SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Joe Liberman's Neverending Quest To Hit Rock Bottom

THE PLANK JANUARY 11, 2007

Joe Liberman's Neverending Quest To Hit Rock Bottom

BY TNR STAFF

"We need to cut through the confusion. Bringing security to Baghdad--the essential precondition for political compromise, national reconciliation and economic development--is possible only with a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so. Any other option is likely to fail."

--Frederick Kagan and Jack Keane, The Washington Post, 12/27/06

"Thanks to General Keane and Fred Kagan for the extraordinary contribution that you have made to the debate, both in terms of overall policy, but the combination of real on-the-ground, boots on-the-ground operational experience that, General Keane, you bring; and the sense of history and policy, Fred, that you bring--you are a powerful combination. And at a perilous moment for our nation, you are making a very significant and unique contribution.

--Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman on Kagan's and Keane's presentation of their plan at The American Enterprise Institute, 01/05/07

"President Bush tonight announced a new approach that called for sending some 21,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq but also warned its government that 'America's commitment is not open-ended.'"

--The Los Angeles Times's summary of Bush's speech, 01/10/07

"I applaud the President for rejecting the fatalism of failure and pursuing a new course to achieve success in Iraq. ... Success is attainable in Iraq, and tonight the President has offered a comprehensive program to chart a new course in both winning the military struggle to establish order and in achieving the political and economic objectives to build a more promising future for Iraqis. However, no progress is possible unless we restore order, particularly in Baghdad. Tonight, the President did not take the easy path, but he took the correct and courageous course."

--Lieberman, in a statement released after the president's address, 01/10/07

If you're an apparatchik, you're an apparatchik. There's no going half way. We can thank Joe Lieberman, once again, for making this clear.

--Isaac Chotiner

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 80 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

80 comments

Chotiner, wtf are you talking about? Do you seriously believe that a difference of 9,000 troops means anything? Rather than hurling mroe idiotic Kos-style taunts at Lieberman, could the Plankers maybe... propose, or even point us to, an intelligent strategy they favor? hint: withdrawal, if it's to avoid turning into a rout with 1000s of US casualties, would require many MORE troops than even the surge-mongers propose. John Keegan thinks 50,000 additional troops would be reuired to protect us, clear exit routes etc in case of a withdrawal.

- teplukhin

January 11, 2007 at 12:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...does not make him an "aparatchik" or a hack or whatever other dimunation with which you are trying to tar him. Just as your smugness and cynicism does not make you sophisticated. It just makes you a schmuck.

- ChanRobt

January 11, 2007 at 1:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What a joke, Mr. Chotiner. "...it is clear that Lieberman was being targeted for expulsion not as a matter of policy, but of purity. He did not share the polarized Democrats' hatred and contempt for Bush and the Republican leadership, and he committed the unpardonable sin of actually working with the other side on occasion." http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254149&ka id=127&subid=173

- Onnword

January 11, 2007 at 1:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rumor has it, if tep, Chan and thompsondavid get the first three posts in a row then the ghost of Ronald Reagan appears and fires everyone under the age of 50. Just being safe. I couldn't handle that much Joementum around here.

- maxzig1

January 11, 2007 at 2:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

tee hee. /not. I have never cared for Holy Joe. I care less for idiotic talk of withdrawal that ignores the fact that absent a huge increase in US troops it would be a turkey shoot for the insurgents.

- teplukhin

January 11, 2007 at 2:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm constantly astonished at the manifest indecency of everyone who disagrees with Isaac Chotiner. At weak moments, I confess to having wondered whether a more knowledgable and competent approach to the war might bring some measure of improvement to the blighted fortunes of the Iraqi people. What sort of depraved apparatchik would think such things? How quickly the audacity of hope leads on to the treachery of optimism.

- lluppen

January 11, 2007 at 2:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...when, according to the Wash. Post's detailed article last night on the beer bottles and dead cats that the JCS threw at Bush while he was coming up with this "plan" -- they told him flatly that there was no conceivable way they could PROVIDE him with more than 20,000 more troops: " "Those who favored a 'surge,' such as Kagan and McCain, were looking for a sizable force that would turn the tide in Baghdad. But the Joint Chiefs made clear they could muster 20,000 at best -- not for long, and not all at once." (Presumably that includes the infantry battalion we're about to pull out of east Afghanistan just as the Taliban are grouping for a major offensive to retake Kandahar.) We could have gotten those troops at one time with a draft -- assuming that any sane American would trust these halfwits with a draft -- but even if we initiated one immediately, it would take at least 6 months to train them properly. So, Teplukhin, if we really are going to lose men (and materiel) "by the thousands" during our withdrawal, we had better prepare to lose thousands of men. We have about as much strategic alternative to that at this point as Napoleon had during the Retreat from Russia. And the "solutions" posited by you, ChanRobt, Onnword, Lieberman and McCain are reminiscent of the captain's immortal command in "Yellowbeard": "Proceed under sail as fast as we can without a sail." Oh, and the real reason for the "surge", as also quoted in that Post article? "Although the president was publicly polite, few of the key Baker-Hamilton recommendations appealed to the administration, which intensified its own deliberations over a new 'way forward' in Iraq. How to look distinctive from the study group became a recurring theme. As described by participants in the administration review, some staff members on the National Security Council became enamored of the idea of sending more troops to Iraq in part because it was not a key feature of Baker-Hamilton." That is, the only reason for the Surge is to personally spite Poppy. Period.

- moomaw1

January 11, 2007 at 2:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

moomaw, please read my posts. I've proposed again and again that we REDEPLOY WITHIN IRAQ, not withdraw. I oppose a "surge". I favor getting out, for the most part, of Baghdad, and redeploying to the north and the border regions with a lighter force. Our footprint in Baghdad must be civil affairs, special ops etc-- as light as can possibly be. Everywhere else it should be highly mobile and rely as much as possible on overwhelming air power. Again, READ. Quit lumping me in with the surge-ists. As idiotic as the withdrawal-niki.

- teplukhin

January 11, 2007 at 3:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And no, we are not going to lose men by the thousands if we redeploy rather than withdraw.

- teplukhin

January 11, 2007 at 3:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Quotations from Lt Gen David Petraeus's field manual of counterinsurgency warfare, published by the Army last month and available at www.leavenworth.army.mil. Excerpts: From a summary of "unsuccessful practices," here's the No. 1 mistake: "Overemphasize killing and capturing the enemy rather than securing and engaging the populace." Long-term success "depends on the people taking charge of their own affairs and consenting to the government's rule." Killing insurgents "by itself cannot defeat an insurgency." From the section titled "Paradoxes of Counterinsurgency Operations": "Sometimes, the More You Protect Your Force, the Less Secure You May Be." "If military forces remain in their compounds, they lose touch with the people, appear to be running scared, and cede the initiative to the insurgents." "Sometimes Doing Nothing Is the Best Reaction." "Some of the Best Weapons for Counterinsurgents Do Not Shoot." "The More Successful the Counterinsurgency Is, the Less Force Can Be Used and the More Risk Must Be Accepted." As the host nation takes control, "Soldiers may have to accept more risk to maintain involvement with the people." [tepl.] Don't withdraw, redeploy. Protect the huge successes we've achieved in the north and south and get out of the way of the fascists inside the Sunni Triangle as they kill each other.

