Amen!
How shallow and selfish can a politician or pundit get, than to put other people's lives at risk for a photo op and political BS. If that's not impeachable, use of tax payer's money for personal/political gain, what else is?
I know let's start with the Commander-in-Cheep, who has made a career of putting the military at risk to cover his a.....

Amen!
How could a righteous commander in the field put his men at risk for such tripe?

How much did this photo op cost us anyway?

If this is your point of view, then you might want to look into the list of people who have visited Iraq and required security details. Are you willing to say the same thing about them all that you have said about McCain?

Mike7,

You discount what McCain has been up to lo these last 18 months.

In his quest for the Presidency he's done a 180 from the guy who ran The Straight Talk Express going so far as to kiss the asses of the two people he disdained most for a few years, Bush and Falwell. Instead of McCain the maverick, he's become McCain the panderer.

He's backpedaling from the comments he made recently on a conservative talk radio show where he exaggerated the change in Iraq since the surge. I think his backpeddaling is due to his interview on CNN where he repeated his exaggeration to Blitzer, who then interviewed Michael Ware, a correspondent who's been in IRaq for 4 years. Ware all but called McCain delusional. He has thoroughly demeaned himself to most rational people who can see right through his new face.

I see a guy who's desire to be President is stronger than the value he has on his reputation, an older guy who knows that due to his age, this is his last chance for his Holy Grail.

I'm sorry, I can't agree with you that McCain's trip to Iraq is altruistic as I see it as just another attempt to pave the road to the White House.

As to comparing McCain to others who have visited Iraq and had a security detail; these "others" weren't running for President and trying to repair a recent faux pas on the safety of Iraq since the surge, which he supported.

On April 2, 2007 - 7:55pm CVille Dem said:

OK, on to Fred Thompson! I heard Buchanan saying he was really tough because of his role in "Hunt for Red October." This may get traction with the mentally challenged, but I hope we are ready for it:

Buchanan the chicken hawk thinks movies are real. If we follow Bushanan's logic we should elect Sean Connery who stole the submarine..

Jan, can I have Sophia Loren? :-)

Well here's a good start:

I agree that photo-ops and political junkets are wrongful BS.

U.S. military resources are devoted to making propaganda.

...the US press does CAN and DOES affect the troops' morale while they fight in foreign lands.

OGD, You have once again, hit the nail on the head~! I got distracted, but you have brought this back where it belongs. Thanks!

Jan Knaus

I still think McCain is a war criminal from the Vietnam War, but that's of course so 1970s. He was shot down over the capital city of a sovereign nation while attempting to drop bombs on it. I have been to the neighborhood. That sovereign nation was attacked electively by . . . oh, hell, the deja vu is coming on strong again tonight. But I am so sick of the American fetish for military tough guys & the general hagiography of soldiers that has allowed a third-rate intelligence like McCain to make it as far as a safe seat in the US Senate. It's shameful.

You all misinterpreted the purpose of McCain's Baghdad visit.

It is his lifelong goal to stay in a Hilton hotel in every country where the US loses a war.

McCain's campaign is bombing, and he's doing everything imaginable to pander to the crazy wing of his party in an attempt to save that campaign. I wouldn't be surprised if we see another thing like this before he goes out in a blaze of ignominy. The real joke here is on the punditry, which spent years and years letting McCain's ass use their lips as toilet paper. And now the Great Man turns out to be a pandering, half crazy fraud. It couldn't have happened to a nicer, more honest group of people than our media, who, however, will doubtless quickly wipe McCain's shit off their lips, and find someone else to clean up after. If I were Fred Thompson, I wouldn't budget a lot of money for toilet paper in the next few months.

Crooked cops, crooked lawyers, crooked judges, crooked politicians, crooked doctors, crooked scientists, crooked clergymen -- but no crooked journalists. An amazing record for an amazing class of people.

Hilary visited Iraq, and you might say it was as a US Senator, however, how would anyone believe that was exclusive of presidential ambition?

Are you saying that no one else in today's presidential field has toured Iraq while harboring the presidential ambition?

Your premise also seems to assume that because a person is running for president, his/her motives of doing anything during the campaign cannot be altruistic. However, I'd expect a war vet from a war which disastrously impacted so many to have a better chance at altruism than a counterpart who dodged duty and then desired to be CINC.

I can't see inside McCain's soul, can you?

It's just that everyone is running on the blood, sweat and tears of US troops. One way or another, it is an indelible issue in this presidential campaign. Everyone is invoking the troops blood, sweat and tears. But who among the politicians other than folks like Buchanan and Kucinich stood tall vs. Iraqi 'freedom'?

McCain is one of many people who want to be the President. Whose motives can you feel in their heart with your mind?

Calling the observation that biased reporting causes grief for US troops (whether false optimism through FOX or excessive uni-pessimism through the plurality of other press outlets) a "meme" is unsupported. Propaganda barrages on either side of this partisan split-personality state that America has become would not be commenced if it was not expected that they would benefit the partisans lobbing them.

Where is the unified, bipartisan sacrifice that sets an achievable, intelligent objective that is in the troops' control (not the Iraqi insurgents or anyone else's control) to achieve and get out? Where is that specific plan? Why are we so busy attacking McCain or Hillary or Bush or Giuliani or Obama or whomever? They're not the point yet. The point is: how are we going to get the troops out in the safest, most secure and salvagable way? That is my point.

If you think McCain is crazy, then I'll bet you that you can make an issue of it. The candidate for President must be mentally competent to be able to knowingly take the oath of office. So push that issue for real if that's your point. Otherwise, I think it is valuable to consider what he is up to.

McCain's capitulation to GOP power brokers, at least by appearances, is the action of a person who sees partisan affiliation as the only possibility. Otherwise, he's running on a Ross Perot ticket without the bucks. Call him what you want, but doubting his altruism seems to be a partisan pot calling the kettle black where the critics themselves support a different partisan.

I don't know it all about Obama, and don't agree with all of his opinions, but I have to say, I am impressed with him as a democratic nominee, and I think he can win. He needs to stick to his guns and draw people together among the parties. The other candidates would do very well to study his apparent direction in leadership and follow it.

