Why does the baby Jesus hate America?

/wingnut tautological paradox

If you read the article in question carefully, you'll see that the author doesn't himself advocate a large increase in the number of forces (he has explicitly come out against it in other articles) but rather suggests that Paetraeus is being disingenuous in declaring the surge a success and that he is simply providing political cover for the President, allowing him (Bush) to keep the present course.

Benedict Arnold was a general too!
In fact he was one of our Frist.

semi-reformed redneck @ 4:

Bacevich is the man who lost his son not long ago, right? He's been writing op-eds against the war all along. I'm not a troll, but I'm trying to remember if this is the guy I'm thinking of.

You're right. Bacevich is the one you're thinking of.

You guys are forgetting the golden rule. "It's ok if Republicans/Conservatives do it."

"If you read the article in question carefully, you’ll see that the author doesn’t himself advocate a large increase in the number of forces..."

Absolutely correct. Bacevich was saying, IF this was truly WWIII and the battle for America's future against Islamofascism, then Patraeus should have asked for far greater resources and commitment. The fact that he did not either means a) he did not do his job as a general, or b) this is NOT WWIII battle vs Islamofascism like they like to claim.

TK @ 11:

....
this is NOT WWIII battle vs Islamofascism like they like to claim.

You got it. This war must go on (and on and on) to maximize profits for Big Energy and Big Defense. Of course this is only true if these corporations are interested in profit.

General Petraeus wrote the field manual on counter insurgency. According to his teachings, the US needs at least 1 ground troop for every 40 Iraqis in the population. That means we need a minimum of 675,000 troops in Iraq in order for the surge to succeed. We will need 120,000 in Baghdad alone. Currently, there are less that 170,000 US troops in the entire nation of Iraq. The surge is doomed to failure by the calculations formulated by General Petraeus himself. What could possibly make a four star general testify before Congress and betray the facts contained within the documentation of his own life's work?

RtBWA @ 2:

Most of these mouth breathers wouldn't know what Sycophant means - So I doubt that there's going to be a negative reaction from the repugs.

Bingo!!

mrogi @ 15:

General Petraeus wrote the field manual on counter insurgency. According to his teachings, the US needs at least 1 ground troop for every 40 Iraqis in the population. That means we need a minimum of 675,000 troops in Iraq in order for the surge to succeed. We will need 120,000 in Baghdad alone. Currently, there are less that 170,000 US troops in the entire nation of Iraq. The surge is doomed to failure by the calculations formulated by General Petraeus himself. What could possibly make a four star general testify before Congress and betray the facts contained within the documentation of his own life's work?

It is also instructive to point out that Petraeus taught a course at West Point concerning the United States's role in Vietnam. It is rather stunning that a United States general could teach a course about Vietnam without learning the basic lesson of that war, which was that the U.S. had no right at all to invade a country under false pretenses. Another example of American militarism at its finest.

Bandini @ 18:

read Andrew Bacevich's "The New American Militarism- How Americans are Seduced by War"

very well researched indictment on American foreign policy since world war 2

it goes back way before WW2, check out "American Dream/Global Nightmare" by Ziauddin Sardar & Merryl Wyn Davies ;)

#20-Gekke

Good choice of their book. Their previous collaboration is also another noteworthy book for liberals, as well as anyone else to read, and that would be "Why Do People Hate America" which explores the reasons why other countries around the world loathe and despise the United States. It is important to point out that this was written before the date, as conservatives are wont to say, that changed everything, and that would be 09/11/01.

While I disagreed with the NY Times add, I will be consistent and say that I disagree with this article as well. I would think that the only difference is that you really can't compare the number of readers of "The American Conservative" to the NY Times. But substantively I will be consistent and criticize both adds.

Gekke @ 26:

BigKAD @ 25:

While I disagreed with the NY Times add, I will be consistent and say that I disagree with this article as well. I would think that the only difference is that you really can't compare the number of readers of "The American Conservative" to the NY Times. But substantively I will be consistent and criticize both adds.

lol (republican Troll), of course you will disagree with both ad's they both put down your Messiah.

I admittedly have engaged in my share of name calling Gekke, but this time I just posted a comment that I did not think was extreme. I won't take the bait pal. Think what you like I guess, I don't think of this 4 star general as a messiah, but I do think he deserves our respect.

Have a nice evening.

Good for the American Conservative. Every time the government tries to do something unconstitutional like "condemn" free speech through legislation, all liberty loving publications should mimic the "offender".

I say true journalists should have all run the MoveOn ad for free in their publications as a protest to the stunt congress pulled. (whether they agreed with the content or not) Because once Congress got involved, it became a free speech issue.

I would point out that the American Conservative is not the same brand of conservatism that is the flavour of the month in the GOP. This magazine was founded by Buchanan and a couple of others who espouse paleoconservative views. The same people, like Bob Barr for instance, who went after Clinton on Kosovo, and actually meant what they said (whether you agree with them or not). Not the hypocritical establishment GOP.

