Yet another Iraq "I hate to say I told you so, but... I told you so," situation

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

No offense, but the two groups have never been particularly enamored of one another, and I'm curious as to why you think the situation has gotten worse. Assuming the al-Zarqawi memo was true, there have been those trying to ignite a civil war for some thime now, (and we could even go back to when Saddam was in power, the '91 massacring etc) but thanks to restrained leadership by the likes of Sistani the Shi'as have abstained from retaliation and militarizing along religious lines. Civil Wars are almost never started because of ethnic/religious motives. They are started for economic reasons (largely Sunni Baath Party trying to regain its power and money) and unfortunately become radicalized because as much as some would like to pretend its a nationalist uprising, its really a small portion of the population trying to regain its diproportionate power and thus eventually the only recruits that can be found are from said group (usually tribal, but occasionally also religious and/or ethnic/geographic lines).

Link? I've seen numbers indicating a marked drop-off in attacks on coalition forces since the election (still too small a sample size to extrapolate from) so if you can show me hard numbers on things like attacks on civilians, or attacks on ING/IP, or # of those murdered by bombings/attacks going up, I'd like to see it.

Ive just been reading the world news like I always do... civilian attacks are up, there has been at least 500 killed in and around Baghdad since the elections, all Sunni/Shiite related attacks. None of which were credited to Zarqawi. Yesterday there were 30+ killed ina car bombing at a Shiite religious ceremony, today another 16 (same way).. couple days before that there were another 40... its escalating. Sunnis HATE Shiites. Its just not a simple religious difference, its a deep disdain. Add on that now Shiites run the show... look out.

I could honestly care less about Zarqawi, of course its obvious his death is good, but hes just one guy and there are millions waiting in line to take his place. He can do nothing to widen the Sunni/Shi' gap, there has been a multitude of Sunni attacks on Sunnis. A few by Zaraqwi-ists is just pouring salt on a already gaping wound.

Death toll back at pre-election levels By Paul McGeough
February 10, 2005

Intensified suicide bombings and assassinations in Iraq ahead of the release of final election figures have restored the insurgency-inflicted, mostly Iraqi, death toll to pre-election levels of about 100 a week.

As electoral officials indicated that the outcome of the January 30 poll could be completed as early as today, there was a series of attacks.

The bombing of a Baghdad military recruiting centre and the assassination of the two sons of a controversial political figure on Tuesday helped push the number of deaths since January 30 to 170.

Provisional tallies indicate that Shiite religious parties, campaigning as List 169, will control more than half of the 275-seat National Assembly. But with the coalition headed by the interim Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, likely to run a distant third, parties representing the Kurdish north could snatch a king-maker role with the second biggest block of seats.

Influential Shiite clerics are already demanding that elements of sharia, or strict Islamic law, be enshrined in Iraq's new constitution. But their spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, said on Tuesday that the drafting of a new national charter should be left to the National Assembly.

In keeping with his rare and Delphic statements in the past, a spokesman for the grand ayatollah said only that the constitution "should respect the Islamic cultural identity of the Iraqi people".

The words are deliberately ambiguous and give no indication of how Ayatollah Sistani or his aides will respond to developments. But US officials who have acted contrary to his wishes have discovered in the past two years that the unelected grand ayatollah is Iraq's single most powerful figure.

More than 100 of those who have died since the easing of a vice-like security clamp for three days around the election were Iraqi soldiers or policemen; 15 were US troops.

The recruitment centre attack, by a pedestrian wearing a bomb-vest, was the deadliest since the election. Apart from killing at least 21, it wounded nearly 30 other applicants for military service.

Responsibility for the attack and two others earlier in the week was claimed by al-Qaeda's Iraq affiliate, which is led by the Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

A spokesman for Dr Allawi reacted angrily to the renewed violence. "To attack and brutally murder patriotic and innocent Iraqis on their way to volunteer to protect their homeland is a crime against all people of Iraq. We will fully investigate this incident and bring these perpetrators to justice," he said.

The political figure who came under attack in Baghdad was Mithal al-Alusi, a former member of the Ahmed Chalabi-led Iraqi National Congress who has been strident in his criticism of Syria and Iran and who provoked much criticism by visiting Israel last year.  Reuters reports: Gunmen abducted an Iraqi Interior Ministry official, Colonel Riyadh Katei Aliwi, yesterday, dragging him from his car in Baghdad. In Basra, the local correspondent of the US-funded television station Alhurra was assassinated outside his house.

