The Facts in Iraq are Changing

[KnoxVegas]

I would agree that nuclear power is certainly a way to go. The French have been doing it safely since the '60s. Nuclear power in the US suffers from two thing dating back to the second half of March 1979: the release of the movie The China Syndrome on 16 March and accident at Three Mile Island twelve days later.

[DanGenck]

The improving conditions in Iraq have been documented in at least two recent editorials in the Washington Post and is the subject of the cover story for this week's Economist magazine.

Cue ad hominem attacks on those sources...

Doesn't Michael Wilbom write for the Washington Post? I believe he has said on numerous occasions that players in the NBA play stellar defense. Enough said...

And I agree, can we stop referencing Wikipedia? It is an encyclopedia that anyone can write and absolutely, 100%, NOT an academic resource.

[Adam G]

Funny wikipedia's legitimacy has been brought up. This morning I was on it looking up Adderall, and found that a Greg Miller is trying to sell some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adderall

Dosing and administration... last line.

[jayjaciv]

Cue ad hominem attacks on those sources...

The Post isn't worth the paper it's printed on, but the Economist is IMO consistently the best world journalism in the world.

Here's the online version of the article: http://www.economist.com/world/africa/d ... d=11540858

It is a well-written piece that is difficult to argue with. In fact, nobody on either side of the aisle should: it simply says that the conditions in Iraq are improving. The future of the country hangs on many, many variables.

I am arguing that the troop surge was not only a good idea, it should have been instituted from the beginning of the war; that is to say, we should have had enough troops there in the first place that we wouldn't need a surge 4 years in. Many people (including McCain, I believe) called for more troops from the get-go.
The problem is that while having another 30,000(?) troops in Iraq, paying al-Sadr and other militia leaders to postpone their campaigns of violence, and al-Maliki's continued nationalist rhetoric are instilling confidence in those in the Green Zone, that simply does not mean that the war is winnable.
Nobody can even say what a win would look like. Destruction of al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia? Cessation of violence in Anbar? The death of all the Baathists in Mosul? Is it a win if we leave and the country is plunged into the control of another dictator, possibly al-Sadr?

The surge is unsustainable. Jac says that the people who disagree with him are desperate. I would argue that defense of this war is desperate. The surge is the last chance for the country to "turn the corner" and the evidence is just now supporting that it may be possible (not probable).

Nobody can say what will happen when the surge ends - and the surge will end. Our troop levels and our payoffs of terrorists like al-Sadr and his Shia and Shiite enemies cannot continue indefinitely. al-Maliki's grandstanding to consolidate his power base must also peter out at some point. Demanding the Americans come asking his government before even launching a plane is nice rhetoric, but nobody with a brain takes him seriously.

I say we end the surge. With oil prices as they are and production above Saddam-era levels, the Iraqi government has more than enough money to do whatever it wants within its own borders. Stop paying al-Sadr and his ilk, give al-Maliki what he facetiously claims he wants, let the Kurds do their own thing, and send some troops back into Afghanistan - where they are desperately needed - and on the hunt for Osama (revenge is a dish best served seven years later).
We will see then what the country looks like.
The Iraqi army should be able to keep the militias at bay and al-Maliki can continue to consolidate his power. Americans will still be there to play support roles. If the surge has "worked," violence should remain steady and gradually decrease over many years. This is the best possible outcome, one that I think everybody here hopes for.
If it was too late and is simply a band-aid over a chopped off limb...well, we all know what will happen then. We have been watching 30 second clips of it on the news in between Brangelina updates for the past five years.


As for the attacks on my beloved Wiki:

Eleanor Coner, the SPTC's information officer, said: "Children are very IT-savvy, but they are rubbish at researching. The sad fact is most children these days use libraries for computers, not the books.

It is indeed a sad fact that students are now being more efficient and not being forced to reference overpriced textbooks full of government-approved misinformation. Fear the series of tubes, Ms. Conor! Fear them!
That nobody in Scotland taught their children how to effectively do research is not the internet's fault. The teachers and parents are not going to blame themselves for the falling test scores, so the internet is a nice scapegoat.
Wikipedia is my first bookmark and it's going to stay there for one reason. At the bottom of any given article there are anywhere from 5-100 links to primary sources of information. It is a fantastic free resource that organizes information in an easy-to-find way and does not have a political agenda. I would much rather be given a link to a wiki article that will allow me to efficiently research a topic from the multiple linked primary sources than a link to the many, many conservative blogs that consistently get posted in these forums as supporting evidence.

