Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Harry Reid and cognitive dissonance
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Wolf Blitzer and CNN correspondent Dana Bash on CNN's "The Situation Room":
I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

The battle over a time line for withdrawal from Iraq now approaching the final showdown.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, saying Congress will pass legislation within days requiring U.S. troops to end their combat role in Iraq by next April, despite a fresh veto threat from the White House.

Harry Reid spoke with our Congressional correspondent, Dana Bash, about the showdown and his controversial assessment of the war.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

BASH: The phrase "the war is lost" really touched a nerve.

Do you stand by that — that — that comment?

REID: General Petraeus has said that only 20 percent of the war can be won militarily. He's the man on the ground there now. He said 80 percent of the war has to be won diplomatically, economically and politically. I agree with General Petraeus.

Now, that is clear and I certainly believe that.

BASH: But, sir, General Petraeus has not said the war is lost.

I just want to ask you again...

REID: General — General Petraeus has said the war cannot be won militarily. He said that. And President Bush is doing nothing economically. He is doing nothing diplomatically. He is not doing even the minimal requested by the Iraq Study Group.

So I — I stick with General Petraeus. I have no doubt that the war cannot be won militarily, and that's what I said last Thursday and I stick with that.

BASH: Arlen Specter, a Republican, but somebody who, in many ways, is like you, a critic of the president's Iraq policy. He said this. He said: "For men and women who are over in Iraq to have somebody of Senator Reid's stature say that the war is lost, it is just very, very demoralizing and not necessary."

Is there something to that, an 18- and 19-year-old person in the service in Iraq who is serving, risking their lives, in some cases losing their life, hearing somebody like you back in Washington saying that they're fighting for a lost cause?

REID: General Petraeus has told them that.

BASH: How has he said that?

REID: He said the war can't be won militarily. He said that. I mean he said it. He's the commander on the ground there.

BASH: But, sir, there's a difference...

REID: Are they critical of him?

BASH: ... between that and saying the war is lost, don't you think?

REID: Well, I — as I said, maybe it's a choice of words. I mean General Petraeus has said the war cannot be won militarily.

Doesn't every soldier going there know that he's said that?

I think so.

BASH: You talked several times about General Petraeus. You know that he is here in town. He was at the White House today, sitting with the president in the Oval Office and the president said that he wants to make it clear that Washington should not be telling him, General Petraeus, a commander on the ground in Iraq, what to do, particularly, the president was talking about Democrats in Congress.

He also said that General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill and make it clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called surge is working. Will you believe him when he says that?

REID: No, I don't believe him, because it's not happening. All you have to do is look at the facts.

The factors are this has been going on for three months. American deaths are at the highest they've been in two years. We have — it's like a balloon.

Things have quieted down a little in Baghdad, but just a little bit. They've even moved up in the Kurdish area now. Have tremendous explosions up there, killing two dozen people today. The situation in Iraq is not getting better, and it won't until we change course
So Petraeus is a liar? Or his claim of progress just doesn't fit the narrative Harry Reid has cobbled together? Can't you just imagine how objective he will be when listening to the Petraeus report. In reality he shouldn't even bother attending, given that quote.

And, of course, Harry Reid is so much better plugged into ground truth in Iraq than is Petraeus.

UPDATE: edited 12:13 EST with updated CNN transcript.

UPDATE II
: Go read Lance's piece on Reid at A Second Hand Conjecture.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
And President Bush is doing nothing economically.
Well, it’s hard to rebuild and win economically when Reid refuses to give you money to do that. Replace "President Bush" with "Congress" and I think you have an equally, if not more true statement.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Where does Reid get his "facts on the ground?"

I think we can safely rephrase Reid: Failure in Iraq suits my purposes, so I’m going to do everything in my power to ensure we fail. We’re doomed. Flee. The media agrees with me, so it’s settled.
 
Written By: MarkD
URL: http://
Yikes, he is confused.

1st of I think he is paraphrasing what General Petraeus said.
General Petraeus has said that only 20 percent of the war can be won militarily. He’s the man on the ground there now. He said 80 percent of the war has to be won diplomatically, economically and politically. I agree with General Petraeus.
It’s a catcha 22...

Without security, there can be no prosperity. And without prosperity, there can be no security.