Perhaps you never bothered to notice, but the rabid belligerant nationalists and neoconservatives that attack the left for their anti-war stance HAVE been attacking The American Conservative and Buchanan for years for it's anti-war stance and have been smeared just like we have. Way back in 2003, David Frum wrote an article in The National Review primarily directed against Buchanan and TAC called—wait for it—"Unpatriotic Conservatives."

But the antiwar conservatives have gone far, far beyond the advocacy of alternative strategies. They have made common cause with the left-wing and Islamist antiwar movements in this country and in Europe. They deny and excuse terror. They espouse a potentially self-fulfilling defeatism. They publicize wild conspiracy theories. And some of them explicitly yearn for the victory of their nation's enemies.

It's all nonsense, of course—TAC does not yearn for an American defeat any more than we do. If you guys haven't been reading TAC for the last few years, you've really, truly been missing out on some of the best anti-war articles out there from the main (only?) consistent voice of reason among conservatives. If I may suggest a particularly good one from 2004:

The War Bin Laden Wanted: How the U.S. played into the terrorist’s plan

You need to read Mr. Bacevich’s article that you quoted from again, Bluegal. I believe you'll find he meant exactly the opposite of what you think he did. He was saying that if Petraus really believed the surge was such a great success, he should have asked for many more troops to capitalize on that success. Since he didn't do so, he is either a lousy tactician or the assk*sser Fallon described him as. Pretty much spot on, not the slightest bit mental.

semi-reformed redneck @ 4:

Bacevich is the man who lost his son not long ago, right? He's been writing op-eds against the war all along. I'm not a troll, but I'm trying to remember if this is the guy I'm thinking of.

you are right. he is a boston uni prof.

navyswan @ 30:

True. It is the same thing as how it is horrible and unpatriotic to be against the war until people on the right like Hagel speak out. All of a sudden he is brave and speaking the truth, even though he is late on the scene and all the people who had been saying the same thing for years are still relegated to the side lines. All along, the people who were right to begin with never get an apology from the people who bashed them and then "converted" when it was politically advantageous.

Pretty much how I see that too, though never expect an apology from the bashers on either team -- never going to happen. That is why I think NOW is the time for the left to reach out to disillusioned folks on the right, but more through coalition ("joint custody of baby") than "triangulating" on a bland middle policy ("cut the baby in half") that satisfies no one. I stink at horse trading personally but that is what politicians are supposed to be for.

Don't trust Pat further than you can throw him, but he is more pissed about the "betrayal" of the so called "paleo conservatives" by the neo-cons than anyone else. And crazy. Yes, he is also crazy.

@31:

Conservatives , with a few exceptions, are very hypocritical, racist, and ignorant.

Now that kind of thinking just holds the left back. Hell, Eisenhower would be a Democrat these days and plenty of old folks that think right along his lines call themselves "conservative". Why paint them with the "turd blossom" brush? They aren't Rove. In fact, they could be your allies. I'm don't agree with his politics, but I'm probably not alone in thinking that Goldwater was the last true conservative in a position of power. He was at the least, an honest opponent (that absolutely despised Nixon and Reagan).

I think we will need EVERY honest individual to fight as hard as they can to fix the incredible damage to our country of the last few years, whatever their politics on trade or taxation.

Although I agree that the title should be attacked by conservatives, lest they be considered hypocrites, the theory that sending more troops in is not really that crazy. Many people thought that if we had sent a large number of troops in the first place, we could have developed the government and social services etc and deal with any sort of insurgency.
I'm of the view that we are the catalyst of violence, so I don't necessarily agree... But if we decided to overthrow Saddam, then I do think more troops would have been better at first...

Funny, if you read the repug blogs, the comments never disagree with the premise. (except of course the opposition) I salute the intellectual curiosity reflected in these comments.

Incidentally, American Conservative has had some of the best analysis of the war and the near-insanity of BushCo's strategy post-911 of any magazine out there. Their views on most social issues are pretty far out - even bigoted - but their articles on Iraq, the Middle East and the perfidy of the neo-cons are consistently excellent and incisive. Bacevich has also published in The Nation, incidentally. (I subscribe to The Nation, American Prospect and American Conservative. I've found that often, American Conservative has better stuff on the neo-cons because they know these guys and see them as having totally trashed the country. They hate them with that peculiar fervor that Trotskyists had for Stalinists. I won't try to convince anybody to send Pat Buchanan their money, although I'm glad I did because I've figured out what to read and what to skip over, but it's worth checking out their website for articles like this one periodically.)

I have to say that although I am against continuing this fiasco, the only real goal of which is to bilk taxpayers while enriching contractors, I have to confess a respect for the piece's point.

While Bush is doing the politically expedient thing, leaving the bare minimum troops that were acceptable to the American people (at least at the beginning), the Republican Wurlitzer is calling this WWIV and a struggle for survival.

If they really believed that they’d be compelled to do whatever it took to conquer Iraq including the draft and placing the boots on the ground to pacify the place. Of course, they never would do that since they don’t really care about much beyond milking us a little more and foisting the blame for this failed experiment onto someone else.

The goofballs who wrote this apparently truly believe we are doing the right thing and are willing to pay the price for success in the long run.

