But your quarterback is blinded-sided by a “sacrificial lamb,” and injured seven minutes into the second quarter, losing the ball on the opponents 14-yard-line in the process. And even though the offender is ejected summarily from the game, you’re pretty glum about the whole thing. Further, the opposing team has a series of plays never seen by your coaches before, and are brutally executing them, picking up yards and first downs. And following a spectacular SIX-MINUTE, time-consuming drive, your opponents score their second touchdown. Frankly, at the Two-Minute-Warning, you are discouraged as hell, and you start grousing among yourselves about this loser team and this loser coach, and this loser staff to whom you are, after all, paying big, ugly bucks. The game’s not over, you decide, but it might as well be; you’re having your LUNCH eaten by all these new and unexpected plays!
And there you sit, all 100 of you, in your comfortable sky-box, sipping champagne and eating caviar, watching your team take a 7-zip lead in the first two minutes of the game, then fall prey to new and unexpected plays from the other side. Down 14-7 at the halftime two-minute warning, you quickly huddle with your fellow owners, and decide that this game is lost. And, in an even MORE idiosyncratic move, you go next door to the announcer’s booth, and TELL them this! Finally, you announce that you are only going to allow the team to play through the end of the third quarter, and then you are going to take your team off the field, get on the plane and fly home!
Now this would be stupid enough, but then, even as you are making this announcement, your replacement quarterback, in a series of brilliantly executed plays, scores a TD with 1:46 left to play! The crowd goes NUTS! And then, following a dazzling on-sides kick, your team recovers the ball at midfield! And they begin another drive to the opposition’s goal line. With the crowd roaring its approval, the announcer asks you if you wish to consider your decision to leave the game at the end of the third quarter.
And as your team kicks a half-ending field goal from the 22, taking the LEAD 17-14 you tell him:
“No, our decision stands.”
INSANE!
General Petraeus is our replacement quarterback. He is winning spectacularly with the adjustments he had made, and he even has Sunni and Sh’ia CO-OPERATING, AND FIGHTING al QUEDA! But the team’s owners are STILL determined to take them off the field at the end of a preset time, and fly home. Worse yet, they have sent this decision to the TEAM!
INSANE!
It is time for Dubya to use the Force. Uh, that would be the Bully Pulpit. Go after these Dim-witted fool Democrats tooth and nail, shackle them publicly, hound them from every microphone within reach, and “FORCE” them to SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!
Today would be a good day to start. And it would ensure Congress has a hobby to keep them from any additional damn-fool legislation for awhile . . .
I would value non-Monday-Morning-Quarterbacking responses from the loyal opposition.
Best,
Chuck
A) We did well in the first stage of the invasion
B) We did not do well after
C) Petraeus will turn everything around.
<
p>
So basically, your entire post rests on point C, which you address with a quick “He is winning spectacularly with the adjustments he had made, and he even has Sunni and Sh’ia CO-OPERATING, AND FIGHTING al QUEDA!”.
<
p>
If you want to actually write a serious post on point C, fine. But this adds nothing.
What would Patraeus have to do to ensure you wanted to stay beyond the third quarter? If we understood exactly what the Democrats wanted, besides the White House in 2008, which they will lie to themselves AND the voters, if necessary to get, we could probably communicate better than “you need to write a serious post.” I DID write a serious post, BTW. And I would appreciate it if you could show me where it departs from a parallel to what the Democrats are doing as we exchange these ideas.
<
p>
Just asking. Perhaps, if we communicate your ideas to the good General, he could incorporate them, and I could then write a serious post.
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
Okay, here’s where your analogy falls apart-Iraqis want us out.
http://www.worldpubl…
There are many other polls like that I can produce if you really want to dispute the contention that Iraqis want us out. The rationale of protecting Iraqis is completely obliterated here.
With respect, my liberal friend, the problem with the liberal side of the equation is that you guys seem to read — and BELIEVE — whatever the mass media tells you is reality. In one of the posts on my blog, I indicate that IF enough people read what is written for enough years, and IF the message is consistent, but somewhat removed from real, and IF the source(s) is (are) unwavering in their peculiar distortion, then what is written becomes reality — for the herd.
<
p>
So I will try to cut through the fog one last time, and see if I can communicate the REAL reality — what I hear from the guys in the field, not what the NYT and WAPOST editors wordsmith for the masses — tells us.
<
p>
In qualifying these remarks, I sould point out that I communicate with about thirty in-country sources within the military. Some are in intelligence, some are Chaplains, some are commanding officers, and some are directing boots on the ground. (NOTHING they give me is in any way classified, nor would I ask for, or accept same.) The number varies, as guys rotate in and out of Iraq, but it is as different from what the NYT and WAPOST write as night and day.
