Redstate

shocked that this is not receiving press coverage :-)

 In a few weeks there'll be a story about how the once-dangerous road is now a symbol of Iraqi decay (potholes). Road repaired (Halliburton). Emergence of tattoo parlors and bars (U.S. wrecking fabric of Iraqi culture). Finally, the symbol of Icarus will be invoked as an apt metaphor for a blindlessly, arrogant policy that swept to close to the sun and... You know the drill. Question for you Streiff. Any links to tactical papers on junior officer field experience in military/political roles?

In my haste I forgot that part. Thanks :-)

The army has a great site for company commanders and company grade officers but they moved it behind the "Army Knowledge" firewall a couple of years ago. The bloggers in country don't talk about methods and techniques for a lot of excellent OPSEC reasons: like the other guys have internet access, too.

I'd suggest you start checking the online version of Parameters and Military Review but most of that is pretty bloodless stuff.

And argueably some fairly important 7 miles of highway given that it's the road to the Baghdad airport.  I think it's a sad statement for the war effort and securing such peace after the war, that after years in Iraq securing this relatively small but key road and making reasonably safe can be viewed as an accomplishment.

This should have been a given a long time ago long before it earned the name 'Ambush Alley.'  It's good to see that it's cleaned up but it's hard to get that excited about it given how long ago this should have been accomplished.

With this statement:

It's good to see that [Ambush Alley is being] cleaned up but it's hard to get that excited about it given how long ago this should have been accomplished.

Incidentally, more troops would have allowed troop density to increase at critical defensive positions, such as the seven-mile long road to the Baghdad airport.

page one, stet.

... after the daily discussion of the total collapse of the Bush Administration.

'06 is gonna be fun.  Yhe silly "Worst Administration Ever" claims are now rampant and assumed.  The only story left for '06 will be "The Comeback".

Much wailing and gnashing of teeth in our future...

some positive news out of Iraq, and some even token MSM coverage.

As frustrating as the VietnamQuagmire MSM drum beat continues to be, it does seem like there has been increases in US  and Iraqi civilian casualties this year (thru October) vs last year. (I know BBC is extremely biased, but I'm assuming they're not fabricating casualties). So these statistics give the the cut-and-run crowd continuous meat for their arugements.

You previously provided an interesting assessment of progress this year with killing/capturing the terrorists (I can't find the link), and I think your conclusion is that we do appear to be neutralizing these guys faster than they infiltrate. If we are making progress, its hard to understand how the casulaty trends are increasing upwards. I know there was probably a spike related to the constitution vote, but it looks like its been generally trending upwards since last year.

FWIW anecdotally more and more people I talk to are growing disillusioned with the way the war is going. If a) we are not yet over the hump w/ winning the war, as the upward casulaty trend seems to indicate, and b) 51% of the Country is going to be kept on board with "stay the course," then the Bush admin needs to do a way better job of communicating things like the topic of this post, and better framing where things are at and where they are going in light of the death toll.  If this is going to be a 3+ year project to really win this thing, and Bush can't do a better job presenting the positive, then I am really concerned about keeping the support for what's necessary to get us across the finish line.

If we are making progress, its hard to understand how the casulaty trends are increasing upwards. I know there was probably a spike related to the constitution vote, but it looks like its been generally trending upwards since last year.

Casualty rates aren't a very useful perspective for a number of reasons.

First, with the rate as low as it is a singular incident will move the casualties significantly. For instance, in August L/3/25 Marines lost 21 men in a week in two incidents. The same two incidents could just as easily killed more, less, or no one.

Low casualties can also be a marker for people hunkered down in basecamps and waiting to go home.

So there is too much we don't know to draw inferences from the bits we do know.

I have 3 soldiers in my office who had incidents on Highway 8 in Iraq and they don't believe what you had to say in this thread, Streiff.

  Can you get some confirmation from troops in the field, perhaps?

coverage of the war's been so slanted by the msm that it is hard to think anything good of the whole thing.  You'd be surprised by all the misinformed crap I hear from people about the war....I guess I shouldnt be surprised: I live in New York City and the NYTimes is our "paper of record."

a couple of times before- that if a Chinook goes down killing 20+ guys- that can really skew a month upwards- and that's a fair point.

But as long as it remains a statistical fact that more US troops and Iraqi civilians are being killed in the current year than in the previous year, people are going to draw the inference that the situation is not going well.

That is why Bush/Rumsfeld need to get it through their heads that they are not effectively communicating the positive of what's been accomplished and where things are going from here, or we're going to have real problems on the homefront.

