Correctly Political: Liquid Lunch with Donald Rumsfeld

Gillis,

The big problem is, that we can't just 'pick up our marbles' and walk away fgrom Iraq.

We have a tiger by the tail.

There is no question that the long-term harm to America's interests caused by "picking up our marbles and going home" is greater than the dangers of staying and continuing / enhancing the occupation. As Colin Powell put it "we broke it, we bought it." Besides, the moral dilema of taking a country from (albeit strong-armed and totalitatian) stability to chaos and then just leaving because it's no longer convenient would ruin our ability to EVER take a moral high-road again. That said, though he is gruff and seemingly has little regard for the American public, it is hard to diagree to the Secretary's position. Here you have a country more concerned with American Idol than the fact that we are fighting a (at least) two front war with an economy spiralling downward ever more rapidly and, as was recently noted by a commenter on NPR, an international repuation on par with the most reviled regimes in the world. Let's remember that, in a representative democracy, you get what you vote for and that system only works with an informed and active electorate. Sadly, we lack that important component.

There is no question that the long-term harm to America's interests caused by "picking up our marbles and going home" is greater than the dangers of staying and continuing / enhancing the occupation. As Colin Powell put it "we broke it, we bought it."

There isn't any question? Actually, yes there is some question. If you believe that fine, but don't try to convince me of it. I believe we would be better if we walked away tomorrow. Don't worry, we've already thoroughly trashed our reputation.

To me, the only remaining argument that holds any water is whether the Iraqi's will actually be better off. I remember the way things were after we'd handled the initial occupation. Things were secure for the most part, there was very little to call an insurrection. We insisted on staying, and after awhile the insurrection began. We created it, because of our presence, and because we fired the people whom we should have been cooperating with, thus giving everyone the sense that we were arrogant.

They might be better off, they might not; but don't tell me for one moment we will be better off. Our actions are the best recruiting drive ever held for Al Qaeda. From Blackwater getting away with murder, to Abu Ghraib, to the ominous sense of foreboding Iraqi's get from Marine check points, we've advanced terrorism as nobody ever has before.

The thing about this 'securing American interests story' is that people have been so indoctrinated for so long, most people have to be training simply to think logically. What American interests are being served? Not being forced to admit we were wrong for the way we handled this?

Jack - since I didn't listen yet to your audio---tell me does Rumsfield say anywhere in the hour "WE HAVE ALREADY LOST"??? OR Does he say anywhere let's just SURRENDER to the enemy---anywhere? I highly doubt it---otherwise really why did they even bother to get together for lunch and drinks in the first place??? I think the Bush Administration has been upfront with the American people in telling them THIS IS A DIFFERENT kind of war....asymmetric war---that will be fought and won by conventional and unconventional methods....meaning not by the military alone.

Jack - since I didn't listen yet to your audio---tell me does Rumsfield say anywhere in the hour "WE HAVE ALREADY LOST"??? OR Does he say anywhere let's just SURRENDER to the enemy---anywhere? I highly doubt it---otherwise really why did they even bother to get together for lunch and drinks in the first place??? I think the Bush Administration has been upfront with the American people in telling them THIS IS A DIFFERENT kind of war....asymmetric war---that will be fought and won by conventional and unconventional methods....meaning not by the military alone.

I dont' really understand what your trying to say, want to explain it?

Bush was either wrong or lying in one respect. Remember when Rumsfeld said this will be over in weeks, possbly monhts, certainly not years? I understand McCain is saying we could win by 2011 or 2013 now; even if that's true it would make us one of the longest wars we've ever been in.

What year is it now hon?

They told us to expect a short war, which is the opposite of saying what your indicating. They did pretty much indicate they thought it would easy actually.

This is one of those posts that leads me to believe that the person who wrote is incapable of acknowledging reality. You think they made all that clear? Cause that's what I remember. Unfortunately, I actually read and remember what these guys said, and am burdened by that knowledge.

Smiling---the narrative has changed....where the heck ya been, eh? Do you remember GWB in the 04 election telling us again and again it was "hard work"? I do.

Smiling---the narrative has changed....where the heck ya been, eh? Do you remember GWB in the 04 election telling us again and again it was "hard work"? I do.

So more then a year after he said it would be a cakewalk, he admitted it would be hard work, and that changes everything?

You know, you might want to listen to the audio before you post this stuff? Are you ok, did somebody run over your dog or something? You used to sound a lot more rational.

lisaed...Jack - since I didn't listen yet to your audio---tell me does Rumsfield say...

