Following up on this post by Blue Texan, can anybody name a point in the history of the Iraq war when Glenn Reynolds did not say that our strategy at the time was guaranteed success? Searchers can start with the times when the White House has clearly decided to change direction but the commanding Generals (e.g., Peter Pace) had not yet received their War with Eastasia! banners from the printer.
I’m just curious to know whether Reynolds or the rest of the diehard coterie have ever predicted that any of our dozens of notably non-successful strategies* would end in anything but glorious liberal-shaming victory. Because if I had an an unbroken record of wrongness stretching back to the first WMD arguments of 2003 then I would feel slightly sheepish about holding another gloating, self-congratulatory bloggasm.
(*) Using the word ‘strategy’ probably gives the Rumsfeld team credit that it doesn’t deserve. Bear with me.
***Update***
A glimmer of reality in 2006? The Kristol clan’s miracle elixir cured that.
***Update 2***
Let me explain why I’m doubtful that the recent decline in mortality counts as genuine progress. No, on second thought, I’ll let Thomas Ricks explain. I would add that ethnic cleansing necessarily cannot go on forever. Eventually the offending sect has essentially disappeared from a given neighborhood and the conflict switches to (1) intrasect conflict while different power centers vie for leadership, and then (2) the pitched territory battles that the civil war skeptics kept asking about. The surge just prolongs step (1). When our troops draw down to a token level, and readiness limitations guarantee that we soon will, the Shiites and Sunnis will start politely disagreeing over territory while the Kurds claim Kirkuk and then build a fence around it.
Pb
Slugger
For a couple of years, I have followed a rule of not clicking on the blogs of law school professors, and it has saved me much useful time on this earth. I propose another corollary to Godwin’s Law, Slugger’s principle: No Law School Professor is worth listening to.
Robert Johnston
Reynolds and his ilk look at the Iraq war like a sucker looks at a psychic giving a cold reading: Whatever they’re told, they only hear that which agrees with what they want to hear and they break reality to conclude that the vague and meaningless nothings that they hear are actually precise statements of their unvarnished fantasies. Everything that disagrees with their most orgasmic fantasies gets completely shut out.
What we have now is an entire movement that, in effect, truly believes that Reagan really should have gone full speed ahead with governing by astrology. We have a movement on the right of people addicted to being complete marks, just waiting again and again to be conned. So no, they never did believe that anything in Iraq wasn’t a profound success waiting for history’s judgment to come around.
Tsulagi
Give it up, Tim. Nothing will ever stick on these guys like the InstaIdiot. Every day is Groundhog Day for them. They awake reborn full of honor, integrity, and steely-eyed resolve to advance the Known Truth known to all true patriots in their message image.
The previous day’s brain-dead fuckups and predictions? Not even a memory. It’s a new day. Rinse and repeat.
jcricket
It’s too bad Putzie doesn’t use units of time for when things will “be determined” like Friedman does. We need a measure beyond “FUs” (friedman units, via atrios)
rawshark
I saw a National Geographic episode on life in N Korea recently. There was one scene where a woman was describing the dear leader Kim and she started crying, then all the citizens in the room started crying. When the interviewer asked if Kim had ever done anything wrong they stared, cocked their heads like puppies, blinked. The question wasn’t registering with them. You could see it. You could see the Crimestop in effect.
So to answer your question I say:
‘Indeed.’
BFR
If the primary goal is to extend & continue the war indefinitely, then any change in “strategy” which buys more time is by definition a success, right? By that standard, they’ve actually been correct every single time.
Zifnab
We have not had a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. Hence, Bush is an unparalleled genius and skilled tactician of the umpteenth degree.
Prove me wrong.
rawshark
If?
jcricket
You have this argument backwards and your question is all wrong. The conclusion is actually the premise, like so:
Uncle Kvetch
If the primary goal is to extend & continue the war indefinitely, then any change in “strategy” which buys more time is by definition a success, right? By that standard, they’ve actually been correct every single time.
