Centerfield

It would be dangerous and very unwise to ignore or downplay all the bad things happening in Iraq right now; but it would be equally dangerous if without hearing other voices and other stories from inside the country we were to give up and walk away, leaving Iraqis alone to try to secure their future.

The problem that Mr. Chrenkoff doesn't understand is that a large number of Shiites want that. Many Shiites believe that the election is their way of sending the American and British troops home, so that they can take over by sheer numbers without any interference. That's why the Sunnis are not happy about the election. Believing anything different at this point is just wishful thinking by people who still think we're viewed as liberators by a majority of the population.

Iraq is a mess right now. Pointing out that there are brave Iraqis who are working towards a better country is nice and gives people a tingly feeling about the spirit of humanity, but the sad fact is that these brave people are going to be steamrolled by the anti-U.S. movement that even the Pentagon now admits is out of control.

the sad fact is that these brave people are going to be steamrolled by the anti-U.S. movement

I for one don't consider the eventual outcome in Iraq to be a foregone conclusion, for either good or for ill. IMO there are both ample positive and ample negative signs.

So I have to admit that it really, really, really irks me when someone calls their sad prediction a sad fact.

I haven't seen much evidence that suggests I can reliably expect all Sunnis to behave as a monolith. Maybe they will, and will steamroll the shi'ites and install a government that boots us out, installs an authoritarian theocracy favorable to Sunnis, and persecutes everyone else. Have any average joe Iraqi voters spent any time over the last few decades contemplating types of governments that don't benefit the average guy. If so, it's very possible that they'll vote for representatives on a more pragmatic basis than flowers from Allah.

I hope you are wrong, him. And I'm frankly astonished that you have somehow developed such amazing certainty based on availiable information. I'm unable to account for it without indulging in unkind speculation.

Thehim,

Any idea what the "defence science board" is, from the story you cite? Based on what I read, it sounds like this panel's report simply represents the opinion of one group. That's pretty far away from "the United States admits" or "the Pentagon admits," isn't it?

Ah, yes, the indisputable unbiased accuracy and authenticity of UK tabloids...how could anyone ever doubt them?

I haven't seen much evidence that suggests I can reliably expect all Sunnis to behave as a monolith. Maybe they will, and will steamroll the shi'ites and install a government that boots us out, installs an authoritarian theocracy favorable to Sunnis, and persecutes everyone else.

That's certainly possible, but that still ends with us having to leave because of anti-U.S. sentiment. What I feel very comfortable saying is that the U.S. is in a no-win situation in Iraq. There is no way that the U.S. pulls its troops out of Iraq now, 5 years from now, or 20 years from now, and we're safer than if we'd never invaded. I know that that kind of pessimism irks you, but in looking at the history of that region, I just don't see any historical precedent for the types of things that need to happen for anything else to happen.

Have any average joe Iraqi voters spent any time over the last few decades contemplating types of governments that don't benefit the average guy. If so, it's very possible that they'll vote for representatives on a more pragmatic basis than flowers from Allah.

It doesn't matter what they vote for. It matters who has the guns. Iran has had elections for years, and they don't have a democracy. If Iraqi policemen are being shot and killed in droves, you can have an election every month and it won't change anything. The Iraqis aren't going to get 'Democracy' because we want it, they'll get democracy when they want it. And right now, they don't want democracy as much as they want their own tribe to be in control in such a chaotic mess. This is why the Shiites want to vote. They know there are more of them. This isn't going to bring about democracy any sooner though, it's just another way that we're getting caught in a simmering cauldron.

Look, I want to be optimistic. We all do. But above all that, I know the damage we'll do to ourselves if we try too hard to convince ourselves that the 'little good things' that Mr. Chrenkoff cites are actually going to make a difference. They won't. They're the equivalent of someone here in Seattle saying, "There are so many Kerry-Edwards signs here, it'll be a landslide" (I plead guilty to that). We need to make some very serious decisions about how long we should be keeping troops there and what they should be doing. Misleading ourselves about the realities there out of optimism or pessimism isn't helpful. Leaving right now has its dangers as well. But we really need to intelligently evaluate whether or not those dangers are outweighed by the dangers (and other costs) of staying. I fear too many people are only questioning one side and not realizing that we're screwed either way. Let's find the solution that screws ourselves less.

Any idea what the "defence science board" is, from the story you cite?

I thought this was a group within the Pentagon. If not, I apologize.

FWIW:

"The Pentagon report also calls for the establishment of a national security adviser for strategic communications, and a massive boost in funding for the “information war” to boost US government TV and radio stations broadcasting in the Middle East.

The importance of the need to quickly establish a propaganda advantage is underscored by a document attached to the Pentagon report from Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, dated May.

It says: “Our military expeditions to Afghanistan and Iraq are unlikely to be the last such excursion in the global war on terrorism.”

Now, unless the author has completely fabricated this article, it sure sounds to me like a DOD report, or a report commissioned by the DOD.

