Decius wrote:
I was surprised to see Bolton calling the NIE a quazi-putsch in the press this weekend. Apparently Rudy's foreign policy advisor isn't the only one who feels this way. So which is it? Is this simply a new, improved CIA or is it an example of technology undermining hierarchal relationships?

More importantly, in 2008 will I be faced with having to select between a Republican candidate who wants war with Iran in spite of this estimate and a Democratic candidate who wants to pull out of Iraq immediately? Why is our country ruled by oversimplifications?

Wow. Okay, let's start with the problems here. First, Bolton and Podhoretz are joined at the hip and have been at least since their work on Project for the New American Century. These two holding the same party line would be about like someone currently at the White House publicly going against a stated position, it's not going to happen.

Problem 2, Bolton may describe this as a "quasi-putsch" but a better description might be, this is what you can expect out of the intelligence community when they don't have Dick Cheney, Doug Feith, Richard Pearle and others browbeating them the way they did when they cooked the books on Iraq. There may even be some particularly pointed backlash in the NIE releasing things in stronger terms than would normally have been stated because of that situation. They didn't like having the White House and OVP pounding then over Iraq, and they really didn't like the White House leaving CIA holding the bag when it was found out the Iraq NIE wasn't even good to wipe themselves with (20lb stock vs Charmin is no contest).

Problem 3, the either/or improved CIA vs broken hierarchy is too simple a way to describe this. Compared to the capabilities of the CIA 8 years ago vs now, I would hazard that the CIA may not be as capable now as it was then. The exodus of senior analysts, and the loss of basically the Mid-East WMD section in the Plame affair, are obvious reasons to say it is not, and no one knows how well those holes have been refilled. The Goss tenure is another case where things may have declined even further. On the other hand, the fact that they did take a position contrary to the policy position of the Neo-cons and White House may be saying that they are pissed off about getting burned on Iraq and they are reasserting their independence from political machinations. There are a lot of possibilities here, and the either/or proposition is itself oversimplifying it.

Problem 4, there are Republican candidates who are not all that gung ho about a war with Iran (Paul primarily, but McCa... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Problem 5, aside from Richardson and Kucinich, all of the Democratic candidates have said they expect there to still be troops in Iraq through at least the end of their first term.

I think we may be talking past eachother on this point, and this is the key reason why the democratic feild isn't looking attractive to me right now, so its a key aspect of the question I raised. Hillary says:

The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration.

Obama says:

Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year.

If by "troops in Iraq" you mean "sure there'll be one or two units," then thats not really what I'm talking about. I don't support immediate withdrawl, and I'm not aware of anyone in the Democratic feild who doesn't support immediate withdrawl. I think calls for immediate withdrawl are driven by domestic people who are concerned about the safety of friends and family in the service and are no longer under the impression that Saddam was connected with 9/11 or whatever fantasy 'caused them to buy into this in 2003. Its not driven by whats going on in Iraq. In fact, its the same tune the Democrats were singing a year ago in spite of the fact that the situation on the ground in Iraq has changed substantially in that time.

I'm concerned about my friends' safety too, but the problem is that we made a commitment when we went in there in the first place and we have to meet it. In the past few months we have managed to improve the security situation there and we have a fragile chance of successfully deescalating the violence. Pulling the rug out from that will simply create a power vaccum that will beget a tsunami of killing. It is extremely irresponsible to do that. In my mind its just as stupid and immoral as the decision to preemptively invade in the first place.

So I feel stuck between people who want to expand the use of tortue and people who want to pull the rug out from Iraq. McCain is perhaps an exception. There are obviously other reasons why I don't like him but I think whoever is president next needs to get Iraq right first.

Decius wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Problem 5, aside from Richardson and Kucinich, all of the Democratic candidates have said they expect there to still be troops in Iraq through at least the end of their first term.

I think we may be talking past eachother on this point, and this is the key reason why the democratic feild isn't looking attractive to me right now, so its a key aspect of the question I raised. Hillary says:

The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration.

Obama says:

Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year.

If by "troops in Iraq" you mean "sure there'll be one or two units," then thats not really what I'm talking about. I don't support immediate withdrawl, and I'm not aware of anyone in the Democratic feild who doesn't support immediate withdrawl. I think calls for immediate withdrawl are driven by domestic people who are concerned about the safety of friends and family in the service and are no longer under the impression that Saddam was connected with 9/11 or whatever fantasy 'caused them to buy into this in 2003. Its not driven by whats going on in Iraq. In fact, its the same tune the Democrats were singing a year ago in spite of the fact that the situation on the ground in Iraq has changed substantially in that time.

