« So Long, Farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, Goodbye | Main | Dear God »

August 15, 2007

Comments

Are you sure the White House is writing it?

Maybe they privatized it and hired one of those Internet services that will write your college essays for you.

They must have quite a back catalog of rosy surge scenarios.

Is there to be one report? Or will Amb. Crocker produce his own seperate report?

But hilzoy, if you don't take each and every statement from the White House at face value, judging it on its own merits rather than in the context of years of mendacity and bad faith, then clearly you're nothing but an angry Bush-hating partisan who can't be taken seriously.

For shame, prejudging the report before it's even been issued. And you dare to call yourself open-minded, yadda yadda.

Since the purpose of the surge was to provide breathing space for political progress, Petraeus's report should not be taken seriously by itself, regardless of who writes it. Crocker's report is by far the more important one.

And since I see no evidence of progress (and lots of evidence of regress) in the political situation to date, the Crocker report should be heavily negative. Which is, of course, why the media seems determined to only mention the incipient Petraeus report and ignoring the Crocker one.

I don't believe a god d@mned word that comes out of the administration's mouth these days.

Is there some blogosphere rule that says any mention of Petraeus must be accompanied by the word "honorable"? I googled "petraeus honorable" and the formulation is used quite a lot, but it appears there is also some dissent.

More stuff about honor

The "White House"? If overseeing an overview of the situation in Iraq isn't Lute's job, what the hell does he do for a living?

General Petraeus is not an unbiased general. If you read Glenn Greenwald, you'll find that the "good" general, back in September 2004 wrote an op-ed praising how good things were going in Iraq, for starters.

The only reason he's the top general in Iraq right now is because ideologically he's in tune with the Bush administration and its allies. Remember Abizaid? Yeah, Abizaid did not think the Surge was a good idea. What did Bush do? Fired him. Yeah, gone. Toast. Bush does not listen to the generals. He fires them until he finds a general who will listen to him. General Petraeus is Bush's man. Even if the White House was not writing his script for him, I would still question every single word that came out of his mouth. He is not to be trusted in telling you the truth.

This makes me wonder if the strategy is to (i) claim we are fighting primarily against al Qaeda in Iraq; (ii) show alliance with sunnis against al Qaeda as progress; (iii) declare al Qaeda in Iraq defeated at some point; which (iv) allows us to leave in "victory."

OTOH, Atrios always seems to be right on this things: leaving is losing to Bush so there will be no leaving.

what Donald Johnson said.

maybe people are using "honorable" the way Anthony used it in Julius Ceasar...

Yet Petraeus says Iraq is improving
And Petraeus is an honorable man.

Did I say he was omniscient? No. Infallible? No. Someone I even tend to agree with? no. (On that last, I don't know nearly enough about his views in general to say.)

Just honorable.

Is there some blogosphere rule that says any mention of Petraeus must be accompanied by the word "honorable"?

"Honorable" in the Shakespearean sense-like Mark Anthony, we call Petraeus "honorable" to deflect criticism of us, and let our audience draw its own conclusions . . .

Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest,--
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honorable men,--
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.

And of course, Cleek posts the same thing, while I'm slowly typing . . .

Ugh, I'm a little curious how they'll manage to claim simultaneously that AQI is our main enemy in Iraq and that Iran is behind most of our problems in Iraq. But making sense has never been a requirement for Bushite propaganda to work, and all those brown people are the same anyway.

yada yada yada...
report-resmort...
petraeus-smortraeus...
we're not getting outta iraq during bush's term, so fergeddaboud it.

it's time to think forward not backward
the question is:
how will the next prez untangle from Iraq.

the answer: slowly,
with the kurds
in their partition
and the sunnis
in their faux partition
and the shiites
in the iranian partition
and some UN peace-keepers (often ducking for cover) trying to buffer the partition lines
with US troops reduced to about half the current level
and by 2012 to about a quarter of the current level.

th-th-th-that's about it, folks!! like it or not.

we call Petraeus "honorable" to deflect criticism of us, and let our audience draw its own conclusions . . .

i always thought Anthony was being sarcastic; every time he said the word, he'd accompany it with a little eye-roll or eyebrow-lift. (with two you get eye-roll?) "honorable? these guys killed Ceasar!"

still, i don't know much of anything about Petraeus - other than i'm apparently supposed to think he's some kind of paragon of no-nonsense military honor. maybe he is, but it seems odd that Bush would choose someone like that to lead his Surge.

Ugh: That's been my preferred strategy for a while now. We unserious war opponents need to get on the rah-rah train, trumpet the successes, and get busy standing down as the Iraqis stand up.

The only exit is through the door marked, in truth or in lies, "We Win." Let's let the leadership open it.

"War is too important to leave it to the generals" ("Tiger" Clemencau).

Application of quote by White House: One can't let the military judge the situation. They could come to conclusions at right angles to the preconceived policy/tics.
Same can be applied to science and about everything else.

KCinDC: I was thinking that they could claim that al Qaeda is killing our troops in Iraq along with Iran is suppying the weapons that are killing our troops in Iraq and let the large % of people who thought (and still think) Saddam was behind 9/11 come to their own conclusions.

From what I've read, even in the John Burns piece the other day in the NYT, Petraeus was well known for his "pulsating self-confidence" and (according to detractors in the military) his tendency to overrate his own accomplishments, which sounds like the kind of attitude that would appeal to Bush. Burns says Petraeus is trying to curb his optimistic tendencies, seeing himself as having dual loyalty now--to both Congress and the President.

It sounds to me like he's in Bush's corner, but will try to sound as reasonable as possible in front of Congress.

Well I’ll say that this is disappointing if true. There have been some encouraging signs lately, but WTF?

"('Tiger' Clemencau)."

Clemenceau.

OCSteve: "There have been some encouraging signs lately, but WTF?"

There's been movement on Iraq's government becoming in some way, any way, less sectarian, more accepted, and capable of actual governing?

I haven't seen it.

Any other "movement" is irrelevant, isn't it?

