Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
We're Winning!
Spencer Ackerman is not a kneejerk Iraq correspondent. When he's seen signs of progress, he's reported it. When he found that soldiers weren't happy with Democratic promises to get out, he reported that. All of it makes his story on what's happening as surged forces leave the country awfully depressing.
March saw nearly 1000 civilians dead across Iraq -- an increase of 30 percent over February. February, in turn, saw its own 30 percent increase in civilian casualties over January. And in January, statistics released to The Washington Independent by the U.S. military command in Iraq showed increases in insurgent and terrorist explosions and suicide attacks during the final weeks of 2006.
The trend toward increased violence in early 2008 does not rise to the level of the bloodshed Iraq experienced in mid-to-late 2006, before the surge began. But it does underscore the limits of what the surge achieved, according to U.S. government officials and outside experts, even on the security front where the Bush administration argued it was most successful. "The fact is, the ISF [Iraqi security forces] couldn't fulfill a major campaign against an insurgent group on its own," said a U.S. intelligence analyst who spoke on condition of anonymity. "I personally think that's the real story. The ISF, despite the surge, and despite the [rhetoric from the Bush administration that] 'they'll stand up as we stand down,' couldn't fulfill their core requirement."
What's it mean?
The surge was never intended to bring violence down to 2005 levels -- when, it's worth remembering, violence was so pervasive that the first wave of U.S. politicians reacted by calling for withdrawal -- nor to give Iraqi security forces the opportunity to skirmish with militias.
On that front, some experts say, Sadr's victory over Maliki exposed the weakness of the U.S.'s partner. "In spite of holding de jure power, Maliki can't exert territorial control over even the Shiite regions of Iraq," said Robert Farley, a professor at the University of Kentucky's Paterson School of Diplomacy. "While the surge has reduced violence, it has failed utterly to create Iraqi state capacity. The Iraqi central government is as far as ever from exerting control over other armed groups within Iraq."
reason takes on Iraq here.
|4.3.08 @ 6:46PM|#
nor to give Iraqi security forces the opportunity to
skirmish with militias. President George W. Bush
presented
Is the end of that last sentence missing?
|4.3.08 @ 7:09PM|#
The great "what if" here is: what if we'd made a serious effort
to bring about a political settlement among the de facto powers in
and around Iraq years ago? Would the consequences of our inevitable
withdrawal have been any different?
We'll never know.
thoreau|4.3.08 @ 7:12PM|#
I think that this needs to be said:
Everything that's happening right now is the fault of the idiots
who led the cheer for this war. Fuck all of those blathering
idiots, and may they burn in hell for the bloody chaos that they
helped unleash.
Travis|4.3.08 @ 7:15PM|#
It's amazing how the media let's the Bush Adminstration spin the surge. None of the goals they claimed the surge was going to produce happened. People get tired of holier than thou assholes telling you what to do & how to live. Al-Qeada in Iraq days were numbered anyway the surge sped that process up. That's all it accomplished.
Travis|4.3.08 @ 7:35PM|#
One reason I would never vote for McCain or Hillary is that
they're both Senators with access to classified intelligence. Yet
both of them couldn't predict that Iraq would descend into chaos
after the invasion.
How come I could.
thoreau|4.3.08 @ 7:35PM|#
Travis-
Yep. When violence declined after the surge they got to claim
victory even though the violence was still at levels deemed
unacceptable a few years ago. Then when the government of Iraq got
into a fight with Al Sadr that was also a victory.
I thought for sure that if we found ourselves in 1984 we'd at least
know we're there. Apparently MiniTrue is good at what it
does.
Well, I'm off to enjoy my increased chocolate ration.
P.S. Fuck the hawks and their cheerleaders, fuck the 2004 Bush
voters, and fuck the spineless opposition.
thoreau|4.3.08 @ 7:36PM|#
One reason I would never vote for McCain or Hillary is that they're both Senators with access to classified intelligence. Yet both of them couldn't predict that Iraq would descend into chaos after the invasion.
How come I could.
QTMFT
|4.3.08 @ 7:52PM|#
For next Memorial Day, I'd suggest every real American rounds up a posse of his neighbors, and tar and feathers a Real American™ in symbolic appreciation for cheer-leading us into this mess....
|4.3.08 @ 8:21PM|#
"Everything that's happening right now is the fault of the
idiots who led the cheer for this war. Fuck all of those blathering
idiots, and may they burn in hell for the bloody chaos that they
helped unleash." - thoreau
Very nice - worth saying again!
