Centerfield

I just lost some of my respect for Holbrooke, because he should know better. In fact, I'd theorize that he does know better, and is just being a good soldier and hewing to the party line; ISTR him making a more sober assessment at some point in the name of the campaign that happened to conflict with other opinions expressed more officially by the campaign.

Big differences:

1) They're the side holding bombing campaigns to
2) We hold strategic control over a much higher percentage of the country.
3) No jungles!
4) Most importantly of all, we're the side holding the elections.

As a corollary, there is broad public support for moving in the direction of democracy. If we fail to hold free and fair elections, or if the winner doesn't tolerate dissent and we nonetheless tolerate him, then we'll have a Vietnamesque situation. Right now, though, we are clearly moving toward increased democratization.

Oops, didn't complete: 1) they're the side holding bombing campaigns to win hearts and minds

I did have great respect for Holbrooke, but it seem he is willing to trade political electioneering for logic. It is only fair to say that others who fought Vietnam such as Senator McCain and Hagel have disputed this claim. This recent attempt by the Democrats to paint Iraq in a bad light is getting ridiculous. It is almost as if they hope that things are really bad so their guy can get in the White House. Although I am one who has agreed that Bush could be more candid about the war effort, I think in this situation it is simply good policy to be positive.

Holbrook is positioning for a high Cabinet post in a Kerry presidency. I saw him a week or two ago on C-Span and he had lost all objectivity.

The big boogie man in Vietnam was China. Our involvment in Korea brought the Chinese into the war who almost kicked us out of the penninsula. This was before they became a nuclear power.

I suspect we have supporters among the Iraqis, but we don't see them on TV nor hear about them in the newspapers.

Oh, I forgot how well things are really going in Iraq. If only we wouldn't listen to the liberal media and believed everything the President says, we wouldn't have all this doubt and pessimism. After all, it's only the liberals who are out to get the president out of partisan spite. Geez, guys, at least acknowledge there is a problem. Talking about spewing a party line; all I hear is people spewing the Bush line. Wake up--there is a problem here.

Read this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58183-2004Sep28.html

Oh, I forgot, this is a liberal paper, so let's just dismiss everything it says.

Everytime someone says something negative about the war, "he has lost all objectivity." But when Bush or Rumsfeld say things are going swimmingly, they're just reporting the facts. Right?

"Although I am one who has agreed that Bush could be more candid about the war effort, I think in this situation it is simply good policy to be positive."

Mathew,

I have a lot of respect for you, but this statement is pure Orwell--facts aren't facts, if we say things are good in Iraq, they are good.

MWS,

It is morale and the will to fight that wins wars. We shouldn't be afraid to face facts.... and it's no secret that there are definately some problems in Iraq right now. However there has also been alot of progress in Iraq also and alot of positive things going on. Yet all we ever here about is the negative and the problems. It presents a lopsided and inaccurate picture of what is going on.

Furthermore, if ALL the public hears about are problems and negativity then they WILL start to loose heart (and so will our troops).... and that WILL encourage the insurgency to continue fighting and discourage the Iraqi people from sticking thier necks out to oppose the insurgency. This is the exact reason why the NVA's major commanders have stated they were able to defeat us in Vietnam.

The only way that the insurgency can be defeated in Iraq is if they realize that they can't simply wait us out or push us out by causing casualties. They know they can't beat us millitarly.... what they are trying to do now is break our will to continue to fight....and as long as they believe they can do so, they'll continue to fight. As long as regular Iraqi's believe that the insurgency just might succede, they'll be reluctant to stick thier necks out by participating in the reconstruction effort and in the new government.

We can frankly discuss the problems in Iraq and still be positive. This is something that the Dem's have failed miserably at. Thier message is that Iraq is a quagmire, a disaster and Vietnam all over again....which it is not. Thier message should be that we've got the upper hand and we won't be detered but we can put together a more effective strategy for success (and then they actualy have to come up with that strategy...which I haven't seen them do). They need to present things in a tone which discourages our enemies and encourages our allies.... right now they are doing the opposite.

Furthermore, just because the insurgency has ratcheted into high gear doesn't mean that it is winning or even gaining ground. If you looked at the situation in Vietnam at the height of the Tet offensive you might have concluded that the communists were gaining ground..... nothing could have been further from the truth. Tet was an all out effort by the communists....and it proved an absolute millitary disaster for them. It largely wiped out thier operational capabilities in the south for a full year.

