liberal think tank says: surge is working

[caspian_x]

Farkline: (Some Guy) [SPIFFY] Liberal thinktank visits Iraq and says that despite Democratic conventional wisdom, morale is high and the US has a good chance of winning. The negative media coverage is, of course, all Bush's fault though

Once I get over the initial shock that the article was A) written by members of a liberal thinktank and 2) this

Comments

[caspian_x]

First, you should really read the article.

Second, it's not just salvageable. There are real results. Places are becoming safer. People are turning against al-Qaeda and turning to the US and Iraqi forces. These are Very Good Things.

I am concerned that this sort of happy happy joy joy article (didn't read it, just based off your comments) will lead to forgetfulness of how truly this administration screwed the pooch. A somewhat acceptable result cannot be used as retroactive justification for the lying and incompetence that has come before.

No offense, but that seems a bit vindictive and petty. I mean, sure it can be fun to play the blame game, but I'd rather be concerned with the results. When people are saying that good things are happening in Iraq, people are safer, etc. and the response is "Yes, but don't forget, Bush screwed up!" I have to cry foul.

I'm sorry, I thought the original reason we went into Iraq was because they had Weapons of Mass Destruction which they were going to use against us.

No, no, no, no, no, no, NO. That was one reason. Ever since, liberals have been declaring it as the ONLY reason. It was never the ONLY reason. Hours before we invaded Iraq, Bush made a speech including, "Iraqis, your day of liberation is at hand." The rape rooms, the murder, the humanitarian crises were always a part of the justification for the war. Oh, btw, we *did* find WMDs. We didn't find the stockpiles that EVERYONE - Republicans, Democrats, US, British, etc - thought we would. But we did find sarin gas missiles and other biological weapons.

But you're missing the point. You're still talking about the invasion when that victory was reached in one of the quickest most efficient military actions in history. The victory we are seeking today is a reasonable level of stability. The sectarian violence that arose because Saddam's brutal regime was suddenly gone caused us to have a continued presence there seeking stability. *That* is the victory I'm talking about.

[kaali_thara]

No offense, but that seems a bit vindictive and petty. I mean, sure it can be fun to play the blame game, but I'd rather be concerned with the results.

I would have no problems with burying the hatchet. Except I have been given no cause by this administration to do so. Instead of owning their mistakes, they have lied and obfuscated in order to avoid responsibility. I could forgive an error in judgment. It's not like I ever expected much in critical thinking from him in the first place. But I am under no moral or ethical obligation to forgive when he is incapable of apologizing. As a Catholic, you should recognize that simple need. Even God requires that you ASK for forgiveness before it can be given. Since he hasn't asked, I certainly am not going to give.

As for victory... Let's try a baking example. Let us suppose I gathered all the ingredients to bake the perfect cake. I have an exquisite oven that is the most perfectest in the world. I mix the ingredients carefully, pour the batter in the pan, and put the pan in on a perfect timer for the perfect amount of time.

The timer dings and I go to take the cake out of the oven. I open the door and say "AH! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!" I reach in to bring out the hot pan only to discover that, in my haste to make the perfect cake, I neglected one very important detail. I have no potholders, no exit strategy if you will. There it is, my perfect cake in the oven, burning to cinders because I made no preparation for removing it. By the time I find something to pull it out with, my cake is burned. No longer perfect. The fact that at one point it would have been perfect no longer matters. I may be able to salvage the cake, maybe only the edges are burned and I can cut them off and cover with frosting. But I wouldn't call this "success".

Just because he stood on an aircraft carrier with a big banner proclaiming his success doesn't make it true. I don't consider the death toll, civilian and military, consistent with any measure of success.

[caspian_x]

So Very Not Catholic.

Second, I really don't care whether you forgive him or not. Pragmatically, however, if things are going well in Iraq, the response of "Don't forget: Bush Lied, Kids Died!" is neither helpful nor particularly relevant. I'm not criticizing your choice not to forgive, I'm criticizing the fact that you feel it necessary to remind us of how badly Bush screwed up on the tail of good news in Iraq.

Since you used a baking analogy, I'll use an analogy of my own. Let's say you and I go out for a drive. You warn me that the car need maintenance but I ignore you. We are on the highway and the car dies. After a long painstaking time of fixing the car, in which I am continually criticized for screwing up, I finally gain some progress with the car. You respond, "Yes, but don't forget that you caused this mess in the first place." I would find that petty and distracting from the pragmatic point.

[kaali_thara]

Sorry, forgot you weren't Catholic.

The car analogy doesn't hold. I don't really point the finger at Bush for the sake of blaming. I don't feel a need to remind out of vindictiveness.

He is the leader of his party. His party supported, and brutally enforced (by rhetorical means, not physical) his plan. As such, pointing the blame at Bush by necessity points also to Republicans. Holding an elected official accountable for their actions is an important part of the Democratic process. I get to tell my elected officials that they did a good/bad job by writing letters, protesting and most importantly threatening their job security at the ballot box. Perhaps I should focus more on yelling at the Republican party as a whole. As the figurehead, any hit to Bush trickles down to the rest.
The Dems and the Republicans were not similarly situated regarding the pressure they were under to go along with things. And the Dems who even supported the war in the beginning have at least said that they were wrong to do so (many of them anyway).