Jack has gone to incredible lengths to research and construct this incredible bit of factually based investigative reporting, just so we can discuss the FACTS presented by Rumsfeld. Kudos Jack!!

Yet again, you seem to believe your uninformed opinion is valuable enough, that taking the time to be informed isn't as important as adding your views anyway. That conclusion was drawn from the fact that you'll offer a change of toopic along with an admission you didn't listen.

Is your time so much more important than Jacks? Why do you expect him to answer questions that defend your views when you can't be bothered by investing the time it takes to listen?

It's rude and insulting to everyone who builds a case for their position or invests themselves in debating the one here, to suggest that dropping remarks like, "Bush said it was hard work" in lieu of reading, listening and investing some effort deserves a thoughtful reply or any reply at all.

If there weren't a dozen other spots where she popped in to say and do the same thing you would be right. Tripping over the same claims all over the political sections gets old, quickly. Lisa's been on my friends list since she got here and I have no porblem with opposing views, but the current spam mode is not doing it for me. Take the time to be informed before expecting everyone else to take time to discuss your points. At least come up the curve in the column you're in before sharing.

I will compliment you on the wonderful diplomacy though Jack, one of us gets a halo here, not me!

Pamela-5.8-I have listened to the audio. And what I heard was as I inferred from Jack's very thoughtful overview in the article was a hawk speaking like a hawk and was in no way shocking or appalling to me. I stand by my comments on this thread. And I personally don't think there is anything wrong with reading Jack's work (when I'm at work and cannot listen to the audio) and making comments on the article before having the chance to listen to the audio-- is there? This is great work by Jack--no question---but his article is based on his own interpretation of Rumsfeld's remarks. Not everyone who listens to this audio is going to have the same take.

That's dandy. Jack's "take" on this was a thoughtfully constructed case, supported by evidence. Your rebuttals remain claims, rooted in individual opinion and unsupported by facts.

As I said earlier and a pinch snarkier than it could have been, partly with irritation at the blind loyalty you demonstrated by charging Chris Matthews of having a man crush on Obama when he filleted the meat head, flaunting his ignorance, yet somehow turned to an attack on your side.

Add to that trudging through the professional PR hit, spewing the same unsubstantiated claims and its too much. The folks who put in the effort to be smarter and debate as Jack and so many of the contributors here have done, deserve nothing less than for challengers to put up or shut up.

Feel free to hold any belief and express any opinion, but don't expect that it carries any weight without some facts to back it up.

lisaed...Chris is so taken with Obama that his reports are not to be taken with anything more than a grain of salt....he is incapable of being impartial---he's like a highschool girl with a bad crush on obama....sickening.

Saying Matthews has a man crush would probably be grounds for suspension, if he were a fellow viner. It 's like, like, OMG, so seventh grade, gossipy girl %$#@ you do yourself a disservice. You're far too smart for that and never struk me as intentionally insulting. It is insulting.

There's no doubt in my mind you can find a way to support what you believe in, if you make the effort. Read Bill Harrison's comment as an example of a great return. If research is too bothersome switch to fashion coverage. There opinion is everything, go embrace your inner Goddess in style!

Pamela---you are attacking me about comments I made on another thread concerning Chris Matthews----so let's respect the author of THIS thread and not go off topic. Furthermore, in 5.10 - you seem to be attacking me again off topic re: some other thread (your link "professional PR hit") on which I never even appeared or commented. The bottom line, Pamela, is that Jack and I have been friendly political adversaries since before John Kerry locked the dem nod in 2003. I will let Jack tell me if I'm out of line on any of his threads. I don't think in the nearly 5 years now that I've known Jack that he has EVER told me such nor has he ever accused me as you do on this thread of being a spammer. I am not and I am insulted by your false accusations of such. As for Bill Harrison --he and I also have been friends since our days on the New York Times forums now going back several years. As far as I can tell Bill Harrison does not even appear anywhere on this thread. Stay on topic.

Wow.

Well, I am not burdened by the negative consequences of success, as you seem to be. So I will just acknowledge all that and move on.

I see that some of the recent progress is due to the knowledge by Iraqi leaders that the plug will be pulled when Democrats likely add the White House to their party. I hope that it doesn't lead to more deaths, effected by the political benefits of dead soldiers before an election. Again. At some point that knowledge is counterproductive. If they give up on the US, seeing that it is too late to make any gains, Dems leaving no matter what, then you will have your party, and you will see what disaster really is.

