Obama should meet with Petraeus in Iraq, without preconditions

459 thoughts on “Obama should meet with Petraeus in Iraq, without preconditions”

1. I haven’t posted here for a few months, so I thought I’d pop in and say “hi”. I won’t be able to answer any comments ’til tomorrow.

2. I haven’t posted here for a few months, so I thought I’d pop in and say “hi”. I won’t be able to answer any comments ’til tomorrow.

3. I haven’t posted here for a few months, so I thought I’d pop in and say “hi”. I won’t be able to answer any comments ’til tomorrow.

4. You can’t go to Iraq and not have a dog and pony show.
   I mean, what are they going to do? Ask to go around Fallujah and Sadr City unguarded? With only a small coterie of guards?
   Silly. This is really a risible argument.
   And the strategy is not working.

5. You can’t go to Iraq and not have a dog and pony show.
   I mean, what are they going to do? Ask to go around Fallujah and Sadr City unguarded? With only a small coterie of guards?
   Silly. This is really a risible argument.
   And the strategy is not working.

6. You can’t go to Iraq and not have a dog and pony show.
   I mean, what are they going to do? Ask to go around Fallujah and Sadr City unguarded? With only a small coterie of guards?
   Silly. This is really a risible argument.
   And the strategy is not working.

7. Just for the record, there was a piece in the Washington Post on MARCH 8TH where Obama advisers said he would do a trip to Iraq as soon as he had the nomination secured.
   Of course that lasted much longer than expected but what McCain did here is to box Obama in by making it sound as if he “forced” him into an Iraq trip Obama himself had planned months ago.
   And the spin works as shown in this entry.

8. Just for the record, there was a piece in the Washington Post on MARCH 8TH where Obama advisers said he would do a trip to Iraq as soon as he had the nomination secured.
   Of course that lasted much longer than expected but what McCain did here is to box Obama in by making it sound as if he “forced” him into an Iraq trip Obama himself had planned months ago.
   And the spin works as shown in this entry.

9. Just for the record, there was a piece in the Washington Post on MARCH 8TH where Obama advisers said he would do a trip to Iraq as soon as he had the nomination secured.
   Of course that lasted much longer than expected but what McCain did here is to box Obama in by making it sound as if he “forced” him into an Iraq trip Obama himself had planned months ago.
   And the spin works as shown in this entry.

10. Welcome back, Charles. I see that during your absence you’ve been sharpening the “stabbed in the back” smear in anticipation of an Obama victory in November.

11. Welcome back, Charles. I see that during your absence you’ve been sharpening the “stabbed in the back” smear in anticipation of an Obama victory in November.

12. Welcome back, Charles. I see that during your absence you’ve been sharpening the “stabbed in the back” smear in anticipation of an Obama victory in November.

13. Just so we’re clear, a “political stunt” would be letting McCain cow him into a joint trip to Iraq. Letting McCain cow him into a solo trip? Not a stunt.
    heads we win. tails you lose.
    how convenient.
    considering that there are strong indicators that the strategy is working*.
    has there been a point in the last 5 years when you couldn’t find someone willing to speak those words ?

14. Just so we’re clear, a “political stunt” would be letting McCain cow him into a joint trip to Iraq. Letting McCain cow him into a solo trip? Not a stunt.
    heads we win. tails you lose.
    how convenient.
    considering that there are strong indicators that the strategy is working*.
    has there been a point in the last 5 years when you couldn’t find someone willing to speak those words ?

15. Just so we’re clear, a “political stunt” would be letting McCain cow him into a joint trip to Iraq. Letting McCain cow him into a solo trip? Not a stunt.
    heads we win. tails you lose.
    how convenient.
    considering that there are strong indicators that the strategy is working*.
    has there been a point in the last 5 years when you couldn’t find someone willing to speak those words ?

16. Perhaps you can wait more than a few months for your next post here.

17. Perhaps you can wait more than a few months for your next post here.

18. Perhaps you can wait more than a few months for your next post here.

19. What’s up with the asterisks? Did you forget to include whatever footnote they’re supposed to refer to or did I miss something in the text?

20. What’s up with the asterisks? Did you forget to include whatever footnote they’re supposed to refer to or did I miss something in the text?

21. What’s up with the asterisks? Did you forget to include whatever footnote they’re supposed to refer to or did I miss something in the text?

22. And the spin works as shown in this entry.
    Charles doesn’t get spun. He’s a self-professed soldier in the Information War(s).

23. And the spin works as shown in this entry.
    Charles doesn’t get spun. He’s a self-professed soldier in the Information War(s).

24. And the spin works as shown in this entry.
    Charles doesn’t get spun. He’s a self-professed soldier in the Information War(s).

25. Neither candidate has any business going to Iraq, because the law prohibits using the US military as props in a political campaign. This may seem unnatural to our friends on the right, but it’s true.

26. Neither candidate has any business going to Iraq, because the law prohibits using the US military as props in a political campaign. This may seem unnatural to our friends on the right, but it’s true.

27. Neither candidate has any business going to Iraq, because the law prohibits using the US military as props in a political campaign. This may seem unnatural to our friends on the right, but it’s true.

28. OK, let’s be clear about this.
    First, there is no way — no way at all — that Obama (or McCain, or Bush) can go to Iraq and “just look around”. They will have to have heavy security. Random people will have to be kept away. They will only be able to go to places that have been completely secured, and they will be surrounded by serious numbers of troops.
    This is as it should be. When McCain did his stroll through the market, the problem wasn’t that he was surrounded by security; it was that for some reason he took what he saw as indicative of normal life.
    But it does mean that saying that a Presidential candidate can’t know about Iraq without going there is silly. Just ask John McCain, who has been any number of times, but is still clueless.
    Second, the stated purpose of the surge was to enable political progress to occur. This is not happening. When it does, I will say that the surge is “working”. Not before. (I hope it does.)
    Third, whether or not the surge works has nothing to do with whether or not we are “bleeding”. We could have kept our casualties down in any number of ways — not letting soldiers off base, for instance. The surge works if the breathing space we give the Iraqis enables them to arrive at a political accommodation.
    Fourth, whether or not the surge was a good idea has to do with more than whether it works. If it works, there are benefits. Whether it works or not, there are also costs — lives, money, and more. You have to weigh both.

29. OK, let’s be clear about this.
    First, there is no way — no way at all — that Obama (or McCain, or Bush) can go to Iraq and “just look around”. They will have to have heavy security. Random people will have to be kept away. They will only be able to go to places that have been completely secured, and they will be surrounded by serious numbers of troops.
    This is as it should be. When McCain did his stroll through the market, the problem wasn’t that he was surrounded by security; it was that for some reason he took what he saw as indicative of normal life.
    But it does mean that saying that a Presidential candidate can’t know about Iraq without going there is silly. Just ask John McCain, who has been any number of times, but is still clueless.
    Second, the stated purpose of the surge was to enable political progress to occur. This is not happening. When it does, I will say that the surge is “working”. Not before. (I hope it does.)
    Third, whether or not the surge works has nothing to do with whether or not we are “bleeding”. We could have kept our casualties down in any number of ways — not letting soldiers off base, for instance. The surge works if the breathing space we give the Iraqis enables them to arrive at a political accommodation.
    Fourth, whether or not the surge was a good idea has to do with more than whether it works. If it works, there are benefits. Whether it works or not, there are also costs — lives, money, and more. You have to weigh both.

30. OK, let’s be clear about this.
    First, there is no way — no way at all — that Obama (or McCain, or Bush) can go to Iraq and “just look around”. They will have to have heavy security. Random people will have to be kept away. They will only be able to go to places that have been completely secured, and they will be surrounded by serious numbers of troops.
    This is as it should be. When McCain did his stroll through the market, the problem wasn’t that he was surrounded by security; it was that for some reason he took what he saw as indicative of normal life.
    But it does mean that saying that a Presidential candidate can’t know about Iraq without going there is silly. Just ask John McCain, who has been any number of times, but is still clueless.
    Second, the stated purpose of the surge was to enable political progress to occur. This is not happening. When it does, I will say that the surge is “working”. Not before. (I hope it does.)
    Third, whether or not the surge works has nothing to do with whether or not we are “bleeding”. We could have kept our casualties down in any number of ways — not letting soldiers off base, for instance. The surge works if the breathing space we give the Iraqis enables them to arrive at a political accommodation.
    Fourth, whether or not the surge was a good idea has to do with more than whether it works. If it works, there are benefits. Whether it works or not, there are also costs — lives, money, and more. You have to weigh both.

31. What Hilzoy said. And how she said it.
    Man, I could have that on my permanent clipboard to just paste in most ObWi comment threads.

32. What Hilzoy said. And how she said it.
    Man, I could have that on my permanent clipboard to just paste in most ObWi comment threads.

33. What Hilzoy said. And how she said it.
    Man, I could have that on my permanent clipboard to just paste in most ObWi comment threads.

34. But it does mean that saying that a Presidential candidate can’t know about Iraq without going there is silly
    Look, nobody knows anything about Iraq unless they go there for themselves to find out. Except for right-wing bloggers sitting at home who believe everything John McCain says–they don’t have to go. Also, people who do go to Iraq and still come back unconvinced don’t count either.

35. But it does mean that saying that a Presidential candidate can’t know about Iraq without going there is silly
    Look, nobody knows anything about Iraq unless they go there for themselves to find out. Except for right-wing bloggers sitting at home who believe everything John McCain says–they don’t have to go. Also, people who do go to Iraq and still come back unconvinced don’t count either.

36. But it does mean that saying that a Presidential candidate can’t know about Iraq without going there is silly
    Look, nobody knows anything about Iraq unless they go there for themselves to find out. Except for right-wing bloggers sitting at home who believe everything John McCain says–they don’t have to go. Also, people who do go to Iraq and still come back unconvinced don’t count either.

37. um, Powers didn’t call Clinton a monster on British television. She said it off the record to a reporter, and I am really tired of hearing that out of context. She said she was campaigning like a monster in Ohio, which she was. Get your facts straight.
    This post was absurd.

38. um, Powers didn’t call Clinton a monster on British television. She said it off the record to a reporter, and I am really tired of hearing that out of context. She said she was campaigning like a monster in Ohio, which she was. Get your facts straight.
    This post was absurd.

39. um, Powers didn’t call Clinton a monster on British television. She said it off the record to a reporter, and I am really tired of hearing that out of context. She said she was campaigning like a monster in Ohio, which she was. Get your facts straight.
    This post was absurd.

40. Any Senator who goes to Iraq is going to be presented with hand-picked individuals who will present the administration line.
    Ergo, it really is not the best way to find out what’s really going on there.

41. Any Senator who goes to Iraq is going to be presented with hand-picked individuals who will present the administration line.
    Ergo, it really is not the best way to find out what’s really going on there.

42. Any Senator who goes to Iraq is going to be presented with hand-picked individuals who will present the administration line.
    Ergo, it really is not the best way to find out what’s really going on there.

43. How many McCain Points for spreading today’s message have been earned this day?
    Is John allowed to use the picture of General Petraeus like that?

44. How many McCain Points for spreading today’s message have been earned this day?
    Is John allowed to use the picture of General Petraeus like that?

45. How many McCain Points for spreading today’s message have been earned this day?
    Is John allowed to use the picture of General Petraeus like that?

46. Of course he wants Obama to go to Iraq where he will be fragged

47. Of course he wants Obama to go to Iraq where he will be fragged

48. Of course he wants Obama to go to Iraq where he will be fragged

49. The start of the post (above the fold) I could accept as reasonable. But he lost me finally for good when he used the words “his 16-month-cut-and-run-strategy” and I began to look out for “cowardly” and other unbiased epithets because those are natural companions.

50. The start of the post (above the fold) I could accept as reasonable. But he lost me finally for good when he used the words “his 16-month-cut-and-run-strategy” and I began to look out for “cowardly” and other unbiased epithets because those are natural companions.

51. The start of the post (above the fold) I could accept as reasonable. But he lost me finally for good when he used the words “his 16-month-cut-and-run-strategy” and I began to look out for “cowardly” and other unbiased epithets because those are natural companions.

52. The only strategy that’s working is the one that involves (a) betraying the Kurds, again, and (b) moving Iraq solidly into Iran’s sphere of influence.
    This is victory?

53. The only strategy that’s working is the one that involves (a) betraying the Kurds, again, and (b) moving Iraq solidly into Iran’s sphere of influence.
    This is victory?

54. The only strategy that’s working is the one that involves (a) betraying the Kurds, again, and (b) moving Iraq solidly into Iran’s sphere of influence.
    This is victory?

55. he’s too politically invested to change it because such a change would anger and inflame the very base that propelled him to the nomination. There would be hell to pay from the Hard Partisan Left.
    I find it hard to credit the notion that a center-rightist like Obama cares one wit about the opinions of the hard left. Oh, wait: the hard PARTISAN left. That would be what, the hard left of those who enthusiastically self-identify with the Democratic party? So, um, center-leftists? Of the sort who will likely be willing to wait post-election for a few more Friedmans to effect any noticeable change on the ground in Iraq as long as it’s spun well? You can’t mean the hard left of those who vote Democrat, as they aren’t the bulk (or, I’d say, even a meaningful core) of the base that got him nominated. And the actual hard left is, as ever, beyond the realm of polite conversation.

56. he’s too politically invested to change it because such a change would anger and inflame the very base that propelled him to the nomination. There would be hell to pay from the Hard Partisan Left.
    I find it hard to credit the notion that a center-rightist like Obama cares one wit about the opinions of the hard left. Oh, wait: the hard PARTISAN left. That would be what, the hard left of those who enthusiastically self-identify with the Democratic party? So, um, center-leftists? Of the sort who will likely be willing to wait post-election for a few more Friedmans to effect any noticeable change on the ground in Iraq as long as it’s spun well? You can’t mean the hard left of those who vote Democrat, as they aren’t the bulk (or, I’d say, even a meaningful core) of the base that got him nominated. And the actual hard left is, as ever, beyond the realm of polite conversation.

57. he’s too politically invested to change it because such a change would anger and inflame the very base that propelled him to the nomination. There would be hell to pay from the Hard Partisan Left.
    I find it hard to credit the notion that a center-rightist like Obama cares one wit about the opinions of the hard left. Oh, wait: the hard PARTISAN left. That would be what, the hard left of those who enthusiastically self-identify with the Democratic party? So, um, center-leftists? Of the sort who will likely be willing to wait post-election for a few more Friedmans to effect any noticeable change on the ground in Iraq as long as it’s spun well? You can’t mean the hard left of those who vote Democrat, as they aren’t the bulk (or, I’d say, even a meaningful core) of the base that got him nominated. And the actual hard left is, as ever, beyond the realm of polite conversation.

58. The surge thing is silly, as for the last time, the Iraqi death toll (as measured by IBC, which admits that it undercounts) is almost perfectly correlated, rise and fall, with the level of commitment Sadarites have to the truce, which happened to have been announced at the very point (several months after the beginning of the truce) that deaths declined dramatically, even though Charles consistently and wrongfully attributed that decline to the surge.

59. The surge thing is silly, as for the last time, the Iraqi death toll (as measured by IBC, which admits that it undercounts) is almost perfectly correlated, rise and fall, with the level of commitment Sadarites have to the truce, which happened to have been announced at the very point (several months after the beginning of the truce) that deaths declined dramatically, even though Charles consistently and wrongfully attributed that decline to the surge.

60. The surge thing is silly, as for the last time, the Iraqi death toll (as measured by IBC, which admits that it undercounts) is almost perfectly correlated, rise and fall, with the level of commitment Sadarites have to the truce, which happened to have been announced at the very point (several months after the beginning of the truce) that deaths declined dramatically, even though Charles consistently and wrongfully attributed that decline to the surge.

61. But it does mean that saying that a Presidential candidate can’t know about Iraq without going there is silly. Just ask John McCain, who has been any number of times, but is still clueless.
    Just to nitpick here, this passage contains a logical fallacy, Hilzoy.
    To disprove “(For all x)(If x knows about Iraq, then x has been to Iraq)”, we need a counter-example of the form “S has not been to Iraq, but S knows about Iraq.”
    Your purported counter-example is “McCain has been to Iraq, but McCain does not know about Iraq”, which is not logically equivalent. (I think it’s the inverse, if I’m recalling the terminology correctly.)

62. But it does mean that saying that a Presidential candidate can’t know about Iraq without going there is silly. Just ask John McCain, who has been any number of times, but is still clueless.
    Just to nitpick here, this passage contains a logical fallacy, Hilzoy.
    To disprove “(For all x)(If x knows about Iraq, then x has been to Iraq)”, we need a counter-example of the form “S has not been to Iraq, but S knows about Iraq.”
    Your purported counter-example is “McCain has been to Iraq, but McCain does not know about Iraq”, which is not logically equivalent. (I think it’s the inverse, if I’m recalling the terminology correctly.)

63. But it does mean that saying that a Presidential candidate can’t know about Iraq without going there is silly. Just ask John McCain, who has been any number of times, but is still clueless.
    Just to nitpick here, this passage contains a logical fallacy, Hilzoy.
    To disprove “(For all x)(If x knows about Iraq, then x has been to Iraq)”, we need a counter-example of the form “S has not been to Iraq, but S knows about Iraq.”
    Your purported counter-example is “McCain has been to Iraq, but McCain does not know about Iraq”, which is not logically equivalent. (I think it’s the inverse, if I’m recalling the terminology correctly.)

64. When it comes to Americans in Iraq, the math we need is subtraction and not addition. The question is not when Obama will go to Iraq. It is when our troops will come home.
    It seems that, after five years, the empirical evidence is clear as to what our presence will produce–a multi-factional, internecine war that smolders and flames into varying degrees of violence. True, it is questionable whether Iraqi political leaders can resolve this conflict, and it sadly cannot be ruled out that our leaving will unleash more violence. But as long as we are the true power and referee, none of the fighting factions has incentive to stop violently jockeying for power, or at least to position themselves to fight for power after we’re gone. Which someday we will be.
    So our choice is do we 1) make it clear we’ll leave soon and incent the factions to peacibly resolve their conflict by offering post-peace rebuilding, risking that this might not work and that a bloodbath will ensue after we go that will empower a faction hostile to us or 2) stay indefinitely, in which case Iraq will most likely continue indefinitely as it has since we invaded, until our inevitable departure, after which there will be the same risk of a bloody ascension to power of a hostile faction.
    As an Iraqi I met four years ago told me, “America has only two problems in Iraq. First, you can’t leave. Second, you can’t stay.”
    Maybe all this means we shouldn’t have gone in the first place.
    Whoever thought of that must be pretty smart, smart enough maybe to figure out what to do now and keep us out of tragedies like this going forward.
    By contrast, those who have been wrong all along should not be listened to. At least about wars.

65. When it comes to Americans in Iraq, the math we need is subtraction and not addition. The question is not when Obama will go to Iraq. It is when our troops will come home.
    It seems that, after five years, the empirical evidence is clear as to what our presence will produce–a multi-factional, internecine war that smolders and flames into varying degrees of violence. True, it is questionable whether Iraqi political leaders can resolve this conflict, and it sadly cannot be ruled out that our leaving will unleash more violence. But as long as we are the true power and referee, none of the fighting factions has incentive to stop violently jockeying for power, or at least to position themselves to fight for power after we’re gone. Which someday we will be.
    So our choice is do we 1) make it clear we’ll leave soon and incent the factions to peacibly resolve their conflict by offering post-peace rebuilding, risking that this might not work and that a bloodbath will ensue after we go that will empower a faction hostile to us or 2) stay indefinitely, in which case Iraq will most likely continue indefinitely as it has since we invaded, until our inevitable departure, after which there will be the same risk of a bloody ascension to power of a hostile faction.
    As an Iraqi I met four years ago told me, “America has only two problems in Iraq. First, you can’t leave. Second, you can’t stay.”
    Maybe all this means we shouldn’t have gone in the first place.
    Whoever thought of that must be pretty smart, smart enough maybe to figure out what to do now and keep us out of tragedies like this going forward.
    By contrast, those who have been wrong all along should not be listened to. At least about wars.

66. When it comes to Americans in Iraq, the math we need is subtraction and not addition. The question is not when Obama will go to Iraq. It is when our troops will come home.
    It seems that, after five years, the empirical evidence is clear as to what our presence will produce–a multi-factional, internecine war that smolders and flames into varying degrees of violence. True, it is questionable whether Iraqi political leaders can resolve this conflict, and it sadly cannot be ruled out that our leaving will unleash more violence. But as long as we are the true power and referee, none of the fighting factions has incentive to stop violently jockeying for power, or at least to position themselves to fight for power after we’re gone. Which someday we will be.
    So our choice is do we 1) make it clear we’ll leave soon and incent the factions to peacibly resolve their conflict by offering post-peace rebuilding, risking that this might not work and that a bloodbath will ensue after we go that will empower a faction hostile to us or 2) stay indefinitely, in which case Iraq will most likely continue indefinitely as it has since we invaded, until our inevitable departure, after which there will be the same risk of a bloody ascension to power of a hostile faction.
    As an Iraqi I met four years ago told me, “America has only two problems in Iraq. First, you can’t leave. Second, you can’t stay.”
    Maybe all this means we shouldn’t have gone in the first place.
    Whoever thought of that must be pretty smart, smart enough maybe to figure out what to do now and keep us out of tragedies like this going forward.
    By contrast, those who have been wrong all along should not be listened to. At least about wars.

67. Charles,
    Taking the closest historical parallel I can think of, how many on the ground visits did Richard Nixon (the future candidate of the party not occupying the WH) pay to Vietnam in the lead up to the 1968 election? How accurate a picture did they provide of what was going on and what dividends did they yield from a policy standpoint?
    hilzoy comments:
    Second, the stated purpose of the surge was to enable political progress to occur. This is not happening. When it does, I will say that the surge is “working”. Not before. (I hope it does.)
    [the bolding is my emphasis]
    The best way IMHO to gauge this is by detailed discussions with authoritative spokesmen for each of the major political factions (e.g., the parties, militias, and other figures such as Sistani) in Iraq. This has to happen quietly and behind closed doors, or else the realities of the situation will dissolve into smoke and spin for public consumption on the part of various publics both American and Iraqi.
    A very public high level visit will never be able to accomplish this, most likely it would produce the opposite. If anything constructive is to come from this, Obama should send surrogates, and do so as quietly as possible. Given the way this micro-issue of visting schedules has now been politicized for the purposes of the US general election, I do not expect that will happen until after the election is over.

68. Charles,
    Taking the closest historical parallel I can think of, how many on the ground visits did Richard Nixon (the future candidate of the party not occupying the WH) pay to Vietnam in the lead up to the 1968 election? How accurate a picture did they provide of what was going on and what dividends did they yield from a policy standpoint?
    hilzoy comments:
    Second, the stated purpose of the surge was to enable political progress to occur. This is not happening. When it does, I will say that the surge is “working”. Not before. (I hope it does.)
    [the bolding is my emphasis]
    The best way IMHO to gauge this is by detailed discussions with authoritative spokesmen for each of the major political factions (e.g., the parties, militias, and other figures such as Sistani) in Iraq. This has to happen quietly and behind closed doors, or else the realities of the situation will dissolve into smoke and spin for public consumption on the part of various publics both American and Iraqi.
    A very public high level visit will never be able to accomplish this, most likely it would produce the opposite. If anything constructive is to come from this, Obama should send surrogates, and do so as quietly as possible. Given the way this micro-issue of visting schedules has now been politicized for the purposes of the US general election, I do not expect that will happen until after the election is over.

69. Charles,
    Taking the closest historical parallel I can think of, how many on the ground visits did Richard Nixon (the future candidate of the party not occupying the WH) pay to Vietnam in the lead up to the 1968 election? How accurate a picture did they provide of what was going on and what dividends did they yield from a policy standpoint?
    hilzoy comments:
    Second, the stated purpose of the surge was to enable political progress to occur. This is not happening. When it does, I will say that the surge is “working”. Not before. (I hope it does.)
    [the bolding is my emphasis]
    The best way IMHO to gauge this is by detailed discussions with authoritative spokesmen for each of the major political factions (e.g., the parties, militias, and other figures such as Sistani) in Iraq. This has to happen quietly and behind closed doors, or else the realities of the situation will dissolve into smoke and spin for public consumption on the part of various publics both American and Iraqi.
    A very public high level visit will never be able to accomplish this, most likely it would produce the opposite. If anything constructive is to come from this, Obama should send surrogates, and do so as quietly as possible. Given the way this micro-issue of visting schedules has now been politicized for the purposes of the US general election, I do not expect that will happen until after the election is over.

70. Welcome back Charles.
    Kitty – Does this mean his name needs to be put back up on the sidebar?

71. Welcome back Charles.
    Kitty – Does this mean his name needs to be put back up on the sidebar?

72. Welcome back Charles.
    Kitty – Does this mean his name needs to be put back up on the sidebar?

73. Any trip by a presidential candidate to Iraq is a stunt. Visiting a country to see what it’s like isn’t like visiting a prison to see how prisoners are being treated (and of course we haven’t had much luck even with that more limited task). The visitor isn’t seeing all of (or a random sample of) the territory and the population, and the visitor’s presence of course affects what’s happening in those areas that are visited and what’s said by those people that are spoken to. It’s meaningless.
    If it were possible to visit anywhere in Iraq without massive preparations and security measures, then perhaps that would mean there’d been progress. But of course that’s far from true.

74. Any trip by a presidential candidate to Iraq is a stunt. Visiting a country to see what it’s like isn’t like visiting a prison to see how prisoners are being treated (and of course we haven’t had much luck even with that more limited task). The visitor isn’t seeing all of (or a random sample of) the territory and the population, and the visitor’s presence of course affects what’s happening in those areas that are visited and what’s said by those people that are spoken to. It’s meaningless.
    If it were possible to visit anywhere in Iraq without massive preparations and security measures, then perhaps that would mean there’d been progress. But of course that’s far from true.

75. Any trip by a presidential candidate to Iraq is a stunt. Visiting a country to see what it’s like isn’t like visiting a prison to see how prisoners are being treated (and of course we haven’t had much luck even with that more limited task). The visitor isn’t seeing all of (or a random sample of) the territory and the population, and the visitor’s presence of course affects what’s happening in those areas that are visited and what’s said by those people that are spoken to. It’s meaningless.
    If it were possible to visit anywhere in Iraq without massive preparations and security measures, then perhaps that would mean there’d been progress. But of course that’s far from true.

76. I laugh every time somebody argues that Obama has a unique need to serve the irrational needs of his base with respect to war. If McCain advocated anything other than permanent occupation and military belligerence as a foreign policy, his base would run away faster than if he’d performed an abortion with his teeth.
    It happens that McCain’s personal sentiments align with the what his base demands. So do Obama’s. Framing Obama’s situation as unique or sinister just makes you look silly.

77. I laugh every time somebody argues that Obama has a unique need to serve the irrational needs of his base with respect to war. If McCain advocated anything other than permanent occupation and military belligerence as a foreign policy, his base would run away faster than if he’d performed an abortion with his teeth.
    It happens that McCain’s personal sentiments align with the what his base demands. So do Obama’s. Framing Obama’s situation as unique or sinister just makes you look silly.

78. I laugh every time somebody argues that Obama has a unique need to serve the irrational needs of his base with respect to war. If McCain advocated anything other than permanent occupation and military belligerence as a foreign policy, his base would run away faster than if he’d performed an abortion with his teeth.
    It happens that McCain’s personal sentiments align with the what his base demands. So do Obama’s. Framing Obama’s situation as unique or sinister just makes you look silly.

79. “It would also be interesting to see if Obama does change his 16-month cut-and-run policy after a visit to Iraq, considering that there are strong indicators that the strategy is working*.”
    There’s an asterisk there, but it’s not clear why.
    In your linked Redstate post, Charles, you write that:

    About that surge strategy
    it’s still working
    […]
    There’s more on the success of the Basra offensive and other stuff below the fold.
    […]
    Even the New York Times is acknowledging the turnaround in Basra
    […]
    On the al Qaeda front, U.S. Ambassador Crocker said yesterday that the terrorist group has “never been closer to defeat than they are now.” A little over a year ago, this is what a certain defeatist Democratic Senator from Nevada said.
    […]
    Thirteen months ago, Harry Reid was ready and willing to surrender because of al Qaeda’s evil acts.

    You go on to list a bunch more “positive” developments. Your entire post is a condemnation of Obama (his “16-month cut-and-run policy”), the NY Times, Harry Reid, and unspoken others, for being “defeatists” and “willing to surrender,” etc.
    Then you throw in a couple of completely contradictory CYA statements about how “Also, none of this means that I believed we’ve turned the corner or that we’re winning in Iraq.”
    Except that both your posts say otherwise; it’s their entire point.
    Trying to CYA by contradicting the entire point of your posts doesn’t fly. You can’t logically write a post all about how all these nasty people aren’t perceiving how great things are going, and how turned around it all is, and then try to CYA by tossing in a CYA statement that you don’t believe everything you just wrote. Sorry, but down the road, when you try to claim that this post showed how you weren’t claiming things had been turned around, and that we’re on the road to success, no honest reader will let you get away with that claim.
    As always, you completely refuse to discuss the only issues that matter in Iraq: how close is Iraq to achieving a popularly legitimate government, accepted as fairly representing both Sunni and Shi’a, Arab, Kurd, Turkmen, and all ethnicities and factions, and claiming and maintaining a reasonable monopoly of force?
    As always, you never ever ever even acknowledge that this is even relevant, or even worth mentioning, let alone that it’s the only thing that matters, but instead go on about other matters you want to point to.
    How about that post on how Iraq’s government is doing, Charles? Any reason you’re having problems getting to it, given that I’ve been asking you if you might want to address the topic for, what, how many years now?
    “Iraqi Airways just signed a multi-billion dollar order with Boeing for a fleet of new passenger jets”
    Woo-hoo; have there been no schools painted lately?

80. “It would also be interesting to see if Obama does change his 16-month cut-and-run policy after a visit to Iraq, considering that there are strong indicators that the strategy is working*.”
    There’s an asterisk there, but it’s not clear why.
    In your linked Redstate post, Charles, you write that:

    About that surge strategy
    it’s still working
    […]
    There’s more on the success of the Basra offensive and other stuff below the fold.
    […]
    Even the New York Times is acknowledging the turnaround in Basra
    […]
    On the al Qaeda front, U.S. Ambassador Crocker said yesterday that the terrorist group has “never been closer to defeat than they are now.” A little over a year ago, this is what a certain defeatist Democratic Senator from Nevada said.
    […]
    Thirteen months ago, Harry Reid was ready and willing to surrender because of al Qaeda’s evil acts.

    You go on to list a bunch more “positive” developments. Your entire post is a condemnation of Obama (his “16-month cut-and-run policy”), the NY Times, Harry Reid, and unspoken others, for being “defeatists” and “willing to surrender,” etc.
    Then you throw in a couple of completely contradictory CYA statements about how “Also, none of this means that I believed we’ve turned the corner or that we’re winning in Iraq.”
    Except that both your posts say otherwise; it’s their entire point.
    Trying to CYA by contradicting the entire point of your posts doesn’t fly. You can’t logically write a post all about how all these nasty people aren’t perceiving how great things are going, and how turned around it all is, and then try to CYA by tossing in a CYA statement that you don’t believe everything you just wrote. Sorry, but down the road, when you try to claim that this post showed how you weren’t claiming things had been turned around, and that we’re on the road to success, no honest reader will let you get away with that claim.
    As always, you completely refuse to discuss the only issues that matter in Iraq: how close is Iraq to achieving a popularly legitimate government, accepted as fairly representing both Sunni and Shi’a, Arab, Kurd, Turkmen, and all ethnicities and factions, and claiming and maintaining a reasonable monopoly of force?
    As always, you never ever ever even acknowledge that this is even relevant, or even worth mentioning, let alone that it’s the only thing that matters, but instead go on about other matters you want to point to.
    How about that post on how Iraq’s government is doing, Charles? Any reason you’re having problems getting to it, given that I’ve been asking you if you might want to address the topic for, what, how many years now?
    “Iraqi Airways just signed a multi-billion dollar order with Boeing for a fleet of new passenger jets”
    Woo-hoo; have there been no schools painted lately?

81. “It would also be interesting to see if Obama does change his 16-month cut-and-run policy after a visit to Iraq, considering that there are strong indicators that the strategy is working*.”
    There’s an asterisk there, but it’s not clear why.
    In your linked Redstate post, Charles, you write that:

    About that surge strategy
    it’s still working
    […]
    There’s more on the success of the Basra offensive and other stuff below the fold.
    […]
    Even the New York Times is acknowledging the turnaround in Basra
    […]
    On the al Qaeda front, U.S. Ambassador Crocker said yesterday that the terrorist group has “never been closer to defeat than they are now.” A little over a year ago, this is what a certain defeatist Democratic Senator from Nevada said.
    […]
    Thirteen months ago, Harry Reid was ready and willing to surrender because of al Qaeda’s evil acts.

    You go on to list a bunch more “positive” developments. Your entire post is a condemnation of Obama (his “16-month cut-and-run policy”), the NY Times, Harry Reid, and unspoken others, for being “defeatists” and “willing to surrender,” etc.
    Then you throw in a couple of completely contradictory CYA statements about how “Also, none of this means that I believed we’ve turned the corner or that we’re winning in Iraq.”
    Except that both your posts say otherwise; it’s their entire point.
    Trying to CYA by contradicting the entire point of your posts doesn’t fly. You can’t logically write a post all about how all these nasty people aren’t perceiving how great things are going, and how turned around it all is, and then try to CYA by tossing in a CYA statement that you don’t believe everything you just wrote. Sorry, but down the road, when you try to claim that this post showed how you weren’t claiming things had been turned around, and that we’re on the road to success, no honest reader will let you get away with that claim.
    As always, you completely refuse to discuss the only issues that matter in Iraq: how close is Iraq to achieving a popularly legitimate government, accepted as fairly representing both Sunni and Shi’a, Arab, Kurd, Turkmen, and all ethnicities and factions, and claiming and maintaining a reasonable monopoly of force?
    As always, you never ever ever even acknowledge that this is even relevant, or even worth mentioning, let alone that it’s the only thing that matters, but instead go on about other matters you want to point to.
    How about that post on how Iraq’s government is doing, Charles? Any reason you’re having problems getting to it, given that I’ve been asking you if you might want to address the topic for, what, how many years now?
    “Iraqi Airways just signed a multi-billion dollar order with Boeing for a fleet of new passenger jets”
    Woo-hoo; have there been no schools painted lately?

82. Obama should announce that he is ready to visit Iraq with John McCain the minute George Bush and Dick Cheney agree to come along. Silly? Yes. Sillier than McCain’s schoolboy taunt? Not by a long shot.
    I can’t believe people are taking this “go to Iraq” crap seriously. If McCain wants to run for President of Iraq, by all means let him spend all the campaign time he wants there. I want (to coin a phrase) an American President focused on AMERICAN issues. Contrary to those not-yet-disgruntled (still-gruntled?) Bush-McCain supporters for whom Iraq is practically the 51st state, I say it’s high time for Americans to stop acting as if “winning in Iraq” is strategically equivalent to defending Baltimore from the British.
    — TP

83. Obama should announce that he is ready to visit Iraq with John McCain the minute George Bush and Dick Cheney agree to come along. Silly? Yes. Sillier than McCain’s schoolboy taunt? Not by a long shot.
    I can’t believe people are taking this “go to Iraq” crap seriously. If McCain wants to run for President of Iraq, by all means let him spend all the campaign time he wants there. I want (to coin a phrase) an American President focused on AMERICAN issues. Contrary to those not-yet-disgruntled (still-gruntled?) Bush-McCain supporters for whom Iraq is practically the 51st state, I say it’s high time for Americans to stop acting as if “winning in Iraq” is strategically equivalent to defending Baltimore from the British.
    — TP

84. Obama should announce that he is ready to visit Iraq with John McCain the minute George Bush and Dick Cheney agree to come along. Silly? Yes. Sillier than McCain’s schoolboy taunt? Not by a long shot.
    I can’t believe people are taking this “go to Iraq” crap seriously. If McCain wants to run for President of Iraq, by all means let him spend all the campaign time he wants there. I want (to coin a phrase) an American President focused on AMERICAN issues. Contrary to those not-yet-disgruntled (still-gruntled?) Bush-McCain supporters for whom Iraq is practically the 51st state, I say it’s high time for Americans to stop acting as if “winning in Iraq” is strategically equivalent to defending Baltimore from the British.
    — TP

85. “Neither candidate has any business going to Iraq, because the law prohibits using the US military as props in a political campaign. This may seem unnatural to our friends on the right, but it’s true.”
    Quite.

86. “Neither candidate has any business going to Iraq, because the law prohibits using the US military as props in a political campaign. This may seem unnatural to our friends on the right, but it’s true.”
    Quite.

87. “Neither candidate has any business going to Iraq, because the law prohibits using the US military as props in a political campaign. This may seem unnatural to our friends on the right, but it’s true.”
    Quite.

88. A few points about your post:
    Firstly, The statistics regarding media coverage of the Iraq war alone are not valid proof that there has been progress in Iraq.
    The media has spent the last 5-7 months covering in detail the hotly contested campaign for the next president. It is possible that other types of coverage have been reduced similarly to make way for an “all presidential campaign coverage all the time” network strategy. (As was noted in the article at the PEJ) Coverage of the Iraq war dropped dramatically as the coverage of the campaigns increased.
    This is not proof that there has been less violence in Iraq. What actually may be is the drop in number of casualties since the beginning of the year.
    Secondly, I do not recall any statement by the Obama campaign repdudiating Smantha Power’s remarks about Obama’s Iraq policy. Can you produce such comments? The article you link to provides no such quote. And my understanding is that Power resigned exclusively over the “Hillary is a Monster” comment that she made. I have not been able to find any source that indicates otherwise, and the article you link provides no proof of that.
    And finally, I feel that your analysis leaves out a very important part of Barak Obama’s rational for reducing our presence in Iraq. Namely the strain on our military, and the strain on US financial resources. Not to mention the cost in American Casualties. You may belief that this str

89. A few points about your post:
    Firstly, The statistics regarding media coverage of the Iraq war alone are not valid proof that there has been progress in Iraq.
    The media has spent the last 5-7 months covering in detail the hotly contested campaign for the next president. It is possible that other types of coverage have been reduced similarly to make way for an “all presidential campaign coverage all the time” network strategy. (As was noted in the article at the PEJ) Coverage of the Iraq war dropped dramatically as the coverage of the campaigns increased.
    This is not proof that there has been less violence in Iraq. What actually may be is the drop in number of casualties since the beginning of the year.
    Secondly, I do not recall any statement by the Obama campaign repdudiating Smantha Power’s remarks about Obama’s Iraq policy. Can you produce such comments? The article you link to provides no such quote. And my understanding is that Power resigned exclusively over the “Hillary is a Monster” comment that she made. I have not been able to find any source that indicates otherwise, and the article you link provides no proof of that.
    And finally, I feel that your analysis leaves out a very important part of Barak Obama’s rational for reducing our presence in Iraq. Namely the strain on our military, and the strain on US financial resources. Not to mention the cost in American Casualties. You may belief that this str

90. A few points about your post:
    Firstly, The statistics regarding media coverage of the Iraq war alone are not valid proof that there has been progress in Iraq.
    The media has spent the last 5-7 months covering in detail the hotly contested campaign for the next president. It is possible that other types of coverage have been reduced similarly to make way for an “all presidential campaign coverage all the time” network strategy. (As was noted in the article at the PEJ) Coverage of the Iraq war dropped dramatically as the coverage of the campaigns increased.
    This is not proof that there has been less violence in Iraq. What actually may be is the drop in number of casualties since the beginning of the year.
    Secondly, I do not recall any statement by the Obama campaign repdudiating Smantha Power’s remarks about Obama’s Iraq policy. Can you produce such comments? The article you link to provides no such quote. And my understanding is that Power resigned exclusively over the “Hillary is a Monster” comment that she made. I have not been able to find any source that indicates otherwise, and the article you link provides no proof of that.
    And finally, I feel that your analysis leaves out a very important part of Barak Obama’s rational for reducing our presence in Iraq. Namely the strain on our military, and the strain on US financial resources. Not to mention the cost in American Casualties. You may belief that this str

91. Charles, hopefully you’ll figure this out eventually, but we’ve already lost this war. We lost the minute we invaded. The premeditated invasion and occupation of Iraq was itself a defeat for our country.
    Pimping the ‘surge’ as some sort of vindication for your war is not going to absolve your faction of responsibility for this criminal catastrophe, nor will it give your opinions any credibility. I’m afraid you’ve lost that too.

92. Charles, hopefully you’ll figure this out eventually, but we’ve already lost this war. We lost the minute we invaded. The premeditated invasion and occupation of Iraq was itself a defeat for our country.
    Pimping the ‘surge’ as some sort of vindication for your war is not going to absolve your faction of responsibility for this criminal catastrophe, nor will it give your opinions any credibility. I’m afraid you’ve lost that too.

93. Charles, hopefully you’ll figure this out eventually, but we’ve already lost this war. We lost the minute we invaded. The premeditated invasion and occupation of Iraq was itself a defeat for our country.
    Pimping the ‘surge’ as some sort of vindication for your war is not going to absolve your faction of responsibility for this criminal catastrophe, nor will it give your opinions any credibility. I’m afraid you’ve lost that too.

94. Eric and Hilzoy: You’ve both stated emphatically here that it “is not working”. The criteria you use to gauge it by (as stated here and repeatedly for a long time) is political progress. “political progress” is a very relative term, very slippery I think. Have you considered this?
    World leaders, including UN chief Ban Ki-moon and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on Thursday hailed Baghdad’s progress in combatting violence and stabilising Iraq.
    A declaration adopted by 100 delegations at a Stockholm conference said the participants “recognised the important efforts made by the (Iraqi) government to improve security and public order and combat terrorism and sectarian violence across Iraq.”
    It also acknowledged political and economic progress made, and said that “given the difficult context, these successes are all the more remarkable.”
    So – world leaders including Ban Ki-moon say that political progress has been made, and that the successes are remarkable given the context. Do you totally discount that?
    I have not changed my position (against the surge, withdraw now) but I’m always on the lookout for signs of hope. I’m not arguing any position here (don’t intend to follow up on this) – I’m just curious if a) you were aware of this and b) if you maintain that no progress has been made given that world leaders and the head of the UN explicitly state that (remarkable given the context) political progress has been made.
    If you disagree with the UN (and frankly I have more respect for both of you than I do for that “august body”) then I’m curious to see if you are willing to refine your criteria and specify what exactly will qualify as political progress in your opinion. Alternatively – who, if not the head of the UN, will you believe when they say that progress has been made?
    Gary: just because I saw your comment on preview – ditto. I don’t know the answer to your question (“how close is Iraq to achieving a popularly legitimate government…”), but do you accept that some progress has been made?
    Again, I’m not arguing any position here. I’m just curious as to what people will accept as some progress, because the meme seems to be no progress at all has been made therefore the surge is not working.

