Rusted Sky

Sounds good to me. Flush the terrorists out into the open. They are cowards by nature and would not last long when not in a cave or under a rock.

Completely freakin' ridiculous. I agree that state sponsorship of terrorism is bad and should be disrupted. But that's the only way the Bush team has been able to conceive of the problem. To have this "new" strategy come out and say that state sponsorship is the main target is just... ridiculous. Especially when our gains in even that one area are being reversed, as we speak, on the Pakistani border.

Jason -

Maybe, maybe not re Pakistan. Any more I think you'll agree that the first reporting on a political event in that area is probably inaccurate and misleading. (Hell, even stateside the reports are more likely than not to be overblown - as the John Karr media frenzy should show.) Time will tell. Wait six months and we'll have a better idea of the results.

And I wonder at times whether you're simply being reflexivly against Bush. I'm more than willing to entertain something that sounds reasonable re the WoT from the Democratic side, but I haven't seen anything that I consider more than appeasement with a hope for some miraculous change in radical Islam. And I don't see "Maybe if we're really nice and give them money and don't provoke them, they'll not be mad at us" as being a terribly workable plan.

But I'll give them credit - Apparently Reid had a plan... but of the four points in it three are already being accomplished and the fourth (withdrawl) will occur as the situation indicates and not according to a timetable like Reid apparently wants. The letter from Bolten is here.

DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2005�

Three of the key proposals found in your letter, then, are already reflected in current U.S. and Iraqi policy in the region.
.....On the fourth element of your proposed “new direction,” however, we do disagree strongly. Our strategy calls for redeploying troops from Iraq as conditions on the ground allow, when the Iraqi Security Forces are capable of defending their nation, and when our military commanders believe the time is right. Your proposal is driven by none of these factors; instead, it would have U.S. forces begin withdrawing from Iraq by the end of the year, without regard to the conditions on the ground. Because your letter lacks specifics, it is difficult to determine exactly what is contemplated by the “phased redeployment” you propose. (One such proposal, advanced by Representative Murtha, a signatory to your letter, suggested that U.S. forces should be redeployed as a “quick reaction force” to Okinawa, which is nearly 5,000 miles from Baghdad).
..........Regardless of the specifics you envision by “phased redeployment,” any premature withdrawal of U.S forces would have disastrous consequences for America’s security. Such a policy would embolden our terrorist enemies; betray the hopes of the Iraqi people; lead to a terrorist state in control of huge oil reserves; shatter the confidence our regional allies have in America; undermine the spread of democracy in the Middle East; and mean the sacrifices of American troops would have been in vain. This “new direction” would lead to a crippling defeat for America and a staggering victory for Islamic extremists. That is not a direction this President will follow. The President is being guided by a commitment to victory -- and that plan, in turn, is being driven by the counsel and recommendations of our military commanders in the region.
............Finally, your letter calls for replacing Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. We strongly disagree.

Any study of military history will show that SOMETHING always goes FUBAR in any major conflict. Figure out three ways the enemy can react in any given situation, and your responses to each, and then they'll figure out a fourth way - at which point improvisation and adaptation become the order of the day. From what I've seen on the Afghanistan conflict, damn near nothing went wrong that wasn't quickly overcome. Same thing with the Iraqi conflict - things went to hell AFTER the career diplomats moved in to aid the reconstruction. Rumsfeld has done, in my estimation, a pretty darn good job. And I don't see that anyone could have done better.

In fact, I wonder if it WASN'T that competency that the Democrats are so pissed about. It should have been a quagmire, after all, that would have brought down Bush in '04. To hell with the military - they should have been hamstrung with a micromanaging bastard who had them constantly shifting emphasis according to the issue du jour as defined by the media.

J.