Excerpts published 02/09/2007


"..Words. We had weeks of debates in the Senate about Iraq. They
eventually went nowhere, being shut down (temporarily) by partisan
procedural disputes. But they were going nowhere anyway. The debates
were not about real fighting in a real place. They were about how the
various senators would position themselves in relation to that real
fighting in that real place. At issue? With what tone and nuance and
addenda to express disapproval of a troop surge that the president was
going to order anyway.

When it came to doing something serious about the surge, the Senate
ducked. It unanimously (81-0) approved sending Gen. David H. Petraeus
to Baghdad to do the surge -- precisely what a majority of the
senators said they did not want done.

If you really oppose the surge, how could you not oppose the
appointment of the man whose very mission is to carry it out? Yet not
one senator did so. Instead, they spent days fine-tuning the wording
of a nonbinding, i.e. entirely toothless, expression of disapproval.

A serious legislative body would not be arguing over degrees of
disapproval anyway, but about the elements of three or four alternate
plans that might actually change our course in Iraq, something they
all say they desire. But instead of making a contribution to thinking
through how the war should be either prosecuted or liquidated, they
negotiate language that provides precisely the amount of distancing a
senator might need as political insulation should the surge either
succeed or fail...."


February 9, 2007 -- by Amir Taheri

" IN civilian clothes, Lt. General David Petraeus, the newly appointed
Commander of the U.S. forces in Iraq, looks more like an academic
discussing an intellectual topic rather than a war leader preparing
for battle.....Petraeus arrives on the scene at a time when both the
insurgency and the Shiite militias are facing major problems.,,,,,,,,
Nevertheless, Petraeus still faces a number of major problems - the
most important one being uncertainty in Washington.

There is little doubt that many elements within America's political
elite want the United States to fail, for a variety of motives. At
least some of those elements would do all they can, short of being
charged with unpatriotic behavior, to ensure that the outcome of the
war in Iraq is seen as a defeat for the United States - even if it is
not so in reality.

Portraying Iraq as a failure isn't hard. To pronounce Petraeus'
mission a failure, all that defeat-mongers in Washington need is one
car bomb a day and one suicide attack a week.

Uncertainty in Washington will encourage the Iraqi protagonists to
hedge their bets, rather than throw all their weight behind Petraeus'
mission. In any war, people rally to the side that is perceived to
have the highest threshold of pain, and is likely to stay the course
the longest.

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says that she does not consider Iraq
to be "a war to win, but a situation to manage," Iraqis otherwise
likely to side with Petraeus will think twice. All this past week, the
discussion in Baghdad teahouses centered on a mystery: How could so
many senators declare support for U.S. troops in Iraq while pressing
for a resolution to oppose their mission?

The one factor that can ensure Petraeus success is the perception that
the United States is united in its commitment to the new Iraq that
America has helped create from the ruins of the Saddamite tyranny.

The insurgents, the al Qaeda terrorists and the Shiite militias know
that they can't win in military terms. What they hope for is to win
politically - that is to say, ensuring defeat and humiliation for the
United States.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's chief theoretician, has repeatedly said
that the key aim of his so-called jihad in Iraq is to force the
Americans to run away, as the Soviets did from Afghanistan in 1989.

The reference to Afghanistan is interesting. The "Arab Afghans," of
which al Qaeda is the most notorious group, played no more than a
cameo role in driving the Soviets out. And the Taliban - a group
created by Pakistan five years after the Soviet departure - never
fought the Communists.

The Communist regime in Kabul was overthrown by an alliance of a Tajik
guerrilla army (led by Ahmad Shah Massoud) and a Communist militia -
whose leader, the Uzbek Abdul-Rashid Dostum, had decided to switch
sides. Years later, Dostum told me that he decided to switch when his
Moscow "contacts" told him that the new Soviet elite under Mikhail
Gorbachev was no longer interested in Afghanistan's fate.

With help from Pakistan's military, the Taliban and al Qaeda seized
power in Kabul four years after the communist regime fell. Yet, for
decades, jihadists of all ilks have claimed that they liberated
Afghanistan and destroyed the Soviet empire.

