Yes, out. But I think we need to leave just a hard-core coterie behind to defend our interests. Real never-say-die optimistic tough guys like, let's say, Al, egbert, ex-liberal, and mhr. Special ops? This would be Special-Ed Ops. Led by Dubya himself, and fully funded by congress, with the entire staff of Fox News on hand to cheerlead, there's no way anything can go wrong. And, if it does, hey, there will always be someone around who simply refuses to believe it.

I find your lack of firmness and desire to withdraw prematurely disturbing. What the United States needs is to add an extra 3 divisions, and then the ladies around the world will come to us.

But what about the oil? That's what all this is really about.

I say we take up V1agra Bob's suggestion, and add three more divisions, consisting entirely of chickenhawks and others like-minded who are totally gung-ho about risking other people's lives.

What say you, Al and egbert? You tough guys ready to give it up for Curious George and the Big Dick?

What ever happened to your position that we should stay in Eye-Rack in order to teach this country a lesson they didn't learn after Vietnam?

Kevin, I love your posts, but isn't "violent jihadism" just a tad redundant? Or are there peaceful holy wars?

We do need to get out, just as we need to end the assault on the Bill of Rights, and the effort to bankrupt the federal government, and the effort to block desperately needed measures to deal with climate change, and the effort to replace all nonpolitical federal employees with wingnut hacks, etc.

However all of these things are symptoms, not the disease. The more basic problem is that the executive branch is in the hands of a criminal cabal, who also control one of the two major political parties.

More fundamentally, we have a species of political discourse that is divorced from reality and unable to distinguish between transparent, self-serving magical thinking, on the one hand, and hard truths on the other.

Our need to get out of Iraq is immediate. But our need to deal with reality generally is critical. I don't know that we have the luxury of waiting another two years to start on it.

Kevin, I love your posts, but isn't "violent jihadism" just a tad redundant? Or are there peaceful holy wars?

I am no expert on any religion, much less Islam, but jihad in the religious context does have much more benign and actually quite lofty meaning, to wit, the struggle, without any violence, that every human being has to personally enegage within oneself to become a really nice and compassionate person totally dedicated to godliness.

Why do you hate America?

Our goal is to establish a functioning democracy in Iraq, and that is what the surge will accomplish. We shouldn't leave before then.

As for putting more resources into Pakistan and Afghanistan - those countries are already democracies, and don't need our help.

jihad in the religious context does have much more benign and actually quite lofty meaning, to wit, the struggle, without any violence, that every human being has to personally enegage within oneself to become a really nice and compassionate person totally dedicated to godliness.

Yeah, I guess if you smear enough lipstick on that pig you could come up with something like that definition. There's also that other manifestation of "jihad" that's been in the news lately.

Check out this excerpt from Christopher Hitchens'
new book on Islam:

http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165038/

The sad thing is it's almost certain that things are even worse in Iraq than we believe. As with Vietnam, once we start reading what was really going on inside the Pentagon and the White House and the reports they were getting from the field, we'll find that your analysis of the situation fell on the upbeat side of the spectrum.

There is one good thing to come out of staying in Iraq, and that is allowing Bush and his followers to not think of themselves as failures.

Nitpicker: In Islam, "jihad" can refer both to physical battle and to internal religious struggle. It's the violent form I'm concerned with, not the spiritual struggle form.

Check out this excerpt from Christopher Hitchens'
new book on Islam:

Why would anyone bother?

On the bright side, there are now no WMDs in Iraq.

I opposed this fiasco from the beginning, but I've never been less happy to be vindicated.

Why would anyone bother?

Because dismissing something offhand and without reading it is what ignorant people do.

I find your lack of firmness and desire to withdraw prematurely disturbing.

Abstinence is the best policy, VB...

especially when it comes to rape.

Did I read this correctly? Dubya pulled 50 secret agents from Pakistan at the height of the supposed search for Osama because he needed them for his pet war? And this becomes known only now?

Did I read this correctly? Dubya pulled 50 secret agents from Pakistan at the height of the supposed search for Osama because he needed them for his pet war? And this becomes known only now?

It's been made public for a while. Bob Woodward and Michael Scheuer both wrote about it in "Plan of Attack" and "Imperial Hubris," for two.

What say you, Al and egbert? You tough guys ready to give it up for Curious George and the Big Dick?

Could I suggest instead 'Disinterested George and the Gimpy Dick' (anything big and swinging is just in egbert's and Al's imaginations).

with much sincerity,

Did I read this correctly? Dubya pulled 50 secret agents from Pakistan at the height of the supposed search for Osama because he needed them for his pet war? And this becomes known only now?

Did you hear about Rumsfeld's secret $700 million fund to plan the Iraq war?

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2004/04/19/slushfund/index.html

The occupation of Iraq has long since become pointless - it is counterproductive in every way to America's best interests. Unfortunately, we have a foolish, obstinate leader who is so immature and emotionally small that he cannot bring himself to admit a mistake, any mistake. His followers are the same.

How sad that this country can be hurt so badly by one man. Never, ever doubt that one person can make a difference - for good or for ill.

I think our presence is Iraq is doing good at least temporarily. Regardless of the long-term prognosis, right now American soldiers are preventing a full--fledged civil war from breaking out.

We cannot know for sure whether Iraq is doomed to sectarian civil war. A year ago everyone said Anbar was hopeless. Now it's a fountain of peace and security. It only makes sense to wait a few months and see how the surge actually works. If the surge is failing, I think most conservatives will then be ready to throw in the towel.

A key consideration is how an American defeat in Iraq would affect the rest of the world. The article points out that unfortunately Pakistan is allowing al Qaeda to operate freely in Waziristan. Suppose we withdraw from Iraq. Then al Qaeda would claim a huge victory over the US. Would that victory encourage Pakistan to change their policy in ways that are bad for al Qaeda? Obviously not. An American defeat in Iraq would discourage our allies and encourage our enemies in other countries.

