by Charles
[Upate at the end.]
There are clearer signs that Iraq is becoming less violent, perhaps sustainably so. Civilian casualties are one measure for gauging the success or failure of a counterinsurgency operation, and they have dropped for the third consecutive month.
(Hat tip to Engram for the graphs.) The three-month moving average shows a similar trend.
The source for the above is the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, which takes its data from independent media reports. Al Qaeda will still get away with spectacular suicide bombings, but the above doesn’t look like statistical noise to me. It’s a noticeable trend, and it doesn’t take the willing suspension of disbelief to see it. For one thing, al Qaeda is losing its gambit. Here’s what Strategypage says:
Al Qaeda appears to be moving its main effort to Afghanistan, after operations in Iraq, North Africa, Somalia and Europe (not to mention North America) have all largely failed. But continued Taliban activity in Pakistan and Afghanistan has provided al Qaeda with one area where they might be able to have a little success. But that will require a change in methods. In the rest of the world, al Qaeda has caused itself lots of problems by using terror tactics against Moslems (who refused to support the terrorists). This approach worked, for a while, but eventually the Moslem victims had enough and turned on al Qaeda. There have already been some clashes in Pakistan, between angry tribesmen, and al Qaeda groups that tried to use force to get what they wanted. To many of the Pushtun tribes along the Pakistani-Afghan frontier, the al Qaeda gunmen are seen as haughty foreigners, who look down on Pushtuns, and are quick to use force on anyone who gets in their way.
To take advantage of this, U.S. forces are talking to Afghan tribes about opposing al Qaeda, and letting the Americans help them do it. The news of what al Qaeda did in Iraq gets around, as does the eventual angry reaction of Iraqis. The U.S. is offering the potentially anti-al Qaeda tribes weapons, equipment and other aid. This might work, as the Afghan tribes are amenable to gifts, especially from someone they have shared interests with.
When 40 senior al Qaeda members are killed or captured in one month, it’s time to leave. Al Qaeda has irretrievably lost, in my opinion. For another, Muqtada al Sadr have made threatening noises, but he and his Mahdi militias are still on the sidelines. The violence on the Shiite side has lessened considerably, and Sunni insurgent groups are working with the coalition (for the most part). Looking ahead, it’s easy to foresee increased tensions between Sunni tribes as well as intraparty squabbles between Shiite groups (as well as lots of other squabbles), but for the last several months, there are few signs of a civil war, intractable or otherwise. In concert with fewer civilian casualties, U.S. troop casualties are also lower despite relatively high troop numbers and despite continuing kinetic operations and despite the fact that more soldiers are on the streets instead of parked in forward operating bases.
More below the fold…
I don’t have other graphs because Engram doesn’t, and I’m shamelessly cutting and pasting from his work. The fewer numbers of troop casualties are also meaningful because they’re an indicator of lessening violence and that our forces are gathering better intelligence. For example, when there was a terrorist blast at a Baghdad pet market a couple of weeks ago, the Iranian-backed militants were caught quickly.
Speaking of Iran, the threat of their developing atomic bombs has lessened, but the threat of their meddling in Iraqi affairs has not. Bill Roggio:
The Long War Journal has spoken to several mid-level and senior US military and intelligence officers, all of whom have declined to go on the record due to the sensitive nature of the Iranian issue. Based on these conversations as well as other information, The Long War Journal has learned the nature of the Qods Force operations in Iraq and how they move resources into the country.
Iran began to extend its influence in Iraq immediately after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in April 2003. Through the Qods Force, Iran’s external wing of the Revolutionary Guards Corps, Iran immediately moved money, weapons, and operatives inside Iraq to influence the various fractured Shia political parties and militias.
Iran worked through various militias such as the Mahdi Army, the Badr Corps, the Qazali Network, the Shebaini Network, and a host of other surrogates to attack Coalition forces, Iraqi Security Forces, and rival political leaders. When groups like the Badr Corps and its political backer the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq broke from the Iranian sphere of influence and integrated with the government, the Iranian-backed militias, which have since been designated the Special Groups, began attacking them as well.
To streamline operations in Iraq, the Qods Force established a unified command, called the Ramazan Corps, and split Iraq into three roughly geographical regions.
The picture of Qods Force’s command structure and operations in Iraq became clearer since US forces began heavily targeting the Iranian networks in late December 2006. Several high-level Qods Force officers – including Qais Qazali, Azhar al Dulaimi, Ali Mussa Daqduq, and Mahmud Farhadi – have been captured in Irbil, Baghdad, and several unnamed locations.
During these raids, Coalition forces seized computers and computer drives, documentation, journals, and other evidence that reinforced information obtained through the interrogations of the Qods Force officers. While military and intelligence sources would not discuss other methods, communications intercepts and satellite imagery are also likely to play a key role in understanding the Qods Force’s activities in Iraq.
Critical information about the structure of the Ramazan Corps comes from the Iranian operatives captured in Iraq. Qais Qazali was the leader of the Qazali Network, which was responsible for several high-profile attacks on US and Iraqi forces. Qais, along with his brother Laith Qazali, and several other members of the Qazali Network were captured in early 2007. Azhar al Dulaimi, also a member of the Qazali network, was the tactical commander behind the attack on the Karbala Provincial Joint Coordination Center, which resulted in the kidnapping and subsequent murder of five US soldiers. Ali Mussa Daqduq, who served as the chief of guard to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and was the commander of Hezbollah’s special forces, was tasked by Iran to organize the Special Groups and "rogue" Mahdi Army cells along the lines of Lebanese Hezbollah. Mahmud Farhadi was the Qods Force officer in charge of the Zafr Command, one of the three units subordinate to the Ramazan Corps.
Multinational Forces Iraq learned that Iran set up the Ramazan Corps as a sophisticated command structure to coordinate military, intelligence, terrorist, diplomatic, religious, ideological, propaganda, and economic operations. "This Corps is responsible for most of the Qods Force operations in Iraq," said Major General Kevin Bergner, the spokesman for Multinational Forces Iraq, during a briefing in Baghdad on October 3.
The Ramazan Corps is based out of the Ramazan Command Center in Tehran, but information obtained by The Long War Journal indicates significant elements have forward deployed to Mehran on the border to coordinate activities.
The Ramazan Corps is split into three separate commands – Nasr, Zafar, and Fajr – each covering a roughly geographical area in Iraq.
The Long War Journal confirmed this information with a spokesman at Multinational Forces Iraq, which was hesitant to provide additional information on the Ramazan Corps. "At this particular time MNF-I is only prepared to confirm the names of the three commands that are subordinate to Ramazan Corps and that [Mahmudi] Farhadi is the Commander of the Zafr Command," said Lieutenant Commander Kevin S. Anderson.
The Nasr Command is based in Marivan in the Iranian north and deals with operations in the Kurdish regions and portions of Diyala province. The Zafar Command is based in Mehran in central Iran, and deals with operations in central Iraq, including Baghdad, Najaf, Karbala, Babil, Wasit, and portions of Diyala province.
The Fajr Command is based in Ahvaz in the south, although information obtained by The Long War Journal indicated command elements have moved forward to bases in Khorramshahr and Shalamcheh to direct operations. The Fajr Command directs operations in Basrah, Dhi Qhar, Maysan, and Muthanna.
Inside Iraq, the city of Amarah in Maysan province serves as a Qods Force / Ramazan Corps command and control center as well as one of the major distribution points for weapons in southern Iraq.
The Ramazan Corps’ operations begin inside Iran and flow through several points of entry along the border to destinations inside Iraq. Once inside Iraq, weapons are stockpiled and then distributed to local cells to conduct attacks on the primary and secondary targets of opportunity. The Long War Journal has obtained detailed information on the Qods Force ratlines in the central and southern regions.
Inside Iran, Qods Force manufactures and distributes weapons, provides training for Iraqi recruits, then facilitates the movement of weapons and fighters inside Iraq. Iraqi recruits, largely radicalized Shia from Muqtada al Sadr’s Mahdi Army, are sent to Iran for what one US military officer described as "basic jihadi training." The recruits receive several weeks of training with small arms and, depending on the units assigned, mortars and the use of explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs.
Several US military sources stated the EFPs are indeed "manufactured" inside Iran at "production lines" in the Iranian hubs of Ahvaz and Mehran. One officer stated the EFPs should not be considered IEDs, as they are professionally manufactured landmines.
"The EFP is not an IED, in that there is nothing improvised about them. They are manufactured in factories, mostly I believe in Iran," said the US military officer who is familiar with both the Sunni and Shia variants of IEDs used in Iraq. "The true IED can be put together by small insurgent cells with little or no support. The EFP indicates a large logistical network."
In the south and center, recruits and weapons are smuggled through four points of entry. In the central regions, the Mehran point of entry in the central province of Wasit is controlled by the Zafar Command. This is the primary conduit of Iranian weapons into Baghdad. The Al Sheeb entry at Maysan province and the Majnun and Shalamcheh entry points at Basrah province are fed by the Fajar Command based out of Ahvaz.
After being smuggled through the border crossings, Iranian weapons are moved to what are described as "strategic distribution hubs" in the cities of Badrah, Al Kut, Amarah, Qurnah, and Basrah. From these distribution hubs, weapons stocks are then moved forward to "tactical distribution hubs" in Hillah, Diwaniyah, Al Fajr, Samawah, and Nasiriyah.
After the weapons are moved to the strategic distribution hubs, they are warehoused for later use. From strategic hubs, the weapons are distributed to the tactical distribution hubs. From these tactical hubs, the weapons are then distributed to local cells for attacks on US troops, Iraqi Security Forces, and rival political and militia leaders as needed.
Baghdad is considered strategic center of gravity for EFP and mortar strikes. The Iranians believe they can influence events decisively by attacking Coalition and Iraqi targets in and around Baghdad. Iranian-made mortars and larger rockets are fired regularly at the massive Victory complex south of Baghdad where the US military maintains a large presence. US and Iraqi military patrols are targeted by EFPs inside Baghdad.
Iraqi and Coalition forces and rival political groups are targets for the Iranian-backed terror groups. The Ramazan Corps views the south as a means to shape and influence operations in and around Baghdad.
The cities of Diwaniyah, Nasiriyah, and Basrah are the primary target locations in the south. Diwaniyah is fed by caches in Al Fajr; Nasiriyah is fed by the caches in Amarah, Qurnah, and Basrah.
I excerpted quite a bit of the post because it’s new information and it looks newsworthy.
Iraqis are seeing the improved security situation and are voting with their feet. There are more telltale signs that more Iraqis are returning home than leaving, and the government is now becoming concerned that a large influx will have destabilizing effects:
Iraq’s government acknowledged Tuesday that it cannot handle a massive return of refugees, as the U.N. announced a $11 million relief package to help the most vulnerable Iraqi families trickling back to their war-ravaged homeland.
Captain Ed has a fair take. Hundreds per day are returning, but the numbers are still small compared to the total displaced. Politically, there are small signs of movement:
Sunni Arabs ended a yearlong political boycott Tuesday in Kirkuk — the hub of Iraq’s northern oil fields — under a cooperation pact that marked a bold attempt at unity before a planned referendum on control of the strategic region.
The Sunni-Kurdish deal — urged by U.S. diplomats — could also move ahead other reconciliation bids demanded by Washington but stalled by disputes that include sharing oil wealth and compromising with Sunnis who backed Saddam Hussein’s Baath party.
Nationally, the impasse in the Iraqi government is not much more gridlocked than our own national government. It’ll take time to hammer out de-Baathification, oil revenue sharing and power sharing, and it’s clear that the earlier political benchmarks were too ambitious timingwise.
In terms of our own politics, Republicans shouldn’t get too triumphant because the situation is still fragile. But many Democrats are seeing the improved situation and are changing tack. Too bad Harry Reid didn’t get the memo.
As I see it, the Nevada Senator is invested in American defeat in Iraq. A quagmire there will win him more Democratic seats in the Senate, which explains why he said three weeks ago that "it’s not getting better; it’s getting worse." It explains why he said last April that "as long as we follow the President’s path in Iraq, the war is lost," demanding a "change of course" barely two months after Bush changed course. As Media Matters also noted, Reid also said the following in a press conference: "This war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday." What was that "extreme violence"? It was a series of four suicide bombings in Baghdad that killed at least 183. Harry Reid was so influenced by these events that he declared the war "lost", surrendering to al Qaeda without even apparently being aware of it. Liberals may like him, but to me, he is a detestable politician. Am I accusing him of being unpatriotic? No. I’m convinced that he believes we’ve already lost and I’m convinced that he believes that what’s best for America is more Democrats in Congress.
To cap off an already long post, Michael O’Hanlon has some observations:
Rarely in U.S. history has a political party diagnosed a major failure in the country’s approach to a crucial issue of the day, led a national referendum on the failing policy, forced a change in that policy that led to major substantive benefits for the nation — and then categorically refused to take any credit whatsoever for doing so.
This is, of course, the story of the Democrats and the Iraq war over the past 13 months. Without a Democratic takeover of the Congress in 2006, there is little chance that President Bush would have acknowledged his Iraq policy to be failing, and that Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker would have been accorded the resources and the policy latitude needed to radically improve the situation on the ground.
Democrats were not the authors of the surge and in fact generally opposed it. But without their pressure, it probably never would have happened. We now have a realistic chance, not of victory, but of what my fellow Brookings scholar Ken Pollack and I call sustainable stability. Violence rates have dropped by half to two-thirds in the course of 2007, the lowest level in years. Iraq is still very unstable, but it has a chance.
[…]
Democrats should change course. Rather than demand an end to the operation no matter what, they should continue to keep up the pressure for positive results in Iraq. They can retain their anti-war stance, emphasizing that their default position is that U.S. troops should soon come home absent continued major progress. The surge was never designed as just a military operation; it was intended to create political space for Iraqis to forge reconciliation with each other across sectarian lines. Since that is for the most part not yet happening, it is perfectly reasonable for the Democrats to demand more as a condition for continued funding.
The way to do this is to tie funding for Iraq operations to further progress by Iraqi leaders on their nation’s political front. Release of our money should be partly contingent on progress on the so-called benchmarks in this year’s funding bill — reforming the de-Baathification process to allow amnesty for lower-level former Baathists, expunging extremist and militia leaders from key government jobs and the security forces, passing a hydrocarbon law, moving to provincial elections and creating a provincial powers act. But we should add other stipulations to the list as well, some already raised by the Iraq Study Group in 2006.
O’Hanlon has a punchlist in his USA Today article, and I would add another item: that enough Iraqi security forces are sufficiently trained so that required U.S. troop reductions can take place without adversely affecting security. We’re scheduled to have 30,000 come home by next spring, and Iraqis (reinforced by U.S. embeds) will need to step up.
Disclaimers: I don’t think we are winning or that we have "turned the corner" in Iraq, but nor am I convinced that Iraq is "irretrievably lost". I believe the current surge strategy is the best plan available. It appears to be bearing fruit, but a lot needs to happen politically. The COIN plan may well have been implemented too late, and it’s likely that our manpower levels are too low, but I’m giving the plan ’til year end before I make a judgment on whether we should stick with the current strategy or opt for Plan B (orderly, phased withdrawal of American troops). As it is, I’m leaning toward sticking with the current strategy. In their September testimony before Congress, the Petraeus-Crocker team bought themselves a Friedman unit, so it looks like the current strategy is going to last at least through March 2008.
Update: The Washington Post piece by Gen. John Bastiste and Lt. Pete Hegseth is relevant:
We believe America can and must rally around five fundamental tenets: First, the United States must be successful in the fight against worldwide Islamic extremism. We have seen this ruthless enemy firsthand, and its global ambitions are undeniable. This struggle, the Long War, will probably take decades to prosecute. Failure is not an option.
Second, whether or not we like it, Iraq is central to that fight. We cannot walk away from our strategic interests in the region. Iraq cannot become a staging ground for Islamic extremism or be dominated by other powers in the region, such as Iran and Syria. A premature or precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, without the requisite stability and security, is likely to cause the violence there — which has decreased substantially but is still present — to cascade into an even larger humanitarian crisis.
Third, the counterinsurgency campaign led by Gen. David Petraeus is the correct approach in Iraq. It is showing promise of success and, if continued, will provide the Iraqi government the opportunities it desperately needs to stabilize its country. Ultimately, however, these military gains must be cemented with regional and global diplomacy, political reconciliation, and economic recovery — tools yet sufficiently utilized. Today’s tactical gains in Iraq — while a necessary pre-condition for political reconciliation — will crumble without a deliberate and comprehensive strategy.
Fourth, our strategy in fighting the Long War must address Iran. Much has been made this week of the intelligence judgments that Iran has stopped its weapons program. No matter what, Iran must not be permitted to become a nuclear power. All options should be exhausted before we use military force, but force, nonetheless, should never be off the table. Diplomatic efforts — from a position of strength, both regionally and globally — must be used to engage our friends and coerce our enemies to apply pressure on the Iranian regime.
Fifth, our military capabilities need to match our national strategy. Our military is stretched thin and will be hard-pressed to maintain its current cycle of deployments. At this critical juncture, we cannot afford to be weak. Numbers and capacity matter.
Batiste is one of the six generals whose career was cut short by Donald Rumsfeld, and he has been a longtime critic of Bush and our venture in Iraq. Hegseth is on the other side of the ledger. When two ex-soldiers such as these can find this much common ground, it’s worth taking notice.
Is it my fault if these graphs Charles uses in his post irresistibly remind me of How To Lie With Statistics (which will be 54 years old next year), especially the sections explaining how to design graphs so as to make insignificant changes look… well, significant?
That even according to the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, which is known to underestimate casualties, at least 600 Iraqis are being killed each month… well, that’s not a metric of “success”.
Is it my fault if these graphs Charles uses in his post irresistibly remind me of How To Lie With Statistics (which will be 54 years old next year), especially the sections explaining how to design graphs so as to make insignificant changes look… well, significant?
That even according to the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, which is known to underestimate casualties, at least 600 Iraqis are being killed each month… well, that’s not a metric of “success”.
Is it my fault if these graphs Charles uses in his post irresistibly remind me of How To Lie With Statistics (which will be 54 years old next year), especially the sections explaining how to design graphs so as to make insignificant changes look… well, significant?
That even according to the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, which is known to underestimate casualties, at least 600 Iraqis are being killed each month… well, that’s not a metric of “success”.
A good and, I believe, balanced summary. Thank you for the leg work.
There is little doubt that the overall violence is decreasing, but just why is still a question mark. The surge probably played a role, but questionable as to what amount. You do mention some troubling signs, such as Sadr starting to rumble a little bit. Although I think he is still more interested in political power at this point, and he may be, in the long run, the best hope for a stable Iraq with minimal influence from Iran.
I really am not impressed with the Iranian involvement. It seems relatively minute, particularly compared to our involvement during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.
As a final note, regarding your disclaimer, I think it is important to note that we can neither win or lose Iraq. That is up to the Iraqi people, and I question just how much more we can do about it.
A good and, I believe, balanced summary. Thank you for the leg work.
There is little doubt that the overall violence is decreasing, but just why is still a question mark. The surge probably played a role, but questionable as to what amount. You do mention some troubling signs, such as Sadr starting to rumble a little bit. Although I think he is still more interested in political power at this point, and he may be, in the long run, the best hope for a stable Iraq with minimal influence from Iran.
I really am not impressed with the Iranian involvement. It seems relatively minute, particularly compared to our involvement during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.
As a final note, regarding your disclaimer, I think it is important to note that we can neither win or lose Iraq. That is up to the Iraqi people, and I question just how much more we can do about it.
A good and, I believe, balanced summary. Thank you for the leg work.
There is little doubt that the overall violence is decreasing, but just why is still a question mark. The surge probably played a role, but questionable as to what amount. You do mention some troubling signs, such as Sadr starting to rumble a little bit. Although I think he is still more interested in political power at this point, and he may be, in the long run, the best hope for a stable Iraq with minimal influence from Iran.
I really am not impressed with the Iranian involvement. It seems relatively minute, particularly compared to our involvement during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.
As a final note, regarding your disclaimer, I think it is important to note that we can neither win or lose Iraq. That is up to the Iraqi people, and I question just how much more we can do about it.
I have yet to hear an explanation of what “winning” is.
I have yet to hear an explanation of what “winning” is.
I have yet to hear an explanation of what “winning” is.
“As I see it, the Nevada Senator is invested in American defeat in Iraq…”
Couldn’t help yourself, eh? After that admission that Republicans shouldn’t get too “triumphant?” And what should they be triumphant over, bringing Iraqi violence down to the peaceful numbers it had in 2005?
I’ll grant you that this “surge” has borne fruit, but forgive me for growing very cranky the moment someone mentions how this is “bad for the Democrats.” We’ve heard this brainless chant before, Charles.
DU
“As I see it, the Nevada Senator is invested in American defeat in Iraq…”
Couldn’t help yourself, eh? After that admission that Republicans shouldn’t get too “triumphant?” And what should they be triumphant over, bringing Iraqi violence down to the peaceful numbers it had in 2005?
I’ll grant you that this “surge” has borne fruit, but forgive me for growing very cranky the moment someone mentions how this is “bad for the Democrats.” We’ve heard this brainless chant before, Charles.
DU
“As I see it, the Nevada Senator is invested in American defeat in Iraq…”
Couldn’t help yourself, eh? After that admission that Republicans shouldn’t get too “triumphant?” And what should they be triumphant over, bringing Iraqi violence down to the peaceful numbers it had in 2005?
I’ll grant you that this “surge” has borne fruit, but forgive me for growing very cranky the moment someone mentions how this is “bad for the Democrats.” We’ve heard this brainless chant before, Charles.
DU
While I remain skeptical as to how these numbers have been counted (i.e., the Iraqi death count doesn’t seem to jibe with other figures I’ve heard, leading me to believe this might be an accounting trick), I sincerely hope these number do represent a real and sustained trend back towards zero.
Now, if we could just get the Iraqi government to agree on anything (and American contractors to stop pillage their country and our treasury).
While I remain skeptical as to how these numbers have been counted (i.e., the Iraqi death count doesn’t seem to jibe with other figures I’ve heard, leading me to believe this might be an accounting trick), I sincerely hope these number do represent a real and sustained trend back towards zero.
Now, if we could just get the Iraqi government to agree on anything (and American contractors to stop pillage their country and our treasury).
While I remain skeptical as to how these numbers have been counted (i.e., the Iraqi death count doesn’t seem to jibe with other figures I’ve heard, leading me to believe this might be an accounting trick), I sincerely hope these number do represent a real and sustained trend back towards zero.
Now, if we could just get the Iraqi government to agree on anything (and American contractors to stop pillage their country and our treasury).
reading along, reading along…
“As I see it, the Nevada Senator is invested in American defeat in Iraq.”
full stop. i shall read n’more.
reading along, reading along…
“As I see it, the Nevada Senator is invested in American defeat in Iraq.”
full stop. i shall read n’more.
reading along, reading along…
“As I see it, the Nevada Senator is invested in American defeat in Iraq.”
full stop. i shall read n’more.
On winning, I would say its opposite is clinging to cliches, vulgar sentimentality, and middle-manager Powerpoint optimism in the face of Iraq’s post-2003 reality (500,000+ dead, 4 million refugees, with the best-case scenario for stability being a tribal government forged via ethnic cleansing).
A million Birds are diligently running cons and some of them even know it
On winning, I would say its opposite is clinging to cliches, vulgar sentimentality, and middle-manager Powerpoint optimism in the face of Iraq’s post-2003 reality (500,000+ dead, 4 million refugees, with the best-case scenario for stability being a tribal government forged via ethnic cleansing).
A million Birds are diligently running cons and some of them even know it
On winning, I would say its opposite is clinging to cliches, vulgar sentimentality, and middle-manager Powerpoint optimism in the face of Iraq’s post-2003 reality (500,000+ dead, 4 million refugees, with the best-case scenario for stability being a tribal government forged via ethnic cleansing).
A million Birds are diligently running cons and some of them even know it
ethan: I have yet to hear an explanation of what “winning” is.
A Republican winning the next Presidential election.
ethan: I have yet to hear an explanation of what “winning” is.
A Republican winning the next Presidential election.
ethan: I have yet to hear an explanation of what “winning” is.
A Republican winning the next Presidential election.
Oh, I just lost a giant comment because of the stupid confirmation thing that I always forget exists because no other blog I post on has one. Wunderbar!
The gist was that I don’t think violence is a useful indicator of “progress” because a) while lowered violence is undeniably a good thing it’s not a sufficient condition for Positivitudinousness in Iraq (“victory” is not a meaningful term); b) the stats are fudgible by changing how casualties are tallied and sorted, e.g. the fake “autism epidemic” that resulted from a change in diagnostic criteria but did not reflect an actual change in autism rates — my opinion is that this kind of effect can’t account for all of the statistical trend we’re seeing with violence in Iraq, but probably does account for some.
But anyway I wanted to say something else tangential to that, so whatever:
Nothing I’ve read gives me much faith that the Iraqi Army or Police will “step up”, unless by “step up” you mean “kick off the Iraqi Civil War that everybody’s waiting to start once the Americans aren’t looking” — something that, once again, nothing I’ve read indicates is even remotely preventable without precisely the kind of permanent, multi-decade occupation in force that we can’t afford any more because we’re already too far in debt from the first five years of our occupation and don’t have the manpower to implement even if we did have the cash for it.
Oh, I just lost a giant comment because of the stupid confirmation thing that I always forget exists because no other blog I post on has one. Wunderbar!
The gist was that I don’t think violence is a useful indicator of “progress” because a) while lowered violence is undeniably a good thing it’s not a sufficient condition for Positivitudinousness in Iraq (“victory” is not a meaningful term); b) the stats are fudgible by changing how casualties are tallied and sorted, e.g. the fake “autism epidemic” that resulted from a change in diagnostic criteria but did not reflect an actual change in autism rates — my opinion is that this kind of effect can’t account for all of the statistical trend we’re seeing with violence in Iraq, but probably does account for some.
But anyway I wanted to say something else tangential to that, so whatever:
Nothing I’ve read gives me much faith that the Iraqi Army or Police will “step up”, unless by “step up” you mean “kick off the Iraqi Civil War that everybody’s waiting to start once the Americans aren’t looking” — something that, once again, nothing I’ve read indicates is even remotely preventable without precisely the kind of permanent, multi-decade occupation in force that we can’t afford any more because we’re already too far in debt from the first five years of our occupation and don’t have the manpower to implement even if we did have the cash for it.
Oh, I just lost a giant comment because of the stupid confirmation thing that I always forget exists because no other blog I post on has one. Wunderbar!
The gist was that I don’t think violence is a useful indicator of “progress” because a) while lowered violence is undeniably a good thing it’s not a sufficient condition for Positivitudinousness in Iraq (“victory” is not a meaningful term); b) the stats are fudgible by changing how casualties are tallied and sorted, e.g. the fake “autism epidemic” that resulted from a change in diagnostic criteria but did not reflect an actual change in autism rates — my opinion is that this kind of effect can’t account for all of the statistical trend we’re seeing with violence in Iraq, but probably does account for some.
But anyway I wanted to say something else tangential to that, so whatever:
Nothing I’ve read gives me much faith that the Iraqi Army or Police will “step up”, unless by “step up” you mean “kick off the Iraqi Civil War that everybody’s waiting to start once the Americans aren’t looking” — something that, once again, nothing I’ve read indicates is even remotely preventable without precisely the kind of permanent, multi-decade occupation in force that we can’t afford any more because we’re already too far in debt from the first five years of our occupation and don’t have the manpower to implement even if we did have the cash for it.
I think that it’s incumbent upon all of us to acknowledge that the surge appears to be working. Fighting a point when we’re wrong only discredits us. While I was skeptical about the likelihood of success (largely because there have been so many broken promises), I have never founded my opposition to Administration policy upon that point. My opposition is founded upon my judgement that the remaining objective of this policy (bringing democracy to Iraq) is unattainable under any reasonable circumstances.
I think that it’s incumbent upon all of us to acknowledge that the surge appears to be working. Fighting a point when we’re wrong only discredits us. While I was skeptical about the likelihood of success (largely because there have been so many broken promises), I have never founded my opposition to Administration policy upon that point. My opposition is founded upon my judgement that the remaining objective of this policy (bringing democracy to Iraq) is unattainable under any reasonable circumstances.
I think that it’s incumbent upon all of us to acknowledge that the surge appears to be working. Fighting a point when we’re wrong only discredits us. While I was skeptical about the likelihood of success (largely because there have been so many broken promises), I have never founded my opposition to Administration policy upon that point. My opposition is founded upon my judgement that the remaining objective of this policy (bringing democracy to Iraq) is unattainable under any reasonable circumstances.
I think that it’s incumbent upon all of us to acknowledge that the surge appears to be working.
I think it’s incumbent on people who claim that the “surge is working” or “appears to be working” to outline their metric of success. May we take it that your metric of success is “only 600 Iraqis confirmed killed in one month”?
I think that it’s incumbent upon all of us to acknowledge that the surge appears to be working.
I think it’s incumbent on people who claim that the “surge is working” or “appears to be working” to outline their metric of success. May we take it that your metric of success is “only 600 Iraqis confirmed killed in one month”?
I think that it’s incumbent upon all of us to acknowledge that the surge appears to be working.
I think it’s incumbent on people who claim that the “surge is working” or “appears to be working” to outline their metric of success. May we take it that your metric of success is “only 600 Iraqis confirmed killed in one month”?
Joshua: Oh, I just lost a giant comment because of the stupid confirmation thing that I always forget exists because no other blog I post on has one. Wunderbar!
OT: Use Firefox. Firefox will let you page back, retrieve your long comment, and re-comment it. IE sucks.
Joshua: Oh, I just lost a giant comment because of the stupid confirmation thing that I always forget exists because no other blog I post on has one. Wunderbar!
OT: Use Firefox. Firefox will let you page back, retrieve your long comment, and re-comment it. IE sucks.
Joshua: Oh, I just lost a giant comment because of the stupid confirmation thing that I always forget exists because no other blog I post on has one. Wunderbar!
OT: Use Firefox. Firefox will let you page back, retrieve your long comment, and re-comment it. IE sucks.
Charles, the American people couldn’t care less about Iraq beyond a universal desire to get out. We have no legitimate business in Iraq. We got involved there based upon lies told to us by the administration concerning nonexistant WMD and existential danger a third rate country posed to our American way of life. It was all BS and now we just want to put it all behind us.
Iraq was lost the day it was invaded. Americans will never support a war based upon lies. Why is that so hard for conservatives to understand?
Charles, the American people couldn’t care less about Iraq beyond a universal desire to get out. We have no legitimate business in Iraq. We got involved there based upon lies told to us by the administration concerning nonexistant WMD and existential danger a third rate country posed to our American way of life. It was all BS and now we just want to put it all behind us.
Iraq was lost the day it was invaded. Americans will never support a war based upon lies. Why is that so hard for conservatives to understand?
Charles, the American people couldn’t care less about Iraq beyond a universal desire to get out. We have no legitimate business in Iraq. We got involved there based upon lies told to us by the administration concerning nonexistant WMD and existential danger a third rate country posed to our American way of life. It was all BS and now we just want to put it all behind us.
Iraq was lost the day it was invaded. Americans will never support a war based upon lies. Why is that so hard for conservatives to understand?
“I think that it’s incumbent upon all of us to acknowledge that the surge appears to be working. Fighting a point when we’re wrong only discredits us”
Well, no, it’s not incumbent on us to acknowledge that the surge is working when we don’t know what role it has played in lowering casualties. It’s not a civility contest. We don’t now and never have known how many casualties our own forces are inflicting either, a point which seems to interest no one in the MSM or political circles. (Michael Massing has an article on civilian casualties in the opening months of the invasion in the latest New York Review and he had a similar article in Salon a few weeks ago–his work stands out because so few in the media show any interest in this subject.)
Everyone seems to agree that casualties are down, but to a large extent this seems to be the result of Sunnis becoming sick of the Al Qaeda types and siding with the US against them. In that sense the left (I don’t know about the Democrats) could take credit for pointing out all along that the Iraqi “resistance” has been divided between Sunnis who are outraged about the occupation but oppose the targeting of civilians, and those who target civilians. There’s now an open split between the two and obviously this has caused much of the drop in casualties. Otherwise the insurgents could just continue to play whack a mole with the American troops.
Good post Charles. Credit where credit is due. Not that I agree with your political slant, but you did put a lot of work into this.
“I think that it’s incumbent upon all of us to acknowledge that the surge appears to be working. Fighting a point when we’re wrong only discredits us”
Well, no, it’s not incumbent on us to acknowledge that the surge is working when we don’t know what role it has played in lowering casualties. It’s not a civility contest. We don’t now and never have known how many casualties our own forces are inflicting either, a point which seems to interest no one in the MSM or political circles. (Michael Massing has an article on civilian casualties in the opening months of the invasion in the latest New York Review and he had a similar article in Salon a few weeks ago–his work stands out because so few in the media show any interest in this subject.)
Everyone seems to agree that casualties are down, but to a large extent this seems to be the result of Sunnis becoming sick of the Al Qaeda types and siding with the US against them. In that sense the left (I don’t know about the Democrats) could take credit for pointing out all along that the Iraqi “resistance” has been divided between Sunnis who are outraged about the occupation but oppose the targeting of civilians, and those who target civilians. There’s now an open split between the two and obviously this has caused much of the drop in casualties. Otherwise the insurgents could just continue to play whack a mole with the American troops.
Good post Charles. Credit where credit is due. Not that I agree with your political slant, but you did put a lot of work into this.
“I think that it’s incumbent upon all of us to acknowledge that the surge appears to be working. Fighting a point when we’re wrong only discredits us”
Well, no, it’s not incumbent on us to acknowledge that the surge is working when we don’t know what role it has played in lowering casualties. It’s not a civility contest. We don’t now and never have known how many casualties our own forces are inflicting either, a point which seems to interest no one in the MSM or political circles. (Michael Massing has an article on civilian casualties in the opening months of the invasion in the latest New York Review and he had a similar article in Salon a few weeks ago–his work stands out because so few in the media show any interest in this subject.)
Everyone seems to agree that casualties are down, but to a large extent this seems to be the result of Sunnis becoming sick of the Al Qaeda types and siding with the US against them. In that sense the left (I don’t know about the Democrats) could take credit for pointing out all along that the Iraqi “resistance” has been divided between Sunnis who are outraged about the occupation but oppose the targeting of civilians, and those who target civilians. There’s now an open split between the two and obviously this has caused much of the drop in casualties. Otherwise the insurgents could just continue to play whack a mole with the American troops.
Good post Charles. Credit where credit is due. Not that I agree with your political slant, but you did put a lot of work into this.
I’m reminded more of Tacitus’s comment: “they make a desolation and call it peace.”
Let’s assume that the death count is actually down. Good. On the other hand, this might simply be because the ethnic cleansing has been successful and there’s fewer enemies around to kill. The Christian population has already almost been wiped out. The reports I keep seeing about further bodies continually being found in Baghdad and elsewhere keep me on the pessimistic side. Plus, we seem to be seeing further gains by the fundamentalists–murders of ordinary women simply for not wearing the veil and similar.
I’m reminded more of Tacitus’s comment: “they make a desolation and call it peace.”
Let’s assume that the death count is actually down. Good. On the other hand, this might simply be because the ethnic cleansing has been successful and there’s fewer enemies around to kill. The Christian population has already almost been wiped out. The reports I keep seeing about further bodies continually being found in Baghdad and elsewhere keep me on the pessimistic side. Plus, we seem to be seeing further gains by the fundamentalists–murders of ordinary women simply for not wearing the veil and similar.
I’m reminded more of Tacitus’s comment: “they make a desolation and call it peace.”
Let’s assume that the death count is actually down. Good. On the other hand, this might simply be because the ethnic cleansing has been successful and there’s fewer enemies around to kill. The Christian population has already almost been wiped out. The reports I keep seeing about further bodies continually being found in Baghdad and elsewhere keep me on the pessimistic side. Plus, we seem to be seeing further gains by the fundamentalists–murders of ordinary women simply for not wearing the veil and similar.
Charlie, you had me interested. I’m *glad* there’s finally a little good info coming out of this mess. But then you immediately turned it into a club to hit democrats with. Tell me what it looks like when we win. Tell me what we have to measure. Then you can tell me Harry Ried was wrong.
Charlie, you had me interested. I’m *glad* there’s finally a little good info coming out of this mess. But then you immediately turned it into a club to hit democrats with. Tell me what it looks like when we win. Tell me what we have to measure. Then you can tell me Harry Ried was wrong.
Charlie, you had me interested. I’m *glad* there’s finally a little good info coming out of this mess. But then you immediately turned it into a club to hit democrats with. Tell me what it looks like when we win. Tell me what we have to measure. Then you can tell me Harry Ried was wrong.
Here’s the NY Review of Books article on US-inflicted civilian casualties during the opening months and how this story was sanitized, even in books critical of the war–
link
Here’s the NY Review of Books article on US-inflicted civilian casualties during the opening months and how this story was sanitized, even in books critical of the war–
link
Here’s the NY Review of Books article on US-inflicted civilian casualties during the opening months and how this story was sanitized, even in books critical of the war–
link
I’ll be responding to comments tonite or maybe tomorrow.
I’ll be responding to comments tonite or maybe tomorrow.
I’ll be responding to comments tonite or maybe tomorrow.
Dan Bartlett on the usefulness of right-wing blogs, December 1st: They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we’ve cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on.
Search term “invested in defeat” reid on Google.
Dan Bartlett on the usefulness of right-wing blogs, December 1st: They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we’ve cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on.
Search term “invested in defeat” reid on Google.
Dan Bartlett on the usefulness of right-wing blogs, December 1st: They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we’ve cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on.
Search term “invested in defeat” reid on Google.
Great. After 4 years of bloodshed for no good reason, we may be ramping down the violence, even though the government is still essentially nonexistent, the country is bankrupt, and millions are dead, maimed, or dislocated. Where do we sign up for the victory parade?
Shorter Charles: Look, I proved that pouring cops into a gang zone decreases the number of people killed! In other news, dog bites man!
The problem is, there’s no reason to think that this quarter’s trend will actually produce long-term gains, especially after we ‘de-surge.’ That’s what the whole debate was about. I don’t recall anyone saying it was extremely unlikely that pouring more soldiers in would reduce the violence while the soldiers were there. It’s nice, and I’m happy for the people who didn’t get killed last month, but where does this get us? How long do we keep pouring manpower and borrowed money down this hole?
BTW, you quoted Reid out of context. Considering you were quoting a Washington Times article in the first place, that’s impressive, but not in a good way. Reid was talking about “the political divisions in Baghdad,” when he said it was “getting worse,” according to the article you linked. Nothing in your post says otherwise.
As for:
the impasse in the Iraqi government is not much more gridlocked than our own national government.
Circa 1865, you mean?
But I’m glad you’re willing to concede that
It’s clear that the earlier political benchmarks were too ambitious timingwise.
It might not hurt, in the interests of fairness and all, to mention who set those benchmarks. And that those benchmarks were an extreme drop down from the warmongers’ original rosy scenarios. I.e., the one prediction that someone actually made that you say was wrong was not made by the Democrats.
Great. After 4 years of bloodshed for no good reason, we may be ramping down the violence, even though the government is still essentially nonexistent, the country is bankrupt, and millions are dead, maimed, or dislocated. Where do we sign up for the victory parade?
Shorter Charles: Look, I proved that pouring cops into a gang zone decreases the number of people killed! In other news, dog bites man!
The problem is, there’s no reason to think that this quarter’s trend will actually produce long-term gains, especially after we ‘de-surge.’ That’s what the whole debate was about. I don’t recall anyone saying it was extremely unlikely that pouring more soldiers in would reduce the violence while the soldiers were there. It’s nice, and I’m happy for the people who didn’t get killed last month, but where does this get us? How long do we keep pouring manpower and borrowed money down this hole?
BTW, you quoted Reid out of context. Considering you were quoting a Washington Times article in the first place, that’s impressive, but not in a good way. Reid was talking about “the political divisions in Baghdad,” when he said it was “getting worse,” according to the article you linked. Nothing in your post says otherwise.
As for:
the impasse in the Iraqi government is not much more gridlocked than our own national government.
Circa 1865, you mean?
But I’m glad you’re willing to concede that
It’s clear that the earlier political benchmarks were too ambitious timingwise.
It might not hurt, in the interests of fairness and all, to mention who set those benchmarks. And that those benchmarks were an extreme drop down from the warmongers’ original rosy scenarios. I.e., the one prediction that someone actually made that you say was wrong was not made by the Democrats.
Great. After 4 years of bloodshed for no good reason, we may be ramping down the violence, even though the government is still essentially nonexistent, the country is bankrupt, and millions are dead, maimed, or dislocated. Where do we sign up for the victory parade?
Shorter Charles: Look, I proved that pouring cops into a gang zone decreases the number of people killed! In other news, dog bites man!
The problem is, there’s no reason to think that this quarter’s trend will actually produce long-term gains, especially after we ‘de-surge.’ That’s what the whole debate was about. I don’t recall anyone saying it was extremely unlikely that pouring more soldiers in would reduce the violence while the soldiers were there. It’s nice, and I’m happy for the people who didn’t get killed last month, but where does this get us? How long do we keep pouring manpower and borrowed money down this hole?
BTW, you quoted Reid out of context. Considering you were quoting a Washington Times article in the first place, that’s impressive, but not in a good way. Reid was talking about “the political divisions in Baghdad,” when he said it was “getting worse,” according to the article you linked. Nothing in your post says otherwise.
As for:
the impasse in the Iraqi government is not much more gridlocked than our own national government.
Circa 1865, you mean?
But I’m glad you’re willing to concede that
It’s clear that the earlier political benchmarks were too ambitious timingwise.
It might not hurt, in the interests of fairness and all, to mention who set those benchmarks. And that those benchmarks were an extreme drop down from the warmongers’ original rosy scenarios. I.e., the one prediction that someone actually made that you say was wrong was not made by the Democrats.
Don’t feel so bad about the “invested in defeat” thing. Dick Cheney’s invested in Iran’s having a nuclear-weapons program, so glass houses and such.
Don’t feel so bad about the “invested in defeat” thing. Dick Cheney’s invested in Iran’s having a nuclear-weapons program, so glass houses and such.
Don’t feel so bad about the “invested in defeat” thing. Dick Cheney’s invested in Iran’s having a nuclear-weapons program, so glass houses and such.
Ack! Death to italics!
Sorry ’bout that. Hopefully, you can still work out which parts are mine, which parts are Charles’s, and which parts of my deathless prose would naturally be emphasized.
Ack! Death to italics!
Sorry ’bout that. Hopefully, you can still work out which parts are mine, which parts are Charles’s, and which parts of my deathless prose would naturally be emphasized.
Ack! Death to italics!
Sorry ’bout that. Hopefully, you can still work out which parts are mine, which parts are Charles’s, and which parts of my deathless prose would naturally be emphasized.
Am I accusing him of being unpatriotic?
No just of “surrendering to al Qaeda.” Lotsa daylight there.
Am I accusing him of being unpatriotic?
No just of “surrendering to al Qaeda.” Lotsa daylight there.
Am I accusing him of being unpatriotic?
No just of “surrendering to al Qaeda.” Lotsa daylight there.
When 40 senior al Qaeda members are killed or captured in one month, it’s time to leave. Al Qaeda has irretrievably lost, in my opinion.
Yes I’d say we can go home, knowing that the statistically negligible Qaeda are not going to rule Iraq, even in tandem with their Iranian BFFs. No matter how hard the despicable Harry Reid surrenders to them.
When 40 senior al Qaeda members are killed or captured in one month, it’s time to leave. Al Qaeda has irretrievably lost, in my opinion.
Yes I’d say we can go home, knowing that the statistically negligible Qaeda are not going to rule Iraq, even in tandem with their Iranian BFFs. No matter how hard the despicable Harry Reid surrenders to them.
When 40 senior al Qaeda members are killed or captured in one month, it’s time to leave. Al Qaeda has irretrievably lost, in my opinion.
Yes I’d say we can go home, knowing that the statistically negligible Qaeda are not going to rule Iraq, even in tandem with their Iranian BFFs. No matter how hard the despicable Harry Reid surrenders to them.
As I see it, the poster is invested in making the Iraq conflict a tool for achieving domestic political goals. A claim of “victory” there will lose him fewer Republican seats in the Senate in 2008.
Am I accusing him of being unpatriotic? Well, if I were, at least I’d have the stones to admit it.
As I see it, the poster is invested in making the Iraq conflict a tool for achieving domestic political goals. A claim of “victory” there will lose him fewer Republican seats in the Senate in 2008.
Am I accusing him of being unpatriotic? Well, if I were, at least I’d have the stones to admit it.
As I see it, the poster is invested in making the Iraq conflict a tool for achieving domestic political goals. A claim of “victory” there will lose him fewer Republican seats in the Senate in 2008.
Am I accusing him of being unpatriotic? Well, if I were, at least I’d have the stones to admit it.
Also “time to leave” obscures that these are mostly Iraqis calling themselves al Qaeda. I get stupider just reading this stuff.
Also “time to leave” obscures that these are mostly Iraqis calling themselves al Qaeda. I get stupider just reading this stuff.
Also “time to leave” obscures that these are mostly Iraqis calling themselves al Qaeda. I get stupider just reading this stuff.
I’m glad the added troops are helping. I doubt that anyone thinks that the US will commit to keeping 150,000 troops in Iraq for the next century, so I’m not certain what we can expect in the future, particularly since Iraq still doesn’t have a functioning government. Notice also that our troops, who once had almost complete control in Afghanistan, are losing control there as the violence in Iraq decreases. It sure looks like a game of whack-a-mole with too few troops.
By the way Al Qaeda in Iraq is not Al Qaeda. They’re just some locals and other troublemakers using a well-known brand name with permission. Good PR for them, meaningless in attempts to control terror.
I’m glad the added troops are helping. I doubt that anyone thinks that the US will commit to keeping 150,000 troops in Iraq for the next century, so I’m not certain what we can expect in the future, particularly since Iraq still doesn’t have a functioning government. Notice also that our troops, who once had almost complete control in Afghanistan, are losing control there as the violence in Iraq decreases. It sure looks like a game of whack-a-mole with too few troops.
By the way Al Qaeda in Iraq is not Al Qaeda. They’re just some locals and other troublemakers using a well-known brand name with permission. Good PR for them, meaningless in attempts to control terror.
I’m glad the added troops are helping. I doubt that anyone thinks that the US will commit to keeping 150,000 troops in Iraq for the next century, so I’m not certain what we can expect in the future, particularly since Iraq still doesn’t have a functioning government. Notice also that our troops, who once had almost complete control in Afghanistan, are losing control there as the violence in Iraq decreases. It sure looks like a game of whack-a-mole with too few troops.
By the way Al Qaeda in Iraq is not Al Qaeda. They’re just some locals and other troublemakers using a well-known brand name with permission. Good PR for them, meaningless in attempts to control terror.
I recently wrote a long post on violence in Iraq. It is important to remember context. For instance, some Iraqis are returning to Iraq from Syria because Syria doesn’t want them, not out of desire. That’s not always the case, of course, but NPR recently did two stories on it, and it’s good to know the dynamics.
Troop fatalies are down, and several accounts report Iraqis are indeed more optimistic. That’s good. However, the violence overall remains extremely high.
The biggest issue is that political reconciliation is still nowhere in sight, and that was the whole point of the esclation, or “surge,” in the first place.
Finally, I really have to question your slam on Reid, and it really makes me wonder how seriously I can take you. “Surrending to Al Qaeda”…? Good grief.
I recently wrote a long post on violence in Iraq. It is important to remember context. For instance, some Iraqis are returning to Iraq from Syria because Syria doesn’t want them, not out of desire. That’s not always the case, of course, but NPR recently did two stories on it, and it’s good to know the dynamics.
Troop fatalies are down, and several accounts report Iraqis are indeed more optimistic. That’s good. However, the violence overall remains extremely high.
The biggest issue is that political reconciliation is still nowhere in sight, and that was the whole point of the esclation, or “surge,” in the first place.
Finally, I really have to question your slam on Reid, and it really makes me wonder how seriously I can take you. “Surrending to Al Qaeda”…? Good grief.
I recently wrote a long post on violence in Iraq. It is important to remember context. For instance, some Iraqis are returning to Iraq from Syria because Syria doesn’t want them, not out of desire. That’s not always the case, of course, but NPR recently did two stories on it, and it’s good to know the dynamics.
Troop fatalies are down, and several accounts report Iraqis are indeed more optimistic. That’s good. However, the violence overall remains extremely high.
The biggest issue is that political reconciliation is still nowhere in sight, and that was the whole point of the esclation, or “surge,” in the first place.
Finally, I really have to question your slam on Reid, and it really makes me wonder how seriously I can take you. “Surrending to Al Qaeda”…? Good grief.
Bush complied with Al Qaeda’s most important demand the day he pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia.
Bush complied with Al Qaeda’s most important demand the day he pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia.
Bush complied with Al Qaeda’s most important demand the day he pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia.
Sorry, that’s really odd. I was signed in through Typepad, but it didn’t display my handle at 3:300pm above.
Sorry, that’s really odd. I was signed in through Typepad, but it didn’t display my handle at 3:300pm above.
Sorry, that’s really odd. I was signed in through Typepad, but it didn’t display my handle at 3:300pm above.
Uggh! Again! Trying one more time, otherwise, it’s Batocchio at 3:30pm.
Uggh! Again! Trying one more time, otherwise, it’s Batocchio at 3:30pm.
Uggh! Again! Trying one more time, otherwise, it’s Batocchio at 3:30pm.
One thing I keep hearing, even from the administration, is that Iran is to a certain extent cooperating in the recent efforts to reduce violence. I assume that if this were true, Iran would be getting something out of it, diplomatic trade-offs somewhere. So I do wonder whether we should be counting our chickens quite yet. At the end of the day, we need a strategic vision for our Middle East policy; no statistical trendline can provide us with one of those.
Thanks for the article giving some details about possible Iranian involvement; that’s by far the most evidence I’ve seen so far.
One thing I keep hearing, even from the administration, is that Iran is to a certain extent cooperating in the recent efforts to reduce violence. I assume that if this were true, Iran would be getting something out of it, diplomatic trade-offs somewhere. So I do wonder whether we should be counting our chickens quite yet. At the end of the day, we need a strategic vision for our Middle East policy; no statistical trendline can provide us with one of those.
Thanks for the article giving some details about possible Iranian involvement; that’s by far the most evidence I’ve seen so far.
One thing I keep hearing, even from the administration, is that Iran is to a certain extent cooperating in the recent efforts to reduce violence. I assume that if this were true, Iran would be getting something out of it, diplomatic trade-offs somewhere. So I do wonder whether we should be counting our chickens quite yet. At the end of the day, we need a strategic vision for our Middle East policy; no statistical trendline can provide us with one of those.
Thanks for the article giving some details about possible Iranian involvement; that’s by far the most evidence I’ve seen so far.
What the heck is the line, i.e. the actual graph, running through the bar graphs? That’s either useless, horrifically misleading or just kinda pointless depending on what it’s supposed to mean, and either way it diminishes what utility the figures have.
What the heck is the line, i.e. the actual graph, running through the bar graphs? That’s either useless, horrifically misleading or just kinda pointless depending on what it’s supposed to mean, and either way it diminishes what utility the figures have.
What the heck is the line, i.e. the actual graph, running through the bar graphs? That’s either useless, horrifically misleading or just kinda pointless depending on what it’s supposed to mean, and either way it diminishes what utility the figures have.
Oh, and everyone who said that there was no point reading past Charles’ usual calumnies was of course correct. I’m just trying to figure out if there was any point in reading this post to begin with.
Oh, and everyone who said that there was no point reading past Charles’ usual calumnies was of course correct. I’m just trying to figure out if there was any point in reading this post to begin with.
Oh, and everyone who said that there was no point reading past Charles’ usual calumnies was of course correct. I’m just trying to figure out if there was any point in reading this post to begin with.
Nationally, the impasse in the Iraqi government is not much more gridlocked than our own national government. It’ll take time to hammer out de-Baathification, oil revenue sharing and power sharing, and it’s clear that the earlier political benchmarks were too ambitious timingwise.
Considering that the entire strategic goal of the surge was to enable a political reconciliation at the national level, this is a remarkably lame assessment. Pages and pages about how violence is down, but the utter lack of political progress dismissed with a cursory paragraph! Well, yes, I suppose that’s the entire “surge is working” strategy in a nutshell.
Of course, no one can actually accuse Charles of arguing that the surge is working, since even though his posts argue that in a dozen different ways, he always includes a disclaimer at the end to the effect that he’s not actually saying that!
Now, as to the amazing, amazing excerpt re: Iran. What are the odds that our senior political and intelligence officials are unwilling to go on the record regarding Iran’s role in arming the Iraqi insurgency, despite the free hand regarding Iran they would assuredly get if they made that case convincingly… and yet they are willing to anonymously spill their guts regarding all sorts of sensitive intelligence information to the editor of the “Long War Journal”?
The Pentagon seems to be increasingly resorting to making its case concerning these sorts of issues by means of “anonymous leaks” to the right-wing blogs. What I’m not sure about is whether Charles simply fails to understand his role in this propaganda process or whether he is yet another willing regurgitator.
But in the interests of good-faith discussion, I’ll simply postulate the following base-line question: Why should anyone be expected to attach any credibility to what Bill Roggio says anonymous sources have told him about Iran’s role in Iraq? While I’m happy to keep an open mind regarding Iran’s antics, I have no idea why I’m expected to lend any credence to this account whatsoever. What is the track record of the “Long War Journal,” for example, regarding the existence vel non of Iran’s nuclear program?
Nationally, the impasse in the Iraqi government is not much more gridlocked than our own national government. It’ll take time to hammer out de-Baathification, oil revenue sharing and power sharing, and it’s clear that the earlier political benchmarks were too ambitious timingwise.
Considering that the entire strategic goal of the surge was to enable a political reconciliation at the national level, this is a remarkably lame assessment. Pages and pages about how violence is down, but the utter lack of political progress dismissed with a cursory paragraph! Well, yes, I suppose that’s the entire “surge is working” strategy in a nutshell.
Of course, no one can actually accuse Charles of arguing that the surge is working, since even though his posts argue that in a dozen different ways, he always includes a disclaimer at the end to the effect that he’s not actually saying that!
Now, as to the amazing, amazing excerpt re: Iran. What are the odds that our senior political and intelligence officials are unwilling to go on the record regarding Iran’s role in arming the Iraqi insurgency, despite the free hand regarding Iran they would assuredly get if they made that case convincingly… and yet they are willing to anonymously spill their guts regarding all sorts of sensitive intelligence information to the editor of the “Long War Journal”?
The Pentagon seems to be increasingly resorting to making its case concerning these sorts of issues by means of “anonymous leaks” to the right-wing blogs. What I’m not sure about is whether Charles simply fails to understand his role in this propaganda process or whether he is yet another willing regurgitator.
But in the interests of good-faith discussion, I’ll simply postulate the following base-line question: Why should anyone be expected to attach any credibility to what Bill Roggio says anonymous sources have told him about Iran’s role in Iraq? While I’m happy to keep an open mind regarding Iran’s antics, I have no idea why I’m expected to lend any credence to this account whatsoever. What is the track record of the “Long War Journal,” for example, regarding the existence vel non of Iran’s nuclear program?
Nationally, the impasse in the Iraqi government is not much more gridlocked than our own national government. It’ll take time to hammer out de-Baathification, oil revenue sharing and power sharing, and it’s clear that the earlier political benchmarks were too ambitious timingwise.
Considering that the entire strategic goal of the surge was to enable a political reconciliation at the national level, this is a remarkably lame assessment. Pages and pages about how violence is down, but the utter lack of political progress dismissed with a cursory paragraph! Well, yes, I suppose that’s the entire “surge is working” strategy in a nutshell.
Of course, no one can actually accuse Charles of arguing that the surge is working, since even though his posts argue that in a dozen different ways, he always includes a disclaimer at the end to the effect that he’s not actually saying that!
Now, as to the amazing, amazing excerpt re: Iran. What are the odds that our senior political and intelligence officials are unwilling to go on the record regarding Iran’s role in arming the Iraqi insurgency, despite the free hand regarding Iran they would assuredly get if they made that case convincingly… and yet they are willing to anonymously spill their guts regarding all sorts of sensitive intelligence information to the editor of the “Long War Journal”?
The Pentagon seems to be increasingly resorting to making its case concerning these sorts of issues by means of “anonymous leaks” to the right-wing blogs. What I’m not sure about is whether Charles simply fails to understand his role in this propaganda process or whether he is yet another willing regurgitator.
But in the interests of good-faith discussion, I’ll simply postulate the following base-line question: Why should anyone be expected to attach any credibility to what Bill Roggio says anonymous sources have told him about Iran’s role in Iraq? While I’m happy to keep an open mind regarding Iran’s antics, I have no idea why I’m expected to lend any credence to this account whatsoever. What is the track record of the “Long War Journal,” for example, regarding the existence vel non of Iran’s nuclear program?
Iran got confirmation that we knew that they were not working on nuclear weapons.
Iran got confirmation that we knew that they were not working on nuclear weapons.
Iran got confirmation that we knew that they were not working on nuclear weapons.
From what I’ve read, the Sunni’s have finally had it with the foreign jihadis, and that’s caused a reduction in deaths from Sunni insurgents, for now.
I am surprised it took them so long.
But I doubt that they, or the Mahdi army, will acquiesce to a permanent US occupation, especially one where American companies get to “privatize” Iraqi oil production, and walk off with 20-50% of the oil revenue.
With respect to Iranian involvement, at this point, I don’t trust anything that the administration says about Iranian involvement — their #1 priority with Iran is regime change, to get an opportunity to privatize *their* oil as well. It is pretty clear that this administration will lie about anything to further that aim.
That doesn’t mean there isn’t any Iranian involvement in Iraq — they’re allies of SCIRI, after all, which is a part of the Iraqi government. And if I were an Iranian government official, knowing that the Bush administration wanted my government destroyed, I’d make sure *someone* was taking shots at American soldiers in Iraq — the more we’re pinned down in Iraq, the less likely we’re likely to overthrow the Iranian government. It is unlikely to stop unless we actually negotiate a truce with the Iranian government, which is probably out of the question for Bush.
