I promised MarkinNJ that I would dig up some good news from Iraq, since he was having a difficult time finding any. So let’s start with casualties among Iraqi civilians. Having heard that Iraq is a disaster by several liberal commenters, I ask you: what do you think the civilian casualty trends are in Iraq?
- Increasing?
- Leveling off near the peak?
- Leveling off at some other level (if so, where)?
- Dropping (if so, how much)?
Answer below the fold:
The peak of August and September has faded, though violence is still about 3 times higher than it was last year. January and February should be interesting, with new initiatives by the US and Iraqi military, the scheduled execution of Saddam Hussein, and the majority rule by Democrats in Congress.
And it seems like everybody but MarkinNJ read the Newsweek article on the booming economy in Iraq.
Don’t forget that a week ago we handed over security responsibility for the province of Najaf to Iraqis. I was going to try to make an animated gif showing the evolution of Iraqi security responsibilities over time, but the DoD already beat me to it.
If you’re interested in the promotion of health, you can read about our contributions to nutrition, training, and immunizations here.
Many people seem unaware of the enormous number of construction projects we’ve undertaken in Iraq. Here’s a little snapshot from the Army Corps of Engineers:
While the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Iraq has completed 2,620 projects at a construction cost
of $3.38 billion (as illustrated by the green projects on the lower left map), there is still much work left to do.
The map, of course, was taken from the Army Corps of Engineers document in the link above. In addition there are more than 690 projects under construction at a cost of $2.61 billion, and another 140 projects yet to start.
Finding good news in Iraq isn’t that difficult, but it requires going to the original sources as opposed to relying on the NYT.
December 28, 2006 at 1:31 am
geoff, why work hard searching for the facts when you have the NYT to tell you what reality is…
December 28, 2006 at 1:01 pm
I don’t get it, Geoff. The economy is “booming”, security responsibilities are being handed over to Iraqi’s aggresively, thousands of construction projects are underway and/or completed yet your fist statistic suggests that Iraqi civilians are being killed at a rate 3 times greater than 1 year ago. Isn’t this a bit of “Otherwise, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?” thinking?
December 28, 2006 at 1:29 pm
I made the point before that the humanitarian disaster constituted by Iraqi civilian deaths does not necessarily reflect a policy disaster or a reconstruction disaster. Certainly the leadership in Iraq aren’t treating it like a disaster of any sort.
The point being that to solve the problem you have to isolate it. Calling Iraq a disaster is not helpful – you have to specify what is going right and what is going wrong. Losing 1500 innocents a month is awful, but 90% of Iraqis say they feel safe in their neighborhoods. That suggests a degree of stability that is never mentioned in the media, and which seems to have completely eluded Senator Reid.
December 28, 2006 at 3:38 pm
I would agree that 1500 deaths per month tempered by a 90% “feel safe” number does suggest a greater degree of stability than a 1500 death per month with, say, only a 10% “feel safe” number. My “disaster” point in the past was more about how we got into this mess than it was an attempt to solve the problem. The point being that I’d rather have new blood attacking the problem then those who got us into the problem in the first place.
Simply put: neo-conservative thinking/policy got us into a mess in Iraq, let’s find a different group to listen to in order to get out.
December 28, 2006 at 3:52 pm
FundiMental chooses to ignore the fact that Iraq was a big mess before we even got there. He chooses to ignore the mass graves that were being filled regularly before we even got there. He chooses to ignore the serious violations of human rights (not to mention dignity) before we even go to Iraq. He chooses to ignore the fact that 25 million people now have a chance to live in freedom for the first time. Of course he doesn’t understand this because he/she takes their freedom for granted. He refuses to consider why 90% of the people feel safe because it doesn’t fit into his world view; Bush bad.
I’m glad he/she wasn’t around for the Whiskey Rebellion; what a mess that was. He/she would have tried to convince the French and others that the stupid colonials would never be able to govern themselves…
December 28, 2006 at 10:23 pm
BrewFan and I have different expectations and different standards for evaluating the outcome of the US intervention in Iraq.
My expectations are based on the rationale for invading Iraq as articulated by the US: 1) the threat of WMD, 2) the connection of Iraq to terrorists organizations (specifically Al Qaeda) and 3) free the Iraqi people from an oppersive regime. That Iraq was a “big mess” before we invaded and that war is messy in general do not permit me to excuse the failure of the administration. No – it is not as simple as to say “Bush is bad”. I don’t hold this kind of knee-jerk view of Bush. But a fair, objective review of the facts – when using a reasonable and appropriate standard of performance – lead me to believe that this adminstration has uterly failed. Those that advised the administration and those that have consistently supported the administration’s policies and plans have limited credibility on this subject.
Are you making an alternative argument? Should we bring Wolfowitz back to advise us on how to proceed in Iraq?
December 29, 2006 at 4:42 am
1) The threat of WMD – Everyone, including the entire U.N. thought this threat existed. The only debate was how much time we should give Saddam to open his country to inspections. So don’t go there. At the time we invaded this was a given.