With the car analogy, the after the fact blaming can have no tangible consequences or benefits to the passenger. Here, there is a tangible consequence of who will be leading this country in a year+.

[caspian_x]

No worries. I'm not offended, just bemused. I'm about as Protestant as you can be.

Yes, I suppose the republican connection is there, but you were saying it doesn't excuse this administration, not Republicans in general. I gather the reason you can't say the latter is because many Democrats voted to go to war as well.

Also, I don't think you can really call Bush the figurehead of the Republican party anymore. After is immigration insanity, Republicans are counting the days until he leaves office along with Democrats.

[kaali_thara]

for the most part I don't have to be too mad at my party since my Senator is Russ. *salute* Also why I support Barack over Clinton.

Too many Republicans toed the party line even long after the lies had started coming out. This administration tricked the nation, lied and disseminated false information. I can forgive anyone for trusting that he wouldn't be so amoral. But when the Republicans refused to acknowledge it and instead called Democrats and the EVIL LIBERALS unAmerican because we didn't like being lied to and believe that it is every citizen's right to question the government and hold our political leaders accountable...

Let's just say it will be a long time before I forget the way the Republicans abused 9/11.

[caspian_x]

You and a lot of other liberals throw around the word LIES a lot. To what exactly are you referring? The whole freaking world believed Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs. I hope you're not referring to anything with Joe Wilson, because that'd be laughable. And no one that I know of, not even Ann Coulter (who I follow pretty closely) accuses anyone of being evil or unpatriotic for questioning government. It's when liberals use the term "flag-waving" as a derogatory epithet or start vandalizing war memorials or organizing war protests on Memorial Day that we get tetchy. We honor the right to question government as much as you (because trust me, if there is a Democrat in office in 2008, we'll be employing that right. A LOT).

[kaali_thara]

I remember being called unpatriotic during the build up to war. I remember it very clearly. I remember it happening on tv and in the street. I remember being told that I hate America.

As far as lies, if we are limiting the discussion to Iraq, I am thinking in particular of the State of the Union discussion of attempts to obtain plutonium, despite the fact that our government already knew that the tip was unsubstantiated.

[caspian_x]

I'm not saying no one ever called a war protester unpatriotic. I'm sure that happens. But I'm talking about anyone of real consequence, not just random right wing nutjobs. And were they talking about dissent or questionning or the crap that I listed above? Because yes, the crap I listed above is unpatriotic.

Our government "knew" that the tip was unsubstantiated? Are you talking about Iraq's attempts to get yellowcake from Niger? Because that wasn't unsubstantiated. Joe Wilson said it was unsubstantiated, but he's about as reliable as a compass in a magnet shop. A bipartisan Senate Committee later confirmed that Wilson was wrong. Iraq was seeking to expand commercial relations with Niger. Guess what Niger's only export is? Enriched uranium. Gee, I wonder what Saddam wanted... Any other lies from the man?

[ubersaurus]

Anyone calling another unpatriotic is of consequence, because it only takes one person to start a riot, a witch hunt, or any sort of violence. And considering the way that ALL the news outlets were getting behind this drumbeat, this march to war, it made the anti-war people seem weaker and less numerous. It's that divide and conquer regiment that the Republican party had virtually mastered.

I was once told I hated America and should get the fuck out and go to Canada or Britain before, in high school, by the motherfucking ROTC sergeant. How do you think I felt, being pulled out of an assembly honoring me, among others? How do you think I felt being singled out because I didn't want to stand for a stupid piece of cloth? Does the fact that fabric is just fabric make me hate the Constitution? Quite frankly, I'm surprised Sarge's posse didn't beat the shit out of me.

Incidentally, he loved America so much, he went to prison for having sex with a minor.

[caspian_x]

And although I don't think either one is qualified to be president, I applaud your support of Obama over Hillary. I think they'd both be terrible presidents, but Obama is marginally better than Comrade Clinton.

[ubersaurus]

Oh no, I don't forget the other reasons. Every few weeks the administration would trot out a new one, have it shot down, and bring up another.

I recall at one point he declared "Bin Laden and Hussein are working together, and there's training camps in Iraq" and shit like that. Which anyone with a bit of knowledge could point out that Hussein and Bin Laden hated each other and had wildly different ideologies and visions for the perfect middle east. Hell, the idea that Hussein had anything to do with the attack on New York is laughable.

