The marines are doing a superb job and god bless them. As to why there is apparently a big chunk of Iraq that has been fortified by terrorists two years plus into this operation is another matter. As much good as has been done, particularly the elections, Petraeus's work with the Iraqis, and the good work the troops do when called upon at all times, it still doesnt take away the relative apathy this administration has shown in locking down the borders and turning on the lights. I really dont get it. This has been a mobile campaign on a tactical level, but strategically we seem to break the enemy in one strongold and then let him set up elsewhere. We should be chasing him throughout the country imo, giving him no rest. Wars (even low intensity wars) arent won by killing more of the enemy troops, they are won by pushing the enemy until he cant fight any more. Whether its Fallujah, Mosul, Haifa Street, or this area, allowing the enemy to play wackimole is a mistake. Even if we manage to kill a bunch more of them when they dig in to their new lairs. You dont kill an ant colony by smashing a nest, killing an arbitrary number of workers, and waiting till they build a new one, repeat. You do it by cutting off escape and killing the queen, then the rest die off. I dont doubt that we are winning, but I also dont doubt that every day the insurgents live to fight again we have not won. That wont happen until we can close the border and control the cities and countryside.

Thanks for the Ping.

I wish everyone in Matador the best, you're doing great things and we're praying for you.

Just to clarify, I'm in Aghanistan, that's where we lost the 2 marines on Sunday.

FP5

Any idea what are the plans with regard to the Sunni camps moving into Turkey, where military engagements have been taking place between Turkish and nationalist arab communities within Turkish borders?

Does Turkey let us come over their border to carry out these actions against the Iraqi terrorists?

It also occurs to me that these terrorists are fighting a holding action. They were expected not to fight, but to either run for the border or at least out of the paths of the advancing marines (which is why the blocking force was placed at the border, to catch them in the open). They didnt do this, the question is why? They theoretically could have known about the blocking force, but this seems unlikely and furthermore remaining in place simply invites encirclement. The other more likely explanation is that they are trying to cover someones escape. Zarqawi's, one would suppose. That is very encouraging if true. Zarqawi, the individual, at least, doesnt seem to be able to stay in one place for very long. Our intelligence on his movements seems quite good the last few months.

Gen. Conway said yesterday that there was a Zarqawi sighting in that region not long ago, but denied that was the impetus of the operation. I suppose the insurgents are holding tight for some logical strategic reason (which would be good) or some stupid reason that will leave us scratching our heads.

I'm very curious about what uniforms were found on some of the insurgents.

Mark,

I'm not sure we're playing whack-a-mole. Go back and read Wretchard's post "The River War" linked above, as well as his more recent stuff on Matador. I think he's right: Matador seems to be the natural progression of the campaign that started in the summer of 04 to roll up the insurgent strongholds and rat lines from the south all the way up the Euphrates to the Syrian border. It's not clear to me that the deployment of RCT-2 for Matador has left a security hole elsewhere.

That being said, I agree with you on your other point that the administration has shown a disappointing lack of a sense of urgency when it comes to shutting down the borders and securing Iraq. It would seem to me, and I'm just a layman on these matters, that using a larger force from the beginning could have accomplished all of this faster. That debate has gone on for a while. No doubt a larger force would come with a cost, and the administration has not wanted to pay it, perhaps understandably.

But what is frustrating to me is that the unwillingness to pay the short term cost has prolonged the insurgency and increased the long term security risk. Evan Kohlmann's post at the Counterterrorism Blog, linked by Wretchard, makes a strong case that even if the insurgency ultimately fails, there is a serious danger of exfiltrating jihadists taking experience from Iraq to other places in the region and around the world. The longer we are there, the greater the potential for the struggle to spill over Iraq's borders in a very bloody way.

Let's pray Operation Matador brings us much closer to finishing this thing.

Ruth, there is long and accepted precedent for hot pursuit across borders during combat. What other understandings might exist wrt Turkey I couldn't say.

>It's not clear to me that the deployment of
>RCT-2 for Matador has left a security hole
>elsewhere.

What Matador says is that Iraqis are taking more and more of the security role for themselves. This leave the American military more discressionary ground combat power to do operations like Matador.

In short, it means we are winning.

I just found this interesting post about the "wedding party" raid in Al Qaim last May. It's the best explanation yet. Read The Whole Thing.

"It's not clear to me that the deployment of RCT-2 for Matador has left a security hole elsewhere."

Perhaps not a hole, per se, but this operation seems to confirm that there are areas of Iraq we still simply dont have a presence in. While its possible that this is truly the last of the last hold out spots, it seems more likely that there are others around the countryside, and probably in some fair sized cities off the radar screen.

My point goes back to the operational level. Tactically we've had perfect success where the enemy has been good enough to sit still and dare us to come and crush him. Our enemy's stupidity has been our good fortune. But other than that it seems our units are essentially tied down geographically, basically to garrisons. While units can, and have been shifted to support various missions, on the whole its a major logistics and command headache and seems to be kept to a minimum. This plays into our enemies hands. If Baghdad is too hot, move to Samarra, if not Samarra then Ramadi, or else head for the sticks. The enemy should be fairly secure that if the US is coming, they are coming in force and to stay, and hence their command elements at least will have time to blow town. Now if there were roving patrols, air assault perhaps, surprise would be on our side. Casualties would probably go up with the reduction in fire power but the pressure on the enemy would be huge. This is in line with US military doctrine, but not practice. The marines do a fair job of it but they are too few. Somewhere along the line the Pentagon forgot their fancy helicopters were originally invented to ferry troops around, not light up T-72s.

Mark, I think you're missing the second dimension of success here.

When we wipe out the insurgents in one place, or at least dent them badly, we need to stay long enough for the area to stabilize and the local and national government to be able to assert lasting control. Otherwise it really IS just whack a mole.

The point about rolling up from Baghdad along the rivers and smuggling routes is a good one. It forces the insurgents to bunch together -- we're not WAITING for them to do that, we're FORCING them to do it.

Finally -- remember, there is an elected government in Iraq now and their desires must ultimately be heeded. Or shaped, which may take time.

Robin:

This is the second time today that I've read a reference to "hot pursuit." (In Sensing's blog it was "hot pursuit" into Syria) I'm familiar with the domestic right of police officers to pursue escaping criminals into other jurisdictions -- the rule nobody ever told Boss Hog. Is this the same general concept?

PD, its a long and hotly debated international version. See "Blackjack" Pershing's expedition into Mexico.

PD: yes, it's the same general idea. Not done lightly or on a pretext and usually requires the consent of the country into which you are pursuing.

In this case, there are some interesting legalities since Syria has officially said, from time to time, that it cannot prevent the movement of insurgents and materials into Iraq through its borders.

The US has to few soldiers to beat the Sunni's in Iraq. Besides if the US wins than it will be kicked out by the Shiite. Not exactly a winning hand to have.

Well, the aim isn't to beat all the Sunnis in Iraq. It's to facilitate the creation of a stable, prosperous and free country, in which the Sunnis are more than welcome to participate (albeit not on the terms they wielded power in the past).

