From the most recent worldwatch column: "This election proves only that the monolithically leftwing mainstream media can make the public believe we are losing a war that we are winning."
Where does one go to hear the other side, that we are winning? Today there are stories quoting Tony Blair as saying the war is "pretty much a disaster."
What are you reading, watching, hearing that leads you to believe this war is a success?
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
How about the economic statistics of Iraq and the Middle East since Saddam was captured?
Posted by MaGlick (Member # 9648) on :
That's a difficult yardstick to use. The country was under heavy sanctions for over a decade before they were lifted following Saddam's ouster. So a major jump in the GDP was to be expected. Wikipedia (yeah, I know) lists unemployment there at 30-40% and inflation at 40% for the year 2005.
My first question is legitimate, though. I do think the war was misguided and likely to fail. But I freely admit my opinion has been shaped predominantly from what I have seen and read in the mainstream media.
I have a contrarian streak, an attraction to facts and opinions that run counter to convention. So my interest is piqued when I read/see/hear things like OSC's statement the war is going well (and that he hoped we would have attacked Iran by now)and also some talks and pieces by Christopher Hitchens.
So I would love to hear (or be pointed to) some well-reasoned material backing up the assertion that the war is succeeding.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I feel like it has been a failure since the beginning and do not need the mainstream media to tell me this. Suicide bombings every day, kidnappings and sectarian violence are NOT a sign that a war is going well.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It should also be noted that the Bush administration hasn't been at all honest with the status of the war. I think they'd have a much greater leg to stand on to claim that the war is goign better than is being reported if their predictions and descriptions of success were even close to remotely true.
As it is, we have media reports and statements and descriptions from people very familiar with the situation, such as Tony Blair, Henry Kissenger, the staff at the Pentagon, Congressional ivestigative bodies, and the James Baker commission telling us that things are going very poorly in many areas. Weighing against that are statements from baldfaced liars like Donald Rumsfeld and empty and absurd statements, like Dick Cheney's "The insurgency is in its last throes." According to White House statements, we've "turned a corner" so often in Iraq that the shape this would form can no longer be described by Euclidian geometry.
I really doubt that OSC's statement is anything more than the empty, baseless claims of successs and winning that I at least have become accustomed to hearing and disregarding from the Bush administration and its supporters. But, of course, I could be wrong and OSC may have real reasons for claiming that we were winning. I'd have to wonder why he never seems to share these reasons then.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
You could try reading his back columns. Wars are like divorces, I don't think ever go well. But if one wanted to argue U.s. casualtires, for instance, the war is going much better than any other war. Hearts and minds of the Iraqi people? Depends on who you ask, but I think it's going better than a similar timeframe for our opponents after WWII. Keeping the conflict off American soil? Good. To be honest, I always wanted us to liberate Iraq and leave quickly. I was upset that there was an American still running things 6 months after we went. But I think it would be good to ensure Hussein cannot return to power.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
pooka, I have read OSC's back columns. He's very strong on making assertions, especially about this, but very light on providing any sort of supporting material for them. Or perhaps I'm wrong. You could show this by providing some examples where OSC actually makes a reasonable case for the war going well or that we are winning, rather than just asserting that this is so.
---
I've got to wonder, how many times is OSC going to say that he's leaving the Democratic party or that it is dead before he actually leaves?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
There's been essentially a news blackout on Iraq since the war began. I exaggerate, but it is partly true. We get to hear how many car bombs went off, and who wants death to the Great Satan, but how things are actually working doesn't get reported on.
So I have withheld judgment on whether we were winning or losing. I'm still not sure. I'm willing to believe that the claims of "quagmire" aren't just more partisan bias, but unless we get actual reporting, I may never know.
Posted by Icec0o1 (Member # 8157) on :
So the lack of evidence is evidence itself? One would assume that the war is going great because all of the positive stories aren't being told?
Nah, we can judge the progress of the war without knowing what percentage of their sewedge system has been repaired or how many hours of electricity per day they're getting. And I know that the majority of Americans realize that it's not going well.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's not exactly been true for me Will. I'm getting news out and what news I get doesn't sound good.
This is coupled to me with the fact that the Bush administration has found it neccesary to make statements that are soon seen as obviously false, if not being obviously false at the time when they say them.
We've got plenty of credible reports of bad things: civilian and military deaths, critical infrastructure, such as eletricity, still severely damaged, waste, fraud, and sending people over to be put in charge of important tasks that they have no experience at all at because they were politically reliable. We've got retired professional generals coming forward in a pretty much unprecedented actions to criticize the management of the military. We've got the congressional, Pentagon, and Baker comissions coming back with "things are really bad over there."
And consider if we used the measures of success given by the administration at pretty much any point. They were very clear that the plans worked off the idea that we'd be greated as liberators and not occupiers. We were told that 6 months would be a suprising time to have a large troop presence there. Later, we were told that the insurgency was in its last throes, that once they had election everything would improve. We were told this and we were told that and I don't recall any of their major predictions coming true. Surely we can gauge some measure of how things are going from that.
The tragedy to me is that I sort of believe in the neo-con idea of "spreading democracy". I believe that it would have been possible to topple Saddam Hussein and end up with an Iraq that was relatively stable and free. But it would have taken a lot of really hard work, complex thinking, and some really, really good people.
Instead, I've had to watch the Bush administration make the wrong moves over and over again and then lie or at least be dishonest about it. Remember that. A peaceful, healthy Iraq was an achievable, but extremely difficult goal. Compare that to what we've got - if you don't think you can do so now, then when you finally do, although keep in mind your "I just can't tell right now." is part of why things were able to be done so poorly.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And I'll say it again. There's a very simple way for the administration to make the case they we're winning and that they have a working plan in Iraq: give us timetables.
These are our goals. These are what we think we need to achieve them. This is the range in which we think we will acheive them. When we achieve them, this is what we're going to do.
A large majority of the Iraqi people think that the U.S. military is there to stay. A majority of the American people are very disatisfied with the way the war is going - many wonder if there is even a plan that is being followed besides "pitch and cover". You can address these concerns and shwo that there is plenty of good news coming out of Iraq by providing timetables of the type I said above. They would give an objective measure to demonstrate how much you've achieved and how good your plans are. Surely a group of people so masterful at their jobs as OSC assures us the Bush administration is should leap at the chance for something like this. It makes me wonder why they have not.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icec0o1: So the lack of evidence is evidence itself? One would assume that the war is going great because all of the positive stories aren't being told?
Could you tell me how you get from "I have withheld judgment" and "I'm still not sure" to "the war is going great"?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I posted an essay on Ornery about the possibility of just cutting the stupid baby in half. I mean, Germany didn't turn out so bad. I think Iraq's situation is much more like Germany than Korea, and even Korea isn't Vietnam.
And Squicky, which if my criteria did you find to be invalid? Forgive me if you addressed them in a later post, but I thought since you hadn't read all of my one post, I wasn't obligated to read all of your posts.
