• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Nothing says ‘pro-life’ like letting children go hungry.

The willow is too close to the house.

You cannot shame the shameless.

I really should read my own blog.

Shut up, hissy kitty!

The fundamental promise of conservatism all over the world is a return to an idealized past that never existed.

Following reporting rules is only for the little people, apparently.

Republicans don’t lie to be believed, they lie to be repeated.

The republican speaker is a slippery little devil.

Only Democrats have agency, apparently.

Within six months Twitter will be fully self-driving.

Everyone is in a bubble, but some bubbles model reality far better than others!

Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.

Someone should tell Republicans that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, or possibly the first.

How can republicans represent us when they don’t trust women?

The next time the wall street journal editorial board speaks the truth will be the first.

They fucked up the fucking up of the fuckup!

Republicans don’t trust women.

Bad news for Ron DeSantis is great news for America.

Let there be snark.

Somebody needs to explain to DeSantis that nobody needs to do anything to make him look bad.

Pelosi: “He either is stupid, or he thinks the rest of us are.” Why not both?

Fani Willis claps back at Trump chihuahua, Jim Jordan.

It’s the corruption, stupid.

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Media / Mission Accomplished, Part Deux

Mission Accomplished, Part Deux

by John Cole|  November 2, 20079:37 am| 56 Comments

This post is in: Media, Military, War, General Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

At Memeorandum, this proclamation from Aussie Andrew Bolt:

THERE is a reason Iraq has almost disappeared as an election issue.

Here it is: The battle is actually over. Iraq has been won.

I know this will seem to many of you an insane claim. Ridiculous!

After all, haven’t you read countless stories that Iraq is a “disaster”, turned by a “civil war” into a “killing field”?

Didn’t Labor leader Kevin Rudd, in one of his few campaign references to Iraq, say it was the “greatest … national security policy disaster that our country has seen since Vietnam”?

You have. And you have been misled.

Here is just the latest underreported news, out this week.

Just 27 American soldiers were killed in action in Iraq in October – the lowest monthly figure since March last year. (This is a provisional figure and may alter over the next week.)

I am sure by the end of the day this will be the most popular item among the jingosphere- it has the right mix of chest thumping, contempt for liberals, and paranoia about the media that it is right up their alley. Regardless, here is my take:

Fine! Great! You were right, I was wrong. Can we bring the troops home now?

*** Update ***

Another piece on declining casualties. While things are just down to the level of violence a year ago, I am just happy it means fewer dead GIs.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Mission Unpossible
Next Post: Swing Your Partner, Dosey Do »

Reader Interactions

56Comments

  1. 1.

    Attaturk

    November 2, 2007 at 9:41 am

    Just 27 American soldiers were killed in action in Iraq in October – the lowest monthly figure since March last year. (This is a provisional figure and may alter over the next week.)

    Off only by 12 soldiers permanently unable to proclaim victory!

  2. 2.

    Zifnab

    November 2, 2007 at 9:45 am

    Off only by 12 soldiers permanently unable to proclaim victory!

    I knew that number looked wrong. Maybe those American casualties just don’t count this month. But if American casualties are down to only 27 in a single 30-day period, then clearly the marketplaces are safe and the city is secure. I’m sure McCain and Lieberman will be back in Bagdad market square to buy a nice throw rug for the kitchen, this time sans helicopters and a battalion of troops, right? … … right?

  3. 3.

    r€nato

    November 2, 2007 at 9:45 am

    how many times have we won the war now?

  4. 4.

    ThymeZone

    November 2, 2007 at 9:46 am

    Can we bring the troops home now?

    Best line of the day, or any day.

  5. 5.

    The Other Steve

    November 2, 2007 at 9:49 am

    WOO HOO! We’ve won the Iraq war.

    Time for the soldiers to come home.

  6. 6.

    Konrad

    November 2, 2007 at 9:49 am

    We’d bring them home BUT now that Iraq is won ’tis time to take care of Iran as well…since we are in the neighborhood.

  7. 7.

    neil

    November 2, 2007 at 9:54 am

    Hillary is the only one who can win the Iraq war, since she wants to win by leaving, and Bush thinks to leave means losing.

  8. 8.

    Ugh

    November 2, 2007 at 9:55 am

    The troops are needed there for, as he puts it, “eternal vigilence,” so no they can’t come home. Ever.

