Ace of Spades HQ

« Breaking: Chief Justice Rehnquist at Bethesda for Cancer Treatment | Main | Former Libertarian Candidate for President Endorses Bush »

October 25, 2004

Willpower (Push-Posting)

Pardon me for pushing this up in the queue so it posts today, but it's been a while since I've posted anything close to substantive. It's not the greatest essay, but I think it's worth reading, and I'm annoyed I printed it on my least-read day (Saturday).

If the United States chooses to cut and run in Iraq, then we are all but finished as a military power in the world. We have the best trained, best equipped, and highest-spirited troops in the entire world. But the soft underbelly of the military has always been the public's willingness to actually fight and prevail in a difficult struggle.

It must be pointed out that, despite all the bad headlines and gnashing of teeth from Henny Penny's like Andrew Sullivan, the Iraqi insurgents are offering our troops a token resistance. By that I do not mean they do not kill our troops. Of course the do. And to a family who has lost a beloved son or daughter, there is no such thing as a token resistance. I cannot grieve like the families of the lost grieve for their loved ones, but I do feel the pain of war, at least as much as a stranger can.

But nevertheless the Iraqi terrorists are not actually fighting a war that can be won in military terms. They dare not attack our troops in force; they have no conceivable plan to attrit our forces or our supplies anywhere near close to our capacity to replace them. The "war" they fight is not one of winning ground, or winning battles. It's of winning hearts and minds, as it were, or at least capturing them-- and by killing a thousand of our brave soldiers in a year, they have succeeded beyond my expectations.

Certainly they have captured the heart and mind of Andrew Sullivan (the most influential man in America, bar none). And they have captured the hearts and minds of John Kerry, John Edwards, and nearly the entirety of the Democratic Party, both leadership and membership.

I've known, as so many others of course did, that the key to this fight would not be our military's ability to execute effectively, and often brilliantly, but to prevent, or at least delay, the American public's quasi-Spanish impulse to cut and run and "declare victory" if confronted with anything more difficult than, say, the first Gulf War. Of course the first Gulf War was not easy; our troops fought the fourth-largest army in the world then. But that war was quick and decisive and -- especially given the number of troops involved -- involved very few casualites at all.

But what would happen if we had to face an enemy that could not be defeated in 100 hours? What then?

I had hoped that this country would rise to the challenge, and perhaps it still will. Certainly there are those who understand the stakes in this battle, and the catastrophe that would flow from a defeat. But it does seem that 40% of the population -- and perhaps 50-55% -- have no stomach whatsoever for any war that involves more than 100 hours and/or 100 American war dead.

One question I've posed to Andrew Sullivan -- although he's avoided answering it, or even acknowledging it -- is this: If you were only a supporter of this war given the assumption that it would be very brief and almost casualty-free, what the hell were you doing supporting the war in the first place? That is an extraodinarily irresponsible and naive position to take. If a war is not very important -- so unimportant that it only should be fought if we can secure a decisive victory within 100 hours and with only 100 men dead -- then that, Mr. Sullivan, is a war that should not be fought, and you had no business -- none -- adding whatever rhetorical fire you could muster to the debate.

What on earth did you think you were doing urging the nation into a war that you would only continue supporting under the most blithely-optimistic of conditions?

Sullivan is not a warhawk. He's a bird of paradise. And that's far worse.

There is no question that this war is tougher than I imagined, or than most imagined. But the truth of the matter is that I -- and many other less frivolous hawks than Sullivan -- expected to suffer a high number of casualties in this war. Of course I hoped against hope that we would not. I prayed for a Gulf War success, but I also knew that Saddam's soldiers would fight harder to keep Baghdad than Kuwait City.

The casualties did not come in the schedule I imagined. I expected to suffer at least 500 casualties for the Siege of Baghdad alone, perhaps a 1000 if chemical or biological weapons were used, which I thought they probably would be. Many military commentators predicted similarly dire casualty numbers -- numbers like 2500-3000 were tossed out, and comparisons were made to the legendarily ferocious Leningrad campaign (which, of course, lasted three bitter, bloody years).

The quick fall of Baghdad allowed me to adjust my expectations and hope for a relatively lightly-fought mopping up period. That, of course, did not happen. While we avoided the high casualties in the major-force conventional battle, we have suffered an unexpectedly high number of casualties in the small-unit guerilla insurgency. That fact fills me with sadness, for all the American soldiers and innocent Iraqis butchered. Nevertheless: We have still suffered fewer casualties at this point than I expected.