Will Democrats accept responsibility? Of course not. They will blame Bush. Some Republicans like the idea of a Democrat Congress and a Democrat White House, yearning to be in your position, blame...accuse, taking joy when there is no one to blame except Democrats, who are certain that they will have nothing accept Eisenhowers and Bradleys for generals, perfectly executed plans, with perfect people in the government and the CIA. Yes. It will be good when all that happens. LOL.

If chaos results, and more deaths result from Democrats leaving people unprotected, or from the expectation of being unprotected soon, resulting in panic and more violence, then it is the Democrats fault.

Entirely.

And forever.

That has been the presumption. Yes, and that has been the deal, whatever it takes. For years.

Thanks for the comments and replies.

I'm not sure the Dems should be blamed for violence in Iraq subsequent to our leaving.
Consider the case of India under British rule. One of the main reasons givin for not granting India its independence was that violence would break out between the Muslims and Hindus. That did occur, some 500,000 dead, the country split into Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India.

Do we blame whichever British party was in power, or the Indians themselves who voted for independence? Or, was it that the country defined by Britain without consideration of the diverse groups within it a problem that history would eventually have to correct, sooner or later?

Jack:
Better odds on that than Big Brown at Belmont. ;-)

You think we'll have our first Triple Crown winner since Affirmed?

I hope that we do have a Triple Crown winner and that it helps revive the sport. I doubt it will be Secretariat's Belmont because that will probably never be duplicated again... but wouldn't that be a hell of a finish to Big Brown's run if he did something resembling Big Red's finish?

I think we have politicians that find anything and everything that Bush does as the worst they have ever seen. Until the next republican comes around. I am old enough to have seen a few "worst they have ever seen" republican leaders. Democrats benefit politically in doing that. Both parties are of politicans. But I don't recall feeling the need to check birth certificates as I would now, for these Democrats, just to find out why they seem more naturally loyal to any place else.

If this war against Islamic Supremicists serves as inspiration to their sort for the next two hundred years, so be it, if it helps gain Democrats power today. Done for so long, it now becomes more dangerous for them if we lose, for their own political power counts more than anything else.

The funny thing is that there could be nothing with a stronger evidence of conflict of interest, Democrats and deciding on Iraq. It is pretty much like Hamas voting in the Knesset. For the good of Palestine. Democrats are more dependent on an outcome they have nurtured, preached, desired, and sold, and success in Iraq is poison to the party.

There isn't a leader of principle in the Democratic party. Certanly no patriots. It is a party that serves itself.

But it is not that I love Republicans. They put up their candidates, and have won because what the Democrats offer is so pathetic. At least they aren't usually traumatized by the possibility of American success, and they seem to know who should win in a war. That's pretty basic, but shouldn't be all you have going for you.

As far as Southern Iraq is concerned, Iran is the de facto government. Precisely why Baghdad launched an offensive that, at best, was meek.

magz,

been following all the latest intel reports on Basra have you? priceless how easy it is to refer to other men's fighting and dying as 'meek'

Far as I know, the Sadr militia withdrew in the middle of the fighting thru the intervention of an Iranian operative. Could have been worse...

By the way, the government forces had benefit of coalition air and artillery support...

Yeah, I know. Way back in 03 I was having heated discussions with people I knew to be level headed and I just could not understand how they could overlook other players in the Neocon scenario of Iraq Westernized overnight.

And before Neocons get on my back about that one, I believe that Al Qaida and their Taliban (Pakistani ISS?) handlers be dealt with decisively.

those guys have turned your country into a bana republic. i am really sad :(

It is a very sad state of affairs, as you say, especially for someone looking on from the outside. The US is a very diseased nation, ponerized. People need to refocus their attention from, as everyone is saying, American Idol and such, and look at what is happening to the political world, the environment, civility in the streets. Rumsfeld's comment about needing another 9/11 was symptomatic of his lack of conscience. I anticipate that it will add fuel to the truthers' fire.

With all due respect, you haven't read much history have you?
Not hatred, reality. From Wikipedia because it's easy to copy-paste:

"Within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants in the defense or expansion of the Islamic state, the ultimate purpose of which is to universalize Islam. Jihad, the only form of warfare permissible in Islamic law, may be declared against apostates, rebels, highway robbers, violent groups, unIslamic leaders or states which refuse to submit to the authority of Islam."

