| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 | |
| WSJ | 0 | |
| Sac Bee | Many California jobs ‘saved’ by stimulus funds weren’t in jeopardy |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
MSM ’stays the course’ on October surprises and phony administration hit pieces
As you’ve probably already read by now, the administration, according to the mediots, is supposedly backing off their Iraq war slogan of “stay the course.” Here’s an example of one such news piece:
President Bush and his aides are annoyed that people keep misinterpreting his Iraq policy as “stay the course.” A complete distortion, they say. “That is not a stay-the-course policy,” White House press secretary Tony Snow declared yesterday.
Where would anyone have gotten that idea? Well, maybe from Bush.
“We will stay the course. We will help this young Iraqi democracy succeed,” he said in Salt Lake City in August.
“We will win in Iraq so long as we stay the course,” he said in Milwaukee in July.
“I saw people wondering whether the United States would have the nerve to stay the course and help them succeed,” he said after returning from Baghdad in June.
But the White House is cutting and running from “stay the course.” A phrase meant to connote steely resolve instead has become a symbol for being out of touch and rigid in the face of a war that seems to grow worse by the week, Republican strategists say. Democrats have now turned “stay the course” into an attack line in campaign commercials, and the Bush team is busy explaining that “stay the course” does not actually mean stay the course.
There are two good pieces in the blogosphere that tackle the media’s (and the left’s) dishonest attempt at characterizing “stay the course” as a war strategy. First, James Joyner:
It is fair to fault the administration and the State, DoD and CENTCOM planners over the years for failing to anticipate foreseeable events, for being too slow to adapt to changes, for being overly optimistic, and myriad other failures. It’s ridiculous, however, to pretend that campaign trail rhetoric represents the total depth of their strategic thinking.
“Stay the course” is bumper sticker shorthand for continuing to work toward accomplishing the mission for which we set out three and a half years ago, in contrast with various withdrawal plans floated by opposition leaders. It does not mean, nor has it ever meant, “continue doing exactly what we’re doing right now without any change.”
Rob at Say Anything writes:
The Bush administration responded to the Times report by indicating that they weren’t talking about a timetable for Iraq but rather a list of goals for the mission in Iraq and a change in tactics.
The media/left responded to this new statement from the White House by suggesting that a change in tactics means that the President is reversing on his “stay the course” message.
So the Bush administration responds to that insinuation by pointing out that a change in tactics doesn’t mean that we’re deviating from the overall goal in Iraq, which is to stay there until the mission is complete. Something which, in turn, generates headlines like this:
[Headline reads: Bush Admin. Won't Shift Iraq Strategy]
Frustrating, isn’t it?
Yep. This is what happens when you have a willfully ignorant media who can’t tell the difference between a slogan and a strategy, have no real understanding of the military in and of itself, and don’t really care to because they despise the military and war (see this quote from veteran reporter and Nightline host Terry Moran for more on that), and who are also actively looking for ways to spin statements made by Republicans (no matter the issue) into something they’re not in order to help their power hungry Democratic pals get elected next month.
That’s their strategy, and they are ’staying the course’ with it.
Hat tip: Flopping Aces
Update I: Michelle Malkin points to blatantly biased photo captions from Agence France-Presse (AFP).
PM Update: Read more via the Real Ugly American, Lorie Byrd at Wizbang
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
34 Responses to “MSM ’stays the course’ on October surprises and phony administration hit pieces”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
It’s not just on Iraq. The mediots have been hammering away at anything they think can help the donks on November 7.
The economy, for example, is in fantastic shape. But if you watch, say, CBS, you’d think we’re all one step away from bread lines or eating cat food. Investor’s Business Daily had a superb editorial about that yesterday.
Part of the problem is that so many of the so-called journalists have zero background or education in anything like military history, economics, or science. They live in their little liberal cocoon where the real world doesn’t intrude and no one voices a contrary opinion. And anyone who has such opinions, well, they must be destroyed.
It’s easy to think that jihadist will suddenly become peacful when you insulate yourself from any clue about their objectives.
It’s easy to think that raising taxes will flood the treasury with new revenue when the closest you’ve ever come to studying tax policy is filling out your 1040 on the night of April 14.
It’s easy to think making any change in prosecuring a war is an admission of failure when you’ve never read about the campaigns of Patton or MacArthur.