The other very impressive person is Dennis Kucinich. He's a straight talker, and thinker. I liked the way he engaged one of the partisan talking heads the other week.

Oh well, anytime there really is straight talk from a candidate, how often does she/he win? It's like a lunar eclipse.

I don't think he is crazy; he is past his prime, and his judgement is terrible. He is done (thank heavens).

Jan, I think you are ruling out crazy too fast. :-) I can't think of anything he has said or done on the campaign trail, or in Congress lately, for that matter, that isn't stark, raving-mad crazy.

Wasn't his last non-crazy act the attempt to stop torture? But he even blew that when he didn't object to Bush's signing statement on the actual bill. I think he's crazy.

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell

The time of the announcement is academic if it's made. Such decisions aren't made on a lark.

So are you going to be just as critical, or just say you would be? Name those candidates who have made the tour and had the photos made. You say you're going to carry the equal criticism banner, so do it.

The other very impressive person is Dennis Kucinich.

Mike, Kucinich is impressive. Check out these excerpts of his key issues in his opposition to the AUMF given to Bush on Oct 2, 2002. The italics are from the AUMF Resolution and the key issues in bold are Kucinich's findings:

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Key issue: The Iraqi regime has never attacked nor does it have the capability to attack the United States. The "no fly" zone was not the result of a UN Security Council directive. It was illegally imposed by the United States, Great Britain and France and is not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Key issue: There is no credible intelligence that connects Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to participation in those events by assisting Al Qaida.

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Key issue: Any connection between Iraq support of terrorist groups in Middle East, is an argument for focusing great resources on resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. It is not sufficient reason for the U.S. to launch a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq.

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Key issue: There is no connection between Iraq and the events of 9/11.

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Key issue: There is no credible evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq has successfully concealed the production of such weapons since 1998, there is no credible evidence that Iraq has the capability to reach the United States with such weapons. In the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq had a demonstrated capability of biological and chemical weapons, but did not have the willingness to use them against the United States Armed Forces. Congress has not been provided with any credible information, which proves that Iraq has provided international terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Key issue: The UN Charter forbids all member nations, including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN resolutions.

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Key issue: The UN Charter forbids all member nations, including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN resolutions with military force.

(From the House Congressional Record, Nov. 18, 2005)

And you are right about Kucinich's chances and a solar/lunar eclipse.

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell

it could be that he is trying to make statements that create a reality of expected success rather than those that create an expectation of failure with respect to the orders the troops are carrying out right now on the ground

That's what "flowers and chocolate" was about.

That's what "mission accomplished" was about.

How about leaders that tell the truth, instead of "creating a reality of expected success"? 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

C'mon give McCain a break.

He's not used to being right down there among the ahem natives. He's more comfortable looking at them through a bombsight.

On April 2, 2007 - 11:18pm Mike7Woodson said:

Hilary visited Iraq, and you might say it was as a US Senator, however, how would anyone believe that was exclusive of presidential ambition?

I see McCain's recent visit to IRAQ as his attempt to repair the damage he did when he made public his opinion stating how safe Iraq was. This was made obvious by what he did while there, visited an outdoor market. Film at 11:00.

Hillary's visits to IRAQ are part of her Presidential aspirations, and a way to ameliorate her vote on the resolution that got us there. Has she been there recently?

Are you saying that no one else in today's presidential field has toured Iraq while harboring the presidential ambition?

No, I'm not saying that; what I'm saying is, no Presidential aspirant recently made an ass of themselves by telling conservative radio audiences and Wolf Blitzer of CNN how safe Iraq is, and who may have discovered a need to go to IRAQ to repair the damage those comments caused.

Your premise also seems to assume that because a person is running for president, his/her motives of doing anything during the campaign cannot be altruistic

Nonsense, what I'm saying is after seeing how McCain has flipped flopped on so many issues since he decided to run for President again, leaving behind his Straight Talk Express etc., ass kissing the Falwells and Bush types who he used to criticize, I'm skeptical of his motives.

However, I'd expect a war vet from a war which disastrously impacted so many to have a better chance at altruism than a counterpart who dodged duty and then desired to be CINC.

Where is the altruism in his continually supporting an unjustified war and his continuing to support arguably the most incompetent/dishonest administration in our history?

And who is the "counterpart" you refer to?

By the way, the news of the day is how far behind the field McCain is falling in campaign contributions. He said in NH
that they wouldn't meet thier goal this quarter.

Some may see this as a reflection of something.

Looking at McCain in Iraq I am reminded of Maria Antoinette and her pretend peasant village at Versaille.

McCain: the Potemkin Candidate.

On April 2, 2007 - 11:40pm Mike7Woodson said:

I'm sorry you have a grandson at risk -- may he come home safely and soon.

What clear, specific, measurable objective could find it's way into the vacuum of the current foreign fallacy to get that done?

How about this;

Start a phased withdrawal of the troops immediately and the only change will be our troops stop dying and getting maimed for life, we stop throwing $8 billion a month down a rat hole.....

....and we stop the grand theft of American tax dollars. Let them fight it out among themselves.

Now I know the "Always wrong on Iraq Gang" and the "6 more monthers" will declare that this is a formula for increased violence, civil war, Armageddon, blah blah blah, which is of course laughable to anyone who reads the news from Iraq.

I would ask the "experts", the Tom Friedmans, the Dick Cheneys, the William Kristols and the John McCains of the world; How is our presence there keeping these things from happening?

(as though they aren't already happening)

That photo looks an awful lot like the last stroll McCain took in SE Washington.
dc

On April 3, 2007 - 10:08am Mike7Woodson said:

Re: the kissing-up factor among politicians who need money to campaign. Is that exclusive to McCain?

Your defense of McCain seems to be 'everybody does it'.

Everybody goes to Iraq, Everybody kisses up.... Everybody flip flops...

If this is true it proves McCain is no longer a "maverick", and the Straight Talk Express ran off the road.

I have no trouble with people who flip flop; when you discover you're in a hole, stop digging.

McCain goes beyond flip flopping. Nothing new arose at Liberty Univ. for McCain to now pander to Falwell and the religious right, nor to has Bush changed which would explain McCain's now
buddying up to him.

You can have the last word on McCain.

I really wish you would be more straightforward with your opinions, Mrs. P. Stop all this beating around the bush... 