- teplukhin

January 11, 2007 at 3:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Withdrawal-mongers, please note Gen Petraeus's wise words: "Sometimes, the More You Protect Your Force, the Less Secure You May Be." Withdrawal is the ultimate in wrongheaded self-"protection." Absent a force many times larger than the equally-foolish "surge", a withdrawal would result in nearly as many US casualties as we've sustained since March 03. Madness.

- teplukhin

January 11, 2007 at 3:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Maybe I've been watching "House" too much, but it sounds like Lieberman has a neurological problem. How did Gore ever pick this guy?

- chrismealy

January 11, 2007 at 3:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Sometimes, the More You Protect Your Force, the Less Secure You May Be." "Force protection" doesn't refer to shipping them back to Carolina. Petraeus means that shooting confused Iraqis at disorganized checkpoints and patrolling around in tanks ultimately causes more problems than it solves.

- chrismealy

January 11, 2007 at 3:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Shipping" - lol. So please tell us, oh clever one, how exactly you intend to get 100,000 troops safely onto ships and transport aircraft safely without protecting them with another, oh, let's say, 30,000 additional troops.

- teplukhin

January 11, 2007 at 4:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ARather, he's a cynical coward. How do people have any respect for these guys. This war is a f--king loser, but his position is never say die. During Vietnam, Lieberman, when his craven ass was at risk, his position was deferments, baby. Just like his buddy, Chris Shays who was a f--king conscientious objector(!!), for Pete's sake. I hold the past actions of these guys over their heads. All this bullshit about hawkishness, means nothing to me when the so-called hawks have proven themselves cowards. In the larger sense, this means nothing, and doesn't address the Iraq situation. But why the media and others give these fucking COWARDS any credibility is beyond me. Chan, unlike most of the young people in the service, you are well-informed, and sophisticated. To my mind, that should, whether you basically agree with these war hawks positions, give you some pause. With the post-invasion information you now possess--no yellow cake, aluminum tube hyping, no WMD, administration dismissal of intel caveats, ZERO post-war planning, GOP policy U-turn on "nation building",Iraq GOP hack job program, no Iraq-9/11 and Al Qaeda connection--would you still support the invasion? Would you be willing to sacrifice your life or those of your children? Probably not. I see in your posts an affection for tough talk and unbridled ruthlessness (albeit necessary) in war. You strike me as one who views war from the arms-length, distorted distance shaped by video games and book reading. You, like the neocon cowards, are in love with the notion of military action as the answer to every problem. (Some of your statements: "It may be that what doesn't work in warfare is limited warfare. And the only 'shock and awe' that is awesome and shocking is to be utterly flattened." "We have tried to fight 'humanely' in Iraq and it doesn't seem to be working." "For some reason, we have refrained from attacking nations like Iran and Syria who are providing help to our enemies in Iraq.") When I hear this macho shit from someone who served, particularly in combat, I can accept it. But when it comes from the likes of Lieberman, Kagan, Bolton, Kristol, Lowry, and you(?), I feel sick. So you think the troops are fighting "humanely?" Should our troops kill everyone, including children? Let's face it, the Shiites and Sunnis attack them. Maybe the country can be nuked. Do you think our troops like killing people? Of course, they do what they have to do. Have you ever put yourself in that position? (Of exposing yourself to danger and killing the enemy.) You want to attack Syria and Iran? Where's the draft? You paln to volunteer. We should hate those regimes, but war isn't the answer to every problem. I could go on but I'll depart with a few qoutes by the ruthless Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman. "It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell." "War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it..." Keep on glorifying war. . .

- tec619

January 11, 2007 at 7:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Absent a force many times larger than the equally-foolish "surge", a withdrawal would result in nearly as many US casualties as we've sustained since March 03. Madness." That's complete BS. It took 3 weeks for us to get into Baghdad. It would take a week to get out to Kuwait under the cover airstrike if need be. You think the insurgents are stupid and will chase us into the open. Announce a retreat and Insurgents and Shiite militia are probably going to pullback to fortify their areas of control to prepare for the next phase.

- Yminale

January 11, 2007 at 8:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Three cheers for tec610 and his wonderful post above!!! For all you blood and guts but never serve warriors and self educated military experts, I suggest you read and reread it. I will merely post his quote from General Sherman:

- bkinfo

January 11, 2007 at 8:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell." Yes, a military is necessary ... but should only be used in extreme cases for national defense or where the goals are clear and achievable. Neither was or is the case in Iraq. For the record, I served (peactime draftee) as did my son, military officer for seven years, including nearly two years in the Gulf. He is a bit more hawkish than I am, but unlike the chickens who post here, he put his body on the line.

- bkinfo

January 11, 2007 at 8:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I came to that conclusion after noticing the way you insult the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you on this issue [and others]. So is it safe to assume that you're the greatest strategist and campaigner since Alexander of Macedon or is it safe to assume that you're full of crap and rely on verbal abuse to bludgeon your opponents into submission? P.S. Love the way you deny any affection for Joe Lieberman. It's just that you despise anyone who disagrees with him. Not the same thing, I'm sure!

- Fairfax

January 11, 2007 at 9:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

that ChanRobt may be busy inventing a glorious military background for himself this very moment.

- Fairfax

January 11, 2007 at 9:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

bkinfo -- So whether one serves in the military or not simply comes down to "cowardice"? This is a curious assertion. Perhaps some of the people posting here grew up in peacetime and when they hit 18 military service simply did not seem like a vital option -- no wars then or on the horizon, college to anticipate, and so forth. Denigrating someone's lack of service devoid of context is pretty vacuous; privileging someone's service devoid of the same context is not much better. An argument ought to stand or fall on its own merits. If something makes sense, it makes sense. There are people who have served in the military who both support and oppose the war. There are those who have never served who support and oppose the war. Rudimentary logic indicates that all of those who did not serve cannot be wrong just because they did not serve. Plus, isn't this a slippery slope? After all, if biography is destiny on matters military, then why would that not hold for other issues as well? Only professors can speak about higher education? Only athletes can talk about sports? Only politicians can talk about politics? Only Greeks can talk about Greece? Only Starbucks baristas can talk about coffee? Actually, the more I think about it, your argument is daft on so many levels it almost baffles the imagination. dcat

- derekcatsam

January 11, 2007 at 9:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've had this discussion before with Chan, it's a non starter, it gets nowhere. Conceptually, it is acceptable to support a war without having been in combat I think, war is a policy decision in a democracy - the final decision is the President's, but it's next to impossible to maintain without the support of the people. The issue is how does one continue to support THIS war while having never been in combat? How does one dare question the patrotism or guts or stamina of anyone questioning the continuing sanity of this disaster? While almost always pointing out their party affiliation before anything else? While never discussing at all what they will sacrifice? It's called partisonship over everything and it is an irreversible condition, sickening really.

- WandreyCer

January 11, 2007 at 9:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

after running away from Bush to get himself re elected, is back in his arms again, baby. All the usual suspects here on this thread. Same courageous, clear headed, visionary, honorable, have all the answers, on on hand but the conservative hand is better people, all saying the same crap. Just like Bush and Lieberman. Last night two things became clear: One, Bush is just stalling for time. He knows, he even said, that when Iraq goes down, it will be hell and the timeline on his "plan" will conveniently make the day of reckoning to coincide with the arrival of a new president, be he or she Democrat or Republican. He is passing this mess over to the next executive. Real courage there. And Joe Lieberman is beyond hope. What an incredibly needy, sanctimonious man. God, I wish that Lamont had beaten this toad. Perhaps if someone like Collins or another of the remaining "moderate" repubs can read the tea leaves - Bush is screwing his party to save the painful inevitable decision - and switch parties and we can dump Lieberman and hand him over to Bush and McCain for good.

