tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post114505854607048440..comments2023-12-16T16:50:25.810-08:00Comments on The Heart of the Matter: Rumsfeld: Incompetent Patriot?Barry Eislerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17785333622697500192noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1145534572946856962006-04-20T05:02:00.000-07:002006-04-20T05:02:00.000-07:00Slugg,Insightful and thoughtful post, and thanks f...Slugg,<BR/><BR/>Insightful and thoughtful post, and thanks for getting us back on track.<BR/><BR/>My contact at DoD, retired military and my go-to guy for information about DARPA and exotic weapons systems development tells me, and this is purely anecdotal, that all but the hard core Kool Aid drinkers are wondering among themselves just what the hell is going on. To a man the people he works with are former military, Majors and above, Republican conservatives to their very bones. When these men start whispering doubts about the direction of our foreign policy, we should pay attention.<BR/><BR/>I think your suggestion that this isn't about Iraq, but Iran, is interesting and worth considering.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.David Terrenoirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09482864941636273068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1145466095756465962006-04-19T10:01:00.000-07:002006-04-19T10:01:00.000-07:00Randy: I know it's a big, scary world, but sleepi...Randy: <I>I know it's a big, scary world, but sleeping with the light on is probably a better solution than starting a war.</I><BR/><BR/>I think both Kuwait and Iran tried that before the first Gulf War, sleeping with a light on. In the end, I don't think it worked too well for either country.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1145454016560769522006-04-19T06:40:00.000-07:002006-04-19T06:40:00.000-07:00JD ... "And no, Barry I'm not trying to persuade C...JD ... <I>"And no, Barry I'm not trying to persuade Charlie. I gave up on that several posts ago. There's no persuading someone who responds to citations of original sources by sneeringly referring to them as "liberal principles" and who responds to arguments with cheap shots and canned talking points. But there are others here who may listen. And frankly, Charlie may be doing more to persuade people to my side than he realizes."</I><BR/><BR/>If you had managed to get one thing accurate in your above hysterical comment, it would've be an accomplishment (for you). <BR/><BR/>Cheap shot #1.<BR/><BR/>I could care less about persuading you, my friend. I was simply offering an opinion regarding the six generals who chose to "come out" now (rather than when they could've saved lives). I don't buy their argument (or the possible motives for them).<BR/><BR/>You rant with sarcasm in nearly every comment you make ... and then you throw hissy fits when someone fires back (you call them "cheap shots"; a hysterical woman comes to mind (but my wife won't be happy I used "woman").<BR/><BR/>Cheap shot #2.<BR/><BR/>If I'm doing "your side" good, then god bless you and your side, but I seriously doubt it. The majority of the commentators here are not Bush administration supporters. I accept that. Most people in the arts aren't. I accept that, too. The thing you don't seem to get is that each of us is bringing an opinion to the board. If you don't agree with it, you go on an irrational attack that dismisses or ignores what contradicts (or might contradict) your "facts". <BR/><BR/>As regards your "original sources" ... are you claiming to be Geraldo Rivera?<BR/><BR/>Cheap shot #3.<BR/><BR/>If you were referring to the statement from the UCMJ, without looking for a quote that permits officers from leading their men into certain death, I'll return to what I had argued in the first place (and you ignored) ... that if a general firmly believed a policy was flawed enough to be a "disaster", he shouldn't have followed it (no matter what the personal cost). Why that upsets you, I don't understand.<BR/><BR/>I saw your new post on the new topic and smiled ... a rant against the RSM ... reminds me of that "great vast right wing conspiracy." <BR/><BR/>Cheap shot #4.<BR/><BR/>I don't know what to tell you, JD. We don't agree. Why not leave it at that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1145400380668081512006-04-18T15:46:00.000-07:002006-04-18T15:46:00.000-07:00Barry,I love the Kum By Yah moment.Now I'm all ver...Barry,<BR/><BR/>I love the Kum By Yah moment.<BR/><BR/>Now I'm all verklempt.David Terrenoirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09482864941636273068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1145394685149344332006-04-18T14:11:00.000-07:002006-04-18T14:11:00.000-07:00Sandra, I agree, the more I think about it, the mo...Sandra, I agree, the more I think about it, the more I think Pace's "defense" was a deliberate hedge. I wonder if Rumsfeld was pleased with it? Or if he felt, come on, man, defend me on the substance!