
![]() | |
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
|
Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! November 17, 2006 A Referendum on Iraq (Part IV - Qualifications)By GreyhawkMore troops? "We do need more troops - and the troops we need are Iraqis." Less troops? "Under the current circumstances I would not recommend troop withdrawals." Both comments delivered to the Senate this week by CENTCOM commander General John Abizaid. Want a glimpse of the future? Watch the video of General Abizaid's appearance (via CSPAN) before the Senate Armed Services Committee this week (real player). The media has made much of Gen Abizaid's comments at this meeting - and they are of obvious importance. But what really matters here are what the Senators asked, and how they responded to his answers. You probably don't have 4 1/2 hours to watch the whole thing. Some highlights: Skip forward to 1:15:45. Democrat Bill Nelson of Florida starts with this statement, "I trust you... You have been - to me - the most forthcoming witness as you have appeared before this committee." During the exchange, the General makes the quote at the top of this post, and also describes the details of what a "withdraw" from Iraq would entail. Then watch Senator McCain's section immediately after. Excerpt: Sen McCain: Would it make sense to say it might be well to get both Baghdad and al Anbar province under control...? Gen Abizaid: ...You can't have a "main effort" everywhere... the preponderance of military activity needs to go into the Baghdad area. Sen McCain: I don't understand that tactic, General. Later, the Senator attempts to conclude: ...I regret deeply that you seem to think the status quo and the rate of progress we're making is acceptable, I think most Americans do not. But the General robbed him of his sound bite: Well Senator I agree with you. The status quo is not acceptable. And I don't believe what I'm saying here today is the status quo. I am saying we must significantly increase our ability to help the Iraqi army by putting more American troops with Iraqi units in military transition teams - to speed the amount of training that is done, to speed the amount of heavy weapons that get there, and to speed the ability of Iraqi troops to deploy. It's a very difficult thing to do. Senator I believe in my heart of hearts that the Iraqis must win this battle - with our help." McCain - arguing for an increase in US combat troops in Iraq, refused to yield the last word: "You and I have significant disagreement." (In support of his "more troops is better" campaign the Senator also invokes comments from some other generals we've discussed here recently - they may not be gone after all.) After that - if you've time to spare - you can watch Senator Dayton explain why he has no business in the room, as he quotes recent bestsellers to the General and demands he clarify whether quotes others therein allege he made are accurate. The first two exchanges I've highlighted above may well shape the serious "Iraq debate" in the coming months. Don't believe what you read in the papers - watch for yourself. Update: Thanks to Soldier's Dad for the link to the transcript. Early in which Senator Warner announces a schedule:
Looks like most of the details of the next year in Iraq might be ironed out before January. That should give the new congress time to deal with other issues before turning back to this one. I think the elected Democrats will be okay with that - some of their supporters may be disappointed. (Sound bites and occassional Kos/HuffPo rants will be provided for their benefit.) By the way, want to guess the number of times "Afghanistan" was mentioned by a Senator during that 4.5-hour discussion? No need - the answer is "2". Posted by Greyhawk / November 17, 2006 2:06 PM | Permalink 11 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
![]() Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com ![]() Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
Senator McCain has many fine qualities, but his judgment on military matters has been questionable before. (Certainly his perception of and prior face saving cover he gave to John Kerry was a preipheral example.)
He's outmatched by GEN Abizaid. I woulkd think Baghdad will be enough of a challenge, and as Baghdad goes, so goes the Nation. If it fractures, so does the rest of Iraq.
Main effort, if we still seek victory.
The only thing McCain can't understand is how come one of the best, brightest, and respected of military generals doesn't agree with him and give him fawning attention.
This man will be trouble. He's stabbed his party in the back before, I'm quite sure he'll do it again. Bush tried to run right, McCain will run left. (If only because George went the OTHER way.)
"You probably don't have 4 1/2 hours to watch the whole thing."
