by Charles
Within the first weeks after receiving enough delegates to secure the nomination, Barack Obama should go to Iraq and meet with General Petraeus without preconditions. There would be a lot of preparation. The first steps would not be to pre-judge all the items on the list.
More below the fold...
Obama hasn't been to Iraq since January 2006, before the Golden Mosque bombing by al Qaeda. A lot has happened since then. Last Monday, John McCain invited Obama to join him on his upcoming visit to Iraq. The Obama campaign flatly rejected the offer. Bill Burton, campaign spokesman:
John McCain's proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don't need any more 'Mission Accomplished' banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. The American people don't want any more false promises of progress, they deserve a real debate about a war that has overstretched our military, and cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer.
I'm pretty sure McCain won't pull out a 'Mission Accomplished' banner on a joint trip, and I'm also pretty sure that Obama could exclude any walks with McCain through Baghdad markets. Ed Morrissey:
If they’re worried about the military giving them a dog-and-pony show, the answer isn’t to decline the trip but to counterpropose a more comprehensive trip than even McCain’s suggesting and turn it into a real fact-finding mission. Don’t spend two hours looking at charts with Petraeus. Take four or five days; go to Basra and Mosul. If they simply can’t suspend campaigning for that long, send a joint team of advisors from both sides.
After all, Iraq is in the top two of top-two issues in this country. It seems reasonable to me that Obama should go there and see for himself what's taking place, and get his information directly from the source (or sources). In addition to Mosul and Basra, perhaps he could even go to Diyala province now that it's been pacified. Anyway, it's heartening to hear that Obama is at least considering going there:
Senator Barack Obama said today that he is considering visiting American troops and commanders in Iraq this summer. He declined an invitation from Senator John McCain to take a joint trip to Iraq, saying, "I just don’t want to be involved in a political stunt." In a brief interview here, Mr. Obama said his campaign was considering taking a foreign trip after he secures the Democratic presidential nomination. No details have been set, he said, but added: "Iraq would obviously be at the top of the list of stops."
[...]
Mr. Obama suggested today that any foreign itinerary would include a stop in Iraq. "I think that if I’m going to Iraq, then I’m there to talk to troops and talk to commanders, I’m not there to try to score political points or perform," Mr. Obama said. "The work they’re doing there is too important."
Mr. McCain responded with a touch of sarcasm to the news that Mr. Obama was thinking about going to Iraq. "I certainly was just a short time ago glad to hear that Senator Obama is now, quote, considering a trip to Iraq," Mr. McCain said at a news conference late in the day in Los Angeles. "It’s long overdue, it’s been 871 days since he was there. And I’m confident that when he goes he will then change his position on the conflict in Iraq, because he will see the success that has been achieved on the ground."
Again, Ed Morrissey:
Just so we’re clear, a "political stunt" would be letting McCain cow him into a joint trip to Iraq. Letting McCain cow him into a solo trip? Not a stunt.
It would also be interesting to see if Obama does change his 16-month cut-and-run policy after a visit to Iraq, considering that there are strong indicators that the strategy is working*. I'm doubtful that he will. Why? Because his "plan" is too diametrically opposed to the current strategy, and in my view, he's too politically invested to change it because such a change would anger and inflame the very base that propelled him to the nomination. There would be hell to pay from the Hard Partisan Left. Obama's withdrawal proposal is a direct and complete rejection of the counterinsurgency strategy crafted by General Petraeus, and his opposition to the strategy has been longstanding. Here's what Obama said on January 5, 2007:
Meanwhile, Obama said he told the president directly that an "escalation of troop levels in Iraq was a mistake." Obama was among more than a dozen senators of both parties who were invited to the White House to discuss his plans for Iraq. Bush plans to continue to meet with lawmakers and is expected to announce his new Iraq strategy next week in an address to the nation. "It was an open-ended discussion," Obama told reporters after the meeting. "The president asked for our opinions. I think both Republican and Democratic senators expressed grave concern about the situation in Iraq." "I personally indicated that an escalation of troop levels in Iraq was a mistake and that we need a political accommodation, rather than a military approach to the sectarian violence there," said Obama. Asked for the president's reaction, Obama said: "I think he is considering it very carefully. They've obviously run that possibility through the traps. He did not say definitively that that's the decision he had made." No specific figure was mentioned for the proposed increase in troops during the meeting, Obama said.
The COIN strategy envisions a political accommodation AND a military approach. Obama rejected this, favoring the former but not the latter. On February 16, 2007, the House approved the following resolution: "Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq." It passed 246-182, but the Senate version failed to clear cloture. Obama voted in favor of putting the resolution to a vote. Twelve months later, Obama's rejection of the present strategy remains in full force and effect. After foreign policy advisor Samantha Power said that Obama's proposal to withdraw all combat brigades in 16 months was a "best case scenario", the Obama campaign disowned her:
Unfortunately, the best-case scenario does not usually apply in Iraq. That is why it was perfectly appropriate for British television reporters to challenge former Obama foreign policy adviser Samantha Power about how he would respond to an unraveling security situation in the country. She gave what seemed like a common-sense response: Obama will be guided by the circumstances on the ground and the advice of his military commanders, and will not be locked into a plan that he produced more than a year earlier while running for president. Power's candor was evidently too much for the Obama camp, which promptly disowned her remarks.
Michael Dobbs didn't mention that the Obama campaign also disowned Power because she called Hillary Clinton a "monster" on British television to a UK newspaper. Nevertheless, the campaign directly repudiated both her "best case scenario" remarks and the "Hillary is a monster" comment. The reality may be that Obama will sign on to the Petraeus strategy if elected, but I don't see any indications of it right now. So as it stands, by dint of his "plan", he must believe that our endeavor in Iraq is irretrievably lost, so the only rationale alternative is to remove our troops with haste. Because of the numbers, the logistics, the bases and whatnot, 16 months is pretty hasty and, to me, it's likely that such a rapid departure would conflict with the latest January 2007 NIE on Iraq.
Changing gears a little, last April I wrote a post on Ambassador Crocker's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Political progress has been made, but surely not as quickly as anyone likes. The main Sunni bloc's recent suspension of talks on national reconciliation is an example of the volatility and fragility of the process. But it is a process. The national government has shown some willingness to incorporate Sunnis into the military forces, but only haltingly. Al Maliki is stronger politically, but he needs to do more.
* Here's another indicator that the COIN strategy is working. News coverage is way down:
During the first 10 weeks of 2007, Iraq accounted for 23 percent of the newshole fornetwork TV news. In 2008, it plummeted to 3 percent during that period. On cable networks it fell from 24 percent to 1 percent, according to a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. The numbers also were dismal for the country's dailies. By Acuna's count, during the first three months of this year, front-page stories about Iraq in the Bee were down 70 percent from the same time last year. Articles about Iraq once topped the list for reader feedback. By mid-2007, "Their interest just dropped off; it was noticeable to me," says the public editor.
It's not bleeding, so it's not leading.
I haven't posted here for a few months, so I thought I'd pop in and say "hi". I won't be able to answer any comments 'til tomorrow.
Posted by: Charles Bird | May 30, 2008 at 12:20 PM
You can't go to Iraq and not have a dog and pony show.
I mean, what are they going to do? Ask to go around Fallujah and Sadr City unguarded? With only a small coterie of guards?
Silly. This is really a risible argument.
And the strategy is not working.
Posted by: Eric Martin | May 30, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Just for the record, there was a piece in the Washington Post on MARCH 8TH where Obama advisers said he would do a trip to Iraq as soon as he had the nomination secured.
Of course that lasted much longer than expected but what McCain did here is to box Obama in by making it sound as if he "forced" him into an Iraq trip Obama himself had planned months ago.
And the spin works as shown in this entry.
Posted by: Benjamin | May 30, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Welcome back, Charles. I see that during your absence you've been sharpening the "stabbed in the back" smear in anticipation of an Obama victory in November.