As for what Bush said was the goal, "regime change" for which "mission accomplished" would have to be true. The media asked for reduced casualties with their hyper pious body counts. Vietnam was 43,000 or so dead American casualties. How many Vietnamese died during conflict and when we withdrew? Do we count Cambodia? (I really don't know the answer to that, I can't know everything). The effort that seems to be going badly is the "hearts and minds" campaign. And I'm sure we both have evidence of equal quality.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
pooka, As often, I have no idea what your post is trying to say. Could you perhaps rephrase it?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
How do you measure whether the war is going good or bad?
I am basically saying that most people who say the war is going very bad had different definitions of good and bad from me.
While I wouldn't say the war is going great (because all war is hell), I believe it has fulfilled the stated objective of regime change, and the implied objective of low U.S. casualties.
Forgive me if I'm the first person to compare this war to Vietnam.
The war that it seems people feel is going badly is the objective Bush stated of winning the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people. To me, this means educating them in the benefits of democracy to the point that they will preserve it for themselves.
What do you think it means?
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Originally posted by Synathesia: "I feel like it has been a failure since the beginning and do not need the mainstream media to tell me this. Suicide bombings every day, kidnappings and sectarian violence are NOT a sign that a war is going well."
So a war is only going well if the other side isn't fighting?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
A war is going well when it's over after clear progress has been made. This is the sort of situation where we will be there for ages just trying to settle the sectarian violence alone.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
"A war is going well when it's over" is even more illogical than the first statement. By that definition, the only way a war could be going REALLy well is if it hadn't started in the first place. By your definition, no war has ever gone well till it wasn't a war any more.
Posted by Icec0o1 (Member # 8157) on :
Don't you love it when people attack someone's language (failure to share his ideas in a perfectly concise and clear manner) instead of ideas? Good job Cashew.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Mostly I am trying to hold back. I despise war. I hate it completely. I believe that it destroys lives on both sides, that it hurts a society more than it helps it. But, there are times in which a war is necessary and inevitible. The war in Iraq is neither. It was poorly researched, they jumped into it wihtout a knowledge of the culture and country they were dealing with. They used 9/11 and the deaths of all of those people as an excuse for this war and when people tried to argue against it they were blasted down as unpatriotic or an enemy of America and Democracy. There was this tone of, but what about the Iraqis, don't you care about their freedom? It's been like this since it began, chaos. If there were weapons of mass destruction, how could they have found it in the chaos of shock and awe? Museums were destroyed, art was wrecked, Bush prematurely declared that the mission was accomplished when it was not! Now I admit, I am no expert, so I can I judge without knowing the whole picture? But in my eyes this war was a mistake and who knows how many decades America will have to spend fixing it? A war involves the deaths of many people. Even when soldiers survive, they have to come home traumatized by the war. Their families are affected. If a war must be started, especially a preemtive attack like this one, wouldn't it be logical to do research? To understand the whole picture first before throwing the first bomb? This has made me angry from the beginning. The way each act of incompetency has been brushed aside. "Oh, we're doing fine." despite the Abu Ghraib incedent. "That was just like frat boy pranks, it was harmless." Not to the victims. "We know what we're doing." But they misplace a lot of our tax dollars. Perhaps I only have one side of things, but to me, they are doing a poor job and if you are at war you can't afford to do things like this! It's too late to pull out now, the damage is done, but could they have at least used a bit more forethought?
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
In answer to the original question: This month's Commentary, in the letters section, has a letter from Norman Podhoretz refuting those who claim that the war is lost. He quotes a prominent Muslim writer as well. A nice encapsulization.
He also reminds us of other times when "everybody" knew something that was obviously contrary to fact, attesting to the ability of intellectuals to believe anything - as long as they are reassured by the belief of other intellectuals. Groupthink as a substitute for actual thought.
the previous month's Commentary has, of course, Podhoretz's original essay, which is much longer and very thorough.
Posted by MaGlick (Member # 9648) on :
Thanks for the answer. I'll look up that article.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Mr. Bush does not know how to win hearts and minds. If he did, we would have won more of them.
The British are better at it, but then they have made many years of mistakes to learn from.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Originally posted by IceCoOl: "Don't you love it when people attack someone's language (failure to share his ideas in a perfectly concise and clear manner) instead of ideas? Good job Cashew."
The only way I can tell what someone's ideas are is by the language they use to express them. Especially if the expression of the idea is only two or three lines long. The first statement of Synthesia I quoted was just flat out silly, the second illogical. The things Synthesia said are signs that a war is going badly are simply signs that a war is GOING, nothing more nor less. Other things determine well or badly. To say a war is going well when it's over doesn't make sense: "So, how's the war going?" "Well, it was going really badly, but then suddenly the other side surrendered, so now it's going well." All I could base my judgement of Synthesia's ideas on was about 5 lines. Reading his/her extended post that followed what I said, I don't agree with all s/he says (although I do with some), but at least it makes sense, because more space has been given to expressing ideas.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
pooka, Sorry it's taken me so long to reply. Haven't had time for Hatracking lately.
While it's a component of the situation, I think that it is overly complex to talk about the war going "well" or "poorly" in this context of talking about whether we are winning it or not.
"Winning" the war, to me, denotes that we are experiencing significant positive change on things we have made our goals in ways that suggest that we will achieve those goals at some point in the future. In fact, you may notice that the bit I suggested about timetables above fits this pretty closely.
At present, we've acheived some of our goals, e.g. military defeat of the Iraqi armed forces, otherthrow of Saddam Hussein, but while these are important, they have limited bearing on the overriding goal of any war that isn't about conquest, i.e. having all or a very large number of your troops no longer needed in that area in order to quell hostilities. Closely related to that in cases of nation-building is to leave a country that is healthy and stable, and, if at all possible, democratic.
Right now, we're hearing from Congress, the Pentagon, the Baker Commission, Tony Blair, Kofi Annan, the non-Fox media outlets, and now even Donald Rumsfeld himself that what we're doing is not working and we're in need of some very serious changes. We've got increasing troop and civilian deaths with no apparent end in sight of the fighting. We've got a situation where if it's not a full out civil war yet, is moving in that direction rather than away from it. We've got the ranks of the terrorists increasing rather than decreasing, with our people's estimates being that the war in Iraq is a significant cause of this increase. And we have the people in charge, who have made numerous empty/false promises and predictions about how, this time things really are getting better, still either unwilling or unable to offer a plan for how to deal with any of these things.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cashew: Originally posted by IceCoOl: "Don't you love it when people attack someone's language (failure to share his ideas in a perfectly concise and clear manner) instead of ideas? Good job Cashew."
The only way I can tell what someone's ideas are is by the language they use to express them. Especially if the expression of the idea is only two or three lines long. The first statement of Synthesia I quoted was just flat out silly, the second illogical. The things Synthesia said are signs that a war is going badly are simply signs that a war is GOING, nothing more nor less. Other things determine well or badly. To say a war is going well when it's over doesn't make sense: "So, how's the war going?" "Well, it was going really badly, but then suddenly the other side surrendered, so now it's going well." All I could base my judgement of Synthesia's ideas on was about 5 lines. Reading his/her extended post that followed what I said, I don't agree with all s/he says (although I do with some), but at least it makes sense, because more space has been given to expressing ideas.
I was trying to be polite, perhaps my knowledge is limited about these things, which is why I do not feel completely qualified to remark about it, but this war has been making me angry since it first began.