I am pissed too - and I lost no one close to me in this clusterfuck
of a "war". Summertime in the Middle East usually brings out the
worst in them. I own oil futures for this reason (well, there is
the Bush deficit spending surge too).
|4.3.08 @ 8:46PM|#
Fuck all of those blathering idiots, and may they burn in
hell for the bloody chaos that they helped unleash.
Paging RC Dean....paging RC Dean.....
|4.3.08 @ 9:06PM|#
"The surge was never intended to bring violence down to 2005
levels -- when, it's worth remembering, violence was so pervasive
that the first wave of U.S. politicians reacted by calling for
withdrawal"
Be honest, now. US politicians have called for withdrawal daily and
consistently since March 20, 2003, no matter how pervasive violence
might be at any given time. According to them, there's no sacrifice
small enough to make the liberation of Iraq and the restoration of
its peoples' freedom worthwhile. So judging the level of violence
in Iraq by how frothingly Democrat Party propagandists rail over it
is probably a mistake.
"Everything that's happening right now is the fault of the idiots
who led the cheer for this war. Fuck all of those blathering
idiots, and may they burn in hell for the bloody chaos that they
helped unleash."
As I recall, the initial invasion of Iraq had something like 75%
popular support. That's a lot of people to damn, Thoreau.
"One reason I would never vote for McCain or Hillary is that
they're both Senators with access to classified intelligence. Yet
both of them couldn't predict that Iraq would descend into chaos
after the invasion."
Or perhaps they had access to 'classified intelligence' that
suggested chaos was preferable to leaving Iraq as a hard point, WMD
depot and general base of supply for international terrorism. I
could see that - still can! and I just wonder why Hussein (B.)
couldn't.
That being said, I understand why Hill's walking her decision back
now. It's hard to risk your life as a soldier. But it's even harder
to send soldiers into combat and bear the responsibility for their
deaths, even if you know the cause is worth the sacrifice. I
expected that support for Operation Iraqi Freedom would decline
over time as the courage of its original supporters failed, and I'm
not surprised at all that Hillary is trying to weasel out of her
responsibility for the sacrifices our soldiers have made for
victory. President Bush has not failed; he has borne this crushing
weight unfailingly and shown true moral courage beyond that of any
front-line soldier, and I salute him.
|4.3.08 @ 9:09PM|#
"""Well, I'm off to enjoy my increased chocolate
ration."""
It's the victory gin for me.
|4.3.08 @ 9:26PM|#
"""there's no sacrifice small enough to make the liberation of
Iraq and the restoration of its peoples' freedom
worthwhile.""""
It's waaaaaaay past small sacrifices, we'll be paying for years to
come.
Is there any sacrifice too great?
"""As I recall, the initial invasion of Iraq had something like 75%
popular support. That's a lot of people to damn, Thoreau."""
Yeah, back when the Bush admin described the war as a matter of
weeks, not months, and would be paid for by Iraqi oil money. How
much support did the war have once we figured out it wasn't
true?
Todd|4.3.08 @ 9:39PM|#
Anyone read http://Michaeltotten.com or
http://michaelyon-online.com or http://longwarjournal.org or
http://kaboomwarjournal.blogspot.com/ ?
All report from the ground in Iraq.
|4.3.08 @ 9:44PM|#
"It's waaaaaaay past small sacrifices, we'll be paying for years
to come. "
But my point is that the people who complain about sacrifices
started complaining when the first gallon of gas went into the
first transport ship's tank. Which is why it's ridiculous to judge
'2005 levels of violence' - much exaggerated, by the way, just as
the current violence is blown out of proportion by the objectively
pro-terrorist media - by how much the whining cowards whined that
Iraqi freedom wasn't worth the effort.
Les|4.3.08 @ 9:58PM|#
Which is why it's ridiculous to judge '2005 levels of
violence' - much exaggerated, by the way, just as the current
violence is blown out of proportion by the objectively
pro-terrorist media - by how much the whining cowards whined that
Iraqi freedom wasn't worth the effort.