I would like the number to be zero. I would have been thrilled if it had merely been 100. I would like the number to stop increasing right now, so that not another American son or daughter is killed or maimed in fighting.

But I never expected fewer than 1000-2000 casualties in the entire campaign.

What number, praytell, did Mr. Sullivan expect? When he was so passionately, and so emotionally, making his case for all the wond'rous benefits that would flow from an American invasion, what number of American dead was he envisioning? What number of American dead did he have in his mind as the break-point between a war that was virtuous and necessary and a war that was too painful and not worth fighting at all?

He never told us when he was so stridently urging this nation into war. He can correct this oversight by telling us now-- and telling us, too, why he never informed us of how very conditional his passionate support for war was.

I do not like talk of "exit strategies." If the country is willing to accept something short of actual military and political victory in a war in favor of a face-saving "exit strategy" in which we pretend we've won, then that is simply not a war we should be fighting. Either a war is so important that it must be won, or else a war is simply not necessary. Half-measures and pretend-victories can be had through diplomacy and sanctions; we do not need to feed our boys into the meatgrinder to acheive what Kofi Annan and Jimmy Carter could work out for us without war.

I was serious about this war when I agitated for it, and I remain serious about it. I thought it was so important that we had to kill our beloved sons and daughters -- and that's of course what one does in war; when one urges for war, one is, implicitly, urging for American battle deaths as an unavoidable conseqence -- in order to win victory of Saddam, and try to set the Middle East on a path that will not result in an exchange of nuclear fire. The loss of one or two American cities-- one almost certainly my own, New York. And then, soon after, a nearly genocidal nuclear strike on much of the Muslim world.

I was serious. I remain serious.

It now appears that many of the people who argued along with me for war were not so serious at all.

Since Mr. Sullivan is so big on demanding apologies, I will demand one in return: I demand your apology for exhorting this nation into a war about which you were never morally serious nor intellectually thorough.

I think that those who advocate war for legitimate self-defense have a defensible position. I think that those who are dedicated pacifists are at least morally and logically consistent, even if I disagree with them strongly.

But I cannot recognize the position of Andrew Sullivan, and John Kerry, as legimiate or honorable. Their shared position is unserious, highly partisan, and morally obscene. Those who would urge the nation into a war, or vote the nation into war, without contemplating the possible difficulties and pain of the struggle are cowards-- and worse than cowards. A man who would send another man to his death for a cause he does not think is important is a villain. What else can one call it?

Sullivan routinely accuses Bush of living in a fantasy world. What world was Sullivan living in when he was urging war on Iraq, I wonder? A world, apparently, in which enemy soldiers do not fight back, and in which there are no (fairly trivial) crimes committed by US troops. A world in which wars are fought according to "plans" and in which such "plans" are executed smoothly; a world in which war is not simply the managing of one crisis until the next, and in which the term "FUBAR" has no meaning.

A world in which we storm into Baghdad, pull down a statue, and then Saddam's goons and Zarqawi's terrorists say, "You know, in retrospect, the Americans really did have a point." And then lay down their arms.

The war was never to be fought in that fantasy world of Sullivan's construction. It was never to be as pretty as he made it all sound in his glowing predictions of easy victory and seamless transition to democracy. I hope that in the future Sullivan confines his war-mongering to the fantasy worlds that exist only in his mind and on his blog, and urges dovishness and peace at any cost in the real world in which the rest of us live.

Update: Dave at Garfield Ridge offers:

A side note: you know how creepy this war is? I've worked for nearly a decade at the Pentagon. I don't think I've ever seen an amputee in uniform before.
This year alone, the count must be up to a dozen.

*But they're still in uniform.*

As horrific as war is, these men understand why we're fighting. So much so, that despite their suffering, they've found a way to stay in and continue their service. I couldn't be half as brave if I were drunk.

And some people just want to give up, and go home.

posted by Ace at 12:22 PM

Comments

This can't be pounded home enough.

Set goalposts FIRST, then stick to them.

I personally looked at what we knew about Iraq and figured that if we had less than American 5000 casualties in the first 5 years, this could go into the 'major league decisive victory' column. 10,000 casualties over five years seemed more likely.