<
p>
NOTE: I should also point out that I do not listen to Fatbaugh or Shawn the Awning, nor do I watch Fox News as a source for my information. Just so you know. You, on the other hand . . . How IS Franken, anyway?
<
p>
I tend to trust prime sources far more than I trust slanted, wordsmithed and “carefully corrected” (Brigham Young!) filtered and pasturized sources. And when I talk about “Prime Sources,” I do not speak of isolated people with a view of their particular thousand yards, I speak of people who see whole PROVINCES! Here are some realities I doubt you would believe, unless you went there and saw them for yourself:
<
p>
Electrification of the country is largely complete, save for sabotage by al Queda. This is a major source of amusement for the morons who think they can blow up themselves and a power line,and get 72 virgins as a result. (One would think the Muslim Paradise is running perilously short of virgins by now . . .) But what does the WAPOST or the NYT have to say about that?
<
p>
Pure drinking water is available to more than 90% of the Iraqis — about twice what they experienced under Saddam. But the WAPOST, with no real statistics, only tells you about isolated desert holes, or isolated Baghdad holes controlled by Sadr symps, with no drinking water, after their source has been blown up by al Queda, or Sadr supporters. Not much reality there . . .
<
p>
Pacification of the country is a reality, now that Petraeus and his minions have a real sway. That is not my opinion, it is those facts reported to me from MY sources in the US Troops on the ground in Iraq.
<
p>
Wanna argue with the troops, based on the slanted crap from your news heroes? Go for it. Immerse yourself in the swamp of surrealism you are being fed by such ilk. After you finish wallowing in their crap, ask yourself why Dan Rathernot isn’t among them any more. Then, ask yourself about the difference between him, and the rest of those feeding the herd their daily ration of crap.
<
p>
My Scientific Wild-Assed Guess is that you and others fear U.S. success (which you see as Republican success) so much you are willing, along with your Senators and Congressmen, to do whatever is necessary to derail the final push. This would include enslaving the 25 million souls in Iraq, with no more responsible thought than you give to slaughtering seventy-five million unborn babies, in the name of your nonexistent “reproductive rights.”
<
p>
And being a retired military analyst, with considerable strategic and tactical experience regarding final pushes, I think I know a little more than you and your ilk about same.
<
p>
I reckon theire is reality, and then there is REALITY!
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
Thanks for taking the effort and all to write this response, but you didn’t actually address my point.
<
p>
Do you directly dispute the claim that the majority of Iraqis desire the United States to leave?
<
p>
And if you do not dispute this, have we any right to be over there supposedly protecting them?
<
p>
And I would think your theory on the soon-to-come Iraqi Slave Labor Act really deserves a whole post to itself.
A football game has a clear time limit, 60 minutes. 60 minutes to score more points than your opponent, and then everyone goes home. Even if the score is tied, the game goes into, pardon the expression, sudden death overtime.
<
p>
You ask about the third quarter – how do you know what quarter it is? Where is the clock on the scoreboard that tells everyone when the game is over and a winner declared?
<
p>
All I’ve heard from Bush is “We’ll stay untill the job is done”. The Dems put up a bill that specifies the end of the 4th quarter, but Bush will veto.
And yours shed a bit of reality on the situation. But, if it is halftime, and we are winning, why announce we’re going home at the end of the third quarter?
<
p>
And we are winning. Patraeus & Co. are doing a really great job. They’re rolling up the opposition so fast we may well be OUT by the end of the third quarter, because the opposition won’t be able to field a team!
<
p>
IMHO, given breathing space, the Iraqis can put together a winning team. The Sunni and Sh’ia are learning to fight side by side, rather than fight each other. The Sh’ia also, remember, are in the vast MINORITY in the Arab world. (To see this graphically, and for an expandable map, go here)
<
p>
The reason I am so hard over on not bailing runs deeper than just a victory. Simply winning the conflict with al Queda and their murderous rabble isn’t the aim of the U.S. in Iraq. For many centuries, the Sunni and Sh’ia conflict has raged, and the divisions deepened. What is occurring now in Iraq is nothing short of a miracle, IF the two sides can pull it off without interference from Iraq, or continued Iran-supported infiltration and adventurism from/by al Queda. If they can’t, there may well be genocide purpetrated by the Sh’ia. If that happens, the Sh’ia themselves will be annihilated by the Sunni Muslim world, and that is a conflict we don’t want to see — it’s Armaggedon!
<
p>
My concern is not driven by my desire to put another Republican in the White House. I wonder if the Democrats can say as much . . .
<
p>
For a fairly decent background article on the differences between Sunni and Sh’ia, go here I find the comparison between Islam and Christianity a little niave, as the two Christian sects learned to live together in peace relatively quickly. Otherwise, it’s a well-written piece.