We may well lose in Iraq. If and when we do, there will be a big cost to the US as well as to the Iraqis.

How sad that this country can be hurt so badly by one man. Never, ever doubt that one person can make a difference - for good or for ill.

Except it's not just one person. There are far too many Doug Feiths and Monica Goodlings in the rot and millions and millions of everyday enablers. It's more simply further movement in a direction the States has been moving in since around 1980 and Mr. Bush the epitome of a large portion of America. A wedding of the smug and frightened portion that's befuddled by the world and wants to smack it down and the imperialists that think they can. An Al Gore presidency would have been very different but the cancer within your country would have remained.

A year ago everyone said Anbar was hopeless. Now it's a fountain of peace and security.

US Military Announces Deaths of 5 Americans Troops in Iraq

By VOA News
19 May 2007

The U.S. military says five more American troops have been killed in Iraq.

The military said one soldier died Saturday in a roadside bomb attack south of Baghdad, while the other four were killed Friday in the Iraqi capital and al-Anbar province.

Go fuck yourself, you mindless idiot.

"As for putting more resources into Pakistan and Afghanistan - those countries are already democracies, and don't need our help."

Hey, Al, does that mean you are NOT suiting up after all? How disappointing!

P.S. this article from US News and World Report gives what seems to be a balanced picture of how the surge is operating, including some interesting details. The picture it paints is not particularly optimistic, but it doesn't say that the surge is hopeless.

You lost me with your first two words, ex-lib.

An Al Gore presidency would have been very different but the cancer within your country would have remained.

snicker-snack, do you ever wonder where the stereotype of Western European intellectuals being insufferable, arrogant pricks comes from?

from us Canucks? :)

dismissing something offhand and without reading it is what ignorant people do.

Ok, so I went over and read the excerpt from Christopher Hitchens' new book on Islam and I don’t find it at all relevant to the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Frankly, I’m really tired of people using Islam as an excuse for what the U.S. government is doing around the world. It’s total bullshit.

ex-lib's slip gives it away.

When the warmongers talk about killing Iraqis (and Americans) to bring democracy to Iraq, the form of democracy that they have in mind is what exists in Pakistan!

Yeah, I guess if you smear enough lipstick on that pig you could come up with something like that definition.

I'm fighting myself to not kick the shit out of you.

But then again, would you appreciate the irony of a word having two meanings: one noble, and the other ignoble.

Especially when one of them is ignoble.

ex-liberal: I think our presence is Iraq is doing good at least temporarily.

You've proven time and again you don't think, but beyond that you also thought Iraq had WMDs, that Iraq was linked to al Qaida, and many other things that turned out to be false.

So, if you think our presence is doing good, it most certainly is not.

I'm fighting myself to not kick the shit out of you.

For what?

Religion is a crock. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, all of it. I'm tired of listening to people talk about how Islam is a religion of peace and how jihad isn't really killing your enemies. It's not. Islam is some bullshit construct a handful of whackjobs cooked up centuries ago, just like Judaism and just like Christianity and just like every other religion that's stained human history. Jesus rising from the dead? Burning bushes? Absolute lunacy.

I'm tired of the taboos about Islam. We're mixing it up with the nuttiest, most violent individuals an already nutty religion has to offer at the behest of Christian fundamentalists and ex-Marxist Zionists.

Religion was the root cause of 9/11. It's what made people vote for Bush in the first place and it made people fly airplanes into skyscrapers. The sooner we realize that and get out of Iraq, the better.

ex-liberal: right now American soldiers are preventing a full--fledged civil war from breaking out.

That's certainly a debatable assertion -- a partially-fledged one certainly seems bad enough -- but it misses the point entirely, as does the offhand remark about "American defeat."

How much longer do you propose that American soldiers and Marines keep dying to prevent something from sorta-not-happening?

How much longer should we spend over a billion dollars a week?

How much longer should we continue to provide the greatest possible advertising and recruiting opportunity for radical-Islamicist organizations and at the same time continue to destroy our hard-won reputation as an honest broker and perhaps the only hope for peacemaking in the Middle East?

This sort of attitude is precisely why Kevin's post is so sadly beside the point. Because of stupid, thoughtless, emotional-reflex mouth-breathers like "ex-liberal," the political dialogue in this country CANNOT move from the playground into something adult and constructive. It's ALWAYS going to be about "surrender dates" and "defeatocrats."

The Right are a political abomination.

But then again, would you appreciate the irony of a word having two meanings: one noble, and the other ignoble.

There's nothing noble about the concept of jihad or Islam. They're inventions. Islam is nothing more than a set of crude superstitions and myths cobbled together into a ripoff of Christianity, which was a ripoff of Judaism, which was a ripoff of paganism.

bleh:The Right are a political abomination.

Even worse, they are moral abominations.

Your post was spot on, though.

Old Hat: I think you are just in a bad mood.

Nietzsche also said some profound things, but he did it without empathy or concern for others. That what makes him an asshole.

Or like the apostle Paul said in Corinthians, "Without love, you're only a crashing cymbal or resounding gong."

Please do show some humanity toward the people who aren't as doctrinally unencumbered as yourself. I promise you there are decent people who follow every religion.

Religion was the root cause of 9/11.

Perhaps you’re being simplistic, here’s a quote from Scott Horton’s

�For Those Interested in Facts: They Hate Our Foreign Policy�.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/horton.php?articleid=10988

As Professor Robert A. Pape proved in his book Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism – by studying every single individual suicide bomber on Earth between 1980 and 2004 – the one characteristic that all suicide bombers have in common is the presence of foreign combat forces in their country – not Islam. Whether it's is Sikhs in India, the Communist and atheist Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Hamas in Palestine, al-Qaeda fighters from Saudi Arabia and Egypt crashing planes in the United States or Sunni insurgents in Iraq.