The Defense Science Board is for real, but their involvement with active operations other than experimental and technical is minimal at best. They're not exactly the "go to" department for operational intel assessments. The board is an independent civilian advisory committee reporting to the Sec'y of Defense on select "scientific, technical, manufacturing, acquisition process, and other matters of special interest to the Department of Defense." They are not authorized to speak for either the Pentagon or the United States on defense matters--or anything else. They are not a branch of the Pentagon.

Well him, you sound pretty sure. I'd love to know where you bought that foolproof crystal ball.

I very much agree with your assertion that democracy will not grow in Iraq unless Iraqis themselves want it. In other words, it's pretty obvious that you can bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. But you know what, if you bring a horse to water, it may well drink. Especially if it is thirsty.

In essence, you are claiming with certainty that the thirst just isn't there yet in sufficient numbers of horses. And you may well be right. But there is ample contrary evidence. The last public opinion polls showed that a majority of Iraqis remained optimistic about the nation's future, wanted the US troops to stay for the time being, and were eager to vote. As I've said before, I think the best we can hope for is that the presence of our troops is pragmatically tolerated. Eventually we'll leave because we're not wanted.

And as I've also said before, if public opinion turns strongly against us, the game is probably up. I haven't yet seen or heard conclusive evidence that this is the case. What I have seen is the trumpeting of anecdotes, positive ones from the pro-war side and negative ones from the anti-war side.

I am relying on the pragmatic sense of the masses of Iraqis caught in the middle, who I think want stability, predictability, and an opportunity to build something good for themselves in this life, just like other regular people worldwide want. It may not come to pass for various reasons, but I am still hoping, and I don't see reason to give up hope at this point.

I am hoping new public opinion polls show that the lessening of support for our presence is incremental. I don't think it's realistic to expect an uptick. Under any circumstances such as the one under which we invaded and liberated Iraq, it's likely that one's welcome gets worn out sooner or later. Really, the hope is that one is able to stay just long enough to foster a trend that marginally tends towards a representative democracy.

My initial sense of the likelihood of Bush's gambit being successful was that it seemed unlikely to me, so I'm setting the bar of my expectations pretty low. We'll leave, and it will likely be to hisses and boos and with few thank-you notes. And what we leave behind, even if somewhat democratic, is unlikely to closely resemble what has taken us 225+ years to establish. But if Iraqis end up with a few basic rights, a decent constitution, a voting system that all adults can participate in, and a representative government that is something a little bit more than simply a sham front for an authoritarian religious strongman or council, I'll put it in the win column. Your mileage may vary.

Okay, so the board is legit, and their report was commissioned by the DOD. It seems unfair to blast them just because they may present a point of view that is unpopular or because the blog that cited it is perceived to have an anti-Iraq war bias. That's just criticising the source instead of debating the issues raised.

Who blasted the board? I sure didn't. I wondered who they were. My point is only that the headline and the article misrepresented things a bit by saying "US admits..." That's just not what happened. A civilian advisory committee did some sort of review, and came up with some sort of advisory opinion. And now Rumsfeld/the pentagon/the government is going to take this counsel under advisement, along with a substantial host of other reviews, advice, data, and opinions.

The next questions are, who are these people, what are their areas of expertise and obvious biases if any, and on what things did they base their views? I have no interest in reflexively discounting their views, thereby acting as a pro-war apologist (which I'm not.) Their views may well have some legitimacy. I just want the context that allows me to evaluate how much legitimacy they deserve. What I read in the story really seemed to include only unsubstantiated opinion. It doesn't mean they are wrong, it only means that I have thus far been given no reason to place much if any trust in it over a similar opinion posted by joe blow on a blog.

In other words, the article only has enough content to function as something that serves to give a veneer of authority to a paticular opinion. And since I have no particular reason to trust that authority (like expertise, prestige, solid data) I simply treat it as a disembodied voice. It's not something new, it's just an echo fo something that i already viewed as thus far not conclusively susbstantiated.

I'm not even going to bother to follow up on this because my impression is the things they sound so sure about are things that hard to quantify.

"Ah, yes, the indisputable unbiased accuracy and authenticity of UK tabloids...how could anyone ever doubt them?"

That sounds like attacking the source to me. If you think "blast" is too strong, okay, we can disagree on adjectives.

"I just want the context that allows me to evaluate how much legitimacy they deserve."

It seems to me if their opinion was requested by the DOD, by default they have a certain acceptable level of legitimacy. Unless the DOD is in the habit of asking for policy opinions from lunatic fringe groups.

" Unless the DOD is in the habit of asking for policy opinions from lunatic fringe groups."

I've met quite a few DOD contractors.
I think about 30% qualify as lunatic fringe groups : )

I've come to view Iraq the same way I view climate change, the economy and "peak oil". The die has been already been cast, all you can do is wait and see.

A reasonable and open-minded person should admit that next year (with its election) will be a watershed for that country. If the level of violence increases or remains the same we have an open-ended "Vietnam" scenario, if it decreases then "let freedom reign".

You can argue about good or bad all you want and site "facts" to support your side. However only by counting the number of attacks, dead and wounded can you obtain a halfway-unbiased view of what is occurring.

Anybody want to volunteer to go over and give us some first hand Blog accounts?

PS: I have a new coworker who was a contractor in Kuwait up till two week ago. He paid off his contract and bought his own ticket home just to get out of there.

