Surge Protection

Uh, you're claiming you were against the Surge? Well, I shouldn't say anything definitive. I'm sure you know your own work better than I do. But reading you here at Swampland I didn't get that impression. I thought, in fact, that you were trying to talk your lefty readers here down from our surge opposition and that you had such respect for Petraeus that you really did think it would work out (which it hasn't since you neglect to mention the additional deaths we've suffered and that reducing violence wasn't the goal, but I'm bickering again...)

Let's say you're right -- you were against the surger from the start. I'm misremembering things. Why do you think your Swampland posts have given a pro-surge impression? Is it because you're trying to convince a more skeptical readership here? Would I have gotten a different impression from you in other venues?

Awesome. We can stay there forever, get out and watch the civil war begin, or turn Maliki into another Mubarak. Democracy for everyone!

Remind me why we started this thing in the first place?

Joe:

You might want to think about keeping your analysis of the Surge™ in the present perfect rather than the past tense. There's no basis I see to assume any permanence of the trends on the ground.

The Sadrists "going to ground" and waiting us out was a consequence predicted by the GOP and Lieberman if we had set a schedule for qwithdrawal. Can't say I've seen a comparable analysis of this resulting from the Surge™ (or, as realists call it, our escalation of the conflict).

Cookie Puss:

For the oil. Ask McCain.

Best quote from the Brooks op-ed:

"The cocksure war supporters learned this humbling lesson during the dark days of 2006."

They did? When?

Yeah, FlownOver, this seems like a premature declaration. Atrios does remind us, pretty much daily, that it isn't exactly Central Park in Iraq yet.

And I still strongly suspect that the primary reason there are fewer American causalities is that the Americans are not exposing themselves in dangerous areas.

Mike M--I'll reply here in comments, since the post was so long. Here's what I wrote when the surge began:

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1587186,00.html

You might be confusing my strong desire that the surge succeed with my opinion that it wouldn't work.

Mike M--I'll reply here in comments, since the post was so long. Here's what I wrote when the surge began:

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1587186,00.html

You might be confusing my strong desire that the surge succeed with my opinion that it wouldn't work.

My whole problem with the push for the Surge was that the arguments for it were built on a staggering amount of b.s. From the beginning of the insurgency to just prior to when the Surge idea was announced, the spin from Bush and his sycophants was that things were pretty good in Iraq. Sure there was some violence. But the American-hating media just refused to report the good news. Remember that b.s. that we were subjected to?

Then the Surge was announced: a plan to essentially re-invade Baghdad.

Just to recap the timeline of the wingnuts: Mission Accomplished. We are making progress. The media won't report the good news. We need to re-invade Baghdad.

Excuse me? When did the Republicans ever admit that we had lostBaghdad?

I never considered the question of whether the Surge could work to be a serious one. When was there any question that if we wanted to put enough troops in Iraq that we could temporarily quell guerilla war? Whether the actual numbers that were being floated were enough to do that I left up to the military experts.

But so what? After 5 years, we are basically back to where we were immediately after we took Baghdad: A relative short-term calm with no long-term plan.

And to get back to almost square one, it only cost us a couple trillion dollars and the evisceration of Iraq's civil society.

Will the surge work? What a stupid question that was.

Joe,

Nice super-post. A couple of points though.
1) I'm not as convinced as you that the mission was doomed from the start. When we invaded, we fired the government, the army, and the police. Then we said "Democracy: Boom!" and sent significant portions of our forces home.

IF, and this is a huge IF that basically assumes we had had competent leadership at all sorts of government levels that retrospectively flat out didn't exist, we had made a more judicious advance, securing the ground and weapons stockpiles and bases as we went, and didn't fire everyone and shut down all the state run industries, putting the majority of the country out of work in one fell swoop, and started actually protecting people from the sectarianists and arrested Sadr and engaged Sistani back when we had the chance and not tried to foist Chalabi off on the Iraqi people and done any phase IV planning at all, and negotiated with Iran in 2003 when they were highly motivated to do so and... well, ok, it's a long list. But if we'd managed to do even 1/2 or 1/3 of as much right instead of everything 100% wrong, I think we'd be looking at a very different situation on the ground now.

2) As much as I dislike Bush, I think he does deserve credit for stubbornness and sticking to the mission. Just like any evaluation of Nixon is flawed without discussing his foreign policy success' during his second term, I think any discussion of Bush's presidency is incomplete without discussion of his willingness to be stubborn and keep trying new generals until one got it right. That doesn't stop Bush from being possibly the worst president since Grant, but it does need to factor into the discussion.

3) Any word on whether or not the state run industries have been allowed to re-open and put people back to work again? That always seems to be one of the most common complaints of the tribal chiefs on the Awakening program - they want more money to hire more people and put them to work. You can hire a lot more guys to plant bombs if they're unemployed and don't have to be at work in the morning than otherwise.

4) There is also the meta-effect of the invasion. The middle east has been exposed to a different view of the world and the fact that the bigger world will push back in a way that's never happened before. The closest historical analogy for the socio-political climate in the middle east right now is 13th and 14th century Europe. Corrupt state theocracies in bed with corrupt undemocratic secular leaders with bad domestic situations preaching religious war against an external world that's against them. This led to the Crusades in Europe, and the blowback from those led to the Reformation and Renaissance. It is highly possible (and probably the best to hope for outcome) that the blowback from the current situation can result in the same type of revolutions. (Yes, I know blowback is usually used to refer to bad stuff happening to us because of bad planning/unintended consequences, but it's kind of a universal FUBAR, like gravity.)

Sourcing note: for Nixon's successful foreign policy see "Warrior Politics: why modern leadership requires a pagan ethos" by Robert D. Kaplan

for the "arrest Sadr when we could" claim, see "Chasing Ghosts" by Paul Reickhoff

Good post, Joe.

The reason I'd always been a Petraeus backer is that his tactics always were better. I've been less enthused with his willingness to be a part of the GOP propaganda machine (ie, "Briefing to America" on Fox News).

Here are some sports similes for you. At this point, pledging an indefinite occupation is like the Mets trading Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano-- all the underlying trends suggest that doubling down and going further into debt is unwise. And getting the surge "right" is like praising the Dolphins for their late-season run-- too little, too late.

I am really uncomfortable with the "question of divided loyalties" issue. I think that it's more about simplistic, black-and-white thinking writ large than anything like that (self-link on what neoconservatives say neoconservatism is). If it's pro-Israel bias that led to support for the Iraq invasion, it's a uniquely American form of pro-Israel bias. The public there has skin in the game. They don't support grandiose, destabilizing jihads-- see how quickly public support there evaporated for the disastrous Lebanon invasion.

