Bush's Strategy Includes Contrition

[annihilation]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Make no mistake about it: President Bush (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22President+Bush%22&sid=breitbart.com) is admitting he's made some in Iraq. "He is responsible. He will take responsibility for the mistakes in the past," White House counselor Dan Bartlett said Wednesday, promising that Bush's speech would feature some rare presidential contrition.
With public support for the war long eroded, Bush is trying to win some back. His message: OK, I get it.
He concedes now that there should have been more U.S. and Iraqi troops and clearer rules of battle for them, and that changes are coming.
This is not Bush's natural tendency. When he admits a big mistake, the concession often comes reluctantly and belatedly.
Late in his first term, he was asked to name his biggest mistake since the Sept. 11, 2001 (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22Sept.+11,+2001%22&sid=breitbart.com), terrorist attacks. He famously struggled to come up with one. He told the reporter: "I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time."
When Hurricane Katrina (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22Hurricane+Katrina%22&sid=breitbart.com) devastated much of the Gulf Coast (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22Gulf+Coast%22&sid=breitbart.com) and lawlessness reigned in New Orleans (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22New+Orleans%22&sid=breitbart.com), Bush said he took responsibility for a slow, bumbling federal response _ after the city's mayor said federal officials "don't have a clue."
In late 2005, while defending the Iraq war, Bush took blame for faulty weapons intelligence that led to the U.S. invasion.
"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Bush said. "As president, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq."
Bush has also apologized sometimes for his choice of words, such as wanting to capture Osama bid Laden "dead or alive" and challenging U.S. foes to "bring it on" after the terrorist strikes on America.
"In certain parts of the world, it was misinterpreted. And so I learned from that," Bush said in May. He added that the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was "the biggest mistake that's happened so far."
When Republicans lost control of Congress in November, Bush wasn't on the ballot. Yet he acknowledged that his own political standing didn't help.
"As the head of the Republican Party (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22Republican+Party%22&sid=breitbart.com), I share a large part of the responsibility," Bush said.
Now comes the new way forward on Iraq.
Bartlett said Bush knows that most Americans aren't satisfied with the progress of the war.
"President Bush is in their camp," Bartlett said. "He's not satisfied. He's going to say the strategy was not working."
And that, yes, he's responsible.





http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/10/D8MIM6I84.html

[annihilation]

Is it a bit too late?

Its amazing how just a few weeks ago it was stay the course and nothing anyone says will make bush change his ways. Now, he is willing to increase troop levels in Iraq and willing to discuss a new strategy in Iraq.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Is it a bit too late?

Its amazing how just a few weeks ago it was stay the course and nothing anyone says will make bush change his ways. Now, he is willing to increase troop levels in Iraq and willing to discuss a new strategy in Iraq.

"Nothing anyone says will make bush change his ways" - he's never said that. Leadership requires that he take input from his people and make a decision, and stick with it until there is something better. Even Congress realizes that there is value in stability of direction - that's why the executive gets to steer the ship of war, and those decisions are not made by a committee of 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate. We'd never get anywhere. Maybe a change of plan is overdue, but unfortunately due to the political realities of our system, it is probably unwise to go around flip-flopping your opinions, plans and strategies with each press conference and election cycle.

Hey, any battle of any war could have been fought better if only the plan was better - but that doesn't mean it would have been smarter to publicly admit flaws and weaknesses halfway through and try again. We'd still be pinned down on the beach in Normandy.

Hey, it's all grandstanding anyway - if staying the course for 12 years at the UN with no progress was perfectly acceptable, one wonders why the same set of folks got such heartburn over it in only 3 years from Bush.

[Delta_Stealth]

"Nothing anyone says will make bush change his ways" - he's never said that. Leadership requires that he take input from his people and make a decision, and stick with it until there is something better. Even Congress realizes that there is value in stability of direction - that's why the executive gets to steer the ship of war, and those decisions are not made by a committee of 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate. We'd never get anywhere. Maybe a change of plan is overdue, but unfortunately due to the political realities of our system, it is probably unwise to go around flip-flopping your opinions, plans and strategies with each press conference and election cycle.

Hey, any battle of any war could have been fought better if only the plan was better - but that doesn't mean it would have been smarter to publicly admit flaws and weaknesses halfway through and try again. We'd still be pinned down on the beach in Normandy.

Hey, it's all grandstanding anyway - if staying the course for 12 years at the UN with no progress was perfectly acceptable, one wonders why the same set of folks got such heartburn over it in only 3 years from Bush.


Amen p-)

1234567890

[Durandal]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Make no mistake about it: President Bush (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22President+Bush%22&sid=breitbart.com) is admitting he's made some in Iraq. "He is responsible. He will take responsibility for the mistakes in the past,"

Funny $hit...because of Bush and others like him (i.e. politicians as a whole), the term "I will take responsibility means" not a damn thing.