[chinaski]

...and another 50 dead today, while I typed that last post....

hxxp://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050219/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by chinaski

...and another 50 dead today, while I typed that last post....

hxxp://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050219/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

And your contention is that Americans killed those people? What a jerk.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

US troops have pretty much wiped out most of the Iraqi-based terrorists by now.

So, the continuing car bombings and assassinations are what? A mirage?

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by Dutch

And your contention is that Americans killed those people? What a jerk.

Am i missing something? How in the hell did you get that conclusion? Ive never mentioned Americans killing ANYONE in any of my posts. Between your insurgency comment and this, i have a feeling your not reading any of these posts.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by chinaski

Am i missing something? How in the hell did you get that conclusion? Ive never mentioned Americans killing ANYONE in any of my posts. Between your insurgency comment and this, i have a feeling your not reading any of these posts.

"WHY DO YOU HATE OUR FREEDOM?" -typical wartard

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by chinaski

Am i missing something? How in the hell did you get that conclusion? Ive never mentioned Americans killing ANYONE in any of my posts. Between your insurgency comment and this, i have a feeling your not reading any of these posts.

Originally Posted by chinaski

We (The United States) have inticed a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis, because of our actions in invading Iraq.

Maybe I misread this. But my contention is that the United States did not create this problem, we are trying to correct it.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Maybe I misread this. But my contention is that the United States did not create this problem, we are trying to correct it.

The only way to correct it would be to draw new borders.

BTW, we may not have created the problem, but we're most certainly fanning the flames.

[Dutch]

Perhaps if journalists were *allowed* to report on Saddam Hussein's atrocities in grueling day to day action for the last 30 years you would see things differently.

I do agree on the "draw new borders" but I don't think Iran, Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, or the UN would agree.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Perhaps if journalists were *allowed* to report on Saddam Hussein's atrocities in grueling day to day action for the last 30 years you would see things differently.

I do agree on the "draw new borders" but I don't think Iran, Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, or the UN would agree.

Saddam is scum. I don't need to read anything further in regards to that. However, I think he was merely a pawn in this game. There are plenty of brutal dictators in this world to take out, if that's our goal.

That being said, I think the "destabilization" of the country has sparked this stuff, and once we leave, it's going to blow up.

That's just my opinion, anyways.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Galaril

It is never a good thing to attract attacks on our own soldiers.

Maybe I'm too Machiavellian, but if someone is determined to attack Americans, I'd rather have them going after our soldiers in a foreign country than attacking civilians over here.

Originally Posted by Galaril

I found this article and a yahoo news article that questioned the accuracy of the 14 million voter number.

The 14 million was more or less based on UN Food ration cards. So claiming that 80%+ of registered voters vote in the US (which, quite honestly, seems a little high to me) while only ~45% of eligible Iraqis voted seems a very disingenous comparison of apples and oranges, only advanced if the person is trying to portray the Iraqi election in a worse light.

Originally Posted by chinaski

Thats some pretty weak rationale. Do you honestly believe that a countries first ever election would or should have a 45% turnout? Do you think if we had national elections in 1780, that we would have only a 45% turnout?

No, I don't, because well, in 1789 the first time an election occurred, women weren't allowed to vote, almost all black people were not allowed to vote, and I think poor or illiterate white men weren't allowed to vote either. It would have been statistically impossible to have 45% of the voting-age population turn out until at least 1920, but that seemed to work out in the long run. Actually looking at the numbers, it appears George Washington may have gotten a grand total of 69 votes in the first election (unless states had votes to apportion their electors, but I doubt that) and 12 others (NY/Ohio) didn't even bother to cast their votes, while 2 other states that would join under Washington's presidency (RI/NC) weren't allowed to vote. But, as you say, comparing the Iraqi election to an American one over 200 years ago is pretty ridiculous.

Originally Posted by chinaski

Ive just been reading the world news like I always do... civilian attacks are up, there has been at least 500 killed in and around Baghdad since the elections, all Sunni/Shiite related attacks. None of which were credited to Zarqawi. Yesterday there were 30+ killed ina car bombing at a Shiite religious ceremony, today another 16 (same way).. couple days before that there were another 40... its escalating.

Yet the article you choose to illustrate your point says attacks "Back to pre-election levels" and says at least 3 attacks were claimed by Zarqawi's network. The elections were not a panacea, miraculously curing all of the ills, but it is a step in the lengthy process.

(Al-Zarqawi) can do nothing to widen the Sunni/Shi' gap, there has been a multitude of Sunni attacks on Sunnis. A few by Zarqawi-ists is just pouring salt on a already gaping wound.

