Bill -- this is good news, and I'm commenting on it! I love to read stories like this; post as many as you want.

"I'm hopeful that this tiny slice of life presages a larger improvement in the performance of the Iraqi security forces."

Amen. Because it means it's that much sooner that we can get out of there.

Great Story.Thanks for posting this.I would have missed it entirely otherwise.
As an aside,I have to say that the viewing of everthing thru the prism of how fast 'we can get out of there' as opposed to how fast we can get the job completed ,is not likely to be a successful template for the future conduct of the WOT.

Hear, hear, Doug.

This of course pre-supposes that the War in Iraq is the same as the WOT rather than being a distraction from it.

Where's OBL, BTW?

Bill, I agree. A poster saying "Wolfowitz paints with the blood of children" is indeed unfair.

But look at it this way: "Wolfowitz botched the prewar planning and got a lot of American soldiers killed because of his wildly over-optimistic assumptions about the post-war environment and his undercutting of the opinions of military professionals like Zinni and Shinseki" just doesn't have the same oomph.

* Zinni was in the State Department, not the Pentagon.

* Shinseki was unemployed.

* Franks and Myers were in charge, along with Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. These are "military professionals" that have claimed responsibility for the war plan.

Zinni was the former CinC of Central Command. Where he was working at the time he gave his advice is pretty much irrelevant.

'Shinseki was unemployed'

Shinseki was also right, and Wolfowitz was wrong. As was Rumsfeld. But Bush & Co. thought this war could be conducted on the cheap.

I mean, come on, Bill, Wolfie and Rummy were high level advisors to the civilian authority--the POTUS-- from whom the military,literally, takes its marching orders. And they screwed the pooch on this one. Wolfowitz went to Capitol Hill and directly contradicted Shinseki's estimate of the necessary troop strength. What the heck were Franks and Myers supposed to do after that BUT follow orders?

Don't blame the generals for the failings of the Administration.

JD,

Your remarks reveal that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bush Admins GWOT strategy. You are probably one of those who claim that Bush has no exit strategy in Iraq when that exit strategy has been stated over and over again.

That being said, yes there have been mistakes the bush admin has made in regards to the Iraq stage of the GWOT. But i never heard anyone guarantee that this war would be fought mistake free.

Shinseki was also right, and Wolfowitz was wrong.

Depends on what you're referring to. If we're making sweeping binary judgments based on non-contextual, selective criticism of errors, Wolfowitz was "right" and you were "wrong," based on the successful elections in Iraq, as well as the impending demand for freedom in Lebanon and Egypt.

" You are probably one of those who claim that Bush has no exit strategy in Iraq when that exit strategy has been stated over and over again."

Once again, someone who argues with voices in their head instead of answering me. Stick to the arguments at hand, please.

"That being said, yes there have been mistakes the bush admin has made in regards to the Iraq stage of the GWOT. But i never heard anyone guarantee that this war would be fought mistake free."

These were avoidable mistakes. They were told it was going to take more troops than they were sending, but they pooh-poohed it becuase it might cost support for the war they'd already decided to have.

The biggest screwup was not planning for an insurgency, or resistance, or whatever term you use for it. Jesus, didn't these people ever watch "Red Dawn"? But seriously folks...it's no great leap of logic to presume that an army faced with a vastly superior force is going to take to the hills. Unless, of course, you've blinded yourself to the possibility because you ignore potential problems you find inconvenient to think about.

And as for the GWOT: WHERE'S OSAMA BIN LADIN? You remember him? The guy who masterminded the attacks that killed nearly 3000 of us? The one the 9-11 commission said had no operational ties with Iraq? Why is al-Quaeda still in existence?

I understand Bush's version of the GWOT. It's based on an outmoded vision of "state-sponsored terrorism" while ignoring stateless but more dangerous enemies like AQ.

If we're making sweeping binary judgments based on non-contextual, selective criticism of errors, Wolfowitz was "right" and you were "wrong,""

No, we're making judgments based on ignoring the advice of the soldier who said "you're gonna need a bigger army."