Posted by: matttbastard | May 30, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Just so we’re clear, a "political stunt" would be letting McCain cow him into a joint trip to Iraq. Letting McCain cow him into a solo trip? Not a stunt.
heads we win. tails you lose.
how convenient.
considering that there are strong indicators that the strategy is working*.
has there been a point in the last 5 years when you couldn't find someone willing to speak those words ?
Posted by: cleek | May 30, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Perhaps you can wait more than a few months for your next post here.
Posted by: tomeck | May 30, 2008 at 12:49 PM
What's up with the asterisks? Did you forget to include whatever footnote they're supposed to refer to or did I miss something in the text?
Posted by: Turbulence | May 30, 2008 at 12:51 PM
And the spin works as shown in this entry.
Charles doesn't get spun. He's a self-professed soldier in the Information War(s).
Posted by: spartikus | May 30, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Neither candidate has any business going to Iraq, because the law prohibits using the US military as props in a political campaign. This may seem unnatural to our friends on the right, but it's true.
Posted by: rea | May 30, 2008 at 12:52 PM
OK, let's be clear about this.
First, there is no way -- no way at all -- that Obama (or McCain, or Bush) can go to Iraq and "just look around". They will have to have heavy security. Random people will have to be kept away. They will only be able to go to places that have been completely secured, and they will be surrounded by serious numbers of troops.
This is as it should be. When McCain did his stroll through the market, the problem wasn't that he was surrounded by security; it was that for some reason he took what he saw as indicative of normal life.
But it does mean that saying that a Presidential candidate can't know about Iraq without going there is silly. Just ask John McCain, who has been any number of times, but is still clueless.
Second, the stated purpose of the surge was to enable political progress to occur. This is not happening. When it does, I will say that the surge is "working". Not before. (I hope it does.)
Third, whether or not the surge works has nothing to do with whether or not we are "bleeding". We could have kept our casualties down in any number of ways -- not letting soldiers off base, for instance. The surge works if the breathing space we give the Iraqis enables them to arrive at a political accommodation.
Fourth, whether or not the surge was a good idea has to do with more than whether it works. If it works, there are benefits. Whether it works or not, there are also costs -- lives, money, and more. You have to weigh both.
Posted by: hilzoy | May 30, 2008 at 01:03 PM
What Hilzoy said. And how she said it.
Man, I could have that on my permanent clipboard to just paste in most ObWi comment threads.
Posted by: Eric Martin | May 30, 2008 at 01:17 PM
But it does mean that saying that a Presidential candidate can't know about Iraq without going there is silly
Look, nobody knows anything about Iraq unless they go there for themselves to find out. Except for right-wing bloggers sitting at home who believe everything John McCain says--they don't have to go. Also, people who do go to Iraq and still come back unconvinced don't count either.
Posted by: byrningman | May 30, 2008 at 01:21 PM
um, Powers didn't call Clinton a monster on British television. She said it off the record to a reporter, and I am really tired of hearing that out of context. She said she was campaigning like a monster in Ohio, which she was. Get your facts straight.
This post was absurd.
Posted by: matthew | May 30, 2008 at 01:23 PM
Any Senator who goes to Iraq is going to be presented with hand-picked individuals who will present the administration line.
Ergo, it really is not the best way to find out what's really going on there.
Posted by: Jon H | May 30, 2008 at 01:23 PM
How many McCain Points for spreading today's message have been earned this day?
Is John allowed to use the picture of General Petraeus like that?
Posted by: spartikus | May 30, 2008 at 01:24 PM
Of course he wants Obama to go to Iraq where he will be fragged
Posted by: getaclue | May 30, 2008 at 01:28 PM
The start of the post (above the fold) I could accept as reasonable. But he lost me finally for good when he used the words "his 16-month-cut-and-run-strategy" and I began to look out for "cowardly" and other unbiased epithets because those are natural companions.
Posted by: Hartmut | May 30, 2008 at 01:29 PM
The only strategy that's working is the one that involves (a) betraying the Kurds, again, and (b) moving Iraq solidly into Iran's sphere of influence.
This is victory?
Posted by: Francis | May 30, 2008 at 01:30 PM
he's too politically invested to change it because such a change would anger and inflame the very base that propelled him to the nomination. There would be hell to pay from the Hard Partisan Left.
I find it hard to credit the notion that a center-rightist like Obama cares one wit about the opinions of the hard left. Oh, wait: the hard PARTISAN left. That would be what, the hard left of those who enthusiastically self-identify with the Democratic party? So, um, center-leftists? Of the sort who will likely be willing to wait post-election for a few more Friedmans to effect any noticeable change on the ground in Iraq as long as it's spun well? You can't mean the hard left of those who vote Democrat, as they aren't the bulk (or, I'd say, even a meaningful core) of the base that got him nominated. And the actual hard left is, as ever, beyond the realm of polite conversation.
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide | May 30, 2008 at 01:31 PM
The surge thing is silly, as for the last time, the Iraqi death toll (as measured by IBC, which admits that it undercounts) is almost perfectly correlated, rise and fall, with the level of commitment Sadarites have to the truce, which happened to have been announced at the very point (several months after the beginning of the truce) that deaths declined dramatically, even though Charles consistently and wrongfully attributed that decline to the surge.
Posted by: Justin | May 30, 2008 at 01:36 PM
But it does mean that saying that a Presidential candidate can't know about Iraq without going there is silly. Just ask John McCain, who has been any number of times, but is still clueless.
Just to nitpick here, this passage contains a logical fallacy, Hilzoy.
To disprove "(For all x)(If x knows about Iraq, then x has been to Iraq)", we need a counter-example of the form "S has not been to Iraq, but S knows about Iraq."
Your purported counter-example is "McCain has been to Iraq, but McCain does not know about Iraq", which is not logically equivalent. (I think it's the inverse, if I'm recalling the terminology correctly.)
Posted by: Brock | May 30, 2008 at 01:37 PM
When it comes to Americans in Iraq, the math we need is subtraction and not addition. The question is not when Obama will go to Iraq. It is when our troops will come home.
It seems that, after five years, the empirical evidence is clear as to what our presence will produce--a multi-factional, internecine war that smolders and flames into varying degrees of violence. True, it is questionable whether Iraqi political leaders can resolve this conflict, and it sadly cannot be ruled out that our leaving will unleash more violence. But as long as we are the true power and referee, none of the fighting factions has incentive to stop violently jockeying for power, or at least to position themselves to fight for power after we're gone. Which someday we will be.
So our choice is do we 1) make it clear we'll leave soon and incent the factions to peacibly resolve their conflict by offering post-peace rebuilding, risking that this might not work and that a bloodbath will ensue after we go that will empower a faction hostile to us or 2) stay indefinitely, in which case Iraq will most likely continue indefinitely as it has since we invaded, until our inevitable departure, after which there will be the same risk of a bloody ascension to power of a hostile faction.
As an Iraqi I met four years ago told me, "America has only two problems in Iraq. First, you can't leave. Second, you can't stay."
Maybe all this means we shouldn't have gone in the first place.
Whoever thought of that must be pretty smart, smart enough maybe to figure out what to do now and keep us out of tragedies like this going forward.
By contrast, those who have been wrong all along should not be listened to. At least about wars.
Posted by: Charlie Martel | May 30, 2008 at 01:39 PM
Charles,
Taking the closest historical parallel I can think of, how many on the ground visits did Richard Nixon (the future candidate of the party not occupying the WH) pay to Vietnam in the lead up to the 1968 election? How accurate a picture did they provide of what was going on and what dividends did they yield from a policy standpoint?
hilzoy comments:
Second, the stated purpose of the surge was to enable political progress to occur. This is not happening. When it does, I will say that the surge is "working". Not before. (I hope it does.)
[the bolding is my emphasis]
The best way IMHO to gauge this is by detailed discussions with authoritative spokesmen for each of the major political factions (e.g., the parties, militias, and other figures such as Sistani) in Iraq. This has to happen quietly and behind closed doors, or else the realities of the situation will dissolve into smoke and spin for public consumption on the part of various publics both American and Iraqi.