They've been clinging to these political milestones- which I have certainly been celebrating- but after the elections in December, if 70-90 troops are still dying every month, and 500+ Iraqis are still being carbombed every month, someone is going to have to explain "what next." Someone needs to start thinking about that.

"I am shocked... shocked to find there is gambling going on in this establishment!"

(personally NOT shocked)

be. No one said the road is completely safe and this covers the period from July forward. And as always, the plural of anecdote is not data.

I can't answer for what they say, I have no reason to doubt it but equally I have no reason to believe their experience contradicts several media reports to the contrary. If your guys say it's wrong, register, write a diary.

I can't chase the will-o'-the-wisps.

The story is published in the Washington Post (which streiff linked to in the diary), and it seems to support his commentary.  Some excerpts:

Then, two months ago, the killings stopped. In October, one person was wounded on the road and no one was killed, according to the U.S. Army, which also calculated the April deaths. The turnaround was owed to simple, boots-on-the-ground military tactics, Army officials said.

...

In the past two months, there have been no car bombs and nine IEDs. One Iraqi soldier has been killed.

...

"If there's bad things on Irish, the neighbors on either side are influencing it," said Capt. Justin Reese, 30, from La Porte, Ind. Reese was the Charlie Company point man for the 6/8, in charge of helping the Iraqis secure the neighborhood. He stood side by side with Lt. Omar Tarik Ali, 24.

Ali said the Iraqi soldiers had been influential in helping control the neighborhood, keeping the potential attackers from using side streets to reach the airport road. "We are Iraqis, and we know strangers from their faces," Ali said. "We can stop them, and we know if they lie to us. The Americans don't know."

...

One morning, three soldiers from the 1-76 Bravo Battery, Field Artillery breezed down the road in a Humvee, escorting fuel trucks to an Army base near the airport. With Spec. Andrew Zotter, 25, of Katy, Tex., at the wheel, and Spec. Chris Beckett, 25, in the gunner's position, 1st Lt. Joshua Carter, 25, of Jonesboro, Ark., blasted the horn on the vehicle.

The men said they had been afraid of this route before they arrived in Iraq. They had heard the news reports about the dangers. But in 10 months, the only enemy fire they have seen on the airport road came after one of the civilian trucks they were escorting broke down, leaving them exposed for three hours. Someone in a passing vehicle fired at the troops, but no one was injured.

"It's pretty much one of the safest roads in Baghdad now. It didn't used to be," Carter said.

Beckett said he felt safe, "as safe as you can feel in Baghdad."

"They used to label this the one most dangerous road in Iraq," Zotter said, waving a white-paper report with all the significant activity from the last 24 hours. "It doesn't say that anymore."

It wouldn't be the first time that a newspaper report got something wrong, obviously, but this one does look like it's quoting named sources that are actually there and involved.

What, specifically, are your friends saying they don't believe about this diary?

All they have accomplished is pushing the possible "comeback" of Bush to 06 before the midterm elections.  Also they managed to get the Alito nominatino pushed back to January so all the world will see the caustic and idiotic comments by Kennedy and Biden.

By the time the elections come next Nov Bush hopefully will start vetoing some bills.  Congress will be on their way to cutting spending and Iraq will be in a much better place.  Timing wise I think things are in our favor by having all of this out there now.  Also Frist and Delay will be acquitted of any wrong doing and Libby will be exonerated.

This is some really great progress.  It only took 30 months to secure seven miles of highway.  At this rate, all the highways in Baghdad province (granting that many are not so dangerous) will be totally subdued in no less than 186 years.  Provided, of course, that there is no backsliding...  

None of you is probably old enough to remember hearing similarly glowing reports in 1968 -- only then the story was about how a particularly hostile village on the outskirts of Danang had been successfully quieted.

If I may, I would also like to comment on the constant whining from you people that the media doesn't report the good news of school openings, new hospital equipment, and bakeries getting back to business.  

The fact is that 20 women and children getting blown to bits by a bomb, or five U.S. soldiers dieing in a chopper crash, are simply more important news stories.  If we had, say, 100 civilians getting blown-up by terrorists each day in the U.S., would you similarly expect the media to keep reporting on cancelled junior proms on Long Island and the continuing popularity of Mr. Winkle?

I not only remember Danang but also remember when education involved some training in how to present an argument without resorting a logical fallacy, yours is known as the complex question - apples and oranges as a single proposition.

to go out on a limb here and guess that you aren't old enough to remember your imaginary story about Da Nang either.

I'm goint to further guess that you really aren't very serious about staying around.