In other words, get your gloating in now. The long term interests of the Bush administration and both the Shiites and Sunnis are no more aligned today than they ever were. The only way this violence will stay down for an entire year is if we actually begin to withdraw from Iraq.
From what I’ve read, the Sunni’s have finally had it with the foreign jihadis, and that’s caused a reduction in deaths from Sunni insurgents, for now.
I am surprised it took them so long.
But I doubt that they, or the Mahdi army, will acquiesce to a permanent US occupation, especially one where American companies get to “privatize” Iraqi oil production, and walk off with 20-50% of the oil revenue.
With respect to Iranian involvement, at this point, I don’t trust anything that the administration says about Iranian involvement — their #1 priority with Iran is regime change, to get an opportunity to privatize *their* oil as well. It is pretty clear that this administration will lie about anything to further that aim.
That doesn’t mean there isn’t any Iranian involvement in Iraq — they’re allies of SCIRI, after all, which is a part of the Iraqi government. And if I were an Iranian government official, knowing that the Bush administration wanted my government destroyed, I’d make sure *someone* was taking shots at American soldiers in Iraq — the more we’re pinned down in Iraq, the less likely we’re likely to overthrow the Iranian government. It is unlikely to stop unless we actually negotiate a truce with the Iranian government, which is probably out of the question for Bush.
In other words, get your gloating in now. The long term interests of the Bush administration and both the Shiites and Sunnis are no more aligned today than they ever were. The only way this violence will stay down for an entire year is if we actually begin to withdraw from Iraq.
From what I’ve read, the Sunni’s have finally had it with the foreign jihadis, and that’s caused a reduction in deaths from Sunni insurgents, for now.
I am surprised it took them so long.
But I doubt that they, or the Mahdi army, will acquiesce to a permanent US occupation, especially one where American companies get to “privatize” Iraqi oil production, and walk off with 20-50% of the oil revenue.
With respect to Iranian involvement, at this point, I don’t trust anything that the administration says about Iranian involvement — their #1 priority with Iran is regime change, to get an opportunity to privatize *their* oil as well. It is pretty clear that this administration will lie about anything to further that aim.
That doesn’t mean there isn’t any Iranian involvement in Iraq — they’re allies of SCIRI, after all, which is a part of the Iraqi government. And if I were an Iranian government official, knowing that the Bush administration wanted my government destroyed, I’d make sure *someone* was taking shots at American soldiers in Iraq — the more we’re pinned down in Iraq, the less likely we’re likely to overthrow the Iranian government. It is unlikely to stop unless we actually negotiate a truce with the Iranian government, which is probably out of the question for Bush.
In other words, get your gloating in now. The long term interests of the Bush administration and both the Shiites and Sunnis are no more aligned today than they ever were. The only way this violence will stay down for an entire year is if we actually begin to withdraw from Iraq.
Yeah. And it’s really simple…next door neighbor. Former ruler got taken down by country who has declared you unfriendly. What country with a collective IQ over room temperature (Celsius) would NOT want to influence politics in their favor???
Yeah. And it’s really simple…next door neighbor. Former ruler got taken down by country who has declared you unfriendly. What country with a collective IQ over room temperature (Celsius) would NOT want to influence politics in their favor???
Yeah. And it’s really simple…next door neighbor. Former ruler got taken down by country who has declared you unfriendly. What country with a collective IQ over room temperature (Celsius) would NOT want to influence politics in their favor???
As I see it, the Nevada Senator is invested in American defeat in Iraq.
As I see it, Charles is invested in biased analysis and scapegoating.
Hey — it’s just a legitimate a remark as this calumny against Reid. Particularly given admissions by Charles in the disclaimer — maybe, just maybe, Charles, you might consider using the disclaimer to conceive of the other guy’s point of view.
That is, if as you admit, we are not winning, not turned a corner, manpower levels are too low, the Surge goal of political reconciliation making no progress, and at best, you are willing to sit on the fence for six months before making a final decision, then just maybe, maybe, someone like Reid has some motive other than wanting to see America fail for acting as he does.
The Surge was a short term strategy built around the idea that if violence levels could be lessened, maybe political reconciliation could happen. It is short term because from the outset, it was not possible to maintain the increased troop levels due to inadequate numbers of troops to deploy. We are now nearing the time when they must start coming home no matter what.
It is great that violence is down at the moment. I say at the moment because there is no reason at present to expect it to stay down. Why is that?
How about this list as the dominant trends in the country.
1. A major factor in lessened violence is the decision by Sadr to stand down temporarily. Its a smart move with an eye toward the long view because they also know the Surge is temporary. There is no reason to expect that to continue as troop levels drop — as they must.
2. Shiite power struggles are also on hold in general — it is not just Sadr. This is a major source for future trouble, and even internal Shia reconciliation appears unlikely without significant violence.
3. Anbar has become calmer as the Sunnis sort out amongst themselves and rid themselves of the non-tribal and foreign insurgents. We are arming one faction of insurgents, who are temporarily not fighting us for reasons of expediency, in order to take out this other faction of insurgents. There is absolutely no reason to expect the newer Sunni militias to continue to act this way. And this strategy of temporary calm is definitely setting the stage for more fierce bloodletting — we are undermining the possibility of reconciliation in this manner. And it is probably intentional, for any number of reasons. One theory is that a failed national state in tension between hostile but balanced internal forces is the best we can hope for (and it keeps the Saudis happy since the Sunni are no longer getting slaughtered). Another is that stability in Anbar is worth it politically in the US no matter how idiotic the means of achieving it.
4. When is it going to be possible to have elections again for the national seats and the Kirkuk referendum? Any time in 2008? What will happen to violence levels should elections be attempted again? They are going to skyrocket.
5. Is the Kurdish situation going to become more or less unstable as the Kurds continue to establish a de facto independence? Will violence go up or down as the Kurds assert greater independence?
6. To what extent is lessened violence simply the result that local ethnic cleansing has largely been achieved? Probably a lot, and that speaks volumes about the unlikelihood of reconciliation.
Violence is down because of an unsustainable Surge with more cops on the street. It is down as the factions have cleansed their own turf and are re-organizing for greater confrontation ahead. It is down as the crazier insurgent factions get taken out. Nothing suggests that the dominant factions in the country are inclined to try to get along, as opposed to resorting to violence.
COIN is largely irrelevant to the major problem because this is a civil war.
As you sit on the fence contemplating four years of failure in this Republican war and wonder how much longer we will diddle away waiting for “victory”, please answer this question. Why are we sending Americans to die, and what strategic American interest is being served that merits the further deaths of Americans in war? And the answer pretty be pretty damned good, because if it’s not, then you owe Reid a giant apology.
As I see it, the Nevada Senator is invested in American defeat in Iraq.
As I see it, Charles is invested in biased analysis and scapegoating.
Hey — it’s just a legitimate a remark as this calumny against Reid. Particularly given admissions by Charles in the disclaimer — maybe, just maybe, Charles, you might consider using the disclaimer to conceive of the other guy’s point of view.
That is, if as you admit, we are not winning, not turned a corner, manpower levels are too low, the Surge goal of political reconciliation making no progress, and at best, you are willing to sit on the fence for six months before making a final decision, then just maybe, maybe, someone like Reid has some motive other than wanting to see America fail for acting as he does.
The Surge was a short term strategy built around the idea that if violence levels could be lessened, maybe political reconciliation could happen. It is short term because from the outset, it was not possible to maintain the increased troop levels due to inadequate numbers of troops to deploy. We are now nearing the time when they must start coming home no matter what.
It is great that violence is down at the moment. I say at the moment because there is no reason at present to expect it to stay down. Why is that?
How about this list as the dominant trends in the country.
1. A major factor in lessened violence is the decision by Sadr to stand down temporarily. Its a smart move with an eye toward the long view because they also know the Surge is temporary. There is no reason to expect that to continue as troop levels drop — as they must.
2. Shiite power struggles are also on hold in general — it is not just Sadr. This is a major source for future trouble, and even internal Shia reconciliation appears unlikely without significant violence.
3. Anbar has become calmer as the Sunnis sort out amongst themselves and rid themselves of the non-tribal and foreign insurgents. We are arming one faction of insurgents, who are temporarily not fighting us for reasons of expediency, in order to take out this other faction of insurgents. There is absolutely no reason to expect the newer Sunni militias to continue to act this way. And this strategy of temporary calm is definitely setting the stage for more fierce bloodletting — we are undermining the possibility of reconciliation in this manner. And it is probably intentional, for any number of reasons. One theory is that a failed national state in tension between hostile but balanced internal forces is the best we can hope for (and it keeps the Saudis happy since the Sunni are no longer getting slaughtered). Another is that stability in Anbar is worth it politically in the US no matter how idiotic the means of achieving it.
4. When is it going to be possible to have elections again for the national seats and the Kirkuk referendum? Any time in 2008? What will happen to violence levels should elections be attempted again? They are going to skyrocket.
5. Is the Kurdish situation going to become more or less unstable as the Kurds continue to establish a de facto independence? Will violence go up or down as the Kurds assert greater independence?
6. To what extent is lessened violence simply the result that local ethnic cleansing has largely been achieved? Probably a lot, and that speaks volumes about the unlikelihood of reconciliation.
Violence is down because of an unsustainable Surge with more cops on the street. It is down as the factions have cleansed their own turf and are re-organizing for greater confrontation ahead. It is down as the crazier insurgent factions get taken out. Nothing suggests that the dominant factions in the country are inclined to try to get along, as opposed to resorting to violence.
COIN is largely irrelevant to the major problem because this is a civil war.
As you sit on the fence contemplating four years of failure in this Republican war and wonder how much longer we will diddle away waiting for “victory”, please answer this question. Why are we sending Americans to die, and what strategic American interest is being served that merits the further deaths of Americans in war? And the answer pretty be pretty damned good, because if it’s not, then you owe Reid a giant apology.
As I see it, the Nevada Senator is invested in American defeat in Iraq.
As I see it, Charles is invested in biased analysis and scapegoating.
Hey — it’s just a legitimate a remark as this calumny against Reid. Particularly given admissions by Charles in the disclaimer — maybe, just maybe, Charles, you might consider using the disclaimer to conceive of the other guy’s point of view.
That is, if as you admit, we are not winning, not turned a corner, manpower levels are too low, the Surge goal of political reconciliation making no progress, and at best, you are willing to sit on the fence for six months before making a final decision, then just maybe, maybe, someone like Reid has some motive other than wanting to see America fail for acting as he does.
The Surge was a short term strategy built around the idea that if violence levels could be lessened, maybe political reconciliation could happen. It is short term because from the outset, it was not possible to maintain the increased troop levels due to inadequate numbers of troops to deploy. We are now nearing the time when they must start coming home no matter what.
It is great that violence is down at the moment. I say at the moment because there is no reason at present to expect it to stay down. Why is that?
How about this list as the dominant trends in the country.
1. A major factor in lessened violence is the decision by Sadr to stand down temporarily. Its a smart move with an eye toward the long view because they also know the Surge is temporary. There is no reason to expect that to continue as troop levels drop — as they must.
2. Shiite power struggles are also on hold in general — it is not just Sadr. This is a major source for future trouble, and even internal Shia reconciliation appears unlikely without significant violence.
3. Anbar has become calmer as the Sunnis sort out amongst themselves and rid themselves of the non-tribal and foreign insurgents. We are arming one faction of insurgents, who are temporarily not fighting us for reasons of expediency, in order to take out this other faction of insurgents. There is absolutely no reason to expect the newer Sunni militias to continue to act this way. And this strategy of temporary calm is definitely setting the stage for more fierce bloodletting — we are undermining the possibility of reconciliation in this manner. And it is probably intentional, for any number of reasons. One theory is that a failed national state in tension between hostile but balanced internal forces is the best we can hope for (and it keeps the Saudis happy since the Sunni are no longer getting slaughtered). Another is that stability in Anbar is worth it politically in the US no matter how idiotic the means of achieving it.
4. When is it going to be possible to have elections again for the national seats and the Kirkuk referendum? Any time in 2008? What will happen to violence levels should elections be attempted again? They are going to skyrocket.
5. Is the Kurdish situation going to become more or less unstable as the Kurds continue to establish a de facto independence? Will violence go up or down as the Kurds assert greater independence?
6. To what extent is lessened violence simply the result that local ethnic cleansing has largely been achieved? Probably a lot, and that speaks volumes about the unlikelihood of reconciliation.
Violence is down because of an unsustainable Surge with more cops on the street. It is down as the factions have cleansed their own turf and are re-organizing for greater confrontation ahead. It is down as the crazier insurgent factions get taken out. Nothing suggests that the dominant factions in the country are inclined to try to get along, as opposed to resorting to violence.
COIN is largely irrelevant to the major problem because this is a civil war.
As you sit on the fence contemplating four years of failure in this Republican war and wonder how much longer we will diddle away waiting for “victory”, please answer this question. Why are we sending Americans to die, and what strategic American interest is being served that merits the further deaths of Americans in war? And the answer pretty be pretty damned good, because if it’s not, then you owe Reid a giant apology.
al Qaeda is losing its gambit
Please stop conflating al Qaeda with “al Qaeda in Iraq.” They are separate groups. Al Qaeda in Iraq didn’t exist until Abu Musab al-Zarqawi declaring allegiance to Osama bin Laden and renamed his group in October 2004.
Most American deaths in Iraq are due to Sunni insurgents, not al Qaeda in Iraq.
Muqtada al Sadr have made threatening noises, but he and his Mahdi militias are still on the sidelines
Because al Sadr declared a six-month truce in August 2007.
I have yet to hear an explanation of what ‘winning’ is.
President Bush’s National Strategy for Victory in Iraq defines victory as including:
al Qaeda is losing its gambit
Please stop conflating al Qaeda with “al Qaeda in Iraq.” They are separate groups. Al Qaeda in Iraq didn’t exist until Abu Musab al-Zarqawi declaring allegiance to Osama bin Laden and renamed his group in October 2004.
Most American deaths in Iraq are due to Sunni insurgents, not al Qaeda in Iraq.
Muqtada al Sadr have made threatening noises, but he and his Mahdi militias are still on the sidelines
Because al Sadr declared a six-month truce in August 2007.
I have yet to hear an explanation of what ‘winning’ is.
President Bush’s National Strategy for Victory in Iraq defines victory as including:
al Qaeda is losing its gambit
Please stop conflating al Qaeda with “al Qaeda in Iraq.” They are separate groups. Al Qaeda in Iraq didn’t exist until Abu Musab al-Zarqawi declaring allegiance to Osama bin Laden and renamed his group in October 2004.
Most American deaths in Iraq are due to Sunni insurgents, not al Qaeda in Iraq.
Muqtada al Sadr have made threatening noises, but he and his Mahdi militias are still on the sidelines
Because al Sadr declared a six-month truce in August 2007.
I have yet to hear an explanation of what ‘winning’ is.
President Bush’s National Strategy for Victory in Iraq defines victory as including:
Adams and the Barbary Pirates, Lyautey and Morocco, Churchill and the River War, Ataturk, Tito, the Shah, and Saddam. All would agree that Muslim populations behave better under heavy armed guard.
“Now hath Allah lightened your burden, for He knoweth that there is weakness in you. So if there be of you a steadfast hundred they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a thousand (steadfast) they shall overcome two thousand by permission of Allah. Allah is with the steadfast.”
…
The Sunni are backed by Saudi Arabia and will never accept the loss of their power or control of the oil revenues.
The Shia are backed by Iran, consider themselves to be genetically superior to the Sunni, and will fight to retain the power that President Bush gave them.
The war has been won by our warfighters. Iraqis has been given years to decide if democracy is compatible with Iraqi DNA and/or Islam. Time to fall back to isolated bases and let water find it’s own level. The other option is to police Iraq forever.
If it is in America’s national interest to give Iraqi kids candy, send the State Department.
Adams and the Barbary Pirates, Lyautey and Morocco, Churchill and the River War, Ataturk, Tito, the Shah, and Saddam. All would agree that Muslim populations behave better under heavy armed guard.
“Now hath Allah lightened your burden, for He knoweth that there is weakness in you. So if there be of you a steadfast hundred they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a thousand (steadfast) they shall overcome two thousand by permission of Allah. Allah is with the steadfast.”
…
The Sunni are backed by Saudi Arabia and will never accept the loss of their power or control of the oil revenues.
The Shia are backed by Iran, consider themselves to be genetically superior to the Sunni, and will fight to retain the power that President Bush gave them.
The war has been won by our warfighters. Iraqis has been given years to decide if democracy is compatible with Iraqi DNA and/or Islam. Time to fall back to isolated bases and let water find it’s own level. The other option is to police Iraq forever.
If it is in America’s national interest to give Iraqi kids candy, send the State Department.
Adams and the Barbary Pirates, Lyautey and Morocco, Churchill and the River War, Ataturk, Tito, the Shah, and Saddam. All would agree that Muslim populations behave better under heavy armed guard.
“Now hath Allah lightened your burden, for He knoweth that there is weakness in you. So if there be of you a steadfast hundred they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a thousand (steadfast) they shall overcome two thousand by permission of Allah. Allah is with the steadfast.”
…
The Sunni are backed by Saudi Arabia and will never accept the loss of their power or control of the oil revenues.
The Shia are backed by Iran, consider themselves to be genetically superior to the Sunni, and will fight to retain the power that President Bush gave them.
The war has been won by our warfighters. Iraqis has been given years to decide if democracy is compatible with Iraqi DNA and/or Islam. Time to fall back to isolated bases and let water find it’s own level. The other option is to police Iraq forever.
If it is in America’s national interest to give Iraqi kids candy, send the State Department.
As I see it, the Nevada Senator is invested in American defeat in Iraq.
Feh. Cheap shot.
On other topics:
Fewer people killed is a good thing. Full stop.
What I take away from all of this, Charles, is that we can look forward to a continued presence in Iraq at about our current level of commitment.
My guess is over 100,000 in uniform plus about an equal number of contractors, for about another five years.
Does that sound about right to you, Charles?
Thanks –
As I see it, the Nevada Senator is invested in American defeat in Iraq.
Feh. Cheap shot.
On other topics:
Fewer people killed is a good thing. Full stop.
What I take away from all of this, Charles, is that we can look forward to a continued presence in Iraq at about our current level of commitment.
My guess is over 100,000 in uniform plus about an equal number of contractors, for about another five years.
Does that sound about right to you, Charles?
Thanks –
As I see it, the Nevada Senator is invested in American defeat in Iraq.
Feh. Cheap shot.
On other topics:
Fewer people killed is a good thing. Full stop.
What I take away from all of this, Charles, is that we can look forward to a continued presence in Iraq at about our current level of commitment.
My guess is over 100,000 in uniform plus about an equal number of contractors, for about another five years.
Does that sound about right to you, Charles?
Thanks –
I have no patience the opinions of people who have been wrong time and time and time again. You know, I accept that I can’t slam dunk when I play basketball. Why is it that people who are consistently wrong about Iraq don’t just come to terms with their inability to analyze, reason, etc. in a manner that gives them any purchase on the future?
What I distrust about the surge is that our gains amons Sunnis have come at the cost of (a) arming Sunni groups (b) stoking up ethnic animosity between Sunni and Shia groups, short-run strategies that trade up long-run security to get us more peacefully to Nov ’08.
Here’s my bet. The situation will continue as on fairly stable, until we withdraw in large numbers. Then, within five years, it all goes to pieces. A major civil war
I have no patience the opinions of people who have been wrong time and time and time again. You know, I accept that I can’t slam dunk when I play basketball. Why is it that people who are consistently wrong about Iraq don’t just come to terms with their inability to analyze, reason, etc. in a manner that gives them any purchase on the future?
What I distrust about the surge is that our gains amons Sunnis have come at the cost of (a) arming Sunni groups (b) stoking up ethnic animosity between Sunni and Shia groups, short-run strategies that trade up long-run security to get us more peacefully to Nov ’08.
Here’s my bet. The situation will continue as on fairly stable, until we withdraw in large numbers. Then, within five years, it all goes to pieces. A major civil war
I have no patience the opinions of people who have been wrong time and time and time again. You know, I accept that I can’t slam dunk when I play basketball. Why is it that people who are consistently wrong about Iraq don’t just come to terms with their inability to analyze, reason, etc. in a manner that gives them any purchase on the future?
What I distrust about the surge is that our gains amons Sunnis have come at the cost of (a) arming Sunni groups (b) stoking up ethnic animosity between Sunni and Shia groups, short-run strategies that trade up long-run security to get us more peacefully to Nov ’08.
Here’s my bet. The situation will continue as on fairly stable, until we withdraw in large numbers. Then, within five years, it all goes to pieces. A major civil war
You know, I accept that I can’t slam dunk when I play basketball. Why is it that people who are consistently wrong about Iraq don’t just come to terms with their inability to analyze, reason, etc. in a manner that gives them any purchase on the future?
Because (I imagine), you don’t define yourself by your ability to dunk a basketball, but people who have been consistently wrong about Iraq define themselves by their assumed insight into current events, imo. If you felt your ability to dunk was a fundamental quality, your inability to do it might be more disturbing.
You know, I accept that I can’t slam dunk when I play basketball. Why is it that people who are consistently wrong about Iraq don’t just come to terms with their inability to analyze, reason, etc. in a manner that gives them any purchase on the future?
Because (I imagine), you don’t define yourself by your ability to dunk a basketball, but people who have been consistently wrong about Iraq define themselves by their assumed insight into current events, imo. If you felt your ability to dunk was a fundamental quality, your inability to do it might be more disturbing.
You know, I accept that I can’t slam dunk when I play basketball. Why is it that people who are consistently wrong about Iraq don’t just come to terms with their inability to analyze, reason, etc. in a manner that gives them any purchase on the future?
Because (I imagine), you don’t define yourself by your ability to dunk a basketball, but people who have been consistently wrong about Iraq define themselves by their assumed insight into current events, imo. If you felt your ability to dunk was a fundamental quality, your inability to do it might be more disturbing.
May we take it that your metric of success is “only 600 Iraqis confirmed killed in one month”?
No, that is not my metric of success for the surge. I will not consider the surge successful until violence levels have been brought much lower. However, at this point, that appears to be the most likely outcome.
May we take it that your metric of success is “only 600 Iraqis confirmed killed in one month”?
No, that is not my metric of success for the surge. I will not consider the surge successful until violence levels have been brought much lower. However, at this point, that appears to be the most likely outcome.
May we take it that your metric of success is “only 600 Iraqis confirmed killed in one month”?
No, that is not my metric of success for the surge. I will not consider the surge successful until violence levels have been brought much lower. However, at this point, that appears to be the most likely outcome.
Bush’s fault when things are bad, but when things look better there has to be another reason… doesn’t that about sum up most of the logic?
Can’t imagine why Charles might think people like Reid and Pelosi are invested in defeat?
Jesurgislac is obviously anti-American and possibly just a bubble of plumb.
Four more years of a Repbulican president could see her to the nuthouse. That might be best for her and everyone else.
Bush’s fault when things are bad, but when things look better there has to be another reason… doesn’t that about sum up most of the logic?
Can’t imagine why Charles might think people like Reid and Pelosi are invested in defeat?
Jesurgislac is obviously anti-American and possibly just a bubble of plumb.
Four more years of a Repbulican president could see her to the nuthouse. That might be best for her and everyone else.
Bush’s fault when things are bad, but when things look better there has to be another reason… doesn’t that about sum up most of the logic?
Can’t imagine why Charles might think people like Reid and Pelosi are invested in defeat?
Jesurgislac is obviously anti-American and possibly just a bubble of plumb.
Four more years of a Repbulican president could see her to the nuthouse. That might be best for her and everyone else.
Can’t imagine why Charles might think people like Reid and Pelosi are invested in defeat?
you really should spend some time with a dictionary. it appears you don’t know what the word “defeat” means.
Can’t imagine why Charles might think people like Reid and Pelosi are invested in defeat?
you really should spend some time with a dictionary. it appears you don’t know what the word “defeat” means.
Can’t imagine why Charles might think people like Reid and Pelosi are invested in defeat?
you really should spend some time with a dictionary. it appears you don’t know what the word “defeat” means.
Think you’re imaginator needs a tuneup; seems it’s a bit off its beam trying to divining why others may think and feel.
Think you’re imaginator needs a tuneup; seems it’s a bit off its beam trying to divining why others may think and feel.
Think you’re imaginator needs a tuneup; seems it’s a bit off its beam trying to divining why others may think and feel.
Good news, to be sure, but irrelevant to assessing the wisdom of the invasion in the first place, or the conduct of the occupation thereafter.
If I climb into my car hammered after a night in the bars, and actually make it all the way home without wrapping myself around a pole, or taking anyone else out, that’s good news.
It doesn’t mean a.) that getting behind the wheel in the first place was a wise move, never mind b.) an argument in favor of my doing it again next Friday, or c.) an adequate qualification for giving me a NASCAR ride.
Good news, to be sure, but irrelevant to assessing the wisdom of the invasion in the first place, or the conduct of the occupation thereafter.
If I climb into my car hammered after a night in the bars, and actually make it all the way home without wrapping myself around a pole, or taking anyone else out, that’s good news.
It doesn’t mean a.) that getting behind the wheel in the first place was a wise move, never mind b.) an argument in favor of my doing it again next Friday, or c.) an adequate qualification for giving me a NASCAR ride.
Good news, to be sure, but irrelevant to assessing the wisdom of the invasion in the first place, or the conduct of the occupation thereafter.
If I climb into my car hammered after a night in the bars, and actually make it all the way home without wrapping myself around a pole, or taking anyone else out, that’s good news.
It doesn’t mean a.) that getting behind the wheel in the first place was a wise move, never mind b.) an argument in favor of my doing it again next Friday, or c.) an adequate qualification for giving me a NASCAR ride.
I’m a little angrier than usual today. Found out a few days ago that an acquaintance’s aunt died in Iraq (shot by Blackwater while driving a taxi). I sort of feel that people like her are dead because people like the aforementioned were wrong. In the great cosmic trade off between people’s prerogative to define themselves in whatever way improves their self-esteem and innocent people’s lives, I sort of feel that the American conservative has had a little too easy a time of it.
And now as we are arming both sides of a conflict that shows no signs of structurally resolving, we are supposed to smile and call it a trend or progress or a turned corner.
I know these arguments are ad hominem, but — look — we’ve gone through the pains to dismiss every single stupid argument as they come up. But there is a pattern here of error after error. At some point, the people putting together these dumb arguments simply need to stop making them.
I’m a little angrier than usual today. Found out a few days ago that an acquaintance’s aunt died in Iraq (shot by Blackwater while driving a taxi). I sort of feel that people like her are dead because people like the aforementioned were wrong. In the great cosmic trade off between people’s prerogative to define themselves in whatever way improves their self-esteem and innocent people’s lives, I sort of feel that the American conservative has had a little too easy a time of it.
And now as we are arming both sides of a conflict that shows no signs of structurally resolving, we are supposed to smile and call it a trend or progress or a turned corner.
I know these arguments are ad hominem, but — look — we’ve gone through the pains to dismiss every single stupid argument as they come up. But there is a pattern here of error after error. At some point, the people putting together these dumb arguments simply need to stop making them.
I’m a little angrier than usual today. Found out a few days ago that an acquaintance’s aunt died in Iraq (shot by Blackwater while driving a taxi). I sort of feel that people like her are dead because people like the aforementioned were wrong. In the great cosmic trade off between people’s prerogative to define themselves in whatever way improves their self-esteem and innocent people’s lives, I sort of feel that the American conservative has had a little too easy a time of it.
And now as we are arming both sides of a conflict that shows no signs of structurally resolving, we are supposed to smile and call it a trend or progress or a turned corner.
I know these arguments are ad hominem, but — look — we’ve gone through the pains to dismiss every single stupid argument as they come up. But there is a pattern here of error after error. At some point, the people putting together these dumb arguments simply need to stop making them.
But to do so would be to admit error and that, among all others, is the Original Sin of movement conservatism.
But to do so would be to admit error and that, among all others, is the Original Sin of movement conservatism.
But to do so would be to admit error and that, among all others, is the Original Sin of movement conservatism.
Someone pinch me. For a moment there, I thought we were still stuck in 2006. Or was it 2005, or 2004? I’m not sure; most of Charles’ posts start to look the same after a while, especially if you stack them up side by side over the course of the war. The only meaningful variation on average is in how many cheap shots they take at Democrats, how many pretzels he ties his statistics into in order to make them say what he wants, and how much cherry picking he engages in when choosing who and what to respond to.
Wake me when it’s 2008.
Someone pinch me. For a moment there, I thought we were still stuck in 2006. Or was it 2005, or 2004? I’m not sure; most of Charles’ posts start to look the same after a while, especially if you stack them up side by side over the course of the war. The only meaningful variation on average is in how many cheap shots they take at Democrats, how many pretzels he ties his statistics into in order to make them say what he wants, and how much cherry picking he engages in when choosing who and what to respond to.
Wake me when it’s 2008.
Someone pinch me. For a moment there, I thought we were still stuck in 2006. Or was it 2005, or 2004? I’m not sure; most of Charles’ posts start to look the same after a while, especially if you stack them up side by side over the course of the war. The only meaningful variation on average is in how many cheap shots they take at Democrats, how many pretzels he ties his statistics into in order to make them say what he wants, and how much cherry picking he engages in when choosing who and what to respond to.
Wake me when it’s 2008.
It’s all about the sinof pride. Charles’s post is about winning. it sisn’t about the cost of “winning”. Nor is it about who has paid the cost.
I am very gald thhat fewer people are dying now. However, because his focus is on proving that we are winning, inn order, i believe to save his pride, Charles hhas neglected to mentin one very signnificant factor in whhy the death tole is less: because the killers have succeeded. under Saddam Iraq had a thrivinng Christian community: now they are mostly either dead, or exiled, and only a very few remain in hidinng. Under Sadam there were mixed nneighborhhoods: now, through ethnic cleansing, the couuntry is didved into ethnic enclaves. the Sunnis are either dead, inn exile, or isolated into ghettos.
Of course thhe death tole will go down once the killers have achieved their goals.
If the goal was to create an Iraq with no Jews or Christians and with thhe Sunni populationn resduced to an isolated, marginalized status, then i gues we are winning.
Like Viet nam, conservatives seem to care very little about the purpose or cost of a war: they concern is only withh thhe vanity of being able to declare victory.
It’s all about the sinof pride. Charles’s post is about winning. it sisn’t about the cost of “winning”. Nor is it about who has paid the cost.
I am very gald thhat fewer people are dying now. However, because his focus is on proving that we are winning, inn order, i believe to save his pride, Charles hhas neglected to mentin one very signnificant factor in whhy the death tole is less: because the killers have succeeded. under Saddam Iraq had a thrivinng Christian community: now they are mostly either dead, or exiled, and only a very few remain in hidinng. Under Sadam there were mixed nneighborhhoods: now, through ethnic cleansing, the couuntry is didved into ethnic enclaves. the Sunnis are either dead, inn exile, or isolated into ghettos.
Of course thhe death tole will go down once the killers have achieved their goals.
If the goal was to create an Iraq with no Jews or Christians and with thhe Sunni populationn resduced to an isolated, marginalized status, then i gues we are winning.
Like Viet nam, conservatives seem to care very little about the purpose or cost of a war: they concern is only withh thhe vanity of being able to declare victory.
It’s all about the sinof pride. Charles’s post is about winning. it sisn’t about the cost of “winning”. Nor is it about who has paid the cost.
I am very gald thhat fewer people are dying now. However, because his focus is on proving that we are winning, inn order, i believe to save his pride, Charles hhas neglected to mentin one very signnificant factor in whhy the death tole is less: because the killers have succeeded. under Saddam Iraq had a thrivinng Christian community: now they are mostly either dead, or exiled, and only a very few remain in hidinng. Under Sadam there were mixed nneighborhhoods: now, through ethnic cleansing, the couuntry is didved into ethnic enclaves. the Sunnis are either dead, inn exile, or isolated into ghettos.
Of course thhe death tole will go down once the killers have achieved their goals.
If the goal was to create an Iraq with no Jews or Christians and with thhe Sunni populationn resduced to an isolated, marginalized status, then i gues we are winning.
Like Viet nam, conservatives seem to care very little about the purpose or cost of a war: they concern is only withh thhe vanity of being able to declare victory.
Be nice if the amount of money we were spending in Iraq instead of America dropped too.
$190,000,000,000 this coming year?
Yeehaw!
Be nice if the amount of money we were spending in Iraq instead of America dropped too.
$190,000,000,000 this coming year?
Yeehaw!
Be nice if the amount of money we were spending in Iraq instead of America dropped too.
$190,000,000,000 this coming year?
Yeehaw!
Well, I for one am glad that Iraq is experiencing [the equivalent of] one 9/11 every five months. That seems like a wonderful use for 2 trillion dollars and the lives of a few thousand American servicemen.
Well, I for one am glad that Iraq is experiencing [the equivalent of] one 9/11 every five months. That seems like a wonderful use for 2 trillion dollars and the lives of a few thousand American servicemen.
Well, I for one am glad that Iraq is experiencing [the equivalent of] one 9/11 every five months. That seems like a wonderful use for 2 trillion dollars and the lives of a few thousand American servicemen.
Posted by:
greggbril | December 06, 2007 at 08:40 PMFixed.
Posted by:
greggbril | December 06, 2007 at 08:40 PMFixed.
Posted by:
greggbril | December 06, 2007 at 08:40 PMFixed.
I think that it’s incumbent upon all of us to acknowledge that the surge appears to be working.
The merit of a counterinsurgency campaign can only be assessed when counterinsurgent forces leave, not when they are at their maximum in-country.
The basis for evaluating the success of counter-insurgency is the ability of the occupying force to determine the political future of the country, and on this basis things look very bad, since even with the maximum possible number of troops in country, the political dynamics are completely beyond US control.
In fact, I would argue, and have long argued, that the political impact of US military activity is very limited. Conflict in Iraq entered a stage before the surge began: the battle for Baghdad was essentially won by the Shia, with most Sunnis gone inter-communal violence in the capital naturally petered out. At the same time, the self-avowed Al Qaeda in Iraq overplayed their hand, as everyone knew they would. Iraq is a far more cosmopolitan country than Afghanistan, no one who knew anything about Iraq thought that these guys could maintain a substantial popular base there.
Lastly, arming and paying the armed groups in the Sunni groups is simply the next logical step in the gradual process of the US rehabilitating those elements of Iraqi society that maintained the Baath regime (read between the lines and its obvious that large numbers of Saddam’s secret police and intelligence services now work with the Americans to provide information on Iraqi and Iranian developments – a la postwar Berlin). With everything that’s going on in the country, I’m very worried that a real storm is coming, full-on inter-regional warfare aided and abetted by external powers.
I think that it’s incumbent upon all of us to acknowledge that the surge appears to be working.
The merit of a counterinsurgency campaign can only be assessed when counterinsurgent forces leave, not when they are at their maximum in-country.
The basis for evaluating the success of counter-insurgency is the ability of the occupying force to determine the political future of the country, and on this basis things look very bad, since even with the maximum possible number of troops in country, the political dynamics are completely beyond US control.
In fact, I would argue, and have long argued, that the political impact of US military activity is very limited. Conflict in Iraq entered a stage before the surge began: the battle for Baghdad was essentially won by the Shia, with most Sunnis gone inter-communal violence in the capital naturally petered out. At the same time, the self-avowed Al Qaeda in Iraq overplayed their hand, as everyone knew they would. Iraq is a far more cosmopolitan country than Afghanistan, no one who knew anything about Iraq thought that these guys could maintain a substantial popular base there.
Lastly, arming and paying the armed groups in the Sunni groups is simply the next logical step in the gradual process of the US rehabilitating those elements of Iraqi society that maintained the Baath regime (read between the lines and its obvious that large numbers of Saddam’s secret police and intelligence services now work with the Americans to provide information on Iraqi and Iranian developments – a la postwar Berlin). With everything that’s going on in the country, I’m very worried that a real storm is coming, full-on inter-regional warfare aided and abetted by external powers.
I think that it’s incumbent upon all of us to acknowledge that the surge appears to be working.
The merit of a counterinsurgency campaign can only be assessed when counterinsurgent forces leave, not when they are at their maximum in-country.
The basis for evaluating the success of counter-insurgency is the ability of the occupying force to determine the political future of the country, and on this basis things look very bad, since even with the maximum possible number of troops in country, the political dynamics are completely beyond US control.
In fact, I would argue, and have long argued, that the political impact of US military activity is very limited. Conflict in Iraq entered a stage before the surge began: the battle for Baghdad was essentially won by the Shia, with most Sunnis gone inter-communal violence in the capital naturally petered out. At the same time, the self-avowed Al Qaeda in Iraq overplayed their hand, as everyone knew they would. Iraq is a far more cosmopolitan country than Afghanistan, no one who knew anything about Iraq thought that these guys could maintain a substantial popular base there.
Lastly, arming and paying the armed groups in the Sunni groups is simply the next logical step in the gradual process of the US rehabilitating those elements of Iraqi society that maintained the Baath regime (read between the lines and its obvious that large numbers of Saddam’s secret police and intelligence services now work with the Americans to provide information on Iraqi and Iranian developments – a la postwar Berlin). With everything that’s going on in the country, I’m very worried that a real storm is coming, full-on inter-regional warfare aided and abetted by external powers.
1. The objective of the surge was to provide a window for political progress. Political progress has not occurred, as CB admits: “It’ll take time to hammer out de-Baathification, oil revenue sharing and power sharing, and it’s clear that the earlier political benchmarks were too ambitious timingwise.”
Hammering out these issues was the whole point of the surge.
2. This sentence – “Al Qaeda appears to be moving its main effort to Afghanistan, after operations in Iraq, North Africa, Somalia and Europe (not to mention North America) have all largely failed” – betrays a grotesque misunderstanding of the war. There is no meaningful sense in which AQ has been directing its “main effort” first at one target and then elsewhere. The attacks in Europe were not carried out by the sort of fighter who turns up in Iraq, nor the sort of fighter who turns up in Afghanistan.
The sentence is as meaningless as saying “The international conservative movement, having failed to win the Australian election, is now shifting its main effort to the US presidential campaign”. There is an “international conservative movement” (and an “international liberal movement” for that matter) in the sense that there are people in lots of different countries who sympathise with each other and have some similar policy goals (and some which are very different). But there is no centrally directed ICM which can shift forces from one theatre to another.
1. The objective of the surge was to provide a window for political progress. Political progress has not occurred, as CB admits: “It’ll take time to hammer out de-Baathification, oil revenue sharing and power sharing, and it’s clear that the earlier political benchmarks were too ambitious timingwise.”
Hammering out these issues was the whole point of the surge.
2. This sentence – “Al Qaeda appears to be moving its main effort to Afghanistan, after operations in Iraq, North Africa, Somalia and Europe (not to mention North America) have all largely failed” – betrays a grotesque misunderstanding of the war. There is no meaningful sense in which AQ has been directing its “main effort” first at one target and then elsewhere. The attacks in Europe were not carried out by the sort of fighter who turns up in Iraq, nor the sort of fighter who turns up in Afghanistan.
The sentence is as meaningless as saying “The international conservative movement, having failed to win the Australian election, is now shifting its main effort to the US presidential campaign”. There is an “international conservative movement” (and an “international liberal movement” for that matter) in the sense that there are people in lots of different countries who sympathise with each other and have some similar policy goals (and some which are very different). But there is no centrally directed ICM which can shift forces from one theatre to another.
1. The objective of the surge was to provide a window for political progress. Political progress has not occurred, as CB admits: “It’ll take time to hammer out de-Baathification, oil revenue sharing and power sharing, and it’s clear that the earlier political benchmarks were too ambitious timingwise.”
Hammering out these issues was the whole point of the surge.
2. This sentence – “Al Qaeda appears to be moving its main effort to Afghanistan, after operations in Iraq, North Africa, Somalia and Europe (not to mention North America) have all largely failed” – betrays a grotesque misunderstanding of the war. There is no meaningful sense in which AQ has been directing its “main effort” first at one target and then elsewhere. The attacks in Europe were not carried out by the sort of fighter who turns up in Iraq, nor the sort of fighter who turns up in Afghanistan.
The sentence is as meaningless as saying “The international conservative movement, having failed to win the Australian election, is now shifting its main effort to the US presidential campaign”. There is an “international conservative movement” (and an “international liberal movement” for that matter) in the sense that there are people in lots of different countries who sympathise with each other and have some similar policy goals (and some which are very different). But there is no centrally directed ICM which can shift forces from one theatre to another.
Note: Iraqi deaths based on news reports .
This is not a definitive count.
Actual totals for Iraqi deaths are higher than the numbers recorded on this site.–says the source of these favorable statistics on which this post is based . . .
Note: Iraqi deaths based on news reports .
This is not a definitive count.
Actual totals for Iraqi deaths are higher than the numbers recorded on this site.–says the source of these favorable statistics on which this post is based . . .
Note: Iraqi deaths based on news reports .
This is not a definitive count.
Actual totals for Iraqi deaths are higher than the numbers recorded on this site.–says the source of these favorable statistics on which this post is based . . .
I like ajay’s point number two. Although sniflheim said it shorter, ajay is opening more of a dialogue.
What the heck is the line, i.e. the actual graph, running through the bar graphs?
It’s a three-month moving average. It smooths out the spikes by averaging the last three months. If casualties go 500, 800, 200, 900, 800 the bars will go up and down, but the three month-moving average will go 500, 630, 630 and show that casualties are on a slightly upward trend.
I like ajay’s point number two. Although sniflheim said it shorter, ajay is opening more of a dialogue.
What the heck is the line, i.e. the actual graph, running through the bar graphs?
It’s a three-month moving average. It smooths out the spikes by averaging the last three months. If casualties go 500, 800, 200, 900, 800 the bars will go up and down, but the three month-moving average will go 500, 630, 630 and show that casualties are on a slightly upward trend.
I like ajay’s point number two. Although sniflheim said it shorter, ajay is opening more of a dialogue.
What the heck is the line, i.e. the actual graph, running through the bar graphs?
It’s a three-month moving average. It smooths out the spikes by averaging the last three months. If casualties go 500, 800, 200, 900, 800 the bars will go up and down, but the three month-moving average will go 500, 630, 630 and show that casualties are on a slightly upward trend.
ajay’s ploints above bear repeating whenever there is a discussion of AQ.
First of all, the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with AQ. AQ didn’t exist in Iraq prior to the invasion and AQI is, at most, a small franchise of the parent company which was happy to have the US think AQI was really important.
Prior to the invasion AQ was on the run with extremly limited ability to create attacks in various parts of the world. Support for AQ had decreased sharply until the invasion took place.
Also, I don’t know exactly what CB means by “failed”. There were succesful attacks with loss of life. And it is important to remember that any real damage to AQ and other, primarily homegrown, groups was done through law enforcement, not military operations.
They have refocused on Afghanistan primarily because we screwed up there and allowed them the opportunity to come back in, along with the Taliban.
AQ, or any terrorist groups have, at best, a 5% chance of having any viability in Iraq if we left and zero chance of being a major player in Iraq or Iran.
Above I mentioned that CB’s post was fairly balanced. By that, I meant for a CB post. His dig at the Dems and particularly the senator from Nevada were not only unnecessary but bordering on libelous.
ajay’s ploints above bear repeating whenever there is a discussion of AQ.
First of all, the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with AQ. AQ didn’t exist in Iraq prior to the invasion and AQI is, at most, a small franchise of the parent company which was happy to have the US think AQI was really important.
Prior to the invasion AQ was on the run with extremly limited ability to create attacks in various parts of the world. Support for AQ had decreased sharply until the invasion took place.
Also, I don’t know exactly what CB means by “failed”. There were succesful attacks with loss of life. And it is important to remember that any real damage to AQ and other, primarily homegrown, groups was done through law enforcement, not military operations.
They have refocused on Afghanistan primarily because we screwed up there and allowed them the opportunity to come back in, along with the Taliban.
AQ, or any terrorist groups have, at best, a 5% chance of having any viability in Iraq if we left and zero chance of being a major player in Iraq or Iran.
Above I mentioned that CB’s post was fairly balanced. By that, I meant for a CB post. His dig at the Dems and particularly the senator from Nevada were not only unnecessary but bordering on libelous.
ajay’s ploints above bear repeating whenever there is a discussion of AQ.
First of all, the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with AQ. AQ didn’t exist in Iraq prior to the invasion and AQI is, at most, a small franchise of the parent company which was happy to have the US think AQI was really important.
Prior to the invasion AQ was on the run with extremly limited ability to create attacks in various parts of the world. Support for AQ had decreased sharply until the invasion took place.
Also, I don’t know exactly what CB means by “failed”. There were succesful attacks with loss of life. And it is important to remember that any real damage to AQ and other, primarily homegrown, groups was done through law enforcement, not military operations.
They have refocused on Afghanistan primarily because we screwed up there and allowed them the opportunity to come back in, along with the Taliban.
AQ, or any terrorist groups have, at best, a 5% chance of having any viability in Iraq if we left and zero chance of being a major player in Iraq or Iran.
Above I mentioned that CB’s post was fairly balanced. By that, I meant for a CB post. His dig at the Dems and particularly the senator from Nevada were not only unnecessary but bordering on libelous.
“When 40 senior al Qaeda members are killed or captured in one month, it’s time to leave.”
Great! Let’s load up the Humvees and make like a cow patty and hit the trail!
“When 40 senior al Qaeda members are killed or captured in one month, it’s time to leave.”
Great! Let’s load up the Humvees and make like a cow patty and hit the trail!
“When 40 senior al Qaeda members are killed or captured in one month, it’s time to leave.”
Great! Let’s load up the Humvees and make like a cow patty and hit the trail!
it’s almost amazing to me that even though ajay’s and john miller’s points are rock-solid and, after this many years into the mess, should be common wisdom regardless of political ideology… they still need to be repeated – every time the subject comes up.
it’s almost amazing to me that even though ajay’s and john miller’s points are rock-solid and, after this many years into the mess, should be common wisdom regardless of political ideology… they still need to be repeated – every time the subject comes up.
it’s almost amazing to me that even though ajay’s and john miller’s points are rock-solid and, after this many years into the mess, should be common wisdom regardless of political ideology… they still need to be repeated – every time the subject comes up.
Noumenon: It’s a three-month moving average.
I’d thought the same at first but no, it’s not; that’s the second of the two bar graphs. This is something else. Looks like a crudely drawn (well, splined) line of “best fit” to me, but without any further information on its provenance, the line is nothing but base deception.
cleek: There’s a reason I don’t bother trying to raise more substantive points in this sort of thread any more. Although it’d be awesome if Obwi would have a macro button that would generate a standard response whenever something like this came up again…
Noumenon: It’s a three-month moving average.
I’d thought the same at first but no, it’s not; that’s the second of the two bar graphs. This is something else. Looks like a crudely drawn (well, splined) line of “best fit” to me, but without any further information on its provenance, the line is nothing but base deception.
cleek: There’s a reason I don’t bother trying to raise more substantive points in this sort of thread any more. Although it’d be awesome if Obwi would have a macro button that would generate a standard response whenever something like this came up again…
Noumenon: It’s a three-month moving average.
I’d thought the same at first but no, it’s not; that’s the second of the two bar graphs. This is something else. Looks like a crudely drawn (well, splined) line of “best fit” to me, but without any further information on its provenance, the line is nothing but base deception.
cleek: There’s a reason I don’t bother trying to raise more substantive points in this sort of thread any more. Although it’d be awesome if Obwi would have a macro button that would generate a standard response whenever something like this came up again…
Harry Reid was so influenced by these events that he declared the war “lost”, surrendering to al Qaeda
You mean like when Nixon surrendered to North Vietnam, which is why we all speak Vietnamese now?
Harry Reid was so influenced by these events that he declared the war “lost”, surrendering to al Qaeda
You mean like when Nixon surrendered to North Vietnam, which is why we all speak Vietnamese now?
Harry Reid was so influenced by these events that he declared the war “lost”, surrendering to al Qaeda
You mean like when Nixon surrendered to North Vietnam, which is why we all speak Vietnamese now?
Charles:
Thanks for your effort in this post.
I won’t repeat objections in previous comments, much of which I agree with, but I’ll add the following:
“Nationally, the impasse in the Iraqi government is not much more gridlocked than our national goverment.”
Cripes. I’m going to ask that you consider removing that sentence from the post, along with the usual “invested in defeat” boilerplate.
(Baby, all of us are invested in whatever happens in Iraq for the next 50 years. It’s unfortunate that our one-time business partner, Saddam Hussein, couldn’t be around to help us pay off the balloon payments on that subprime loan the Administration saddled us with before the house is foreclosed.)
Back to the offending sentence. Are you telling us that if the current gridlock between the Democrats in Congress and the Republican minority and the President over the Alternative Minimum Tax is not resolved soon that a bloody civil war will ensue?
Will Kurdish South Dakotans declare secession and together with their Kurdish brothers in North Dakota cause Canada to invade our northern border? Will tax-hating southern Republican religious conservatives begin planting roadside bombs and going door-to-door with machetes and hack liberal, government-supporting atheists into little pieces, starting with Warren Buffet?
Is partition coming soon in Texas? Will NATO garrison troops across the country in case things get out of control?
See, it’s sentences like the one I quoted that don’t let me put aside the notion that you are invested in something other than reality.
P.S. Just saw Larry Kudlow on CNBC rudely shouting down two or three people with horsecrap rhetoric regarding taxes. Maybe you’re right —- our gridlock is just as dangerous and possibly as lethal as Iraq’s.
Charles:
Thanks for your effort in this post.
I won’t repeat objections in previous comments, much of which I agree with, but I’ll add the following:
“Nationally, the impasse in the Iraqi government is not much more gridlocked than our national goverment.”
Cripes. I’m going to ask that you consider removing that sentence from the post, along with the usual “invested in defeat” boilerplate.
(Baby, all of us are invested in whatever happens in Iraq for the next 50 years. It’s unfortunate that our one-time business partner, Saddam Hussein, couldn’t be around to help us pay off the balloon payments on that subprime loan the Administration saddled us with before the house is foreclosed.)
Back to the offending sentence. Are you telling us that if the current gridlock between the Democrats in Congress and the Republican minority and the President over the Alternative Minimum Tax is not resolved soon that a bloody civil war will ensue?
Will Kurdish South Dakotans declare secession and together with their Kurdish brothers in North Dakota cause Canada to invade our northern border? Will tax-hating southern Republican religious conservatives begin planting roadside bombs and going door-to-door with machetes and hack liberal, government-supporting atheists into little pieces, starting with Warren Buffet?
Is partition coming soon in Texas? Will NATO garrison troops across the country in case things get out of control?
See, it’s sentences like the one I quoted that don’t let me put aside the notion that you are invested in something other than reality.
P.S. Just saw Larry Kudlow on CNBC rudely shouting down two or three people with horsecrap rhetoric regarding taxes. Maybe you’re right —- our gridlock is just as dangerous and possibly as lethal as Iraq’s.
Charles:
Thanks for your effort in this post.
I won’t repeat objections in previous comments, much of which I agree with, but I’ll add the following:
“Nationally, the impasse in the Iraqi government is not much more gridlocked than our national goverment.”
Cripes. I’m going to ask that you consider removing that sentence from the post, along with the usual “invested in defeat” boilerplate.
(Baby, all of us are invested in whatever happens in Iraq for the next 50 years. It’s unfortunate that our one-time business partner, Saddam Hussein, couldn’t be around to help us pay off the balloon payments on that subprime loan the Administration saddled us with before the house is foreclosed.)
Back to the offending sentence. Are you telling us that if the current gridlock between the Democrats in Congress and the Republican minority and the President over the Alternative Minimum Tax is not resolved soon that a bloody civil war will ensue?
Will Kurdish South Dakotans declare secession and together with their Kurdish brothers in North Dakota cause Canada to invade our northern border? Will tax-hating southern Republican religious conservatives begin planting roadside bombs and going door-to-door with machetes and hack liberal, government-supporting atheists into little pieces, starting with Warren Buffet?
Is partition coming soon in Texas? Will NATO garrison troops across the country in case things get out of control?
See, it’s sentences like the one I quoted that don’t let me put aside the notion that you are invested in something other than reality.
P.S. Just saw Larry Kudlow on CNBC rudely shouting down two or three people with horsecrap rhetoric regarding taxes. Maybe you’re right —- our gridlock is just as dangerous and possibly as lethal as Iraq’s.
Will tax-hating southern Republican religious conservatives begin planting roadside bombs and going door-to-door with machetes and hack liberal, government-supporting atheists into little pieces, starting with Warren Buffet?
Hey man, don’t put ideas in their heads.
Will tax-hating southern Republican religious conservatives begin planting roadside bombs and going door-to-door with machetes and hack liberal, government-supporting atheists into little pieces, starting with Warren Buffet?
Hey man, don’t put ideas in their heads.
Will tax-hating southern Republican religious conservatives begin planting roadside bombs and going door-to-door with machetes and hack liberal, government-supporting atheists into little pieces, starting with Warren Buffet?
Hey man, don’t put ideas in their heads.
Will tax-hating southern Republican religious conservatives begin planting roadside bombs ….
I’m not sure whether we’ve been spared so far by virtue, or by indolence…
Will tax-hating southern Republican religious conservatives begin planting roadside bombs ….
I’m not sure whether we’ve been spared so far by virtue, or by indolence…
Will tax-hating southern Republican religious conservatives begin planting roadside bombs ….
I’m not sure whether we’ve been spared so far by virtue, or by indolence…
There are several possible reasons besides the surge for the decrease in violence (which started before the surge), such as Sunni revulsion against AQ in Iraq (which started before the surge), absence of targets as people have fled from mixed areas, and just exhaustion from the cycle of retribution.
Charles ignores all explanations but the surge – this is called bias.
The surge is probably irrelevant – violence could not keep increasing forever, and when it slowed or reversed, this would have been hailed by the likes of Charles as a victory for the Administration.
There are several possible reasons besides the surge for the decrease in violence (which started before the surge), such as Sunni revulsion against AQ in Iraq (which started before the surge), absence of targets as people have fled from mixed areas, and just exhaustion from the cycle of retribution.
Charles ignores all explanations but the surge – this is called bias.
The surge is probably irrelevant – violence could not keep increasing forever, and when it slowed or reversed, this would have been hailed by the likes of Charles as a victory for the Administration.
There are several possible reasons besides the surge for the decrease in violence (which started before the surge), such as Sunni revulsion against AQ in Iraq (which started before the surge), absence of targets as people have fled from mixed areas, and just exhaustion from the cycle of retribution.
Charles ignores all explanations but the surge – this is called bias.
The surge is probably irrelevant – violence could not keep increasing forever, and when it slowed or reversed, this would have been hailed by the likes of Charles as a victory for the Administration.
I’m just trying to figure out if there was any point in reading this post to begin with.
No.
I’m just trying to figure out if there was any point in reading this post to begin with.
No.
I’m just trying to figure out if there was any point in reading this post to begin with.
No.
skeptonomist assumes most conceivable explanations while explicitly excluding the “surge” as irrelevant – now that really is bias.
Not to mention more than a little idiotic, I mean that is saying the most powerful military in the world steps things up a peacekeeping notch and it has no relevant effects in violence.
To me the more relevant question is weather it is achieving it’s goals. So far I’d say it’s doing a fairly good job. The surge isn’t a miracle machine of course violence isn’t zero, but things have come down dramatically. Political progress is very slow but there are signs of progress, besides I thought the surge sell was ‘we bring down the violence creating an environment for political progress.’ Well it’s coming down the true test will be how long that lasts and what progress is made.
Overall, I thought it was a fairly well written piece with most of his assertions backed up by reported facts on the ground.
As for “the Nevada Senator is invested in American defeat in Iraq.” “I’m convinced that he believes we’ve already lost and I’m convinced that he believes that what’s best for America is more Democrats in Congress.” comments I happen to think this is more or less correct. But, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. I think Harry Reid looked at the writing on the wall some time ago and determined that we had lost the war, and feels like many Americans do that continuing it to be a terrible waste of lives and money. As a politician it is his duty then to convince others to help him end the war. Of course he would emphasize violent events and Bush’s incompetence, how else is he supposed to convince others to believe and thus vote his way. And of course the head democrat in the senate thinks that more democrats in congress would be good for America, what democrat doesn’t?
On the other hand the claim that ‘declaring the war lost and ‘surrendering to al Qaeda’ being the same thing is more than a little biased.
skeptonomist assumes most conceivable explanations while explicitly excluding the “surge” as irrelevant – now that really is bias.
Not to mention more than a little idiotic, I mean that is saying the most powerful military in the world steps things up a peacekeeping notch and it has no relevant effects in violence.
To me the more relevant question is weather it is achieving it’s goals. So far I’d say it’s doing a fairly good job. The surge isn’t a miracle machine of course violence isn’t zero, but things have come down dramatically. Political progress is very slow but there are signs of progress, besides I thought the surge sell was ‘we bring down the violence creating an environment for political progress.’ Well it’s coming down the true test will be how long that lasts and what progress is made.
Overall, I thought it was a fairly well written piece with most of his assertions backed up by reported facts on the ground.
As for “the Nevada Senator is invested in American defeat in Iraq.” “I’m convinced that he believes we’ve already lost and I’m convinced that he believes that what’s best for America is more Democrats in Congress.” comments I happen to think this is more or less correct. But, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. I think Harry Reid looked at the writing on the wall some time ago and determined that we had lost the war, and feels like many Americans do that continuing it to be a terrible waste of lives and money. As a politician it is his duty then to convince others to help him end the war. Of course he would emphasize violent events and Bush’s incompetence, how else is he supposed to convince others to believe and thus vote his way. And of course the head democrat in the senate thinks that more democrats in congress would be good for America, what democrat doesn’t?
On the other hand the claim that ‘declaring the war lost and ‘surrendering to al Qaeda’ being the same thing is more than a little biased.
skeptonomist assumes most conceivable explanations while explicitly excluding the “surge” as irrelevant – now that really is bias.
Not to mention more than a little idiotic, I mean that is saying the most powerful military in the world steps things up a peacekeeping notch and it has no relevant effects in violence.