    And note that getting the levels of violence down to March of last year amounts to setting the bar four feet below ground, instead of six.

  9. 9.

    jenniebee

    November 2, 2007 at 9:59 am

    ROFL – yay! Somebody finally defined the goals!

    Is it just me or has the chest-thumping about “winning” and “losing” actually quieted down? I think we all understand now that GWB’s plan, in general terms, is for a more-or-less permanent American economic presence throughout the region (including Iran and Syria) “safeguarded” by a more-or-less permanent American military presence. That timeline precludes any notion of “winning” or “losing” because it means that “winning” is that American soldiers in Iraq is the status-quo and “losing” is withdrawl. Thus the real war is domestic and political; the actual state of affairs in Iraq is ancillary to the point of irrelevance except in its usefulness within the domestic debate.

    The only real question is: will the Democratic President to be Named Later decide to pick up the pieces and use, you know, good management and reality-based approaches to try to achieve the same regional goals as GWB, or will the DPNL declare that it’s time to wash our hands of the whole business and get out? That’s assuming, of course, that GWB doesn’t go for the “coup” option and preempt the whole DPNL in the first place.

  10. 10.

    Dreggas

    November 2, 2007 at 10:03 am

    The “war” was over several years ago now. We deposed Saddam, we made sure there were no WMD’s and we knew there was no Al Qaeda presence before we went in. THerefore this is 27 deaths more than should have occurred. It’s time to bring them home period.

  11. 11.

    Gus

    November 2, 2007 at 10:07 am

    I know I read somewhere that the number of sorties being flown has increased dramatically, so one reason for the decrease in casualties of American troops is the increase in use of air power. I can’t remember where I read that. I’ll search for it if I have time.

  12. 12.

    Zifnab

    November 2, 2007 at 10:08 am

    Hillary is the only one who can win the Iraq war, since she wants to win by leaving, and Bush thinks to leave means losing.

    Hillary is on the same “Korea Model” as Bush. She’s happy to leave 40k troops behind to “fight terrorists”, whatever the fuck that means. This might have been a workable model back in ’06. But now we’ve burned through all our troop reserves with the catastrophically incompetent “surge”.

    Hillary, Barak, and Edwards won’t commit on full troop withdrawal for sensible reasons. If Turkey decides to invade Kurdistan or Shiites and Sunnis start drawing up armies and actively picking fights at invisible borders, any future Democratic President will want a little leyway to use force as needed. But Hillary seems dead set on permanent presence, Barak doesn’t seem to know what to do except follow conventional wisdom, and only Edwards seems genuinely interested in full withdrawal at some point in the future, because – if nothing else – he’ll need all the military spending money if he wants to fulfill his domestic goals.

  13. 13.

    Konrad

    November 2, 2007 at 10:10 am

    It seems Iraqi civilian casualties are down as well – ethnically cleansed partitions a factor in this?

  14. 14.

    Konrad

    November 2, 2007 at 10:13 am

    oh, ya, and we can’t leave yet – gotta get that OIL Law passed, no?

  15. 15.

    Jake

    November 2, 2007 at 10:17 am

    No, no, no. We can’t possibly bring the troops home. They might leave the military and make politically damaging statements about the people who kept them there They’ve been in Iraq too long and might have become contaminated by Islamofascists ideas.

    They want 2 kill us!

    We must keep them fighting them over there to keep them from fighting us over here!

    Smoking gun mushroom cloud!

    Braaaaaawk!

  16. 16.

    Chris Johnson

    November 2, 2007 at 10:18 am

    Bloody hell, I was hoping this guy was being sarcastic…

    If it’s so damn great, you go live there now please. Bye. Enjoy.

  17. 17.

    Billy K

    November 2, 2007 at 10:21 am

    Fine! Great! You were right, I was wrong. Can we bring the troops home now?

    No.

    simple answers to simple questions.

  18. 18.

    cleek

    November 2, 2007 at 10:27 am

    someone needs to teach Mr Bolt about this fantastic device called the “paragraph”; it’s a collection of sentences which work together to build up an argument or a description. properly used, it gives the writer a chance to fully develop an idea, while giving the text a natural, conversational, flow. one sentence builds on the last until the idea is fully fleshed-out and the writer is ready to move onto the next point. it can be quite elegant, in the right hands.

    the alternative.

    the one Mr Blot employs.

    is like listening to a belligerent jackass.

    a jackass who punctuate his sentences with pokes to your chest.

    and showers of foamy spit.

