Feed the animals

The following message was cut-n-pasted from a source other than CBS.

It's not just Democrats who are questioning the President's grip on reality.

Senator Chuck Hagel (NE), a Republican, says: "The worst thing we can do is hold ourselves hostage to some grand illusion that we're winning. Right now, we are not winning. Things are getting worse." "The fact is, we're in trouble. We're in deep trouble in Iraq."

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) also supports releasing the NIE and says: "We made serious mistakes right after the initial successes by not having enough troops there on the ground, by allowing the looting, by not securing the borders."

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), says "he believes the situation in Iraq is going to get worse before it gets better, adding that he believes the administration has done a 'poor job of implementing and adjusting at times.'" and says "We do not need to paint a rosy scenario for the American people...."

Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) says it's "exasperating for anybody look at this from any vantage point."

Those are Republicans talking. Here's what the generals and national security experts are saying, in a terrific recent piece in the UK's Guardian newspaper:

Retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, said: "Bush hasn't found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse, he's lost on that front. That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It's lost." He adds: "Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving Bin Laden's ends."

Retired general Joseph Hoare, the former marine commandant and head of US Central Command, [said]: "The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options.... The priorities are just all wrong."

Jeffrey Record, professor of strategy at the Air War College, said: "I see no ray of light on the horizon at all. The worst case has become true..."

W. Andrew Terrill, professor at the Army War College's strategic studies institute -- and the top expert on Iraq there -- said: "I don't think that you can kill the insurgency"... "The idea there are x number of insurgents, and that when they're all dead we can get out is wrong. The insurgency has shown an ability to regenerate itself because there are people willing to fill the ranks of those who are killed"... "Most Iraqis consider us occupiers, not liberators."

General Odom [also] said: "This is far graver than Vietnam. There wasn't as much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly went ahead with the war that was not constructive for US aims. But now we're in a region far more volatile, and we're in much worse shape with our allies."... "I've never seen [tensions] so bad between the office of the secretary of defence and the military. There's a significant majority believing this is a disaster."

Just as important are the opinions of those whose loved ones are serving in Iraq, like Martha Jo McCarthy, whose husband is on National Guard duty there. She says:

"Everyone supports the troops, and I know they're doing a phenomenal job over there, not only fighting but building schools and digging wells. But supporting the troops has to mean something more than putting yellow-ribbon magnets on your car and praying they come home safely."

"I read the casualty Web site every day and ask myself, 'Do I feel safer here?' No. I don't think we can win this war through arrogance. Arrogance is different from strength. Strength requires wisdom, and I think we need to change from arrogance to solid strength."

The glass half empty view of the world is not hard to fulfil.

No shortage of detractors for any president. There is not enough band witdth here to list all the supporters.

I wonder if Goharley would have said and published everything he could have gotten his hands on in 1942 that suggested that WWII was being won by the Nazis and Axis powers--and that it was futile for America to try and defeat fascism?


Iraq has become a magnet for Islamo-fascists.

Like Gen. Tommy Franks says, "We have two choices in fighting Islamic terrorists: We can fight them over there--or we can fight them over here."

Would you prefer the frontline was Spanaway?

I doubt it. Guys like Him where raised by single mom's as a result of the feel good 60's. If he was rasied in the 40's he most likely would have had a man around as a role model for logical thinking vs being raised solely by women and emulating their emotional reasoning.


Spanaway :p :p :p

As I see it, there are (2) points to Harley's thread.

1. The decision to go to war was not well thought out.

2. Once we committed ourselves, we clung to the neocon plan of a limited number of troups and supplies, which were significantly less than what the generals or "experts requested."

It's not a question of half full, half empty. It's a question of whether our leadership is nimble and confident in its ability to make changes, when they are needed, in lieu of sticking to a plan out of errogance because they're affraid to be second guesed.

Jeff'ed

Do you think the Democrats and Kerry would have allowed 250k troops in Iraq in an election year without creating a political hellstorm? If so do you think it affected the decision at all?

All said and done it's not half as bad as it's being played in the media.

Try making moves at work in a similar environment and tell me how far you get?

I would say that its true that Kerry has the benefit, if elected, to make changes After the election. Regardless of that circumstance, Bush must be held accountable for his decisions during his term.

A thought from Iraq -

"Doom & Gloom about Iraq's future....I don't see it from where I'm sitting."

