# Rumsfeld's Iraq Options in Leaked Memo **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 2, 2006, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617 "2006-12-02T21:37:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/101 "2006-12-06T18:11:17Z")
[QUOTE=RedFury] BTW, what is it, this silver bullet of yours? Because the only thing I see both of you doing is defending the US presence in Iraq “because things could be a lot worse without them” as an article of faith – otherwise, where’s the beef in that statement? [/quote] It isn’t an article of faith. The arguments are as follows: 1. Wherever US troop presence has been reduced, violence has increased. This doesn’t prove causation, but it is a fairly strong inference. 2. We provide some security for the political process. People were able to vote at astonishingly high rates. And most analysts agree that there is still some hope, however small, for a political solution, but that it can only come when people can meet without getting blown up. 3. A trained military under the control of a democratically elected government is better than an untrained military. Marginal training is better than none. 4. As poorly as reconstruction efforts have gone, they haven’t been totally useless, especially in provinces with relatively less violence. All of these are marginal advantages. Agreed. And reasonable people can believe they are outweighed by the negative effects _of our current presence_. But it’s a debate worth having. Can you see how pointing out over and over again that the US should not have been there in the first place is irrelevant to the point of weighing the costs _to Iraqis_ of leaving vs. staying? Since one of the main points in this thread is to discuss what could be done differently, it hardly helps to reassert how badly the current strategy is going. No one is talking about magical silver bullets. We’re talking about what course means the fewest innocent lives lost. Since you cite the Baker report, do you agree with its findings, **RedFury**? ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/102 "2006-12-06T18:21:11Z")
Actually, I agree with Norman Solomon: [It’s Happening Again The media pushes to continue the war it helped launch](http://www.antiwar.com/solomon/?articleid=10112) As for the panel’s conclusion, if it can be abridged to “try diplomacy in and around Iraq (Iran, Syria) and then leave,” then yes, I do. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/103 "2006-12-06T18:27:26Z")
BTW, you’ve been given many an answer to your original query. That you don’t like them is a whole 'nother issue. But getting the hell out of Dodge, as most of us are advocating in this thread sure as heck counts as a “different approach.” As Solomon says in the linked article: > [@](#): > > And so it goes – with U.S. media obsessively focused on such concerns as “American military and political leverage,” “American fortunes,” and whether “the United States can gain new traction in Iraq.” > > **With that kind of worldview, no wonder so much news coverage is serving nationalism instead of journalism**. my bolding. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/104 "2006-12-06T20:10:01Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] It isn’t an article of faith. The arguments are as follows: 1. Wherever US troop presence has been reduced, violence has increased. This doesn’t prove causation, but it is a fairly strong inference. 2. We provide some security for the political process. People were able to vote at astonishingly high rates. And most analysts agree that there is still some hope, however small, for a political solution, but that it can only come when people can meet without getting blown up. 3. A trained military under the control of a democratically elected government is better than an untrained military. Marginal training is better than none. 4. As poorly as reconstruction efforts have gone, they haven’t been totally useless, especially in provinces with relatively less violence… [/quote] 1. All of our news sources are compromised by agenda. Which is why I will not “cite?” you on this, because there is no credible, disinterested bystanders to report. We can have very informative reports on conditions in the Republic of Greenzonia, outside of that, not so much. By the same token, there are many instances wherein an increase of troops has led to increased violence by design, as in the woeful excercise in bloody futility of Fallujah. 2. Thats as may be. But do you really believe that the insurgents were simply bursting to hamper the political process of election, but were restrained by our presense? Or might they be angling for a propaganda advantage by standing down for such excercises as these? Certainly the Shia militants had no reason to interfere with an election that could not help but strenghten their hand. 3. No, it isn’t. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that such a trained army could be the creature of an elected, hence legitimate, Shia theocracy. You may, if you wish, depend upon their gratitude. 4. Again, the unreliability of reporting makes this point dubious. Maybe yes, maybe no. But expensive beyond the wildest dreams of squandor. > [@](#): > > …All of these are marginal advantages. Agreed… “Marginal” is a good way to put it. Another would be not worth risking my sons life, nor yours. Being honorable men, we could not ask our neighbor to risk his. > [@](#): > > …And reasonable people can believe they are outweighed by the negative effects _of our current presence_. … Who knows? We conjecture the shape of objects in a fog bank. Is it a may pole? Is it a missile site? All we can determine is the cost, the bloody, bloody cost. > [@](#): > > …We’re talking about what course means the fewest innocent lives lost… I’m not. I’m talking about the lives of our best and brightest, squandered lavishly on a futile effort, while the perpetrators of this slithering clusterfuck of carnage insist on hanging on grimly, as an avalanche of ponies is due any month, any day, any minute, but never, ever here. Enough. Any wiggle room offered will be exploited. If we offer any concession to “conditions on the ground”, those conditions will be found to demand that we stay just a little longer, the next six months being crucial. These people have been lying to us for years, whatever makes you think they will stop? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/105 "2006-12-06T20:48:29Z")
