Dec 26 2006
Biden’s Folly
Some things in life are near absolutes, and Joseph Biden making a political blunder of things is one of those sure fire results you can almost count on. Biden is trying to position himself for a Presidential campaign in 2008, and his plan to is run as the modern day Neville Chamberlain:
President Bush is expected to announce early next year that he wants more troops in Iraq; a burst of military force in hopes of stabilizing that country.
Senator Biden says it’s a recycled strategy from this past summer.
“We tried it, it’s failed, we need a political settlement,” said Biden, adding, “We should be drawing down troops putting pressure on the Iraqi government to settle their sectarian differences rather than putting more troops in.”
Maybe Biden should familiarize himself with Al Qaeda’s terms for surrender in Iraq – which mirror his own plans to a “T”. Sadly, I think Biden actually believes removing our troops will demoralize the insurgency and embolden the Iraqis who now fight at our side. Interestingly, some very strong liberals I ran into recently are frightened to death their new Democrat Congress will do just as Biden plans. They fear the repurcussions of a political party that stands for one thing – surrendering Iraq to Al Qaeda. And they should.
The Iraq Surrender Group’s terms of surrender are not the resounding success those wafflers in Congress thought the paid for. They wanted to hide behind a commissions call to end Iraq before Congress had to face the voters. That kind of self centered cowardice, when compared to those who are giving the ultimate sacrifice for our country in Iraq, is a sickening and pathetic sight. And it naturally repulses America. America did not vote the Dems into lose Iraq, they voted them in to win quickly, as is expected. Every Democrat who voted for the war in 2002 has an obligation to find a success, not give up because elections are coming. The Dems were seen as the lesser of two evils in 2006. What they cannot afford to do is confirm that they were, indeed not the lesser but the greater. They have one chance to show they are better than the Reps. One brief chance.
The issue is much more complicated than the media is letting on. It doesn’t matter how many troops we have in Baghdad if the rules of engagement as such that our hands are tied. For example, when the Iraqi government told us to remove checkpoints in neighborhoods in Baghdad, we did, and the death squads have had a field day since. Civilian casualties have skyrocketed. Adding more troops to execute silly policy won’t help. We could be more effective with the troops that we already have there but at this point we are allowing the Iraqi government to set more of the policy in how those troops are used.
Simply increasing the number of troops will do nothing unless we also have a change in the rules that allow our commanders to call the shots in how those troops are used.
All this banter about numbers is arguing over angels on pins. It is silly and means nothing. What is needed is an Iraqi government commitment to root out the problems rather than turn a blind eye to it. Until we have the same freedom to operate against Shiia death squads that we have against Sunni “insurgents”, nothing much is going to change and the “ethnic cleansing” of Baghdad will continue unabated.
Joe Biden is just moving in the direction that the recent media stories are blowing. He is an old school politician and operates on the assumption that people actually still believe what the major media outlets publish.
“Interestingly, some very strong liberals I ran into recently are frightened to death their new Democrat Congress will do just as Biden plans.”
And just as interestingly, many Democrats are afraid that they won’t. The libs want the US to lose, they just want to figure out how to make sure the Repubs get the blame for it. Since they have the formerly MSM in their pockets, it may be easier than they think.
Yep, the ISG’s terms were something even the Dems don’t want to stomach.
AJ did you really use THINK and biden in the same sentence. I know you mean well, but words can be taken out of context(just read your daily paper)….
I’m hoping that the President moves in more troops and puts them on the border, and in areas where Iraqi soldiers are working now inorder to free up more Iraqi soldiers to take over Baghdad. Let the Iraqi’s work out their sectarian problems with their own soldiers mediating. If this doesn’t work, then I’m afraid we will witness an all out Shea/Sunni conflict. Maybe there needs to be one! It seems that that is where this is heading. Maybe better to have it now before some one gets a nuclear weapon.
What is interesting is this notion that you “must negotiate with your enemies”. Does one negotiate with a mugger? Does one negotiate with a bank robber?
Negotiation only works as intended when both sides want it to. This idea that negotiation can solve everything is insanity. If one side sees negotiation as nothing more than a stalling tactic, then the negotiation process itself becomes a weapon that is used to defeat you.
