Posted on 07/10/2007 11:23:51 PM PDT by goldstategop
If the surge is unacceptable, the better option is to cut our losses and withdraw altogether. In fact, the substantive case for either extreme -- surge or outright withdrawal -- is stronger than for any policy between. The surge is a long-shot gamble. But middle-ground options leave us with the worst of both worlds: continuing casualties but even less chance of stability in exchange. Moderation and centrism are normally the right instincts in American politics, and many lawmakers in both parties desperately want to find a workable middle ground on Iraq. But while the politics are right, the military logic is not.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The Senate: Vote to go to war, tie our hands, then get out.
That's all I need to know, Goldie.
If you're buying Biddle's drivel, I'm sure he's laughing.
>>Centrism Doesn’t Work Militarily<<
Centrism doesn’t work? We should codify that so future generations can learn from our pain.
We could call it the Weinberger Doctrine or the Powell Doctrine cause it sure as heck can’t be the Rumsfeld doctrine.
They're the ones who refuse to give The Surge a chance to achieve success.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
>>There may be political logic to it but in military affairs, its idiocy. Any general can tell you can’t stop short of victory. Our politicians seem incapable of grasping what needs to be done.<<
Sad but true...
It's that either/or crap that says to most readers, "Hey, we can't go all out, when do we get to shop?, it's just to hard, let's get rid of that Iraq nuisance once and for all."
It's the CFR, Goldie, the New World Order, don't worry, I'm Biddle, I'm smarter than you, don't worry about Iraq, go shopping, me and the CFR braintrust will take care of everything.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
My take: The good old WP is trying to cover it’s behind .. just in case the “surge” works. The 20,000 troops requested have just now fully arrived in theater .. heaven only knows what’s in store.
This article sounds like that’s what the WP is trying to do .. saying it’s not logical to leave so if we’re going to “surge” then we might as well do a good job of it .. because being centrist won’t cut it.
And .. with the media reporting a 3rd carrier strike force in the gulf .. I think we’re in for some fireworks! Maybe a few glass parking lots would get people’s attention.
Why do we want to clamp down on the violence. If Sunnis are going around killing Shiites and Kurds and the Kurds and Shiites are able to fight back, isn't that a good thing? In fact, isn't that what we want. Don't we want the Kurds and Shiites to be able to defend themselves and to go after the Sunnis who are trying to recapture their glory days under Saddam. If the Shiites and Kurds are able to do that, then one of two things happens. Either the Sunnis get wiped or they get brought to heel.
Biddle, the CFR, The WAPO, you get it all.
I know something about the old days too.
no one questioned the need to win.
Yeah, sure.
We've always had the weak sisters, Goldie, since the beginning.
Moderation and centrism is what got us into WWII and not what won that war. When you fight, fight. You can be moderate after you have utterly destroyed your enemy.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
This is why there needs to be term limits. Each member of congress has only one goal. That is to ensure that he/she is reelected time after time after time. That cannot be reconciled with a President who gets only two terms. A Presidents goal is the protection of the country.
With term limits in place, congress will be forced to do what is right and not what is politically expedient.
This has to be the number one issue for this country. Congress has proved to be irresponsible and not looking after the country’s survival.
Victory is the only op;tion that will benefit Republicans. Surrender will not enhance their reeletion chances. I am suspicious of the referance to civil war. Seems to me it comes more out of a Lakoff framing exercise than reality. It was also part of the antiwar propaganda in the Vietnam war. Then it obscured the backing of Communist forces by china. Now it denies the work of AlQueda and Iran.
No goals, no hope, no future; the Liberals' intent for pluralistic democracies.
Mike
Please don’t call anything reasonable the Powell Doctrine. He is one of the worst back-stabbers I’ve ever seen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.