To me the more relevant question is weather it is achieving it’s goals. So far I’d say it’s doing a fairly good job. The surge isn’t a miracle machine of course violence isn’t zero, but things have come down dramatically. Political progress is very slow but there are signs of progress, besides I thought the surge sell was ‘we bring down the violence creating an environment for political progress.’ Well it’s coming down the true test will be how long that lasts and what progress is made.
Overall, I thought it was a fairly well written piece with most of his assertions backed up by reported facts on the ground.
As for “the Nevada Senator is invested in American defeat in Iraq.” “I’m convinced that he believes we’ve already lost and I’m convinced that he believes that what’s best for America is more Democrats in Congress.” comments I happen to think this is more or less correct. But, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. I think Harry Reid looked at the writing on the wall some time ago and determined that we had lost the war, and feels like many Americans do that continuing it to be a terrible waste of lives and money. As a politician it is his duty then to convince others to help him end the war. Of course he would emphasize violent events and Bush’s incompetence, how else is he supposed to convince others to believe and thus vote his way. And of course the head democrat in the senate thinks that more democrats in congress would be good for America, what democrat doesn’t?
On the other hand the claim that ‘declaring the war lost and ‘surrendering to al Qaeda’ being the same thing is more than a little biased.
We’ve been at war almost 5 years and we’ve at last made significant progress–we’ve generated some numbers that can be projected on a graph showing a downward trend.
A lull in the fighting means nothing without political progress, which has not been made, and all too likely, cannot be made.
We’ve been at war almost 5 years and we’ve at last made significant progress–we’ve generated some numbers that can be projected on a graph showing a downward trend.
A lull in the fighting means nothing without political progress, which has not been made, and all too likely, cannot be made.
We’ve been at war almost 5 years and we’ve at last made significant progress–we’ve generated some numbers that can be projected on a graph showing a downward trend.
A lull in the fighting means nothing without political progress, which has not been made, and all too likely, cannot be made.
Good post Charles – really, overall. It gives me hope…
My criticism would also be with the hit on Reid. It’s not that I don’t agree with you on that point, it was just unnecessary (people think that or not) and it gave many folks here a reason to write off your otherwise good post. I think that editing out that one line would have had more people taking this more seriously.
In any case, I greatly admire your stamina posting this in this venue.
Good post Charles – really, overall. It gives me hope…
My criticism would also be with the hit on Reid. It’s not that I don’t agree with you on that point, it was just unnecessary (people think that or not) and it gave many folks here a reason to write off your otherwise good post. I think that editing out that one line would have had more people taking this more seriously.
In any case, I greatly admire your stamina posting this in this venue.
Good post Charles – really, overall. It gives me hope…
My criticism would also be with the hit on Reid. It’s not that I don’t agree with you on that point, it was just unnecessary (people think that or not) and it gave many folks here a reason to write off your otherwise good post. I think that editing out that one line would have had more people taking this more seriously.
In any case, I greatly admire your stamina posting this in this venue.
What absurd nonsense.
Yes, violence has gone down. Yes, the surge was partly, but, by no means entirely, responsible for the drop in violence.
The other reasons include Al Sadr’s restraint of his troops, the effects of ethnic cleansing and consolidation of territory in preparation for the civil war to follow our departure.
Of course if we don’t depart, the violence will resume.
Political progress won’t be made until we leave because a truly democratic government will be pro-Iran and anti-America.
Iraq is still living in fear, Americans are dying and our troops are not making the situation better.
Meanwhile Commander Codpiece is building permanent military installations and refusing to discuss a timetable for withdrawl.
This post is delusional.
What absurd nonsense.
Yes, violence has gone down. Yes, the surge was partly, but, by no means entirely, responsible for the drop in violence.
The other reasons include Al Sadr’s restraint of his troops, the effects of ethnic cleansing and consolidation of territory in preparation for the civil war to follow our departure.
Of course if we don’t depart, the violence will resume.
Political progress won’t be made until we leave because a truly democratic government will be pro-Iran and anti-America.
Iraq is still living in fear, Americans are dying and our troops are not making the situation better.
Meanwhile Commander Codpiece is building permanent military installations and refusing to discuss a timetable for withdrawl.
This post is delusional.
What absurd nonsense.
Yes, violence has gone down. Yes, the surge was partly, but, by no means entirely, responsible for the drop in violence.
The other reasons include Al Sadr’s restraint of his troops, the effects of ethnic cleansing and consolidation of territory in preparation for the civil war to follow our departure.
Of course if we don’t depart, the violence will resume.
Political progress won’t be made until we leave because a truly democratic government will be pro-Iran and anti-America.
Iraq is still living in fear, Americans are dying and our troops are not making the situation better.
Meanwhile Commander Codpiece is building permanent military installations and refusing to discuss a timetable for withdrawl.
This post is delusional.
the numbers today put us where we were in 05.
for reference, the Iraq Study Group was launched in Mar 06, because the numbers in 05 were terrible enough that people were demanding a new way forward.
in other words: we’re back to the kinds of numbers that outraged people two years ago.
the numbers today put us where we were in 05.
for reference, the Iraq Study Group was launched in Mar 06, because the numbers in 05 were terrible enough that people were demanding a new way forward.
in other words: we’re back to the kinds of numbers that outraged people two years ago.
the numbers today put us where we were in 05.
for reference, the Iraq Study Group was launched in Mar 06, because the numbers in 05 were terrible enough that people were demanding a new way forward.
in other words: we’re back to the kinds of numbers that outraged people two years ago.
Comment Of The Week
In response to this crap, we find this:
Charles:
Thanks for your effort in this post.
I wont repeat objections in previous comments, much of which I agree with, but Ill add the following:
Nationally, the impasse in the Iraqi govern…
Comment Of The Week
In response to this crap, we find this:
Charles:
Thanks for your effort in this post.
I wont repeat objections in previous comments, much of which I agree with, but Ill add the following:
Nationally, the impasse in the Iraqi govern…
Comment Of The Week
In response to this crap, we find this:
Charles:
Thanks for your effort in this post.
I wont repeat objections in previous comments, much of which I agree with, but Ill add the following:
Nationally, the impasse in the Iraqi govern…
How anyone can buy into pretty charts that are suddenly trending downward is beyond me. Does it occur to anyone that the decreased numbers might have to do with the fact that 4 (out of 21) million Iraqis have fled the country? How about the fact that 1 million are already dead? Or that we no longer count those shot in the back of the head? Or how about given the fact that we are now relying on Iraqi forces to give us body counts – in Oct., the entire command and control system used by Iraqi security forces to communicate with headquarters was shut down for two weeks. And for those 2 weeks, U.S. commanders and the Iraqi government received no reports from Iraqi forces in the field. How about the fact that Sadr called off his men for 6 months? Might any of those things have anything to do with the miraculous success? How anyone could believe anything that comes out of the administration simply makes my head sin.
How anyone can buy into pretty charts that are suddenly trending downward is beyond me. Does it occur to anyone that the decreased numbers might have to do with the fact that 4 (out of 21) million Iraqis have fled the country? How about the fact that 1 million are already dead? Or that we no longer count those shot in the back of the head? Or how about given the fact that we are now relying on Iraqi forces to give us body counts – in Oct., the entire command and control system used by Iraqi security forces to communicate with headquarters was shut down for two weeks. And for those 2 weeks, U.S. commanders and the Iraqi government received no reports from Iraqi forces in the field. How about the fact that Sadr called off his men for 6 months? Might any of those things have anything to do with the miraculous success? How anyone could believe anything that comes out of the administration simply makes my head sin.
How anyone can buy into pretty charts that are suddenly trending downward is beyond me. Does it occur to anyone that the decreased numbers might have to do with the fact that 4 (out of 21) million Iraqis have fled the country? How about the fact that 1 million are already dead? Or that we no longer count those shot in the back of the head? Or how about given the fact that we are now relying on Iraqi forces to give us body counts – in Oct., the entire command and control system used by Iraqi security forces to communicate with headquarters was shut down for two weeks. And for those 2 weeks, U.S. commanders and the Iraqi government received no reports from Iraqi forces in the field. How about the fact that Sadr called off his men for 6 months? Might any of those things have anything to do with the miraculous success? How anyone could believe anything that comes out of the administration simply makes my head sin.
OCSteve; I think that editing out that one line would have had more people taking this more seriously.
I didn’t even get down that far. It was the pretty graphs designed with advice from How To Lie With Statistics that made this post impossible to take seriously. That Charles sees “victory in Iraq” as a matter for party politics makes it impossible to take Charles seriously.
OCSteve; I think that editing out that one line would have had more people taking this more seriously.
I didn’t even get down that far. It was the pretty graphs designed with advice from How To Lie With Statistics that made this post impossible to take seriously. That Charles sees “victory in Iraq” as a matter for party politics makes it impossible to take Charles seriously.
OCSteve; I think that editing out that one line would have had more people taking this more seriously.
I didn’t even get down that far. It was the pretty graphs designed with advice from How To Lie With Statistics that made this post impossible to take seriously. That Charles sees “victory in Iraq” as a matter for party politics makes it impossible to take Charles seriously.
Yes, violence has gone down. Yes, the surge was partly, but, by no means entirely, responsible for the drop in violence.
I’ll add to Garth’s comments.
It’s great that violence has gone down, but invading Iraq does not, did not, and will not have anything to do with defending this country, or with countering Islamic or any other kind of terrorism. I’m still waiting for the rationale for our presence there that can pass both the smell test, and the requirements for legitimate warmaking under international law.
The people who now drive the foreign policy of this country had a burning desire to invade Iraq for many, many years, for reasons having nothing to do with Islamic terrorism, Al Qaeda, or any kind of direct threat to the US. 9/11, an event unrelated in any way whatsoever to Iraq or Saddam Hussein, was their ticket to ride, and so here we are.
It’s wonderful that things are incrementally better, rather than incrementally worse, but the whole project is illegitimate.
So, let’s make the best of it, and see what we can salvage out of the situation. I am, sincerely, grateful that Petraeus has a clue, and that Rumsfeld is out of the picture. Maybe it will even turn out not too badly, in the end. That would be great.
But none of that redeems the falsity and illegitimacy of the initial enterprise.
Thanks –
Yes, violence has gone down. Yes, the surge was partly, but, by no means entirely, responsible for the drop in violence.
I’ll add to Garth’s comments.
It’s great that violence has gone down, but invading Iraq does not, did not, and will not have anything to do with defending this country, or with countering Islamic or any other kind of terrorism. I’m still waiting for the rationale for our presence there that can pass both the smell test, and the requirements for legitimate warmaking under international law.
The people who now drive the foreign policy of this country had a burning desire to invade Iraq for many, many years, for reasons having nothing to do with Islamic terrorism, Al Qaeda, or any kind of direct threat to the US. 9/11, an event unrelated in any way whatsoever to Iraq or Saddam Hussein, was their ticket to ride, and so here we are.
It’s wonderful that things are incrementally better, rather than incrementally worse, but the whole project is illegitimate.
So, let’s make the best of it, and see what we can salvage out of the situation. I am, sincerely, grateful that Petraeus has a clue, and that Rumsfeld is out of the picture. Maybe it will even turn out not too badly, in the end. That would be great.
But none of that redeems the falsity and illegitimacy of the initial enterprise.
Thanks –
Yes, violence has gone down. Yes, the surge was partly, but, by no means entirely, responsible for the drop in violence.
I’ll add to Garth’s comments.
It’s great that violence has gone down, but invading Iraq does not, did not, and will not have anything to do with defending this country, or with countering Islamic or any other kind of terrorism. I’m still waiting for the rationale for our presence there that can pass both the smell test, and the requirements for legitimate warmaking under international law.
The people who now drive the foreign policy of this country had a burning desire to invade Iraq for many, many years, for reasons having nothing to do with Islamic terrorism, Al Qaeda, or any kind of direct threat to the US. 9/11, an event unrelated in any way whatsoever to Iraq or Saddam Hussein, was their ticket to ride, and so here we are.
It’s wonderful that things are incrementally better, rather than incrementally worse, but the whole project is illegitimate.
So, let’s make the best of it, and see what we can salvage out of the situation. I am, sincerely, grateful that Petraeus has a clue, and that Rumsfeld is out of the picture. Maybe it will even turn out not too badly, in the end. That would be great.
But none of that redeems the falsity and illegitimacy of the initial enterprise.
Thanks –
Look, I’ll be frank and admit that, based on his intermittent posts on Iraq, I don’t like whoever ‘charles’ is very much, since I have yet to see him refrain from using the ‘positive news item from the war on terror of the week’ to grind petty domestic political axes. I hope I do not contravene the posting rules of this blog by saying that, in my estimation, I have yet to see him rise above the level of boilerplate Republican Party agitprop targeted at the reasonably informed demographic. This post fits that pattern.
Nevertheless, I welcome any excuse to discuss this topic because it is of infinite fascination to me. I do think that Charles’ posts have an unintended merit in that they poke the insecurities of the Democratically-inclined who so obviously predominate on this blog, and this particular case, there is clearly a Democratic fear that the Surge (TM) [isn’t that just PR speak for reinforcements? – shut up voice of sanity in my head!] might prove successful enough to stymie the much yearned for Obama/Clinton victory next year.
As someone sympathetic to the Dems, but not eligible to vote in the great superpower of the US of Awesome, I think your fears are misplaced. Each time administration sympathisers cling to the latest fleetingly positive news with obnoxious zeal, they merely plunge to new depths with reality’s inevitable refutation of their spin. I happen to c
Look, I’ll be frank and admit that, based on his intermittent posts on Iraq, I don’t like whoever ‘charles’ is very much, since I have yet to see him refrain from using the ‘positive news item from the war on terror of the week’ to grind petty domestic political axes. I hope I do not contravene the posting rules of this blog by saying that, in my estimation, I have yet to see him rise above the level of boilerplate Republican Party agitprop targeted at the reasonably informed demographic. This post fits that pattern.
Nevertheless, I welcome any excuse to discuss this topic because it is of infinite fascination to me. I do think that Charles’ posts have an unintended merit in that they poke the insecurities of the Democratically-inclined who so obviously predominate on this blog, and this particular case, there is clearly a Democratic fear that the Surge (TM) [isn’t that just PR speak for reinforcements? – shut up voice of sanity in my head!] might prove successful enough to stymie the much yearned for Obama/Clinton victory next year.
As someone sympathetic to the Dems, but not eligible to vote in the great superpower of the US of Awesome, I think your fears are misplaced. Each time administration sympathisers cling to the latest fleetingly positive news with obnoxious zeal, they merely plunge to new depths with reality’s inevitable refutation of their spin. I happen to c
Look, I’ll be frank and admit that, based on his intermittent posts on Iraq, I don’t like whoever ‘charles’ is very much, since I have yet to see him refrain from using the ‘positive news item from the war on terror of the week’ to grind petty domestic political axes. I hope I do not contravene the posting rules of this blog by saying that, in my estimation, I have yet to see him rise above the level of boilerplate Republican Party agitprop targeted at the reasonably informed demographic. This post fits that pattern.
Nevertheless, I welcome any excuse to discuss this topic because it is of infinite fascination to me. I do think that Charles’ posts have an unintended merit in that they poke the insecurities of the Democratically-inclined who so obviously predominate on this blog, and this particular case, there is clearly a Democratic fear that the Surge (TM) [isn’t that just PR speak for reinforcements? – shut up voice of sanity in my head!] might prove successful enough to stymie the much yearned for Obama/Clinton victory next year.
As someone sympathetic to the Dems, but not eligible to vote in the great superpower of the US of Awesome, I think your fears are misplaced. Each time administration sympathisers cling to the latest fleetingly positive news with obnoxious zeal, they merely plunge to new depths with reality’s inevitable refutation of their spin. I happen to c
Shag, my magnum opus has disappeared forever. The brief synopsis: Charles talks through his pants, but it is interesting in the sense that he riles very worried democrats. nevertheless, i don’t think dems need to worry, as the fundamentals are so bad, and the reps are overselling fleeting, overexaggerated positive news from Iraq so much (as always), that I am sure reality will give a shout out to the unwashed voting american masses long before next November in order to remind them that Iraq is Bad, and George Bush is Satan, only dumber. In short – Obama will have be caught eating (white) babies to lose this one.
Sadly, I’ve come to the conclusion that Obama actually sucks, but I still think he’ll win.
Shag, my magnum opus has disappeared forever. The brief synopsis: Charles talks through his pants, but it is interesting in the sense that he riles very worried democrats. nevertheless, i don’t think dems need to worry, as the fundamentals are so bad, and the reps are overselling fleeting, overexaggerated positive news from Iraq so much (as always), that I am sure reality will give a shout out to the unwashed voting american masses long before next November in order to remind them that Iraq is Bad, and George Bush is Satan, only dumber. In short – Obama will have be caught eating (white) babies to lose this one.
Sadly, I’ve come to the conclusion that Obama actually sucks, but I still think he’ll win.
Shag, my magnum opus has disappeared forever. The brief synopsis: Charles talks through his pants, but it is interesting in the sense that he riles very worried democrats. nevertheless, i don’t think dems need to worry, as the fundamentals are so bad, and the reps are overselling fleeting, overexaggerated positive news from Iraq so much (as always), that I am sure reality will give a shout out to the unwashed voting american masses long before next November in order to remind them that Iraq is Bad, and George Bush is Satan, only dumber. In short – Obama will have be caught eating (white) babies to lose this one.
Sadly, I’ve come to the conclusion that Obama actually sucks, but I still think he’ll win.
Before I answer specific comments, I’m going to explain why I was harsh on Reid. Way back in January, I wrote in favor of the current counterinsurgency strategy because I believe it’s our last best chance to turn Iraq around. I truly believed that it should be given a fair shot, and I’m still of that view.
Reid is diametrically opposed to that position and he’s been unwilling from the get-to to give it any kind of chance. He and Pelosi are the two Democrats who have the power (potentially) to cut the plan short. Over the ensuing months, they have repeatedly tried to undermine the plan by defunding it and by inserting phased troop withdrawals into bills, and in highly partisan fashion I might add (GOPers aren’t innocent in this either). Fortunately for the pro-COIN crowd, they’ve come up short.
What bothers me is that they’re continuing with these proposals and they’re continuing to talk down the war effort, despite the dramatic improvements over the last three months. I chose the word “surrender” deliberately, using the dictionary definition. Because Bush hasn’t changed course, Reid is on record as saying the war is lost. Therefore, if he is a man of his word, then it is reasonable to conclude that he will act upon his beliefs, and that his proposals are a form of surrender, to be done in a fashion that is least harmful to Americans and Iraqis both.
If I were convinced that we have irretrievably lost in Iraq, then I too would be in favor of some form of phased withdrawal plan that minimizes disruptions for Iraqis and minimizes any further troop casualties. At this point, I’m not convinced. In fact, I’m moving closer to recommending that the current plan stay in effect, giving more time for the security situation to take hold, more time for the national politicians to make progress, and more time for more Iraqi forces to get properly trained.
I’m probably a little more irked at Reid than usual because of his more recent antics.
I have yet to hear an explanation of what “winning” is.
Ethan, I’ve defined winning as Iraq being a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic. I should probably add sustainable to that description. I’m not optimistic that it’ll happen.
…but forgive me for growing very cranky the moment someone mentions how this is “bad for the Democrats.”
Eye, I didn’t say that the recent improvements are bad for Democrats, and I won’t. The point I was making was that Reid-Schumer were saying that the war was going to win them seats, based on polling that they hired out. I agree with O’Hanlon that Democrats do get the credit for pushing Bush hard enough to make changes.
Before I answer specific comments, I’m going to explain why I was harsh on Reid. Way back in January, I wrote in favor of the current counterinsurgency strategy because I believe it’s our last best chance to turn Iraq around. I truly believed that it should be given a fair shot, and I’m still of that view.
Reid is diametrically opposed to that position and he’s been unwilling from the get-to to give it any kind of chance. He and Pelosi are the two Democrats who have the power (potentially) to cut the plan short. Over the ensuing months, they have repeatedly tried to undermine the plan by defunding it and by inserting phased troop withdrawals into bills, and in highly partisan fashion I might add (GOPers aren’t innocent in this either). Fortunately for the pro-COIN crowd, they’ve come up short.
What bothers me is that they’re continuing with these proposals and they’re continuing to talk down the war effort, despite the dramatic improvements over the last three months. I chose the word “surrender” deliberately, using the dictionary definition. Because Bush hasn’t changed course, Reid is on record as saying the war is lost. Therefore, if he is a man of his word, then it is reasonable to conclude that he will act upon his beliefs, and that his proposals are a form of surrender, to be done in a fashion that is least harmful to Americans and Iraqis both.
If I were convinced that we have irretrievably lost in Iraq, then I too would be in favor of some form of phased withdrawal plan that minimizes disruptions for Iraqis and minimizes any further troop casualties. At this point, I’m not convinced. In fact, I’m moving closer to recommending that the current plan stay in effect, giving more time for the security situation to take hold, more time for the national politicians to make progress, and more time for more Iraqi forces to get properly trained.
I’m probably a little more irked at Reid than usual because of his more recent antics.
I have yet to hear an explanation of what “winning” is.
Ethan, I’ve defined winning as Iraq being a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic. I should probably add sustainable to that description. I’m not optimistic that it’ll happen.
…but forgive me for growing very cranky the moment someone mentions how this is “bad for the Democrats.”
Eye, I didn’t say that the recent improvements are bad for Democrats, and I won’t. The point I was making was that Reid-Schumer were saying that the war was going to win them seats, based on polling that they hired out. I agree with O’Hanlon that Democrats do get the credit for pushing Bush hard enough to make changes.
Before I answer specific comments, I’m going to explain why I was harsh on Reid. Way back in January, I wrote in favor of the current counterinsurgency strategy because I believe it’s our last best chance to turn Iraq around. I truly believed that it should be given a fair shot, and I’m still of that view.
Reid is diametrically opposed to that position and he’s been unwilling from the get-to to give it any kind of chance. He and Pelosi are the two Democrats who have the power (potentially) to cut the plan short. Over the ensuing months, they have repeatedly tried to undermine the plan by defunding it and by inserting phased troop withdrawals into bills, and in highly partisan fashion I might add (GOPers aren’t innocent in this either). Fortunately for the pro-COIN crowd, they’ve come up short.
What bothers me is that they’re continuing with these proposals and they’re continuing to talk down the war effort, despite the dramatic improvements over the last three months. I chose the word “surrender” deliberately, using the dictionary definition. Because Bush hasn’t changed course, Reid is on record as saying the war is lost. Therefore, if he is a man of his word, then it is reasonable to conclude that he will act upon his beliefs, and that his proposals are a form of surrender, to be done in a fashion that is least harmful to Americans and Iraqis both.
If I were convinced that we have irretrievably lost in Iraq, then I too would be in favor of some form of phased withdrawal plan that minimizes disruptions for Iraqis and minimizes any further troop casualties. At this point, I’m not convinced. In fact, I’m moving closer to recommending that the current plan stay in effect, giving more time for the security situation to take hold, more time for the national politicians to make progress, and more time for more Iraqi forces to get properly trained.
I’m probably a little more irked at Reid than usual because of his more recent antics.
I have yet to hear an explanation of what “winning” is.
Ethan, I’ve defined winning as Iraq being a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic. I should probably add sustainable to that description. I’m not optimistic that it’ll happen.
…but forgive me for growing very cranky the moment someone mentions how this is “bad for the Democrats.”
Eye, I didn’t say that the recent improvements are bad for Democrats, and I won’t. The point I was making was that Reid-Schumer were saying that the war was going to win them seats, based on polling that they hired out. I agree with O’Hanlon that Democrats do get the credit for pushing Bush hard enough to make changes.
CB, who would we be surrendering to? Serious question. As you pointed out, AQI is no threat. So who?
Secondly, how does our staying there benefit either us or the Iraqi’s, since a good portion of the downward trend in violence has nothing to do with the surge and the upswing in violence was totally caused by us to begin with.
Thirdly,since the military does not have the manpower to continue the current plan, which is the whole reason for the reduction by 30,000 (which mirrors the increase for the surge) so how is that a feasible plan?
Finally, you credit Reid with being a man of his word and then condemn him for being true to his word. Would you prefer that he be a hypocritical person like Bush, Cheney or all but one of the current candidates for the Republican nomination?
CB, who would we be surrendering to? Serious question. As you pointed out, AQI is no threat. So who?
Secondly, how does our staying there benefit either us or the Iraqi’s, since a good portion of the downward trend in violence has nothing to do with the surge and the upswing in violence was totally caused by us to begin with.
Thirdly,since the military does not have the manpower to continue the current plan, which is the whole reason for the reduction by 30,000 (which mirrors the increase for the surge) so how is that a feasible plan?
Finally, you credit Reid with being a man of his word and then condemn him for being true to his word. Would you prefer that he be a hypocritical person like Bush, Cheney or all but one of the current candidates for the Republican nomination?
CB, who would we be surrendering to? Serious question. As you pointed out, AQI is no threat. So who?
Secondly, how does our staying there benefit either us or the Iraqi’s, since a good portion of the downward trend in violence has nothing to do with the surge and the upswing in violence was totally caused by us to begin with.
Thirdly,since the military does not have the manpower to continue the current plan, which is the whole reason for the reduction by 30,000 (which mirrors the increase for the surge) so how is that a feasible plan?
Finally, you credit Reid with being a man of his word and then condemn him for being true to his word. Would you prefer that he be a hypocritical person like Bush, Cheney or all but one of the current candidates for the Republican nomination?
And then the Democrats killed him.
And then the Democrats killed him.
And then the Democrats killed him.
I’ve defined winning as Iraq being a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic. I should probably add sustainable to that description. I’m not optimistic that it’ll happen.
Wise of you not to be optimistic.
OK, so you’ve defined winning that way. Perhaps that’s how we, the US, officially define it these days (it’s certainly not how we defined it when we started). Has anyone seen any evidence supporting the propositions a) that that is our actual goal, b) that we have good reason to want that so badly as to kill almost 4000 of our own population and well over a million of Iraq’s*, or c) that casualty rates slipping back to, as cleek put it, “the kinds of numbers that outraged people two years ago” is a sign that we’re approaching this goal?
*Let’s put that number into perspective, shall we? Of all the Iraqis that were alive in early 2003, about one out of every twenty-five is now dead specifically because we invaded. A good way to put the American deaths into perspective is that they’re coming close to being twice the American death toll on 9/11.
I’ve defined winning as Iraq being a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic. I should probably add sustainable to that description. I’m not optimistic that it’ll happen.
Wise of you not to be optimistic.
OK, so you’ve defined winning that way. Perhaps that’s how we, the US, officially define it these days (it’s certainly not how we defined it when we started). Has anyone seen any evidence supporting the propositions a) that that is our actual goal, b) that we have good reason to want that so badly as to kill almost 4000 of our own population and well over a million of Iraq’s*, or c) that casualty rates slipping back to, as cleek put it, “the kinds of numbers that outraged people two years ago” is a sign that we’re approaching this goal?
*Let’s put that number into perspective, shall we? Of all the Iraqis that were alive in early 2003, about one out of every twenty-five is now dead specifically because we invaded. A good way to put the American deaths into perspective is that they’re coming close to being twice the American death toll on 9/11.
I’ve defined winning as Iraq being a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic. I should probably add sustainable to that description. I’m not optimistic that it’ll happen.
Wise of you not to be optimistic.
OK, so you’ve defined winning that way. Perhaps that’s how we, the US, officially define it these days (it’s certainly not how we defined it when we started). Has anyone seen any evidence supporting the propositions a) that that is our actual goal, b) that we have good reason to want that so badly as to kill almost 4000 of our own population and well over a million of Iraq’s*, or c) that casualty rates slipping back to, as cleek put it, “the kinds of numbers that outraged people two years ago” is a sign that we’re approaching this goal?
*Let’s put that number into perspective, shall we? Of all the Iraqis that were alive in early 2003, about one out of every twenty-five is now dead specifically because we invaded. A good way to put the American deaths into perspective is that they’re coming close to being twice the American death toll on 9/11.
I’ve defined winning as Iraq being a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic.
“Winning” therefore involves killing all the Iraqis who, in a representative republic, would vote for it to be a theocracy.
I’ve defined winning as Iraq being a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic.
“Winning” therefore involves killing all the Iraqis who, in a representative republic, would vote for it to be a theocracy.
I’ve defined winning as Iraq being a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic.
“Winning” therefore involves killing all the Iraqis who, in a representative republic, would vote for it to be a theocracy.
Charles, OCSteve is right. It’s that single word, “surrender”. It’s so negative, you’d never consider applying it to yourself, even though you admit that you are “not optimistic” about success in Iraq and that if things don’t work out, you’ll consider arguing for “some form of phased withdrawal.”
I do appreciate you not calling us “defeatocrats”. I hope you’ll consider not using that term anymore when you post on Redstate.
And I do enjoy reading you, so please keep writing.
Charles, OCSteve is right. It’s that single word, “surrender”. It’s so negative, you’d never consider applying it to yourself, even though you admit that you are “not optimistic” about success in Iraq and that if things don’t work out, you’ll consider arguing for “some form of phased withdrawal.”
I do appreciate you not calling us “defeatocrats”. I hope you’ll consider not using that term anymore when you post on Redstate.
And I do enjoy reading you, so please keep writing.
Charles, OCSteve is right. It’s that single word, “surrender”. It’s so negative, you’d never consider applying it to yourself, even though you admit that you are “not optimistic” about success in Iraq and that if things don’t work out, you’ll consider arguing for “some form of phased withdrawal.”
I do appreciate you not calling us “defeatocrats”. I hope you’ll consider not using that term anymore when you post on Redstate.
And I do enjoy reading you, so please keep writing.
Charles: The current plan IS phased troop withdrawals, of the extra troops who trickled in as the “surge”. The “surge” has served its purpose, arguably militarily, but most important politically, in buying Bush another Friendman to kick the football of Iraq down the field until the ethnic cleansing finished on its own or the Democrats get elected and can be blamed for “stabbing the troops in the back” and “surrendering to terrorists”.
Charles: The current plan IS phased troop withdrawals, of the extra troops who trickled in as the “surge”. The “surge” has served its purpose, arguably militarily, but most important politically, in buying Bush another Friendman to kick the football of Iraq down the field until the ethnic cleansing finished on its own or the Democrats get elected and can be blamed for “stabbing the troops in the back” and “surrendering to terrorists”.
Charles: The current plan IS phased troop withdrawals, of the extra troops who trickled in as the “surge”. The “surge” has served its purpose, arguably militarily, but most important politically, in buying Bush another Friendman to kick the football of Iraq down the field until the ethnic cleansing finished on its own or the Democrats get elected and can be blamed for “stabbing the troops in the back” and “surrendering to terrorists”.
It’s folly to attempt to separate out Democrat-bashing from other rationales and justifications for the war.
The ‘goal’ for the whole bloody war was for the White House to have a stick to beat Democrats with, to reduce domestic opposition to the Glorious Revolution to a cipher. “Victory” is achieved when the Democratic party is reduced to the size of the post-Mulroney Canadian PCP.
This whole misbegotten escapade in Mesopotamia has been nothing more or less than a second American civil war-by-proxy, attempting to settle deep and abiding differences about what this country, not Iraq, is, means, and does, by having a war over it.
If it wasn’t in Iraq, it would have been someplace else.
It’s folly to attempt to separate out Democrat-bashing from other rationales and justifications for the war.
The ‘goal’ for the whole bloody war was for the White House to have a stick to beat Democrats with, to reduce domestic opposition to the Glorious Revolution to a cipher. “Victory” is achieved when the Democratic party is reduced to the size of the post-Mulroney Canadian PCP.
This whole misbegotten escapade in Mesopotamia has been nothing more or less than a second American civil war-by-proxy, attempting to settle deep and abiding differences about what this country, not Iraq, is, means, and does, by having a war over it.
If it wasn’t in Iraq, it would have been someplace else.
It’s folly to attempt to separate out Democrat-bashing from other rationales and justifications for the war.
The ‘goal’ for the whole bloody war was for the White House to have a stick to beat Democrats with, to reduce domestic opposition to the Glorious Revolution to a cipher. “Victory” is achieved when the Democratic party is reduced to the size of the post-Mulroney Canadian PCP.
This whole misbegotten escapade in Mesopotamia has been nothing more or less than a second American civil war-by-proxy, attempting to settle deep and abiding differences about what this country, not Iraq, is, means, and does, by having a war over it.
If it wasn’t in Iraq, it would have been someplace else.
I’ve defined winning as Iraq being a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic.
How about its territorial integrity? After all, if building up the Sunni tribes doesn’t contradict the supposed goal of national unity, we could have done that back in 2003. The fact is that Petreus’ policy in the Sunni areas really ratchets up tension between the central government and the western parts of the country. Annapolis was the predicted flop, except for the bizarre presence of so many Arab representatives. The best explanation for that I can come up with that they hate and fear Iran more than Israel now.
I think we could well end up in a situation soon of Iraq being the battlefront between Iran and the Arab states (and the USA), would could well take the shape of a nasty civil war fuelled by outsiders, a Congo-type situation.
A positive side effect could be the resolution of the Israel-Palestine question, as the Arab states will have bigger fish to fry, and everyone would be on the same page in hating Iran so long as Tel Aviv can be persuaded to give the Palestinians a good enough deal – and this may happen (not with Olmert) as Sunni and Kurdish Iraq will steadily supplant Israel as the US’ strategic priority in the region.
I’ve long thought that Israeli strategists were not at all happy with the invasion, as they ought to have figured that it would be a mess, that Iran would benefit, and that Iraq in the long term would have much more to offer Washington as an ally than they could.
I’ve defined winning as Iraq being a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic.
How about its territorial integrity? After all, if building up the Sunni tribes doesn’t contradict the supposed goal of national unity, we could have done that back in 2003. The fact is that Petreus’ policy in the Sunni areas really ratchets up tension between the central government and the western parts of the country. Annapolis was the predicted flop, except for the bizarre presence of so many Arab representatives. The best explanation for that I can come up with that they hate and fear Iran more than Israel now.
I think we could well end up in a situation soon of Iraq being the battlefront between Iran and the Arab states (and the USA), would could well take the shape of a nasty civil war fuelled by outsiders, a Congo-type situation.
A positive side effect could be the resolution of the Israel-Palestine question, as the Arab states will have bigger fish to fry, and everyone would be on the same page in hating Iran so long as Tel Aviv can be persuaded to give the Palestinians a good enough deal – and this may happen (not with Olmert) as Sunni and Kurdish Iraq will steadily supplant Israel as the US’ strategic priority in the region.
I’ve long thought that Israeli strategists were not at all happy with the invasion, as they ought to have figured that it would be a mess, that Iran would benefit, and that Iraq in the long term would have much more to offer Washington as an ally than they could.
I’ve defined winning as Iraq being a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic.
How about its territorial integrity? After all, if building up the Sunni tribes doesn’t contradict the supposed goal of national unity, we could have done that back in 2003. The fact is that Petreus’ policy in the Sunni areas really ratchets up tension between the central government and the western parts of the country. Annapolis was the predicted flop, except for the bizarre presence of so many Arab representatives. The best explanation for that I can come up with that they hate and fear Iran more than Israel now.
I think we could well end up in a situation soon of Iraq being the battlefront between Iran and the Arab states (and the USA), would could well take the shape of a nasty civil war fuelled by outsiders, a Congo-type situation.
A positive side effect could be the resolution of the Israel-Palestine question, as the Arab states will have bigger fish to fry, and everyone would be on the same page in hating Iran so long as Tel Aviv can be persuaded to give the Palestinians a good enough deal – and this may happen (not with Olmert) as Sunni and Kurdish Iraq will steadily supplant Israel as the US’ strategic priority in the region.
I’ve long thought that Israeli strategists were not at all happy with the invasion, as they ought to have figured that it would be a mess, that Iran would benefit, and that Iraq in the long term would have much more to offer Washington as an ally than they could.
Charles,
Perform a least squares regression going back to March, ’03, on this data. Tell me which way the line slopes.
Thanks.
Charles,
Perform a least squares regression going back to March, ’03, on this data. Tell me which way the line slopes.
Thanks.
Charles,
Perform a least squares regression going back to March, ’03, on this data. Tell me which way the line slopes.
Thanks.
Don’t be silly, Bobby. History began at the latest possible point to show you that things are the best they’ve ever been by people who have never been right about anything.
Don’t be silly, Bobby. History began at the latest possible point to show you that things are the best they’ve ever been by people who have never been right about anything.
Don’t be silly, Bobby. History began at the latest possible point to show you that things are the best they’ve ever been by people who have never been right about anything.
If winning means a free, peaceful, representative nontheocratic Iraq, then it is not going to happen or at least not for so long thhat even Republicans will not be able to claim credit.
The peaceful part is likely to happen first, by attrition: enough killing and the fighhers and their targets will be dead and not fighhting anymore.
The representative part is pretty problematic,b tu mighht happen: the process of killing off thhe grouups that would otherwise demand represtation is well under way.
Free? Well in thhe past Republicans have definned as free any government thhey liked so I suppose that when it becomes expedient for domestic purposes to announce thhat Iraq is free thhe Republicann politicians will do so.
Representative? Well, now thhat thhe Christians and Jews are out of the picture and thhe ranks of the Sunnis have been thinned, the problem of power sharing is a little easier. Stil thhere’s thhe Kurds to deal with. The current government has decided to go on vacation again…
Nontheocratic? On paper Iraq isn’t theocratic. In terms of actual politics, maybe in three or four generations.
But this is just Charle’s defintion of winning. It is not the Pepublican party’s definition or the Bush ad.”s definiton. Their definition of winning is that Iraq is off the news, the permenent bases are establishhed, and we get a big cut of thhe oil. Establishing a free, represetntative Iraq is no more important to the Republican party than the establishhment of free representative governments in Viet Nam or Chile or Guatemala or Nicaragua.
If winning means a free, peaceful, representative nontheocratic Iraq, then it is not going to happen or at least not for so long thhat even Republicans will not be able to claim credit.
The peaceful part is likely to happen first, by attrition: enough killing and the fighhers and their targets will be dead and not fighhting anymore.
The representative part is pretty problematic,b tu mighht happen: the process of killing off thhe grouups that would otherwise demand represtation is well under way.
Free? Well in thhe past Republicans have definned as free any government thhey liked so I suppose that when it becomes expedient for domestic purposes to announce thhat Iraq is free thhe Republicann politicians will do so.
Representative? Well, now thhat thhe Christians and Jews are out of the picture and thhe ranks of the Sunnis have been thinned, the problem of power sharing is a little easier. Stil thhere’s thhe Kurds to deal with. The current government has decided to go on vacation again…
Nontheocratic? On paper Iraq isn’t theocratic. In terms of actual politics, maybe in three or four generations.
But this is just Charle’s defintion of winning. It is not the Pepublican party’s definition or the Bush ad.”s definiton. Their definition of winning is that Iraq is off the news, the permenent bases are establishhed, and we get a big cut of thhe oil. Establishing a free, represetntative Iraq is no more important to the Republican party than the establishhment of free representative governments in Viet Nam or Chile or Guatemala or Nicaragua.
If winning means a free, peaceful, representative nontheocratic Iraq, then it is not going to happen or at least not for so long thhat even Republicans will not be able to claim credit.
The peaceful part is likely to happen first, by attrition: enough killing and the fighhers and their targets will be dead and not fighhting anymore.
The representative part is pretty problematic,b tu mighht happen: the process of killing off thhe grouups that would otherwise demand represtation is well under way.
Free? Well in thhe past Republicans have definned as free any government thhey liked so I suppose that when it becomes expedient for domestic purposes to announce thhat Iraq is free thhe Republicann politicians will do so.
Representative? Well, now thhat thhe Christians and Jews are out of the picture and thhe ranks of the Sunnis have been thinned, the problem of power sharing is a little easier. Stil thhere’s thhe Kurds to deal with. The current government has decided to go on vacation again…
Nontheocratic? On paper Iraq isn’t theocratic. In terms of actual politics, maybe in three or four generations.
But this is just Charle’s defintion of winning. It is not the Pepublican party’s definition or the Bush ad.”s definiton. Their definition of winning is that Iraq is off the news, the permenent bases are establishhed, and we get a big cut of thhe oil. Establishing a free, represetntative Iraq is no more important to the Republican party than the establishhment of free representative governments in Viet Nam or Chile or Guatemala or Nicaragua.
Their definition of winning is that Iraq is off the news, the permenent bases are establishhed, and we get a big cut of thhe oil.
I’m sorry to say that I agree with this.
If you look at what this administration has actually *done* in Iraq, as opposed to what they’ve *said*, I think this conclusion is more or less inescapable.
The structuring of oil development terms under the CPA to the advantage of US businesses. Favoring of politically connected US contractors over native Iraqi or other regional contractors in the rebuilding efforts. The actual, and ongoing, construction of an enormous and permanent embassy and military bases of operation in the country by the US. Etcetera.
Ignore, for a few moments, what they’ve said, and look at what they’ve actually done. That will tell the tale of what our agenda there is actually about.
I appreciate, sincerely, Charles’ work in putting this stuff together, and am, sincerely, glad that the trend in the brutal killing of both US servicepeople and Iraqi nationals is downward. I doubt that Charles is, personally, motivated by anything other than a desire for this nation to do well.
But I have to say, to Charles and folks like him, you’ve chosen a poor crew to ally yourself with. I make them out to be a bunch of lying, murderous, avaricious SOBs.
Thanks –
Their definition of winning is that Iraq is off the news, the permenent bases are establishhed, and we get a big cut of thhe oil.
I’m sorry to say that I agree with this.
If you look at what this administration has actually *done* in Iraq, as opposed to what they’ve *said*, I think this conclusion is more or less inescapable.
The structuring of oil development terms under the CPA to the advantage of US businesses. Favoring of politically connected US contractors over native Iraqi or other regional contractors in the rebuilding efforts. The actual, and ongoing, construction of an enormous and permanent embassy and military bases of operation in the country by the US. Etcetera.
Ignore, for a few moments, what they’ve said, and look at what they’ve actually done. That will tell the tale of what our agenda there is actually about.
I appreciate, sincerely, Charles’ work in putting this stuff together, and am, sincerely, glad that the trend in the brutal killing of both US servicepeople and Iraqi nationals is downward. I doubt that Charles is, personally, motivated by anything other than a desire for this nation to do well.
But I have to say, to Charles and folks like him, you’ve chosen a poor crew to ally yourself with. I make them out to be a bunch of lying, murderous, avaricious SOBs.
Thanks –
Their definition of winning is that Iraq is off the news, the permenent bases are establishhed, and we get a big cut of thhe oil.
I’m sorry to say that I agree with this.
If you look at what this administration has actually *done* in Iraq, as opposed to what they’ve *said*, I think this conclusion is more or less inescapable.
The structuring of oil development terms under the CPA to the advantage of US businesses. Favoring of politically connected US contractors over native Iraqi or other regional contractors in the rebuilding efforts. The actual, and ongoing, construction of an enormous and permanent embassy and military bases of operation in the country by the US. Etcetera.
Ignore, for a few moments, what they’ve said, and look at what they’ve actually done. That will tell the tale of what our agenda there is actually about.
I appreciate, sincerely, Charles’ work in putting this stuff together, and am, sincerely, glad that the trend in the brutal killing of both US servicepeople and Iraqi nationals is downward. I doubt that Charles is, personally, motivated by anything other than a desire for this nation to do well.
But I have to say, to Charles and folks like him, you’ve chosen a poor crew to ally yourself with. I make them out to be a bunch of lying, murderous, avaricious SOBs.
Thanks –
I used to criticize Charles for things like “defeatocrats”, but have stopped doing so. I think it’s well worth remembering that someone given substantial respect as a thoughtful observer and analyst among Republican bloggers can still, at this late date, face a president who doesn’t care about bin Laden and a party which votes against readiness standards for troops going into combat and keep saying that it’s the Democrats who aren’t serious about this. I think it’s ludicrous and contemptible, but I’d no more want it hidden or dressed up in misleadingly polite language than I would the rants we’ve seen again recently from Charles’ blogging neighbors and peers about the genetic inferiority of black people. It’s important to see that the people who cheered the thing on in the first place are still far from accepting any responsibility for the consequences of their cheering, and still all too glad to foist that responsibility onto any available target, including those who spent years trying to bring any sense or accountability to the enterprise before gradually rolling over for more and more senseless demands.
I used to criticize Charles for things like “defeatocrats”, but have stopped doing so. I think it’s well worth remembering that someone given substantial respect as a thoughtful observer and analyst among Republican bloggers can still, at this late date, face a president who doesn’t care about bin Laden and a party which votes against readiness standards for troops going into combat and keep saying that it’s the Democrats who aren’t serious about this. I think it’s ludicrous and contemptible, but I’d no more want it hidden or dressed up in misleadingly polite language than I would the rants we’ve seen again recently from Charles’ blogging neighbors and peers about the genetic inferiority of black people. It’s important to see that the people who cheered the thing on in the first place are still far from accepting any responsibility for the consequences of their cheering, and still all too glad to foist that responsibility onto any available target, including those who spent years trying to bring any sense or accountability to the enterprise before gradually rolling over for more and more senseless demands.
I used to criticize Charles for things like “defeatocrats”, but have stopped doing so. I think it’s well worth remembering that someone given substantial respect as a thoughtful observer and analyst among Republican bloggers can still, at this late date, face a president who doesn’t care about bin Laden and a party which votes against readiness standards for troops going into combat and keep saying that it’s the Democrats who aren’t serious about this. I think it’s ludicrous and contemptible, but I’d no more want it hidden or dressed up in misleadingly polite language than I would the rants we’ve seen again recently from Charles’ blogging neighbors and peers about the genetic inferiority of black people. It’s important to see that the people who cheered the thing on in the first place are still far from accepting any responsibility for the consequences of their cheering, and still all too glad to foist that responsibility onto any available target, including those who spent years trying to bring any sense or accountability to the enterprise before gradually rolling over for more and more senseless demands.
Well, at least we can thank the troops for their commitment. Regardless of the political aspects, they have done a pretty good job, so thanks.
Well, at least we can thank the troops for their commitment. Regardless of the political aspects, they have done a pretty good job, so thanks.
Well, at least we can thank the troops for their commitment. Regardless of the political aspects, they have done a pretty good job, so thanks.
DaveC,
No. No. No. I will not thank the troops. I will not put a frakking yellow ribbon on my car. I will not watch a stupid youtube video. You can do those things if you want. I won’t do them because they don’t change anything.
I will write letters to my congressmen asking for more VA funding and more educational and vocational assistance for returning soldiers. I will support candidates for office that I think will advocate for soldiers and bring them home, and I will pester them until they do that. I will donate to charities that help soldiers and their families.
By the way DaveC, do you actually think anyone should thank the troops or are you just trying to derail the thread because someone at church hurt your feelings and you didn’t have the gonads to confront them?
DaveC,
No. No. No. I will not thank the troops. I will not put a frakking yellow ribbon on my car. I will not watch a stupid youtube video. You can do those things if you want. I won’t do them because they don’t change anything.
I will write letters to my congressmen asking for more VA funding and more educational and vocational assistance for returning soldiers. I will support candidates for office that I think will advocate for soldiers and bring them home, and I will pester them until they do that. I will donate to charities that help soldiers and their families.
By the way DaveC, do you actually think anyone should thank the troops or are you just trying to derail the thread because someone at church hurt your feelings and you didn’t have the gonads to confront them?
DaveC,
No. No. No. I will not thank the troops. I will not put a frakking yellow ribbon on my car. I will not watch a stupid youtube video. You can do those things if you want. I won’t do them because they don’t change anything.
I will write letters to my congressmen asking for more VA funding and more educational and vocational assistance for returning soldiers. I will support candidates for office that I think will advocate for soldiers and bring them home, and I will pester them until they do that. I will donate to charities that help soldiers and their families.
By the way DaveC, do you actually think anyone should thank the troops or are you just trying to derail the thread because someone at church hurt your feelings and you didn’t have the gonads to confront them?
Perform a least squares regression going back to March, ’03, on this data. Tell me which way the line slopes.
Why would you fit a line to what is obviously not a simple linear trend?
Perform a least squares regression going back to March, ’03, on this data. Tell me which way the line slopes.
Why would you fit a line to what is obviously not a simple linear trend?
Perform a least squares regression going back to March, ’03, on this data. Tell me which way the line slopes.
Why would you fit a line to what is obviously not a simple linear trend?
brendanm98,
What were civillian casualties in the fall of 2002? What are they now? Are they higher? Are they lower?
Social scientists try to use various explanatory variables to uncover a likely explanation revealed by the data. They also like to use more data, rather than less, to lend robustness to the conclusions.
Political hacks, on the other hand, skew the vertical axis to show wavey trends to demonstrate a preconcieved conclusion. Why, I’d bet you a million that if the casualties were trending up, CB would show that the surge has done something right, and ask for more troops and another Friedman Unit.
brendanm98,
What were civillian casualties in the fall of 2002? What are they now? Are they higher? Are they lower?
Social scientists try to use various explanatory variables to uncover a likely explanation revealed by the data. They also like to use more data, rather than less, to lend robustness to the conclusions.
Political hacks, on the other hand, skew the vertical axis to show wavey trends to demonstrate a preconcieved conclusion. Why, I’d bet you a million that if the casualties were trending up, CB would show that the surge has done something right, and ask for more troops and another Friedman Unit.
brendanm98,
What were civillian casualties in the fall of 2002? What are they now? Are they higher? Are they lower?
Social scientists try to use various explanatory variables to uncover a likely explanation revealed by the data. They also like to use more data, rather than less, to lend robustness to the conclusions.
Political hacks, on the other hand, skew the vertical axis to show wavey trends to demonstrate a preconcieved conclusion. Why, I’d bet you a million that if the casualties were trending up, CB would show that the surge has done something right, and ask for more troops and another Friedman Unit.
Batiste does a 180 on Iraq. (h/t CQ)
OK, not quite a 180. But I mostly agree with this:
It’s time to discuss the way forward rather than prosecute the past. Congress must do the same, for our nation and the troops.
…
Third, the counterinsurgency campaign led by Gen. David Petraeus is the correct approach in Iraq. It is showing promise of success and, if continued, will provide the Iraqi government the opportunities it desperately needs to stabilize its country.
I’m going to say that Batiste, a well known administration critic, backs up Charles here. I want to be hopeful that there is some possible outcome here that doesn’t involve some exponential expansion of violence. I have opposed the surge; I still don’t know what to think about what is happening. Some days it seems good, some days hopeless. I’ll admit that being a war supporter initially I’m probably grasping at any straw that will make things come out less bad. Less bad is all I can hope for at this point.
Batiste does a 180 on Iraq. (h/t CQ)
OK, not quite a 180. But I mostly agree with this:
It’s time to discuss the way forward rather than prosecute the past. Congress must do the same, for our nation and the troops.
…
Third, the counterinsurgency campaign led by Gen. David Petraeus is the correct approach in Iraq. It is showing promise of success and, if continued, will provide the Iraqi government the opportunities it desperately needs to stabilize its country.
I’m going to say that Batiste, a well known administration critic, backs up Charles here. I want to be hopeful that there is some possible outcome here that doesn’t involve some exponential expansion of violence. I have opposed the surge; I still don’t know what to think about what is happening. Some days it seems good, some days hopeless. I’ll admit that being a war supporter initially I’m probably grasping at any straw that will make things come out less bad. Less bad is all I can hope for at this point.
Batiste does a 180 on Iraq. (h/t CQ)
OK, not quite a 180. But I mostly agree with this:
It’s time to discuss the way forward rather than prosecute the past. Congress must do the same, for our nation and the troops.
…
Third, the counterinsurgency campaign led by Gen. David Petraeus is the correct approach in Iraq. It is showing promise of success and, if continued, will provide the Iraqi government the opportunities it desperately needs to stabilize its country.
I’m going to say that Batiste, a well known administration critic, backs up Charles here. I want to be hopeful that there is some possible outcome here that doesn’t involve some exponential expansion of violence. I have opposed the surge; I still don’t know what to think about what is happening. Some days it seems good, some days hopeless. I’ll admit that being a war supporter initially I’m probably grasping at any straw that will make things come out less bad. Less bad is all I can hope for at this point.
OCSteve,
The goal of Petreus’ plan was political progress in Iraq. It has failed. There has been no meaningful political progress in Iraq. Not only has there been no political progress, but our decision to pay off Sunni militias has made political reconciliation less likely. You bolster the central government by giving money and weapons to insurgent militias that are trying to overthrow that government.
You want to continue the plan for another five or ten years? Fine. But at least have the decency to explain by what causal mechanism you believe this plan will bring about political reconciliation when it has so far failed to do so.
OCSteve,
The goal of Petreus’ plan was political progress in Iraq. It has failed. There has been no meaningful political progress in Iraq. Not only has there been no political progress, but our decision to pay off Sunni militias has made political reconciliation less likely. You bolster the central government by giving money and weapons to insurgent militias that are trying to overthrow that government.
You want to continue the plan for another five or ten years? Fine. But at least have the decency to explain by what causal mechanism you believe this plan will bring about political reconciliation when it has so far failed to do so.
OCSteve,
The goal of Petreus’ plan was political progress in Iraq. It has failed. There has been no meaningful political progress in Iraq. Not only has there been no political progress, but our decision to pay off Sunni militias has made political reconciliation less likely. You bolster the central government by giving money and weapons to insurgent militias that are trying to overthrow that government.
You want to continue the plan for another five or ten years? Fine. But at least have the decency to explain by what causal mechanism you believe this plan will bring about political reconciliation when it has so far failed to do so.
Batiste can go f— himself. That Post op-ed is absolutely nauseating:
Americans must mobilize for the Long War — bolster our strained military, galvanize industry to supply troops with what they need right now and fund the strategy with long-term solutions. We have no doubt that Americans will rally behind a call to arms.
Batiste can go f— himself. That Post op-ed is absolutely nauseating:
Americans must mobilize for the Long War — bolster our strained military, galvanize industry to supply troops with what they need right now and fund the strategy with long-term solutions. We have no doubt that Americans will rally behind a call to arms.
Batiste can go f— himself. That Post op-ed is absolutely nauseating:
Americans must mobilize for the Long War — bolster our strained military, galvanize industry to supply troops with what they need right now and fund the strategy with long-term solutions. We have no doubt that Americans will rally behind a call to arms.
great! let’s declare victory and leave. if we wait for the iraqis to come up with political progress, we will never get out.
great! let’s declare victory and leave. if we wait for the iraqis to come up with political progress, we will never get out.
great! let’s declare victory and leave. if we wait for the iraqis to come up with political progress, we will never get out.
Re: “The Long War”
…has been going on for 1400 years. I predict that Bush’s ‘ordinary moms and dads’ strategy will yield a big win for the good guys in the final analysis. The Iran-Iraq war drained the Middle East’s resources, gave the youth somebody to fight other than us, and caused oil prices to drop by 50% as the oil-producers jumped to high production trying to fund their war efforts.
The Iran-Iraq War pales in comparison to what’s brewing. Bush has spread assault weapons among the population widely. He has stoked secretarian tension. His tolerance of the free practice of Islam has allowed its followers to become emboldened. His support of a Shia Iraq has got Saudi Arabia on the record stating that they will back the Iraqi Sunni and will drop oil prices below $50/barrel (Iran’s profit point) when the conflict comes.
Bush has given the American people five years of daily education on the Religion of Peace and raised our awareness to the real threat it represents. It’s been a while since we’ve seen drill bits used in warfare.
If he was smart enough to have engineered this (he’s not), all in the name of freedom and democracy, you’d have to give the man his due. His legacy may be seen as setting the table for the Long War’s biggest win since 1683.
If we don’t get incinerated in the process.
Re: “The Long War”
…has been going on for 1400 years. I predict that Bush’s ‘ordinary moms and dads’ strategy will yield a big win for the good guys in the final analysis. The Iran-Iraq war drained the Middle East’s resources, gave the youth somebody to fight other than us, and caused oil prices to drop by 50% as the oil-producers jumped to high production trying to fund their war efforts.
The Iran-Iraq War pales in comparison to what’s brewing. Bush has spread assault weapons among the population widely. He has stoked secretarian tension. His tolerance of the free practice of Islam has allowed its followers to become emboldened. His support of a Shia Iraq has got Saudi Arabia on the record stating that they will back the Iraqi Sunni and will drop oil prices below $50/barrel (Iran’s profit point) when the conflict comes.
Bush has given the American people five years of daily education on the Religion of Peace and raised our awareness to the real threat it represents. It’s been a while since we’ve seen drill bits used in warfare.
If he was smart enough to have engineered this (he’s not), all in the name of freedom and democracy, you’d have to give the man his due. His legacy may be seen as setting the table for the Long War’s biggest win since 1683.
If we don’t get incinerated in the process.
Re: “The Long War”
…has been going on for 1400 years. I predict that Bush’s ‘ordinary moms and dads’ strategy will yield a big win for the good guys in the final analysis. The Iran-Iraq war drained the Middle East’s resources, gave the youth somebody to fight other than us, and caused oil prices to drop by 50% as the oil-producers jumped to high production trying to fund their war efforts.
The Iran-Iraq War pales in comparison to what’s brewing. Bush has spread assault weapons among the population widely. He has stoked secretarian tension. His tolerance of the free practice of Islam has allowed its followers to become emboldened. His support of a Shia Iraq has got Saudi Arabia on the record stating that they will back the Iraqi Sunni and will drop oil prices below $50/barrel (Iran’s profit point) when the conflict comes.
Bush has given the American people five years of daily education on the Religion of Peace and raised our awareness to the real threat it represents. It’s been a while since we’ve seen drill bits used in warfare.
If he was smart enough to have engineered this (he’s not), all in the name of freedom and democracy, you’d have to give the man his due. His legacy may be seen as setting the table for the Long War’s biggest win since 1683.
If we don’t get incinerated in the process.
That’s crazy talk, Bill. You have no idea what you’re going on about. You are lost in a maze of your own fears and hatreds, and you and the millions like you are a crucial part of the problem.
That’s crazy talk, Bill. You have no idea what you’re going on about. You are lost in a maze of your own fears and hatreds, and you and the millions like you are a crucial part of the problem.
That’s crazy talk, Bill. You have no idea what you’re going on about. You are lost in a maze of your own fears and hatreds, and you and the millions like you are a crucial part of the problem.