<BR/><BR/>Zenpup/Alan/Sparky, congratulations!<BR/><BR/>JD and Charlie... where's the respect, fellas? Come on, everyone, gather around, group hug here...<BR/><BR/>:-)<BR/>BarryBarry Eislerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17785333622697500192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1145384247660730112006-04-18T11:17:00.000-07:002006-04-18T11:17:00.000-07:00JD ... Grow up.JD ... Grow up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1145382244137856162006-04-18T10:44:00.000-07:002006-04-18T10:44:00.000-07:00(JD prefers to listen to the guys in the field, ex...<I> (JD prefers to listen to the guys in the field, except, of course, Tommy Franks). </I> <BR/><BR/>One cheap shot after another, eh, Charlie? Sure I listen to Tommy Franks (even though, were he a liberal, I'm sure you'd be pointing out that Franks is out promoting a book now. But I'll let that go). But when it's Tommy Franks vs. 6 other generals, plus the growing # of people coming back from Iraq and running for office--all but one as Democrats--I begin to sense the tide fo information turning. <BR/><BR/>And no, Barry I'm not trying to persuade Charlie. I gave up on that several posts ago. There's no persuading someone who responds to citations of original sources by sneeringly referring to them as "liberal principles" and who responds to arguments with cheap shots and canned talking points. But there are others here who may listen. And frankly, Charlie may be doing more to persuade people to my side than he realizes.JD Rhoadeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07123361739160525998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1145374377132583232006-04-18T08:32:00.000-07:002006-04-18T08:32:00.000-07:00I've no problem with removing Saddam from power. I...I've no problem with removing Saddam from power. I've problems with political hacks playing the part of "generals" and ignoring experienced and expert advice. I'd listen to the retired generals now.<BR/><BR/>And the Pentagon has engaged in mythbuilding up Zarqawi in a way that seems to be helping the bad guys recruit more terrorists. Ponder Mike Whitney's article <A HREF="http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12760.htm" REL="nofollow">Zarqawi; the Pentagon’s ongoing war of deception </A> — “ ... Colonel Derek Harvey strengthened those suspicions last week when he admitted in a Washington Post article that the military intentionally <B>“enlarged Zarqawi’s caricature” to create the impression that the ongoing struggle against occupation was really a fight against terrorism.</B> ... We should not expect that the Zarqawi myth will disappear anytime soon. The Bush administration has demonstrated a stubborn determination to cling to their fantasies no matter how threadbare they become. Besides, as Brigadier-General Mark Kimmitt noted, “The Zarqawi PSYOP program is the most successful information campaign to date”. ...”<BR/><BR/>If we're playing with 'real names' here - I'm Alan. Most know me as Sparky though. - ZPD<BR/><BR/>PS - Aside to Barry: we have a baby girl born 02/07/06 at 0030. We've given up on sleep.ZenPupDoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11407049268045133817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1145371721578347072006-04-18T07:48:00.000-07:002006-04-18T07:48:00.000-07:00Barry said: "is it as black and white as you sugg...Barry said: "is it as black and white as you suggest? How confident are you that the plan is flawed? How comfortable are you abandoning your men? How ingrained is your "can-do" attitude?"<BR/><BR/>My point exactly, Barry. If we listen to the arguments now posed by the six generals, it sure sounds as if THEY thought is was flawed. And arguments against the policies quote the general's statements like gospel (JD prefers to listen to the guys in the field, except, of course, Tommy Franks). <BR/><BR/>Sorry, you just don't get to have it both ways (arguing with the Generals) if you're not going to take into account they could've made another decision (to quit) when it mattered most.<BR/><BR/>I think we need to take what the six Generals have to say "NOW" with a grain of salt. It isn't much different (for me) to guys who make deals with the gov't in witness protection situations.<BR/><BR/>"Sure, John Gotti told me to do it. I was just following orders."<BR/><BR/>What a great way to claim immunity ... then of course, we find out (post Gotti's death) Sammy "the Rat" wasn't so upfront about the number of victims he claimed to have killed (at the behest of Gotti). He was recently indicted for #20. Trust me, it was more like 120.<BR/><BR/>Yeah, I know, apples and oranges.<BR/><BR/>Baloney. It's the same crap. I suspect the six generals have political motives for "coming out" now and if they were so sure of the flawed plans, they should've protected their men when they could have.