But, but, just think how great it will be when the outcome that GW restated just day before yesterday comes to pass.
After all, we have the strongest military in the world. There should certainly be some military solution to the problem of a country whose entire structure has collapased.
The plan? Stay the course, stay the course, stay the course.
Sorry. Sometimes the total futility of it all overwhelms me.
Bill Kristol agrees! (bolding mine)
So, we’ll put you down for 2.5 FUs? It’s a good thing we have such serious, distinguished figures to come on the news shows and tell us how things are working out, how the surge is working even better than expected, how political progress is being made. We endeavor on, pretending you and your neo-con friends making the MSM rounds haven’t been wrong about…well, pretty much every subject you’ve ever broached with the public, or these pesky facts which keep getting in the way with you never even acknowledging their existence. But it doesn’t matter, the anchor can sit across the shiny desk, nodding his head in solemn agreement with your experienced, carefully weighted wisdom.
Truly, an inspiration for some Pepto-Bismol.
FWIW Tom, I know you are rarely, if ever in accord with my own thinking politically. However, if you aren’t in lock step with Hentor an his merry band you are the enemy…and are simply relegated to one of the ‘usual suspects’. The irony is that you are probably closer (though less rabid, which is why you’ve come under the gun) to Hentor et al than to me. Of course, I’m probably closer to Hentor and the rabid crowd on this board wrt Bush and Iraq than they realize as well (certainly closer to them than the far right they accuse me of being)…they just don’t see it that way.
C’est la vie…I’d just move on.
-XT
That’s rich. When I posted quotes directly from Petraeus saying the surge is working, they were ignored because he’s ‘Bush’s Boy’. When I posted quotes from embedded reporters in Iraq, they were ignored because the reporters were obviously in cahoots with the military. When I posted quotes from Democrats Dick Durbin and Bob Casey, they were ignored because ‘it was only one sentence’. When I posted quotes from two liberal scholars at the Brookings Institution, they were derided because they initially favored the war (never mind that they’ve been strident objectors to the Bush war strategy since immediately after the invasion until now). Then when I post an opinion piece which also quotes a number of people, it’s ignored because it’s only opinion.
In the meantime, the thread is filled with cites and quotes from various anti-war and left-wing organizations and individuals, accepted wholly and uncritically by all.
I suggest you look in a mirror and see who’s listening to only one side.
Cheese Louise, Sam! First off, as has been laboriously pointed out to you, O’Hanlon and Pollack are not at all as advertised. Not even close.
The reporting of Sen Durbin’s remarks was numbingly stupid, stupid to begin with, but numbingly stupid because his comments are on the record, and the excising of the one sentence that set your heart racing was surgical and precise. And it was so entirely contrary to its original context as to be a lie. And such a painfully obvious one!
Sam, you’ve been suckerpunched! These people set you up for this embarassment, by exploiting your fresh and innocent Canadian nature! You been had, old top! You trusted them and they ladled you a serving of horseshit which you brought before us as a glittering gem of truth (in entire good faith, I have no doubt).
You shouldn’t be mad at us, be mad at them! We didn’t do this to you, they did!
Righto. Durbin did not say the surge is working. Here is the CNN transcript. What he said was that the US military is doing a fine job and making some progress on their part of the surge plan. However he pointedly said that the Iraqi politicians are making absolutely no progress on their part of the surge plan. In fact they are going backward as more and more of the Sunni bloc pull out. He said it twice.
GW can recite his pie-in-the-sky piece about how wonderful it will be when Iraq is a democracy that will be a model for the mid east. He, of course, will long have been out of office and probably dead of old age should that miracle take place.
Aww…those wiberals are just so mean! 
-Joe
Its not that they are so mean…its that they tend to eat their own.
-XT
Like most hive societys, liberals recognize by smell, you don’t have the scent of Birkenstock or Volvo, none of the subtle aromas of granola or tofu…Dear God, is that Old Spice?
Next time, dab a little pachouli oil behind the ears. Of course, that only works as nostalgia, you have to be of, ah, mature years to pull that off, otherwise you look as silly as a white guy in dreadlocks, dancing.