The report will say whatever zionists want it to say. After all, Only Israel benefits from these endless Middle East wars. Iraq is the beginning. As we commit war-crimes in Baghdad, the US gov't commits treason at home by opening mail, eliminating habeas corpus, using the judiciary to steal private lands, banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon and Wikipedia, conducting warrantless wiretaps and engaging in illegal wars on behalf of AIPAC's 'money-men'. Soon, another US false-flag operation will occur (sinking of an Aircraft Carrier by Mossad) and the US will invade Iran.. Then we'll invade Syria, then Saudi Arabia, then Lebanon (again) then ....

OCSteve, if you find this disappointing, your expectations still need lowering. Zero confidence is too much for these folks. I can imagine it's hard, but you've got to let go.

Then again, I can understand why you would want to keep your distance from people like Paul.

"The report will say whatever zionists want it to say. After all, Only Israel benefits from these endless Middle East wars."

Oh, this is helpful.

And arguably spam (though arguably not).

I agree that if the WH writes the report that it is not worth the paper it is printed on. But I see no reason to question Petraeus’s honor. Everything I have read about him indicates that he is a good officer. Yeah I’m biased, but so is anyone questioning his honor without any basis (that I can see).

Yes, it is a knee-jerk reaction on my part and I may well be wrong. Slam the WH and the administration, but I see no reason yet to slam Petraeus.

KCinDC: I can imagine it's hard, but you've got to let go.

Wasn’t that hard. I’ll admit I was one of the last rats to leave the sinking ship.

I guess we'll see, but Petraeus's honor seems to resemble Colin Powell's. Loyalty to his president outweighs loyalty to his country. I never understood that about Powell.

The report will be useful if you run out of toilet paper.

Can one be both honorable and also be groundlessly optomistic and self-promoting?

I suspect so, and if so, then ask this question -- what does Gen. Petraeus' honor has nothing to do with evaluating his remarks about the surge? Because he can be honorable and also provide bad opinions and advice about Iraq.

Given his track record in evaluating Iraq, as documented by Greenwald recently in great detail, Petraeus' report must be viewed with scepticism.

OCSteve: The reason to question Petraeus' honor is simple. He co-wrote a manual on counter-insurgency. He's understaken that mission in the field, and literally none of the major criteria in the manual are met in Iraq. But he talks as though his mission is basically obtainable. Either he didn't mean it in the manual or he's changed his mind since, but he's not acknowledging that. I call that dishonorable.

Sure it's routine enough in politics, but that doesn't make it desirable. Or honorable.

OCSteve, there is still about 27% of the country that is still on the ship.

Concerning Petraeus, I consider that he is probably, from a military sense, extremely honorable. But, like IMO much of the top brass, also very ambitious. It wouldn't surprise me that he remembers the adulation of the contry on Powell and franks at the end of Iraq I and would like some of that for himself.

It is extremely counterproductive for a military man to think, much less say, that the job handed to him can't be accomplished. I think Petraeus would like to be known as the man that turned around a situation that had been crafted by his predecessors, including Bush.

That being said, while not discounting any report from him or Crocker, even if it issues from the bowels of the WH and therefore is so much cr*p, it will be important to review it with other evidence on hand.

dmbeaster: Because he can be honorable and also provide bad opinions and advice about Iraq.

Certainly, but that just makes him wrong, not dishonorable.


Bruce: He's understaken that mission in the field, and literally none of the major criteria in the manual are met in Iraq.

Did he say in the COIN manual he co-wrote that it could be done in 7 months? Why would he be dishonorable to believe after this short time that it might still be obtainable?

I still don’t know which way to go on this. Just saying that being wrong, or having the WH override you does not make you dishonorable.

OCSteve, I'm wondering if perhaps you might have a comment on the question I asked you?

No obligation, of course, and obviously.

It's just that I keep asking this question, in one phrasing or another, of people who continue to retain an open mind that things in Iraq may yet "improve," and for getting on towards a year now, I've gotten dead silence as a response every single time now. After something on the order of thirty attempts in different venues (sometimes here).

But, like I said, no obligation. But I'd be thankful if you'd take a swing. (I'd be even more thankful if I could get more responses from other people who retain some hope.)

OT, by the way, but I'm surprised at how little attention this seems to have gotten in the blogosphere so far. I think it's huge news, as big as anything FISA related, but Greenwald, Balkin, Hilzoy, Yglesias, Drum, Klein, etc.,: all silent. Is it me, or is it them? :-)

"Did he say in the COIN manual he co-wrote that it could be done in 7 months?"

I believe Bruce is referring, when he writes "none of the major criteria in the manual," to these certain specifics in the manual, rather than to a question of length of time, which I don't observe that he brought up at all.

One such criterion, I suspect Bruce has in mind, is the number of soldiers involved (ratio to population); I think the semi-official response there is to assert that Iraqi soldiers will make up the necessary numbers. This seems dubious, but in any case, is unrelated to length of time necessary.

OCSteve: I'm in a condition where I don't really trust my own summarizing ability. Fortunately, I don't have to. The manual in question is online as a 13.6 Mb. I'm thinking particularly of the appendixes on necessary support functions - they seem to me most critically lacking. I don't see how someone can both regard them as important, as Petraeus did when co-writing the manual, and find the slightest ground for hope in Iraq, as he professes to now.

Then again, I could be missing the obvious. It's one of those days. I'm open to clues.

OC Steve:

I prefer to stay out of the "honorable" argument regarding Petraeus, as I think it is collateral. There are plenty of other reasons not to trust his statements about Iraq without factoring in his "honor." Nor will I give his remarks greater weight because someone convinces me he is an honorable guy -- I am going to stick with the evidence as well as his past record of puffery concerning progress in Iraq.

But to digress, I think a very strong case can be made about the lack of honor of such men as Petraeus. At his rank, a very large aspect of military service is unfortunately political, and honor implies fidelity to principle and duty over political expediency. Lower ranking officers are not faced with this challenge to honor -- generals by definition are, and can be measured by how they respond. Petraeus seems to fail miserably on this count, as he has shown a strong willingness to put political expediency ahead of candid truth about the situation in Iraq.

