I think I have discovered a clue as to what type of change Obama has in store...........

This news video clip from youtube contains footage from inside a Barack Obama staff office. In the video you will notice there is a flag on the wall.....Is it the American flag?

Not exactly..........

Check it out........

The real conditions on the ground in Iraq as a result of the surge.

Ground Conditions in Iraq

Sure Obnoxious, keep up the propaganda buddy.

As suspicious as most of the Bushy/McCainers here are of the government, I often wonder why it is that these folks willingly believe anything the government chooses to tell us about things like "The Surge?" It never seems to occur to them that the govies only tell us what they want us to hear.

As pinned down as life is in Iraq, affording very limited access to anywhere beyond the "Green Zone" in Baghdad and U.S. military bases elsewhere in the country, it is very easy for the military under orders from above to tightly control what news gets out, and what doesn't.

Sure, the surge has worked. The government told us it did.

Looking back, the press actually had far greater access to the front (such as it was) and other sources in Vietnam than during either of the Iraq wars. Yet the government was able, especially early on, to paint a consistently rosy picture of our supposed successes in Nam. Almost any time casualty numbers were reported, we were told the enemy virtually always suffered hundreds of killed and wounded while the U.S. numbers were often never reported to be more than double and often single digits. Yet, somehow over 57000 Americans wound up face down in rice paddies or worse.

Again, why is it that most of the Obama bashers who under normal circumstances wouldn't trust the government to take out their garbage, are more than willing to believe any damn thing they tell us about the war in Iraq? Couldn't be owing to partisan politics, could it?

B

Actually, B-tone, you're wrong. The press had far less access in Nam than in Iraq; there were no "embedded reporters," and most of the press was concentrated in the major cities (especially Saigon) and bases, not out in the field with us grunts. I never saw a reporter in my entire tour.

And that's exactly why, as you point out, the government was able to propagate the phony casualty figures and "paint the rosy pictures."

In the case of Iraq, however, many of the reporters are out with the troops seeing conditions first hand, and there have been a number of reports in the MSM confirming the success of the surge.

Pablo, did you actually watch the video. Did you notice all the people walking around Baghdad not being killed? Did you notice that the 'journalist' had no weapon or anyone protecting him and wandered around the city freely and in safety?

Ever hear the aphorism "good fences make good neighbors"?

Dave

Dave,

A typical response from a guy such as you. Why dont you move your family over there bucko, and enjoy the new freedom and Jeffersonian Democracy. You make me sick.

Dave demonstrates his ignorance again by misattributing "good fences make good neighbors" which Robert Frost used to satirize a farmer neighbors anti-social attitudes.

Bliffle, I didn't attribute it at all. And the fact that Frost used it satirically makes it no less of a fine and classic aphorism.

And Pablo, have you ever been to Iraq? I've at least been there and have made some effort to keep up from sources other than socialist propaganda outlets.

Dave

YAWN FOR THE REDNECK

Did anyone see the communist falg in the Obama office in that video?

I really got a kick out of that "peeing on it" to make it his line. Almost spit coffee on my monitor!

I'm good on the energy crisis...checked my tires yesterday! But, do I use the psi on the tire or on the door????

You libs amaze me...you give way to much credit to "the dumbest president ever"...now he's controlling the press too?

Clav,

Journalists in Nam were regularly brought to the "front" shortly after battles were over - that is if it could be shown that the Americans had won. At any rate, there were miles of footage regularly shown on network newscasts of actual battle with reporters right there with the troops in Nam.

There is a serious problem with "embedded" reporters as they tend to lose perspective and objectivity when they live - work, eat, sleep and generally hang out with the troops.

Also, line troops rarely have any grasp of the "big picture." There's is often a myopic view limited by the range of their personal experience. The same can be said of the embedded reporters.

B

So, what are the "surge" supporters saying? That Gen. Eric Shiseki was right all along? That their knee-jerk rejection of Shinseki was wrong?

Does this mean that they are going to send an apology to Shinseki?

I think it's pretty clear that Rumsfeld and others were way wrong in terms of how the war was prosecuted. I've said as much many times.

I'll say it again just in case anyone has amnesia:

1) The case to go to war in Iraq was badly made. I agreed and still agree with removing Saddam, but the issue was never in my mind directly linked to 9/11, as I supported taking out Saddam back when Bill Clinton first expressed his policy of regime change in Iraq. WMDs were important, but more important was Saddam's support of terrorism, as well as his inclination towards making weapons. Why the Bush admin chose only to focus on WMDs always raised questions for me.

2) The execution of the war in Iraq following the initial invasion, and leading up to the surge was terrible to say the least. 4000 Americans probably could still be alive today had the right troop levels been applied in the first place.

Are you happy now? Can we focus on actually winning the war in Iraq? Or because of these past transgressions, will Democrats try and stick the GOP face in it out of spite, regardless of the sacrifices made by great Americans in the past?

What I can't stand about the left is this cut off the nose to spite the face policy. Does the left understand what will once again happen in to US standing if we leave Iraq a mess?