[QUOTE=RedFury] As for the panel’s conclusion, if it can be abridged to “try diplomacy in and around Iraq (Iran, Syria) and then leave,” then yes, I do. [/QUOTE] No, it cannot be abridged that way. In fact, they state: > [@ISG](#): > > Because of the importance of Iraq, the potential for catastrophe, > and the role and commitments of the United States in initiating > events that have led to the current situation, we believe > it would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country > through a precipitate withdrawal of troops and support. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/106 "2006-12-06T21:02:04Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] 1. All of our news sources are compromised by agenda. Which is why I will not “cite?” you on this, because there is no credible, disinterested bystanders to report. We can have very informative reports on conditions in the Republic of Greenzonia, outside of that, not so much. By the same token, there are many instances wherein an increase of troops has led to increased violence by design, as in the woeful excercise in bloody futility of Fallujah. [/quote] I think the presumption has got to be with the news when the news is just quoting people on the ground AND it’s consistent with everything else we know. That when we invade Fallujah in order to kill people more people die should not contradict the wider conclusion that when we’re policing an area we prevent more deaths than we cause. > [@elucidator](#): > > 1. Thats as may be. But do you really believe that the insurgents were simply bursting to hamper the political process of election, but were restrained by our presense? Or might they be angling for a propaganda advantage by standing down for such excercises as these? Certainly the Shia militants had no reason to interfere with an election that could not help but strenghten their hand. I do think that without our protection, political reconciliation would be more difficult for security reasons. If only because the Sunnis might believe they might actually prevent elections through violence. > [@elucidator](#): > > 1. No, it isn’t. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that such a trained army could be the creature of an elected, hence legitimate, Shia theocracy. You may, if you wish, depend upon their gratitude. Good point. There are possibilities in which training would come back to bite us (it certainly has before). Do you find those possibilities more likely than the alternative? > [@elucidator](#): > > 1. Again, the unreliability of reporting makes this point dubious. Maybe yes, maybe no. But expensive beyond the wildest dreams of squandor. Here I think the evidence is fairly clear, at least as limited to the provinces that are somewhat more secure. I’ll look for something to cite. > [@elucidator](#): > > “Marginal” is a good way to put it. Another would be not worth risking my sons life, nor yours. Being honorable men, we could not ask our neighbor to risk his. If the analysis were whether or not to intervene based on these marginal advantages, I would agree. But I buy the “you break it, you buy it logic” when it comes to an all-volunteer military. That is a matter of ethics, I suppose. > [@elucidator](#): > > I’m talking about the lives of our best and brightest, squandered lavishly on a futile effort, while the perpetrators of this slithering clusterfuck of carnage insist on hanging on grimly, as an avalanche of ponies is due any month, any day, any minute, but never, ever here. > > Enough. Any wiggle room offered will be exploited. If we offer any concession to “conditions on the ground”, those conditions will be found to demand that we stay just a little longer, the next six months being crucial. These people have been lying to us for years, whatever makes you think they will stop? I don’t think they will stop; I think they are deeply and thoroughly corrupt. But I don’t think that answers the question of what we ought to do in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/107 "2006-12-06T21:25:42Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] No, it cannot be abridged that way. In fact, they state: [/QUOTE] Well, I suppose one can pick and choose, because they also said the following: [Iraq panel seeks more U.S. diplomacy, less combat](http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061206/ts_nm/iraq_dc_151) > [@](#): > > The United States should begin to withdraw forces from combat and launch a diplomatic push, including > Iran and > Syria, to prevent “a slide toward chaos” in > Iraq, an elite panel recommended on Wednesday. > > \ > > “The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating,” the group said in its much-awaited report. “No one can guarantee that any course of action in Iraq at this point will stop sectarian warfare, growing violence, or a slide toward chaos.” Which obviously agrees with my take. