The Victory Slide

After passing the historic health care bill (how soon can we make it history?) obama seems to have slipped in it.

President Barack Obama's national standing has slipped to a new low after his victory on the historic health care overhaul, even in the face of growing signs of economic revival, according to the latest Associated Press-GfK poll.

The survey shows the political terrain growing rockier for Obama and congressional Democrats heading into midterm elections, boosting Republican hopes for a return to power this fall.

Pyrrhic Victory.

H/T Instapundit

Victory Is Near

Victory is near in Gaza for Hamas. Yep. You heard that right. For Hamas.

For the second time since Israel launched its offensive in the Gaza Strip, Hamas television aired a taped message delivered by group leader Ismail Haniyeh on Monday. In the message, Haniyeh declared that Hamas was determined to continue fighting despite Israel's military offensive in the Strip.

"Gaza will not break - our victory over the Zionists is near," Haniyeh said in a fiery speech. "Our fate is in the hands of Allah, so what power could the sons of Zion against him? Allah will take his revenge on them."

These people are delusional.

In other news somewhat closer to reality, Bush says that Hamas must stop the rockets.

U.S. President George W. Bush gave his last press conference at the White House on Monday, 8 days before the inauguration of incoming president Barack Obama, calling for a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip, but emphasizing Israel's right to defend itself.

As Israeli troops continued targeting Hamas infrastructure in the Gaza Strip for the 17 day, Bush said that Hamas must stop firing rockets into Israel in order for an effective cease-fire to take hold in Gaza and said Israel should avoid harming innocent people there.

"Israel has a right to defend herself," the president told reporters at the White House. "Obviously, in any of these kinds of situations I would hope that she would continue to be mindful of innocent folks and that they help expedite the delivery of humanitarian aid."

"I'm for a sustainable cease-fire, he said, adding that such a truce would require Hamas' agreement to halt firing rockets into Israel. There will not be a sustainable cease-fire if they continue firing rockets. I happen to believe the choice is Hamas' to make."

Bush gave his backing to Egyptian-led efforts to secure a truce that would end the smuggling of weapons into Gaza through underground tunnels. Israel has been pounding the underground arteries with air strikes since it launched the operation on Dec. 27.

I think if we put two and two together we can come to some kind of reasonable conclusion. Hamas is very near the breaking point. So why the announcement of defeat by calling it a victory? It is due to a rule in the Middle East: Arabs never lose wars.

Hamas Can't Phone Home

The Israelis have gone and done it now. They have destroyed phone service in Gaza.

(IsraelNN.com) The "Cast Lead" counterterrorist campaign has spread to cyberspace and cell phones, leaving Hamas's terrorist army in confusion, unable to issue and receive orders efficiently. Almost of all of Gaza's cell phone system is out of order, television stations have been hit and the Hamas website is down.

The local phone company Paltel said that 90 percent of Gaza's cellular system is out of order. Compounding the problem are the downing of landlines and the inability of technicians to reach work sites. Switchboards and mobile communications equipment have sustained heavy damage in air raids.

Hamas's leaders, who have been forced underground, have been forced to rely on old-fashioned walkie-talkies to maintain communication with terrorists. Most of the upper echelon orders are coming from Hamas headquarters in Damascus, manned by Khaled Mashaal.

Paltel has warned subscribers that they may be completely cut off from the outside world. Electricity blackouts have made it difficult for the population to receive radio and television programs, and television stations that have not been destroyed by aerial strikes often are not able to broadcast.

It is worse than not being able to broadcast. The Israelis are broadcasting on Philistine frequencies.

GAZA CITY (AFP) — Hamas on Saturday accused Israel of interrupting its radio and television broadcasts in Gaza as the Jewish state's deadly offensive on the Islamists entered its second week.

"The enemy is trying to break our frequencies... do not listen to this," said a broadcast on Al-Aqsa radio.

Earlier the radio's programme was interrupted with a man's voice speaking in Hebrew-accented Arabic: "Hamas leaders are hiding in the tunnels and are leaving you on the frontline of Israel's Defence Forces."

