Attacks and civilian deaths in Iraq have risen sharply in recent months, with casualties increasing by 1,000 a month, and sectarian violence has engulfed larger areas of the country, the Pentagon said Friday in a strikingly dismal report to Congress.
The quarterly report, based on new government figures, showed the number of attacks in Iraq over the last four months had increased 15% and Iraqi casualties had risen by 51%. Civilian and military deaths and injuries have surpassed 3,000 each month since May.
Over a longer period, the increase in violence is more dramatic. Weekly attacks have nearly doubled, from 423 in spring 2004 to 792. More than 110 people a day died violently in Iraq in the last three months, the report said, up from fewer than 30 a day in 2004.
[…] Overall, the tone of the 63-page report is markedly less optimistic than previous quarterly assessments, which the Pentagon has been required to make since last year.
“This is a pretty sober report,” said Peter Rodman, the assistant secretary of Defense for international security. “The last quarter has been rough. The level of violence is up. And the sectarian quality of the violence is particularly acute and disturbing.”
The report noted an early August dip in civilian deaths which corresponded to the major redeployment of US troops to Baghdad. Even though the dip did not last through August, the simple effectiveness of boots on the ground makes you wonder what would have happened if we had entered Iraq with enough boots to provide credible security. We did not of course, because Rumsfeld and the neocons had separate ideological visions that could only be served by using a light, inexpensive force with no preparations for postwar operations whatsoever. At this point we might as well file that in the same place that we put speculation about what would have happened if JFK had lived through two terms.
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, widely regarded as the ultimate bellweather for Iraq’s chances at a peaceful resolution to sectarian strife and civil war:
The most influential moderate Shia leader in Iraq has abandoned attempts to restrain his followers, admitting that there is nothing he can do to prevent the country sliding towards civil war.
Aides say Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is angry and disappointed that Shias are ignoring his calls for calm and are switching their allegiance in their thousands to more militant groups which promise protection from Sunni violence and revenge for attacks.
“I will not be a political leader any more,” he told aides. “I am only happy to receive questions about religious matters.”
It is a devastating blow to the remaining hopes for a peaceful solution in Iraq and spells trouble for British forces, who are based in and around the Shia stronghold of Basra.
[…] Hundreds of thousands of people have turned away from al-Sistani to the far more aggressive al-Sadr. Sabah Ali, 22, an engineering student at Baghdad University, said that he had switched allegiance after the murder of his brother by Sunni gunmen. “I went to Sistani asking for revenge for my brother,” he said. “They said go to the police, they couldn’t do anything.
“But even if the police arrest them, they will release them for money, because the police are bad people. So I went to the al-Sadr office. I told them about the terrorists’ family. They said, ‘Don’t worry, we’ll get revenge for your brother’. Two days later, Sadr’s people had killed nine of the terrorists, so I felt I had revenge for my brother. I believe Sadr is the only one protecting the Shia against the terrorists.”
From the story, who does Sabah Ali mean by the terrorists? The simplest reading of that quote is that he means Sunni Iraqis in general. It seems highly unlikely that the actual killers of his brother were ever found and even less likely that Sadrist gangs would need prompting to kill actual, active terrorists. Needless to say nine Sunni families now want a fair share of reprisal blood of their own, and on it goes.
President Bush on Saturday kept up his pre-election offensive on Iraq despite a new Pentagon report describing a deteriorating security situation there.
Initial results from a new U.S.-Iraqi campaign to improve the security situation in Baghdad are encouraging, Bush said, and insurgents have failed to drive Iraq into full-blown civil war.
“Our commanders and diplomats on the ground believe that Iraq has not descended into a civil war,” Bush said in his weekly radio address. “They report that only a small number of Iraqis are engaged in sectarian violence, while the overwhelming majority want peace and a normal life in a unified country.”
The president acknowledged “a bloody campaign of sectarian violence” and the “difficult and dangerous” work of trying to end it.
Amazingly enough, none of those statements are outright lies. Neither al-Sistani nor the Pentagon believe that Iraq has already fallen into civil war, they merely think that the outcome is practically inevitable. Similarly it may be true that a “small number” of Iraqis have engaged in sectarian bloodshed. That means a bit less when that small number has an astounding work ethic and little to nothing in the way of government security to oppose it. As I pointed out before people will naturally respond to the violent power vacuum by forming or firming up their own sectarian militias for self-defense and the occasional reprisal killings. Passive migration and ethnic cleansing (currently well underway) will clear up the geographic battle lines, opposition governments will form and then the real fun will get underway.