Though your "objectively pro-terrorist media" indicates you're a
bit nuts, I'm genuinely curious if you've lost any loved ones who
were fighting for Iraqi freedom.
|4.3.08 @ 10:02PM|#
You should focus less on whiny people and more on the government that's been BSing you the ENTIRE way.
|4.3.08 @ 10:24PM|#
"Though your "objectively pro-terrorist media" indicates you're
a bit nuts, I'm genuinely curious if you've lost any loved ones who
were fighting for Iraqi freedom."
Though I have not had that honor, I hope that, should it occur, I'd
have the courage to celebrate, as well as mourn, their noble death
and continue to support the cause to which they gave the last
measure of devotion.
One woman sent forth her sons, five in number, to war, and,
standing in the outskirts of the city, she awaited anxiously the
outcome of the battle. And when someone arrived and, in answer to
her inquiry, reported that all her sons had met death, she said, "I
did not inquire about that, you vile varlet, but how fares our
country?" And when he declared that it was victorious, "Then," she
said, "I accept gladly also the death of my sons."
Another was burying her son, when a commonplace old woman came up
to her and said, "Ah the bad luck of it, you puir woman." "No, by
Heaven," said she, "but good luck; for I bore him that he might die
for Sparta, and this is the very thing that has come to pass for
me."
-- Plutarch, "Sayings of the Spartan Women"
Les|4.3.08 @ 10:46PM|#
ithaqua, that's romantic and all, but why is Iraqi "freedom"
worth the blood and misery of people you'll never know? And are you
there now? If so, where? If not, why?
Where, in your opinion, should American soldiers go next to suffer
and die in order to bring freedom? Sudan? North Korea? Tibet?
Burma?
Douglas Gray|4.3.08 @ 10:49PM|#
Over a thousand Iraqi soldiers left their posts during the Basra
operation. They are neither cowards nor traitors, but somehow
attacking their own people at the behest of a government backed by
a foreign occupier doesn't sit well with many of them.
The problem with Iraq is that many of these soldiers don't have a
definite feeling that their fellow Iraqis are their enemies, and
that the U.S. occupiers are their friends.
Bush always uses the phrase "the enemy", but for the Iraqis it is
not that simple. Therein lies the dilemma.
Heinrick|4.3.08 @ 11:15PM|#
Why is it never pointed out that because Al Queda in Iraq is a Sunni orginization, and in a civil war the Sunnis would be outnumbered 3 to 1, they would be on the loosing side of a civil war? The Irony here is that our presence prevents a war that would probably see our real enemies defeated.
|4.3.08 @ 11:25PM|#
ithaqua,
Sparta was one of the more barbaric polities ever created by human
beings. That it (once the Thebans had defeated them and they sunk
into decline) became an anachronistic tourist hotspot during Roman
times, a comical oddity for people to visit that is, is just what
it deserved.
|4.4.08 @ 12:06AM|#
"Where, in your opinion, should American soldiers go next to
suffer and die in order to bring freedom? Sudan? North Korea?
Tibet? Burma?"
Wherever a good Republican President leads them. I trust George
Bush, and I trust his judgment that liberating Iraq was more
important than any of the above.
"Why is it never pointed out that because Al Queda in Iraq is a
Sunni orginization, and in a civil war the Sunnis would be
outnumbered 3 to 1, they would be on the loosing side of a civil
war? The Irony here is that our presence prevents a war that would
probably see our real enemies defeated."
Letting Muslim terrorists - and the Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias
are agents of a terrorist state as well - win a victory anywhere
sets a bad precedent.
"The problem with Iraq is that many of these soldiers don't have a
definite feeling that their fellow Iraqis are their enemies, and
that the U.S. occupiers are their friends."
Do you still think, then, that Bremer made the wrong decision when
he disbanded the Iraq Army? Iraqi's feelings are all well and good,
but we really do have to purge their military and government of
anti-American influences, if we don't want a ready-made base of
support for the next Hugo Chavez type tinpot dictator or
Talibanesque theocratic revolution.
"Sparta was one of the more barbaric polities ever created by human
beings. That it (once the Thebans had defeated them and they sunk
into decline) became an anachronistic tourist hotspot during Roman
times, a comical oddity for people to visit that is, is just what
it deserved."
Go and watch "300" before you embarrass yourself further :)
Seriously, and to be fair, all of Greece was a backwater during
Roman times; Athens was a more impressive backwater, because it had
spent the tribute it exacted in its glory days on self-aggrandizing
public works and monuments, but in terms of political and economic
power it declined just as pathetically after the Macedonian
conquest.