It’s time to discuss the way forward rather than prosecute the past.
These things aren’t mutually exclusive.
More than that — if we actually want to put ourselves on a firm footing in our stance towards the rest of the world, we need to account, accurately, honestly, and without shirking of responsibility, for both the mistakes and the deliberate bad actions that brought us to where we are.
The choice between holding Bush et al to account, and doing our best to achieve the best possible outcome in Iraq, is a false one. IMO, the two go hand in hand.
It’s called dealing with others in good faith.
Americans must mobilize for the Long War
I don’t believe in the Long War.
There is a strong trend in Islam toward militant, political fundamentalism. Within that movement, there is a very small community of people who have an interest in doing harm to America or Americans. This is not the making of a Long War, akin to the Cold War with Communism. In fact, thinking of it in those terms is counterproductive.
Muslims need to sort out how they want to live, politically, both within their own communities, and with the rest of the world. There’s not much we can do to help other than to encourage the trends that we think will be constructive, and discourage the ones we think will not be. But there is nothing in the Islamic community that is analogous to either the fascism of the 30’s and 40’s, or the Communism of the 50’s through 1989.
The number of folks who are actually all that interested in a shooting war with the US is pretty small. The stupidest possible thing we can do is grant them their wish.
There is no Long War. There is something of a crisis within the Islamic community. There are constructive things we can do to help them, and ourselves. Starting wars with every Islamic nation we don’t agree with is not one of those constructive things.
Thanks –
It’s time to discuss the way forward rather than prosecute the past.
These things aren’t mutually exclusive.
More than that — if we actually want to put ourselves on a firm footing in our stance towards the rest of the world, we need to account, accurately, honestly, and without shirking of responsibility, for both the mistakes and the deliberate bad actions that brought us to where we are.
The choice between holding Bush et al to account, and doing our best to achieve the best possible outcome in Iraq, is a false one. IMO, the two go hand in hand.
It’s called dealing with others in good faith.
Americans must mobilize for the Long War
I don’t believe in the Long War.
There is a strong trend in Islam toward militant, political fundamentalism. Within that movement, there is a very small community of people who have an interest in doing harm to America or Americans. This is not the making of a Long War, akin to the Cold War with Communism. In fact, thinking of it in those terms is counterproductive.
Muslims need to sort out how they want to live, politically, both within their own communities, and with the rest of the world. There’s not much we can do to help other than to encourage the trends that we think will be constructive, and discourage the ones we think will not be. But there is nothing in the Islamic community that is analogous to either the fascism of the 30’s and 40’s, or the Communism of the 50’s through 1989.
The number of folks who are actually all that interested in a shooting war with the US is pretty small. The stupidest possible thing we can do is grant them their wish.
There is no Long War. There is something of a crisis within the Islamic community. There are constructive things we can do to help them, and ourselves. Starting wars with every Islamic nation we don’t agree with is not one of those constructive things.
Thanks –
It’s time to discuss the way forward rather than prosecute the past.
These things aren’t mutually exclusive.
More than that — if we actually want to put ourselves on a firm footing in our stance towards the rest of the world, we need to account, accurately, honestly, and without shirking of responsibility, for both the mistakes and the deliberate bad actions that brought us to where we are.
The choice between holding Bush et al to account, and doing our best to achieve the best possible outcome in Iraq, is a false one. IMO, the two go hand in hand.
It’s called dealing with others in good faith.
Americans must mobilize for the Long War
I don’t believe in the Long War.
There is a strong trend in Islam toward militant, political fundamentalism. Within that movement, there is a very small community of people who have an interest in doing harm to America or Americans. This is not the making of a Long War, akin to the Cold War with Communism. In fact, thinking of it in those terms is counterproductive.
Muslims need to sort out how they want to live, politically, both within their own communities, and with the rest of the world. There’s not much we can do to help other than to encourage the trends that we think will be constructive, and discourage the ones we think will not be. But there is nothing in the Islamic community that is analogous to either the fascism of the 30’s and 40’s, or the Communism of the 50’s through 1989.
The number of folks who are actually all that interested in a shooting war with the US is pretty small. The stupidest possible thing we can do is grant them their wish.
There is no Long War. There is something of a crisis within the Islamic community. There are constructive things we can do to help them, and ourselves. Starting wars with every Islamic nation we don’t agree with is not one of those constructive things.
Thanks –
Right on, Russell.
My parents taught us that a big part of safety was avoiding needless risks – not that you should cower in fear of every potential threat, but that when you have an opportunity to avoid an unnecessary confrontation, you should avoid it. When it comes to dealing with potentially hostile cultures, I think that the first thing to do is look to see how much we can reduce the potential for confrontation. If we were willing to give up the business of overthrowing inconvenient governments and settle for paying market prices for important commodities, our national situation and the world situation would both improve a lot, for instance. Likewise if we made it clear by action, including prosecution of offenders, that we take our commitments to treaties and standards seriously for us as well as for using as clubs on others. An America that lived honorably and peaceably would be an America that had much less need to go to war, or provocation to escalate conflicts. And if we were not so obviously a berserk, amoral, inconsistent, delusional powerhouse loose in the china shop of the world, then we’d be able to do a lot more to support constructive developments in other nations, like economic stability and the rule of law.
Sun Tzu was right about how the most successful warrior is the one who doesn’t have to actually fight.
Right on, Russell.
My parents taught us that a big part of safety was avoiding needless risks – not that you should cower in fear of every potential threat, but that when you have an opportunity to avoid an unnecessary confrontation, you should avoid it. When it comes to dealing with potentially hostile cultures, I think that the first thing to do is look to see how much we can reduce the potential for confrontation. If we were willing to give up the business of overthrowing inconvenient governments and settle for paying market prices for important commodities, our national situation and the world situation would both improve a lot, for instance. Likewise if we made it clear by action, including prosecution of offenders, that we take our commitments to treaties and standards seriously for us as well as for using as clubs on others. An America that lived honorably and peaceably would be an America that had much less need to go to war, or provocation to escalate conflicts. And if we were not so obviously a berserk, amoral, inconsistent, delusional powerhouse loose in the china shop of the world, then we’d be able to do a lot more to support constructive developments in other nations, like economic stability and the rule of law.
Sun Tzu was right about how the most successful warrior is the one who doesn’t have to actually fight.
Right on, Russell.
My parents taught us that a big part of safety was avoiding needless risks – not that you should cower in fear of every potential threat, but that when you have an opportunity to avoid an unnecessary confrontation, you should avoid it. When it comes to dealing with potentially hostile cultures, I think that the first thing to do is look to see how much we can reduce the potential for confrontation. If we were willing to give up the business of overthrowing inconvenient governments and settle for paying market prices for important commodities, our national situation and the world situation would both improve a lot, for instance. Likewise if we made it clear by action, including prosecution of offenders, that we take our commitments to treaties and standards seriously for us as well as for using as clubs on others. An America that lived honorably and peaceably would be an America that had much less need to go to war, or provocation to escalate conflicts. And if we were not so obviously a berserk, amoral, inconsistent, delusional powerhouse loose in the china shop of the world, then we’d be able to do a lot more to support constructive developments in other nations, like economic stability and the rule of law.
Sun Tzu was right about how the most successful warrior is the one who doesn’t have to actually fight.
Turbulence: You want to continue the plan for another five or ten years? Fine. But at least have the decency to explain by what causal mechanism you believe this plan will bring about political reconciliation when it has so far failed to do so.
I don’t know what I want. I was against the surge. I am way against over extending our armed forces. I go back and forth day by day. Is it working or not? When it seems to be working that gives me hope.
I’ll admit that being a war supporter initially I’m probably grasping at any straw that will make things come out less bad. Less bad is all I can hope for at this point.
Is that not clear? Decency? I was wrong. I admit that. I still wish for the best possible outcome – for our troops and for the Iraqi people. Full stop. Argh.
Turbulence: You want to continue the plan for another five or ten years? Fine. But at least have the decency to explain by what causal mechanism you believe this plan will bring about political reconciliation when it has so far failed to do so.
I don’t know what I want. I was against the surge. I am way against over extending our armed forces. I go back and forth day by day. Is it working or not? When it seems to be working that gives me hope.
I’ll admit that being a war supporter initially I’m probably grasping at any straw that will make things come out less bad. Less bad is all I can hope for at this point.
Is that not clear? Decency? I was wrong. I admit that. I still wish for the best possible outcome – for our troops and for the Iraqi people. Full stop. Argh.
Turbulence: You want to continue the plan for another five or ten years? Fine. But at least have the decency to explain by what causal mechanism you believe this plan will bring about political reconciliation when it has so far failed to do so.
I don’t know what I want. I was against the surge. I am way against over extending our armed forces. I go back and forth day by day. Is it working or not? When it seems to be working that gives me hope.
I’ll admit that being a war supporter initially I’m probably grasping at any straw that will make things come out less bad. Less bad is all I can hope for at this point.
Is that not clear? Decency? I was wrong. I admit that. I still wish for the best possible outcome – for our troops and for the Iraqi people. Full stop. Argh.
Bill:
“His (Bush’s) tolerance of the free practice of Islam has allowed its followers to become emboldened.”
This statement either deserves a double “bleh”, or a forthright follow-up proposal and plan to nuke roughly, what, a billion people?
Bill:
“His (Bush’s) tolerance of the free practice of Islam has allowed its followers to become emboldened.”
This statement either deserves a double “bleh”, or a forthright follow-up proposal and plan to nuke roughly, what, a billion people?
Bill:
“His (Bush’s) tolerance of the free practice of Islam has allowed its followers to become emboldened.”
This statement either deserves a double “bleh”, or a forthright follow-up proposal and plan to nuke roughly, what, a billion people?
OCSteve: Is it working or not? When it seems to be working that gives me hope.
I think that the clearest metric is that Iraqis who can, are still leaving Iraq. And those that return, are mostly returning because they have no option – they couldn’t get out further than Syria, and Syria won’t let them stay.
I admit that. I still wish for the best possible outcome – for our troops and for the Iraqi people. Full stop.
Yet you told Charles “My criticism would also be with the hit on Reid. It’s not that I don’t agree with you on that point” – you do agree with Charles’ despicable remarks about Reid? No sign there that you’re more invested in the best possible outcome for the US troops and the Iraqi people than you are invested in supporting the Republicans and condemning the Democrats.
OCSteve: Is it working or not? When it seems to be working that gives me hope.
I think that the clearest metric is that Iraqis who can, are still leaving Iraq. And those that return, are mostly returning because they have no option – they couldn’t get out further than Syria, and Syria won’t let them stay.
I admit that. I still wish for the best possible outcome – for our troops and for the Iraqi people. Full stop.
Yet you told Charles “My criticism would also be with the hit on Reid. It’s not that I don’t agree with you on that point” – you do agree with Charles’ despicable remarks about Reid? No sign there that you’re more invested in the best possible outcome for the US troops and the Iraqi people than you are invested in supporting the Republicans and condemning the Democrats.
OCSteve: Is it working or not? When it seems to be working that gives me hope.
I think that the clearest metric is that Iraqis who can, are still leaving Iraq. And those that return, are mostly returning because they have no option – they couldn’t get out further than Syria, and Syria won’t let them stay.
I admit that. I still wish for the best possible outcome – for our troops and for the Iraqi people. Full stop.
Yet you told Charles “My criticism would also be with the hit on Reid. It’s not that I don’t agree with you on that point” – you do agree with Charles’ despicable remarks about Reid? No sign there that you’re more invested in the best possible outcome for the US troops and the Iraqi people than you are invested in supporting the Republicans and condemning the Democrats.
OCSteve,
You quoted an op ed that said:
Third, the counterinsurgency campaign led by Gen. David Petraeus is the correct approach in Iraq. It is showing promise of success and, if continued, will provide the Iraqi government the opportunities it desperately needs to stabilize its country.
I read that as an endorsement of continued occupation. Did I misread you?
Back to the oped that you cited, why should I believe Petraeus’ approach is correct? Because some other general said so? Why should I be impressed by the “promise of success”? Heck, where IS the promise of success? How about some actual success?
I’d be happy to discuss why I think the Batiste oped is…problematic, but this may not be the best forum. An HOCB thread might be better fitting.
OCSteve,
You quoted an op ed that said:
Third, the counterinsurgency campaign led by Gen. David Petraeus is the correct approach in Iraq. It is showing promise of success and, if continued, will provide the Iraqi government the opportunities it desperately needs to stabilize its country.
I read that as an endorsement of continued occupation. Did I misread you?
Back to the oped that you cited, why should I believe Petraeus’ approach is correct? Because some other general said so? Why should I be impressed by the “promise of success”? Heck, where IS the promise of success? How about some actual success?
I’d be happy to discuss why I think the Batiste oped is…problematic, but this may not be the best forum. An HOCB thread might be better fitting.
OCSteve,
You quoted an op ed that said:
Third, the counterinsurgency campaign led by Gen. David Petraeus is the correct approach in Iraq. It is showing promise of success and, if continued, will provide the Iraqi government the opportunities it desperately needs to stabilize its country.
I read that as an endorsement of continued occupation. Did I misread you?
Back to the oped that you cited, why should I believe Petraeus’ approach is correct? Because some other general said so? Why should I be impressed by the “promise of success”? Heck, where IS the promise of success? How about some actual success?
I’d be happy to discuss why I think the Batiste oped is…problematic, but this may not be the best forum. An HOCB thread might be better fitting.
I’d like to remind people that OCSteve has mentioned numerous times how hard he works to avoid saying things that get him jumped on around here, and that he’s a guy who started off around here as a not terribly unorthodox Republican.
It’s impossible to know for sure when other people will comment on a point in the future, but it’s often quite predictable.
When someone has already been jumped on a few times for a point — and in particular when someone is being jumped on in a way that directly challenges their attempt to say, let alone repeatedly say — that that’s not what they meant — there’s little good to be served by yet another person tromping on the same point.
(It’s a bit problematic, of course, that often people will post near simultaneously, and repeat points, which can’t be helped, but nonetheless.)
And it’s useful to remember that OCSteve has not actually volunteered to be a cardboard cut-out stand-in pinata substitute for Your Handy Annoying Republican.
I’d like to remind people that OCSteve has mentioned numerous times how hard he works to avoid saying things that get him jumped on around here, and that he’s a guy who started off around here as a not terribly unorthodox Republican.
It’s impossible to know for sure when other people will comment on a point in the future, but it’s often quite predictable.
When someone has already been jumped on a few times for a point — and in particular when someone is being jumped on in a way that directly challenges their attempt to say, let alone repeatedly say — that that’s not what they meant — there’s little good to be served by yet another person tromping on the same point.
(It’s a bit problematic, of course, that often people will post near simultaneously, and repeat points, which can’t be helped, but nonetheless.)
And it’s useful to remember that OCSteve has not actually volunteered to be a cardboard cut-out stand-in pinata substitute for Your Handy Annoying Republican.
I’d like to remind people that OCSteve has mentioned numerous times how hard he works to avoid saying things that get him jumped on around here, and that he’s a guy who started off around here as a not terribly unorthodox Republican.
It’s impossible to know for sure when other people will comment on a point in the future, but it’s often quite predictable.
When someone has already been jumped on a few times for a point — and in particular when someone is being jumped on in a way that directly challenges their attempt to say, let alone repeatedly say — that that’s not what they meant — there’s little good to be served by yet another person tromping on the same point.
(It’s a bit problematic, of course, that often people will post near simultaneously, and repeat points, which can’t be helped, but nonetheless.)
And it’s useful to remember that OCSteve has not actually volunteered to be a cardboard cut-out stand-in pinata substitute for Your Handy Annoying Republican.
I agree with Gary about this. Changing one’s mind in public is a very hard thing under any circumstances, and particularly in these. And it’s not like any of us can point at any of our existing options and say “This will be good”, as opposed to not as bad as others, or even be sure we know what the range of real choices is. We often talk about the importance of being confident in our knowledge, and that’s true, but we also need confidence in our ignorance – to treat the limits of our knowledge not as a shameful thing to lie about or cover up but simply as a fact of life, to acknowledge and deal with.
I agree with Gary about this. Changing one’s mind in public is a very hard thing under any circumstances, and particularly in these. And it’s not like any of us can point at any of our existing options and say “This will be good”, as opposed to not as bad as others, or even be sure we know what the range of real choices is. We often talk about the importance of being confident in our knowledge, and that’s true, but we also need confidence in our ignorance – to treat the limits of our knowledge not as a shameful thing to lie about or cover up but simply as a fact of life, to acknowledge and deal with.
I agree with Gary about this. Changing one’s mind in public is a very hard thing under any circumstances, and particularly in these. And it’s not like any of us can point at any of our existing options and say “This will be good”, as opposed to not as bad as others, or even be sure we know what the range of real choices is. We often talk about the importance of being confident in our knowledge, and that’s true, but we also need confidence in our ignorance – to treat the limits of our knowledge not as a shameful thing to lie about or cover up but simply as a fact of life, to acknowledge and deal with.
Bruce,
Certainly, we’re often wrong and ignorant without even realizing it. On the other hand, if you’re going to pass on rather strident statements that amount to “Petraus’ approach is correct” and “it is showing signs of success”, then you should be able to cite some evidence for these beliefs.
I don’t find this an unduly burdensome standard, do you?
I suppose it is possible that OCSteve did not quote Batiste’s oped intending an endorsement. But if he didn’t, I’m really confused as to what he was trying to communicate. Hence my questions to him.
While I admire his willingness to reevaluate past beliefs and publicly disavow them (which I think very highly of), I’m not sure what that has to do with making unsupported statements about Iraq and what our future military approach should be there.
Bruce,
Certainly, we’re often wrong and ignorant without even realizing it. On the other hand, if you’re going to pass on rather strident statements that amount to “Petraus’ approach is correct” and “it is showing signs of success”, then you should be able to cite some evidence for these beliefs.
I don’t find this an unduly burdensome standard, do you?
I suppose it is possible that OCSteve did not quote Batiste’s oped intending an endorsement. But if he didn’t, I’m really confused as to what he was trying to communicate. Hence my questions to him.
While I admire his willingness to reevaluate past beliefs and publicly disavow them (which I think very highly of), I’m not sure what that has to do with making unsupported statements about Iraq and what our future military approach should be there.
Bruce,
Certainly, we’re often wrong and ignorant without even realizing it. On the other hand, if you’re going to pass on rather strident statements that amount to “Petraus’ approach is correct” and “it is showing signs of success”, then you should be able to cite some evidence for these beliefs.
I don’t find this an unduly burdensome standard, do you?
I suppose it is possible that OCSteve did not quote Batiste’s oped intending an endorsement. But if he didn’t, I’m really confused as to what he was trying to communicate. Hence my questions to him.
While I admire his willingness to reevaluate past beliefs and publicly disavow them (which I think very highly of), I’m not sure what that has to do with making unsupported statements about Iraq and what our future military approach should be there.
“Sun Tzu was right about how the most successful warrior is the one who doesn’t have to actually fight.”
Which, Bruce, is why Machiavelli would be smiling if consulted regarding the Bush policies Bush does not understand. The human costs associated with the ‘compassion end game’ are terrible. The sad fact is that the human suffering associated with removing a dictator exceeds the human suffering associated with the dictator in this case.
John;
The answer is, and always has been, containment. We do not owe Islam civilization. Islam does not want civilization. We do not need to embrace Islam. We just need to leave it alone and let the Titos, Ataturks, Husseins, Shahs, Musharrafs, etc., etc., etc. manage the problem in their own lands.
Fences in Israel, immigration controls at home. Dar al-Islam, Dar al-Harb, may they forever keep their distance. Apostates, as always, are welcome.
“Sun Tzu was right about how the most successful warrior is the one who doesn’t have to actually fight.”
Which, Bruce, is why Machiavelli would be smiling if consulted regarding the Bush policies Bush does not understand. The human costs associated with the ‘compassion end game’ are terrible. The sad fact is that the human suffering associated with removing a dictator exceeds the human suffering associated with the dictator in this case.
John;
The answer is, and always has been, containment. We do not owe Islam civilization. Islam does not want civilization. We do not need to embrace Islam. We just need to leave it alone and let the Titos, Ataturks, Husseins, Shahs, Musharrafs, etc., etc., etc. manage the problem in their own lands.
Fences in Israel, immigration controls at home. Dar al-Islam, Dar al-Harb, may they forever keep their distance. Apostates, as always, are welcome.
“Sun Tzu was right about how the most successful warrior is the one who doesn’t have to actually fight.”
Which, Bruce, is why Machiavelli would be smiling if consulted regarding the Bush policies Bush does not understand. The human costs associated with the ‘compassion end game’ are terrible. The sad fact is that the human suffering associated with removing a dictator exceeds the human suffering associated with the dictator in this case.
John;
The answer is, and always has been, containment. We do not owe Islam civilization. Islam does not want civilization. We do not need to embrace Islam. We just need to leave it alone and let the Titos, Ataturks, Husseins, Shahs, Musharrafs, etc., etc., etc. manage the problem in their own lands.
Fences in Israel, immigration controls at home. Dar al-Islam, Dar al-Harb, may they forever keep their distance. Apostates, as always, are welcome.
Anyone who can write a sentence like “Islam does not want civilization.”, and does so on a regular basis, is simply out of touch with reality. Between the reification – Islam is not a thing or an entity, but an adjective associated with the activities of many millions of people through dozens of generations, each as complex and often more interesting than the sort of people who write “Islam does not want civilization.” – and the blatant rewriting of history and the sheer smugness of it all…it’s useless and would be merely dull if ideas like it weren’t so dangerously popular at the moment. But it’s nonetheless just plain dumb as well as being foolish and wicked. “I’m scared and don’t understand those folks over there” would be much more productive as a starting point.
Turbulence, where to draw the line is always a matter of discretion. I favor slack cutting some extra right now simply because genuine changes of heart are so scarce in the public sphere and I want to encourage them.
Anyone who can write a sentence like “Islam does not want civilization.”, and does so on a regular basis, is simply out of touch with reality. Between the reification – Islam is not a thing or an entity, but an adjective associated with the activities of many millions of people through dozens of generations, each as complex and often more interesting than the sort of people who write “Islam does not want civilization.” – and the blatant rewriting of history and the sheer smugness of it all…it’s useless and would be merely dull if ideas like it weren’t so dangerously popular at the moment. But it’s nonetheless just plain dumb as well as being foolish and wicked. “I’m scared and don’t understand those folks over there” would be much more productive as a starting point.
Turbulence, where to draw the line is always a matter of discretion. I favor slack cutting some extra right now simply because genuine changes of heart are so scarce in the public sphere and I want to encourage them.
Anyone who can write a sentence like “Islam does not want civilization.”, and does so on a regular basis, is simply out of touch with reality. Between the reification – Islam is not a thing or an entity, but an adjective associated with the activities of many millions of people through dozens of generations, each as complex and often more interesting than the sort of people who write “Islam does not want civilization.” – and the blatant rewriting of history and the sheer smugness of it all…it’s useless and would be merely dull if ideas like it weren’t so dangerously popular at the moment. But it’s nonetheless just plain dumb as well as being foolish and wicked. “I’m scared and don’t understand those folks over there” would be much more productive as a starting point.
Turbulence, where to draw the line is always a matter of discretion. I favor slack cutting some extra right now simply because genuine changes of heart are so scarce in the public sphere and I want to encourage them.
Anyone who can write a sentence like “Islam does not want civilization.”, and does so on a regular basis, is simply out of touch with reality.
Bruce;
Do not confuse Islam with Muslims. Muslims are largely uneducated and rely on their leadership for guidance; most do not understand it’s texts. Read them. They boil down to a self-purifying form of regression.
Islam the texts does not want civilization. Muslims the humans probably do. Here is the Qur’an, and the Hadith, as quoted by the Muslim Student Association of UCLA.
Read them and tell me that Islam does not reject civilization. Or that apostates shall have their heads cut off. We have no excuse to be ignorant in 2007.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/
Anyone who can write a sentence like “Islam does not want civilization.”, and does so on a regular basis, is simply out of touch with reality.
Bruce;
Do not confuse Islam with Muslims. Muslims are largely uneducated and rely on their leadership for guidance; most do not understand it’s texts. Read them. They boil down to a self-purifying form of regression.
Islam the texts does not want civilization. Muslims the humans probably do. Here is the Qur’an, and the Hadith, as quoted by the Muslim Student Association of UCLA.
Read them and tell me that Islam does not reject civilization. Or that apostates shall have their heads cut off. We have no excuse to be ignorant in 2007.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/
Anyone who can write a sentence like “Islam does not want civilization.”, and does so on a regular basis, is simply out of touch with reality.
Bruce;
Do not confuse Islam with Muslims. Muslims are largely uneducated and rely on their leadership for guidance; most do not understand it’s texts. Read them. They boil down to a self-purifying form of regression.
Islam the texts does not want civilization. Muslims the humans probably do. Here is the Qur’an, and the Hadith, as quoted by the Muslim Student Association of UCLA.
Read them and tell me that Islam does not reject civilization. Or that apostates shall have their heads cut off. We have no excuse to be ignorant in 2007.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/
I have read the texts, and many hadiths, and commentary around them, which is part of why I find your posts contemptible, Bill. Even if I were a text idolator in the way that you apparently are, I’d try to be a better reader than you seem to manage, and in any event, you are simply off in la-la land when it comes to how and what the texts mean to the actual people who form societies and do things.
It’s sort of an ultra-naive Marxism, and that hit the dustbin decades back. I’m not surprised to see it back in vogue given how many of the movement conservative leadership are ex-Communists gripped by nostalgia, but that’s their personal issues that should be resolved in therapy, not warfare and genocide.
I have read the texts, and many hadiths, and commentary around them, which is part of why I find your posts contemptible, Bill. Even if I were a text idolator in the way that you apparently are, I’d try to be a better reader than you seem to manage, and in any event, you are simply off in la-la land when it comes to how and what the texts mean to the actual people who form societies and do things.
It’s sort of an ultra-naive Marxism, and that hit the dustbin decades back. I’m not surprised to see it back in vogue given how many of the movement conservative leadership are ex-Communists gripped by nostalgia, but that’s their personal issues that should be resolved in therapy, not warfare and genocide.
I have read the texts, and many hadiths, and commentary around them, which is part of why I find your posts contemptible, Bill. Even if I were a text idolator in the way that you apparently are, I’d try to be a better reader than you seem to manage, and in any event, you are simply off in la-la land when it comes to how and what the texts mean to the actual people who form societies and do things.
It’s sort of an ultra-naive Marxism, and that hit the dustbin decades back. I’m not surprised to see it back in vogue given how many of the movement conservative leadership are ex-Communists gripped by nostalgia, but that’s their personal issues that should be resolved in therapy, not warfare and genocide.
It’s worth reiterating: texts don’t do anything. People do things, out of multiple motives, some of which they understand, some of which they acknowledge, some of which they deny, some of which they never realize themselves. Their actions in the physical world have consequences, both in terms of changes to the physical world around themselves and other people and in terms of what they and the other people think and feel about it all, then and later. Written authorities certainly shape people’s desires and actions, in a wide variety of complicated ways, but at no point do the texts themselves do anything except perhaps flap in a breeze. People read or hear the words and take inspiration, instruction, correction, admonition, challenge, outrage, and so on, and then act so as to advance this cause, resist that perceived threat to what they consider good and true, or whatever. And people always exist in a context, from biology and geology through climate to psychology, aesthetics, and sociology (and that’s not an exhaustive list). There is never a pure, abstract word: there is only ever the word in a mind, and the mind is in a body, in some point of space and time.
I think that there is a numinous reality beyond the limits of space and time. But when it manifests here, it too manifests in some point of space and time, and for every direct intervention there will be countless physical memories and responses to it. The light of spirit is as much bound to people as the word.
It’s good to look at the word, just as it’s good to pray and meditate and seek the light. But it’s also important to look at the rest of the world, and recognize that the actual reality of a moment is more than the abstracted essence of any one part.
It’s worth reiterating: texts don’t do anything. People do things, out of multiple motives, some of which they understand, some of which they acknowledge, some of which they deny, some of which they never realize themselves. Their actions in the physical world have consequences, both in terms of changes to the physical world around themselves and other people and in terms of what they and the other people think and feel about it all, then and later. Written authorities certainly shape people’s desires and actions, in a wide variety of complicated ways, but at no point do the texts themselves do anything except perhaps flap in a breeze. People read or hear the words and take inspiration, instruction, correction, admonition, challenge, outrage, and so on, and then act so as to advance this cause, resist that perceived threat to what they consider good and true, or whatever. And people always exist in a context, from biology and geology through climate to psychology, aesthetics, and sociology (and that’s not an exhaustive list). There is never a pure, abstract word: there is only ever the word in a mind, and the mind is in a body, in some point of space and time.
I think that there is a numinous reality beyond the limits of space and time. But when it manifests here, it too manifests in some point of space and time, and for every direct intervention there will be countless physical memories and responses to it. The light of spirit is as much bound to people as the word.
It’s good to look at the word, just as it’s good to pray and meditate and seek the light. But it’s also important to look at the rest of the world, and recognize that the actual reality of a moment is more than the abstracted essence of any one part.
It’s worth reiterating: texts don’t do anything. People do things, out of multiple motives, some of which they understand, some of which they acknowledge, some of which they deny, some of which they never realize themselves. Their actions in the physical world have consequences, both in terms of changes to the physical world around themselves and other people and in terms of what they and the other people think and feel about it all, then and later. Written authorities certainly shape people’s desires and actions, in a wide variety of complicated ways, but at no point do the texts themselves do anything except perhaps flap in a breeze. People read or hear the words and take inspiration, instruction, correction, admonition, challenge, outrage, and so on, and then act so as to advance this cause, resist that perceived threat to what they consider good and true, or whatever. And people always exist in a context, from biology and geology through climate to psychology, aesthetics, and sociology (and that’s not an exhaustive list). There is never a pure, abstract word: there is only ever the word in a mind, and the mind is in a body, in some point of space and time.
I think that there is a numinous reality beyond the limits of space and time. But when it manifests here, it too manifests in some point of space and time, and for every direct intervention there will be countless physical memories and responses to it. The light of spirit is as much bound to people as the word.
It’s good to look at the word, just as it’s good to pray and meditate and seek the light. But it’s also important to look at the rest of the world, and recognize that the actual reality of a moment is more than the abstracted essence of any one part.
OK Bruce;
The next post will be some passages from the Qur’an. If they don’t show up, you’ll know they’ve been censored. Your commentary is welcome regarding pluralism.
OK Bruce;
The next post will be some passages from the Qur’an. If they don’t show up, you’ll know they’ve been censored. Your commentary is welcome regarding pluralism.
OK Bruce;
The next post will be some passages from the Qur’an. If they don’t show up, you’ll know they’ve been censored. Your commentary is welcome regarding pluralism.
2:10 Disbelievers are diseased.
2:99 Disbelievers are evil people.
2:104 For disbelievers is a painful doom.
2:171 Disbelievers are deaf, dumb, and blind.
3:28 Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference of believers.
3:73 Don’t believe anyone who is not a Muslim.
3:48 Don’t be friends with non-Muslims. They all hate you and want to ruin you.
4:89 Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.
4:63 Oppose those who refuse to follow Muhammad.
4:101 The disbelievers are an open enemy to you.
4:144 Do not choose disbelievers as friends.
5:51 Don’t take Jews or Christians for friends. If you do, then Allah will consider you to be one of them.
5:51 Jews and Christians are losers.
5:60 Allah turned unbelievers into apes and swine.
5:59 Jews and Christians are evil people.
5:57 Don’t choose Jews, Christians, or disbelievers as guardians.
6:106 Stay away from disbelievers.
8:55 The worst beasts in Allah’s sight are the disbelievers.
9:5 Slay the disbelievers wherever you find them.
9:28 Disbelievers are unclean.
9:30 Christians and Jews are perverts. Allah himself fights against them.
Now, why can’t we all get along?
2:10 Disbelievers are diseased.
2:99 Disbelievers are evil people.
2:104 For disbelievers is a painful doom.
2:171 Disbelievers are deaf, dumb, and blind.
3:28 Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference of believers.
3:73 Don’t believe anyone who is not a Muslim.
3:48 Don’t be friends with non-Muslims. They all hate you and want to ruin you.
4:89 Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.
4:63 Oppose those who refuse to follow Muhammad.
4:101 The disbelievers are an open enemy to you.
4:144 Do not choose disbelievers as friends.
5:51 Don’t take Jews or Christians for friends. If you do, then Allah will consider you to be one of them.
5:51 Jews and Christians are losers.
5:60 Allah turned unbelievers into apes and swine.
5:59 Jews and Christians are evil people.
5:57 Don’t choose Jews, Christians, or disbelievers as guardians.
6:106 Stay away from disbelievers.
8:55 The worst beasts in Allah’s sight are the disbelievers.
9:5 Slay the disbelievers wherever you find them.
9:28 Disbelievers are unclean.
9:30 Christians and Jews are perverts. Allah himself fights against them.
Now, why can’t we all get along?
2:10 Disbelievers are diseased.
2:99 Disbelievers are evil people.
2:104 For disbelievers is a painful doom.
2:171 Disbelievers are deaf, dumb, and blind.
3:28 Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference of believers.
3:73 Don’t believe anyone who is not a Muslim.
3:48 Don’t be friends with non-Muslims. They all hate you and want to ruin you.
4:89 Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.
4:63 Oppose those who refuse to follow Muhammad.
4:101 The disbelievers are an open enemy to you.
4:144 Do not choose disbelievers as friends.
5:51 Don’t take Jews or Christians for friends. If you do, then Allah will consider you to be one of them.
5:51 Jews and Christians are losers.
5:60 Allah turned unbelievers into apes and swine.
5:59 Jews and Christians are evil people.
5:57 Don’t choose Jews, Christians, or disbelievers as guardians.
6:106 Stay away from disbelievers.
8:55 The worst beasts in Allah’s sight are the disbelievers.
9:5 Slay the disbelievers wherever you find them.
9:28 Disbelievers are unclean.
9:30 Christians and Jews are perverts. Allah himself fights against them.
Now, why can’t we all get along?
I’m not continuing this, because there’s no point. I’ve explained why I don’t think your citations are the last word on anything. You’ve explained why you don’t care about people as much as you care about the citations. Others may read and judge as they wish.
I’m not continuing this, because there’s no point. I’ve explained why I don’t think your citations are the last word on anything. You’ve explained why you don’t care about people as much as you care about the citations. Others may read and judge as they wish.
I’m not continuing this, because there’s no point. I’ve explained why I don’t think your citations are the last word on anything. You’ve explained why you don’t care about people as much as you care about the citations. Others may read and judge as they wish.
Let them judge.
Let them judge.
Let them judge.
“On the other hand, if you’re going to pass on rather strident statements”
A link is not an endorsement. It’s true that clarity is a wonderful thing, but most of us aren’t gifted with a perfect ability to produce it on demand.
Which isn’t to say that polite questions aren’t in order in response to anyone who isn’t a troll. But it’s also good to keep in mind that chatting here is voluntary.
Trolls are unclean, by the way. Not kashrut at all.
Literal truth is a wonderful thing, ain’t it?
“On the other hand, if you’re going to pass on rather strident statements”
A link is not an endorsement. It’s true that clarity is a wonderful thing, but most of us aren’t gifted with a perfect ability to produce it on demand.
Which isn’t to say that polite questions aren’t in order in response to anyone who isn’t a troll. But it’s also good to keep in mind that chatting here is voluntary.
Trolls are unclean, by the way. Not kashrut at all.
Literal truth is a wonderful thing, ain’t it?
“On the other hand, if you’re going to pass on rather strident statements”
A link is not an endorsement. It’s true that clarity is a wonderful thing, but most of us aren’t gifted with a perfect ability to produce it on demand.
Which isn’t to say that polite questions aren’t in order in response to anyone who isn’t a troll. But it’s also good to keep in mind that chatting here is voluntary.
Trolls are unclean, by the way. Not kashrut at all.
Literal truth is a wonderful thing, ain’t it?
I don’t myself belief in Allah, but I approve of the spirit of sura 39:53: O My slaves who have been prodigal to their own hurt! Despair not of the mercy of Allah, Who forgiveth all sins. Lo! He is the Forgiving, the Merciful. As someone who has suffered much from neglecting from what I already knew to be true and wise and prudent for a situation, I am glad to see that category of failing given some specific attention. Folly, ignorance, and the like are responsible for so much of the world’s misery; it’s good to think of the power of spirit prepared to provide relief the moment we’re willing to admit the need and call for some help with it.
So in that spirit, I’m off to bed.
I don’t myself belief in Allah, but I approve of the spirit of sura 39:53: O My slaves who have been prodigal to their own hurt! Despair not of the mercy of Allah, Who forgiveth all sins. Lo! He is the Forgiving, the Merciful. As someone who has suffered much from neglecting from what I already knew to be true and wise and prudent for a situation, I am glad to see that category of failing given some specific attention. Folly, ignorance, and the like are responsible for so much of the world’s misery; it’s good to think of the power of spirit prepared to provide relief the moment we’re willing to admit the need and call for some help with it.
So in that spirit, I’m off to bed.
I don’t myself belief in Allah, but I approve of the spirit of sura 39:53: O My slaves who have been prodigal to their own hurt! Despair not of the mercy of Allah, Who forgiveth all sins. Lo! He is the Forgiving, the Merciful. As someone who has suffered much from neglecting from what I already knew to be true and wise and prudent for a situation, I am glad to see that category of failing given some specific attention. Folly, ignorance, and the like are responsible for so much of the world’s misery; it’s good to think of the power of spirit prepared to provide relief the moment we’re willing to admit the need and call for some help with it.
So in that spirit, I’m off to bed.
Let them judge.
You… really, really really don’t want The Lurkers to be judging this particular exchange. Trust me on that.
Let them judge.
You… really, really really don’t want The Lurkers to be judging this particular exchange. Trust me on that.
Let them judge.
You… really, really really don’t want The Lurkers to be judging this particular exchange. Trust me on that.
Bill: The answer is, and always has been, containment. We do not owe Islam civilization. Islam does not want civilization. We do not need to embrace Islam.
Fine, Bill. Would you and the others you include in that “we” like to head off to a little island somewhere where you guys can all live in your Muslim-free containment, since you say that’s the answer?
Bill: The answer is, and always has been, containment. We do not owe Islam civilization. Islam does not want civilization. We do not need to embrace Islam.
Fine, Bill. Would you and the others you include in that “we” like to head off to a little island somewhere where you guys can all live in your Muslim-free containment, since you say that’s the answer?
Bill: The answer is, and always has been, containment. We do not owe Islam civilization. Islam does not want civilization. We do not need to embrace Islam.
Fine, Bill. Would you and the others you include in that “we” like to head off to a little island somewhere where you guys can all live in your Muslim-free containment, since you say that’s the answer?
The answer is, and always has been, containment.
I thought the straight-line writers were on strike….
The answer is, and always has been, containment.
I thought the straight-line writers were on strike….
The answer is, and always has been, containment.
I thought the straight-line writers were on strike….
Re Bill, who loves to quote the Koran, it should be noted that none of his quotations are valid as they are all in English.
Secindly, for those who have said the surge has failed, they are ignoring something very important. The surge was to lower violence so that there would be an opportunity for the political progress to take place. In other words, first one then the other.
Violence is down (yes, based on early 2007 figures, not 2005) and now we see if political progress will take place.
As anybody who reads my comments know (or should) I have always been against this fiasco, I have no optimism that there will be an major positive movemen form the political factions, and I want us out as soon as safely possible. I say what I say above more to create an understanding of what the scenario was supposed to be.
And in this light, I think OCSteve’s comments make more sense.
Re Bill, who loves to quote the Koran, it should be noted that none of his quotations are valid as they are all in English.
Secindly, for those who have said the surge has failed, they are ignoring something very important. The surge was to lower violence so that there would be an opportunity for the political progress to take place. In other words, first one then the other.
Violence is down (yes, based on early 2007 figures, not 2005) and now we see if political progress will take place.
As anybody who reads my comments know (or should) I have always been against this fiasco, I have no optimism that there will be an major positive movemen form the political factions, and I want us out as soon as safely possible. I say what I say above more to create an understanding of what the scenario was supposed to be.
And in this light, I think OCSteve’s comments make more sense.
Re Bill, who loves to quote the Koran, it should be noted that none of his quotations are valid as they are all in English.
Secindly, for those who have said the surge has failed, they are ignoring something very important. The surge was to lower violence so that there would be an opportunity for the political progress to take place. In other words, first one then the other.
Violence is down (yes, based on early 2007 figures, not 2005) and now we see if political progress will take place.
As anybody who reads my comments know (or should) I have always been against this fiasco, I have no optimism that there will be an major positive movemen form the political factions, and I want us out as soon as safely possible. I say what I say above more to create an understanding of what the scenario was supposed to be.
And in this light, I think OCSteve’s comments make more sense.
Islam does not want civilization
Something should be said out loud for the benefit of others who, like Bill, may be unaware. Islam had civilization before “we” did and passed it on to “us”. (Written from the standpoint of the western civilization that has come to dominate the world in the past 500 years, but was mired in the dark ages when Baghdad was the largest, wealthiest city in the world and the center of its intellectual life.)
I haven’t forgotten the shameful and tragic destruction of the Library of Alexandria at the hands of Muslims, but neither am I prepared to condemn Christianity or The West for its own shameful episodes such as the Crusades. Or Shock and Awe. It was Muslim scholars who preserved ancient Greek texts, and Indian numbering, and added their own contributions such as algebra.
Now, why can’t we all get along?
Dunno. Ask Mitt Romney, who just reiterated many of these same points (with a certain name substitution).
All you monotheists look alike to me.
Islam does not want civilization
Something should be said out loud for the benefit of others who, like Bill, may be unaware. Islam had civilization before “we” did and passed it on to “us”. (Written from the standpoint of the western civilization that has come to dominate the world in the past 500 years, but was mired in the dark ages when Baghdad was the largest, wealthiest city in the world and the center of its intellectual life.)
I haven’t forgotten the shameful and tragic destruction of the Library of Alexandria at the hands of Muslims, but neither am I prepared to condemn Christianity or The West for its own shameful episodes such as the Crusades. Or Shock and Awe. It was Muslim scholars who preserved ancient Greek texts, and Indian numbering, and added their own contributions such as algebra.
Now, why can’t we all get along?
Dunno. Ask Mitt Romney, who just reiterated many of these same points (with a certain name substitution).
All you monotheists look alike to me.
Islam does not want civilization
Something should be said out loud for the benefit of others who, like Bill, may be unaware. Islam had civilization before “we” did and passed it on to “us”. (Written from the standpoint of the western civilization that has come to dominate the world in the past 500 years, but was mired in the dark ages when Baghdad was the largest, wealthiest city in the world and the center of its intellectual life.)
I haven’t forgotten the shameful and tragic destruction of the Library of Alexandria at the hands of Muslims, but neither am I prepared to condemn Christianity or The West for its own shameful episodes such as the Crusades. Or Shock and Awe. It was Muslim scholars who preserved ancient Greek texts, and Indian numbering, and added their own contributions such as algebra.
Now, why can’t we all get along?
Dunno. Ask Mitt Romney, who just reiterated many of these same points (with a certain name substitution).
All you monotheists look alike to me.
A different take on the surge–
Link
A different take on the surge–
Link
A different take on the surge–
Link
Amos, don’t link all of us monotheists into the same category as bill.
Bill wants us to think he’s only attacking “Islam” and not Muslims, but he also says he only wants to welcome apostates who try to escape his quarantine. I won’t criticize this–religious texts generally contain internal contradictions if interpreted literally and apparently the Book of Bill on the Revelation about Islam is no exception.
And on OCSteve– I’m not a worshipper at the cult of civility but if anyone deserves civil disagreement around here, it’s him.
Amos, don’t link all of us monotheists into the same category as bill.
Bill wants us to think he’s only attacking “Islam” and not Muslims, but he also says he only wants to welcome apostates who try to escape his quarantine. I won’t criticize this–religious texts generally contain internal contradictions if interpreted literally and apparently the Book of Bill on the Revelation about Islam is no exception.
And on OCSteve– I’m not a worshipper at the cult of civility but if anyone deserves civil disagreement around here, it’s him.
Amos, don’t link all of us monotheists into the same category as bill.
Bill wants us to think he’s only attacking “Islam” and not Muslims, but he also says he only wants to welcome apostates who try to escape his quarantine. I won’t criticize this–religious texts generally contain internal contradictions if interpreted literally and apparently the Book of Bill on the Revelation about Islam is no exception.
And on OCSteve– I’m not a worshipper at the cult of civility but if anyone deserves civil disagreement around here, it’s him.
Lipstick. Pig.
Lipstick. Pig.
Lipstick. Pig.
As I see it, the poster is invested in making the Iraq conflict a tool for achieving domestic political goals.
You see it wrong, Carleton. I am invested in seeing the COIN plan being given a fair chance, and I’ve been wanting a change to this plan since as early as mid-2004. The Republicans have paid a price for Iraq, and they may pay even more, even if Iraq is turned around. I willing to let the chips fall where they may. What’s more, I’ve already gone on record as having no confidence in Bush or his administration, and I have no interest in defending him or his policies.
Well, if I were, at least I’d have the stones to admit it.
You questioned my patriotism in the past, Carleton. Why so coy now?
Also “time to leave” obscures that these are mostly Iraqis calling themselves al Qaeda.
The leadership is practically 100% non-Iraqi, sniflheim, and they’re the ones who will leave or get captured or killed. The foot soldiers are mostly Iraqi, and they will either follow their leaders, get killed or captured, or quit their failed failed organization and re-join Iraqi society. They may be small in numbers, but the lethality of their attacks is disproportionate to their membership. Last August, they accounted for at least one-third of civilian casualties, thanks mostly to non-Iraqis who came to Iraq to blow themselves up.
Bush complied with Al Qaeda’s most important demand the day he pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia.
But he’s not complying with the first step of their current campaign in Iraq, freelunch: to expel the Americans. Re your comment about context, I don’t think the surge strategy gets full credit for the improvement, but at least partial credit is reasonable, I think. If things went to hell rather than improved, the architects of the COIN strategy would be getting full share of the blame.
…but the utter lack of political progress dismissed with a cursory paragraph!
Yeah, I was pretty light on that, Steve. There’s been barely any movement on the national stage. I’d like to hear some sort of update from Amb. Crocker, at least to get a fuller picture of what’s going on behind the scenes. Local politics are another matter. The awakenings are political movements as well as self-defense movements, and they’ve spread through large parts of the country, for example. As for Roggio, he’s been a pretty straight shooter in the past. If there is a “hole” in his coverage of events, it would be his focus on military operations and less emphasis on political developments.
The Surge was a short term strategy built around the idea that if violence levels could be lessened, maybe political reconciliation could happen.
I keep hearing that the surge strategy is a short-term operation, dm. The manpower levels are short-term, but the overall strategy is not. Classic counterinsurgency operations usually run around five to ten years, and the U.S. command is going by the Petraeus book.
Why are we sending Americans to die, and what strategic American interest is being served that merits the further deaths of Americans in war?
We aren’t sending Americans to die, we’re sending them to turn a country around. It is in our strategic interests to give this plan a chance, to give it a shot at making it happen. That’s how I see it. A turned-around Iraq that is an ally of the United States (or at least not an enemy) is in our national interest. An Iraq that can protect itself and not threaten its neighbors is in our national interest. An Iraq that will work with us in the War Against Militant Islamism is in our national interest. An Iraq that gives its people some measure of freedom and some form of representative government is in our national interest. I’m willing give to Petraeus a shot at it. Reid isn’t.
As I see it, the poster is invested in making the Iraq conflict a tool for achieving domestic political goals.
You see it wrong, Carleton. I am invested in seeing the COIN plan being given a fair chance, and I’ve been wanting a change to this plan since as early as mid-2004. The Republicans have paid a price for Iraq, and they may pay even more, even if Iraq is turned around. I willing to let the chips fall where they may. What’s more, I’ve already gone on record as having no confidence in Bush or his administration, and I have no interest in defending him or his policies.
Well, if I were, at least I’d have the stones to admit it.
You questioned my patriotism in the past, Carleton. Why so coy now?
Also “time to leave” obscures that these are mostly Iraqis calling themselves al Qaeda.
The leadership is practically 100% non-Iraqi, sniflheim, and they’re the ones who will leave or get captured or killed. The foot soldiers are mostly Iraqi, and they will either follow their leaders, get killed or captured, or quit their failed failed organization and re-join Iraqi society. They may be small in numbers, but the lethality of their attacks is disproportionate to their membership. Last August, they accounted for at least one-third of civilian casualties, thanks mostly to non-Iraqis who came to Iraq to blow themselves up.
Bush complied with Al Qaeda’s most important demand the day he pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia.
But he’s not complying with the first step of their current campaign in Iraq, freelunch: to expel the Americans. Re your comment about context, I don’t think the surge strategy gets full credit for the improvement, but at least partial credit is reasonable, I think. If things went to hell rather than improved, the architects of the COIN strategy would be getting full share of the blame.
…but the utter lack of political progress dismissed with a cursory paragraph!
Yeah, I was pretty light on that, Steve. There’s been barely any movement on the national stage. I’d like to hear some sort of update from Amb. Crocker, at least to get a fuller picture of what’s going on behind the scenes. Local politics are another matter. The awakenings are political movements as well as self-defense movements, and they’ve spread through large parts of the country, for example. As for Roggio, he’s been a pretty straight shooter in the past. If there is a “hole” in his coverage of events, it would be his focus on military operations and less emphasis on political developments.
The Surge was a short term strategy built around the idea that if violence levels could be lessened, maybe political reconciliation could happen.
I keep hearing that the surge strategy is a short-term operation, dm. The manpower levels are short-term, but the overall strategy is not. Classic counterinsurgency operations usually run around five to ten years, and the U.S. command is going by the Petraeus book.
Why are we sending Americans to die, and what strategic American interest is being served that merits the further deaths of Americans in war?
We aren’t sending Americans to die, we’re sending them to turn a country around. It is in our strategic interests to give this plan a chance, to give it a shot at making it happen. That’s how I see it. A turned-around Iraq that is an ally of the United States (or at least not an enemy) is in our national interest. An Iraq that can protect itself and not threaten its neighbors is in our national interest. An Iraq that will work with us in the War Against Militant Islamism is in our national interest. An Iraq that gives its people some measure of freedom and some form of representative government is in our national interest. I’m willing give to Petraeus a shot at it. Reid isn’t.
As I see it, the poster is invested in making the Iraq conflict a tool for achieving domestic political goals.
You see it wrong, Carleton. I am invested in seeing the COIN plan being given a fair chance, and I’ve been wanting a change to this plan since as early as mid-2004. The Republicans have paid a price for Iraq, and they may pay even more, even if Iraq is turned around. I willing to let the chips fall where they may. What’s more, I’ve already gone on record as having no confidence in Bush or his administration, and I have no interest in defending him or his policies.
Well, if I were, at least I’d have the stones to admit it.
You questioned my patriotism in the past, Carleton. Why so coy now?
Also “time to leave” obscures that these are mostly Iraqis calling themselves al Qaeda.
The leadership is practically 100% non-Iraqi, sniflheim, and they’re the ones who will leave or get captured or killed. The foot soldiers are mostly Iraqi, and they will either follow their leaders, get killed or captured, or quit their failed failed organization and re-join Iraqi society. They may be small in numbers, but the lethality of their attacks is disproportionate to their membership. Last August, they accounted for at least one-third of civilian casualties, thanks mostly to non-Iraqis who came to Iraq to blow themselves up.
Bush complied with Al Qaeda’s most important demand the day he pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia.
But he’s not complying with the first step of their current campaign in Iraq, freelunch: to expel the Americans. Re your comment about context, I don’t think the surge strategy gets full credit for the improvement, but at least partial credit is reasonable, I think. If things went to hell rather than improved, the architects of the COIN strategy would be getting full share of the blame.
…but the utter lack of political progress dismissed with a cursory paragraph!
Yeah, I was pretty light on that, Steve. There’s been barely any movement on the national stage. I’d like to hear some sort of update from Amb. Crocker, at least to get a fuller picture of what’s going on behind the scenes. Local politics are another matter. The awakenings are political movements as well as self-defense movements, and they’ve spread through large parts of the country, for example. As for Roggio, he’s been a pretty straight shooter in the past. If there is a “hole” in his coverage of events, it would be his focus on military operations and less emphasis on political developments.
The Surge was a short term strategy built around the idea that if violence levels could be lessened, maybe political reconciliation could happen.
I keep hearing that the surge strategy is a short-term operation, dm. The manpower levels are short-term, but the overall strategy is not. Classic counterinsurgency operations usually run around five to ten years, and the U.S. command is going by the Petraeus book.
Why are we sending Americans to die, and what strategic American interest is being served that merits the further deaths of Americans in war?
We aren’t sending Americans to die, we’re sending them to turn a country around. It is in our strategic interests to give this plan a chance, to give it a shot at making it happen. That’s how I see it. A turned-around Iraq that is an ally of the United States (or at least not an enemy) is in our national interest. An Iraq that can protect itself and not threaten its neighbors is in our national interest. An Iraq that will work with us in the War Against Militant Islamism is in our national interest. An Iraq that gives its people some measure of freedom and some form of representative government is in our national interest. I’m willing give to Petraeus a shot at it. Reid isn’t.
Typepad thinks I’m spam so I have to break this up.
Jes: I think that the clearest metric is that Iraqis who can, are still leaving Iraq. And those that return, are mostly returning because they have no option – they couldn’t get out further than Syria, and Syria won’t let them stay.
That appears to be the case – but mostly as you said.
The agency said its figures suggest that only 14 per cent of Iraqi refugees are returning because of improved security conditions, while some 70 per cent say they are leaving because of tougher visa regulations and because they are not allowed to work and can no longer afford to stay in Syria.
There are thousands returning due to the improved situation. Again, that doesn’t mean everything is great, but it is a sign of hope.
you do agree with Charles’ despicable remarks about Reid? No sign there that you’re more invested in the best possible outcome for the US troops and the Iraqi people than you are invested in supporting the Republicans and condemning the Democrats.
I don’t agree with how Charles phrased it (invested in defeat) but I agree with him on the general meme. But its one of those things I avoid saying here for obvious reasons. Reid is the man who said that he would simply refuse to believe any good news Petraeus might have. HRC made the “willing suspension of belief” remark. Reid has said that the war was good to pick up more seats. When John frackin’ Murtha comes back and says that the surge is working, and gets his chain yanked by Pelosi, that is evidence to me that some Democrats just don’t want to acknowledge any good news coming out of Iraq.
“This could be a real headache for us,” said one top House Democratic aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “Pelosi is going to be furious.”
I’m not saying that Democrats (or anyone) want things to go badly. I am saying that there are Democrats who refuse to acknowledge any positives for politic reasons.
At the same time I think that the remark was unnecessary and detracted from his otherwise good post as it is just red meat here.
Typepad thinks I’m spam so I have to break this up.
Jes: I think that the clearest metric is that Iraqis who can, are still leaving Iraq. And those that return, are mostly returning because they have no option – they couldn’t get out further than Syria, and Syria won’t let them stay.
That appears to be the case – but mostly as you said.
The agency said its figures suggest that only 14 per cent of Iraqi refugees are returning because of improved security conditions, while some 70 per cent say they are leaving because of tougher visa regulations and because they are not allowed to work and can no longer afford to stay in Syria.
There are thousands returning due to the improved situation. Again, that doesn’t mean everything is great, but it is a sign of hope.
you do agree with Charles’ despicable remarks about Reid? No sign there that you’re more invested in the best possible outcome for the US troops and the Iraqi people than you are invested in supporting the Republicans and condemning the Democrats.
I don’t agree with how Charles phrased it (invested in defeat) but I agree with him on the general meme. But its one of those things I avoid saying here for obvious reasons. Reid is the man who said that he would simply refuse to believe any good news Petraeus might have. HRC made the “willing suspension of belief” remark. Reid has said that the war was good to pick up more seats. When John frackin’ Murtha comes back and says that the surge is working, and gets his chain yanked by Pelosi, that is evidence to me that some Democrats just don’t want to acknowledge any good news coming out of Iraq.
“This could be a real headache for us,” said one top House Democratic aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “Pelosi is going to be furious.”
I’m not saying that Democrats (or anyone) want things to go badly. I am saying that there are Democrats who refuse to acknowledge any positives for politic reasons.
At the same time I think that the remark was unnecessary and detracted from his otherwise good post as it is just red meat here.
Typepad thinks I’m spam so I have to break this up.
Jes: I think that the clearest metric is that Iraqis who can, are still leaving Iraq. And those that return, are mostly returning because they have no option – they couldn’t get out further than Syria, and Syria won’t let them stay.
That appears to be the case – but mostly as you said.
The agency said its figures suggest that only 14 per cent of Iraqi refugees are returning because of improved security conditions, while some 70 per cent say they are leaving because of tougher visa regulations and because they are not allowed to work and can no longer afford to stay in Syria.
There are thousands returning due to the improved situation. Again, that doesn’t mean everything is great, but it is a sign of hope.
you do agree with Charles’ despicable remarks about Reid? No sign there that you’re more invested in the best possible outcome for the US troops and the Iraqi people than you are invested in supporting the Republicans and condemning the Democrats.
I don’t agree with how Charles phrased it (invested in defeat) but I agree with him on the general meme. But its one of those things I avoid saying here for obvious reasons. Reid is the man who said that he would simply refuse to believe any good news Petraeus might have. HRC made the “willing suspension of belief” remark. Reid has said that the war was good to pick up more seats. When John frackin’ Murtha comes back and says that the surge is working, and gets his chain yanked by Pelosi, that is evidence to me that some Democrats just don’t want to acknowledge any good news coming out of Iraq.
“This could be a real headache for us,” said one top House Democratic aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “Pelosi is going to be furious.”
I’m not saying that Democrats (or anyone) want things to go badly. I am saying that there are Democrats who refuse to acknowledge any positives for politic reasons.
At the same time I think that the remark was unnecessary and detracted from his otherwise good post as it is just red meat here.
“Winning” therefore involves killing all the Iraqis who, in a representative republic, would vote for it to be a theocracy.
Jesu, this is unfair. Driving them out of Iraq would also constitute winning.