And it’s doubly easy to make all those mistakes when you’re working in an echo chamber with similarly ignorant moonbats barking the same nonsense.
Rat, your points are well taken. That’s not a bad encapsulation of some key problems with the modern libs.
But as far as “stay the course” is concerned, the criticism of Bush before this week was precisely that he did use stay the course as his strategy. His public addresses all consisted of fortitude, gumption, and “stay the course” – with no specific plan. If only stay the course was just a slogan, we might have some kind of objective in Iraq by now. But we do not. If there is a plan and I am just in the dark, I welcome your correction.
In the meantime, I just see the president twisting in the wind, and deservedly so – considering how many times he used “stay the course” as a rhetorical club against all comers, from the retired generals to the former cabinet members to the GOP senators to, of course, the Dems. Some of these critics had much more in the way of substance to offer than the admin. Most of them got tarred with the “cut-and-run” label. Is that just a slogan too?
Stay the course vs. cut-and-run was a false dichotomy compliments of the admin. It was expedient for them at the time, and it’s awkward to try to explain it away now. There’s no way you can just forget the meaning and usage of “stay the course” given to it by the administration, without a healthy dose of kool aid.
Sister, this is hilarious. Bush is transparently dishonest in a t.v. interview, and the media have actually been more fair to him than he deserves on this issue, yet you still “blame the mediots.” I mean, he said “we’ve never been ’stay the course,’” and the countless examples of him saying exactly that, and accusing anyone with an alternate plan (Biden) of “cuttin’ and runnin’” show that statement to be an intentional, baldface lie. Now it’s Bush who wants to cut n’ run from his own rhetoric and even completely disown it. I mean, you can spin your rhetorical circles about the difference between “strategy” and “slogan” (That statement alone had me laughing for a couple minutes), but you need to at least acknowledge how embarrassing all this is.
biwah,
Thanks for the comments. After the recent troll incursions here lately, I’m glad to see someone expressing a thoughtful, sensibly written dissent.
I think we might have different views of what we mean by ’staying the course’. I think of this as a strategic concept. It’s certainly not an tactical idea and probably not useful on the operational level either. To me, ’staying the course’ includes ideas like taking the fight to the islamofascists on their turf and not ours, aggressively using all technological tools to cripple the enemy both on military and financial fronts, and promoting the values and benefits of a free society.
To use a crude example, if I want to drive 10 miles down the interstate to work, and there’s a traffic jam, I’m going to exit and use an alternate route. Am I ’staying the course’? I think I am – I’m heading for the same goal. But the tactics are changed. The ‘mediot’ mentality would be to conclude that I’m not – after all, I changed how I’m operating.
Staying the course as a strategic concept isn’t a new idea. Hell in WW II, the FDR’s administration issued postage stamps with three simple words on them: Win The War. That’s the same strategic concept.
With that in mind, then some – not all – of the Dems’ ideas really do amount to ‘cut and run’. Redeploying to Okinawa, for example – the Murtha plan – is a retreat from taking the battle to the enemy. Setting a fixed timtable for withdrawal amounts to telling the jihadists that if they go underground for x number of months, they’ll be free to attack us in the US again instead of worrying about their home front. Unfortunately, those are the sort of plans the Dems are pushing most vigorously and you know would be central to their strategy.
In the meantime, there are things going right, but the media isn’t going to lead the evening news with those stories – not sexy or anti-administration enough. The new economic growth in the Kurdish areas, for example – Katie Couric won’t be talking about that. But that progress isn’t taking place by accident. It’s part of the that ’specific plan’ that you’re not always able to see.
By the way, you can agree with the strategic idea of ’staying the course’ without being a kool-aid drinker. I’ve posted some comments on this blog where I took the administration to task for tactics that I considered too weak or indecisive.
Uh oh, Bush and his generals just announced…wait for it…. a TIMETABLE! Go figure. I suppose if we wait long enough, Bush will finally adopt the full democratic position on Iraq. Too bad it’s only a couple of too years late, particularly if you’re one of the dead/wounded.
Anyway, I see you guys spinning away the “stay the course” course change. Now, let’s see if you can spin the “a timetable will just let the enemy know when we’re going” change. It must be very frustrating being one of the party faithful these days.