<
p>
Thanks,
Best,
Chuck
A football game has a clear time limit, 60 minutes
<
p>
Um, that’s not quite true. The official time at a football game is 60 minutes. But those of us who attended football games at Ohio State in the late 1960s noticed something interesting. The games that were not telecast lasted about two hours, including half-time. The games that were telecast lasted three hours, also including half-time. And official time-outs. We concluded that the “official time-outs” were for commercials. That “official time-outs” is mostly what we’re getting out of the Bush malAdministration.
<
p>
Continuing with the football analogy, it really doesn’t matter what the clock says. What matters is where the goalposts are. The Bush malAdministration kinda/sorta set the goalposts in May 2003, with “Mission Accomplished.” And they’ve been moving the goalposts ever since. And that’s why this entire endeavor is destined for success! because the Bushies will move the goalposts to correspond to the current state of affairs when they are evicted from office.
<
p>
It’s a giant kabuki dance, the Bushies and their on-hangers. It’s unfortunate that a few (hundred thousand) people are killed and maimed along the way, but what the heck. That’s the way it is. /sarcasm
But I am not sure that Bush & Co. are the ones moving them. A little review of the conflict’s history is probably in order.
<
p>
Bush I stopped after the first series of downs, well short of Baghdad, and ordered his team off the field. His objective, restoring Kuwait to the Kuwaitis, had been achieved. We could talk about whether that was short-sighted on Daddy’s part, but that would be (eschewed!) Monday-Morning Quarterbacking, now, wouldn’t it?
<
p>
Years later, Bush II, with the objective of defending the United States against terrorism, AND the objective of rooting out and destroying a strongly (and correctly) suspected haven and training ground for terrorists, AND the objective of neutralizing suspected WMD’s, PERHAPS (?!?!?!?) incorrectly identified as existing in massive quantities by both the UN and the CLINTON-WEAKENED CIA, succeeded in taking out the Baathist government at the knees and chasing Saddam into a hole in the ground in a Tikrit basement. Not a bad week’s work for a chimp, BTW. “Mission Accomplished!”
<
p>
And that should have been that, right? NOW, we could go home, the Iraqis would elect a Democratic Government, God would be in His Heaven, and all would be right with the world, Quoth BOTH the Democrats AND Bush.
<
p>
But not a few strange things happened on the way back to the C-141’s and troop ships. First, the Sh’ia thanked us very kindly for our efforts, and, murderous revenge against the Sunni in their eyes and hearts, told us we could go home now, they’d take it from here. Oh, said the Democrats, no importa. We can just go home now.
<
p>
Second, where were the WMD’s? We asked around, and the Mossad informed us that they were in Syria, and those that weren’t were on their way. Naive Americans that we were, we asked the Syrians about this, instead of doing as the Mossad would do, going in and blowing them up. The Syrians, frantically dismantling everything and destroying the BC agents, and turning the canisters into scrap metal, said,
<
p>
“What WMD’s? We ain’t GOT no stinkin’ WMD’s!”
<
p>
Oh, said the Democrats, no importa. We can just go home now.
<
p>
Third, the Sh’ia, in the persons of al Sadr and not a few of his friends, ready to commit genocide against the Sunni and turn the country over to Iran as its southern province, attacked their liberators. Further, they and Iran, and Syria conspired to import a bunch of terrorists from both al Queda and Saudi Arabia — fools who believe in 72 virgins and all that crap.
<
p>
Oh, said the Democrats, perhaps you aren’t hearing us, George. WE CAN GO HOME NOW!!!
<
p>
Now, we’ve reversed the tide. We’re taking out the guys with wrong intentions at the knees. We have the Sunni and the Sh’ia fighting side by side, not with each other. And we’re rolling up al Queda and ridding the country of the lunacy of civil strife and terrorism. Not completely, not yet, but it is much lessened from several months ago.
<
p>
Oh, say the Democrats, quick, before you WIN! We can go home now!
<
p>
With respect, is your objective peace, or a White House win in 2008? Stupid Question, huh, raj?
Years later, Bush II, with the objective of defending the United States against terrorism, AND the objective of rooting out and destroying a strongly (and correctly) suspected haven and training ground for terrorists…
<
p>
If Bush II were actually interested in terrorism, it would have stayed in Afghanistan and finished the job there. It didn’t, and now the Taliban are reportedly on the rebound. The Bush II’s little adventure in Iraq diverted resources that could have been put to use in Afghanistan. I knew that in 2002, and that was the main reason that I opposed the little adventure in Iraq. Little did I know of what havoc the removal of Marshall Tito–oops, Saddam–might wreak on the country.*
<
p>
*Tito of Yugoslavia held that country together by paying off the various tribes. So did Saddam in Iraq. As with Yugoslavia, the removal of the payer-offer (Tito by death, Saddam by the USofA) unleashed a series of events that has still not come to a conclusion. (Yugoslavia: Kosovo; Iraq: the 20+ factions vying for power, and it isn’t going to be lovely to see how it plays out.)
