Democrats call for surrenderFollow

Except the list of attacks in western nations and upon western assest in African and Asian nations would indicate that's not really happening.

There wasn't exactly a weekly hit in America that you can definatively say we've stopped or prevented more from taking place by making everyone go to Iraq. Sure, there hasn't been another 9/11. What baseline are we using to determine how often attacks on American soil should be occuring?

I think I might have lost all of my desire to argue. I feel as if I am...you know....

I'm sorry, I should have elaborated. What I meant to say was that we are giving the "peace of mind" that Americans are safe at home while we are away fighting a war.

Because guaging the amount of prevented terrorist attacks truthfully is an almost impossible thing, having forces in a set location, fighting "threats to democracy" paints a nice picture of us winning the war on terrorism.

The war on terrorism is very simliar to a gnat on a hot summer day. You are relaxing, and this damned bug keeps coming over, and biting you in a different place each time. But because your hand is so big, you are unable to move in time to catch the bug (well almost always), and as a result you get frustrated and paranoid*. Its not a war we can win because it doesn't have boundaries, it doesn't have a home base that we can storm up on and blow up. For lack of a better term, the war is an attempt to hide this and give Americans what they wanted two years ago, a focused attack on a "terrorist nation". But please remember, there were good things that came out of all of this too, not just the oil for the politicians.

I know we all don't freak out when a bug bites us, but I hope you understand the part it plays in the analogy

Well, scarily enough, I agree with Joph on at least one point here. Part of the problem is that the Bush administration has not been clear enough about what the conditions of victory are, and how to measure progress. How much of that is media coverage is a matter of speculation. How often have you heard people talk about Rumsfeld "mumbling about the war", on TV, but no one's really listening? Heck. How often have you *seen* those press releases where he talks about the progress of the war? Can you really say you know what's changed in the last year?


What I don't agree with is the idea that you can measure success by our casuality rate. The military doesn't just clear out one area and then sit there in saftey. It moves to where the insurgents are active, so it's reasonable to expect a pretty constant rate of casualities. Why would you expect that rate to drop? It's not like there's a constant number of insurgents spread evenly across the country. There are specific areas with numbers of them, and our soldiers go to those locations. The casualty rate is going to be roughly the same when we've still got 90% of the country to clear and when we're down to the last 10%, so trying to measure success by looking at body count is not going to work.


What's most telling IMO is what's changed over time. A year ago, we were taking insurgent attacks on city streets all over the country. We were taking attacks in our own barracks and fortified areas. Today, almost all casualties are from IEDs. There are very few direct attacks. That would seem to indicate that the numbers of insurgents nationwide has decreased markedly in the last year. The guys who all wanted to fight Americans ran off, grabbed an Ak-47 and charged. We've killed or captured most of them now, so they're down to a small number planting bombs on the side of the road. That's progress. That's a measure of success.

A year ago, we were staging out of a small number of cities, and there were areas of the country that we pretty much didn't go to without massive support. Today, most parts of Iraq see very little insurgent activity and we're regularly patrolling the areas we could barely move into then. That's progress.

We've just begun patrolling the Iraq/Syria border for the first time since the invasion. That'll significantly reduce the number of weapons and people that can be smuggled into the country. That's progress.

A year ago, we were having a heck of a time finding good men to work in the Iraqi Police and Army units. Those people were in fear for their lives and the lives of their families. The retention rates in those services were horrible. Training was slow. Today, those units are up and running and steaming along smoothly. Those joining aren't hiding their faces and sneaking into the training centers anymore. They aren't afraid of insurgent reprisals against their families like they were then. As a result, we're now looking at 200 thousand plus members of those units and growing, and they have taken over much of the day to day security functions of the country, freeing our soldiers up to seek out insurgent groups farther afield. That's progress.

A year ago, there were huge open factions of Iraqi's opposing the current form of government. Remember Al-Sadr? Where is he now? Where's his faction? The only people opposing the Iraqi government now are recognized dissidents and terrorists like Zarqawi. There is no legitimate opposition faction, and public opinion has turned against the insurgents. That's progress.

Today, we're literally less then a month away from ratification of an Iraqi Constitution. A year ago, they were still bickering over seats at the table. That's progress.


Every one of those is things that show clear progress towards success in Iraq. Public opinion in Iraq has shifted. We've made *huge* strides towards our stated goals in Iraq. The process is working. We are winning. We can see the light at the end of the tunnel. Simply looking at casualty lists doesn't tell you the story. It *can't*. It's what you're doing that measures success. And by every measure I can see, we're succeeding quite well.