I'm concerned about my friends' safety too, but the problem is that we made a commitment when we went in there in the first place and we have to meet it. In the past few months we have managed to improve the security situation there and we have a fragile chance of successfully deescalating the violence. Pulling the rug out from that will simply create a power vaccum that will beget a tsunami of killing. It is extremely irresponsible to do that. In my mind its just as stupid and immoral as the decision to preemptively invade in the first place.

So I feel stuck between people who want to expand the use of tortue and people who want to pull the rug out from Iraq. McCain is perhaps an exception. There are obviously other reasons why I don't like him but I think whoever is president next needs to get Iraq right first.

No, by troops in Iraq, they're talking 30-50,000 guys still there in 2012. Kucinich and Richardson ar... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Mike the Usurper wrote:
No, by troops in Iraq, they're talking 30-50,000 guys still there in 2012. Kucinich and Richardson are both talking full withdrawl, the rest are talking gradual drawdown, and immediate change in the mission to training, border control and targeted missions as opposed to roving patrols, general checkpoint work and whack-a-mole.

I'm not sure how Obama would reconcile 50,000 troops on the ground with the words "complete withdrawl." I'm willing to reserve judgement pending a reference, but you haven't really countered my point that this isn't driven by the situation on the ground.

And your improving security situation is a mirage.

How long do the actual number of casualties need to be down before you will accept that the tactics change was successful?

The point of "the surge" was to but time for a unified government to come into existence.

The phoney political requirements set by Congress have absolutely no relationship to the history of the development of the present set of tactics other than that the Democrats insisted on the former in order to authorize the later. I'm not impressed with the left wing insistance that the fact that Iraq has, for example, failed to sign over most of the oil in the country to foreign investors is an example of why the current tactics aren't working and the troops must be immediately withdrawn. Are you sure you're REALLY uncomfortable with their failure to meet the milestones?

You can enjoy Sy Hersch in September here, who backs up what I say above, do a search over at the Washington Post of recent articles by Tom Ricks, or a quick search of the Google on any of the things I've said backs up my assessment.

I will read these references.

Leaving may start a bloodbath, but staying keeps the pot at boiling, and if leaving at any point starts the bloodbath, then we've committed ourselves to staying in Iraq forever?

1. We're still in Germany.
2. We're still in Japan.
3. We're still in South Korea.
4. We're still in South Central Los Angeles.

This is war. You don't get to quit just 'cause you're sick of it.

The stupidity of going there in the first place cannot go on to infinity.

How will withdrawing now undo the stupidity of going in there in the first place? The damage caused by going in there in the first place has already been done. Leaving is an unrelated decision. Leaving will result in a lot of iraqi people dieing and the rise of an authoritarian anti-western regime that will threaten our interests for decades and destabalize the region. Staying will result in less people dieing and the hope for an eventually stable non-threatening government. The cost of the later is American money and lives. The cost of the former is more American money and more American lives over a longer period of time. These are your choices. You cannot undue the past.

Pushing ourselves and the Iraqis into the meatgrinder an inch at a time is not an option, and that's what you seem to be advocating here.

I don't understand how a substantial tactics change that has resulted in considerable reductions in casualties on both sides consistitutes "pushing ourselves and the Iraqis into the meatgrinder."

Leaving pushes the Iraqis into a meatgrinder. The option you have that results in the least number of dead Iraqis is to continue the present strategy.

Decius wrote:
I'm not sure how Obama would reconcile 50,000 troops on the ground with the words "complete withdrawl." I'm willing to reserve judgement pending a reference, but you haven't really countered my point that this isn't driven by the situation on the ground.

We'll start with Obama's blathering here. His actual numbers are nebulous but given the prior statements from other camps, 30-50,000 troops is still in the right ballpark.

And your improving security situation is a mirage.

How long do the actual number of casualties need to be down before you will accept that the tactics change was successful?

The point of "the surge" was to but time for a unified government to come into existence.

The phony political requirements set by Congress have absolutely no relationship to the history of the development of the present set of tactics other than that the Democrats insisted on the former in order to authorize the latter. I'm not impressed with the left wing insistance that the fact that Iraq has, for example, failed to sign over most of the oil in the country to foreign investors is an example of why the current tactics aren't working and the troops must be immediately withdrawn. Are you sure you're REALLY uncomfortable with their failure to meet the milestones?

Oh those "phoney requirements set by Congress"? Those were stated by the WHITE HOUSE. That's not Congress setting anything. Congress has either been complicit in, or done an Olga Korbut level of spinal flexibility on Iraq at every turn. I am not quite as appalled with Congress as I am with W, but I am exceedingly displeased with the spineless wonders currently holding seats over there. Let's get the facts straight. It was W who said we're buying time for the Iragi government, not Congress. And the Iraqi theft machine is stonewalling full speed into their own pockets.

I'm actually impressed that the Iraqi's have stonewalled the shitty oil deals, that's a point in their favor, but they haven't done anything else either, and that more than offsets the one good call there.

