A long but GOOD read. Someone Needed to say it

[cgross 1]

March 28, 2003 7:30 a.m.
History or Hysteria?
Our vulture pundits regurgitate rumor and buzz.



Instantly televised images are broadcast with no in-depth analysis. A
national television audience sighs and cheers second-to-second - not
unlike the mercurial Athenians lined up on the shore of the Great
Harbor at Syracuse, who in dejection and euphoria watched their fleet
lose, win, and lose in the sea battle against the Sicilians.

But rather than trying to digest and analyze the tempo of
battle, our vulture pundits instead regurgitate rumor and buzz -
which are usually refuted by the next minute?s events. The
subtext throughout seems to be disappointment that the war so
far has lasted seven rather than two days.

Reporters at the beginning of the week were hysterically
railing that Basra - cut off and surrounded - was not yet taken. A
voice on NPR told us that after three days there would be
?no food or water? - as if we had not cut off the power, water, and
bridges at Baghdad in 1991 for 44 days, as if Marines
getting shot at had electricity in the field. Things happen in war.
Surely a temporary interruption in service is not so high
a price to pay for lasting freedom.

I flipped the channel. Another pundit was lamenting that
we were outnumbered by the Republican Guard; 1,000 planes
with the best pilots in the world apparently don?t compute
in his strategic calculus. Yet another philosopher worried that
we ?were angering the Arab street? - as if anger does not
naturally rise in war. He should have asked why a German public
that hated us in 1941 did not do so in 1945. Not to be
outdone, another expert - wrong in the past on everything in
Afghanistan - smugly announced that in five days of war
?everything has gone wrong!?

Have these people any intelligence or shame?

Casualties, POWs, and skyrocketing costs blanket the
airwaves; rarely mentioned is the simple military fact that in a single
week, a resolute American pincer column has driven across
Iraq and is now systematically surrounding Baghdad - and with
far fewer killed than were lost in a single day in
Lebanon. When American soldiers move decisively against terrorists and
killers in the Middle East, they have a far greater chance
of surviving than they do sitting in their barracks as living targets
under ?rules of engagement.?

In disgust at the hysteria, I took a drive to Washington
to the National Cathedral on Sunday. Big mistake. All except one of
the entrances were closed due to security concerns. I
walked in under the wonderful sculptures of Frederick Hart, an
authentic American genius who almost single-handedly
restored classical realism to American sculpture. A small statue of
a kneeling Lincoln, who sent thousands into battle to
eradicate slavery, was in the corner. A plaque of quotations from
Churchill, about the need for sacrifice in war, was on the
wall. So I was feeling somewhat good again - until I heard the
pious sermon on ?shock and awe.? In pompous tones the
minister was deprecating the war effort, calling down calumnies
upon the administration, and alleging the immoral nature
of our nation at war.

Such a strange man at such a strange time, I thought. His entire
congregation, by its own admission, is in danger from foreign terrorists
(why
else bar the gates?). His church is itself a monument to the utility
of force for moral purposes. His own existence as a free-speaking,
freely
worshiping man of God is possible only thanks to the United States
military - whose present mission he was openly deriding at the country?s

national shrine.

All these people need to calm down, take a deep breath, and read their
history - computing the logistics of fighting 7,000 miles away and
considering the hurdles of vast space, unpredictable weather, and
enemies without uniforms. And? In just a week, the United States
military
has surrounded one of history?s most sadistic and nasty regimes. It
has overrun 80 percent of the countryside and has daily pulverized the
Republican Guard, achieving more in five days than the Iranians did in
eight years.

Twenty-four hours a day, thousands of tankers and supply trucks barrel
down long, vulnerable supply lines, quickly and efficiently. There is
no bridge too far for these long columns. One-hundred percent air
superiority is ours. There is not a single Iraqi airplane in the sky.
Enemy
tanks either stay put or are bombed. Kurds and Shiites really will
soon start to be heard. Seven oil wells are on fire (with firefighters
on the
scene) - no oil slicks, no attacks on Israel. Kuwait City is not
aflame. ?Millions? of refugees fleeing into Syria and Jordan have not
materialized. Even Peter Arnett is no longer parroting the Iraqi
government claims of ten million starving and has moved on to explain
why
the Iraqis were equipped with chemical suits - to protect Saddam?s
killers from our WMDs!