If America wants to do anything other than get while the getting is good, let me make a modest proposal. Iraqis need law enforcement authority from either us or the current government or else, as is happening right now, they will take “security” into their own hands. Literally nobody thinks that the Iraqi forces are capable of that on their own. The U.S. could help, but our current force protection posture keeps our troops bottled up in FOBs and high-speed combat patrols which could care less what happens around them as long as it doesn’t happen to a U.S. troop. Real security will only come from having enough boots to make every carjacker and street thug think think that a soldier might be looking over his shoulder – and willing to get involved. Hence the 500,000 troops projected by Gen. Eric Shinseki. We, via the Pentagon and Paul Bremer, made the decision to liquidate Iraq’s entire security infrastructure and we need to either put up the manpower to replace it or accept the inevitable consequences.
Obviously I realize the alternate plane of reality that we are talking about here. Acting as a real security force in Iraq would require an immediate draft and a willingness to accept Vietnam-level casualties. We might still fail, in fact we probably would regardless. But if one wants to feel hope without the shame of self-delusion then there it is. So why do serious thinkers like Jack Murtha (as opposed to the “serious” clowns who followed Curveball down the garden path) think that the time has come to pull up stakes? Nobody seriously believes that 500,000 troops will ever station in Iraq at the same time. Faced with the choice between an unpleasant reality and an impossible solution the serious thinker will accept reality and deal with it, not pull into a protective ball of denial. You cannot just make up choices if reality presents you with ones you do not like, and the time has long passed to fish or cut bait.
***Update***
Talk about synchronicity. From the comments, I beat John Murtha by about one hour:
If we are to fight this war with the same sense of dedication and vigor as we did prior wars, we cannot do it without a surge in force.
It is unlikely that the President will call for a draft. A draft is politically unpopular. But we cannot continue to allow the President to pursue open-ended and vague military missions without a change in direction.
Two years ago, I was one of only two in the House of Representatives who voted for a draft, because I believe if we are a country truly at war, the burden should be shared proportionately and fairly. So Mr. President, you have two options, either change the course in Iraq and reduce the burden on our overstretched active force or reinstitute the draft. We cannot sustain the current course.
Exactly, fish or cut bait. “Stay the course” isn’t a decision, it is a refusal to make a decision.
fester
Tim — Good Post— I’ll probably crib the last couple of paragraphs at some point.
Tom in Texas
It is sad that the only truly effective solution is a nonstarter politically. No politician can get up and say they advocate half a million additional troops being sent into Iraq and expect reelection. None can say that to win this war will require sacrifice on every American’s part, both financially and personally. The best solution would be a massive increase in funding in an attempt to reorganize the Iraqi’s army paid for by an increase in taxes, as well as an influx of forces from either America or elsewhere until said army is ready. This solution will never be adopted because it is a surefire loser in an election. It is the reason we supported the war initially — there was no call for personal sacrifice from every American. There were no victory gardens or average citizens volunteering for the war effort. Instead we sent the National Guard overseas and cut taxes. Had Bush claimed this vital struggle was important enough to require higher taxes and more troops, the war would never have begun.
cd6
Pffft, the Pentagon? The Ayatollah? Listen Tim, you can scrounge up all the Negative Nancies you want to advance your cut-and-run homobortion agenda, but nobody’s falling for your anti-American lies. I don’t think I even need to ask how many fake plumes of smoke were photoshopped into this so called “quarterly report to Congress”
When I want to know what’s going on in Iraq, I listen to the only unbiased sources their our: the President, Sean Hannity, and the Lord Jesus.
mrmobi
Good post, Tim. Of course, we should plan to see a lot of make-believe choices from the administration in the lead-up to the elections in November.
I believe Murtha is right. The situation has spiraled out of control. Why is it not a serious response to move our troops out of harms way, if not out of the region, as Murtha has suggested? Our trooops deserve better leadership. They deserve a real plan, based on facts, not on some dream-world version of the facts fabricated to serve political purposes here at home.
Our troops are in real danger of finding themselves caught between two factions bent on annihilating one another. I, for one, don’t want them there when that happens.
Fish or cut bait, indeed.
cd6
Egad, the internet caused me to type “our” when I meant “are.”
how embarrassing for me
:(
fester
Tom in Texas — you wrote: “No politician can get up and say they advocate half a million additional troops being sent into Iraq and expect reelection.”
In reality, you are probably looking at 750K (get in and you are stuck for the duration + 6 months) to 1.5 million new bodies in uniform for your plan if there are going to be any rotation of forces into and out of the country. These force levels are either the result of paying Private 1st Classes 40K a year or the draft.
Next you wrote: The best solution would be a massive increase in funding in an attempt to reorganize the Iraqi’s army
I am not sure, for that assumes that there is still a coherent sense of Iraq as a multi-ethnic nationstate and not a Hobbesian playground. I could see this argument three years ago — reflag the old Iraqi Army, pension out 80% the Republican Guard, train and professionalize their NCO corps and create an army loyal to the central government. But now, I think too much has happened for the Army to be both loyal to the central government and trusted by anyone in the street.
mrmobi
Exactly right, I think. Also, if the Iraq war was important enough to require real sacrifice from Americans across the board, Americans would have looked closer at the intelligence used to justify it. The net result would have been: this is bullshit and we’re not doing it!