2) The connection of Iraq to terrorists organizations – This has been proven time and again to be true. Abu Nidal ring a bell? How about material support for Al Q? And if #1 above was believed what on earth would lead any non-BDS suffering lib to believe if SH had them he wouldn’t be happy to share?
3) Free the Iraqi people from an oppersive [sic] regime – This was the official foreign policy of the U.S. Government. Guess when this policy was adopted? 1998. Guess who was President of the U.S. at that time? Not George W. Bush.
I know all of these pesky facts won’t penetrate your BDS ravaged brain but there they are.
December 29, 2006 at 8:21 am
It’s tempting to respond to BrewFans “facts” but instead I’m going to simply thank Geoff for providing the info. (especially since I’m apparently the only person in America who doesn’t read Newsweek). But I have read similar stuff forwarded by my brother, an Army engineer.
It stikes me that nobody is served by under-reporting (or non-reporting) of good news about Iraq. I stand second to no one in believing that Bush and Cheney need to have their balls burned off for getting us into this, but we’re here and whether you think the mission is still to seed democracy in the ME or just get out with our nation’s soul intact, it’s going to be incredibly difficult and I don’t think it can succeed without a unified country behind it. And reporting good news when it happens might help there.
It’s depressing that, so far, the current admin. seems to be unwilling or unable to come up with a strategy that unites us behind a common goal. Admittedly, not an easy thing to do, but isn’t that our leaders’ job? (think Lincoln, think FDR). For example, did you know that in WWII all of FDR’s sons were in the military? In contrast, I get the feeling that no one in the Bush/Cheney circle of family and friends is ever going to get a scratch in Iraq (not to mention their collective history of dodging service in Vietnam (a history that I still can’t believe doesn’t enrage conservatives – but hey that’s a different rant))
The 2006 elections invalidated the previous “our way or the highway” modus operandi. Whether he/she comes from the right or the left, it’s time for a leader with broader and deeper vision — one who recognizes, for example, that the MSM is a crucial partner in this mission, not an adversary to be blamed when policies fail. If we’re not seeing enough good news in Iraq, conservatives want to blame the seditious MSM, but I say it’s another example of Bush admin mismanagement and incompetence.
December 29, 2006 at 9:41 am
the current admin. seems to be unwilling or unable to come up with a strategy that unites us behind a common goal.
Hmmm. We need a strategy in Iraq that:
o leaves a stable country, with a government that represents all three major factions,
o doesn’t require more of our troops,
o reduces frictions with the Iraqi populace by reducing our troops’ direct interaction (I don’t think this is that big an issue, but it addresses the “we’re creating terrorists” complaint)
o has a smooth transition in security responsibilities, with plenty of US backup in case something goes awry.
Hey, I know – why don’t we use the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq? We’ve only been pursuing that strategy for a year, but it’s already been successful in handing over security control to the Iraqis in 3 provinces and put the Iraqi forces in the lead in something like 15 others. I thought that was the strategy we were all supposed to be united behind.
Or did some people not get on the bus?
The 2006 elections invalidated the previous “our way or the highway” modus operandi.
Far from a mandate for Democrats, the 2006 elections were even less a mandate on the Iraq war. Don’t confuse yourself – the war was one of three issues (the war, corruption/scandal, and stay-at-home conservatives dissatisfied with immigration & the budget) that affected the outcome. Not to mention that several Republican campaigns were simply bungled. Badly. So badly that it makes you wonder if those rabid “it’s all part of Rove’s master plan” Kossites are on to something.
In any case, the election results themselves indicate that neither party has much of a mandate – the Presidential and Congressional elections show that the country is pretty evenly split – a fact Pelosi ought to have considered before formulating her 100-hour plan. She’s going to enjoy a very short-lived reign at the rate she’s going.
December 29, 2006 at 10:17 am
Its tempting to respond to BrewFan’s facts…[snip]
You won’t because you can’t. All you have is DNC talking points; Bush lied. Bush is a draft dodger. Bush is stupid. yada, yada, yada.
Like all current lefties all you have is an irrational hate for a man and no matter what that man does its going to be wrong. And the saddest thing of all is you’re willing to sacrifice the best interests of your country and your fellow citizens on that alter of hate. The second saddest thing is you’re happy to drink the kool-aid because its easier then thinking something through.
If you need any proof that you and your fellow travelers are intellectually bankrupt its in the very telling fact that not one of you has a better (or even different) plan.
Respond indeed.
December 29, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Geoff – I think I wasn’t very clear…I’m actually aware of the Nat’l Strategy for Victory. What I meant was the Bush admin doesn’t seem to have much interest in a strategy for “selling” the Iraq project to ALL Americans, which – given the difficulty of the project – is an important component of its success. I don’t like the way that dissenters have their patriotism challenged; or the way events are staged, with hand-picked pro-Bush audiences supposedly representing all of us; or the way open dialog is discouraged or squashed. It feels un-American and counter-productive. Bush saying he doesn’t care about poll numbers is another example; cited as evidence of his strong, unwavering character by the red state folks, to me it sounds more like a slap in the face to a constituency he needs for his project to succeed. Even if he never does, in fact, look at poll results, crowing about it seems unnecessarily divisive and highly questionable as a strategy.