"Before launching an attack he (Muhammed) would offer them three choices — conversion, payment of a tribute, or to fight by the sword. If they did not choose conversion a treaty was concluded, either instead of battle or after it, which established the conditions of surrender for the Christians and Jews — the only non-Muslims allowed to retain their religion at that time. The terms of these treaties were similar and imposed on the dhimmi, the people 'protected' by Islam, certain obligations."

From the Quran:
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

[9.6] And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.

Go look up the word "dhimmi" in Wikipedia for an understanding of Islam and "tolerance". Then you will begin to understand Islam and it's place in history.

Dear Skeptic-281378
1. Wikipedia could be edited by anyone
2. those verses are out of context and poorly translated
3. the explanation of holly war is not like that, it is not like the crussaders interpretation either
it is about self control (the highest form) and Ghandi-like tactics. What you mention is the last resort, when someone is aiming at you on your doorstep
4. please lookup "christian tolerance" in wikipedia
or lookup "Christian debate on persecution and toleration" in WikiPedia

U see, problem is we dont understand about each other, even Sunni muslims no zilch about Shia muslims. I think catholics know notthing about Protestants either...and so on

pls dont get me strted on tolerance
muslim countries opened their arms and accomodated the victims of the spanish inquisition from the other religion. The poor people were persecuted by non-muslims through out history more than any muslim

those verses are specific to incidents where somebody living in someone's country and not abiding by the law
recent civilised countries (rightly so) went berserk with non-citizens when something similar happened

this argument is futile and everybody is the best. that is not the way to go

we must accept each other, respect each other and cooperate on worldly stuff like saving the planet and co-existence.
we must help each other work on common grounds and leave differences inside homes or places of worship
Greed and dreams of superiority will not acheive any of this
It was a pleasure discussing with you, take care

Peace & Love

Steve Greer,

Thanks. Some reality without BS is always nice.

You know, I just looked at the photo closer. If I recall, the liquid in the tall glasses was iced tea. If you look at my glass in front of me, you'll notice the lemon slice.

Can't argue with your second point. Agree.

Sure, the boys in the fight knew it sucked...as all wars do.

My Salutes to you Steve, Thank you for the service.

Sure. The only attendee with the first name of Michael was indeed Marine LtGen DeLong, Former Dep Commander, CENTCOM. Great man!
I looked at the group shot I have and need to correct the number of attendees I indicated above. There were 9 total military analysts. The attendee roster you show above lists 22. I don't feel comfortable identifying the others at the table.
There are three glasses at each table setting; ice tea, water, and coffee.

Steve:
If I may ask, what moved you to become a television analyst and give what was a, by most accounts, inaccurate analysis of our prospects in the situation? I was under the impression that we broadcast inaccurate analysis to our enemies.

Scott, fair question.

From my vantage point, as a retired senior non-commissioned officer, I felt as if our troops needed as much support as possible. The media was simply one vehicle towards that end. My services were, and still to this day remain, pro-bono.

I disagree that my analysis was inaccurate, with one very important exception....the WMD assertions. Everyone of us was duped in this regard. To this day I remain convinced that Iraq halted their WMD program shortly after the first Gulf War. During the build up to the Iraq invasion, all of us were relying on intelligence data from a variety of intelligence agencies. Otherwise, my analysis of military tactics, techniques, and procedures and the operational environment our troops faced was accurate.

Many military pundits used a variety of sources to prepare their comments....normally 30-45 second sound bites that prevented any in-depth explanation to the viewing audience. The DOD talking points were simply one source. Most of us were in direct contact with troops and commanders on the ground. T.V. interviews are not scripted in advance. I'm comfortable with what I told the American people.

Steve, thanks for chiming in.

I don't know what your analysis was, but my issue was the idea that an occupation by U.S. and British troops somehow would not be received by a powerful insurgency. Given the history and the politics of the region it seemed a given to me at the time.

Also, do you ever wonder about the motivations of someone like: "Feith was one of 18 founding members of the organization One Jerusalem to oppose the Oslo peace agreement. Its purpose is "saving a united Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel."" (from wikipedia on Feith) ?

I'm looking up your comments now.
24-NOV-04
"there's really four elements in the insurgency -- if the terrorism is the first part, the other three are the Shi'a, led by Sadr, but the other two parts are the Sunni portion."