The problem with that "quick, efficient military action" is that it left us without the numbers to secure the ground. You seem to LOVE trotting out WW2 history, but when we occupied Germany, we did it with large numbers of allied troops. Iraq had a handful of soldiers with limited knowledge of middle eastern society. It wasn't even enough to secure the Iraqi army's large weapon caches until after they had been cleaned out. THAT was the biggest failing of the invasion, because if you can't stabilize the place immediately, it just gets harder. And saying that Saddam was the reason it's so shitty now shows that you're exceedingly ignorant of Iraq history. It's never been stable. It was a warzone when the British created the state, until Hussein came along and crushed resistance until they had a sort of enforced peace. Prior to even that, the land was always a powder keg...there's reason the word Assassin is Iraqi in origin.

The sectarian violence should have been anticipated given the history of the land, and the existence of Al-Qaeda. But the bunglers in charge decided to look at things with a best case scenario vision, and you can't do that.

[caspian_x]

Can you find me a reference from this administration that Hussein was directly involved in 9/11? Because most conservatives that I listen to and read will readily admit that the two are not directly involved. However, fighting a war on terrorism in the middle east while allowing Saddam's regime to stand would have been asinine and altogether futile.

So while there was no direct link there, toppling Saddam's regime in Iraq furthered the general war an terror (and, although no one will admit it directly, plant the seeds for future revolutions that are so desperately needed in the Muslim world).

[ubersaurus]

I'll see if I can find any of the articles from the time frame when I'm not so dead tired. I do recall seeing it mentioned on the television.

I disagree on the futility of fighting the terrorists while Hussein's regime was around. Although it was opressive(as is much of the middle east) you could count on him to not let any extremist islam groups into his country, by the simple fact that he was staunchly secular. It would have left us one less battlefield to fight on until we were finished setting up the new Afghan state. The only real way to fighting the militant rise would be supporting the moderate governments out there, while ostracizing the worst of the regimes...which we didn't do, because of the economic interests we hold. Hence why the populace at large is wary of the US government in that region, and hence why moderate governments tend to be weak ones over there, like say, Lebanon, or Iran prior to the current presidency. Hell, I seem to recall after we invaded Iraq, their moderate government was so worried that they'd be attacked next that they offered to stop funding militants, help the US track down these groups, and assist in securing the Iraq/Iran and Afghan/Iran borders in exchange for being taken off the "axis of evil" list and hence not be a target for attack. The Bush administration refused, and what do we get? A new government over there that is decidedly less pleasant to deal with.

Although we'd have to deal with Iraq eventually, this was most definitely not the time to do it.

I don't think it's a problem that can be solved solely militarily, but we've made very, very little progress on making any changes to our policy beyond that.

[caspian_x]

With all the world thinking that he was stockpiling weapons (he HAD WMDs, just not as many stockpiles as we thought), with the repeated defiance of the UN, and with the attempts he was making to obtain Uranium from Niger, I don't think we can say with certainty that waiting would have been better. And do you really think his regime would have simply stood by while we waged war in his backyard? I doubt it. It's quite easy to say what should have happened looking back now. Not so easy back then. May I remind you this was not only Bush's idea. Half the Democrats in Congress voted to go to war as well.

Well, perhaps it can't be solved solely militarily, but - at least in dealing with al-Qaeda and the militant insurgents - I can't see diplomacy working too well either. With the Iraqi government? Yes. With the nutjobs who think it's their duty to kill us and/or each other? Not so much.

[ubersaurus]

Actually, the whole Niger thing was debunked like a week after the single source who claimed it was true said it. No one bought it. Working off my memory again, shortly before the war, he let in UN inspectors again to prove he had nothing...which wasn't good enough for the US administration, who after some 4 or 5 months of posturing, gave me(and apparently, most other people worldwide) the impression that this was a vendetta, and that they were going to war no matter what. I honestly don't think he would have interfered, because the Gulf War proved that he couldn't stand up to the US military. Even if he never said it, he knew it. He may have been a psychopath, but he wasn't stupid.

The Democrats in Congress didn't want to look weak. It's a political thing, and we all know it. They had a bad rep as being weak in national defense after the 1970s, and getting blasted on the news by pundits, speeches by their opposition, and so forth, they made the decision they thought would be politically expedient. Not that it mattered at that point anyway, as the Republicans had enough support to push it through no matter what in both houses.

In my eyes, the best way to deal with insurgents is to convince them that violent actions are counterintuitive before they ever join up. If the populace is against the US, those terror groups will have a much, much easier time recruiting, and more support in villages and cities. Much of that has to do with personal freedoms, and especially security. There's been much reporting on the NPR about how US and Coalition support of warlords in Afghanistan is making things worse for the general populace, as these warlords are little better than the Taliban they're fighting...and others are turning to the Taliban for protection from said warlords. The same story occurs in Iraq, with those militant groups we're arming and supporting against Al-Qaeda. Don't think for a moment just because we have a common foe right now that they're on our side. We made that mistake with Hussein, we made it with Bin Laden, and if we make it again, it'll cost us like it did in the 80s.

That's the diplomacy I mean. The "war on terror" can't be won by squelching extremists alone. You have to convince people that extremism is not an answer to any problem, and you have to do that by convincing them we do care about more than just their government's oil.