[mi35d]

one wonders why the same set of folks got such heartburn over it in only 3 years from Bush.

Exactly.

I find it humorous that people bitch about the man when he remains stoic yet now bitch when he recognizes his mistakes and attempts to fix them.

Our previous President still to this day refuses to believe that he did anything wrong concerning his policies towards terrorists and has continually attempted to change history to make his empty efforts seem successful.

[Durandal]

Our previous President still to this day refuses to believe that he did anything wrong concerning his policies towards terrorists and has continually attempted to change history to make his empty efforts seem successful.

What's amazing is that the both ƒucked up and just because he went on TV and admitted he ƒucked up that somehow he is better because he admitted it.

:cantbeli:

[Crux]

that somehow he is better

who said that?

[mi35d]

Pardon?

Pundits and politicians on the left have bitched that the man refused to admit his mistakes. When he has, they bitch because he's admitting there were mistakes made.

As for Clinton, he spent the majority of his two terms skirting the terrorism issue. Fine. That was his policy. My problem with him is that he's stated many times that combatting terrorism was his number one priority during his terms in office. History and his actions speak the opposite yet he isn't being called to the carpet for his rather lackluster efforts.

[ElHombre]

This is not Bush's natural tendency. When he admits a big mistake, the concession often comes reluctantly and belatedly.

News flash to the AP: How long have we been in Iraq? How much more belated can one get? :roll:

[Hunterhr]

I find it humorous that people bitch about the man when he remains stoic yet now bitch when he recognizes his mistakes and attempts to fix them.

Our previous President still to this day refuses to believe that he did anything wrong concerning his policies towards terrorists and has continually attempted to change history to make his empty efforts seem successful.


News flash to the AP: How long have we been in Iraq? How much more belated can one get? :roll:

Imagine that.

[ElHombre]

I find it humorous that people bitch about the man when he remains stoic yet now bitch when he recognizes his mistakes and attempts to fix them.

He isn't attempting to fix his mistakes. If he were, he wouldn't keep repeating the same mistakes he's made over the years. Does anyone have any idea what kind of lasting difference that an extra 20k troops will make in Iraq? More importantly, does Bush?

[LRPV]

Print this page (javascript:printable())
Contrite Bush promises 21,500 more troops for Iraq

11jan07

US President George W. Bush today said he would dispatch about 21,500 extra US troops to Iraq, and in a rare admission said he made a mistake by not deploying more forces sooner.


"The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people, and it is unacceptable to me," Mr Bush said in a televised White House address.

"Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."

With American patience running thin over his handling of the war, Mr Bush said he would put greater pressure on Iraqis to restore order in Baghdad and used blunt language to warn Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that "America's commitment is not open-ended."

"If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people, and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people," Mr Bush said.

Mr Bush said his new strategy, in which Iraqis will try to take responsibility for all 18 provinces by November rather than just three now, "will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings" and other violence.

"The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice and resolve," he said.

He accused Iran and Syria of allowing use of their territory for terrorists and insurgents to move in and out of Iraq and vowed "we will interrupt the flow of support from Syria and Iran. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

Ahead of a visit to the Middle East by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Mr Bush said Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Gulf states needed to understand that a US defeat in Iraq "would create a new sanctuary for extremists - and a strategic threat to their survival."

The President's fresh infusion of American troops into the nearly four-year-old war - 17,500 for Baghdad, 4000 for restive Anbar province, was in defiance of Democrats who called it an escalation of the conflict.

Mr Bush set no time limit for the new deployment.

The president faces a tough sell, after nearly four years of war and scenes of carnage that have undercut his argument that victory is possible in Iraq.

"Despite the warnings of his top generals, and the message sent by the American people, the president has again decided to go it alone. This is the wrong approach," said Democratic Senator Patty Murray of Washington state.

A solid majority of Americans were opposed as well and many in his own Republican Party were uneasy about it if not outright against the troop increase.

"I oppose the troop surge in Baghdad because it is not a strategy for victory," said Minnesota Republican Senator Norm Coleman.

Mr Bush sought to justify the increase by saying the extra troops are needed to hold neighbourhoods cleared of insurgents. He said if the Iraqi government collapsed, the US would have to keep troops longer in Iraq.

"If we increase our support at this crucial moment and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home," he said.

He said Iraqi leaders must follow through on promises on approving an oil-sharing law and reforms aimed at a political reconciliation among warring groups, but gave no deadlines.

Democrats who saw their takeover of the US Congress in November elections a signal from voters that it was time to start bringing troops home vowed to hold a symbolic vote on Bush's new policy in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

But there seemed no appetite at least in the short term for trying to cut off funding for the troop increase.

Mr Bush will ask Congress for $US5.6 billion ($A7.2 billion) to fund the extra deployment and another $US1.2 billion ($A1.5 billion) for a rebuilding and jobs program aimed at getting Iraqis jobs and keeping them from joining militias.