"That doesn't stop Bush from being possibly the worst president since Grant, but it does need to factor into the discussion."

Good insight as usual, but does Jimmy Carter ring any bells?

I'd add that JFK was credited with addressing problems too -- though some of his own creation, including the Cuban missile crisis, which with experience and foresight may have been prevented long before the launchers got to Castro.

Clinton, along the same lines, may have had a legacy of note, were it not for his inability to keep his bent pecker away from the hired help.

For all the loose piling on of Bush 43, he's been more resolute in seeing this thing through than might have been expected of say a President Gore (King of the Home Kilowatt and 3 Hour Frantic Freezing Movie).

Nobody really knows what Senator Obama actually plans, when it comes to the Pakistani and Iranian and Hamas thugs yet to be resolved.

In any event, America's troops have again done excellent work, despite all the liberal media B.S. to the contrary (where 99.9% of them act with courage and honor that few staffers at the New York Times could EVER muster), and for that at least we should all be thankful -- and hopeful.

We don't need paid politicos to tell us that, of course.

I would suggest to Mr. Klein and the rest of the media mavens that it is well past time to drop the tired Lessons Of Vietnam line of liberal extrapolation (usually a vague and sloppy analogy made by someone from an Ivy-ish school that never left Fort Dix, if that), on anything military early or late, and make the Petraeus standard the new benchmark for all urban and guerrilla conflicts to come.

And, in that same vein, give a cheer out where it is deserved, and that is to the professional Army leadership training over the last 30 years, including the West Point staff and graduates that have turned post-Vietnam teaching into real tactics, for the benefit of people and places many of us will never know or visit.

This all comes too late for the Kennedy and Johnson tenures, and those that died during their dented attempts to subdue evil with hands unnecessarily tied behind their own backs, but that does not mean the rest of humanity has to long suffer forever the academic shrillness and strident socialism that have become the hallmarks of leftist fear and political failure and those so terror enabled and nothing more.

It was always clear that the militias, especially the Sadrists, would go to ground and wait out our presence rather than confront our superior military force.

So... the Sadrists are waiting us out. The Sunnis who became our (more-or-less) co-belligerents, because of their own interests and the guns and money we are giving them, have announced they, too, are waiting us out, and will use those guns and that money to attempt to retake Bagdad and exact revenge on the Sunnis. Al Qaeda in Iraq, which was estimated, if memory serves, as about six percent of the total insurgency, has been defeated or near-defeated; a week ago today a carbomb targeting Shi'ites killed more than fifty people (only one network saw fit to inclue this story in it's nightly national news broadcast). How many people have died of less dramatic violence in the week since then? Probably at least as many if not more. Our best case scenario is that Maliki, who likes the Iranian mullahs more than he likes us, will be able to use his militias (or at least those who are loyal to him as long as it serves their interests) to suppress the Sadrists and the Sunnis and other parties and sects enough to maintain this sort of low-grade civil war.

Yes, overall violence is down, more than I expected it to be, for a number of reasons of which the increase in American troops is probably a lesser one. The Surge has been a highly debatable "success".

I actually think Sean DeCoursey is on to something. Imagine a Democrat who was as heard-headed in pursuing the right policies as Bush has been in pursuing the wrong ones? Me neither.

"..a huge fan of counterinsurgency .."
Read, I love it: Neither my son nor my wife is in there raped, maimed or dying.

" ..The surge has reduced violence. .."
Joe, getting out of Iraq would reduce violence too.
Would you say, Joe, that there is more violence in Iraq now than there was before we went in there in a quixotic search for WMDs? And that many times more people have died since our first invasion of that country than ever died during Saddam's prior reign?

Where is your sense of perspective?

==terrorism makes your dreams come true
One of John McCain's top advisers said in a Fortune Magazine interview that another terrorist attack on the U.S. would provide ``a big advantage'' to the Republican candidate.
[Is it possible that a few years from now, a tell-all book will hit the shelves stating that the scenario was actually discussed with the candidate? Never? Ever read those publications from the neo-con 'think tanks'?]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080623/pl_bloomberg/anv_fygkpnss

"Nobody really knows what Senator Obama actually plans, when it comes to the Pakistani and Iranian and Hamas thugs yet to be resolved."

Hey McCain4,

I had to disagree with this bit. Obama has stated a tough approach with Pakistan and Afghanistan due to increasing terrorist threats there (e.g., he stated that he would strike Pakistan if we had actionable intel. of terrorist activities and Pakistan did not act). As for Iran, we're all aware of his more diplomatic approach, but I don't think he's going to meet with Ahmadinejad (I think he knows that was a gaffe when he made that one statement way back when). He'd be better off approaching some of the more moderate clerics, imho.

Hamas is one area where he would do well to provide more specifics. If one takes his AIPAC speech seriously, it would suggest a tough approach, but I admit that this could be more pandering than policy.

"In any event, America's troops have again done excellent work, despite all the liberal media B.S. to the contrary (where 99.9% of them act with courage and honor that few staffers at the New York Times could EVER muster), and for that at least we should all be thankful -- and hopeful."

The "liberal media" narrative is really kind of false. Some outlets are more liberal (e.g., NYT), some conservative (e.g., do you really think talk radio, foxnews, wall st. journal are NOT conservative?). I completely agree on the valor of our troops, but I think it's a little insulting to assume that Americans don't notice the troops' efforts because of the evil "liberal media." It's too simple of an analysis for such a complex issue, and if the media isn't covering the surge gains, why are we posting about on a supposedly "liberal" blog?.

"Yes, overall violence is down, more than I expected it to be, for a number of reasons of which the increase in American troops is probably a lesser one. The Surge has been a highly debatable "success".

Wow.

Not exactly glowing praise for our armed forces, in that loathing liberal summary.

Does Obama plan to run with such warped speculation through November and beyond -- when every analysis of merit concludes that The Surge has in fact worked, and that attacking the Sadr Shiite radicals head-on was the key to this basic change?

Iraq has a long way to go.

Obama and the other stunted McGovernites and hangers-on from the feckless Clinton cadres show no signs of being part of that current and future success, unfortunately.

I have long wondered exactly what was said at those Cheney energy policy meetings in 2001 that the administration was so desperate to keep secret.

My guess is the oil execs whined about the low price of oil and the fact that Saddam was allowing the French and the Russians to buy "our oil" in Iraq. And Cheney told them "don't worry, as soon as we can gin up a pretense, we're going to take Saddam out and give you guys the oil. And, in the process, the political instability will jack up the price. Sit tight."