"Hamas leaders are lying to you and they are hiding in hospitals," he said. "Launching rockets puts civilians in danger."

Meanwhile a broadcast on Al-Aqsa television was interrupted with an image of a ringing phone that no one was answering.

"Hamas leaders are hiding and they are leaving you on the front line," says a voice in accented Arabic.

The Israeli army did not have immediate comment.

On Friday, Hamas's political supremo Khaled Meshaal was calling on Palestinians to rise up against Israel when his picture suddenly disappeared from the Al-Aqsa TV broadcast.

"Hamas has misled you and abandoned you," a man's voice said in Arabic. "If you call any leader of Hamas, nobody will answer."

So not only is Hamas having trouble phoning home. If they can get a line no one is answering. And what is the purpose of all this? The Israelis have said repeatedly they do not want to topple Hamas. That can leave only one thing. They want the residents of Gaza to topple Hamas.

In a bid to improve the popularity of Hamas, senior Hamas officials are exhorting the Philistines to carry on.

Senior Hamas terrorist Mahmoud A-Zahar called on Hamas to continue the fight against Israel in a speech delivered to his fellow Gazans earlier in the day from the safety of his bunker.

"Israel is attacking Gaza from the air but has barely hit Hamas," he claimed. "I ask all Gazans to bear the war, because afterwards we will emerge victorious."

Well of course. Arabs are never defeated. Only the Israelis suffer defeat. We have proof of this. After every war with the Israelis the Arabs are poorer and after a time the Israelis get richer. How many more victories can the Arabs stand?

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Why I'm Not A Libertarian

Libertarians talk a good game on national defense but hate all wars. Libs do not get that wars are a series of disasters leading to victory. They don't have the bottom to ride out the disasters and turn them around. They have turned into Copperhead Democrats.

They don't get the American Jacksonian tradition.

I'm a Jacksonian - which is why I could never be a Libertarian Party member with the party in its current form. Who is the Jacksonian in the race for president? Who said:

"We are Americans and we will never surrender, they will."

That man will be the next President of the USA.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Morally Unpopular

Michael Totten has been visiting the jail in Fallujah. While he was there a Marine remarked:

Sergeant Dehaan was comfortable with his mission in Iraq and the flaws of the Iraqi Police he was tasked with training and molding.

“I prefer these small and morally ambiguous wars to the big morally black-and-white wars,” he said to me later. “It would be nice if we had more support back home like we did during World War II. But look at how many people were killed in World War II. If a bunch of unpopular small wars prevent another popular big war, I'll take ’em.”

Yep. Better the Rhineland 1936 than all of Europe 1939 - '45.

Democrats Will Be Happy

Good news for Democrats. Something like 100,000 American troops will be leaving Iraq over the next few years.

Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, quietly announced that the American and Iraqi governments will start talks early next year to bring about an end to the allied occupation by the close of Mr. Bush's presidency.

The negotiations will bring to a formal conclusion the U.N. Chapter 7 Security Council involvement in the occupation and administration of Iraq, and are expected to reduce the number of American troops to about 50,000 troops permanently stationed there but largely confined to barracks, from the current 164,000 forces on active duty.

"The basic message here should be clear. Iraq is increasingly able to stand on its own. That's very good news. But it won't have to stand alone," General Lute yesterday told reporters in the White House.

Bringing the war to a close by the end of 2008 will ensure that the next president will face a fait accompli in Iraq, a fact that will further remove from the presidential election the Iraq war as an issue of contention.

I think he is wrong about removing the war from contention. I remember it like it was yesterday, the 2004 Presidential campaign where we re-fought the Vietnam War. With Kerry the great war hero and Bush the shirker of duty. With a large side dish of Iraq thrown in to give the meal some potential contrasting flavors.

I think Iraq will be even bigger issue now that the outcome seems to be a good one for the Iraqis and the Americans.

Don Surber is gloating.

Quagmire, eh?

Looks like victory at last is here. The terrorists have been routed and the insurgency quelled.

