http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/informational_posting/000320.php

claims good progress.

This says there is some:

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2005/November/middleeast_November149.xml&section=middleeast&col=

Otoh be sure that the point of the original bill in the first place was not to truly debate things or to enact change. Everyone knows the Dems ultimately don’t want to withdraw too soon or hastily either and the two parties are a lot closer than the media portrays them to be on how to ultimately proceed. Be sure that many Republicans want and demand ‘smart’ withdrawal plans as well.

This is usually b/c they have the same analysis (usually from proffessors and so forth in foreign affairs, telling them the same things).

Again, anyone who knows anything about Washington politics knows that deals are done at coffee tables and behind closed doors. The stuff on the floor is for *show* and to win votes.

And in general, whenever someone is ‘outraged’ at ‘x’ that happens in the legislature, usually that just means the person is either naive or hasn’t lived long enough around all of that to appreciate how things work.

The repub bill was more of a way to say ‘hi, leave us alone, we are not goint to waste time on this Red Herring and we wont let you kill our approval ratings anymore than we can’

Again, im not saying thats right or wrong, just pointing out that perspective.

The documents at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB97/ are worth reading in this regard.

What an ass Drunken Hunter is.

Wow, if i substitute “Communist” for “Islamofascist” it does begin to sound like Vietnam. And Charles, pray tell please, your own military service history??

By the way, I think it is in the nature of men to be brainwashed. In Pakistani madrassas, young men were led to believe they would be taking up arms with the Taliban against the infidel, whereas the infidels were actually the Northern Alliance, once headed by Ahmed Shah Massoud. So Pakistanis fighting alongside the Taliban were killing fellow Muslims, fellow Sunnis even. But these were kids brought up and schooled in the cloistered environs of the religious schools.

What excuse do Americans have who cannot even identify the “Islamofascists”? In any case, the al Qaeda are not fascists; one wonders how one can fight a war without being able to identify the enemy; bin Laden is dangerous, but different from a Hitler or Mussolini. But it does make one think that a free and open society is greatly overvalued in that it does not diminish willful ignorance. You may say, in the open and free society, we are not bound to such people. But, we’re at war, in the wrong war, so in what practical way are we not bound by the decisions of such people?

To the anti-war folks here – Murtha is a hawk; if the President actually behaved as though the war in Iraq required us to win, and actually issued a mobilization, then I think Murtha would be standing at his side. But Murtha will not let his comrades-in-arms be sacrificed for the vanity of the Commander-in-Chief.

Yes, but what counts is the result of those operations. Similarly, the mere fact that string theorists have worked for an enormous number of man hours to do calculations doesn’t give any faith in the results of their efforts.

Had the US stayed longer in Vietnam the outcome would have become even worse. The US couldn’t win, because the US tried to fight a limited war. Targets in North Vietnam were bombed, but the US took care not to bomb Soviet ships supplying North Vietnam.

In Iraq there is no way that the insurgens can be defeated, because a large fraction of the Iraqis (40% according to a recent poll)don’t think attacks on US soldiers are wrong. With only 160,000 US soldiers and about 200,000 Iraqi soldiers the only way to prevent bombs being made is if Iraqis provide intelligence about bomb makers, insurgents etc. A Sunni in Al Anbar province won’t be keen to betray someone who he suspects of making bombs for several reasons:

1) He may be sympathetic to the insurgency.

2) He may be against the insurgency, but he may also think that insurgency against US soldiers is lawful.

3) The person who he thinks is involved in the insurgency may be a good friend of his relatives/friends (some of them fall under points 1 and 2).

4) He can’t be 100% sure if the person in question is really an insurgent. There must be a proper investigation of accused people. The Sunnis have little faith in the judicial system (I don’t have to explain why).

Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Rumsfeld did serve. Bush took a cushy National Guard job during Vietnam and Cheney got multiple student deferrements claiming he had “other priorities” than fighting in a war for his country.

Yes the military is under civilian control but it is the height of hypocrisy for those who were chose not to sign up to questions the patriotism of thow who did such as Murtha, Cleland, Kerry and Gore.

Since when does it make us a “superpower” to invade a sovereign country that did not attack us.

If you are so concerned about Islamofacists why don’t you suggest to your White House buddies that we invade Saudi Arabia and see how much support you get?

Your recollections of Vietnam seem to ignore the fact that this was a popular insurgency.

Oh yeah and you forgot the oil….

Elliot

It seems quite possible that that incident never happened.

No progress in Iraq? Heard of Operation Rivergate? Operation Mountaineers? Operation Iron Fist? Operation Steel Curtain? No, I suppose not. Then again, how could you?

