Bruce, Obama, and Me-Or is War Ever Justified?

"I am giving him the benefit of the doubt on this." (0.00 / 0)

I trust Obama.

5

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 17:06:38 PM CST

"Benefit Of The Doubt" (0.00 / 0)

It is giving our leaders the "benefit of the doubt" that got us into Vietnam -- yet ANOTHER similarity between that war and this one.  In both wars, the President And His Friends (first with Eisenhower in Vietnam, and George W. Bush in Afghanistan) get the United States involved.  "There is a purpose," they believe.

Then the replacement Presidents (JFK then LBJ then Nixon in Vietnam, and now Barack Obama in Afghanistan) have the dilemma of do we get out, or continue the commitment so that our investment in billions and lives doesn't seem meaningless.  

I don't give him the benefit of the doubt on this.  We should get out, and certainly not escalate.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 01:55:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

World Stage (0.00 / 0)

Jim, I think that pacifism is a true calling, and you have heard it. However my heart is not with you. I was against the Vietnam war because it was not based on U.S. security or self defense. Afghanistan is. If we left tomorrow what do you think would be the result ? The new surge may work, it may fail. But by giving it a 2011 timetable for withdrawal, Obama has listened to what the generals say is possible.I don't know how you think you know more.

History of the Vietnam conflict teaches us many things. To lay down arms in the face of murderous stateless thugs who want to destroy us...that's not one of the lessons. The main lesson of Vietnam to me is, if you put soldiers in the field, do it to win. Vietnam was a war of attrition. Bad policy begat unclear objectives and 60,000+ killed for no good reason that I can tell.

Our actions and time table bode well for success in stabilizing Afghanistan and keeping the Taliban from allowing Al Qaeda to use it as a base for training for global terrorism...9/11, London, Spain, Malaysia, Indonesia, Somalia, all shared similar fates at the hands of Islamofascists. We must stay strong, and give no quarter to those who would wish to see the U.S. destroyed, or for sure we'll be dealing with them again here soon.

5

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 08:51:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Peace Doesn't Always Come From Bombs And Bullets (0.00 / 0)

JonnyBBad, please don't invent things or put words in my mouth.  I have never said "pacifism is a true calling."  I'm not a pacifist.  When smashed in the face, I'll fight back and I think we need to.  When attacked, we need to respond.  

I have asked questions about Afghanistan by raising the points, "What would Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. do?  I've also asked "How many dead are enough."  But I raise those questions because they hit home some important things we should think about.  I want to reserve our military for when we need them.  I want a SMART war on terrorism, and having invaded Afghanistan, got involved in a civil war there, and expanding the war there ain't smart.  

There are many "...murderous stateless thugs who want to destroy us...," as you term it, Jonny, and laying down arms in their face is not my solution.  But creating more enemies by using our bombs and bullets in Afghanistan and Pakistan isn't my solution either.  

THAT is bad policy.  And many other observers other than just me in the past few days have pointed out that the new Obama policy in Afghanistan is misguided.  It has no actual timelime for completion -- just a date at which time he will take a look at the situation and probably "begin" withdrawal. "Begin" is a short word with big meaning.  I'm also not alone in pointing out that I think that the mission is still confused.  All he did the other day was make a good speech and commit 30,000 + more targets to be sent there.

Jonny -- please don't try to put me in the corner of those who would do nothing with our military, because I'm not there.  I'm for "action" when it makes sense, and I think I show that often on other unrelated issues:  many people didn't want to try for Civil Unions in 2007, but I did and I put in a bill to do so.  Many didn't want to try for marriage equality until 2011, but I did and I put in a bill to do so.  Many don't think we should be talking tax reform now.  But I do.  We need to act when we have the opportunity -- whether in war, or peace.

But peace doesn't always come from bombs and bullets.  We should have learned that lesson from Vietnam.  We will learn it from Afghanistan.  Unfortunately, that lesson will come only after the deaths of many more human beings -- ours, and others.  Hopefully, we'll eventually have a smart war on terrorism that uses our military power to our advantage.    

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 09:34:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

PDB (0.00 / 0)

when I start getting the daily briefing that you and President Obama get I can comment.

5

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 09:37:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Read The Newspapers... (4.00 / 2)

...leaks being what they are -- and there have been quite a lot in the Obama White House for some reason -- it's all there.

