Hi char,

Quote:
iowan15: "I understand quite well the point you were trying to make. After all, I'm an Ohio State Buckeyes fan. After the college football national championship game, I was the greatest coach you could fine. Me, and about a milion other Buckeye faithful. Your position is little more than warmed over Monday morning quarterbacking. On Sunday, the play caller is a genius when the play works and, on Monday, he's an idiot if it didn't. But you don' suggest a different strategy. You suggest pulling the team off the field."

char: "This is a rather revealing rabbit-hole, so I'll wander down it a few yards. It shows that my analysis of your thought processes was on the money.

If the Ohio State players were getting literally killed instead of just figuratively (and it was a pretty definitive butt-kicking), you bet your life I'd have pulled them off the field."


It was an analogy, which makes moot any discussion about OSU football players getting 'literally killed'. The point is, and was, Monday morning quarterbacking.

Quote:
char: "You seem fixated on the W and L here, but there are larger purposes that escape your notice, such as casualties, and the broader struggle against the terrorists/Islamists, both of which are hurt by our Iraq occupation."


Oh, you mean to tell me that US forces have suffered casualties in Iraq? How did that escape my notice? (tongue firmly in cheek) Actually, I am fixated on the W, you on the L. And since 9/11 through today, there have been no significant terrorist attacks against the United States. So, at least in that sense, the broader struggle against the terrorists hasn't been hurt by our military intervention in Iraq. Sure, there have been many casualties in Iraq. War tends to produce them. I'd be curious to know how many casualties the enemy has suffered.

Quote:
char: "Another error in your analogy is that I am not Monday morning quarterbacking at all. I was on the Mall protesting BEFORE this mistake was made. I'm not telling you that Bremer could have done this or that and won a championship; I'm saying that this incursion was doomed from the start and the sooner it is ended the better for the United States. Since I (and many others) was right when I advised not invading, and Bush was spectacularly wrong, it seems we have the wrong "coach" in any case."


I am well aware that you believed the incursion was doomed from the start. Again, that remains to be seen.

Quote:
iowan15: "OK. So no US deaths are justified. So the troops should be out of Iraq tomorrow since any delay will likely mean more unjustified deaths."

char: "That would be fine with me. In practice, the military guys in here will tell us that a disengagement will take a few months for logistical and security reasons."


Too bad you have no leaders in Congress who will act on prescience.

Quote:
iowan15: "And what was the intelligent way to 'keep Vietnam divided'?"

char: "There was none. The intelligent way to prevent the spread of Communism in SE Asia would have been to recognize that the Viet Minh were the legitimate national force, and not to have jumped in to salvage part of France's empire."


char, you said that our purpose in going into Vietnam was to 'keep Vietnam divided'. That was your characterization, not mine. So there was no intelligent way to 'keep Vietnam divided'. Therefore, complaining that war was not the intelligent way to 'keep Vietnam divided' was a pointless point.

Quote:
iowan15: "What was the intelligent way to bring about regime change in Iraq?"

char: "We were doing what we reasonably could. Saddam was not going to be unseated that way, but we have all seen what happened after our ill-considered invasion, have we not?"


Yes, we have. Saddam was unseated. So, according to you, the intelligent way would have been to continue to pursue a course of action that you admit would not have resulted in the unseating of Saddam, but the course of action that DID unseat Saddam was not intelligent. Got it.

Quote:
char: "In the meantime, we could have used our might and leverage to advance the cause of democracy in ways that didn't kill a whole bunch of people, including Americans."


What sort of ways do you have in mind?

Quote:
char: "No trophies would have been involved, though, so I don't expect you to have paid much attention to those opportunities."


Since those 'opportunites' remain undefined, there's nothing to pay attention to just yet.

Quote:
iowan15: "What was the intelligent way to proceed with the war on terror (I'm making perhaps an unwarranted assumption that you favor a war on terror)?"

char: "The struggle against these religious fanatics is primarily a police matter, now that the only state that overtly supported them is gone. Iraq obviously had nothing to do with the war on terror except to make our position in it much worse."


No significant terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11.

Quote:
char: "We needed to press Egypt, Saudi Arabia (those of us in the reality-based community know that the 9/11 hijackers came primarily from those countries and none came from Iraq), Pakistan, and our other "allies" to loosen up and allow a faster progression towards democracy."


I knew that most of the 9/11 hijackers hailed from SA. Specifically, what would you recommend in terms of pressure? What should be done to get those countries to 'loosen up and allow a faster progression towards democracy'?

Quote:
char: "We needed to continue the police and intelligence work that has been capturing significant numbers of terrorists"


Agreed.

Quote:
char: "(unfortunately, Iraq has aided the recruitment of too many more to keep up with)."


I thought you said al-Qaeda's ranks were depleted after 9/11. Where are they now?

Quote:
char: "We needed to be seen to be a responsible world power, and not step into the role that Osama bin Laden wrote for us by invading another Islamic country, this time without authorization from the world community or sufficient reasonable justification."


Yes, I suppose we should have been responsible and passed a really, really, really tough UN resolution against Iraq and told them for the umpteenth time, 'This time, we really, rally, really mean it. You better comply or else there will be really, really, really 'serious consequences'.'

Quote:
char: "We needed to commit more resources, military and financial, to the rebuilding of Afghanistan."


OK.

Quote:
char: "And of course, we needed to lean on Musharraf to at least try to catch OBL."


What would 'leaning on' Musharraf have entailed?