And that's exactly what happened. 4000+ American lives and 1000000+ Iraqi lives later, voila! Here's your oil, Exxon! Never mind about the bloodstains.

You got it right, Joe.

We're damned if we stay, and damned if we go. And this temporary holding pattern is no reason to forgive the collossal stupidity of the original choice to invade.

And I'm very glad that people (particularly Jewish commentators) are starting to speak openly about the fact that the neocons' loyalties might be a bit conflicted.

A quick read of Juan Cole's news summary gives a total of 49 people killed in political violence in Iraq since Sunday. Including:

16 people killed by a carbomb in Baquba.

10 by a mortar attack on an Awakening Council meeting.

2 U.S. military killed by city councilman in town near Bagdad. The councilman had been considered an "ally" of Americans.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/41895.html

I didn't count the wounded.

Hey Joe,

Thanks for answering. Yes, I must have conflated your subsequent commentary with your original stance. Please remember, none of us here ever wanted anything to fail, we know lives are on the line and that there are veterans and families of veterans who post here.

Not exactly glowing praise for our armed forces, in that loathing liberal summary.

Which base you posting from, soldier?

What you, and Grampy McCain, are too thick to understand, is that this isn't a problem that the military can solve, no matter how macho it makes people like you and Joe Lieberman feel to play dress-up in their uniforms.

McCain: "Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war."

Considering that this post is surrounded both below and above with arguements over whether it's appropriate to think of a terrorist attack as 'good news' for one party or the other, I'm surprised that you're leaving this sentence out there to hang:

Another bit of "luck" was the ethnic cleansing that took place in Baghdad in 2005-2006.

I still say that the main benefit of the Surge® was that it got people to stop debating the war for six months in order to "wait for general Petraeus's report in August" This caused "stay the Course" to disappear from the political landscape which was necessary in order to lessen the sting of "Mcsame"

I am of course glad when our soldiers are safer as they appear to be, and I'm glad to know that average Iraqis are intolerant of ultra-religious nutjobs. But the Surge® is, was and remains a marketing ploy first and formeost. It's done its work admirably.

"Obama has stated a tough approach with Pakistan and Afghanistan..."

The devil is in the details.

Going into the mountains there is an entirely different and exponentially more difficult proposition than subduing even Iraq (where Sean above highlights most of the dumb moves, to include sacking the Iraqi military and Sunni civil leaders) -- and where Pakistan is no doubt a nuclear power, and loosing the masses against their stockpiles in reaction to some knee-jerk Kosovo campaign is not going to cut it, lacking control on the ground.

The notion that we can bombs away to success then, like some re-do of Pristina Airport, is not thinking this thing through.

Iraq does indeed offer lessons for Pakistan and Afghanistan, and that includes careful planning for the aftermath of any air bombardments, and what happens to the available weapons in the region, should all political and civil hell break loose -- which is highly likely, given the history of the assorted tribes.

We should know what a lack of hands-on did, in allowing Saddam's old munitions and leaking borders, that ended up getting Americans and our allies killed and wounded (to this day). Pakistan offers much, much greater problems than even Iraq, where their intelligence services are suspect at best, and active Taliban supporters by most indications. Do we take out their internal police forces, as part of an Obama offensive? Do we knock out their scattered power grid? Water ways and major roads and airports and train terminals? What does he plan to do with the millions of poor refugees he'd amass, and those killed by what would be required to negate Pakistan's C&C and nuke stores?

Mr. Obama had damn well better know what he's proposing -- and what it will take to FOLLOW THROUGH on any such projections of power into Pakistan proper. And have the American people and our allies firmly on board, for what would make Iraq look like the proverbial cake walk.

Has he coordinated with India? Australia? Indonesia? The UN? Iran, even? If he's stupidly listening to Kerry and Biden, he may be off in some 1970's Belgium, mentally.

I'm not encouraged or impressed by his lack of personal and professional experience, his domesticated DNC legal sycophants, or his now largely unknown private financial supporters.

And you can't phone it in from Facebook, sorry.

Details, details, details.

Actually Jim, this is exactly the sort of problem the military can solve. The problem is that solving it would take a maintained presence of 700,000+ (preferably over 1 million, you generally want a minimum of 50-1 civilian to forces ratio, but 25-1 is better) for around 10 years and it's blatantly clear that America isn't willing to take the steps necessary to make that happen.

A more correct phrasing would be "this isn't the sort of problem our military can solve at its current levels of staffing and support".

Nothing wrong with that, but pretending that a large enough force couldn't calm down/ nearly eliminate the violence is a misconception.

(Yes, I know we had over 1 million in Vietnam, however, most of the analogies to 'Nam don't really hold up on a tactical and strategic level, though they do make nice rhetorical comparisons)

The surge has reduced violence.

Really?

Tell that to the over-1,000 American servicemen that have been killed since the surge began.

Good post, with some good insights. Although:
Another bit of "luck" was the ethnic cleansing that took place in Baghdad in 2005-2006 that lessened the potential for internecine violence in many of the neighborhoods.

My impression was that the ethnic cleansing was due to the internecine violence. And I don't think I would describe death squads abducting, torturing, and executing hundreds, if not thousands, of people as "lucky."

I did like these phrases, though:
The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives--people like Joe Lieberman
and
But what we're talking about here is whipped cream on a pile of fertilizer

Sean: Point taken, using your definition of a solution as suppressing violence; as far as building a pro-Western, multiethnic, secular democracy....? Ten years? I don't know. But once we start talking about limitless troops, limitless time, limitless money and infinite patience on the part of the American (and Iraqi) people, we might as well be talking about angels dancing on the heads of pins or an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite number of typewriters eventually banging out the New Testament.

And as long as we're fantasizing, we'll also need a time machine so we can win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis while we impose democracy with a million guns.

"Jim, Foolish Literalist"

Senator dWeeb, is that you?

When do we Rangel Ranger conscripts ship out for Diego Garcia and Islamabad, and then Karachi?

YOUR candidate IS all amped up to take out the Pakis, right Jihad Jim?

The border patrol braggadocio shines brighter than Admiral Obama's bogus presidential seal on a Wezzley Quark suburban whitey street corner.

= JEDGAR JUNIOR ACCOMPLISHED =

Sean DeCoursey forgot his history.

Just for the sake of accuracy, whatever the impact on your arguments: maximum US troop strength in Vietnam was more like half a million; estimates of the actual combat component of that number is much smaller.

Wow, I drove QH/McCain4America to a nym-switch. Must've hit a nerve.

McCain: "Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war."