Wapshott reported: “The negotiations will bring to a formal conclusion the U.N. Chapter 7 Security Council involvement in the occupation and administration of Iraq, and are expected to reduce the number of American troops to about 50,000 troops permanently stationed there but largely confined to barracks, from the current 164,000 forces on active duty.”

This is Korea II, just as I have said in print and on this blog.

I won’t go into the you’re-full-of-crap e-mails I have received over time.

Lute told reporters: “The basic message here should be clear. Iraq is increasingly able to stand on its own. That’s very good news. But it won’t have to stand alone.”

I think the point about not letting Iraq stand alone is very important. That is why you see it here twice. We back up the elected government of Iraq with about two divisions (20,000 troops) and the rest will be logistics, probably including Corps of Engineers type stuff (mostly consulting).

I'm predicting some likely responses from the Democrats. "We told you so", "Not soon enough", and "Where are the contracts for my district?" will be very popular. My vote for the one you will hear most often is: "We were the real fathers of this victory. Bush and the Republicans had nothing to do with it." Which is a pretty good position. As long as no one asks for a paternity test.

H/T Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Victory Claims Another Victim

Future Majority notes:

So here's something I just noticed. Senators Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel are proposing legislation for a new "GI Bill" to help veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars go on to college after their service.

As I recall Hegel and Webb have not been exaclty staunch in their support for our efforts in Iraq. As I noted in I Can See It Coming the stabilization in Iraq is making believers out of antagonists. They are going to have to paper over their lack of support with something. Supporting the Troops it is then.

Then the blogger asks, where have the "progressives" been. On the other side 'til now, I'd say.

So here's the thing - why are no progressive youth organizations partnering with IAVA or organizing their own campaigns? Young Democrats, USSA, Student PIRGs, Campus Progress . . . all of these organizations organized around the passage of the Cost of College Reduction Act, so why aren't they supporting legislation that would grant similar reprieve to their peers who have served our country?

And now the kicker. The sad shape our returning troops are in re: opportunities, education, medical benefits, etc. is all the fault of the Republicans.

On a moral level, it's atrocious that so many veterans are now unemployed, unable to pay for school, and even homeless. We should do everything in our power to alleviate that situation. On a political level, this is a fantastic issue to make inroads with young people in the military who may now be disillusioned with the Republican Party.

Welcome to the Victory Party. I appreciate your sincerity. It is not about serving the warriors. It is converting Republicans to "progressives" (translation - soft communists - for now).

Victory Has Another Father

The KOS Kids are going to show the wingers how supporting the troops is supposed to be done.

Today, I'm calling all kossacks with an invitation to show the wingers how to walk the walk by supporting the troops with some good old fashioned care packages. It's a great way to support those men and women who will not be home for the holidays and sending care packages to the troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan is easier than most folks realize. So, here's some specific information on where to find soldiers to support, what to send, and the ins and outs of mailing care packages overseas. I promise, it's easier than you think and you'll feel wonderful walking away from that post office counter.

And you know it a couple of months it will be - "We always supported the troops and the mission. It was the moron Bush's mismanagement that put us off."

Well any way, welcome aboard "The Victory" shipmates, one of the very latest and most modern ships in the US Military.

I Can See It Coming

If things are still going well in Iraq by the beginning of next summer or a little earlier, expect all those Congress Critters who didn't support the war to come out for more dollars for Veterans hospitals, college benefits, pay, and what not to cover for being on the wrong side. Victory will not be an orphan.

When some one brings up the war they can start talking Veterans.

They are going to paper their tracks with our money. In this case it is probably a good thing.

Inspired by this post.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

I Find Your Lack Of Faith Disturbing

I liked it better in the original German. Which you can actually find on YouTube. An amazing bit of work.

This was prompted by one of the most recently honest Democrats in America. As long as we have Democrats like him there will be no orphan victories in America. No surprise there. Well what is my little agitated brain coming up with these days? Gateway Pundit, that's what. Who says:

Senator Joe Lieberman blasted Democrats today for placing politics before protecting America:

Sen. Joe Lieberman on Thursday painted a dim picture of his party, saying Democrats have given up their moral authority on foreign policy because they are more concerned with opposing Republicans than doing what is right.

