I don't believe much of what Kerry says, so it wouldn't swing my vote, Dean, no.

That may win over some pro-war liberals and moderates. The pro-war conservatives won't trust Kerry no matter what he says. And assuming he could say it strongly enough to convince the pro-war folks who aren't so sure he means what he says, he will drive away the significant anti-war liberal vote. In the end, he'll probably attempt to walk the tight-rope in between but he'll end up sounding schizophrenic, which plays right into the flip-flopping image that we Republicans have of him.

No. Kerry's in an unenviable position—there are two different groups both of whose support he needs to win: his liberal base and moderates. If he is too pro-war, his liberal base will desert him and vote for Nader. If he is too anti-war, moderates desert him.

Dean,

Were the Democratic Party not enthralled to its anti-war left, then a smart Democratic candidate could have made much political hay calling for a more vigorous prosecution of the war...as it is, if Kerry moves into being a hawk, he'll gain success and credit on the center and right, and lose the election because Nader score 25% of the vote...

He's a deer caught in the headlights - only a pervasive feeling of failure which is directly President Bush's fault could pull him over the line...and this would have to be the feeling in the last ten days of the race...if the feeling is anything other than a feeling of failure caused by President Bush from October 24th to November 2nd, then President Bush wins...and wins rather big.

Iraq is going well...??? LOL

We have over 800 soldiers dead...several of the Iraqi governing council members have been assasinated....Fallujah is essentially Taliban-era Afghanistan....Chalabi lied to us and was probably funneling our secrets to Iran...

Oh yeah this is going GREAT!!

LOL

Yep. It's going splendidly well, and much better than any rational person expected.

Tiny numbers of casualties--infinitesimal in any rational historical context--elections being held regularly, resistance dwindling in its influence, much-predicted civil wars not occurring, schools and hospitals in business, rights being secured for women and minorities, criminals being prosecuted--it's miraculous, really.

Carla, yes things are going miraculously well. Just look at the Russian experience in Grozny. 10s of thousands of soldiers and civilians dead. Comparatively speaking, 800 soldiers dead and a few thousand Iraqis is a much smaller toll. In per capita terms, it looks even better, since Iraq is larger than Chechnya.

In historical terms, it's no contest. Just look at the millions dead in Stalingrad.

We have over 800 soldiers dead...several of the "Iraqi governing council members have been assasinated....Fallujah is essentially Taliban-era Afghanistan....Chalabi lied to us and was probably funneling our secrets to Iran...
Oh yeah this is going GREAT!! LOL"

Yeah, all that's true. None of it means we are losing the war or the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqis. Iraqis want the American occupation to end...but not before they are safe from vulnerability to takeover by another brutal regime whether it be secular or theocratic. Influential Iraqi religious leaders brought pressure on Sadr to back down and he has. Fallujah is pacified without resorting to house to house all out total destruction of the city and Iraq will move forward in forming a new government without Chalibi. He's but a footnote in history. It's not the first time we've been fooled by a con-artist and it won't be the last, I'm sad to predict.

Yes, as Dean says, Iraq is going well by all accounts. Nobody would have bet that the American colonists' Revolutionary War would have ended in independence judging by their inferior military strength, initial losses and lack of provisions. The first two years of the American Civil War had the North losing. The first two or three years of WWII had us reeling to recover from devastating Pacific and Asian losses biding our time until we had the military resources needed to fight and win. In this war we have had superior strength and initial military victory. Terrorism is a relatively new miltary concept and we had some set-backs, changing tactics when needed and facing and adapting to new challenges as quickly as we could when needed. It's absurd to believe that we can't win. All that is needed is discipline and determination to stay the course, quoting GWB.

I'm one of those fire-breathing war hawks like Leonard Peikoff who thinks we should fight harder, use more force -- and destroy the _real_ Muslim enemy behind 9/11, i.e., Saudi Arabia.

Doesn't look to me like President Bush is going to do this, he's too soft, too afraid to offend anybody. Neither will Kerry, obviously, because if the Democrats had wanted a hawk, his name would be Joe Lieberman. But if his name was Lieberman, he would be a **w. Anti-S******m within the Democratic party? Hmmm....

Hmmm.... The way I wrote that was kind of.... Hmmm.... Perhaps I should have written: Anti-*e*iti** within the Democratic party? Hmmm.... Which looks also like "Anti-elitism", which is what it is.

Steven,

A case can very reasonably be made for harsher measures in the war - but I'm willing to give President Bush his way in the matter; so far, he's done well - remarkably well and better than anyone (other than himself) expected.

Kerry would eventually lead us to a bug-out in Iraq and the larger War on Terrorism as he turns the whole problem over to the ineffectual UN, and the effective, but insufficient, American law enforecement community.