Addressing the mistakes that have led to an impression of failure in Iraq, Bush said previous attempts to secure Baghdad failed because "there were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighbourhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents" and the troops laboured under too many restrictions.

Bush's admission was a rare acknowledgment of a mistake for this president. He said his military commanders had reviewed the new plan and assured him it would address the problems.

*******



privacy (javascript:void(0)) terms (javascript:void(0)) © The Australian
http://server-au.imrworldwide.com/cgi-bin/count?url=&rnd=1168489590007&cid=au_newscorp_0&ref=http%3A//www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0%2C20867%2C21041204-601%2C00.html&sr=sr1280x1024:cd32:lgen-au:jey:cky:tz9:ctlan:hpn http://server-au.imrworldwide.com/cgi-bin/count?cid=au_newscorp_0

[ElHombre]

"If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people, and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people," Mr Bush said.

It lost both quite a long time ago. Welcome to 2007, Mr. Bush.

So Bush still doesn't even have a good grasp of what the situation is like. Anyone still believe this latest escalation will do any lasting good?

[bugkill]

It lost both quite a long time ago. Welcome to 2007, Mr. Bush.

So Bush still doesn't even have a good grasp of what the situation is like. Anyone still believe this latest escalation will do any lasting good?

only if the soldiers on the ground will be able to institute "pacification" and we all know what that entails. the game needs to be stepped up and the hammer needs to come down on all of those that have been causing the problems.

this thing should have happened back in early 2004, but it did not happen. the troops need to be on the offensive and keep the pressure up in order for the country to continue the reconstruction. there will be some iraqis that will be pissed, but tough sh**t! go get your ak47 and meet us on the streets, and then we can settle it once and for all. get with the program or get wasted, simple as that.

my only hope is that the troops will be able to do what they need to do and get rid of the "barney fife" act. we need to be soldiers once again and bring about the rule of law.

[BPEL]

... and another $US1.2 billion ($A1.5 billion) for a rebuilding and jobs program aimed at getting Iraqis jobs and keeping them from joining militias.... http://server-au.imrworldwide.com/cgi-bin/count?cid=au_newscorp_0

The Iraqis know this is a losing battle (for Iraq). The money will be greatly accepted, but due to corruption, will immediately funnel away to areas "outside" the green zone and into the pockets of the corrupt elite who by the way, happen to be the folks in charge.

[XShipRider]

21500. Will that merely replace the loss of British troops when they
pull out?

[mi35d]

Different area of the country...

[natsu-chan]

"Hey, it's all grandstanding anyway - if staying the course for 12 years at the UN with no progress was perfectly acceptable, one wonders why the same set of folks got such heartburn over it in only 3 years from Bush." by 2shedsjackson........
12 years of UN sanctions resulted in the disarming of iraq and the hobbling of saddam's regional ambitions. that's what the ISG report concluded, as did robin cook and other high govt. officials with access to classified information who dissented with the initial invasion.
the goals of the invasion have been accomplished; namely disarmament and regime change. excerpts from the downing street memo referred to UK anxieties about the 'morning after'. bush's contrition suggests that he (or his advisors or both) had no consideration for the 'morning after'. in the afterglow of the initial overthrow of saddam, they actively fostered a climate of political discourse in which they equated doubt, with respect to invading iraq, as being analogous to treachery or undermining troops in the field. this was polemics designed to sqwelch opposition.
it was put out by the adminstration that they were privy to some sort of ME foreign policy gnosticism. GW was the 'war president', lincoln, wilson churchill and FDR rolled into one.
three years later, your defense of bush rests on the basis that he's merely re-jigged the plan, as happens in all conflicts. nothing to see here, move along.
this is to casually gloss over how this adminstration actively ignored or smeared or vilified seasoned diplomats, soldiers, ex-adminstration officials, the opposition and regional experts who even raised a scintilla of doubt as to effectiveness of the pre-contrition bushian 'stay the course'.
it is to minimise how fixed ideological considerations this adminstration had in reshaping the map of the ME, starting with iraq, made GW and his staff impervious to signs that a virulent insurgency had begun and would be sustaining itself three years hence.
it is to diminsh how an admisntration's character is shaped by the president and how this president has consistently mistaken intransigence in the face of facts with 'resolve'.
bush's new plan has been forced upon him by facts on the ground. by definition, this implies that the iniative is with the enemy (who may be shia or sunni or iranian or syrian or some guy called al kaydah). if reports about rumsfeld's tenure at DoD are accurate, his micromanaging of the war and his poor man management (and bush's constant support of the secretary) are directly responsible for our current predicament. to borrow your analogy, rumsfeld and bush were running the normandy invasion with very little experience and ignoring the advice of their military commanders, hence our current 'bogged down' status.
you cast scorn on the UN sanctions. how about we quadruple the time spent so far, post-invasion, and you have something of the timescale of the UN sanctions. so that'll be US 12,000+ dead, 80,000+ wounded, many trillions $ spent; all towards some nebulous goal of a pro-western non-burqa wearing, israel loving ME state?
let's put that proposition to the electorate, see what they think about continuing the occupation of iraq.
bottom line; bush has been wrong pretty much about every 'milestone' to date. why will his current policy work any better?