And as American citizens, we need not assume that our leaders know best and we know the least.  Certainly when it comes to war and death, we need to speak up.  

I bet there will someday be written The Afghanistan Papers.  The similarity to The Pentagon Papers may well be startling.  

Remember, many of the same players in Washington who contributed to this decision have been there in power for the past decade.  Not in the Oval Office, but Washington is a big place.  I got lost there once.

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 09:43:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Pentagon papers analogy is a smear (4.00 / 2)

The Pentagon papers mainly revealed that a secret McNamara diretced study proved that there was a plan approved by Nixon to carpet bomb Cambodia and Laos without a declared war.

The War that the CIA is quietly waging on Al Qaeda -OBL, Mullah Omar, and Dr. Ayamna Al Zawahiri in  Western Pakistan is being fought with drones and is being reported on and acknowledged. I don't think it is hidden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
The most damaging revelation in the papers was that the U.S. had deliberately expanded its war with carpet bombing of Cambodia and Laos, coastal raids on North Vietnam, and Marine Corps attacks - which had all gone previously unreported in the US.[5] The revelations widened the credibility gap between the US government and the people, hurting President Richard Nixon's war effort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
2009

   * January 1, 2009: 2 senior al-Qaeda leaders Usama al-Kini and Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan killed in a missile strike by US drones.[13][27]
   * January 23, 2009: In the first attacks since Barack Obama became US president, at least 14 killed in Waziristan in 2 separate attacks by 5 missiles fired from drones.[28]
   * February 14, 2009: more than 30 killed when two missiles are launched by drones near town of Makeen in South Waziristan.[29]
   * February 16, 2009: Strike in Kurram Valley kills 30, reportedly at a Taliban training camp for fighters preparing to combat coalition forces in Afghanistan.[18][30]
   * March 1, 2009: Strike in Sararogha village in South Waziristan kills 7 people.[31]
   * March 12, 2009: 24 killed in attack in Berju in Kurram Agency.[32]
   * March 15, 2009 4 killed in Jani Khel in Bannu district in North-West Frontier Province.[33]
   * March 25, 2009: 7 killed in attacks on 2 vehicles by two missiles in Makin area of South Waziristan at 6:30pm.[34]
   * March 26, 2009: 4 killed in Essokhel area in North Waziristan.[35]
   * April 1, 2009: 14 killed in Orakzai Agency tribal area.[36]
   * April 4, 2009: 13 killed in North Waziristan.[37]
   * April 8, 2009: 4 killed in attack on a vehicle in Gangi Khel in South Waziristan.[38]
   * April 19, 2009: at least 3 killed and 5 injured in an attack in South Waziristan[39]
   * April 29, 2009: strike in Kanni Garam village in South Waziristan kills 6 people.[40]
   * May 9, 2009: strike in Sararogha in South Waziristan kills 6 people.[41]
   * May 12, 2009: strike in Sra Khawra village in South Waziristan kills 8 people.[42]
   * May 16, 2009: strike in village of Sarkai Naki in North Waziristan kills 25 people.[43]
   * June 14, 2009: strike on a vehicle in South Waziristan kills 5 people.[44]
   * June 18, 2009: strike in Shahalam village in South Waziristan kills 5 people.[45]
   * June 23, 2009: strike in Neej Narai in South Waziristan kills at least 8 people.[46][47]
   * June 23, 2009: Makeen airstrike kills at least 80 but misses Baitullah Mehsud in the town of Makeen, many of which were attending the funerals of people killed in the air strikes earlier in the day.[48][49][50]
   * July 3, 2009: US Drone kills 17 people and injures a further 27.[51]
   * July 7, 2009: strike in Zangarha in South Waziristan kills at least 12 people.[52]
   * July 8, 2009: strike on a hideout in Karwan Manza area and on a vehicle convoy in South Waziristan kills at least 50 people.[53]
   * July 17, 2009: strike on a house in North Waziristan kills 4 people.[54]
   * August 5, 2009: strike in South Waziristan killed Baitullah Mehsud and his wife.[55][56] The kill was confirmed after weeks of uncertainty over their fate.[57][58][59][60][61]
   * August 11, 2009: strike in Ladda village, South Waziristan, kills 10.[62]
   * August 21, 2009: missile strike on the village of Darpa Kheil, North Waziristan, reportedly targeting Sirajuddin Haqqani kills at least 21 people.[63][64][65]
   * August 27, 2009: missile strike on the Tapar Ghai area in the Kanigram (Kanigoram) district in South Waziristan kills at 8 people.[66][67] One of the dead was reportedly Tohir Yo'ldosh (Tahir Yuldash), leader of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.[68][69]
   * September 8, 2009: drone fired missiles kill 10 in North Waziristan.[70] The attack may have killed al Qaeda leaders Ilyas Kashmiri and Mustafa al Jaziri as well as three Punjabi militants and two or three local Taliban fighters.[71]
   * September 14, 2009: drone fired missile kills four people in a car 1.5 miles from Mir Ali in North Waziristan.[72]
   * September 24, 2009: drone fired missile kills up to 12 people in the village of Dande Darpa Khel near Mir Ali.[73]
   * September 29, 2009: Two missile attacks take place. In the first, a drone attack reportedly killed six Taliban, including two Uzbek fighters and Taliban commander Irfan Mehsud, in a compound in Sararogha village, South Waziristan. In the second, a missile killed seven insurgents in a house in Dandey Darpakhel village, North Waziristan.[74][75]
   * October 15, 2009: US drone missile killed at least four people in North Waziristan.[76]
   * October 21, 2009: Alleged US drone missile killed two or three alleged militants in Spalaga, North Waziristan in territory controlled by Hafiz Gul Bahadur.[77][78] One of those killed was reportedly Abu Ayyub al-Masri (not the same as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader), an explosives expert for Al Qaeda and a "Tier 1" target of US counterterrorism operations.[79]
   * October 24, 2009: Alleged US drone strike killed 27, in Damadolla , inside Bajaur tribal agency.[80][81] The 27 victims were reportedly a mix of Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives engaged in a planning and strategy meeting. The dead apparently included 11 "foreigners". One of those reported killed was Faqir Mohammed's nephew, Zahid and another was Mohammed's unnamed son-in-law. The meeting was apparently being held to decide on whether to reinforce South Wazaristan against Pakistani forces, which Mohammed advocates, or exploit recent successes in the Nuristan and Kunar provinces of Afghanistan, which Al Qaeda wishes to do.[82]
   * November 5, 2009: 2 killed in Miranshah town in North Waziristan.[83]
   * November 18, 2009: 4 killed and 5 injured in Shanakhora village of North Waziristan, 12 miles south of Miranshah.[84][85]
   * November 20, 2009: 8 killed in the Machikhel area near the town of Mir Ali.[86]