With President Bush, we're in for the long haul...and if things do, say, go to hell in a handbasket next year, then we can always try those harsher measures with a President who isn't worried about re-election.

I'd like to see Kerry come out for a much more aggressive war...against al Qaeda and the people who finance al Qaeda, such as Bush's campaign contributors in Saudi Arabia.

Yes, things ARE going well in Iraq. That is not to say they are perfect. Perfection is always a goal, but seldom an achievment. The big mistake being made by the DU_LL ( Democratic Underground_ Liberal Left) crowd is seeing Iraq as a war. It is NOT the WOT, but a Battle in the WOT. The Islamic fundamentalists are out to destroy America. Win or lose in Iraq, that will not change. It looks like their strategic plan is to gain control of the OIL in the ME and deny it to the USA. That will destroy the American economy, which will in turn sharply curtail the American ability to produce the tools of war that make our military so effective. While I don't think they are correct in thinking that we will surrender (Convert to a Taliban type governmet) to avoid economic ruin, I could be wrong. Ultimatly this war is about Ideas. Human rights, and 'freedom' vs theocracy. Self determination vs god's word.
As always, the side with the stronger will wins. In that respect, as long as there are people looking for any sort of Exit Strategy, we are losing. For those looking for an exit strategy from Iraq, I suggest getting ahead of the curve and start working on an exit strategy from Manhatten. If we lose Iraq, it will be next. Even though the Administration has done a poor job of presenting just what is at stake here, a good percentage of Americans have figured it out. Once the laggards do, America is saved. There is nothing on this planet that can stand aginst a united America.

Are we winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people? Polling data suggests no:

The occupation authorites latest poll show's 82% of Iraqis disagree with us being there. Further according to the poll...the trend toward us is only going to get worse.

We went into Iraq based on lies. We got into Iraq and had no solid plan by the civilian heads in Washington despite many reports offering up the problems that would happen. The vast majority of Iraqis are very angry that we're there and they want us out. Security is a mess. We're having to dump billions of dollars into Iraq when our own budget is in serious trouble domestically.

The Brookings Institute has a plan to get us out of Iraq in 2005. It's something Kerry should follow and that the American people should encourage whomever is elected to do. Our resources must be concentrated on the real terrorist threat: Al Qaida. How is it that we rarely hear what's going on in Afghanistan? That's where the real enemy to us has been.

Well, Don, if you got your head out of your butt, and paid attention to the news, you'd find out that the Saudis are cracking down on AQ. They're also suffering more attacks by AQ because of that.

Steve: it's easy to talk like a hard-ass, but have you really thought out the consequences of your policy? For starters, note (as I pointed out above) that the Saudis are actually fighting AQ these days. It's just not getting the air time other stories have.

Suppose the US declared war on, or just attacked Saudi Arabia tomorrow. Forget where the troops would come from, or how we could supply them; even three more divisions results in at least 45,000 more men, and considering tooth-to-tail ratios, we're looking at another 45,000 just to supply them. But let's not worry about combat troops we don't have, support troops we don't have, and ships to carry the supplies that we don't have (in excess of what's already in use). Let's look at the military/political aspects.

Suppose we have those three divisions (say, 1 armored and 2 mech) and we drive south from Iraq.
After all, it's only 400 miles to Riyadh, right? And we all know that Arabs can't fight, right? Well, maybe. Most folks tend to fight a bit harder when defending their homeland, Iraq notwithstanding. And don't forget the Saudi air force. They have some damn good pilots, and they're flying F-15s and F-16s. They won't be pushovers the same way the Iraqis were.

But hey, let's say we defeat the Saudi air force. I'll even give you Medina and Mecca, just 'cuz I'm a nice guy. Don't thank me, I'm a giver. {g} Congratulations, the US armed forces have once again kicked righteous ass and emerged victorious!

Only there's one little problem. To the north of Iraq we have the Moslem country of Turkey. To the east we have the Moslem country of Iran. To the west there's Syria and Jordan, and to the south of Saudi Arabia there's Yemen, Oman, and the UAE. All Moslem. Oops, forgot Egypt. And don't forget that Iran borders on Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Basically, at this point, your sorry ass is literally surrounded, and just how are you going to supply the troops, much less defend the territory you've just captured? I'm not even exploring the topic of causus belli here. Check out a map. The Med is blocked by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. You might try the Red Sea ports, but again we have to deal with Egypt, and now we have Sudan and Yemen to block off the straits. Ditto for the Persian Gulf: the UAE and Iran could shut that down quite nicely. And where are your supplies coming from then? Especially fuel and water? A little-known fact is that while Saudi Arabia is one of the largest oil exporters in the world, they don't have much refining capability on hand, so unless we can find a make our tanks, trucks, and planes run off of crude, we're up the creek.

