A few developments from the war that never ends.
* The latest poll: Iraqis overwhelmingly want the US to leave. That includes a solid majority of both the Shia and Sunni communities. Kurds, of course, gambled on the US protecting their separatism forever and would like to see us hang around a bit longer.
* As promised the Iraq war has scared the rogue regimes of Syria and Iran into submission and created a US-friendly counterbalance in the region. No, scratch that. It actually brought the three countries into a fairly comfy union for the first time in recent history.
* From the no-shit department, the administration doesn’t like the idea of Iraq getting friendly with Iran and Syria.
* Kofi Annan says we’re screwed. He must have cribbed Henry Kissinger’s notes.
* Iraq’s Steve Martin shot.
* The Pentagon might boost our Iraq forces by an unstoppable 20,000 troops. If we need the boost to get our troops home safely then super. Retreat is a risky maneuver so let’s do it right. On the other hand, if the Pentagon thinks that this 15% increase will turn the war around then our leaders are exactly as dumb as I thought.
* Outgoing House Armed Services Committee chair Rep. Duncan Hunter thinks that Iraq should sendits own troops to Baghdad. Hunter apparently does not know that as many as half of Iraq’s forces are either unable or unwilling to leave their home district. One wonders whether Hunter failed the Sunni/Shiite quiz.
Jay
Better.
pie
Mission accomplished!
srv
And another Gemayel is killed (just how many are in that family?).
Any 101st keyboardist who doesn’t fully support a draft now clearly want to lose this ‘existential’ war.
Zifnab
President Bush brings peace to the Middle East! …. sort of.
Pb
Zifnab,
He’s a uniter, baby!
Jay
From the IHT article:
Cliff notes version: Do the same thing we did before that didn’t work.
Bumpersticker version: Stay the course!
Pb
“The beatings will continue until morale improves.”
norbizness
“We’ve gotta keep our heads until this peace craze blows over!”
jg
And MacNamara thought south vietnamize troops coould be used to fight off the north vietnamize troops. If only he’d realized that both sides were working to get rid of us (just like they finally ran off the french) so they could run their own country for a change.
chopper
“we’re turning a corner!”
craigie
Hey, at least they have a flat tax over there. Paradise!
Sherard
Hhhhmmm… Let’s see here. Maybe I can give this a try…
Wow, that was EASY!!!
Tim F.
Sherard,
A vacuous appeal to authority might have worked before Rummy’s Pentagon proved itself inept. Now you’re just embarrassing yourself.
Zifnab
Good, we wouldn’t want you to mentally exert yourself. Because,
~linktastic!
So now we’ve got a more interesting question.
Why do you hate our troops Sherad?
The Other Steve
Josh Marshall raised an interesting point yesterday. If leaving Vietnam was supposed to be so bad… why is it then that 10 years after we left, the Soviet Union was collapsing in on itself, and 20 years after we left Communism in Vietnam was collapsing?
What is our goal? Work towards that goal.
In Vietnam we only started winning, after our troops left the country.
Faux News
Faux News version of Sherard to Tim:
“clap louder Hippy and we just might turn Iraq into a peace loving democracy:!
Or a shorter Sherard version:
“paging Tinkerbell!”
Zifnab
One thing I don’t understand is why the Iraqis continue to kill people even after our election is over. Maybe they’re just trying to influence the recounts in Florida and Texas. Those sneaky bastards.
Tsulagi
I like the first line in the “doesn’t like“ linked article: “The Bush administration cast a wary eye…” LOL. As if there is any intelligent life behind that “wary eye.”
Along with a shitload of other clues that might have prompted a brief interruption in fart gags on aides in the Oval Office to pose a wary eye could have been a military agreement Iraq struck with Iran a year and a half ago. Also, let’s see, should a wary eye be cast on a new Iraqi constitution pronouncing the laws of Islam superceding those of man plus Shia and Kurds ramming through partitioning (federalism) of the country? Naw, call it gold and get plenty of photos of purple fingers to get the base warm and fuzzy. New Detroit is blossoming.
There’s one thing these largely repackaged and renamed new Stay the Course options from the Pentagon and the Baker commission fail to take into account. For two more years, behind the watchful wary eye of the White House admin is pure retardation. If there was a way to fuck up the sun rising in the east or at all, they’d manage it. And the base full of Foleys and Sherards would cheer.
