Addressing the new report set to be released today by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence—including, tangentially, how it is likely to be framed by the media—Dan Collins, in an email, parses this MSNBC story, which (predictably) begins thus:
“In a move sure to raise even more questions about the decision to go to war with Iraq, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will on Friday release selected portions of pre-war intelligence in which the CIA warned the administration of the risk and consequences of a conflict in the Middle East.“Among other things, the 40-page Senate report reveals that two intelligence assessments before the war accurately predicted that toppling Saddam could lead to a dangerous period of internal violence and provide a boost to terrorists. But those warnings were seemingly ignored.”
Could. Seemingly.
“In January 2003, two months before the invasion, the intelligence community’s think tank  the National Intelligence Council  issued an assessment warning that after Saddam was toppled, there was “a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other and that rogue Saddam loyalists would wage guerilla warfare either by themselves or in alliance with terrorists.â€Â
Well, isn’t that interesting? And what prompted the suspicion that it might be in alliance with terrorists?
“[...] Both assessments were given to the White House and to congressional intelligence committees.”
Oh. So you mean Congress had them?
“These should have been very sobering reports,†says Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst at the Brookings Institution. “The administration should have taken them very serious in preparing plans for a difficult post-Saddam period. And yet the administration did not do so.â€Â
Oh. Should Congress have “taken them very serious”ly? Who else should have, Mr. O’Hanlon?
Seems to me that, for whatever reason, we’ve not had the inevitable next 9-11 in this country. Seems to me, perhaps that is because militant Islamists have had to refocus their resources. Seems to me that people are forgetting what Bush said about this war, that it would be long and arduous, and that much of what was accomplished would be accomplished out of sight of the American people.
Seems to me that elements within the CIA, with the support of people such as Mr. O’Hanlon, believe that they ought to, if not actually do, constitute a shadow government.
[My emphasis.]
Dan issues an important reminder of what Bush (and Rumsfeld) actually said about the war. Which—again, and predictably—the NBC report goes out of its way to avoid addressing. Instead, it gives us this:
None of those warnings were reflected in the administration’s predictions about the war.
In fact, Vice President Cheney stated the day before the war, “Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.â€Â
[…]
It is likely that Democrats and Republicans on the Hill will question how the administration could have predicted a short, easy war given these warnings and why it has taken more four years for them to surface.
The war to depose Saddam was, in fact, remarkably short. And yes, warnings about post-Saddam Iraq—all couched in qualifying CYA language of “could” or “might”—have proven true, though it is NOT true that Iraqis want us out of the country now.
Eventually, yes. Inevitably, yes. But not now—not while they are still vulnerable. At least, if you can believe the polls—which, again, the US and international press have gone out of their way to spin negatively.
Examine, if you will, what the anti-war press has done here in trying to shape the overarching narrative of Iraq. First, it has placed the blame on the Administration for its failure NOT to dismiss CIA intel about WMDs—shared by virtually every intelligence service in the world, and backed to this day by several reports (the “stockpiles” have never been found, but the ability to quickly make and mobilize weapons has)—spinning that, with the help of furiously backpeddling and cowardly Democrats (with certain exceptions, Bob Kerrey and Joe Lieberman notable among them), into the suggestion that Bush, having weighed the bulk of the intelligence, “lied” about WMDs and “misled” us into war. Of course, Congress had access to that same intelligence—and it was a Democratic administration that, too, was certain about Saddam’s danger—but that fact is consistently bracketed from the Iraq war narrative as it has been consistently pushed by Democrats and the press.
Too, what the press fails to mention, in the wake of all this backpeddling by Congressional Democrats, is why we, as an electorate, should trust them on national security if they can be so easily “misled” by intelligence they themselves had access to (which they most certainly did, though they will cavil and squirm about certain intel they didn’t have access to that the President did, as if the President was poring through raw intel data).
And the reason the press avoids the topic is because no one with any access to the intel truly believes that Bush “misled” us into war—though the Democrats have managed to get their anti-war contingent and allies in the press to parrot these assertions, without risk of having it pointed out that were such true, the Democrats have, as a group, proven themselves either inept or unserious, and ill-prepared to defend the country. Instead, it is precisely because the Congressional Democrats believed the CIA’s pre-war intelligence assessment about WMDs that so many Democrats made so many strong statements regarding the danger Saddam posed.
Remember, John Edwards, vice-presidential candidate in 2004 and current anti-war presidential hopeful, was explicit: he was NOT misled, and the intel absolutely supported the Administration’s assertions about WMD.
Which he either admitted to because he wanted to appear strong on security (while he didn’t really believe what he was saying, which would make him an opportunist and a liar); or else he was certain that the WMDs would eventually turn up, and he—and the Democrats who authorized the use of force—could not afford to be caught on the wrong side of such a find, which would have left them marginalized completely on national security issues (making him either a supporter of the war, or a political opportunist and a liar).
Here, I’d normally add that the Democrats can’t have it both ways, but it’s apparent that such an assessment is based on the old rules of rationalism, and an old Enlightenment paradigm in which epistemology was based on internal consistencies in reasoning. Which is no longer the case, evidently. Because they CAN have it both ways, and indeed they continue to have it both ways—thanks, in large part, to the aid of the press in shaping the Iraq narrative, and to the willingness of “progressives” and anti-war types to either completely ignore the contradictions, or else to internalize them and conclude that they don’t matter, so long as the goal of regaining power is met. The linguistic turn; the ability of the receiver to control meaning; the will to power. Sound familiar?
In short, this coalition of the like-minded have decided to pretend that the logical problems within its mise en scenes don’t exist in order to push a particular narrative that it hopes will sell its world view to the American people.
And it is working, sadly—again thanks to a press that is either complicit or else completely incurious and pre-disposed to believe whatever happens to track with their own ideological biases, coupled with an electorate that is not very politically engaged, and that continues to get the majority of its information from a mainstream media that has consistently framed that information in a way that foregrounds disaster, conflict, scandal, and failure, using the rhetorical tropes of emotional appeal and appeal to (selective) authority.
Second, we are being asked—in light of all this—to believe, in the wake of today’s report, that the same CIA whose intelligence assessment Bush should have dismissed in the run-up to the war is now heroic for its prediction of post-war events, and that the Administration was somehow derelict, and didn’t take those predictions “very serious”.
But if this is true—and on what basis (other than hindsight and a desire to spin events to make our difficulties in post-Saddam Iraq an error of hubris rather than a tactical and strategic blunder brought about by a desire to fight a “clean” war and to establish, immediately after Saddam’s fall, a civilian authority) can this be said to be the case, without devolving into insulting conspiracy theories?—why did Bush and Rumsfeld go out of their way to note, after the fall of Saddam, that we were in for a long hard slog?
The answer is, as far as I’m concerned, because the Administration did indeed take the CIA reports “very serious,” but thought—having also accepted the CIA’s assessment on intel about WMDs (and given the “inevitability,” as many were saying, of subsequent attacks here at home)—that the risk was a necessary one, and that a post-Saddam guerila war was the price we might have to pay for deposing a despot who everyone believed (and that intel now shows) was an unstable actor with a history of animus toward the US, one who, armed with WMD, was a prime candidate to wage a proxy war against us using an alliance of convenience with terrorists.