For those of you who haven't gotten my "Thoughts" before, I'm a Major in the USMC on the Multi-National Corps staff in Baghdad. The analysts and pundits who don't see what I see on a daily basis, in my opinion, have very little credibility to talk about the situation - especially if they have yet to set foot in Iraq. Everything Americans believe about Iraq is simply perception filtered through one's latent prejudices until you are face-to-face with reality. If you haven't seen, or don't remember, the John Wayne movie, The Green Berets, you should watch it this weekend. Pay special attention to the character of the reporter, Mr. Beckwith (the Journalist in the movie). His characters experience is directly related to the situation here. You'll have a different perspective on Iraq after the movie is over.

The US media is abuzz today with the news of an intelligence report that is very negative about the prospects for Iraq's future. CNN's website says, "[The] National Intelligence Estimate was sent to the White House in July with a classified warning predicting the best case for Iraq was 'tenuous stability' and the worst case was civil war." That report, along with the car bombings and kidnappings in Baghdad in the past couple days are being portrayed in the media as more proof of absolute chaos and the intransigence of the insurgency.

From where I sit, at the Operational Headquarters in Baghdad, that just isn't the case. Let's lay out some background, first about the "National Intelligence Estimate." The most glaring issue with its relevance is the fact that it was delivered to the White House in July. That means that the information that was used to derive the intelligence was gathered in the Spring - in the immediate aftermath of the April battle for Fallujah, and other events. The report doesn't cover what has happened in July or August, let alone September.

The naysayers will point to the recent battles in Najaf and draw parallels between that and what happened in Fallujah in April. They aren't even close. The bad guys did us a HUGE favor by gathering together in one place and trying to make a stand. It allowed us to focus on them and defeat them. Make no mistake, Al Sadr's troops were thoroughly smashed. The estimated enemy killed in action is huge. Before the battles, the residents of the city were afraid to walk the streets. Al Sadr's enforcers would seize people and bring them to his Islamic court where sentence was passed for religious or other violations. Long before the battles people were looking for their lost loved ones who had been taken to "court" and never seen again. Now Najafians can and do walk their streets in safety. Commerce has returned and the city is being rebuilt. Iraqi security forces and US troops are welcomed and smiled upon. That city was liberated again. It was not like Fallujah - the bad guys lost and are in hiding or dead.

You may not have even heard about the city of Samarra. Two weeks ago, that Sunni Triangle city was a "No-go" area for US troops. But guess what? The locals got sick of living in fear from the insurgents and foreign fighters that were there and let them know they weren't welcome. They stopped hosting them in their houses and the mayor of the town brokered a deal with the US commander to return Iraqi government sovereignty to the city without a fight. The people saw what was on the horizon and decided they didn't want their city looking like Fallujah in April or Najaf in August.

Boom, boom, just like that two major "hot spots" cool down in rapid succession. Does that mean that those towns are completely pacified? No. What it does mean is that we are learning how to do this the right way. The US commander in Samarra saw an opportunity and took it - probably the biggest victory of his military career and nary a shot was fired in anger. Things will still happen in those cities, and you can be sure that the bad guys really want to take them back. Those achievements, more than anything else in my opinion, account for the surge in violence in recent days - especially the violence directed at Iraqis by the insurgents. Both in Najaf and Samarra ordinary people stepped out and took sides with the Iraqi government against the insurgents, and the bad guys are hopping mad. They are trying to instill fear once again. The worst thing we could do now is pull back and let that scum back into people's homes and lives.

So, you may hear analysts and prognosticators on CNN, ABC and the like in the next few days talking about how bleak the situation is here in Iraq, but from where I sit, it's looking significantly better now than when I got here. The momentum is moving in our favor, and all Americans need to know that, so please, please, pass this on to those who care and will pass it on to others. It is very demoralizing for us here in uniform to read & hear such negativity in our press. It is fodder for our enemies to use against us and against the vast majority of Iraqis who want their new government to succeed. It causes the American public to start thinking about the acceptability of "cutting our losses" and pulling out, which would be devastating for Iraq for generations to come, and Muslim militants would claim a huge victory, causing us to have to continue to fight them elsewhere (remember, in war "Away" games are always preferable to "Home" games). Reports like that also cause Iraqis begin to fear that we will pull out before we finish the job, and thus less willing to openly support their interim government and US/Coalition activities. We are realizing significant progress here - not propaganda progress, but real strides are being made. It's terrible to see our national morale, and support for what we're doing here, jeopardized by sensationalized stories hyped by media giants whose #1 priority is advertising income followed closely by their political agenda; getting the story straight falls much further down on their priority scale, as Dan Rather and CBS News have so aptly demonstrated in the last week.

Thanks for listening. Feedback is always welcome, though I can't promise an immediate response....

William.Truax@vcmain.hq.c5.army.mil.

