U.S. combat deaths in Iraq plunge in July

[Gene Weitzel]

Here is a link to an article that clearly shows how well the surge strategy has worked so far:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080730/ts_nm/iraq_dc;_ylt=AlYnLyiA7Ux9gMK_FSDfMdd34T0D

It is understood that the security situation is still fragile, but clearly the strategy was the correct decision at the time and for the first time since this mess started I am cautiously optimistic about the outcome in Iraq. I personally think that the reason it has worked so far is that it was not dreamed up by Rumsfeld or Bush or any other politico, but was based on the recommendations of the commanders in the field. Here is an op-ed piece that rightfully criticizes Obama for his refusal to accept this fact:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5908169.html

So far he sounds to me to be no better than those who mismanaged the war in the early stages by refusing to accept the recommendations of those who were qualified to decide how to proceed and instead were blinded by pride and bulled their way ahead with their own ideas.

I am not at all a fan of the war in Iraq nor am I a big McCain fan but considering the recent improvements on the ground in Iraq and what is now at stake, this alone is enough for me to "hold my nose" and vote against Obama.

[cow pollinater]

Dead on except for the hold your nose part. I'll hold my nose and vote FOR Mcain but the vote against Obama part is clean, pure air. No reservations about breathing it in.
I just can't support a man who chooses to loose.

[Gene Weitzel]

Agreed, my wording was probably a little clumsy, the holding my nose was aimed at a vote for McCain and not the vote against Obama.

[tecumseh]

mr weitzel writes:
but was based on the recommendations of the commanders in the field.

tecumseh replies: this does suggest that the credentials of the military brass that took us to war (then fairly promptly bowed out) should be throughly reexamined. I suspect at the time of our entry into this little war that the credential of a number of the military's top brass was suspect... they appeared more politically connected than qualified to me.

the reduction in fatilities is good thing but will provide little comfort to the individual families of this smaller number of dead soldiers.

if you think this reduction is significant thats perfectly ok... although I suspect it is much like counting your chicks before they hatch. strategic thinking might suggest other possibilities... but then again some folks consider thinking to be a flaw and not some beneficial quality in people.

if you think winning this war is possible then you are quite obviously delusional.

[Galaxy]

if you think winning this war is possible then you are quite obviously delusional. Typical defeatist attitude of the left. By the way, which war are you talking about? As if it makes any difference, since the left have perhaps been listening too much to NPR's "All Things are Lost" afternoon news program.

[tecumseh]

well quite evidently galaxy some folks will believe whatever cock and bull 'the decider' (humm has an unusually unamerican sound to me) spits out.

you like an ever smaller number of american (this gets you properly regarded as a fringe thinkers) are quite evidently 'true believers' in this lost cause. it was lost from the get go...

I could give you three or four reasons why the surge looks to be working. but ain't. like most true believers you have absolutely NO capacity to look at the evidence objectively.

[Galaxy]

tecumseh, which would you rather see?

1. Withdrawal (defeat) or

2. The current situation (winning and drastically reduced casualities).

[John F]

tecumseh, which would you rather see?

1. Withdrawal (defeat) or

2. The current situation (winning and drastically reduced casualities).

Withdrawl and drastically reduced casualities.

Galaxy, How do you:

Equate withdrawl to defeat?
Define win?

[Gene Weitzel]

mr weitzel writes:
but was based on the recommendations of the commanders in the field.

tecumseh replies: this does suggest that the credentials of the military brass that took us to war (then fairly promptly bowed out) should be throughly reexamined. I suspect at the time of our entry into this little war that the credential of a number of the military's top brass was suspect... they appeared more politically connected than qualified to me.

the reduction in fatilities is good thing but will provide little comfort to the individual families of this smaller number of dead soldiers.

if you think this reduction is significant thats perfectly ok... although I suspect it is much like counting your chicks before they hatch. strategic thinking might suggest other possibilities... but then again some folks consider thinking to be a flaw and not some beneficial quality in people.

if you think winning this war is possible then you are quite obviously delusional.
I completely agree with your assessment of the credentials of those who took us into this action in that they appeared more politically connected than qualified. I could not have stated it better.

However, I think you mis-interpreted my optimism. My standpoint has always been that no one "wins" with war. My optimism is that at this point its beginning to look like a more positive outcome may be possible than I had previously thought. For those of us who have lost loved ones in this action, I must say that there is some comfort in the reduction in fatalities as it presents a reduction in risk to other loved ones who are still actively serving. But personally, I gain more comfort from the hope of a more positive outcome in that it does add some meaning to our loss.

I think that anyone who can't admit that the initial reasons for starting this action were highly suspect is being disingenuous. However, for the sake of those serving in this action, I refuse to buy into any defeatist rhetoric and will continue to fully support their efforts to bring it to an acceptable close (which for me, does not include a "cut and run" strategy).

[tecumseh]

gene weitzel writes:
However, I think you mis-interpreted my optimism. My standpoint has always been that no one "wins" with war.

tecumseh replies: I did not mean to misrepresent your 'optimism' and if the second sentence is any measure we are in full agreement as to 'the total effect' of war.

I would suggest that the idea of winning againist an elusive insurregent 'army' is difficult without using absolutely ruthless (and some might say immoral) tactics. we tried this perversion to a less than absolute level in vietnam (pacification, agent orange anyone?)... and we made more enemies than converts. some folks (machivelli for one) would suggest that even absolute ruthless tactic will fail... it is just a matter of your time line (so the question of winning or losing becomes time related).

the real strategic question is... if you were a weak insurgency (there may be 5 or 6 of these in Iraq of various flavors) fighting the best financed and best equip army in the world? would you take the fight to 'center' of this giant, or would you take the fight where that great army ain't?

galaxy writes:
tecumseh, which would you rather see?

tecumseh replies: I would rather we didn't go to war for thinly contrived but well marketed (non)reasons that protect neither us citizens nor their property (matter of fact brother, it makes us all more fearful and more insecure).

but don't get me wrong here... the total blame doesn't fall only on the shoulders of poor clueless 'boy george' (and I don't think dick cheney will help poor george with his burden here, although in my mind he get more than a bit of the blame). if past us history is any measure, media (of any number of forms) get to bear a good portion of the blame in selling this crime.

[Keith Benson]

Typical defeatist attitude of the left.

It has nothing to do with left vs right. Some folks just don't think it is winnable. Here is a news flash, there are folks on the right who think it is not winnable either.

By the way, which war are you talking about? As if it makes any difference, since the left have perhaps been listening too much to NPR's "All Things are Lost" afternoon news program.Dividing the world up into left vs right is pretty binary and not just a gross oversimplification and doesn't say much about the "logic" used to come to those conclusions.

Keith