Its been defined here often. For example, use SEARCH to find 2002 posts about "Project for a New American Century", pre-emption verses containment, and the many Frontline Reports (www.pbs.org) that defined the inevitable. Those many Frontline Reports should still be available on the net. Even in 2003, they define what is happening today.

Learn what Halberstam, et al had been warning about. Is this not "Mission Accomplished"? No, Halberstam wrote this in "The Best and the Brightest" in 1972. Deja vue because, well, did you even know about an essential strategic objective, need for a smoking gun, and an exit strategy defined by that strategic objective? And yet that was the lesson of Vietnam, the Pentagon Papers, and history.

Read about the battle of Ap Bac in 1962 that demonstrated why Nam would not be a winnable war. Notice the Iraqis and Maliki's government are doing this same thing. Notice back then how many even in The Cellar did not recognized a situation that created Vietnam was creating "Mission Accomplished" - complete with a lying president.

Also notice Urbane Guerrilla, et al are promoting this reasoning that kept Nam ongoing for seven years after the Wise Men (just like the Iraq Study Group) told Johnson that Nam could not be won. But ‘big dic’ reasoning from Gens LeMay and Westmoreland continued to be promoted. Westmoreland so in denial as to proclaim fundamental military doctrine did not apply to Nam.

View posts from last summer – ie June 2006. That was America’s last (and desperate) hope to create a "Mission Accomplished" victory. One year ago is when "Mission Accomplished" could no longer be won because George Jr, Rumsfeld, etc refused to even give the troops what was requested (ie enough troops). Even more appauling, they were doing the exact same thing that undermined Swartzkopf fabulous military victory in 1991. I could not believe it. Would Cheney, Rumsfeld, Fieth, Wolfowitz, etc make in 2003 the exact same mistake they made in 1991? Yes!

The Cellar (and this thread) are a history of what you should have known then when it was posted. Follow many posts. Some are based in military doctrine and the lessons of history. Others just know we must be winning because Gen Odierno was executing heavy artillery attacks every night. Like in Nam, where the myopic saw successful artillery attacks as an indication of victory, instead, those who understood basic military doctrine (and especially how to fight an insurgency) knew those artillery barrages only demonstrates how badly "Mission Accomplished" was being lost while effectively recruiting for the enemy.

Some posts not only warned of impending failures. Also provided repeatedly are underlying reasons why. Rumsfeld could not find Generals to staff his operation - had to reach so far down into the ranks to find Gen Sanchez. Gen Garner all but refused to continue. "Mission Accomplished" (and Rumsfeld) were carrer destroyers; that well known to those educated in military doctrine that long ago.

What is common to all above? 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. In this case, those wacko extremists kept makinng the same mistakes again and again. Their political agendas (ie America does not do nation building) replaced intelligence. they are that dumb and that much driven by their extremist rhetoric. And we let them.

I disagree with that, Glatt, and say better never than at all. Who in a democracy has any business bowing to a fascism? You may be among the defeated, but why should I join you in that ugly stew? Why can't you be like me instead?

We do understand the nature of our foes, do we not? -- oppressive, repressive, hostile to democracy, the one legitimate governmental form and the one most conducive to a wealthy society. Nor is this a separate war; it is an integral part of the GWOT, and is most properly spoken of as a "campaign" -- a fraction of the wider war.

From the Washington Post of 11 May 2007: So why are we in Iraq, why have we permitted the Taliban to take back 50% of Afghanistan, and when do we go after bin Laden? Apparently Cheney still thinks Americans are so dumb as to think Iraq had something to do with 11 September. But then almost one in three Americans still supports Pres Cheney and his band of wackos. So yes, some Americans are still that woefully deceived. But when do we go after bin Laden?

You favor an invasion of Pakistan? How many troops will it take?

So your philosophy is that we should bomb the hell out of them until they love us?:rolleyes:

And there's the Clean Break Document written by some very familiar people directly involved with the Iraq war.

"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. "

And in an unsurprising accord with tw's usual pathology, he believes some other Americans believe Iraq did 9-11. This despite my severally-repeated remark that while I support the Iraq campaign fully, I neither believe Iraq did 9-11 nor can I name one single American who does.