Posted by Objectivity (Member # 4553) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: There's been essentially a news blackout on Iraq since the war began. I exaggerate, but it is partly true. We get to hear how many car bombs went off, and who wants death to the Great Satan, but how things are actually working doesn't get reported on.
I wish I had linked to the article, but a few years ago, an e-mail chain went around showing pictures of U.S. soldiers being surrounded by cheering Iraqis, turning on water in hospitals and schools that hadn't had running water in decades, etc. etc. The question was asked at the end of the e-mail why these stories were never reported and then the phone number to the Associated Press was printed.
Some small newspaper or TV station somewhere decided to report about the e-mail and get an answer to the question - why weren't these stories reported. In an unexpected display of honesty, someone from AP went on the record and admitted that Iraq was too dangerous for their reporters so they were ordered to stay in the hotel and only report body counts and other news given to them. As a result, many of the positive news items were never covered because doing so would put people at risk.
I wish I still had a link to AP quotes for the information.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What is the definition of an intellectual? I hear that word bandied about a lot, sometimes by people I view as intellectuals themselves.
Is it just another word co-opted into a pejorative, or does it still mean anything of value?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
People who ought to feel safe in Iraq- political office holders, television personalities, professionals- are being kidnapped and murdered.
Iraqbodycount.org states the reported dead as between 49,000 and 56,000. The Lancet medical journal study estimates between 426,000 and 793,000 dead. The former (being only deaths reported in the news) is probably low; the latter, having a significant margain of error, is probably high. In October, 3,709 Iraqis were killed. The number of casualties in recent months has been steadily increasing, not decreasing.
Meanwhile, such left-wing intellectuals as William F. Buckley, George Will, and Francis Fukuyama (who served on Bush's Council on Bioethics) have chimed in their own less than optimistic assessments of the situation in Iraq.
Amazing what you can find with a few minutes on a search engine.
And terribly, terribly depressing.
Podhoretz... Well, Google him. Draw your own conclusions. Let's say I don't take his word against all I'm hearing, all I'm seeing, all I hear from a couple of frinds who served in Iraq and all I hear from my brother-in-law who's still there.
People who have everything to gain by telling me things are going well in Iraq- who in many cases feel their very identity depends on the United States doing well in Iraq- tell me things are going well in Iraq, and I shouldn't believe differently, no matter what I hear or see.
People who have little or nothing to gain by telling me things are going badly in Iraq- who, in some cases, have a great deal to lose by saying so- are telling me that things are going badly. Including, apparently, Donald Rumsfeld.
Does William of Occam's razor not cut anymore?
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
So obviously the predominant feeling of those posting in this thread is that the war is a disaster. What do you feel will fix the situation as it stands?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
"Fix" it? A time-machine.
As far as I can see, we've gone beyond fixing it. The Bush administration and its supporters who allowed it to operate without accountability have seen to that.
As I said above, there was an opportunity to have a healthy, stable, democratic Iraq, but with these people in charge, the effort was pretty much doomed from the start. The job was far beyond them. Say what you will about him, does anyone who doesn't harbor an irrational hatred of him not think that we'd be in a much better position right now as a country had Bill Clinton been starting his first term in 2001?
I don't think fixing is really an option now. But we can lessen the damage and have a more advantageous outcome. I've mentioned one thing - the timetables - that I can't understand why everyone isn't asking for now as it seems to fit in with what everyone says they want.
---
I'm curious, for those who support President Bush in this, what is your impression of his plan to fix the situation? I honestly have no clue what it is or if one even exists.
[ December 05, 2006, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
So the opportunity in iraq was squandered.
What would you have done differently?
And I would still like to see some suggestions about how the course can be redirected now.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And I just gave you one. Are you at least going to acknowldge it?
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
Time machine? I don't see any productive ideas there.
I just see lots of people debating the actual state of things instead of considering potential courses of action that might have the potential to be productive from this point on.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I've mentioned one thing - the timetables - that I can't understand why everyone isn't asking for now as it seems to fit in with what everyone says they want.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
What do you feel timetables would accomplish in this conflict?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
cal, You could try reading the things I have written:
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And I'll say it again. There's a very simple way for the administration to make the case they we're winning and that they have a working plan in Iraq: give us timetables.
These are our goals. These are what we think we need to achieve them. This is the range in which we think we will acheive them. When we achieve them, this is what we're going to do.
A large majority of the Iraqi people think that the U.S. military is there to stay. A majority of the American people are very disatisfied with the way the war is going - many wonder if there is even a plan that is being followed besides "pitch and cover". You can address these concerns and show that there is plenty of good news coming out of Iraq by providing timetables of the type I said above. They would give an objective measure to demonstrate how much you've achieved and how good your plans are. Surely a group of people so masterful at their jobs as OSC assures us the Bush administration is should leap at the chance for something like this. It makes me wonder why they have not.
And that's just touching on the things that careful application of these could accomplish.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
How would our enemies respond to the publication of such timetables?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
How do you think?
I've written extensively about this topic on this site and you can either look that up (it's on the other side I think, in at least two different threads) or I'll eventually get around to cut and pasting them.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
I believe that the enemy will respond by doing everything in their power to stop it from happening as we intend.
Consider terrorist response to a specific timetable that we have knowledge of. In this past election season they knew that bad news from Iraq could influence the election and so they pushed harder. Timetables only give focus to what in our opposition exists as only a somewhat organised effort.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Maybe you could explain to me why that would be a bad thing*?
Also, if you're going to disagree with everything I've written about what timetables would do, a la:
quote:Timetables only give focus to what in our opposition exists as only a somewhat organised effort.
could you do me the courtesy of explaining why none of the things I'm describing would come out of timetables?
---
* It might help if you take into account that I'm a reasonably intelligent person who has read The Art of War, von Clauswitz, and a host of other things on military strategy.
[ December 05, 2006, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
It's not timetables I have issue with, or goals, or plans. I just have problems with their release to the general public.
Releasing our plans to the general public gives the enemy a specific point to focus on and counter. Our enemies in this war are infinitely more patient than the over comfortable news clip oriented masses that would rather have a beer and watch a football game than debate an issue.
Debates and war all take too much effort. The enemy in Iraq is counting on the american public running out of steam and leaving. Unfortunately they may prove to be right in this case allowing an agenda they have been pushing in the face of an oblivious world for decades to blossom. Telling them what we plan to do will just give them a more effective tool to overcome our efforts.
[ December 05, 2006, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: calaban ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think we should publish a checklist (not timetable) to provide near-, medium-, and long-term goals, prioritized, to the public. With the understanding that periodically the priorities/goals will be re-assessed to determine how well we are doing, and what needs to be changed. I think the current administration has forfeited their right to carte blanch "government secrets", since it hasn't helped them so far.
I don't think dates should be published. I do think more needs to be provided to the public/whole of Congress to provide oversight. I think that would best serve the United States. I don't fear our enemies the way some do, though. I think that even with certain types of deadlines, we can defeat our enemies. I have faith in our military that much (and have during this entire fiasco).
quote:Asked if he thought the United States was winning the war in Iraq, defense secretary nominee Robert Gates answered with a simple "No, sir."
