Take a tour
invite your friends
- Select Menu -
Invite your friends
Interesting Political Article That is Not Partisan
Ralph Peters is an ex military guy, and a guy who has a centrist, no-bs take on events. He is worth checking out....
By RALPH PETERS
November 9, 2006 -- THE Democratic dog just caught the Iraqi firetruck it's been chas ing for almost four years. Now what?
Wetting the back tires won't be enough. The victorious party's hard-left wing is anxious for an American humiliation. But that's not what the majority of Democrats want and it's a scenario that Dems on Capitol Hill, eyes on 2008, know they need to avoid.
Most Dem leaders realize that, with just a few missteps, Iraq could become their debacle. Their problem is that they never formulated a serious plan for Iraq. All rhetoric and no specifics, they just ran against the administration's bungling. And Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's long-overdue resignation yesterday robbed them of an obvious target. Now they have to deliver - or at least appear to be trying.
It's going to be hard. The political aim of the Democrats will be to continue talking a good game while avoiding responsibility through '08. They'll send up bills they know Bush will veto. And they'll struggle to hide the infighting in their own ranks - Dem unity on this war is about as solid as the unity of Iraq.
Now that they've won on the issue, the Dems would like Iraq to just go away. But it won't. And they've got to avoid looking weak on defense, so the military will get more money for personnel, at least. But we won't get a comprehensive plan to deal with Iraq or, for that matter, our global struggle with Islamist terrorists.
Of course, President Bush remains the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He still wields direct authority. In a forlorn-hope rescue effort, he may do what should have been done at the start: Send a lot more troops.
One proposal under discussion within the administration is to "send everything we've got" - to deploy every possible Army and Marine unit, no matter how worn and weary, for six months to "clean things up."
But what might have been done with relative ease in 2003 would be hard, bloody and expensive in 2007. And it still might not work: In the end, the Iraqis have to share our vision for their future. At present, they don't.
In the bizarre political confusion of our times, with old party characterizations nearly meaningless, one crucial factor that shaped the Iraq effort went unnoticed: Neither party understands warfare, and neither party wants to.
Political correctness shaped the Bush administration's approach to military operations as decisively as it did the Clinton administration's pop-gun antics. The Bush bunch just did things on a larger scale - they wanted a war, but didn't want to hurt anybody.
No matter how many troops we send, we're bound to fail if the troops aren't allowed to fight - under the leadership of combat commanders, not politically attuned bureaucrats in uniform. At present, neither party's leaders want to face the truth about warfare - that it can't be done on the cheap and that war can't be waged without shedding blood.
The lack of military experience among the leaders of both parties has cost us dearly. Clinton and Bush both wanted to use the military, but didn't trust the military. Both squandered American lives and credibility.
Our security problem doesn't lie with just one party, but with our selfish, incestuous political class.
For the next two years, the go-to guy in the national-security field is going to be Sen. John McCain. He's now the real "decider," positioned to serve either as the brakeman on the administration's runaway train or as the switchman in the political yard if the Dems get a rational policy on track.
McCain's in a much stronger position than he was a few days ago - the Republican nomination is now his. The midterm elections were a repudiation not only of the administration's non- strategy in Iraq, but of the small-but- vocal Taliban wing of the Republican Party - the anti-science, woman-fearing inquisitors. They hoped to block McCain's nomination. Now, from Pennsylvania to Missouri, they're the walking dead in the political landscape.
But McCain, a heroic figure who genuinely seeks to do the right thing for our country, has to be careful. His sense of duty could lead him to support an ill-conceived administration effort to "pull it off at last" in Iraq.
Just sending more troops isn't a strategy. Those soldiers and Marines would need a clear mission that focused on winning - not on pleasing the media or Saudi Arabia.
If, at this late hour, our president and his advisers can forge a viable, no-nonsense plan for Iraq, fine. But putting a bigger bandage on the hemorrhage won't help.
The Democratic win does bring us two benefits regarding Iraq. First, it means public accountability, something every administration, Republican or Democrat, needs. Second, it sends a message to the gang of looters atop Iraq's government that the free lunch won't last forever, that they've got to get serious about leading their country.
Of course, the Iraqis may scramble even more wildly to ingratiate themselves with sectarian factions and steal what's left to steal before we leave. Never underestimate the Arab genius for self-destruction.
So what now?
Advice to the Dems: You've won. Congratulations. Now get your extremists under control and assess Iraq honestly. And don't just mew about supporting our troops - do it.
Advice to the Bush administration: Don't take desperate measures in Iraq without thinking them all the way through. Mr. President, sit down one-on-one with the two- stars who command or commanded in Iraq - the fighting generals - without any Defense Department apparatchiks manipulating what you hear. Listen to the unfiltered truth.
Advice to Sen. McCain: Ask the tough questions before either the administration or the Democrats on the Hill make a bad situation worse in Iraq. Our government needs adult supervision. You're it.
Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and author.
Thu. Nov 9, 9:52am
Define "nonpartisan"? Or look up in dictionary?
This article begins, "THE Democratic dog just caught the Iraqi firetruck it's been chasing for almost four years. Now what? Wetting the back tires won't be enough. The victorious party's hard-left wing is anxious for an American humiliation."
