Foxy Gray Lady

November 15, 2006 10:59 PM

Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, praises the Democrats' recent election victory. (Original source: AP, but Fox News correctly predicted this would happen two days in advance.) Meanwhile, in a New York Times 'Military Analysis', Michael Gordon quotes "military officers, experts and former generals" stating that "it may be necessary to deploy tens of thousands of additional “coalition troops”" in Iraq, rather than reducing their numbers in the near future as most Democrats would like.
posted by metaplectic (47 comments total)

You know this was in the news last friday, right? Like, all day on the cable news networks.
posted by 2sheets at 11:10 PM on November 15, 2006

No, I have better things to do than watch cable news all day.
posted by metaplectic at 11:20 PM on November 15, 2006

trollin' trollin trollin . . . say, how's that koolaid tasting? They got a sucrolose variety yet?
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 11:24 PM on November 15, 2006

You know what really pisses me off? The last time I went to Safeway the middle eastern looking cashier didn't even know what a portabella mushroom was.
This country is going to hell.
posted by 2sheets at 11:30 PM on November 15, 2006 [2 favorites]

I love your choice of words there. Just fabulous. "...as most Democrats would like." As if they were acting on a whim. It'll do great on the show. Mr Limbaugh's assistant will contact you for production details early tomorrow morning.
posted by tehloki at 11:31 PM on November 15, 2006

posted "rather than reducing their numbers in the near future as most Democrats Americans would like."

This is supposed to invalidate the Dems? "We've screwed up so badly that the only way to extricate ourselves is to risk more troops and spend more money"? Yeah, suck it, Dems!
posted by orthogonality at 11:32 PM on November 15, 2006 [1 favorite]

The people spoke this time, finally.

I'm sorry that your party lost, but the majority of voters were told to stop whining in 2000, when the Supreme Court installed Bush.

Now it's your turn to be an adult and support American democracy.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:42 PM on November 15, 2006

Well, Republicans want to get out of Iraq too, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to leave precipitously, abdicating all responsibility. I just thought it was interesting that even the New York Times is ready to point this out, now that the election is over and we have to face reality again.
posted by metaplectic at 11:42 PM on November 15, 2006

Nice use of the "FairAndBalanced" tag. And you have better things to do than watch cable news all day?
posted by bob sarabia at 11:43 PM on November 15, 2006

By the way, the "as most Democrats want" is simply a paraphrase of the NYT article, in reference to Carl Levin's plan.
posted by metaplectic at 11:45 PM on November 15, 2006

Little do they know that our plan was to run... then cut.
posted by owillis at 11:55 PM on November 15, 2006 [3 favorites]

And also, all semblance of "responsibility" was thrown out the window we decided to invade Iraq in the first place. It's been all downhill since.
posted by owillis at 11:57 PM on November 15, 2006

Massive troop commitments would be better than status quo, IMHO, and not making serious -- even overwhelming -- commitments like that is likely part of the reason the military has not been able to win the peace along with the war.

You may be able to make a case things are in fact bad enough that there's no winning strategy to be had and there therefore simply isn't any point in throwing more into the hole. You might therefore prefer that action over committing more forces and resources, but you've gotta admit -- *either* really getting into the game or pulling way out is a better strategy than staying the course, and endorsing the former is certainly no compliment to the current administration, nor does it necessarily have to be anathema to the Democrats or others who've opposed Bush's policies.

As for who the terrorists congratulate and encourage back home politically... my guess is that they're probably quite aware of the potential effects of their statements and that hawks with iffy execution skills are quite likely the best potential American leadership for their purposes.
posted by weston at 12:02 AM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]

Darn, I voted for a bunch of Democrats this time. I didn't realize I was commiting treason. :(
posted by homunculus at 12:03 AM on November 16, 2006

Ah, poor metaplectic. Nobody likes your irrelevent, trite little post.
posted by Titania at 12:04 AM on November 16, 2006

Paraphrase: Democrats Having Trouble Wading Through Republicans' Shit; Will Need Bigger Boots
posted by tehloki at 12:19 AM on November 16, 2006

Good points, weston. I think it's pretty clear there is no political will left in America to send additional troops, much less the massive force that would be needed to pacify and hold all the restive provinces. I just hope we don't choose the worst alternative: fully withdrawing over the next two years. My best bet would be to move all of our forces currently in-country to Kurdistan, where we will be truly welcomed, and the liberation of which represents our most significant gain of the war. This would certainly be sufficient to protect the Kurds when shit really hits the fan, i.e. full-blown civil war, and would most likely prevent the invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan by Turkey or Iran.
posted by metaplectic at 12:34 AM on November 16, 2006

"General Abizaid said the answer was four to six months."

