Mission Accomplished. Somebody post that pic.

[Glengoyne]

On the way home tonight on NPR, I listened eagerly when progressive polititical strategist George Lakoff declared that Democrats need to admit "that George Bush got something right". It was the thing Lakoff said he got right, that surpirsed me. "When he stood on that carrier and said 'mission accomplished', he was right". Actually that is just a paraphrase, but pretty close to his message. He goes on to explain that in order to have a war, you have to have two armies. The army of Iraq had been destroyed, and was no longer a viable opposing force. I was amazed because that is pretty much how I consider the events to have unfolded in Iraq.

Now beyond that basic fact, our positions diverge semantically. I say that since we completed the invasion that the war ended and the mission became one of essentially "law and order". We are now working to bring security to the nation of Iraq. Lakoff's angle is that by declaring the war over, he can say that the United State's "occupation" of Iraq has begun. This is in order to frame the debate about bringing the troops home in a more appealing manner. In other words ending the disdainful occupation of Iraq sounds better than cutting and running, which is how the Republicans are framing the debate about the troops.

In any case I found it immensely rewarding to learn that at least some liberals understood what went on that day. I also enjoyed his bit about how political parties frame the debate about policy. I also think that the Dems are listening to him, and while it might irk them to give up the image of Bush in front of the banner as a weapon, I think they will at least give this "occupation" angle a run for a while.

[st.cronin]

Using that language would make a thousand percent more sense, strategically. So the Dems will never do it.

[QuikSand]

I also think that the Dems are listening to him, and while it might irk them to give up the image of Bush in front of the banner as a weapon, I think they will at least give this "occupation" angle a run for a while.

In the grandest of political traditions, I can't imagine the plan would be to do anything but have the cake and eat it too.

Lakoff is an academic, speaking to an NPR audience that (more than most) probably apprciates the actual logical mechanics of the argument -- but as far as it becoming a party line, there's nothing wrong with arguing both sides of the issue. Show the picture of "Mission Accomplished" because it revs up the engines of everyone who hates Bush already, and then make the "occupation" argument next (or the next day) to defend your desire to bring the troops home.

[Glengoyne]

In the grandest of political traditions, I can't imagine the plan would be to do anything but have the cake and eat it too.
...
True enough. I do certainly know better than expect either party's partisan banter to actually withstand a test of intellectual integrity. I guess I was expecting too much.

[Daimyo]

I think the last 6 years has taught the Dems that there isn't much to be gained politically in nuanced stances like the one you suggest they use. So while they may privately or semi-publically agree, I wouldn't expect to see it on a campaign commercial.

[clintl]

I think the last 6 years has taught the Dems that there isn't much to be gained politically in nuanced stances like the one you suggest they use. So while they may privately or semi-publically agree, I wouldn't expect to see it on a campaign commercial.

Right. For example, Kerry, during the presidential campaign, proposed tying troop withdrawals to specific political milestones achieved by the new (at the time, yet to be formed) Iraqi government, and the Bush campaign successfully obscured Kerry's nuanced proposal with its simplistic "stay the course" message.

[flere-imsaho]

I agree with everything said so far except for the idea that Democrats have learned anything from the last 6 years. Maybe some have, but certainly not those in charge of political campaigns.

[Glengoyne]

Right. For example, Kerry, during the presidential campaign, proposed tying troop withdrawals to specific political milestones achieved by the new (at the time, yet to be formed) Iraqi government, and the Bush campaign successfully obscured Kerry's nuanced proposal with its simplistic "stay the course" message.

I guess Lakoff's position wouldn't be for the Dems to publicly state that the war is over, or make any sort of distinction. I gather that his plan would be for the Dems to continue to refer to "an occupying army" or "ending the occupation in Iraq" in order to re-frame the debate over bringing the troops home. His point of view is that while a position may be nuanced and detailed, the rhetoric advocating shouldn't be.

[kcchief19]

I think this argument is way too nuanced to be effective. Nuance is a lost art in politics today. Fear and agitation have proven to be much more effective weapons than well-reasoned arguments.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Campaigns are run in 30-second commercials and 10-second sound-bites on the news. There's no room for nuance in that. Trite, simple, stupid. That's the way to go...