Another good measure of that is the fact that very little about what is happening in Iraq reflects application of COIN -- which I think is basically impossible to deploy when most of the country hates you (and I view anyone who denies that most Iraqis hate us as clueless). Bruce made a similar point above.

This harsh view of Petareus concludes that he has gladly donned the Kabuki costume to be part of the politically sick surge dance of the Bush administration. Hard to see someone with honor doing that.

"I prefer to stay out of the 'honorable' argument regarding Petraeus, as I think it is collateral."

Not to discount your reasoning, but you seem to have changed your mind on this as you wrote on: "Hard to see someone with honor doing that."

It's going to be difficult for Petraeus to paint rosy pictures, or even rose-bud pictures, considering what happened today in northern Iraq. That area was supposed to be stable and relatively safe.

having the WH override you does not make you dishonorable

If he allows his name on a report that he did not write, and indeed disagrees with, that's dishonorable.

Do you think that Powell's speech to the UN was dishonorable?

cleek: i always thought Anthony was being sarcastic; every time he said the word, he'd accompany it with a little eye-roll or eyebrow-lift. (with two you get eye-roll?) "honorable? these guys killed Ceasar!"

I think it would be bad for Antony to play the scene that way. He's starting off with an (onstage) audience that is predisposed to accept the literal truth of those words. So he appears to accept their frame initially, then he keeps layering on the contradictory factoids and emotional appeals until the cumulative cognitive dissonance blows their frame apart. By the end of the speech, he has them arguing him out of his supposed postition. For him to show overt skepticism initially would destroy the effect, although he could probably spare a little half-smile once the mob starts denouncing Brutus.

And arguably spam (though arguably not).

No, it's spam. Also see here.

Knew I'd seen it before.

And such lovely sentiments.

What Petraeus Report? The report's not going to be written by Petraeus, it's going to be 'actually' written by the Bushies, this according to an item in today's L.A. Times :

"Despite Bush’s repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government."

It's going to be ghost-written by the White House...
Like I said, American soldiers in Iraq until 2012...

Uh, Jay, it's usually a good idea to read the posts you comment on.

"Is there some blogosphere rule that says any mention of Petraeus must be accompanied by the word 'honorable'? I googled 'petraeus honorable' and the formulation is used quite a lot, but it appears there is also some dissent."

So, you couple sycophantic incompetents like Petreus with Bush-loving Jesus freaks like Boykin, multiply by all the ones we haven't even heard about yet, and we get--what?--the world's best military force? Are you kidding me? The U.S. military is a fucking train wreck, and I say that as someone who spent 20 years serving in it.

Pastaman, I'd like to point out that our somehow elusive posting rules forbid the use of the f-word, among others, and also that "are you kidding me?" is, still, not really a counterpoint to much at all.

The spammer's link now points somewhere else. It could be worse, though: could be that futurist guy who spams practically everywhere else.

I like this one.

I'd suggest, though, that the posting rules aren't remotely prominently, and it's hardly surprising that people don't notice them, any more than they scan everything else said on the two sidebars. (Heck, we've had multiple comments in the past couple of years pointing out over a dozen dead links in the blog listings, and yet the blogowners still have those blogs listed, even though they've not been posted to since 2006; why expect random commenters to pay more attention?)

I'd trivially suggest linking to them when referring to them, and posting them more prominently. Like, perhaps, an automatic link at the bottom of every post. (Every post, not every comment.) Or however.

I'd repeat again my suggestions for more clarity as to how long bannings are for, but there seems little point. Anyway, just suggestions, of course.

Gary: I'm wondering if perhaps you might have a comment on the question I asked you?

I take you for a news junky of sorts. I guess I didn’t bother responding because I assumed you would already be aware of any examples I might cite and would have already discounted them (as you don’t appear to think there has been any progress). It’s not fair for me to assume that so I’ll take a shot at answering your question.

Note first that I originally said “encouraging signs”. You asked if “There's been movement on Iraq's government becoming in some way, any way, less sectarian, more accepted, and capable of actual governing” and asserted that “Any other "movement" is irrelevant”.

I don’t agree with that, as I don’t believe it is possible for the government to become accepted and capable of governing until the security situation improves. There are signs that the security situation may be improving, but there are also signs that the government is gaining more acceptance and that sectarian tensions are being reduced.

Take this pretty amazing article in Der Spiegel. Amazing more for the fact that Der Spiegel published it (and as a cover story) than for the actual content, but I found the article itself to be very encouraging.

Large AQ style attacks down 50% since the surge started. (I’m aware of the latest horrendous bombing with 500 dead. So the total number killed may actually be worse at this point even if the number of attacks is down.)

A sign of reduced sectarian tension: Government officials and prominent Sunnis convinced al Sadr to call off his planned mass Shi'ite march on Samarra.

The strategy of engaging Sunni tribal leaders is paying off, with more and more Sunnis aligning with the government rather than the insurgency.

Those are just a few examples of what I found to be encouraging signs lately. Maybe it’s all still too little too late – I really don’t know. Maybe I’m grasping at straws. But heck, when even Dick Durbin says that the surge is working it gives me something to hope for…

OCSteve, doesn't the phrase "large AQ-style attacks" scream cherrypicking to you? I mean, if "large attacks" were down, or "AQ-style attacks" were down, or (truly amazingly) "attacks" or "deaths" were down, then surely they'd have said that instead. So the best they could do was futz with the statistics, coming up with definitions of "large" and "AQ-style" that would make the numbers work out.

KCinDC: It didn’t really strike me as cherry-picking because they seemed to be pretty specific about the type of attacks they were counting: “high-profile attacks — generally large bombs hitting markets, mosques or other "soft" targets that produce mass casualties”, “headline-grabbing incidents aimed at symbolic targets or mass casualties”, etc.

Most important I think is this:
"Tribes and people are starting to stand up and fight back," said Brig. Gen. Mick Bednarek, deputy commander of the U.S. division north of Baghdad. "They are turning against al-Qaeda."