And say what you want about the true meaning of the 2006 election results, the plain fact is, both houses of congress now at least have a chance to truly oversee the executive. We’ll see what they do with it…..
BrewFan – I won’t, because no one’s mind is going to change and in my experience, I won’t feel better for having tried.
And it’s true that lots of liberals hate Bush (although I’m not sure it’s always irrational) — some days even I hate him, although more often I just wish he’d never become president and I’m hoping for something better in 2008. But your “alter” of hate rhetoric makes me feel rotten for all the times I’ve tried to get a reaction out of conservatives by bad-mouthing Bush; I see how your anger looks on you and realize mine doesn’t make me look any better.
I resolve to do better in 2007….Happy New Year.
December 29, 2006 at 12:36 pm
What I meant was the Bush admin doesn’t seem to have much interest in a strategy for “selling” the Iraq project to ALL Americans
Bush’s communication skills and strategies are very poor and have been criticized by liberals and conservatives alike. And every time he makes a public statement, there seems to be some clause that can serve as grist to the KosKids’ mill. But he made the speeches and did the PR push last year, with no real reaction by the media. So he at least went through the motions.
As far as dissenters and their patriotism, I have little sympathy. First, few dissenters use the word “patriotism” it its traditional sense – they are “patriotic” to their personal conception of what they think the US should be, not to the country as it exists. To a great extent, patriotism is an irrational bias in favor of one’s country. That aspect of patriotism is not present in the dissenters that I have seen.
Second, dissenters refuse to accept responsibility for the harm caused by their public displays of dissent. With every right we enjoy comes a corresponding responsibility, but the dissenters consider calls for responsibility to be challenges to their patriotism. I note that dissenters have little difficulty sloughing off their contributions to the morale of terrorists and to the lowering of the morale of our troops. Why again should we consider these people patriots?
December 29, 2006 at 1:05 pm
I see how your anger looks on you…
FYI, Your therapist calls this projection.
BTW, your hatred of Bush is irrational because you hated him before he even took office. And the reason you hated him is because you had to endure the shame of Bill Clinton’s moral depravity. This made the left endeavor to smear and vilify whoever became the next Republican president. Now you all have dug a hole so deep you may never find your way out. You’re going to get a new president in ’08 but I have a feeling you won’t like him/her any better.
Happy New Year to you too.
December 29, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Wow, Geoff, that doesn’t leave much room for honest disagreement with the controversial policies of this government.
Thinking of a young islamofascist, trained to hate America, and contemplating a terrorist act — one theory says observing dissent emboldens the youngster to act against an obviously weak and fragmented enemy. But here’s another possibility: couldn’t the observation of dissent, freely expressed, instead cause him to reconsider all the horrible stuff he’s heard about America?
Regarding dissent and the morale of our troops, one of the most encouraging things I’ve seen is how we’ve learned some of the lessons of Vietnam. I don’t know anyone who hates the war who doesn’t also respect the troops, appreciate their sacrifice and wants them home safely. Paradoxically, one of the things US soldiers fight for is the right of the people at home to openly dissent with the policies that sent the soldiers to war — would soldiers feel different about the mission knowing that that right has been compromised? I’m not so sure the linkage between liberal dissent and lower troop morale is as clear cut as you describe….sounds more like something a politician would make a speech about than a verifiable reality.
December 29, 2006 at 1:40 pm
BrewFan — before he took office, I had exactly 2 thoughts about Bush: (1) he looks a lot like his dad; (2) I liked his rhetoric about being a uniter, not a divider. Now, at the end of 2006, I still think he looks like his dad.
Clinton screwed up for sure, but the hypocrisy that pervaded the judgement and impeachment of the man was a disgrace — and truly un-Christian, by the way, at least w/ regard to the actual teachings of Christ (judge not, etc).
Your take on history and perceptions of who I am are extravagantly uninformed.
Peace.
December 29, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Wow, Geoff, that doesn’t leave much room for honest disagreement with the controversial policies of this government.
I never said that dissenters couldn’t dissent – I said they had to take responsibility for the consequences. Which they have not. There are ways of dissenting that do not embolden the enemy or discourage our troops. Those appear to be a well-kept secret from Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Henry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi. And dissenting and patriotism need not be exclusive – they’re just rarely found together in the liberal ranks.
couldn’t the observation of dissent, freely expressed, instead cause him to reconsider all the horrible stuff he’s heard about America?
You are attributing a Western thought process to an Arabic mind. But we don’t have to wonder what they think – they tell us. They tell us that they are delighted that the Democrats have a majority in Congress, in fact they even want to take credit for the election results. Not because they admire dissent, but because they want the guys with the withdrawal rhetoric to win.
