I we can't have an ex-soldier as CiC, can we at least have someone who knows how to play poker?

But Clarke isn't a party loyalist, so how can his words possibly be heard? They run a tight ship at that Politburo.

Tichman's "March of Folly" should be required reading for anyone looking to work in the foreign policy field. Hell, it should be required reading for everyone.

There's a cartoon from the Vietnam era in the book which sums up that folly, and I think Bush's Iraq folly. It shows Uncle Sam beating his head to bloody pulp against a brick wall labeled "Vietnam". Two Vietnamese are looking over the wall, and one is saying to other "He's trying to save face".

They did so because the personal consequences of admitting failure would be very high.

The problem with Iraq, as with Vietnam, is that the "They" is not just our government. It represents most of the people in this country.

Didn't you just say a few posts ago that the New Republic should be ignored at all costs on foreign policy questions especially where Iraq is concerned? Dost know this waterfly?

Just take first paragraph of Clarke piece where he makes common misrepresentation of facts often repeated here ie that American presence is causing more violence and therefore if americans leave violence will go down. This not the case: violence against americans contributes to the overall level of violence but what is likely to happen when/if americans leave is that that excess violence will be focused somewhere else and level of violence will either remain same or more likely increase because americans no longer there to control it.

Facts are not baubles of whimsy let loose to make you feel good about all the things you don't know and can't understand.

For the 2008 elections, could it be a political strategy for the Republican to pass Iraq on to the Democrats? In 1968, LBJ decided not to run for reelection. LBJ could not possibly end the Vietnam War in the short time after he decided not to run. Presumably he did not escalate it. George W and the Reepublicans have two years to close down or close out Iraq, with pressure from the Democrats in control of Congress. But what are the chances of George W and the Republicans "staying the course" to burden the Democrats politically if they are successful in 2008, thus positioning the Republicans for the 2010 mid-terms and 2012 to regain Congress and the Presidency. LBJ did not have two years when he was convinced that Vietnam was a quagmire. Then consider what Nixon did after winning in 1968, including escalation and expansion, which served Nixon well politically in 1972. The Republicans may have a plan to enhance them politically but at great cost to America.

LMAO @ the saint, who apparently thinks we are too dumb to discern that what he presents as fact is his own opinion. He also gets chutzpah bonus points for then lecturing us on the use of facts. Well played.

In The March of Folly, Barbara Tuchman documented repeated instances when leaders persisted in disastrous policies well after they knew that success was no longer an available outcome.

Nonsense Kevin. Our policies in Iraq are working successfully right now. Violence has dropped the last few months due to the policies of George W Bush.

Link

"Army Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said civilian and Iraqi security force casualties were at the lowest levels since the government was formed in May.

So far this month, the civilian casualty count is well below the casualty count in October and below the six-month average. The security force casualties reduced 21 percent over the past four weeks, and are at the lowest level in 25 weeks, he said.

"In Baghdad, there was a 22 percentage drop in casualties related to sectarian violence and executions," Caldwell said during a televised news conference. "Coalition forces will continue to work closely with the Iraqi government and Iraqi security forces to control the sectarian violence and terrorist attacks.""

Agreed with Shag. GWB's only hope now is to hand the mess off to a Dem so that he/she can take the blame, and the only way to ensure that the next Pres cannot fix things is to ratchet up the FUBAR an order of mag.

GWB is just doing daddy's Somalia play, but on a massively larger scale.

A key problem in this debate is that it is not too difficult to make a case that a) violence will increase if American troops leave or b) violence will decrease if American troops leave.

One thing that seems clear, however, is that those of you that support (a) must be willing to keep troops in Iraq for many, many years to come.

But Bush says that "We'll succeed unless we quit." And as with Vietnam, generations of right-wing pundits will blame their opposition for "losing the war" when the inevitable happens.

The function of the Baker-Hamilton Study Group is to give the Dems joint ownership of the debacle.

Facts are not baubles of whimsy let loose to make you feel good about all the things you don't know and can't understand.

This is a true statement. Shame the author of it doesn't know what the fuck it means.

I heard William Polk on NPR, who said that historically when foreign invaders leave behind insurgencies the sectarian violence peaks and then subsides quite quickly. He mentioned French Algeria as one example.

The idea that if the US leaves Iraq then violence will continue to escalate into something worse does not have much evidence to back it up. Even when the US left Viet Nam, there was very little of the purging and reign of terror the war pigs predicted.

The foreign invaders' presence elicits a violent response. When invaders leave that stimulus leaves with them. I think most of the population in these battle areas are very weary of the violence and will happily stop fighting each other once the primary antagonist leaves.

Barbara could be talking about the "decent interval strategy" that Nixon and Kissinger followed during their reign over the Vietnam fiasco. And Henry K. is also advising this White House. Notice a pattern?

At this point, it's no different from owning stock in a bust company. You can hope that it will come back and you'll look smart, but that's just hope. It ain't conna happen. Grownups admit they made a mistake, take the loss, and move on.

How I laugh when I remember the GOP supporters telling me in 2000 that now we were going to have some grownups running the government. If only.

Appropos of the holiday season, I'd be very happy if the new Dem congress could at least move debate foreward on the Republican "thank you card" meme.

What is that? Well, its this ridiculous argument that (i) assumes that not only is the foreign policy of the United States well intentioned (hmm. . . subject to debate but I would like to believe fundamentally accurate) but also (ii) that such foreign policy, as implemented, is such that every other country in the rest of the world should send the United States an annual "thank you" card. It follows that anyone who does not send a "thank you card," or, indeed, sends instead a "fuck you card" is a member of the "axis of evil" or some such construct.

The Republicans take this one to the bank constantly.

"What's this? Some Palestinians haven't sent us a thank you card because of our support of Isreal? Huh! The nerve! Anyone who supports those terrorists is a traitor."

"Excuse me? In some election in South America the candidate most closely aligned with the United States lost? No thank you card? Screw them! Anyone who supports those commie bastards is a traitor."

And on and friggen on.

I'm a realist, I mean, at least the Europoean Colonial powers really, officially did not give a rat's ass about the brown people affected by their colonial adventures. You have to at least acknoweldge that the Spanish figured that the conqured indians were not going to send a thank you card for wiping out their civilization.

