Obama, Andrew Sullivan, and the surge: foresight vs. hindsight
Peter Wehner does a wonderful job of fisking Obama’s recent speech on Iraq in which the candidate combined masterful oratory, abysmal ignorance, denial, and lawyerly circumlocutions in his signature manner to show exactly why he should never be elected President (not that his supporters know or care).
Perhaps Obama’s speech reflects the fact that he faces a real conundrum on Iraq. Not only has he been consistently wrong about the surge, but he was bold enough to go on record in an unequivocal manner about how it would not work. His predictions have since been contradicted by facts on the ground.
In that, of course, he was no different than 99% (roughly speaking) of his Democrat colleagues, and most of the MSM. But they’re not running for President. He is.
Obama’s problem with Iraq is highlighted by recent developments from journalist and blogger Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan’s an unusual case: a sort of liberal who became a sort of conservative and then did an about-face towards the end of the first Bush administration over issues of Iraq, Abu Ghraib, and gay marriage.
After being an early fan of Sullivan’s in what I would call his lucid phase (in fact, writing letters that were regularly published on his blog was one of the reasons I started blogging in the first place) I stopped reading him quite some time ago. He’d become too tedious, ranting, and repetitive. He’s been an enthusiastic Obama supporter, that much I know. But I wonder whether somewhere along the line he’s—at least for a brief moment—regained a tiny modicum of the common sense he used to have (Sullivan, that is, not Obama).
I’m referring to Sullivan’s response to that WaPo editorial I wrote about here, the one that recognizes that the surge has been successful and that Obama needs to acknowledge that fact.
As you might expect, Sullivan liberally seeds his piece with caveats about Iraq. The success is “surprising.” Sadr’s militias are still strong “in the shadows” (although he doesn’t see fit to offer any evidence of this). Iran is still “meddlesome” (fancy that!) “Sectarian tensions can still flare up,” (wow, ya think?) “National reconciliation…remains elusive” (as it does here—there, and everywhere). Petraeus is good, but he was helped along by “luck and time” (funny, isn’t it, how those same elements of “luck and time” weren’t operating right before the surge, back in 2006, but started operating right after).
The best part of Sullivan’s piece is that he actually brings himself to praise Bush and McCain when he says, after crediting Petraeus for the lion’s share of the success: “Bush and McCain equally merit points for pursuing the surge, even though the metrics pointed to failure.”
Wow.
But did metrics point to failure? Said who? Said the MSM, the Left, and the liberals. Petraeus never said it, although he was suitably cautious.
Sullivan shows a profound misunderstanding of the way the military works. Military leaders don’t like to pursue a course of action if they themselves think it’s likely to fail. Those who advocated the surge believed that it had a good probability of success or they would not have wasted time, effort, money, and the lives of Americans in a futile endeavor.
The military strategizes and makes plans in an attempt to be ready for whatever might happen. Generals want to win, but they know that no plan survives first contact with the enemy, so they have contingency plans as well. They understand that success is far from inevitable and failure always possible, but they do what they can to avoid it, and to adjust to short-term failure (and not become demoralized by it) in order to secure long-term success.
The surge itself, and the Petraeus manual on which it was based, was a response to the short-term failure of the original plans to secure Iraq, and a reaction to unforeseen developments there (and there are always unforeseen developments).
The metrics did not point to failure as far as the military was concerned. The shortsighted impatience and lack of tactical understanding on the part of the MSM made journalists and many others think they pointed to failure. And many self-serving Democrats who had opposed the war, and who wanted to defeat the Republicans in 2008, actually desired failure precisely because it would make them seem correct ex post facto.
For Sullivan to say all of that would be too dangerous for his favored candidate Obama. But Sullivan’s final sentence does point to the contradictions involved for his candidate:
Obama needs to capitalize on [the] gains [resulting from the surge], not dismiss them.
How can Obama capitalize on them without admitting how seriously wrong he was when he said at the outset that the surge would not “‘make a dent’ in the violence plaguing Iraq nor ‘change the dynamics’ there”? Or without conceding, as Sullivan does, that Bush—and even more importantly, Obama’s present opponent McCain—was right about the surge?
It’s especially threatening because Obama’s stance on Iraq is one of the linchpins of his candidacy. If he loses that, what remains?
[NOTE: Ace of Spades noted Sullivan’s piece as well:
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while…Capitalizing on something you’ve been dissing for years may be somewhat problematic. The public is dumb, but they ain’t that dumb. I’m thinking there isn’t much room in the hope/change mantra for transparent political opportunism that would be obvious to 5 year old.
This may be one of the rare moments when I’m more cynical than Ace. I believe much of the public is just that dumb—or just that much in denial, or just that much in love with the empty Obama.]
[CORRECTION: It was Purple Avenger, not Ace himself, who wrote the post referenced from Ace’s blog.]
Obama could easily work it to his advantage with the general crowd – however he looses the crowd who pretty much chose them as their candidate.
