It’s Not Politically Correct To Talk About This. Think For Yourself Anyway
History will be the ultimate judge, of course, and one cannot predict its findings. Yet there do seem to be some conclusions it can only validate. They include:
1. The failure of US military strategy and tactics to cope with the aftermath of the fall of Saddam’s army (and the disappearance of his air force).
2. The maladaptive, ideological misconceptions of top Pentagon brass.
3. The brilliant evolution of Marine Corps tactics.
4. The emergence of an ad hoc group of officers that used political connections to reverse the failed policies.
The most interesting aspect of this dismal but ultimately optimistic tale is what one might call “the mirror image of Hitler.”
Hitler, a politician with limited and marginally dishonorable military experience, fancied himself a grand strategist; his advisors were, in many cases, some of the best generals of the twentieth century. In spite of their genius, Hitler managed to plunge his nation into ruinous defeat.
Bush, advised at the highest levels by unimaginative, pedestrian careerists, saw through the ideological miasma, and, like Hitler, took over. At the last minute, Bush revised the number of troops to be used in the now-almost-forgotten surge, insuring its success.
Hitler’s failure does not prove that amateurs have no role to play in military strategy — it demonstrates that lunatics are unqualified to make final decisions. Bush’s success shows that common sense, coupled with advice and support from officers sensitive to the infantryman’s ethos and experiences, must never be excluded from strategic planning.
When the top Pentagon brass literally detached itself from reality and fabricated policy out of political abstractions, the instincts and strengths of the USA’s riflemen (volunteers all, remember) were ignored. Privates and sergeants have a talent for grasping reality that some generals can lose, if they ever had it. Bush sensed that the soldiers and Marines were struggling with problems imposed from above. He intuited that if his warriors were given a fair shake, they could deal effectively with the enemy. Presented with the concept of the surge, Bush realized that a fair shake meant enlarging the force. Enhanced security for the Iraqi populace was a benefit that also made sense to him.
He was correct, but his views will probably never be generally known or respected. The unreasoning hatred that currently surrounds him militates against both possibilities.
We may never know what role the fall of Fallujah played in Bush’s vision, or whether it played any at all. Still, the facts — studiously ignored by the news outlets — are stunning and highly instructive. Fallujah may have been one of the pre-surge events that suggested the way forward.
Seldom in the history of urban warfare has a city been so prepared to destroy its attackers, and seldom in human history have the defenders been so willing to perish rather than withdraw. Yet the US Marine Corps moved in, crushed the opposition, cleared the city and completed operations in a matter of days. Marine casualties were fewer than anticipated.
The victory and the subsequent rehabilitation of Fallujah will some day be recognized as proof that the adaptive, imaginative tactics of the Marines, coupled with their sheer will to victory, put the Corps in the first rank of military units.
Fallujah proved that the US could depend on its riflemen. Bush sensed that, and turned them loose on the enemy. The result was a sudden silence on the issue. Bush’s political enemies and virtually all prophets working for the news media were exposed as blind visionaries, so they began babbling about other matters — any other matters. Of course none of the incompetent would-be Cassandras had the integrity to credit the military and Bush with having reversed the course of events; to the nay-sayers, the success of the surge simply…emerged. It was an uncaused event, a tale with no author, a building with no architect.
None of the failed prophets rejoiced at the crushing defeat of Al Qaeda at Fallujah, nor did the later liberation of Anbar province evoke their cheers (see below, “The WaPo Does The New Macarena”). Hardly anyone on the political left would acknowledge these overwhelming victories as evidence that the USA can and should press on, destroy its blood enemies, and prove that even the ghastly tactics of asymmetrical warfare cannot break us.
Bush’s political foes can be forgiven for not agreeing with this or that policy, and even for mocking and libeling the man. An alcoholic, Bush is ridiculed for not drinking, as well as for having been an alcohol abuser. He can do no right. His very name is invoked as somehow ridiculous and an indication of his moral depravity; it is considered witty and cogent to refer to him as “Shrub,” or to laugh about his name because it is also a vulgar term for the pubic hair of human females. Fine; that’s guttersnipe-style politics, and the pre-pubescent sniggering only reflects on those who are immature enough to practice it.
What can not be forgiven, however, is the refusal to award the kudos appropriately. It was Bush who grasped the validity and practicality of the surge. It was Bush who, once the plans were final, added still more troops to the total, driving more nails in Al Qaeda’s coffin. Whatever the man’s name, whatever his past excesses, whatever his oratorical shortcomings, however mediocre his scholastic record, and even if he is from a Texas oil family with connections to Skull and Bones, Bush realized that the generals at the top of the military pyramid were wrong.
That was no accident. He saw the truth, while others — others with vastly more impressive credentials — were blind. He persisted where others were timid, fearful of asserting policy and imposing will. Bush led as the uniformed dullards and demagogic politicians whined, stalled, groused and pontificated vacuously.
History should record both those facts and the fact that Bush’s riflemen deserve to be ranked among the finest fighting forces in human history. That is no exaggeration.
Perhaps those who loathe Bush so should be asked two questions: first, “Would you prefer it if the USA and Western Civilization faced an opponent with Bush’s qualities?” And second, “How much trust can you place in the wisdom of those who confidently predicted the failure of the surge?”
Many in the USA sincerely hoped the surge would fail. Exactly why they took that position remains a question for psychologists, and for philosophers who specialize in ethics.
For the rest of us, the important fact is this: we are surrounded by bitter ideologues who covet notions that their country and their civilization are unexceptional, undeserving of distinction, and are to be reviled rather than emulated. Though it may be helpful to ask first why they adopted such pernicious views, how we shall deal with these people is the real question. We are, after all, in a culture war.