That's sounds much different than what the administration was saying, they only wanted to acknowledge the first part publicly. One wonders if the efforts would have more support today if the administration had been more honest with the American people. This was a similar issue with the Tet Offensive. Sure, we killed many VC, but we had been told they were already almost defeated. The Tet Offensive demonstrated either that our leaders had no real idea how much support the VC actually had, or were lying to us. That doesn't encourage my confidence in their efforts.

I can say that our collective efforts were noble and well-intended. I can't imagine what the MSM would have done to the moral of our force had we not been so engaged.

Your patriotism is honorful. Please notice though that the manifested ease with which you lay open your "intent" turns you not into the "cool-blooded expert and analyst", the role you were supposed to fill, but into a spokesperson for an agenda, regardless if the agenda is noble in your eyes (history will show if the agenda served by any means to bring along victory or just served to create more motivated-but-dead US men and women).

Exchanging "best expert estimate" with wish, you have thereby confirmed with ease your bias and ineptness to perform the job you were supposed to do with regards to another noble cause - the one you were actually supposed to perform: Make the American public have a clear and critical judgement about the historic and political situation and enable the working of the very same Democracy of Enlightened Citizens your soldiers are giving their limbs to defend.

May I recall the name of "Baghdad Bob"? I wouldn't want to allude yours anyway amounts to the same, but I might want to recall to what this tendency leads to if driven further and to the top.

Cletus, thx.

I appreciate your diligence in reminding me of my comments regarding the early stages of the insurgency. I think I characterized the key players correctly during that stage of the war in Iraq. Agreed, not many were discussing the elements of the incipient insurgent environment (save MAJ Andy Messing) but the complexity of the situation in Iraq demanded the viewers understood the antagonists. We were (and still are) fighting a number of different groups, factions, etc., who continue to disrupt the Iraqi political process to further their agendas.

No doubt, the Brit's in Malaya and our own experience in VN should have been a red flag for our leadership. We dropped the ball.

I think it's prudent for all of us to realize that pundits have little time to provide clear and concise analysis on air. I often walked away from an interview thinking that I probably confused more viewers than not.

Cletus, sorry, forgot to respond to your question regarding my comments in 04:
24-NOV-04
"there's really four elements in the insurgency -- if the terrorism is the first part, the other three are the Shi'a, led by Sadr, but the other two parts are the Sunni portion."

At that time, we (DOD) had braudly indentified 4 major antagonists that fueled the insurgent environment.
1. Foreign Fighters
2. Shia who were opposed to any future rule by Sunni
3. Sunni - former Bath party supporters
4. Sunni - opposed to the Bath party

All four of which were working to disrupt our efforts. All four of which wanted US Troops out of Iraq.

Trying to put these in context on air is utterly impossible.

actually the Shiaa are divided also, the fighting in Sadr city is shiaa vs shiaa

Wheel, agreed. However in 04, when we tried to get a handle on what elements we faced the Shia were believed to be on our "side". Sadr's militia was clearly not. As the insurgency grew, we indeed identified Shia on Shia engagements as militants began targeting anyone who supported the coalition's efforts.

Thanks for your replies Steve.

Looking back, you did a pretty darn good job of putting the stuff into context. At least you tried.
The President, Vice President, and Secretary of Defense, on the other hand, resisted even using the term insurgency.

(see: a previous post of mine on this thread)

Strategy that is making Iraq safer was snubbed for years

...
For years, Rumsfeld and other Pentagon officials resisted just such an approach. Although generals such as Petraeus put their theories into action on a small scale in Iraq as early as 2003, the military still lacked a detailed, nationwide plan for battling the insurgency.

In September 2004, 18 months into the war, Krepinevich flew to Nashville at the invitation of top generals....

Krepinevich's call for a new direction drew no criticism. "It told me they didn't have an approach" for winning the war, he says....

Retired Army major general Paul Eaton, who was at the meeting and had been directing the training of Iraqi forces, said Krepinevich "was saying what had become increasingly obvious to many of us."

"What we had was a secretary of Defense who denied (the insurgency existed) … and the senior leadership of the Army would not challenge him," Eaton says. "But Krepinevich could. A lot of us were thinking, 'He gets it; maybe he can reach some of the leadership.' " ...

How to Win in Iraq - Andrew F. Krepinevich, Jr., September/October 2005

Any comment on the correctness of that statement, about Rumsfeld's position?

My Newsvine article/thread specifically on this stuff: What's Your Strategy?

