using the Iraq Study Group for purely partisan political purposes.  Wasn't that clear from the original article?

The logic you used to reach that conclusion was specious.

I disagree that he's using the ISG for "purely partisan political" purposes. (I also think that's a tad bit redundant). Of course, you're a paid supporter of Judy Feder, so its not really like you'd ever really care what Frank Wolf was trying to do, as much as you care about telling other people why Frank Wolf is bad.

perhaps we can engage.  So far, I haven't seen one, except for a variety of rhetorical tricks -- red herrings, smoke and mirrors, etc.

It's in my first post. You just responded by restating what's in the original post.

How about this: Explain to me how you can prove that Wolf's actions are borne out of a desire to help Republicans, and not a desire to succeed in Iraq?

he wants to do both -- "succeed" (whatever that means at this point) in Iraq AND help Republicans win this November.  As to Wolf's motivations, I refer you back to the original article:

He also said that he has pressed for the group to publish its findings well before the election, which could help diminish voters' desire to see the withdrawal of U.S. forces. That would help the likely Republican nominee, McCain, who supports maintaining a strong troop presence.

Case closed.

"who supports maintaining a strong troop presence."

Wolf wants to maintain a strong troop presence in Iraq. Its clear that Obama does not want the same thing. Therefore, Wolf is supporting McCain to bring about a successful conclusion to Iraq--not for partisanship, but for victory.

Case closed.

should stay in Iraq for as many as 100 years?  I mean, since things are going so well there and all...

if the United States enters into a security agreement with the Iraqi Parliment, as we have with over 100 other countries, including Germany, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc., that we will have troops in Iraq as long as both sides agree with the arrangements.

Are you suggesting that the United States should not enter into a security arrangement with Iraq if it becomes a stable, sovereign country, as we do have with most other countries around the world? That seemes messed up.

Nowhere have I made the argument or even implied it.  Then, you proceed to take the argument that I didn't make and knock it down. How many flaws in logic are there in that one little paragraph?  A lot, that's all I know.

He indicated that, much like most other countries, the United States would enter into a security arrangement and we would have troops there. Does Frank Wolf agree with that? I think virtually everyone but the isolationists agree with that. So why even make the comment you made in the first place?

over and over.  

Eh, McCain is talking about a 100-year-war. What is the successful conclusion?

The invasion of Iraq is over. It was successful. We won.

The colonial Iraqi war is a costly failure.

The only pro-failure people are the warmongers who want to make Iraq an American colony. Because it doesn't matter how you slice it, the Iraqi people will not stand for that.

So what are the conditions of victory? Please describe it so that we can know exactly what he is talking that we know when it is time to leave Iraq.

I imagine its the same kind of presumptiveness that led you to declare what John McCain meant, instead of letting John McCain say what John McCain meant. Absolutely no one is talking about a 100 year war. Absolutely no one is talking about turning Iraq into a colony. Where do you get this stuff from?

And I posted the conditions of victory below.

You know well that McCain has said that he is for being in Iraq for 100 years.

But if you want me to find the clip, I will do it :)

And let me save you typing:

The arrangements with Germany, Korea, and Japan are not comparable since they happened after a government was defeated and pacified. If those countries want us for 100 years, most of us won't mind.

That is probably what Obama or Clinton are going to leave in Iraq after our troops leave.

However, Iraq today is more like Vietnam. 100 years of occupation is promising us 100 years of live conflict.

McCain is out of touch. We don't have the soldiers nor the money to sustain an active war for that long.

Once the job of the troops in Iraq is done and the Iraqi government is stable, their Parliment and our Congress will pass a security agreement, and if passed, we will have troops in Iraq.

OMG the horror!

You told me before that it wasn't good to to pretend to know what other people said when I talked about 100-Year War McCain.

I show the the clip where McCain says that we should stay for 100 years, and...

you start pretending that you know what McCain is saying!!!

You can decide to interpret what McCain says whatever way you like. To me and the rest of Americans, it sounds like he is willing to spend 100 years of active combat there.