And as for the barbarism: human beings are barbaric in nature;
every nation must have people willing to defend it; and those
nations who fail to make a virtue of necessity and (like modern
liberals) consider lives lost in battle to be contemptible and
shameful will not long survive against ethically stronger
nations.
"Roman matrons used to say to their sons: "Come back with your
shield, or on it." Later on, this custom declined. So did Rome." -
Robert A. Heinlein
|4.4.08 @ 12:34AM|#
I agree 100% with Dick Cheney when he says
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY&feature=related
|4.4.08 @ 12:37AM|#
ithaqua,
Seriously, and to be fair, all of Greece was a backwater during
Roman times...
Being a tourist attraction doesn't make one a backwater. The
eastern portion of the empire (which included Greece) was its
economic backbone, which in part explains the balance of payments
problem between the east and west. It also proved to be a dominant
force in the development of Roman culture, etc.
...every nation must have people willing to defend
it...
Some nations aren't worth defending, Sparta being one of
them.
"Roman matrons used to say to their sons: "Come back with your
shield, or on it." Later on, this custom declined. So did
Rome."
Rome was at its height long after the decline of the
soldier-farmer. If that were indeed the issue behind Rome's decline
it would have happened in sometime in the 2nd or 3rd century
BCE.
|4.4.08 @ 12:46AM|#
ithaqua,
BTW, I can't say that I've ever met anyone (be they a modernliberal
or any other ideology) who viewed lives lost on a battlefield to be
per se shameful, etc. As with most things judgments about the worth
of said action depends on how one views the particular
conflict.
alan|4.4.08 @ 12:58AM|#
It's amazing how the media let's the Bush Administration
spin the surge.
Even the word 'surge' in this matter is a spin away from the
historically defined term 'escalation'.
|4.4.08 @ 1:26AM|#
the liberation of Iraq and the restoration of its peoples'
freedom
I'm mystified as to why someone would, at this point in time,
believe that was the goal. These guys have never been shy about
what their game plan was. Freedom? WMDs? Terrorism?
"Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a
more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved
conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need
for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends
the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein"
PNAC
Document p.14 (pdf)
|4.4.08 @ 5:41AM|#
New movie coming out in heaven (if you believe in that) with
Chris Farley (George Bush) and John Candy (Dick Cheney) called
"National Insecurity".
Adolf Hitler was to play Dick Cheney, but Hitler was busy in
Hell.
|4.4.08 @ 6:35AM|#
Go and watch "300" before you embarrass yourself further
:)
Jean Bart, is that you?
VM|4.4.08 @ 8:14AM|#
ooh, anon, that's good! I was figuring this newest creature was the latest incarnation of EDWEIRDOOO, EDNA, KNEEL, etc.
|4.4.08 @ 9:03AM|#
Though I have not had that honor, I hope that, should it occur,
I'd have the courage to celebrate, as well as mourn, their noble
death and continue to support the cause to which they gave the last
measure of devotion.
This sounds better in the originial Palestinian.
Episiarch|4.4.08 @ 9:19AM|#
Go and watch "300" before you embarrass yourself further
:)
Are you fucking kidding me? You're referencing a Zack Snyder
ultra-stylized movie as historical record?
What next, watch Sin City to understand what living in
Manhattan is like?
|4.4.08 @ 9:22AM|#
I just read ithaqua's 9:06pm comment... I threw up a little in
my mouth and have been unable to continue reading.
Seriously, that was puketastic.
Taktix®|4.4.08 @ 9:37AM|#
Bronwyn,
No worries, I just added his/her email address to the DNC mailing
list. Should I hit Air America too?
|4.4.08 @ 9:38AM|#
"Wherever a good Republican President leads them. I trust George
Bush, and I trust his judgment that liberating Iraq was more
important than any of the above."
That confirmed we are dealing with a fool.
|4.4.08 @ 10:13AM|#
Dude's just yanking your chain.
It's not even trolling; more like performance art.
|4.4.08 @ 11:04AM|#
As I recall, the initial invasion of Iraq had something like 75% popular support. That's a lot of people to damn, Thoreau."""
Yeah, back when the Bush admin described the war as a matter of weeks, not months, and would be paid for by Iraqi oil money. How much support did the war have once we figured out it wasn't true?
Weeks? Months? I'm pretty sure we are dealing with years. We are
also dealing with -
Four thousnad+ American servicemen deaths.
Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths.
Trillions (that is not a typo) of dollars just flushed down the
fucking toilet.
Worldwide indignation over an arrogant, misguided attempt to remake
the Arabian Peninsula.
A president who views the law with less respect than Richard
Nixon.
Everything that's happening right now is the fault of the idiots who led the cheer for this war. Fuck all of those blathering idiots, and may they burn in hell for the bloody chaos that they helped unleash.
Thanks, thoreau.
I am so angry at the shitstains that initiated this crime against
humanity, my normally obscene comments are temporarily
inoperative.
Only temporarily. I'll be back to unload later.
|4.4.08 @ 11:06AM|#
Which one of you HnR regulars is going to fess up to playing the
role of "ithaqua"? I know that the 28%'ers are a fairly disgusting
and, in their own perverse way, entertaining lot, but,
c'mon...
"Wherever a good Republican President leads them", "Hussein" Obama,
the Spartan fetish... we are SO being put on.
GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 11:48AM|#
But TallDave LOL'd at me when I suggested the Surge wasnt doing
dick...
I'm confused. His LOLs are an assurance of total and absolute
confidence. Who should I believe? Him, or facts?
GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 11:51AM|#
Do you still think, then, that Bremer made the wrong
decision when he disbanded the Iraq Army?
Yes.
Ready to take any arguments to the contrary and slay them en masse
like Leonidas at Thermopylae
How the fuck did you get on that tangent anyway?
GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 11:57AM|#
Definition:
"liberating Iraq" = power-gap clusterfuck, regional strategic
disaster, trillion dollar nightmare, 2+ million refugee
humanitarian wreckage
'Flypaper strategy' was a great analogy. If only the OTHER guys
were the flies, and not the US military.
|4.4.08 @ 11:58AM|#
But TallDave LOL'd at me when I suggested the Surge wasnt
doing dick...
I'm certain that many H&R osters are on record predicting that
"The Surge™" would not accomplish its stated goals. The neocons
will deny this. Anyone who continues to support the war in Traq is
insane.
That's right, I said you were insane. Rational people recognize
reality.
TallDave|4.4.08 @ 12:09PM|#
On that front, some experts say, Sadr's victory over Maliki
exposed the weakness of the U.S.'s partner.
Right, Sadr's people, rogue and otherwise, successfully incurred
around 100 casualties per day, then heroically ran out of
ammunition and victoriously retreated indoors while the defeated
Iraqi Army was forced to occupy the streets of Basra -- the dispute
over which the whole conflict was based.
Meanwhile, yesterday, thousands of Iraqis lined up to join the
defeated forces and share in their humiliation.
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Iraq/ss/events/ts/082701iraqplane/im:/080401/ids_photos_wl/r553295461.jpg
But TallDave LOL'd at me when I suggested the Surge wasnt doing
dick...
And let me LOL again. The polling and stats in Sunni areas continue
to show it achieved its goals. There was no surge in Basra, where
the recent violence was focused.
The surge was primarily aimed at Sunni areas and was much more than
a numbers game. It was a tactical change which was designed to
bring the people onto our side by creating lots of little local
combat outposts form which we could support friendly locals, and it
worked spectacularly. Attacks in Anbar have dropped 90%, AQ has
beend driven out, and polling shows Sunnis feel far safer.
TallDave|4.4.08 @ 12:17PM|#
Who should I believe? Him, or facts?
Here are the facts:
http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index20080403.pdf
Look at the graph on page 4. These are not 2006 or 2005 levels of
casualtes, these are close to the lowest levels of the entire
conflict.
Another fact:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1060a1IraqWhereThingsStand.pdf
Last August, in Anbar and Baghdad alike, no respondents felt
they could live where they wanted without persecution; today 86
percent in Anbar, and 46 in percent in Baghdad, feel they
can.
GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 12:30PM|#
FACT
you love the old polling when it meets your preconceived
definitions, and dismiss it when it doesnt
Polling shows regular drops in Iraqi support for US presence since
2005, surge be damned
I sent you the links last time and am not bothering to do it
again.
Also, check polls for soldier support for the mission over the same
time period. Or US citizen support. Your story starts to fall apart
dude. But dont let me stop you from cherry picking.
TallDave|4.4.08 @ 12:32PM|#
It's probably worth pointing out too that even with the recent
confrontation with Sadr, U.S. casualties for the last four months
are also the lowest of any 4-month period of the occupation.