As per a study collating all strike data in 2009, the casualties up to July 18, 2009 has already surpassed the hits over all of 2008. The strikes have also become much more lethal with an increase in average kills per strike. The strikes were also found to be concentrated in Waziristan.

5

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 23:12:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Presidents Kenndy and Johnson did not (4.00 / 1)

run headlong unconsciously into wars either.

We trusted their motives, we knew they were smart.

When we tried later to figure out where things went wrong, we talked about "The Arrogance of Power" and "The Best and The Brightest."

Unexamined assumptions, not so much about threats but about an imperial role for America. The inner circle of Presidential advisors very bright - and believing themselves very bright, with the media telling them, "No! You're even brighter than you realize!"

Antacid flashbacks.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 17:59:41 PM CST

Not so much (0.00 / 0)

In this 24/7/365 news era, I don't see a lot of newsies falling over themselves telling the "inner circle" how smart they are.  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 20:06:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This time it's Petraeus and McChrystal (0.00 / 0)

not the Bundy brothers. And there is a lot of promotion of Petraeus and McChrystal as noble, new-think leaders who should not be doubted.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 20:12:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Our "Leaders" Often Make Mistakes... (0.00 / 0)

...and it's our duty as good citizens to question them.  

The New York Times during the past couple of days has written analysis that shows how much in disarray the decision-making process in the White House has been on the Afghanistan buildup.  There are a lot of crossed fingers there right now.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 01:51:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not what I read (0.00 / 0)

The very lengthy story I read in the NY Times today did not describe a decsion making process in disarray, but an Obama White House that examined every side of the issue, took in input from supporters of a build up and those opposed, and very serioulsy and carefully considered options.

Here is the link, I would recommend a complete reading of the article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12...