Insofar as some Sunni Iraqis, along with Ba'athist holdouts and foreign jihadis, are willing to blow up innocent Iraqis to prevent that from happening, we will continue to deal with them.

And the outcome? We'll just have to see, won't we?

providing security 55.16% (877 votes)
dealing with unemployment 3.08% (49 votes)
getting the foreign troops out 4.97% (79 votes)
improving public services 1.26 (20 votes)
applying Shareat law 1.01% (16 votes)
writing the constitution 5.47 (87 votes)
providing more houses 1.51% (24 votes)
fighting terrorism 11.45% (182 votes)
fighting corruption 4.78% (76 votes)
Saddam's trial 10.06% (160 votes)
don't know 1.26% (20 votes)

Dave, not just the terrorists and insurgents. Crime is sky-high too, as is the kidnapping business. This might have something to do with Saddam emptying all the prisons just before the invasion

There is an operational connection between crime and the Iraqi insurgency, but to be fair, the average Iraqi's wants and fears around security are broader than just the terrorists. Many Iraqi provinces don't have much of an insurgency, after all.

But if you live in a place like Qaim and foreigner jihadi morons just won't stop buggin' ya... a lot of other things take second place until that's dealt with.

Robin, my "guess" the outcome will be a fundamentalist ruled Iraq. And with Jaafari as prime minister it is not really a guess. Can i say that i wished Saddam was still in power or is that something we all thing but will not say aloud

It's to facilitate the creation of a stable, prosperous and free country,

Is that short for a pro american country or is that peace with honor?

#20 Don't know if you ever seen 'allo 'allo but insurgents are mostly criminals. Atleast the sane ones. The insane ones are more the followers of extremist (semi) religions.

Robin,

It's to facilitate the creation of a stable, prosperous and free country.

Boy, you guys are sure quiet on the whole WMD thing now, huh?

Will you guys EVER come clean? Ever admit how F'ed up your analyses are? (when they are - sometimes you get it right) EVER? Or will it always be onward to the next dissimulation? If so, There is a certain British memo you might want to mention

Here's the text to that memo.

Here's Trent Telenko's sterling analysis on WMD.

Here's Joe pushing some other Telenko sterling analysis on who the insurgents REALLY are

Joe gets this one right, at least

here's Joe on the WMD Shell Game

Or maybe not...

And here is Armed Liberal, pontificating about the intelligence failure.

Except there is that little nugget from the british memo "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

You know, as traffic and comments decline around WOC, there's a reason.

You guys have no wish to be be truth-tellers. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

A truth-teller says "whoops, I messed up on that one. Bad me! Bad analysis on MY PART.

You guys just don't know how to do this.

You know, you can be neo-con, and still have some modicum of respect for the truth.

Try it sometime.

Not that you would care, but really, there is absolutely no reason for anyone interested in the truth to read here. I think Belgravian Dispatch is now about the last place to go for an honest conversative.

Actually, JC, you appear to be stuck in 2003. The rest of us are discussing the present.

Follow the links, JC, and you'll find Trent's statement that we're fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq looks pretty good. As for the note about a "Sarindar Plan" to evacuate the WMD, Duelfer recently noted that he couldn't rule that out.

Really, we still don't know, though AL's Why Are Missing WMDs Like Bad Software? may be what really happened. Stranger than fiction, as they say. Certainly something unexpected by the world's intel services - and even the Iraqi command, who apparently issued orders for the weapons' use during OIF. But nobody knows.

This happens in intelligence. It's always incomplete, often contradictory, and sometimes wrong. And you have to act anyway, on the basis of your evaluation of the situation and the threats. Which is a political decision.

The fantasy that intelligence is supposed to tell you what to do is just that - a fantsy.

Meanwhile, there's a real war on. It's 2005, not 2003. It's imperative that we win in Iraq, and now that the "democratic" aspect is on track, we can work toward the other goals and continue to prosecute the war to victory.

Yeah, some of us wingnuts actually have victory as our focus. Go figure.

Of course, a truth teller might note that ending Saddam's regime and bringing freedom to Iraq were oft-stated rationales pre-war. Missed that part in your comment.

And speaking of truth telling, our stats are publicly available... since the post-election drop that affected the entire blogosphere, they have risen steadily.

JC: A truth-teller says "whoops, I messed up on that one. Bad me! Bad analysis on MY PART."

What does this truth-teller say next, JC?

Does she wipe the runny mascara off her face, take another gulp of bourbon, and wail "SO EXCUSE ME FOR BEING ALIVE!"

If we're talking about the same person, I advise you to avoid getting involved in another emotionally abusive relationship. Besides the emotionally abusive relationship you already have with us, I mean.

RB: Appreciate your answer, yes, 'hot pursuit' may eventuate.
You say "Well, the aim isn't to beat all the Sunnis in Iraq. It's to facilitate the creation of a stable, prosperous and free country, in which the Sunnis are more than welcome to participate (albeit not on the terms they wielded power in the past).

Insofar as some Sunni Iraqis, along with Ba'athist holdouts and foreign jihadis, are willing to blow up innocent Iraqis to prevent that from happening, we will continue to deal with them.

And the outcome? We'll just have to see, won't we?"

JK: You say "Yeah, some of us wingnuts actually have victory as our focus. Go figure."

Are you in agreement that isn't apparent, or is this a divergence of views? Stable government seems more like what the US seems to be espousing right now, more acceptable to the public and a better way actually to extricate ourselves. IMHO

I don't see the contradiction of goals here, Ruth. We are aiming to win, and one important element in that is to help the Iraqis create a stable, representative and constitutionally-grounded government.

Where there may be a tension is at the tactical level. But there are often multiple objectives in tension with one another at the tactical. The multiple objectives in Iraq are challenging, but not insurmountable.

RE: #26... We're in agreement that isn't apparent. The goal as Robin described would result in victory.

"The allies crushed Saddam, then fought the insurgency, killed a lot of terrorists, and pushed them out of their strongholds. Once the Sunnis all got their Arabic copies of Gen. Custer's biography and decided that playing ball was better, the terrorists started to become a problem that the Iraqis could handle themselves. Training continued, the US began drawing down its forces there and moving into more of a support and border-protection role, and..."

That looks like victory to me by any reasonable definition.

Throw in stuff like famous anti-American Walid Jumblatt's statement re: Iraq was the event that changed many peoples' minds about what was possible in the region, not to mention Qadaffi's decision to play nice and rat out his WMD suppliers, and I'm a very happy guy.

Now, if some Sunni tribes, and/or foreign personnel (see the comments section for Winds of War today re: Saudi involvement) decide that they're unwilling to make any accomodation that doesn't have them ruling Iraq as before, then the choices get sharper but my goal is still victory (ditto the Sunnis & Kurds, who absolutely refuse to go back to that arangement). In that case, military operations of some kind by somebody will be required in order to break their will (which is a pretty good definition of what war is).

The Sunnis, as 20% of the Iraqi population who gave the other 80% lots of reasons to hate them, are not in a good position if it comes to a full-scale showdown. Some of them are now realizing this.

