Comments for The Closest the Bush Administration Will Ever Come

The Closest the Bush Administration Will Ever Come

2008-11-20T09:40:13Z

Per my earlier point on the SOFA with Iraq, Hot Air has Perino calling the situation, "the victory that we've had so far."

Allah notes that even Petreaus has refused to use the word "victory" in regards to Iraq and feels the unmitigated weight of "mission accomplished". For once, as much as I think Petraeus has been a brilliant leader, I have to disagree, though I understand that it is not really the place of the Generals in the field to call it: it's a political call. One for the President. Who, I believe, also has a mighty fear of "mission accomplished".

So, I guess I say, "Screw it!" If the pols are too scared and the generals aren't going to leave their lanes, let's call it "victory", celebrate it ourselves and enjoy the fact that we did not give in or give up.

Comment from Grumpy on 2008-11-21

2008-11-21T23:36:37Z

As I read, the SOFA, I would not say victory. I will say there have been improvements. As the "Armorer" says, This is not a binary event. I call it a gradient event or shades of grey. As I read the SOFA, I hit pages 12 and 13, it talks about "Entrance and Exiting Iraq". People can enter or exit Iraq, only through specific points on the map and ONLY with the approval of the Iraqi government, including service personnel. The authority goes to the Iraqis and the responsibilities, including the costs, go to the US. But as I looked and pondered the agreements, it started me thinking about the term, HOSTAGES. The pattern is the same as the Saudi Arabia, which has been always problematic.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-11-21

2008-11-21T15:44:12Z

#4, I think if you talk to V29, Bill, Dusty, my father, me, RJewell and the others who hang out here who lived through the Vietnam era, you'll see the people are supporting the troops in myriad ways, and expressing their support in sustained ways that a single trooping down the avenue... isn't.

And there have been many good homecoming events scattered about the country, as deploying units come home.

And welcome home rallies are well attended.

And the troops get greeted at the airports.

And there are a lot of volunteer organizations doing their bit to provide support both overseas and at home.

The troops may feel that the Press and liberal establishment isn't all that supportive (though I'm not sure it's the job of the press to be so) but I would also say the anti-war left is muted and no where near as successful as they were in Vietnam - and, as importantly, the counter-demonstrations, mounted and/or attended by many here, are also a visible manifestation of support that more the Korea and Vietnam-era vets didn't have.

We're gonna hafta agree to disagree here. This war isn't, and wasn't (except, perhaps in Secretary Rumsfeld's mind) a binary event that was going to have a clear delineation. That may have been how it was orignially envisioned, until events on the ground gave lie to those assumptions.

You want to declare victory, Zombietime invites you to join with them tomorrow. I'm not going to stop anyone from posting it here.

It just won't have my name on it, because I'm all subtle and nuanced, and... squishy.

Comment from Cannoneer No. 4 on 2008-11-21

2008-11-21T15:23:03Z

Negative, Casey. The purpose of the Morale Operation that is being run against us is to diminish our national will to endeavor to perservere. Jacksonian Americans still believe in quaint concepts like victory, defeat, winning and losing, and get disgusted with half vast, lackadaisical, route step efforts. If a war is worth fighting, and worth losing American warriors over, then fight hard, kill the enemy in great numbers until the hearts of their women are on the ground and they resolve to fight no more forever and come in and touch the pen and stay on the reservation so long as the grass grows and the water flows.

In war, there is no substitute for victory.

War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out.

War has never solved a thing, Casey, . . . .except slavery, fascism and communism.

Leathernecks? Please. That's a magazine.

Comment from The Armorer on 2008-11-21

2008-11-21T13:51:25Z

Argent - I'm all for parades. The city of Leavenworth is parade-happy, I believe we have at least 4 per year, and our Veteran's Day parade is the largest in the region. I personally participate in two - as an artifact myself in the Veteran's Day parade, and driving around a couple of artifacts (both human and from the Arsenal) in the Parade of Heroes down in Village West.

Comment from Argent on 2008-11-21

2008-11-21T07:08:09Z

Fancy parades don't just serve the miltary they serve citizens as well. To remind them of the strength and worth of the military which serves them, and their mutual obligation to the nation if not that military directly.

I suppose to some of you guys it's a bit shallow. I suppose all parades and shows are to a degree but it sure beats spit and cold shoulders doesn't it?

Hmm it s a good question. How much do you guys appreciate a parade? Or is it just a waste of time to you?

Comment from Katherine Optima Maximae on 2008-11-20

2008-11-21T05:03:42Z

Kat, I really don't think the Legions failed because they didn't get fancy parades. Say rather the Legions failed because became subject conscripts, instead of free volunteers.