The "surge", "escalation", Baghdad SECURITY Plan, is to secure neighborhoods, which will help foster economic development. When both sides see they will be treated equally, and have an equal stake in their community, then they will finally shake hands and make peace. Except for the die-hards and the terrorists.

Does Reid not comprehend that, or does he just not care?
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com/
BASH: [Bush] also said that General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill and make it clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called surge is working. Will you believe him when he says that?

REID: No, I don’t believe him, because it’s not happening.
Is it possible you are misreading this particular response? It sounds to me like Reid is saying he won’t believe what BUSH is saying about this (Bush being the original subject of the previous sentence.)

Of course, Reid is at best disingenuous when he mangles Petraeus’s words then claims to agree with him that "the war cannot be one militarily". But let’s assume he’s convinced himself that he’s properly representing what the general said –and he certainly seems to be going out of his way to show his ’support’ for Petraeus’s position, even while irresponsibly and hypocritically refusing to go and HEAR Petraeus’s description of the situation.

In that case, (despite all the OTHER contradictions in his position)I cannot see why Reid would, in the very next breath, call Petraeus a liar. So I have to take "I don’t believe him" as referring to Bush’s claims. And isn’t his declaring that he will not believe Bush, no matter what, disgusting enough?
 
Written By: bruhaha
URL: http://
Is it possible you are misreading this particular response? It sounds to me like Reid is saying he won’t believe what BUSH is saying about this (Bush being the original subject of the previous sentence.)
I considered that, but when I reread both sentences any number of times, the question "will you believe him when he says that" is talking about future testimony by Petraeus (Bush has already said ’that’), not Bush. Petraeus is the one who is "going to come to the Hill and make it clear" and the question is future tense regarding his upcoming appearance on "the Hill".
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I thought about that too bruhaha, but then given the second half of that sentence,
REID: No, I don’t believe him, because it’s not happening.


That means the it that is not happening would refer to Bush saying Petraeus is coming to the hill. While I’m sure Reid thinks Bush is a liar, I don’t think he would think he’s lying about this.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
What a contemptable piece of crap Reid is.
 
Written By: Firehand
URL: http://elmtreeforge.blogspot.com
I am having flashback to 40 years ago.

Whoever writes Reid’s talking points is one sick puppy.

People — men and women—serving in Iraq are listening to that stuff live. I estimate (with nothing behind it but life experience, having served in a combat zone during wartime) about 10-20 percent of the troops may agree with him. The other 80-90 would like to get their hands on him and give them a piece of their minds.

If the Senator had any courage at all, he would confront Petraeus.

That ain’t gonna happen.

Because Harry is all talk. And not too good at that either, if you ask me.
 
Written By: vnjagvet
URL: http://www.yargb.blogspot.com
So Petraeus is a liar?
Isn’t that the Left’s final position on every issue?

If they succeed in slow bleeding the surge, the Dems’ obituary for it will be "Petraeus lied, people died."
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
I don’t know so much about Reid but it’s a sort of statement of faith that military action precludes other approaches.

Logically, anyone who supports use of the military wants to use *only* military methods.

Logically, anyone who supports other, non-military, methods must remove the military before they are responsible for doing anything whatsoever.

The base assumption is garbage, but I think that pretty clearly that base assumption is there.

So Petraeus makes the absolutely *obvious* statement that the military is not sufficient in and of itself to "win" this particular effort. Those of us with any association with the military or those who are in the military now and fighting this war already knew and understood that. But Reid interprets it as Petraeus saying that we’ve lost and insists that our soldiers will interpret it as saying we’ve lost.

This false "either/or" is entrenched and I’m not sure if there is anything that can be done about it.

How does a person explain something as obvious as "the sky is blue?"
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
Synova:

If you can’t explain "the sky is blue" you surely can’t explain the sky is blue, but there are sometimes clouds in it that make it appear white or even grey sometimes. Can you?
 
Written By: vnjagvet
URL: http://www.yargb.blogspot.com
Surly, vnjavet, the sky can’t be blue and have clouds in it at the same time. ;-)

Can you explain Blue? Well, it’s a color. What’s a color? Certain wavelengths of light interpreted by cells in our eyeballs. So what if you close your eyes? The wavelengths are still there. Does every one see blue when they look at wavelengths in that frequency? Er... yeah. How do you know, what if what I think is Blue is the same as what you think is Purple? Well, the name doesn’t really matter. If we see it differently or not, we can both identify Blue correctly. Oh, really? What about color blind people?