But these days, there are common-sense foreign policy steps we could easily take which would, IMO, greatly reduce the number of people around the world currently pre-disposed to send us a "fuck you card," and yet, because the official republican foreign policy declares that there are no possible grounds for a "fuck you card" those steps are never ever discussed, let alone actually taken.

When invaders leave that stimulus leaves with them. I think most of the population in these battle areas are very weary of the violence and will happily stop fighting each other once the primary antagonist leaves.

As much as I want to believe that, I'm not sure that we're looking at a situation that resembles either Vietnam or Algeria.

Perhaps the situation is more akin to Lebanon: multiple groups and sub-groups, many of whom hate each other fiercely.

"Our policies in Iraq are working successfully right now. Violence has dropped the last few months due to the policies of George W Bush."

Excellent, Al. Thanks to the wisdom of his policies, Bush is killing your family members at a much lowser rate than ever before. Be sure to send him a list of cousins, just in case.

saintsimon on November 22, 2006 at 3:32 PM:

Didn't you just say a few posts ago that the New Republic should be ignored at all costs..

When did Richard Clarke get hired in as a regular columnist at TNR? I must have missed that...See, there's only one article listed in his online bio there...

..American presence is causing more violence..

Yes. Particularly with Americans pulling shit like this.

..therefore if americans leave violence will go down..

Against Americans, yes, it will.

..what is likely to happen..

Yes, sectarian violence will occur. Just as it is right now.

..what is likely to happen when/if americans leave is that that excess violence will be focused somewhere else..

What? There's a fixed amount of violence floating around, independent of causation? Or is it that scary brown people are just inherently violent?

"Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" and "Flypaper" are on their last legs, boyo.

Facts are not baubles of whimsy let loose to make you feel good about all the things you don't know and can't understand.

As if you do know or understand 'all the things', saintsimon. Puh-leeze.

George Washington was one of those guys who kept pushing disastrous military policies (head-on confrontation with the British) despite the overwhelming evidence that it would fail...I guess the difference is that he had some people close to him who eventually convinced him to change course, whereas Bush only has yes-men.

I guess the difference is that he had some people close to him who eventually convinced him to change course, whereas Bush only has yes-men.

George Washington had the advantage vis-a-vis George Bush that he possessed a modest intelligence.

Perhaps the situation is more akin to Lebanon: multiple groups and sub-groups, many of whom hate each other fiercely.

Thank you for bringing up Lebanon. During Lebanon's Civil War it was occupied by both Israel and Syria. When the occupiers left consociational democracy flourished. Violence may not have completely ended, but it did not escalate.

I guess the difference is that he had some people close to him who eventually convinced him to change course, whereas Bush only has yes-men.

George Washington had the advantage vis-a-vis George Bush that he possessed a modest intelligence.

I think you are both right in important and related ways: one of the things that Bush defenders in 2000 would sometimes say in response to challenges about his lack of foreign policy credentials was that Bush would surround himself with the best people and seek their advice.

Which, you know, for an intelligent leader without much in the way of personal qualifications in a policy area is what you would expect. The problem is Bush seems to lack the ability to judge advice on any basis besides how well it confirms what he intuitively believes is right to start with, thus his administration that was largely yes-men to start with has overtime narrowed itself to being entirely yes-men.

Just take first paragraph of Clarke piece where he makes common misrepresentation of facts often repeated here ie that American presence is causing more violence

As noted in the summary of the poll Kevin recently pointed to:

All Shias polled in Baghdad (100%) believe that the U.S. military presence is “provoking more conflict than it is preventing.”

Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us on the basis for your rejection of this as "misrepresentation"?

...declare that the United States seeks no permanent military bases in Iraq; gain permission from Kuwait to station additional combat units there to create an "over the horizon" capability to deal with terrorists in Iraq

...but, but what will Exxon/Mobil say?

What about our "interest in the region", you know, our "economic security", that black stuff?

It makes you wonder what the H*LL is wrong with Ford and GM, that they never tooled up for hydro cells vehicles, waiting instead for Toyota and Honda to take the leading market. So unlike the US, not have vision.

And maybe all we really needed is refineries that are not owned by big oil companies, if big oil is on the verge of running out of Mideast contracts, well then, no need for banks to play along.

Iraq and Bush/Cheney is how the Mideast finally won it's real independence because, finally, Americans witnessed what Bush was really all about, the oil and control of it, unholy and greedy, American citizens finally saw though Bush's "interest in the region" and the real reason why Bush hated Saddam.

The Mideast equivalent to the 4th of July, will be day American leaves Iraq, for finally, finally, they will make their own choices about their own rich resource, their oil, Western contractors need not apply.

It makes you wonder what the H*LL is wrong with Ford and GM, that they never tooled up for hydro cells vehicles, waiting instead for Toyota and Honda to take the leading market.

Toyota and Honda took the lead with hybrids; the American manufacturers were largely hooked on the farther-off ideas of hydrogen fuel cells, though they've started to get on the hybrid bandwagon a bit (though GM, IIRC, is still mostly "fuel cells or bust").

Some of the finer details of the folly under discussion elucidated:

-- Iraqi deaths have hit a new high. October's civilian death toll of 3,709 was up from 3,345 in September, according to Iraqi Health Ministry data. About 70 percent were in Baghdad. July's death toll of 3,590 had been the highest to date.

-- The report says worsening security and increasing poverty has caused "unparalleled" population movement. It estimates 100,000 people leave Iraq every month and more than 2 million people, about 8 percent of the population, have fled their homes since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. The monthly emigration is equivalent to a million Americans going abroad and a loss to the U.S. economy of a city the size of Detroit every four weeks.

-- Sectarian attacks are now the main source of violence in Iraq, eclipsing the three-year-old Sunni insurgency, and Baghdad is the epicentre. During September and October, 3,253 unidentified bodies were found in the capital, many the victims of death squads operating with the collusion of the police.

--- Iraq's 300,000-strong U.S.-trained security forces, which the government is pushing to take over more responsibility from U.S. forces, is unable to protect Iraqis and militias and criminal gangs are operating with growing impunity.

-- Caught in the crossfire, Iraqi journalists are increasingly becoming casualties. Eighteen have been killed in the last two months alone. Other professionals, intellectuals and academics have also been targeted, forcing many schools and universities to close and teachers and students to flee Iraq.