TELL IT TO CLOWN PRINCE OBAMA, CONQUERER OF KARACHI.

Unless you really like the DNC ideal of humping Pakistani mountain goats as a 100 Year liberal lemming career move.

If only you girls could see beyond your next union contract at Long Beach.

BTW, Jimbo:

What does the current broad and growing success in Iraq have to do with Obama's stupid notion that carpet bombing Pakistan would be a sure social & security winner?

No boots on the ground, no clue from DNC HQ, no idea what the hell he's talking about.

Not change we can live with, sorry.

Wow! Mr. personalities really has lost track of who he is. Must all those liberal whackjobs shouting obscenities inside his head.

The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives--people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary--plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel. And then there is the question--made manifest by the no-bid contracts offered U.S. oil companies by the Iraqis--of two oil executives, Bush and Cheney, securing a new source of business for their Texas buddies.

Good on you and your guts for being the first big-time MSM pundit that I've seen to actually say something like this out loud.

It just makes one seethe. All this warmongering and sacrifice to "promote democracy" for the benefit of what's essentially one of the world's few remaining apartheid states, and one that's had a long, sordid, and unanswered history of assassinations and oppression.

And if there is any red flag that global corporatism is the real next big threat to liberty worldwide (NOT terrorism), the Iraq War was it.

McCain4America: "Unless you really like the DNC ideal of humping Pakistani mountain goats as a 100 Year liberal lemming career move."

Obamish, is that you? The belligerent incoherence is spot on.

McCain4America: "Obama's stupid notion that carpet bombing Pakistan "

Crazyman, you know very well that Obama never said anything like this. You repeat this myth because you lack intellectual integrity, and it is convenient to your (poor) arguments.

What Obama said is that he'd kill Osama bin Laden in Pakistan if we had good intelligence and the Pakistanis didn't step up themselves. This happens to be Bush's policy as well. Bush has and continues to bomb locations in Pakistan regularly using unmanned drones, often getting an angry response from the Pakistanis. Obama agrees with Bush on this policy.

"Wow, I drove QH/McCain4America to a nym-switch. Must've hit a nerve."

= GHOSTSURF ACCOMPLISHED =

You're as IP address proficient as Skippy O'Bonger is historically significant.

I.E. NOT SO VERY MUCH.

[I was waxing on the DOD net and skinning CompuServe while you were still stuck in JFK watching the Eastern Airlines automatic toilets overflow, CERT not genius.]

But you keep swallowing the Microshaft and Gaggle maps, eh libs?

Freakin AARP idiots.

Joe: we have gone beyond the "we have to win this" phase, past " we must hold specific areas to give the community and their leader time to revive local politics in all senses of the word" to "the surge has succeeded and things are looking better" all the while never realy discussing the hard drive to reintroduce the original oil coalition that was thrown out of Iraq when Saddam took power. It beats me how you can say so many useful thing without mentioning the oil factor and the frantic "negotiations".

We cannot win or lose in Iraq; we can make an orderly withdrawal. It is not a satisfactory outcome but the only practical one. Iraq is to us what Afghanistan was to the Russians.

Question: isn't there something idiotic in the notion that we need 1000 diplomats and support staff in a country of roughly 22 million people, protected by private contracters. What is wrong with this picture? Compare this with out diplomatic presence in Beijing and the nonsense become obvious.

Is QH/obamish an IT troll? That might explain a lot: the antisocial behavior, the refusal to engage in conversation, the extreme disconnect from reality, the rampant superiority complex, etc.etc.

Sean, Jim--

This is exactly what Mark Danner was saying before the invasion--ten years, more than a half million soldiers, very tough martial law regime to start. And that the US would not be willing to pay that price.

Sean's right, I think, Jim. But it also requires a level of retail brutality that I would expect to be difficult for the US. You have to convince all factions that you're not leaving, and they're not having their way. Then you can start the nation-building. But you absolutely have to have security first.

These addled fools have so much to answer for, and nobody is making them answer.

Joe: may I amend my comment on oil. You did refer to it and was succinct. I accept you point and apologise for the error.

What's an IT troll?

"The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives--people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary--plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel."

The question has been clear for some time now hasn't it? Divided loyalties exist and have for some time.

Give it up, Joe. You were wrong, OK? One by one, the talking points so often trotted out by you and your liberal friends have been discredited. We're gonna win in Iraq, and we're gonna do it in spite of your frenzied attempts to undercut the effort and ensure another Vietnam-like defeat in which you could happily wallow for another 30 years.

Ankle-biters like you wrote the same things about post-war Japan and Germany 60 years ago. They were hopeless messes. They weren't worth the effort or the money. Yet today no one would seriously agrue that rebuilding them wasn't the right thing to do. Iraq will be a powerhouse in another 10 years, and you liberal Pollyannas will have been conclusively proven wrong yet again. I'll say this for you: You're consistent.

And as for Iran, while attacking their nuclear facilities might be a frightening thought, it pales when compared with the thought of Iran's mullahs having access to nuclear weapons. That simply cannot be allowed to happen, no matter what.

We're gonna win in Iraq....

How will having won differ from our current situation. We've installed a government that is freindly to the US. We're in operational control of the whole country. In what regard have we not already won?

Hahahaha. Right. The Marshall Plan. Derided by liberals.

If you read the discussion above, you'll see that the issue was that there was no equivalent of the Marshall Plan under these addled morons. Not nearly enough resources being managed by politically connected incompetents.

As for victory, what do you mean by that? 100 year oil contract for Exxon and permanent bases? You can't that, and also get a representative government.

Brooks' efforts to paint George and McCain as lone wolfs howling for a surge amid huge conventional wisdom against such a course during the winter of 06-07 is demonstrably false. Proof is found in Brooks' own columns from that period. Here he he 1/7/07, in a column titled "Making the Surge Work," Brooks endorsed the surge

"It is now 2007, and President Bush has finally replaced Donald Rumsfeld, Casey and Abizaid. The question now is whether the policy that should have been implemented in 2003 can still be implemented four years on — after so many thousands have died.

Many in and out of the administration think so, hence all the talk about a surge — putting 20,000 more troops into Baghdad, finally occupying the dangerous neighborhoods, finally starting a jobs program, finally forcing national reconciliation."

http://tinyurl.com/5z8xef

There are others, but I can't find the strength to read any more of his reductionist, often painfully absurd columns.

The other alternative: Saddam and his two nutty sons are still there, by now freed from U.N. sanctions, collecting their $ 135 a barrel oil money, still paying the families of suicide bombers, still claiming Kuwait as their own, trying to get nukes before their old enemy Iran does. There's a much, much bigger pile of fertilizer with no whipped cream.

