I was so hoping it really was true that if you don't talk about something bad, it doesn't happen. Dang.

Just a usage question -- I've never seen anyone other than a policeman referred to as "Officer [Name]." Shouldn't the guy be Kyle Teamey, Mr. Teamey, or [Whatever his rank was at retirement] Kyle Teamey, Ret.?

(Substantively, I couldn't agree with the post more.)

LizardBreath is right.

According to Google, he's Capt Teamey, Ret.

http://www.universityofmilitaryintelligence.us/mipb/results.asp?authorfield=Teamey&searchfield=

NOTE: I haven't read either of these all the way, so I have no additional commentary to provide. (Other than "The Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics rides again!")

Ezra:

Can you pleasse point out anywhere in the linked article where the author writes that "we must not debate withdrawal?" I just don't see it. He seems to be highlighting the idea that our dissent here at home can be used to unify our opposition abroad. This would seem to be a theory that very few would/could argue with?

"This is one of the more interesting strategies you see used against war critics..."

Except that the author never said this and doesn't use it as a strategy against war critics.

"It suggests that what we say will become reality, so we can't say anything negative."

Um, no. It suggests that those fighting against us listen to our dissension and use it against us. That's a simple fact. Again, the author never writes that we should not say anything negative.

"it just implies that such statements make things worse..."

Are you implying that they do not?

"and so anyone hoping for success -- no matter their estimation of its likelihood -- should stop honestly evaluating the situation out loud."

Again, Ezra, please show us where the author has written anything like this at all.

"you can't withdraw troops if you're not allowed to say it's time to withdraw troops."

Okay, $20 for Ezra if he can point to any actual words from the article that say this.

You know, from a PsyOp standpoint, he's got a point. Just like you're supposed to wave your hands and look big and scary when a bear attacks, you should try to look resolute when taking on an enemy. The problem, though, is that Bushies like Bremer and Rumsfeld screwed up this war from the beginning, exposing the chinks in our armor. It's too late for the "appearance of strength" to do much for us now. Waving your hands and yelling once the bear's eating you isn't just useless, it's pretty much expected.

honest to goodness, sun belt jerry, are you really that dumb? since "appearance of strength" is more important than "strength," and since "debate" is "detrimental" to said "appearance," stfu is what our author wants us to do.

kind of like what i want you to do.

But we don't always get what we want, do we? Thanks for playing ... dear.

sunbeltjerry, hope does spring eternal (as a war enabler, you should be familiar with that), but at least you could come up with an original line and not simply rip off sometimes poster paulb....

Just to repeat Ezra's point for the terminally slow SunBeltjerry:

"it's important to remember that the war is as much a battle of perceptions as it is a physical battle against and among armed groups. In this fight, the appearance of strength or weakness is often much more important than actual strength or weakness."

"While debate over a war's merits -- and whether to withdraw -- is a sign of a healthy democracy, Iraq unfortunately highlights many of the difficulties a democracy faces in a long-term counterinsurgency or nation-building campaign. Such debate can be detrimental to the battle for perceptions.

"...but Democratic efforts to pull out troops, cut off support or link support to unattainable benchmarks have been equally damaging to attempts to get militias and insurgents to lay down their arms.

Howard: That was an homage to PaulB.

Guano (Ever watch Kappa Mikey?):

Terminally slow I may be but you restate a point I acknowledged immediately:

"He seems to be highlighting the idea that our dissent here at home can be used to unify our opposition abroad. This would seem to be a theory that very few would/could argue with?"

For the terminally slow Guano doo-doo head:

Debate is a sign of a healthy democracy; we must always be aware of the influence of our words and how they are used - particularly in a time of war. The author never explicitly censors anyone, or asks anyone to 'stifle' themselves. Ezra simply proceeded to place a bunch of arguments into the author's mouth - arguments he feels logically follow but arguments, nevertheless, that were never made. He was wrong to do so.

I still have my $20 and Ezra still cannot point to anywhere in the article where the author makes any of his imagined arguments:

"This is one of the more interesting strategies you see used against war critics..."

Except that the author never said this and doesn't use it as a strategy against war critics.

"It suggests that what we say will become reality, so we can't say anything negative."

Um, no. It suggests that those fighting against us listen to our dissension and use it against us. That's a simple fact...

"it just implies that such statements make things worse..."

Are you implying that they do not?

"and so anyone ... should stop honestly evaluating the situation out loud."

Again, Ezra, please show us where the author has written anything like this at all.

"you can't withdraw troops if you're not allowed to say it's time to withdraw troops."

Okay, $20 for Ezra if he can point to any actual words from the article that say this.

Better to argue with what someone actually writes than with arguments that derive from the reader's own imagination.

Once again, thank you Howard and Guano for being the very epitome of kindness and courtesy.