There is absolutely no reason why he can’t admit he was wrong at the time, note that “everyone” thought the same thing (the narrative for that is already there), and that he is a person who is not dogmatic and can adapt to situations as they unfold. I’m sure a better speech writer than me could do a VERY good job with that. If done well it could even easily deflate a good deal of what people are looking at McCain for.
But, again, look how many anti-war people he would immediately loose. Probably enough to loose the election.
He has been brought into this by the fairly far left and they expect him to stay there. He has no real substance or experience and makes too many large gaffes – unless McCain really screws up I can’t see how he can win. If he had let Hillary get the nomination and have himself get another 8 years experience he would have most likely won in a landslide. As is he shows what happens when someone gets 5 levels too high because of their skin color instead of ability. At best he will be one of the worst train wrecks of a presidency we will ever see.
Pingback:Amused Cynic » Blog Archive » As if the idea of an Obama presidency weren’t ridiculous-enough already….
Dumb doesn’t really explain it. If you take the dems message as a whole it’s that, ‘you were smart but lied to, ergo not dumb’. It’s via a twisting of the facts and timeline of course… but that’s the sort of offer to the public. It’s a play to ego more than about intelligence… because, even some of the most intelligent seem highly responsive to face saving… over facts.
I agree with Neo’s assessment of the American public. Many have drunk the Obama cool-aid to the extent that nothing will deter them from voting for him. It just feels right to them.
Some, otherwise capable of thinking for themselves, are so saturated with disinformation from a largely compromised MSM, they can no longer make sense of it all so they too resolve to go on instinct.
I am not optimistic about the results of all this.
Obama and the dems are too deeply invested in the anti-war narrative. The press is simply going to have either tone down the success, (not that they arent trying) or help play up Obama’s “evolving on the issues” flip-flop, if he chooses to reverse himself. If he manages to pass that off, he will become the undisputed master of political oratory. (again, assisted by the press). My money, though, is on the abandonment side.
I agree with you about Obama’s fawning voters-in-waiting in the general: they wouldn’t want reality to get in the way of a good tsunami of electoral hysteric proportions.
This is very troubling indeed, for I too believe the Republicans in both the Legislative and Executive have become so unpopular that voters want an empty starched shirt with a nice tone of voice and a toothy grin rather than substance and toughness.
Gonna be a long summer indeed.
Obama and the democrats weren’t making a predicition on the surge. They were trying their dambdest to SHAPE the surge narrative.
Whats to lose about being dead wrong on such important issues if its not discussed and reported for the bombshell it is by the MSM?
If a democrat falls in the forest…….???
Andrew Sullivan lost it a long time ago. I used to read him too, but he gradually became less and less coherent. His game is to call himself conservative-catholic-american-real-man, and then to hold the identical positions of every other liberal-secular-european-homosexual in the world. Gets old. Yawn.
Important thing to remember about Sullivan, Samantha Powers, Roger Cohen, etc. These people aren’t Americans; they want America to fail. They want Obama to surrender Iraq and make America look as feeble and contemptible as France in Algeria. Patriotic Americans should do the opposite of what they recommend.
– Another ex-Democrat voting for McCain
All Obama has to do is tell his anti-war supporters that he is changing his position on Iraq based on recent developments and then tell them to choose between him and McCain. What choice do they have? Heck, I would even give Obama a look if he promised to follow Petraeus’ recommendations on Iraq. We all need to compromise because the next 4 years are going to be rough and it’s more important that we as a people learn to listen to each other than who is to be our next president. Obama is smart and if he is smart enough to change course on Iraq he deserves a second look by those of us who have written him off.
“Obama is smart…”
I don’t believe this is so. Were he smart, he would not have gotten himself into the pickle he is currently in vis a vis Iraq and the counterinsurgency strategy. He is slick but that is a long way from being smart.
Martin Bebow Says:
“What choice do they have?”
To stay home. A big chunk of the left has already had it with the dem congress (for not ending the war). It’s not all republicans pushing their approval ratings down than low (re: there are not enough to do that)… I think they’ll only stick with Obama… if he sticks to their story line. Give up now, all is lost!
Put me in the “Obama will change his position on Iraq” camp. He and the MSM will pivot on a dime – or, maybe more accurately: on a rationalization … which they will flog and flog … until it is common knowledge that Obama’s anti-surge position actually spurred Iraqis to victory … and his “talk to Iran” position actually motivated Mullahs to help Iraqis win against insurgent forces.
Re: Sullivan not understanding military strategy
Most everyone here is familiar with the U.S. military’s love John Boyd’s OODA Loop school of competitive strategy.
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000172.html
neo mentioned the U.S. military’s ability to change strategies when one strategy doesn’t work. This nimbleness if part of OODA. Our military intentionally keeps itself nimble and adaptable and fast. It’s a big part of our strategy.