I’m not so sure the linkage between liberal dissent and lower troop morale is as clear cut as you describe
I base that on comments from returning soldiers who are stunned at the characterization of the war in the media and dismayed that a substantial number of Americans don’t seem to support their mission. And of course the article (referenced on this very blog) that describes the troops’ very mixed feelings over the post-election likelihood of an early withdrawal.
December 29, 2006 at 3:24 pm
Your theology is as superficial as your political world view. Jesus wasn’t teaching you shouldn’t judge (Matthew 7:1-5). Read verse 5. What he was teaching was one shouldn’t be censorious. Kinda like calling somebody extravagently uninformed when all you’re equipped with is what you learned by watching Farenheit 911 and the Daily Show.
December 29, 2006 at 4:47 pm
BrewFan – You are guilty of some serious revisionism here. You are vilifying those that disagree with you while making those revisions. How ironic, as this was a technique practiced by those that you seek to defend.
The fact is there was substantial, credible doubt that Iraq had “stockpiles” of WMD and doubt that Iraq had (or could have had) a WMD program – the central reason to invade Iraq. To suggest that “everyone at the UN” thought so is either a lie or abject denial of reality on your part.
Hans Blix, the most credible and experienced individual on the subject of Iraq and WMD, did not agree with the US assessment and was vilified for attempting to say so. He was a strong proponent of continued inspections (since inspections to date had found no evidence of WMD) but his advice – which we now know to have been well informed and correcet – was disregarded.
General Zinni maintained that Iraq was not a threat and that Operation Desert Fox had seriously limited Iraq’s ability to conduct major weapons programs. He was a strong advocate for a policy of containment that had been working (along with many others). We now know that his view of the situation was correct – but he too was disregarded by the administration.
Scott Ritter, biased as he may be, also provided a different view of the WMD threat in Iraq. And while he may be an easy target to vilify he was, after all, right! He was an experienced person, knowledgeable about WMD in Iraq and his opinion was dismissed.
“Everyone, including the entire U.N. thought this threat existed”, you say, yet ten NATO member countries did not join the “coalition of the willing”, and their leaders made public statements in opposition to the invasion of Iraq. You may not like France very much but like Blix and Zinni and Ritter, France was correct.
All of this while our leaders stood before the world and said very specifically that we are 100% certain that Iraq had WMD and even that we knew exactly where they were. And of course, we now know that these people were wrong.
WMD, unfortunately, is only one of several areas where the administration discounted or dismissed outright the opinions of others – opinions of credible, experienced people who have since been proven right.
It is reasonable, I think, to assert that the US (the Bush administration, to be specific) deliberately inflated intelligence to build a justification for an invasion. To dismiss this as “irrational hate” for Bush is intellectually weak.
December 29, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Geoff – Please expand on your comment that dissenters can dissent but have to take responsibility for the consequences of their dissenting actions? How can a person possibly disagree with the government’s policies (say, on the decision to pre-emtively invade Iraq) without suffering the acqusation that they are unpatriotic?
You speak of patriotism yet this concept you are introducing seems to be as unpatriotic as anything someone could say. I’m guessing it’s because I don’t understand your meaning. Please expand on this.
I find it ironic that the very people who were right about Iraq would be considered unpatriotic because they dissented (and, as you reasonably point out, probably had a negative impact on troop morale, etc.).
December 29, 2006 at 5:42 pm
I find it ironic that the very people who were right about Iraq would be considered unpatriotic because they dissented
Did I say that? I certainly never meant to say that. I said that: 1) today’s dissenters abuse the term “patriotism” when they whine about being accused of being unpatriotic; and 2) today’s dissenters are taking advantage of the rights of citizenship without owning up to the responsibilities that accompany those rights. I never said that dissent in and of itself was unpatriotic. It is also not necessarily patriotic – which probably comes as a shock to those who believe that it is patriotism’s highest form (not a quote of Jefferson’s, BTW).
Now let’s talk about what you said:
I don’t believe that the people who were “right about Iraq” should be considered inherently unpatriotic, though I’m not sure what set of people you’re talking about. It is the manner of, and motivations for, expressing their dissent that are unpatriotic.
the US (the Bush administration, to be specific) deliberately inflated intelligence to build a justification for an invasion.
If you’ve ever dealt with the intelligence community and their estimates, as I used to many years ago, you’d know that they are famous for erring on the conservative side (i.e., using the highest estimates of the enemy’s capabilities). The hackneyed office joke was that we were fighting “ten foot tall Russians” because the intelligence guys had put together such an imposing threat estimate. But they had to do that, otherwise the country suffers from unpleasant surprises like the discovery of the extent of Iraq’s nuclear program in GWI.
Combine that with finding that the White House was found not to have influenced the intelligence estimate, and I don’t think you have a case.
December 29, 2006 at 5:46 pm
Let’s do a little thought experiment. You’re President Bush. Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, and Gen. Zinni tell you one thing. The previous administration of the U.S. and all the intelligence agencies of the Western world, including the CIA tell you something different. Who do you believe? Its nice to be able to Monday morning quarterback this but thats not how real life works.