Pb
On Hardball yesterday, even Gen. Barry McCaffrey wasn’t buying what the Pentagon was selling–not one little bit. I thought that was impressive.
GotWolfy
Great Iran And Syria just incresead ther influence in the region.what’s next a middle east union like the european union?
Pb
Because that’s a de-facto bullshit argument, unless you can show what the one had to do with the other. If Hitler was supposed to be so bad… why is it then that 10 years after the major Axis Powers came together, we had a Democratic Germany and Japan? etc.
Perry Como
If the Bush administration’s goal is to break the Army, they are going about it the right way.
Zifnab
I enjoy this response because it appeals to ignorance AND invokes Godwin.
Of course, Pb is right to a degree. The “leave the commies alone” policy hasn’t de-Commified Cuba or China. Military-based regimes in both countries have a more-or-less iron hold on political reality. We entered Vietnam in the late 50s when China and Russia were friends and the Red Tide was rising. By 1975, there were numerous fractures in relations between nations. Nixon was going to China as a friend. Vietnam was eyeing Laos as a potential satillette, not an ally. Russia was entering financial decline.
Economic ruin caused regime change in the Red States as much as any US Military intervention or the lack there of.
Of course, one thing to note is that in the ten years after we left Vietnam, we spent decidedly less funding on our military and lost decidedly fewer soldiers to combat. We also had a decidedly non-existant draft. So whether or not leaving Vietnam was better for the Vietnamese (and I think a great number of former soldiers on both sides of the conflict will say it was, in fact, for the better), it was decidedly better for the United States. I’m not clear what fighting out another 10 years of war in Vietnam would have done to improve our safety and security.
Jon Karak
After three years of backsliding chaos, don’t these people learn anything? Shock & Awe(TM) didn’t work the first time, and its sure not going to work now.
Tsulagi
Abizaid translation: Iraq is done. Why the hell burn up more men and equipment since that will not achieve success? I told you retards sitting in this chamber over two years ago “there isn’t a purely military solution to Iraq.” You did nothing on your political side other than fuckup. You were clueless then, you’re clueless now. The reason I’m not proposing a withdrawal is because my CIC has said it’s no go and I don’t get to make those decisions.
Pb
Zifnab,
Yeah, my argument is basically that Josh Marshall *might* have something of a point, but it isn’t enough just to assert a point, you have to argue the point. On the other hand, your quick analysis looks pretty good. :)
LITBMueller
Yep! But, the problem was (and is now), not having war or a mighty military is bad for our “friends” in the Military Idustrial Complex who care about nothing except profit. They’re like the Underpants Gnomes or war:
WAR + ? = PROFIT!
TenguPhule
Shorter Sherad: I think Rumsfield is a Genius!
Pb
Paging President Eisenhower…
Jay
Hey now. The Bush Administration has said over and over again that lack of planning, no clear goals or reason for a war, riding the IED gauntlet (any street in Iraq), geurilla warfare, lack of equipment, repeated deployments, stop loss measures and so forth doesn’t harm the military. The only thing that can hurt it is criticism of the administration or the war. Why do you hate our soldiers?
That made me guffaw. I think ? = Ponies.
TenguPhule
Oh Tim, you haven’t even begun to contemplate the sheer magnitude of the gaping abyss of pure unmitigated stupidity that those in charge are capable of.
I always think Bush and company have finally hit bottom when it comes to sheer idiocy. And they always prove me wrong.
Zifnab
Oh please. If this war proves one thing (to the daft and those looking for a bigger barrel of pork) its that we didn’t spend nearly enough on our military in the years leading up to the conflict. Should the Republicans ever actually acknowledge Iraq as a defeat, it will just be a matter of time before they decry the paultry state of our troops and demand trillions be invested in bigger tanks, more advanced bombers, expanded satelitte coverage, and maybe a few more layers of ICBM shielding to protect us from another 9/11.
No no no. This is all about the Bush libedo and how he can’t get it up at night knowing that people don’t think he’s got the balls to handle the Middle East. He’s the War Preznit. After great Republicans before him emerged victorious, like Reagan’s smashing success against the Sandanistas and Dad’s glorious original Gulf conflict, he can’t let the latest in a long line of “successful” Republican Presidents lose.
TenguPhule
And the other half is shooting at our troops with the bullets our tax dollars paid for.
Perry Como
A good racket if you can get into it.
