Decius wrote:
Well, the Pentagon, which employs experts on military tactics, says that they can't tell whether or not this is working until it reaches a certain stage.

Wow! Well, if the Pentagon said that, gosh, I guess I must be wrong. If they don't know, no one does. And also, I had forgotten that they are to trusted 100% and have never been known for being influenced by politics! Also, since no other knowledgeable people, say, ex-generals or whatever, have suggested that there's any problem with the current strategery, I must be basing my opinion on absolutely nothing...

Oh, no, that's right, I'm basing it on blind partisanship and a senseless hatred of George Bush.

Its not as if George Bush is personally reporting in September. The military is.

Yeah, and they're gearing up for a full time spin operation to support whatever they say.

I seriously think that you expect them to lie because you don't like George Bush and not because you've looked into what they are doing and what they are reporting on, and I think you should.

I expect them to lie because damn near everything the government has ever said about this war has been a lie. I read as much as you do, I just don't choose to swallow what's being served up. It's as simple as that. The few honest people either got cut out politically for saying what they thought or else shut up until they could get themselves in a safe position to speak out.

That isn't what I said. I said that politics are unrelated to the short term efficacy of our tactics change.

Short term efficacy is irrelevant. Don't get me wrong, if Basra or Baghdad is safer for 3 weeks, less people will die, which is great, but it's not the goal. If it's not sustainable, it's a waste of fucking time. And without the political backing, it's not sustainable.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean you personally. I meant you collectively... the people who have prejudged this thing. I did not mean to insult you.

You don't have to apologize, you said what you believe and I'm responding with what i believe.

Yes, I have thought for some time that this war was fucked and unwinable. Yes, I thought that the surge was a too-little, too-late effort. Yes, I don't trust this administration, top to bottom. Yes, therefore, I "prejudged" the outcome.

And this may sound self fulfilling, but the main reason is the public will. If the surge had tripled our force there, I probably still would've been angry about it, but I wouldn't have been as quick to claim it wouldn't work. But we didn't get 300% and couldn't possibly. The Armed Forces are destroying themselves just trying to deal with the current troop levels. So we got a 10% increase. So, yeah, I'm no expert but when I read people who I trust, that are, saying that this is an absurd gesture, to expect 10% more troops to swing this thing when we had too few to begin with, yeah, it's going to resonate with me.

Perhaps. They may be the boy who cried wolf at this point, but that story is a tragic one.

Yeah, it is. What's your point? That kid should've been fucking replaced with a sensible adult after he was proven untrustworthy. How's that analogy?

edit:fixed my link, though the one i put by accident (this one) is relevant as well.

edit 2: after reading Mike's response above, I checked out what he said about the surge report. As distrustful as I might be of the Pentagon (and I am, as I said above), you better fucking believe I don't trust the White House. Christ.

RE: Obsidian Wings: Bush's Speech