In a WaPo triple thumb-sucker today ("quagmire" returns in the first graph), you've got Clintonista John Podesta and a couple of his rollicking sidekicks taking Bush to task for succeeding at the surge. Success in a strategy that has reduced violence and brought a semblance of peace back to large sections of Iraq is.... well.... just not good enough.
President Bush claims that his strategy is having some success, but toward what end? He argued that the surge would provide the political breathing space needed to achieve a unified, peaceful Iraq. But its successes, which Bush says come from a reduction of casualties in certain areas, have been accompanied by massive sectarian cleansing. The surge has not moved us closer to national reconciliation. -- John Podesta, Lawrence J. Korb and Brian Katulis - Strategic DriftPodesta's position is that the surge has failed to move the US "closer to national reconciliation." What Podesta is really saying is that success in the surge makes it more difficult for a Clinton to win in 2008. This means that Podesta, a classic Washington lickspittle, may not get to ride around on Air Force One again.
Podesta is an old hand at pitching this kind of revisionist garbage into the national arena. He's a seasoned Washington liar who learned in the lap of his master. What actually keeps us from "national reconciliation" is blather of knee-jerk traitors like Podesta for whom nothing, but nothing, is ever going to be success short of,to cop a phrase from the Podesta/Albright/Carter/Clinton playbook, "a comprehensive strategic redeployment from Iraq by the end of 2007." That was Podesta's position in November of 2006. It's a year later and the same position is being proposed by Podesta today -- with an update: "This withdrawal can be completed safely in 12 to 18 months and should be started immediately."
The main shift in the Podestistas' gas cloud today is that "strategic redeployment" (read "bug-out slowly") has been replaced with plain "withdrawal" (read "Flee!"). It doesn't matter to Podesta that the surge is working. In fact, it is a disaster that the surge is working. It means, you see, that America is succeeding. That is the one thing their sick insect souls cannot bear. It is, you see, not enough that Iraqis lose. They're expendable. America must be seen to fail. Better still, the Bush America be seen to fail. That is the only thing that will satisfy these latter-day Citoyens du Monde who have spent their lives fattening off the country that they despise so deeply.
Podesta's pabulum repeats the same liberal litany of bile that he's been vomiting over the body politic for what seems like aeons:
The many dangers of allowing our Iraq policy to drift include undermining our ability to respond effectively to other contingencies, such as the ongoing fight in Afghanistan. Not only do we no longer have a strategic ground reserve, but the Army has been forced to lower its recruiting standards to unprecedented levels. The war's human and financial costs continue to rise: More Americans have died in Iraq so far in 2007 than in all of 2006, and the direct financial cost has exceeded $600 billion.Let me translate this treasonous spiel:
1) "Drift is what it is!" If no progress is made it is a "quagmire." If progress is made and dead terrorists start to pile up in significant numbers, it is "drift."
2) "Back to the Afghanistan!" It will be a lot easier to get troops out of that opium-laced stink hole. It's a way-station to American defeat that isn't supposed to look like that going in. Do you think that if every one of our troops were teleported out of Iraq and into Kabul this afternoon more than 30 days would go by before the Podestistas or another Clinton/Carter clone association would be pushing for them to be teleported from Kabul to Iowa?
3) "No strategic ground reserve!" Reserve for what? Pulling people and puppies out of trees in Louisiana floods? Manning understaffed detox clinics in the inner cities? Filling sandbags on the beaches of Southampton to prepare for sea level rise in 2099? The armed forces are for fighting the nation's wars. That is their first and last mission. [Update: Donald Sensing corrects me on this and outlines how and why the SGR went away in the comments.]
4) "Lower recruiting standards" Really? Perhaps standards started to be lowered in every service except the Marines when it was decided that Gyno-Americans would also make first rate soldiers. Perhaps the Podestistas would be in favor of widening the pool of potential soldiers even more -- say with a draft.
5) "More Americans have died...." It cannot be said too often that the plain and simple truth is that if you have a war some of your troops will die. You will never have a zero casualties war. Never. Ever. More in 2007 than in 2006. Well, more Americans died on one day in 2001 than have died in Iraq in 2007.