Tw's so full of It that it's dripping out the top.

Turning to Glatt: which outcomes are acceptable, one way or the other? That they love us, or that they become absent?

Then UG...

Why are we there?

You mean you weren't paying ANY attention? I've commented more than once on why we're there: a democracy prospers best in a world full of other democracies (an indisputable point, I think; not even those who disagree with me out of sheer mindless reflex try it) and having an actual democracy (in whatever degree that exceeds that of the other regimes about the Great Oil Patch) in control of a quarter of the world's oil reserves can be nothing but good, right?

That Iraq is liberated and remains liberated from the dictator's iron boot is the one, the only, the preeminently important thing. The list of dead fascists who tried impeding this liberation matters not at all -- except of course to democracy-haters and fascism-lovers. By their actions ye shall know them. [Hint: they're the ones who push for anything other than a US & Allies victory.]

You don't have to believe Iraq did 9-11 to desire its liberation. Where's any connection between the two? I don't see one.

UG, the people didn't want us there, dont want us there, and are no happier now than they were. I'm all for freedom and democracy - much more than you are, if you support Bush - but there was NO justification for going into Iraq. If they wanted Saddam out, they could have kicked him out themselves. Just look at the state Iraq is in now. We're much more powerful than Saddam was; if they can take us on, they could have taken him on.

It's not our responsibility to police the world.
Dictatorships are bad. Turning America into one, and a militaristic and aggressive one at that, is even worse.

This is fact. Many American still believe that Iraq was responsible for 9-11.

In 2003, 70% of Americans thought Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks.

In 2005, 24% of Americans thought Iraq was behind 9-11.

I can't find results for 2007, but I'm sure there are still a few morons out there.

But UG doesn't know any of them. How could he not know 24% of Americans?

Well, glatt, I never thought that. And I still don't know anybody who does. Guess my friends and acquaintances are all among the smarter three-quarters, if HM's figure is not pulled out of thin air.

The links in my post (#551) show where those figures came from.

glatt demonstrates how Americans believed and many still believe Saddam is complicit in 11 September. But even UG had that opinion in Aug 2005. In 2005, he was lumping Saddam, Al Qaeda, and all those other 'enemies' in a monolithic Islamoterrorism that would attack the US. Urbane Guerrilla once had 11 September, bin Laden's Al Qaeda, and Saddam as a monolithic enemy that America must 'fix'. His 'Them verses Us' mentality justified by a political agenda rather than facts.

Next he will re-educate us: North Vietnam was a surrogate for monolithic communism of China and USSR. Urbane Guerrilla defines terror to include 11 September. Suddenly Iraq has no relationship to terror attacks on 11 September? One can do this when a political agenda justifies rewriting history - history of what UG has posted.

Also on UG's list of countries responsible for 11 September and Bali Indonesia: The world according to UG: all Islamoterrorism is why Americans must unilaterally attack Iraq, Iran, and even Syria. A black and white world where only good can vanquish evil. IOW a political agenda explains everything. Iraq and 11 September was inseparable in Urbane Guerrilla's mind. Now that he cannot rewrite that history, he tries to claim "Mission Accomplished" has no relationship to 11 September? Rewriting his own opinions also justified by his political agenda?

In Ford Motor, when an MBA did not understand how the work gets done, then he hires subordinates. To become productive again (after we kicked out Henry Ford by not buying his products), Ford Motor cut their management from 48 layers down to five.

"Mission Accomplished" from the Sec of Defense and Joint Chiefs is then run by Central Command and then commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, George Jr added more management layers. From ABC News of 15 May 2007:
Of course, anyone without contempt for the troops agrees with so many generals who blame George Jr (Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc) for the destruction of the US military. That is so obvious to those who also saw the stupidity of "Mission Accomplished" on and after 2003. At this point, every Cellar dweller should be fully cognizant of what Generals such as Sheehan have been saying for years: no strategic objective.

Those who use a political agenda to proclaim support for the troops - they must deny reality. One will even claim he never associated 11 September with "Mission Accomplished" even after those above quotes are his. But then Urbane Guerrilla represents those who have so much contempt for the American soldier - and the world.

