Before getting to the details, let's consider the overarching premiss: that the choice we now face is whether to keep fighting and ultimately prevail, or to withdraw and abandon the Iraqis to their fate. As I see it, this premiss is completely false. If we keep fighting, there is no reason whatsoever to think that we will "prevail", and every reason to think that we will simply sacrifice a lot of American and Iraqi lives for nothing.

I agree that Bush's speech sucked and he would be more persuasive if he addressed the core issue as stated above. The core question is whether or not there is a reason to think that we will "prevail." The correct answer is that it is simply not possible to know right now, because we've changed tactics, and the new tactical approach won't pan out enough to tell if its working until the middle of next month. Both sides seem to be intensely interested in positioning a conclusion about whether or not that tactical approach works in advance of having any evidence. This is corrupt.

For example, Hillary Clinton is positioning that we're going to withdraw even if the evidence demonstrates that if we keep fighting we'll succeed.

We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it's working. We're just years too late changing our tactics.

Media Matters, who position themselves as an antidote to political spin, actually engage in political spin on this very topic!

Zuckerman did not offer any evidence to support his claim that "the consensus is that the surge is working." In fact, members of Congress, administration officials, and experts have all stated that political reconciliation, which the Bush administration identified as a key to the success of its escalation strategy, has not occurred.

There is no relationship whatsoever between an observation about the political reconciliation and an observation about the success or failure of a military tactic. It is dishonest to conflate them. Its like saying: Zuckerman did not offer any evidence to support his claim that "the consensus is that humans evolved from lower organisms." In fact, members of Congress, administrations officials, and experts have all stated that there is no proof of global warming, another scientific "theory."

We should have changed tactics two to three years ago, and we would have if the presidential election had been carried differently. There was, in fact, every reason to change horses in the middle of that particular stream. The horses did not change, and so the strategy did not change, until after the 2006 election. You cannot undo the fact that we went to war in Iraq by pulling out. You have a potentially viable change in tactics that was the fruit of the fact that people finally got around to firing some Republicans. Now you might have an opportunity to do things right going forward, and you're not interested. You're not going to take it. You are doing everything you can to shoot it down before you know whether or not its viable. Why? Because you are too trapped by the extremism of your own political rhetoric to make the right decision?

If the surge report is positive and yet the US pulls out of Iraq anyway it will be, frankly, just as irrational and tragic as the decision to go in in the first place. Perhaps thats the history we deserve, but it just goes to show you that it really, deeply, doesn't matter which political party is in charge.

Decius wrote:
We should have changed tactics two to three years ago, and we would have if the presidential election had been carried differently. There was, in fact, every reason to change horses in the middle of that particular stream. The horses did not change, and so the strategy did not change, until after the 2006 election. You cannot undo the fact that we went to war in Iraq by pulling out. You have a potentially viable change in tactics that was the fruit of the fact that people finally got around to firing some Republicans. Now you might have an opportunity to do things right going forward, and you're not interested. You're not going to take it. You are doing everything you can to shoot it down before you know whether or not its viable. Why? Because you are too trapped by the extremism of your own political rhetoric to make the right decision?

If the surge report is positive and yet the US pulls out of Iraq anyway it will be, frankly, just as irrational and tragic as the decision to go in in the first place. Perhaps thats the history we deserve, but it just goes to show you that it really, deeply, doesn't matter which political party is in charge.

I'm going to take a different tack here. The surge may well decrease violence, but the purpose is to decrease the violence so the Iraqi government has breathing room to get their shit together. If the violence goes down, but that doesn't happen, then the surge has failed whether it was militarily successful or not.

Given the events of the past six weeks, the complete pullout from the government by the Sunnis, the pullout by the Sadr faction, the damning of the Maliki government from all sides, and the murders of two provincial governors, whether the surge is militarily successful or not, is not relevant. It has not had the political effect it was intended to provide, if anything, things have gone from pretty shitty to hog heaven.

