C.L. said:

Not at all, Bill. There is no doubt violence is frequently ramped up in Iraq to impress the wannabe Kronkite Mini-Mes in the Western media and empower surrender advocates in the US. The truth is most of Iraq “on the ground”

A public perception that wasn’t so manifestly manipulated by this alliance of terrorists and Bush-hating lunatics might become cynical about the activity of terrorists rather than American troops.

Let’s break that down.

“A public perception” – born of what? Media? Where else do we get it, the public, en masse?

“that wasn’t so manifestly manipulated” – by what, again? ..in relation to “this alliance of terrorists and Bush-hating lunatics” – where does this come from? Seriously, C.L. (and I’m not against you here, at all), where does this come from? The media?

Check it out mate. That’s the very thing, if you can do it, that hurt the non-supporters of the war in the first place. Don’t fight me on this.. this is the same thing going on, for each: the supporters and original non-supporters. What you are talking about is an alliance, which leads to a perception. Original non-supporters felt hurt by that alliance, deemed it “wrong”. Now, you are suffering the very same thing.

It leads to this:

“might become cynical about the activity of terrorists rather than American troops.” – which deeply offends you, and is an expression of that hurt.

In that there is common ground, which you just may appreciate, as some non-supporters do already, or, if you like, in return.

And it may allow another conversation between us all as to where, from each our perspectives, requirements for us all can be better met.

So in talking about public perceptions, we of course invoke the media, and behind that: alliances.

But let’s go deeper.

Doesn’t the media serve a purpose, meet demand?

On your ownsome there C.L., it clearly would be of enormous assistance if the good man Tim Blair or someone of his knowledge, could walk with you, contributing as you do – with considered insight at same length and heart.

There really is a good story to tell.

.

He voted against helping expul Iraq from Kuwait and then voted to allow Bush to invade Iraq

Thoroughly deluded as always, Birdy.

It already is. The public perception problem is the major crisis at the heart of the WOT and that is being deliberately stoked by hysterical BDS-suffering whackjobs who change their minds on everything according to propagandistic whim.

The Dolchstosslegende is alive and well, obviously.

You don’t think events on the ground might be a tiny bit more important than public perception? Or even one of the reasons why public perception is now so negative?

Nah, it’s obviously all Kerry’s fault.

The Americans never tried to win that war. They didn not try and neutralise Chinese and Soviet involvement and they did not invade North Vietnam with a proxy army to decapitate the communist leadership.

You cannot as a rule win wars unless you have the goal of winning them. The victory doesn’t just sort of fall into your lap.

It is conventional forces that decapitate regimes. So no you are wrong. If they wanted to win that war they needed conventional forces and they needed the decision to be made to pin down the communist powers and decapitate the North Vietnam leadership.

A police force wouldn’t work at all. This is lunacy you are talking.

Now its the same in the current setup. If they are not willing to neutralise third parties and then decapitate Iran, Syria and others by air and proxy war there is no reason to believe that the neigbouring countries will stop running this murder campaign in Iraq.

http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2337#comment-12499

“First of all, Kerry voted for the war.”

There was never a vote “for the war.” Kerry voted to give Bush authorization to use force as a last resort if we were actually proven to be threatened by WMD. He made it clear he would oppose Bush if he went to war except as a last resort. The vote was primarily to give Bush the leverage to get the inspectors back in. Bush misused the authorization

More on the IWR vote at Liberal Values. I hope its ok that I also quoted the beginning portion of this blog post there today along with a link back here.

As democrafty notes, Kerry has written extensively on terrorism. Besides the book mentioned, Kerry had op-eds in the New York Times and Foreign Affairs at the time of the vote which show his opposition to the war, with similar sentiments expressed in his Senate floor speech. Kerry urged Bush not to rush to war in his pre-war speech at Georgetown which predicted many of the problems we have faced. At the onset of the war, Kerry protested by calling for regime change in the United States.

“Second, Bush never said the WOT was going to be a conventional soldiering war. Nor is it one.”

Sure Bush is doing more than conventional war, but by far the bulk of the expenditures have been on the foolish war in Iraq.

“Kerry’s observation was disparaged because there was nothing new or interesting about it.”

Except that Kerry got it all right, while Bush was wrong in virtually every decision. Kerry was disparaged because all Republicans, who lack real ideas, can do is disparge others when they are right. Kerry has had a consistent and correct view about the war from the start, and resorting to name calling (“good old Flipper”) does not change that fact.