[Steno]

Funny wikipedia's legitimacy has been brought up. This morning I was on it looking up Adderall, and found that a Greg Miller is trying to sell some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adderall

Dosing and administration... last line.

Already been edited out before I could read it.

[Dan Wishengrad]

Nobody can even say what a win would look like. Destruction of al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia? Cessation of violence in Anbar? The death of all the Baathists in Mosul? Is it a win if we leave and the country is plunged into the control of another dictator, possibly al-Sadr?

The surge is unsustainable. Jac says that the people who disagree with him are desperate. I would argue that defense of this war is desperate. The surge is the last chance for the country to "turn the corner" and the evidence is just now supporting that it may be possible (not probable).

Nobody can say what will happen when the surge ends - and the surge will end.

Excellent post Jay, and I agree wholeheartedly with your middle portion I've quoted here.

To my colleague Jac -- who I also respect for his intelligence and eloquence -- I say if you make your opinions based on facts and argue why something is good or correct or just in and of itself that would be exponentially preferable (and much more persuasive) to simple character assasinations of those who take the other side from you.

The right-wing who forced this war upon argued in 2002-2003 that anybody who opposed invading Iraq was unpatriotic and attacked us anti-war folk relentlessly. This is a shibboleth, of course, because to dissent is an important part of the American fabric. Our constitution is based on the premise that it is not only the right of ordinary citizens to oppose the government and it's actions but also our solemn duty to do so, in fact, when we believe it to be acting wrongly and injustly.

Now you Hawks argue that those who continue to oppose the war want us to fail, as you have stated here above. I repeat my belief that this is hogwash, and I choose that word carefully. You argue that the surge is working and that conditions are improving. Fine, it is a valid point. I maintain that conditions are only improving because of the flexing of our military might, which has proven effective but is not sustainable indefinitely, just as Jay has agreed above. We can not hope to continue playing peacemaker indefintely with a massive infusion of military muscle, and that "winning" in Iraq is a pipe-dream that will never happen due to the nature of the populace and it's inability to ever exist peacefully amongst itself.

I still wait for your side to define exactly what "winning" in Iraq will mean, Jac. Somehow you folks keep avoiding doing so. Is it fewer U.S. deaths per day/week/month? A stable, effective and functioning Iraqi government that provides for the peace and prosperity and safety of its own citizenry? Do you honestly believe that this can and will occur? What evidence do you have that it will even prove possible, no matter how much money, troops and armaments we pour into Iraq?

If military history has taught us anything conclusive, it is that an occupying power that is despised, resented and even hated by the occupied will ultimately be defeated -- no matter how strong its military might be. The Vietnamese taught this to the French and the U.S., the Afghanis taught it to the Soviets, the American colonists taught this to the British, the Chinese taught it to the Japanese, etc. etc. etc. You can call me and my side defeatists who want us to fail, but you are simply engaging in untruthful character attacks which have been proven false by the course of military history. Cheney was proven to be 100% wrong -- we were not "welcomed as liberators" by the Iraqis -- no matter how much they hated Saddam they despise us and our occupation more. The "facts" in Iraq are not changing at all, the inevitable is simply being forestalled at the cost of massive Iraqi and American blood, with the eventual ruination of our own economy as a disastrous by-product. You imply that the GOP will win the fall elections because Americans "love winning". I think you will lose -- and lose huge -- because Americans are smarter than you hope we are, and that we can recognize a mistake and a "no-win" situation for what it truly is.

[Zamboni_Driver]

As a bystander...(independent voter)...

neither side has, did, or will define (to my my satisfaction) what "winning" in Iraq would look like, because they want to reserve the right to attack the other side no matter what the outcome....

[DanGenck]

No one can deny that Wikipedia is useful, however it has never been, and never will be an academic resource. Students should note cite it on papers and I will continue to fail my students who do (especially considering that my syllabus clearly states that I will do this and I show them how to use academic search resources that are nothing short of stellar).

Okay, off my soapbox now...

