The War in Iraq- Thoughts

The drumbeats are sounding. Even the Washington Post has an editorial saying "We're winning". They are urging Obama to change his Iraq strategy now that he has cinched the nomination. He can dump the Ultra-Left and move to the Center where most of America lives. They conclude with

When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.

Jeff Lukens at American Thinker has some thoughts on "Was it worth it?"

No one likes to go to war, but even an elective war is sometimes necessary. With all the consternation these past years, President Bush may finally be able to say "Mission Accomplished" to what he originally set out to do.

This we know, Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. He even gassed his own Kurd and Shiite populations in the 1980s. What happened to those chemical weapons? Who knows? Whether they buried them in the ground somewhere or trucked off to Syria, we had every reason to believe he had them.

It's nice that some people remember the poison gas. The Iranians do. The Kurds do. Saddams generals do. We took the treat seriously.

What should the President of the United States do when 1) we've been attacked by terrorists 2) a state sponsor of terrorism, with Weapons of Mass destruction and willingness to use them, continues to flaunt UN sanctions? 3) When the state sponsor of terrorism corrupts the UN and most of European bureaucracy with his "Oil-For-Food Program" bribes? 4) When we suspect another attack is imminent? Should he wait for another attack-?

The movies are the only places where the Good Guys let the Bad Guys draw first. The Old West Bad Guys were shot in the back, usually with shotguns wielded by farmers. Letting the bad guy fire first gets a lot of innocent bystander type good guys killed.

The question none of the anti-war Bush haters will answer: How many dead Americans before we act-? I've never been told the acceptable level of American dead we should suffer before we commit our forces.

The thought of terrorists with WMDs is scary. However, the worse thought is that we have no way to retaliate. Unlike the Cold War, we can have no Mutual Assured Destruction balance. If we lost a city, who do we nuke-? Do we really nuke the Mountains of Pakistan-? Tehran-? Damascus-? How do we respond to a WMD attack-?

We have learned to do counter-insurgency fairly well. Actually, we have re-learned it. We first learned it in Nicaragua, then forgot it. We were trying to re-learn it in Vietnam, but ran out of citizen patience. We were able to re-learn it and be effective in Iraq. Now, our Pentagon Chiefs want more troops trained for a battle in Europe or Asia against uniformed troops. They want bigger weapons systems, more toys... we may soon go back to sleep and have to re-learn how to do counter-insurgency. Generals need flagpoles and stuff to park beneath it. They need troops to stand in formation around em. A peacetime military needs to justify it's existence by asking Congress for more flagpoles and everything that surrounds it. Otherwise, you don't need all those generals.

From the terrorist, narco-trafficante, narco-terrorist, rogue state perspective; insurgency works. It's cheap, scalable, effective . Forces need little training or discipline so no bases. No uniforms, just used weapons. New recruits can be rounded up either by the press-gangs or internet trolling. They will not likely face trained and disciplined troops who will have the will to fight a lengthy counter-insurgency... Russia has not been successful in Chechnya. Just tramped them down for now. China the same with Tibet.


Was Iraq it worth it-?

I think so. We would have lost more civilians in a WMD attack by terrorists. We would have seen the UN and most of Europe corrupted by seven more years of Oil-for-Food bribes. We may have seen more radicals in control of more oil producing countries in the Middle East. (Would we really have invaded Saudi Arabia if al Quaida had overthrown the govt-? Mecca and Medina off limits to pursuit or attack-? )

It's easy to rant and scream rabid vitriol... it's harder to explain where someone went wrong and why the path not taken was better... Until we invaded, everyone thought Saddam had WMDs and would not hesitate to use them... Should we live with that kind of threat-?

Holly-Weenie-world

Pat Dollard (Follow the link, read his stuff) reveals the man behind the most recent "sliming" of American troops in the new movie "Redacted".... The one that upset all the viewers in Venice, Italy at the recent film festival and made headlines around the world (Thank you AP and Reuters)....