I imagine it’s a hell of a lot easier than trying to spin how one ’supports the troops, but not the war’
Ooooh, a snappy comeback with no real answer. I never said I supported the troops. Didn’t say I didn’t either. Sorry, the support the troops meme is all about propoganda and ensuring a consistant positive message being said about the war. Without that one, there wouldn’t be any. So, I guess at this point that’s all you got. Feel better now?
“Ooooh, a snappy comeback with no real answer. I never said I supported the troops. Didn’t say I didn’t either.”
Do you know what a generalization is? It’s what I used. Don’t be so defensive.
“So, I guess at this point that’s all you got.”
Nope, I’ve got a lot more where that came from.
Gone, aptly named, you really need ot read context.
You started with “you guys” meaning our side, meaning republicans I take it.
ST responds with, I imagine it’s a hell of a lot easier than trying to spin how one ’supports the troops, but not the war’.
Which is the same context of how DEMOCRATS like to try and spin things.
Unfortuantely you decided to consider this some sort of personal attack, like she was speaking about you.
She didn’t say YOU personally, but it suited your purpose to try and spin it around like she was persoanlly attacking you so you can come back with some snarky answer of your own.
Nice try though.
er, maybe you should read it again. I was referring to the “support the troops” positive message being the only one you have at this point, not your extremely well developed wit.
I know
sanity,
First, the name is MrGone. Sorry if you don’t get the reference. Funny how whenever I post on right wing blogs, people tend to mangle or change peoples nicks into some derogatory usage.
Second, “you guys” refers to the last remaining believers and apologists such as I find here.
Third, I am not a democrat. Registered and voting republican (not this time though).
The reason for my post is that when I saw that now the administration is putting forward a timeline plan after years of calling that foolish and dangerous, I just had to wonder how the faithful feel when they are continuously blindsided by these bums.
Rat,
you can agree with the strategic idea of ’staying the course’ without being a kool-aid drinker
No argument with that idea. But the phrase was injected with a different meaning from what you described, by being thrust out there by the admin as a political (mixed with the strategic aspect) retort to critics of all stripes. That is now coming home to roost. I would reserve the kool-aid label for the allegation that the media is biased, simply for reporting on this remarkable change, which is rhetorical for sure, almost certainly (and hopefully) tactical, and possibly strategic.
Again, nice try.
First, the name is MrGone. Sorry if you don’t get the reference. Funny how whenever I post on right wing blogs, people tend to mangle or change peoples nicks into some derogatory usage.
It’s not mangling a name if you talk about a portion of it. Be a different story if I said, “goner, gonad, ect” when speaking about you. Nice try in trying to take some sort of offense at me remarking on that portion of your posting name. [chuckles]
Third, I am not a democrat. Registered and voting republican (not this time though).
Everybody and their brother can say they were a registered and voting republican. Hell i can say I have been a life-time Democrat, but me in saying that, is just words. There is no way I can physically prove that to anyone…so really bears no weight in the discussion.
As for the timeline, I am sure there is more to it that just putting something like that out, and I would be interested in more information before i start jumping on the “see, see I told you so” bandwagon.
sanity,
“Iraqi leaders have assured the United States they will stick to a timetable of measures over the next year to curb violence and allow U.S. troops to go home, Washington’s top officials in Iraq said on Tuesday”
Rest of article can be found here:
LINK
Spin away my friend.
P.S. I agree that I could say I’m a republican and not be. I guess you’ll just have to take that one on faith. You should be pretty used to that by now.
sanity,
P.P.S. when you use a portion of a nick and then make fun of it as you did, it seems to confirm my observation in spite of your denial.
Any ‘timeline’ based on an arbitrary date is a white flag. You might as well announce that you’ll surrender if the enemy waits you out long enough.
A ‘timeline’ based on objectives is different. Achieving a planned level of stability by the new Iraqi democracy. Having the Iraqi army and police in control of a planned amount of the country and critical strategic resources. Rebuilding enough of the infrastructure. You can’t put a specific date on those things, so you’re not inviting al Qaeda to wait you out.
All the Dems’ plans so far are attached to the former, not the latter. That’s the difference.
Gone deliberately obsfucates and attempts to cloud the issue. There is a difference between a timetable of measures to be implemented and a timetable of withdrawal. He either knows this and is being deliberately obscure or he isn’t bright enough to figure this out. One is things like: Have X divisions trained by such and such a date, instead of leaving it open ended. The other relates to things like: Reduce troop strength by X divisions by such and such a date, regardless of what’s happening.