Tsulagi
Sun Tzu might have something to say on that. “He who create own opposition forces and pay for them is stupidest motherfucker in all of planet.”
Rome Again
Zifnab, I read somewhere (can’t remember where) that Rumsfeld and Cheney were so excited about testing our improved spit-shine-brilliant military, did actually creating that new brilliant military actually fail too?
I knew they didn’t send enough troops, gear, plans… but was that newly improved machine already broken to begin with?
Rome Again
Agreed!
TenguPhule
The best analogy to what they did is take the shiny new steak knife they’d been given and tried to use it to cut concrete blocks.
srv
Abazaid is still the chief moron in uniform:
link
And if we’d stayed out of WWI, the Nazis would probably never have come about. Sherard would not doubt throw a fit when someone compares Iraq and Vietnam (of course, the President can do it though), but our own generals seem to think Osama is a nation state like fascist Italy.
We can win with Abazaid just like we could win with Westmoreland. They have no clue.
The new strategy is: Tinkerbell-Go Long
TenguPhule
Which begs the question, what does Iraq have to do with Osama?
Abazaid obviously flunked World Geography. Afghanistan is on the *other side* of Iran.
The Other Steve
Pb ignorantly writes:
So we should have stayed fighting in Vietnam? For what purpose?
Marshall wasn’t making an argument. He was noting a contradiction to the argument that we should have stayed in Vietnam to halt Communism.
As for Zifnab’s China and Cuba. China is experiencing Economic Freedom, in large part because we have engaged with them economically. Cuba, we ignore. So the two are not comparable examples.
demimondian
It’s true that a change to energy based on sources other than oil would cause real problems in Texas and Oklahoma, but I think you’re celebrating too soon.
Jay
Another begged question:
Can one reasonably compare a fascist state to a loosely knit, widely scattered, amorphous group of wing nuts?
It would be nice if bin Laden were the leader of a country because he might have been easier to catch. But Bush has to pretend the WoT is like WWII, rather than the war on drugs (a better analogy) because a war on drugs type war is slow, requires a multi-front approach, doesn’t lend itself to dramatic TV shots, and what’s the other thing? Oh yeah, it can’t be won.
Pb
The Other Steve,
No.
In that case, I’d say you’ve identified the problem.
The contradiction being that (a) we didn’t stay in Vietnam, and (b) Communism eventually halted there anyhow? That’s a nice outcome, but without some demonstrable correlation, I’m not impressed. Who’s to say that the outcome wasn’t (a) based on unrelated and unforeseen events that (b) could very well have gone the other way?
srv
Imagine if we’d skipped Gulf I and let Osama fight it out with Saddam. He’d either be dead in the sands of Kuwait, or running one of those countries.
For all the hysterics about the Ayatollahs in 1979, they kept the oil flowing. Keeping the natives mouths fed was more important than Jihad. Had King Osama thought otherwise, we’d still be better off. We’d have a nice, juicy target.
lard lad
Aw, shoot! Now MacBuckets can’t trot out that poll of his anymore… you know, the one from two years ago that proved how gosh-darn grateful the Iraqis were for our, um, intervention?
Say… where is MacBuckets, anyhow?
TenguPhule
Standing in line in an unemployment office with the rest of the former Republican staffers.
Zifnab
Say, what? I dearly hope that first sentence was loaded with some sort of stealth snark that just slipped under my radar. Nazis came about despite a very valant attempt by Woodrow Wilson to end that exact type of mindless, useless, pseudo-nationalism. American intervention on the side of England and France in WWI was central to bringing the First World War to a quick and definative close. It also served as the bedrock for future improved relations with Western Europe.
Of course, I agree that anyone who can’t compare Iraq to Vietnam is so removed from history he has no room to voice any opinion on the subject. Both are examples of an American Military thinking it can score cheap ideological points by beating up on a far weaker adversary in the name of Capitalism/Democracy. Both prove that no matter big a Super Power gets, you can’t force your ideology on any mass of people who simply don’t want it.
As for Osama, if only the US Military would treat him like a nation state. Perhaps we’d actually do more about him than flash scary photos of the guy on TV during election years. Oh no! Osama is coming! Osama is coming! 9/11! 9/11! Vote Republican! Abandon Civil Liberties! Obey Us Or the Terrorists Win(tm)! Osama isn’t considered a hostile threat by the current Administration. He’s considered a poster boy, to stick on flags and fliers when you need more money to buy super cool, completely superfluous techno-gizmos from your Military Contractor friends.