Hence Bill Roggio's description of the general thrust of allied efforts, as noted in the post above:

"We are seeing the evolution of progress in Iraq: persistent military operations to destroy the enemy and his capabilities; political wrangling between the Iraqi parties to create a unified and inclusive government; attempts to split the Sunnis from the insurgency; improved capabilities of the Iraqi security services; participation of the Iraqi people with fighting the insurgency and joining the military; and the direct engagements with al Qaeda in their self declared homelands."

Final note: Even under a victory scenario, Iraqis have lots to work out among themselves. 20+ years of rule by monsters like Saddam and sons leaves deep scars, and working through those scars will be part of the process for Iraq as a democracy.

It's sad to think of trauma recovery as a major benefit of democracy there, but it is. Iraqi human rights activist Kanan Makiya taked about this pre-invasion, and if you look at former Soviet-Bloc countries, you see the same kinds of issues among the population (in some of those countries, "political depression" is a recognized diagnosis that involves stuff way deeper than 'my candidate lost the last election').

This will probably make even a post-victory Iraq look more like Italian or Israeli politics (lots of maneverings, fragmentation, resignations, coalitions, brinkmanship, etc.) than anything you're used to in America. But if that's what it takes for Iraqis to work out their traumas together, so be it.

Hot pursuit: I think this might turn into the next big political debate.

Yesterday, in thinking about Matador, I remembered my old dog earred copy of We Were Soldiers Once...and Young. I re-read the last chapter on the strategic and political aftermath of the Ia Drang campaign. Moore and his immediate superiors at brigade and division were very worried about their inability to pursue defeated NVA regiments into Cambodia to finish them off. But neither Westmooreland nor McNamara adequately conveyed to LBJ the full implications that the denial of pursuit would have vis a vis the US's attritive tactics (at least that's Moore's take).

Our strategy in Iraq is a bit different (in that we actually have a functioning one), and Syria is not Cambodia (or Pakistan, as in the Soviet Afghanistan campaign). But still - will we need to go into Syria as the next step? Or can we control the border from the Iraqi side? This issue has been out there since 2003. But since we seem to be on the brink of pushing insurgent sanctuaries completely over the border, it's going to come to the forefront.

Something to ponder: the insurgents have, effectively, an unlimited strategic field of maneuver. The US does not.

JK, RB:

Okay, it just doesn't augur all that well that victory equates with another mess, does it?

Not that I ever thought it was a great idea to go in militarily anyway.

Owen:
Yep. But Syria doesn't show a very cooperative attitude does it? Turkey, maybe.

The "hot pursuit" issue has applicability in Afghanistan too with Taliban groups fleeing into Pakistan. Possibly even broader implications when we consider the number of problem areas in the world where states (a) do not have control over their peripheries or all branches of government and/or(b) are offering explicit or subtle support of militias hostile to neighboring states. And then there are pirates . . .

JC (#22):

Thanks for the links--I've been pondering some of the same questions you raise. Such as, How does what people said then (2002, early 2003) hold up now, with the benefit of hindsight?

You guys are sure quiet on the whole WMD thing now, huh? Will you guys EVER come clean? Ever admit how F'ed up your analyses are?... Or will it always be onward to the next dissimulation?... You guys have no wish to be be truth-tellers. None.

I checked the pieces you linked, and they just don't read the same way to you and to me.

A couple of thoughts.

Advocating a policy based on an honestly-held belief that turns out to be wrong is not identical to advocating a policy based on a premise that you know to be false. When it comes to what people thought and said at the time, many anti-war/anti-occupation partisans conflate the two.

For instance, here's a quote from the July 2002 leaked Rycroft memo you linked:

...CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

Were Blair's--and by extension, Bush's--advisors sincere but wrong in thinking that Saddam had significant chem/bio capabilities? Or were they lying? Logically, the one stance precludes the other. So far, the evidence (this memo, Kay, Duelfer, Duelfer appendix, Senate reports) points strongly in one direction. But the temptation to add, "and all those lying liars were lying, as well" seems too strong to resist.

As readers here are aware, Steven Den Beste wrote at length on the justification for the war throughout 2002 and early 2003. His commentaries weren't secret then, and are archived. Here's a shorter precis, published in the Wall St. Journal in July 2003. How does his reasoning hold up? Where his predictions were wide of the mark, does it mean he was a liar? Or, wrong in some respects, as most predictions are?

The same questions can be asked for many of the posts you linked.

Ruth, ever read any history re: what the end of World War 2 looked like? The U.S. Civil War? Etc. The end of a war leaves a large mess, but resolves an issue that could not be resolved any other way. If the better side wins, that resolution can still produce a net improvement despite the costs.

Iraq is unusual in that most of the mess that will be left after the war will stem from the environment that predated the war. Which says something profound about the moral culpability of its previous leadership.

Likewise, Afghanistan is still a mess by most standards - but it's a vastly better place than it was. The goal of victory was to dismantle al-Qaeda's training, mustering and command infrastructure there, and remove its hold on the country by removing the Taliban. Done.

Longer-term, the goal of victory must be met by keeping al-Qaeda from regaining what it lost there. Hence efforts to develop and improve Afghanistan in ways that will create a local Afghani government capable of ensuring this. That's the currently-chosen chosen path to the long-term victory conditions (note the distinctions I'm making here).

So Afghanistan is messy with the potential to improve, vs. more messy, locked into that state, and threatening. That's progress.

If there is armed intervention in Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur, or if there had been intervention to stop the genocide in Rwanda, is what's left a mess? A big one? Absolutely! (Bigger messes than Iraq, actually).

Should we therefore do nothing? Have done nothing?

In an era of failed states, the reality of genocide, and expanding access to destructive capabilities, this is going to be an ongoing theme.

Ruth,
That there are "messes" in the world is just a fact of the human condition. There's ALWAYS going to be a mess somewhere. Human nature being what it is, a mess would have to be invented if there really wasn't one. We are ornery creatures!

The jury is still out on Iraq mess. Look for continuing progress and setbacks. There may not be a final verdict on the wisdom of war for many decades.

Personally, it seems that many things have already improved there, especially increased freedom of speech and association. The only chance for Arabs (and Kurds and Turkomen and...) to ever improve their lot is to enage in debate and compromise. Outside of Iraq, this impulse remains mostly surpressed. Leaving the lid on this pressure cooker is a recipe for disaster for which 9-11 was but a prelude.

I STILL believe that the risk of invasion was worth it. The status quo was intolerable, which can be now upgraded to cautiously optimistic.

JK:

You well know I can't resist an opening to needle. You said "If the better side wins, that resolution can still produce a net improvement despite the costs." And that following a comment about the end of the Civil War? You do realize that the Union won, instituted Reconstruction then gave up and pulled out after enough of the insurrection then - and I wouldn't say for sure that it won a net improvement until the Civil Rights legislation that passed in the 60's (*1960's*).

lurker:
Hope so.

Sorry I can only be brief now. Admittedly, can't treat with these issues in bumpersticker messages.