The invasion of Iraq was a complete botch by the civilian heads at DoD saying we could do it on the cheap, based on a lie (just where are those WMDs?). Asking someone to be the last guy to die for a mistake as John Kerry put it 35 years ago was bad enough. Asking someone to be the last guy to die to cover up a lie? I'm not even sure where to start with that.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
I'm going to take a different tack here. The surge may well decrease violence, but the purpose is to decrease the violence so the Iraqi government has breathing room to get their shit together. If the violence goes down, but that doesn't happen, then the surge has failed whether it was militarily successful or not.

Given the events of the past six weeks, the complete pullout from the government by the Sunnis, the pullout by the Sadr faction, the damning of the Maliki government from all sides, and the murders of two provincial governors, whether the surge is militarily successful or not, is not relevant.

These people must reach certain milestones in order for you to stay. Perhaps they haven't reached those milestones because they don't want you to stay.

Decius wrote:
The core question is whether or not there is a reason to think that we will "prevail." The correct answer is that it is simply not possible to know right now, because we've changed tactics, and the new tactical approach won't pan out enough to tell if its working until the middle of next month.

Which you assert with the same degree of absolutism you deride in others. I think it's absurd. My analysis tells me that the surge is too little, too late. Granted, I'm not an expert on military tactics, but neither are 99.99% of other humans with an opinion. The fact of the matter is that I don't think the situation is salvageable. I don't think I have to wait another 20 days to say that.

And assuming we'll know more at that time further presupposes that one expects to get any genuine facts next month. As if it's suddenly it's all gonna become clear... some day in mid-September is a magical day when all the real facts on the ground will become transparent and indisputable. Is it really believable that this administration's going to honestly report if the surge is failing miserably? I think not. That level of trust is quite simply naive at this point, and there's no other word for it.

For example, Hillary Clinton is positioning that we're going to withdraw even if the evidence demonstrates that if we keep fighting we'll succeed.

We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it's working. We're just years too late changing our tactics.

Assuming she's saying what you think she's saying, she's also probably wrong. There's evidence that Al Anbar was becoming safer well before the surge took effect, so any supposed decline in violence there is difficult or impossible to link to the surge. I was able to quickly find a few references here and here.

From the latter :

I was deployed to Ramadi as little as six months ago, working a counter-IED mission, and I can assert that violence levels started to decline back in the fall. Furthermore, [Senator] Graham made this argument to Sen. Jim Webb, whose son just returned from service in Ramadi.

So why has the violence dropped? Well, the locals were tired of getting killed by foreign insurgents, so they organized. This is primarily due to the work of the most powerful Man in Western Iraq, Sheikh Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi. Sheikh Sattar has organized militias to snuff out al-Qaida all over al-Anbar, and his forces have moved into Diyala province of late.

The US military is not defeating al-Qaida in Iraq -- locals with torches and pitchforks are.

As for this claim :

There is no relationship whatsoever between an observat... [ Read More (0.4k in body) ]

k wrote:
My analysis tells me that the surge is too little, too late. Granted, I'm not an expert on military tactics, but neither are 99.99% of other humans with an opinion. The fact of the matter is that I don't think the situation is salvageable. I don't think I have to wait another 20 days to say that.

Well, the Pentagon, which employs experts on military tactics, says that they can't tell whether or not this is working until it reaches a certain stage. "The surge" is not merely a re-enforcement and it doesn't unfold in a linear way. Its more complicated then that.

And assuming we'll know more at that time further presupposes that one expects to get any genuine facts next month. As if it's suddenly it's all gonna become clear... some day in mid-September is a magical day when all the real facts on the ground will become transparent and indisputable. It's it really believable that this administration's going to honestly report if the surge is failing miserably? I think not. That level of trust is quite simply naive at this point, and there's no other word for it.

Its not as if George Bush is personally reporting in September. The military is. The reason its clear at that point and not clear now is that at that point they have completed enough of the tasks in their project plan to be able to assess the effectiveness of their new tactics. The assessment will be quantitative and you'll have access to data. I seriously think that you expect them to lie because you don't like George Bush and not because you've looked into what they are doing and what they are reporting on, and I think you should.

Are you serious?

Of course.

You don't think politics have an effect on the long term efficacy of military actions in Iraq?

That isn't what I said. I said that politics are unrelated to the short term efficacy of our tactics change.

Insulting me will avail you not at all.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean you personally. I meant you collectively... the people who have prejudged this thing. I did not mean to insult you.