One thing Rumsfeld did, as Sec Def, was to keep us nimble and able to adapt. Though Rumsfeld did not have the right strategy for victory, he did have us nimbly positioned to act when the right strategy showed it’s head. Rumsfeld’s was a “hold your fire, hold your fire” reign. But, at least he left us with a loaded gun. That is not nothing. We can thank Rumsfeld for that.
All obama has to do is claim that the war aint over till the fat lady sings.
then sit tight.
just maintain that its not over till we can bring our troops home, and sit tight.
if he gets elected, he breaks it and brings them home and he was right, we lost.
if he doesnt get elected its a nothing since he isnt president.
so he can turn a win at the 99th yard with 1st down into a loss if he gets office. unless bush brings the troops home before the next presidency (aint happening), the war aint over and just as we are winning we could be losing again.
he may even tie it into hillary.. the many ups, downs and reversals during the campaign and it wasnt over till it was over.
while it wont cut it with the smarter, the smarters are those tiny tails on the bell curve… the clinkers in the mean will swallow such stuff if they want to.
Obama is smart
I haven’t seen much evidence of that.
Get him away from a teleprompter, and he’s just an Average Joe. Hell, I have a deeper grasp of history, strategy and tactics, and I’m just an arm chair general who never got any where near Columbia or Harvard, let alone attend classes.
And who are his buddies? Rezko. Wright. Ayers. Dornan. Pfleger. And he didn’t have the sense to throw them under the bus long ago.
Apparently, he never heard this Nixonism But will it play in Peoria?
Color me cynical too.
The plain fact that Obama is the least experienced and least accomplished serious candidate in a century hasn’t prevented Obama from the arrogance of running and his followers from the irresponsibility of voting for him.
Then there are all the mental contortions of accepting Obama’s unity talk, while Obama comes from a black power church, allies himself with Weather Underground bombers, and has almost no record of working across the aisle.
Sure, Obama’s ignorance and wrong judgment on the surge are just another couple of impossible things for his followers to believe before breakfast.
Another good article on Obama and his stubborn refusal to acknowledge anything resembling progress in Iraq, let alone real, on-the-ground change, in today’s Wall St. Journal. Written by head of Vets for Freedom (a group who attempts to somewhat fill the vacuum of facts in Iraq created by MSM) — he originally went to Iraq as a soldier, and returned as embedded reporter. Well written & worth reading.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121262094242346677.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Apparently, he never heard this Nixonism But will it play in Peoria?
Back in the day, my uncle told me, it was not uncommon in Peoria to go directly to Midnight Mass right after the Saturday night binge.
Re: Sullivan (or anyone- praising Bush for anything) –also in Wall St. Journal — in Letter to Editor — a letter that excoriates Republicans for their actions over last 7 yrs., HOWEVER, address THE CONGRESS and their huge (nearly complete?) responsibility for failures:
“I believe the last seven years will be looked back on as one of the greatest missed opportunities in our country’s history. I am dumbfounded that they still can’t see their own self-destructiveness and still want to blame their troubles on President Bush and the war…..”
FINALLY, someone who voices what I’ve been thinking for years (though, unlike the writer — a disappointed conservative, I hold Congress members of BOTH parties equally responsible for their nonstop high school games of nonstop obstructionism lest one party or the other be credited for an — ANY — accomplishment much to the detriment of the American people! Congress, particularly the Senate, is broken and no President, no matter how resolute can act unilaterally to change policy without their cooperation. The danger is that Bush-bashing has become viral as the Democratic strategy, with help of MSM, has brainwashed the mainstream population who don’t particularly care to think for themselves. It’s too mush trouble. The brainwashing via nonstop talking points blaming Bush and the War has achieved its objective, and that is great cause for concern. Just as we see the masses rushing to virtually fall at the feet of Obama — with no apparent reason save some accomplished — but empty – oration, and in spite of many reasons which would appall most reasonable (and THINKING) persons, I fear we, as in America, the U.S. of A, are in some serious doo-doo.
Leftists, in my experience of them when I was one of them, typically are least knowledgeable of military affairs. Truly, this is the case. It is a wonder that any of their Communist regimes were ever able to win any battles, let alone any wars. Well, “Western” Leftists, that is. So it is no surprise that Obonga and his fellow Democrats (The Party of Defeat) have no understanding of the metrics of battlespace and counterinsurgency.
Most of these lawyers who are Democrat politicians never studied military doctrine of any kind. And they have no technical aptitude for it. Nor will they take the time to do so, since they generally have a lot of dislike for military men. Military affairs BORE THEM. Part of their reluctance to use the military for what it was built for reflects their own personal squeamishness about things that go boom. Obonga is no exception. I cannot possibly imagine him doing a review of the troops and having an intelligent, informed conversation with commanders. I doubt he’s ever fired a weapon. Probably would not know how to sight in a military assault rifle.