Instead we’ve got this fine mess we’re in.
RSA
Nice analysis, Tim. On this point,
I think that people like Jack Murtha may be right, though I don’t know the details of his views. As Tom and others suggest, describing reality is political suicide. Here are a few blunt ways to put it: “The U.S. took a gamble in starting a war with Iraq; given what we’re willing to do now, it strongly appears that we’ve lost the gamble and thus the war.” Or “Although we started the war in Iraq, how it turns out is now out of our hands, given what it would take on our part to bring it to a successful finish.”
I think that what politicians are forced to say, if they want to be re-elected, is something along the lines that whatever we choose to do (e.g., staying in or leaving Iraq), it is part of a strategy for success. How do you convince people that we’ve failed and it’s time to cut our losses? Despite the limits of (stupid) analogies, it’s as if we’re in a poker game with a huge pot, we’ve lost a good bit of money but might make it back, but only if we put up the house as collateral to continue playing. Otherwise we quit while we’re behind.
Richard 23
Because the reason for going into Iraq was spurious perhaps?
Right. Because the war was politically motivated.
Hahaha! Hogsnot. What vital struggle?
Kirk Spencer
Tom in Texas,
The opportunity for that number of troops is gone. The reason is that ‘officially’ Iraq is its own nation and we’re just supporters helping them get back on their feet.
While there were a number of mistakes made, to me the major one was turning Iraq over to the Iraqis based on time instead of function criteria. While they were still our (or the UN) protectorate we had the legal and moral right in the eyes of everyone TO INCLUDE THE IRAQIs to do what needed done. Once we turned over control, we no longer had that right. And everything we do that appears to be us dragging the Iraq government along in our wake is seen as an oppressive occupier, not international assistance.
Yes, I agree, the force needed to do the job was three to four times what’s in there already. But it’s too late to get them there for the results we want. Unless we’re going to toss everything out again and start from scratch…
srv
If true, then the fat lady has sung. The Bush-cultists like Darrell will no doubt declare victory again over the Baghdad blip, but those politicians without strong ties to clerics are living on borrowed time now.
Andrew
Look guys, it’s just a global struggle against an enemy as threatening as Nazi Germany or the USSR. No big deal. Papa needs a new flat screen TV and ain’t no taxes to fight them jihadists gonna get in my way!
docg
What pablum! Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet Union were countries with large standing armies, navies and air forces, armed to the hilt with the most modern weapons. Islamic terrorists are NOT state actors, are NOT a standing military force, do NOT have massive stockpiles of modern weapons, and CANNOT invade and conquer the United States. 9/11 was a horrific act by al Queda, and President Bush was correct in going after Bin Laden and cohorts in Afghanistan. However, attempts to gin up Al Queda terrorism into World War III are dishonest and inaccurate.
srv
Heh,
When GW started his fascist meme, I guess he didn’t think the Kurds would start using it against the Iraqi Arabs:
The Kurdish Flag Goes Up
To bad Turkey isn’t good enough for the EU. I predict the Turks will set aside their “democracy” and we’ll see the Turkish generals pull an Ohmert within 2 years – the landlord will go ‘crazy’.
Andrew
Then explain to me why I’m more afraid of Islamofascists than Nazis.
Pb
Tim F.,
FYI–here’s what Murtha had to say recently on this:
Mithi
Hah, this must be the best way I’ve seen it put. On a different note, how do you think conservatives are going to blame liberals for losing this war?
Pb
Oh, and speaking of Iraq…
Plame Was in Charge of Finding WMDs in Iraq — Emptywheel has quite the article (referencing David Corn’s new article) out now… this has to be the biggest news I’ve seen on that front in quite some time, maybe since the beginning.
Pb
Mithi,
They’ve already started, and it’s nothing new–they just dusted off the old Vietnam-era talking points, which were originally just the old German Dolchstoßlegende talking points, and the logical conclusion looks to be the same there as well:
Yep, that’s their final solution… all liberal traitors must die. If only we didn’t have those millions of American traitors in our midst. etc., etc. Incidentally, is it possible to have a class-action lawsuit to respond to overt death threats against an entire class of people? Does that count as terrorist plotting yet? Conspiracy to commit genocide? Something?
mrmobi
I’m not sure why you’re more afraid of Islamofascists than Nazis, but here, in no particular order, is why I am.
They don’t play by the rules. Anyone is eligible for targethood. They are still obsessing about battles that took place hundreds of years ago, and they believe, most of all, in revenge.
They hang gays, and chop off the hands of thieves.