Only by consistently imputing bad-faith motives to the Administration—and by covering for the opportunism, cynicism, and inconsistencies of the anti-war Democrats—can the press even run stories such as this one, whose main intent seems to be to suggest, yet again, that Bushco, in the wake of terrorist attacks and an anthrax scare, should have been prescient enough to know in advance everything we’ve now learned through hindsight.
Worse, this suggestion is often accompanied by the (incongruous) intimation that the Bushies were just this prescient, but that they went ahead with the war anyway—duping the Democrats in the process—so that they could, uh, find themselves in an unpopular war, with gas prices the highest in memory? Put themselves in a position to lose both Houses of Congress as well as the Presidency?
All so that Bush could avenge his daddy and enrich his oil buddies.
This is what we are being asked to believe—and people like Joy Behar, already predisposed to hating Republicans (having been raised to believe Democrats are always the good guys, as was I), lap it up and regurgitate it on cue, so assured in their outrage that they find no need to carefully examine the facts.
And this is precisely the template upon which today’s progressives operate—just as Behar is precisely the kind of useful idiot that will weaken our political system out of sheer intellectual laziness.
Because she has learned to equate, falsely, the heat of her indignation with both the strength of her arguments and the rigor of her thinking. And, like her compatriot Rosie O’Donnell, she seems to believe that being loud and blustery and self-righteous is enough to justify an aversion to facts.
Call it an embrace of the “fallacy of proof,” I suppose.
Personally, I’m not at all surprised this is where we’ve wound up. But then, I’m a bit of a scholar of culture, and I had the great forture of watching it crafted, packaged, and sold while spending nearly a decade in a Humanities department.
And I’ve concluded that until we are able to take back the press—something I would do that by forcing them out into the open about their biases and embracing a media that didn’t pretend toward objectivity in their analysis—and find some sort of market alternative to the current acadamy, we are in for a long hard slog, one that will become increasingly difficult if a Democratic President is able to place liberal activists on the Supreme Court.
I know—not the best way to start off your day, is it?
But hey, if you think that’s bad, you should try it with a pulled rib cage muscle…
****
update: Shockingly, Tbogg sees things differently. After quoting this portion of my post:
The war to depose Saddam was, in fact, remarkably short. And yes, warnings about post-Saddam Iraqâ€â€all couched in qualifying CYA language of “could†or “mightâ€Ââ€â€have proven true, though it is NOT true that Iraqis want us out of the country now.
Eventually, yes. Inevitably, yes. But not nowâ€â€not while they are still vulnerable. At least, if you can believe the pollsâ€â€which, again, the US and international press have gone out of their way to spin negatively.
—Tbogg cites a number of poll results that, well, spin the findings to make it appear Iraqis want an immediate US withdrawal, before adding the quip:
Obviously the “otherness” of the Iraqis prevents them from seeing how these poll questions have been “framed” and therefore their responses are epistemologically suspect.
Well, not really. Iraqi leaders have made it a point to ask the US to stay, and while there is a growing disconnect in the messages being sent by the Iraqi government and the populace, (see also, here) many recent poll results suggest that Iraqis want the US to leave “within a year”, with half that number wishing us to leave with 6 months (taken Sept 2006).
Which is, of course, different from immediate withdrawal (or, as I put it, “now”)—and is different, too, than having the US withdraw on a timetable tied to benchmarks for progress. Meaning that Tbogg has made my point for me: I noted that Iraqis wanted us to leave eventually and inevitably, just not now. For his part, Tbogg spins this into a suggestion that they do, in fact, wish up to leave immediately—then throws in some snark to try to discredit me with readers who believe all this talk about “framing” and “epistemology” and “otherness” is just so much hogwash.
Which, sadly, is not a position these same folks take when it comes to their academic work.
However, I will say this: if the Iraqi parliament votes to ask US troops to leave immediately—which would mark a departure from some of the Iraqi government’s previously expressed wishes—we should certainly respect the request. But let’s not forget this story, which presents a caveat that we haven’t heard trumpeted by the mainstream media:
Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman said he had backed the draft but only on the condition that the withdrawal timetable be linked to a schedule for training and equipping Iraq’s security forces.
“But the sponsors of the legislation did not include our observations in the draft. This is deception,†he said.
Deception, spin—you say tomato, I say bias by omission.
Hope that clears things up.
Although I doubt it: tbogg, not being a warmongering conservathug himself, is in no position to understand what I’m saying. And I’m outraged that he would even presume to do so. I mean, he’s like that presumptuous Bernard Lewis, only with a fraction of the education and an employee discount at the food court
Stop trying to colonize me, tbogg. Your hegemony is showing.
I’d say you fleshed that out rather well, Jeff.
Kennedy, Souter and Sandra Day O’Connor were appointed by Republicans and hailed as conservative strict constructionists. I agree with what you’re saying. I support it, but I can’t help but note that a great many Republicans, who we count on to initiate the policy changes that will allow a free political dialog in academia and on the networks, don’t and won’t. What do we do about that?
Start appointing libertarians to the bench.
And start doing what (gulp) Falwell did and funding private universities—though ones that aren’t based around a particular religious doctrine. Conservatives give much to charities—why not fund something that might truly help regain an ideological balance in the country.
That “conservatives” (helped out, I imagine, by classical liberals and a certain strain of libertarian) have been able to compete at all, given the disadvantage they have getting their message out untarnished, is nothing short of amazing, so far as I’m concerned.
That, and there are still enough people out there who are able to shake off the structural indoctrination that leads to a fidelity to progressive bromides. Individuals truly wish to remain that way, I think, when all is said and done.
There are innumerable conservative and classical liberal scholars out there who would probably leave the private sector to rejoin academia if they believed it was committed to a truly liberal and useful education.
I’m gonna leave this one up here for a while and go lift weights. New content will follow later, but for now, discussion (agree, disagree, call me a paranoid dick) on this post and the post on “hate crime” felonies is appreciated.
Do classical liberals, libertarians who haven’t lost their minds, and conservatives do the same thing politically? Are you talking third party?
pulled a rib muscle? I had that problem about 2 months back and it still isn’t quite right. It should start to feel much better after abotu a week…and since you probably aren’t trying to learn brazilian jui-jitsu, it’s not likely you’ll reaggrevate it.
Still, ice and advil is all you need. And lots of rest.
Not really. Just a coalition of the willing.
Excellent discussion of these issues today, in the form of a debate between a libertarian and a liberal here:
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=6077
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=6076
The large number of Hindsight Heroes on the liberal/progressive side of the spectrum is an amazing phenomenom. I’m sure Nancy is planning a medal ceremony at some point in the well of the House.
With public figures it is usually an easy matter to point out conflicting statements from the past. Many bloggers and commenters, however, don’t have the track record to challenge their claimed prescience and arguments are often based on the hypocrisy Jeff outlines above.
When the puppet media and left blogosphere act as stenographers for terrorist and anti-American propaganda yet in comparison vigorously doubt any information put out information put out by the administration, a severe and widespread contagion of confirmation bias appears to be at work.
Witness the acceptance of the quagmire and civil war meme’s, the inability to believe Iran’s involvement in Iraq, the unwillingness to question the unconfirmed reporting of the ubiquitous Jamil Hussein, the verified fauxtography efforts in Lebanon, Plamegate, and Haditha reporting, among other incidents.
Anything which disturbs the meme must be fought tooth and nail.
I think it was already in the late fall of 2003 that I saw my first “Bush lied, people died” t-shirt, on a checkout girl at a grocery store in rural America. However, she was cute, the t was pink, and she had a nice rack.