For example, Iran and Syria might enter into “negotiations” but at the same time increase support for Iraqi militants. The “negotiations” prevent us from taking any military steps which would endanger the talks and allow Iran to keep us at arms length while they go about consolidating their power in Iraq.
No, you only negotiate with an enemy when both sides have an interest in negotiations and a settlement can be reached that realizes the goals of both sides. When the two parties have mutually exclusive goals (you want to keep your money, the mugger wants all of it, you offer some, mugger still wants all of it) then there is no purpose for negotiations other than to hamstring the opponent in talks while you go about your policy on the ground.
Negotiations are sometimes the worst possible path to peace and ensure that there won’t be one. The robber might engage you in negotiations long enough to position himself between you and the phone so you can’t call for help before he shoots you.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122006L.shtml
Strata got the Webb/Allen race confidently wrong but his
promoting Stalingrad on the Tigris (see above link) will make
that little error seem a pittance by comparison.
But before it all goes down, how about naming the liberal
tyrants to accompany your own tyranny masking as
“democracy” for the world but not for Americans, who by
an 80-20 margin oppose increasing the troops in Iraq?
Can’t say you won’t deserve the defeat-but you don’t have
anybody in the family in Iraq do you, petty tyrant?
For Enforcement
” The libs want the US to lose, they just want to figure out how to make sure the Repubs get the blame for it.”
America had already lost the war by 2004 at the latest. You’re
a real slow learner.
Crosspatch betters FE in elaborating typical neocon confusion:
“rules of engagement as such that our hands are tied. For example, when the Iraqi government told us to remove checkpoints in neighborhoods in Baghdad, we did, and the death squads have had a field day since.”
Make that the “democratically elected and autonomous” government of Iraq, because America will never get your preferred puppet,CP.
Crosspatch fumes:
“For example, Iran and Syria might enter into “negotiations†but at the same time increase support for Iraqi militants. The “negotiations†prevent us from taking any military steps which would endanger the talks and allow Iran to keep us at arms length while they go about consolidating their power in Iraq.”
Awww, that’s so unfair that Iraq’s immediate neighbors want to
influence events there, when only America from the opposite side of the globe should have that right.
But seriously, Crossed-up, you should be glad if negotiations take
place-they increase the chances markedly of America being able to get its ass out of Iraq with far fewer losses than otherwise.
Who left the cage door open? He’s chewed thru his straps again.
“America had already lost the war by 2004 ” I have a hard time figuring out how it is we lost but are the occupier.
Doesn’t the winner usually occupy the country that lost?
I’ll sure I’ll get a French translation on that.
The French occupied Algeria for eleven years or so and lost
every second they were there.
Let me give a cheerier example however. Israel conducted a
lengthy occupation of Lebanon, losing every second and finally
retreating in defeat.
Dorf77-
“did you really use THINK and biden in the same sentence.” – LOL
Actually, we won the war. What is now in progress is the establishment of a central government in Iraq. That is really up to the Iraqis to win themselves. Our primary mission at this point is the training and support of Iraqi army and police. The current government has had exactly 7 months so far, that isn’t enough time.
We won the military campaign in a matter of a few weeks.
A major part of the problem came from the fact that Saddam had escaped. Had he been killed in the course of the war, things would have been much simpler. The Baath party could have been disbanded and many of the former regime rank and file military and civil servants could have been kept in government and new political parties formed.
Since Saddam was at large, there were still potentially large numbers of people who were loyal and could be expected to attempt to put him back into a leadership role. Imagine if Hitler had escaped Berlin and had been at large in the German countryside. Would we have been as quick to return the low-ranking party members to civil service? Probably not. My guess is that the scenario you saw play out in Iraq was probably along the same lines as the scenario that would have played out in Germany had Hitler escaped.
I would have done things differently but we evidently felt pressed for time. We first established a government under a US diplomat … a civilian. That was wrong. We should have done as we did in Germany and established a government under a Supreme Allied Commander, a general. We should have then established the various government ministries with an American overseeing each one of them. At that point, political parties could be formed and local elections held for municipal areas, then regional (provincial), and finally national.
Instead we got in a hurry and put forth a very agressive timetable that was tied to dates and deadlines than to results. The first government had until a certain date to nominate a second temporary government that would be charged with writing a constitution. That government had six months to finish the constitution and hold elections for an assembly operating under that document. That is where we are now. That government was elected in May … 7 months ago.