<BR/><BR/>Drawning an anology to the mob and the military ... that should start the ball rolling all over again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1145371303182902212006-04-18T07:41:00.000-07:002006-04-18T07:41:00.000-07:00"The right path is most likely the hardest path."T..."The right path is most likely the hardest path."<BR/><BR/>Time to self-publish and stand on street corners to sell my book. Somehow, I'm not seeing that as the right thing...<BR/><BR/>If the debate is always going to end up being about whether the invasion of Iraq is right or wrong, I'm going to fly a white flag now guys. Nobody's going to "win" this argument - even the people who are right.<BR/><BR/>But I am watching closely to see if there are any developments with Rumsfeld. If he does resign soon and Bush changes his tune, then I think the scapegoat suggestion is likely on track. Which would also explain the off-key defense. Bait-and-switch/standard tactics aside, it seems quite possible it's a way of choosing your words carefully so you don't have to retract a ringing endorsement later.Sandra Ruttanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06109584805469336742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1145370884910948252006-04-18T07:34:00.000-07:002006-04-18T07:34:00.000-07:00David, no need to apologize; these threads won't a...David, no need to apologize; these threads won't always be linear. And I should have recognized that the underlying subject matter would probably eclipse Pace's comments.<BR/><BR/>JD and Charlie, are you trying to persuade each other, or to defend a position? (Okay, that was a rhetorical question, but one worth considering). JD, interesting point about Article 88, but I'm not sure it applies. Publicly but respectfully differing over a war plan isn't likely to be construed as contempuous. General Shinseki managed it without being imprisoned, although his career clearly suffered -- a lesson that I'm sure wasn't lost on his brethren.<BR/><BR/>Charlie, you raise a good point: if a commander believes a plan is fatally flawed and opposes it, he needs to consider resigning in protest (Secretary of State Cyrus Vance opposed the Desert One mission to rescue the embassy hostages in Iran; he submitted his resignation the day before but waited to go public so as not to compromise the mission). But put yourself in the position of someone who has to make this decision... is it as black and white as you suggest? How confident are you that the plan is flawed? How comfortable are you abandoning your men? How ingrained is your "can-do" attitude?<BR/><BR/>Also, I'm not sure that the basis for calls for Rumsfeld's resignation is entirely, "We knew better at the time and he didn't listen." It seems to be driven also by results.<BR/><BR/>I can see pros and cons to Rumsfeld's resignatinon. Pros: sends a belated signal that results matter and that people will be held accountable. Cons: the damage is done, and resignation today wouldn't repair past errors; it would only cause military disruptions during wartime. Granted, I'm proceeding from the belief that results have been bad (measured against administration predictions) and that damage has been done. If you don't agree with that, resignation will seem like a nonsequitur.<BR/><BR/>Part of what's happening over Rumsfeld is similar to what happened during Clinton's impeachment. Each side questions the other side's motives. Those perceived motives then drive the argument, and the substance of the argument is ignored.<BR/><BR/>Is it possible we're seeing a bit of that dynamic on this thread, too?Barry Eislerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17785333622697500192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1145367585449050952006-04-18T06:39:00.000-07:002006-04-18T06:39:00.000-07:00I have to agree with charlie here. The right path...I have to agree with charlie here. The right path is most likely the hardest path. It's like a quarterback on Monday blaming the game plan for all the interceptions he threw on Sunday.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1145365293606422422006-04-18T06:01:00.000-07:002006-04-18T06:01:00.000-07:00Let me clarify it for you: You argue that higher ...Let me clarify it for you: You argue that higher ups (like Rumsfeld, the people in charge at Abu Grahb, etc.) should pay the price for bad decision making. Then we have a group of generals who prefer to protect their retirement or avoid going to jail at the expense of their men's lives (another issue raised--all the men killed in Iraq, the 2000+) ... yet the generals who found the policies so flawed aren't held accountable for their cowardice in not speaking their minds (i.e., they'd rather protect themselves from jail/retirement checks) than their men.<BR/><BR/>I find that to be a bad joke. If you don't, I guess we're worlds apart. <BR/><BR/>That's me being polite.