[Dutch]

Campaigns are run in 30-second commercials and 10-second sound-bites on the news. There's no room for nuance in that. Trite, simple, stupid. That's the way to go...

Funny, thre was no 30-second commerical or 10 second sound-bite requirement for you and all you came up with was trite, simple, and stupid. Go figure. :)

[cartman]

Funny, thre was no 30-second commerical or 10 second sound-bite requirement for you and all you came up with was trite, simple, and stupid. Go figure. :)

Did it take you the full four hours between that post and your response to come up with that witty retort?

[RendeR]

"Rome is the mob, win the hearts of the people and you win Rome"


or some such BS as that.....US Citizenry, on the average, aren't bright enough to understand and make decisions based on that much nuance.

Tell them something went wrong, make them afraid of it, then tell them who's to blame. Then you'll see the American "mob" in action.

[Buccaneer]

I had always believed the same thing (that the mission was accomplished). In my view of history, I have always kept military campaigns separate from political/societal campaigns, even though one is born of the other. The American Civil War is a good example. The military victory by the Union was very clear and Lincoln accomplished his mission of putting down the rebellion, keeping the Union intact and declaring the slaves emancipated (even though that was a latter mission). One could argue that the political and societal landscape did not come close to achieving the same level as success as the military one did. It does help that one has much more definable and measureable goals.

[Dutch]

Did it take you the full four hours between that post and your response to come up with that witty retort?

Sorry, let's go with something more serious for you since I sense you are not in a joking mood.

Mojo Jojo, there was no 30-second commerical or 10 second sound-bite requirement for you and all you came up with was trite, simple, and stupid. Go figure.

Better?

[Buccaneer]

I don't fully comprehend what I wrote so I'll put in a 10-second sound bite: Throughout history, there have many instances of decisive military victories followed by consequences (usually problematic) of such victory that lasts generations. It causes historians to look back and ask whether such victory (or perhaps the decisiveness of it) was worth it.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I agree with the distinctions that Bucc and GlenG (and others) have laid out, but just look at the first line of that speech:

"Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."

That was not true. There have been dozens of "major combat operations" in Iraq since then. There have been operations to re-take areas of Iraq, cities, etc. I think the distinction between "major combat operations" for the purposes of taking out the Iraqi army and those as part of "securing" Iraq is pretty weak.

As of May 2003 (when the speech was given), major combat operations in Iraq had notended. There were (and still are) areas of Iraq that are no-go zones.

Bush does qualify it in his next sentence and latter on in the speech, but the opening line of the speech (along with the sign and other theatrics) really gives the impression that "major combat operations" had ended and all that was left was sort of police work/clean up. That was not the case.

[JPhillips]

A couple of points.

First, does anyone really think the Dems would be better off arguing that the U.S. Army is an occupying force? It wouldn't take Karl Rove thirty seconds to destroy that argument. And also giving the Republicans a ton of sound bites saying GWB won the war in Iraq? There may be an intellectual honesty to the argument but its shitty politics.

Buc: My only quibble with your argument is that establishing a relatively secular democracy has always been the goal. Removing Saddam was never an end in itself and that's why I can't agree that anything was "Mission Accomplished". It was nothing more than a briliant PR move completely detached from our policy goals.

[Daimyo]

He goes on to explain that in order to have a war, you have to have two armies. The army of Iraq had been destroyed, and was no longer a viable opposing force.

Maybe the confusion stems from the fact that there was never any real declaration of war? Iraq was a "military engagement" and the military is still engaged so its hard for the average person to really see much difference between pre and post "mission accomplished."

[flere-imsaho]

Oh, in light of the original request:

http://kamilewicz.org/albums/misc/1030_02.jpg

Just to make Dutch feel better, though:

http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas/wp-content/kerry_football.jpg

[Dutch]

Oh, in light of the original request:

http://kamilewicz.org/albums/misc/1030_02.jpg

Just to make Dutch feel better, though:

http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas/wp-content/kerry_football.jpg

To be fair, it only really bothered me when I thought most people didn't get both sides of the story. Now that most folks have heard the reality behind the picture, described, not by an opponent, but by somebody who agrees, it doesn't bother me at all.