Todd: "Brooks endorsed the surge."

That's the point. He wants a pat on the head now.

I really do hope the surge is having its intended effect. Nobody wants to see the levels of violence from 2006 again.

But after 8 years, Bush's grand foreign policy accomplishment is, "I almost accidentally started a civil war in Iraq, but then things got a little better"?

No, Shadowjoe, here's the alternative. Saddam Hussein and his sons, alive in a palatial exile in the Sudan. There had to be some number less than 3 trillion dollars that would have done the trick.

Just like there are no suicides at Gitmo...only unreasonable self harm or some such BS.

I'm sorry I don't have the sources for these, but I never thought I would need them.

I saw an interview with a Democrat who went to Iraq where Patreus met her in one of Saddam's former castle's and served her lobster for dinner (way to win Iraqi hearts and minds). Even she didn't realize the implications of her statement, she just felt so special.

Reporters outside of the 'green zone' have a whole different take on the surge and have asked that the politicians leave the 'safe zone' to see what conditions are really like.

Our soldiers think we don't care about them! They know the Iraqis want them gone, but what would Haliburton and Blackwater do? (Watch Iraq for sale)

Sign hanging from Marines tent "America is not at war...America is at the mall"

http://quicksilverscreen.com/watch?video=46826

I believe these brave men and women (including my son) would be more than happy to hike the hills of Afghanistan for 100 years if it meant finding those actually responsible for 09/11!

Joe:

Your comment about "Jewish neoconservatives" is simple anti-semitism. It's like saying that white Americans who support NATO have divided loyalties, because they favor policies that defend Europe, at the exepnse of America. Not surprising that isolationism and anti-semtisim go hand in hand, a la Pat ('the Nazis weren't the problem') Buchanan. Straighten up.

Also your hackneyed thesis (and of course most pundits appear to labor under the same fallacy) that Iraq is purportedly a distraction from the war in Afghanistan is precisely backwards. The West's mission in the Persian gulf precedes our own lifetime by a couple of generations at least. It is the reason why states like Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, and Oman even exist. You (and most) forget that the U.S. was in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, enforcing ceasefire provisions (including no fly zones and weapons inspections), under United nations auspices, when Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, citing as two of their three justifications for the attack, our UN-authorized embargo on Iraq and our UN-authorized military presence in Saudi Arabia. The terrorists who hit us on 9/11, while led by some who were sheltered by the taliban, were not Afghans. Their leaders were not Afghans. They were Arabs, specifically radical fundamentalist Islamist Arab nationalists, working for the avowed end of expelling the U.S. from the Persian Gulf. Thus, Afghanistan (which every historian knows is the true quagmire) is the distraction. To pull out of the Persian Gulf, to abandon our interests in the Arab world, so we can chase some individuals around in the unconquerable wild lands of the Afghan/Pakistan border is exactly what the terrorists were trying to get us to do by hitting us on 9/11. And you and the other defeatists are falling for it.

And in case you don't remember what our historic mission in the Persian Gulf is, it is the same mission in which we temporaily enlisted Saddam himself, until he proved uncontrollable, viz., to ensure that the sea lanes, and the oil flow, are not disrupted and/or controlled by a hostile force, whether that be Iran, Russia, China, or (historically) Germany. Of course, the oil there flows not to us, but to our democratic allies in Europe and the Far East. And our protection of that source is not selfish materialism. It is living up to the highest traditions of World Policeman (by which I mean not thug but scourge terror to thugs), which we inherited from the British Empire (after it exhausted itself thanklessly protecting the likes of you and me from the depradations of Hitler), and which we wield legitimately as the most politically and economically powerful, and first among equals, of the Democracies of the world. Democracy matters to me, and I would venture, to every "good" American. But it is still a fragile plant, that can be stomped underfoot if the Old World becomes dominated by tyrannies, like Iran, Russia, China, and the chimerical Caliphate that inspires the Islamists. It's basic geopolitics 101, he who controls the world island controls the world. That is why Britain always strove to prevent the Continent from being ruled by a single power. It is why we created NATO, CENTO, SEATO, and the string of naval and ait facilities that still enable us to keep the peace. Thanks to the invasion of Iraq, threats by the UN and the US of of "serious consequences" still mean something to the tyrants and the troublemakers (as well as our democratic allies, who nwonder if they can count on us) -- unless, that is, American public opinion (and its irresponsible manipulators like you and moveon.org), lose hope and faith, and decide instead to teach the world a lesson about American weakness, and lack of nerve and will. Thanks to the surge (and you were wrong to oppose it, and too conceited still to admit its wisdom and justice), anyone who cares to look can see now that there is no reason to abandon hope and faith in America's historic mission -- the mission of Humanity really -- to build and protect democracy (government of the people, by the people, for the people, that will not perish from the earth) from its enemies.

We should all be praying that we succeed, not hoping for defeat. Of course, success won't do too much to bolsteryour credentials as an analyst, but what matters more to you, citizen? Your own puny privdeful interests, or the future of humanity? Be a man.

"Going into the mountains there is an entirely different and exponentially more difficult proposition than subduing even Iraq (where Sean above highlights most of the dumb moves, to include sacking the Iraqi military and Sunni civil leaders) -- and where Pakistan is no doubt a nuclear power, and loosing the masses against their stockpiles in reaction to some knee-jerk Kosovo campaign is not going to cut it, lacking control on the ground."

Well, shoot, Mcain4, we are talking about hypotheticals here. It depends on the "actionable intelligence" we receive, but I imagine Obama was thinking more along the lines of tactical strikes and special ops than all out war. And given that he puts in the qualifier "if Pakistan does not act...," I assume he's going to first pressure them to take action before leading the U.S. in there. However, having such a detailed plan for a hypothetical snecario is not normal for a presidential candidate who has yet to receive access to all of the intelligence files.

If you want to get into details like that, best to take care of your own backyard first. I am still waiting to hear a detailed plan from McCain on a broad, regional level approach to anti-terrorism. All i hear is "stay in Iraq." Haven't heard any exit strategy, haven't heard how he plans to deal with political reconciliation, what he plans to do about the potential Sunni-Shia war (and it doesn't make me feel better that he confuses those groups now and then).

Interesting.

I think I've just encountered the ghost of Rudyard Kipling.

What's an IT troll?

I should have said computer nerd - and the worst kind.

The pale, spindly, pot-bellied kind who, when you have computer problems, comes grumbling out of the server room and implies that you are an inferior species of subhuman for not knowing the ins and outs of the company firewall.

..., raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel.