As an Irish-American, I am deeply offended by this slur and I demand reparations!  This is just the latest in a pattern of discrimination against my people.  Make that check payable to S-E-A-N M-c-C-O-N-E-G-H-Y, and make it snappy.

...and guess that you're actually somewhat disappointed that United States forces, along with their Iraqi allies, have enjoyed a battlefield success in Iraq. This runs counter to the commonly accepted memes of disaster and Apocalypse Now that you would have us swallow from the DNC's Ministry of Propaganda.

Thus, the needless snark and the Boy's Own sarcasm.

I know, I know. You "Support the Troops But Not the War...."

but I'll bet there was a Route GATORS, Route BUCKEYES, and a bunch of other college football names used.

Mission Accomplished banner across it now?

to use that but I had this niggling feeling that it's been over used. When talking about the MSM and the left there are just far too many opportunities to quote Captain Renault.

My reply to this got so long, I had to make it an article.  If anyone is interested ---

The Inflamitory: No Good News

Its the same old liberal bashing as usual.  But I can't resist when they seem to live for the Vietnam era.  Its got to be Freudian somehow.  Thanks for todays inspiration acepoe.

out and suggest that he also believes that the Tet Offensive was a major victory for the VC/NVA.

if you can get an aircraft carrier on it ...

inflammatory.

I only say this because it is the headline on your blog.

Inflammatory + suffix "-itory"..."place where I post inflammatory stuff." Or so I took it.

the pun may have been to sophisticated for a former infantryman.

Much like the Indian basket weavers who, when approaching perfection, leaves one mistake on purpose so God does not strike them down....

But the real reason:

you can inflame, thats inflaming, so the place of much inflaming should be the inflamitory

Or wait, the real reason:

100,000 people looking to alleviate their arthritis will goggle inflammatory medication

Oh, whatever....

And thank you for your service, form one of the descendants of the first Quartermaster Genereal.

I'm a Recruiter.  I'm a little ways from the front lines.  These guys are also a little ways behind the lines, Now.  Their incidents were last year or the year before.  I just wanted some kind of confirmation from the field so I could show them...

The thing to keep in mind about Tet is the context. Prior to Tet, the U.S. military had been projecting confidence that the military capabilities of the Vietcong were diminishing. Tet took everyone by surprise, and created the 'credibility gap' that no one could trust the prognostications of the military.

The Tet offensive was a massive defeat for the Vietcong and the NVA. By pulling their forces out into the open, the US was able to employ its superior firepower and mobility to completely decimate the enemy.

However, strategically this was a massive blow to the United States. In a guerilla war, there are very few indicators of success. The same town can be taken and retaken over and over again. There are no fronts to move, no objectives to take and hold. There is no enemy government to capture. Metrics are difficult, but metrics are demanded by the folks at home. They want to know if they are 'winning.' So the military and political leadership try to provide those metrics, but that is a dicey thing. If you keep saying that the enemy is being beaten, but then he turns out to have major combat capabilities, it can spook the public at large. And not just liberals, average Americans can be stampeded as well.

Iraq and Vietnam are very different. The insurgency in South Vietnam was basically an adjunct to an ongoing NVA invasion. In Iraq, there are no regular forces to combat. Only insurgents. South Vietnam did not fall to the Vietcong, and in fact would probably never have fallen to the Vietcong. However, it did fall to an invasion by NVA regulars. By the same token, I don't believe the insurgents in Iraq will ever have the capability to defeat the Iraqi central government created by December elections. Barring an outside intervention, I don't see that happening.

Let me sum this up. Supporters of the military involvement need to be cautious about hyping successes too much. (I said 'too much,' not that good work can't be acknowledged.) Creating an impression that the 'enemy is on the run' can actually undercut popular opinion if he manages to stage a spectacular event later. Even if that event is, tactically, a profound bust. Public perception is everything in this kind of war. The average American, just like the average citizen of any republic, has limited patience for these kinds of interventions. The U.S. always has the option to quit and go home. Average Americans understand this, and are also mostly fatalistic about the chances of successfully re-designing the Middle East, in Condi's terms.

How many times have you heard Joe Sixpack say, "Those people been fightin' for thousands of years, and they'll keep fighting." That kind of man-on-the-street conventional wisdom puts an outside limit on how long this intervention will last.

This is not unique to the U.S. public. Democracies simply don't have a lot of patience will costly foreign interventions, unless the threat is overwhelming as in the case of WWII.

(Eisenhower won because he promised an end to Korea. Nixon claimed to have a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam. This is not a new situation for us that the public sours on a war that is not absolutely, demonstrably essential to our security.)