Few, if any, major bridges in Iraq have been blown; there are no mass
uprisings in Saddam?s favor. The Tikrit mafia fights as the SS did in
the craters of Berlin, facing as it does - and within weeks - either a
mob?s noose, a firing squad, or a dungeon. Through 20,000 air sorties,
no
jets have been shot down; there is nothing to stop them from flying
another 100,000. They fly in sand, in lightning, high, low, day, night,
anywhere, anytime. Supplies are pouring in. Saddam?s regime is cut off
and its weapons will not be replenished. This is not North Vietnam,
with Chinese and Russian ships with daily re-supply in the harbor of
Haiphong. British and Americans, with courageous Australians as well,
are fighting as a team without even the petty rivalry of a Montgomery
and Bradley.

Our media talks of Saddam?s thugs and terrorists as if they were some
sort of Iraqi SAS. Meanwhile, the real thing - scary American, British,
and Australian Special Forces - is causing havoc to Saddam?s rear
guard. In short, for all the tragedy of a fragging, Iraqi atrocities,
misdirected cruise missiles, and the usual cowardly antics inherent to
our enemy?s way of war, the real story is not being reported: A
phenomenal march against overwhelming logistical, material, and
geographical odds in under seven days has reached and surrounded
Saddam Hussein?s capital.

At home there have been none of the promised terrorist attacks. A
supportive public - stunned by initial losses, now angered by atrocities
- is
growing more, not less, fervent, determined not merely to defeat but
to destroy utterly the Baathists. The Arab world snickers that we cannot

take casualties; the American public is instead growing impatient to
inflict more of them - and is probably already well to the right of the
Bush administration. We are a calm and forgiving people, but executing
prisoners, fighting in civilian clothes, and using human shields will
soon draw a response too terrible to contemplate.

Just as unusual has been American ad hoc logistical flexibility. Saudi
Arabia caved early on - and we moved to other Gulf states. Turkey
caved late - and we went ahead with a single thrust. France connived
both early and late - and they are quiet. Russia, as the Soviets of old,

proved duplicitous in ways that we are just learning - and it made no
difference. Indeed, their night-vision equipment and GPS jammers will
help Saddam no more than did the German-built bunker he was bombed in.

We should recall that in the first Gulf War we bombed for over 44
days. Critics in 1991 by day 10 were complaining because after the first

few nights? pyrotechnics, Saddam?s army had not crumbled. In turn,
earlier swaggering air-advocates had promised victory in three weeks -
only to be unjustly slandered that they had failed to end the war in
six. Gulf War I is considered a great victory; it required 48 days of
air and
ground attacks by an enormous coalition to expel the Iraqi army from
Kuwait. Our present attempt, with half the force, seeks to end Saddam
Hussein altogether - and on day 7 already had him cut off, trapped,
and besieged.

In the campaign against Belgrade, the ebullience was gone by day 10
when Milosevic remained defiant. By the fifth week, criticism was fierce

and calls for an end to the bombing widespread. On day 77, Milosevic
capitulated - and no critics stepped forward to confess that their gloom

and doom had been misplaced. Does anyone recall the term ?quagmire,?
used of Afghanistan after the third week - and how prophets of
doom promised enervating stasis, only days later to see a chain of
Afghan cities fall? Yet no armchair doom-and-gloom generals were to be
found when the Taliban ran and utterly confounded their pessimism. Our
talking heads remind me of the volatility of the Athenian
assembly, ready to laud or execute at a moment?s notice.

The commentators need to listen to history. By any fair standard of
even the most dazzling charges in military history - the German blast
through the Ardennes in spring 1940, or Patton?s romp in July - the
present race to Baghdad is unprecedented in its speed and daring, and in

the lightness of its causalities. We can nit-pick about the need for
another armored division, pockets of irregulars, a need to mop up here
and
there, plenty of hard fighting ahead, this and that. But the fact
remains that, so far, the campaign has been historically unprecedented
in
getting so many tens of thousands of soldiers so quickly to Baghdad
without losses - and its logistics will be studied for decades.

