There are solutions, but like an unproven chemotherapy cure for cancer they could be highly dangerous for the patient. No, take that parallel one step further – they could also be highly dangerous for the doctor administering the treatment.

That such solutions would not suit US “interests” is problematical. There might not be any solution that would accept the present form of those interests.

So, the probability of a US “win” in Iraq would seem to depend upon the ability of the US to change its objectives both in Iraq and the wider sphere.

Given the “moderate” nature of your personal outlook I won’t hold my breath.

You gotta have a plan B.

That is the point Michael and others were trying to make. I supported this war as well, but what I have seen from this administration is complete incompetence in its prosecution. They didn’t have a plan B in case things went wrong, hell, they even refused to recognize that things were going awry early on. I remember the administration refusing to believe that they had an insurgency on their hands, then assigning way too much importance to Zarqawi, ignoring the real danger that was posed by Iraqi tribal, religious and ethnic fighting. As late as this year, our VP was proclaiming that the insurgency was still in its last throes! The most I’ve heard from the administration is “stay the course,” a course which has failed to address the problems we are facing in Iraq, the ethnic rivalries, divisions and sectarian violence. Anytime anyone brought up these criticisms they were labelled “defeatists” and liberal naysayers who were aiding the enemy. I know, because I’ve visited many a blog on the right and anytime I tried to point out the mistakes, and missteps of the administration I was generally shouted down and hit with every epithet from liberal commie pinko to terrorist supporting anti-zionist chicken-hawk.

That said, I’ve experienced similar vitrol from the left, whenever I’ve argued that while the administration has made a plethora of mistakes in Iraq, and has refused to recognize them, there was still a chance to salvage the situation by bringing pressure to bear on the president to make the right decisions with regard to Iraq. While I agree that the right blogosphere deserves alot more blame for aiding the president in keeping his blinders on while Iraq went to hell, the liberal side also has blame coming its way for not being able to look past their dislike for GW Bush to the challenges that confront our country. Only the middle has sought to break through the partisanship and divisions but even here we have failed.

Is Iraq lost, I would say it is not, where there is a will, we can always find a way. However, this administration no longer has the will or the imagination to come up with a realistic strategy to turn Iraq around, other than their overused “stay the course.” That being the case, although we can still salvage Iraq this will not happen unless the administration acknowledges its mistakes and reaches across party lines to build support for a 200K plus deployment of troops to Iraq to establish security and control over the country to allow Iraqis a chance to decide their own destiny without fearing being blown-up to and from work. Absent this, no amount of rhetoric, or blame-gaming will salvage Iraq. As of now, any such actions seem doubtful, that is why I think that despite the fact that were we to have the will we could win Iraq, we will ultimately loose. The administration will not admit that it has failed and needs a new plan to salvage Iraq, nor will they appeal to friends and allies for help with a mea culpa to ensure its success, rather they will continue to bluster on about thier “catastrophic success” and the defeatist -Pravda like MSM which hates America and is financed and supported by the enemy within in the form of the liberal elites most of whom can be found in the democratic party. The future looks very bleak indeed.

Now that’s McCarthyism, Glen. You take a starting point and them simply invent facts until you can reach your satisfying emotional conclusion.

Uh, no. I’m not inventing facts. And since I do not believe that Al Gore has ever studied Sartre in his life, in Cannes or anywhere else, I am emphatically NOT accusing him of going to France to study a notorious Marxist.

I did omit something though: the list of respectable French existentialists should include Gabriel Marcel. If Gore had said “I went to France to study the existentialists – you know, Marcel and Merleau-Ponty …”, I would have let it slide.

But “Sartre and Camus”? No way in Hell.

Much as you did in assuming that because I called a neo-con a neo-con I must be an anti-semite.

Rest assured that you are no more an anti-semite than Al Gore is a French existentialist. However, you should be aware of the way that word is resorted to on the left these days, even when it is not remotely applicable.

