New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | January 26, 2006

Is the mainstream media hiding a torrent of good news from Iraq? Or, asks Tim Cavanaugh, is the "good news" so lame it counts as bad news?

Comments

|1.26.06 @ 10:19AM|#

Is the mainstream media hiding a torrent of good news from Iraq?

Yes, according to certain posters here. Everything is going just fabulous except for in those few areas where the media is to be found.

|1.26.06 @ 10:28AM|#

"...the joyful, voluminous, ever-increasing good news that has apparently become Iraq�s chief export now that its oil pipelines have been sabotaged beyond functionality."

Zing! Pow!

|1.26.06 @ 10:29AM|#

I wonder if we're going to see war boosters celebrating the Palestinian elections as yet another victory for Reverse Domino Theory.

|1.26.06 @ 10:35AM|#

Jennifer, you forgot to add the standard war-apologist tagline, " . . . because they never leave their safe hotels in Baghdad." For some reason, they always seem to leave off, " . . . because they don't want to get an IED 'embedded' in their skull."

|1.26.06 @ 10:44AM|#

To quote John from one of yesterday's threads: "Either admit things are better now that Saddam is gone, or admit that you're a Baathist."

Tim's a Baathist. Pass it on.

|1.26.06 @ 11:02AM|#

Jennifer,

I missed the part of that article where Tim says things were better under Saddam.

|1.26.06 @ 11:04AM|#

I missed the part of that article where Tim says things were better under Saddam.

If you're serious, then that's not the only thing you've missed.

|1.26.06 @ 11:27AM|#

Pussy reporters! Afraid to report the good news!
Probably because they would lose their liberal media credentials!

Are reporters still embedded with troops units? Are they unwilling to report good news too?

|1.26.06 @ 11:29AM|#

There will never be "good news" because the Bush administration has never come clean on why we are still fighting this war in the first place. You can't claim to have achieved your goals when your goals are not public. We did accomplish the goal of overthrowing Saddam and eliminating Iraq as a source of WMD. Of course that was 2 years ago - had we just left then, well, good news all around. Why we are still in Iraq is not really clear. If we are "building democracy" then Bush has to tell us how we are supposed to know when it's done.

Peter K.|1.26.06 @ 11:32AM|#

Joe,

As Bush said this morning, it should serve as a wake-up call to Fatah, which couldn't win even though US taxpayers tried to help them out with $2 million. As I understand it, a lot of Palestinians were voting *against* unbelievably corrupt Fatah politicians rather than for Hamas.

As Bush didn't say, it should serve as a wake-up call to Israelis.

Before he was hospitalitzed, Sharon told Bush they shouldn't let Hamas participate in the election - the first one in 10 years, by the way.

Bush and Rice listened to Palestinian Fatah leader Abbas instead: democracy means everyone gets to participate in elections, as in Iraq.

Democracy in the Middle East means the Israelis better stop dragging their heels over the 2 state solution, and all of the corrupt monarchies and/or dictorships better get their act together.

|1.26.06 @ 11:32AM|#

That's what you've bought with more than $220 billion and 2,000 American lives: a set of process-oriented half-measures so humble they wouldn't have made it into a Brezhnev-era progress report to the Supreme Soviet.

I'd only add that more than 16,000 Americans have been wounded in Iraq.

That may or may not be true, but the point is whether this stuff is worth it to Americans. (Bold added to author's emphasis)

Hear, hear!

The story isn't that the media ignore the good news out of hatred for President Bush.

I've commented on the President's incompetence for a long time now. I'm sure some have interpreted this as personal hatred for President Bush; I'd like to ask those people the following questions. Assuming a president is incompetent, how does one communicate that without it being interpreted as personal hatred? If the events are such that..., how does the media present that without it being interpreted as hatred of the president?

|1.26.06 @ 11:36AM|#

Cue the administration talking points based missive from John in 3....2....1..

|1.26.06 @ 11:36AM|#

Slightly off-topic: concerning the 2,000 death toll, I keep seeing a claim which I haven't been able to prove or disprove--namely, that this number is artificially low because it only counts people who actually died in Iraq itself, not people who were injured, flown out of the country for treatment and then died of their injuries outside of the Iraqi borders. Does anyone know anything about this?

|1.26.06 @ 11:36AM|#

The choir preaches to itself.

|1.26.06 @ 11:41AM|#

That would be a fascinating observation, passerby.

...If only everyone in the choir or on Hit & Run's staff agreed with Cavanaugh.

|1.26.06 @ 11:48AM|#

When are John and RC going to come along and explain why Tim's article is a steaming load of hooey, anyway?

|1.26.06 @ 12:10PM|#

Jennifer,

There you go with your spittle-flecked rants again. :)

|1.26.06 @ 12:19PM|#

Ah, yes, SPD. Well, if John and RC won't do it, I guess I'll have to:

Tim, you're an idiot. What's wrong with starting up public schools in Iraq? I suppose you'd rather see those poor kids run around illiterate. And eight miles of paved road per 2,000 American casualties comes out to only about 220 deaths per mile, which is a hell of a lot better than the mortality-per-mile building rate of the Great Wall of China.

Furthermore, I happen to know that there are a LOT of wonderful things happening in Iraq; it's just that the media won't report them. And no, don't go asking me how I know this. I just do. The only parts of Iraq that are in bad shape are the parts where the media is located. They really DID throw flowers at our troops. Too bad the media didn't report it.

And how dare you make light of putting an electric-generation plant back on line, anyway? What gall. There you sit in your electrified home, sipping lattes, while pretending that bringing electricity to Iraq is no big deal. Well, let me tell you something, fuckwit--those Iraqi women who are no longer able to leave their homes without being accosted by acid-throwing religious fanatics are damned glad to have electricity in those homes. Damned glad. And they are thrilled to learn that eight miles of the road they don't dare set foot on are paved. Thrilled.

(You know, this is actually kind of fun!)

|1.26.06 @ 12:27PM|#

I'm impressed, Jennifer. Did you say you are a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Sarcasm?

|1.26.06 @ 12:32PM|#

Jennifer/Peak Oil Loony,

Whether you agree with them or not that is not an appropriate characterization of their remarks or even a remotely on point parody, especially as they concern R.C. Dean. Here you've made me do the unthinkable and actually defend R.C. Dean.

