"A War We Just Might Win"

[gonzomax]

Five years into this mess, 30,000 killed and injured, returning soldiers to battleground over and over, bombing the country endlessly, huge civilian deaths and world disgust. over a trillion dollars committed. no WMD, no nuclear programs, no chemical weapons, 1/3 soldiers returning with mental problems…more to follow

Is this what we were sold when it started. I suggest that this has gone so wrong ,that it is not even what we were sold. It is no longer justified, if you believe it was,.
It is completely different and wrong. Time to admit our error and try and make things right.

[XT]

@gonzomax

Time to admit our error and try and make things right.

Ok…how?

-XT

[elucidator]

XT:

Were it poisoning a well, you might have a point. If the Admin had a record of candor and straightforward honesty, that is. How does one “poison” a toxic waste dump?

We are assured, time and again, that they are aware that the situation cannot be solved militarily, while they continue to press a military solution, a new! improved! tactic that is presumed to offer security while nagging details are hashed out. And in the meantime, the Iraqi Parliament signals their firm committment by buggering off. Oh, and, once again, the Sunnis refuse cooperation. Apparently, they either do not know about the splendid progress being made, or do not care.

I am also troubled by the eagerness with which war apologists embrace the utterly bogus “conversion” of “longstanding critics” who are no such thing. In my experience, the Admin turns to lies because the truth is unappealing. Perhaps your experience is different, you may wish to clarify.

As well, I am troubled by the “enclave” tactics for reasons which are apparent to me, one of the least military human beings on the face of this earth. If we don’t have enough troops to man enclaves and ensure the safety of our troops, they are little more than bait. And if we must defend such enclaves with massive airpower and/or firepower, it is blazingly obvious that local residents will have no option but to flee. Hearts and minds? Hardly.

You imply that my personal and political biases blind me to facts that you do not offer. Well, then, offer them, and lets see.

[magellan01]

@tomndebb

magellan01, you are simply lying.

My only entry into the thread last night was to urge you to back away from your habit of making all discussions personal. Your “detailed response” was not even relevant as a response to me. It might have been relevant in your earlier response to RedFury when you chose, instead, to dismiss his observation with a personal remark, followed by a cryptic reference to a dictionary definition while failing to address his actual post.

Oh, brother. Here we go again. I suggest you go back and reread. The substance of your initial post to me was the my use of a definition from an etymological dictionary. In fact, let me help you. Here is your post:

@tomndebb

Y’know, claiming that a poster’s “education did not take” and then providing a simple dictionary definition after that same poster has provided a citation to a report that notes the difficulty that real life people and courts of law have had wrestling with the real world application of the word is rather silly.

Your snide comment is not moving the discussion forward and your dictionary definition really provides no rebuttal–the more so since, of all the definitions open to you, you chose to rely on the etymological dictionary. Now, there is no one on this board with a greater love of etymology than I, (some love it as much), but an abbreviated etymology only shows origins, not specifically current usage.

While you mentioned my “education did not take” line, and didn’t like it, it seemed clear to me—then and now—from the words in your post that the problem you had was with my attempting to assist in said education by providing a definition from an etymological dictionary. I’ve explained that I intentionally chose that one as a more general definition had already been supplied by another poster, and that maybe seeing who coined the term and why—in addition to the generally accepted definition already supplied—would clarify things. I would say you had a point if I had sought to have the whole argument rest on the etymological dictionary definition alone. But, I didn’t.

Oh, and you’re a liar, lying about me lying. :rolleyes:

@tomndebb

Since I was not expressing any views regarding the matter of genocide, your decision to paint the U.S. experience as some wonderful, altruistic endeavor, then pose a question with an excluded middle that I either agree with your (off-topic to my comments) characterization of the war or that I side with a particular poster well known to be hostile to the U.S., you were pretty clearly attempting to make a personal comment about me.

You have now disingenuously claimed that I am the one who is making the matter personal. If you would stick to actual discussion points and leave the beliefs and personalities of other posters out of your comments, I would not have to keep addressing you for your antagonizing behavior toward other posters.

