Told you so

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Would you even believe any positive feedback on Iraq? Since General Petraeus has taken over under the so-called surge, there has been some substantive change. Baghdad has been brought under control exponentially, and places such as Anbar have made a remarkably quick turnaround.

Would any good news sway you? My guess is no, and my guess is that your opinion is a political one that's already decided.

Seth, I'll touch on your thoughts later.

[derrida]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Would you even believe any positive feedback on Iraq? Since General Petraeus has taken over under the so-called surge, there has been some substantive change. Baghdad has been brought under control exponentially, and places such as Anbar have made a remarkably quick turnaround.

Would any good news sway you? My guess is no, and my guess is that your opinion is a political one that's already decided.

Seth, I'll touch on your thoughts later.

Speaking for myself, I dont find it hard to believe reports of reductions in casualties (I'm assuming "exponential" is hyperbole) when there are tanks and humvees on every other street corner. Those statistics also say that the number of attacks remains steady. I'm not sure "turnaround" was the best word choice, either. (What I can't believe is the notion that Iraq was going to build a nuke, try as they might, under the noses of the international community- or US intelligence, for that matter. Anyone who believes otherwise is drinking kool-aid.)

The blatant waste and mismanagement of something so serious as an invasion isn't going to be absolved by even the greatest of triumphs, so believe me I am eager to hear something encouraging here.

[theapportioner]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Would you even believe any positive feedback on Iraq? Since General Petraeus has taken over under the so-called surge, there has been some substantive change. Baghdad has been brought under control exponentially, and places such as Anbar have made a remarkably quick turnaround.

Would any good news sway you? My guess is no, and my guess is that your opinion is a political one that's already decided.

Would I believe any positive news on Iraq? Of course. Whether that news is just a blip in the natural ebbs and flows of a generally intractable situation, or whether it reflects substantive moves towards long-term stability and recovery is another matter entirely. In the last four years, the overall trend has not been good. As derrida says, the increased presence has hardly stanched the number of attacks, and moreover, public opinion of the American presence there is dismal. Iraqis see the Americans as not helping at all, and the overwhelming majority want them to leave. I doubt that's going to change anytime soon.

And come on, is building a bunch of walls a serious long-term solution to the problem?

I'd like to see Iraq turn the corner, but I just don't think it's going to happen with us being there.

[Ant10708]

Iraqis are fucked.

[theapportioner]

Here's an op/ed by Bill Buckley

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...lkOTE5OWVkOTc=

But beyond affirming executive supremacy in matters of war, what is George Bush going to do? It is simply untrue that we are making decisive progress in Iraq. The indicators rise and fall from day to day, week to week, month to month. In South Vietnam there was an organized enemy. There is clearly organization in the strikes by the terrorists against our forces and against the civil government in Iraq, but whereas in Vietnam we had Hanoi as the operative headquarters of the enemy, we have no equivalent of that in Iraq, and that is a matter of paralyzing importance. All those bombings, explosions, assassinations: we are driven to believe that they are, so to speak, spontaneous.

When the Romans were challenged by Christianity, Rome fell. The generation of Christians moved by their faith overwhelmed the regimented reserves of the Roman state. It was four years ago that Mr. Cheney first observed that there was a real fear that each fallen terrorist leads to the materialization of another terrorist. What can a “surge,” of the kind we are now relying upon, do to cope with endemic disease? The parallel even comes to mind of the eventual collapse of Prohibition, because there wasn’t any way the government could neutralize the appetite for alcohol, or the resourcefulness of the freeman in acquiring it.

General Petraeus is a wonderfully commanding figure. But if the enemy is in the nature of a disease, he cannot win against it.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Are you saying Islam is a disease? I'd have to disagree, my Dear Sir.

Would I believe any positive news on Iraq? Of course. Whether that news is just a blip in the natural ebbs and flows of a generally intractable situation, or whether it reflects substantive moves towards long-term stability and recovery is another matter entirely. In the last four years, the overall trend has not been good. As derrida says, the increased presence has hardly stanched the number of attacks, and moreover, public opinion of the American presence there is dismal.

But General Petraeus hasn't been there for four years. So the administration capitulates and changes leadership on the ground in Iraq, and you say "well so what so what!? Things have BEEN bad!"

Does that make any sense? This is why I think a great deal of war criticism is actually a political decision, not a military one (anybody get the reference!!?). For example, the Speaker of the House wouldn't attend the briefing on Iraq's status given by the general last week due to "scheduling conflicts." This is the comander of your Iraqi operation, and all your going to do is give him a 30 minute phone call (as was Pelosi's excuse)? How long do you think her meeting with President Assad went?

As derrida says, the increased presence has hardly stanched the number of attacks, and moreover, public opinion of the American presence there is dismal

Of course a country doesn't want to be occupied. But we didn't invade them to take a public opinion poll, did we? All I ever hear is that the Middle East can't be thrust into democracy, yet somebody takes a public opinion poll and you guys jump on it.