And, Senator Joe Biden said in an interview that Democrats have lost faith in the American people.

Don Surber thinks Biden is on to something.

So lets track the linkage back. First Senator Joe who is in the know. According to Fox. You know them guys. The people who are always Foxing with the liberals. Heh.

WASHINGTON — Sen. Joe Lieberman on Thursday painted a dim picture of his party, saying Democrats have given up their moral authority on foreign policy because they are more concerned with opposing Republicans than doing what is right.

The former presidential candidate and hawkish senator from Connecticut also came down hard on critics of a resolution he and Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., co-sponsored calling on the Bush administration to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.

"For many Democrats, the guiding conviction in foreign policy isn't pacifism or isolationism, it is distrust and disdain of Republicans in general, and President Bush in particular," Lieberman said at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies.

"In this regard, the Democratic foreign policy worldview has become defined by the same reflexive, blind opposition to the President that defined Republicans in the 1990s — even when it means repudiating the very principles and policies that Democrats as a party have stood for, at our best and strongest," Lieberman continued.

But why get your news second hand? Here is Smokin Joe in his own words:

“Iraq has become the singular litmus test for Democratic candidates. No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America’s moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. And if they did, their campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006. Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus’ new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving, or even that that progress has enabled us to begin drawing down our troops there.”

OK. So Joe notices things. The big fish who were once swimming with the tide are now bucking it. The tide has changed. What is so amazing here is that even dead fish are smart enough to go with the tide.

Now here is another Joe who gets it. Democrat Joe Biden. Joe is from Delaware, not too far from Connecticut Joe. Both are reliably liberal states. Total Blue blood. Here is what Joe from Delaware thinks:

Sen. Joe Biden said in an interview at the New Hampshire Union Leader this afternoon that too many Democrats, including the frontrunners for the presidential nomination, do not have faith in the American people.

“We’ve got to trust the American people more,” Biden said.

“I think they’ve really lost faith in the American people in terms of leveling with them,” he said of his leading rivals.

When he asks groups of Democrats if they think the American people are stupid because they elected George W. Bush twice, most respond that, yes, they do, he said. He said he thinks that attitude is a real problem for the Democrats, who fail to understand how smart and pragmatic the American people really are.

Biden was generally critical of the far left wing of his party and of the strategies the frontrunners are using to win the nomination.

Connecticut Joe always understood the importance of victory in Iraq. His defeat of Ned Lamont in a left leaning state shows that victory was tested in the last election among the left and found to be a winner. Not just on the right, but on the left too.

I remember Vietnam when so many politicos came out and said that the President fooled them about the prospects of that war. I look forward to Hillary saying that the President fooled her. "The war looked so totally unwinable, I was fooled by Bush's incompetence." Or something. It must have been Bush's stupid evil genius. Or something.

Now we get to Don Surber who disects Biden. In a nice way that really slices and dices the Democrats. Or as I prefer Defeatocrats.

Biden said: “We’ve got to trust the American people more. I think they’ve really lost faith in the American people in terms of leveling with them.”

That pretty much nails the problem. Dems don’t trust the people and so the people don’t trust them.

Democrats keep blaming their presidential losses on the stupidity of the American people. They’ve made “swift-boating” a verb, as if John O’Neill somehow ambushed John Kerry in 2004. The 2 first debated Kerry’s accusations of war crimes by all Vietnam vets in 1971. Helen Keller could have seen O’Neill coming.

But nope, dumb voters were duped. Again.

The Democratic Party line since at least 1968 is that the voters are duped by Republicans every 4 years.

Them Republicans have some of the biggest dupers you can find anywhere.

Thanks to Wake Up Americans we find another Democrat who also wants to be the father of an Iraqi victory.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said on Tuesday that the troop surge, which began in June, has had a significant impact on the situation in Iraq and noted that he had always been critical of the Bush administration for deploying an insufficient number of troops in previous years.