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1145364225013806992006-04-18T05:43:00.000-07:002006-04-18T05:43:00.000-07:00PS: This is the first time I've heard the UCMJ des...PS: This is the first time I've heard the UCMJ described as "left wing principles." I'll have to share that with my friend over in Fayetteville who does military law. He'll get a kick out of it.JD Rhoadeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07123361739160525998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1145363967921540832006-04-18T05:39:00.000-07:002006-04-18T05:39:00.000-07:00Charlie, Charlie, Charlie...I post facts, you resp...Charlie, Charlie, Charlie...I post facts, you respond with insults. What's up with that?JD Rhoadeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07123361739160525998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1145363176253291982006-04-18T05:26:00.000-07:002006-04-18T05:26:00.000-07:00So, your fact lets them get their men killed. I g...So, your fact lets them get their men killed. <BR/><BR/>I guess they didn't have guts when it counted. Great. leftwing principals ... what a joke.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1145362410419359242006-04-18T05:13:00.000-07:002006-04-18T05:13:00.000-07:00And as someone else suggested, they needed to reti...<I>And as someone else suggested, they needed to retire first ... well, that's worse than hollow. It's fugazy. </I><BR/><BR/>Criticism of the President or the SecDef while under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ can be construed as a violation of Article 88: <BR/><BR/><I>Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.</I><BR/><BR/>Certainly saying the SecDef ought to resign could be construed as contemptuous. So yeah, they had to resign in order to criticize or be in violation of military law. <BR/><BR/> Not fugazy. Fact.JD Rhoadeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07123361739160525998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1145361646981425622006-04-18T05:00:00.000-07:002006-04-18T05:00:00.000-07:00Dave:I was being "quaint" for your sake, brother. ...Dave:<BR/><BR/>I was being "quaint" for your sake, brother. <BR/><BR/>John D is right .. you brought up the numbers.<BR/><BR/>It's hollow to me when the guys running the show on the battlefield keep their yaps shut during the war (when people die) and then retire and shoot from the lip. That's hollow. And as someone else suggested, they needed to retire first ... well, that's worse than hollow. It's fugazy. <BR/><BR/>Some of you guys arguing from the left seem to enjoy taking verbal potshots, but don't like the return volleys. I'm gonna listen to a good friend of mine and wish you all the very best in all you do and wish for.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1145330919779965582006-04-17T20:28:00.000-07:002006-04-17T20:28:00.000-07:00Barry,I agree with everything except this under Op...Barry,<BR/><BR/>I agree with everything except this under Option A: <I>In other words, acknowledge that, if we could do the whole thing over again, we wouldn't go in</I>.<BR/><BR/>If they really believed in their mission, and I think they did believe it was to establish a democracy in Iraq, just as PNAC laid out, then they could have said, <I>if we were to do the whole thing over again, we would do it in a different way, perhaps the way the DoD and State had worked on for ten years.</I> That they didn't is the wellspring of our dissatisfaction.<BR/><BR/>Personally, your original question about Pace's spin was much more interesting, but I take a lot of the blame for devolving the discussion. My apologies.David Terrenoirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09482864941636273068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1145330105009864412006-04-17T20:15:00.000-07:002006-04-17T20:15:00.000-07:00Hmmm, I should have known where my questions about...Hmmm, I should have known where my questions about General Pace's odd defense of Rumsfeld would lead us... ;-)<BR/><BR/>I've been reading everyone's posts and trying to see where the root of our differences lies. Sometimes I'm able to do that; this time, I'm not sure I've managed.<BR/><BR/>One thread that does seem to emerge upon rereading is disagreement, even confusion, about the war's objectives. I do believe a great deal of the war's divisiveness can be traced to confusion about its objectives. So let me try to break things down.<BR/><BR/>To determine appropriate tactics, and then to measure success or failure, you have to first choose an objective.<BR/><BR/>Pause #1: Does the paragraph above make sense as a general principle, without reference to the specific topic at hand? I'm not asking this or the questions below rhetorically. I'm trying to find out where opinions diverge.