Should Mr. Podesta wish to call the whole war on Terror off and return to his salad days in the Clinton administration when they just ignored the whole thing, I'd hope he'd at least have the guts to move his offices into the new New York Times Building in Manhattan. The last time I checked it was the most tempting air strike target on the island.
6) "It costs a lot of money." Hey, it costs a lot of money to run a war. Especially if the government does it. You know, "government" is just a big word for "waste." Maybe we should just all kick back with Podesta and say, "Hey, it is just not worth it." Then we could all go out to picnic lunch with the "It's just not good enough" crew at Podesta's Center for American Progress, slap on some sun screen and wait for the Iranian bomb to fry an American city.
You think it costs a lot of money to run a war in Iraq? What amount of money would it cost to replace Los Angeles?
Posted by Vanderleun at November 20, 2007 11:58 PM | TrackBackNot worth it my ass.
Come on Podesta, you and slick willie ignored terrorism during the 90's while focusing on continual lip service from Monica. September 11th was the result. Did Bill think was Monica really that good?
Was THAT worth it?
Posted by: gabrielpicasso at November 21, 2007 8:34 AMWell said, Gerard. I would take issue with you on only one point, the matter of the Army's strategic reserve. Fact is, we don't have it any more.
Throughout almost the entire Cold War, including administrations of both parties, there was a pretty clearly-defined understanding of what the concept of strategic reserve meant. It meant that the the US must be able to fight a general war against the USSR in Europe while having in reserves enough forces to fight another, major war elsewhere. Mainly, this meant Korea, but during the 1960s it meant we still had to be able defeat the Soviets in Europe while fighting in Vietnam.
This concept was referred to as the "two war" force or sometimes called the "one-and-a-half war" concept. It was predicated on the notion that the US/NATO could prevail in Europe without commitment of all US forces. For sure, all the Reserves and the entire Guard would be mobilized, but not all deployed to Europe. They, and some regular divisions, would be retained as the strategic reserve for other conflicts, started by other commies like Kim who might be tempted to take advantage of a presumed American preoccupation with Europe.
But the two-war, or even 1-1/5 war concept is dead now because we do not have armed forces in numbers to sustain it. If Kim did decide to head south, we'd be in deep kimchi to fight that war with the force it would both deserve and require and still maintain necessary levels of troops in Iraq and A'stan.
Now, the severe drawdown of US armed services was done in the Clinton administration, so Podesta has that weight to carry in addition to what you've written. But Bush the elder started it, Clinton just continued it, though he cut the services much deeper than GHW Bush envisioned.
That was the status of forces that GW Bush inherited from Clinton and that's doubtless what Rummy meant when he said, "You go to war with the Army you've got." But Bush has had six years to get with the program to expand the military, especially the Army and Marines, and has only just now started to do it. And his expansion plan is not nearly enough.
My blogging colleague, Lt. Col. John Krenson, had a lot more to say about this here:
http://www.donaldsensing.com/?p=1104
Posted by: Donald Sensing at November 21, 2007 10:01 AMThank you Sensing. Informative as always. I've noted this in the item.
Posted by: vanderleun at November 21, 2007 10:25 AMPodesta, to me, is proof positive of the soundness of evolutionary theory.
Evolutionary theory posits that every ecological niche rich in some resource will eventually be occupied by an organism that is nourished by that resource. As confirmation, we have the famous Deinococcus radiodurens bacillus, found only in the cores of nuclear reactors.
Podesta and his cronies feed on American defeat, despair, and self-loathing. Man being a productive species, they not only seek out lodes of these things; they do what they can to enlarge them.
The greenies argue that every species is precious -- that every extinction harms the world in some irreparable way. However, what impact the extinction of a particular species would have is always a matter of conjecture...sometimes even long after it's died off.
Concerning what impact the disappearance of the Defeatocrats would have, no consensus has yet formed. Research continues.
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at November 22, 2007 2:31 AM"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated to combat spam and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.