“Winning” therefore involves killing all the Iraqis who, in a representative republic, would vote for it to be a theocracy.
Jesu, this is unfair. Driving them out of Iraq would also constitute winning.
“Winning” therefore involves killing all the Iraqis who, in a representative republic, would vote for it to be a theocracy.
Jesu, this is unfair. Driving them out of Iraq would also constitute winning.
Turbulence: I read that as an endorsement of continued occupation. Did I misread you? Back to the oped that you cited, why should I believe Petraeus’ approach is correct? Because some other general said so?
What I said was that Batiste backs up Charles here, and that I want to be hopeful on the outcome even if I opposed it initially. That “other” general’s opinion was highly respected by war opponents when he spoke out against the war and the administration. And I don’t read him as changing his mind on the war overall, but he is acknowledging that the surge appears to be working. I simply expect people who respected his opinion before to respect it now.
Turbulence: I read that as an endorsement of continued occupation. Did I misread you? Back to the oped that you cited, why should I believe Petraeus’ approach is correct? Because some other general said so?
What I said was that Batiste backs up Charles here, and that I want to be hopeful on the outcome even if I opposed it initially. That “other” general’s opinion was highly respected by war opponents when he spoke out against the war and the administration. And I don’t read him as changing his mind on the war overall, but he is acknowledging that the surge appears to be working. I simply expect people who respected his opinion before to respect it now.
Turbulence: I read that as an endorsement of continued occupation. Did I misread you? Back to the oped that you cited, why should I believe Petraeus’ approach is correct? Because some other general said so?
What I said was that Batiste backs up Charles here, and that I want to be hopeful on the outcome even if I opposed it initially. That “other” general’s opinion was highly respected by war opponents when he spoke out against the war and the administration. And I don’t read him as changing his mind on the war overall, but he is acknowledging that the surge appears to be working. I simply expect people who respected his opinion before to respect it now.
In terms of “political reconciliation” I don’t see anyone claiming that there has been huge success on that front. There has been some significant progress. al-Sadr is actually working with Petraeus.
The Sunni-Shia fatwa against violence is historic.
Ayatollah Ali Sistani has called on his followers to protect Iraqi Sunnis. It’s a start.
OTOH I don’t believe we can keep it up, I still want the troops out as soon as safely possible, and I’ll be very dismayed if the Iraqis don’t seize the opportunity Petraeus has managed to create. I’m not sure why it is hard to understand that even though I was against the surge I’m hopeful for some outcome short of a full scale bloodbath.
TiO thread here for anyone who wants to really flame me.
In terms of “political reconciliation” I don’t see anyone claiming that there has been huge success on that front. There has been some significant progress. al-Sadr is actually working with Petraeus.
The Sunni-Shia fatwa against violence is historic.
Ayatollah Ali Sistani has called on his followers to protect Iraqi Sunnis. It’s a start.
OTOH I don’t believe we can keep it up, I still want the troops out as soon as safely possible, and I’ll be very dismayed if the Iraqis don’t seize the opportunity Petraeus has managed to create. I’m not sure why it is hard to understand that even though I was against the surge I’m hopeful for some outcome short of a full scale bloodbath.
TiO thread here for anyone who wants to really flame me.
In terms of “political reconciliation” I don’t see anyone claiming that there has been huge success on that front. There has been some significant progress. al-Sadr is actually working with Petraeus.
The Sunni-Shia fatwa against violence is historic.
Ayatollah Ali Sistani has called on his followers to protect Iraqi Sunnis. It’s a start.
OTOH I don’t believe we can keep it up, I still want the troops out as soon as safely possible, and I’ll be very dismayed if the Iraqis don’t seize the opportunity Petraeus has managed to create. I’m not sure why it is hard to understand that even though I was against the surge I’m hopeful for some outcome short of a full scale bloodbath.
TiO thread here for anyone who wants to really flame me.
Please stop conflating al Qaeda with “al Qaeda in Iraq.” They are separate groups.
They’re a franchise of bin Laden’s group in Afghanistan-Pakistan, croatoan, and they’re still al Qaeda based on its leadership and ideology, and they’re still militant Islamists.
Most American deaths in Iraq are due to Sunni insurgents, not al Qaeda in Iraq.
Maybe back in Nov-2006. Even so, you don’t know what percentage of those “Sunni insurgents” were members of al Qaeda & Co. A majority of American deaths this year are by IED, a significant percentage of which are Iranian-made EFPs, set off by Shiites. This year, Iraqi civilian deaths were by both Shiites (death squads killing military-age Sunni males) and Sunnis (terrorist bombings, etc.).
My guess is over 100,000 in uniform plus about an equal number of contractors, for about another five years. Does that sound about right to you, Charles?
I have no idea, Russell. In five years time, under an optimistic scenario, I foresee tens of thousands because the situation has stabilized and sufficient numbers of Iraqi troops have been trained sufficiently. In a pessimistic scenario, I foresee tens of thousands because the situation is quagmired and we’d be in the middle of a phased drawdown.
A general comment on the casualty statistics. The Iraqi Body Count is probably the most accurate because it incorporates unreported deaths in area morgues. That’s a major shortcoming of the ICCC. If it doesn’t get reported by an independent media outlet, it doesn’t get included in their statistics. The problem with IBC is that there is a serious time lag, taking one or months to report the numbers for any given month. Engram posted a comparison between IBC numbers and military-sourced numbers, showing similar trends and a strong convergence from May-2007 onward. This leads me to believe that MNF-Iraq isn’t cooking the numbers.
Please stop conflating al Qaeda with “al Qaeda in Iraq.” They are separate groups.
They’re a franchise of bin Laden’s group in Afghanistan-Pakistan, croatoan, and they’re still al Qaeda based on its leadership and ideology, and they’re still militant Islamists.
Most American deaths in Iraq are due to Sunni insurgents, not al Qaeda in Iraq.
Maybe back in Nov-2006. Even so, you don’t know what percentage of those “Sunni insurgents” were members of al Qaeda & Co. A majority of American deaths this year are by IED, a significant percentage of which are Iranian-made EFPs, set off by Shiites. This year, Iraqi civilian deaths were by both Shiites (death squads killing military-age Sunni males) and Sunnis (terrorist bombings, etc.).
My guess is over 100,000 in uniform plus about an equal number of contractors, for about another five years. Does that sound about right to you, Charles?
I have no idea, Russell. In five years time, under an optimistic scenario, I foresee tens of thousands because the situation has stabilized and sufficient numbers of Iraqi troops have been trained sufficiently. In a pessimistic scenario, I foresee tens of thousands because the situation is quagmired and we’d be in the middle of a phased drawdown.
A general comment on the casualty statistics. The Iraqi Body Count is probably the most accurate because it incorporates unreported deaths in area morgues. That’s a major shortcoming of the ICCC. If it doesn’t get reported by an independent media outlet, it doesn’t get included in their statistics. The problem with IBC is that there is a serious time lag, taking one or months to report the numbers for any given month. Engram posted a comparison between IBC numbers and military-sourced numbers, showing similar trends and a strong convergence from May-2007 onward. This leads me to believe that MNF-Iraq isn’t cooking the numbers.
Please stop conflating al Qaeda with “al Qaeda in Iraq.” They are separate groups.
They’re a franchise of bin Laden’s group in Afghanistan-Pakistan, croatoan, and they’re still al Qaeda based on its leadership and ideology, and they’re still militant Islamists.
Most American deaths in Iraq are due to Sunni insurgents, not al Qaeda in Iraq.
Maybe back in Nov-2006. Even so, you don’t know what percentage of those “Sunni insurgents” were members of al Qaeda & Co. A majority of American deaths this year are by IED, a significant percentage of which are Iranian-made EFPs, set off by Shiites. This year, Iraqi civilian deaths were by both Shiites (death squads killing military-age Sunni males) and Sunnis (terrorist bombings, etc.).
My guess is over 100,000 in uniform plus about an equal number of contractors, for about another five years. Does that sound about right to you, Charles?
I have no idea, Russell. In five years time, under an optimistic scenario, I foresee tens of thousands because the situation has stabilized and sufficient numbers of Iraqi troops have been trained sufficiently. In a pessimistic scenario, I foresee tens of thousands because the situation is quagmired and we’d be in the middle of a phased drawdown.
A general comment on the casualty statistics. The Iraqi Body Count is probably the most accurate because it incorporates unreported deaths in area morgues. That’s a major shortcoming of the ICCC. If it doesn’t get reported by an independent media outlet, it doesn’t get included in their statistics. The problem with IBC is that there is a serious time lag, taking one or months to report the numbers for any given month. Engram posted a comparison between IBC numbers and military-sourced numbers, showing similar trends and a strong convergence from May-2007 onward. This leads me to believe that MNF-Iraq isn’t cooking the numbers.
I keep hearing that the surge strategy is a short-term operation, dm. The manpower levels are short-term, but the overall strategy is not.
This remark is, sadly, completely nonsensical. The manpower levels are what make the surge possible — reduced manpower ends the strategy. COIN cannot operate with inadequate troop levels — that has been the problem since 2003. On what basis do you believe that the same COIN strategy can continue as troop levels drop? There is no rational basis for believing this.
___________________
We aren’t sending Americans to die, we’re sending them to turn a country around.
I see — they just happen to get killed by accident. Kind of like Peace Corps volunteers in a car wreck.
Frankly, anybody who can write such a sentence has no role in discussing war policy. A decision to engage in war ALWAYS means that you are sending Americans to die. The decision is justifiable when you decide it is a necessary burden to bear for the greater good.
Sending them to die based on a long shot chance that Petraeus might actually achieve something is wrong. Sending them to die based on fantasies of creating a Iraq that is non-theocratic, a republic and friendly to us is just delusional.
This reflects a moral indifference to the seriousness of war.
I keep hearing that the surge strategy is a short-term operation, dm. The manpower levels are short-term, but the overall strategy is not.
This remark is, sadly, completely nonsensical. The manpower levels are what make the surge possible — reduced manpower ends the strategy. COIN cannot operate with inadequate troop levels — that has been the problem since 2003. On what basis do you believe that the same COIN strategy can continue as troop levels drop? There is no rational basis for believing this.
___________________
We aren’t sending Americans to die, we’re sending them to turn a country around.
I see — they just happen to get killed by accident. Kind of like Peace Corps volunteers in a car wreck.
Frankly, anybody who can write such a sentence has no role in discussing war policy. A decision to engage in war ALWAYS means that you are sending Americans to die. The decision is justifiable when you decide it is a necessary burden to bear for the greater good.
Sending them to die based on a long shot chance that Petraeus might actually achieve something is wrong. Sending them to die based on fantasies of creating a Iraq that is non-theocratic, a republic and friendly to us is just delusional.
This reflects a moral indifference to the seriousness of war.
I keep hearing that the surge strategy is a short-term operation, dm. The manpower levels are short-term, but the overall strategy is not.
This remark is, sadly, completely nonsensical. The manpower levels are what make the surge possible — reduced manpower ends the strategy. COIN cannot operate with inadequate troop levels — that has been the problem since 2003. On what basis do you believe that the same COIN strategy can continue as troop levels drop? There is no rational basis for believing this.
___________________
We aren’t sending Americans to die, we’re sending them to turn a country around.
I see — they just happen to get killed by accident. Kind of like Peace Corps volunteers in a car wreck.
Frankly, anybody who can write such a sentence has no role in discussing war policy. A decision to engage in war ALWAYS means that you are sending Americans to die. The decision is justifiable when you decide it is a necessary burden to bear for the greater good.
Sending them to die based on a long shot chance that Petraeus might actually achieve something is wrong. Sending them to die based on fantasies of creating a Iraq that is non-theocratic, a republic and friendly to us is just delusional.
This reflects a moral indifference to the seriousness of war.
OCSteve: Reid is the man who said that he would simply refuse to believe any good news Petraeus might have.
Was this before or after administration officials admitted that the White House would be writing Petraeus’s report for him?
There are thousands returning due to the improved situation. Again, that doesn’t mean everything is great, but it is a sign of hope.
That 5 out of 6 Iraqis who return would much rather stay in Syria – and that Iraqis are still leaving at a greater rate than they’re returning? You think that’s “hopeful”? On what basis?
I’m not saying that Democrats (or anyone) want things to go badly. I am saying that there are Democrats who refuse to acknowledge any positives for politic reasons.
I think this is classic double-standard. For years Republicans have consistently based a military policy on refusing to acknowledge the consistent negative picture of Iraq. And the picture is still thoroughly negative. You seem to think that it’s a plus that 1 in 6 of those returning think there’s an “improved security situation”: but given that the Iraqis won’t have to live in Iraq very long to find out that news of an “improved” security situation meant “It’s back to only being as awful as it was a couple of years ago”, I still don’t see why you think this is “hopeful”.
Iraqis are still leaving: the ones who are not leaving are still dying at a rate that, two years ago, was considered appalling. Now I haven’t seen any direct link to any detailed report on what Murtha actually said about the surge. As noted in Charles’s clever graphs, deaths may be down to 2005 levels of atrocity, and this may be because the US has poured in troops at an unsustainable level.
And you think that Democrats who don’t consider this a positive are just being partisan over it? It’s a bloody disaster! What’s “positive” about saying that “only” 600 people are being killed every month? Let alone that these figure of 600 rests on media reports – and this ignores the people who are being killed where media workers do not dare go.
It’s a double standard. Democrats aren’t allowed to point out that this is a bloody disaster regardless of what positive spin Petraeus (or his White House report writers) attempt to put on it, without being accused of being partisan. Yet Charles can make repellent comments against Democrats, clearly indicating that for him, “victory in Iraq” really means Republican victories in 2008, and it doesn’t trouble you one whit except to point out that it spoils his attempts to make positive spin.
OCSteve: Reid is the man who said that he would simply refuse to believe any good news Petraeus might have.
Was this before or after administration officials admitted that the White House would be writing Petraeus’s report for him?
There are thousands returning due to the improved situation. Again, that doesn’t mean everything is great, but it is a sign of hope.
That 5 out of 6 Iraqis who return would much rather stay in Syria – and that Iraqis are still leaving at a greater rate than they’re returning? You think that’s “hopeful”? On what basis?
I’m not saying that Democrats (or anyone) want things to go badly. I am saying that there are Democrats who refuse to acknowledge any positives for politic reasons.
I think this is classic double-standard. For years Republicans have consistently based a military policy on refusing to acknowledge the consistent negative picture of Iraq. And the picture is still thoroughly negative. You seem to think that it’s a plus that 1 in 6 of those returning think there’s an “improved security situation”: but given that the Iraqis won’t have to live in Iraq very long to find out that news of an “improved” security situation meant “It’s back to only being as awful as it was a couple of years ago”, I still don’t see why you think this is “hopeful”.
Iraqis are still leaving: the ones who are not leaving are still dying at a rate that, two years ago, was considered appalling. Now I haven’t seen any direct link to any detailed report on what Murtha actually said about the surge. As noted in Charles’s clever graphs, deaths may be down to 2005 levels of atrocity, and this may be because the US has poured in troops at an unsustainable level.
And you think that Democrats who don’t consider this a positive are just being partisan over it? It’s a bloody disaster! What’s “positive” about saying that “only” 600 people are being killed every month? Let alone that these figure of 600 rests on media reports – and this ignores the people who are being killed where media workers do not dare go.
It’s a double standard. Democrats aren’t allowed to point out that this is a bloody disaster regardless of what positive spin Petraeus (or his White House report writers) attempt to put on it, without being accused of being partisan. Yet Charles can make repellent comments against Democrats, clearly indicating that for him, “victory in Iraq” really means Republican victories in 2008, and it doesn’t trouble you one whit except to point out that it spoils his attempts to make positive spin.
OCSteve: Reid is the man who said that he would simply refuse to believe any good news Petraeus might have.
Was this before or after administration officials admitted that the White House would be writing Petraeus’s report for him?
There are thousands returning due to the improved situation. Again, that doesn’t mean everything is great, but it is a sign of hope.
That 5 out of 6 Iraqis who return would much rather stay in Syria – and that Iraqis are still leaving at a greater rate than they’re returning? You think that’s “hopeful”? On what basis?
I’m not saying that Democrats (or anyone) want things to go badly. I am saying that there are Democrats who refuse to acknowledge any positives for politic reasons.
I think this is classic double-standard. For years Republicans have consistently based a military policy on refusing to acknowledge the consistent negative picture of Iraq. And the picture is still thoroughly negative. You seem to think that it’s a plus that 1 in 6 of those returning think there’s an “improved security situation”: but given that the Iraqis won’t have to live in Iraq very long to find out that news of an “improved” security situation meant “It’s back to only being as awful as it was a couple of years ago”, I still don’t see why you think this is “hopeful”.
Iraqis are still leaving: the ones who are not leaving are still dying at a rate that, two years ago, was considered appalling. Now I haven’t seen any direct link to any detailed report on what Murtha actually said about the surge. As noted in Charles’s clever graphs, deaths may be down to 2005 levels of atrocity, and this may be because the US has poured in troops at an unsustainable level.
And you think that Democrats who don’t consider this a positive are just being partisan over it? It’s a bloody disaster! What’s “positive” about saying that “only” 600 people are being killed every month? Let alone that these figure of 600 rests on media reports – and this ignores the people who are being killed where media workers do not dare go.
It’s a double standard. Democrats aren’t allowed to point out that this is a bloody disaster regardless of what positive spin Petraeus (or his White House report writers) attempt to put on it, without being accused of being partisan. Yet Charles can make repellent comments against Democrats, clearly indicating that for him, “victory in Iraq” really means Republican victories in 2008, and it doesn’t trouble you one whit except to point out that it spoils his attempts to make positive spin.
OCSteve: and I’ll be very dismayed if the Iraqis don’t seize the opportunity Petraeus has managed to create.
And, bleh. What “opportunity” are you trying to pretend Petraeus has managed to create? If killings in Iraq are down to 2005 levels, and in 2005 this wasn’t regarded as an “opportunity” to seize but as a bloody disaster, where do you get off being “very disappointed” at the Iraqis?
I’m not sure why it is hard to understand that even though I was against the surge I’m hopeful for some outcome short of a full scale bloodbath.
A million Iraqis are dead. It is already a fullscale bloodbath. You have no room to hope any more.
OCSteve: and I’ll be very dismayed if the Iraqis don’t seize the opportunity Petraeus has managed to create.
And, bleh. What “opportunity” are you trying to pretend Petraeus has managed to create? If killings in Iraq are down to 2005 levels, and in 2005 this wasn’t regarded as an “opportunity” to seize but as a bloody disaster, where do you get off being “very disappointed” at the Iraqis?
I’m not sure why it is hard to understand that even though I was against the surge I’m hopeful for some outcome short of a full scale bloodbath.
A million Iraqis are dead. It is already a fullscale bloodbath. You have no room to hope any more.
OCSteve: and I’ll be very dismayed if the Iraqis don’t seize the opportunity Petraeus has managed to create.
And, bleh. What “opportunity” are you trying to pretend Petraeus has managed to create? If killings in Iraq are down to 2005 levels, and in 2005 this wasn’t regarded as an “opportunity” to seize but as a bloody disaster, where do you get off being “very disappointed” at the Iraqis?
I’m not sure why it is hard to understand that even though I was against the surge I’m hopeful for some outcome short of a full scale bloodbath.
A million Iraqis are dead. It is already a fullscale bloodbath. You have no room to hope any more.
Spam avoidance, part I: “There has been some significant progress.”
Setting aside WMD, and the evils of Saddam Hussein, the whole theory was that of, as a couple of enthused Iraqi bloggers put it, “Iraq the model.” Remember “the key to Israeli-Palestinian peace runs through Baghdad?
Marty Peretz, September, 2002:
Pt 2 next: could someone turn off the link-eating post-preventer?
Spam avoidance, part I: “There has been some significant progress.”
Setting aside WMD, and the evils of Saddam Hussein, the whole theory was that of, as a couple of enthused Iraqi bloggers put it, “Iraq the model.” Remember “the key to Israeli-Palestinian peace runs through Baghdad?
Marty Peretz, September, 2002:
Pt 2 next: could someone turn off the link-eating post-preventer?
Spam avoidance, part I: “There has been some significant progress.”
Setting aside WMD, and the evils of Saddam Hussein, the whole theory was that of, as a couple of enthused Iraqi bloggers put it, “Iraq the model.” Remember “the key to Israeli-Palestinian peace runs through Baghdad?
Marty Peretz, September, 2002:
Pt 2 next: could someone turn off the link-eating post-preventer?
Pt.2: Etc., etc.
At the Annapolis meeting, Syria was willing to attend — Syria! — and Saudi Arabia, but not Iraq.
How useful the “progress” has been.
Pt.2: Etc., etc.
At the Annapolis meeting, Syria was willing to attend — Syria! — and Saudi Arabia, but not Iraq.
How useful the “progress” has been.
Pt.2: Etc., etc.
At the Annapolis meeting, Syria was willing to attend — Syria! — and Saudi Arabia, but not Iraq.
How useful the “progress” has been.
Jes: You have no room to hope any more.
As I said way upthread:
I’ll admit that being a war supporter initially I’m probably grasping at any straw that will make things come out less bad. Less bad is all I can hope for at this point.
So yeah, I’m admittedly likely to accept things as hopeful that you and many others see as nothing more than more of the same.
Jes: You have no room to hope any more.
As I said way upthread:
I’ll admit that being a war supporter initially I’m probably grasping at any straw that will make things come out less bad. Less bad is all I can hope for at this point.
So yeah, I’m admittedly likely to accept things as hopeful that you and many others see as nothing more than more of the same.
Jes: You have no room to hope any more.
As I said way upthread:
I’ll admit that being a war supporter initially I’m probably grasping at any straw that will make things come out less bad. Less bad is all I can hope for at this point.
So yeah, I’m admittedly likely to accept things as hopeful that you and many others see as nothing more than more of the same.
Charles (and any other ObWings PTB who are out there): Maybe there should be a separate thread to discuss the Baptiste/Hergseth article? This one is getting a tad lengthy.
Anyway, just to comment: Baptiste and Hergseths’ “five-point” article stikes this critic, anyway, as a severely flawed analysis of what “needs to be done”, since all of their points derive ultimately from their first one: and said point:
1.“We have seen this ruthless enemy firsthand, and its global ambitions are undeniable. This struggle, the Long War, will probably take decades to prosecute. Failure is not an option.”
can also be read as an example of the worst sort of overheated bogeyman hysteria: something one might expect to see on some warmongering right-wing blog, rather than from supposedly sober career-professional military men. Is “radical Islamism” a “threat” (to world peace in general, and the US in particular)? Of course? A level of “threat” necessitating decades-long (and marvelously undefined) “Long War?” .Hugely debatable.
2.“Iraq cannot become a staging ground for Islamic extremism or be dominated by other powers in the region, such as Iran and Syria.”
“Dominated” by Syria? Is this a joke? Syria could barely “dominate” tiny, divided Lebanon – they’re going to somehow overshadow even a fractured Iraq many times their size and population? And as for Iran: by all account, Iranian interests are already the major “foreign” influence in Iraq. And the US hasn’t been (and probably never will be) able to do a damn thing about it.
3. Ultimately, however, these military gains must be cemented with regional and global diplomacy, political reconciliation, and economic recovery — tools yet sufficiently utilized.”
Translation: the sainted Gen. Petraeus’s vaunted “surge” is a big crock of PR BS: because the Iraqis really don’t give a flying about implementing ANY political accommodations. And we won’t (or can’t: force them to.
4. “No matter what, Iran must not be permitted to become a nuclear power”
Why not? If the Iranians want to waste their resources on a monstrously expensive and tactically useless arsenal of high-tech weaponry, that’s their business. In principle, of course, nuclear non-proliferation is WAY preferable: but as the generals put it here, this is just more bellicose bogeyman-mongering.
5. “At this critical juncture, we cannot afford to be weak. Numbers and capacity matter.”
In other words – “Give us more money. And more. And then give even more”
Point 5, IMO, is the whole crux of the matter: regardless of the actual “threat level” (and Gens. Baptiste and Hergseths’ piece is light-years away from any serious analysis of any threat) it is obvious that the main beneficiary of the promotion of the generals’ “Long War” is the financial bottom-line of the American Military-Industrial Complex. Gee, what a surprise!
Charles (and any other ObWings PTB who are out there): Maybe there should be a separate thread to discuss the Baptiste/Hergseth article? This one is getting a tad lengthy.
Anyway, just to comment: Baptiste and Hergseths’ “five-point” article stikes this critic, anyway, as a severely flawed analysis of what “needs to be done”, since all of their points derive ultimately from their first one: and said point:
1.“We have seen this ruthless enemy firsthand, and its global ambitions are undeniable. This struggle, the Long War, will probably take decades to prosecute. Failure is not an option.”
can also be read as an example of the worst sort of overheated bogeyman hysteria: something one might expect to see on some warmongering right-wing blog, rather than from supposedly sober career-professional military men. Is “radical Islamism” a “threat” (to world peace in general, and the US in particular)? Of course? A level of “threat” necessitating decades-long (and marvelously undefined) “Long War?” .Hugely debatable.
2.“Iraq cannot become a staging ground for Islamic extremism or be dominated by other powers in the region, such as Iran and Syria.”
“Dominated” by Syria? Is this a joke? Syria could barely “dominate” tiny, divided Lebanon – they’re going to somehow overshadow even a fractured Iraq many times their size and population? And as for Iran: by all account, Iranian interests are already the major “foreign” influence in Iraq. And the US hasn’t been (and probably never will be) able to do a damn thing about it.
3. Ultimately, however, these military gains must be cemented with regional and global diplomacy, political reconciliation, and economic recovery — tools yet sufficiently utilized.”
Translation: the sainted Gen. Petraeus’s vaunted “surge” is a big crock of PR BS: because the Iraqis really don’t give a flying about implementing ANY political accommodations. And we won’t (or can’t: force them to.
4. “No matter what, Iran must not be permitted to become a nuclear power”
Why not? If the Iranians want to waste their resources on a monstrously expensive and tactically useless arsenal of high-tech weaponry, that’s their business. In principle, of course, nuclear non-proliferation is WAY preferable: but as the generals put it here, this is just more bellicose bogeyman-mongering.
5. “At this critical juncture, we cannot afford to be weak. Numbers and capacity matter.”
In other words – “Give us more money. And more. And then give even more”
Point 5, IMO, is the whole crux of the matter: regardless of the actual “threat level” (and Gens. Baptiste and Hergseths’ piece is light-years away from any serious analysis of any threat) it is obvious that the main beneficiary of the promotion of the generals’ “Long War” is the financial bottom-line of the American Military-Industrial Complex. Gee, what a surprise!
Charles (and any other ObWings PTB who are out there): Maybe there should be a separate thread to discuss the Baptiste/Hergseth article? This one is getting a tad lengthy.
Anyway, just to comment: Baptiste and Hergseths’ “five-point” article stikes this critic, anyway, as a severely flawed analysis of what “needs to be done”, since all of their points derive ultimately from their first one: and said point:
1.“We have seen this ruthless enemy firsthand, and its global ambitions are undeniable. This struggle, the Long War, will probably take decades to prosecute. Failure is not an option.”
can also be read as an example of the worst sort of overheated bogeyman hysteria: something one might expect to see on some warmongering right-wing blog, rather than from supposedly sober career-professional military men. Is “radical Islamism” a “threat” (to world peace in general, and the US in particular)? Of course? A level of “threat” necessitating decades-long (and marvelously undefined) “Long War?” .Hugely debatable.
2.“Iraq cannot become a staging ground for Islamic extremism or be dominated by other powers in the region, such as Iran and Syria.”
“Dominated” by Syria? Is this a joke? Syria could barely “dominate” tiny, divided Lebanon – they’re going to somehow overshadow even a fractured Iraq many times their size and population? And as for Iran: by all account, Iranian interests are already the major “foreign” influence in Iraq. And the US hasn’t been (and probably never will be) able to do a damn thing about it.
3. Ultimately, however, these military gains must be cemented with regional and global diplomacy, political reconciliation, and economic recovery — tools yet sufficiently utilized.”
Translation: the sainted Gen. Petraeus’s vaunted “surge” is a big crock of PR BS: because the Iraqis really don’t give a flying about implementing ANY political accommodations. And we won’t (or can’t: force them to.
4. “No matter what, Iran must not be permitted to become a nuclear power”
Why not? If the Iranians want to waste their resources on a monstrously expensive and tactically useless arsenal of high-tech weaponry, that’s their business. In principle, of course, nuclear non-proliferation is WAY preferable: but as the generals put it here, this is just more bellicose bogeyman-mongering.
5. “At this critical juncture, we cannot afford to be weak. Numbers and capacity matter.”
In other words – “Give us more money. And more. And then give even more”
Point 5, IMO, is the whole crux of the matter: regardless of the actual “threat level” (and Gens. Baptiste and Hergseths’ piece is light-years away from any serious analysis of any threat) it is obvious that the main beneficiary of the promotion of the generals’ “Long War” is the financial bottom-line of the American Military-Industrial Complex. Gee, what a surprise!
OCSteve: So yeah, I’m admittedly likely to accept things as hopeful
Yeah, but this comes across rather as someone saying “Hey, good news! The final death toll from the WTC has been worked out, and it’s only 2752 people! That’s not so bad. Al-Qaeda can do that to us again any time.”
OCSteve: So yeah, I’m admittedly likely to accept things as hopeful
Yeah, but this comes across rather as someone saying “Hey, good news! The final death toll from the WTC has been worked out, and it’s only 2752 people! That’s not so bad. Al-Qaeda can do that to us again any time.”
OCSteve: So yeah, I’m admittedly likely to accept things as hopeful
Yeah, but this comes across rather as someone saying “Hey, good news! The final death toll from the WTC has been worked out, and it’s only 2752 people! That’s not so bad. Al-Qaeda can do that to us again any time.”
Arrrgh! General Hegseth, of course.
So much for spell check… maybe this is the civilian model!
Arrrgh! General Hegseth, of course.
So much for spell check… maybe this is the civilian model!
Arrrgh! General Hegseth, of course.
So much for spell check… maybe this is the civilian model!
Lance Mannion on the second Iraq war.
Lance Mannion on the second Iraq war.
Lance Mannion on the second Iraq war.
…who would we be surrendering to? Serious question. As you pointed out, AQI is no threat. So who?
We’d be surrendering to those who choose violence as a means to political ends, John. I favor the current surge strategy because I believe it’s the best way to move confrontations into the realm of non-violence. I don’t know if it’ll ultimately succeed.
Secondly, how does our staying there benefit either us or the Iraqi’s, since a good portion of the downward trend in violence has nothing to do with the surge and the upswing in violence was totally caused by us to begin with.
I disagree with your premise that the surge has done nothing to quell the violence. The awakenings couldn’t have happened the way they happened without American support, for example. I think the surge strategy gets at least partial credit.
Thirdly,since the military does not have the manpower to continue the current plan, which is the whole reason for the reduction by 30,000 (which mirrors the increase for the surge) so how is that a feasible plan?
The training and the security situation will dictate how well the strategy goes after we’ve drawn down the 30,000. I don’t have a crystal ball, although it should be noted that training is happening at a relatively fast pace. Whether it’s enough, I don’t know.
Finally, you credit Reid with being a man of his word and then condemn him for being true to his word.
I’m criticizing him because I think his judgment is wrong.
…who would we be surrendering to? Serious question. As you pointed out, AQI is no threat. So who?
We’d be surrendering to those who choose violence as a means to political ends, John. I favor the current surge strategy because I believe it’s the best way to move confrontations into the realm of non-violence. I don’t know if it’ll ultimately succeed.
Secondly, how does our staying there benefit either us or the Iraqi’s, since a good portion of the downward trend in violence has nothing to do with the surge and the upswing in violence was totally caused by us to begin with.
I disagree with your premise that the surge has done nothing to quell the violence. The awakenings couldn’t have happened the way they happened without American support, for example. I think the surge strategy gets at least partial credit.
Thirdly,since the military does not have the manpower to continue the current plan, which is the whole reason for the reduction by 30,000 (which mirrors the increase for the surge) so how is that a feasible plan?
The training and the security situation will dictate how well the strategy goes after we’ve drawn down the 30,000. I don’t have a crystal ball, although it should be noted that training is happening at a relatively fast pace. Whether it’s enough, I don’t know.
Finally, you credit Reid with being a man of his word and then condemn him for being true to his word.
I’m criticizing him because I think his judgment is wrong.
…who would we be surrendering to? Serious question. As you pointed out, AQI is no threat. So who?
We’d be surrendering to those who choose violence as a means to political ends, John. I favor the current surge strategy because I believe it’s the best way to move confrontations into the realm of non-violence. I don’t know if it’ll ultimately succeed.
Secondly, how does our staying there benefit either us or the Iraqi’s, since a good portion of the downward trend in violence has nothing to do with the surge and the upswing in violence was totally caused by us to begin with.
I disagree with your premise that the surge has done nothing to quell the violence. The awakenings couldn’t have happened the way they happened without American support, for example. I think the surge strategy gets at least partial credit.
Thirdly,since the military does not have the manpower to continue the current plan, which is the whole reason for the reduction by 30,000 (which mirrors the increase for the surge) so how is that a feasible plan?
The training and the security situation will dictate how well the strategy goes after we’ve drawn down the 30,000. I don’t have a crystal ball, although it should be noted that training is happening at a relatively fast pace. Whether it’s enough, I don’t know.
Finally, you credit Reid with being a man of his word and then condemn him for being true to his word.
I’m criticizing him because I think his judgment is wrong.
Remember the bottom line, folks: staying is winning and leaving is losing.
Remember the bottom line, folks: staying is winning and leaving is losing.
Remember the bottom line, folks: staying is winning and leaving is losing.
Charles: “The awakenings couldn’t have happened the way they happened without American support, for example.”
You clearly don’t feel it’s worth mentioning that the Iraqi government’s belief and policy is that the “awakenings” are arming the Sunni enemy for future civil war against the Iraqi government. Is this a point you contest, or need citations and pointers to, Charles?
Or would you perhaps please explain why the Iraqi government is wrong that the “awakenings” are a Bad Thing, not a Good Thing, and how it might be that this contradiction, and therefore the “awakenings” are, as well, as you claim, a Good Thing?
Thanks, Charles.
Charles: “The awakenings couldn’t have happened the way they happened without American support, for example.”
You clearly don’t feel it’s worth mentioning that the Iraqi government’s belief and policy is that the “awakenings” are arming the Sunni enemy for future civil war against the Iraqi government. Is this a point you contest, or need citations and pointers to, Charles?
Or would you perhaps please explain why the Iraqi government is wrong that the “awakenings” are a Bad Thing, not a Good Thing, and how it might be that this contradiction, and therefore the “awakenings” are, as well, as you claim, a Good Thing?
Thanks, Charles.
Charles: “The awakenings couldn’t have happened the way they happened without American support, for example.”
You clearly don’t feel it’s worth mentioning that the Iraqi government’s belief and policy is that the “awakenings” are arming the Sunni enemy for future civil war against the Iraqi government. Is this a point you contest, or need citations and pointers to, Charles?
Or would you perhaps please explain why the Iraqi government is wrong that the “awakenings” are a Bad Thing, not a Good Thing, and how it might be that this contradiction, and therefore the “awakenings” are, as well, as you claim, a Good Thing?
Thanks, Charles.
We’d be surrendering to those who choose violence as a means to political ends, John.
I thought that was supposed to be the insurgents’ quote?
We’d be surrendering to those who choose violence as a means to political ends, John.
I thought that was supposed to be the insurgents’ quote?
We’d be surrendering to those who choose violence as a means to political ends, John.
I thought that was supposed to be the insurgents’ quote?
Classic counterinsurgency operations usually run around five to ten years, and the U.S. command is going by the Petraeus book.
That sounds about right to me. I also think we’re likely to be sticking around to man the ambassadorial and military bases we’re building.
A turned-around Iraq that is an ally of the United States (or at least not an enemy) is in our national interest.
No doubt.
Is it legitimate for this country to invade another country, remove it’s government, and replace it with one more to our own liking?
The claims that Iraq was any kind of realistic threat to this country were bogus, and Bush, Cheney et al clearly had access to intelligence that would let them see that. Hussein was a murderous creep, but the woods are full of them, and we generally don’t make a practice of tossing them out.
Among the remaining alternatives, the most defensible reason for our going in was, as Gary cites, the “Iraq the model” idea. We’d establish a friendly representative government in Iraq, which would be a model for its neighbors. The middle east would thus be transformed.
Is it legitimate for this country to invade a nation that poses no real threat to us, for the purpose of replacing its government with one that is more closely aligned with our interests? Let’s assume we even do a good job of it.
Is it legitimate? Or is it an act of criminal aggression?
Thanks –
Classic counterinsurgency operations usually run around five to ten years, and the U.S. command is going by the Petraeus book.
That sounds about right to me. I also think we’re likely to be sticking around to man the ambassadorial and military bases we’re building.
A turned-around Iraq that is an ally of the United States (or at least not an enemy) is in our national interest.
No doubt.
Is it legitimate for this country to invade another country, remove it’s government, and replace it with one more to our own liking?
The claims that Iraq was any kind of realistic threat to this country were bogus, and Bush, Cheney et al clearly had access to intelligence that would let them see that. Hussein was a murderous creep, but the woods are full of them, and we generally don’t make a practice of tossing them out.
Among the remaining alternatives, the most defensible reason for our going in was, as Gary cites, the “Iraq the model” idea. We’d establish a friendly representative government in Iraq, which would be a model for its neighbors. The middle east would thus be transformed.
Is it legitimate for this country to invade a nation that poses no real threat to us, for the purpose of replacing its government with one that is more closely aligned with our interests? Let’s assume we even do a good job of it.
Is it legitimate? Or is it an act of criminal aggression?
Thanks –
Classic counterinsurgency operations usually run around five to ten years, and the U.S. command is going by the Petraeus book.
That sounds about right to me. I also think we’re likely to be sticking around to man the ambassadorial and military bases we’re building.
A turned-around Iraq that is an ally of the United States (or at least not an enemy) is in our national interest.
No doubt.
Is it legitimate for this country to invade another country, remove it’s government, and replace it with one more to our own liking?
The claims that Iraq was any kind of realistic threat to this country were bogus, and Bush, Cheney et al clearly had access to intelligence that would let them see that. Hussein was a murderous creep, but the woods are full of them, and we generally don’t make a practice of tossing them out.
Among the remaining alternatives, the most defensible reason for our going in was, as Gary cites, the “Iraq the model” idea. We’d establish a friendly representative government in Iraq, which would be a model for its neighbors. The middle east would thus be transformed.
Is it legitimate for this country to invade a nation that poses no real threat to us, for the purpose of replacing its government with one that is more closely aligned with our interests? Let’s assume we even do a good job of it.
Is it legitimate? Or is it an act of criminal aggression?
Thanks –
We’d be surrendering to those who choose violence as a means to political ends, John.
So the US army would be surrendering to the Bush administration, which chose violence as a means to political ends back when it first proposed invading Iraq. OK. Why does it matter if the US army surrenders to the administration of its own country?
We’d be surrendering to those who choose violence as a means to political ends, John.
So the US army would be surrendering to the Bush administration, which chose violence as a means to political ends back when it first proposed invading Iraq. OK. Why does it matter if the US army surrenders to the administration of its own country?
We’d be surrendering to those who choose violence as a means to political ends, John.
So the US army would be surrendering to the Bush administration, which chose violence as a means to political ends back when it first proposed invading Iraq. OK. Why does it matter if the US army surrenders to the administration of its own country?
We’d be surrendering to those who choose violence as a means to political ends, John.
Charles, this argument confuses me. The sunni insurgents used violence to achieve political ends. We gave them money, weapons and training. Oh, and we decided to stop fighting them. That looks like surrender to me. Any idea on where my analysis has gone off the tracks?
We’d be surrendering to those who choose violence as a means to political ends, John.
Charles, this argument confuses me. The sunni insurgents used violence to achieve political ends. We gave them money, weapons and training. Oh, and we decided to stop fighting them. That looks like surrender to me. Any idea on where my analysis has gone off the tracks?
We’d be surrendering to those who choose violence as a means to political ends, John.
Charles, this argument confuses me. The sunni insurgents used violence to achieve political ends. We gave them money, weapons and training. Oh, and we decided to stop fighting them. That looks like surrender to me. Any idea on where my analysis has gone off the tracks?
“Why does it matter if the US army surrenders to the administration of its own country?”
I’m tempted to mutter about some resistance during the Clinton Administration, and some surrender maybe having been preferable — such as on anti-gay bigotry and refusal to integrate — at the time (rather than fighting the administration into holding the line on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell), but Never Mind.
“Why does it matter if the US army surrenders to the administration of its own country?”
I’m tempted to mutter about some resistance during the Clinton Administration, and some surrender maybe having been preferable — such as on anti-gay bigotry and refusal to integrate — at the time (rather than fighting the administration into holding the line on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell), but Never Mind.
“Why does it matter if the US army surrenders to the administration of its own country?”
I’m tempted to mutter about some resistance during the Clinton Administration, and some surrender maybe having been preferable — such as on anti-gay bigotry and refusal to integrate — at the time (rather than fighting the administration into holding the line on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell), but Never Mind.
We’d be surrendering to those who choose violence as a means to political ends, John. I favor the current surge strategy
Anyone spot the contradiction?
We’d be surrendering to those who choose violence as a means to political ends, John. I favor the current surge strategy
Anyone spot the contradiction?
We’d be surrendering to those who choose violence as a means to political ends, John. I favor the current surge strategy
Anyone spot the contradiction?
We’d be surrendering to those who choose violence as a means to political ends, John.
You mean like invading another country and fighting a war both with its own citizens and with foreign militants in order to remove that country’s head of state — in fact, its entire government — and replace it with something we like better?
In what way is what we’ve done in Iraq NOT a textbook example of “choosing violence as a means to political ends?” Seriously, you’ll need to show your work here.
We’d be surrendering to those who choose violence as a means to political ends, John.
You mean like invading another country and fighting a war both with its own citizens and with foreign militants in order to remove that country’s head of state — in fact, its entire government — and replace it with something we like better?
In what way is what we’ve done in Iraq NOT a textbook example of “choosing violence as a means to political ends?” Seriously, you’ll need to show your work here.
We’d be surrendering to those who choose violence as a means to political ends, John.
You mean like invading another country and fighting a war both with its own citizens and with foreign militants in order to remove that country’s head of state — in fact, its entire government — and replace it with something we like better?
In what way is what we’ve done in Iraq NOT a textbook example of “choosing violence as a means to political ends?” Seriously, you’ll need to show your work here.
Good intentions make all the difference.
Also, we’re good guys, and if that isn’t sufficient explanation, you are on the other side, hate America and want the terrorists to win, liberal defeatocrat.
Good intentions make all the difference.
Also, we’re good guys, and if that isn’t sufficient explanation, you are on the other side, hate America and want the terrorists to win, liberal defeatocrat.
Good intentions make all the difference.
Also, we’re good guys, and if that isn’t sufficient explanation, you are on the other side, hate America and want the terrorists to win, liberal defeatocrat.
Are you telling us that if the current gridlock between the Democrats in Congress and the Republican minority and the President over the Alternative Minimum Tax is not resolved soon that a bloody civil war will ensue?
No, John. I’m saying that our Congress is stymied on much more trivial matters than what the Iraqi legislature faces. In our own Congress, it takes months to get basic legislation through, so why wouldn’t it take months for Iraqis to get fundamental landmark legislation passed? I think it deserves a fair shot.
Charles ignores all explanations but the surge – this is called bias.
I addressed those explanations last month, skeptonomist. I don’t see a need for doing it in every single post.
Are you telling us that if the current gridlock between the Democrats in Congress and the Republican minority and the President over the Alternative Minimum Tax is not resolved soon that a bloody civil war will ensue?
No, John. I’m saying that our Congress is stymied on much more trivial matters than what the Iraqi legislature faces. In our own Congress, it takes months to get basic legislation through, so why wouldn’t it take months for Iraqis to get fundamental landmark legislation passed? I think it deserves a fair shot.
Charles ignores all explanations but the surge – this is called bias.
I addressed those explanations last month, skeptonomist. I don’t see a need for doing it in every single post.
Are you telling us that if the current gridlock between the Democrats in Congress and the Republican minority and the President over the Alternative Minimum Tax is not resolved soon that a bloody civil war will ensue?
No, John. I’m saying that our Congress is stymied on much more trivial matters than what the Iraqi legislature faces. In our own Congress, it takes months to get basic legislation through, so why wouldn’t it take months for Iraqis to get fundamental landmark legislation passed? I think it deserves a fair shot.
Charles ignores all explanations but the surge – this is called bias.
I addressed those explanations last month, skeptonomist. I don’t see a need for doing it in every single post.
How anyone can buy into pretty charts that are suddenly trending downward is beyond me.
I bought into those same “pretty charts” after a tough month, codpiece, and I heard no real complaints about the numbers. I’m just trying to be consistent here.
How about the fact that 1 million are already dead?
I’m not convinced that that is a “fact”.
Or that we no longer count those shot in the back of the head?
The source that I used, the ICCC, doesn’t measure civilian casualties in that fashion. In either case, since last May the numbers from IBC and Petraeus are highly similar.
How about the fact that Sadr called off his men for 6 months?
I call that political progress, since al Sadr is a political leader (as well as religious and paramilitary).
I hope I do not contravene the posting rules of this blog by saying that, in my estimation, I have yet to see him rise above the level of boilerplate Republican Party agitprop targeted at the reasonably informed demographic.
Then you haven’t read me much, byningmam. At Redstate, I announced that I was Dissatisfied, irritating quite a few on the right. My Road to Haditha post was a direct criticism of how Bush was conducting the war. Last June, I gave a bleak assessment of the situation, using the same data sources as this post. The fact of the matter is that I don’t subscribe to the views of the majority of this one-sided commentariat.
How anyone can buy into pretty charts that are suddenly trending downward is beyond me.
I bought into those same “pretty charts” after a tough month, codpiece, and I heard no real complaints about the numbers. I’m just trying to be consistent here.
How about the fact that 1 million are already dead?
I’m not convinced that that is a “fact”.
Or that we no longer count those shot in the back of the head?
The source that I used, the ICCC, doesn’t measure civilian casualties in that fashion. In either case, since last May the numbers from IBC and Petraeus are highly similar.
How about the fact that Sadr called off his men for 6 months?
I call that political progress, since al Sadr is a political leader (as well as religious and paramilitary).
I hope I do not contravene the posting rules of this blog by saying that, in my estimation, I have yet to see him rise above the level of boilerplate Republican Party agitprop targeted at the reasonably informed demographic.
Then you haven’t read me much, byningmam. At Redstate, I announced that I was Dissatisfied, irritating quite a few on the right. My Road to Haditha post was a direct criticism of how Bush was conducting the war. Last June, I gave a bleak assessment of the situation, using the same data sources as this post. The fact of the matter is that I don’t subscribe to the views of the majority of this one-sided commentariat.
How anyone can buy into pretty charts that are suddenly trending downward is beyond me.
I bought into those same “pretty charts” after a tough month, codpiece, and I heard no real complaints about the numbers. I’m just trying to be consistent here.
How about the fact that 1 million are already dead?
I’m not convinced that that is a “fact”.
Or that we no longer count those shot in the back of the head?
The source that I used, the ICCC, doesn’t measure civilian casualties in that fashion. In either case, since last May the numbers from IBC and Petraeus are highly similar.
How about the fact that Sadr called off his men for 6 months?
I call that political progress, since al Sadr is a political leader (as well as religious and paramilitary).
I hope I do not contravene the posting rules of this blog by saying that, in my estimation, I have yet to see him rise above the level of boilerplate Republican Party agitprop targeted at the reasonably informed demographic.
Then you haven’t read me much, byningmam. At Redstate, I announced that I was Dissatisfied, irritating quite a few on the right. My Road to Haditha post was a direct criticism of how Bush was conducting the war. Last June, I gave a bleak assessment of the situation, using the same data sources as this post. The fact of the matter is that I don’t subscribe to the views of the majority of this one-sided commentariat.
I’m not convinced that that is a “fact”.
I was going to make a comparison here to another instance where someone refuses for ideological reasons to believe that a large number of people were killed during a war, but I’ve decided that would be too provocative.
I’m not convinced that that is a “fact”.
I was going to make a comparison here to another instance where someone refuses for ideological reasons to believe that a large number of people were killed during a war, but I’ve decided that would be too provocative.
I’m not convinced that that is a “fact”.
I was going to make a comparison here to another instance where someone refuses for ideological reasons to believe that a large number of people were killed during a war, but I’ve decided that would be too provocative.
!#@%$%%$%@@# Typepad and its spam-recognition software.
It’s that single word, “surrender”. It’s so negative, you’d never consider applying it to yourself…
But I would, Nate. I believe in calling things as I see ’em, and I believe in speaking directly. I’ve already said that I’d join the defeatist camp if I were convinced that Iraq was beyond repair, which means that I favor some form of plan for surrendering Iraq in the least damaging manner possible.
After all, if building up the Sunni tribes doesn’t contradict the supposed goal of national unity, we could have done that back in 2003.
Instead of fighting the coalition and the Iraqi government, byrning, they’ve joined U.S. forces and are much more amenable to participating in Iraqi politics. There’s a lot of things we could’ve done differently in 2003. Unfortunately, the wrong people had the wrong plan for turning things around.
Perform a least squares regression going back to March, ’03, on this data.
I’ll pass, bobby, because I don’t have expertise in statistics. It wouldn’t be terribly helpful, anyway. We are where we are, and I’m more interested in finding the best ways for going forward.
You clearly don’t feel it’s worth mentioning that the Iraqi government’s belief and policy is that the “awakenings” are arming the Sunni enemy for future civil war against the Iraqi government.
Gary, the U.S. has been consistent in stating that they’re helping to arm Iraqi police and army forces, not Sunnis. We are sending funds to tribes, but not arms. They can arm themselves. The Shiites in the Iraqi government have concerns to be sure, but al Maliki is also talking with Sunni tribal chiefs, and tribal chiefs are talking with the Shiite-led government, which is better than how it was. I don’t know how it’s all going to fall out, but I don’t see the wrong of helping Sunnis rid al Qaeda, and Shiites shouldn’t see the wrong of it either, especially because Shiites are often the victims of their suicide bombings.
!#@%$%%$%@@# Typepad and its spam-recognition software.
It’s that single word, “surrender”. It’s so negative, you’d never consider applying it to yourself…
But I would, Nate. I believe in calling things as I see ’em, and I believe in speaking directly. I’ve already said that I’d join the defeatist camp if I were convinced that Iraq was beyond repair, which means that I favor some form of plan for surrendering Iraq in the least damaging manner possible.
After all, if building up the Sunni tribes doesn’t contradict the supposed goal of national unity, we could have done that back in 2003.
Instead of fighting the coalition and the Iraqi government, byrning, they’ve joined U.S. forces and are much more amenable to participating in Iraqi politics. There’s a lot of things we could’ve done differently in 2003. Unfortunately, the wrong people had the wrong plan for turning things around.
Perform a least squares regression going back to March, ’03, on this data.
I’ll pass, bobby, because I don’t have expertise in statistics. It wouldn’t be terribly helpful, anyway. We are where we are, and I’m more interested in finding the best ways for going forward.
You clearly don’t feel it’s worth mentioning that the Iraqi government’s belief and policy is that the “awakenings” are arming the Sunni enemy for future civil war against the Iraqi government.
Gary, the U.S. has been consistent in stating that they’re helping to arm Iraqi police and army forces, not Sunnis. We are sending funds to tribes, but not arms. They can arm themselves. The Shiites in the Iraqi government have concerns to be sure, but al Maliki is also talking with Sunni tribal chiefs, and tribal chiefs are talking with the Shiite-led government, which is better than how it was. I don’t know how it’s all going to fall out, but I don’t see the wrong of helping Sunnis rid al Qaeda, and Shiites shouldn’t see the wrong of it either, especially because Shiites are often the victims of their suicide bombings.
!#@%$%%$%@@# Typepad and its spam-recognition software.
It’s that single word, “surrender”. It’s so negative, you’d never consider applying it to yourself…
But I would, Nate. I believe in calling things as I see ’em, and I believe in speaking directly. I’ve already said that I’d join the defeatist camp if I were convinced that Iraq was beyond repair, which means that I favor some form of plan for surrendering Iraq in the least damaging manner possible.
After all, if building up the Sunni tribes doesn’t contradict the supposed goal of national unity, we could have done that back in 2003.
Instead of fighting the coalition and the Iraqi government, byrning, they’ve joined U.S. forces and are much more amenable to participating in Iraqi politics. There’s a lot of things we could’ve done differently in 2003. Unfortunately, the wrong people had the wrong plan for turning things around.
Perform a least squares regression going back to March, ’03, on this data.
I’ll pass, bobby, because I don’t have expertise in statistics. It wouldn’t be terribly helpful, anyway. We are where we are, and I’m more interested in finding the best ways for going forward.
You clearly don’t feel it’s worth mentioning that the Iraqi government’s belief and policy is that the “awakenings” are arming the Sunni enemy for future civil war against the Iraqi government.
Gary, the U.S. has been consistent in stating that they’re helping to arm Iraqi police and army forces, not Sunnis. We are sending funds to tribes, but not arms. They can arm themselves. The Shiites in the Iraqi government have concerns to be sure, but al Maliki is also talking with Sunni tribal chiefs, and tribal chiefs are talking with the Shiite-led government, which is better than how it was. I don’t know how it’s all going to fall out, but I don’t see the wrong of helping Sunnis rid al Qaeda, and Shiites shouldn’t see the wrong of it either, especially because Shiites are often the victims of their suicide bombings.
Is it legitimate for this country to invade another country, remove it’s government, and replace it with one more to our own liking?
No, Russell, but that wasn’t our initial main reason for removing Saddam. My own reason for removing Saddam was that the Gulf War never really ended, and Saddam could not be trusted to uphold his agreements, especially since he breached every single binding UN Security Council resolution put before him.
The sunni insurgents used violence to achieve political ends. We gave them money, weapons and training.
Your timing is amiss, turb. The Sunnis used violence against us, but when they joined the coalition and turned against al Qaeda, we gave them money (but not weapons).
In what way is what we’ve done in Iraq NOT a textbook example of “choosing violence as a means to political ends?” Seriously, you’ll need to show your work here.
Bush has his own reasons, Phil, but my reasons are that Saddam started the Gulf War, and the Gulf War didn’t end until May 1, 2003. After that, from May 2003 to November 2006, it was Rumsfeld’s Big Mistake.
Is it legitimate for this country to invade another country, remove it’s government, and replace it with one more to our own liking?
No, Russell, but that wasn’t our initial main reason for removing Saddam. My own reason for removing Saddam was that the Gulf War never really ended, and Saddam could not be trusted to uphold his agreements, especially since he breached every single binding UN Security Council resolution put before him.
The sunni insurgents used violence to achieve political ends. We gave them money, weapons and training.
Your timing is amiss, turb. The Sunnis used violence against us, but when they joined the coalition and turned against al Qaeda, we gave them money (but not weapons).
In what way is what we’ve done in Iraq NOT a textbook example of “choosing violence as a means to political ends?” Seriously, you’ll need to show your work here.
Bush has his own reasons, Phil, but my reasons are that Saddam started the Gulf War, and the Gulf War didn’t end until May 1, 2003. After that, from May 2003 to November 2006, it was Rumsfeld’s Big Mistake.
Is it legitimate for this country to invade another country, remove it’s government, and replace it with one more to our own liking?
No, Russell, but that wasn’t our initial main reason for removing Saddam. My own reason for removing Saddam was that the Gulf War never really ended, and Saddam could not be trusted to uphold his agreements, especially since he breached every single binding UN Security Council resolution put before him.
The sunni insurgents used violence to achieve political ends. We gave them money, weapons and training.
Your timing is amiss, turb. The Sunnis used violence against us, but when they joined the coalition and turned against al Qaeda, we gave them money (but not weapons).
In what way is what we’ve done in Iraq NOT a textbook example of “choosing violence as a means to political ends?” Seriously, you’ll need to show your work here.
Bush has his own reasons, Phil, but my reasons are that Saddam started the Gulf War, and the Gulf War didn’t end until May 1, 2003. After that, from May 2003 to November 2006, it was Rumsfeld’s Big Mistake.
Charles: “Gary, the U.S. has been consistent in stating that they’re helping to arm Iraqi police and army forces, not Sunnis. We are sending funds to tribes, but not arms. They can arm themselves.”
I’m aware of this fine distinction, Charles, but I don’t know what relevant point you’re making with it. It remains perfectly true that “the Iraqi government’s belief and policy is that the ‘awakenings’ are arming the Sunni enemy for future civil war against the Iraqi government,” does it not, Charles?
“The Shiites in the Iraqi government have concerns to be sure, but al Maliki is also talking with Sunni tribal chiefs, and tribal chiefs are talking with the Shiite-led government, which is better than how it was.”
I’m sure it’s very fine. Is it your contention, then, that the Iraqi government is on the path to acceptance of “the awakenings,” as you call them, as a legitimate political movement that will be drawn into the government in the future? If so, do you have any cites on that? If not, what is your contention as regards movement towards conciliation, or drawing in of these Sunni tribes into mutual acceptance with the Iraqi government?
“I don’t know how it’s all going to fall out, but I don’t see the wrong of helping Sunnis rid al Qaeda,”
Yes, just as I don’t expect you saw any possible drawbacks, and to massively funding and arming Afghani religious fanatics with many billions of dollars and weapons and supplies to help them get rid of the Soviet Union, which was, to be sure, quite ruthless and brutal, and which, incidentally, engaged in the sort of inhumane campaign of slaughter in Afghanistan that many of your Redstate friends have demanded for years that we engage in in Iraq.
Or maybe you warned everyone you knew, back then, about the blowblack you then saw coming?
How about massively arming the government of the Shah of Iran for decades, after re-installing his father in power, and supporting his ruthless, torturing, secret police, SAVAK? See anything possibly wrong ever coming of that?
Or of then secretly selling arms to the Khomeini Iranian government, and delivering the Ayatollah a cake, in hopes of making nice? See anything possibly wrong ever coming of that bit of wisdom by the sainted President Reagan?
What could possibly go wrong this time?
