UPDATED: The House and the war supplemental — achieving Strategic Overwatch and Obama’s Retreat from Retreat
I just heard on tv that the House of Represenatives is about to pass the war supplemental bill — and this AP report says the House is on the verge. There will be no date for withdrawal. Where is John Murtha? Where is Harry Reid’s defeat, dude? Ah yes, the voices of the cut and run crowd, disappearing to a frail whisper.
The bill buys the next president “breathing space,” according to the reporter on the screen. What it does is take us a step closer to Strategic Overwatch– but more on that in a moment.
Obama still touts his pull-out — sort of, occasionally, okay, less occasionally. Obama, like his cohort of supporters, is politically committed to defeat. Obama will now rely on rhetoric to assauge the DailyKos-crowd and obscure his shift on Iraq. He will change his position– and Samantha Power prepared the way several months ago in her ill-fated BBC interview this past spring. Obama thinks he can get away with it: he just backed out of public financing.
The NY Times on the deal before the vote. And Fox.
The real rubes in this election won’t be the rural Midwesterners Obama slandered, the ones who cling to their guns and religon. It will be the gray-haired profs with ponytails, clinging to their cannabis and liturgy of defeat.
As for Strategic Overwatch — I see that “condition” emerging in 2009, becoming fully-fledged by 2011. This will amount to a limited US and coalition in victory — but a major victory for Iraqis. Of course Iraqis already consider the destruction of Saddam Hussein’s regime to be a huge victory.
ArenaUSA filmed a segment on Strategic Overwatch four weeks ago in Los Angeles and it is now up on my Arena Channel. There are two sub-scenarios, one dealing with Iran. The effect on the average Iraqi? Increased GDP means an overall increase in wealth, but look for a revival of Iraqi neighborhoods in general and the Baghdad business community in particular. Another plus — a revival of Baghdad’s nightlife. See the video update for an assessment of the effects are on the region — complex, dicey, but for Iraqis and peace in the 21st century, also promising. This update is a bit different than the tv pilot. The tv pilot posited the results of a trigger incident that has not occurred– a Murtha-Reid rapid withdrawal. And thank goodness it has not occurred. The update takes an assessment of conditions in Iraq, March through early May 2008, as its start point. Speculation? Sure. No one can predict the future but people bet on it all the time. But continuing to fund the fight without imposing a withdrawal date is a key assumption in the Consequences update.
NOTE: The full show on the Arena channel requires a minimal registration — name, email, state, country. There is a guest login but it is time limited. I hope the video segment on Zimbabwe will be up this weekend, as well.
UPDATE: Reuters reports the bill passed.
Reuters lede, hope the AP won’t sue me because I quoted Reuters (but provided a link!):
The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday approved enough new money to wage wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for another year, while abandoning attempts to set deadlines opposed by President George W. Bush for withdrawing American combat troops.
By a vote of 268-155, the House approved the funding for the two wars. Most of the $161.8 billion the Pentagon will get, which is slightly less than Bush requested, will be used to fight in Iraq.
Another example of why Bush Derangement Syndrome is psychological transference.
I don’t see a search function on your blog, do you have a post that talks more about this idea of “Bush Derangement Syndrome is psychological transference?”
Comment by Ken — 6/20/2008 @ 6:58 am
It is interesting that there were still 155 people in Congress who want to abandon the Iraqis. It would be interesting to find out what kind of funding they are receiving. Is this the example, and the current limit, of the penetration of Soros money into the political arena? I think it all comes down to the fact that we have lost our ability to define freedom clearly. No sane American would vote against defending freedom but when our young warriors are sent to fight a war where we are defending an Iraqi constitution that requires that no law violate the Koran you are going to be able to make some points against it. Our “more perfect union” is unique in that we can toss the tax collectors every two years. That is real power to the people. It should be part of any dialogue about freedom because all you have to do is look at how cheap our politicians can be bought to understand that third world talkers can be bought much cheaper. Let’s spread true freedom!
Comment by SenatorMark4 — 6/20/2008 @ 7:18 am
Given that Obama is our likely next pres, I say, “Flip away, Barry!” The only way to get the Democratic nomination was to promise immediate withdrawal. Clinton’s more measured language was dead in the water. It’s also a relief (if also cause for eye-rolling) to see him flip on his unconditional meeting pledge. Whew!