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
He also said he didnt feel we are loosing it. Quote the whole thing bitte.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Err...why? What does him saying that he didn't feel we are losing it have to do with this discussion that we're having about OSC's statement:
quote:This election proves only that the monolithically leftwing mainstream media can make the public believe we are losing a war that we are winning.
?
edit: And actually, where did he say that he didn't feel that we were losing? I didn't notice that in the article I linked to.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
I'm still not sure why you think that is relevant. Also, if you're going to accuse me of not quoting something, could you make sure that it's in the thing that I'm quoting first?
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
My point is that the statement "We are not winning in Iraq" infers that we are loosing. I think a less baised report on the situation is that we are at a crossroads in Iraq and we need to tread lightly.
The paragraph I am referencing follows:
"Asked point-blank by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., whether the U.S. is winning in Iraq, Gates replied, "No, sir." He later said he believes the United States is neither winning nor losing, "at this point." "
That means he doesn't think we are winning or loosing. In my opinion that means that we have options still. As far as my participation in the discussion in this thread I have just asked people that in my opinion just seem to be detracting from the war effort to respond with a few helpful suggestions that go beyond the lambasting of everything that is happening. Such actions are only self serving. In my opinion just saying "you are wrong" doesn't help unless you offer a suitable recourse.
I am not here to debate OSC's statement because the preconceptions of the conflict have been cemented in many minds. All I am asking is; admitting the war is a fiasco where can we go from here. What can we do to make something productive out of it.
I see no way that revealing any plans we have to the enemy will help the situation and can think of many ways it will hurt it.
Another passage of note in the article:
"The spokesman rejected any notion that Gates' assessment of the war would be demoralizing to U.S. troops. "What I think is demoralizing is a constant effort to try to portray this as a losing mission," Snow said.
Gates was noncommittal on questions about whether and when to begin a U.S. troop withdrawal, saying it "depends on the conditions on the ground." He also said that if confirmed he would go to Iraq soon to consult with U.S. commanders.
Asked later whether announcing a specific troop withdrawal timetable would send a signal of U.S. weakness, Gates said it "would essentially tell (the insurgents) how long they have to wait until we're gone." "
Because of propoganda and reporting in Vietnam the incorrect predominant feeling was that we were militarily loosing the war. That feeling led to the political loss of that war. When we left millions died. This really happened, and could happen again. What I am asking is how can this be prevented in Iraq. How can we as a people turn this around. I think there is an answer, but it might be beyond the collective will of the US as divided as we stand on the issue.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
We never should have gone into Iraq in the first place with the lack of numbers that we did. When we kicked Iraq out of Kuwait, it was with a multinational (many of which included Arab States and a large French contingent) half million man overwhelming force.
And we honestly thought that we could OCCUPY a foreign nation with a force half that of what we thought was necessary just to kick them out of Kuwait? That's a joke. It was botched from the moment boots hit the ground. The administration freely admits they were wrong about the situation there, wrong about troop levels, wrong about reconstruction, wrong about pretty much everything.
We should stop using the Republican scare word "timetables." That's the word they use to try and make Democratic plans looks stupid and shortsighted. Democrats bave long been calling for "benchmarks" which is more performance based than time based. When they hit a certain point, we consider it a success, and pull some more troops out. It's a phased withdrawel yes, but it isn't an email to Al Qaeda saying their move in date is January 23rd, 2007, we'll leave the light on.
I think the best way to salvage the situation as it stands is to realize the military and political forces standing in our way in IRAQ, not in America. The people there want us GONE, they don't want it immediately, but they want it to happen in the next year. We're setting up a democracy aren't we? We're trying to create a pro-Western stable power in the region aren't we? Wouldn't the first step be to allow them self determination and not ensure more anti-American hatred for the next fifty years? They KNOW what is going to happen when we leave, and they STILL want us to get the hell out of there.
So we realize that the majority of the people want us gone, and we leave. Their Prime Minister wants us to leave, their lawmakers want us to leave, their people want us to leave. These are people who know the region a hell of a lot better than Bush, who until a couple years ago didn't even know the difference between Shi'a and Sunni. I say we pull back to bases in Kuwait and the Kurdish north, the safe zones, and don't bother anyone. We stand ready to rush back in if things go dramatically wrong, but for the most part we give them what they want, and we let them govern themselves and police themselves.
The political aspect is directly tied in with that. Many Iraqis believe that the US troops are creating targets that get Iraqi civilians killed. American troops kicking down doors isn't good PR. When we leave, they can't blame us anymore, the worst they can do is wish we'd come back, and we'll be right there waiting if that's what they really want, but right now ir isn't. It should get them to fight the real enemy, and stop blaming US troops. It might just be that a civil war breaks out in Iraq, and if it's going to happen, why are we fighting it for them?
That's like the British coming to America to fight the South while the North stays in their homes. If they want to fight this war it WILL be fought, we can't get in the way of it. We shouldnt't be there. We got rid of Saddam, that was the idea, we didn't sign on to fight a religious war, or a sectarian war as the proxy of a segment of the Iraqi people. We're beyond the scope of our original stated intent there.
Getting other nations involved, beyond direct regional partners is out of the question at this point. Nobody trusts us, and I don't blame them, and the allies that we DID bring in with us are all jumping ship, leaving the problem in our laps. No surprise there. Bush's Coalition is a joke compared to the one his father set up.
It's time to pull out and let the Iraqis decide the future of their nation.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"What are you reading, watching, hearing that leads you to believe this war is a success?"
"In answer to the original question: This month's Commentary, in the letters section, has a letter from Norman Podhoretz refuting those who claim that the war is lost. He quotes a prominent Muslim writer as well. A nice encapsulization.
He also reminds us of other times when "everybody" knew something that was obviously contrary to fact, attesting to the ability of intellectuals to believe anything - as long as they are reassured by the belief of other intellectuals. Groupthink as a substitute for actual thought.
the previous month's Commentary has, of course, Podhoretz's original essay, which is much longer and very thorough."
So... two sources you are reading lead you to believe this war is a success. On the other side of that, we have the majority of people who are actually running the war or have been running the war, who think its not.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Would it be just as good an argument to remind him of all the times when everybody knew something that was in fact right? To say nothing of the fact that I view OSC as an intellectual. So he's either using the wrong word, or he's dissing himself.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Hrm. I don't view him as an intellectual. Intellectuals at least TRY to get their facts right, andavoid intentionally spreading information they know to be false.
I'm sorry, but calling monica lewinksy underage just seriously ruins whatever credibility as a columnist I still thought Card had.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by calaban: So obviously the predominant feeling of those posting in this thread is that the war is a disaster. What do you feel will fix the situation as it stands?
I honestly don't know if anything will fix the situation in Iraq as it stands. When the violence in Iraq could be attributed to "insurgents"- when it could, at least semi-plausibly, be described as an outside force- the notion that capturing, disarming, and/or killing the insurgents had some weight. A lot of the violence we're seeing now is Sunni against Shia and Shia against Sunni. We fight or disarm one side, we inflame them and help their enemies. The militias that have formed came about from a perception that people were not safe and needed to arm to defend themselves; they will not disarm readily, and the violence they perpetuate only circularly confirms the need to arm themselves. Even the Iraqi Prime Minister has expressed unwillingness to disarm the militias, though that does of course beg the question of whether he has the werewithal to accomplish it if he did feel so inclined.