We have an outstanding military, but it serves a country with a population that increasingly is composed of people who have never served in the Armed Forces. The overwhelming majority of our college graduates never served and will never go in and received commissions as officers. Their collegiate environments are stridently hostile towards the United States’ military, while romanticizing the militaries of America’s enemies.
Obonga is not at all out of synch with where the country is heading. HE isn’t the one who scares me: what scares me is what I see coming out of our schools and universities.
Obama’s the quota hire. You dont have to have any significant accomplishments.
test
test 2
I dont get why my one post will not, um, post.
Clinging bitterly to Joseph Lieberman.
OK, I guess the url wont post. See American Thinker: “Obama’s discourtesy to Lieberman”
With a public that is just that dumb, in denial, or in love with emptiness there can only be a bad end to it. And it will be a very bad end, as I do not see Obonga as having the courage to do the right thing. What most consumes him is doing “social justice” and not being a Commander in Chief. So, he will appease international thugs and he will not confront our enemies. The really bad part is what a Democratic Congress will do to the country and what the spate of judicial appointments will do to the nation for decades to come.
Jimmy Carter did enormous harm to the nation, but we had a Ronald Reagan waiting in the wings to capitalize on a growing conservative movement that was nascent in 1976. I don’t see any of that at this time. Granted, four years of what’s coming at us should compel most people to wake up and smell the coffee. We hope.
One final parting comment: what do you all think of Obonga’s adviser on nuclear proliferations, Joe Cirncione, who wants to scrap the missile defense program (right when it is finally succeeding, a fact that Cirincione denies and Obonga seems also in denial of) and begin programs of unilateral disarmament?
By the time these people are swept out of office in 2012 we will have a lot of catching up to do, right when events will be racing out of our control.
The real problem with the surge working is that it eliminates THE issue in the campaign. Obama can not lose the issue, lest he lose what essentially differentiates his platform with 60% of the voting (polling) public. But, given his track record and need for approval from those in uniform, he will paint himself into this corner. This inevitable turn will have the same effect as turning the channel on the cable box for his core base – young, ‘edumacated’ intellectuals (who btw, have all summer to completely reinvent their political views). September will become quite simply quiet on the Obama front. Folks here simply don’t have the attention span to deal with the slow moving nature of international diplomacy. So, what we have here is simply a Mexican stand-off. Obama knows it and will take this time to put his team together and that’s when it will get really interesting. My hunch is there are few true policy heads out there who would jump onto a ship that essentially has absolutely no identifiable course.
i take off the http:// and sometimes that lets it post… also if your html is not complete it wont post.. if i still cant figure it out i cut it into a couple of sectoins.. which narrows the issue down..
at least i am not the only one who had problem posting from time to time.. 🙂
One of the great errors of the last century, was the conflation of the terms “smart” and “wise”.
Many people have been conditioned to think they are the same thing … or that simply going to the “right” schools and thinking like the “right” people osmotically confers wisdom upon them.
Obama may be smart … so was Bill Clinton.
What this nation needs in a President, however, is someone wise.
For all his faults, our current President was wise enough to see that nothing short of decisive confrontation would defeat the enemies that have sprung out of radical Islam … and he acted upon that vision.
History will treat him well for such wisdom.
Now, we have a chance to determine the history of Barack Obama. Which path will he walk?
Carter’s … or McGovern’s?
I sincerely hope it is the latter … and I will do my part to make that happen.
Rich, you are dead spot on and I frankly don’t like much else about Bush.
How about this.
Who cares if you win a war that you had no business running in the first place?
Because for all of the facts that are coming out about how we’re succeeding in Iraq, there are all kinds of other fact that Bush willfully, gleefully and knowingly LIED again and again about everything he did.
With regard to Fred’s last comments: it seems that Obama does not take any positive (as opposed to no) action until he is painted into a corner, as we have seen from the various stages of the Rev. Wright/Trinity Church saga — which may or may not be over as I have heard that Wright re-emerged today, but have not yet followed up on the facts. Obama refused to do anything until basically the exposure of Wright’s antics and racist preaching reached crisis proportions in the news cycles.
First, Obama never even heard any of Wright’s inflammatory comments.
Though his followers defend him by referring to one of the “greatest speeches on racism in American history,” ahem…..Obama did nothing — until he was painted into the corner by his own words identifying Wright as his mentor and spiritual advisor.
Of course, when Wright, himself cornered Obama by directly attacking him (in addition to the other ridiculous “stuff” articulated over that now infamous National Press Club weekend of Wright speeches) Obama tried to divorce himself from Wright.
Last weekend, Father Pfleger and his disgusting performance — along with the clear pleasure and affirmation of the congregation members — finally forced Obama to separate from Trinity Church — as if such action now, erases the his allegiance to said Church and its teachings and beliefs.
