 |  |
 
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! September 15, 2008 John McCain: "We have succeeded in Iraq"By GreyhawkBut wait - did you hear the one about the photographer hired to get some shots of John McCain for the Atlantic Monthly? I'll let her explain: "Some of my artwork has been pretty anti-Bush, so maybe it was somewhat irresponsible for them to hire me.” And the Atlantic's PR firm, working weekend overtime: "She has, in fact, disgraced herself". And Jeffery Goldberg, the author of the cover story: "Greenberg is quite obviously an indecent person who should not be working in magazine journalism" You can find most of those quotes - and the photos in question, at the link. The quote you won't find is the one from McCain. That's because it's from Goldberg's story, which isn't linked there or at any of the other sites that have made the pictures into the story. And while those pictures are a (briefly) noteworthy story that's too bad - because sometimes you can learn a lot from reading the words, too. And while The Wars of John McCain includes a lot of words, they are most definitely worth reading. A few weeks ago, sitting in his suite in a Columbus, Ohio, hotel, I handed the senator a copy of his father’s 1972 Times opinion piece.That, my friends, is good stuff. You'll find mention of McCain's father and grandfather and sons beyond what little was presented in the biography video at the Republican Convention - and discussion of the wars they fought (or are fighting). And interviews with several of McCain's fellow POWs (though I'm inclined to take issue with the blurring of the distinction between their position and that of John Kerry's felllow Swift Boat vets - those few words could have been cut from the finished product altogether) and fellow congressional Vietnam vets. You'll read some articulate and informed debate on America's final years in Vietnam, and how and why that (and all those other wars) does or doesn't inform John McCain's view of the world today. It is one of the finest, most balanced pieces of writing I've seen on John McCain, and it would be a damn shame if all anyone ever saw was the pictures - at least the ones that don't accompany the story anyway. And while not referred to by the candidate as such, most of the article deals with McCain's view of his son's war. “The country is in one of our occasional periods of isolationism, a reaction to what [the public views] as failure, even when we are succeeding in Iraq—and we have succeeded in Iraq." Goldberg notes - accurately - that "McCain rarely discusses his original vote, in 2002, to authorize the Iraq invasion; he prefers to talk about the surge." And that's unfortunate, because in spite of the opposition's steadfast refusal to back away from Iraq is Vietnam arguments (many of which were developed in 2002 - and most of which can still be validated by rapid withdrawal) one of the side benefits of winning is that you can actually say you knew we could do it all along. (Especially if you were right all along about what needed to be done - but in the US Government that group has a population of approximately one.) There are two things I believe I can't be accused of - one is lack of commitment to finishing what we started in Iraq, and the second is not paying attention to what's going on over there. In late 2006/early '07 I wasn't sold on the idea of a surge (even though I knew I was going to be over there regardless). That's partly because I knew something that only a handful of people in America did - not just that something called the Anbar Awakening was turning things around in that province, but that American forces in Iraq had committed to ensuring the Awakening was going to work. I wasn't happy with McCain's treatment of General Abizaid at the time, and also thought certain people weren't paying enough attention to Afghanistan. That makes me one of a very few people who can now legitimately argue that I was against the surge because I thught we could win without it and that we needed to pay more attention to Afghanistan. (But I also knew that if we fled Iraq we wouldn't stand a chance against the al Qaeda recruiting boom for the Afghan campaign that would follow.) But I won't - because I was wrong. And throughout 2007 I came to realize that McCain was right, and that we couldn't calm Baghdad without "the surge". And we did - throughout a long hot summer while Americans were completely focused on Mexico. How do I know McCain is right in saying we succeeded? Because of the number of people making this point (from the Atlantic): Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island and a former Army officer, who traveled with Obama to Iraq in July, said of McCain: “I think he’s ignoring the consequences of Iraq. First of all, the intelligence and the arguments for Iraq have been proven universally wrong."Obviously he isn't going to take my advice, but I say give 'em hell, John. But McCain believes strongly that the only way to ensure Saddam would never pose a threat to American interests was to remove him from power. “Is there anyone who believes that Saddam Hussein wouldn’t have pursued WMD?” he asked me. “He told his interrogators he would. Is there anybody who believes that the sanction regime was going to hold, or that the status quo would hold, or that sooner or later they wouldn’t shoot down one of our planes patrolling the no-fly zone?”Read the whole thing. Posted by Greyhawk / September 15, 2008 5:02 AM | Permalink 13 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 |
Greyhawk:
I always appreciate your perspective and wisdom.