As Sen Kerry said on the eve of the IWR vote:

“I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot – and will not – support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible.”

Neither does Senator Kerry or any other Democrat that I have heard speak on the subject object to wiretapping. On the contrary, it’s a critical law enforcement tool when properly done. Prior to Bush’s flip-flop, he agreed:

“Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order.” GW Bush 4/04

Regarding the ‘four month veteran’ comment, CL, do you also discount the military service of other veterans? Are you willing to tell the rest of the men who served on the Gridley or any vet who served stateside they should wipe that time from their service record? Sen Kerry served in the Navy on active duty from August 1966- March 1970. If my math is correct, that’s about 3 years and four months more than you suggest.

I fail to see what’s multi-faceted about Bush’s approach to war. Perhaps you can back that up with something more substantial than ‘everyone else is wrong’.

Kerry/Feingold is a multi-faceted approach which adds to intelligence, military and law enforcement, the most critical piece, diplomacy. The ISG and others are recommending a similar approach.

What is sadly missing from Bush’s plan is a plan. There is no defense for that. His arrogance has resulted in the loss of thousands of American lives and many thousands more Iraqis, billions of taxpayer dollars, and America’s moral authority.

And what’s more, reading posts like this and many others makes me think you are selling the Americans – and the Iraqi police – very short.

Perhaps the USA is a victim of its own military might. If you get attacked on your own soil for the first time in 60 years and you’ve got more strike-power than the rest of the world put together, it must be hard to accept that all that power is useless. The instinct to unleash the dogs of war must have been overwhelming.

Unfortunately it’s easy to fall into the trap of analysing the Iraqi situation as if Australia is inevitably locked into the fate of the USA. There’s too much endless (futile) rehashing in this country of the argument about whether the USA was justified in invading Iraq, and not enough calm reflection on whether Australia was wise to tag along. Howard of course deliberately encourages this mentality that if it’s good enough for the USA to be there it’s good enough for us too – slyly ignoring those who have been and gone like the Italians, Japanese and soon the South Koreans.

It’s interesting and useful to debate American policy, but not if it diverts us from debating Australian policy (that’s a general observation, not directed at D W’s post). The matter that Australia can directly control is whether or not we maintain combat forces in Iraq. I don’t believe that we should and the contrary argument advanced by Howard – that if it’s good enough for us to quit then it’s good enough for the USA and Britain too – just avoids the issues of substance.

This policy was a complete and utter disaster and laid the attitudinal groundwork – from al Qaeda’s perspective – for the 9/11 attacks.

Bin Laden took one look at Bush and knew he’d bite back. And here we are, having played straight into his hands, C.L.

Second, Bush never said the WOT was going to be a conventional soldiering war. Nor is it one. He said the exact opposite. From the outset, he argued the WOT would be characterised by a combination of big military ops, policing, investigation, disruption, counter-intelligence, unseen victories and unreported battles. Kerry’s observation was disparaged because there was nothing new or interesting about it – like almost everything the four month veteran of the Vietnam War says. His colleagues, incidentally, have done everything they can to sabotage policing strategies like eavesdropping (which stopped the British Sky Terror plot of last year) and electronic surveillance.

The straight-out policing approach to terrorism was essentially the policy of the Clinton administration in response to the first WTC bombing, the embassy bombings, the USS Cole etc. This policy was a complete and utter disaster and laid the attitudinal groundwork – from al Qaeda’s perspective – for the 9/11 attacks. Meanwhile, Libya has folded as a bona fide bad hombre because the Colonel rightly fears being regime-changed if he gets too big for his Italian loafers. The Arab world – quite aside from what its principals babble on about in public – would love nothing more than for Iran’s nuclear facilities to be bombed to smithereens and that’s not a job for Denis Franz.

I’m not sure I’d give too many hoorahs to Keelty and the AFP either. Their slimey rendition of drug smugglers to Indonesia for execution was an act of national cowardice for which he personally should have been sacked. Bashir and others were given amnesties and early releases. That’s good policing isn’t it? Release the mastermind – why didn’t somebody else think of that?

The combination should be multi-faceted, yes. It already is. The public perception problem is the major crisis at the heart of the WOT and that is being deliberately stoked by hysterical BDS-suffering whackjobs who change their minds on everything according to propagandistic whim. The poster-boy for this kind of erratic, egomanical, partisan contrariness is none other than the junior senator from Massachusets himself – yes, good old Flipper.