Transcript here...
http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Press%20Briefings/Nov%2015%20SASC%20hearing%20Abizaid%20and%20Hayden.pdf
"Bush tried to run right, McCain will run left. (If only because George went the OTHER way.)"
That is my major problem with McCain, and the reason he is the darling of the MSM. McCain typically sees himself as a voice of reason when many of us see him as a contrarian. McCain has one true love and that is John McCain.
In behavior therapy, we reward small increases in the behavior we want to see. By providing him attention and ink when he shifts a bit towards the contrarian (read left) you can almost see him brighten and shift a tad bit more to the left. He is so easily manipulated by attention, he thinks they (the MSM) are following him, not leading him. And that, my friends, is precisely why he would make a dangerous president.
Yes, GM, clearly McCain is led to his decisions on the basis of his calculated media coverage. Sadly, there are few doing otherwise.
I particularly liked his exchange with Senator Hillary, the '08 Dem Prez hopeful.
Hillary: "Hope is not a strategy, General."
Abizaid: "Despair is not a method, Senator."
John McCain is an empty suit. He is not very bright. He looked good once upon a time and had a rich wife. His reputation comes from his losing campaign when he had nothing to loose and courted reporters who were bored (and stuck on his bus).
McCain does not/cannot thing a subject all the way through before opening his mouth. Watch him, what he says and does. This man is being poised to take on (and lose) to Hillary. Either way he is a disaster.
The Emperor is not wearing any clothes.
Our two biggest (maybe insurmountable, depending upon events) impediments to victory in Iraq and the larger war on militant Islamic Facsism are the lack of political amongst our political class and the population at large.
Impatience and faltering will are our enemy's best ally.
It is for this sort of thing that Washington lobbied hard to vest the CinC with sole authority of Command. War by committee tends to get you to the point of lots of people around a table trying to figure out where to actually *fight*... and then astonished that the enemy has taken over the place where the meeting was being held.
The Armed Forces of the US have performed a miracle or 10 and now these folks want more from Iraqis than we demand of ourselves? When one of these wonderful Congresscritters can tell me how long they think it will take to stand up a competent and trustworthy Iraqi NCO Corps, then I might listen to them. Until then they are talking to hear themselves speak, and doing no good with that.
I think some clarification may be in order.
McCain is advocating for more combat troops in Iraq - those who will go toe-to-toe with the insurgents. This position probably won't endear him to "the Left" - or even the center.
General Abizaid is calling for more troops too - but he wants more troops assigned to Iraqi units to act as advisors - not more combat batallions.
Senator Nelson - a Florida Democrat - is making good on a campaign promise from many Democrats to "listen to the Generals". For the record, here's Senator Nelson's position on Iraq, from his Senate home page: "...we cannot leave Iraq until the Iraqi security forces are fully trained and the Iraqi government is both stable and representative."
Sound familiar?
Meanwhile, over in the House, next year's majority leader (elected by his Democrat colleagues in a landslide over John Murtha) is being excoriated by Left Wing extremists for comments like this: "I believe that a precipitous withdrawal of American forces in Iraq could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nation's security and credibility."
For my part, here's something from an earlier entry in this series:
This fits in with another aspect of that "media invasion" - divide and conquer America. Sap the will of half the people, and the other half will not be able to confront a (seemingly) distant enemy while being obstructed on the home front. Until now that split has been defined by political party affiliation. But any upcoming "compromise" will likely have the interesting impact of alienating half of Republican voters and half of the Democrats -each for different reasons, of course, but this promises a potentially interesting variation from the pre-election partisan separation.
...as individuals shift their positions on Iraq (centrist Dems, Repubs, and Independents seek common ground while extremists and "party uber alles" types on both sides move to the fringes) I predict the media will pander to the minority - those extremists, who will make great headlines.
You'll be able to identify the extremes - one side will call for "troops home now" while on the other side "don't listen to Democrats - they want the troops home now!" will rally the faithful.
The rest of us will work to "fix" Iraq.
How does any of this differ from what Rumsfeld said or did?
edh: shhhhhhhh... they'll hear you...