McCain will stay and fight endlessly no matter what the cost in lives or money.  Only God can say whether the war will last 2 yrs, 5 yrs, 10 years, 50 years, 100 years, 500 years.  This whole region is drenched in blood and has been for 1000s of years.  Read its history.  If you like the Bible, start in the Old Testament. No one knows when the war will end and that is the problem.  bush and McCain are willing to stay and fight 100 years.  Because of the cost in lives and money, we can't stay and fight an unlimited time.

What is the definition of "victory" in Iraq that could justify the continual rotations of the same troops there?  At what point would McCain leave?  

There is no problem sharing positives and relative successes - but last I checked we are still losing at least an average of one soldier or Marine a day - and this is not acceptable.  What I have a problem with is the wrapped up pretty with a bow propaganda that this administration has been putting out there since day 1.  Lies and all.

Continual support of falsehoods at the expense of our volunteer army is UNamerican and UNacceptable.  We are not even taking care of our mentally and physically wounded properly when they get home.  The funding is not there.  It's a disgrace and it needs to stop.

They have their mission statement--I'll look around and try to find it--but the declaration of "victory" doesn't come from the President, it comes from those who are there.

have the "generals on the ground" defined U.S. strategy?  I could have sworn that we had civilian control of the military, and that the Commander in Chief (aka, the President) was the one who defined "victory."  Generals are there to carry out the President's orders and to provide accurate and timely advise/information/feedback.  

for trying to do just what you're talking about.  

And if the President decided to pull troops out, the armed forces would comply. But the President isn't on the ground, and doesn't make tactical decisions. I don't know who came up with that declaration of an End State, whether it was Admiral Fox or the Pentagon or the President or a combination thereof, but the generals on the ground are the ones who will know what it takes to reach that goal, and when we have. It is the President's duty not only to lead, but to listen to those who are entrusted to lead on the ground.

And of course Bush isn't on the ground: he is a certified chicken hawk.

I forgot all of those other Presidents who picked up a gun and fought after they made the decision to attack.

I don't know how many more times I have to outline for you the clear goals of the mission in Iraq.

as presented from day 1

Remove WMD's from Iraq as well as effectively castrate the prior friend but now foe, and man of great evil, Sadaam Hussein.  And all the oppressed Iraqis will greet us with smiles and roses and we'll live happily ever after as great liberators.

We did that.  No WMD's to be found (intel was a lie) and we had Sadaam HUNG.

We also had our President aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln with that HUGE Mission Accomplished banner.  Ahh - he must have been so proud to wear the uniform and land on that carrier.

New Goal - DEMOCRACY which will never be effectively accomplished, for reasons that are 1,000's of years old. Hell, we can't even get it right 1/2 the time in this country.

Another New Goal - REBUILD the massive destruction which we have wrought.  Try to get running water and power to at LEAST the levels prior to invasion.  Maybe open some schools and try to have some sort of infrastructure so the MILLIONS of Iraqi refugees can some day come "home."  ("home" = rubble)

We have as many contractors in Iraq as volunteer US forces.  We are paying out the *ss for these contractors and their no-bid huge salaries that are being paid to them -- without their being held accountable legally or otherwise for their actions.  And if we didn't have them - we would have to have a draft.

Meanwhile - we can't even get our government to fairly pay the "real" troops or care for them when they get home.

Oh -- and the President should understand that you don't send in the Marines or the Infantry to rebuild a nation.

Our current goals are not attainable.  Many Generals who have in the past overseen parts of the Iraq debacle have said this.  It's not exactly hard to see why.

So if you support McCain and the furthering of this bloody travesty then you surely must support a draft.  There is no way in hell that our military can sustain this for much longer - nor should they have to.  

It didn't take a general to define what victory was in WWII: taking down Hitler and fascistic Japan.

It didn't take a general to define victory in WWI: defeating Germany.

It didn't take a general to define victory in the Spanish American war: defeating Spain.

It didn't take a general to define victory in the Mexican-America war: defeating Mexico.

Yet somehow it takes a general to define victory for Iraq.