As Professor Robert A. Pape proved in his book Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism – by studying every single individual suicide bomber on Earth between 1980 and 2004 – the one characteristic that all suicide bombers have in common is the presence of foreign combat forces in their country – not Islam.

Occupying armies in Britain, Indonesia (Bali), Pakistan and India?

Maybe the CIA should ask John Walker Lindh for help. He found OSB all by himself.

We may well lose in Iraq. If and when we do, there will be a big cost to the US as well as to the Iraqis.

Maybe we shouldn't have started this war in the first place.

The picture it paints is not particularly optimistic, but it doesn't say that the surge is hopeless.

Nothing is ever hopeless when you have a new war czar.

Occupying armies in Britain, Indonesia (Bali), Pakistan and India?

I guess you’ll just have to read the book.

Or like the apostle Paul said in Corinthians, "Without love, you're only a crashing cymbal or resounding gong."

Paul would know, the raving anti-Semite he was.

Please do show some humanity toward the people who aren't as doctrinally unencumbered as yourself. I promise you there are decent people who follow every religion.

What's more humane? Smiling and pretending I respect other people's supernatural belief systems? Or not biting my tongue any longer while these belief systems continue to provoke people into committing horrific acts of violence such as this:

http://www.aina.org/news/20070425181603.htm

I'm sure plenty of decent people believed it was natural for blacks to be slaves.

Ah, Kevin.

Read your post agian. It contains within itself the seeds of your own destruction.

You'd have us believe that Iraqis are on the verge of financial ruin, who have no money and have to drink fetid water.

But now you say that Iraqis have enough disposable income to send it all to Afghanistan (A DIFFERENT COUNTRY) to fund there war effort.

And I thought Iraqis hated al Qeada, and will ruthlessly destroy them once we leave. Now your telling me their giving money to them?

Some massive logical holes in your logic, Kevin.

trex, yes I exaggerated, but the improvement in Anbar has been reported in many articles, e.g.,

Anbar Province Still Dangerous But Getting Better, Marine Commander Says
By Gerry J. Gilmore, American Forces Press Service
May 15, 2007 - 4:50:19 PM

Blackanthem Military News, WASHINGTON, D.C. – Life in Iraq's Anbar province is still dangerous, but security is improving, the senior commander for ground operations in the province said yesterday in Baghdad.

For example, 22 joint security stations in the town of Ramadi now are helping to tamp down violence, Marine Brig. Gen. Charles M. Gurganus, ground forces commander for Multinational Force West, said during a news conference.

"As security continues to improve, we don't think that there will be a need for all of those security stations," Gurganus, whose jurisdiction includes Anbar province, said.

Much success has been achieved in reducing violence in Anbar province, Gurganus said, although he acknowledged that conditions there can still be precarious for residents as well as for Iraqi and coalition forces.

http://www.blackanthem.com/News/International_21/Anbar_Province_Still_Dangerous_But_Getting_Better_Marine_Commander_Says6686.shtml

Our presence in Iraq is doing nothing for Iraq itself, which is doomed to sectarian civil war no matter what we do. It's actively hindering the destruction of al-Qaeda in Iraq, which will almost certainly proceed more quickly and more ruthlessly once we leave.

That's your belief, and so you testify. It isn't the only realm of the world where you believe that doom is inevitable (no matter what we do!)

Old Hat,

I generally share your opinions on religion, but do you think you could say something profound or interesting in your posts? Some of your criticisms aren't even accurate. Islam does include a non-violent form of jihad, which is supposed to be the more important form of the two. Judaism is not plausibly a 'rip-off' of paganism. Nor is Christianity plausibly a rip-off of Judaism. The various schools of Buddhism are so different it's questionable that they make up a single religion at all; and some of the schools might not really be religions. Or so I am told by people who study Buddhism and it's history.

Alright, waiting for your vitriol.

Old Hat,

I generally share your opinions on religion, but do you think you could say something profound or interesting in your posts? Some of your criticisms aren't even accurate. Islam does include a non-violent form of jihad, which is supposed to be the more important form of the two. Judaism is not plausibly a 'rip-off' of paganism. Nor is Christianity plausibly a rip-off of Judaism. The various schools of Buddhism are so different it's questionable that they make up a single religion at all; and some of the schools might not really be religions. Or so I am told by people who study Buddhism and it's history.

Alright, waiting for your vitriol.

Old Hat,

I generally share your opinions on religion, but do you think you could say something profound or interesting in your posts? Some of your criticisms aren't even accurate. Islam does include a non-violent form of jihad, which is supposed to be the more important form of the two. Judaism is not plausibly a 'rip-off' of paganism. Nor is Christianity plausibly a rip-off of Judaism. The various schools of Buddhism are so different it's questionable that they make up a single religion at all; and some of the schools might not really be religions. Or so I am told by people who study Buddhism and it's history.

Alright, waiting for your vitriol.

Old Hat,

I generally share your opinions on religion, but do you think you could say something profound or interesting in your posts? Some of your criticisms aren't even accurate. Islam does include a non-violent form of jihad, which is supposed to be the more important form of the two. Judaism is not plausibly a 'rip-off' of paganism. Nor is Christianity plausibly a rip-off of Judaism. The various schools of Buddhism are so different it's questionable that they make up a single religion at all; and some of the schools might not really be religions. Or so I am told by people who study Buddhism and it's history.

Alright, waiting for your vitriol.

apologies that that posted four times.

Then al Qaeda would claim a huge victory over the US. Would that victory encourage Pakistan to change their policy in ways that are bad for al Qaeda? Obviously not. An American defeat in Iraq would discourage our allies and encourage our enemies in other countries.

Well said, ex-???

Now, if only your heroes had considered this possibility back in 2002.