The Greer Foundation raises public awareness of the sacrifices of serving our nation by providing informed commentary on issues related to the war on terror.

A worthy cause.

FWIW I think it's unfortunate that David Petraeus was not in Tommy Franks' position from Day 1 after the fall of Baghdad.

Cletus, I concur. Guerrilla Warfare and Insurgency was not something the administration wanted to wrestle with and the reluctance to accept and act in this regard cost us valuable time. The "hope" was, from my observation, that the Iraqi elections would empower a viable Iraqi Govt who would quickly begin running the country and thus the impetus for the Iraqi resistant effort would be removed. The reality was that the elections caused the reverse. It actually inspired more Sunni Insurgents to rise up, accelerated the AQI movement behind Zarqawi, and snubbed Al-Sadr.

I've taken time to read all postings on this thread. I respect each one. All of us have opinions that reflect the luxury of placing things in historical context. We are still at war...and will be for the foreseeable future. At some time we all must lean forward in our collective fox holes and stand behind the troops who are forced to carry the fight while the rest of us sit far removed.

At some point we must bring our sons and daughters home from this failure of a war and begin the process of healing their wounds, and caring for their disabilities. That's standing behind our troops who've carried this hopeless fight.

Steve - Thanks again for taking the time to exchange views with us.

"The "hope" was, from my observation, that the Iraqi elections would empower a viable Iraqi Govt who would quickly begin running the country and thus the impetus for the Iraqi resistant effort would be removed. The reality was that the elections caused the reverse. It actually inspired more Sunni Insurgents to rise up, accelerated the AQI movement behind Zarqawi, and snubbed Al-Sadr."

It seems that is true sitting, from here in my armchair. Have you mentioned this on Fox news, or have the editors determined it would be too confusing to its audience? (not required to answer that last part or any other really)

"I've taken time to read all postings on this thread. I respect each one."

Mostly agreed. One further down the list I hand an issue with.

"We are still at war...and will be for the foreseeable future. At some time we all must lean forward in our collective fox holes and stand behind the troops who are forced to carry the fight while the rest of us sit far removed."

I agree. Along those lines I don't think Congress should cut the funding. I'm fairly sure the Democratic leadership agrees. It's stupid politics also, because most voters agree.

I don't think that means we shouldn't discuss the strategy. If one assumes we have insurgencies in Iraq, and the COIN manual is a correct response, I read a few points from the manual that we still are contradicting with our policies. The most important ones are the rule of law issues. McCain seems to understand this very well. I'm surprised I don't see the COIN manual referenced more often in the detainee treatment and legal rights issues. "It's not who we are." is a nice soundbite, but I prefer "it's counterproductive to our counterinsurgency strategy".

For anyone who thinks I follow too much of what the media says, notice that previous paragraph has nothing to do with what the media says. It's just reading the Army's COIN manual, and policy statements from the White House. And a little logic.

Jack:
I agree and feel that was one of our early mistakes. The administration didn't realize that a "We've got the guns so you're going to sit down and hammer this out and anybody that tries to leave before we have an agreement will face unpleasant consequences" approach was the only one that was going to work. They certainly weren't going to intermix on their own as was sadly seen in Baghdad when the city ethnically cleansed itself into neighborhoods that were all one group.

I also feel this was the fallacy of not using more soldiers because Germany and Japan knew they were beaten and that the occupation forces would accept nothing better than a functioning govt free of major internal strife. The Iraqis never got the message in that regard.

I don't disagree with that either. I think I misstated what I was trying to say. We should have forced them, as the occupiers, to come to an agreement of sharing oil revenues and have the three main ethnic contingents be responsible for their own security. Split it into three but put in an ineffectual central govt and pretend that Iraq is still one country.

I think Biden would be a good Sec of State. I think splitting it up is the only thing that's gonna work.

I think Biden would be a good Sec of State.

I had not considered, till this moment, the ancillary changes that would come from a change of regime in the White House. A new cabinet, new (and hopefully more competent and less politically motivated) heads of the federal departments. Heck, maybe even get to replace a couple of SCOTUS members. Wouldn't that be nice?!

Wheel:
I think that great things could come of an Obama administration. Especially if he chooses an intelligent Republican like John Warner, who is retiring from his Senate seat, for SecDef. The policy changes at depts like State, the EPA, etc. would be breathtaking and, thank God, likely much more effective than the current administration.

Scott---do you seriously think that obama will pick a pub to be sec of d? I don't.