Here we are near _1000_ after 18 months, with American trained Iraqi's taking up a greater percentage than we are of _recent_ fatalities, and I'm still baffled by the 'quagmire' claims. What in the flaming hell did these people _expect_??? Or do they believe 'quagmire' just because they've heard it so often from 'experts'? (IOW, refusing to step back and make their own freaking mind up, instead acting as an automaton).

IIRC nearly a third are non-combat fatalities - which basically happen regardless of where you're stationed.

The only rebuttal I give any more is:
1) Name a _more_ successful war for any century.
2) Name a _more_ successful occupation for any century.
(And if they bring up, say, Ghenghis Khan as being a notoriously good 'occupier', then you say 'Ok, we'll adopt _his_ tactics then?')

Posted by: Al on October 23, 2004 01:21 PM

A brilliant, compelling essay, Ace, and thank you for your thought and eloquence.

My wife and I are going to vote today (early voting here in Texas) for President Bush, a serious man
for serious times.

Posted by: Keith on October 23, 2004 01:23 PM

I can't take sullivan any more but he might claim that the post invasion insurgency is the result of incompetence and that's what lost his support.

Of course the first poster is correct, this is an amazingly well fought war over all. It's just that they did it so well they made it look easy. Now every monday morning quarterback has the idea anybody could have done it better.

Preposterous? Yes, but not compared to the nonsense that postmoderns swallow all the time.

Posted by: Boris on October 23, 2004 01:29 PM

It'll be interesting to see whether America still has the backbone and steeled nerves needed to finish this war like we did in the grim ones against the Japanese and the Confederacy.

Posted by: Moonbat_One on October 23, 2004 01:33 PM

You nailed it Ace. I am afraid this country does not have the steel to stick out a tough war. If it goes over 3 weeks and more than 50 people die, the press and libs determine it a loser. It is scary that about 30%40% of this country thinks like that.

Posted by: chewbaca on October 23, 2004 02:15 PM

Don't listen to Sullivan, he's got something stuck up his butt.

Posted by: AllenS on October 23, 2004 02:17 PM

Ace--

I hate you.

You go out and write a piece that captures my thinking *precisely*, only more eloquently.

Sure, you save *me* from having to write it, but you get all the glory for thinking just like me.

Argh.

Anyways-- I couldn't agree more.

A side note: you know how creepy this war is? I've worked for nearly a decade at the Pentagon. I don't think I've ever seen an amputee in uniform before.

This year alone, the count must be up to a dozen.

*But they're still in uniform.*

As horrific as war is, these men understand why we're fighting. So much so, that despite their suffering, they've found a way to stay in and continue their service. I couldn't be half as brave if I were drunk.

And some people just want to give up, and go home.

And I too live in one of those nice nuclear bullseyes. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who has in the back of their mind-- but sadly, not TOO far back-- the omnipresent threat of instant incineration.

Hell, at least during the Cold War, you figured you had a pretty good chance of warning (a building crisis, or a news bulletin a couple of minutes before the missiles hit).

Nowadays, I sometimes selfishly pray that the day D.C. goes up is the day I'm visiting Baltimore, or elsewhere.

But still, I fear the flash, and "poof," everything's gone.

THEN we'll see what willpower we have. Or, more accurately, what willpower everyone else has, as I'll be dead.

Damn, that's an awfully inconvenient test to offer unserious Americans. . . hope they enjoy what Patriot Act Part #2 looks like *after* a city goes up in ash.

V/R,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge on October 23, 2004 02:55 PM

You should probably put that in a post, rather than in a comment.

Posted by: ace on October 23, 2004 02:58 PM

Wow.

Posted by: Elric on October 23, 2004 03:07 PM

Certainly they have captured the heart and mind of Andrew Sullivan

Some sort of burqa sex fantasy thing, as I understand it.

Posted by: Kent on October 23, 2004 03:22 PM

Ace--

Yup, posted.

http://garfieldridge.blogspot.com/2004/10/go-read-ace.html

Cheers,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge on October 23, 2004 03:29 PM

I come for the humor, but I stay for posts like these. A brilliant capture of the vital difference between those who are serious in a post-911 world and those who are simply posing.

Thanks.

Posted by: Rob on October 23, 2004 04:08 PM

Well done, Ace.

I don’t think more than 30% of the population wants to cut and run in Iraq. The other 15% who are against the liberation of Iraq are only against it because Bush is for it.

Before our invasion, I remember someone in the Administration saying that American deaths could be as high as 10,000. Many in the MSM were predicting 100,000 American deaths.

It is a miracle that there have been only 1000 American deaths in pacifying 90% of Iraq.