We should have established a government for them, fleshed out the ministries and overseen policy development and then turned the government over to the Iraqis from the bottom up so that they actually got handed a functioning government rather than setting dates on paper that were more important that progress. But to do that would have taken 5 to 10 years, as it did in Germany and Japan, and we weren’t prepared politically to commit to occuplying Iraq for a decade. We were prepared to make that commitment in Germany and Japan.
Also, our rules of engagement were different in Europe and the Pacific. If we came across some people in a building shooting at us back then, we simply hit them with a flame thrower. That tended to discourage others from doing that. So terrible weapons probably saved many lives and now that our rules of engagement are so tame, we end up extending the time an enemy is willing to fight and in the end it causes more casualties.
Crosspatch
No, we lost the guerrilla war, the only war which occasioned itself.
And when the central government of Iraq finally stabilizes itself it will
have anti-American, anti-Israel policies, the opposite of the political goals of the war, which means America lost the war politically and the guerrilla war militarily. The “few weeks” campaign to which you refer took place because Saddam’s military put on civilian clothing and
waited until the American forces were trapped, dodo. Then they came out and have defeated that American force, along with
Sunni independent nationalists and a sprinkling of Shia and foreign
al Qaeda. Further in the cases of Germany and Japan, the nearby
countries were on our side, whereas America has no helpers in the Mideast, only stalwart funders and aiders of the insurgency and of Iran.
By the way the aiders of Iran include most of the Iraqi government.
As a nation we have a short memory. Have we forgotten pleugerism Biden? He is worthless and a racist as evident by some of his speeches.
Ken, you need to study the true version of world history, use the English version. Your translation from French has sorely misled you. The French were the losers until America came along and rescued them. They’ve hated America every since and in that sense, we didn’t have friends on that side of Germany.
Quit reading the losers side history, it’s usually not accurate.
Both sides suffer from the flaw.
Mitt Romney, with nothing better to do, is taking “pot shots” at McCain.
And, there’s a difference between Biden and Neville Chamberlain. Neville actually WAS prime minister! Biden doesn’t have a chance outside his own state, to even run for dog catcher.
I think Americans forget how big we are. And, that the clownish Biden has tried before to make this “run.” I can even remember some sort of senate hearing, where he sat with his new hair plugs; and a monkey-smile kept appearing up on his face, every time the cameras turned his way.
There’s a reason why an audience doesn’t see “backstage.” But Biden is very, very backstage.
And, the only way he gets to even see his stupid name appear in print; let alone in articles in fish wrap that say he’s “ready to run for president.” Is on par with any man “ready to run for his train.” Most of us just don’t care.
While in the senate? All those egotistical dudes (and dudedettes), hold the same amount of power. One percent of 100. With everybody vying for the spotlight. (Just as they arm-out others to talk to the “pretty girl, or the handsomest star” in the room.
Can Biden, alone, stand in the way of progress while we are at war? NO.
Can Biden grab hold of the democratic label as he runs? So what? Ain’t my party label. And, the good thing is that no matter who runs as a donk, will have all this baggage.
It’s in Bush’s favor.
No wars go so well that these days it’s “slam-dunk.” Or “slam-da-donk.”
Bush has hit headwinds. While I think the “shaking up” is actually a good thing. Why would Bush be motivated, now, to lose his advantage? What would HE THINK the history books would say, if he “chat and ran?”
While, yes. OUR WEAKNESSES WERE PRESENT! We let things get too way out of hand. Including with our allies. (Israel, on her own, does the same things, diplomatically.)
Diplomatic stuff SUCKS.
While the reign of the war lords isn’t going to be what happens, ahead.
Bush isn’t perfect. But he is a man of resolve. And, that’s what it takes when you’re slogging.
Biden? If he wasn’t there we wouldn’t know how bad the dems suck.
On the other hand? Biden will be attacked by other democrats who don’t want to be part of the John Kerry “legend.” Murtha is also taking a beating in the press, today.
juancole.com
has the top ten myths about the Iraq War-essential reading to idiots like For Enforcement who believe the war stillcan be won.
Sorry that French whore wouldn’t take your money, FE. You shouldn’t let it turn you into a Francophobe.