95. Eric and Hilzoy: You’ve both stated emphatically here that it “is not working”. The criteria you use to gauge it by (as stated here and repeatedly for a long time) is political progress. “political progress” is a very relative term, very slippery I think. Have you considered this?
    World leaders, including UN chief Ban Ki-moon and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on Thursday hailed Baghdad’s progress in combatting violence and stabilising Iraq.
    A declaration adopted by 100 delegations at a Stockholm conference said the participants “recognised the important efforts made by the (Iraqi) government to improve security and public order and combat terrorism and sectarian violence across Iraq.”
    It also acknowledged political and economic progress made, and said that “given the difficult context, these successes are all the more remarkable.”
    So – world leaders including Ban Ki-moon say that political progress has been made, and that the successes are remarkable given the context. Do you totally discount that?
    I have not changed my position (against the surge, withdraw now) but I’m always on the lookout for signs of hope. I’m not arguing any position here (don’t intend to follow up on this) – I’m just curious if a) you were aware of this and b) if you maintain that no progress has been made given that world leaders and the head of the UN explicitly state that (remarkable given the context) political progress has been made.
    If you disagree with the UN (and frankly I have more respect for both of you than I do for that “august body”) then I’m curious to see if you are willing to refine your criteria and specify what exactly will qualify as political progress in your opinion. Alternatively – who, if not the head of the UN, will you believe when they say that progress has been made?
    Gary: just because I saw your comment on preview – ditto. I don’t know the answer to your question (“how close is Iraq to achieving a popularly legitimate government…”), but do you accept that some progress has been made?
    Again, I’m not arguing any position here. I’m just curious as to what people will accept as some progress, because the meme seems to be no progress at all has been made therefore the surge is not working.

96. Eric and Hilzoy: You’ve both stated emphatically here that it “is not working”. The criteria you use to gauge it by (as stated here and repeatedly for a long time) is political progress. “political progress” is a very relative term, very slippery I think. Have you considered this?
    World leaders, including UN chief Ban Ki-moon and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on Thursday hailed Baghdad’s progress in combatting violence and stabilising Iraq.
    A declaration adopted by 100 delegations at a Stockholm conference said the participants “recognised the important efforts made by the (Iraqi) government to improve security and public order and combat terrorism and sectarian violence across Iraq.”
    It also acknowledged political and economic progress made, and said that “given the difficult context, these successes are all the more remarkable.”
    So – world leaders including Ban Ki-moon say that political progress has been made, and that the successes are remarkable given the context. Do you totally discount that?
    I have not changed my position (against the surge, withdraw now) but I’m always on the lookout for signs of hope. I’m not arguing any position here (don’t intend to follow up on this) – I’m just curious if a) you were aware of this and b) if you maintain that no progress has been made given that world leaders and the head of the UN explicitly state that (remarkable given the context) political progress has been made.
    If you disagree with the UN (and frankly I have more respect for both of you than I do for that “august body”) then I’m curious to see if you are willing to refine your criteria and specify what exactly will qualify as political progress in your opinion. Alternatively – who, if not the head of the UN, will you believe when they say that progress has been made?
    Gary: just because I saw your comment on preview – ditto. I don’t know the answer to your question (“how close is Iraq to achieving a popularly legitimate government…”), but do you accept that some progress has been made?
    Again, I’m not arguing any position here. I’m just curious as to what people will accept as some progress, because the meme seems to be no progress at all has been made therefore the surge is not working.

97. Steve,
    They were making those statements in the context of trying to drum up aid dollars, forgiveness of debt and foreign investment.
    That’s like pointing to a salesman’s pitch and submitting it as evidence of the underlying claims.
    Let’s put it this way:
    What political progress?

98. Steve,
    They were making those statements in the context of trying to drum up aid dollars, forgiveness of debt and foreign investment.
    That’s like pointing to a salesman’s pitch and submitting it as evidence of the underlying claims.
    Let’s put it this way:
    What political progress?

99. Steve,
    They were making those statements in the context of trying to drum up aid dollars, forgiveness of debt and foreign investment.
    That’s like pointing to a salesman’s pitch and submitting it as evidence of the underlying claims.
    Let’s put it this way:
    What political progress?

100. “Kitty – Does this mean his name needs to be put back up on the sidebar?”
     I’d still suggest that having the names of all current possible posters, on sabbatical or not, as well as the names of all those who have definitively done a Sherman in declaring they will never, ever, post here again, ever ever ever, listed as “emeritus,” or equivalent, would be respectful. I mean, it’s not as if there’s a space shortage, or a shortage of letters of the alphabet available to do that. It seems to me that Moe, Edward, Slarti, and von, deserve that minimal respect and acknowledgement, rather than being rendered non-persons who never posted here. (I’d even go so far as put “Founding poster” after Moe, Edward, and von’s name, but hey, let’s not go crazy.)
     But that’s just me.

101. “Kitty – Does this mean his name needs to be put back up on the sidebar?”
     I’d still suggest that having the names of all current possible posters, on sabbatical or not, as well as the names of all those who have definitively done a Sherman in declaring they will never, ever, post here again, ever ever ever, listed as “emeritus,” or equivalent, would be respectful. I mean, it’s not as if there’s a space shortage, or a shortage of letters of the alphabet available to do that. It seems to me that Moe, Edward, Slarti, and von, deserve that minimal respect and acknowledgement, rather than being rendered non-persons who never posted here. (I’d even go so far as put “Founding poster” after Moe, Edward, and von’s name, but hey, let’s not go crazy.)
     But that’s just me.

102. “Kitty – Does this mean his name needs to be put back up on the sidebar?”
     I’d still suggest that having the names of all current possible posters, on sabbatical or not, as well as the names of all those who have definitively done a Sherman in declaring they will never, ever, post here again, ever ever ever, listed as “emeritus,” or equivalent, would be respectful. I mean, it’s not as if there’s a space shortage, or a shortage of letters of the alphabet available to do that. It seems to me that Moe, Edward, Slarti, and von, deserve that minimal respect and acknowledgement, rather than being rendered non-persons who never posted here. (I’d even go so far as put “Founding poster” after Moe, Edward, and von’s name, but hey, let’s not go crazy.)
     But that’s just me.

103. To join Brock in picking nits (thus evincing that, yes, I really have better things I should be doing, and no, I’m not doing them):
     P: One has gone to Iraq
     Q: One understands the situation in Iraq
     McCain: (Ax)~P(x)->~Q(x)
     Hilzoy: (x=McCain)P(x)^~Q(x)
     <-> ~(~P|Q)
     <-> ~(P->Q)
     Which would disprove “Everyone who has gone to Iraq understands Iraq”, not McCain’s “Everyone who hasn’t gone to Iraq doesn’t understand Iraq”, which, yes, is the inverse.
     The McCainian proposition is disproven by showing that it is not necessary to go to Iraq to understand it. Hilzoy relatedly but not identically points out that it is not sufficient to go there to understand it.

104. To join Brock in picking nits (thus evincing that, yes, I really have better things I should be doing, and no, I’m not doing them):
     P: One has gone to Iraq
     Q: One understands the situation in Iraq
     McCain: (Ax)~P(x)->~Q(x)
     Hilzoy: (x=McCain)P(x)^~Q(x)
     <-> ~(~P|Q)
     <-> ~(P->Q)
     Which would disprove “Everyone who has gone to Iraq understands Iraq”, not McCain’s “Everyone who hasn’t gone to Iraq doesn’t understand Iraq”, which, yes, is the inverse.
     The McCainian proposition is disproven by showing that it is not necessary to go to Iraq to understand it. Hilzoy relatedly but not identically points out that it is not sufficient to go there to understand it.

105. To join Brock in picking nits (thus evincing that, yes, I really have better things I should be doing, and no, I’m not doing them):
     P: One has gone to Iraq
     Q: One understands the situation in Iraq
     McCain: (Ax)~P(x)->~Q(x)
     Hilzoy: (x=McCain)P(x)^~Q(x)
     <-> ~(~P|Q)
     <-> ~(P->Q)
     Which would disprove “Everyone who has gone to Iraq understands Iraq”, not McCain’s “Everyone who hasn’t gone to Iraq doesn’t understand Iraq”, which, yes, is the inverse.
     The McCainian proposition is disproven by showing that it is not necessary to go to Iraq to understand it. Hilzoy relatedly but not identically points out that it is not sufficient to go there to understand it.

106. “So – world leaders including Ban Ki-moon say that political progress has been made, and that the successes are remarkable given the context. Do you totally discount that?”
     Without a metric, of course. It’s boilerplate.
     Put up a metric, and we’ll talk. Statements of policicans ain’t no metric.
     OCSteve, can I perhaps suggest you read up on how this all worked in the Vietnam War? Five o’clock follies? Just read a good book on the war. Try Stanley Karnow, say.

107. “So – world leaders including Ban Ki-moon say that political progress has been made, and that the successes are remarkable given the context. Do you totally discount that?”
     Without a metric, of course. It’s boilerplate.
     Put up a metric, and we’ll talk. Statements of policicans ain’t no metric.
     OCSteve, can I perhaps suggest you read up on how this all worked in the Vietnam War? Five o’clock follies? Just read a good book on the war. Try Stanley Karnow, say.

108. “So – world leaders including Ban Ki-moon say that political progress has been made, and that the successes are remarkable given the context. Do you totally discount that?”
     Without a metric, of course. It’s boilerplate.
     Put up a metric, and we’ll talk. Statements of policicans ain’t no metric.
     OCSteve, can I perhaps suggest you read up on how this all worked in the Vietnam War? Five o’clock follies? Just read a good book on the war. Try Stanley Karnow, say.

109. “but do you accept that some progress has been made?”
     If you can point to an objective metric by which political progress in Iraq has measurably improved, I certainly will.
     Otherwise, Gary says: No objective metric, no objective measure of progress.
     I’m all about the metrics, OCSteve. You should know that.
     How about you get back to us when we have the leaders of the “Awakenings” testifying to how they’ve had local elections, and have been fully integrated with the national government, and we see a national government being accepted as largely legitimate by most Sunnis, Shia, Kurds, Turkmen, and so on? How about you get back to us when there aren’t any armed militias running around? How about you get back to us when most Iraqis say they feel safe, and that they largely feel that the government is legitimate?
     But I’m open-minded about considering any objective metric of political success you’d like to suggest. Or I’ll suggest more specific ones, but I’m trying to be as open as possible to anything remotely reasonably legitimate.
     And statements by politicians as metrics? Are you kidding?
     Why not just ask Don Rumsfeld what he thinks, and say that settles it?

110. “but do you accept that some progress has been made?”
     If you can point to an objective metric by which political progress in Iraq has measurably improved, I certainly will.
     Otherwise, Gary says: No objective metric, no objective measure of progress.
     I’m all about the metrics, OCSteve. You should know that.
     How about you get back to us when we have the leaders of the “Awakenings” testifying to how they’ve had local elections, and have been fully integrated with the national government, and we see a national government being accepted as largely legitimate by most Sunnis, Shia, Kurds, Turkmen, and so on? How about you get back to us when there aren’t any armed militias running around? How about you get back to us when most Iraqis say they feel safe, and that they largely feel that the government is legitimate?
     But I’m open-minded about considering any objective metric of political success you’d like to suggest. Or I’ll suggest more specific ones, but I’m trying to be as open as possible to anything remotely reasonably legitimate.
     And statements by politicians as metrics? Are you kidding?
     Why not just ask Don Rumsfeld what he thinks, and say that settles it?

111. “but do you accept that some progress has been made?”
     If you can point to an objective metric by which political progress in Iraq has measurably improved, I certainly will.
     Otherwise, Gary says: No objective metric, no objective measure of progress.
     I’m all about the metrics, OCSteve. You should know that.
     How about you get back to us when we have the leaders of the “Awakenings” testifying to how they’ve had local elections, and have been fully integrated with the national government, and we see a national government being accepted as largely legitimate by most Sunnis, Shia, Kurds, Turkmen, and so on? How about you get back to us when there aren’t any armed militias running around? How about you get back to us when most Iraqis say they feel safe, and that they largely feel that the government is legitimate?
     But I’m open-minded about considering any objective metric of political success you’d like to suggest. Or I’ll suggest more specific ones, but I’m trying to be as open as possible to anything remotely reasonably legitimate.
     And statements by politicians as metrics? Are you kidding?
     Why not just ask Don Rumsfeld what he thinks, and say that settles it?

112. OCSteve — I was also going to say what Eric Martin said in reply to yours of 2:49, but probably less well than he.
     Specifically to this, though: Alternatively – who, if not the head of the UN, will you believe when they say that progress has been made? Personally, I don’t care who says “progress has been made,” up to and including the baby Jesus. Unless they can point to, um, actual political events that demonstrate that progress. (And on preview I seen that Gary has beaten me to this point also.)

113. OCSteve — I was also going to say what Eric Martin said in reply to yours of 2:49, but probably less well than he.
     Specifically to this, though: Alternatively – who, if not the head of the UN, will you believe when they say that progress has been made? Personally, I don’t care who says “progress has been made,” up to and including the baby Jesus. Unless they can point to, um, actual political events that demonstrate that progress. (And on preview I seen that Gary has beaten me to this point also.)

114. OCSteve — I was also going to say what Eric Martin said in reply to yours of 2:49, but probably less well than he.
     Specifically to this, though: Alternatively – who, if not the head of the UN, will you believe when they say that progress has been made? Personally, I don’t care who says “progress has been made,” up to and including the baby Jesus. Unless they can point to, um, actual political events that demonstrate that progress. (And on preview I seen that Gary has beaten me to this point also.)

115. I believe the Iraqis are making significant political progress as a result of the surge.

116. I believe the Iraqis are making significant political progress as a result of the surge.

117. I believe the Iraqis are making significant political progress as a result of the surge.

118. Argh! The preview, it LIES! There was supposed to be a at the end of my post. But Preview rendered the escape characters as ASCII in the text box. Evil, tricksy Preview…

119. Argh! The preview, it LIES! There was supposed to be a at the end of my post. But Preview rendered the escape characters as ASCII in the text box. Evil, tricksy Preview…

120. Argh! The preview, it LIES! There was supposed to be a at the end of my post. But Preview rendered the escape characters as ASCII in the text box. Evil, tricksy Preview…

121. Yep: definitely, logically unsound. (Me, I mean. I was. In that comment.)
     OCSteve: I’m waiting for things like a functioning government from which the Sunnis are not forever on the verge of withdrawing, some sense that corruption has dropped to a minimally tolerable level, etc. I don’t see that this has happened.
     To be clear: I am thrilled about the drop in violence. I am not at all clear that it has been anything like worth the cost, nor that some parts wouldn’t have happened anyways (e.g., the Anbar stuff, which seemed to have been underway before the surge), but I think it’s wonderful.
     On the other hand, people are dying, it’s costing us enormous amounts of money, our international standing is through the floor, large chunks of the Muslim world think we’re fighting a war against Islam as a whole, and we cannot pay enough attention to anything else as long as we’re here.
     Plus, I remain deeply worried about having our troops pinned down so near Iran. One of my maxims in thinking about foreign policy is: preserve your freedom of action; minimize your vulnerabilities. One of the things I think hasn’t been the object of nearly enough attention is the ways in which we have just thrown our freedom of action away over the past seven years — from miring our army in this hopeless mess, to giving the Chinese the power to tank our economy if they see fit, to not doing much of anything to remove our dependence on oil-producing dictatorships, to not doing anything like a decent job of enhancing homeland security.
     The number of things that, if they went wrong, could do us serious damage is much, much higher than it ought to be.

122. Yep: definitely, logically unsound. (Me, I mean. I was. In that comment.)
     OCSteve: I’m waiting for things like a functioning government from which the Sunnis are not forever on the verge of withdrawing, some sense that corruption has dropped to a minimally tolerable level, etc. I don’t see that this has happened.
     To be clear: I am thrilled about the drop in violence. I am not at all clear that it has been anything like worth the cost, nor that some parts wouldn’t have happened anyways (e.g., the Anbar stuff, which seemed to have been underway before the surge), but I think it’s wonderful.
     On the other hand, people are dying, it’s costing us enormous amounts of money, our international standing is through the floor, large chunks of the Muslim world think we’re fighting a war against Islam as a whole, and we cannot pay enough attention to anything else as long as we’re here.
     Plus, I remain deeply worried about having our troops pinned down so near Iran. One of my maxims in thinking about foreign policy is: preserve your freedom of action; minimize your vulnerabilities. One of the things I think hasn’t been the object of nearly enough attention is the ways in which we have just thrown our freedom of action away over the past seven years — from miring our army in this hopeless mess, to giving the Chinese the power to tank our economy if they see fit, to not doing much of anything to remove our dependence on oil-producing dictatorships, to not doing anything like a decent job of enhancing homeland security.
     The number of things that, if they went wrong, could do us serious damage is much, much higher than it ought to be.

123. Yep: definitely, logically unsound. (Me, I mean. I was. In that comment.)
     OCSteve: I’m waiting for things like a functioning government from which the Sunnis are not forever on the verge of withdrawing, some sense that corruption has dropped to a minimally tolerable level, etc. I don’t see that this has happened.
     To be clear: I am thrilled about the drop in violence. I am not at all clear that it has been anything like worth the cost, nor that some parts wouldn’t have happened anyways (e.g., the Anbar stuff, which seemed to have been underway before the surge), but I think it’s wonderful.
     On the other hand, people are dying, it’s costing us enormous amounts of money, our international standing is through the floor, large chunks of the Muslim world think we’re fighting a war against Islam as a whole, and we cannot pay enough attention to anything else as long as we’re here.
     Plus, I remain deeply worried about having our troops pinned down so near Iran. One of my maxims in thinking about foreign policy is: preserve your freedom of action; minimize your vulnerabilities. One of the things I think hasn’t been the object of nearly enough attention is the ways in which we have just thrown our freedom of action away over the past seven years — from miring our army in this hopeless mess, to giving the Chinese the power to tank our economy if they see fit, to not doing much of anything to remove our dependence on oil-producing dictatorships, to not doing anything like a decent job of enhancing homeland security.
     The number of things that, if they went wrong, could do us serious damage is much, much higher than it ought to be.

124. Were you not *listening* to what I said, Teenage Jesus? (Kids these days…)

125. Were you not *listening* to what I said, Teenage Jesus? (Kids these days…)

126. Were you not *listening* to what I said, Teenage Jesus? (Kids these days…)

127. Double argh! It wasn’t just Preview that hated my < /pedanticnitpick>, escape characters or no. Cunning, underhanded Typepad…

128. Double argh! It wasn’t just Preview that hated my < /pedanticnitpick>, escape characters or no. Cunning, underhanded Typepad…

129. Double argh! It wasn’t just Preview that hated my < /pedanticnitpick>, escape characters or no. Cunning, underhanded Typepad…

130. I believe the Iraqis are making significant political progress as a result of the surge.

131. I believe the Iraqis are making significant political progress as a result of the surge.

132. I believe the Iraqis are making significant political progress as a result of the surge.

133. And who decided to saddle us with the term “homeland security” anyway? It just doesn’t strike me as a very American phrase (unlike, say, Germany or Russia, with which one associates “fatherland” or “motherland”). (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
     Any takers that a Democratic administration might do a little roll-back on some of the restructuring that created this unwieldy behemoth?

134. And who decided to saddle us with the term “homeland security” anyway? It just doesn’t strike me as a very American phrase (unlike, say, Germany or Russia, with which one associates “fatherland” or “motherland”). (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
     Any takers that a Democratic administration might do a little roll-back on some of the restructuring that created this unwieldy behemoth?

135. And who decided to saddle us with the term “homeland security” anyway? It just doesn’t strike me as a very American phrase (unlike, say, Germany or Russia, with which one associates “fatherland” or “motherland”). (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
     Any takers that a Democratic administration might do a little roll-back on some of the restructuring that created this unwieldy behemoth?

136. I’m still trying to figure out why the Obama campaign should care what Charles Bird, any member of the Republican Party, or any member of the die-hard 27% Brigade thinks about what they should or should not do regarding Iraq at this point in time. Or anything else, for that matter.

137. I’m still trying to figure out why the Obama campaign should care what Charles Bird, any member of the Republican Party, or any member of the die-hard 27% Brigade thinks about what they should or should not do regarding Iraq at this point in time. Or anything else, for that matter.

138. I’m still trying to figure out why the Obama campaign should care what Charles Bird, any member of the Republican Party, or any member of the die-hard 27% Brigade thinks about what they should or should not do regarding Iraq at this point in time. Or anything else, for that matter.

139. Gosh farmgirl’s got high standards. 😉

140. Gosh farmgirl’s got high standards. 😉

141. Gosh farmgirl’s got high standards. 😉

142. That’s like pointing to a salesman’s pitch and submitting it as evidence of the underlying claims.
     And statements by politicians as metrics? Are you kidding?
     Personally, I don’t care who says “progress has been made,”
     I’m not in Iraq. I don’t communicate with any Iraqis who live in Iraq. So anything I consider is something someone else claimed – someone with an agenda. Metrics are great. But if someone lays out the metrics saying attacks are down, that can’t be due to improved security – it’s just because Sadr is taking it easy this month. The Awakenings had nothing to do with the surge… In fact any metric that is pointed to is dismissed as having an alternate explanation unrelated to the surge. That may very well be true. I certainly don’t know.
     I don’t know if the surge is working or not. I’m just curious what criteria those who are certain it is not will accept as some political progress (therefore the surge is working maybe just a little).
     (Gary, I think you laid out a good list so thanks. Hilzoy, I think yours are a bit slippery, very tough to say when a condition has been met. Eric?)
     some sense that corruption has dropped to a minimally tolerable level
     Heck our government doesn’t meet that criterion. 😉

143. That’s like pointing to a salesman’s pitch and submitting it as evidence of the underlying claims.
     And statements by politicians as metrics? Are you kidding?
     Personally, I don’t care who says “progress has been made,”
     I’m not in Iraq. I don’t communicate with any Iraqis who live in Iraq. So anything I consider is something someone else claimed – someone with an agenda. Metrics are great. But if someone lays out the metrics saying attacks are down, that can’t be due to improved security – it’s just because Sadr is taking it easy this month. The Awakenings had nothing to do with the surge… In fact any metric that is pointed to is dismissed as having an alternate explanation unrelated to the surge. That may very well be true. I certainly don’t know.
     I don’t know if the surge is working or not. I’m just curious what criteria those who are certain it is not will accept as some political progress (therefore the surge is working maybe just a little).
     (Gary, I think you laid out a good list so thanks. Hilzoy, I think yours are a bit slippery, very tough to say when a condition has been met. Eric?)
     some sense that corruption has dropped to a minimally tolerable level
     Heck our government doesn’t meet that criterion. 😉

144. That’s like pointing to a salesman’s pitch and submitting it as evidence of the underlying claims.
     And statements by politicians as metrics? Are you kidding?
     Personally, I don’t care who says “progress has been made,”
     I’m not in Iraq. I don’t communicate with any Iraqis who live in Iraq. So anything I consider is something someone else claimed – someone with an agenda. Metrics are great. But if someone lays out the metrics saying attacks are down, that can’t be due to improved security – it’s just because Sadr is taking it easy this month. The Awakenings had nothing to do with the surge… In fact any metric that is pointed to is dismissed as having an alternate explanation unrelated to the surge. That may very well be true. I certainly don’t know.
     I don’t know if the surge is working or not. I’m just curious what criteria those who are certain it is not will accept as some political progress (therefore the surge is working maybe just a little).
     (Gary, I think you laid out a good list so thanks. Hilzoy, I think yours are a bit slippery, very tough to say when a condition has been met. Eric?)
     some sense that corruption has dropped to a minimally tolerable level
     Heck our government doesn’t meet that criterion. 😉

145. Metrics:
     Farber set out a solid list. Iraqi political progress requires a few things:
     1. Elections that bring in truly representative groups (currently, ISCI/Dawa and the Sunni bloc are overrepresented locally and, in the case of the latter, nationally). Large swathes of the Sunni population boycotted local and national elections. Many Sadrists boycotted local elections. These are a must.
     2. If those elections are held, a willingness on the part of the various groups and individuals to put faith in the legitimacy of the governing institutions and share power, integrate rival armed forces, come to acceptable agreements on oil revenue distribution/development, etc.
     3. There has to be buy-in with respect to #2 to the extent that the violence drops to very manageable levels (recent gains are great, but if deaths from bombings on that scale were occurring in the US, we’d be starting wars with everyone – related and not).
     Like Gary, I’m also open to alternative metrics if you have any to suggest. Do you have any “progress” in mind that you would like to discuss?
     And Steve, I don’t mean to pile on or sound snarky. Your perspective is much appreciated, and these questions you are asking are invaluable to the discussion.

146. Metrics:
     Farber set out a solid list. Iraqi political progress requires a few things:
     1. Elections that bring in truly representative groups (currently, ISCI/Dawa and the Sunni bloc are overrepresented locally and, in the case of the latter, nationally). Large swathes of the Sunni population boycotted local and national elections. Many Sadrists boycotted local elections. These are a must.
     2. If those elections are held, a willingness on the part of the various groups and individuals to put faith in the legitimacy of the governing institutions and share power, integrate rival armed forces, come to acceptable agreements on oil revenue distribution/development, etc.
     3. There has to be buy-in with respect to #2 to the extent that the violence drops to very manageable levels (recent gains are great, but if deaths from bombings on that scale were occurring in the US, we’d be starting wars with everyone – related and not).
     Like Gary, I’m also open to alternative metrics if you have any to suggest. Do you have any “progress” in mind that you would like to discuss?
     And Steve, I don’t mean to pile on or sound snarky. Your perspective is much appreciated, and these questions you are asking are invaluable to the discussion.

147. Metrics:
     Farber set out a solid list. Iraqi political progress requires a few things:
     1. Elections that bring in truly representative groups (currently, ISCI/Dawa and the Sunni bloc are overrepresented locally and, in the case of the latter, nationally). Large swathes of the Sunni population boycotted local and national elections. Many Sadrists boycotted local elections. These are a must.
     2. If those elections are held, a willingness on the part of the various groups and individuals to put faith in the legitimacy of the governing institutions and share power, integrate rival armed forces, come to acceptable agreements on oil revenue distribution/development, etc.
     3. There has to be buy-in with respect to #2 to the extent that the violence drops to very manageable levels (recent gains are great, but if deaths from bombings on that scale were occurring in the US, we’d be starting wars with everyone – related and not).
     Like Gary, I’m also open to alternative metrics if you have any to suggest. Do you have any “progress” in mind that you would like to discuss?
     And Steve, I don’t mean to pile on or sound snarky. Your perspective is much appreciated, and these questions you are asking are invaluable to the discussion.

148. Oh hey, has it been six months already? The time flies…..

149. Oh hey, has it been six months already? The time flies…..

150. Oh hey, has it been six months already? The time flies…..

151. The interesting thing about the phrase “homeland security” is that it is a back-formation. If the only important security concern is the homeland, as was true for most of American history, you don’t need to use an adjective. “Security” is enough. At most, depending on context, you may want the phrase “national security,” to avoid confusion with, say, stocks and bonds, or emotional comfort.
     It is only when you have extended the definition of “national security” to include sizable holdings abroad, such as Iraq, that you need to distinguish between national security generally and security for the home country. In short, it is a phrase only an empire needs.

152. The interesting thing about the phrase “homeland security” is that it is a back-formation. If the only important security concern is the homeland, as was true for most of American history, you don’t need to use an adjective. “Security” is enough. At most, depending on context, you may want the phrase “national security,” to avoid confusion with, say, stocks and bonds, or emotional comfort.
     It is only when you have extended the definition of “national security” to include sizable holdings abroad, such as Iraq, that you need to distinguish between national security generally and security for the home country. In short, it is a phrase only an empire needs.

153. The interesting thing about the phrase “homeland security” is that it is a back-formation. If the only important security concern is the homeland, as was true for most of American history, you don’t need to use an adjective. “Security” is enough. At most, depending on context, you may want the phrase “national security,” to avoid confusion with, say, stocks and bonds, or emotional comfort.
     It is only when you have extended the definition of “national security” to include sizable holdings abroad, such as Iraq, that you need to distinguish between national security generally and security for the home country. In short, it is a phrase only an empire needs.

154. Heh. Hadn’t thought of it that way trilo.

155. Heh. Hadn’t thought of it that way trilo.

156. Heh. Hadn’t thought of it that way trilo.

157. Phil: That’s actually a good question. We know what they’d say if, for instance, the stalwart Democrats started insisting what McCain had to do to earn our respect and votes. It applies in reverse. As far as I’m concerned, folks like Charles are welcome to see the light and join the pro-American, pro-prosperity, pro-justice, pro-truth party at ay time. But I’m not holding my breath waiting, and insofar as Obama should feel the need to tilt his message in any direction, I’d prefer that he continue his successful habit of reaching out to involve more of the uninvolved who are receptive to a pitch based on American fundamental values.
     Voters who need someone to reassure them that it’s okay, America can continue to be the world’s leading immoral and incompetent and insolvent bully, have a candidate only too glad to tell them that, and websites ready to back them up. I prefer that Obama focus on those open to the message that acting another way is more in keeping with America’s own better self as well as pragmatically desirable.

158. Phil: That’s actually a good question. We know what they’d say if, for instance, the stalwart Democrats started insisting what McCain had to do to earn our respect and votes. It applies in reverse. As far as I’m concerned, folks like Charles are welcome to see the light and join the pro-American, pro-prosperity, pro-justice, pro-truth party at ay time. But I’m not holding my breath waiting, and insofar as Obama should feel the need to tilt his message in any direction, I’d prefer that he continue his successful habit of reaching out to involve more of the uninvolved who are receptive to a pitch based on American fundamental values.
     Voters who need someone to reassure them that it’s okay, America can continue to be the world’s leading immoral and incompetent and insolvent bully, have a candidate only too glad to tell them that, and websites ready to back them up. I prefer that Obama focus on those open to the message that acting another way is more in keeping with America’s own better self as well as pragmatically desirable.

159. Phil: That’s actually a good question. We know what they’d say if, for instance, the stalwart Democrats started insisting what McCain had to do to earn our respect and votes. It applies in reverse. As far as I’m concerned, folks like Charles are welcome to see the light and join the pro-American, pro-prosperity, pro-justice, pro-truth party at ay time. But I’m not holding my breath waiting, and insofar as Obama should feel the need to tilt his message in any direction, I’d prefer that he continue his successful habit of reaching out to involve more of the uninvolved who are receptive to a pitch based on American fundamental values.
     Voters who need someone to reassure them that it’s okay, America can continue to be the world’s leading immoral and incompetent and insolvent bully, have a candidate only too glad to tell them that, and websites ready to back them up. I prefer that Obama focus on those open to the message that acting another way is more in keeping with America’s own better self as well as pragmatically desirable.

160. Trilobite: Right on. Goes nicely with Nell’s excellent observation that if we have to fight an insurgency, we’re somewhere we shouldn’t be.

161. Trilobite: Right on. Goes nicely with Nell’s excellent observation that if we have to fight an insurgency, we’re somewhere we shouldn’t be.

162. Trilobite: Right on. Goes nicely with Nell’s excellent observation that if we have to fight an insurgency, we’re somewhere we shouldn’t be.

163. The interesting thing about the phrase “homeland security” is that it is a back-formation. If the only important security concern is the homeland, as was true for most of American history, you don’t need to use an adjective.
     Cf. Department of Defense vs. Department of War. If we weren’t an empire, the former would suffice. Since we are, we should go back to the latter (and it would remind everyone what they do!).

164. The interesting thing about the phrase “homeland security” is that it is a back-formation. If the only important security concern is the homeland, as was true for most of American history, you don’t need to use an adjective.
     Cf. Department of Defense vs. Department of War. If we weren’t an empire, the former would suffice. Since we are, we should go back to the latter (and it would remind everyone what they do!).

165. The interesting thing about the phrase “homeland security” is that it is a back-formation. If the only important security concern is the homeland, as was true for most of American history, you don’t need to use an adjective.
     Cf. Department of Defense vs. Department of War. If we weren’t an empire, the former would suffice. Since we are, we should go back to the latter (and it would remind everyone what they do!).

166. Your proposal is nonsense, as demonstrated by this remark:
     I’m pretty sure McCain won’t pull out a ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner on a joint trip…
     The whole point of McCain’s recent visits has been to pretend that everything is going just fine, and the whole point of proposing a joint visit is to engage in “Mission Accomplished” rhetoric and photo-ops for the whole trip.
     And “no preconditions”? — code speak that Obama must emasculate himself while there and not use the visit to demonstrate how pointless the Iraq War is.
     We already have enough phony photo-op trips in favor of the war, and Obama does not have to participate in additional war propangada. There is no way that McCain, Petraeus or the Bush administration would not grossly politicize a trip by Obama and do everything in their power to use the trip for political purposes.

167. Your proposal is nonsense, as demonstrated by this remark:
     I’m pretty sure McCain won’t pull out a ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner on a joint trip…
     The whole point of McCain’s recent visits has been to pretend that everything is going just fine, and the whole point of proposing a joint visit is to engage in “Mission Accomplished” rhetoric and photo-ops for the whole trip.
     And “no preconditions”? — code speak that Obama must emasculate himself while there and not use the visit to demonstrate how pointless the Iraq War is.
     We already have enough phony photo-op trips in favor of the war, and Obama does not have to participate in additional war propangada. There is no way that McCain, Petraeus or the Bush administration would not grossly politicize a trip by Obama and do everything in their power to use the trip for political purposes.

168. Your proposal is nonsense, as demonstrated by this remark:
     I’m pretty sure McCain won’t pull out a ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner on a joint trip…
     The whole point of McCain’s recent visits has been to pretend that everything is going just fine, and the whole point of proposing a joint visit is to engage in “Mission Accomplished” rhetoric and photo-ops for the whole trip.
     And “no preconditions”? — code speak that Obama must emasculate himself while there and not use the visit to demonstrate how pointless the Iraq War is.
     We already have enough phony photo-op trips in favor of the war, and Obama does not have to participate in additional war propangada. There is no way that McCain, Petraeus or the Bush administration would not grossly politicize a trip by Obama and do everything in their power to use the trip for political purposes.

169. 2. If those elections are held, a willingness on the part of the various groups and individuals to put faith in the legitimacy of the governing institutions and share power, integrate rival armed forces, come to acceptable agreements on oil revenue distribution/development, etc.
     A precondition for this would be the purging from the police/military/etc forces of partisan militias, or the genuine integration of those personnel into their respective governmental roles.
     OC, this is one of things I use as one rough barometer- the number of times I heard about folks from the Interior ministry etc using their power to terrorize political/sectarian opponents. At this point I’ve no indication whatsoever that this is being fixed (if anything, the opposite, based on the recent provoked pre-election conflict with the Sadrists), but there’s no way for real national unity without a ‘national’ police/army that isn’t just the militia of one faction.
     I feel I must congratulate Charles; he has somehow managed to maintain at least one Friedman unit of optimism through this entire fiasco. No matter how dark the actual news, he was able to find some useless pyrite nugget upon which to build his castle of hopes.
     Now (as pointed out above) he is preparing for the shift from ‘inevitable victory’ to ‘the stab in the back’, thus achieving his personal goal: never having to admit that he was disastrously, fatally wrong. Over and over again.
     I must point out a quote from the RedState link: The Basra offensive improved al Maliki’s political standing, which has enabled him to take on al Sadr’s home base in Sadr City and the last urban al Qaeda stronghold in Mosul. Not sure when it became a sign of progress that the governing faction is using the US-trained army to go after another faction (al Sadr). But *everything* is progress if you look at it right! al Sadr calls a cease-fire = less violence = progress! al Maliki uses the military to attack his political opposition = crushing the insurgents = progress! Presumably al Sadr surviving these attacks and carrying on into the elections = multi-party democracy = progress! Rogue asteroid destroys the entire country = political stability = progress!

170. 2. If those elections are held, a willingness on the part of the various groups and individuals to put faith in the legitimacy of the governing institutions and share power, integrate rival armed forces, come to acceptable agreements on oil revenue distribution/development, etc.
     A precondition for this would be the purging from the police/military/etc forces of partisan militias, or the genuine integration of those personnel into their respective governmental roles.
     OC, this is one of things I use as one rough barometer- the number of times I heard about folks from the Interior ministry etc using their power to terrorize political/sectarian opponents. At this point I’ve no indication whatsoever that this is being fixed (if anything, the opposite, based on the recent provoked pre-election conflict with the Sadrists), but there’s no way for real national unity without a ‘national’ police/army that isn’t just the militia of one faction.
     I feel I must congratulate Charles; he has somehow managed to maintain at least one Friedman unit of optimism through this entire fiasco. No matter how dark the actual news, he was able to find some useless pyrite nugget upon which to build his castle of hopes.
     Now (as pointed out above) he is preparing for the shift from ‘inevitable victory’ to ‘the stab in the back’, thus achieving his personal goal: never having to admit that he was disastrously, fatally wrong. Over and over again.
     I must point out a quote from the RedState link: The Basra offensive improved al Maliki’s political standing, which has enabled him to take on al Sadr’s home base in Sadr City and the last urban al Qaeda stronghold in Mosul. Not sure when it became a sign of progress that the governing faction is using the US-trained army to go after another faction (al Sadr). But *everything* is progress if you look at it right! al Sadr calls a cease-fire = less violence = progress! al Maliki uses the military to attack his political opposition = crushing the insurgents = progress! Presumably al Sadr surviving these attacks and carrying on into the elections = multi-party democracy = progress! Rogue asteroid destroys the entire country = political stability = progress!

171. 2. If those elections are held, a willingness on the part of the various groups and individuals to put faith in the legitimacy of the governing institutions and share power, integrate rival armed forces, come to acceptable agreements on oil revenue distribution/development, etc.
     A precondition for this would be the purging from the police/military/etc forces of partisan militias, or the genuine integration of those personnel into their respective governmental roles.
     OC, this is one of things I use as one rough barometer- the number of times I heard about folks from the Interior ministry etc using their power to terrorize political/sectarian opponents. At this point I’ve no indication whatsoever that this is being fixed (if anything, the opposite, based on the recent provoked pre-election conflict with the Sadrists), but there’s no way for real national unity without a ‘national’ police/army that isn’t just the militia of one faction.
     I feel I must congratulate Charles; he has somehow managed to maintain at least one Friedman unit of optimism through this entire fiasco. No matter how dark the actual news, he was able to find some useless pyrite nugget upon which to build his castle of hopes.
     Now (as pointed out above) he is preparing for the shift from ‘inevitable victory’ to ‘the stab in the back’, thus achieving his personal goal: never having to admit that he was disastrously, fatally wrong. Over and over again.
     I must point out a quote from the RedState link: The Basra offensive improved al Maliki’s political standing, which has enabled him to take on al Sadr’s home base in Sadr City and the last urban al Qaeda stronghold in Mosul. Not sure when it became a sign of progress that the governing faction is using the US-trained army to go after another faction (al Sadr). But *everything* is progress if you look at it right! al Sadr calls a cease-fire = less violence = progress! al Maliki uses the military to attack his political opposition = crushing the insurgents = progress! Presumably al Sadr surviving these attacks and carrying on into the elections = multi-party democracy = progress! Rogue asteroid destroys the entire country = political stability = progress!

172. Me on “Homeland Security”: “ (I still can’t write those two words without thinking when did we become German?)”.
     Me, June 15, 2002:

     “HOMELAND” IS A CREEPY, GERMAN, UNAMERICAN WORD

     Geez, I actually quoted Mickey Kaus. For the last time.
     But surely everyone is aware that the reason the DHS exists is to funnel pork, right?

173. Me on “Homeland Security”: “ (I still can’t write those two words without thinking when did we become German?)”.
     Me, June 15, 2002:

     “HOMELAND” IS A CREEPY, GERMAN, UNAMERICAN WORD

     Geez, I actually quoted Mickey Kaus. For the last time.
     But surely everyone is aware that the reason the DHS exists is to funnel pork, right?

174. Me on “Homeland Security”: “ (I still can’t write those two words without thinking when did we become German?)”.
     Me, June 15, 2002:

     “HOMELAND” IS A CREEPY, GERMAN, UNAMERICAN WORD

     Geez, I actually quoted Mickey Kaus. For the last time.
     But surely everyone is aware that the reason the DHS exists is to funnel pork, right?

175. By thew way, nothing measures political progress better than regular elections conducted freely and with minimal violence.
     When are the Iraqis going to vote again, and will it be possible to hold a vote? Regional elections are currently set for October, or over three years since the last local elections (which were Jan 2005). The last election concerning the Parliament was in Dec. 2005, and none are scheduled for this year. The Kirkuk referendum is now 7 months overdue with no date set for that election.
     How can anyone pretend that there is any meaningful political progress when the country is unable to hold elections. Any bets on whether the civil war violence will escalate if elections do occur again?

176. By thew way, nothing measures political progress better than regular elections conducted freely and with minimal violence.
     When are the Iraqis going to vote again, and will it be possible to hold a vote? Regional elections are currently set for October, or over three years since the last local elections (which were Jan 2005). The last election concerning the Parliament was in Dec. 2005, and none are scheduled for this year. The Kirkuk referendum is now 7 months overdue with no date set for that election.
     How can anyone pretend that there is any meaningful political progress when the country is unable to hold elections. Any bets on whether the civil war violence will escalate if elections do occur again?

177. By thew way, nothing measures political progress better than regular elections conducted freely and with minimal violence.
     When are the Iraqis going to vote again, and will it be possible to hold a vote? Regional elections are currently set for October, or over three years since the last local elections (which were Jan 2005). The last election concerning the Parliament was in Dec. 2005, and none are scheduled for this year. The Kirkuk referendum is now 7 months overdue with no date set for that election.
     How can anyone pretend that there is any meaningful political progress when the country is unable to hold elections. Any bets on whether the civil war violence will escalate if elections do occur again?

178. Actually, the asteroid example makes me think of a relevant point- of course, it’s possible to produce similar patterns of thinking slanted pessimistically…
     But fundamentally, I don’t think it’s right to suggest that just because civil order is necessary for a political resolution that *any* reduction in violence means that we’re closer to a political resolution.
     For example, Anbar Awakening may have reduced violence and tension between the US and the Sunnis, but it did so with a serious risk to national unity (the Shi’a are still very unhappy with the Sunni militias, insisting that they have no permanent HQs, that they eventually be disbanded, etc). I think it clearly moves us further towards sectarianism, militia-ism, and away from national governance.
     It’s easy to cheer for reductions in violence- but cheering events like this explains a great deal of why we’ve had more than half-a-decade of successes without apparently moving closer to the goal. Today, I dont see us being any closer to national unity than we were in 2004.

179. Actually, the asteroid example makes me think of a relevant point- of course, it’s possible to produce similar patterns of thinking slanted pessimistically…
     But fundamentally, I don’t think it’s right to suggest that just because civil order is necessary for a political resolution that *any* reduction in violence means that we’re closer to a political resolution.
     For example, Anbar Awakening may have reduced violence and tension between the US and the Sunnis, but it did so with a serious risk to national unity (the Shi’a are still very unhappy with the Sunni militias, insisting that they have no permanent HQs, that they eventually be disbanded, etc). I think it clearly moves us further towards sectarianism, militia-ism, and away from national governance.
     It’s easy to cheer for reductions in violence- but cheering events like this explains a great deal of why we’ve had more than half-a-decade of successes without apparently moving closer to the goal. Today, I dont see us being any closer to national unity than we were in 2004.