And that brings me to the political motives for a statement like Murtha's. What was the point of it? Did he need to demand a timetable? Why not let the process work? The only motive I can see is that the Dems would rather that the US fail in Iraq, then allow the perception that a Republican administration could succeed. And that's just plain petty. It's bad politics and it was a horrible message to send right before the Iraqi Constitution ratification.

Interesting article Joph. Amazing spin though.

C'mon. Teaser says: "Despite calls in Washington and Iraq to pull out foreign troops...".

Yeah. Technically true. Are they talking about the "calls in washington" that were soundly defeated in a vote? Or the calls from the Arab Summit in which the need for a timetable based on the ability of the Iraqi military units to defend the country was stated, but no firm dates were demanded?

This is just like the polls stating that "90% of Iraqi's want US troops to leave", while leaving out the fact that they only wanted US troops to leave after their own country was stabilized and their own military and police could take over security duties.


It's a fluff piece. I'm not even sure how that changes anything. Bush has been saying for over a year now that our troops leaving will be contingent on the Iraqi troops being able to take over the job. How has this changed? So they're still not ready yet? Big deal. They're "more ready" today then they were a year ago. That's the point I was making. Did you read the entire article? Waaaaaaaaay down at the bottom where it talks about Col. Thear?


Did you read the parts where it said that the remaining units will come online over the next year? There's no set timetable, but how can anyone deny that this is progress?


Even the Arab Summit guys stated optimism (although you had to dig through the various news stories to see it). They stated that this current one year extension of their allowance for US troops in Iraq would likely be the last one. Not based on a firm timetable of withdrawel, but based on the criteria they set (stability of Iraq, reduction of insurgency, and capability of the Iraqi military and police). How is that not progress?


Point is that everyone involved is looking at about one more year before we can start phasing out our direct involvement (and possibly sooner then that). But you can't set that date because it hinges on other factors. Unfortunately, all we see in the media is the blanket fact that there's been no set timetable (as though that's a bad thing).


Sheesh. Spin? From CNN? You don't say!

Double posted

Edited, Tue Nov 22 22:30:34 2005 by Jophiel

You know, I was wondering about that earlier today. Not in the context of "Bush sucks for not getting bin Laden!" but I saw the news story about how the Powers That Be doubt Zarqawi was in that U.S. attack the other day and thought "We haven't heard from bin Laden in a long while now". We haven't even been getting cassette tapes from the mountains of Pakistan or whatever. I wonder if the old goat is even still kicking.

I didn't. The article you linked did. See the point? Or are you going to try to argue that the reason the article said "Despite calls in Washington and Iraq to pull out foreign troops..." had no intent to make the reader think that there was some overwhelming movement to withdraw our troops "now"?

Don't you think the impact of the story would have been very different if it had said something like: "Both Washington and Iraqi leaders have called for a gradual reduction in foreign troops contingent on the ability of the Iraqi forces to take over the job of security"? Wouldn't that have been a more accurate assessment of what people are *actually* calling for? Why write it in a way that implies an immediacy?



But ask yourself where that attitude is coming from Joph? Whenever withdrawal is stated in a conditional way (ie: the polls that state that 90% of Iraqi's want US troops to leave, but only after Iraqi troops can handle the job, or the statements at the Arab Summit that put those same conditions on withdrawal, or the Washington statements to the same effect), why is it *always* reported in the news as though they're demanding an immediate withdrawal?

The Republican's pushed that resolution exactly in order to address that perception. They were responding to the assumption that "withdrawal" means "today". They were stating clearly that no one is talking about immediate withdrawal. How can you not see the bias, when even after they made darn sure that everyone knew that we were not talking about immediate withdrawal, this CNN article still writes about it in a way that implies that's exactly what *is* being demanded?

Even after making their point clear, CNN still reports it as "Calls in Washington to pull out foreign troops". Sheesh. At what point will you admit that the guys at CNN are manipulating public perception of these events?




Great! Then address that. Wait! It has. Bush has stated on several occasions what the conditions for US troop withdrawal in Iraq are. Heck. It's quoted in that article Joph: "As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down," the president told a military audience in South Korea.. The perception that there's no exit strategy is purely one created. You can decide for yourself whether it's the "liberal media", or Liberals manipulating the media, or the media all on it's own trying to make things look worse then it is. The fact is that the conditions for us leaving are well documented and well known.