If our mission is truly consistent with stabilizing a truly unstable regime, toppling a dictator, and (now) preventing another radical islamic regime from growing and funding extremism, than we need to stay and finish, despite the opinion on our presence.

However, Tommy Thompson has an interesting proposal-- let the iraqi govt. vote on whether or not we should stay there. Any takers?

[theapportioner]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Are you saying Islam is a disease? I'd have to disagree, my Dear Sir.

Uh, obviously no. I do think Buckley's characterization is accurate, in that the Iraq situation is now a chronic condition that can't be treated by our current efforts. Unlike conflicts with centralized command, there isn't a tumor that you can remove and have the problem be solved.

Does that make any sense? This is why I think a great deal of war criticism is actually a political decision, not a military one (anybody get the reference!!?). For example, the Speaker of the House wouldn't attend the briefing on Iraq's status given by the general last week due to "scheduling conflicts." This is the comander of your Iraqi operation, and all your going to do is give him a 30 minute phone call (as was Pelosi's excuse)? How long do you think her meeting with President Assad went?

Look, as far as I'm concerned, the political maneuvers going on now are irrelevant to whether or not the current strategy is going to work. I hardly pay any attention to them.

As far as I can tell, you're asking me to basically have faith in Petraeus, because you haven't convinced me why the surge is going to work. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (since my opinion doesn't matter anyways), but reading about bombings nearly every day and 100 dead US soldiers in April doesn't inspire much confidence.

And if in six months things aren't really improving, what then? How long before you say enough is enough? Sure maybe if we stay there 50 years, things will improve, but that's never going to happen.

If our mission is truly consistent with stabilizing a truly unstable regime, toppling a dictator, and (now) preventing another radical islamic regime from growing and funding extremism, than we need to stay and finish, despite the opinion on our presence.

There's plenty of extremism already in Iraq, as far as I can tell.

Yeah, we should fix our fucking mess. But to do so is going to require a radical reassessment of our approach to the region. I have no confidence that a direct military solution is the best one. I think Iraq needs to take its destiny into its own hands. It isn't inevitable that Iraq will be a radical Islamic regime.

[Abcdxxxx]

Originally Posted by theapportioner

It isn't inevitable that Iraq will be a radical Islamic regime.

What are the other options? If the US magically pulled out tomorrow, we can expect that a) Iran would go to town, and wouldn't stop with Iraq.
or b) it would be a mad scramble, with the secular-atheist democratic factions coming out severely under represented in all the fun.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by theapportioner

Uh, obviously no. I do think Buckley's characterization is accurate, in that the Iraq situation is now a chronic condition that can't be treated by our current efforts. Unlike conflicts with centralized command, there isn't a tumor that you can remove and have the problem be solved.

Well if you're going to throw Buckley at me, then you should be willing to embrace his entire position on the war. I'm thinking it's actually pretty different from your own, mostly that we should blame this all on the temperament of the Iraqi people. That, IMO, is a conservative cop out for excusing the operation in the first place. Do you share that opinion?

Look, as far as I'm concerned, the political maneuvers going on now are irrelevant to whether or not the current strategy is going to work. I hardly pay any attention to them.

Um, no, they are precisely the point--our elected leaders are playing politics with a fucking war. You can accuse Bush of it, but you can also accuse Reid/Pelosi/Dean of it as well. Like pushing through a bill filled with pork projects that has an arbitrary time table added to it, knowing the president will reject such an outrageous bill, so that they can all go back to their districts and say "well by golly shucks, I voted to end this thing!" in 2008.

As far as I can tell, you're asking me to basically have faith in Petraeus, because you haven't convinced me why the surge is going to work. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (since my opinion doesn't matter anyways), but reading about bombings nearly every day and 100 dead US soldiers in April doesn't inspire much confidence.

You read about bombings every day because 1. There IS BTW A REAL ENEMY OVER THERE, 2. Papers want to sell papers, and 3. Keith Olbermann needs a reason to live.

There are arguments outlining why the surge is working, with most emphasis on how unstable Baghdad was just a couple months ago. I can provide you with a bunch of links if you'd like, but they're pretty accessible.

But I don't think that would matter. I think you don't like this war, you didn't like this war, and you want us to leave. You make a perfectly reasonable argument along those lines, so i don't see why war critics need to keep saying "well there's no progress, we should leave!" There IS measurable progress there, just not what you'd like to hear. It took S. Korea decades to move away from authoritarian rule, with not NEARLY the kind of radical reaction we are finding in the Middle East. How truly democratic is Russia today? How much longer will the effects of Authoritarianism hamper China? Your expectations in Iraq are quite lofty, but I think the progress you want is American troops on carriers coming home. Why not just say that?

I think Iraq needs to take its destiny into its own hands. It isn't inevitable that Iraq will be a radical Islamic regime.

Wow. So if mass genocide were to begin AFTER our departure, as has been suggested, you would pull a Buckley and wash your hands clean of this?