Comment on Bush's speech last night

[Skip N]

Originally Posted by Skitterpop

4. I think we should fight and destroy real terrorists who attack us or espouse the agenda that we should be killed.... which will keep us more than busy forever.

The ones in Iraq harming our troops arent "real" enough for ya? Try telling that to our troops, they might disagree with ya on that!

Should the the US only be aloud to attack terrorists that attack us first??? God i hope you're not going there. Gee, let's wait till we get wacked again before we attack them. Yikes!

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

I think the point that post Saddam Iraq planning was deficient has become almost moot at this time as has the original justification for the Iraq war. The focus now must be on the current situation on all fronts of the Terror War. Whether Iraq is the central front of this war on Terror is debateable put it is certainly a front of the war. Monday morning quarterbacking takes away from that focus and is detrimental to Americas security. If we cannot replicate the focus and unity this country displayed in WWII our chances of defeating this proven enemy are small.

Well, since this is the only post that even hints at responding to my initial post I'll start here.

How is it moot? The President's own words seem quite contradictory, with themselves and reality.

This isn't Monday morning quarterbacking, I'm trying to understand the real strategy so we can improve it. If this is a "spin in process" perhaps we need to assess our position and options.

-spence

[stripersnipr]

Spence I think the overall strategy is pretty clear. Damage the groups and individuals who wish and plan harm to America to the point that they are incapable of executing a viable attack. The subsets of that strategy are highly complicated ranging from protecting our troops on the ground to creating a Democratic stronghold in the Mideast and many components in between. The tactics to achieve the goals of our strategies are and must be fluid and robust as all strategies and tactics in all wars are. The specifics of those subset strategies as always will be developed and executed by those whose job it is to do so. You and I are not empowered to specifically develop or improve those strategies. Our power lies in our voting rights, and in support of the Democracy which i believe in I'm willing to let our elected officials do their job whatever their political party affiliation is. If and when the actions they take don't agree with my position on the issue then I will consider that the next time I excercise that right to vote.

The reason we went into Iraq is now moot because the fact is we are there. Debating and second guessing the justification is done and complete and those on both sides have made up their minds. Rather than continuing that debate its time to refocus on the matters at hand.

As far as the Presidents words seeming to be contradictory I'm not sure to what you are refering. There is no doubt in my mind that Bush is a poor communicator but it doesn't change the fact that he is President for the next however many days.

Somewhere within a compilation of your ideas and opinions and my ideas and opinions lies the solution that will defeat our common enemy and it is our job to elect the officials that best represent that idea. I think the time to debate the History of this war is when the war is History. It is time now to support Iraq until the point that they are capable of supporting themselves against foreign insurgents and Terrorism. By doing this we have created a new ally in the War on Terror.

I think that you will agree that a unified stand on Americas part is required to win this first of its kind War. I think the often maligned "Stay the course" is misunderstood. In my thinking stay the course means maintaining unrelenting pressure on our enemy even though the tactics used to do so will change as the situation requires.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

but it doesn't change the fact that he is President for the next however many days.

417 Days 18 Hours 50 Minutes 14...13....12...11...10.....

But who's counting

http://thebushcountdown.com/

[stormfish]

"Let's count on it!"

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

Spence I think the overall strategy is pretty clear. Damage the groups and individuals who wish and plan harm to America to the point that they are incapable of executing a viable attack. The subsets of that strategy are highly complicated ranging from protecting our troops on the ground to creating a Democratic stronghold in the Mideast and many components in between. The tactics to achieve the goals of our strategies are and must be fluid and robust as all strategies and tactics in all wars are. The specifics of those subset strategies as always will be developed and executed by those whose job it is to do so. You and I are not empowered to specifically develop or improve those strategies. Our power lies in our voting rights, and in support of the Democracy which i believe in I'm willing to let our elected officials do their job whatever their political party affiliation is. If and when the actions they take don't agree with my position on the issue then I will consider that the next time I excercise that right to vote.

The reason we went into Iraq is now moot because the fact is we are there. Debating and second guessing the justification is done and complete and those on both sides have made up their minds. Rather than continuing that debate its time to refocus on the matters at hand.