- MrCookie1

January 11, 2007 at 9:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

you let me know if you catch any shit from The Spinifier over this post. I gotch your back baby. Since the fall, I have gone back to both heavy and speed bag workouts and though the timing is a lot slower than say, 20 years ago, the power is still there. I would love to test it out on a deserving recipient. Hang tough young stripling...

- MrCookie1

January 11, 2007 at 9:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You make a fair argument- I had this discussion with a friend of mine that was (formerly) in the Navy, and I shut him up with, "Well, you've never been a teacher, so how dare you have children and expect me to educate them?" But I think this TEC619 guy isn't dismissing the views of ALL non-veterans, only the ones (like Kristol, Cheney, some people who post here frequently) who DELIGHT in disparaging the masculinity and patriotism of folks who DARE to question the strategy or intentions of THIS PARTICULAR war. I also think some of these guys come pretty close to glorifying and fetishizing war, which is a little dangerous when the ramifications can always be kept at arm's length.

- jmurph79

January 11, 2007 at 9:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Do you also find strange and offensive that so-called military experts haven't any street cred? Why is their experience limited to draft deferments and book learning? Some dismiss my focus on these pussies lack of military service, but wouldn't uniformed service be the first rung on the ladder to expert-ship? Especially for people who were service age during a war (Vietnam) and a DRAFT!! Moreover, this salient lack of service for men (or are they eunuchs?) who are bewitched and hopelessly enamored of martial responses to every problem speaks to their fundamental lack of character. Normally, people pursue what they love,either professionally or as hobbyists. People who love flying obtain pilot licenses. People who love police work either become cops or members of police auxiliaries. Railroad hobbyists ride trains or build models. Military service is open to all. These supposedly smart guys should have easily enlisted in the military. Or like Bush and Bolton, sign up for the National Guard, when that route was safe. Particularly during a draft. Yet, Cheney, the Kagan brothers, Kristol, Libby, Gaffney, Peretz, Fieth, O'Hanlon, Zacariah, David Ignatius, Ken Adelman, Perle and on and on, all missed the bus trip to the MEPS center. Should I or anyone respect any of the aggressive prescriptions they advocate? This isn't to say that they may not offer good advice. However, this obsessive embrace of military force dogma is offensive when it comes from--what else?proven cowards. Why should anyone respect people who are pro-war but refused to serve?

- tec619

January 11, 2007 at 9:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I see. Again, military service or its lack tells me nothing about the wisdom of your positions on any given foreign policy issue. What I find passing strange is that people who oppose this war used to quote former Gen. Shinseki as saying that it would take 200,000 troops to do this job, and criticized W and Rummy for sending only 140,000. Now W says, you're right, we need more troops, and now W is wrong for that, too. Which is it? Durbin said that the 20,000 is not enough to end the civil war. OK, how many would be enough? The Senator sayeth not.

- butchie b

January 11, 2007 at 9:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But once again, in a policy debate, we should not be privileging biography. If you cannot attack and argument on its merits or lack thereof, that's your problem. Calling someone a "pussy" or a "eunuch" (You stay classy, tec619) doesn't exactly provide for edifying debate. dcat

- derekcatsam

January 11, 2007 at 9:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here, here. Here at TNR, a safe haven for chicken hawks, especially if you own the rag, you can be pro war, pro every war on the planet and yet never serve one moment...and have the audacity to call someone like John Kerry, a real vet and hero who has been within death's breath distance of the enemy, all kinds of names and question his courage, accomplishments, integrity. I spoke with someone recently who asked me "what the hell is going on at TNR? That does not look like the magazine I remember". I had no answer other than to say that the younger guard is solid and the ever handy, "and the arts section is great".

- MrCookie1

January 11, 2007 at 9:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm wondering when the hectoring dodges about Clinton, rosie O'Donnell, Jane Fonda (my favorite) will be rolled out. I give it five minutes.

- WandreyCer

January 11, 2007 at 9:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No biography isn't destiny, but it counts. Lieberman is a self-styled hawk and Wolfowitz, Cheney, Gaffney, Kristol, Kagan and the rest of the neocons have made careers advocating muscular foreign policy and aggressive use of the military. Why then did they refuse to serve? Why when they were between 17 and 25 years of age, did they avoid service in Vietnam? That's patriotism? No, that's cynicism and COWARDICE. I understand if people disagree with military service, or a particular war. But these guys want to be pro-war as long as others do the fighting. Do you find that position moral? Chris Shays was a conscientious objector during Vietnam. That means he was morally opposed to war. (Though one could claim CO status and serve as a medic or corpsman. Notably Shays didn't go that route.) When, then, did Shays lower the justification bar for war bar drop to ankle level. Until I heard of Shays Vietnam years, I didn't even know that the chickens pussies behavior could sink below contemptible. If you won a Purple Heart or other award after a disfiguring injury, would you want him at your ceremony? I'd spit on Shays.

- tec619

January 11, 2007 at 9:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

again and again posters ignore what he is saying and either argue in bad faith or just insult him as per Fairfax instead of attempting to rebut his statements. Yminale, who has a tendency for overstatement, at least does so. I agree we should redeploy in Iraq, our soldiers shouldn't be beat cops in Bagdad, and go to Kurdistan, in this way we can lower our troop strength and still be in a position to influence events. As to why this is a bad idea, or any of Teps ideas are bad is met with. "You didn't serve", or "Bush is stupid" Tec, I like your posts generally, but I think you should give the whole service angle a bit of a rest. I guess according to you no woman can be President because she will lack the necessary military expertise. I have never served but I have spent the past dozen years in third world countries and am multilingual, does that not count for anything? Or does knowledge only come from having learned to shoot a gun? Granted, now I am in Mexico so it is not quite so bad but were you aware that my City Oaxaca has just spent the better part of half a year under virtual siege? And that some people have died due to the street riots and gunfire, including a journalist? It is with relief that the Federal army finally moved into the city and ended this trauma. Yet because I am a soldier I have no right to comment? My perspective means nothing?

- blackton

January 11, 2007 at 10:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What I find passing strange is that people who oppose this war used to quote former Gen. Shinseki as saying that it would take 200,000 troops to do this job, and criticized W and Rummy for sending only 140,000. Now W says, you're right, we need more troops, and now W is wrong for that, too." I have to think that you know that is a bogus argument. Their point, at the time (nearly FOUR years ago), was that it would take more troops to do the job properly. They've obviously been vindicated. Their point NOW is that it is too little, too late. That seems fairly obvious.

- jmurph79

January 11, 2007 at 10:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You prefer to keep the discussion on a narrow,clinical path. You tut, tut, like a dispassionate observer. That's fine for you. Morality is important to me. You are right to point out the hypocrisy of the war's opponents--and supporters. I wish you could perform that hypocrisy check on me. I've opposed this fiasco from day one. I didn't ignore the sins of Saddam, but the biographies of the players bothered me. Their endless lies have proven me right. Do you honestly all of the Bushies justifications for this war? Some say they can't believe Bush would risk lives because of personal revenge and blah, blah blah. Well, I say grow up. Ours is a government of men and our history is one of rectitude. I've given up on you. I'll just ask you this: Would you be willing to risk your life in Iraq.