Ken Shultz,

There is clearly an anti-war choir here, and they do get sung to. Like the pro-war choir they are unwilling to rationally deal with facts that counter their opinions.

|1.26.06 @ 12:38PM|#

My brother is going to Iraq in about a month, and from what he's heard from his friends who have come back, the media really IS a problem. They hang around and wait for people to fuck up. Remember that marine who killed the guy lying on the floor, and how much crap he got for that? Well, apparently, his best friend was in the same situation earlier that day and was killed by a grenade the guy was holding, and the networks the footage was aired on cut out the three and a half minutes the marine was telling him to stay down and not move. Of course, that's all hearsay (and the USMC has one of the best propaganda machines in the world), and it says nothing about infrastructure, but from what I'm hearing from the actual military is that there are some bumps in the road, but militarily, we're doing quite well.

|1.26.06 @ 12:41PM|#

A cut-and-paste job; italicized comments are mine; non-italicized comments are RC's responses:

No flowers were thrown at our troops. We were not hailed as liberators.

Actually, in a lot of places we were. In the pro-Saddam Sunni districts convenient to the media, we weren't.

The only Iraqis currently enjoying more freedom than before are the criminals, or the Islamic fanatics who enjoy their newfound freedom to throw acid in the faces of women of whom they disapprove, and roam the streets forcing their Islamic morality on all they see.

Again, a very blinkered view that completely ignores the recent and repeated exercise of the newfound freedom to vote, and completely ignores the totalitarian repression exercised by the Hussein regime. Big swathes of Iraq are more free in many ways than they were before. Others continue to be under the thumb of the Baathists and their allies. Most Iraqis are quite optimistic about the future, which doesn't seem to square with the vision of a formerly functional Iraq that was ruined by the invasion.

Comment by: R C Dean at January 19, 2006 08:15 AM

(I do wish RC would explain where's he's getting this information that the media won't report.)

Captain Holly|1.26.06 @ 12:42PM|#

My brother is in the middle of his third tour of duty in Iraq. While he spends most of his time on the base, he has seen alot of changes since he first got there.

In 2003, the employees on the bases were almost all nationals from "friendly" countries; today they are mostly local Iraqis. When I revealed this fact to an anti-war co-worker the other day, he was stunned: Don't all Iraqis hate us? Don't they all want to kill Americans? Why would we let them on our bases?

If you had gone to Germany or Japan in 1948, or South Korea in 1956, you would have found dirt-poor countries that still hadn't rebuilt many of their cities and required hundreds of thousands of US troops to keep order and essentially make things run. I'm sure your first reaction would have been "what the hell did we do with those billions of Marshall Plan dollars, anyway?" or "why the hell are we still here?"

You would have found a small but significant percentage of their populations resented the presence of Americans and wanted us to leave. You would have also found plenty of areas where it was unsafe for Americans to go without military escort.

In short, you would have found a myriad of excuses to pull out our troops and save us blood and money. But looking at Germany, Japan, and South Korea today, it would be idiotic to suggest that we shouldn't have done it, or that it was all a waste.

Iraq and the Iraqis will muddle through. The US presence there will gradually evolve to what it has been in Europe and Asia (where, incidentally, there are still more US troops stationed than in Iraq). We will keep a few key bases, maintain a presence of about 100,000 troops, and provide economic aid until the Iraqi government and economy are able to stand on their own. Just as we have done for the past 60 years in Europe and Asia.

If anything, the Bush Administration has been guilty of sugar-coating the reality of just how long it will take to make this transformation. But they are completely correct in their assertion that it will eventually be successful, and that whether or not it is successful depends more on American will than Iraqi competence.

In other words, it's largely up to us.

|1.26.06 @ 12:45PM|#

All I can say is if it ever got as bad as it was under Saddam over here I sure hope someone comes in and toppels the tyrant and forces us to have elections.

|1.26.06 @ 12:48PM|#

Sam McManus,

From the standpoint of other wars and the body counts that they piled up we have as yet to suffer much as a nation. As to the military situation itself that is much harder to judge because (obviously) asymetrical warfare such as this has different, more subjective parameters of success in comparison to say the Battle of Kursk or Austerlitz. The point of course is not to create our own "Spanish Ulcer."

|1.26.06 @ 12:50PM|#

In all seriousness, if the population of Iraq were 100% male, I'd maybe agree that in many ways the Iraqis are far better off than before. But the fifty percent or so of the population that is female is far worse off. They've had to abandon their secularized clothing in favor of the burka. They can no longer leave their homes without male escorts. Gangs of Islamic thugs are roaming the streets enforcing their warped standards of morality. Women with exposed faces are getting acid thrown in them. Women can no longer have male friends without risking Sharia sanctions. Why do so many people overlook this and insist that really, none of this matters?

|1.26.06 @ 12:52PM|#

Jennifer/Peak Oil Loony,

Your cut and paste efforts merely demonstrate what I wrote. Anyone with a remotely honest eye understands this. His position is far more nuanced than you give him credit and more open to dealing with facts that don't support his position as well. If anything, you're more dogmatic and unthinking than R.C. Dean than vice versa.

Captain Holly|1.26.06 @ 12:54PM|#

I'd only add that more than 16,000 Americans have been wounded in Iraq.

Of which roughly more than half are able to return to duty within 72 hours. Less than 1,000 have required amputations.

Slightly off-topic: concerning the 2,000 death toll, I keep seeing a claim which I haven't been able to prove or disprove--namely, that this number is artificially low because it only counts people who actually died in Iraq itself, not people who were injured, flown out of the country for treatment and then died of their injuries outside of the Iraqi borders. Does anyone know anything about this?

Can't say anything about that, but I do know that around 500 of that 2,200 death total includes non-combat deaths; in other words, deaths that would have (and still do) occurred in Germany, Korea, or Fort Riley, Kansas.

I don't have a problem with people who say we shouldn't be there; that's their opinion, and they're entitled to it. But people who claim that this has been a bloody military disaster are clearly ignoring reality.

|1.26.06 @ 12:57PM|#

Vs. being detained and assaulted or tortured? I won't say it doesn't matter, just worse to a lesser degree.