But talk to someone who doesn’t speak much English and what is the most obvious example for "blue?" It’s the sky. Even though the "blue" of the sky isn’t always the same, and is prone to have clouds, and sometimes is fully overcast, and at night, a full half of the time, it’s not blue at all but black. It’s obvious and people understand it.

Who is going to insist that someone who says the sky is blue is making a claim that it is always and only blue? Who is going to say that a statement that the sky has clouds means that it is *not* blue?

That seems pretty close to what Reid is doing. Reid is claiming that the sky is *not* blue, and claiming that Petraeus also claims that the sky is *not* blue, because Petraeus said it’s got a few clouds in it.

I honestly don’t know how to explain that to someone who doesn’t already see their obvious error.

I’m pretty much reduced to, "Wow, Dude. You can walk and breathe air all at the same time!"
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
I am underwhelmed. The word is spelled: cognitive. Get a dictionary.
 
Written By: Keith Orenstein
URL: http://
So Petraeus is a liar? Or his claim of progress just doesn’t fit the narrative Harry Reid has cobbled together? Can’t you just imagine how objective he will be when listening to the Petraeus report. In reality he shouldn’t even bother attending, given that quote.

And, of course, Harry Reid is so much better plugged into ground truth in Iraq than is Petraeus.


Give me a break. We both know- everyone who’s ever been in the military, or even knows someone well who was in it, or has ever even studied the military,
knows that anyone running an operation will never describe themselves as losing, even if they are, in fact, losing. Sure as heck not for public consumption. Generals don’t admit defeat. Sure as heck not in counterinsurgencies. They go right on losing and claiming they’re winning until they’re removed, or their forces are destroyed.

This is nothing against Petraeus, either. The dynamic is the same as a CEO. No CEO will come out and say, "our company is losing" even if they are. Their job description involves manipulation and/or denial of reality in the area of "perceptions of victory", the best possible face on anything and everything, period, end of story.

Petraeus’ job is not to give his honest opinion. His job is to make the surge work, which includes pretending that it is, in fact, working.

Does this mean I personally believe that the surge isn’t working? Actually, I think Petraeus’s signs of progress might be real - just irrelevant - and I still think the war is lost.

But let’s not pretend that Petraeus’s word on whether his own plan is working can be taken at face value. It absolutely can’t. Anyone with a fifth-grade level of human psychology ought to be able to understand that.


 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Give me a break. We both know- everyone who’s ever been in the military, or even knows someone well who was in it, or has ever even studied the military, knows that anyone running an operation will never describe themselves as losing, even if they are, in fact, losing.
Good grief, ’nost ... your worst red herring yet.

That’s not the point, for heaven sake. Review the highlighted lines.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"His job is to make the surge work, which includes pretending that it is, in fact, working."

I think that "making the surge work" would include *honesty* to his superiors about what is or isn’t working and what needs to be done. This idea that Generals lie to *everyone* and keep on spouting what they are expected to spout until the ship goes down with them on it is... well, it’s not an "everyone who’s ever been in the military...knows" sort of thing.

But you’ve accidentally touched on some truth there, which is that *making the surge work* includes pretending that it’s working. Without a vision of success, *nothing* works. It can be the best plan on the planet but without an expression of confidence in success, it’s going to fail.

This is why it’s often dishonest on a fundamental level to insist "the war is lost" while claiming that you (or Reid) don’t actually *want* to lose.

Unfortunately the "intelligent" course of action seems to be seen as a sophomoric (or even more like a frosh) insistence that optimism is for the unwashed masses who live in denial.

When, in fact, the doom and gloom is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If it turns out to be true, it will be because it was *made* to be true by the power of belief.

Grats, honey.
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
We both know- everyone who’s ever been in the military, or even knows someone well who was in it, or has ever even studied the military,
knows that anyone running an operation will never describe themselves as losing, even if they are, in fact, losing.
I never knew you were French.

You’re also quite wrong about this, which is not much of a surprise.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Defeatism doesn’t lead to the path of success...
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com/
It really makes one wonder whether Reid has removed the fourth leg from every chair in his house. After all, each leg of a chair only bears 25% of the weight when someone sits down.
 