Posted by: on October 23, 2004 07:34 PM

Ace, I think you're pretty close...

But...

I do not believe for a minute that the people who proclaim outrage over the "wrong war at the wrong time" have been "demoralized" by our losses thus far. The fact is they don't give a rat's ass about our dead. They are trying to use the deaths of those brave young men and women as a wedge to drive between the rest of us.

The want us to loose, plain and simple. And they intend to make sure we loose the same way we lost Vietnam.

I pray there are enough good people left to see the enemy for who, what -- and where -- they truely are.

Posted by: fretless on October 23, 2004 08:01 PM

I find it really hard to believe that a country that has known real loss in catastrophic wars like our Civil War, WWI & II, finds this challenge so difficult.

I'm as anxious as anybody else when I see the butchery that the cowardly enemy is enamored of. But people, this has been a walk in the park so far, when compared with other conflicts.

We are a country of 300 million. Yes, this war is expensive and we are all paying for it one way or another. But have we been asked to gather up scrap metal and give up wearing pantyhose for raw materials needed for the war effort? Have we been asked to send most of our best men to the front, leaving the women alone to raise the kids and rivet bombers together? Is the government exhorting us to buy war bonds every single day?

Did all the manhood in this country die in the last great war? No.

When I hear these ideologically-blindered assholes whining as if we're getting our butts kicked all over the schoolyard, it enrages me because it dishonors those who serve, and those who already made the ultimate sacrifice.

The best way to honor our heroes is to encourage them to WIN. Do you think the folks in Iraq want to pull out after losing men there?? What a way to waste their sacrifice. You don't run away unless its a fucking ROUT, and it is so far from that that all the handwringing going on is meaningless, completely unleashed from reality.

I can't be the only one that sees this. Above all, Americans want to win.

Even if you were against the war from the start- how can you not see that running away is the absolute worst thing to do now? The lots have been chosen, its time to see the thing through.

Posted by: lauraw on October 23, 2004 08:29 PM

Oh, and Ace, terrific post :)

Posted by: lauraw on October 23, 2004 08:41 PM

What Dave said in that first sentence: "You go out and write a piece that captures my thinking *precisely*, only more eloquently."

My initial estimates were far more pessimistic than yours. I was figuring thousands in the first strikes (as well as far more Iraq deaths). I was also figuring over 5 years of 'occupation' before elections. I underestimated the Iraqi hope for freedom, there. I was very slow in supporting the war at all (I thought, and still think, that we should have first gone through Iran).

But I decided to support it and I still support it. And I've been rather pleasantly surprised that the cost hasn't been as high as I expected, even while I sorrow for those that have paid that cost.

Posted by: Kathy K on October 23, 2004 09:19 PM

I had heard about the blogs but after Mr. Rathers attempted hatchet job on our President, all I can say ladies and gentlemen is that you have done a great service to the country for exposing his and CBS's attempted coup. My wife and I also voted early for the President*Texas). We are hopeful that good common sense will prevail in this country. I'm a retired Navy Chief of 21 years(1999) but I can tell you that if I had known the 9/11 was going to occur I would have stayed on active duty. Our son is a 13 year vet stationed on a ship in San Diego. Like all of you I am keenly aware of the stakes we are up against if we lose this one. I know that if we do lose it, it will not be because of the men and women now on active duty. I salute all of them. They are all in my prayers daily. If we should lose this election, the blogs are going to become even more important than ever in light of a biased media (Fox excluded) and the stupid leftests in our country. So hang in there.
Hal

Posted by: Hal Howell on October 24, 2004 12:46 AM

You point an awful lot to the "position" espoused by Andrew Sullivan. Would someone tell me what, if any, credibility Andrew Sullivan has about anything, any longer?

I used to be disturbed when Mark Shea would write that for Andrew, it's all about little willy. Now I realize that, lo and behold, Mark was right. Andrew's epiphany about Iraq and the glory that is John Kerry came so suddenly on the heels of Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment against gay marriage that one marvels that anyone takes him seriously.

Posted by: Rev. Mike on October 24, 2004 11:58 AM

This is a modest carp regarding non-combat injuries: your assertion that they would occur anyway is questionable. I guess the operational pace is much higher that you will find in normal training or garrison mode, especially for the reserves. Operational accidents and illness resulting from stress and harsh conditions are thus also much higher.