Nothing disingenuous about it. There’s no question about the fact that you’ve got a bug up your ass about me. And my desire is to not deal with you at all, for reasons I’ve previously stated clearly elsewhere. Now, if you would kindly go back and reread your initial post I supplied you might see that the substance of your post was the definition I supplied, not what you later characterized as an attack on another poster. Or at the very least, how a reasonable person might have thought that was the substance of your post. Please, reread it.

As far as my “personal comment” about you (“question” to the rest of the world). A simple “no” or more nuanced response was all that was needed. But just to be fair, let’s take that line in context. Here is the paragraph:

@magellan01

And I don’t see how either of those cites changes anything. The first one tasks itself with defiingin it as genocide, the second merely states that the term is sometimes wanting. But the articles broader guidelines do not push our role in Iraq into it. For one, we are actually trying to help the Iraqi people. Or are you one of those who shares the “insightful” views of Der Trihs, et al.

Now, will you stop the diversionary hijack? As you say, if you must, take it to the Pit.

[RedFury]

@H3Knuckles

In the interests of full disclosure, I’ve only read part of the site so far. But it seems to be basing it’s argument of the US committing Genocide on the assertion that we went into this war with the deliberate intent to dismantle the government, and establish a new cultural paradigm of a free democracy.

In that case, what we did in World War 2 to Japan and Germany was genocide, as I understand it.

Genocide is when an organization begins the systematic extermination of people in pursuit of the goal of completely eradicating them. I think most people can agree that making war on a country because the attacker feels that country’s government has to go, whether justified (as in WW2), mistaken, or heinous, is not genocide.

If you have a cite for the US & allied militaries enacting a program to try and eradicate large portions of the Iraqi civilian population simply by race, religion, etc., let me know. If all you can factually show is a plan to make war on their government, and any insurgency efforts against the Iraqi government we’re failing to establish, then it is not genocide.

I said it is arguable, and indeed it is, as evidenced by the fact that it IS being argued amongst legal scholars. See BBC link on the matter.

Secondly, please see this other post of mine and the cites contained therein.

[XT]

Red, why don’t you start a separate thread on that subject if you are so hot to discuss how evil the US is? This thread isn’t really about whether or not you can contort the definition of ‘genocide’ enough to make it fit with what the US is doing in Iraq. Ken?

-XT

[RedFury]

BTW, I posted this article in Tuckefan’s Pit Thread, “Mission Accomplished” by mistake.

I meant to post it in this thread as it pertains to what is being discussed here and my referenced link about the little girl is actually in this thread.

[elucidator]

Point of fact, the thread is “about” a couple of lying assholes who are supporting a bankrupt and immoral policy with baldfaced bullshit.

[RedFury]

@xtisme

Red, why don’t you start a separate thread on that subject if you are so hot to discuss how evil the US is? This thread isn’t really about whether or not you can contort the definition of ‘genocide’ enough to make it fit with what the US is doing in Iraq. Ken?

-XT

I did no more than respond to what was asked of me. You, OTOH, apparently feel free to continue taking cheap-shots at Spain in ANY thread no matter how irrelevant they might be.

[XT]

@elucidator

Were it poisoning a well, you might have a point. If the Admin had a record of candor and straightforward honesty, that is. How does one “poison” a toxic waste dump?

One question…did you type this with a straight face? If so, did the thought ‘gods, the irony!’ cross your mind at any time while you were typing?

@elucidator

We are assured, time and again, that they are aware that the situation cannot be solved militarily, while they continue to press a military solution, a new! improved! tactic that is presumed to offer security while nagging details are hashed out.

You are aware of course that The Surge™ isn’t the sum total of whats being tried here…right? There are political aspects as well (you could, perhaps, look over the list of benchmarks cited earlier in this thread if nothing else). Its not simply ‘a military solution, a new! improved! tactic…’. In fact its a complete strategy encompassing a more offensive oriented military effort (this gets into the enclaves statement you made later) instead of the past sitting in enclaves or on the defensive, as well as political changes we are trying to get the Iraqi’s to agree with…everything from changes to their government, to policy changes, to how the tribes integrate into the whole mishmash.

Has it been successful? Not so far. But its NOT the same ole same ole…not if you really look at it. WILL it be successful? Gods know…I certainly don’t. I haven’t completely closed my mind yet to the possibility that it might…or that it might have at least some limited success.

@elucidator

You imply that my personal and political biases blind me to facts that you do not offer. Well, then, offer them, and lets see.