I learned long ago, your never gonna get off this island (Gilligans Island) you just have to try to make your life better. We are never gonna make Iraq in the image of the US. But better than it was. Adjust fire for the possible.

|1.26.06 @ 12:57PM|#

But people who claim that this has been a bloody military disaster are clearly ignoring reality.

As are those who claim that everything is going according to plan. With the exception of Saddam's absence, not ONE of the administration's prewar predictions has come true. "This will be over within six months." "This won't cost us anything since Iraqi oil will pay for it." "Saddam has WMDs which we must destroy." "We will be hailed as liberators."

The administration didn't even consider the possibility that the occupation might not go well.

|1.26.06 @ 1:04PM|#

Jennifer,

They've had to abandon their secularized clothing in favor of the burka.

They aren't called that in Iraq. Furthermore, Saddam's regime throughtout the 1990s was pressuring women to adopt more conservative dress. This your problem Jennifer, you avoid facts which undermine your arguments. To be blunt, women in Iraq are going to have to go through Islam to get their liberty - foisting some secular, Western model on that society will lead nowhere. A more benign intepretation of women's role in society via Islam is a much more likely scenario. As to the attacks you write of, those were also happening with less frequency under Saddam's regime. It is completely misguided and sign of ignorance to paint Saddam's regime as being some bastion for women's rights when that regime throughout the 1990s was recasting itself as a defender of patriarchy.


Captain Holly,

Its been fairly well demonstrated that the Marshall Plan hindered recovery in Western Europe.

As to putting your faith in the inevitability of the project I wouldn't be so optimistic. I'm willing to support it for the time being because now that we are there its important to live up to our commitments, but nothing is inevitable (be it good or ill) for Iraq. Our past nation-building disasters over the 20th century should teach us that (e.g., Haiti).

|1.26.06 @ 1:11PM|#

Jennifer,

BTW, a far easier way to attack the current program would have been to discuss the growing religious oriented violence in Iraq and how it is forcing apart what were multi-sect communities. Instead you opted for an easily deflateable argument about the dire conditions of women that anti-war types so often plug into without realizing that any current trends are a carry over from Saddam's regime.

|1.26.06 @ 1:12PM|#

Great article Tim.

Jennifer, it's mostly young healthy people who are getting injured in Iraq. If help arrives fast enough , we are really good at keeping them from dying. I doubt there are a lot of guys who die on the flight to Germany or in Germany. A lot of people are comming back missing a leg or two who in any previous war would have come home in a box. That's a real piece of solid good news about the war that is even harder to spin than the teacher training programs.

|1.26.06 @ 1:13PM|#

Its been fairly well demonstrated that the Marshall Plan hindered recovery in Western Europe.

Demonstrated by whom? Could you give a few citations? I'm in the middle of Tony Judt's Postwar and am sincerely curious about this.

|1.26.06 @ 1:18PM|#

I don't have a problem with people who say we shouldn't be there; that's their opinion, and they're entitled to it. But people who claim that this has been a bloody military disaster are clearly ignoring reality.

I think you are right. It is not a military disaster. But it is a disaster. Oh, and it has been bloody. The lesson: there are real limits to what the military (any military) can do. It is the wrong tool for certain tasks.

|1.26.06 @ 1:18PM|#

That's a real piece of solid good news about the war that is even harder to spin than the teacher training programs.

Saying "people are being maimed instead of dying" is indeed good news, but if you're using that as an attempt to make it sound like the war's going well then it's pretty much "damning with faint praise."

Here's a question for people like Captain Holly: yes, you're right about the fact that we can't expect Iraq to turn into a healthy thriving democracy overnight. But how long would you say is too long? I'm not asking for a predicted date of our withdrawal; I'm just asking how much longer we're supposed to stay over there, with soldiers getting killed every day, before you're willing to consider the possibility that we're wasting our time.

|1.26.06 @ 1:22PM|#

No, not so easily deflatable.

Captain Holly|1.26.06 @ 1:26PM|#

I'm just asking how much longer we're supposed to stay over there, with soldiers getting killed every day, before you're willing to consider the possibility that we're wasting our time.

As I said in my post, Jennifer, how long have we been in Japan and Germany? IIRC, it took about 10 years for those countries to stabilize and rebuild, and then about 10 more for them to gain economic strength.

But if you're looking for a magical date on the calendar, there isn't one, unless it's arbitrarily set for political reasons.

|1.26.06 @ 1:27PM|#

I believe the number of American soldiers killed in attacks by Germans in 1946 was zero. Ditto for Japan. Really, not the same thing at all.

|1.26.06 @ 1:29PM|#

Oh, and I want to set an arbitrary date to pull out for political reasons.

Without American troops to kick around, the jihadists and Baathists have nothing to offer the Iraqi people, and the possibility of them gaining political strength will be very much diminished.

|1.26.06 @ 1:29PM|#

As I said in my post, Jennifer, how long have we been in Japan and Germany?

The problem with your Japan-Germany analogy is that you'd have to assume that US casualty rates during the occupation were just as high as during the war itself. That's been the case with Iraq, but certainly not with the Marshall Plan countries.

You mentioned "ten years to stabilize and rebuild." Does this mean that if Iraq is just as bad in the year 2013 (ten years after Mission Accomplished), you'd admit that perhaps this isn't going to work? I repeat again: I'm not asking for a calendar date of withdrawal; I'm asking how long we'd have to stay there before you'd concede that we're just pouring money and manpower down a rathole.

Captain Holly|1.26.06 @ 1:31PM|#

I think you are right. It is not a military disaster. But it is a disaster. Oh, and it has been bloody.

"Bloody" is a relative term. Considering the US Army suffered more casualties on D-Day in 1944 than we have in 3 years in Iraq, I'd say we're doing quite well so far.

I'm not saying that people aren't dying; this is war, after all, and some troops unfortunately will be dead or maimed when it's all over. But considering military history, OIF has been relatively bloodless so far.