Posted by: Neil Ferguson on October 24, 2004 02:36 PM

A Kerry win, coupled with cut and run, would not be the end of the world.

I think Mickey Kaus put it like this - it wouldn't be any worse than the Carter Presidency.

Which was pretty freaking horrible, yet here we are.

Vietnam ended up being a colossal tragedy - it destroyed our image and our armed forces.

For about a decade. 15 years after the debacle of the US turning tail on the fight to stop the spread of Communism, the Berlin Wall came apart.

For over a year during the Carter Presidency, a few hundred dopes in Iran held our entire country hostage and helpless.

And yet here we are.

Granted, laxity this time around might mean that NYC gets nuked. But all throughout the Cold War, the stakes were at least that high. And we survived.

And I imagine, even with a President Kerry in office, a US military ignominiously withdrawn from Iraq and the new yet feeble Iraqi democracy consigned to the dustbin of history, if NYC gets nuked, he will respond.

Hell, we survived Clinton. Some people think those were the best days of our lives.

At any rate, what comes will come.

Posted by: blaster on October 25, 2004 12:33 PM

Clinton is on the campaign trail. It looks like the media really likes his story of coming back from heart surgery to fight for Kerry. It appears his mission will be to energize blacks and young voters, especially female ones - that haven't been that enthusiastic for Lurch.

Expect the news tonight will lead with the missing 380 tons of HE, then Bill Clinton back in the game driving the crowds wild, then some Bush speech about strong leadership.

Posted by: Cedarford on October 25, 2004 01:24 PM

blaster --

I agree: what comes will come.

But hell, what comes has a better chance of being better when past experience informs us how not to make the same mistakes again, no??

Somewhere in Japan is there some radiation-scarred old man walking around mumbling "Hell, we survived WWII. And yet here we are. We will survive again if the U.S. loses it mind!"

I doubt they will.

Posted by: deona on October 25, 2004 02:47 PM

Hoke. er I mean Ace,

Kerry won't cut and run. He will continue to do exactly what our generals tell him to do. What I fear most however, is once things turn in Iraq, and turn to the better, he will bask in the glory and credit himself with turning the whole mess around, therby re-habilitating the democratic party's image as a war-competent party. France, Germany, and perahps the surrounding mullocracies will do their best to help Kerry look successful, knowing full well, that a successful Kerry administration means no more pre-emptive war. It means more patty-cake with the UN, and it means 30 more years of theocratic leadership in the remaining death-cult states.

so in the long run, while Kerry basks in the successful liberation of Iraq, the true legacy of his presidency is that he will ensure the continued suffering of billions still imprisoned in fascist prison-states.

However this is all fantasy as far as I'm concerned, I see Bush in an electoral landslide..

enough of this pessimism! lets talk Madonna!

(Author corrected by Ace.)

Posted by: Street GOP on October 25, 2004 03:26 PM

The only morality in war is victory.

The questions as to why it has to be like this are cogent. What I'm about to say will anger some people but...here goes.

If we, as a country, had actually gone to a war footing...if Bush had actually asked for a formal declaration (international law be damned) rather than a simple joint resolution, I think people would think differently (except for the usual moonbats).

The fact that Bush was faced with an opposition that spent every waking moment trying to delegitimize him as the constitutionally elected leader, not to mention becoming hysterical over every move the President has made to try and protect the country, how can we blame the casual observer of politics for falling into the trap laid by Democrats? I don't think the people are much less inclined to fight a long bloody war, they simply want the world to go away and stop bothering them.

Can you blame them for supporting Kerry under those circumstances?

Posted by: superhawk on October 25, 2004 03:35 PM

Deona -

The difference here is that we did recover from the Carter Presidency, and Vietnam, and came back to achieve victory over our enemies.

The Japanese guy might think that someday he'll overcome, but it hasn't happened, and it won't.

As I note, the Carter Presidency sucked. Suckage is not to be desired. But it won't be the end of the world, or us, or anything like that.

And, while what will happen will happen, this is not something that we have no voice in.

As Ace and everybody says - vote.

Posted by: blaster on October 25, 2004 04:10 PM

Neil Ferguson--

RE: non-combat casualties.

I'm unsure of what the rate is right now in theater, but if past experience is any guide, non-combat injuries & deaths during recent combat operations have actually been *lower* than "peacetime" rates.

It has a lot to do with increased focus on safety, heightened awareness, better maintenance of equipment, etc.

The "you wear your seatbelt to an auto race" effect.