[Durandal]

Pardon?

What gets me is that we are talking about CLinton at all...

Last time I checked Bush was President.

Why is there ALWAYS, I mean always, its gets sooo tiring (and I LOATHE Clinton) to defend Bush (that's what you are doing) by somehow comparing what he id doing to what Clinton did.

Call a spade a spade.

The President is not above criticism. He made a MAJOR ƒuck up, call it what it is.

Maybe this is what I should expect though in this day and age, if a CEO can run a company into the ground and get a 250 Million dollar bonus, why shouldn't the leader of this nation get off scott-free when he ƒucks up.

I guess, when I hear "I accept responsibility" I actually want to them to do it. Instead, we get this, OK, I've apologized, now let me try to fix it...again.

Three times and a lot of lies is enough. If we can impeach Clinton for perjuring himself (ultimately twice, but people seem to forget that), we can certainly impeach a President for entering into a conflict we could have AVOIDED, and made things worse...HE ƒ¨çked things up and now its time to fire him.

So, if you want to bring Clinton, in, by all means, lets do it right. CLinton sucked and should have been kicked out on his ass and so should Bush.

[mi35d]

So, if you want to bring Clinton, in, by all means, lets do it right. CLinton sucked and should have been kicked out on his ass and so should Bush.

More about context of the argument.

Not trying to ultimately defend President Bush as I believe like you, that there definetly HAVE been mistakes made. :hug: (Gun nuts must stick together...)

[Jobu]

You people are insane if you're looking for perfection from a president or any other politician. Mistakes have been made? No ****, Sherlock. Mistakes will always be made.

Bush has 2 more years to try to correct his without making more until someone else gets to make some.

[ElHombre]

You people are insane if you're looking for perfection from a president or any other politician. Mistakes have been made? No ****, Sherlock. Mistakes will always be made.

But wise leaders don't keep repeating them.


Bush has 2 more years to try to correct his without making more until someone else gets to make some.

So after six years of making bad decisions, Bush is now all of a sudden start making good decisions. That's like asking a compulsive gambler to bet your house on the hope that his losing streak will come to an end even though he keeps playing in the most crooked casino in town.

'Double or Nothing' is not a good strategy.

[Jobu]

I don't think it's been 6 years of bad decisions. I think it's been 6 years of decent decisions with a few good and a few bad ones sprinkled in.

We tend to only focus on the bad.

[Hollis]

I don't think it's been 6 years of bad decisions. I think it's been 6 years of decent decisions with a few good and a few bad ones sprinkled in.

We tend to only focus on the bad.


Reminds me of a statement made, "A man who has never made a mistake has never done anything."

I doubt any of our arm chair quarter backs ever played a perfect game of football. To listen to them, they have never made a mistake........ Which means they have never really done anything.

I guess simple minds find it easier to lump all the blame for all the faults in the world on one person or one group of people. IF........ The US government and those involved in it actually played as a team and to win as a team, things just might have gone better. Half the battle of winning has to be done here at home which defuses a lot of energy needed to win the real battle.

BTW, I really don't things would have been different if Kerry was elected, some old partisan political BS, just being done by the other side.

[XASA]

It must be a very difficult time for members of the Bush personality cult now that he has admitted to making many, many mistakes over the years. Of course, they continue to blame the media, Democrats, Europeans, Muslims, "hippies" and two-thirds of the American populace for his stunning fall from grace instead of realizing that all of his problems were self inflicted.

He doesn't listen to anyone-- not the people, generals, politicians, historians, journalists or his father-- but continues to act as if he is on a mission from God. The Bush apologists' posts since the '06 election read like a parody of the far right-- absurd caricatures if you will-- suitable for a Saturday Night Live skit because they are so funny and out of touch with reality.

[WARPIG]

It lost both quite a long time ago. Welcome to 2007, Mr. Bush.

So Bush still doesn't even have a good grasp of what the situation is like. Anyone still believe this latest escalation will do any lasting good?

I do. As a soldier on the bubble to go try and make an attempt.. I think it is worth the effort.

Does anyone ever consider it odd that the people that are actually at risk are usually the ones that seem to back Bush's play?

Bush definately gets to take the blame for this but he isn't the only one at fault. A lot of mistakes happened and will happen. War is sort of funny that way.