You've found nuance and you probably don't even know it.

Maybe the CIA should ask John Walker Lindh for help. He found OSB all by himself.

Hey, wasn't that an HBO movie?

Egbert,
1) The reason so many Iraqis are broke is because their resources are seized by criminals, some of who are the local al-Qaeda. Most Iraqis are not giving money to al-Qaeda. It is being taken from them. Often over their dead bodies.
2) In many cases, the US presence in Iraq is actually accidentally accelerating the civil war. When our forces suppress or chase out a militia group, it leaves the civilians in that area vulnerable to the other side. Watch how often Shiite neighborshoods that suffer vicious car bombings in turn out to be ones that we just chased Shiite militias out of. And how often Iraqi government (Shiite) death squad killings of Sunnis follow our suppression of Sunni militias.

DBake,
I am a Buddhist and I myself do not think that the range within Buddhism from Thai Buddhism to Tibetan is all that more than the range of Christianity from bare-bones Calvinism through Catholicism and its elaborate rituals and churches and Orthodoxy and its monasteries. Especially if you add in the gnostics and Arians and Mormons too. I can see though how it would like that way to some people. Even some people who know more than I do.
As to non-violent jihad, it may at other times have been quite important but nowadays there sure seem to be far more young Muslims fired up to go kill someone than there are young Muslims fired up to follow Sufi wisdom practices.
I do not believe that either a supposed inherent violence in Islam or a supposed inherent peacefulness in Islam explain what we are seeing in many of the core Islamic nations. I think it is the difficulty those nations/societies are having making the transition into the modern world. A transition that has been very difficult everywhere. (30 years war, English Civil War, American Revolution, Civil War, French and Russian Revolutions, Cultural Revolution........)

Al sez:
Our goal is to establish a functioning democracy in Iraq, and that is what the surge will accomplish. We shouldn't leave before then.

As for putting more resources into Pakistan and Afghanistan - those countries are already democracies, and don't need our help.

Pakistan is a democracy? By what standards? If Pakistan is the White House's democratic model, Al, we're all in a lot of trouble.

egfart: "Some massive logical holes in your logic, Kevin."

That's rich, coming from "you're" mouth, sulfur-breath. Why dodn't you just go stuff those holes with your massive ignorance.

By the way, have you joined up yet, brave Christian soldier? Al says it's very peaceful in Anbar province. So don't go there!

Al says it's very peaceful in Anbar province.

OK, not totally peaceful yet, but we could definitely be about to see some early glimmers of limited progress in a few neighbourhoods.

Well, then: Mission Accomplished!

American Forces Press Services the DoD's own press office quotes a Marine general telling us that things are better in Anbar.

Holy shit "never was a liberal" is one desperate hack when that is the best he can come up with.

"Our presence in Iraq is doing nothing for Iraq itself, which is doomed to sectarian civil war no matter what we do. It's actively hindering the destruction of al-Qaeda in Iraq, which will almost certainly proceed more quickly and more ruthlessly once we leave. It's made Iran into a more powerful regional player than it ever could have dreamed of. It's produced a relentlessly worsening foreign policy catastrophe by swelling the ranks of Middle Eastern Muslims who support anti-American jihadism in spirit, even if they don't directly support al-Qaeda itself. And it's turned into a bonanza of recruiting and fundraising among those who do directly support al-Qaeda."

But, it has made little Georgie Bush feel like a big strong man. And after all, isn't that the real purpose of tis Administration?

Read the last blog post of my master Rove's deep cover agent, David Corn, for a different perspective - when the Iraqi parliament is strong enough to ask us to leave we'll leave. I agree with most of your criticisms of our tactics in this war, I agree Bush is a bad, bad President, but we are on the verge of an acceptable outcome in this conflict if we have the fortitude to hold out 18 more months. If you libs snatch defeat from the jaws of victory you will pay for this for the next 30 years. Not a threat, just a fact.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/20/wirq120.xml

Even the Brits know the escalation is failing.

al: Our goal is to establish a functioning democracy in Iraq, and that is what the surge will accomplish. We shouldn't leave before then.

"Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament." - G.W. Bush 3/6/03

ogmb: Dubya pulled 50 secret agents from Pakistan at the height of the supposed search for Osama because he needed them for his pet war? And this becomes known only now?

CIA Commander: U.S. Let bin Laden Slip Away - Newsweek August-2005

Rory Stewart's Q&A from the NY Review is worthy of wider distribution

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20212

ex-lib: An American defeat in Iraq would discourage our allies and encourage our enemies in other countries.

"I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire." - Dick Cheney 1991

I see that the term CLUSTERFUCK has not been used yet on this thread. May I use the term CLUSTERFUCK? That's CLUSTERFUCK. C L U S T E R F U C K

minion: I agree with most of your criticisms of our tactics in this war, I agree Bush is a bad, bad President, but we are on the verge of an acceptable outcome in this conflict if we have the fortitude to hold out 18 more months.

Escalation will “not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq.� - Iraq Study Group Dec. 2006

"The overall security situation "will continue to deteriorate" in next 12-18 months." - Iraq National Intelligence Estimate 2/2/07

"if we have the fortitude to hold out 18 more months."
The plan is for 18 more YEARS, not months, and that is (ahem) a "conservative estimate".

