Skip to main content

Karl Rove and his media minions have enjoyed some success in framing the Iraq War as a choice between "Cut n' Run" or "Stay the course".  (And John Kerry, inept as ever, helped that effort considerably just last week.)

But there is a far, far, better framing of the war issue for the Democrats.  One that, in three words, characterizes the incompetence of the Pentagon's civilian leadership; the vast overreach in Rumsfeld's "military transformation"; and Dick Cheney's totally inept reading of the Iraq situation after the fall of Baghdad.

You can challenge Karl Rove's characterizations and that of the other chicken hawks in the conservative media.  You can call the catastrophic mismanagement of the Iraq War for what it is:

DO OR DIE! If Rumsfeld doesn't do; US troops willdie.

The framing of the debate should be about incompetent, inept, inconsistent, and incomprehensible decisions made at the Pentagon by CIVILIAN war planners working for Don Rumsfeld that have resulted in TENS OF THOUSANDS of American casualties.

These few examples, and more, should be on the lips of EVERY Democrat talking head in the media, along with the prase "Do or Die".

1. There was absolutely no effort whatsover to secure or destroy the vast stockpiles of ordnance and weapons in Saddam's Iraq once American forces entered Baghdad.  Those weapons arm the current insurgency and provide the "E" in IED's.

2. There was no absolutely no effort to enhance the safety and survivability of patrols with more heavily armored personnel carriers and tanks because tanks and APC's don't fit in with Don Rumsfeld's bent toward a "transformed military" comprised of "lighter, faster" vehicles like HUMVEES.  We've killed and wounded TENS OF THOUSANDS of American service personnel because we have sent troops out to dangerous territories in highly vulnerable, light armored HUMVEES when they could have survived  had they been in armored personnel carriers following M1-A1 Abrams tanks.  The reason?   Heavy armour insn't in keeping with Rummy's doctrine!

(The real irony here is that during Somalia, the right was -- correctly -- livid that the Clinton Administration held back sending armored personnel carriers.  The decision helped cause the death of American servicemen during the infamous "Blackhawk Down" episode, that resulted in their bodies being dragged through the streets.)

3. There was no absolutely no effort to secure vital roadways, largely because there were not sufficient troops "in country".  The US could have secured the airport highway in the first weeks after the fall of Baghdad by building two parallel chain link fences on either side of the road, to create a "security ribbon" along both sides. (Two parallel fences on either side of the roadway, or four fences altogether.) Each "ribbon" could have been mined and check points could have been built to control all access into or out of the airport.  It wasn't done because we didn't have the manpower or the vision to do it.

4. There was no absolutely no effort to secure captured territory with infantry units.  The Pentagon's "shock and awe" adaptation of Rommel's Blitzkrieg ignored the fact that such blitzes can only penetrate about 200 miles and only for a short period.  After that, they're vulnerable to attacks on their supply lines, which have to be secured by infantry "boots on the ground" supporting them in armor personnel carriers and HUMVEES.  The whole notion of protecting our supply lines totally eluded the Pentagon's civilian planners, wedded as they were to Rumsfeld's idiotic "lighter, faster" force.  Iraqi Army elements simply melted away, sitting back while heavily armored elements of the Big Red One scooted by them at 40mph, all the while knowing they could hit their supply lines just a few hours or days later.

Originally posted to Thinking Republican on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 01:20 PM PDT.

Poll

Can "Do or Die" Counter "Cut and Run"?

29%5 votes
70%12 votes

| 17 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I dont agree necessarilly (0+ / 0-)

    ... the Republicans can turn it around and say, "if we don't DO (stay in Iraq), you (and your family) will DIE".

  •  i'm sticking with 'cut the crap' (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Silverbird, mjd in florida

    as in: we don't want to "cut & run", we want to "cut the crap." what crap? glad you asked...

    i'm an agnostic, i'd be an atheist if it weren't for mozart

    by rasbobbo on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 01:29:14 PM PDT

  •  But, Thinking Republican, you haven't told us (0+ / 0-)

    how you feel about the invasion and occupation as such of Iraq.

    For me the war was wrong to begin with, hence ending the occupation doesn't mean "cutting and running", it means doing the right thing and the first, necessary step towards recovering our national sense of justice and allied moral values.

    we're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression

    by Lepanto on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 01:33:48 PM PDT

    •  I bought into it... (0+ / 0-)

      ...based largely on the lies about WMD as told by Colin Powell.

      But when Turkey said it would not allow us to enter through their territory, I knew that a successful war effort could not be waged; there would have to be another way.

      We're there now.  Pulling out, say, next month would endanger both US troops and Iraqi civilians, to say nothing of American standing among Iraqi civilians.

      I favor, as I hope I made clear, a competent administration of anti-terrorst forces in Iraq until the situation can be stabilized; then, out ASAP -- six months to a year, if the Pentagon would get its act together.

      "The beginning of thought is in disagreement -- not only with others but also with ourselves." - Eric Hoffer www.InTheArena.bravehost.com

      by Thinking Republican on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 02:08:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  They hoped to drag us in there (0+ / 0-)

    and watch this be the outcome -- that we would be having this argument about stay or go -- simply one more detail of the wrongness of this attack on Iraq that many of us knew before hand.  Rummy counted on us being hesitant to leave even if it all went bust.  And we are fulfilling his dreams.

    Come home.  Iraq will find its way to peace sooner without us there.  We caused this mess and must depart to see it fixed.

  •  Waste (0+ / 0-)

    The frame (Frameshopisopen) is Waste.

    The GOP has wasted our opportunity to destroy AlQuaida in Afghanistan.

    The GOP has wasted our soldiers in Iraq.

    The GOP has wasted our alliances.

    The GOP has wasted ....

    Well, you get the point.

    Hang WASTE around the neck of Bush and every GOP hanger on.

  •  A different way of looking at 'Cut & Run' (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Silverbird

    The GOP CUTs taxes to the wealthiest 1% of the population, and RUNs up the National Debt.

    The GOP CUT funding for FEMA, and RUNs from its responsibilities to the Gulf Coast States.

    The GOP CUT benefits for our brave soldiers, and is RUNning away from its commitments to them when they come back maimed.

    In Vietnam, we didn't CUT our losses until the body count RAN into the tens of thousands. Do we want to make that same mistake again?

    Apparently the GOP are not CUT from the same cloth as we common Americans, because when duty, in the form of military service, called them, they RAN. The strongest voices for "staying the course" never did a day's service in the military.

    Arnold and Dubya star in "Twins II"
    http://msgeek703.googlepages.com/thearnoldanddubyashow
    Econ: -4.63 Soc: -6.92

    by MamasGun on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 02:43:45 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site