Jay
He’s a bit more than a poster boy, he’s been shaping our foreign policy from his cave in Afghanistan/flat in Pakistan from day one. I was taken aback when the grainy video starring Osama bin Evil (threatening to kill us like rats and bathe in our blood) didn’t materialize right before the election.
j
*That take forever to create, sit in a storage depot forever and when they finally arrive, don’t function in a desert environment!
Tillman Fan
I’m currently reading Robert McNamara’s “In Retrospect,” written in the mid-1990s about how the increased US involvement in Viet Nam occurred under the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations. So far (I’m only a third of the way through the book) the similarities between Iraq and Viet Nam are eerie — including, most significantly, the failure to test assumptions (such as, are the Iraqis really going to accept us as “liberators” instead of “occupiers”) and the dilemma where (as Kofi Annan said in the link in the blog entry) the US can’t stay in Iraq, but it can’t leave, either.
At least through 1965, according to the book, McNamara insists that many in the Administration were looking for ways to let the Vietnamese fend for themselves. Unfortunately, South Viet Nam never was stable enough actually to resist the Viet Cong insurgency, and McNamara and others in the Administration made their decisions on the assumption that if South Viet Nam fell, the rest of Southeast Asia would, too, thereby demonstrating the failure of US leadership and undermining our effectiveness worldwide.
As I read it, I’m continually surprised at how relevant the analysis is for today’s circumstances. It’s also interesting to read that, contrary to the rose-colored recollections of those who think that diplomacy was “easy” in the binary world of the Cold War, the world was a very dangerous and complicated place back then, and perhaps even more than it is now.
Pb
Tillman Fan,
One of my favorite concurrences:
srv
You seem to think bringing it to a definitive close was a good thing. Boy, what closure that was.
WW I wouldn’t have been a clear victory against Germany if the Wilson had minded our own business. Ergo, no Treaty of Versailles, no Woodrow Wilson ‘internationalism’, no angry Germans making fodder for the Nazi party.
The Nazi party was the product of that “definitive closure”.
Which is why proto-authoritarians here don’t get it. I stopped worrying about Osama on 9/11. He effectively told us he didn’t have nukes. The next guy won’t be so stupid, and it won’t matter if we bomb Tehran or not.
Proud Liberal
hey… where is bucket boy? Isn’t he a big fan of Iraqi polls?
Zifnab
No, the Nazi party was a product of both German hubris and crushing economic hardship. A generation after Germany re-unified, touting Bismarkian military government and a fierce belief that the new reincarnation of the Holy Roman Empire would last forever, the Germans got hit in the face with the reality of defeat. WWII was, in some sense, the resurgent belief that WWI never really ended, it just got called on account of rain (“rain” being a complete lack of money and manpower).
Combine this with the fact that the Brits, French, and Russians decided to level massive War Debts on Germany – effectively ordering the country to pay for the other side’s war bills – which plunged the country into Third World levels of poverty. This War Debt policy was strictly in opposition to Wilson’s belief that Europe should forgive, forget, and move on. Wilson’s 14-Points sought to do in the 1920s what the Marshall plan ended up doing in 1950s, rebuild Europe equitably and peacefully.
Nazism arose when civil society collapsed, and civil society collapsed because of the Great Depression. Communism arose for the same reasons. Poverty got so bad that the people tossed off their old governments and threw themselves into the a revolution that would eventually errect a totalitarian regime.
One of the stupid tragedies of Vietnam and Iraq was the complete lack of American humanitarianism (and don’t let some wingnut tell you different for one fucking second). This resulted in economic depression, which in turn fueled revolution, which will – if the pattern holds true – eventually result in a new totalitarian regime.
srv
You throw out lots of facts and don’t connect any dots.
I’m sure this had nothing to do with them losing WW I. Imagine this: we stayed out, and Germany didn’t lose. No debts = No total collapse = Lower Commie threat = Lower skinhead count. I think you can get through the first three. Just close your eyes and make the leap.
Zifnab
But they did lose. Us entering the conflict wasn’t going to change that. Germany was fighting a two-front war that had effectively deadlocked in trench warfare for the second half of the four year conflict. They had virtually no foreign allies and the war effort had sucked up all their natural resources. Civilians were starving. Soldiers and their families were completely impoverished. The entire country was collapsing economically. It was the two-front thing that really killed them, putting Germany on the defensive continuously. Surrender was inevitable. It was just a question of whether it took another six months for Berlin to cave or another six years.