For now, however, turn to information regarding the surge, and understand how the strategy came to be.
Gen. Keane helped conceive the new Iraq war strategy and then sell it to the White House. He advised on its implementation, visiting Iraq often and reporting back to the president and vice president. As recounted in Bob Woodward’s new book, “The War Within,” George W. Bush stiffed his Joint Chiefs of Staff, who opposed the surge, and made Gen. Keane his back channel to the Petraeus command in Baghdad. The Pentagon “almost presided over an American defeat in Iraq, and Jack Keane helped save the day,” says Michael O’Hanlon, a scholar at the Brookings Institution.
The article from which the above quote comes is to be found here. Read it all.
Finally, recall this source The Penguin Post has already suggested. It is not to be ignored, no matter what absurd name you call Bush, because it rises above the obnoxiously juvenile, smutty level to which much of US political discourse has sunk. It explains what happened and why.
The Washington Post Does The New Macarena: One, Two — Twist, Distort; Three, Four — Sneer And Snort
When Gov. Palin was quoted as saying that her son is off to fight the people who attacked the USA on September 11, 2001, she was mocked for her ignorance. A smug, ill-informed journalist pointed out that Saddam Hussein’s government had nothing to do with it.
Unethical reporting deserves a trenchant response. Look, all you propagandists and cultural warriors at the Washington Post, nobody is fighting Saddam; he’s dead. Nor is anybody fighting Saddam’s government; that would be as sane as running off to invade the Confederate States of America. And as for whether we are fighting the folks who brought down the WTC, here’s an article you should read; to save time, have somebody read it aloud to you. A quote:
Last summer I met with U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Mike Silverman in Ramadi, the capital of Iraq’s Anbar Province and also what until 2007 was Al Qaeda’s key stronghold.
“What’s the most important thing Americans need to know about Iraq that they don’t currently know?” I asked him.
“That we’re fighting Al Qaeda,” he said without hesitation. “Abu Musab al] Zarqawi invented Al Qaeda in Iraq. The top leadership outside Iraq squawked and thought it was a bad idea. Then he blew up the Samarra mosque, triggered a civil war, and got the whole world’s attention. Then the Al Qaeda leadership outside dumped huge amounts of money and people and arms into Anbar Province. They poured everything they had into this place. The battle against Americans in Anbar became their most important fight in the world. And they lost.”
Palin may be an incompetent, absentee mother, corrupt politician and shallow beauty contest junkie (if one believes the hypocritical feminists who loathe her), but she was right. Unlike the liars at the Washington Post, she knows who the enemy is.
And yes, distorting her statement that much is lying. It’s like claiming that when the Allies liberated Paris in August of 1944, they were not fighting the nation that invaded Poland some five years earlier.
Links — Just Two Today, But They Are Important. Click!
Michael Yon on death in Afghanistan: French hit hard by Taliban ambush. A cover-up in progress? You may have to scroll down a bit; look for photos of the green pickup truck.
Candidate Obama exposes McCain’s filthy plan with these words. Two consequent events occur: first, the old folks are terrorized — or not, depending on how gullible the old folks are. Second, whistle blows.
Sandra Bernhard on Palin (Who “Popped Out A Retard”)
Women started the whole fucking thing. Now you got Uncle Women, like Sarah Palin, who jumps on the shit and points her fingers at other women. Turncoat bitch! Don’t you fuckin’ reference Old Testament, bitch! You stay with your new Goyish crappy shiksa funky bullshit! Don’t you touch my Old Testament, you bitch! Because we have left it open for interpretation! It is no longer taken literally! You whore in your fuckin’ cheap New Vision cheap-ass plastic glasses and your hair up. A Tina Fey-Megan Mullally brokedown bullshit moment.
The issue is simply stated: shall those who are not entertained by Bernhard’s rant consent to be governed by those who are?
This can’t be.
This can’t be true, either. After all, Chinese quality control policies and practices are…er, that is…well, there are Chinese QC practices, aren’t there? It seems there would be, given the size of the place, right? Didn’t the Chinese invent QC, not long after they invented gunpowder and penicillin? “Chinese QC. Chinese QC.” It sounds good when you say it, doesn’t it?
The US Financial Crisis: Too Much For The Penguin Post To Fathom
It’s just too complex, too arcane, too divorced from daily reality. Taking a position on it is next to impossible, unless you are an expert — or a moron.
But only the former can spot the latter.
Which is why the PenPo has avoided the issue. For those who want to take a peek, however, perhaps this is a place to start. Good luck.
Caution: If You Like The News Media As They Are, Avoid This Item
Amazing. The media seem to be coming unglued. Consider:
Will they never learn? People are watching. It’s called “the internet.” The retreaded gatekeepers and interpreters of the truth are no longer in total control. They can’t prevent things like this from reaching millions of voters via a network of links.
And… will it never stop?
Based on more than one assertion by the Post that Franklin Raines, former Fannie Mae head, was an Obama campaign economic adviser, the McCain campaign produced a TV ad saying as much, and criticizing Obama for consorting with a man who took millions out of Fannie Mae while mismanaging it.
In a “Fact Check” piece today, the WaPo essentially says believing us was your first mistake. In an act of monumental chutzpah, the paper adds that McCain is “clearly exaggerating wildly” in the commercial. If that’s so, what was the WaPo doing when it reported on August 28:
Two members of Mr. Obama’s political circle, James A. Johnson and Franklin D. Raines, are former chief executives of Fannie Mae.
There should be red faces all around at the WaPo. But does anyone believe there are?
Related question: how much longer will the Washington Post we know be around?