The lesson: there are real limits to what the military (any military) can do. It is the wrong tool for certain tasks

No argument here.

|1.26.06 @ 1:37PM|#

Jennifer/Peak Oil Loony,

I'm just asking how much longer we're supposed to stay over there, with soldiers getting killed every day, before you're willing to consider the possibility that we're wasting our time.

Most people are willing to consider that possibility, which is why your question sounds more like an attempt to bait people than anything. As to how long will it to take to tell whether the things will fall apart - that is whether the centre cannot hold and mere anarchy is loosed upon the world - you'll have an answer in five to ten years.

joe, Captain Holly, The Bush Administration, etc.,

As I've asked before, please read:

Dobbins, America's Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq

|1.26.06 @ 1:38PM|#

Thanks Captain. Let's look at your points:

"My brother is in the middle of his third tour of duty in Iraq. While he spends most of his time on the base, he has seen alot of changes since he first got there."

Of course he has seen changes since he got there. We've been there nearly three years, and we've spent billions of dollars on the place. The question is not "are we doing anything" but "are we doing anything that justifies the overall cost."

"In 2003, the employees on the bases were almost all nationals from "friendly" countries; today they are mostly local Iraqis. When I revealed this fact to an anti-war co-worker the other day, he was stunned: Don't all Iraqis hate us? Don't they all want to kill Americans? Why would we let them on our bases?"

Is your co-worker named Strawman? Who in the hell honestly thinks "all" Iraqis hate us? Even the "bad news" stories say otherwise-- like when they reference the Iraqi translators who are murdered when a westerner they worked for gets kidnapped, for example.

"If you had gone to Germany or Japan in 1948, or South Korea in 1956, you would have found dirt-poor countries that still hadn't rebuilt many of their cities and required hundreds of thousands of US troops to keep order and essentially make things run. I'm sure your first reaction would have been "what the hell did we do with those billions of Marshall Plan dollars, anyway?" or "why the hell are we still here?"

Jesus, where to start with this. West Germany was bombed literally to the ground as of Spring 1945. In Japan, most metropolitan areas were as well-- you will no doubt recall something about A-bombs, Hiroshima, etc.? Tokyo was also burned down. Completely. When you compare Iraq to these other countries at the end of hostilities, you are talking about very, very different starting points. In baseball terms, the occupation of Iraq started on third base-- the reconstruction of Germany and Japan started about a mile from the stadium. AND EVEN AT THAT, you completely mischaracterize the security situations in occupied Germany and Japan after the war. US military personnel in Japan and Germany circa 1948 were in essentially zero danger from the populace. The Berlin airlift started in June of 1948-- I think it is safe to say most Germans were pretty okay with us at that point. Your reference to South Korea is equally off the mark, both in the sense that South Korea was completely overrun (and Seoul very nearly destroyed) by Communist forces, and in the sense that we were defending South Korea from a foreign threat, not deposing its leader.

"You would have found a small but significant percentage of their populations resented the presence of Americans and wanted us to leave. You would have also found plenty of areas where it was unsafe for Americans to go without military escort."

I am sure some resented our presence. They did not resent us with roadside bombs for years after the end of "hostilities".

"In short, you would have found a myriad of excuses to pull out our troops and save us blood and money. But looking at Germany, Japan, and South Korea today, it would be idiotic to suggest that we shouldn't have done it, or that it was all a waste."

Republicans probably did have issues at the time with the Marshall plan, you are correct. But you start this analysis with an assumed equivalency between the rationales for occupying Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Iraq in the first place. We ended up occupying Germany because they were trying to take over most of the world (including all our European allies) and because they declared war on us. We could have chosen not to fight, it's true, or in the alternative we could have fought the war and then left western Europe to the tender mercies of the Soviets (again, abandoning all of our European allies and trade partners to languish under a despotic regime with its own designs on world domination). We ended up occupying Japan because they were trying to take over THE REST of the world, including all of our Asian and Australian allies, and they attacked us militarily. Again, we could have chosen not to fight, and then ceded Asia (and perhaps Hawaii) to the Emperor, but this seemed at the time and still today as an unrealistic choice. After the fact, we could have let Russia have Japan and Korea, but again, they were threatening to take over the world so that seemed to not be a wise option. As for Korea, yes, I suppose we could have let the Communists take over the South, and give them a forward base to attack Japan, and, again, leave the hegemonic-oriented Soviets in the catbird seat. I really can't see any of these "choices" as being remotely comparable to our choices today with regard to the Iraq war and occupation, unless you are prepared to argue that Hussein was (1) interested in and (2) capable of taking over the world (quite literally). I will grant you (1) but I think you have a tough row to hoe with (2).

"Iraq and the Iraqis will muddle through. The US presence there will gradually evolve to what it has been in Europe and Asia (where, incidentally, there are still more US troops stationed than in Iraq). We will keep a few key bases, maintain a presence of about 100,000 troops, and provide economic aid until the Iraqi government and economy are able to stand on their own. Just as we have done for the past 60 years in Europe and Asia."

Again, the false equivalency of threats and interests, and the pre-existing conditions immediately prior to the wars. And how gradually? If we have a German style democracy in Iraq in 30 years, is that going in the win column?

"If anything, the Bush Administration has been guilty of sugar-coating the reality of just how long it will take to make this transformation. But they are completely correct in their assertion that it will eventually be successful, and that whether or not it is successful depends more on American will than Iraqi competence."

You think they have sugar coated things? The hell you say. As for the rest, I suppose this is true-- if we want to kill enough people, let enough of our people die, spend enough money, and stay long enough, eventually Iraq will be....something we can claim as good. But that begs the question of whether the ends justify the means, and whether the benefits justify the costs. That's what we are debating.

"In other words, it's largely up to us."

To an extent yes. Hence the debate about cost/benefit analysis.

|1.26.06 @ 1:40PM|#

It would seem to me that there are several rather obvious historical, cultural and political differences between post-WWII Germany and Japan and Iraq that would render the extrapolation Cpt. Holly is attempting to perform foolish at worst and wishful silliness at best.

|1.26.06 @ 1:40PM|#

Anyway, as a good capitalist I've been helping to flip a house and I better get back to that, especially as nothing else of importance will be written here.