-- More women are becoming victims of religious extremists or "honour killings".

Very sharp thinking, and writing, by Clarke.

During Lebanon's Civil War it was occupied by both Israel and Syria. When the occupiers left consociational democracy flourished.

As I understand it, Lebanon's Civil War began before Syrian involvement, picked up considerably after Syria invaded (followed by Israel), and then eventually subsided into a fragile democracy, which took root well before the Syrians finally withdrew.

So, yes, there's some evidence that Lebanon may be a better "model" for Iraq.

My concern is that I don't think we've seen the bleakest period in Iraq yet (analogous to Lebanon during the 80s, which was sheer hell). Have the Shiites fully consolidated power? Are the Shiites basically letting us do their dirty work for them, and will ratchet things up against the Sunnis after we withdraw? Will the Sunni insurgents still fight like hell to salvage some remaining power for themselves? Will Turkey and Iran get involved in a serious, overt way?

I want us to get out. I just don't think it's convincing to say that things will subside very much after we leave.

Cheryl on November 22, 2006 at 4:37 PM:

It makes you wonder what the H*LL is wrong with Ford and GM, that they never tooled up for hydro cells vehicles..

This irritates me, because having worked at GM with various hydrogen-powered prototypes sitting literally in the next room, I know it's not true. And that was a few years ago.

An update, courtesy of CBS News:

GM Hydrogen-Fueled Car Hits Milestone

Engineers Make Drivable Version, But It's Years Away From Public Sale

General Motors Corp. has achieved a milestone in its quest to bring a hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicle to market, announcing that it now has a drivable version of its Sequel concept car.

The Sequel, which looks like a shrunken minivan and has a range of 300 miles.

The pollution-free technology holds the potential of zero emissions and a sustainable source of energy produced when hydrogen and oxygen are mixed. Experts say they could begin arriving in showrooms by 2020, or perhaps earlier.

But many obstacles exist including the high cost, relatively short range and a lack of fueling stations.

..Which are obstacles faced by any manufacturer, domestic or import. It would have been nice to be further along R&D-wise, but there wasn't the pressure to come up with a hydrogen solution 20 years ago...

There is no need to do that now. Everyone already knows who is to blame.

That's right -- Bill Clinton and the MSM!!!!1!!

I am wrong all the time -- why cant others admit when they are wrong?

Oh, yeh gotta keep them centrist fence sitting appearances up!!

BTW KEVIN,
YOU can't ban me!!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!

love and hate -AL

BAN AL

BAN AL

BANAL

BANAL!!!!

OKAY I am not AL..

Happy Dead Bird day!!

Windhorse:

"Iraqi deaths have hit a new high. October's civilian death toll of 3,709 was up from 3,345 in September, according to Iraqi Health Ministry data."

I just heard on the radio that the "Iraqi government" (I wonder who that actually is these days) is claiming:

1) those figures (given by the AP and UN) are erroneous, and

2) they were obtained illegally.

...which to me is something like OJ saying "I didn't do it, and even if I did you can't prove it."

Withdrawal from Iraq?

Why they would call us Chickens...

(Or is it that Turkeys?)

Gobble gobble gobble....

pdq, that is quite hilarious, in a sad kinda way.

'"Army Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said civilian and Iraqi security force casualties were at the lowest levels since the government was formed in May. So far this month, the civilian casualty count is well below the casualty count in October and below the six-month average. The security force casualties reduced 21 percent over the past four weeks, and are at the lowest level in 25 weeks, he said."'
--Al

I know how pointless it is to argue with Al or Fake Al or Kinda Fake Al since he/she/it never responds, but the post above at 3:37 p.m. irked me so much, I just couldn't let it go unchallenged. The real truth is that October was the deadliest month ever in Iraq for civilians. It is a hideous bloodbath that we created and to stay one more minute makes no sense whatsoever. Trying to make us feel guilty about pulling out of the middle of a civil war we have no business in only appeals to the feeble-minded.

Many countries have had to fight a civil war to find political equilibrium and maybe Iraq does too. Get the fuck out tomorrow!!!

The scary number in that UN finding is 2,000,000, the number of Iraqis that have fled the country. That's about 8% of the population.

If those numbers keep going up, we can't expect Iraq's neighbors to sit quiet. The lebanese let the Syrians occupy the country so that they would get rid of PLO. If Iraqi seperatist groups are forced to operate from outside the country, you might see some major trouble in the neighborhood.

George Washington was one of those guys who kept pushing disastrous military policies (head-on confrontation with the British) despite the overwhelming evidence that it would fail

I knew George Washington and George W. Bush is no George Washington.

Actually, George Washington's greatest victories were his brilliant retreats and escapes from the superior British forces. He preserved the army until we got foreign allies who could defeat the British with our help. George Washington knew how to fight, but what made him a truly great general was knowing when to fight. The contrast with our current Commander in Codpiece is obvious.

Agreed, and it's good to see many of the PResident's defenders finally telling the truth -- the country has become more important than the Republican party, finally.

Interesting to see that Shrub and al-Maliki have to meet at a neutral site - Neither will have home field advantage - However, it will allow Shrub to bring in the engineers from Gepetto, Industries to re-tune al-Maliki.

Everybody in the Republican party knows who to blame if the Democrats force a pull out.

It is naive to think the the Democrats can engineer a pullout without getting blammed for the defeat. You must not attribute intellectual honesty either to Republican politicians or to their rank and file.

The only way the Republicans will get the blame (the public's conventional wisdom kind of blame, not the historians' perspective)for thhe defeat is if they decide on the pullout.

Al: "Our policies in Iraq are working successfully right now. Violence has dropped the last few months due to the policies of George W Bush."

Brilliant! Brilliant!

TomB: "Actually, George Washington's greatest victories were his brilliant retreats and escapes from the superior British forces."

I agree with you on one major point -- George W. Bush is certainly no George Washington, but rather a near-lethal combination of James Buchanan, Warren Harding and Richard Nixon.

But let's be honest; as a military tactician, George Washington had his occasional brain farts.

For one, his insane insistence on protecting New York in 1776 by parking his entire army on the south shore of Long Island nearly led to his entire force getting bagged -- and that would have effectively been the end of the rebellion.