The great conservative think Russell Kirk brought this up 20 years ago in an address at the Heritage Foundation:

"And not seldom it has seemed as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States.." (1)

(1) December 15, 1988
The Neoconservatives: An Endangered Species
by Kirk, Russell
Heritage Lecture #178

LINK:http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL178.cfm

Jewish neoconservatives like Lieberman? Whipped cream on a pile of fertilizer?

Woah.

The surge was necessary because of the severe mishandling of the Bush administration's foreign policy after the fall of Saddam Hussein. War is not a desireable notion...but to suggest that neoconservatism and politics are to blame for thousands of lives is egotistical and cringe-worthy. We know that McCain is one of the main advocates for the successful "surge"...we also know (those of us who actually do our research) that McCain would have been out of Iraq as soon as Saddam Hussein's reign was over. The war in Iraq is unpopular, yes...the war will probably get your guy, Obama elected. But, do you agree with the notion to pull troops out of such delicate areas in a matter of months, and then hand them a huge multi-billion dollar check (which Obama seems to be proposing)? Do you also think that with such little foreign policy experience, that Obama is fit to lead the MOST dangerous and deadly war we've had in Afghanistan...where he wants concentrate the majority of our troops in?

As for Lieberman...he has voted with Democrats on almost every initiative, yet because he is somewhat Israel-centric when it comes to the middle east, that makes him a bad guy? This kind of divisive and "one-issue" politics of the Democratic party is alienating voters away from the DNC. No wonder the GOP outraises them 10 to 1.

As for Lieberman...he has voted with Democrats on almost every initiative, yet because he is somewhat Israel-centric when it comes to the middle east, that makes him a bad guy?

YES!

Artpepper, right on -- but note how in his column he praises those who endorsed the surge back then, without noting for readers that he is really praising himself for making the "right" call.

The Colonel

I'm sorry but I do not share your zest for being 'world police'...get off the oil if our goal is world harmony.

Propaganda driven democracy is what the Nazis did. Democracy functions very poorly without a fair and free press.

Wall Street, the government, and the media are falling all over themselves to sell our future to Communist China; making them a military & economic superpower. Might as well let them have the oil now because eventually they'll have the military and the MONEY to just take it.

The Colonel said:
Democracy matters to me, and I would venture, to every "good" American.

Agreed. The importance of democracy cannot be understated. Some of the arguments of the left are that democracy can't be spread forcefully, and that in doing so, our democracy here in the States is getting severely undermined.

It's also strange that you declare Afghanistan to be a distraction from attacking the real culprits, the Arab fundamentalists. Especially when (A) the Taliban had a provable history of sheltering and supporting Al Qaeda and (B) we haven't attacked Saudi Arabia. Which is, to my knowledge, where bin Laden's fundamentalist school of thought was born.

Thanks to the invasion of Iraq, threats by the UN and the US of of "serious consequences" still mean something to the tyrants and the troublemakers

I'm not sure our threats do mean anything. Since we threaten and act apparently randomly, and by your own account follow red herrings. Not to mention that our military is close to breaking. America has lost a lot of prestige because of the last seven years.

And Pink Elephant - I can and I will blame neoconservatism and politics for thousands of lives lost.

Thanks to the invasion of Iraq, threats by the UN and the US of of "serious consequences" still mean something to the tyrants and the troublemakers.

I should have picked up on that sooner.

The "serious consequences" do indeed mean something to the tyrants and troublemakers. It means that their recruiting is three times easier the inability of our armed forces to control events on the ground are fully revealed.

the severe mishandling of the Bush administration's foreign policy after the fall of Saddam Hussein by following the guidance and advice of neoconservatives who insisted democracy would spring up spontaneously amid showers of candy and flowers.

Type fixed.

Well certainly, noone is better qualified to readily identify a pile of fertilizer than an employee of Time Magazine.

I thought Joe Klein is a serious political analyst until I came to the end of the article when he said,

“ using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel. And then there is the question--made manifest by the no-bid contracts offered U.S. oil companies by the Iraqis--of two oil executives, Bush and Cheney, securing a new source of business for their Texas buddies. “.

I come to the conclusion he is nothing but a small mind anti-Israel liberal who thinks a democratically elected government would stoop so low to start a war that got thousands of soldiers killed and wounded in order to secure business for their friends. A person who entertain such warped idea must be sick in his mind.

Joe,
Is the irrational Bush hatred and denial of being a liberal something that you really need to keep doing every day? http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGIyZmYxN2UzNzFhODJiOWVkY2JhNzYxNGI1ZTQ4YmM=

The dishonesty and hatred must really eat away at some people...

I come to the conclusion he is nothing but a small mind anti-Israel liberal who thinks a democratically elected government would stoop so low to start a war that got thousands of soldiers killed and wounded in order to secure business for their friends. A person who entertain such warped idea must be sick in his mind.

Are you talking about Bush? Because it sounds like you're talking about Bush.
Except for the whole "small mind anti-Israel liberal part".
And when did it become not okay to think that we shouldn't swear unconditional fealty to Israel?

Did someone just come here to lecture Joe on 'hatred' and then linked to a site called regime of terror?

http://regimeofterror.com/

Good to know that irony is not yet dead.

Hmmm. The goalposts seem to be moving.

1. Can you drive from the Baghdad airport to the Green Zone without an armored convoy?

2. Has the UN returned? How about NGO's? The ICRC??

3. Have the refugees returned? How likely is it that they can recover their homes and lost property?

4. Didn't Turkey invade just a couple of months ago against Kurdish rebels? Is that situation calm and stable or "fragile and reversible"?

5. How are those constitutional revisions going?

6. The oil law? Is it implemented or are they still squabbling?

7. Electricity? Remember how just a few days after the invasion, we were going to set that right? How's it going?

8. The infiltration of the police and the army by militia-adherents? Has that all been cleaned out?

9. OBL?? Zawahiri? Brought to justice? Weren't we gonna "smoke em out"?

10. Pre-war Iraqi debt? Resolved?

11. A regional peace conference, including Iran and Syria? Likely?

12. A donor conference of the U.S.'s allies to relieve some of the gargantuan cost - when's that gonna happen?

13. Walter Reed? Fixed up to be the premier medical center? How are our vets being treated? Where's the GI Bill?

14. The Blackwater murders. How are those prosecutions going?

15. Wasn't al-Sadr supposed to be "captured or killed" at some point? Where is he and what is he up to? Are we still paying him?