They don’t have armies, for the most part, and they don’t have modern weapons, but this is a very, very intractable enemy, and we are ruled by a government which uses the fear the terrorists generate to keep power, rather than to actually protect us.
According to Condoleeza Rice, we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud, but currently, five years later, only 6% of the cargo coming into the country is inspected.
They are going to cadge together a “dirty bomb” and ship it to the U.S., and explode it. If you want to see what the long-term effects of radiation poisoning look like, see “Chernobyl Heart.” It will render some area uninhabitable for a long period, and it is all very preventable, if you have your eye on the ball.
We can learn a lot from our friends, the Brits. It seems they are able to thwart terror plots using good old diligent policework, so there is reason to believe we can change course if we are able to elect sensible leaders.
I get angry when I think about 9/11. Thousands of innocent people brutally murdered. I remember the drive to downtown Chicago that morning. As I listened to a reporter describe one of the towers collapsing, I was looking at the Sears Tower and seeing it in a completely new way. But I get even angrier when I think of the extraordinary wasted opportunity our government had to bring the civilized world together against this enemy.
Zifnab
If, in the weeks after September 11th, Bush had called on Congress to reinstate the draft, openly declared war on Afganistan, and sent in the troops like a President with balls, the nation would have hesitated for moments only.
If, in the weeks after November 7th, Bush turns to Congress and whines for a draft so he can intermidently pursue a police action in Iraq because if not we’ll have Zarkawi’s ghost invading Florida and New Hampshire, he’ll be laughed off the floor of the house.
Why would a draft be so unpopular today? Because the war is unpopular today. And while no mother likes sending her son off to the killing fields even for a just cause, only a mother who hates her son would agree to send him off to play IED bait in the Iraq Civil War.
sglover
They don’t play by the rules. Anyone is eligible for targethood. They are still obsessing about battles that took place hundreds of years ago, and they believe, most of all, in revenge.
They hang gays, and chop off the hands of thieves.
They don’t have armies, for the most part, and they don’t have modern weapons, but this is a very, very intractable enemy, and we are ruled by a government which uses the fear the terrorists generate to keep power, rather than to actually protect us.
Yeah, but….
Bin Ladenites have a real problem. Sure, there are a billion Muslims, and some fraction of them are young males with few options, time on their hands, little direction, and a lot of grievance. It’s no problem getting them geared up for the kind of urban partisan war that WE opened up in Iraq. But to pull off an operation comparable to the WTC attack (and that’s the scale they have to aim for), they need something better than cannon fodder. They need people with fanatical dedication, technical skills, and most important, social skills, so that they can get into America and evade detection while they lay out their schemes. Not at all an easy thing, since by all accounts, the Islamic immigrant communities in the States have little desire for jihad. Hell, many of them came here to escape that kind of mayhem. So I think bin Laden might have a real dilemma, here.
If you get a chance, check out this month’s Atlantic. James Fallows makes a persuasive case that it’s time to 1) shut down (declare victory in) the misbegotten “War on Terror”, and 2) develop some real perspective and civic courage — recognize that absolute security is a mirage, and that a bunch of medieval nostalgists are puny in comparison to rivals whom we’ve already faced down.
Andrew
I’d say it has a lot to do with The Producers. If we can just get a few Islamofascist muscial comedies in the pipeline, I will be able to live in fear of something else.
Tsulagi
Good analysis, Tim, and fester you got this right…
In large part that’s how then West Germany absorbed the ~300k East German army. Worked for them.
That was also along the lines of what our ground commanders had in mind when Saddam’s statue fell in Baghdad. But this administration with its PNAC military geniuses knew better. Be tough so you can pound your chests at cocktail parties.
Tell the entire Iraqi army they no longer have a job nor a future in post-Saddam Iraq. Allow them to melt away with virtually ALL their weapons. For good measure throw in the police. Gee, there are reasons why when that occurred ground commanders and the CIA station chief for the area said that wouldn’t have been their first plan, or any they would have contemplated.
Now, the whole “As they stand up, we’ll stand down” is just a bullshit dog and pony show. In large measure, Iraqi security forces give their allegiances to their favorite mullah, ayatollah, tribe, sheik, Osama, or whatever. Entire battalions are formed along those alliances.
Our ground commanders and real military planners know that. Think that may have a little to do with why Iraqi forces don’t receive much armor? We wouldn’t want that armor turned on us. Nevermind how that would look on the 6 o’clock news. Hmmm…wonder how many Iraqis we’re currently training to be close air support pilots and how many fully armed Blackhawk and Apache helicopters we plan to provide the Iraqi military while our troops are still there?
As sure as George Bush constantly farts, he’s hoping the simmering civil war doesn’t go full bore and end with a new Saddam (likely Sadr) seizing power during his watch. Something like that makes spin a little tough. So he’s hoping he can pass it on to the next president so he can, as always, claim no fault. For that exalted reason alone, our troops will continue to bleed in Iraq.