A very public high level visit will never be able to accomplish this, most likely it would produce the opposite. If anything constructive is to come from this, Obama should send surrogates, and do so as quietly as possible. Given the way this micro-issue of visting schedules has now been politicized for the purposes of the US general election, I do not expect that will happen until after the election is over.
Posted by: ThatLeftTurnInABQ | May 30, 2008 at 01:47 PM
Welcome back Charles.
Kitty - Does this mean his name needs to be put back up on the sidebar?
Posted by: Ugh | May 30, 2008 at 01:57 PM
Any trip by a presidential candidate to Iraq is a stunt. Visiting a country to see what it's like isn't like visiting a prison to see how prisoners are being treated (and of course we haven't had much luck even with that more limited task). The visitor isn't seeing all of (or a random sample of) the territory and the population, and the visitor's presence of course affects what's happening in those areas that are visited and what's said by those people that are spoken to. It's meaningless.
If it were possible to visit anywhere in Iraq without massive preparations and security measures, then perhaps that would mean there'd been progress. But of course that's far from true.
Posted by: KCinDC | May 30, 2008 at 01:58 PM
I laugh every time somebody argues that Obama has a unique need to serve the irrational needs of his base with respect to war. If McCain advocated anything other than permanent occupation and military belligerence as a foreign policy, his base would run away faster than if he'd performed an abortion with his teeth.
It happens that McCain's personal sentiments align with the what his base demands. So do Obama's. Framing Obama's situation as unique or sinister just makes you look silly.
Posted by: Tim F | May 30, 2008 at 02:18 PM
"It would also be interesting to see if Obama does change his 16-month cut-and-run policy after a visit to Iraq, considering that there are strong indicators that the strategy is working*."
There's an asterisk there, but it's not clear why.
In your linked Redstate post, Charles, you write that:
You go on to list a bunch more "positive" developments. Your entire post is a condemnation of Obama (his "16-month cut-and-run policy"), the NY Times, Harry Reid, and unspoken others, for being "defeatists" and "willing to surrender," etc.Then you throw in a couple of completely contradictory CYA statements about how "Also, none of this means that I believed we've turned the corner or that we're winning in Iraq."
Except that both your posts say otherwise; it's their entire point.
Trying to CYA by contradicting the entire point of your posts doesn't fly. You can't logically write a post all about how all these nasty people aren't perceiving how great things are going, and how turned around it all is, and then try to CYA by tossing in a CYA statement that you don't believe everything you just wrote. Sorry, but down the road, when you try to claim that this post showed how you weren't claiming things had been turned around, and that we're on the road to success, no honest reader will let you get away with that claim.
As always, you completely refuse to discuss the only issues that matter in Iraq: how close is Iraq to achieving a popularly legitimate government, accepted as fairly representing both Sunni and Shi'a, Arab, Kurd, Turkmen, and all ethnicities and factions, and claiming and maintaining a reasonable monopoly of force?
As always, you never ever ever even acknowledge that this is even relevant, or even worth mentioning, let alone that it's the only thing that matters, but instead go on about other matters you want to point to.
How about that post on how Iraq's government is doing, Charles? Any reason you're having problems getting to it, given that I've been asking you if you might want to address the topic for, what, how many years now?
"Iraqi Airways just signed a multi-billion dollar order with Boeing for a fleet of new passenger jets"
Woo-hoo; have there been no schools painted lately?
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 30, 2008 at 02:22 PM
Obama should announce that he is ready to visit Iraq with John McCain the minute George Bush and Dick Cheney agree to come along. Silly? Yes. Sillier than McCain's schoolboy taunt? Not by a long shot.
I can't believe people are taking this "go to Iraq" crap seriously. If McCain wants to run for President of Iraq, by all means let him spend all the campaign time he wants there. I want (to coin a phrase) an American President focused on AMERICAN issues. Contrary to those not-yet-disgruntled (still-gruntled?) Bush-McCain supporters for whom Iraq is practically the 51st state, I say it's high time for Americans to stop acting as if "winning in Iraq" is strategically equivalent to defending Baltimore from the British.
-- TP
Posted by: Tony P. | May 30, 2008 at 02:23 PM
"Neither candidate has any business going to Iraq, because the law prohibits using the US military as props in a political campaign. This may seem unnatural to our friends on the right, but it's true."
Quite.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 30, 2008 at 02:26 PM
A few points about your post:
Firstly, The statistics regarding media coverage of the Iraq war alone are not valid proof that there has been progress in Iraq.
The media has spent the last 5-7 months covering in detail the hotly contested campaign for the next president. It is possible that other types of coverage have been reduced similarly to make way for an "all presidential campaign coverage all the time" network strategy. (As was noted in the article at the PEJ) Coverage of the Iraq war dropped dramatically as the coverage of the campaigns increased.
This is not proof that there has been less violence in Iraq. What actually may be is the drop in number of casualties since the beginning of the year.
Secondly, I do not recall any statement by the Obama campaign repdudiating Smantha Power's remarks about Obama's Iraq policy. Can you produce such comments? The article you link to provides no such quote. And my understanding is that Power resigned exclusively over the "Hillary is a Monster" comment that she made. I have not been able to find any source that indicates otherwise, and the article you link provides no proof of that.
And finally, I feel that your analysis leaves out a very important part of Barak Obama's rational for reducing our presence in Iraq. Namely the strain on our military, and the strain on US financial resources. Not to mention the cost in American Casualties. You may belief that this str
Posted by: Shinobi | May 30, 2008 at 02:44 PM
Charles, hopefully you'll figure this out eventually, but we've already lost this war. We lost the minute we invaded. The premeditated invasion and occupation of Iraq was itself a defeat for our country.
Pimping the 'surge' as some sort of vindication for your war is not going to absolve your faction of responsibility for this criminal catastrophe, nor will it give your opinions any credibility. I'm afraid you've lost that too.
Posted by: charles | May 30, 2008 at 02:47 PM
Eric and Hilzoy: You’ve both stated emphatically here that it “is not working”. The criteria you use to gauge it by (as stated here and repeatedly for a long time) is political progress. “political progress” is a very relative term, very slippery I think. Have you considered this?
World leaders, including UN chief Ban Ki-moon and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on Thursday hailed Baghdad's progress in combatting violence and stabilising Iraq.
A declaration adopted by 100 delegations at a Stockholm conference said the participants "recognised the important efforts made by the (Iraqi) government to improve security and public order and combat terrorism and sectarian violence across Iraq."
It also acknowledged political and economic progress made, and said that "given the difficult context, these successes are all the more remarkable."
So – world leaders including Ban Ki-moon say that political progress has been made, and that the successes are remarkable given the context. Do you totally discount that?
I have not changed my position (against the surge, withdraw now) but I’m always on the lookout for signs of hope. I’m not arguing any position here (don’t intend to follow up on this) – I’m just curious if a) you were aware of this and b) if you maintain that no progress has been made given that world leaders and the head of the UN explicitly state that (remarkable given the context) political progress has been made.
If you disagree with the UN (and frankly I have more respect for both of you than I do for that "august body") then I’m curious to see if you are willing to refine your criteria and specify what exactly will qualify as political progress in your opinion. Alternatively - who, if not the head of the UN, will you believe when they say that progress has been made?
Gary: just because I saw your comment on preview – ditto. I don’t know the answer to your question ("how close is Iraq to achieving a popularly legitimate government…"), but do you accept that some progress has been made?
Again, I’m not arguing any position here. I’m just curious as to what people will accept as some progress, because the meme seems to be no progress at all has been made therefore the surge is not working.
Posted by: OCSteve | May 30, 2008 at 02:49 PM
Steve,
They were making those statements in the context of trying to drum up aid dollars, forgiveness of debt and foreign investment.
