.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

John Adams Blog

The blog of The Antient and Honourable John Adams Society, Minnesota's Conservative Debating Society www.johnadamssociety.org

Sunday, January 21, 2007

For or against the troop surge

I read and heard it discussed over and over... those "for and against the troop surge." The people who oppose the surge run the gambit from the anti-Iraq war types who oppose every thing about Iraq; to the democrats who just hate Bush; and on to the war supporters and more thoughtful critics such as Paul from Powerline who are just not sure about the surge... The problem with these critics is that they seem to ignore that the surge is part of a new plan that Bush has accepted from the new General he appointed in Iraq. Everyone wanted a change in direction and Bush has done that with a new general and a new plan that requires an additional 20,000 troops. So when people say they oppose the surge, do they mean they oppose the new plan? Because you never hear any thing about the new plan, you only hear about the surge part of it.

It's funny that a new talking point from Democrats and other critics is that Bush is not listening to his generals, George Casey and John Abazaid, both whom have stated in more or less words that they oppose the new plan. This is ironic because Casey and Abazaid are responsible for the current plan in Iraq, which according to the Democrats is a total failure. Why would they want Bush to listen to failed generals? .... (it is so aggrevating at times...).

No one seems to blame the top brass for military failures anymore, yet it is mostly the top brass' fault. In fact John McCain annouced today that he would oppose General Casey as Army Chief of Staff because of Iraq failures, which is a good start. It seems to me that if the current plan is not working you need to ask the generals to come up with a new plan. If they do not or act too slowly, you need to sack them and find a new general, which is essentially what Bush is finally doing now. Sometimes it is politically difficult to sack generals, who tend to be primadonnas, so you need to work around the system to get rid of them. Lincoln's plan for a "new direction" in 1863 was to appoint Grant as commander of all the various armies. It was Grant, in turn, that devised the plan which ultimately led to the South's defeat (and also required a troop surge).

Next time that people annouce they are against the "surge" it would be more truthful for them to announce that they are against the new commander, Lt. General David Patraeus taking command because he is the one who has come up with the new plan, which requires 20,000 more troops.

Blogger Air Marshall said...

I am for one thing only. Successfully completing the things we start. Whatever it takes, however long.

10:34 AM, January 22, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

The 25 Democratic Senators and now some republicans who voted for the war disagree with you. I guess the polls have changed....

10:52 AM, January 22, 2007  
Blogger Air Marshall said...

Maybe that means we have the wrong people in elected office. Maybe we should work to change that.

11:35 AM, January 22, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The next time someone questions the surge, I intend to ask, "Are you for the surge or for defeat?"

1:28 PM, January 22, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

I used to play blackjack. Actually, I used to count cards. There are times to double down, when the deck is "rich," full of face cards. And there are times you sit out. It's not nearly as fun to sit out, but knowing when to do so will let you walk away with chips in your pocket. Until you get banned. Getting banned doesn't work with my analogy.

10:48 PM, January 22, 2007  
Blogger Air Marshall said...

I too was a student of Dr. Edward O. Thorp. I think your analogy stinks.

11:03 PM, January 22, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Yes, yes, it does work with my analogy. To avoid getting banned you play "blonde," pretend to drink a lot, and, gosh darn, look at my luck. And you chat up the dealer, tricky while running side counts. Am I making sense? Oh, bother, why am I asking you . . .

When I got tired of the charade, I told a fellow counter, the best cover for counting is losing.

(Scribbler is suffering a rare episode of insomnia tonight.)

11:03 PM, January 22, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Et tu, Air Marshall?

11:06 PM, January 22, 2007  
Blogger Air Marshall said...

Long before you were born. Myself and a close friend used to finance our trips to Vegas thanks to the good Dr. Thorp. That was when Frank Sinatra and the Pack were in their heyday there.

11:15 PM, January 22, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

The game was likely better then too. I would never play more than a 2-deck game, and then would have to see how deep the dealer was cutting. Back to the analogy, it's not a fair game if they keep shuffling the deck while you're playing.

I would have loved to have seen ol' blue eyes. I still spin one of his records occasionally.

11:21 PM, January 22, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

I see where your analogy is going Scribbler. The only problem is that you have no idea whats in the deck. You may believe it lacks sufficient face cards because everyone in the room is in your face telling you so...

12:32 AM, January 23, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

But I am not one to take what I'm told at face value. It seems to be the other way around. The dealer is saying, double-down, double-down, stirring up some excitement, you can only win when you bet big. But in reality the deck is lean and you're dealt a six. That's why it's better to count the cards yourself, know what remains in the deck, and don't rely on the dealer.

6:51 AM, January 23, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

And this is where Kenny Rogers got it wrong: you DO count your money while you're sitting at the table. How else would you know when to leave?

7:38 AM, January 23, 2007  
Blogger Air Marshall said...

Most Casinos dealt single deck, and shuffled only at the end of the deck. We never saw Frank as the shows were too pricey and hard to get tickets. His son and daughter were playing in the club bars and we saw them both. Also played with Alexander King the author of "Mine Enemy Grows Older".

9:37 AM, January 23, 2007  

Post a Comment