JC:

As I believe AMac has already pointed out, you have seriously misread the British memo if you believe that it indicates that there were never any WMDs. I believe if you read the whole thing and not simply cherry pick ambiguous lines for sport, I think it becomes clear that (1) the US and UK were on different pages in terms of the justifications for war and (2) Iraq's WMD capability was believed to be insufficient to give rise to a self-defense justification of war.

I assume you complimented Belgravia Dispatch after reading this morning's recap on how much better off we are because of the Iraq War:

[Sadam] was a unique danger, a sadistic strategic blunderer perched in the middle of one of the most volatile regions in the world. To not have gone after him in a post 9/11 world, after he refused to bow to the will of extant U.N. resolutions, would have been to give the lie to the seriousness of America's intent in a new and dangerous era. In an era marked by the perils of the intersections between WMD, transnational terror groups, and rogue states--the burden was on Saddam to come clean, to cooperate, to turn a page. He and his regime remained obfuscatory, uncooperative, unrepentant. Inaction in the face of this would have been an abdication of the seriousness of purpose our national security needs demanded in a post 9/11 world.

Amac,

I believe there is a difference between an honest intelligent conservative, passionate to put forth his views, but always ready to correct - and a Sophist ideologue.

I actually like talking to the 1st type - your stated question Such as, How does what people said then (2002, early 2003) hold up now, with the benefit of hindsight?. That's an honest question. I can provide more links, from my admittedly limited perspective, at a later time, if you are interested.

But this should be a different space for this, as, no matter how intelligent, humorous, and knowledgeable Joe & Co. are (and they are), at this point, they aren't looking for - the good, the true, the beautiful - they are more like incredibly skilled lawyers, arguing their case. The priority is to advance their position, and win the argument, not to advance truth. Again, Sophistry, not Truth. This is seen by Joe's comment, where he doesn't even touch the contents of the memo.

Here's an example - Joe says the stats on Winds have been going up. I was looking at the comments, and these have been going down, and so I assumed the traffic was following the comments.

If I was wrong, bad on me. I'll do better next time.

Joe, you might try this, yes?

(And yes, I am sure many commenters will heap internet scorn on me for saying that site is intended for a sophist purpose, but that's fine. )

Amac, Do you have a site yourself?

And PD Shaw, here's a link to a compendium of information about the multitude of hypocrisies in the pro-war position, which so frustrates me.

JC,
If you really want to tear into the justifications of the war again, perhaps Joe might consider giving you a a guest post to address the issue. Though I think it's at least a year and a half too early to issue a report card, I'm not opposed to find out how I've been a hypocrite.

Here's fair warning though; I don't think that I am. I supported the war with or without WMD. So far, I'm optimistic about the results. So there's no reason for me to apologize about anything. So, why are you expecting a mea culpa when things are playing out about as well as can be expected?

I arrived at my opinions independently of any thing Bush or the administration said. Get this, Bush is an instrument of my preferred foreign policy vis-a-vis Iraq. He is my dupe more them I am his!

JC, I see no evidence at all that there is any interest in "truth" among those who are still beating the "but there are no WMD" drum.

Especially since so much misrepresentation about President Bush's actual statements has occurred by that drumming crowd. And because of the brazen attempt to conflate error with fraud.

The excessive focus on continuing the WMD debate for year after year reflects far more sophistry in and of itself.

This is 2005.

Robin,

Yes it is 2005 - and simply pulling out tomorrow and leaving Iraq as it is now, would be horrendously irresponsible. I'm not arguing that.

But the memo in question is news NOW. A new revelation now, and important from a setting the record straight department.

Ruth, you write (#35):

"I wouldn't say for sure that it won a net improvement until the Civil Rights legislation that passed in the 60's"

And if I wanted to needle, I could simply reply "that's what happens when the Democratic Party becomes powerful." But that would be equally foolish.

I've just got to wonder what moral calculus you're using. You are saying that there was no difference between slavery and the conditions of the American south in, say, 1940. The American south in 1940 was a racist place, but I'm sorry, that's just ridiculous.

If you were a black woman, the difference between 1840 and 1940 is very, very real and you cheapen the reality of slavery with such comments.

We see the same dynamic in discussions about Afghanistan and Iraq these days, so it's worth calling attention to. Nazi apologist Pat Buchanan seems to have similar standards - which ought to disturb you.

Of course, if I'm not as good a sophist, or as knowledgable, perhaps I should just STFU.

That's always a possibility!

Is it better to occasionally point out hypocrisy (as I see it, of course), in a hostile place, or is better to simply swear off going to that place. Decisions, decisions...

No, JC, the memo actually wasn't news. It was a single memo whose contents are taken out of context in an attempt at [i]sophistry[/i]. It was nonsense hyped by those who wish to rehash 2003 and continue to misrepresent the very terms of that debate.

The memo in question is not news. It is, to my mind, not even worthy of comment. It describes normal political back and forth in any administration you care to name: Clinton, Bush, Blair, Thatcher, Johnson, Major, FDR, whatever. It's called "politics," and it's a non-story AFAIC.

Meanwhile, John Conyers isn't exactly a credible spokesman for anything, and this brouhaha isn't about setting any record straight. THAT characterization is dishonest - to the point of risible.

"The greatest patriots of this country are here today...The president said it'd be a cold day in Washington before this country turns against this war, but it is a cold day in Washington and here we are." (John Conyers, speaking at a rally organized by North-Korea supporting International ANSWER)

But then, he was quite happy to work with KGB front groups during the Cold War as well.

We've covered the War on Terror and developments in Iraq, including WMD, as we've gone. We've discussed the process of intelligence, and intelligence failure, in some depth here. WMD coverage has gone quieter because we have a puzzle that isn't fully solved yet, and nothing of substance is emerging. A.L. has his speculations, and we've linked to the text of major reports as we go. Alert me if anything important or enlightening appears.

I'll add that WMDs concerned me, as they ought to, but my support for the war wasn't contingent on them. So the issue interesting to me only because of the threat picture it represents. If we could know this little about the real state of the Iraqi program, what threats are we missing elsewhere?

Note, too, the difference in focus here. You want a club to beat President Bush. I want to know what else we might be missing and how we might become safer.

That little 4th item in our motto: "Victory."

We're going to keep covering the war and many other developments, from alternative energy to cultural trends, as best we know how. Some of our stuff will be off the mark. Some of it will make a real contribution to our readers' knowledge, and hold up well over time.

And note, again, the 4th item in our motto. "Victory."

There's a war, it matters, and we have a lot to talk about re: how to win it. If you want to argue why the war on Islamofascism is illegitimate or that we cannot prevail, well, you will find kind of a cool reception here. Within that very large space, there's lots of room for disagreement.

Personally, when there's a major military campaign and evolving strategy to cover in the north of Iraq, plus Iran's nuclear program, the rise of China, etc... a two-bit publicity stunt by collaborator Conyers and a manufactured brouhaha over memos that show the normal deliberations of politics in a democracy strike me as a diversion into political masturbation more than anything else.

Back to covering the war and the trends changing our world....

