I agree for the most part. A bunch of militiamen with rifles are never going to overthrow the government of the United States or Russia or China or Iran. But Saddam’s Iraq? That’s a different case. Like Libya or North Korea, it was essentially a one man government - one shooter really could have toppled the whole regime.
Assuming he got past thousands of bodyguards, could figure out where Saddam was, got lucky and targeted Saddam and not one of his doubles, and didn’t care about his life or that of anyone slightly associated with him. And didn’t mind Saddam’s sons taking over.
That’s what the authors of the piece are giving it:
So mark down 1 to 1.5 FU’s for these two. Wow, they are serious policy analysts for former liberal war opponents and scathing Bush attackers.
Yeah, 'cause that XT guy gets ALL his news from Fox, ehe? :rolleyes: But thanks for the facinating article Hentor.
Last time I checked September was in…well, one month. Not 6. Not 12. Not ad infinitum. But then Knowing Red, he always has had trouble with things like basic math (one month, 6 months, 12 months…whats the difference?)…
-XT
Christ - did they really have to actually pick on Friedman unit?
-Joe
I figure that that is why they threw the “9 months” in there as well, just to shake things up a bit.
Relax, xtisme, this really isn’t about you this time. I just grabbed the last quote about the Freidman Unit that I could remember from the thread.
Fact is lots of bloggers and articles say Iraq is a puppet state. I can not use them. I have to find one as neutral as possible to counter a politically slanted one. Preferably I must find one that is conservative. otherwise my views are slanted. Unslanted,the military and main news bureaus. (sure)
Ah…apologies then. I figured you bolded my name for a reason. I’m no fan of Fox (I neither watch their cable news channel nor visit their website)…and so I was a bit tense when it seemed you were trying to say I did.
Carry on.
-XT
C’mon, Gonzomaz, everyone knows facts have a liberal bias. You have to stick to Fox News, Limbaugh, military sites, etc., because they’re the only ones who are willing and able to counter that bias that facts have.
Heck, I watch Fox all the time, watch Kieth Ubermensch, then Hannity and His Bitch. I love entertainment. I don’t suppose that’s enough to qualify for my Certificate of Critical Thinking? Darn.
Turns out Maliki’s an Untier and a Divider:
Which, btw, is when we run out of troops and have to scale down the escalation, “turning the corner” or not. Unless tours are further extended beyond their currently already-extended 15 months, and we send what’s left of the Guard back yet again, that is.
Sure, but “Is the surge working?” polls show a 10% swing Shrub’s way. So, the real victory is in process.
-Joe
An excellent typo, maybe even clearer than the original phrase.
That’s really not fair, you just don’t understand the allure of FUs. They’re like Lay’s potato chips – you can’t have just one. They come by the bagful.
[Firesign]
We’re bringing the war back home!
[/Firesign]
Oh, never mind: that’s where the real war has been all along, AFATC. Too bad they couldn’t have shot the whole thing on a sound stage, like in Wag the Dog, rather than killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and forcing millions into exile.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=948_1180021171
We are having fun aren’t we.
Whatever happened to Bush’s “War Czar,” anyway?
He was appointed back in mid-May, then promptly vanished from public view.
They’ll probably whip him out when it’s time for a scapegoat.
Pollack is a highly respected analyst and author of The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq. Which I read. And quoted on these boards repeatedly in Jan 2003, before the invasion.
But his publisher chose the title, you see. Similarly, the NYT editors chose the title of his and Hanlon’s latest. I seem to recall that Pollack later claimed that Storm was a balanced, careful evaluation of the pros and cons of invading Iraq, which was news to me.
Anyway, his op-ed piece stated that the political system remains deadlocked, though curiously he didn’t seem to emphasize that if there’s no political deal, tactical victories by US troops don’t amount to squat.
In other news Greg Sargent of TPM notes that a third think tanker who was on that trip is more pessimistic than the Brookings Duo. Anthony H. Cordesman believes that we must remain engaged in Iraq whether we pull out or not, but that the case for strategic patience remains tenuous.
I’ve only skimmed up to page 8 of his .pdf, but it looks like a piece of tough minded analysis. One aspect I had missed was the awakening of many Sunni tribes – they are turning against Al Qaeda and may even be willing to cut a deal with the central government. But there are as yet no decisive trends in Iraqi civilian casualties. (Pre-emption from MfM: consider seasonalties – killings decline during the summer – and year over year changes).
A very nice “next six months” timeline.