What we are seeing in Iraq right now likely is not a growth in the insurgency....what we are likely seeing is an increased expendature of the limited resources the insurgency has. This is likely timed to coincide with the upcoming elections (both U.S. and Iraqi)so that it can effect them. It will only be if this increase in activity has long term staying power that it will be significant.

I just think it's realistic to believe that if I want any sense of what's going on in Iraq, I have no choice but to be an active editor and researcher. And that means considering many sources, and doubting but not dismissing the ones from sources that seem to have ulterior motives. That's hard to do, but I can't for the life of me understand why the validity of such a perspective is so hard to recognize.

While it's nice to hope that either the President or his opponent are going to try and give a realistic view that I can rely on, I know that's not going to happen, for reasons obvious to all but the most naive.

In the role Bush is in, I expect him to put the best face on things and to be sanguine--sober but hopeful. If morale is important, and I think it is, he has to make it a priority, and to do otherwise in an abdication of one of his most important responsibilities under the current circumstances. He's a leader during wartime. While some sense of honesty and trustworthiness may be an important aspect of a leader, it is not necessarily the only or most important priority. That's just the way it is. The idea that Bush somehow owes it to the people to come out and push the panic button in the name of honesty regardless of the zillion often competing demands of his position is frankly a little bit silly.

We know there are problems, we know the effort is dicey and hard, we know it's no better than a long uphill climb. I'm not going to crucify the President for accentuating the positive, and neither am I going to take his assessments at face value. I wish more people would do this and cut the chicken little act.

Iraq is worse than Vietnam? No. Iraq is equal to Iraq. And it is what it is. Compare it to Vietnam if there are valuable lessons to be learned, but in doing so let's be aware of the dangers of jumping to the implication that it's therefore a hopeless cause. Especially based on our necessarily limited comprehension of what's going on over there. The outcome is in doubt, and much ugliness is still likely to come. Get used to the idea of a long and continuing parade of both encouraging and discouraging events and trends. Do keep praying. Don't stop hoping, or editing, or checking to make sure our situation remains tenable. That's my advice.

"What we are seeing in Iraq right now likely is not a growth in the insurgency....what we are likely seeing is an increased expendature of the limited resources the insurgency has."

Mathewy,

That doesn't seem to be what people on the ground are saying. And, yes, I know you can simply dismiss articles in the Atlantic Monthly and the Washington Post as liberal bias, but I think its more than that. I think you have to recognize that there is a basis for the negativity. Maybe it is exaggerated, but to just stick you head in the sand is no solution either. Yes, I agree that Bush shouldn't come out and say, oh shit, this is terrible, but I think the idea that things are going well and we are making all this progress is a delusion. I suspect even the Administration is beginning to recognize this even if it won't admit it publicly.

The north and the south in Iraq actually are doing quite well, but the middle is getting all the action and attention. It's not safe to walk around in much of Baghdad or the Sunni triangle, but it's pretty safe elsewhere. Of course the focus will be on the action areas.

While the number of attacks is way up, the actual effectiveness of them against US and Iraqi forces is way down. The "insurgents" are losing, and unable to mount any effective attacks other than terrorist ones. Contrast this with the ability of even the immediate post-Tet VC and NVA to effectively field numerous well-armed platoon-sized guerilla strike forces on a seemingly perpetual basis.

Th Iranian mullahs are sponsoring much of the "insurgency," as is Syria. But Iran has its own internal problems, and the mullahs aren't secure at home. Unlike the Chinese, they can't commit major resources without risking their own overthrow, or major overt response, or both. Syria likewise will back off quite a bit after the elections. The more our forces are freed up for "other duties" and Iraqi forces come online, the less support for insurgency will come in over the borders.

IOW, still gonna be ugly for quite a while, but not intense. And it doesn't really compare to Vietnam at all. But it's the Middle East, and will never be "safe." At what point can we call it a "win?" When the violence level gets down to that of today's Israel?

Washington Post is liberal? I find them moderatte. I ran to them after I was driven nuts by the apocalytic New York Times.

WaPo is centrist-left, leans a good bit farther left/liberal on the OpEd pages, but even there is usually intelligent and not ranting (aside from EJ Dionne). Their overall reporting is generally excellent. Good paper.

NYT: Left through and through. All the news that's fit to slant. As the old joke goes, when Armageddon comes the NYT headline will read:

WORLD TO END TOMORROW: WOMEN, MINORITIES WILL BE HARDEST HIT

I ran across a piece that was posted last week on a conservative website...it's an article written by a Reservist who is currently serving in Iraq.

