NBC questioned feasibility of ISG proposals but not McCain plan
During a report on the "military realities" of the Iraq Survey Group's (ISG) final report, the December 7 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News featured Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) criticism of the ISG's suggestion that "all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq" by early 2008 as "a recipe that will lead to, sooner or later, our defeat in Iraq." However, in citing McCain's remarks on whether the ISG's military suggestions for Iraq are "realistic," NBC ignored the fact that McCain's own military proposal for Iraq is likely unfeasible and that top military commanders have questioned its utility.
From the December 7 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News:
BRIAN WILLIAMS (anchor): And now to the military realities. The Iraq Study Group's report said the focus of U.S. troops in Iraq should shift now from combat to training, and that all combat brigades not necessary for force protection specifically could be withdrawn by early 2008. But is that realistic? We have perspectives from two different fronts tonight beginning from the home headquarters, the Pentagon, and NBC News correspondent Jim Miklaszewski.
MIKLASZEWSKI: In the sharpest criticism yet, Republican Senator John McCain told Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton their report for Iraq reminds him of the last war the U.S. lost: Vietnam.
McCAIN: And I believe that this is a recipe that will lead to, sooner or later, our defeat in Iraq.
MIKLASZEWSKI: One of McCain's biggest concerns: the recommendation that most U.S. combat forces be withdrawn from Iraq while the number of American military advisers embedded with Iraqi forces be increased. That could put those U.S. advisers at great risk.
As Media Matters for America has noted, McCain, who has called for thousands more U.S. troops to be sent to Iraq, has himself asserted that the fate of the U.S. effort in Iraq will be decided in a matter of months, and yet he has acknowledged that sending 20,000 more soldiers into the region would require increasing active forces by 100,000. Moreover, Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on November 15 and stated that his commanders did not believe a troop increase would significantly improve the situation in Iraq: "I've met with every divisional commander. General [George] Casey, the corps commander, [Lt.] General [Martin] Dempsey -- we all talked together. And I said, 'In your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?' And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more."
The last war the U.S. lost: Vietnam
The item has someone named Miklaszewski quoting Sen. John McCain, as supposedly saying to Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton, that "their report for Iraq reminds him of..."
The last war the U.S. lost: Vietnam
..."war... lost": It's hard to find two words more naturally disagreeable to one another...
War, and Lost.
Remember the last war the U.S. "won"?
They call it World War II by name.
You know why the U.S. "won" that war?
Because it involved the National Security of the United States of America... the number one priority of the American People internationally: The National Security of the U.S.; which is why the American People fought, and "won", that war.
That's not only why we "won", but it also defines what "winning" was: The continued and preserved National Security of the U.S.
Just what is "winning" in Iraq? For that matter, what would "winning" in Vietnam have been?
The continued and preserved National Security of the U.S.?
How could that possibly be, seeing as how the National Security of the U.S. is not (and was not) at issue in those places.
And that is why, in Sen. McCain's words:
The last war the U.S. lost: Vietnam
...because it did not involve the National Security of the U.S., and therefore the American People could not in good conscience support the death and destruction, of U.S. Troops and the Vietnamese people, in that place.
And the same can be said of Iraq, for sure.
But there is such a thing as "winning" in Iraq though... it's the same with "getting the job done", and "accomplishing the mission... the objective... the goal".
If the "mision and objective and goal", and "winning" in Iraq, has nothing to do with U.S. National Security, then what is "winning" in Iraq?
The formation of a STABLE IRAQI GOVERNMENT, pure and simple.
And that is not the work of the U.S. Armed Forces (their work was done successfully, long ago)...
...the formation of a STABLE IRAQI GOVERNMENT is the work of the Iraqi people, and of every human Diplomatic effort the Bush administration can make...
...pure and simple.
Are they, the Bush administration and most notably their State Dept., are they working at that job?
Are they working as hard as the U.S. Armed Forces worked at their's?
Are they, the administration or our Government, working toward forming a STABLE IRAQI GOVERNMENT?
Obviously not.
As a matter of fact, they are fast becoming CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT in their Constitutional obligations to the American People, by failing them so tragically in Iraq.
The ISG Report will not do the job of forming a STABLE IRAQI GOVERNMENT, nor can the Congress or the American People they represent...
It is the work of Diplomacy, and of every human effort the administration and the State Department can make in that regard.
But by all means, let the Senator from Arizona join foolishly words that either do not apply to Iraq, or have no meaning ("war" and "lost"), when he speaks of Iraq.
The last war the U.S. lost
...it seems a no-brainer, that such brainless (and worthless) rhetoric as that, must surely become (by '08 I'd guess)...
The last war the U.S. lost: Iraq
..."lost" in this sense, meaning only the absolute failure (CRIMINAL) of the Bush administration to form a STABLE IRAQI GOVERNMENT.
By McCain's statement, the US won the first Gulf war (and we pulled out). Apparently, he is changing the definition of winning. Also, what about the war in Afghanistan. It hasn't stopped, it's just that we've pulled most of our troops out. Where is the media on this?
So what is St. John suggesting we should have done in Vietnam?
Good question: Why doesn't the media as McCain? McCain would may suggest we probably needed another 50,000 troops (sarcasm). I've only heard of two arguments from the Right on what should have been done: 1) the military couldn't win it because American's opposed the war (majority of popular opinion was against it beginning in 1967 and the US left in 1973; by the way, this war also started on false pretenses, Gulf of Tonkin), so apparently the Right is arguing the soldiers lost the war because they didn't have enough cheerleaders; or 2) the other argument i've heard from the Right is that we should have nuked Vietnam, thus adding to the millions who died in the war.
Nuke 'em, keep sending more troops, anything but trying to get to the root causes of problems.
That's touchy-feely wimp talk, never solved anything, and worst of all, it's difficult for the Republicans to make giant piles of money from diplomacy.
I would recommend that all Americans start reproducing as quickly as possible, so that in 18 years we have a shocking and awesome fighting force.