Yep, definitely a good idea to invade
Like the report itself, you'll probably be hearing and reading snippets from the Iraq Study Group report for the next week, until it gets buried and forgotten (I'll refrain from making metaphors to the innocent Iraqis and American soldiers killed), but I saw this and was astonished:
U.S. military and intelligence officials have systematically underreported the violence in Iraq in order to suit the Bush administration's policy goals, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group said.
In its report on ways to improve the U.S. approach to stabilizing Iraq, the group recommended Wednesday that the director of national intelligence and the secretary of defense make changes in the collection of data about violence to provide a more accurate picture.
The panel pointed to one day last July when U.S. officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence. "Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence," it said.
"The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases." It said, for example, that a murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack, and a roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn't hurt U.S. personnel doesn't count, either. Also, if the source of a sectarian attack is not determined, that assault is not added to the database of violence incidents.
That means that for over 3 years, the U.S. Government has been under-reporting violent acts in Iraq by about a factor of 10. Dozens of insurgents jump up and fire rockets and mortars at U.S. troops, but no one is hurt? Well, I guess that's just not a violent act, because they were poor marksmen. So, by this definition, if you attempt to murder someone but fail, as long as you don't hurt them in the process of failing, you haven't commited any crimes.
And I think the absolute worst part of this is that I'm neither shocked or apalled by this...my reaction falls into the "doesn't surprise me" category of apathy. Things have gotten so bad in Iraq that Americans can find out we're telling our soldiers to eat babies and we couldn't muster enough outrage to hold a decent protest.
Just think: we've managed to complete screw up in Iraq so badly that America is neither suprised or concerned about new levels of incompetent actions. Just sad, really.
And here's one Iraqi Army sergeant's take on the situation is:
The Iraqi sergeant has dodged bullets from the al-Mahdi Army and traded fire with Sunni insurgents. Yet in his years with the Iraqi Army he has learnt one simple lesson: once the US military pulls back in Iraq, he should leave the country if he wants to survive. “As soon as it happens, I will quit my job and live outside Iraq,” the sergeant told The Times.
Yep, it was a great idea to invade there, mythical "weapons of mass destruction" or not.
U.S. military and intelligence officials have systematically underreported the violence in Iraq in order to suit the Bush administration's policy goals, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group said.
In its report on ways to improve the U.S. approach to stabilizing Iraq, the group recommended Wednesday that the director of national intelligence and the secretary of defense make changes in the collection of data about violence to provide a more accurate picture.
The panel pointed to one day last July when U.S. officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence. "Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence," it said.
"The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases." It said, for example, that a murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack, and a roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn't hurt U.S. personnel doesn't count, either. Also, if the source of a sectarian attack is not determined, that assault is not added to the database of violence incidents.
That means that for over 3 years, the U.S. Government has been under-reporting violent acts in Iraq by about a factor of 10. Dozens of insurgents jump up and fire rockets and mortars at U.S. troops, but no one is hurt? Well, I guess that's just not a violent act, because they were poor marksmen. So, by this definition, if you attempt to murder someone but fail, as long as you don't hurt them in the process of failing, you haven't commited any crimes.
And I think the absolute worst part of this is that I'm neither shocked or apalled by this...my reaction falls into the "doesn't surprise me" category of apathy. Things have gotten so bad in Iraq that Americans can find out we're telling our soldiers to eat babies and we couldn't muster enough outrage to hold a decent protest.
Just think: we've managed to complete screw up in Iraq so badly that America is neither suprised or concerned about new levels of incompetent actions. Just sad, really.
And here's one Iraqi Army sergeant's take on the situation is:
The Iraqi sergeant has dodged bullets from the al-Mahdi Army and traded fire with Sunni insurgents. Yet in his years with the Iraqi Army he has learnt one simple lesson: once the US military pulls back in Iraq, he should leave the country if he wants to survive. “As soon as it happens, I will quit my job and live outside Iraq,” the sergeant told The Times.
Yep, it was a great idea to invade there, mythical "weapons of mass destruction" or not.