Some of the groups have provided intelligence on their former al-Qaeda allies, Lt. Col. Rick Welch, a staff officer who works with tribes, has said.

The increased security in many neighborhoods has also prompted more civilians to come forth with tips, officers said. The U.S. military gets 23,000 tips per month from Iraqis, four times more than last year, said Army Col. Ralph Baker, a former brigade commander in Iraq now assigned to the Pentagon.

OCSteve: “high-profile attacks — generally large bombs hitting markets, mosques or other "soft" targets that produce mass casualties”, “headline-grabbing incidents aimed at symbolic targets or mass casualties”, etc.

If that's their idea of "specific", I'd hate to see their idea of "vague".

"Tribes and people are starting to stand up and fight back," said Brig. Gen. Mick Bednarek, deputy commander of the U.S. division north of Baghdad. "They are turning against al-Qaeda."

And that would be very helpful, if the US were fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq.

OCSteve - see Greg Djerejian take on the involvement of the tribes here.

Without having details it looks more like: Where the US military is at any moment, there are signs of improvement. Those disappear the moment the GIs leave to pacify another area.
Whack the rat/mole ad nauseam.
My personal impression is that the firefighters are to a degree successful preventing the fire from spreading but are unable to close the fuel lines that feed the fire and get informed that those will not be closed before the fire is out. There are neither enough firemen available nor do they manage not to pierce a few extra lines every now and then.

Btw, I mistrust Der Spiegel where it deals with events in the larger Middle East. The magazine swallowed far too much US propaganda in the past (e.g. under Bush I) for my taste or fell for other disinformation. But that's a personal prejudice and is not meant to discredit the source in principle.

Apologies for jumping in late:

I see no reason to question Petraeus’s honor. Everything I have read about him indicates that he is a good officer. Yeah I’m biased, but so is anyone questioning his honor without any basis (that I can see).

Steve, I'm genuinely curious: Would you call it honorable, or the mark of a good offiecer, to take command of and vocally support a counterinsurgency that is woefully undermanned according to the official Army counterinsurgency manual that you yourself wrote?

Gregor:

"Go tell the Spartans, you who read;
We took their orders, and are dead."

Depends on your definition of "honor".

Completely OT, Jes, but having my professor explain the subtleties of that couplet that are lost in translation is one of the reasons I decided to learn Greek in college.

farmgirl, I took some time swithering between translations of that couplet - when all I really wanted to do was to say yes, you can say someone is "honorable" as a soldier, when they undertake a mission that they know cannot succeed.

What I suppose can be argued about is whether it's honorable for a commander, knowing many of the people under their command will die for this mission, lets them believe they are dying in a mission that can succeed, rather than just admitting that the whole thing is pointless, they're just there still because that's where their Commander-in-Chief wants them to die.

Which is, according to more than one fictional analysis of the Spartans at Thermopylae, why they were ordered to die there: the ephors wanted rid of the king.

Gregory: Would you call it honorable, or the mark of a good offiecer, to take command of and vocally support a counterinsurgency that is woefully undermanned according to the official Army counterinsurgency manual that you yourself wrote?

And Bruce who made the similar point earlier.

Would it have been better not to try at all? That is, should he have resigned his commission in protest when he was given the assignment because he didn’t believe he had enough men? I’m not sure. But once being tasked with the assignment he really had only two choices: Do the best with what he had or resign in protest.

If he in fact took the job knowing that the forces at his disposal would be inadequate to be successful and would just result in more needless deaths I would call that dishonorable. If he honestly believed that the surge (even with fewer forces than he would ideally like) would help to stabilize things and give the Iraqi government a better chance to get their act together then I see no dishonor in that.

All: I was not a supporter of the surge. I’ve come to believe that the Army is badly broken. But now we are in it. I’ve seen what appear to me to be signs of improvement lately. It really doesn’t go much beyond that.

I’ve come to believe that the Army is badly broken.

For instance:

“Suicide rate increases among U.S. soldiers”

I'm with OCSteve on this one: there's a world of difference between "this is ideal" and "this is really not ideal by any stretch of the imagination, but if done correctly, it could improve things to some extent." An honorable person could take a commission anywhere in the area marked out by those possibilities. Only when you get to: "this will just postpone the inevitable, at the cost of many lives" do you get to dishonor, I think -- and even then, there's some room for the idea that if it's going to happen anyways, there are ways of making it more and less disastrous, and so it matters that it be done competently.

Which is to say: I do not think that it's a good idea to infer much abut honor from a general's willingness to embark on a mission he is ordered to accept, absent very extreme conditions (e.g., Nazis.)

I don't blame Petraeus for being optimistic and trying to do the best he can with his assignment. I do think he has a responsibility not to be part of an effort to oversell the results. However, history tells us that the generals who are willing to do exactly that are the ones who get put in charge.

There's no reason to talk about his honor at all, IMO, except that it's become a cliche to talk about how honorable he is. Why not go down the list and rate everyone involved in debating Iraq on their honorability? The problem with this is that he's set up as the honorable general, automatically giving him a rhetorical advantage over politicians who might presume to disagree with what he claims is happening in Iraq. Who are you going to believe, the honorable expert on counterinsurgency, General Petraeus, warrior philosopher, or some bunch of congresscritters, a breed known for their slipperiness? His past record of accuracy on Iraq assessment doesn't look any too impressive and I don't like it that he's been given this rhetorical advantage.

OCSteve and Hilzoy: Yes, I think the gap between the conditions for success Petreaus and his co-author lay out in the counter-insurgency manual and what's available in Iraq are so great that he should have resigned and gone public with his protest. "The Army claims to endorse my work, but has committed itself to a policy that cannot succeed, according to everything I know. I will not betray history and scholarship for the sake of a whim of presidential policy. The manpower and resources the president proposes to commit are insufficient to do anything but bring pointless misery to Iraq and needless injury and death to themselves. I will not be part of such a slaughter."