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/108 "2006-12-06T22:28:33Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] I think the presumption has got to be with the news when the news is just quoting people on the ground AND it’s consistent with everything else we know… [/quote] Consistency is not to be trusted for it own sake. If we were being lied to before, and are being lied to now in order to obscure a ghastly truth, then those lies would be entirely consistent. Only a day or two ago, The Leader assured us that we are winning in Iraq. He is being entirely consistent. And I’m not sure what you mean by “quoting people on the ground”. Who? Everyday citizens in far flung provinces? Or the maid who turns down your sheets in the Holiday Inn Greenzonia? The Shia fanatic who will advise you in complete candor that the Sunni are devilspawn heretic jackals? Who is being quoted, and what expertise do they offer? Military spokesmen, “lifers” well versed in the wisdom of treading lightly on the toes of your superiors? Who has the strict unvarnished truth to offer? > [@](#): > > …That when we invade Fallujah in order to kill people more people die should not contradict the wider conclusion that when we’re policing an area we prevent more deaths than we cause… But of course it contradicts that conclusion, in the most starkly direct manner: it piles up corpses. You may assert that those sacrifices are needful and useful, but absent any reliable proof, it is a leap of faith. As a man of doubt, I have no such comfort, nor any such burden, as faith. > [@](#): > > …I do think that without our protection, political reconciliation would be more difficult for security reasons. If only because the Sunnis might believe they might actually prevent elections through violence… If the Sunni cooperate with elections, they will lose. If they violently resist elections, they will lose. They are outnumbered and outgunned. I ask you: are we there to protect the Sunni from the Shia? If this were our firm and unwavering committment, could we do it? If we align ourselves with the Shia dominated “legitimate” government of Iraq, what would prevent them from using us to kill their political opponents? If they tell us that Ali bin Felafel is a Sunni terrorist, how will we know different? > [@](#): > > …Good point. There are possibilities in which training would come back to bite us (it certainly has before). Do you find those possibilities more likely than the alternative?.. Havent the foggiest. In such instances, I tend to rely on pessimism. I am seldom surprised. I am seldom wrong. Would that I were. > [@](#): > > …Here I think the evidence is fairly clear, at least as limited to the provinces that are somewhat more secure. I’ll look for something to cite… And again, who will tell you the unvarnished truth, free of agenda? I think a freshly painted schoolhouse is a lovely thing, to be sure, until someone’s brains are spattered across its walls. Then, not so much. > [@](#): > > …If the analysis were whether or not to intervene based on these marginal advantages, I would agree. But I buy the “you break it, you buy it logic” when it comes to an all-volunteer military. That is a matter of ethics, I suppose… Did anyone volunteer to be the last soldier to die for a blunder? Is that last soldier there now, about to be shipped there, or walking through the door of his high school study hall? > [@](#): > > …I don’t think they will stop; I think they are deeply and thoroughly corrupt. But I don’t think that answers the question of what we ought to do in Iraq. We ought not to trust them, for starters. We ought to assume that whatever our good intentions, they will warp and pervert them to their own ends. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2006, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/109 "2006-12-07T00:50:45Z")
[QUOTE=RedFury] Well, I suppose one can pick and choose, because they also said the following: [Iraq panel seeks more U.S. diplomacy, less combat](http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061206/ts_nm/iraq_dc_151) Which obviously agrees with my take. [/QUOTE] No, those points don’t agree with your take. And they are not inconsistent with their unequivocal rejection of your take. Understanding that there are no guarantees should be common to everyone’s position (I assume it’s part of yours). That troops should be withdrawn from combat and redeployed to training and force protection is one of many possible strategies for continuing to engage with Iraq instead of “[going] home. [And getting] on your knees and beg the world forgives you.” ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2006, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/110 "2006-12-07T01:01:39Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Consistency is not to be trusted for it own sake. If we were being lied to before, and are being lied to now in order to obscure a ghastly truth, then those lies would be entirely consistent. Only a day or two ago, The Leader assured us that we are winning in Iraq. He is being entirely consistent. And I’m not sure what you mean by “quoting people on the ground”. Who? Everyday citizens in far flung provinces? Or the maid who turns down your sheets in the Holiday Inn Greenzonia? The Shia fanatic who will advise you in complete candor that the Sunni are devilspawn heretic jackals? Who is being quoted, and what expertise do they offer? Military spokesmen, “lifers” well versed in the wisdom of treading lightly on the toes of your superiors? Who has the strict unvarnished truth to offer? [/quote] What kind of evidence would convince