That's an interesting commentary TK. Normally, you don't get that kind of 1st hand reporting of the situation or any degree of political commentary from the guys on the ground. Which makes me wonder what the protocol is for officers to share info.

Email him and ask him.

Kerry and CBS are playing into terrorist hands just as they played into the hands of the N. Vietnamese. Bin Laden said in the early 90's that this would happen as he called America a Paper Tiger. He is using our own political system against us and using the left to undermine President Bush . History has proven it to be efective. Vietnam ,Somalia ,Clinton's fears of going up against Islamofacism etc all prove his point. People that support Kerry are just as guilty of this as he is.

Elvis, you're so clueless and full of crap.



...and no, I'm not going to get sucked into your delusional world and play your game.

Harley,

I know reality is tough for you emotional types.

The truth is that all people in the middle east have been scared of somebody for thousands of years... G.W is going to change all that ???

You’re kidding right? I am sure it would be impossible for a few Islamic Terrorists to break away form there trench duty and come to the US to perform another 9/11 type activity. (Note the extreme sarcasm) If you think for one second fighting them over there is making you safer you need to take a few layers of tin foil off and let some oxygen get to your brain.

The entire fight them over there or fight them over here right wing mantra rhetoric BS statement is the most absurd thing I have heard since Bush Actually One The Election

Hey better yet why don't you go wait in Spanaway for the attack, I think it is happening tomorrow at noon.

Does anyone even possibly believe this is true?
They're trapped in Iraq? We've got them pinned down so they can't hatch plots against US European targets? 'The terrorists' are so busy with the insurgency in Iraq that they can't spare a few Mohammad Attas to blow stuff up over here?

Think about it...

Pretty simplistic view ther LT.

The fishing is 10kx better in Alsaka and other parts of the world. Why do you fish here? maybe because it closer to home and easier to haul your gear?

That is like saying we are in a war to prevent a country from inflicting terrorist acts upon it self...not solid reasoning to me.

Not at all it's just a side benefit. Kind of like throwing spinners for Coho and catching Steelhead.

Well I guess the next time we do get attacked, that whole argument falls apart, doesn't it ??

LT,

Did you take your med's this morning?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic. It's just that even though we don't agree on alot politically, you seem like a nice guy and I'm just concerned for your welfare.
------------------------------------------------------------

No one has ever said that ALL terrorists are being held down in Iraq. The area (Iraq) has become a magnet for Islamic terrorists and a great many of them are being 'pre-occupied' and or destroyed by the toughest, best armed well trained troops the world has ever seen.

In doing this we are keeping a great many of them 'pre-occupied' from attacking the US.

Would you rather have all Islamic terrorists spred out with time and energy to plan and execute their next attack against our country?

I would rather have them forced to show themselves like a rat fleeing from a sinking ship.

Given a choice of having the Islamic extremists direct their energy on a military that is well trained and equiped to fight back 1000's of miles away vs. having them direct their energy on our unarmed families (wives, children and elders) in our back yards---it's really no choice at all.

There were multiple terrorists attacks against the US during the Clinton administration, and Clinton did little or nothing. This led Osama bin Laden to believe we were a 'paper tiger' that couldn't/wouldn't fight back and enbodened him to plan and execute the attacks of 9/11/01.

Since the attacks of that fateful day OBL and the gang have learned Bush 43 is different breed than Clinton--and that this big dog will fight when its cage is rattled. We've killed or arrested most of the top leaders of Al Quada and the Taliban. They (Islamic terrorists) are now playing defense as opposed to being allowed to score at will---playing against the same team, but the team has a new coach (Bush 43).

Since Bush 43 started playing offense against the terrorists--we haven't had a single successful act of terrorism on US soil in over three years. Did you think on 9/12/01 that we would have been able to say that today?

Kerry has said 'he will fight a more sensitive war on terror'.

As stated before, I'll be very surprised if when we finally find Osama bin Laden ---the rock he's hiding under doesn't have a Kerry/Edwards 'For a Stronger America' bumper sticker on it.

Go Harley,
You quote the Guardian-This is the same newpaper that recently opined that children are a legitimate target for the poor Chechens that are just fighting for their indipendance?? I'm pretty sure you think all of their articles are "terrific." Any time I have a liberal thought I go to the Guardian for an instant cure!

LT,
If it's so easy for the enemy to spare a few Mohommad Atta's then how come there have been no recent attacks on American soil?? Maybe they are a lot more afraid of Democracy in the Middle East. Why do you think they are concentrating their attacks on Iraqis, specifically the police?