Zinni doesn't have a great track record for predictions, but evidently the only qualification needed according to JD is agreement with JD's kneejerk opinions. Shinseki ... well, the less said of Clinton's generals the better.

But the bottom line JD is that your fantasy belief that there was some sort of "optimal" Iraqi operation that the administration failed to find is simply and utterly without any basis at all.

Calling Shinseki "Clinton's general" ignores the simple fact that he. was. right. We needed more troops. You can turn this into Clinton (or JD) bashing all you want but the facts remain. We lost control of the country after the fall of Saddam because we didn't have the troops to provide security. And troops are still dying for that mistake, which again had been warned against. This isn't a case of "jeez, who knew?"

As for kneejerk...do I need to remind you that I backed the war in Afghanistan? Stop making your own kneejerk assessments of people you know nothing about. If you can't address the arguments and have to resort to personal attacks, then maybe you should keep quiet.

Finally, I never asked for optimal, just a lack of stupid, avoidable mistakes.

Y'all remind me of an office manager I once employed. Her response to any staff screwup was "well, nobody's perfect." Pretty soon, screwups became the norm. She was soon gone.

Wasn't someone on this very blog talking the other day about "responsibility for one's actions" being a conservative ideal? Does it not apply to members of the Bush Administration?

Guess not.

Amusing JD, how you confuse your opinions with "facts".

They aren't.

JD,
From reading all your comments on what you think the WOT means it seems your definition changes when it suits you. In one instance it's all about OBL (specifically), then later it's all about groups, like AQ.

If your define the WOT as a personal attack on OBL then yes, President Bush's plan was a tremendous waste of time, money and most of all, lives.

But the WOT is an ideological battle that while it has no borders, does have its roadblocks. The biggest ones being oppressive regimes in the Middle East who with one hand hold all the power and wealth of their respective nations and with the other point a finger of blame at the west.

They have to blame all the hardships their people face on the evil West so that no one bothers to look internally and see the true causes.

In removing Saddam and bringing democracy to Iraq, the US and their allies have created a shining light in a relatively barren wasteland. As more and more people of ME nations begin to realize what a representative government means, you can bet that more and more democracies will arise. Once people have a say in determining their own lives, they are less likely to try and externalize blame.

Personal responsability is probably the best weapon in the WOT.

Why do you think so many groups like AQ are shipping in terrorists to execute attacks in Iraq.
They are terrified that once people gain the insight that only comes with self determination, their supply of volunteers will dry up.

Even groups within Iraq that had protested the elections have since come out to admit their error. This has led to, before unheard of, levels of cooperation across ethnic and religous boundaries.

Sure, mistakes were made along the way during both the initial planning stages as well as on a day to day basis by all levels involved. This is a war and it is impossible to plan every last detail out in advance. But can you honestly say that Iraqis are not better off then they were 4 years ago? 10? 20?

Anyways, I have to go to work in 4 hours so I'd better go to bed.

I truly hope you do respond.

G'nite

"From reading all your comments on what you think the WOT means it seems your definition changes when it suits you. In one instance it's all about OBL (specifically), then later it's all about groups, like AQ."

Ummm...OBL is the leader of Al Quaeda, in case you'd forgotten. Saying we should go after both the group who actually attacked us and the leader of that group is not "changing definitions". But I understand, it's late and you were sleepy.

Your premise that "In removing Saddam and bringing democracy to Iraq, the US and their allies have created a shining light in a relatively barren wasteland" is not borne out by the testimony of Bush's own people. Porter Goss: "Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists." And, "These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries."

(Wow...did Dubbya appoint an America hating liberal to head the CIA? Shocking!)

Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby, head of DIA: "Our policies in the Middle East fuel Islamic resentment. Overwhelming majorities in Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia believe the U.S. has a negative policy toward the Arab world."

Rummy's reaction? "I'M NOT LISTENING! LALALALALALALALAAAA!"

