4000

Very good post. Thanks, Joe.

FACT: We lost more troops in annual training exercises during the co-Clixon's Hollow Army II 90's, than we lose in the same Time period now in Iraq -- never mind the slain in Philadelphia, NOLA, Detroit, Compton, and the I-95 corridor this month.

Move On!

The greatest thing about the end of the Bush term is that we can stop pretending that people who are obviously unhinged (i.e. Kagan) are actually valuable participants in a "debate."

Come January of 2009, "bats**t crazy" will no longer be a qualification for a speaking gig, it will just be bats**t crazy once again.

QH: Your post if barely intelligible. What the heck are babbling about this time?

Bravo, Joe. What you said.

So, you ARE in favor of withdrawal NOW? Please, help us out, Joe.

Joe,

It amazes me that someone who was so pro-war in the begining can now wring their hands in pain with the result...

As you said about yourself in your last article, "stupid, stupid, stupid"

Appeasement IS not peace.

Ask any (living) Rwandan.

Or Vichy Frenchmen.

Posted by Joe Klein March 24, 2008 5:23:

...the rejection of Al Qaeda in Iraq by the Sunnis is extremely good news about the dim prospects for the salafi-jihadists throughout the region

Joe, they're not "salafi-jihadists". You know the Sunnis you mentioned--the ones that did the rejecting of AQI? They're the Salafists, and AQI are Qutbists, the specific sect of fundamentalist Sunnism who declare themselves literally the only actual Muslims on earth, which is why they get to kill everybody else--including their former Salafist friends in Anbar who didn't like being called (essentially) infidels (along with the Persians and the Jews) for not adopting the new AQI Sharia thoroughly and fast enough.

The most controversial aspect of Qutbism is Qutb's idea that Islam is "extinct," and therefore those who say they are Muslims--with the exception of Qutb's Islamic vanguard--are not. Intended to shock Muslims into religious re-armament it also had the effect, if taken literally, of making non-Qutbists who claimed they were Muslims in serious violation of the traditional Sharia law (law that Qutb very much supported) potentially finding them guilty of Apostasy in Islam and their blood fit to be shed.

Joe: Most normal Anbaris="Salafists". Salafism=Wahabism. The only reason we don't call them Wahabi is because they don't like that this new name implies that there's anything new about what they're doing--'cause they're crazy fundamentalists, of course.

The principal tenet of Salafism is that Islam was perfect and complete during the days of Muhammad and his companions, but that undesirable innovations have been added over the later centuries due to materialist and cultural influences. Salafism seeks to revive a practice of Islam that more closely resembles the religion during the time of Muhammad.[5] Salafism has also been described as a simplified version of Islam, in which adherents follow a few commands and practices.[6]

Salafism is often used interchangeably with "Wahhabism". Adherents usually reject this term because it is considered derogatory and because neither did Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab establish a new school of thought nor did anyone of the adherents of Salafism in the past ever referred to themselves as such.

Would you please use the correct terms, so that we can stop f--king up who is doing what and why in our stupid chauvinist political discourse, Joe? In light of John McCain's recent mis-characterization of who is doing what from where in Iraq, one would think that those who consider themselves among the most informed Americans would take certain pains to get the players' identities right for a change.

Can you just please look up the terms for yourself? It's not that hard...I've provided you with links, too!

This is the real horror of John McCain's hyperbolic statements about another 100 or 10,000 years in Iraq: he thinks the occupation of Iraq can be like the U.S. occupations of Korea, Japan or Germany--all three ethnically homogenous, non-Islamic countries. No, McCain's point was that Americans don't care about how long the troops are in an overseas country, they care about how long troops are dying in that country.

The end goal here is to stop occupying Iraq. What's he's said is that after that, having bases in Iraq is a matter of state relations. We had bases in Saudi Arabia (we were not occupying the country), but after a while the Saudis asked us to leave, so we left. The Germans haven't asked to leave so we're still there. Now of course the Iraqis are probably going to ask us to leave, but they're probably not going to formally request that until the country has been stabilized and something resembling a professional standing army has been established.

To compare permanent bases to "the British, the Romans, the Persians and any other non-Arabs who tried it" is a false, straw man comparison -- all those powers tried to occupy the country. Permanent bases is not permanent occupation -- just ask Germany and Japan.

Let me be clear, I strongly oppose permanent bases in Iraq, but it is dishonest of you to compare permanent bases to a permanent occupation.

BRING THEM HOME NOW!!!

Time-Lifer May Day 2008 Schedule:

8 AM: Hung over from TBIF (Thank Buddha I'm French) party. Miss the sunrise sermon by TV Chuck Schoooooooooooooooomer.

9 AM: Group hug along the banks of the frozen Potomac in honor of global warming, as committee-approved late Spring flooding substitute for bodily warming.

10 AM: Plan ahead, select your Bigot Buddy now for the Clixon Bloggers After Campaign Party (sponsored by Home Zippo).

11 AM: Use Ouija board from student union to summon Abbie Hoffman's gutless ghost. Get Strom Thurmond's old, rich Aunt Tawana instead.

12 NOON: Symbolic brotherly kneel-down in prayer to Little Rock. Then liquid lunch at Hooter's (sponsored by Ted Kennedy).

1 PM: Group breaking of wind. Blame Bush for global farting.

2 PM: Gold Star Tenured Fake War Vets for Pell Grantees Memorial Resume Display featuring Janet Cooke and Boston Glob (sponsored by CNN).

3 PM: Locate Volvo wagon in Metro subway remote parking area. Haul back big stack of CREATE MORE BOAT PEOPLE - STOP THE LIAR JOE WILSON WAR posters forgotten earlier in the day.

3:15 PM: Realize, upon return to Octagon, you just broke into somebody else's car. Burn posters in flaming pyre. Blame Bush for global farting.

4 PM: Check status of Eliot Spitzer trial. Remain convinced he'll win on appeal.

5 PM: Daryl Hannah shows off her scars from the Jackson Browne era. John Kerry awards himself another medal at the sight.

6 PM: Cindy Shoehorn has to leave early to make her next metallic coach flight to Chavezland. Hope and pray to Allah that nobody notices her ride does in fact lack camel poop power. Think Hemp, for fast relief.

7 PM: PBS presents AWOL FROM THE EIGHTIES starring Neil Young, Michael J. Fox, Andy Rooney, and a few other Canuckistanians.

8 PM: Snack time with Shillery Flame. Enjoy a delicious spoon full of dried Vichy prunes and oats, courtesy of that long forgotten and always ignored oil-for-Scotty scam.

9 PM: Intern from DNC car pool accidentally immolates herself while trying to read fuel door instructions on her sister's Volvo wagon by bong lighter. POOF goes the weasel. Nice fireworks!