16. Will the October elections be held as scheduled?

17. Where are those WMD's?

The definition of "success" in Iraq keeps changing. With over 4100+ U.S. troop deaths, 35000+ casualties, millions of refugees, countless thousands of other deaths and $3 trillion spent. If it is a necessary precondition that the right wingers have to believe that we are "succeeding" for us to leave, then, by all means, Mr. Klein should continue this shtick. But let's not pretend that we actually have to believe it.

I come to the conclusion he is nothing but a small mind anti-Israel liberal who thinks a democratically elected government would stoop so low to start a war that got thousands of soldiers killed and wounded in order to secure business for their friends. A person who entertain such warped idea must be sick in his mind.

This is what is known as a non-denial denial.

AND HE IS LITTLE MORE THAN LOUD FLY ON A PILE OF AGING TURDS (THOSE MASQUERADING AS INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST). YET ANOTHER TIRED BIT OF NONESENSE BY THIS SELF-RIGHTEOUS LIBERAL ELITIST. IT'S TIME TO RETIRE JOE.

Joe Klein is exhibit #398,457 of liberal bias in the media. He is also another example of liberal members of the media who say, and get away with saying, anything.

So Bush and Cheney went to war so they get contracts to their buddies? And one reason we went to war was because of those Jews like Lieberman?

Great commentary Joe. An objective person would write that you should be fired for writing crap like that. Instead, you'll probably win a Pulitzer Prize.

Mr. Klein:

The sentiments of the last three paragraphs of your post do not get expressed often enough. Whether the surge is working or not is largely irrelevant - "whipped cream on a pile of fertilizer--a regional policy unprecedented in its stupidity and squalor" as you aptly called it. The resources diverted and wasted in this war, the urgent need to withdraw in an orderly fashion from a war that is "simply too expensive and too exhausting for our military," and the motivations of our political leadership in plunging us recklessly into this war are all much more vital issues than the surge. I hope to read your column on this in the print edition.

Just asking: can Bush, Cheney, Gates and assorted Senators an Congressman/women go on pre-announced visits to Iraq now that the surge is successful and things are tikety boo? Or are our leaders still sneaking in and out of our Arab Democracy in Central West Asia.

I should add that the phrase "Another bit of 'luck' was the ethnic cleansing" is one that could have only come from Mr. Klein...

[The following blather was forged from a bogus IP address, for your protection.]

Speaking of surges, Skippy O'Bonger has just surged into Hollyrude, along with the usual cast of lefty suspects...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_on_el_pr/obama_hollywood;_ylt=AmXIg1.3rm2kWW6zO3CVm58Gw_IE

So much for that change thing, eh libs?

= MOOLAH MULLAH ACCOMPLISHED =

[The preceding blather was forged from a bogus IP address, for your protection.]

Flownover,

You're right, I did get the numbers mixed up. My bad.

TheColonel,

"good Americans"? Is this like "good Germans"? The great thing about America is that you can believe whatever the heck you want and still be a good American. What else am I required to believe or support to be a "good American"? McCarthyism died in the '50s, let it stay there.

Patroclus,

Mostly good points (though I disagree with some), but I think when people describe the surge as a success they simply mean that it did do a nice job of bringing Iraq back from the full-blown civil war it was in to a more low grade level of conflict. A small distinction, but an important step on the road to getting the country back on its feet - if it can be maintained.

I think the real, most significant problem with the second Iraq War was that there was never a clear vision from the President about what our goals were and how we would go about achieving them. If you really look at most of the statements made by Bush, they were goals framed in terms of negatives. "Prevent from being a threat" "Stop WMD research" "Capture or kill specific personnel" There were, and even now still are, almost no positive goals being described, which makes it somewhat harder to achieve them. "12+ hours of electricity every day" "100% electricity in hospitals" "safe school zones" etc. Individuals on the ground are setting and meeting these kinds of positive goals, but there is nothing like this going on at the national level, which is kind of a huge leadership void. Which might help to explain the massive problems we've had just trying to define "success".

Joe,

Your hatred of the Bush administration is so extreme that you actually believe ( or claim to ) they deliberately caused the deaths of thousands of men, women and children just so their oil buddies can make more money?

You and the far left can't accept that the Bush admin is now succeding in Iraq, and you'll say anything to muddy that fact.

What BS you spew.

One other thing. Do any of you left wingers blame your own party leaders for this war? After all, most of them voted to go to war. Or do you think that it's all Bush's fault since he tricked everyone in Congress?

EricaWA, Cliff, and Paul Dirks:

Thank you for responding to my post. I appreciate your willingness to consider other points of view and analyze them on the merits. I’ll attempt to answer each in turn:

EricaWA:

I noticed a reference in an earlier post to your son, who, I take it, is serving in our armed forces. We owe him, and you, a huge debt of gratitude. Thank you both.

World Police -- While I admit that rhetoric may have been excited and excitable, I do not think I have a ‘zest’ for America discharging its responsibilities as world policeman, just a firm belief (grounded in the events of the last century) that it is America’s responsibility to be the world policeman, if for no other reason, because the world needs a policeman, and America: (a) is the only country in the position to provide that service (given its disproportionately massive GDP and its unimaginably huge arsenal); (b) has come to be relied upon by the other democracies and the international institutions to discharge that service; and (c) has the advantage of being a constitutional democracy, and one which has successfully intervened for the general benefit of world peace at times of global crisis, such that its interests are more aligned with those of humanity in general than are those of the traditional nation states and expansionist land empires. I do have a zeal for arguing with those who imagine contrary to the evidence that the world does not need a policeman, or who would lightly cast America’s role in that regard aside.

Oil -- While I agree with you that oil-dependency weakens us and contributes to global instability, the current importance of oil to the world economy is simply a fact, like gravity, with ramifications for national and global securities that have to be taken into account until the fact change.

Propaganda and Democracy -- While Hitler came to power via manipulation of a parliamentary democracy with proportional representation, he was no democrat, and Nazi Germany was never a democracy once he took power. While Nazi-ism was apparently very popular in Germany, that doesn’t make it a democracy. I agree that propaganda (both pro- and anti- establishment) is dangerous for democracy, but also that it is something that simply exists and has to be dealt with. Public opinion can be a dangerous thing. That’s why representative government is superior to direct democracy, because sometimes the Statesman has to stand up for what is right and good for the community, even when the populace is fearful, tired, angry, and confused. Unfortunately (here again, another fact to deal with), too few politicians have the integrity to qualify as Statesmen. The free press (and, as you point out, a fair press, which means journalists who are, like Statesmen, willing to have the integrity to state the unpopular truth) is, via the marketplace of ideas, a necessary antidote to propaganda. Most of what passes for “press” is, unfortunately, one-sided, closed-minded irresponsible propaganda, or equally irresponsible follow-the-leader attempts to capitalize no popular prejudice, rather than educate the public. Once again, that the reality we are faced with.