180. Actually, the asteroid example makes me think of a relevant point- of course, it’s possible to produce similar patterns of thinking slanted pessimistically…
     But fundamentally, I don’t think it’s right to suggest that just because civil order is necessary for a political resolution that *any* reduction in violence means that we’re closer to a political resolution.
     For example, Anbar Awakening may have reduced violence and tension between the US and the Sunnis, but it did so with a serious risk to national unity (the Shi’a are still very unhappy with the Sunni militias, insisting that they have no permanent HQs, that they eventually be disbanded, etc). I think it clearly moves us further towards sectarianism, militia-ism, and away from national governance.
     It’s easy to cheer for reductions in violence- but cheering events like this explains a great deal of why we’ve had more than half-a-decade of successes without apparently moving closer to the goal. Today, I dont see us being any closer to national unity than we were in 2004.

181. You can’t go to Iraq and not have a dog and pony show.
     Then your argument isn’t just with me, Eric, it’s with Obama. In his own words:

     “I think that if I’m going to Iraq, then I’m there to talk to troops and talk to commanders, I’m not there to try to score political points or perform,” Mr. Obama said. “The work they’re doing there is too important.”

     And the strategy is not working.
     Why?

182. You can’t go to Iraq and not have a dog and pony show.
     Then your argument isn’t just with me, Eric, it’s with Obama. In his own words:

     “I think that if I’m going to Iraq, then I’m there to talk to troops and talk to commanders, I’m not there to try to score political points or perform,” Mr. Obama said. “The work they’re doing there is too important.”

     And the strategy is not working.
     Why?

183. You can’t go to Iraq and not have a dog and pony show.
     Then your argument isn’t just with me, Eric, it’s with Obama. In his own words:

     “I think that if I’m going to Iraq, then I’m there to talk to troops and talk to commanders, I’m not there to try to score political points or perform,” Mr. Obama said. “The work they’re doing there is too important.”

     And the strategy is not working.
     Why?

184. Folks, let’s get to the bottom line: what is OUR interest in Iraq? How desperately do we care whether the Shia or the Sunni end up running the place?
     On “metrics”, nobody here has come close to the true metric of a legitimate government: taxation. No Bushie or McCainiac would dare say so, but the power to tax its people, and the people’s consent to being taxed, is the ultimate (and arguably the only) measure of any government’s legitimacy.
     As best I can tell, the practical (as opposed to nominal) situation in Iraq is basically a reverse-taxation arrangement: the national government DISTRIBUTES, rather than collects, money. If true, this makes a “legitimate representative government” in Iraq a near-impossibility. So anybody who thinks prolonging America’s involvement in the internal Iraqui fight serves any sort of idealistic purpose is smoking something.
     — TP

185. Folks, let’s get to the bottom line: what is OUR interest in Iraq? How desperately do we care whether the Shia or the Sunni end up running the place?
     On “metrics”, nobody here has come close to the true metric of a legitimate government: taxation. No Bushie or McCainiac would dare say so, but the power to tax its people, and the people’s consent to being taxed, is the ultimate (and arguably the only) measure of any government’s legitimacy.
     As best I can tell, the practical (as opposed to nominal) situation in Iraq is basically a reverse-taxation arrangement: the national government DISTRIBUTES, rather than collects, money. If true, this makes a “legitimate representative government” in Iraq a near-impossibility. So anybody who thinks prolonging America’s involvement in the internal Iraqui fight serves any sort of idealistic purpose is smoking something.
     — TP

186. Folks, let’s get to the bottom line: what is OUR interest in Iraq? How desperately do we care whether the Shia or the Sunni end up running the place?
     On “metrics”, nobody here has come close to the true metric of a legitimate government: taxation. No Bushie or McCainiac would dare say so, but the power to tax its people, and the people’s consent to being taxed, is the ultimate (and arguably the only) measure of any government’s legitimacy.
     As best I can tell, the practical (as opposed to nominal) situation in Iraq is basically a reverse-taxation arrangement: the national government DISTRIBUTES, rather than collects, money. If true, this makes a “legitimate representative government” in Iraq a near-impossibility. So anybody who thinks prolonging America’s involvement in the internal Iraqui fight serves any sort of idealistic purpose is smoking something.
     — TP

187. I guess the important question “is our Charles learning?” has been answered in the negative.

188. I guess the important question “is our Charles learning?” has been answered in the negative.

189. I guess the important question “is our Charles learning?” has been answered in the negative.

190. And the strategy is not working.
     Why?

     Because it hasn’t done what the President said it was intended to do, Charles.
     January, 2007:

     A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.
     To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.
     America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units, and partner a coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division. We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped army, and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen the moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self-reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.

     “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     “To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     “To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     “And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws,”
     Give us some cites on the success of that, please, Charles.
     “and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.”
     How has that gone, Charles?
     “We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams.”
     How about a cite on the success of this, Charles?
     “So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     Tell us about the benchmarks, Charles. The benchmarks. The benchmarks.
     Tell us about the elections, the way the “Awakening” groups have been integrated into the national government, the way most citizens of Iraq believe that the Iraqi government is generally a representative, non-sectarian, government, that is at least vaguely non-corrupt, vaguely effective, and possesses at least a vague monopoly of force, Charles.
     Tell us about how the militias have been eliminated, Charles, rather than just those that the U.S. government doesn’t like.
     Tell us about how SCII and Dawa and Maliki are subject to Iranian influence than Sadr, Charles.
     Use your vast expertise to tell us about all these things.
     I for one, could be convinced, if you’d finally get around to telling us about this stuff, as you’ve been asked to for years, rather than posting about meaningless statistics and press releases.
     It’s in your court, Charles.
     Tell us.

191. And the strategy is not working.
     Why?

     Because it hasn’t done what the President said it was intended to do, Charles.
     January, 2007:

     A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.
     To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.
     America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units, and partner a coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division. We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped army, and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen the moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self-reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.

     “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     “To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     “To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     “And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws,”
     Give us some cites on the success of that, please, Charles.
     “and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.”
     How has that gone, Charles?
     “We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams.”
     How about a cite on the success of this, Charles?
     “So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     Tell us about the benchmarks, Charles. The benchmarks. The benchmarks.
     Tell us about the elections, the way the “Awakening” groups have been integrated into the national government, the way most citizens of Iraq believe that the Iraqi government is generally a representative, non-sectarian, government, that is at least vaguely non-corrupt, vaguely effective, and possesses at least a vague monopoly of force, Charles.
     Tell us about how the militias have been eliminated, Charles, rather than just those that the U.S. government doesn’t like.
     Tell us about how SCII and Dawa and Maliki are subject to Iranian influence than Sadr, Charles.
     Use your vast expertise to tell us about all these things.
     I for one, could be convinced, if you’d finally get around to telling us about this stuff, as you’ve been asked to for years, rather than posting about meaningless statistics and press releases.
     It’s in your court, Charles.
     Tell us.

192. And the strategy is not working.
     Why?

     Because it hasn’t done what the President said it was intended to do, Charles.
     January, 2007:

     A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.
     To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.
     America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units, and partner a coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division. We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped army, and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen the moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self-reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.

     “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     “To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     “To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     “And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws,”
     Give us some cites on the success of that, please, Charles.
     “and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.”
     How has that gone, Charles?
     “We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams.”
     How about a cite on the success of this, Charles?
     “So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     Tell us about the benchmarks, Charles. The benchmarks. The benchmarks.
     Tell us about the elections, the way the “Awakening” groups have been integrated into the national government, the way most citizens of Iraq believe that the Iraqi government is generally a representative, non-sectarian, government, that is at least vaguely non-corrupt, vaguely effective, and possesses at least a vague monopoly of force, Charles.
     Tell us about how the militias have been eliminated, Charles, rather than just those that the U.S. government doesn’t like.
     Tell us about how SCII and Dawa and Maliki are subject to Iranian influence than Sadr, Charles.
     Use your vast expertise to tell us about all these things.
     I for one, could be convinced, if you’d finally get around to telling us about this stuff, as you’ve been asked to for years, rather than posting about meaningless statistics and press releases.
     It’s in your court, Charles.
     Tell us.

193. And the strategy is not working.
     Why?

     Because it hasn’t done what the President said it was intended to do, Charles.
     January, 2007:

     A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.
     To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.
     America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units, and partner a coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division. We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped army, and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen the moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self-reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.

     “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     “To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     “To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     “And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws,”
     Give us some cites on the success of that, please, Charles.
     “and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.”
     How has that gone, Charles?
     “We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams.”
     How about a cite on the success of this, Charles?
     “So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     Tell us about the benchmarks, Charles. The benchmarks. The benchmarks.
     Tell us about the elections, the way the “Awakening” groups have been integrated into the national government, the way most citizens of Iraq believe that the Iraqi government is generally a representative, non-sectarian, government, that is at least vaguely non-corrupt, vaguely effective, and possesses at least a vague monopoly of force, Charles.
     Tell us about how the militias have been eliminated, Charles, rather than just those that the U.S. government doesn’t like.
     Tell us about how SCII and Dawa and Maliki are subject to Iranian influence than Sadr, Charles.
     Use your vast expertise to tell us about all these things.
     I for one, could be convinced, if you’d finally get around to telling us about this stuff, as you’ve been asked to for years, rather than posting about meaningless statistics and press releases.
     It’s in your court, Charles.
     Tell us.

194. And the strategy is not working.
     Why?

     Because it hasn’t done what the President said it was intended to do, Charles.
     January, 2007:

     A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.
     To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.
     America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units, and partner a coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division. We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped army, and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen the moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self-reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.

     “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     “To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     “To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     “And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws,”
     Give us some cites on the success of that, please, Charles.
     “and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.”
     How has that gone, Charles?
     “We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams.”
     How about a cite on the success of this, Charles?
     “So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     Tell us about the benchmarks, Charles. The benchmarks. The benchmarks.
     Tell us about the elections, the way the “Awakening” groups have been integrated into the national government, the way most citizens of Iraq believe that the Iraqi government is generally a representative, non-sectarian, government, that is at least vaguely non-corrupt, vaguely effective, and possesses at least a vague monopoly of force, Charles.
     Tell us about how the militias have been eliminated, Charles, rather than just those that the U.S. government doesn’t like.
     Tell us about how SCII and Dawa and Maliki are subject to Iranian influence than Sadr, Charles.
     Use your vast expertise to tell us about all these things.
     I for one, could be convinced, if you’d finally get around to telling us about this stuff, as you’ve been asked to for years, rather than posting about meaningless statistics and press releases.
     It’s in your court, Charles.
     Tell us.

195. And the strategy is not working.
     Why?

     Because it hasn’t done what the President said it was intended to do, Charles.
     January, 2007:

     A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.
     To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.
     America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units, and partner a coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division. We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped army, and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen the moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self-reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.

     “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     “To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     “To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     “And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws,”
     Give us some cites on the success of that, please, Charles.
     “and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.”
     How has that gone, Charles?
     “We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams.”
     How about a cite on the success of this, Charles?
     “So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     Tell us about the benchmarks, Charles. The benchmarks. The benchmarks.
     Tell us about the elections, the way the “Awakening” groups have been integrated into the national government, the way most citizens of Iraq believe that the Iraqi government is generally a representative, non-sectarian, government, that is at least vaguely non-corrupt, vaguely effective, and possesses at least a vague monopoly of force, Charles.
     Tell us about how the militias have been eliminated, Charles, rather than just those that the U.S. government doesn’t like.
     Tell us about how SCII and Dawa and Maliki are subject to Iranian influence than Sadr, Charles.
     Use your vast expertise to tell us about all these things.
     I for one, could be convinced, if you’d finally get around to telling us about this stuff, as you’ve been asked to for years, rather than posting about meaningless statistics and press releases.
     It’s in your court, Charles.
     Tell us.

196. Gary’s May 30, 2008 at 7:56pm comment is my favorite Gary Farber comment of all time. Even upon a second read.
     And not because it’s aimed at you Charles.

197. Gary’s May 30, 2008 at 7:56pm comment is my favorite Gary Farber comment of all time. Even upon a second read.
     And not because it’s aimed at you Charles.

198. Gary’s May 30, 2008 at 7:56pm comment is my favorite Gary Farber comment of all time. Even upon a second read.
     And not because it’s aimed at you Charles.

199. “Tell us about how SCII and Dawa and Maliki are subject to Iranian influence than Sadr, Charles.”
     Should be “Tell us about how SCII and Dawa and Maliki are subject to less Iranian influence than Sadr, Charles.”

200. “Tell us about how SCII and Dawa and Maliki are subject to Iranian influence than Sadr, Charles.”
     Should be “Tell us about how SCII and Dawa and Maliki are subject to less Iranian influence than Sadr, Charles.”

201. “Tell us about how SCII and Dawa and Maliki are subject to Iranian influence than Sadr, Charles.”
     Should be “Tell us about how SCII and Dawa and Maliki are subject to less Iranian influence than Sadr, Charles.”

202. Then your argument isn’t just with me, Eric, it’s with Obama.
     That would be a devastating critique *if* Eric functioned solely as a spinner for the Obama campaign or the Democratic Party.
     Aside from that, it’s easy to see that Eric can both disagree with Obama on this particular issue (ie trip to Iraq, useful data gathering or political theater?) while simultaneously disagreeing with McCain and your talking points a great deal more, and on more substantial grounds.
     Really, though, this is transparent. Rather than engaging *anyone* about *any* substance, your embarrassingly tendentious history on Iraq, etc, you pick some side point and pretend that it’s something other than what it is. Eric is so far left he even disagrees with Obama sometimes, on fairly trivial matters (can Obama talk with Petraeus via videoconference, or is a face-to-face the only way to look into his soul?)! Forget about discussing the use of the Interior Ministry to suppress rival political factions, this is the really important stuff!
     Seconding Ugh- that post by Gary is going to leave a mark.

203. Then your argument isn’t just with me, Eric, it’s with Obama.
     That would be a devastating critique *if* Eric functioned solely as a spinner for the Obama campaign or the Democratic Party.
     Aside from that, it’s easy to see that Eric can both disagree with Obama on this particular issue (ie trip to Iraq, useful data gathering or political theater?) while simultaneously disagreeing with McCain and your talking points a great deal more, and on more substantial grounds.
     Really, though, this is transparent. Rather than engaging *anyone* about *any* substance, your embarrassingly tendentious history on Iraq, etc, you pick some side point and pretend that it’s something other than what it is. Eric is so far left he even disagrees with Obama sometimes, on fairly trivial matters (can Obama talk with Petraeus via videoconference, or is a face-to-face the only way to look into his soul?)! Forget about discussing the use of the Interior Ministry to suppress rival political factions, this is the really important stuff!
     Seconding Ugh- that post by Gary is going to leave a mark.

204. Then your argument isn’t just with me, Eric, it’s with Obama.
     That would be a devastating critique *if* Eric functioned solely as a spinner for the Obama campaign or the Democratic Party.
     Aside from that, it’s easy to see that Eric can both disagree with Obama on this particular issue (ie trip to Iraq, useful data gathering or political theater?) while simultaneously disagreeing with McCain and your talking points a great deal more, and on more substantial grounds.
     Really, though, this is transparent. Rather than engaging *anyone* about *any* substance, your embarrassingly tendentious history on Iraq, etc, you pick some side point and pretend that it’s something other than what it is. Eric is so far left he even disagrees with Obama sometimes, on fairly trivial matters (can Obama talk with Petraeus via videoconference, or is a face-to-face the only way to look into his soul?)! Forget about discussing the use of the Interior Ministry to suppress rival political factions, this is the really important stuff!
     Seconding Ugh- that post by Gary is going to leave a mark.

205. Gary,
     In all fairness to Charles, we did give the Iraqi government some money to spend on our airplanes. If that’s not progress, then I don’t know what progress is.

206. Gary,
     In all fairness to Charles, we did give the Iraqi government some money to spend on our airplanes. If that’s not progress, then I don’t know what progress is.

207. Gary,
     In all fairness to Charles, we did give the Iraqi government some money to spend on our airplanes. If that’s not progress, then I don’t know what progress is.

208. Seconding Ugh- that post by Gary is going to leave a mark.
     Is going to leave a benchmark, methinks.
     BENCH
     mark
     I love the smell of that word in the morning, it smells like victory.

209. Seconding Ugh- that post by Gary is going to leave a mark.
     Is going to leave a benchmark, methinks.
     BENCH
     mark
     I love the smell of that word in the morning, it smells like victory.

210. Seconding Ugh- that post by Gary is going to leave a mark.
     Is going to leave a benchmark, methinks.
     BENCH
     mark
     I love the smell of that word in the morning, it smells like victory.

211. Tony P –
     but the power to tax its people, and the people’s consent to being taxed, is the ultimate (and arguably the only) measure of any government’s legitimacy.
     As alluded to upstream, I would rate the people’s consenting to giving the government a monopoly on the use of violence as a more important measure. But perhaps I’m mis-reading your use of the word “ultimate”.
     Back to the thread – I’d be perfectly happy if Obama announced serious plans to study the situation there, including trips, after he wins the election. Before the election it is, as many have said here, a political stunt (fraught with danger, given the players) and wasteful of the military’s time.

212. Tony P –
     but the power to tax its people, and the people’s consent to being taxed, is the ultimate (and arguably the only) measure of any government’s legitimacy.
     As alluded to upstream, I would rate the people’s consenting to giving the government a monopoly on the use of violence as a more important measure. But perhaps I’m mis-reading your use of the word “ultimate”.
     Back to the thread – I’d be perfectly happy if Obama announced serious plans to study the situation there, including trips, after he wins the election. Before the election it is, as many have said here, a political stunt (fraught with danger, given the players) and wasteful of the military’s time.

213. Tony P –
     but the power to tax its people, and the people’s consent to being taxed, is the ultimate (and arguably the only) measure of any government’s legitimacy.
     As alluded to upstream, I would rate the people’s consenting to giving the government a monopoly on the use of violence as a more important measure. But perhaps I’m mis-reading your use of the word “ultimate”.
     Back to the thread – I’d be perfectly happy if Obama announced serious plans to study the situation there, including trips, after he wins the election. Before the election it is, as many have said here, a political stunt (fraught with danger, given the players) and wasteful of the military’s time.

214. Here’s another indicator that the COIN strategy is working. News coverage is way down
     This suggests a quick and easy way to end the war: Convince the MSM not to publish / air ANY news coverage abouit Iraq. When the coverage goes to zero, WE WIN!!!eleventy!! Ponies for everyone!

215. Here’s another indicator that the COIN strategy is working. News coverage is way down
     This suggests a quick and easy way to end the war: Convince the MSM not to publish / air ANY news coverage abouit Iraq. When the coverage goes to zero, WE WIN!!!eleventy!! Ponies for everyone!

216. Here’s another indicator that the COIN strategy is working. News coverage is way down
     This suggests a quick and easy way to end the war: Convince the MSM not to publish / air ANY news coverage abouit Iraq. When the coverage goes to zero, WE WIN!!!eleventy!! Ponies for everyone!

217. “In addition to Mosul and Basra, perhaps he could even go to Diyala province now that it’s been pacified.”
     Why don’t you get on a plane, and spend a week strolling around Diyala, unescorted, Charles?
     I bet we can get up a fund to pay for your trip.
     I’m serious. Think of what great blogging you could do.
     Just promise you’ll go walk around Mosul on your own, with no American troops or Iraqi troops to guard you whatever, for, say, five days, and come home and blog about it: I’ll raise funds to pay for your plane ticket. You can probably find a lovely hotel in Mosul on your own, but we can raise, say, another $500 to pay for that.
     It’s pacified! Why not go?
     I’m serious: why not?

218. “In addition to Mosul and Basra, perhaps he could even go to Diyala province now that it’s been pacified.”
     Why don’t you get on a plane, and spend a week strolling around Diyala, unescorted, Charles?
     I bet we can get up a fund to pay for your trip.
     I’m serious. Think of what great blogging you could do.
     Just promise you’ll go walk around Mosul on your own, with no American troops or Iraqi troops to guard you whatever, for, say, five days, and come home and blog about it: I’ll raise funds to pay for your plane ticket. You can probably find a lovely hotel in Mosul on your own, but we can raise, say, another $500 to pay for that.
     It’s pacified! Why not go?
     I’m serious: why not?

219. “In addition to Mosul and Basra, perhaps he could even go to Diyala province now that it’s been pacified.”
     Why don’t you get on a plane, and spend a week strolling around Diyala, unescorted, Charles?
     I bet we can get up a fund to pay for your trip.
     I’m serious. Think of what great blogging you could do.
     Just promise you’ll go walk around Mosul on your own, with no American troops or Iraqi troops to guard you whatever, for, say, five days, and come home and blog about it: I’ll raise funds to pay for your plane ticket. You can probably find a lovely hotel in Mosul on your own, but we can raise, say, another $500 to pay for that.
     It’s pacified! Why not go?
     I’m serious: why not?

220. I would contribute $5, as long as Shorja Market is on the itinerary, which Charles also feels is safe.

221. I would contribute $5, as long as Shorja Market is on the itinerary, which Charles also feels is safe.

222. I would contribute $5, as long as Shorja Market is on the itinerary, which Charles also feels is safe.

223. “In all fairness to Charles, we did give the Iraqi government some money to spend on our airplanes. If that’s not progress, then I don’t know what progress is.”
     Charles cited Sun Myung Moon’s Washington Times; here’s the comedy quote:

     Iraqi Airways, nearly grounded by decades of mismanagement and economic sanctions under the regime of Saddam Hussein, is back on the runway with a multibillion-dollar order for a fleet of new Boeing passenger planes to service domestic routes and reclaim a share of the increasingly lucrative Middle East market.
     Iraqi Ambassador to the U.S. Samir Sumaida’ie says Iraqi Airways’ $5.5 billion order for Boeing airplanes is a clear sign that Iraq is taking on some of the costs of its reconstruction.
     Iraqi officials hail the deal as a symbol of the country’s slow but steady economic rebirth, and also as a sign that they are finally translating the country’s vast oil wealth into tangible gains for ordinary Iraqis.

     Because at the top of the concerns of ordinary Iraqis is flying on an Iraqi-owned jet.

     […] Under terms of the contract, Iraq will buy 30 Boeing 737 commercial airplanes and 10 of the Chicago-based manufacturer’s new 787 “Dreamliners,” with options to purchase at least 15 more planes. The Dreamliner, which can seat up to 330 passengers, is the first new Boeing passenger model since the 777 was introduced in 1990.
     […]
     The first new 737s are not scheduled to be delivered until 2013, Iraqi officials said, and the last of the planes will not arrive until 2019.

     I can’t wait for the video of Iraqi citizens dancing in the street. Be sure to post a link to that here, Charles!
     I just hope they’ll still offer free peanuts to Iraqis who fly Iraqi Airlines. That’s even better than painted schools, and purple thumbs!

224. “In all fairness to Charles, we did give the Iraqi government some money to spend on our airplanes. If that’s not progress, then I don’t know what progress is.”
     Charles cited Sun Myung Moon’s Washington Times; here’s the comedy quote:

     Iraqi Airways, nearly grounded by decades of mismanagement and economic sanctions under the regime of Saddam Hussein, is back on the runway with a multibillion-dollar order for a fleet of new Boeing passenger planes to service domestic routes and reclaim a share of the increasingly lucrative Middle East market.
     Iraqi Ambassador to the U.S. Samir Sumaida’ie says Iraqi Airways’ $5.5 billion order for Boeing airplanes is a clear sign that Iraq is taking on some of the costs of its reconstruction.
     Iraqi officials hail the deal as a symbol of the country’s slow but steady economic rebirth, and also as a sign that they are finally translating the country’s vast oil wealth into tangible gains for ordinary Iraqis.

     Because at the top of the concerns of ordinary Iraqis is flying on an Iraqi-owned jet.

     […] Under terms of the contract, Iraq will buy 30 Boeing 737 commercial airplanes and 10 of the Chicago-based manufacturer’s new 787 “Dreamliners,” with options to purchase at least 15 more planes. The Dreamliner, which can seat up to 330 passengers, is the first new Boeing passenger model since the 777 was introduced in 1990.
     […]
     The first new 737s are not scheduled to be delivered until 2013, Iraqi officials said, and the last of the planes will not arrive until 2019.

     I can’t wait for the video of Iraqi citizens dancing in the street. Be sure to post a link to that here, Charles!
     I just hope they’ll still offer free peanuts to Iraqis who fly Iraqi Airlines. That’s even better than painted schools, and purple thumbs!

225. “In all fairness to Charles, we did give the Iraqi government some money to spend on our airplanes. If that’s not progress, then I don’t know what progress is.”
     Charles cited Sun Myung Moon’s Washington Times; here’s the comedy quote:

     Iraqi Airways, nearly grounded by decades of mismanagement and economic sanctions under the regime of Saddam Hussein, is back on the runway with a multibillion-dollar order for a fleet of new Boeing passenger planes to service domestic routes and reclaim a share of the increasingly lucrative Middle East market.
     Iraqi Ambassador to the U.S. Samir Sumaida’ie says Iraqi Airways’ $5.5 billion order for Boeing airplanes is a clear sign that Iraq is taking on some of the costs of its reconstruction.
     Iraqi officials hail the deal as a symbol of the country’s slow but steady economic rebirth, and also as a sign that they are finally translating the country’s vast oil wealth into tangible gains for ordinary Iraqis.

     Because at the top of the concerns of ordinary Iraqis is flying on an Iraqi-owned jet.

     […] Under terms of the contract, Iraq will buy 30 Boeing 737 commercial airplanes and 10 of the Chicago-based manufacturer’s new 787 “Dreamliners,” with options to purchase at least 15 more planes. The Dreamliner, which can seat up to 330 passengers, is the first new Boeing passenger model since the 777 was introduced in 1990.
     […]
     The first new 737s are not scheduled to be delivered until 2013, Iraqi officials said, and the last of the planes will not arrive until 2019.

     I can’t wait for the video of Iraqi citizens dancing in the street. Be sure to post a link to that here, Charles!
     I just hope they’ll still offer free peanuts to Iraqis who fly Iraqi Airlines. That’s even better than painted schools, and purple thumbs!

226. Perhaps Gary should read a book about Iraq. Here’s a suggestion.

227. Perhaps Gary should read a book about Iraq. Here’s a suggestion.

228. Perhaps Gary should read a book about Iraq. Here’s a suggestion.

229. I’ll pledge another $5 for DaveC to join the expedition.

230. I’ll pledge another $5 for DaveC to join the expedition.

231. I’ll pledge another $5 for DaveC to join the expedition.

232. Perhaps Gary should read a book about Iraq.
     Perhaps you’d be so good as to address Gary’s points and explain how and where he’s misguided.

233. Perhaps Gary should read a book about Iraq.
     Perhaps you’d be so good as to address Gary’s points and explain how and where he’s misguided.

234. Perhaps Gary should read a book about Iraq.
     Perhaps you’d be so good as to address Gary’s points and explain how and where he’s misguided.

235. I would gladly donate $25 to help make it possible for Charles to see Iraq and report on it, in the way that Gary suggests.

236. I would gladly donate $25 to help make it possible for Charles to see Iraq and report on it, in the way that Gary suggests.

237. I would gladly donate $25 to help make it possible for Charles to see Iraq and report on it, in the way that Gary suggests.

238. Speaking as someone who works in the airline industry, I can’t imagine a crummier investment right now than purchasing tons of new shiny incredibly expensive aircraft. Airlines are businesses that have become highly evolved at losing money; this basic fact is unlikely to change in the next decade or two. Plus, leasing aircraft is surprisingly cost effective. Many carriers opt to do that rather than purchase metal outright.
     If Charles or DaveC would seriously consider visiting Iraq, I’d be willing to put a non-trivial number of dollars to support that.

239. Speaking as someone who works in the airline industry, I can’t imagine a crummier investment right now than purchasing tons of new shiny incredibly expensive aircraft. Airlines are businesses that have become highly evolved at losing money; this basic fact is unlikely to change in the next decade or two. Plus, leasing aircraft is surprisingly cost effective. Many carriers opt to do that rather than purchase metal outright.
     If Charles or DaveC would seriously consider visiting Iraq, I’d be willing to put a non-trivial number of dollars to support that.

240. Speaking as someone who works in the airline industry, I can’t imagine a crummier investment right now than purchasing tons of new shiny incredibly expensive aircraft. Airlines are businesses that have become highly evolved at losing money; this basic fact is unlikely to change in the next decade or two. Plus, leasing aircraft is surprisingly cost effective. Many carriers opt to do that rather than purchase metal outright.
     If Charles or DaveC would seriously consider visiting Iraq, I’d be willing to put a non-trivial number of dollars to support that.

241. It’s all good.
     I’ve read some 50+ books on Iraq alone, incidentally, and something on the order of 800+ on the history and politics of the Middle East, and something on the order of another 1000+ that dealt significantly with the history and politics and cultures of the Middle East.
     I’ve also read most of what Michael Yon has written for the past 5 years.
     In case anyone was wondering. I’m sure, though, that people who are chipper about how well things are going in Iraq must be far more knowledgeable than I.
     Just like they care ever so much more about Israel, and antisemitism, and threats to the Jews, than I do.
     I am but an egg.

242. It’s all good.
     I’ve read some 50+ books on Iraq alone, incidentally, and something on the order of 800+ on the history and politics of the Middle East, and something on the order of another 1000+ that dealt significantly with the history and politics and cultures of the Middle East.
     I’ve also read most of what Michael Yon has written for the past 5 years.
     In case anyone was wondering. I’m sure, though, that people who are chipper about how well things are going in Iraq must be far more knowledgeable than I.
     Just like they care ever so much more about Israel, and antisemitism, and threats to the Jews, than I do.
     I am but an egg.

243. It’s all good.
     I’ve read some 50+ books on Iraq alone, incidentally, and something on the order of 800+ on the history and politics of the Middle East, and something on the order of another 1000+ that dealt significantly with the history and politics and cultures of the Middle East.
     I’ve also read most of what Michael Yon has written for the past 5 years.
     In case anyone was wondering. I’m sure, though, that people who are chipper about how well things are going in Iraq must be far more knowledgeable than I.
     Just like they care ever so much more about Israel, and antisemitism, and threats to the Jews, than I do.
     I am but an egg.

244. Indeed, Gary, indeed. You may know these things, but you don’t know them. And you may care about them, but you don’t care about them with right intent.
     For shame; oh, woe is thee!
     (And as an aside I concur, 07:30 stung mightily just to read as an observer. Aïaïaïaïaï…)

245. Indeed, Gary, indeed. You may know these things, but you don’t know them. And you may care about them, but you don’t care about them with right intent.
     For shame; oh, woe is thee!
     (And as an aside I concur, 07:30 stung mightily just to read as an observer. Aïaïaïaïaï…)

246. Indeed, Gary, indeed. You may know these things, but you don’t know them. And you may care about them, but you don’t care about them with right intent.
     For shame; oh, woe is thee!
     (And as an aside I concur, 07:30 stung mightily just to read as an observer. Aïaïaïaïaï…)

247. To The Iraqis: I wish you the best for your country. I can’t imagine what it’s like to have a genocidal dictator like Saddam followed by 5 years of chaos and confusion in post-invasion Iraq. Please know that those in the coalition only want to help you, but some egregious decisions were made in 2003 (de-ba’athification, disbanding the Army, etc.). I hope our current mission has helped kick out the Takfiris and weakened the militia thugs. While my words may ring hallow, please know that I hope your country becomes prosperous and you have a better life.
     To The Troops: You guys are by far the best our generation has to offer. We count on you to do America’s most dangerous work. Please keep your experience in your heart, and consider entering a profession that will influence society after you transition from military service. I see a lot of problems with what America has become, and you may be our last hope to fix that. For the fallen and injured, we will never forget you.
     To The Lefty Pundits: While I understand that you may not like BushCo and his war, please consider that your frequent highlighting of the failures in Iraq may have a devastating psychological effect on those trying to make Iraq better. I am a huge cynic, but I think the current plan is on the right track (at least for Iraq).
     To The Right-winger Pundits: While Iran is certainly a troublemaker, you have to ask yourself if an all-out military conflict is really the solution to Hezbollah, EFPs, and a possible nuke. If it is, then you have to take into consideration the huge amount of life that will be lost as well as the fact that we will need a no-joke draft. Are you ready to make that sacrifice?

     Pretty much agreed.
     Read this again:
     While I understand that you may not like BushCo and his war, please consider that your frequent highlighting of the failures in Iraq may have a devastating psychological effect on those trying to make Iraq better.
     Is it so important to you for Bush to be defeated that you want Al Qaeda In Iraq, or Mogtada Al-Sadr to run the country? Was Basra better when religious police could kill musicians or bartenders? That was the way it was under the control of Al Sadr.
     If you want Iraq to be like Iran then you are ok here; if you think that Gaza would be a paradise were it not for the existence of Israel, if you think that Hugo Chavez and FARC are the good guys, that waving a Chomsky book and ranting against the USA at the United Nations is somehow virtuous because it is against the hated President Bush, well, then that is what you are.
     I am not going to change your mind, because I don’t think you really care if Iraq succeeds in making itself a normal country. You want Basra to be run by the Mahdi Army thugs again. You wish that Mosul was dominated by Al Qaeda. You deny or ignore the fact that the Kurdish part of Iraq is any better than under Saddam Hussein.
     But then what happens after Bush leaves office as a failure? Do we let Al Qaeda, Al-Sadr, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. just have their way? I think that is crazy, but I may just be stupid.
     By the way, I have sent Gary a few Jacksons and he still hate me. You as sholes that are taking up a collection for me are at least giving me a bit more love.

248. To The Iraqis: I wish you the best for your country. I can’t imagine what it’s like to have a genocidal dictator like Saddam followed by 5 years of chaos and confusion in post-invasion Iraq. Please know that those in the coalition only want to help you, but some egregious decisions were made in 2003 (de-ba’athification, disbanding the Army, etc.). I hope our current mission has helped kick out the Takfiris and weakened the militia thugs. While my words may ring hallow, please know that I hope your country becomes prosperous and you have a better life.
     To The Troops: You guys are by far the best our generation has to offer. We count on you to do America’s most dangerous work. Please keep your experience in your heart, and consider entering a profession that will influence society after you transition from military service. I see a lot of problems with what America has become, and you may be our last hope to fix that. For the fallen and injured, we will never forget you.
     To The Lefty Pundits: While I understand that you may not like BushCo and his war, please consider that your frequent highlighting of the failures in Iraq may have a devastating psychological effect on those trying to make Iraq better. I am a huge cynic, but I think the current plan is on the right track (at least for Iraq).
     To The Right-winger Pundits: While Iran is certainly a troublemaker, you have to ask yourself if an all-out military conflict is really the solution to Hezbollah, EFPs, and a possible nuke. If it is, then you have to take into consideration the huge amount of life that will be lost as well as the fact that we will need a no-joke draft. Are you ready to make that sacrifice?

     Pretty much agreed.
     Read this again:
     While I understand that you may not like BushCo and his war, please consider that your frequent highlighting of the failures in Iraq may have a devastating psychological effect on those trying to make Iraq better.
     Is it so important to you for Bush to be defeated that you want Al Qaeda In Iraq, or Mogtada Al-Sadr to run the country? Was Basra better when religious police could kill musicians or bartenders? That was the way it was under the control of Al Sadr.
     If you want Iraq to be like Iran then you are ok here; if you think that Gaza would be a paradise were it not for the existence of Israel, if you think that Hugo Chavez and FARC are the good guys, that waving a Chomsky book and ranting against the USA at the United Nations is somehow virtuous because it is against the hated President Bush, well, then that is what you are.
     I am not going to change your mind, because I don’t think you really care if Iraq succeeds in making itself a normal country. You want Basra to be run by the Mahdi Army thugs again. You wish that Mosul was dominated by Al Qaeda. You deny or ignore the fact that the Kurdish part of Iraq is any better than under Saddam Hussein.
     But then what happens after Bush leaves office as a failure? Do we let Al Qaeda, Al-Sadr, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. just have their way? I think that is crazy, but I may just be stupid.
     By the way, I have sent Gary a few Jacksons and he still hate me. You as sholes that are taking up a collection for me are at least giving me a bit more love.

249. To The Iraqis: I wish you the best for your country. I can’t imagine what it’s like to have a genocidal dictator like Saddam followed by 5 years of chaos and confusion in post-invasion Iraq. Please know that those in the coalition only want to help you, but some egregious decisions were made in 2003 (de-ba’athification, disbanding the Army, etc.). I hope our current mission has helped kick out the Takfiris and weakened the militia thugs. While my words may ring hallow, please know that I hope your country becomes prosperous and you have a better life.
     To The Troops: You guys are by far the best our generation has to offer. We count on you to do America’s most dangerous work. Please keep your experience in your heart, and consider entering a profession that will influence society after you transition from military service. I see a lot of problems with what America has become, and you may be our last hope to fix that. For the fallen and injured, we will never forget you.
     To The Lefty Pundits: While I understand that you may not like BushCo and his war, please consider that your frequent highlighting of the failures in Iraq may have a devastating psychological effect on those trying to make Iraq better. I am a huge cynic, but I think the current plan is on the right track (at least for Iraq).
     To The Right-winger Pundits: While Iran is certainly a troublemaker, you have to ask yourself if an all-out military conflict is really the solution to Hezbollah, EFPs, and a possible nuke. If it is, then you have to take into consideration the huge amount of life that will be lost as well as the fact that we will need a no-joke draft. Are you ready to make that sacrifice?

     Pretty much agreed.
     Read this again:
     While I understand that you may not like BushCo and his war, please consider that your frequent highlighting of the failures in Iraq may have a devastating psychological effect on those trying to make Iraq better.
     Is it so important to you for Bush to be defeated that you want Al Qaeda In Iraq, or Mogtada Al-Sadr to run the country? Was Basra better when religious police could kill musicians or bartenders? That was the way it was under the control of Al Sadr.
     If you want Iraq to be like Iran then you are ok here; if you think that Gaza would be a paradise were it not for the existence of Israel, if you think that Hugo Chavez and FARC are the good guys, that waving a Chomsky book and ranting against the USA at the United Nations is somehow virtuous because it is against the hated President Bush, well, then that is what you are.
     I am not going to change your mind, because I don’t think you really care if Iraq succeeds in making itself a normal country. You want Basra to be run by the Mahdi Army thugs again. You wish that Mosul was dominated by Al Qaeda. You deny or ignore the fact that the Kurdish part of Iraq is any better than under Saddam Hussein.
     But then what happens after Bush leaves office as a failure? Do we let Al Qaeda, Al-Sadr, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. just have their way? I think that is crazy, but I may just be stupid.
     By the way, I have sent Gary a few Jacksons and he still hate me. You as sholes that are taking up a collection for me are at least giving me a bit more love.

250. please consider that your frequent highlighting of the failures in Iraq may have a devastating psychological effect on those trying to make Iraq better
     Yeah, the defining characteristic of the soldiers of the US Army is that they burst into tears whenever anyone hurts their feelings. You’d think that might pose a real problem for combat effectiveness, but Sadr hasn’t yet figured out how to have his men scream “you’re ass looks big in those BDUs!” over a megaphone during a firefight.
     In any event, most of the criticism I’ve seen about Iraq has focused on the Whitehouse, the Pentagon, and the senior brass, groups that in my experience come in for plenty of criticism from military folk. But since you refuse to specify what on earth you’re talking about, its hard to argue with your points.
     By the way, you might do Lt Nixon the courtesy of linking to his blog post when you copy a big chunk of it.
     By the way, I have sent Gary a few Jacksons and he still hate me. You as sholes that are taking up a collection for me are at least giving me a bit more love.
     Actually, I was only willing to donate money to pay for your trip to Iraq; I won’t donate anything for the return trip.
     I can’t speak for Gary, but I get the sense that he may not respect you enough to hate you.
     Here’s a special message from this as shole: keep it classy DaveC, keep it classy.

251. please consider that your frequent highlighting of the failures in Iraq may have a devastating psychological effect on those trying to make Iraq better
     Yeah, the defining characteristic of the soldiers of the US Army is that they burst into tears whenever anyone hurts their feelings. You’d think that might pose a real problem for combat effectiveness, but Sadr hasn’t yet figured out how to have his men scream “you’re ass looks big in those BDUs!” over a megaphone during a firefight.
     In any event, most of the criticism I’ve seen about Iraq has focused on the Whitehouse, the Pentagon, and the senior brass, groups that in my experience come in for plenty of criticism from military folk. But since you refuse to specify what on earth you’re talking about, its hard to argue with your points.
     By the way, you might do Lt Nixon the courtesy of linking to his blog post when you copy a big chunk of it.
     By the way, I have sent Gary a few Jacksons and he still hate me. You as sholes that are taking up a collection for me are at least giving me a bit more love.
     Actually, I was only willing to donate money to pay for your trip to Iraq; I won’t donate anything for the return trip.
     I can’t speak for Gary, but I get the sense that he may not respect you enough to hate you.
     Here’s a special message from this as shole: keep it classy DaveC, keep it classy.

252. please consider that your frequent highlighting of the failures in Iraq may have a devastating psychological effect on those trying to make Iraq better
     Yeah, the defining characteristic of the soldiers of the US Army is that they burst into tears whenever anyone hurts their feelings. You’d think that might pose a real problem for combat effectiveness, but Sadr hasn’t yet figured out how to have his men scream “you’re ass looks big in those BDUs!” over a megaphone during a firefight.
     In any event, most of the criticism I’ve seen about Iraq has focused on the Whitehouse, the Pentagon, and the senior brass, groups that in my experience come in for plenty of criticism from military folk. But since you refuse to specify what on earth you’re talking about, its hard to argue with your points.
     By the way, you might do Lt Nixon the courtesy of linking to his blog post when you copy a big chunk of it.
     By the way, I have sent Gary a few Jacksons and he still hate me. You as sholes that are taking up a collection for me are at least giving me a bit more love.
     Actually, I was only willing to donate money to pay for your trip to Iraq; I won’t donate anything for the return trip.
     I can’t speak for Gary, but I get the sense that he may not respect you enough to hate you.
     Here’s a special message from this as shole: keep it classy DaveC, keep it classy.

253. On the al Qaeda front, U.S. Ambassador Crocker said yesterday that the terrorist group has “never been closer to defeat than they are now.”
     Funniest. Quote. Ever.

254. On the al Qaeda front, U.S. Ambassador Crocker said yesterday that the terrorist group has “never been closer to defeat than they are now.”
     Funniest. Quote. Ever.

255. On the al Qaeda front, U.S. Ambassador Crocker said yesterday that the terrorist group has “never been closer to defeat than they are now.”
     Funniest. Quote. Ever.

256. “And ‘no preconditions’? — code speak that Obama must emasculate himself while there and not use the visit to demonstrate how pointless the Iraq War is.”
     I think he was just being snarky about Obama’s stance on meeting with other countries without preconditions. In other words, “He’s willing to meet with Ahmadinejad, but he won’t even meet with Petraeus”.

257. “And ‘no preconditions’? — code speak that Obama must emasculate himself while there and not use the visit to demonstrate how pointless the Iraq War is.”
     I think he was just being snarky about Obama’s stance on meeting with other countries without preconditions. In other words, “He’s willing to meet with Ahmadinejad, but he won’t even meet with Petraeus”.

258. “And ‘no preconditions’? — code speak that Obama must emasculate himself while there and not use the visit to demonstrate how pointless the Iraq War is.”
     I think he was just being snarky about Obama’s stance on meeting with other countries without preconditions. In other words, “He’s willing to meet with Ahmadinejad, but he won’t even meet with Petraeus”.