The latest Bourne flick was a slightly subtle attack on the CIA and American intelligence agencies... The next few months will see a lot of anti-Bush/anti-war movies coming out... The goal is to hit the theaters now, before the January/February Primaries. Then to hit the award shows that occupy the TV during the Spring. Then to hit the DVD and rental release markets, with attendant publicity in the weeks leading up to the November, 2008 election. They want to bang the gong three times and make America afraid, ashamed, and weaker on the world stage... The problem is that, now, we face an enemy that seeks our destruction and enslavement. Its not just a bunch of noisy "useful idiots" that must be indulged by a wealthy nation that is busy earning money.

Before this report, I had considered Mark Cuban another of the Silicon Valley dilettantes who were smart enough to be in the right place and lucky enough to bail out early with a bag of cash, but who was now a lost child trying to show the world that it was his native genius and not plain-dumb-luck... Like a lottery winner saying "It was my brilliance that knew the right numbers"

Billionaire Mark Cuban has decided to put all of his weight behind a campaign to smear US troops in Iraq as “monsters’. Cuban has decided that De Palma’s film “Redacted” must be seen as the cornerstone of his and De Palma’s self-declared anti-victory campaign against America and her troops fighing in Iraq. Cuban’s company Magnolia Pictures will be bringing this propganda campaign to a theater near you this winter. According to a source close to Cuban, the decision for Magnolia to develop, finance and distribute the film was personally made by Çuban. Cuban has a full producer credit on the film, and DePalma shot it on HiDef video at Cuban’s request, in order for it to qualify as fodder for Cuban’s hi-def cable channel. So far neither he or DePalma have explained how they can be “bringing the truth of the Iraq war to the American people”, as Louie DePalma has said, when neither of them have ever been to Iraq, filmed any of “Redacted” in Iraq, or spent one minute with any soldier in Iraq. Clearly they are only bringing you their imagined propagandists’ reality of Iraq. Both had the opportunity to go, both declined. They have chosen the coward’s path in a quest for legitimacy as spokesmen for the Iraq war, and as such both have failed in that quest. Indeed, they are left standing as laughingstocks. Their reach has exceeded their grasp. Cuban is a jet-set, armchair “Iraq Truther” who made sure not to have his private jet stop anywhere near Iraq. But he and DePalma are more than anxious to bring you the “reality of the Iraq war”.

DePalma said that going in it was his intention to make a film that would nauseate the American people, and thereby lead to a US withdrawal from Iraq. Well the only way for him to pull that off is if his film makes the case that the anomolous rape it fictionalizes is not actually an anomoly, but a “typical” snapshot of the US military’s behavior. In short, he would have to make his “troops-as-monsters” conceit appear to be typical of the troops, not atypical. This reveals a desire to create something that is nothing short of a willful and intentional smear built upon a lie. It also means that he decided not to look at Iraq for what it was, but to find something - anything - in it that would allow him to advance his propaganda campaign. Well Louie DePalma gave the game away when he confessed his excitement at his initial discovery of the rape story: “I knew I had a story!”. Now if that doesn’t mean “A story to suit my propaganda interests!”, then what does it mean?

The best defense DePalma has been able to muster about the lack of direct military reality in his film is “I had plenty of real stuff to put in but I didn’t put it in, and can’t show it to you to prove it, because my lawyers won’t let me”. That kind of bullshit pr spin may fly in Hollywood, but it isn’t flying here on earth. If you’ve got the goods, Louie, show them. It would appear quite clear why you haven’t already.

Dollard is angry... So am I... Tell your friends.... Stay away from the movie, the San Antonio Mavericks (basketball team) and anything else associated with this slime ball... The only thing Hollywood responds to is money. Cuban will lose credibility very fast if this thing loses money and costs him money in his other sources of revenue. Even if his is the -ONLY- weenie on this table... Nobody will put theirs on the table next to him in the future... Even Hollywood/Corporate weenies have a limit to how far they will go to show who has the largest Kielbasa.... Everybody remembers when the Big Weenie was whacked...

UPDATE

Iraq war films among favourites at Venice festival

VENICE (Reuters) - Two very different movies about the Iraq war are among the favourites for awards at this year's Venice film festival as it passes the halfway stage, and an unusually high number of male leads have stood out.
For pure shock value, Brian De Palma's "Redacted" wins hands down, stunning audiences with an uncompromising reconstruction of the real-life rape of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and the murder of her and her family by U.S. soldiers.For those looking for a more nuanced take on the conflict, a hot topic in Hollywood today, Paul Haggis's "In the Valley of Elah" stands out, as does the performance of Tommy Lee Jones.


