The Surge Not Working

[Herb Schaffler]

From a blogger at the Obama site:

"The Price of the Surge". "More than a year on, a growing conventional wisdom holds that the surge has paid off handsomely. U.S. casualties are down significantly from their peak in mid-2007, the level of violence in Iraq is lower than at any point since 2005, and Baghdad seems the safest it has been since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime five years ago. Some backers of the surge even argue that the Iraqi civil war is over and that victory on Washington's terms is in sight -- so long as the United States has the will to see its current efforts through to their conclusion.

Unfortunately, such claims misconstrue the causes of the recent fall in violence and, more important, ignore a fatal flaw in the strategy. The surge has changed the situation not by itself but only in conjunction with several other developments: the grim successes of ethnic cleansing, the tactical quiescence of the Shiite militias, and a series of deals between U.S. forces and Sunni tribes that constitute a new bottom-up approach to pacifying Iraq. The problem is that this strategy to reduce violence is not linked to any sustainable plan for building a viable Iraqi state. If anything, it has made such an outcome less likely, by stoking the revanchist fantasies of Sunni Arab tribes and pitting them against the central government and against one another. In other words, the recent short-term gains have come at the expense of the long-term goal of a stable, unitary Iraq."


The surge is not working.

[jamwadmag]

Herb, plz keep your orgasm to yourself! The old peace-niks from the cold war days (better RED than Dead) are still rooting for America's enemies. So why dont you Liberals go over to Iraq and Afghanistan and 'talk' to our enemies (the Taliban and Al Qaeda)---I'm sure that they will listen to you! If they dont, and take you all out, then at least we will have peace here in the states...

[Herb Schaffler]

I'm not rooting for America's enemies. I'm saying that the warmongers in our government have created unnecessary enemies by meddling in areas where we have no business.

Once again, you're too ignorant to know the difference between an antiwar libertarian and a leftist. We are actually more antiwar than the liberals who believe in continuing to meddle all over the world and get us involved in future wars. Unfortunately, both conservatives and liberals support the warfare/welfare state to varying degrees.

[jamwadmag]

Originally Posted by Herb Schaffler

Once again, you're too ignorant to know the difference between an antiwar libertarian and a leftist. We are actually more antiwar than the liberals who believe in continuing to meddle all over the world and get us involved in future wars. Unfortunately, both conservatives and liberals support the warfare/welfare state to varying degrees.

Sorry, Herb, but Ive got your number! You are a self-described Libertarian who is a Social Liberal. Bottom line, is that your 'moral compass' is the test of your belief system ,and it points to you just being a out-and-out Liberal!!

[Herb Schaffler]

Libertarians are social liberals. Being social liberals don't make us liberals. We are fiscal conservatives. The difference in libertarians from conservatives and liberals is that we consistently believe in individual freedom. Liberals believe in individual freedom only on social issues, conservatives believe in individual freedom only on fiscal matters, property rights, and gun rights.

BTW, jam, which is useless, war or talk? World War I brought us World War II. World War II created a vacuum for Communism and gave Eastern Europe, China, Indochina, and North Korea to the Communists and ushered in the Cold War. War in Iraq has created a vacuum in the Middle-East and has strenthened Iran in relation to the rest of the Middle-East. Talk brought peace between Israel and Egypt.

[nohil-billy]

Bill Clinton talked for eight years Herb. I'm sure in retrospect, given a choice, the people in the WTC would have preferred plan "B"

Jam's right Herb, you're an out-and-out liberal, regardless of the label you give yourself.

Quoting Obama bloggers Herb?

[Herb Schaffler]

It was our meddling foreign policy that led to 9/11.

Regarding my being a liberal, do some research on the libertarian philosophy. Read Ayn Rand. My support of the 2nd Amendment, belief in property rights, belief in the free market and free trade, belief in small limited government, opposition to the welfare state just doesn't equate with the liberal philosophy. It seems that you and jam have the mistaken view that conservative equates with foreign interventionism and that anybody opposed to it must be a liberal. Compare progressive and liberal interventionists like Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ with non-interventionist conservatives like Robert Taft and Russell Kirk. Interventionism among conservatives is something that came about during the Cold War and unfortunately is in continuance due to the influence of the neocons.

Yes, I'll quote Obama bloggers if they have good information to relay. I'll also quote Rush or some other conservatives when they have information that I agree with which they do from time to time. Unlike you, I don't limit myself to just listening to Rush, Hannity, O'Riely and reading the Weekly Standard and American Spectator. I read Newsmax, Obama blogs, Reason, Antiwar.com, Liberty, The American Conservative, watch Fox, CNN, and MSNBC so I get a pretty good variety of lots of viewpoints.

[smoothbore]

Originally Posted by Herb Schaffler

It was our meddling foreign policy that led to 9/11.

.

Yeah Herb you just can't get off of it can you? America is to blame.

You ignore the good this country has done throughout the world and only point the finger at what you perceive to be wrong. Liberal ######## at it's best.

Iran is calling. Move.

Patrick

[Herb Schaffler]

You too, smoothbore? Do I need to also educate you on the difference between a liberal and a libertarian? Do I need to also educate you on the long tradition of conservative non-interventionists? Do I need to also educate you on what our Founding Fathers believed about a meddling foreign policy? You consider me a traitor, but the real traitors are those who have abandoned the principles that this country was founded on.

There is a new book out called "Ain't My America" by Bill Kaufman which reports the long tradition of right wing anti-interventionists. Here are a couple of reviews of it at Amazon:



This book joins Kauffman's earlier exploration of the isolationist strain in American history, "America First!" as an instant classic that libertarians, Old Right conservative, and decentralists of all stripes will thumb through repeatedly as they look for guidance from history in confronting the Warfare State. Reading Kauffman is a real shot in the arm to anyone tired of what passes for political commentary in today's America. He would probably never want to become part of the pundit class, but I find myself wishing he got "face time" on the awful chat shows so he could expose people to his idiosyncratic perspective. Maybe he'd even make the bestseller list. But for now only a tiny Remnant will enjoy his lively prose which makes everything and everyone from tax withholding to Old Right stalwart Felix Morley fascinating. I'm a libertarian, so obviously I'm against re-education camps, but I'm sorely tempted to make an exception in the case of this book; if I had it in my power I might force every "conservative" pundit (especially the historically illiterate talk show crowd) to read and absorb this book and see what they have betrayed and corrupted.









In an era of unwinnable wars and a collapsing American Empire, Bill Kauffman reveals that a strong antiwar, anti-empire sentiment was not unwelcome to those on the right of the American political spectrum. An antidote to the neoconservative mindset that now prevails within the Republican Party.