That's like pointing to a salesman's pitch and submitting it as evidence of the underlying claims.
Let's put it this way:
What political progress?
Posted by: Eric Martin | May 30, 2008 at 02:52 PM
"Kitty - Does this mean his name needs to be put back up on the sidebar?"
I'd still suggest that having the names of all current possible posters, on sabbatical or not, as well as the names of all those who have definitively done a Sherman in declaring they will never, ever, post here again, ever ever ever, listed as "emeritus," or equivalent, would be respectful. I mean, it's not as if there's a space shortage, or a shortage of letters of the alphabet available to do that. It seems to me that Moe, Edward, Slarti, and von, deserve that minimal respect and acknowledgement, rather than being rendered non-persons who never posted here. (I'd even go so far as put "Founding poster" after Moe, Edward, and von's name, but hey, let's not go crazy.)
But that's just me.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 30, 2008 at 02:53 PM
To join Brock in picking nits (thus evincing that, yes, I really have better things I should be doing, and no, I'm not doing them):
P: One has gone to Iraq
Q: One understands the situation in Iraq
McCain: (Ax)~P(x)->~Q(x)
Hilzoy: (x=McCain)P(x)^~Q(x)
<-> ~(~P|Q)
<-> ~(P->Q)
Which would disprove "Everyone who has gone to Iraq understands Iraq", not McCain's "Everyone who hasn't gone to Iraq doesn't understand Iraq", which, yes, is the inverse.
The McCainian proposition is disproven by showing that it is not necessary to go to Iraq to understand it. Hilzoy relatedly but not identically points out that it is not sufficient to go there to understand it.
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide | May 30, 2008 at 02:55 PM
"So – world leaders including Ban Ki-moon say that political progress has been made, and that the successes are remarkable given the context. Do you totally discount that?"
Without a metric, of course. It's boilerplate.
Put up a metric, and we'll talk. Statements of policicans ain't no metric.
OCSteve, can I perhaps suggest you read up on how this all worked in the Vietnam War? Five o'clock follies? Just read a good book on the war. Try Stanley Karnow, say.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 30, 2008 at 02:56 PM
"but do you accept that some progress has been made?"
If you can point to an objective metric by which political progress in Iraq has measurably improved, I certainly will.
Otherwise, Gary says: No objective metric, no objective measure of progress.
I'm all about the metrics, OCSteve. You should know that.
How about you get back to us when we have the leaders of the "Awakenings" testifying to how they've had local elections, and have been fully integrated with the national government, and we see a national government being accepted as largely legitimate by most Sunnis, Shia, Kurds, Turkmen, and so on? How about you get back to us when there aren't any armed militias running around? How about you get back to us when most Iraqis say they feel safe, and that they largely feel that the government is legitimate?
But I'm open-minded about considering any objective metric of political success you'd like to suggest. Or I'll suggest more specific ones, but I'm trying to be as open as possible to anything remotely reasonably legitimate.
And statements by politicians as metrics? Are you kidding?
Why not just ask Don Rumsfeld what he thinks, and say that settles it?
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 30, 2008 at 03:02 PM
OCSteve -- I was also going to say what Eric Martin said in reply to yours of 2:49, but probably less well than he.
Specifically to this, though: Alternatively - who, if not the head of the UN, will you believe when they say that progress has been made? Personally, I don't care who says "progress has been made," up to and including the baby Jesus. Unless they can point to, um, actual political events that demonstrate that progress. (And on preview I seen that Gary has beaten me to this point also.)
Posted by: farmgirl | May 30, 2008 at 03:03 PM
I believe the Iraqis are making significant political progress as a result of the surge.
Posted by: Teenage Jesus | May 30, 2008 at 03:05 PM
Argh! The preview, it LIES! There was supposed to be a at the end of my post. But Preview rendered the escape characters as ASCII in the text box. Evil, tricksy Preview...
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide | May 30, 2008 at 03:06 PM
Yep: definitely, logically unsound. (Me, I mean. I was. In that comment.)
OCSteve: I'm waiting for things like a functioning government from which the Sunnis are not forever on the verge of withdrawing, some sense that corruption has dropped to a minimally tolerable level, etc. I don't see that this has happened.
To be clear: I am thrilled about the drop in violence. I am not at all clear that it has been anything like worth the cost, nor that some parts wouldn't have happened anyways (e.g., the Anbar stuff, which seemed to have been underway before the surge), but I think it's wonderful.
On the other hand, people are dying, it's costing us enormous amounts of money, our international standing is through the floor, large chunks of the Muslim world think we're fighting a war against Islam as a whole, and we cannot pay enough attention to anything else as long as we're here.
Plus, I remain deeply worried about having our troops pinned down so near Iran. One of my maxims in thinking about foreign policy is: preserve your freedom of action; minimize your vulnerabilities. One of the things I think hasn't been the object of nearly enough attention is the ways in which we have just thrown our freedom of action away over the past seven years -- from miring our army in this hopeless mess, to giving the Chinese the power to tank our economy if they see fit, to not doing much of anything to remove our dependence on oil-producing dictatorships, to not doing anything like a decent job of enhancing homeland security.
The number of things that, if they went wrong, could do us serious damage is much, much higher than it ought to be.
Posted by: hilzoy | May 30, 2008 at 03:08 PM
Were you not *listening* to what I said, Teenage Jesus? (Kids these days...)
Posted by: farmgirl | May 30, 2008 at 03:09 PM
Double argh! It wasn't just Preview that hated my < /pedanticnitpick>, escape characters or no. Cunning, underhanded Typepad...
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide | May 30, 2008 at 03:10 PM
I believe the Iraqis are making significant political progress as a result of the surge.
Posted by: Grampa Simpson Jesus | May 30, 2008 at 03:13 PM
And who decided to saddle us with the term "homeland security" anyway? It just doesn't strike me as a very American phrase (unlike, say, Germany or Russia, with which one associates "fatherland" or "motherland"). (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
Any takers that a Democratic administration might do a little roll-back on some of the restructuring that created this unwieldy behemoth?
Posted by: farmgirl | May 30, 2008 at 03:14 PM
I'm still trying to figure out why the Obama campaign should care what Charles Bird, any member of the Republican Party, or any member of the die-hard 27% Brigade thinks about what they should or should not do regarding Iraq at this point in time. Or anything else, for that matter.
Posted by: Phil | May 30, 2008 at 03:15 PM
Gosh farmgirl's got high standards. ;-)
Posted by: Ugh | May 30, 2008 at 03:21 PM
That's like pointing to a salesman's pitch and submitting it as evidence of the underlying claims.
And statements by politicians as metrics? Are you kidding?
Personally, I don't care who says "progress has been made,"
I’m not in Iraq. I don’t communicate with any Iraqis who live in Iraq. So anything I consider is something someone else claimed – someone with an agenda. Metrics are great. But if someone lays out the metrics saying attacks are down, that can’t be due to improved security – it’s just because Sadr is taking it easy this month. The Awakenings had nothing to do with the surge… In fact any metric that is pointed to is dismissed as having an alternate explanation unrelated to the surge. That may very well be true. I certainly don’t know.
I don’t know if the surge is working or not. I’m just curious what criteria those who are certain it is not will accept as some political progress (therefore the surge is working maybe just a little).
(Gary, I think you laid out a good list so thanks. Hilzoy, I think yours are a bit slippery, very tough to say when a condition has been met. Eric?)
some sense that corruption has dropped to a minimally tolerable level
Heck our government doesn’t meet that criterion. ;)
Posted by: OCSteve | May 30, 2008 at 03:40 PM
Metrics:
Farber set out a solid list. Iraqi political progress requires a few things:
1. Elections that bring in truly representative groups (currently, ISCI/Dawa and the Sunni bloc are overrepresented locally and, in the case of the latter, nationally). Large swathes of the Sunni population boycotted local and national elections. Many Sadrists boycotted local elections. These are a must.