Interestingly, this man is a Christian Conservative. He used to be the head of the Constitution Party in Texas. What he writes is very relevant to this thread. He lists four specific reasons why we can't win in Iraq:

1.First, we refuse to deal in reality. We are in a guerilla war, but because of politics, we are not allowed to declare it a guerilla war and must label the increasingly effective guerilla forces arrayed against us as "terrorists, criminals and dead-enders."

2.Our assessment of what motivates the average Iraqi was skewed, again by politically motivated "experts." We came here with some fantasy idea that the natives were all ignorant, mud-hut dwelling camel riders who would line the streets and pelt us with rose petals, lay palm fronds in the street and be eternally grateful. While at one time there may have actually been support and respect from the locals, months of occupation by our regular military forces have turned the formerly friendly into the recently hostile.

3.The guerillas are filling their losses faster than we can create them. This is almost always the case in guerilla warfare, especially when your tactics for battling the guerillas are aimed at killing guerillas instead of eroding their support. For every guerilla we kill with a "smart bomb" we kill many more innocent civilians and create rage and anger in the Iraqi community. This rage and anger translates into more recruits for the terrorists and less support for us.

4.Their lines of supply and communication are much shorter than ours and much less vulnerable. We must import everything we need into this place; this costs money and is dangerous. Whether we fly the supplies in or bring them by truck, they are vulnerable to attack, most especially those brought by truck. This not only increases the likelihood of the supplies being interrupted. Every bean, every bullet and every bandage becomes infinitely more expensive.

The entire piece is very important and you really need to read the whole thing. Especially if you tend to lean conservative and are planning to support Bush...this is a must read.

You can find the piece at:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lorentz1.html

Mmm, a very important anecdote.

ROFLMAO! Oh dearie dear, Carla, how do I put this gently?

Al Lorentz is a certified moonbat. At least one full taco shy of a combo plate, and a good bit o' burrito as well. He's as representative of sanity as Vincent Van Gogh on LSD, only Van Gogh could paint. Lorentz couldn't get any loonier with a Mel Blanc voiceover.

Lorentz is as representative of mainstream American conservatism as Pol Pot is of mainstream American liberalism. Having Al Lorentz tell us that we can't deal in reality is so hilarious that I actually sprayed UrMarzen Oktoberfest on my monitor when I read it.

The Republican party and more importantly, the modern conservative movement have become the modern day Judas, they have betrayed the Lord and his principles for 30 pieces of silver in the form of political power. --Al Lorentz

BTW, the website the article is on isn't a conservative website. It's a paleo-libertarian website of the anarcho-capitalist variety.

Some people will say anything to get a job. This isn't worse than Vietnam because it's not the same. If these guys were doctors in an emergency room they would declare too many severely injured as dead.
This is going to take time. It may ultimately fail. It might only marginally succeed. But it is definately way too early to call this one. Keep vigilent, informed (good article by the way Susan) and try not to let the preparation to place blame distract from the mission at hand.
Other points to consider to put reports in some kind of perspective:
1. How much of Iraq is involved with the problems we see on TV?
2. Is it true that Iraqi's wanting police/military jobs far out number the deaths of those who currently have the jobs.
3. What motivates the terrorists is hate. What motivates the Iraqi's who are willing to fight them?
4. If this is Vietnam (sigh) then what should we have done differently in Vietnam that we could do in Iraq? I haven't heard an answer to that yet.
5. How bad would this all be if the US were not in an election cycle?
Also, pay attention to what the Iraqi people are up to. The terrorists have no more people than the Iraqis who want freedom. At some point the Iraqi's will have to make a visible, obvious to the world, choice. Let's see what happens then.

Tully:

Now that you've copied the GOP by trying to beat the shit out of the messenger...how about doing the honest thing and attempt to rebut the man's points? Where's he wrong, exactly?

And before you give me the GOP talking points..keep in mind that this guy is actually in Iraq, on the ground, with knowledge of what is actually going on.

You seem to be inferring because he has some rather "out there" political leanings..he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about when it comes to his job.

Carla, I'm not implying he's "out there" on just his political leanings. I'm implying he's disconnected from reality on a much more fundamental level. Goodness, next you'll be asking me for a detailed point-by-point rebuttal of Louis Farrakhan's MotherShip!

I don't generally waste my time deconstructing insensible wingnuts, because it's pointless and the flaws are usually self-evident. But just this once, I'll do a bit as a favor to you. I'll leave the complete fisking to anyone who wants to bother.

