With no expectations, it's impossible to fail.
Driving to work this morning I was listening to "Morning Edition" on NPR and Steve Inskeep was interviewing Gen. George Casey who is the commander of the multi-national forces in Iraq. Not quite as high up as John Abizaid, but pretty authorative. Inskeep was asking him some pretty tough questions and generally holding his feet to the fire about as much as you can when you're talking to someone who's sole purpose in the interview is to polish the turd that is the war.
Finally at the end of the interview Inskeep mentioned that there are a lot of statistics you can look at from whatever angle you want to make things look good or bad over there, but there are a few statistics that seem about as objective as you can get. He cited a report by Iraq reporter Tom Lasseter of Mcclatchy newspapers that stated these facts:
When L. Paul Bremer, then the top U.S. representative in Iraq, appointed an Iraqi Governing Council in July 2003, insurgent attacks averaged 16 daily. When Saddam Hussein was captured that December, the average was 19. When Bremer signed the hand-over of sovereignty in June 2004, it was 45 attacks daily. When Iraq held its elections for a transitional government in January 2005, it was 61. When Iraqis voted last December for a permanent government, it was 75. When U.S. forces killed terrorist mastermind Abu Musab al Zarqawi in June, it was up to 90.
Clearly a pretty damning indictment upon the people running the war who have consistently said that all those "corners" being turned would bring peace to the country. Right?
For the most part casey just sort of sputtered and didnt really answer the question at all, but when the interview was almost over he said something that I found pretty telling. He said, "You shouldn't be put in a position where your success is judged by enemy actions."
That answer just seemed to open such a window into how the war is going so badly (provided Gen. Casey actually believes it). When the generals running the war have openly decided not to judge their progress by how easily and often the enemy is able to attack them, there's truely no limit to how much they can't fail.
Finally at the end of the interview Inskeep mentioned that there are a lot of statistics you can look at from whatever angle you want to make things look good or bad over there, but there are a few statistics that seem about as objective as you can get. He cited a report by Iraq reporter Tom Lasseter of Mcclatchy newspapers that stated these facts:
When L. Paul Bremer, then the top U.S. representative in Iraq, appointed an Iraqi Governing Council in July 2003, insurgent attacks averaged 16 daily. When Saddam Hussein was captured that December, the average was 19. When Bremer signed the hand-over of sovereignty in June 2004, it was 45 attacks daily. When Iraq held its elections for a transitional government in January 2005, it was 61. When Iraqis voted last December for a permanent government, it was 75. When U.S. forces killed terrorist mastermind Abu Musab al Zarqawi in June, it was up to 90.
Clearly a pretty damning indictment upon the people running the war who have consistently said that all those "corners" being turned would bring peace to the country. Right?
For the most part casey just sort of sputtered and didnt really answer the question at all, but when the interview was almost over he said something that I found pretty telling. He said, "You shouldn't be put in a position where your success is judged by enemy actions."
That answer just seemed to open such a window into how the war is going so badly (provided Gen. Casey actually believes it). When the generals running the war have openly decided not to judge their progress by how easily and often the enemy is able to attack them, there's truely no limit to how much they can't fail.