Written By: Terry
URL: http://
When, in fact, the doom and gloom is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If it turns out to be true, it will be because it was *made* to be true by the power of belief.

No, actually, it will be because it physically and empirically fails to end quantifiable behavior.
You know, Synova, the ’content’ of one’s beliefs - such as whether or not something we’re calling a ’surge’ in our counterinsurgency in Iraq is something we call ’working’ - is often influenced by .... reality. And by BS, of course, but reality tends to play the dominant card in the long run. Results speak for themselves.

On the other hand, your logic leads to the following: if the primary component of a working plan is belief in said plan, then why not pick any plan? Why not have the U.S. Army gather in a big cluster in downtown Baghdad and perform jumping jacks until the civil war stops? I mean, the only thing standing in the way of success there is negative thinking, right? So if you could just make me hate myself enough for feeling skeptical about that, maybe I’d come to believe in it. And the Iraqis! And then it would work!

Oh, wait, maybe not.

Thanks for playing.

This is why it’s often dishonest on a fundamental level to insist "the war is lost" while claiming that you (or Reid) don’t actually *want* to lose.

Right. Because, perceptions are desires. When I see cars running off the road into telephone poles and say, "that car is history", it’s not because I witnessed it crumple into an accordion-sized ball. It’s actually a strategy to make cars crash by declaring that they have crashed.

And when your mother sees you down in the basement with a big syringe of bleach you’re sticking in your arm in a misguided chemical experiment and screams, "Synova that will kill you!!", it’s not because of information she’s heard about bleach doing bad things to arteries. Actually, she wants you to die.

And when Reid or I say, "the war is lost", it’s not because we hate seeing America perform self-destructive acts and want it to stop. It’s because we like it when America loses things. Our ultimate vision for America’s future is that it become a tinpot dictatorship making a living off sex tourism and pirated DVD’s. How’d you know?
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
You’re right, McQ. Your point was not just that Petraeus knows better than Reid that we’re losing, it was (I guess) that Reid believes Petraeus on some things but not on others.

All right.

Yeah, I agree, he does. Don’t really see it as a character indictment, though.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
When has Petraeus said that we’re losing?

This is the power of belief, glasnost. You say it’s a matter of facts, when in fact it’s a matter of previous belief that the entire enterprise is doomed to failure. Used to be we were losing because Bush hadn’t sent enough troops. Send more troops and we’re still losing. Rightly point out the obvious fact that military action is limited in various ways and that’s a declaration of failure. But somehow this is responding to facts and not to wishes?

In the end it seems based on a fundamental, nearly religious, belief that "war never solves anything." That’s not Historically supportable, but it doesn’t stop anyone from believing.

Explain to me how America could lose without making the choice to lose? If something doesn’t work, try something else. But fully half of everyone in the country is refusing to make any effort to contribute to what *will* work to support a stable democracy in Iraq. Half of everyone is adamantly *not* working for a good end because they’ve found excuses to define the thing as not their problem... and who cares what happens to real people. Half of everyone is absolutely insisting on failure.

How can you say that they aren’t wishing for it when that’s what they are working toward?

Oh, they’re just accepting the truth of failure?

What proof that we’ve failed? Oh, simply the fact that Iraq wasn’t miraculously transformed into paradise in a time frame never seen in the entire History of the World.
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
So, let’s see, the Democrats plan is, that in order to win the war we have to leave, and leave quickly. Oh, we can keep some unspecified number of troops there training Iraqi troops (which we already are doing,) and counter-terror missions (which we already are doing.) While not accounting for the tooth-to-tail ratio in their planning (ie all the support troops required for conducting training and counter-terror ops.

What we wouldn’t be doing is providing security for Iraqi citizens, which was what we were doing before the Baghdad Security Plan. So, in order to win, we are going to go back to the course that everyone derided Bush for stayin’ on.

We are going to ignore what the ISG said they could support.

We are not going to give the Baghdad Security Plan a chance, even though we nearly unanimously supported the General in charge of creating the plan, and now in charge of making it happen.

I have to wonder if glasnost understands that part of defeating an enemy is maintaining the will to win. Reid doesn’t sound like he wants to win, in fact he sounds like he thinks we’ve already been defeated. And the enemy, and our troops, have heard this. You think the enemy is going to use the nuanced retraction of Reid’s statements in their propaganda. Or do you think they’re going to tell their recruits and members, hey look, we’re winning, their politicians even say so, keep fighting boys.