10 PM: Help to Bring The Boys Home Now from the 9th ward in NOLA, plan a celebratory MeetUp club Spring ski trek to Vermont (where they'll gladly cut down more trees and squirrel homes on the bunny slopes for your novice Ready Resistance Reserves). Make mental note to self to ask Dad for use of the SUV that weekend. Then find a Starbucks to Stop Loss caffeine level.

11 PM: End of another useful idiot day of appeasement and self-loathing, time to head back to USPS for the midnight shift.

"BRING THEM HOME NOW!!!"

JUST NOT TO PHILADELPHIA, OR NEWARK!!!

Iraq is not Persia, Britain, Rome, Rwanda, Vichy France or Cleveland.

Can we please, please, please, please, please stop with the foreign-policy-by-analogy and pay attention to what is really going on in that country?

kthx

"...what is really going on in that country?"

Burgeoning FREEDOM, by all reports of merit.

Libs have a problem with that, of course.

Missing the old oil-for-EU scam and all.

Can we please collectively delude ourselves that it's not about oil. Better yet, can we just continue to talk absolute rot, embracing Stu's civil discourse with swine, forgetting that both parties and hacks like Joe have more blood on their hands than can ever be washed out. Think of that tonight you f'ing pigs.

Lib union hacks will kill more Americans by nursing staff errors, assembly line screw-ups, and tenured AIDS recreation privacy legal disclaimers, over the next week, than we'll lose in any military engagements over the next 10 YEARS.

But why count the domestic death toll, when it only leads to thinking?

In honoring the 4000, thank you Joe. But, you failed to mention if we do pull out of Iraq, on the Obama / Clinton time tables they are proposing, what was the point of losing these 4000 soldiers??

Knowing many of the brave men and women who are still fighting for a free Iraq, they are re-enlisting like never before so they do not leave their brothers and sisters in arms behind.

To pull out as Obama has proposed, drawing down the troops just to satisfy his electoral base is a sacriledge to those who have fought and died.

I predict if Obama has his way, not only will these soldiers have died in vain, but we will have another Vietnam for this generation to remember it all by.

Win the war, stabilize and then get out!

The real reason we are still in Germany and Korea, we WON! We didn't cut and run, bowing to extremists.

Estimated U.S. deaths annually, due to union protected medical errors: 150,000 (conservatively)

Estimated terrorist deaths annually, due to U.S. medical errors: 3 (including Berzerkley, excluding Gitmo)

GET OUR TROOPS OUT OF HEATH LEDGER'S APARTMENT, NOW.

WE CAN NOT WIN THE WAR AGAINST HEATH LEDGER.

THOSE SKINNY PEOPLE DON'T REALLY WANT US THERE ANYWAY.

WE SHOULD NOT WASTE ANY MORE TIME, TROOPS, OR MONEY ON HEATH LEDGER.

THE WAR AGAINST HEATH LEDGER BY HEATH LEDGER CAN NOT BE WON.

HEATH LEDGER'S WAR AGAINST HEATH LEDGER IS A CIVIL WAR, AND NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.

WE HAVE PLENTY TO DO HERE, WITHOUT MESSING ABOUT HEATH LEDGER.

THE WAR AGAINST HEATH LEDGER WAS STARTED WITH LIES BY BUSH AND CHENEY.

I'm just following liberal loon logic here.

= DRUGGIE REGIME CHANGE ACCOMPLISHED =

"FACT: We lost more troops in annual training exercises during the co-Clixon's Hollow Army II 90's, than we lose in the same Time period now in Iraq"

Oh QH, I know you are a troll, but this is just laughable. I mean, did you honestly believe this was true, or did you know it was false and lied to fulfill some agenda? Here are the actual numbers, from the Congressional Research Service report: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

Number of Active duty Military deaths

Bill Clinton (1993 - 2000) ... 7,500 deaths

George W. Bush (2001 - 2006) . 8,792 deaths

So, Bush has more casualties and still two more years of tallying to go according to this figure.

NEXT! (or is it MOVE ON that you say?)

Mpizz

P.S.: For comparison's sake, here's the stats for the last twenty-six years. Sure looks like GOP policies lead to more military deaths to me.....

U.S. Active Duty Military Deaths 1980-2006

1980 .... 2,392
1981 .... 2,380
1982 .... 2,319
1983 .... 2,465
1984 .... 1,999
1985 .... 2,252
1986 .... 1,984
1987 .... 1,983
1988 .... 1,819
1989 .... 1,636
1990 .... 1,507
1991 .... 1,787
1992 .... 1,293
1993 .... 1,213
1994 .... 1,075
1995 .... 1,040
1996 ....... 974
1997 ....... 817
1998 ....... 827
1999 ....... 796
2000 ....... 758
2001 ....... 891
2002 ....... 999
2003 .... 1,228
2004 .... 1,874
2005 .... 1,942
2006 .... 1,858

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies ... What happens there matters a great deal here ... for the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- MADDY HALFBLIGHT (D, CU) in 1999

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction ... Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein, because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- SENATOR JOHN Le KERRY (D, VN) in 2003

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- SENATOR TED KENNEDY (D, UI) in 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- GRANDMOTHER NANCY PELOSI (D, SY) in 1998

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- ASTRONUT AL GORE (D, F) in 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Queda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- SENATOR HILLARY RAMROD SHIKSA (D, CN) in 2002

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- SANFORD BERGLER (D, FX) in 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: A rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
- BILL CLIXON (D, VD) in 1998

Oops, my bad.

Thought this was the Long Lost Howard Dean University Truth In Washington blog.

Oh well.

ABBIE HOFFMAN HAPPENS.

In psychiatry, thought disorder or formal thought disorder is a term used to describe a pattern of disordered language use that is presumed to reflect disordered thinking. It is usually considered a symptom of psychotic mental illness, although it occasionally appears in other conditions.

It describes a persistent underlying disturbance to conscious thought and is classified largely by its effects on speech and writing. Affected persons may show pressure of speech (speaking incessantly and quickly), derailment or flight of ideas (switching topic mid-sentence or inappropriately), thought blocking, rhyming, punning, or 'word salad' when individual words may be intact but speech is incoherent.

"Number of Active duty Military deaths

Bill Clinton (1993 - 2000) ... 7,500 deaths"

= RWANDA ACCOMPLISHED =

Man, folks dug up some really stale war mongering blog posts. Reads just like the old days, only they've taken out the parts about WMD and Atta dining in Baghdad...

Somebody needs to remind Pops McCain that we didn't invade Korea, Japan or Germany. So his analogy of the U.S. staying in Iraq until he is 171 years old doesn't exactly work.

Cookie Puss: I'm sorry, did you just say that we didn't invade Germany? My friend, you need to read a couple history books before you make any further comments on, well..., pretty much anything.

