"Does anybody seriously think that we're going to keep 100,000 troops in Iraq for the next 10 or 20 years?"

Most Republicans, along with assorted Liebercrats.

Maybe she should qualify her statement and write, "Civil wars in the Middle East take even longer." If whe wants to count insurrections like Palestinians v. Israelis and Muslim Brotherhood-like activity, people in the Middle East stay pissed off for decades.

"Nobody believes that the United States will stay in Iraq much beyond 2009"

Umm, the main Democratic presidential candidates plan to stay until 2013. And the Republican candidates don't seem to want to leave at all. George Bush envisions a Korea- style involvement of decades. Are these people all nobodies? Ok, maybe Bush is a nobody, but the others are certainly not nobodies. We'll be in Iraq for long time. Probably until there's no oil left.

Of course we're going to keep 100,000 troops in Iraq for ten or twenty years. Wasn't this obvious before we even invaded? How naive are you?

Does anybody seriously think that we're going to keep 100,000 troops in Iraq for the next 10 or 20 years?

Does anyone seriously think 100K is enough?

And apart from controlling the oil, what's the goal, exactly, after 20 years? Duty free shopping zone? Toxic waste dump? Really really big version of Alcatraz?

Barbara Walter writes in the LA Times about our experience with civil wars over the past 60 years:

Next, Kevin is going to quote Barbara's the View co-host Whoopi Goldberg on her views on inflation! *snicker*

Have you read Imperial Life in the Emerald City?

Even if we -do- stay another 20 years, looks like we'd back a different side every 9 months, while trying to privatize the negotiation for the settlement to no-bid contractors.

Next, Kevin is going to quote Barbara's the View co-host Whoopi Goldberg on her views on inflation! *snicker*
Posted by: Al

Professor Walter teaches at UC-San Diego, and is not the co-host of The View, imbecile. Reading is obviously not your strong point.

I disagree with the methodology here. Basing expectations for Iraq on average civil wars doesn't make sense. Iraq is an outlier: How many of those civil wars were started by a monkey in charge of the world's only superpower? How many of those civil wars occurred outside the context of the Cold War?

The conclusion is still true, though. Staying another year or two is just a waste of lives and money. And the Democrats can now share the blame.

Kevin wrote: "...there might be one chance in four that we can grope our way to a negotiated settlement eventually. Those aren't great odds, but they aren't hopeless either."

Bizarre. He pulls a probability number out of thin air (admitting so with the "might"), and then proceeds to draw conclusions about the goodness/hopelessness of those made-up odds.

Does anybody seriously think that we're going to keep 100,000 troops in Iraq for the next 10 or 20 years?

Do I think we should? No.

Do I think we will? Ask me after the Democratic nominee for President for 2008 is selected.

Oops, please disregard my snarky comment. It was Barabara Walters's questionable odds, not Kevin's.

It is too bad the US did not have a super power invade and occupy it during its civil war. It could have prevented the slaughter attributed to Sherman and prolonged the war for decades.

What gives the US the legitimacy to insert itself in the negotiatons between the differing factions in Iraq? Only US military power gives us a reason to interfere.

Stan

....Civil wars rarely end in negotiated settlements. In research for a book on the topic, I found that 76% of civil wars between 1945 and 2005 ended only after one side had defeated all others. Only 24% ended in some form of negotiated solution.

Sounds like one in four to me.

If civil war only ends when one side wins, then a third party brokers the peace, then why do we have to be in Iraq delaying the eventual success of one faction, or, worse, fascilitating it? We didn't have to occupy Israel to try to broker a deal as third party, did we?

It seems to me that the only solution to the problems the world poses to G.W. Bush is the genocide of everybody who is not a white republican.
I see this coming. Anybody else?
Tom

Professor Walter teaches at UC-San Diego, and is not the co-host of The View, imbecile. Reading is obviously not your strong point.
There was, however, a fascinating discussion on The View a few weeks ago trying to resolve whether the Earth is flat or not.

Nice how all the wingnuts read "Barbara Walter" as "Barbara Walters".

Oh, and "Stan", those weren't "odds" Walter proffered. Those were stats from a thorough look at the data. Kevin is the one using them as "odds", but as other have suggested, Iraq is certainly an outlier, and so if anything he is being optimistic.

As far as troops in Iraq are concerned, a lot depends on the level of violence on U.S. troops. Americans had no problem with large numbers of troops being stationed overseas if they weren't getting shot at on a regular basis. Until 1991, we had twice as many troops in Europe than we have in Iraq right now. Nobody cared. Not even Europeans, who for some reason didn't seem to think of themselves as "occupied."

It's obvious from the past few months in Iraq that time is working in our favor. Maybe that's what's really worrying some people.

Not even Europeans, who for some reason didn't seem to think of themselves as "occupied."

Maybe because private armies paid by the US government weren't murdering European civilians, being ordered out by the local government, and yet still operating freely by order of the US government.

Maybe because US Presidential candidates weren't seriously proposing partitioning Belgium.