JK:
"I've just got to wonder what moral calculus you're using. You are saying that there was no difference between slavery and the conditions of the American south in, say, 1940." Gotta tell you, I was there and had black nannies. No. The difference was that there were hypocrosies that didn't exist in the slavery south. Black areas had no paved roads, no sidewalks. Syphilis was endemic. I had a black lady taking care of me and she wasn't allowed to use the bathroom in my house. She understood. I was unusual, I grew up sympathetic to the ladies taking care of me.

"moral calculus": denigrates real conditions that existed. That exist. The white southern republican coalition is the re birth of the confederacy. And I know it and so do the blacks who went through what I did.

Most of us find a bit of a difference between hypocrisy, or racism, and chattel slavery.

And you're free to believe any damnfool thing you wish, but the end of that comment is just nuts IMO and it really places this whole subject beyond any semblance of productive discussion with you. I'm really not interested in having many of my friends referred to in those terms. It is, to put it bluntly, a damnable lie that borders on inversion of the truth. But I'm not going to change your mind, and all you're going to do is offend me and derail this thread from the post's subject.

So let's agree to disagree, and I'm going to ask other posters to leave it at that and not respond. [Marshal cap on] I'll be forced to delete folks that do.

Speaking of productive discussion, how about we bring it back to Iraq...

JC, hi! :)
Here's my prediction-- we will find the WMDs. Belive me, they had 'em. Call it work experience, or woman's intuition, i don't care. ;)

Don't you just love the name Operation Matador? Names for military operations are chosen for information content. Black projects get their names randomly pulled from a computer generated list.
In this tauromaquia, who do you think is the toro?

Names for military operations are chosen for information content

And also for PR value. ;)

Yes yes yes, Joe. We know. Of course it's small news.

1. The war costs were hundreds of billions over the estimated budget for the war.
2. no WMD's are found (remember the we don't want a mushroom cloud quote?)
3. Neighboring countries were (and are) more "threat" to the U.S., based on actual capabilites - and here we agree that Iran fits.
4. Rumfeld and co. immediately used the tragedy of 9-11 as an opportunity to push to overthrow Iraq
5. The drumbeat of invading Iraq was used for political purposes in midterm elections
6. There are more terrorists now, than there were pre-invasion (Mubarak "create a thousand Bin Laden's" by invading Iraq proving prophetic)
7. The planning for a post-invasion phase was handled atrociously.
8. The amount of corruption regarding Iraq, and lost billions thereof, will never be accounted for.
9. "Liberty" is being lost, as Guantanamo and Iraq prisons turn into "kinder, gentler" gulags.
10. The various abuses that have been committed, and sanctioned, by the Bush adminstration, no one is held accountable for.
11. "Cueball" and associated "information" are purposely pushed as accurate, despite the multifold reservations of various intelligence analysts, and yes INTELLIGENCE WAS PURPOSELY MANIPULATED.

And yet, all this is water under the bridge. You will minimize all 11 points above. They don't matter because "there's a war on".

And you expect me to think you are an honest man?

You aren't. You simply aren't. As smart as you are, as funny as you are (and I laugh a lot at some of your intentionally humorous posts), as knowledgable as you are, in the end,

YOU ARE A SOPHIST.

See, here's me putting in honest words in your mouth.

"The whole Middle East is, and has been a stewpot, with the effect on people who live there, one of suffering, mistrust, and great potential for danger. We needed a way to get military forces that we can work with (whether US or other, preferably US), and shake that area up in some way, to get some type of change happening. Especially since, for what reason only God knows, that area is the lynchpin for energy needs to HAVE a civilization, at this point. As far as I can tell, the act of backing up with military force, a demand for breaking apart the totalistic and backwards culture that exists in the Mideast, this is starting to happen now, with Libya, the Iraq elections, demonstrations in Lebanon and Egypt. The "status quo" is out of favor.

So I fully, unreservedly supported the action to go into Iraq.

Did I knowingly and purposely exaggerate the threat of WMD? HELL YEAH!
Did I use all the verbal, intellectual and knowledge resources that I have to minimize people of conscience who thought differently, even though I knew what they were saying had some truth? YOU BET!!
Did I minimize any events that cause a setback (such as the 11 items you mentioned above?) ABSOLUTELY!!

Did I CROW with victory for any events that looked to corroborate the success of this venture? YOU GOT IT!!

Did I play fast and loose with the truth - sometimes - VICTORY REQUIRED NO LESS!!

I'm in a fight for the future of civilization - given that, all your little whinings about "honesty" mean F*CK-ALL!" I'm doing what I need to do to advance a view that saves civilization.

So deal with it. I'm not changing."

That's me putting words in your mouth.

And I can handle that, actually.

I think my confusion and frustration was thinking you cared as much about honesty as victory (as you call it), and not actually seeing you care about it. But this isn't where you are coming from.

At any rate, yes, this is in the past, for the most part. There is a war on now. Given the situation that exists in Iraq, the "what to do" in Iraq, I don't think we are too far apart on, at this point. We'll stay for a few more years, and cross our fingers that the situation remains this simmering civil war, doesn't explode, and gradually gets better.

For myself, I'd like some accountability for 1 though 11. That's not going to "go away" because it's 2005.

Hey Jinnderella,

How ya been?

I think you and AMAC keep me coming back to this place, at this point.

I think I need to analyze why I like coming here. I guess cause I like to argue? Glutton for punishment?

Ah well - punish away!

JC:
i been fine-- but now i am angry!
Grrr.
That's my blogfather you're talking about and them's fighting words.
Mind if i help myself to some of the low-hanging here?
3. Neighboring countries were (and are) more "threat" to the U.S., based on actual capabilites - and here we agree that Iran fits.

Since you did not have access to the data that informed the kepler-trigo threat assessment matrix that generated that decision, you should hush.

2. no WMD's are found
yet.

1. The war costs were hundreds of billions over the estimated budget for the war.

Hundreds of billions? Now who's exaggerating!
source please.

6. There are more terrorists now, than there were pre-invasion (Mubarak "create a thousand Bin Laden's" by invading Iraq proving prophetic)

In whose estimation? source please.

I should STFU?

Yes, I know, I know - glutton for punishment. Although I did point to an article where Joe says the same thing. Also, if you read the British memo, this also says the same thing.

4. Rumfeld and co. immediately used the tragedy of 9-11 as an opportunity to push to overthrow Iraq

Umm, no. The translation of Iraq is part of the Bush Doctrine.

5. The drumbeat of invading Iraq was used for political purposes in midterm elections

disagree here also. the topic of invading iraq was political honesty. A rara avis indeed.

I didn't say STFU.
I said, source or hush, JC. ;)

Well there's this on the cost of war

That's 200 billion.

I can find the Wolfowitz quote about how it wouldn't be more than 20 billion or so.

_ 6. in whose estimation? Source please._

Okay, here's a source

I can find the Wolfowitz quote about how it wouldn't be more than 20 billion or so.

Please do. ;)
Umm, isn't congress voting appropriations an estimate of the war's cost?

