Failures Of Will

by hilzoy

"I'm quite sure that one never makes fundamental mistakes about the thing one really wants to do. Fundamental mistakes arise out of lack of genuine interest. In my opinion, that is."

"I made a very big mistake once," said Harriet, "as I expect you know. I don't think that arose out of a lack of interest. It seemed at the time the most important thing in the world."

"And yet you made the mistake. Were you giving all your mind to it, do you think? Your mind? Were you really being as cautious and exacting about it as you would be about writing a passage of fine prose? (...) One always makes surface errors, of course. But a fundamental error is a sure sign of not caring."

-- Dorothy Sayers, Gaudy Night

I have always thought that this statement is both true and very important, though there are two exceptions to it. First, it is true of some things (like philosophy) that getting the fundamentals right is very difficult, and in those cases, I don't think it's true that if you really care about something, you won't make fundamental errors. You just won't make careless ones.

Second, and more interestingly, I think that there are some people who just don't see that really caring about something requires thinking about it very, very clearly. Admittedly, it's hard to see how someone could not see that unless there were a deep problem with his understanding of his relationship to the world; but there are people who have such problems. Imagine, for instance, someone who, as a child, got everything he wanted just by screaming, and who was either sufficiently incurious not to want things he couldn't get this way, or sufficiently impatient not to stick with the actual thinking long enough to get what he wanted. A person like that might just not see that when you really, really want to achieve something, you really need to think clearly about how to get it. In him, "wanting something" would involve not bending all his effort and his will to achieving it, but screaming more and more loudly at the world.

We could debate whether or not to say that such a person is capable of caring about anything; and that debate would be, in certain respects, like one I used to have with my co-workers when I used to work at the battered women's shelter, about whether or not many abusive husbands loved their wives. On the one hand, they certainly felt something towards them, and that feeling had something in common with love. They could be wildly romantic; they needed their wives desperately; they were terrified of losing them. On the other hand, however, there was the plain fact that no feeling that regularly results in a man's slamming his wife's head into the wall could possibly be love. We usually ended up concluding that they felt something that was the closest thing to love that they were capable of feeling; but that it wasn't close enough. I feel similarly about people whose version of "caring about things" does not involve at least trying to think clearly about them.

Otherwise, however, I think that it is absolutely true that if you really want something, you will not make fundamental or careless mistakes about it. And this is a test of how much people do want something: are they careless about the task of getting it, or do they work for it as carefully, as thoughtfully, and as hard as they possibly can?

With that as preface, I want to turn to Charles' claim that "success [in Iraq] ultimately depends on our will to prevail". I have always thought that transforming Iraq from a dictatorship into a functioning democracy would be incredibly difficult under the best of circumstances, and therefore that however much will and resources we brought to the table, we would also need an awful lot of luck. But I also think that we have had several tremendous failures of will. If we fail, these will be a very large part of the reason. If we succeed, it will be despite the fecklessness of those who "fear not defeat, nor dishonor, nor an Iraq under the terrorist heel" (to quote Josh Trevino.)

So herewith, a catalog of some of the failures of will that got us to this point.

First, if it's true that "a fundamental error is a sure sign of not caring", then I think we have to conclude that neither George W. Bush nor any of the advisors he listened seriously to really cared about winning in Iraq. Some of their errors, even egregious ones, are not necessarily fundamental in this sense. But if ever there was a fundamental mistake, the failure to plan for the occupation of Iraq has to count as one.

Remember this story?

"The small circle of senior civilians in the Defense Department who dominated planning for postwar Iraq failed to prepare for the setbacks that have erupted over the past two months.

The officials didn't develop any real postwar plans because they believed that Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops with open arms and Washington could install a favored Iraqi exile leader as the country's leader.

The Pentagon civilians ignored CIA and State Department experts who disputed them, resisted White House pressure to back off from their favored exile leader and when their scenario collapsed amid increasing violence and disorder, had no backup plan.

Today, American forces face instability in Iraq, where they are losing soldiers almost daily to escalating guerrilla attacks, the cost of occupation is exploding to almost $4 billion a month and withdrawal appears untold years away.

"There was no real planning for postwar Iraq," said a former senior U.S. official who left government recently."

Or this one?