I’m not Jewish and I do not lecture my Jewish friends on how to take care of themselves, but if I were you I’d watch my back around some of your erstwhile allies.

it’s not a fiasco, it’s a rousing success and Hillary Clinton is to blame for only voting in support of it.

You know, there is a middle assessment between “fiasco” and “rousing success”. 99% of human endeavor resides there.

I absolutely agree: s— happens. And when it happens you adapt and win.

The problem is that the leadership has refused to adapt. They denied there was a problem. They won’t even replace Rumsfeld. Their strategy right now is to play whack a mole and hope the Iraqis suddenly get their act together even as that country is suffering 3,000 (in American equivalent of 30,000) civilian deaths a month.

There’s no point telling me we need to win. I know. Unlike the uncritical pro-war bloggers who’ve been trying to sing us a lullaby about how great things were going, I’ve been screaming about this for three years. We’re losing when we should be winning and the uncritical pro-war side has been enabling this incompetence.

Sideways (or whatever you’re calling yourself), I remember an article from your old site titled “Never enough Power�. It seems particularly appropriate now.

It’s the SecDef who thought it was all going to be surgical and precise.

Fine. Both you and I would probably agree that the majority of problems in Iraq today stem from this singular decision which occurred 3 years ago. We planned for massive refugee flows, oil field fires and chemical warfare, all of which never happened.

We wanted to leave too quickly, precisely because we wanted to avoid what is happenning now; the very insugency that is the bane of this administration and the source of vitriol for his critics. I seriously doubt the liberals would have been so supportive of a full-fledged occupation from the onset. If they were, than maybe the SecDef would have felt so burdenned to try the surgical and painless approach. What irony.

However; I am talking about today. The only solution to the problem offered by the democrats is not to adapt and win, but rather to withdraw completely. Sometimes your initial plan goes wrong and you got to have a back up plan to deal with the consequences. What better illustration than Bush’s mistakes in Iraq. It doesnt appear that liberals or democrats have learned from this.

You gotta have a plan B. What is Lamont’s, Kerry’s or Murtha’s plan B if “strategic withdrawal” fails? Anyone? Am I such a McCarthyite to demand this from them?

Maybe, some actual expertise is needed. Lt. Col. Terry Daly, an Army intel officer and provincial adviser in Vietname suggests that maybe 18 year old Marines aren’t the best force to be dealing with insurgents, but rather what is need is a POLICE FORCE worth a shit. Read it at Intel Dump.

http://www.intel-dump.com/

The reason the first question exists (because the Bush administration certainly doesn’t WANT to leave) is that the supply lines up from Kuwait are totally unprotected. So at some point the insurgents will shut them down, leaving the US (and UK) militaries hung out to dry. Personally, I’m hoping that the Army has contingency plans already drawn up for the withdrawal — even if they haven’t mentioned them to Rumsfeld and his merry men.

It’s not the “armchair generals” who think it’s a video game, it’s the Secretary of Defense. It’s the SecDef who thought it was all going to be surgical and precise. It wasn’t anyone but the war supporters who called it a cakewalk. It wasn’t the liberals who refused additional troops soon after the invasion and ordered commanders to begin preparations for going home. In short, everything you said is simply wrong.

And by the way, “see Joe Lieberman?” See Lincoln Chaffee.

Since gulf-war I and Bosnia, American armchair generals think war is supposed to be like a video game, or an errand to run. It is as if the other side is just made of pawns armed with sticks and stones so we should expect to walk all over them. If it doesn’t turn out that way, and people on our side start dying, then its all over and we should give up. Its Ok to withdraw because we have an unpopular president to blame for all of the consequences that follow.

Why is it so wrong to criticize this attitude? Why is it Mcarthy-like? Which side is purging itself of dissenters (see Joe lieberman). The only way we can loose this war is if this attitude prevails amongst the majority of our elected leadership. I don’t see any liberals or Democrats offering an plan to adapt and win the battle for iraq, rater, only to retreat from it. The consequences world-wide will be disasterous.

