Article

2007-07-31 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Sherry 2007-07-31 01:22|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top
File under: Iraqi Insurgency

#1 Either we train war-makers or peace keepers. The latter is a loser's option.

Posted by McZoid 2007-07-31 05:17|| 2007-07-31 05:17|| Front Page Top

#2 Can Congress do this? It doesn't seem right to limit the CinC's powers. Why stop at "limited missions"? Why not limit it to the point they can't do anything? Who is going to decide where you cross the line? The idea seems to be DOA to me.

Posted by gorb 2007-07-31 05:39|| 2007-07-31 05:39|| Front Page Top

#3 Only Lieberman seems to have the chutzpa to stand his ground. The rest a running like rabbits from Soros, Pelosi, and Reid.

Not Stonewall Joe Lieberman.

Posted by Bobby 2007-07-31 08:14|| 2007-07-31 08:14|| Front Page Top

#4 Our enemies (in their several guises) are playing to win; we appear to be playing "not to lose".

Those are not the same things.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2007-07-31 08:54|| 2007-07-31 08:54|| Front Page Top

#5 A strong element of strategy is to convince your enemies to use their resources to get something you were already planning to concede.

In this case, the military has long been planning and executing turn overs of authority to Iraq army and police, which inherently "narrows" their mission. When the surge is completed, many or most of the surge forces will be redundant, having completed their mission.

So what this amounts to is not just bringing the excess troops home, as they were going to anyway, but forcing the democrats to use their political capital in the process.

The republicans can then claim compromise, while the democrats don't get anything they want. The public are happier with the republicans, because they see (a fraction of) "the troops coming home."

Meanwhile, the Moonbats continue to seethe, as Iraq gets better and better.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-07-31 09:13|| 2007-07-31 09:13|| Front Page Top

#6 we appear to be playing "not to lose".

Some are playing to lose.

Posted by Gary and the Samoyeds">Gary and the Samoyeds 2007-07-31 09:20|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2007-07-31 09:20|| Front Page Top

#7 Can Congress do this?

Con Law was never my specialty but I don't believe they can. The military acts at the direction of the Executive Branch while Congress plays an oversight role and is limited to utilizing the rather blunt instrument of refusing funding in order to impose its will. It's entirely possible, and in my opinion very likely, that it would be unconstitutional for Congress to attempt to micromanage a military action by funding, for example, patrols in Anbar province while refusing to fund patrols in Baghdad. The ultimate arbiter would be the Supreme Court though I believe the matter is fairly well-settled already.

Posted by AzCat 2007-07-31 13:59|| 2007-07-31 13:59|| Front Page Top

#8 How many of these dimbulbs are doing this even knowing what Clybourne said about a positive report from Petraeus being problematic for the Dems?

Posted by eLarson 2007-07-31 14:00|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2007-07-31 14:00|| Front Page Top

#9 A much smaller, though growing number of Republicans supports requiring that Bush submit to Congress a detailed, new military strategy to change the mission of U.S. troops.

Names and Districts, please, WaPo.

And, I'd be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts, AzCat, that you're right. Everything I read in the Constitution states that the Prez is Commander-in-Chief, and thus, decides tactics, strategies and the like. Congress should put up or shut up w/ an up or down vote on the funding issue. From what I can tell, that's about the only "hook" they have to "bring the troops home." Of course, just because it's written in Plain English in the Constitution, doesn't mean the courts won't find it "Constitutional," if you catch my drift.

Posted by BA 2007-07-31 15:25|| 2007-07-31 15:25|| Front Page Top

23:58 OldSpook
23:57 Zenster
23:48 Xenophon
23:47 Zenster
23:43 trailing wife
23:33 Anonymoose
23:22 JosephMendiola
23:17 JosephMendiola
23:07 Pappy
22:48 Zenster
22:48 Broadhead6
22:45 Pappy
22:43 JosephMendiola
22:40 Zenster
22:39 Broadhead6
22:35 Shieldwolf
22:29 Pappy
22:28 Sigmund Freud
22:27 Shieldwolf
22:24 Sigmund Freud
22:23 Pappy
22:11 Zhang Fei
22:07 Old Patriot
21:49 Mike