"In March 2003, days before the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, American war planners and intelligence officials met at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina to review the Bush administration's plans to oust Saddam Hussein and implant democracy in Iraq.

Near the end of his presentation, an Army lieutenant colonel who was giving a briefing showed a slide describing the Pentagon's plans for rebuilding Iraq after the war, known in the planners' parlance as Phase 4-C. He was uncomfortable with his material - and for good reason.

The slide said: "To Be Provided."

A Knight Ridder review of the administration's Iraq policy and decisions has found that it invaded Iraq without a comprehensive plan in place to secure and rebuild the country. The administration also failed to provide some 100,000 additional U.S. troops that American military commanders originally wanted to help restore order and reconstruct a country shattered by war, a brutal dictatorship and economic sanctions."

Or, more recently, this?

"The US government had “no comprehensive policy or regulatory guidelines” in place for staffing the management of postwar Iraq, according to the top government watchdog overseeing the country’s reconstruction.

The lack of planning had plagued reconstruction since the US-led invasion, and been exacerbated by a “general lack of co-ordination” between US government agencies charged with the rebuilding of Iraq, said Stuart Bowen, the special inspector-general for Iraq reconstruction, in a report released on Sunday."

It's hard to think of a management principle more basic than: plan in advance, and plan for the possibility that things go wrong. Someone who tries to accomplish something and doesn't do that is almost incomprehensible, like an airplane designer who forgets to take account of gravity, or an accountant who overlooks the need to add up all those annoying little numbers. If you're trying to accomplish something more complicated than ordering a sandwich, this is just not something one would think it possible to forget.

If it's almost incomprehensible that anyone would ever fail to plan for a tiny little detail like the occupation of Iraq, it's completely and totally incomprehensible if we assume that the people responsible for this little oversight actually cared about transforming Iraq into a functioning democracy. I'm sure that in some sense they wanted to so transform it. Possibly they just assumed that if we invaded, the rest would somehow take care of itself, and so didn't see any need to plan further. But that is not the kind of mistake you make when something really matters to you.

When something really matters to you, you go over and over your thinking, trying to figure out what you might have missed, whether there's anything you overlooked, and what you can do about it. If anyone had bothered to ask those questions seriously, the obvious lack of a plan for the occupation would have leapt out at them. And anyone who really cared about succeeding in Iraq would have stopped everything as soon as he or she discovered that lack. Because transforming Iraq into a democracy is a difficult enough task with careful planning, and anyone who cared about success would never have undertaken it without a serious, well-thought-out plan.

In Bush's case, I think the problem is twofold. First, he is a grown-up version of the child I described above, who gets everything he wants by throwing tantrums. (That's why I described that case at length.) I think that he genuinely does not see that really caring about something entails thinking seriously about it. (Surely the fact that he never had to pay the price for his many failures, and also the fact that he spent most of his adult life drunk, cannot have helped here.) Moreover, I don't think that he does really care about Iraq per se. That's certainly suggested by his conversations with his ex-ghostwriter:

"Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”"

And it's also clear from this amazing Time story:

"Bush has always said the presidency is about doing big things, and a friend who chatted with him one evening in July said he seemed to be craving a fresh mission even though the one he has pursued in Iraq is far from being on a steady footing. "He was looking for the next really important thing to do," the friend said. "You could hear him almost sorting it out to himself. He just sort of figured it would come.""

That's the story that provoked one of my favorite ever quotes from Ezra Klein: "One of the requirements for holding the modern American presidency should be the possession of a serious attention span. If you want to engage in the sort of global remodeling that Bush does, it needs to be near inhuman -- they should be able to synthesize Ritalin from your nail clippings." Exactly. But with Iraq in chaos and sliding towards civil war, Bush was not working as hard as he could to try to get it right. His attention had drifted elsewhere, and he was looking for the next big thing. No one who genuinely cared about getting it right in Iraq would do that.

As far as I can tell, Rumsfeld and Feith cared more about getting a chance to try out their theories of (respectively) military transformation and the remaking of the Middle East, as well as winning turf battles against the State Department. What Cheney cares about is a mystery to everyone, as best I can tell, but it surely wasn't actually succeeding in Iraq. Colin Powell seems to have cared, but no one listened to him: surely one of the more plaintive moments in the run-up to war was Powell trying to impress on Bush the fact that if he invaded Iraq, he would own it, not realizing that Bush had absolutely no idea of what it meant to accept any sort of responsibility at all, let alone a responsibility as weighty as that.