"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 10:57:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The benefit of suspicion (4.00 / 3)

This pretty much sums up exactly how I feel. I don't want this war, I want it to end.

But politically, I agree with Jonny. I got behind the guy relatively early (not as early as some people here), and the way he talked about foreign policy (contrasted directed with the way Hillary talked about it) was a huge factor in my decision. I don't think that had ever happened before with me and two Democrats, but it did this time, because we were in two wars.

I'll even admit that when he talked about Bush ignoring Afghanistan, I agreed but thought more about the "de-escalation of Iraq" aspect of that than the "escalation of Afghanistan" aspect -- which was always, obviously, there.

So I give him the benefit of the doubt. I also give him the benefit of suspicion -- the dangers of mission creep, the tendency of everyone to think their solution is the solution (generals want more troops, diplomats may cut bad deals, etc.), and my own tendency to overlook (at least temporarily) flaws of Democratic leaders.

Obama has proven, time and again, the ability to make nuanced responses. People wanted a simple denunciation of Rev. Wright, and he responded with a speech that will be taught in schools someday. People wanted him to attack Sarah Palin, and he said, internally, she won't be ready in time, don't worry about it.

Obviously, these are not analogies -- but they go to his character. This is much more complex, and the stakes are much higher -- but he took the time to think about it. A friend of mine said the speech was a compromise who pleases no one: he committed the troops, but he wants out. I said yep, that's the guy I voted for.

---

by: JimC @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 04:07:28 AM CST

Forgot to add (4.00 / 3)

I hope his thinking continues to evolve. What appears to be the Karzai compromise -- him or the Taliban -- is OK with me for now. But corrupt leaders should NOT receive long-term US support.

---

by: JimC @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 04:12:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

False Choice: War or Pacifism (0.00 / 0)

Earlier on it was suggested that Jim Splaine's calling is as pacifist.
I can't speak for him, just myself.
I opposed the Vietnam and Iraq wars, as I opposed Reagan's wars in El Salvador, Grenada,Panama, and Nicaragua.
But the war against Nazi Germany was indeed the right war.
The war against the fascist takeover of Spain--really the start of WWII--was a necessary fight that 2000 truly heroic Americans chose to join.
When people are bombed from the skies (terrorism with a bigger budget) of course they fight to defend themselves. When one's nation is occupied by foreign military, of course defense is the result.

On can pick and choose wars. Obama's war in Afghanistan is madness, pure folly, not a worthy battle to choose.  

No'm Sayn?

---

by: BurtCohen @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 12:14:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Did the Surge work in Iraq ? n/t (0.00 / 0)

5

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 14:27:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Totally Different Situation And Country... (4.00 / 2)

...and I submit even if violence has temporarily subsided, if that was the goal, the government there is still corrupt, is not stable, we'll be there for a long time yet, and this year alone we lost 150 brave American troops.  Worth the price of what? -- when we're finally gone they'll still have to resolve their differences.  

Much of the perceived "progress" of the past couple of years there would have happened anyway as a natural course of several years of infighting.  I won't give Bush/Cheney credit for putting more of our troops in harm's way, where by the way they remain 3 years after Democrats won Congress in 2006.    

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 16:48:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh really (0.00 / 0)

Much of the perceived "progress" of the past couple of years there would have happened anyway as a natural course of several years of infighting.

You, my man, ARE talking out of your ass!

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 17:47:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Jack, You're Way Over The Top... (0.00 / 0)

...and I seem to raise your blood pressure.  Get a hold of yourself, fella.  

And keep in mind that children might be reading some of this stuff, and your frequent vomit-talk is disgusting.

If I bother you so much, just ignore me if you must.  I enjoy the dialogue, but it should have some degree of civility.  No one can intimidate me, so if your effort is to do that, give up now.

About the issue, there has been and continues to be MUCH disagreement among experts much smarter than you or I about whether the Iraq "surge" has proven anything but delay of the inevitable.  That country must evolve, and what HAS happened since the Bush/Cheney increase in troops there has been the loss of more of our brave soldiers, and the killing of more Iraq citizens.  That's for sure.

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 18:05:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

FCC (4.00 / 1)

They say ass on TV. Ya think BH is pulling in the Teletubby crowd, Jim.

You are using the word "disagreement" much like our flat earther friends, re: climate change.

"That country must evolve.." How astute.