I think it's a possibility. It would fit in with his unity talk. We'll have to see for sure if he gets elected.

Scott---obama talks the talk---but does he walk it? Nope.

Jack--yeah--sure...Just remember that Hagel is not really a republican.

Cletus, thx. Indeed, I've been on record providing the same analysis I present here. No one at Fox (or CNN, NBC, NPR, etc) has, in my opinion, stifled my thoughts or comments. Unfortunately, the time restraints on air prevent any real analysis to rise to the top of the mountain of insignificant questions poised by well-meaning but inexperienced (militarily) anchors.

I do speak about the war to a variety of groups. This forum of presentation followed by Q&A tends to bring out a much more coherent understanding of how "we" in the media saw events unfolding and how the public saw things unravel.

You are correct in your assessment of our inconsistencies with our own COIN doctrine. The new FM is used in the Unconventional Warfare class I teach at American Military University. In every class I have taught, there are several learners who are either currently engaged in the WOT or have first-hand knowledge of our efforts. In many instances as a military analyst, I would fall back on what these troops told me was happening in their AOR vice what DOD would publish. As an example: There is much talk about the surge in troops being the primary reason the situation seems to be improving in Iraq. I don't support this assessment and have communicated with several troops and commanders in the current fight in Iraq. The surge is simply one of several factors that impact the current situation. Equally important is the Sunni elders in Anbar finally moving to rebuff AQ in Iraq, Al Sadr's decision to cease fire for 6 months, and the Iraqi military becoming more capable to conduct independent operations.

Jack, agree, we are in quick sand and I don't foresee a Western pluralistic democracy as the end-state in Iraq.

Wheel, I can appreciate your points about bringing our troops home from this war. I think every single American echoes your thoughts. Unfortunately, there are any number of opinions on when this is prudent. Do we simply leave Iraq and allow it to crumble (some believe it's inevitable regardless)? If we do will that embolden our enemies? Does it make a hill of beans to our future if they are emboldened? I really don't want to debate here what is the best option because I honestly don't know. I know General Petraeus and many of the commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe they provide the most comprehensive assessments and informed recommendations to Sec Gates as humanly possible. They are all honorable men (and women) and have spent years fighting and away from their families. I tend to lean toward supporting their collective recommendations.

**Please Note, this will be my last posting to this thread. My primary interest was in letting readers know that there was no alcohol served at this lunch meeting with Rumsfeld. Jack posted a correction and I am very grateful to him for being a stand up guy. I appreciate all the views here and if anyone would like to communicate with me outside this forum, I can be reached at steven@greerfoundation.org. God Speed to you all!

Excellent reply again Steve.
Good point about confidence in Patraeus, he's in the best position to know what's going on.
Based on his writings he has a solid strategy.
I just hope the President is listening, and on the inconsistencies with the COIN there is some evidence he's not.
Mostly I like to make these points for people who are not aware of them to be better informed as to what the the military's publicly available documents say about counterinsurgency strategy. In a republic the voters need to be informed in order to make the best leadership choices.

hopefully see ya around on Newsvine.
Seed a link to any articles you write, for example.

I agree with Jack, thank you Steven.

Fxgillis,

You are quoting Rumsfeld? "The war is lost?"

I don't find it in your article, and it seems like that would have been included in what you callled the most notable points. That would seem notable.

No lose No win situation is called...ah...strategic stalemate.

fxgillis 29.3

What does it mean to me?

It means that he didn't say what you implied he said

And the answer to my question, "is that a quote," would be no.

And withing your rights to change the way you portrayed the statement earlier?

Oooh. Step into my office for a moment, sir.

You seem pretty careful. You thought about it before, but if you left off "militarily," on something so NEWSIE, it would have been checked?
: )

But if you rewrite, and leave off "militarily" again, because of the timing, you should leave off the part about being drunk off is ass, too, because the spacing could have been slurred speech?

: )

My use of "implied" was charitable, given the quotation marks. If I throw you a line, don't yank me in, please.

By the way, after all this, I should say that you did a lot of work on this, and it seems accurately described, with allowances assumed for the usual non-existant left-leaning slant

I wasn't trying to gotcha. I saw that you quoted Fechancellor, and then seemed to indicate that Rumsfeld said the words in the quote. I was trying to get that clarified.

"Fair" is subjective.

You paraphrased what was said and it changes the meaning.

Defeatism isn't a plan either.

Just pulling out is a plan but, arguably, a bad one.