Anything at all possibly, conceivably,negative, on the imaginative horizon, as you see it, Charles, as regards the creation of armed and independent Sunni “awakenings” groups in Iraq, and their future relationship with the national and regional Iraqi governments, Charles?
Anything possible occur to you at all?
I mean, I’m willing to take you at your word that you “don’t see the wrong of helping Sunnis rid al Qaeda,” but I’m hypothesizing that conceivably you might be able to imagine a possibility, if you consider it some more. What do you think?
Charles: “Gary, the U.S. has been consistent in stating that they’re helping to arm Iraqi police and army forces, not Sunnis. We are sending funds to tribes, but not arms. They can arm themselves.”
I’m aware of this fine distinction, Charles, but I don’t know what relevant point you’re making with it. It remains perfectly true that “the Iraqi government’s belief and policy is that the ‘awakenings’ are arming the Sunni enemy for future civil war against the Iraqi government,” does it not, Charles?
“The Shiites in the Iraqi government have concerns to be sure, but al Maliki is also talking with Sunni tribal chiefs, and tribal chiefs are talking with the Shiite-led government, which is better than how it was.”
I’m sure it’s very fine. Is it your contention, then, that the Iraqi government is on the path to acceptance of “the awakenings,” as you call them, as a legitimate political movement that will be drawn into the government in the future? If so, do you have any cites on that? If not, what is your contention as regards movement towards conciliation, or drawing in of these Sunni tribes into mutual acceptance with the Iraqi government?
“I don’t know how it’s all going to fall out, but I don’t see the wrong of helping Sunnis rid al Qaeda,”
Yes, just as I don’t expect you saw any possible drawbacks, and to massively funding and arming Afghani religious fanatics with many billions of dollars and weapons and supplies to help them get rid of the Soviet Union, which was, to be sure, quite ruthless and brutal, and which, incidentally, engaged in the sort of inhumane campaign of slaughter in Afghanistan that many of your Redstate friends have demanded for years that we engage in in Iraq.
Or maybe you warned everyone you knew, back then, about the blowblack you then saw coming?
How about massively arming the government of the Shah of Iran for decades, after re-installing his father in power, and supporting his ruthless, torturing, secret police, SAVAK? See anything possibly wrong ever coming of that?
Or of then secretly selling arms to the Khomeini Iranian government, and delivering the Ayatollah a cake, in hopes of making nice? See anything possibly wrong ever coming of that bit of wisdom by the sainted President Reagan?
What could possibly go wrong this time?
Anything at all possibly, conceivably,negative, on the imaginative horizon, as you see it, Charles, as regards the creation of armed and independent Sunni “awakenings” groups in Iraq, and their future relationship with the national and regional Iraqi governments, Charles?
Anything possible occur to you at all?
I mean, I’m willing to take you at your word that you “don’t see the wrong of helping Sunnis rid al Qaeda,” but I’m hypothesizing that conceivably you might be able to imagine a possibility, if you consider it some more. What do you think?
Charles: “Gary, the U.S. has been consistent in stating that they’re helping to arm Iraqi police and army forces, not Sunnis. We are sending funds to tribes, but not arms. They can arm themselves.”
I’m aware of this fine distinction, Charles, but I don’t know what relevant point you’re making with it. It remains perfectly true that “the Iraqi government’s belief and policy is that the ‘awakenings’ are arming the Sunni enemy for future civil war against the Iraqi government,” does it not, Charles?
“The Shiites in the Iraqi government have concerns to be sure, but al Maliki is also talking with Sunni tribal chiefs, and tribal chiefs are talking with the Shiite-led government, which is better than how it was.”
I’m sure it’s very fine. Is it your contention, then, that the Iraqi government is on the path to acceptance of “the awakenings,” as you call them, as a legitimate political movement that will be drawn into the government in the future? If so, do you have any cites on that? If not, what is your contention as regards movement towards conciliation, or drawing in of these Sunni tribes into mutual acceptance with the Iraqi government?
“I don’t know how it’s all going to fall out, but I don’t see the wrong of helping Sunnis rid al Qaeda,”
Yes, just as I don’t expect you saw any possible drawbacks, and to massively funding and arming Afghani religious fanatics with many billions of dollars and weapons and supplies to help them get rid of the Soviet Union, which was, to be sure, quite ruthless and brutal, and which, incidentally, engaged in the sort of inhumane campaign of slaughter in Afghanistan that many of your Redstate friends have demanded for years that we engage in in Iraq.
Or maybe you warned everyone you knew, back then, about the blowblack you then saw coming?
How about massively arming the government of the Shah of Iran for decades, after re-installing his father in power, and supporting his ruthless, torturing, secret police, SAVAK? See anything possibly wrong ever coming of that?
Or of then secretly selling arms to the Khomeini Iranian government, and delivering the Ayatollah a cake, in hopes of making nice? See anything possibly wrong ever coming of that bit of wisdom by the sainted President Reagan?
What could possibly go wrong this time?
Anything at all possibly, conceivably,negative, on the imaginative horizon, as you see it, Charles, as regards the creation of armed and independent Sunni “awakenings” groups in Iraq, and their future relationship with the national and regional Iraqi governments, Charles?
Anything possible occur to you at all?
I mean, I’m willing to take you at your word that you “don’t see the wrong of helping Sunnis rid al Qaeda,” but I’m hypothesizing that conceivably you might be able to imagine a possibility, if you consider it some more. What do you think?
And I do want to thank you for responding, Charles. I know it’s tedious and annoying to have to respond to a whole bunch of people objecting to this point and that, and have few folks speaking up in agreement or support of anything you say. I appreciate your posting and responding, nonetheless, and I thank you for that, and respect it, no matter how strongly I may disagree with you on some points, and give you a hard time about them.
Having said that (;-)): “Unfortunately, the wrong people had the wrong plan for turning things around.”
Not to hector you about it, or ask for lengthy comment about it, but do you happen to know anyone very very well who was wrong back in 2003, then, on what policies he or she advocated for Iraq? Or in 2004? Or in 2005?
Just curious, and if it turned out you did know someone very very very well, and simply mentioned that — clearly — in passing, it probably wouldn’t hurt to mention it, but might instead help very faintly.
I could be wrong on this, myself, to be sure.
And I do want to thank you for responding, Charles. I know it’s tedious and annoying to have to respond to a whole bunch of people objecting to this point and that, and have few folks speaking up in agreement or support of anything you say. I appreciate your posting and responding, nonetheless, and I thank you for that, and respect it, no matter how strongly I may disagree with you on some points, and give you a hard time about them.
Having said that (;-)): “Unfortunately, the wrong people had the wrong plan for turning things around.”
Not to hector you about it, or ask for lengthy comment about it, but do you happen to know anyone very very well who was wrong back in 2003, then, on what policies he or she advocated for Iraq? Or in 2004? Or in 2005?
Just curious, and if it turned out you did know someone very very very well, and simply mentioned that — clearly — in passing, it probably wouldn’t hurt to mention it, but might instead help very faintly.
I could be wrong on this, myself, to be sure.
And I do want to thank you for responding, Charles. I know it’s tedious and annoying to have to respond to a whole bunch of people objecting to this point and that, and have few folks speaking up in agreement or support of anything you say. I appreciate your posting and responding, nonetheless, and I thank you for that, and respect it, no matter how strongly I may disagree with you on some points, and give you a hard time about them.
Having said that (;-)): “Unfortunately, the wrong people had the wrong plan for turning things around.”
Not to hector you about it, or ask for lengthy comment about it, but do you happen to know anyone very very well who was wrong back in 2003, then, on what policies he or she advocated for Iraq? Or in 2004? Or in 2005?
Just curious, and if it turned out you did know someone very very very well, and simply mentioned that — clearly — in passing, it probably wouldn’t hurt to mention it, but might instead help very faintly.
I could be wrong on this, myself, to be sure.
I apologize for multiple responses, but: Charles, if you don’t have expertise on statistics, and it’s not helpful to analyze them, and you’re not capable of doing so, is it possible that therefore you might want to take that into account in writing lengthy posts focused almost entirely on statistics?
I have to say that I’m a little confused about how to reconcile these two things.
Maybe it’s just me who sees something a touch problematic there. Or maybe anyone else who does, does so just because of a different political perspective. It’s not for me to say.
I apologize for multiple responses, but: Charles, if you don’t have expertise on statistics, and it’s not helpful to analyze them, and you’re not capable of doing so, is it possible that therefore you might want to take that into account in writing lengthy posts focused almost entirely on statistics?
I have to say that I’m a little confused about how to reconcile these two things.
Maybe it’s just me who sees something a touch problematic there. Or maybe anyone else who does, does so just because of a different political perspective. It’s not for me to say.
I apologize for multiple responses, but: Charles, if you don’t have expertise on statistics, and it’s not helpful to analyze them, and you’re not capable of doing so, is it possible that therefore you might want to take that into account in writing lengthy posts focused almost entirely on statistics?
I have to say that I’m a little confused about how to reconcile these two things.
Maybe it’s just me who sees something a touch problematic there. Or maybe anyone else who does, does so just because of a different political perspective. It’s not for me to say.
Charles:
But I would [apply the term surrender to myself], Nate. I believe in calling things as I see ’em, and I believe in speaking directly.
Well, maybe you hypothetically would, but in this specific case you didn’t. You wrote [emphasis mine]:
If you really don’t think the term is charged, then why didn’t you just say “I too would be in favor of surrender?” I suspect you didn’t because whether you admit it or not, you fully recognize the connotation that the term “surrender” brings with it, and because in the hypothetical case where you became convinced that Iraq were “irretrievably lost,” you wouldn’t think those connotations apply.
I’ve already said that I’d join the defeatist camp if I were convinced that Iraq was beyond repair
But again, even given that opportunity, you didn’t apply the term “surrender” to yourself.
My own reason for removing Saddam was that the Gulf War never really ended, and Saddam could not be trusted to uphold his agreements, especially since he breached every single binding UN Security Council resolution put before him.
Shall we then forcibly remove any foreign leaders who cannot be trusted, and who fail to comply with binding UN resolutions? Guess the Israeli PM ought to look over his shoulder, huh?
my reasons are that Saddam started the Gulf War
I fail to see how that answers the question that was asked.
Charles:
But I would [apply the term surrender to myself], Nate. I believe in calling things as I see ’em, and I believe in speaking directly.
Well, maybe you hypothetically would, but in this specific case you didn’t. You wrote [emphasis mine]:
If you really don’t think the term is charged, then why didn’t you just say “I too would be in favor of surrender?” I suspect you didn’t because whether you admit it or not, you fully recognize the connotation that the term “surrender” brings with it, and because in the hypothetical case where you became convinced that Iraq were “irretrievably lost,” you wouldn’t think those connotations apply.
I’ve already said that I’d join the defeatist camp if I were convinced that Iraq was beyond repair
But again, even given that opportunity, you didn’t apply the term “surrender” to yourself.
My own reason for removing Saddam was that the Gulf War never really ended, and Saddam could not be trusted to uphold his agreements, especially since he breached every single binding UN Security Council resolution put before him.
Shall we then forcibly remove any foreign leaders who cannot be trusted, and who fail to comply with binding UN resolutions? Guess the Israeli PM ought to look over his shoulder, huh?
my reasons are that Saddam started the Gulf War
I fail to see how that answers the question that was asked.
Charles:
But I would [apply the term surrender to myself], Nate. I believe in calling things as I see ’em, and I believe in speaking directly.
Well, maybe you hypothetically would, but in this specific case you didn’t. You wrote [emphasis mine]:
If you really don’t think the term is charged, then why didn’t you just say “I too would be in favor of surrender?” I suspect you didn’t because whether you admit it or not, you fully recognize the connotation that the term “surrender” brings with it, and because in the hypothetical case where you became convinced that Iraq were “irretrievably lost,” you wouldn’t think those connotations apply.
I’ve already said that I’d join the defeatist camp if I were convinced that Iraq was beyond repair
But again, even given that opportunity, you didn’t apply the term “surrender” to yourself.
My own reason for removing Saddam was that the Gulf War never really ended, and Saddam could not be trusted to uphold his agreements, especially since he breached every single binding UN Security Council resolution put before him.
Shall we then forcibly remove any foreign leaders who cannot be trusted, and who fail to comply with binding UN resolutions? Guess the Israeli PM ought to look over his shoulder, huh?
my reasons are that Saddam started the Gulf War
I fail to see how that answers the question that was asked.
In what way is what we’ve done in Iraq NOT a textbook example of “choosing violence as a means to political ends?” Seriously, you’ll need to show your work here.
Bush has his own reasons, Phil, but my reasons are that Saddam started the Gulf War, and the Gulf War didn’t end until May 1, 2003. After that, from May 2003 to November 2006, it was Rumsfeld’s Big Mistake.
First off, that doesn’t answer the question at all. Nowhere did I mention Bush, Saddam, or Don Rumsfeld. I asked how the US invasion of Iraq is not the choosing of violence to achieve political ends. You’re welcome to try again.
Second of all, it was “Rumsfeld’s Big Mistake?” What, he sent our military over there without the knowledge, approval or command of the president? Come on, Charles.
In what way is what we’ve done in Iraq NOT a textbook example of “choosing violence as a means to political ends?” Seriously, you’ll need to show your work here.
Bush has his own reasons, Phil, but my reasons are that Saddam started the Gulf War, and the Gulf War didn’t end until May 1, 2003. After that, from May 2003 to November 2006, it was Rumsfeld’s Big Mistake.
First off, that doesn’t answer the question at all. Nowhere did I mention Bush, Saddam, or Don Rumsfeld. I asked how the US invasion of Iraq is not the choosing of violence to achieve political ends. You’re welcome to try again.
Second of all, it was “Rumsfeld’s Big Mistake?” What, he sent our military over there without the knowledge, approval or command of the president? Come on, Charles.
In what way is what we’ve done in Iraq NOT a textbook example of “choosing violence as a means to political ends?” Seriously, you’ll need to show your work here.
Bush has his own reasons, Phil, but my reasons are that Saddam started the Gulf War, and the Gulf War didn’t end until May 1, 2003. After that, from May 2003 to November 2006, it was Rumsfeld’s Big Mistake.
First off, that doesn’t answer the question at all. Nowhere did I mention Bush, Saddam, or Don Rumsfeld. I asked how the US invasion of Iraq is not the choosing of violence to achieve political ends. You’re welcome to try again.
Second of all, it was “Rumsfeld’s Big Mistake?” What, he sent our military over there without the knowledge, approval or command of the president? Come on, Charles.
Charles, if you don’t have expertise on statistics, and it’s not helpful to analyze them, and you’re not capable of doing so, is it possible that therefore you might want to take that into account in writing lengthy posts focused almost entirely on statistics?
(applause)
Gary, based entirely on that comment, there is a pint waiting for you here whenever health, finance and geography permit your drinking it.
Charles, if you don’t have expertise on statistics, and it’s not helpful to analyze them, and you’re not capable of doing so, is it possible that therefore you might want to take that into account in writing lengthy posts focused almost entirely on statistics?
(applause)
Gary, based entirely on that comment, there is a pint waiting for you here whenever health, finance and geography permit your drinking it.
Charles, if you don’t have expertise on statistics, and it’s not helpful to analyze them, and you’re not capable of doing so, is it possible that therefore you might want to take that into account in writing lengthy posts focused almost entirely on statistics?
(applause)
Gary, based entirely on that comment, there is a pint waiting for you here whenever health, finance and geography permit your drinking it.
Your timing is amiss, turb. The Sunnis used violence against us, but when they joined the coalition and turned against al Qaeda, we gave them money (but not weapons).
Charles, are you saying that the NYT was lying when they wrote that “American commanders are…arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past”?
I don’t understand why the timing of giving money/weapons and stopping attacks against American forces is relevant. Can you explain it to me? I mean, when I started my current job, they didn’t give me any money until a few weeks after I had been working there. Nevertheless, the promise of money was a major motivating factor for me. In fact, I’d say that there was a causal relationship between me getting paid to work there and me starting to work there, even though the payment happened after starting work.
Your timing is amiss, turb. The Sunnis used violence against us, but when they joined the coalition and turned against al Qaeda, we gave them money (but not weapons).
Charles, are you saying that the NYT was lying when they wrote that “American commanders are…arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past”?
I don’t understand why the timing of giving money/weapons and stopping attacks against American forces is relevant. Can you explain it to me? I mean, when I started my current job, they didn’t give me any money until a few weeks after I had been working there. Nevertheless, the promise of money was a major motivating factor for me. In fact, I’d say that there was a causal relationship between me getting paid to work there and me starting to work there, even though the payment happened after starting work.
Your timing is amiss, turb. The Sunnis used violence against us, but when they joined the coalition and turned against al Qaeda, we gave them money (but not weapons).
Charles, are you saying that the NYT was lying when they wrote that “American commanders are…arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past”?
I don’t understand why the timing of giving money/weapons and stopping attacks against American forces is relevant. Can you explain it to me? I mean, when I started my current job, they didn’t give me any money until a few weeks after I had been working there. Nevertheless, the promise of money was a major motivating factor for me. In fact, I’d say that there was a causal relationship between me getting paid to work there and me starting to work there, even though the payment happened after starting work.
“Is it legitimate for this country to invade another country, remove it’s government, and replace it with one more to our own liking?
No, Russell, but that wasn’t our initial main reason for removing Saddam.”
If that is what you believe, then, IMO you are very naive. The reasons given by this administration were basically a lot of smoke to hide the real reasons.
“I disagree with your premise that the surge has done nothing to quell the violence. ”
Really, you should read a little more clearly as that was never a premise of mine. In fact I specifically gave the surge some credit, just not all the credit.
“We’d be surrendering to those who choose violence as a means to political ends, John.”
Not an answer. Who are these people? Not AQI, as you yourself say they are hardly relevant anymore. Not the Sunni’s as you say they are on our side. Not the Shi’ites, as they are nominally on our side.
And to echo some other responses, the fact that Reid and others have reached a conclusion that you youself say you could see yourself coming to, but earlier than you does not make them defeatists. More likely they could be called realists.
I echo Gary in saying thank you for your responses.
And I also want to reiterate something I believe Russell said at some time. No matter what the outcome, even if Iraq turned into a haven of secular, American loving democracy, the invasion was never justified. It remains an illegal endeavor.
It is funny how some people will use the UN to justify their actions in cases such as these, but condemn the UN at other times when it does something they don’t like.
“Is it legitimate for this country to invade another country, remove it’s government, and replace it with one more to our own liking?
No, Russell, but that wasn’t our initial main reason for removing Saddam.”
If that is what you believe, then, IMO you are very naive. The reasons given by this administration were basically a lot of smoke to hide the real reasons.
“I disagree with your premise that the surge has done nothing to quell the violence. ”
Really, you should read a little more clearly as that was never a premise of mine. In fact I specifically gave the surge some credit, just not all the credit.
“We’d be surrendering to those who choose violence as a means to political ends, John.”
Not an answer. Who are these people? Not AQI, as you yourself say they are hardly relevant anymore. Not the Sunni’s as you say they are on our side. Not the Shi’ites, as they are nominally on our side.
And to echo some other responses, the fact that Reid and others have reached a conclusion that you youself say you could see yourself coming to, but earlier than you does not make them defeatists. More likely they could be called realists.
I echo Gary in saying thank you for your responses.
And I also want to reiterate something I believe Russell said at some time. No matter what the outcome, even if Iraq turned into a haven of secular, American loving democracy, the invasion was never justified. It remains an illegal endeavor.
It is funny how some people will use the UN to justify their actions in cases such as these, but condemn the UN at other times when it does something they don’t like.
“Is it legitimate for this country to invade another country, remove it’s government, and replace it with one more to our own liking?
No, Russell, but that wasn’t our initial main reason for removing Saddam.”
If that is what you believe, then, IMO you are very naive. The reasons given by this administration were basically a lot of smoke to hide the real reasons.
“I disagree with your premise that the surge has done nothing to quell the violence. ”
Really, you should read a little more clearly as that was never a premise of mine. In fact I specifically gave the surge some credit, just not all the credit.
“We’d be surrendering to those who choose violence as a means to political ends, John.”
Not an answer. Who are these people? Not AQI, as you yourself say they are hardly relevant anymore. Not the Sunni’s as you say they are on our side. Not the Shi’ites, as they are nominally on our side.
And to echo some other responses, the fact that Reid and others have reached a conclusion that you youself say you could see yourself coming to, but earlier than you does not make them defeatists. More likely they could be called realists.
I echo Gary in saying thank you for your responses.
And I also want to reiterate something I believe Russell said at some time. No matter what the outcome, even if Iraq turned into a haven of secular, American loving democracy, the invasion was never justified. It remains an illegal endeavor.
It is funny how some people will use the UN to justify their actions in cases such as these, but condemn the UN at other times when it does something they don’t like.
re. the post on the top: Or, it could just be that it’s been Eid.
Granted, the “the extra 30.000 troops relocated to the bagdad- area who violently put down only the terrorists who killed civilians and blew up the mosque, made things relatively safe all over the country, and the surge is obviously working, and we trust the body count in the morgues to tell us that accurately” – is a very original theory.
Still – the dip down to normal levels could be because it’s been Eid.
re. the post on the top: Or, it could just be that it’s been Eid.
Granted, the “the extra 30.000 troops relocated to the bagdad- area who violently put down only the terrorists who killed civilians and blew up the mosque, made things relatively safe all over the country, and the surge is obviously working, and we trust the body count in the morgues to tell us that accurately” – is a very original theory.
Still – the dip down to normal levels could be because it’s been Eid.
re. the post on the top: Or, it could just be that it’s been Eid.
Granted, the “the extra 30.000 troops relocated to the bagdad- area who violently put down only the terrorists who killed civilians and blew up the mosque, made things relatively safe all over the country, and the surge is obviously working, and we trust the body count in the morgues to tell us that accurately” – is a very original theory.
Still – the dip down to normal levels could be because it’s been Eid.
It remains perfectly true that “the Iraqi government’s belief and policy is that the ‘awakenings’ are arming the Sunni enemy for future civil war against the Iraqi government,” does it not, Charles?
The coalition’s intent is to get Sunnis to join the IA or NP, as well as Shiites, Gary. I don’t believe it’s an unimportant distinction to say that we’re arming police and army forces, not Sunnis directly. This is one way to have Sunnis and Shiites join together in a common cause instead of being pitted against each other.
Is it your contention, then, that the Iraqi government is on the path to acceptance of “the awakenings,” as you call them, as a legitimate political movement that will be drawn into the government in the future?
That was one of the reasons why al Maliki went to Anbar a month or two back. That’s why Sunni and Shiite groups had that reconciliation meeting in Diyala. Like I wrote earlier, it’d be nice to hear an update from Crocker about more details.
Or maybe you warned everyone you knew, back then, about the blowblack you then saw coming?
I paid little attention to Afghanistan in the 1980s, Gary, but I’m pretty sure there were fundamental differences between post-Soviet Afghanistan and post-Rumsfeld Iraq. This doesn’t mean that lots of things could go wrong in Iraq, but it’s also true that lots of liberals predicted terrible future events that never came to pass. No one has batted 1.000, and quite a few averages will go below the Mendoza line by the time Bush leaves. I’m disinclined to get into who said what and when, and whether one person’s views were right or wrong about Iraq in 2003, 2004, 2005, etc. I’ve already made that assessment of my own record, as you may recall, and I’d rather not take an enormous amount of time in a thread that has already taken an enormous amount of time. Can you see why my posting frequency here is about one per month? It’s not that I don’t want to have a dialogue, and I’m trying to answer every substantive comment, but I’m resistant in going into big, time-consuming research projects this late in a thread.
Charles, if you don’t have expertise on statistics, and it’s not helpful to analyze them, and you’re not capable of doing so, is it possible that therefore you might want to take that into account in writing lengthy posts focused almost entirely on statistics?
A lack of statistical expertise doesn’t mean I’m incapable of understanding or using numbers, Gary. I’ve already told you in several past threads that I claim expertise in two fields, basketball and commercial real estate. Why do you keep forgetting that? I’m a CPA by training, I took over a year of statistics in business school, and I work with scads of numbers in my chosen career. bobby is welcome to put together his own stats. If he wants to do it, fine. I’m not, and in my view it’s not germane enough to the main topic in this post. I’m glad you recognized that you might be moving into the realm of hectoring.
If you really don’t think the term is charged, then why didn’t you just say “I too would be in favor of surrender?”
I did upthread, girsch, and I don’t see the point of saying it every single time, just as I don’t feel the need to blame Bush every single time for every little thing he does (hear that, Phil?) I understand that liberals may respond emotionally to the terms I used, but I wouldn’t use them if they weren’t close to the dictionary definitions.
I asked how the US invasion of Iraq is not the choosing of violence to achieve political ends.
Because Saddam resorted to violence first, Phil, when he started the Gulf War, and remained ceasefire until March 2003. The timeline really started in 1990, when he invaded Kuwait. There’s a gray area in Just War Theory, and every individual is going to have a different interpretation of when Saddam reached (or didn’t yet reach) the point of last resort. My own view is that he reached it some time in the 1990s.
I don’t understand why the timing of giving money/weapons and stopping attacks against American forces is relevant.
Turb, I think it is relevant to note that we didn’t help the Sunni tribes until they decided to turn away from al Qaeda and join the U.S. coalition. It’s an important political and military step of bringing once-hostile Sunni groups out of the shadows and into a more pacified Iraqi society. We kept asking them, but we didn’t start helping them until they accepted. If you haven’t read him, Michael Yon has amazing accounts of onetime enemies becoming allies and friends. It’s fortuitous that it happened, but it’s also in keeping with counterinsurgency doctrine, and one of the main tenets is to convince insurgents that it’s less costly to lay down arms and join society than to fight against it.
The reasons given by this administration were basically a lot of smoke to hide the real reasons.
I’m aware of the reasons for removing Saddam, Russell. Bush and his people outlined at least 23 of them. Perhaps you could tell me what you think are the “real reasons”.
It remains perfectly true that “the Iraqi government’s belief and policy is that the ‘awakenings’ are arming the Sunni enemy for future civil war against the Iraqi government,” does it not, Charles?
The coalition’s intent is to get Sunnis to join the IA or NP, as well as Shiites, Gary. I don’t believe it’s an unimportant distinction to say that we’re arming police and army forces, not Sunnis directly. This is one way to have Sunnis and Shiites join together in a common cause instead of being pitted against each other.
Is it your contention, then, that the Iraqi government is on the path to acceptance of “the awakenings,” as you call them, as a legitimate political movement that will be drawn into the government in the future?
That was one of the reasons why al Maliki went to Anbar a month or two back. That’s why Sunni and Shiite groups had that reconciliation meeting in Diyala. Like I wrote earlier, it’d be nice to hear an update from Crocker about more details.
Or maybe you warned everyone you knew, back then, about the blowblack you then saw coming?
I paid little attention to Afghanistan in the 1980s, Gary, but I’m pretty sure there were fundamental differences between post-Soviet Afghanistan and post-Rumsfeld Iraq. This doesn’t mean that lots of things could go wrong in Iraq, but it’s also true that lots of liberals predicted terrible future events that never came to pass. No one has batted 1.000, and quite a few averages will go below the Mendoza line by the time Bush leaves. I’m disinclined to get into who said what and when, and whether one person’s views were right or wrong about Iraq in 2003, 2004, 2005, etc. I’ve already made that assessment of my own record, as you may recall, and I’d rather not take an enormous amount of time in a thread that has already taken an enormous amount of time. Can you see why my posting frequency here is about one per month? It’s not that I don’t want to have a dialogue, and I’m trying to answer every substantive comment, but I’m resistant in going into big, time-consuming research projects this late in a thread.
Charles, if you don’t have expertise on statistics, and it’s not helpful to analyze them, and you’re not capable of doing so, is it possible that therefore you might want to take that into account in writing lengthy posts focused almost entirely on statistics?
A lack of statistical expertise doesn’t mean I’m incapable of understanding or using numbers, Gary. I’ve already told you in several past threads that I claim expertise in two fields, basketball and commercial real estate. Why do you keep forgetting that? I’m a CPA by training, I took over a year of statistics in business school, and I work with scads of numbers in my chosen career. bobby is welcome to put together his own stats. If he wants to do it, fine. I’m not, and in my view it’s not germane enough to the main topic in this post. I’m glad you recognized that you might be moving into the realm of hectoring.
If you really don’t think the term is charged, then why didn’t you just say “I too would be in favor of surrender?”
I did upthread, girsch, and I don’t see the point of saying it every single time, just as I don’t feel the need to blame Bush every single time for every little thing he does (hear that, Phil?) I understand that liberals may respond emotionally to the terms I used, but I wouldn’t use them if they weren’t close to the dictionary definitions.
I asked how the US invasion of Iraq is not the choosing of violence to achieve political ends.
Because Saddam resorted to violence first, Phil, when he started the Gulf War, and remained ceasefire until March 2003. The timeline really started in 1990, when he invaded Kuwait. There’s a gray area in Just War Theory, and every individual is going to have a different interpretation of when Saddam reached (or didn’t yet reach) the point of last resort. My own view is that he reached it some time in the 1990s.
I don’t understand why the timing of giving money/weapons and stopping attacks against American forces is relevant.
Turb, I think it is relevant to note that we didn’t help the Sunni tribes until they decided to turn away from al Qaeda and join the U.S. coalition. It’s an important political and military step of bringing once-hostile Sunni groups out of the shadows and into a more pacified Iraqi society. We kept asking them, but we didn’t start helping them until they accepted. If you haven’t read him, Michael Yon has amazing accounts of onetime enemies becoming allies and friends. It’s fortuitous that it happened, but it’s also in keeping with counterinsurgency doctrine, and one of the main tenets is to convince insurgents that it’s less costly to lay down arms and join society than to fight against it.
The reasons given by this administration were basically a lot of smoke to hide the real reasons.
I’m aware of the reasons for removing Saddam, Russell. Bush and his people outlined at least 23 of them. Perhaps you could tell me what you think are the “real reasons”.
It remains perfectly true that “the Iraqi government’s belief and policy is that the ‘awakenings’ are arming the Sunni enemy for future civil war against the Iraqi government,” does it not, Charles?
The coalition’s intent is to get Sunnis to join the IA or NP, as well as Shiites, Gary. I don’t believe it’s an unimportant distinction to say that we’re arming police and army forces, not Sunnis directly. This is one way to have Sunnis and Shiites join together in a common cause instead of being pitted against each other.
Is it your contention, then, that the Iraqi government is on the path to acceptance of “the awakenings,” as you call them, as a legitimate political movement that will be drawn into the government in the future?
That was one of the reasons why al Maliki went to Anbar a month or two back. That’s why Sunni and Shiite groups had that reconciliation meeting in Diyala. Like I wrote earlier, it’d be nice to hear an update from Crocker about more details.
Or maybe you warned everyone you knew, back then, about the blowblack you then saw coming?
I paid little attention to Afghanistan in the 1980s, Gary, but I’m pretty sure there were fundamental differences between post-Soviet Afghanistan and post-Rumsfeld Iraq. This doesn’t mean that lots of things could go wrong in Iraq, but it’s also true that lots of liberals predicted terrible future events that never came to pass. No one has batted 1.000, and quite a few averages will go below the Mendoza line by the time Bush leaves. I’m disinclined to get into who said what and when, and whether one person’s views were right or wrong about Iraq in 2003, 2004, 2005, etc. I’ve already made that assessment of my own record, as you may recall, and I’d rather not take an enormous amount of time in a thread that has already taken an enormous amount of time. Can you see why my posting frequency here is about one per month? It’s not that I don’t want to have a dialogue, and I’m trying to answer every substantive comment, but I’m resistant in going into big, time-consuming research projects this late in a thread.
Charles, if you don’t have expertise on statistics, and it’s not helpful to analyze them, and you’re not capable of doing so, is it possible that therefore you might want to take that into account in writing lengthy posts focused almost entirely on statistics?
A lack of statistical expertise doesn’t mean I’m incapable of understanding or using numbers, Gary. I’ve already told you in several past threads that I claim expertise in two fields, basketball and commercial real estate. Why do you keep forgetting that? I’m a CPA by training, I took over a year of statistics in business school, and I work with scads of numbers in my chosen career. bobby is welcome to put together his own stats. If he wants to do it, fine. I’m not, and in my view it’s not germane enough to the main topic in this post. I’m glad you recognized that you might be moving into the realm of hectoring.
If you really don’t think the term is charged, then why didn’t you just say “I too would be in favor of surrender?”
I did upthread, girsch, and I don’t see the point of saying it every single time, just as I don’t feel the need to blame Bush every single time for every little thing he does (hear that, Phil?) I understand that liberals may respond emotionally to the terms I used, but I wouldn’t use them if they weren’t close to the dictionary definitions.
I asked how the US invasion of Iraq is not the choosing of violence to achieve political ends.
Because Saddam resorted to violence first, Phil, when he started the Gulf War, and remained ceasefire until March 2003. The timeline really started in 1990, when he invaded Kuwait. There’s a gray area in Just War Theory, and every individual is going to have a different interpretation of when Saddam reached (or didn’t yet reach) the point of last resort. My own view is that he reached it some time in the 1990s.
I don’t understand why the timing of giving money/weapons and stopping attacks against American forces is relevant.
Turb, I think it is relevant to note that we didn’t help the Sunni tribes until they decided to turn away from al Qaeda and join the U.S. coalition. It’s an important political and military step of bringing once-hostile Sunni groups out of the shadows and into a more pacified Iraqi society. We kept asking them, but we didn’t start helping them until they accepted. If you haven’t read him, Michael Yon has amazing accounts of onetime enemies becoming allies and friends. It’s fortuitous that it happened, but it’s also in keeping with counterinsurgency doctrine, and one of the main tenets is to convince insurgents that it’s less costly to lay down arms and join society than to fight against it.
The reasons given by this administration were basically a lot of smoke to hide the real reasons.
I’m aware of the reasons for removing Saddam, Russell. Bush and his people outlined at least 23 of them. Perhaps you could tell me what you think are the “real reasons”.
I’m aware of the reasons for removing Saddam, Russell. Bush and his people outlined at least 23 of them. Perhaps you could tell me what you think are the “real reasons”.
You’re replying to john miller, not me.
But since you ask: I’ll be damned if I can make sense of the reasons that were advanced at the time. They changed with each passing day, as each one in turn proved to be a pile of steaming but convenient dung.
And not for nothing, but 23 reasons, odd though it may seem, is about 20 reasons too many to go to war. When it’s really necessary, the one or two obvious reasons will just jump right out at you.
“Saddam will kill us in our beds”, for example, was actually a damned good reason. It just wasn’t true, so we needed to find some more.
My best guess is that the goal was to project American power in the middle east and establish a client, or at least a friendly, state in order to adjust the balance of power in the region in our favor.
The reason I lean that way is because that’s the reason that has commonly been given over the years by the folks who got us into this after 9/11. They’ve wanted it for a long, long time, 9/11 was their opportunity, and so here we are.
How many countries are in violation of some UN sanction? How many of those have we invaded and occupied?
How many countries in the world *might* be pursuing weapons programs that *might* be dangerous to us? How many of those have we invaded and occupied?
With what other nations have we ended military conflict on somewhat inconclusive terms? How many of those have we invaded and occupied?
I can’t think of any off the top of my head. Perhaps you can, let me know if so.
IMO, a common sense reading of the bald facts of the matter argue that we invaded and occupied Iraq to project power into the middle east by replacing Hussein with a state friendlier to our interests.
Arguably, not a bad result, if it ever actually happens. And we’ve probably checked enough of the “legal requirement” boxes that Bush and Cheney are unlikely to actually hang.
But it stinks to high heaven, always has, and always will, and it’s cost us every ounce of credibility that our fathers and grandfathers died to earn.
We’ll pay for this for another generation. And it’s done nothing, absolutely nothing, to make this nation safer from any of the very real threats we actually face right now. On the contrary, in fact.
My two cents.
Thanks –
I’m aware of the reasons for removing Saddam, Russell. Bush and his people outlined at least 23 of them. Perhaps you could tell me what you think are the “real reasons”.
You’re replying to john miller, not me.
But since you ask: I’ll be damned if I can make sense of the reasons that were advanced at the time. They changed with each passing day, as each one in turn proved to be a pile of steaming but convenient dung.
And not for nothing, but 23 reasons, odd though it may seem, is about 20 reasons too many to go to war. When it’s really necessary, the one or two obvious reasons will just jump right out at you.
“Saddam will kill us in our beds”, for example, was actually a damned good reason. It just wasn’t true, so we needed to find some more.
My best guess is that the goal was to project American power in the middle east and establish a client, or at least a friendly, state in order to adjust the balance of power in the region in our favor.
The reason I lean that way is because that’s the reason that has commonly been given over the years by the folks who got us into this after 9/11. They’ve wanted it for a long, long time, 9/11 was their opportunity, and so here we are.
How many countries are in violation of some UN sanction? How many of those have we invaded and occupied?
How many countries in the world *might* be pursuing weapons programs that *might* be dangerous to us? How many of those have we invaded and occupied?
With what other nations have we ended military conflict on somewhat inconclusive terms? How many of those have we invaded and occupied?
I can’t think of any off the top of my head. Perhaps you can, let me know if so.
IMO, a common sense reading of the bald facts of the matter argue that we invaded and occupied Iraq to project power into the middle east by replacing Hussein with a state friendlier to our interests.
Arguably, not a bad result, if it ever actually happens. And we’ve probably checked enough of the “legal requirement” boxes that Bush and Cheney are unlikely to actually hang.
But it stinks to high heaven, always has, and always will, and it’s cost us every ounce of credibility that our fathers and grandfathers died to earn.
We’ll pay for this for another generation. And it’s done nothing, absolutely nothing, to make this nation safer from any of the very real threats we actually face right now. On the contrary, in fact.
My two cents.
Thanks –
I’m aware of the reasons for removing Saddam, Russell. Bush and his people outlined at least 23 of them. Perhaps you could tell me what you think are the “real reasons”.
You’re replying to john miller, not me.
But since you ask: I’ll be damned if I can make sense of the reasons that were advanced at the time. They changed with each passing day, as each one in turn proved to be a pile of steaming but convenient dung.
And not for nothing, but 23 reasons, odd though it may seem, is about 20 reasons too many to go to war. When it’s really necessary, the one or two obvious reasons will just jump right out at you.
“Saddam will kill us in our beds”, for example, was actually a damned good reason. It just wasn’t true, so we needed to find some more.
My best guess is that the goal was to project American power in the middle east and establish a client, or at least a friendly, state in order to adjust the balance of power in the region in our favor.
The reason I lean that way is because that’s the reason that has commonly been given over the years by the folks who got us into this after 9/11. They’ve wanted it for a long, long time, 9/11 was their opportunity, and so here we are.
How many countries are in violation of some UN sanction? How many of those have we invaded and occupied?
How many countries in the world *might* be pursuing weapons programs that *might* be dangerous to us? How many of those have we invaded and occupied?
With what other nations have we ended military conflict on somewhat inconclusive terms? How many of those have we invaded and occupied?
I can’t think of any off the top of my head. Perhaps you can, let me know if so.
IMO, a common sense reading of the bald facts of the matter argue that we invaded and occupied Iraq to project power into the middle east by replacing Hussein with a state friendlier to our interests.
Arguably, not a bad result, if it ever actually happens. And we’ve probably checked enough of the “legal requirement” boxes that Bush and Cheney are unlikely to actually hang.
But it stinks to high heaven, always has, and always will, and it’s cost us every ounce of credibility that our fathers and grandfathers died to earn.
We’ll pay for this for another generation. And it’s done nothing, absolutely nothing, to make this nation safer from any of the very real threats we actually face right now. On the contrary, in fact.
My two cents.
Thanks –
I don’t seem to be getting through, since you keep engaging in non-sequitur responses, Charles.
It remains perfectly true that “the Iraqi government’s belief and policy is that the ‘awakenings’ are arming the Sunni enemy for future civil war against the Iraqi government,” does it not?
If you could actually answer that question, rather than going off to discuss other stuff entirely, like something about the U.S., or the “coalition,” I’d appreciate it. Thanks.
Also, is it your contention, then, that the Iraqi government is on the path to acceptance of “the awakenings,” as you call them, as a legitimate political movement that will be drawn into the government in the future? If you could answer that, I’d appreciate it.
In both cases, you are by no means restricted to “yes” or “no,” and I welcome reading you at as much length as you’d care to engage in, but I’m looking for something that actually does include a “yes” or a “no,” and is responsive, rather than digressive to some other stuff that you somehow see as related, but which seem to me to be utter non-sequiturs off onto other subjects.
Lastly, do you then not see anything at all possibly, conceivably,negative, on the imaginative horizon, as you see it, Charles, as regards the creation of armed and independent Sunni “awakenings” groups in Iraq, and their future relationship with the national and regional Iraqi governments, Charles?
No possibility of any specific possible drawbacks or negative outcomes occur to you as even faintly, conceivably, possible as regards turning the Sunni tribes into independent forces via the “awakenings”? Is that your stance, then?
I really don’t want to misunderstand you here.
Thanks.
Who said it did?
I’m trying to follow you, Charles.
So when you wrote “I’ll pass, bobby, because I don’t have expertise in statistics,” what you actually meant is that you have expertise in statistics?
And when you wrote, as regards performing a least squares regression, that “[i]t wouldn’t be terribly helpful, anyway. We are where we are, and I’m more interested in finding the best ways for going forward,” you were saying that looking at statistics and comparing them to older data isn’t helpful, which is why you keep doing it every month?
I’m not trying to play games with you, Charles. I’m trying to make some coherent and at least vaguely consistent sense out of what it is you’re trying to say.
Simply put, these two questions are:
1) Is looking at Iraqi statistics, and comparing them from month to month or year to year “helpful,” or not? Might you pick one?
2) Do you feel you have “expertise” in statistics sufficient to usefully analyze them for other people, or not? Again, if you might pick one?
Thanks!
Um, what? Either the U.S. had a choice in 2001-3 to invade Iraq, or not. Are you actually arguing that there was some sort of involuntary geas put on Bush?
Because “choice” has a very clear meaning, and it’s quite distinct from “no choice.”
You can, for instance, choose to respond to this comment, or not. No matter what I say or do, you still have that choice.
If, instead, you claim that somehow, because of something I’ve said or done, you have no choice but to respond in a certain way, you would be wrong, although such responses are common from small children and irrational people.
But you’re not one, so I’m sure you wouldn’t be taking that position.
“Turb, I think it is relevant to note that we didn’t help the Sunni tribes until they decided to turn away from al Qaeda and join the U.S. coalition.”
I look forward to comparing notes with you on the “coalition” that the Sunni tribes and the U.S. are jointly in, in two to three years.
It couldn’t possibly go like our “coalition” with this fellow, could it? Because…?
I don’t seem to be getting through, since you keep engaging in non-sequitur responses, Charles.
It remains perfectly true that “the Iraqi government’s belief and policy is that the ‘awakenings’ are arming the Sunni enemy for future civil war against the Iraqi government,” does it not?
If you could actually answer that question, rather than going off to discuss other stuff entirely, like something about the U.S., or the “coalition,” I’d appreciate it. Thanks.
Also, is it your contention, then, that the Iraqi government is on the path to acceptance of “the awakenings,” as you call them, as a legitimate political movement that will be drawn into the government in the future? If you could answer that, I’d appreciate it.
In both cases, you are by no means restricted to “yes” or “no,” and I welcome reading you at as much length as you’d care to engage in, but I’m looking for something that actually does include a “yes” or a “no,” and is responsive, rather than digressive to some other stuff that you somehow see as related, but which seem to me to be utter non-sequiturs off onto other subjects.
Lastly, do you then not see anything at all possibly, conceivably,negative, on the imaginative horizon, as you see it, Charles, as regards the creation of armed and independent Sunni “awakenings” groups in Iraq, and their future relationship with the national and regional Iraqi governments, Charles?
No possibility of any specific possible drawbacks or negative outcomes occur to you as even faintly, conceivably, possible as regards turning the Sunni tribes into independent forces via the “awakenings”? Is that your stance, then?
I really don’t want to misunderstand you here.
Thanks.
Who said it did?
I’m trying to follow you, Charles.
So when you wrote “I’ll pass, bobby, because I don’t have expertise in statistics,” what you actually meant is that you have expertise in statistics?
And when you wrote, as regards performing a least squares regression, that “[i]t wouldn’t be terribly helpful, anyway. We are where we are, and I’m more interested in finding the best ways for going forward,” you were saying that looking at statistics and comparing them to older data isn’t helpful, which is why you keep doing it every month?
I’m not trying to play games with you, Charles. I’m trying to make some coherent and at least vaguely consistent sense out of what it is you’re trying to say.
Simply put, these two questions are:
1) Is looking at Iraqi statistics, and comparing them from month to month or year to year “helpful,” or not? Might you pick one?
2) Do you feel you have “expertise” in statistics sufficient to usefully analyze them for other people, or not? Again, if you might pick one?
Thanks!
Um, what? Either the U.S. had a choice in 2001-3 to invade Iraq, or not. Are you actually arguing that there was some sort of involuntary geas put on Bush?
Because “choice” has a very clear meaning, and it’s quite distinct from “no choice.”
You can, for instance, choose to respond to this comment, or not. No matter what I say or do, you still have that choice.
If, instead, you claim that somehow, because of something I’ve said or done, you have no choice but to respond in a certain way, you would be wrong, although such responses are common from small children and irrational people.
But you’re not one, so I’m sure you wouldn’t be taking that position.
“Turb, I think it is relevant to note that we didn’t help the Sunni tribes until they decided to turn away from al Qaeda and join the U.S. coalition.”
I look forward to comparing notes with you on the “coalition” that the Sunni tribes and the U.S. are jointly in, in two to three years.
It couldn’t possibly go like our “coalition” with this fellow, could it? Because…?
I don’t seem to be getting through, since you keep engaging in non-sequitur responses, Charles.
It remains perfectly true that “the Iraqi government’s belief and policy is that the ‘awakenings’ are arming the Sunni enemy for future civil war against the Iraqi government,” does it not?
If you could actually answer that question, rather than going off to discuss other stuff entirely, like something about the U.S., or the “coalition,” I’d appreciate it. Thanks.
Also, is it your contention, then, that the Iraqi government is on the path to acceptance of “the awakenings,” as you call them, as a legitimate political movement that will be drawn into the government in the future? If you could answer that, I’d appreciate it.
In both cases, you are by no means restricted to “yes” or “no,” and I welcome reading you at as much length as you’d care to engage in, but I’m looking for something that actually does include a “yes” or a “no,” and is responsive, rather than digressive to some other stuff that you somehow see as related, but which seem to me to be utter non-sequiturs off onto other subjects.
Lastly, do you then not see anything at all possibly, conceivably,negative, on the imaginative horizon, as you see it, Charles, as regards the creation of armed and independent Sunni “awakenings” groups in Iraq, and their future relationship with the national and regional Iraqi governments, Charles?
No possibility of any specific possible drawbacks or negative outcomes occur to you as even faintly, conceivably, possible as regards turning the Sunni tribes into independent forces via the “awakenings”? Is that your stance, then?
I really don’t want to misunderstand you here.
Thanks.
Who said it did?
I’m trying to follow you, Charles.
So when you wrote “I’ll pass, bobby, because I don’t have expertise in statistics,” what you actually meant is that you have expertise in statistics?
And when you wrote, as regards performing a least squares regression, that “[i]t wouldn’t be terribly helpful, anyway. We are where we are, and I’m more interested in finding the best ways for going forward,” you were saying that looking at statistics and comparing them to older data isn’t helpful, which is why you keep doing it every month?
I’m not trying to play games with you, Charles. I’m trying to make some coherent and at least vaguely consistent sense out of what it is you’re trying to say.
Simply put, these two questions are:
1) Is looking at Iraqi statistics, and comparing them from month to month or year to year “helpful,” or not? Might you pick one?
2) Do you feel you have “expertise” in statistics sufficient to usefully analyze them for other people, or not? Again, if you might pick one?
Thanks!
Um, what? Either the U.S. had a choice in 2001-3 to invade Iraq, or not. Are you actually arguing that there was some sort of involuntary geas put on Bush?
Because “choice” has a very clear meaning, and it’s quite distinct from “no choice.”
You can, for instance, choose to respond to this comment, or not. No matter what I say or do, you still have that choice.
If, instead, you claim that somehow, because of something I’ve said or done, you have no choice but to respond in a certain way, you would be wrong, although such responses are common from small children and irrational people.
But you’re not one, so I’m sure you wouldn’t be taking that position.
“Turb, I think it is relevant to note that we didn’t help the Sunni tribes until they decided to turn away from al Qaeda and join the U.S. coalition.”
I look forward to comparing notes with you on the “coalition” that the Sunni tribes and the U.S. are jointly in, in two to three years.
It couldn’t possibly go like our “coalition” with this fellow, could it? Because…?
I was going to stay out of this but…
Charles: I’m disinclined to get into who said what and when, and whether one person’s views were right or wrong about Iraq in 2003, 2004, 2005, etc.
No.
No.
No, no, no.
People do not live in a vacuum. History is not a blank slate, to be written and rewritten and erased and forgotten. There must be an accounting of who said what, of who pushed for which actions, of which people supported and opposed the fiascos before us. There must. Otherwise we end up in the same credulous, monstrous cycle, endlessly wallowing in the filthy debris of our own devising.
We learn from history, or we drown in it. And to learn, we have to remember.
I know you’re overwhelmed at the moment, but this response perfectly illustrates the childish amnesia that has ruined this country. We have to remember. We have to judge. And we have to use these memories and these judgments to, among other things, determine who has credibility and who does not. When you say:
…you are engaging in exactly the kind of facile bullshit that’s responsible for getting us into this mess, a generic white-washing of past sins to prevent any real accountability from taking place. That this quote was preceded by this:
…is just the icing on the cake. Of course there were fundamental differences, that’s a completely trivial (and completely worthless) observation. What’s relevant is whether there were fundamental similarities, from which analogies could have been — were — drawn and which, by gum, seem to have been correct.
But if bygones are to be bygones, by which we apparently mean that we’ll simply forget about those who cavalierly (or belligerently) plunged us into this bloody quagmire, and either pretend they didn’t matter or call their sins equal to the miscalculations of others, then… well, shit, we’re pretty much screwed.
And deservedly so.
Those who were right should be praised. Those who were wrong should be scrutinized. And those were sickeningly wrong — who predicted we’d be greeted with flowers, or who believed that Saddam was an imminent threat, or who castigated the cautious and correct as being “objectively pro-terrorist”, and so on and so forth — should be silent until such time as they’ve corrected their errors and apologized — atoned — for their sins, and for the calamity they helped create.
Which, to be pointed about it, raises the question: despite the obvious effort you’re putting into these posts, what makes you think you’ve earned the right to be listened to on Iraq again? What evidence can you offer that you’ve learned anything from the mistakes of the past? What evidence can you offer that you’ve learned anything about other people’s mistakes? ’cause damned if I (or myriad others) can see it.
Your answer, based on past experience, will be to tell me — more genteelly than this, of course — that you have nothing to prove and that I can f*** off if I don’t believe you, and fair enough. Just don’t expect anyone to heed anything you say. You haven’t earned it.
PS: I’m not convinced that that is a “fact”.
You don’t get to choose whether it’s a fact or not, Charles. You only get to accept or deny it. Given your self-professed lack of statistical expertise, I’d be far more circumspect in your posturing if I were you. Then again, if you were more circumspect in your posturing, you’d probably be a hell of a lot more correct and I’d never have written this post. Funny how things work out.
I was going to stay out of this but…
Charles: I’m disinclined to get into who said what and when, and whether one person’s views were right or wrong about Iraq in 2003, 2004, 2005, etc.
No.
No.
No, no, no.
People do not live in a vacuum. History is not a blank slate, to be written and rewritten and erased and forgotten. There must be an accounting of who said what, of who pushed for which actions, of which people supported and opposed the fiascos before us. There must. Otherwise we end up in the same credulous, monstrous cycle, endlessly wallowing in the filthy debris of our own devising.
We learn from history, or we drown in it. And to learn, we have to remember.
I know you’re overwhelmed at the moment, but this response perfectly illustrates the childish amnesia that has ruined this country. We have to remember. We have to judge. And we have to use these memories and these judgments to, among other things, determine who has credibility and who does not. When you say:
…you are engaging in exactly the kind of facile bullshit that’s responsible for getting us into this mess, a generic white-washing of past sins to prevent any real accountability from taking place. That this quote was preceded by this:
…is just the icing on the cake. Of course there were fundamental differences, that’s a completely trivial (and completely worthless) observation. What’s relevant is whether there were fundamental similarities, from which analogies could have been — were — drawn and which, by gum, seem to have been correct.
But if bygones are to be bygones, by which we apparently mean that we’ll simply forget about those who cavalierly (or belligerently) plunged us into this bloody quagmire, and either pretend they didn’t matter or call their sins equal to the miscalculations of others, then… well, shit, we’re pretty much screwed.
And deservedly so.
Those who were right should be praised. Those who were wrong should be scrutinized. And those were sickeningly wrong — who predicted we’d be greeted with flowers, or who believed that Saddam was an imminent threat, or who castigated the cautious and correct as being “objectively pro-terrorist”, and so on and so forth — should be silent until such time as they’ve corrected their errors and apologized — atoned — for their sins, and for the calamity they helped create.
Which, to be pointed about it, raises the question: despite the obvious effort you’re putting into these posts, what makes you think you’ve earned the right to be listened to on Iraq again? What evidence can you offer that you’ve learned anything from the mistakes of the past? What evidence can you offer that you’ve learned anything about other people’s mistakes? ’cause damned if I (or myriad others) can see it.
Your answer, based on past experience, will be to tell me — more genteelly than this, of course — that you have nothing to prove and that I can f*** off if I don’t believe you, and fair enough. Just don’t expect anyone to heed anything you say. You haven’t earned it.
PS: I’m not convinced that that is a “fact”.
You don’t get to choose whether it’s a fact or not, Charles. You only get to accept or deny it. Given your self-professed lack of statistical expertise, I’d be far more circumspect in your posturing if I were you. Then again, if you were more circumspect in your posturing, you’d probably be a hell of a lot more correct and I’d never have written this post. Funny how things work out.
I was going to stay out of this but…
Charles: I’m disinclined to get into who said what and when, and whether one person’s views were right or wrong about Iraq in 2003, 2004, 2005, etc.
No.
No.
No, no, no.
People do not live in a vacuum. History is not a blank slate, to be written and rewritten and erased and forgotten. There must be an accounting of who said what, of who pushed for which actions, of which people supported and opposed the fiascos before us. There must. Otherwise we end up in the same credulous, monstrous cycle, endlessly wallowing in the filthy debris of our own devising.
We learn from history, or we drown in it. And to learn, we have to remember.
I know you’re overwhelmed at the moment, but this response perfectly illustrates the childish amnesia that has ruined this country. We have to remember. We have to judge. And we have to use these memories and these judgments to, among other things, determine who has credibility and who does not. When you say:
…you are engaging in exactly the kind of facile bullshit that’s responsible for getting us into this mess, a generic white-washing of past sins to prevent any real accountability from taking place. That this quote was preceded by this:
…is just the icing on the cake. Of course there were fundamental differences, that’s a completely trivial (and completely worthless) observation. What’s relevant is whether there were fundamental similarities, from which analogies could have been — were — drawn and which, by gum, seem to have been correct.
But if bygones are to be bygones, by which we apparently mean that we’ll simply forget about those who cavalierly (or belligerently) plunged us into this bloody quagmire, and either pretend they didn’t matter or call their sins equal to the miscalculations of others, then… well, shit, we’re pretty much screwed.
And deservedly so.
Those who were right should be praised. Those who were wrong should be scrutinized. And those were sickeningly wrong — who predicted we’d be greeted with flowers, or who believed that Saddam was an imminent threat, or who castigated the cautious and correct as being “objectively pro-terrorist”, and so on and so forth — should be silent until such time as they’ve corrected their errors and apologized — atoned — for their sins, and for the calamity they helped create.
Which, to be pointed about it, raises the question: despite the obvious effort you’re putting into these posts, what makes you think you’ve earned the right to be listened to on Iraq again? What evidence can you offer that you’ve learned anything from the mistakes of the past? What evidence can you offer that you’ve learned anything about other people’s mistakes? ’cause damned if I (or myriad others) can see it.
Your answer, based on past experience, will be to tell me — more genteelly than this, of course — that you have nothing to prove and that I can f*** off if I don’t believe you, and fair enough. Just don’t expect anyone to heed anything you say. You haven’t earned it.
PS: I’m not convinced that that is a “fact”.
You don’t get to choose whether it’s a fact or not, Charles. You only get to accept or deny it. Given your self-professed lack of statistical expertise, I’d be far more circumspect in your posturing if I were you. Then again, if you were more circumspect in your posturing, you’d probably be a hell of a lot more correct and I’d never have written this post. Funny how things work out.
I asked how the US invasion of Iraq is not the choosing of violence to achieve political ends.
Because Saddam resorted to violence first, Phil,
Ah, the “He Hit Me First” theory of politics and warfare. Thanks.
I asked how the US invasion of Iraq is not the choosing of violence to achieve political ends.
Because Saddam resorted to violence first, Phil,
Ah, the “He Hit Me First” theory of politics and warfare. Thanks.
I asked how the US invasion of Iraq is not the choosing of violence to achieve political ends.
Because Saddam resorted to violence first, Phil,
Ah, the “He Hit Me First” theory of politics and warfare. Thanks.
As an aside, is that what your church teaches you, and you teach your children, about free will?
As an aside, is that what your church teaches you, and you teach your children, about free will?
As an aside, is that what your church teaches you, and you teach your children, about free will?
Charles:
“I’m disinclined to get into who said what and when ……….. ”
Me too. Could someone please comb through the archives and delete all of my comments? That goes for DaveC, too, who I wish was a little more forgetful.
And, if my mother is reading this, can we please not rehash ad nauseum what you thought I said about where I was the evening of April 14, 1966?
Oh yeah, and Mom, what was that you said about my “permanent record”?
To my lovely wife: I was joking. Both times.
There were more?
To Barbara Tuchman, Bruce Catton, Simon Schama, and the rest of you: Who cares?
To Henry Ford: You were right about history.