Communist China – I agree with you that it is a threat, and that many are trying to cash in rather than working to protect and promote democracy, but I haven’t lost hope and wouldn’t simply give up the game at this point.

Cliff:

Democracy – While democracy cannot, by definition, be imposed by force, it has, as a matter of fact been spread by force, both in the sense that Germany, Japan, and East-Central Europe became democracies after an application of force, and in the sense that it has flowered under its own power, as in the United States and the United Kingdom, when it has been sheltered by the protections that only force can provide. Democracy needs to be, and can only be, protected by force. The goal of the Iraq war was not to spread democracy (although that will be a positive side-effect); the goal was to protect the democracies by vindicating the authority of the United Nations (the one whose security counsel resolutions said “serious consequences” although certain opportunists refused to impose the consequences when Saddam continued to disobey), and the United States. Our democracy in the United States has not been undermined by pro-democracy expeditions. It has been threatened, and will continue to be threatened, by pretentions of lawlessness on the part of some in the current executive administration, and by pretentions of relativism, pacifism, and isolationism and on the part of the public opinion-makers on the left and right.

Taliban and Saudi Arabia – While the Taliban did foster and shelter Al Qaeda, they did so when they were in virtually unchallenged control of the government of Afghanistan; they cannot do so now that they are bogged down in a guerilla war and running for their lives. While the government and much of the populace of Saudi Arabia is a culprit behind Islamism, it is not in the US interest to topple the regime and engage the populace in guerilla war. Instead, we have allowed Iraq to serve as a therapeutic leech, sucking the Islamists out of Arabia and into another Muslim land where they have managed, by their bloodthirsty tactics, to discredit their own cause among the formerly too complacent Muslim people.

Serious Consequences – There was nothing random about the Iraq War. It followed and was consistent with two decades of U.S. policy. I am not against the Afghan war, as it was necessary and right to dislodge the Taliban from power and put Al Qaeda on the run. It is simply a fallacy to believe that Afghanistan ins the center of our geopolitical interest, or that hostilities there have supplanted the work that needs to be done in the middle east. America’s military is under pressure, but that needs to be addressed by more and better-targeted defense spending and more political pressure on our allies to contribute their fair share, not something the anti-war defeatists are interested in achieving. America actually has not lost a lot of prestige in the last 7 years, although there continues to be the threat that it will, if the defeatists get their way. To the contrary, it is Al Qaeda, pan-Arab nationalism, and the parties of Schroeder and Chirac, that have lost prestige. America never was popular among the leftists, the effigy-burning mobs, or the old-world snobs.

Paul Dirks:

Al Qaeda is becoming less popular among Muslims. American soil has not been attacked again. America is still in the Persian gulf, Saddam is dead, and Iraq is free, albeit in bad shape due to irresponsible lack of postwar planning. But the surge proves that America, while admittedly not omnipotent and infallible, is able to control events on the ground, as long as the defeatists do not derail us from the mission. Had we listened to them, we really would have lost control of events on the ground.

(I also enjoyed the Ghost of Kipling quip.)

"Another bit of "luck" was the ethnic cleansing that took place in Baghdad in 2005-2006 that lessened the potential for internecine violence in many of the neighborhoods."

Joe,

In what world is ethnic cleansing considered "luck." Are you friggin serious? These are human lives your talking about here. And if case you forgot, we allowed it to happen.

Ok, Joe. You are pleased with the surge, but still despise the Bush Administration.

How about despising the Democrats that voted for Iraq? They used the same information as bush did. You know that... but it runs against Time's liberal bias to criticize Democrats, or hold them accountable.

Your comments ring mighty hollow because of your duplicity in that matter.

Well, Sean DeCoursey forgot his password, I understand the distinction you're making. 2007 was the deadliest year yet (in terms of casualties) and so far this year (except for a spike in February and March), the casualty figures are back at 2004 levels. That is a laudable gain. But it is not the big picture (as Mr. Klein seems to believe).

The big picture is in the "metrics" I listed. Which, by any sentient standard, have NOT been achieved. Here are a few more:

18. Borders secure? That's usually a precondition of a functioning nation-state. Would porous or non-existent be a better description?

19. Who exactly controls Basra? Have the thugs "laid down" their arms? How come the Brits are off on a faraway base? Why is their strategy vastly different than ours?

20. How's the accounting for the billions misspent going? Where's the Truman Committee?

21. Has the Samarra mosque been rebuilt yet?

22. Didn't Bremer promise that the perpetrators of the UN and ICRC bombings were going to be caught and prosecuted? How's that investigation going? Any trials?

23. How independent of the militias is the Iraqi judiciary? Do Iraqis trust it to provide justice and enforce the rule of law?

24. How's the Iraqi tourism industry going? Are people flocking to to Land of the Two Rivers and Babylon? To quote Laurence Olivier - is it safe?

25. What's the Iraqi GDP? How are non-munitions trade flows going? Can't calculate it because of the security situation? Why is that?

26. How's the relationship between the U.S. and Iran going? Is the situation "favorable" or "unfavorable"?

27. Are we still using the National Guard in Iraq? Why is that? Did that work out in the aftermath of Katrina?

28. How come recuiting standards for the armed forces seem to have declined? Is this good or bad for the military?

29. Why were only grunts (and not CASI operatives) prosecuted for Abu Ghraib? Didn't Secretary Rumsfeld authorize some of that? Where were the higher ranking officers? By the way, is Abu Ghraib still in use? By who? Who is there? What are the charges and how long have they been held? Any torture?

30. Why are there stil intermitten mortar attacks on the Green Zone? Why is there a Green Zone?

31. Permanent military bases - what exactly is the policy here? Have the Iraqis agreed?

32. Status of forces agreement - how's that going?

Some of this stuff is going to have to be addressed at some point. Mr. Klein is still on his "Surge is Working" shtick... Bush is incompetent. Meanwhile, casualties continue to mount and the military continues to be expended (virtually) pointlessly... We'll probably have 4400 dead by the end of the year...

Sean DeCoursey forgot his password:

No I didn't mean like a good German. I meant like a "good" American, as in, an American who also happens to be good.

One cannot believe anything one wants and still be a good American. You can lick Nazi boots and be a lousy American. You can think people of other races are not entitled to equal rights and be a hateful little no-good American. You can rob and steal and lie and be an evil American. You can think democracy isn't worth a damn, and be a stupid, irresponsible American. And you can believe