259. Ah, Charles, you’re reduced to trolling your own blog. How the mighty have fallen.

260. Ah, Charles, you’re reduced to trolling your own blog. How the mighty have fallen.

261. Ah, Charles, you’re reduced to trolling your own blog. How the mighty have fallen.

262. I see that during your absence you’ve been sharpening the “stabbed in the back” smear in anticipation of an Obama victory in November.
     What smear, mattt? What are you talking about?
     has there been a point in the last 5 years when you couldn’t find someone willing to speak those words ?
     Did I miss something, cleek? I thought the surge strategy started around 14 months ago.
     This is as it should be. When McCain did his stroll through the market, the problem wasn’t that he was surrounded by security; it was that for some reason he took what he saw as indicative of normal life.
     Hil,
     I agree that, for security reasons, the two main presidential nominees shouldn’t be together in Iraq. For that matter, as a rule, they shouldn’t be in the same place at the same time, ‘cept for debates. But I disagree with your view that the Baghdad market that McCain wasn’t a part of normal life. Normal had actually resumed in that market. Here’s what Petraeus said on NPR about the day in Baghdad with McCain last year:

     JIM LEHRER: Senator McCain was with you last weekend in Baghdad. And he was talking about how he was able to walk around on the streets of Baghdad, particularly in a market. But today Iraqi tradesmen in Baghdad called that whole thing a propaganda move.
     What can you tell us about that? Was it just simply a propaganda move, a photo-op?
     GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: No, I mean, he spent an hour in the market. I was actually with him. He was in a baseball cap. He did wear body armor, because we advised that he ought to do that. Certainly, there was security around him. I mean, nobody ever wants to lose, you know, senior senator or the multinational force Iraq commander in their area of operations.
     But having said that, there were tens of thousands of Iraqis in that market. It’s the largest or second-largest market in Baghdad. It is one of those that has been hardened by the placement of concrete barriers literally all around it.
     And it may be as much as a kilometer, almost a mile long, so this is an enormous market, as I said, tens of thousands of Iraqis in it. He was not protected by a cocoon of security. Yep, there was security there, but he was out — actually he helped the Iraqi economy quite a bit, bought a number of carpets, in fact. And he haggled with the merchants himself, with an interpreter, and was moving all around very freely.
     So, I mean, he asked to be allowed to drive down the airport road, to be able to go out and actually see some parts of Baghdad that congressional delegations do not normally see. We go down to these markets fairly frequently, several times a week, to see how it’s going, and the revival of the markets is one of those indicators, in fact, that we watch.
     And it was good to be able to let him see one of these very vibrant markets, which, by the way, eight weeks ago, was hit by a car bomb, before right around the start of the Baghdad security operation, with devastating effects, with dozens and dozens of Iraqis killed, before vehicles were excluded from traveling into the market during its operation.
     JIM LEHRER: But as you know, the reports describe that situation slightly differently. They say there were armed helicopters overhead. There were armed Humvees all around. There were more than 100 armed U.S. troops around, protecting Senator McCain and the congressional delegation, that this was hardly a routine visit to a market. So which is it?
     GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: Well, there was considerable security, as I said, Jim, around it. Actually, there’s security when I go down there, as well.
     But having said that, I mean, a suicide vest bomber could have walked up to him just as easily as they could have walked up to me. We were not, you know, surrounding him, again, with some kind of cocoon of soldiers. He moved around freely.
     We have helicopters usually flying when I’m actually out in the markets, as well, I mean, sometimes whether you know it or not, because, as I mentioned, no one wants to lose, you know, some high-ranking guy on their watch.
     Again, having said that, there are snipers that are always possible. There are others who are possible in these marketplaces. You cannot control that kind of activity. And, again, I thought, you know, it was a fairly routine stop out there, in terms of just sort of strolling through a market, albeit with, you know, squads of guys out there in that marketplace.
     But they are fairly heavily patrolled markets anyway, with Iraqi — these markets are always controlled during the time that they’re in operation to prevent vehicles, in fact, from moving through the access barriers when those markets are open. They’re only allowed to move vehicles in and out, when the markets are shut, to deliver goods. And then they’re excluded.

     Second, the stated purpose of the surge was to enable political progress to occur. This is not happening.
     I would agree that not enough political progress has occurred, Hil, but a blanket statement that political progress “is not happening” is in direct contradiction with what Ambassador Crocker reported to Congress last month.
     We could have kept our casualties down in any number of ways — not letting soldiers off base, for instance. The surge works if the breathing space we give the Iraqis enables them to arrive at a political accommodation.
     This truly makes no sense to me, Hil. American soldiers have been taken out of the large FOBs and onto Iraqi streets, and since last August, military casualties have plummeted. The way we are giving them breathing space is by providing security to the populace, which is being achieved by having a visible joint Iraqi-American military presence.
     Fourth, whether or not the surge was a good idea has to do with more than whether it works. If it works, there are benefits. Whether it works or not, there are also costs — lives, money, and more. You have to weigh both.
     I agree that the current strategy is expensive, but I submit to you that the price of the present strategy was made this expensive by the huge and many mistakes and bad decisions in the pre-Petraeus era. In effect, I suggest that we’re still paying for blunders made in prior years. It still boils down to this: we are where we are. If it’s your position that some fair measure of success can be achieved in Iraq, then to me, a proper COIN strategy is the best vehicle for achieving it. If it’s your take that our venture in Iraq is irretrievably lost, then you would go with the Obama plan of removing all combat brigades in 16 months. I think it’s pretty clear that I’m in the former and you’re in the latter. I respect your opinion about it, but I don’t share it.

263. I see that during your absence you’ve been sharpening the “stabbed in the back” smear in anticipation of an Obama victory in November.
     What smear, mattt? What are you talking about?
     has there been a point in the last 5 years when you couldn’t find someone willing to speak those words ?
     Did I miss something, cleek? I thought the surge strategy started around 14 months ago.
     This is as it should be. When McCain did his stroll through the market, the problem wasn’t that he was surrounded by security; it was that for some reason he took what he saw as indicative of normal life.
     Hil,
     I agree that, for security reasons, the two main presidential nominees shouldn’t be together in Iraq. For that matter, as a rule, they shouldn’t be in the same place at the same time, ‘cept for debates. But I disagree with your view that the Baghdad market that McCain wasn’t a part of normal life. Normal had actually resumed in that market. Here’s what Petraeus said on NPR about the day in Baghdad with McCain last year:

     JIM LEHRER: Senator McCain was with you last weekend in Baghdad. And he was talking about how he was able to walk around on the streets of Baghdad, particularly in a market. But today Iraqi tradesmen in Baghdad called that whole thing a propaganda move.
     What can you tell us about that? Was it just simply a propaganda move, a photo-op?
     GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: No, I mean, he spent an hour in the market. I was actually with him. He was in a baseball cap. He did wear body armor, because we advised that he ought to do that. Certainly, there was security around him. I mean, nobody ever wants to lose, you know, senior senator or the multinational force Iraq commander in their area of operations.
     But having said that, there were tens of thousands of Iraqis in that market. It’s the largest or second-largest market in Baghdad. It is one of those that has been hardened by the placement of concrete barriers literally all around it.
     And it may be as much as a kilometer, almost a mile long, so this is an enormous market, as I said, tens of thousands of Iraqis in it. He was not protected by a cocoon of security. Yep, there was security there, but he was out — actually he helped the Iraqi economy quite a bit, bought a number of carpets, in fact. And he haggled with the merchants himself, with an interpreter, and was moving all around very freely.
     So, I mean, he asked to be allowed to drive down the airport road, to be able to go out and actually see some parts of Baghdad that congressional delegations do not normally see. We go down to these markets fairly frequently, several times a week, to see how it’s going, and the revival of the markets is one of those indicators, in fact, that we watch.
     And it was good to be able to let him see one of these very vibrant markets, which, by the way, eight weeks ago, was hit by a car bomb, before right around the start of the Baghdad security operation, with devastating effects, with dozens and dozens of Iraqis killed, before vehicles were excluded from traveling into the market during its operation.
     JIM LEHRER: But as you know, the reports describe that situation slightly differently. They say there were armed helicopters overhead. There were armed Humvees all around. There were more than 100 armed U.S. troops around, protecting Senator McCain and the congressional delegation, that this was hardly a routine visit to a market. So which is it?
     GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: Well, there was considerable security, as I said, Jim, around it. Actually, there’s security when I go down there, as well.
     But having said that, I mean, a suicide vest bomber could have walked up to him just as easily as they could have walked up to me. We were not, you know, surrounding him, again, with some kind of cocoon of soldiers. He moved around freely.
     We have helicopters usually flying when I’m actually out in the markets, as well, I mean, sometimes whether you know it or not, because, as I mentioned, no one wants to lose, you know, some high-ranking guy on their watch.
     Again, having said that, there are snipers that are always possible. There are others who are possible in these marketplaces. You cannot control that kind of activity. And, again, I thought, you know, it was a fairly routine stop out there, in terms of just sort of strolling through a market, albeit with, you know, squads of guys out there in that marketplace.
     But they are fairly heavily patrolled markets anyway, with Iraqi — these markets are always controlled during the time that they’re in operation to prevent vehicles, in fact, from moving through the access barriers when those markets are open. They’re only allowed to move vehicles in and out, when the markets are shut, to deliver goods. And then they’re excluded.

     Second, the stated purpose of the surge was to enable political progress to occur. This is not happening.
     I would agree that not enough political progress has occurred, Hil, but a blanket statement that political progress “is not happening” is in direct contradiction with what Ambassador Crocker reported to Congress last month.
     We could have kept our casualties down in any number of ways — not letting soldiers off base, for instance. The surge works if the breathing space we give the Iraqis enables them to arrive at a political accommodation.
     This truly makes no sense to me, Hil. American soldiers have been taken out of the large FOBs and onto Iraqi streets, and since last August, military casualties have plummeted. The way we are giving them breathing space is by providing security to the populace, which is being achieved by having a visible joint Iraqi-American military presence.
     Fourth, whether or not the surge was a good idea has to do with more than whether it works. If it works, there are benefits. Whether it works or not, there are also costs — lives, money, and more. You have to weigh both.
     I agree that the current strategy is expensive, but I submit to you that the price of the present strategy was made this expensive by the huge and many mistakes and bad decisions in the pre-Petraeus era. In effect, I suggest that we’re still paying for blunders made in prior years. It still boils down to this: we are where we are. If it’s your position that some fair measure of success can be achieved in Iraq, then to me, a proper COIN strategy is the best vehicle for achieving it. If it’s your take that our venture in Iraq is irretrievably lost, then you would go with the Obama plan of removing all combat brigades in 16 months. I think it’s pretty clear that I’m in the former and you’re in the latter. I respect your opinion about it, but I don’t share it.

264. I see that during your absence you’ve been sharpening the “stabbed in the back” smear in anticipation of an Obama victory in November.
     What smear, mattt? What are you talking about?
     has there been a point in the last 5 years when you couldn’t find someone willing to speak those words ?
     Did I miss something, cleek? I thought the surge strategy started around 14 months ago.
     This is as it should be. When McCain did his stroll through the market, the problem wasn’t that he was surrounded by security; it was that for some reason he took what he saw as indicative of normal life.
     Hil,
     I agree that, for security reasons, the two main presidential nominees shouldn’t be together in Iraq. For that matter, as a rule, they shouldn’t be in the same place at the same time, ‘cept for debates. But I disagree with your view that the Baghdad market that McCain wasn’t a part of normal life. Normal had actually resumed in that market. Here’s what Petraeus said on NPR about the day in Baghdad with McCain last year:

     JIM LEHRER: Senator McCain was with you last weekend in Baghdad. And he was talking about how he was able to walk around on the streets of Baghdad, particularly in a market. But today Iraqi tradesmen in Baghdad called that whole thing a propaganda move.
     What can you tell us about that? Was it just simply a propaganda move, a photo-op?
     GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: No, I mean, he spent an hour in the market. I was actually with him. He was in a baseball cap. He did wear body armor, because we advised that he ought to do that. Certainly, there was security around him. I mean, nobody ever wants to lose, you know, senior senator or the multinational force Iraq commander in their area of operations.
     But having said that, there were tens of thousands of Iraqis in that market. It’s the largest or second-largest market in Baghdad. It is one of those that has been hardened by the placement of concrete barriers literally all around it.
     And it may be as much as a kilometer, almost a mile long, so this is an enormous market, as I said, tens of thousands of Iraqis in it. He was not protected by a cocoon of security. Yep, there was security there, but he was out — actually he helped the Iraqi economy quite a bit, bought a number of carpets, in fact. And he haggled with the merchants himself, with an interpreter, and was moving all around very freely.
     So, I mean, he asked to be allowed to drive down the airport road, to be able to go out and actually see some parts of Baghdad that congressional delegations do not normally see. We go down to these markets fairly frequently, several times a week, to see how it’s going, and the revival of the markets is one of those indicators, in fact, that we watch.
     And it was good to be able to let him see one of these very vibrant markets, which, by the way, eight weeks ago, was hit by a car bomb, before right around the start of the Baghdad security operation, with devastating effects, with dozens and dozens of Iraqis killed, before vehicles were excluded from traveling into the market during its operation.
     JIM LEHRER: But as you know, the reports describe that situation slightly differently. They say there were armed helicopters overhead. There were armed Humvees all around. There were more than 100 armed U.S. troops around, protecting Senator McCain and the congressional delegation, that this was hardly a routine visit to a market. So which is it?
     GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: Well, there was considerable security, as I said, Jim, around it. Actually, there’s security when I go down there, as well.
     But having said that, I mean, a suicide vest bomber could have walked up to him just as easily as they could have walked up to me. We were not, you know, surrounding him, again, with some kind of cocoon of soldiers. He moved around freely.
     We have helicopters usually flying when I’m actually out in the markets, as well, I mean, sometimes whether you know it or not, because, as I mentioned, no one wants to lose, you know, some high-ranking guy on their watch.
     Again, having said that, there are snipers that are always possible. There are others who are possible in these marketplaces. You cannot control that kind of activity. And, again, I thought, you know, it was a fairly routine stop out there, in terms of just sort of strolling through a market, albeit with, you know, squads of guys out there in that marketplace.
     But they are fairly heavily patrolled markets anyway, with Iraqi — these markets are always controlled during the time that they’re in operation to prevent vehicles, in fact, from moving through the access barriers when those markets are open. They’re only allowed to move vehicles in and out, when the markets are shut, to deliver goods. And then they’re excluded.

     Second, the stated purpose of the surge was to enable political progress to occur. This is not happening.
     I would agree that not enough political progress has occurred, Hil, but a blanket statement that political progress “is not happening” is in direct contradiction with what Ambassador Crocker reported to Congress last month.
     We could have kept our casualties down in any number of ways — not letting soldiers off base, for instance. The surge works if the breathing space we give the Iraqis enables them to arrive at a political accommodation.
     This truly makes no sense to me, Hil. American soldiers have been taken out of the large FOBs and onto Iraqi streets, and since last August, military casualties have plummeted. The way we are giving them breathing space is by providing security to the populace, which is being achieved by having a visible joint Iraqi-American military presence.
     Fourth, whether or not the surge was a good idea has to do with more than whether it works. If it works, there are benefits. Whether it works or not, there are also costs — lives, money, and more. You have to weigh both.
     I agree that the current strategy is expensive, but I submit to you that the price of the present strategy was made this expensive by the huge and many mistakes and bad decisions in the pre-Petraeus era. In effect, I suggest that we’re still paying for blunders made in prior years. It still boils down to this: we are where we are. If it’s your position that some fair measure of success can be achieved in Iraq, then to me, a proper COIN strategy is the best vehicle for achieving it. If it’s your take that our venture in Iraq is irretrievably lost, then you would go with the Obama plan of removing all combat brigades in 16 months. I think it’s pretty clear that I’m in the former and you’re in the latter. I respect your opinion about it, but I don’t share it.

265. um, Powers didn’t call Clinton a monster on British television. She said it off the record to a reporter, and I am really tired of hearing that out of context. She said she was campaigning like a monster in Ohio, which she was.
     mathew, you’re right that she said it to a UK newspaper and not British television, so I corrected the post. But the words she said are damning:

     “We f***** up in Ohio,” she admitted. “In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio’s the only place they can win.
     “She is a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything,” Ms Power said, hastily trying to withdraw her remark.

     She said “she is a monster”, then tried to soften it by saying that Hillary was “stooping to anything” to win. The results speak for themselves. Power resigned shortly after the comment. As for the comment being off the record, the reporter answers here. The tape was on, and the British have different rules when it comes to on-record and off-record comments. It’s really too bad for Power. Her only real offense was that spoke with too much candor.

266. um, Powers didn’t call Clinton a monster on British television. She said it off the record to a reporter, and I am really tired of hearing that out of context. She said she was campaigning like a monster in Ohio, which she was.
     mathew, you’re right that she said it to a UK newspaper and not British television, so I corrected the post. But the words she said are damning:

     “We f***** up in Ohio,” she admitted. “In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio’s the only place they can win.
     “She is a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything,” Ms Power said, hastily trying to withdraw her remark.

     She said “she is a monster”, then tried to soften it by saying that Hillary was “stooping to anything” to win. The results speak for themselves. Power resigned shortly after the comment. As for the comment being off the record, the reporter answers here. The tape was on, and the British have different rules when it comes to on-record and off-record comments. It’s really too bad for Power. Her only real offense was that spoke with too much candor.

267. um, Powers didn’t call Clinton a monster on British television. She said it off the record to a reporter, and I am really tired of hearing that out of context. She said she was campaigning like a monster in Ohio, which she was.
     mathew, you’re right that she said it to a UK newspaper and not British television, so I corrected the post. But the words she said are damning:

     “We f***** up in Ohio,” she admitted. “In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio’s the only place they can win.
     “She is a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything,” Ms Power said, hastily trying to withdraw her remark.

     She said “she is a monster”, then tried to soften it by saying that Hillary was “stooping to anything” to win. The results speak for themselves. Power resigned shortly after the comment. As for the comment being off the record, the reporter answers here. The tape was on, and the British have different rules when it comes to on-record and off-record comments. It’s really too bad for Power. Her only real offense was that spoke with too much candor.

268. The only strategy that’s working is the one that involves (a) betraying the Kurds, again, and (b) moving Iraq solidly into Iran’s sphere of influence.
     Francis, in what way are we betraying the Kurds? As for Iran, the removal of Saddam and the implementation of a Shiite-majority government did increase Iran’s influence in Iraq. To the extent that that influence spreads their fundamnetalist doctrine and sows unrest, that is indeed a problem.
     I find it hard to credit the notion that a center-rightist like Obama cares one wit about the opinions of the hard left.
     NV, Obama’s a center-rightist? National Journal had Obama as the most liberal Senator in 2007, and the Americans for Democratic Action gave him a 75% rating (100% is supreme ultimate liberal). I haven’t seen evidence to suggest that he is anything but a solid left liberal.

269. The only strategy that’s working is the one that involves (a) betraying the Kurds, again, and (b) moving Iraq solidly into Iran’s sphere of influence.
     Francis, in what way are we betraying the Kurds? As for Iran, the removal of Saddam and the implementation of a Shiite-majority government did increase Iran’s influence in Iraq. To the extent that that influence spreads their fundamnetalist doctrine and sows unrest, that is indeed a problem.
     I find it hard to credit the notion that a center-rightist like Obama cares one wit about the opinions of the hard left.
     NV, Obama’s a center-rightist? National Journal had Obama as the most liberal Senator in 2007, and the Americans for Democratic Action gave him a 75% rating (100% is supreme ultimate liberal). I haven’t seen evidence to suggest that he is anything but a solid left liberal.

270. The only strategy that’s working is the one that involves (a) betraying the Kurds, again, and (b) moving Iraq solidly into Iran’s sphere of influence.
     Francis, in what way are we betraying the Kurds? As for Iran, the removal of Saddam and the implementation of a Shiite-majority government did increase Iran’s influence in Iraq. To the extent that that influence spreads their fundamnetalist doctrine and sows unrest, that is indeed a problem.
     I find it hard to credit the notion that a center-rightist like Obama cares one wit about the opinions of the hard left.
     NV, Obama’s a center-rightist? National Journal had Obama as the most liberal Senator in 2007, and the Americans for Democratic Action gave him a 75% rating (100% is supreme ultimate liberal). I haven’t seen evidence to suggest that he is anything but a solid left liberal.

271. Thanks to all who responded. All together I think you’ve proposed reasonable benchmarks for “political progress”. Reasonable from the perspective that you would acknowledge progress at those points, not that I believe they are attainable any time soon.
     Charles I admire your continued optimism, your persistence, and your willingness to come into the lion’s den here with a large steak tied around your neck. 😉 I wish I could share your optimism, but I can’t.

272. Thanks to all who responded. All together I think you’ve proposed reasonable benchmarks for “political progress”. Reasonable from the perspective that you would acknowledge progress at those points, not that I believe they are attainable any time soon.
     Charles I admire your continued optimism, your persistence, and your willingness to come into the lion’s den here with a large steak tied around your neck. 😉 I wish I could share your optimism, but I can’t.

273. Thanks to all who responded. All together I think you’ve proposed reasonable benchmarks for “political progress”. Reasonable from the perspective that you would acknowledge progress at those points, not that I believe they are attainable any time soon.
     Charles I admire your continued optimism, your persistence, and your willingness to come into the lion’s den here with a large steak tied around your neck. 😉 I wish I could share your optimism, but I can’t.

274. The Initial Command

     (photo: Department of Defense)
     The Obama campaign has categorically rejected John McCains proposal for a joint trip to Iraq, calling it a publicity stunt. Publicity stunt it most certainly is, but why is it automatically assumed t…

275. The Initial Command

     (photo: Department of Defense)
     The Obama campaign has categorically rejected John McCains proposal for a joint trip to Iraq, calling it a publicity stunt. Publicity stunt it most certainly is, but why is it automatically assumed t…

276. The Initial Command

     (photo: Department of Defense)
     The Obama campaign has categorically rejected John McCains proposal for a joint trip to Iraq, calling it a publicity stunt. Publicity stunt it most certainly is, but why is it automatically assumed t…

277. I think it’s a mistake to conflate political progress with reducing violence. In the long run, the two should converge, but most stable polities have been achieved by force of arms. In particular, most democracies seem to have been made possible by eradicating one of two irreconcilable sides in civil war, the USA included.
     For me, political progress in Iraq would be indicated by a shift in political identifications from ethno-religious terms to economic or philosophical ones. In this sense, I think buying a quiet life in the Sunni regions is merely delaying problems that may ultimately be worse for it. On the other hand, the contest between the Maliki regime and the Sadrist tendency at least has an element of class conflict, the powerful vs. the poor. Ten years from now the southern region will be probably be in better shape for this conflict, while the Sunni and Kurdish regions will be one-horse towns run by the local kingpins getting bought off by the Americans right now.

278. I think it’s a mistake to conflate political progress with reducing violence. In the long run, the two should converge, but most stable polities have been achieved by force of arms. In particular, most democracies seem to have been made possible by eradicating one of two irreconcilable sides in civil war, the USA included.
     For me, political progress in Iraq would be indicated by a shift in political identifications from ethno-religious terms to economic or philosophical ones. In this sense, I think buying a quiet life in the Sunni regions is merely delaying problems that may ultimately be worse for it. On the other hand, the contest between the Maliki regime and the Sadrist tendency at least has an element of class conflict, the powerful vs. the poor. Ten years from now the southern region will be probably be in better shape for this conflict, while the Sunni and Kurdish regions will be one-horse towns run by the local kingpins getting bought off by the Americans right now.

279. I think it’s a mistake to conflate political progress with reducing violence. In the long run, the two should converge, but most stable polities have been achieved by force of arms. In particular, most democracies seem to have been made possible by eradicating one of two irreconcilable sides in civil war, the USA included.
     For me, political progress in Iraq would be indicated by a shift in political identifications from ethno-religious terms to economic or philosophical ones. In this sense, I think buying a quiet life in the Sunni regions is merely delaying problems that may ultimately be worse for it. On the other hand, the contest between the Maliki regime and the Sadrist tendency at least has an element of class conflict, the powerful vs. the poor. Ten years from now the southern region will be probably be in better shape for this conflict, while the Sunni and Kurdish regions will be one-horse towns run by the local kingpins getting bought off by the Americans right now.

280. I am not going to change your mind, because I don’t think you really care if Iraq succeeds in making itself a normal country. You want Basra to be run by the Mahdi Army thugs again.
     If you understood that there’s a difference between wanting something and being able to make it happen, you might understand why people want to withdraw troops from Iraq.
     But I do have a question: why do you want America to have a budget deficit? Why do you want gasoline price to be so high? Why do you want Americans to go without cheap healthcare?
     Why are your ‘plans’ that involve just wanting something limited to Iraq? Why do you hate America?

281. I am not going to change your mind, because I don’t think you really care if Iraq succeeds in making itself a normal country. You want Basra to be run by the Mahdi Army thugs again.
     If you understood that there’s a difference between wanting something and being able to make it happen, you might understand why people want to withdraw troops from Iraq.
     But I do have a question: why do you want America to have a budget deficit? Why do you want gasoline price to be so high? Why do you want Americans to go without cheap healthcare?
     Why are your ‘plans’ that involve just wanting something limited to Iraq? Why do you hate America?

282. I am not going to change your mind, because I don’t think you really care if Iraq succeeds in making itself a normal country. You want Basra to be run by the Mahdi Army thugs again.
     If you understood that there’s a difference between wanting something and being able to make it happen, you might understand why people want to withdraw troops from Iraq.
     But I do have a question: why do you want America to have a budget deficit? Why do you want gasoline price to be so high? Why do you want Americans to go without cheap healthcare?
     Why are your ‘plans’ that involve just wanting something limited to Iraq? Why do you hate America?

283. In particular, most democracies seem to have been made possible by eradicating one of two irreconcilable sides in civil war, the USA included.
     I think your example actually illustrates the opposite. After the end of the armies-fighting-armies part of the struggle, North actually made huge concessions to the former Confederacy- and a long-term resistance was avoided. An analogy here would be if, after defeating Saddam, we had immediately be able to impose a government that satisfied all of the big factions, at least enough to keep them from going gun.
     Im not sure if that was possible under the circumstances (I think not, but who can tell?), but it certainly didnt happen.
     Once the genie is out of the bottle, I think it’s much more difficult. It might have been possible for the French to create a democratic, West-oriented Vietnam sometime after WWII, but once the guerrilla war had set in it became somewhere between difficult and impossible.

284. In particular, most democracies seem to have been made possible by eradicating one of two irreconcilable sides in civil war, the USA included.
     I think your example actually illustrates the opposite. After the end of the armies-fighting-armies part of the struggle, North actually made huge concessions to the former Confederacy- and a long-term resistance was avoided. An analogy here would be if, after defeating Saddam, we had immediately be able to impose a government that satisfied all of the big factions, at least enough to keep them from going gun.
     Im not sure if that was possible under the circumstances (I think not, but who can tell?), but it certainly didnt happen.
     Once the genie is out of the bottle, I think it’s much more difficult. It might have been possible for the French to create a democratic, West-oriented Vietnam sometime after WWII, but once the guerrilla war had set in it became somewhere between difficult and impossible.

285. In particular, most democracies seem to have been made possible by eradicating one of two irreconcilable sides in civil war, the USA included.
     I think your example actually illustrates the opposite. After the end of the armies-fighting-armies part of the struggle, North actually made huge concessions to the former Confederacy- and a long-term resistance was avoided. An analogy here would be if, after defeating Saddam, we had immediately be able to impose a government that satisfied all of the big factions, at least enough to keep them from going gun.
     Im not sure if that was possible under the circumstances (I think not, but who can tell?), but it certainly didnt happen.
     Once the genie is out of the bottle, I think it’s much more difficult. It might have been possible for the French to create a democratic, West-oriented Vietnam sometime after WWII, but once the guerrilla war had set in it became somewhere between difficult and impossible.

286. I see that during your absence you’ve been sharpening the “stabbed in the back” smear in anticipation of an Obama victory in November.
     What smear, mattt? What are you talking about?
     Let’s play ‘Let’s Pretend’ everyone! Today, Charles is pretending he doesn’t even understand what matt is talking about. Not that he thinks he isn’t doing that, but that he just plain has no idea what is being discussed.
     What’s next, “no hablo ingles”?’

287. I see that during your absence you’ve been sharpening the “stabbed in the back” smear in anticipation of an Obama victory in November.
     What smear, mattt? What are you talking about?
     Let’s play ‘Let’s Pretend’ everyone! Today, Charles is pretending he doesn’t even understand what matt is talking about. Not that he thinks he isn’t doing that, but that he just plain has no idea what is being discussed.
     What’s next, “no hablo ingles”?’

288. I see that during your absence you’ve been sharpening the “stabbed in the back” smear in anticipation of an Obama victory in November.
     What smear, mattt? What are you talking about?
     Let’s play ‘Let’s Pretend’ everyone! Today, Charles is pretending he doesn’t even understand what matt is talking about. Not that he thinks he isn’t doing that, but that he just plain has no idea what is being discussed.
     What’s next, “no hablo ingles”?’

289. What’s next, “no hablo ingles”?’
     Or perhaps a suggestion the parrot is just sleeping?

290. What’s next, “no hablo ingles”?’
     Or perhaps a suggestion the parrot is just sleeping?

291. What’s next, “no hablo ingles”?’
     Or perhaps a suggestion the parrot is just sleeping?

292. Sayth The Charles: But I disagree with your view that the Baghdad market that McCain wasn’t a part of normal life. Normal had actually resumed in that market.
     Normal =
     At least 61 people were killed and many more wounded in a three-pronged attack there on Feb. 12 involving two vehicle bombs and a roadside bomb….In recent weeks [before McCain’s visit], snipers hidden in Shorja’s bazaar have killed several people, merchants and the police say, and gunfights have erupted between militants and the Iraqi security forces in the area. cite
     The latest massacre of Iraqi children came as 21 Shia market workers were ambushed, bound and shot dead north of the capital. The victims came from the Baghdad market visited the previous day by John McCain, the US presidential candidate, who said that an American security plan in the capital was starting to show signs of progress. cite
     Today, CNN reported that they tried to visit the Shorja market, but it was too unsafe and they were unable to go:
     We got close to that marketplace today [Mar 16, 2008], Jim, but our own security advisers here in Iraq did not want us to go there. They didn’t believe it was safe for an American to be in that area. We were in a thriving marketplace nearby. cite
     You live in East St.Louis? Compton? Im curious.

293. Sayth The Charles: But I disagree with your view that the Baghdad market that McCain wasn’t a part of normal life. Normal had actually resumed in that market.
     Normal =
     At least 61 people were killed and many more wounded in a three-pronged attack there on Feb. 12 involving two vehicle bombs and a roadside bomb….In recent weeks [before McCain’s visit], snipers hidden in Shorja’s bazaar have killed several people, merchants and the police say, and gunfights have erupted between militants and the Iraqi security forces in the area. cite
     The latest massacre of Iraqi children came as 21 Shia market workers were ambushed, bound and shot dead north of the capital. The victims came from the Baghdad market visited the previous day by John McCain, the US presidential candidate, who said that an American security plan in the capital was starting to show signs of progress. cite
     Today, CNN reported that they tried to visit the Shorja market, but it was too unsafe and they were unable to go:
     We got close to that marketplace today [Mar 16, 2008], Jim, but our own security advisers here in Iraq did not want us to go there. They didn’t believe it was safe for an American to be in that area. We were in a thriving marketplace nearby. cite
     You live in East St.Louis? Compton? Im curious.

294. Sayth The Charles: But I disagree with your view that the Baghdad market that McCain wasn’t a part of normal life. Normal had actually resumed in that market.
     Normal =
     At least 61 people were killed and many more wounded in a three-pronged attack there on Feb. 12 involving two vehicle bombs and a roadside bomb….In recent weeks [before McCain’s visit], snipers hidden in Shorja’s bazaar have killed several people, merchants and the police say, and gunfights have erupted between militants and the Iraqi security forces in the area. cite
     The latest massacre of Iraqi children came as 21 Shia market workers were ambushed, bound and shot dead north of the capital. The victims came from the Baghdad market visited the previous day by John McCain, the US presidential candidate, who said that an American security plan in the capital was starting to show signs of progress. cite
     Today, CNN reported that they tried to visit the Shorja market, but it was too unsafe and they were unable to go:
     We got close to that marketplace today [Mar 16, 2008], Jim, but our own security advisers here in Iraq did not want us to go there. They didn’t believe it was safe for an American to be in that area. We were in a thriving marketplace nearby. cite
     You live in East St.Louis? Compton? Im curious.

295. The surge thing is silly, as for the last time, the Iraqi death toll (as measured by IBC, which admits that it undercounts) is almost perfectly correlated, rise and fall, with the level of commitment Sadarites have to the truce, which happened to have been announced at the very point (several months after the beginning of the truce) that deaths declined dramatically, even though Charles consistently and wrongfully attributed that decline to the surge.
     Justin, I give the surge strategy at least partial credit for the reduction in casualties. It’s not just because al Sadr called a ceasefire last August. Al Qaeda attacks have also dropped precipitously, due in part because Sunni tribal leaders chose to join forces with us. I agree with you that IBC and ICCC casualties undercount, but it seems reasonable that they would undercount consistently, which means that the trends are valid. Also, IBC and ICCC are the best sources available, so those are the numbers I use.
     Framing Obama’s situation as unique or sinister just makes you look silly.
     Wha? Tim, I commended Obama for considering going. I really don’t get what you’re saying. Could you explain?
     Except that both your posts say otherwise; it’s their entire point.
     ‘Fraid not, Gary. I don’t think it’s contradictory whatsoever to say that a strategy is working and at the same time say that we haven’t turned the corner. Because the country is on an improving trend strategywise, does not mean that those improvements are enough to make a permanent imprint on the situaton. This is why I agree with Gen. Petraeus that the situation remains fragile. I also don’t think it’s unfair to criticize (condemnation is a pretty strong word) Obama and Reid and others on their policies.
     Sorry, but down the road, when you try to claim that this post showed how you weren’t claiming things had been turned around, and that we’re on the road to success, no honest reader will let you get away with that claim.
     Suit yourself, Gary.
     As always, you completely refuse to discuss the only issues that matter in Iraq: how close is Iraq to achieving a popularly legitimate government, accepted as fairly representing both Sunni and Shi’a, Arab, Kurd, Turkmen, and all ethnicities and factions, and claiming and maintaining a reasonable monopoly of force?
     I linked to Crocker’s testimony. I agree that “only issues that matter” is political settlement as a long term objective, and a proper COIN strategy is a long-term strategy. I don’t know what the end result will be, only that I think this process is the best vehicle for achieving the best results. I hear that Democrats are highly in favor of process, but hasn’t been the case with Iraq. It’s more like “are we there yet?” Given the trends since last August, I think the present strategy is worth pursuing. As usual, I’m afraid that my response will leave you disappointed.

296. The surge thing is silly, as for the last time, the Iraqi death toll (as measured by IBC, which admits that it undercounts) is almost perfectly correlated, rise and fall, with the level of commitment Sadarites have to the truce, which happened to have been announced at the very point (several months after the beginning of the truce) that deaths declined dramatically, even though Charles consistently and wrongfully attributed that decline to the surge.
     Justin, I give the surge strategy at least partial credit for the reduction in casualties. It’s not just because al Sadr called a ceasefire last August. Al Qaeda attacks have also dropped precipitously, due in part because Sunni tribal leaders chose to join forces with us. I agree with you that IBC and ICCC casualties undercount, but it seems reasonable that they would undercount consistently, which means that the trends are valid. Also, IBC and ICCC are the best sources available, so those are the numbers I use.
     Framing Obama’s situation as unique or sinister just makes you look silly.
     Wha? Tim, I commended Obama for considering going. I really don’t get what you’re saying. Could you explain?
     Except that both your posts say otherwise; it’s their entire point.
     ‘Fraid not, Gary. I don’t think it’s contradictory whatsoever to say that a strategy is working and at the same time say that we haven’t turned the corner. Because the country is on an improving trend strategywise, does not mean that those improvements are enough to make a permanent imprint on the situaton. This is why I agree with Gen. Petraeus that the situation remains fragile. I also don’t think it’s unfair to criticize (condemnation is a pretty strong word) Obama and Reid and others on their policies.
     Sorry, but down the road, when you try to claim that this post showed how you weren’t claiming things had been turned around, and that we’re on the road to success, no honest reader will let you get away with that claim.
     Suit yourself, Gary.
     As always, you completely refuse to discuss the only issues that matter in Iraq: how close is Iraq to achieving a popularly legitimate government, accepted as fairly representing both Sunni and Shi’a, Arab, Kurd, Turkmen, and all ethnicities and factions, and claiming and maintaining a reasonable monopoly of force?
     I linked to Crocker’s testimony. I agree that “only issues that matter” is political settlement as a long term objective, and a proper COIN strategy is a long-term strategy. I don’t know what the end result will be, only that I think this process is the best vehicle for achieving the best results. I hear that Democrats are highly in favor of process, but hasn’t been the case with Iraq. It’s more like “are we there yet?” Given the trends since last August, I think the present strategy is worth pursuing. As usual, I’m afraid that my response will leave you disappointed.

297. The surge thing is silly, as for the last time, the Iraqi death toll (as measured by IBC, which admits that it undercounts) is almost perfectly correlated, rise and fall, with the level of commitment Sadarites have to the truce, which happened to have been announced at the very point (several months after the beginning of the truce) that deaths declined dramatically, even though Charles consistently and wrongfully attributed that decline to the surge.
     Justin, I give the surge strategy at least partial credit for the reduction in casualties. It’s not just because al Sadr called a ceasefire last August. Al Qaeda attacks have also dropped precipitously, due in part because Sunni tribal leaders chose to join forces with us. I agree with you that IBC and ICCC casualties undercount, but it seems reasonable that they would undercount consistently, which means that the trends are valid. Also, IBC and ICCC are the best sources available, so those are the numbers I use.
     Framing Obama’s situation as unique or sinister just makes you look silly.
     Wha? Tim, I commended Obama for considering going. I really don’t get what you’re saying. Could you explain?
     Except that both your posts say otherwise; it’s their entire point.
     ‘Fraid not, Gary. I don’t think it’s contradictory whatsoever to say that a strategy is working and at the same time say that we haven’t turned the corner. Because the country is on an improving trend strategywise, does not mean that those improvements are enough to make a permanent imprint on the situaton. This is why I agree with Gen. Petraeus that the situation remains fragile. I also don’t think it’s unfair to criticize (condemnation is a pretty strong word) Obama and Reid and others on their policies.
     Sorry, but down the road, when you try to claim that this post showed how you weren’t claiming things had been turned around, and that we’re on the road to success, no honest reader will let you get away with that claim.
     Suit yourself, Gary.
     As always, you completely refuse to discuss the only issues that matter in Iraq: how close is Iraq to achieving a popularly legitimate government, accepted as fairly representing both Sunni and Shi’a, Arab, Kurd, Turkmen, and all ethnicities and factions, and claiming and maintaining a reasonable monopoly of force?
     I linked to Crocker’s testimony. I agree that “only issues that matter” is political settlement as a long term objective, and a proper COIN strategy is a long-term strategy. I don’t know what the end result will be, only that I think this process is the best vehicle for achieving the best results. I hear that Democrats are highly in favor of process, but hasn’t been the case with Iraq. It’s more like “are we there yet?” Given the trends since last August, I think the present strategy is worth pursuing. As usual, I’m afraid that my response will leave you disappointed.

298. OC Steve: Charles I admire your continued optimism, your persistence, and your willingness to come into the lion’s den here with a large steak tied around your neck.
     Concur.

299. OC Steve: Charles I admire your continued optimism, your persistence, and your willingness to come into the lion’s den here with a large steak tied around your neck.
     Concur.

300. OC Steve: Charles I admire your continued optimism, your persistence, and your willingness to come into the lion’s den here with a large steak tied around your neck.
     Concur.

301. I agree with you that IBC and ICCC casualties undercount, but it seems reasonable that they would undercount consistently, which means that the trends are valid. Also, IBC and ICCC are the best sources available, so those are the numbers I use.
     There’s no reason to believe that IBC numbers undercount the true civilian death toll consistently. IBC’s methodology depends entirely on having multiple english-language media reports document civilian casualties. But the ability and willingness of english-language journalists to travel freely about Iraq has changed drastically over time. Many of these changes are completely uncorrelated with casualty trends: for example, when American media organizations decide to move resources away from Iraq reporting towards campaign coverage or when they decide that Iraq outside the green zone is simply too dangerous for any reporting. As a result, these media accounts increasingly depend on government reports, but the government is an interested party and appears to have manipulated such information in the past to achieve its own political ends. Insofar as ICCC numbers largely consist of Iraqi casualties, the exact same argument holds true.

302. I agree with you that IBC and ICCC casualties undercount, but it seems reasonable that they would undercount consistently, which means that the trends are valid. Also, IBC and ICCC are the best sources available, so those are the numbers I use.
     There’s no reason to believe that IBC numbers undercount the true civilian death toll consistently. IBC’s methodology depends entirely on having multiple english-language media reports document civilian casualties. But the ability and willingness of english-language journalists to travel freely about Iraq has changed drastically over time. Many of these changes are completely uncorrelated with casualty trends: for example, when American media organizations decide to move resources away from Iraq reporting towards campaign coverage or when they decide that Iraq outside the green zone is simply too dangerous for any reporting. As a result, these media accounts increasingly depend on government reports, but the government is an interested party and appears to have manipulated such information in the past to achieve its own political ends. Insofar as ICCC numbers largely consist of Iraqi casualties, the exact same argument holds true.

303. I agree with you that IBC and ICCC casualties undercount, but it seems reasonable that they would undercount consistently, which means that the trends are valid. Also, IBC and ICCC are the best sources available, so those are the numbers I use.
     There’s no reason to believe that IBC numbers undercount the true civilian death toll consistently. IBC’s methodology depends entirely on having multiple english-language media reports document civilian casualties. But the ability and willingness of english-language journalists to travel freely about Iraq has changed drastically over time. Many of these changes are completely uncorrelated with casualty trends: for example, when American media organizations decide to move resources away from Iraq reporting towards campaign coverage or when they decide that Iraq outside the green zone is simply too dangerous for any reporting. As a result, these media accounts increasingly depend on government reports, but the government is an interested party and appears to have manipulated such information in the past to achieve its own political ends. Insofar as ICCC numbers largely consist of Iraqi casualties, the exact same argument holds true.

304. I agree with you that IBC and ICCC casualties undercount, but it seems reasonable that they would undercount consistently,

     No, it doesn’t. And it’d be clear to someone who understands the methodology.
     That’s something you’ve admitted yourself, consistently. You don’t understand the statistics, you don’t understand the methodology–yet you rely on them to make your points.
     I think that’s a dangerous thing to do.

305. I agree with you that IBC and ICCC casualties undercount, but it seems reasonable that they would undercount consistently,

     No, it doesn’t. And it’d be clear to someone who understands the methodology.
     That’s something you’ve admitted yourself, consistently. You don’t understand the statistics, you don’t understand the methodology–yet you rely on them to make your points.
     I think that’s a dangerous thing to do.

306. I agree with you that IBC and ICCC casualties undercount, but it seems reasonable that they would undercount consistently,

     No, it doesn’t. And it’d be clear to someone who understands the methodology.
     That’s something you’ve admitted yourself, consistently. You don’t understand the statistics, you don’t understand the methodology–yet you rely on them to make your points.
     I think that’s a dangerous thing to do.