Indeed, the only wrinkle is that our present military faces cultural
obstacles never envisioned by an Epaminondas, Caesar, Marlborough,
Sherman - or any of the other great marchers. A globally televised and
therapeutic culture puts an onus on American soldiers that could
never have been envisioned by any of the early captains. We treat
prisoners justly; our enemy executes them. We protect Iraqi bridges,
oil,
and dams - from Iraqi saboteurs. We must treat Iraqi civilians better
than do their own men, who are trying to kill them. Our generals and
leaders take questions; theirs give taped propaganda speeches. Shock
and awe - designed not to kill but to stun, and therefore to save
civilians
- are slurred as Hamburg and Dresden. The force needed to crush
Saddam?s killers is deemed too much for the fragile surrounding human
landscape. Marines who raise the Stars and Stripes are reprimanded for
being too chauvinistic. And on, and on, and on.

When this is all over - and I expect it will be soon - besides a great
moral accounting, I hope that there will deep introspection and sober
public discussion about the peculiar ignorance and deductive pessimism
on the part of our elites. In the meantime, all we can insist on is
absolute and unconditional surrender - no peace process, no exit
strategy, no U.N. votes, no Arab League parley, no EU expressions of
concern, no French, no anything but our absolute victory and Saddam?s
utter ruin. Unlike in 1991, commanders in the field must be given
explicit instructions from the White House about negotiations: There
are to be absolutely none - other than the acceptance of unconditional
surrender.





National

Review

[Selections from the 4/7/03

[flyingferret 0]

Hoo RAH! Semper Fi and right f#cking on!!!

Hold on.... Lee Greenwood is playing somewhere behind me....

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[rgoper 0]

Quote

History or Hysteria?

a little of both here. the terroists attacks you allude to, that were promised, but not fulfilled yet, will come. "wishful thinking" will not make this go away. i applaud your efforts regarding your manefesto, it is great reading. but just by researching past events you can be rest assured the plan will not go as planned. we've already borne witness to that. and our access to national treasures in our country will soon be restrained by our own "homeland security" so get ready to be searched, researched and closely scrutinized. aren't we essentially turning our country into a highly regulated state of paranoia?

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[flyingferret 0]

This article (which is out of the national review, not of cgrosses creation) sums up my thoughts. Foooey on you and your pessism. I support Bush and the Pentagon and our leadership. The people criticizing his plan have only seen the first 8 days of it, and are not strategists. I choose to trust the people in the know.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[rgoper 0]

Quote

I choose to trust the people in the know.

ie: who would this be?

Quote

Foooey on you and your pessism

i am hardly a pessimist, or a pessism (whatever that is) i am a realist, and will remain so.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[flyingferret 0]

pessism is my term for you. I trust my elected officials.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[wmw999 2,167]

Quote

I trust my elected officials.

Would those only be the ones you voted for? How about liberals who are elected -- do you trust them? Or is that a moot point because there aren't any left in your chain of representation. If you don't (or wouldn't), then why should people who didn't vote for the current government trust it?

We all tend to believe the people we agree with. If they happen to be the government, that doesn't make the government more trustworthy by nature.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[flyingferret 0]

There are not many liberals in the chain of majority command right now. I don't care if others trust them or not, I said I did. And yes I happened to vote for most of them, so why should I not?

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[rgoper 0]

Quote

And yes I happened to vote for most of them, so why should I not?

i voted for them (Wyatt Earp:Dick Cheney) to. but i knew even before casting my ballot politicians have a long and proven history of being theives, liars and womanizers. just plain cold hard facts. i don't trust Wyatt any further than i can throw him, never did, never will. ol' Wyatt is an admitted alcholic, and ex-cocaine user, not to mention whispers in the oil industry of him missapropriating funds while a partner in a texas oil firm. let's see, Wyatt ex-oilfield hand, Cheney ex-oilfield hand and once vice x/o of halliburton who makes at least a thousand different types of explosive devices for severing metal tubulars, anchors, anchor chains, etc...they make one explosive device in particular calles a "jet-cutter" you oughtta see one of them go off! don't let these guys piss on your leg and tell you it's raining, because that's what they're doing. seems our ex-attorney general in the state of texas senior dan morales got busted here as of late, poor bastad just couldn't keep his hand out of the cookie jar, seems he just couldn't resists the temptation and took a few $$$ of the tobacco mfgrs settlement to the people of texas and put it in "his own little bank account" this "class clown" had aspiritions of furthering his career in the political forums. bad man, steal from other's, not good!

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[billvon 2,467]

>I trust my elected officials.

Even Nixon, Poindexter, and Clinton? Politicians lie. The good ones don't lie very often, and when they do lie, they don't get caught. As someone else said, "trust - but verify." Good advice.