You’d think that even a “Registered and voting republican (not this time though)” would be able to figure that out. And personally I think you really are a Republican about as much as I think Pelosi would make just a peachy keen stunningly good House Speaker. Why is it that sop manyliberal moonbat on conservative blogs feels the necessity to lie about what they are? Wasn’t that a talking point instruction that some of the MoveOn types put out a while back?
Moved to the open thread. Please post off topic chatter in the open threads. –ST
Sev wrote, There is a difference between a timetable of measures to be implemented and a timetable of withdrawal.
I’m severized. There is a difference?
Ok, timetable of MEASURE.
These benchmarks have been in place all along, and with pressures at home, I am pretty sure the administration has begun putting pressure on the Iraqi government to redouble their efforts inmeeting these “benchmarks” so as they meet them, the Iraqis begin takin more and more control of their security adn the Americans are there more for support till they get things under control.
This has been happening for some time, but I am sure that the administration has been putting additional pressure to have them step up the progress.
Strange how if republicans only have “the war on terror / iraq war” to run on, like many say, then why would they sit there and put together some sort of timetable to end it? You would think it wasn’t in their best interest right?
There doesn’t seem to be some sort of “timeline” for withdrawl as you are suggesting in the article, but essentially the same plan as before, but President Bush is increasing the pressure on the Iraqi government to reach these milestone that have been in place for some time.
I have also heard in a presidential response to a question asked to him that he doesn’t see a withdraw from Iraq before 2008.
Doesn’t say anything about withdrawl here either.
What I see is them still training the Iraqis, like they have been all along, to take over more and more of their own security. The American forces will still be there as support until they all see that it can be handled by the Iraqis, and the American troops can begin a phased movement of coming home.
Again, something that has been in effect for a long time. This probably more of a story now because of the elections and the fact the President is putting more pressure on the Iraqi goverment to “get it together” and start meeting the goals and benchmarks set for them to take over.
While the article is stating “timetable” it is technically incorrect in its usage of that term. There are set benchmarks and goals the Iraqis need to meet before they can take over their own security. Once those have been achieved, they will be handed increasingly more control over the security, until they are 100% in control and the Americans will be there for support until they have everything together.
This has been the goal for some time, this really is not something new, and stating he president has put out some sort of timeline because of the democrats, coming over to “their” way of thinking, is rediculous.
This plan has been in effect for some time, and been implemented already. There are point where the Iraqis go in and curb the violence and the Americans are outside the town for support and intel.
Whitehouse News Release (11/05)
Rumsfeld: Iraq must take over security
So Rumsfelf came out a couple days before the article you stated and called on the Iraqis take over more control.
I believe they did not take into efect the armed militias being allowed to keep their weapons. Bush has called on the Iraqi Government to disarm the militias but they have refused to do so for fear that they do not have enough support for the different factions of Iraqis to do so.
Because of the escalating violence due to the militias not being disarmed, they have increased the difficulty and the probelms in Iraq. The President looks to be trying to revise the way they are going to deal with this since the Iraqi government is not taking control of the situation with the militas.
Al in all, I really don’t see this timetable that you are talking about. Just because AP mentions timetable does not mean there is one. What has been going on for some time now, and what the AP article talks about are goals and benchmarks the Iraqis need to meet so they can begin taking more and more control of their countries security. This has been an ongoing
timetableplan for sometime, that has been ongoing, but the president seems to be putting more pressure on the Iraqis to increase their efforts.Severian,
On the other hand, according to the Nixon/Bush theory, the insurgents and “terrorists” could just lay back, wait for the Iraqis to meet their “security goals” according to the new “timeline”, have the US redeploy and then…
But you’re right, of course. How foolish of me. This is SO different from what others have said before.
Talking_points_filter_buffer:= [Pelosi, liberal, moonbat, moveon]
This thread has gotten wildly off topic, so it’s time to close it.
Edited: Nope, changed my mind – not going to close it. I’m simply going to delete any posts that go off topic and move them to the open thread. Understand, Keith? I’ve had to move about four of your posts in the last few days. Please stay on topic.