I've always believed in freedom of speech, what I do not agree with is having the opposition speak for you. Both sides of a debated story is all I've ever asked for.

I think I've got that now. :)

[clintl]

It was nothing more than a briliant PR move completely detached from our policy goals.

Well, maybe not so brilliant. I think Bush has come to regret that day immensely.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I've always believed in freedom of speech.

http://gamersmafia.com/cache/thumbnails/193x193/storage/users/0/o_rly_owl.jpg


The singular act of flag burning, seen through my eyes, is treasonous. That's why I have no problem with those who voted YES. The flag reprresents the United States of America, not President Bush. The way I see it, when you burn that flag, you're burning your belief in the constitution of the United States, you're burning the Republican leadership, the Democratic leadership, the independent leadership, and the citizens. The act of burning the flag is not a protest, it is a symbolic gesture of treason. People who believe in the US Constitution would not burn the US Flag.

The Constitution is exactly what it says it is, nothing more, nothing less. And if there is an amendment that says the US Flag should be held above the values of freedom of speech, then that's what the Constitution will be. And I see absolutely nothing wrong with that, so long as we, the majority, believe in the value of the constitution and this nation.

That's why I support an amendment protecting our flag.

[Dutch]

Well, maybe not so brilliant. I think Bush has come to regret that day immensely.

I disagree. His job is to show his support to the military. And when they do a great job he should be allowed to visit with them and give them a pat on the back. Presidents (even Clinton visited with troops in the former Yugoslavia) do that. And for you, it's no big deal, a photo op even, but to the troops, it's a big deal. It's a morale boost to know your President, that sent you to fight, approves of your work.

He asked the military to remove Saddam Hussein from power. We did that. Mission Accomplished. Now on to the next task. Destroying the terror-insurgency. Mission Not Accomplished.

[Dutch]

To H_B:

You can protest decisions made by our government all day long (and you do). I've never once tread on your freedom of speech.

[clintl]

I disagree. His job is to show his support to the military. And when they do a great job he should be allowed to visit with them and give them a pat on the back.

I think Bush himself has admitted it was a mistake.

Showing support for the military and patting them on the back - not a problem.

Overstating what had been accomplished - something he shouldn't have done when he knew better. The mission had not yet been accomplished, and most people knew that even at the time.

[Anthony]

i really wish those pussy Iraqi leaders would have the balls and say "we thank America for their help, but we'll take over from here on out and formally request the Americans and other coalition forces return home". that would put the ball in Bush's court and have him officially risk looking like an occupier after having been asked to remove his troops. we're still going with the "we can stay as long as we want as long as we try to help this country". it's not for us to say when we can leave.

those Iraqi people are pussies and i hope the insurgents take control of that country as soon as we leave and someone more insane than Saddam puts them all back in their place. you might want to say "all the troops will have died for nothing", but in my view they will have died to show how one shouldn't be so quick to rush into war and would be 2500+ reasons why diplomacy must be exhausted before military options are pursued.

fuck Iraq, goddam garbage country.

[Franklinnoble]

i really wish those pussy Iraqi leaders would have the balls and say "we thank America for their help, but we'll take over from here on out and formally request the Americans and other coalition forces return home". that would put the ball in Bush's court and have him officially risk looking like an occupier after having been asked to remove his troops. we're still going with the "we can stay as long as we want as long as we try to help this country". it's not for us to say when we can leave.

those Iraqi people are pussies and i hope the insurgents take control of that country as soon as we leave and someone more insane than Saddam puts them all back in their place. you might want to say "all the troops will have died for nothing", but in my view they will have died to show how one shouldn't be so quick to rush into war and would be 2500+ reasons why diplomacy must be exhausted before military options are pursued.

fuck Iraq, goddam garbage country.

The Iraqi leaders have absolutely no desire to see Americal leave, and we're not going anywhere... ever. There will be a permanent base in Iraq for the indefinate future - sort of like what we have in Germany, Cuba, etc. We'll certainly see a reduction of troops there over time, but there will never be a complete withdrawal.