This is, of course, because we now have 444,000 ISF of varying
proficiency (p34).
http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index20080403.pdf
Benchmarks have been passed; there is a budget, amnesty law, and
provincial elections are scheduled.
Oil revenue and oil production are at record levels. (p39)
Electricity production is twice what it was four years ago when
private generation is included. (p40)
Perhaps all this is why even Barack Obama's primary Iraq adviser is
saying we should keep 80,000 troops there through 2010 -- because
we can succeed.
http://www.nysun.com/politics/obama-adviser-calls-troops-stay-iraq-through-2010
GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 12:34PM|#
and by "succeed" you mean, make our failures/problems to date
less costly?
Do you think we've got what we strategically paid for,
customer?
TallDave|4.4.08 @ 12:36PM|#
you love the old polling when it meets your preconceived
definitions, and dismiss it when it doesnt
Well, if you believe that perhaps you can strive to do better than
me.
Polling shows regular drops in Iraqi support for US presence
since 2005, surge be damned
Yes and no. The number who want us to leave eventually is of course
high. The number who want us to leave immediately was last polled
at 38% iirc.
Also, check polls for soldier support for the mission over the
same time period. Or US citizen support.
It goes up and down; I believe it was trending up as of late. If
you have links, I'd be happy to look at them.
GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 12:38PM|#
The polling and stats in Sunni areas continue to show it
achieved its goals.
Goals being, "making room for political reconciliation"
And the current intra-party fighting in the majority shiite bloc
was part of that 'goal' clearly.
Making Maliki look like a fool and making the Basra offensive end
only when Sadr waved his wand was clearly part of our effort.
We have this ongoing thing about changing our 'goals' whenever shit
hits the fan, dont we?
TallDave|4.4.08 @ 12:39PM|#
Do you think we've got what we strategically paid for,
customer?
When I see Iraqis voting, reading a free press, and having a free
debate about their politics, I cannot believe it was wrong.
Was it worth the millions of deaths, U.S. and otherwise, and
billions of dollars spent on the Korean peninsula for South Korea
to be the jewel of freedom and prosperity it is today rather than
part of the nightmare of poverty and oppression to their north?
TallDave|4.4.08 @ 12:42PM|#
Making Maliki look like a fool and making the Basra
offensive end only when Sadr waved his wand was clearly part of our
effort.
When Maliki doesn't fight the Sadrists, he is called a sectarian
and a tool of the Iranians. When he does fight them, he's causing
violence, and when Sadr takes huge casuallties and surrenders the
streets of Basra he is alleged to be in control.
Apparently for some no matter Maliki does he is in the wrong, and
no matter what Sadr does he wins. This cannot be called realism,
however.
GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 12:43PM|#
TallDave | April 4, 2008, 12:39pm | #
When I see Iraqis voting, reading a free press, and having a
free debate about their politics...
as in, 'shooting each other in the streets over oil smuggling
revenues', giving Iran leading leverage on the # of guns in the
street in the south...
I smell the freedom
zoltan|4.4.08 @ 12:44PM|#
Was it worth the millions of deaths, U.S. and otherwise, and
billions of dollars spent on the Korean peninsula for South Korea
to be the jewel of freedom and prosperity it is today rather than
part of the nightmare of poverty and oppression to their
north?
No. How are US deaths ever justified when the US in not in direct
danger?
GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 12:48PM|#
Was it worth the millions of deaths, U.S. and otherwise, and
billions of dollars spent on the Korean peninsula for South Korea
to be the jewel of freedom and prosperity it is today rather than
part of the nightmare of poverty and oppression to their
north?
and the continued threat of 'sea of fire' that they face
today...
goddam you're not a military historian are you.
TallDave|4.4.08 @ 12:49PM|#
as in, 'shooting each other in the streets over oil
smuggling revenues', giving Iran leading leverage on the # of guns
in the street in the south...
That was happening before as well, and at much greater levels, and
with none of those freedoms. It's a huge improvement.
GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 12:53PM|#
Sadr takes huge casuallties and surrenders the streets of
Basra...
right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/world/middleeast/04iraq.html?scp=1&sq=basra&st=nyt
GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 12:56PM|#
Dave,
Your whole thing reminds me of John Keegan's "The Iraq War",
published in 2003
Basically, the more detail you omit, the rosier the picture
|4.4.08 @ 1:32PM|#
When I see Iraqis voting, reading a free press, and having a
free debate about their politics...
it makes it easy to step over the bodies.
|4.4.08 @ 2:16PM|#
More Than 1,000 in Iraq's Forces Quit Basra Fight
Yep, "The Surge™" is working.