It's not fancy parades, it is about recognition and validation of their purpose, their relationship and, in some degree, their necessity. I believe that the last part of your comment flows into that since no subject conscript could feel the pride or necessity of battling for a nation that is not their own nor appreciates their efforts.

The military is always a tool of political will. However, I believe there is a danger where the concept of "tool" becomes the paramount description of any military, legions included, as opposed to an integrated and respected part of a citizenery.

When you tell your citizenry "thanks, but no thanks" for their service, why should they bother to fight at all?

A well trained soldier will fight well and may even win, but, unless he has a grander purpose, he is no more than a body and, at any given time, his ability to fight well may not translate into the will to fight or win. In a democracy, the will to fight does not solely rest on the idea of defending a geographic place with a name, it is about believing in serving "the nation" as in "the people" and the ideas the people hold dear and "the nation" represents. A piece of land is worthless without them and a military fighting for something worthless is a defeated military.

Comment from Casey on 2008-11-20

2008-11-21T04:30:01Z

If we're never going to "win," why bother? Which was the purpose of the Morale Operation all along.

I thought the purpose was to wear down Islamic terrorism by demonstrating that Muslim Arabs could, in fact, govern themselves in a reasonbly free and democratic matter. I think most of the troops understand they won, and our appreciation for them isn't "muted."

I'll even disagree that "52% of the American electorate don't value the sacrifices made on their behalf." True, there are some deranged lefties out there, but most of them just want the sacrificing to stop. They honestly believe that war doesn't solve anything, violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, and most problems really can be solved by people talking things out.

In other words, they understand the sacrifice, but consider it tragic and unnecessary

I believe, No. 4, that the grunts, leathernecks, zoomies, and even the occasional squid on dry land know exactly how well they've won the war, by watching Iraqui children grow up normally, instead in the world described by Luke Stricklin. They don't need ticker tape to understand that.

Kat, I really don't think the Legions failed because they didn't get fancy parades. Say rather the Legions failed because became subject conscripts, instead of free volunteers.

Comment from Cannoneer No. 4 on 2008-11-20

2008-11-20T23:08:22Z

How close to "a unified democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself and sustain itself, and is an ally in the war on terror" must we be before we can publicly display pride in our achievement?

What better way for the vanquished to deny the victors their triumph than to mentally fornicate them out of daring to consider themselves winners.

If we're never going to "win," why bother? Which was the purpose of the Morale Operation all along.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-11-20

2008-11-20T20:43:29Z

Ooops. Cannoneer #4. Sorry Cannonshop!

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-11-20

2008-11-20T20:34:29Z

Strawman, Cannonshop. That phase of the conflict had a clear, unambiguous end, in tents on Luneburg Plain, with leather coated German Generals and Admirals sitting down at a table in front of Monty and signing the Instrument of Surrender. I don't recall the celebration of VI day, back when Italy surrendered - mainly because we all knew the job wasn't done.

I recall celebrations and parades in Paris, when Paris was liberated, but that's about it - because the job wasn't yet done.

Desert Storm? Inapt comparison, especially as it really devolves more to the WWI paradigm - celebrating a victory that really just sets up the next phase. That said - the objectives for Desert Storm were pretty clear (if perhaps incomplete, but complete may have been politically impossible back in 1991, too) - clear the Iraqis from Kuwait and restore the Kuwaiti government. A "Mission Accomplished" parade then wasn't inappropriate. The fighting was clearly over, objectives met and we were coming home, except for the brigade left in Kuwait to make sure Saddam understood that a repeat wasn't going to be allowed.

That is not yet the case in Iraq.

Like it or not, the job is not yet done, and the endstate *is* ambiguous, hence why we're having this discussion at all. The victory is not yet secure. Doesn't mean things aren't looking good though. I'm not hedging my bets, I just see things differently, seems.

Comment from Cannoneer No. 4 on 2008-11-20

2008-11-20T20:14:20Z

Would you have avoiding celebrating VE Day in May of 1945 because the Japanese had not yet been defeated, John?

I seem to recall GEN Schwartzkopf leading a victory parade, and Desert Storm had to be done over 12 years later. At least the Germans had to go home and breed up another generation before they could do World War, Part II.

Voluntarily muting our sense of success also mutes our appreciation for those who bought us that success with their blood, sweat, and tears, reducing their psychic payoff and denying them and those who supported them and their mission a well-earned morale boost. Perserverence should be rewarded if we expect to have any in future conflicts, but 52% of the American electorate don't value the sacrifices made on their behalf in the Iraq Campaign.

Comment from Katherine Optima Maximae on 2008-11-20

2008-11-20T18:33:13Z

All of this fluffy-bunny feeling is a good mosque bombing away from backsliding.