JC, i enjoy arguing with you, and sometimes we even agree, but please don't call Joe names, or you'll be run out of Dodge.

"5. The drumbeat of invading Iraq was used for political purposes in midterm elections

disagree here also. the topic of invading iraq was political honesty. A rara avis indeed"

Here's a quick article I found that discusses the issue, and questions the timing

Not a slam dunk though.

#59 huh? i thought #6 was about terrorists numbers?

Jinderalla,

Does calling someone a "sophist" count? I didn't think it went in the same category as calling someone a foul name, or a condescending name. I was actually attempting to be descriptive.

Would "argue like David Boies" (one of the best lawyers around) be better?

Sophist is hardly flattering. And you also said dishonest. Joe is one of the most honest people i've ever met.

You can have an opinion about the political use of policy-- i argue the other side tried to use Iraq policy as detriment.

Terrorist stats please? ;)

U.S. Figures Show Sharp Rise in Global Terrorism

And, if i can add-- calling Joe dishonest is like calling tender-hearted lewy a hatemonger-- hard to get more epi-polar than that, and look what happened to p.lucasiak. ;(

'Kay.
while i read JC's cite, can someone answer my toro question? i think......the toro is Zarqawi!

Perhaps it would be better to say, being open and frank is not Joe's number 1 priority.

Again, the lawyer analogy holds. A good lawyer doesn't VOLUNTEER information that makes his client look bad, and will minimize that information. He presents the best case.

Even if this lawyer knows things that can "damn" his client, or in this case, damn his cause, he keeps quiet.

Is this lawyer dishonest? What's your take?

#65 JC
The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year

Tch tch-- you said terrorists, not incidents.

C'mon. There are more poeple who have set bombs in April - I think the figure I saw was 150 - more terrorists who are willing to "blow themselves up" than there have ever been.

Who creates "terrorist incidents" if not terrorists?

Okay, I'm wrong on Wolfowitz saying $20 billion. It looks as if he said:

"If we costed each and every one, the costs would range from $10 billion to $100 billion." Mr. Wolfowitz's refusal to be pinned down on the costs of war and peace in Iraq infuriated some committee Democrats, who noted that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., the budget director, had briefed President Bush on just such estimates on Tuesday."

Link here

Also - just looked at your blog - off-topic - did you see Steamboy? Is it better or worse, in your opinion, than Full Metal Alchemist?

The Duelfer report discards the trailers in these pictures:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40777

as 'mobile hydrogen production for weather balloons.' If you ask Aaron Klein nicely you can probably get the full set of pictures in their full size.

Ask any chemical engineer for a cheap, fast, mobile, safe method of making hydrogen from a trailer, then compare the parts you end up with to the things you can see in the picture. Then wonder if the ISG managed to do that step.

David Boies one of the best lawyers around? A bizarre digression and a hilarious one.

You know he was just spanked by the Florida Supreme Court for ethics violations don't you, JC? The ethics of his firm in the SCO v. IBM case are unimpressive too.

Your attacks on Joe here are unimpressive JC, given the bizarre list above. All of your items have been dealt with here over and over again, and yet you falsely imply that this blog has been ignoring these issues. Now you pretend that the word sophist was an insult to you, when you were the one who began using the word.

JC, a true otaku should never compare disparate genres-- Steamboy and Miyazaki's Castle in the Sky are both steampunk genre. Alchemist is magical girl/guy genre. Den Beste-sama would be appalled. ;)

Steamboy is good, but can't touch Castle for pure steampunk quality-- Miyazaki rules. ;)

Back to Iraq!

"This will probably make even a post-victory Iraq look more like Italian or Israeli politics (lots of maneverings, fragmentation, resignations, coalitions, brinkmanship, etc.) than anything you're used to in America. But if that's what it takes for Iraqis to work out their traumas together, so be it."

This is a pretty silly comparison, frankly. Iraq will look more like Bulgaria or Romania if it goes well; Bosnia or 1980s Lebanon if it goes poorly. Iraq is an LDC that has a looooong way to go in terms of development to be fairly compared with Israel or Italy, or even Morocco. The Iraqi economy is dominated by the oil sector and will be for some time, whereas the other countries I mentioned have diverse economies.

Also, Walid Jumblatt's statement is no longer operative. He has already taken it back. The man is a warlord with blood on his hands, and a Lebanese politician to boot. He says what he says because it advances his interests. Now that he got what he wanted in terms of a Syrian withdrawal, he's saying lots of other things.

The best thing you can say about Jumblatt is that he is a Marxist. Even Raymond should agree on that

JC -- the legalistic, pre-9/11 approach to defense simply won't find acceptance in the American Public. Even with a bad economy and the Iraq War dragging down, John Kerry found his Global Test lacking. Democrats made much of during the election the fact that no appreciable quantities of WMDs had been found, thus "Bush Lied People Died" etc. Putin, Chirac, Schroeder, and other well known foreign opponents of the War were all privy to the same intelligence Bush had (in fact, they provided most of it) and believed Saddam had WMDs, but felt it did not justify any action (since it wasn't their skin).

After 9/11 Saddam was going to change his ways or get removed. We were NOT at peace with him, at best a shaky armed truce with fighter jets patrolling his hostile skies. That's reality after three thousand Americans were incinerated or crushed to death. The alternative would have been to simply give up, let Saddam have his way (and face down the US) simply provoking more jihad on our soil.

The problem was not "why do people hate us" which is the main focus of the Left (naive non-violence as a fetish and wanting to be "loved") but the simple lack of fear of US consequences from the Saudis, Pakistanis, Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, Egyptians, and others. Removing Saddam the baddest boy on the block shows the US can and will act when threatened. Providing tyrants a powerful incentive not to play footsie with bin Laden or other people like him. Thinking the US could "create" more "terrorists" by toppling Saddam is foolish. It buys into the myth of the Arab street or Arab rage etc. The alternative implied if we just went around the world begging forgiveness and submitting to Sharia law we could buy peace. I doubt you'd find anyone in the US outside of Berkeley or Ann Arbor who'd buy that one.

As far as Guantanamo and other "gulags" go ... what do you suggest we do with terrorists caught on the field of battle? Beg them to love us and let them go? Shoot them (my idea)? The Soviet Union, in the post-war aftermath in Germany, simply shot without question anyone carrying weapons. Terrorist actions caused whole villages or towns to be simply slaughtered. Brutal but effective. By comparison we are as gentle as can be. Some combatants we can't send home (to China) because they will be summarily executed.

Lastly, Curveball. Curveball was a GERMAN intelligence asset. We had limited access to him, subject to German groundrules. That we had so little info on Saddam's regime that we were reduced to relying on Curveball is the result of decades of neglect, by both parties, and speaks for itself. The CIA (which wishes to be a version of the State Dept) is profoundly broken and needs fixing. It's notable that we had no evidence in Saddam's inner circle that suggested there were no WMDs. We had the choice of relying on what Germany and other Western governments told us, or taking Saddam's word for it. Post 9/11 what would you have us do?

