On CNN just now with Blitzer and Crowley…Reid said the war is absolutely winnable militarily.

25 Comments

1. 

   Egarwaen on December 9, 2005 at 4:51 pm

   Yet more evidence that Reid has no idea how to run an opposition party.

   What a moron.

2. 

   jimstaro on December 9, 2005 at 5:01 pm

   That people write to Reid, LTE’s, and any other’s you can think of with a Request:

   “If this Conflict is Winnable and if Iraq is Actually moving Forward, Why Are We Not Getting All This Great News Of That Advancement, for that would be the Only Way This Is Winnable!”

   A Guerilla War/Insurgency, in ones country, Cannot Be Sustained without the Majority of the Populace Supporting It!

   • 

     Militarytracy on December 9, 2005 at 7:53 pm

     poll showing that the majority of Iraqis thought that attacking the U.S. in Iraq was fine and dandy.

     • 

       brinnainne on December 9, 2005 at 8:26 pm

       can’t really blame them either — after all, George did say, over a year ago now, iirc, that we would leave when the Iraqis asked us to. They did. More than once, and we didn’t.

       We need to get our soldiers out. 2100 and counting — jesus christ on toast.

3. 

   CabinGirl on December 9, 2005 at 5:08 pm

   Well, that just about proves that the Dems are happy with the atatus quo.  Why else would you say something so freaking stupid if you weren’t a Republican?

   • 

     Knoxville Progressive on December 10, 2005 at 10:07 am

     I wouldn’t be surprised if Reid, Hillary, etc. think that the thing to do is “triangulate” again, picking up the nonaligned voters by seeming more “prudent” than the “radical” wing of the democratic party.  After all, where will we go, right?

     We need a credible third party on the left to pull the political gamesplayers back to the left.  Short of that, we need folks like Dean and Murtha to keep speaking truth to power.

4. 

   floridagal on December 9, 2005 at 5:24 pm

   Contemporaneous government statements about the Vietnam War

   Howard Dean’s comment the other day contesting the idea that the U.S. will “win” in Iraq provoked some astounding hysteria, but another, more substantive comment which he made in the same interview was essentially ignored:

   “I’ve seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, ‘just another year, just stay the course, we’ll have a victory.’ Well, we didn’t have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening.”

   Then Greenwald has a lengthy rundown of comments heard during Vietnam.  He points out just how correct Dean was…and they just kept dying while we kept excusing.

   Whatever else one thought of Dean’s remarks, and whatever one’s views are on the propriety of analogizing the conflict in Iraq with Vietnam, Dean’s equating of the Bush Administration’s statements about the Iraq war to the statements which Americans heard from their Government throughout the duration of the Vietnam War was absolutely, indisputably accurate as a matter of historical fact.

   Much of the American population is too young to remember how it was that the combat phase of the Vietnam War dragged on from 1965 until 1975, with virtually no progress, culminating in clear American defeat.

   But a review of what Americans were being told about the war as it was being waged – the falsely optimistic reports from the Executive Branch and military leaders, the endless promises of imminent improvement which never arrived, the equating of anti-war sentiment with surrender and cowardice, and even the misleading Governmental accounts of the Gulf of Tonkin incident which manipulated a compliant Congress into initially giving Johnson war authority – reveals striking similarities in both rhetoric and substance with respect to the Government’s claims about Vietnam and Iraq.

   Following are representative statements made by Presidents Johnson and Nixon, military leaders, and others regarding the Vietnam War was as it evolved. These are all contemporaneous statements made at the time, and are thus free of any retrospective interpretation or distortion.

   Here is a sample of their optimism while more and more died…was it up to 54,000 before it was over?

   General Westmoreland and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Ernest Wheerler, November 16, 1967:

   REPORTER: How do you see it, General?

   GENERAL WESTMORELAND: Very very encouraged. I’ve never been more encouraged during my entire, almost four years in this country. I think we’re making real progress. Everybody is very optimistic that I know of, who is intimately associated with our effort there.

   GENERAL EARLE WHEELER (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff): We feel that on the military side there has been substantial progress over the past two years, that in the last six months, the progress has been even more rapid than in the 18 months before that.

   • 

     Janet Strange on December 9, 2005 at 11:20 pm

     Nothing, nothing, has given me the sense of deja vu all over again like seeing the Vietnam War, step by step, bit by bit, replayed again.

     It’s like . . . there’s another one . . . I remember that one. Oh, and look, another one . . .