[flyingferret 0]

Well most people think we are crazy weed smoking freaks with a deathwish, glad not everyone applies the stereotype stamp as easily as you. I happen to like our current administration.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[rgoper 0]

Quote

Well most people think we are crazy weed smoking freaks with a deathwish

some of us are.

Quote

glad not everyone applies the stereotype stamp as easily as you

"i call em' like i see em" my bad? if it flies like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's generally a friggin' duck. generally the "home crowd" hates the umpire.

Quote

I happen to like our current administration

very well then. you shouldn't have any problem reelecting this current commandant. he won't get my vote again.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Does anyone recall the term ?quagmire,?
used of Afghanistan after the third week - and how prophets of
doom promised enervating stasis, only days later to see a chain of
Afghan cities fall?

yes I thought the whole "quagmire" stuff was bullshit when it came out during the war vs. Al Quaeda & the Taliban. We had only been at war a couple of weeks, and the media was already demanding to know why the war wasn't over faster than a typical American TV miniseries.

Except that NO ONE in the media would actually own up & take credit for claiming that it was a quagmire. You had TV interviewers asking questions like, "The new word bubbling around now is that this war is a quagmire. What is your response to this?"

But no single talking head had the balls to come out and say, "This is a quagmire!" or even, "This seems to be a quagmire..." Every single one of the media attributed it to a "general feeling" or something as equally vague.

My Dad was a reporter during the riots in the 60's & early 70's, and he says that the current reporters have no balls.

On another point, before people deride protesters of this war as being anti-American, etc. let me explain something. I fully supported the war against Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. I did not support this one, in fact I protested it. That said, I feel that we have now passed the point of no return, and I've stopped protesting. Not because I agree with it, but simply because I can still visualize a scenario worse than fighting this war. And that would be fighting half a war. If we turned back now, after killing Iraqis AND STILL left Saddam Hussein in power, our political standing in the world would be even worse than it now is.

So I now fully support the troops and hope they rapidly achieve all of their military goals, even if I did object to the way things were brought to this point.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[wmw999 2,167]

Quote

On another point, before people deride protesters of this war as being anti-American, etc. let me explain something. I fully supported the war against Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. I did not support this one, in fact I protested it. That said, I feel that we have now passed the point of no return, and I've stopped protesting. Not because I agree with it, but simply because I can still visualize a scenario worse than fighting this war. And that would be fighting half a war. If we turned back now, after killing Iraqis AND STILL left Saddam Hussein in power, our political standing in the world would be even worse than it now is.

So I now fully support the troops and hope they rapidly achieve all of their military goals, even if I did object to the way things were brought to this point.

That pretty much sums it up for me, too, except that I'm still really pissed at leaders who can't think of anything more original than war. I don't wish them harm, just some less narrow judgement. They're learning lessons with other people's lives.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

the terroists attacks you allude to, that were promised, but not fulfilled yet, will come. "wishful thinking" will not make this go away. i

This is a bullshit statement. According to this statement, any terrorist attack, anywhere, at any time, fulfills this prophecy. Be more specific when making claims such as this one please.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Michele 1]

Thanks, cgross...

This is an interesting article, and I wish I had the clarity of thought to have put it in words like the author did. Thanks for bringing it here.

It is really interesting to see people's opinions...I do not ever recall Bush or Cheney saying it will be short - "days"...what I clearly recall is them saying something along the lines of "if we go into Iraq, it will be hard. House to house, potential B/C, hard and long". I was surprised and disappointed when I heard people wailing that "it's been 6 whole days, and the state is not yet conquered...it must be a quagmire". How unrealistic is that?

Quagmire - "buzz word". It is a demoralizing thing, and reflects the journalists' opinion, which is sometimes terribly different than mine, and those to whom I speak. I do not think we are in a quagmire - I think we've done enormously huge things in a very short amount of time. I hope that this war is as short as it can possibly be, but we are there, we need to get this job done, and we need to do it thoroughly. If we bombed indiscriminately, we would kill many thousands of Iraqi citizens; if we shot without caring, we would again kill many thousands as well. It would be far shorter, but far more costly in human lives. As it stands, because we are not doing so, we are being more strategic and specific, it will be longer than the pundits want....someone above stated something about this being over like a mini-series on tv, and I think that sums it up perfectly. We cannot both make it super-short, and be strategic. Those two ideas are mutually exclusive.