Captain Holly|1.26.06 @ 1:43PM|#

I believe the number of American soldiers killed in attacks by Germans in 1946 was zero. Ditto for Japan. Really, not the same thing at all.

and

The problem with your Japan-Germany analogy is that you'd have to assume that US casualty rates during the occupation were just as high as during the war itself. That's been the case with Iraq, but certainly not with the Marshall Plan countries.

That ignores two key differences: Hitler was dead before the war ended, and the Japanese Emporer himself, whom the population revered as a god, told the Japanese to cooperate with the Americans.

But that didn't stop General MacArthur from telling Washington to "give me food, or give me bullets" with regards to Japan. He clearly recognized the potential for a bloody insurgency if the US didn't provide humanitarian aid.

Saddam, OTOH, was still alive and at large after the war, and he planned for the insurgency even before the US invaded. Alot of Iraqi army units merely faded away with their weapons instead of facing the US war machine. In reality, it wasn't an irrational strategy: There was no way they could stop America, so it was better to live to fight another day.

Furthermore, Saddam was a student of the Viet Nam war. He used it as an example of how to fight the Americans, and it was even a factor in his decision to not withdraw from Kuwait in 1991: He felt the US would never invade, because of their Viet Nam experience.

|1.26.06 @ 1:44PM|#

Argh, I shoulda previewed -- Jeff did all my heavy lifting for me!

It's also worse than silly to compare D-Day casualties with the results of three years of Iraqi occupation. The Germans had a heavily-fortified Europe with the entire power of the German Wehrmacht -- aside from what was on the Eastern Front -- to repel the Allies with. Iraqis have a bunch of improvised crap as well as US and Soviet surplus, plus whatever the French and Russians have sold them over the years. The comparison is ludicrous.

|1.26.06 @ 1:45PM|#

If you had gone to Germany or Japan in 1948, or South Korea in 1956, you would have found dirt-poor countries that still hadn't rebuilt many of their cities and required hundreds of thousands of US troops to keep order and essentially make things run.

How much "insurgency" aimed directly at those US troops would I have found in those locales during those time periods?

|1.26.06 @ 1:48PM|#

Captain Holly, you still have not answered my question: how long must we stay there, with daily casualties, before you'll consider the possibility that we are wasting our time, money and soldier's lives?

Captain Holly|1.26.06 @ 1:51PM|#

Jeff, not even going to bother with your comment. Waaaay too long, too many other things to do.

|1.26.06 @ 1:52PM|#

Jeff, not even going to bother with your comment. Waaaay too long, too many other things to do.

Plus it blows your argument out of the water.

Captain Holly|1.26.06 @ 1:56PM|#

Captain Holly, you still have not answered my question: how long must we stay there, with daily casualties, before you'll consider the possibility that we are wasting our time, money and soldier's lives?

Jennifer, stop being silly. I have no idea how long it will take; based on previous history, it will be a while.

But I will predict this: Even if John Murtha hisself became President in 2008 he wouldn't withdraw from Iraq. It's one thing for a congressman to agitate for an immediate withdrawl in order to please his loopier constituents, it's quite another to make real decisions as president that would affect US military and economic interests.

We're going to be in Iraq for quite a while, no matter who wins in 2008, because it's in our best long-term interests to do so. And most people, including any Democrat with national ambitions, recognizes that.

Captain Holly|1.26.06 @ 1:59PM|#

Plus it blows your argument out of the water.

Hardly.

|1.26.06 @ 2:04PM|#

Jennifer, stop being silly. I have no idea how long it will take; based on previous history, it will be a while.

Holly, stop being dense. I am not asking how long it will take; I'm asking how long we have to stay there before you'll consider the possibility we're wasting our time. That's you, personally. Do you truly not know your own mind?

|1.26.06 @ 2:05PM|#

In other words, Holly, I am not asking for facts or predictions, I am asking for your personal opinion.

|1.26.06 @ 2:23PM|#

Captain--

Sorry, I thought you were sort of a regular here. I didn't realize this was a drive-by for you.

Since I "hardly" blew your argument out of the water, chew on this:

"Attacks on U.S. troops in the American sector of occupied Germany were so rare that some who were there deny any took place.

"It's a lot of baloney," scoffed Albert G. Silverton, 85, a Californian who was an Army Counter Intelligence Corps officer stationed near Heidelberg in 1945-46. "It sounds very intriguing and very romantic and sensational, but believe me, the Werwolf was a totally ineffective joke," Mr. Silverton said. "I don't know of one case where any of our men were ever shot like is happening in Iraq."

I'll give you the link if you think you "have time" to look at it.

And, time permitting, go take a look at the chart in this Rand study showing post-war combat deaths in Japan and Germany (hint: It is a very ROUND number):

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1753/MR1753.ch9.pdf

Seriously, go read it, since their conclusion of it taking 5 years to make a democracy (assuming you know what the hell you are doing) actually buys your heroes in the White House another 2 years of screwing up.

|1.26.06 @ 2:24PM|#

Boy he sure said it. However, the author misses the reality of the American constituency. Sure, support for main stream pro-war (presumably republican) hawks would diminish, but would rise sharply with Democrats and their requisite teacher and public employee unions. Turn the perception of Iraq into a huge public works project-- schools being built, social programs being instituted, odd byzantine 'internet for the disabled' programs, and the New York Times has front page editorials praising Mr Bush and his fine Middle Eastern Aid program. The next thing you know, a story about how the Iraqi government 'eminent domained' a bunch of people out of their property so they could build a multi-use business complex for reporters, high level U.N. officials and various 'NGO's, and you'll get Mother Jones, The Village Voice, and The Nation behind the freakin' war. So ultimately, I disagree with Mr. Cavanaugh, I say we keep pumping the 'no blood for oil' message, and this war will eventually lose support altogether.

Paul

|1.26.06 @ 2:28PM|#

Tim is an idiot. Let's see. How about re-flooding the Arab marshes and allowing a few hundred thousand displaced arabs to return to a way of life they have practiced for 1000s of years and reversing the worst environmental crime committed this century? How pathetic is that. All of those marsh Arabs were just Iranian theocrats and got what they deserved. How about shutting down a prison and secret police system that was killing an estimated 10,000 people a month? Again, those 10,000 probably were getting what they deserved. How about ending the U.N. Sanctions that were strangling the country under Saddam? The very same people who now argue the sanctions were effective in controlling Saddam and should have been continued indefinitely five years were calling the U.S. and the U.N. to task for killing thousands of Iraqi children through the sanctions. (Ten bucks says Cavanaugh was one of them).