- tec619

January 11, 2007 at 10:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

made a good point last night. He said that we can put any number - 20K, 100K, 500K - of troops though it will still be bloody, those troops will, as long as they are there, prop up this chimera of a govt. However, once they leave, be it today, in two years or in 50 years, the day of reckoning will come. So, he asked, how long do we want to occupy Iraq to prevent the Civil War from reaching its logical and horrible conclusion. Bush's plan is silent on this point. It is, as I mentioned, a dodge and evasion of responsibility, responsibility that will no matter when our troops do get removed, will fall on The Decider's shoulders and legacy.

- MrCookie1

January 11, 2007 at 10:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What I find passing strange is that people who oppose this war used to quote former Gen. Shinseki as saying that it would take 200,000 troops to do this job, and criticized W and Rummy for sending only 140,000" Shinseki's estimate was 500,000 and that was no insurgency and civil war (based on 20 soldiers for every 1000 civilians). The "surge" isn't suficient even to pacify Baghdad (6 million residents).

- Yminale

January 11, 2007 at 10:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The "surge" is suppose to last 2 years. Exactly the amount of time the decider has remaining in office.

- Yminale

January 11, 2007 at 10:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But you elide the point -- either someone's case is strong and worthwhile or it is not. That someone did not serve twenty or thirty years ago is largely irrelevant to the question of what they believe about this war now. I agree, biography is not irrelevant, but the gist of your argument is a personal one in which biography trumps everything -- you are criticizing people's vews for something utterly unconnected to this war. I loathe Rummy, do not like Bush, felt as if a war in Iraq could have been justifiable, but not this one as it was precented and as it has been waged. But my loathing for Rumsfeld has everything to do with his arrogance and hubris and incompetence in THIS conflict in THIS (see -- I can put things in capital letters too!) day and age, and not because thirty years ago he made different decisions, decisions that at the time were not exactly uncommon. And I can articulate those things without resorting to calling people "pussies" or "eunuchs." Or "cowards." Again -- there are lots of reasons why people did or did not serve. Simplistically reducing surely complex motives to "cowardism" may make you feel like a hero, but it hardly furthers the discussion. Would it make me right if I found two or five or ten people who fundamentally feel as Bush and Rumsfeld do who have impeccable levels of service? And if so, why? We are dealing with ideas that have a direct impact on policy. Armchair psychology and lazy name calling does not get us anywhere. dcat

- derekcatsam

January 11, 2007 at 10:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I guess you could make such an interpretation if you, as you've done here, selectively quote Lieberman's statement and omit the preceding paragraphs where he discusses the mistakes that have been made in Iraq up until now.

- bigm

January 11, 2007 at 10:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, you are correct. It will last 2 years, just long enough for Bush to skedaddle back to Crawford. But, patroling Baghdad and "winning" the war are two separate goals and on this, more of the same from Bush. One could reasonably argue that instead of being an example of Lieberman sanctioned courage, this was actually an arguable example of cowardice, an inability to take real responsibility for his failures. Somehow, I have screwed up and support me as I screw up in the same fashion, just doesn't ring the courage bells with me and many, many Americans.

- MrCookie1

January 11, 2007 at 10:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You trotted out old red herring and misrepresentation regarding whether one should have military service. I've explained before, that my position isn't that politicians or even defense academics must have military service. I'll explain again. My problem is with people who advocate aggressive military action as the answer to most any problem, but refused to serve. There is a moral gap there. People die in war , therefore a little consistency should be expected. Would you invest your money with a reputable investment firm or a convicted and unreconstructed confidence man? Would you entrust your medical care to someone who only read books? Do you respect in-the-closet politicians who publicly condemn gays? I don't understand. Let's take Frank Gaffney. This guy believes the word diplomacy is meaningless unless it is preceded by "gunboat." He graduated from high school in 1971. Now this guy can tell you the throw weight of missiles, hated negotiating with the Soviets, especially on ABM. A real fire breather. One would think a guy this jingoistic would have tried to get his licks in during Vietnam. Did he join the Air Force and seek a billet in the Air Force Space Command? No. He attended Georgetown, then goes to work on the Hill with another hawkish, "military service is for suckers," neocon, Richard Perle. Which committee? Senate Armed Services of course. Gaffney accumulates defense experience through policy papers, conferences, ultra-safe junkets and a stint as Assistant Secretary of Defense. Should I respect Gaffney? Should I respect anything this he says? I would be skeptical. You can buy fire extinguishers from arsonists. I'd decline.

- tec619

January 11, 2007 at 10:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Again, I don't care if a person served in the military. I simply don't want to be sent to combat by people who always see war as an answer and REFUSED to serve. Regarding your "cowards remark: I didn't reduce the chicken pussies motives to "cowardism." (Is that a word? Try perfidy.) I assert that their actions prove they are cowards. Also, what of these "surely complex" motives? Do you know what they are? Would they want the American people to know what they are? Why are they complex in the first place? What do you call someone who advocates war, is enlistment age and opts out. A hero? Bullies aren't bullies because they pick on people their own size. Would you want to risk your life for this morally bankrupt crowd? I call them pussies because they are. If we had honorable differences that would be one thing. But these guy don't deserve any respect. For them it's war, war war, oops we made a mistake, war , war, war. How many dead Americans will saftify you? 3000+ troops have been killed and this crowd is agitating for--other Americans--to take on Syria and Iran. The armchair musing is the stuff of the chickens. I've been to their shithole.

- tec619

January 11, 2007 at 11:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I usually find your posts to be pretty solid, and though I don't disagree that quickly leaving Iraq would be foolish, the idea that we would be routed and slaughtered as we withdrew from the coutry strikes me as wrong. The insurgents don't have the capacity to inflict heavy casualities on American forces.

