Lieberman's Defeat is Who's Fault?

W.House: Democrats' extreme left defeated Lieberman Reuters: 8/9/06

"Tony Snow called the election a defining moment for the Democratic Party. "I know a lot of people have tried to make this a referendum on the president. I would flip it. I think instead it's a defining moment for the Democratic Party whose national leaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left in their party, they're going to come after you," he said." (access entire story above)

Senator Chuck Hagel openly criticizes the Bush Administration's Iraq policy and Senator Lieberman's failure as a Democratic candidate is the Democratic party's failure? How about this: the Bush Administration's Iraq policy is a failure and the American public, like Hagel, is beginning to catch on where Lieberman and the Bush Administration have not.

Letter to Ken Mehlman, Chairman of the Republican National Committee

Mr. Mehlman:

I am not a Democrat. In fact, I am a centrist Republican who is weary of Republican rhetoric, especially concerning Iraq. Are the Democrats weak on terror? The opposition party has proposed that we streamline our objective in Iraq to avoid embroiling our soldiers in the complexities of civil war. If Iraq is the central front on the war on terror and we are supposed to be fighting a war on terrorism, then permanently annihilating terrorism in Iraq must be our objective. The opposition party has recognized that Special Operations is capable of handling counterterrorism without large troop deployments that keep the United States ill-prepared to handle other crises. Meanwhile, Senator McCain at Thursday's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, by asking Generals Pace and Abizaid if they thought a year ago civil war was possible in Iraq, revealed that the Bush Administration never had a plan for this violence. If the Administration had no plan for this, then what else is it lacking for planning in Iraq. So, Mr. Mehlman, it might be that the Democrats are weak on terror, but it is worse that the Bush administration is grimly ineffective to the point of turning the entire Middle East into a macrocosmic Baghdad.

Why the Department of Defense Has Rushed Troops Back Into Baghdad

Julian E. Barnes writes, “Fifteen years ago, Pentagon doctrine suggested there was a strict division between combat operations and peacekeeping, or stability, missions….” (43) According to Barnes, retired Colonel Clint Ancker studies warfare for the Department of Defense and writes field manuals full of lessons learned. “The Army’s experience in Kosovo, Bosnia, and, especially, Somalia, Ancker says, proved that during humanitarian operations designed to stabilize a country, there was still a need for military muscle. But Ancker argues that the Iraq invasion showed that the Army did not grasp the flip side of the Bosnia lesson, that during combat operations there was a need for peacekeeping-style activities….Embedded in the new doctrine is an implicit critique of how the Iraq invasion was conducted. The Army now argues that racing from city to city, with relatively little concern for security, is a mistake.” (43-44)

In translation: the military has learned critical lessons about stability operations that it has failed to follow since 2003. Now, Secretary Rumsfeld and his general staff feel they can reverse a perilous course toward civil war by now adhering to that doctrine. John McCain, during today’s Armed Service Committee hearing, in asking Generals Pace and Abizaid whether a year ago they thought a civil war was brewing in Iraq, was asking why they had not been adhering to this doctrine all along. Senator McCain essentially revealed the greatest flaw of warfare of which this Administration is guilty, and has been for at least a year: having no plan.

(“Hard-Learned Lessons: The Army is Rethinking How to Fight the Next War—and Win the Current One,” U.S. News & World Report. March 27, 2006: Volume 140, Number 11. 42-46. www.usnews.com),