Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Cakewalk 27

Journal by pudge

I am watching News Hour tonight, and Senator Byron Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, says, "we had some neocons early on saying this would be a cakewalk; it is not and will not be ...".

The problem is that the "neocon" in question was Ken Adelman in the Washington Post last February, who said it in a specific context, and gave his own definition of the term:

I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps.

The U.S. forces had fewer deaths in 2003 (129) vs. 1991 (148) and won in much less time: it took 25 days until the last major city, Tikrit, was "liberated,"in 2003, and in 1991 it took 40 days until Kuwait was declared "liberated."

Now, it depends on what you mean by "cakewalk," but Adelman told us what he means: he means that the first time around it was a cakewalk. That's a part of his definition of the word. By that definition, the mission -- demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq [from Hussein's power] -- was a cakewalk.

Dorgan wouldn't like you to know these things. He would like you to think that because people died it therefore cannot be a "cakewalk" (ignoring the context and standard being used in the use of the word), and that the "neocons" were really talking about the entire Iraq mission, not just the initial part of it. That way it's easier for him to make the "neocons" look bad. But now you know better, and knowing is half the battle!

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cakewalk More

Cakewalk

Comments Filter:
  • Well, all I have to say about this is: Why don't we put some of our politicians kids over there in Iraq ( or better yet, some of these hawkish politicians ) and see how they feel about street to street fighting. I'll lay odds that W. would feel a bit differently about things if his daughters were over there. Furthermore, with these new $87 Billion propositions the White house is proposing, I feel more than a little disturbed by the "no matter what it costs" rhetoric. This is a man who ran into the groun
    • I'll lay odds that W. would feel a bit differently about things if his daughters were over there.

      I would hope not. But if so, then that's a very good reason for his daughters to not be there. I don't want a leader who would make such decisions based on personal feelings, I want him to do what he thinks is best for the security of the nation. We can disagree on what that best thing is, but don't YOU want him to do what is best, regardless of his personal feelings?

      And I am not sure how "whatever it cost
      • Thank you for your well reasoned reply. I honestly do appreciate the discourse.

        We can disagree on what that best thing is, but don't YOU want him to do what is best, regardless of his personal feelings?

        I was being a little glib as I have friends over in Iraq right now. Morale is low in many units, soldiers on the ground are being professional, but they are tired, they miss their family and friends, they are in many cases enduring financial hardships and they don't appreciate the careless commentary by
        • they don't appreciate the careless commentary by our Commander In Chief saying "Bring 'em on" while they are getting shot at

          I have mixed feelings about that. First, as noted, I do want them to come to Iraq, so we can get them now rather than letting them remain where they are to fight us another day. It puts our army in jeopardy, yes, but that is better than putting our citizens in danger. That is what the army is there for. Second, for every soldier that is upset about him saying it, there are many o
  • Pudge, that was very impressive. I hope to see more writings like this from you in the future. Thanks for one of the few well-considered and non-hysterical things I've read about Iraq lately.
  • He concluded that piece by writing:

    "Measured by any cost-benefit analysis, such an operation would constitute the greatest victory in America's war on terrorism."

    Now the bill is starting to come due. This country will spend about $30 billion next year defending its borders against terrorism and on its internal security against terrorism. Republicans in Congress voted against making it $31 billion because that would just cost too much.

    Now we are going to spend $90 billion on Iraq.

    Do you think Adelm

    • Do you think Adelman was right? We're spending a lot of money on Iraq, a country which as far as anyone can tell had no weapons of mass destruction, had no ties to Al Qaida, and had no credible way to attack the United States.

      I really can't say. I can't say if the cost is worth it. I can say that if done properly, the result will not just be American life and limb and billions of dollars, but a much friendlier and safer Middle East. Assuming it is done properly, is that excellent benefit worth the cost
    • Put it this way. Imagine Congress had said in February: we want to spend $120 billion on domestic terrorism prevention, but some neocon wants to cut that figure down to $30 billion and spend the rest on attacking some country halfway around the world that poses no credible threat. Would you have supported that plan?

      I sincerely don't have an answer for that. It depends on the outcome of at least three things:

      1) There is a long-term plan here of remaking the Middle East. If in 15 years it turns out that demo

      • If in 15 years it turns out that democracy and tolerance have taken hold in Iraq, Iran and the small Gulf states, and maybe had some influence in Saudi Arabia or Jordan, $90 billion will be a bargain.