How fucking stupid do you have to be to believe that any good is
going to come out of our adventure in Mesopotamia?
TallDave|4.4.08 @ 2:23PM|#
Color me shocked that the NYT focuses on the negative.
Yes, a thousand probably did desert, but that has to be placed in
context: Sadr lost many more than that to desertion, and the ISF
deserters were mostly police, long understood to be less reliable
(and, in their defense, lightly armed).
All accounts agree Sadr took heavy casualties and ordered his
forces indoors, off the streets they had been contesting.
TallDave|4.4.08 @ 2:24PM|#
How fucking stupid do you have to be to believe that any
good is going to come out of our adventure in
Mesopotamia?
Most Iraqis still say it was the right decision.
GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 3:08PM|#
Of course, when anyone else cites "most iraqis", TallDave will
dismiss any data that he cant cherry pick and cite out of context
himself.
2006
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/275.php?lb=brme&pnt=275&nid=&id=
2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/19_03_07_iraqpollnew.pdf
2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_03_08iraqpollmarch2008.pdf
Q20 = Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose,
or strongly oppose the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq?
Mar08
Strongly Support
7
Somewhat Support
19
Somewhat Oppose
31
Strongly Oppose
41
Refused/don't know
1
Q21 =As you may know, the United States has increased the number of
its forces in Baghdad and surrounding provinces in the past six
months. For each item I name, please tell me if you think this
increase of U.S. forces has made it better, made it worse, or had
no effect.
Security in the areas where these forces have been sent
Mar08
Better
36
Worse
53
Had No Effect
10
Refused/don't know
1
Q22 How long do you think US and other Coalition forces should
remain in Iraq? Should they leave now, remain until security is
restored, remain until the Iraqi government is stronger, remain
until Iraqi security forces can operate independently, remain
longer but leave eventually, or never leave?
Mar08
Leave now
38
Remain until security is restored
35
Remain until the Iraqi government is stronge r
14
Remain until the Iraqi security forces can operate
independently
10
Remain longer but leave eventually
3
Never leave
1
Refused/don't know
-
---------
There's lots of other stuff. Dave, you could cherry pick 1-2 things
out of these studies and make an isolated case that things are
"better" = SOME of the data ticks up. but not in any way that is
particularly meaningful when the majority of other data trends
down.
"better" is not "good" by any stretch, and your starry-eyed claims
about the will of Iraqis are total bullshit. Reading all 3 of these
things in detail doesnt do your case any fucking good at all. It
looks like what it is = a clusterfuck.
Forget polls of Americans... because, hey, what do we know. It's
only our money. And some people's (not yours) kids, friends,
parents, relatives, getting killed.
But keep hope alive. Maybe the next trillion will produce
meaningful results.
TallDave|4.4.08 @ 3:37PM|#
You don't need to cherry pick. Look at the numbers you just
cited: Less than half of Iraqis want us to leave immediately. Most
want us to remain.
And that 36% number on whether things have improved is way up from
the previous number. In fact, just about every indicator in that
poll has improved.
It's too bad you refuse to accept reality. I've laid out the facts,
but as they say, you can only lead a horse to water.
TallDave|4.4.08 @ 3:40PM|#
No. How are US deaths ever justified when the US in not in
direct danger?
So liberating Europe was also a mistake?
What about occupying Germany and Japan, and all the troops who died
because we would only accept unconditional surrender? They wanted
to sue for peace late in the war, you know.
|4.4.08 @ 4:09PM|#
I wonder how many Kurds vs Sunnis and Shias. If you need a
pretty picture, make the poll Kurd heavy.
Check out my link to the Cheney interview in 1994 from my earlier
post. It's almost as if he had a crystal ball to see the
future.
GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 4:21PM|#
It's too bad you refuse to accept reality.
Unfortunately, AlternateDimensionDave, I'm not the only one who
sees things as they are =
Since the NYT is too partisan for you, try the Economist.