If Iraq is truly a lost cause.. the US still has to give the Iraq government a final chance to claim their country. A surge in troops to try and lock down security over there is meant to buy the Iraqi government some time to take ownership of themselves. If that doesn't happen we have done everything we can and can leave that place knowing so.

The alternative is to cave to liberal pressure and the party line of "Bush is always wrong."

I always considered the whole "Iraq is Bush's Vietnam" thing as a criticism. It is more like a wish. Liberal media keeps making the comparison because it is what they want. Another Vietnam to spark another liberal hayday.

The only difference here is that during Vietnam liberals spit on soldiers. For the Iraq war, liberals say they don't want to "sacrifice" American soldiers for that war. Funny, because they aren't sacrificing anything. Servicemen and families of servicemen are overwhelmingly NOT LIBERAL.

Bottom line is.. still no viable plan to win the war in Iraq nor any good plan to exit from the democrats.

[WARPIG]

It must be a very difficult time for members of the Bush personality cult now that he has admitted to making many, many mistakes over the years. Of course, they continue to blame the media, Democrats, Europeans, Muslims, "hippies" and two-thirds of the American populace for his stunning fall from grace instead of realizing that all of his problems were self inflicted.

He doesn't listen to anyone-- not the people, generals, politicians, historians, journalists or his father-- but continues to act as if he is on a mission from God. The Bush apologists' posts since the '06 election read like a parody of the far right-- absurd caricatures if you will-- suitable for a Saturday Night Live skit because they are so funny and out of touch with reality.

Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Nothing he does will be enough. Yet the alternative in '04 was John Kerry. He obviously is in touch with reality right?

Puhlease.

If any group of "cultists" is out of touch it is liberals. Democrats finally get their day in the sun and the best the Democratic leadership and liberal media can muster is to simply block anything Bush or Republicans do. The answer to Bush's troop surge...... block funding. So, now we soldiers get shorted so that Democrats can make a "symbolic" vote against his plan. This war is on the verge of coming to a head, and to help save the lives of more american servicemen, democrats want to block funding. Firm grip of reality.. right?

[XASA]

I do. As a soldier on the bubble to go try and make an attempt.. I think it is worth the effort.

Does anyone ever consider it odd that the people that are actually at risk are usually the ones that seem to back Bush's play?

Bush definately gets to take the blame for this but he isn't the only one at fault. A lot of mistakes happened and will happen. War is sort of funny that way.

If Iraq is truly a lost cause.. the US still has to give the Iraq government a final chance to claim their country. A surge in troops to try and lock down security over there is meant to buy the Iraqi government some time to take ownership of themselves. If that doesn't happen we have done everything we can and can leave that place knowing so.

The alternative is to cave to liberal pressure and the party line of "Bush is always wrong."

I always considered the whole "Iraq is Bush's Vietnam" thing as a criticism. It is more like a wish. Liberal media keeps making the comparison because it is what they want. Another Vietnam to spark another liberal hayday.

The only difference here is that during Vietnam liberals spit on soldiers. For the Iraq war, liberals say they don't want to "sacrifice" American soldiers for that war. Funny, because they aren't sacrificing anything. Servicemen and families of servicemen are overwhelmingly NOT LIBERAL.

Bottom line is.. still no viable plan to win the war in Iraq nor any good plan to exit from the democrats.

Do you really believe "liberals" spat on soldiers during the Vietnam War? I served in the Army from 1965 to 1971 and never saw or heard of such an incident. If anyone dared spit on a soldier or Marine who recently returned from Vietnam, don't you think that person would have his or her ass kicked on the spot? You are just propagating another urban myth.

Also, Democrats and "liberals" have fought in every war our country has been in including Iraq. When you are a soldier you fight because that's your job and the only politics you are interested in is protecting your buddies. Plus, it's not just "liberals" upset with the current Iraq situation but two-thirds of the population. If they are all "liberal," it must be a surprise to many of them.

So far as your statement about servicemen and their families political leanings, here's a recent LA Times column based on a poll by The Military Times:

Rosa Brooks:
Weaning the military from the GOP
A less partisan military is good for democracy and allows a more frank debate on national security.
January 5, 2007
Los Angeles Times


BURIED IN THE NEWS last week was one of the most potentially significant stories of recent years. The Military Times released its annual poll of active-duty service members, and the results showed something virtually unprecedented: a one-year decline of 10 percentage points in the number of military personnel identifying themselves as Republicans. In the 2004 poll, the percentage of military respondents who characterized themselves as Republicans stood at 60%. By the end of 2005, that had dropped to 56%. And by the end of 2006, the percentage of military Republicans plummeted to 46%.

The drop in Republican Party identification among active-duty personnel is a sharp reversal of a 30-year trend toward the "Republicanization" of the U.S. military, and it could mark a sea change in the nature of the military — and the nature of public debates about national security issues.