:-)

Dissent Protects Democracy.

My morale actually was affected by the actions of the press, OGD.  It was on a Sunday sometime in 1966,  and I was at the Central Market square in Saigon.  In a pretty large crowd too.  We were all witnessing the Ky government's heroic strike against the black-market, which was crippling the nation's economy.  The Mickey Mice (Saigon Cops) had set a huge pile of confisticated contraband on fire in front of all us witnesses. 

But it was obvious to everyone there that the bonfire was only burning empty product wrappers and boxes - all the goods had been removed.  I was standing next to a couple of AP photographers at the time, and we were joking about the fact that the Cops probably had the goods in their homes.  

But then a few days later I read about the event in Time, with lots of pictures. There was no mention that the boxes were empty, of course.  That affected my morale, I'm sure.  Sceptical warped to cynical as the real succumbed to fiction via the mechanizations of the press.

Neoboho

While I'm rather disgusted by his recent activities, I'd like you to cite the specific war crime you allege he committed, and with which he could be charged as an individual. To the best of my knowledge, there is no Geneva or Hague Convention section, or item in the Law of Land Warfare, that criminalizes, at the individual level, following the orders of a recognized chain of command, while in uniform, and attacking a designated military target. I do not know the specific target he was trying to hit, but his aircraft was not capable of area bombing, and would have had a specific target.

No US court has sustained a case of an individual claiming to refuse to participate in an unjust war, although there have been successful defenses against refusing to attack a target protected by the appropriate laws.

If you have approbrium for the Vietnam War, direct it at those directly responsible for the policies, starting with LBJ. If you want someone still alive, Robert S. McNamara is available.

Regardless of the war, I am rather tired of people throwing around "war criminal" without being able to cite the law that criminalized the action, for an individual. There are treaties that can be argued that make wars illegal, although there is an immense amount of ambiguity in the UN Charter when compared to the definitive Kellogg-Briand Accord.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

The man has a good head on his shoulders. His candidacy is worthy of more attention and study.

What you're saying would apply to Admiral Fallon for sure.

And being a vet, I'm sure McCain could get away with it. However, the moment he got out there, he would also be accused by his political opposition as a reckless person. Do you think any commander in the field would not deepen security for McCain with the risk being that he gets blown to bits on that commander's watch?

This is a catch-22 for McCain, as it would be for many.

I think the law of unintended consequences among intended accusations either way applies in an election year with so much at stake. Wartime will claim many political casualties too, and McCain will probably be one of them. So may Hillary.

Obama seems to be the most sane, and humble, candidate in the field of partisans who could lead without the pretensions. I do not know if he has other leadership deficits. He seems to keep a cool head, and that is a good sign. We sure need that in spades now.

Mike, you have joined with the "6 more monthers" in that everything you claim will happen is happening. Mike, I've heard this alarmist bullshit concerning what will happen if we leave 1,000 times. Guess, what, we're still there, dying and being maimed for life. Now we have General Petraeus as the cavalry coming to the rescue. Petraeus wants till September to report if there is "progress" made. Its a variation of "6 more months."

1- No, I see no other alternatives to my plan.

2- Biden's plan requires "an orderly Iraq."
How do we accomplish this?

I have said since the start; there are no Iraqis, there are only Sunni, Shia and Kurds living there.

If my idea isn't adopted all we have is political bullshit about the consequences and incessant questions, a recipe for continued carnage.

Mike, read your post, tell me, how do the consequences you predict differ from what is happening now?

Those "mooks" are no more expendable than you or I, or anyone who lives and works in the Shorja Market. Your sentiment is offensive and not worthy in a public debate.

On April 3, 2007 - 2:51pm hcberkowitz said:

It may take offering 6 months, whatever the carnage, to get enough Republicans to make a funds cutoff veto-proof. It may take offering 6 months to get a national consensus that impeachment may be supportable

Howard, I love ya (no, not like that) and your point is well taken, however, the "6 more months" I've been hearing for about 4 years has worn thin.

To me; "6 more months" = 500 more died GIs and Marines, etc. and another 1,000 or more maimed for life.

Mike, you're either a McCain for President guy and a Republican, which is fine; or you're TJKING in disguise.
Your incessant questions are a tool of TJ and the following quote is also typical TJ.

"Was Clinton destroying innocents to protect himself by bombing the aspirin factory, or sending troops into Somalia? Some rock-ribbed Repubs said Clinton "hated" the troops and so implied that he was trying to get at them by cavalierly misusing them. Is that really true?"

By the way, didn't Bush 41 send the first troops to Somalia on a humanitarian mission, which I supported?

Clinton, aspirin factory, heh heh heh.

That's the partisan assumption:

either you're for us or you're against us; either you're a McCain for Prez guy, or you're TJKing, whomever that is.

Yeah, don't be so shy; tell us how you really feel!

Jan Knaus

The division of the public has occured because the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea based on a fraud. No amount of planning pre or post invasion would turn an imperial operation based on fraud into a success. The invasion was really about establishing an American footprint in that oil-rich region. Iraqis will never permit that unless we terrorize them so totally they are afraid to react. Morally, the American people wouldn't agree to that so Cheney/Bush through WHIG passed along a fraudalent rationale.

It ain't gonna work and it was never going to work with Gen. Shinseki's enormous number of troops or Rummy's streamlined version.

Tom

"If you have opprobrium for the Vietnam War..."

"Opprobrium" heh heh heh, ya gotta love Howard :-)

First of all, Mike. I have to come to respect and enjoy our debates. Please keep that in mind.

Not to speak for Valdron, but I didn't see attacks on you in his post, just the truth in a straightforward format. I'm not sure if your reaction is motivated by some desire to be non-partisan or if you are unwilling to face what are far worse problems than dissent and media partisanship, but either way, you are missing the reality boat. Not just the Iraq reality boat, but the whole USA is in deep shit reality boat.

What Valdron laid out are not my truths, or for that matter, Valdron's. And they certainly don't seem to jibe with many of the politician's views of the truth. But they are representative of a majority in the military itself, such as those in the Strategic Studies Institute, which is a part of the Army War College and in military publications like Parameters.