It's not an extremist position to
a) believe the war was executed incorrectly from day 1
b) believe that the surge is an ineffective gesture; pabulum meant to subdue the American public and congress
c) distrust the administrations claims about this war.

No, its not. A is clearly correct by anyone's estimation, and A clearly implies C. The problem is B.

If the surge report is positive and the US pulls out anyway it will show, at MOST, that the American people and congress no longer have faith in this administration or even, possibly, government in general, and completely disbelieve it.

Perhaps. They may be the boy who cried wolf at this point, but that story is a tragic one.

Decius wrote:
Well, the Pentagon, which employs experts on military tactics, says that they can't tell whether or not this is working until it reaches a certain stage. "The surge" is not merely a re-enforcement and it doesn't unfold in a linear way. Its more complicated then that.

I'll agree on the military level but this doesn't address the political issues which are the point of the surge.

Its not as if George Bush is personally reporting in September. The military is. The reason its clear at that point and not clear now is that at that point they have completed enough of the tasks in their project plan to be able to assess the effectiveness of their new tactics. The assessment will be quantitative and you'll have access to data. I seriously think that you expect them to lie because you don't like George Bush and not because you've looked into what they are doing and what they are reporting on, and I think you should.

Tom, you missed the boat on this. The report coming out in September, as has been widely reported, is being issued not by the Petreaus and the military people, it's coming from the White House. Their credibility at this point is basically zero. Even if that were not the case, let's say the military aspects of the surge are working, the Iraqis are showing no sign of putting together the kind of honest cooperative government needed to stem the civil war. Nor does it appear they have any intention to do so, in some respects the opposite appears to be the case.

It's not an extremist position to
a) believe the war was executed incorrectly from day 1
b) believe that the surge is an ineffective gesture; pabulum meant to subdue the American public and congress
c) distrust the administrations claims about this war.

No, its not. A is clearly correct by anyone's estimation, and A clearly implies C. The problem is B.

There may be a problem with B. My personal impression is that this was an attempt to keep the war going long enough to blame the pullout on whoever comes after W, just like W earlier in this week blamed the loss of Vietnam on the anti-war movement. That's not just wrong, it's insulting. And so long as C is more than valid, not just about the war, but as we've seen with trainwreck scandal after trainwreck scandal, it is valid on every issue the White House raises, B is not only not an extremist position, it is a perfectly reasonable assumption when dealing with a bunch who has lied and dissembled at every turn.

If the surge report is positive and the US pulls out anyway it will show, at MOST, that the American people and congress no longer have faith in this administration or even, possibly, government in general, and completely disbelieve it.

Perhaps. They may be the boy who cried wolf at this point, but that story is a tragic one.

Tragedy implies something that is unfortunate for all involved. It is a tragedy for the nation that the government has shown themselves to be so untrustworthy that we have reached this point, but there is nothing tragic in the actions of the administration. They have been nothing more than a pack of crooks and liars, baying at the doors of a nation that looks to its leaders for honesty, and betraying it for their own selfish purposes.

And oh yes,

These people must reach certain milestones in order for you to stay. Perhaps they haven't reached those milestones because they don't want you to stay.

I hope you meant us rather than you because they don't give a damn if it's you, me, W, or Jane fucking Fonda over there.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Tom, you missed the boat on this. The report coming out in September, as has been widely reported, is being issued not by the Petreaus and the military people, it's coming from the White House.

Got a reference for that?

Even if that were not the case, let's say the military aspects of the surge are working, the Iraqis are showing no sign of putting together the kind of honest cooperative government needed to stem the civil war.

How could they know our tactics have become more effective before we do?

There may be a problem with B. And so long as C is more than valid, B is not only not an extremist position, it is a perfectly reasonable assumption when dealing with a bunch who has lied and dissembled at every turn.

I understand. However, I'm suggesting that this assumption may not be correct in this case. You arent dealing with the same whitehouse you were dealing with in 2004.

Decius wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Tom, you missed the boat on this. The report coming out in September, as has been widely reported, is being issued not by the Petreaus and the military people, it's coming from the White House.

Got a reference for that?