As far as the Presidents words seeming to be contradictory I'm not sure to what you are refering. There is no doubt in my mind that Bush is a poor communicator but it doesn't change the fact that he is President for the next however many days.

Somewhere within a compilation of your ideas and opinions and my ideas and opinions lies the solution that will defeat our common enemy and it is our job to elect the officials that best represent that idea. I think the time to debate the History of this war is when the war is History. It is time now to support Iraq until the point that they are capable of supporting themselves against foreign insurgents and Terrorism. By doing this we have created a new ally in the War on Terror.

I think that you will agree that a unified stand on Americas part is required to win this first of its kind War. I think the often maligned "Stay the course" is misunderstood. In my thinking stay the course means maintaining unrelenting pressure on our enemy even though the tactics used to do so will change as the situation requires.

A great response

But it still doesn't answer my initial question.

Why we went into Iraq and how we've f'ed up the aftermath are still valid issues as many of those who perhaps were most central to the policy blunders are still running the show.

These are people who have in the opinions of many experts and Americans done a simply pathetic and incompetent job, and have shown little ability to adapt because of a systemic inability to see the world for what it is.

And we're supposed to trust them with out future?

There is a serious divide in this country on how to fight the enemy, assuming you can even articulate what the enemy is! The brush Bush is painting is so broad he is lumping all the Worlds problems into a single bucket, and in doing to pushing Islam towards the unified state that Bin Laden so wants!

I'd agree that unity is necessary, but Bush didn't really ask for unity last night...he asked for everyone to just go along with this plans...

Unity requires compramise to find common ground, and it doesn't appear to me that Bush is willing to budge.

It's not computing

-spence

[stormfish]

Terrorism in Iraq is like: "Get the F out of my country" Terrorism

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

A great response

But it still doesn't answer my initial question.

Why we went into Iraq and how we've f'ed up the aftermath are still valid issues as many of those who perhaps were most central to the policy blunders are still running the show.

These are people who have in the opinions of many experts and Americans done a simply pathetic and incompetent job, and have shown little ability to adapt because of a systemic inability to see the world for what it is.

And we're supposed to trust them with out future?

There is a serious divide in this country on how to fight the enemy, assuming you can even articulate what the enemy is! The brush Bush is painting is so broad he is lumping all the Worlds problems into a single bucket, and in doing to pushing Islam towards the unified state that Bin Laden so wants!

I'd agree that unity is necessary, but Bush didn't really ask for unity last night...he asked for everyone to just go along with this plans...

Unity requires compramise to find common ground, and it doesn't appear to me that Bush is willing to budge.

It's not computing

-spence

Okay for the sake of argument: Bush comes on television tonight and says our motives for entering Iraq were flawed and we had no plan for the aftermath. End of debate. That in no way changes the status of the current situation in Iraq. Thats why the point and debate is moot.

[fishman]

no more terror in the United States? I think Bush is doing a great job.

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

A great response


There is a serious divide in this country on how to fight the enemy, assuming you can even articulate what the enemy is! The brush Bush is painting is so broad he is lumping all the Worlds problems into a single bucket, and in doing to pushing Islam towards the unified state that Bin Laden so wants!

I'd agree that unity is necessary, but Bush didn't really ask for unity last night...he asked for everyone to just go along with this plans...

Unity requires compramise to find common ground, and it doesn't appear to me that Bush is willing to budge.

It's not computing

-spence

If there is a divide in how to fight a War as there always was in every war and always will be in every war it comes down to someone making a decision. Whose decision is it going to be?
Last I checked we did not have a Parliamentary form of Government.

Whose plan do you think Bush should ask America to go along with?

[stormfish]

Originally Posted by fishman

no more terror in the United States? I think Bush is doing a great job.

Yea, before Bush there were frequent terrorist attacks...

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

That in no way changes the status of the current situation in Iraq. Thats why the point and debate is moot.

Does it mean a change in leadership and attitude?

The problem with our policy isn't bad intel or some casual mistakes, it's an idiology that's not in synch with reality.