For most of U.S. history, issues of national security rarely divided Americans along sharp party lines: The old adage that "politics ends at the water's edge" generally held true. The military, while institutionally conservative with a small "c," was not closely identified with a particular political party. But somewhere between the end of the Vietnam War and the middle of the Clinton era, the U.S. military began to look like a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party.

The rightward shift was dramatic: In 1976, 25% of civilians characterized themselves as Republicans, while 33% of military officers were Republicans — a military-civilian "gap" of only 8%. By 1996, the military-civilian gap on party affiliation had grown to 33%; while 34% of civilians self-identified as Republicans, so did a whopping 70% of military officers.

In Britain, the Anglican Church used to be snidely described as "the Tory Party at Prayer." In the United States over the last 30 years, the military became, to a significant extent, the Republican Party at War.

The Republicanization of the professional military came about for many reasons, some obvious, some less so. To some extent, it resulted from changing perceptions of how "pro-military" the two main parties were: In the wake of the Vietnam War, the Democratic Party became associated, in the popular mind, with antiwar, antimilitary policies. With the end of Vietnam-era conscription, which guaranteed a relatively representative military, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats may have opted to join the military (at least as officers), while many career military personnel transferred their allegiance to the political party they saw as "on their side."

But the Republicanization of the military was not just because of "natural" self-selection. It also resulted from changed recruitment and base-closing policies, combined with the steady Republicanization of the American South. The period since the late 1960s saw the closure of many northeastern ROTC programs and the expansion of those programs in the South. By the late 1990s, more than 40% of all ROTC programs were in the South — mainly at state universities — though the South is home to fewer than 30% of the nation's college students. Similar patterns in base closures have meant that disproportionate numbers of military personnel are now stationed at bases in the South and Southwest.

For a time, the Republicanization of the military became self-reinforcing. The GOP has controlled the White House for all but 12 of the last 34 years and has made a determined effort to identify itself with the military and to court military voters. By the turn of the millennium, the perception that Republicans were "pro-military" while Democrats were "soft" on defense had become an entrenched facet of American politics.

The latest Military Times poll offers the most telling evidence yet that this is beginning to change. Although the reasons for the recent military flight from the Republican Party can only be guessed at, it's a safe bet that disgust at Bush administration bungling in Iraq is the single biggest factor.

The poll shows that only 35% of military personnel approve of the president's handling of the war, and three-fourths of those polled say that the military is "stretched too thin to be effective." Anecdotal evidence suggests that many career officers also are skeptical of the administration's approach to combating terrorism and unhappy with its undermining of the norms of the Geneva Convention.

The partial de-Republicanization of the military is a hopeful sign — and not just for Democrats. A politicized military presents a threat to democratic ideals of civilian control. Over the last 30 years, the Republicanization of the military also has had a deeply distorting effect on public debates about national security, making it almost impossible to question Republican national security policies without being labeled "anti-military."

As we struggle to move beyond the horrors of Iraq, we desperately need to develop fresh approaches to changing security threats. That requires a military that isn't partisan — and political leaders who won't make posturing in front of the troops a substitute for responsible policies.


http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-brooks5jan05,1,1703163.column

[WARPIG]

Do you really believe "liberals" spat on soldiers during the Vietnam War? I served in the Army from 1965 to 1971 and never saw or heard of such an incident. If anyone dared spit on a soldier or Marine who recently returned from Vietnam, don't you think that person would have his or her ass kicked on the spot? You are just propagating another urban myth.

Also, Democrats and "liberals" have fought in every war our country has been in including Iraq. When you are a soldier you fight because that's your job and the only politics you are interested in is protecting your buddies. Plus, it's not just "liberals" upset with the current Iraq situation but two-thirds of the population. If they are all "liberal," it must be a surprise to many of them.

So far as your statement about servicemen and their families political leanings, here's a recent LA Times column based on a poll by The Military Times:

Rosa Brooks:
Weaning the military from the GOP
A less partisan military is good for democracy and allows a more frank debate on national security.
January 5, 2007
Los Angeles Times


BURIED IN THE NEWS last week was one of the most potentially significant stories of recent years. The Military Times released its annual poll of active-duty service members, and the results showed something virtually unprecedented: a one-year decline of 10 percentage points in the number of military personnel identifying themselves as Republicans. In the 2004 poll, the percentage of military respondents who characterized themselves as Republicans stood at 60%. By the end of 2005, that had dropped to 56%. And by the end of 2006, the percentage of military Republicans plummeted to 46%.

The drop in Republican Party identification among active-duty personnel is a sharp reversal of a 30-year trend toward the "Republicanization" of the U.S. military, and it could mark a sea change in the nature of the military — and the nature of public debates about national security issues.

For most of U.S. history, issues of national security rarely divided Americans along sharp party lines: The old adage that "politics ends at the water's edge" generally held true. The military, while institutionally conservative with a small "c," was not closely identified with a particular political party. But somewhere between the end of the Vietnam War and the middle of the Clinton era, the U.S. military began to look like a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party.