I can't be bullied, either, Jim. So when the right and the press check in here to see what the "lunatic fringe left" is offering up for talking points, they will have to ignore the rationale thought(and vomit-talk) that will dwell beside it. Without fail.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 18:45:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The polls show that (4.00 / 2)

Jim's views on Afghanistan are NOT "lunatic fringe left," although you're certainly free to use Hannity's framing.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 19:02:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not Hannity's so much (0.00 / 0)

as Red Hampshire's and the GOPers seeking elected office.

I'll assert that it would be a disservice to let BH go "Code Pink." Feel free to counter. It IS what we do.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 19:06:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh, I Didn't Think www.BlueHampshire.com Had... (0.00 / 0)

...thought police, and that I'm supposed to voice White House Talking Points.  Of course, that's not the case on www.BlueHampshire.com, and I'm sure we want a vigorous and civil debate here, without unnecessary crude three or four letter words.

I'm trying to voice my objection to the war because in my view -- and I've seen many an election -- we're setting 2010 and 2012 to be much like the elections of 1968 and 1972, when Democrats were smashed.

Politics aside, I want to see us save lives in Iraq and Afghanistan and not send our troops where there is little purpose.  I want to see a smart war on terrorism.  Most Americans are against this war.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 19:17:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Terrorism is not (4.00 / 2)

a serious concern of mine as far as Afghanistan.

The Bush administration put the world into a very dangerous situation that upset the regional balance of power. This needs to be remedied. Obama has no choice.

Obviously the Obama administration and I don't agree on the severity of the matter: today we read of more ultimatums  toward Iran. On the other hand, some signs of quiet diplomacy between the Indians, the Pakistanis, and the Kashmiris--after Obama met with the Indian PM.

I'm worried that those that prefer to remember Vietnam are too quick to forget the otherwise minor proximate causes of the major wars in the history of the world.

If AQ really is your worry, let's keep in mind the stated goal of the AQ terrorists is to have a chaotic environment to establish a neo-caliphate sort of government. Immediate withdrawal, by upsetting the balance of power, might be as useful to those aims as going in was in the first place. Western governments must remember that to the extent intervention undermines the status quo in that part of the world, they are assisting AQ in achieving its stated goals.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 21:13:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No need to counter. (4.00 / 2)

Blue Hampshire is a self-described "progressive online community for the Granite State." The site does not attempt to embrace the full spectrum of the Democratic Party. Many Democrats reject not just the label but the principles generally called "progressive" - though not so many in New Hampshire.

"Code Pink" evidently has some specific meaning to you. I don't know what that is.

I do know that Rep. Splaine's concerns about the war are shared by a big portion of the overall party, and a bigger portion of self-identified progressives. By "big" I mean it-might-be-a-majority, depending on what poll you read.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 21:47:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Party Crashers (4.00 / 2)

This kinda stunned me: The site does not attempt to embrace the full spectrum of the Democratic Party.

Well I'm here, all the way from Lowell, MA, sending news fron the Lunatic Fringe Center.

Regardless of political stripe, making up stuff is normally frowned upon, is it not?

Code Pink.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 22:26:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The full spectrum (0.00 / 0)

I make no claim to speak for Elwood, but I think he means that Blue Hampshire represents the left wing of the Democratic Party. Embracing the full spectrum of the party would be pointless.

That is distinct from saying the full spectrum is not welcome, and I venture to say that it is.

I for one frown way down on making stuff up.

---

by: JimC @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 08:41:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I like Code Pink n/t (4.00 / 3)

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 00:37:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, Jack -- Way Over The Top (0.00 / 0)

...and your "extensive" or "expressive" language, however you characterize it, in recent comments hasn't been reserved to just three-letter words.  It's demeaning of all of us.  

And to answer your comment above, the press and the right don't have to check with www.BlueHampshire.com to see what I and tens of millions of other Americans are saying about Vietnam --- I mean, Afghanistan.  We're saying it in the open in many other places too.

And lots of us are asking, "How many dead are enough?" -- because it sums up well what's wrong with this military policy.

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 19:11:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Show me something (4.00 / 3)

Where did you get this idea:

Much of the perceived "progress" of the past couple of years there would have happened anyway as a natural course of several years of infighting.

Linky, please.

