Just more of the same. The US has failed in Iraq. The only rational choice is to withdraw. Yet withdrawal will force the issue of US defeat into the bright light of day. The Republicans would rather trade American and Iraqi lives in order to live in denial. This is just more denial.

This happened before. Viet Nam 1969. We had failed militarily. Withdrawal meant admitting defeat. So the Republicans went into denial and another 30,000 US soldiers and over a million Viet Namese died. Then the whole world watched the US flee from the embassy rooftop in helicopters. We delayed the image of defeat, but we couldn't escape it.

You want to end the war? Contact your Repub senators and House reps, blue dogs too. They're home now meeting with constituents. Put on your big boy pants and make your case like an adult instead of whining about it on blogs.

Rahm is doing his part which we should all be doing in LTEs and by phone, email, fax, and face to face.
Put the fear of the electorate in them.

Still, Petraeus and Crocker are going to have to step up to the mikes at several congressional hearings and defend the report.

Should be interesting.

An honest report from our generals and diplomats about the status of the war isn’t too much to ask.

Damn right, Rahm, they've been "honest" with us up 'til now, so why would they change? Give them a chance to sugar-coat the news of increased death and destruction and the crumbling Iraqi government that's been in so many reports. The Congress will call that "honest" and that'll enable Rahm and his friends under the dome to send some more cannon fodder and a lot more money their way.

Disclaimer: Rahm Emanuel, a top Dem congressman and fundraiser, served as a civilian volunteer with the Israeli Army during the Gulf War.

He's actually my congressman (Rostenkowski's old Chicago district) and I have to agree with you.

He's a player and supposedly 'tough' but yes, he (perhaps wisely) never sticks his neck out on Iraq.

I'm not here to argue about Emanuel. I'm just here to insist that the netroots get to work doing what we can to end the war. Democrats in congress can't do it alone. We have to get enough Repubs and blue dogs to wise up. If you can't bring yourself to do a little research about this debacle that explodes
the myths they're clinging to and send it to a Repub congressman then you're not doing you're part and have no reason to bitch.

True. Bush is hiding behind Petraeus. But Petraeus may be more than willing to provide the cover.

Here's the Petraeus doctrine according to the first paragraph of FM3-24, his COIN training manual:

"The United States possesses overwhelming conventional military superiority. This capability has pushed its enemies to fight U.S. forces unconventionally, mixing modern technology with ancient techniques of insurgency and terrorism. Most enemies either do not try to defeat the United States with conventional operations or do not limit themselves to purely military means. They know that they cannot compete with U.S. forces on those terms. Instead, they try to exhaust U.S. national will, aiming to win by undermining and outlasting public support. Defeating such enemies presents a huge challenge to the Army and Marine Corps. Meeting it requires creative efforts by every Soldier and Marine."

Speaking of North Vietnamese actions after the 1968 Tet offensive, General Petraeus wrote: "At that time, the North Vietnamese shifted their focus from defeating U.S. forces in Vietnam to weakening U.S. will at home. These actions expedited U.S. withdrawal and laid the groundwork for the North Vietnamese victory in 1975."

Might not a General, intent on defeating an insurgency, see it as his duty to strengthen our national will and shore up public support for the occupation if he can?

I doubt we are going to get the whole truth from General Petraeus. What is he going to say? I'm the best in the world at COIN and I wrote the book, but I can't pacify Iraq? That will be the day. Did you know that Westmoreland never admitted that we lost the war in Vietnam? He died without admitting it.

I'm not sure why Rahm comes in for the blame. He is trying to end the war and voting for the most part in such a way, on measures that have a realistic chance of passing anyway.

Seeing as Rahm worked his scrawny little butt off to help the Dems take back the House, which is a big reason why we are even able to have this debate, now that we are rid of the rubberstamp Republican Congress, I think it's a little too easy to sit around and complain about him.

C'mon ohiomeister get with the program! Doncha know
you're supposed to hate Rahm if ya wanna be kewl?
I know because a lot of people say we would have swept every seat in the House last fall without him, ended the war and enacted single payer by now if he wasn't selling us out to the fat cats and corporations every chance he gets.

Perhaps better:

Iraq not as Iran II, but Western Islamic Revolutionary Failed State of Bushistan

Iraq is like Korea, not Vietnam...Mrs. Clinton has said the first thing she'll do is start bringing the troops home. I'm sure Mr. Obama has or will make that commitment, too.

Do you have the slightest idea what you are talking about?

Senator Clinton has promised to not bring the troops home. Some maybe, somehow.

The country has to be "stabilized." The troops have to train more terrorists. The troops have to be ready to strike at terrorists (the ones we are to be training?).