No strategic objective. More layers of bureaucracy. This man still has another 1.5 years to screw up America. Notice how much he did only in the first 1.5 years. He can still do much damage so as to protect his legacy at the expense of all citizens in the world. How many hundred thousand death Iraqis are on his hands? Meanwhile TheMercenary now posts this is good because so few died.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
His legacy as the worst president ever? Not much need to protect that, he's in no danger of losing it.

*knocks on wood*

Be careful Bruce, you never know who we will have in two years.

I'm excited aren't you?

Thank goodness Griff is going to be president...there isn't much in the way of other decent choices. :)

Apparently we are in even worse shape than I thought.:eek:

You already have my vote, and Spexxvet's...that's two!

From The NY Times of 28 May 2007: What are George Jr's reasons to stay? Same reasons to justify Vietnam in 1971. Deja vue Nam.

American ignorance and stupidity are not limited to replacing containment with pre-emption. It exists in virtually all parts of American government agendas. From the NY Times of 31 May 2007: In an earlier meeting of major nations. Putin requested to talk frankly. He warned that the US was repeatedly doing things that threatened to restart the Cold War. Truth be told - Putin is right. Duhhhhh. Clinton, George Sr, and Reagan had no problem. All were smart enough to even recognize the power of containment and the dangers of pre-emption. Clinton effected regime change when the regime was massacring its own people - twice and without military invasion. George Jr is even losing both wars that he created.

George Jr terminated the anti-ballistic missile treaty unilaterally. He is attempting to do same to the nuclear test ban treaty and the non-proliferation treaty. He destroyed an agreement that would have brought N Korea into the world. He destroyed relations with Syria, What could be better than all this? Restart the Cold War. But then wacko extremists are so suspicious that Condi Rice even mistakenly called them the USSR in a public statement. Putin has every reason to fear a US incompetence to restart the Cold War.

The only nation that keeps the US from unilaterally releasing (Pearl Harboring) a nuclear war is Russia. Would Cheney think twice before ordering a pre-emtive nuclear attack. Obviously not.

Well yeah, but they are consistant... that should count for something.

You know how you read about the outbreak of WWI and it just doesn't make much sense... I'm starting to get that ole "leaders just like conflict" feeling.

From the NY Times of 22 Jun 2007: Why would they fear being held accountable for what they do with secrets? What happened when the US government conspired institute regime change in Australia (ie Falcon and the Snowman). (Non-Americans should have no say about these things since America has *every right* to institute regime change in Australia and Phillippines - Cheney doctrine.)

Clearly only Cheney can be trusted. How many more Cheney subordinates will be found guilty of corruption? Or not if even e-mails are destroyed in violation of Federal law and without prosecution. This is a right wing wacko in power. Laws don't apply to him.

Last time we had leaders with this much contempt for the law and for American principles - the president was the crook Nixon. His VP? A convicted crook named Spiro Agnew. 30 years later - Deja vue.

An accurate source of reality has been PBS Frontline. An hour long news documentary on various subjects. Frontline has been particularly accurate on "Mission Accomplished" with their reports entitled Rumsfeld's War, The Torture Question, The Dark Side, and especially the blatant examples that violate even basic military science 101 principles The Lost Year in Iraq .

So how do we terminate a defeat called "Mission Accomplished"? The Iraq Study Group provided clear and stunningly comprehensive solution to minimize that defeat. But that defeat would be on George Jr's legacy.

Frontline details and organizes current events that may result in a fourth campaign defeat - EndGame

For example, obvious was an American defeat in Fallujah. Not the battle. Tactically, Second Fallujah was a victory. But strategically, Fallujah was a defeat; especially First Fallujah. Marines lost that one twice for no fault of their own. First when Marines were ordered to solve a crime problem faster with a full out military assault. Second when the same Washington micromanagers became appalled at what they had created and ordered the Marines to withdrawal. Iraqis then realized Americans could be defeated; inspiring growth of an insurgency fueled by widespread Iraqi dislike of an American occupation.

Not obviously stated in that report: at no time do even major strategists ask something so simple: "What do the Iraqis want?" Therein lays the question necessary for a strategic objective. Without those answers, then Americans could easily remain in Iraq for another decade - just like Nam.