BTW, tell me how ‘containment’ kept Saddam from funding terrorism. Tell me how containment would have kept Saddam from giving AQ WMD. Even if I was inclined to agree with you that there were no WMD (based only on the fact we haven’t found them), I’d be interested to know where you got your confidence in the good nature of Saddam and gang.
December 29, 2006 at 6:10 pm
Who do you believe?
So you ask the intelligence agencies to put together a combined intelligence assessment that will represent the nation’s best estimate of the Iraqi threat. They respond with a doozy – the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. And after being briefed on the executive summary (because Presidents don’t read the supporting document – they’re normally briefed on the contents to speed things along), you’re ready to push the button.
Or you should be, if you’re worthy of your office.
December 29, 2006 at 7:05 pm
But in the fever crazed world of BDS you naturally assume that Cheney and Rumsfeld were at Ft. Meade and Langley twisting the arms of the analysts to make them produce intelligence that will benefit the neocon puppet masters that control Chimpy McHitlerburton.
December 29, 2006 at 7:33 pm
Hey BrewFan, I reread the Matthew passage and fail to see how it doesn’t apply. Also see John 8: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her”
But so what? Is your your point you can beat me at quote-the-Bible? If so, I concede (and what a colossal bore).
Or is your point that you think Jesus would have looked approvingly at the actions of the republicans in congress toward the wayward actions of Pres. Clinton? If so, we gotta agree to disagree, because I think that’s absurd.
December 29, 2006 at 8:16 pm
Geoff – I need an example of what dissent-with-responsibility looks like. Who has dissented in a way that you think is acceptable?
I’ve read/heard numerous items in the NYT and on NPR (both notoriously liberal) that advocate strongly for the troops and their families, especially those returning with wounds or post-traumatic stress. Seems pretty responsible to me…
And if the returning troops are stunned to find out that half the country doesn’t support their mission, I go back to an earlier point — that it’s time to rethink the mission, not castigate the non-supporters.
December 29, 2006 at 8:47 pm
If I agree to accept the finding that the White House didn’t influence the intelligence estimate, will you agree to accept the findings that (1) there were no WMD in Iraq; and (2) there was no link between Saddam and AQ?
Seems to me that it’s time for all of us to put those “cooked up” rationales behind us and call the war what it is — an implementation of the long held neo-con plan to create a US ally in the ME by growing an infectious, irresistable democracy. A worthy geopolitical goal, I suppose, but highly risky, and clearly beyond the vision and abilities of Bush & Co.
December 29, 2006 at 9:14 pm
I need an example of what dissent-with-responsibility looks like.
Not very surprising. You could start by saying “Cindy Sheehan probably killed XXX soldiers.” The number is irrelevant, the point is that every time she opened her piehole she emboldened the enemy, convincing them that if they just killed a few more, we would lose heart and leave (not that they were wrong). That would be taking ownership of the consequences of dissent.
Responsible dissent: Policy debates in congress, congressional hearings, public forums, constructive critiques providing clearcut and realistic alternatives
Irresponsible dissent: Press conferences, any Michael Moore film, 9/11 truthers, anybody who talks about current strategies in Iraq and includes mention of WMDs, the entirety of Daily Kos, Democratic Undergound, and IndyMedia, Ted Rall, Paul Krugman, Sean Penn, George Clooney, Henry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, anti-war rallies, etc.
The bottom line is that responsible dissent involves low publicity, high information value, and a positive contribution. Irresponsible dissent is high on vitriol and publicity, and offers little of concrete value. Responsible dissenters think about the perception of their acts and words by the enemy and our troops, the irresponsible don’t bother. Iraq the Model had a post today talking about the warped perceptions of violent factions in Iraq concerning Bush’s new plan, which they believe involves retreat. That means there’s no risk of them surrendering until after the plan is revealed, and then until after the inane battery of Congressional hearings starts. Thank you, Nancy Pelosi!!
that it’s time to rethink the mission, not castigate the non-supporters.
…and that is precisely whence the failure of patriotism stems. When you rank your own opinion higher than that of the country’s policy, you are being unpatriotic. By definition. You are not being patriotic to the country – you are being patriotic to your concept of what the country should be. Conservatives suppressed their disapproval of many of Bush’s policies for many years, entirely because of the country’s war-footing. We grumbled reasonably quietly for 3 years, until it was clear that our grumbling would be a tiny fraction of the overall anti-Bush rhetoric being spouted. A tiny, tiny fraction.
Mind you, patriotism is not always a good thing, and I’m baffled as to why the anti-war faction gets so upset over being called unpatriotic.
Gratuitous Bush slams: unpatriotic.
Bush lied: unpatriotic.
No war for oil: unpatriotic
I support the troops but not their mission: unpatriotic (and the liberal facade of supporting the troops is starting to wear thin, with more incidents of abuse of troops at home)
I believe that it is time to reassess our strategy in Iraq to bring stability more surely and swiftly: patriotic
Accountability: unpatriotic, at least the way liberals use the word (their code for impeachment and their chance to finally stick it to Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld)
Just for starts.