It's pretty much what Randi Rhodes and others have been saying for a while. Stop talking bumper stickers and do it, or shut up and bring our Iraq based troops home.

dadams @ 6:

this article says the same thing the gen. betray-us ad did, but goes further.
what a bunch of fucking hypocrites the gop is--fuck you bush for not speaking against this.

After all these years, you still don't understand the #1 Bush Co. rule: Whatever bad thing you have done or are planning on doing, pin it on the the other side first.

The American Conservative is a more Paleocon than Neocon publication.

Of course it won't get the same coverage. NY Times full page ad has a wee bit more viewers. Buchanan is like you kook uncle you'd rather just not talk about.

Heraldblog @ 50:

I wish Petraeus has been honest, and asked for 250,000 more troops, just so I could see Bush's head explode. The only thing that keeps the war from boiling over into civil insurrection and a thousand campus strikes is the absence of a draft. Neocons are terrified of the subject. You blew it Blue Gal, but I'm still madly in live with you. Say something dirty and all will be forgiven. ;-)

His head would explode. Problem remains, though. What will they do next spring when the rotations are such that they can't sustain the troop levels, even down to 100,000? This whole thing is such a calculated debacle, and yet there isn't a Democrat out there who will do the only thing that should be done... IMPEACHMENT! If not now with this president, then we need to amend the constitution and take impeachment off the table for good! Bush is a poster boy for impeachment! The bungled war is just the first reason on a very long list of reasons why it is necessary. If Pelosi and Reid haven't got the balls to do the right thing, then I hope they are both thrown overboard in their next elections for subverting the constitution and letting these morons get away with everything.

UPDATE 2: Okay I’ve read the entire comment thread for this post and I get it. Bacevich, you’re saying, is writing a hypothetical speech for Petraeus based on reality-based reasoning against the war. But who is to say that if Petraeus did make this argument, the rubber stamp Congress would not just approve said increase without blinking? I hate, hate, hate to say this, but we are now beyond the point where “reasonable people” can disagree about this war. It’s a quagmire based on a lie, and there is no “there” there on any position which argues that it should continue. ]

I think you're still not quite getting it. Bacevich is strongly against the war and not at all an advocate for more troops. I don't believe he agrees with Petraus' ostensible position at all, that the "surge" has been a success. He is saying that if Petraus himself believed it, Petraus would have asked for more troops. Petraus did not, ergo: Petraus doesn't believe it's working either but rather is working on behalf of Bush's agenda to keep the war limping along until the whole mess can be passed on to the next president. And Bacevich says that this approach suits BOTH Democrats and Republicans, for craven political reasons.

Bacevich's son was killed in Iraq. Bacevich himself is a Vietnam Vet. He said in an interview that it seemed both he and his son had a knack for picking the wrong wars to fight in. Very sad.

mrogi @ 15:

General Petraeus wrote the field manual on counter insurgency. According to his teachings, the US needs at least 1 ground troop for every 40 Iraqis in the population. That means we need a minimum of 675,000 troops in Iraq in order for the surge to succeed. We will need 120,000 in Baghdad alone. Currently, there are less that 170,000 US troops in the entire nation of Iraq. The surge is doomed to failure by the calculations formulated by General Petraeus himself. What could possibly make a four star general testify before Congress and betray the facts contained within the documentation of his own life's work?

There will probably be more American deaths in Iraq in 2008 than in any other year except the first partial year in 2003. There have been 811 deaths in Iraq so far this year, 822 in 2006, 846 in 2005 and 849 in 2004.

The irony is, if it hadn't been for the "Surge", the death toll might have been lower in 2008

Erroll @ 19:

mrogi @ 15:

General Petraeus wrote the field manual on counter insurgency. According to his teachings, the US needs at least 1 ground troop for every 40 Iraqis in the population. That means we need a minimum of 675,000 troops in Iraq in order for the surge to succeed. We will need 120,000 in Baghdad alone. Currently, there are less that 170,000 US troops in the entire nation of Iraq. The surge is doomed to failure by the calculations formulated by General Petraeus himself. What could possibly make a four star general testify before Congress and betray the facts contained within the documentation of his own life's work?

It is also instructive to point out that Petraeus taught a course at West Point concerning the United States's role in Vietnam. It is rather stunning that a United States general could teach a course about Vietnam without learning the basic lesson of that war, which was that the U.S. had no right at all to invade a country under false pretenses. Another example of American militarism at its finest.

That's the Ph.D aspect of Petraeus dual personality. He's lecturing from books not experience, he wasn't there. The fact that he got his Ph.d while he was in the military meant that he began his study with a built in bias. A Ph.d is a research degree. That means that his thesis should have started with a null hypothesis. It would be interesting to read that thesis some time.

TAC is an antiwar paleocon magazine. They are anti-imperialist.

Considering how the Left is demonized in most media these days, you should reach out to these guys. Their opposition to foreign wars might just give you guys some legitimity in the media, without being called 'unamerican', 'unpatriotic' or 'moonbat'. Break the power of Fox and Talk Radio.

You may not like Buchanan on many social issues, but he's right on this one. First point on the American agenda should be war --- or rather an end to war. After that, you can start dissing each other again. First things first.

Remember: Paul and Kucinich could win.