Pretty much every deadly attack on a She'at religious site has been claimed by Zarqawi's network. One year ago at the beginning of Ashura as well, which is partially why there are more large-scale attacks these past couple days.

Also, just out of curiosity, wouldn't this kind of put a lie to any talk of a nationalist insurgency? And then if you say it's just the small minority Sunnis fighting and this means a civil war has started, where are the attacks on Sunnis by She'ates?

[mhass]

No matter your (plural) views on Iraq, 25 years from now we will all be looking back at the last 3-5 years as semial. The Iraqis, Afghans and Palestinians all VOTED for new leaders in a region where open elections are dangerous and rare. The Middle East is already radically different today than it was even in 2001. There is no more violence there today than before the invasion, but Americans are dying to further this change. Dissent at this point is moot. We're going to finish what was started and we're going to see more elections thereafter - militarily enduced or otherwise.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Saddam is scum. I don't need to read anything further in regards to that. However, I think he was merely a pawn in this game. There are plenty of brutal dictators in this world to take out, if that's our goal.

I think I didn't suggest we should continue to investigate Saddam's past.

That being said, I think the "destabilization" of the country has sparked this stuff, and once we leave, it's going to blow up.

That's just my opinion, anyways.

Well, then maybe we shouldn't leave as the Bush Administration has said repeatedly, until the job is done. I'm surprised the leftist opposition who "cares" so deeply for the Iraqi people are the only ones suggesting we leave.

[SunDevil]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/21/op...print&position

[Dutch]

SunDevil,

Did you even see a slant in that story? You post the link like it's the end all be all of stories. Another beautiful example of how the media slants. Granted, it's an editorial piece, but the New York Times is not one to offer an alternative story written by somebody who disagrees.

It mentions a senior US Intelligence officer who says we should not invade Iraq. It does not mention the multitudes of senior Intelligence officers who said we should invade Iraq. It then says Bush disregarded all warnings when we all know that Bush did not in fact disregard all warnings but heeded most warnings by his intelligence services which warned about the .

It's BS, but...as long as people are buying the paper, that's what's most important.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm surprised the leftist opposition who "cares" so deeply for the Iraqi people are the only ones suggesting we leave.

Though it's not surprising you're being dishonest, it should probably be pointed out that there are plenty of people on the right-wing side of things that think we should abandon the region and leave them to their own devices. A fact of which you are well aware. I suppose that making rhetorically inflated comments like this allows you to cap out your "leftist" slurs for the day, but it certainly doesn't improve your reputation when it comes to these kinds of debates.

[SunDevil]

Dutch,

Everytime I post a link all I try to do is add more info to the topic. Not trying to make a point either way. Just saw the article and posted it in the thread so other people can see it.

You can believe whatever you want. It is not my intent to convince people either way.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Dutch

SunDevil,

Did you even see a slant in that story? You post the link like it's the end all be all of stories. Another beautiful example of how the media slants. Granted, it's an editorial piece, but the New York Times is not one to offer an alternative story written by somebody who disagrees.

It mentions a senior US Intelligence officer who says we should not invade Iraq. It does not mention the multitudes of senior Intelligence officers who said we should invade Iraq. It then says Bush disregarded all warnings when we all know that Bush did not in fact disregard all warnings but heeded most warnings by his intelligence services which warned about the .

It's BS, but...as long as people are buying the paper, that's what's most important.

Sure, this is an op-ed piece. There is a slant.

But was amazes me is how the majority of the right seems completely unable to ever admit that the Iraq situation is not good. That it has not gone as planned. And the Administration made improper assumptions and could have handled things much, much better. Bush is not infallable, just as he's not completely incompotent.

But it appears to me that whenever any cirticism of the Administration is reported the right NEVER believe's it has any base in fact. It's always a "liberal media bias" or some "slant." It's unbelievable.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by chinaski

Thats some pretty weak rationale. Do you honestly believe that a countries first ever election would or should have a 45% turnout? Do you think if we had national elections in 1780, that we would have only a 45% turnout? We rode mid to low 60% turnout rates all through the 50's and 60's... and even with a complacent, coddled, nothing to care about society that we have in America today, we still hover in the 50's %.

Iraq is nothing like America and has been nothing like America for 1000's of years longer than weve been in existance, so Amercias turnout numbers are completely irrelevant on every imaginable level.