        I think it is $90b per year, so multiply by 15. ;-)

        Ground zero for Islamic terror, and Islamicist extremism in general, is Saudi Arabia. Getting bases and a steady oil supply from Iraq (and eliminating Saddam) lays the groundwork for an eventual showdown with the Wahabbis. In that respect only, the war real
        • Yes, I've long "conceded" that it was about oil in the sense of security. We rely on that region, as the world does, for energy and, hence, for security. If that region is insecure, then the U.S. is insecure.

          Believe it or not, but the origins of this go back to the Carter administration when he "officially" determined as a matter of national security policy that the middle east is central to our foreign policy needs. This and other current events are why we need to funnel more money into alternatives t
          • I am all for alternative energies (though not necessarily for all the means proposed to get them, and not willing to pay twice as much for a vehicle that suits my needs). And yeah, the SUV tax deduction ... I can argue with anyone, convincingly, about how SUVs are perfectly reasonable vehicles for many people, and that they should be the object of scorn or extraordinary regulation, but I see no reason to give a tax DEDUCTION for them! That's just nutty.
      • 3) Finally, the big question is what the hell happened with the WMDs? I don't mean this stupid revenge-taking over a few words about uranium. What happened? To what extent did the Bush team make a prudent decision or mislead everyone?

        IMHO, I think he totally mislead everyone. I think there weren't any WMD's. I think Bush knew it. I think his adminstration knew it. Our inteligence reports, as reported by much of the media, sure seemed to signal that they knew there was none.

        But that's not what Bush wante
        • But now I'm getting slightly off topic

          Well, your whole post is slightly off-topic. :) However, I shall ask you to consider that everyone, including every member of the UN Security Council, believed in November 2002 that Iraq had proscribed weapons. The stated, as fact, that Iraq was currently engaging in the "proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles."

          I am not saying no one intended to deceive, and that no one know things. I am saying the intelligence the members of the Seuc

          • Well, your whole post is slightly off-topic. :)

            Yeah, funny how that happens every once in a while huh? I just couldn't resist!!

            everyone...believed in November 2002

            Well, I don't know that I would agree that everyone thought that. Like I said, from some of the intel reports, and some of the pollysci rags my wife receives in the mail, there were doubters back then.

            I will (agree?) with you and say that I think Saddam *had* the weapons, and chemicals. But I think he did destroy them a long time

            • I don't know that I would agree that everyone thought that

              I am talking about the people that matter, the leaders of the world. The French, the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese, they all agreed Iraq had these weapons when they signed on to Resolution 1441.

              Also note that whether the weapons existed was beside the point from the beginning, as the whole point of the UN Resolutions, including 1441, is that without full cooperation from Iraq -- which never existed, right up until this year -- no one COULD b
  • I suppose it would depend on people's interpretation of the term "cakewalk". Some people like us in our mid 20's might think the Iraqi war should have been easier, while those from the vietnam era, or WWII, might say "what a class operation that Iraq war was".
    • I suppose it would depend on people's interpretation of the term "cakewalk".

      The guy who said it gave his own definition, one many people have summarily replaced with their own. That's half the point. He said, in effect, "I am defining 'cakewalk' to be, in part, the ease by which the U.S. won in 1991. By that standard, the conflict in 2003 will, also, be a 'cakewalk.'" And by that definition, by that standard, he was correct.

      Doesn't communication with words bite hard? :-)
  • Ahhh.. now I remember why you got added to my Friends list. I love being able to read other peoples journal on slashdot. Fantastic.

    Anyway, does anyone here remember how long we were in German and Japan after WWII? Anyone? If you said over five years you'd be right. Yet now people are furious that we haven't gotten Iraq under control in a few months. There were rebel forces in Germany who still kept fighting against the allied troops, much like we have pockets of resistance in Iraq still.

    The people w
    • There were rebel forces in Germany who still kept fighting against the allied troops, much like we have pockets of resistance in Iraq still.

      I don't know much about the postwar period in Germany and Japan, but one thing I find odd is that the number of deaths in Iraq is being compared between "war" and "postwar" (of course, those terms are inaccurate, but moving on ...), noting that more have died since April 15 (or whenever) than died before April 15. But so few died before April 15! I don't know, but I
      • I don't know, but I'd be surprised if so few have died in the last five months than died in the first five months following the end of WWII.

        To back up your point, I found this quote here [wanpela.com]:

        Late 1948 An

        estimated 10-20,000 well equipped Japanese troops were trapped in the mountains of Manchuria and did not surrender until late in 1948. They were caught in a no man's land of civil war stuck between the warring Nationalist and Communist forces and were unable to surrender.

        I couldn't find any numbers on Ameri

Slashdot Top Deals

Recent research has tended to show that the Abominable No-Man is being replaced by the Prohibitive Procrastinator. -- C.N. Parkinson

Close