But none of the people who led us into war could possibly have really cared about succeeding in Iraq. If they had, they could not have made the mistakes they did. And so, led by these feckless and irresponsible people, who were not nearly afraid enough of "defeat, nor dishonor, nor an Iraq under the terrorist heel", we invaded Iraq. Their failure of will predictably led to the present catastrophe. I completely agree with Charles about the consequences of our defeat. I just think that it's not at all clear that defeat is avoidable. We have made too many mistakes, and while they could easily have been avoided had anyone cared enough to do it right, no one did. And they cannot be undone.

***

The second crucial failure of will belongs to those Americans who voted for George W. Bush in 2004. By that time, his administration's incompetence in Iraq was absolutely clear, as was the fact that he had no intention either of doing things differently or of holding accountable those of his subordinates who had gotten things so catastrophically wrong. Even admitting any mistake at all seemed to be beyond him, at a time when his mistakes were obvious to anyone. It was therefore completely predictable that a second Bush administration would continue to screw things up as badly as the first.

People who genuinely wanted our invasion of Iraq not to end in catastrophe, therefore, ought to have voted him out, especially since whatever his faults, Kerry plainly was a responsible person who was not in favor of cutting and running. Some of us did vote against Bush, and therefore against the prospect of continued disastrous mismanagement in Iraq.

But others did not. And, oddly, Iraq was one of the main reasons why. They allowed themselves to be swayed by all sorts of trivia. Where, they asked, was Kerry really on Christmas of whichever year it was? Did he really deserve all his medals? Had any aspect of his position on Iraq changed during the preceding two years, and did any such alterations mean that he was really a flip=flopper? And so on, and so forth.

Most crucially, they allowed themselves to be persuaded that tough language and an appearance of complete inflexibility was the same as genuine determination and resolve; and moreover that it was what was needed to win in Iraq. This is lunacy. No one, but no one, who was genuinely concerned with actually succeeding in Iraq would accept for a moment the view that tough talk and endless promises to "stay the course" were enough to win a war and transform a country, especially in the absence of the most basic competence and foresight. It's exactly like thinking that glibness, not financial competence, is what you need to look for in a money manager, or that all that glitters really is gold.

Anyone who voted Republican because of Iraq didn't bother to look past the hype and the spin and ask themselves, seriously: is there any reason -- any reason at all -- to think that George W. Bush is capable of leading us to success? The answer was clearly: no. He had had a chance to show us what he was capable of, and it was absolutely, unforgivably, obviously incompetent. And, as I said, there was no reason whatsoever to believe that he would improve.

Choosing "toughness" over toughness, and "resolve" over resolve, is a fundamental mistake. It is not the mistake that anyone who really cared about succeeding in Iraq would make.

***

I have never believed that the American people are unwilling to take casualties in war. I do think that they are unwilling to take casualties in a war they do not believe is justified, or that is being badly run. And who can blame them?

Suppose that George W. Bush had sent our troops into battle unarmed, because he thought that if you point your finger at someone and say "BANG!", the other person dies. The American people would rightly refuse to let their sons and daughters go off to fight, and support for the war would vanish. This would not show that the American people were weak, or lacked resolve, or failed to appreciate the disastrous consequences of losing in Iraq. It would show that people do not generally let Presidents throw their children's lives away when they are manifestly incompetent, as any President who thought that pointing your finger at the enemy and saying "BANG!" would kill him would have to be.

To my mind, our prosecution of the war in Iraq has been only slightly less incompetent than that. George W. Bush is not so childish that he thinks that you can kill people by pointing your finger at them and saying "BANG!" But he is childish enough to think that looking tough is a substitute for serious thought and careful planning; that striking an attitude is all you need to do to get what you want.