The rightward shift was dramatic: In 1976, 25% of civilians characterized themselves as Republicans, while 33% of military officers were Republicans — a military-civilian "gap" of only 8%. By 1996, the military-civilian gap on party affiliation had grown to 33%; while 34% of civilians self-identified as Republicans, so did a whopping 70% of military officers.

In Britain, the Anglican Church used to be snidely described as "the Tory Party at Prayer." In the United States over the last 30 years, the military became, to a significant extent, the Republican Party at War.

The Republicanization of the professional military came about for many reasons, some obvious, some less so. To some extent, it resulted from changing perceptions of how "pro-military" the two main parties were: In the wake of the Vietnam War, the Democratic Party became associated, in the popular mind, with antiwar, antimilitary policies. With the end of Vietnam-era conscription, which guaranteed a relatively representative military, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats may have opted to join the military (at least as officers), while many career military personnel transferred their allegiance to the political party they saw as "on their side."

But the Republicanization of the military was not just because of "natural" self-selection. It also resulted from changed recruitment and base-closing policies, combined with the steady Republicanization of the American South. The period since the late 1960s saw the closure of many northeastern ROTC programs and the expansion of those programs in the South. By the late 1990s, more than 40% of all ROTC programs were in the South — mainly at state universities — though the South is home to fewer than 30% of the nation's college students. Similar patterns in base closures have meant that disproportionate numbers of military personnel are now stationed at bases in the South and Southwest.

For a time, the Republicanization of the military became self-reinforcing. The GOP has controlled the White House for all but 12 of the last 34 years and has made a determined effort to identify itself with the military and to court military voters. By the turn of the millennium, the perception that Republicans were "pro-military" while Democrats were "soft" on defense had become an entrenched facet of American politics.

The latest Military Times poll offers the most telling evidence yet that this is beginning to change. Although the reasons for the recent military flight from the Republican Party can only be guessed at, it's a safe bet that disgust at Bush administration bungling in Iraq is the single biggest factor.

The poll shows that only 35% of military personnel approve of the president's handling of the war, and three-fourths of those polled say that the military is "stretched too thin to be effective." Anecdotal evidence suggests that many career officers also are skeptical of the administration's approach to combating terrorism and unhappy with its undermining of the norms of the Geneva Convention.

The partial de-Republicanization of the military is a hopeful sign — and not just for Democrats. A politicized military presents a threat to democratic ideals of civilian control. Over the last 30 years, the Republicanization of the military also has had a deeply distorting effect on public debates about national security, making it almost impossible to question Republican national security policies without being labeled "anti-military."

As we struggle to move beyond the horrors of Iraq, we desperately need to develop fresh approaches to changing security threats. That requires a military that isn't partisan — and political leaders who won't make posturing in front of the troops a substitute for responsible policies.


http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-brooks5jan05,1,1703163.column


You caught me ... I obviously was making generalizations about liberals. For the record.. I don't beleive that spitting on soldiers was a national past time.. but my family and friends either saw it or experienced it. Isolated, yes, but epitomic of the attitude.

One more thing for the record. I don't identify myself as a Republican. Yet, I still don't manage to pass off all my worries and hardships as something Bush is to blame for.

I agree that politicization of the military is a very damaging.. but I wasn't trying to generalize military members as democrats or republican. I was inferring that most servicemen and their families lean more conservative in their views than liberal.

[ElHombre]

Bush definately gets to take the blame for this but he isn't the only one at fault. A lot of mistakes happened and will happen. War is sort of funny that way.

But as has been noted before that wise leaders learn from their mistakes, not repeat them.


If Iraq is truly a lost cause.. the US still has to give the Iraq government a final chance to claim their country. A surge in troops to try and lock down security over there is meant to buy the Iraqi government some time to take ownership of themselves. If that doesn't happen we have done everything we can and can leave that place knowing so.

Why is it always a case of 'just one more chance'? How many chances has the Iraqi gov't blown? The Iraqi gov't isn't interested in governing a multi-cultural country, it's a cobbled-together collection of factions fighting each other for power. Thus far, the Shiites (specifically Sadr) are winning and
engaging in ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis.


The alternative is to cave to liberal pressure and the party line of "Bush is always wrong."

Wrong. The actual alternative is getting the troops out of a losing situation that their presence exacerbates. At the very least, it'll stop good troops from risking their lives for a lost cause. In case no one's realized it, it's never been just liberals critizing the Iraq war. There are a large number of people from all over the political spectrum who have grasped the reality of Bush's war and are not pleased about it. The real mental hurdle the war's supporters have to face is that they've been wrong all along.


Bottom line is.. still no viable plan to win the war in Iraq nor any good plan to exit from the democrats.