[laxfan25]

I want to thank Jay and Dan for so eloquently putting into words my feelings on the situation in Iraq. Over the weekend I had done a search of some of my previous posts about Iraq and Afghanistan, but there were so many that I was weeding through to find appropriate segments when I was distracted and never finished.
The gist was exactly what Jay and Dan had posted. What really got me fired up was Jac's comments about Democrats rooting for bad news in the two hotspots, as if they were inextricably linked at the hip - you couldn't have been in favor of one and against the other. As I pointed out earlier, the premature change of focus off of finding the perpetrators of 9/11 and pursuing the course of folly in Iraq is the greatest failure of this administration.
We've been pariahs in the world for so many years that it is almost hard to remember the great upswelling of support from around the globe and in the country that backed us as we moved against our attackers on 9/11.
Cheney and GWB had a hard-on though for taking out Saddam though, and the only reason we did it was because the neo-cons, led by the malfeasance and ineptitude of Donald Rumsfeld, convinced themselves and President Bush that this was going to be a 90-day quickie. One only needs to do a rewind of some of the comments from the SecDef and VP to see what their mindset was. Anyone in the military command staff that suggested that the post-invasion security plans were inadequate were threatened with or actually demoted.
To now come out and say that a short-term increase of 20,000 troops is repsonsible for the New Improved Rosy Outlook either is a withering indictment of the execution of the war for the past 5 years, or a wild overstatement to anyone with a good grasp of the situation in Iraq.

We'll see how good they do coming up with a security agreement between the U.S. and Iraq by the end of July. It'd be interesting to be a fly on the wall in some of those discussions and see the serious arm-twisting going on.

So Osama continues to breathe free while we have given him great recruiting material among the true-believing impressionable youth and breed resentment at a minimum among more moderate people.
Meanwhile, someone might take a cynical view that the whole surge strategy has been put in place to secure the current President's legacy while prepping for the blame to be laid at the feet of whoever follows.
See, the surge worked!! Iraq is secure and stable, so anything that happens after this is the fault of anyone that decreases troop levels - correct?
I would also appreciate it if those that are such big fans of the Iraq mission would get out on the street and start some War Bonds rallies. It is extreme hypocrisy to be backing this huge expenditure while also following a "no new taxes" plank in your platform. No free lunch.

[Dr. Jason Stockton]

Funny wikipedia's legitimacy has been brought up. This morning I was on it looking up Adderall, and found that a Greg Miller is trying to sell some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adderall

Dosing and administration... last line.

If you want more information on methamphetamine, um I mean Adderall, I suggest you talk to a local elementary school teacher - they prescribe it all the time.

[OklahomaLax45]

but Bush is playing for time with their lives, just like his father in Somalia 16 years ago.

I know this is off topic, but Point of Interest - Wasn't that Clinton's doing in the whole Somalia mess? Friends of mine in the Military often blame him for that...Not sure on it, but would like to get ya'lls opinion.

Speaking of our troops, I have many friends who have both served and died over in Iraq, and everyone that I have talked too claims we are doing the right thing over there and things truly are getting better. (compared to when we got there, better being figurative) I don't care about political agendas or who thinks we should do what, I simply want to be able to see my friends when they get home. And hell, if they (my friends in Iraq and Afghanistan) say that we should stay the course and not leave till it is stable enough, then I think we should do that. I will believe them over any politician. Now when that is...who knows at this point

On the oil issue: My grandfather has been involved in the oil industry all his life and consults now. Had a good conversation with him on this a few days ago, turns out Colorado has more Oil then the all of the middle east combined. Granted, it is all shale oil and it is still being researched on the ways to properly extract it, but does offer some hope on the horizon. We had a lot of R&D into it during the Oil boom of the 80's, but the bust killed any and all momentum it had. Being at arguably the top Petroleum Engineering school in the US, i just found out a few days ago OU has restarted research into this from a few of my friends in the school. So looks like we might be hearing more about this in the future

Regardless, very enjoyable to read the conversations between ya'll on both sides. Good to hear both Dems and Repub side in such a good way.

[Jana]

The Democrats have shown by their actions - not their words - that they are commited to the war in Iraq. They have funded the war, they passed appalling laws in 2006 that allow government officials to get off scott free from torture and due process violations. They have deliberately killed legislation to impose a draft that surely would have been unpopular and forced an end to both wars because no one in congress would have been reelected.

Look at who has done the most to support more funding for the VA, reforming the VA admittance policies and updating benefits for the GI bill - all democrats. She may be shrill, but veterans LOVE Democrat Patty Murray because she raised holy heck with the VA and congress for holding back spending on increased benefits.

Winning the war is important, and Obama has stated repeatedly he will withdraw the troops when he feels the Iraqi government and army can govern / stabilize the country. None of this detracts from the fact that the Bush administration fell on it's face administering this war. even if you agree with the reasons to go in, the information we gave the Iraqis was that if their army stood down (which it did) the US would allow them to keep their organization and peace would be at hand.

