Quote Originally Posted by Rank amateur View Post
I'm glad you've joined our group. I was one of the few council members holding that point of view. It's very nice to have support from West Point.
Though I didn't really get that impression, I thought most here agreed Iraq was an admixture...

As a spin doctor, this was obvious to me at the time. I felt that as more and more people realized the spin didn't match reality in Iraq the administration's support would fall steadily, but wouldn't get below 50% until after the election. In retrospect, I got that one right.
Sort of intuitive and most folks I've talked to held a similar view -- the point that bears recollection is that other future administrations are equally likely to fall into the same trap based on our history over the last 220 years.

The other thing denial did was allow the administration to go on the political offensive and create a wedge issue. We're for victory. Democrats are for defeat. The strong on defense positioning is always a winner for Republicans. It worked.
True and the proverbial double edged sword with the 'victory' and 'defeat' words; both send a message that most Americans intuitively know is incorrect in describing the potential outcome.

I think people like me are using the term "insurgent" incorrectly. I think the debate is: should we limit our objective to defeating AQI (which people are incorrectly calling the insurgency) or should we try to keep Iraq a single functional state (which people are incorrectly calling preventing a civil war.)
Interesting points. 'Insurgent' has become sort of a catch all term. While sometimes used imprecisely, it's just shorthand for bad guys, whoever they are. What's more interesting are your two options -- I'd submit that there are many more alternatives and IMO, the probability of 'defeating' AQI is low and should not be used as a goal -- though reducing them to irrelevance OTOH is achievable and could be stated. Not least because tying AQI and irrelevance is worse for them than 'defeating' them.

The civil war in one form or another was always a given and it may go dormant until we're gone but Iraq as a single functional state, while achievable, is not the only solution that will be to our benefit (and theirs in the long term), it is simply the best. Other variants are acceptable.

RA's theorem, presented for critique. When we intervene in a foreign country, without wide spread popular support, it makes it possible for violent anti US extremists to position themselves as freedom fighters, and under those conditions extremist groups can grow their membership and influence.
True and given the facts that we are not at all liked by most in the world (and there are many in this country who will oppose such efforts, who and how much being ideology dependent) and that future administrations are just as capable of bobbling the effort as this one did, said freedom fighters will always receive support, tacit or otherwise and much nattering here by the discontented which will affect one party or the other in Congress and thus have a knock on effect to the effort in the foreign nation.

That is why we should avoid such actions unless there is no alternative -- and there usually is one...

Which doesn't mean we don't need to be prepared to do it, we do -- and to do it right. If we can demonstrate that capability now, it will significantly lessen the probability of such commitments in the future. A critical point that many, including our esteemed Congress, seem to continually miss...