Fixing the First War

I hate this kind of misplaced skepticism that brings out the wildest and most uninformed conspiracy theories of the left.

Half the article is not about Petraeus. Did you even try to follow that material, or your conspiracy theory not have room to account for things like on the ground specifics of individual countries? That sounds pretty close to the dangerous neoconservative thinking you're so critical of. Just because something takes place in secret, and a reporter relies on confidential sources to cover it, doesn't mean you can reliably deduce that some terrible conniving against the American people is what's really happening.

If you look at the last paragraph, what's neoconservative about what this article says Petraeus might do? What's neoconservative about the war in Afghanistan, and our inevitable need to deal with Pakistan in fighting it?

(For more on how Petraeus differed from neoconservatives in Iraq, you should take a look at Fiasco by Thomas Ricks. For background on Afghanistan and Pakistan, see Ghost Wars by Steve Coll, Descent into Chaos by Ahmed Rashid. Dexter Filkins had a good article last month about recent developments in New York Times called Right at the Edge.)

olderwiser wat do you call 2 jets being rammed into buildings full of people? This war was thrust upon us, we did not go looking for it. Iraq is a different story. Its about greed, oil drilling rights, and supplying the war machine. Afghanistan is where the real war on terror is. We should have wrapped up this theatre a while ago. Radical Islam is today's Nazi's. Todays version may be more dangerous due to the proliferation of WMD's and other weaponry. You think the Japanese were fanatical? Have you caught the Arab version of kamikaze? Until we bomb the camps in Waziristan to dust, put boots on the ground for a week or so, they will act with impunity. We chopper in, achieve our objectives, we move fast, then we chopper back out. See ya again soon. Do not expect much from the P-stani's, they could care less about insurgents attacking US troops. We are ALL voting for Obama. He said he would send us across the border. I hope we do.

Wrong.

Isolationism was popular opinion in the US before Dec. 7th 1941. That day when the US public learned that they did not live in their own little isolated bubble in the world the theory of Isolationism died.

From Sept 1st 1939 to Dec 6th 1941 the rest of the free world was BEGGING the US to get into the fight. But the US didn't because it didn't have enough support in the general public. Sure there were a few Americans who volunteered to fight in WWI before Dec 7th... so what? There were Canadians who volunteered to fight in Vietnam for the US military... even when that war became wildly unpopular.

Now it was obvious that the US was going to war against Japan after Pearl Harbour... that was a given (though I do believe that there was one US Senator who voted against going to war... and there was isolationists and pacifists who didn't want the US to get involved... though you'd never find anybody who would admit to that today). but entering the war with Germany was no absolute. It was only when Hitler declared war on the US first that the US public really had no choice in the matter. BTW... one of the biggest mistakes (among many) that Hitler made.

And I don't second guess Truman's decision to drop the bomb on Japan. Bottom line is that it saved lives. American lives, and Japanese lives (both military people and civilians alike... some estimated 50,000 Japanese civilians were killed in the invasion of Okinawa). My main point was that it was a 'Dem (for all those who consider all 'Pubs to HAVE to be "war mongers") and that there was massive collateral dammage associated with dropping the bomb which nobody seemed to take issue with (some 80,000 people were killed in Tokyo from one incendiary bombing raid by the US... directly comparable in terms of human lives lost with Hiroshima or Nagasaki).

And the US did have a choice with Germany. They didn't have to send troops over to fight. What was Germany going to do to the US? Send over their navy that the Royal Navy had already largely sunk? Hitler declaring war on the US forced the US to fight Germany... but only because in the US publics mind that they had no choice.

Lastly, there are scenerios for when a pre emptive strike is prudent. In my opinion, Iraq 2003 was one of them. In the post 9/11 world, the US could not afford to allow threat to gather. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the very epitome of a "gathering threat".

"Change" is sold every election. Obviously with an exiting approval rating of like 25-30% (or whatever it ends up being) the general public will likely be even more receptive to the words "change" than normal. Obama, and McCain both correctly identify this and use the word even more.