I don’t think anyone serious or moderately intelligent thinks the administration lied or misled. However, you have to remember that at leat 50% of the population is below that line.
One can parse speeches and CIA docs all day long, but the fact is, everyone was talking about finding WMD’s, and everyone was talking about in and out. Those were by far the dominant representations in the media and everywhere else.
That those two things cited above did not turn out as advertised is the problem. The rest is much less important.
The war, right wrong, whatever, has cost a lot of blood and treasure. And, I reiterate, I believe it is over-straining the armed forces of the US. I do not discount polls, which indicate that large majorities of Americans are highly pissed about this war, which has already lasted almost six months longer than our involvement in WW2.
I can sympathize—if not agree—with the arguments that we stay there indefinitely (I think we will have some force there indefinitely, but that’s different) but I think the fact that people are tired of the apparent lack of progress isn’t going to go away, and the strain on the armed forces isn’t going to go away, either.
Unfortunately then, the simplistic mindset comes over, and when there’s famine or a plague, it must be because of the King, or the Jews, or, IOW, the top guy and some conspiracy. It’s always been like that and always will.
We may clear Bush and his advisers for the sake of posterity, but then, there’s plenty of time for that. The messed up nature of our involvement in Iraq is not going to go away, no matter how many narratives one controls, and unless there is major material improvement the political position of those supporting (in succession) the war, Bush, and the GOP will start disintegrating in the Fall.
Bush obviously knew this and was counting on it, anybody remember “Bring it on”? He has consistently spoken about fighting them over there instead of here.
Question: You are in a war against people who habitually and operationally shun fighting against military forces and instead concentrate on killing civilians, the more innocent the better.
How do you get them to fight your military instead of your civilians?
Answer: You invade a country that they will feel they have to fight for. Perhaps one where there is already a casus belli. Perhaps one which is ruled by one of these people’s supporters and funders.
It sucks for the Iraqis, but their country is where Bush decided to fight al Quaeda.
Really? Everyone?
I don’t think the president was. His comments may have been spun that way, but that’s by a press that, frankly, lies as a matter of course and by political opponents so far around the bend with hatred they’ll make shit up to slime him.
I’ll take “Political Opportunist and a Liar” for $300, Alex.
Yes, we do have to take the media back, especially now that the Google guys are taking it on themselves to protect us from diversity of opinion.
Right after the election, I commented at Hugh Hewitt’s blog that we had roughly 24 months to start having a countervailing impact on the media or else we could kiss our intellectual freedom good-bye.
The Left is trying to make its political opposition illegal and they are getting very close to succeeding. It’s time to wake up.
Okay, Rob. Let’s stipulate that Bush saw all of this coming. How does that change the dynamic of (a) our lengthy and costly involvement in Iraq that (b) large majorities of Americans no longer support, and (c) strain on our armed forces?
I don’t think it does. There’s no way parsing or accusing is going to make this war look good or feel good at this point in time. If there is not significant improvement by the fall, then I expect the GOP will start to bail, leaving Bush on his own, and the GOP—my party—will get crushed by Obama Clinton in 2008. I don’t want that to happen. But that is what WILL happen: parsing docs and in effect accusing the media of being in a conspiracy is not going to change that.
By the same token, if there is measurable improvement by the fall, then there will be renewed clamor to “bring our boys home.”
So I think it is inevitable that we will see large draw-downs in 2008, but never complete withdrawal. The only two questions remaining are: (1) how much of a price will the GOP pay at the polls (I’d say significant), and (2) how will history regard Bush and his admin? I leave the second question alone for now.
”…large majorities of Americans are highly pissed about this war, which has already lasted almost six months longer than our involvement in WW2.”
What is that, the KOS fax blast of the day?
That’s the second time within the last 15 minutes, on two different blogs, I’ve seen the same ‘longer than WWII’ meme.
Besides, if Patton had been let loose ro continue to go into Lorraine, the Iraqi war would now be a year longer than WWII.
No Brain: I doubt if Patton’s thrust would have taken him to Japan.
OT, but hey, there’s no other active thread for this.
Head on over to Zombietime and scroll to the bottom of the page. Zombie’s provided a photo with Algore holding what looks like a blank sheet of paper. We’re invited to ‘shop at will.
TW: Feel free to be as mean45 as you can.
First of all, I’ve got to say that I really enjoy Jeff’s writing. He’s got a great eye for word choice and usage – precise and intelligent without being pretentious. I can always find something engaging when I visit here, and I just wanted to pass that compliment along.
Anyway, I’ve found myself actually hoping for the disintegration of the two major political parties in the US. At this point it almost looks like politics has degraded into a team sport for most of the country. People don’t think about policy or analyze its impact; they look for the team who’s marketing and rhetoric best match their personality and root for that team come hell or high water. Even if their team does something they absolutely hate, they’re slow to recognize it and even slower to change.
Perhaps if folks had to think a bit more about the actual policies and world-views of the affiliations they claim, they’d make better choices. I hope. But just in case a third party is in the works, we’d better start marketing it now. I recommend that the party logo look something like Scarlett Johansson driving a Ferrari while saving a box of kittens from the Taliban. That ought to do the trick.
Bullshit. The war, as Jeff has so ably noted, lasted a shorter period of time than was needed by a certain female Attorney General to seize a compound in Waco. The war was over when we captured Baghdad, and was celebrated by the (in)famous “Mission Accomplished” banner. It has been the aftermath of this war that has lasted so long, and we’ve got a few decades to go before we start catching up to the length of time that the aftermath of WW2 (id est, the Iron Curtain, the Warsaw Pact, increasing hostilities and low-level armed conflict through proxies, etc.) has taken so far…
But what am I saying? Neither intellectual honesty nor any kind of internal consistency has ever been any kind of starting point for those who see the United States as the source of the world’s ills.
Meanwhile, in celebration of Amnesty International’s latest poll, I would like to offer up one of my own:
Which organization has done more to support oppressive regimes and their suppression of basic human rights than any other?
1) the Klingon Empire
2) KAOS
3) Amnesty International
4) SPECTRE
I tend to agree, however, I get the feeling that if there were a serious political realignment in this country, we’d end up with something worse than what we have now. Everybody is unhappy with the status quo, but when you start asking people about the reasons they’re unhappy, it gets very nerve wracking. Leftists are unhappy that the Democrats aren’t socialist enough. Social cons are unhappy that the Republicans aren’t doing enough about loose women. Libertarians are unhappy that both parties won’t immediately dissolve the government. It’s basically the entire structure of the edifice that’s holding the center together.
Ross Perot tried to craft a centrist party and look what happened to that.
SGIC— It’s been about a month now. It’s significantly improved, but still with me. And while I’m not studying marshal arts just now, I am training to begin playing baseball again next season. Sadly, I haven’t been able to hit for a month (which is how I pulled the muscle in the first place).
Sucks. Have a new custom maple bat that I’ve just been staring at.
Joseph —
Thanks for the kind words.
The media has loudly and ostentatiously excoriated itself for “not looking harder” at administration claims with respect to WMD etc. We just had a vote which contemplated withdrawal of forces, and yet the media did very little to examine claims with respect to what an abandoned Iraq would look like.
Bitches.
Look, you can’t have it both ways.