Then compare them to America's numbers in the 1800s when the country was just getting going. The point is that 45-60% is well inline with many of the voting seasons that happened around the Civil War period and our country has certainly avoided major legitimacy issues at that time (when we were at a similar period of internal strife).

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Sure, this is an op-ed piece. There is a slant.

But was amazes me is how the majority of the right seems completely unable to ever admit that the Iraq situation is not good. That it has not gone as planned. And the Administration made improper assumptions and could have handled things much, much better. Bush is not infallable, just as he's not completely incompotent.

But it appears to me that whenever any cirticism of the Administration is reported the right NEVER believe's it has any base in fact. It's always a "liberal media bias" or some "slant." It's unbelievable.

My frustration is how very little positive news is covered by the news. Everything over there is "violence and death" when you are still talking about only a couple incidents every few days. There's no mention of the swell of nationalism in the Iraqi people and how the number of volunteers for their army has increased significantly since the election (a fact many of you did not know, I would bet). There are a few different blogs run by current US soliders that discuss all the positive things occuring in Iraq from improved power, schools and road infrustructure to young Iraqi kids turning in the location of foreign fighters that are part of this imported terror network.

But, I haven't heard one thing about any of these stories by the national media and have to hunt and search to find them. I'm not saying everything is 100% rosy in Iraq, there's still a lot of issues with the insurgency and terrorism. But, it bothers me that the American people are getting about a 90-10 split on negative/positive news in Iraq and really not getting the big picture on what is going on over there. Then again, I think it says a lot about the people in the US to see the resolve to stay in Iraq at the level it is given the 90-10 split on negative news.

[flere-imsaho]

Wounded Guard and Reserve Soldiers Lose Medical Care

I heard this story on NPR this morning, but this link is the only one (so far) that I've seen on-line for what's a more-or-less breaking story.

Basically, the Government Accountability Office did a study to find out why wounded Guard and Reserve soldiers were losing their medical coverage. What it found, and concluded, was that the administrative system in place for those units has been overwhelmed by their involvement in the war, and has resulted in dropping injured soldiers from active status after they've been injured/wounded for a while.

The result, of course, is that they lose their pay, their medical benefits and their family's medical benefits. All for serving their country and getting wounded in action in Afghanistan or Iraq.


Now for the op-ed....


Of course, this is yet another example of exactly how little this Administration planned ahead when deciding to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Reserves are an emergency force and the Guard is a civil defense force. They're not toy soldiers to be used as cannon fodder. However, given the way this Administration has treated them, you could be excused for thinking so.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Arles

Then compare them to America's numbers in the 1800s when the country was just getting going. The point is that 45-60% is well inline with many of the voting seasons that happened around the Civil War period and our country has certainly avoided major legitimacy issues at that time (when we were at a similar period of internal strife).

Intriguingly enough, I'm teaching about this very subject in a few hours. According to my information, in 1824 the turnout was only 26.9%. From 1828-1836 it jumped to the range you mention, 55.4-57.8%. But between 1840-1860 we saw turnouts raning from 69.6% to a high of 81.2% in the 1860 election.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

But, it bothers me that the American people are getting about a 90-10 split on negative/positive news in Iraq and really not getting the big picture on what is going on over there.

Maybe they don't want a re-run of "They'll greet us with flowers" followed by 1000+ U.S. casualties again.

Honestly, what positive news do you want them to report?

"We're rebuilding schools!" - that the U.S. destroyed in the invasion

"We now have power!" - that they had before the invasion

"We kind of have gas now!" - that they had before the invasion

"We got rid of a brutal dictator!" - and have now elected a slate of candidates backed by a prominent Shiite cleric, whilst giving virtually no representation to the minority Sunnis. That'll end well.


Iraq has a major security issue, a (now) lack of good infrastructure, a fledgling political system that remains untested, an inability to yet exploit its natural resources, and a real problem in re-developing it's armed and police forces. No offense, but 90% of it is bad news. To say otherwise is to just simply hide yourself behind some rose-colored glasses.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Iraq has a major security issue, a (now) lack of good infrastructure, a fledgling political system that remains untested, an inability to yet exploit its natural resources, and a real problem in re-developing it's armed and police forces. No offense, but 90% of it is bad news. To say otherwise is to just simply hide yourself behind some rose-colored glasses.

You think 90% of the news on what's going on in Iraq are attacks by terrorists? That's a pretty amazing statement. But, I can't really fault you when you get your news from the New York Times. It would certainly seem that way given their coverage.