I am one who has always felt the situation in Iraq would stabilize and progress as long as we showed commitment (which I believe President Bush has shown consistently). Never having been to Iraq, or even been in the service, I base this on the precedents and progress of counterinsurgency in Malaysia and other theaters. In my lifetime I have seen that insurgencies follow an organic trajectory which leads them to defeat, or leads them to victory, the choice set largely by the determination of the actors involved.
So I have been supportive but skeptical of the "surge". That is, I see rearrangements of force structure to respond to evolving enemy strategy as necessary but not sufficient for victory. I still believe that the determination of the commander in chief is more important than than the details of the arrangement and levels of force. So I see that giving this force adjustment a convenient label -- The Surge -- helped with the domestic political argument, and bought time for the President, but didn't change the dialectic of this particular conflict.
So I am curious that you say, "But I won't - because I was wrong. And throughout 2007 I came to realize that McCain was right, and that we couldn't calm Baghdad without 'the surge'." Could you explain this in more detail? I suppose my high-school history teacher would call this "iffy history", since what's done is what's done, but I wonder what evidence you have that Baghdad was lost without additional US troops in the critical period.
Thanks
BBB
The Atlantic has had some straight-up articles (like those by Robert Kaplan), but in trying to draw in a more leftist market sometimes plays bait-and-switch. Thus one cover, featuring Bush's photo announces an article called "Why Presidents Lie" (you get the picture). But the article, that covers everyone from FDR to Bush concludes that Bush DIDN'T lie (to the public). At most he lied "to himself." Maybe something similar here. Leftists might be drawn in by the photos, but might get a surprise from the article. On the other hand, I am detecting a general leftward drift to the magazine.
I read the article last night, agree that it is a very good article. Hopefully the dust-up about the nutty photographer brings more people in to read the article.
What I really like about the article is the discussion of the "revisionist history" of the Vietnam war. For may of us vets from that era, there is no revision in our views, we always thought congress and the media threw away a victory our brothers paid for with their blood. To few people know the true end-game in Vietnam consisted of Soviet supplied Tanks and towed artillery in a conventional invasion from the north. Not a bunch of local insurgents in black pajamas, as-is the popular belief.
The discussion of how McCain's views on Vietnam and how the Democratic congress dropped support for South Vietnam, while Russia and China continued to support the north, has striking parallels with our role in Iraq and Afghanistan versus Iran's role in the region. This is a debate the country needs right now, not more arguing about lipstick.
bbbeard
A good and fair question - one that could take a book to answer, but I'll try to briefly clarify. My lack of detail was due to length of post, but that's what comments are for.Not sure if you'll agree that the negative trend in 2006 was obvious, ominous, and worsening - but I'll assume you aren't questioning the veracity of that and press on.
First: That's my opinion. I wouldn't argue that anyone can state factually what would happen now if (X instead of Y) a year or two ago. But my opinion is based on having been in Baghdad as part of the surge. I acknowledge this simultaneously gives me some credibility while opening me to charges of bias, and that the issue is therefore debatable.
Some might argue that had we all packed up and left in 2006 everything would have been as peaceful now too. Since we didn't, to some degree that will remain debatable, too.
But the "Tal Afar solution" - basically the strategy we applied to Baghdad, couldn't have been done with the number of troops on hand prior to 2007. Other approaches with less troops might have been attempted, and might have worked. But the one that did work couldn't have been done with less troops. That's pretty much concrete fact.
As to the popular question surge vs awakening (which I don't think you're asking, but nonetheless I'll add it o the discussion) I've said previously it's like arguing whether the gun or the bullet is more important to a soldier, or a guitar or drummer to a band.