     You asked about casualties. From the WiKi

     The lowest casualty estimates, based on North Vietnamese statements which are now discounted by Vietnam, are around 1.5 million Vietnamese killed. Vietnam’s Ministry of Labor, War Invalids and Social Affairs released figures on April 3, 1995, reporting that 1.1 million fighters–Viet Cong guerrillas and North Vietnamese soldiers–and nearly 2 million civilians in the north and the south were killed between 1954 and 1975. Other figures run as high as 4 million civilian casualties with 1 million casualties being NVA or VC fighters. Robert McNamara, in his regretful memoir of the war, references a figure of 3.2 million. The number of wounded fighters was put at 600,000. It remains even more unclear how many Vietnamese civilians were wounded.

     Of the US military, 58,226 were killed in action or classified as missing in action. A further 153,303 US military personel were wounded to give total casualties of 211,529. The United States Army took the majority of the casualties with 38,179 killed and 96,802 wounded; the Marine Corps lost 14,836 killed and 51,392 wounded; the Navy 2,556 and 4,178; with the Air Force suffering the lowest casualties both in numbers and percentage terms with 2,580 killed and 931 wounded.

     More deja vu:

     Johnson announced on November 17 that, while much remained to be done, “We are inflicting greater losses than we’re taking….We are making progress.” Following up on this, General William Westmoreland on November 21 told news reporters: “I am absolutely certain that whereas in 1965 the enemy was winning, today he is certainly losing.” Nevertheless it was recognized that although the communists were taking a major beating, true victory could not come until the country was pacified.

     Look at the box on the right side of the page at the WiKi entry on the Vietnam War. US troop strength in 1968 – 1,200,000. That is one million, two hundred thousand US troops in Vietnam in ’68. Johnson kept telling us . . . with more troops, just a few thousand, ten thousand, tens of thousands, a million . . . then we’ll win.

     Look at that box at the WiKi. Scroll down past all of the horrifying casualty figures to where it says.

     Victor: North Vietnam

     • 

       Gooserock on December 10, 2005 at 1:29 am

       you’ve probably seen from the Vietnam era that no truth that conflicts with core policies of the Empire is supportable in public.

       The Empire owns and creates more of the national experience and reality than it did in 1968, and it has less need for educated, reasoning people and enablers than it did then.

       What Dean said was not so much wrong or impolitic as absurd. He might as well have quoted Jesus on money to Falwell.

       • 

         Janet Strange on December 10, 2005 at 2:45 pm

         The Empire owns and creates more of the national experience and reality than it did in 1968 . . .

         This is the thing that scares me more than anything else. Most of the younger ones really have no clue just how bad it was in 1968, and now, because of what you just said, it seems like it could be so much worse.

         I’ve never had a stronger desire to just run away – which is why I was checking out Canada last summer. I know you and Puget are working on heading that way, too. But the Empire’s tentacles extend worldwide, and I wonder how long Canada can hold out . . .

     • 

       Militarytracy on December 10, 2005 at 11:14 am
5. 

   rumi on December 9, 2005 at 5:40 pm

   It is not about what Howard Dean’s job is anymore. It has gone way beyond that.  It is our country’s honor and dignity, and the human dignity of the people of Iraq.

     If Howard Dean continues on his current path, he might set himself apart, again, from the commonality of the 2 parties.

     We have to have someone to stand up for the human dignity of all involved and a basic respect for life. I’ve been a fan of Harry Reid but this is a good way to lose people like me. I don’t think many people feel an actual victory is possible. Those who stand by the illogical lose credibility in other areas too.

    By the way, nice diary, floridagal

6. 

   floridagal on December 9, 2005 at 7:00 pm

   http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/09/sitroom.01.html

7. 

   Militarytracy on December 9, 2005 at 7:56 pm

   Is that the Sunni triangle insurgency would be taken out…..is that the winning?  Or is it that plus all Shia/Sunni attacks upon one another would completely stop also?  Would it be that and also any Shia/Sunni/Kurd attacks would also come grinding to a halt too?  IS ANY ONE OF THESE SENARIOS THE “WINNING” ONE THAT WOULD BRING OUR SOLDIERS HOME?  

   • 

     floridagal on December 9, 2005 at 8:22 pm

     that they kept the party leader and those he spoke for in their place.

     Dean is actually calling for what is essentially Murtha’s plan with a little Korb mixed in.  No one else was standing up, so I am glad he did.

     Pelosi took a stand with Murtha, and now she and Dean and Murtha and Kerry are all being attacked.

     They are going to attack like bullpits anyway, it is all this generation of attackbots knows to do. They have no thoughts or policy…just attack.

     I say that if Dean is calling attention to it, let him.  He gets it heard.  That audio of his went out all over the world from San Antonio, and it really has hurt Bush.  I have a friend in Belgium who heard a translation of it.  

