Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

It seems that ever since Britain and Denmark announced their intention to withdraw, the security situation has deteriorated.

It seems that the war advocates call the British withdrawal both a success and a failure on alternate days. It's a success because look, they handed over four provinces; and it's a failure that shows that withdrawal undermines security.

The truth is in the middle. British withdrawal is a half-success that only leads to the same loss of security that there would be if they didn't withdraw. The real failure is the mission itself, not the final step of ending it.

Posted by at April 28, 2007 10:55 AM

Fewer British troops in Basra: Situation deteriorates.
More American troops in Baghdad: Situation deteriorates.
Conclusion: Troop concentration of foreign forces has little effect on events on the ground.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at April 28, 2007 11:29 AM

The situation has deteriorated in Baghdad? Based on what?

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 28, 2007 11:46 AM

"the end result will be a completely failed state."

The end result of eternal occupation? A completely failed state that costs US lives and money.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 28, 2007 02:01 PM

A plea from Iraq.

Or rather, a plea from Omar Fadhil, the notorious yes-man of the pro-invasion blogosphere. Omar is not quite 100% alone in his fawning stance: there is his brother Mohammed, and an expatriate who writes as IraqPundit, and maybe one or two others. Most Iraqi bloggers see it differently, even those who once supported the invasion; which is why Republicans rarely quote them and Rand Simbergs never do.

http://nabilsblog.blog spot.com/
http://healingiraq.blog spot.com/
http://iraqiblogger.blog spot.com/

Posted by at April 28, 2007 02:13 PM

350,000 troops in Iraq and the situation may be stabilized. Except no one wants to suggest this Shinseki redux. Especially now that Tenet is telling all, we know the Dick who F***ed this up.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 28, 2007 03:57 PM

350,000 troops in Iraq and the situation may be stabilized.

Even if the US had that much spare combat strength, which it doesn't, why should it fight on both sides of a civil war in Iraq? General Odom said it best today:

We cannot 'win' a war that serves our enemies interests and not our own. Thus continuing to pursue the illusion of victory in Iraq makes no sense. We can now see that it never did.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/04/lt_gen_odom_del.php

Posted by at April 28, 2007 04:07 PM

Rand, I would say that the situation in Baghdad has deteriorated based on rising American and Iraqi death tolls. My judgment is that at this stage of things we are unable to affect the outcome of much of anything in Iraq in a meaningful, positive way, despite bearing a share of the responsibility for the place being a complete mess. We're culpable, but not capable, if you'll indulge me in a sound bite for a moment.

From where I sit the whole policy looks like an attempt to run out the clock to Jan 2009 when it'll be someone else's problem. There's no articulated strategy, from what I can tell, just an impulse to put more troops in Baghdad to do more of the same sorts of things in the hope that this will improve matters somewhat. There's not any real evidence that it has, so far. Indeed, the administration is already (see this morning's NYT; I read the print edition so no link but the author is David E. Sanger) soft-pedalling expectations and won't even assess how they're doing until September..

Whether you thought it was a good idea to go into Iraq in 2003, or not (my view), it's increasingly untenable to assert that it's a good idea to be there now.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at April 28, 2007 05:25 PM

From where I sit the whole policy looks like an attempt to run out the clock to Jan 2009 when it'll be someone else's problem.

When it will be someone else's treason. Yes, that is clearly Bush's real policy.

Posted by at April 28, 2007 05:42 PM

The situation has deteriorated in Baghdad? Based on what?

Baghdad hasn't deteriorated. It never 'reteriorated' in the first place after the US declared mission accomplished and stopped bombing daily in 2003.

Posted by Adrasteia at April 28, 2007 05:53 PM

So the policy is to run out the clock to 2009?

And the young Americans who die between now and then are of no consequence I suppose.

Cheney needs to be impeached. I don't care how it is done. I'm sick to my stomach.

Posted by Offside at April 28, 2007 06:04 PM

Rand, I would say that the situation in Baghdad has deteriorated based on rising American and Iraqi death tolls.

So, how is a death toll supposed to fall? Has someone discovered reanimation?

Posted by Dave Cooper at April 28, 2007 06:51 PM

Dave, excuse me for expressing myself inaccurately. I believe I perhaps should have said "The rate at which American and Iraqi deaths accumulate per month" or some such. I trust from context, though, that my meaning was clear.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at April 28, 2007 07:25 PM

Rand, I would say that the situation in Baghdad has deteriorated based on rising American and Iraqi death tolls.

Even assuming that death tolls are rising, why is that a useful metric as to whether or not we're winning?

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 28, 2007 08:04 PM

Kick the can down the road and avoid blame.

This is the Bush strategery in a nutshell.

Kick the can down the road and blame the Defeat-o-crats when the chickens come home to roost.