The Rand Corp. is another good resource, and one that has never been accused of being liberal. Both aisles of Congress call them for testimony when they want to know what is really going on.

Along the same lines, most academic military historians have reached the same conclusions. As one historian put it, The United States should have learned its lesson in Vietnam, and its public is aware of it to a far greater extent than its politicians. [emphasis mine]

Looking at what we are facing is as important as acknowledging what went wrong in the past. The above links offer both aspects. From a fellow in the U.S. Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center: We won't succeed unless we can think and plan ahead to address the threats likely to be posed by the terrorist and insurgent generation beyond the current one...When we know those things, we can build a strategy and tactics based on empirical knowledge and analysis rather than on conjecture or wishful thinking.

There is very little talk of partisanship or media bias in any of these papers, articles and testimonies. They are not part of the problems or the solutions. But I will suggest that holding the truth in higher esteem than bipartisanship, will help us all make better decisions.

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. Einstein

Indeed? In this household, cats and dogs frequently groom one another. Several orphaned kittens have been nursed by female dogs.

There are interesting aspects. This morning, my Rhonda, who is probably the smallest non-kitten, had four dogs backing up whenever she hissed. The hisses weren't loud; it was more like a spirit duel in the martial arts, with her imposing her will like an iron bar.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

If media didn't influence, no one would advertise. News is advertised as fact. But it can be reported in selective ways that make a false picture overall. You know that.

Very true. A whole pile of fabrications about wmd's were transmitted by the media without critical examination and presented as fact. The media, in literally every forum, was strongly supportive of the Administration's case and strongly supportive of the war. This is also historical fact.

If there was selectivity in reporting it was invariably weighted towards the Administration and the American military almost invariably and continuously. The Administration was very good at controlling the media and controlling the reporting. This took place through embedded reporters. It also took place through Green Zone media briefings in which presentations were controlled and seamlessly manipulated.

Control and manipulation of the media was a hallmark of Bremer's administration. You will recall that Al Jazeera and its personnel were targeted. The first war with the Mahdi Army occurred in part because Bremer chose to shut down a newspaper. Bremer and the occupation created their own television station in Iraq.

I can think of no major story of American actions during the first years of the occupation where the views and spin of the American military were not reported and accepted wholesale by the American media.

One can whine about how 'good news' was not reported. But let's be serious. It was reported, it simply wasn't very impressive. Iraqi children were taught to brush their teeth... both dishonest and condescending. Iraqi children were vaccinated, okay, but UNICEF does that all the time. Schools were painted, clinics opened... Nice, but underwhelming.

And in fact, upon examination, underwhelming was the word. The fact was that the paintings of schools, the repair of infrastructure was often shabbily and hastily done, and done on a smaller scale than trumpeted. This side was not reported.

And certain things were also not reported or not widely reported. The fact that the occupation was producing less electricity than Saddam had done under sanctions, the 40% unemployment rate, the decline in oil production, the fact that the hospitals were bereft of drugs and equipment, the fact that various factors were creating a humanitarian crisis. The level of corruption and incompetence that permeated the reconstruction. None of this was reported at the time.

Not reported was the absence of an actual plan for the occupation, the absence of a strategy for reconstruction, the absence of clear military objectives. Many of the things we have learned only slowly over the years and which we have learned only after the fact was simply not reported on.

The fact is that the media gave the Bush administration and the Iraq war a free ride. Reporting and editorial commentary was invariably slanted and completely uncritical.

Certainly negative things were reported. The looting of Baghdad was reported. But consider the level of dishonesty it would have required not to report that, given the scale it was occurring on and the long term scars it produced. The failure to find wmd's was also reported, grudgingly and with many 'false positives' trumpeted. But even in these cases, the Administration and often Donald Rumsfeld were given the last word. "Freedom is untidy." We were told.

The notion that a biased or anti-war media contributed in any way to the Iraq disaster is so far beyond laughable as to not be worthy of comment. The media handed the Bush administration one free pass after the other. The Bush administration traded these free passes in for one blunder after another.

If anything, the media was years behind the curve in reporting on Iraq. It would be years before they asked hard questions and reported on difficult issues. It would be years before anything like skepticism or real investigative journalism took place.

I would argue that it was the lack of media dissent that contributed to the problem. There was no pressure, in Congress or the Media, to keep the administration honest. No one was saying "If you don't have a plan, we have to publish that." No one was saying "Your policy has produced a 50% unemployment rate."

If someone had put pressure on from the start, if there had been clear oversight and hard questions asked, I think that we could argue at least some things would have turned out better.

Also, why the propaganda movies designed to give people in the US courage and resolve to support the war effort in WWII?

So in your view, the job of the media was not honest reporting but propaganda?

How you spin things matters. The truth should never be a casualty of a balanced view which recognizes that people are emotional and can be turned to despair by that which is skewed to the negative . . .

But my point is that I reject your entire thesis. The media did not undermine the war as you claim. The media were cheerleaders almost all the way.

What undermined the war was the people running it. The key mistakes and disasters all took place without the media's attention.

The media was, for instance, supportive of the Administration in its actions against both Fallujah and the Mahdi Army, when both of these ventures turned out to be unmitigated disasters that permanently weakened the American position. It was one blunder after another, that American forces are now required to live with. It wasn't the media that inflicted that harm. The media only belatedly realized the harm that had been done and still haven't fully reported it.

The failures of the reconstruction were entirely self inflicted, and these failures have long term consequences. What are we to do?

Moreover, I think your view is superficial in many respects.

Do you honestly think that media reporting of the fact that the Administration had no strategy or plan (when they finally got around to reporting it) made a real difference to failures occuring because of the absence of that strategy or plan? Did it somehow make the administration more stupid? The disaster more thorough? The bungling more poignant? Did it contribute to a calories worth of malnutrition or a dollars worth of corruption?

Do you think that media reporting made a real difference to the boots on the ground? Let's be serious here. There are soldiers in Baghdad risking their lives every day. They live and die in a very real place. Do you think that it matters to them whether an editorial or a reporting feature in a local daily paper 6000 miles away is critical of the mission? Or that some overfed stay at home sticks a yellow ribbon magnet on his hummer? I think that a soldier in the field has a thousand things that are important to him... and the opinions of overfed homeboys or newspaper articles are in the low 900's.

