We may be a long way from Lincoln vs. Douglas and the current Presidential/Vice-Presidential Debates may resemble those arcane sports events that appear occasionally on ESPN II in which “experts” endlessly explain the rules of games we have barely heard of. But still, buried beneath the tedium are occasional epiphanies.
I woke up to one last night: the bizarre and enduring influence of Howard Dean on our lives. The Vermont governor, you may recall in the distant past circa 2000, was a supporter of gun ownership who wanted to run for President as a centrist. Then he discovered, mirabile dictu, that there was a potential goldmine of wannabe-rebellious kids and nostalgic Boomers yearning for a militant antiwar candidate. Voilà – Dean #2. Even he could not have guessed his success as the choir pushed him to number one in the Dem polls, scaring the beejeezus out of longtime assumed nominee John Kerry, not to mention pretender John Edwards. Running scared, Kerry and Edwards hastened to cover their asses, changing their stands on the war by voting against the support of the troops.
But we all know that. And for the willfully disinterested who didn’t, Cheney pointed it out last night with the one slightly witty line of the first two debates in which he wondered aloud how K & E could stand up to Al Qaeda if they couldn’t stand up to Howard Dean. How indeed? Or should I say “Howard indeed”?
But it’s worse, because the ghost of Dean and the Deaniacs sits astride all sides in the current conflagration. Consider the endless debate on the number of troops. Can you honestly suggest that the presence of the “Dean Left” (quotes deliberate) did not influence the size of the deployments? Say what you want about “military advice”… and I am an agnostic on the number of troops issue… I am certain that the administration, as would almost all politicians, was looking over its collective shoulder at its noisy adversaries as they went to war. And they continued to look over their shoulders as they pursued the peace. Consciously or unconsciously, they wanted to believe that lower numbers were acceptable. War-lite, they thought in the shadow of Dean, would garner less resistance. But like many decisions made in fear, this may not have been in true.
Still, Bremer’s complaints on troop numbers do not impress me. He is thought not to have distinguished himself as head of the CPA (who knows the reality of this?), so naturally he is looking to CYA, making his criticism suspect.
But the overweening problem is being governed by fear, fear of Dean (how ridiculous is that, when you think about it). I didn’t need Cheney to tell me that for that reason alone I could not vote for Kerry.
#57)($*%()$58()$58$()85(*#&$)(*%(%*( COMMIES!
I can’t wait to put a stake in you.
Definitely the strategy in Iraq was and in all probability is still affected by Dean Howard effect, the PC and the multi-culti philosphy.
And the net result is a bigger number of fatalities on bothe sides, the kidnappings, the beheadings and a prolonged misery.
This situation reminds me of the old good line from “The good, the bad and the ugly”:
[b]If you have to shoot – shoot, don’t talk.[/b]
Roger,
I wonder if the thread title is slightly wrong.
Shouldn’t it be “Dept. of Yea-r-r-rgh?”
You may have been thinking of “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” and “The Castle of Arrrgh.” (That is, if I am remembering correctly myself.)
But more seriously, you’ve put your finger on something I’ve been trying to express myself since the war started, with your idea of the Bushies looking over their shoulders, as you say, at the Deaniac left, and the result being “War Lite.” Well said.
Jamie Irons
Hmmmm….I don’t know about this one. My impression is that Rumsfeld really is an advocate of a smaller, fast-acting, mobile military machine and wanted to put his thesis on display. I’m sure there is a political component to just about every DoD decision, but I’m not sure Dean deserves the credit or blame for this one.
I’ve just finished “American Soldier” by Tommy Franks and he makes it clear that he was the author of how many troops would be used and presents a good argument for those numbers.
To accept Roger’s assertion that the numbers were deliberately kept low as a political ploy would mean that Franks is disingenuous at best and lying at worst.
I may be naive, but I like what I know about Franks and would be very surprised to learn that he participated in such a charade.
Bremmer indeed. I don’t recall hearing his military credentials to lend any credence to his assertions. Wasn’t he the genius that disbanded not only the Iraqi military, but also it’s police and other security forces without regard to the individual members’ affiliations? Ditto for firing the technocrats.
Jim in Texas
Yes, I had read “American Soldier,” and had forgotten what you now remind me of about Franks’ control of the situation. And I agree Franks is one impressive dude, and I do trust what he says.