Iraq has a major security issue, but that's one issue out of around 100 that the US and Iraqi governments are dealing with. The other "10%" includes such trivial things as national elections, getting Iraq close to a point where they are at full capacity in producing oil (and beginning to create a national economy), improving their water and road system to INCREASE the service coverage in Iraq over what Saddam provided, vastly expanding the telecommunications capability of the country, setting up a non-government monitored media, building MORE hospitals and schools than existed prior to our entrance and setting up a representative governmental policy that involves all of the different groups. Most of these (if not all) involve very positive advancements in Iraq to a point many never felt were possible - definately not under Saddam.

But, yeah, none of this should take precendence over the one to two attacks every few days. That's where all our focus should be. All this other "fluff" is just lies by the Bush administration - right?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Intriguingly enough, I'm teaching about this very subject in a few hours. According to my information, in 1824 the turnout was only 26.9%. From 1828-1836 it jumped to the range you mention, 55.4-57.8%. But between 1840-1860 we saw turnouts raning from 69.6% to a high of 81.2% in the 1860 election.

Well, considering Iraq started at around 50%, I would expect they will be easily beating our numbers in the early 1800s 5-10 years down the road. As to the turnout in 1850-1860, perhaps Iraq can also reach those marks in the years 2030 and beyond.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by Arles

Well, considering Iraq started at around 50%, I would expect they will be easily beating our numbers in the early 1800s 5-10 years down the road. As to the turnout in 1850-1860, perhaps Iraq can also reach those marks in the years 2030 and beyond.

Arles, Bry

how can you compare voter turnouts in Iraq with historic US turnouts?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

You think 90% of the news on what's going on in Iraq are attacks by terrorists? That's a pretty amazing statement.

Wow, you totally didn't read what I wrote. Try again.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Fritz

Arles, Bry

how can you compare voter turnouts in Iraq with historic US turnouts?

What would be a better comparison? It's not a perfect match but it gives a frame of reference for another country that has started its own democracy in the past 200-300 years under the garb of internal strife and fighting.

Plus I was responding to this statment:

Originally Posted by Chinaski

Do you think if we had national elections in 1780, that we would have only a 45% turnout?

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Intriguingly enough, I'm teaching about this very subject in a few hours. According to my information, in 1824 the turnout was only 26.9%. From 1828-1836 it jumped to the range you mention, 55.4-57.8%. But between 1840-1860 we saw turnouts raning from 69.6% to a high of 81.2% in the 1860 election.

Are you sure the denominator is the same in these percentages? There is a big difference if you are dividing by Voting Age Population, eligible voters, or registered voters. Turnout percentages can be quite high if you are going by registered voters. VAP is typically the standard these days, though media/government/politicians/think tanks can use different denominators depending on how they want to spin turnout. Often, if you want to say "turnout sucks", use VAP, if you want to say "turnout is great", use registered voters. Oftentimes, two different conclusions can be reached in analyzing the same election...

As for your 1800s numbers, it would be difficult to compare them regardless, since changes in voter eligibility will skew the trend a bit...

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Wow, you totally didn't read what I wrote. Try again.

OK, you think 90% of what's going in Iraq is bad news? That's a pretty amazing statement.

Any better?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

But, I can't really fault you when you get your news from the New York Times. It would certainly seem that way given their coverage.

I get hardly any of my news from the New York Times, but feel free to make stupid assumptions. Speaking of which, you clearly only get your news from the Republicans' talking points memos, if this is any indication:

The other "10%" includes such trivial things as national elections, getting Iraq close to a point where they are at full capacity in producing oil (and beginning to create a national economy), improving their water and road system to INCREASE the service coverage in Iraq over what Saddam provided, vastly expanding the telecommunications capability of the country, setting up a non-government monitored media, building MORE hospitals and schools than existed prior to our entrance and setting up a representative governmental policy that involves all of the different groups. Most of these (if not all) involve very positive advancements in Iraq to a point many never felt were possible - definately not under Saddam.

Each and every "point" you make is overblown and presented in a "best-case" manner. Such thinking is what got us involved in Iraq in the first place ("they'll greet us with flowers").

Until the security problem is solved, any forward progress is in serious jeopardy. I'm sorry you can't understand that.

By the way, feel free to continue to trivialize the continuing attacks. I don't expect any Bush Apologist to be concerned with the continuing escalation of U.S. casualties in Iraq.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

But was amazes me is how the majority of the right seems completely unable to ever admit that the Iraq situation is not good. That it has not gone as planned. And the Administration made improper assumptions and could have handled things much, much better. Bush is not infallable, just as he's not completely incompotent.