B Run,
You say, "The truth is that all people in the middle east have been scared of somebody for thousands of years... G.W is going to change all that ???" Nope-No President can change that! Only Freedom can change that! We'll see if the Iraqi people are up to the challange.

I was heartened by Interim PM Allawi's message yesterday. Optimistic, Strong and Visionary. Who does that sound like???

Did I quote the Guardian? Not here I didn't. But I reference many, many sources of information other than Drudge, National Review, and Weekly Standard. Those I use to clean up dog doo - it matches their content.

Why hasn't there been an attack on American soil lately? I dunno, it took them seven years the last time. If you're saying it's because of Bush's policies, then I guess you'll admit Clinton prevented any attacks after '93 on American soil.

I guess you can believe Allawi if you'd like - you believe everything Bush says. But if you want to take the word of a Baathist-CIA double agent brutal thug then it fits. Besides, what did you expect him to say? He was appointed by the Bush cartel to be a parrotting puppet. If you don't think his speech was written by Bush people then you need a dose of reality.

And I suppose I'll find that dose of reality from Kerry eh! The War sucks-The Economy sucks-Health Care sucks-Soldiars Suck-Weapons Systems suck-Tax Cuts Suck-Corperations Suck-Small Business Sucks-America sucks-Americans suck and anybody who thinks Nationalized health care is a bad idea is an idiot etc....Please name me one optimistic "dose of reality" message from John Kerry that I, or any voter, should buy into. While your at it what is John Kerry's vision for America??? For those of us who do not hate GW Kerry has not givin us any reason to vote for him, despite the fact GW has made several policy/leadership errors! In fact Kerry is not even trying. Worse Presidential campaign I've ever seen.

The Iraqi people will decide soon enough who is fit to lead their Country as will the American people! Liberty Rocks!!!!!!

LT-There you go again! Dead Americans=Good for Democrates. Hmm....

RB

It is my belief that do to the mindset of these people all we are doing is breading a larger terrorist network and have just walked up and kicked a hornets nest.

BroodBuster
Oh, I'm sure there have been no more attacks on American soil because they are so afraid of Dear Leader's wrath. Yes, I'm quite sure that they've seen that the best and easiest place to kill the most Americans is right where we have concentrated the most awesome military in the history of the world.

I would NEVER take that position

However I would say Dead Americans = An Asinine, Moronic, Militant, Mafia Dip Shiat President!!! :p

Don't put words into my mouth, dead Americans are dead Americans no matter which party holds the Presidency.

BroodBuster

Further more it's not that they fear democracy, but they see that Bush has presented them with a golden opportunity to humiliate the mighty US superpower like they did to the USSR in Afghanistan. Make no mistake, we can win militarily and lose the war just like in Vietnam and Russia in Afghanistan. Occupiers never win, they always lose in the end because we don't have the will to match those who live there and want the occupiers out. The longer they can keep us bogged down in Iraq, spending our treasure and our youth, the more that it will hurt when they do decide to hit us over here again. Because if you are fooling yourself about them not being able or willing to hit us again, you are a bigger fool than you seem.

------------------------------------------------------------

Yah...if people like Hanoi John Kerry and Baghdad Jim McDermot are allowed to belittle our military and their efforts and give 'aid and comfort' to the enemy.


------------------------------------------------------------
As Reagan said, "There you go again".

If Sen. Zell Miller heard you call our troops 'occupiers and not liberators'---he'd challenge you to a duel.

Oh, is THAT what happened in Viet Nam?

Never mind, I know that reality and your posts rarely cross paths.

Dan S,

What's the matter---Do you have a re-elect Jim McDermot sign your yard?

That's OK--It's a free country.

Um, no.

Once again, fantasy is incorporated into a post from Rory.


Solid neo-con tactic, though. Must be that "with us or against us" thing, huh?

Interesting sidenote: I watched an interview over the weekend with an Iraqi official that has been tracking and studying al Zarqawi. He said that Zarqarwi had the same mentality about his radical Islamic views: "You're either with us, or our enemies." He went on to say that having such a black and white view of things was a sign of insanity - rational people live in a grey world.

Interesting.

What a weak point.

Because Al Queda has a black and white view we have to respond with the same as both a defensive and offensive position.

Are you forgetting about millions Muslims living in the US and allied countries peacefully. How many Christians ,Jews are living in Ilsamic states peacefully?

They have made the world a place where you have to pick one way to live going forward theirs or ours. I prefer ours.

What point? I was merely sharing something I saw on television over the weekend. Seems to have touched an emotional nerve, though.

By the way, the Pentagon is happy that you've decided to sit this one out and not be part of the strategic decision making process.

Playing innocent does not work with you Harley.