Even if that were not the case, let's say the military aspects of the surge are working, the Iraqis are showing no sign of putting together the kind of honest cooperative government needed to stem the civil war.

How could they know our tactics have become more effective before we do?

There may be a problem with B. And so long as C is more than valid, B is not only not an extremist position, it is a perfectly reasonable assumption when dealing with a bunch who has lied and dissembled at every turn.

I understand. However, I'm suggesting that this assumption may not be correct in this case. You arent dealing with the same whitehouse you were dealing with in 2004.

Okay, in reference to the report, let's start here then add Bob Schieffer's comment on the matter (see page 9). I don't think I need to continue on that one.

In reference to the Iraqis going elsewhere, I would say one, they're on the business end of the rifle, we're on the eyepiece end of the lens watching that, so I'd say they may have a better idea, but we'll leave that one up in the air for time to successfully abuse your Pollyanna notion.

In reference to this not being the same White House we were dealing with in 2004, you're right. That White House felt marginally (at best) safe with the American public in what they were doing. This White House isn't looking at how they are being considered anymore. A vast majority does not approve of this president, a plurality thinks W should be impeached, and a sizable minority is considering him a candidate for war crimes. This White House is obviously fooling more at Mark Foley's numbers than their own complicity.

Now, you want to have a discussion on the Vietnam War, that I'm perfectly willing to do, but the pile of crap being shipped by the White House these days? It may make corn grow, but it'll give the rest of us cholera.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Okay, in reference to the report, let's start here then add Bob Schieffer's comment on the matter (see page 9). I don't think I need to continue on that one.

Touché

Decius wrote:
Well, the Pentagon, which employs experts on military tactics, says that they can't tell whether or not this is working until it reaches a certain stage.

Wow! Well, if the Pentagon said that, gosh, I guess I must be wrong. If they don't know, no one does. And also, I had forgotten that they are to trusted 100% and have never been known for being influenced by politics! Also, since no other knowledgeable people, say, ex-generals or whatever, have suggested that there's any problem with the current strategery, I must be basing my opinion on absolutely nothing...

Oh, no, that's right, I'm basing it on blind partisanship and a senseless hatred of George Bush.

Its not as if George Bush is personally reporting in September. The military is.

Yeah, and they're gearing up for a full time spin operation to support whatever they say.

I seriously think that you expect them to lie because you don't like George Bush and not because you've looked into what they are doing and what they are reporting on, and I think you should.

I expect them to lie because damn near everything the government has ever said about this war has been a lie. I read as much as you do, I just don't choose to swallow what's being served up. It's as simple as that. The few honest people either got cut out politically for saying what they thought or else shut up until they could get themselves in a safe position to speak out.

That isn't what I said. I said that politics are unrelated to the short term efficacy of our tactics change.

Short term efficacy is irrelevant. Don't get me wrong, if Basra or Baghdad is safer for 3 weeks, less people will die, which is great, but it's not the goal. If it's not sustainable, it's a waste of fucking time. And without the political backing, it's not sustainable.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean you personally. I meant you collectively... the people who have prejudged this thing. I did not mean to insult you.

You don't have to apologize, you said what you believe and I'm responding with what i believe.

Yes, I have thought for some time that this war was fucked and unwinable. Yes, I thought that the surge was a too-little, too-late effort. Yes, I don't trust this administration, top to bottom. Yes, therefore, I "prejudged" the outcome.

And this may sound self fulfilling, but the main reason is the public will. If the surge had tripled our force there, I probably still would've been angry about it, but I wouldn't have been as quick to claim it wouldn't work. But we didn't get 300% and couldn't possibly. The Armed Forces are destroying themselves just trying to deal with the current troop levels. So we got a 10% increase. So, yeah, I'm no expert but when I read people who I trust, that are, saying that this is an absurd gesture, to expect 10% more troops to swing this thing when we had too few to begin with, yeah, it's going to resonate with me.

Perhaps. They may be the boy who cried wolf at this point, but that story is a tragic one.