I don’t offer facts because I was merely asking you a question. My point was that you were (are) poisoning the well and so you’ve pre-determined your thinking on this subject, already decided what the results are or will be without regard to what they ACTUALLY say. If you want some facts on exactly what this Surge thing entails (the political aspects, the actual military tactical changes, etc) I’m sure I can dig them up (I think someone posted them in the thread earlier though), same with the July Benchmarks (I know someone posted at least an article that talks about them…you can get the real thing in PDF format though if you are interested). What facts do you wish me to offer you that will allow for enough of an un-poisoning of the well that you at least attempt to read the result of this thing with an open mind?

-XT

[RedFury]

PS-And I am not “contorting” anything as my cites show. If you have an issue with them…have at it. Though I’ll remind you we’re talking about legal scholars, specialized on the subject, who differ on the interpretation.

[tagos]

@xtisme

I don’t put full faith in…well, anything. So, I’ll take that often excluded middle position Alex for $500 (and the ceramic dog!). I am not going to poison the well by assuming anything about it, one way or the other. I’ll probably go in slightly skeptical (hey, I’m human…no way to be completely unbiased after the last 6 years), but I intend to read carefully and TRY not to have too many preconceptions.

-XT

When approaching a repeatedly poisoned well it’s probably a good idea to assume it’s poisoned. When listening to proven and incorrigible liars, assume you are being lied to.

Nothing coming out of Iraq suggests anything has changed. People continue to die, one third of the population now need emergency aid, all the metrics continue to plunge, none of the political criteria we were told gave the ‘surge’ any meaning have been met.

This isn’t a case for ‘open minds’ it’s a case for ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.’

Humanitarian Crisis

A new report by Oxfam says that the continuing failure to provide even the most basic services to many Iraqis will not only cause continuing suffering, but “serve to further destabilise the country”.

Oxfam are unable to work on the ground in Iraq in the way that they would elsewhere, but working with the NGO Co-ordination Committee in Iraq (NCCI), their new survey finds “eight million people in need of emergency aid”.

The survey recognises that armed violence is the greatest threat facing Iraqis, but finds a population “increasingly threatened by disease and malnutrition”.

<snip>

Of the four million Iraqis who are registered to receive food assistance, 60% receive it. That is down from 96% in the year after the war.

Fewer people have access to clean water than did under Saddam Hussein, and 80% have no access to effective sanitation, a figure comparable to sub-Saharan Africa.

July was deadliest month

Deadliest July Yet for US Troops;
23% Rise in Iraqi Deaths in July;
Maliki Government Teeters–Sunni, Da’wa Discontent
2007 saw the deadliest July for US troops since the Iraq War began. It also saw a 23% rise in Iraqi deaths over June. July is like a blast furnace in Iraq, with temperatures approaching 120 degrees F. in the shade. Guerrillas typically lie low in this unfavorable environment, compared to other seasons, and so the casualty rates go down. Instead, this year the killing season has gone on as if it were spring.

Number of US troops killed in Iraq, July, 2007: 74

Number of US troops killed in Iraq, July, 2006: 43.

Not only were the US deaths unprecedentedly high in July, the March through June death statistics were also very high.

And, June saw the highest number of over-all attacks since the war began.

AP adds: “Iraqi deaths rose, with at least 2,024 civilians, government officials and security forces killed in July, about 23 percent more than the 1,640 who died violently in June, according to Associated Press figures compiled from police reports nationwide.”

Pentagon spokesmen are attempting to portray this near doubling of July troop deaths as a sign of improvement on the security side, counting from June rather than looking at past July figures-- and I fear some corporate media are falling for it.

I saw Michael O’Hanlon of Brookings on CNN Sunday saying he thought that the violence was less now. (O’Hanlon and Ken Pollack also gave us that uh, optimistic, op-ed about ‘a war we could win’ in the NYT.) I’d be interested in knowing how he is measuring this supposed fall in violence. If it is the deadliest July ever for US troops in Iraq; if there is a 23% increase in Iraqi deaths over June; if there were more attacks in June than any time since April 2003-- how is that a decrease in violence? Somebody explain that to me.