The best idea I'd yet seen, the block-by-block, neighborhood-by-neighborhood operations of searching, disarming, and patrolling, failed to accomplish the expected results. What can we accomplish when sweeping a road for IEDs and snipers one week doesn't pose any guarantees that road will be safe the next?
Presuming an unlimited budget, absolute authority, and the political will to bring about any given solution, we could: bring in a much larger force, secure the borders from new influxes of arms, and quarantine areas of Iraqi cities sector-by-sector while operations to fully restore services and infrastructure (including petroleum) were undertaken in the carefully guarded areas. While we did this, house Iraqi police and military training operations within similarly secured green zones with the understanding that the recruits would remain in those safe zones for the duration of their training. When infrastructure restoration was complete, the facilities would be turned over to Iraqis to protect with the understanding that no further funding or protection would be provided for those "completed" zones, no matter what eventualities occurred there; the success or destruction of those areas was considered now fully under Iraqi control.
All we'd need is an enormous amount of manpower, an unlimited budget, and the ability to do what we choose without having to go through either an American or an Iraqi political process. After all that was done, we might have a stable Iraq.
In the current situation, the very real question that we've been steadfastly been refusing to answer is this: "If we leave 'x' years and 'y' casualties further down the road... Will the situation we leave be any better than the one we'd leave now?" Perhaps my greatest fear is the troops now present in Iraq becoming nothing more than witnesses to a civil war they can do absolutely nothing to allay. The demands for "benchmarks" or a "timetable" or whatever phrase is used are really pleading for some kind of sign that there's more of an answer to that unspoken question than vague and empty buzz phrases like "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." Phrases often accompanied by reports of Iraqi readiness that prove to be completely out of odds with reports from the field.
With the situation we have, I can offer a few thoughts, but no overarching solutions. We need to purge the police forces of those who use such office to carry out vendettas; if the police protect some people and terrorize others, they are police in name only, and their murder takes on a legitimacy in some eyes. Iraq needs a trustworthy internal affairs department like nobody's business. We need funding to create employment in Iraq to reduce the number of idle hands filling with guns. We need to reach some manner of understanding with Iran and Syria, if only to lessen the likelihood that they put those guns into the hands of the idle. We need more specialists on the ground to tend to the needs of the troops, particularly in fields like bomb disposal and mental counseling. And we need some kind of stick we can legitimately threaten the Iraqi government with if they don't pull their weight. The only one we have right now is troop withdrawl, and it's such an all-or-nothing, with such political ramifications, that its use is moot. If we have a funded plan for other projects within Iraq, we have a legitimate ability to withhold that funding if Iraq cannot protect those projects.
That's what I come up with rambling off the top of my head.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Doubtful the US will ever be able to fix the Iraqi police. It's heavily infiltrated by Shiite militiamen, and we have no idea who is who.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Sadly true. Theoretically, it could be done from within by a motivated, impartial, non-corrupt party, but good luck finding one such idealized entity, let alone enough to deal with the whole of the Iraqi police force.
Trying not to throw things out as impractical in brainstorming; there's certainly enough about the situation that easily surpasses "impractical and unlikely" to venture into the realm of "borderline or literally impossible."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I just finished reading the Baker Commission Report.
I recommend OSC read it, and anyone else who think that the War is going well, but has a bad image. That report evaporated almost all my hope for Iraq. Things are NOT going well, it's a horrible mess, and death and carnage are everywhere, constantly, and there's little to nothing we can do to stop it by ourselves.
Their solutions seem like good ones, but they depend ENTIRELY on Iraq's government and disparate forces being able to set aside their differences and come to agreement on a wide array of hotly contested issues. I think a lot of it is wishful thinking.
As is, we're in a lot of trouble over there. I recommend everyone here read that report. It's officially 160 pages, but the relevent portions are more like 100. It's a fast read. It's also a scary read.
Posted by Brian R (Member # 9953) on :
There is a larger issue here than the war in Iraq, of which the war in Iraq is only a part. And that is the so-called "war on terror" that Mr. Bush created in response to (or, more cynically, in taking advantage of) the 9/11 attack.
We cannot have a "war on terror." That's because "terror" doesn't exist. Terrorists do exist, and one group of them attacked us. So we could have a war, or at least a police manhunt with some military participation, against al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is a militant Islamic terrorist organization, so if we want to play the guilt by association game, and we are really, really stupid and self-destructive, we could also have a war on all Muslim nations. But we cannot have a war on "terror."
Any president, however irresponsible, would have to have conducted a police manhunt with military participation against al-Qaeda after 9/11; even Bush wasn't so irresponsible as not to do that. I don't think he wants to have a war against all Muslim nations, though. And of course he can't have a war on "terror," see above.
What it seems he wants to do, is have a blanket authorization to make war against anyone he wants to make war against, anywhere, any time. Having people believe in this "war on terror" turnip ghost does that trick.
Aside from the expense and the casualties, the real problem with this is that war is the enemy of freedom. People compromise all sorts of liberties in wartime that they never would in peacetime. War brings censorship, economic hardships, restrictions on travel, acceptance of government secrecy and unaccountability. And so the "war on terror," which is really a program for constant war from here to eternity, is -- deliberately or not -- an attack on freedom.
Do we want to accept that?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I believe we can have a "war" on fundamentalism in the same sense that we have a "war" on drugs and poverty.
Problem is, the frontline of that war is in Israel, despite what Ehud Olmert says, and not in Iraq.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Paul, you wanted him to give you sources, didn't you? He offered ONE source to satisfy the demand, and now you're acting like you think this ONE article he mentioned is the sole foundation for his opinion?
For Card to explain the entire foundation of his opinion could take about as much time as it took him to form it in the first place. Could you at least give him a tiny amount of credit, and not presume that he's an idiot, solely because he has come to a different conclusion than you have about a specific issue?
And could you refrain from calling him a liar because you disagree with his word choice?
The concept of whether or not this war is a failure is a question of divining the future, anyway. You seem to be of the opinion that failure is, at this point, inevitable. Card seems to believe that it is far from inevitable, but that the common belief that failure is inevitable is turning into a self-fulfilling prophecy. He wants to reverse that trend.
But since the future hasn't happened yet, I don't think that you have yet earned the right to assume that everyone who disagrees with you about it is a full-blown moron to whom you do not owe any respect. Particularly when the medium you're using to express your opinion has been generously provided to you, for free, by the person whose intelligence you want to insult.
Obviously, you don't have to agree with anything Card says. But at least treat him with some courtesy when you're on his site, on his dime, in front of his family and friends.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Card goes a little further than that, he suggests that on the contrary, we're winning the war, but no one knows about it because of the Media. The Baker report rebukes that claim pretty hardcore, and shows that it looks like the media is probably way closer to the truth than not.
Today when a CBS journalist quoted passages from the Report to Tony Snow, Snow accused him of partisan naysaying, for quoting the report of a bi-partisan panel. The journalist was shocked, unsurprisingly, and asked him how it was partisan of him to quote the Report, which Tony Snow more or less brushed aside.