Only an ill wind kept the British fleet from sailing up the Hudson and East Rivers, thus cutting off the Americans' retreat from British forces that had landed in their rear.

As long as we're in Iraq Syria and Iran will have common cause against us. Once we leave they will be looking after their own interests in Iraq. If we stay until some kind of stabilization is in place it will only be achieved through the common interest of Syria and Iran and that won't happen until we've been exceptionally injured by our presence there and have to pull out whether we like it or not. In that circumstance there would be a kind of stability achieved, but a stability of realpolitik wholly at our expense.

If we were to pull out arbitrarily and all at once it would seem it would in the short term create greater disorder as Iran and Syria jockey one another but I cannot see how they would think a really large bloodbath would be helpful. To support their self-image as the local hero each side will work toward a stability of one kind or another and achieve it

--but this can only be done in the complete absence of US involvement.

Consequently it seems to me the only decent thing to do, and the only thing that would support our own self-interest, would be to pull out precipitately, embassy and everything, and then studiously ignore the whole thing.

Pay no attention to Iraq ever again.

Seymour Hersh reported almost a year ago that Bush has a religious-like commitment to staying the course in Iraq and that even other Republicans can’t sway him. Impeachment and removal of this mentally insane crusader is what is needed and Cheney along with him. If this isn’t a president for whom the impeachment clause in the Constitution was written, I shudder to think what that president might look like….

If Bush had announced a withdrawal of troops two months ago, the Republicans would likely have maintained oontrol of Congress. The personal consequences to Bush of NOT admitting failure were very high. This is the opposite of the situation postulated by Clarke.

BTW you pessimists may be right that the terrorists will prevail and defeat Iraqi democracy, but it's not clear to me that there's absolutely no hope. Powerline blog makes the following point:

"The United Nations said Wednesday that 3,709 Iraqi civilians were killed in October, the highest monthly toll since the March 2003 U.S. invasion and another sign of the severity of Iraq's sectarian bloodbath. That compares to an estimated 3,500 killed in July. "

If 3,709 people were murdered in October, that translates to a rate of 171 per 100,000. That is a high rate of violent death. But, for purposes of comparison, the murder rate in Washington, D.C. in 1991 was 80 per 100,000. So the rate of violence in Iraq today is just over double the rate in the District during the first Bush administration.

Hate to disparage Captain Quegg of the Caine as he was a combat veteran who burned out and was not supported by his men, but I do suspect that Shrub will be asking the Secret Service to find the strawberry culprit any day now. In addition, fully expect Shrub to start rolling marbles in his right hand as he speaks to the press.

Yeah, good old Powerline and faux-lib are on the ball - In Washington DC for 1991, there were 482 murders or 1.3 per day for the year, slightly more than, say Crawford, Texas.
In October, there were 123 people killed per day for the entire month.

Yeah, 1.3 is roughly half of 123 over in Never Never Land. New math and Leave No Trool Behind make a marvelous combination.

Someone name of ex-liberal>

If 3,709 people were murdered in October, that translates to a rate of 171 per 100,000. That is a high rate of violent death. But, for purposes of comparison, the murder rate in Washington, D.C. in 1991 was 80 per 100,000. So the rate of violence in Iraq today is just over double the rate in the District during the first Bush administration.

This is so silly it should not even be worth addressing, but I believe your statistic uses a figure of 3,709 per month while using a Washington DC statistic of "80 per 100,000" for the year of 1991. There were 482 murders in Washington DC during the entire year of 1991, in fact, and it is curious as to why you didn't say that outright.

Ah, you are being somewhat dishonest in your application of statistics, yes? Well, 3,709 in a month is quite a big more than 482 in a year

No, Captain Sensible refuses to parse this further; if 3,079 people were murdered in any American city in the course of 30 days, that would be beyond current belief in this country and it would raise a hue and cry; only the attacks of 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina approach such devastating numbers.

Please, have a seat in the shade and cool your jets, murder statistic person. Were the truth to suddenly arrive where you are, there would be a jolt that would probably blow your socks clean off.

There

Someone name of thethirdPaul>

You have an eye for the details and Captain Sensible respects your ability to trump him with lightning fast reflexes that make a snarling, toothy troll wander back into his cave to find rancid meat to nibble on.

[I see that two fine regulars beat me to this]

ex-liberal, don't embarrass yourself by posting that desperate, equivocating bullshit from Powerline.

First of all, twice the murder rate of D.C's worst year ever, a real outlier, would alone be enough to squelch your comparison. Twice of the worst of the worst and getting worse is a fucking lot. Powerline really had to dig for that figure, and quite shamelessly.

But consider that Baghdad has more murders in a week than D.C. had that entire year. In fact, there were nines times as many killings last month alone in Baghdad than D.C. had in all of 1991.

Further, the Baghdad morgue admits they don't capture all the deaths, as the remains of bombing victims in particular are usually claimed at the scene. So the true rate is even higher.

Then consider that D.C. in '91 wasn't plagued by daily car bombs, market bombs, cafe bombs, mortar rounds, rocket attacks, mass kidnappings, targeted assassinations, and pitched gunbattles. People weren't routinely evicted from their homes by thugs for having the wrong religious convictions. Schools weren't closed because they were too dangerous, and teachers weren't being killed by the hundreds. Unemployment wasn't 50% and people didn't wait in line a day for cooking fuel or have four hours of electricity a day -- et al.

So clearly, a thinking person can see there is no comparison, which of course precludes the desperate dead-enders at Powerline. For some perspective, do you want to know what our national murder rate was last year?

5.6

That 40 times less than Baghdad.

By the way, even true believer Kissinger admits democracy is no longer possible in Iraq. You should at least try and keep up with the talking points.

Al and ex-lib, suck on this while waiting for your transport to Iraq, from tonight's Times:

"U.N. Reports Deadliest Month in Iraq
By SABRINA TAVERNISE 7:05 PM ET

According to the report, 3,709 Iraqis were killed in October, up slightly from the previous all-time high in July."

Hey, it's just the librul MSM, so I'm sure you'll be perfectly safe over there. Have you left yet?