How many people even understand what Black Liberation theology is really about, what it preaches about black people vs. white people (and make no mistake — it is about conflict and separation of blacks and whites, in addition to the unending oppression of blacks, a G-d who is black and therefore necessarily understands the suffering of blacks, etc.? Religion is simply used as a conveyance for these political views. Black Liberalism also presumes that white people necessarily presume superiority over black people, but cites that black people CANNOT be racists, because they do not consider themselves superior.
This is the philosophy that the Obama family subscribed to for 20 years, including inculcating their children thusly, and various pronouncements and writings of Michelle Obama affirm it.
But it became politically inconvenient.
The truth on the ground in Iraq is inconvenient politically.
As is meeting with Gen’l Petraeus and realizing what a free and Democratic Iraq, alongside a Democratic Afghanistan, etc. means to the Middle East and the rest of the world.
The fact is, much attention has been given to Barack Obama’s oratory skills, but very little, if any, consideration of how he thinks, his powers of analysis, his ability to lead (those who attribute the unbelievable success of his campaign ignore the fact that it is run by very highly paid political specialists hired by Obama’s financial backers and any praise is due to them — NOT Obama. Obama just goes out and “performs.”)
That last fact — Obama as performer — is what really scares me, because I’m not all that sure he is really running the show. I have a feeling he was picked, prettied, primped, and put out to perform – as directed….by whom? (Soros? et al.?) And amazingly, there are so many people in this country do not question anything about this man — he went to Harvard grad school, thus he’s smart. And……..????
And not much more! A completely empty lack of accomplishments save for acquiring a multi-million dollar house (thru a slick deal with the now-convicted Reczko) and writing a book which brought in several million dollars. (This the guy who preached to Wesleyan students last week that they shouldn’t seek success for themselves — the fine suits (like his?), million dollar homes (like his?), the big salaries (like his wife’s?) — but instead should go out and do for the poor and unfortunate.
By the way, has anyone ever enlightened Obama about the fact that there are white people, and those of many ethnic backgrounds besides African-American that are poor and unfortunate.
Oh, I know I have veered considerably off subject — but when I start thinking of Obama and the number of fellow citizens who are unquestioning, incurious, and in denial of facts on the ground in Chicago and elsewhere!
Thanks for the advice Art. Lets see if this works:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_discourtesy_to_lieberma.html
Rich — yes, well said. In my previously overly-long post (sorry folks) I alluded to the fact that Obama may be a smart guy — but so what. The ability to synthesize information, analyze, and use the resulting vision — both immediate, and often, more importantly, longterm — for action that is in the interest of our country are requirements for the Presidency.
As is the ability to identify and recruit others who are among the best and the brightest to counsel and advise — which brings us to just some of the reasons experience, history of participation and concrete accomplishments matter.
Considering how a lot of the recent Democratic primaries went, I am not so sure people are all that in love with Obama. They are just stuck with him now.
Harry:
Here’s how to do links like that. Hope that helps.
Clinging bitterly to Joesph Lieberman
[from neoneocon: I edited this to see if I could make it work. For some reason, there was a “no follow” phrase added to the link when you did it. It seems to have worked this time once I eliminated that.]
Close, but no cigar.
Thanks anyway Neo. I’ll try to figure it out later.
Terrye — The Democrats who love Obama definitely love him. However, you’re right that it was the most unimpressive primary victory I can recall. Obama held a steady sliver of a lead and ran the clock out, while Hillary was clobbering him by 30 and 40 points in the states that favored her.
Had the Wright scandal emerged earlier or Hillary hit on a better strategy earlier, or had there been no caucauses in the Dem primary system, it’s more than likely that Obama would have lost.
Unfortunately, the electoral tea leaves favor a Democrat–any Democrat–winning this year.
Rich Casebolt Says:
“One of the great errors of the last century, was the conflation of the terms “smart” and “wise”.”
Or smart and intelligent.
There is reason so many insults contain the word smart…
Again, you’re right, Neo, that Obama was wrong about the surge. But then again so were a lot of people, including Clinton and most other Democrats, as well as many Republicans. However, your post is quite strange, as the central logic of the argument seems to be “because military people argued in favor of the surge, they must have known what they were doing, and it’s ludicrous for Sullivan to say the metrics were not in favor of the surge.” Since when were “military people” omniscient? For any strategy, some military people can be found on either side of the issue. The “military” also supported the strategy and tactics in the first part of this war, which have been shown to be abysmal failures.
If the metric for evaluating the judgement of a person is how often their predictions turn out to be correct, you’d have to admit that the Bush Administration has one of the worst track records ever. There are huge reams of predictions they’ve made which have turned out to be not only false but incredibly wrong by orders of magnitude: on how long the war would last, how much it would cost, how many lives it would take, and on and on. If you were to keep score on that point you’d have to say the Bush Administration and the neocons who conceived of this war have among the worst track records ever.
