Big Sky Cairn

Just to clarify.

I’m not against withdrawal from Iraq.  I’m just against doing it before we win.

I’m not against alternative energy, clean energy or the fantastic economic opportunities they provide.  I’m just against relying on those sources before they are viable.

I’m not against universal health coverage.  I’m just against a single-payer government program to provide it.

Believe it or not, I support many of the goals that have become the platform for modern liberal dogma.  The sticking points are how we get there.  In debates, Democrats often talk about the importance of the goals they seek (suggesting that their political opponents don’t share these goals), and glaze over the details of how you get there.  For this conservative at least, the means they don’t talk about are often not worth the ends they do.

Reminds me of the famous South Park Underpants Gnomes’ plans for converting stolen undergarments into profit:

1. Collect underpants
2.  ?
3. Profit

Wondering how liberals handle good news out of Iraq? Selective reading. For example, take a look at this story from the Bush Propaganda Machine (you know, the British Times) - Iraqis lead final purge of Al-Qaeda. To read this like a liberal, just read the parts in bold.

Iraqis lead final purge of Al-Qaeda
Marie Colvin in Mosul

American and Iraqi forces are driving Al-Qaeda in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country in the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.

After being forced from its strongholds in the west and centre of Iraq in the past two years, Al-Qaeda’s dwindling band of fighters has made a defiant “last stand” in the northern city of Mosul.

A huge operation to crush the 1,200 fighters who remained from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000 began on May 10.

Operation Lion’s Roar, in which the Iraqi army combined forces with the Americans’ 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, has already resulted in the death of Abu Khalaf, the Al-Qaeda leader, and the capture of more than 1,000 suspects.

The group has been reduced to hit-and-run attacks, including one that killed two off-duty policemen yesterday, and sporadic bombings aimed at killing large numbers of officials and civilians.

Last Friday I joined the 2nd Iraqi Division as it supported local police in a house-to-house search for one such bomb after intelligence pointed to a large explosion today.

Even in the district of Zanjali, previously a hotbed of the insurgency, it was possible to accompany an Iraqi colonel on foot through streets of breeze-block houses studded with bullet holes. Hundreds of houses were searched without resistance but no bomb was found, only 60kg of explosives.

American and Iraqi leaders believe that while it would be premature to write off Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Sunni group has lost control of its last urban base in Mosul and its remnants have been largely driven into the countryside to the south.

Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister, who has also led a crackdown on the Shi’ite Mahdi Army in Basra and Baghdad in recent months, claimed yesterday that his government had “defeated” terrorism.

“They were intending to besiege Baghdad and control it,” Maliki said. “But thanks to the will of the tribes, security forces, army and all Iraqis, we defeated them.”

The number of foreign fighters coming over the border from Syria to bolster Al-Qaeda’s numbers is thought to have declined to as few as 20 a month, compared with 120 a month at its peak.

Brigadier General Abdullah Abdul, a senior Iraqi commander, said: “We’ve limited their movements with check-points. They are doing small attacks and trying big ones, but they’re mostly not succeeding.”

Major-General Mark Hertling, American commander in the north, said: “I think we’re at the irreversible point.”

Seventh-choice Jim Hunt (who, according to MT Democrats won’t win the 2008 election until 2010) isn’t getting any national press - but “his” borrowed plan for defeat withdrawal in Iraq is. 42 candidates (a “candidate” is even less important than the least powerful members in the 535 voting members of Congress) have jumped off the cliff together which makes it newsworthy - a bit like lemmings are newsworthy when they jump off cliffs.

A few problems. For example:

The starkest difference between the group’s proposal, dubbed a “Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq,” and those embraced by many senior Democrats and the party’s presidential candidates is that it rejects the idea of leaving U.S. troops on the ground to train Iraqi security forces or engage in anti-terrorism operations. The group instead calls for a dramatic increase in regional diplomacy and the deployment of international peacekeeping forces, if necessary.

Now, I’m not an expert, but I do know that seniority is rather important in Congress. Leadership - especially in the House of Representatives - calls the shots and freshman pay their dues by voting how leadership tells them. So a group of freshmen hatching a plan that even their own Party’s leadership thinks goes too far is naive at best at best and outright disingenuous at worst.

Of course, Democratic Leadership would never be party to a lie for political gain, so they’re careful to qualify the Responsible Plan for defeat withdrawal with this bit of tactical brilliance:

“Democrats are united in our need to bring change in Iraq,” said Doug Thornell, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “It’s up to the individual candidates to determine how to best do that for their district.”

Someone please explain to me what a 435 part district-by-district Iraqi strategy looks like. Last I checked this was a national policy that could - by definition - never be addressed by any individual district.

Unless Thornell let slip a Freudian truth. Thornell isn’t worried about the battle in Iraq - which doesn’t have any district-by-district aspects at all - and is actually talking about the political battle in the voters booth this November - which is about nothing but district-by-district tactics. Thornell could just have easily said, “Democrats are united in our need to [preserve or increase our majority],” said Doug Thornell, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “It’s up to the individual candidates to determine how to best do that for their district.”

It makes a lot more sense that way, doesn’t it?

Expect to hear the number 4,000 a lot in the next few days.  Liberal groups love to issue press releases whenever the number of American casualties reaches a round number based on the arbitrary base-ten numerical system (as if the 4,000th death is more significant than the 3,983rd).

To the 4,000 and their families: Thank you.