De Palma: ‘When You Get a Banner Headline on the Drudge Report, You Know You Are in Trouble’


Reda94ttm
Uploaded by luvnews

"The right wing will come at this movie. I have done something that just cannot be done. You can never say anything critical of the troops."

To be REALLY-REALLY BRAVE he should do a movie about union thugs and Hollywood personal corruption. Being BRAVE insulting the Right wing is nowhere nearly as brave as attacking the left would be... An anti-war movement movie showing venial and corrupt schemers-? Never going to happen... That would really cut off the hands that feed.... Making a predictable movie with full funding from a dilettante isn't brave. Attacking those hated by Hollywood isn't brave. It's just what they do in Hollywood when they no longer get the calls from major studios...

"Slimed"

Democrat Congress persons were shocked-surprised-dismayed-annoyed-angry (?) to find that their audiences in Iraq had received information about their previous statements.

The sheets of paper seemed to be everywhere the lawmakers went in the Green Zone, distributed to Iraqi officials, U.S. officials and uniformed military of no particular rank. So when Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) asked a soldier last weekend just what he was holding, the congressman was taken aback to find out.

In the soldier's hand was a thumbnail biography, distributed before each of the congressmen's meetings in Baghdad, which let meeting participants such as that soldier know where each of the lawmakers stands on the war. "Moran on Iraq policy," read one section, going on to cite some the congressman's most incendiary statements, such as, "This has been the worst foreign policy fiasco in American history."

"This is beyond parsing. This is being slimed in the Green Zone," Tauscher said of her bio.

More than two dozen House members and senators have used the August recess to travel to Iraq in the hope of getting a firsthand view of the war ahead of commanding Gen. David H. Petraeus's progress report in two weeks on Capitol Hill. But it appears that the trips have been as much about Iraqi and U.S. officials sizing up Congress as the members of Congress sizing up the war.

Tauscher called it "the Green Zone fog."

"Spin City," Moran grumbled. "The Iraqis and the Americans were all singing from the same song sheet, and it was deliberately manipulated."

But even such tight control could not always filter out the bizarre world inside the barricades. At one point, the three were trying to discuss the state of Iraqi security forces with Iraq's national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, but the large, flat-panel television set facing the official proved to be a distraction. Rubaie was watching children's cartoons.

When Moran asked him to turn it off, Rubaie protested with a laugh and said, "But this is my favorite television show," Moran recalled.

I don't disagree it was an odd moment, but I did take a deep breath and say, 'Wait a minute, at least they are using the latest technology, and they are monitoring the world,' " Porter said. "But, yes, it was pretty annoying." (Professional level "Spin" -Just that easy. Don't try it at home.)

It was the bio sheets that seemed to annoy the members of Congress the most. Just who assembled them is not clear. E-mails to U.S. Central Command's public affairs office in Baghdad this week went unanswered.

"I had never seen that in the past. That's new," said Porter, who was on his fourth trip to Iraq. "Now I want to see what they're saying about me," he added, when he learned of the contents of his travel companions' rap sheets.

Read the whole article. It's short... But almost incoherent. The PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS at the Washington Post spent more column inches trying to spin the story than in answering some of the Journalism 101 questions such as "Who, What, When, Where, Why, " and the story was definitely NOT encapsulated in the first paragraph.... I guess it's the professionals doing something us amateurs cannot possibly fathom...

Chris Muir who draws the "Day by Day" comic strip did a much better job in only three panels... You should read his stuff every day... It puts the NYTimes and WAPost daily headlines into brilliant perspective... Much, Much better than Gary Trudeau, even way back when he actually cared.

Military Round-up

Military tales from around the blog-O-sphere... Mostly, Links to places that I visit often and the things that I see... The perspective is different than the Associated Press or Reuters... Sometimes that's all the difference needed to see the truth...

Shameless stealing from Glenn Reynolds Thus the red letters for being redhanded...