  19. 19.

    Konrad

    November 2, 2007 at 10:29 am

    If it’s me you’re talking about Chris, ya I’m being sarcastic. The bloody oil law is the big prize. The raisin d etter ;) The big enchilada!

  20. 20.

    Krista

    November 2, 2007 at 10:39 am

    Just 27 American soldiers were killed in action in Iraq in October – the lowest monthly figure since March last year.

    And this is reason to…celebrate?

    Can someone please explain to me how Iraq is such a hunky-dory pic-a-nic of a place, when you guys are still experiencing a casualty almost every day? Anybody? Bueller?

  21. 21.

    J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford

    November 2, 2007 at 10:46 am

    Krista Says:

    Just 27 American soldiers were killed in action in Iraq in October – the lowest monthly figure since March last year.

    And this is reason to…celebrate?

    Can someone please explain to me how Iraq is such a hunky-dory pic-a-nic of a place, when you guys are still experiencing a casualty almost every day? Anybody? Bueller?

    November 2nd, 2007 at 10:39 am

    Why do you hate America?

  22. 22.

    Dreggas

    November 2, 2007 at 10:48 am

    the one Mr Blot employs.

    is like listening to a belligerent jackass.

    a jackass who punctuate his sentences with pokes to your chest.

    and showers of foamy spit.

    Hey quit talking about my father like that!

  23. 23.

    Pb

    November 2, 2007 at 10:48 am

    Did The Washington Post hire on The Onion staff to write their news…

    In many areas of Iraq, U.S. soldiers are finding fewer corpses on their daily patrols. Some areas once under the sway of the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq have witnessed striking reversals. And Baghdad sounds quieter than last year: There are fewer deep, resonating explosions from car bombs, and the constant clatter of gunfire has become sporadic.

    MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

    Casualty numbers themselves are inconsistent. The U.S. military said about 800 civilians were killed in October, but an unofficial tally by the Health Ministry showed that 1,448 civilians had died violently, including those whose bodies were dumped without identification. An official provided the data, which showed an increase in deaths compared with September, on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to release it publicly.

    Oops, looks like The Washington Post hasn’t stopped emboldening the enemy just yet…

  24. 24.

    Svensker

    November 2, 2007 at 10:49 am

    Just 27 American soldiers were killed in action in Iraq in October – the lowest monthly figure since March last year.

    Perhaps when Foreign Service officers are eager to serve in Iraq, rather than calling such service “a death sentence”, the rest of us will be cheery-tickety-boo about how We Are Winning The War and stuff.

  25. 25.

    canuckistani

    November 2, 2007 at 10:50 am

    The new embassy is soooo big it needs 160,000 guards with 400 tanks and a carrier group on call in the Gulf.

  26. 26.

    Cindrella Ferret

    November 2, 2007 at 10:59 am

    Just 27 American soldiers were killed in action in Iraq in October – the lowest monthly figure since March last year. (This is a provisional figure and may alter over the next week.)

    Channeling Rumsfeld with that “just”. Ouch. No big deal, as it were, unless of course you are the husband/wife/mom/dad of that “just” 27 killed. It was anything but “just” to the people who answered the front door and found a group of military personnel in dress uniform on the porch.

    Remove the word “just” and it is a completely inoffensive statement. The word “just” attests an arrogance and casual detachment from the real price of war. I know am “nitpicking” but the nonchalant tone pisses me off.

    Oh, and lest we forget, once again–Mission Accomplished–or, almost, kinda, sorta. Now where was that goal post?

  27. 27.

    RSA

    November 2, 2007 at 11:13 am

    I know I read somewhere that the number of sorties being flown has increased dramatically, so one reason for the decrease in casualties of American troops is the increase in use of air power.

    I have a similar memory, equally vague. While I’m glad fewer U.S. soldiers are being killed, I wonder if it’s possible that they’re not carrying out the same kinds of patrols that they have in the past? A quick Google search doesn’t turn up anything for me.

  28. 28.

    slugger

    November 2, 2007 at 11:16 am

    This is a tremendous victory. Iraq is pacified, oil prices are down, the dollar is strong, and the position of the United States in the world as a whole is the best in a generation.
    Mom, can I sleep a little longer?