"Somebody needs to remind Pops McCain that we didn't invade Korea, Japan or Germany."

The people of Tokyo and Dresden might disagree, if any of them are still alive. I don't know what you meant to say, but we definitely trashed all of these countries.

Chutzpah Joe once again succeeds in writing about Iraq without mentioning the O-word.

You can say it, Joe! OIL. Say it loud and proud. That is what the blood and money are being spent on, and you know it at the bottom of your dirty, shriveled, dishonest heart.

Like clockwork, QH shows up at 6 almost exactly. I'm almost certain he's incarcerated or in an asylum and this is hour of computer access.

Germany and Japan started WWII. North Korea invaded South Korea and started that war. We did not start any of those conflicts. We did start the war in Iraq. That was my point.

Btw Peter, kiss my ass.

For those of you, who don't believe history has anything to teach us, I offer the following:

"The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are to-day not far from a disaster."
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lawrence.php

This is from a piece Lawrence wrote for the London Times, reading it you will notice he has no qualms about stating the actual reasons for being there, namely, oil. Why can't Joe do the same?

BTW, we've long ago reached the point in which those who insist we must stay need to inform us if they plan to enlist and go, and if not, why. We need a draft.

Who will be the last person to die for a non sequitur?

Anyone else watching Frontline's "Bush's War" on PBS?

Excellent so far.

I think Rustydog channeled Jefferson Davis accurately. General Lee had his way and the South surrendered. By Rustydog's logic the surrender dishonored the over 260,000 Southern soldiers who died in vain.

The leaders who start wars with unachievable goals will never end those wars. That task will always fall to someone else.

Posted by Rustydog | March 24, 2008 6:52 PM:

In honoring the 4000, thank you Joe. But, you failed to mention if we do pull out of Iraq, on the Obama / Clinton time tables they are proposing, what was the point of losing these 4000 soldiers??

Knowing many of the brave men and women who are still fighting for a free Iraq, they are re-enlisting like never before so they do not leave their brothers and sisters in arms behind.

To pull out as Obama has proposed, drawing down the troops just to satisfy his electoral base is a sacriledge to those who have fought and died.

I predict if Obama has his way, not only will these soldiers have died in vain, but we will have another Vietnam for this generation to remember it all by.

Win the war, stabilize and then get out!

The real reason we are still in Germany and Korea, we WON! We didn't cut and run, bowing to extremists.

This deserves a response.

I've found that many liberals and Democrats have a tough time making themselves clear about how we honor the sacrifices of our dead and wounded men and women, and still do the right thing in calling it quits over there.
I'm not sure why that is, but I'll tell you how I know that our bravest will not have died or had their lives destroyed in vain, even if we pull everybody out of there, and the place goes even more to hell.

I know it's pretty cheap these days to bring up the events of September 11th, 2001, but I was here in downtown Manhattan that day, and there's no better way that I know of to illustrate the true meaning of honor in sacrifice for one's country and home, so I'll just hope that you'll forgive me in advance for whatever trite sermon I'm about to give, and read on.

The fact of the matter is that hundreds of the men and women of the NYPD and especially the NYFD didn't have to die that day, not the way that they did. As it turns out, a great many of these brave folks were running into the towers without the knowledge that could have saved their lives: that the buildings were coming down, and that there was nothing anyone could do about it, least of all them. If the information that the towers were collapsing could have been radioed to these fine people, they could have stopped, and many of them could have turned around and gotten away from the certain holocaust that Ground Zero became in a matter of minutes.

So these are the facts: those firefighters and EMT's and cops didn't save anybody, couldn't prevent the tragic destruction of our city, and weren't able to avert disaster for themselves and their families. They ran straight into buildings that were already falling down on top of them, and succeeded in doing nothing other than depriving New York of a significant cohort of its best emergency personnel in its worst moment of crisis in centuries. They failed, and paid with their lives. The hard, cold truth is this: they never should have been sent racing there in the first place, and if they had been able to communicate with people who knew the danger effectively, they never would have been sent to their deaths. That tragedy never should have happened.

So did the brave firefighters, EMTs, police officers, and other uniformed service personnel die in vain that terrible day?

According to your logic, Rustydog, that's exactly the case. According to your logic, if they weren't able to save the people in the towers, then "what was the point of losing these" hundreds of brave people? According to your logic, if we recognize and tell the truth--that whole catastrophic loss of life could have been avoided with better radios (better intelligence)--"is a sacriledge to those who have fought and died."

According to you, those who followed their comrades into harms' way on September 11th, 2001, and who paid the ultimate price because of insufficient emergency communications planning (and just plain bad information), those people did die in vain. Their sacrifices apparently mean nothing, at least according to your logic.

But I don't happen to think that way myself at all. I don't believe that it was all for nothing; that the heartbreak and finality and loss were of no consequence, because the mission was ultimately a failure. No, I don't believe that for a second, and I'll tell you why, so that hopefully you can understand as well.

The reason why these fine people did not die in vain on 9/11 is because honor doesn't spring from the result of brave action, honor is brought forth in the act of bravery itself. There is meaning, heroic meaning in the very act of sacrifice, whatever the outcome of the mission. It is the willingness of those best of us to put themselves in danger for our sakes, it is the intention to aid us in our mortal distress--to put their lives on the line for us--that compels our most profound gratitude and honor for such courage. It is nobility incarnate to be willing to die for one's fellows, with only the possibility that the effort may help those who can't carry themselves away from danger.

Results? Success? Failure? Winning? Can you really tell your fellow countrymen and women that unless you can say "we WON!", their sacrifices have no meaning whatsoever? No, I don't believe that you could do that. I don't believe that you could possibly dishonor their memories in such a revolting manner. But that is exactly what you would be doing by claiming that, unless you get a result at which you can satisfactorily pump your fist in the air, our brave boys and girls will have died for nothing. "Cut and run"? Please...we never should have gone there in the first place. We sent our people into towers that were falling down--because somehow we all believed bad information! How do you let yourself speak in such dishonorable terms about outcomes and failures and the meaning of our military casualties in the same paragraph? Are you a citizen of this country? Do you have no concept at all of how disparaging your remarks are towards our troops are, when you talk down the profound sacrifices that have already been made?

Honestly, Rustydog, it's a little hard for me to understand why anyone would need to explain this to you--you're an American, right? I know that liberals and Democrats aren't the best at "messaging", and that certain subjects seem to fall apart when coming through analytical or anthropological voices, so I understand how uninformed people sometimes get the idea that we're somehow wishy-washy on the matter of honor and service to one's country and people. But we're not talking about Democrats and liberals here, we're discussing you practically saying that all of that bravery in the face of tragedy on 9/11 means nothing, because the outcome isn't what we all hoped it might have been, and because, ultimately, the order to race into the World Trade Center should never have been given.