PPS: On the other hand I know of a telecommunications engineer who is earning 10 times his normal salary in Iraq. He was still free and alive as of last Saturday.

I think it's a little bit more complicated than either/or, but in general I'm with Bob on "wait and see." What I'm against is the unrelenting nihilism and negativity of the media and the anti-war left, which serves no useful purpose and may well be damaging in terms of both success and lives.

Tim, my brief comment was to note that sensationalist articles in UK tabloids bearing misleading headlines, misrepresenting reports, and cherry-picking quotes out of them aren't exactly a sound basis for rational or balanced assessment of actual on-ground conditions or potentials. And, as always, my purpose in linking to the Chrenkoff reports is to highlight aspects of what is going on that don't make it to the 6 o'clock news. We get all the doom and gloom on the front page--it bleeds, it leads. We don't get the backstory.

Ernie Pyle, we miss you....

A reasonable and open-minded person should admit that next year (with its election) will be a watershed for that country. If the level of violence increases or remains the same we have an open-ended "Vietnam" scenario, if it decreases then "let freedom reign".

Pretty fair.

You can argue about good or bad all you want and site "facts" to support your side. However only by counting the number of attacks, dead and wounded can you obtain a halfway-unbiased view of what is occurring.

Halfway sounds about right if those are the only things you count. What else should you count? How about Iraqi public opinion, number of schools, miles of road, percent of houses with electricity and water, oil production, unemployment, GDP, and so on. Track 'em for better or worse, and commit to reporting them regularly regardless of the trends they show.

I expect continuing violence, and I regret its necessity, and I don't seek to discount it. But it's not the only thing you need to gauge if you are trying to figure out where things are headed over there. And while this seems like a simple point, we don't seem to get regular counts and updates that allow us to gauge things on these counts as well as on the body count. That troubles me.

When analyzing armed conflicts it's a big mistake to use over-simplistic and linear measures. One can't simply look at something like casualty figures and say well this month we had 10% more casualties then last month so we must be loosing ground. Real world conflicts are far more complex then that and require a far more complex analysis.... war isn't tire sales.

Many people would find it counter-intuitive but the greatest number of combat casualties inflicted on the Allied forces occured in the closing months of WWII right before Germany and Japan capitulated. If we were to judge that conflict with the same simplistic measuring stick that the media uses today.... we would have to conclude that the Allies were loosing the war in the Winter and Spring of '45.

That being said, the election is a very important period in Iraq. Unfortunately the enemy knows this too and they aren't going to spare any effort to disrupt it. Don't be surprised if the frequency of attacks and casualties increases as the election approaches.... but also don't be fooled into thinking that alone indicates a worsening situation.

The problem with judging the success of a military campaign is that all parties are inclined to lie about what's happening.

All sides downplay their failures and inflate their successes. (I believe its called propaganda) In this kind of environment how does the general public judge what's happening? Schools and bridges can be built, but they can also be blown up and abandoned.

I picked dead and wounded U.S. solders as my metric because a high level of direct observation is available in the continental united states. Every news agency and antiwar group in the country is counting the body bags, so the pentagon is less likely to blatantly lie about the numbers. I would never pass judgment on the war by looking at the numbers from just one month. The trend line for a year maybe, but not a single month.

I can't think of any other verifiable item to measure. If someones got a suggestion please post the link. I realize that a war is a contest of wills as much as arms, but counting how many times your enemy shoots at you is a great way to measure his will.

Yoh Tully – Regarding you post of Dec 6 2004 03:13

I don’t believe that Thehim’s querery in his post of Dec.6 2004 03:04 was in regards to a leftist British tabloid.
I believe he was referring to this report
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf#search=

A report published by the Pentagon. You know the Pentagon, that hotbed of Un American Activity!
The “Defence Science Board” Is a senior advisory board WITHIN THE PENTAGON. It is depended upon to generate Knowledgeable and Reliable recommendations using amongst other sources, secret information that is generated within the Pentagon itself.
They are an Office WITHIN THE PENTAGON They speak for the Pentagon as The Senior Advisory Board and have the Authority to do so. It’s members are appointed from some of the best business and scientific minds in the country. No Pacifists, nor socialists nor even Micheal Moore has ever been appointed to this board.
Stop trying to dodge the truth and importance of this report. It is a fact deal with it!

This report was delivered to the present administration and has been summarily ignored.

Tully --
Read the report. It is AUTHOTATIVE - It speaks through and for the Pentagon - It is legitmate.
It is not a tablios.
Avoid and worm from the facts that it states at your peril of you own credibility, It Says what It says: Check it out
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf#search=

Tully
You people never cease to amaze me. Never do you offer fair honest rebuttal.
You only dismiss out of hand any source or authority that is referred to you. Any source or authority that does not flatter your presumptions you submit to your ridicule.
You even lie when you say that this board has no Authority to speak for the Pentagon. Though I do not believe you have ever bothered to find the facts in this regard. You simply make the statement out of hand because it best fits your argument.
You seem unable to perceive any facts that threaten your myopic world view!
You do great disservice to your cause and to your personal credibility. You EXPOSE yourself!