There are still some car bombs and other activities going on and I am aware of that. The question is two parts: 1) is the Iraq government still capable of holding? I believe we have reached and went beyond the "tipping point" where it will take a lot more than one mosque bombing to end it. 2) I believe the SOFA makes any "backsliding" Iraq's responsibility. It was always going to be so one day. We have to accept that it is.

Ticker tape parades? Wouldn't that be nice. But, there is no way, regardless of what we say here, that the incoming administration would have wanted to do so. As cannoneer notes, it would seriously undermine their entire political platform. Other wise, there is no good reason not to have recognized in any small way the contributions of our men and women in Iraq.

But, I suppose, given the current politics, they will have to wait the years until Afghanistan is over to be given even cursory recognition and, even then, it will have to be the vicarious enjoyment of the end of that theater. Which, as #4 notes, will be too late and long gone. No one will care.

It is somewhat like the Roman legions. Eventually, their were not great victories or triumphal parades, just a bunch of bedraggled Romans in armor returning home to little acclaim. Eventually, the legions lost their appeal and recruiting power to civilian enterprise and the defense of Rome fell to what amounted to mercenary forces with no allegiance accept money.

We know what happened to Rome.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-11-20

2008-11-20T18:12:47Z

Goals change over time, Kat. War rarely, if ever, ends on the basis of the goals going into it - except for the smash-and-grab variety.

All of this fluffy-bunny feeling is a good mosque bombing away from backsliding.

This wasn't the kind of war that was going to have a ticker-tape parade down Madison Avenue. Even going into it.

This is one that was going to come to us on the patter little feet, over time.

Comment from Katherine Optima Maximae on 2008-11-20

2008-11-20T17:58:14Z

I actually had responded in H&Is to your point John, but you stomped on me with the big boot. So, I'll note one thing here. Essentially, with the SOFA providing Iraq the paramount responsibility for their sovreignty, planning of ops, precedence of law, etc, the potential failure of Iraq and the "bad guys votes" are now officially Iraq's responsibility. They wanted it, they got it.

Literally, we have a lot to do to finish shoring them up in the next three years, but today, their future success is no longer about our combat capabilities, but about their own will.

That is, in fact, victory based on our original goals.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-11-20

2008-11-20T17:27:59Z

You raise good points, #4.

But my muted sense of success is because... this isn't a binary outcome war, no matter how much we would prefer a nice clean ending.

The reality is, in this kind of war, we can get a clean ending by losing, but winning will be measured over years and decades.

Just as the triumphalism of the victors regarding WWI was, shall we say, somewhat overshadowed by the unanticipated Part II?

Comment from Cannoneer No. 4 on 2008-11-20

2008-11-20T16:54:00Z

The narrative of Iraq that wins will live on long past the time when our troops have been withdrawn, just as the left’s narrative of Vietnam lives today. These narratives are not just some academic exercise, they provide the intellectual context for policy decisions and the political will necessary to support those decisions over the course of decades. The success of the left’s Vietnam narrative results in us having a weak political will today which allows our adversaries to design strategies to attack that weakness with confidence. That is why we need to ensure that the left does not win the Iraq narrative war. And so we can win in Iraq, but if we lose the narrative war then “nobody will care” about the victory because it won’t be part of the narrative. -- phil

Comment from Cannoneer No. 4 on 2008-11-20

2008-11-20T16:45:34Z

The enemy's accomplices have flogged the outgoing C-in-C over his speech on the Abraham Lincoln in 2003 so viciously that any strategic communications describing success has been muted. Better to lose the war than to have any unseemly triumphalism. Denying us the psychological satisfaction of pride in a job well done is a Morale Operation designed to sap our will to overthrow any more tyrants. Victory in Iraq must be denied, lest grudging respect for the despised architects of that victory and contrition for incessantly undermining the war effort be demanded.

The possibility that the enemy still has a last gasp effort left in him is the cause of all the “guarded” optimism and muted celebration of the successes achieved so far. The American people cannot be allowed to have any positive thoughts about the war.

Iraq was no threat, had no WMD’s, sanctions were working, it was a war of choice, we invaded a sovereign nation to steal their oil, Bush is an idiot, Rumsfeld is an idiot, et cetera et cetera, ad nauseum.

YOU SAID WE WERE WINNING! The enemy you claim to have beaten just killed 200 innocent women and children. YOU LIED AND PEOPLE DIED!!!!

Unenthusiastic, hesitant, unconvincing, caveated asterisked footnotes do not a victory make. By the time triumphalism has been made safe by the course of events, nobody cares. Victories that have been made politicaly incorrect to acknowledge and celebrate are victories denied.