Are Iraqis better off now? Depends on who you ask. The Pro-iranian Shi'ites certainly think so. But I'm old enough to remember Shi'ites holding American diplomats hostage and calling the US "The Great Satan." The prospect of a a Shi'ite led Iraq, with warm and fuzzy feeling towards a nuclear armed Iran, doesn't fill me with glee.

Seems to me the important question is: Is AMERICA better off? So let's look at that question.

Al Quaeda still a threat, OBL taunting us via videotape, a pro-Iranian faction coming into power, terrorist recruitment up, more resentment in the Arab world rather than less, Army and National Guard recruitment down at a time when we most need it...I'd have to say no.

JD,

You're ability to miss the point is beginning to amaze me.

Unless my spelling is way off the term WOT does not include either Al-Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden (under any of their multiple spellings). In the WOT they are merely icing on the cake but by no means the cake itself.

If you truly believe that by killing/capturing OBL or the majority of AQ the terror will stop, I regret to inform you that you are sadly mistaken. To paraphrase the old saying "If Al-Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden did not exist, it would be necessary to invent them."

By trying to make the war about them you are falling into the same mindset that enabled them to gain the power that they now have. As I said in my earlier post, they are not the problem, just a symptom. The problem is the ME regimes that create breeding grounds for this type of hate to grow and fester.

We've tried your approach of hunting down the specific killers before but has anything changed?

You bomb our embassy, we'll bomb your training camp.
You detonate our plane, we'll hunt you down and arrest you.

Sure, it looks good for TV to be able to say we have the man who committed the act, but it does nothing to fight the reason they detonated the plane in the first place and prevent the next act of terrorism.

Preventing the next act is what Bush's WOT is all about. Sure, in the short term the numbers of terrorists may swell but wars are not won by looking at only short term objectives.

By creating a ME where a young man or women has options for their future you help create a lasting peace.

Perhaps an analogy will help you out.

A gang of bank robbers has been terrorizing a city. They go into the banks, kill the guards and the customers in cold blood, and make off with the money. The leader of the gang periodically releases videos to the world taunting the police.

The Mayor and the Police Chief say "we're not all that worried about catching the murderers. We really don't care where they are. We're going to concentrate a multimillion dollar program into dealing with the conditions that create murderers and bank robbers. It'll take years and probably cost lots of lives, and meanwhile the bank robbers will run loose. "

Would you support that Mayor?

Why does anyone assume more U.S. troops would have done a better job than the force we put in? More troops are harder to feed and fuel -- you need more vulnerable supply lines. More troops also create more targets, you increase local hostility by having more foreign boots stomping around.

If we knew who and where the insurgents were, and could get them to come out and fight, 10,000 Marines with air support would make short work of them. Numbers were never the issue.

Where's OBL? Hiding in a cave pissing his pants every time he hears a plane or helicopter. You know, as opposed to running the country.

LOL JD, what exactly would you recommend doing to catch OBL that we aren't already doing? Please, enlighten us and our poor ignorant professional military, oh great military genius.

LOL JD, you just get funnier and funnier.

>>Al Quaeda still a threat
But 3/4 of their leadership dead/captured, most funding cut off, remaining leadership on the run.

>>OBL taunting us via videotape
Taunting us? Oh no! The horror! Next he'll be giving us noogies!

>>>a pro-Iranian faction coming into power
Pro-democracy, not pro-Islamicist. They like Iranians, not the religios wackos in charge of Iran.

>>>terrorist recruitment up
No matter what happens, we always hear terrorist recruiting is up. You know what's up even more? Iraqi Army/Police recruiting.

>>>more resentment in the Arab world rather than less
Resentment against the Syria and Egypt gov'ts and other repressive regimes, you mean.

>>>Army and National Guard recruitment down at a time when we most need it
Still more than enough to do the job. We still have tons of troops defending Germany from the Soviet Union tank blitz.

>>>...I'd have to say no.
Why do I think you'd say "no" no matter what?

I think that's a very interesting analogy but probably not for the reasons you think.

It helps to show just how black and white many peoples thinking is on this issue.