Presented in Frontline's EndGame is the same scenario that lost Nam. Battles can be won but a war be lost.

Each Frontline reports is must viewing for those who learn history from current events. How badly is "Mission Accomplished" being lost? Most do not realize how bad even Fallujah was. Contempt for the Marines in Washington was appalling. A tactical victory such as Second Fallujah was, in reality, a strategic defeat. Appreciate why a once peaceful Diaylah province is now in civil war. Learn from EndGame why both Nam and “Mission Accomplished” are defeats – even when soldiers win each battle. Appreciate why 85% of all problems are directly traceable to a mental midget.

See what pretty jewelry Daughter No. 1 makes?

Last time I looked where one was supposed to be, nothing was there. No wonder he never asks a single question or reads his memos. Nothing there.

So, there you have it. Laura waxes.

Well I believe it. After all, Nancy Reagan was famous for her blow jobs when she was a starlet. What's a little Brazilian compared to that?

Funny this stuff about Cheney and his "secret" documents. Should make for a great book in '09. Otherwise it is all pretty insignificant.

If it's so insignificant, why doesn't he comply with the law? What's he hiding?

Secwits.
http://garyploski.com/wp-content/uploads/elmer-fud.gif

[brooklyn bridge]It would set a bad precedent. He shouldn't have to explain himself to us. Democracy is too fragile for such things, it must be protected at all cost.[/on sale now!]

Yea, I am sure the US was really glad when JFK came on the nightly news and told the country about the blockade off of Cuba. Or when Carter came on and told us about the reason they were about to send a completely failed rescue mission to Iran, or maybe when Regan came on and told us all about the CIA working behind the scenes in Afganistan... Yep all good stuff. Keeping the well educated American public informed.

We can't handle the truth.

Neither can we {the US public} handle the strategy required to take the fight to the terrorists on terms they can understand.

Oh, I can handle that ok. It's the rest of the world Bush wants to fight, for reasons known only to him (or Cheney), that aren't terrorists, instead of where the terrorists are in Afghanistan.

Agreed. Well they use to be. Now we have a whole other potential breeding ground. But I bet once we are out of there they will have their own problems to tend with and will not be producing much more than self destruction.

It is only insignificant to those who love fascism. Meanwhile, the Washington Post has an ongoing series on unprecedented power by Cheney - who really makes the decisions unbeknownst to most even in the executive branch. Cheney's position? Yes, torture was avocated by VP Cheney. Even done so by keeping other government officials so isoated as to discover America was torturing, in violation of Federal law and the Geneva convention in the Washington Post.

Ongoing is a question of George Jr's legacy. To protect that legacy, Guantanamo should be closed. George Jr had even said, "I'd like to close Guantanamo." A year later, Guantanamo is still functioning since that is what Cheney wants. It is quite clear why TheMercenary would love Cheney. Cheney demonstrates everything that fascists advocate including unrestricted torture, wiretapping without judicial review, and wars against enemies that don't really exist. Notiice that TheMercenary has again posted the silly myth that "if we don't stop them there, then they will attack us here".

The Washington Post series started with Cheney's political agenda approaches what is called fascism. He openly states that the President does not have sufficient powers; needs more. A president can openly create war and torture in direct violation of Federal laws, Geneva Convention, and basic American principles - and still does not have enough power? That would explain why those here who know by using a political agenda also so love Cheney.

Ok, thanks for your support of terrorists and all things anti-American. Well done!:whofart:

From The Economist of 16 Jun 2007: Well its a good thing that TheMercenary's hero is an elephant. He got an honorary meal well deserved.

The Economist is a good mag. I have a subscription. :D

From the Washington Post of 26 Jun 2007: Let's look at the Middle East. Under George Jr, the Oslo Accords were destroyed and the Intafada II expanded to war all over Palestine and even into the most northern cities of Lebanon. Under George Jr, Iraq that was probably on the verge of an Orange or Rose revolution, instead was put into Civil War with democracy no longer considered possible. Many (without a political agenda) now believe Iraq with become a theorcratic dictatorship dominated by Shia.