To the colleges my son is applying to: transcripts, schmlanscripts!
To Google and other search engines: What the world needs now is an Amnesia Engine. We need a clean break going forward so can we dispense with all the niggling detail spilling all over the place.
To George Santanyana: If I can’t remember it in the first place, every time it happens, it’s a fresh mistake. Every day is groundhog day.
Anyway, I want to thank Charles for his stamina in this thread and encourage him to please keep posting here. It makes me sick agreeing with Hilzoy 98.6% of the time. Besides, I’m tired of ruining this site all by myself …… o.k, I didn’t write that and if I did I didn’t mean it. It was a joke. Can we put this behind us?
In fact, scratch this comment all together.
😉 I didn’t wink. That was NOT a wink. I’ve got something in my eye.
Charles:
“I’m disinclined to get into who said what and when ……….. ”
Me too. Could someone please comb through the archives and delete all of my comments? That goes for DaveC, too, who I wish was a little more forgetful.
And, if my mother is reading this, can we please not rehash ad nauseum what you thought I said about where I was the evening of April 14, 1966?
Oh yeah, and Mom, what was that you said about my “permanent record”?
To my lovely wife: I was joking. Both times.
There were more?
To Barbara Tuchman, Bruce Catton, Simon Schama, and the rest of you: Who cares?
To Henry Ford: You were right about history.
To the colleges my son is applying to: transcripts, schmlanscripts!
To Google and other search engines: What the world needs now is an Amnesia Engine. We need a clean break going forward so can we dispense with all the niggling detail spilling all over the place.
To George Santanyana: If I can’t remember it in the first place, every time it happens, it’s a fresh mistake. Every day is groundhog day.
Anyway, I want to thank Charles for his stamina in this thread and encourage him to please keep posting here. It makes me sick agreeing with Hilzoy 98.6% of the time. Besides, I’m tired of ruining this site all by myself …… o.k, I didn’t write that and if I did I didn’t mean it. It was a joke. Can we put this behind us?
In fact, scratch this comment all together.
😉 I didn’t wink. That was NOT a wink. I’ve got something in my eye.
Charles:
“I’m disinclined to get into who said what and when ……….. ”
Me too. Could someone please comb through the archives and delete all of my comments? That goes for DaveC, too, who I wish was a little more forgetful.
And, if my mother is reading this, can we please not rehash ad nauseum what you thought I said about where I was the evening of April 14, 1966?
Oh yeah, and Mom, what was that you said about my “permanent record”?
To my lovely wife: I was joking. Both times.
There were more?
To Barbara Tuchman, Bruce Catton, Simon Schama, and the rest of you: Who cares?
To Henry Ford: You were right about history.
To the colleges my son is applying to: transcripts, schmlanscripts!
To Google and other search engines: What the world needs now is an Amnesia Engine. We need a clean break going forward so can we dispense with all the niggling detail spilling all over the place.
To George Santanyana: If I can’t remember it in the first place, every time it happens, it’s a fresh mistake. Every day is groundhog day.
Anyway, I want to thank Charles for his stamina in this thread and encourage him to please keep posting here. It makes me sick agreeing with Hilzoy 98.6% of the time. Besides, I’m tired of ruining this site all by myself …… o.k, I didn’t write that and if I did I didn’t mean it. It was a joke. Can we put this behind us?
In fact, scratch this comment all together.
😉 I didn’t wink. That was NOT a wink. I’ve got something in my eye.
I try to post just this: Some hints for your imagination, Charles.
And get this: “We’re sorry, your comment has not been published because TypePad’s antispam filter has flagged it as potential comment spam.”
One link is now forbidden? I hope not, because that would completely destroy supporting and making arguments better than any spam would.
I try to post just this: Some hints for your imagination, Charles.
And get this: “We’re sorry, your comment has not been published because TypePad’s antispam filter has flagged it as potential comment spam.”
One link is now forbidden? I hope not, because that would completely destroy supporting and making arguments better than any spam would.
I try to post just this: Some hints for your imagination, Charles.
And get this: “We’re sorry, your comment has not been published because TypePad’s antispam filter has flagged it as potential comment spam.”
One link is now forbidden? I hope not, because that would completely destroy supporting and making arguments better than any spam would.
Charles:
[me] If you really don’t think the term is charged, then why didn’t you just say “I too would be in favor of surrender?”
[you] I did upthread, girsch
Really? Where? I just searched the entire thread twice, and couldn’t find a single instance of you applying the term “surrender” to yourself, even in the hypothetical. When you’re referring to what you’d do, you choose your terms differently, and I would suspect just as deliberately. It’s always possible I missed it, so if I did, please be kind enough to point it out for me, and I will immediately apologize.
I understand that liberals may respond emotionally to the terms I used, but I wouldn’t use them if they weren’t close to the dictionary definitions.
It’s so good of you to provide dictionary definitions and try to hide behind semantics, but I call BS. I seriously doubt you’re unaware of the connotations that words bring with them. In fact, accoding to your own link, defeatism isn’t just “acceptance of defeat”:
Are you going to try to tell us that you chose the term “defeatism” and its variants, you were ignorant of these connotations, and in no way intended to imply them? I seriously doubt that’s true.
I don’t think that someone who merely accepts defeat, when it is reasonable and rational to do so, can fairly be described as a “defeatist.” And I don’t think it’s at all unfair, unreasonable, or out of line for someone to understand your use of “defeatism” as implying that, at a minimum, the target is too willing to accept defeat.
You can pretend that your terms aren’t in any way emotionally charged, and that it’s just an “overreaction” by “liberals” to take them that way, but based on what you’ve written here, I doubt you’re that unintelligent. And I would hope you’re not that disingenuous.
And for the record, I don’t think “defeat” is the correct term in this context anyway. “Failure” is a more accurate description, in my estimation. “Defeat” implies that there’s some well-defined enemy that has defeated you, and I don’t really think that exists here.
Because Saddam resorted to violence first
That’s paper-thin, and I think you know it. By that rationale, we could re-invade Viet Nam at any time on the justification that “they started it.”
Perhaps you could tell me what you think are the “real reasons”.
Start here. Pay particular attention to how pervasive the references to terrorism are.
Anarch:
Bravo! I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Charles:
[me] If you really don’t think the term is charged, then why didn’t you just say “I too would be in favor of surrender?”
[you] I did upthread, girsch
Really? Where? I just searched the entire thread twice, and couldn’t find a single instance of you applying the term “surrender” to yourself, even in the hypothetical. When you’re referring to what you’d do, you choose your terms differently, and I would suspect just as deliberately. It’s always possible I missed it, so if I did, please be kind enough to point it out for me, and I will immediately apologize.
I understand that liberals may respond emotionally to the terms I used, but I wouldn’t use them if they weren’t close to the dictionary definitions.
It’s so good of you to provide dictionary definitions and try to hide behind semantics, but I call BS. I seriously doubt you’re unaware of the connotations that words bring with them. In fact, accoding to your own link, defeatism isn’t just “acceptance of defeat”:
Are you going to try to tell us that you chose the term “defeatism” and its variants, you were ignorant of these connotations, and in no way intended to imply them? I seriously doubt that’s true.
I don’t think that someone who merely accepts defeat, when it is reasonable and rational to do so, can fairly be described as a “defeatist.” And I don’t think it’s at all unfair, unreasonable, or out of line for someone to understand your use of “defeatism” as implying that, at a minimum, the target is too willing to accept defeat.
You can pretend that your terms aren’t in any way emotionally charged, and that it’s just an “overreaction” by “liberals” to take them that way, but based on what you’ve written here, I doubt you’re that unintelligent. And I would hope you’re not that disingenuous.
And for the record, I don’t think “defeat” is the correct term in this context anyway. “Failure” is a more accurate description, in my estimation. “Defeat” implies that there’s some well-defined enemy that has defeated you, and I don’t really think that exists here.
Because Saddam resorted to violence first
That’s paper-thin, and I think you know it. By that rationale, we could re-invade Viet Nam at any time on the justification that “they started it.”
Perhaps you could tell me what you think are the “real reasons”.
Start here. Pay particular attention to how pervasive the references to terrorism are.
Anarch:
Bravo! I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Charles:
[me] If you really don’t think the term is charged, then why didn’t you just say “I too would be in favor of surrender?”
[you] I did upthread, girsch
Really? Where? I just searched the entire thread twice, and couldn’t find a single instance of you applying the term “surrender” to yourself, even in the hypothetical. When you’re referring to what you’d do, you choose your terms differently, and I would suspect just as deliberately. It’s always possible I missed it, so if I did, please be kind enough to point it out for me, and I will immediately apologize.
I understand that liberals may respond emotionally to the terms I used, but I wouldn’t use them if they weren’t close to the dictionary definitions.
It’s so good of you to provide dictionary definitions and try to hide behind semantics, but I call BS. I seriously doubt you’re unaware of the connotations that words bring with them. In fact, accoding to your own link, defeatism isn’t just “acceptance of defeat”:
Are you going to try to tell us that you chose the term “defeatism” and its variants, you were ignorant of these connotations, and in no way intended to imply them? I seriously doubt that’s true.
I don’t think that someone who merely accepts defeat, when it is reasonable and rational to do so, can fairly be described as a “defeatist.” And I don’t think it’s at all unfair, unreasonable, or out of line for someone to understand your use of “defeatism” as implying that, at a minimum, the target is too willing to accept defeat.
You can pretend that your terms aren’t in any way emotionally charged, and that it’s just an “overreaction” by “liberals” to take them that way, but based on what you’ve written here, I doubt you’re that unintelligent. And I would hope you’re not that disingenuous.
And for the record, I don’t think “defeat” is the correct term in this context anyway. “Failure” is a more accurate description, in my estimation. “Defeat” implies that there’s some well-defined enemy that has defeated you, and I don’t really think that exists here.
Because Saddam resorted to violence first
That’s paper-thin, and I think you know it. By that rationale, we could re-invade Viet Nam at any time on the justification that “they started it.”
Perhaps you could tell me what you think are the “real reasons”.
Start here. Pay particular attention to how pervasive the references to terrorism are.
Anarch:
Bravo! I couldn’t have said it better myself.
“It’s always possible I missed it, so if I did, please be kind enough to point it out for me, and I will immediately apologize.”
Charles wrote: “If I were convinced that we have irretrievably lost in Iraq, then I too would be in favor of some form of phased withdrawal plan that minimizes disruptions for Iraqis and minimizes any further troop casualties.”
You have to know conjugation:
He (a Democrat) is a defeatocrat.
You favor surrender.
I (subjunctively and hypothetically) would be in favor of some form of phased withdrawal plan that minimizes disruptions for Iraqis and minimizes any further troop casualties.
See? It’s all the same thing. Apologize to Charles at once!
“I seriously doubt you’re unaware of the connotations that words bring with them.”
In all fairness to Charles, he’s displayed quite a lot of clear blindness, in the past, to connotations of words used by both himself and others.
Sometimes some willfulness may be involved, but other times I’m pretty sure he’s sincerely tone-deaf, to change up the sense-metaphor.
No one with a completely firm grasp of connotations would put forth neologisms like, what was it, “democrasunami”?
And it actually is important to remember that the whole reason someone sees something very differently from ourselves is that they actually have a different set of background information and prejudices and beliefs, to whatever degree, which produces different priorities and analyses, usually based on rather different premises, than we ourselves are using.
That generally explains much of when people talk past each other, rather than conscious intent to distort, lie, or non-sequitur.
Which isn’t to say that some people aren’t less intellectually honest than others, or to otherwise obviate your criticisms. I’m just suggesting caution about assumptions of bad faith.
“It’s always possible I missed it, so if I did, please be kind enough to point it out for me, and I will immediately apologize.”
Charles wrote: “If I were convinced that we have irretrievably lost in Iraq, then I too would be in favor of some form of phased withdrawal plan that minimizes disruptions for Iraqis and minimizes any further troop casualties.”
You have to know conjugation:
He (a Democrat) is a defeatocrat.
You favor surrender.
I (subjunctively and hypothetically) would be in favor of some form of phased withdrawal plan that minimizes disruptions for Iraqis and minimizes any further troop casualties.
See? It’s all the same thing. Apologize to Charles at once!
“I seriously doubt you’re unaware of the connotations that words bring with them.”
In all fairness to Charles, he’s displayed quite a lot of clear blindness, in the past, to connotations of words used by both himself and others.
Sometimes some willfulness may be involved, but other times I’m pretty sure he’s sincerely tone-deaf, to change up the sense-metaphor.
No one with a completely firm grasp of connotations would put forth neologisms like, what was it, “democrasunami”?
And it actually is important to remember that the whole reason someone sees something very differently from ourselves is that they actually have a different set of background information and prejudices and beliefs, to whatever degree, which produces different priorities and analyses, usually based on rather different premises, than we ourselves are using.
That generally explains much of when people talk past each other, rather than conscious intent to distort, lie, or non-sequitur.
Which isn’t to say that some people aren’t less intellectually honest than others, or to otherwise obviate your criticisms. I’m just suggesting caution about assumptions of bad faith.
“It’s always possible I missed it, so if I did, please be kind enough to point it out for me, and I will immediately apologize.”
Charles wrote: “If I were convinced that we have irretrievably lost in Iraq, then I too would be in favor of some form of phased withdrawal plan that minimizes disruptions for Iraqis and minimizes any further troop casualties.”
You have to know conjugation:
He (a Democrat) is a defeatocrat.
You favor surrender.
I (subjunctively and hypothetically) would be in favor of some form of phased withdrawal plan that minimizes disruptions for Iraqis and minimizes any further troop casualties.
See? It’s all the same thing. Apologize to Charles at once!
“I seriously doubt you’re unaware of the connotations that words bring with them.”
In all fairness to Charles, he’s displayed quite a lot of clear blindness, in the past, to connotations of words used by both himself and others.
Sometimes some willfulness may be involved, but other times I’m pretty sure he’s sincerely tone-deaf, to change up the sense-metaphor.
No one with a completely firm grasp of connotations would put forth neologisms like, what was it, “democrasunami”?
And it actually is important to remember that the whole reason someone sees something very differently from ourselves is that they actually have a different set of background information and prejudices and beliefs, to whatever degree, which produces different priorities and analyses, usually based on rather different premises, than we ourselves are using.
That generally explains much of when people talk past each other, rather than conscious intent to distort, lie, or non-sequitur.
Which isn’t to say that some people aren’t less intellectually honest than others, or to otherwise obviate your criticisms. I’m just suggesting caution about assumptions of bad faith.
You mean to say that, when observing how a “surge”, that actually was a gradual relocation of troops that took several months. And which resulted in fierce fighting, including the door to door operations including aerial shelling of neighbourhoods, like most of us warned ahead of it all – it’s possible to still be intellectually honest, and “observe”, in good faith, anything else than that the only thing the surge caused was more bodies in the morgue?
Goddamnit I hate this twilight- zone crap. I swear by the gods – within less than ten years, even though this was a much less monumental operation, and which caused much less bloodshed than for instance Vietnam – it’s going to be hailed by the wise&responsible as a courageous victory that would have happened, if the democrats only had had the gumption to stay the course.
And then you’re fucking going to do it again. And gods help me, you’re going to proud of it as well. And the bloody intellectuals are going to quibble over semantics, and who can come up with the most gentile way of telling their opponents to fuck off.
But that’s all you’re content with, isn’t it. And Charles, the impossibly intellectually honest good- faith acting war- apologist – is right: you are vested in this continuing. Whether it is defeat, or whether it’s just watching conservatives roll humorously around in filth while claiming it’s chocolate – you’re all vested in prancing around bloviating about it. “Ooh, how silly. How icky and below our level”. Well, that’s awesome, isn’t it. To be better than that.
Really, it’s almost as good as when Bush compares his view of democracy with Hitler’s, so as not to look so bad when endorsing torture and secret courts to help support civil liberties. Really impressive, you damned bastards.
You mean to say that, when observing how a “surge”, that actually was a gradual relocation of troops that took several months. And which resulted in fierce fighting, including the door to door operations including aerial shelling of neighbourhoods, like most of us warned ahead of it all – it’s possible to still be intellectually honest, and “observe”, in good faith, anything else than that the only thing the surge caused was more bodies in the morgue?
Goddamnit I hate this twilight- zone crap. I swear by the gods – within less than ten years, even though this was a much less monumental operation, and which caused much less bloodshed than for instance Vietnam – it’s going to be hailed by the wise&responsible as a courageous victory that would have happened, if the democrats only had had the gumption to stay the course.
And then you’re fucking going to do it again. And gods help me, you’re going to proud of it as well. And the bloody intellectuals are going to quibble over semantics, and who can come up with the most gentile way of telling their opponents to fuck off.
But that’s all you’re content with, isn’t it. And Charles, the impossibly intellectually honest good- faith acting war- apologist – is right: you are vested in this continuing. Whether it is defeat, or whether it’s just watching conservatives roll humorously around in filth while claiming it’s chocolate – you’re all vested in prancing around bloviating about it. “Ooh, how silly. How icky and below our level”. Well, that’s awesome, isn’t it. To be better than that.
Really, it’s almost as good as when Bush compares his view of democracy with Hitler’s, so as not to look so bad when endorsing torture and secret courts to help support civil liberties. Really impressive, you damned bastards.
You mean to say that, when observing how a “surge”, that actually was a gradual relocation of troops that took several months. And which resulted in fierce fighting, including the door to door operations including aerial shelling of neighbourhoods, like most of us warned ahead of it all – it’s possible to still be intellectually honest, and “observe”, in good faith, anything else than that the only thing the surge caused was more bodies in the morgue?
Goddamnit I hate this twilight- zone crap. I swear by the gods – within less than ten years, even though this was a much less monumental operation, and which caused much less bloodshed than for instance Vietnam – it’s going to be hailed by the wise&responsible as a courageous victory that would have happened, if the democrats only had had the gumption to stay the course.
And then you’re fucking going to do it again. And gods help me, you’re going to proud of it as well. And the bloody intellectuals are going to quibble over semantics, and who can come up with the most gentile way of telling their opponents to fuck off.
But that’s all you’re content with, isn’t it. And Charles, the impossibly intellectually honest good- faith acting war- apologist – is right: you are vested in this continuing. Whether it is defeat, or whether it’s just watching conservatives roll humorously around in filth while claiming it’s chocolate – you’re all vested in prancing around bloviating about it. “Ooh, how silly. How icky and below our level”. Well, that’s awesome, isn’t it. To be better than that.
Really, it’s almost as good as when Bush compares his view of democracy with Hitler’s, so as not to look so bad when endorsing torture and secret courts to help support civil liberties. Really impressive, you damned bastards.
“Really impressive, you damned bastards.”
You might want to find some people your words are actually applicable to, rather than dumping them on the nearest convenient target, whose views are nothing whatever like those you attribute. You’re addressing actual people, not abstract misrepresenations, when you use the second person, and rage and curse at people.
We’re not actually just electrons on a screen. We’re not stand-ins for other people.
I’ll leave off itemizing every libelous and incorrect accusation you’ve just made about me, but the answer to them is “no.” Take it somewhere, and to someone, appropriate.
“Really impressive, you damned bastards.”
You might want to find some people your words are actually applicable to, rather than dumping them on the nearest convenient target, whose views are nothing whatever like those you attribute. You’re addressing actual people, not abstract misrepresenations, when you use the second person, and rage and curse at people.
We’re not actually just electrons on a screen. We’re not stand-ins for other people.
I’ll leave off itemizing every libelous and incorrect accusation you’ve just made about me, but the answer to them is “no.” Take it somewhere, and to someone, appropriate.
“Really impressive, you damned bastards.”
You might want to find some people your words are actually applicable to, rather than dumping them on the nearest convenient target, whose views are nothing whatever like those you attribute. You’re addressing actual people, not abstract misrepresenations, when you use the second person, and rage and curse at people.
We’re not actually just electrons on a screen. We’re not stand-ins for other people.
I’ll leave off itemizing every libelous and incorrect accusation you’ve just made about me, but the answer to them is “no.” Take it somewhere, and to someone, appropriate.
Oh, I know you’re real. Why else would I be mad?
And this is exactly what I’m talking about. You’re so hung up on not offending people’s sensibilities, that you have to say: yeah, well, maybe it wasn’t such a great idea to lie repeatedly for years about something that cost us lives and an amount of money and long- term debt that still isn’t really clear (not to mention we’ve lost an immense opportunity at home, which we’ll pay for in the years to come in form of lousy education and living standards for most) – /but/(!) they sure must be acknowledged as having good intentions, and they may have actually been intellectually honest!
Look. How is it possible, that of 183 comments, no one could point out right away the ridiculous overinterpretation of causality? That the most important thing to explain the statistics, was to make it fit with a childish fever- fantasy about how you’re doing good? That once again, the narrative orients the facts, which are mysteriously interesting – as long as they fit with the conclusion?
Instead, there has been attacks, ridicule, snide remarks, fifty references to the political play, and attempts at appealing to Charles’ intrinsic sense of statistical skill.
And some of you even have the audacity to say: This is why we’re in Iraq.
Well, get a grip. You’ve got a lousy opposition as well. And the intellectual meekness with which you address your detractors – how could things be different?
Oh, I know you’re real. Why else would I be mad?
And this is exactly what I’m talking about. You’re so hung up on not offending people’s sensibilities, that you have to say: yeah, well, maybe it wasn’t such a great idea to lie repeatedly for years about something that cost us lives and an amount of money and long- term debt that still isn’t really clear (not to mention we’ve lost an immense opportunity at home, which we’ll pay for in the years to come in form of lousy education and living standards for most) – /but/(!) they sure must be acknowledged as having good intentions, and they may have actually been intellectually honest!
Look. How is it possible, that of 183 comments, no one could point out right away the ridiculous overinterpretation of causality? That the most important thing to explain the statistics, was to make it fit with a childish fever- fantasy about how you’re doing good? That once again, the narrative orients the facts, which are mysteriously interesting – as long as they fit with the conclusion?
Instead, there has been attacks, ridicule, snide remarks, fifty references to the political play, and attempts at appealing to Charles’ intrinsic sense of statistical skill.
And some of you even have the audacity to say: This is why we’re in Iraq.
Well, get a grip. You’ve got a lousy opposition as well. And the intellectual meekness with which you address your detractors – how could things be different?
Oh, I know you’re real. Why else would I be mad?
And this is exactly what I’m talking about. You’re so hung up on not offending people’s sensibilities, that you have to say: yeah, well, maybe it wasn’t such a great idea to lie repeatedly for years about something that cost us lives and an amount of money and long- term debt that still isn’t really clear (not to mention we’ve lost an immense opportunity at home, which we’ll pay for in the years to come in form of lousy education and living standards for most) – /but/(!) they sure must be acknowledged as having good intentions, and they may have actually been intellectually honest!
Look. How is it possible, that of 183 comments, no one could point out right away the ridiculous overinterpretation of causality? That the most important thing to explain the statistics, was to make it fit with a childish fever- fantasy about how you’re doing good? That once again, the narrative orients the facts, which are mysteriously interesting – as long as they fit with the conclusion?
Instead, there has been attacks, ridicule, snide remarks, fifty references to the political play, and attempts at appealing to Charles’ intrinsic sense of statistical skill.
And some of you even have the audacity to say: This is why we’re in Iraq.
Well, get a grip. You’ve got a lousy opposition as well. And the intellectual meekness with which you address your detractors – how could things be different?
It’s really good to know that if we just beat up on Charles here, we will solve our problems in the Middle East and simply a more robust approach to calling people out would have yielded better results in Iraq. The phrase “ridiculous overinterpretation of causality” comes to mind, but I see that it has already been used.
It’s really good to know that if we just beat up on Charles here, we will solve our problems in the Middle East and simply a more robust approach to calling people out would have yielded better results in Iraq. The phrase “ridiculous overinterpretation of causality” comes to mind, but I see that it has already been used.
It’s really good to know that if we just beat up on Charles here, we will solve our problems in the Middle East and simply a more robust approach to calling people out would have yielded better results in Iraq. The phrase “ridiculous overinterpretation of causality” comes to mind, but I see that it has already been used.
you’re all vested in prancing around bloviating about it.
Dude, it’s a blog.
You’re so hung up on not offending people’s sensibilities
It’s a relatively polite blog.
Yes, of course, you’re right. Polite, or even not so polite, banter here in cyberspace will not make much of a dent in the real world. There are plenty of other things folks can do that will be more efficacious. Some folks here do some of them. You could do some of them as well, if that suits you.
I’ll speak for myself for a moment. I participate here because there are people here who don’t agree with me, I want to know what they have to say, and I can talk with them here without them having to hear me yell. Or, most likely, vice versa.
Plus, I can occasionally abuse the hospitality of folks here and vent, without scaring the neighbor kids or upsetting my wife.
Plus, there are more than a few folks who post here who are informed, careful, articulate thinkers and writers, and it’s a pure pleasure to see them do their thing.
I do feel your pain, as they say. But there are plenty of venues where more direct and (perhaps) effective action are available.
Call your Congress people. Go to their offices and yell at them at length until they either beg you to stop or have you bodily removed.
Give money to people who are running for office, and who aren’t transparent, self-aggrandizing frauds.
Stand in front of the White House, rend your clothes, cast ashes upon your head, and weep for the nation with bitter tears.
Find Eric Prince’s home address and mail him, daily, pictures of the folks his boys have killed.
Dude: freeway blogger. Your thoughts could be read by tens of thousands. Anyone could do it, you just need some stencils and a rattle can of black paint.
The possibilities are endless. Be creative. We will all look forward to what you come up with. Just don’t blow anybody up, OK?
ObWi, however, is a venue for discussion. It has its place.
Thanks –
you’re all vested in prancing around bloviating about it.
Dude, it’s a blog.
You’re so hung up on not offending people’s sensibilities
It’s a relatively polite blog.
Yes, of course, you’re right. Polite, or even not so polite, banter here in cyberspace will not make much of a dent in the real world. There are plenty of other things folks can do that will be more efficacious. Some folks here do some of them. You could do some of them as well, if that suits you.
I’ll speak for myself for a moment. I participate here because there are people here who don’t agree with me, I want to know what they have to say, and I can talk with them here without them having to hear me yell. Or, most likely, vice versa.
Plus, I can occasionally abuse the hospitality of folks here and vent, without scaring the neighbor kids or upsetting my wife.
Plus, there are more than a few folks who post here who are informed, careful, articulate thinkers and writers, and it’s a pure pleasure to see them do their thing.
I do feel your pain, as they say. But there are plenty of venues where more direct and (perhaps) effective action are available.
Call your Congress people. Go to their offices and yell at them at length until they either beg you to stop or have you bodily removed.
Give money to people who are running for office, and who aren’t transparent, self-aggrandizing frauds.
Stand in front of the White House, rend your clothes, cast ashes upon your head, and weep for the nation with bitter tears.
Find Eric Prince’s home address and mail him, daily, pictures of the folks his boys have killed.
Dude: freeway blogger. Your thoughts could be read by tens of thousands. Anyone could do it, you just need some stencils and a rattle can of black paint.
The possibilities are endless. Be creative. We will all look forward to what you come up with. Just don’t blow anybody up, OK?
ObWi, however, is a venue for discussion. It has its place.
Thanks –
you’re all vested in prancing around bloviating about it.
Dude, it’s a blog.
You’re so hung up on not offending people’s sensibilities
It’s a relatively polite blog.
Yes, of course, you’re right. Polite, or even not so polite, banter here in cyberspace will not make much of a dent in the real world. There are plenty of other things folks can do that will be more efficacious. Some folks here do some of them. You could do some of them as well, if that suits you.
I’ll speak for myself for a moment. I participate here because there are people here who don’t agree with me, I want to know what they have to say, and I can talk with them here without them having to hear me yell. Or, most likely, vice versa.
Plus, I can occasionally abuse the hospitality of folks here and vent, without scaring the neighbor kids or upsetting my wife.
Plus, there are more than a few folks who post here who are informed, careful, articulate thinkers and writers, and it’s a pure pleasure to see them do their thing.
I do feel your pain, as they say. But there are plenty of venues where more direct and (perhaps) effective action are available.
Call your Congress people. Go to their offices and yell at them at length until they either beg you to stop or have you bodily removed.
Give money to people who are running for office, and who aren’t transparent, self-aggrandizing frauds.
Stand in front of the White House, rend your clothes, cast ashes upon your head, and weep for the nation with bitter tears.
Find Eric Prince’s home address and mail him, daily, pictures of the folks his boys have killed.
Dude: freeway blogger. Your thoughts could be read by tens of thousands. Anyone could do it, you just need some stencils and a rattle can of black paint.
The possibilities are endless. Be creative. We will all look forward to what you come up with. Just don’t blow anybody up, OK?
ObWi, however, is a venue for discussion. It has its place.
Thanks –
Gary:
Point taken, sort of.
I’m just suggesting caution about assumptions of bad faith.
I don’t think it’s merely an “assumption” of bad faith; I think there’s a strong circumstantial case to be made for it. Not necessarily that he’s doing it consciously, of course, but I think it’s fair to say he’s doing it, whether he realizes it or not.
And I’m relatively new to Charles, so maybe I’m naive in doing so, but I took him at his word when he wrote that he chose his terms “deliberately.”
Further, I don’t see how a term like “invested in defeat” can be anything other than condescending, in any context. So again, I just don’t buy his claim that he’s using emotionally-neutral terms and that liberals who get sensitive about them are overreacting.
Gary:
Point taken, sort of.
I’m just suggesting caution about assumptions of bad faith.
I don’t think it’s merely an “assumption” of bad faith; I think there’s a strong circumstantial case to be made for it. Not necessarily that he’s doing it consciously, of course, but I think it’s fair to say he’s doing it, whether he realizes it or not.
And I’m relatively new to Charles, so maybe I’m naive in doing so, but I took him at his word when he wrote that he chose his terms “deliberately.”
Further, I don’t see how a term like “invested in defeat” can be anything other than condescending, in any context. So again, I just don’t buy his claim that he’s using emotionally-neutral terms and that liberals who get sensitive about them are overreacting.
Gary:
Point taken, sort of.
I’m just suggesting caution about assumptions of bad faith.
I don’t think it’s merely an “assumption” of bad faith; I think there’s a strong circumstantial case to be made for it. Not necessarily that he’s doing it consciously, of course, but I think it’s fair to say he’s doing it, whether he realizes it or not.
And I’m relatively new to Charles, so maybe I’m naive in doing so, but I took him at his word when he wrote that he chose his terms “deliberately.”
Further, I don’t see how a term like “invested in defeat” can be anything other than condescending, in any context. So again, I just don’t buy his claim that he’s using emotionally-neutral terms and that liberals who get sensitive about them are overreacting.
I’m sorry – did I suggest you’re doing anything, in any way whatsoever to change anything at this blog? ..(Including trying to change your ways of thinking, or evolving your arguments)?
It didn’t strike you as possible that it was the discussion- aspect I thought was weak, though?
I’m sorry – did I suggest you’re doing anything, in any way whatsoever to change anything at this blog? ..(Including trying to change your ways of thinking, or evolving your arguments)?
It didn’t strike you as possible that it was the discussion- aspect I thought was weak, though?
I’m sorry – did I suggest you’re doing anything, in any way whatsoever to change anything at this blog? ..(Including trying to change your ways of thinking, or evolving your arguments)?
It didn’t strike you as possible that it was the discussion- aspect I thought was weak, though?
fleinn, I gather you would assume bad faith. I don’t see why Charles would post here, in a predominantly liberal venue, if he just wanted to lie. I also cling to the hope that persuasion is possible even when we start off by disagreeing. I have been persuaded by good arguments in good faith to take positions I started off disagreeing with, so I think maybe Charles, and those who think like him, can too. But I have learned over the years that nobody is going to be persuaded by being cursed at. So I assume good faith, and I tell him why he’s making no sense.
fleinn, I gather you would assume bad faith. I don’t see why Charles would post here, in a predominantly liberal venue, if he just wanted to lie. I also cling to the hope that persuasion is possible even when we start off by disagreeing. I have been persuaded by good arguments in good faith to take positions I started off disagreeing with, so I think maybe Charles, and those who think like him, can too. But I have learned over the years that nobody is going to be persuaded by being cursed at. So I assume good faith, and I tell him why he’s making no sense.
fleinn, I gather you would assume bad faith. I don’t see why Charles would post here, in a predominantly liberal venue, if he just wanted to lie. I also cling to the hope that persuasion is possible even when we start off by disagreeing. I have been persuaded by good arguments in good faith to take positions I started off disagreeing with, so I think maybe Charles, and those who think like him, can too. But I have learned over the years that nobody is going to be persuaded by being cursed at. So I assume good faith, and I tell him why he’s making no sense.
Frankly, fleinn, to my reading your comments have the emotionality and moral high-handedness I associate with teenagers who are excessively focussed on how much smarter they are than their peers. It obscures whatever you might have to say that would be worth considering.
I speak only for myself, of course.
Frankly, fleinn, to my reading your comments have the emotionality and moral high-handedness I associate with teenagers who are excessively focussed on how much smarter they are than their peers. It obscures whatever you might have to say that would be worth considering.
I speak only for myself, of course.
Frankly, fleinn, to my reading your comments have the emotionality and moral high-handedness I associate with teenagers who are excessively focussed on how much smarter they are than their peers. It obscures whatever you might have to say that would be worth considering.
I speak only for myself, of course.
How is it possible, that of 183 comments, no one could point out right away the ridiculous overinterpretation of causality? That the most important thing to explain the statistics, was to make it fit with a childish fever- fantasy about how you’re doing good? That once again, the narrative orients the facts, which are mysteriously interesting – as long as they fit with the conclusion?
I seem to have read many a comment addressing these very things, starting very early in this thread.
Whether it is defeat, or whether it’s just watching conservatives roll humorously around in filth while claiming it’s chocolate – you’re all vested in prancing around bloviating about it. “Ooh, how silly. How icky and below our level”. Well, that’s awesome, isn’t it. To be better than that.
This sounds like someone bloviating about how silly all the other commenters here are and how awesome it is to be better than they.
Sorry to pile on, but sometimes people just ask for it.
How is it possible, that of 183 comments, no one could point out right away the ridiculous overinterpretation of causality? That the most important thing to explain the statistics, was to make it fit with a childish fever- fantasy about how you’re doing good? That once again, the narrative orients the facts, which are mysteriously interesting – as long as they fit with the conclusion?
I seem to have read many a comment addressing these very things, starting very early in this thread.
Whether it is defeat, or whether it’s just watching conservatives roll humorously around in filth while claiming it’s chocolate – you’re all vested in prancing around bloviating about it. “Ooh, how silly. How icky and below our level”. Well, that’s awesome, isn’t it. To be better than that.
This sounds like someone bloviating about how silly all the other commenters here are and how awesome it is to be better than they.
Sorry to pile on, but sometimes people just ask for it.
How is it possible, that of 183 comments, no one could point out right away the ridiculous overinterpretation of causality? That the most important thing to explain the statistics, was to make it fit with a childish fever- fantasy about how you’re doing good? That once again, the narrative orients the facts, which are mysteriously interesting – as long as they fit with the conclusion?
I seem to have read many a comment addressing these very things, starting very early in this thread.
Whether it is defeat, or whether it’s just watching conservatives roll humorously around in filth while claiming it’s chocolate – you’re all vested in prancing around bloviating about it. “Ooh, how silly. How icky and below our level”. Well, that’s awesome, isn’t it. To be better than that.
This sounds like someone bloviating about how silly all the other commenters here are and how awesome it is to be better than they.
Sorry to pile on, but sometimes people just ask for it.
It didn’t strike you as possible that it was the discussion- aspect I thought was weak, though?
No, not really.
There are lots of places online and elsewhere where you can yell at people who don’t agree with you. In general, this isn’t one of them.
Lots of folks who hang out, myself included, do so for that very reason.
Chacun son gout.
Thanks!
It didn’t strike you as possible that it was the discussion- aspect I thought was weak, though?
No, not really.
There are lots of places online and elsewhere where you can yell at people who don’t agree with you. In general, this isn’t one of them.
Lots of folks who hang out, myself included, do so for that very reason.
Chacun son gout.
Thanks!
It didn’t strike you as possible that it was the discussion- aspect I thought was weak, though?
No, not really.
There are lots of places online and elsewhere where you can yell at people who don’t agree with you. In general, this isn’t one of them.
Lots of folks who hang out, myself included, do so for that very reason.
Chacun son gout.
Thanks!
Which will, of course, disprove my point completely..
*throws arms* You’re pathetic. You’re the people who say: yeah, I guess we should let them wait until the investigation is over, and all the data (they decide are sufficient) is in, whatever the circumstances.
You’re the folks who say: yes, there’s an honest disagreement about the war, and let’s please try to convince the other guys that turning the other cheek is a much better approach. And if we don’t succeed, well, then I guess we’ll just have a war based on the idea that might is right: well, they beat us, didn’t they? Surely that must mean they should be able to succeed outside the sandbox as well.
You’re the guys who say: true, it’s certainly a difference between economical imperialism and military imperialism – but that guy from Lockheed Martin sure had a good argument on how bombs make profit for americans. Why, I think I must argue my social conscience argument a bit more vocally, even though I will be wary of offending all the people with american jobs, and even though I secretly fear my logic is weak! Why, this is a difficult issue! Thank you for opening my mind to the social conscience aspect of warfare!
You’re the guys who say: yes, there were abhorrent mistakes made in Iraq – BUT. There were millions of people killed for no reason – BUT. Yeah, we screwed our nation to please our egos – BUT.
Honestly, you make me sick. And you deserve to have your asses kicked by someone who has the mental capacity of an angry four- year old (That’s Bush, not me, asshole).
Seriously, though (and observe how respectful I am): What is the problem with saying – without prejudice or condemnation of the person involved – that “this argument does not hold water. It has severe flaws, which I now will explain. And then you can counter that argument with something befitting the audacity of /your/ conclusion. Something substantive, and something descriptive, so we can examine what the dispute is about. And perhaps, if not agree, at least become wiser about how each of us arrived at our positions.”?
What’s the problem with taking someone to task like that – and not letting the personal injury “detract” from “whatever message” someone had?
Or are you truly that easily distracted, and sincerely think being genial about it all will do anything else but allow the most shameless liar to steer you by the nose?
…(Actually, never mind.)
Which will, of course, disprove my point completely..
*throws arms* You’re pathetic. You’re the people who say: yeah, I guess we should let them wait until the investigation is over, and all the data (they decide are sufficient) is in, whatever the circumstances.
You’re the folks who say: yes, there’s an honest disagreement about the war, and let’s please try to convince the other guys that turning the other cheek is a much better approach. And if we don’t succeed, well, then I guess we’ll just have a war based on the idea that might is right: well, they beat us, didn’t they? Surely that must mean they should be able to succeed outside the sandbox as well.
You’re the guys who say: true, it’s certainly a difference between economical imperialism and military imperialism – but that guy from Lockheed Martin sure had a good argument on how bombs make profit for americans. Why, I think I must argue my social conscience argument a bit more vocally, even though I will be wary of offending all the people with american jobs, and even though I secretly fear my logic is weak! Why, this is a difficult issue! Thank you for opening my mind to the social conscience aspect of warfare!
You’re the guys who say: yes, there were abhorrent mistakes made in Iraq – BUT. There were millions of people killed for no reason – BUT. Yeah, we screwed our nation to please our egos – BUT.
Honestly, you make me sick. And you deserve to have your asses kicked by someone who has the mental capacity of an angry four- year old (That’s Bush, not me, asshole).
Seriously, though (and observe how respectful I am): What is the problem with saying – without prejudice or condemnation of the person involved – that “this argument does not hold water. It has severe flaws, which I now will explain. And then you can counter that argument with something befitting the audacity of /your/ conclusion. Something substantive, and something descriptive, so we can examine what the dispute is about. And perhaps, if not agree, at least become wiser about how each of us arrived at our positions.”?
What’s the problem with taking someone to task like that – and not letting the personal injury “detract” from “whatever message” someone had?
Or are you truly that easily distracted, and sincerely think being genial about it all will do anything else but allow the most shameless liar to steer you by the nose?
…(Actually, never mind.)
Which will, of course, disprove my point completely..
*throws arms* You’re pathetic. You’re the people who say: yeah, I guess we should let them wait until the investigation is over, and all the data (they decide are sufficient) is in, whatever the circumstances.
You’re the folks who say: yes, there’s an honest disagreement about the war, and let’s please try to convince the other guys that turning the other cheek is a much better approach. And if we don’t succeed, well, then I guess we’ll just have a war based on the idea that might is right: well, they beat us, didn’t they? Surely that must mean they should be able to succeed outside the sandbox as well.
You’re the guys who say: true, it’s certainly a difference between economical imperialism and military imperialism – but that guy from Lockheed Martin sure had a good argument on how bombs make profit for americans. Why, I think I must argue my social conscience argument a bit more vocally, even though I will be wary of offending all the people with american jobs, and even though I secretly fear my logic is weak! Why, this is a difficult issue! Thank you for opening my mind to the social conscience aspect of warfare!
You’re the guys who say: yes, there were abhorrent mistakes made in Iraq – BUT. There were millions of people killed for no reason – BUT. Yeah, we screwed our nation to please our egos – BUT.
Honestly, you make me sick. And you deserve to have your asses kicked by someone who has the mental capacity of an angry four- year old (That’s Bush, not me, asshole).
Seriously, though (and observe how respectful I am): What is the problem with saying – without prejudice or condemnation of the person involved – that “this argument does not hold water. It has severe flaws, which I now will explain. And then you can counter that argument with something befitting the audacity of /your/ conclusion. Something substantive, and something descriptive, so we can examine what the dispute is about. And perhaps, if not agree, at least become wiser about how each of us arrived at our positions.”?
What’s the problem with taking someone to task like that – and not letting the personal injury “detract” from “whatever message” someone had?
Or are you truly that easily distracted, and sincerely think being genial about it all will do anything else but allow the most shameless liar to steer you by the nose?
…(Actually, never mind.)
A: Name somebody who said any of those thinbgs in this thread in response to the post.
B: You will find several comments which addressed this post, if not in your exact words, with the same meaning as you laid out. To have said that nobody did so displays the fact that you either didn’t really read them or have difficulty comprehending them. Since your writing is literate, I am assuming the former.
A: Name somebody who said any of those thinbgs in this thread in response to the post.
B: You will find several comments which addressed this post, if not in your exact words, with the same meaning as you laid out. To have said that nobody did so displays the fact that you either didn’t really read them or have difficulty comprehending them. Since your writing is literate, I am assuming the former.
A: Name somebody who said any of those thinbgs in this thread in response to the post.
B: You will find several comments which addressed this post, if not in your exact words, with the same meaning as you laid out. To have said that nobody did so displays the fact that you either didn’t really read them or have difficulty comprehending them. Since your writing is literate, I am assuming the former.
What is the problem with saying – without prejudice or condemnation of the person involved – that “this argument does not hold water.
None. And that’s been said. Repeatedly. On a variety of counts. Charles has even been accused of lying, being deluded, and generally arguing in bad faith.
Is that enough, or should we call him colorful names as well?
You’re pathetic.
Honestly, you make me sick.
So go somewhere else where the company is more to your liking.
We all understand the point you’re making. It’s not a bad point, it’s just not relevant to this audience. In other words, there are lots of folks here who do more than just politely blab away to hear themselves talk.
If you have something more to bring to the table, great. If not, you’ve made your point, albeit an incorrect one, so enough already, OK?
Anger is an energy. Do something constructive with yours.
Thanks –
What is the problem with saying – without prejudice or condemnation of the person involved – that “this argument does not hold water.
None. And that’s been said. Repeatedly. On a variety of counts. Charles has even been accused of lying, being deluded, and generally arguing in bad faith.
Is that enough, or should we call him colorful names as well?
You’re pathetic.
Honestly, you make me sick.
So go somewhere else where the company is more to your liking.
We all understand the point you’re making. It’s not a bad point, it’s just not relevant to this audience. In other words, there are lots of folks here who do more than just politely blab away to hear themselves talk.
If you have something more to bring to the table, great. If not, you’ve made your point, albeit an incorrect one, so enough already, OK?
Anger is an energy. Do something constructive with yours.
Thanks –
What is the problem with saying – without prejudice or condemnation of the person involved – that “this argument does not hold water.
None. And that’s been said. Repeatedly. On a variety of counts. Charles has even been accused of lying, being deluded, and generally arguing in bad faith.
Is that enough, or should we call him colorful names as well?
You’re pathetic.
Honestly, you make me sick.
So go somewhere else where the company is more to your liking.
We all understand the point you’re making. It’s not a bad point, it’s just not relevant to this audience. In other words, there are lots of folks here who do more than just politely blab away to hear themselves talk.
If you have something more to bring to the table, great. If not, you’ve made your point, albeit an incorrect one, so enough already, OK?
Anger is an energy. Do something constructive with yours.
Thanks –
I think it’s my fault. I seem to attract trolls, for whatever reason.
I think it’s my fault. I seem to attract trolls, for whatever reason.
I think it’s my fault. I seem to attract trolls, for whatever reason.
It remains perfectly true that “the Iraqi government’s belief and policy is that the ‘awakenings’ are arming the Sunni enemy for future civil war against the Iraqi government,” does it not?
Gary, I’m having problems with the premise of your question. The U.S. government denies arming Sunnis. They are giving financial assistance to the tribes, not arms.
Is it your contention, then, that the Iraqi government is on the path to acceptance of “the awakenings,” as you call them, as a legitimate political movement that will be drawn into the government in the future?
They’re at least in the stage of negotiation, and it looks like the Interior Ministry is accepting the incorporation of Sunni tribal members into IA and IP forces. Roggio has more on the status of the various awakenings.
Lastly, do you then not see anything at all possibly, conceivably,negative, on the imaginative horizon, as you see it, Charles, as regards the creation of armed and independent Sunni “awakenings” groups in Iraq, and their future relationship with the national and regional Iraqi governments, Charles?
Yes, Gary, and that’s why they’re trying to incorporate those Sunnis into the IA and IP. If they remained independent paramilitias, it would be just as much a problem as the independent Shiite paramilitias.
I’m not trying to play games with you, Charles.
Gary, I thought you were implying that, since I claimed that I was not an expert in statistics, then I had no business in using them. Did I read you wrong? To answer your questions:
1) Is looking at Iraqi statistics, and comparing them from month to month or year to year “helpful,” or not? Might you pick one?
Picking civilian casualties, Gary, comparing them month-to-month is useful, especially for a COIN operation because civilian casualties is one measure of how well it is doing. The data in this post goes back to May-2005. If bobby wants to graph Mar-2003 through Apr-2005, he’s welcome to.
2) Do you feel you have “expertise” in statistics sufficient to usefully analyze them for other people, or not? Again, if you might pick one?
In my profession, yes, to answer your first question. I have enough expertise to understand Engram’s graphs and transmit that information to this post.
Um, what? Either the U.S. had a choice in 2001-3 to invade Iraq, or not.
Yes, we did have a choice. We were also in a state of ceasefire at that time, and had been for at least a dozen years. That’s why I said the Gulf War never ended.
It remains perfectly true that “the Iraqi government’s belief and policy is that the ‘awakenings’ are arming the Sunni enemy for future civil war against the Iraqi government,” does it not?
Gary, I’m having problems with the premise of your question. The U.S. government denies arming Sunnis. They are giving financial assistance to the tribes, not arms.
Is it your contention, then, that the Iraqi government is on the path to acceptance of “the awakenings,” as you call them, as a legitimate political movement that will be drawn into the government in the future?
They’re at least in the stage of negotiation, and it looks like the Interior Ministry is accepting the incorporation of Sunni tribal members into IA and IP forces. Roggio has more on the status of the various awakenings.
Lastly, do you then not see anything at all possibly, conceivably,negative, on the imaginative horizon, as you see it, Charles, as regards the creation of armed and independent Sunni “awakenings” groups in Iraq, and their future relationship with the national and regional Iraqi governments, Charles?
Yes, Gary, and that’s why they’re trying to incorporate those Sunnis into the IA and IP. If they remained independent paramilitias, it would be just as much a problem as the independent Shiite paramilitias.
I’m not trying to play games with you, Charles.
Gary, I thought you were implying that, since I claimed that I was not an expert in statistics, then I had no business in using them. Did I read you wrong? To answer your questions:
1) Is looking at Iraqi statistics, and comparing them from month to month or year to year “helpful,” or not? Might you pick one?
Picking civilian casualties, Gary, comparing them month-to-month is useful, especially for a COIN operation because civilian casualties is one measure of how well it is doing. The data in this post goes back to May-2005. If bobby wants to graph Mar-2003 through Apr-2005, he’s welcome to.
2) Do you feel you have “expertise” in statistics sufficient to usefully analyze them for other people, or not? Again, if you might pick one?
In my profession, yes, to answer your first question. I have enough expertise to understand Engram’s graphs and transmit that information to this post.
Um, what? Either the U.S. had a choice in 2001-3 to invade Iraq, or not.
Yes, we did have a choice. We were also in a state of ceasefire at that time, and had been for at least a dozen years. That’s why I said the Gulf War never ended.
It remains perfectly true that “the Iraqi government’s belief and policy is that the ‘awakenings’ are arming the Sunni enemy for future civil war against the Iraqi government,” does it not?
Gary, I’m having problems with the premise of your question. The U.S. government denies arming Sunnis. They are giving financial assistance to the tribes, not arms.
Is it your contention, then, that the Iraqi government is on the path to acceptance of “the awakenings,” as you call them, as a legitimate political movement that will be drawn into the government in the future?
They’re at least in the stage of negotiation, and it looks like the Interior Ministry is accepting the incorporation of Sunni tribal members into IA and IP forces. Roggio has more on the status of the various awakenings.
Lastly, do you then not see anything at all possibly, conceivably,negative, on the imaginative horizon, as you see it, Charles, as regards the creation of armed and independent Sunni “awakenings” groups in Iraq, and their future relationship with the national and regional Iraqi governments, Charles?
Yes, Gary, and that’s why they’re trying to incorporate those Sunnis into the IA and IP. If they remained independent paramilitias, it would be just as much a problem as the independent Shiite paramilitias.
I’m not trying to play games with you, Charles.
Gary, I thought you were implying that, since I claimed that I was not an expert in statistics, then I had no business in using them. Did I read you wrong? To answer your questions:
1) Is looking at Iraqi statistics, and comparing them from month to month or year to year “helpful,” or not? Might you pick one?
Picking civilian casualties, Gary, comparing them month-to-month is useful, especially for a COIN operation because civilian casualties is one measure of how well it is doing. The data in this post goes back to May-2005. If bobby wants to graph Mar-2003 through Apr-2005, he’s welcome to.
2) Do you feel you have “expertise” in statistics sufficient to usefully analyze them for other people, or not? Again, if you might pick one?
In my profession, yes, to answer your first question. I have enough expertise to understand Engram’s graphs and transmit that information to this post.
Um, what? Either the U.S. had a choice in 2001-3 to invade Iraq, or not.
Yes, we did have a choice. We were also in a state of ceasefire at that time, and had been for at least a dozen years. That’s why I said the Gulf War never ended.
People do not live in a vacuum. History is not a blank slate, to be written and rewritten and erased and forgotten.
I agree, Anarch. Like with bobby, you’re free to graph civilian casualties all the back to whenever and do a least squares regression. I won’t.
You don’t get to choose whether it’s a fact or not, Charles.
So you’re telling me I have no choice? Sorry, but I do. The person who claimed one million civilian deaths didn’t support such a claim, and I won’t accept it at face value. I’ve already written that the best data source for this statistic is the IBC, and their estimate of civilian deaths from violence is 78,280 to 85,289. Those are big numbers, to be sure, and it’s regretful that so many died, but it’s not one million. I also choose not to answer your other questions. I’ve put out some facts and made some assessments, and you can either them dismiss or not. That is your choice.
Really? Where?
Here, girsch. If it’ll make you happy for me to say it more, then I will.
I seriously doubt you’re unaware of the connotations that words bring with them. In fact, accoding to your own link, defeatism isn’t just “acceptance of defeat”
I said dictionary definition for a reason, girsh. But just to be clear, this is exactly what I meant: “Acceptance of or resignation to the prospect of defeat.” If I meant the the wiki reference, I would have said so. I used the dictionary definition of the word as explicitly linked. If there’s a factual or logical issue with how I used it, please let me know, but your emotional responses to the term are your own.
Start here.
Ah, yes. PNAC.
People do not live in a vacuum. History is not a blank slate, to be written and rewritten and erased and forgotten.
I agree, Anarch. Like with bobby, you’re free to graph civilian casualties all the back to whenever and do a least squares regression. I won’t.
You don’t get to choose whether it’s a fact or not, Charles.
So you’re telling me I have no choice? Sorry, but I do. The person who claimed one million civilian deaths didn’t support such a claim, and I won’t accept it at face value. I’ve already written that the best data source for this statistic is the IBC, and their estimate of civilian deaths from violence is 78,280 to 85,289. Those are big numbers, to be sure, and it’s regretful that so many died, but it’s not one million. I also choose not to answer your other questions. I’ve put out some facts and made some assessments, and you can either them dismiss or not. That is your choice.
Really? Where?
Here, girsch. If it’ll make you happy for me to say it more, then I will.
I seriously doubt you’re unaware of the connotations that words bring with them. In fact, accoding to your own link, defeatism isn’t just “acceptance of defeat”
I said dictionary definition for a reason, girsh. But just to be clear, this is exactly what I meant: “Acceptance of or resignation to the prospect of defeat.” If I meant the the wiki reference, I would have said so. I used the dictionary definition of the word as explicitly linked. If there’s a factual or logical issue with how I used it, please let me know, but your emotional responses to the term are your own.
Start here.
Ah, yes. PNAC.
People do not live in a vacuum. History is not a blank slate, to be written and rewritten and erased and forgotten.
I agree, Anarch. Like with bobby, you’re free to graph civilian casualties all the back to whenever and do a least squares regression. I won’t.
You don’t get to choose whether it’s a fact or not, Charles.
So you’re telling me I have no choice? Sorry, but I do. The person who claimed one million civilian deaths didn’t support such a claim, and I won’t accept it at face value. I’ve already written that the best data source for this statistic is the IBC, and their estimate of civilian deaths from violence is 78,280 to 85,289. Those are big numbers, to be sure, and it’s regretful that so many died, but it’s not one million. I also choose not to answer your other questions. I’ve put out some facts and made some assessments, and you can either them dismiss or not. That is your choice.
Really? Where?
Here, girsch. If it’ll make you happy for me to say it more, then I will.
I seriously doubt you’re unaware of the connotations that words bring with them. In fact, accoding to your own link, defeatism isn’t just “acceptance of defeat”
I said dictionary definition for a reason, girsh. But just to be clear, this is exactly what I meant: “Acceptance of or resignation to the prospect of defeat.” If I meant the the wiki reference, I would have said so. I used the dictionary definition of the word as explicitly linked. If there’s a factual or logical issue with how I used it, please let me know, but your emotional responses to the term are your own.
Start here.
Ah, yes. PNAC.
Ah, yes. PNAC.
May they, to a man, rot in hell.
Thanks –
Ah, yes. PNAC.
May they, to a man, rot in hell.
Thanks –
Ah, yes. PNAC.
May they, to a man, rot in hell.
Thanks –
Charles,
You probably didn’t see it amidst all the other comments you responded to, but upthread I pointed you to an NYT article that claims the military is arming sunni insurgents. I asked you if you thought the NYT article was false since you seem most insistent that the military is not arming them. Can you explain if and why you believe the article is false?
Thanks.
Charles,
You probably didn’t see it amidst all the other comments you responded to, but upthread I pointed you to an NYT article that claims the military is arming sunni insurgents. I asked you if you thought the NYT article was false since you seem most insistent that the military is not arming them. Can you explain if and why you believe the article is false?
Thanks.
Charles,
You probably didn’t see it amidst all the other comments you responded to, but upthread I pointed you to an NYT article that claims the military is arming sunni insurgents. I asked you if you thought the NYT article was false since you seem most insistent that the military is not arming them. Can you explain if and why you believe the article is false?
Thanks.
fleinn:
Which individual or individuals are you addressing?
And do you generally find that not addressing people by name, when you’re in an open forum, lends you clarity?
Presumably you know whomever you’re addressing fairly well, to know these things.
I assume that, because otherwise you’d be engaging in the behavior of a schmuck and a troll, and there’d be no reason anyone would have to bother reading you again.
Charles, I’ll get back to you later, as this isn’t an opportune evening for much writing from me.
fleinn:
Which individual or individuals are you addressing?
And do you generally find that not addressing people by name, when you’re in an open forum, lends you clarity?
Presumably you know whomever you’re addressing fairly well, to know these things.
I assume that, because otherwise you’d be engaging in the behavior of a schmuck and a troll, and there’d be no reason anyone would have to bother reading you again.
Charles, I’ll get back to you later, as this isn’t an opportune evening for much writing from me.
fleinn:
Which individual or individuals are you addressing?
And do you generally find that not addressing people by name, when you’re in an open forum, lends you clarity?
Presumably you know whomever you’re addressing fairly well, to know these things.
I assume that, because otherwise you’d be engaging in the behavior of a schmuck and a troll, and there’d be no reason anyone would have to bother reading you again.
Charles, I’ll get back to you later, as this isn’t an opportune evening for much writing from me.
Ok, this much:
My question goes to what the Iraqi government thinks, Charles.
Not to what the U.S. government thinks.
Why is it that I’ve now asked three times what the Iraqi government thinks of something, and you’ve each time responded explaining what the U.S. government thinks, instead?
One could get the impression that you think that what the Iraqi government thinks of developments in Iraq is so unimportant that you can’t even conceive someone would find it relevant to discussion of, you know, Iraq.
But assuming it isn’t that, could you just please answer the question? I’d like to discuss issues as regards the Iraqi government, and it’s difficult to do that when I can’t, somehow, get you to answer the simplest opening question on the topic, which is kinda amazing, frankly.
I’ll take that as a qualified “yes,” unless you you wish to say it isn’t.
That’s a “yes,” that you believe “looking at Iraqi statistics, and comparing them from month to month or year to year” is “helpful,” right? Is that correct?
