Nancy Pelosi's Mission Creep.

Share Button

OK. I’ve picked on the Republicans enough for one week, lets get back to the Dem’s, lead by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. I don’t have anything current by Reid at the moment (though if I tried hard enough I’m sure I could dredge something up), but I do have this Pelosi gem from CNN:

“There haven’t been gains, Wolf,” the speaker replied. “The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure…” (insert jumping up and down and arm waiving here)

She does go on to praise the troops for doing a fine job. How noble of her.

Funny how Mrs. P seems to have forgotten what she said about the surge a few months ago and what it was supposed to achieve. Lets look at statements made by Pelosi and Reid, circa June 13 of last year:

The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation.

It has not enhanced Americas national security. The unsettling reality is that instances of violence against Iraqis remain high and attacks on US forces have increased.

In fact, the last two months of the war were the deadliest to date for US troops.

Notice that the high casualty rate is emphasized far more than political reconciliation. Though no one is claiming it to be the sole reason, the surge has at least contribute to a dramatic drop in violence in Iraq. The 2007 statement by P. and R. seems to indicate that that was the more pressing concern between the two. So the surge has, at the very least, been half successful. But Mrs. P conveniently erases that measure from her mission rubric. Would this qualify as “Mission Creep”?

Lets face it, there is no way we can predict if the Iraq’s will ever find common ground, and that is something the Bush administration seems not to have considered when they entered into this occupation (it was going to be a quick in-and-out operation they promised) – [see NOTE below]. That said, conciliation between the various factions will be A LOT easier when sides aren’t busy blowing each other up!

Funny, she STILL hasn’t accomplished most of the stuff she promised us in the first 100 days of her tenure as Madam Speaker. Yet she takes offense if we declare – “This is a failure. This is a failure”.

PS. Holy Crap!!! I’ve been Instalanched!!! Welcome Insta-P readers, to the fourth most defective mind on the web! Does this mean I am now a legitimate blogger, or do I have to pass some sort of test or meet some set of benchmarks to be considered legit?

NOTE: People are giving me flack about my “quick in-and-out” aside, so much so that I was doubting my memory, which is wise in since mine is often faulty. My comment was poorly worded, and I think everyone is hanging up on the “out” part of my comment. I don’t mean that to say we would, as policy, just pick up and leave Iraq to its fate. Of coarse I knew before this started that we would have some military presence in Iraq after we toppled the Saddam regime; they would need some help getting on their feet. But no one seemed to contemplate the possibility that our military would still be fighting three years later. This is what Rumsfeld said in Nov. of 2002:

“The idea that it’s going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990,… Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that,…”

Rumsfeld said the U.S. military at present is capable “to do the job and finish it fast.”

He didn’t say we would be “out” of Iraq, but I would say he presented the case that combat troops would not be active and fighting after six months. That was part of the sales pitch to get public support for military action in Iraq. It has “This Will Not Be Another Vietnam” written all over it! Oh, the title of the article –

Rumsfeld: It Would Be A Short War

So HA!!!!!!!

NOTE #2: Here is more to back my interpretation of the meaning of “It Would Be A Short War“.

21 Comments to “Nancy Pelosi's Mission Creep.”

  1. By Faith+1, February 11, 2008 @ 9:14 pm

    So she moved the goalposts? Is it really that surprising? Eventually, they (The Dems) will declare that since Iraq isn’t going to become the 51st state it’s obviously a failure and we she just die already.

  2. By Fen, February 11, 2008 @ 9:43 pm

    (it was going to be a quick in-and-out operation they promised).

    Where are you getting that from? I knew we would be there at least 10 years. The goal was not merely to depose Saddam and end his WMD programs, but also to reform Iraq as a model of arab democracy and eventually marginalize the extremists in the ME [West Berlin VS Warsaw Pact]

    So I’m curious what your source is for that assertion?

    /btw, you’ve been instalaunched. Congrats!

  3. By reliapundit, February 11, 2008 @ 10:31 pm

    actually this is not mission creep – as you call it and as glenn described it in his link.

    this is


  4. By M. Simon, February 12, 2008 @ 12:45 am


    Glad to see you are getting the recognition you deserve.

    You will know you have arrived when you get asked to co-blog/cross post at some place with 3X your current traffic.

  5. By sonicfrog, February 12, 2008 @ 12:46 am

    Fen, I phrased that poorly. I do remember, before “Shock and Awe” started, Rumsfeld saying the Iraq theatre (should that be “re”?) would be short in duration. At the time, everyone was going out of their way to make sure no one could contemplate Iraq becoming another,gasp, Vietnam. They thought we would be welcomed with open arms after Saddam fell, and we were. They assumed that this would be the end of major combat in Iraq, thus the “Mission Accomplished” statement (which I had no problem with). Clearly they didn’t anticipate the violence that followed, or else it wouldn’t have taken an election loss to get the President to initiate the surge. It would have been implemented in a more timely fashion.

    Gotta go and prepare lessons for tomorrow’s classes.

  6. By sonicfrog, February 12, 2008 @ 12:46 am

    PS. Is this Fen the same commenter from Althouse?

