A Conservative's View: How to Lose an Army

[SeniorGeek]

How to Lose an Army
Plow deep into Iraq and dare Iran to strike.
by William S. Lind

Lose a war, lose an election. What else did the Republicans expect? That is especially true for a “war of choice,” which is to say a war we should not have fought. It is difficult to imagine that, had Spain defeated the U.S. in 1898, the Republicans would have won the election in 1900.

What does the Democrats’ victory [in 2006 elections] mean for the war in Iraq? Regrettably, not what it should, namely an immediate American withdrawal from a hopelessly lost enterprise. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans, both of whom now want to get out, desire to go into the 2008 election as the party that “lost Iraq,” which is how taking the lead for withdrawal could be painted. Instead, both parties in Congress and the White House are likely to agree only on a series of half-measures, none of which will work. We will stay bogged down in the Iraqi quagmire for another two years, as the troops caught in Operation Provide Targets continue to die.

 

[diesel96]

And they can't blame this link orginated from a "mental disorder" liberal website.

 

[wkmac]

And they can't blame this link orginated from a "mental disorder" liberal website.

Yeah they can. Look at how they thrash Pat Bucannan or Ron Paul who have both spoken out from day one against this Iraq adventure not to mention the fiscal policy and what some describe as the New World Order Anglo-American style. These 2 were carrying the true conservative banner when most of these johnny come latelies who call themselves "CONSERVATIVES" were at best no where to be found.

In fact, Pat was so principled against the "NEO-CONSERVATIVE" (let's do it right so OSU's thong doesn't get in a bunch!) that American Conservative endorsed Kerry in the 04' election. Now that's guts and principle I admire even though I voted for neither repubocrat and encouraged others to do the same.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/02/1522253

I see Pat very much in the Goldwater tradition and he's getting the same treatment too!

 

[wkmac]

BTW: Senior and Diesel,

Glad to see some appreciation here for Lind's comments. Been reading him off and on at Lew Rockwell and AntiWar for some time now but in the pass if any links to either were used I'd hear it from one of our former resident democrat party cheerleaders abut it being from a "LIBERTERIAN" website! Glad to see you guys at the least appreciate the message regardless the source and their overall political views.

At the same time I'd encourage you to check regularly such Neo-websites as AEI, Heritage or Project/New American Century and even read publications like the Weekly Standard. When you really start reading these guys and can understand their agenda it won't change you but you will become much better versed especially with those whose only exposure is to reading is Ann Coulter or watch Hannity on Fox or listen to Limbaugh, Hannity or Savitch on the radio. I've posted link after link here to a lot of this stuff and most comments I get back are, "you writting a book again!"

The best way to breed ignorance is to only explain yourself in 30 sec. soundbites and then condition the masses to only accept those short soundbites. At one time we could sitdown and devote ourselves to listening to 10 movement masterpieces like Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition but now we're conditioned to only handle the 2 1/2 minute rude and crude pop song with it's "4 Chords that made a million" formula. IMO that in itself speaks volumes across the societal spectrum.

I also know that if you post a quick comment with supporting links that go indepth they won't read it so I now post "the books" mostly to get under their skin (and boy does it and I know it does when they never ever attack the facts of the post but only the lenght) and it really does work.

You'd be surprised in the number of threads way away from these topics that I get honorable mention (they're my ad firm)and I know the vast majority will ignore my posts and even join the condemnation (more ad time)but there is that one or 2 that do sometimes read my thesis and you never know just where that seed might grow too. I really appreciate their advertising for me even though they don't understand it from that angle.


I'm sure we 3 work agree in a lot of areas but we do share some common ground as I'm sure I'd share common ground with Big as well. Yeah I really would. I'm just glad to see others willing to look out beyond the horizons or was this nothing more than a convient stick to poke Big with?

 

[diesel96]

Yeah they can.

or was this nothing more than a convient stick to poke Big with?

This is simply "old school" conservatism vs "post 1970/1980" birth and dominance of Neo-Conservatism since.
Once again,not a liberal website....but if today's right had old school attitudes,what a better world this would be.

Liberalism is a"Mental Disorder".......I believe is a convient poke(s) of Big and those who present their agenda with a big stick .



Many voices will appear in the pages of The American Conservative —
Scott McConnell founded The American Conservative with Pat Buchanan and Taki Theodoracopulos in 2002. A Ph.D.in history from Columbia University, he was formerly the editorial page editor of the New York Post and has been a columnist for Antiwar.com and New York Press.His work has been published in Commentary, Fortune, National Review, The New Republic, and many other publications.