2. If those elections are held, a willingness on the part of the various groups and individuals to put faith in the legitimacy of the governing institutions and share power, integrate rival armed forces, come to acceptable agreements on oil revenue distribution/development, etc.
3. There has to be buy-in with respect to #2 to the extent that the violence drops to very manageable levels (recent gains are great, but if deaths from bombings on that scale were occurring in the US, we'd be starting wars with everyone - related and not).
Like Gary, I'm also open to alternative metrics if you have any to suggest. Do you have any "progress" in mind that you would like to discuss?
And Steve, I don't mean to pile on or sound snarky. Your perspective is much appreciated, and these questions you are asking are invaluable to the discussion.
Posted by: Eric Martin | May 30, 2008 at 03:54 PM
Oh hey, has it been six months already? The time flies.....
Posted by: Morat20 | May 30, 2008 at 03:56 PM
The interesting thing about the phrase "homeland security" is that it is a back-formation. If the only important security concern is the homeland, as was true for most of American history, you don't need to use an adjective. "Security" is enough. At most, depending on context, you may want the phrase "national security," to avoid confusion with, say, stocks and bonds, or emotional comfort.
It is only when you have extended the definition of "national security" to include sizable holdings abroad, such as Iraq, that you need to distinguish between national security generally and security for the home country. In short, it is a phrase only an empire needs.
Posted by: trilobite | May 30, 2008 at 04:11 PM
Heh. Hadn't thought of it that way trilo.
Posted by: Eric Martin | May 30, 2008 at 04:17 PM
Phil: That's actually a good question. We know what they'd say if, for instance, the stalwart Democrats started insisting what McCain had to do to earn our respect and votes. It applies in reverse. As far as I'm concerned, folks like Charles are welcome to see the light and join the pro-American, pro-prosperity, pro-justice, pro-truth party at ay time. But I'm not holding my breath waiting, and insofar as Obama should feel the need to tilt his message in any direction, I'd prefer that he continue his successful habit of reaching out to involve more of the uninvolved who are receptive to a pitch based on American fundamental values.
Voters who need someone to reassure them that it's okay, America can continue to be the world's leading immoral and incompetent and insolvent bully, have a candidate only too glad to tell them that, and websites ready to back them up. I prefer that Obama focus on those open to the message that acting another way is more in keeping with America's own better self as well as pragmatically desirable.
Posted by: Bruce Baugh | May 30, 2008 at 04:19 PM
Trilobite: Right on. Goes nicely with Nell's excellent observation that if we have to fight an insurgency, we're somewhere we shouldn't be.
Posted by: Bruce Baugh | May 30, 2008 at 04:21 PM
The interesting thing about the phrase "homeland security" is that it is a back-formation. If the only important security concern is the homeland, as was true for most of American history, you don't need to use an adjective.
Cf. Department of Defense vs. Department of War. If we weren't an empire, the former would suffice. Since we are, we should go back to the latter (and it would remind everyone what they do!).
Posted by: Ugh | May 30, 2008 at 04:21 PM
Your proposal is nonsense, as demonstrated by this remark:
I'm pretty sure McCain won't pull out a 'Mission Accomplished' banner on a joint trip...
The whole point of McCain's recent visits has been to pretend that everything is going just fine, and the whole point of proposing a joint visit is to engage in "Mission Accomplished" rhetoric and photo-ops for the whole trip.
And "no preconditions"? -- code speak that Obama must emasculate himself while there and not use the visit to demonstrate how pointless the Iraq War is.
We already have enough phony photo-op trips in favor of the war, and Obama does not have to participate in additional war propangada. There is no way that McCain, Petraeus or the Bush administration would not grossly politicize a trip by Obama and do everything in their power to use the trip for political purposes.
Posted by: dmbeaster | May 30, 2008 at 05:14 PM
2. If those elections are held, a willingness on the part of the various groups and individuals to put faith in the legitimacy of the governing institutions and share power, integrate rival armed forces, come to acceptable agreements on oil revenue distribution/development, etc.
A precondition for this would be the purging from the police/military/etc forces of partisan militias, or the genuine integration of those personnel into their respective governmental roles.
OC, this is one of things I use as one rough barometer- the number of times I heard about folks from the Interior ministry etc using their power to terrorize political/sectarian opponents. At this point I've no indication whatsoever that this is being fixed (if anything, the opposite, based on the recent provoked pre-election conflict with the Sadrists), but there's no way for real national unity without a 'national' police/army that isn't just the militia of one faction.
I feel I must congratulate Charles; he has somehow managed to maintain at least one Friedman unit of optimism through this entire fiasco. No matter how dark the actual news, he was able to find some useless pyrite nugget upon which to build his castle of hopes.
Now (as pointed out above) he is preparing for the shift from 'inevitable victory' to 'the stab in the back', thus achieving his personal goal: never having to admit that he was disastrously, fatally wrong. Over and over again.
I must point out a quote from the RedState link: The Basra offensive improved al Maliki's political standing, which has enabled him to take on al Sadr's home base in Sadr City and the last urban al Qaeda stronghold in Mosul. Not sure when it became a sign of progress that the governing faction is using the US-trained army to go after another faction (al Sadr). But *everything* is progress if you look at it right! al Sadr calls a cease-fire = less violence = progress! al Maliki uses the military to attack his political opposition = crushing the insurgents = progress! Presumably al Sadr surviving these attacks and carrying on into the elections = multi-party democracy = progress! Rogue asteroid destroys the entire country = political stability = progress!
Posted by: Carleton Wu | May 30, 2008 at 05:22 PM
Me on "Homeland Security": " (I still can't write those two words without thinking when did we become German?)".
Me, June 15, 2002:
Geez, I actually quoted Mickey Kaus. For the last time.But surely everyone is aware that the reason the DHS exists is to funnel pork, right?
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 30, 2008 at 05:45 PM
By thew way, nothing measures political progress better than regular elections conducted freely and with minimal violence.
When are the Iraqis going to vote again, and will it be possible to hold a vote? Regional elections are currently set for October, or over three years since the last local elections (which were Jan 2005). The last election concerning the Parliament was in Dec. 2005, and none are scheduled for this year. The Kirkuk referendum is now 7 months overdue with no date set for that election.
How can anyone pretend that there is any meaningful political progress when the country is unable to hold elections. Any bets on whether the civil war violence will escalate if elections do occur again?
Posted by: dmbeaster | May 30, 2008 at 05:55 PM
Actually, the asteroid example makes me think of a relevant point- of course, it's possible to produce similar patterns of thinking slanted pessimistically...
But fundamentally, I don't think it's right to suggest that just because civil order is necessary for a political resolution that *any* reduction in violence means that we're closer to a political resolution.
For example, Anbar Awakening may have reduced violence and tension between the US and the Sunnis, but it did so with a serious risk to national unity (the Shi'a are still very unhappy with the Sunni militias, insisting that they have no permanent HQs, that they eventually be disbanded, etc). I think it clearly moves us further towards sectarianism, militia-ism, and away from national governance.
It's easy to cheer for reductions in violence- but cheering events like this explains a great deal of why we've had more than half-a-decade of successes without apparently moving closer to the goal. Today, I dont see us being any closer to national unity than we were in 2004.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | May 30, 2008 at 06:06 PM
You can't go to Iraq and not have a dog and pony show.
Then your argument isn't just with me, Eric, it's with Obama. In his own words:
And the strategy is not working.
Why?
Posted by: Charles Bird | May 30, 2008 at 06:55 PM
Folks, let's get to the bottom line: what is OUR interest in Iraq? How desperately do we care whether the Shia or the Sunni end up running the place?
On "metrics", nobody here has come close to the true metric of a legitimate government: taxation. No Bushie or McCainiac would dare say so, but the power to tax its people, and the people's consent to being taxed, is the ultimate (and arguably the only) measure of any government's legitimacy.