December 29, 2006 at 9:26 pm
I don’t have a problem with the presence or lack thereof of WMD in Iraq. That wasn’t my primary rationale for supporting the invasion – I’ve always been more interested in a regional answer to the unceasing problems in the Middle East, so the neo-con angle was attractive to me (and obvious from the outset). So say what you want about WMD.
Saddam and AQ. Unlike those who enjoy the “Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11″ crowd, I took the President’s statement that he was going after all terrorists and terrorist-supporting nations seriously. This was not a police action to punish the 9/11 perpetrators or even the entire AQ network – this is an attempt to manage the global problem of terrorism and radical Islam. Saddam supported terrorism and was looking to improve his relations with terrorist groups – that’s documented. So I don’t particularly care about him having a working relationship with AQ.
A worthy geopolitical goal, I suppose, but highly risky, and clearly beyond the vision and abilities of Bush & Co.
In one sense they’ve performed miracles, and you’d be dishonest not to acknowledge it. In terms of meeting their goals within their originally allocated resources, they’ve failed badly. But conservatives are pretty much willing to keep writing checks for many more years, so that failure isn’t particularly troublesome. It sure seems to gall FundiMental, though.
December 29, 2006 at 10:21 pm
thanks, geoff…I don’t agree with all your examples, and I’m not sure why Frank Rich wasn’t mentioned, but believe it or not, I found your response very edifying.
At work, I tell my associates no one’s allowed to criticize without proposing alternatives and no doubt the Iraq debate could use more of that ethos. There’s a key difference, of course — no one at work has had an abhorrent mission forced upon them (I hope), but still one tires of all heat and no light.
So, assuming we can progress to responsible dialog, what *is* the mission in Iraq today? Are we still prepared to pay the price of pushing on with the vision of remaking the ME? Or can we scale back to a version of cut-n-run that doesn’t make us look like the biggest assholes in modern history? Can liberals buy into option 1? Can conservatives accept the will of the people if >50% want out ASAP?
My “If I agree…” proposal was really aimed more at BrewFan, who seemed to be foaming at the mouth….I don’t argue that our military has performed miraculously in Iraq, but I’m less sanguine than you are about being lied to regarding the evolving rationales presented for the invasion — it was a bad beginning – unnecessary, stupid and hopefully not fatal.
December 29, 2006 at 10:28 pm
At work, I tell my associates no one’s allowed to criticize without proposing alternatives and no doubt the Iraq debate could use more of that ethos.
That’s a great rule, but the military has an additional rule that comes into play. When decision time comes, you speak your piece to the commander. Once. Then he makes the decision and that’s it. Right or wrong, that’s the decision and everybody abides by it and tries their best to make it work. There’s no whining or “I told you so’s” after the decision is made. The commander is the guy who bears responsibility and authority for the decisions, he makes the decisions, we follow the decisions.
The office of the President can’t be treated that militarily, but I think the general attitude is worth adopting.
December 30, 2006 at 12:47 am
My “If I agree…” proposal was really aimed more at BrewFan, who seemed to be foaming at the mouth
BrewFan thinks you’re a run-of-the-mill liberal troll, not a related-to-me liberal troll, which I probably should have disclosed, but I didn’t want to bias the discussion. So I’ll make this announcement on your behalf:
BrewFan, MarkinNJ is not as insincere as you would assume based on nearly all of our previous encounters with liberal commenters. And, not to inhibit anyone from going at it hammer-and-tongs, but he’s also my Brother-in-Law, which is why I haven’t unloaded on him like I would with an unknown troll.
Just so you all don’t think I’m turning faggy on you. NTTWBAWWT.
Now you boys play nice. Or whatever.
December 30, 2006 at 12:59 am
I’m less sanguine than you are about being lied to regarding the evolving rationales presented for the invasion — it was a bad beginning – unnecessary, stupid and hopefully not fatal.
The famous 2003 SotU gave the reasons for invading Iraq: WMD, connections with terrorists, thwarting UN inspection efforts, and torture of his people. Do you really think, though, that he could publicly explain the inherent agenda without an enormous outcry? Everybody knew what was going on, but it’s one of those cases where if it is spoken aloud, it becomes a political football.
Not to mention that at the Bush’s rationale seemed pretty good even on its face.
December 30, 2006 at 6:50 am
Geoff – thanks for the kind intro., but I request/expect no special treatment.
I don’t mind BrewFan’s invective. What’s dismaying is that I can find so little common ground with a guy who calls himself (herself?) BrewFan…I mean, who isn’t?
BTW, I never thought of myself as a troll. Maybe a dweeb….
December 30, 2006 at 9:19 am
I never thought of myself as a troll.