That may not be the trend in Iraq, however, but it was the trend during the first Gulf War, so I wouldn't be surprised if it continued.

Cheers,
DK

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge on October 25, 2004 04:12 PM

Dave, my husband said much the same thing in a conversation yesterday regarding injuries and deaths. They're much more careless with safety in non-combat and training situations than they are in theater. I'll try to get him to come up with some figures.

Posted by: maggie katzen on October 25, 2004 04:39 PM

"...once things turn in Iraq, and turn to the better, he [Kerry] will bask in the glory and credit himself with turning the whole mess around, therby re-habilitating the democratic party's image as a war-competent party."

Who gives a damn about who gets the credit, as long as things go well for the USA.
And I don't think he would seriously abandon pre-emptive action. Remember, when a Democrat unleashes the bombs, its a GOOD thing.

Posted by: lauraw on October 25, 2004 05:07 PM

Why don't we just say it? Kerry and Kerry supporters, including those in Europe, are cowards. They talk tough but when the time arrives to act, they cut and run away like frightened little children. Need proof? Kerry likes to say that "if" we are attacked he will not hesitate to respond (of course only after with pass a "Global Test" and get UN approval). Just what, pray tell, does he call 9-11? Pretending that 9-11 was not really a terrorist attack (more like a little terrorist temper tantrum - we should give those little fellas a little timeout!) is the mindset of a coward and from it flows defeat, shame and more cowardliness.

Posted by: Philip on October 25, 2004 05:29 PM

Um, blaster? The Soviet Union wasn't as committed to our destruction as the Islamists are. For them, there are only two choices: 1) The entire world submits to sharia law and becomes Muslim; 2) The entire world dies. And they're quite serious about it because God told them to. The Communists never had the courage or motivation that comes from belief in a supreme being.

Posted by: Smack on October 25, 2004 06:22 PM

Smack, I dunno about that. The New Soviet Man was their new God. They were definitely committed.

But my point was that after Carter came Reagan. We survived those who wanted to not fight the Cold War (you know, people like Kerry) because we had people who wanted to win.

Again, like Mickey Kaus, I think a Kerry Presidency would be no worse than a Carter one. Awful, yet not the end of the world.

Posted by: blaster on October 25, 2004 09:55 PM

Great essay Ace. Thanks.

Is as(s) being subsidized by Soros? The vehemence of his writing coupled with the weakness of his arguments reeks of pay-off to me.

Nit pick: 'Henny Penny's' should be Henny-Pennys - it's plural, not possesive. America has lost control of the apostrophe. :)

Posted by: max on October 25, 2004 10:13 PM

Smack, I dunno about that. The New Soviet Man was their new God. They were definitely committed.

Sure. But were they committed enough to strap nukes to themselves and vaporize Manhattan? If so, they could have done it any day of the week. Personally, I see an entirely different level of dedication between Communists and Islamists.

Posted by: Smack on October 25, 2004 11:10 PM

Where is it written that we give a flying fig about what former sane person, Andrew Sullivan, thinks?

Either he was playing us for fools all along or he has some kind of brainwave glitch which causes him to see gay marriage as the primary issue facing the world today.

Islam takes over the world, gays and feminists will the first to go.

Posted by: erp on October 26, 2004 09:25 AM

One more sign of success for the Bush strategy: in Spain, when the terrorists wanted to influence an election, they staged an attack in Spain. Now, with the terrorists wanting to influence the US election, where do they stage their attacks? Iraq....and not in the US. That is the definition of success for the Bush doctrine.

Posted by: Another Thought on October 26, 2004 09:47 AM

We need to keep in mind that that Sullivan isn't pissed off at the Bush team for what is going on in Iraq - he's mad because Bush has come out in favor of the FMA. And Sullivan knows, having previously said how important the war against terror is and how important it is to take the fight to the source and support of terrorism - that he'd lose whatever credibility he has with conservatives were he to come out and announce that he is supporting Kerry because Bush is standing in the way of Sullivan's getting to marry his significant other. So he's come up with one lame complaint after another regarding Iraq - none of which would deter him from supporting Bush had Bush not touched the third rail of gay politics: opposition to gay marriage. And I know Kerry says he is against it too, it's just that Bush is actually doing something to try to keep it from happening.

And, in a cheap plug, please visit my site at thoughtsonline

Posted by: steve on October 26, 2004 10:09 AM

Ace, there's a sad explanation that seems impossible to believe but fits the existing facts:

Some people think war is a video game.