As best I can tell, the practical (as opposed to nominal) situation in Iraq is basically a reverse-taxation arrangement: the national government DISTRIBUTES, rather than collects, money. If true, this makes a "legitimate representative government" in Iraq a near-impossibility. So anybody who thinks prolonging America's involvement in the internal Iraqui fight serves any sort of idealistic purpose is smoking something.
-- TP
Posted by: Tony P. | May 30, 2008 at 07:33 PM
I guess the important question "is our Charles learning?" has been answered in the negative.
Posted by: Pooh | May 30, 2008 at 07:51 PM
January, 2007:
"To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis."Did this happen, Charles?
"To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs."
Did this happen, Charles?
"To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year."
Did this happen, Charles?
"And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws,"
Give us some cites on the success of that, please, Charles.
"and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution."
How has that gone, Charles?
"We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams."
How about a cite on the success of this, Charles?
"So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced."
Did this happen, Charles?
Tell us about the benchmarks, Charles. The benchmarks. The benchmarks.
Tell us about the elections, the way the "Awakening" groups have been integrated into the national government, the way most citizens of Iraq believe that the Iraqi government is generally a representative, non-sectarian, government, that is at least vaguely non-corrupt, vaguely effective, and possesses at least a vague monopoly of force, Charles.
Tell us about how the militias have been eliminated, Charles, rather than just those that the U.S. government doesn't like.
Tell us about how SCII and Dawa and Maliki are subject to Iranian influence than Sadr, Charles.
Use your vast expertise to tell us about all these things.
I for one, could be convinced, if you'd finally get around to telling us about this stuff, as you've been asked to for years, rather than posting about meaningless statistics and press releases.
It's in your court, Charles.
Tell us.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 30, 2008 at 07:56 PM
January, 2007:
"To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis."Did this happen, Charles?
"To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs."
Did this happen, Charles?
"To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year."
Did this happen, Charles?
"And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws,"
Give us some cites on the success of that, please, Charles.
"and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution."
How has that gone, Charles?
"We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams."
How about a cite on the success of this, Charles?
"So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced."
Did this happen, Charles?
Tell us about the benchmarks, Charles. The benchmarks. The benchmarks.
Tell us about the elections, the way the "Awakening" groups have been integrated into the national government, the way most citizens of Iraq believe that the Iraqi government is generally a representative, non-sectarian, government, that is at least vaguely non-corrupt, vaguely effective, and possesses at least a vague monopoly of force, Charles.
Tell us about how the militias have been eliminated, Charles, rather than just those that the U.S. government doesn't like.
Tell us about how SCII and Dawa and Maliki are subject to Iranian influence than Sadr, Charles.
Use your vast expertise to tell us about all these things.
I for one, could be convinced, if you'd finally get around to telling us about this stuff, as you've been asked to for years, rather than posting about meaningless statistics and press releases.
It's in your court, Charles.
Tell us.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 30, 2008 at 07:56 PM
Gary's May 30, 2008 at 7:56pm comment is my favorite Gary Farber comment of all time. Even upon a second read.
And not because it's aimed at you Charles.
Posted by: Ugh | May 30, 2008 at 08:02 PM
"Tell us about how SCII and Dawa and Maliki are subject to Iranian influence than Sadr, Charles."
Should be "Tell us about how SCII and Dawa and Maliki are subject to less Iranian influence than Sadr, Charles."
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 30, 2008 at 08:03 PM
Then your argument isn't just with me, Eric, it's with Obama.
That would be a devastating critique *if* Eric functioned solely as a spinner for the Obama campaign or the Democratic Party.
Aside from that, it's easy to see that Eric can both disagree with Obama on this particular issue (ie trip to Iraq, useful data gathering or political theater?) while simultaneously disagreeing with McCain and your talking points a great deal more, and on more substantial grounds.
Really, though, this is transparent. Rather than engaging *anyone* about *any* substance, your embarrassingly tendentious history on Iraq, etc, you pick some side point and pretend that it's something other than what it is. Eric is so far left he even disagrees with Obama sometimes, on fairly trivial matters (can Obama talk with Petraeus via videoconference, or is a face-to-face the only way to look into his soul?)! Forget about discussing the use of the Interior Ministry to suppress rival political factions, this is the really important stuff!
Seconding Ugh- that post by Gary is going to leave a mark.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | May 30, 2008 at 08:12 PM
Gary,
In all fairness to Charles, we did give the Iraqi government some money to spend on our airplanes. If that's not progress, then I don't know what progress is.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | May 30, 2008 at 08:14 PM
Seconding Ugh- that post by Gary is going to leave a mark.
Is going to leave a benchmark, methinks.
BENCH
mark
I love the smell of that word in the morning, it smells like victory.
Posted by: ThatLeftTurnInABQ | May 30, 2008 at 08:30 PM
Tony P -
but the power to tax its people, and the people's consent to being taxed, is the ultimate (and arguably the only) measure of any government's legitimacy.
As alluded to upstream, I would rate the people's consenting to giving the government a monopoly on the use of violence as a more important measure. But perhaps I'm mis-reading your use of the word "ultimate".
Back to the thread - I'd be perfectly happy if Obama announced serious plans to study the situation there, including trips, after he wins the election. Before the election it is, as many have said here, a political stunt (fraught with danger, given the players) and wasteful of the military's time.
Posted by: cw | May 30, 2008 at 08:36 PM
Here's another indicator that the COIN strategy is working. News coverage is way down
This suggests a quick and easy way to end the war: Convince the MSM not to publish / air ANY news coverage abouit Iraq. When the coverage goes to zero, WE WIN!!!eleventy!! Ponies for everyone!
Posted by: Jeff | May 30, 2008 at 08:41 PM
"In addition to Mosul and Basra, perhaps he could even go to Diyala province now that it's been pacified."
Why don't you get on a plane, and spend a week strolling around Diyala, unescorted, Charles?
I bet we can get up a fund to pay for your trip.
I'm serious. Think of what great blogging you could do.
Just promise you'll go walk around Mosul on your own, with no American troops or Iraqi troops to guard you whatever, for, say, five days, and come home and blog about it: I'll raise funds to pay for your plane ticket. You can probably find a lovely hotel in Mosul on your own, but we can raise, say, another $500 to pay for that.
It's pacified! Why not go?
I'm serious: why not?
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 30, 2008 at 08:43 PM
I would contribute $5, as long as Shorja Market is on the itinerary, which Charles also feels is safe.
Posted by: spartikus | May 30, 2008 at 08:52 PM
"In all fairness to Charles, we did give the Iraqi government some money to spend on our airplanes. If that's not progress, then I don't know what progress is."
Charles cited Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times; here's the comedy quote:
Because at the top of the concerns of ordinary Iraqis is flying on an Iraqi-owned jet. I can't wait for the video of Iraqi citizens dancing in the street. Be sure to post a link to that here, Charles!I just hope they'll still offer free peanuts to Iraqis who fly Iraqi Airlines. That's even better than painted schools, and purple thumbs!
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 30, 2008 at 09:04 PM
Perhaps Gary should read a book about Iraq. Here's a suggestion.
Posted by: DaveC | May 30, 2008 at 09:17 PM
I'll pledge another $5 for DaveC to join the expedition.
Posted by: spartikus | May 30, 2008 at 09:30 PM
Perhaps Gary should read a book about Iraq.
Perhaps you'd be so good as to address Gary's points and explain how and where he's misguided.
Posted by: josefina welch | May 30, 2008 at 09:32 PM
I would gladly donate $25 to help make it possible for Charles to see Iraq and report on it, in the way that Gary suggests.
Posted by: Bruce Baugh | May 30, 2008 at 09:45 PM
Speaking as someone who works in the airline industry, I can't imagine a crummier investment right now than purchasing tons of new shiny incredibly expensive aircraft. Airlines are businesses that have become highly evolved at losing money; this basic fact is unlikely to change in the next decade or two. Plus, leasing aircraft is surprisingly cost effective. Many carriers opt to do that rather than purchase metal outright.