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10979883
"If anyone has emerged from the affair with his authority enhanced,
it may be Mr Sadr. He had been struggling to get his fractious
movement to respect a ceasefire and was very likely enraged by an
offensive that could have wrecked all his efforts. The young cleric
appears to have decided that his movement's future lies not as a
loose association of armed gangs but as a disciplined political
movement."
And that 36% number on whether things have improved is way up
from the previous number. In fact, just about every indicator in
that poll has improved.
Absolute bullshit, Dave.
How about the few I mentioned? Almost every one is DOWN from
2004-2005.
Between 2007 and now, there are some slight upticks, but thats
NOTHING when everything is significantly worse over the last few
years.
Quality of life, jobs, safety, electricity, confidence in the
government, future of the country. trust of the Americans, success
of the government - etc.
All well down over the years tracked. Steadily down.
A 2 point difference up from 2007 IS NOT an improvement over a
10-15 point fucking drop over 4 years. Many other areas show
basically no change from cumulative 70-80 point negatives.
In short, either you're willfully ignorant, or you genuinely dont
know what fucking data says. Either way, you have absolutely
nothing backing up your bullshit.
back to the first poll question I posted = #20
total support of US troops now = 26% - Up from 21% in 2007!!
Yay!
Down from 40% in 2004!
There's a reason I posted the 2006 study as well, number monkey. So
you can see the whole series of same Q&A back to 2003.
Good like finding the pony in their my "realist" friend.
also, where'd you get your experience in research? I know some good
programs. I train junior analysts.
|4.4.08 @ 4:26PM|#
After looking at this poll
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_03_08iraqpollmarch2008.pdf)
from Gilmore I found some interesting things.
65% say the availability of things for the household are very or
quite good. Yet, 68% say the availability of clean water is very or
quite bad, and 88% say the supply of electricity is very or quite
bad. I'm not sure as to what things mean. It also shows that 50%
say the US invasion was some what or absolutely wrong vs. 49%
saying the opposite.
The more interesting item is that only 4% polled thinks corruption
and bribery is a problem.
GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 4:26PM|#
ps.
In addition to the national sample, oversamples were drawn in
Anbar province, Sadr City, Basra city, Kirkuk city and Mosul to
allow for more reliable analysis in those areas. Population data
came from 2005 estimates by the Iraq Ministry of Planning. The
sample was weighted by sex, age, education, urban/rural status and
population of province.
Since every time you face #s that make you looks stupid, you resort
to casing doubt on the sampling methodology...
There's a thing called *weighting*
|4.4.08 @ 4:31PM|#
"" Less than half of Iraqis want us to leave immediately. Most
want us to remain.""
I believe that. After 3 of 4 years of training Iraqis to stand up,
the Iraqis know they can't, and if we leave caos will follow.
That's not a check for the win column.
GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 4:32PM|#
The more interesting item is that only 4% polled thinks
corruption and bribery is a problem.
Because under Saddam, corruption and bribery could keep you safe,
the power running, the water flowing, send your kids to schools,
etc. To them, it's far more effective than voting
Notice the trendline in their interest in democracy. I think it was
in the 2007 study. The combined interest in either totalitarian
govt, or theocracy is at an all time high.
They stopped asking that question in 2008 i think.
GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 4:35PM|#
Since every time you face #s that make you looks
stupid
Ok, for that I apologize. I get mad typo-tastic when I'm steamed.
(wiping egg from face)
GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 4:45PM|#
TrickyVic | April 4, 2008, 4:31pm | #
"" Less than half of Iraqis want us to leave immediately. Most want
us to remain.""
I believe that. After 3 of 4 years of training Iraqis to stand up,
the Iraqis know they can't, and if we leave caos will follow.
That's not a check for the win column.
More than that - the police and the military are completely
untrusted outside of tribal regions they belong to. They'd much
prefer we shoot/get shot at by rivals than have to do it
themselves.
GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 5:01PM|#
as a further P.S. -
I'd like to add i'm no bleeding heart peacenik who weeps for Iraqi
dead or cares desperately about the fractiousness of the middle
east.
What gets up my ass is that OBL and his crew blew a huge hole in my
hometown and killed people I knew, and meanwhile we're spending a
trillion bucks babysitting a civil war in the wrong fucking
country.
People seem to forget that part. Nobody in Afghanistan/Pakistan
tried to kill GWB's dad though. So much for keeping your eye on the
ball.
|4.6.08 @ 11:08PM|#
Wow, he's with the University of Kentucky, he must know a lot about the mid-east.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245