I saw this and had to share:

“100 cheap and easy ways to get out of Eye-Rack�

“The USA and the UK need to get out of Iraq now. Bush and Company seem to be snagged on just how to turn power over to the Iraqis. Here are some suggestions: 100 cheap and easy ways out of Iraq: Just do or say:

“Abandon ship, About-face, retreat, Aloha, Apologize for overstaying one’s welcome, and just leave, Auf weiderzahn, Au voir, Back out, Bail out, Beg off, Be Gone with the Wind, Blow it off, Blow the scene, Bow out, Break it off, Bring the troops home, Bug out, Butt out, Call a halt, Call it quits, Cancel plans, Cave in, Chalk it up to experience, Change the course, Chao, baby, Check out, Chicken out, Choke up, Clear out, Close up shop, Cop out, Creep away, Cut and run, Declare victory and come home, Depart, Desert the desert, Disentangle, Draw back, Drop out, Eat crow, Eat humble pie, Eat one’s words, End this fool’s errand, End this tomfoolery, Evacuate, Exit, stage far-right, Fail, Fall back, Flake out, Flee, Fly away, Fly the coop, Forsake, Get back, Get cold feet, Get out by sundown, Give up, Go away, Go fly a kite, Go jump in the lake, Good widdance to bad wubbish - (from Elmer Fudd cartoon), Got to get away, Hasta la vista, baby, Head for the hills, Hit the road, Homeward bound, Hurry home, It’s all over but the shouting, It’s all over now, baby blue, Just say no, Just walk away,

“Leave, Let’s call the whole thing off, Pack it in, Pick up your marbles and go home, Quit, Rehire Saddam, Relinquish control, Renounce imperialism, Retreat, Return home, Reverse the course, Sail away, Say good bye, Shut it down, So long, its been fun, Split, Stop, Stop rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic: abandon ship!, Surrender, Take a powder, Terminate the visit, Throw in the towel, Turn tail, Turn the lights out, Wilt under pressure, Wimp out, Wind down, Withdraw with honor, Yankee, come home�.

Yours truly,

James K. Sayre

If we leave do we get to keep our brazilian dollar embassy in the "Oz" zone?

Folks, GWB went into Iraq to STAY. Yes, we may withdraw most of our troops, but many western-type-interests would remain.

We've got to look beyond the military side of our occupation.

Until the greenzone is devoid of infidels, the war will rage.

We kid ourselves in thinking "bring the troops home" will end the hostilities.

Look again at that fortress we have built in the greenzone. It ain't no temporary shack.

They don't want to find Osama. Because, once they do, people will find less to believe when they scream "DANGER!!! DANGER!!!"

All the Repukeliscum have left is screaming "DANGER!!!" Once we take that away, we get the Senate at 65 Dems, the house at 300 + and the presidency.

"[our objective]... to establish a functioning democracy in Iraq"

That 'goal' was based on the assumption that a democracy will somehow automatically be pro-US and Pro-Israel.

If truly democratic regimes were installed in much of the world they I suspect they would instead come down on the side of freedom and justice... especially if their populace has any accurate knowledge of modern world history. This would make them anti-US and anti-Israel.

The US government has a well-established track record of destroying democratically-elected governments they don't like, mostly in Central and South America. The most recent example is the democratically elected Hamas government in Occupied Palestine, which the US is earnestly working to destroy.

>"If you libs snatch defeat from the jaws of victory..."

There is no real 'victory' possible in Iraq in terms of a pro-US regime. Why? I'd venture a guess that there are very few Iraqi families that don't have a member killed by American actions. The Iraqi people won't forget this.

If they [Iraqi people] didn't hate us before, they hate us now.

national security policy that actually addresses violent jihadism

Yeah, Kev, and we need to go after those Barberry Pirates! The Burberey Pirates against the Barbary Pirates!

Keep your eye out for "jihadis" Kevin! They're everywhere!

national security policy that actually addresses violent jihadism

Yeah, Kev, and we need to go after those Barberry Pirates! The Burberey Pirates against the Barbary Pirates!

Keep your eye out for "jihadis" Kevin! They're everywhere!

Here's a little story with big implications that the national media has overlooked but which folks on this blog might do something with:

Seems a 59-year-old journalism professor at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette has quit his 18-year-old job to volunteer for Army Reserve duty in Afghanistan -- and has been accepted.

Here's the kicker: Three years ago, the guy volunteered but was turned down because he was too old.

Read about it here:

http://tinyurl.com/yuqbcc

Because dismissing something offhand and without reading it is what ignorant people do

Unless you read Hitchens ... in which case you become more ignorant.

Kevin,

Point taken. I'm just repeating what I have heard from others. I don't know how one measures objective difference within a religion. In any case, I just wanted to point out that dismissing every religion one can list might lack some needed subtelty.

As for Islam, yeah, there are some serious problems in the mideast right now, most of them orbiting around the religion. Again, I just meant to add to what others have already said, pointing out that non-violent jihad isn't some newfangled P.C. invention, or PR stunt to make the religion more palatable in the West, but is actually, you know, part of the religion.

The conservative person and his place in society.

trex, here's another report from Anbar, from correspondant Michael Yon:

Am still in Anbar and just went another day without hearing a single shot fired. Am out with a small group of Marines who live with a much larger group of Iraqis...

I was told that a chemical munition (artillery shell) was found within the last few days.

All the villagers we got to talk with were very friendly....

Marines are getting along well with the locals. They wave a lot, and stop to talk. If the rest of Iraq looked like this, we could all come home!

http://instapundit.com/archives2/005383.php

trex, here's another report from Anbar, from correspondant Michael Yon:

Really? Friendly, waving villagers? It's a miracle, Iraq is finally liberated!

Here are some other more objective reports from Anbar, that province you're hailing as a "font of peace and security:"

Two suicide car bombers attacked a market and a police checkpoint on the outskirts of Ramadi yesterday, killing at least 20 people and dealing a blow to recent US success in reclaiming the Sunni city from insurgents.

POSTED: 4:22 pm EDT April 28, 2007 UPDATED: 4:32 pm EDT April 28, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The U.S. military is reporting nine American troops killed in Iraq, including five in fighting in Anbar province

And here's a little analysis to put your childish boosterism into perspective:

There really is a palpable turn [in Anbar] against Al Qaeda, that isn’t just the usual wishful thinking that so often takes the place of real analysis. A lot of people have interpreted this as a sign of American strength, that the Sunni tribes are shifting to the winning side. It’s actually just the opposite, it’s a defensive reaction by Sunnis to Al Qaeda’s increasing strength and aggressiveness. Sunni resentment of Al Qaeda in Iraq really dates to last October, long before the “surge,� when Al Qaeda declared the Islamic State of Iraq.