I frankly do not believe for a second that your thesis holds a drop of water. I take the position that it is an excuse and an evasion.

A partisan press doesn't help. A partisan like Valdron doesn't see it because he's part of it.

Whereas you are fair minded and non-partisan, in your willingness to ignore the factual record in favour of your theory?

And what does your theory come down to? The Peter Pan notion that if we all close our eyes and make fists and shout out "I *do* believe in War!" then we'll win?

Forgive me for belittling your viewpoint, but I simply do not believe it holds water. Public morale is important. But it does not change the laws of physics or economics, it will not save us from disasters or rescue us from the price of incompetence.

It's tragic that ideologies capture the minds of people and sap the country of strength and unity for egoistic power seeking on both sides.

Obviously they're after your precious bodily fluids, is what you're saying? We're out to contaminate you purity of essence?

And on that note, I'll leave it for the audience.

~

Huffing and puffing and blowing is tiring. Get some sleep...

~OGD~

The truth is a horrible thing, Seashell. It is full of ugliness, pain and despair. The truth is quite often things we would rather not know, things we don't quite understand, things that make us uncomfortable and spoil pleasant social occasions.

The truth is a mistress with a whip, an unforgiving taskmaster, a burden, a trial. No one was ever thanked for speaking the truth, and quite often people are punished for it.

The truth is just about the most awful thing in the world, and save one thing, it has nothing to recommend it.

Except, of course, for the alternative. As awful as the truth is, its better to have it than lies.

Among its many faults, the truth is a jealous spouse and will admit no others into its chambers. Lies are easy mistresses, always welcoming the company of other lies, relaxed around the truth, spreading wide for any opinion that fancies them.

There is only one truth.

That's what this is about for you: an audience?

See my post above responding to yours about what truth is. It answers a number of your above points.

For now, I'll say this: you are responding to a straw man substitute for what I've argued in context. You suppose that I've been trying to justify the invasion and war by blaming its misfortunes on the press. Not true at all. You assume that I am ignoring how bad it is. Not true. I know full well. It is a given. And what I am saying is that partisanship is part of the reason we're in Iraq and neither side has a clear plan on what to do. I don't think you're reading my entire posts.

I've been arguing about the status quo since we long ago established that the Bush team deceived the nation and the troops. You're still trying to establish the established, and wasting my time. Unless there's an impeachment conviction I don't know about, the Bush team is still in control. How do you propose to differentiate between the troops' well being and morale, to boost it, while not cheerleading for the neocon nonsense? That is the question I've been putting to you, and the lamentation I've been writing about partisanship. You criticize and criticize the Bush team ad infinitum -- OK, we get it already -- now where's your plan for acheiving the best possible result for the troops and the Iraqis?

We're in a new phase. Now the troops are stuck there, as Mr. Reid said, in a "quagmire," and their morale is hurting. HOW do we salvage them, and push for a clear-cut objective they can achieve, and come home. By burying them in bad news without crediting the good things *they* (the troops) do everyday (there's plenty of that missed as reports frequently seem to focus only on body counts), it will do them a disservice.

On April 3, 2007 - 6:49pm hcberkowitz said:

Ah yes. Caught my typo, and now you having me wanting to convert the blasted word to opium, of which there is plenty in Southeast Asia.

Howard, Howard, Howard, it had nothing to do with a typo, it was your use of the word, one rarely seen. You sent me to the dictionary. :-)

That's what this is about for you: an audience?

It's about winning the argument. I frankly don't have any real expectation of convincing you that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening, you're just that sort of person. But there are people who read this, and people who can be persuaded to one viewpoint or another.

You suppose that I've been trying to justify the invasion and war by blaming its misfortunes on the press. Not true at all...

Hmmm. Let's take a look at what you actually said:

Then things went downhill. The division of the public did not and has not helped the efforts in Iraq. It has hurt them. The uneven media emphasis has not helped. About that, McCain is correct to some degree, but it is not a worthy scapegoat for lack of progress.

Now, I think I'm being fair to you in including your passive aggressive tail end clause. But let's take a look...

'The division of the public did not and has not helped the efforts in Iraq. It has hurt them...' Did you say that? Do you stand by those words?

'The uneven media emphasis has not helped. About that, McCain is correct to some degree...' Did you say that? Do you stand by those words?

It certainly sounds to me like you're attributing a share (not all, but a share) of blame to the press and lack of public support. Am I misreading things here? Have I misunderstood?

Let's look over here:

If media didn't influence, no one would advertise. News is advertised as fact. But it can be reported in selective ways that make a false picture overall. You know that... Also, why the propaganda movies designed to give people in the US courage and resolve to support the war effort in WWII? How you spin things matters. The truth should never be a casualty of a balanced view which recognizes that people are emotional and can be turned to despair by that which is skewed to the negative . . . A partisan press doesn't help

It sounds to me like you're putting a heavy burden on the press to get into line and support the war. In your view, it seems that the truth is like a Chinese menu, take one from column A, a couple from column B, and assemble for pleasing effect.

I'm glad that you agree with me that many of the travails in Iraq are self inflicted.

But that doesn't change the fact that you are both utterly wrong and entirely dishonest about the role of the media in this affair, and deluded on the matter of the public having reservations.

Now you are running away from your own words. Having painted yourself untenably into a corner, you are claiming 'I never said that.'

Sorry, but your post is documentably on the record. I'm just a backwoods country lawyer from the north part of a poor province, but frankly, I have to say, you're hung by your own words.

And what I am saying is that partisanship is part of the reason we're in Iraq...

Again, I must call bullshit. There's nothing particularly noble about bipartisanship, and there's nothing special about partisanship. You're engaged in massaging language in order to avoid assigning responsibility. That's the opposite of truth.

And indeed, that's not what you actually said. Shall we read it back to you?

You must admit that after the invasion, the divide over the Iraq attack widened to a rift and then a chasm. The Congress voted in support. Then things went downhill.

Oh my. It seems here that you're saying that bipartisanship was the reason America went into Iraq. "Congress voted in support." Wasn't that bipartisan support? Wasn't everyone who mattered on board? Didn't John McCain support the war? Didn't John Kerry and Hillary Clinton support the war resolution? Didn't the Democrats avoid taking a position against the war, or even on the war for years on end?