But I still think there’s a kind of political background noise to all these decisions, and even if there was no direct effect on the actual numbers deployed, it still seems to me that Bush was swimming upstream in working out all these matters, and to the extent that he had any direct control over the actual numbers of troops (or certainly if he had had to justify added divisions — and where would he have got them?) on the ground in Iraq, he would have been struggling against the leftist political background noise still more.
Jamie Irons
re bremmer’s comments
they have been distorted by the media
http://junkyardblog.transfinitum.net/archives/week_2004_10_03.html#003575
Wretchard has, as per usual, some great insights into L. Paul Bremer’s comments–and a nice takedown of Andrew Sullivan–up on his site: The Belmont Club.
If you’re not already doing so I encourage you to follow his analysis on a regular basis.
Cheers
Also posted this on Nostradamus link via LGF – Skerry’s global test:
Members of an international panel studying United Nationsí operations say the group hopes to lay down clear rules declaring when it is legal for a nation to use pre-emptive military force in its own defense.
The issue grows out of the international controversy over the Bush administrationís decision to invade Iraq without a final U.N. Security Council resolution explicitly authorizing the war, said panel member Gareth Evans, a former foreign minister of Australia.
ìI expect the panel to be giving close consideration to what those rules are and how they should be applied and whether an effort should be made to identify generally agreed criteria for the legitimate use of force, whatever the context,î Mr. Evans said during a recent appearance at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.
He made his remarks before last weekís presidential debate in which Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerryís call for a ìglobal testî on when pre-emptive action is justified became a campaign issue.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan established the 16-member High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change in November to study ways to reform the 59-year-old organization so it can better address 21st-century threats to security and peace.
But Mr. Evans, currently president of the International Crisis Group think tank, said much of the panelís work has focused on establishing detailed guidelines for the use of military force.
ìA central reason for our appointment was concern that the U.N., and indeed the whole multilateral security system, was really at a crossroads with the resurgence of unilateralism from you know whom, and increasing willingness to bypass the Security Council,î Mr. Evans said in a clear reference to the Bush administration.
Roger,
I am a former Marine. Whenever I read anything about the military and political angling, I recall that two major themes go unspoken.
1) It is assumed that all military men have a “pro-military” stance. Just look at the presidency of Carter (a former nuclear sub captain) to see the error of this idea.
2) The Vietnam meme of “no casualities are OK for our side” because all our military men are way more valuable than the other side’s.
Several things are happening right now in Iraq that only make sense in light of these underlying themes.
Rumsfeld is purging the pentagon of Vietnam era generals whose basic premise is #2. That’s why so many retired generals are trying to get Kerry elected. Many would like us to simply carpet bomb Falluja.
We know that blasting innocent civilians does not make us beloved. Therefore, we take a more cautious route designed to safeguard civilians which also makes our side more exposed to danger.
That the terrorists are bombing Iraqi civilians is a guarantee that we are winning. School children have families. Sooner than you think the Iraqis will stamp out the Zarqawi thugs.
Finally, on #1, my own politics have changed drastically since I was an enlisted man in the USMC. At the time, it was a job. I joined and never expected to have to be in harm’s way. I thought I was getting college tuition help, which I did.
Right now, I’m more hawkish than I’ve ever been and the fact is that all our troops volunteered and of that number a very small percentage actually are in combat roles.
Sending more than what’s already there assumes that more means less will be in harm’s way. The stupidity of the argument goes without saying.
One consequence of this election will be the continued tenure of Rumsfeld. Should he get another four years, the Pentagon will surely be unable to revert to its cold-war mentality of “bomb from a distance and send no troops to die because the press will roast us alive” that Clinton used.
We know that way got us 9-11. The retired generals (civil servants all) are a testament to the failure of that approach.
DerekCA
Thanks for your service and for that great post!
Birkel
I agree that Belmont Club is essential reading; I think he is the deepest analyst of the Islamofascist problem out there.
Jamie Irons
Wow, excellent post.
There are many valuable reasons to have the military commander be a civilian but it does expose the tactical decsion making to political considerations.
I had never made the connection to Dean and his anti-war cadre before today, but I think you are on to something here.