BlogReeder
Let’s see if I understand you guys. First off, the war in Iraq was a big mistake. Never should have happened. Look at all the guys getting killed. Look at the lack of armor. But you guys are FOR sending more troops in. Is that right? Or are you just saying that just to look like you’ve got a solution? One that, of course you wouldn’t support. I would think you would support Rumsfeld’s smaller army, less people in danger. We use our training and technology.
So if tomorrow Bush announces a draft (hey, he’s a sitting duck) you’d back that? No, I didn’t think so. You guys just want to cut and run. Be honest and just say that. What’s the big deal? We know you guys always run when the going gets tough.
Andrew
BlogReeder: Doug Feith ain’t got nothing on you.
docg
Andrew, a couple of guesses. Probably because Nazi Germany was eliminated more than 60 years ago? Islamic terrorists still present a small threat to America, and Nazi Germany doesn’t?
You didn’t say one thing to demonstrate that my original point was incorrect.
Tim F.
Looks like you failed.
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
Screw this draft bullshit. Let’s just get the fuck out right now. Bush has already killed 2600 Americans for a lie, don’t let him kill 50,000 more with the same end result: us getting the fuck out.
We can lose another 200 or so Americans leaving now, or we can lose another 150,000 staying there until the year 2200. The end result will be the same: we will leave with our tails between our legs, and the number of jihadists in the Middle East will have exponentially increased.
Some of these loonies will fight the ongoing Bosnia-esque civil war in Iraq, some will migrate to Kashmir or Lebanon or Gaza; but a small number will devote themselves to making us pay for this war. That’s a consequence we’ll be dealing with 10 or 15 years from now, regardless of whether we stay or we go.
Let’s just get the fuck out. Now. If you guys want to legislate a draft, then let’s legislate Smedley Butler‘s proposals along with it: when the draft starts, every salary in America is automatically reduced to equal that of the lowest frontline soldier. Also, before the first soldier is drafted into the war, we hold a national plebiscite in which only those facing conscription can vote- the vote being held on whether or not to start or continue the war.
If America enacted those proposals, I don’t think we’d ever fight another war like Iraq or Vietnam. But that’s the future. For the present, let’s just get the fuck out. That’s my alternative to the GOP plan. Call it crazy or reckless, fine. If you think our troops are helping in Iraq, sit back and watch the civil war unfold while U.S. troops are caught in the middle of it.
Andrew
Look, I suppose all those Nazi scientists who cooked up a time machine and sent critical SS and leadership elements into the far future could travel back in time from forward in time and try to kill me like the Terminator. On the other hand, Islamofascists have brown skin and that makes them very scary.
Plus, I like the Nazi marching music more than the Adhan. I think Will Smith could do a really good remix: “Arbeit Macht Frei, yeah, uh huh, one two one two, Seig to yo mutha!”
mrmobi
Hey Andrew:
Springtime for Al-Zawahiri in Pakistan?
Andrew
mrmobi, I’m only interested in that if Mel Gibson is on board for production and a cameo.
RonB
I don’t want to do a reverse Victor Davis Hanson and claim that the casualty rate of one fucking month is evidence of a trend, but let’s just say September is already out of control. icasualties.org has the US death rate in Iraq at 3.4 per day, contrasted with a year of casualties at an average rate of about 2.25 per day. Adding to this is the 16 deaths unconfirmed not in that count, which will shoot the casualty rate higher than it has EVER been since March 2003.
Something is happening. Don’t quote me, but the ominous and foreboding press coupled with the hard numbers point to the fucking pot boiling over.
demimondian
The Bush Administration walks into a talent agency…
Tim F.
Say what? Toss a link in for people who haven’t heard about this yet.
RonB
Shit, Tim, sorry
Proud Liberal
the 16 ARE included in the Iraq Coalition Casualty count. The Defense Department is always a little behind in reporting officially the deaths of US soldiers but this web site does include the unofficial casualties prior to Defense Department death notifications.
RonB
Err, don’t think so, Proud Liberal. Note that September casualties are 15 so far. How can the 16 unconfirmed be part of that?
I think I know what you are trying to say, though.
Krista
demi, the url in your link is misspelled.
demimondian
Err…yeah. So it is.