Such is the case with your arguments about the "troops dying in vain" if we "cut and run" from the disaster in Iraq into which we never should have sent our people. Responsibility for the failures and tragedies of this terrible mistake is ours, not theirs. Theirs should only be all of the honor and gratitude we can bestow for their sacrifices--and a promise to their memories that we will change and learn and not send their children off to another deadly disaster again.

Think about how we honor their sacrifice going forward, Rustydog. Think long and hard--I know that I will.

Stuart, I like a lot of what you write, but weren't you just arguing that we now have a moral obligation to stay in Iraq and fix what we broke? If so, and I'm not mistaken, then you sure are spending a lot of time splitting hairs here. If it's your position that we stay, who cares if its to honor those US soldiers already fallen or because of some moral obligation? Staying is staying.

What I want to know is, how does a country win a war it's populace is not willing to fight? And I mean PERSONALLY fight, not fist shaking at the teevee. If you want to stay, it's time to start talking draft. It is simply idiocy to think in terms of long term occupation w/o conscription.

Cookie Puss: Now that I understand what you were trying to say, perhaps maligning your intelligence was not the most appropriate response. That being said, I still disagree with your point. The relavent fact here is that we conquered Iraq. Do you really think that after over four years of bloodly war, when the Germans and Japanese finally heard that dreaded cadence of foreign boots marching down their streets, it really mattered to anyone which side "started that war?" Besides if you really want to dig into it, there's a very strong argument that another war with Germany was inevidable after the unfair and humiliating peace treaty Germany was subjected to after WWI. Nothing in war is simple.

Cincinnatus, Oregon JC, HH: I'm really tired of all this griping that the only reasonable position is to hold that this war is really just about oil. You can say that this war was started because of oil, and I will disagree with you but acknowledge that a valid argument in that department can be made. But today, with Iraqi oil production and revenue in the doldrums and the very real possiblity that our withdrawal will engender a devestating civil war with catastrophic civilian casualties, you don't get to say that's the only reasonable position. In order to successfully make the argument for withdrawal you have to either reason that 1) the impending civil war is unavoidable and thus further American sacrifice is in vain, or 2) eliminating the American presence, even in the absence of stable governing institutions and security forces, will decrease sectarian violence.

stuart_zechman: Great piece. From the rest of this post you can probably gather where I fall on Iraq, but I appreciate your thoughtful rejection of false arguments regardless of which side they come from. Stupidity and bloated rhetoric insidiously lowers and distracts the national debate, and must be immediately rejected.

Peter:

Your assertion that the US is motivated by preventing suffering of the people of Iraq is absurd on its face for the following reasons:

1. We launched a war of aggression that we knew would cause significant suffering in Iraq.

2. We have not acted in a manner consistent with minimizing the suffering of the people of Iraq during the occupation. (e.g., trigger- happy rules of engagement and brutal interrogation practices)

3. We have displayed extraordinary callousness to the sufferings of others in instances where we did not perceive a "national interest" (e.g., Rwanda, Darfur)

Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the "civil war avoidence" story is just the latests in a long series of cover stories for the oil grab. Since it cannot be disproved or dismissed outright, it functions as a credible cover - just as WMD and spreading democracy did. It is a carefully engineered lie, and I am surprised that you have fallen for it.

Oil was at the top of the agenda from day one of the Iraq war planning. The oil ministry was one of the first facilities secured and heavily guarded. The US-drafted "Oil Law" provides extremely favorable terms for US companies to extract Iraqi Oil.

Control of oil is the only simple and coherent explanation for our actions in Iraq. The rest is just propaganda bull$hit. Alan Greenspan said it publicly. Do you not believe him?

It's 1 Peter, you got it right. However, you've failed to explain how a long term occupation works without 1)You and your ilk suddenly putting your money where your mouths are and enlisting, or 2)Conscription. So which is it? Will you advocate for a draft?

Cincinnatus:

Stuart, I like a lot of what you write, but weren't you just arguing that we now have a moral obligation to stay in Iraq and fix what we broke?

Er...No.

I was trying to say that, just like the firefighters at the World Trade Center, our troops deserve nothing less than the full honor demanded by their sacrifice, regardless of whether or not "the towers fall down", i.e. Iraq is unsolvable, and whether or not "they didn't get the radio message not to rush in", i.e. we shouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place.

That's what I think that we should all be telling fellow Americans who put out the fallacy that the only way to keep the dead from having sacrificed in vain is to learn and do nothing about our government's failures to lead properly.

Stuart it was another post, should have clarified that, or maybe I'm confusing you w/ Mike Ware on Maher Friday. In any case, this issue of troops, and where we'll get the necessary troops to maintain a long term occupation is the bottom line here, everything else is just whipped air IMO.

Joe: how about your support for Bush? Do you deny that as well? Here you are on Hugh Hewitt:

Let me say that of all the major politicians I've covered in presidential politics in the last two or three times around, he is the most likely to stick with an issue, even if the polls are bad, and to govern from the gut as you said. I don't always agree with the decisions that he makes, but I think he is an honorable man, and when I've criticized him, I've tried to criticize him on the substance, and certainly not on his personality, because I really like the guy.

Do you still really like the guy? Does the fact he gave you cute nickname trump the thousands of deaths that his war -- and let's be honest, your war too -- caused?

We'd all like to know.

Peter:

Thanks for the compliment.

You and I will probably have to agree to disagree with respect to our national interests being served by an indefinite occupation of Mesopotamia by US forces to the tune of half a trillion dollars (if we're lucky).

By the way, Joe:

How does "war-enabler" sound to you as a description of your professional conduct for the past five years?

It's certainly more accurate than either "so pro-war" and "opponent of the war".

What's a "war skeptic"?

Somebody who kind of shakes their heads mumbling to themselves "Well, I don't know about this...", but does and says absolutely nothing--apart from going on television to have some sort of public personality dissociation moment in favor of the war--with respect to publicly thinking through the obvious (to those who comprehended Saddam's genocide in a context other than the administration's slogans) calamity about to be undertaken in America's good name?

I think "war-enabler" should do the trick, right, Joe?

HH: Your assertion that the US is motivated by preventing suffering of the people of Iraq is absurd on its face..." The point is that we're here now. We're making a decision at this point in time, not several years ago. It's the basic financial concept of ignoring sunk cost. It backs what stuart has to say about honoring our servicemen regardless the outcome, and it backs ignoring previous mistakes when making a decision on how to move forward. We investigate previous mistakes, we remember them, and we learn for the future -- but don't use flaws in how the mission has been carried out so far as the basis for rejection the mission itself. Civil war advoidance isn't just a story -- it's a legitimate reason, whether or not it's being cynically manipulated by those in power.