Etc.

It's obvious from the past few months in Iraq that time is working in our favor.

On what facts from the last few months do you base that assessment?

Yeah, harry, those Germans who called us "Amis" in many a German gasthaus just "loved" us - Should have seen their "non caring", when we pulled an alert during rush hour and tied up their streets. Did like our money, though.

Staying another year or two is just a waste of lives and money. And the Democrats can now share the blame.

Let's see, Bush started the war. The CPA was set up with countless neo-con true believers. Bush and the majority Republican congress continued the incompetent handling of the war. He and the Republican minority oppose and filibuster Democratic attempts to shorten the war and bring troops home.

Yep, its the Democrats fault!

There are at least two dubiouss points in Prof. Walter's article:

1. Although there have been a horrifying number of sectarian killings, Iraq is not in a full-fledged civil war. The main blocs of Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds are all a part of the government.

2. Many civil wars in other countries have gone on for a long time, but not destroyed the existing government. If Iraq's democratic government survives, as I expect it to, that will count as a marvelous victory for the US and for the civilized world.

Disputo wrote: 'Oh, and "Stan", those weren't "odds" Walter proffered. Those were stats from a thorough look at the data. Kevin is the one using them as "odds"'

Yes, yes, I admitted I goofed. (Also goofed on Walters vs. Walter.) No need to be pedantic.

I was just reacting (with inadequate context) to the (il)logic of the two sentences I quoted: "...there might be one chance in four...those odds aren't hopeless...".

people in the Middle East stay pissed off for decades

Unlike former American slave owners, who have been angry for over a century.

What a bunch of surrender monkeys. The Rwandan civil war between Hutus and Tutsis only took about 100 days. Nattering nabobs of negativism.

Maybe because private armies paid by the US government weren't murdering European civilians, being ordered out by the local government, and yet still operating freely by order of the US government.

Nice jinking, there. Blackwater has has an average of 1.4 shooting incidents per week since 2005, which doesn't strike me as an excessive level of violence in a war zone. Blackwater is basically a political distraction in Washington, as well as here.

Maybe because US Presidential candidates weren't seriously proposing partitioning Belgium.

And that "presidential candidate" would be Democratic idiot Joseph Biden, right?

Europe was thoroughly partitioned in WWII, and Belgium is doing just fine partitioning itself right now, thanks.

On what facts from the last few months do you base that assessment?

Start here.

The goalposts will continue to be shoved around. Security stopped being the issue when security showed signs of improvement. If political progress is made, then it will be about the electricity, or the lack of gasoline. Or something.

Unlike former American slave owners, who have been angry for over a century.

I'm pretty sure that those very few former slave owners who might still be alive aren't much of a political influence.

Civil wars are usually the worst kind: father against son, brother against brother, neighbor against neighbor. The fighting may eventually stop, but the memories remain.

Before anyone gets too sanguine about the prospects for peace in Iraq, recall that the U.S. in some ways is still fighting our civil war. If not for the southern strategy of appealing to white racists, the Republican Party would be hard pressed to assemble a solid base. Think how much fun we'd be having if one side or the other had come to power on the guns of foreign troops.

The KKK carries the former slave owners' torch of hatred into the Twenty-First Century with the hopes of reestablishing White Supremacy in a Christianist America.

Security stopped being the issue when security showed signs of improvement. If political progress is made, then it will be about the electricity, or the lack of gasoline. Or something.

Nice try.
The lack of electricity and gasoline are both intrinsically tied to the security situation.
If security has improved, they will also improve.
If they don't, then security hasn't, either.

Blackwater has has an average of 1.4 shooting incidents per week since 2005, which doesn't strike me as an excessive level of violence in a war zone.

The level of violence isn't what makes Blackwater a clear symptom of occupation.

The fact that the notionally sovereign government of Iraq told an armed force to stop operating in its territory, and that order was overridden by the United States is what makes Blackwater a clear symptom of occupation.

And that "presidential candidate" would be Democratic idiot Joseph Biden, right?

Again, the point is that the proper internal structure of the government of Iraq is an issue regarded as a serious American political issue, Biden's proposal was an illustrative example.

Start here.

You know, if I was asked to name a source of "facts" less reliable than the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, I would have been hard pressed to think of an example off the top of my head, but certainly the Investor's Business Daily editorial page would qualify.

The goalposts will continue to be shoved around.

Yes, the defenders of the war will keep trying to do that, as you are here.

Security stopped being the issue when security showed signs of improvement.

Security never stopped being the issue, and the "signs" of "improvement" are far from indisputed.

If political progress is made, then it will be about the electricity, or the lack of gasoline.

Well, actually, security, political progress, electricity, and gasoline have all been areas pointed to as sources or symptoms of problems from the outset of the occupation, and each has been pointed to as something that, if not addressed, feeds back into and undermines the sustainability of progress on the others.