I will concede Lorentz is in Iraq, as I have no reason to think he's lying about that. "On the ground" implies actually out and about, not locked in an office somewhere (he's in "Civil Affairs," not with active combat troops), so I'd dispute that barring more evidence. "Knowledge of what is actually going on" presumes he is in "the Loop" of overall command-level intel and is actually capable of distinguishing objective reality from his own fantasies and somewhat skewed worldview, and that's very eminently debateable.

Lorentz says that we're not dealing with reality. That the "guerillas" are getting more effective. Yet while the number of attacks has increased, the overall damage rate is falling, and the damage-per-attack ratio has been falling more rapidly. That's NOT "increasingly effective." It's decreasingly effective.

We came here with some fantasy idea that the natives were all ignorant, mud-hut dwelling camel riders who would line the streets and pelt us with rose petals, lay palm fronds in the street and be eternally grateful. While at one time there may have actually been support and respect from the locals, months of occupation by our regular military forces have turned the formerly friendly into the recently hostile.

Sentence #1: We did? I don't recall that. (Exaggerated hyperbole at best.)
Sentence #2: Some Iraqis wish we weren't there. Some are glad we are. Most are glad we came, but would like us to make a graceful exit as soon as they can handle things themselves. Lorentz implies that the great mass of Iraqis are ready to rise against us. This statement is unaccompanied by evidence.

The guerillas are filling their losses faster than we can create them. This is almost always the case in guerilla warfare, especially when your tactics for battling the guerillas are aimed at killing guerillas instead of eroding their support. For every guerilla we kill with a "smart bomb" we kill many more innocent civilians and create rage and anger in the Iraqi community. This rage and anger translates into more recruits for the terrorists and less support for us.

This statement is unaccompanied by evidence. Most of the guerillas we're killing, we're killing with rifles, not bombs. And we have no way of knowing the recruitment rate and numbers of the insurgents, so this is a perfect straight rant. Lorentz implies we're killing a lot more innocent civilians than we are "guerillas." That's simply absurd. And given that almost all the heavy confrontations are taking place in areas where public sentiment was already heavily against us, it's tough to swell the ranks with too many fresh conversions in any case. To boot, many of those we are killing aren't Iraqis. They're Iranians, Syrians, Jordanians, etc., come to Iraq to fight the Great Satan. And we're not fighting them everywhere, but in a fairly well-defined area encompassing about 1/4 of the country.

Their lines of supply and communication are much shorter than ours and much less vulnerable. We must import everything we need into this place; this costs money and is dangerous. Whether we fly the supplies in or bring them by truck, they are vulnerable to attack, most especially those brought by truck. This not only increases the likelihood of the supplies being interrupted. Every bean, every bullet and every bandage becomes infinitely more expensive.

This statement is unaccompanied by evidence. Does Lorentz think the insurgents have large ammo factories in Iraq? While individual shipments can be assaulted (usually at great cost to the insurgents), our lines of supply are actually nearly invulnerable to any effective guerilla attack, simply by mass and volume and redundancy. The "guerillas" by contrast are dependent on three sources--pre-existing caches, smuggled arms, and stolen arms. The first is dwindling, the second is chancy and can't be high-volume, and the third requires risking big losses with no assurance of success. The loss of one shipment is almost nothing to us, but to them it's disastrous. Who has better supply lines?

Our communications capability is enormously better, multiply redundant, and doesn't require hidden lines. Much the same rebuttal can be made for the cost argument. We have nearly limitless resources, they have very limited resources. We can spend 1000 bullets to their 1 and still be better off. It's not the absolute cost of operations, it's the relative cost.

Bottom line--The article contains seriously fallacious reasoning and appears to be seriously at variance with the known facts. It contains a large amount of political polemic that is sheer opinion without any corresponding weight of evidence. It offers little to nothing in the way of new information that can be easily verified as authentic. Said polemic continues a pattern by the author of similarly reality-challenged and/or politically radical screeds. Thus my ability to suspend disbelief and seriously consider the possibility that the author's worldview is accurate, in defiance of all the other information publicly available, is greatly diminished. If he can't work with anything but rant, and his reasoning shows such fundamental flaws, his "facts" such frailty, why should his "because I say so!" argument-from-authority by reason of blogging from a Baghdad cubicle impress me?