The insurgents are very critical of Al Qaeda, its treatment of Sunnis and its extreme interpretation of Islam, but at the same time they are deeply committed to continued resistance to the American occupation. They want a less divided and more effective resistance, not an end to resistance.

Now it's a fountain of peace and security. It only makes sense to wait a few months and see how the surge actually works.

After rereading this I really feel compelled to say, "Go fuck yourself" again. It doesn't make any sense to "wait" when every fucking metric of violence is on the rise and every metric of progress is on the wane. It never made any sense to invade in the first place but we did because the very stupid -- like yourself and Marler -- needed an object lesson that was five years long and cost the lives of hundreds of thousands and the suffering of millions at an expense of hundreds of billions before your ganglia could fizzle and pop and realize maybe this wasn't such a good idea in the first place.

Perhaps the very stupid just shouldn't have a say when the stakes are so high and the cost is so terrible.

I also believe in being accountable for one's mistakes. I hear the Green Zone is short on employees for just about any job. Your execrable posts would be slightly less odious were they originating from there.

instapundit.crap ex-lax at 12:22 PM

Then again Mortar round hits British Embassy compound
…One round hit the British Embassy compound, security officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information.
It was not known if Blair was in the embassy at the time, but he appeared to refer to the attack when he held a news conference with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and President Jalal Talabani after meeting with them privately….
Seven American soldiers killed. Not that you and your fellow propagandists give a damn, because you have to sell your Lincoln group propaganda via instahack. Did you ever stop to realize how counter productive it is to spout your nonsense when it is refuted so easily and thoroughly? You continually make yourself look like the stupidest guy in the world which makes your agenda look ridiculous.

“100 cheap and easy ways to get out of Eye-Rack�

“The USA and the UK need to get out of Iraq now. Bush and Company seem to be snagged on just how to turn power over to the Iraqis. Here are some suggestions: 100 cheap and easy ways out of Iraq: Just do or say:

“Abandon ship, About-face, retreat, Aloha, Apologize for overstaying one’s welcome, and just leave, Auf weiderzahn, Au voir, Back out, Bail out, Beg off, Be Gone with the Wind, Blow it off, Blow the scene, Bow out, Break it off, Bring the troops home, Bug out, Butt out, Call a halt, Call it quits, Cancel plans, Cave in, Chalk it up to experience, Change the course, Chao, baby, Check out, Chicken out, Choke up, Clear out, Close up shop, Cop out, Creep away, Cut and run, Declare victory and come home, Depart, Desert the desert, Disentangle, Draw back, Drop out, Eat crow, Eat humble pie, Eat one’s words, End this fool’s errand, End this tomfoolery, Evacuate, Exit, stage far-right, Fail, Fall back, Flake out, Flee, Fly away, Fly the coop, Forsake, Get back, Get cold feet, Get out by sundown, Give up, Go away, Go fly a kite, Go jump in the lake, Good widdance to bad wubbish - (from Elmer Fudd cartoon), Got to get away, Hasta la vista, baby, Head for the hills, Hit the road, Homeward bound, Hurry home, It’s all over but the shouting, It’s all over now, baby blue, Just say no, Just walk away,

“Leave, Let’s call the whole thing off, Pack it in, Pick up your marbles and go home, Quit, Rehire Saddam, Relinquish control, Renounce imperialism, Retreat, Return home, Reverse the course, Sail away, Say good bye, Shut it down, So long, its been fun, Split, Stop, Stop rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic: abandon ship!, Surrender, Take a powder, Terminate the visit, Throw in the towel, Turn tail, Turn the lights out, Wilt under pressure, Wimp out, Wind down, Withdraw with honor, Yankee, come home.�

Yours truly,

James K. Sayre

The U.S. had a chance to unite the world on its side after the horrors of 9/11/01. Instead, we've turned much of the world against us, and Osama bin Laden hasn't been caught, nearly six years later; he's effectively gotten away with more than 3,000 cases of murder. All because W took higher priority in settling a score with Saddam to avenge what daddy (in retrospect, wisely) wouldn't.

To borrow some lines from a Debbie Harry song, "My man, your plan/backfired -- in your face."

What a fiasco.

trex, in what way do you consider Michael Yon not objective?

trex, in what way do you consider Michael Yon not objective?

Counting attacks is an objective measure; commenting that a couple of people waved to Michael Yon is feel good pap -- the kind of emotional appeal that you consistently use here in lieu of actual facts or substantive arguments.

Michael Yon not objective? ex-lax at 1:21 PM

…The Washington Post reports that two self-described "Internet journalists," Bill Roggio and Michael Yon, now in Iraq, are telling us what the Pentagon wants us to hear – with their connection to official propaganda efforts unclear, at best. Roggio was supposedly "invited by the Marines" – a vague description of the origins of his mission, which sounds like the brainchild of some Lincoln Group whiz kid. There is, too, a peculiar, Soviet-era agitprop flavor to this kind of product, as a typical "news" story filed by Señor Yon makes tiresomely clear:… [lot of links at source doc]

Neo-con packaged bullshit still stinks like bullshit.

Stefan, I will concede that you have won the debate if you can find cites of news reports showing anywhere near 60+ Iraqis killed every day for the last month or so. That would be around 1800 deaths. I bet you can't.

papago, I assume you are a liberal who cares about human suffering, values human courage, and supports the spread of freedom. I thought you would find Omar's essay moving. Can you explain why you didn't? (It's reproduced from Omar's blog at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1719125/posts )

Posted by: ex-liberal on October 24, 2006 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan Hey, ex-liberal, I never got my concession from you that you promised me after I, by the terms you yourself set, won the debate on the "Lancet Revisited" thread below. You seem to have mysteriously disappeared from there. Can I get that concession now?