I think you just made this up. If by thought police, you mean we like discussions to be facts based, then BH has them.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 20:33:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ummm Jack... (4.00 / 1)

...you're not my professor, and I don't have to write a term paper for you complete with Ibids and footnotes.  Sorry, I won't play that game with you.  If you haven't any knowledge that the Iraq "surge" is debatable out there, I'm not going to spend my time convincing someone who just wants to insult and swear.  

I'm not about to switch you anyway.  I'm sure there are those who will say that Vietnam was a "noble cause."  I'm not one.  Iraq certainly wasn't and isn't.  Nor is Afghanistan.  A question:  How many dead are enough?

You're welcome.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 21:12:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

IOKIYAR (4.00 / 1)

Making stuff up to fill in the voids is what GOPers do. We actually make fun of them for it. Maddow has turned it into an art form.

It's a free blog, Jim. I won't support it and I don't respect it.


www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 21:22:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

you're not the boss of me now (4.00 / 1)

5

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 22:55:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"Debatable out there" (4.00 / 1)

Everything is debatable out there, but Jack has a point with his climate change analogy. Some debates are more partisan than others. It is universally acknowledged that the surge reduced violence in Iraq. That was not its original goal, but it accomplished something. Reopening debate on it is a shaky tactic, in my opinion.

---

by: JimC @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 05:40:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Do A Google Search (4.00 / 1)

#1 -- The Iraq "surge" is irrelevant when it comes to Afghanistan, because Afghanistan has many conditions unlike Iraq -- what "worked" in one country might not in another.  A "surge" certainly didn't work in Vietnam.

#2 -- I don't feel obligated to do the research, but I have and you can do it too -- use your Google Search to ask "Surge, Iraq, Progress" or any of a number of other inquiries related to Iraq.  You will find numerous WEBSITES and stories with careful, thorough analysis about how the surge not only has caused hundreds of more deaths of Americans, but thousands of more deaths of Iraq citizens.  We're proud of that?  

You will also find that the "surge" calmed things down where our soldiers actually were, at a cost of our lives and theirs, but that doesn't mean the insurgents have run away.  Remember the game you played when you were a kid, "hide and seek?"  IF we ever leave there, what do you think they will do?

Countries have to resolve their civil wars by themselves, and Iraq will.  We can't fight their wars, and we can't use our bullets and bombs to force democracy, or any brand of government.  It might work for a while, but not in the long run.  THEN WHAT?  We're losing the hearts and minds of so many people.  THAT is not debatable.  

And I don't have to do anyone's research to make my point, because no amount of such would probably convince them. That's not my job, and I'm spending most of my volunteer time defending House Bill 436, fighting the death penalty in our state, working for campaign finance reform with Granny D and others, and working to save what we can of the November, 2010 election -- where because of the Obama Afghanistan decision we're in real trouble.  You're welcome.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 07:18:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

? (4.00 / 4)

It is reasonable for Jack to ask for factual support, and it would have been reasonable for you to say, "I don't have any, but I just think that if there had been no surge, ultimately things would have worked out in Iraq." But, given the hours you have spent debating the President's policy on Afghanistan here, to respond to a challenge for a factual support for one of your assertions by sarcastically saying, I am not going to write you a term paper, and then follow up with, oh, I am too busy doing all these other things, go do a google search, is a brush off that doesn't help your position.  You have put so much thought into this whole thing (as have Jack and Jim) - please don't undercut your position like that.

Ont other question: why is Iraq irrelevant but Vietnam is relevant? You called Iraq irrelevant but then in the same paragraph went back to your Vietnam analogy.    



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 07:47:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Are We Out Yet? (0.00 / 0)

Factual support?  You're defending the Bush/Cheney surge that has resulted in hundreds more deaths of American soldiers, for what?  Are we out yet?  I don't need to play your game, Kathy.  Answer my question:  how many deaths are enough?  Give me your figure.  

In the meanwhile, the killing goes on in Iraq, and there will even be more in Afghanistan.  Thanks to "surges," which sent in more targets.  All this some 37 months after the November, 2006 elections when we voted for "change."  

And if you don't see the relevancies between Vietnam and Afghanistan, then we are doomed to repeat history.  And that means 1968 and 1972 are on the way.  

When you get to the end of your rope, Kathy, tie a knot and hang on.  Someone famous once said that, and I don't have to do your research to tell you whom.