Supporters of the Iraq intervention need to be careful about setting too high expections, because that opens the door for a nasty surprise that will damage your case in the long-run. Be aware that Americans, as a whole, are not going to stay on board with this invasion indefinitely. It seems to me that Washington is conducting itself as if that is the case. It isn't, and it won't be the Michael Moore's of the world that force an end to it. It won't be the Democrats either. It will be the average, Red State middle-class voter who says enough.

one question.

It will be the average, Red State middle-class voter who says enough.  

Will that be good or bad, in your opinion?

Is it still an invasion?  Only in the MSM.  Are we still in Germany?  Is that an invasion?  Okinawa?  Are we sick of that yet?  Korea?  Bosnia?

I think the average American is loosing patience simply because of constant liberal media pressure, not because of the reality in Iraq.  

We need to be cautious about hyping the war to much?  I would say just the opposite.  The real war in this case is a propaganda war, and we should fight hard.  That is the second bigest failing of the Administrations conduct of the war.  They do not present media that is compelling.  Average Joe questions the effort because he does not see whats happaning appart from terrorist attacks.  Joe sees the media attack everything and no counter from the WH.  In one sense, they realy do not grasp modern warfare.

Liberals have a constant mantra of doom death destruction, end of the world nasty surprises, civil war, blood bath.  And it seems ot be what they hope for.  Lets hope they don't make it real.  Fight them in the trenches, fight them on the beaches, fight them in the internet cafes....

And for the record-the 69th did all the hard work-those 3rd ID guys were nice, but the 69th did pretty much EVERYTHING the Post Credits the Cav as doing-and that's what won this fight. They didn't just walk in and stop the insurgency in a day.

For some more info watch 60 Minutes on Sunday-they rode up and down Irish with the 69th for a week or two-smart 11 B's like myself avoided the camera.

comes to that. Really, really bad public policy gets made when members of Congress go into panic mode.

For example, when North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam in 1975, we cut off our former allies without so much as a bullet. Public patience had already broken, and caused us to leave the Vietnamese at a time when the nature of the war had shifted to purely conventional means at which we would have surely been victorious.

I do not want history repeated in this manner. The situation can be managed at this time. Several years from now, that could be completely different. At that time, it could be hard to stop the tide.

The insurgents have gone north, the men said, to a different route with another name, this one called Sword by the military. "The enemy's just gone up the road," Carter said, before getting on the Humvee's bullhorn.

On the radio, I heard the author of the article (Jackie Spinner) explain that, yes, this route is safer, but the insurgents have simply moved to another location.

A strained definition of progress...

To the average American, this is a war. Whether it is an occupation or whatever else it might be is something that pundits debate. For Americans, troops are deployed and in harms way. That makes it a war.

That is the key distinguishing characteristic that separates Iraq from Korea, Germany, or Bosnia. Even Bosnia has more or less settled down into a simple basing arrangement. Americans don't typically much care if we have foreign military bases. In fact, seeing the world is a big selling feature behind enlisting in the military.

But Iraq is different in that it is an active war and one that is hugely expensive in monetary terms. The price tag of some $200 billion or more is public knowledge. Again, man-on-the-street kind of conventional wisdom has already kicked in on this by saying things like, "We could use that money here in the Gulf!"

Remember what I said about metrics. You are basically going to put forward a case for continuing our involvement in Iraq based on good news that boils down to statistics. We opened X number of schools, Y numbers of insurgents killed, Z numbers of towns have been secured. These kinds of arguments are hard to sell to the average Red State voter when they are counterbalanced by TV images of death and destruction.

You and I both know that TV is not reality. It is, in fact, a distortion of reality. But most people believe what they see on the idiot box. Even Red State kind of voters fall victim to that. Refuting it is an uphill battle. And, as I said earlier, if you do manage to create an impression that you are winning - a spectacular failure on the part of the enemy can cost you all your hard won street credibility. Film at 11 trumps all the stats that you can muster. I'm not saying that is logical, or even right, just that it is what it is.

I don't fault you for trying to build the case. I am just cautioning you that despite your best efforts, there is a timeline for stabilization of Iraq and a decrease in our expenditures. My family is devoutly Catholic, and hence 100% Republican because of social issues. But I am already seeing my blue collar relatives (most veterans) either turning or already opposed to continued military intervention of Iraq. That is a very real occurrence, and has to be dealt with.

I think that the possibility of the insurgents being able to overthrow the elected government after December is practically nil. That being said, I think that the U.S. forces could easily start being drawn down by mid-next year and this whole situation dies down. The government in Bagdad may not be able to exercise full control over Sunni areas, but let that be for another day when it is stronger. If we insist, however, on keeping U.S. forces on full patrol with the current casualty level and the money taps on wide open - then I don't think public opinion will hold up much past 2006. Just my opinion of course, and I would hate to be right. As I said earlier, bad policy is made in a panic.