BILL ROGGIO HAS MORE ON what's happening in Iraq.

IF you're not reading this guy on a regular basis, you should. He writes real good and his tales are interesting.

Bob Owens notes some media recycling.

IF YOU'RE NOT FOLLOWING THE DAWN PATROL over at The Mudville Gazette, you're missing a lot of military news.... Another blog you should visit frequently-AJ...

NAVY SEAL MARCUS LUTTRELL has a new book out, Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10. He talks about things here, on Breitbart TV.

Here's a nice slide show about how the SEALS do it.... More than you can see from the veranda at the Hotel del Coronado... You have to supply your own martini.... Chicks love to watch the Seals on the beach... Guys get jealous and want to join the fun. The slide show pictures that not everyone gets to stay and play... cue background "Nobody Does It Better" by Carly Simon

I don't care if you have served or not. The military is not for everyone. Those who have been and "seen the elephant" or those who stayed at home and dated Jody... Either way, you must admit that the modern American military is magnificent-! The people who are serving take pride in what they do and well they should. They do it very well. They study, train, analyze the results, examine what the enemy has done, define new tactics and respond... VERY QUICKLY... This is NOT YOUR FATHER'S MILITARY-... Not everyone can be a hero, but whatever part of the tiger, fang and claw, eyes and ears or legs and tail they are assigned: They do it much better than we did it way-back-when...

Thomas P.M. Barnett can't help writing like a PhD, but don't let that stop you from reading his assessments and predictions. I disagree with some of his views, but when looking into a crystal ball...the future is not always very clear... We're all going to live in the future and it looks like we will need a very large, healthy and well trained tiger.

Danger Room is ambivalent about the political necessity of a modern military, but they sure do love the toys, and ideas for new toys, and possibilities of new toys... For those who like military toys... You should visit often...

War With No Name

The House being run by "She Who Must Be Obeyed" trying to shut down the "War With No Name".... With the famous herds of cats citing Rumpole saying "I Say What I Think And Do As I'm Told" on the Sunday chat shows.... It seems as if we have American Foreign Policy being scripted by the Brits. They are entertaining and imaginative in their use of language and plot devices... The WSJ Opinion Journal offers the following citations and opinion (I have added some emphasis and comments):

'The War That Must Not Be Named'
A story in the Military Times gives a window into the strategic thinking--or lack thereof--of the Democrats who now control the House:

The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget.

This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee's Democratic leadership doesn't like the phrase.

A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and "avoid using colloquialisms."

The "global war on terror," a phrase first used by President Bush shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., should not be used, according to the memo. Also banned is the phrase the "long war," which military officials began using last year as a way of acknowledging that military operations against terrorist states and organizations would not be wrapped up in a few years.

Committee staff members are told in the memo to use specific references to specific operations instead of the Bush administration's catch phrases. The memo, written by Staff Director Erin Conaton, provides examples of acceptable phrases, such as "the war in Iraq," the "war in Afghanistan, "operations in the Horn of Africa" or "ongoing military operations throughout the world."

A Republican aide quips, "If you are a reader of the Harry Potter books, you might describe this as the war that must not be named." But underlying this semantic argument is a serious question--one that shows why the Democratic Party cannot be trusted with national security.

There are valid reasons to quibble with the phrase "global war on terror"--primarily the last word, which focuses on the enemy's tactical approach rather than on its identity, ideology and strategic goals. (A hodge-podge of outlaws with no single nationality, no clear goals, no strategic plan, offering only random violence against soft easy civilian targets; Looks like the best term is "terrorist" . -AJ)

What the Democrats object to, however, is the idea that it is a "global war." In particular, they are trying to sell the fantasy that Iraq is a discrete problem with no relation to any broader conflict--so that surrendering in Iraq would have no deleterious consequences for U.S. national security.