What’s more, if you think Nazis somehow caused the skinhead movement, you really haven’t studied much history. The Holocaust happened at the height of anti-semetism world-wide – the US included.
~wikiforthewin!
Hitler didn’t create anti-Semitism in his mom’s basement after dropping out of art school. And the anti-Communist movement was running strong in Italy almost a decade before it got traction in Germany. If you want to get rid of the “commie threat” (which I always thought was about as big a crock as the modern “terrorist threat”) you need to go straight for the source: Marxists. Germany in 1938 was a torch hitting the powderkeg (no Reichstag pun intended). But that keg had been full for a long, long while. If America never existed, WWI and II would have played out more or less the same way.
srv
The two front war was over. The Russians were out. Yes, the Central Powers may have still lost in the long term (4 years+), but the terms would have been dramatically different. The Allies wouldn’t have had 150000 fresh Americans arriving each month and would have settled for much less (and would not have been able to enforce something like Versailes).
I used skinhead in the context of Nazi, 1931. I hate writing Nazi alot.
Beej
Uh. . . .srv. . .a lot is two words, not one.
(I’m sorry, I was an English teacher in a former life. I can’t help myself.)
pie
I was going to point this out myself. That’s what the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was about. The USSR ceded the Baltics, Belorussia, and the Ukraine to German suzerainty. The Caucasian provinces were quasi-independent, with the Bolsheviks, Turks, and British all fighting a multi-pronged war of shifting alliances to gain control of them. Some Central Asian Turkish areas also tried to break away from the Soviet Union, and they weren’t pacified until 1922 (this is where the Bolsheviks ended up decapitating Enver Pasha in an ambush).
This is a risky game of “what if?”, though. If the war had lasted that much longer, we can presume (again, risky) that the Central Powers would be weakened just as much more proportionately as the Allies were. It’s just as possible that if the war had lasted until 1921, the British would have been happy to hand over the Rhineland to France. Poland might’ve gotten all of Silesia, Prussia, and Pomerania.
Hard to say what would’ve happened if the US hadn’t intervened. I doubt very much that the Ottoman Empire could’ve kept fighting any longer than they did- America didn’t even declare war on them or participate in hostilities against them in any way, and look how well they did. On the other hand, the Germans would’ve had access to the wealth of the western Russian provinces, and who knows whether or not Lenin would’ve acceded to a second round of concessions in exchange for peace? He had no problem giving up Tsarist territory, maybe he would’ve entered the war actively on the German side in exchange for a free hand elsewhere (the Caucasus or something; Lenin was kind of an idiot about this stuff, so any “what if” scenario is plausible to me). What is America doing all this time? Are we still supplying armaments to the Allies, or did the entire nation sink into the sea like Atlantis or something? Do we continue to let the Germans sink our ships with impunity, or do we retaliate at some point? Do we take the War years off to beat up Mexico and annex her, lest she enter the war on behalf of Deutschland and try to win back Texas? I have many, many questions about how this situation of American non-intervention arises.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if the war dragged on another 2 or 3 years, sooner or later we would’ve had to enter it- if for no other reason than to prop up the French and British and ensure that our war loans could be repaid. American business demanded intervention if the Allies ever looked to be in serious risk of defeat after about 1915 or so.
chopper
i know skinheads. lots of em. not the nazi hammerskin type, just hard drinking, vintage scooter riding working class kids with a love for street punk and ska/dancehall. good kids.
if you’re going to talk about nazis or neo-nazis, call em that. there were no nazi skinheads in 1931, neo-nazis coopted the skinhead look only a few decades ago long after the skinhead scene originated in the 60’s.
raj
The Pentagon might boost our Iraq forces by an unstoppable 20,000 troops. … if the Pentagon thinks that this 15% increase will turn the war around then our leaders are exactly as dumb as I thought.
If the Pentagon believes that the 15% increase would turn the Iraq war around, maybe they should confer with the German General Staff regarding the success of the Battle of the Bulge in WWII.
Or, more recently, they should confer with themselves regarding the success of the last American push into Taliban-dominated southern Afghanistan last summer before pulling out in favor of Nato occupation under British command. The British commander roundly criticized the American push as being counter-productive.