If the average American thinks this is a war, and is tiring of it, and is ready to pull up stakes before stability is ensured, that is a strategic and political defeat.  My point is that it is a war on all fronts, and as for the propaganda front, the Fascist Apologist left in this country have joined the enemy.  Yet, neither the Administration or the DOD is very effective at countering in that battle, both against the terrorist and the media that supports their efforts.

Again, what you are describing is the ignorance of the general public, left or right, regarding foreign affairs.  And thats fine, not every person needs to worry about these things, but in any war part of the battle is convincing the public.  And in the current form of warfare under the microscope, convincing the public needs to become a higher priority.  

No one is clamoring to pull out of Afghanistan, except for nut jobs.  Why?  If its just a matter of scale, then the DOD should present the reality of how clean this war in Iraq is.  I contend still that it is not a matter of building up good things about the war, then loosing it all over a successful terrorist attack.  It is about a philosophy of Fascism being supported by a out of power socialist liberal media.  And we need to bring that to the front and center.  But for some reason the WH and DOD just roll over on this issue.

Anyway I'm not railing against your pragmatic stance and observation.  I just am very adamant about socialist liberal stupidity and how badly our country is poisoned by it.  Great debate...

so, its big deal when its a problem, but when its taken care of, no biggy.  You fellows are rapidly running out of areas to claim as overwhelming problems in Iraq.  Najaf, Ramadi, Sunni Triangle, now IRISH.  Forget about the fact that 80% of the country has been pretty quiet from D+60.  No, lets call it like it is- a bad haircut on a NationalGuardsman is proof of no plan but the implementation, and success, of President Bush' plan is a yawn.

Heres an idea for you- Lets make believe that the riots in the Paris suburbs are in Paris, Iraq.  With the help of your allies in the MSM and the poor state of American knowledge of geography, I bet you could pull it off!!

Iraq led offensive operations with American support have increased dramatically.  You put soldiers in harms way, they get killed at a more rapid rate than when they sit in the barracks playing cards.  But the IRISH story plays into this.  The country is methodically being reclaimed and soon it will be safer than Washington, DC.  I know, not much of a goal.

would factor out casualties due to training accidents. There are always a measure of death and injury in training incidents (the methods and tools of the military are inherently more dangerous than those of the average bear.)

But to a large degree those incidents are offset in combat --- a measure of training is replaced by reality. So to be 'accurate' we'd need to look at the higher combat casualties offset by the somewhat lower training casualties. In training helicopters and aircraft crash, vehicles overturn, ordnance explodes prematurely, etc. During the years prior to the Iraq war there were something shy of 1000 non-combat, training fatalities per year. There will, of course, be training fatalities even in times of combat so we can't offset all of them but we can certainly offset a percentage.

This is not to say that our losses are unimportant, nothing could be further from the truth, but in relative terms they are not as high as it seems --- and in absolute terms they are very, very low compared to other military engagements.

Isn't that some sort of non-specific STD?

Oh yeah....the 4th most deadly month for U.S. troops since the day we invaded.

Wonder why this story hasn't gained major headlines....I wonder.

I think the average American is loosing [sic] patience simply because of constant liberal media pressure, not because of the reality in Iraq.

And the American people voted for George Bush because of what...liberal media pressure?  Or were the liberal media powerless in November 2004 and all-powerful a year later?  What a comeback!

Liberals have a constant mantra of doom death destruction, end of the world nasty surprises, civil war, blood bath.

Calm down. This is just ranting.  Or is it raving?  I'm not sure, but it certainly is silly.

...the Fascist Apologist left...

The Fascist Apologist left?  Are they related to the socialist liberal out-of-power, doom and gloom, left wing MSM?

It is about a philosophy of Fascism being supported by a [sic] out of power socialist liberal media.

Not to mention...

...socialist liberal stupidity...

And on top of all this...

the Fascist Apologist left in this country have joined the enemy.

Not a big fan of differences of opinion, freedom of speech, or alternative political views, are you?  Now, who exactly has "joined the enemy?"  Would that be Noam Chomsky or the majority of Americans who oppose the war?  Or would it be a long-time conservative like Paul Craig Roberts who thinks George Bush should be impeached and removed from office?  Surely, Mr. Roberts isn't part of the liberal, socialist, fascist MSM, is he?  