Comment by Judasmac — 6/20/2008 @ 7:25 am
I don’t understand how what is going on in Iraq is anything but a total victory for the US. France became a semi-neutral nation after WW II. Did that make D-Day a partial success?
We removed a lunatic dictator and a democracy is taking root in his place. Iraq will be an example to all of her neighbors for decades to come about what such a nation can do. How is this anything other than a success?
Comment by K T Cat — 6/20/2008 @ 7:33 am
Excuse me. It is us Pennsylvania folk who cling to their guns and religion.
The midwestern folk have got to go out and get their own Obama diss, they can’t have ours!
Sorry got to go I have reloading to do and pray service is coming up again
Comment by Bruce Long — 6/20/2008 @ 7:53 am
In Iraq, all that matters is the end result. In 20 years, how we got to a nightclub and a thriving nightlife in Baghdad will be meaningless.
Comment by Mike Olding — 6/20/2008 @ 8:12 am
“How is this anything other than a success?”
Because Bush did it (well, led it).
The Left needs no other reason to judge Iraq a failure.
Comment by Brian J. Dunn — 6/20/2008 @ 8:13 am
I was in the Army for 22 years, 1985 to 2007. I have first hand experience of the disdain many in the military had for Clinton because of the perceived loathing he and Hillary had for us. But of course we were professional enough to serve the Commander in Chief, as the military certainly will be should we be unlucky enough to have Obama as CinC. The difference between the two will be that at no time did military members believe that Clinton actually wanted us defeated. We did understand that he didn’t like the military, and didn’t know anything about the military, and that soldiers lost their lives in Mogadishu and Bosnia due to this ignorance on his part.
Any servicemember who has been paying attention to Obama understands that Obama doesn’t just loathe the military like a good old-fashioned Lefty. He loathes us and wants us defeated by America’s enemies in Iraq in order to teach us a lesson. This is something he can’t easily back down from, considering he’s been calling for our defeat in Iraq for all but the (maybe) last few months of the campaign. The average voter may be able to overlook this strategic retreat by Obama, but I’m betting most of the current or retired (but still voting) military and military families won’t. I thank the good Lord that I was able to retire before Obama and Michelle had the chance to get their names on my retirement certificate.
Comment by Diggs — 6/20/2008 @ 8:32 am
“Obama still touts his pull-out ? sort of, occasionally, okay, less occasionally…”
Excuse me, sir, my English is not so good. Is “less occasionally” less often than “occasionally” or more?
ED NOTE: Think about it — in the gradniose context of slick rhetorical slip and slide, oratorical hocus pocus, dazzling diatribe, and adverbial prestidigitation and obscurantism. Then you toss grandma, Rev. Wright, public campaign finance, and Iraqi withdrawal under the bus. So to speak.
Comment by Neil Ferguson — 6/20/2008 @ 9:59 am
Diggs, Obama has been pushing (right or wrong) for WITHDRAWAL, not the death and humiliation of the United States armed forces. How someone can think as you do that one equals the other — and still spell correctly — is confounding.
K T Cat — To use your metaphor, what’s going on in Iraq right now is no more a “total victory” than was August 25, 1944. Great day, sure — but the job was not finished. I’ve seen posts like yours every year since ‘03. This is without question the best that things have been, but let’s get the mission accomplished before saying so this time.
Comment by Matt — 6/20/2008 @ 11:12 am
Matt, have you not been paying attention? Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Haditha, etc; all either overblown or outright lies that were made up to thoroughly discredit American armed forces or to paint them as sadistic, mindless killers. Check out Obama’s (amongst all the other leading Dems) quotes I am sure you remember the Nazi, etc, analogies.
And for Obama to advocate surrender (please, lets call WITHDRAWAL what it is) to a bunch of armed thugs whose main “battle” victories are blowing up unarmed women and children would be the ultimate humiliation for American armed forces. For you not to realize that shows a complete lack of understanding to military tradition and honor.
Tried to keep it simple so you would no longer be confounded.