Beyond all of the small stories, teachers, police, infrastructure, that kind of thing, the good news story of Iraq is that a horrible tyrant who killed untold millions of people is no longer able to terrorize those people. Those people, Kurds and Shias and Turks and Caldians in particular are now able to have some voice and control over their government and lives. The fact is people Cavanaugh and his fellow travelers on this thread are so pathetic and taken hold by their own hatreds and domestic political neurosis that they can't see that or appreciate what a great thing that is. I wish any of these clowns would ever talk to a real Iraqi who lived under Saddam and understand how horrible it was under his rule. In the end I just feel sorry for people like Cavanaugh if they really can't see or understand what a good getting rid of rulers like Saddam is.

Captain Holly|1.26.06 @ 2:28PM|#

My personal opinion? Based on my reading of history, based on the information I've seen and read, based on my brother's personal experiences, based on my gut reaction, I'm pretty confident that progress with be obvious to everyone within a decade.

But I think that the anti-war crowd is focusing on the wrong thing. Instead of clamoring for a withdrawl from Iraq, they should be considering what will realistically happen. Because, in my opinion, even if the the Democrats win in a landslide in 2008 they won't withdraw from Iraq.

In fact, I'm so confident of that I'd be willing to buy you and your signifiant other a nice dinner, with alcoholic beverages of your choice, if I'm wrong.

Because the truth is, whatever reasons we got into Iraq, be they for cheap oil or WMD or a misbegotten desire by Chimpy to avenge his father's humiliation, we're going to stay there.

Iraq is not Viet Nam, and things are not as bad there as some have portrayed. I know it, most Americans know it, and most importantly every serious presidential hopeful of both parties knows it, even though they might say otherwise.

|1.26.06 @ 2:32PM|#

Sigh. You avoided my question again, Holly. Here, let me rephrase it as a fill-in-the-blank question:

"I, Captian Holly, think that if Americans are still dying every day because of the Iraqi insurgency _______ years from now, we should consider the possibility that we're not going to succeed over there."

ALl I want is the number you'd put in the blank.

Captain Holly|1.26.06 @ 2:39PM|#

Sorry, I thought you were sort of a regular here. I didn't realize this was a drive-by for you.

I guess I am sort of a regular by now, but I normally don't have time to follow more than a couple of threads or respond to everyone who responds to me.

In regards to the post-WWII insurgencies, of course Japan and Germany weren't as violent as Iraq. And that was largely due to the fact that the charismatic leaders of those countries, who would be the center of gravity for the insurgencies, were either dead or cooperating with the Americans. That makes a big difference, especially if their countries have been blasted to pieces beforehand.

|1.26.06 @ 2:45PM|#

Yes, Captain, there were quite a few differences between the Germany/Japan occupations and Iraq (to say nothing of South Korea), which is why I think it is particularly ridiculous to cite those examples as being remotely analagous to what we are facing in Iraq, as people on your side of the debate repeatedly do. Even without reading my post, you have come around to my way of thinking. Go forth, and falsely analogize no more.

Captain Holly|1.26.06 @ 2:59PM|#

"I, Captian Holly, think that if Americans are still dying every day because of the Iraqi insurgency _______ years from now, we should consider the possibility that we're not going to succeed over there."

First, it's irrelevant, because the number of casualties is not the determining factor of our success.

Second, I would ask you: Do you realistically believe that any US president would withdraw from Iraq?

I'm willing to give Iraq plenty of time to adjust. And I'm pretty confident of this, considering some of the hysterical predictions of the anti-war crowd that haven't come true, such as:

We will never take Baghdad within 3 weeks;

The Arab street will rise up in anger, and governments would topple all over the region;

We will never find Saddam;

The US will never relinquish control of the country to the Iraqis;

There will never be any free and fair elections in Iraq;

Okay, there were free and fair elections, but where were the Sunnis?;

Alright, so the Constitution was approved, but the Sunnis don't like it and won't participate in the next election;

Sure, the Sunnis voted in heavy numbers, but they'll never form a government with the Shi'ites;

and on and on and on.

The anti-war crowd likes to point to every negative development as an example of the impending Apocalypse in Iraq. But when their previous predictions fall by the wayside, they move on to new ones.

So I'll ask you: Can you tell me how long it will be before the Massive Apocalyptic Civil War That Will Tear the Country Apart and Drag in Iran, Syria, and Turkey and Cost Tens of Thousands of US Lives and Expose Bush for the Hypocritical Liar That He Is and Results in His Impeachment occurs?

Captain Holly|1.26.06 @ 3:01PM|#

Jeff:

Declare Victory, then leave.

Captain Holly|1.26.06 @ 3:03PM|#

Oh, and Jeff, I don't agree with you.

I'm saying that had Saddam voluntarily stepped down and told the Sunnis to cooperate with the Americans our experience in Iraq would be similar to Japan's.

|1.26.06 @ 3:09PM|#

I give up, Captain. It's obvious you will not answer my question. And it's amazing, the number of words you need to Not Answer it, too.

Captain Holly|1.26.06 @ 3:28PM|#

I give up, Captain. It's obvious you will not answer my question. And it's amazing, the number of words you need to Not Answer it, too.

No hard feelings, Jennifer. You didn't answer mine, either, so we're square.

|1.26.06 @ 3:31PM|#

You didn't answer mine, either, so we're square.

Your question had nothing to do with the topic at hand; you were asking me to justify things said by other people. I merely asked you for your opinion on a matter.

I am wondering if you are honestly incapable of seeing the difference, or if you deliberately ignore any questions which might suggest that where the Iraq War is concerned, you've been betting on the wrong horse. I think it's most likely the first one, but of course I can't possibly know for sure.

|1.26.06 @ 3:50PM|#

Captain Holly,

You did a good listing the differences between the post-WW2 occupations and the current one in your 1:43.