  29. 29.

    Davis X. Machina

    November 2, 2007 at 11:24 am

    American troops will remain in Iraq so long as there’s a Democratic party to beat on using them as a club (“Support the troops!”) or afraid to pull them out. (“Who lost Iraq?”).

    Iraq’s not a war, or an insurgency. And if it’s a smash-and-grab larceny, the crooks are pretty incompetent — are you filling up the SUV with Iraq-derived gas yet?

    It’s either the world’s most expensive campaign commercial, or a Second (American) Civil War, being fought by proxy.

  30. 30.

    LITBMueller

    November 2, 2007 at 11:30 am

    Fucking awesome! Because, if its true that “Less Dead Americans = Victory,” then we’ve already won the War on Terror, too!!

    I looooove the sweet smell of victory! America…FUCK YEAH!

  31. 31.

    Pb

    November 2, 2007 at 11:39 am

    RSA,

    Yeah, I was reading about that the other day–the phrase is “search and avoid“.

  32. 32.

    Cyrus

    November 2, 2007 at 11:42 am

    Iraq’s not a war, or an insurgency. And if it’s a smash-and-grab larceny, the crooks are pretty incompetent—are you filling up the SUV with Iraq-derived gas yet?

    My car’s gas tank, no. But Halliburton’s coffers?

  33. 33.

    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop

    November 2, 2007 at 12:36 pm

    Can we bring the troops home now?

    If it’s so damn great, you go live there now please. Bye. Enjoy.

    Can someone please explain to me how Iraq is such a hunky-dory pic-a-nic of a place

    It is strawman season and all, but I don’t recall anyone saying that Iraq was “damn great” or “hunky-dory” or “I’d rather live in Iraq than in the US,” nor do I recall the benchmark for troop drawdown to “when casualty rates plummet.”

    The decrease in violence mainly means that a) now the business of rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure can move along faster than it has been moving and b) there’s less violence for the Iraqi security forces to handle, so we should be able to turn those reins over faster.

    Perhaps when Foreign Service officers are eager to serve in Iraq, rather than calling such service “a death sentence”, the rest of us will be cheery-tickety-boo about how We Are Winning The War and stuff.

    Over 200 of the 250 State positions were staffed voluntarily.

    The “death sentence” that has these diplomats trembling in their high-polished Cole-Haans and forsaking the duties of their employment is defined as…

    No U.S. diplomats have been killed in Iraq, although the security situation is precarious

    And Juan Cole says it’s like “facing a firing squad.” Maybe, if morons like Cole were manning the squad, with the rifle facing the wrong way.

    As a commenter elsewhere said, 98% of these “diplomats” are evidently in the State Department for something other than service to their country. Which explains a lot. I’d say it seems as if they’ve just bought into the relentless, ratings-driven media narrative of “Iraq — the shooting gallery where no man survives!”

  34. 34.

    The Other Andrew

    November 2, 2007 at 12:42 pm

    So, let’s say that the various insurgents continue waiting out the surge, and/or teaming up with us to kill other insurgents, and/or infiltrating the Iraqi military, police, and government. As such, things will continue to be “quiet”. But what happens when the surge ends and the mice come back out to play? A draft would be the only possible answer, as I understand it, and I don’t think they’ll do that. I’m wondering what they have up their sleeve, as they have to know that this is temporary.

    Also–do we actually have the military capability to stay in Iraq for decades, even at relatively low numbers?

  35. 35.

    Davis X. Machina

    November 2, 2007 at 1:07 pm

    Over 200 of the 250 State positions were staffed voluntarily.

    In other words, naked careerism is powerful, but not omnipotent.

  36. 36.

    RSA

    November 2, 2007 at 1:31 pm

    Yeah, I was reading about that the other day—the phrase is “search and avoid“.

    Thanks for the link, Pb. Given my experience as a teenager working summers for the county (sewer maintenance), I realize that I myself am qualified for such patrol duties. The trickiest thing was finding a good area to sack out.

  37. 37.

    binzinerator

    November 2, 2007 at 1:45 pm

    The decrease in violence mainly means that a) now the business of rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure can move along faster than it has been moving and b) there’s less violence for the Iraqi security forces to handle, so we should be able to turn those reins over faster.