307. As usual, I’m afraid that my response will leave you disappointed.
     That’s because you’re response never actually gets to the meat of the matter. You think political settlement is possible. You think we’re moving forward, or capable of doing so. But never, ever, do we hear about how. I mean, we hear about the military side, from casualty counts to COIN strategies etc. But how are the Sunnis, al Sadr’s militias, Kurds, etc going to be induced to join a peaceful political settlement?
     What I really want is someone who thinks the war should continue, but doesn’t reach that conclusion by blocking out any information contradictory to a simplistic formulation that leads them to that conclusion. Maybe this is like asking for a logical defense of Intelligent Design, I dunno.
     When Charles says that the political progress needs more work he’s a quarter of the way there, but he doesn’t seem to want to go any further (of course, he’s still lapped the immobile DaveC). I never hear *how* those things are supposed to happen.
     How do we go from legitimizing the Sunni militias in Anbar to having a government monopoly on force? If al Sadr has militias, how can we go from there to inclusive government- ie how do we disarm him without a military victory. Or, if we do ‘defeat’ his militias, how does military victory by al Maliki’s faction translate into inclusive government? How are we *not* just aiding one side in a civil war? Abandoning the illusion that al Maliki’s faction is somehow morally superior to al Sadr’s (or less tied to Iran)- if military victory decides who rules, how do we get to a democracy?
     You quote Crocker- but let’s face it, anyone who claims with a straight face that the new de-Baathification reform was a good thing has to face the fact that it was supported by the Shi’a parties and *opposed* by many Sunni groups. … [a] document riddled with loopholes and caveats to the point that some Sunni and Shiite officials say it could actually exclude more former Baathists than it lets back in – particularly in the crucial security ministries that U.S. officials have called the key to their plans for eventual withdrawal from Iraq…. [some Shi’a interpretations] would ban members of even the lowest party levels from the most important ministries: justice, interior, defense, finance and foreign.
     That’s the level of seriousness we get for discussions of politics. Head in the sand, spin everything as a positive development (again- cease-fire is good news! al Maliki attacking al Sadr is good news! They stop fighting again, it’s good news!)
     And even Crocker doesn’t talk about the road forward. He just spins past events to suggest that they are positive. He doesn’t discuss how al Sadr’s supporters are going to join the political process, for example- just says that that needs to happen.
     You make a post full of snide attacks on Obama, suggest that he let himself be sucker-punched by McCain (ie that McCain has to induce him to care enough about Iraq to visit), say that you think things might get better, but no guarantees and no plan for how that’s going to happen.

308. As usual, I’m afraid that my response will leave you disappointed.
     That’s because you’re response never actually gets to the meat of the matter. You think political settlement is possible. You think we’re moving forward, or capable of doing so. But never, ever, do we hear about how. I mean, we hear about the military side, from casualty counts to COIN strategies etc. But how are the Sunnis, al Sadr’s militias, Kurds, etc going to be induced to join a peaceful political settlement?
     What I really want is someone who thinks the war should continue, but doesn’t reach that conclusion by blocking out any information contradictory to a simplistic formulation that leads them to that conclusion. Maybe this is like asking for a logical defense of Intelligent Design, I dunno.
     When Charles says that the political progress needs more work he’s a quarter of the way there, but he doesn’t seem to want to go any further (of course, he’s still lapped the immobile DaveC). I never hear *how* those things are supposed to happen.
     How do we go from legitimizing the Sunni militias in Anbar to having a government monopoly on force? If al Sadr has militias, how can we go from there to inclusive government- ie how do we disarm him without a military victory. Or, if we do ‘defeat’ his militias, how does military victory by al Maliki’s faction translate into inclusive government? How are we *not* just aiding one side in a civil war? Abandoning the illusion that al Maliki’s faction is somehow morally superior to al Sadr’s (or less tied to Iran)- if military victory decides who rules, how do we get to a democracy?
     You quote Crocker- but let’s face it, anyone who claims with a straight face that the new de-Baathification reform was a good thing has to face the fact that it was supported by the Shi’a parties and *opposed* by many Sunni groups. … [a] document riddled with loopholes and caveats to the point that some Sunni and Shiite officials say it could actually exclude more former Baathists than it lets back in – particularly in the crucial security ministries that U.S. officials have called the key to their plans for eventual withdrawal from Iraq…. [some Shi’a interpretations] would ban members of even the lowest party levels from the most important ministries: justice, interior, defense, finance and foreign.
     That’s the level of seriousness we get for discussions of politics. Head in the sand, spin everything as a positive development (again- cease-fire is good news! al Maliki attacking al Sadr is good news! They stop fighting again, it’s good news!)
     And even Crocker doesn’t talk about the road forward. He just spins past events to suggest that they are positive. He doesn’t discuss how al Sadr’s supporters are going to join the political process, for example- just says that that needs to happen.
     You make a post full of snide attacks on Obama, suggest that he let himself be sucker-punched by McCain (ie that McCain has to induce him to care enough about Iraq to visit), say that you think things might get better, but no guarantees and no plan for how that’s going to happen.

309. As usual, I’m afraid that my response will leave you disappointed.
     That’s because you’re response never actually gets to the meat of the matter. You think political settlement is possible. You think we’re moving forward, or capable of doing so. But never, ever, do we hear about how. I mean, we hear about the military side, from casualty counts to COIN strategies etc. But how are the Sunnis, al Sadr’s militias, Kurds, etc going to be induced to join a peaceful political settlement?
     What I really want is someone who thinks the war should continue, but doesn’t reach that conclusion by blocking out any information contradictory to a simplistic formulation that leads them to that conclusion. Maybe this is like asking for a logical defense of Intelligent Design, I dunno.
     When Charles says that the political progress needs more work he’s a quarter of the way there, but he doesn’t seem to want to go any further (of course, he’s still lapped the immobile DaveC). I never hear *how* those things are supposed to happen.
     How do we go from legitimizing the Sunni militias in Anbar to having a government monopoly on force? If al Sadr has militias, how can we go from there to inclusive government- ie how do we disarm him without a military victory. Or, if we do ‘defeat’ his militias, how does military victory by al Maliki’s faction translate into inclusive government? How are we *not* just aiding one side in a civil war? Abandoning the illusion that al Maliki’s faction is somehow morally superior to al Sadr’s (or less tied to Iran)- if military victory decides who rules, how do we get to a democracy?
     You quote Crocker- but let’s face it, anyone who claims with a straight face that the new de-Baathification reform was a good thing has to face the fact that it was supported by the Shi’a parties and *opposed* by many Sunni groups. … [a] document riddled with loopholes and caveats to the point that some Sunni and Shiite officials say it could actually exclude more former Baathists than it lets back in – particularly in the crucial security ministries that U.S. officials have called the key to their plans for eventual withdrawal from Iraq…. [some Shi’a interpretations] would ban members of even the lowest party levels from the most important ministries: justice, interior, defense, finance and foreign.
     That’s the level of seriousness we get for discussions of politics. Head in the sand, spin everything as a positive development (again- cease-fire is good news! al Maliki attacking al Sadr is good news! They stop fighting again, it’s good news!)
     And even Crocker doesn’t talk about the road forward. He just spins past events to suggest that they are positive. He doesn’t discuss how al Sadr’s supporters are going to join the political process, for example- just says that that needs to happen.
     You make a post full of snide attacks on Obama, suggest that he let himself be sucker-punched by McCain (ie that McCain has to induce him to care enough about Iraq to visit), say that you think things might get better, but no guarantees and no plan for how that’s going to happen.

310. The statistics regarding media coverage of the Iraq war alone are not valid proof that there has been progress in Iraq.
     Shinobi, I know this is hypothetical, but if the situation in Iraq was disintegrating in the first 10 weeks of 2008, do you think the amount of coverage would be the same?
     Secondly, I do not recall any statement by the Obama campaign repdudiating Smantha Power’s remarks about Obama’s Iraq policy. Can you produce such comments?
     I take Michael Dobbs at his word. He’s one of the better journalists I’ve seen, and his words stand unchanged since last March without refutation from the Obama campaign.
     You make a fair point that Obama wants to remove all combat brigades from Iraq because our military is strained. I think that’s a secondary reason at best. He could help unstrain the military by proposing to increase the numbers of personnel.
     Of course he wants Obama to go to Iraq where he will be fragged
     Let’s be clear about what getaclue is saying.

     Fragging Fragging is a term from the Vietnam War, used primarily by U.S. military personnel, most commonly meaning to assassinate an unpopular officer of one’s own fighting unit, often by means of a fragmentation grenade (hence the term).

     I take this to mean that getaclue is saying that I Obama to go to Iraq so that he’ll get assassinated. This is just about the worst kind of smear and insult, and a major posting rules violation to boot. I suggest that the powers-that-be skip the warning and go straight to some form of banning.

311. The statistics regarding media coverage of the Iraq war alone are not valid proof that there has been progress in Iraq.
     Shinobi, I know this is hypothetical, but if the situation in Iraq was disintegrating in the first 10 weeks of 2008, do you think the amount of coverage would be the same?
     Secondly, I do not recall any statement by the Obama campaign repdudiating Smantha Power’s remarks about Obama’s Iraq policy. Can you produce such comments?
     I take Michael Dobbs at his word. He’s one of the better journalists I’ve seen, and his words stand unchanged since last March without refutation from the Obama campaign.
     You make a fair point that Obama wants to remove all combat brigades from Iraq because our military is strained. I think that’s a secondary reason at best. He could help unstrain the military by proposing to increase the numbers of personnel.
     Of course he wants Obama to go to Iraq where he will be fragged
     Let’s be clear about what getaclue is saying.

     Fragging Fragging is a term from the Vietnam War, used primarily by U.S. military personnel, most commonly meaning to assassinate an unpopular officer of one’s own fighting unit, often by means of a fragmentation grenade (hence the term).

     I take this to mean that getaclue is saying that I Obama to go to Iraq so that he’ll get assassinated. This is just about the worst kind of smear and insult, and a major posting rules violation to boot. I suggest that the powers-that-be skip the warning and go straight to some form of banning.

312. The statistics regarding media coverage of the Iraq war alone are not valid proof that there has been progress in Iraq.
     Shinobi, I know this is hypothetical, but if the situation in Iraq was disintegrating in the first 10 weeks of 2008, do you think the amount of coverage would be the same?
     Secondly, I do not recall any statement by the Obama campaign repdudiating Smantha Power’s remarks about Obama’s Iraq policy. Can you produce such comments?
     I take Michael Dobbs at his word. He’s one of the better journalists I’ve seen, and his words stand unchanged since last March without refutation from the Obama campaign.
     You make a fair point that Obama wants to remove all combat brigades from Iraq because our military is strained. I think that’s a secondary reason at best. He could help unstrain the military by proposing to increase the numbers of personnel.
     Of course he wants Obama to go to Iraq where he will be fragged
     Let’s be clear about what getaclue is saying.

     Fragging Fragging is a term from the Vietnam War, used primarily by U.S. military personnel, most commonly meaning to assassinate an unpopular officer of one’s own fighting unit, often by means of a fragmentation grenade (hence the term).

     I take this to mean that getaclue is saying that I Obama to go to Iraq so that he’ll get assassinated. This is just about the worst kind of smear and insult, and a major posting rules violation to boot. I suggest that the powers-that-be skip the warning and go straight to some form of banning.

313. You make a fair point that Obama wants to remove all combat brigades from Iraq because our military is strained. I think that’s a secondary reason at best. He could help unstrain the military by proposing to increase the numbers of personnel.
     Actually, he can’t do that in any practical sense. If you think he can, then you need to explain how a major increase in forces would be paid for, and why you think such a buildup of forces could possibly be performed in a reasonable amount of time.
     I don’t think you understand this point Charles: soldiers are not widgets coming off an assembly line whose production can simply be ramped up at your whims. At best, they take a long time to develop proficiency, especially if you’re talking about the mid level officers that we’re short of. In any event, the public doesn’t like this war. That depresses recruitment and the ever present news stories about how the government is screwing over veterans doesn’t help either. The latter issue isn’t just a media problem: people can see veterans getting screwed over in their communities and their families.

314. You make a fair point that Obama wants to remove all combat brigades from Iraq because our military is strained. I think that’s a secondary reason at best. He could help unstrain the military by proposing to increase the numbers of personnel.
     Actually, he can’t do that in any practical sense. If you think he can, then you need to explain how a major increase in forces would be paid for, and why you think such a buildup of forces could possibly be performed in a reasonable amount of time.
     I don’t think you understand this point Charles: soldiers are not widgets coming off an assembly line whose production can simply be ramped up at your whims. At best, they take a long time to develop proficiency, especially if you’re talking about the mid level officers that we’re short of. In any event, the public doesn’t like this war. That depresses recruitment and the ever present news stories about how the government is screwing over veterans doesn’t help either. The latter issue isn’t just a media problem: people can see veterans getting screwed over in their communities and their families.

315. You make a fair point that Obama wants to remove all combat brigades from Iraq because our military is strained. I think that’s a secondary reason at best. He could help unstrain the military by proposing to increase the numbers of personnel.
     Actually, he can’t do that in any practical sense. If you think he can, then you need to explain how a major increase in forces would be paid for, and why you think such a buildup of forces could possibly be performed in a reasonable amount of time.
     I don’t think you understand this point Charles: soldiers are not widgets coming off an assembly line whose production can simply be ramped up at your whims. At best, they take a long time to develop proficiency, especially if you’re talking about the mid level officers that we’re short of. In any event, the public doesn’t like this war. That depresses recruitment and the ever present news stories about how the government is screwing over veterans doesn’t help either. The latter issue isn’t just a media problem: people can see veterans getting screwed over in their communities and their families.

316. He could help unstrain the military by proposing to increase the numbers of personnel.
     Because volunteers are queued around the block to join up… I was under the impression that the army was doing everything short of stapling soldiers’ feet to the floor of the humvee to maintain numbers.
     You are right though that the strain on the military is only a second order consideration. If the war was worth fighting to this degree, certainly the military should just have to deal. I think Obama’s point is that it’s not, and it shouldn’t.
     I don’t think it has occurred to you that the corollary for decreased violence, should it obtain, will be growing resentment at the US presence. No one’s going to thank you at the end of all this. Apart from the accidental quotidian injustices of a foreign occupation, all armies bread crime, trafficking in contraband and prostitution. Western armies are certainly much better than most others in this regard, but certainly not immune. And these problems grow steadily the longer an army is stuck in one place. They are also particularly problematic if the army is located in a very foreign culture, as is the case with the US army in Iraq.

317. He could help unstrain the military by proposing to increase the numbers of personnel.
     Because volunteers are queued around the block to join up… I was under the impression that the army was doing everything short of stapling soldiers’ feet to the floor of the humvee to maintain numbers.
     You are right though that the strain on the military is only a second order consideration. If the war was worth fighting to this degree, certainly the military should just have to deal. I think Obama’s point is that it’s not, and it shouldn’t.
     I don’t think it has occurred to you that the corollary for decreased violence, should it obtain, will be growing resentment at the US presence. No one’s going to thank you at the end of all this. Apart from the accidental quotidian injustices of a foreign occupation, all armies bread crime, trafficking in contraband and prostitution. Western armies are certainly much better than most others in this regard, but certainly not immune. And these problems grow steadily the longer an army is stuck in one place. They are also particularly problematic if the army is located in a very foreign culture, as is the case with the US army in Iraq.

318. He could help unstrain the military by proposing to increase the numbers of personnel.
     Because volunteers are queued around the block to join up… I was under the impression that the army was doing everything short of stapling soldiers’ feet to the floor of the humvee to maintain numbers.
     You are right though that the strain on the military is only a second order consideration. If the war was worth fighting to this degree, certainly the military should just have to deal. I think Obama’s point is that it’s not, and it shouldn’t.
     I don’t think it has occurred to you that the corollary for decreased violence, should it obtain, will be growing resentment at the US presence. No one’s going to thank you at the end of all this. Apart from the accidental quotidian injustices of a foreign occupation, all armies bread crime, trafficking in contraband and prostitution. Western armies are certainly much better than most others in this regard, but certainly not immune. And these problems grow steadily the longer an army is stuck in one place. They are also particularly problematic if the army is located in a very foreign culture, as is the case with the US army in Iraq.

319. CB: “You make a fair point that Obama wants to remove all combat brigades from Iraq because our military is strained. I think that’s a secondary reason at best. He could help unstrain the military by proposing to increase the numbers of personnel.”
     Increase the numbers of personnel? IOW, in military terms, “reinforce failure”? Sorry Charles, but when the basic desire of the American public – to say nothing of the Iraqi public – is oriented (except, of course, for the jingo/warmonger fringe) towards reducing and/or ending the US’ increasingly counterproductive occupation of Iraq, do you really think that a call for throwing more troops into the meatgrinder is going to be anything other than political suicide?
     Jeez: even your idol, Hero Boy McCain hasn’t gone out on that particular limb: there’s a reason why he has stuck to his future-perfect fantasies in re Iraq: calling for troop increases would seal his fate. Obama’s “16-month withdrawal schedule” may not be the wisest or most practicable of plans, but it at least aims at a final result WAY more in line with public sentiment. Sorry if that bothers you, CB: but it’s called “democracy”.

320. CB: “You make a fair point that Obama wants to remove all combat brigades from Iraq because our military is strained. I think that’s a secondary reason at best. He could help unstrain the military by proposing to increase the numbers of personnel.”
     Increase the numbers of personnel? IOW, in military terms, “reinforce failure”? Sorry Charles, but when the basic desire of the American public – to say nothing of the Iraqi public – is oriented (except, of course, for the jingo/warmonger fringe) towards reducing and/or ending the US’ increasingly counterproductive occupation of Iraq, do you really think that a call for throwing more troops into the meatgrinder is going to be anything other than political suicide?
     Jeez: even your idol, Hero Boy McCain hasn’t gone out on that particular limb: there’s a reason why he has stuck to his future-perfect fantasies in re Iraq: calling for troop increases would seal his fate. Obama’s “16-month withdrawal schedule” may not be the wisest or most practicable of plans, but it at least aims at a final result WAY more in line with public sentiment. Sorry if that bothers you, CB: but it’s called “democracy”.

321. CB: “You make a fair point that Obama wants to remove all combat brigades from Iraq because our military is strained. I think that’s a secondary reason at best. He could help unstrain the military by proposing to increase the numbers of personnel.”
     Increase the numbers of personnel? IOW, in military terms, “reinforce failure”? Sorry Charles, but when the basic desire of the American public – to say nothing of the Iraqi public – is oriented (except, of course, for the jingo/warmonger fringe) towards reducing and/or ending the US’ increasingly counterproductive occupation of Iraq, do you really think that a call for throwing more troops into the meatgrinder is going to be anything other than political suicide?
     Jeez: even your idol, Hero Boy McCain hasn’t gone out on that particular limb: there’s a reason why he has stuck to his future-perfect fantasies in re Iraq: calling for troop increases would seal his fate. Obama’s “16-month withdrawal schedule” may not be the wisest or most practicable of plans, but it at least aims at a final result WAY more in line with public sentiment. Sorry if that bothers you, CB: but it’s called “democracy”.

322. Oh, and BTW, Charles: if you see “unstraining the military” as Sen. Obama’s “secondary” reason for avocating troop withdrawals, what do you imaging the primary reason is?

323. Oh, and BTW, Charles: if you see “unstraining the military” as Sen. Obama’s “secondary” reason for avocating troop withdrawals, what do you imaging the primary reason is?

324. Oh, and BTW, Charles: if you see “unstraining the military” as Sen. Obama’s “secondary” reason for avocating troop withdrawals, what do you imaging the primary reason is?

325. Quoting Dobbs:
     Power’s candor was evidently too much for the Obama camp, which promptly disowned her remarks.
     Charles:I take Michael Dobbs at his word. He’s one of the better journalists I’ve seen, and his words stand unchanged since last March without refutation from the Obama campaign.
     Dobbs claimed that the Obama campaign disowned her remarks. That would mean that they made a public statement, yes? Are you seriously claiming that they made some kind of secret disavowal, but publicly they’ve not done so? Maybe it was a double-extra-secret disavowal, available only to journalists with impeccable credentials.
     That would be pretty bizarre. Isn’t the point of a disavowal that it takes place public ally? If so, shouldn’t there be a press release or quote someplace backing this up?
     Or is this another example of believing what you want to believe rather than getting all fussy about things like evidence?
     That’s not saying that the Obama campaign didn’t make such a statement, just that your reliance on Dobbs’s statement is weird. I mean, if you can’t bother to look for a disavowal from the Obama campaign, how could you possibly be sure that they haven’t attempted a refutation? Maybe while you were performing that exhaustive check for refutations, you could’ve looked for the actual evidence.

326. Quoting Dobbs:
     Power’s candor was evidently too much for the Obama camp, which promptly disowned her remarks.
     Charles:I take Michael Dobbs at his word. He’s one of the better journalists I’ve seen, and his words stand unchanged since last March without refutation from the Obama campaign.
     Dobbs claimed that the Obama campaign disowned her remarks. That would mean that they made a public statement, yes? Are you seriously claiming that they made some kind of secret disavowal, but publicly they’ve not done so? Maybe it was a double-extra-secret disavowal, available only to journalists with impeccable credentials.
     That would be pretty bizarre. Isn’t the point of a disavowal that it takes place public ally? If so, shouldn’t there be a press release or quote someplace backing this up?
     Or is this another example of believing what you want to believe rather than getting all fussy about things like evidence?
     That’s not saying that the Obama campaign didn’t make such a statement, just that your reliance on Dobbs’s statement is weird. I mean, if you can’t bother to look for a disavowal from the Obama campaign, how could you possibly be sure that they haven’t attempted a refutation? Maybe while you were performing that exhaustive check for refutations, you could’ve looked for the actual evidence.

327. Quoting Dobbs:
     Power’s candor was evidently too much for the Obama camp, which promptly disowned her remarks.
     Charles:I take Michael Dobbs at his word. He’s one of the better journalists I’ve seen, and his words stand unchanged since last March without refutation from the Obama campaign.
     Dobbs claimed that the Obama campaign disowned her remarks. That would mean that they made a public statement, yes? Are you seriously claiming that they made some kind of secret disavowal, but publicly they’ve not done so? Maybe it was a double-extra-secret disavowal, available only to journalists with impeccable credentials.
     That would be pretty bizarre. Isn’t the point of a disavowal that it takes place public ally? If so, shouldn’t there be a press release or quote someplace backing this up?
     Or is this another example of believing what you want to believe rather than getting all fussy about things like evidence?
     That’s not saying that the Obama campaign didn’t make such a statement, just that your reliance on Dobbs’s statement is weird. I mean, if you can’t bother to look for a disavowal from the Obama campaign, how could you possibly be sure that they haven’t attempted a refutation? Maybe while you were performing that exhaustive check for refutations, you could’ve looked for the actual evidence.

328. Is it so important to you for Bush to be defeated that you want Al Qaeda In Iraq, or Mogtada Al-Sadr to run the country?
     AQI is a fringe group of a 20% minority. So fringe, that most of that 20% minority has turned against it. The claim that AQI could defeat the majority of Sunnis, all the Shiites and all the Kurds in order to run Iraq is sophomoric, although that gives sophomoric a bad name.
     Was Basra better when religious police could kill musicians or bartenders? That was the way it was under the control of Al Sadr.
     Basra was never controlled by the Sadrists. It was then, and is now, controlled by Fadila. Which is a party formed as an offshoot to Sadrism. Fadila are religiously conservative as well. So is ISCI and Dawa. In fact, after a few days, the musicians and bartenders are being targeted and shut down again. As are women.
     You deny or ignore the fact that the Kurdish part of Iraq is any better than under Saddam Hussein.
     The Kurdish part of Iraq starting doing better when we imposed and enforced the no-fly zone up north in the early 90’s. If not for an intra-Kurdish civil war, it would have been even better. Things have improved in Kurdistan post-invasion, but the most dramatic improvement occurred after the first Gulf War.
     But hey, if it makes you feel better, we’ve spent trillions of dollars, wasted hundreds of thousands of lives, created millions of refugees, greatly empowered Iran, greatly weakened our military, greatly tarnished our image and standing worldwide and ignored so many other pressing needs for the sake of further improving conditions in Kurdistan.
     Yay.

329. Is it so important to you for Bush to be defeated that you want Al Qaeda In Iraq, or Mogtada Al-Sadr to run the country?
     AQI is a fringe group of a 20% minority. So fringe, that most of that 20% minority has turned against it. The claim that AQI could defeat the majority of Sunnis, all the Shiites and all the Kurds in order to run Iraq is sophomoric, although that gives sophomoric a bad name.
     Was Basra better when religious police could kill musicians or bartenders? That was the way it was under the control of Al Sadr.
     Basra was never controlled by the Sadrists. It was then, and is now, controlled by Fadila. Which is a party formed as an offshoot to Sadrism. Fadila are religiously conservative as well. So is ISCI and Dawa. In fact, after a few days, the musicians and bartenders are being targeted and shut down again. As are women.
     You deny or ignore the fact that the Kurdish part of Iraq is any better than under Saddam Hussein.
     The Kurdish part of Iraq starting doing better when we imposed and enforced the no-fly zone up north in the early 90’s. If not for an intra-Kurdish civil war, it would have been even better. Things have improved in Kurdistan post-invasion, but the most dramatic improvement occurred after the first Gulf War.
     But hey, if it makes you feel better, we’ve spent trillions of dollars, wasted hundreds of thousands of lives, created millions of refugees, greatly empowered Iran, greatly weakened our military, greatly tarnished our image and standing worldwide and ignored so many other pressing needs for the sake of further improving conditions in Kurdistan.
     Yay.

330. Is it so important to you for Bush to be defeated that you want Al Qaeda In Iraq, or Mogtada Al-Sadr to run the country?
     AQI is a fringe group of a 20% minority. So fringe, that most of that 20% minority has turned against it. The claim that AQI could defeat the majority of Sunnis, all the Shiites and all the Kurds in order to run Iraq is sophomoric, although that gives sophomoric a bad name.
     Was Basra better when religious police could kill musicians or bartenders? That was the way it was under the control of Al Sadr.
     Basra was never controlled by the Sadrists. It was then, and is now, controlled by Fadila. Which is a party formed as an offshoot to Sadrism. Fadila are religiously conservative as well. So is ISCI and Dawa. In fact, after a few days, the musicians and bartenders are being targeted and shut down again. As are women.
     You deny or ignore the fact that the Kurdish part of Iraq is any better than under Saddam Hussein.
     The Kurdish part of Iraq starting doing better when we imposed and enforced the no-fly zone up north in the early 90’s. If not for an intra-Kurdish civil war, it would have been even better. Things have improved in Kurdistan post-invasion, but the most dramatic improvement occurred after the first Gulf War.
     But hey, if it makes you feel better, we’ve spent trillions of dollars, wasted hundreds of thousands of lives, created millions of refugees, greatly empowered Iran, greatly weakened our military, greatly tarnished our image and standing worldwide and ignored so many other pressing needs for the sake of further improving conditions in Kurdistan.
     Yay.

331. One more thing:
     Gary Farber pwned this thread. If this thread were a game ball, it would go to him.

332. One more thing:
     Gary Farber pwned this thread. If this thread were a game ball, it would go to him.

333. One more thing:
     Gary Farber pwned this thread. If this thread were a game ball, it would go to him.

334. but no guarantees and no plan for how that’s going to happen
     Well we know what Obama’s plan is: to allow Iran to take over Iraq by its proxies, similar to Lebanon. This is what most Democrats want: The defeat of democracy in Iraq, Iranian and Hizballah ascendancy, the elimination of Israel by any means and the right of Syria to rule the former nations of Lebanon and Israel, the overthrow of Columbia by FARC and Chavez’s regime, etc.
     Obama, his wife, his preacher, and his followers hate the middle class, and want to eliminate them, so that there will be two distinct classes, the edumacated rulers, and the rest of the people dependent on some sort of welfare. They want a “strong horse” ruler in Iraq: Hussein is not an option, but as Eric says, all America’s liberals must support Al Sadr.
     Really now, is it so important for Bush to lose that you want Al Qaeda and Iran to win?

335. but no guarantees and no plan for how that’s going to happen
     Well we know what Obama’s plan is: to allow Iran to take over Iraq by its proxies, similar to Lebanon. This is what most Democrats want: The defeat of democracy in Iraq, Iranian and Hizballah ascendancy, the elimination of Israel by any means and the right of Syria to rule the former nations of Lebanon and Israel, the overthrow of Columbia by FARC and Chavez’s regime, etc.
     Obama, his wife, his preacher, and his followers hate the middle class, and want to eliminate them, so that there will be two distinct classes, the edumacated rulers, and the rest of the people dependent on some sort of welfare. They want a “strong horse” ruler in Iraq: Hussein is not an option, but as Eric says, all America’s liberals must support Al Sadr.
     Really now, is it so important for Bush to lose that you want Al Qaeda and Iran to win?

336. but no guarantees and no plan for how that’s going to happen
     Well we know what Obama’s plan is: to allow Iran to take over Iraq by its proxies, similar to Lebanon. This is what most Democrats want: The defeat of democracy in Iraq, Iranian and Hizballah ascendancy, the elimination of Israel by any means and the right of Syria to rule the former nations of Lebanon and Israel, the overthrow of Columbia by FARC and Chavez’s regime, etc.
     Obama, his wife, his preacher, and his followers hate the middle class, and want to eliminate them, so that there will be two distinct classes, the edumacated rulers, and the rest of the people dependent on some sort of welfare. They want a “strong horse” ruler in Iraq: Hussein is not an option, but as Eric says, all America’s liberals must support Al Sadr.
     Really now, is it so important for Bush to lose that you want Al Qaeda and Iran to win?

337. Dave, put down the Everclear and go get some fresh air.

338. Dave, put down the Everclear and go get some fresh air.

339. Dave, put down the Everclear and go get some fresh air.

340. Dave: what matttbastard said.
     None of us want Iran to rule Iraq, by proxies or otherwise. The question is, what are willing to do to stop it, now that Bush has made a large increase in Iranian influence inevitable?
     And the idea that Obama wants to eliminate the middle class is just off the deep end. I’m sorry, but it is.
     If you’re going to say something like that, at least do us the courtesy of explaining why you think so. Preferably with cites, and in detail.

341. Dave: what matttbastard said.
     None of us want Iran to rule Iraq, by proxies or otherwise. The question is, what are willing to do to stop it, now that Bush has made a large increase in Iranian influence inevitable?
     And the idea that Obama wants to eliminate the middle class is just off the deep end. I’m sorry, but it is.
     If you’re going to say something like that, at least do us the courtesy of explaining why you think so. Preferably with cites, and in detail.

342. Dave: what matttbastard said.
     None of us want Iran to rule Iraq, by proxies or otherwise. The question is, what are willing to do to stop it, now that Bush has made a large increase in Iranian influence inevitable?
     And the idea that Obama wants to eliminate the middle class is just off the deep end. I’m sorry, but it is.
     If you’re going to say something like that, at least do us the courtesy of explaining why you think so. Preferably with cites, and in detail.

343. Gary Farber pwned this thread. If this thread were a game ball, it would go to him.
     Yeah, I have to agree, as much as I hate to. 😉 Gary took your lunch money Charles…

344. Gary Farber pwned this thread. If this thread were a game ball, it would go to him.
     Yeah, I have to agree, as much as I hate to. 😉 Gary took your lunch money Charles…

345. Gary Farber pwned this thread. If this thread were a game ball, it would go to him.
     Yeah, I have to agree, as much as I hate to. 😉 Gary took your lunch money Charles…

346. but no guarantees and no plan for how that’s going to happen
     Well we know what Obama’s plan is: [paranoid nonsense clipped]
     How is it I ask you for a plan, and you can’t even do a Chaz and *pretend* to have one? All you can do is recycle some CCC talking points?
     You’re not even a good shill- the point here is that you’re supposed to *pretend* to care enough about Iraq to *pretend* that there’s a plan to create political unity. When all of your rants end with the domestic political situation (and you misunderstand Iraq so badly as to think that al Maliki represents some sort of nascent democratic movement), your actual concerns become clear: the absolute butt-kicking that the GOP is going to receive in November.

347. but no guarantees and no plan for how that’s going to happen
     Well we know what Obama’s plan is: [paranoid nonsense clipped]
     How is it I ask you for a plan, and you can’t even do a Chaz and *pretend* to have one? All you can do is recycle some CCC talking points?
     You’re not even a good shill- the point here is that you’re supposed to *pretend* to care enough about Iraq to *pretend* that there’s a plan to create political unity. When all of your rants end with the domestic political situation (and you misunderstand Iraq so badly as to think that al Maliki represents some sort of nascent democratic movement), your actual concerns become clear: the absolute butt-kicking that the GOP is going to receive in November.

348. but no guarantees and no plan for how that’s going to happen
     Well we know what Obama’s plan is: [paranoid nonsense clipped]
     How is it I ask you for a plan, and you can’t even do a Chaz and *pretend* to have one? All you can do is recycle some CCC talking points?
     You’re not even a good shill- the point here is that you’re supposed to *pretend* to care enough about Iraq to *pretend* that there’s a plan to create political unity. When all of your rants end with the domestic political situation (and you misunderstand Iraq so badly as to think that al Maliki represents some sort of nascent democratic movement), your actual concerns become clear: the absolute butt-kicking that the GOP is going to receive in November.

349. “By the way, I have sent Gary a few Jacksons and he still hate me.”
     Yes, I’ve heard how you’ve been announcing to people that you’ve sent me donations in the past. It’s good of you to let people know that, so you get all the credit you feel you deserve.
     Looking through my records, I see that you are apparently Dave C***, with an AOL address ending in *****ille@aol.com. If that’s someone else, please feel free to let me know, so I can recheck to see whom I’ve confused you with.
     I see that you made two $20 donations in late December of 2005, $50 in July of 2006, and another $20 in December of 2007.
     I’ll gladly return your money if you feel you’ve not gotten your money’s worth from your charity, DaveC.
     If you sent me money so you could announce to lots of people that you sent me money, and that that makes you a great guy, hey, mine is not to examine people’s motives. But I’m happy to now make clear for the public record exactly what you did, and I’m happy to have on the public all available info from you as what it meant to you and what your expectations were. In case the thank you emails I sent you in response to your donations were insufficient, let me thank you again for your kind donations, which were most helpful, and appreciated.
     If, however, your expectations were that I should keep track of who donated what, so as to be especially uncritical of donors, you misunderstood.
     If, however, the reason you’ve been going around telling other people about your generous donations to me — as you have, and as you do here — with some kind of expectation that I should factor that into how I do or do not respond to you on blogs — and largely I simply ignore you as the malicious and vicious lying troll that you enjoy playing on the internet — and those expectations were unmet, then, alas, there would again appear to have been some misunderstanding involved.
     Let me know if you’d like me to PayPal you back the money you’ve donated.
     Otherwise, continue to announce to all and sundry how very generous you are. If you feel that that will make up for the rest of your online behavior, specifically your enthusiasm for making vicious and unfounded accusations as to what other people “want” and what they “believe,” good luck with that.
     Otherwise I’m going back to ignoring you, troll, as you’re not worth time spent on refuting your obvious malicious lies (Obama’s “followers hate the middle class, and want to eliminate them,” etc.).
     Last I looked, those kind of generalizations, particularly when made by someone who has been warned time and time and time and time and time and time and time again, month after month, year after year, were clear violations of the posting rules. But that’s not my call, and to all appearances, you have some special out from being banned, no matter how many times you blatantly and intentionally and knowingly flout the rules.
     Regardless, good luck with your approach to online discourse, and political persuasion. May it serve you better than it appears to.

350. “By the way, I have sent Gary a few Jacksons and he still hate me.”
     Yes, I’ve heard how you’ve been announcing to people that you’ve sent me donations in the past. It’s good of you to let people know that, so you get all the credit you feel you deserve.
     Looking through my records, I see that you are apparently Dave C***, with an AOL address ending in *****ille@aol.com. If that’s someone else, please feel free to let me know, so I can recheck to see whom I’ve confused you with.
     I see that you made two $20 donations in late December of 2005, $50 in July of 2006, and another $20 in December of 2007.
     I’ll gladly return your money if you feel you’ve not gotten your money’s worth from your charity, DaveC.
     If you sent me money so you could announce to lots of people that you sent me money, and that that makes you a great guy, hey, mine is not to examine people’s motives. But I’m happy to now make clear for the public record exactly what you did, and I’m happy to have on the public all available info from you as what it meant to you and what your expectations were. In case the thank you emails I sent you in response to your donations were insufficient, let me thank you again for your kind donations, which were most helpful, and appreciated.
     If, however, your expectations were that I should keep track of who donated what, so as to be especially uncritical of donors, you misunderstood.
     If, however, the reason you’ve been going around telling other people about your generous donations to me — as you have, and as you do here — with some kind of expectation that I should factor that into how I do or do not respond to you on blogs — and largely I simply ignore you as the malicious and vicious lying troll that you enjoy playing on the internet — and those expectations were unmet, then, alas, there would again appear to have been some misunderstanding involved.
     Let me know if you’d like me to PayPal you back the money you’ve donated.
     Otherwise, continue to announce to all and sundry how very generous you are. If you feel that that will make up for the rest of your online behavior, specifically your enthusiasm for making vicious and unfounded accusations as to what other people “want” and what they “believe,” good luck with that.
     Otherwise I’m going back to ignoring you, troll, as you’re not worth time spent on refuting your obvious malicious lies (Obama’s “followers hate the middle class, and want to eliminate them,” etc.).
     Last I looked, those kind of generalizations, particularly when made by someone who has been warned time and time and time and time and time and time and time again, month after month, year after year, were clear violations of the posting rules. But that’s not my call, and to all appearances, you have some special out from being banned, no matter how many times you blatantly and intentionally and knowingly flout the rules.
     Regardless, good luck with your approach to online discourse, and political persuasion. May it serve you better than it appears to.

351. “By the way, I have sent Gary a few Jacksons and he still hate me.”
     Yes, I’ve heard how you’ve been announcing to people that you’ve sent me donations in the past. It’s good of you to let people know that, so you get all the credit you feel you deserve.
     Looking through my records, I see that you are apparently Dave C***, with an AOL address ending in *****ille@aol.com. If that’s someone else, please feel free to let me know, so I can recheck to see whom I’ve confused you with.
     I see that you made two $20 donations in late December of 2005, $50 in July of 2006, and another $20 in December of 2007.
     I’ll gladly return your money if you feel you’ve not gotten your money’s worth from your charity, DaveC.
     If you sent me money so you could announce to lots of people that you sent me money, and that that makes you a great guy, hey, mine is not to examine people’s motives. But I’m happy to now make clear for the public record exactly what you did, and I’m happy to have on the public all available info from you as what it meant to you and what your expectations were. In case the thank you emails I sent you in response to your donations were insufficient, let me thank you again for your kind donations, which were most helpful, and appreciated.
     If, however, your expectations were that I should keep track of who donated what, so as to be especially uncritical of donors, you misunderstood.
     If, however, the reason you’ve been going around telling other people about your generous donations to me — as you have, and as you do here — with some kind of expectation that I should factor that into how I do or do not respond to you on blogs — and largely I simply ignore you as the malicious and vicious lying troll that you enjoy playing on the internet — and those expectations were unmet, then, alas, there would again appear to have been some misunderstanding involved.
     Let me know if you’d like me to PayPal you back the money you’ve donated.
     Otherwise, continue to announce to all and sundry how very generous you are. If you feel that that will make up for the rest of your online behavior, specifically your enthusiasm for making vicious and unfounded accusations as to what other people “want” and what they “believe,” good luck with that.
     Otherwise I’m going back to ignoring you, troll, as you’re not worth time spent on refuting your obvious malicious lies (Obama’s “followers hate the middle class, and want to eliminate them,” etc.).
     Last I looked, those kind of generalizations, particularly when made by someone who has been warned time and time and time and time and time and time and time again, month after month, year after year, were clear violations of the posting rules. But that’s not my call, and to all appearances, you have some special out from being banned, no matter how many times you blatantly and intentionally and knowingly flout the rules.
     Regardless, good luck with your approach to online discourse, and political persuasion. May it serve you better than it appears to.

352. “Was Basra better when religious police could kill musicians or bartenders? That was the way it was under the control of Al Sadr.”
     Basra has never been under the control of Al Sadr. The Al-Fadhila Party are rivals of the Mahdi Army; they shoot each other.
     If you were an honest interlocutor, you would want to buy a clue as to what you’re talking about.
     “If you want Iraq to be like Iran then you are ok here; if you think that Gaza would be a paradise were it not for the existence of Israel, if you think that Hugo Chavez and FARC are the good guys, that waving a Chomsky book and ranting against the USA at the United Nations is somehow virtuous because it is against the hated President Bush, well, then that is what you are.”
     And who here believes a single one of those things? Anyone?
     Unless you can point to a specific person, DaveC, you are lying. And you know you are lying, or you are so recklessly malicious, you don’t care. Same difference.
     “You want Basra to be run by the Mahdi Army thugs again. ”
     It never was. Maybe you should read a book about Iraq, DaveC. It really helps to have the least clue as to what you’re talking about, if you want to even pretend to be sincere.
     “Well we know what Obama’s plan is: to allow Iran to take over Iraq by its proxies, similar to Lebanon”
     No, that was George W. Bush’s plan, and it succeeded.
     Go read some actual facts about Iraq and Iran, DaveC: or do you simply enjoy being beaten with clue-sticks until the clue-by-four is long past called for?

353. “Was Basra better when religious police could kill musicians or bartenders? That was the way it was under the control of Al Sadr.”
     Basra has never been under the control of Al Sadr. The Al-Fadhila Party are rivals of the Mahdi Army; they shoot each other.
     If you were an honest interlocutor, you would want to buy a clue as to what you’re talking about.
     “If you want Iraq to be like Iran then you are ok here; if you think that Gaza would be a paradise were it not for the existence of Israel, if you think that Hugo Chavez and FARC are the good guys, that waving a Chomsky book and ranting against the USA at the United Nations is somehow virtuous because it is against the hated President Bush, well, then that is what you are.”
     And who here believes a single one of those things? Anyone?
     Unless you can point to a specific person, DaveC, you are lying. And you know you are lying, or you are so recklessly malicious, you don’t care. Same difference.
     “You want Basra to be run by the Mahdi Army thugs again. ”
     It never was. Maybe you should read a book about Iraq, DaveC. It really helps to have the least clue as to what you’re talking about, if you want to even pretend to be sincere.
     “Well we know what Obama’s plan is: to allow Iran to take over Iraq by its proxies, similar to Lebanon”
     No, that was George W. Bush’s plan, and it succeeded.
     Go read some actual facts about Iraq and Iran, DaveC: or do you simply enjoy being beaten with clue-sticks until the clue-by-four is long past called for?