What Sullivan meant by the “metrics” is simply that we had troop levels at the same level they are at now, before, and violence was still quite high in Iraq. The improvement in Iraq is not due simply to increases in troop levels. It’s due to far more intelligent allocation of forces in Iraq, new tactics on the ground, etc. It’s due to Rumsfeld and his cronies out of power, and Gates and Petraeus in. It’s due, to a large extent, to Iraqis realizing they’d better get their own house in order because we’re going to leave, most likely, and they’d better hurry up and do it themselves.
As I’ve said numerous times, I supported the surge though I support Obama, I recognize he was wrong on the surge, but the surge doesn’t make the Iraq policy right. It was a gargantuan mistake from the beginning, Obama was right about that, and he continues to be right about it. Obama’s mistake on the surge is hardly indicative of a general lack of judgement — that I would reserve for the huge slew of gigantic mistakes that the neocons made, time and again. Everyone is entitled to make a few mistakes — the question is, how many, and how consistently, and do they admit their mistakes when they’ve made them? I have to say that neocons, on the whole, haven’t been that great about admitting their mistakes.
Improvement in Iraq still leaves us with: high levels of violence despite improvement, an overstrained military, an incredibly high cost, mounting budget deficits, a resurgent bin Laden in Pakistan, and a hugely damaged reputation around the world.
There are huge reams of predictions they’ve made which have turned out to be not only false but incredibly wrong by orders of magnitude: on how long the war would last, how much it would cost, how many lives it would take, and on and on.
MItsu — A ream is 500 reams of paper. I’m not sure what a “huge ream” might be, but are you really saying that you can cite a thousand pages or so of false predictions? I note that you do not cite a single specific example, much less a page of them or much less a thousand pages of them. This sounds like the usual hysterical denunciations of Bush and the war, rather than reasoned argument.
Your post is almost entirely unsupported assertions and hyperbolic language.
Whether the Iraq War was the correct course or not strikes me as a decision for history to make. Most people I know who support it don’t claim omniscience, just that it seemed the least worst of bad alternatives when weighed against the many complexities of world events, and, as wars go, it hasn’t gone badly in terms of lives, costs, and mistakes. I understand you see it differently.
Dang! I wish there were a preview button.
A ream is 500 sheets of paper.
The list of false predictions made by neocons and Administration hawks are so well-known by now I’d have thought everyone was aware of them; from Rumsfeld’s prediction the war would last weeks to Wolfowitz predicting the costs of reconstruction would be paid for by oil revenues to Budget Director Mitch Daniels estimating the cost of the war at $50-$60 billion (a tiny fraction of the actual cost), to Cheney’s well known “last throes” remark, and on and on. An article by the Cato Institute (hardly a liberal organization, though they’ve been staunchly, and I believe correctly, anti-war from the start):
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2621
Another:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-31-then-and-now-usat_x.htm
I believe this administration has been reluctant to admit any mistakes.
Do I need to back that up or is anyone here capable of having a memory? But that’s okay, hypocritical double standards pass for good judgment here I guess.
If Obama isn’t well informed on the war, then he would probably be one of the few in Congress who can’t read. Or perhaps he is becoming senile before 50? I guess age does matter, huh. Isn’t neo 50?
What’s more likely, is, he isn’t running for the GOP spot.
What is the height of hilarity is even the suggestion that neo can be more informed than one of the presidential candidates
One reason for not admitting mistakes is that it’s not always clear whether a given action will turn out to have been a mistake or to have been foresight.
There was a one-eyed chess master whose name I never quite get right (Tarktower?). On one occasion, he won a game in a match after ‘overlooking’ a winning move. For over twenty years, people discussed the blunder. Then someone, someone, saw that the move was not an opportunity but a trap. Had the master taken it, he would have been defeated in about a dozen moves. His one eye had seen more clearly than his critics’ two.
The difference between life and chess is that in chess there is perfect knowledge of the board; complexity alone keeps you from knowledge of perfect play. In life you never quite know the extent of the chessboard.
I love how Democrats complain about the budget…. Obama’s gonna fix it! Yeah! He’s going to raise every one’s taxes.. he’s going to create brand new spending programs.. he’s going to solve world poverty!
By the time the Dems are done, we’ll all be equally poor! Marxist dream!
Hey, has anyone heard any new chatter about this??
Michelle Obama “Whitey” Video
http://garlinggauge.com/2008/05/19/gop-rumor-michelle-obama-whitey-video-lurks/
Mitsu… your confusion assertions with predictions…
meanwhile, what your asking for is for your politicoes to be able to tell the future!
think about it… since you use “prediction” rather than assertions, estimate, etc..
your twising it into something its not. unless you think your politicians should be oracles.
pre·dic·tion – an instance of this; prophecy.
clearly the left wishes their politcoes not to have reasoned statements in context, but that they should be the oracle.
your so used to the left making blind assertions and not checking on them while they spin a failure into a seemnig win… that you think that they are oracular…
sorry… i prefer my politicians not using tarot cards, crystal balls, astrology (too many do this), and otehr mystical things to make it appear that they are predicting 100%
its a sick game if you dont notice it… its not valid.