     I don’t think the war can be won, and I don’t think many people really do.  They just need to let go and come into reality.

     • 

       Militarytracy on December 9, 2005 at 9:57 pm

       And thank God for those in the spotlight who have the courage and are willing to be attacked by the bots and continue to stand firm and speak the truth, it is the only thing that will stop the insanity.  These are days for people of honest courage.

     • 

       cotterperson on December 10, 2005 at 12:07 am

       they need to rotate leadership on different issues. John Murtha should lead on the out-of-Iraq plan, since he seems to have such great credibility. He is also plain spoken and talks to the commanders in Iraq. Maybe get Wesley Clark to talk about diplomacy after the election next week and before we redeploy to nearby countries.

       Let other Dems lead on different issues.

       There’s a baseball analogy. Whitey Herzog managed the 1982 St. Louis Cardinals to a win in the World Series. There was one outstanding relief pitcher (Bruce Sutter), so Whitey often used several relievers a game. They’d pitch to hitters they had a good record against or who could throw particular pitches when needed. He called it “bullpen by committee” and was hailed far and wide for inventing a new approach.

       Maybe the Dems could take a lesson from Whitey Herzog.

   • 

     high5 on December 10, 2005 at 8:05 am

     As I interpretate Bush’s “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq” that document defines “Victory in Iraq” as just being there.

8. 

   cotterperson on December 9, 2005 at 11:51 pm

   pulling out troops to help win the 2006 elections, a TV reporter said today. These Dems are willing to sacrifice lives in Iraq for votes. It rings true to me because several Dems have said leave at the end of 2006, whereas Murtha’s plan is expected to take only six months.

   I haven’t been so infuriated in years. I guess that isn’t the first time in American history, but it is particularly disgusting because this illegal war based on intentional lies is born of a lust for oil.

   Someone was talking to me during part of the report, and I don’t remember the channel. The reporter was a blond woman on CNN or MSNBC this afternoon, but I can’t find it in a transcript. Did anyone else see this or hear this blood-for-votes anywhere?

9. 

   neoconnedagain on December 10, 2005 at 1:22 am

   The only people who could actually get us to ponder leaving [entirely] are the Russian President and the Chinese Premier and it would probably take a joint effort.

   These fuckin’ clowns, including Murtha, Kerry, Billary, and Reid can talk about drawing down troop levels until they are blue in the face. We have ZERO plans to leave. We will be there in perpetuity…or at least until every cubic meter of oil and natural gas have dried up from Tel Aviv to Kandahar.

   Sure, we may draw down, but bet on the fact that we will have our 10-15 permanent military bases (fortresses) staffed until the total exhaustion of regional fuel sources.

   If we cut our forces to just 20,000 to 30,000 troops and have them holed up in our bases supported by air power have WE accomplished anything? Should we feel encouraged? Don’t be silly.

   Wake up. We held our troops in Saudi for 12 years. We are there until the oil/gas is exhausted. We will all grow old and die with our forces serving as a constant irritant to Arabs/Persians.

   Unless…

10. 

    Nancy LeTourneau on December 10, 2005 at 8:38 am

    I would love it if someone did a retrospective of comments Dean has made that have been pilloried by other Dems and the media since he began his candidacy for president. Just how many times do we have to look back and see that he told the truth before we begin to really listen to him?

    • 

      Knoxville Progressive on December 10, 2005 at 10:01 am

      Sounds like a great idea for a diary (hint, hint)!

    • 

      Madman in the Marketplace on December 10, 2005 at 12:28 pm

      from two writers who are not big fans of Dr. Dean,

      IN DEFENSE OF DEAN.
      Chair Lift
      by John B. Judis

      The second question, though, is whether his judgment on Iraq has been sound. And there I would say that it certainly has been. During the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, and during the invasion and occupation, Dean has been almost consistently correct in his statements. He has been the Democrats’ and the nation’s Cassandra–willing to reveal bitter truths about which Republicans and his fellow Democrats would prefer that he remain silent.

      Dean’s statements perfectly fit Michael Kinsley’s definition of a “gaffe”–an assertion that is impolitic but true. Here is a brief timeline of Dean’s most controversial statements about Iraq and his critics’ responses during the months before and immediately after the invasion:

      February 2003. After Secretary of State Colin Powell made his case for war at the United Nations, most other leading Democrats applauded. Senator Joe Biden called Powell’s case “very powerful and, I think, irrefutable.” Senator John Kerry called it “compelling.” Only Dean dissented. “I heard little today that leads me to believe that there is an imminent threat warranting unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq,” he said.

      Later that month, Dean warned that the Bush administration was preparing to invade Iraq unilaterally. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay charged that Dean “either doesn’t know what he’s talking about … or he’s seriously uninformed, or he’s just misleading the American people and his party.”