Wasn't every goddammed mistake irrevocably made before the loyal opposition found its backbone?

If that's the case, then where the hell is the partisanship. Is your argument that Democratic sniping or opposition has lead us to this mess? If so, bullshit.

Is your argument that the Republicans in sole pursuit of a covert and dishonest agenda, engineered this war for partisan political purposes in order to screw over Democrats? If so, that's an explanation for the war I've never heard before.

How exactly is it partisanship when one side settles upon a course of action and the other side either supports that course of action or passively aquiesces? I don't think it is.

And what I am saying is that partisanship is part of the reason we're in Iraq and neither side has a clear plan on what to do. I don't think you're reading my entire posts.

No, the problem is that I read your entire post, and I find nothing but mush...

You must admit that after the invasion, the divide over the Iraq attack widened to a rift and then a chasm. The Congress voted in support. Then things went downhill.

So, how do we read this? Are you contradicting yourself? You basically just say any old wooly thing that comes into your head without worrying as to whether it makes a likc of sense?

Or are you suggesting that it was 'partisan' from the beginning, though not as 'partisan' as it was later on, and that 'partisanship' is why there's no solution now? Bullshit every step of the way, and everyone who reads this knows it. You're using 'partisanship' as a meaningless massage word for emotional connotation without having to worry about meaningful content. Like I said, bullshit.

Or are you suggesting that things were originally pretty bi-partisan, there was a degree of consensus, and it was only after that things became partisan? In which case, bullshit on a practical level. Because the documentary record shows that the fatal mistakes were all made and committed to long before a significant political rift opened up and the Democrats or media began to openly challenge Bush.

As I've said, your writing is mush, so I'm forced to struggle to dissect it, looking for whatever you might have meant.

How do you propose to differentiate between the troops' well being and morale, to boost it, while not cheerleading for the neocon nonsense? That ... the lamentation I've been writing about partisanship.

So your argument, as I read your strangled syntax, is that it is necessary to cheerlead 'neocon nonsense' in order to maintain the troops well being and morale? Is that what you are saying? Because your rhetorical style never makes it entirely clear.

I frankly dispute your whole premise. Cheerleading, as Neoboho writes elsewhere, hurts troops morale and well being because the troops on the ground see the difference between their reality and rosy fabrications. The troops are the last people who buy the rosy propaganda because they're on the front line.

Troops are not discouraged by criticism if they can see that criticism is not supported by their own experience. If its going good and that's their experience, they might get pissed off, but it won't affect their morale.

You have this notion that American troops are such whining nancy boys that America must avoid or massage its way out of honest debate while they're dodging snipers and IED's so as to avoid depressing the poor deers. I'm sorry, but I think that is dishonest and superficial.

Well, let me reply in this way: The troops were not well served by 'bipartisanship' inasmuch as a failure to oppose or question or challenge got America into this mess. The troops are not well served now by 'bipartisanship'.

If you have some idiot notion that the solution is for everyone to go and hold hands with Bush and sing 'Kumbaya' disabuse yourself of it. Bush's solution is to keep the war going until he's no longer President, so that he can blame someone else for losing it. He doesn't have any better ideas. He doesn't have any other ideas.

You figure that 'bipartisanship' is going to fix that. Maybe if we just sit down and talk to a man who doesn't listen, we'll magically come up with what... flubber? A Solution? And what's getting in the way? Partisanship? Fookin' delusional.

We're in a new phase.

Again, I call bullshit. We're not in a new phase. There's no justifiable argument for a 'new phase' in the Iraq war or occupation. Everything going on now has been going on for a long time. The level of violence has escalated, but it has escalated gradually by measurable increments. The failure of reconstruction is old news. There's been no radical or transformative shift that would justify the phrase 'new phase.' We're in the same hole we've been digging all along.

The only thing is people are starting to notice how deep it is. The extent that you can justify the term 'new phase' is that the media, the public and the Democratic party have begun to wake up and critically scrutinize the war. And this is a problem for guys like you, apparently...

The new phase is not the war, its the monitoring.

Now the troops are stuck there, as Mr. Reid said, in a "quagmire," and their morale is hurting.

I'm betting that IED's hurt more.

HOW do we salvage them, and push for a clear-cut objective they can achieve, and come home.

Gee, I dunno, how do we do that? Hmmmm. Let's take a look at your answer:

By burying them in bad news without crediting the good things *they* (the troops) do everyday (there's plenty of that missed as reports frequently seem to focus only on body counts), it will do them a disservice.

Once again, your mangled rhetorical style gets in the way, but it seems that we can salvage the troops and help them achieve a clear cut objective by... 'crediting the 'plenty of' good things that they do every day and stop focusing only on body counts and bad things.

Do I have that right? This is your position? Because that certainly looks like what your position is. Forgive me, but I'm operating with a handicap here. All I have to go on as to what you think is what you write.

So, all we have to do is renounce partisanship, fall into line behind the Bush administration (because they're the ones in charge) on the assumption that this will magically enable them to have a plan when they've never had one before, and then rebalance the news at home for a better, happier, cheerier picture so as to uplift the tender sensibilities of those emotionally fragile soldiers in the field, and then... I don't know, wish real hard and believe in Christmas, and puppy dogs. Oh, and lets not dwell on body counts, because dead people are so... passe.

No. It does the troops a disservice to simply perpetuate the same old tired bullshit that has lead us from 12 attacks a day to 180, that allowed the reconstruction to fail utterly in a sea of corruption. Your suggestion is bankrupt and utterly without merit.

To wrap this up, let's go back and take a look:

You suppose that I've been trying to justify the invasion and war by blaming its misfortunes on the press. Not true at all...

Uh huh, but...

Then things went downhill. The division of the public did not and has not helped the efforts in Iraq. It has hurt them. The uneven media emphasis has not helped. About that, McCain is correct to some degree,

And, we end up with...

HOW do we salvage them, and push for a clear-cut objective they can achieve, and come home. By burying them in bad news without crediting the good things *they* (the troops) do everyday (there's plenty of that missed as reports frequently seem to focus only on body counts), it will do them a disservice.

