We're Winning!
David Weigel | April 3, 2008, 6:23pm
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.
ithaqua | April 3, 2008, 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.
ithaqua | April 3, 2008, 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"
ithaqua | April 4, 2008, 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
GILMORE | April 4, 2008, 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.
GILMORE | April 4, 2008, 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.