Given such leadership, of course the American people are developing second thoughts. Who wouldn't? But this is not because they lack "will", still less because they have, in Charles' words, "drunk the Daily Kos Kool Aid". It is, as Josh Trevino said, because "their support for the war varies in direct proportion to their perception that the American political leadership is willing to" win. George W. Bush has never been serious about winning. Neither have those advisors he listens to. They were not willing to take the most basic and elementary steps to ensure against catastrophe -- steps like having a plan. They were also unwilling to court any real political risks themselves, for instance by calling for a draft.

Josh Trevino writes that "we have seen what happens when America abandons its national commitments, and deserts the brave people who stood tall and believed its promises." This administration abandoned both America's ideals and her national commitments, and betrayed both the Iraqi people and our own troops, before those troops ever set foot in Iraq. That was the time for serious thought and serious planning, but they did not bother with either.

The party of Josh Trevino and Charles Bird has had complete control over the war in Iraq. Given the feckless and criminally irresponsible way this administration has conducted that war, as well as the complete irresponsibility of supporting Bush's reelection when his incompetence in Iraq was clear, I think it's a bit much for them to be lecturing the American people on their lack of resolve now. To my mind, it is exactly as though, having supported a President after it became clear that he thought that pointing your finger at people and saying "BANG!" would kill them, they tell us that if we are losing, the problem is that our unwillingness to send our troops off to fight under the command of that President just shows our "lack of resolve"; and that if we lose, our "weakness", not the President's incompetence or their inexplicable support of him, will be to blame. Someone in this story lacks the will to win, but it isn't us.

Moreover, while I don't think that most Americans are defeatists (and certainly Rep. Murtha is not), there is a genuine loser (def.: one who loses.) That loser is George W. Bush. He is losing the war in Iraq before our eyes, and he has been doing so all along. And why anyone who thinks, as Charles does, that "we as a country cannot allow defeat to happen" would support the person whose actions have brought us to the brink of defeat is a mystery that passes all understanding.

I still think it is possible that we might avoid complete disaster in Iraq. (I think that anything worthy of the term 'winning' has been a lost cause for quite a while.) By this I mean that there are some steps that someone might take that would prevent disaster. But I do not for one moment expect that George W. Bush will take those steps.

For this reason I have no view on the question whether we should withdraw from Iraq. I know what I would do if I were President, but I'm not. I do know that the outcome is likely to be disastrous whatever we do. We have made too many mistakes, and we cannot undo them, least of all by sheer "resolve". But I do know who I blame for this disaster. It is not the people who are coming to believe that withdrawal might be the best alternative that remains to us. It is the President who didn't bother to think before he acted; who thought that playing tough was enough. He had it in his power to wage a war people would support, but he didn't bother. His policies have done enormous damage to our national interests, to our army, to our reputation, and to our ideals. His conduct is, to me, criminally reckless, and absolutely unforgivable.

Comments

[Anderson]

Anybody else thinking of Christian Slater in Heathers, yowling about "will"?

No? Didn't think so.

People typically go on & on about "will" as an excuse for inadequate planning or resources. The French General Staff in 1914. Hitler in 1945.

[Gary Farber]

"My Buddhist Thai friend, lets call him Ood, (not as spritual a guy as you might imagine)"

Why on earth would I imagine anything about how spiritual a complete stranger is?

Do you have the delusion that random Buddhists are particularly more "spiritual" than random other people? (Or, rather, if you feel that this proposition is not a delusion, what led you to this belief, and can you cite some support for it?)

[st]

DaveC:
The Democrats won the 76 election by stopping support of SE Asia, and it was only the S Vietnamese, Cambodians and Hmong who paid the price.

Wow. This is just so wrong as to make my eyes swell up. Carter won because of Watergate and the Nixon pardon, not because he promised to cut off aid to South Vietnam. Nixon himself was the primary architect of our withdrawal from SEAsia. Your statement just makes no sense at all.

Now I can see the connection of this phrase to those who want to remove support to the fledgling Iraqi govt., and allow Al Qaeda In Iraq to take over. Not that they Want AQ in I to take over, but that is what would happen.

But do you see the connection between this phrase and the current situation inherent in the fact that the stab-in-the-back legend was completely false, and was used as a fallback position to retain the political viability of the vapid, militaristic jingoists that drove the Kaiser's Germany into war? You seem to interpret the legend as a useful illustration of the dire (if unintended) consequences of advocating against an ongoing war; in fact it is an illustration of the vile dishonesty of a political class that refused to accept the bloody consequences of their own foolhardy adventurism.