Iraq’s Kurdish President, Jalal Talabani, threw a tantrum on Tuesday, warning that there would be “a real civil war” if the Iraqi government dragged its feet on holding the scheduled referendum on whether oil-rich, multi-ethnic Kirkuk Province should join the Kurdistan Regional Government (which has subsumed and replaced the provincial governments of Dohuk, Irbil, and Sulaymaniyah).

Talabani also warned the Sunni Arab Iraq Accord Front that if it followed through on its threat to withdraw from al-Maliki’s national unity government, it risked detracting from the legitimacy of the Iraqi government. The IAF had set Tuesday as a deadline for al-Maliki to guarantee them they would stop being ignored, or they would withdraw their 6 ministers from his government.

Talabani just lost the moral authority to lecture the Sunni Arabs about supporting a government of national unity by threatening a civil war if his Kurds don’t get their way on Kirkuk. You wonder if there are any Iraqis left.

Iraq’s first elected prime minister after the fall of Saddam, Ibrahim Jaafari, has been trying to bring down the government of his rival Nuri al-Maliki, according to the AP. Jaafari had been the head of the expatriate branch of the Islamic Call Party (al-Dawa], but two months ago at a party conference al-Maliki defeated him and became the leader of al-Dawa. Al-Maliki had also succeeded Jaafari when the latter was deposed by an alliance of the Kurds, the Americans, the Sunni Arabs and some Shiites in spring of 2006. Jaafari is said to have been frustrated by al-Maliki’s refusal to reach out to Sunni Arab Iraqis. Jaafari may have been better at that, but he alienated the Kurds by intriguing with Ankara to forestall a Kurdish takeover of Kirkuk Province. Now he is holding out a quick referendum on Kirkuk’s admission to the Kurdistan Regional Government as a quid pro quo for the Kurdistan Alliance to throw its weight behind replacing al-Maliki with Jaafari. So not only hasn’t there been any real political progress since the surge began, al-Maliki’s ‘national unity’ government is weaker than at any time since he was inaugurated. The Sadrists pulled out, Fadhila pulled out, and the Sunni Arabs may be pulling out. And now a rival within Da`wa is trying to bring the prime minister down!

And a secret Congressional Report obtained by Secrecy News says:

Warning -pdf

At the same time, U.S. commanders have repeatedly said the ISF is not ready,
or even nearly ready, to take over security in Iraq. With the total ISF goal of 325,000 reached in early 2007, the target level of the ISF has been increased to 395,000 to try to compensate for the forces’ weaknesses. Some observers go so far as to say that the ISF is part of the security problem in Iraq, not the solution, because of incidents of involvement in sectarian involvement or even possible anti-U.S. activity.

The July 12, 2007 progress report assesses the ISF against a few relevant
benchmarks
— the ability to operate independently, which is assessed as
unsatisfactory;
and enforcing the law even-handedly, which the report says is
generally unsatisfactory, although some improvement is being noted.

In addition, the most recent DOD “Measuring Stability” report and other accounts reiterate previously reported criticisms of the ISF, including ! that the ISF continue to lack an effective command structure or independent initiative, and that there continues to be a culture of corruption throughout the ISF structure.

• as much as one-third of ISF members are absent-without-leave or
  might have deserted at any given time, significantly reducing the
  actual fielded forces.

• that the ISF are unbalanced ethnically and by sect, penetrated by
  militias or even insurgents, and involved in sectarian violence,
  particularly among the police forces. Widely reported is that many
  ISF members view themselves as loyal to their former militias or
  party leaders, and not to a national force. In late 2005, U.S. forces
  uncovered militia-run detention facilities (“Site 4”) and arrested
  those (Badr Brigade and related Iraqi police) running them.

• press reports in June 2007 said that some roadside bombs intended
  for U.S. forces were being planted near police stations, presumably
  by Iraqi police.

• most of the ISF, particularly the police, are Shiites, with Kurdish
  units mainly deployed in the north, and many Sunnis distrust the ISF
  as instruments of repression and responsible for sectarian killings.

• one controversial element of the Baghdad security plan is its
  apparent reliance on several mostly Kurdish brigades, a deployment
  reportedly resented by both Shiite and Sunni Arabs in the capital.
  there are several press reports and official comments that the
  members of the “Facilities Protection Force,” (FPS), which are
  security guards attached to individual ministries, are involved in
  sectarian violence. U.S. and Iraq began trying to rein in the force in
  May 2006 by placing it under some Ministry of Interior guidance,
  including issuing badges and supervising what types of weapons it
  uses. (In Recommendation 54, the Iraq Study Group says the
  Ministry of Interior should identify, register, and otherwise control
  FPS.)