Given that, its not shifting the goalposts when attempts to make political hay out of apparent short-term progress on one of those areas is answered by pointing to the failure to make progress on the others and suggestion that that continued failure will undermine the supposed progress. It is moving the goalposts, OTOH, to keep trying to shift the focus to whichever area is showing transitory glimmers of "progress" at the moment.

Yeah, trouble with harry's moral code, on September 16, it certainly was quite a "political distraction" for 11 Iraqis.

And a mere 1.4 sounds ever sooooo much better than 200 individuals killed since 2005.

You have a very strange view of humanity and the preciousness of life.

harry,

You remind me of the bean counter VP of Ford several years back, who wrote a memo about the cost of moving the gas tank forward of the rear axle on Pintos - This was prior to the grisley Grimshaw case against Ford - Calculated the cost of moving versus the projected amounts of damages paid to victims or their heirs for deaths and/or injuries sustained in a explosion and fire from rear impact. In the memo, he referred to the victims as "Units", not people, not persons, not human beings, but Units.

So, I guess the eleven killed by the mercs on the 16th are simply an aberation of "units" - So touching, bean counter.

"Let's see, Bush started the war. The CPA was set up with countless neo-con true believers. Bush and the majority Republican congress continued the incompetent handling of the war. He and the Republican minority oppose and filibuster Democratic attempts to shorten the war and bring troops home."

And the Senate just approved another $150 billion with a 92-3 vote.

Nobody believes that the United States will stay in Iraq much beyond 2009

Was this article written by Martians? I believe we will, in fact, stay in Iraq much beyond 2009. Unless the multibillion-dollar fortresses were a head-fake?

Stan Deviation: "(Also goofed on Walters vs. Walter.)"

Just as long as you don't refer to our Babs as "Jiggles", which is what all the fraternity boys used to call her. She just hated that so!

Marlene, dear soul,

Sigma Chi? Didn't you mean "Sweetheart of Six Other Guys"?

As far as troops in Iraq are concerned, a lot depends on the level of violence on U.S. troops. Americans had no problem with large numbers of troops being stationed overseas if they weren't getting shot at on a regular basis. Until 1991, we had twice as many troops in Europe than we have in Iraq right now. Nobody cared.

I see "harry" has mastered the art of stating the blindingly fucking obvious as if he's making some kind of profound point. Er, yes, there is rather a difference between basing forces in your friendly allies' countries for the sake of the common defense, versus attacking, invading and occupying a country, without provocation, and continuing to murder large numbers of their civilians. We are in complete agreement.

harry: The goalposts will continue to be shoved around.

was that -before- or -after- we turned the corner and they were in their last throes?

Sounds like a good argument for partition

ex-liberal,

"If Iraq's democratic government survives, as I expect it to, that will count as a marvelous victory for the US and for the civilized world."

So you are making a prediction. But how have your predictions been in the past? For instance, before the war did you predict that after the Baathist government was defeated, Iraq would quickly become a peaceful, pro-American democracy?

I would venture that the odds of the US brokering a peace between warring factions in Iraq would go up about 100% if we weren't occupying the country. Sometimes a disinterested third party has more clout than someone with a machine gun and a score to settle.

No need to be pedantic.

Oh, the irony....

How many 'civil wars' are conducted around bombing raids ? People are so desperate they're camped in the desert. Water, sewage, power, security - these things aren't what we routinely think of as optional. If the cholera doesn't get 'em - something else will.

I don't think there are any straightline comparisons either over time or space, within one country or one to another, but I would think that Iraq's civil war can be compared to Lebanon's except there are more factions, with a much larger population, over a larger area, with a longer history of conflict.

I don't know if this leads to a shorter or longer period of strife, but I'd bet on the latter.

bobo the chimp: But how have your predictions been in the past? For instance, before the war did you predict that after the Baathist government was defeated, Iraq would quickly become a peaceful, pro-American democracy?

I correctly predicted that we would rapidly defeat Saddam, and with relatively few casualties. That was a time when many thought the war would be long and difficult, because Saddam had so many weapons and such a large army.

I very wrongly thought that pacification would be reasonably straightforward after Saddam's defeat.

I never thought democracy would be easy. However, the current government disappointed me. It has been less effective than I thought it would be.

I disagree

This is what makes Iraq such a political quagmire for U.S. politicians. Iraq's civil war is even messier than average

The Lebanan has had a civil war which has been going on, off and on, since at least as early as 1975.

I correctly predicted that we would rapidly defeat Saddam, and with relatively few casualties. That was a time when many thought the war would be long and difficult, because Saddam had so many weapons and such a large army.

Oh, bullshit. Most everybody thought the initial invasion would be relatively short. It was the aftermath that had thoughtful observers worried.

I very wrongly thought that pacification would be reasonably straightforward after Saddam's defeat. I never thought democracy would be easy. However, the current government disappointed me. It has been less effective than I thought it would be.

So, to sum up, he was right about the one thing most everybody else thought back in March 2003, and has been consistently wrong since for the last four and a half years. I'd say his predictive powers aren't too strong, then.....

pMDdXA