    Hooray! We’ve turned the corner! They’ll Stand Up as We Stand Down!

    Progress!
    The insurgency is in its last throes!
    It’s just the dead-enders now!
    Freedom is on the March!
    New Way Forward!
    Victory In Iraq!
    Mission Accomplished!

    But I feel bad about all those millions of yellow-ribbon magnets out there that we soon won’t be needing anymore… I know everyone’s just going to throw them out, and it seems like such a waste of perfectly good magnets.

  38. 38.

    Bubblegum Tate

    November 2, 2007 at 2:11 pm

    ethnically cleansed partitions a factor in this?

    Of course not–and neither does the fact that millions have fled the country. This is all completely due to Teh Glorious Surge!twelve!

  39. 39.

    Bruce Moomaw

    November 2, 2007 at 2:19 pm

    Not a peep so far about the probability that the drop in casualties is largely due to the simple facts that (1) the partitioning of Iraq (and particularly of Baghdad) has been pretty much completed — which, of course, it would have been with or without us — and (2) the Sunni sheikhs have decided to stop shooting at us for the time being, and instead swindle us into providing them with more weapons with which they can shoot at the Shiites as soon as we leave.

    As for EEEL’s optimism, he really ought to share it with the members of the 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry regiment, 1st Infantry Division, who were quite open and virtually unanimous in telling a Washington Post reporter that (1) the Iraqi government is still enthusiastically ethnically cleansing the Sunnis from Baghdad, and (2) their own superior officers have been joining the Iraqi government in rigging the casualty figures to make things look much better than they actually are.

  40. 40.

    Bruce Moomaw

    November 2, 2007 at 2:30 pm

    As for EEEL’s optimism about the safety of State dept. employees in iraq, let’s take a look at the other passages he didn’t quote from that Huffington Post article to which he linked:

    ” ‘Incoming is coming in every day, rockets are hitting the Green Zone,’ said Jack Croddy, a senior foreign service officer who once worked as a political adviser with NATO forces…

    “No U.S. diplomats have been killed in Iraq, although the security situation is precarious and completion of a new fortified embassy compound and living quarters has been beset by logistical and construction problems.”

    That is, no disasters have occurred YET in that “precarious” scurity situation. Strikingly like the reasoning NASA kept using to fly Shuttles with detectably leaky O-rings before Challenger. Sure would make ME feel confident, especially given the level of competence displayed by the US government in Iraq up to now.

  41. 41.

    Zifnab

    November 2, 2007 at 2:43 pm

    So when Brig. Generals are getting hit by roadside bombs, that means we’re winning too, right?

    Dorko is believed to be the highest-ranking U.S. military officer injured in the war. He suffered shrapnel wounds and has been evacuated to Germany, the sources said.

    Dorko took command of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Gulf Region Division in Baghdad on October 10, according to the Corps of Engineers Web site.

    Yeah, I’d feel safe as a sea-otter in a tuna factory if I was a diplomat in Iraq right now. The mind boggles at how they’re suffering staffing difficulties.

  42. 42.

    Bruce Moomaw

    November 2, 2007 at 3:04 pm

    Breaking news: it also appears that EEEL had better tell the U.S. military official in charge of supporting reconciliation efforts in Iraq how much things are improving, since he’s just confirmed publicly that the Shiite government is making very little effort to reconcile with the Sunnis, and that the Sunni leaders are getting very tired of twiddling their thumbs and waiting, and are therefore beginning to mutter about restarting the full-blown insurgency. This makes a nice accompaniment to the Oct. 22 Wash. Post report on the classified conclusion of Petraeus and Crocker that “Shiite extremists pose a rising threat to the U.S. effort in Iraq” and that “Shiite militias — some backed by Iran…have generated new violence as they battle for power in the south and elsewhere in Iraq”.

    Still, we can console ourselves that we have LOTS of time to try to work the situation out: ” ‘In terms of true reconciliation, as in absolute peace and acceptance of everything my enemy has done, that’s a generational thing,’ [Col.] Stanton said. ‘To get these guys where they instinctively don’t distrust and hate each other is gonna be generational.’ ” And of course, once we finally get the job done, it will all turn out to have been worthwhile, no matter how much the entanglement of our military in Iraq has reduced our ability to deal with military crises involving those nations that, you know, actually do have the Bomb or are working energetically on acquiring it.

  43. 43.