I will once again link to the WSJ's notable and quotable page today that goes to the very heart of this issue.

Bad decisions were made (in fact, lies and distortions were used to sell those decisions). But the decision makers are still in place. Why would you expect better decisions going forward? Especially since they don't admit they made mistakes (and lied).

They are irresponsible. Everything they touch will fail.

The best decision may be to Just Get Out, but the swollen egos and sensitive vanities of the bad decision makers will not allow them to do that.

Bush 1 was beating the anti-saddam drums before Clinton, in fact he even went to war against Saddam, with a much more successful outcome all around. Bush 1 made successful decisions. maybe we should review some of them, like: do not invade Baghdad. Keep Saddam bottled up.

The WSJ article by Solzhenitsyn was very poor.

First of all, he says we should make communism vs. the West a battle between Good and Evil. How stupid. Does he expect that first we determine what IS good and what IS evil? That's a problem that's bothered mankind throughout history. And we should solve that first?

Or does he think that we should just use "Good vs. Evil" as a propaganda pretext?

In the end, what defeated communism wasn't morality (any number of humans will testify that the West never achieved a particularly high level of moral consciousness, regardless of our own vane pronunciamentos) but materiel. We beat their economy. The same way Eisenhower won WW2.

Second, I'm sure he would have wanted all the Western nations to throw their resources into freeing him from prison, just like anyone else. But Sozhenitsyn is not the center of the universe, no matter what he may have thought.

Solzhenitsyn was whining to the end of his days about how hard his life was and that the West was at fault for not coming to his rescue.

Poor guy lived in Nobel Prize luxury and adoration for the last 30 years of his life, which is a hell of a lot better than a lot of superannuated US citizens can expect.

ObAm sez: "I think it's pretty clear that Rumsfeld and others were way wrong in terms of how the war was prosecuted. I've said as much many times."

But WHAT were you saying AT THE TIME! Were you backing Rumsfeld/Bush/Cheney? Did you attack people who doubted those guys?

Or have you only chosen Rumsfeld now as a scapegoat? ANd I notice that you STILL haven't denounced the bad decisions of Bush and Cheney and all the others.

You seem too easily satisfied to have Rumsfeld as a scapegoat.

Therefore, I don't think that YOU have improved your decision making, and any idea or notion that you put forward is still tainted by the stink of neocon failure!

The surge improved conditions in Iraq.

Because Al Qaeda chose to withdraw to Afghanistan and Pakistan and "surge" there.

Will they return to Iraq when either Obama or McCain withdraws troops someday?

Sure.

As soon as the Surge ends Al Queda will flow back in. Does anyone doubt it? The only answer is to Surge Everywhere and Forever. Who wants that?

I doubt it, Bliffle. We've killed great numbers of them, destroyed their hierarchy and finances, and convinced the local population that Al Qaeda doesn't have their interests at heart.

It is quite probable that even if a significant U.S. presence in Iraq remains for as long as McCain's 100 years, fighting between Sunnis and Shiites and perhaps the Kurds would likely reignite before the last American plane disappears over the horizon.

Look at the former Yugoslavia. Under Tito and the strong arm tactics of his communist regime, most of the long standing hatred between various factions in the area - mainly between muslims and christians - were held in check. But within weeks or months after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, many of the old divisions surfaced and quickly developed into, first sporadic fighting, and then quickly escalated into full blown war and attempted genocide by the Serbians. All this after 35 years under Tito.

The aspirations of those who believe that the "surge" or anything else that can be attempted in Iraq will culminate in a peaceful unified democracy are unrealistic at best.

It is also likely true that as Al Qaida's presence in Iraq appeared to wain, it magically became stronger in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Al Qaida is nothing if not adaptable. The jury should still be out as to the real effectiveness, if any, of the surge.

B

Bliffle, where o where do I start. Ok, how about from the beginning. You say:

"Bad decisions were made (in fact, lies and distortions were used to sell those decisions). But the decision makers are still in place. Why would you expect better decisions going forward? Especially since they don't admit they made mistakes (and lied)."

First, lied? It's never enough for dems that bush or rummy was simply wrong. They had to lie too, right? Even though there isn't a shred of proof, even though Bill Clinton first started the policy of regime change (if you remember, Bush 1 backed away from that idea because of the UN, only to have the Iraq issue continue to bubble up, hence why Clinton changed policy). Just stop it already with the BS, even your runner up for the presidential election in 2008 voted in favor of the war, and she had all the same intel as Bush.

Secondly, not every decision by Bush was wrong. His tax plan wasn't wrong. His anti-Kyoto stance was absolutely not wrong. The dems were way wrong on Social Security reform and now YOU AND I pay for that one. Sorry but no.

"The best decision may be to Just Get Out, but the swollen egos and sensitive vanities of the bad decision makers will not allow them to do that."

This is an old line. Perhaps this might have been true prior to the surge. But then again, the surged proved that "just getting out" wasn't the right decision. In fact, we could win this thing if we really wanted to. Egos? Why do you intend on personally coloring (not a racist point) everything in an emotional way? Perhaps some of us don't want to leave Iraq because of the repercussions and not because of ego. Just maybe?