Finally, my crediting McCain with urging the surge shouldn't be seen as any sort of claim that McCain invented, planned, developed (what have you) the strategies applied therein. But obviously he was familiar with the background COIN-think (see Atlantic piece) and knew the numbers that would be needed.
Finally, many in 2006 thought we needed a larger surge. One could argue the pros and cons of that, too, so no discussion could be complete without that added point.
Sorry, I won't read the Atlantic until Sully is canned (the Trig smear was the last straw). Thanks for the synopsis.
I wish conservatives would be more frugal in linking to the NYT, the Atlantic, etc.
The article was pretty good.
I caught the "unfounded" reference re the Swift Boaters claims too, but that was about the only questionable thing in it.
A lot of Americans aren't going to vote for a candidate who plainly believes that the solutions to economic problems and the breakdown of our health care system are just "political matters" that he can flip-flop on from day to day. For some people, access to health care is a matter of life and death. But even if you share McCain's obsession with "winning" in Iraq, our economy has to at least appear stable enough so we can borrow money from China to buy the military power to fight for our "honor." (What bad stuff could result from that? Who could imagine?) As for McCain's honor, it is gone whether he becomes president or not. He has embraced all the filthy lies he stood against in 2000 to get his hands on the levers of power.
cowalker: "A lot of Americans aren't going to vote for a candidate who plainly believes that the solutions to economic problems and the breakdown of our health care system are just "political matters" that he can flip-flop on from day to day."
I, for one, am happy to vote for someone who understands the nature of politics well enough to remain flexible and tell the truth about it. Certainly it is preferable to voting for a neophyte who tries to disguise his commitment to worn out liberal shibboleths.
cowalker: "As for McCain's honor, it is gone whether he becomes president or not. He has embraced all the filthy lies he stood against in 2000 to get his hands on the levers of power."
This is either projection or cognitive dissonance. It is unseemly for Obots to complain about "filthy lies." Filthy lies might take this form: Obama banned this list of books; Obama is not the father of his child; Obama had an affair; Obama's kid is a drug addict; Obama supported Pat Buchanan, etc.
There has been no more slanderous campaign in my lifetime than that conducted by Obama's surrogates on the Internet and in the new media against Sarah Palin. Similarly, the McCain ads are no worse than the Obama ads. Neither Obama's nor the media's whining changes any of that.
thank you for your write up. I wasn't going to buy the magazine but now I will.
There is a youtube clip on McCain's prison years that begins with him (looks like in the 1980s) saying, "The time to figure out whether what you're doing is right or wrong is the day before you are shot down, not the day after."
It's one of his enduring first principles that, for s certain breed of man, doesn't change over the years. You decided whether Iraq was a worthy goal before boots hit the ground, not after. Quite timely.
Thanks, Greyhawk, I'll chew on that.
Force levels are hard to determine ahead of time. I've never been to the War College, but if predicting conventional force requirements is anything like the strategic nuclear force calculations I learned at MIT, well, may God help us. My friend-of-a-friend in the Pentagon relays considerable anguish over Rumsfeld's policy of "efficient force structure" that many believed to be not-enough-force-structure. "More force" has been better, no doubt.
I do understand that the violence was accelerating in 2006. I also believe that a confluence of factors that included but was not limited to the Surge has led to the current relative peace. Those factors include the predictable backlash that has come to be known as the Anbar Awakening, and the inevitable reassessment and recalculation of strategic risk by Iran. IMHO, if nothing else, the show of commitment that the Surge represented was at least as important to these factors as the actual multiplication of force on the ground. Perhaps I'm wrong, or perhaps comparing the two factors in isolation doesn't mean much.
I commend Bush for staying the course under unprecedented political pressure. And I certainly thank every soldier and sailor who has worked so hard for this outcome.
WE have won nothing and when all is said and done we will be there 10 more years and still have done nothing we want Bin LADEN not Iraq we pull out and everything goes back to the same a war that we can't win sad to say they show the people that want us there how about some real news show how many that really don't want us there
Who's this "we" you're talking about?