This isn't a matter of "Well, maybe it's kinda close." This is a matte of lacking manpower by a factor of 3 or so, and supporting resources by factors of ten, a hundred, and more, in some cases.

Thanks muchly for the response, OCSteve; as I've said, it's been extremely frustrating in the past year trying to get anyone who still speaks of "improvements" and who has hope to engage on this question at all.

The key is this: "I don’t agree with that, as I don’t believe it is possible for the government to become accepted and capable of governing until the security situation improves."

Whereas I think it's perfectly clear -- and I base this on history, and other wars of insurgency, and yes, particularly including Vietnam, although well aware there are also huge differences -- that the military/"security" situation couldn't be more irrelevant to the problem, which is that -- like South Vietnam -- there is no competent, popularly-accepted-as-legitimate, government. And there are at present no signs there ever will be.

Without a non-sectarian, popularly-accepted-as-legitimate, at least slightly and vaguely semi-competent government, all the battle statistics in the world might as well be baseball scores.

Remember Harry Sumners saying to Colonel Tu "You never beat us on the battlefield"? Sumners never seemed to appreciate the import of the response -- back during the war, when he heard it, or later -- “That may be so, but it is also irrelevant.”

Americans can win the next 9,000,000 battles in Iraq. They can kill 1,000,000 insurgents. 2,000,000. What'll that accomplish, by itself?

Nothing. It's irrelevant, exactly as it was in Vietnam.

So who cares? You might as well give golf statistics.

But I gather you don't believe this. I'm at a bit of a loss to understand how.

What reason do you offer for anyone to think that the Iraqi government is waiting for some sort of certain level of security to be produced, at which point they'll suddenly spring into reconciliation?

Or... just what is a reasonable scenario that you see flowing from Baghdad/Iraq suddenly reaching a certain level of security, after which... what?

And where's the evidence for any such scenario actually taking place, beyond -- beg pardon -- pure fantasy?

Serious questions; I look forward with gratitude to your thoughts. Thanks!

Oh, and I question this formulation: "The strategy of engaging Sunni tribal leaders is paying off, with more and more Sunnis aligning with the government rather than the insurgency."

I've read innumerable accounts of the "Awakening" and the local alliances, and in no case do I recall seeing mention of Sunnis "aligning with the government"; what I've consistently read is that they've taken up accepting arms from the Americans, and working with them to fight AQI, and to defend their tribal area. Nothing whatever about acceptance of, or willingness to work with, the central government.

These are, needless to say, two totally different things. And part of my point.

If you have some links that discuss Sunni sheiks and tribes lining up for this fight and expressing -- in a tangible, not just rhetorical way -- genuine cooperation with the central government, that I'd like to read.

If you're familiar with the Vietnam War, stories of brave local commanders and villages and regional strongmen, and their wonderful success, and turning to fight the VC, and so on, were legion. Week after week, month after month, year after year. Been that, heard it all, know the history. It was meaningless.

How is it different in Iraq? Where's the central government that's legitimately accepted by most going to come from, exactly, and how?

Because "security" isn't going to magically produce it. Not even if we waved a magic wanded and eliminated every gun in Iraq but those of Americans. How would that create a decent Iraqi government, and stop Sunnis and Shia from trying to kill each other with axes and knives? This is what I see as necessary to answer before any "hope" makes the remotest sense.

But I'd be delighted to have holes in my reasoning or facts pointed out. Really.

Bruce, that's kind of my point: Petraeus knows the war in Iraq is lost, because it can't possibly be won without vastly more troops than the US has available. Nevertheless, he's been ordered to fight the war in Iraq, and if he refuses to do it, someone else will: it's not as if anyone in the US or Iraq has any power to get the military out of Iraq, that's wholly and simply up to Bush/Cheney, and and Bush/Cheney won't do it.

Is it honorable to take a mission that can only end in defeat, which you know can only end in defeat, and be publicly optimistic about it? I think it is, for certain models of honor. Given that nothing can make Bush/Cheney agree to end the war in Iraq, Petraeus taking on a mission he knows is doomed is, in a Spartan kind of way, brave.

Yes, I'd feel more admiration for him if he demonstrated the unSpartan courage of refusing, resigning, and saying why, but then I'm a pacifist.

Gary: What reason do you offer for anyone to think that the Iraqi government is waiting for some sort of certain level of security to be produced, at which point they'll suddenly spring into reconciliation?

I don’t think they are waiting for anything, although given their rate of progress I can understand why one might think so. ;)

I think which way a person leans in this argument is going to depend on what they think a government should be. What is it that makes a government legitimate? What is a legitimate state? As a starting point, to what extent do you agree or disagree with Max Weber?

I agree with Weber that “the state is that entity which claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force”. Protecting the individual’s rights from threats both external (army) and internal (police), providing objective laws that govern the use of force, and providing courts that decide when these laws are or are not violated are fundamental responsibilities of government IMO.

Given that I believe this is a good definition of the minimum a government must be capable of, you can then understand (IMO) why it leads me to believe that security is important to this situation. Until such time as the Iraqi government has a monopoly on the use of force, they can’t be legitimate. Until such time as the Iraqi Army and police prove to the average Iraqi that they can (mostly) protect them from insurgents/AQI/whoever the average Iraqi has little reason to have any faith in their government. Infrastructure (electricity, running water, etc.) would be great as well of course, but until the average Iraqi can see that the government is getting a handle on the daily violence they won’t be seen as legitimate.

I don’t expect you (or anyone) to agree with that (I suspect your baseline definition of what government should be may be different). I’m just trying to explain how I arrive at my opinion on the matter.

As for the rest – well hope is just that. I’ll continue to hope for a less than disastrous outcome even if I have no solid reasons to do so.

Jes: Hurm. There's a point there, I have to admit.

Jes: "Is it honorable to take a mission that can only end in defeat, which you know can only end in defeat, and be publicly optimistic about it?"

The flaw here is that, as usual, you are deducing that Only One Possible Situation Exists, and that no one could possibly honestly see it differently, so therefore if they say they do they must be dishonorable and lying.