Yes. I concede.

Posted by: ex-liberal on October 24, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Here is a classic example of your modus operandi. You couldn't even get the basic numbers of monthly casualties correct for Iraq -- which were freely available -- and were forced to concede later that you had no clue what you were talking about. So instead of having actual analysis based on real numbers you were peddling a maudlin essay by a known partisan hack and shameless liar on why we should stay in Iraq despite all the objective evidence to the contrary.

Do you not understand how devastatingly stupid this is?

I daresay you couldn't find your ass with both hands and a map.

I can't even think of anything on the plus side of the ledger anymore,

Not even one thing? Shall we start with the restoration of the river delta wetlands? How about the booming market in consumer electronics in Basra, and the tourist industry in Iraqi Kurdistan?

those are not the big things. Of greater importance is the reasonable democracy in Iraqi Kurdistan; the network of informants helping US/Iraqi forces against the Mahdi army and other Shi'ite militias.

It's one thing to conclude that, on balance, the cost outweighs the benefits. Not being able to consider the benefits any more is just the famous "cognitive dissonance" that follows making a decision.

Paraphrasing Lawrence in the movie: nothing is inevitable. Or Hamlet, nothing is inevitable but thinking makes it so.

Mike, thank you for the cite. Justin Raimondo's interpretation of his WaPo source article is inaccurate.

You correctly quote Raimondo as claiming that the Pentagon paid Roggio and Yon to print their version of things. Actually the WaPo says the Pentagon paid Iraqi TV stations, but makes no such accusation about Roggio and Yon.

In fact, the WaPo article includes lavish praise of Roggio and Yon:

The Marines also took a more direct approach by inviting Roggio to cover their operations.

"A thorough review of his work was taken into account before authorizing the embed," said Pool. "Overall, it has worked out really well."

Pool also praised the work of Michael Yon, an independent author and blogger who embedded for almost a year with a U.S. Army unit in the northern city of Mosul.

"His reporting was objective, credible and compelling. But most of all, it was independent," Pool said. "He didn't have to worry about some editor back in the States altering what he wrote before it got published. Plus, he had no competition from other news sources to churn out a 'marketable' product on a day-to-day basis."

Iraq body count database.

Everyone of these people were killed by George Bush and every Republican helped.

And, I have to say, these are really conservative numbers.

Not even one thing?… MatthewRmarler at 2:08 PM

US genocidal strategy in al-Anbar
…Iraqis in the volatile al-Anbar province west of Baghdad are reporting regular killings carried out by U.S. forces that many believe are part of a ‘genocidal’ strategy.
Since the mysterious explosion at the Shia al-Askari shrine in Samara in February last year, more than 100 Iraqis have been killed daily on average, without any forceful action by the Iraqi government and the U.S. military to stop the killings.
U.S. troops and Iraqi security forces working with them are also executing people seized during home raids and other operations, residents say…

…in fact, the WaPo article includes lavish praise of Roggio and Yon:…ex-lax at 2:25 PM

After 9/11 every Republican in the country was muttering 'Thank God, George Bush is our President'. But, what if he hadn't been, what if it had been a Democrat? I think an immediate stampede to impeachment would have been the least of it. They'd have staged riots all over Washington.

trex, in what way do you consider Michael Yon not objective?

Oh, and for the record, Michael Yon himself admits that he is not objective. His stated purpose is to provide a "positive" and "hopeful" view of Iraq - not an objective one. That's why he pushes the smiling-children-and-ain't-life-grand-in-Iraq stories for shills like you no matter how trivial or out of step they are with the total reality there.

"I feel no shame in saying I am biased in favor of our troops. Even worse, I feel no shame in calling a terrorist a terrorist."

-- Michael Yon

Apparently he feels no shame in calling self-described freedom fighters and diverse participants in a a sectarian civil war "terrorists" either.

Personally, I would be ashamed of misrepresenting the conflict like that. But that's just me.

…They'd have staged riots all over Washington. cld at 2:40 PM

Mike: You are simple minded to think that those piddling results are worth the costs.

I did not in fact say that the "piddling" results are worth the cost. I did say that there are more than "piddling" results, and that the whole enterprise might not be worth the costs.

Where I wrote "cognitive dissonance" I ought to have written "post-decision dissonance reduction." To be only able to think about one side of a complex issue is one of the results of deciding on a course of action, and it is one example of "post-decision dissonance reduction".

To be only able to think about one side of a complex issue is one of the results of deciding on a course of action, and it is one example of "post-decision dissonance reduction".

Posted by: MatthewRmarler on May 20, 2007 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

Dissonance reductionist, heal thyself. You can't even see the dead for all the shiny new DVD's

As to non-violent jihad, it may at other times have been quite important but nowadays there sure seem to be far more young Muslims fired up to go kill someone than there are young Muslims fired up to follow Sufi wisdom practices. - Kevin Rooney

Kevin, I'm sure you're not really the ignorant fuckwit you sound like with this statement, and have actually learned to count above 100, but let me give you a refresher anyways.

There are over 1 BILLION muslims in the world right now. Assuming only 200 million of these would be "young muslims" (and given the birth rates in the 3rd world that's a lowball assumption), then by your statement well over 100 million of these people are fired up to go kill someone....

I think you'd perhaps see a few more articles in the news about it if that were the case.

School's out - now run along and go play.

I can't even think of anything on the plus side of the ledger anymore, and every additional day we stay there only makes the ledger look worse.