If Charles or DaveC would seriously consider visiting Iraq, I'd be willing to put a non-trivial number of dollars to support that.
Posted by: Turbulence | May 30, 2008 at 09:52 PM
It's all good.
I've read some 50+ books on Iraq alone, incidentally, and something on the order of 800+ on the history and politics of the Middle East, and something on the order of another 1000+ that dealt significantly with the history and politics and cultures of the Middle East.
I've also read most of what Michael Yon has written for the past 5 years.
In case anyone was wondering. I'm sure, though, that people who are chipper about how well things are going in Iraq must be far more knowledgeable than I.
Just like they care ever so much more about Israel, and antisemitism, and threats to the Jews, than I do.
I am but an egg.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 30, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Indeed, Gary, indeed. You may know these things, but you don't know them. And you may care about them, but you don't care about them with right intent.
For shame; oh, woe is thee!
(And as an aside I concur, 07:30 stung mightily just to read as an observer. Aïaïaïaïaï...)
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide | May 30, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Pretty much agreed.
Read this again:
While I understand that you may not like BushCo and his war, please consider that your frequent highlighting of the failures in Iraq may have a devastating psychological effect on those trying to make Iraq better.
Is it so important to you for Bush to be defeated that you want Al Qaeda In Iraq, or Mogtada Al-Sadr to run the country? Was Basra better when religious police could kill musicians or bartenders? That was the way it was under the control of Al Sadr.
If you want Iraq to be like Iran then you are ok here; if you think that Gaza would be a paradise were it not for the existence of Israel, if you think that Hugo Chavez and FARC are the good guys, that waving a Chomsky book and ranting against the USA at the United Nations is somehow virtuous because it is against the hated President Bush, well, then that is what you are.
I am not going to change your mind, because I don't think you really care if Iraq succeeds in making itself a normal country. You want Basra to be run by the Mahdi Army thugs again. You wish that Mosul was dominated by Al Qaeda. You deny or ignore the fact that the Kurdish part of Iraq is any better than under Saddam Hussein.
But then what happens after Bush leaves office as a failure? Do we let Al Qaeda, Al-Sadr, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. just have their way? I think that is crazy, but I may just be stupid.
By the way, I have sent Gary a few Jacksons and he still hate me. You as sholes that are taking up a collection for me are at least giving me a bit more love.
Posted by: DaveC | May 31, 2008 at 01:17 AM
please consider that your frequent highlighting of the failures in Iraq may have a devastating psychological effect on those trying to make Iraq better
Yeah, the defining characteristic of the soldiers of the US Army is that they burst into tears whenever anyone hurts their feelings. You'd think that might pose a real problem for combat effectiveness, but Sadr hasn't yet figured out how to have his men scream "you're ass looks big in those BDUs!" over a megaphone during a firefight.
In any event, most of the criticism I've seen about Iraq has focused on the Whitehouse, the Pentagon, and the senior brass, groups that in my experience come in for plenty of criticism from military folk. But since you refuse to specify what on earth you're talking about, its hard to argue with your points.
By the way, you might do Lt Nixon the courtesy of linking to his blog post when you copy a big chunk of it.
By the way, I have sent Gary a few Jacksons and he still hate me. You as sholes that are taking up a collection for me are at least giving me a bit more love.
Actually, I was only willing to donate money to pay for your trip to Iraq; I won't donate anything for the return trip.
I can't speak for Gary, but I get the sense that he may not respect you enough to hate you.
Here's a special message from this as shole: keep it classy DaveC, keep it classy.
Posted by: Turbulence | May 31, 2008 at 01:39 AM
On the al Qaeda front, U.S. Ambassador Crocker said yesterday that the terrorist group has "never been closer to defeat than they are now."
Funniest. Quote. Ever.
Posted by: david kilmer | May 31, 2008 at 02:31 AM
"And 'no preconditions'? -- code speak that Obama must emasculate himself while there and not use the visit to demonstrate how pointless the Iraq War is."
I think he was just being snarky about Obama's stance on meeting with other countries without preconditions. In other words, "He's willing to meet with Ahmadinejad, but he won't even meet with Petraeus".
Posted by: david kilmer | May 31, 2008 at 02:50 AM
Ah, Charles, you're reduced to trolling your own blog. How the mighty have fallen.
Posted by: Johnny Pez | May 31, 2008 at 04:36 AM
I see that during your absence you've been sharpening the "stabbed in the back" smear in anticipation of an Obama victory in November.
What smear, mattt? What are you talking about?
has there been a point in the last 5 years when you couldn't find someone willing to speak those words ?
Did I miss something, cleek? I thought the surge strategy started around 14 months ago.
This is as it should be. When McCain did his stroll through the market, the problem wasn't that he was surrounded by security; it was that for some reason he took what he saw as indicative of normal life.
Hil,
I agree that, for security reasons, the two main presidential nominees shouldn't be together in Iraq. For that matter, as a rule, they shouldn't be in the same place at the same time, 'cept for debates. But I disagree with your view that the Baghdad market that McCain wasn't a part of normal life. Normal had actually resumed in that market. Here's what Petraeus said on NPR about the day in Baghdad with McCain last year:
Second, the stated purpose of the surge was to enable political progress to occur. This is not happening.
I would agree that not enough political progress has occurred, Hil, but a blanket statement that political progress "is not happening" is in direct contradiction with what Ambassador Crocker reported to Congress last month.
We could have kept our casualties down in any number of ways -- not letting soldiers off base, for instance. The surge works if the breathing space we give the Iraqis enables them to arrive at a political accommodation.
This truly makes no sense to me, Hil. American soldiers have been taken out of the large FOBs and onto Iraqi streets, and since last August, military casualties have plummeted. The way we are giving them breathing space is by providing security to the populace, which is being achieved by having a visible joint Iraqi-American military presence.
Fourth, whether or not the surge was a good idea has to do with more than whether it works. If it works, there are benefits. Whether it works or not, there are also costs -- lives, money, and more. You have to weigh both.
I agree that the current strategy is expensive, but I submit to you that the price of the present strategy was made this expensive by the huge and many mistakes and bad decisions in the pre-Petraeus era. In effect, I suggest that we're still paying for blunders made in prior years. It still boils down to this: we are where we are. If it's your position that some fair measure of success can be achieved in Iraq, then to me, a proper COIN strategy is the best vehicle for achieving it. If it's your take that our venture in Iraq is irretrievably lost, then you would go with the Obama plan of removing all combat brigades in 16 months. I think it's pretty clear that I'm in the former and you're in the latter. I respect your opinion about it, but I don't share it.
Posted by: Charles Bird | May 31, 2008 at 09:18 AM
um, Powers didn't call Clinton a monster on British television. She said it off the record to a reporter, and I am really tired of hearing that out of context. She said she was campaigning like a monster in Ohio, which she was.
mathew, you're right that she said it to a UK newspaper and not British television, so I corrected the post. But the words she said are damning:
She said "she is a monster", then tried to soften it by saying that Hillary was "stooping to anything" to win. The results speak for themselves. Power resigned shortly after the comment. As for the comment being off the record, the reporter answers here. The tape was on, and the British have different rules when it comes to on-record and off-record comments. It's really too bad for Power. Her only real offense was that spoke with too much candor.Posted by: Charles Bird | May 31, 2008 at 09:48 AM
The only strategy that's working is the one that involves (a) betraying the Kurds, again, and (b) moving Iraq solidly into Iran's sphere of influence.
Francis, in what way are we betraying the Kurds? As for Iran, the removal of Saddam and the implementation of a Shiite-majority government did increase Iran's influence in Iraq. To the extent that that influence spreads their fundamnetalist doctrine and sows unrest, that is indeed a problem.
I find it hard to credit the notion that a center-rightist like Obama cares one wit about the opinions of the hard left.
NV, Obama's a center-rightist? National Journal had Obama as the most liberal Senator in 2007, and the Americans for Democratic Action gave him a 75% rating (100% is supreme ultimate liberal). I haven't seen evidence to suggest that he is anything but a solid left liberal.
