Well, well, well

What have we here?

A pattern, perhaps?

Generals, PAOs, and Army Culture.

Dusty and I are having a chat on that subject over at my place. Come on over and add your opinions. This was triggered by Michael Yon's RUBS #3.

Re: Afford?

By the way, can anyone, pro- or con- the war, explain why spending an extra $100 billion then leaving is a good idea? (I'm really more interested in the anti-war response.)

The only rational explanation I can come up with is that the whole supplemental is intended to send a message.

A message to the Shiite dominated Iraqi government to get the militia's under control and address the legitimate grieviences of the Sunni minorty.
A message to "anti-occupation" groups of what long term US intent is.
A message to the Sunni minority that if they really want a civil war they can have one.

Everyone agrees a portion of the Iraqi problem requires a "Political Solution"....I would quote John Warner(A right wing hawk if there ever was one) speaking to General Petraus..."Leave the Politics to Us".

I would note that the Sadr City Offensive...which had the potential to be the bloodiest battle of the war by orders of magnitude has gone exceedingly well.

The other explanation is that various members of Congress just vote whichever way the wind blows.

Grandma Makes Peace?

US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi makes an independent, unauthorized trip to Syria to make diplomatic overtures to Syrian President Bashar Assad, as reported by the Associated Press. Her trip immediately followed her visit to Israel earlier this week.

Her message to both countries: Grandma Speaker wants the kids to stop that bickering and just get along.

Obviously believing Foreign Policy to be well within the ken of the average Grandparent, US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi makes nice with Dictator Assad in Syria. This is contrary to US Foreign Policy, as constitutionally conducted by the Executive Branch. Her go-it-alone diplomatic initiatives are, however, entirely in line with the desires of new Democratic Party majorities, who view the constrictions of the US Constitution as quaint, and ever malleable and adaptable to whatever they want at any moment.

The problem is, there are excellent reasons the founders invested powers and responsibilities for foreign policy with the Presidency. Not least among them, the United States must speak with a unified voice on matters of International Relations. When Speaker Pelosi starts doing her wise old Grandmother shtick with foreign dictators, elevating them to co-equal status with Democracies and allies such as Israel (or the US for that matter), she confounds and acts against US national interests, however wrong and misguided Grandma Pelosi believes them to be.

CNN: Iran To Free British Sailors And Marines

CNN is reporting that Iranian President Ahmadinejad is meeting with the British hostages as they are being freed, after he "pardoned" them as "a goodwill gesture for the Iranian new year which began last week".

'Bout effin' time. Now we'll see if the Brits let their people tell the press what they wen't through during their captivity, or if part of the agreement to free them included a clause to not cause the Iranian regime any "undue embarrassment".

GWOT - begone!

I am not sure what the purpose behind this really is... but I suspect it might be a little awkward when it comes to awards of the GWOT or GWOT-E.

Some Rep (D) would have to mention that a constituent was awarded the _________ Service Medal or ___________ Expeditionary Medal?

Go figure.

Afford?

Senator Harry Reid:

REID: AMERICA CANNOT AFFORD BUSH STRATEGY ANY LONGER

Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, released the following statement today after comments made by President Bush at the White House:

The President today asked the American people to trust him as he continues to follow the same failed strategy that has drawn our troops further into an intractable civil war. The President's policies have failed and his escalation endangers our troops and hurts our national security. Neither our troops nor the American people can afford this strategy any longer.

Democrats will send President Bush a bill that gives our troops the resources they need and a strategy in Iraq worthy of their sacrifices. If the President vetoes this bill he will have delayed funding for troops and kept in place his strategy for failure.

Unless, of course, you are absolutely unconcerned about how the press will cover the story.

By the way, can anyone, pro- or con- the war, explain why spending an extra $100 billion then leaving is a good idea? (I'm really more interested in the anti-war response.)

Finally, here's how "the Pentagon" will respond if funds aren't made available in time. Because I already know there's no answer to my question above, I'll repeat here that the pork-laden bill to stop the surge and withdraw troops from Iraq is not the supplemental Iraq and Afghanistan funding bill that will ultimately (and hopefully soon) have to be debated in congress - it's a political ploy, and a dangerous one to be conducted in time of war.

Re: Dizzy? Maybe it's from all the spin

Consider the sourcevia SanDiego Online

NEW YORK – Kim Gamel, a veteran correspondent and editor for The Associated Press, has been appointed to the new position of news editor in Baghdad......Before joining the AP, Gamel was a reporter for The Moscow Tribune in Russia

I'd note that Ms. Gamel was frequently quoted by various hard left rags while she was working for the Moscow Tribune.

Neverland

Michael Ware has made this point repeatedly and emphatically during his 15 minutes of fame:

This has been done time and time again. U.S. generals and U.S. representatives have often been able to conduct such walks.

But Congressman Mike Pence says this:

We were the first group of American dignitaries ever to tour parts of Baghdad since the beginning of the war.

Anyone have evidence to the contrary?

*Recently Hillary Clinton gave a news conference from there in which she declared the American people think the mission will fail, and more recently the Pelosi/Murtha duo shot through like shite through a goose to talk to the troops about "the intelligence that got us into the war."

Dizzy? Maybe it's from all the spin...

Congessman Mike Pence, (D-In), was there:

John McCain is a national figure and a maverick. We have had our differences on issues but never on the object of this journey. John McCain, himself a former Navy airman and Vietnam P.O.W., is the third generation of his family’s extraordinary American military leaders. He has never wavered in his belief in the justice of our cause in Iraq. He was the first leader in Congress to call for a surge of U.S. forces in Iraq. He commands the respect of our generals on the ground and the Iraqi leaders who recognize him as a national leader in America. I think his personal story of heroism and his lineage also give him real currency in the Arab world. Sheikh Sattar greeted him in Ramadi with the words, “we know of you and know of your proud family of warriors and we respect you.” It was an extraordinary privilege for this small-town boy to travel with this national figure for his first visit to Iraq since the surge began. This would be a journey of firsts.

A couple details Pence left out: Sheikh Sattar is the leader of the Anbar Salvation Council, I hope that name is familiar (but if not, read this, then this, this, this, this, this, this, and this...). And if McCain is a third generation GI, his son the Marine is a fourth.

But the spin I'm talking about isn't from Pence or McCain, it's from the folks who will make sure that Michael Ware is the only voice heard on this trip. Every minute of air time and every column inch of newsprint devoted to Ware decrying the accusations that he laughed at a press conference is a minute or an inch that could have reported on Iraq.

But given how those reports usually go, perhaps that's for the best. (Egregious example follows...)