Boxer should have held up the pic with Maliki and Amedinajacket
Mr. Petraeus can you explain this picture? Especially the holding hands part? Were Iranian missles showering the Green Zone on this day?
by: gaspare @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:50
I heard Juan Cole on the radio a few days back, and he was remarkably charitable toward McCain's bottomless ignorance. He didn't say that McCain was clueless old coot, despite the fact it was lke asking Stephen Hawkins about Bart Simpson's science project. Regarding McCain's 100-year plans, he said something to the effect that McCain didn't seem to realize that Iraq wasn't Germany or Japan (after WWII). But, the more that I thought about it, the more I came to think that Juan was just a little bit off on this one point: Iraq is Germany--right at the beginning of the Thirty Years War.
The Thirty Years' War was fought between 1618 and 1648, principally on the territory of today's Germany, and involved most of the major European powers.[2] Beginning as a religious conflict between Protestants and Catholics in the Holy Roman Empire, it gradually developed into a general war involving much of Europe, for reasons not necessarily related to religion.[3] The war marked the culmination of the France-Habsburg rivalry for pre-eminence in Europe, which led to further wars between France and the Habsburg powers.
The major impact of the Thirty Years' War, in which mercenary armies were extensively used, was the devastation of entire regions scavenged bare by the foraging armies. Episodes of widespread famine and disease devastated the population of the German states and, to a lesser extent, the Low Countries and Italy, while bankrupting many of the powers involved. The war may have lasted for 30 years, but the conflicts that triggered it continued unresolved for a much longer time. The war ended with the Treaty of Münster, a part of the wider Peace of Westphalia.
Over the course of the war, the population of the German states was reduced by about 30%;[4] in the territory of Brandenburg, the losses had amounted to half, while in some areas an estimated two-thirds of the population died. Germany's male population was reduced by almost half. The population of the Czech lands declined by a third. The Swedish armies alone destroyed 2,000 castles, 18,000 villages and 1,500 towns in Germany, one-third of all German towns.
The analogy is striking--fragmented country riddled with religious conflict plus surrounding neighbors, each it's own agenda=a generation plus of incredibly bloody civil war with 30% population loss. If you ask me, the Lancet study is pretty much right on track.
This is what stupid Hitler analogies gets you: total blindness to rather obvious historical precedents that are far more relevant to actual situation.
I wish someone would ask Petraeus and Crocker about that.
Of course, weighty historical analogies, no matter how valid, and how much they might save our ass, only speak to a certain segment of the population. Hence, the eminent common sense of gaspare's suggestion. If the Democrats had learned anything from the Republicans over the past 20-30 years, not just Boxer, but two or three other senators, and a similar number of representatives would have asked strikingly similar, though not identical questions requiring display of the same photo.
Amd then there is the question of supporting out troops, and how the Iraq war is destoying out military....
Every single argument that the Administration and their lapdogs like John McCain have made or are making break down after that answer. The Ambassdor to Iraq just admitted that Iraq is not the central front in the war on terror. He just admitted that the potential for Al Qaeda to gain a beachhead in Iraq should the United States withdraw is miniscule compared to the already-established beachhead along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. He admitted that the global fight against terror is currently misdirected.
A withdrawal and reallocation of forces and resources is the only responsible path. I'd like to see questions tomorrow on the House side put to Petraeus on whether he agrees with Crocker on force allocation.
Bayh, a potential vice presidential nominee, said he did not want to get "sucked into the presidential campaigns," but went on to ask Petraeus to give the American people a general idea of when troop withdrawals can begin.
"Is it just impossible to offer any rough estimate?" Bayh asked, in the four-and-a-half-hour hearing's final volley.
Petraeus, as he did earlier, staunchly demurred. He said it was "flat-out not responsible to try to put down a stake in the ground" and estimate when troops could begin leaving Iraq.
Petraeus and Crocker have no problems projecting out the potential implications of leaving Iraq - but they refuse to make projections of what staying will look like. That double standard is absurd. Is there a strategic plan for our presence in Iraq? If so what? The answer is pretty clearly no. They have no end game. There is no exit strategy. The Bush/McCain/Petraeus/Crocker plan is simply to stay and to stay a very very long time in the hopes that things slowly get better.
Petraeus won't even firmly assert that our presence in Iraq is making us safer, though he basically says he thinks it is. I've heard from a bunch of military folks that he has to believe his strategy is working, that it's just leadership to be optimistic and can-do. But Petraeus isn't being optimistic, he's just waffling and avoiding questions. It's dangerous that Petraeus has put himself in a political role while in uniform.
"General depending accounting used, this war will cost us from $2 - 3.5 trillion. Help me explain to my constituents why it is more important to rebuild Iraq and not rebuild America."
Tim Cunha (FL-06) sent a letter to Democratic House leaders.
When General David Petraeus and U. S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker meet with Congress Tuesday and Wednesday, Tim Cunha, Democratic 6th district congressional candidate, wants them asked: "Is the continued American involvement in the Iraq civil war making America safer?"
Alice Kryzan (NY-26) in a heavily contested primary has a video.
This week is a tremendous messaging opportunity on Iraq for anyone who wants to take it. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are testifying in the House and the Senate on Tuesday and Wednesday about the surge. The goal from our perspective should be to pose the question of whether our presence in Iraq is making us safer, rather than focusing on levels of violence and the tactical questions surrounding the surge. Barack Obama frames it correctly with this question.
Obama, an Illinois Democrat, also wants a quick end to the war. On Friday, he said: ""We still don't have a good answer to the question posed by Sen. (John) Warner the last time Gen. Petraeus appeared: How has this effort in Iraq made us safer and how do we expect it will make us safer in the long run?"
By far the worst framing is done by Carl Levin, speaking about the surge.
"In my judgment, it's too rosy, but there are parts of it that are not so rosy, and both pieces need to be declassified," Sen. Carl Levin said, pointing in particular to the portion of the report describing Iraq's political progress.
Levin also likes to blame the Iraqi government for the problems in Iraq. It's actually a fairly common line, with prominent Democrats undercutting a coherent message.
"We saw a meaningful reduction in violence, and that presented an opportunity to build up national reconciliation that was the underlying premise of the surge," said Representative Howard L. Berman, Democrat of California and chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "It seems that the Iraqis have largely frittered it away."
Republicans, meanwhile, see this week as an opportunity to push their message about winning in Iraq. Here's what Republicans are planning.
On the Republican side, a veterans group tied to the party is planning a rally near the Senate, while House Republicans are coordinating with conservative bloggers and will invite conservative radio commentators to broadcast from Washington. Republicans plan to push for new money for troops in Iraq; to highlight statements by Democrats that the troop "surge," which ended last fall, has worked; to point out some signs of political reconciliation; and to insist that troops can be removed from Iraq only when military leaders decide it is the proper time.
"The goal of the effort is not just to reinforce the message delivered by General Petraeus, but to launch a full-fledged assault on the misinformation campaign promoted by Democratic leaders who have lost every time they have tried to legislate defeat for America," said an internal strategy memo for Republican communications operatives.
It is clear that DC Democrats have several different lines of messaging going on that work against each other. Some of them want to drill into the tactics of the surge, some want to discuss larger national security questions, and some want to concede the surge worked but that the Iraqis are somehow at fault.
It's important to recognize that this is all a sideshow to the real question in front of all of us, one avoided by many of the politicians in DC. What do we do in Iraq to make our country safer?
STATE BLOGS