ìBut I still think there’s a kind of political background noise to all these decisionsî
Absolutely. One should always be aware of the tacitly implied understandings. I have long suspected that the antiwar crowd intimidated the politicians and generals to keep the troop levels down. By the way, the same people who argue that we should have had more boots on the ground—were originally using that as a reason not to invade Iraq. They would have been the first to yell and scream if the troop numbers were doubled.
Jamie,
Another aspect to random car bombings is the transgression of tribal loyalties.
Underpinning Iraqi society is the much older and deeper system of tribal allegiance.
There will be a tipping point where members of all or most of the tribal units will have suffered deaths at the hands of Zarqawi.
Also, keep in mind that Z-man is Jordanian.
To my mind, the continued surge of volunteers for the Iraqi police and CDC indicate a massive backlash against “foreigners” in Iraq that aren’t wearing American uniforms.
I repeat, we are doing all the right things in Iraq, but the press meme of “when our guys die it means we are losing” is so powerfully at work in our public discourse that the reality is obscured.
Troop levels were/are affected by three factors (at least):
1. Rumsfeld’s theory that a smaller, more mobile army can fight even better than huge armored divisions. This “Army of One” approach is a radical rethinking that’s been overdue at the Pentagon since the Cold War ended in 1991. We’re not fighting large armies on plains any longer, but smaller groupings, usually in urban or hard-to-access areas. There’s been a lot of pushback within the Pentagon on this one, and while the jury’s still out on whether this was the best idea in Iraq, it’s the way the U.S. Army/Marines are headed.
2. Less troops means less casualties. The American public will accept 5,000 dead, but not 50,000. Not for Iraq. In their minds, it’s good to fight back, as long as we don’t cross a certain threshold of dead soldiers. I don’t think most Americans feel that threatened at home by Islamic terrorism because there hasn’t been another attack on US soil. They think “taking the fight over there” has worked and support it, but that support is weakened with every dead US soldier. Two things will keep the American public behind the current Iraq policy: 1. keeping the death toll below a certain number. 5,000? 10,000? 2. a bloody attack on US soil, which will dramatically raise the public’s threshold for combat deaths. Democratic strategy is to try to lower the public’s threshold for combat deaths to 1,000, which we’ve already passed. Bush knows this. I agree this cripples his ability to crush the insurgency.
3. Political correctness. We want to be the Iraqis’ friends, not an occupying power. We want to be liked. Let’s not flood Iraq with US troops, as this angers the Arab street. I think this misses the point that Iraqis care more for stability and strength than national pride.
BTW, Bremer’s comments have been taken completely out of context by many: All he said was that there were two few troops in Baghdad when he showed up in early May 2003. That’s because the 4ID couldn’t come into northern Iraq because of Turkish objections and thus many 3ID soldiers had to keep pursuing the enemy north into the Sunni Triangle, leaving Baghdad less manned than previously planned. That’s war for you: we chased the Iraqi army across Iraq quicker than we though we would. As far as I’ve heard, Bremer was just referring to Baghdad in May 2003, not all of Iraq over the past 18 months.
The military is an amazing success story – yes, even in Iraq. I do not think that the generals wanted hundreds of thousands of coalition soldiers in an Islamic country. We wanted the Iraqis to shoulder much of the burden, (seems only fair since they reap the benefits.) Therefore, final victory will take longer, but fewer enemies will be made. I donít think that Howard Dean made any difference. In fact, I doubt that any soldier, sailor or marine even gave him a secondís thought. Generals should run a military campaign ñ not politicos in Washington, D.C., not bureaucrats in the CPA, and not egotistical political candidates on the campaign trail. Our representatives in the senate make the decision to go to war, and then they should let the professionals do the job. All of John Kerryís rhetoric does nothing except destroy morale and embolden the enemy. I just wish I could personally tell him to ìStick a sock in it!î
Roger
No doubt in my mind, the Democratic Party post Afghanistan has acted as “brakes” on everything the administration has endeavored to accomplish. This is why I think Bush needs to win and win big. The Democrats need to also lose a few seats in the House and Senate as further message. Just think what this President would be willing to do if the Democrats were truly to his right on Security issues, but alas I dream!
I know it has been linked but Wretchard’s quote should be on the record.
“The Fourth Infantry Division which was scheduled to attack downward from Turkey and sweep through the Sunni heartland never arrived in large part due to the opposition of countries like France in the Security Council”.