Hillary's plans, such as they are, are worse than Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam War.

The last we heard from Obama he was going to move some of the troops to Afghanistan. As far as I could tell he was not going to leave any in Iraq. Iraq is a failed state totally unlike Korea.

Not sure. Obama hasn't made a whole lot of sense talking about Iraq either.

I despair of most anyone talking sense about Iraq.

We have lost.

Period.

We failed to secure the oil fields that Bush and Cheney wanted with all their hearts.

All we can do is make things worse.

Is it then so hard to tell the plain truth?

Best, Terry

There was no more of an expectation for anything other than a rose colored glasses assessment of the "progress" in Iraq when the report was supposed to come from Patraeus than their is now that the White House has been busted about the report actually coming from the Bush Administration.

Rahm Emanuel knows that. Rahm Emanuel can read as well as any of us. Has Rahm Emanuel read the history of General Patraeus' rose-colored assessmets over the past several recent years? If not, then what the hell good is he as an elected representative - in a leadership position no less? If so, and he hasn't seen the writing on the wall, then what the hell good is he as an elected representative - in a leadership position, no less?

Rahm Emanuel is a Bush Administration enabler. He should be excoriated constantly for doing nothing but blathering on and for taking credit where credit isn't due.

I can see little daylight between how the Bush team relates to the population of Iraq and how that team relates to the population of the United States. Lie, divide, conquer, suppress, lie, ignore basic needs, count on out-powering, lie, manipulate controls to an end of stealing resources for friends [oil in Iraq, treasury monies in America], and, um, lie about it all.

Well its obvious that Rahm Emanuel supports the terrorists and wants them to win in IRAQ.

Weren't all those thousands of now missign weapons distributed during Petraeus' watch?  Anybody asking him about that?

Jan

They were, and I'm willing to bet that he will be asked about them, even though the person who asks will be pooh-poohed by the media establishment for being inconsiderate.

JohnW,

First, calling the resistance to US military occupation "terrorists" is a perversion of language.

Second, what Rahm Emanuel supports is what AIPAC tells him to support, and that is an ongoing effort, a profitable effort in financial terms (Emanuel is a top fundraiser), to maintain a US presence in Iraq no matter the cost and with no consideration of what Iraqis might want. This is why any comments from Emanuel regarding "truth" are suspect.

Sign on wall at dooway of C-47 when I was in jump school, 1943;

"If at first you don't succeed.....never mind."

W.C. Fields said, "If at first you don't succeed - try, try again. Then give up. There's no use being a damn fool about it."Tom

Well, maybe he could try working on the Democrats. My Republican Senator votes to fund the war. My Democratic Senator votes to fund the war. What's Rahm's complaint? Seems to me the Democrats are voting as he wants them to vote -- the same as the Republicans.

A sign of things to come.
The occupation resistance in Iraq is using more sophisticated tactics to kill more Americans, but "it's a good sign" according to a US Army spokesman.

"It's a clear sign that they could not get to us by other means, and that's a good sign," said Lt. Col. Michael Donnelly, a spokesman for the American operation in northern Iraq, describing the pattern of house bombs in that area. "Obviously we're countering the improvised explosive devices, and force on force, they know that they can't fight us."(from the WaPo)

That's what the army said in Vietnam, and what the British army probably said in Lexington. "They know that they can't fight us".

Terrorism is a tactic that sometimes rises to the level of operational art and even strategy, but it is not an ideology. The idea of holding sometimes mutual hostages as a guarantee goes back into history.

Medieval sieges had a series of distinct phases, and, in the early ones, a formal surrender could result in fairly merciful terms. Resisting the final attack often led to atrocious behavior.

In WWII, the US-Canadian First Special Service Force, on the Italian Front, would infiltrate German forward lines, cut the throat of one of the two sleeping soldiers in a foxhole, and then withdraw, leaving their calling card, the Ace of Spades. This cause the Germans to pull back quite a distance in that sector.

Also in WWII, the Japanese special attack units, including the kamikaze, attacked uniformed military units with clearly identified Japanese combatants. The result may have been terrifying, but it was not necessarily illegal.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

John,  for what it's worth, I got the satire from the get-go.  I thought it was obvious, but I've probably known your writings longer than some.  Don't feel bad; I often have to explain myself.  Glad to know you always "get" my posts.  I think I always "get" yours too! 

Jan

More likely HSA 'volunteers'

Yes, I noticed back in August, it was quite a change in tone. Fairly dishonest of them, they think most Americans are fools with VERY short memories.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Edwards has said he would take 40,000 to 50,000 troops immediately and take out the rest over the next 9 to 12 months. If you are serious about ending the war, you want to vote for John Edwards as the next C-i-C.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com