This, it turns out, is not actually proof that someone is either dishonorable or lying. It is merely evidence that they have a different view than you do. Whomever is right or wrong.

To be clear, you don't "know" what Petraeus "knows" and assertions about what he "knows" are mind-reading and hold no legitimacy. Thus no honest conclusions can flow from such reasoning.

By your standards, one could proclaim that you "know" this, and are therefore "lying," but in fact I don't believe anything of the kind. I merely suggest that you reconsider the certainty of logic that brings conclusions that flow from mindreading.

"Until such time as the Iraqi government has a monopoly on the use of force, they can’t be legitimate."

That there's some ultimate truth to that classic isn't one I'll argue with.

What I'll argue with is to ask by what logic this means they will therefore, at any time ever, achieve such a monopoly?

And what I'll argue with is to ask what historical parallel -- I'm vastly more interested in arguing from reality and history than I am in arguing from theory, which I'm really hardly interested in arguing about at all -- you would point to in which a government attempting to gain legitimacy over a counter-insurgency first waits for security before doing anything?

Then we're back to: and what do you expect them to do when this mythical security arrives? Why wait? Is it a binary thing?

"Until such time as the Iraqi Army and police prove to the average Iraqi that they can (mostly) protect them from insurgents/AQI/whoever the average Iraqi has little reason to have any faith in their government."

Steve, the point I can't seem to get across is what government?

There is no non-sectarian government. Is there? Is there a sign of one in the works?

I don't get what you're talking about.

What exists is a paralyzed structure of Parliament that does nothing but fight and go on vacation, two large Shia sects and some smaller Shia factions which control much of the organs of "government," and which use them to wage war on the Sunni population, and a Sunni faction that has left the government entirely, while the Kurdish region stands off and guards its own region. And outside of Kurdistan, anarchy and tribalism is generally the rule.

That's not a "government" by any definition I'm familiar with. More importantly, it's not

That there's some ultimate truth to that classic isn't one I'll argue with.

What I'll argue with is to ask by what logic this means they will therefore, at any time ever, achieve such a monopoly?

And what I'll argue with is to ask what historical parallel -- I'm vastly more interested in arguing from reality and history than I am in arguing from theory, which I'm really hardly interested in arguing about at all -- you would point to in which a government attempting to gain legitimacy over a counter-insurgency first waits for security before doing anything?

Then we're back to: and what do you expect them to do when this mythical security arrives? Why wait? Is it a binary thing?

"Until such time as the Iraqi Army and police prove to the average Iraqi that they can (mostly) protect them from insurgents/AQI/whoever the average Iraqi has little reason to have any faith in their government."

Steve, the point I can't seem to get across is what government?

There is no non-sectarian government. Is there? Is there a sign of one in the works?

I don't get what you're talking about.

What exists is a paralyzed structure of Parliament that does nothing but fight and go on vacation, two large Shia sects and some smaller Shia factions which control much of the organs of "government," and which use them to wage war on the Sunni population, and a Sunni faction that has left the government entirely, while the Kurdish region stands off and guards its own region. And outside of Kurdistan, anarchy and tribalism is generally the rule.

That's not a "government" by any definition I'm familiar with. It's a facade, a Potemkin village, and talking about it as if it were a functioning government, or one lying-in-wait, or embyonic, or whatever, makes no sense.

Is there any sign of how this entity would transform into a non-sectarian government? How could that happen?

That's what I need to understand for what you're saying to make sense to me. Am I making any sense to you?

"As for the rest – well hope is just that."

Why not hope for Gort and Klaatu to land and make peace, while you're at it? How is the legitimate, non-sectarian, Iraqi government springing into existence any less a magical fantasy?

I don't mean to mock, because it's a deadly serious question. I really really really want to understand how to make sense of this thinking. Surely you have more than pure fantasy, I trust?

So, please explain how this Iraqi government might come about, if you feel like discussing further? What's a scenario?

(And please, I don't mean to make you feel put upon in any way; if there's any change in my language that would make you feel comfortable, please feel free to request it; I'm only interested in purely friendly conversation, honest, no matter how impassioned I may wax at times.)">path to government.

It's a facade, a Potemkin village, and talking about it as if it were a functioning government, or one lying-in-wait, or embyonic, or whatever, makes no sense.

Is there any sign of how this entity would transform into a non-sectarian government? How could that happen?

That's what I need to understand for what you're saying to make sense to me. Am I making any sense to you?

You speak as if the Iraqis were on some sort of path to a legitimate government. I see absolutely no sign of that whatever. Do you see signs somewhere, and if so, what are they?

What I see are the opposite: that power is being further distributed -- by us -- to a wide and disparate array of conflicting tribes and factions, who the more we arm and train them, the more they'll resist the central government, and be prepared to fight each other.

How does that help in the long run of five years or more?

Remember how we armed the muj in Afganistan against the Soviets? Of course you do. How is this going to work out better, exactly?

"As for the rest – well hope is just that."

Why not hope for Gort and Klaatu to land and make peace, while you're at it? How is the legitimate, non-sectarian, Iraqi government springing into existence any less a magical fantasy?

I don't mean to mock, because it's a deadly serious question. I really really really want to understand how to make sense of this thinking. Surely you have more than pure fantasy, I trust?

So, please explain how this Iraqi government might come about, if you feel like discussing further? What's a scenario?

(And please, I don't mean to make you feel put upon in any way; if there's any change in my language that would make you feel comfortable, please feel free to request it; I'm only interested in purely friendly conversation, honest, no matter how impassioned I may wax at times.)

Gary, I was assuming that Jes, like Bruce and (I thought) you, was assuming that Petraeus's view of things could be at least partly judged by his criteria for a successful counterinsurgency, not engaging in the dreaded mindreading.

Crap. Apologies to all for not previewing; was in a rush to answer the doorbell.

Some stuff got dropped out there about "More importantly, it's not on a path to government," and a bunch more stuff about legitimacy, which is now lost.