But by pointing them out, aren't you basically agreeing with us that the Iraq occupation has much more stacked against its success than the German and Japanses occupations? And that, therefore, pointing to the quick success at rebuilding those nations isn't a very good reason to assume that success is likely in Iraq, too?

John,

Read Captain Holly's posts again. You might learn how a hawk with a brain and a shred of decency argues.

|1.26.06 @ 4:05PM|#

Yes Captain, I noticed you do not agree with me. I was being ironical in my last post. You think the occupation and reconstruction of Japan and Germany are so similar to the present situation that they should be invoked as clear analogies foreshadowing our ultimate world-reshaping triumph in Iraq (and, purely as an aside, putting citizens in mind of historic victories against existential threats and begging the question of whether, in fact, Hussein was an existential threat, or much of an immediate threat at all), except in the ways in which those examples are so different as to tell us next to nothing about the current situation. Whereas, I just think those examples are so different as to tell us next to nothing about the current situation, period. Subtle difference, to be sure [IRONY ALERT].

Ken Layne|1.26.06 @ 4:07PM|#

"That�s what you�ve bought with more than $220 billion and 2,000 American lives: a set of process-oriented half-measures so humble they wouldn�t have made it into a Brezhnev-era progress report to the Supreme Soviet."

A fine summary of the whole outrage.

And maybe the Bush apologists are uncomfortable with this sort of public-education / public-works baby steps in Iraq ... isn't this the same crowd that wants private-school vouchers and thinks any public-works project outside their congressional district is communism?

|1.26.06 @ 4:43PM|#

I'm assuming that if we want to report good news, then oil production, electricity and so forth should AT LEAST up to pre war levels, right?

Are we there yet?

|1.26.06 @ 4:52PM|#

In the end I just feel sorry for people like Cavanaugh if they really can't see or understand what a good getting rid of rulers like Saddam is.

John, I don't think many of us here would deny that Saddam's being gone is a good thing. But that doesn't mean that the way we did it was good, or the timing of our doing it was good, or that it was worth the price we and the Iraqis have paid in lives and money (consider: number of Iraqi civilians killed by us > number of Kurds killed by Saddam), or that the post-conflict planning and decision making was intelligent, or that the decision to bring torture into the Army prison system was a good one, or that any of this had anything to do with protecting us from terrorism, or that it won't create more terrorism in the future, or that the mess that exists in Iraq isn't bad AND couldn't have been prevented, or that...

In other words, "Saddam bad, war bad" is a consistent position.

|1.26.06 @ 5:02PM|#

Seventy years ago, John's Soviet counterpart was saying things like "If you keep saying that Russia has gone to hell since the Communists took over, that means you're a monarchist who loves Czarist oppression. Why can't Stalin's critics be honest enough to admit that doing away with hereditary government was a good thing?"

Captain Holly|1.26.06 @ 5:31PM|#

I am wondering if you are honestly incapable of seeing the difference, or if you deliberately ignore any questions which might suggest that where the Iraq War is concerned, you've been betting on the wrong horse. I think it's most likely the first one, but of course I can't possibly know for sure.

You asked me this

Captain Holly, you still have not answered my question: how long must we stay there, with daily casualties, before you'll consider the possibility that we are wasting our time, money and soldier's lives?

and this

Holly, stop being dense. I am not asking how long it will take; I'm asking how long we have to stay there before you'll consider the possibility we're wasting our time. That's you, personally. Do you truly not know your own mind?

and this

In other words, Holly, I am not asking for facts or predictions, I am asking for your personal opinion.

to which I responded thusly

My personal opinion? Based on my reading of history, based on the information I've seen and read, based on my brother's personal experiences, based on my gut reaction, I'm pretty confident that progress with be obvious to everyone within a decade.

If you're not satisfied with my answer, then I'm not sure what else I can do. I do think it's silly to ask me to make a prediction about how long it will take, or how many casualities are "unacceptable"; I have no way of knowing those things.

But I do firmly believe it will be successful, and has already been more successful than critics will admit. And I'm willing to be patient and stick with that position, until overwhelming evidence demonstrates I'm wrong.

Captain Holly|1.26.06 @ 5:56PM|#

You think the occupation and reconstruction of Japan and Germany are so similar to the present situation that they should be invoked as clear analogies foreshadowing our ultimate world-reshaping triumph in Iraq

Not quite; I believe that they provide good examples that nation-building, although it is difficult and sometimes fraught with dangers, has been successful in Germany, Japan, and Korea. There is no reason that anyone has provided yet that convinces me it won't be successful in Iraq as well.

Here's an interesting link

http://www.neswa.org.au/Library/Articles/olympic.htm

that details the size of Operation Olympic, the aborted invasion of Japan. The Japanese people, far from being defeated, were spoiling for a fight. In my opinion, the only reason the Japanese didn't kill every American soldier they encountered was because their demigod Emperor surrendered to the Americans and ordered the Japanese to cooperate.

Had he gone into hiding, and organized a resistance a la Saddam Hussein, the occupation of Japan would have been far more horrible than anything yet encountered in Iraq.

You probably believe this vindicates your position; it does not. It suggests that the Japanese had just as much hatred towards Americans after World War II as the Sunnis do now, and they controlled it only out of respect for their leader.

In Iraq, what insurgency is left has been reduced to planting bombs in roads, blowing up schoolkids, and sabotaging the infrastructure. Spectacular for the media, but militarily insignificant. More importantly, polls show (especially the one that counted last December) that solid majorities of Iraqis want the US effort to succeed.

So even though things aren't perfect there, I believe they will improve over time, just as they did in Japan, Germany, and Korea. In fact, in time our "occupation" of Iraq will be indistinguishable from our "occupations" of those countries.

|1.26.06 @ 6:14PM|#

Indistinguishable except for all the US troops killed or wounded occupying Iraq, and not killed or wounded occupying Japan and Germany, you mean? Indistinguishable had the occupation of Japan gone completely differently from how it in fact went?