Captain Sensible - do the math. Iraq has a population of around 26 million. A monthly rate of 3708 times 12 = 44,496 per year. 44496*100,000/26,000,000 = 171

In short, the 3708 monthly number of deaths was a basis for an annual death rate.

clarke seems to be referring to FDR in 1943.

thing is, everyone is in a frenzy to identify where we are on the spectrum of victory/defeat. based mostly on hearsay from reporters in hotel rooms, dependent on iraqi stringers with suspect allegiances.

listen to the soldiers, they have a finger on the pulse.

go to milblogging.com

Captain Sensible - do the math. Iraq has a population of around 26 million. A monthly rate of 3708 times 12 = 44,496 per year. 44496*100,000/26,000,000 = 171

26 million live in the city of Baghdad? No, you tried to compare a country to a city, a month to a year, a rate for a country with 26 million to a US city with a population of 500,000.

Your math is worthless and your analysis is silly beyond belief.

Captain Sensible has driven through Washington DC before, and, no, there were no IEDs or a hail of bullets directed his way.

No, the traffic cameras are no comparison, nor are the potholes or the wandering tourists. They are no comparison.

There is no comparison. Rancid meat is stored somewhere in your cave, little troll, and it is lonely for you, so good evening and enjoy some Thanksgiving. Give Thanks that you are not being slaughtered in Iraq right now.

Apparently, the commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps is one of those who thinks we have been in Iraq a little too long. You suppose this could mean something???

Captain Sensible, are you aware that Saddam is estimated to have killed between 1 million and 2 million Iraqis during his reign? In other words, 3708 Iraqis killed was a normal month during Saddam's long reign.

I don't like the situation in Iraq, and it may get much worse. But, I know that the US has done good for Iraq. They now have some hope; under Saddam they had none.

Despite Clarke's conservative social policy positions, I believe it would be smart for those of us on the left, as well as those on the right, to listen to him. He hasn't been wrong on anything that I can recall re: Iraq / Afganistan / war on terror in general.

Fuckbutt:

"But, I know that the US has done good for Iraq. They now have some hope; under Saddam they had none."

Hope is a thing without feathers Fuckbutt... not a thing without electricity.

But don't get me wrong...
Iraq will have served its purpose if we can export all of our republicans there.
Beginning with Bush and ending with you.
To Iraq with you all!

I say:
Give these r-dogs a rifle, a camo suit, seven league boots, and a one way ticket to Iraq!

Now!

And yes I am serious.
There is nothing wrong with America that exporting our Repugs to Iraq can't fix.

[PS I'll hang a little magnetic ribbon around the old tail pipe for ya'll...]

Poor sad fellow who is ex-liberal>

Captain Sensible, are you aware that Saddam is estimated to have killed between 1 million and 2 million Iraqis during his reign? In other words, 3708 Iraqis killed was a normal month during Saddam's long reign.

Since we removed him, the killing should have stopped, correct?

Somehow, it hasn't. Somehow, equating a previous evil to justify a continuing evil makes you look as silly as you are. Somehow, six more months will go by and nothing will have changed, except the killing will continue.

Why so quick to abandon your math and try to horrify with big numbers that can't be verified? Have you decided to stop being honest altogether or are you merely tired of chewing bones for their marrow in your cave?

What's your point, Captain S.?

The Good Captain,

In horse racing, apprentice jockeys are given a weight break of 5 pounds - This is to help them ride against journeymen jockeys.
Now, how much of a weight break do you think Schaife has given the faux-Lib for his work against journeyman? They keep sending younger and dumber to peck away on the keyboards - Reminds me of Hitler Youth being thrown into the line late in WW11 - So, this latest Shrub Youth appears to be barely out of diapers.
As he contemplates on whether to apply for the Metro Police in DC or see his nearest US Marine Corps recruiter - Of course, the leathernecks are still looking for a few good men - Have they lowered their standards for Shrub Youth with GTs under 90? Seems more like a Semper Hi kid, than a Semper Fi guy.

http://billroggio.com/archives/2006/11/the_anbar_tribes_vs.php

The sooner we leave, the sooner we can abandon the people who have come to cooperate with us. Al Anbar province is a significant loss for al Qaeda, though it hasn'tyet been completely lost by them.

Poor marley marler matty m>

Bill Roggio has been right about exactly nothing in this war, paid off by DoD and Pajamas Media, a man who has advocated this war and tried to write about it in infinite detail.

You could go travel through the archives on his blog now, and come back with any one thing he was correct about and it still wouldn't add up to more than a handful of sand.

Trotting out poor wrong Bill Roggio means nothing in polite society anymore. You might want to avail yourself of a bit of Juan Cole and see where you might learn a thing or two worth a discussion. Poor Marley, your ghost couldn't stir poor Scrooge even a month before Christmas.

Poor ex-liberal>

What's your point, Captain S.?

You ran from your own numbers as fast as you can, but those concrete shoes couldn't get you far, poor ex-liberal.

Matthew, al Qaeda is pretty much incidental to what's taking place in Iraq right now. It never was nearly as much of a player as both they and the Bush administration hyped them up to be. Nor was Iraq getting overwhelmed with foreign fighters, although that was the story that the Bush administration tried to push for a while. So forgive me if I'm not particularly impressed by your link to a story that isn't much more than a sideline to the main story.

Yeah, Captain Very Sensible,

Sorta some kinda difference between in bed and imbed - Geez, no morning roll call and DoD still pays the freight. Love the trools when they send right wing sites to "verify" their positions.

ex-liberal wrote: "Captain Sensible, are you aware that Saddam is estimated to have killed between 1 million and 2 million Iraqis during his reign? In other words, 3708 Iraqis killed was a normal month during Saddam's long reign."

You still don't know anything about math or about Iraqi history, do you? Take away the Iran-Iraq war and take away the uprising that followed the first Gulf war, ex-liberal. And then do the math. Here's a free hint: it won't be anywere even remotely close to 3,708 deaths per month.

"But, I know that the US has done good for Iraq. They now have some hope; under Saddam they had none."

And they really don't have much now, or haven't you been paying attention to the recent polls and to the mass exodus of Iraqis?

Come back when you've actually done your homework, because right now, you're just embarrassing yourself.

And, just for the record ex-liberal, the sentence, "Saddam is estimated to have killed between 1 million and 2 million Iraqis during his reign," is grossly inaccurate.