"Stability and a decrease in violence, they've done that - God bless them. I'm not surprised that they did," Hoyer told Cybercast News Service in response to a question about steadily declining U.S. casualty rates in Iraq.

Yep. The baby is being born not just from the surge but also a change in tactics made possible by the re-building of the Iraqi army over the last 4 years and Steny was there all the way. Way to go Daddy-O.

The Weekly Standard has gotten Steny to look at where the Democrats need to go now that losing the war does not appear to be a viable option:

Steny Hoyer is one of the sharper members of the Democratic leadership. He's hated by many in the Netroots because he believes that Democrats need to tread a centrist path to keep the backing of a majority of the American people. He understands that the hard-line against the Iraq war favored by the Democratic base is not a winning message while the troops on the ground are winning the war.

This tone of Hoyer's -- recognizing success and arguing that the president made a fundamental mistake in not listening to Democratic calls for more troops -- might be a trial balloon of the next Democratic argument on Iraq.

It looks like the Democrats have given up on the Agony of Victory and the Sweet Smell of Defeat and are edging towards a position more in line with the American people. Who as our morale expert Patton once said "love a winner and will not tolerate a loser". The Chicago Cubs notwithstanding.

Now how about passing the Veterans Bill?

Cross Posted at Classical Values with the nice video of Vader yuckking it up with the troops.

Democrats Keep Digging

It looks like the Democrats are trying hard to straddle two horses. I predict severe rips in the crotch area.

WASHINGTON - Democrats are debating whether to approve $50 billion to $70 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, a quarter to less than half of President Bush’s $196 billion request but enough to keep the wars afloat for several more months.

Such a move would satisfy party members who want to spare the Pentagon from a painful budget dance and support the troops as Congress considers its next major step on Iraq.

But it would also irritate scores of other Democrats, who want to pay only to bring troops home and who say their leadership is not doing enough to end the war.

“I cannot vote for another dollar that will be used to continue the president’s occupation of Iraq,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif.

Democratic leaders caution that no decisions have been made, including whether to approve any money for the wars at all. Also uncertain is which spending bill might contain the war money.

But on the table are estimates of $40 billion to $70 billion—with $50 billion considered the most likely scenario. The final amount would depend on how many months of combat that Democrats would want to support, and how much money they think the Pentagon needs to buy new bomb-resistant vehicles that protect troops from roadside blasts.

The article does take a dig at congressional supporters of "an unpopular war". I don't think they are reading it right. Losing is the most unpopular position. Say. Doesn't that describe the Democrat leadership - in favor of losing? You would think that the Democrats would stop digging. I guess they have the same problem many newspapers and TV reporters have.

They can't stop digging.

I'm With Joe

I'm with Joe Lieberman.

Leaving Iraq would put us in a much worse situation than the current one.

Evidently the Democrats want to test that proposition.

Interesting times.

Democrats Not Following Orders

It seems a new Osama tape has surfaced and bin Laden is really pissed with the Democrats.

"People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there."

Well my Democrat friends, are you going to follow bin Laden's orders or not?

Don Surber says not.

After a month-long vacation, Democrats returned to the nation’s capital this week, an army in disarray. They left in August confident that Republicans would go home, get chewed out about the war, and raise the white flag. Instead, the Surge worked and the Democrats are losing it.

S.A. Miller at the Washington Times reported:

Rank-and-file Democrats in Congress are criticizing the party’s leaders for allowing the White House to sap momentum from the antiwar movement during the August recess.

“The White House is taking great advantage of the Democrats not pushing back,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, California Democrat and co-founder of the antiwar Out of Iraq Caucus.

“We need bolder steps from the Democrats,” she said. “The people of this country are waiting for some leadership — some bold leadership — from the people that they elected to be the majority of the House and the Senate.”

It appears that Osama is waiting for that same kind of leadership.

I think it is well past time that the Democrats made up their collective minds and decide whose side are they on.

Cross Posted at Classical Values and at The Astute Bloggers

The Victory Caucus Needs Help

As an official member of the Victory Caucus (all you have to do is put one of the thingys on your side bar and maintain an attitude) I thought I would give the head office a little boost since they put out a call.