<
p>
Regarding the terrorism issue regarding Iraq, let’s put it this way. The weapons inspectors prior to the American attack on Iraq found no weapons of mass distraction. So that, as an issue, is–let’s just say–not an issue. And I guess that you did not know that the only al Qaida cell suspected to have been in Iraq, was in Kurdistan, an area that had been taken from Iraqi government control by the American’s no fly zone. Saddam had no control over that region. The Kurdish largely-communist PKK did, however, and they allowed a small terrorist base to be established there.
<
p>
Some of us, Chump, actually do know what’s going on. Don’t even try to bullshit me.
We are where we are. I’m not real happy that Dubya got us INTO this, at least not before finishing Afghanistan. But I am not willing to cheer on the cut-and-run plan, because I would not like to see Armageddon.
<
p>
If we pull out, the Sh’ia will not be able to resist attempting genocide against the Sunni. And they will NOT stop with the Baathists, they’ll go after the WHOLE TRIBE in Iraq.
<
p>
Sunni Muslims from other countries (and they are overwhelmingly the majority of Islam) will stream into Iraq to relieve their brothers. Iran is just WAITING for that to happen.
<
p>
Armageddon? Want some of that?
<
p>
Not me, bruddah!
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
…and one to which I do not totally disagree. You believe that the US owes the Iraqis (something) because it unleashed the mess. I do not disagree, but apparently unlike you, I don’t know what the (something) is (the “something” is what I was referring to as the goalposts) and even if it could provide the “something,” it is unclear whether that “something” is what the Iraqis want. And that last is wherein lies the rub.
<
p>
But, let’s get down to brass tacks.
<
p>
I know full well that the Sunnis are the overwhelming majority of Muslims. I also know that there are several factions of Shi’a in Iraq, and the USofA has decided to ally itself with the faction that is closest to Iran (the al-Maliki faction), and go against the faction that is furthest from Iran (al Sadr). I don’t like either of them, but that strikes me as being ass-backwards.
<
p>
Two. It strikes me that your Sunni Muslims from other countries (and they are overwhelmingly the majority of Islam) will stream into Iraq to relieve their brothers is wildly overblown. They could have done it if they wanted to; apparently they don’t. Maybe Saudi Arabia will finance their transport into Iraq if the USofA pulls out, but there has been no sign over the last four years of an Ansturm of Sunni Muslims into Iraq to relieve their brethren.
<
p>
Three, the Kurds. Kurdish regions extend through three countries, Iraq, northeastern Syria, nortwestern Iran, and most disturbing, southeastern Turkey. Why most disturbing? The USofA, since the end of Gulf War I, the US has been fostering an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq. The problem is that that independent Kurdistan is fostering rebellion of Kurds in southeastern Turkey. Turkey is a Nato ally query whether the US would come to the aid of Turkey to protect its territorial integrity if the southeastern Kurds want to join those in Iraq. That, of course, is one of the major reasons why Turkey opposed the US invasion in Iraq.
<
p>
BTW, just to let you know, there have been major repercussions regarding the up-coming president election in Turkey. Turkey is between a rock and a very hard place regarding their separation between church (Muslim) and state, and I would not be surprised to see a fifth Putsch there in the near future. They are in a sad position between Europe (Istanbul down to Ankara) and Islam. Ten years ago, I predicted that they would never be admitted to the EU, and, I’ve pretty much been correct.
First, the Sunni Muslims have not been actively moving into Iraq, as you correctly point out. But there has really been no reason for them to do so. The Sunnis on hand seem to have been standing off those Sh’ia brash enough to attack them, and while the bloodshed is terrific, it is nothing – yet. If it occurs, the Saudis, even as hosed up as they are, will most certainly spend their money to stop genocide. It ain’t over, sir, `til its over.
Second, the Kurds will likely eventually get their wicked way in terms of getting an independent Kurdistan. They currently have a powerful ally in the US, and I would be hard-put to see even the Pelosis and Hillarys turning their backs on them in event of probable genocide. (Though in the latter case, we aren’t sure.)
And I wouldn’t be surprised to see a chunk of Turkey in the Kurdistan mix. Whether we aid and abet them or not is not relevant. And I am watching the Turk elections-to-come with a great deal of interest. Trying to straddle two continents who are drifting away from each other is an invitation to be drawn and quartered . . .
Best,
Chuck