Comment by swift boater — 6/20/2008 @ 11:29 am
The war is going well when the Bush misadministration says its going well. It has nothing to do with facts on the ground, especially with an upcoming election. If the rate of positive messages coming being shown to the American public is any indication we were out 2 years ago. This war will never pay back the American people for the loss of blood and treasure.
Comment by Empirical — 6/20/2008 @ 11:36 am
What I could hardly believe at the time, and will never forgive, is that the national Democratic party has been cheering for our enemies throughout most of the Iraq war. From Dick Durbin comparing US soldiers to Nazis, to Harry Reid saying that the surge was a failure when he knew that it had not yet begun, the party leaders have been pathetic. I was raised a Democrat, but I will never vote for one again.
Comment by Mike Kelley — 6/20/2008 @ 11:37 am
Swift Boater —
I remain confounded. That isn’t the same as actively working to have our soldiers Fallujahed, which is how you seem to color it. And this country has other multi-billion dollar priorities than Iraq to consider. (I said “consider”.) The military serves the country, not the other way around.
Cite a source of Obama even using the word “Nazi” in the context you describe, if you can. No fair counting on your memory. And I don’t see the connection between him and Haditha, which definitely wasn’t as it was first painted. And the more sensational reporting on Abu Ghraib and Gitmo was bullshit. On the other hand, Abu Ghraib and Gitmo happened and do exist. By ANY account these ARE at best uncomfortable compromises of this nation’s honor and military tradition.
Comment by Matt — 6/20/2008 @ 12:49 pm
Matt, I’ll make it real simple for you:
Voluntary withdrawl from the fight short of complete victory, is retreat and defeat. Defeat is shameful but only somewhat; voluntary defeat through retreat ishumiliating.
Ask the Lakers.
Comment by Sarge — 6/20/2008 @ 1:48 pm
Obama has been promising the world that he will quickly (but reponsibly!) withdraw our troops regardless of the situation in Iraq.
This has no doubt encouraged our enemies to persevere and keep on fighting, in the hopes that they will be able to declare victory when Obama becomes president and keeps his promise.
Since our enemies have thus been encouraged to persevere and keep on fighting, Obama has in effect prolonged the war and cost more American lives.
Now, we’re learning from Obama and his supporters that he never even intended to pull out the troops in the first place; he only said so to get the nomination.
Which means he sacrificed all those American lives for his own personal gain, nothing more.
I can’t imagine a worse choice for president. Obama is amoral and utterly unprincipled. I’d vote for Ralph Nader or Alan Keyes before I voted for Obama.
Comment by Tom W. — 6/20/2008 @ 2:57 pm
Iraq was never a threat, and stopping the Christian-killings going on in Africa would have been a far better use of American lives and money.
This isn’t even a war, war was never declared. We’re not sacrificing as in WW2, and where are the 50% of the country who wanted war? Why aren’t they enlisting in droves? Oh well, not like I pay attention to the war crimes the US Gov’t is perpetrating in the ME anymore.
A stuttering drunkard and coke-head who ran successful businesses into the ground is failing as CiC just as expected. Iraq is turning out just as the lefties claimed it would. If only you righties had enlisted to help out, you might have been able to make the Left eat crow with resounding success in Iraq!
Oh well, Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq. Trifecta of failed war-mongering!
Comment by Big Sean — 6/20/2008 @ 5:09 pm
Like diggs, comment number 8, I truly believe that Obama wants a defeat. He’s going by the Vietnam playbook. (see “Sleeping with the enemy by James Webb, http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.16181/article_detail.asp) If elected, I have every confidence that Obama will declare victory and yank U.S. forces out of Iraq as fast as he can. I also have no doubt that, as we did to Vietnam and Cambodia, he will cut off all military support, intelligence exchange, arms and equipment supplies so abruptly that the Iraq government will not have time to find alternative sources before Iran takes action.
If Iran can present a credible claim of posessing a nuclear warhead soon thereafter, Iraq will have little choice but capitulation.
Comment by A. C. — 6/20/2008 @ 9:30 pm
Hey Big Sean,
Didn’t a whole lot of Dems vote for this “war”: Edwards, Clinton, Rockefeller, etc.
But, no, they were duped by:
“A stuttering drunkard and coke-head”
How stupid does that make them?