But "change" isn't good change by default. The prmise of "change" this election cycle is really nothing more than the "same old, same old". As I pointed out... Obama is selling the idea that he will get the US out of Iraq almost completely but any realist knows different (and Obama has verified this with his very quiet "20,000 will remain in Iraq" statements). Change? No, politicospeak... the exact thing that Obama has promised us that he is above.

I actually agree with you on the swinging of the pendulum... but it seems to me in recent history that whent he pendulum has swung left... that it hasn't stayed there for very long... it has come screaming back to the right for a much longer duration.

I don't dispute the fact that the pendulum does in fact swing. This can be seen historically. I dispute "when" it will swing. Nobody knows. Not me, not you, not the Queen of England. Period. The election in 2004 was the 'Dems to lose and guess what? They lost it. This time around, Obama is at the moment slightly out ahead. But this is a snapshot in time.... not what the 2008 elections will end up by prophecy or by default. As I stated... there is still plenty of time for a videotape of Obama to come out enjoying a Rev. Wright sermon. The future is not etched in stone in regards to "when".

That is way too simplistic.

It is "partly" religious. But it is also ethnic, tribal, and even organizational.

Proof?

Even in the Shi'ite religion, Sadr's militias kill other Shi'ite militias. To say "rteligious" is naive and simplistic.

"Without cause". Your perception.

I think that it had many causes. One which I'd conceed was oil. Most others noble.

I think that you assume the worst.

Me? I admit some not good... but most are. I don't assume the government is lying (even 'Dem government) by default.

People have lost the ability to lose their bias.

Post WWII Germany and Japan were easy in comparison. They surrendered and their troops stood down. Modern day conflicts we have no such luxuries (eg. ever think that we'll have Al Queda "surrender"?).

As for Iraq... it's not just numbers killed. More "security" allows other progress to happen.

As has been said before, Political reconcillation in Iraq is key... and it IS HAPPENING... in measureable ways.

It'll take more patience to see... patience that I fear this general public in the US doesn't have with it's need for instant gratification. Would have todays society had the intestinal fortitude to have slogged it out through WWII? I doubt it...

Excellent post.

Which is my point exactly... that Pakistan (and getting Osama bin Laden who very likely is there) is an EXTREMLY touchy issue.

Those war mongering 'Dems!

Getting involved in a war that was unpopular with the American public (I'm talking about Nazi Germany here, not Imperial Japan) and then dropping two atomic bombs (no 'Pub... not even that evil Bush has ever done that) causing massive collateral damage and killing masses of women and children! How dare they!

(rolls eyes)

Yes, the politican pendulum does seem to swing back and forth over time. But have you noticed something? It's relative short stay on the left of the spectrum? Even Hilary Clinton made comment on this in her defeat speech... how few 'Dem Presidents there has been over the past 50 or so years. Now why would that be?

And you can try to marginalize my use of the word "cliche", but it is exactly that. If you can't see that the word gets used EVERY election then you'll never "get it". But go ahead and buy stock in "change" every election. I'd like to sell you some beachfront property in Death Valley...

So Obama represents "change" does he? Have you noticed that Obama very quietly and not in front of TV cameras conceeds that he will be keeping 20,000 or so troops in Iraq (and the region) if elected? Is this the "change" that you are talking about? Go ahead and buy those stocks though... buy high and sell low... that's a sure recipe for success. LOL!

As McCain said... "Is that change that we can believe in?"

And there you go again making a definitive statement on what the future holds... that the pendulum WILL swing to the left! I seem to remember in 2004 people making the exact same definitive statements. End result? Another Bush term for 2004-2008.

By all accounts the McCain-Obama race looks to be pretty close thus far.

And there is still plenty of time for video showing Obama attending one of Rev. Wright's fiery sermons to surface with Obama clapping and cheering at every "God damned America" declaration.

As I said... I will put more stock in the local psychic's prediction on the future than yours...

Please stop this, we are trying to evolve past this kind of thinking.