- mpatrickhendri

January 11, 2007 at 11:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your words in quotation marks, mine preceded by ** "Again, I don't care if a person served in the military. I simply don't want to be sent to combat by people who always see war as an answer and REFUSED to serve." ** But we are dealing with one specific war. You keep saying that we are dealing with people who *always* see war as an answer, but this is empty phrasing. We are not fighting Vietnam. We are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. People who did not fight then cannot go back and fight now. Your point is irrelevant. "Regarding your "cowards remark: I didn't reduce the chicken pussies motives to "cowardism." (Is that a word? Try perfidy.) I assert that their actions prove they are cowards." ** So you are saying that not going to war = cowardice in all instances? And I'll aska yes or no question: Do you think it is acceptable to call people "pussies" in a forum such as this? Oh, and is there anyone else who thinks it is rich that someone without the courage to use their own name in this forum is ascribing cowardice to other people? "Also, what of these "surely complex" motives? Do you know what they are? Would they want the American people to know what they are? Why are they complex in the first place?" ** That is the point -- neither of us knows their motives. You thus assume that not wanting to fight in Vietnam is tantamount to cowardice. I assert that we do not know the motives. We simply do not. But for you this is the only rationale for your name-calling: What they did 30 years ago means they must be cowards now. "What do you call someone who advocates war, is enlistment age and opts out. A hero?" ** I actually don't feel the need to develop facile labels at every turn. the other thing is that I have a sense of chronology where you apparently do not. We are talking about people who are advocating a war in 2003-2007. And we are talking about people who opted out of war in 1964-1974. these are different times and different conflicts. (I'd also point out Tim O'Brien's wonderful short story in which he concludes by saying that he was a coward because he went to war. But you have established yourself, anonymously of course, as the arbiter of all things brave and noble, so Tim O'Brien, who saw combat in Vietnam, has nothing on you.) "Bullies aren't bullies because they pick on people their own size." ** Er, ok. I have absolutely no idea what this means. "Would you want to risk your life for this morally bankrupt crowd?" ** There you go personalizing it again. I don't know what I would do "for this morally bankrupt crowd." But I doubt many people go into the military for the sake of their president and his cabinet. Most people go to war for country, for freedom, out of a sense of obligation. Or because they feel they have no choice. If Bush called me to serve the country in some capacity where I might die, say in an advising capacity or embassy, or hearts and minds or something or whetever, I probably would, yes, especially if it tied into work in Africa or someplace where I have extensive experience but I am a liberal Democrat so I doubt that call is coming soon. "I call them pussies because they are. If we had honorable differences that would be one thing. But these guy don't deserve any respect. For them it's war, war war, oops we made a mistake, war , war, war. How many dead Americans will saftify you?" ** Is this really about my personal satisfaction? Apparently it is about yours. I have no idea why the word "pussies" is so satisfying to you. As for honorable differences -- you do not have any honorable differences with anyone who supports war? If a former or current soldier made the exact same case as one of the people you so felicitously label as pussies would their idea suddenly be sprinkled with pixie dust and you could engage them? "3000+ troops have been killed and this crowd is agitating for--other Americans--to take on Syria and Iran." ** OK. And there either is or is not a case for doing so. Who is making the case ought to be irrelevant. "The armchair musing is the stuff of the chickens. I've been to their shithole." ** I have absolutely no idea what this means. None. You are angry, I gather. But I cannot help but notice, unless you are writing this from Iraq, in which case Godspeed to you, that these are your (anonymous) armchair musings as well. As for "I've been to their shithole," I'm certain that sounded good as it rolled around in your head, but why don't you stop talking for a while, Champ? dcat

- derekcatsam

January 11, 2007 at 11:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

to listen to ideas for this war with an open mind, admitedly. I can claim to have the answers, it's just impossible to trust Bush, period. I do really like General Petraeus though, he's locked on.

- WandreyCer

January 11, 2007 at 11:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

to listen to ideas for this war with an open mind, admitedly. No one claim to have the answers - it's simply impossible to trust Bush, period. Even Tony Blair is completely out on this one. I do really like General Petraeus though, he's locked on.

- WandreyCer

January 11, 2007 at 11:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Happy & prosperous 2007, all! Other than the lame attempt at cleverness, the "2"s are for the two pieces of--news--I got from Bush's speech. 20,000 (the number) isn't interesting or newsworthy, since it's comparable with previous force adjustment, and by all accounts represents the absolute rock-bottom minimum to achieve anything different than current strategy. The first real news is the finely wrought strategy Bush presented in extraordinary detail. Seems to make sense to me, but why so late in the game (like 11:59). The detailing is worrisome, suggesting a hard bargain was struck with the Generals on the one hand, and the Bush policy team on the other, Maliki's so-called government in between. I can see this unraveling soon, so I guess the main point is the focus of the initiative, to "engage" the populace. We shall see. The second item of interest, of course, was Bush's sounding the (panic) alarm re: Iran and Syria, and here too he diagrammed the strategy. What is this about?? I'd say, watch, as the Iraq strategy comes apart, for Bush to proceed to widen the war to the region. He said that responsibility for such an escalation would be in Iran's and Syria's court, but I hear approaching echos of 2002. My bet, we'll be in a hot war with Iran over nukes by second quarter 2008 at the latest. There will, of course, be no withdrawal at this time. For that more troops are needed as has been pointed out. So it seems to me what makes news is that, far from withdrawing, we are plunging deeper into the region's affairs. Pretty much what the neocons have wanted all along. Sweet, ain't it?

- Tgossard

January 11, 2007 at 11:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You've made many cogent points. Some I agree with. But again, people who make a career of advocating war but refused to serve are morally bankrupt. Plain and simple. Why you don't find them to be hypocrites of the worse kin escapes me. I'm currently a reservist. I've served in Iraq last year, and I served on active duty many years prior. However, that doesn't make any difference. I've said before, I check backgrounds and biographies. Military service didn't inform my views. If they did, I'd probably be a Republican and support Bush. I'm an independent and have nothing against voting for GOP candidates. I don't like Joe Biden (another draft-dodger military expert) either. I don't respect any hawk who didn't serve. I think they have a lot of nerve and that they are full of shit. I simply require more than do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do from political leaders and others who seek to influence opinion. We are all hypocrites on some level and must accept a certain level of hypocrisy from others. I understand that. However, I don't want unreconstructed adulterer Newt Gingrich preaching to me about the sanctity of marriage. I reject speeches by Ken Mehlman, David Drier, Phyliss Schflay (her gay son--or what does she call them? sodomites?--lives at home with mommy) condemning the gay lifestyle. I certainly don't want to hear denunciations of charter schools from Jessie Jackson. (I'm conflicted on the school choice. My problem with Jackson was his decision not to send his kids to D.C. public schools. If he thought they were great why didn't he enroll his own children?)

- tec619

January 11, 2007 at 11:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Two points, or actually a point and a question: 1) I did not really want to go down this road given that it is fraught, but President Bush did serve in the military. And he served in a capacity that, while not combat or even in Vietnam, did run some risk. Yes there is that gap in service and I would love to know the facts and have the evidence for that, but we do not have it, and he did serve. This is not an insignificant fact, especially given the tenor of this argument. We can debate whether he served especially well. We can wonder how he got a post that kept him in texas. But we cannot debate that George W. Bush served in the military. Facts, as they say, are stubborn things. 2) Here is a hypothetical, but one based on a case for intervention that many, many on the left advocated, myself included: For those of you espousing your moral opposition to the war and your rabid opposition to those who did not serve making decisions to wage war: It is April 30, 1994. President Clinton unilaterally decides to send 30,000 troops to Rwanda. Would you also have called Clinton (and those in his cabinet and inner circle who never served in the military) a "pussy" and a "coward"? dcat

