let the military do its job, supply them with whatever is needed, and stop trying to guess what will happen next every time a new story comes out of Iraq.

To the OP.....

I am registered as an Independent, and consider myself politically moderate. Stabilizing Iraq would be a GREAT thing for this nation, the region, and the world at large. So any news that says we are getting closer to that goal is good news.

[Tladatsi]

Tossing about terms like "victory" in this conflict is just plain silly.

Yes indeed, silly it is.

We are not fighting a single force which we can either obliterate or cause to surrender. We are trying to stabilize the country enough to start removing our combat forces.

And have been for four years, with dead bodies and wasted treasure but little else to show for it.

Any news toward that goal is good news, though until they start talking about real reductions in the number of troops patroling Iraqi streets, then there is no real way to tell actual progress from propaganda.

And have been for four years and further from that goal than ever. Read Petraeus' op-ed piece of Septmber 2004 in the Washington Post. It says the same thing as does O'Hanlon's op ed pieces in the Washington Times.

How about we let the military do its job, supply them with whatever is needed, and stop trying to guess what will happen next every time a new story comes out of Iraq.

GWB has had carte blanche for years now and has made a complete mess of things. The war is already over. Bush is just running out the clock to pass the mess off to someone else.

To the OP.....

I am registered as an Independent, and consider myself politically moderate. Stabilizing Iraq would be a GREAT thing for this nation, the region, and the world at large. So any news that says we are getting closer to that goal is good news.

It is was not "news", it was an op-ed piece. Read the story, there are no facts or evidence. The authors just talk about "feelings" and "impressions", how things "seem" better. The 3rd infantry division of the Iraq army is made up of Sunni, Shia, and Kurds. After four years they have assembled an infantry division, a division that has done nothing.

As I noted above, everything this administration has said about Iraq has been wrong,either a lie or self-delusion. This op-ed piece is just one more sad example of this tragic waste of live, limb, and sanity.