On the other hand, according to the Nixon/Bush theory, the insurgents and “terrorists” could just lay back, wait for the Iraqis to meet their “security goals” according to the new “timeline”, have the US redeploy and then…
Do you deliberately enjoy mistating things, or don’t you know any better? There’s a difference between setting firm goals and meeting them, such as x divisions of properly trained and equiped police/military by a date, and letting them move towards getting trained at whatever rate they seem to want to move at. Producing x units that are trained on a timetable, assuming you really produce and don’t fudge to make the numbers, results in, tada, trained units that can take on the insurgents. There is a lot of difference in this than a timetable for withdrawal or a timetable like we’re turning this over to you on October 30, ready or not.
Severian,
Good luck with that. Do you usually drink sweetened or sugarfree?
On the other hand, according to the Nixon/Bush theory, the insurgents and “terrorists” could just lay back, wait for the Iraqis to meet their “security goals” according to the new “timeline”, have the US redeploy and then…
Except that once security goals are reached, it makes it a lot more difficult for the terrorists to undo the progress. It’s a lot easier to uproot a sapling than a tree.
That’s not the same as sitting tight until you reach an artificial target date on the calendar.
By the way, I think you’ve tipped your hand about where your political loyalties lie by the scare quotes you used around ‘terrorist’ – meaning you don’t really believe organizations like al Qaeda in Iraq are terrorists. So you can drop the ‘registered Republican’ mask now.
PLEASE, everyone, debate the issue and not each other’s personalities.
Great White Rat,
Perhaps, but again, I believe that is what many have been saying for a while now. Put pressure on the Iraqis to take control. Bring in other local players(yes, I mean Turkey, Iran, Syria etc.). Have a timed set of goals, and start withdrawing troops. It seems that when others say it, it’s translated to “cut and run” but when Bush says it, it means change of strategy, er, “tactics”.
Your other statement is incorrect. I just get tired of the constant conflation of Iraq with AQ and the WOT. Yes, there are some AQ there but the vast majority of the violence and problems are due to Iraqis and their long standing issues and the mess we’ve made of the occupation. AQ could leave tomorrow and quite frankly, I don’t think anyone would notice. In addition, I didn’t know that being for or against what is going on in Iraq is a Democratic or Republican issue. Could you please point me to the party plank stating that the Republican party supports the Iraq war or conversly the Democratic plank against the war?
biwah,
the phrase was injected with a different meaning from what you described, by being thrust out there by the admin as a political (mixed with the strategic aspect) retort to critics of all stripes.
That’s a fair statement – there’s certainly a political aspect to the way the administration used the term, probably to highlight the differences between them and the more extreme opponents. I’m not sure they used it for all cases where criticism was leveled.
I would reserve the kool-aid label for the allegation that the media is biased, simply for reporting on this remarkable change, which is rhetorical for sure, almost certainly (and hopefully) tactical, and possibly strategic.
Well, first off, the MSM does have a bias – I think that’s been amply documented in many places. Whether this is a manifestation of that bias is the question.
If you think of staying the course in the strategic sense, as I do, then I’d certainly agree that it’s worth reporting. But I don’t think that’s what happened.
On the other hand, if your concept of the term is a tactical one, then a change in the meaning is unremarkable and not worth reporting. The war hasn’t yet been fought where tactical or operational methods were unchanged from the start to the finish. And I’d agree with you that tactical adjustments hopefully would be made.
- The Left is simply reacting, poncing on a mis-characterization of “stay the course”, because the label they have earned of “cut and run”, really drives them up a wall. This is a sly try to shift the dialog. Leaving Iraq percipitiously, is “cut and run”. Period. No matter what lexicinal backflips the Left tries to use now to redefine their positions, its a fools game. For 6 long years they’ve used every trick in the book to obstruct the WOT, which they don’t believe in. Their chief anti-War spokesperson, Sheehan, along with every one of their leaders pandering to the far Left base, have made sure no one left alive in America fails to know this book and verse. It’s just too well documented from tons of words and appearences by the Secular Progressives dragging the Democratic party around by a ring in it’s nose.
- So they come up with the “stay the course” angle, implying Bush is inflexible concerning the means for prosecuting the war, when they know quite well that what he’s inflexible about is quitting before we reach a successful conclusion. They want to quit. He doesn’t. Quit simple. Everything else is political rhetoric, trying to cover their weakness.