[Gary Farber]

"Not that they Want AQ in I to take over, but that is what would happen."

I'm surprised the Dark Side doesn't cloud your vision. Truly, you are powerful with the Force.

As must be al Qaeda. Tell me, since you're offering strategic analysis: what would you say -- no fair checking Google, just use the same knowledge that gives you a firm enough grasp of the situation to make this solid prediction -- approximately what is the percetange of support in Baghad province for AQ, what is it for SCIRI, what for Dawa, what for Badr Brigades, what for the government, what for what other significant players? How about Anbar Province? Babil? An-Najaf?

Can you even name six provinces?

What's the basis of your strategic prediction? Do you have some study to point to? What do you point to as the source of your analysis?

"Well yes, the US miltary was by and large out of Vietnam and the Congress cut off funding to the S Vietnamese govt. And it was a mainly Democrat congressional decision, not Gerald Ford's, as best as I can remember."

I take it you are claiming that, gosh, the Vietnam war was won, by South Vietnam, and if only our darn traitorous Congressional Democrats hadn't cut off further aid, everything would have been fine? Is that it? So, tell us, how did that work, exactly? What were the precise actions that should have been instead taken that would have saved the day? Obviously you must know. I'm sure that it could only be helpful if the rest of us were made aware of how we could have saved Vietnam if only we cared enough. Incidentally, how is it that the rest of Asia didn't become communist, since the entire reason we fought in Vietnam was that there can be no end but victory, and a loss in Vietnam would lead to disaster for the United States in world affairs? How is it we're not all starving in Chinese slave camps, just as we are apparently in danger of living with AQ ruling the U.S.?

[DaveC]

Do you have the delusion that random Buddhists are particularly more "spiritual" than random other people? (Or, rather, if you feel that this proposition is not a delusion, what led you to this belief, and can you cite some support for it?)

Yes, I had that delusion, and a good question is why. (maybe because of reading Hermann Hesse in high school.)

How about Anbar Province? Babil? An-Najaf?

Can you even name six provinces?

Hmm,there are a couple of solid Kurdish provinces up north, Kirkuk in one of them. Mosul is in a province in between solid Kurdish and Sunni. The 3 provinces expected to vote against were west and a little n of Baghdad. Tikrit and Fallujah are in province nearest Baghdad. I think Anbar is furthest west. There are like 7 or so majority Shiite provinces, generally to the s of Baghdad, and 1 or 2 east. Major towns there are Sammawah and Basra.

So you've proved me stupid w/o google or other references, I don't know Iraqi province names from P E Island!

[DaveC]

What do you point to as the source of your analysis?

If I was smart, I would use a mixture of Winds of Change, ITM, Zeyad, raed's various stuff, Yon, Belgravia Dispatch vs belmont catfight, Mudville Gazette, praktike, and maybe throw in a little Trying to Grok. But w/o using the internet I am short on specifics

[Jon H]

"Yes, I had that delusion, and a good question is why. (maybe because of reading Hermann Hesse in high school.)"

Probably because you've known a lot of self-professed Christians who are not particularly spiritual.

Familiarity breeds contempt. Lack of familiarity, on the other hand, helps one maintain illusions and stereotypes.

[Anarch]

Familiarity breeds contempt. Lack of familiarity, on the other hand, helps one maintain illusions and stereotypes.

Which, to be fair, can often be contemptuous in their own right.

[Tacitus]

....whatever his faults, Kerry plainly was a responsible person who was not in favor of cutting and running.

I would have felt a lot better about the stakes in fall '04 had I been living in the Hilzoyan Universe in which John Kerry was a responsible steward of foreign policy.

[hilzoy]

Tacitus: I'm sure we would all be better off in the alternate universe in which George W. Bush had anything whatsoever to do with your depiction of him before the election.

[Tacitus]

Oh my. Well. Shall we do dueling cites? You pick and choose from my "depiction[s] of [George W. Bush] before the election," and I pick and choose from, say, the entire public career of John Kerry? At your pleasure, miss.

Not that I want to embarrass you.

[hilzoy]

Tac: given that you and I have an unbroken record of not convincing each other of anything, and that I'm working, I think I'll pass: too much effort, no payoff that I can see.