354. “Was Basra better when religious police could kill musicians or bartenders? That was the way it was under the control of Al Sadr.”
     Basra has never been under the control of Al Sadr. The Al-Fadhila Party are rivals of the Mahdi Army; they shoot each other.
     If you were an honest interlocutor, you would want to buy a clue as to what you’re talking about.
     “If you want Iraq to be like Iran then you are ok here; if you think that Gaza would be a paradise were it not for the existence of Israel, if you think that Hugo Chavez and FARC are the good guys, that waving a Chomsky book and ranting against the USA at the United Nations is somehow virtuous because it is against the hated President Bush, well, then that is what you are.”
     And who here believes a single one of those things? Anyone?
     Unless you can point to a specific person, DaveC, you are lying. And you know you are lying, or you are so recklessly malicious, you don’t care. Same difference.
     “You want Basra to be run by the Mahdi Army thugs again. ”
     It never was. Maybe you should read a book about Iraq, DaveC. It really helps to have the least clue as to what you’re talking about, if you want to even pretend to be sincere.
     “Well we know what Obama’s plan is: to allow Iran to take over Iraq by its proxies, similar to Lebanon”
     No, that was George W. Bush’s plan, and it succeeded.
     Go read some actual facts about Iraq and Iran, DaveC: or do you simply enjoy being beaten with clue-sticks until the clue-by-four is long past called for?

355. Look Gary, even though this is weird to have a personal discussion in public, I am willing to support people that I strongly disagree with. That may seem crazy, but I don’t wish that terrible things happen to my “political enemies”. I am harsh, because very often other commenters that disagree with me are also very harsh. This is not a deal where I hate you or Hilzoy, or Publius, or whomever. I am just trying to put my 2 cents in, “Mostly Say Hooray For My Side”. That’s pretty much the deal with me. I am often not very straightforward, and sometimes am deliberately offensive, because I am offended by the posts or some of the comments. When you put all Republicans in prison for War Crimes, have a little bit of sympathy for me.

356. Look Gary, even though this is weird to have a personal discussion in public, I am willing to support people that I strongly disagree with. That may seem crazy, but I don’t wish that terrible things happen to my “political enemies”. I am harsh, because very often other commenters that disagree with me are also very harsh. This is not a deal where I hate you or Hilzoy, or Publius, or whomever. I am just trying to put my 2 cents in, “Mostly Say Hooray For My Side”. That’s pretty much the deal with me. I am often not very straightforward, and sometimes am deliberately offensive, because I am offended by the posts or some of the comments. When you put all Republicans in prison for War Crimes, have a little bit of sympathy for me.

357. Look Gary, even though this is weird to have a personal discussion in public, I am willing to support people that I strongly disagree with. That may seem crazy, but I don’t wish that terrible things happen to my “political enemies”. I am harsh, because very often other commenters that disagree with me are also very harsh. This is not a deal where I hate you or Hilzoy, or Publius, or whomever. I am just trying to put my 2 cents in, “Mostly Say Hooray For My Side”. That’s pretty much the deal with me. I am often not very straightforward, and sometimes am deliberately offensive, because I am offended by the posts or some of the comments. When you put all Republicans in prison for War Crimes, have a little bit of sympathy for me.

358. “I would agree that not enough political progress has occurred, Hil, but a blanket statement that political progress “is not happening” is in direct contradiction with what Ambassador Crocker reported to Congress last month.”
     Charles, for god’s sakes, administration public announcements are propaganda. They’re always going to be positive, we see the light at the end-of-the-tunnel.
     Please read up on the Vietnam War, and how our government handled propaganda/PR, and how honest or dishonest officials were. Please.
     Read the Pentagon Papers. Read Neil Sheehan’s A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam; read Stanley Karnow’s Vietnam: A History (or just watch the full documentary series).
     Then, just for flavor, read Michael Herr’s Dispatches.
     You’ll be glad you did.
     Any statements from any government about what they’re doing is going to be positive, and sometimes a downright lie. You do know that, right?
     “NV, Obama’s a center-rightist?”
     From the POV of any leftist, of course. Has Obama been calling for control of the means of production, while I wasn’t looking?
     You know, something actually leftist, rather than what lunatic rightwingers like to call leftist?
     Dennis Kucinich is a mild leftist. Obama is just a centrist liberal, at most. Actual leftists usually want actual socialism, if not communism, Charles. You might want to read up on the history of the left if you’re unaware of something so basic, and only aware of caricatures.
     “I agree that ‘only issues that matter’ is political settlement as a long term objective, and a proper COIN strategy is a long-term strategy.”
     Definite “long-term” for us, please. When do we get there? What year? What six-month period? When is it a reasonable amount of time to take to get there, and when is it insanely unreasonable, and time to admit we’re never getting there?
     Two years from today? Five years? Ten years? Twenty years? Fifty years? One hundred years?
     Please give us a time-span by which we can agree that It’s Time To Give Up and be loser-defeatists. Or is that never?
     “Given the trends since last August, I think the present strategy is worth pursuing. ”
     Of course you do. You always do. You are nothing if not consistent. The facts don’t matter, because all you need is an official to tell you something positive, so you can point to that as proof that We Must Continue.
     And when the set of officials changes so that there are no longer Official Officials telling you something positive, you will, I expect, blame the new officials for being loser-defeatists, and you’ll appoint to the Real Officials who matter to you on the right wing as possessing the True Knowledge Of Iraq and What Should Have Been Done To Save It.
     And you will, I expect, say that it Was Only Because Of The Loser-Defeatist Democrats that defeat was snatched from the jaws of the victory that we’re On The Way To.
     Hey, prove me wrong, but I’ve never gone wrong yet betting on your consistency, Charles.
     “As usual, I’m afraid that my response will leave you disappointed.”
     That seems quite likely, but I like to be optimistic. How about this? You take a shot at responding to the points I asked asked you to here, and I’ll let you know if I’m disappointed or not. Deal?
     Thanks!
     “This is just about the worst kind of smear and insult, and a major posting rules violation to boot.”
     So, Charles, do you see any posting rules violations here?
     Yes, or no?
     How about here?
     Yes, or no?

359. “I would agree that not enough political progress has occurred, Hil, but a blanket statement that political progress “is not happening” is in direct contradiction with what Ambassador Crocker reported to Congress last month.”
     Charles, for god’s sakes, administration public announcements are propaganda. They’re always going to be positive, we see the light at the end-of-the-tunnel.
     Please read up on the Vietnam War, and how our government handled propaganda/PR, and how honest or dishonest officials were. Please.
     Read the Pentagon Papers. Read Neil Sheehan’s A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam; read Stanley Karnow’s Vietnam: A History (or just watch the full documentary series).
     Then, just for flavor, read Michael Herr’s Dispatches.
     You’ll be glad you did.
     Any statements from any government about what they’re doing is going to be positive, and sometimes a downright lie. You do know that, right?
     “NV, Obama’s a center-rightist?”
     From the POV of any leftist, of course. Has Obama been calling for control of the means of production, while I wasn’t looking?
     You know, something actually leftist, rather than what lunatic rightwingers like to call leftist?
     Dennis Kucinich is a mild leftist. Obama is just a centrist liberal, at most. Actual leftists usually want actual socialism, if not communism, Charles. You might want to read up on the history of the left if you’re unaware of something so basic, and only aware of caricatures.
     “I agree that ‘only issues that matter’ is political settlement as a long term objective, and a proper COIN strategy is a long-term strategy.”
     Definite “long-term” for us, please. When do we get there? What year? What six-month period? When is it a reasonable amount of time to take to get there, and when is it insanely unreasonable, and time to admit we’re never getting there?
     Two years from today? Five years? Ten years? Twenty years? Fifty years? One hundred years?
     Please give us a time-span by which we can agree that It’s Time To Give Up and be loser-defeatists. Or is that never?
     “Given the trends since last August, I think the present strategy is worth pursuing. ”
     Of course you do. You always do. You are nothing if not consistent. The facts don’t matter, because all you need is an official to tell you something positive, so you can point to that as proof that We Must Continue.
     And when the set of officials changes so that there are no longer Official Officials telling you something positive, you will, I expect, blame the new officials for being loser-defeatists, and you’ll appoint to the Real Officials who matter to you on the right wing as possessing the True Knowledge Of Iraq and What Should Have Been Done To Save It.
     And you will, I expect, say that it Was Only Because Of The Loser-Defeatist Democrats that defeat was snatched from the jaws of the victory that we’re On The Way To.
     Hey, prove me wrong, but I’ve never gone wrong yet betting on your consistency, Charles.
     “As usual, I’m afraid that my response will leave you disappointed.”
     That seems quite likely, but I like to be optimistic. How about this? You take a shot at responding to the points I asked asked you to here, and I’ll let you know if I’m disappointed or not. Deal?
     Thanks!
     “This is just about the worst kind of smear and insult, and a major posting rules violation to boot.”
     So, Charles, do you see any posting rules violations here?
     Yes, or no?
     How about here?
     Yes, or no?

360. “I would agree that not enough political progress has occurred, Hil, but a blanket statement that political progress “is not happening” is in direct contradiction with what Ambassador Crocker reported to Congress last month.”
     Charles, for god’s sakes, administration public announcements are propaganda. They’re always going to be positive, we see the light at the end-of-the-tunnel.
     Please read up on the Vietnam War, and how our government handled propaganda/PR, and how honest or dishonest officials were. Please.
     Read the Pentagon Papers. Read Neil Sheehan’s A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam; read Stanley Karnow’s Vietnam: A History (or just watch the full documentary series).
     Then, just for flavor, read Michael Herr’s Dispatches.
     You’ll be glad you did.
     Any statements from any government about what they’re doing is going to be positive, and sometimes a downright lie. You do know that, right?
     “NV, Obama’s a center-rightist?”
     From the POV of any leftist, of course. Has Obama been calling for control of the means of production, while I wasn’t looking?
     You know, something actually leftist, rather than what lunatic rightwingers like to call leftist?
     Dennis Kucinich is a mild leftist. Obama is just a centrist liberal, at most. Actual leftists usually want actual socialism, if not communism, Charles. You might want to read up on the history of the left if you’re unaware of something so basic, and only aware of caricatures.
     “I agree that ‘only issues that matter’ is political settlement as a long term objective, and a proper COIN strategy is a long-term strategy.”
     Definite “long-term” for us, please. When do we get there? What year? What six-month period? When is it a reasonable amount of time to take to get there, and when is it insanely unreasonable, and time to admit we’re never getting there?
     Two years from today? Five years? Ten years? Twenty years? Fifty years? One hundred years?
     Please give us a time-span by which we can agree that It’s Time To Give Up and be loser-defeatists. Or is that never?
     “Given the trends since last August, I think the present strategy is worth pursuing. ”
     Of course you do. You always do. You are nothing if not consistent. The facts don’t matter, because all you need is an official to tell you something positive, so you can point to that as proof that We Must Continue.
     And when the set of officials changes so that there are no longer Official Officials telling you something positive, you will, I expect, blame the new officials for being loser-defeatists, and you’ll appoint to the Real Officials who matter to you on the right wing as possessing the True Knowledge Of Iraq and What Should Have Been Done To Save It.
     And you will, I expect, say that it Was Only Because Of The Loser-Defeatist Democrats that defeat was snatched from the jaws of the victory that we’re On The Way To.
     Hey, prove me wrong, but I’ve never gone wrong yet betting on your consistency, Charles.
     “As usual, I’m afraid that my response will leave you disappointed.”
     That seems quite likely, but I like to be optimistic. How about this? You take a shot at responding to the points I asked asked you to here, and I’ll let you know if I’m disappointed or not. Deal?
     Thanks!
     “This is just about the worst kind of smear and insult, and a major posting rules violation to boot.”
     So, Charles, do you see any posting rules violations here?
     Yes, or no?
     How about here?
     Yes, or no?

361. “Shinobi, I know this is hypothetical, but if the situation in Iraq was disintegrating in the first 10 weeks of 2008, do you think the amount of coverage would be the same?”
     Do you believe that if the answer is “no” — as it is — that that would be because:
     a) the liberal media is biased against reporting news they don’t like; or:
     b) news is reporting about Bad Things, not about Good Things?
     “You make a fair point that Obama wants to remove all combat brigades from Iraq because our military is strained. I think that’s a secondary reason at best.”
     What do you think the primary reason is?

362. “Shinobi, I know this is hypothetical, but if the situation in Iraq was disintegrating in the first 10 weeks of 2008, do you think the amount of coverage would be the same?”
     Do you believe that if the answer is “no” — as it is — that that would be because:
     a) the liberal media is biased against reporting news they don’t like; or:
     b) news is reporting about Bad Things, not about Good Things?
     “You make a fair point that Obama wants to remove all combat brigades from Iraq because our military is strained. I think that’s a secondary reason at best.”
     What do you think the primary reason is?

363. “Shinobi, I know this is hypothetical, but if the situation in Iraq was disintegrating in the first 10 weeks of 2008, do you think the amount of coverage would be the same?”
     Do you believe that if the answer is “no” — as it is — that that would be because:
     a) the liberal media is biased against reporting news they don’t like; or:
     b) news is reporting about Bad Things, not about Good Things?
     “You make a fair point that Obama wants to remove all combat brigades from Iraq because our military is strained. I think that’s a secondary reason at best.”
     What do you think the primary reason is?

364. “Look Gary, even though this is weird to have a personal discussion in public,”
     I don’t recall being the one who introduced the topic of your generous donations to me, or who initiated this conversation between us at all.
     “I am willing to support people that I strongly disagree with. That may seem crazy,”
     To someone, maybe, but as it happens, I’ve always been friends with people I disagree with, and have always had friends from an extremely wide spectrum of political views.
     As it happens, and as I’ve always said, I’m far more interested in the quality of someone’s arguments than I am with the results. I’d far rather hang out with smart people who challenge my views, and who disagree with me, than with dopey people who agree with me for stupid reasons, and who can only make poor and illogical arguments.
     I find people on my side who make bad arguments to be an embarrasment to my “side,” insofar as I ever have one (I go issue by issue, myself, and always have).
     “but I don’t wish that terrible things happen to my ‘political enemies’.”
     And neither do I. I wish nothing but the best for anyone who disagrees with me in any sort of remotely courteous fashion. I certainly wish all the best for Charles, Sebastian, and Von, no matter the lapses in our conversations at times.
     “I am harsh, because very often other commenters that disagree with me are also very harsh.”
     Bullpuckey. You are “harsh” — I would say that you engage in vicious and malicious lies about people — because it makes you feel good to do so. You’ve admitted to this.
     Moreover, you’ve admitted that you do it in response to problems in your offline life, and because you can’t reply there as you will, so you come here and “like toi stir s**t up.” (Forgive me for not taking the time to link to the actual quote just now, and if I have it slightly wrong; I’m actually very busy today, but am squeezing out some time in between other stuff.)
     “This is not a deal where I hate you or Hilzoy, or Publius, or whomever.”
     I really don’t care how you feel. I’ll never know, anyway, and it makes no difference to me. I only know how you act, and the way you act is to come here, and elsewhere, and tell vicious lies about us. As in all the quotes I can pull from your comments in this thread about what we “believe” and “want.”
     They’re lies, you know they are lies, you know that they are vicious slurs against our patriotism, our love of America, our support of U.S. troops, and our desire to see America do what’s best, and you tell the lies anyway.
     Over and over and over.
     Because it makes you feel good.
     That’s what makes me have no respect whatever for you DaveC: your behavior. Change your behavior to respectable behavior, and you will earn respect. Tell lots of nasty lies about people, and they will not be happy with you for it. I don’t think I’m unusual in saying that that’s how it works for me, and how it works for most people.
     Give it a try. Or don’t. As always, it’s in your hands.
     “I am just trying to put my 2 cents in, ‘Mostly Say Hooray For My Side”‘.”
     By lying about what Hilzoy, and I, and Obama supporters, and people who know far more than you about any topic we engage on believe and want and think.
     Stop lying about us, DaveC. Stop lying.
     Just.
     Stop.
     Lying.
     About us.
     It’s up to you. Just stop it.
     “That’s pretty much the deal with me. I am often not very straightforward, and sometimes am deliberately offensive, because I am offended by the posts or some of the comments.”
     Consider that there are alternative responses, when offended, to being deliberately offended.
     Or continue on with that; it’s worked so well for you so far.
     “When you put all Republicans in prison for War Crimes, have a little bit of sympathy for me.”
     I don’t want you to be punished in any way, DaveC. I want you to educate yourself about what you’re passionate about, so you stop making a public spectacle of yourself, and can win arguments, and actually understand what you’re trying to talk about.
     And I want you to stop lying about the rest of us.
     If you do that, maybe you’ll also do other stuff that will earn you respect from me, and perhaps more respect from others than you currently receive.
     It’s all up to you.
     But since I’ve explained this before to you countless times, I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for this time to be different.
     But: surprise me. I always like good surprises.

365. “Look Gary, even though this is weird to have a personal discussion in public,”
     I don’t recall being the one who introduced the topic of your generous donations to me, or who initiated this conversation between us at all.
     “I am willing to support people that I strongly disagree with. That may seem crazy,”
     To someone, maybe, but as it happens, I’ve always been friends with people I disagree with, and have always had friends from an extremely wide spectrum of political views.
     As it happens, and as I’ve always said, I’m far more interested in the quality of someone’s arguments than I am with the results. I’d far rather hang out with smart people who challenge my views, and who disagree with me, than with dopey people who agree with me for stupid reasons, and who can only make poor and illogical arguments.
     I find people on my side who make bad arguments to be an embarrasment to my “side,” insofar as I ever have one (I go issue by issue, myself, and always have).
     “but I don’t wish that terrible things happen to my ‘political enemies’.”
     And neither do I. I wish nothing but the best for anyone who disagrees with me in any sort of remotely courteous fashion. I certainly wish all the best for Charles, Sebastian, and Von, no matter the lapses in our conversations at times.
     “I am harsh, because very often other commenters that disagree with me are also very harsh.”
     Bullpuckey. You are “harsh” — I would say that you engage in vicious and malicious lies about people — because it makes you feel good to do so. You’ve admitted to this.
     Moreover, you’ve admitted that you do it in response to problems in your offline life, and because you can’t reply there as you will, so you come here and “like toi stir s**t up.” (Forgive me for not taking the time to link to the actual quote just now, and if I have it slightly wrong; I’m actually very busy today, but am squeezing out some time in between other stuff.)
     “This is not a deal where I hate you or Hilzoy, or Publius, or whomever.”
     I really don’t care how you feel. I’ll never know, anyway, and it makes no difference to me. I only know how you act, and the way you act is to come here, and elsewhere, and tell vicious lies about us. As in all the quotes I can pull from your comments in this thread about what we “believe” and “want.”
     They’re lies, you know they are lies, you know that they are vicious slurs against our patriotism, our love of America, our support of U.S. troops, and our desire to see America do what’s best, and you tell the lies anyway.
     Over and over and over.
     Because it makes you feel good.
     That’s what makes me have no respect whatever for you DaveC: your behavior. Change your behavior to respectable behavior, and you will earn respect. Tell lots of nasty lies about people, and they will not be happy with you for it. I don’t think I’m unusual in saying that that’s how it works for me, and how it works for most people.
     Give it a try. Or don’t. As always, it’s in your hands.
     “I am just trying to put my 2 cents in, ‘Mostly Say Hooray For My Side”‘.”
     By lying about what Hilzoy, and I, and Obama supporters, and people who know far more than you about any topic we engage on believe and want and think.
     Stop lying about us, DaveC. Stop lying.
     Just.
     Stop.
     Lying.
     About us.
     It’s up to you. Just stop it.
     “That’s pretty much the deal with me. I am often not very straightforward, and sometimes am deliberately offensive, because I am offended by the posts or some of the comments.”
     Consider that there are alternative responses, when offended, to being deliberately offended.
     Or continue on with that; it’s worked so well for you so far.
     “When you put all Republicans in prison for War Crimes, have a little bit of sympathy for me.”
     I don’t want you to be punished in any way, DaveC. I want you to educate yourself about what you’re passionate about, so you stop making a public spectacle of yourself, and can win arguments, and actually understand what you’re trying to talk about.
     And I want you to stop lying about the rest of us.
     If you do that, maybe you’ll also do other stuff that will earn you respect from me, and perhaps more respect from others than you currently receive.
     It’s all up to you.
     But since I’ve explained this before to you countless times, I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for this time to be different.
     But: surprise me. I always like good surprises.

366. “Look Gary, even though this is weird to have a personal discussion in public,”
     I don’t recall being the one who introduced the topic of your generous donations to me, or who initiated this conversation between us at all.
     “I am willing to support people that I strongly disagree with. That may seem crazy,”
     To someone, maybe, but as it happens, I’ve always been friends with people I disagree with, and have always had friends from an extremely wide spectrum of political views.
     As it happens, and as I’ve always said, I’m far more interested in the quality of someone’s arguments than I am with the results. I’d far rather hang out with smart people who challenge my views, and who disagree with me, than with dopey people who agree with me for stupid reasons, and who can only make poor and illogical arguments.
     I find people on my side who make bad arguments to be an embarrasment to my “side,” insofar as I ever have one (I go issue by issue, myself, and always have).
     “but I don’t wish that terrible things happen to my ‘political enemies’.”
     And neither do I. I wish nothing but the best for anyone who disagrees with me in any sort of remotely courteous fashion. I certainly wish all the best for Charles, Sebastian, and Von, no matter the lapses in our conversations at times.
     “I am harsh, because very often other commenters that disagree with me are also very harsh.”
     Bullpuckey. You are “harsh” — I would say that you engage in vicious and malicious lies about people — because it makes you feel good to do so. You’ve admitted to this.
     Moreover, you’ve admitted that you do it in response to problems in your offline life, and because you can’t reply there as you will, so you come here and “like toi stir s**t up.” (Forgive me for not taking the time to link to the actual quote just now, and if I have it slightly wrong; I’m actually very busy today, but am squeezing out some time in between other stuff.)
     “This is not a deal where I hate you or Hilzoy, or Publius, or whomever.”
     I really don’t care how you feel. I’ll never know, anyway, and it makes no difference to me. I only know how you act, and the way you act is to come here, and elsewhere, and tell vicious lies about us. As in all the quotes I can pull from your comments in this thread about what we “believe” and “want.”
     They’re lies, you know they are lies, you know that they are vicious slurs against our patriotism, our love of America, our support of U.S. troops, and our desire to see America do what’s best, and you tell the lies anyway.
     Over and over and over.
     Because it makes you feel good.
     That’s what makes me have no respect whatever for you DaveC: your behavior. Change your behavior to respectable behavior, and you will earn respect. Tell lots of nasty lies about people, and they will not be happy with you for it. I don’t think I’m unusual in saying that that’s how it works for me, and how it works for most people.
     Give it a try. Or don’t. As always, it’s in your hands.
     “I am just trying to put my 2 cents in, ‘Mostly Say Hooray For My Side”‘.”
     By lying about what Hilzoy, and I, and Obama supporters, and people who know far more than you about any topic we engage on believe and want and think.
     Stop lying about us, DaveC. Stop lying.
     Just.
     Stop.
     Lying.
     About us.
     It’s up to you. Just stop it.
     “That’s pretty much the deal with me. I am often not very straightforward, and sometimes am deliberately offensive, because I am offended by the posts or some of the comments.”
     Consider that there are alternative responses, when offended, to being deliberately offended.
     Or continue on with that; it’s worked so well for you so far.
     “When you put all Republicans in prison for War Crimes, have a little bit of sympathy for me.”
     I don’t want you to be punished in any way, DaveC. I want you to educate yourself about what you’re passionate about, so you stop making a public spectacle of yourself, and can win arguments, and actually understand what you’re trying to talk about.
     And I want you to stop lying about the rest of us.
     If you do that, maybe you’ll also do other stuff that will earn you respect from me, and perhaps more respect from others than you currently receive.
     It’s all up to you.
     But since I’ve explained this before to you countless times, I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for this time to be different.
     But: surprise me. I always like good surprises.

367. Reasonable from the perspective that you would acknowledge progress at those points, not that I believe they are attainable any time soon.
     That’s kind of the point. If the benchmarks aren’t attainable, then we can’t “win” (where “winning” means acheiving the benchmarks). If we can’t “win”, what are we staying for?
     ========================
     if the situation in Iraq was disintegrating in the first 10 weeks of 2008, do you think the amount of coverage would be the same?
     Depends on what Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton were doing. Seriously.
     =====================
     When you put all Republicans in prison for War Crimes, have a little bit of sympathy for me.
     Not all, just the ones who condoned torture. Which was a War Crime, last I checked. Those who condoned treason should also go to prison, especially the higher-ups, although not to the Hague.

368. Reasonable from the perspective that you would acknowledge progress at those points, not that I believe they are attainable any time soon.
     That’s kind of the point. If the benchmarks aren’t attainable, then we can’t “win” (where “winning” means acheiving the benchmarks). If we can’t “win”, what are we staying for?
     ========================
     if the situation in Iraq was disintegrating in the first 10 weeks of 2008, do you think the amount of coverage would be the same?
     Depends on what Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton were doing. Seriously.
     =====================
     When you put all Republicans in prison for War Crimes, have a little bit of sympathy for me.
     Not all, just the ones who condoned torture. Which was a War Crime, last I checked. Those who condoned treason should also go to prison, especially the higher-ups, although not to the Hague.

369. Reasonable from the perspective that you would acknowledge progress at those points, not that I believe they are attainable any time soon.
     That’s kind of the point. If the benchmarks aren’t attainable, then we can’t “win” (where “winning” means acheiving the benchmarks). If we can’t “win”, what are we staying for?
     ========================
     if the situation in Iraq was disintegrating in the first 10 weeks of 2008, do you think the amount of coverage would be the same?
     Depends on what Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton were doing. Seriously.
     =====================
     When you put all Republicans in prison for War Crimes, have a little bit of sympathy for me.
     Not all, just the ones who condoned torture. Which was a War Crime, last I checked. Those who condoned treason should also go to prison, especially the higher-ups, although not to the Hague.

370. “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     Informally yes, Gary. Ambassador Crocker:And, finally, I’d make the point on another piece of glue that holds the country together, and those are revenues — oil revenues. While it is true that they have not yet wrestled their way through to a comprehensive hydrocarbon and revenue sharing package, revenues are distributed. And all the provinces and all the communities obviously have an interest in having that happen. And it goes through the center.
     “To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     It is happening. Crocker:

     Iraq’s 2008 budget has allocated $13 billion for reconstruction, and a $5 billion supplemental budget this summer will invest export revenues in building the infrastructure and providing the services that Iraq so badly needs.

     To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     They haven’t happened yet but they’re scheduled. Crocker:

     The Provincial Powers Law also called for provincial elections by October 1, 2008, and an Electoral Law is now under discussion that will set the parameters for elections. All major parties have announced their support for these elections, which will be a major step forward in Iraq’s political development and will set the stage for national elections in late 2009.

     “And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws,”
     Give us some cites on the success of that, please, Charles.
     Okay. More Crocker:

     The Accountability and Justice Law (de-Ba’athification reform), passed after lengthy and often contentious debate, reflects a strengthened spirit of reconciliation, as does a far-reaching Amnesty Law.

     “and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.”
     How has that gone, Charles?
     I haven’t seen progress on that, Gary.
     “We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams.”
     How about a cite on the success of this, Charles?
     Petraeus, from the Q&A last month:

     The provincial reconstruction teams and the so-called EPRTs, the embedded provincial reconstruction, which were actually subprovincial in most cases, have been enormously helpful and valuable. They have augmented, at brigade headquarters, division headquarters, the assets of our civilian affairs — civil affairs personnel, and brought really useful skill sets to bear in a number of different provinces and districts.
     […]
     Beyond that, I think we do need to take a look at the PRT composition. And that is ongoing, actually — just a report out that that is taking place — to detrmine, for example, do you need more agrioculture experts in Nineveh than you do in Baghdad? Do you need more oil experts in, say, Kirkuk than you need in, right now, at least, in Anbar — although there’s oil out there, too. So that is what is ongoing. And again, bottom line is, there’s been a substantial civilian surge in the PRT arena and in some capacity-building areas. But there is still more neded in others.

     I don’t have hard numbers on the numbers of PRTs and EPRTs, Gary. You could assume that the numbers of PRTs would be proportional to the reconstruction dollars allotted, but that would only be an assumption.
     …the way the “Awakening” groups have been integrated into the national government…
     Petraeus:

     Senator, what we are doing, in fact, is helping achieve local bottom-up reconciliation. And, in fact, by the way, they are being integrated into the ISF. And fact is a number of the Sons of Iraq in Anbar province, others in Baghdad have been integrated into the police. Some of those fighting in Basra actually are from the 1st Iraqi Army Division, which has a substantial Sunni complement in it.
     I do weigh this issue all the time. What we are seeing at local level, actually, in Anbar…

     More Petraeus:

     Given the importance of the Sons of Iraq, we’re working closely with the Iraqi government to transition them into the Iraqi security forces or other forms of employment. And over 21,000 have already been accepted into the police or army or other government jobs.
     This process has been slow but it is taking place, and we will continue to monitor it carefully.

     More Sunnis in the Iraqi police force:

     Some 800 Sunni Muslims are among 2,000 newly trained recruits in the Iraqi National Police, a force that a Pentagon report a year ago called a brutal organization infiltrated by Shiite militias and even death squads.
     Another 2,000 Sunnis are expected to be trained and to join the National Police in coming months, a U.S. general in Iraq said Thursday.
     America’s top military policeman in Iraq, Army Brig. Gen. David Phillips, praised the move by Iraqi President Nouri al Maliki as creating “a whole different National Police from a year ago.”

     Like Petraeus said, Gary, the progress is slow, but it’s progress.
     the way most citizens of Iraq believe that the Iraqi government is generally a representative, non-sectarian, government, that is at least vaguely non-corrupt, vaguely effective, and possesses at least a vague monopoly of force, Charles.
     Tell us about how the militias have been eliminated, Charles, rather than just those that the U.S. government doesn’t like.
     As for how the Iraqi people view how things are going, the Brookings Institution has poll data. The majority believes the security situation is better today than last August. Anthony Cordesman at CSIS has lots of recent poll data. Check out pages 19, 21, 22, 57, 59, 62, 63, 73, 77, etc. They’re mixed, but the Iraqi people see an improved situation.
     Tell us about how SCII and Dawa and Maliki are subject to Iranian influence than Sadr, Charles.
     Yes, there’s plenty of Iranian influence on SCII, Dawa and Sadrists, Gary. I’m sure you can tell us how better than me.
     Use your vast expertise to tell us about all these things.
     I for one, could be convinced, if you’d finally get around to telling us about this stuff, as you’ve been asked to for years, rather than posting about meaningless statistics and press releases.
     And you so were so civil up that point. Alas.
     

371. “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     Informally yes, Gary. Ambassador Crocker:And, finally, I’d make the point on another piece of glue that holds the country together, and those are revenues — oil revenues. While it is true that they have not yet wrestled their way through to a comprehensive hydrocarbon and revenue sharing package, revenues are distributed. And all the provinces and all the communities obviously have an interest in having that happen. And it goes through the center.
     “To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     It is happening. Crocker:

     Iraq’s 2008 budget has allocated $13 billion for reconstruction, and a $5 billion supplemental budget this summer will invest export revenues in building the infrastructure and providing the services that Iraq so badly needs.

     To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     They haven’t happened yet but they’re scheduled. Crocker:

     The Provincial Powers Law also called for provincial elections by October 1, 2008, and an Electoral Law is now under discussion that will set the parameters for elections. All major parties have announced their support for these elections, which will be a major step forward in Iraq’s political development and will set the stage for national elections in late 2009.

     “And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws,”
     Give us some cites on the success of that, please, Charles.
     Okay. More Crocker:

     The Accountability and Justice Law (de-Ba’athification reform), passed after lengthy and often contentious debate, reflects a strengthened spirit of reconciliation, as does a far-reaching Amnesty Law.

     “and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.”
     How has that gone, Charles?
     I haven’t seen progress on that, Gary.
     “We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams.”
     How about a cite on the success of this, Charles?
     Petraeus, from the Q&A last month:

     The provincial reconstruction teams and the so-called EPRTs, the embedded provincial reconstruction, which were actually subprovincial in most cases, have been enormously helpful and valuable. They have augmented, at brigade headquarters, division headquarters, the assets of our civilian affairs — civil affairs personnel, and brought really useful skill sets to bear in a number of different provinces and districts.
     […]
     Beyond that, I think we do need to take a look at the PRT composition. And that is ongoing, actually — just a report out that that is taking place — to detrmine, for example, do you need more agrioculture experts in Nineveh than you do in Baghdad? Do you need more oil experts in, say, Kirkuk than you need in, right now, at least, in Anbar — although there’s oil out there, too. So that is what is ongoing. And again, bottom line is, there’s been a substantial civilian surge in the PRT arena and in some capacity-building areas. But there is still more neded in others.

     I don’t have hard numbers on the numbers of PRTs and EPRTs, Gary. You could assume that the numbers of PRTs would be proportional to the reconstruction dollars allotted, but that would only be an assumption.
     …the way the “Awakening” groups have been integrated into the national government…
     Petraeus:

     Senator, what we are doing, in fact, is helping achieve local bottom-up reconciliation. And, in fact, by the way, they are being integrated into the ISF. And fact is a number of the Sons of Iraq in Anbar province, others in Baghdad have been integrated into the police. Some of those fighting in Basra actually are from the 1st Iraqi Army Division, which has a substantial Sunni complement in it.
     I do weigh this issue all the time. What we are seeing at local level, actually, in Anbar…

     More Petraeus:

     Given the importance of the Sons of Iraq, we’re working closely with the Iraqi government to transition them into the Iraqi security forces or other forms of employment. And over 21,000 have already been accepted into the police or army or other government jobs.
     This process has been slow but it is taking place, and we will continue to monitor it carefully.

     More Sunnis in the Iraqi police force:

     Some 800 Sunni Muslims are among 2,000 newly trained recruits in the Iraqi National Police, a force that a Pentagon report a year ago called a brutal organization infiltrated by Shiite militias and even death squads.
     Another 2,000 Sunnis are expected to be trained and to join the National Police in coming months, a U.S. general in Iraq said Thursday.
     America’s top military policeman in Iraq, Army Brig. Gen. David Phillips, praised the move by Iraqi President Nouri al Maliki as creating “a whole different National Police from a year ago.”

     Like Petraeus said, Gary, the progress is slow, but it’s progress.
     the way most citizens of Iraq believe that the Iraqi government is generally a representative, non-sectarian, government, that is at least vaguely non-corrupt, vaguely effective, and possesses at least a vague monopoly of force, Charles.
     Tell us about how the militias have been eliminated, Charles, rather than just those that the U.S. government doesn’t like.
     As for how the Iraqi people view how things are going, the Brookings Institution has poll data. The majority believes the security situation is better today than last August. Anthony Cordesman at CSIS has lots of recent poll data. Check out pages 19, 21, 22, 57, 59, 62, 63, 73, 77, etc. They’re mixed, but the Iraqi people see an improved situation.
     Tell us about how SCII and Dawa and Maliki are subject to Iranian influence than Sadr, Charles.
     Yes, there’s plenty of Iranian influence on SCII, Dawa and Sadrists, Gary. I’m sure you can tell us how better than me.
     Use your vast expertise to tell us about all these things.
     I for one, could be convinced, if you’d finally get around to telling us about this stuff, as you’ve been asked to for years, rather than posting about meaningless statistics and press releases.
     And you so were so civil up that point. Alas.
     

372. “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     Informally yes, Gary. Ambassador Crocker:And, finally, I’d make the point on another piece of glue that holds the country together, and those are revenues — oil revenues. While it is true that they have not yet wrestled their way through to a comprehensive hydrocarbon and revenue sharing package, revenues are distributed. And all the provinces and all the communities obviously have an interest in having that happen. And it goes through the center.
     “To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     It is happening. Crocker:

     Iraq’s 2008 budget has allocated $13 billion for reconstruction, and a $5 billion supplemental budget this summer will invest export revenues in building the infrastructure and providing the services that Iraq so badly needs.

     To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     They haven’t happened yet but they’re scheduled. Crocker:

     The Provincial Powers Law also called for provincial elections by October 1, 2008, and an Electoral Law is now under discussion that will set the parameters for elections. All major parties have announced their support for these elections, which will be a major step forward in Iraq’s political development and will set the stage for national elections in late 2009.

     “And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws,”
     Give us some cites on the success of that, please, Charles.
     Okay. More Crocker:

     The Accountability and Justice Law (de-Ba’athification reform), passed after lengthy and often contentious debate, reflects a strengthened spirit of reconciliation, as does a far-reaching Amnesty Law.

     “and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.”
     How has that gone, Charles?
     I haven’t seen progress on that, Gary.
     “We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams.”
     How about a cite on the success of this, Charles?
     Petraeus, from the Q&A last month:

     The provincial reconstruction teams and the so-called EPRTs, the embedded provincial reconstruction, which were actually subprovincial in most cases, have been enormously helpful and valuable. They have augmented, at brigade headquarters, division headquarters, the assets of our civilian affairs — civil affairs personnel, and brought really useful skill sets to bear in a number of different provinces and districts.
     […]
     Beyond that, I think we do need to take a look at the PRT composition. And that is ongoing, actually — just a report out that that is taking place — to detrmine, for example, do you need more agrioculture experts in Nineveh than you do in Baghdad? Do you need more oil experts in, say, Kirkuk than you need in, right now, at least, in Anbar — although there’s oil out there, too. So that is what is ongoing. And again, bottom line is, there’s been a substantial civilian surge in the PRT arena and in some capacity-building areas. But there is still more neded in others.

     I don’t have hard numbers on the numbers of PRTs and EPRTs, Gary. You could assume that the numbers of PRTs would be proportional to the reconstruction dollars allotted, but that would only be an assumption.
     …the way the “Awakening” groups have been integrated into the national government…
     Petraeus:

     Senator, what we are doing, in fact, is helping achieve local bottom-up reconciliation. And, in fact, by the way, they are being integrated into the ISF. And fact is a number of the Sons of Iraq in Anbar province, others in Baghdad have been integrated into the police. Some of those fighting in Basra actually are from the 1st Iraqi Army Division, which has a substantial Sunni complement in it.
     I do weigh this issue all the time. What we are seeing at local level, actually, in Anbar…

     More Petraeus:

     Given the importance of the Sons of Iraq, we’re working closely with the Iraqi government to transition them into the Iraqi security forces or other forms of employment. And over 21,000 have already been accepted into the police or army or other government jobs.
     This process has been slow but it is taking place, and we will continue to monitor it carefully.

     More Sunnis in the Iraqi police force:

     Some 800 Sunni Muslims are among 2,000 newly trained recruits in the Iraqi National Police, a force that a Pentagon report a year ago called a brutal organization infiltrated by Shiite militias and even death squads.
     Another 2,000 Sunnis are expected to be trained and to join the National Police in coming months, a U.S. general in Iraq said Thursday.
     America’s top military policeman in Iraq, Army Brig. Gen. David Phillips, praised the move by Iraqi President Nouri al Maliki as creating “a whole different National Police from a year ago.”

     Like Petraeus said, Gary, the progress is slow, but it’s progress.
     the way most citizens of Iraq believe that the Iraqi government is generally a representative, non-sectarian, government, that is at least vaguely non-corrupt, vaguely effective, and possesses at least a vague monopoly of force, Charles.
     Tell us about how the militias have been eliminated, Charles, rather than just those that the U.S. government doesn’t like.
     As for how the Iraqi people view how things are going, the Brookings Institution has poll data. The majority believes the security situation is better today than last August. Anthony Cordesman at CSIS has lots of recent poll data. Check out pages 19, 21, 22, 57, 59, 62, 63, 73, 77, etc. They’re mixed, but the Iraqi people see an improved situation.
     Tell us about how SCII and Dawa and Maliki are subject to Iranian influence than Sadr, Charles.
     Yes, there’s plenty of Iranian influence on SCII, Dawa and Sadrists, Gary. I’m sure you can tell us how better than me.
     Use your vast expertise to tell us about all these things.
     I for one, could be convinced, if you’d finally get around to telling us about this stuff, as you’ve been asked to for years, rather than posting about meaningless statistics and press releases.
     And you so were so civil up that point. Alas.
     

373. Here is The End of the story.

     Think we’ll see a lot of apologies from those who immediately began ranting about the traitor (former Marine Colonel) John Murtha? Yeah, me neither. (Though maybe a handful will; maybe.)

     I still despise Jack Murtha. And no, I am never, ever, going to apologize to that crooked politician who proclaimed that those Marines were cold blooded murderers. Oddly enough I was pretty damned critical of Charles Bird as well, for not following up the Haditha story to the very end.

     Haven’t yet noticed any of the Bush-supporting blogs having anything to say. But I’m sure the evil MSM must have this story all wrong, and they’re doubtless traitors for reporting it before the courts-martial have produced verdicts.

     Where was the post that explained the result of the court martial investigations? I must have missed it somewhere, I have never seen it on ObWi or Amyglada.

374. Here is The End of the story.

     Think we’ll see a lot of apologies from those who immediately began ranting about the traitor (former Marine Colonel) John Murtha? Yeah, me neither. (Though maybe a handful will; maybe.)

     I still despise Jack Murtha. And no, I am never, ever, going to apologize to that crooked politician who proclaimed that those Marines were cold blooded murderers. Oddly enough I was pretty damned critical of Charles Bird as well, for not following up the Haditha story to the very end.

     Haven’t yet noticed any of the Bush-supporting blogs having anything to say. But I’m sure the evil MSM must have this story all wrong, and they’re doubtless traitors for reporting it before the courts-martial have produced verdicts.

     Where was the post that explained the result of the court martial investigations? I must have missed it somewhere, I have never seen it on ObWi or Amyglada.

375. Here is The End of the story.

     Think we’ll see a lot of apologies from those who immediately began ranting about the traitor (former Marine Colonel) John Murtha? Yeah, me neither. (Though maybe a handful will; maybe.)

     I still despise Jack Murtha. And no, I am never, ever, going to apologize to that crooked politician who proclaimed that those Marines were cold blooded murderers. Oddly enough I was pretty damned critical of Charles Bird as well, for not following up the Haditha story to the very end.

     Haven’t yet noticed any of the Bush-supporting blogs having anything to say. But I’m sure the evil MSM must have this story all wrong, and they’re doubtless traitors for reporting it before the courts-martial have produced verdicts.

     Where was the post that explained the result of the court martial investigations? I must have missed it somewhere, I have never seen it on ObWi or Amyglada.

376. And whatever bad things that have happened to Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and that Hamdan guy, well I think that those guys have been treated mercifully considering that KSM planned the 9/11 attacks and that Hamdan was OBL’s personal assistant. I’m never apologizing for that, either.

377. And whatever bad things that have happened to Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and that Hamdan guy, well I think that those guys have been treated mercifully considering that KSM planned the 9/11 attacks and that Hamdan was OBL’s personal assistant. I’m never apologizing for that, either.

378. And whatever bad things that have happened to Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and that Hamdan guy, well I think that those guys have been treated mercifully considering that KSM planned the 9/11 attacks and that Hamdan was OBL’s personal assistant. I’m never apologizing for that, either.

379. So DaveC, do you feel as strongly about all misguided prosecutions as you do about the Haditha case? Or do you think marines are entitled to special rights that mere civilians don’t deserve? Because, and I hate to tell you this, I can point you to a bunch of wrongful convictions where the media and politicians went nuts. Unfortunately, most of those cases involve African American civilians.
     I do think it is adorable how you seem to think that Gary or the OW crew owe you posts about Haditha. I mean, you’ve been paying their salary for years, so of course they should be doing what you want them to do, right?