Well, then you're not thinking like a Republican, son. You're not identifying with John Wayne. You don't think that in order to be a man you have to win every fight and your balls have to clank together when you walk. You don't believe the only way to be proud of being an American is if we are number one in every way, feared and respected by all, never back down, never admit a mistake -- hell, forget admitting it, we never MAKE a mistake. Unless you're ready to internalize -- I mean REALLY FEEL -- the mindset and emotional chemistry that drives people for whom guns and motorcycles really ARE the equivalent of strength and masculinity, then no. You will never understand what's at stake for some people in this war.

…….To be only able to think about one side of a complex issue … MatthewRmarler at 4:14 PM

Every year, every month, the situation on the ground is becoming worse, there are more deaths, more chaos, more destruction, more refugees, more costs, and all you can find to brag about are the Kurds in the north who have been fighting for an independent state for a long time.

However, neither Turkey nor Iran will yield any of their territory to complete this state, so it will not happen. The situation there is almost the same as it was during the period of sanctions with a no-fly zone protecting Kurds from aerial attacks from Saddam. The current situation is one that could have easily been negotiated in return for lifting the sanctions and is therefore not worth the cost of Bush's invasion to Americans.

If you want to give a people a homeland, a act that will lead to widespread peace, give the Palestinians the homeland that was taken from them.

The plight of the Marsh Arabs is terrible
…According to a report made by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 2001, the marshlands that once covered between 5,800 and 7,700 square miles now comprised just 386 square miles. UNEP ranked the destruction of the marsh with the desiccation of the Aral Sea and the deforestation of the Amazon as one of the worst environmental disasters in history.
Because of its importance both to birds that live and breed there, and to the migratory birds which use it as a stopover, the loss of the marsh has put 40 species of birds at risk. Seven species are already extinct and the Sacred Ibis and African darter are nearly so.Many species of fish are also at risk.
Restoration of some of the marshland is possible, but salts in the soil and dams in Syria and Turkey make complete restoration very difficult.

The loss of the Ma'dan homeland was never offered to the American people as a reason to invade and occupy Iraq, nor does it seem to be much of a priority of the Bush administration or the Iraq 'government.'

At this point, the choices in Iraq have boiled down to whether we should stay in or get out. The only relevant question is whether the consequences of staying in will be worse than the consequences of getting out.

I don't mean to be too obnoxious here, but the people who are now saying "getting out would be worse than staying in" are the exact same people who, before the war started, said the consequences of going in would be better than the consequences staying out. They're morons.

Let's be clear, when the choice on Iraq was "stay out or go in," these are the people who were shrieking that it would be a catastrophe if we stayed out. Why, in light of how spectacularly wrong they were then, are we listening to their strategic prognostications now? Seriously, shouldn't the fact that all the people who were wrong about going into Iraq currently oppose getting out of Iraq be pretty much a slam dunk argument in favor of getting out? Shouldn't we just be doing the opposite of what people who have proven themselves to be idiots on this issue recommend?

Obviously, people can (and have) made very strong, coherent arguments about why it's a worse strategic choice for the US to remain in Iraq than to leave. But, really, shouldn't we just be able to point to Fred Kagan and Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz and say, "well, these guys think staying would be better than leaving. So, obviously, we should leave."

nor a complex issue

Yeah, right.

On February 14, 2007 George W Bush said this stunningly detached statement
when asked about his war, and specifically about the civil war in Iraq:

"It's hard for me, living in this beautiful White House, to give you an assessment."

I'm disappointed but not surprised that none of you looked at the David Corn blog item I mentioned earlier: http://www.davidcorn.com/

Why can't we give democracy a chance? When we went into this war we expected 10,000 casualties in the suburbs of Baghdad - I don't see why we flinch at the prospect of 500 more if it means vindicating the sacrifice of the 3400 that have gone before. I wish we had had better leadership in this conflict, I wish we had a better communicator explaining our goals, but I don't think we can bug out in frustration before we have given every plausible option a fair chance. I think Kevin knows that too despite his posturing rhetoric.

"General Petraeus tells me we have a one in four chance that Bush's plan will work." Oregon Senator Gordon Smith, March 2, 2007

So maybe the "fly paper" is more like a maggot-breeding heap of crap?

Orwellian:
"The president’s proposal provides a good quality of life for service members and their families." White House statement of President Bush rejection of 3.5% pay increase for U.S. military servicemen and women, May 16, 2007

Why can't we give democracy a chance?

We already have -- only as a means of saving Bush's failing poll numbers, however, as we didn't invade to spread democracy but rather to find imaginary WMD's and execute regime change.

Why don't you crack open a newspaper. Democracy is not taking root. The corrupt government grows more fractured and fractious every day. Gangs of thugs within the government are vying with each other for control of the country when they aren't embezzling oil or American taxpayer dollars. The people of the country don't want democracy, they want variously revenge, control, religious law, lawlessness -- you name it.

I don't see why we flinch at the prospect of 500 more if it means vindicating the sacrifice of the 3400 that have gone before

That statement is just obscene. Every soldier is vindicated by his own service and sacrifice, not by the rabid misguided whims of political rabble. You may as well ask why we flinch at the prospect of 10,000 more to vindicate the sacrifice of the 100,000 who've given their lives -- not only is it nonsensical it's outrageous and completely disprespectful of the American soldier. Get your own precious ass over there and fight if the lives of others are so unimportant to you, you cowardly asswipe.

wish we had a better communicator explaining our goals

Awww, no one understands the goals, is that the real problem? Give us a fucking break. Most Americans are smarter than the faltering intellects who dreamed up this nightmare in the first place. Communication is not the problem. The problem is the dishonesty, ulterior motives, callous lack of concern for the Iraqis, desperate post hoc attempts at revising the reasons for this thing, and chickenhawks wishing enough people would die and change things so that their feelings wouldn't be hurt at having been so terribly, terribly, idiotically, disastrously, predictably wrong.

We are turning