Do you chase the robbers or fight the cause?

Why can't you do both (as is the case with the WOT). You create a specialized task force to hunt down the robbers while AT THE SAME TIME try and determine if there are any underlying social concerns that helped turn them to crime. Not to excuse their crimes by to try and stop others from making the same choices.

I know the idea that an organization, with several hundreds of thousands of people, can acheive two goals, simultanously, seems foreign to you (as it does with most Democrats that manage to get on TV) but I've seen it happen in the past.

I never said anything about letting OBL or AQ off scott free, just that they are the "icing on the cake" and should not be the entire focus as you seem to be proposing.

In your example, if you put your entire police force on the job of catching a handful of criminals, what is it you're expecting the other criminals to do? Sit back and wait till the police are done?

"Why does anyone assume more U.S. troops would have done a better job than the force we put in?"

For one thing, Bush's own administrator in Iraq has admitted it. Paul Bremer to Matt Lauer: "Obviously, it would have been better if we could have had more security sooner. No question about that." Paul Bremer at Depauw University: "The single most important change would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning."

By your logic, we should have sent one guy. Easy to supply, true, but I don't think that's what they mean by "an army of one."

The rest of your assertions, TallDave, just aren't supported by the words of Bush's own people. Go back and read the words of Porter Goss (appointed by Bush) and Lowell Jacoby (appointed by Rummy). If these guys are idiots, why did this Administration give them their jobs? Why do they keep them?

As for your other post, (which boils down to "you think yer so smart, doncha?"): Shift the resources we took away from Afghanistan for Bush's Wacky Iraqi adventure back there, for one thing. Karzai's government could use the help. Oh, and take OBL and AQ seriously, which you dont seem to do.

And a word of advice, TallDave: all those LOL's just make you look stupid.

Bic: you ducked the question. Would you support a Mayor who said about a murderer: "I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run."

Or only if that Mayor was Republican?

You'll have to excuse me if I sound a bit harsh but being from Canada, I've seen first hand what this type of Liberal thinking can do.

The lefts solutions to almost every problem is to determine what lends itself to the best soundbite and run with it. Why spend time and effort into permanently fixing a problem when you can instead spend a few dollars to bandaid it and get yourself on TV now.

In fact, since the same issue will keep coming up, year after year, not finding a permanent solution is almost a job guarentee.

And now the standard rant about "the left" which still ducks the facts and quotes I've posted.

Okay, bic, you're done. NEXT!

JD
Would 62,000 more troops have helped in Iraq during the initial stages of the war? Sure. That's why the 4th Infantry Division was deployed to attack Iraq from the North. It wasn't until after a deal with the Turkish government fell through that these troops became stranded and unable to join the fight that the decision was made to go with what they had and redeploy the 4th so that they could take part in the later stages.

These are the type of occurrences that happen in war. Plans do not always work out and things change on a continual basis. Should they have waited? Who knows.

Even with the knowledge we have today no one, and that includes you, can determine exactly what difference those troops would have made.

I have never made the claim that Bush and his administration are infallable. I believe I even mentioned it in my first post that mistakes were made. My point has always been that going into Iraq has always been an important part of the WOT.

Bremer's wrong; he's not a soldier. That call was made by the professional military, and they were right. Your ridiculous "one guy" comment just shows you're not serious, just as your call for more troops shows you don't understand logistics.

LOL Shift which resources "back" to Afghanistan? We have more troops there now than we did during the Afghan war! And what are 150,000 troops going to do when they get there? Search the entire Hindu Kush cave-by-cave? The Soviets tried that approach. Again, you're appallingly ignorant.

The rest of my points were apparently too hard for you to respond to.

Your mayor analogy is equally ridiculous; we are hunting bin Laden the best we can. He's not a bank robber, he's a terrorist with thousands of hiding places.

Boy, Dubbya has certainly picked a lot of people who were wrong, hasn't he? One might almost think he was, you know, incompetent.

Yeah, except for the fact he's been, you know, astonishingly successful.