- derekcatsam

January 11, 2007 at 12:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why the unilateral move? Mushy claims of national security threats? If Clinton styled himself a hawk I'd have major problems with that decision. The vitriol would flow. Many on the Right (many of whom are unashamed draft dodgers; listen up Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and Brit Hume?) criticized Clinton for draft dodging. I was surprised. First, according to conservative mythology, Clinton fit the stereotype. Whether I agree or not, I don't mind consistency. Second, Clinton protested against the Vietnam war. Sure, his actions were probably calculated (a poor calculation as far as I'm concerned) but in my book arguing against any war is principled. I'm certainly not a pacifist, but I think the war option should be a last resort. The reason the Left gets a bad name is because radicals started condemning the troops. Conservatives have never let them forget it. Back to the subject. Please address this fact. The guys who made careers advocating aggressive military action. Yet REFUSED to serve. Many of them supported the Vietnam war yet obtained deferments. Cheney request FIVE deferments and there isn't a policy in his book that can't use a regimental combat team. (I amazed his energy policy prescription didn't include bombing California until the citizens voted for ofshore drilling--starting off the Santat Barbara coast.) Is Cheney brave? he certainly isn't principled. Is Cheney patriotic? Only if we define patriotism down and run it through "Alice in Wonderland." Remember, it's the conservatives who sing the peans of military service and sing the virtues of the unified field theory of international relations: total war. I'm holding them to their own standards. I understand what you are saying. I support law enforcement, but i don't want to be a cop. Military service, however, is different. All healthy young men can serve. During conscription all healthy young men must serve. These guys formed these bellicose positions, yet were happy to have others do the heavy lifting. Are they special? You know, Phil Gramm (R-TX) said he obtained deferments because he was smart that the army would place him in the library and not into the infantry. Well, first, how does he know that? Second, Gramm has an unjustified regard for his intellect. Third, in the case of national security, is this a call Gramm should make? Let's say the U.S. was attacked by, say, Canada. Would you want his able-bodied butt to be exempt while you had to go? Is you life worth less than his? Who decided that? It's one thing when a pacifist doesn't serve on principle. Yes, he is benefiting through your sacrifice. But a guy who simply wants to save his ass and cheer lead?

- tec619

January 11, 2007 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Clinton styled himself a hawk I'd have major problems with that decision Aha, some clues to the mind that devised "chicken pussy." At first I thought it was lifted from yet another fast food outlet's marketing stunt aimed at the young male gross-out tits'n'zits demographic, but now we see that the cardinal sin is to "style yourself" a "hawk." Now, IIRC it was Christoph who did Clinton's styling, at least on the tarmac at LAX, but the phrase is somewhat opaque when applied to foreign policymaking or strategizing. For that matter, "hawk" is also vague. Apparently we're back to the old canard (sorry about yet another waterfowl allusion; I'll spare y'all the Hustler half of the equation) that if you didn't serve in combat, you can only style yourself a hawk. Thus do all roads lead inevitably back to tec's obsession. Dude, I like your insights into Iraq, the military, etc but really, this ad hominem horse has been flogged to death. And shot, eviscerated, sent through the glue factory. Leave it and please give us the insights produced by the better angels of your nature. rgds, t

- teplukhin

January 11, 2007 at 1:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I asked point blank a question. You are eliding that question. You ask "why unilateral?" I'm not certain if you are aware of what happened in Rwanda in 1994. There was no sincere action for 100 days, multilateral, unilateral or otherwise. Unilateral action on the part of the United States beginning as soon in April as possible would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives and possibly forestalled a catastrophic civil war in central Africa. Why on earth would you either want to parse 'unilateral" or more importantly, why would you deny that there are times when unilateral action is necessary? You keep emphasizing personalities here, as if there are no supporters of the Iraq War who have military experience. You also keep mixing tenses -- they did X in the late 1960s and 1970s ergo everything that follows is invalid. I wish my past was as clean and virtuous as yours apparently is. As for Cheney and others calling for deferments, I just do not see the concern -- ours is a volunteer military. We do not have conscription right now. No one who is serving in the military signed on unwillingly or unaware of the consequences. This is not an argument either for or against the war but rather simply is intended to point out that you are trying to compare apples and carburators. If Cheney were pushing for a draft and that draft were implemented and Cheney draconian about punishing those who resisted or sought deferments, that would be one thing. That is not the case. The difference is huge, and your unwillingness to see subtleties, especially given your judgmentalism, hugely problematic. Again -- what of the Rwanda situation? Are hundreds of thousands dying to protect your sense of who ought to be sending people into combat? Or is this what I have suspected from the beginning that it is -- a selective application of a theory in order to bolster your own views on this war and your antipathy for this administration? It's almost May 1, 1994. As you have dithered 3,000 Rwandans have died, several hundred others have had their hands chopped off. A mother just watched her children massacred before her. President Clinton wants to send young men to Kigali. no serious observer then or now doubts that such action would halt the genocide nearly overnight. We need a decision. Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock. dcat

- derekcatsam

January 11, 2007 at 1:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, tec, I would indeed risk my life in Iraq, but they apparently don't need 52-year olds. Damned shame, too, although I'd need some time to get into better shape. Let me agree with tep above, and add that no politician born after 1954 was subject to the draft. No none of them had to seve. Likewise all the women, whenever born. Therefore, this is a passing phenomenon. Barak Obama and Hillary did not serve. They did not dodge the draft, either. I find it difficult to accept the position that neither of them can in good conscience support a war - and there will more after this one - because of their lack of service. FDR didn't serve, either. Should he have resigned? Or is it just unpopular, however defined, wars? If all the so-called chicken hawks had invaded Iraq, and it had all turned out well, say, we found WMDs, would you still have the same comments? Enough, already. I support the escalation, because nobody has a better idea to secure Baghdad, and I'm not willing yet to simply redeploy to the Kurdish area as tep suggests.

- butchie b

January 11, 2007 at 1:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

and the dwindling number of supporters are, according to CBS and ABC polls, little archipelagos of non reality, surrounded by endless seas of frustration and sanity...

- MrCookie1

January 11, 2007 at 1:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

70% in the AP-Ipos poll against the Decider's dodge. That little speck of non reality sand keeps getting smaller and smaller...

- MrCookie1

January 11, 2007 at 2:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let me add a voice decrying the arguments based on the background of the defenders of the war. I graduated college in 1971; I opposed the Vietnam War, gratefully relied on my student deferment, got lucky in the draft lottery, and wound up not being drafted. I have generally favored the current war in Iraq (though it's plainly been mismanaged), and I am even inclined to favor the President's surge plan. I may have been wrong in either (or even both) of my political positions, but I don't think that my managing to avoid military service then disentitles me to favor the war now. A record like mine is not a basis for questioning one's patriotism, or for accusing one of being a cynic or a coward. So let's drop the vocabulary of "wusses," "pussies," "cowards," "chicken hawks," and the like.

- tarfon

January 11, 2007 at 2:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

the Constitution, Article II, Cookie, is that it is completely divorced from poll data. W has until January, 2009 to win this war. Those of us who still believe it can and must be won are still with him, poll numbers be damned. Let's review: Combat deaths have been very small, 80% of Iraq is peaceful, and Saddam is dead. I never have understood the despair over Iraq. Yes, yes, I know, many things are hosed up, but take a step back. Things may be bad, but they are certainly not hopeless.

- butchie b

January 11, 2007 at 3:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If I were at the Alamo, I sure would want an optimistic guy like you standing next to me while Santa Ana's lancers cut me to pieces...