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

I have to say, Tacitus, that there's something pretty sinister in the way you deployed the word 'miss' above. I look down on men who do stuff like that.

[Jackmormon]

Tacitus, I'd like very much to understand what specifically you thought Bush stood for in 2004 and what specifically you think now we should be doing in Iraq.

I know all the negative talking points from all sides, but these days, I'm begging to hear positive goals, positive positions from everyone. I'd like to understand better yours.

[ral]

Soft cushions at 20 paces!

[DaveC]

I'm begging to hear positive goals, positive positions from everyone.

Democratic elections in a united Iraq in 2009. Elections in Iran 2008 bring a more secular party to power. Establishment of autonomous region in Darfur.

and of course as you will likely point out, a pony.

[Anarch]

I have to say, Tacitus, that there's something pretty sinister in the way you deployed the word 'miss' above. I look down on men who do stuff like that.

Were she a different skin color, I could well hear the word "boy" being employed there.

[rilkefan]

[failed attempt at lightening the tone deleted - sticking with a Carpian silence]

[Jackmormon]

Good heavens, DaveC, is there anything we can really do militarily to ensure that the 2008 elections in Iran bring about the results we're hoping for?

I'm taking one example of your many, but this is the one I've been paying more attention to.

I would really love to see the pro-democracy, pro-transparency movements win out in Iran. Yet I am convinced that Iranians have to do it on their own steam, not under threat from outside.

If change happens there in the next few years, I will tend to see it as despite the US policy in the Mideast. The nuclear stance of Iran today, whatever the facts of its nuclear program may be, represents a belief on the part of Tehran that the US has been weakened and that power in the region will be left to the strong. Iranians, even those opposed to the current regime, even those exiled in the US, tend to be nationalistic. They would rather solve their problems in-house; they would rather their country be acknowleged internationally as an important civilization. These things take time and patience.

Do you really want populist revolutions across the Mideast? If so, are you willing to stand aside and let atrocities happen until all sides are exhausted? Oh, and while the wars are raging, are you willing to pay $5 per gallon, with the attendant rise on goods?

We need to be be careful and subtle going forwards. The region has been a incendiary since decolonization and the discovery of oil, and we are discovering how broad an impact such rapid and inequal wealth can have in an unprepared society. Democracy is nurtured through institutions and a spirit of public debate. We've got a long way to go before any true democracy is thinkable in the mideast.

[DaveC]

Remind me to preface any comments to hilzoy by saying "Now listen, missy".

Anarch: Hot or not?

just wondering.

[DaveC]

I didn't mean military action in Iran.

Elections in Iran 2008 bring a more secular party to power

is a decent goal, or perhaps a wish.

[liberal japonicus]

'miss' Are we already at the M's? It seemed like just yesterday, we were on 'chief' and I thought that 'champ' was just around the corner. Maybe the rush to open websites has caused a run on vocatives.

[Anarch]

Anarch: Hot or not?

Yes, you're a regular studmuffin, Dave.

[Dan]

Best discussion I have seen of this issue ever. In the hate liberal's thing I think the hate is merely a tactic to keep the unthinking masses in line. If they hate you how can they beleive in what you say.

Dan

[Tacitus]

I think I'll pass....

Color me shocked.

I have to say, Tacitus, that there's something pretty sinister in the way you deployed the word 'miss' above.

You don't have to say it; but having done so, I shrug, uncaring.

Tacitus, I'd like very much to understand what specifically you thought Bush stood for in 2004....

Very little, frankly. But I knew he'd stay in Iraq a great deal longer than John Kerry would. More than a year on, I feel vindicated in that assumption.

....what specifically you think now we should be doing in Iraq.

Unfortunately, what we're doing now is about what we should be doing: training up Iraqi forces, and engaging the guerrillas in a long, grinding insurgency that we'll win if we stay to do it. There's obviously a great deal I would have done differently, but moving forward, what's happening is now pretty much it.

[Gary Farber]

"Democratic elections in a united Iraq in 2009."

Do the results matter?

[Gary Farber]

Elections in Iran 2008 bring a more secular party to power

is a decent goal, or perhaps a wish.