So when you wrote “I’ll pass, bobby, because I don’t have expertise in statistics,”
you meant that you don’t have expertise in performing a least squares regression, or something of that level of math, but you feel up to reading a graph? Is that about it? Please let me know if that’s an adequate summary of what you meant.
I’m still confused trying to reconcile:
With yes, that you believe “looking at Iraqi statistics, and comparing them from month to month or year to year” is “helpful.”
Is there some rule for when looking at Iraqi statistics is and isn’t helpful?
I’m assuming that your rule isn’t “when it helps my argument and not when it doesn’t.” So what is your rule?
Thanks!
Ok, this much:
My question goes to what the Iraqi government thinks, Charles.
Not to what the U.S. government thinks.
Why is it that I’ve now asked three times what the Iraqi government thinks of something, and you’ve each time responded explaining what the U.S. government thinks, instead?
One could get the impression that you think that what the Iraqi government thinks of developments in Iraq is so unimportant that you can’t even conceive someone would find it relevant to discussion of, you know, Iraq.
But assuming it isn’t that, could you just please answer the question? I’d like to discuss issues as regards the Iraqi government, and it’s difficult to do that when I can’t, somehow, get you to answer the simplest opening question on the topic, which is kinda amazing, frankly.
I’ll take that as a qualified “yes,” unless you you wish to say it isn’t.
That’s a “yes,” that you believe “looking at Iraqi statistics, and comparing them from month to month or year to year” is “helpful,” right? Is that correct?
So when you wrote “I’ll pass, bobby, because I don’t have expertise in statistics,”
you meant that you don’t have expertise in performing a least squares regression, or something of that level of math, but you feel up to reading a graph? Is that about it? Please let me know if that’s an adequate summary of what you meant.
I’m still confused trying to reconcile:
With yes, that you believe “looking at Iraqi statistics, and comparing them from month to month or year to year” is “helpful.”
Is there some rule for when looking at Iraqi statistics is and isn’t helpful?
I’m assuming that your rule isn’t “when it helps my argument and not when it doesn’t.” So what is your rule?
Thanks!
Ok, this much:
My question goes to what the Iraqi government thinks, Charles.
Not to what the U.S. government thinks.
Why is it that I’ve now asked three times what the Iraqi government thinks of something, and you’ve each time responded explaining what the U.S. government thinks, instead?
One could get the impression that you think that what the Iraqi government thinks of developments in Iraq is so unimportant that you can’t even conceive someone would find it relevant to discussion of, you know, Iraq.
But assuming it isn’t that, could you just please answer the question? I’d like to discuss issues as regards the Iraqi government, and it’s difficult to do that when I can’t, somehow, get you to answer the simplest opening question on the topic, which is kinda amazing, frankly.
I’ll take that as a qualified “yes,” unless you you wish to say it isn’t.
That’s a “yes,” that you believe “looking at Iraqi statistics, and comparing them from month to month or year to year” is “helpful,” right? Is that correct?
So when you wrote “I’ll pass, bobby, because I don’t have expertise in statistics,”
you meant that you don’t have expertise in performing a least squares regression, or something of that level of math, but you feel up to reading a graph? Is that about it? Please let me know if that’s an adequate summary of what you meant.
I’m still confused trying to reconcile:
With yes, that you believe “looking at Iraqi statistics, and comparing them from month to month or year to year” is “helpful.”
Is there some rule for when looking at Iraqi statistics is and isn’t helpful?
I’m assuming that your rule isn’t “when it helps my argument and not when it doesn’t.” So what is your rule?
Thanks!
Charles, please consider Gary’s points on statistics. He has a point. To use a sports analogy, it sometimes seems like you’re using batting averages, RBIs and errors, when other analysts are using OPS and zone ratings.
Charles, please consider Gary’s points on statistics. He has a point. To use a sports analogy, it sometimes seems like you’re using batting averages, RBIs and errors, when other analysts are using OPS and zone ratings.
Charles, please consider Gary’s points on statistics. He has a point. To use a sports analogy, it sometimes seems like you’re using batting averages, RBIs and errors, when other analysts are using OPS and zone ratings.
Missed this: Charles:
Ah! So when you wrote this:
What you actually meant then was that the the U.S. did make a choice to engage in violence to regain Iraq in 2003? Right?
Missed this: Charles:
Ah! So when you wrote this:
What you actually meant then was that the the U.S. did make a choice to engage in violence to regain Iraq in 2003? Right?
Missed this: Charles:
Ah! So when you wrote this:
What you actually meant then was that the the U.S. did make a choice to engage in violence to regain Iraq in 2003? Right?
Somehow, Gary, I expect that the explanation will come down to some form of American exceptionalism, which IIRC and am too lazy to look up, Charles once explicitly proferred as one of his cornerstone beliefs. (Apologies in advance if I’m misremembering.) We are allowed to choose violence as a means to political ends, but nobody else — or at least certainly no non-Western democracy, and definitely not a bunch of backwards-ass Ay-rabs — is.
Somehow, Gary, I expect that the explanation will come down to some form of American exceptionalism, which IIRC and am too lazy to look up, Charles once explicitly proferred as one of his cornerstone beliefs. (Apologies in advance if I’m misremembering.) We are allowed to choose violence as a means to political ends, but nobody else — or at least certainly no non-Western democracy, and definitely not a bunch of backwards-ass Ay-rabs — is.
Somehow, Gary, I expect that the explanation will come down to some form of American exceptionalism, which IIRC and am too lazy to look up, Charles once explicitly proferred as one of his cornerstone beliefs. (Apologies in advance if I’m misremembering.) We are allowed to choose violence as a means to political ends, but nobody else — or at least certainly no non-Western democracy, and definitely not a bunch of backwards-ass Ay-rabs — is.
“Yes, we did have a choice” has a limited set of matches with “no, we did not have a choice,” to be sure.
Charle has now stated that “Yes, we did have a choice,” Phil.
I don’t know if he’s noticed that he’s contradicted his previous statement, and flatly declared that it was false, and that he’s corrected himself, but he’s clearly done that, notice it or not.
“Yes, we did have a choice” has a limited set of matches with “no, we did not have a choice,” to be sure.
Charle has now stated that “Yes, we did have a choice,” Phil.
I don’t know if he’s noticed that he’s contradicted his previous statement, and flatly declared that it was false, and that he’s corrected himself, but he’s clearly done that, notice it or not.
“Yes, we did have a choice” has a limited set of matches with “no, we did not have a choice,” to be sure.
Charle has now stated that “Yes, we did have a choice,” Phil.
I don’t know if he’s noticed that he’s contradicted his previous statement, and flatly declared that it was false, and that he’s corrected himself, but he’s clearly done that, notice it or not.
Ah, yes. PNAC.
This deserves a little more than my drive-by upthread.
Take a look at the list of members and contributors at the PNAC site, and compare to the list of folks who drove the decision to invade Iraq.
Read the research papers, position papers, and articles written by these folks over the last fifteen or more years and compare to the foreign policies and initiatives of the Bush administration.
The paper cited above by tgirsch is actually quite relevant to this discussion. The role and responsibility of folks at “think tanks” like PNAC in our current situation, likewise.
Your reply was a total non-response, and a dismissive one. Bad form, brother.
If you’d like to take another swing at it, I’d be interested in your thoughts. If not, then, really, not, because you’re refusing to engage a pretty important issue.
Thanks –
Ah, yes. PNAC.
This deserves a little more than my drive-by upthread.
Take a look at the list of members and contributors at the PNAC site, and compare to the list of folks who drove the decision to invade Iraq.
Read the research papers, position papers, and articles written by these folks over the last fifteen or more years and compare to the foreign policies and initiatives of the Bush administration.
The paper cited above by tgirsch is actually quite relevant to this discussion. The role and responsibility of folks at “think tanks” like PNAC in our current situation, likewise.
Your reply was a total non-response, and a dismissive one. Bad form, brother.
If you’d like to take another swing at it, I’d be interested in your thoughts. If not, then, really, not, because you’re refusing to engage a pretty important issue.
Thanks –
Ah, yes. PNAC.
This deserves a little more than my drive-by upthread.
Take a look at the list of members and contributors at the PNAC site, and compare to the list of folks who drove the decision to invade Iraq.
Read the research papers, position papers, and articles written by these folks over the last fifteen or more years and compare to the foreign policies and initiatives of the Bush administration.
The paper cited above by tgirsch is actually quite relevant to this discussion. The role and responsibility of folks at “think tanks” like PNAC in our current situation, likewise.
Your reply was a total non-response, and a dismissive one. Bad form, brother.
If you’d like to take another swing at it, I’d be interested in your thoughts. If not, then, really, not, because you’re refusing to engage a pretty important issue.
Thanks –
Here, girsch.
Mea culpa. You did say you would hypothetically apply the term to yourself, even if it was only after you were directly challenged on that point. My bad that I missed it.
I said dictionary definition for a reason, girsh.
And like I said, I don’t buy it. But if you insist on using a technically-correct definition that differs in connotation from the commonly-understood definition, I don’t see why it upsets you when people understand you to mean the latter.
If I meant the the wiki reference, I would have said so.
Then why did you link that one, if it’s not what you meant?
If there’s a factual or logical issue with how I used it, please let me know, but your emotional responses to the term are your own.
Obviously it’s far from being just me. You can choose to ignore the commonly-understood connotations of words all you want, but don’t pretend it’s someone else’s problem that nobody wants to play along.
And, for the record, it’s not an “emotional” response. It’s a purely rational one. What’s “emotional” or “irrational” about understanding a term in the way it’s used the vast majority of the time in the vernacular? (Vernacular def. 1c, since you’re so fond of the dictionary.)
Frankly, it denies credulity to believe that when you applied the terms “surrender” and “defeatist” to Reid and the Democrats, you intended no derogatory meaning in those terms.
Ah, yes. PNAC.
Yes, them. You know, the guys whose names showed up in prominent positions all throughout the Bush Administration at the time this war was started. Those guys. Of course, I’m sure that’s all just a big coincidence…
russell:
The paper cited above by tgirsch is actually quite relevant to this discussion. … Your reply was a total non-response, and a dismissive one.
Thanks. I’m glad I’m not the only one who thought so.
Here, girsch.
Mea culpa. You did say you would hypothetically apply the term to yourself, even if it was only after you were directly challenged on that point. My bad that I missed it.
I said dictionary definition for a reason, girsh.
And like I said, I don’t buy it. But if you insist on using a technically-correct definition that differs in connotation from the commonly-understood definition, I don’t see why it upsets you when people understand you to mean the latter.
If I meant the the wiki reference, I would have said so.
Then why did you link that one, if it’s not what you meant?
If there’s a factual or logical issue with how I used it, please let me know, but your emotional responses to the term are your own.
Obviously it’s far from being just me. You can choose to ignore the commonly-understood connotations of words all you want, but don’t pretend it’s someone else’s problem that nobody wants to play along.
And, for the record, it’s not an “emotional” response. It’s a purely rational one. What’s “emotional” or “irrational” about understanding a term in the way it’s used the vast majority of the time in the vernacular? (Vernacular def. 1c, since you’re so fond of the dictionary.)
Frankly, it denies credulity to believe that when you applied the terms “surrender” and “defeatist” to Reid and the Democrats, you intended no derogatory meaning in those terms.
Ah, yes. PNAC.
Yes, them. You know, the guys whose names showed up in prominent positions all throughout the Bush Administration at the time this war was started. Those guys. Of course, I’m sure that’s all just a big coincidence…
russell:
The paper cited above by tgirsch is actually quite relevant to this discussion. … Your reply was a total non-response, and a dismissive one.
Thanks. I’m glad I’m not the only one who thought so.
Here, girsch.
Mea culpa. You did say you would hypothetically apply the term to yourself, even if it was only after you were directly challenged on that point. My bad that I missed it.
I said dictionary definition for a reason, girsh.
And like I said, I don’t buy it. But if you insist on using a technically-correct definition that differs in connotation from the commonly-understood definition, I don’t see why it upsets you when people understand you to mean the latter.
If I meant the the wiki reference, I would have said so.
Then why did you link that one, if it’s not what you meant?
If there’s a factual or logical issue with how I used it, please let me know, but your emotional responses to the term are your own.
Obviously it’s far from being just me. You can choose to ignore the commonly-understood connotations of words all you want, but don’t pretend it’s someone else’s problem that nobody wants to play along.
And, for the record, it’s not an “emotional” response. It’s a purely rational one. What’s “emotional” or “irrational” about understanding a term in the way it’s used the vast majority of the time in the vernacular? (Vernacular def. 1c, since you’re so fond of the dictionary.)
Frankly, it denies credulity to believe that when you applied the terms “surrender” and “defeatist” to Reid and the Democrats, you intended no derogatory meaning in those terms.
Ah, yes. PNAC.
Yes, them. You know, the guys whose names showed up in prominent positions all throughout the Bush Administration at the time this war was started. Those guys. Of course, I’m sure that’s all just a big coincidence…
russell:
The paper cited above by tgirsch is actually quite relevant to this discussion. … Your reply was a total non-response, and a dismissive one.
Thanks. I’m glad I’m not the only one who thought so.
Take a look at the list of members and contributors at the PNAC site, and compare to the list of folks who drove the decision to invade Iraq.
Heck, forget even that. Have a look at the signatories of the letter I linked. Armitage, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle. Not exactly obscure names. And even going outside the formal administration of the time, plenty of people who obviously have the respect of (and influence within) the administration: Kristol, Bolton, Bennett, Zoellick.
Take a look at the list of members and contributors at the PNAC site, and compare to the list of folks who drove the decision to invade Iraq.
Heck, forget even that. Have a look at the signatories of the letter I linked. Armitage, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle. Not exactly obscure names. And even going outside the formal administration of the time, plenty of people who obviously have the respect of (and influence within) the administration: Kristol, Bolton, Bennett, Zoellick.
Take a look at the list of members and contributors at the PNAC site, and compare to the list of folks who drove the decision to invade Iraq.
Heck, forget even that. Have a look at the signatories of the letter I linked. Armitage, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle. Not exactly obscure names. And even going outside the formal administration of the time, plenty of people who obviously have the respect of (and influence within) the administration: Kristol, Bolton, Bennett, Zoellick.
A potpourri:
Charles: I agree, Anarch. Like with bobby, you’re free to graph civilian casualties all the back to whenever and do a least squares regression. I won’t.
On the one hand, fair enough; on the other hand, when you say this…
No it’s not, but Jes — who was the person you were responding to, although other people raised similar statistics upthread — never claimed that the number of civilian deaths directly attributable violence was one million; rather, that the number of civilian dead was one million. Apples to slaughterhouses, Charles, and it’s deeply disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
[As to the number itself… at this point, do you really need a citation? As in, are you genuinely unaware of the standard source for this statistic/these statistics? There’s a context here which I can’t imagine you are unaware of, but one never knows.]
In which vein, when you say this:
A) What does the line on the graphs mean?
B) Why does the time-series begin in May 2005, as opposed to another date (e.g. July 2003), and why is this date optimal for drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of the surge?
C) Why are the only political events marked upon the graph the bombing of the mosque and the beginning of the surge? Are no other political events relevant to the data?
If you can’t answer those questions then no, you don’t have enough expertise to understand those graphs — and fair enough, because I don’t either — so please don’t pretend otherwise.
Yes, we did have a choice. We were also in a state of ceasefire at that time, and had been for at least a dozen years. That’s why I said the Gulf War never ended.
Do you believe the Korean War has ended?
I said dictionary definition for a reason, girsh.
This is what’s known as a dictionary flame, and for good reason. It’s puerile to insist that words have no greater meaning than what’s found in Merriam-Webster (or wherever); dictionaries are summations but they can’t cover all the connotations. Connotations, I might add, to which you obviously subscribe even as you protest you don’t.
[And in response to your inevitable “mind-reading” foul: it ain’t mind-reading when it’s on the page. tgirsch et al. have documented it pretty damn thoroughly in this thread, and it’s been pointed out innumerable times elsewhere.]
Ah, yes. PNAC.
Oh for the love of Christ. This is exactly the kind of childish amnesia I was talking.
I’ve put out some facts and made some assessments, and you can either them dismiss or not. That is your choice.
Sometimes my predictive capacity amazes even myself. This is not one of those times, I’m sad to say.
A potpourri:
Charles: I agree, Anarch. Like with bobby, you’re free to graph civilian casualties all the back to whenever and do a least squares regression. I won’t.
On the one hand, fair enough; on the other hand, when you say this…
No it’s not, but Jes — who was the person you were responding to, although other people raised similar statistics upthread — never claimed that the number of civilian deaths directly attributable violence was one million; rather, that the number of civilian dead was one million. Apples to slaughterhouses, Charles, and it’s deeply disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
[As to the number itself… at this point, do you really need a citation? As in, are you genuinely unaware of the standard source for this statistic/these statistics? There’s a context here which I can’t imagine you are unaware of, but one never knows.]
In which vein, when you say this:
A) What does the line on the graphs mean?
B) Why does the time-series begin in May 2005, as opposed to another date (e.g. July 2003), and why is this date optimal for drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of the surge?
C) Why are the only political events marked upon the graph the bombing of the mosque and the beginning of the surge? Are no other political events relevant to the data?
If you can’t answer those questions then no, you don’t have enough expertise to understand those graphs — and fair enough, because I don’t either — so please don’t pretend otherwise.
Yes, we did have a choice. We were also in a state of ceasefire at that time, and had been for at least a dozen years. That’s why I said the Gulf War never ended.
Do you believe the Korean War has ended?
I said dictionary definition for a reason, girsh.
This is what’s known as a dictionary flame, and for good reason. It’s puerile to insist that words have no greater meaning than what’s found in Merriam-Webster (or wherever); dictionaries are summations but they can’t cover all the connotations. Connotations, I might add, to which you obviously subscribe even as you protest you don’t.
[And in response to your inevitable “mind-reading” foul: it ain’t mind-reading when it’s on the page. tgirsch et al. have documented it pretty damn thoroughly in this thread, and it’s been pointed out innumerable times elsewhere.]
Ah, yes. PNAC.
Oh for the love of Christ. This is exactly the kind of childish amnesia I was talking.
I’ve put out some facts and made some assessments, and you can either them dismiss or not. That is your choice.
Sometimes my predictive capacity amazes even myself. This is not one of those times, I’m sad to say.
A potpourri:
Charles: I agree, Anarch. Like with bobby, you’re free to graph civilian casualties all the back to whenever and do a least squares regression. I won’t.
On the one hand, fair enough; on the other hand, when you say this…
No it’s not, but Jes — who was the person you were responding to, although other people raised similar statistics upthread — never claimed that the number of civilian deaths directly attributable violence was one million; rather, that the number of civilian dead was one million. Apples to slaughterhouses, Charles, and it’s deeply disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
[As to the number itself… at this point, do you really need a citation? As in, are you genuinely unaware of the standard source for this statistic/these statistics? There’s a context here which I can’t imagine you are unaware of, but one never knows.]
In which vein, when you say this:
A) What does the line on the graphs mean?
B) Why does the time-series begin in May 2005, as opposed to another date (e.g. July 2003), and why is this date optimal for drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of the surge?
C) Why are the only political events marked upon the graph the bombing of the mosque and the beginning of the surge? Are no other political events relevant to the data?
If you can’t answer those questions then no, you don’t have enough expertise to understand those graphs — and fair enough, because I don’t either — so please don’t pretend otherwise.
Yes, we did have a choice. We were also in a state of ceasefire at that time, and had been for at least a dozen years. That’s why I said the Gulf War never ended.
Do you believe the Korean War has ended?
I said dictionary definition for a reason, girsh.
This is what’s known as a dictionary flame, and for good reason. It’s puerile to insist that words have no greater meaning than what’s found in Merriam-Webster (or wherever); dictionaries are summations but they can’t cover all the connotations. Connotations, I might add, to which you obviously subscribe even as you protest you don’t.
[And in response to your inevitable “mind-reading” foul: it ain’t mind-reading when it’s on the page. tgirsch et al. have documented it pretty damn thoroughly in this thread, and it’s been pointed out innumerable times elsewhere.]
Ah, yes. PNAC.
Oh for the love of Christ. This is exactly the kind of childish amnesia I was talking.
I’ve put out some facts and made some assessments, and you can either them dismiss or not. That is your choice.
Sometimes my predictive capacity amazes even myself. This is not one of those times, I’m sad to say.
I’ve already written that the best data source for this statistic is the IBC
The IBC is the “best” data source if you know you want to make sure you only count the people who were killed where two media sources could report: which would be good either if for some reason you wanted a known minimum that nobody could dispute, or if you wanted to minimize the level of casualties to make it look as if Iraq was less dangerous a place than it actually is.
If you want to look at how many people are actually being killed because you want to make an accurate measurement of the violence in Iraq, you need something like the Lancet report’s sampling method, which will also provide an underestimate, but a closer one than the IBC method.
I’ve already written that the best data source for this statistic is the IBC
The IBC is the “best” data source if you know you want to make sure you only count the people who were killed where two media sources could report: which would be good either if for some reason you wanted a known minimum that nobody could dispute, or if you wanted to minimize the level of casualties to make it look as if Iraq was less dangerous a place than it actually is.
If you want to look at how many people are actually being killed because you want to make an accurate measurement of the violence in Iraq, you need something like the Lancet report’s sampling method, which will also provide an underestimate, but a closer one than the IBC method.
I’ve already written that the best data source for this statistic is the IBC
The IBC is the “best” data source if you know you want to make sure you only count the people who were killed where two media sources could report: which would be good either if for some reason you wanted a known minimum that nobody could dispute, or if you wanted to minimize the level of casualties to make it look as if Iraq was less dangerous a place than it actually is.
If you want to look at how many people are actually being killed because you want to make an accurate measurement of the violence in Iraq, you need something like the Lancet report’s sampling method, which will also provide an underestimate, but a closer one than the IBC method.
Urk. I thought you wanted to be take seriously on stats.
By their own standards, they know they’re performing an undercount. And methodologically, they can hardly avoid it.
All it provides is a FLOOR…it is by no means the best source.
Urk. I thought you wanted to be take seriously on stats.
By their own standards, they know they’re performing an undercount. And methodologically, they can hardly avoid it.
All it provides is a FLOOR…it is by no means the best source.
Urk. I thought you wanted to be take seriously on stats.
By their own standards, they know they’re performing an undercount. And methodologically, they can hardly avoid it.
All it provides is a FLOOR…it is by no means the best source.
Oh for the love of Christ.
I love that expression… 😉
Oh for the love of Christ.
I love that expression… 😉
Oh for the love of Christ.
I love that expression… 😉
Can you explain if and why you believe the article is false?
Here’s what it says in the body of the article, Turb:
There’s also this:
So I stand corrected in the sense that earlier this year they were giving arms directly to erstwhile insurgents of the Sunni variety. My understanding from what I’ve read via Roggio’s site over the months is that Sunnis are to join IA or IP units, and arms are supplied to those units. Al Maliki is OK with arming Sunnis as long as the requisite controls are in place.
My question goes to what the Iraqi government thinks, Charles.
Since I disputed your premise, Gary, that as far as my answer goes, but to humor you, in the above Roggio link, he references to this article, which appears to answer your concerns. Also see the second link in my response to Turb.
you meant that you don’t have expertise in performing a least squares regression, or something of that level of math, but you feel up to reading a graph? Is that about it?
It means that I choose not to take the time to undertake the task of researching, compiling and charting the data all the way back to 2003, Gary, and it’s not directly germane to the main topic of this post anyway. I’m more interested in the current strategy and the trendlines since the Golden Mosque bombing.
What you actually meant then was that the the U.S. did make a choice to engage in violence to regain Iraq in 2003? Right?
What I said was that Gulf War never ended. I view it in phases: Operation Desert Storm, the low-level war during the ceasefire (such as the targeting of our planes in the no-fly zones), and the Saddam-removal phase. Saddam started the violence by invading Kuwait and continued the violence throughout, and we the chose the time and manner to end this war, and only after Bush decided that all other ways of getting Saddam into compliance were exhausted. Many, if not the majority, of people would disagree with Bush’s judgment, especially given that his primary casus belli blew up in his face.
But if you insist on using a technically-correct definition that differs in connotation from the commonly-understood definition…
girsch, I used one definition and it’s a commonly accepted one. Your reactions to commonly accepted definitions of words remain your own.
Your reply was a total non-response, and a dismissive one.
I’ve read quite a few of PNAC’s documents, russell. Their primary focus was for the U.S. to have a strong national defense, capable of defending our interests in a post-Soviet world. Iraq was one piece of it, and it’s nowhere near as sinister as the Left portrays it. They urged regime change for Saddam, and Clinton adopted regime change as our stated policy. Yes, several members of PNAC came into the Bush administration, and several were in the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations. They were basically a group of Republicans who challenged the defense policy of a Democratic administration. That’s why my initial response was no minimal.
No it’s not, but Jes — who was the person you were responding to, although other people raised similar statistics upthread…
I don’t respond to Jes, Anarch. The person who raised the issue of 1 million dead was Codpiecewatch, who said: “How about the fact that 1 million are already dead?” That’s who I was responding to. Without anything further than that, I don’t accept his claim as a fact. I recall the Lancet folks publishing such a number, but that’s a statistical projection, an estimate, not a fact. What’s more, it’s a disputed estimate, and one of the disputers is IBC.
Do you believe the Korean War has ended?
It’s in ceasefire. And communist China is still next door.
Can you explain if and why you believe the article is false?
Here’s what it says in the body of the article, Turb:
There’s also this:
So I stand corrected in the sense that earlier this year they were giving arms directly to erstwhile insurgents of the Sunni variety. My understanding from what I’ve read via Roggio’s site over the months is that Sunnis are to join IA or IP units, and arms are supplied to those units. Al Maliki is OK with arming Sunnis as long as the requisite controls are in place.
My question goes to what the Iraqi government thinks, Charles.
Since I disputed your premise, Gary, that as far as my answer goes, but to humor you, in the above Roggio link, he references to this article, which appears to answer your concerns. Also see the second link in my response to Turb.
you meant that you don’t have expertise in performing a least squares regression, or something of that level of math, but you feel up to reading a graph? Is that about it?
It means that I choose not to take the time to undertake the task of researching, compiling and charting the data all the way back to 2003, Gary, and it’s not directly germane to the main topic of this post anyway. I’m more interested in the current strategy and the trendlines since the Golden Mosque bombing.
What you actually meant then was that the the U.S. did make a choice to engage in violence to regain Iraq in 2003? Right?
What I said was that Gulf War never ended. I view it in phases: Operation Desert Storm, the low-level war during the ceasefire (such as the targeting of our planes in the no-fly zones), and the Saddam-removal phase. Saddam started the violence by invading Kuwait and continued the violence throughout, and we the chose the time and manner to end this war, and only after Bush decided that all other ways of getting Saddam into compliance were exhausted. Many, if not the majority, of people would disagree with Bush’s judgment, especially given that his primary casus belli blew up in his face.
But if you insist on using a technically-correct definition that differs in connotation from the commonly-understood definition…
girsch, I used one definition and it’s a commonly accepted one. Your reactions to commonly accepted definitions of words remain your own.
Your reply was a total non-response, and a dismissive one.
I’ve read quite a few of PNAC’s documents, russell. Their primary focus was for the U.S. to have a strong national defense, capable of defending our interests in a post-Soviet world. Iraq was one piece of it, and it’s nowhere near as sinister as the Left portrays it. They urged regime change for Saddam, and Clinton adopted regime change as our stated policy. Yes, several members of PNAC came into the Bush administration, and several were in the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations. They were basically a group of Republicans who challenged the defense policy of a Democratic administration. That’s why my initial response was no minimal.
No it’s not, but Jes — who was the person you were responding to, although other people raised similar statistics upthread…
I don’t respond to Jes, Anarch. The person who raised the issue of 1 million dead was Codpiecewatch, who said: “How about the fact that 1 million are already dead?” That’s who I was responding to. Without anything further than that, I don’t accept his claim as a fact. I recall the Lancet folks publishing such a number, but that’s a statistical projection, an estimate, not a fact. What’s more, it’s a disputed estimate, and one of the disputers is IBC.
Do you believe the Korean War has ended?
It’s in ceasefire. And communist China is still next door.
Can you explain if and why you believe the article is false?
Here’s what it says in the body of the article, Turb:
There’s also this:
So I stand corrected in the sense that earlier this year they were giving arms directly to erstwhile insurgents of the Sunni variety. My understanding from what I’ve read via Roggio’s site over the months is that Sunnis are to join IA or IP units, and arms are supplied to those units. Al Maliki is OK with arming Sunnis as long as the requisite controls are in place.
My question goes to what the Iraqi government thinks, Charles.
Since I disputed your premise, Gary, that as far as my answer goes, but to humor you, in the above Roggio link, he references to this article, which appears to answer your concerns. Also see the second link in my response to Turb.
you meant that you don’t have expertise in performing a least squares regression, or something of that level of math, but you feel up to reading a graph? Is that about it?
It means that I choose not to take the time to undertake the task of researching, compiling and charting the data all the way back to 2003, Gary, and it’s not directly germane to the main topic of this post anyway. I’m more interested in the current strategy and the trendlines since the Golden Mosque bombing.
What you actually meant then was that the the U.S. did make a choice to engage in violence to regain Iraq in 2003? Right?
What I said was that Gulf War never ended. I view it in phases: Operation Desert Storm, the low-level war during the ceasefire (such as the targeting of our planes in the no-fly zones), and the Saddam-removal phase. Saddam started the violence by invading Kuwait and continued the violence throughout, and we the chose the time and manner to end this war, and only after Bush decided that all other ways of getting Saddam into compliance were exhausted. Many, if not the majority, of people would disagree with Bush’s judgment, especially given that his primary casus belli blew up in his face.
But if you insist on using a technically-correct definition that differs in connotation from the commonly-understood definition…
girsch, I used one definition and it’s a commonly accepted one. Your reactions to commonly accepted definitions of words remain your own.
Your reply was a total non-response, and a dismissive one.
I’ve read quite a few of PNAC’s documents, russell. Their primary focus was for the U.S. to have a strong national defense, capable of defending our interests in a post-Soviet world. Iraq was one piece of it, and it’s nowhere near as sinister as the Left portrays it. They urged regime change for Saddam, and Clinton adopted regime change as our stated policy. Yes, several members of PNAC came into the Bush administration, and several were in the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations. They were basically a group of Republicans who challenged the defense policy of a Democratic administration. That’s why my initial response was no minimal.
No it’s not, but Jes — who was the person you were responding to, although other people raised similar statistics upthread…
I don’t respond to Jes, Anarch. The person who raised the issue of 1 million dead was Codpiecewatch, who said: “How about the fact that 1 million are already dead?” That’s who I was responding to. Without anything further than that, I don’t accept his claim as a fact. I recall the Lancet folks publishing such a number, but that’s a statistical projection, an estimate, not a fact. What’s more, it’s a disputed estimate, and one of the disputers is IBC.
Do you believe the Korean War has ended?
It’s in ceasefire. And communist China is still next door.
I recall the Lancet folks publishing such a number, but that’s a statistical projection, an estimate, not a fact.
I’m certain that Charles won’t read this article on the methodology of the first Lancet report (remember when the controversy was that it said about 100 000 Iraqis had been killed?) or this interview with one of the co-authors of the Lancet reports, or this response to the various standard bloggish attacks on the Lancet report.
But I include the links in case anyone is confused by Charles’ claim that data provided by standard epidemiological techniques is “not fact, only estimate”. This is a regurgitation of the Bush administration’s attack on the Lancet reports, and need be taken about as seriously as any other blogurgitation of material supplied by the White House.
I recall the Lancet folks publishing such a number, but that’s a statistical projection, an estimate, not a fact.
I’m certain that Charles won’t read this article on the methodology of the first Lancet report (remember when the controversy was that it said about 100 000 Iraqis had been killed?) or this interview with one of the co-authors of the Lancet reports, or this response to the various standard bloggish attacks on the Lancet report.
But I include the links in case anyone is confused by Charles’ claim that data provided by standard epidemiological techniques is “not fact, only estimate”. This is a regurgitation of the Bush administration’s attack on the Lancet reports, and need be taken about as seriously as any other blogurgitation of material supplied by the White House.
I recall the Lancet folks publishing such a number, but that’s a statistical projection, an estimate, not a fact.
I’m certain that Charles won’t read this article on the methodology of the first Lancet report (remember when the controversy was that it said about 100 000 Iraqis had been killed?) or this interview with one of the co-authors of the Lancet reports, or this response to the various standard bloggish attacks on the Lancet report.
But I include the links in case anyone is confused by Charles’ claim that data provided by standard epidemiological techniques is “not fact, only estimate”. This is a regurgitation of the Bush administration’s attack on the Lancet reports, and need be taken about as seriously as any other blogurgitation of material supplied by the White House.
I’d at least have some respect for a critic of the studies published in Lancet who was consistent about it, rejecting the methodology and therefore insisting that we have no idea what the body count of any conflict in recent decades is. As it is, the critics seem to have no idea that what they’re attacking is very representative work, and that if it’s flawed in the ways they claim, so’s the entire field of casualty statistics.
Including, of course, the ones they like to use about the sins of their enemies.
I’d at least have some respect for a critic of the studies published in Lancet who was consistent about it, rejecting the methodology and therefore insisting that we have no idea what the body count of any conflict in recent decades is. As it is, the critics seem to have no idea that what they’re attacking is very representative work, and that if it’s flawed in the ways they claim, so’s the entire field of casualty statistics.
Including, of course, the ones they like to use about the sins of their enemies.
I’d at least have some respect for a critic of the studies published in Lancet who was consistent about it, rejecting the methodology and therefore insisting that we have no idea what the body count of any conflict in recent decades is. As it is, the critics seem to have no idea that what they’re attacking is very representative work, and that if it’s flawed in the ways they claim, so’s the entire field of casualty statistics.
Including, of course, the ones they like to use about the sins of their enemies.
Their primary focus was for the U.S. to have a strong national defense, capable of defending our interests in a post-Soviet world.
I’d state it somewhat differently.
Their primary focus was seizing the opportunity offered by the demise of the Soviet Union to establish and ensure the political and military dominance of the US, both globally and regionally in any area we have any interest in.
The general doctrine goes back to the Defense Policy Guidance, authored by Khalilizad and Wolfowitz in 1992. It continues in PNAC’s “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, and in various other writings of folks associated with PNAC.
Notable in all of this is the idea that the US can and should act unilaterally as it wishes to prevent the emergence of any rival nation, friendly or not, even at a regional level.
It’s the abandonment of the idea of American leadership as a “first among equals” in a community of nations, and the explicit embracing of the idea of America as a global hegemon.
I agree that the goal is the protection of American interests. “Interests” here, however, is construed so broadly as to require that this nation dominate the rest of the world, as a matter of national policy.
Regarding Iraq, specifically, I’ll offer this, from “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, written in 2000:
Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.
I’m not really interested in kicking off a series of “dueling cite” posts here, but after more than five years of listening to and participating in the debate about Iraq, the bald and self-evident facts of the matter lead me here:
Bush, Cheney, and their like-minded colleagues knowingly and deliberately took us to war with a country that posed no credible threat to us, in the interest of projecting American power into the middle east. To do this, they knowingly and deliberately misrepresented the threat presented by Hussein, and knowingly and deliberately drew associations between Hussein and the folks that actually did attack us on 9/11.
There was likely enough legal justification for invading Iraq that they’ll never hang for it, but what I’ve described above is an act of aggressive war.
No doubt, from now to the end of time, you’ll be on your side of it and I’ll be on mine. But, that’s the side of it that I’m on, and I didn’t get their casually.
These guys are bloody-minded, power hungry SOBs.
Thanks –
Their primary focus was for the U.S. to have a strong national defense, capable of defending our interests in a post-Soviet world.
I’d state it somewhat differently.
Their primary focus was seizing the opportunity offered by the demise of the Soviet Union to establish and ensure the political and military dominance of the US, both globally and regionally in any area we have any interest in.
The general doctrine goes back to the Defense Policy Guidance, authored by Khalilizad and Wolfowitz in 1992. It continues in PNAC’s “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, and in various other writings of folks associated with PNAC.
Notable in all of this is the idea that the US can and should act unilaterally as it wishes to prevent the emergence of any rival nation, friendly or not, even at a regional level.
It’s the abandonment of the idea of American leadership as a “first among equals” in a community of nations, and the explicit embracing of the idea of America as a global hegemon.
I agree that the goal is the protection of American interests. “Interests” here, however, is construed so broadly as to require that this nation dominate the rest of the world, as a matter of national policy.
Regarding Iraq, specifically, I’ll offer this, from “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, written in 2000:
Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.
I’m not really interested in kicking off a series of “dueling cite” posts here, but after more than five years of listening to and participating in the debate about Iraq, the bald and self-evident facts of the matter lead me here:
Bush, Cheney, and their like-minded colleagues knowingly and deliberately took us to war with a country that posed no credible threat to us, in the interest of projecting American power into the middle east. To do this, they knowingly and deliberately misrepresented the threat presented by Hussein, and knowingly and deliberately drew associations between Hussein and the folks that actually did attack us on 9/11.
There was likely enough legal justification for invading Iraq that they’ll never hang for it, but what I’ve described above is an act of aggressive war.
No doubt, from now to the end of time, you’ll be on your side of it and I’ll be on mine. But, that’s the side of it that I’m on, and I didn’t get their casually.
These guys are bloody-minded, power hungry SOBs.
Thanks –
Their primary focus was for the U.S. to have a strong national defense, capable of defending our interests in a post-Soviet world.
I’d state it somewhat differently.
Their primary focus was seizing the opportunity offered by the demise of the Soviet Union to establish and ensure the political and military dominance of the US, both globally and regionally in any area we have any interest in.
The general doctrine goes back to the Defense Policy Guidance, authored by Khalilizad and Wolfowitz in 1992. It continues in PNAC’s “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, and in various other writings of folks associated with PNAC.
Notable in all of this is the idea that the US can and should act unilaterally as it wishes to prevent the emergence of any rival nation, friendly or not, even at a regional level.
It’s the abandonment of the idea of American leadership as a “first among equals” in a community of nations, and the explicit embracing of the idea of America as a global hegemon.
I agree that the goal is the protection of American interests. “Interests” here, however, is construed so broadly as to require that this nation dominate the rest of the world, as a matter of national policy.
Regarding Iraq, specifically, I’ll offer this, from “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, written in 2000:
Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.
I’m not really interested in kicking off a series of “dueling cite” posts here, but after more than five years of listening to and participating in the debate about Iraq, the bald and self-evident facts of the matter lead me here:
Bush, Cheney, and their like-minded colleagues knowingly and deliberately took us to war with a country that posed no credible threat to us, in the interest of projecting American power into the middle east. To do this, they knowingly and deliberately misrepresented the threat presented by Hussein, and knowingly and deliberately drew associations between Hussein and the folks that actually did attack us on 9/11.
There was likely enough legal justification for invading Iraq that they’ll never hang for it, but what I’ve described above is an act of aggressive war.
No doubt, from now to the end of time, you’ll be on your side of it and I’ll be on mine. But, that’s the side of it that I’m on, and I didn’t get their casually.
These guys are bloody-minded, power hungry SOBs.
Thanks –
russell: I love the way that you can calmly and civilly take someone apart. And then end unfailingly with “Thanks”. 😉
(Not snark, a true compliment.)
russell: I love the way that you can calmly and civilly take someone apart. And then end unfailingly with “Thanks”. 😉
(Not snark, a true compliment.)
russell: I love the way that you can calmly and civilly take someone apart. And then end unfailingly with “Thanks”. 😉
(Not snark, a true compliment.)
Oh, Charles, I wish you wouldn’t have said this…because this totally undermines your arguments concerning statistics. You’re not digging into the methodology, you DON’T care about the numbers, you DON’T have an idea about the statistics and you don’t know why IBC is critiquing and where it’s strong and where it isn’t and you haven’t bothered to watch the follow up on this–you just took the early reaction and ran with it.
That methodology is very much standard in epidemiological studies—you can argue with the execution (but I would go with the more journal based arguments), but not with the projection.
Sorry, but you just don’t have any credibility now. You dont know what you’re talking about and you’re explicitly saying you don’t care to know what you’re talking about.
Oh, Charles, I wish you wouldn’t have said this…because this totally undermines your arguments concerning statistics. You’re not digging into the methodology, you DON’T care about the numbers, you DON’T have an idea about the statistics and you don’t know why IBC is critiquing and where it’s strong and where it isn’t and you haven’t bothered to watch the follow up on this–you just took the early reaction and ran with it.
That methodology is very much standard in epidemiological studies—you can argue with the execution (but I would go with the more journal based arguments), but not with the projection.
Sorry, but you just don’t have any credibility now. You dont know what you’re talking about and you’re explicitly saying you don’t care to know what you’re talking about.
Oh, Charles, I wish you wouldn’t have said this…because this totally undermines your arguments concerning statistics. You’re not digging into the methodology, you DON’T care about the numbers, you DON’T have an idea about the statistics and you don’t know why IBC is critiquing and where it’s strong and where it isn’t and you haven’t bothered to watch the follow up on this–you just took the early reaction and ran with it.
That methodology is very much standard in epidemiological studies—you can argue with the execution (but I would go with the more journal based arguments), but not with the projection.
Sorry, but you just don’t have any credibility now. You dont know what you’re talking about and you’re explicitly saying you don’t care to know what you’re talking about.
Even IBC admits that their high number is an undercount–I’ve seen IBC representatives argue and they think they’re undercounting by, at most, a factor of two, though Sloboda once admitted the remote possibility of a factor of 4 understimate.
There is one other poll besides the ORB and the Lancet survey that suggest higher death tolls than IBC’s, but I don’t have time to talk about it.
Even IBC admits that their high number is an undercount–I’ve seen IBC representatives argue and they think they’re undercounting by, at most, a factor of two, though Sloboda once admitted the remote possibility of a factor of 4 understimate.
There is one other poll besides the ORB and the Lancet survey that suggest higher death tolls than IBC’s, but I don’t have time to talk about it.
Even IBC admits that their high number is an undercount–I’ve seen IBC representatives argue and they think they’re undercounting by, at most, a factor of two, though Sloboda once admitted the remote possibility of a factor of 4 understimate.
There is one other poll besides the ORB and the Lancet survey that suggest higher death tolls than IBC’s, but I don’t have time to talk about it.
Is it too late for me to me-too on the nice, smooth curve put on top of the bar graph? I tend to disregard such things automatically when looking at data, particularly when what the curve represents is left undefined.
Possibly such things are a sine of the times, though. In my experience, even moving averages don’t do that good a job of smoothing all of the unsmooth bits out of data, so I’m guessing this is either sketched by hand or some kind of function fit. Either way, completely disregardable as an indicator of trend.
Is it too late for me to me-too on the nice, smooth curve put on top of the bar graph? I tend to disregard such things automatically when looking at data, particularly when what the curve represents is left undefined.
Possibly such things are a sine of the times, though. In my experience, even moving averages don’t do that good a job of smoothing all of the unsmooth bits out of data, so I’m guessing this is either sketched by hand or some kind of function fit. Either way, completely disregardable as an indicator of trend.
Is it too late for me to me-too on the nice, smooth curve put on top of the bar graph? I tend to disregard such things automatically when looking at data, particularly when what the curve represents is left undefined.
Possibly such things are a sine of the times, though. In my experience, even moving averages don’t do that good a job of smoothing all of the unsmooth bits out of data, so I’m guessing this is either sketched by hand or some kind of function fit. Either way, completely disregardable as an indicator of trend.
I guess, shorter me: show me the spreadsheet.
I guess, shorter me: show me the spreadsheet.
I guess, shorter me: show me the spreadsheet.
Charles: I asked you “you meant that you don’t have expertise in performing a least squares regression, or something of that level of math, but you feel up to reading a graph?”
Didn’t get an answer: was that a “yes,” or a “no”? Or is one of those statements incorrect?
Hmm? I don’t recall stating any premise for you to dispute, Charles.
Is there some reason we can’t discuss Iraqi governmental policy, Charles?
Why is it that I’ve now asked four times what the Iraqi government thinks of something, and you’ve each time responded explaining what the U.S. government thinks, instead?
Could you just please answer the question about what the Iraqi government thinks?
Or are you actually saying that the Iraqi government is an irrelevant topic to Iraq?
Thanks!
I’m still confused trying to reconcile:
With yes, that you believe “looking at Iraqi statistics, and comparing them from month to month or year to year” is “helpful.”
Is there some rule for when looking at Iraqi statistics is and isn’t helpful?
I’m assuming that your rule isn’t “when it helps my argument and not when it doesn’t.” So what is your rule?
Thanks!
Charles: I asked you “you meant that you don’t have expertise in performing a least squares regression, or something of that level of math, but you feel up to reading a graph?”
Didn’t get an answer: was that a “yes,” or a “no”? Or is one of those statements incorrect?
Hmm? I don’t recall stating any premise for you to dispute, Charles.
Is there some reason we can’t discuss Iraqi governmental policy, Charles?
Why is it that I’ve now asked four times what the Iraqi government thinks of something, and you’ve each time responded explaining what the U.S. government thinks, instead?
Could you just please answer the question about what the Iraqi government thinks?
Or are you actually saying that the Iraqi government is an irrelevant topic to Iraq?
Thanks!
I’m still confused trying to reconcile:
With yes, that you believe “looking at Iraqi statistics, and comparing them from month to month or year to year” is “helpful.”
Is there some rule for when looking at Iraqi statistics is and isn’t helpful?
I’m assuming that your rule isn’t “when it helps my argument and not when it doesn’t.” So what is your rule?
Thanks!
Charles: I asked you “you meant that you don’t have expertise in performing a least squares regression, or something of that level of math, but you feel up to reading a graph?”
Didn’t get an answer: was that a “yes,” or a “no”? Or is one of those statements incorrect?
Hmm? I don’t recall stating any premise for you to dispute, Charles.
Is there some reason we can’t discuss Iraqi governmental policy, Charles?
Why is it that I’ve now asked four times what the Iraqi government thinks of something, and you’ve each time responded explaining what the U.S. government thinks, instead?
Could you just please answer the question about what the Iraqi government thinks?
Or are you actually saying that the Iraqi government is an irrelevant topic to Iraq?
Thanks!
I’m still confused trying to reconcile:
With yes, that you believe “looking at Iraqi statistics, and comparing them from month to month or year to year” is “helpful.”
Is there some rule for when looking at Iraqi statistics is and isn’t helpful?
I’m assuming that your rule isn’t “when it helps my argument and not when it doesn’t.” So what is your rule?
Thanks!
In other words: (ahrm.. hum) we may never know (majestic pause) whether the justification for war was as contrived as some say – which some do, when they say the war was an unjust aggression, which I just did – but(!), whether there are disagreements that may never be reconciled; it’s evidently clear it was a very shady business. (solemn pose).
Oh! The snark.
Let’s try to look at this in a way that does not /only/ attempt to target Charles’ inconsistent and curious interpretation of statistical data (and then prove nothing useful). And instead attempt to say something about what these graphs actually say. And what sort of methodology we’re actually making use of, if we actually wanted to claim it says something useful. Ok?
As I mentioned, the statistics are taken from morgues, and through some unknown extrapolation is said to be general enough to illustrate a predictable result nationwide on how intense the violence is.
Already at that point, the alarms should go off. So does anyone want to check or examine that – what sort of numbers you’re likely to get when taking numbers from the morgues, and extrapolating those to be the actual body- count in the regions? Is it possible, for example, that the only times bodies tend to turn up at a seriously high frequency like this, is when the fighting is more intense than usual, and people cannot bury their dead on their own?
Which evidently means that once the intense fighting – and then we’re talking about bodies in the streets – abate, the “bodycount” will fall down to the “normal”?
Somehow, going after the person who evidently suck worse than a ten- year old at statistics, was more important. And it even proved *something*: and it was so illustrative, that any other point that may have been hidden – for example about PNAC – simply had to be mentioned to prove how /these/ statistics were bonk.
Honestly, people, this is weak. No speech, no obvious point – this is just horrendously bad.
In other words: (ahrm.. hum) we may never know (majestic pause) whether the justification for war was as contrived as some say – which some do, when they say the war was an unjust aggression, which I just did – but(!), whether there are disagreements that may never be reconciled; it’s evidently clear it was a very shady business. (solemn pose).
Oh! The snark.
Let’s try to look at this in a way that does not /only/ attempt to target Charles’ inconsistent and curious interpretation of statistical data (and then prove nothing useful). And instead attempt to say something about what these graphs actually say. And what sort of methodology we’re actually making use of, if we actually wanted to claim it says something useful. Ok?
As I mentioned, the statistics are taken from morgues, and through some unknown extrapolation is said to be general enough to illustrate a predictable result nationwide on how intense the violence is.
Already at that point, the alarms should go off. So does anyone want to check or examine that – what sort of numbers you’re likely to get when taking numbers from the morgues, and extrapolating those to be the actual body- count in the regions? Is it possible, for example, that the only times bodies tend to turn up at a seriously high frequency like this, is when the fighting is more intense than usual, and people cannot bury their dead on their own?
Which evidently means that once the intense fighting – and then we’re talking about bodies in the streets – abate, the “bodycount” will fall down to the “normal”?
Somehow, going after the person who evidently suck worse than a ten- year old at statistics, was more important. And it even proved *something*: and it was so illustrative, that any other point that may have been hidden – for example about PNAC – simply had to be mentioned to prove how /these/ statistics were bonk.
Honestly, people, this is weak. No speech, no obvious point – this is just horrendously bad.
In other words: (ahrm.. hum) we may never know (majestic pause) whether the justification for war was as contrived as some say – which some do, when they say the war was an unjust aggression, which I just did – but(!), whether there are disagreements that may never be reconciled; it’s evidently clear it was a very shady business. (solemn pose).
Oh! The snark.
Let’s try to look at this in a way that does not /only/ attempt to target Charles’ inconsistent and curious interpretation of statistical data (and then prove nothing useful). And instead attempt to say something about what these graphs actually say. And what sort of methodology we’re actually making use of, if we actually wanted to claim it says something useful. Ok?
As I mentioned, the statistics are taken from morgues, and through some unknown extrapolation is said to be general enough to illustrate a predictable result nationwide on how intense the violence is.
Already at that point, the alarms should go off. So does anyone want to check or examine that – what sort of numbers you’re likely to get when taking numbers from the morgues, and extrapolating those to be the actual body- count in the regions? Is it possible, for example, that the only times bodies tend to turn up at a seriously high frequency like this, is when the fighting is more intense than usual, and people cannot bury their dead on their own?
Which evidently means that once the intense fighting – and then we’re talking about bodies in the streets – abate, the “bodycount” will fall down to the “normal”?
Somehow, going after the person who evidently suck worse than a ten- year old at statistics, was more important. And it even proved *something*: and it was so illustrative, that any other point that may have been hidden – for example about PNAC – simply had to be mentioned to prove how /these/ statistics were bonk.
Honestly, people, this is weak. No speech, no obvious point – this is just horrendously bad.
Um, this doesn’t make sense. In most urbanized areas in the world, people DON’T bury the dead on their own, either in calm times or in chaotic times.
Um, this doesn’t make sense. In most urbanized areas in the world, people DON’T bury the dead on their own, either in calm times or in chaotic times.
Um, this doesn’t make sense. In most urbanized areas in the world, people DON’T bury the dead on their own, either in calm times or in chaotic times.
we may never know (majestic pause) whether the justification for war was as contrived as some say
I thought I was pretty clear that the reasons given for the war were bullsh*t. If not, here we go:
The reasons given for the war were bullsh*t. Not necessarily false, because “bullsh*t” and “false” aren’t the same thing. Just bullsh*t.
That’s about as clear as I can be. Hope that does it for you.
Honestly, people, this is weak. No speech, no obvious point – this is just horrendously bad.
Well, the floor is yours. Let’s see how you do.
And, you know, if it’s going to exceed the expectations you place on others’ comments, it had better be pretty damned good.
Good luck.
Thanks –
we may never know (majestic pause) whether the justification for war was as contrived as some say
I thought I was pretty clear that the reasons given for the war were bullsh*t. If not, here we go:
The reasons given for the war were bullsh*t. Not necessarily false, because “bullsh*t” and “false” aren’t the same thing. Just bullsh*t.
That’s about as clear as I can be. Hope that does it for you.
Honestly, people, this is weak. No speech, no obvious point – this is just horrendously bad.
Well, the floor is yours. Let’s see how you do.
And, you know, if it’s going to exceed the expectations you place on others’ comments, it had better be pretty damned good.
Good luck.
Thanks –
we may never know (majestic pause) whether the justification for war was as contrived as some say
I thought I was pretty clear that the reasons given for the war were bullsh*t. If not, here we go:
The reasons given for the war were bullsh*t. Not necessarily false, because “bullsh*t” and “false” aren’t the same thing. Just bullsh*t.
That’s about as clear as I can be. Hope that does it for you.
Honestly, people, this is weak. No speech, no obvious point – this is just horrendously bad.
Well, the floor is yours. Let’s see how you do.
And, you know, if it’s going to exceed the expectations you place on others’ comments, it had better be pretty damned good.
Good luck.
Thanks –
I was just thinking about how Professor Marc Herold, who counted civilian deaths in Afghanistan by the method Iraqi Body Count use – two independent media reports – and came up with the figure of 3,000 – 3,400 civilians killed by the US aerial attack. We can guess that this was in fact a major undercount (since we know by the Lancet reports that the same method in Iraq was a major undercount) but am I the only one who remembers how Herold was vilified by the pro-war side for providing this information? (Not least because, by the time it was available, it was clearly established that the total number killed in the al-Qaeda attacks on America, civilian and military alike, were 2,993. For more Afghan civilians to have been killed by the US revenge on Afghanistan than the total number killed in the US was not a fact that those who approved the attack on Afghanistan cared for.)
Now that it seems any other method of figuring out how many people have been killed will produce higher results, the Herold method is embraced with relief.
I was just thinking about how Professor Marc Herold, who counted civilian deaths in Afghanistan by the method Iraqi Body Count use – two independent media reports – and came up with the figure of 3,000 – 3,400 civilians killed by the US aerial attack. We can guess that this was in fact a major undercount (since we know by the Lancet reports that the same method in Iraq was a major undercount) but am I the only one who remembers how Herold was vilified by the pro-war side for providing this information? (Not least because, by the time it was available, it was clearly established that the total number killed in the al-Qaeda attacks on America, civilian and military alike, were 2,993. For more Afghan civilians to have been killed by the US revenge on Afghanistan than the total number killed in the US was not a fact that those who approved the attack on Afghanistan cared for.)
Now that it seems any other method of figuring out how many people have been killed will produce higher results, the Herold method is embraced with relief.
I was just thinking about how Professor Marc Herold, who counted civilian deaths in Afghanistan by the method Iraqi Body Count use – two independent media reports – and came up with the figure of 3,000 – 3,400 civilians killed by the US aerial attack. We can guess that this was in fact a major undercount (since we know by the Lancet reports that the same method in Iraq was a major undercount) but am I the only one who remembers how Herold was vilified by the pro-war side for providing this information? (Not least because, by the time it was available, it was clearly established that the total number killed in the al-Qaeda attacks on America, civilian and military alike, were 2,993. For more Afghan civilians to have been killed by the US revenge on Afghanistan than the total number killed in the US was not a fact that those who approved the attack on Afghanistan cared for.)
Now that it seems any other method of figuring out how many people have been killed will produce higher results, the Herold method is embraced with relief.
More charts and graphs here.
More charts and graphs here.
More charts and graphs here.
JFTR: the pretty pictures DaveC links to are based on trends provided by CounterInsurgency Information Command (CIOC) and SIGACTS stands for Iraq Significant Activities: it includes “known attacks on Coalition forces, Iraqi Security Forces, the civilian population, and infrastructure”. It does not include any violence that is defined as “criminal activity”, and, even more significantly, it does not include “attacks initiated by Coalition or Iraqi Security Forces”.
So if you were wondering what graphs could be less useful than the ones Charles has provided, DaveC’s are a good example.
JFTR: the pretty pictures DaveC links to are based on trends provided by CounterInsurgency Information Command (CIOC) and SIGACTS stands for Iraq Significant Activities: it includes “known attacks on Coalition forces, Iraqi Security Forces, the civilian population, and infrastructure”. It does not include any violence that is defined as “criminal activity”, and, even more significantly, it does not include “attacks initiated by Coalition or Iraqi Security Forces”.
So if you were wondering what graphs could be less useful than the ones Charles has provided, DaveC’s are a good example.
JFTR: the pretty pictures DaveC links to are based on trends provided by CounterInsurgency Information Command (CIOC) and SIGACTS stands for Iraq Significant Activities: it includes “known attacks on Coalition forces, Iraqi Security Forces, the civilian population, and infrastructure”. It does not include any violence that is defined as “criminal activity”, and, even more significantly, it does not include “attacks initiated by Coalition or Iraqi Security Forces”.
So if you were wondering what graphs could be less useful than the ones Charles has provided, DaveC’s are a good example.
Charles:
girsch, I used one definition and it’s a commonly accepted one.
Bull. The definition you chose is not the commonly-understood one, irrespective of what the dictionary says, as I and others have pointed out. It seems clear, however, that you will simply never acknowledge this.
It’s also clear that your interest in the graph you posted is only superficial at best, and that you have little or no regard for the underlying methodology or what any of it means. The carefully-chosen trend line seems to support a point you’ve been trying to make, so who cares if the data actually bears that out?
Charles:
girsch, I used one definition and it’s a commonly accepted one.
Bull. The definition you chose is not the commonly-understood one, irrespective of what the dictionary says, as I and others have pointed out. It seems clear, however, that you will simply never acknowledge this.
It’s also clear that your interest in the graph you posted is only superficial at best, and that you have little or no regard for the underlying methodology or what any of it means. The carefully-chosen trend line seems to support a point you’ve been trying to make, so who cares if the data actually bears that out?
Charles:
girsch, I used one definition and it’s a commonly accepted one.
Bull. The definition you chose is not the commonly-understood one, irrespective of what the dictionary says, as I and others have pointed out. It seems clear, however, that you will simply never acknowledge this.
It’s also clear that your interest in the graph you posted is only superficial at best, and that you have little or no regard for the underlying methodology or what any of it means. The carefully-chosen trend line seems to support a point you’ve been trying to make, so who cares if the data actually bears that out?