you of my claim, if statements from the media, military, shia, and sunni are inadequate? > [@elucidator](#): > > But of course it contradicts that conclusion, in the most starkly direct manner: it piles up corpses. You may assert that those sacrifices are needful and useful, but absent any reliable proof, it is a leap of faith. As a man of doubt, I have no such comfort, nor any such burden, as faith. No, I’m asserting that it doesn’t contradict the conclusion because the goal in the Fallujah operation was to go in and quickly, violently, and hamhandedly attack the insurgency. The military learned from that mistake. The MO of our operations now is different. > [@elucidator](#): > > If the Sunni cooperate with elections, they will lose. If they violently resist elections, they will lose. They are outnumbered and outgunned. > > I ask you: are we there to protect the Sunni from the Shia? If this were our firm and unwavering committment, could we do it? If we align ourselves with the Shia dominated “legitimate” government of Iraq, what would prevent them from using us to kill their political opponents? If they tell us that Ali bin Felafel is a Sunni terrorist, how will we know different? Therefore, what? Political reconciliation is impossible? > [@elucidator](#): > > And again, who will tell you the unvarnished truth, free of agenda? I think a freshly painted schoolhouse is a lovely thing, to be sure, until someone’s brains are spattered across its walls. Then, not so much. If you systematically reject all sources of secondary information, it shouldn’t surprise you that you reach whatever conclusion you wish. > [@elucidator](#): > > Did anyone volunteer to be the last soldier to die for a blunder? Is that last soldier there now, about to be shipped there, or walking through the door of his high school study hall? Am I to take it that you disagree with the ethical proposition that since we caused it we have to help deal with it, even if it costs us more than it benefits us? > [@elucidator](#): > > We ought not to trust them, for starters. We ought to assume that whatever our good intentions, they will warp and pervert them to their own ends. Ok. I don’t trust them. How does that relate to our question of what we ought to do in Iraq? Is it just that we know they’ll muck up any policy, so the only choice is to have no policy? What about 2008? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2006, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/111 "2006-12-07T01:56:11Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] What kind of evidence would convince you of my claim, if statements from the media, military, shia, and sunni are inadequate?.. [/quote] Well, for that matter, why do you not wholly accept mine own “statements from the media, military, shia, and sunni…” Surely you don’t mean to suggest that your propositions are founded in obvious fact, and mine are naught but “making it up.”? > [@](#): > > No, I’m asserting that it doesn’t… The military learned from that mistake. The MO of our operations now is different. Peachy. An object lesson. Pity about the cost. > [@](#): > > …Therefore, what? Political reconciliation is impossible?.. Don’t know. Doubt very much that anyone does. > [@](#): > > …If you systematically reject all sources of secondary information, it shouldn’t surprise you that you reach whatever conclusion you wish… That could be read to have rather snotty implications. An unfortunate result of hasty review, I have no doubt. Unless you wish to advance the notion that the reason we disagree is because you are smarter and better informed? Good luck with that. > [@](#): > > …Am I to take it that you disagree with the ethical proposition that since we caused it we have to help deal with it, even if it costs us more than it benefits us?.. Much the same, save that it slurs my character rather than my intelligence. I have stated often enough that I come to my conclusions reluctantly. You are free to take me at my word, or no. > [@](#): > > …Ok. I don’t trust them. How does that relate to our question of what we ought to do in Iraq? Is it just that we know they’ll muck up any policy, so the only choice is to have no policy? What about 2008? Only on that one point: that any policy that relies on trusting in GeeDubya is a chimera. A policy that leaves him any decision making room will be exploited to his own ends. Beyond that, the despondent sayeth not. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2006, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/112 "2006-12-07T02:41:24Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Well, for that matter, why do you not wholly accept mine own “statements from the media, military, shia, and sunni…” Surely you don’t mean to suggest that your propositions are founded in obvious fact, and mine are naught but “making it up.”? [/quote] Are there statements from these sources that suggest that when troops leave violence decreases? I’d like to see it. > [@elucidator](#): > > Peachy. An object lesson. Pity about the cost. It’s a tragedy, like the rest of the war. > [@elucidator](#): > > Don’t know. Doubt very much that anyone does. No kidding. No one knows. But you’re clearly arguing _something_. You think political reconciliation is so unlikely that there is no sense trying to protect the political process? > [@elucidator](#): > > That could be read to have rather snotty implications. An unfortunate result of hasty review, I have no doubt. Unless you wish to advance the notion that the reason we disagree is because you are smarter and better informed? Good luck with that. What does any of that have to do with what I said? Mine point was simply this: how can you call yourself informed when you reject all sources of information about Iraq? I assume that you don’t actually reject all sources of information. So which sources you you accept? > [@elucidator](#): > > Much the same, save that it slurs my character rather than my intelligence. I have stated often enough that I come to my conclusions reluctantly. You are free to take me at my word, or no. How is asking you that question slurring your character? 