We have no choice but to win. One can dig a trench with a teaspoon or an excavator. As Michael has said previously, It all comes back to competence and efficiency. This BATTLE in the war on terror has lasted almost as long as WWII, Cost more than WWI, and is closing in on Korea.

Leadership is the ability to motivate others to take action that creates positive results for the leader (although good/great leaders usually do this by reminding the led that these results are universal).
The argument that Europe is not standing up is more an indictment on OUR leadership than their admittedly near sightedness. The argument that our enemy is not fighting in a way that we can efficiently stop and/or kill them is again an indictment on our leadership.

I understand that this is a war like no other, but as Sideways is saying, the prosecution thereof is fast approaching the point of diminished returns.

If this were not a military operation, but medical operation. how happy would you be with the doctor or surgeon ?

If Gore went to France to study existentialism, he should have studied Sartre and Merleau-Ponty, not Sartre and Camus. “Sartre and Camus� is an entirely different story. It might seem like a trivial point, but if you’re going all the way to Frogville to study existentialists, it’s the kind of thing you ought to know.

In fact, for existentialist purists, it would be Merleau-Ponty alone, as he is the premier example of the French breed. Sartre had largely repudiated existentialism by 1962, giving it up for Marxism (his Critique of Dialectical Reason was published in 1960).

So Gore, the son of a US Senator, went to France to study a notorious Marxist. What the hell is up with that, I wonder? A notorious Marxist who, at the time, had become a major apologist for Third World terrorism, having written only the year before:

Now that’s McCarthyism, Glen. You take a starting point and them simply invent facts until you can reach your satisfying emotional conclusion. Much as you did in assuming that because I called a neo-con a neo-con I must be an anti-semite. Despite the fact that I’m a Jew and, by the way, bought (and still buy to some extent) the neo-con world view.

So, summarizing: it’s not a fiasco and if it is then Bill Clinton and Joe Lieberman are to blame. Except that it’s not a fiasco, it’s a rousing success and Hillary Clinton is to blame for only voting in support of it.

As for using Neo-con “the way the Kosite left uses it” etc. . . You realize that’s asinine, right?

Keep at it Glen, I’m sure you’re going to work this out if you just keep trying.

Unless I’m missing something here you seem to be blaming liberals …

There you go again. For the second time, I’m not the one blaming liberals for turning their back on Iraq. You are.

Your accusation is an unfair generalization, BTW. A large number of liberals support the war – and by supporting the war, I mean they support the defense of the legitimate government of Iraq against a savage enemy who is the aggressor in this conflict. Joe Lieberman and William Shawcross come to mind. A number of other liberals (and conservatives) supported it while they thought it was going well, and have ditched now that they think it is going to fail.

The long road that led up to the present day was paved by many people, in a fine bi-partisan effort. The architects include Bill Clinton and Al Gore, and a host of people in Europe who have since turned to Jell-O. Had the UN and the international community formed a common front against Saddam, instead of taking bribes from him, we might have avoided a lot of trouble.

For my part I believe our efforts in Iraq will succeed, no matter how many difficulties and set-backs lie ahead. If you want no blame for those difficulties, fine. Likewise you will deserve no credit, either – though some liberals and even some leftists will continue to stand by Iraq.

As for Jew, Jew, Jew …

If you’re going to use the word “neo-con” the way the Kosite left uses it, then you ought to be aware that they use it the same way McCarthy used the word “communist”.

Unless I’m missing something here you seem to be blaming liberals for having done nothing to advance the cause of a democratic Iraq. In other words you’re scapegoating liberals while angrily denying that any such thing is going on.

As for “Jew, jew, jew . . .” I am Jew, Jew, Jew. I am even a zionist in the broadest sense of the word, a supporter of Israel, a supporter of this war until it was reduced to a fiasco.

The very hysteria of your response makes my point.

Glen, the truth of the matter is that (in fact) no neo-con worthy of the name has yet recognised that “Iraq has been lost”.

Without that recognition, who is there to blame?

Great post. Great irony. Love it!