Neomythus:
I wouldn’t put too much stock in that rumor.
I googled for it, and found this by Michelle Malkin:
‘Where is the purported Michelle Obama “whitey” video?’
http://www.michellemalkin.com/2008/06/03/where-is-the-purported-michelle-obama-whitey-video/
As she is fairly right-wing conservative, I don’t think she would hesitate to pounce upon it if she though anything was there. Apparently, she doen’t.
Quotes:
“Many readers are wondering why I have not written a single word about the rumored Michelle Obama “whitey” video.
Simple: Larry Johnson, the main source of the rumors, is not, not, not to be trusted.”
…
“First, the rumor-mongers claimed, the “bombshell” would be released on Monday. Then it was yesterday. Now, it’s tomorrow.
So, where’s the stupid tape? Maybe The Spitter should check Al Capone’s vault again:”
…
“To all of you who keep bugging me about this subject, please stop sending me e-mail. Until and unless anyone actually produces a video, I’m not going to mention it again.”
As mentioned early in these comments, I believe:
1) most registered Dems (36%+) will vote Obama no matter what position he takes on Iraq, now
2) Obama’s ability to talk will allow him to change his position without quite admitting he’s wrong, but he might also clearly say he was mistaken because of the unreliability of Bush.
3) Whatever spin Obama gives, the media will attempt to amplify it.
4) McCain needs to remind voters that he was both correct, AND in favor of freedom for Iraqis, not Killing Fields.
Because for all of the facts that are coming out about how we’re succeeding in Iraq, there are all kinds of other fact that Bush willfully, gleefully and knowingly LIED again and again about everything he did.
If the commentor would provide some links to some lies as quoted by Bush perhaps we could all become as upset as the commentor.
No quotes allowed unless they can be checked — For instance there’s probably transcripts of ALL of Bush’s speeches and pronouncements on the internet. Bush’s UN speech is definitely on the internet. You would probably find all of these at the Whitehouse site. Read some of these, find the lies and link to them here. Ditto Cheney or whoever else you have in mind.
I’m afraid I have to eliminate hearsay, you know, the tactic of quoting those who SAY they ‘overheard’ “somebody” say so and so. And no quotes from ‘unnamed sources,’ as in, An unnamed source in the Whitehouse said today that President Bush was quite upset about the price of tea in China. Column writers make this crap up wholesale, so THAT’S out. If a newspaper article doesn’t name sources — that’s BY NAME — not as in, After the meeting adjourned one of the participants said that during the meeting President Bush demanded that congress should immediately declare war on Liechtenstein, then it can’t be used since there’s no name given, just a claim by the writer that “one of the participants” said Bush said something.
OK? Got it straight? To reiterate: Original sources, linked to the transcripts which have the ACTUAL words from the original speaker(Bush?) so we can all check for ourselves whether the quote is valid.
The list of false predictions made by neocons and Administration hawks are so well-known by now I’d have thought everyone was aware of them …
Add their names to just about every administration has had to conduct a war. What about the predictions from the anti-war side? That the war was not winnable, that the enemy was invincible, that the Iraqis were culturally incapable of embracing a representative government, that the nascent Iraqi government was incapable of meeting any of the Benchmarks.
I believe this administration has been reluctant to admit any mistakes.
The anti-war crowd engages in constant orgies of breast beating so it is only natural that they question it when others do not, as with the rather plaintive assertion above. Furthermore, I suspect a simple acknowledgement of mistakes would never be enough for the anti-war crowd. What they really desire is a wallowing in manufactured guilt.
But the simple answer is that while ALL wars involve mistakes it is not very leader-like to dwell on them. Did Roosevelt acknowledge his mistakes? Did Truman? Lincoln? Perhaps later, in memoirs for some, but a true leader rarely beats his breast in public.
Pingback:The Thunder Run
I wish Mitsu to explain why Iraq is/was a “gargantuan mistake” from a prospective, pre-invasion viewpoint devoid of the benefit of retrospection. Tell me why, Mitsu, it is a mistake to carve out a territory where an American force will hang out in proximity to the anti-US, terrorsponsoring states and the oil we all must have.
Logern-
Leaders do not publicly admit mistakes. They say things like “The man who just got convicted is not the man I knew” or “I could no more disown him than I could my grandmother.” Or have his wife say, “You know, this really isn’t doing my children any good.” That’ the way a real leader handles mistakes.
On a more serious note, we had three choices at the end of 2006-continue the Rumsfeld policy that was not pacifiying Iraq; implement a new policy (the Surge) to try to pacify Iraq; or withdraw and let Iraq become a humanitarian crisis (the New York Times was ok with the genocide that most predicted would occur).
Few advocated the Rumsfeld policy. McCain backed the Surge. Obama supported withdrawal.
Here is the great irony: Withdrawal is a washing of the hands; it is isolationist; it is is the Rumsfeld strategy taken to the nth degree. It is everything Obama accuses Bush of being.
