Commit to a Disaster? "Run and Hide" from Our Most Strategic Fight?

[domer]

The title states the two poles vying for influence in this country. I've stated the problems (the questions) in their worst-case-scenario postures. Do we continue fighting with renewed vigor ... and challenge uphill odds that, no matter what we do, the situation in Iraq could get worse, much worse, and end in a true catastrophe: either our ignominious retreat with ramifications running negatively down the decades, with a WMD tinderbox waiting to be unleashed, or a cataclysmic escalation threatening the very survival of the world as we know it? Or, do we withdraw starting now, thereby averting the immediate threat of cataclysm but openly admitting we were "bested" by a SITUATION (NOT a set of fighters) beyond our present control, and then proceeding with a new, much different plan to address the palpable threat of violent, radical Islam?

Either way it's a bet: playing the odds. Ultimately, we lack the information (facts) and predictive methods to answer our questions satisfactorily. In the end, drawing on our basic makeup, each of us will project (in the psychological sense) a solution onto the political scene, a solution whose underpinnings track much more closely to our individual orientations to life than a reliable set of intellectual tools.

That said, either approach, given their intellectual presuppositions, can be seen as a "proper" response to the crisis, that is, intellectually defensible.

That presents the question: can we form a consensus on a bet, a wager; or the related question, can we afford not to? In saying this, I posit that in times like these, a divided nation is a weak nation.

[Lanya]

If the only way to commit to a disaster were for a draft to be started, for men and women, and a  war tax levied, would the answer be the same?

[domer]

There are two questions implied by my observations: 1) does either way of responding have objective verifiers for success that the other doesn't, that is, which is the better bet to accomplish our national goals and eventually world peace; and 2) if it's an even bet either way, which path reflects our values more, but, more importantly, our ability to see it through to a successful conclusion, barring another crisis point requiring a new epiphany. In saying this, I implore Democrats not only to sketch but to flesh out a alternate vision -- before the decision is made -- to guide us through the morass that now faces us.

[Lanya]

Here's something to think about.


BUSH HAS REPEATEDLY SAID HE'LL LET THE AMOUNT OF TROOPS BE DETERMINED BY THE MILITARY COMMANDERS. REMEMBER?

Just to add to Atrios' point about the media's "memory hole" when it comes to the Iraq war, here's another very good example of this:

It appears we've all agreed to forget that in the past President Bush has repeatedly -- many, many times -- insisted that he would let the troop levels be determined by the commanders on the ground.

Anybody remember that?

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan, April 22, 2004:

    The President has made it very clear that we will provide our troops with all the resources they need to do their job. And he looks to our commanders in the theater to make those determinations, in terms of what is needed.

President Bush, January 1, 2006:

    THE PRESIDENT: The conditions on the ground will dictate our force level. As the Iraqis are able to take more of the fight to the enemy, our commanders on the ground will be able to make a different assessment about the troop strength. And I'm going to continue to rely upon those commanders, such as General Casey, who is doing a fabulous job and whose judgment I trust, and that will determine -- his recommendations will determine the number of troops we have on the ground in Iraq.

President Bush, October 20, 2006:

    I talk to our generals who are in charge of these operations, and my message to them is: Whatever you need we'll give you; and whatever tactics you think work on the ground, you put in place. Our goal hasn't changed, but the tactics are constantly adjusting to an enemy which is brutal and violent.

Okay, then: Right now Bush is reportedly leaning towards sending more troops to Iraq -- a "surge," as we keep hearing. But the military commanders -- including the very same General Casey whose "recommendations will determine the number of troops we have on the ground in Iraq," as Bush himself said -- appear to be leaning against recommending that more troops be sent.

I know this is an embarrassingly simple point, but still: Now that Bush appears to be favoring a solution at odds with that of the recommendations of his commanders, why doesn't it matter that back when they were telling him what he wanted to hear, Bush said unequivocally again and again and again that the commanders would determine troop levels? Why have we agreed to forget this? Why isn't it in every news story about this stuff? Or better, why isn't it in virtually any stories about it?

--Greg Sargent
http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/2006/12/post_455.html#014843

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/15/world/middleeast/15iraq.html?_r=5&pagewanted=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=login

[domer]

Please get on message, Lanya. This isn't some piddly-ass gotcha game. A momentous decision has to be made, and properly defining the problem and effectively inviting (and heeding) the varying viewpoints MAY heighten the wisdom of that decision.

[Lanya]

Sorry, I didn't intend it to be a gotcha game. My point was to let the generals speak and decide from there.   

[domer]

Following your logic, are you willing to accept the generals' recommendation on withdrawal?

[Lanya]

Horrible choice, isn't it? I don't know.  There are generals who are bullish on the war, and then there are those who are not.
This has to be decided.  It's getting worse.
I'm very worried about getting our troops out of there. 

[BT]

There are generals who are bullish on the war, and then there are those who are not.

So why the snark article about Bush not listening to the generals?

[Plane]

What you choose shold be based on the results you want.

A precipitous withdrawal would seem to have a certain result , the establishment of the most murderous and ruthless anarchy or the most ruthless government , in a pattern we should be familliar with from observeing the recent history of Afganistan.

I am not certain that a continuation of the present fight will be successfull in establishing a reasonably democratic and humane government , but if that is the goal I can't imagine a better way to even try .
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Feedback from the military is complex because they are dealing in detail with a complex situation , it is not simply more or less , it is more of one particular thing less of another particular thing and graduations of hundreds of adjustments as each locality succeeds and fails with what it has got.

Remember the time that Rumsfeild was told point blank about a need for the Armor up program for trucks  to be accellerated ? That was a gutsy thing for a soldier to do , but it bypassed a lot of chain of command and red tape and got some positive results.

I wonder what the upper brass can do to ensure that the view from the lowest levels is not prettyed up and made pleasent by filtering through too many levels of chain of command?

It really is tipical for mid level officers to report a sunny picture to their higher ups for the sake of their hoped for promotions.

At the level of the Presidency it had to be decided whether to try or not to try , at the level of the Seargent it has to be decided to patroll or not to patroll and at the level of the rifleman it has to be decided to choose particular targets , the feedback loop in our military is the best of any but it still is a system of information filtering that could be improved.