The Iraqi version of the Taliban, plus al Qaeda and Shiite mischief-
makers, can't win a military victory in Iraq just as their
counterparts in Afghanistan failed to achieve victory.

With a combination of intelligence, patience and determination,
Petraeus can win in Baghdad.

The battleground where his chances do not appear as good is
Washington. The United States today has become home to a veritable
industry of defeat - producing books, TV documentaries, research
papers, intelligence analyses and feature movies destined for a
growing market. Almost every day, some article assuming that the
United States has already been defeated in Iraq, and recommendmeasures
to deal with the consequences of defeat. And when the United States
does something, it does it Big: The defeat industry is assuming a
bewildering scale.

The citizen-soldier Petraeus is certain to win in Baghdad - just as
Gens. Tommy Frank, Rick Sanchez and Casey did in different contexts.
But will Washington allow his win to be recognized as victory?"

Amir Taheri is an Iranian-born journalist and author based in Europe.

"PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ups.com...
(snipped)

>....The United States today has become home to a veritable
> industry of defeat - producing books, TV documentaries, research
> papers, intelligence analyses and feature movies destined for a
> growing market. Almost every day, some article assuming that the
> United States has already been defeated in Iraq, and recommendmeasures
> to deal with the consequences of defeat. And when the United States
> does something, it does it Big: The defeat industry is assuming a
> bewildering scale.
>

The result of 1960s Lennonism. Rock-n- Rollers never grown up. America
needs a catastrophic civil war to eliniate that mentality.

Lennonism is incurable and gets worse with more diversionary electronic
gadgets.

"PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ups.com...
> Excerpts published 02/09/2007
>
>
> "..Words. We had weeks of debates in the Senate about Iraq. They
> eventually went nowhere, being shut down (temporarily) by partisan
> procedural disputes. But they were going nowhere anyway. The debates
> were not about real fighting in a real place. They were about how the
> various senators would position themselves in relation to that real
> fighting in that real place. At issue? With what tone and nuance and
> addenda to express disapproval of a troop surge that the president was
> going to order anyway.
>
> When it came to doing something serious about the surge, the Senate
> ducked. It unanimously (81-0) approved sending Gen. David H. Petraeus
> to Baghdad to do the surge -- precisely what a majority of the
> senators said they did not want done.
>
> If you really oppose the surge, how could you not oppose the
> appointment of the man whose very mission is to carry it out? Yet not
> one senator did so. Instead, they spent days fine-tuning the wording
> of a nonbinding, i.e. entirely toothless, expression of disapproval.

If the Democrats actually blocked Bushs esculation of the violence in Iraq,
they would be forever accused of 'standing in the way of victory'. But this
way, they can just let Bush dig himself into an even deaper hole and fovever
let history judge Bush and the Republicans and being soley responsible for
the Iraq disaster.

Let is be knownst that on Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:25:09 GMT, "Denz"
<[email protected]> writted:

>
>"PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected] oups.com...
>> Excerpts published 02/09/2007
>>
>>
>> "..Words. We had weeks of debates in the Senate about Iraq. They
>> eventually went nowhere, being shut down (temporarily) by partisan
>> procedural disputes. But they were going nowhere anyway. The debates
>> were not about real fighting in a real place. They were about how the
>> various senators would position themselves in relation to that real
>> fighting in that real place. At issue? With what tone and nuance and
>> addenda to express disapproval of a troop surge that the president was
>> going to order anyway.
>>
>> When it came to doing something serious about the surge, the Senate
>> ducked. It unanimously (81-0) approved sending Gen. David H. Petraeus
>> to Baghdad to do the surge -- precisely what a majority of the
>> senators said they did not want done.
>>
>> If you really oppose the surge, how could you not oppose the
>> appointment of the man whose very mission is to carry it out? Yet not
>> one senator did so. Instead, they spent days fine-tuning the wording
>> of a nonbinding, i.e. entirely toothless, expression of disapproval.
>
>If the Democrats actually blocked Bushs esculation of the violence in Iraq,
>they would be forever accused of 'standing in the way of victory'. But this
>way, they can just let Bush dig himself into an even deaper hole and fovever
>let history judge Bush and the Republicans and being soley responsible for
>the Iraq disaster.

Don't you think they have already though of that?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--