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 08:12:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Iraq: The "Surge" Goes On (4.00 / 1)

I don't want to start giving daily or weekly updates, but perhaps because the media hasn't been reporting on Iraq so much because of the focus on Afghanistan, someone has to:

Five people, 4 of them students, were killed and some 34 others were injured when a bomb exploded in a school in Baghdad yesterday.  At least 6 police officers were killed in Iraq yesterday.    Four days ago, 8 people were killed in Iraq violence.  This past month, a total of 122 people were killed -- 88 civilians, 22 police officers, and 12 soldiers.  In October, 410 people were killed, many of them in suicide bombings near government offices.  In Baghdad, 150 people were killed.

Since the beginning of this year, we've lost 146 American soldiers, many more injured, plus our allied dead, plus the killings generated by our war policy there.  And for what?  How many more dead are enough?  

Yep, the "surge" goes on.

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 08:43:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

?? (4.00 / 2)

1. Where did I defend the Bush/Cheney surge?
2. What game? I said you had a reasonable alternative - say you just believe things would have worked out.
3. You demand people answer your question, yet tell others who ask you a question they are playing games or to go google.  
4. I don't think I'm the one at the end of my rope.

Go ahead, have the last word. Unless you are too busy!



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 08:46:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Last Word... (4.00 / 1)

....withdraw.

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 09:27:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Intellectual Honesty (4.00 / 2)

You've summed it up pretty good. Like the child in the back of the car, you want the end result with the journey from Point A to Point B, neatly removed.

You refuse to acknowledge parallels that don't fit your foregone conclusions, while you cherry pick others. Worst yet, you jam logical square pegs into round holes by simply applying your notion, as if it were a fact..

Your whole endeavor is emotionally valid, but logically corrupt.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 08:49:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"...logically corrupt... (0.00 / 0)

...in your opinion.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 09:28:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'll let the lurkers decide n/t (0.00 / 0)

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 09:35:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ummm Jim... (4.00 / 3)

...you're not my professor, and I don't have to write a term paper for you complete with Ibids and footnotes. :-!

By the way, which is it? Is the surge irrelevant or ineffective? It could be both, I suppose, but in terms of discussing a different country and a different situation, maybe we should keep the surge outside this debate. Especially since it's already debatable out there.

Feedback is a gift!

---

by: JimC @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 08:52:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That is not universally acknowledged (4.00 / 2)

It is an impossible point to argue that the surge caused a reduction in violence in Iraq.

Jim Splaine is right that there is much disagreement about what caused a reduction in violence in Iraq. Many give credit to the Sunni Awakening. Or the confluence of these factors.

In any event, it is equally impossible to make a worthwhile counter historical argument about what might have happened had there been no surge.

Splaine is also right to repeat that the situation in Afghanistan is very different from Iraq--or Vietnam. And, in my view, so is the reason for the troop increase. In order to implement the current strategy, there just isn't a large enough presence in the huge country. There are more soldiers today in Iraq than Afghanistan, despite Iraq being significantly smaller--especially when you exclude the uninhabitable desert. There should be a strategy that is suited to a more politically acceptable smaller presence of soldiers(although risk to individual soldiers goes up in this case).

My view remains that a strong national government in Afghanistan is part of the problem, and rather local control would lead to a more manageable and pacific political situation. Others seem to be coming to the same conclusion: from this week's Economist: "What is needed is concerted international pressure on Mr Karzai to accede to a constitutional rearrangement that decentralises power away from Kabul." Although, they have more faith in the ability of the current Afghan government to survive. I don't--I think it's too artificial and functions as de facto provisional government.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 09:07:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Never did (0.00 / 0)

At what point did we shill for the surge?

The surge in Iraq was intended to ease tensions and violence to accomodate political progress. If someone wants to chart out the metrics of "success," we can see if the surge met its objective or not. Very likely, it is a mixed bag. Cherry pick the data you like seems to be the game on hand.

If we only apply the "body bag" metric, meaning 1 body bag constitutes utter failure, then we will fail. As emotionally charged as counting bodies is, it is only one metric amongst many.

If I had to pick a parallel for Afghanistan from either Iraq or Vietnam, I'd pick Iraq. Why? Vietnam was never about Israel.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 09:36:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I was addressing (0.00 / 0)

this: "It is universally acknowledged that the surge reduced violence in Iraq."

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 10:24:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]