So... You claim that you didn't say what you originally said but you end up saying it again...

You sir, are a waste of my time.

Thank you very much. That is a compliment, considering how you spend your time, Dennis Valdron, Den Valdron, Valdron and whatever other alias you use to cope with previous bannings.

The lesson that I take from this, Neoboho, is that propaganda undermines morale because the people on the front lines see through it.

Telling 'positive news' that doesn't accord with reality is damaging because it undermines everything.

~

Valdron:

Your comment, such as what follows doesn't surprise me in the least ...

You sir, are a waste of my time.

"Save a man's life and you are responsible for his well-being thereafter." Chinese (?) proverb.

The point of the above is that when one invests in another, there is a risk that one throws good money after bad in protecting that investment. Wisdom here is seeing the other as an independent actor.

Similarly, we have invested blood and treasure in Iraq and may feel we must make good on that. This denies that the Iraqis have any effect, or responsibility. It requires us to stay forever, possibly (although some want that).

Time to admit a blunder and bail. Some Iraqis will resent our departure, many will celebrate it. Should we stay because some want us to, even though, arguably, most Iraqis want us gone? Or should we stay because the others want us to leave? Neither faction should have a vote here.

A recent study (sorry, heard it on radio while driving) examined civil wars and their durations and resolutions. Ironically, those with robust interventions to quell conflict simmered longer, often into decades. Those that involved a true defeat for one side led to political stability sooner. The lesson for Iraq might be that for peace, the Sunnis must lose decisively.

I still feel it is more a partition than normal civil war. The dictatorship encouraged mixing of previously rather disparate populations, and now they are fighting over who lives where. Eventually this will wind down some, although India's example implies it may still take a long time to finish for good.

If so, our presence only delays the inevitable.

I'd be willing to bet the most often asked question by the GIs and Marines is, "What the f**k are we doing here?"

That is exactly the leadership vacuum question. And I think they will also ask, "What was it all for?" Don't underestimate the damage to all parties involved that can come from hastily retreating as the troops watch Iraq descend into yet worse house-to-house blood letting or ethnic cleansing by extremists and criminal gangs, turf wars, civil war, and seeing the friendlies get massacred without being able to do anything about it. Many troops have been staying in Iraqi homes and living with these people while on patrols or during operations remote from base.

Leaving that way could very well cause a future, intense regional war into which I suspect the US would be drawn to keep it from dragging more and more countries into it. To say that it is as bad as it can get now is an error. It can get much worse.

There was a time when many of us were talking about the humanitarian conditions of Iraq under sanctions and also about the value of each Iraqi civilian's life versus our own troops' lives. US forces had in times past been criticized for angering Iraqis by imprecise warfare which reduces risk to US troops but increases risk to Iraqi civilians while going after insurgents. And now some of the same voices it seems are saying, "Forget the Iraqi civilian lives and let's go home." I'm not sure I understand where the change arose. I think it has to do with the idea that (a) things can't get worse, and (b) we're the sole cause of the civil warring. I do not think either premise is all true. The same forces that led to the Iran-Iraq war and Saddam suppression of the Southern Shi'a are still in the region.

Since the US became involved in Iraq during the Cold War, its subsequent involvement has led back to those times, intimately related to the strategic interest in the oil, and that the USSR not corner it. There were economics and a larger strategic ethic involved, and to complicate matters more, sometimes they were at odds, and sometimes they were not. It depends how they are used, and how related. It seems to me that the Colonial-Empire Neocons (the CENNERS) put economics/empire over morality all the way, however, used moral obligation to the Iraqi people as one element to support hasty intervention while stacking WMD threats on top of that to sway other constituencies. Why? Because they didn't believe that the morality impetus masked their economic ambitions effectively enough.

And right now, some think that the only thing that can save the country would be a change in the White House and just pulling everyone out of Iraq and that would be that. In some shades, that has merit, however, but can also delude. Whoever is in the White House, to succeed, must do the right things with and for the military, and with regard to US obligations. They need to do it right and be responsible.

Reid and the Dems have made an interesting proposal that looks slightly too restrictive yet negotiable (?): "to end most spending on the Iraq war in 2008, limiting it to targeted operations against al Qaeda, training for Iraqi troops and U.S. force protection." I say it is too restrictive because al-Qaeda isn't the only group that can wage guerilla warfare that could kill women and children, for example, an unacceptable thing to let happen while US forces are on the ground, because it would follow its creation of the conditions for it to occur. On the other hand, if Reid's idea is to get the mass of US troops out of urban warfare exposure to more easily protected dispersions, that might allow US troops to turn the tables and become the guerillas who make Iraqi combatants' lives very difficult until it is they, not the US, that gives up. However, the defined mission limits by Reid would have to be expanded to make this possible, it seems to me.

Another point: the US has area denial weapons, such as the Active Denial System, the LRAD, electric stun mines, and some other tricks up its sleeve which could eventually be used in civilian population protection as well as its own force protection. However, to be effective, the US would need more systems before giving ground, and the troops would probably need to relocate or control civilian living areas in ways to make maximum use of these technologies to prevent ethnic cleansing, for example, as Gates has warned could happen if the US followed Reid's prescriptions. Would Iraqis go for relocation to avoid cleansing? And all of this assumes that there are enough of the Less-Than-Lethal LTL systems available to protect neighborhoods, offices, markets and so forth. That would take a while.

It wasn't long ago that the experts and intel analysts the Bush Administration wasn't listening to were saying that a basket case Iraq could turn into a regional war zone which could very well have the US back in another war there; worse, it could escalate beyond the region.

And because of ill-preparation due to the prolonged Iraq situation the government finds itself in, the cost to our people and the tempation to use horrific and/or less precise weapons would probably push the world toward yet another medevial-modern soup of death. Those deeply invested the Defense Industrial Complex who see dollar signs in death and enmity (surely not all of them do) might welcome a larger war from a business standpont, so long as it was far away from US shores.