😕 It was an honest question to understand your position. > [@elucidator](#): > > Only on that one point: that any policy that relies on trusting in GeeDubya is a chimera. A policy that leaves him any decision making room will be exploited to his own ends. Beyond that, the despondent sayeth not. I think we can separate what we ought to be doing from what will happen. No doubt, our arguing on this message board has no effect. Concluding, for example, that some strategy involving continued engagement was best, but that Bush would mess it up is different from concluding that we _ought_ to disengage. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2006, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/113 "2006-12-07T02:50:38Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] No, those points don’t agree with your take. And they are not inconsistent with their unequivocal rejection of your take. [/QUOTE] I may not be a native English language speaker – and I am not – but we might as well be speaking in Marceian if you read those quotes as anything else but an undated “redeployment,” to use current parlance. Beyond eating crow w/regards to Iran and Syria of course. > [@](#): > > That troops should be withdrawn from combat and redeployed to training and force protection is one of many possible strategies for continuing to engage with Iraq instead of “[going] home. [And getting] on your knees and beg the world forgives you.” Hell’s bells, if they recommend talking to **Iran** , “getting on your knees and beg the world forgives you” should be the least of your problems. And, by the way, I do agree with them (the commission) that you should do just that. Clearly, the US as a nation, owes the world an apology – especially if they’d like to go back to their **former** standing as a respected world power. Moving on: [QUOTE=Parker] I think the presumption has got to be with the news when the news is just quoting people on the ground AND it’s consistent with everything else we know. [/quote] And I think you either have no idea of what you’re talking about or/and are way too naive/patriotic. From your own [commission’s report](http://www.antiwar.com/ISG.pdf) (warning,pdf) pages 94 and 95: > [@](#): > > …In addition, **there is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq.** The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases. A murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack. If we cannot determine the source of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the database. A roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn’t hurt U.S. personnel doesn’t count. For example, on one day in July 2006 there were 93 attacks or significant acts of violence reported. Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence. > > Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy > goals. Reality has a habit of biting you right in the face. Specially when you try to ignore it. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2006, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/114 "2006-12-07T03:06:13Z")
PS: Just another day in Iraq. [Wednesday: 11 GIs, 78 Iraqis Killed; 111 Iraqis Wounded](http://antiwar.com/updates/?articleid=10118) Thanks much, Mr Bush. No wonder we threw so many flowers into your glorious Imperialist march to Baghdad. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2006, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/115 "2006-12-07T03:21:47Z")
[QUOTE=RedFury] I may not be a native English language speaker – and I am not – but we might as well be speaking in Marceian if you read those quotes as anything else but an undated “redeployment,” to use current parlance. Beyond eating crow w/regards to Iran and Syria of course. [/quote] I don’t know how to explain it better to you, so we’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader. If you read the full ISG report it will help you understand. > [@redfury](#): > > And I think you either have no idea of what you’re talking about or/and are way too naive/patriotic. > > From your own [commission’s report](http://www.antiwar.com/ISG.pdf) (warning,pdf) pages 94 and 95: > Reality has a habit of biting you right in the face. Specially when you try to ignore it. What part of “when its consistent with everything else we know” don’t you understand? Again, you’re far to eager to stereotype me. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2006, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/116 "2006-12-07T03:41:20Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] What part of “when its consistent with everything else we know” don’t you understand? Again, you’re far to eager to stereotype me. [/QUOTE] What part of **“there is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq”** don’t you understand? That statement clearly estates that you’ve been lied to. Or as **'luc** might put it, “greenzoned.” Never mind. No need to answer. My work in this thread is done. You’re right. Let the readers decide. As they did in the last Congressional elections in their roles as voters. A day late and a dollar short surely, but enough for me to keep _some_ semblance of faith in Americans as a whole. Have a great life, all in red white and blue of course. ~Cheers. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2006, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/117 "2006-12-07T03:50:17Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] …No kidding. No one knows. But you’re clearly arguing _something_. You think political reconciliation is so unlikely that there is no sense trying to protect the political process?.. [/quote] What political process? Are there elections afoot? Any since purple finger day? What political processes are you eager to protect? The proceedings of the Mayor and City Council of Greenzone? > [@](#): > > …What does any of that have…So which sources you you accept?.. I’m suspicious of all sources, just as I say. When specific information is unreliable, you look toward the preponderance. I prefer the definitive, I seldom get it. > [@](#): > > …How is asking you that question slurring your character? 😕 It was an honest question to understand your position… The phrasing led me to believe that you were suggesting an ethical absence. Of course I believe our responsibility for this shitstorm places a special burden. But I further believe that our sacrifices are futile, even counterproductive. And that alters the equation, that is sacrificing our young for no other purpose but atonement. We broke it, we should fix it if we can, if not, just as you say in regard to Fallujah, “it’s a tragedy, like the rest of war.” ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2006, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617/118 "2006-12-10T21:25:51Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] But I further believe that our sacrifices are futile, even counterproductive. And that alters the equation, that is sacrificing our young for no other purpose but atonement. We broke it, we should fix it if we can, if not, just as you say in regard to Fallujah, “it’s a tragedy, like the rest of war.” [/QUOTE] [A young Marine dares think – and speak out! – like you:](http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15847.htm) > [@](#): > > I’m sick and tired of this patriotic, nationalistic and fascist crap. I stood through a memorial service today for a young Marine that was killed in Iraq back in April. During this memorial a number of people spoke about the guy and about his sacrifice for the country. How do you justify ‘sacrificing’ your life for a war which is not only illegal, but is being prosecuted to the extent where the only thing keeping us there is one man’s power, and his ego. A recent Marine Corps intelligence report that was leaked said that the war in the al-Anbar province is unwinnable. It said that there was nothing we could do to win the hearts and minds, or the military operations in that area. So I wonder, why are we still there? Democracy is not forced upon people at gunpoint. It’s the result of forward thinking individuals who take the initiative and risks to give their fellow countrymen a better way of life. > > \ > > Notice I never once used the word homeland in any of this. I have a secondary point I want to bring up now. Never once was the term homeland ever used to describe the country of America until Mr. Bush began the department of homeland security after the 9/11 attacks. Taking a 20th century history class will teach us that the most notable countries in the last century that referred to their country in this way were Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Hitler used the term fatherland to drum up support, nationalistic support, for his growing war machine. He used the nationalism he created in the minds of the Germans to justify the sacrifice of their livelihood to build the war machine to get back their power from the oppressive restrictions the English and French had put on them at Versailles. This is the same feeling that has been virulently infecting the American psyche in the last hundred years. This is the same feeling that consoles a mother after her son is killed in an attempt to prosecute an aggressor’s war 10,000 miles away. It’s also known as Patriotism these days, but I say, “No more.” No more nationalistic inanity, no more passing it off as patriotism. Patriotism is learning, and educating oneself to understand what their country really stands for. > > I heard a lot during the memorial service about how the dead Marine did so much good for others and how his helping others was like a little microcosm of America helping because we have the power to do so. Well if we have the power to help people why aren’t we helping in Darfur where hundreds of thousands of people have died in the last 10 years. Saddam was convicted and sentenced to death for killing 143 Shiites who conspired to assassinate him. (I know all you “patriotic” Americans would be calling for the heads of anyone who conspired to assassinate supreme leader Bush). And yet we spend upwards of 1 trillion dollars and nearing 3,000 lives to help these Iraqis when they don’t even want us there. Not to mention we don’t have the legal justification to be there. I guess we should wait around for the omnipotent W Bush to decide who we should use our superpowerdom to help next. It’s about time to throw him and the rest of the fascists out. Moreover it’s about time to start educating Americans about their past and history, and letting them know that imperialistic leaders are not what the founders of this great country wanted Thought you might enjoy reading that – more at source. He is indeed, one of “your best and your brightest” and as such, I wish him Godspeed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfelds-iraq-options-in-leaked-memo/382617.md?page=5)