= = =

Actually this is the same strategery as the Bush Vision for Space Exploration which essentially says:

1. Fly shuttle until after Bush 43 leaves office;

2. Also issue a press release: "It'd be waaaay cool if the 44th President helped us get back to the Moon, Mars and so on."

Posted by at April 28, 2007 08:15 PM

Even assuming that death tolls are rising, why is that a useful metric as to whether or not we're winning?

The point is all of this sacrifice is for outcomes that Americans only like less and less. Even Bush himself likes it less and less. As Odom said, it is impossible to 'win' are war that is not in your interests.

Posted by at April 28, 2007 08:17 PM

Another plea from Iraq:

Send dice!!

Posted by at April 28, 2007 08:28 PM

Posted by Jane Bernstein at April 28, 2007 05:25 PM

Jane...that is a little to "jump the gunnish".

Three months ago folks like you were proclaiming "Anbar is lost" and now the security situation in Anbar is while not calm, certianly "stable".

The surge will take a bit to work, remain calm...let it play out...check back in September.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 28, 2007 09:10 PM

anonymous, as I understand it, role playing games are prevalent in the military as a way to spend off-duty time when things are dull. Beats getting drunk in some bar, I'd say. So it may seem strange to have a Dungeons and Dragons convention in Iraq, but they have a lot of players there.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 28, 2007 09:13 PM

Rand, do you have a metric you prefer to measure improvement you prefer? The few projects we've managed to fund in Iraq are falling apart. The security situation is deteriorating. An entire generation of new jihadists is being trained there. Nothing good is happening. Nothing.

I think it's incumbent on us all now to set aside whatever ideological perspectives we might have and look at the pragmatic situation on the ground. It's bad, and it's worsening, and there's nothing we can do to change it. Time to come home. Do I regret the chaos that will engulf Iraq after our departure? Of course. But their history is THEIRS to make. If they're determined to shoot one another, let 'em.

On that happy note, I find it really ironic that I'm going out clubbing in a few minutes. I hope there are people somewhere in Iraq that can enjoy themselves of a Saturday evening the way I can. But honestly, that's for them to arrange. Not for us.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at April 28, 2007 09:58 PM

Anbar is a good metric (grin)...

The metric set down by the Marine General commanding Anbar when he more or less starred freelancing before the Rummy years were over, and was almost forced to resign...

is that the area because stable enough militarily to enable diplomacy and politics.

That is a pretty good metric. The squishy lefites back home always say "stop the killing" as if that was possible in a situatino like this.

Idiots

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 29, 2007 06:31 AM

Jane said: ...won't even assess how they're doing until September..

You would prefer an immediate metric to our performance? Wouldn't we all? It takes time for outcomes to be measured. Unlike some of the armchair quarterbacks on this blog, whose knowledge of warfare is limited only by their sheer hatred of Bush, you have shown on more than one occasion of clear thought. You're in danger of falling into the group that uses all-encompassing views of EVERYTHING is a failure...ALL is lost, when it clearly isn't. There can be no immediate measure of our efforts, so the administration's call for time (Spet) to measure is not uncalled for. Granted there have been mistakes made, but that's warfare. Yes, things are not rosy, yes Americans are dying, yes even more Iraqis are dying, but Anbar is somewhat more stable than it was and that's a step forward.

Posted by Mac at April 29, 2007 07:16 AM

You would prefer an immediate metric to our performance?

If you think of four years as "immediate", you're really living life in the slow lane.

For the rest of us, though, the trend is clear. The US "prevailed" in Iraq four years ago. Since then Americans, including Bush himself, have only liked this achievement less and less. As Odom said, you can't "win" a war that is not in your interests.

Granted there have been mistakes made

Granted. For example, the invasion of Iraq is a mistake in the war on terrorism.

Posted by at April 29, 2007 09:39 AM

Actually a good amount of the secterian violence has been quelled by the escalation in troop strength. Al-Qaeda is responsible for the increasingly powerful bomb attacks. Their sole purpose is to generate body counts since that is what tends to lead on American MSM headlines. Their attacks are orchestrated with the sole intent at attracting as much attention as possible. They want to make it seem like their attacks are in direct response to the American presence. When in reality they want this perception to occur to precipitate an American withdrawal and then they can get to the business of vying for power in the immediate vacuum that is created.

Anybody who is suddenly folding with the perceived futility of our actions is buying into the enemy's plan of action.

Posted by Josh Reiter at April 29, 2007 07:10 PM

Anon says: Granted. For example, the invasion of Iraq is a mistake in the war on terrorism.

Great, so cut and run, invite terror to our shores again and kill more Americans. Awesome idea dude. We're there, let's finish the job. AQ is the cause for a majority of the headlines because they art engaged in a media war to weaken our resolve. Obviously, they've already won you over.

Posted by Mac at April 30, 2007 05:35 AM

Post a comment