Let’s try again:
The Bush Administration walks into a talent agency…
BlogReeder
No, I haven’t. I’ll tell you why. You’re disingenuous. You guys already have an agenda. Nothing you say strays from the mantra. Everything this administration does is wrong to you guys. Everything, from the way Bush walks to the way he talks. He can’t even eat right. Can’t exercise right. Can’t read right. Is there anything that he’s done right? Of course there is. The world isn’t black and white. But you won’t allow even the smallest gray to enter into the picture. That doesn’t square with reality. Ultimately, how can any of your suggestions be credible? This business of saying that we should have sent in more troops with the litany problems you constantly cite is ludicrous. That’s all I’m saying. If you’ve already set up the administration to be total ninnies, why would you say 500,000 more troops would have changed things? Why wouldn’t they have been bottled up in FOBs and high-speed combat patrols? You know, because most of them wouldn’t have had armor.
sglover
No, I haven’t. I’ll tell you why. You’re disingenuous. You guys already have an agenda. Nothing you say strays from the mantra. Everything this administration does is wrong to you guys. Everything, from the way Bush walks to the way he talks. He can’t even eat right. Can’t exercise right. Can’t read right. Is there anything that he’s done right? Of course there is. The world isn’t black and white. But you won’t allow even the smallest gray to enter into the picture. That doesn’t square with reality. Ultimately, how can any of your suggestions be credible? This business of saying that we should have sent in more troops with the litany problems you constantly cite is ludicrous. That’s all I’m saying. If you’ve already set up the administration to be total ninnies, why would you say 500,000 more troops would have changed things? Why wouldn’t they have been bottled up in FOBs and high-speed combat patrols? You know, because most of them wouldn’t have had armor.
I’ll grant you the general gist of your argument, because the fundamental error, the primary epic strategic blunder, was invading invading Iraq in the first place. Once that lunatic and unnecessary mistake was made, short of flooding Mesopotamia with hundreds of thousands of troops* no amount of cleverness could have steered us away from the inevitable outcome — a situation with no good options.
But the only real significance of the incompetence argument is this: Before a shot was fired, it was already clear that the administration was lying through its teeth, lowballing costs and ignoring everything that didn’t fit its best-case planning. The judgement, integrity, and competence of the architects of this war was a whole other reason to doubt it — before it began. This version of the competence argument was what ultimately convinced me that the war would be a disaster. Events since haven’t surprised me. The only thing that does surprise me is that there are still Americans — ostensibly free citizens of a republic — who still gleefully dish out the special pleading and doublethink like you do. Aren’t you embarrassed, even now?!?!?
* Which itself would have meant that the idiocy would never have got off the ground. If Bush & Cheney & Wolfowitz et al had a speck of intellectual integrity, we wouldn’t be in this mess. And if you weren’t so willfully disingenuous (or obtuse — which is it?), you’d admit as much. Maybe you’re more comfortable with vacuous arguments?
BlogReeder
They were trying to sell a war; of course they’d put the best scenarios forward. There was some truth in the arguments they made. Clinton made some of the same one’s 4 years before. It was a hard sell because they had a lot of friction back home and in the world community. Countries on the take caused some of the friction. So was France really against the war in Iraq because it wasn’t right or because they’d lose the lucrative deals with Saddam?
I don’t know what that is supposed to mean. You’re surprised that free citizens don’t all think in lock step with you? Maybe, if your arguments were more constructive instead of transparent you’d be more convincing.
RonB
Oooh, crap, upon closer look they do put the numbers in the monthly tally. I see how theyre doing it now. Thanks for pointing that out, Proud Liberal. You are correct, so September is still on average. Sorry Tim!
lard lad
Let me see is I can explain it: the most intelligent plan would have been to avoid invading Iraq at all. But, if you do invade, don’t do a half-assed job like Rumsfeld and company did… refusing to listen to anyone (the State Department, the CIA, Generals Shinseki and Zinni, others galore) who dared to taint their war euphoria with inconvenient facts. BlogReeder, surely at this point you aren’t saying that Bush administration has handled this war competently, regardless of your support for the cause, are you? Hell, just pick up a newspaper and read what the Pentagon themselves are saying… not to mention al-Sistani. The proof is in the pudding, my friend.
I was adamantly opposed to the war but, circumstances being in conflict with my desires, was very much in favor of sending enough troops to better the odds of the engagement succeeding in the first place. I’m sure most of the leftist posters here would concur. It’s hard to see why that point is difficult for anyone to comprehend.
Nicely put; I’d love to see the White House come out and admit it.
Don’t you see that using spin and subterfuge to “sell a war” to the public is an obscenity? When calling for war, you are asking our men and women to put their lives on the line for this country… and if ever there is a time when complete honesty and integrity is called for from a government, that is the time. That’s how leaders of principle govern. Who knows; maybe we’ll have leaders of that caliber running our country one day.
In the meantime, though, we are saddled with the yahoos who cheered this nation into a still unfolding disaster.
Tim F.
All that you are saying is that people who disagree with you are heinous stereotypes, which frees me from having to take any of it seriously. Of course you push the double irony of accusing your hated opposition of your exact problem, which forces me to stop ignoring your insipid “points” long enough to laugh at you.
Tim F.