And so forth. While this article is critical of both parties, it is hardly nonpartisan.
Thursday, November 09, 2006, 10:19 AM
Thank you Thank you Thank you..finally the unfiltered truth
Thursday, November 09, 2006, 10:19 AM
partisan means to take one side or the other. This article is precisely non-partisan. Now If you are a member of the Republican Taliban (I love that phrase) or the anti-american left, you might take offense. Those of us who occupy the sane, boring middle I think find this very objective.
Thursday, November 09, 2006, 10:24 AM
It just comes across as anti-politics, not anti-onepartyoranother. I'm guessing his pro-McCain stance has more to do with the person than the party - and there's something very appealing about a Republican that the Republicans don't like (I'd say the same if you replaced "Republican" with "Democrat"). What can I say, we all like a Bad Boy! Anyway, I don't watch the news or read the papers because they all pay lip-service to equality in coverage. This author - I would actually read him again.
Thursday, November 09, 2006, 10:42 AM
it's just blah-blah-blah from somone who likes the sound of his own voice. There is nothing illuminating or even new in this article. complete BS.
Thursday, November 09, 2006, 10:32 PM
The McCain angle is new, as is the current political landscape. You must consume news very quickly and get easily bored.
Thursday, November 09, 2006, 10:58 PM
actually, people have been analysing what it would mean if the dems took control for months - including what the impact would be on John McCain's power. really nothing new or newsworthy in this column. just blah, blah, blah.
Thursday, November 09, 2006, 11:02 PM
I really hope you take comfort in your revolting attitude toward people. You're clearly the same person who writes bitchy, unpleasant comments on all these threads. Do you have nothing better to do with your time? Yes, this is a personal attack. 99% of PTers are positive, polite, nice people. You're not one of them.
Friday, November 10, 2006, 8:18 AM
wow. expressing an opinion about an article can bring about such an attack?!
Friday, February 02, 2007, 3:00 PM
I don't blame 8.18. There are days where I can write off 10.32's bitchiness (yes, it is the same person, I believe) to, as another poster put it: someone who is bored at work and has nothing better to do with their time than be nasty. Other times it just annoys me that someone can take pleasure out of being so crappy to everyone. I honestly wish they'd find another site, another job that is more stimulating, or another planet.
Friday, February 02, 2007, 3:51 PM
i don't agree. i find nothing condescending or bitchy about the comment. it just seems like the poster is fed up with empty political rhetoric, not other people on the thread. i find the responder from 818 rather offensive, on the other hand. the 1032 poster was not aiming any criticism at any other posters' point of view, just at the writer of the article.
Friday, February 02, 2007, 3:59 PM
How To Lose Weight- The Basics
Weight Watchers Points System
The Fat Smash Diet
The Eat To Live Diet
The Beck Diet Solution
How To Get The Motivation To Lose Weight
How To Be Successful Using PEERtrainer
How To Burn Fat
Online Weight Loss Support- How It Works
Does Green Tea Help You Lose Weight?
Tips On Using PEERtrainer
Visit The PEERtrainer Community
Diet and Fitness Resources
Weight Watchers Meetings
Learning To Inspire Others: You Already Are
Writing Down Your Daily Workouts
Spending Money On A Personal Trainer?
How I Became A Marathon Runner
How To Prevent Injuries During Your Workout
Flu Season: Should You Take The Flu Shot?
Are You Really Ready To Start PEERtrainer?
Super Foods That Can Boost Your Energy
Reversing Disease Through Nutrition
New Diet and Fitness Articles:
Weight Watchers Points Plus
How To Adjust Your Body To Exercise
New: Weight Watchers Momentum Program
New: PEERtrainer Blog Archive
Review Of The New Weight Watchers Momentum Program
Weight Loss Motivation by Joshua Wayne:
Why Simple Goal Setting Is Not Enough
How To Delay Short Term Gratification
How To Stay Motivated
How To Exercise With A Busy Schedule
Real World Nutrition and Fitness Questions
Can Weight Lifting Help You Lose Weight?
Are Protein Drinks Safe?
Nutrition As Medicine?
Everyday Weight Loss Tips
How To Eat Healthy At A Party
How To Eat Out And Still Lose Weight
The Three Bite Rule
Tips On How To Stop A Binge
Introducing The PEERtrainer Cheat System
How To Speed Up Weight Loss
How To Get Motivation To Lose Weight
Weight Watchers: The New Science!
3 Myths About Weight Loss With JJ Virgin
Related Article :
New PEERtrainer Articles :
Why Green Tea Helps You Lose Weight
How To Lose A Lot Of Weight, Fast
5 Things You Must Know Before Doing A Cleanse
New: How To Build Muscle
What Is The Best Kind Of Protein Powder?
The Master Cleanse
Will Removing Gluten From Your Diet Help You Lose Weight?
How To Obliterate Your Limitations
How To Get The Motivation To Exercise
How To Stop Feeling Tired
Dr. Joel Fuhrman's Super Immunity Diet
The PEERtrainer Diet
Is Portion Control Keeping You Fat?
The Ultimate Guide To Dietary Fiber
P90X? Do Burst Training Instead
Weight Watchers Points Changes For 2012
Can Diet Soda Cause You To GAIN Weight?