  7. By sonicfrog, February 12, 2008 @ 12:59 am

    Simon – Great, just what I need. More work! 🙂

    (at least this is fun)

  8. By Don Meaker, February 12, 2008 @ 1:23 am

    We have been in Cuba since 1898. In Belgium since 1944. In Germany and Japan since 1945. In South Korea since 1949. Of course we are till in Bosnia/Serbia for something like 10 years.

    So why do we have to get out if Iraq in 2 years? Before the recent “surge” we had 70,000 soldiers in Germany, and only 100,000 (Army) soldiers in Iraq.

  9. By heedless, February 12, 2008 @ 1:54 am

    Only on topic for the update:

    You know you’ve arrived when an instalanche requires neither acknowledgement nor a server intervention.

    When Atrios denounces you unprovoked, you’ll know for sure.

  10. By thenakedemperor, February 12, 2008 @ 2:09 am

    The surge IS a failure. If, of course, we are talking about the 2006 surge of the Democrat congress and their leadership.

    Fortunately, they have failed at most everything they have tried. Frankly we need to cut off the funding for the Congress and set a timetable for their immediate withdrawal from DC.

    These people have had far less effect than the troops they malign. Let’s just hold them to their own standards.

  11. By sonicfrog, February 12, 2008 @ 2:18 am

    Don, Fen,

    See the NOTE I posted for clarification.

  12. By Casey, February 12, 2008 @ 4:12 am


    With all due respect, I must say you have misread the article you quoted in support of your claim that Rummy said it would be a short war.

    In context, it seems self-evident that he was referring to the war which would result from a new invasion of Iraq. If you recall, that war lasted about four weeks. at

    If you also recall during the run-up to the second invasion, there were a respectable number of hysterical predictions, from the usual “Arab street will rise,” to the expectation of Anthrax on every street corner, and suicide bombers in every American city. I’ll have to admit even I expected a far greater struggle once our forces tried to take the larger cities; historically speaking, even mediocre forces have held up well against the pros in th environment.

    Bottom line: all Rummy said was that the invasion would be no WW3. That’s it.

  13. By sonicfrog, February 12, 2008 @ 5:21 am


    Thanks for stopping in.

    I think I interpreted the context and meaning of Rumsfeld’s statements quite accurately when he made them. I wasn’t aware of the following info when I wrote this post, but this National Security Archive would certainly bolster my position on this matter.

    Yes I remember the run-up, and unlike some, who call Bush a liar, I have no doubt that the administration truly believed we would find WMD’s and other stuff. Saddam confirmed to his interrogator that he tried to fake the existence of WMD’s in order to ward off an Iranian invasion. He seems to have pulled off the ruse quite well, but the results were not what he intended. Like the Taliban, he didn’t count on 9/11 or it’s aftermath.

  14. By sonicfrog, February 12, 2008 @ 5:26 am

    In summary, the administration made it quite clear that the war would be a long one. But they also gave the clear impression that fighting in Iraq would not last for a long period – again, that this would not become another Vietnam.

  15. By Derek Walter, February 12, 2008 @ 7:56 am

    A great find. This also from the Defense Secretary who thought fewer troops would bring about success in stabilization and anti-insurgency. I am surprised in this interview he also didn’t predict there would not be car bombs, IEDs, or a need for a surge.

  16. By Mike, February 12, 2008 @ 5:22 pm

    FYI: Just got back from a visit with my cousin. He’s a Lt. Col in the marines and is working out of Quantico these days. (2 tours in Iraq). He couldn’t tell me a lot of exactly what he is doing but he did tell me, the guys in Iraq are complaining because it’s like watching paint dry in Iraq these days, especially for the marines. The army is moving in to mop of the few not so hot spots left.

  17. By Citizen Deux, February 12, 2008 @ 5:25 pm

    Some interesting thoughts on our (in)ability to scale down our presence;

    1) Hampered by a poorly developed COIN doctrine
    2) Impediments from errors in trying to be too PC in the reshaping of IRAQ (de-Baathification)
    3) Lack of contributions from DoS towards political reconciliation
    4) Generally appalling state of the infrastructure in Iraq

    I don’t think anyone doubted we would be in that AOR for the long haul. Just as our Balkans presence remains, so would some core element of MILGRP advisors or security training teams.

    Good work Sonic.

  18. By sonicfrog, February 12, 2008 @ 7:43 pm

    Mike, that is the kind of new we should be hearing more of. Unfortunately, Iraq is no longer the blood bath it was a year ago. You know the line; If it doesn’t bleed, it doesn’t lead. Though the missteps have been many (name me a war without them) and the administration clearly was caught flat footed on numerous occasions, years down the road, they may yet be able to point to Iraq as a success in the war against terrorism. Of coarse the Democrats will do all they can to take credit if this works out.

    CD. Good points. I have always been more of a “big picture” guy, yet love the Devil in the Details. I really believe we will be able to scale down in a timely fashion with pride in a job well done, and not in defeat as the Pelosi / Reid Berkleyites would like. The Dems may have really set themselves up for a fall on this. Again – fingers crossed.

    PS. I may have just coined a new term for the defeatists.

  19. By sonicfrog, February 12, 2008 @ 7:44 pm

    PPS. Nope, someone else got there first.

  • » The Horrible Shame Of Being An Instalanche Virgin :-( — October 13, 2008 @ 4:45 am

  • » Judge, Jury, and Plain Ol Stupid!!! — December 6, 2008 @ 5:39 am

  • RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

    Leave a Reply