Thread: Joe Lieberman's Article

Today in the Washington Post, Joe Lieberman wrote an op-ed about adding more troops to the war in Iraq. I think it's a great article and agree with most of his points, but I've also seen plenty of bloggers ripping him a new one. What does everyone think?

Joseph Lieberman - Why We Need More Troops in Iraq - washingtonpost.com

I just question whether or not additional troops will allow them to really find the bad guys. Whats to keep them from stashing their weapons and waiting us out. They are pretty good at it and have all the time in the world, we do not.

More troops, iron curtain, death penalty to insurgents (on place, no courts), putting Islamic clergy in jails, certainly will solve the problem.

Originally Posted by Alien Traveler

More troops, iron curtain, death penalty to insurgents (on place, no courts), putting Islamic clergy in jails, certainly will solve the problem.

Hitler said the same of the Jews....

Give our people the tools to get the job done, whatever it takes. Leave tactics and warfare to the people trained and paid for the task. We've a word for war by committee (or public opinion): insanity (or Viet Nam).

The attacks on Lieberman by the left are a rare treat, though. Lots of hateful spew, little coherent content.

Without knowing anything about Lieberman, I hated him. I admit I was completely prejudice against him (it didn't help I thought he looked like a skeevy troll.) After researching him, I came to support him not only as a person but a politician. I may not agree with him on many of his policies, but I would be proud to have him represent me. He is the reason I learned to research my candidates before placing judgement. Unfortunately, I have also learned from that lesson that many people I originally supported, I no longer support (Edwards, Dean, Reid.) Thanks Joe! And I will support and agree with your opinion.

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

I just question whether or not additional troops will allow them to really find the bad guys. Whats to keep them from stashing their weapons and waiting us out. They are pretty good at it and have all the time in the world, we do not.

They can't wait us out. Our goal is to help the Iraqi government to grow and stabilize the region. The enemy's goal is to prevent just that. If they stop, they lose.

If we run away, we lose.

It's that simple. To bad the Surrender Monkey faction in the US can't undestand this basic fact.

The washington post seems to attract such nice people in their posts.....

This is the part that the Surrender Monkeys don't want to hear:

As long as insurgents and death squads terrorize Baghdad, Iraq's nascent democratic institutions cannot be expected to function, much less win the trust of the people. The fear created by gang murders and mass abductions ensures that power will continue to flow to the very thugs and extremists who have the least interest in peace and reconciliation.

This bloodshed, moreover, is not the inevitable product of ancient hatreds. It is the predictable consequence of a failure to ensure basic security and, equally important, of a conscious strategy by al-Qaeda and Iran, which have systematically aimed to undermine Iraq's fragile political center. By ruthlessly attacking the Shiites in particular over the past three years, al-Qaeda has sought to provoke precisely the dynamic of reciprocal violence that threatens to consume the country.

On this point, let there be no doubt: If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism.

As I've said all along, now that we're there, we've got a job to do. Let's get it done.

Sources: Negroponte Blocks CIA Analysis of Iraq “Civil War”

Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006. By Ken Silverstein.
Sources
I reported in May that despite the deteriorating situation in Iraq, no National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) has been produced on that country since the summer of 2004. The last NIE, a classified document that the CIA describes as “the most authoritative written judgment concerning a national security issue,” was rejected by the Bush Administration (after being leaked to the New York Times) as being too negative, though its grim assessment subsequently proved to be highly accurate.
The situation has gotten even darker since my initial story—a United Nations report cited in Wednesday's New York Times found that an average of more than 100 Iraqi civilians were killed each day in June—and I've learned from two sources that some senior figures at the CIA, along with a number of Iraq analysts, have been pushing to produce a new NIE. They've been stonewalled, however, by John Negroponte, the administration's Director of National Intelligence, who knows that any honest take on the situation would produce an NIE even more pessimistic than the 2004 version. That could create problems on the Hill and, if it is leaked as the last one was, with the public as well.
“What do you call the situation in Iraq right now?” asked one person familiar with the situation. “The analysts know that it's a civil war, but there's a feeling at the top that [using that term] will complicate matters.” Negroponte, said another source regarding the potential impact of a pessimistic assessment, “doesn't want the president to have to deal with that.”