Shorter ex-lib:

Can't we just wait until it gets a lot worse?

George Washington had the advantage vis-a-vis George Bush that he possessed a modest intelligence.

And the diplomatic skills to get the French to do most of the heavy lifting.

"All wars are lost or won before the fighting begins" Sun Tzu over 2000 years before Vietnam.

Or consider Graham Green's "the Quiet American" which predicted the next twenty years of history in Vietnam, as early as 1952.

In the field of civics it a common notion that social norms and ideologies are based upon belief systems, and those are based upon widely shared social experiences - meaning you can chop off the head of a despotic regime and expect a democracy to grow in its place.

Also remedial in the field of civics is the notion of moral authority versus coercive authority.

The former is slow to accumulate but is inexpensive to wield. The latter is expediant to wield but is prohibitively expensive to wield. Also the more coercive power you use, the less potential coercive power you have: you burn coercive power; but also when you burn coercive power you burn your stor of moral authority as well. Meaning extended use of coercive authority leads to bankruptcy, both moral and finincial.

In the 1980s Paul Kennedy had a best selling book titled "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers" documenting the last half millenium of great power geopolitics, demonstrating the point of the futility of expending coercive authority.

The British lasted a long time being mindful about all of this. Its only when Gandhi called their bluff about the extensive use of coercive authority would cost the British in terms of both their store of coercive power and their store of moral authority.

All this is remedial civics. The republicans just farted in the face of all these simple concepts.

"Under accelerating incompetence in America, this may change. Social systems can survive a good deal of folly when circumstances are historically favorable, or when bungling is cushioned by large resources or absorbed by sheer size as in the United States during its period of expansion. Today, when there are no more cushions, folly is less affordable." Barbara Tuchman "The March of Folly"

I'm of the opinion that incompetence is accelerating because we've become, in all essential ways, a oligarchy of the rich and their born-on-third-base kids. Intelligence or competence is trumped at all times by winning the birth lottery.

To think that because I am not pleased with

my government invading a mildly hostile country,

I am deemed an enemy.

Iraq is about profits.

Prophets say rulers who use force usually

die (whither away) by the sword.

Stability anywhere, hinges on cooperation.

I believe my country has forgotten the meaniong of cooperation.

Coercive and subversive, my country

Land of corporate glee...

ex-lib:" do the math. Iraq has a population of around 26 million. A monthly rate of 3708 times 12 = 44,496 per year. 44496*100,000/26,000,000 = 171"

all the action on this thread was over last night, but okay, I have a few minutes before I have to stuff the turkey.

Let's assume that the annual death rate in Iraq is indeed a nicely decontextualized 171 lives per 100,000. Wouldn't that work out to the equivalent--adjusted for the population of the US--of 513,000 Americans per annum?

Off to the bird...

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Up to six car bombs killed at least 133 people in a Shiite militia stronghold in Baghdad on Thursday, in one of most devastating such attacks since the U.S. invasion.

The Sadr City blasts destroyed whole streets, leaving bloodied remains amid mangled vehicle wrecks. Fierce fires were left blazing after the attacks.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15866123/

On second thought, this is just like D.C. in '91.

"At Least 144 Killed in Attacks in Baghdad
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 22 minutes ago

Police report that suicide bombings and mortar attacks on Sadr City, Baghdad's Shiite slum, killed 144 and wounded 236."

Congratulations, Al. It gets better and better. Got your ticket yet? Hawk, you've signed up, haven't you?

By the way, since you guys don't seem to quite get this, when they say 'killed', they mean those people are dead, done—you know, fathers and wives and children who are never coming back! And all because of "the excellent policies of George W. Bush", a man who has never shed a tear in his adult life about anything except his own sorry, alcoholic ass.

Thank you, Matthew R Marler, for informing us on this day of Thanksgiving about the three US Marines in Anbar, who will not be able to see this day or any other. Your concern is deeply appreciated.

If the '60s was a terrible decade for you, mhr, well you were just in the wrong place. Sorry if you never got laid, man. By the way, you could still go to Vietnam and kill people, if you really must. Although the punishments ARE a bit draconian over there.

The beauty of ignorance is that it allows people like ex-liberal to hold on to their opinions...

Well, if 150 people were violently killed in Baghdad today, per ex-lib's math surely 75 people will be murdered in DC today....

That people like ex-lib exist is proof that God has abandoned us.

mhr wrote: "But the difficult part is recognizing the disastrous policy in the first place."

Not really. Quite a few of us recognized the Iraq policy for the disaster that it was well before we invaded. That we have been proved right is small comfort, though, given the damage that has been done.

"Democrats have no clue to this day how disastrous their War on Poverty was,"

LOL.... I just love statements like these because it immediately identifies the writer as someone not worth taking seriously.

"what a terrible decade the 1960's was,"

Q.E.D.

"Now Democrats want to abandon Iraq because a few thousand killers want us out."

No, we want to leave Iraq because a) there is no chance that we can achieve anything like our current goals there, much less the goals we had going in; b) a sizeable majority of Iraqis want us out; c) a sizeable majority of Americans want us out; d) our presence there is part of the problem, which means that it is highly unlikely, regrettably, that we can be the solution; e) we lack the troops and equipment necessary to accomplish anything significant; f) the situation continues to deteriorate despite our best efforts. I could keep going but since you're not listening, anyway, I'll not bother.

"Democrats haven't learned a thing."

Actually, we have, which is why we're pushing for withdrawal. The person who hasn't learned, I'm afraid, is you. You're still hopelessly mired in the past, a past that you're viewing through a distorted lens.

Captain Sensible, are you aware that Saddam is estimated to have killed between 1 million and 2 million Iraqis during his reign? In other words, 3708 Iraqis killed was a normal month during Saddam's long reign.
Posted by: ex-liberal on November 22, 2006 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINK

Your death figures are wildly off. You've lumped in the 8 year Iran Iraq war, plus the Gulf War One figures. It would be like including the casualties the Russians took fighting the Germans in WWII and attributing them to Stalin's gulag. War deaths at the hand of an invading army and political deaths are not the same thing.

It does not surprise me that a conservative can't quote honest numbers. I mean look at all the baloney they claimed about tax cuts paying for themselves and the sustainability of the medicaide drug benefit.

It's all so much faith based math.