Secondly isn’t it about time the anti-war camp was asked the question,”What is your plan of action if we lose?”Because I believe behind all the carping and sniping, is the infantile conviction that somebody else will change their nappies, wipe their noses and make their grazed knees better,”We’ve been all right up to now” is the philosophy,”So far so good”
BTWjust in case nappies=diapers
I dislike people who get stuck on a theme and won’t let it go. Perhaps I’m slipping into that mode myself, because my response to this topic is what I have been saying elsewhere; that the Bush administration has not done an effective job of communicating what we are doing and why.
I’d like to propose a contest. All the wonderfully educated people here (and the rest of us) should try to come up with a short, pithy accounting of what this war is about. No more than two paragraphs. It should be something that could be printed on laminated cards and passed out to all members of the administration, for them to repeat fifty million times on all the Sunday talk shows. Eventually, the message would get through the media filter.
Here is my example to get the ball rolling.
We are at war with Islamic terrorists and with the states that sponsor and support them. By and large these are Arab and Islamic states. They have been waging an undeclared war on us, using terrorists as their proxies, for decades, and the time has come for us to show them the error of their ways. The nature of how this war will be fought will vary from country to country. In some cases it will entail full-scale military invasion and overthrow of governments. In other cases it will consist of economic sanctions or diplomatic pressure. In still other cases it may mean surgical strikes to take out the military assets of the countries in question. The means may vary, but the goal will be the same; to dissuade these countries from waging war on us at no cost to themselves.
Agree with both ‘Jim in Texas’ as well as Jamie Irons’s emphasis upon the “political background noise.” Not either/or, but both/and in this case, the two are not so easily separable since the tacit agreements, accomodations and “off the record” conversations, etc. are not always illuminated by simply looking at the final executive decisions made by the President and Franks on the battlefield. Franks takes complete responsibility, as he should since he is the executive military commander in the field; but that shouldn’t cloud the considerable political background noise, both domestically (Dean, etc.) and internationally (France, the U.N., etc.), that helped inform the final decisions made in the field.
Roger’s post is apropos, very much to the point: it 1) is framed within the dominant and driving political climate on the Left/Dem side of the aisle, 2) acknowledges Bremer’s differences with commanders in the field while 3) also questioning the far too facile tendency by hard Left and Left/Dem partisans to reach highly presumptive and conclusive judgements about Bremer’s statements and differences.
Thoughtful post mortems and critiques can be helpful but these Kerry cum Deaniac morphings and expressions of political expediency are beneath contempt. I very much doubt that overstates the case in this instance.
PeterUK,
“What is your plan of action if we lose?”
Good point. Although over here I think that the Kerry campaign is just claiming to have a better “plan”, whatever it is. There is, I think, a good deal of stress over the war, generated by the news services and the Democrats for the most part, and that they are trying to exploit it. Certainly the intesity of the conflict is not such as would have discouraged the nation in earlier times. So this is an example of national politics influencing the war thru perception.
By the way, Roger, I don’t think Dean had any influence on the operational plans. The forces involved were sufficient to defeat the Iraqi army, and as has been pointed out the 4ID was delayed by the uncooperative Turks. In fact, I still think that in Iraq the Bush administration is ignoring political pressures, and I like that. It is in new ventures, such as Iran, that these things will take their toll.
Much as I’d like to buy into the notion that the Bush Administration has under-deployed the number of troops necessary to win in Iraq due to “The Dean Effect,” I can’t agree.
This administration continues the policy of previous administrations – going back to VIetnam – of trying to win wars on the cheap. Why? Because it does not believe in the staying power of the American people. To be blunt it lacks confidence in our charachter.
Re: the “more troops the better” approach…
Good, thoughtful comments here…
More troops at the outset would have meant a delay which would have put the invasion out 9-12 months to avoid the heat of summer. Remember, the window was closing.
That delay would have allowed the continued build-up of european and islam-f-t opposition and Kofi-UN as well. The result would have been a VERY difficult political environment to go after Saddam. Blix would have declared “close enough” and gone home, the feckless sanctions would have been lifted and Saddam and the boys would have been back in business.
It appears from the relative ease of the initial campaign that Saddam had misjudged and really hadn’t prepared to wage war figuring he would wriggle out. Misjudgment indeed.