Cincinnatus: You've failed to explain how a long term occupation works without 1)You and your ilk suddenly putting your money where your mouths are and enlisting, or 2)Conscription. So which is it? Will you advocate for a draft? I'm really afraid to post this here for fear of being completely writen off, but even prior to 9/11 a small part of me thought that mandatory national service was of some value. I don't think it would be a bad thing if every American was required to do two years of national service -- either in the military, PeaceCorps, or AmeriCorps. Something like that helps to build the national character, and will really bring home the effects of this war. Unfortunatley, it's not financially feasible -- if you check the CIA World Fact Book, "males reaching military age annually" is around 2 million. I know it may seem I'm arguing against my own position here, but it's notable that our Pres and VP who were so eager to go to war both used questionable means to escape serving service during Vietnam. You are correct in noting that there's a surprising number of people willing to risk other's lives as long as they can maintain their own lifestyle. I'm ambivalent about in or out of Iraq, I just get angry when people say that our withdrawal will improve affairs in the short term by forcing some sort of national reconciliation -- that's just as false as the nonsense Rustydog was spewing. So in a small sense, a national draft would be a good thing: if there's the national will to move forward it would provide the manpower, and if we nationally lack the will then it would force us out.

Peter:
"...but don't use flaws in how the mission has been carried out so far as the basis for rejection the mission itself."

He's not. He is rejecting the mission because its intention, from the start, has been morally wrong and continues to be morally wrong.

"Civil war advoidance isn't just a story -- it's a legitimate reason, whether or not it's being cynically manipulated by those in power."

How do you know it's not just a story? That's like using "you're going to turn green" as a "legitimate reason" to make your kids eat vegetables. Even if it is true, it shouldn't be used to cover up the more important, less justifiable reason.

TomT:
"Does the fact he gave you cute nickname..."

What is the cute nickname? I've seen plenty here on Swampland, but none that seem like they'd be used affectionately.

Peter,

You brought up sunk costs, but here's another perspective: Don't throw good money after bad. Sacrificing more soldiers and squandering trillions more dollars are not going to recoup what we lost. There's opportunity costs as well, since that money, and those soldiers, could best be employed elsewhere.

We honor the soldiers still alive by not killing more of them for a cause that's not worth it. Bush was the one who made the deaths of those 4000 in vain.

And it's never too early to start learning from one's mistakes. Why wait till the next war? When you've dug yourself into a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.

"but don't use flaws in how the mission has been carried out so far as the basis for rejection the mission itself."

The mission itself has been the primary flaw from the beginning!

BTW, Peter, I'd love to play poker with you. Name the stakes.

And furthermore, I don't see that the witch-hunting of those who actually were pro-war does much good now.

Joe, you haven't read the criticisms of the pro-war retrospectives carefully. You'll see, if you do, that the critics are saying not that these people were idiots and shouldn't have jobs. They're saying they don't seem to have learned anything. Andrew Sullivan is not villified, while Anne-Marie Slaughter is, because he changed his way of looking at this, while Slaughter continues to believe the US can and should engage in the use of force in pursuit of American "vital interests." The idea that the US has "vital interests" within other countries borders is profoundly neo-colonialist.

The hegemony project is a huge boondoggle, tied, as Eisenhower warned us, to the perpetuation of the US on a permanent war footing. It requires the acceptance of the proposition that all countries are potential basing sites for US forces, and the idea that "we live in a dangerous world."

The first denies essential sovereignty to other countries. The second is simply not true. We don't live in a dangerous world. The success of the US capitalism/consumerism model has eliminated every plausible state-based enemy. So now, as I think Dirks said a while ago, the US has now committed 150,000 troops to eliminate some 800-1500 non-state combatants, none of whom represent any threat to the US.

This state of affairs should lead to a profound re-examination of the idea that the US has "vital interests" that can be obtained or defended through the use of military force.

The unwillingness to do that re-examination, and the complete absence of the people who understood this before the invasion of Iraw in these retrospectives is the source of anger and criticism on the internet.

Moreover, people who understood very clearly that even independent of the question of why the US is still engaged in the use of military force in pursuit of "vital interests" that are within the borders of other countries, that the invasion of Iraq was certain to fail were not given voice.

Reading the pre-war analyses in the major media outlets, there was nobody who cited the history of Mesopotamia, nobody who analyzed longstanding tribal conflict that Saddam's brutality had suppressed but not eliminated and nobody who pointed out that the sequence of events that all had to go right implied a probability of any reasonable defintion of success in the low single digits.

None of those voices were permitted a platform. And, five years later, when those voices have all been proven to be correct, and correct in an instructive way for determining US foreign policy in the future, those voices are still denied a platform.

Rather we have had a spate of the very people who got this wrong in pretty much every detail explaining why they were really right after all, given what they knew. There are exceptions. Sullivan. Tim Noah.

But there are many, many more O'Hanlons than there are Sullivans. And because they continue to believe in the hegemony project, they are still Serious People who write in Important Newspapers and appear on the tee vee shows.

So, Joe, if you are serious in opposition to neo-colonialism, I urge you to write about it more clearly. Suggest people read some Chalmers Johnson. Discuss the benefit/cost ratio of basing tens of thousands of soldiers in Okinowa or Germany. Explain why, in the absence of neo-colonialism, there are some 800 US military bases around the world, uniquely among the OECD.

And stop the drumbeating about rising China. That's the only possible justification for building new fighter jets, keeping nuclear submarines in operation, maintaining thousands of nuclear warheads and missiles.

China is a valued trading partner, not a potential enemy that may endanger our vital interests.

The traditional media is lacking any voice who will say this. Can you step up?

On the "dangerous world" business, and the danger the US faces from terrorism, I urge people to read this piece by James Fallows, now freed from the Atlantic subscription wall.

Joe, dear:

This is such a strawman:

because of the complexities on the ground and the sheer difficulty of a military withdrawal, it should be a withdrawal that proceeds without an inflexible timetable or end date

No person that I know if is advocating withdrawing troops with an "inflexible timetable." Where do you *get* this stuff? You know, a major reason why you get bashed so often is the way you construct these ridiculous strawmen and arrogantly proceed to knock them down. Now, just point to the responsible person, please, who is advocating an "inflexible" timetable. Yes, we all want to be "prudent" but we want the disengagement to *begin.* Okay?

And from what orifice did you pull this:

I don't see that the witch-hunting of those who actually were pro-war does much good now.

You know, what the hell are you talking about? Who the hell is "witch-hunting" pro-war people. Why just this week they were courteously asked to write essays on what they got wrong. You think anyone has asked us, who foresaw clearly every step of the debacle that has verily occurred lo these past years, WHY we knew it would come to pass in exactly this way? Because thousands of us did. And yet, still not one of them NOT A ONE has a major platform in the mainstream media.