Maybe this means you don't know what you are talking about.

that leaves NMT 39% of the  electorate as potential buyers for McCain's hundred years.  With those numbers, I suppose that in Wolf's view, any straw is worth grasping at...

"victory" is determined by the generals on the ground - this is nuts.  What "Victory" is should have been clearly determined by bush before we went to war.  The generals on the ground are doing their part to help win the war.  General Petraeus has said the Army cannot win by itself. It can only do its part.

"defeat at any costs" strategy of both Obama and Clinton. McCain is the candidate of war at any cost. bush-cheney administration claimed the war would only cost a couple hundred million, we are now up to roughly 20 billion per month.  They said the war would only take a few months, we are now up to years.  They said we would be welcomed as liberators, we are now up to 40,000 killed and wounded.

We have to change course.  Neither Obama nor Clinton is suggesting we just leave.  However, we have to start redeploying our forces for the good of our country.  McCain is more delusional than bush on the subject of war. With the human and financial toll the war is taking on America, we can't stay in Iraq another 100 years to make McCain happy.    

http://img134.imageshack.us/im...

END STATE

Iraq at peace with its neighbors, with a representative government that respects the human rights of all Iraqis, and security forces sufficient to maintain domestic order and to deny Iraq as a safe haven to terrorists.

we really will be there 100 years, probably longer.  The fact is, it's utter insanity to think that we will ever turn Iraq into a Jeffersonian Democracy, yet that's essentially what's envisioned here.  Crazy.

Pakistan has a representative government, and they've been barely above a failed state since its inception.

If a Jeffersonian democracy is not acceptable, and Pakistan is not acceptable, what is acceptable to declare victory in Iraq?

Who said either of those weren't acceptable? I'm really confused here.

 

If those are the goals  (0.00 / 0)
we really will be there 100 years, probably longer.  The fact is, it's utter insanity to think that we will ever turn Iraq into a Jeffersonian Democracy, yet that's essentially what's envisioned here.  Crazy.

Thank you for visiting RK! Click here to learn how to join Virginia's progressive online community.
by: Lowell @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 1:25:23 PM EST
[ Parent | Reply | ]
by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.
# You must enter a subject for your comment
A representative government doesn't equal Jeffersonian Democracy (0.00 / 0)
Pakistan has a representative government, and they've been barely above a failed state since its inception.
by: Va Blogger2 @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 2:00:43 PM EST
[ Parent | Reply | ]

So we don't need to wait for a Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq, but the Pakistani model is faulty too. You called it, failed state since its inception.

So what kind of representative democracy are we shooting for them? Don't they already have one? Oh, but the current one must not be acceptable either.

You see, hard to measure.

First, I didn't call a Pakistan a failed state. I said they've been just above one since its inception.

Second, the reason for that isn't because of their government. Its for several reasons, most of which are way beyond you.

Third, Pakistan has a representative government in spite of its close-to-failed status. Nothing bears this out better than this week's parlimentary elections.

You've done absolutely nothing in this thread but make silly strawman arguments and fail to understand what anybody is talking about. As a result, I've wasted my time explaining things to you that shouldn't need to be explained.

But you got a cookie from Lowell, so I guess you're pretty proud of yourself.

I am responding to what you said.

I said that the goals that the generals, the people that Bush and you need to tell you what victory consists in, were fuzzy.

Lowell said that it would take longer than 100 years to turn it into a Jeffersonian Democracy.

Your retort is that that the generals don't have that in mind.  Then you add that Pakistan, and let me quote you again on this one

Pakistan has a representative government, and they've been barely above a failed state since its inception.

Since you called it "barely above a failed state since its inception" I assumed that you weren't proposing Pakistan as a model either.

But it seems that you have trouble reading your own writing. No wonder you need generals to tell you what victory is about. ;)

Since you seemed to be unable to admit that the definition that you provided is fuzzy and hard to measure, you retorted to attack me. This is rushlimbaughese for "I lost this debate."

You weren't that bad, really. You were actually must better than the Republicans I debated in 2004.