Ongoing lesser troop levels result from a judgment that one shouldn’t expose more troops than necessary – they just become more targets. It is hard enough to have meaningful missions for them all and it’s easier to rotate the troops if you have fewer in country. All this has been pointed out elsewhere but this is just to say that Roger has good reason to be agnostic about troop levels there’s good arguments for the lower levels.
This is chess (or 3-D chess) and we don’t need advice from checker players.
Roger
I respectfully disagree. Dean has had an effect on the American public, not on how the administration handled Iraq.
The notion that we should have fought in Iraq with 300,000 troops is crazy. It would have totally undermined our ability to respond anywhere else and undercut the deterrent effect of the military.
The fact that we took down Saddam with 25-30% of our fighting force is absolutely critical to our credibility with our enemies in the global war we find ourselves in.
And I’m sick and tired about hearing about our “international credibility” with neutral or even somewhat hostile countries like Germany and France. What is far, far more important is the credibility of our threat against enemies who might choose to attack us through terrorist proxies, or might be deterred. And it is the left in America who has done the most to undermine this credibility with their constant attacks on the foreign policy of the United States that encourages the nutcases in charge in Iran, North Korea, and fighting us in Iraq.
Plan of action if we lose – the same plan of action we should have been following for the past four years.
Work to eliminate vote fraud. It seems like every election cycle at least one Republican is taken down under very questionable circumstances.
Develop “parallel institutions” which are not intrinsically hostile to us. Most importantly, the development of media through which our message can get out. Bush took a small step by doing an interview on Fox recently, but that is too little, too late. In the future, our spokesmen need to stop treating the oppositions media outlets as if they are “legitimate” while acting embarrassed to appear on our own. Start giving out press passes to our media, so that a Republican president is not always going into the lions den by giving a press briefing. Get Rice and Powell on the talk radio shows and conservative blogs.
Elect people with a little more spine. In general, I think the leaders of the Republican party are pretty decent, honest, well-meaning people. But they have internalized their opponents critique to the point of self-paralysis. Before they do anything they think “How will this be portrayed by the MSM?” That mindset has to be changed.
flenser
Excellent statement of war aims. Maybe the blogosphere should get a drive together to buy ad time and just broadcast this message, or something very like it, over and over to at least get the public debate going.
Because the most astonishing thing about this war so far is that it has never been debated.
The Republicans seem to feel they have made their case (in my view they have, but I have had to dig to learn about it), while the Democrats don’t seem to agree that there is any war to debate.
From the Democrat point of view, there are no issues to debate, just the unassailable truths that Bush lied and led us into an unnecessary war, that we were unprepared to “win the peace,” that we should both get out of Iraq as soon as possible and commit more troops while we’re at it, that Saddam Hussein never threatened the US, he never supported terrorists and secular tyrannical regimes cannot cooperate with Islamists, and Bush was never elected. If Bush would go away so would this trumped up war that is not a war, it is a matter for the criminal justice system to deal with.
Or something.
Jamie Irons
Recently there was an excellent post by “Cicero” at Winds of Change to the effect of “Voting for Bush, Rooting for Kerry.” The premise of the post was that a Kerry win might actually require the Democrats to grow up, and stop the backbenching antics. I think this point bears on Roger’s post as well.
Returning to a personal meme of my very own, the Democrats are in this position because they have the luxury–100% due to Bush’s success in the war on terror over the past 3 years–to second guess every move that is made by people in the line of fire.
My thoughts were apparently so insightful they came out as triplets. Sorry Roger!
The whole “not enough troops” thing is obvious bullshit.
Troops are only a solution to military problems. We have no military problems in Iraq – lots of social and political problems, but no real military problems.
We have never had a military problem in Iraq, which shows that we have always had plenty of troops.
We won the war in three weeks – plenty of troops for the major combat phase.
We have never lost an engagement, given up any ground under fire, or seen any part of the country become a no-go zone for American troops. There is not one single square foot of Iraq that we can’t put under American boots any time we want. For political reasons, we may choose not to go into Fallujah or some shrine or other, but there is no question that we could. We still have enough troops to deal with any military problem in Iraq (the only caveat would be border control – not sure what we can or should be doing to close the borders).
The problems racking Iraq are not subject to a military solution. They require a social and political solution. Having another half million troops there would not move us one inch closer to a social/political solution.