- Am I happy with the way things have gone? Not at all. Are there things that might have been done differently. Perfect is easy with hindsight. The Jihadists react by adjusting, and do not just stand still without trying different tactics. The idea that any war is some sort of cricket match that’s going to follow some clean, rule based script, is more of the typical infantile yardstick the Left wants to use to judge our success or failure. ever time I hear some moonbat catterwailing about Iraq, I hear the voices of my kids when they were young, wafting up from the back seat of the van, “Are we there yet daddy”.
- I do think in some regards Bush has been slow to react too the changes on the ground. In that sense, he bears responsibility, but even in that he can only do as well as his military advisors, and it is true that this “asymetrical” type of war, with all that means, is not something we have a lot of experience at. I think he’s feeling that disappointment to some degree from his own base, and I expect to see some definate movement in the coming months, possibly even a time table given dierctly to the Iraqi leadership, but not plastered all over the press for the edification, and use, of our enemies.
- The Left, at times, along with the drive-by Liberal press, can barely contain their glee, everytime we seem to suffer a setback in this campaign. And then they wonder why people see them as back-stabbing traitors to our cause. In their minds it’s VietNam all over again, and I think they’re going too find America is not going to fall for that Marxist, anti-
American crap again. We’ll see.
Fortunately, time has a way of forcing truth to the surface and it now appears that the Bush administration has reached its day of reckoning. For the bulk of this year, the GOP has waged a relentless attack on Democrats…all the while convinced that they had the votes they needed to succeed in November…a virtual rerun requiring little more than the roll out of their battle tested rhetoric. Unfortunately for the GOP, during this same time frame voter doubt grew as casualties mounted, sectarian violence became civil war, assurances that the end of conflict was in sight were wrong, and, lastly, the assertions that the opposition was in its last throes proved inaccurate. Additionally, the purple fingers of democracy served little more than symbolism as the Iraqi’s almost immediately reverted to long held tribal alliances, cultural values, and religious beliefs.
With that said, it isn’t difficult to understand why the GOP is now on the precipice of defeat. While the Republican Party focused on savaging Democrats, they failed to pay attention to the all too obvious realities…realities that did not escape the awareness of the voters they took for granted. Voters saw the realities in Iraq and the unwillingness of this President to shift strategies…and that has led to irreconcilable doubts about the President’s judgment and growing skepticism for the sincerity underlying his professed resolve. The bottom line is that voters lost confidence in the attributes they had been willing to assign and attach to this President.
Now that the election is upon us, the Bush administration has apparently decided to alter their intransigent adherence to “staying the course”…because it isn’t resonating with voters…and that is giving skeptical voters the final evidence needed to doubt the President’s sincerity. When this shifting rhetoric on Iraq is coupled with revelations that suggest that the GOP may have manipulated the millions of loyal evangelical voters, I believe these moderate voters are in the process of concluding that this President is more concerned with retaining power than acting with intelligence and integrity to serve the best interests of the nation.
In my opinion, it looks to me that Rove/Bush concluded that 2006 could be won with the same strategy that succeeded in 2002 and 2004. Instead, I believe that it forced voters to view the election as a referendum on the policies and priorities of the Bush administration at a time when it could least withstand the scrutiny. It looks like voters are preparing to call a halt to this charade.
Read more here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
You know what stay the course is? I mean as a strategy, now – as a strategy it is better than cut and run but it is on the same, wrong side of the continuum – it is far from good enough. This war is not being accorded the commitment it needs. Pretty much everyone in politics, is guilty of being distracted from the true situation. This truth, as it is known by the people on the ground, is essentially being suppressed by the administration.
After reading dozens of opinions this week on Iraq, each of which chimed into one of three or four stock takes (none with an actual prescription) on the war, I read this report to WSJ from an Army sergeant in Iraq. It’s a nice, brutal little orientation to the situation.
Here’s the crucial paragraph, which is important enough to reprint IMO:
***
We need to backtrack. We need to publicly admit we’re backtracking. This is the opening battle of the ideological struggle of the 21st century. We cannot afford to lose it because of political inconveniences. Reassert direct administration, put 400,000 to 500,000 American troops on the ground, disband most of the current Iraqi police and retrain and reindoctrinate the Iraqi army until it becomes a military that’s fighting for a nation, not simply some sect or faction. Reassure the Iraqi people that we’re going to provide them security and then follow through. Disarm the nation: Sunnis, Shias, militia groups, everyone. Issue national ID cards to everyone and control the movement of the population.