As to the terrorist attacks, whether they will arrive or not is another situation. 9/11 (among other events...) taught terrorists that we are vulnerable, and that we can be hit. They are there, they will attack, but not simply because of Iraq. They will come because they hate us, have hated us for years, and found the soft spot. It has been that way for years - and if you don't think I'm correct, look at your history. We also heard a ton of the same kind of predictions when we went into Afghanistan, and they did not materialize.

War is horrible, and I don't like it in the least; but people have placed unrealistic expectations on our troops and leaders, and they are contradictory. The least we can do at this juncture is look at things realistically and not emotionally, and not scream the sky is falling quite so fast...6-8 days is not long, and it may be a while longer before we are done with ousting Saddam. We are not in a quagmire - it's only been a few days.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[rgoper 0]

Quote

This is a bullshit statement

maybe so.

Quote

According to this statement, any terrorist attack, anywhere, at any time, fulfills this prophecy. Be more specific when making claims such as this one please***

mumbasa, africa, just last december. today, the prophecy was fullfilled, in fact just last night. (not 30 minutes after my post) there are evidently a lot of events that take place all over the world folks just aren't aware of. i intentionally don't post these events because of this type of reaction. but since you insists, a plane was hijacked last evening, and soldiers were masacred by terrorists groups just today, if you want hard core details, watch the news. the iraqi minister gave his solomn vow to the entire world today to expect more of the same and often. if it were fear i was trying to incite, i could accomplish it rather easily, but it's caution i'm trying to instill. obviously there are those of us that wish to remain uninformed and ignore the situation. BYE!

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

• Quote

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

and soldiers were masacred by terrorists groups just today,

Attacking a legal combatant isn't terrorism, it's war. Last I checked we were indeed at war with Iraq.

Quote

a plane was hijacked last evening, and

According to the news the Turkish plane was hijacked by a 20something who was upset with family problems. Here's a quote from the story I read:

Police early Saturday arrested 20-year-old Ozgur Gencarslan, a Turkish citizen who was reportedly distraught and overwhelmed by family problems.

A terrorist would have destroyed the plane and taken the 200+ people aboard with him. At least a good one would have.

Quote

if you want hard core details, watch the news.

and...

obviously there are those of us that wish to remain uninformed and ignore the situation.

I like to think that I'm informed. Between Fox, CNN, Yahoo!, and Google news I'd like to think I'm pretty well caught up on what's going on in the world. Of course if uninformed means 'doesn't agree with rgoper' then I suppose I am.

So again, I claim that your statement is bullshit. None of the examples you cited amount to terrorism that seems to be related to the war in Iraq, rather they're just random events. You've proven my point, any random event fits neatly into your blanket statement about terrorism. Again, I request you to be more specific with statements like the one you made earlier.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Michele 1]

Richard, can you link to the story of the hijacking?

And I was aware of the suicide bombing of our troops...at least 4 dead. But as that is something which was done under the guise of war, incountry (I think it was Iraq, please correct me if I'm wrong), would you then say it's state sponsored terrorism? I don't think it is, as it's during wartime and directed against our troops (not non-combatants like something in a parking lot or whatever), but I am interested in your opinion...

As to the Mombasa hotel bombing, that was November 28, and it was a suicide attack on the Paradise hotel in Mombasa, which is a known Israeli tourist hotel. It took place during the elections (again, IIRC), and was attributed however tenuously to Al Queda. And again, IIRC, there was an attempt at shooting down a plane at the same time, but the airline was able to avoid (or they missed) the SAMs... It is well known that AQ is/has set up a cell in the area. Recall the Kenyan and Tansanian Embassy bombings several years prior, and you have the signature of them writ large. The only new thing, if it can be called 'new', is the use of SAMs...but there is specualtion that the attack on the El Al offices in Indonesia was also by a SAM, and also AQ (although that link is also rather tenuous).