Recently there was an excellent post by “Cicero” at Winds of Change to the effect of “Voting for Bush, Rooting for Kerry.” The premise of the post was that a Kerry win might actually require the Democrats to grow up, and stop the backbenching antics.
Just anecdotal evidence, but that’s pretty much the dynamic of the Social Democrat/Greens coalition government in Germany, albeit due to domestic issues (the need to reform welfare and the labor market), not foreign policy. Unfortunately, only a small part of the two parties grew up, the large remainder continue to drone on in their reflexive leftism. Result: Barely anything has been accomplished on Schroeder’s watch, because he’s basically being held hostage by the far-left wing.
I have little doubt that the same would happen to a President Kerry…except that he would be more enthusiastic about it, since (in my estimation) he’s a far bigger leftist than Schroeder.
The only way the Democrats are going to grow up is if they suffer a massive defeat this November; rewarding them for the petulant behaviour by electing Kerry to the presidency isn’t going to accomplish jack, if your goal is a cleansed and sane Democratic Party.
PW
“I have little doubt that the same would happen to a President Kerry…except that he would be more enthusiastic about it, since (in my estimation) he’s a far bigger leftist than Schroeder.”
Now that’s a truly scary thought — even more to the left than Schroeder!
And yes, I agree with your concluding thoughts — that only a massive defeat will cleanse the Dems. Well, it will either cleanse them, or it will kill them off entirely, to be eventually replaced by a “loyal” opposition. Either works for me.
But rewarding their infantile behavior by voting for them is just plain stupid. Suicidal. Insane. While I really struggle to adequately express my thoughts on that, I hope I’ve made myself reasonably clear…
There has to be political background noise taken into account in military decisions. The politics may be more Pentagon than Capitol Hill, but its politics all the same. No one of Tommy Frank’s stature could have made four stars without playing it well.
Now that’s a truly scary thought — even more to the left than Schroeder!
For clarification, I should add that I was talking about Schroeder and Kerry personally. Back when Schroeder was Prime Minister of the state of Lower Saxony, he was actually known as “Genosse der Bosse” (comrade of the bosses, literally), because he was much closer to big business than most state Prime Ministers of his party. Unfortunately, rather than a Tony Blair-like voice of reason, he turned out to be a plain old populist once he became Chancellor, and turned sharply to the left. I don’t think he’s governing according to his personal beliefs though; I doubt those have changed that much since his days in Lower Saxony.
I have no idea whether a Kerry presidency as a whole would necessarily be more leftist than what Schroeder’s government is doing, but I suspect he’d be tempered by continued Republican majorities in both houses. Anyway, it’s a bit scary to think about, so here’s hoping Bush makes it to a second term.
PW:
I suspect that there is truth in what you are getting at. Could it be that his hard left turn was due to political necessity, in order to hold together the Green/Social Democrat coalition? Hmm — could be, I don’t have the inside skinny on what is going on in Deutschland, all I can do is observe and guess. But it really doesn’t matter in the long run. What matters is what he has done once he got there. I consider it self explanatory that a leader’s job is to lead, not to be lead (a real problem I have with demogogues who have their fingers in the air). If his true belief is more centrist, and yet he puts that aside to be lead by the coalition, then I assert he is not fit to be a leader: somehow the dog is being wagged by the tail here. It is the coalition’s job to promote a leader that best represents their common belief — and in their case that apparently was Schroeder. Since that is a leftist coalition, one would naturally assume that they would have selected a leftist to represent them. Now, it may have been that he had a leftist epiphany shortly before his selection. That’s my guess, anyway. But from what I’ve seen the past few years, based on what he’s said and done, I’d say that he is a dedicated, hard core America-hating lefty at this point in time, never mind just how he got there.
I think this is one of those issues to which there is no answer. How can we know?
I think that the administration was aware of criticism but it is also true that Rumsfeld had made enemies at the Pentagon before 9/11 because he wanted to transform the military. Needless to say some people hear transform and think there goes my pension.
But I do think that the press and its never ending litany of death and destruction has complicated the administrations’s efforts and has often as not lead to more and not less confusion as to what is going on over there.
The other night I read an account of the liberation of Dachau by American forces. There were hundreds of German soldiers that surrendered. Many of them were Walfen SS.
The Americans found thousands of civiliians dead and dying. The scene was horrific. There was a shouting match between a Lt. Col. and a General and when it was over hundreds of Germans were dead.