Not to insult your intelligence or anything, but “trolls” are people who wander into ideologically hostile sites and start stirring up controversy just to get attention. They often start off with a fairly reasonable demeanor, but then get more and more rabid until they are banned. In the meantime they’ve usually managed to hijack several threads, destroying the chance for decent discussion
You might say “what’s the big deal? How much damage can a troll do?” Well, a site like AoSHQ gets 2 or 3 a day. Last night, for example, there was some moron named “Raj” and an even dimmer bulb named “LittleBit” who were blithering idiocy about the execution. A constant onslaught of these dorks can completely change the tone of a blog. A lot of blogs were started within the last year (including this one) by AoSHQ alumni who were frustrated at the continuing disruption of the AoSHQ environment, which used to be the most entertaining place on the web.
My policy here is one of little patience with trolls. If I think someone is insincere or not contributing, I’ll just delete their comments. Or I’ll try to – last time I did it all of the comments came back. Creepy.
There’s a lot more info about trolls on the web. There are even pseudo-psychological studies of trolls. They do have an interesting psychology – what kind of person is so desperate for attention that they enjoy going to sites and getting yelled at?
December 30, 2006 at 12:01 pm
geoff, next Christmas buy him a bible, a subscription to National Review and help him develop his reading comprehension skills. There is always hope.
P.S. I hope he’s your sister’s husband and not your wife’s brother. Easier that way.
December 30, 2006 at 1:55 pm
geoff – my intelligence isn’t insulted (maybe my ignorance is)….I’m always glad to learn something new
I can assure you on your site, I’ve always been absolutely sincere, and I stand behind these excellent opinions of mine.
Bad news Brewfan — I’m the wife’s brother.
December 30, 2006 at 2:29 pm
BTW, glad you’re a Brewers fan. Not many of them these days. As a fellow Brewer fan I feel like I should warn you that I’ve only ever been wrong about something once in the entire 52 years I’ve walked this earth. That was when I thought I was wrong about something. I’ve never made that mistake again. Cheers.
December 30, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Lot’s to comment on here. I’m with your brother-in-law on the subject of patriotism and dissent (or at least I think I am based on what I have read here). I’m struggling to figure out how this works – how, for example, one should practice dissent on a matter that could put American lives and American security at risk, but to do so politely and without too much press coverage, etc.
I’ll re-read the comments thus far and hopefully offer something more substantive.
December 30, 2006 at 7:58 pm
I’ll re-read the comments thus far and hopefully offer something more substantive
I’m not holding my breath.
December 30, 2006 at 11:43 pm
hey, BrewFan, I hate to disappoint you just when we’re starting to get all buddy-buddy, but I thought your name referred to beer — honesty compels me to confess I couldn’t care less about the Brewers (or any other football team)
And I think you need to lighten up on FundiMental; he/she is one of the few voices of reason on this site.
December 31, 2006 at 1:39 am
It’s amusing that an NYT liberal and an avowed “conservative” should share such amity. I very nearly banned FundiMental for his misrepresentation of his political stance, since that has been a 100% indicator of troll-hood in the past. Not to mention his litany of every KosKid talking point from the past 3 years.
Thin ice; skating on.
Here’s the deal, guys. This is a conservative (actually neo-liberatarian) comment site. That means I give much more latitude to those who are ideologically compatible than to those who are not. Why? Because there is so much more back material to cover with people who don’t share fundamental values and assumptions.
My eventual goal is to make this a site primarily for conservatives that challenges conservatives to do better. Liberals are welcome to join the ride. But rolling around in the mud discussing WMD, Bush’s supposed lies, patriotism, and other 3-year old partisan hoohah doesn’t get me any closer to that goal.
So I’m starting to get a little frustrated with the time-wasting rehashing of issues that I settled to my satisfaction years ago. I’ve spent hours upon hours debating *hundreds* of liberal trolls on these very topics, and they all came up short. So this may be fun and new for you guys (hopefully not), but it’s ancient history for me.
I’m moving on. You all should think about doing the same.
December 31, 2006 at 8:41 am
Mark – Thank you for your comments. I would have said the same about you – it has been refreshing to see rational, critical thought applied to the issues posted on this blog. Well done! [Note: You are most definitely NOT a Brewers fan as evidenced by the fact that the Brewers are a baseball team! I join you in not sharing this interest as well.]
Geoff – Goodbye. I will no longer participate on your site. Enjoy your “trip to Abilene”.
Parting words:
–A person can hold “conservative” views and still recognize the validity of a liberal argument.
–Not everyone who disagrees with you is a “troll”. It’s quite possible you conclude that anyone who disagrees is a troll because any disagreement is annoying to you, even if it is presented rationally and without the specific intent to annoy. It’s my opinion that this is closed-minded thinking Geoff, and further, that this is very much in-line with your thinking about dissent and patriotism in general. [I had some additional thoughts on dissent and patriotism but I’m obviously not being encouraged by either you or BrewFan to offer them].