Not everyone, Richard, is uninformed about terrorist activities all over the world.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[rgoper 0]

Quote

Not everyone, Richard, is uninformed about terrorist activities all over the world

neither was it my intention to insinuate it. if you read jimbo's post, you'll see what he said in reference to me. what i do know is that terrorism will become part of our lives, however sponsered. anyone who does not believe this is only kidding themselves. the iraqi minister vowed to the entire world on national television that the terror attacks would continue indefinitely, this was a serious threat, i, for one take the imbicile seriously. fighting a force who does not value living is just about insurmountable.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[Michele 1]

Quote

what i do know is that terrorism will become part of our lives, however sponsered

All I am saying, Richard, is that terrorism already is part of our lives...and has been for quite a few years. Overreaction, imho, leads to panic, and I for one don't want to see people panicking. I know there will be attacks; I take the measures I can for me in my city, and then I get on with my life. Touting that additional terrorist attacks will definitely occur, and have occurred, with no understanding of the mentality of those who would attack and where they would (and are) attacking can make some people more frightened than they really need to be.

Since 9/11, there is no-one who believes that we are protected any longer. I was aware from WTC '93 that we were no longer "safe"...

Quote

neither was it my intention to insinuate it

Oh. O.K., then. Because it really did seem like you were saying people don't know what's going on, and are uninformed, and should get informed and protected. That's what I was responding to...

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[crapflinger2000 1]

I was anti war but now that we are there I agree it is better to win it than not....

But... I was thinking this morning... I am honestly curious... has there ever been a situation in recorded history where a city under siege has welcomed its attackers with open arms after weeks or months of bombardment? I can not think of one, and I wonder what makes Rumsfeld think that after we lay siege to Baghdad for a month that the populace will turn on their "protectors", the Iraqi army, especially after WE have been bombing the heck out of them. Regardless of the use of precision weapons, we are still bombing the shit out of their city.

It really seems to me that historical precedent is for folks banding together against "outsiders"

__________________________________________________
What would Vic Mackey do?

[Tf15 0]

Quote

Richard, can you link to the story of the hijacking?

And I was aware of the suicide bombing of our troops...at least 4 dead. But as that is something which was done under the guise of war, incountry (I think it was Iraq, please correct me if I'm wrong), would you then say it's state sponsored terrorism? I don't think it is, as it's during wartime and directed against our troops (not non-combatants like something in a parking lot or whatever), but I am interested in your opinion...


Ciels-
Michele

I don't know if you're wrong or not, but I can assure you that had the Germans managed to invade Britain in 1940 , the civilian population would have "fought on the beaches, fought in the hedgerows..." etc. to repel the invader, just like Churchill promised.

Three times is enemy action

[billvon 2,467]

>I do not ever recall Bush or Cheney saying it will be short - "days"...

It was Rumsfeld who said it might be six days. I believe his exact quote was "six days, six weeks - I doubt six months." I think many people identify Rumsfeld with the administration, and also think that when he said "six days, six weeks" people thought he meant that the war could be as short as six days.

>They are there, they will attack, but not simply because of Iraq.
> They will come because they hate us, have hated us for years,
> and found the soft spot. It has been that way for years - and if you
>don't think I'm correct, look at your history.

While I think you are correct, I also think that this war will significantly increase terrorism against the US. Even the CIA thinks so. Indeed, they have already stopped several terrorists planning attacks against the US. We are hearing more and more stories like this one, from the LA times:

----------------------------
Standing in front of his destroyed home, Thamur Sheikel, a 53-year-old Oil Ministry employee, said he had returned from work to find his house no longer standing and his older sister and two young nephews killed.

"Bush is cursed," he said, biting off the words. "They want to destroy the people. Maybe God will destroy them. Revenge on Bush for this aggression. We are peaceful people; we do no harm to anybody."
---------------------------

In Afghanistan we had most of the world (even the arab world) behind us; after 9/11 even Chirac said "today, we are all americans." That solidarity isn't present in this war. We lead a coalition of a few nations, fighting a war that much of the world (and most of the arab world) opposes. We expected to be greeted as liberators by the people of Iraq; instead we see anger and attacks against US troops from civilian defenders. While not yet a quagmire, it is rapidly getting there - imagine a scenario where we have to fight (or pacify) even 1/4 of the people in Baghdad, as our attacks unite them against a common enemy trying to destroy their home. That would be a quagmire by nearly any definition.

[billvon 2,467]

>would you then say it's state sponsored terrorism? I don't think it is, as
> it's during wartime and directed against our troops (not non-combatants
> like something in a parking lot or whatever), but I am interested in your
> opinion...

As I recall, one General McCrystal of the Pentagon (not sure of the spelling) calls it terrorism. (Heard on radio; no link.)