Absolutely none of this suggests the Surge has any possibility of working. And I have no reason to expect a report written by the guy in charge of succeeding, that has passed through the Bush political filter will be anything but hopelessly Panglossian in outlook.

When something changes then maybe I’d be inclined to look at good news less sceptically but nothing has changed. The Iraq politicians are still corrupt and incompetent when not being actively malicious. The Iraq Army and police remain at best jokes, at worst active participants in bad shit.

The economy continues to be shit and in a few months the surge will have ended and troop levels decline. There appears to be not a hope in hell that a loyal, competent, non sectarian security force will replace them or that the politicians will have got there act together.

[tomndebb]

@magellan01

@tomndebb

My only entry into the thread last night was to urge you to back away from your habit of making all discussions personal. Your “detailed response” was not even relevant as a response to me. It might have been relevant in your earlier response to RedFury when you chose, instead, to dismiss his observation with a personal remark, followed by a cryptic reference to a dictionary definition while failing to address his actual post.

Oh, brother. Here we go again. I suggest you go back and reread. The substance of your initial post to me was the my use of a definition from an etymological dictionary. In fact, let me help you. Here is your post:

@tomndebb

Y’know, claiming that a poster’s “education did not take” and then providing a simple dictionary definition after that same poster has provided a citation to a report that notes the difficulty that real life people and courts of law have had wrestling with the real world application of the word is rather silly.

Your snide comment is not moving the discussion forward and your dictionary definition really provides no rebuttal–the more so since, of all the definitions open to you, you chose to rely on the etymological dictionary. Now, there is no one on this board with a greater love of etymology than I, (some love it as much), but an abbreviated etymology only shows origins, not specifically current usage.

While you mentioned my “education did not take” line, and didn’t like it, it seemed clear to me—then and now—from the words in your post that the problem you had was with my attempting to assist in said education by providing a definition from an etymological dictionary.

So, in your world, quoting an explicit phrase that is an attack on a poster and then following it with an explicit reference that your snide behavior was interfering with the discussion gets translated into my objecting to you “educating” (another bullshit personal attack) another poster.

You claim I have a bug up my ass about you, but the only problem I really have with you is that I get more reports on your borderline insults than just about any other poster. If you would stop making most of your posts into snide commentaries on other posters and including veiled insults in every single thread (and nearly every single post), then I could ignore you as I would prefer to do.

@magellan01

As far as my “personal comment” about you (“question” to the rest of the world). A simple “no” or more nuanced response was all that was needed. But just to be fair, let’s take that line in context.

The context is that you were attempting to change the topic from your bad behavior to my views of the Iraq war–couched in phrases with an excluded middle. I have been addressing only your behavior and not the war, genocide, or anything else in this exchange.

@magellan01

Now, will you stop the diversionary hijack? As you say, if you must, take it to the Pit.

There is no “diversionary hijack.” There is one Mod trying to keep you from disrupting this discussion without having to lace up the jack boots and start handing out red cards.

[XT]

@RedFury

I did no more than respond to what was asked of me. You, OTOH, apparently feel free to continue taking cheap-shots at Spain in ANY thread no matter how irrelevant they might be.

Did someone ask you to hijack the thread with a discussion on genocide? I must have missed it…what post number was it so I can go back and see.

As to ‘cheap-shots as Spain’, hey…I was just trying to give you an example close to home that you could use as a comparison of what REAL genocide was. I suppose I could have used the Nazi’s in Germany, but I think that as a percentage of the total population it would be hard to beat the Spanish in this regard. Perhaps the Cambodians finally managed to take away their brilliant record…not sure.

At any rate, why don’t you start a new thread on US genocide in Iraq if you are so hot to talk about the subject. I’m sure Der and a few others will be along shortly to happily lap it up.

-XT

[XT]

@tagos

When approaching a repeatedly poisoned well it’s probably a good idea to assume it’s poisoned. When listening to proven and incorrigible liars, assume you are being lied to.