Errr... there have been plenty of plans from the Dems and Reps on how to deal with leaving Iraq. The Bush admin has ignored them all in favor of 'stay the course plus 21,500'.

[Macs.]

I just found this interesting graphic of Baghdad:

http://www.tagesschau.de/styles/container/image/style_images_default/0,1307,OID6291604,00.jpg

US-Military ----------------- Vigilante groups
Iraqi Security Forces ------- Mahdi Army (Shiites)
Sunni Militia ---------------- Badr Brigade (Shiites)

They made this graphic according to local news and interviews with residents. Source: New York Times - November 06.

[Durandal]

Half the battle of winning has to be done here at home which defuses a lot of energy needed to win the real battle.

Hollis, I don't really see this.

I mean, lets be honest, this isn't about making mistakes. A mistake is calling Poland "Germany" or saying the "Soviet never have controlled Eastern Europe and never will."

That's a mistake.

Hell, I'll even argue that deciding Iraq was hiding a weapons program without actually finding it was mistake (except to be honest I no longer do anymore since it makes me look dumb to some of the people I talk to daily).

Bush, though, hasn't made mistakes he has been one of two things...either ignorant of the realties of the situation or simply uncaring and a liar.

Either one of them is bad.

The only difference in my eyes, between him and Clinton is that Clinton got caught in the lie while under oath. Bush, the guy that everybody respects for doing it his way (vs the will of the People, his boss) has been dodging the truth for at least 4 years, one can argue even longer...

And to me, a leader that lies to his people is a politician...Bush is not some holy cow that we cannot touch, he is a man. In this case, he is a corrupt man, that needs to be brought low and punished....impeached, since we cannot simply fire him.

And that is what it is all about.

I am simply tired of rewarding people in this nation, not on merit, but because they have the power and that it is expected.

Screw that.

[Mastermind]

He isn't attempting to fix his mistakes. If he were, he wouldn't keep repeating the same mistakes he's made over the years. Does anyone have any idea what kind of lasting difference that an extra 20k troops will make in Iraq? More importantly, does Bush?
Ha...damn good question there, Hombre. In my opinion, this thing is lost and we be best to start the phase down asap. It is not lost on the battlefield...it is lost at home...we have no political will as a people to defend anything now. Americans no longer think of themselves as "Americans"...that is, as members of a natiion. The liberals have managed to split and infintely sub-divide our culture to a point we mostly think in terms of ethnicity, economic status, education level...you name it. The media and self serving politicans (both sides and more) have eroded our faith in leadership and we give far more allegiance to political correcness and our personal wallet than we ever will to the preservation of our nation.

This is a war of mind...not heart. Our leadership from Bush right on down to the local Mayors have all failed to rally the necessary support. We have a faceless-nameless-nationless enemy that is clothed in a cloak of religion...if we hate the enemy, we end up challenging one of our most sacred pillars of our society...our freedom of religion. We simply can not overcome those social and political and religous hurdles. No one ever won a war without hating their enemy.

It is now time to stop the blood of young Americans from flowing onto the filthy sands of a Muslim nation....Democracy in Iraq is a hoax...it simply will never happen in any Muslim people...their hearts and minds just don't work that way. They, as a people, only understand force and power. We have not gained their respect with our brand of effort....it's now time to stop it...the political situation at home is not going to improve.

Our troops did not fail...our leadership has. MM

[ElHombre]

It is not lost on the battlefield...it is lost at home...we have no political will as a people to defend anything now.

That's not true. Americans do have the will to defend themselves against threats, but Iraq isn't and never was a threat to the level that the Bush admin claimed. That's the central point right there: As soon as the evidence that Iraq had never been the immeadiate threat that the Bush admin claimed turned out to be false (with the evidence always ending up being either they lied or were too incompetent to be holding their jobs), it was inevitable that public support would collapse. At its heart, the Iraq war is a good, old fashioned, Kipling 'White mans' burden' colonial war and Americans rightly don't think its worth risking the lives of American troops for.

[Jobu]

For the left, to try is to fail.

[Mastermind]

The threat, always was and still is not Sadam or Iraq...it is radical Islam! And that is what I am talking about. It makes no difference if Bush lied or the intel was wrong or the intel was deliberately falsified...the objective was to flank Iran and the terrorists of 9/11 gave us the perfect political will to do just that. By the Americans failing to understand the point and the ultimate objective and the long term effects of what we have done and should continue to do, we fail our long term prospects for global power and self identity. We will ultimately fail in this mission because of our own short sighted nature as a people. And every demographic you may want to apply to the equasion, it is plain we will soon not be the people we think we are by heritage. Islamists will continue to expand their influence. We will continue to fail to check that influence. The end result is inevitable. Unless there is a grand engagement with them, which will have a clear victory for the non Islamic participants, we can not continue on this Earth as a civilization. (in my personal opinion, of course)..MM