I understand that O’Hanlon and Pollack’s article got a lot of play among the right-wingers (and the MSM). Pollack is on record as supporting the invasion (in a big and rather influential way) as well as the surge. He also have been known to toss Friedman’s now and then.
Those who characterize the Brookings duo as merely “Liberals who were highly critical of the war” either lack expertise (which is ok for amateur posters, not ok for pundits) or they’re uncritically ignoring the obvious – that is, they are hacks. Either way, they are an untrustworthy source of information: to be clear, I don’t expect posters to have this sort of detailed knowledge, but journalists (and editors) should.
Journalistic hacks, I submit, should be read only for entertainment purposes: those seeking edification should either study their works very carefully, or look elsewhere.
Now at least Hanlon, Pollack and Cordesman have some regional expertise. And Petraeus knows a thing or two about counterinsurgency, though he is also known for having, shall we say, a prudent sense of external politics: he doesn’t want his boss to look bad. But Kristol (whom you did not quote) is a clownish gasbag: the guy should not be paid heed.
As it happens, I feel a little sorry for Pollack. His piece with O’Hanlon might have been more defendable if it had a better since of proportion. Substantively speaking, it appears to this observer that we have good people on the ground now, but that the surge is too small and reform a few years too late. Reality can be mean.
I will freely admit that I’ve not read read every post in this thread, since I don’t have the time or the nerves for grinding through ever last argument about a journalist’s credibility and a data point’s veracity. However, why don’t we step back and look at it this way. Let’s see how the pro-war side has phrased their take on the situation over time.
Four years ago, it was “Mission Accomplished”, according to a banner visible during a speech by Bush. In other words, the war was over, the fighting was over, the resistance was over, and we had been completely and entirely successful in everything we’d tried to do in Iraq.
Three years ago, it was “We have turned the corner in Iraq … and it is time for the occupation to end”, according to Condi Rice. In other words, the war was over, everything had gone well though perhaps not perfectly, and we could sit back and watch as the last parts of our involvement in Iraq wound down.
Two years ago, it was “We are witnessing the last throes of the insurgency”, according to Cheney. In other words, fighting was still going on, but it was absolutely guaranteed to be over soon, after which we would leave Iraq in triumph.
One years ago, it was “We can still win in Iraq, but we have to be realistic about the mission,” according to Joe Biden. In other words, we might win or we might lose. Even if we win, our achievement in Iraq will be limited, and the resulting nation will be imperfect.
Now, it’s “a war we just might win”. They might as well say that it’s a war we’ll probably lose.
Looking at this list, what do we see? Steadily falling confidence on the part of war supporters. It’s a trend. It could not possibly be more clear. Viewed in that way, the O’Hanlon and Pollack article more confirms that the situation in Iraq is still deteriorating, as opposed to proving the opposite.
Nice post and argument ITR champion, but war supporters are not a monolith, though some of them act that way.
Actually, most of them act that way as far as I can tell: finding a thoughtful war supporter requires effort. We have a pretty big problem on our hands: a large swath of political analysis in the US appears to be driven by wishful thinking.
I expect politicos like Bush, Cheney and Rice to act as cheerleaders, underestimating the enemy with phrases such as “Dead enders” and the like. Boosting morale is defensible.
But there’s no reason for independent commentators to play along with such nonsense, unless they are hacks, unless they are more concerned with proper ideological alignment or stroking their supporters’ emotions than with getting the argument and facts right. I understand that the Weekly Standard is notorious in this regard. The WSJ editorial page is certainly an example.
Pollack, O’Hanlon and The Economist are examples of war supporters who understand the importance of studying the underlying reality, as opposed to filtering it for reassuring news. Even if their judgment has been proven faulty in this instance, they are not Kool-Aid drinkers.
IMO, there actually is evidence for progress in some aspects of the Iraqi war --though let’s not forget that civilian killings were higher in May 2007 than they were in May 2006 (I haven’t checked the latest data). But until I see some nontrivial progress on the political front --that bears scrutiny-- I would say that there’s no end in sight. (That said, I frankly don’t have a clear idea of what brings multiple-player insurgencies to a close. My grasp of military history is weak, so my opinions must be as well.)