Success is only one Friedman away!
posted by afu at 12:38 AM on November 16, 2006 [2 favorites]

no political will left in America to send additional troops

fuck I hate that phrasing. It's like you're playing Axis & Allies and get to move the little plastic dudes and roll the dice.

Last I checked Americans lack the "will" to actually, you know, volunteer for this mission.

As for making the situation better, I have no advice. Good luck with that.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:41 AM on November 16, 2006

My best bet would be to move all of our forces currently in-country to Kurdistan, where we will be truly welcomed, and the liberation of which represents our most significant gain of the war

You mean the Iraqi Kurdistan that was largely autonomous prior to the invasion due in part to the no-fly zones maintained by US and UK airforces?
posted by smcniven at 1:23 AM on November 16, 2006

No, not that one, this one. You know, the one with oil in it...
posted by metaplectic at 1:50 AM on November 16, 2006

Doesn't anyone have the wit to realize that the terrorists have the wit to know that people will vote for whoever they say they don't like? They've heard of reverse psychology.
posted by Mitrovarr at 2:01 AM on November 16, 2006

America was obviously stabbed in the back by the liberal media
posted by matteo at 2:14 AM on November 16, 2006

Guardian story laying out what Bush wants and what the Baker "save Junior's ass" group will say
posted by amberglow at 3:37 AM on November 16, 2006

Things to understand about Iraq
posted by amberglow at 4:03 AM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]

They want to add 20,000 troops?! Isn't the insanely stupid? Shouldn't they be adding, at a minimum, 100,000, preferbly 400,000?

Seriously would adding 20,000 troops even matter?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:50 AM on November 16, 2006

Why would anyone possibly care what a terrorist thinks, anyway? As I see it, their proclivity to kill innocent people for political ends makes their judgment highly suspect to begin with. Their support of the Democrats, when the Democrats have barely fielded a single cogent position, and squandered opportunities left and right to become a real opposition party, makes it more suspect yet.
posted by adoarns at 5:25 AM on November 16, 2006

I think leaving the troops in Iraq is a fine idea. It assures us that the US will be impotent enough that it won't be invading any other countries. While it's a terrible long-term idea for the US to keep troops there (breeding new 'terrorists', aka people who have a justifiable grudge), for the world at large it's best to have a weak US.
posted by mullingitover at 5:34 AM on November 16, 2006

Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, praises the Democrats' recent election victory.

Fuck that. The Democrats aren't treasonous enough for me! I'm voting Osama/Nader '08, bitches! Unsafe at every speed!
posted by octobersurprise at 5:40 AM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]

so much venom, hatred, nastness in these comments!!!
That said: military folks may want this or that but the war or wars are proclaimed and run and decided by the commander-in-chief. What happens in Iraq will, finally,be a political decision that may in part be based upon imput from our military. Recall if you will (or know) Gen McCarther's runin with Harry Truman about bombing China during the Korean War.
posted by Postroad at 5:49 AM on November 16, 2006

Funny people buy into this. Al Qaeda needs the GOP as much as the GOP needs them. They both trade in fear to remain in power and further their goals.

Osama and his blood soaked friends didn't fly planes into WTC to injure America. The did it to start a holy world war. And here we are.
posted by four panels at 5:52 AM on November 16, 2006

The idea that we can keep adding thousands of soldiers to Iraq is seriously flawed. The Army is broken, thanks to the over-extension of its capabilities. That's why recruiting standards have been lowered, why soldiers are on their third or fourth tour, why Reservists are headed for at least their second tour and why soldiers who are suffering from stress and other problems are being returned to the battlefield.
posted by etaoin at 5:56 AM on November 16, 2006

I thought I'd overlooked a story, after reading your first post. Now I realize you have misrepresented what the tape says, even if it is from who it purports to be from. It mocks Rumsfeld, apparently. Doesn't even mention Democrats. I appreciate different points of view but facts are facts and we ought to get them right instead of just perpetuating the puerile Fox claims.
posted by etaoin at 6:00 AM on November 16, 2006

Liberal bias, activist judges, gays gays gays, Clinton did it, blah blah fucking blah. Implying almighty Fox is the one true way to news credibility is just ignorant. Just because you agree with the spin doesn't make it the Gospel. News is about facts - it doesn't matter what source it comes from. I would argue that most intelligent people go to many wells to get the correct information.