JC doesn't get run out of Dodge for insulting me, we don't run that kind of town here. His approach might not go over well, but ya pays yer money and takes yer chances.

I'll take JC up on the challenge, though, and put my own words in my mouth....

---

The whole Middle East is, and has been a stewpot, with the effect on people who live there one of suffering, mistrust, and great potential for danger. We needed a way to get military forces that we can work with (whether US or other, as long as they share our goals and can contribute), and shake that area up to get some type of change happening and dismantle the link between dictatorship, carefully fomesnted hatred, and terrorism. Stability there no longer makes sense as a policy. Especially since, for what reason only God knows, that area is the lynchpin for energy we all need to HAVE a civilization at this point in time.

As far as I can tell, breaking apart the totalistic and backwards culture that exists in the Mideast will require some application of military force. And after 9/11, we couldn't wait any more for our enemies to act at the time of their choosing. This realization drives your issue #4, by the way, and explains why I have no issue with it.

So I fully, unreservedly supported the decision to collapse the Taliban first (over, you'll recall, the protests of the Left and doomsaying of the media classes). I also fully, unreservedly, supported the action to go into Iraq. It was both the next feasible place (invading Iran from the sea, with no local land bases = not feasible, attacking Saudis at that point = idiocy; attacking anyone else leaves both Iran & Iraq as potential troublemakers = really dumb; not attacking anyone = not dealing with the problem, confirming stereotype of America as cowards in Muslim world, hence inviting further attacks) ...and fully justified for a host of reasons.

Having put the ball in motion, we can now see positive signs with Libya, the Iraq elections, demonstrations in Lebanon and Egypt. The "status quo" is no longer seen as their only future there, and local rulers can't use the threat of Saddam Hussein as an excuse or a lever to avoid making the necessary changes. I feel pretty good about that, and pretty vindicated vs. the paid stability lobbyists like Scowcroft, the isolationists like Buchanan, and the Left.

• Did I knowingly and purposely exaggerate the threat of WMD? HELL NO! The threat is serious, and "probably not" is not a good enough answer post-9/11. It's either "definitely not," or we're gonna create certainty the hard way. I still believe Saddam had weapons, and one day maybe we'll get the whole story. We sure aren't going to get it from tovarisch Conyers, though.

• Did I use all the verbal, intellectual and knowledge resources that I have to argue with people of conscience who thought differently? YOU BET!! I've come to some conclusions, and I'm going to show my readers why until someone changes my mind. Meanwhile - and unusually in the blogosphere - we've given our critics occasional Guest Blog patforms here at Winds. And of course the comments section is open for business as your presence here proves.

• Did I CROW with victory for any events that looked to corroborate the success of this venture? YOU GOT IT!! Hope matters. Success matters. And it's a story that deserves to be told. I think it's extremely odd to find this odd. I believe I'm working on the side of greater human freedom and hope for the future, and when stuff happens that looks like things are going that way it makes me happy and I'll share that. Doesn't it make you happy, JC? If not, why not?

• Did I play fast and loose with the truth - sometimes - NO. What you read here is my best judgment, and Marc's, and Dan's, and Robin's, and all our team members', based on what they see and the world around them. We just look at the world, and we don't share the same hierarchy of priorities as JC. Or the same evaluation of some situations.

El toro esta muerto?

Jinderella
"1. The war costs were hundreds of billions over the estimated budget for the war.

Hundreds of billions? Now who's exaggerating!
source please."

That's pretty easy to answer with 5 minutes of googling.
1. January 2003 White House Estimate of 50 to 60 billion White House Estimate

2.Today's newstory(Reuters) total Iraq war costs approach $250 billion (and note that the war is not quite over yet) 250 Billion

The difference between the estimate and the actual is about 2 hundred billion, as of today, and even the most unrealistically optimistic US government spokespeople (greeted with flowers, paid for by oil sales, etc.,etc.) are not expecting substantial reduction in US forces for the next year.
So despite conservative efforts to flush the inconvenient truth down the memory hole, administration estimates were indeed off by "hundreds of billions" (2 hundreds, so far, more to come).

Here is Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff estimating that the US may keep up to 145,000 troops in Iraq for up to 5 years 5 years

And here we have Experts:Iraq verges on civil war

Somehow, I do not expect to read quotes like "It's just political rhetoric to say we are not in a civil war. We've been in a civil war for a long time," said Pat Lang, the former top Middle East intelligence official at the Pentagon." in WOC's "Good News From Iraq" section anytime soon. As the civil war grinds on, I expect the market for feel-good pollyanna self-deception to grow thin indeed, but there will always be those who prefer life inside the echo chamber.

Somehow, I do not expect to read quotes like "It's just political rhetoric to say we are not in a civil war. We've been in a civil war for a long time," said Pat Lang, the former top Middle East intelligence official at the Pentagon."

Perhaps its because Lang is a registered agent for an arab country. Next headline. King of Jordan announces that democracy won't work in the Middle East.

Amac,

Back to your original point about the memo - it seems to me in regards to "WMD" that yes, intelligence sources in Britan, USA thought that some access to WMD - similar to what was used on the Kurds. But not enough to trigger an invasion, or enough to be a threat to the United States, to the point where Rice has that infamous misleading comment "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud".

However, I'll let the memo speak for itself

It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran

Best,

JC

There is no question that US military action in Iraq has a positive impact on the whole political equation of the middle east.

Hopefully it will smash the culture of "victimhood" and "defeat" and "xenophobia" so carefully inculcated by the local ruling class on their often illiterate and undereducated subjects.

This is a direct blow to Islam, and that is why Islam in order to survive is sending so many suiciders.

TV,

Democracy and civil society is worth a trillion dollars to the Iraqis, and a free middle east is worth even more to the US and western civilization.

$250 billion is rather cheap, and a good investment.

Take Iran for example. After 27 years of Islamic dictatorship and missing a civil society where it could have raised its living standard to $10,000 per capita, the total loss is

27 × 8,000 × 60 million = 1.3 trillion dollars.

Then add to that the human and political costs (1 million lives, open society, etc.)

PD Shaw,

You are shooting the messenger - from the article that Tom cites, please also tell us why

- Noah Feldman, a New York University law professor who worked for the U.S. coalition in Iraq.
-Judith Kipper of the Council on Foreign Relations
-Phebe Marr, a leading U.S. Iraq expert reached in the protected Green Zone in Baghdad

the above people's views should also be discounted - keep in mind that these people have been, or are, in Iraq.

This is a well-sourced article - multiple statements on the record, multiple viewpoints. Your blase dismissal in inappropriate.

Let's hope
El toro es muerto.
(The bull is dead (permanently).)

Instead of
El toro esta muerto.
(The bull is dead (for the nonce).)

JC,

Thanks for confirming that you're more interesting in opposing the decision to go to war than you are in what's, you know, actually going on in the war and what the way forward to success looks like.

"Not in your name." I get it. And it isn't.

The bull is dead

Ah, I thought Jin was posting that Totoro was dead. This is good news.

Noah Feldman, a New York University law professor who worked for the U.S. coalition in Iraq.