And so ironically, forging the best military effectiveness out of the Iraq mess now, could prevent excess militarization and multiplied death and mayhem later. There are real military questions to ask now about what US capabilities are now, what must be done to get out responsibly, and how long it would be before US troops were capable to do what must be done to meet a secretly held deadline to withdraw. All we need to know is that there is one, and the proper Senate oversight committee persons with clearances, able to vouch for it, given trust issues with the administration. We already know our combat generals said it was a bad idea to invade. It was done, then the US engaged in Rummy-soaked denial of the need to fight a counter guerilla terror war.

The US must impose its own conditions and circumstances for a limited, well-defined and declarable victory out of its losses, after which it will fairly be the Iraqi government and people's baton. That means setting a withdrawal date secretly with the Iraqi leadership, specific, basic, achievable objectives and conditions that are determined and imposed by our forces, and then an orderly withdrawal once done or by a date certain.

You say:

Congress and the President arguing has no effect on troop morale unless they see one or the other wanting to keep the war going.

That is not correct. If Congress and the President settled on a sound, specific, achievable objective that the commanders could take to the troops, get it done, give notice to the Iraqi government that it had better have its stuff together when it is done, then they could see the light at the end of the tunnel and would accomplish it. US troops are warriors, and the mental damage to them which could follow a Desert-Nam withdrawal should be considered in light of the mental damage to Vietnam vets who tested those straits. That is how anything that has been done well in Iraq (toppling Saddam)(the election) has been accomplished, has been through specific goals, equipping, and deadlines that give the troops the power to accomplish specific things.

Here are some essential West Point required quotes ignored by some (certainly at the top) in the deployment and employment of the troops in Iraq, which still apply now in considering how to leave best.

These quotes should be taken together to modify each other and are not exhaustive, of course. They should be translated to consider which modern technology to use and not to use, what to attack and hold, and what to leave alone. Any plan, most certainly, should be kept under a cover of accountable secrecy, or else guerillas will learn of it and adapt. Here are the Art of War principles and application comments:

35. Do not swallow bait offered by the enemy. Do not interfere with an army that is returning home.

The first clause applies. The second clause would apply to any of those combatants in the way of US forces possessed of a new, specific, concrete objective hinged with a withdrawal date.

20. When you plunder a countryside, let the spoil be divided amongst your men; when you capture new territory, cut it up into allotments for the benefit of the soldiery.

This is the "what you own" you fight to keep idea. The troops, without ownership of concrete objectives, undefined rewards, vague incentives, and no end date to the constant burden of losing their hard earned gains; and because of vague ideologic goals of the Neocons, including Rummy's limited force idea; do not hold territory taken from which they could pressure the opposition into corners.

32. Therefore, just as water retains no constant shape, so in warfare there are no constant conditions.

33. He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven-born captain.

The above tells us that we can "win" with the right leadership, however, that we would do well to define what winning means in the short-run, since no won or imposed condition lasts for very long.

27. A whole army may be robbed of its spirit; a commander-in-chief may be robbed of his presence of mind.

We've seen this in process. Now how do we reverse it?

28. Now a soldier's spirit is keenest in the morning; by noonday it has begun to flag; and in the evening, his mind is bent only on returning to camp.

This seems to say to me that whatever objective is set for victory, the morning came with the reinforcements, and the newly defined objectives must be met in this freshest phase.

29. A clever general, therefore, avoids an army when its spirit is keen, but attacks it when it is sluggish and inclined to return. This is the art of studying moods.

The insurgents will lay low, believing time is on their side. When the superior force is as fresh as they will be, they can't beat the elusive enemy without being guerillas themselves and rooting them out of their hiding places. If they will not do this as a chief objective, and quickly, they should leave immediately, because nothing else will work against the hiding combatants.

30. Disciplined and calm, to await the appearance of disorder and hubbub amongst the enemy:--this is the art of retaining self-possession.

And if the right approach is underway, successes breed some degree of patience, the purpose of which is to wait for opportunities to aggressively attack and win to open, not wait around to be hit.

31. To be near the goal while the enemy is still far from it, to wait at ease while the enemy is toiling and struggling, to be well-fed while the enemy is famished:--this is the art of husbanding one's strength.

That requires holding territories taken and foraging off of their resources.

3. There are roads which must not be followed, armies which must be not attacked, towns which must be besieged, positions which must not be contested, commands of the sovereign which must not be obeyed.

I've always liked the above, especially the last sentence, which seems to understand the nature of politicians versus professional soldiers.

9. If, on the other hand, in the midst of difficulties we are always ready to seize an advantage, we may extricate ourselves from misfortune.

10. Reduce the hostile chiefs by inflicting damage on them; and make trouble for them, and keep them constantly engaged; hold out specious allurements, and make them rush to any given point.

Important: do we have enough to do this? If concealed, they won't be able to avoid getting hit by troops under coordinated command with clear objectives on the ground (not in the ether).

11. The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.

Is there a way to attain this still in Iraq? Another essential question.

12. There are five dangerous faults which may affect a general: (1) Recklessness, which leads to destruction; (2) cowardice, which leads to capture; (3) a hasty temper, which can be provoked by insults; (4) a delicacy of honor which is sensitive to shame; (5) over-solicitude for his men, which exposes him to worry and trouble.

The common theme to avoid seems to be the extremes. The opponents must be exploited for their extremes. The US troops must have a command structure that purges extremes from its thinking. That means all vestiges of extreme neocon ideologic thinking.

13. These are the five besetting sins of a general, ruinous to the conduct of war.

14. When an army is overthrown and its leader slain, the cause will surely be found among these five dangerous faults. Let them be a subject of meditation.

Which extremes, if any, do we see the various political players appealing to in advocating for how the troops should be handled in Iraq and elsewhere? Interesting question, and crucial, in my non-expert and overly bold opinion about avoiding extremes.

Army jargon for the order of a deployment is a Time-Phased Force Deployment List (TPFDL), pronounced tip-fiddle. For any combat or potential deployment, this is properly classified. The abbreviation will serve for a redeployment of troops out of Iraq, and, once we get the dramatics out of the way, most sensible people would agree the details should be classified.

It would be a key milestone, in restoring Constitutional checks and balances, if the appropriate Congressional committees were briefed in closed session, the chair and ranking minority members would make a public statement they have seen it and discussed it with military commanders (not just civilian appointees, but both), and are satisfied it is rational. Another essential part of restoring checks and balances is that this must not leak, by either side, for any partisan reason