You beat me to it. Winning is not leaving, because liberals want to leave, and enraging liberals is always the right thing to do.
jenniebee
They have varied it somewhat and at various times by proclaiming that our non-successful strategies have already ended in a glorious liberal-shaming victory. I’m not sure that counts, though.
les
I’d say we’ll have (relative) “calm” until the various sides figure they’ve gotten all the arms and training we will give them, then the civil war ramps up.
Gary Denton
Arming militias we were fighting just over a year ago, and groups with diametrically opposed ideals, cuts violence against us now while leaving a hellhole for the future. This is Instahack’s “guaranteed success” indeed.
OxyCon
Just remember one thing, Bush and all of his right wing apologists were AGAINST the “Surge” before they were FOR IT.
John Kerry campaigned in 2004 about increasing troop levels in Iraq because the situation there was deteriorating at alarming rates.
Bush and his right wing apologists arrogantly ridiculed Kerry for daring to say we needed more troops.
So you could also rightly say that many American troops were killed or gravely wounded in Iraq needlessly because Bush was too arrogant to increase troop levels back when it would have made more of a difference.
If Bush wants to claim the “Surge” a success because he somehow claims it was his idea, then the blame for all of the failures and deaths in Iraq between 2004 an today are squarely his fault for not “surging” back when John Kerry came up with the idea.
fahs ibair
Keep digging.
One of the new arguments coming out of the left goes something like “body counts are down because there is no one left to kill”.
Even Lancet style cooked numbers can’t show that. Toss few zeros on to the number of war refugees and maybe you have a case.
It has to suck to be cheering for defeat.
ksamiami
Dear Fahs Ibair:
Does anyone out there see some semblance of a functioning government in Iraq? Does anyone really know how long we will have to station our men and women in an area where temperatures routinely reach 120 (in the shade.) Liberals aren’t cheering for defeat, we just can’t seem to figure out how so-called conservatives define winning.
Anyone, Anyone, Bueller??
AnonE.Mouse
Don’t put down your bat without trying Balkinization,Slugger.
Tax Analyst
Well, that’s a real interesting point, especially since NOBODY in this thread has used that particular argument today. Maybe all the people you think tell us what to think and say have the day off.
Nevertheless, we certainly value your laser-like perceptive faculties and thank you for playing “Balloon Juice”. Unfortunately, you did not win, but as a consolation prize please accept this board game copy of our “Home Version”.
Maybe with some practice you’ll get the hang of making a cogent argument.
fishbane
Instaglenn has already explained it: he believes this is an information war, to be won or lost based on what people say about it. The bit about dead people, meh, well, gotta wave the hands a bit, and what would the terrorists think?
He’s actually been fairly consistent about the recent wars – “clap louder” is the only response that freedom loving people(tm) can offer. A related but different question is who, exactly, he thinks are enemies. The brilliance here is he can turn on a dime and support the exact opposite of what he supported last week, and enough fans will clap and vote him up in various blogsterbation polls, because he’s Fighting The Good Fight, and in information warfare, truth doesn’t matter. “More rubble, less trouble.” See? being emperically incorrect or contradicting yourself about what the goal is doesn’t matter if you can come up with a good slogan.
croatoan
We have not had a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. Hence, Bush is an unparalleled genius and skilled tactician of the umpteenth degree.
OK. President Bush, November 3, 2001 (emphasis added):
Another example, with the September 11 attacks, of when President Bush failed to prevent an attack and then failed to bring the people behind it to justice.
fahs ibair
Tx analyst: I will work on cogent, you can work on deduction.
Nice argument! BBIAB
incontrolados
Agreed. I would add that they will wait until November ’08 to begin the ramp-up.
Why do we publish when we have our elections? Why do we tell anyone who is in which party? We’re only telegraphing what to do.
searp
My definition of victory:
— get rid of Saddam
— make sure there are no WMD
My definition of defeat:
— stick around long enough to totally destroy the country