(http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/roberts.cgi)

What I can't figure out is if the left in this country is as bad as you make out, why did they bother to oppose Hitler.  Oh, because they were commies back then, not fascists.  Now, they're fascists.  Do you even know what fascism is, Carlos?  The way you use the word would make me believe you don't.

How did this country survive all those years of Democratic presidents and Congresses?  Given that they were more liberal than today's Democratic senators and representatives (of course, I don't expect you to believe that, but it is a simple truth), it's no wonder this country disintegrated into a 3rd world banana republic before Ronald Reagan took office.  Oh, wait, it didn't.  It actually became the richest, most powerful country on the planet.

This post is not about Democrats or Republicans.  It's not about liberal or conservative.  It's not about the rightness or wrongness of Iraq.  It's about frenzied ranting that does nothing but inflame.  Try to relax.

Used to be something that conservatives called themselves.

"Interventionist" was something we called FDR and LBJ.

By my definition of conservative, conservatives don't invade other countries, even when they're bad, unless attacked by those countries.

The reason is simple.  The mess made when cleaning up other peoples' problems is more often than not worse than the mess we went in to clean up in the first place.

when the other side decides to decamp it is viewed as a victory. Like Gettysburg, for instance.

And, as a previous poster noted, while the insurgents were operating there it was a big issue now that they've run away, yawn.

But no, in this case we have an American army involved and a Republican president and you guys can't allow either the military or the administration a bit of credit.

Pathetic.

So I guess Ronald Reagan wasn't a conservative.

You're certainly establishing your crediblity here in just a couple of posts.

wants to hang such a banner, they're entitled.

Just as the crew of the aircraft carrier was entitled, after completing one of the longest sea deployments of an American carrier in US naval history.

For some odd reason, America refuses to acknowledge the existence of the VietMinh.  

It was not the universally reviled VC that launched the Tet Offensive.  They were too busy raping and pillaging in the backwoods and trying not to get killed by the VM.

The VietMinh were the ones who typically spanked us out of the blue with stuff like the Tet Offensive.  Tactically, we crushed the assault, but it Still hurt and it came from nowhere.  That one attack permanently crippled our strategic options.

Oh, and we never would have won in Vietnam.  Unlike Iraq, we didn't have even tacit support from a significant portion of the population.  We were viewed the same as the French had been and the Chinese before them.  As Occupiers to be gotten rid of whatever the cost.

Keep in mind, a sign of the difference between the 2 wars was that in Vietnam, 10 year old girls would risk their lives to bomb Americans.  Purely of their own accord.

Iraq we don't see this.  Little children are out getting candy from our soldiers, not throwing grenades or shooting at them.

So if we could please stop trying to say that Iraq is a new Vietnam, I would appreciate it.  As would my inlaws who are still over in Vietnam, 2 of which were on the other side in the Tet Offensive...

First, I congradulate you for misunderstanding the obvious.  What do you think Fascist Apologist means?  Maybe you don't understand what I am saying, or choose to disagree, but I don't think I bandied the term fascist around inappropriately.  As for the majority of Americans who 'oppose' the war.  Why did GW win in 2004 then?  And you're correct, the liberal socialist media went all out to put their ideas in office.  Did a single reporter during the election ask J. effn K. what his 'plan' for Iraq was?  Beyond his pat answer, "I will do it better".  Did we ever find out?  

Now you say former leaders were 'more' liberal.  I contend there is no 'more' or 'less' liberal.  What you mean to say is Liberals were in power.  So what?  Capitolism made this country the richest, most powerful country on the planet, despite the hobbling of ineffective social programs that suppress independence and shackle the achievemnets of our finest citizens.  

Unfortunately, relaxing now while the poison is being pushed upon the people just means death.  It is about liberal and conservative viewpoints.  It is about those who promote life, and those who side with the purveyors of death.  And if my 'frenzied ranting' does get someone fired up, that is success.  Because the public is complacent, they don't even recognize socialist policies and the end result of implementing them.  They don't see Islamic Fascist orginizations as a fundamental threat, and they don't, you as well, appreciate those in the press whos actions overtly or inadvertently support those in the cult of death.

Never give up, never surrender!

you to check your history.

The Viet Minh had ceased to exist by the time we became involved in Vietnam.

I, and I think many, if not most, scholars of the Vietnam War (not that I am including myself in their number), would disagree with the statement that Vietnam was unwinnable.

But on the other point I'd agree. Those who compare Vietnam to Iraq don't have much of an idea about the military or political dimension of either.

After all, they fired 350 Cruise misiles at Saddam in 1998.  Did they lie, like they are now accusing Bush of doing?  What intel were they using that led them to make the attack?  You can't have it both ways.  If you believe Bush lied, that is your right and it's an acceptable theory.  But you must also belive Clinton lied as well.  They go hand in hand.