If the war is over—as it was over in three weeks—then the question is why we have as many if not more people over there as we did to begin with. You also have to explain why at this point about 96% of our casualties have come in the “postwar”.
I have argued in the past that the war is technically over, but these are semantic games. We are taking dead and wounded—as are the Iraqis—at higher rates than when “the war” was on, or during the Cold War with the Soviets, for that matter.
So it’s reasonable to say that “the war” is still on going. But, OK, we can call it something else, if you insist.
On the other hand, if you want to say the war is over, and we won it, just exactly what are we doing over there, NOW? And you don’t have to explain it to me, you have to sell it to the American people.
Bitches, I say.
That’s right, Steve. Because it’s all about perception and “selling the narrative.”
DELICIOUS!
Dude, I warned ya not to wrestle that ‘dillo. The little bastard’s got a serious leverage advantage. And a grip like a metal-forming machine…
But nooooooo, Mr. “20 shots of Laphroaig” had to issue a grudge-match challenge…
Steve, what zactly do you think peacekeeping operations in the future – anywhere – are going to look like now that jiffy pop impersonators targeting civilians is standard operating procedure for people looking to keep the party going?
No, Jeff, that’s precisely where I disagree. Narratives and perceptions are irrelevant at this point.
The facts are: thousands of dead and wounded, unnumbered dead and wounded Iraqis, hundreds of billions of dollars, no tangible rewards, an overstretched armed forces, and no end in sight.
Now, one can spin that in various ways. “I Never Promised You A Rose Garden.” We got Saddam. We’re fighting them there rather than here. No major terrorist attacks since 9/11. And so forth. Some of those spins might contain a grain of truth or maybe a lot of truth.
But none of them will work, at this point, in my opinion.
You are talking about narratives and perception, Steve, when you talk about what “will work.”
The facts are the facts. We either invaded Iraq for the right reasons and now must stay until we’re finished or risk a serious loss in the war against Islamic extremism, or we can cite losses in both blood and treasure and rationalize our way out of it.
I’m for honoring our commitment.
Okay, Happy. Let’s say we have about a third or more of the armed forces of the US involved in a peace keeping operation in Country X where they have been for over four years and have had Y casualties, yada yada. Then the American people are asked to vote on continuing said peace keeping operation. what do you think they will say? We’ll find out soon enough.
A couple of months ago I had an exchange with s.o. about this here, and their argument was we don’t have the proper armed forces for peace keeping operations, which is why we were justified in sending only the number of troops we sent. Okay, so if our armed forces aren’t properly configured for peace keeping operations, maybe we shouldn’t be doing them.
Okay, Jeff. I misunderstood you. I will get back to you on this.
Take your time. I really do have to go lift now or else I’m going to fall asleep.
Aside to there not being (yet) liberation/occupation/military action-by-poll, Steve, let me add another element to your debate. Not long ago there was talk of “winning” Iraq the dirty way: Leaving and letting some quarter of the population succumb to genocide.
That is, to me, the most reprehensible component of a most reprehensible political party. But that’s just me; principle and honor before persoal interest and all.
Your thoughts?
What the American pipples say depends almost entirely on whether there is a Democrat or a Republican in the White House.
Steve,
You continue with the Murtha-esque “broken” military theme, and as I participate in higher and higher levels of preparation and planning for future rotations – I don’t see what you do to such an extent. Could you share your (unclassified) sources of info?
I mean, when I can sit in on the CSS Commander’s Conference for the entire Army, and not get the same things as you do out of it, we have some sort of disconnect.
Major John, in your view, what is the ultimate rationale for US involvement in Iraq? I’m told it’s oil.
JH: Why would it be? Iraq and even Iran aren’t real high on the list for US oil supplies; and if we wanted Iraq’s oil more’n anything else we could’ve easily struck a sweetheart deal with Hussein in 2000…
Which would have made the “sanctions are killing a bazillion Iraqi infants every four seconds” crowd happy!
(Well, okay, it wouldn’t, but it should have if they were consistent and not just barely-disguised anti-Americans and anti-Westerners, but arguenda we could pretend they weren’t.)
You know, when people start drawing comparisons to the current conflict and WWII, I can’t help but think – what’s the one thing we did that, more than anything else, helped end that war (WWII)? Something that we haven’t done in any other conflict since?
I would argue that dropping atomic weapons shortened that war and as a result saved lives – on both sides. So, all those in favor of shortening the war and saving lives in Iraq, write your Congresspersons urging them to encourage the White House to use nuclear weapons. It’s, as Corporal Hicks said, “the only way to be sure.”
There’s something else the MSM conveniently brush over. The Democrats were the majority in the Senate, which in turn would mean they controlled the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
No reason I can think of, Sigivald, what with Iraq supplying under 4% of US consumption (nearly sixty percent of which is from the Americas.) Well, before our War-For-Oil-Chimpy-eared CINC shut off the spigots, I mean.
Presumably to lower supply to raise prices here. Thereby fulfilling Rightist needs. With which to prove this isn’t about oil at all. Except that the Left very effectively opposes refinery expansion. To Speak Truth to BushCo Power by, um, lowering supply. Even though we’re over there For Oil. And Big Oil makes too much. At nine cents a gallon. Which then costs too much to fill algore’s SUV; damn Bushco.
You can see my confusion, hence the question.
“There’s no way parsing or accusing is going to make this war look good or feel good at this point in time.”
Does anyone here believe a war is suppose to feel good? Or even look good?
In reverse order:
Major John: I am not saying the armed forces (or, more precisely, the ground forces) are “broken”, but I do think just in terms of numbers they must be under some strain. And there are many, not just Murtha, who feel that way, including several former armed forces leaders. So, let me phrase it as a question: can we maintain current force levels/casualty rates in Iraq indefinitely? If you say we can, then I take that off the table.
JHoward: I am not a fan of precipitous withdrawal by any means. I’m looking at this as a political problem. If we all left tomorrow, would one side attempt to genocide the other? Maybe. Would that be our fault? I don’t think so. I don’t think Pol Pot was our fault, either.
I think the larger problem is that the American people are not going to support a large presence in Iraq for much longer, and that this cannot be blamed on the media. I do think Americans will support intervention for decade or decades for countries many Americans identify with: Europe, Israel, Central America. But not Iraq.
Sure there have. The elections of 1864, 1876 (occupation of the South), 1900, 1916, 1940, 1968, and 1972 all come to mind. The only reason 2008 will not be a “poll” on the Iraq war is because I expect the political leadership of both parties to bail by no later than early 2008.
Jeff: If you propose to me that in this war we have made a commitment to the Iraqi people, I can deal with that. Caveats exist however and they include:
1. Can we maintain current force/casualty levels indefinitely? (I already asked Major John about that)
2. Will the American people tolerate this kind of involvement in a foreign country to which few Americans have any ties? I don’t think so.
3. With regard to the PR war with Islamic Fundamentalists, it seems to me we lose either way. The longer we stay, the more we look like a helpless Giant. If we lose, of course, we concede. I don’t see any way out of this dilemma short term (short term = years).
4. We could of course bomb Syria, Iraq, or what have you and I don’t really care if we do or not. However, we have no ground forces to invade, so any air campaign will not solve our problems and will probably create more PR problems (collateral damage.)
I should point out that what spurs me to post on these issues is not a a specific strategic or political agenda—I think we’re past that point—but rather the repeated claim that the media is the reason people aren’t behind this war. I think that is untrue.