[Dutch]

We will be in Iraq for a long time. We won't have nice bases near big cities like we do in Germany and Japan. But we will probably have a desert base of some sort to keep one eye on Syria and one on Iran. Same with Afghanistan w/ regards to Iran. That just makes good sense. Hopefully we will have a lower footprint/profile sooner rather than later, but that all really depends on factors such as the Iraqi security forces that have limited experience at this point but definately getting better and of course how the civilians handle the terror-insurgents. Hopefully they will continue to find the true bothersome entity in their country is the foreign terrorists, not the foreign soldiers. Hopefully.

[Franklinnoble]

Camp Anaconda in Balad isn't going anywhere, and will probably be the permanent base. It's not too far from Baghdad. I think at this point, it's the largest US military base outside of the Western hemisphere.

[flere-imsaho]

The Iraqi leaders have absolutely no desire to see Americal leave

O RLY? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13521628/site/newsweek/)

June 24, 2006 - A timetable for withdrawal of occupation troops from Iraq. Amnesty for all insurgents who attacked U.S. and Iraqi military targets. Release of all security detainees from U.S. and Iraqi prisons. Compensation for victims of coalition military operations.

Those sound like the demands of some of the insurgents themselves, and in fact they are. But they're also key clauses of a national reconciliation plan drafted by new Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who will unveil it Sunday.

and we're not going anywhere... ever. There will be a permanent base in Iraq for the indefinate future - sort of like what we have in Germany, Cuba, etc. We'll certainly see a reduction of troops there over time, but there will never be a complete withdrawal.

That's a terrific idea. It's not as if the continued presence of U.S. troops in Middle Eastern states is one of fundamental Islam's key rallying points in their continuing war against the more moderate local elements.

[rexallllsc]

That's a terrific idea. It's not as if the continued presence of U.S. troops in Middle Eastern states is one of fundamental Islam's key rallying points in their continuing war against the more moderate local elements.

Hahah Seriously.

"We want you out of here!"

US: "I think we should build more bases in the Middle East..."

[flere-imsaho]

i really wish those pussy Iraqi leaders would have the balls and say "we thank America for their help, but we'll take over from here on out and formally request the Americans and other coalition forces return home".

They have. Besides what their new Prime Minister just said (above), we also have this (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/21/international/middleeast/21cnd-arab.html?ei=5070&en=2326527856f329e6&ex=1151726400&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1151606002-opvKetzO+ttOj3rTCKCsJg)from November:

CAIRO, Nov. 21 - For the first time, Iraq's political factions collectively called today for a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign forces, in a moment of consensus that comes as the Bush administration battles pressure at home to commit to a pullout schedule.

The announcement, made at the conclusion of a reconciliation conference here backed by the Arab League, was a public reaching out by Shiites, who now dominate Iraq's government, to Sunni Arabs on the eve of parliamentary elections that have been put on shaky ground by weeks of sectarian violence.

About 100 Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders, many of whom will run in the election in December, signed a closing memorandum on today that "demands a withdrawal of foreign troops on a specified timetable, together with an immediate national program for rebuilding the security forces," the statement said. "The Iraqi people are looking forward to the day when foreign forces will leave Iraq, when its armed and security forces will be rebuilt and when they can enjoy peace and stability and an end to terrorism."

Shiite leaders have long maintained that a pullout should be done according to milestones, and not before Iraqi security forces are fully operational. The closing statement upheld the Sunni demand, but did not specify when a withdrawal should begin, making it more of a symbolic gesture than a concrete demand that would be followed up by the Iraqi government.

[flere-imsaho]

To be fair, it only really bothered me when I thought most people didn't get both sides of the story. Now that most folks have heard the reality behind the picture, described, not by an opponent, but by somebody who agrees, it doesn't bother me at all.

So wait, I can't post the pic to deliberately annoy you anymore? That's deeply upsetting to me.... ;)

[Dutch]

So wait, I can't post the pic to deliberately annoy you anymore? That's deeply upsetting to me.... ;)

Sorry. :)

[flere-imsaho]

This is a sad, sad day indeed.

[Dutch]

Damnit, you were supposed to post the pic again. You've foiled my jokes...

[Raiders Army]

I agree with the distinctions that Bucc and GlenG (and others) have laid out, but just look at the first line of that speech:

"Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."