The Bushies are so a-historical.
BlogReeder
I find it interesting that in this day and age WTCSAMTTM*, we still can’t get the story straight on the number of civilian deaths in Iraq. A place that is in the forefront of the news. From the story Tim F. posted on the comedian’s death:
Higher than October? Tim practically wet his pants reporting those deaths. Then there’s this from the UN:
Note the number. Different. And then of course this from the Armed Forces:
I know I’m confused. (* when they can send a man to the moon)
Tim F.
No need to say that when you’ve already shown it. Notice that the US Armed forces don’t actually list a number. They have said quite clearly in the past that they don’t keep track of civilian casualties. Did they start? When? As usual you mistake rhetoric for information.
The first article says “at least 1,371″ dead, not precisely 1,371 dead. The authors put the qualifier in because the list of names that you can verify from press reports is obviously an undercount. At least 1,371 is not at all incompatible with 3,709. It could simply be the difference between confirmed kills, so to speak, and death certificates issued by various Iraqi hospitals and morgues.
So there you go. You pointed out your confusion and I solved it for you. No need to thank me.
I love it. You may not know that the insane see everybody else as insane as well. Similarly, reasonable people see reasonableness everywhere (that was OCSteve’s problem, for example) and bitter partisan hysterics see partisan hysteria around every corner.
jcricket
You make an excellent point BlogReeder. The answer is very simple. The army is lying. The army simply (about a year ago) reclassified who gets to count as a “civilian” so their numbers would stay low.
The second two numbers are also likely different for the same reason – difference in survey methods. Or, they’re different because Iraq’s so unsafe and unstable that it’s hard to get everywhere you would need to get a 100% accurate count.
When the press reports the morgue is turning bodies away, and every paper (US and foreign), along with the UN and NGOs are reporting significantly higher numbers of deaths than the army – the army’s numbers lose credibility.
I’d say the AP number is the “bottom line” and the UN number is the “top”. Likely the number is somewhere between the two.
BlogReeder
Tim, thanks for your help. However, I was a math major in college and we did cover the fact that 1,371 is less than 3,709.
I think it was in a real analysis class.
You seem to be on a limb here defending your thesis. Everyone knows a number like 1371 is precise. Now a number like 1300 is not as precise. So why use such a precise number if they’re just pulling it out of their asses?
Tim F.
Yes, you clearly were not a humanities major. If they can use news sources to confirm exactly 1,371 deaths then they will report that the number is 1,371 at a minimum, with the implied assumption that the real number is much higher.
Tim F.
By the way, please describe my thesis. You introduced three references and wrongly proposed that they disagree. In fact one source offered no number at all, the second proposed a minimum and the third stated a number higher than the second source’s minimum. Let me propose a thesis – you should ask your college for a refund.
demimondian
You know, blogreeder, I was a mathematics professor for some years, and I’m kind of concerned about your high sco…I mean, college. Typically, I would expect all students entering any of my college-level classes, even remedial ones, to have mastered the basic properties of the natural ordering of the reals before they entered. I would not spend any time on the basic properties in a real analysis class.
Pb
A math major in college, really? I guess they didn’t cover word problems when you sent away for your diploma? We’re talking “at least”, as in “greater than or equal to”, also known as an inequality. Like if I cited you as proof that we had “at least” one moron on Balloon Juice, it wouldn’t in the least preclude the possibility that we might have more than one moron here. Anyhow, if you can’t figure out “at least” without getting confused, then I suggest you never try reading, say, “Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey”, by Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, Shannon Doocy, and Les Roberts — in fact, I bet you’re already confused!
jcricket
Setup: Please read the following CNN article More than 140 bodies turn up on Baghdad streets.
Question: Which of the following best represents the theme of the article
A) The liberal media is lying about the death toll in Iraq
B) Iraq is safe and getting safer
C) Saddam Hussein was a murderous dictator with WMDs
D) All of the above
If you answered this question, you are a Republican.
jcricket
Sorry, inadvertently chopped off the last couple of answers
E) Bush Was Right
F) The entire method of asking people to read something and then expecting answers has a well known liberal bias
BlogReeder
Tim, your thesis I was referring to was the one that insists that any of these sources know what they’re talking about. And the bigger number wins. I mean what’s the number? 1,371, 3,709 or 15,000 from the Lancet study (or should I say 15,116 to make it more in line with the other SWAGS)
All I’m lamenting is the fact that there is no indisputable source for something that is happening right now. Can’t anyone count anymore?