How Iraq turns out IS a question for the future to decide, but I think I've come to the conclusion that winning and losing in Iraq are questions no longer up to America. If you read the report, the situation there might have been catalyzed by American ineptitude, but it's entirely of their own making. The Iraqi people can't come to an agreement on any major issue, they aren't working well together, and bitter rivalries and old scores are being settled with our troops in the way. Maliki doesn't even seem to have control over his own army. Soldiers more often than not are refusing to leave their homes to fight in distant parts of the country, and the several of the Ministries themselves are controlled by Muqtada al-Sadr.
America can't fix Iraq until they fix themselves. Our original goal was to kick Saddam out, well, we did it. Imagining that we have the power to create a democracy for them, and decide their future for them is laughably arrogant and ignorant of the situation as it stands over there. I don't think we won or are winning, and I don't think we lost, or are losing. I think we're stuck in a fight between a half dozen major factions, and we have little power, without a massive new troop commitment, to change the situation against the will of Iraqi citizens.
I really feel, that we should do our best there, whilst slowly pulling ourselves away from an unsolvable (by us) problem, and if we're still going to stay relevent in the Middle East, we should be spending our time and money helping a situation we might actually be able to fix, like Palestine and Israel. We should've started there before we ever even got to Iraq, but there's no time like the present. At the very least it'll force the Anti-American forces in the area to come up with a new reason to hate us if they can't use "repression of the Palestinians" as an excuse.
Winning and losing are off the table, it's time we faced reality.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: we should be spending our time and money helping a situation we might actually be able to fix, like Palestine and Israel.
So what's your plan? We send in troops to defend Palestine while they build themselves into a self-sustaining fighting force?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Baker and the other Commission members suggest the opposite, sending in troops, if necessary, to reinforce Israel, and serve as a buffer.
Of course, if you prefer the situation remain as is for the next couple hundred years, or until someone manages to nuke the other side then by all means let's keep the status quo.
The situation there has changed since it was Arafat and Sharon at Camp David, and we haven't addressed the situation since then. It's time to put in a serious effort to end the problem.
You disagree?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:we should be spending our time and money helping a situation we might actually be able to fix, like Palestine and Israel.
Or even poor, forgotten Afghanistan.
Posted by Brian R (Member # 9953) on :
quote: I believe we can have a "war" on fundamentalism in the same sense that we have a "war" on drugs and poverty.
I guess that's true. But let's note that 1) those "wars" were metaphorical wars not literal ones, and 2) they weren't terribly successful.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
1.) They're more alike than you might think. You can't beat the war on drugs until you address why people are committing illegal actions. You either root out drug users and address their issues, or they continue to use, as you run around trying to pin down dealers and poppy fields, and marijuana forests all over the globe, spending billions but never really doing more than pissing off the cartels and inviting reprisal. Or you can fight a war in Iraq, pissing everyone off, but never addressing why people turn to terrorism to begin with. They aren't all just irrational freedom haters, and it's that sort of mentality that ensures we'll never understand them enough to "win."
2.) Yeah, no kidding. That one seems to apply across the board.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:we should be spending our time and money helping a situation we might actually be able to fix, like Palestine and Israel.
Or even poor, forgotten Afghanistan.
Uniting the war on drugs and the war on terror in one painful step.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What do you dispute in my paragraph that compares them?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I don't. I'm just bemused at the likelihood that right now Afghanistan seems most likely to either return to the hands of the Taliban or a similarly fundamentalist Islamic group (and probably one that will be sympathetic to organizations like Al Qaeda), or to the opium barons.
Or in other words, I mean "uniting the war on drugs and the war on terror" (or perhaps, even, the "war on terror" leaving a void that will have to be filled by the "war on drugs", and vice versa) rather literally. The metaphor you made seems fairly apt.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh, I see what you're saying.
My bad ::sheepish grin::
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: And could you refrain from calling him a liar because you disagree with his word choice?
At the risk of dragging up old skeletons, Paul is correct that at no point during the Clinton presidency was Monica Lewinsky underage.
Posted by Dav (Member # 8217) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: And could you refrain from calling him a liar because you disagree with his word choice?
At the risk of dragging up old skeletons, Paul is correct that at no point during the Clinton presidency was Monica Lewinsky underage.
In the legal definition that would be literally true. But "underage" has more than the strict legal definition. I interpreted Mr. Card to mean it in the sense that her youth, and her subservient status (which was accentuated by her immaturity), had been immorally taken advantage of by the President.
One could argue that he should have used a different word, or phrased it differently. But it seemed clear to me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: And could you refrain from calling him a liar because you disagree with his word choice?
At the risk of dragging up old skeletons, Paul is correct that at no point during the Clinton presidency was Monica Lewinsky underage.
That's all well and good, assuming one is using "underage" in the statutory sense. Of course, this isn't something we hold people to consistently.
It's also irrelevant to what Geoff actually said, at least in the part you quoted. It is easy to put up OSC's quote, link to wikipedia, and demonstrate that Monica was 19 when Clinton took the oath of office. That's all that was necessary. Then OSC could either explain his use of the word, or clarify, or admit he was mistaken.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dav: In the legal definition that would be literally true. But "underage" has more than the strict legal definition. I interpreted Mr. Card to mean it in the sense that her youth, and her subservient status (which was accentuated by her immaturity), had been immorally taken advantage of by the President.
One could argue that he should have used a different word, or phrased it differently. But it seemed clear to me.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: That's all well and good, assuming one is using "underage" in the statutory sense. Of course, this isn't something we hold people to consistently.
It's also irrelevant to what Geoff actually said, at least in the part you quoted. It is easy to put up OSC's quote, link to wikipedia, and demonstrate that Monica was 19 when Clinton took the oath of office. That's all that was necessary. Then OSC could either explain his use of the word, or clarify, or admit he was mistaken.
Assume Mr. Card is aware that saying Lewinsky was underage is factually incorrect, and that he's aware of that, and uses the term "underage" in some manner of emotionally charged metaphorical sense. These are not insignificant assumptions, but put that aside.
Is the typical reader of such an editorial- not a Hatrack regular, not necessarily someone thoroughly familiar with Card's views and writing- going to come to the conclusion that the term is used metaphorically, rather than in the manner it is used in virtually every English dictionary?
And is a reader already less than favorably inclined towards Clinton going to do the research necessary to invalidate a claim that Lewinsky was underage at the time of her relationship with Clinton? Are they unlikely to presume the claim has some level of authority, some basis in fact, and pass it on verbally as Clinton having had a relationship with a minor?
These are the kind of questions that a responsible editorial writer should consider.
If Mr. Goldner's comment was harsh, perhaps emotionally charged and/or metaphorical, I would hesistate to grant him less slack than I would the writing that inspired the response. Especially noting that he is commenting on a private forum on his own feelings, versus a public one, comparing records of stated fact.
I wouldn't really expect Mr. Card to respond. It would seem unusual for him to do so, from what I've observed; it would likely seem to be a waste of time better spent on other projects, and unlikely to alter the mindset of either himself or others. I'm not saying I find fault with that; such matters could easily become the bane of one's professional life.