Democrats have no clue to this day how disastrous their War on Poverty was, what a terrible decade the 1960's was, what a mistake it was for the US to abandon Vietnam with the millions of dead that led to both in Vietnam and in Cambodia. Now Democrats want to abandon Iraq because a few thousand killers want us out. Democrats haven't learned a thing.
Posted by: mhr on November 23, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

mhr,
You've really sucked up every far right myth under the sun and smacked it into a short paragraph.

Some corrections:

1. War on Poverty. A lot of far right propaganda has been printed on this topic. Honest thinkers have concluded that the specific policy objectives in the WoP worked. The problem was that LBJ could not spend on the Vietnam War and on the WoP without triggering an inflationary cycle. The irony in all this is that Bush has managed to do the same thing with Iraq War and his War on Taxes. He has triggered an inflationay cycle and it has only been massive intervention from the Chinese central bank that has prevented US interest rates from going sky high. The minute this no longer serves China's interests watch out. Bush's fiscal policies have placed America's economic stability in the hands of foreigners.

2. Vietnam and Cambodia. Hummmm. Are you blind? The Vietnam I see today is America's strategic ally in the region against the Chinese and ready to open the door for trade. I am sorry for the suffering of the Vietnamese Catholics who got screwed at the end of the war, I knew many of them at my High School. Unfortunately their leaders did a great job alienating the buddhist majority in the South for the entire time the Republic of Vietnam was around. Sometimes you pay for the mistakes of your leaders. Ask the Germans.
As for Cambodia it's just silly for a conservative to try and pin it on anybody but themselves. Because it was Nixon and Kissenger (republicans) who authorized the massive bombing (unpresendented bombing actually) of the Cambodian villages next to the Vietnamese border. It was the bombing the led these villagers to back the Khamer Rouge, who up until then had been rather unpopular fringe element. Nixon and Kissenger destroyed Cambodia's traditional village leaders when they bombed the shit out of the area. The Khemer Rouge filled the vaccuume. We also know that at the time no one knew how twisted Pol Pot was or what he would do. It never comes up in any of the internal Pentagon memos and Nixon had no plan to put troops into Cambodia, outside of border incursions. Incidently, Mhr, do you know who brought down the Pol Pot regime? ... The North Vietnamese Army which invaded in 1978 and occupied Cambodia until 1989. Kind of undermines the whole rationale for American involvement in the region in the first place. I mean if the communists are going to fight each other for nationalist reasons, then why do we have to put ourselves in the middle? Maybe in Vietnam nationalism was more important than communism? Just as many liberal advisors had warned LBJ and Nixon. The historical facts speak for themselves.

As for your Iraq comment all I can say is when has it ever been right to base your strategy on what your ennemy wants. Iran wants us in Iraq. The Shia militias want us in Iraq. Al Queda wants us in Iraq. We are doing such a great job pleasing our strategic ennemies and yet you want to make them happy? Trust the wisdom of the American people on this. Strategic retreat is often the pre-requisite for great victory. After all it was the retreat from Vietnam that freed America up for winning the final phase of the cold war. Retreat and defeat are two different things only histories failures hold a position at any cost. Just ask General Friedrich Paulus.

Per ex-liberals' comments: If 3,709 people were murdered in October, that translates to a rate of 171 per 100,000. That is a high rate of violent death. But, for purposes of comparison, the murder rate in Washington, D.C. in 1991 was 80 per 100,000. So the rate of violence in Iraq today is just over double the rate in the District during the first Bush administration.

Anything can be done with stats... but I'm not sure those numbers are accurately describing the death toll in Iraq due to the invasion. One has to take in not only to murders from sectarian violence, but also add in overall death rate attributable to coalition forces prescence, which that number does not include. Also, much of the official reported death toll is actually under-reported - we're talking essentially a third world country with limited resources and non-functioning central government, to keep track of any central data source. How can we trust any numbers that rely on Iraqi gov's "reports" during a time of war?

In addition, the violence is more pronounced in certain areas - so if we wanted to describe just the death toll in the city of Baghdad compared to DC, versus all of Iraq compared to DC, the rate can only be much higher, not just 'double'.

Here's a different breakdown on numbers - Johns Hopkins study has found "that the death toll in Iraq following the US-led invasion has topped 655,000 - one in 40 of the entire population..." this is one of the higher estimates but was based on door-to-door reporting of violence-attributed deaths from war. If this stat is accureate, than this equates to 937 deaths for every 100,000 per year since the start of the U.S. war... approx. 400% more than number that ex-liberal quotes! (See my math below) - this is not the best math I'm using but obviously we can come to very different conclusions when quoting 'official' stats.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1920166,00.html

*The Math: The JH study says one in 40 death toll translates to 2500 for every 100,000 over the length of the war, so counting since coalitions forces invaded, approx. 2.6667 years and that adds to 937 deaths for every 100,000 per year.

Whatever the math might be, the whole thing is a total cock-up on every possible level, and the idea of fostering more murder to justify others is unforgivable. Guys like al and mhr are abetting crimes and floating feeble rationalizations, knowing that people like us will stop what we're doing to explain it to them—and they laugh at us because we're interested in being good citizens.

We have to find a way to sweep past these clowns and get back to the challenge of (maybe) saving the planet.

"Democrats haven't learned a thing."

Hmm... let's see... off the top of my head:

1. Don't go into a war without adequate planning for what happens afterward.

2. Don't go into a war until you have adequately and completely weighed the costs and the risks, both short-term and long-term, against the benefits, both short-term and long-term.

3. Don't go into a war with insufficient force to achieve both the short-term and long-term objectives.

4. Don't go into a war without clear goals.

5. Don't go into a war without a clear exit strategy.

6. Don't lie and distort in order to get public support for a war, because when the truth comes out, as it inevitably will, the American public will turn on you and on the war.

7. Don't minimize the cost of a war, in casualties, in dollars, or in years, because when the truth comes out, as it inevitably will, the American public will turn on you and on the war.

8. Don't pretend that all is going well when it clearly is not. When the truth comes out, as it inevitably will, the American public will turn on you and on the war.

9. Don't place ideology above competence, experience, and education when hiring people to manage, well, anything.

10. There are times when the objectives you seek are simply not attainable. When that happens, you have no choice but to withdraw and move on. You can either do this early, saving money and lives, or you can do it late, but the outcome will be the same either way.