Tully:

The guy is a Civil Affairs worker. It's his job to know what's going on in Iraq...who, what, where, when, why and how. He's in a unique position to understand what's happening nationwide AND where he's geographically located.

Attacks in Iraq haven't just increased slightly. They've increased in a very huge way. And by effective I'm assuming you mean that not as many people are dying per attack. That doesn't count of course the wounded and the collateral damage done via each attack. You might stop and think about why these attacks are being conducted the way they are. It may not necessarily be to kill soldiers...but to make their jobs that much more difficult and to intimidate those who would help them.

It's a one page piece meant as a summation of events. I don't think it was meant as a doctoral dissertation on the workings (or lack thereof) in Iraq. It's guerilla warfare...that's patently obvious. And there is evidence that Al Qaida has swelled it's ranks in part due to Iraq. There's no reason to believe that those fighting Americans in Iraq can't just as easily be replaced when they're killed. The borders in Iraq are pretty porous, by all accounts.

Your assertion that we're only fighting people in about 1/4 of the country is absurd. Take a look at this map:

http://preemptivekarma.com/2004/09/free-and-fair-elections-no-later-than.html

Over 2/3 of the country is either in heavy fighting or or considered the most security challenged.

Further, the notion that the Iraqi community gets pissed off when we drop a bomb that kills large numbers of civilians is not a viable assertion is ridiculous. Put yourself in their shoes. OF COURSE they're going to be very angry when noncombat people are killed. That only makes sense. In Oregon we call that "logic".

And do you have some sort of evidence that most of the Iraqis we're killing are being killed with rifles and not bombs? You rap on this guy for not providing evidence...and then you pull this out? And we have no way to know if more guerillas are coming in to replace the ones that have died? Are we so inept that we can't keep track of how many there actually are trying to kill our soldiers?

Apparently the supply lines for those fighting the Americans isnt' as weak as you assert. After all, they're attacking with MORE frequency, not less. They must have ways to get supplies into the country fairly easily. Clearly they've established networks to do it. When you think you're fighting for a just cause...it's amazing how creative you can get. Perhaps this pretend ammo you seem to think can't possibly exist is coming in with those guerillas that we can't possibly keep track of?

We have limitless resources? Have you been paying attention to how much money the US government is actually spending in Iraq vs the amount allocated?

The real bottom line--you're making leaps of assertions based on stuff where you provide no evidence while..while systematically dismissing the author for providing no evidence. This guy is actually there...and his story matches up with other guys who are actually there.

Imagine that.

This article has more perspectives from people on the ground in Iraq.

Carla, it couldn't be more plain how badly you want to believe this guy. In your response you ignore all the good points Tully makes.

bk and Tully:

I want to believe what the guy is saying is true?? LOL I'm still waiting for someone here to tell me that he's lying. Tully complained that the guy wasn't offering any evidence...and then responded to the guy without offering any evidence of his own.

Lorentz is hardly the only soldier or civilian working in Iraq talking about the detiorating conditions. Today's WSJ has an email that one of it's writers sent out to friends about increasing attacks and an inability to even travel around Baghdad now.

And Tully...you're complaining that I'm trying to set up a scenario to fit my personal beliefs. But each time I provide you with a mountain of evidence...you spend your time not actually debunking the evidence..but the messengers. It's a typical GOP style ploy...and frankly it gets tiresome. If you're not willing to address the substance...then what's the point?

In the interests of comity and comraderie I'll retire my retorts, and let my previous words stand on their own.

But I still want your disproof of Elvis on the Grassy Knoll. ;-)

Tully:

Tell ya what...I'll play "Elvis did it on the grassy knoll with a lead pipe" on the day you play the evidence and reasons why the NIE, Lorentz, Operation Truth and various reporters all in Iraq aren't telling the truth (or spinning just the negative)based on the substance of what they're saying. :)

By the way...we're trying to switch over to Moveable Type 3.0 over at PK. Poor Kevin...it's been a bear. :(

I already addressed what Lorentz was saying, Carla. Operation Truth I'm familiar with, and a review of their site didn't tell me anything new, or provide any real support for Lorentz's apocalyptic screed. (If they'd quit pumping the draft revival rumor I might even support them.)

The NIE is neither here nor there as far as Lorentz goes, as are "various reporters" unless named and cited. Back to playing negative proofs, while expanding the subject horizon with unnamed players and new fields. But what about Lorentz? And what about Elvis?

(My sympathies on the MT 3.0 move pains--but will it be a worthwhile boost when it's all done? Remember--backup!)