But the real problem is that we need better quality conservatives, one’s who understand that neither energetic posturing or even a solemn demeanor indicate serious analysis. Clowns wear many outfits.
Why would a conservative have any obligation to support a clusterfuck? Does a conservative have some obligation to unflinchingly support any military endeavor, no matter how braindead?
Because conservatives tend to be big on obeying authority, following orders, and not thinking for themselves. A good conservative will refuse to believe that what’s happening is a clusterfuck, and will insist that his leaders know what they are doing better than the critics and/or that the leaders have secret information that makes what they are doing perfectly sensible and/or that anyone not supporting the clusterfuck is a < insert enemy > loving traitor.
While liberals tend to be big on appearing to defy authority, following trendsetters, and not thinking for themselves. A good liberal will refuse to believe that what’s happening could possibly succeed, and will insist that the leaders are acting from secret and nefarious motives and/or that the remembered words of some earlier icon makes what they are doing (or failing to do) perfectly sensible and/or that anyone supporting the clusterfuck is an enemy of the people.
However, I find that content-free rhetoric, based on ones own cherished stereotypes, makes a pretty poor argument in a debate.
No, a conservative has no obligation to support a clusterfuck. Nonetheless, GWBush’s approval ratings among Republicans topped 80% after Katrina.
I believe they hover around 60% now. A steep drop occurred following the immigration flap, when Republican business interests collided with Republican grassroots sensibilities.
I know you were demonstrating mirror-image stereotypes, and I don’t doubt that liberals such as the one you describe exist.
But I would contend that their influence has dwindled as the 60s hippies have aged. In contrast, I would argue that sensible conservatives have insufficient influence within the modern conservative movement. Witness the marginalization of Mankiw, Feldstein, Colin Powell or Scowcroft and the high profile accorded the Washington Times, Fox News or the National Review.
Heck, in a European context O’Hanlon/Pollack would be considered conservative. But in the US they’re pegged as liberals.
I know and hear plenty of conservatives who act like I describe. And being a stereotype is part of being a conservative.
As for liberals, if they believed that it was because it’s true. It WAS guaranteed disaster and it WAS done from “nefarious” motives. Knowing that had nothing to do with liberalism ( which barely even exists in America, much less is important ), and everything to do with not being a fool. The only people who ever supported the war or thought it well meaning were fools and scum.
And what “icon” are you talking about ? If that was meant as a slam at me, I don’t have any icons.
Icons like FDR, Truman, Stevenson, or other liberal leaders who have put their stamp on the ideology.
Had I wished to slam you, (aside from pointing out flawed logic), I’d have done it directly ands placed it in the Pit.
I would not even think that you considered yourself a liberal. I just noted that it is as easy to post silly stereotypes of liberals as silly stereotypes of conservatives–and neither contributes to the discussion.
Well, that makes me one or the other. I can live with that.
That said, I debated this issue on the board from Jan-Mar 2003. This foolish piece of scum thought that his points were insufficiently answered here, until the first 12 (24? 48?) hours following the invasion, when I switched opinions on the basis of arguments I had not yet encountered.
Later, I was surprised when no WMDs were found and pissed when I learned that post-invasion planning was prohibited by Rumsfeld, because he thought it might slow the rush to war.
Pollack explained that the Saddam probably maintained rumors of WMDs in order to cement his internal control. It is unfortunate that the Brookings analyst failed to discuss that possibility in his book (IIRC).
It shouldn’t have been much of a surprise. Even Powell and Rice admitted Iraq had no WMD circa the summer of 2001. Failing that, you could’ve listened to the testimony of Ritter and other UN inspectors and weapon experts who pleaded for sanity in the run up to war. Or the foreign press, who were quite knowledgable and confused as to why the U.S. was acting the way it was. Or…well, basically anything except the U.S. mass media propaganda.
You know what’s funny? Something like 45% of the U.S. population still believes Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, yet Bush’s approval rating is only like 30% at best. That’s a tough fact to come to grips with…