that's one of the oddest analogies i've ever read, and you miss the point of the aticle completely, but, never mind. i assume you're suggesting that the extra troops sent to iraq as part of the surge are irrelevant, and if that's your argument, i'd agree, in as far as it goes. the key to the surges' success is the change in tactics, and the extra troops help make that possible. but, and you'd know if you got your news anywhere outside the MSM and the kossacks, there has been a sea change in the attitude of most non-al queda insurgents, and they're no far more likely to support, rather than hinder our efforts. this sea change has been caused by a a stunning miscalculation on the part of al-queda- the targeting of ordinary iraqis. get outside your comfort zone a bit, and you might learn something new. the situation is changing, and for the better. whether it's enough, or too late, it's too soon to say. as for the political dysfunction in iraq- you have the same thing in washington.
It's just funny, basso, that your initial arguement to any article that doesn't agree with the Buch groupthink is to discredit the source (which is also the hallmark strategy of the neocons). . Now that others are doing the same to you, you are incredulous that no one is judging the article on its merits.
Unintentional grammatical truth. Anyway, as far as the rest of the article, it's all stuff that's been posted before, save the blurb about military historians' consensus, of which I am extremely doubtful. The writer is correct on one point though... Bush is doing everything possible to avoid being seen as the guy who pulls the plug... meaning he wants to avoid accountability. But three points need be made. First, this is a Bush and Republican screw-up. Period. The consequences belong to all of us, but you guys own it as an issue. Second, the Dem Congress can't make Bush do anything without the assistance of a number of Republican Senators. If that ends the war great. If it ends the war while still allowing people like you to brand them quitters, traitors, harbingers of holocaust, etc., still great. Whenever you reach a situation like Iraq where there are no good options, you fall back to national interest and it is in our national interest to begin an orderly withdrawal now. Third, this is where you and your ilk err greatly... you see this through the prism of party politics, therefore, as your comment shows, you immediately think I would be against anything that could hurt Dems chances in the next election because that's how you think about Repub actions. Instead, myself and most Dems, including those ne'er-do-wells on Kos, are willing to take the hit as long as the right thing is done for the country. That's why I'm proud of my party for kicking the segs out of the party and supporting Civil Rights. Sure it cost the Dems the South for a generation and strengthened the current Repub Party immensely, but it was the right thing to do... just as forcing Bush to start withdrawal is the right thing to do, regardless of the political consequences that befall Dems.
Except in this case, there's a whole ream of facts to support the questions about the source, rather than some vague "They're Liberal" charge. In fact, I sort of see this as a mirror of what you're talking about... they probably thought that since they discredit sources by screaming "Liberal" they would have two guys who claim to be Liberal spout off the GOP talking points and call it good.
My real point is that as long as a significant portion of the population doesn't want us there, there will be no victory. Ultimately victory requires 'hearts and minds' which based on every survey that I have seen we do not have. Furthermore, every independent military analyst that I have seen believes that gaining or regaining this support is not possible without some degree of disengagement. The impulse towards 'adding more' (as in send more force to attack the insurgents) is natural, especially for people who normally have a great deal of control over their environment and like to think of themselves as people who 'get things done', but the only way we can ever hope to regain any type of support is by backing away. I can locate no documented empirical evidence to accept this. Casualty and injury figures are steady and 2x-3x larger they were in 2003. The same is true of attacks in general. Which "ordinary Iraqis" are you polling? Every poll I see blames a large amount of the violence on the presence of Americans. Your prime sources seem be these editorials where people make vague references to things getting better, or the people coming over to our side. If these had anything to support them but hot air, they might be encouraging. I am positive that you are an intelligent person, so I have no idea how you can't see this flaw in these 'arguments', other than you don't want to. This article is a prime example of building an argument on a house of cards. And fundamentally the authors argument builds itself as an analogy on the idea that we could have won in Vietnam if the congress hadn't stabbed the president in the back. If you remove that falsehood from the conversation, the author's other conclusions evaporate. If we didn't pull the rug out from under Nixon at the moment of victory in Vietnam, then we don't have to concern ourselves with avoiding the same mistake in Iraq. I will accept that it is a solid logical construct but it is build without a foundation. Instead, it appears to me that we waited too long to accept no positive outcome in Vietnam, so we should work to avoid that mistake here. Furthermore, I do appreciate the argument that one should look at all sides. I agree that this is often a legitimate complaint but from where I'm sitting, it looks like you are the one who is limited in their news consumption. It is an issue of degree. The Iraqi politicians have no desire to compromise with each other at all under any circumstances according to all the information that I can find. It is a mater of tradition. There is no tradition of sharing power in Iraq. It will not happen. The Iraqi parliament would be a model of efficiency if they operated with our level of dysfunction.