As far as “points” go I think we can agree that this qualifies as an own goal. You just described a synonym for misleading the country into a war of choice, since a war to deal with a genuine threat shouldn’t need much in the way of marketing. Since the threat in fact did not exist your statement counts as a double indictment, pointing out in addition that the “salesmanship” was about as honest as a used Yugo dealer.
sglover
I don’t know what that is supposed to mean. You’re surprised that free citizens don’t all think in lock step with you? Maybe, if your arguments were more constructive instead of transparent you’d be more convincing.
OK, fuckwit — here’s the deal. Over the last three years we’ve seen the results of your kind of “thinking”. You obviously still want to live in some kind of happy fairyland, because nothing that has happened in those three years has penetrated your empty head.
I only hope that you use the same nickname consistently, so that I’ll know to skip over your posts. Because they’re bullshit.
Hyperion
the administration as used car salesmen..that was my first reaction to BlogReeder’s remark, who evidently offers this as a sincere explanation.
once again i mutter “you can’t make this shit up.”
Tulkinghorn
A lot of us who are now admantly and categorically opposed to this president did not start that way. While some criticism from the start was unreasonable (as should be expected) Bush et al. have pretty much proven the extreme left to be correct.
The dishonesty in leading the country into a war of choice is unprecedented (I think — my understanding is that the Mexican-American War might be a precedent, and there are still folks who think the Maine was sunk on purpose), and the accusation that everyone who raises criticism is unpatriotic is unforgivable.
Things may be black and white here, but only because this president has made it so.
BlogReeder
When I started this, I never thought I’d garner the animosity of Tim F.
I like Rumsfeld’s smaller army concept. Less soldiers in harms way is a good thing. Also, if we’re going to need the army in many places since this is a “Global” war on terror we can’t have them all holed up in one place. I think going into Iraq was inevitable. I’m just trying to imagine how many U.N. resolutions against Iraq we’d be up to now if we didn’t. Of course keeping down the number of resolutions is no reason for war. We really couldn’t say we were fighting terrorism is we didn’t deal with Iraq. Rumsfeld’s plan for a smaller army was in direct opposition to what was done before. It’s not stupid. It’s different and the concept worked in Afghanistan. Iraq is tougher. Wolfowitz doctrine to destabilize the Middle East makes sense if you don’t like what’s currently there. Why keep the status quo?
Hyperion, all politicians are used car salesmen. The war had to be sold because there was no attack. The reasons to go in were more nuanced than for Afghanistan. Again, I’m trying to imagine what it would have been like if we just stopped there. I can imagine the feeling would have been “Well, we took care of the terrorist problem. Let’s talk about social security”.
Andrew
Wow, you’re quite stupid.
RSA
Holy shit. “If you don’t like what’s currently there” . . . and you don’t care what replaces it. “Honey, I don’t like where we live.” “Do you want to move?” “No, I think I’ll set a fire in the living room and see what happens.”
Tim F.
Blogreeder, I don’t see any reason for surprise on your part. Read again your comment from yesterday:
Let’s think about who is the “you” here. This could either mean me specifically or lefties as a whole. Maybe you can shed some light on whether you had in mind a specific insult, or the more pedestrian composition-division double fallacy. It was not necessary to reconfirm my point that you failed to understand the motivations of the people with whom you disagree, which seems to be the beginning and end of your “argument.”
Tulkinghorn
That is not a policy, that is a strategy. As we have seen, a strategy that can be effective when applied to Afganistan (a country exhausted by a decade of civil war) and foolish in Iraq (a country at risk of civil war).
Applying strategic and tactical thinking to overall policy, shoehorning the facts and strategic goals to fit the management trend du jour, and expunging the generals who dissent is not a policy, it is a recipe for disaster. It is the worst sort of political correctness. It is inexcusable.
It also the sort of error that reveals the parties at fault are not just making mistakes, but are incapable of correcting their mistakes. It means that the loyal opposition has a moral obligation to bring down this administration, to undermine it, to cut it off at the knees if necessary.
The fact that this administration reflexively accuses anyone who even mildly criticizes them of attacking the troops is proof of bad faith. There is no point in responding to bad faith with good faith.
Andrew
Actually, it is indeed policy.
The strategy of small teams in afghanistan was compatible with the small army policy. Of course, securing the country is not possible with the small army strategy. And when we invaded Iraq, we did not have enough soldiers to secure either country because of the small army policy.
Any jackass who suggests that the small army strategy or policy has been strategically (as opposed to tactically) successful is a stupid fucking idiot.
Tulkinghorn
Then I must be misusing the terminology. The distinction between tactics and strategy is clear, perhaps the distinction between policy and strategy is where I am getting lost.
The way that I would put it is a policy that employs the same strategy to tipping the balance in a civil war, and to a regime change and indefinite occupation, is not a policy. It is merely deciding to apply the same strategy regardless of context.