Sure, I'll buy that for a quarter. But can you explain what President Bush has been doing to get us there? (Was it different than what President Kerry would have done, and if so, how?)

Can you explain what President Bush has accomplished in five years in office to make us safer in regard to Iran?

Can you explain what President Bush has accomplished in five years in office to make us safer in regard to North Korea?

(And, again, how would President Kerry's plans have differed?)

[Jesurgislac]

Tacitus: But I knew he'd stay in Iraq a great deal longer than John Kerry would. More than a year on, I feel vindicated in that assumption.

How could you possibly feel vindicated, laddie, when you have no idea how long Kerry woyld have stayed in Iraq? And your only metric in this matter is months in Iraq - not anything accomplished, just time spent?

Unfortunately, what we're doing now is about what we should be doing: training up Iraqi forces, and engaging the guerrillas in a long, grinding insurgency that we'll win if we stay to do it.

Define "win", laddie. As in: precisely what is the end-result that you think the US occupation might accomplish, and what makes you think that killing off more and more Iraqis, in quantities from Fallujahs to weddings to single carfuls will do it.

[Charles Bird]

Kerry offered one enormous contrast with Bush: Bush was manifestly incompetent, and Kerry was not.

Because Kerry lost, Hil, that is something we'll never know. Nevertheless, during the campaign he gave clear signals that he would withdraw troops premature withdrawal

Who made the mistakes, Charles? Where does the buck stop?

Where it should, Gary. Bush is ultimately accountable. I've never said or implied otherwise. I also wasn't aware that I was obligated to explicitly assign blame to Bush every single time I refer to the mistakes made by this administration.

I wonder, Charles: do you have any doubt about the possibility and probability of success in Iraq, or do you just feel it would be a bad idea to admit to any doubt?

I have serious doubts as to whether we'll achieve success in Iraq. I really don't know how it's going to turn out. I am much less doubtful that prematurely withdrawing troops will be a major setback to our country and our security. I also believe that talking down Iraq and applying the Immutable Laws of Gilliard are unhelpful and are impediments to victory. Criticism's fine, but so's balance.

[Jesurgislac]

Charles: Nevertheless, during the campaign he gave clear signals that he would withdraw troops premature withdrawal

Did he? My recollection from what Kerry actually said, as opposed to what Republicans were saying he'd said, was that he refused to be tied down to strategy on Iraq because the speed of change was considerable.

Bush is ultimately accountable. I've never said or implied otherwise.

As I recall, you declined to make him accountable for any of the mistakes made by his administration back when you had the chance: last November: that is, you supported him for a second term despite his track record in his first term.

[hilzoy]

Charles: "Bush was manifestly incompetent, and Kerry was not. -- Because Kerry lost, Hil, that is something we'll never know."

Actually, given the word 'manifestly', we do.

[rilkefan]

Jes: "laddie"

Do you think you can out-snide Tacitus, and would you want to?

By the way, I appreciate your calm participation here lo these many days.

[rilkefan]

"Actually, given the word 'manifestly', we do."

Presumably CB meant we won't know if Kerry would have been an even worse president.

Anyway, can't "manifestly" mean "obviously", and couldn't a conservative reasonably (if wrongly) think Kerry would obviously be bad? Just because I can't see how to come to that conclusion (unless one thinks he would have been dithery in a crisis) doesn't mean it's not possible.

[rilkefan]

Here's a guy with some will. He's spending 100 hours homeless in Canton.

[Jesurgislac]

Rilkefan: Do you think you can out-snide Tacitus

No.

and would you want to?

No.

:-) But it gives me mild pleasure to call Tacitus "laddie", and as he can't possibly object, I see no reason not to indulge.

[Gary Farber]

"I have serious doubts as to whether we'll achieve success in Iraq. I really don't know how it's going to turn out. I am much less doubtful that prematurely withdrawing troops will be a major setback to our country and our security."

Thanks for clarifying that; that's helpful to know.

I don't know if you noticed, but I said I disagreed with Murtha -- for now -- myself.

(However, I don't think it's crazy to debate the proposal, and in fact I think it's more than useful; let all the arguments be made, and the good sorted from the bad -- neither side has a monopoly, in my view, on either bad or good arguments -- and, of course, on What To Do In Iraq, there are considerably more than two sides.)