To view rest of article go to;

http://www.amconmag.com/aboutus.html

 

[SeniorGeek]

And they can't blame this link orginated from a "mental disorder" liberal website.

The word "liberal" has been redefined by neocons as the opposite of conservative, probably to hide the liberalism and radicalism of the neocon policies.

Pat Buchanan is one of the founders of American Conservative Magazine, and his is the most recognizable name. I see that magazine as following his school of thought - but I may have that backwards.

I thought Buchanan had a mental disorder - when he was part of the Republican Party. Buchanan appeared to undergo an amazing transformation after he broke from The Party. (It is possible it is an act.)

I find I'm not alone in thinking Buchanan transformed for the better: http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/colbert/pat.htm

Though I still disagree with much of what he says, his positions and arguments are now clear and well reasoned - that makes him much more persuasive in my book. I sometimes think he comes to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons or vice-versa. Most importantly (from my view) - he does not shy away from stating his true motives, the way Members of the two Major Parties usually must. (If you [-]see a politician's lips moving[/-] hear a political argument that contains some form of "some of you know what I mean" or "some of you just won't understand", it generally means that there is some underlying motive that would be embarrassing to admit.)

Come to think of it, most of the areas where I find Buchanan is not convincing are areas where his stated motives become vague or evasive.

For those who wish to think for themselves, the editorial viewpoint of AmConMag is worthy of consideration.

 

[SeniorGeek]

Glad to see some appreciation here for Lind's comments. Been reading him off and on at Lew Rockwell and AntiWar for some time now but in the pass if any links to either were used I'd hear it from one of our former resident democrat party cheerleaders abut it being from a "LIBERTERIAN" website! Glad to see you guys at the least appreciate the message regardless the source and their overall political views.

I try to avoid labels, especially since the neocons have twisted the meaning of "Liberal" - as if it is the opposite of conservative - to give some deniability to their own radicalism. If pushed, I sometimes claim to be a "Liberaltarian", and let the listener figure it out. Every one of us has a mix of progressive and conservative views, and the labels tend to polarize us. Left, right, liberal, progressive, Democrat, Republican, Whig, KnowNothing, YIPpie, conservative and libertarian are not points on a line.

I love to hear well-supported viewpoints (as opposed to opinions that are only repeated, maybe strengthened with some added volume at times), whether I agree with them or not. I know that I can't always be right. (I could be wrong about that....)

At the same time I'd encourage you to check regularly such Neo-websites as AEI, Heritage or Project/New American Century and even read publications like the Weekly Standard.

There are only so many hours in each day! I do not want to take away from the time I can spend taunting the obstreperous intransigent ones.

...those whose only exposure is to reading is Ann Coulter or watch Hannity on Fox or listen to Limbaugh, Hannity or Savitch on the radio.

I have been able to manage my blood pressure without medication, so far. I do not care for the nattering nabobs of negativism who flood the airwaves with poisonous invective. (I'll wait for someone to post the funny parts on youtube.)

The best way to breed ignorance is to only explain yourself in 30 sec. soundbites and then condition the masses to only accept those short soundbites.

You already covered talk radio. What, are you writing a book?

...so I now post "the books" mostly to get under their skin (and boy does it and I know it does when they never ever attack the facts of the post but only the lenght) and it really does work.
...
I'm just glad to see others willing to look out beyond the horizons or was this nothing more than a convient stick to poke Big with?

I had to put your under-the-skin remark next to the inquiry about poking-with-stick. Believe me, it was more than a stick (and diesel made it quite convenient). Not only did Lind get so much right, he makes a better case than I could.

 

[diesel96]

Originally Posted by wkmac
At the same time I'd encourage you to check regularly such Neo-websites as AEI, Heritage or Project/New American Century and even read publications like the Weekly Standard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wkmac
...those whose only exposure is to reading is Ann Coulter or watch Hannity on Fox or listen to Limbaugh, Hannity or Savitch on the radio.

"And if you look at the array of conservative media outlets, that would almost seem to be the case. The major conservative outlets now compete over which can bray loudest"(Amer.Cons)

 

[Cole]

Fact is the UN should have gone in when Saddam first kicked out the UN inspectors, but they are too gutless to take a stand in that area.

I think we should have gone then, and I certainly think removing the "Butcher of Baghdad" and his murderous sons is a good thing. I do think we need to be looking to pull out soon though. There is no way to substantially change the mindset in that region, and at some point they have to take the reins and sink or swim.