Let me give you a hint that I learned early about debating: don't defend indefensible positions. It doesn't matter how smart you are, you can't win positions that are lost to begin with.

If you suddenly find yourself caught arguing in favor of an indefensible position, like you did in this thread on fuzzy goals or when you demanded proof for 100 Year War McCain, concede the point and move on. :)

I did not say that a Jeffersonian Democracy is "not what the generals have in mind". That would a dumb thing to say, for several reasons. First, I don't know what the generals have in mind. Second, its not up to the generals; its up to the Iraqi people. Third, I imagine the generals really don't care that much about the specifics of government the Iraqis set up, as long as its stable. I know that I don't.

But Lowell, in his usual fashion, employed a strawman by stating that we were seeking Iraqis to set up a "Jeffersonian Democracy", then proceeded to explain why that was a bad idea. KUTGW, Lowell!

I explained that a "representative government", as described in the End State goal, could mean many, many different things. And I gave the example of Pakistan. Why? Because Pakistan is, by all accounts, a chaotic country. Yet even they have a representative government. Therefore, it is not too much to hope for that Iraqis will also be able to have one.

It wasn't that hard to follow. I'm sorry it took you half the day and 20 posts by me for you to finally figure it out (assuming that you have).

What you think I said doesn't even make sense. You assumed I meant that I don't support what Pakistan has, and I stated that Pakistan has a "representative government". That would mean that I don't support Iraq having a "representative government", even though I just spent half the day pointing to that as one of the military's clearly defined goal.s

Let me give you a hint: think through your interpretation of what your opponent said, and if it doesn't make sense, then figure out if you got something wrong and see if there is any other way to interpret what was written. It will go a long way to prevent you making absurd comments. You could have simply replied with, "I don't understand the point you made", and we could've had the matter cleared up in just a handful of posts.

We can't win them all...

If you weren't going to say anything in response to the points I laid out, then why go through the trouble of posting at all?

I am willing to give it :) What topic?

So far, you've responded to everything with either a false interpretation or a non-sensical remark.

You can't measure those things. These are bad goals.

I have an idea: let's occupy Israel and Palestine and set those same goals for Isrealis and Palestinians: we shouldn't leave until they can live in harmony respect one another human rights and security.

So when are we leaving? :)

You can measure all of those things, but if you think they're bad goals, you are more than welcome to tell Rear Admiral Fox that. Do you need me to send you directions to his office?

You can't make up your own mine what kind of a representative democracy Iraq should have in a single conversation.

That proves that they are fuzzy.

That is why the Iraqi invasion is over and has been won.

Objective: take down Saddam.

Easy to measure. Easy to see the victory condition.

It is well known in management that if you don't have clear, measurable objectives you are doomed to failure. And the military is well aware of this idea since it is a key element of the Powell Doctrine.

As you can see, clinging to fuzzy objectives is supporting defeat.  

You can't make up your own mine what kind of a representative democracy Iraq should have in a single conversation.

I really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. What conversation were you reading?

The stated goal was for Iraq to reach a representative government. That can mean a lot of different things, and its not up for me to decide what I want, its up for the Iraqi people to determine for themselves.

I don't know what you read or how you got confused, but its pretty tiring to have to explain the same thing over and over again.

since the Iraqi "government" failed to meet a vast majority of the benchmarks -- does "goals" make it seem more attainable?

on a roll! :)  Great work, keep it up.

n/t

or do you need a general for that as well?

You specifically asked what the goals in Iraq. Instead of me, a single dude living in Virginia, coming up with one, I directed you to the one those in the military are actually using.

How many more non-sensical posts are you going to make?

Come on, you really didn't my point? You are kidding, right? :)

nt

General Anthony Zinni
General Joseph Hoar
General Karen Kwiatkowski
Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack, Jr.
Maj. Gen. John Batiste
Lieut. Gen. Greg Newbold
Lt. Gen. Robert Gard
Brig. Gen. John Johns
Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez

In addition to many military commanders, and other experts

There are many generals and military commanders, and other experts, who disagree with them too.

repeatedly talking with the WH (and Rove), how much more political could it get?

to find out. :)