Your non-responses in this thread are more telling. You've been asked if you think you were right when you posted years ago about how well things were going in IRaq. You haven't touched on the fact that you choose to believe people who have been shown to be wrong every step of the way so far, and yet criticize others who doubt the people who have been wrong. It is your non-response to such issues that leads people to believe you are out of touch with reality, or at least one of the things. It is hard to progress the debate and for us to accept your claims, when you have yet to show one reason why we should believe the people who have been wrong all along, instead of the ones that have been correct.
basso - I worked at Brookings as recently as two years ago and continue to collaborate with scholars there. I've heard O'Hanlon talk about this stuff ad nauseum. The empirics behind the "Iraq Index" of which he's so proud are really quite dreadful. There's no reasonable model underlying it, and it has very poor predictive power. There's a reason that O'Hanlon is increasingly jeered at in foreign policy circles -- it seems that he's more interested in appearing on CNN than doing scholarly research (which is only his job, for pete's sake!) Yet another unfortunate case of Potomac fever...
basso: the boy who cried "working": 3-07-05 The Bush Doctrine is working 3-28-04 It's working 2-19-04 The Bush Doctrine is Working but anyway hey - if it's working then hurry the f-k up and bring them home.
You know what, I don't think it was exactly saying Iraq is now a resounding success, just that there's been some positive progress. I mean, jeez, progress after 4 freakin years? About time, surge or no surge. I'm willing to hold judgement and give it a few more months. I mean, we've waited 4.x years, what's 7 more weeks???
You're right, it's nothing to us, or the people in Washington making the decisions, which is part of the problem and why it has dragged on for four largely fruitless years.
About 100-150 deaths of US troops, probably a few thousand Iraqi lives, and maybe 20-40 billion dollars.
F_ck that. My brother almost ended up in Iraq as a Marine. Now he still might end up there as a civilian working for the Defense dept. Good people like my brother, people with families, some of the best this country has to offer, are dying every day now, so that Bush doesn't have to confront his abject failure. F_ck that.
You have to look at the situation without the liberal lens. If progress can be made and the tide turned, then yes, there is a reason to stay in Iraq. We messed that country up, and if there's a way to turn things around, then we owe that much. I know that possibility irritated many liberals, who want to see Bush fail, and as much as I hate the guy as well, my interests are still aligned what's best for this country, not either political party.
Well, your brother made a choice as a Marine to take those risks when we decided to serve. That was their choice. And it's not about Bush's failure, it's about America's failure or success, who cares about Bush? And if your brother does end up there - I wish him well.
Nothing can be done in the next 7 weeks anyway. Why dismiss the report - what's wrong with holding judgement when we're going to be in there for 7 weeks no matter what.
To follow up on Otto's post. I can accept that the surge might be producing some localized success and even that there is a change in tactics. After all its been more than 4 years now so one would hope we have learned something. There are two big problems though. One is that the surge cannot cover all of Iraq and two is that even if Congress was still in Republican hands the Surge is practically unsustainable. Adding more US troops isn't a bad short term solution but the heart of the problems facing Iraq is political and until that can be addressed short term benefits aren't going to last. Al Qaeda very well might have overplayed its hand but Al Qaeda isn't the only problem we face in Iraq. Just because many Iraqis don't like Al Qaeda doesn't mean they won't us to stay. Given the visciousness of Al Qaeda I'm not surprised that many are turning on them. The question is if Al Qaeda is defeated how long will the Iraqis continue to tolerate us? Many Iraqis don't and even while some might accept a temporary truce that doesn't mean that they suddenly forget their anymosity.