    Svensker

    November 2, 2007 at 3:09 pm

    Over 200 of the 250 State positions were staffed voluntarily.

    The “death sentence” that has these diplomats trembling in their high-polished Cole-Haans and forsaking the duties of their employment

    Well, that means that 20% weren’t voluntary, which doesn’t seem too great for a high paying job with great benefits, if you ask me.

    Course, I guess I’ve been too busy polishing my Cole-Haans to really care, huh?

    That’s apparently the new meme from the 101st Fighting Keyboarders – those weasely State Dept. types who are too chicken to go over to Iraq are just typical wimpy elitists with fancy shoes. But considering their big boss is Condi “Ferragamo” Rice, that’s not so surprising.

    Really, the eagerness with which the RWNM sends others off to die and be tortured is amazing. And the disdain they have for those not eager to undergo the benefits of the Bush Regime is repulsive. (Their own stay-safe-on-the-homefront benefits seem to involve multiple layers of rubber and sheathed plastic devices, which do seem to have it all over getting hit by rockets or IEDs, I guess….)

  44. 44.

    rea

    November 2, 2007 at 5:15 pm

    October ’07 combat deaths for US troops were the lowest for a month since March ’06:

    http://icasualties.org/oif/

    Now of course that’s a very good thing, but I wouldn’t draw sweeping conclusions about the war being won on that basis–was the war won in March ’06?

  45. 45.

    Bruce Moomaw

    November 2, 2007 at 5:39 pm

    Regarding those trembling Cole-Haaned diplomats that have EEEL so irritated, a new piece by Charles Crain in “Time” says that the problem is not JUST that State Dept. employees think they might be risking their lives, but that they think they’re risking their lives FOR NO GOOD REASON. By way of Kevin Drum:

    “The most demoralizing aspect of the violence may not be the physical risk, but rather the isolation and sense of futility the violence engenders. Most diplomats leave the Green Zone only rarely, and never simply to socialize with ordinary Iraqis or explore the city.

    “….Most discouraging of all, the danger and discomfort do not seem to be in service of a successful strategy. [Jack] Croddy, the veteran diplomat, implied that the shortage of volunteers was a function of diplomats not believing in the American mission in Iraq. It’s a fair point. Violence has dropped in recent months, but there has been little substantive progress on key issues from disarming Shi’ite militias to deciding how to distribute the nation’s oil revenue. As the Bush Administration ratchets up its rhetoric against Iran it is American diplomats who must deal personally with Shi’ite politicians, who have closer ties to Tehran than to Washington.”

    To which Drum adds: “Foreign service diplomats routinely serve in backwater ratholes, and dangerous postings are often part of the bargain too. But when you combine that with a setting in which there’s literally almost nothing they can accomplish, a revolt is hardly surprising.

    “I’d add one other thing, too. As near as I can tell, Ryan Crocker is well-liked and highly respected. If even he can’t manage to attract enough people to fill up all the open slots in Iraq — especially when a Baghdad posting also offers higher pay, the career boost of serving in a critical embassy, and a choice of assignments after your hitch is up — then service in the Green Zone must be a rathole squared. Apparently, there’s just no one left who thinks there’s any chance of making serious political or diplomatic progress there.”

    This meshes well with one of Greg Djerejian’s commenters, who seems to have inside information on the subject.

  46. 46.

    Bruce Moomaw

    November 2, 2007 at 6:08 pm

    And a very useful overall compendium of the extent of actual progress in Iraq from Bradford Plumer — most of it godawful (including the GAO’s latest appraisal).

  47. 47.

    Enlightened Layperson

    November 2, 2007 at 7:22 pm

    Fine! Great! You were right, I was wrong. Can we bring the troops home now?

    I still maintain that if George Bush had any sense at all he would do just that, declare victory and pull out, to a glorious victory parade. His approval ratings would surge, the Democrats would cave on everything, and he would assure a landslide Republican victory in 2008. He would be the new Truman/Reagan, right all along if only others had more faith. In fact, it would even be easier for him to bomb Iran if Iran couldn’t retaliate against some 160,000 US solidiers.

  48. 48.

    Heywood Jablomy

    November 3, 2007 at 12:31 am

    My compliments, Bruce M., for so much heavy lifting and good work. The Bushian goalpost shift inherent in “drop of troop casualties = winning” is also of note, but since this is quite literally a field on which the goalposts run around saying “you can’t get me” I suppose I add little of real value mentioning that.