<BR/><BR/>The original objective of the war, as stated by the administration, was to secure Hussein's WMDs. The WMDs were never found, meaning: (i) they never existed; (ii) they were destroyed sometime before the war; or (iii) they were moved out of the country before we went in. If (i) or (ii), either our intelligence was faulty or someone was lying, and the war was unnecessary according to the administration's stated objective. If (iii), and the weapons are now in, for example, Syria, then we failed to achieve the administration's stated objective.<BR/><BR/>Pause #2: Is the paragraph above correct as a matter of history and as a matter of logic?<BR/><BR/>To look at things from another angle: imagine that, after going into Iraq, our military had found vast quantities of U.N. sanctions-busting nerve gas and well-developed nuclear weapons and missile programs. If that had happened, I think the administration would have trumpeted the finds and we wouldn't have heard too much about other objectives.<BR/><BR/>Pause #3: Does the paragraph above make sense?<BR/><BR/>But we didn't find the WMD. At which point, I think the administration had two general options:<BR/><BR/>Option A: Acknowledge that the war was either unnecessary (if the weapons didn't exist) or a failure (if the weapons had been moved to Syria). But explain that we can't just turn around and leave because to do so would be to leave a failed state in our wake, which would be a breeding ground for terrorism, destabilize the middle east, etc. In other words, acknowledge that, if we could do the whole thing over again, we wouldn't go in, but the fact that we have gone in changes things, and necessitates that we stay to work through those changed circumstances.<BR/><BR/>Option B: Change the focus from WMD to something else, like ridding Iraq of tyranny and establishing a beachhead of democracy in the middle east.<BR/><BR/>Pause #4: Am I misstating the administration's options?<BR/><BR/>It seems to me the administration went with Option B. And that choice has led to much of the confusion that has characterized debate about Iraq ever since.<BR/><BR/>For the record, I believe the war's real objectives were always closer to Option B than they were to finding and securing WMDs. Since the first Gulf War, prominent neocons have argued that the road to middle east peace went not through Jerusalem, but through Bagdad. Also, I believe the administration wanted to pressure Syria and Iran, and possibly even Saudi Arabia, by positioning US military forces in a country bordering all three.<BR/><BR/>But, for a variety of reasons, the administration didn't feel it could articulate these objectives publicly, so it played up the WMD threat instead. If the WMDs had been found or the war had turned out to be as quick, easy, and cheap as its planners promised, there wouldn't be much controversy about objectives today. But things haven't gone according to plan, and so the administration finds itself in a "what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive" situation.<BR/><BR/>(Speaking of tangled webs, when I googled that quote just now to ensure I had it right, I found the following list of statements by the administration on WMD. I include the link now as a reminder of just how much prewar emphasis the administration gave to the WMD rationale for war.)<BR/><BR/>http://billmon.org/archives/000172.html<BR/><BR/>I think if the administration had mustered the courage to go with Option B above, there would be a lot more support for the war today. Just my opinion, and I could be wrong.<BR/><BR/>-- BarryBarry Eislerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17785333622697500192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1145326722790452282006-04-17T19:18:00.000-07:002006-04-17T19:18:00.000-07:00OK, I'm a writer. Let me try an analogy.You hire ...OK, I'm a writer. Let me try an analogy.<BR/><BR/>You hire me to build your house. I give you an estimate. A few months go by and call you up, saying the house is done, come on out and see it.<BR/><BR/>You come out and the frame's barely up. I also give you the news that your boy was killed when the garage caved in. Then I give you the bill and it's 300 billion dollars over my estimate.<BR/><BR/>Wouldn't you fire me as your contracter? Of course you would.<BR/><BR/>That's all I'm saying.David Terrenoirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09482864941636273068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1145326290772225862006-04-17T19:11:00.000-07:002006-04-17T19:11:00.000-07:00Again, let me try to clarify.We had a guy say "Mis...Again, let me try to clarify.<BR/><BR/>We had a guy say "Mission Accomplished" and then lost 2000+ more GIs. To me, that says Mission Unaccomplished. That's why that number is significant. not as a yardstick of success.<BR/><BR/>And the 300 billion dollars? We were told this war would cost us zero dollars. Now, I'm no accountant, but I've never been 300 billion dollars off, even in my days of straddling the Mexican border with a pack of Bambu, a pocketful of black beauties and a pint of Jose.