And Afghanistan that was justified by 11 September. More than 50% of the country has now fallen back into Taliban hands since "America does not do nation building". We all know the genius who repeatedly stated that violation of Military Science 101.

Meanwhile Iran that once had a strong reformist movement is now a bastion of wacko extremists. That key turning point was the famous "Axis of Evil" speech based in a political agenda; listing countries that were a threat to no one.

Pakistan is now under threat of Islamic extremism and rattles nuclear weapons. India is being exempted from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - a treaty setup specifically to stop what India is doing.

Turkey is talking about invasion of Kurdistan. Somolia is now only peaceful when Islamic extremists control the country. And the US keeps sending multiple carrier task forces with amphibious task force to threaten ... well we still don't know who Cheney want to attack next.

As scholar after scholar have noted - today it was Robert Dallek, a presidental historian who just published Nixon and Kissinger - everything in the Middle East that this administration has touched is now a disaster. Show me one success. There are none. Zero. Dallek said this noting the similarities between Nixon's Vietnam and George Jr's Iraq. Virutally everyone without a political agenda notes both events are so extremely similar; complete with the rhetoric.

"If we don't stop them there, then they will attack us here." Some in the Cellar also foolishly advocated that nonsense claim in 2003. Same thing in Nam was called the Domino Theory. Deja vue Nam. You would think Cheney et al had learned from history. No wonder top Republicans would love to execute a coup.

Do you know how bad Iraq has become? It is even worse. Republicans Lugar, Warner, and others want Cheney out.

Gen David Patraeus recently said Americans may be in Iraq for another 9 or 10 years. Patraeus is correct if we continue this Cheney doctrine. No wonder top Republican Senators have been so angry for so long. No wonder they fed George Jr only peanut-butter and jelly sandwiches.

The Domino Theory was validated by the results, even if the results did not go as far as was feared at the time: China, North Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam all fell to communism. That is the validation of the Domino Theory, and only the maddest of cranks dispute it.

Thailand had the societal integrity not to fall to communism, and Burma -- well, didn't need to, by anyone's lights. It deteriorated into its present basket case condition through its own mismanagement.

That the Domino Theory is now going in reverse as these nations recover from communism is a pleasant surprise.

Now we have tw to tell us the sky is everywhere falling. It's certainly not going to stay propped up if the likes of tw are in charge, busily trying to lose us the war. Phooey to the lot of them.

China & North Vietnam were already red states.

tw - Please don't use Dallek as a source. His cheerleading for Democrat imperial Presidencies helped lead to our present difficulties.

China and Cambodia are now doing quite well without America imposing wars in their region. Vietnam is the second fastest growing economy is East Asia. Laos is something like the 35th fastest growing economy in the world. Clearly they are doing worse since Americans stopped spending $million a day on war there – according to history as rewritten by Urbane Guerrilla.

Funny how those Domino fell mostly better for their people – which Urbane Guerrilla forgets to learn.

Urban Guerrilla again rewrites history for a political agenda. Since George Jr said it, then Urbane Guerrilla also knows we are winning “Mission Accomplished” – the war that was supposidely won 4 years ago. Did Urbane Guerrilla forget that reality – or rewrite it. Urbane Guerrilla was an enlisted man 1st class for twenty years. Therefore he knows more than everyone about basic military principles and history. Clearly the military genius Urbane Guerrilla must rewrite history so that we will not be deceived by reality.

UG - you make this too easy. Can't you at least show some imagination when you rewrite history?

An individual countries rank in growth rate is not a measure of the health of their economies nor how well their people are doing over all in relation to growth.

Here you see tw's delusional mental masturbation in its full glory. Foolish tw, have you never noticed that no one applauds your perorations?? And did you notice my speaking of the reversed domino effect hardly more than a paragraph down?

These were the first two dominoes: 1949 and 1954. Remember there was some undercurrent of blame-gaming over "who lost China" for many years.

From the BBC of 9 Jul 2007: In less time, the United States built arm forces almost from scratch, fought wars on almost every continent, and won all those wars. In more time, the Iraqis still don't have an useful Army? It says so much about a leadership (and his supporters even here in the Cellar) who are so much in denial AND who cannot even define a strategic objective. People who actually support the troops have been saying that for how long? "Mission Accomplished"? There was no insurgence until America created one. That even defined by lessons in any first year course in Military Science.