Yeah, it is. What's your point? That kid should've been fucking replaced with a sensible adult after he was proven untrustworthy. How's that analogy?

edit:fixed my link, though the one i put by accident (this one) is relevant as well.

edit 2: after reading Mike's response above, I checked out what he said about the surge report. As distrustful as I might be of the Pentagon (and I am, as I said above), you better fucking believe I don't trust the White House. Christ.

k wrote:
I expect them to lie because damn near everything the government has ever said about this war has been a lie. I read as much as you do, I just don't choose to swallow what's being served up. It's as simple as that.

It seems that if this change in tactics was successful as a matter of fact it would be absolutely impossible to convince you of that. You'd assume those who said so were lying.

The few honest people either got cut out politically for saying what they thought or else shut up until they could get themselves in a safe position to speak out.

That is true. Most of that, however, was Rumsfeld's doing. He is gone now. Some things may have changed.

That isn't what I said. I said that politics are unrelated to the short term efficacy of our tactics change.

Short term efficacy is irrelevant.

Sometimes these arguements can get a little hard to follow. I don't care if you think the short term efficacy is irrelevant. This guy on TV said "the short term tatics change is working." Media matters accused him of lying, because the long term political situation isn't working. But his statement wasn't about the long term political situation. It was about the short term tatics change. It doesn't matter whether or not you think the short term tatics changes is important. What matters is that he was clearly refering to the short term tatics change, and Media Matters knew that he was talking about the short term tatics change, and yet they acted as if he was talking about the long term political situation in order to mislead their readers. Media matters is engaging in exactly the sort of spin that they accuse other people of doing. They respond to a statement about X with a comment about Y. They deliberately conflate X and Y to confuse their readers and to draw attention away from the idea that there might be positive news related to X.

If the surge had tripled our force there, I probably still would've been angry about it, but I wouldn't have been as quick to claim it wouldn't work.

Its not a linear numbers game. Its not simply re-enforcement. Its a tactics change. Its about who is doing what where and how. Looking at numbers is an oversimplification.

Yeah, it is. What's your point? That kid should've been fucking replaced with a sensible adult after he was proven untrustworthy. How's that analogy?

Sure, he should have, but the towns people still had an interest in protecting their sheep, and they also failed to indentify when the wolf was real, and they lost their sheep because of it. The moral of the story is just because they're full of shit doesn't mean they're wrong.

Decius wrote:
It seems that if this change in tactics was successful as a matter of fact it would be absolutely impossible to convince you of that. You'd assume those who said so were lying.

Not impossible, but damn fucking hard. Why is this so hard to believe or understand? It's not blind partisanship or stupidity to not trust someone who's shown themselves untrustworthy. Honestly, this is simple. In this world, I can read sources from other countries, some of whom might still care about journalism and honesty. I don't issue a blanket dismissal of everyone, just the WHITE HOUSE, and the rest of the government follows pretty close behind lately. I have discussed previously my mild conspiracy theory that certain groups viewed this presidency as the perfect vehicle to destroy people's faith in government, to the point where drowning it in a bathtub (as the quote goes) becomes more possible. This is merely speculation, but there's no questioning my distrust of the offices of the president, vp and the WH in general, my disdain for Congress and my bare minimum respect for the pentagon, FDA, EPA, FCC, DOJ...

It takes most of my faith to continue believing that our form of government even remains justifiable anymore.

That is true. Most of that, however, was Rumsfeld's doing. He is gone now. Some things may have changed.

May have, could have, might have. I've seen nothing that makes me believe things have changed significantly. I guess I'm just being intellectually dishonest.

Sometimes these arguements can get a little hard to follow. I don't care if you think the short term efficacy is irrelevant. This guy on TV said "the short term tatics change is working." Media matters accused him of lying, because the long term political situation isn't working.

Um, I agree about your first statement, since I wasn't intending to defend Media Matters. I did disagree with your assertion that politics has nothing to do with this tactic because I don't see them as separable. I don't care (right now anyway) if Media Matters presented that same argument in a "dishonest" way. I don't believe that I did. I'm making the specific argument that even if you assume the short term tactics change is "effective" it's a moot point without the political will to support whatever results come out of it. I'm not obfuscating anything there, and if MM did, then shame on them, but that's not my fault or my concern.