Unfortunately for the truly dogmatic, reasonable people are going to disagree on any important issue. Disagreeing with the prosecution of this war is not unpatriotic. Obfuscating, lying, and destroying human rights, on the other hand...
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:07 AM on November 16, 2006

America can't win in Iraq, it's another Vietnam, we have been there in military capacity 16 years (1990-2006), Vietnam was about 13 years (1961-1974).
posted by stbalbach at 6:11 AM on November 16, 2006

America can't win

That's not polite to say. America has the greatest military in human history. What do you mean we aren't winning?
posted by four panels at 6:17 AM on November 16, 2006

Funny people buy into this.
posted by four panels

America has the greatest military in human history. What do you mean we aren't winning?
posted by four panels

Are you one of these funny people of whom you speak?
posted by leftcoastbob at 6:24 AM on November 16, 2006

Interesting that metaplectic should pick up on al-Masri's peripheral praise of American voters, but seems to have missed completely how fully the terrorist endorses President Bush's Iraq policy (urging Bush to “not be in a rush to escape, as your lame defense minister did").

My theory is that watching Fox News for any length of time puts the "critical thinking" part of your brain to sleep.
posted by clevershark at 6:44 AM on November 16, 2006

Critical thinking is just a liberal plot to always see the bad side! They never look at all the good things in Iraq!
posted by Bovine Love at 6:59 AM on November 16, 2006

metaplectic, you guys lost last Tuesday. The intarweb isn't going to save you now.
posted by bardic at 7:00 AM on November 16, 2006

And btw, if we do need more troops, I'm sure you'll be signing up, right?

Right?
posted by bardic at 7:02 AM on November 16, 2006

It assures us that the US will be impotent enough that it won't be invading any other countries. While it's a terrible long-term idea for the US to keep troops there (breeding new 'terrorists', aka people who have a justifiable grudge), for the world at large it's best to have a weak US.
posted by mullingitover at 8:34 AM EST on November 16

Yes. We should leave the world to the Russia and China and Iran and Israel.

It is best for the world to have a strong US that employs good judgment commensurate with its standing in the world. This means both not going off half-cocked on some bullshit military adventure as well as not undermining that strength and perception of strength in the world by pulling out when things look grim.

If the world perceives the US to be weak, it will embolden countries like IRan and simultaneously motivate countries like Israel to take direct action against Iran, because they will believe we no longer have the ability to push a diplomatic solution or resolve conflict. Countries like North Korea will continue to test the limits of international patience even as a receding US position expands those limits. If we don't have the ability to stop them, someone else will develop it.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:15 AM on November 16, 2006

And btw, if we do need more troops, I'm sure you'll be signing up, right?

Right?
posted by bardic at 10:02 AM EST on November 16

If he did, would that make his opinion more valid? Or less valid, because he's "one of them"? What an annoying rhetorical device. If you suggest military action, you have to be in the military first? Should only lawyers be allowed to discuss issues relating to the Consitution?

Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Powell all served in the military. Incoming Speaker of the House Pelosi didn't. What the hell is your point?
posted by Pastabagel at 7:21 AM on November 16, 2006

You know where the U.S. could use more troops? Afghanistan. Hey, remember Afghanistan?

I'm sure we've all heard the voices on the American Right chanting "Fight them there, not here!" as a defense for the Iraqi War. The problem with this is they've picked the wrong 'there'. It isn't Iraq. It's Afghanistan and right across the border in Pakistan, where the leaders of the Taliban are sitting in their mansions sipping tea.

Taliban, Al-Qaeda Resurge in Afghanistan, CIA says

Al-Qaeda's influence and numbers are rapidly growing in Afghanistan, with fighters operating from new havens and mimicking techniques learned on the Iraqi battlefield for use against U.S. and allied troops, the directors of the CIA and defense intelligence told Congress yesterday.

Rumsfeld didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan because he was preparing to invade Iraq. And then he didn't send enough troops to Iraq. And now the United States is on the verge of losing two wars at the same time.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:25 AM on November 16, 2006

It is best for the world to have a strong US that employs good judgment commensurate with its standing in the world.

Ah, good to see we've moved past the petty wars of nation-states and into the post-modern global police state.

Someone's gotta be in charge of the global hegemony, right? How can it be any other way?
posted by Laugh_track at 7:41 AM on November 16, 2006

Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Powell all served in the military.

Bush went AWOL.

Cheney did not serve in the military; to quote the chickenhawk, himself: "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."

If he did, would that make his opinion more valid?

It might grant his opinion a level of perspective and insight which he does not have and has otherwise not earned.

Should only lawyers be allowed to discuss issues relating to the Consitution?

Calling for thousands of people (other than himself) to die for his own political beliefs is a different matter entirely from a hypothetical situation regarding the academic discussion of Constitutional law.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:43 AM on November 16, 2006

Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Powell all served in the military. Incoming Speaker of the House Pelosi didn't.

What the hell? Powell was thrown overboard early on in this poisonous folly, and Bush's "military service" was hardly that. And Cheney and Rumsfeld were in the military? Doing what? Did I blink and miss something?
posted by jokeefe at 7:44 AM on November 16, 2006