I am fully aware of the fanaticism of the Japanese circa 1945. And had the Emperor not surrendered, and had the US gone into Japan with roughly half to one third the number of troops that the military experts suggested was needed, and had Japan at the outset not attacked us militarily and attempted to dominate a good chunk of the world but instead merely threatened to one day possibly provide arms to a small group of Asian anarchists, then, again, your analogy would be dead on. But, you know, it's not. Which was my point to begin with.

|1.26.06 @ 6:18PM|#

And maybe the Bush apologists are uncomfortable with this sort of public-education / public-works baby steps in Iraq ... isn't this the same crowd that wants private-school vouchers and thinks any public-works project outside their congressional district is communism?

Ken Layne's right. Some of the rationale behind the Iraq War comes from people who understand that, because of all the variables, economies shouldn't be centrally planned. Our experiment with cultural imperialism in Iraq had all the variables of a centrally planned economy--times ten.

|1.26.06 @ 6:19PM|#

And, Captain, the insurgents are "reduced" to killing a handful of our men and women practically every damn day. The question, as it has been from the beginning, is does the so-called Good News make that worthwhile? I will grant you, at the rate the bad guys are going, they will never, ever defeat our troops militarily. And this should come as no shock, considering how powerful and well-trained our military is. The North Vietnamese never defeated us militarily either-- but those 50,000+ troops are no less dead for no good damn reason.

joshua corning|1.26.06 @ 6:53PM|#

Tyrants rule becouse they are willing to kill and to risk death and unless there are those willing to kill and to risk death to fight those tyrants there will never be liberty and never be peace.

Man Musilini has nothing on me.

Anyway patriotic natianalist blabber aside I belive what I wrote. I wish i could be an isolationist..but just can't seem to pull it off.

That probably makes me loose some libertarian kodos as well as american kodos.

joshua corning|1.26.06 @ 6:57PM|#

joe saidI wonder if we're going to see war boosters celebrating the Palestinian elections as yet another victory for Reverse Domino Theory.

But if I were an isolationist I would be a little pissed that those who are desidely not isolationists were crowding my voice out.

joshua corning|1.26.06 @ 7:04PM|#

I believe the number of American soldiers killed in attacks by Germans in 1946 was zero.

not true there were nazi dead enders who put up a low level insurgancy after the war ended. Not sure if it was as intense as the one in Iraq...of course the war in Iraq ended in a few weeks the one in germany was a bit longer...they knew they had lost.

Perhaps you would have prefered we had bombed Iraq for 5 years until we went in?

|1.26.06 @ 7:11PM|#

As to how long will it to take to to tell whether the things will fall apart - that is whether the centre cannot hold and mere anarchy is loosed upon the world - you"ll have an answer in five to ten years.

I'll go out on a limb and predict we'll know that by this time next year. The inclusion of Sunnis in the government, and the amendment of the constitution (especially oil revenue sharing), will provide a pretty clear picture.

|1.26.06 @ 7:36PM|#

It's funny that I don't see any of those who proclaim so loudly what an unalloyed good it is to go in and get rid of tyrants doing the libertarian thing: Getting together like-minded people, funding a private army and going right the hell in and taking them out.

Oh, wait. It's not funny at all.

|1.26.06 @ 7:42PM|#

That probably makes me loose some libertarian kodos as well as american kodos.

Don't blaim me I voted for kang.

(Might do a serious post later.)

joshua corning|1.26.06 @ 9:26PM|#

It's funny that I don't see any of those who proclaim so loudly what an unalloyed good it is to go in and get rid of tyrants doing the libertarian thing: Getting together like-minded people, funding a private army and going right the hell in and taking them out.

Oh, wait. It's not funny at all.

I am a libertarian clinging desperatly to a leftiest ideal...not an anarchist.

|1.27.06 @ 11:17AM|#

Joshua-- no, the Germans did not put up a low-level insurgency (see posts above). Unless by "low level insurgency" you mean bitching about the occupation government while reading the morning paper.

You are right, though, that a big part of the reason that the Germans and Japanese were more passive after the end of the conflict was that their countries had been bombed to the ground for years. Yet another of the many and varied ways in which the occupation and reconstruction of our WWII enemies was different.

|1.27.06 @ 11:26AM|#

I think Tim overlooked some good news of a much greater scale, such as this press release from the headquarters of Multi-National Force-Iraq:

Village dedicates new pump

...which quotes Lt. Col. John Cross, the commander of 1st Special Troops Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, to great effect: "We turned it (the pump) on and we got water."

Big news!

|1.27.06 @ 11:42AM|#

Chris,
The funny thing is that really IS big news, but the average US citizen doesn't get it. In the US it's insignificant, but if you've been spending a large part of your day hiking several miles each way to get water, this is huge. In Haiti there was literally a PARADE to celebrate opening a well, and that was in the main city of Port au Prince.

The funny thing is that most Americans think that what the Iraqis are most concerned with are the same things that Americans would be concerned with. They're not. They're not particularly concerned with building schools and turning on the electricity and firing up the big screen TV and the air conditioning in their home. Even in-home plumbing isn't really the number one priority.

They're generally more concerned with religion and slightly less mundane things - like water wells that provide fresh water.

It's amazing what benefits can be reaped by building one water well. In Haiti, a lot of the folks who were parading suddenly became more interesting in pointing out where the armed street gangs kept their weapons, for instance.

|1.27.06 @ 2:02PM|#

Granting that all of that is true: It's one pump, against the spiraling failure of the country's oil infrastructure and the cost of thousands of lives (and hundreds of billions of dollars). The problem isn't that the pump isn't good news for a single village; the problem shows up when you set it against its much-larger context of failure.

|1.27.06 @ 2:09PM|#

Yeah, Rob, here in the spoiled USA we would have issues with a partially destroyed infrastructure, lack of electricity, a crippled economy, sudden death from above, summary executions, occupying military forces, fanatical militias, terrorists, and criminally negligent governance. Well, actually it seems we may be alright with criminally negligent governance, but the rest would really piss us off. Whereas, you give your average Iragi a water pump, and he won't mind a bullet in the brain pan one bit.

Of course, you miss the point of this discussion, which is what does a new water well and pump in Iraq mean to us? Worth the money, blood, and loss of prestige? Or maybe not so much?

|1.27.06 @ 7:19PM|#

I'd like to think that a water pump in an Iraqi village, no matter how important the pump might be to the residents, is hardly enough to justify US casualties.