Quote:
char: "What we did not need was to waste tremendous resources to kill large numbers of Arabs and produce the images that al-Jazeera is delighted to beam into the homes of hundreds of millions a day. That, Iowan, was surpassingly stupid, as I told you before your Dear Leader did it."


al-Jazeera was delighted to beam images of a couple of smoking skyscrapers into the homes of hundreds of millions, too. This may come as a shock to you but you cannot, in the deepest recesses of your mind, conceive of just how little I care what al-Jazeera delightfully beams. Or Katie Couric, for that matter.

Quote:
iowan15: "Well, which is it, char? Did al-Qaeda lack the capacity and assets for further attacks, or is it clear that they would continue their attacks?"

char: "I think they lacked the capacity then, but with a nation at their disposal, they may very well have regained it. If you gave this any thought, I believe you would have reached the same conclusion."


I did give it some thought. Doing so brought to my attention the contadiction between your two stated positions. So it was NOT clear that they would continue their attacks.

Quote:
iowan15: "Which intelligence organizations, specifically, denied that Iraq had WMDs?"

char: "The only one that was actually there, the inspectors, were telling us that they'd found nothing and needed a few more weeks to confirm that there was nothing. You know this."


OK. So no intelligence organization denied that Iraq had WMDs.

Quote:
char: "You just didn't believe them, but you were wrong. Even by Powell's speech at the UN the WMD fiction was unravelling. Hardly anyone outside the US believed him, because their own intelligence agencies were telling them that Powell was lying. As it turns out, he was."


Which intelligence agencies denied that Iraq had WMDs?

Quote:
iowan15: "Contain him militarily?"

char: "We were containing him militarily, at no loss of life to us. Don't you remember?"


Yes. So you were content to put US troops in harm's way to contain Hussein.

Quote:
iowan15: "But if we had succeeded, then we would have been just plain right about the invasaion. Yes, I understand your calculus, char. Victory means that the cause was worthy and defeat means the cause wasn't worthy. Got it."

char: "I'm pretty sure you are not as stupid as you are pretending to be."


And I'm quite certain that you're much older and grown up than this sort of childish comment display.

Quote:
char: "When you pick an unnecessary fight and you lose, that was a really dumb mistake. Your mistake."


Was it 'necessary' to invade Afghanistan? I'm not asking whether or not it was 'justified', or 'a good idea', but wheher or not it was 'necessary'. And for the record, according to you, we are losing in Afghanistan, too. Was it a dumb mistake to invade Afghanistan?

Quote:
iowan15: "That remains to be seen."

char: "The losses in men, honor, prestige, treasure, and influence are so great that it is difficult to imagine any result that could justify them now."


You couldn't imagine any justification even before the invasion so it's not surprising that you are pessimistic about the eventual outcome.

Quote:
iowan15: "To which 'plan' do you refer, char? The plan for an immediate withdrawal? Hillary's plan to not set a timetable on withdrawal and to also set a timetable of January 2009 upon her inauguration? Or is it Obama's plan, to start withdrawing troops by this May and the withdrawal to be complete by March 2008? Or is it Feingold's plan to defund the whole shebang? Or is it the plan to pass a toothless resolution opposing the surge? Which of those plans will prevent more US deaths and how?"

char: "Any plan that reduces the numbers of Americans fighting Iraqis is better than Bush's. I'm more concerned about moving in the right direction than the exact speed."


So your preffered 'plan' is 'not Bush's plan'. I thought as much. You are willing to accept, albeit with deep regret, more US casualties, so long as they don't occur under 'Bush's plan'. So this is more about your hatred of Bush than about the welfare of the troops.

Quote:
iowan15: "Neither is defeat [admirable]. But you don't seem to mind that."

char: "It's all about the Ws and Ls to you, isn't it?"


When one is in a fight, W and L is what it's about, isn't it?

Quote:
char: "There are some things more important than bragging rights, but I've given up trying to explain that to you."


You've already explained it. You've been clear that, in your estimation, toothless, non-binding resolutions (an oxymoron if there ever was one) and sticking it to Bush is more important than ending US troop casualties ('any plan but Bush's'). You've been clear that, in your estimation, it's more important that the French think well of us than prevailing in Iraq.

Quote:
char: "I heard everything you're saying now in the 1960s and early 1970s, and all it was was a deluded rationalization for throwing more lives away. "Losing" in Vietnam turned out not to be half the disaster that the war itself was."


I'm sure the millions of SV refugees and re-education camp alumni feel much better now.

Quote:
char: "This is not a football game."


Indeed, it is not.

Quote:
char: "If it were, the coach should be fired for his performance and the athletic director fired for scheduling it."


Maybe you can get your Dem leadership in Congress to articulate that bit of barking into another toothless, non-binding 'resolution'.

Quote:
char: "George H W Bush was not a particularly good President and made some big mistakes himself, but he at least knew better than to wade into Baghdad without a plan and without enough troops trusting that everything was going to turn out fine."


Well, what if he HAD had a plan and enough troops to topple Hussien? Are you suggesting that you would have supported an invasion of Iraq in that case? If not, then what does it matter what GHWB did or didn't do vis-a-vis Iraq in the first Gulf War?

Quote:
char: "We have to start using our brains here and try to figure out how to minimize the fallout from our mistake."


The Senate confirmed Petraeus, who testified that the surge was important. The ISG also nodded approval to a moderate surge, something Baker has recently supported. The troops in Baghdad and Anbar need reinforcements, which is what the surge is providing.

Quote:
char: "Kidding yourself that it was not a mistake is just pathetic at this point."


Yes, I already knew you think the cause was and is unworthy. Likewise, our enemies and our own troops are getting that message from you, Fonda, et. al., loud and clear.

Thanks for the reply, bud.

later. iowan15