<BR/><BR/>So, the numbers are not any indicator of success or failure of the war, but success or failure of the leaders.<BR/><BR/>I don't know how much clearer I can make this, jd. Really, I'm doing my best here and you guys seem to be missing this point.David Terrenoirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09482864941636273068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1145326223479555952006-04-17T19:10:00.000-07:002006-04-17T19:10:00.000-07:00BTW David, don't feel you need to beat your head a...BTW David, don't feel you need to beat your head against the wall. Judging from what I've seen in my journeys through the blogosphere, I don't think many minds are being changed on this subject. It is, however, interesting to hear other points of view, minus the invective endemic on other sites.John DuMondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02266303187278433892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1145325888284543722006-04-17T19:04:00.000-07:002006-04-17T19:04:00.000-07:00"So let's drop this numbers game..."I'm not the on...<I>"So let's drop this numbers game..."</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not the one who cited the numbers, you were. I'm not trying to bust your stones here, I was interested in your response to my question. The numbers get cited a lot, probably becuase their enormity have the capacity to evoke a powerful emotional response. But in the end, numbers are intended to be a <I>quantitative</I> measure. So far, everyone I've asked to justify a "the price is too high" argument has fallen back on the "this is an unjust war, so any price is too high" argument. Why not just open with the latter, rather than playing the "numbers game?"John DuMondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02266303187278433892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1145324458490761672006-04-17T18:40:00.000-07:002006-04-17T18:40:00.000-07:00john d.Your singling out the numbers is evidence t...john d.<BR/><BR/>Your singling out the numbers is evidence that you've missed my point. I take the blame for making myself unclear.<BR/><BR/>Let me try again. <BR/><BR/>What constitutes victory in this war? Please, I'm an old soldier and have no desire to do body counts again. So what is it? How do we know when we've won? In the case of Iraq, that's tough to answer because the reason for our invasion keeps shifting, making it difficult to define success.<BR/><BR/>I mentioned the 2000 dead after Mission Accomplished to illustrate the horror of just that point. Is that a huge number compared to the Somme or Antietam? Of course not. But our casualties in other wars, as Charlie would have it, is completely irrelevant to whether the mission was accomplished and whether it was a success.<BR/><BR/>I won't presume I'm the only vet here, but I will remind you that I volunteered to pick up a rifle during wartime, and the potential sacrifice to me was complete and total, making charlie's assertion that any sacrifice is acceptable ring a bit hollow. I'm sure he's sincere, but saying any sacrifice is acceptable, when it's not your sacrifice is easy. Hell, we're not even paying for this war. We're borrowing from our children to pay for this war.<BR/><BR/>So, I turn your question back on you. <I>How many dead? How much money spent? When do we declare victory?</I> And when do we look at leaders who have failed to lead, with strategies that have proved disastrously wrong, and say we need another way?<BR/><BR/>It's not about numbers. It's not about personality. It's about stating a well-defined strategy and then executing that strategy to victory. So far, all I've seen is failure. <BR/><BR/>These generals who have come out against Runsfeld are trying to tell us that our strategy isn't working, and our tactics are flawed. Unless we start looking for a new way to victory, a lot more young men and women will die, and maybe some day you and Charlie will decide that it's enough.<BR/><BR/>For me, no number is acceptable for a bad war, but for the right war, as an old man of 56, you can count on me to take the line again. I can't run, but I can still shoot.<BR/><BR/>I just need to know why I'm making the sacrifice.<BR/><BR/>So let's drop this numbers game, and the quaint metaphor of breaking eggs, and ask youself if you'd go to war in Iraq, and if so, what do you think would be a victory there. A pro-western democracy? Another friendly despot? An Islamic theocracy? A splintered Iraq? A tribal civil war? Because, if you can answer that, you're doing better than anyone in this administration.<BR/><BR/>Now, I really am ready for something new. My head is bloody from beating it against this wall.David Terrenoirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09482864941636273068noreply@blogger.com