    Here though is something to ponder: We have turned to increased air raids to help keep down troop casualties. (See clumsy link below for lots of good info and linkage on this issue; sorry John, don’t yet know how to embed a link on a Mac-Safari system; help anyone?)

    http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/in-december-the.html

    Are the air raids creating more civilian casualties/civilian anger? Let’s turn it over to the good Col. Boylan (scroll down into above link for his fuller citation) for an answer:

    “As for [air] strike[s] generating local adverse reactions, that i[s] of course possible, but to put it into context, you have to know how many of those strikes were in areas that were populated enough to be impacted which neither Fred, you or I know. So the basic research has not been conducted as yet to come to any conclusions.”

    Note recognizably turgid syntax. Note fact that we HAVE NO CLUE whether the momentary reduction in spilled U.S. blood is being accomplished by — in addition to the things Bruce notes — a rise in civvie deaths unlikely to generate longterm warmth toward an American presence. And so of course the answer is, We’re yet winning again!

  49. 49.

    Bruce Moomaw

    November 3, 2007 at 1:01 am

    Thanks for the compliment, HJ — but I assure you I’m not digging hard to find these references; they’re everywhere, and I’ve literally been falling over them by accident.

    As for the Mysteries of the Comment Hyperlink (which I didn’t understand at first either — in fact, I accidentally blew up John’s site a couple of times) — you:

    (1) Switch to the page you want to link to in your comment, and clipboard-copy its URL (using, of course, your right-click button)

    (2) Write your Balloon Juice comment (WITHOUT including that URL);

    (3) Highlight the section of your typed comment that you want to serve as the hyperlink to that URL;

    (4) Hit the “Link” button in the row of small buttons just above the screen on which you’ve typed the comment (if the buttons aren’t visible at the moment, hit that one double-arrow-button at the upper left corner of the comment-typing screen, which is always visible and will make the others pop into view);

    (5) Paste the URL that you copied into the little “Link” box that will then appear at the upper left corner of your computer screen (making sure that you don’t include the “http//” part twice); and hit the “OK” button there — at which point the URL will suddenly be enclosed, along with the hyperlink passage that you chose, in two angled brackets within the text of your typed comment;

    (6) Hit “Submit Comment” in the usual way.

  50. 50.

    Bruce Moomaw

    November 3, 2007 at 1:13 am

    No sooner did I type all that than it occurred to me that none of it may work on a Mac/Safari system. In that case, in the words of the immortal Emily Litella: “Never mind.” (I’ve always regretted that Gilda Ratner didn’t live long enough for Emily to ask, “Who is this ‘Al Qaeda’ who’s making all this trouble? Al, don’t you think it’s time you grew up and started acting decently?”)

  51. 51.

    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop

    November 3, 2007 at 5:17 pm

    The most demoralizing aspect of the violence may not be the physical risk, but rather the isolation and sense of futility the violence engenders. Most diplomats leave the Green Zone only rarely, and never simply to socialize with ordinary Iraqis or explore the city.

    Well, I guess “death sentence” just doesn’t mean what it used to mean. It used to mean, you know, death.

    And come to think of it, if a diplomat (a job where you’d think words were fairly important) throws around hyperbolic terms like “death sentence” when no one has ever actually died, he’s probably crap at his job, anyway.

  52. 52.

    Bruce Moomaw

    November 3, 2007 at 5:48 pm

    Oh, OK. So, although the piece you linked to describes the security situation as “precarious” and points out that there are rockets hitting the Green Zone periodically — and those other pieces (I ran across a third one last night) point out that Foreign Service Officers have virtually nothing they can accomplish if they DO run the risk of moving there — it was silly of that diplomat to complain about “a potential death sentence” (which is the phrase he actually used, EEEL having thoughtfully clipped off the key word).

  53. 53.

    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop

    November 3, 2007 at 7:20 pm

    So, although the piece you linked to describes the security situation as “precarious” and points out that there are rockets hitting the Green Zone periodically

    Sure, it’s potentially precarious, and if that’s what he’d said, I’d have had no problem with that statement.