–The good news is: treating anyone (everyone!) who disagrees with you as if they were a “liberal troll” will get you what you want -a blog exclusively set up for people who already agree (so you can challenge your fellow conservatives to “do better” – the irony of this is not lost on me). To expedite your achievement of this goal I might suggest you simply ask any person who disagrees with you to not participate after their first disagreeable post. You’ll be less frustrated and waste less time “rehashing” issues. Maybe consider putting a warning on the home page of your blog that asks people to refrain from commenting if they disagree with any opinion offered in your posts. This might be a real time saver.
–Whether or not those liberal trolls “came up short” during your hours of debating cannot be determined by you alone (despite your obvious desire to conclude so AND your efforts to exclude anyone who thinks otherwise). History will weigh in on this question. Your position on these matters is well recorded.
December 31, 2006 at 11:41 am
Geoff – I *did* have fun jumping into the fray – and I think you’ve done a terrific job with your site.
I’ll continue to keep Uncommon Misconceptions in my rounds of web reading, but I’m done posting unless I think I’m contributing to your objectives (which I respect).
Love to you & the family….Happy 2007.
December 31, 2006 at 12:56 pm
My.
I don’t mind disagreement – look at lauraw taking it to me on the Jehovah’s Witness thread, or BrewFan disagreeing with me on the relative dangers of SCO vs. Islamic radicalism, or both of you guys disagreeing on Rumsfeld. I even tried to check out that “Fiasco” book that you both recommended (unfortunately there’s quite a reservation backup at the library).
But does *every* discussion that talks about Iraq have to go all the way back to WMD, intelligence estimates, invasion strategies, etc.? Every single one?
Look at this topic: good things happening right now in Iraq. Where is this discussion thread? Well, just like the “We’re not Winning in Iraq?” post and the Rumsfeld post, it’s back to the initial rationale for the invasion, etc.
These are the topics I find interesting:
o realignment of the global power structure and its influence on our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan (Cold War II)
o current status and successful strategies going forward in Iraq and Afghanistan
o current events
o fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives
o flaws in the conservative platform and remedies for those flaws
If you want to comment on those topics, fire away. But if every discussion is going back to 2002-2003, we’re not going to see any progress in the dialog. We’ll be here 3 years from now still arguing about what Bush could have known and when he could have known it. While the world passes us by.
So if you feel the need to link everything back to the pre-invasion period, this is not the forum for you. If you’re interested in discussing contemporary topics, then I welcome your input. And your disagreement.
As to FundiMental’s comment: all I said was that this rehashing is getting old and tiresome, and that I was going to move the discussion forward. When I suggested that you all “move on,” I meant that you should consider getting out of the conversational rut and into more modern topics. I didn’t threaten to ban anyone or suppress anybody’s speech, I just suggested that you should stop dwelling on old material. Apparently that constitutes the creation of an unduly hostile environment for dissenting commenters.
December 31, 2006 at 1:14 pm
And a little fisking for exercise:
A person can hold “conservative” views and still recognize the validity of a liberal argument.
Quite true. Completely irrelevant, but quite true. Were you a conservative, you would not have uncritically embraced the mistruths that you spewed on Muslihoon’s site. In your comments here, you have not brought forward a single conservative sentiment, but you have expressed a plethora of liberal ones. I don’t care if you’re a liberal or a conservative, but I don’t like being lied to.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a “troll”.
Also true. But that is a strawman – I don’t call everybody who disagrees with me a troll, and I never called you a troll. As I clearly stated, lying about political orientation and reciting KosKid talking points have, in the past, been 100% accurate indicators that the commenter is insincere. As is putting up strawmen like this one.
The good news is:…blah, blah, blah
Yawn. YThis is just a bunch of whiny blither. And another strawman.
Whether or not those liberal trolls “came up short” during your hours of debating cannot be determined by you alone
To be sure I did have a handful of decent debates with libs who were sincere and could stay on a single topic. Out of hundreds, I had a handful. Those were great. And they usually resolved to a perceptual difference, like glass half-full/half-empty. But it’s easy to use an objective measure when debating trolls: as soon as you pin them down, they change the topic. Anything to keep the spotlight on themselves and continue the derailment of the discussion.
History will weigh in on this question. Your position on these matters is well recorded.
I’m not afraid of history. I’m afraid of wasting my future.
December 31, 2006 at 1:17 pm
I lied — one last word for posterity….my skim, decaf latte is getting cold and I still gotta take down the “holiday” tree, so I’ll be quick…
I know the Brewers play baseball, I was just looking for one last fulmination from BrewFan (to his credit, he didn’t take the bait)
And to those who have not felt able to give me your support, let me say I leave with no bitterness toward those who have opposed me, because all of us, in the final analysis, have been concerned with the good of the country, however our judgments might differ
December 31, 2006 at 2:48 pm
I am informed by the lovely Mrs. geoff that my comment at 1:39 am came off as unduly harsh and critical, while my comment at 12:56 pm more properly reflected my position. So if you were offended by the tone of the 1:39 am comment, I apologize. But if you can’t live with the position I expressed at 12:56 pm, then parting is for the best.
December 31, 2006 at 10:50 pm
I’d say you better hang on to that Mrs. Geoff — she sounds like a keeper.