There are times I want to grouse that when I started using Blogger in 2001, it wouldn't let you post with broken HTML without overriding all sorts of stuff that stops you. It still does: why is Typepad, a later, "better," software set, so broken? But that's just putting the blame elsewhere for my own haste and carelessness. Apologies, again.

"Gary, I was assuming that Jes, like Bruce and (I thought) you,"

I've, in point of fact, not uttered a single word of judgment or opinion about Petraeus, have I? What exactly have I said that leads you to make assumptions about my opinions of him?

(Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else?)

As it happens, I have no idea what he thinks, because I am not a mindreader.


Gary: Man did that last comment get hosed or what? ;)

I do understand what you are saying. There is no non-sectarian government. What does exist in that spot is a barely functioning sectarian nightmare and I’d say that it all goes back to Bremer. I agree with you that this government will likely never be legitimate with the Sunni or the Kurds. I’ll give you all that.

My point is that the security situation is also important. Let me put it this way: if you could design the perfect non-sectarian government for Iraq and put them in charge of the country, would they have any legitimacy if they did not have the monopoly on the use of force?

Gary, I was referring to this comment, but I neglected to account for the possibility that you might see it as unreasonable to expect someone to agree with something he himself wrote. But obviously it's true that we can never be absolutely sure what anyone else thinks, even if they tell us. After all, I can't even be sure that anyone else exists.

Obviously I'm misunderstanding you somewhere.

OCSteve, if I want a goose that lays iPhones, it's important that I have something to feed it. But if I have more feed this month than I did last month, does that mean I'm getting closer to having the goose?

So then do we just accept that this first sad attempt is the best we can hope for? Do I assume that it can never get any better than this, that there is no chance that through future elections their government can evolve into something less sectarian?

Because if I do then all that’s left IMO is partitioning the place. I’ve never been a fan of that approach, but if I assume that the sectarian nature of the people is an insurmountable obstacle then that’s all I see left. Or else we just pull out and see what strong man manages to take charge and at what cost.

"My point is that the security situation is also important. Let me put it this way: if you could design the perfect non-sectarian government for Iraq and put them in charge of the country, would they have any legitimacy if they did not have the monopoly on the use of force?"

Probably not. But what's that got to do with anything? Not necessary to answer, but I don't understand what point you're making here.

In return, I repeat that how good or bad the security situation is, and what is or isn't done about it, is utterly irrelevant to whether or not there's any path that Iraq is on towards having a legitimate government, and I don't see that there's any such path at all.

So I fail to understand how there can be any hope for "peace" or a positive outcome absent that.

Which is why I keep reiterating that security/military matters are are as irrelevant as Iraqi golf statistics.

It's not that I want it to be this way, you know. If I thought I saw Iraq on a path to a decent government, I'd cheer. I'd be thrilled. I'd be ecstatic.

I mean, we're talking about the lives and suffering of millions of people; it's not as if I'm rooting for bad things to happen.

But I don't see Iraq on any such path. Not even faintly. I see absolutely no sign of it whatever. Do you?

If not, how is it possible to have any hope at all?

"Gary: Man did that last comment get hosed or what? ;)"

Eeuw, I stank up the joint. [hides head in shame]

KCinDC: "Gary, I was referring to this comment, but I neglected to account for the possibility that you might see it as unreasonable to expect someone to agree with something he himself wrote."

Hmm? I didn't say a word about any opinion of Petreus there, did I? I simply made a suggestion as to what Bruce Baugh might have been thinking. What are you suggesting I said that I don't agree with? I assure you, I did indeed believe that that's what Bruce Baugh might have been thinking. So?

Or is the "someone" someone else? I'm lost.

OCSteve,

If you agree with Weber that a government must have a monopoly on the use of force, how can you see empowering the tribal sheikhs in the struggle against AQI as a positive development? I know Gates has said that we aren't arming them, just providing them with money and training, but I suspect that it amounts to the same thing. They aren't using that money and training in support of the central government, but in pursuit of their own ends. With the amount of arms currently circulating in Iraq, I honestly can't see anyone acquiring a monopoly on force in the foreseeable future.

"So then do we just accept that this first sad attempt is the best we can hope for? Do I assume that it can never get any better than this, that there is no chance that through future elections their government can evolve into something less sectarian?"

I don't have a prescription as to what you should believe; do you have other alternatives to suggest?

"Because if I do then all that’s left IMO is partitioning the place. [...] Or else we just pull out and see what strong man manages to take charge and at what cost."

I tend to think any decisions and workings-out are best left to the Iraqis: why is it our business to decide for them?

The bottom line is that there are severe limits to American power (and American right to boss other people around, but that's another topic); Americans traditionally have an unusual problem accepting that.

There's no reason to believe we have a "solution" for Iraq. Or Sudan/Darfur. Or any other given place, necessarily. Thinking otherwise is often nothing more than ignorance combined with optimism combined with arrogance.

After all, how would we react if Russia, or China, or France, announced that they were militarily intervening in the U.S. in order to give us a more democratic government with better human rights? Are we that much more awesome and perfect than everyone else on Earth?

We have a special responsibility to do what we can to make reparations to Iraq, and help any positive forces in the country, but First Do No Harm remains a principle that we might want to apply.

Restricting ourselves to only nonviolent aid might be one step in one direction, perhaps.

Because if I do then all that’s left IMO is partitioning the place.

Not so fast, Steve

Gary, the "someone" is Petraeus. I was assuming that you thought it was okay to assume Petraeus believed what he wrote about what was needed for successful counterinsurgency. If instead that requires mindreading, then I guess a lot of discussions will have to be carried out on only a theoretical level, since we've always got to allow for the possibility that people don't actually think what they write.

"...since we've always got to allow for the possibility that people don't actually think what they write."

I'm not sure what that means; keep in mind that I spent decades working on books of fiction in various editing capacities. The majority in science fiction and fantasy; so I most certainly don't believe that people "actually think what they write," in innumerable circumstances.

More aptly, I believe relatively few business memos or reports are pure accounts of what someone honestly thinks or believes.