August and September are crucial months for the war effort, both on the ground in Iraq and here at home. In September --- most likely right around September 11th --- General Petreaus will deliver his report to Congress, and defeatists are doing everything in their power to discredit and dismiss the General's findings before he even delivers them. At The Victory Caucus, we aim to ensure they fail, and that the American people get an accurate an honest understanding of the progress being made and the prospects for genuine victory.

But we need your help. Right now, the key media battlefront is not in Washington --- it's in your town; your district; your state. Congressmen and Senators are back home during the August recess, and while they are there, they need to hear from supporters of victory. If you haven't done so already, try to find out if your Congressman (and Senators) are holding "town hall" meetings while they are home --- or just try to reach them at their office. Let them know how you feel: if they have been strong on the war, thank them, and if they haven't --- politely let them know you hope they'll change their mind.

If you want to do more, we could use your help more directly. We're looking for bloggers / activists to serve as state coordinators to keep track of what's going on in each state, network with other pro-victory individuals and organizations, and coordinate local activities. If you have some time and are interested, please drop N.Z. a line (nz at victorycaucus dot com).

We also need help monitoring news on the war to keep The Victory Caucus up to date and on top of the latest events. You can now help by submitting news directly on the site. Our team will then review + post it.

Finally, there's one last easy way you can help, and that is to add The Victory Caucus to your sidebar/blogroll. This page shows a bunch of ways to do that, including a simple text link, a logo badge, and a full "widget" that displays our logo and the latest headlines from the site. The more sites include a link to us, the higher The Victory Caucus will appear in search engine rankings --- which means it will be more likely that people searching for news on Iraq will find us rather than a defeatist view on the war. So please, link away!

Contact your government:

House of Representatives
The Senate
The President

It Is Coming

I have a friend who reports on the defense industry. Nice Jewish boy.

He says via e-mail that it is no use wasting your time trying to convince idiots of the obvious (morally it is sound though).

He says a big war is coming. BIG war. Like Pearl Harbor it will unite us. He says it is a waste of time trying to talk to the idiots. He used to blog a lot on the subject. Now he doesn't bother. He says events are the best convincers. Why does it feel like October 1939 all over again? The period of the "Phony War".

Which reminded me of this piece by Herbert E. Meyer at the American Thinker.

For better or worse, it's part of the American character to wait until the last possible moment - even to wait a bit beyond the last possible moment - before kicking into high gear and getting the job done. It's in our genes; just think of how many times you've ground enamel off your teeth watching your own kid waste an entire weekend, only to start writing a book report at 10:30 Sunday night that, when you find it on the breakfast table Monday morning is by some miracle a minor masterpiece.

However horrific it may be, the knockout punch won't knock us out. Instead, it will shift us from playing defense back to offense - and this time we won't hold back. The president will ask Congress for a declaration of war and he, or she, will get it. We'll bring back the draft, send our troops into battle without one hand tied behind their backs by lawyers, and we won't waste time and energy pussyfooting with the United Nations. And if we've closed GITMO by this time - we'll reopen it and even double its size because we're going to pack it. All of this will take longer to organize, and cost more, than if we'd done it right in the aftermath of 9-11. That's unfortunate, but that's the way we Americans tend to do things. And when we do finally start fighting for real -- we'll win.

That would be my assessment as well. In my opinion once Bush took on Iraq and then won the 2004 election the die was cast. What ever political winds were blowing after that the die was cast.

H/T Reliapundit who got me to thinking about this subject with his reports of recent terror alerts.

Cross Posted at Classical Values and at The Astute Bloggers

Army Censorship Update

The fire storm that erupted over the Army's rules about e-mails and blogging has lead to new rules.

...the Army has issued a clarification that assures:

In no way will every blog post/update a Soldier makes on his or her blog need to be monitored or first approved by an immediate supervisor and Operations Security (OPSEC) officer. After receiving guidance and awareness training from the appointed OPSEC officer, that Soldier blogger is entrusted to practice OPSEC when posting in a public forum.