Tim F.
Ah, well there’s an easy question. We know that the army is full of shit because 1) they don’t keep a tally of civilian deaths (they have said so), and 2) they didn’t bother with an actual number. The 1,371 number counts confirmable deaths so it should be treated as a basement floor, i.e. the lowest number that one can say with absolute certainty. The Iraq Body Count site works this way. The larger number comes from the Iraqi government, presumably absed on its tally of death certificates. The idea that more people will earn death certificates than will appear in a proper news story hardly strikes me as surprising.
It also seems unlikely in a chaotic environment like Iraq that every death will receive its proper certificate, so the Iraq government’s tally should be taken as another minimum value.
Any other questions?
BlogReeder
I think we should count that as a SWAG. (Scientific Wild-Assed Guess).
jcricket
The only good news out of Iraq lately is that people are fleeing (or ex-patriating if you prefer) so quickly there might not be anyone left to die.
BTW, I think the last remark makes it clear that BlogReeder is a spoof, or at least willfully ignorant (and thus, spoofy in appearance)
Tim F.
You want to accuse the news media of making up the names of people who died? Fascinating.
demimondian
Actually, blogreeder, the Lancet Studies are the SWFG’s (Scientific, well-founded guesses.) But you need to have taken, say, 1st semester statistical methodology to know that.
jcricket
Just forget it demi & Tim. Anyone who simply dismisses as “wild ass guesses” independent confirmation of individual deaths isn’t someone who whom you can use reason.
The facts are:
* The AP numbers only reference deaths they can independently verify and are most often for individual cities or provinces (not the entire country). They represent, in fact, the “sub-basement” of death numbers.
* The UN numbers are accurate to a very high confidence level (but not 100%), but still under-representative because the morgues are full and as you mentioned, not everyone’s getting an official death certificate. These represent the “ground floor” of death numbers.
* Even studies like Lancet, are correct to within their confidence intervals. These numbers represents the entire house and possibly out-buildings on the property too.
It doesn’t matter which number you pick, even if you picked the armies tiny from-thin-air non-number number, it would still represent a massive spike in the violent death rate. At the low end Iraqis are experiencing a death rate 10x what we experience in America, and at the high end something like 100x.
When Saddam was in charge we could blame him, but now the blood of these Iraqis is on the hands of the incompetent American war planners (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc.) and all the jingoistic war supporters who’ve spent the last three years lying about the “facts on the ground” so their precious leader and party don’t have to face political setbacks.
Fuck them.
BlogReeder
Tim, all I’m doing is opening your eyes to the truth. There is no truth. I’m curious, who in the AP told you they have all the names? The story just said the highest for any month since The Associated Press began tracking the figure in April 2005. How are they tracking it? Is there secret HTML code that shows their methods? ‘Cause there ain’t no method shown in the story.
demimondian
BlogReeder, you’re opening something all right — you’re pulling a malebolge. (Go look it up. A little real research might help you.)
TenguPhule
The Pentagon doesn’t do Bodycounts.
Unless they’re all terrorists. Even the women and children.
Or Al Queda Number #2.
jcricket
Just another day in paradise
In the Seattle area, we’ve recently had a string of news reports with headlines like “most rain in a week”, then “most rain in November”, then “most rain in any month ever”… Or you watch the stock market and it’s “S&P 500 at an all-time high” repeated every day for a week or two…
These are things about which I don’t mind reading that the “records” are broken every day. But, if this is even possible, I’m getting more dispirited every day that I read a headline out of Iraq that says “worst day of violence ever”, “deadliest month”, “deadliest attack”, “highest number of deaths ever”…
I think my outrage cup runneth over, at this point. Although I’m sure that when something else ridiculously bad happens it’ll get re-filled. That’s what sad about outrage.
demimondian
Oh, that’s easy to fix — just got out and buy an outrage six-pack.
jcricket
I think Outrage is being sold only behind the counter these days, like ephedrine. If you get “Outrage” and mix it with “The Internet” you get “Information Addiction” – which is worse than that whole meth thing…
But if I do find a place that will sell you outrage in bulk, do I still have to cut up those little plastic rings? I don’t want to feed the industrialists who make “Lil’ Lisa’s Slurry”…
jake
You can always just throw it away, like the Rev. sHaggard.