And worked for Al Gore in the Florida recount. Those are the only "two experts" prophesizing an imminent civil war. And yes, if the article is not a "news" piece, but a declaration of what the "experts" believe, then it is fair to question whether the experts truly reflect a diverse body of opinion.

Joe.

Hark to Sec. Dr. Rice commentary vis. the @nd Amendment.

Her father and others standing out with their guns to protect themselves from the dixicrat thugs of the night.

Her faher and those protecting their families was clearly no slaves, but a freemen with their guns using them for what they are intended.

Black people still have their guns where the democraps dont rule, and the monsters of the night are gone, where the democraps dont rule.

Where the democraps still rule, there are still monsters in the night with guns while the innocent have been made helpless in violation of their right, but they are no longer a different skin color.... something that will be cured as soon as the democraps no longer rule. because we will return their rights back to them.

Its good to see all the good news from Iraq, but I dont take delight from the fact that the left see such success as bad news.

But it does Teach you about the left, the way Ruth teaches us about herself with her twisted visions.

Must really suck to be them.

Joe,

Please don't misrepresent my views - these are two different topics.

I have already stated - much earlier upthread - that to leave would be horribly irresponsible, and I don't advocate this.

by responding to PD Shaw, I'm responding to one particular point he is making.

It's very important, in any effort regarding war, that there be a frank and honest assessment of what is happening on the ground.

This article is giving that assessment, and is well-sourced. So PD Shaw's dismissal, it seems to me, is attempting to obfucscate the facts on the ground.

Or, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, or you are misunderstanding me. I'm not quite sure what:
Thanks for confirming that you're more interesting in opposing the decision to go to war than you are in what's, you know, actually going on in the war and what the way forward to success looks like.

is about.

The best thing you can say about Jumblatt is that he is a Marxist. Even Raymond should agree on that

In in his own way, a raving lunatic.

What he has said is notable because he is what he is, his commentary vis. Iraq.

You cant use it as a guide for what he really feels, nor do we refer to it as a convert to our cause, nor do we see him as some kind of usefull ally.

No, what he says is notable because he has his finger in the air, he is a usefull political weathervane, one of many indicators.

What he says is notable because he is all the things our opposition says he is. (as if we didnt know) the baffoons over at antiwar was the first jumping up to "educate" us.

Course, no suprize that you and your groupthink bubble dont get it, as that seems to be your condition eternal.

JC

You was wrong in 2003, your still wrong about 2003 in 2005.

the 60s bunch covorting with the KGB and other criminals agaist humanity was wrong in the 60s, and wear the shame of todays virdict about communism.

The left was born wrong and they will die wrong.

I don't think your views are being misrepresented by Joe, JC. I think you are yourself attempting to create a distinction without meaning - there being no other explanation for your attempt to continue debating a dead story.

PacRim Jim-- Oh, gracias! that is much better! ;)

PD, Totoro will never die! ;D

JC, if you think that article reflects "multiple viewpoints," then I'm not the one living in the echo chamber.

This article consists of a commentary on the news, the news of things like a wave of suicide bombings which are regularly reported in WOC, just not in the Good News Iraq section requested by Tom Volckhausen. Its not good news.

The commentary -- Experts: Iraq verges on civil war -- is misleading. It's really one expert says we've been in a civil war for a long time and one expert says we're on the verge of a civil war. Is that a diversity of viewpoints? Not in my book. There are no experts that believe that we're not in in the midst or verge of a civil war?

And yes, I do think it matters that the two experts have backgrounds that raise reasonable questions about their objectivity.

But worst of all is that their opinions are not substantiated in the piece. Its a fluff piece. Why does arab agent think Iraq's been in a civil war for a long time? Since when? How does he define civil war? Why would people who disagree with him be guilty of "political rhetoric"? The Gore volunteer doesn't agree with him. Who, by the way, doesn't explain why he things the violence now is worse than last year. There is better criticism on any number of blogs than this piece, and yes, I would not be so dismissive if it were longer analytical piece.

Stunning silence from this and other pro-war sites on the Downing street memo.

Not surpising. Contrition is not a common quality in the bellicose.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

[sarcasm]Thanks for reading the comments section, Ari. [/sarcasm off]

There you go being nice again, Joe. And of course, your comment policy prevents me from telling Ari what I really think of his spew and run tactic.

Ari, your post is simply dishonest.

To change the topic, I don't know if I've seen a reference here to the report that the UN has conducted a more detailed study of the consequences of the Iraq invasion than the bogus Lancet garbage. Surveying 21,000+ households ( the Lancet garbage used less than 1,000 in an inappropriate cluster methodology ) the UN study comes up with a figure of 24,000, with a 95 confidence interval of between 18,000 and 29,000.

Link to story here.

The study still has its amusing biases, such as comparing unemployment figures to the pre-Gulf War '80's.

Pro-War .... Pro-War .....

Thats about as accurate a tag as Pro-"Choice"

Like all other leftist tags,, perverted

Pro-Life ? yes, but the opposite isnt "choice"

Anti-War ? also honest Terminology, but those that support the war in Iraq know war is no game,

Interesting the choices of words they use., I think Orwell wrote a few words about that.

When Bush weeps with the families of the fallen, he dont invite the cameras, he isnt big on the photo op ....

The majority of the solgers fighting there support the mission there, but they are hardly lovers of killing and dieing in wars ...

Pro-War .... what a effin insult ....
I wonder if they actually think that way, or if they intend it as a smear ...

Orwells news speak always bothers me ... im probably not the only one ,, i bet thats why they use it.

Of course I didn't read the comment section...I'm asking why such a significant development has not been the focus of a main post.

Robin, you apparently don't understand the difference between "honest" and "dishonest". "Spew"? There is nothing dishonest about asking a reasonable if provocative question about a developmenet that might significantly undermine most pro-Iraq war arguments.

"Spew" is the kind of word used by those who are tired of having to defend their increasingly shaky positions...

Ari (#98, #102):

I'm have privileges here, and didn't even think to blog on the Rycroft memo you discuss. Why should I? It's interesting information on the maneuvering that went on Blair's government, but what are the key revelations that make this a must-discuss issue?

Note, BTW, now that you've had a chance to read the comments, that your bellicose, non-contrite, and stunning silence includes multiple links to the memo. In other words, readers who are so inclined can click and read. And come back and comment, or provide a link to their own blog, where they've written a post on the subject.

These options are open to you, y'know. But as far as that application for WoC Commisar of Blogpost Subject Assignments--the position hasn't even been advertised yet.

JC (#83):

Yes, the Rycroft memo shows the UK govt's uncertainty about the extent of Saddam's WMD capabilities.

I agree with you to the extent that there is a lot to discuss about poor judgement, errors, incompetence, and, yes, exaggeration and dishonesty.

I've been disappointed with many of the formal efforts on this score--interestingly, more so with the executive summaries than with the reports themselves, to the extent that I've read them, or followed Dan Darling's play-by-play.

We part company, perhaps, on the degree to which Bush/Blair have misbehaved, and on our exp