That was not true. There have been dozens of "major combat operations" in Iraq since then. There have been operations to re-take areas of Iraq, cities, etc. I think the distinction between "major combat operations" for the purposes of taking out the Iraqi army and those as part of "securing" Iraq is pretty weak.

As of May 2003 (when the speech was given), major combat operations in Iraq had notended. There were (and still are) areas of Iraq that are no-go zones.

Bush does qualify it in his next sentence and latter on in the speech, but the opening line of the speech (along with the sign and other theatrics) really gives the impression that "major combat operations" had ended and all that was left was sort of police work/clean up. That was not the case.
To get back on topic, what Bush was was true. Major combat operations against the Iraqi Army had ended. None of the combat operations that have happened since then have been against the Iraqi Army, agreed?

[Honolulu_Blue]

To get back on topic, what Bush was was true. Major combat operations against the Iraqi Army had ended. None of the combat operations that have happened since then have been against the Iraqi Army, agreed?

Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.

While I agree that "none of the combat operations that have happened since then have been against the Iraqi Army." Read the quote again. He doesn't say that. He says: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." Unless the source I am quoting is wrong (which is possible).

All of the major combat operations that have happened since then (other than those in Afghanistan, which is not at issue here) have been in Iraq, agreed?

[Raiders Army]

touche :)

[Dutch]

While I agree that "none of the combat operations that have happened since then have been against the Iraqi Army." Read the quote again. He doesn't say that. He says: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." Unless the source I am quoting is wrong (which is possible).

All of the major combat operations that have happened since then (other than those in Afghanistan, which is not at issue here) have been in Iraq, agreed?

However, even in this speech there are other tell-tale suggestions that one mission was complete and another was beginning--and that it might not be easy.

(President Bush IRT Iraq)Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes.

And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave — and we will leave behind a free Iraq.

(President Bush IRT Afghanistan) Yet we also have dangerous work to complete. As I speak, a special operations task force, led by the 82nd Airborne, is on the trail of the terrorists, and those who seek to undermine the free government of Afghanistan. America and our coalition will finish what we have begun.

(President Bush IRT Global Terrorism) Our mission continues. Al-Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland — and we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike.

The war on terror is not over, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory.

I guess he didn't spell out exactly what the future held, but he seemed publicly mindful enough about the possabilities of continued violence.

[Buccaneer]

He must have played Civ or at least heard of someone who has.

[Glengoyne]

Well, maybe not so brilliant. I think Bush has come to regret that day immensely.

While I believe that the jibes made with that photo completely take the events of that day out of context, I do believe that the banner was a huge political faux paux. Seriously if the guys who decided to hang the banner up had read and believed the speech the President's speech, then I don't think they would have hung it. Because he, in the speech, predicted that there would be a helluva long time for his opponents to throw that photo op back in his face.

[Honolulu_Blue]

However, even in this speech there are other tell-tale suggestions that one mission was complete and another was beginning--and that it might not be easy.

I guess he didn't spell out exactly what the future held, but he seemed publicly mindful enough about the possabilities of continued violence.


Bush does qualify it in his next sentence and latter on in the speech, but the opening line of the speech (along with the sign and other theatrics) really gives the impression that "major combat operations" had ended and all that was left was sort of police work/clean up. That was not the case.

I agree he did seem publicly mindful about the possibilities of continued violence, but what was clearly implied by the opening line of his speech and the rest of it was that the worst was behind us. Major combat operations were over and all that was left was policing Iraq. Again, that was decidedly not the case. There were entire areas and cities of Iraq that had not been "conquered" (to borrow a Civ phrase). Major combat operations, well beyond what is normally involved in simple police/securing work, were necessary following that speech.

That's my take on the whole thing. I don't know if I can make myself any clearer. It just comes down to what you take out of the speech. Like many speeches and events, there are multiple interpretations of what was said/meant.

I am likely "reading" this in a light most unfavorable to the administration. I admit that. But based on all the lies and deceptions that led up to this war (from how long it would take, to the purpose behind the war, to the existence of WMDs), the administration lost the benefit of any doubt on this topic long before Bush put that flightsuit on.