Only in video games do conflicts develop along predefined lines, where the fundamental rules are known and enforced with the iron idiocy of code, and the opponent is often just some AI mimicking a real person. In video games one can restore a saved game again and again to avoid the mistake that was just made until the perfect campaign is fought. In a video game we can be omniscient and omnipotent, especially with the right cheat codes. In video games, there are life meters and powerups, and no one ever dies because of sheer accident. And in a video game, even the bloodiest, deaths are a function of graphics capability: they happen, there are special effects, and then the body is gone.

Some people think war is a video game, and when it turns out they're wrong, they can't handle it. No wonder the rest of us can't understand these people.

Posted by: slarrow on October 26, 2004 12:52 PM

I was one of the unfortunate ones that fought in the last war that we "decided" not to win - you remember the one that we sought "peace with honor" - VietNam. If you remember, we did not lose that war on the battlefield - but in the streets of America. 58,000 brave young bodies and countless non lethal casaulities for naught.

I look at the military today and am green with envy. I envy them not their war; I envy their preparation, technology and training for war. I envy their passion to complete their task.

I fear that with the mindset of the "street" today that we will again have lives lost for naught. If we do not persist to prosecute this war with fervor and intelligence, we should pack up right now and leave - before we loose one more brave man or woman. If we stay today - for today's fight; then we must be here tomorrow for tomorrow's battle.

Posted by: rls on October 26, 2004 04:07 PM

What number, praytell, did Mr. Sullivan expect? When he was so passionately, and so emotionally, making his case for all the wond'rous benefits that would flow from an American invasion, what number of American dead was he envisioning? What number of American dead did he have in his mind as the break-point between a war that was virtuous and necessary and a war that was too painful and not worth fighting at all?
He never told us when he was so stridently urging this nation into war. He can correct this oversight by telling us now-- and telling us, too, why he never informed us of how very conditional his passionate support for war was.

Well, looking back into his blogging during the drive to Baghdad, this what Sullivan said:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2003_03_30_dish_archive.html#200089212

The phrase "it seems -- even if the war overall is going well so far" is the qualification only a master blogger could pull off. So's the final sentence. If there's room for doubting the hawks' "grander" rosy scenarios, is there no room for doubting the less grand ones, like, er, that Rummy hasn't obviously screwed up so far? In fact, to the naked eye, he's kicking butt. Surely the best neoliberal criterion should still be Kenneth Pollack's (partly because it wasn't made with any of the current debate in mind):
Probably the most likely scenario would be about one third of Iraq's armed forces fighting hard, limited use of tactical WMD, and some extensive combat in a few cities. In this most likely case, the campaign would probably last four to eight weeks and result in roughly 500 to 1,000 American combat deaths.

To argue that the war has taken much longer than necessary seems to me at this point to be pushing credulity. At the current rate of progress, it looks as if we're going to come in at the lower end of Pollack's estimate. But I guess the anti-neo-cons have got to grasp at something. If things continue at this pace, it's going to be a cluster of von Hoffman awards.

Some more posts of what Sullivan was saying back then:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2003_03_30_dish_archive.html#200095132

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2003_03_30_dish_archive.html#200083466

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2003_03_23_dish_archive.html#200053130

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2003_03_23_dish_archive.html#200046948

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2003_03_23_dish_archive.html#200046943

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2003_03_23_dish_archive.html#200044428

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2003_03_23_dish_archive.html#200040666

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2003_03_23_dish_archive.html#200038091

Posted by: vs on October 27, 2004 02:39 AM

Hmmmm.

Interesting essay and one I can certainly agree with. As for Andrew Sullivan's rather ridiculous change of heart, who really cares? Some people have ascribed this switch to the issue of gay marriage. Personally my opinion is that the reasoning was entirely mercenary.

In the run up to the invasion of Iraq Sullivan was a hawk because that drew in the most cash. Up until a couple years ago, many blogs were oriented around Republican viewpoints. After that more Democrats started using blogs to be politically active. Look at MoveOn.org. It didn't really hit it's stride until a relatively short time ago.

And about the same time Andrew Sullivan made his switch. So instead of asking for donations from Republicans he's now hitting up Democrats.

Personally I nicknamed him "Make'a Buck".

Posted by: ed on November 2, 2004 12:05 AM

Instalanche, Ace!

Posted by: Sortelli on November 2, 2004 01:25 AM