The Surge is engaged; it is talking to our enemies (like the 1920’s brigade) WHO WERE KILLING OUR TROOPS and then working with them to defeat AQ in the short term and build trust over the longer term. It is being a neutral arbitrator until the mechanisms are in place to allow the Iraqis to work out their problems.
As a result, the Surge has reduced violence more quickly than anybody expected. Maliki is acting independently to reduce JAM and Iran’s influence and probably doing a better job at it than we could do. Thanks to the Surge (and a lot of other factors, but the Surge was America’s part) Iraq is becoming a functional state. Obama’s recommendation would have left Iraq looking like Somalia-in the best case.
Leadership is having a clear vision of what you wish to accomplish and trying solutions until you reach that goal. Bush’s vision is to create a peaceful and representative Iraq and has forged a strategy that is making progress toward that goal; in contrast, Obama’s vision is withdrawal, and every event is a justification to support that. Whose vision is more aligned with America’s ideals?
Whenever I read the bleatings from Leftists about war mistakes I have to suppress hearty laughter. Let’s see, here is just a brief survey of Leftist military mistakes that they are too embarrassed to admit to:
1. Human wave assaults upon deep German defensive lines as the Soviet armies slowly ground towards the Third Reich. Horrific casualties sustained by the Soviets Were such tactics necessary? The Germans rarely used them. So much for socialist progress…
2. In Korea also, Communist human wave attacks upon U.N. forces, with awesome casualties sustained by the Communists. While U.S. and U.N. forces take dramatically fewer casualties and withdraw in generally good order to better defensive positions.
3. In the Republic of Vietnam… similar tactics used against U.S. and ARVN forces. In battle after battle, engagement after engagement, campaign after campaign, horrific casualties suffered by the North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong.
These are just a few examples of the kinds of tactical errors which Leftist forces make in warfare. To them, human life is cheap. “You assault that machine gun nest, comrade, while I hold this pistol at your back just in case you duck for cover.” The waste of human life, not only in warfare, by the socialist movements and forces of history is horrific.
And the Left has the temerity to criticize the battle tactics of our armed forces? LMAO! And they cannot name any metrics which prove we are losing in Iraq. LOL! Just a bunch of chumps swilling the ideological fervor of Che T-shirt wearing nutcases. These people would not know how to sight in a rifle, let along where the safety on the weapon is.
Israel / Iran: If Israel follows through with their threat, Obama is going to sprint to the center and, poof, the Iraq issue goes out the window. Given his polyana pandering at AIPAC, he will be cornered with the big boys and will simply look, well, not Presidential. The problem with populism is that they are all short term unhedged with the longer term issues. My hunch is the RNC’s strategy all along has been to let the global landscape define the contest. The Obama camp’s prowess to date has been either avoiding the issues outright or defining and capturing them. He can’t control international. Mother, may I have some jam with that toast?
Mitsu — Sure, the Bush administration was mistaken in some of its predictions about the war but that hardly constitutes the “huge reams” and “huge slews of gigantic mistakes” you claimed earlier with absolute certainty.
The two links you provide are short and make a limited number of points, some of which are quite disputable. For instance, the Cato article (2004) makes the point that if the Kurds are left out, Iraqis are about evenly divided on whether the war was a “liberation” or a “humiliation”. Considering that the Kurds overwhelmingly supported the US invasion and have benefited the most from it, that’s a silly and manipulative argument that masks the remarkable fact that the majority of Iraqis (55-65%) have consistently supported the invasion of their own country (see http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2006/09/no-nonsense-overview-of-public-opinion.html for a more recent example).
No, not all Iraqis welcomed our forces as liberators, but some did, and the majority of Iraqis continue to believe that the invasion was worth it in spite of everything–a fact that most anti-war advocates have gotten wrong from day one.
The USA Today article you link is even shorter and was written during the invasion when progress was held up for a week and various media like USA Today were shouting “Quagmire!” little realizing that a week later Saddam would be deposed–faster than even the Bush administration predicted.
Like all large wars, the Iraq War is a mixed bag and its mistakes can and will be argued for years to come. I suspect you opposed the Iraq War from the beginning before any “mistakes” were made. My point, however, is that you often confuse your convictions for truth, particularly noticeable in the hyperbolic, black-and-white language you frequently employ. The Iraq War debate is not that simple.
The list of false predictions made by neocons and Administration hawks are so well-known by now I’d have thought everyone was aware of them;
Only the Blind and Deaf, there are some in this category
No, not all Iraqis welcomed our forces as liberators,
after more than five yeras Amrican pollshowing
70% against the run to the war
80% The invasion of Iraq was wrong
You can’t trust American polling. They only call people with land-lines during the day.
This means the peolpe who answer them are at home during the day, answering on a land-line.
I leave it to everyone to conclude who it is that this population represents.
DC Awakening