- MrCookie1

January 11, 2007 at 3:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Don't you people have jobs? :-D I wasn't ignoring the question. Forgive me. I skimmed your post. Next time I'll peruse. I simply didn't realize that you were referring to actual events. Hypothetical jumped out at me. The Hutu/Tutsi business didn't register. I still need a little clarification on "unilateral." Do you suggest over the objections of the U.N.? Congress? Okay, let's say Clinton "unilaterally" ordered troops into Rwanda. The reason is humanitarian. That doesn't bother me. Of course critics will say Saddam oppressed his people and killed Kurds and Shiites. Doesn't that happen in North Korea? The Congo? The Balkans? My answer: Yes, I'd support the action. I oppose genocide. I don't give a shit which peoples are being massacred or why. I refuse to use the euphemism "ethnic cleansing" because as far as I'm concerned, if the Jews, Gypsies (Romani), Armenians, Ukrainians, Tutsis and Native Americans needed a showers, soap and water should have been provided. My bathroom doesn't have a gas chamber, vivisection lab and a torture chamber. My refrigerator and cupboards are stocked with real food, not stone soup. I supported the Balkans War. I didn't give care what the ancient hatreds were. Europe's inaction, not to mention the Arab world's inertia irritated me to no end. When GHWB was in office, the media aired video of emaciated Bosnian Muslims in a what appeared to be a concentration camp. It looked like Auschwitz-on-the-Adriatic. Neither the U.S. nor the Europeans did a thing. I should have thought the Germans would at least get off their asses. (Historical parallels and all that.) I fully supported the bombing of Serbia. My position was that the Serbs could support and collaborate with the Bosnian Serbs as much as they want. Just from the Stone Age. In my opinion, every reason offered by the administration was convenient. Saddam was a poor excuse for a human being. It certainly isn't difficult to generate dislike for Hussein. Look, even if I supported preemption, I disagree with the decision to attach=k Iraq first. North Korea fired missiles into the sea of Japan and over Japan. Inspectors were in the country and our intelligence officials knew the extent of its weapons program. As I recall, there were many reports on status Iran's program. Iraq, irritating, but hamstrung--by us. For years, Wolfowitz, Kagan, Kristol and the rest of those PNAC guys were champing at the bit for an Iraq 2 invasion. I read the 1998 PNAC letter to Clinton, which singled out Iraq and some other security document PNAC generated. I counted the references to Iraq, Iran and North Korea and Iraq was mentioned almost twice as often as the other Axis players. Curious that. I could go on, but never mind. You won't be convinced. Just take me out to the wood shed.

- tec619

January 11, 2007 at 4:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Barack,and Hillary, huh. Alright. I've said over and over again, I don't demand military service as a prerequisite. My problem is with war hawks who didn't serve. You butchie, support escalation. But I haven't seen you on TV push for war at all corners of the earth. Any op-ed pieces? Or are you actually Fareed Zakaria or David Ignatius? You and Tep,as far as I can tell, don't believe war is the answer to every problem. Those guys do. You and Tep, concentrate on solutions. You know why? Because you don't think the lives of our troops are worthless. People who advocate war, war war don't care about the troops lives. Isn't that evident. They made sure they;d never have to risk their lives for their bellicose policies. IMMORAL. You haven't identified yourself as a defense expert. Remember, many of these guys are " experts." They have devoted their lives to defense and foreign policy. They or seek to influence or control the levers of power. They seek to influence the public. But when one looks, one finds that many during a draft, opted out, or became experts without joining the military they profess to love. It reminds me of the dumb retort of Curt Weldon to Adm. Sestak during a debate. Weldon(7!!! deferments)snidely reduced Sestak's naval experience to sipping coffee in the admiral's quarters. Hell, if I knew I could enter the service as a flag officer, I would have done that. Weldon was a teacher in the Peace Corps during his draft years. Perfectly honorable. Then when the coast is clear, he becomes a hawk and a preemption advocate. Convenient.

- tec619

January 11, 2007 at 5:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

as anyone can tell. And I see your point. Just tone down the rhetorical levels - pussy is a bit much.

- butchie b

January 11, 2007 at 5:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And chicken pussy is more than a bit much. Yick.

- teplukhin

January 11, 2007 at 5:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've pointed out that a sense of a person's character, gleaned from biographies, etc, matters to me, especially when it comes to military matters. I don't have Dubya's ability to look into the "soul" of others. You may want to contrast former senator Bill Bradley's bio to Dubya's. I'm sure you are already familiar with King George so check out Bradley. I recommend a Washington Post profile dated 1998 or '99. I you don't have access to Nexis-Lexis or Westlaw try your local library. A taste: Bradley didn't want to serve in Vietnam. A family friend wangled a spot in the Air Force Reserve. He served from 1967 to 1978 (11 years). Top of his class, nominated for leadership honors. While a player for the Knicks, he missed games to report to drills. I guess Bradley was serious about his obligation. He surely wouldn't be considered a hawk. I don't know what the hell Bush was doing and I've seen excuses for his actions posted on conservative sites, but I know he lied on two counts. First, he said he joined the Air National Guard to avail himself the opportunity to fly. The active Air Force didn't need pilots? Second, Bush said he didn't submit to a flight physical because his personal physician was in Houston. I'm only familiar with naval regs, but I didn't know a civilian doctor was authorized to perform such an exam. My understanding is that only Air Force, Army, Navy or Coast Guard flight surgeons are authorized, or in a pinch a a uniformed physician of the uniformed services (PHS or NOAA). Then Bush refused to submit to a flight physical. Conservatives have trotted out b.s. regarding transition to different jets and Dubya's decision to stop flying. He could do that? No approval from his command and DoD? No one ever told me I could do that.

- tec619

January 11, 2007 at 5:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Point taken. Thank you for at least seeing my point. I'm just so furious at those guys. I'll tone down the rhetoric out of respect for you both and the other readers. Honey!! Where's my lithium? :-D

- tec619

January 11, 2007 at 5:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

tec619 -- I'm a historian, and so quite familiar with Bradley (and this explains my ability to flit between real work and these discussions -- no better procrastination was ever invented!). I think a few posts ago (the one posted at 16:43) you finally got into what i wanted -- a differentiation between conflicts and why you would support or oppose them. This was, to my mind, your most effective argument and, not coincidentally, I would argue, your most effective one. Yes, you loathe those you call "chicken hawks" and worse, but the reality is that behind the vitriol you have reasons beyond, and I would argue far more substantial than, what you have largely been arguing here. It seems like this might be reaching a resolution or at least common ground. Until the next bone of contention . . . dcat

- derekcatsam

January 11, 2007 at 6:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't know how many Purple Hearts are awarded. It differs from other personal awards in that one is entitled upon meeting certain criteria. Wait, that can't be true. Enlisted personnel are entitled to the good conduct medal upon meeting specific criteria. Anyway, that logic strikes me as absurd. Suffering a wound or death isn't a failure. The paradox of combat is that the training will save you, if you aren't killed first. Imagine hitting a beach under fire. That's like trying to dodge raindrops. Even if one wears a raincoat, that isn't going to prevent it from getting wet. What about a sailor or Marine who jumps on a grenade to save his buddies and is killed or wounded. He'll be awarded either the Bronze Star, Silver Star, Navy Cross or Medal of Honor. He'll also receive a Purple Heart. Is that guy a failure? No. One can receive the decoration for a) a result of an act of any such enemy of opposing armed forces; and b)as the result of an act of any hostile foreign force, among other reasons. This means one could be walking around in the rear, sustain an injury from a shelling and qualify for the PH. What's the big deal?