That's right: WE were right. WE correctly foresaw this debacle. Now how about asking us what to do now. No. Instead you ask people who were wrong, grievously wrong, catastrophically wrong in every respect where we should go from here. And people like you listen to them. That doesn't speak well for your judgment, to put it mildly.

Now who the hell is "witch-hunting" Joe. It's you and your colleagues who, if you *had* misgivings about the war, managed to hide them well enough to keep your job. And you are still, even now, petulantly skulking around and dodging the righteous judgement of those of us who were right all along.

Civil war advoidance isn't just a story -- it's a legitimate reason, whether or not it's being cynically manipulated by those in power.

Peter:

You appear to be saying that because it appears that our continued presence may avert a civil war, we should stay, even though the leadership may have no intention of averting a civil war. Recall that the Iraqi death squads and ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods began shortly after Negroponte was made ambassador. Negroponte was involved in death squad activity in Central America during his stint in the Reagan administration.

BushCo is willing to sacrifice an unlimited number of Iraqis in order to secure control of their oil. The proof of this is their deliberate obfuscation of statistics on civilian deaths and injuries. While we have very accurate counts of US personnel losses, an administration supposedly devoted to the welfare of the Iraqi population has deliberately neglected to gather reliable data on deaths and injuries caused by the invasion.

Why is that?

"Reading the pre-war analyses in the major media outlets, there was nobody who cited the history of Mesopotamia, nobody who analyzed longstanding tribal conflict that Saddam's brutality had suppressed but not eliminated and nobody who pointed out that the sequence of events that all had to go right implied a probability of any reasonable defintion of success in the low single digits."

Jay, you're spot on. The frustrating thing is that General Eric Shinseki *did* make clear there would be difficulties securing the peace and mentioned ethnic factions when he addressed Congress before the war. Watching his testimony on Frontline last night reminded us once again that there were functioning adults who had reservations and were pretty much ignored by the media.

Joe, why did so many in the MSM believe a military man with Shinseki's experience knew less than Cheney and Rummy?

"Now who the hell is "witch-hunting" Joe. "

Chutzpah Joe has neatly pirouetted and become a war-doubter. He has whipped off his war-enabler costume and even shows some mock contrition ("stupid, stupid, stupid"). For this, Chutzpah Joe is praised. Although he can't quite work up a coherent statement on withdrawal from Iraq, and he still gets misty-eyed when contemplating the great General Petraeus, Joe definitely wants us to know that he is on the right side of the issue.

All the stupid, stupid, stupid people who led us into the Iraq fiasco remain comfortably ensconced in positions of power and influence, and the people who correctly predicted the disaster are still considered fringe, leftist, DFH, over-the-top, ranters. America will not give up its crazy militarism until it has received a severe economic or military beating, because there will always be another well-paid armchair warrior ready to fight at his keyboard. Appeals to reason are fruitless when madness is empowered.

Joe,

There is no "witch-hunting" going on. The war in Iraq has been a humanitarian, strategic, and financial disaster and America's leaders in the government, military and media are being legitimately questioned about their mistakes in the buildup to the war. This process of questioning - and yes, criticizing - is our best chance to avoid another Iraq, because unfortunately none of us here can do much about the military-industrial complex.

In addition, it seems that many of the people who ignored the clear warning signs about the Iraq war don't really understand how obvious it was to many of us four thousand deaths ago that this would turn out so horribly. It was obvious that the "shock and awe" bombing would destroy the infrastructure and lives of ordinary Iraqis, but do virtually nothing to prevent the deadly fighting on the ground that has killed so many Americans and Iraqis. It was obvious that the Bush Administration was too incompetent to correctly execute a just war, let alone an unjust war in a region with complex religious and ethnic divisions. It was obvious that the WMD intelligence was very weak; It was obvious that if they had real intelligence Powell wouldn't have had to give that absurd and embarrassing presentation at the UN. And finally it was obvious that we would all look back to the beginning of this war as a time when America's leaders failed to live up to their responsibilities.

Stuart Stuart Stuart, one might think that you could come up with something better than a Twin Tower analogy, which has absolutely nothing related to my previous statements.

”those firefighters and EMT's and cops didn't save anybody”. “They ran straight into buildings that were already falling down on top of them, and succeeded in doing nothing other than depriving New York of a significant cohort of its best emergency personnel in its worst moment of crisis in centuries”.
“So did the brave firefighters, EMTs, police officers, and other uniformed service personnel die in vain that terrible day?”

1. Doing ones job in a crisis, not knowing the full scope of the events unfolding in an emergency CAN end with a tragic result, thus “brave Firefighters, EMTs, Police Officers and other uniformed service Personnel” do NOT die in vain.
2. “Running straight into a buildings that were already falling down on top of them” is a hazard of being a fire fighter, but you make it sound like they were lemmings running into the lake and drowning themselves just because they didn’t know any better. This is YOUR logic? Your comparison to the soldiers in Iraq?

Oh, wait a minute, now you backstep and agree; “The reason why these fine people did not die in vain on 9/11 is because honor doesn't spring from the result of brave action, honor is brought forth in the act of bravery itself”.

Comparing, or attempting to compare brave acts of 9/11 resulting in honor, and the honor of serving and dying in the Iraq conflict is truly a feeble one indeed. Each sacrifice is unique to itself, and the brave act honored individually. All that your lame attempt does is say the soldiers in the conflict are blindly running like the lemmings. You allude they are blindly going into this conflict with no idea of what they get themselves into at the time. What you are really saying is that the government started a war, and you do not agree with it and the result is Men and Women paying the ultimate price, their lives. But, because they are military they have no choice? Don’t discredit the men and women of the military, and make them out to be blind lemmings, Stuart.

So lets talk fact Stuart:

FACT: Sadam Hussein’s fascist regime, patterned after Adolf Hitler suppressed a people for more than 30 years. (I assume you back regimes such as Hitler and Hussein’s Stuart?)

FACT: Sadam used WMD’s on hundreds of Kurds, annihilating villages.

FACT: Sadam invaded not only Kuwait, but also Iran. The later I truly wish he had won.

FACT: Sadam and his also dead son’s committed so many human atrocities we’ve lost count from the records discovered after the invasion.

FACT: From an AP story
updated 7:33 p.m. ET, Fri., Jan. 25, 2008
NEW YORK - Saddam Hussein allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction to deter rival Iran and did not think the United States would stage a major invasion, according to an FBI interrogator who questioned the Iraqi leader after his capture.

No Stuart I do not discount anyone’s sacrifice or attempt to compare one’s sacrifice with another, as each is unique to its own. I do not compare the brave NYFD or NYPD with lemmings, no YOU did that yourself.

Rustydog:

FACT: The US government steadfastly supported the regime of Saddam Hussein when he was at the height of his sadistic cruelty.