"The WSJ article by Solzhenitsyn was very poor."

That wasn't an article, it was a quote of a speech he gave to a harvard class in the late 70s. Interesting how much of what he said applies to today, and equally interesting how the left did exactly as he predicted, ignored the MASSIVE loss of life in Vietnam after the dems "ended the war there."

Moreover, there is such a thing as good and evil. It's not all relative as you would insist. By any measure, the regime we took out in Iraq is evil. The regimes in power in Saudi Arabia, Iran, pakistan, etc are evil. We need to proceed as such with open eyes.

"But WHAT were you saying AT THE TIME! Were you backing Rumsfeld/Bush/Cheney? Did you attack people who doubted those guys?"

What should I have said exactly? I didn't know they were wrong at the time, and neither did you. You objected totally on anti war position.


"Or have you only chosen Rumsfeld now as a scapegoat? ANd I notice that you STILL haven't denounced the bad decisions of Bush and Cheney and all the others."

You can sit there and denounce all you like while the rest of us will figure out a way to actually succeed in Iraq.

Baritone, you could just as easily use the US as an example. We had a separatist movement, which led to a lot of violence, followed by military occupation and oppression by the central government. When they loosened their grip, things turned ugly again - but nowhere near as bad as they had been. The US still has tension between its regions, but it also has a national pride that holds it together.

Iraq has a sense of national unity too, unlike a lot of Middle Eastern countries whose borders were random creations of the British. While a bunch of Americans were talking about splitting Iraq into three countries, the Iraqi factions were fighting for control of their government. They want to be unified (and of course, each region wants to be in charge, but that's politics for you). They have more sense of nationhood than a lot of Pakistan does.

The Iraqis have recognized that Al Qaeda represents an outside force. They're sick of outsiders. The transition to independent control won't be easy, but there's plenty of reason to believe it can happen successfully.

In the end, what defeated communism wasn't morality (any number of humans will testify that the West never achieved a particularly high level of moral consciousness, regardless of our own vane pronunciamentos) but materiel. We beat their economy. (emphasis added)

Appropriately enough, since, fundamentally, the Cold War was a struggle between economic systems.

Fulton Sheen once said that asking someone "what is your economics?" is the same as asking them "what is your philosophy?". The west's economics won because the Soviet system was anti-human, opposed to free will. Call it economics if you want to, but it can easily be called morality.

Actually, I think both you and bliffle have good points, Baronius.

Many historians agree with bliff that we defeated the Soviets by basically outspending them and forcing them into bankruptcy. We were able to do so because our economic system was (and is) far richer than theirs.

Bar,

But, the Sunni/Shiite rift is ancient and goes well beyond Iraqi borders. National unity or no, the religious differences may trump any desire for a united Iraq. Also, the Kurds may well be more interested in hooking up with Turkish Kurds which could create more havoc, not to mention the hostilities which still remain between the Kurds and both the Sunnis and Shiites.

Al Qaida doesn't seem to concern itself with what anyone else wants. If unrest continues between the Sunni and Shiites, they may well insert themselves back in Iraq to continue stirring the pot.

I may be too much the pessimist, but neither am I a Pollyanna. The Bushies have shown little understanding of the Middle East in general or Iraq in particular. We didn't understand southeast Asia, either. That ended well, didn't it?

B

I agree. Believe me, I'm not saying that Soviet economics was award-winning. We spent them to death. But that only worked because they were (a) bent on world domination, and (b) lousy at production. That's why I say it goes back to philosophy or morality.

Bar - My comment #28 was directed to Clavos. Your comment, I don't agree with so much. In fact it's exactly the kind of thinking that I was arguing against. The factions in Iraq seem to be pulling together. Even the way they vie for power gives the impression that they're in it for the long haul.

Could Turkey or Iran mess things up? Of course. That's what they do. That's all they do! (Sorry. Terminator moment.)

Al Qaeda, as you note, doesn't much care what the locals think. Their recruitment suffers for it. They fancy themselves the Taliban, but they're more like the Weathermen. I hope.

erroneous Baronius sez: "We've killed great numbers of them,..."

Shades of Westmoreland! Suddenly we're back in Vietnam. Kill Ratios!

Many of the benefits of the Surge came from bribing warlords. When things change, their loyalties will change. What would you expect from hardcore mercenaries? Kill ratios or not.

Yes, Bliffle, the idea is to kill more of them than they kill of you. The fact is that Al Qaeda's numbers are dwindling, despite some predictions that we'd be increasing terrorist recruitment. Kill ratios have no importance when the enemy is constantly growing in numbers, but that's not the case here. We're killing terrorists; the terrorists are killing themselves; the locals are killing terrorists; and no one wants to be a terrorist any more.

I wouldn't trust the warlords with my ATM number, but it's significant that they see cooperation as the best move. It's a good sign when the opportunists are on your side. There are lots of things that could still go wrong, but this is the Middle East we're talking about, where political opportunism always wins the day. (Same as anywhere else.)