Post WW2, the US economy took our two main enemies—Germany and Japan—and made them major trade partners. If those economies collapsed, that would definitely affect us. And those economies among others depend on Iraqi oil.
I do think there’s some merit to saying the war is about oil. I also don’t think it’s anything to be ashamed about either: it’s a fundamental energy source for the developed world, without it there would be worldwide economic collapse.
By “political problem” I see an intractable hostility embodied in racial Islam that’s not going away unless made to, which is to say, there’s little if any option for a political solution there. I believe history is reasonably clear about that?
Domestically, the mendacity of the Left’s politically-motivated anti-liberation efforts is evident. That’s a “political problem.”
Assuredly. To the point that I believe that’s a component of military scenario-building, isn’t it?
Fault? It would be the direct consequence of our actions, Steve.
There was no way to prevent the Cambodian massacre, Steve? None? I’m tempted to ask how you feel about law enforcement.
Do you think the US could somehow derive a replacement 4% from another source, Steve? ANWAR, say? How do you feel about expanding refinery inventory? How do you feel about funding states sworn to hostility against their customers?
That effect is, obviously, secondary. A primary affect—benefit, actually, if we don’t choke on the horrific moral implications—would be to convert Iraq into another trade partner.
The fact that territory would stand at the center of a region most hostile to the US I’d consider a nice perk. Of course, I also believe in democracy not befitting only certain peoples, too…
Steve,
We could keep current forces levels in Iraq indefinitely, sure. Would we want to. No. None us wants that. But it is a balancing act (which I think you address more in your points about political will, than I would suspect in logistical and personnel numbers).
We are a very wealthy country – and we have made no real dent in our GNP to afford this conflict. You can mention the billions it costs – but it isn’t like the money is set in a great heap and burnt. It pays US companies for materials. It pays soldiers, sailors airmen and Marines. It pays contractors – even Halliburton pays taxes on what they make
Some is expended and gone [although the people making ammo in Alton, IL might get a little touchy about that, heh]. Some is building up a friend and ally (and what will be a not-insignificant part of the world economy – but you already know that, since you have touched on Germany and Japan).
I don’t think we are too far apart on this, I just happen to think you overstate the effect this is having on the Armed Forces, and understate the effect of a relentless negativity in the Information Environment (sorry, using CA terms…).
What do you make of the incredulity of soldiers (and I was no exception) who come home and hear what is being reported and wonder “where are they talking about”? I think Jeff and others have pointed out the huge scorn and abuse that even minor reports of success bring from the Left-o-sphere. Why would that be?
Again, I think we aren’t too far apart on many aspects.
JHoward: I consider the argument that the US is responsible for Pol Pot to be a lefty argument. It is not an argument made by someone justifying the 1970 incursions and saying we should have stayed. It is made by people who insist we never should have “widened the war” to begin with.
In the same way, I do not accept the idea that if the US leaves some country, and then that country descends to barbarism, it’s somehow our “fault”. What you are saying sounds like, “If we leave there will be genocide” but that must mean either:
a. If we had never gone in, there would be no threat of genocide,
b. There would have been a threat of genocide regardless
If b. is true, it won’t be our fault whether there is genocide or not. If a. is true, it means we created potentially genocidal conditions by invading. I know you don’t believe that!
I also don’t think we are responsible for Darfur.
We may get small amounts of oil from Iraq but many of our major trading partners rely on it. We can drill for oil in Yellowstone park as far as I am concerned but the big oil reserves are still largely in the Arab world, and so they will remain for the time being. As long as that is the case, that land and those people are of strategic importance to the global economy and to the USA.
taking any yoga? I hated the crap out of the class I was taking after my injury (hippie teacher and nowhere near the number of hawt babes I was totally promised), but there are a couple of nice stretches that can ease off the tension. Granted my pull was just under my elbow on the lat…so your mileage may vary depending on the injury location.
And since you were asking for site improvements/suggestions, I think you should just turn this place into a fitness blog. With a name like Protein Wisdom, it makes sense. And you can just link to Art De Vany’s blog and t-nation all day long.
So…what’s your deadlift?
Thanks, Major. No, I don’t think we’re that far apart either. I do rebel against the idea, however, that if it wasn’t for the big bad media, we’d have “won” by now. And that’s the sense I sometimes get reading comments. So I am responding on that level.
The CIA was already selling the covert CIA WMD training program for all operations offiers at SU universities as the inpectors began. From here, they had alredy decided to write off the program before the war and use these type of reports to avoid the conflict. This was pressure on the President not to attack and the reports after the leak of the covert CIA WMD program where doen to affect policy, not invade.
Plame, a CIA WMD specialist and operations officer in Iraq, shows up after the war to protest. Her husband joined in. Plame was a team effor, as can be told from Larry Johnson who verified her training back to the ‘farm’ and Jim Marcowski. Plame and CIA are just pay back for going against CIA advice after the covert CIA WMD program was leaked during the inspections. since this happened CIA analysts have moved to DoD NSA as liguists that Tenet hired at CIA. The real answer is Bush wouldn’t listen to CIA after their covert CIA WMD training program was leaked, something they blame Rice and her degree for, and CIA is getting pay back through Plame and Joe.
The lab run by Dr.WMD in Iraq was closed and the the doctor in charge freed the day Plame posed for ‘Vanity Fair.’ Confused?
Smileys are broke.
From another blog___________
Fitzgerald’s job was to prosecute Plame. He is a criminal conspiracy investigator, how bad CIA agents are prosecuted. Fitz passed while he was prosecuting there was criminal conspiracy to commit murder of other operations officer after Plame confirmed who she was in ‘Vanity Fair.’ Plame’s answer to the appointment was to file civil law suits because Fitz was appointed.
Fitz passed on traditionally AG work and now the AGs are all in trouble. They are in trouble because they didn’t follow new legislation regarding intelligence activities that gave the AG and AGs more latitude in prosecution. The legislation was directly related to Plame and was done at the time the criminal conspiracy to commit murder happened. Specter and others were covering her for what happened and what she did and the AGs apparently were unaware.
Comey appointing his close friend to prosecute Plame was a mistake to dems and CIA, so although they will allow him to be AG, it is because he lost in his appointment of a close friend who should not do his job because he is not for persecuting government employees. Fitz went to Harvard like allot of others and how he views intelligence identities legislation and operations from the intelligence committee and funding can be found in his pal, Sarah Chayes. She was financed heavily through Mercy Corps and other NGOs created with Karzai, who she later denounced after paying Taliban. USAID funding (CIA) was directly from the intelligence committee and Shays. They were all PCs. Fitz just passes because he sees it as political and okay. Reality is that all this needed to be investigated and wasn’t, probably because Fitz passed on criminal conspiracy charges. Harvard, Chayes, Fitz, Plame, Shays, and politics. Fitz views intelligence as this and not to be prosecuted because of all the deals made by politicians, CIA, universities and DIA informants. Once he passed on criminal conspiracy charges, the intelligence community had lost it’s abililty to prosecute bad CIA agents. CIA’s answer, using retired Air Force personnel who became Directors at CIA, was to move all the CIA analysts to DoD, NSA and Tenet’s excuse for doubling the size of CIA with CIA linguist, analysts. So, like most retired CIA gents like Plame, Larry johnson, Jim Marcowski, etc. the US governemtn has to take care of CIA and its legacy. Plame’s dad was Air Force (NSA). Joe’s dad was a diplomat in Spain(CIA). It’s a giant legacy that everyone in DoD must ake care of because they have served, but the real answer is Plame was a bad agent and that’s what DoD had to buy form Congress.