Has any war ever "gone as planned"? You can find plenty of FUBARs in every military action we have ever participated in. We set ourselves up by being too successful in DSI and now are paying for it with second-guessing at every point when it isn't all so neat and simple. Guess what, war by it's very nature is an ugly, grotesque beast and no battle plan has ever fully survived it's initial contact with the enemy.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Arles

What would be a better comparison? It's not a perfect match but it gives a frame of reference for another country that has started its own democracy in the past 200-300 years under the garb of internal strife and fighting.

I don't think it's a very good point of comparison. In the first century of US independence, voting eligibility varied widely by state. It was not until the 1840s that most white males had the right to vote. The trend you see is not really measuring interest in voting, it is really capturing the artifact of changes in voting eligibility rules. Also, unless NoMyths corrects me, I'm not sure the criteria for the denominator is the same in the figures he quotes--I find it difficult to believe that 1860 figure is really that high unless the criteria is registered voters. 1824 seems awfully low if we are judging by the same criteria.

Iraq is a different creature entirely, the trend we will eventually see will more or less capture interest in voting, since everyone presumably already has voting rights...

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

Has any war ever "gone as planned"? You can find plenty of FUBARs in every military action we have ever participated in. We set ourselves up by being too successful in DSI and now are paying for it with second-guessing at every point when it isn't all so neat and simple. Guess what, war by it's very nature is an ugly, grotesque beast and no battle plan has ever fully survived it's initial contact with the enemy.

I agree. I never said there had been, nor would I ever exepect a military campaign to go off all neat and tidy.

War by it's very nature is an ugly, grotesque beast. And I am sure no battle plan has ever fully survived it's initial contact with the enemy.

That said, there are FUBARs and then there are FUBARs. For example, I am sure there were hunderds, if not, thousands of FUBAR type situations in WWII. That said, I have never heard anyone ever claim that, say, for example, the Vietnam War was a more successful military campaign than WWII. Or that Custer's tactical decisions at Little Big Horn were right up there with Henry V's at Agincourt. Or that the German invasion of Russia in WWII was as successful as its invasion of France. There are levels of fuck-ups. Some are minor, some are major, some are in between. But fuck-up are invetible. And some of these FUBARs can be blamed, in some part (not totally) on poor planning, strategy, or tactics.

At the moment Iraq is looking like a bit of a middling-to-major FUBAR situation. Maybe I am wrong about this. Maybe Iraq is exactly in the place those in command thought it would be. Maybe this is not FUBAR'd at all.

By all accounts, however, the US has more or less admitted it never really had a proper exist strategy or plan after the initial invasion. In fact, I recall listening to the congressional debates about this topic and many conservatives basically said "we'll think about that later." Well, it appears that was inadequate planning and now our troops and the Iraqis people are paying for that. Yes, war is ugly. It's bloody, it's blowing people heads off, it's messy, it's confusing, it's a horrible, horrible thing. And you can plan all you want, thinking you have all your bases covered, and then something goes wrong and it's blown to hell. No one denies that.

It just appears that in this situation, like Vietnam, like Little Big Horn, like the German invasion of Russia, that poor planning and poor strategy has made a bad situation worse. To what extent what's going on is a result of the planning, I have no idea.

Maybe this is a situation where the planning was as good as it could be, but shit just went down wrong. Maybe it is. But, from what I read, that is not the case. No one can plan for all contigencies, especially in war, but from what I have been able to read about this campaign, poor planning and strategy has created a number of these problems.

Hopefully the ship will right itself and all will be well.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Dola.

Leo, you're a military guy. Based on what you've read and such, do you think this war was well planned? That there was a solid post-occupation strategy? I am just curious. at some level, even the best laid plans and tactics, will go to shit. As mentioned, war is a messy, confusing, ugly, and unpredictable endeavor. That said, a strong plan/tactic/strategy, while never being able to remove these "X-Factors", can hope to limit them.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Though it's not surprising you're being dishonest.

I am sad to see you say that. How am I being dishonest?

But Fiero gets a free pass. You can be dishonest as long as your a liberal?

Honestly, what positive news do you want them to report?

"We're rebuilding schools!" - that the U.S. destroyed in the invasion

"We now have power!" - that they had before the invasion

"We kind of have gas now!" - that they had before the invasion

"We got rid of a brutal dictator!" - and have now elected a slate of candidates backed by a prominent Shiite cleric, whilst giving virtually no representation to the minority Sunnis. That'll end well.