Comment by mockmook — 6/20/2008 @ 11:14 pm
Matt, I’m not sure whether you would consider a withdrawal a victory or defeat. Just saying it’s a withdrawal, doesn’t mean it isn’t a defeat. It can be both. Your or my opinion on withdrawal vs defeat is irrelevant except as it affects our vote in the presidential election. I can, having talked directly to Iraqis about this, say that both the Iraqis that stand with us, and the Iraqis that stand against us, will call our withdrawal a defeat. All islamic jihadists will call it a defeat. Iran, having fought a proxy war against our forces in Iraq, will call it a defeat. And based on the historical evidence now abundant concerning our Viet Nam withdrawal, it is clear that history will call it a defeat. It is quite possible that our allies will call it a defeat
Obama can use whatever term he likes to describe it. He doesn’t get to choose the term that history will choose. Nor does he get to choose how the withdrawal is seen and used by our enemies. For his supporters like you to fixate on a simple term used by Obama, when the evidence is overwhelming that his course of action is defeat in Iraq, is stunningly naive. Like your candidate.
If elected, he may not choose to be the first president in US history to declare defeat for US forces as they fight on the battlefield and demand a “withdrawal”. I’m not willing to take that chance.
I will not comment on your surprise that a conservative can spell. It goes without saying that anyone who can support such an elitist candidate as Barack Obama will have elitist tendencies throughout their entire belief system.
Comment by Diggs — 6/21/2008 @ 7:09 am
As a Hoosier who moved to Pennsylvania, I can authoritatively state that Pennsylvania is more midwestern than not (although I chuckled when I read your comment).
Comment by rightwingprof — 6/21/2008 @ 9:23 am
At least allow me to post my opinion as I look at this issue. Now, I will use updated information to prove my point that the U.S. Government should began withdrawing troops from Iraq. They in fact should be because we are seeing more violence in Afghanistan according to news reports. The flow of millitants is increasing in Pakistan as the cause of the violence according to an ABC News Report. I’m for Obama on this issue because we need to decrease the violence in that nation. Just as the White House (Republican Controlled) said that the Troop Surge in Iraq would work, the same would work in Afghanistan if we began the troop withdrawal from Iraq.
Comment by James Daniel Reid — 7/23/2008 @ 11:35 am
And Mike,
Democrats aren’t cheering for our enemies in Iraq. We are supportive of the U.S. troops because of their fight on the War on Terrorism. However, I don’t support the Iraq War because it re-directed our focus from our main target called Afghanistan because of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001. The Afghan terrorists are Osama Bin Laden and his network, not Saddam Hussein.
How long must we remain in Iraq? Until the enemies in Iraq attack U.S. soil? Well, by staying in Iraq, the White House Republicans are cheering for our enemies when they want our troops to stay in Iraq. This Iraq war has made us no safer than it did before September 11th, 2001 because there is a possibility that terrorists will increase in Iraq again if we don’t leave. Violence has decreased because of the U. S. troop surge. However, you state that we will face defeat and face immediate danger and harm when we support a quick and speedy troop withdrawal of U. S. personnel from Iraq. I disagree because if we get out of there, we would improve national security.
If they wanted better security, let them create their own security. The United States doesn’t need to build their security. I think that the Iraqi Government is capable to build their own Government. Since the violence continued to fall during the past two years of the surge, the Iraqi Government urged the United States to come to agreement with the Iraqi Government about setting a timetable for a troop withdrawal. Bush opposes it because it would mean that the job wouldn’t get finished with improving security (Tulsa World). Now, how would the U.S. combat continued pressence in Iraq help improve security?
I hope I’m making a lot of sense. I probably don’t, but hopefully you’ll understand my comment.
Comment by James Daniel Reid — 7/26/2008 @ 8:49 pm
Whoops! I was supposed to have proofread my argument before posting it here because that last question before my closing statement of my argument had a grammatical error. The question should have read, “Now, how would the U. S. combat’s continued pressence in Iraq help improve security?” I apologize for that silly grammatical error as such. People see me as an illiterate moron when I make such sentences like that.
Comment by James Daniel Reid — 8/13/2008 @ 1:08 pm