New Congressional agencies are being created – Geospacial Intelligence Agency and Department of Energy. Congress probably plans to sell these off to DoD when they are done and use the employees and financing to get more control of DoD.
I’ll go you one better, Steve, and suggest (surpise) that causes determine courses and courses determine outcomes. WRT Iraq, its path was utterly changed and it was so primarily by US presence.
We can go back and rehash the entire runup but it’s more than safe to say that regardless of prior conditions—Iraq’s or the US’s—the US leaving today pretty much assures millions die.
What to do about that? Let’s say Bush is Hitler’s second coming, just for argument. What to do about millions of Iraqi lives? Faulted or faultless is irrelevent unless issues of opinion, speculation, and/or semantics are where we’re heading with this.
Which brings to mind something I wanted to say earlier: Consider the fundamental difference between “war for oil” and “war about oil.” Again, to the semantics, if we want to score political points claiming the former, then away we go into that pointless debate. But the latter is far more accurate. Obviously, nothing that happens in the ME happens but as the direct or indirect result of the region being built upon and influenced by oil and Western markets.
And about the MSM, Steve, how about this: It’s primarily the MSM’s customers and not its internal ideals that drive its wretched bias.
Is that Doe comment spam?
That or Jeff is sharing his red pills…
I do rebel against the idea, however, that if it wasn’t for the big bad media, we’d have “won†by now.
I don’t know that the media has prevented us from winning up until now, but the media has a definite influence on voters, and the voters influence the members of congress and even the administration, and the congress and admin determine the level and duration of our commitment.
Congress will act differently if it believes that its constituents are very much for the war. THAT’s how the media affects the war’s outcome.
If CNN featured Michael Yon, Bill Roggio, Michael Totten, et al., public opinion would be very different, and opinion-brokers such as Rosie and Joy <choke> wouldn’t get wild applause when they make statements that are contra-factual. Nor would Murtha-esque talk of withdrawal have much traction, nor would the Dems feel compelled to be for the war before being against it.
Perception affects recruitment, too. Nothing recruits like success (ask the jihadis), and if you’re complaining about strained resources in the military, perhaps you can look at why we have such a reduced force to begin with ::cough::clinton::cough. That, of course, is the coulda shoulda woulda approach, but it will help us during the next vacation from history to resist the drawing-down of troops.
“It is well that war is so terrible, or we should get too fond of it.”
— Gen. Robert E. Lee
War is Hell, as the other guy noted. It’s a last resort, and not even remotely pretty, civilized or safe. It’s a crap shoot, in so many ways.
Don’t like that ugly little fact? Tough.
News flash: The Universe doesn’t give a shit about your sensibilities.
SGIC —
I use a Bowflex Revolution. I don’t like gyms, nor cracks on the concrete floor in the basement.
But I can probably lift, like, 100 lbs right up over my head if I had to.
Steve,
First off: I like you. I’m quoting a bunch of your statements, but it isn’t meant as an attack or some sort of fisking. I just want to share my perspective on this debate. Above, you write:
This perception relates directly to the quality of media coverage that Iraq has received. Is the “apparent lack of progress” due to an actual lack of progress, or is it due to all of the progress being kept from people? That’s the question at the heart of this debate.
Again, I have to ask: “significant improvement” in the situation on the ground in Iraq, or “significant improvement” in the tenor of the news reported in the US? Because there are significant improvements already under weigh; the question is whether people will be allowed to hear about these improvements without their being drowned out by bad news (for the sake of “balance”).
Those are the facts that we’re fed every night on the news. What about the other facts? The lives saved, the institutions restored? There are a lot of victories and successes out there that never get reported, and you’ll never know about them unless you happen to know one of the guys in the unit that pulled it off.
Perhaps not the only reason, but the media is a major reason why people don’t support the war. Too many people think the war is an unmitigated disaster, because that’s the message that gets reinforced over and over and over again. So of course they don’t support it any more. Who wants to prolong that kind of disaster?
I sometimes try to imagine what the past few years would have been like if the media were the Pentagon’s lapdogs. Can you imagine what public sentiment would be like if the setbacks were minimized or ignored, while the successes were trumpeted night after night? If celebrities centered their little publicity stunts around recruitment drives, care packages, and selling war bonds? What would that kind of support do for our recruiting? For poll numbers? And what kind of effect would it have on opinion makers and political leaders in Europe and the Middle East?
Don’t get me wrong—I’m glad that the media isn’t in the Pentagon’s pocket. I just wish they were a little better about showing the things that our guys are doing right. It’s frustrating to see coverage “balanced” so one-sidedly.
TW: I’ve probably51 put everyone to sleep, so I’ll stop now. Have a good holiday weekend, all!
I do think the mainstream media tracks left, but I think it derives more from general suspicion about this administration than an institutional bias. There is a widespread feeling that the Bushies are “up to something,” and I think the media respond to that. Whether that sense drives media bias, or media bias perpetuates that general suspicion in the public, I don’t know.
Another factor, and I think it’s a big one, in the way that negative perceptions get created, is the use of terminology that evokes certain expectations. Primarily, the use of two little words: war and win. The right would do well cast the debate in less militaristic and imperative terms. There may be a “war on terror” (another phrase with all kinds of meaning), but when discussing the situation in Iraq, why not use terms like mission or military action? “War” implies that certain conventions should apply, and we know precisely who and where our enemies are; even worse, perceptions expand to the notion that we are at war with Iraq, even though intellectually we know that’s not true.
And win? Why not prevail, succeed, or further democracy? “Winning” in Iraq suggests that there is a tidy end, and we, not the Iraquis, would be the beneficiaries. And it was supposed to be about them, right? At least that’s what we were told….
I’m only offering this as examples of how my own feelings have been shaped.
As a Republican, I don’t care if staying in Iraq is bad for our election chances in 2008. We should stay and fight for the Iraqi democracy because it’s the right thing to do. It’s the right thing to do for a lot of reasons.
Also, some Republicans have the idea that if they can just make some problem go away, the Democrats and their MSM will notice and praise them for it. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Democrat MSM will always find or create a new issue to pound Republicans with. Any issue that doesn’t make Republicans look bad will be quickly discarded. Is there anyone here who thinks the resignation of Tom Delay helped the Republican Party in 2006? How long has it been since the MSM stopped pounding on him? How many times do you want to make the same stupid mistake?
Don’t you remember when the big issue was the “worst economy since the depression?” If Republicans surrender to the Democrats and expect to then be treated fairly by the MSM then they are insane.
Isn’t that what Fox News is all about?
Thanks for the civil response(s).
I see the negative public perceptions re: Iraq as driving not only the media but also the politicians. I mean, I don’t like Nancy Pelosi, but she’s only doing what the majority of Democrat constituents are telling the Dems to do.
I should think that everyone is sick and tired of this conflict. Everyone is frustrated. I remark only on the tendency for people to “blame the media”, which is easy enough if you think Rosie O’Donnell is “the media”.
If the public opposition to the war is accurate, growing, and immovable (as I think it is), then that becomes an immovable object that conservatives and the GOP have to work around in the problem-solving area. Accusations that it’s the media, or Rosie, or bias, or what have you, are good frustration-vents but I think at bottom are unsat because you can’t really change anything with that POV.