      April 2003. Senator Joe Lieberman declared that the capture of Baghdad and the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime vindicated his support for the invasion. “The vindication that I feel is the confidence that with Saddam gone, America’s going to be a lot safer than it otherwise would have been,” Lieberman said. House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt said that “it’s a continuation of a historic, long-term trend that we stand on the right side.” Once again the dissenter, Dean said, “All these folks who are crowing about their vote and the outcome are going to learn that the occupation will be very difficult.” He added, “I’m not a pacifist. We’ve removed a horrible dictator, but the price we’re going to pay is down the road.”

      June 2003. As reports began to surface that the Bush administration might have misled the country about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, many leading Democrats were hesitant to question the administration’s probity. Republicans dismissed any doubts. Senator George Allen asserted, “It’s not a question.” But Dean said, “We need a thorough look at what really happened going into Iraq. It appears to me that what the president did was make a decision to go into Iraq sometime in early 2002, or maybe even late 2001, and then try to get the justification afterward.”

      December 2003-January 2004. After Saddam Hussein was captured on December 14, Dean appeared to go out on the farthest of limbs. “[T]he capture of Saddam has not made America safer,” Dean said. “The Iraq war diverted critical intelligence and military resources, undermined diplomatic support for our fight against terror, and created a new rallying cry for terrorist recruits.” Gephardt termed Dean’s statement “ludicrous.” Kerry took it as “more proof that all the advisors in the world can’t give Howard Dean the military and foreign-policy experience, leadership skills, or diplomatic temperament necessary to lead this country through dangerous times.” Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said, “It’s baffling that anyone could possibly think life under a brutal dictator who routinely tortured, raped, and imprisoned his own people is better than the freedom and democracy taking root in Iraq today.”

      Much of what Dean said on those occasions has now become conventional wisdom. But as the recent fracas over Dean’s remarks demonstrates, his statements continue to be poorly received. How could he say Iraq is like Vietnam? Well, it’s true there are no rice paddies in Iraq, but there is a striking resemblance between the Nixon administration’s plan for Vietnamization–which culminated in the fall of Saigon to the North Vietnamese–and the Bush administration’s plans for training an Iraqi army. In both cases, victory proved elusive.

      And Watergate? Well, Bush officials have certainly not tried to burglarize the DNC. On the other hand, they have engaged in a campaign of deceit that might even make E. Howard Hunt blush. It may not make political sense for the DNC chair to make these comparisons; but, contra Representative Marshall, the comparisons themselves make a lot of sense. And if we don’t want to make the same kind of foreign policy mistakes five or ten or fifty years from now, we should be glad that someone is willing to play the role of Cassandra.

      and an older piece, regarding Dean’s controversial statements after the capture of Saddam:

      He Told You So
      Matthew Yglesias

      To make a long story short, Dean — and, if I may say so, I — was right. But why bring this up today? Just to brag? Well, yes, to brag a little, but for a more important reason as well. We seem to be repeating the very same sort of mistake that led so many to believe that Hussein’s capture would lead to a significant improvement in the security situation. Just as taking the Hussein family out of play did nothing to dim the tide of Sunni rebelliousness, neither will achieving the current tactical goal of eliminating al-Sadr do much to end the Sadrist movement. One important fact little mentioned in the media is that the movement’s leader — Muqtada’s father — had already been killed several years ago by Hussein himself. Nevertheless, the movement persisted, a symbol of deep Shia disaffection from the Baath regime.

      As it was then, so it is today. The problem is not the man but the movement he leads and the sentiments he represents. Killing Muqtada will do nothing to dim those sentiments, while the damage done to holy sites in the course of pursuing him will do a great deal to inflame them. The president urges us to stay the course and wait for the return of sovereignty at the end of next month. The present course, however, contains nothing whatsoever aimed at changing the fundamental fact that Iraq’s Arab population has grown thoroughly disillusioned with the United States and its policies. That disaffection, and not the leaders of the disaffected, must be the target of any effective policy in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.

      • 

        Nancy LeTourneau on December 10, 2005 at 4:18 pm

        Thanks Madman. Especially that first one is just what I was talking about.

        Too bad our MSM live in the Republican-framed fantasy land and don’t seem capable of seeing this.

11. 

    Egarwaen on December 10, 2005 at 11:03 am

    Thinking about this further, I have a suggestion.

    If Reid thinks the war is winnable, he must resign his seat right now, enlist in the military, and demand he be sent to Iraq as soon as possible to help the cause. After all, if victory is possible, surely someone who believes in it so strongly fighting on the front lines would be a great help to morale, right?