All I am asking for is fair and balanced reporting in the news and television. Most people trust what they say or write. Is that not fair of me to ask for that?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SunDevil

Dutch,

Everytime I post a link all I try to do is add more info to the topic. Not trying to make a point either way. Just saw the article and posted it in the thread so other people can see it.

You can believe whatever you want. It is not my intent to convince people either way.

Do me a favor please, can you go to the NY Times Editorial Section and bring up the rebuttal to your first link. Then you are provided more than just half the story. I mean, since you are just trying to be fair.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I get hardly any of my news from the New York Times, but feel free to make stupid assumptions.

I guess there's another flere-imsaho that routinely cites Maureen Dowd. Perhaps I should have said NPR as well to be fair.

Each and every "point" you make is overblown and presented in a "best-case" manner. Such thinking is what got us involved in Iraq in the first place ("they'll greet us with flowers").

What makes you think all that I posted is "overblown"? Let's go through each item:

1. National elections did occur with mostly positive results.
2. Iraq is very close to a point where they are at full capacity in producing oil and actually having their country benefit from its proceeds (not just Saddam).
3. There is now more road coverage than under Saddam and the water systems are currently more sanitary than under Saddam.
4. There is much higher quality telecommunications network in places in Iraq ranging from Baghdad to Fallujah.
5. There are more public access schools and hospitals in Iraq now than there were under Saddam.
6. The Iraqi government is on the path with a blueprint for their constitution and the beginnings of a representative assembly and leadership.

These are all facts that you can look up regarding Iraq right now. Perhaps you can point out which of these facts are "overblown".

By the way, feel free to continue to trivialize the continuing attacks.

I don't think asking for equal time in the press on the above points is trivializing the attacks that occur. It's simply offering a broader picture on the reality of the US efforts in Iraq.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

By all accounts, however, the US has more or less admitted it never really had a proper exist strategy or plan after the initial invasion.

are you aware of any exit strategy that the US has had prior to any other major military involvement?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Fritz

are you aware of any exit strategy that the US has had prior to any other major military involvement?

It's a beautifully fabricated catch-22 by the left. The left knows very well that if the US or US Military says, "We will have all terrorists mopped up by February 25, the Iraqi Govt will be stable on March 1st, and the US will leave on March 15th" then we lose no matter what.

Fighting a war is a bit more serious than say, making a video game. But when people scream, "When is the video game gonna be done?!?!?!?"

What should the developer say that is safest? That's right, "It will be done when it's done."

Same thing goes with toppling corrupt governments that threaten the US and our interests.

Period.

[NoMyths]

Fritz & Klinglerware: I wasn't making any comparison or statement about comparisons. Just providing numbers in response to Arles statement...his percentages seemed a bit low, and so I wanted to make sure the accurate data was out there.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Fritz & Klinglerware: I wasn't making any comparison or statement about comparisons. Just providing numbers in response to Arles statement...his percentages seemed a bit low, and so I wanted to make sure the accurate data was out there.

I agree with each of you that it is hard to tie in data because of the different laws and the idea of registration. The point I was trying to make was that we had lower (compared to other elections at the timeframe) turnout during parts of the Civil War because of many logistical and safety issues - much like the situation in Iraq. Yet, we didn't view the president during that period as any less viable. So, I would think that if turnout ends up ranging in the 45-60% scope that has been asserted, it's enough to grant legitimacy to the new Iraqi government. Which, in essence, is all this entire discussion has been about.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

I guess there's another flere-imsaho that routinely cites Maureen Dowd. Perhaps I should have said NPR as well to be fair.

I cited her once. Does "cited once" equal "routinely cites" in your world? At least attempt to be correct, OK? Oh wait, you're a Bush Apologist, trading in misinformation is what you do. My bad.

1. National elections did occur with mostly positive results.

Sorry? You're using Iraq's National elections as an example of positive news that didn't get enough press in the States? This was the same election that was plastered across broadcasts for days and still commands significant airtime in many sectors? Um, OK.

2. Iraq is very close to a point where they are at full capacity in producing oil and actually having their country benefit from its proceeds (not just Saddam).

Good, back to status quo. Only took 2 years. We're supposed to be jumping for joy about this? After all, in 2003, Paul Wolfowitz said the following: "There's a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.... ...oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

Given this, and the $18 billion we've spent on reconstruction so far, it seems to me that news of Iraq's oil industry starting to recover is more a source for cautious optimism, than raucous celebration.