The statement establishes three conditions for unsupervised blogging:

1. The blog’s topic is not military-related (i.e., Sgt. Doe publishes a blog about his favorite basketball team).
2. The Soldier doesn’t represent or act on behalf of the Army in any way.
3. The Soldier doesn’t use government equipment when on his or her personal blog.

Plus we have some Senators getting into the act.

...Senators Norm Coleman, Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint wrote to Defense Sec. Robert Gates expressing concern over the new rules.

Their point is that mil blogs are an aid to the war effort and should not be over regulated.

Seems like very sound advice.

Cross Posted at Classical Values and at The Astute Bloggers

Update: Military Blogs in the War Zone by Black Five.

Never Again II

Captain's Quarters is discussing a News Week poll showing Bush's approval numbers to be at record lows.

The usual defeat at any price folks of course have come out to support abandoning the Iraqi democrats to the head choppers.

One of them was trumpeting this poll and others to say that there is a lot of support for the "get out now" position. I disagreed.

re: the shift in the electorate to the "get out now" position.

Being unhappy with the progress in the war is not the same as supporting an evolution in Iraq similar to the evolution in South East Asia following April 1975.

Some of us saw that event and what followed. We have not forgotten and will do everthing in our power to prevent a repeat.

NEVER AGAIN

Which is why I Support Democracy In Iraq

Military Censorship

The Army is effectively shutting down Army blogs. This is stupid. Sgt Mom says something like: "What did you expect? It is all about Power and Control." (see how easy it is to get a link from me? LOL)

We need more information from the Army, not less. So what do they do? Put a big kink in the hose.

I think this has gone beyond stupid and is now firmly into insane territory.

My guess is that this is a move to cover for the inarticulate Commander in Chief. If he can't adequately express himself no one can. Especially, he doesn't want to be upstaged by some 2nd Lt or a private even. However, that is strictly a guess.

Here is what I think should be done:

It seems to me that the way to handle this is blog teams. Each member of the team is assigned to censor all the others with a person responsible in each team. Self regulation.

Then you have a blog central to pass info and answer questions and handle opsec regulation.

I miss Armorgeddon.

H/T Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values and at The Astute Bloggers

The Balance Sheet

Clauzwitz says that the moral factor in war is the predominate factor. Fighting and sustaining the fighting has a moral calculus. The answer an individual gets will depend on the weight given to each component in the analysis. The weights are moral weights.

Eric was taking a look at this and my relentless pursuit of democracy in Iraq. As Eric has pointed out: I'm kind of obsessed. Well he is right. So is this some kind of free floating obsession or does it have an origin? It has its origin for me in the Vietnam War. In my estimation of the worth of a Vietnamese vs the worth of an American. Raw racism in other words. In 1975 after having participated in the war (very lightly in '66 - my unit never fired a shot in anger, although we supported shooting units), I decided after relentless propaganda efforts and the testimony of John Kerry before Congress in '71 that Vietnam was a lost cause. That it wasn't worth one more American life or dollar. It was a pretty popular sentiment at the time.

Then, despite our leaving history continued to happen in South East Asia. First off were the re-education camps which the Communists had said were not going to be a feature of their victory, unlike every otther communist victory. They lied. 100,000 dead. However, that was only the start. Next was the fear that drove 500,000 out to sea. The boat people. Except for most of them they weren't boats. They were rafts, badly provisioned, open to the weather. Out at sea in the hopes that some one would pick them up before they died from exposure, starvation, or drowning. About half of the boat people died.

Well history still wasn't over. The dominoes were falling. Cambodia fell not just to Communists but insane Communists. They were going to make a perfectly functioning agrarian society. Rousseau's noble savage raised on Communist shoulders. All they managed to raise was a pile of skulls. Something like 2 or 3 million. Just swell. Well it wasn't our fault was it? We weren't there. Some one else did the dirty work.

