Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 04/16/2007 View Sun 04/15/2007 View Sat 04/14/2007 View Fri 04/13/2007 View Thu 04/12/2007 View Wed 04/11/2007 View Tue 04/10/2007
1
2007-04-16 Home Front: WoT
McCain: no need for Plan B in 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 Steve White 2007-04-16 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Prolly gonna get blasted for saying this, but McCain would have been a better CinC than Bush was during the critical time when the insurgents got their foothold and American approval of the war went in the tank.

More troops in Iraq and an aggressive public approval program at home would have helped.
Posted by Mike N. 2007-04-16 00:46||   2007-04-16 00:46|| Front Page Top

#2 Apropos of nothing:

With apologies to Pearl

Oh Lord, won’t you find me a new set of friends?
The Rhinos don’t love me and I must make amends.
Worked hard through two terms, no help from the Dems,
So Lord, won’t find me a new set of friends?

Oh Lord, won’t you back my surge Iraqi
The Shiites and Sadr, just won’t let me be
I wait for civilians to finally back me
So oh Lord, won’t you back my surge Iraqi

Oh Lord, won’t you fry me, Ahmadinejad
I’m counting on you Lord, Teheran’s gone worse to bad
Prove that you back me, clear Shat al Arab
Oh Lord, won’t you fry me, Ahmadinejad

Everybody!
Oh Lord, won’t you find me a new set of friends?
The Rhinos don’t love me and I must make amends.
Worked hard through two terms, no help from the Dems,
So Lord, won’t find me a new set of friends?
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-04-16 00:53||   2007-04-16 00:53|| Front Page Top

#3 an effective fallback if the current strategy failed

Nuke the place until it glows?
Posted by gromgoru 2007-04-16 05:09||   2007-04-16 05:09|| Front Page Top

#4 I thought I noticed a certain underlying theme of the hopelessness of it all, and therefore, McCain must be crazy, but we won't come right out and say it.

Ahhhh....The New York Times.
Posted by Bobby 2007-04-16 06:34||   2007-04-16 06:34|| Front Page Top

#5 "Or McNamara. Boggle."

He wasnt that bad a peace time SecDef, IIUC, he screwed up running the war.

Yet you insist "nothing wrong with Rummy". I wont go over again all that was wrong with Rummy. W at least, finally had the sense to move beyond him.
Posted by liberalhawk 2007-04-16 15:30||   2007-04-16 15:30|| Front Page Top

#6 let me say this

If domestic policy didnt matter at all

and If getting a Dem in to try to get more bipartisan support for the WOT didnt matter, or was an impossible goal (the bipartisan support) anyway.

Then - there is little or no doubt in my mind that McCain would be by far the best available choice for President. His understanding of the entire range of strategic issues exceeds that of any candidate in either party, as does his will to victory.
Posted by liberalhawk 2007-04-16 15:34||   2007-04-16 15:34|| Front Page Top

#7 So should he be the next Secretary of Defense?

I suppose he has more power in the Senate than that?
Posted by Bobby 2007-04-16 16:36||   2007-04-16 16:36|| Front Page Top

#8 So should he be the next Secretary of Defense?

I suppose he has more power in the Senate than that?
Posted by Bobby 2007-04-16 16:36||   2007-04-16 16:36|| Front Page Top

#9 I see now. If you clumsily double-click on the Submit Query button, you get two postings!

Not all that surprising. Sorry.
Posted by Bobby 2007-04-16 16:38||   2007-04-16 16:38|| Front Page Top

#10 Still focused on "inclusion" of Sunnis, are we? Then sorry, this latest chapter is as doomed as the earlier ones. The Sunnis (as a whole) have shown time and again - and there are thousands of dead US soldiers and tens of thousands of dead Iraqis to prove it - that they do NOT accept the new order.

Yes, yes - many do. But until and unless they EFFECTIVELY help end jihadi terror and home-grown "insurgency", things stay as they are. The preposterous and reckless premise of Casey's campaign plan of '05 - that Iraqis were close to ready to start assuming major responsibilities without deep US involvement - has been replaced by the only slightly less absurd implicit premise that finally pacifying B'dad will somehow usher in this magical condition. Iraqis will get there - but in time, not on US political or media time.

And Steve, sweeps and body counts have been almost unheard of in Iraq. Even that level of military activity, and that degree of common sense in setting the terms of public discussion, would have far exceeded our actual performance. The uniforms still have a mindless fear of body counts, and the administration remains invisible or feeble in its public affairs efforts. Limited ops to set the conditions for three elections (plus of course the murky rampaging of Task Force Black and like outfits) have been about it until now. Fallujah II excepted, naturally.

I'm assuming inertia - in this case, fear of dramatic change in course of the sort that would signal US retreat against global jihad and Sunni chauvinism - will in fact make McCain's public opinion-led withdrawal very unlikely, even if the Dems, incredibly, are given a hand on the national tiller. The Dems' political cowardice exceeds their fervent cluelessness.

Speaking of which, while I enjoy a good laugh when people spin fanciful scenarios of the Dems needing to be in power in order to broaden support for the war, it is deeply naieve. While the mindless self-centeredness implied is in fact there (i.e., some actually would support identical policies if THEIR guys were the ones signing the orders), you couldn't fill a medium-sized conference room with Dem officeholders - or, critically, their staff - who have a clue about international security. I worked with/around these folks for years, before many of them rose to unbelievable - appalling, actually - heights under Clinton.

These are the sorts of folks who cannot even understand pre-emption, and sincerely believe AIDs is a "national security" problem. Their intellectual unfitness for any serious jobs cannot be over-estimated. Even the few exceptions, who show some spine and brain on occasion (Holbrooke, Bayh), lack the force of personality or confidence or will to change the general drift.

And those who think the Army's problems are/were confined to the Casey/Chiarelli fiasco are misinformed, I believe.

Posted by Verlaine 2007-04-16 17:50||   2007-04-16 17:50|| Front Page Top

#11 "see some success". You went on to discuss "some success", whereas the key word is actually "see". The MSM has consistently acted to obscure success and exaggerate failure, with the express intent of conveying inevitable failure.

It must sound familiar to a Vietnam Vet.
Posted by Brian H">Brian H  2007-04-16 23:53||   2007-04-16 23:53|| Front Page Top

23:53 Brian H
23:50 Silentbrick
23:44 gorb
23:34 Zenster
23:31 trailing wife
23:29 RD
23:27 RD
23:27 newc
23:23 trailing wife
23:20 mrp
23:16 trailing wife
23:13 Hyper
23:10 Icerigger
23:08 WTF
23:04 RD
23:03 Zenster
23:00 mrp
22:58 gromgoru
22:58 Icerigger
22:56 Galactic Coordinator Elmaving4888
22:54 RD
22:53 trailing wife
22:40 JosephMendiola
22:38 Barbara Skolaut









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com