So if Harry Reid would like everything on the table and is willing to shut down the Sentate, then let's put everything on the table.  Let's have a full, detailed investigation, starting with Bush Sr., then to Clinton, then to current times.  I would guess the ones that want to cry liar would be in for a big surprise when their own party is put on the stand.

so, its big deal when its a problem, but when its taken care of, no biggy.  You fellows are rapidly running out of areas to claim as overwhelming problems in Iraq.

In the two-plus years that the road was unsecured, hundreds of folks (mostly ordinary Iraqis) died; the US and its coalition partners lost credibility, both in the eyes of the world and the eyes of the Iraqi people; and millions (billions?) of dollars of shipments were disrupted.  Those are permanent losses that are not magically fixed because we now, at long last, think we've secured the road.  (Which, in and of itself, is a wonderful thing.)

I've been consistent in my belief that we must win in Iraq -- not merely declare victory and go home.  I've also been consistent in my argument that we have always needed more troops in Iraq.  Indeed, as Streiff's reference to troop "density" implies, more troops might have helped us to secure the road sooner.  

Forget about the fact that 80% of the country has been pretty quiet from D+60.

Ahh, fun with percentages.  80% as measured by geography?  Maybe; there's a lot of desert out there.  80% as measured by population?  Umm, no.

Heres an idea for you- Lets make believe that the riots in the Paris suburbs are in Paris, Iraq.  With the help of your allies in the MSM and the poor state of American knowledge of geography, I bet you could pull it off!!

Let's pretend like you didn't write that.

First, I congradulate [sic] you for misunderstanding the obvious.  What do you think Fascist Apologist means?

Nothing.  I think it means absolutely nothing.  I suppose the words have some meaning to you.  But as far as I can tell that meaning is derived from delusion and paranoia.  

the liberal socialist media went all out to put their ideas in office.

Ah, the explanation for everything.  The liberal socialist media.  Carlos, Carlos.  Now, you make it clear that you don't know what socialist means either.  And, somehow, once again the all-powerful liberal socialist media failed in their quest.

Did a single reporter during the election ask J. effn K. what his 'plan' for Iraq was?  Beyond his pat answer, "I will do it better".  Did we ever find out?

[tsk, tsk, Carlos.  Aren't you violating the spirit of RedState's rule on language?]

You're certainly not going to get me to defend Kerry on Iraq.  You're also not going to get me to pretend that the media were tough on Bush.  And I still don't know what Bush's plan is.  Troop withdrawals timed to coincide with midterm elections?  Stay the course for a decade or two.  Hang in there until the job is done?  What job would that be?

I suspect the loss of support for the war is a result of lots of other Americans who are coming to the conclusion that there is no plan. There is rhetoric.  There is reaction.  But, just as there was none in 2003, there still is no coherent plan for Iraq.  The failure here is presidential.  A leadership vacuum.  As Bush's numbers continue to drop, it becomes more and more obvious that the discontent is not liberal or left; it's not socialist or capitalist; its rooted in a sense that those in charge are not competent.  You can agree with someone's politics and not think he is competent to carry out the corresponding policies.  And, a lesson that seems always to be lost on some, you can disagree and not have "gone over to the other side."

Unfortunately, relaxing now while the poison is being pushed upon the people just means death.

Who the heck is doing the pushing?  Republicans hold majorities in the Senate and House, a Republican is president, and large--capitalist--corporations dominate the media.  This is just more overwrought rhetoric.

They [the public] don't see Islamic Fascist orginizations [sic] as a fundamental threat, and they don't, you as well, appreciate those in the press whos [sic] actions overtly or inadvertently support those in the cult of death.

This line of argument is so tiresome:  "I see a threat and I know? that 'A' is the correct/only response.  If you think 'A' is misguided, foolish, wasteful, unwise, counterproductive, or self-defeating (or inappropriate in some other way) then you either (1) can't see the threat, or (2) are in league with the threat."

Carlos, this is nonsense.  I don't expect you to see that, but you should probably hear it every so often on the unlikely chance that it might penetrate the wall of ideological blindness.

Paul Craig Roberts, a life-long, highly respected conservative (Asst. Sec. of the Treasury under Reagan), thinks Bush should be impeached and removed from office.  You don't have to agree with him, but if the only response you could muster is to call him names and rail about the leftist, socialist, fascist, apologistas that would be a poor substitute for reasoned argument.

Never give up, never surrender!

Giggle.