That is what people are trying to get through to you glasnost. That the psychology of defeatism effects both the morale of our troops and the morale of our enemy.

Everyone concedes that the problems in Iraq are not going to be solved by military force alone.

Without sufficient security, progress on the political, and economic fronts are less likely to occur. Iraq is not at the place it needs to be in order to provide themselves with sufficient security.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com/
That is what people are trying to get through to you glasnost. That the psychology of defeatism effects both the morale of our troops and the morale of our enemy.

Keith, here’s what I am trying to get through to you: Whining about the damaging effects of morale on your army, that your army just can’t beat those insurgents because politicians at home make them feel so saaaaaaad, is a) dishonest b) pathetic c) profoundly and systematically self-destructive. It creates an excuse to avoid being aware that goals have been set that can not be achieved.

If that wasn’t clear enough: I don’t give a flying f*ck about the effects of my free speech on someone else’s morale, and neither should Harry Reid. This isn’t T-Ball, it’s not the Special Olympics, it’s the protection of America. It’s people demanding obediance and willful stupidity to protect "morale", demanding the free hand to continue dysfunctional solutions instead of functional ones, that continue to retard Iraq.

Harry Reid isn’t losing this war, anymore than he’s winning the war in Afghanistan with his unflinching support of it, along with 90% of the country. In both countries, the U.S. Army is... not... militarily... capable... of performing the task given to it at current levels of resources. In the absence of being able to solve the problem, it can, and will, and is, preventing the problem from being solved. We can’t impose a solution, but we can sure as heck force everyone involved in the country to get on board our various non-solutions, or else stay off the field.

Everyone concedes that the problems in Iraq are not going to be solved by military force alone.

You can repeat this phrase, but you don’t understand its implications. There’s not going to be any happy bubble of stability and non-violence on the horizon for Iraqis to work out their political problems inside of. They’re going to have to work them out in the midst of chaos and carnage. And they haven’t even started. And they’re not going to start. They’re kind of busy right now, resenting America, protesting America, manipulating Americans, dealing with Americans, sucking up to Americans, training with Americans, and last but certainly not least, killing American troops. They’re fighting our war, both for and against, and they’re not going to deal with their own war until ours is over.

It’s not "military force can’t solve this war, but di*king around with it while we try and get the rest of everything on track is fine and dandy". That paradigm is defunct. The 80% of ’everything else’ that needs to happen other than the 20% military - David Petraeus’ percents there - boils down to ’peace’. You don’t get peace while you are prosecuting a war. It’s a lot like trying to negotiate going out for a beer with a friend while you repeatedly punch them in the face. The war will go on until we stop prosecuting it.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Oh gawd.... if we stop fighting the fighting will... stop!

Wow.

I suppose if we get rid of the police then crime will stop.

And we get to save money, too!

Win-win!
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
Glasnost - sorry, I’ll just stop debating you. You don’t give a flying flip, and are obviously to naive to understand what effect propaganda has in a war...
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com/
I’m not a spokesman for the Army
I know what goes on in every place of Iraq
I do know is my father served during OIF 1 and 2,
I served for OIF 3
My brother came for OIF 4 and I am back here again for OIF 5

It’s been a rollercoaster ride for my family but we’ve seen good things that have ocurred from our presence here in Iraq.

I’ve seen people cross the borders last week from Syria to finally come home, water, actual water pumped into Sadr City (during 2005), which restored basic necessities to the people there, and people willing to stand up for their country here in Anbar.

Now I find myself in Ramadi, Iraq. Last October my brother left Ramadi after a long and vicious deployment and I see hope, lots of hope — you see it in the people eyes around you.

Everyday people are rising up here, cleaning their streets and joining in noble causes to make a difference for their fellow countrymen of Iraq.

We’re really selling this country short should us leaving early come to pass.

What we’re doing now is instilling pride and patriotism back to a people here but we should not do this anymore if we’re sacrificing our own by leaving.

While the events which led us up to this point may have been caused by political or military blunders we cannot afford to give up at this point.

If someone really, really thinks we are losing here then they need to see what’s been happening here in Anbar.

