Slog - Comments on Darcy's Plan of Attack

Comment by pox

pox — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:44:21 -0800

IIRC, Bush only listened to the generals who already agreed with him. The ones who said they needed something other than what the White House wanted were forcibly retired.

Comment by Reverse Polarity

Reverse Polarity — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:47:38 -0800

Please don't credit the "surge" with temporarily quelling the violence in Iraq. The surge is largely coincidental. More likely, Muqtada al-Sadr's decision to stand down the Sadr brigades for 6 months has more to do with it. If he gets bored or pissed with the status quo, he can start the violence back up again just as easily as he stopped it, surge, or no surge.

And yes, Reichert is a complete retard for simply deferring to the military to make decisions. Clearly someone forgot to tell him that civilian oversight of the military is one of the specific tasks of our national elected officials. It's his job.

What a dipshit.

Comment by diggum

diggum — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:55:45 -0800

Don't forget that a large part of the surge's "success" has rested on our weekly payment to "the enemy" not to shoot at us and blow us up.

sincerely,
diggum

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:16:15 -0800

I think we have to worry about McCain/Bush not knowing that the Iranians are Shiites and the Saudis are Wahhabis, IMHO.

And that 90 percent of all the funding and volunteers for al-Qaeda worldwide come from Saudi Arabia ...

Bribes to Sunnis are the least of our worries.

Comment by keshmeshi

keshmeshi — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:46:54 -0800

If there's to be no civilian oversight of the military, we might as well be living under a military junta.

Comment by Original Andrew

Original Andrew — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:55:12 -0800

And they'll be wrong in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018... etc, etc.

Comment by umvue

umvue — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:20:25 -0800

It's possible, perhaps likely, that Bush did heed the generals' advice and that the generals were right. Bush just asked if the then current level of troops were enough to allow the situation to go from bad to worse to holyfuckingmotherofgod.

Comment by UnCommon Sense

UnCommon Sense — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:55:54 -0800

What's the point of protesting anything these days? The Bushies will do whateverthefuck they please, and Americans will carry signs, then the Bushies will continue to do whateverthefuck they please. No one listens to anything but money and violence these days.

Comment by DW

DW — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:38:20 -0800

Images and video from Dan Savages' glorious war on Iraq.

http://iraq.reuters.com/

This comment to be deleted soon as off-topic.

Comment by nos

nos — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:20:28 -0800

2 and 3 are right. any cease fire is more effective than more war.

Comment by christianflkr

christianflkr — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:33:56 -0800

Get your facts straight, the surge didn't "work", the fighting died down because al'sadir had a 6 month cease fire, which has no expired and his people are just chomping at the bit to start the fighting again.
Oh yeah, the surge was real successful.
mmm hmmmm
thats why all the sudden, bombings are happening right and left all over.

Comment by CP

CP — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 20:33:16 -0800

Came here to make one point/reminder, but it was done by #1.

Other point:
Wasn't just a surge in troop levels, but a change in strategy. Actually going out and, you know, policing.

That we sat on our duff for three years and didn't do that is, well, perhaps criminible. And should be hung around the neck of this administration, perhaps.

Oh wait, I'm sorry, all Republicans are super competent manly man warriors who know all about national security, so stop asking questions or making suggestions.