Leaving may start a bloodbath, but staying keeps the pot at boiling, and if leaving at any point starts the bloodbath, then we've committed ourselves to staying in Iraq forever?

1. We're still in Germany.
2. We're still in Japan.
3. We're still in South Korea.
4. We're still in South Central Los Angeles.

This is war. You don't get to quit just 'cause you're sick of it.

No, and none of those situations are similar to Iraq. We did not face a guerrilla war in Germany, Japan, or Korea, and South Central is a part of this country just as the south side of Chicago and Detroit are pa... [ Read More (0.4k in body) ]

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Oh those "phoney requirements set by Congress"? Those were stated by the WHITE HOUSE. That's not Congress setting anything. Congress has either been complicit in, or done an Olga Korbut level of spinal flexibility on Iraq at every turn.

OK, my point is that the political milestones aren't as connected to the value of the surge as a number of people are insisting. This was a set of tactical changes that were driven by experiences on the ground in fighting the counter insurgency. Instead of looking at the situation and saying "Hey, we've had some success here, is there a way that we can use that to acheive a positive result?" I see people searching for any angle they can to discredit that success because they've already made a political investment in the idea that success is impossible and they are not interested in data that contradicts that conviction. First it was "this won't work and can't work," then when that became undeniable it turned into "it doesn't matter because we didn't acheive these specific polticial goals in this specific timeframe."

Not only can we not "win" this, we don't have a clue as to what winning would constitute.

I think its fairly clear that winning would constitute a sustainable deescalation of violence and the return of a functional economy without the rise of a violent authoritarian state. It is difficult to achieve such a result and it takes a long time.

Leaving is a questionable enterprise, but based on military appraisals the resultant outcome may be perfectly managable.

I don't get what you're getting out of that link. They are predicting greater carnage. They dispute Bush on whether Iraq will turn into a sanctuary for Al'Queda or some other violent groups that are not called Al'Queda. What part of "there is going to be an outbreak of violence when we leave that makes the [current] instability look like a church picnic" is "perfectly managable?"

The assesment of Ricks and others is that the focal point of the Iraq war is forcing the US out.

His assessment is not that simple. Thomas E. Ricks: Yes, one reason that the city is quieter is because of the presence of American troops.

What exists now has not, does not, and will never function as a government, and clinging to that fantasy is about as useful as clinging to the fantasy that Frodo can keep the ring and do good with it.

It seems to me that creating a power vaccum and letting them slog it out is the most reckless possible way of resolving such a problem, and when other options appear to be available I don't understand why you'd choose that one.

Decius wrote:

You're focused only on some aspects of why that fit with your political perspective (such as the walling off of neighborhoods) and you're ignoring other aspects that don't fit with your political perspective (such as the tactical successes of the Army). There really are tactical successes, and you're ignoring them because tactical success conflicts with your previous convictions and not because they don't exist or because you've clearly established that there is nothing useful that can be extracted from them.

Until I see people objectively assess the situation on the ground today and conclude that there is nothing that can be salvaged from it at all I'm not going to be convinced that there is nothing that can be salvaged from it at all. I think thats only logical. I don't accept the arguement that the tactical success is useless because we didn't extract XYZ specific thing from it in this timeframe. Thats not the same analysis.

I don't deny there have been some tactical things that have worked. There are three things that have been significant there, what Petraeus has done, the segregation of Iraq, and the change of the western Sunnis to spend more time targeting their own fringe elements rather than US troops. What I am saying, and have been the entire time, is the surge was not a tactical move. The point of the surge is, and always was, to get space for an Iraqi government to step up start dealing with its own security. That is, at least in theory, the strategy.

At this point I think even that was probably a lie. What we're building is an American colony in the mid-east. The Powell Doctrine says, have a plan to get in, do what you're going to do, and a plan to get out, best known by the buzzwords "exit strategy." But as has become more clear, there is no exit strategy and never was one. One of the first things Halliburton started doing after the invasion was start building what were called "enduring bases." Iraq was to become a place from which to operate so we could project American power, immediately and forcefully, anywhere in the region.

For that prospect to work though, we would need a situation like we have in Germany or Japan or Korea, where the vast majority of the populace is in agreement with the government, that our operations there are of at least some benefit. That is not the case in Iraq. The government, such as it is, is in shambles, and the general populace wants us dead. The skilled population has fled.

So you want to build a new Iraq with what? And worse, look at the status of the other "democracies" in the region. A couple of them are such in name only (Egypt, Pakistan, Iran) and the one that is most often touted as being one, Israel, is a Jewish theocracy, and the last in the region, Turkey, is all set to turn itself into a Muslim theocracy via the ballot box. Even the base plan is wrong.

Tactics support strategies, and this administration doesn't seem to have one.

Now back to the NIE...