Which reminds me of an ongoing incident in WW2. By 1944 the fact of the death camps was well known. It was also well known that the Jews of Europe represented about 1/2 those in the camps. Jewish emissaries like Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, who asked that the camps and the rail lines leading to them be bombed, were denied. The Jews and the other people in the camps were not worth one bomb. Not unlike the stance we took in 1975 when the South Vietnamese asked for air support to defend against an attack by the Communists. Our Democrat Congress declared that the South Vietnamese were not worth one bomb. So let us do the moral calculus. Three hundred and fifty thousand dead South Vietnamese were not worth one bomb in support. The millions who would live under a totolitarian government were not worth one bomb in support.

So where do I come in to all this? I was with the "not one bomb" crowd. Big time. The in crowd. The "Morally Correct" crowd. So sure of our calculus. So sure that ending the fighting would lead to a good outcome. After all war is bad. Peace is better than war. "What if they gave a war and nobody came." Which leaves out "What if they gave a death march and you have no choice?" A bit too dark a thought for most people. Better to think of peace, and birds, and kite flying.

So in response to Eric's look at some of the issues I have mentioned here commenter The Mechanical Eye says:

"Maybe, just maybe, "victory," at least in the vague, amorphous way you define it, is no longer possible. We don't have the will, the the manpower, the machinery, the morale, the leadership, and dare I say it, the brainpower, to win this."

I understand your point.

The Iraqis are not worth even one American death. When we do the balance sheet on this war we must count Iraqi lives as worth zero.

Then once the Iraqis count for nothing it is impossible to justify any American effort.

"Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph." Thomas Paine

So yeah, my fair weather friends. Give in to tyranny and despots.

Salve your conscience with "its only Iraqis". What are they worth to us?

Make yourself feel better by saying that once we are out the head choppers will not follow us home. After all we are strong and they are weak. Haven't we proved our strength by surrendering Iraq to them? Why would they ever think of following us home after we have given them what they want? And you know maybe they won't follow us home. Maybe they will just do death marches, and religious re-ed camps, and totolitarian governments. None of our buisness really. What should it mean to us? They are not our kind.

We have the example of the Austrian Corporal. Wasn't he satisfied with Czechoslovakia? Didn't the abandonment of Czechoslovakia bring Peace For Our Time?

Abandoning Iraq will bring us peace. This time giving in to brigands will get us what we desire. The fighting will stop. The killing will stop. For sure. At the very least from the time we leave our hands will be clean.

Well let me tell you that if any bit of your conscience lives after abandoning the Iraqi people your hands will drip with blood for the rest of your life. And like Macbeth nothing will out the spot.

Which is why I Support Democracy In Iraq.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Moran On Iraq

Armed Liberal at Winds of Change is all hot and bothered about Rick Moran's (they spelled his name wrong) suggestion that it was time to surrender to the Democrats and pull out of Iraq on the Democrat's time table.

The Answer Man has an answer for Armed Liberal:

Might I suggest joining:

I Support Democracy In Iraq

or if you are interested in a more animated version:

I Support Democracy In Iraq - The Animation

I'd love to see the Democrats argue against democracy. If nothing else just for the entertainment value.

Then in comment #4 Glenn Wishard says that despite all Bush's deficiencies including the House of Saud, he is holding firm.

My reply:

Totally with you on this one.

True, but the one thing Bush has not done is cave in to the defeatists like a rotten pumpkin, the very thing which Moran now advises him to find the "courage" to do..

As long as he doesn't cave we have time to change the terms of the debate.

It is the old "maybe pigs will fly" strategem. If we help maybe pigs can fly.

==

It is time to stop focusing on the doctors and the hospital and take a look at the real patient. Iraqi Democracy.

This is not about the "Iraqi people" such as they are. It is about the Iraqi democrats. Who may even be a minority. Doesn't matter.

It will be impossible for real Americans, even of the leftist variety, to repudiate democracy with any degree of conviction.

What will they say: Iraq is not ready? So what do we do, wait until they are ready and invade again?

Arabs can't do democracy? That is racism.

Then hit them with a good old JFK right between the eyes:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

John F. Kennedy

I'd love to hear the Democrats argue against Saint John.