YMMV…personally I think assuming you are being lied too (and thus disregarding everything) is as bad as always assuming they are telling the truth. Its shows the same lack of critical thinking.

@tagos

This isn’t a case for ‘open minds’ it’s a case for ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.’

Only if you assume or assert that the claims are extraordinary. I don’t make that assumption but try and critically look at the various viewpoints and data and make my own determinations…instead of assuming things or hand waving them away unless the proofs are ‘extraordinary’ (which is probably the equivalent of ‘its really impossible for YOU to prove it no matter what’).

@tagos

Humanitarian Crisis

Ok…why? Why is it happening? Is it a failure on the part of the US to bring water and food to the people? Whats the underlining cause? Whats your analysis of the reasons? Instead of just posting a link and a few paragraphs why not explain how this shows that the US’s current efforts are misguided or wrong by explaining why this continues to happen. Its not enough to show that it IS happening without explaining the causes.

@tagos

July was deadliest month

This was posted several pages ago. Again I ask…what does it mean? Ok, July was the deadliest month…and that means what? WHY was it the deadliest month? How does this relate to the surge…or does it relate? What does it mean in that context, if anything? Is it an indication that the insurgency is getting more violent, that the US is becoming more offensively oriented, that the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter is aligned with Mars? What?

-XT

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@xtisme

YMMV…personally I think assuming you are being lied too (and thus disregarding everything) is as bad as always assuming they are telling the truth. Its shows the same lack of critical thinking.

If I were a used car salesman, I’d love seeing you walk through my door. Critical thinking also involves an understanding of context and interpretation. Critical thinking is NOT saying “I’m just going to reserve any judgment until the man in charge tells me what is going on.”

Ok…why? Why is it happening? Is it a failure on the part of the US to bring water and food to the people? Whats the underlining cause? Whats your analysis of the reasons? Instead of just posting a link and a few paragraphs why not explain how this shows that the US’s current efforts are misguided or wrong by explaining why this continues to happen. Its not enough to show that it IS happening without explaining the causes.

This was posted several pages ago. Again I ask…what does it mean? Ok, July was the deadliest month…and that means what? WHY was it the deadliest month? How does this relate to the surge…or does it relate? What does it mean in that context, if anything? Is it an indication that the insurgency is getting more violent, that the US is becoming more offensively oriented, that the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter is aligned with Mars? What?

If you look at all markers of progress and demand a detailed explanation for why they are occurring, it would be easy to dupe you. Don’t you get a sense as to whether persisting death and destruction is a bad thing? Don’t you get any sense whatsoever as to whether it indicates things are going well or poorly?

It’s a bit like watching a football game in which your team is losing 72 to 0, and you can’t quite determine if things are going well or not because you don’t know if the problem is the blocking of the left tackle or the inability of the punter to nail the coffin corner.

I get the picture of you looking at a Seurat painting, scratching your head, and saying, “What the hell? This is just a bunch of dots!”

[Mosier]

@BrainGlutton

More Iraq optimism from the left.

That article is amazing, at it looks like it was mostly overlooked in this debate.

[elucidator]

@xtisme

One question…did you type this with a straight face? If so, did the thought ‘gods, the irony!’ cross your mind at any time while you were typing?..

What are you implying? This has all manner of possible interpretations, ranging from mild deprecation to out and out insult. Before we proceed further, can we have a bit of clarity? If you have a substantial criticism to make, bring it, and save the vague innuendo for another occassion.

[RedFury]

From tagos’ link, Humanitarian Crisis and the ensuing quote that is up there for all to see, what, exactly, would you, on the pro-war side, call this situation? And how the fuck does it rhyme with all the smoke that’s being put-out by this Administration and their “progress reports”? Never mind the two sycophants offered by the OP as a sign that this is “a war we might just win”?

Really, I fail to understand why, after over five years of continually deteriorating conditions, literally hundreds of thousands of deaths and horrible injuries, a comfirmed failed state there are those that still believe (or even give the benefit of the doubt) anything coming out of these proven purveyors of malfeasance that control your nation.

Rotting behind bars is where they all should be if there was any justice. Never mind impugning their “credibility.”

[RedFury]

Deleted triple-post. Would a mod be so kind as to delete the one above this one as well? Had a “timed-out” message both times.