[ December 17, 2006, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by Dav (Member # 8217) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Assume Mr. Card is aware that saying Lewinsky was underage is factually incorrect, and that he's aware of that, and uses the term "underage" in some manner of emotionally charged metaphorical sense. These are not insignificant assumptions, but put that aside.
Is the typical reader of such an editorial- not a Hatrack regular, not necessarily someone thoroughly familiar with Card's views and writing- going to come to the conclusion that the term is used metaphorically, rather than in the manner it is used in virtually every English dictionary?
Actually, my belief is that Mr. Card's use of the word was not "factually incorrect". What he said did not meet one literal *legal* definition. However that doesn't mean it had to be used metaphorically. There are a lot more meanings to words than their legal definitions.
However you may be right about your other point, that a casual uninformed reader inclined to dislike Clinton might assume it meant Lewinsky was under the legal age of consent. And that could be a reasonable argument that a different word or phrasing should have been used.
I would tend to blame the reader in such a case. But I may be a bit biased since I was terribly disappointed with Clinton's actions on this and many other issues.
Anyways, I suppose that's the sort of thing that makes writing editorials tricky. Balancing getting your point across in a relatively succinct and interesting way, with trying to figure out all the ways people might misinterpret you.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is the typical reader of such an editorial- not a Hatrack regular, not necessarily someone thoroughly familiar with Card's views and writing- going to come to the conclusion that the term is used metaphorically, rather than in the manner it is used in virtually every English dictionary?
You're first link, first definition:
quote:1 : of less than mature or legal age
Note "mature or legal." It is NOT used in an exclusively legal sense, and I have heard it used very often in a non-legal sense.
Personally, I'd have preferred he used "27 years younger" or something similar.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I don't think I've ever heard it used in any other sense. That is, I'm pretty sure that every time I've heard the word it's been in reference to not being legally old enough to do something (drive, drink, vote...). Drinking was the most common one. It would never have occurred to me, if I'd been reading the column, that OSC meant anything other than "below the legal age of consent for having sex with an adult in that jurisdiction."
I don't know what OSC intended or what the "average reader" might interpret; I'm just noting that there's at least one person out there who sees "underage" and automatically assumes it has to do with law.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Me too.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Since virtually everyone who reads Card's column is aware of the circumstances of the Lewinsky scandal, it's very difficult to claim that Card was "lying" ... as that would imply an intent to deceive, when there is no one in his audience that could possibly be deceived into thinking Lewinsky was under 18 when they already know that she wasn't.
I mean, regardless of whether or not someone knew all the facts as they read the article, and could specifically cite Lewinsky's age, if the president had actually committed statutory rape, that would have been a very different impeachment proceeding.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I seriously doubt there was any intent to deceive. I do suspect there was a choice made to heighten the reader's appreciation of what was already an inequal power relationship by (among other things) exaggerating its immorality and illegality.
If we're really going to call out factual errors in World Watch columns, I'm still hung up on the claim OSC made a few months back about how the Democratic Party votes in a monolithic bloc compared to the Republicans, something that's almost immediately proved false by even a cursory examination of the record. The opposite is in fact true (and has been true for as long as I've been alive), especially on votes pertaining to the very wedge issues that (IIRC) Card called out as examples of Democratic bloc voting.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
Personally, I'd have preferred he used "27 years younger" or something similar.
Noted, though by most defintions it would be hard to label Lewinsky as immature in either a legal or literal sense. Naive, perhaps. I don't think the term was accurate by either definition, however. And if the intent was to impress the unfair power dynamic in the relationship, it seems somewhat redundant to the "almost infinitely subservient" comment.
At best, it would probably suffice to say that the attempt to equate the wrongdoings of Foley and Clinton was done with an overly broad brush.
Not that I'm dismissing the fact that Clinton was guilty of wrongdoing.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
How about what, so far as I can tell, is the factual error that underpines his whole most recent world watch?
Unless someone can show me otherwise, the egg at the hearse story appears to also be a factual erro, since it hasnt' happened yet.
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
I had a strange impression we were discussing (or rather you discussed while I drop in once a week) Iraq and whether we could "win" whatever that is.
I want to propose that nearly everyone is wrong (what a concept!). We are engaged in a war against radical islam. Bush won't admit it. Moderate islam is useless to us since it has no history or standing up to extremists. We are defending ourselves against an alien culture that wishes to destroy us. Iraq looked like good ground on which to fight; it turns out not to be.
Within Islam the sunnis hate the shi'a, but they can temporarily unite against the Infidel. Sunnis in Saudi Arabia want to stabilize Iraq but Shi'a in Iran and the nazi-like minority shia party running Syria want desperately to create a Shi'a crescent, from Syria to Iran, right through Iraq.
If we are able to stabilize a democracy in Iraq, with a federal style of government (independent states sharing general revenues), it will deal a powerful blow to both Syria and Iran. A democratic regime would whet appetites in both countries among the common people. Thus the tremendous effort to dislodge us. They agree that we must go, and are apparently pouring significant resources into that battle. That is why Moqtada al Sadr is so anti-american, even though his people benefit from the removal of Saddam.
If we don't win, we are in for a longer, much harsher battle. I don't think we can afford to walk away, so the idea of a timetable is extremely risky.
Bush made a serious mistake by insisting on a single Iraq. Kurds love us and are pro-american. They have oil, and they are at peace. Sunni cannot survive without oil revenues and they have no significant fields in their part of the country. They fight to survive. There should be three countries with a system of sharing oil revenues. That is what I might propose if I were King. lj
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Unless someone can show me otherwise, the egg at the hearse story appears to also be a factual erro, since it hasnt' happened yet.
What hasn't happened? The egging of a hearse? I'd like to see your evidence of that.
The telling of the story to OSC by the uniformed escort? I'd really like to see your evidence that this is false.
You're making a bold claim their, Paul. You've accused OSC of lying about whether he makes money on his columns - without proof. You've accused him of being wrong about the egg-hearse incident, without posting proof.
You have an extremely obvious grudge against OSC. Why on earth should anyone take your word over his on these things? You've certainly done nothing to give yourself any credibility in this matter.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Do a search for egg, and hearse, on google. Nothing crops up except OSC's worldwatch column.
I'm not saying it DIDN"T happen. If you quoted what I said, its that as best I can tell, it didn't happen. IE, there are zero news stories about it happening that are on the web at this point in time that google finds.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, but you are saying that this appears to be a factual error. A very different statement than "I can find no other account of this story."
At least as misleading as OSC's use of underage might have been.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I also said "so far as I can tell."
I tried, twice, to point out that this is what it looks like from the information available to me.
I apologize that did not come across clearly to you, because it was what I was trying to express.
"At least as misleading as OSC's use of underage might have been."
And thats bogus. I qualified twice. OSC qualified zero times.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
On OSC's behalf, he did provide enough information for a reader to identify the hearse story as highly questionable hearsay.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I'm not sure that any discovery about the hearse story could "undermine" (was that the word you meant?) his entire essay. He's proposing that there should be a restriction against a certain type of demonstration. Whether or not such a demonstration has actually occurred seems to be beside the point of whether or not it should be legal.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
And are you really at the point where you are, by default, assuming everything OSC says is false? If you really think that little of him, I have to wonder what you're still doing on his fan site.