I'd add a lack of conscience as well, but I'll try to keep this on the level

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

Whose plan do you think Bush should ask America to go along with?

It's not really even about a "plan" as much as it is about a process...

From David Cameron, the UK's Conservative Party leader:

...But I believe that in the last five years we have suffered from the absence of two crucial qualities which should always condition foreign policy-making. Humility, and patience. These are not warlike words. They are not so glamorous and exciting as the easy sound-bites we have grown used to in recent years. But these sound-bites had the failing of all foreign policy designed to fit into a headline. They were unrealistic and simplistic. They represented a view which sees only light and darkness in the world - and which believes that one can be turned to the other as quickly as flicking a switch. I do not see things that way. I am a liberal conservative, rather than a neo-conservative. Liberal - because I support the aim of spreading freedom and democracy, and support humanitarian intervention. Conservative - because I recognise the complexities of human nature, and am sceptical of grand schemes to remake the world. A liberal conservative approach to foreign policy today is based on five propositions. First, that we should understand fully the threat we face. Second, that democracy cannot quickly be imposed from outside. Third, that our strategy needs to go far beyond military action. Fourth, that we need a new multilateralism to tackle the new global challenges we face. And fifth, that we must strive to act with moral authority...

The Bush Administration has centralized power to a tiny group influenced heavily by a radically progressive and militarized idiology that has complete control.

To this end they have fought the war on their terms, and in doing so silenced the diverse voices that would typically call attention to potential pitfalls, disasterous misconceptions and obvious historical precident.

These perversions of objective thought have not only hurt our actions in Afghanistan, but led us foolishly into an Iraqi scenario without any real exit strategy.

These perversions of objective thought are uniting a billion Muslims rather than dividing the extreme from the mainstream.

They try to convince Americans that our longstanding International treaties, our own rule of law and civil liberties are not existent if we're dead...so they migt need to be sacrificed because terrorists hate us for our freedoms?

What the %$%$%$%$?

We need a united voice that will lead the world by example, and today we have anything but.

Stay true to this course and the solution will find it's way.

-spence

[Skitterpop]

I don`t think we should have gone there. I`d rather have seen all that money go into more highly trained and better equipped special forces for more precise targets of terrorism backed up of course with massive air support where appropriate.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Skitterpop

I don`t think we should have gone there. I`d rather have seen all that money go into more highly trained and better equipped special forces for more precise targets of terrorism backed up of course with massive air support where appropriate.

Whimp

-spence

[Skitterpop]

Perhaps I`m jaded and more but all this debate about political nuances for me is too much blah blah blah. I do believe the real truth is more perfect and simply said even if its nature is fully chaotic.


Remember: all life is an illusion..... or if you prefer....So it goes .... K.V.


Dark... have been my dreams of late



An aging warrior once said.... I am now dead.

[RIJIMMY]

from a Lou Dobbs editorial on CNN today. Good stuff
The American people cannot be reasonably asked by this president or this secretary of defense to "stay the course" without evidence of a strategy to successfully prosecute the war and defeat the radical Islamist enemy. Otherwise, why are we there? The loyal opposition on Capitol Hill cannot reasonably ask the American people to elect them without articulating a clear new direction and offering a concrete plan for victory. Otherwise, why do we even have a loyal opposition?

Both the White House and Congress should be demanding accountability from our generals who have failed so far to succeed in destroying our enemies. Not a single general has been fired for failing to lead our men and women to victory against the insurgencies of Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe it is time for all Americans -- Republicans, Democrats and Independents -- to demand such accountability.

I, for one, do not want to hear another of our generals urge the American people to be patient. Patience favors the enemy. And our generals have the responsibility to our brave troops and this nation to deliver certain victory, and that responsibility rests first and foremost with the commander in chief.

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

from a Lou Dobbs editorial on CNN today. Good stuff
The American people cannot be reasonably asked by this president or this secretary of defense to "stay the course" without evidence of a strategy to successfully prosecute the war and defeat the radical Islamist enemy. Otherwise, why are we there? The loyal opposition on Capitol Hill cannot reasonably ask the American people to elect them without articulating a clear new direction and offering a concrete plan for victory. Otherwise, why do we even have a loyal opposition?