Posted by: Charles Bird | May 31, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Thanks to all who responded. All together I think you’ve proposed reasonable benchmarks for “political progress”. Reasonable from the perspective that you would acknowledge progress at those points, not that I believe they are attainable any time soon.
Charles I admire your continued optimism, your persistence, and your willingness to come into the lion’s den here with a large steak tied around your neck. ;) I wish I could share your optimism, but I can’t.
Posted by: OCSteve | May 31, 2008 at 10:50 AM
I think it's a mistake to conflate political progress with reducing violence. In the long run, the two should converge, but most stable polities have been achieved by force of arms. In particular, most democracies seem to have been made possible by eradicating one of two irreconcilable sides in civil war, the USA included.
For me, political progress in Iraq would be indicated by a shift in political identifications from ethno-religious terms to economic or philosophical ones. In this sense, I think buying a quiet life in the Sunni regions is merely delaying problems that may ultimately be worse for it. On the other hand, the contest between the Maliki regime and the Sadrist tendency at least has an element of class conflict, the powerful vs. the poor. Ten years from now the southern region will be probably be in better shape for this conflict, while the Sunni and Kurdish regions will be one-horse towns run by the local kingpins getting bought off by the Americans right now.
Posted by: byrningman | May 31, 2008 at 12:19 PM
I am not going to change your mind, because I don't think you really care if Iraq succeeds in making itself a normal country. You want Basra to be run by the Mahdi Army thugs again.
If you understood that there's a difference between wanting something and being able to make it happen, you might understand why people want to withdraw troops from Iraq.
But I do have a question: why do you want America to have a budget deficit? Why do you want gasoline price to be so high? Why do you want Americans to go without cheap healthcare?
Why are your 'plans' that involve just wanting something limited to Iraq? Why do you hate America?
Posted by: Carleton Wu | May 31, 2008 at 12:30 PM
In particular, most democracies seem to have been made possible by eradicating one of two irreconcilable sides in civil war, the USA included.
I think your example actually illustrates the opposite. After the end of the armies-fighting-armies part of the struggle, North actually made huge concessions to the former Confederacy- and a long-term resistance was avoided. An analogy here would be if, after defeating Saddam, we had immediately be able to impose a government that satisfied all of the big factions, at least enough to keep them from going gun.
Im not sure if that was possible under the circumstances (I think not, but who can tell?), but it certainly didnt happen.
Once the genie is out of the bottle, I think it's much more difficult. It might have been possible for the French to create a democratic, West-oriented Vietnam sometime after WWII, but once the guerrilla war had set in it became somewhere between difficult and impossible.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | May 31, 2008 at 12:37 PM
I see that during your absence you've been sharpening the "stabbed in the back" smear in anticipation of an Obama victory in November.
What smear, mattt? What are you talking about?
Let's play 'Let's Pretend' everyone! Today, Charles is pretending he doesn't even understand what matt is talking about. Not that he thinks he isn't doing that, but that he just plain has no idea what is being discussed.
What's next, "no hablo ingles"?'
Posted by: Carleton Wu | May 31, 2008 at 12:43 PM
What's next, "no hablo ingles"?'
Or perhaps a suggestion the parrot is just sleeping?
Posted by: spartikus | May 31, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Sayth The Charles: But I disagree with your view that the Baghdad market that McCain wasn't a part of normal life. Normal had actually resumed in that market.
Normal =
At least 61 people were killed and many more wounded in a three-pronged attack there on Feb. 12 involving two vehicle bombs and a roadside bomb....In recent weeks [before McCain's visit], snipers hidden in Shorja’s bazaar have killed several people, merchants and the police say, and gunfights have erupted between militants and the Iraqi security forces in the area. cite
The latest massacre of Iraqi children came as 21 Shia market workers were ambushed, bound and shot dead north of the capital. The victims came from the Baghdad market visited the previous day by John McCain, the US presidential candidate, who said that an American security plan in the capital was starting to show signs of progress. cite
Today, CNN reported that they tried to visit the Shorja market, but it was too unsafe and they were unable to go:
We got close to that marketplace today [Mar 16, 2008], Jim, but our own security advisers here in Iraq did not want us to go there. They didn’t believe it was safe for an American to be in that area. We were in a thriving marketplace nearby. cite
You live in East St.Louis? Compton? Im curious.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | May 31, 2008 at 01:02 PM
The surge thing is silly, as for the last time, the Iraqi death toll (as measured by IBC, which admits that it undercounts) is almost perfectly correlated, rise and fall, with the level of commitment Sadarites have to the truce, which happened to have been announced at the very point (several months after the beginning of the truce) that deaths declined dramatically, even though Charles consistently and wrongfully attributed that decline to the surge.
Justin, I give the surge strategy at least partial credit for the reduction in casualties. It's not just because al Sadr called a ceasefire last August. Al Qaeda attacks have also dropped precipitously, due in part because Sunni tribal leaders chose to join forces with us. I agree with you that IBC and ICCC casualties undercount, but it seems reasonable that they would undercount consistently, which means that the trends are valid. Also, IBC and ICCC are the best sources available, so those are the numbers I use.
Framing Obama's situation as unique or sinister just makes you look silly.
Wha? Tim, I commended Obama for considering going. I really don't get what you're saying. Could you explain?
Except that both your posts say otherwise; it's their entire point.
'Fraid not, Gary. I don't think it's contradictory whatsoever to say that a strategy is working and at the same time say that we haven't turned the corner. Because the country is on an improving trend strategywise, does not mean that those improvements are enough to make a permanent imprint on the situaton. This is why I agree with Gen. Petraeus that the situation remains fragile. I also don't think it's unfair to criticize (condemnation is a pretty strong word) Obama and Reid and others on their policies.
Sorry, but down the road, when you try to claim that this post showed how you weren't claiming things had been turned around, and that we're on the road to success, no honest reader will let you get away with that claim.
Suit yourself, Gary.
As always, you completely refuse to discuss the only issues that matter in Iraq: how close is Iraq to achieving a popularly legitimate government, accepted as fairly representing both Sunni and Shi'a, Arab, Kurd, Turkmen, and all ethnicities and factions, and claiming and maintaining a reasonable monopoly of force?
I linked to Crocker's testimony. I agree that "only issues that matter" is political settlement as a long term objective, and a proper COIN strategy is a long-term strategy. I don't know what the end result will be, only that I think this process is the best vehicle for achieving the best results. I hear that Democrats are highly in favor of process, but hasn't been the case with Iraq. It's more like "are we there yet?" Given the trends since last August, I think the present strategy is worth pursuing. As usual, I'm afraid that my response will leave you disappointed.
Posted by: Charles Bird | May 31, 2008 at 01:04 PM
OC Steve: Charles I admire your continued optimism, your persistence, and your willingness to come into the lion’s den here with a large steak tied around your neck.
Concur.
Posted by: Model 62 | May 31, 2008 at 01:22 PM
I agree with you that IBC and ICCC casualties undercount, but it seems reasonable that they would undercount consistently, which means that the trends are valid. Also, IBC and ICCC are the best sources available, so those are the numbers I use.
There's no reason to believe that IBC numbers undercount the true civilian death toll consistently. IBC's methodology depends entirely on having multiple english-language media reports document civilian casualties. But the ability and willingness of english-language journalists to travel freely about Iraq has changed drastically over time. Many of these changes are completely uncorrelated with casualty trends: for example, when American media organizations decide to move resources away from Iraq reporting towards campaign coverage or when they decide that Iraq outside the green zone is simply too dangerous for any reporting. As a result, these media accounts increasingly depend on government reports, but the government is an interested party and appears to have manipulated such information in the past to achieve its own political ends. Insofar as ICCC numbers largely consist of Iraqi casualties, the exact same argument holds true.
Posted by: Turbulence | May 31, 2008 at 01:23 PM