But you wouldn't be a Bush Apologist if you thought that way.

3. There is now more road coverage than under Saddam and the water systems are currently more sanitary than under Saddam.

Both were of reasonable quality under Saddam. Good news, but hardly earth-shaking. Let's not forget that most of the repairs that had to be undertaken were due to damage done by coalition troops during the invasion. How many children and elderly died from poor sanitation in this aftermath?

I guess that's OK because they're "collateral damage".

5. There are more public access schools and hospitals in Iraq now than there were under Saddam.

A metric achieved simply by switching private access schools & hospitals to public access. Sure, it's good, but I'd hope the U.S. would believe in more public access to these services than a dictator.

6. The Iraqi government is on the path with a blueprint for their constitution and the beginnings of a representative assembly and leadership.

Says you. Unless the ruling Shiites decide that a theocracy led by the example of Sistani is the way to go. Unless the Kurds decide to use their new power-broking position as a way to get an independent Kurdistan. Unless everyone gangs up on the Sunnis. Again, a source for cautious optimism, not wild celebration.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

It's a beautifully fabricated catch-22 by the left. The left knows very well that if the US or US Military says, "We will have all terrorists mopped up by February 25, the Iraqi Govt will be stable on March 1st, and the US will leave on March 15th" then we lose no matter what.

Hey, sorry you got yourself into your own catch-22. Maybe your President shouldn't have been so quick to do this:

Fighting a war is a bit more serious than say, making a video game.

That's funny, because that's not the impression I get from what this Administration has to say about it.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Fritz & Klinglerware: I wasn't making any comparison or statement about comparisons. Just providing numbers in response to Arles statement...his percentages seemed a bit low, and so I wanted to make sure the accurate data was out there.

Would a better comparison be India's first election after British rule? I believe that election was more-or-less universal suffrage, with some concern about disruption from various parties. I have no data on the turnout, though.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Fritz

are you aware of any exit strategy that the US has had prior to any other major military involvement?

That whole post-WWII Europe and Japan thing seemed to work pretty well. Dontcha ya think?

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

That whole post-WWII Europe and Japan thing seemed to work pretty well. Dontcha ya think?

I do, for an after the fact set of policies.

I don't know that this helps your point though.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Fritz

I do, for an after the fact set of policies.

I don't know that this helps your point though.

What point? You were the one trying to make a point with this.

My point is simple:

What is going on in Iraq right now appears to be, to some extent, a result of poor military and planning and strategy and poor (or no) post-war (remember, according to the Bush Administration, the war (major combat operations) has been over since May 2003) policies/exit strategy. End of.

WWII appears to be the opposite. A successful campaign thanks to strong (or perhaps lucky) military tactics and strategy and strong post-war policies/exist strategy.

[33sherman]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

That whole post-WWII Europe and Japan thing seemed to work pretty well. Dontcha ya think?

This did work well but the circumstances were radically different. Our allies in the war(England, France, etc) were also bankrupt and ruined by war, and US manufacturing was stronger than ever, so under the Marshall Plan financial aid that was given to those companies was spent through specific US companies that got great contracts to rebuild those countries.

The situation now is almost completely reversed--the US has no manufacturing, relies almost completely on foreign investors who buy into the confidence trick that the US is central to world security, thus the dollar is falling and continues to fall. Yes it's true that some of the money will come back to certain US oil comapnies who get good deals, but we live in age of multinational corporations so that money will not likely recirculate in the US to any beneficial degree.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by 33sherman

This did work well but the circumstances were radically different. Our allies in the war(England, France, etc) were also bankrupt and ruined by war, and US manufacturing was stronger than ever, so under the Marshall Plan financial aid that was given to those companies was spent through specific US companies that got great contracts to rebuild those countries.

The situation now is almost completely reversed--the US has no manufacturing, relies almost completely on foreign investors who buy into the confidence trick that the US is central to world security, thus the dollar is falling and continues to fall. Yes it's true that some of the money will come back to certain US oil comapnies who get good deals, but we live in age of multinational corporations so that money will not likely recirculate in the US to any beneficial degree.

I agree completely. The circumstnaces are entirely different. Different worlds.

I was simply giving an example of, what appears to me at least, of an "exit strategy" that the US has had prior to any other major military involvement.

Mayhap it's too early to judge yet if there is a proper plan. Mayhap the wheels are still in motion and in 2, 5, or 10 years down the line it will all fall into place and we'll be praising the "Rove Plan" or something.