- tec619

January 11, 2007 at 6:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Your most coherent argument and your most effective one." Got a phone call while typing. Sorry. dcat

- derekcatsam

January 11, 2007 at 7:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Success, competence, heroism and injuries are not mutually exclusive. The PH doesn't encourage the desire for a war scar. That would qualify as a perverse incentive and actively seeking a PH, a suicidal aspiration. Decorations tell a story. If I scrutinize Marine or sailor's fruit salad and observe a PH and not a Combat Action Ribbon (CAR), then I know he didn't receive it in combat. However, because of the nature of the conflict in Iraq, a debate raged within the Navy and Marine Corps regarding the CAR criteria. A similar debate raged in the army regarding awarding of the Combat Infantryman Badge. The debate centered around the definition combat. Originally, fire had to be exchanged. But in Iraq and Afghanistan, any sailor or marine could be injured by an IED and never exchange fire. (The 360-degree battlefield.)The reasons range from incapacitating injury to not having an enemy to shoot at. As a result, both services amended their CAR criteria. The army responded to the problem by creating a new badge, the Combat Action Badge. It is awarded to non-infantry soldiers who are "actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy, and performing satisfactorily in accordance with the prescribed rules of engagement.

- tec619

January 11, 2007 at 8:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

and I really admire his ability to hang in there and not be deferred away from his point - please don't and please answer the man. Obama and the Clinton's have never been hawks, have never advocated (in a knee-jerk way) the use of force, as so many chicken hawks have - the comparison is ridiculous. Chicken hawks get the name from being both hawks and attackers of those who advise caution as wimps, unpatriotic - or the latest - defeatist (whatever that means). Not one person who has asked this man to stop beating a dead horse have come close to addressing his demands from a thousand posts ago!!!

- WandreyCer

January 11, 2007 at 8:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

where/what era do you teach? If you don't mind my asking. t

- teplukhin

January 11, 2007 at 8:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If you need 30,000 for at least 18 months, and Bush offers 21,000 with reservations about how long they will stay, it seems to me that is significantly different. 9,000 troops represents 30% of the minimum number Kagan and Keane claimed were necessary -- they obviously thought more would be better, and that fewer troops than that would be likely to result in failure. And does anyone believe that Bush committed to at least 18 months? Lieberman is just not a serious person - and this post makes it clear enough. Neil

- purcellneil

January 11, 2007 at 11:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...about for all the post Cold War years? I've read out of the Pentago many a time that we we're et up to fight a 2 1/2 Theater war. Yet now we keep hearing that we're "stretched thin" and "breaking" with 140,000 troops based in Iraq. Well, Iraq is one war. Afghanistan is 1/4 of a war. Doesn't that leave us enough for another 1 and 1/4 wars?

- ChanRobt

January 12, 2007 at 1:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...know, I fought at Antietam, Gettysburg, the Somme, the Phillipine Insurrection, North Africa, Normandy, and the Battle of the Bulge. At the Bulge, seeing how badly that fight was going, how high our casualties, and how resolute the Germans, I recommended to President Roosevelt that we let the Germans keep Germany lest we have to root out an imposible insurgency in the Fatherland.

- ChanRobt

January 12, 2007 at 1:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

At the risk of being accused of self-indulgence: I teach and write about race politics and social movements in the US and Africa, broadly defined, in the University of Texas system. I am teaching a course on global terrorism this semester based on work I have done in places such as Israel, Northern ireland and throughout Africa and my own sense of comparative scholarship. I am working on or have finished (mostly working on) books on the Freedom Rides, South Africa in the 1980s, comparative history between the US and South Africa, and, Sport and society, as a labor of love, the 2004 Red Sox (this last one has been published-- good reviews, few sales, but then who didn't write a book about the 2004 Sox?). I'm no one you should know about (yet?) and my broad interests mean that within the realm of academia I'll always be vulnerable to charges of diletentism. For better or worse, that's a capsule bio. Cheers -- dcat

- derekcatsam

January 12, 2007 at 3:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As a veteran of the Cold War Army, the plan was indeed 2 1/2 wars. One in Europe, one in Korea, and a contingency elsewhere. That's why it's so odd to me to listen to people talk about how hard it will be to increase the size of teh Army. Throughout the Cold War, and as late as the early 90s, we had an active force of 785,000 soldiers. Today I think the number is 485,000, or thereabouts. The reserves were likewise much bigger than today. Therefore, the lower number is a self-inflicted wound that can be healed if necessary - and it is. The difference came when we got our "peace dividend," which is a non-partisan point, I hasten to add. Some cuts in personnel made sense. As usual, we overdid it, and need to fix it now. Tec has it right on the PH. Sometimes it means you were just unlucky - wrong place, wrong time. Other times it shows true valor, and is combined with a higher medal.

- butchie b

January 12, 2007 at 9:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm happy you are being non-partisan, because I tire of right-wingers claiming Clinton started the reductions. The latest draw downs--including base closures--began under the GHWB administration. That is not a criticism, merely a fact. The Cold War was over. (Base closures and the like began in the 60s under JFK--without congressional involvement--to meet post WWII demands). Congress got involved in 1977 and Dick Armey wrote it out in the 1988 BRAC legislation.) However, I never liked the way members of both parties tossed around the term peace dividend, which implied billions of dollars were suddenly available. Such was not the case because the government has to spend money in order to save money. For instance, the government had to spend money on base consolidation, hazardous waste clean up and on of the biggest costs: economic revitalization and stabilization funds for nearby communities. Personnel reductions also cost a great deal upfront money before savings are realized. Of course, the world doesn't stop while the complex rejiggering is going on. Therefore, DoD was (is) in a perpetual catch-up mode. I don't think Armey's bill made BRAC entirely immune from politics. That would have been a miracle. In my opinion, the BRAC legislation should be revisited. Why. BRAC proposes too many closures on the East Coast. When bases are closed in highly populated areas/states, the federal government is then left a limited ability to secure land when the threat changes.

- tec619

January 12, 2007 at 10:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

but the process seems to work reasonably well. Nothing like this is ever immune from politics, but this process, seemingly driven mostly by the uniformed military, is probably about as good as it gets. The larger drawdowns happened during the 90s. Yes, Clinton was in office, but the GOP in Congress was totally on board, and it would have been foolish NOT to reduce the numbers. As we know, the USSR was gone. There was no nation-state to fight, really.

- butchie b

January 12, 2007 at 1:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dcat - fascinating, thanks. Wish you the best in your academic career, t

- teplukhin

January 12, 2007 at 8:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...thing. I was afraid I was imagining it. As to the "Peace Dividend" and the reductions, yeah, both parties contributed to that. It's the old Left/Right recurring conspiracy. The Left thinks something is wrong. The Right doesn't want to pay for it. You see the same co-conspirators in other issues including the "Homeless" (crazy people who are no longer in asylums); and illegal immigrants (borders are immoral to the Left, ultra cheap labor is irresistible to the Right. At least the corporate Right.) I don't understand why no one with a public pulpit-- guys like McCain, various medai people, never bring up the 2 1/2 war deal. How can we possibly be overstretched with fewer than 160,000 in Iraq?

- ChanRobt

January 14, 2007 at 8:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...for a good read on smart ideas. fwiw, we've got about 300,000 personnel stationed overseas. Army and Marines, mostly infantry, 95,000 troops in Europe and Japan/Korea. We got your surge, if the priorities are straight. For me, the essential question is "What's the mission?". butchie, I'm proud of the SEC. Two out of the top three ain't half bad.

- Robert Powell

January 15, 2007 at 4:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close