380. So DaveC, do you feel as strongly about all misguided prosecutions as you do about the Haditha case? Or do you think marines are entitled to special rights that mere civilians don’t deserve? Because, and I hate to tell you this, I can point you to a bunch of wrongful convictions where the media and politicians went nuts. Unfortunately, most of those cases involve African American civilians.
     I do think it is adorable how you seem to think that Gary or the OW crew owe you posts about Haditha. I mean, you’ve been paying their salary for years, so of course they should be doing what you want them to do, right?

381. So DaveC, do you feel as strongly about all misguided prosecutions as you do about the Haditha case? Or do you think marines are entitled to special rights that mere civilians don’t deserve? Because, and I hate to tell you this, I can point you to a bunch of wrongful convictions where the media and politicians went nuts. Unfortunately, most of those cases involve African American civilians.
     I do think it is adorable how you seem to think that Gary or the OW crew owe you posts about Haditha. I mean, you’ve been paying their salary for years, so of course they should be doing what you want them to do, right?

382. Fine, Dave, don’t apologize for these side issues.
     Just apologize for lying about Gary, and Hilzoy, and Publius, and the rest of us.
     And stop doing it. Stop saying we believe things we don’t
     Stop being “deliberately offensive.”
     It’s offensive.
     It offends me. Deeply.
     It is the kind of action – and yes, words are a kind of action – no decent human being should engage in, especially not when he’s been repeatedly warned about it. It’s not civil. It’s not decent.
     It gives me no reason whatsoever to explore any of the side issues you seem to think are so important.
     It gains nothing for your position, and if it gives you some moment of psychic release, I wish to god you’d find some other way.
     Have you considered bird-watching?

383. Fine, Dave, don’t apologize for these side issues.
     Just apologize for lying about Gary, and Hilzoy, and Publius, and the rest of us.
     And stop doing it. Stop saying we believe things we don’t
     Stop being “deliberately offensive.”
     It’s offensive.
     It offends me. Deeply.
     It is the kind of action – and yes, words are a kind of action – no decent human being should engage in, especially not when he’s been repeatedly warned about it. It’s not civil. It’s not decent.
     It gives me no reason whatsoever to explore any of the side issues you seem to think are so important.
     It gains nothing for your position, and if it gives you some moment of psychic release, I wish to god you’d find some other way.
     Have you considered bird-watching?

384. Fine, Dave, don’t apologize for these side issues.
     Just apologize for lying about Gary, and Hilzoy, and Publius, and the rest of us.
     And stop doing it. Stop saying we believe things we don’t
     Stop being “deliberately offensive.”
     It’s offensive.
     It offends me. Deeply.
     It is the kind of action – and yes, words are a kind of action – no decent human being should engage in, especially not when he’s been repeatedly warned about it. It’s not civil. It’s not decent.
     It gives me no reason whatsoever to explore any of the side issues you seem to think are so important.
     It gains nothing for your position, and if it gives you some moment of psychic release, I wish to god you’d find some other way.
     Have you considered bird-watching?

385. So DaveC, do you feel as strongly about all misguided prosecutions as you do about the Haditha case?
     Actually somebody in my family went through a very serious, politically motivated criminal case at the same time as Haditha case and the Duke lacrosse team rape case. Famous politician. Thousands of dollars paid to defense attorneys. Eventually complete exoneration. But even after all charges were dropped there was really no follow-up, no public explanation. The facts came out in the depositions and hearings, and there was no trial, but the accusations are the only things that are well known.
     So, maybe it was just the timeline. But I did see all the hateful accusations on various advocacy and political web sites. and only one small town newspaper article that explained the whole deal. That article has gone down the bit bucket. The other stuff is still out there, uncorrected. The fact of the matter is that with these partisan groups the facts do not matter.
     As I recall. the USMC did release the facts and the timeline, there was an IED attack, and the Marines were fired upon from each of the four houses. The whole deal was messed up and innocent people were killed, but it certainly was not cold blooded murder. Why the accusers will not admit this, why the news media never explained what really happened is something that, while I don’t know what the real motivations are, I suspect that leaving the accusations out there without any follow-up is almost as good a conviction.

386. So DaveC, do you feel as strongly about all misguided prosecutions as you do about the Haditha case?
     Actually somebody in my family went through a very serious, politically motivated criminal case at the same time as Haditha case and the Duke lacrosse team rape case. Famous politician. Thousands of dollars paid to defense attorneys. Eventually complete exoneration. But even after all charges were dropped there was really no follow-up, no public explanation. The facts came out in the depositions and hearings, and there was no trial, but the accusations are the only things that are well known.
     So, maybe it was just the timeline. But I did see all the hateful accusations on various advocacy and political web sites. and only one small town newspaper article that explained the whole deal. That article has gone down the bit bucket. The other stuff is still out there, uncorrected. The fact of the matter is that with these partisan groups the facts do not matter.
     As I recall. the USMC did release the facts and the timeline, there was an IED attack, and the Marines were fired upon from each of the four houses. The whole deal was messed up and innocent people were killed, but it certainly was not cold blooded murder. Why the accusers will not admit this, why the news media never explained what really happened is something that, while I don’t know what the real motivations are, I suspect that leaving the accusations out there without any follow-up is almost as good a conviction.

387. So DaveC, do you feel as strongly about all misguided prosecutions as you do about the Haditha case?
     Actually somebody in my family went through a very serious, politically motivated criminal case at the same time as Haditha case and the Duke lacrosse team rape case. Famous politician. Thousands of dollars paid to defense attorneys. Eventually complete exoneration. But even after all charges were dropped there was really no follow-up, no public explanation. The facts came out in the depositions and hearings, and there was no trial, but the accusations are the only things that are well known.
     So, maybe it was just the timeline. But I did see all the hateful accusations on various advocacy and political web sites. and only one small town newspaper article that explained the whole deal. That article has gone down the bit bucket. The other stuff is still out there, uncorrected. The fact of the matter is that with these partisan groups the facts do not matter.
     As I recall. the USMC did release the facts and the timeline, there was an IED attack, and the Marines were fired upon from each of the four houses. The whole deal was messed up and innocent people were killed, but it certainly was not cold blooded murder. Why the accusers will not admit this, why the news media never explained what really happened is something that, while I don’t know what the real motivations are, I suspect that leaving the accusations out there without any follow-up is almost as good a conviction.

388. DaveC,
     I want you to go to the nearest supermarket tomorrow, stop ten people, and ask them if they recognize the names of any of the Haditha Marines. They won’t. No one has a clue who these guys are. They’re free and clear, which is not as good as a conviction. A conviction implies of a life sentence of hard labor; what these guys have is…nothing. No one will ever remember anything about them.
     But I’m glad to know that you really really care about the rights of Marines and people related to you and…no one else. I can’t imagine how much money you’ve donated to the innocence project.

389. DaveC,
     I want you to go to the nearest supermarket tomorrow, stop ten people, and ask them if they recognize the names of any of the Haditha Marines. They won’t. No one has a clue who these guys are. They’re free and clear, which is not as good as a conviction. A conviction implies of a life sentence of hard labor; what these guys have is…nothing. No one will ever remember anything about them.
     But I’m glad to know that you really really care about the rights of Marines and people related to you and…no one else. I can’t imagine how much money you’ve donated to the innocence project.

390. DaveC,
     I want you to go to the nearest supermarket tomorrow, stop ten people, and ask them if they recognize the names of any of the Haditha Marines. They won’t. No one has a clue who these guys are. They’re free and clear, which is not as good as a conviction. A conviction implies of a life sentence of hard labor; what these guys have is…nothing. No one will ever remember anything about them.
     But I’m glad to know that you really really care about the rights of Marines and people related to you and…no one else. I can’t imagine how much money you’ve donated to the innocence project.

391. Well, if most Democrats want the elimination of Israel by any means (as DaveC claimed unambiguously) why has the US not nuked it under Clinton or sold a few nukes to those that would reliably use them against Israel? Or are the Clintons and their henchbeings some of the few that do not share that unquenchable hatred of Israel?
     On the other hand I could name a few influential people on the right that want to use Israel as the match to light the fire to engulf the whole world (aka the apocalypse).

392. Well, if most Democrats want the elimination of Israel by any means (as DaveC claimed unambiguously) why has the US not nuked it under Clinton or sold a few nukes to those that would reliably use them against Israel? Or are the Clintons and their henchbeings some of the few that do not share that unquenchable hatred of Israel?
     On the other hand I could name a few influential people on the right that want to use Israel as the match to light the fire to engulf the whole world (aka the apocalypse).

393. Well, if most Democrats want the elimination of Israel by any means (as DaveC claimed unambiguously) why has the US not nuked it under Clinton or sold a few nukes to those that would reliably use them against Israel? Or are the Clintons and their henchbeings some of the few that do not share that unquenchable hatred of Israel?
     On the other hand I could name a few influential people on the right that want to use Israel as the match to light the fire to engulf the whole world (aka the apocalypse).

394. On the subject of misguided persecutions: please, DaveC, go back and reread katherine’s writings about Gitmo inmates.
     I don’t remember thedetails of the Haditha story: if you are right and they got put thru the wringer for nthng , then I am sorry for them. But, as you pointed out, they didn’t get sentenced to any time. They are free to go about their lives.. And, truth is, most Americans don’t remember a thinga bout it.
     So why not put some energy into defending innocent people who are currently doing indefintie time without charge or trial?

395. On the subject of misguided persecutions: please, DaveC, go back and reread katherine’s writings about Gitmo inmates.
     I don’t remember thedetails of the Haditha story: if you are right and they got put thru the wringer for nthng , then I am sorry for them. But, as you pointed out, they didn’t get sentenced to any time. They are free to go about their lives.. And, truth is, most Americans don’t remember a thinga bout it.
     So why not put some energy into defending innocent people who are currently doing indefintie time without charge or trial?

396. On the subject of misguided persecutions: please, DaveC, go back and reread katherine’s writings about Gitmo inmates.
     I don’t remember thedetails of the Haditha story: if you are right and they got put thru the wringer for nthng , then I am sorry for them. But, as you pointed out, they didn’t get sentenced to any time. They are free to go about their lives.. And, truth is, most Americans don’t remember a thinga bout it.
     So why not put some energy into defending innocent people who are currently doing indefintie time without charge or trial?

397. Typepad wouldn’t let me to respond, so I’m trying it pieces.
     “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     Informally yes, Gary. Ambassador Crocker:And, finally, I’d make the point on another piece of glue that holds the country together, and those are revenues — oil revenues. While it is true that they have not yet wrestled their way through to a comprehensive hydrocarbon and revenue sharing package, revenues are distributed. And all the provinces and all the communities obviously have an interest in having that happen. And it goes through the center.
     “To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     It is happening. Crocker:

     Iraq’s 2008 budget has allocated $13 billion for reconstruction, and a $5 billion supplemental budget this summer will invest export revenues in building the infrastructure and providing the services that Iraq so badly needs.

     To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     They haven’t happened yet but they’re scheduled. Crocker:

     The Provincial Powers Law also called for provincial elections by October 1, 2008, and an Electoral Law is now under discussion that will set the parameters for elections. All major parties have announced their support for these elections, which will be a major step forward in Iraq’s political development and will set the stage for national elections in late 2009.

     “And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws,”
     Give us some cites on the success of that, please, Charles.
     Okay. More Crocker:

     The Accountability and Justice Law (de-Ba’athification reform), passed after lengthy and often contentious debate, reflects a strengthened spirit of reconciliation, as does a far-reaching Amnesty Law.

     “and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.”
     How has that gone, Charles?
     I haven’t seen progress on that, Gary.
     “We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams.”
     How about a cite on the success of this, Charles?
     Petraeus, from the Q&A last month:

     The provincial reconstruction teams and the so-called EPRTs, the embedded provincial reconstruction, which were actually subprovincial in most cases, have been enormously helpful and valuable. They have augmented, at brigade headquarters, division headquarters, the assets of our civilian affairs — civil affairs personnel, and brought really useful skill sets to bear in a number of different provinces and districts.
     […]
     Beyond that, I think we do need to take a look at the PRT composition. And that is ongoing, actually — just a report out that that is taking place — to detrmine, for example, do you need more agrioculture experts in Nineveh than you do in Baghdad? Do you need more oil experts in, say, Kirkuk than you need in, right now, at least, in Anbar — although there’s oil out there, too. So that is what is ongoing. And again, bottom line is, there’s been a substantial civilian surge in the PRT arena and in some capacity-building areas. But there is still more neded in others.

     I don’t have hard numbers on the numbers of PRTs and EPRTs, Gary. You could assume that the numbers of PRTs would be proportional to the reconstruction dollars allotted, but that would only be an assumption.
     

398. Typepad wouldn’t let me to respond, so I’m trying it pieces.
     “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     Informally yes, Gary. Ambassador Crocker:And, finally, I’d make the point on another piece of glue that holds the country together, and those are revenues — oil revenues. While it is true that they have not yet wrestled their way through to a comprehensive hydrocarbon and revenue sharing package, revenues are distributed. And all the provinces and all the communities obviously have an interest in having that happen. And it goes through the center.
     “To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     It is happening. Crocker:

     Iraq’s 2008 budget has allocated $13 billion for reconstruction, and a $5 billion supplemental budget this summer will invest export revenues in building the infrastructure and providing the services that Iraq so badly needs.

     To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     They haven’t happened yet but they’re scheduled. Crocker:

     The Provincial Powers Law also called for provincial elections by October 1, 2008, and an Electoral Law is now under discussion that will set the parameters for elections. All major parties have announced their support for these elections, which will be a major step forward in Iraq’s political development and will set the stage for national elections in late 2009.

     “And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws,”
     Give us some cites on the success of that, please, Charles.
     Okay. More Crocker:

     The Accountability and Justice Law (de-Ba’athification reform), passed after lengthy and often contentious debate, reflects a strengthened spirit of reconciliation, as does a far-reaching Amnesty Law.

     “and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.”
     How has that gone, Charles?
     I haven’t seen progress on that, Gary.
     “We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams.”
     How about a cite on the success of this, Charles?
     Petraeus, from the Q&A last month:

     The provincial reconstruction teams and the so-called EPRTs, the embedded provincial reconstruction, which were actually subprovincial in most cases, have been enormously helpful and valuable. They have augmented, at brigade headquarters, division headquarters, the assets of our civilian affairs — civil affairs personnel, and brought really useful skill sets to bear in a number of different provinces and districts.
     […]
     Beyond that, I think we do need to take a look at the PRT composition. And that is ongoing, actually — just a report out that that is taking place — to detrmine, for example, do you need more agrioculture experts in Nineveh than you do in Baghdad? Do you need more oil experts in, say, Kirkuk than you need in, right now, at least, in Anbar — although there’s oil out there, too. So that is what is ongoing. And again, bottom line is, there’s been a substantial civilian surge in the PRT arena and in some capacity-building areas. But there is still more neded in others.

     I don’t have hard numbers on the numbers of PRTs and EPRTs, Gary. You could assume that the numbers of PRTs would be proportional to the reconstruction dollars allotted, but that would only be an assumption.
     

399. Typepad wouldn’t let me to respond, so I’m trying it pieces.
     “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     Informally yes, Gary. Ambassador Crocker:And, finally, I’d make the point on another piece of glue that holds the country together, and those are revenues — oil revenues. While it is true that they have not yet wrestled their way through to a comprehensive hydrocarbon and revenue sharing package, revenues are distributed. And all the provinces and all the communities obviously have an interest in having that happen. And it goes through the center.
     “To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     It is happening. Crocker:

     Iraq’s 2008 budget has allocated $13 billion for reconstruction, and a $5 billion supplemental budget this summer will invest export revenues in building the infrastructure and providing the services that Iraq so badly needs.

     To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     They haven’t happened yet but they’re scheduled. Crocker:

     The Provincial Powers Law also called for provincial elections by October 1, 2008, and an Electoral Law is now under discussion that will set the parameters for elections. All major parties have announced their support for these elections, which will be a major step forward in Iraq’s political development and will set the stage for national elections in late 2009.

     “And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws,”
     Give us some cites on the success of that, please, Charles.
     Okay. More Crocker:

     The Accountability and Justice Law (de-Ba’athification reform), passed after lengthy and often contentious debate, reflects a strengthened spirit of reconciliation, as does a far-reaching Amnesty Law.

     “and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.”
     How has that gone, Charles?
     I haven’t seen progress on that, Gary.
     “We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams.”
     How about a cite on the success of this, Charles?
     Petraeus, from the Q&A last month:

     The provincial reconstruction teams and the so-called EPRTs, the embedded provincial reconstruction, which were actually subprovincial in most cases, have been enormously helpful and valuable. They have augmented, at brigade headquarters, division headquarters, the assets of our civilian affairs — civil affairs personnel, and brought really useful skill sets to bear in a number of different provinces and districts.
     […]
     Beyond that, I think we do need to take a look at the PRT composition. And that is ongoing, actually — just a report out that that is taking place — to detrmine, for example, do you need more agrioculture experts in Nineveh than you do in Baghdad? Do you need more oil experts in, say, Kirkuk than you need in, right now, at least, in Anbar — although there’s oil out there, too. So that is what is ongoing. And again, bottom line is, there’s been a substantial civilian surge in the PRT arena and in some capacity-building areas. But there is still more neded in others.

     I don’t have hard numbers on the numbers of PRTs and EPRTs, Gary. You could assume that the numbers of PRTs would be proportional to the reconstruction dollars allotted, but that would only be an assumption.
     

400. Part II.
     …the way the “Awakening” groups have been integrated into the national government…
     Petraeus:

     Senator, what we are doing, in fact, is helping achieve local bottom-up reconciliation. And, in fact, by the way, they are being integrated into the ISF. And fact is a number of the Sons of Iraq in Anbar province, others in Baghdad have been integrated into the police. Some of those fighting in Basra actually are from the 1st Iraqi Army Division, which has a substantial Sunni complement in it.
     I do weigh this issue all the time. What we are seeing at local level, actually, in Anbar…

     More Petraeus:

     Given the importance of the Sons of Iraq, we’re working closely with the Iraqi government to transition them into the Iraqi security forces or other forms of employment. And over 21,000 have already been accepted into the police or army or other government jobs.
     This process has been slow but it is taking place, and we will continue to monitor it carefully.

     More Sunnis in the Iraqi police force:

     Some 800 Sunni Muslims are among 2,000 newly trained recruits in the Iraqi National Police, a force that a Pentagon report a year ago called a brutal organization infiltrated by Shiite militias and even death squads.
     Another 2,000 Sunnis are expected to be trained and to join the National Police in coming months, a U.S. general in Iraq said Thursday.
     America’s top military policeman in Iraq, Army Brig. Gen. David Phillips, praised the move by Iraqi President Nouri al Maliki as creating “a whole different National Police from a year ago.”

     Like Petraeus said, Gary, the progress is slow, but it’s progress.
     the way most citizens of Iraq believe that the Iraqi government is generally a representative, non-sectarian, government, that is at least vaguely non-corrupt, vaguely effective, and possesses at least a vague monopoly of force, Charles.
     Tell us about how the militias have been eliminated, Charles, rather than just those that the U.S. government doesn’t like.
     As for how the Iraqi people view how things are going, the Brookings Institution has poll data. The majority believes the security situation is better today than last August. Anthony Cordesman at CSIS has lots of recent poll data. Check out pages 19, 21, 22, 57, 59, 62, 63, 73, 77, etc. They’re mixed, but the Iraqi people see an improved situation.
     Tell us about how SCII and Dawa and Maliki are subject to Iranian influence than Sadr, Charles.
     Yes, there’s plenty of Iranian influence on SCII, Dawa and Sadrists, Gary. I’m sure you can tell us how better than me.
     Use your vast expertise to tell us about all these things.
     I for one, could be convinced, if you’d finally get around to telling us about this stuff, as you’ve been asked to for years, rather than posting about meaningless statistics and press releases.
     And you so were so civil up that point. Alas.

401. Part II.
     …the way the “Awakening” groups have been integrated into the national government…
     Petraeus:

     Senator, what we are doing, in fact, is helping achieve local bottom-up reconciliation. And, in fact, by the way, they are being integrated into the ISF. And fact is a number of the Sons of Iraq in Anbar province, others in Baghdad have been integrated into the police. Some of those fighting in Basra actually are from the 1st Iraqi Army Division, which has a substantial Sunni complement in it.
     I do weigh this issue all the time. What we are seeing at local level, actually, in Anbar…

     More Petraeus:

     Given the importance of the Sons of Iraq, we’re working closely with the Iraqi government to transition them into the Iraqi security forces or other forms of employment. And over 21,000 have already been accepted into the police or army or other government jobs.
     This process has been slow but it is taking place, and we will continue to monitor it carefully.

     More Sunnis in the Iraqi police force:

     Some 800 Sunni Muslims are among 2,000 newly trained recruits in the Iraqi National Police, a force that a Pentagon report a year ago called a brutal organization infiltrated by Shiite militias and even death squads.
     Another 2,000 Sunnis are expected to be trained and to join the National Police in coming months, a U.S. general in Iraq said Thursday.
     America’s top military policeman in Iraq, Army Brig. Gen. David Phillips, praised the move by Iraqi President Nouri al Maliki as creating “a whole different National Police from a year ago.”

     Like Petraeus said, Gary, the progress is slow, but it’s progress.
     the way most citizens of Iraq believe that the Iraqi government is generally a representative, non-sectarian, government, that is at least vaguely non-corrupt, vaguely effective, and possesses at least a vague monopoly of force, Charles.
     Tell us about how the militias have been eliminated, Charles, rather than just those that the U.S. government doesn’t like.
     As for how the Iraqi people view how things are going, the Brookings Institution has poll data. The majority believes the security situation is better today than last August. Anthony Cordesman at CSIS has lots of recent poll data. Check out pages 19, 21, 22, 57, 59, 62, 63, 73, 77, etc. They’re mixed, but the Iraqi people see an improved situation.
     Tell us about how SCII and Dawa and Maliki are subject to Iranian influence than Sadr, Charles.
     Yes, there’s plenty of Iranian influence on SCII, Dawa and Sadrists, Gary. I’m sure you can tell us how better than me.
     Use your vast expertise to tell us about all these things.
     I for one, could be convinced, if you’d finally get around to telling us about this stuff, as you’ve been asked to for years, rather than posting about meaningless statistics and press releases.
     And you so were so civil up that point. Alas.

402. Part II.
     …the way the “Awakening” groups have been integrated into the national government…
     Petraeus:

     Senator, what we are doing, in fact, is helping achieve local bottom-up reconciliation. And, in fact, by the way, they are being integrated into the ISF. And fact is a number of the Sons of Iraq in Anbar province, others in Baghdad have been integrated into the police. Some of those fighting in Basra actually are from the 1st Iraqi Army Division, which has a substantial Sunni complement in it.
     I do weigh this issue all the time. What we are seeing at local level, actually, in Anbar…

     More Petraeus:

     Given the importance of the Sons of Iraq, we’re working closely with the Iraqi government to transition them into the Iraqi security forces or other forms of employment. And over 21,000 have already been accepted into the police or army or other government jobs.
     This process has been slow but it is taking place, and we will continue to monitor it carefully.

     More Sunnis in the Iraqi police force:

     Some 800 Sunni Muslims are among 2,000 newly trained recruits in the Iraqi National Police, a force that a Pentagon report a year ago called a brutal organization infiltrated by Shiite militias and even death squads.
     Another 2,000 Sunnis are expected to be trained and to join the National Police in coming months, a U.S. general in Iraq said Thursday.
     America’s top military policeman in Iraq, Army Brig. Gen. David Phillips, praised the move by Iraqi President Nouri al Maliki as creating “a whole different National Police from a year ago.”

     Like Petraeus said, Gary, the progress is slow, but it’s progress.
     the way most citizens of Iraq believe that the Iraqi government is generally a representative, non-sectarian, government, that is at least vaguely non-corrupt, vaguely effective, and possesses at least a vague monopoly of force, Charles.
     Tell us about how the militias have been eliminated, Charles, rather than just those that the U.S. government doesn’t like.
     As for how the Iraqi people view how things are going, the Brookings Institution has poll data. The majority believes the security situation is better today than last August. Anthony Cordesman at CSIS has lots of recent poll data. Check out pages 19, 21, 22, 57, 59, 62, 63, 73, 77, etc. They’re mixed, but the Iraqi people see an improved situation.
     Tell us about how SCII and Dawa and Maliki are subject to Iranian influence than Sadr, Charles.
     Yes, there’s plenty of Iranian influence on SCII, Dawa and Sadrists, Gary. I’m sure you can tell us how better than me.
     Use your vast expertise to tell us about all these things.
     I for one, could be convinced, if you’d finally get around to telling us about this stuff, as you’ve been asked to for years, rather than posting about meaningless statistics and press releases.
     And you so were so civil up that point. Alas.

403. DaveC: what dr. ngo said. Especially this:
     “Stop being “deliberately offensive.”
     It’s offensive.
     It offends me. Deeply.
     It is the kind of action – and yes, words are a kind of action – no decent human being should engage in, especially not when he’s been repeatedly warned about it. It’s not civil. It’s not decent.”
     Gary brought up the question of posting rules. I’ve never thought about banning you, mostly because you’ve been around here for long enough that I have, rightly or wrongly, the sense that I know you, sort of.
     But he’s right that you have said things that would have gotten someone else banned a long time ago. And I don’t think that would have been overreaction. Some of the things you say are deeply offensive and hurtful.
     I don’t know why you say them. Possibly you assume that since we’re liberals, we can’t possibly care about our country, or the troops, or whatever, and so saying that we want bin Laden to win, or that we are just using the troops as political pawns, or some of the things you have said in the past, can’t possibly bother us.
     This isn’t true. We do. It does.
     If you want to be outrageous, criticize someone other than the people here. If you feel outraged by a post, explain why, but without impugning the characters of half the people here. If you want to vent, there are ways of doing it that don’t involve saying the sorts of things that would be worth fighting duels over.
     Of course you can criticize us, but please, think about what you’re saying first.
     You are upset because people rushed to judgment about the Marines in Haditha. But rushing to judgment, and assuming the worst of people, is your stock in trade here. (As opposed to at TiO, where you are, oddly, different.)
     At some point — and this is not that point — I might get tired of being told, on the basis of no evidence, that I believe things that I find deeply offensive. (I have no problem with people telling me that *with* evidence.) Please don’t let it get that far. I like you. I don’t want to ban you. But if this goes on, I might.

404. DaveC: what dr. ngo said. Especially this:
     “Stop being “deliberately offensive.”
     It’s offensive.
     It offends me. Deeply.
     It is the kind of action – and yes, words are a kind of action – no decent human being should engage in, especially not when he’s been repeatedly warned about it. It’s not civil. It’s not decent.”
     Gary brought up the question of posting rules. I’ve never thought about banning you, mostly because you’ve been around here for long enough that I have, rightly or wrongly, the sense that I know you, sort of.
     But he’s right that you have said things that would have gotten someone else banned a long time ago. And I don’t think that would have been overreaction. Some of the things you say are deeply offensive and hurtful.
     I don’t know why you say them. Possibly you assume that since we’re liberals, we can’t possibly care about our country, or the troops, or whatever, and so saying that we want bin Laden to win, or that we are just using the troops as political pawns, or some of the things you have said in the past, can’t possibly bother us.
     This isn’t true. We do. It does.
     If you want to be outrageous, criticize someone other than the people here. If you feel outraged by a post, explain why, but without impugning the characters of half the people here. If you want to vent, there are ways of doing it that don’t involve saying the sorts of things that would be worth fighting duels over.
     Of course you can criticize us, but please, think about what you’re saying first.
     You are upset because people rushed to judgment about the Marines in Haditha. But rushing to judgment, and assuming the worst of people, is your stock in trade here. (As opposed to at TiO, where you are, oddly, different.)
     At some point — and this is not that point — I might get tired of being told, on the basis of no evidence, that I believe things that I find deeply offensive. (I have no problem with people telling me that *with* evidence.) Please don’t let it get that far. I like you. I don’t want to ban you. But if this goes on, I might.

405. DaveC: what dr. ngo said. Especially this:
     “Stop being “deliberately offensive.”
     It’s offensive.
     It offends me. Deeply.
     It is the kind of action – and yes, words are a kind of action – no decent human being should engage in, especially not when he’s been repeatedly warned about it. It’s not civil. It’s not decent.”
     Gary brought up the question of posting rules. I’ve never thought about banning you, mostly because you’ve been around here for long enough that I have, rightly or wrongly, the sense that I know you, sort of.
     But he’s right that you have said things that would have gotten someone else banned a long time ago. And I don’t think that would have been overreaction. Some of the things you say are deeply offensive and hurtful.
     I don’t know why you say them. Possibly you assume that since we’re liberals, we can’t possibly care about our country, or the troops, or whatever, and so saying that we want bin Laden to win, or that we are just using the troops as political pawns, or some of the things you have said in the past, can’t possibly bother us.
     This isn’t true. We do. It does.
     If you want to be outrageous, criticize someone other than the people here. If you feel outraged by a post, explain why, but without impugning the characters of half the people here. If you want to vent, there are ways of doing it that don’t involve saying the sorts of things that would be worth fighting duels over.
     Of course you can criticize us, but please, think about what you’re saying first.
     You are upset because people rushed to judgment about the Marines in Haditha. But rushing to judgment, and assuming the worst of people, is your stock in trade here. (As opposed to at TiO, where you are, oddly, different.)
     At some point — and this is not that point — I might get tired of being told, on the basis of no evidence, that I believe things that I find deeply offensive. (I have no problem with people telling me that *with* evidence.) Please don’t let it get that far. I like you. I don’t want to ban you. But if this goes on, I might.

406. I’m not sure why I did this, but I thought I’d just keep score of the comments for my own education and entertainment. Call it the shorter comment thread, duplicates and my own comments excluded. The first 50:
     Eric: Substantive
     1. Benjamin: Substantive
     2. matttbastard: Insult
     3. cleek: Disagreement, followed by inaccurate question.
     4. tomeck: Insult
     5. Turbulence: Fair questions about my hasty editing.
     6. spartikus: Snarky insult
     7. rea: Falsely premised disagreement
     8. Hilzoy: Substantive
     9. Eric: Hilzoy huzzah
     10. byrningman: Disagreement
     11. matthew: Disagreement, but fair point about “British television”
     12. Jon H: Disagreement
     13. spartikus: Snarky insult followed by a valid question (you’re right, McCain shouldn’t have included a picture of Petraeus in the ad or fundraiser letter)
     14. getaclue: Grave insult, suggesting that I want to see Obama assassinated.
     15. Hartmut: Disagreement
     16. Francis: Disagreement on the strategy
     17. Nombilisme Vide: Disagreement on Obama’s leftishness, etc.
     18. Justin: Disagreement, surge not working, even if things are better, the surge gets no credit for it.
     19. Brock: Disagreeing with Hil’s logic about what McCain knows about Iraq.
     20. Charlie Martel: Substantive
     21. ThatLeftTurninABQ: Substantive (though I’m not sure about the Nixon-visiting-Vietnam analogy).
     22. Ugh: Meta question
     23. KCinDC: Disagreement
     24. Tim F: Disagreement about the candidates’ bases of support.
     25. Tony P.: Disagreement
     26. Gary: Agreement about active duty military personnel at political events.
     27. Shinobi: Substantive
     28. charles: Condescending remark about me not figuring out that we’ve already lost, and strawman about this post being “some sort of vindication” for my war. I put this under the category of insult.
     29. OCSteve: Substantive, neutral
     30. Eric: Disagreeing with OCS.
     31. Gary: Meta comment, and a fair one.
     32. NV: Interesting comment re Brock’s and Hil’s logic.
     33. Gary: Disagrees with OCS and tells him to read a book.
     34. farmgirl: Agrees with Gary.
     35. Teenage Jesus: Says that the Iraqis are making significant progress as a result of the surge. I wouldn’t say “significant”, but other than OCS, he’s the first to say that political progress has happened, though I detect a hint of sarcasm.
     36. NV: Acknowledged a typo with humor.
     37. Hilzoy: Acknowledged logical unsoundness and proceeded with substantive commentary.
     38. farmgirl: Chided Teenage Jesus for his contrarian opinion.
     39. NV: More humorousness on his confrontations with Typepad.
     40. Grampa Simpson Jesus: Says the exact same thing as Teenage Jesus. Hmmm. The sarcasm antennae is further alerted.
     41. farmgirl: Seques into a complaint about the naming of Homeland Security. I agree with the agricultural female.
     42. Phil: Disagreement with a dusting of mild insult.
     43. OCS: Wonders why the surge gets no credit for anything by the ObWingers.
     44. Eric: Helpfully lays out metrics for the upcoming election.
     45. Morat20: Alludes that I applied a Friedman unit. Put that one under mild insult because I’ve already refuted his contentions in prior threads. 46. trilobite: Posits the curious theory that we named Homeland Security we’re an imperialistic empire. Put it under the “seque” category.
     47. Eric: Compliments trilo on his curious theory.
     48. Bruce Baugh: Agrees with Phil.
     49. Bruce Baugh: Agrees with trilobite.
     50. Ugh: Agrees with trilo that we are an empire.

407. I’m not sure why I did this, but I thought I’d just keep score of the comments for my own education and entertainment. Call it the shorter comment thread, duplicates and my own comments excluded. The first 50:
     Eric: Substantive
     1. Benjamin: Substantive
     2. matttbastard: Insult
     3. cleek: Disagreement, followed by inaccurate question.
     4. tomeck: Insult
     5. Turbulence: Fair questions about my hasty editing.
     6. spartikus: Snarky insult
     7. rea: Falsely premised disagreement
     8. Hilzoy: Substantive
     9. Eric: Hilzoy huzzah
     10. byrningman: Disagreement
     11. matthew: Disagreement, but fair point about “British television”
     12. Jon H: Disagreement
     13. spartikus: Snarky insult followed by a valid question (you’re right, McCain shouldn’t have included a picture of Petraeus in the ad or fundraiser letter)
     14. getaclue: Grave insult, suggesting that I want to see Obama assassinated.
     15. Hartmut: Disagreement
     16. Francis: Disagreement on the strategy
     17. Nombilisme Vide: Disagreement on Obama’s leftishness, etc.
     18. Justin: Disagreement, surge not working, even if things are better, the surge gets no credit for it.
     19. Brock: Disagreeing with Hil’s logic about what McCain knows about Iraq.
     20. Charlie Martel: Substantive
     21. ThatLeftTurninABQ: Substantive (though I’m not sure about the Nixon-visiting-Vietnam analogy).
     22. Ugh: Meta question
     23. KCinDC: Disagreement
     24. Tim F: Disagreement about the candidates’ bases of support.
     25. Tony P.: Disagreement
     26. Gary: Agreement about active duty military personnel at political events.
     27. Shinobi: Substantive
     28. charles: Condescending remark about me not figuring out that we’ve already lost, and strawman about this post being “some sort of vindication” for my war. I put this under the category of insult.
     29. OCSteve: Substantive, neutral
     30. Eric: Disagreeing with OCS.
     31. Gary: Meta comment, and a fair one.
     32. NV: Interesting comment re Brock’s and Hil’s logic.
     33. Gary: Disagrees with OCS and tells him to read a book.
     34. farmgirl: Agrees with Gary.
     35. Teenage Jesus: Says that the Iraqis are making significant progress as a result of the surge. I wouldn’t say “significant”, but other than OCS, he’s the first to say that political progress has happened, though I detect a hint of sarcasm.
     36. NV: Acknowledged a typo with humor.
     37. Hilzoy: Acknowledged logical unsoundness and proceeded with substantive commentary.
     38. farmgirl: Chided Teenage Jesus for his contrarian opinion.
     39. NV: More humorousness on his confrontations with Typepad.
     40. Grampa Simpson Jesus: Says the exact same thing as Teenage Jesus. Hmmm. The sarcasm antennae is further alerted.
     41. farmgirl: Seques into a complaint about the naming of Homeland Security. I agree with the agricultural female.
     42. Phil: Disagreement with a dusting of mild insult.
     43. OCS: Wonders why the surge gets no credit for anything by the ObWingers.
     44. Eric: Helpfully lays out metrics for the upcoming election.
     45. Morat20: Alludes that I applied a Friedman unit. Put that one under mild insult because I’ve already refuted his contentions in prior threads. 46. trilobite: Posits the curious theory that we named Homeland Security we’re an imperialistic empire. Put it under the “seque” category.
     47. Eric: Compliments trilo on his curious theory.
     48. Bruce Baugh: Agrees with Phil.
     49. Bruce Baugh: Agrees with trilobite.
     50. Ugh: Agrees with trilo that we are an empire.

408. I’m not sure why I did this, but I thought I’d just keep score of the comments for my own education and entertainment. Call it the shorter comment thread, duplicates and my own comments excluded. The first 50:
     Eric: Substantive
     1. Benjamin: Substantive
     2. matttbastard: Insult
     3. cleek: Disagreement, followed by inaccurate question.
     4. tomeck: Insult
     5. Turbulence: Fair questions about my hasty editing.
     6. spartikus: Snarky insult
     7. rea: Falsely premised disagreement
     8. Hilzoy: Substantive
     9. Eric: Hilzoy huzzah
     10. byrningman: Disagreement
     11. matthew: Disagreement, but fair point about “British television”
     12. Jon H: Disagreement
     13. spartikus: Snarky insult followed by a valid question (you’re right, McCain shouldn’t have included a picture of Petraeus in the ad or fundraiser letter)
     14. getaclue: Grave insult, suggesting that I want to see Obama assassinated.
     15. Hartmut: Disagreement
     16. Francis: Disagreement on the strategy
     17. Nombilisme Vide: Disagreement on Obama’s leftishness, etc.
     18. Justin: Disagreement, surge not working, even if things are better, the surge gets no credit for it.
     19. Brock: Disagreeing with Hil’s logic about what McCain knows about Iraq.
     20. Charlie Martel: Substantive
     21. ThatLeftTurninABQ: Substantive (though I’m not sure about the Nixon-visiting-Vietnam analogy).
     22. Ugh: Meta question
     23. KCinDC: Disagreement
     24. Tim F: Disagreement about the candidates’ bases of support.
     25. Tony P.: Disagreement
     26. Gary: Agreement about active duty military personnel at political events.
     27. Shinobi: Substantive
     28. charles: Condescending remark about me not figuring out that we’ve already lost, and strawman about this post being “some sort of vindication” for my war. I put this under the category of insult.
     29. OCSteve: Substantive, neutral
     30. Eric: Disagreeing with OCS.
     31. Gary: Meta comment, and a fair one.
     32. NV: Interesting comment re Brock’s and Hil’s logic.
     33. Gary: Disagrees with OCS and tells him to read a book.
     34. farmgirl: Agrees with Gary.
     35. Teenage Jesus: Says that the Iraqis are making significant progress as a result of the surge. I wouldn’t say “significant”, but other than OCS, he’s the first to say that political progress has happened, though I detect a hint of sarcasm.
     36. NV: Acknowledged a typo with humor.
     37. Hilzoy: Acknowledged logical unsoundness and proceeded with substantive commentary.
     38. farmgirl: Chided Teenage Jesus for his contrarian opinion.
     39. NV: More humorousness on his confrontations with Typepad.
     40. Grampa Simpson Jesus: Says the exact same thing as Teenage Jesus. Hmmm. The sarcasm antennae is further alerted.
     41. farmgirl: Seques into a complaint about the naming of Homeland Security. I agree with the agricultural female.
     42. Phil: Disagreement with a dusting of mild insult.
     43. OCS: Wonders why the surge gets no credit for anything by the ObWingers.
     44. Eric: Helpfully lays out metrics for the upcoming election.
     45. Morat20: Alludes that I applied a Friedman unit. Put that one under mild insult because I’ve already refuted his contentions in prior threads. 46. trilobite: Posits the curious theory that we named Homeland Security we’re an imperialistic empire. Put it under the “seque” category.
     47. Eric: Compliments trilo on his curious theory.
     48. Bruce Baugh: Agrees with Phil.
     49. Bruce Baugh: Agrees with trilobite.
     50. Ugh: Agrees with trilo that we are an empire.

409. Please read up on the Vietnam War, and how our government handled propaganda/PR, and how honest or dishonest officials were. Please.
     Yes, Gary, we all know you have more knowledge in your left hip socket than every breathing blogger in the universe. Combined. The question is this. Crocker has been living full-time in Iraqi diplomatic circles since Petraeus came on board. Petraeus has been living in Iraqi COIN circles since February 2007. All of their statements are cautioned and qualified and hedged. From what I’ve seen in the last 15 months, their statements have also been credible, and Petraeus’ own COIN principles are to tell it straight.
     I don’t use statements that come from the White House because I have no confidence in this president, but Petraeus-Crocker aren’t the White House.

410. Please read up on the Vietnam War, and how our government handled propaganda/PR, and how honest or dishonest officials were. Please.
     Yes, Gary, we all know you have more knowledge in your left hip socket than every breathing blogger in the universe. Combined. The question is this. Crocker has been living full-time in Iraqi diplomatic circles since Petraeus came on board. Petraeus has been living in Iraqi COIN circles since February 2007. All of their statements are cautioned and qualified and hedged. From what I’ve seen in the last 15 months, their statements have also been credible, and Petraeus’ own COIN principles are to tell it straight.
     I don’t use statements that come from the White House because I have no confidence in this president, but Petraeus-Crocker aren’t the White House.

411. Please read up on the Vietnam War, and how our government handled propaganda/PR, and how honest or dishonest officials were. Please.
     Yes, Gary, we all know you have more knowledge in your left hip socket than every breathing blogger in the universe. Combined. The question is this. Crocker has been living full-time in Iraqi diplomatic circles since Petraeus came on board. Petraeus has been living in Iraqi COIN circles since February 2007. All of their statements are cautioned and qualified and hedged. From what I’ve seen in the last 15 months, their statements have also been credible, and Petraeus’ own COIN principles are to tell it straight.
     I don’t use statements that come from the White House because I have no confidence in this president, but Petraeus-Crocker aren’t the White House.

412. From the POV of any leftist, of course. Has Obama been calling for control of the means of production, while I wasn’t looking?
     You know, something actually leftist, rather than what lunatic rightwingers like to call leftist?
     Dennis Kucinich is a mild leftist. Obama is just a centrist liberal, at most. Actual leftists usually want actual socialism, if not communism, Charles. You might want to read up on the history of the left if you’re unaware of something so basic, and only aware of caricatures.
     Check the tape, Gary. I didn’t call Obama a leftist. I said he was solid left liberal, using [i]National Journal[/i] and ADA as frames of reference.

413. From the POV of any leftist, of course. Has Obama been calling for control of the means of production, while I wasn’t looking?
     You know, something actually leftist, rather than what lunatic rightwingers like to call leftist?
     Dennis Kucinich is a mild leftist. Obama is just a centrist liberal, at most. Actual leftists usually want actual socialism, if not communism, Charles. You might want to read up on the history of the left if you’re unaware of something so basic, and only aware of caricatures.
     Check the tape, Gary. I didn’t call Obama a leftist. I said he was solid left liberal, using [i]National Journal[/i] and ADA as frames of reference.

414. From the POV of any leftist, of course. Has Obama been calling for control of the means of production, while I wasn’t looking?
     You know, something actually leftist, rather than what lunatic rightwingers like to call leftist?
     Dennis Kucinich is a mild leftist. Obama is just a centrist liberal, at most. Actual leftists usually want actual socialism, if not communism, Charles. You might want to read up on the history of the left if you’re unaware of something so basic, and only aware of caricatures.
     Check the tape, Gary. I didn’t call Obama a leftist. I said he was solid left liberal, using [i]National Journal[/i] and ADA as frames of reference.