FACT: The US government has a history of supporting some of the most vicious and brutal authoritarian regimes in the world.

FACT: The US government switched overnight from demonizing Muammar Khadafi to legitimizing his regime after he agreed to open up his oil fields to US companies.

FACT: America acts ruthlessly to secure its economic and military interests. Whenever possible, these actions are clothed as humanitarian interventions.

Have another pitcher of Kool Aid. It will make you feel better.

Southern Bell,

Shinseki should have been a red flat to the media. Because they did NOT get all over that story, look to analysts who had been involved with Bosnia--the source for Shinseki's estimates--not only were the American people deprived of real balanced reporting, but it also meant that senior military official knew that nobody had their backs.

red flag

Observer:
What is the cute nickname?

The nickname was "Mr. Faith Based." Link:

JK: Well, you know, I also run in the kind of faith based circle. In fact, one of Bush's nicknames for me is Mr. Faith Based.

Joe,

Commenting on a George Packer* post, Yglesias says this:

Obama's key contention, as underscored by Packer, is that Iraq is "the bad war that we have to end if we want to win the good war in Afghanistan and turn around the economy at home." Now obviously if you don't buy that analysis, you're not going to like Obama's Iraq policy. But Packer doesn't seem to disagree with it. Instead, he says "there’s more than a little truth to" what Obama is saying. But so if Obama's right, then he right. Packer doesn't see it that way. He seems to think that Obama should have gone in for some more showy hand-wringing. But why should he do that? Packer's upset that Obama doesn't have a viable plan for Kirkuk, but that's just the point; Obama recognizes that nobody has a viable plan to solve Iraq's problems so he wants to put our resources where they can do more good.

When you say that the US needs to withdraw, but because of the complexities on the ground and the sheer difficulty of a military withdrawal, it should be a withdrawal that proceeds without an inflexible timetable or end date that you are effectively just kicking the can down the road. The US can't leave until it starts to leave.

Moreover, the problems of Kirkuk, or, ahem, Basra, have not been materially changed by the presence of US forces. So why not just start? Rotate people out, and don't rotate replacements in. Why wait?

I don't see that the witch-hunting of those who actually were pro-war does much good now.

The phrase "witch-hunting" is a strawman that implies the religiously-based persecution of people for no other reason than that they are different. What is really required, instead of the recycling of throwaway cliches and strawmen, is the resurrection of a concept that many people in the political and media worlds have a problem with these days - the concept of accountability. The political and media landscape is littered with people who (a) were wrong about just about everything related to the Iraq misadventure, in some cases dozens of times (b) have never uttered a single mea culpa or explanation for how they came to be utterly and persistently wrong (c) show no signs of understanding how they can be less wrong in the future, and (d) are still employed, given air time, and seemingly embraced by the major media networks. What's wrong with this picture? We have a total failure on the part of Serious People to admit to error (I adhere to the old idea that an error is not a mistake until you refuse to admit to it), and a total failure to hold those people accountable for talking nonsense, and to get them to explain how they intend to stop talking nonsense into the future. Accountability comprises 2 facets; the ability to ensure that people own up to mistakes, and the ability to ensure that either they change their behaviour, or that they are sent packing. Right now, I do not see either of those facets being applied. Your "witch-hunt" statement is a throw-away dismissal, the equivalent of "nothing to see here - move along". As such it is intellectually dishonest, shallow, and a wonderful example of the continual, incurious, negligent avoidance of accountability for the current quagmire in Iraq.

Glenn Greenwald posts a Charlie Rose interview with two Iraqi-Americans. It's well worth viewing.

Not to diss Rose, but he seems honestly confused by some the things being said. It's an interesting illustration of how US-centric the coverage has been.

"the concept of accountability"

Indeed. Chutzpah Joe and the other war enablers have committed a breach of duty. There are consequences for a surgeon, or policeman, or gardener who fails in a way that harms those whose interests it is their duty to protect.

It was Time Magazine's journalistic DUTY to protect the interests of the American people. Joe Klein failed miserably in that duty, and he should bear the negative consequences to his career. Instead, we are told that protecting a nationally know journalist's personal brand equity is a more important principle than protecting the public interest. This is arrant nonsense.

Just go away, Chutzpah Joe, and give Glenn Greenwald the keys to your office on the way out.

Joe, I do respect you for challenging the "surge is working" meme.

But, as Jay points out, the media for the most part ignored the red flag who was Shinseki and I'm worried they are now, for the most part, ignoring the very complex realities of what's going on.

I have yet to see a full investigation into the possible Catch-22 of the counter-insurgency: is our working with formally "evil" militias damaging the prospect of Iraqis working together? Are we creating some stability in Bagdad but exacerbating the ethnic tensions by seeming to be picking "sides"?

Graham, you forgot:

(e) and are, even now, enabling the run-up to war with Iran, as the incessant spread of disinformation runs it's course (witness McCain's 5X "slips of the tongue").

Observer, He's not. He is rejecting the mission because its intention, from the start, has been morally wrong and continues to be morally wrong. and Malcolm, The mission itself has been the primary flaw from the beginning! You're absolute right - the mission is the primary flaw. Should we be here now? No. How did we get here? Throught severe incompetence. Are we here now? Yes. Nobody's happy that we're in the middle of a cornfield, but in a cornfield we are. Malcom's point about opportunity cost -- "that money, and those soldiers, could best be employed elsewhere" -- is well taken, I just happen to believe that stabilizing Iraq is a worthy enough cause to justify the opportunity cost. Observer, you don't get to reject where we are just because you don't like how we got here. Give that we're here now, with the direct consequence of our withdrawal most likely being a long civil war involving hudreds of thousands of civilian deaths, you can't just leave cause we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

HH: "You appear to be saying that because it appears that our continued presence may avert a civil war, we should stay, even though the leadership may have no intention of averting a civil war." I disagree. If all the administration is after is oil (which I dont' believe), then the best way to secure that is by averting civil war and stabilizing the country. Push that aside, though. Don't you think that averting civil war and stabilizing the country is exactly what our commanders in the field are doing? Our armored divisions have left their armored personnel carriers and are walkign the streets at considerable risk; we are pouring millions into schools, hospitals, roads; and we're attempting to train, despite homegrown resistence, a multiethic security force. Think about this from an economic standpoint - is it worth pouring over a trillion dollars into a war that's going to net a gain in oil that several order of magnitudes smaller? Are you saying that our leadership is just blind to these numbers?

Our armored divisions have left their armored personnel carriers and are walking the streets at considerable risk

You seem to be strangely uninformed about military activity in Iraq. Our forces are taking delivery of MRAPs, perhaps the most massivly armored wheeled vehicles ever to patrol a street. Petraeus has jacked up the use of pulverizing airstrikes to many multiples of what it was last year. America is pounding Iraq into rubble, and resolutely refusing to tally the cost in civilian casualties. (You never explain why we don't keep track of how many Iraqis we have killed and wounded. This is strange behavior for a compassionate occupier.)