One of the men responsible was named Frank Bushyhead, a Cherokee from Oklahoma.
Can you imagine what the press would do with this today?
Matthew Croner
I have the same reaction, only at this point I’m more mystified-slash-amused than anything else. During one of the debates I almost started laughing when Kerry or Edwards, I forget which, talked about how important it is to have international credibility.
I’m sitting there thinking: credibility with France?
Because 19 French guys are gonna highjack 4 jetliners & crash them into our national monuments any minute now?
Really?
France is not about to invade the U.S. any time soon, nor we they, so while I’d rather the two countries work together and establish some common goals, the target audience for U.S. credibility is not France.
Catherine:
I heard today that the report on wmd came in and of course they say there are no stockpiles. Programs yes, stockpiles no. Saddam was waiting.
Now the Democrats are going to be all over this and we will have to listen to more claims of Bush lied and more lectures about American credibility.
But…what if we had not gone into Iraq. If we had opted for the status quo is there any reason to believe the US and the UN and even John Kerry would not believe there were weapons in Iraq right now?
It seems to me that the real issue is that Saddam could have done what Qaddafi did years ago and his noncompliance would ceased to be an issue.
I think what really bugs me is that the Dems will make an issue of this in spite of the fact that they are every bit as responsible for this intelligence, good or bad as the Bushies. It is just the Bushies have to bear the burden for Clinton’s CIA.
Do you think this will hurt Bush more than it already has?
Terrye
“Do you think this will hurt Bush more than it already has?”
No. It will start the talking again for a news cycle. Beyond that it is really old news. David Kay[e?] already told us last fall there were no stockpiles of wmd and we already knew Saddam’s nuclear program had not been restarted.
Now would be a good time to bring up the AQ Khan network again though. I wonder if the American people really know what that was. All they’ve heard Bush say is that it is out of business.
But with Khan and his nuke-kit market Saddam had an easy way of restarting his program when the sanctions were lifted.
We didn’t even know about AQ Khan back then. And that’s a really scary thought.
Deposing saddam got us Libya which got us AQ Khan. If we’d left Saddam in place we might not have discovered the Khan network until it was too late.
And that’s a bottom line nobody has thought about.
Syl:
I also think the Dems have to realize you can not threaten a man like Saddam and not follow through. It seems to me that Democrats think they can bluster their way with guys like this. They can’t. If they don’t intend regime change, they can’t threaten it. It just makes the bad guys mad.
This is freaking brilliant…
Terrye,
That is exactly right. My 18 year-old has told me that it was enough that we threatened Saddam. There was no point in actually having a war and letting people die. That’s messy. Unconscionable. Vote for Kerry.
Catherine,
You should read the link richard mcenroe put in. That article agrees completely with you that deterring France and Germany is not the purpose of American foreign policy under Bush.
Wichita, remind your 18 yo who knows all that it didn’t work w/him, did it? What was more effective, bluster or follow-thru?
Welcome to parenting 101, son.
You can’t ignore the effect of Sam Nunn, either. Nunn was one of those rare Democrats with real credibility on defense. He voted against the first Persian Gulf War, giving cover to other Democrats. IIRC the Democrats voted something like 42-10 against that war (which of course they now describe in glowing terms). Nunn wrote his his autobiography that vote cost him the chance to run for President in 1992. So all of the Democratic contenders in 2004 and for the future made sure to vote in favor this time.
I don’t think you can credibly argue that Dean had any effect on decisions by the White House and the Defense Department on troop levels in Iraq. Dean was largely a nonentity in March 2003; it wasn’t until the summer that people began commenting on him as someone to watch.
It’s not “Dean”, Roger — it’s Bush-hate.
Dean was just a vehicle for Bush-hate.
Even anti-Iraq war is, to a big extent, Bush-hate. You’ve read Michael J Totten’s “Why Liberals should support Bush’s War”, etc.
Leftists hate Bush, and Christianity, and tax cuts (for the rich!), more than want to help poor people, or support freedom.
See my post of a year ago (when I started blogging), Bush-hate, Success-hate, Jew-hate.
http://tomgrey.motime.com/1069182789#173964
And Bush-hate has neutered the Dems, making them unable to provide constructive criticism. They have intellectually and morally castrated themselves, in pursuit of Political Correctness and the Elite Global Test — acceptance of other elites.