Both the White House and Congress should be demanding accountability from our generals who have failed so far to succeed in destroying our enemies. Not a single general has been fired for failing to lead our men and women to victory against the insurgencies of Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe it is time for all Americans -- Republicans, Democrats and Independents -- to demand such accountability.

I, for one, do not want to hear another of our generals urge the American people to be patient. Patience favors the enemy. And our generals have the responsibility to our brave troops and this nation to deliver certain victory, and that responsibility rests first and foremost with the commander in chief.

Do we set a deadline for the Generals to achieve Victory before we fire them? Should we give them a year, six months? What factor determines how long a War must be? Have we ever given deadlines to Generals as to long how long they have to win a war? If we are mandating the length of Wars lets make them real short, less casualties.

[RIJIMMY]

I think so, do we give them unlimited funds? resources?
I am a project manager, I have a budget and resources to get the job done. I need to show results and keep to a budget. Shouldnt we hold the generals to the same? How would you feel if you were a solider? wouldnt you want to know there is a plan and the people in charge are accountable?

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I think so, do we give them unlimited funds? resources?
I am a project manager, I have a budget and resources to get the job done. I need to show results and keep to a budget. Shouldnt we hold the generals to the same? How would you feel if you were a solider? wouldnt you want to know there is a plan and the people in charge are accountable?

If it takes indefinite funds and resources to win a war then thats what it takes. What are you going to do surrender because your over budget? This is Apples to bananas. The ramifications of losing a War in no way equates to missing a cost budget. I know several soldiers quite well and they are very aware of their plan and work to that plan every day. They also understand that plan is fluid and requires constant adjustment. Any idea how long we fought an insurgency in Germany post WWII?

[RIJIMMY]

If it takes indefinite funds and resources to win a war, it is poorly planned war and one that cannot be sustained since there is no such thing as indefinite resources. All I am saying is there needs to be clearly outlined goals. Runsfiled should have to say to Congress that on 1/15/XXXX the Iraqui army will be trainined, equiped and deployed. Every month leading up to that time, he should have to report on the progress, demonstrate success and how close he is to acheiving the goal. If he doesn not meet the goals, he should be out of a job, period. The generals should be held to the same. I really cannot beleive anyone would argue with that?

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

If it takes indefinite funds and resources to win a war, it is poorly planned war and one that cannot be sustained since there is no such thing as indefinite resources. All I am saying is there needs to be clearly outlined goals. Runsfiled should have to say to Congress that on 1/15/XXXX the Iraqui army will be trainined, equiped and deployed. Every month leading up to that time, he should have to report on the progress, demonstrate success and how close he is to acheiving the goal. If he doesn not meet the goals, he should be out of a job, period. The generals should be held to the same. I really cannot beleive anyone would argue with that?

If its simply a matter of accountability I'm sure we are all in agreement. I think the military chain of command is probably unsurpassed in the area of accountability and if I'm not mistaken miltary leadership in Iraq has been changed at least once. Accountability in Government........not so much. Nothing new there. My only point was Wars do not have deadlines. And we don't pack it in and give up the fight because we missed budget. Basic principles of business dont meld well with the basic principles of fighting a war.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

Basic principles of business dont meld well with the basic principles of fighting a war.

Followers of Sun Tzu would disagree

[spence]

Yes, war is business (and the other way around)...

I pretty much agree with Dobbs, although I don't think we can hold generals accountable for the big picture stuff as the civilian leadership is really running the show.

The administration has been very careful in how they articulate their goals so they can be easily manipulated on the fly

What really exacerbates the problem is how our policy seems to always be justified on worse case assumptions, and always planned with only best case assumptions!

I think the American people are pretty sick and tired of the "shut up, we know what we're doing" rhetoric we hear day in and day out.

Perhaps when they show some results people will listen, but more "stay the course" and "be patient" when it's clear they're neither objective or competent just doesn't make any sense.

-spence