Then again, “not cut-n-run” is not a strategy, either.
HyperIon
oh, good. i was beginning to suspect you are a moron.
but then you veer quickly into the land of specious logic.
so back again to the Iraq = terrorism meme.
selling does not equal lying.
and are all capitalists thieves?
now i’m back to thinking you ARE a moron.
Richard 23
Hahaha, what a dumbass.
Enough of Blogbleeder already. I want to know what BIRDZILLA thinks.
jh
Dear sir,
Please takest thyself down to your local Army recruiter, enlist, get thee to Iraq and then report back to us on what a great idea Rummy’s troop deployment numbers were.
Signed,
Your conscience
BlogReeder
Darn… so elusive…
so back again to the Iraq = terrorism meme
Remember we couldn’t wait until the threat became imminent. That would have been too late. Saddam had ties with terrorism..
I don’t understand your segue. Politicians have to be good at selling their ideas, so I think the analogy is good.
jh:
Are you implying that we can’t discuss any of this unless we’ve served?
jh
Really? I thought international law specifically forbids war unless there is an IMMINENT threat.
If we don’t like that, then we should reconsider our membership in the United Nations, NATO, OAS or any of the other treaties that don’t allow for preventative or preemptive wars.
As for the CFR…as they say follow the money
> Received funding from: Carnegie Corporation, Xerox Foundation, German Marshall Fund of the U.S., General Motors Foundation, McKnight Foundation, Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, Dillon Fund, Ford Foundation, Loews, Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Starr Foundation, Texaco Foundation, and the Pew Charitable Trusts.
But don’t let that stop you from posting irrelevant propaganda.
Here’s the bottom line ‘Blog’.
Starting an elective war is not legal and not really ethcially defensible. Sure Saddam may have at some point obtained WMDs but we’ll never know. So far, everybody who’s been to Iraq to look into his capabilities has reported that he had none. He was contained.
All of the adminstrations pre-war intelligence (if you can call it that) was bullshit. This point needs no further elaboration.
If we were going to invade state sponsors of terror, we may as well have spun the “Wheel of Rogue States” and invaded at random for all the good invading Iraq has done in reducing the threat of terror to us our allies. The next 20 years will be chock-a-block with the survivors of our misadeventures in Mesopotamia attempting to exact retribution for this bullshit little war.
We are not going to defeat “terrorism”. It has been proven to be an effective tactic in helping the weak inflict harm on the powerful. It existed before there was a 9/11, a Dubya, or even a United States and it will exist after we are long gone.
In conclusion, we have started an entirely elective war against a nation that was ruled by a petty despot but posed no threat to our nation. In doing so we have killed without cause, many thousands of innocents and turned Iraq into a training ground for terrorists at the cost of 2600 plus American lives.
Iraq is in no way, shape or form a success. It is a failure of policy, democracy and human decency.
There is little doubt that point that the country WILL lapse into civil war, and we WILL withdraw.
The only question is how many Americans will die before we do so.
Tsulagi
BlogReeder,
I liked your link. Seriously, that’s the best you can get to support your argument? LOL!
Let’s see, first paragraph under the heading “Has Iraq Sponsored Terrorism?” they say:
Yes. Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups.
Umm…Turkey and Iran. Two Muslim countries. Thank God the Lord gave us Bush to stop those threats to vital U.S. security and Islam! You know, to Turkey who closed their airspace, ports, and overland access to us for our Iraq invasion telling us to fuck off. And of course we wouldn’t want Saddam supporting terrorist activities against Iran. No, no, no! We want them to be able to fully enjoy our whacking their only threat in the neighborhood and pretty much additionally giving them the country as a gift. The cost has been insignificant in order to achieve those lofty Republican goals.
Oh, almost forgot the added bonus of Palestine. Good thing we took Iraq out when we did before Saddam could do more damage. We needed to send a strong timely message to areas like Palestine to get with the program to hold elections to spread democracy. Oops, yeah, they did. Hamas won.
Bushbots crack me up.
BlogReeder
Your phrasing here is truly revealing. When the conservatives accuse the liberals of being unpatriotic, go ahead and supply them with ammunition. Thanks for the help.
jh
Blog,
I think you are ‘logically’ challenged. It’s not a matter of patriotism, its a matter of reality.
Declaring a war on ‘terrorism’ as a tactic is about as smart as declaring a war on the ‘blitzkreig’. The fact that this is the best we could come up with provides significant insight into the completely puerile nature of our civilian leadership.
The smart people in the military warned these fools that Iraq as an extention of an open ended conflict on a generic tactic was not a wise course of action. Repeatedly.
They didn’t listen and now we get to watch in horror as the bodies pile up.
Acknowledging that fact is not unpatriotic.
But I think you know this already. I also think you are a troll.
Anyone got any ‘Troll-B-Gone’®?