Address the way in which a short term tactics change can be considered successful without a solidified political situation in Baghdad. You claim this isn't about the numbers, that it's more subtle than that, and so forth. Ok, fine. Tell me how *anything* that we do -- assume a blue sky, best case scenario -- can be maintained without a stable government in Iraq. I don't see how it can, therefore I don't see how arguments about short te... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

k wrote:
Address the way in which a short term tactics change can be considered successful without a solidified political situation in Baghdad. Tell me how *anything* that we do -- assume a blue sky, best case scenario -- can be maintained without a stable government in Iraq. I don't see how it can, therefore I don't see how arguments about short term gains is relevant.

Obviously, the security situation controls the political situation. You get people to conceed politically by limiting their options militarily. If we have a way to make substantial progress in regard to the security situation, and its demonstrated to be effective, it inevitably will change the political situation. It seems spectacularly insane to me to say that our effectiveness at actually fighting the war has no impact on the outcome of the war. If we have demonstrated substantial security progress but we bail because we haven't reach certain political milestones by a particular time, it means that we do have the ability to succeed but we do not have the patience.

Bush lied, then fucked up, then lied some more, then fucked up some more, then the public DIDN'T replace him, then more lying and fucking up. So now, after 7 years of lying and fucking up, you expect me not only to have a little faith in this change, but furthermore allow myself to support whatever additional shit I'm told is necessary when the government says everything is going swimmingly for the n'th time despite the fact that the prior n-1 times can be now shown to be outright falsehoods.

No, I'm not asking for faith or support. Only objectivity. While its difficult to avoid assuming that they are lying the seriousness of the consiquences demand that their claims fall on facts rather than assumptions.

Decius wrote:
No, I'm not asking for faith or support. Only objectivity. While its difficult to avoid assuming that they are lying the seriousness of the consiquences demand that their claims fall on facts rather than assumptions.

If I've learned anything at all as I've aged it's that facts are goddamn hard to come by unless you yourself are physically present.

You know as well as anyone that in all other situations you are left with your best guess based on an objective analysis of information you are given after applying a trustworthiness function of some kind to the source of that information.

Don't talk to me about facts. Neither of us are in a position to KNOW facts. Any report that's being issued from the white house receives an extremely low mark on my trust meter and I am astonished that it doesn't rate likewise on yours.

It has sounded to me like you are genuinely arguing that I should trust this information. You say that my inability to trust this information represents a lack of objectivity. If being objective means not allowing anything that's ever happened in the past to affect my judgment, I may as well give up and become a fucking puppet.

I can't make this any clearer. If the surge has had a substantive effect, I expect I will hear about it from sources that are not limited to the white house. If those sources are trustworthy, I'll happily change my tune. The fact that I don't expect that to happen doesn't mean I am going to dismiss evidence that it has.

As for the consequences, I concur that they are severe, which is all the more reason not to allow a demonstrably incompetent, dishonest and destructive administration to run amok without some clear, objective (that is, third party, at a minimum) evidence that they've finally done something right.

k wrote:
It has sounded to me like you are genuinely arguing that I should trust this information.

Mike has raised some specific reasons to doubt the reliability of this report, but the report isn't out yet. Personally, I'm not making a decision about what I think until I see it. Its possible that the report will sway my opinion about what we should be doing, and so I'm not going to reach a conclusion about what we should be doing before its out. I'm not telling you to blindly trust it. There is a wide gap between blind trust and assuming its bunk before it has even been written.

Decius wrote:

k wrote:
It has sounded to me like you are genuinely arguing that I should trust this information.

Mike has raised some specific reasons to doubt the reliability of this report, but the report isn't out yet. Personally, I'm not making a decision about what I think until I see it. Its possible that the report will sway my opinion about what we should be doing, and so I'm not going to reach a conclusion about what we should be doing before its out. I'm not telling you to blindly trust it. There is a wide gap between blind trust and assuming its bunk before it has even been written.

I genuinely hope you find illumination. I'm not going to try any further to convince you of my point of view. You're willing to give provisional trust to a report authored by the white house. I don't trust them, blindly or otherwise, and yes, assume it's going to be largely bullshit UNLESS and UNTIL it's corroborated by other sources that I do trust. I can't make it any clearer than that.

Go ahead and consider me a closed-minded partisan from now on if it makes you feel better about being so fair minded. Whatever.