But setting that aside, I think there's a world of difference between offering tentative suggestions/presumptions about what somebody might plausibly perhaps think, and making absolute declarations about what someone *must* believe, and then, of course, condemning them utterly for this "known" "belief"; Jes didn't do the former; as always, she did the latter. Not that I intended to return to the subject, since making the point once was entirely sufficient. I thought.

From DaveC's link: "and it’s inevitable that with its Shi’ite majority Iraq will become a Khomeinist theocracy,"

I respect Dave Schuler, but anyone who could believe the above knows absolutely nothing about Iraq, Iran, or Shi'ite theology. After five years of war.

But I'm really not interesting in writing an essay on the overwhelming differences between Iraqi and Iranian Shi'ite theology, Sistanism, and Khomeinism, the splits in Iranian theology on the role of the state, and so on, since at this point no one has any excuse for not having read lots of essays on this topic several years ago.

Suffice it to say that anyone who could fantasize the above has no clue whatever.

I'm not particularly fond of "partition" as a "solution," given that I'd expect it to go approximately as successfully and peacefully as it did when Britain left India. (If anyone wants to "correct" that, please note the invisible sarcasm marks.)

But, you know, Britain staying in India wasn't actually a viable choice.

The point is, who appointed us the boss of Iraq?

Not the Iraqis. Something we might want to include in our thinking, perhaps.

Gary: But what's that got to do with anything? Not necessary to answer, but I don't understand what point you're making here.

To quote myself: “My point is that the security situation is also important”. ;) I just think that you may be discounting it too much.

It's not that I want it to be this way, you know. If I thought I saw Iraq on a path to a decent government, I'd cheer. I'd be thrilled. I'd be ecstatic.

Of course. And if I ever insinuated otherwise I owe you a rather large apology.

If not, how is it possible to have any hope at all?

That’s the nature of hope - quite possibly founded in no reality whatsoever. I won’t give it up yet though. And a pony, I’d like a blue one…


Larv: If you agree with Weber that a government must have a monopoly on the use of force, how can you see empowering the tribal sheikhs in the struggle against AQI as a positive development?

Weber also says that government can then delegate the use of force. And if they are willing to point the weapons towards AQx – more power to them. Yes, those same weapons can be used against us. But anything that unites us and the current government and the tribes is a good thing. OK – so I’m naïve…


Gary: I tend to think any decisions and workings-out are best left to the Iraqis: why is it our business to decide for them?

I subscribe to the “you broke it you bought it” school of thought. While I’ve come to regret my support of this mess, I’ll regret abandoning these people just as much if not more. “best left to the Iraqis” looks like genocide at best right now. Our fault? Of course. Can we make it worse? Of course…

Thinking otherwise is often nothing more than ignorance combined with optimism combined with arrogance.

That may well be an accurate description of me right now.

"To quote myself: “My point is that the security situation is also important”. ;) I just think that you may be discounting it too much."

Well, it's certainly important in the daily lives of Iraqis this month, and the next, and so on -- in that sense of "important," sure.

In the sense of being a factor that in any way controls a positive or negative outcome in Iraq, no, it's totally irrelevant.

That's the distinction I'm trying to point out.

"Of course. And if I ever insinuated otherwise I owe you a rather large apology."

No, not at all. (DaveC has overtly made the charge numerous times, of me and Hilzoy and others, including "liberals" in general, but that has nothing to do with you.) I just wanted to be clear for anyone cruising by.

"That’s the nature of hope - quite possibly founded in no reality whatsoever."

You may be confusing "hope" with its cousin "faith." I lean strongly towards believing that "hope" requires some scintilla of contact with reality. But I won't insist my usage must control.

However, I'd say that hope-without-contact-with-reality should be excluded from serious policy analysis. Fantasy isn't helpful to that; in fact, it's poisonous. YMMV.

What you dream in your heart is another matter, and one it's no one else's place to speak to.

"And if they are willing to point the weapons towards AQx – more power to them. Yes, those same weapons can be used against us. But anything that unites us and the current government and the tribes is a good thing."

I asked before: where's the evidence for tribal "uniting" with the current government, rather than simply making a tactical military alliance with us Americans? Please give some pointers to accounts of this, if you'd be so kind. Just remember that evidence of fighting isn't what I'm asking about; it's evidence specifically of submission of these tribal groups to the authority of the central government, and in turn evidence of these Sunni tribes supporting the central government politically.

Because I don't know what the heck you're talking about there -- everything I've read consists only of accounts of the Sunnis fighting AQI and ceasing to fight the government and us for now, with nothing about any political "uniting" or support whatsoever -- but maybe I just missed those articles; it's entirely possible; you read many more milblogs than I, I'm sure.

"I subscribe to the “you broke it you bought it” school of thought."

If we bought it, our obligation is to pay reparations. Not to personally try to put pottery back together again. Maybe we're not good at fixing foreign pottery. Made out of people. Maybe we can't fix it and we're making it worse by trying.

Because our trying consists of killing massive numbers of people to a large extent.

"While I’ve come to regret my support of this mess, I’ll regret abandoning these people just as much if not more."

Me, too. But fantasizing that we can help more than we can does no one any favors, including Iraqis. Insisting that if we just try hard enough, we can make anything happen, and fix anything, is literally crazy. Because we can't.

And as I said, there are plenty of ways we can help non-violently. That doesn't constitute "abandonment."

"Can we make it worse? Of course…"

That's the question we have to answer, or give our answers for: how do we do the least harm?

Not "how do we make something magic happen, regardless of whether we actually can or not?"

Wishing isn't a plan. Hope is not a plan. You know these phrases.

First we have to answer: what can we do? before we ask what do we want to do?

The other way around makes no sense, and is profitless.

Gary: Your points are well taken.

This thread is three-quarters or more dead, but I urge everyone interested in Iraq to read Marc Lynch's latest account of the state of political affairs in Iraq. This is the measure of success or failure, optimism or pessimism, grounds for hope or not.

And there's not a lot of grounds for hope visible.

The comments to this entry are closed.