It would be nice for Americans (albeit brutal for Iraqis) if the U.S. could simply cut its losses and abandon Iraq. But it seems to us there is far more wisdom in the holistic approach of the "global war." America has failed to engage its enemies, or tactically retreated when the going got tough, repeatedly since Vietnam: Iran in 1979, Lebanon in 1983, Iraq in 1991, Somalia in 1993. ( When we Surrender And Run Away (SARA) this time will anyone be surprised? What about the next attack? Who will get the blame for that one? Will we bother with a response? When will we no longer react or respond? Why bother?-AJ)

There is ample reason to think that these shows of weakness--or, more precisely, of irresoluteness--emboldened America's enemies. The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, provided strong--at the time, seemingly irrefutable--evidence that taking the easy way out did not enhance American national security. (That's true. But it's too hard. It breaks into our TV time. We're too busy being bored, hanging out, hooking up, finding a new job. We can't be bothered to remove the threat and avoid a repeat-AJ)

America seems dangerously close to a tipping point: a return to the 9/10 mindset that led to 9/11. It may be that President Bush's steadfastness is the only thing standing in the way, and that his departure from the scene in January 2009 will leave a more timid America.

Or, more optimistically, it may be that the current opposition to the "global war" is less about the war itself than about partisanship and Bush-hatred--and that its apparent gain in strength is really only a reflection of the president's political weakness late in his term.

If this is the case, then President Bush's successor, be he Democrat or Republican, will be likely to take a more realistic view of the world than the House Democrats are now doing. Bush's policies, once untethered to Bush himself, may prove more resilient than many of his detractors now expect.

Re-arranging the furniture, changing the names.... Whenever a public company does this I bail out of the stock... It is a clear signal that the problems are not large, the leadership has no reason to be in the leadership, there are no goals to be accomplished, the rest of their career will be spent justifying their existence by making things look different... The assumption being that looking different solves problems... The competition knows better. They are busy solving problems, finding new customers, inventing new technologies...

Would the Eagles ride a "Horse With No Name" to a War With No Name?

Smooth [Kathryn Jean Lopez] (from NRO Offers the following citations without comment-AJ)

RNC is accusing the Dems of mimicing Rosie in their no global war on terror move:

Last Week, Rosie O'Donnell Attacked Use Of "War On Terror" Phrase:

Actress And Guest Co-Host Marcia Gay Harden Called The Phrase "Propaganda." "But even you worded a 'war on terror,' personally that is propaganda. ... Don't like the wording of it like that." (ABC's "The View," 3/29/07)

Rosie O'Donnell Agreed: "Exactly, Marcia Gay. Thank you. ... It makes people into evil and good." (ABC's "The View," 3/29/07)

• O'Donnell: "I'm saying that in America we're fed propaganda and if you want to know what's happening in the world go outside of the U.S. media because it's owned by four corporations. One of them is this one. And you know what; go outside of the country to find out what's going on in our own country because it's frightening. It's frightening." (ABC's "The View," 3/29/07)

Click Here To Watch Rosie's "View" On The "War On Terror"

If the American News is slanted and biased-Who is buying the ads? Who is paying for the podium that Rosie stands upon? Then; Who is buying the products that she is advertising?

If the global news organizations (American and worldwide) don't trust the Administration or the US Military to provide information; Where do they get the "facts" they provide? Are terrorists (Outlaws) found in alleys and sidewalks, really more trustworthy, honest and forthcoming with facts than those who can be held accountable?

Alice never had anything like this in her tumble through the looking glass... The Red Queen was quite specific about conduct and consequences.

No JFK - No More

There are no JFK Democrats in the US Congress. Are there any in the Senate?

On January 20, 1961 JFK's Inaugural Address had the following statement. Throughout the following decades several quotations from the Address were played many times on TV, usually to confront and halt Republican initiatives.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

He concluded with the following:

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you.

Yesterday's actions by the Pelosi Congress shows that America has traveled a long way from the ideals of our youth and the previous generation. Now, we do not care who we betray or what burden they will bear for our perfidious arrogance.

Obama and Hillary may make claim to the JFK mantle of greatness and idealism. But by comparison they fall short. The claims comparing their words and deeds to JFK's are cynical parodies. Our Establishment Media reporters don't know the difference. Their editors no longer care.

By yesterday's vote, JFK would be a Conservative Republican-! I wonder if even the Modern Republicans would nominate him. Could JFK be elected in today's political climate?

I'd like to think so.