Think about this from an economic standpoint - is it worth pouring over a trillion dollars into a war that's going to net a gain in oil that several order of magnitudes smaller? Are you saying that our leadership is just blind to these numbers?

No, you think about it from an economic standpoint. The value of 300 billion barrels of oil reserves @ $100/barrel is $30 trillion, an order of magnitude greater than the estimated cost of the war. That's just the raw commodity value. The geostrategic value of being able to control who gets that oil is even greater. Further, the availability of huge Iraqi military bases enables the seizure of even more Mideast oil resources. The Bush administration is run by authoritarian nationalists who believe that oil is the key to power in the modern era.

The "avoiding civil war" cover story is just another piece of carefully crafted bull$hit meant to secure the support of wishful thinkers like you, while the smash and grab foreign policy continues.

Peter--

I saw this debate at yearlykos. Taylor Marsh, who believes that leaving would be catastrophic, and digby, who wants out asap.

Taylor said there is a clear consensus (speaking last August) that leaving meant a conflagration throughout the region.

digby said that's as may be, but how is that any different now than it was 3 years ago? And, in fact, isn't it likely the conflagration would be worse, because so much more damage has been done, and so many of the people who would be moderating forces--professionals, educated people--have fled?

And digby asked what the end state is that would permit the US to leave.

I'd add to this something Ygleisas likes to say--that the people who want to stay assume the worst case scenario if the US leaves, and the best case scenario for staying. If we reversed these, we'd out in a heartbeat.

Never seen anybody write this down, so I will.

The best case withdrawal scenario is that the puppets in the Green Zone flee with the last bunch of Americans, al Sistani negotiates a deal with Iranian surrogates not associated with for a shiite coalition that permits a role for Sunnis, with the Kurds agreeing to provide peshmerga support if there is a Sunni uprising, in return for practical autonomy and a 60-40 cut on Kirkuk oil.

The worst case indefinite occupation scenario (and I have yet to hear anyone, anyone describe realistic "victory" conditions):

Sometime in mid-2011, after the current period of stasis has continued with the associated failure to improve the quality of life for any Iraqi south of Kurdistan, the Sadrists cut a deal with the Iranian surrogates to stand aside while they wage an all out assault on the Green Zone. Troop levels have been reduced to 80,000 by moving to 12 month tours and ending stop-loss.

The Kurds react by invading Kirkuk, to take unbridled control. The Turks respond with a border incursion.

Sunnis, terrified of an al Sadr regime, respond using all their stockpiled arms. This leads to a Sunni pogrom. An uprising of this magnitude is well beyond the capacity of the American troops to control.

-------------------
Steve Gilliard believed that an attack on the Green Zone was inevitable--that the stasis is not indefinitely sustainable. The COIN strategies that Petraeus is using assumes that there is some legitimate government that the insurgents are fighting against, and for. In Vietnam, that was the Catholic southern governments that were being fought against, and Ho Chi Mihn was who they were insurging for.

Calling what is going on in Iraq an "insurgency" is name it incorrectly. If you fail to identify your problem accurately, you attempted solutions are doomed to fail The political need to identify this as an "insurgency" impedes dealing with it effectively.

Watch for Petraeus to become an un-person within days of the next major outbreak of violence in Iraq. He will be promoted and hustled out of Iraq so fast it will make your head spin. Another general will then take the blame for squandering Petraeus's "victory," and another surge will be queued up.

The BushCo thugs will never lack for another lame slogan or tactic to run out the clock on the worst Presidency in modern memory. What amazes me is that huge numbers of Americans are still willing to believe ANYTHING said by the Bush White House.

Where's Jihad Joe Klein today?

Battling the three remaining Brits in Basra, perhaps?

Stuart Zechman -
Thanks for the column on honor and troop withdrawal. I'll admit, I've been flummoxed by that argument (we can't dishonor our dead soldiers by withdrawing!) before, so it's great to see someone with a coherent response to it.
The only flaw being, of course, that people like RustyDog are easily capable of twisting the logic.

Speaking of RustyDog - "Comparing, or attempting to compare brave acts of 9/11 resulting in honor, and the honor of serving and dying in the Iraq conflict is truly a feeble one indeed. Each sacrifice is unique to itself, and the brave act honored individually. All that your lame attempt does is say the soldiers in the conflict are blindly running like the lemmings. You allude they are blindly going into this conflict with no idea of what they get themselves into at the time. What you are really saying is that the government started a war, and you do not agree with it and the result is Men and Women paying the ultimate price, their lives. But, because they are military they have no choice? Don’t discredit the men and women of the military, and make them out to be blind lemmings, Stuart."

They don't really have a choice, RustyDog. They're soldiers. They follow orders. That's what they do. It's what makes them soldiers.
Stuart isn't saying they're lemmings. And I don't see how comparing the sacrifices made on 9-11 by rescue personnel to the sacrifices of our armed forces is feeble. I think you were flailing around for a hole in Zechman's argument.

And finally, we do need to do some witch-hunting. We need a lot of dedicated investigators to go through this Administration's actions piece by piece and reveal everything they have done and everything they have lied about.

The value of the "Witch Hunt" Joe, is to separate those who's opinions are valuable and worth reading - such as those who had the sense to know that a man with a lifetime of failure would make an incompetent president, from those who's value in reading lies only in their ability to provide a target to laugh and point at.

Do you really think there is no value in separating those who didn't work to stop the greatest strategic blunder of our lives from those who did?

This thread is cycling off the front page, so I don't how much value there is in replying, but I'll do it anyways.

HH: You never explain why we don't keep track of how many Iraqis we have killed and wounded. This is strange behavior for a compassionate occupier. I don't really know what you're trying to say here; Iraqi casualties are tracked. If you question is, why aren't they as accurate as American numbers? Well, we don't have a complete list of every citizen in Iraq, and Iraqi civilians don't muster and take accountability once a week. If you're asking why there isn't an official U. S. government agency tasked with this, I'd say that 1) the job is being done fine already, and 2) you don't want a gov't agency doing a tally that you know will never ben 100% accurate being conspiracy theorists like yourself will always be accusing the agency of partisan motives.

Watch for Petraeus to become an un-person within days of the next major outbreak of violence in Iraq. He will be promoted and hustled out of Iraq so fast it will make your head spin. Another general will then take the blame for squandering Petraeus's "victory," and another surge will be queued up. Are you serious? What possible incentive would they have to do this? Do you really think the Defense Secretary is going to hold a press conference and say "I f@&ked up by moving Petraeus out so it's all my fault" just to protect Petraeus's reputation?

If you question is, why aren't they as accurat