I have. I even head about them in the “MSM”. I also realize that those sort of things really have very little to do with an effective counterinsurgency.

(Fun fact: news of the Iraqi constitution’s passage was reported on page A13 of the Washington Post.)

Of course, a week earlier than that article, this article appeared on page A1.

That the “progressive left” has effectively withdrawn from this nation’s fight against a brutal Islamofascist enemy

We’re cowards too. Don’t forget that.

1. Regarding those of you complaining that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld did not serve in the military, you are aware that the military is under civilian control, right?

2. Joanne: In your view, can any “good, honest, well-meaning conservative in this country” not agree with you that there is, as you say, a “lack of ethics in this administration”? Or is agreeing with you requisite for being labeled as “good, honest and well-meaning”? Please consider your answer thoroughly, as this thread claims to be about dishonest debate tactics.

3. Sean: The next time you feel compelled to repeat your anthem about mean-spirited conservatives mistreating their political opponents, I would like you to peruse this article about the disgusting treatment of Michael Steele at the hands of the inclusive and tolerant Left. Apparently Mr. Steele does not appreciate the Oreos.

4. Actually, we had done just fine holding back the Reds in Vietnam, and things would have been in decent shape (even following withdrawal) had we simply followed through on our commitments to continue funding the South, and provide the air cover which we promised their troops in the event of a major action by the North. What happened after funding was pulled, and the air support never materialized? Southeast Asia fell to the communists. 2.5 million slaughtered in Cambodia. 1 million boat people. Millions more enslaved by totalitarian regimes. Since it worked so well the first time, let’s try it again!

5. No progress in Iraq? Heard of Operation Rivergate? Operation Mountaineers? Operation Iron Fist? Operation Steel Curtain? No, I suppose not. Then again, how could you? (Fun fact: news of the Iraqi constitution’s passage was reported on page A13 of the Washington Post.) The media’s mantra these days is “good news is no news”. At least we agree on one issue: blogs do help get out the truth.

6. That the “progressive left” has effectively withdrawn from this nation’s fight against a brutal Islamofascist enemy which despises women, laughs at the concept of minority rights, stones adulterers, murders homosexuals, and seeks to impose totalitarian theocracy from Spain to Bali (for starters) is truly one of the grand ironies of the modern age. Sleep well tonight, friends.

So glad you are here to clear things up for those of us who haven’t lived in Washington and don’t understand how things really work.

So what happens when the U.S. pulls out? Payback time.

The difference between Iraq and Viet Nam is that when the U.S. pulled out of Viet Nam the country was already 95% controlled by communists; the U.S. pullout didn’t leave a power vacuum. If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq now, that country will be cast into absolute chaos which will undoubtedly ( anybody here doubt it? ) produce a new dictatorship. The new dictatorship probably won’t have the constraint of minority support to limit its policies. The so-called democratic gov’t now theoretically in effect will make the Weimar Republic look like the very model of stability and durability.

Another fine mess..

As far as the debates being meaningless on the floor, fine, but it’d be nice to actually see politicians debate anything regarding the war, as we’ve had very little actual, substantative debate regarding the war.

Noneof that excuses Jean Schmidt (R-OH) from using a call from a Colonel as an excuse for calling Murtha a coward who cuts and runs, on the floor of the House of Representatives. That completely violates all sense of decorum. She left herself just short of censure there.

Though it should be noted that this isn’t yet the low point of decorum in the US congress–that distinction goes to when Abolotionist senator Chares Sumner was caned on the Senate Floor in 1856. I have a feeling we’re not all that far from that, though.

The Republicans did not want to debate a lengthy proposal for withdrawal, so instead (for the sake of time) they sponsored a very simple bill that more or less cuts to the core of the issue and have a vote on that, even though secretely everyone knows they were talking and voting about Mushas bill.

A lot of this sort of affair has to do with congressional floor time, playing politics and time allocation. Often these sorts of mini bills can be used to stall issues that are forthcoming, or to focus on politically sensitive issues that disparage one party. For instance, the republicans stalled and stalled during the Clinton impeachment hearings, so as to maximize the amount of publicity and time spent debasing the president.

By and large pretty much every politician out there has already made up their mind on the issue, one way or another. ‘Debating’ as such is more of a benefit to the public, whereas substantive withdrawal plans are done in commitees with the aids of thinktanks and military planners.

Again, its just one of those sorts of things you just can’t appreciate unless you’ve lived in Washington and learned the machinery of how congress works. A lot of times things aren’t what they seem to be, and being ‘outraged’ at x often misses the point entirely.