That conversation he had with that soldier was very important to him. He's going to remember it for the rest of his life. And you're sitting here poking holes in it and trying to prove it false? Seriously? This is what you're doing with your time? When the veracity of the story has no impact whatsoever on the point of his essay?
I think we're getting a bit beyond "debate" here and far deeper into "serious attempts to hurt someone whose opinions made you mad". If that isn't your intent, then some faster backpedaling might be a really good idea.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
FWIW, I'd be happier with a law making all demonstrations at funerals illegal (although it still makes my inner libertarian chafe something fierce). Separating out soldiers who died "in uniform" from other people who died heroically -- or even less than heroically -- is of questionable value to me.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: FWIW, I'd be happier with a law making all demonstrations at funerals illegal (although it still makes my inner libertarian chafe something fierce). Separating out soldiers who died "in uniform" from other people who died heroically -- or even less than heroically -- is of questionable value to me.
You know, that's kind of what occurred to me as well. I think the event Card describes in the most recent World Watch is deplorable, but I find equally deplorable the student who demanded "public service" credit for picketing homosexual funerals.
The bottom line is that funerals are for remembering and mourning the dead, and it's hard to imagine a statement, political or otherwise, that has to be made at the event.
Though I'd want to watch how such a law was phrased very carefully. No language that would allow a political convention to felonize protest, for instance.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I think the event Card describes in the most recent World Watch is deplorable
Is there any confirmation that this event actually happened? I've heard similar stories floated that have all turned out to be fraudulent.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I honestly don't know. I'll see if there's anything at the urban legends page.
ADD: I checked; nothing there. I sent an inquiry. It certainly could be a piece of unsubstantiated hearsay; the details do seem arranged to enflame, while particulars (where the event occurred, who was arrested, the college providing credit, etc.) are notably vague.
Stay tuned.
[ December 20, 2006, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
If someone egged a hearse belonging to a relative of mine, I would be upset, but I wouldn't necessarily go running to the press about it. A lack of evidence in the media doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
EDIT: And again, whether the event actually occurred or not should have little impact on what we think the policy should be for such cases. It would bug me if we changed the law because we were upset about a specific incident, rather than because we thought the change was necessary, regardless of any specific incident.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Geoff, in an ideal world, that would be the case. But when the call for such a law is based at least in part on emotional appeals and specific anecdotes, the validity of such anecdotes does to some extent matter. You've suggested that (among other things) learning that the soldier had lied to him would poison your father's memory of their conversation; this implies to me that some specificity is involved, so that people aren't just bouncing hypothetical anecdotes off each other. Remember that classic flap during the 2000 campaign, when Al Gore said his mother-in-law was paying more for an anti-arthritic drug than her dog? People jumped on it because the costs he cited were taken from a Democratic financial analysis, and not from his mother-in-law's actual costs; very quickly, Republicans followed up this discovery by asserting that Gore's mother-in-law wasn't even taking the cited medication, much less paying the cited amount. It turns out that the truth was in between: she was taking the medication, and was paying more for it than the same meds provided for her dog, but the specific numbers Gore listed were national averages and not correct in her case. (She paid less money for each drug than Gore claimed.)
I suspect that Gore did himself a disservice by not getting the numbers right, or from the source. I suspect the Republicans did themselves a disservice by responding with their own inaccuracies.
In both cases, their cause would have been better-advanced by being more concerned with the validity of their supporting anecdote, even if the material argument for their policies was in no way dependent upon the anecdote itself. In general, I suspect that punditry is ALWAYS improved by truth -- but that the thing which distinguishes punditry from reporting is that the former is generally less concerned with accuracy. This is to its detriment, though.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
The family might not have run to the media. But the brother punching a protester, and the circumstances that inspired it, would likely get into the news somewhere. And the arrest would be a matter of public record.
It could be a real anecdote, or it could be a Nieman Marcus cookie recipe. I'm hoping Snopes will take a look.
Posted by winkey151 (Member # 9656) on :
We saw what happened to the people who stood with us after we pulled out of Vietnam... we saw what happened to the people who stood with us when we pulled out of Iraq in 1991... if we pull out and leave Iraq now the people who are standing with us will be left in the same position. How can we in good conscience do that to people again?
And if we can... why should anyone ever trust us again?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Heck, why should anyone trust us NOW?
But you raise a good point: should American leaders place the concerns of foreign nationals over their responsibilities to American citizens?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Tom, I'd argue that earning the trust of other nations and not turning the entire world into enemies is part of an American leader's responsibility to his own citizens.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
It remains a very open question whether operations in Iraq are achieving or hindering that goal.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, I'd argue that earning the trust of other nations and not turning the entire world into enemies is part of an American leader's responsibility to his own citizens.
I agree. But the American people still voted for Bush the last time around, so I can only assume it's not a majority opinion.
Posted by Shnabubula (Member # 9834) on :
Orson Scott Card invisions the world as a scifi novel... I see it more as black comedy
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
It's a pity the discussion swivels off the original topic of making a credible case for the US doing well in Iraq. I am reading OSC's columns for years. I've probably read most if not all that is easily accessible. I like his presentation and ideas but a lack of factual support bugs me for a while now. I realize that in politics it is impossible to truly understand an issue such as Iraq unless you are involved directly in politics full-time. You have to believe conclusions of people that do so. I admit that OSC's reference to books are mostly wasted on me partially because I cannot afford buying books without strick prioritizing but mainly because reading a book to learn an opinion on a political subject is too big a time commitment while I believe that most of the important information is available online. I would try to support my opinions in that way( not that I am in a position to lecture anyone on online presentations).
OSC is usually doing a good job of discrediting sloppy or outright incorrect arguments that are not properly supported by the evidence. This is something you can do rethorically. Once you go beyond that, however, to make your own suggestions and statements, you have to put up more substantial evidence in your favor than in my opinion OSC is accostomed of doing.
OSC, if that is not too much trouble, give us more facts in support of your ideas (that I personally like and mostly want to agree with but often can't for the reasons above). I know that some things you deeply believe in often seem in no need for careful proof. For example, I feel so about quantum mechanics or relativity yet I realize that they are totally obscure for many people, and I am prepared to prove their validity in essence rigorously to a virtually unprepared listener.
Back to the Iraq war, and how well the US is doing there. Let's try to build the case. One of the simpler OSC's arguments is low casualties compared to other wars. Does anyone know easy-to-use and reliable source of statistics on this? We have to compare all kinds of casualties, not just US military.
Another argument is the opinions of Rumsfeld, other generals and Bush. Is there an easily accessible source?
Iraqis opinion on the US presence and facts of their cooperation with the US military?
Is it possible to understand the amount of the US military needed in Iraq compared to the guerilla forces? This may not be a likeable analogy but Russian army, being in much less organized state than the US army, manages to control Chechnya completely keeping guerillas in caves and killing their leaders regularly. That may be just a matter of numbers. I don't know any but perhaps more troops in Iraq is the solution?
I would really like if somebody bears a task of making a credible case for the Iraq war being not a disaster.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)