Instead, our military went in, roughed everyone up, arrested anyone over the age of 12 with male anatomy, dissolved the military (putting hundreds of thousands of men out of work, with out pensions, who then felt betrayed, had access and knowledge of explosive weaponry), and proceeded to torture and humiliate captives without due process at Abu Graib (and took pictures of them).

We failed to secure the country and allowed gangs of thugs to brutally rule regions, using perverted Islamic ideas of Sharia to maim, mutilate and murder their fellow muslims. Cheney and Rummy then supervised and approved torture as a form of interrogation, and vilified Iran instead of recognizing the home grown resistance movements. At the same time, they fired generals who called for more boots on the ground (Eric was right), and focused on ruling the country from the Green Zone instead of setting up the Iraqis to rule themselves.

So yeah, it would be great to win in Iraq, and I WANT to see peace in Iraq, but the real people who need to win are the Iraqi civilians, instead of the serial murderers who drill holes into people's anatomy, behead their neighbors, and strangle women who wear makeup, appear in less than an abaya, or send in religious nutcases to blow up their fellow believers. IMHO, the government will always be seen as American Puppets until we withdraw.

Even if we win there, we REALLY need to win in Pakistan. Because that's where the perpetrators of 9/11 are hanging out. That takes far more boots on the ground.

Who ever heard of fighting a 2 front war with volunteers? And so few children of government officials volunteering to serve? Heck even the British heirs to the throne are currently serving. The US should have instigated the draft 6 years ago to supply enough boots on the ground. But that would have taken political courage on the part of both Democrats and Republicans, something that is in short supply nowadays. Far more politically expedient and easier to get congressional job security by imposing stop loss on the volunteer force, and feed them prozac when their mental illnesses show up after years of front line service.

[KnoxVegas]

but Bush is playing for time with their lives, just like his father in Somalia 16 years ago.

I know this is off topic, but Point of Interest - Wasn't that Clinton's doing in the whole Somalia mess? Friends of mine in the Military often blame him for that...Not sure on it, but would like to get ya'lls opinion.

This timeline shows the events of the Somalia campaign: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/etc/cron.html
Bush sent the troops in on 9 December 1992 and left office six weeks later. I never wrote that Clinton was clean in the whole thing but he did not leave troops overseas in a combat zone when he left office. Somalia was not his mess. He was just left to clean it up, as sloppy a job as he might have done.

[OklahomaLax45]

gotcha. not pointing fingers, simply curious and wanting to get the facts straight

thanks knox

[StrykerFSU]

Interesting column by Thomas Friedman in the NYTimes today

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/opinion/25friedman.html?ref=opinion

Taking Ownership of Iraq?

What seems to have happened in Iraq in the last few months is that the Iraqi mainstream has finally done some liberating of itself. With the help of the troop surge ordered by President Bush, the mainstream Sunni tribes have liberated themselves from the grip of Al Qaeda in their provinces. And the Shiite mainstream — represented by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and the Iraqi Army — liberated Basra, Amara and Sadr City in Baghdad from both Mahdi Army militiamen and pro-Iranian death squads.

We may one day look back on this as Iraq’s real war of liberation. The one we led five years ago didn’t count.

And because Iraqis now have their own narrative of self-liberation, it appears to be giving more legitimacy and self-confidence to the Shiite-dominated Iraqi Army and the Maliki regime. It also seems to have emboldened the Sunnis to take part in the next parliamentary elections — after having largely boycotted the last round. The Kurds already liberated themselves and had that self-confidence.

It helped that Al Qaeda and Iran both went too far. I’ve always believed that there is only one good thing about extremists: They don’t know when to stop. Al Qaeda in Iraq went on murderous rampages against any Sunnis who opposed them, severing heads, forcing marriages, mowing down tribal leaders and slaughtering Shiites by the hundreds. Meanwhile, pro-Iranian Shiite extremists tried to impose a Taliban-like order in Basra and Baghdad — from head scarves to bans on liquor — on what is still a mostly secular-oriented Shiite majority.

Eventually, this Muslim-on-Muslim oppression seemed to spark the “we’re-not-going-to-take-this-anymore” rage, which prompted both the Sunni and Shiite mainstreams to liberate themselves from their own extremists and, in so doing, actually take ownership of their own country.