415. One comment re DaveC. He is guilty of the sin of invidious overgeneralization, painting all too many liberals with all too broad a brush. The comment about giving money to Gary was unprofessional and a lapse of exercising fair judgment.

416. One comment re DaveC. He is guilty of the sin of invidious overgeneralization, painting all too many liberals with all too broad a brush. The comment about giving money to Gary was unprofessional and a lapse of exercising fair judgment.

417. One comment re DaveC. He is guilty of the sin of invidious overgeneralization, painting all too many liberals with all too broad a brush. The comment about giving money to Gary was unprofessional and a lapse of exercising fair judgment.

418. Definite “long-term” for us, please. When do we get there? What year? What six-month period? When is it a reasonable amount of time to take to get there, and when is it insanely unreasonable, and time to admit we’re never getting there?
     So are we there yet? Historically, successful COINs have taken 5 to 10 years. In McCain’s 2013 ad, it said “Middle East: Stabilized”. That would be roughly Year Seven.
     They’re always going to be positive, we see the light at the end-of-the-tunnel.
     Here’s what Crocker and Petraeus said last month:

     “We haven’t turned any corners. We haven’t seen any lights at the end of the tunnel.”
     –Gen. David Petraeus.
     “The reality is, it is hard in Iraq. And there are no light switches to throw that are going to go dark to light.”
     –Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

     Yep, just one big cheerleading session.

419. Definite “long-term” for us, please. When do we get there? What year? What six-month period? When is it a reasonable amount of time to take to get there, and when is it insanely unreasonable, and time to admit we’re never getting there?
     So are we there yet? Historically, successful COINs have taken 5 to 10 years. In McCain’s 2013 ad, it said “Middle East: Stabilized”. That would be roughly Year Seven.
     They’re always going to be positive, we see the light at the end-of-the-tunnel.
     Here’s what Crocker and Petraeus said last month:

     “We haven’t turned any corners. We haven’t seen any lights at the end of the tunnel.”
     –Gen. David Petraeus.
     “The reality is, it is hard in Iraq. And there are no light switches to throw that are going to go dark to light.”
     –Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

     Yep, just one big cheerleading session.

420. Definite “long-term” for us, please. When do we get there? What year? What six-month period? When is it a reasonable amount of time to take to get there, and when is it insanely unreasonable, and time to admit we’re never getting there?
     So are we there yet? Historically, successful COINs have taken 5 to 10 years. In McCain’s 2013 ad, it said “Middle East: Stabilized”. That would be roughly Year Seven.
     They’re always going to be positive, we see the light at the end-of-the-tunnel.
     Here’s what Crocker and Petraeus said last month:

     “We haven’t turned any corners. We haven’t seen any lights at the end of the tunnel.”
     –Gen. David Petraeus.
     “The reality is, it is hard in Iraq. And there are no light switches to throw that are going to go dark to light.”
     –Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

     Yep, just one big cheerleading session.

421. Can we call the Aussies lose-defeatists now?

422. Can we call the Aussies lose-defeatists now?

423. Can we call the Aussies lose-defeatists now?

424. Petraeus has been living in Iraqi COIN circles since February 2007. All of their statements are cautioned and qualified and hedged. From what I’ve seen in the last 15 months, their statements have also been credible.
     So, back before Petraeus became MNF-I commander, when he was in charge of training IA and reported that it was going great and that we were making great progress, were his statements back then also credible? Because, and not to put too fine a point on it, he was completely and totally wrong then.
     Petraeus’ own COIN principles are to tell it straight.
     Really? So Petraeus’ COIN principles don’t include anything at all about information operations? About the need to control media impressions? About the need to create the long periods of time needed for counterinsurgencies to work by carefully controlling and manipulating media and public access to information?
     Charles, do you think the military leaders who lied to the public during Vietnam did so because they were immoral people? Or do you think they did so because it helped advance their goals, namely the continuation of the war and the refusal to admit failure?
     I don’t use statements that come from the White House because I have no confidence in this president, but Petraeus-Crocker aren’t the White House.
     Charles, do you understand that both Petraeus and Crocker work for the President and take orders from him? Do you believe that Petraeus would refuse a direct order to testify in particular ways?

425. Petraeus has been living in Iraqi COIN circles since February 2007. All of their statements are cautioned and qualified and hedged. From what I’ve seen in the last 15 months, their statements have also been credible.
     So, back before Petraeus became MNF-I commander, when he was in charge of training IA and reported that it was going great and that we were making great progress, were his statements back then also credible? Because, and not to put too fine a point on it, he was completely and totally wrong then.
     Petraeus’ own COIN principles are to tell it straight.
     Really? So Petraeus’ COIN principles don’t include anything at all about information operations? About the need to control media impressions? About the need to create the long periods of time needed for counterinsurgencies to work by carefully controlling and manipulating media and public access to information?
     Charles, do you think the military leaders who lied to the public during Vietnam did so because they were immoral people? Or do you think they did so because it helped advance their goals, namely the continuation of the war and the refusal to admit failure?
     I don’t use statements that come from the White House because I have no confidence in this president, but Petraeus-Crocker aren’t the White House.
     Charles, do you understand that both Petraeus and Crocker work for the President and take orders from him? Do you believe that Petraeus would refuse a direct order to testify in particular ways?

426. Petraeus has been living in Iraqi COIN circles since February 2007. All of their statements are cautioned and qualified and hedged. From what I’ve seen in the last 15 months, their statements have also been credible.
     So, back before Petraeus became MNF-I commander, when he was in charge of training IA and reported that it was going great and that we were making great progress, were his statements back then also credible? Because, and not to put too fine a point on it, he was completely and totally wrong then.
     Petraeus’ own COIN principles are to tell it straight.
     Really? So Petraeus’ COIN principles don’t include anything at all about information operations? About the need to control media impressions? About the need to create the long periods of time needed for counterinsurgencies to work by carefully controlling and manipulating media and public access to information?
     Charles, do you think the military leaders who lied to the public during Vietnam did so because they were immoral people? Or do you think they did so because it helped advance their goals, namely the continuation of the war and the refusal to admit failure?
     I don’t use statements that come from the White House because I have no confidence in this president, but Petraeus-Crocker aren’t the White House.
     Charles, do you understand that both Petraeus and Crocker work for the President and take orders from him? Do you believe that Petraeus would refuse a direct order to testify in particular ways?

427. Check the tape, Gary. I didn’t call Obama a leftist. I said he was solid left liberal, using [i]National Journal[/i] and ADA as frames of reference.
     Oh, well, I’d thought Gary’s response would let me be lazy and silent, but I guess not. The claim in question was not that you said he was a leftist (though you implied it); the claim was that you said his core were of the hard left, and would be wholly intolerant of him changing his “cut-and-run” plan in Iraq, for any reason whatever. I objected to the following passage in particular:
     he’s too politically invested to change it because such a change would anger and inflame the very base that propelled him to the nomination. There would be hell to pay from the Hard Partisan Left.
     …and suggested that his base, or even the core of his base, did not represent hard leftists, or even the hard left of those who vote democratic (I fall in the former category, as well as, by virtue of strong nose-pinching fingers, the latter). The best you could credibly argue would be that his core supporters are the leftmost of Democrat true believers, which with some small contortion, I did manage to parse out of your “Hard Partisan Left” comment. But it’s not the readiest parsing, nor can I believe it’s meant to be (and even if it were, I don’t think it correctly characterizes the reaction of staunch partisan Democrats to spin from their Golden Child du jour to change his stance on an issue due to “reasonable changes on the ground”; they’re partisan for a reason). Obama’s base is at best left-Democrats. They are NOT even hard-left-Democrats. Step off, that’s Kucinich and co.’s turf, and last I checked the likes of Kucinich backers weren’t Obama’s backbone.
     (For an example of a “hard-leftist’s” take on Obama, I frankly don’t care, issue-wise, if Clinton or Obama wins. They’re basically identical. Now, yes, Clinton has shown herself to be somewhat untrustworthy and self-serving (which reinforced latent prejudices arising from her husband’s tenure, but I’ve tried not to tar her with Bill’s record), so at this point if we put heavy weight on “character” I prefer Obama. But honestly, I don’t support him. I’ll vote for him, but nostrils will still be clenched. Kucinich, I can actually get somewhat enthusiastic for, and he’s received my primary vote in the past. But Obama, as Clinton, is at best centerist, and from my PoV, better termed center right. He (and she) care not one bit for the opinion of the hard left of their party, let alone the actual left or hard left… and they return the favor, beyond perhaps the reluctant strategic sacrifice of casting a vote for them.)

428. Check the tape, Gary. I didn’t call Obama a leftist. I said he was solid left liberal, using [i]National Journal[/i] and ADA as frames of reference.
     Oh, well, I’d thought Gary’s response would let me be lazy and silent, but I guess not. The claim in question was not that you said he was a leftist (though you implied it); the claim was that you said his core were of the hard left, and would be wholly intolerant of him changing his “cut-and-run” plan in Iraq, for any reason whatever. I objected to the following passage in particular:
     he’s too politically invested to change it because such a change would anger and inflame the very base that propelled him to the nomination. There would be hell to pay from the Hard Partisan Left.
     …and suggested that his base, or even the core of his base, did not represent hard leftists, or even the hard left of those who vote democratic (I fall in the former category, as well as, by virtue of strong nose-pinching fingers, the latter). The best you could credibly argue would be that his core supporters are the leftmost of Democrat true believers, which with some small contortion, I did manage to parse out of your “Hard Partisan Left” comment. But it’s not the readiest parsing, nor can I believe it’s meant to be (and even if it were, I don’t think it correctly characterizes the reaction of staunch partisan Democrats to spin from their Golden Child du jour to change his stance on an issue due to “reasonable changes on the ground”; they’re partisan for a reason). Obama’s base is at best left-Democrats. They are NOT even hard-left-Democrats. Step off, that’s Kucinich and co.’s turf, and last I checked the likes of Kucinich backers weren’t Obama’s backbone.
     (For an example of a “hard-leftist’s” take on Obama, I frankly don’t care, issue-wise, if Clinton or Obama wins. They’re basically identical. Now, yes, Clinton has shown herself to be somewhat untrustworthy and self-serving (which reinforced latent prejudices arising from her husband’s tenure, but I’ve tried not to tar her with Bill’s record), so at this point if we put heavy weight on “character” I prefer Obama. But honestly, I don’t support him. I’ll vote for him, but nostrils will still be clenched. Kucinich, I can actually get somewhat enthusiastic for, and he’s received my primary vote in the past. But Obama, as Clinton, is at best centerist, and from my PoV, better termed center right. He (and she) care not one bit for the opinion of the hard left of their party, let alone the actual left or hard left… and they return the favor, beyond perhaps the reluctant strategic sacrifice of casting a vote for them.)

429. Check the tape, Gary. I didn’t call Obama a leftist. I said he was solid left liberal, using [i]National Journal[/i] and ADA as frames of reference.
     Oh, well, I’d thought Gary’s response would let me be lazy and silent, but I guess not. The claim in question was not that you said he was a leftist (though you implied it); the claim was that you said his core were of the hard left, and would be wholly intolerant of him changing his “cut-and-run” plan in Iraq, for any reason whatever. I objected to the following passage in particular:
     he’s too politically invested to change it because such a change would anger and inflame the very base that propelled him to the nomination. There would be hell to pay from the Hard Partisan Left.
     …and suggested that his base, or even the core of his base, did not represent hard leftists, or even the hard left of those who vote democratic (I fall in the former category, as well as, by virtue of strong nose-pinching fingers, the latter). The best you could credibly argue would be that his core supporters are the leftmost of Democrat true believers, which with some small contortion, I did manage to parse out of your “Hard Partisan Left” comment. But it’s not the readiest parsing, nor can I believe it’s meant to be (and even if it were, I don’t think it correctly characterizes the reaction of staunch partisan Democrats to spin from their Golden Child du jour to change his stance on an issue due to “reasonable changes on the ground”; they’re partisan for a reason). Obama’s base is at best left-Democrats. They are NOT even hard-left-Democrats. Step off, that’s Kucinich and co.’s turf, and last I checked the likes of Kucinich backers weren’t Obama’s backbone.
     (For an example of a “hard-leftist’s” take on Obama, I frankly don’t care, issue-wise, if Clinton or Obama wins. They’re basically identical. Now, yes, Clinton has shown herself to be somewhat untrustworthy and self-serving (which reinforced latent prejudices arising from her husband’s tenure, but I’ve tried not to tar her with Bill’s record), so at this point if we put heavy weight on “character” I prefer Obama. But honestly, I don’t support him. I’ll vote for him, but nostrils will still be clenched. Kucinich, I can actually get somewhat enthusiastic for, and he’s received my primary vote in the past. But Obama, as Clinton, is at best centerist, and from my PoV, better termed center right. He (and she) care not one bit for the opinion of the hard left of their party, let alone the actual left or hard left… and they return the favor, beyond perhaps the reluctant strategic sacrifice of casting a vote for them.)

430. Oh, and to your later argument that you meant he was a “solid left liberal”, um, no, he’s a solid centerist liberal. Like the Clintons. His supporters are probably a bit to the left of him, but they’re, as stated above, hardly staunch left-wing liberals. They’re center-left liberals. Not solid left, not hard left, but center-left.

431. Oh, and to your later argument that you meant he was a “solid left liberal”, um, no, he’s a solid centerist liberal. Like the Clintons. His supporters are probably a bit to the left of him, but they’re, as stated above, hardly staunch left-wing liberals. They’re center-left liberals. Not solid left, not hard left, but center-left.

432. Oh, and to your later argument that you meant he was a “solid left liberal”, um, no, he’s a solid centerist liberal. Like the Clintons. His supporters are probably a bit to the left of him, but they’re, as stated above, hardly staunch left-wing liberals. They’re center-left liberals. Not solid left, not hard left, but center-left.

433. To continue to over-clarify, go back and look at the link you provided as “proof” of his extreme liberalosity. He’s tied with three others (Biden, Nelson, and Clinton) for 4th-least liberal Democrat Senator. He’s scoring 75%, which is 12% lower than the average for Democrat Senators. The ADA paper, if anything, undermines your case.

434. To continue to over-clarify, go back and look at the link you provided as “proof” of his extreme liberalosity. He’s tied with three others (Biden, Nelson, and Clinton) for 4th-least liberal Democrat Senator. He’s scoring 75%, which is 12% lower than the average for Democrat Senators. The ADA paper, if anything, undermines your case.

435. To continue to over-clarify, go back and look at the link you provided as “proof” of his extreme liberalosity. He’s tied with three others (Biden, Nelson, and Clinton) for 4th-least liberal Democrat Senator. He’s scoring 75%, which is 12% lower than the average for Democrat Senators. The ADA paper, if anything, undermines your case.

436. Shorter Charles: Administration officials say that we’re making progress, and that’s good enough for me.
     eg
     “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     Informally yes, Gary.
     That is to say, no. Crocker does explain (for some reason) that Iraq is in fact selling oil, and the money from that goes to the government, which then spends it on stuff. But the oil deal is not done, has been stalled for a long time, and shows no particular signs of moving forward.
     The rest of the points go similarly- Croker saying that he thinks progress is being made is ‘proof’ that it is, in fact, being made. A ‘reconciliation act’ which is unsupported by the community being reconciled with is ‘progress’. etc.
     If McCain should win in November, one small solace Ill take is knowing I get to watch you perform this silly little dance for several more years into the future. Far to high a cost to pay for petty entertainment, really, but one takes pleasure where one can.

437. Shorter Charles: Administration officials say that we’re making progress, and that’s good enough for me.
     eg
     “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     Informally yes, Gary.
     That is to say, no. Crocker does explain (for some reason) that Iraq is in fact selling oil, and the money from that goes to the government, which then spends it on stuff. But the oil deal is not done, has been stalled for a long time, and shows no particular signs of moving forward.
     The rest of the points go similarly- Croker saying that he thinks progress is being made is ‘proof’ that it is, in fact, being made. A ‘reconciliation act’ which is unsupported by the community being reconciled with is ‘progress’. etc.
     If McCain should win in November, one small solace Ill take is knowing I get to watch you perform this silly little dance for several more years into the future. Far to high a cost to pay for petty entertainment, really, but one takes pleasure where one can.

438. Shorter Charles: Administration officials say that we’re making progress, and that’s good enough for me.
     eg
     “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     Informally yes, Gary.
     That is to say, no. Crocker does explain (for some reason) that Iraq is in fact selling oil, and the money from that goes to the government, which then spends it on stuff. But the oil deal is not done, has been stalled for a long time, and shows no particular signs of moving forward.
     The rest of the points go similarly- Croker saying that he thinks progress is being made is ‘proof’ that it is, in fact, being made. A ‘reconciliation act’ which is unsupported by the community being reconciled with is ‘progress’. etc.
     If McCain should win in November, one small solace Ill take is knowing I get to watch you perform this silly little dance for several more years into the future. Far to high a cost to pay for petty entertainment, really, but one takes pleasure where one can.

439. It’s worth noting that Obama’s base is precisely composed of folks who did not initially support Kucinich or even Edwards. Most of us who did are in positions much like Carleton’s, with varying mixes of making do and appreciation for policies and styles, but nonetheless dealing with a consolation prize.

440. It’s worth noting that Obama’s base is precisely composed of folks who did not initially support Kucinich or even Edwards. Most of us who did are in positions much like Carleton’s, with varying mixes of making do and appreciation for policies and styles, but nonetheless dealing with a consolation prize.

441. It’s worth noting that Obama’s base is precisely composed of folks who did not initially support Kucinich or even Edwards. Most of us who did are in positions much like Carleton’s, with varying mixes of making do and appreciation for policies and styles, but nonetheless dealing with a consolation prize.

442. “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     Informally yes, Gary.

     What’s “informal” legislation, Charles?
     “Did this happen, Charles?
     It is happening.”
     Charles, the benchmarks had dates. In other words, no, it didn’t happen by the necessary date.

     To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     They haven’t happened yet.

     So far we’re four for four on “no, those benchmarks weren’t fulfilled.”

     “And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws,”
     Give us some cites on the success of that, please, Charles.
     Okay. More Crocker

     Charles, why should anyone care what a salesman selling his PR has to say? Give us some quotes from Iraqi authorities, please? How about, specifically, some Sunni Awakenings leaders? Thanks!

     “We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams.”
     How about a cite on the success of this, Charles?
     Petraeus, from the Q&A last month:
     The provincial reconstruction teams and the so-called EPRTs, the embedded provincial reconstruction, which were actually subprovincial in most cases, have been enormously helpful and valuable.

     That’s nice PR. The number was to be doubled: was it? Please give us the numbers. Numbers are metrics; press releases and sales pitches are not. Thanks!
     “I don’t have hard numbers on the numbers of PRTs and EPRTs, Gary. You could assume that the numbers of PRTs would be proportional to the reconstruction dollars allotted, but that would only be an assumption.”
     Quite. When you have an answer, get back to us. (If you like, i can supply you with some nice links on how the PRTs haven’t made those numbers, and why, but you might like to, you know, find out about this stuff for yourself.)
     “don’t have hard numbers on the numbers of PRTs and EPRTs, Gary. You could assume that the numbers of PRTs would be proportional to the reconstruction dollars allotted, but that would only be an assumption.”
     Charles, tell me, when President Obama announces a policy for something, is your judge for whether it’s been successful or not going to be speeches by Obama appointees?
     Give us some quotes from Sunni Awakenings leaders, please.
     I repeat for the billionth time in the past several years: quit telling us what Americans have to say about Iraq — tell us what Iraqis have to say about Iraq. It’s kind, you know, more important than what administration flacks say: do you really think that they’re going to announce that no, they’re failing, and their boss has engaged in a failed policy? What possible point do you think you’re making by assuring us that the policies must be a success, because George W. Bush’s appointees assure us they are?
     “Like Petraeus said, Gary, the progress is slow, but it’s progress.”
     Charles, we’re not talking about the ever-receding Next Friedman Unit. We’re talking about the benchmarks the President said had to be met. On deadlines.
     So far, your account is that no deadline for any benchmark has been met. Either you acknowledge that, or you wish us to accept the word of sales people.
     When you can point to cites demonstrating factually that the benchmarks were met, let us know, please.
     Meanwhile, you’re substituting PR claims for facts, and saying we should accept that. Why do you think we should?
     “And you so were so civil up that point. Alas.”
     We’ve discussed this in email; please let me know if you think where we left it was unsatisfactory.
     “As for how the Iraqi people view how things are going, the Brookings Institution has poll data. The majority believes the security situation is better today than last August. Anthony Cordesman at CSIS has lots of recent poll data.”
     Thanks for that; I’ve got to get to sleep, but I’ll look that over tomorrow, as time allows.
     Thanks muchly otherwise for your reply.

443. “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     Informally yes, Gary.

     What’s “informal” legislation, Charles?
     “Did this happen, Charles?
     It is happening.”
     Charles, the benchmarks had dates. In other words, no, it didn’t happen by the necessary date.

     To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     They haven’t happened yet.

     So far we’re four for four on “no, those benchmarks weren’t fulfilled.”

     “And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws,”
     Give us some cites on the success of that, please, Charles.
     Okay. More Crocker

     Charles, why should anyone care what a salesman selling his PR has to say? Give us some quotes from Iraqi authorities, please? How about, specifically, some Sunni Awakenings leaders? Thanks!

     “We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams.”
     How about a cite on the success of this, Charles?
     Petraeus, from the Q&A last month:
     The provincial reconstruction teams and the so-called EPRTs, the embedded provincial reconstruction, which were actually subprovincial in most cases, have been enormously helpful and valuable.

     That’s nice PR. The number was to be doubled: was it? Please give us the numbers. Numbers are metrics; press releases and sales pitches are not. Thanks!
     “I don’t have hard numbers on the numbers of PRTs and EPRTs, Gary. You could assume that the numbers of PRTs would be proportional to the reconstruction dollars allotted, but that would only be an assumption.”
     Quite. When you have an answer, get back to us. (If you like, i can supply you with some nice links on how the PRTs haven’t made those numbers, and why, but you might like to, you know, find out about this stuff for yourself.)
     “don’t have hard numbers on the numbers of PRTs and EPRTs, Gary. You could assume that the numbers of PRTs would be proportional to the reconstruction dollars allotted, but that would only be an assumption.”
     Charles, tell me, when President Obama announces a policy for something, is your judge for whether it’s been successful or not going to be speeches by Obama appointees?
     Give us some quotes from Sunni Awakenings leaders, please.
     I repeat for the billionth time in the past several years: quit telling us what Americans have to say about Iraq — tell us what Iraqis have to say about Iraq. It’s kind, you know, more important than what administration flacks say: do you really think that they’re going to announce that no, they’re failing, and their boss has engaged in a failed policy? What possible point do you think you’re making by assuring us that the policies must be a success, because George W. Bush’s appointees assure us they are?
     “Like Petraeus said, Gary, the progress is slow, but it’s progress.”
     Charles, we’re not talking about the ever-receding Next Friedman Unit. We’re talking about the benchmarks the President said had to be met. On deadlines.
     So far, your account is that no deadline for any benchmark has been met. Either you acknowledge that, or you wish us to accept the word of sales people.
     When you can point to cites demonstrating factually that the benchmarks were met, let us know, please.
     Meanwhile, you’re substituting PR claims for facts, and saying we should accept that. Why do you think we should?
     “And you so were so civil up that point. Alas.”
     We’ve discussed this in email; please let me know if you think where we left it was unsatisfactory.
     “As for how the Iraqi people view how things are going, the Brookings Institution has poll data. The majority believes the security situation is better today than last August. Anthony Cordesman at CSIS has lots of recent poll data.”
     Thanks for that; I’ve got to get to sleep, but I’ll look that over tomorrow, as time allows.
     Thanks muchly otherwise for your reply.

444. “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     Informally yes, Gary.

     What’s “informal” legislation, Charles?
     “Did this happen, Charles?
     It is happening.”
     Charles, the benchmarks had dates. In other words, no, it didn’t happen by the necessary date.

     To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year.”
     Did this happen, Charles?
     They haven’t happened yet.

     So far we’re four for four on “no, those benchmarks weren’t fulfilled.”

     “And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws,”
     Give us some cites on the success of that, please, Charles.
     Okay. More Crocker

     Charles, why should anyone care what a salesman selling his PR has to say? Give us some quotes from Iraqi authorities, please? How about, specifically, some Sunni Awakenings leaders? Thanks!

     “We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams.”
     How about a cite on the success of this, Charles?
     Petraeus, from the Q&A last month:
     The provincial reconstruction teams and the so-called EPRTs, the embedded provincial reconstruction, which were actually subprovincial in most cases, have been enormously helpful and valuable.

     That’s nice PR. The number was to be doubled: was it? Please give us the numbers. Numbers are metrics; press releases and sales pitches are not. Thanks!
     “I don’t have hard numbers on the numbers of PRTs and EPRTs, Gary. You could assume that the numbers of PRTs would be proportional to the reconstruction dollars allotted, but that would only be an assumption.”
     Quite. When you have an answer, get back to us. (If you like, i can supply you with some nice links on how the PRTs haven’t made those numbers, and why, but you might like to, you know, find out about this stuff for yourself.)
     “don’t have hard numbers on the numbers of PRTs and EPRTs, Gary. You could assume that the numbers of PRTs would be proportional to the reconstruction dollars allotted, but that would only be an assumption.”
     Charles, tell me, when President Obama announces a policy for something, is your judge for whether it’s been successful or not going to be speeches by Obama appointees?
     Give us some quotes from Sunni Awakenings leaders, please.
     I repeat for the billionth time in the past several years: quit telling us what Americans have to say about Iraq — tell us what Iraqis have to say about Iraq. It’s kind, you know, more important than what administration flacks say: do you really think that they’re going to announce that no, they’re failing, and their boss has engaged in a failed policy? What possible point do you think you’re making by assuring us that the policies must be a success, because George W. Bush’s appointees assure us they are?
     “Like Petraeus said, Gary, the progress is slow, but it’s progress.”
     Charles, we’re not talking about the ever-receding Next Friedman Unit. We’re talking about the benchmarks the President said had to be met. On deadlines.
     So far, your account is that no deadline for any benchmark has been met. Either you acknowledge that, or you wish us to accept the word of sales people.
     When you can point to cites demonstrating factually that the benchmarks were met, let us know, please.
     Meanwhile, you’re substituting PR claims for facts, and saying we should accept that. Why do you think we should?
     “And you so were so civil up that point. Alas.”
     We’ve discussed this in email; please let me know if you think where we left it was unsatisfactory.
     “As for how the Iraqi people view how things are going, the Brookings Institution has poll data. The majority believes the security situation is better today than last August. Anthony Cordesman at CSIS has lots of recent poll data.”
     Thanks for that; I’ve got to get to sleep, but I’ll look that over tomorrow, as time allows.
     Thanks muchly otherwise for your reply.

445. “I’ve never thought about banning you, mostly because you’ve been around here for long enough that I have,”
     I have to ask why this doesn’t effectively mean that ObWi has a policy that if the commenter has been around for a while, they can say anything, and never be banned?
     What possible grounds would you have for banning me if I spent the next two years announcing what you, or DaveC, or Charles, or anyone, thought about something, and I insisted dozens and dozens of times, in separate posts, month after month, year after year, that y’all believe a long list of extremely offensive things?
     So far as I can tell, you’ve given all us long-timers blanket immunity. If you haven’t, and this is a DaveC-only policy, I’d like to know what makes him special. If it isn’t, I’d like to know what objective grounds, other than my own sense of honor, decency, and civility — which will prevent me from engaging in the above course of action, of course — this ObWi policy gives me to not engage in such a course of action?
     Thanks for any clarification of this point.
     “You are upset because people rushed to judgment about the Marines in Haditha.”
     That might be the case for some, but as I pointed out several times to DaveC, here, before I ceased bothering, I never, ever, ever, wrote a post with a judgment about any of the Marines in Haditha. I posted a whole lot of links to news articles, and that’s it. I very carefully at no time stated any opinion as to what had happened, because I never ever had any opinion.
     DaveC’s claims to the contrary are as hallucinatory and completely false as the rest of his malicious falsehoods.
     And, lastly, it seems to have escaped his attention that I’ve posted very little at all on my blog, relatively speaking, in the past more than a year, due to lots of trouble in my life, and that that’s why I’ve not made blog posts about thousands of topics I have saved links about.
     If DaveC would like to get me blogging more, he’s free to send me the additional $2500 or so I need to get an apartment of my own again, and that would be a good start, although I also first have to take care of a wide variety of health issues, and other issues I need to deal with subsequent to my move to Raleigh,and yet others pre-dating the move, and then he can really brag about how much I owe up.
     Failing that, it would be nice if he noted that I’m not making demands as to what he should be posting about at his blog, nor am I criticizing him for what he hasn’t blogged, and neither am I speculating as to why he has or hasn’t blogged anything, and then he did me the same courtesy.
     Failing that, I’d like to ask him to STFU about me.

446. “I’ve never thought about banning you, mostly because you’ve been around here for long enough that I have,”
     I have to ask why this doesn’t effectively mean that ObWi has a policy that if the commenter has been around for a while, they can say anything, and never be banned?
     What possible grounds would you have for banning me if I spent the next two years announcing what you, or DaveC, or Charles, or anyone, thought about something, and I insisted dozens and dozens of times, in separate posts, month after month, year after year, that y’all believe a long list of extremely offensive things?
     So far as I can tell, you’ve given all us long-timers blanket immunity. If you haven’t, and this is a DaveC-only policy, I’d like to know what makes him special. If it isn’t, I’d like to know what objective grounds, other than my own sense of honor, decency, and civility — which will prevent me from engaging in the above course of action, of course — this ObWi policy gives me to not engage in such a course of action?
     Thanks for any clarification of this point.
     “You are upset because people rushed to judgment about the Marines in Haditha.”
     That might be the case for some, but as I pointed out several times to DaveC, here, before I ceased bothering, I never, ever, ever, wrote a post with a judgment about any of the Marines in Haditha. I posted a whole lot of links to news articles, and that’s it. I very carefully at no time stated any opinion as to what had happened, because I never ever had any opinion.
     DaveC’s claims to the contrary are as hallucinatory and completely false as the rest of his malicious falsehoods.
     And, lastly, it seems to have escaped his attention that I’ve posted very little at all on my blog, relatively speaking, in the past more than a year, due to lots of trouble in my life, and that that’s why I’ve not made blog posts about thousands of topics I have saved links about.
     If DaveC would like to get me blogging more, he’s free to send me the additional $2500 or so I need to get an apartment of my own again, and that would be a good start, although I also first have to take care of a wide variety of health issues, and other issues I need to deal with subsequent to my move to Raleigh,and yet others pre-dating the move, and then he can really brag about how much I owe up.
     Failing that, it would be nice if he noted that I’m not making demands as to what he should be posting about at his blog, nor am I criticizing him for what he hasn’t blogged, and neither am I speculating as to why he has or hasn’t blogged anything, and then he did me the same courtesy.
     Failing that, I’d like to ask him to STFU about me.

447. “I’ve never thought about banning you, mostly because you’ve been around here for long enough that I have,”
     I have to ask why this doesn’t effectively mean that ObWi has a policy that if the commenter has been around for a while, they can say anything, and never be banned?
     What possible grounds would you have for banning me if I spent the next two years announcing what you, or DaveC, or Charles, or anyone, thought about something, and I insisted dozens and dozens of times, in separate posts, month after month, year after year, that y’all believe a long list of extremely offensive things?
     So far as I can tell, you’ve given all us long-timers blanket immunity. If you haven’t, and this is a DaveC-only policy, I’d like to know what makes him special. If it isn’t, I’d like to know what objective grounds, other than my own sense of honor, decency, and civility — which will prevent me from engaging in the above course of action, of course — this ObWi policy gives me to not engage in such a course of action?
     Thanks for any clarification of this point.
     “You are upset because people rushed to judgment about the Marines in Haditha.”
     That might be the case for some, but as I pointed out several times to DaveC, here, before I ceased bothering, I never, ever, ever, wrote a post with a judgment about any of the Marines in Haditha. I posted a whole lot of links to news articles, and that’s it. I very carefully at no time stated any opinion as to what had happened, because I never ever had any opinion.
     DaveC’s claims to the contrary are as hallucinatory and completely false as the rest of his malicious falsehoods.
     And, lastly, it seems to have escaped his attention that I’ve posted very little at all on my blog, relatively speaking, in the past more than a year, due to lots of trouble in my life, and that that’s why I’ve not made blog posts about thousands of topics I have saved links about.
     If DaveC would like to get me blogging more, he’s free to send me the additional $2500 or so I need to get an apartment of my own again, and that would be a good start, although I also first have to take care of a wide variety of health issues, and other issues I need to deal with subsequent to my move to Raleigh,and yet others pre-dating the move, and then he can really brag about how much I owe up.
     Failing that, it would be nice if he noted that I’m not making demands as to what he should be posting about at his blog, nor am I criticizing him for what he hasn’t blogged, and neither am I speculating as to why he has or hasn’t blogged anything, and then he did me the same courtesy.
     Failing that, I’d like to ask him to STFU about me.

448. “I don’t use statements that come from the White House because I have no confidence in this president, but Petraeus-Crocker aren’t the White House.”
     Charles, who works for who?
     And could you perhaps try some of the reading on the Vietnam War?
     Please? Isn’t it stuff that would be valuable for you to know?

449. “I don’t use statements that come from the White House because I have no confidence in this president, but Petraeus-Crocker aren’t the White House.”
     Charles, who works for who?
     And could you perhaps try some of the reading on the Vietnam War?
     Please? Isn’t it stuff that would be valuable for you to know?

450. “I don’t use statements that come from the White House because I have no confidence in this president, but Petraeus-Crocker aren’t the White House.”
     Charles, who works for who?
     And could you perhaps try some of the reading on the Vietnam War?
     Please? Isn’t it stuff that would be valuable for you to know?

451. Shorter Charles: Administration officials say that we’re making progress, and that’s good enough for me.
     Shorter Wu: “I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.” Worked like a champ for Hillary, didn’t it?
     NV,
     You made fair comments about Obama and who his supporters are. I suppose we come at our observations based on where we are on political spectrum. My basis is moderate conservative, so from that perspective and from the frames of reference I provided, I see Obama as solidly liberal. Judging from the caucus and primary results, his base of support is to the left of Hillary’s.
     So, back before Petraeus became MNF-I commander, when he was in charge of training IA and reported that it was going great and that we were making great progress, were his statements back then also credible?
     Turb, they were until the Golden Mosque bombing triggered a near civil war and fundamentally changed the dynamic. His results were credible when he ran the show in Mosul. Unfortunately, he was reassigned and a Stryker brigade one-fourth the size replaced his battalion, and said brigade did little to nothing in continuing the operation he set up.
     So Petraeus’ COIN principles don’t include anything at all about information operations?
     They do, but I don’t see where effective information ops means carte blanche to be untruthful. Also, the purpose of a good IO is to counter the propaganda operations utilized by al Qaeda and similar groups. The IO storyline coming from our side needs to be factual and accurate, otherwise that hearts and minds thing won’t happen. From the COIN manual:

     Effective IO use consistent themes based on policy, facts, and deeds—not claims or future plans, because these can be thwarted. Themes must be reinforced by actions along all LLOs. Making unsubstantiated claims can undermine the long-term credibility and legitimacy of the HN government. Counterinsurgents should never knowingly commit themselves to an action that cannot be completed. However, to reduce the negative effects of a broken promise, counterinsurgents should publicly address the reasons expectations cannot be met before insurgents can take advantage of them.

     Gary,
     The only date in your 7:54pm comment was that “the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November.” You didn’t ask me about dates in your specific questions, and we seem to be talking past each other anyway. My original position was that political progress was being made, and I supported that contention in direct answer to your questions. Hil’s contention was this: “Second, the stated purpose of the surge was to enable political progress to occur. This is not happening.” She offered no timelines, and I still maintain her comments are direct contradiction to what Crocker reported last month.
     Your problem is that said progress is not happening according to the pre-set deadlines, i.e., not quickly enough, i.e., we’re not there yet. The problem with the timeline is that it was most likely never that realistic to begin with. So the question is, do you refine and improve those goals and benchmarks, given the progress to date, or do you follow the Obama plan and remove all combat brigades in 16 months, regardless of the results of said “plan”? For me, I’ll pick the former.
     As for for your comments about Crocker, please see my response to Wu.

452. Shorter Charles: Administration officials say that we’re making progress, and that’s good enough for me.
     Shorter Wu: “I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.” Worked like a champ for Hillary, didn’t it?
     NV,
     You made fair comments about Obama and who his supporters are. I suppose we come at our observations based on where we are on political spectrum. My basis is moderate conservative, so from that perspective and from the frames of reference I provided, I see Obama as solidly liberal. Judging from the caucus and primary results, his base of support is to the left of Hillary’s.
     So, back before Petraeus became MNF-I commander, when he was in charge of training IA and reported that it was going great and that we were making great progress, were his statements back then also credible?
     Turb, they were until the Golden Mosque bombing triggered a near civil war and fundamentally changed the dynamic. His results were credible when he ran the show in Mosul. Unfortunately, he was reassigned and a Stryker brigade one-fourth the size replaced his battalion, and said brigade did little to nothing in continuing the operation he set up.
     So Petraeus’ COIN principles don’t include anything at all about information operations?
     They do, but I don’t see where effective information ops means carte blanche to be untruthful. Also, the purpose of a good IO is to counter the propaganda operations utilized by al Qaeda and similar groups. The IO storyline coming from our side needs to be factual and accurate, otherwise that hearts and minds thing won’t happen. From the COIN manual:

     Effective IO use consistent themes based on policy, facts, and deeds—not claims or future plans, because these can be thwarted. Themes must be reinforced by actions along all LLOs. Making unsubstantiated claims can undermine the long-term credibility and legitimacy of the HN government. Counterinsurgents should never knowingly commit themselves to an action that cannot be completed. However, to reduce the negative effects of a broken promise, counterinsurgents should publicly address the reasons expectations cannot be met before insurgents can take advantage of them.

     Gary,
     The only date in your 7:54pm comment was that “the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November.” You didn’t ask me about dates in your specific questions, and we seem to be talking past each other anyway. My original position was that political progress was being made, and I supported that contention in direct answer to your questions. Hil’s contention was this: “Second, the stated purpose of the surge was to enable political progress to occur. This is not happening.” She offered no timelines, and I still maintain her comments are direct contradiction to what Crocker reported last month.
     Your problem is that said progress is not happening according to the pre-set deadlines, i.e., not quickly enough, i.e., we’re not there yet. The problem with the timeline is that it was most likely never that realistic to begin with. So the question is, do you refine and improve those goals and benchmarks, given the progress to date, or do you follow the Obama plan and remove all combat brigades in 16 months, regardless of the results of said “plan”? For me, I’ll pick the former.
     As for for your comments about Crocker, please see my response to Wu.

453. Shorter Charles: Administration officials say that we’re making progress, and that’s good enough for me.
     Shorter Wu: “I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.” Worked like a champ for Hillary, didn’t it?
     NV,
     You made fair comments about Obama and who his supporters are. I suppose we come at our observations based on where we are on political spectrum. My basis is moderate conservative, so from that perspective and from the frames of reference I provided, I see Obama as solidly liberal. Judging from the caucus and primary results, his base of support is to the left of Hillary’s.
     So, back before Petraeus became MNF-I commander, when he was in charge of training IA and reported that it was going great and that we were making great progress, were his statements back then also credible?
     Turb, they were until the Golden Mosque bombing triggered a near civil war and fundamentally changed the dynamic. His results were credible when he ran the show in Mosul. Unfortunately, he was reassigned and a Stryker brigade one-fourth the size replaced his battalion, and said brigade did little to nothing in continuing the operation he set up.
     So Petraeus’ COIN principles don’t include anything at all about information operations?
     They do, but I don’t see where effective information ops means carte blanche to be untruthful. Also, the purpose of a good IO is to counter the propaganda operations utilized by al Qaeda and similar groups. The IO storyline coming from our side needs to be factual and accurate, otherwise that hearts and minds thing won’t happen. From the COIN manual:

     Effective IO use consistent themes based on policy, facts, and deeds—not claims or future plans, because these can be thwarted. Themes must be reinforced by actions along all LLOs. Making unsubstantiated claims can undermine the long-term credibility and legitimacy of the HN government. Counterinsurgents should never knowingly commit themselves to an action that cannot be completed. However, to reduce the negative effects of a broken promise, counterinsurgents should publicly address the reasons expectations cannot be met before insurgents can take advantage of them.

     Gary,
     The only date in your 7:54pm comment was that “the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November.” You didn’t ask me about dates in your specific questions, and we seem to be talking past each other anyway. My original position was that political progress was being made, and I supported that contention in direct answer to your questions. Hil’s contention was this: “Second, the stated purpose of the surge was to enable political progress to occur. This is not happening.” She offered no timelines, and I still maintain her comments are direct contradiction to what Crocker reported last month.
     Your problem is that said progress is not happening according to the pre-set deadlines, i.e., not quickly enough, i.e., we’re not there yet. The problem with the timeline is that it was most likely never that realistic to begin with. So the question is, do you refine and improve those goals and benchmarks, given the progress to date, or do you follow the Obama plan and remove all combat brigades in 16 months, regardless of the results of said “plan”? For me, I’ll pick the former.
     As for for your comments about Crocker, please see my response to Wu.

454. Charles, comment?
     I’m in major gout pain again just now, so I’ll get back to you about your last response later.

455. Charles, comment?
     I’m in major gout pain again just now, so I’ll get back to you about your last response later.

456. Charles, comment?
     I’m in major gout pain again just now, so I’ll get back to you about your last response later.

457. Shorter Wu: “I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.” Worked like a champ for Hillary, didn’t it?
     I suppose if that comment made some kind of sense, I could respond to it. It is funny how the ‘shorter me’ managed to elide the important bits (eg how many Sunnis don’t care for the Ba’athification reforms).
     Almost like you’re using the ‘shorter’ format to avoid dealing with facts head on…
     Of course, if Crocker’s reports didn’t rely on *belief* (ie trust), but instead used *facts*, then suspension of disbelief wouldn’t be a factor.

458. Shorter Wu: “I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.” Worked like a champ for Hillary, didn’t it?
     I suppose if that comment made some kind of sense, I could respond to it. It is funny how the ‘shorter me’ managed to elide the important bits (eg how many Sunnis don’t care for the Ba’athification reforms).
     Almost like you’re using the ‘shorter’ format to avoid dealing with facts head on…
     Of course, if Crocker’s reports didn’t rely on *belief* (ie trust), but instead used *facts*, then suspension of disbelief wouldn’t be a factor.

459. Shorter Wu: “I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.” Worked like a champ for Hillary, didn’t it?
     I suppose if that comment made some kind of sense, I could respond to it. It is funny how the ‘shorter me’ managed to elide the important bits (eg how many Sunnis don’t care for the Ba’athification reforms).
     Almost like you’re using the ‘shorter’ format to avoid dealing with facts head on…
     Of course, if Crocker’s reports didn’t rely on *belief* (ie trust), but instead used *facts*, then suspension of disbelief wouldn’t be a factor.

Comments are closed.