I think that will do for a start. There are other lessons that the Bush administration should have learned, but if they had learned these few simple ones, we would not be where we are today and the Republicans would most likely still control Congress.

This is really bad news. It describes an incident in state of civil war in Iraq. Note the effect that the shelling of the Sunnis' holiest shrine in Baghdad, the Abu Hanifa mosque" is going to have.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2675880

BAGHDAD, Iraq Nov 23, 2006 (AP)— Five car bombs and two mortar rounds struck the capital's Shiite Sadr City slum Thursday, killing at least 160 people and wounding 257 police said. The attack by suspected Sunni Arab militants was the deadliest on a sectarian enclave since the war began and Shiites quickly struck back.

Soon after the onslaught, Shiite militants fired 10 mortar rounds at the Sunnis' holiest shrine in Baghdad, the Abu Hanifa mosque in the Azamiya neighborhood, killing one person and wounding 14. A 3-foot hole was blown in the dome and some inside rooms sustained severe damage.

Eight mortar rounds later slammed into the top Sunni organization in Iraq, the Association of Muslim Scholars, but caused no casualties, police said.

Fighting also flared in another part of Baghdad when 30 Sunni insurgents armed with machine guns and mortars attacked the Shiite-controlled Health Ministry. The attackers were repulsed after a three-hour battle, during which Iraqi soldiers and U.S. military helicopters intervened. At least seven ministry guards were wounded, police 1st Lt. Maitham Abdul-Razaq said.

Al: "Our policies in Iraq are working successfully right now. Violence has dropped the last few months due to the policies of George W Bush."

"This is really bad news. It describes an incident in state of civil war in Iraq."

Yup, and this is despite the elevated troop levels in Baghdad and the determined push on the part of our military to quell the violence there (at the expense of other locations in Iraq). This really sucks. 20,000 extra troops just isn't going to cut it. Damn that idiot in the White House.

"Damn that idiot in the White House."

Sometimes makes you wish we were the kind of country that held its leaders accountable, dunnit?
I know, I know: that notion is as quaint as the Geneva Conventions.

Nemesis wrote: Your death figures are wildly off. You've lumped in the 8 year Iran Iraq war, plus the Gulf War One figures. It would be like including the casualties the Russians took fighting the Germans in WWII and attributing them to Stalin's gulag. War deaths at the hand of an invading army and political deaths are not the same thing.

Nemesis, Saddam started both those wars. So, attributing the Iraqi war deaths to Saddam is like attributing the German deaths in WW2 to Hitler. That seems fair to me.

Math=Love: Most people consider that Johns Hopkins study to be totally bogus.

This from Al: "The security force casualties reduced 21 percent over the past four weeks, and are at the lowest level in 25 weeks,"
This from BBC: "An indefinite curfew is in place in Baghdad after what has been described as the worst attack on Iraq's capital since the US-led invasion of 2003."

Who do you believe?
Message to Al: what are you achieving with this bullshit?

"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
-- John F. Kennedy

There's no question that things suck in Iraq. I don't know whether or not the democratic government has the will and ability to survive. But, I stand with JFK that we should give great emphasis to spreading liberty. Most of today's liberals are unwilling to bear much of a burden to assure the success of liberty. That's why I'm an ex-.

BTW lots of posters here seem happy to blame Bush for destroying a supposedly better status quo under Saddam. Maybe so. But, we should be clear. The people committing the murders are the worst elements in Iraq -- al Qaeda, Saddamists, al Sadrists.. If we and the Iraqi government lose, it will mean that the worst elements within Iraq will take over the country. They will win because they're the cruelest; they're the most willing to commit brutal murders of innocent civilians. That disturbs me.

Somehow the civilized world needs to find a way to promote progressive, modern governments in the rest of the world.

"Somehow the civilized world needs to find a way to promote progressive, modern governments in the rest of the world."

I know, let's make up lies about people and the kill them. That should do the trick nicely.

But seriously, if you can get past the fake argument of Saddam-vs-now, you might be able to see how we got into this mess. Then you could drop your sweeping pronouncements about about what other people don't believe and try to solve the mess your less intelligent friends created.

ex-liberal:

you're right that "Somehow the civilized world needs to find a way to promote progressive, modern governments in the rest of the world." The problem is that that's an easy sentiment, and a hard job. In almost any real estimation, the occupations of Japan and Germany after World War II, and the rebuilding of democratic institutions in those countries, were much simpler affairs than the occupation or Iraq and the building from scratch of democratic institutions.

Yet in neither Germany nor Japan did the U.S. government rely on being greeted as liberators, or on carrying out the work of governance and institution-building with a skeleton staff. The planning for those occupation began two to three years in advance, they were well-financed and well-equiped, and they took a long time.

Conversely, by most accounts, relatively little thought was given to the post-war occupation of Iraq, even as the war was launched, projections of the duration of an occupation and its cost in dollars and man-hours were based on almost ridiculously rosy estimates, and the architects of the plan seem to have known very little about Iraqi society.

So, by all means, support those who desire to promote progressive government, even if it means tearing down a repressive government in order to clear the field for the type of government you support. But you might want to limit your support to those who have a detailed plan in place, who are willing to commit the resources necessary for the time necessary, and who understand that creating democratic institutions and a civil society from scratch are much more difficult tasks than returning a society and its political culture to a civil democratic tradition which it had already developed on its own. You can't do this on a wish and a prayer, which, when you come right down to it, was the basis of this administration's plan for transforming Iraq.

Of course, progressive governance begins at home. But with this crowd, what's good enough to export is highly suspect within our own borders. Maybe that bears looking at for libertarians and genuine conservatives.

For the crackpots, gangsters, and morons currently in charge (but less so every day), the discussion is pointless. They've never heard of the Enlightenment and don't know anything about democratic traditions. What they offer is just another variation on liberating the Sudetenland.

Right on, Nemesis.

Most impressive précis.

(I knew if I fiddled around long enough I'd figure out how to insert accents here.)

Cheryl wrote:

"The Mideast equivalent to the 4th of July, will be day American leaves Iraq, for finally, finally, they will make their own choices about their own rich resource, their oil, Western contractors