But some people insist on a set timetable with dates. That's silly. That was the point of the resolution the Republicans tossed out there. To show that you *can't* set a date for something, when that something is contingent on other factors that can't be nailed down in terms of time. We're not baking a cake here Joph. We can't say that in 20 minutes we can take it out of the oven and it'll be done.


What you should be asking yourself is why there are some who keep insisting on set dates for withdrawal. What is their motive and agenda in doing that? Why can't they be satisfied with the conditions already stated? Why pretend that those conditions don't exist? Why artificially create the perception that there's no middle ground between being there "forever" and "leaving today"? Guess what? The Republicans want our guys to come home too. We just want to make sure they're finished with their job first. Why is that "wrong"? Isn't it more "wrong" to insist on a timetable that doesn't take into account success?

Heck. While we're on the topic, why continue to try to make people believe that we're failing in order to push the agenda of a "right now" withdrawal? As I've pointed out multiple times (and you've not adequately debunked a single point), there are many indicators that our operations in Iraq are succeeding. But how many of those are being reported on your local news channel? Where are the news shows following the progress of our work in Iraq, complete with maps showing where we're operating today so that the people at home can *see* for themselves the progress we're making? Where's the guys charting our progress? Where's the guys making note of how many Iraqi security forces are now working and taking over the roles previously done by US troops?


You rail about how the US public doesn't know anything about the progress of the war, and my response is that it's because our media seems amazingly unwilling to actually report on the progress of the war. All the information is out there. I was able to generate a list of successes and progresses, but I had to do a fair bit of googling to find it. Where's our media coverage of this? Why isn't anyone simply taking the Bush administration's list of operation goals, and charting the success as we move towards completion? Heck. Unless you've been digging around on the internet for information about the war, you probably wouldn't have known that the Iraqi's are set to ratify their Constitution on Dec 15th. Why is that? Why isn't that a big news story?

Again. You talk about perception. But ask yourself *why* your percpetion doesn't seem to match what's actually happening. Who's misleading you? When I can find a deliberately misleading statement in the opening paragraph of CNN's lead story today about Iraq, I don't think it's hard for me to say where that's coming from...

Umm carpet bombing pretty much went away after vietnam. I can lase a building and a pilot can drop it without much if any collateral damage. I cant say civilians dont get caught in crossfires but saying we bomb indiscriminately is false and I challenge you to prove me wrong (oh, and without using BBC or Aljazeera). I couldnt even shoot back at people if we were in a crowded area, and they know that so thats where we usuallly got hit at.

/nod

That's not a "big list of things", it's a list of one thing: the Iraqi consititution and a lot of words spent explaining it. Which isn't to say it's not worth a lot a of words but it sure isn't a guideline defining how close we are to "victory".

My point was that crying about the media is a **** poor defense to how well the administration is projecting its goals and progress towards them. Especially in this age of instant information and web publishing. How many Republicans have a website? How many of them are hosting maps and giving lists of objectives we plan to achieve and how close we are?

Hell, you want to keep on about the liberal media, where's a nice shiney PDF chart of how close we are from FOXNews.com? How about Bush's buddies over there at TalonNews.com? They must have a map of where we've been and what's secured and how close we are, right?

You go on about timelines and say its impossible but I don't believe for a second that the military doesn't have goals they're trying to attain to train Iraqi forces to take over. You can't say you're "on schedule" if you don't have a friggin' schedule. I hope to hell they just don't punch a clock every morning and figure they're probably they're getting closer to their goals without tracking their progress and where they expected to be.

"But, oh no! If we said when we hope to have Iraqi forces trained to significantly take over so we can withdraw, the insurgents would just wait us out!" Good. That's what the hell we're training the Iraqis for, isn't it? To be able to keep their own nation secure? I mean, one day (God willing) we're going to start withdrawing troops and I bet those insurgents will notice. If they lay low until then, it just means we'll have an easier time training the troops without dodging stray mortar rounds.

Edit: This would have been a better link to give though it's still pretty much a list of speeches and press conferences one must paw through to find only vague "we're making progress" statements. Again, if the administration can't be bothered to chart their own progress and goals in an accessible manner, why ***** that the media isn't doing it for them?

Edited, Wed Nov 23 01:56:18 2005 by Jophiel