What? Gonna fly stuff in? Go look up the costs of flying freight vs. shipping it. You'll double or triple your logistic costs, at least. And you thought the $89 billion Bush wanted last summer was a lot? Dig deeper, bud...

So now you're in the middle of Saudi Arabia, you find some insanely expensive way to keep your troops barely supplied, and you've just pissed off every Moslem on the planet. While you're surrounded by Moslem countries. Now, I generally don't give much credence to appeals to the "Arab Street," but most putative Christians (and certainly the athiests) don't really understand the hold that Mecca has for devout Moslems. The Christians aren't really fervent that way anymore; they burnt their agressions out about 400 years ago in Europe; but the Moslems are still at the place where the local imam says it's a good thing to kill blasphemers and infidel, and hey! someone just stole Mecca.

And before you get too cocky, the Egyptians aren't horrible soldiers, the Saudis have some damn good pilots, the Qataris have good tankers, and Iran has been kicking local ass for 3,000 years. I'm not even mentioning the Afghans (you think the Russian invasion pissed them off!?) and the Pakistanis. The Paks have some damn good infantry.

And, silly me, I forgot all about the Turks. You know, the people who terrified Europe for several centuries? They're just to the north of Iraq.

But, you object, we have the Kurds! And the Israelis, don't forget them. They're damn good soldiers too. True, but whenever Isreal fully mobilizes it basically shuts down the civilian economy. I'm sure you can see the problem...

To recap: you're holding the places sacred to something like one-quarter of the people on the globe, are totally surrounded by them with little opportunity to supply your own three divisions of troops, and are outnumbered at least five to one (and I'm being conservative here). The opposition has a lot of good to very good troops, most of whom would be willing to die recapturing Mecca, especially if it meant wiping out the enemy in the process.

My question to you, Steve, is Now what do you do? Aside from nuking half of the Middle East, that is?

Casey Tompkins:

Sounds like you're a pacifist who thinks we should surrender to Islam in order to avoid offending anybody.

Casey Tompkins:

I apologize for that last post or flame. My answer to your question is that I would let our Generals work out the best strategy for victory in this long, hard War for the survival of our freedom.

Carla's choice of polls and polling data seems rather selective. We've seen several polls out of gallup that we've mentioned here on DW over teh last year and they've been remarkably more positive.

But then, anyone who (like Carla) says that we want to Iraq based on "lies" should pretty much automatically be treated as a partisan and not to be taken seriously.

Casey,
Your way *will* end up with the West nuking half of the Middle East.

When push comes to shove, neither France nor Germany nor England nor even Spain will tolerate a continual series of 9/11's, Bali's, 3/11's, etc. taking place on their own soil. (Nor, of course, will the US.) If the Militant Arabs don't stop their attacks, these counties will eventually respond militarily.

And, with the possible exeception of the US, none of them have an adequate army to win with conventional munitions.

Obviously, I have been subjected to Paul Wolfowitz's all powerful mind-control ray because I also support the actions to date of the administration. As any who read up here or many other fine sources know, historical analysis shows our casualties astonishingly low and our achievements on the ground unprecedented in their success. I'll bandy stats and facts on that with anyone. Anytime. Ad nauseum.

fred, "my" way? Which way is that? I was just illustrating the serious pitfalls involved with the "destroy the Saudis" approach. Amazing that you can divine my approach from a single critique. :)

Your statements, however, beg several questions. Yes, it's true that Europe will not "tolerate a continual series of [attacks]," but what indications are there that such a continual assault is in the cards? I'm assuming that you are aware that all of these countries (including France) are quite busy behind the scenes, investigating local groups, sharing information with other countries, and coordinating their work with other countries. Yes, even France and the US; as you say, France doesn't want to deal with that nonsense on French soil.

Absent any evidence of such a "continual" attack, the statement is true, but irrelevant. I doubt any of those countries will let things get that far. They will either start working more closely with the US, or build up their own forces. France and Germany, at the very least, are quite capable of that. They just don't want to.

Steve: not a problem! {g} I didn't mean to make it sound like I was climbing all over you. My point was that most folks really don't understand the myriad factors that go into that kind of planning.

And to answer your answer: did it ever occur to you that maybe the current approach is what those generals consider to be the optimum current strategy? Hm? :)

Actually (speaking of historical analysis, megap) this question reminds me very strongly of the "First Front NOW!" slogan that was quite popular during the Second World War. To put it another way, some historian/stragegists -to this day- say that the Allies wasted money, time, and lives by waiting until 1944 to invade Europe. According to them the war would have been over much more quickly if we had invaded ASAMFP, maybe even late 1942. I disagree with these folks.

In case anyone is wondering, I'm no fan of kissing the Saudi buttock. I just happen to believe there's a time and a place for certain approaches. Or, to quote Lincoln "One war at a time." Heh.