Many people here have taken an idealistic posture for defending our continued presence. I can go along with that. I doubt if it will have traction in 2008, but I can go along with it.
At bottom, and not to make retrospective judgments (I could, but there’s no point), I think a serious winding down is inevitable next year, before the election, and that will be because the American people are not and never were really behind this conflict, and they won’t be put there now by some master narrative being carefully crafted somwhere. And I also think the GOP will get nailed for the war in the elections, regardless of how much we pull out.
If that assumption is accurate (if, if) then:
1. How do we preserve/advance conservative political, institutional and cultural values in what augurs as a Tsunami of PC Nannyism when the Dems take over in 2009,
and
2. How do we conduct the WOT further, given the liabilities we have incurred in Iraq.
Have a nice Memorial Day weekend, all. Semper Fi, baby.
I should think that everyone is sick and tired of this conflict.
The only people who have a right to be sick of this conflict are the troops, their families, and the Iraqis. Nearly all of them believe that this is a fight worth winning (yes, cynn, I’m going to use that word).
Those of us who are “sick of the war” because we haunt the blogosphere and are sick of yammering and arguing about the war with our ideological opponents should put up or shut up or find something else to do.
I remark only on the tendency for people to “blame the mediaâ€Â, which is easy enough if you think Rosie O’Donnell is “the mediaâ€Â.
Rosie’s not a journalist, but she is an entertainer, and the line between the two is pretty thin sometimes. Unfortunately, many people believe that if the TV people keep repeating something, it must be true, because TV people are Up There and have superior access to knowledge or something. At minimum, the TV people are “cool” and “sophisticated” and “with it,” and most people don’t want to be mocked by the cool people, even indirectly.
How do we preserve/advance conservative political, institutional and cultural values in what augurs as a Tsunami of PC Nannyism
whenif the Dems take over in 2009,Join http://www.ejectia.com, which is under construction.
Or maybe we can all find the reddest state in the union (Utah), move there, and secede.
We might not have won, yet, but we would certainly be closer to it. Think about these questions, steve:
Can the insurgency, for lack of a better umbrella-type term, defeat us militarily?
If not, how can they achieve victory other than our voluntary withdrawal before the Iraqi government achieves self-reliance?
Is the obsessive dwelling on bad news helping the insurgency achieve this goal?
Is it causing the insurgency to fight longer and harder?
Mainstream media has a longstanding symbiotic relationship with the left: they sell more papers by drumming up threats and problems to stick in the headlines, and the nannystatists stand up to fix the problem. Our schools aren’t working, our air/water/food/culture is poisoned, healthcare is too expensive, the weather is changing, our cars use too much fuel and are unsafe, etc.
What do we have to fear sells papers and grabs ratings, who is going to protect us is what motivates primarily leftist voters. In fairness, there is a certain segment of law and order, decline of civilization-types on the right who succumb to this, also, it seems to me.
Be sure to check out the update for clarification.
To which the stock response would be, “Did the media also track left before this administration came into office?” Despite the demurrers of many apologists for the previous administration, the persistence of scandal stories about that administration was the result of scandalous behavior rather than because the media were somehow right-leaning during those years.
From a pair of boots on the ground: How the media screws with the war effort.
TW: The problem61 is worse than Steve believes.
Jim Funk kin has my cheezburger
i git nuthr
I would call tbogg a dishonest, duplicitous, self-serving son of a bitch if I didn’t like dogs so much.
Militaristic? Wha?
cynn, I am an American Soldier – I fight to win my country’s wars. That’s what we do.
Couching in euphemism is fundamentally dishonest.
1. Harpoon, skin, and gut the mobys.
His hidy-ho neighbor brand of defeatism is starting to creep me out.
Steve? I think somewhere along the line he got the nickname “Dour Steve”. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
and in case Steve would like some numbers. Recruiting and Retention for April and March. and some flowery bits from a recent speech.
Major John, I know you and your fellow soldiers are warriors, and the best in history. But in this case, there are mutable aspects that anyone with an agenda can exploit. This Iraq situation is not a declared war; we complacent Americans are in no imminent danger. That droning, ubiquitous fear muzak has been played too long and hard by the right; I’m tuning out again.
What’s so dishonest about modulating the discourse with euphemisms? Everybody in a position of control in the media really knows what’s going on; why inflame the dumb masses with “wars” that can’t be “won?”
I would love to see some of the positive developments in Iraq. Or Afghanistan. Did you see the horrific images of that kid beheading the guy? Ironically, atrocities like those are mission positive, in the sense that they renew my outrage, and steel my resolve to go all Roto-Rooter in that part of the dehumanized world. Too bad for the civilians. Don’t think the predatory press isn’t actively taking note.
Cynn sez:
“to go all Roto-Rooter in that part of the dehumanized world”
Ha!
happyfeet: The hidy-ho comment was funny, making me think of the guy on Home Improvement waving a white flag over the fence. Of course, I disagree, but funny nonetheless.
The one really valuable lesson for the U.S. Military that may be coming from the Iraq war is that they are learning how to defeat a well financed, tenacious, foreign supported insurgency. General Petraeus is testing his new tactics in Iraq and it would be a tragedy if he were not allowed the time to find out what really works.
I have to say that’s a good point. Although if this is the future of warfare, we need to become a nation of guerrillas.
Why is Congress not now beholden to the wisdom of studies and intelligence estimates that describe a post-withdrawal Iraq in terms of the catastrophes which threaten that country, the damage to American interests in the region, and ramifications for U.S. alliances and foreign policy in the long term? That’s what’s so disingenuous about today’s propaganda.
NPR, AP, etc. just this week devoted much time to knocking down or downplaying Bush’s adducement of intelligence that asserted that Al Qaeda would base attacks on the US from Iraq.
Just a snippet, here, of the extended discussion of the consequences of failure found in the eminently authoritative and eminently selectively-quotable Iraq Study Group Report…
Any of you notice that we’ve never actually seen Steve’s face?
Steve, what exactly is that? It isn’t “stopping the war” and it isn’t presiding over “the most ethical Congress” because she’s not doing those things. Speaking of polls, whose numbers are worse than Dubya’s? Congress’.
War isn’t supposed to be enjoyable. But it used to be that when we went to war, we expected to win and we supported that effort. For all the complaining being done, comparatively few Americans have any skin in this particular game. So they don’t really care, and they want it off their TV’s. An astute young warrior said it best: “America is not at war. The Marines are at war. America is at the mall.”
Call me when the Marines get sick and tired of it.
Rosie is a cartoon. But for the rest of the media, how often and for how long did we hear about the nefarious wrongdoing most assuredly inflicted upon one Valerie Plame, as retribution for her valiant husband’s truthiness? The wrongdoing was non-existent, much like the news about the vindication of the Administration. The fact that the whole drama was a virtual coup attempt has gone ignored, as has the fact that Wilson is full of shit. And Scooter Libby is left as proof that something bad happened there, much like it must have in the Duke rape case. That isn’t Rosie’s doing, that’s a media intent on undermining an administration at war. Do we need to review the Abu Ghraib fetish, and the breathless, unsubstantiated assertions that Rumsfeld might have been calling the shots on that one?