[rilkefan]

Just so you know, "laddie" doesn't have much of a penumbra of meaning in these American ears - it just sounds like a Scots version of "lad", which is a word I associate with A.E. Housman - so its utility may vary with nationality.

[DaveC]

bad ceyb0ard cann0t tyqe. bad ch11d wrecx 1aqt0q when 1 was at w0rx.

3 v0we1s n0t w0rx1ng
1etters t0 r1ght 0f y,h,n are bad.

1 destr0y 11bera1s w1th w0rds 1f ceyb0ard w0rx

habby thanxg1v1ng

[Jackmormon]

As far as I know, this isn't the kind of site that welcomes people who post under others' handles, no matter how transparent the facade.

[hilzoy]

Actually, Jackmormon, it seems to be from the same IP address.

[DaveC]

1t 1s rea11y DaveC, n0t a tr011 0r an exec1se, "r0ses 1n the b0w1" can attest.

[DaveC]

h0w can 1 f1x de11 1nsq1r0n 5000 at 10w c0st

[rilkefan]

Roses in the bowl would be me, I guess. However, since I've had a 101-degree fever today I am stone-cold sober, which makes it hard to follow the above.

[dr ngo]

Dear Rilkefan: I am indeed sorry for your fever, but a bit surprised that you do not (as I sometimes do) have that febrile disregard for doctor's orders that enables one to avoid stone-cold sobriety even when it's doubtless the best thing for you. I mean it's lousy to be sick, but lousier to be sick and sober. If not hot buttered rum (good for all seasonal disorders), I hope some of your "medications" give you the sleep you need and deserve.

PS: Lest it be unclear, I am a PhD, not the kind of "doctor" who actually helps people.

PPS: I take it that DaveC really did have his computer (keyboard) damaged by his kids (?) and is trying to comment as best he can on what's left of it, appealing to your nickname as proof of his bona fides. Of course, I could be wrong. I'm neither feverish nor intoxicated, but I am getting senile.

[liberal japonicus]

cut and paste with the mouse. Revel in the feeling of throwing our words back at us ;^)

[Gary Farber]

I'm sure DaveC can carve individual letters out of ASCII by hand if need be. He just needs the will to victory!

More seriously, you may find a perfectly good keyboard at a Salvation Army or thrift store or garage sale for $2; if not, you can find a perfectly decent one at any computer store for ~$10. You can pay more for fancyness, such as wireless or special layouts, but, really, a simple decent keyboard isn't too much; on the other hand, if you're deeply attached to a fancy keyboard, well, you'll just have to kill your children to keep them from getting near it. I'm afraid there's simply no other way.

Best of luck!

[Slartibartfast]

I've got quite a few old keyboards that I still can't bring myself to throw away. I've even got computers that I can't seem to rid myself of, as if anyone might ever again want a 133 MHz Pentium machine. Monitors? I've got a couple or three, all sitting in my attic.

[Gary Farber]

On withdrawals and redeployments.

[rilkefan]

dr. ngo, as a member of the burgeoning uninsured class, I don't disregard doctor's orders. However, I seem to have traded my fever for my voice. Guess it's not consumption, curse my luck.

[Jackmormon]

1t 1s rea11y DaveC, n0t a tr011 0r an exec1se

Huh. Sorry, DaveC, and I hope you didn't take offense. Good luck with the keyboard, and Rilkefan, with the cold.

[Debbie]

Absolutely Amazing!!!!!!!!!! I am not an Americanbut an Aussie, but you have put into words things I have been thinking for the past 12-18 months. (Prior to that I was just an anti-war Michael Moore supporter,oh so sad)

[Gary Farber]

"h0w can 1 f1x de11 1nsq1r0n 5000 at 10w c0st"

And in case it isn't clear: for the most part, keyboards are keyboards are keyboards. Any computer keyboard bought in recent years, absent exceptions we won't go into, is apt to be USB. That's "Universal Serial Bus."

"Universal" actually mostly means what it sounds like.

It's not as if, save for incredibly rare exceptions, keyboards have to match boxes, save, perhaps, in a fashion magazine.

But, with luck, I hope DaveC finds a fine keyboard under the Thanksgiving tree, with stuffing included.