    Foreign Service Officers have virtually nothing they can accomplish if they DO run the risk of moving there

    I’ll let Ambassador Crocker take that one:

    Joining the foreign service “does not mean you can choose the fight,” he told reporters in Dubai. “It’s not for us to decide if we like the policy or if the policy is rightly implemented. It’s for us to go and serve, not to debate the policy, not to agree with it.”

    So you don’t get to join up and only request duty in Barbados. “No danger for me, thanks!” Any further questions?

    it was silly of that diplomat to complain about “a potential death sentence” (which is the phrase he actually used, EEEL having thoughtfully clipped off the key word).

    Please…I’m pretty sure the key words in that phrase were “death sentence,” since I’ve seen fifty headlines that said “death sentence” and not a single one included the word “potential.”

    And since flying in a plane or crossing the street is a “potential death sentence,” yes, it was silly language to use. As I said, his over-inflammatory rhetoric is not very “diplomatic,” is it?

    Look, it sucks that we have such a bunch of weak, sniveling diplos, but 1500 of their compatriots have served, and we hadn’t heard a single moan. I guess we’ve reached the bottom of a pretty shallow barrel.

  54. 54.

    Bruce Moomaw

    November 3, 2007 at 8:57 pm

    Uh, EEEL. Sitting in an enclosure with rockets occasionally falling on it, and people waiting in large numbers immediately outside to shoot you and/or blow you up, is a wee bit riskier than “flying in a plane or crossing the street”. As for those “headlines”: well, it was the guy himself whom you falsely attacked for saying something that he, er, didn’t say.

    As for Amb. Crocker’s Charge of the Light Brigade line: that was regarded as cretinous even when Tennyson came up with it. I can hardly wait to see how many new recruits the FSO gets that way. (Not that there was anything else Crocker himself could say at this point, given the irresponsible halfwits who are giving him his own orders.)

    And (why do I have to explain any of this to an adult?) there are plenty of postings for FSOs that are much riskier than “Barbados”, but which they go to with hardly a whimper precisely because they think something CAN be done there. Like, say, all the rest of the Middle East.

  55. 55.

    Bruce Moomaw

    November 3, 2007 at 9:22 pm

    Regarding our “weak, sniveling diplos”, let us quote from the last two paragraphs of that piece:

    “The move to directed assignments is rare but not unprecedented. In 1969, an entire class of entry-level diplomats was sent to Vietnam. On a smaller scale, diplomats were required to work at various embassies in West Africa in the 1970s and 1980s.”

    Meaning — to repeat what I noted above — that it takes an awful lot of danger before we are unable to recruit FSOs in sufficient numbers. (We don’t seem to have ever suffered from a shortage of them in Lebanon, for instance.)

    And as for there “not having been a single moan from the 1200 who did serve”: let’s quote another passage.

    ” [FSO Dir. General Harry] Thomas responded by saying the comments were ‘filled with inaccuracies.’ But he did not elaborate until challenged by the head of the diplomats’ union, the American Foreign Service Association, who, like Croddy and others, demanded to know why many learned of the decision from news reports.

    “Thomas took full responsibility for the late notification. But he objected when the association’s president, John Naland, said a recent survey found only 12 percent of the union’s membership believed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was ‘fighting for them.’

    ” ‘That’s their right but they’re wrong,’ Thomas said, prompting a testy exchange.

    ” ‘Sometimes, if it’s 88 to 12, maybe the 88 percent are correct,’ Naland said.”

    In short, there’s been a whole lot of moanin’ going on — from those same cowardly diplomats who were more than willing to take positions in the rest of the Mideast.

  56. 56.

    Bruce Moomaw

    November 4, 2007 at 12:30 am

    I see that the notorious America-hater James Joyner agrees that Bolt is just a teensy bit premature in declaring victory — and then provides a persuasive list of reasons (which have all been mentioned by the contributors to this thread).

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • West of the Rockies on I Am All For This! (Apr 17, 2024 @ 3:49pm)
  • a thousand flouncing lurkers (was fidelio) on Arizona In The Crosshairs (Apr 17, 2024 @ 3:48pm)
  • Citizen Alan on Wednesday Morning Open Thread: The GOP Insists There Will Be Blood Impeachment (Apr 17, 2024 @ 3:48pm)
  • RaflW on I Am All For This! (Apr 17, 2024 @ 3:47pm)
  • Eyeroller on I Am All For This! (Apr 17, 2024 @ 3:47pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!