What if the American public were being told daily that the situation in Anbar is vastly improved, and that having been kicked out of there al Qaeda’s attempts to set up shop in Diyala are going over like a fart in mosque? Americans like success, and we rarely hear about any from Iraq in the MSM. Opinion is not immovable. Just ask any Democrat Senator cum Presidential candidate.
You can change the terms of the discussion and impact the bias. You can report the news. Blogs are doing it, talk radio is doing it, Fox, to an extent, is doing it, and all of these are enjoying a measure of success. Why wouldn’t you act to counter such a troublesome paradigm? Or do you not believe that it exists?
We don’t. We go back to treating it as a law enforcement matter and wait for the earth shattering kaboom. If we’re willing to hand al-Qaeda a secure base of operations, then we’re not fighting jihad and we shouldn’t pretend that we are. Let’s just bring everybody home and put them on the border.
Of course, that might appear mean, and people might march, and then that will be all over the Nightly News…our new war for racism…
Unless President Hillary does it. Then it will be brilliant.
Or, we have plumbers at the ready. This is a nasty clog, isn’t it?
“Okay, Happy. Let’s say we have about a third or more of the armed forces of the US involved in a peace keeping operation in Country X where they have been for over four years and have had Y casualties, yada yada. Then the American people are asked to vote on continuing said peace keeping operation. what do you think they will say? We’ll find out soon enough.” wrote Steve.
Bosnia has cost us BILLIONS, frigging BILLIONS of dollars. And we’re STILL THERE. What, that war was over in…1997? Or so? And it’s been like TWICE as long as WWII? All for a pissant little country 1/8 the size and pop of Iraq? I mean, did we go to war for oil in Bosnia? What the hell does it have that we could possibly need? It’s not even historically interesting, except for all the intermittent petty pointless small warfare.
So why are we still there, Steve? Why aren’t we voting to get out and leave the people of Bosnia to murder one another, even though, as I recall, that’s why we went in there in the first place? Would it be our fault if we left and they all resumed killing one another?
What is your point? Are you arguing humanitarian versus utilitarian? Either way, we waded into the tar pit.
they really don’t want us there..via TBogg
4/30/2004
Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.
[…]
But while they acknowledge benefits from dumping Saddam a year ago, Iraqis no longer see the presence of the American-led military as a plus. Asked whether they view the U.S.-led coalition as “liberators” or “occupiers,” 71% of all respondents say “occupiers.”
That figure reaches 81% if the separatist, pro-U.S. Kurdish minority in northern Iraq is not included. The negative characterization is just as high among the Shiite Muslims who were oppressed for decades by Saddam as it is among the Sunni Muslims who embraced him.
The growing negative attitude toward the Americans is also reflected in two related survey questions: 53% say they would feel less secure without the coalition in Iraq, but 57% say the foreign troops should leave anyway. Those answers were given before the current showdowns in Fallujah and Najaf between U.S. troops and guerrilla fighters.
The findings come as the U.S. administration is struggling to quell the insurgency and turn over limited sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government by the end of June. Interviews this week in Baghdad underscored the findings.
“I’m not ungrateful that they took away Saddam Hussein,” says Salam Ahmed, 30, a Shiite businessman. “But the job is done. Thank you very much. See you later. Bye-bye.”
June 16, 2004
The first survey of Iraqis sponsored by the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal shows that most say they would feel safer if Coalition forces left immediately, without even waiting for elections scheduled for next year. An overwhelming majority, about 80 percent, also say they have “no confidence†in either the U.S. civilian authorities or Coalition forces.
Sixty-seven percent of those surveyed also said they believed violent attacks have increased around the country because “people have lost faith in the Coalition forces.â€Â
The poll numbers were reflected in the anger seen in the streets of Baghdad after a series of car bombings on Monday. While U.S forces and Iraqi police hung back, crowds set some of the vehicles on fire, threw bricks and shouted insults at U.S. soldiers. According to the poll, a mere 1 percent of Iraqis now feel that the Coalition forces contribute most to their sense of security; only 18 percent described Iraqi police the same way. By contrast, a total of 71 percent said they depended mostly on their family and friends and neighbors for security.
January 28, 2005
Iraq’s Sunday elections will be held against a backdrop of deep division between the country’s ethnic groups, with an overwhelming majority of Sunni Arabs refusing to vote in the January 30 elections, a new Abu Dhabi TV/Zogby International poll finds. The poll also finds majorities of both Iraq’s Shiites and Sunnis calling for a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces from their soil. Zogby International polled 805 Iraqi adults from January 19 to 23, 2005 on behalf of television broadcaster Abu Dhabi TV. The margin of error is +/- 3.6 percentage points.
The survey, to be released at 5 p.m. ET on Abu Dhabi Television, found three-quarters (76%) of Sunni Arabs say they definitely will not vote in the January 30 elections, while just 9% say they are likely to vote. A majority of Shiites (80%) say they are likely to vote or definitely will vote, as are a smaller majority of Kurds (57%).
Majorities of both Sunni Arabs (82%) and Shiites (69%) also favor U.S. forces withdrawing either immediately or after an elected government is in place.
The poll also found that of Iraq’s ethnic and religious groups, only the Kurds believe the U.S. will “help†Iraq over the next five years, while half (49%) of Shiites and a majority (64%) of Sunni Arabs believe the U.S. will “hurt†Iraq.
September 27, 2006
A new WPO poll of the Iraqi public finds that seven in ten Iraqis want U.S.-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year. An overwhelming majority believes that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is preventing and there is growing confidence in the Iraqi army. If the United States made a commitment to withdraw, a majority believes that this would strengthen the Iraqi government. Support for attacks on U.S.-led forces has grown to a majority positionâ€â€now six in ten. Support appears to be related to a widespread perception, held by all ethnic groups, that the U.S. government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq.
[…]
A large majority of Iraqisâ€â€71%â€â€say they would like the Iraqi government to ask for U.S.-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less. Given four options, 37 percent take the position that they would like U.S.-led forces withdrawn “within six months,†while another 34 percent opt for “gradually withdraw[ing] U.S.-led forces according to a one-year timeline.†Twenty percent favor a two-year timeline and just 9 percent favor “only reduc[ing] U.S.-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq.â€Â
May 10, 2007
Blair’s gone, centrist Republicans are in revolt, the Iraqi parliament’s planning to take a little summer vay-cay while U.S. troops are busy dodging IEDs, and now this. It’s a perfect storm. I think it’s safe to say we’re at endgame.
A majority of Iraqi lawmakers have endorsed a bill calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops and demanding a freeze on the number of foreign troops already in the country, lawmakers said Thursday…
The Iraqi bill, drafted by a parliamentary bloc loyal to anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, was signed by 144 members of the 275-member house, according to Nassar al-Rubaie, the leader of the Sadrist bloc.
The Sadrist bloc, which sees the U.S.-led forces as an occupying army, has pushed similar bills before, but this was the first time it had garnered the support of a majority of lawmakers…
May 16, 2007
Some key Republican supporters of President Bush’s Iraq war policy said this week that if the Iraqi parliament calls for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, their position could change dramatically.
“I suspect we would respect their wishes,” said Florida Rep. Adam Putnam, the third-ranking Republican in the House.
“I think that it would reflect a successful, healthy and well-running parliamentary organization that was delivered to that nation by the sacrifices of our fighting men and women.” Putnam was responding to a bill a majority of Iraqi lawmakers signed on to earlier this month supporting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. forces.