To the liberal groups using this milestone for personal political gain, a little history lesson to give you some perspective:

U.S. AIRBORNE 2,499 KIA
U.S. / UTAH 197 KIA
U.S. / OMAHA 2,000  KIA
U.S. TOTAL 4,696 KIA

Total Number of American Casualties in a single day (D-Day) of World War II: 4,696.

Total Number of Code Pink, MoveOn liberal hippies issuing press releases and/or kicking Marines out of their cities: 0.

Maybe that’s why they were the Greatest Generation.

I remember once I was engaged in a stand-off on the Kamchatka - Alaska border. I was pretty strongly entrenched on the North American side of the Bering Straight and my opponent was on the Asian side. Both of us had invested a significant number of troops to the border in an effort to discourage the other party from invading. Unfortunately for my friend and foe, he was trying to gain control of Asia - a daunting task - and an offensive from Africa had just steam-rolled into his back yard as deep as India. He needed to fortify Siam in order to protect his control in Australia.

And so, my Kamchatkan friend made a fatal error. He had invested too much into the defense of the Bering Strait border to simply give it up, and so in an effort to keep me at bay, he split his force in half, sending half South toward Siam and leaving the other half to freeze in Kamchatka. I’m sure you know how I reacted.

Suddenly, I had twice the force as he did. My casualties would still be great, but a victory was assured and strategic control of the region was at stake (a fortification in Kamchatka is much better than one in Alaska for protecting North America). And so I attacked, and of course, I won. A stand-off was escalated to a hot war because one side altered the strategic decision calculus by removing half of his force.

The lesson was that a partial withdrawal - a slow draw-down of force is a political action with dire tactical consequences for the fighting men and women.  It’s a sure way to lose.

Of course, Jim Hunt’s previously discussed post about his “Responsible Plan” for defeat withdrawal in Iraq leans heavily on the opinions of retired generals and military types, who are much more informed about tactics than I am, right? The interesting thing about retired generals is that they are retired. No one is inviting them to tactical or strategic briefings anymore. The Pentagon isn’t making sure they have the most current data on enemy movements and objectives. They aren’t piped into our intelligence-gathering apparatus. They cannot have a sense of the plan beyond what the people on the ground in Iraq have decided is appropriate and safe to share with the press - and therefore the enemy. And most of them seem to be espousing their military plans from the comfort of their home libraries thousands of miles away from the theater of conflict. I guess my point is that while I totally appreciate their service, when it comes to credibility on the specific situation in Iraq, I’m not sure a retired general has much more credibility than someone who plays a lot of RISK.

I play a lot of RISK.

Most of Jim Hunt’s position on Iraq is actually someone else’s position, but I think this part might be his (after all, it uses quotation marks):

This war has claimed the lives of four thousand of our best and brightest, left tens of thousands more seriously injured, and costs taxpayers billions of dollars a week. We must start bringing our troops home, hand over the security of the country to the Iraqis, and end our role policing this bloody civil war.

So, let me see if I understand the proposed tactics here. Hunt wants to end the war; but not all at once. He wants to slowly draw down the troops leaving fewer and fewer to defend themselves against a growing enemy. Sounds like a partial withdrawal - a political action with dire tactical consequences for the fighting men and women. A great way to sacrifice even more of our best and brightest.

Like my friend in Kamchatka learned, when you slowly withdraw troops from a hostile region, things go pretty badly for those left behind once the critical bulk of your force is gone. As soon as the enemy feels they are assured a victory, attrition no longer matters and you invite attack. That why you either win the battle or withdraw completely and immediately. Playing the middle ground is a politician’s prerogative and that’s why we try to keep politicians from running the military.

Finally, Hunt adds this little beauty:

We must change our irresponsible tactics and actions, ensure Iraq is stable, and then leave.”

Well shoot. Is this all we have to do?

I don’t mean to pester, but isn’t that the current plan? Make sure Iraq is stable before we leave. Jim, be honest now. Did you borrow that from a speech by George W?

Overall, do you see what I’m driving at here? Hunt’s trying to play politics with Iraq, but he’s not doing a very good job. 1) He’s borrowing someone else’s ideas, 2) He’s mistaking “goals” for a “plan”, 3) His idea of a change in strategy is actually quite dangerous and will ultimately undermine stability while costing the lives of American soldiers, 4) His requirement of stability before withdrawal is exactly the same as the status quo and he offers no specifics for why his ideas will be better.

Jim Hunt - remember, he’s the trial lawyer who was the 7th choice for the Democrats to challenge Denny Rehberg - has a blog. And his latest post is about “his” “plan” for defeat withdrawal in Iraq. I put “his” in quotes because it’s not really his plan so much as it’s the plan of an organization apparently operated out of Washington, DC (is the “me too, me too” approach really what we want out of a leader?) and I put “plan” in quotes because it’s more of a set of goals than a plan.

Someone running for Federal office has a plan for withdrawal in Iraq supported by retired military types? Gee, where have I heard that before? Oh yeah. Here:

Some of our best retired generals who understand the situation in Iraq have argued that an exit strategy for American troops from Iraq by the end of 2006 is feasible and in the best interests of America.

The President and the U.S. Congress need to put a successful exit strategy in place to bring our troops home. Additionally, we need to consider redeploying some of these troops to Afghanistan and other critical fronts in the War on Terror.

The time has simply come for us to have a plan in Iraq so that our nation can turn its attention, and its economic and military resources, toward pressing economic and homeland security needs.

Oh well, I’m sure this time they really mean it.