"Giggle", eh?  Pretty much standard liberal debate style, and the liberal approach to real, physical threats in general.

form a sentence without labels and vacuous generalities?

The "giggle" had nothing to do with any threat, except the one posed by people whose discussion style consists of hyperbole, name-calling, groundless assumptions about things and people they know nothing about, and expressions of certainty on issues about which there is disagreement--across the political spectrum and within every segment of that spectrum.

I guess you'd rather I just call people "traitors" for disagreeing with me and pump myself up into a frenzy.  I'll pass.

It is just a matter of time before you expose yourself thusly before an editor, at which time, you can go to dKurse and feel more at home.

Nothing.  I think it means absolutely nothing.  I suppose the words have some meaning to you.  But as far as I can tell that meaning is derived from delusion and paranoia.  

Carlos, Carlos.  Now, you make it clear that you don't know what socialist means either.  And, somehow, once again the all-powerful liberal socialist media failed in their quest.

Carlos, this is nonsense.  I don't expect you to see that, but you should probably hear it every so often on the unlikely chance that it might penetrate the wall of ideological blindness.

giggle

You are rude and have forgotten that you are a guest on a Republican site.

As near as I can figure out, there are some points worth making in there. There's also a lot of needless insult.

After using a formula developed, patented, and used exclusively by the Editors of RedState, I have determined that your value to this site, allowing for the cost of your bandwidth, is zero at best.

Goodbye. t(underscore)h(underscore)crown-at-yahoo.com -- the address you should send your link to the They Banned Me! ME!!!!! Diary you'll doubtless write.

Bye.

My mother-in-law might also disagree with you considering she was a member of the VietMinh during the 70s...

At least he (maybe) got my reference to the inspiring work of Tim Allen.

Nice formula, sound judgement.

I don't know if ROUTE IRISH predates their assignment, but if NY GAURD 69th did the work the label could have something to do with the unit history.  Does not NY 69th claim descent from the Civil War 69th New York "Irish Brigade?" Just a thought.  

Thanks for the diary.  I think the symbolism of ROUTE IRISH is such that the enemy would contest it if they could, but with an insurgency you really can't know.  From a logistical standpoint a clean route is a clear tactical win.

I won't toot my own rhetorical horn.  It is much more interesting to have a substantial arguement based on knowledge and wisdom, coupled to fact.  If you cannot fathom the fact of a fanatical religious philosophy wants to destroy you and what you stand for, no matter how nice you are (liberal reaction), then hopefuly there is some way apart from another catastrophic attack upon us to open your eyes.  That is why I use the terms I use.  Fascist apologist may sound rhetorical, but it looks like a accurate label.

As far as my atacking Roberts, didn't notice that.  In fact, I don't think I mentioned anyone at all.  You are the one who decide what I said in general fit someone.  Thats a stretch.  

My last observation, as this is not going anywhere, and we see it discussed in more appropriate threads, is that liberals always complain about corporate domination of the media.  I would counter that the television and print news markets are interested in making money.  What makes money on the news is tragedy.  Empathy and emotional content rule the news.  Libs are arguably more in tune with that (pure rhetorical speculation).

 The traditional 'experts' in the journalistic side of news have a liberal veiwpoint.  The business side of the media is for profit, not politics.  There is editorial separation between the two.  And the argument breaks down further as you have to assume corporations care about political philosophy and not just making money.  

Now, your logic with its A then 1 or 2 is lacking.  I don't think you can see the threat.  The threat I am talking about is here in the Western World. It consists of those whose  actions result in the furtherance of Islamic Fascism.  Just consider it a possibility.  And if you can't see this threat, we cannot proceed.

BTW: the J. effn K. is a liberal hook, fully approved by the FCC, for finding out if you are a longtime listener...  

given the choice between choosing between the feelings of various random Vietnamese, like relying of the feelings of various random Americans, and the cold, empirical stare of history, I choose the latter.

People are entitled to call themselves anything they wish, but saying it is so doesn't make it so. The Viet Minh ceased to exist in the early 50s and were subsumed into the Communist Party of Vietnam, aka Viet Cong.

And there Historical acuracy or lack thereof, I'm going to check as many sources as possible.  And since marrying into a Vietnamese family that had members in the South Vietnamese government and Army and the North Vietnamese Military and both the VC and VM, I've got a lot more access to info from Vietnam than your average American.  (Unfortunately, this also means that I'll never get a security clearance and my career is permanently crippled, but alas...)

American and other Western Hstorians wish to declare the VM dead and gone for decades before the Vietnam War.

The Vietnamese praise the VM as heroes during said war and decry the VC as criminals and animals who deserved everything the VM gave them.