Are we finally seeing light at the end of a tunnel? Depends on whether we threaten Cheney with impeachment or support the troops by implementing what those with minimal knowledge understood as the only viable solution - Iraq Study Group.

Notice how extremists among us avoid any mention of that ISG report and its withdrawal. Same people also fear to touch the other damning questions - "When do we go after bin Laden?"

Pretty selective quotes there tw - I see its the "same ole same ole" with you.

How bout these two from the same article?
"In the last few weeks US forces have captured two big insurgent centres, Ramadi and Baquba, which was the main stronghold of al-Qaeda."

"In Baghdad for example, June was the lowest month for sectarian deaths in a year."

That statistic doesn't have much merit though.

The month of May had the largest amount of civilian deaths since the war began.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/COL241131.htm

There was a drop in June, but what does that mean? Since there was a spike in May it is hard to believe that the deaths are going to be consistent and many deaths many be going unreported.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/6260084.stm

Then, if you look at the recent news, you will find that some of the most deadly days of the war have occurred during the last few days.

June 8 - Estimated 150 dead.
July 7 - Estimated 73 - 105 dead.

(List of US Casualties by month and other stats)

I find it really hard to believe that anything is progressing in Iraq.

Well, Yesman065. Had you been learning from so many military sources posted here, then you can tell us the significance of those 'captures' of towns that were not even 'occupied by the enemy' last year.

You tell me. What is the strategic significance of that capture? And why, after that capture, does Gen Petraeus talk about decades of military operations? Do you really think that is coincidence?

Yesman065 - you clearly thought your quote was significant. Good. Fill us with your wisdom. Your post must have grasp of why Gen Petraeus has expanded his quote from nine years to decades. Show us how you somehow know something beyond what military experts and even Gen Petraeus are warning. Please tell us why your quote is so significant because you know what you have quoted - a detail - is so more important. Tell us why the 'cature' of two towns in a province that once had no warfare is now an example of "Mission Accomplished"?

Little hint. Your reply must explain the difference between a tactical and strategic objective. Be very careful in your answer to that question: What is the strategic signficiant of that capture?

Body counts were also a measure used to prove we were winning the war in Nam. If you first learn some basic Military Science concepts, then you knew body counts have little relationship to accomplishing a strategic objective.

In Nam, America killed everyone in N Vietnam three times over. What did that prove? It proves that those grasping for something to show progress will even be foolish enough to use body counts as a measure of strategic accomplishement.

Meanwhile, what do 'biblical' philosphies of guerrilla warfare dictate in response to a conventional army offensive? Did you not learn that so well proven concept of guerrilla warfare? Did you not hear quotes directly citing American frustration in every Nam era movie - ie 'Full Metal Jacket', 'Platoon', etc? Did you just watch those movies for entertainment - or learn from the fundamental points that explained why America was defeated in Nam?

Yesman065 - only fools would make the same 'body count' mistake performed even in Nam. But again, it goes right back to a simple question. What is the strategic objective of Americans in "Misson Accomplished"? Why do so many now retired Generals keep saying that America has no strategic objective in Iraq? Or do you also ignore the most important point in those reports?

Body counts. There is little relationship between victory in a battle and body counts. So Westmoreland rationalized that Nam was a completely different war - did not conform to basic military doctrine. Therefore Westmoreland who measured battles by body counts was decisively defeated. Yesman065 - you know have lessons of history to learn from - and still you look at body counts? Somehow you are trying to say Iraq is somehow becoming safer? These are a long list of damning question that Yesman065 will have to ignore. Yesman065 - prove me wrong.

Tw's setting up quite the straw man here with his peroration about body counts. He thinks we don't know better than to use body count to assess anything!

It is these poor choices of argument that suggest to me tw is severely wanting in political acumen and talent. Too, we can also rest in confident expectation that tw will disgrace himself, through a want of common sense and an overdeveloped penchant for rhetoric.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT (this link will probably run out by tomorrow, 7/11/07)
Some say it is still early to determine what is happening and we should wait until September but we have to start looking at alternatives now.