To cut to the point, Anbar is leaving us in awe. This place used to be so dangerous you couldn’t go into the city without a long drawn out fight but now it’s done a complete 180.

People, Iraqis and Americans, are busting their butts off making this place almost a safe haven from violence. Just in statistics alone we’re doing well, real well.

But the success is in large part due to the people here wanting peace.

That peace is attempted to spread now into nearby areas and hopefully success will not be defined to one area and when more places rise up this year as successes Reid will keep his mouth shut.

Spc. Ricardo Branch
Ramadi, Iraq

I apologize if this message is a bit jumbled together. I wrote it after a long trip out at the COPs here and am tired.
 
Written By: Spc. Ricardo Branch
URL: http://
I’m sorry if I offended you, Keith, but I have extremely strong feelings about this.

propaganda has in a war...

Like, when the Nazis festooned US forces with propaganda in, for example, Anzio beach and went on to miraculously recover and win the war?

Wait, that didn’t happen. So, why didn’t that happen?

That’s me here, knocking on the door. Hello? Are we ready to acknowledge the basic point here that propaganda doesn’t win wars? And morale usually correlates to reality, and you really can’t swing it much by dressing up Harry Reid in a frilly skirt and having him cheer for the war? That’s why, in the USSR and other totalitarian nations, it was neccesary to lie - constantly - about everything - defeats, losses, forces, everything - and forcibly silence all genuine information - to try to keep ’morale’ artifically higher than it made any sense being. And you know what? It still didn’t work, because soldiers aren’t stupid enough to fall for it. And not only was it immoral, but it was utterly self-destructive.

Morale is (for the sake of argument) low because we’re failing - not we’re failing because morale is low. Effective tactics and strategy bring high morale. F*cking up brings low morale. Piss*ng on Harry Reid for not clapping harder is trivial bullsh*t, and anyone who argues otherwise is in a state of denial.

Thankfully, we live in a democracy, not the USSR So we’ll have two more years of pointless, counter-productive death until 08’, and then Rudy Guliani can take the stage arguing to surge to 500K troops, and the Democrat can call for a transition, and we’ll see what the American people think is the right idea. Perhaps you’ll dismiss their choices as based on "propaganda" as well.



 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Glastnost, there are two ways to lose:

1) All of you die.
2) Not all of you die and the rest quit.

That’s it. There’s no other way to lose a war.

I don’t read any "win" from you. I only read "lose".


 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
The 80% of ’everything else’ that needs to happen other than the 20% military - David Petraeus’ percents there - boils down to ’peace’. You don’t get peace while you are prosecuting a war.
Huh. By that logic, we then have to stop the war so the "peace" can begin. But the war is indeed 20% of the equation, not zero. So if we quit on the 20%, the 80% will pull us through? This is usually known as circular logic.
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
Glastnost, there are two ways to lose:

1) All of you die.
2) Not all of you die and the rest quit.

That’s it. There’s no other way to lose a war.

I don’t read any "win" from you. I only read "lose".


Mark, the war is the war on terror. It involves 1 billion Muslims, 90% of whom are dormant. The overriding goal is to keep them dormant, period. 1) and 2) are never going to happen to America as a whole, under any scenario, so it’s simply a question of killing and being killed as little as possible, to minimize the collateral damage to our country, and to get the world over the terror and radical Islam curve. Iraq is one hundred percent counterproductive to that: look up the term "Phyrric victory".

So you’re right. I attach no value to "win" and very little value to "lose". That’s because your classical concept is - I’m sorry - dumb as a post. You react to "lose" on a Pavlovian level without the ability to understand, or consider, the genuine value of "victory" vs. "defeat".
Everyone loses wars. This may not have been true in the 16’th century, when conquest made nations stronger, but in the modern world, wars make nations weak and brittle. War is a losing hand. Finding ways to make war uneccesary is a winning hand.

There is no "offense". There is no victory. There’s just an endless competition to lead civilization forward. Your problem is that your ego fixates you on ’winning’ a war where victory brings zilch benefits and costs that continue to spiral off into the distance. As a strategic thinker, you’re a disaster. Kind of like our president.

"Winning" Iraq in your classical terms is a pipe dream. A bad pipe dream. Unrealistic, unneccesary, and genuinely harmful to American security in the implementation. Wake up and smell the 21’st century.



 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider