posted May 12, 2008 12:33 AM              

quote:

---

If I know anything about Steve, I know he would never spit on someone's grave in the way you just described there, Eleanore.

---

posted May 12, 2008 12:42 AM              

if you're all so interested in fighting the Powers That Be, you'll need to develop a little fortitude

posted May 12, 2008 12:45 AM            

When jwhop or HSC argue, they both can forget the person. When either of them are reminded they both become much more gentle until and unless someone challenges them again before things have had time to calm down. I see honor in both. And I see both bad behavior and honor in most.

So, I was just sad that this is still going on, but I also see slight progress so I'm not saying you or anyone else is doing the wrong thing by posting. Of course not. I just think it is a waste of time to hurt each other. Again, in general. I certainly don't think you are even close to the leader in the hurting other's race.

I was just saying that I think well of all of you and I wished you would take a break and then approach the situation differently. Or at least approach each other as human beings and not just cut-outs of "the other side of the debate".

posted May 12, 2008 01:30 AM            

Eleanore, I re-read your post to see what you said that caused me to think your tone was upset. These stand out to me:

"Sorry, MysticMelody. It's not me tossing myself under the bus here."

"Ask yourself, MysticMelody, who is prlonging this crap? Me? For starting a thread that ... wait, what was it again? "

What also prompted my thoughts on that was the fact that you seemed to be talking to Steve but kept saying "Mystic Melody" over and over. I'm not used to people saying my "name" so often in a post in general (although I understand it makes presentations more powerful for the listener) and you seemed to be using the post as an opportunity to explain all of things that Steve did/does wrong (although I have already publicly expressed my disapproval over his own behavior recently) so I assumed it was an emotional response rather than a logical one since it appeared you were using a response to me to have another go at Steve. Which I over-looked because I thought you were emotional and upset and by putting myself in your shoes I understood why you would be upset. Maybe I was wrong or maybe we are still misunderstanding each other. Either way, I still value your contributions and I still believe in Steve's deepest intentions.
I'm just sharing my truth as I see it and trying to be kind. Sorry if it's falling flat, I'm tired. Have a good night.

posted May 12, 2008 05:22 AM            

"Sorry, MysticMelody" That was an actual sorry ... ie, sorry that you even felt the need to respond to what has turned into a display of intolerance for a different view. Me not throwing myself under a bus? Well, that's because I'm not. And I think there are various persons here who can see who is ...

I'm sorry if that sounds antagonistic (really, am sorry) but that's not my intent. There's a difference, at least to me, between being to the point and being antagonistic. Why tap dance across the street when you can just walk? Unless you're enjoying yourself ...

Also, I have a habit of referring to someone by name, especially in these kinds of situations, to try and avoid confusion about who I am addressing. However, if using your name seems rude or too strong to you, I'll do my best to remember that in the future. But my suggestion of a question to yourself was serious. As you are suggesting we "all" let this go or get over it or move on, please consider to whom it is that you should be directing your comments.

If HSC (or anyone) wants to make a spectacle of himself in public, he should understand beforehand that he is opening himself up for public scrutiny. If you're going to defend or sympathize with a person, or even try to simply explain a person's actions to others, then maybe you should expect persons who respond to you to refer to that person in their responses. There really is no way to address a person's behavior openly and honestly without actually referring to them.

I just don't know how else to word what I'm saying. I really hope you can accept that I'm perfectly calm and in no way being antagonistic towards you.

Also, could you look back on your post and see how the first paragraph doesn't in any way seem like a separate thought from the rest of your post? Without an obvious and intentional break (ala, now that that's been addressed, here's something else I want to say) it reads as though you were making use of your explanation for HSC's behavior as a platform to demand (emotionally ) that everyone get over what you see as anger and calm down, move on, etc.

Did I take it that way? No. I figured you were simply distressed by this thread and also perhaps by your perception that HSC is being treated unfairly. And so I tried to address what you brought up in your post (HSC's behavior and your feelings about what is more important and calming down, etc).

Can we be frank? Did you understand the intent of this thread from the first post I made? Did you feel it was too much to ask for one measly thread devoted to a different perspective? Did you think that, even after my clarifications and after various objections from others including some who are actually in agreement with his political views, it was reasonable for HSC to continue his tirade on this very thread? Did you think it was at all acceptable to not only make a comment in such poor taste about our wounded soldiers and then to simply delete it with a "nevermind" instead of an admittance of having posted something inappropriate and being sorry for doing same as we're supposed to now believe?

See, to me, these are not irrelevant questions. Especially not concerning "letting things go" and "moving on". I don't have any angst towards HSC. I disagree with his views but I respect his right to believe whatever he desires to believe. In fact, the only thing I've ever taken issue with is his behavior.

Anybody who is going to present themselves as a bastion of truth and light and love on a regular basis, and who then very obviously does not live up to those self-imposed standards, arguably purposely, on a regular basis, is opening themselves up to criticism ... particularly from the people that are supposed to be being lorded over.

Do I want people to let go and move on? It would be nice. I don't go into threads here and start hurling accusations or insults or the like on a regular basis and then virtually high-five others who do the same. I don't tell anyone who disagrees with me to keep their opinions to themselves or that they don't belong here. In fact, the only time I've suggested that people may be happier elsewhere is when they've had problems with the administration of this site. Neither do I respond with personal attacks even when people hurl nasty comments at me or in my general direction.

posted May 12, 2008 06:13 AM            

*click on the above link to access the links to view the clip this post is referrencing*

quote:

---

When the Today show sprung a surprise this morning — an unannounced trip to Iraq by Matt Lauer — one US soldier had a little surprise of his own for Today and the media at large.

Lauer interviewed a group of soldiers at Camp Liberty in Baghdad, and at one point asked about the state of morale. After getting two responses to the effect that morale was good, Lauer had this to say:

“Don’t get me wrong, I think you’re probably telling the truth, but there might be a lot of people at home wondering how that could be possible with the conditions you’re facing and with the insurgent attacks you’re facing. ” (video available: Windows Media and Real Media)

If Lauer was the advocate for the anti-war case, he then made the cardinal mistake that no advocate should make: asking a question to which you don’t know the answer.

Asked Lauer: “What would you say to those people who are doubtful that morale could be that high?”

Captain Sherman Powell nailed Lauer, the MSM and the anti-war crowd with this beauty:

“Well sir, I’d tell you, if I got my news from the newspapers also I’d be pretty depressed as well!”

Bada-bing!

Powell went on to add that, while acknowledging the difficulties the media face in getting out into the field in Iraq,

“For those of us who have actually had a chance to get out and meet the Iraqi Army and Iraqi police and go on patrols with them, we are very satisfied with the way things are going here and we are confident that if we are allowed to finish the job we started we’ll be very proud of it and our country will be proud of us for doing it!”

---

posted May 12, 2008 07:11 PM            

Ok,you said:

"Also, could you look back on your post and see how the first paragraph doesn't in any way seem like a separate thought from the rest of your post? Without an obvious and intentional break (ala, now that that's been addressed, here's something else I want to say) it reads as though you were making use of your explanation for HSC's behavior as a platform to demand (emotionally ) that everyone get over what you see as anger and calm down, move on, etc."

I didn't actually look back at my post just now, but that makes complete sense and I probably did forget to make the distinction. My mind works differently from "position paper" writing (which I think is an opposite of sorts from intuitive thinking and writing) since it based on only perceived objective reality and not subjective reality. I have learned that what people perceive as objective reality is completely different (though objective reality should be the same for everyone) and that is what everyone is constantly arguing over. I see that the arguing itself creates problems for people's subjective reality and causes confusion, hurt feelings and increased inflammatory and subjective expression which escalates into improper behavior.

I cannot answer your questions because I was not a reader or participant on the thread, I simply learned of Steve's comment and his reasons for posting it, I then disagreed with his reasons, communicated to him the alternative view and how his comment might affect others and he then immediately removed it because he did not want to cause anyone pain.

I understand you have a lot of perfectly valid reasons for your arguments and I know Steve has some as well. I am just suggesting that this debate (over the last couple weeks) is not serving the purpose of furthering anyone's knowledge toward the objective truth at this time and instead has become an emotional war of objectivity tainted with subjective truth on both sides.
Therefore, I did make an emotional appeal that both sides shut up for a while and then return with gentle logic and an intent to teach rather than fight. That is all.

Both sides think the "other" side's wrongdoing opens them up to criticism. I agree with both sides on that and think none of us are above criticism. I just think unproductive criticism in an atmosphere (like what has hopefully passed) is a waste of time and just causes strife, which demonstrated on a more global scale is exactly what each side wishes to alleviate as much as possible while being realistic.

So, I'm suggesting that the answers to the global problems can be mirrored in the answers to our problems here. A calmer atmosphere and more trying to understand each other before trying to prove each other wrong. A coming together to find solutions that work for all instead of a divisive my side versus your side mentality.

I really like the last part of what you said, Eleanore. I have heard sentiments like that on "both sides" which is what I keep trying to remind everyone. I acknowledge that you remain calm and logical in most situations and I have heard Steve acknowledge you for the same things. I also have "heard" you acknowledge Steve's strengths. I am just trying to remind everyone that they are not against each other and are not at war with each other. And that everyone ultimately wants the same thing, regardless how anything temporarily appears.

I keep saying that ignorant views need to be educated, that is all. And I see good points on both sides and room for growth on both sides. I'm not educated enough on both sides to determine which side has what percentage truth and mis-truth. Otherwise I would have the answer to "world peace" as much as that would be possible in this earthly existence.

I think it is enough to acknowledge the good intentions of both sides for productive exchanges to begin. For example, I hear you saying you want to "live the example" and I know you do.

I think that is all I am saying and I am sorry if I did not answer your post point by point (since it doesn't seem like we are having the exact same conversation) but again, I hope it is enough to say that I acknowledge you have your reasons for being upset at certain behaviors and I acknowledge others have their reasons as well, and if we try to figure out who "started" it we would have to research since the beginning of LindaLand.

I'm saying that (who started it) doesn't matter if everyone starts again recognizing the good in one another and starts again trying to communicate gently and carefully with the firm intention of communicating something of value to another person, rather than just proving someone wrong for the fun of it or because they (the opposition) "need" to proved wrong because they are "bad" in some way. Again, both sides make those mistakes at different times.

We can go on adding up who is making the mistakes this time and try to get a tally of who is wrong the most but that defeats the purpose I again think everyone has... to soothe the atrocity of this world.

I think the only way to get closer to achieving this goal is to learn to look for the best in what each person says, acknowledge it, learn from it, and add it to your own perspective so that you might have a fuller perspective.

Again, I think both "sides" need to do just that. You really need to learn someone's subject truth before you can unravel why they believe certain fallacies are object truth. Finding objective truth takes patience and research on both sides. Unraveling fallacies in a written statement might be a simple process to some, easily and abruptly attained, but this does not unravel the fallacy in a person's viewpoint. That takes greater patience and educational skills.

I'm just saying, either take the time to gently explain and teach others so that their views might change...
or stop illogically wasting your time being angry with people because their views won't change.

And I say that to EVERYONE because everyone needs to be reminded of that often. Including me.

posted May 13, 2008 08:38 PM            

An article for you and all of us, love.

___________________________________________________

How We'll Know When We've Won
A definition of success in Iraq.
by Frederick W. Kagan
05/05/2008, Volume 013, Issue 32

The president's nomination of generals David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno to take command of U.S. Central Command and Multinational Force-Iraq, respectively, was obviously the right decision. By experience and temperament and demonstrated success, both men are perfectly suited to these jobs. Given the political climate in Washington, however, their nominations are likely to be attacked with the same tired arguments war critics used to try to drown out reports of progress in Iraq during the recent Petraeus-Crocker hearings. So before the shouting begins again, let us consider in detail one of the most important of these arguments: that no one has offered any clear definition of success in Iraq.

Virtually everyone who wants to win this war agrees: Success will have been achieved when Iraq is a stable, representative state that controls its own territory, is oriented toward the West, and is an ally in the struggle against militant Islamism, whether Sunni or Shia. This has been said over and over. Why won't war critics hear it? Is it because they reject the notion that such success is achievable and therefore see the definition as dishonest or delusional? Is it because George Bush has used versions of it and thus discredited it in the eyes of those who hate him? Or is it because it does not offer easily verifiable benchmarks to tell us whether or not we are succeeding? There could be other reasons--perhaps critics fear that even thinking about success or failure in Iraq will weaken their demand for an
immediate "end to the war." Whatever the explanation for this tiresome deafness, here is one more attempt to flesh out what success in Iraq means and how we can evaluate progress toward it.

SUCCESS DEFINED

A stable state. An unstable Iraq is a recipe for continued violence throughout the Middle East. Iraq's internal conflicts could spread to its neighbors or lure them into meddling in its struggles. An unstable Iraq would continue to generate large refugee flows, destabilizing vulnerable nearby states. An unstable Iraq would enormously complicate efforts by the United States or any other state to combat terrorists on Iraqi soil. An unstable Iraq would invite the intervention of opportunist neighbors. The Middle East being an area of vital importance to the United States and its allies, all these developments would harm America's interests.

A representative state. Some war critics (and even some supporters) argue that the goal of "democratizing" Iraq is overoptimistic, even hopeless. So what are the alternatives? Either Iraq can be ruled by a strongman, as it was in the past, or it can be partitioned into several more homogeneous territories, each ruled according to its own desires. Before settling for either of these, we should note that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis continue to manifest their desire for representative government, as evidenced by the 8 million who voted in the last elections, the 90 percent of Sunni Arab Iraqis who tell pollsters they will vote in the upcoming provincial elections, and the sense on the streets that anyone who tries to eliminate representative government will do so at his peril. Beyond that, we must note that neither of the two suggested alternatives is compatible with stability. Nevertheless, let us examine them.

(cont'd in next post)

posted May 13, 2008 08:39 PM            

Partition. Partitioning Iraq would generate enormous instability for the foreseeable future. Again, virtually no Arab Iraqis want to see the country partitioned; the Sunni, in particular, are bitterly opposed. But their desires aside, could a partitioned Iraq be stable? The Kurds, after all, already have their region. What would happen if the Shia got all nine provinces south of Baghdad, and the Sunni got Anbar, Salah-ad-Din, and whatever part of Ninewa the Kurds chose to give them? Well, there would be the problem of Baghdad and Diyala, the two mixed provinces, containing mixed cities. Despite the prevailing mythology, Baghdad has not been "cleansed" so as to produce stable sectarian borders. The largely Sunni west contains the Khadimiyah shrine, which the Shia will never abandon, while the largely Shia east contains the stubborn Sunni enclave in Adhamiya. The Sunni in Adhamiya have just gone through many months of hell to hang on to their traditional ground. And there are other enclaves on both
sides of the river. Any "cleansing" of them would involve the death or forced migration of tens or possibly hundreds of thousands. Attempts to divide Diyala and even Ninewa would produce similar results. If ethno-sectarian conflict restarted in Iraq on a large scale, cleansing might make this solution more feasible, but at enormous human cost. In the current context, even to seriously propose it threatens Iraq's stability.

A state that controls its territory. We already have an example of a sovereign, quasi-stable state confronting terrorist foes that is theoretically allied to the United States but has no American troops and does not control all of its own territory. It is Pakistan, whose ungoverned territories in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and the Northwest Frontier Province have become safe havens for the leaders of the global al Qaeda network. If the United States abandoned Iraq before Iraq could control all of its territory with its own forces, we might make way for similar safe havens in the heart of the Middle East. It is clearly not in America's interests to create a Pakistan on the Euphrates.

A state oriented toward the West. It is also clearly against America's interests for Iraq to become an Iranian puppet. Some in the United States, however, see that development as inevitable; they point to geography and religious ties. Some even say that the United States should not only acquiesce in the inevitable but embrace it, reaching out to the Iranians for their assistance in smoothing our withdrawal as they establish their domination. But why? Iran has not dominated Iraq in centuries. True, the Sunni-Shia divide is profound, but so is the Arab-Persian divide. Iraq's Shia, remember, enthusiastically supported Saddam Hussein's war against their Iranian co-religionists in the 1980s--a sectarian "betrayal" for which the Iranians have never forgiven them. Again, American troops and civilians who live day to day with Iraqis throughout the country report a dramatic rise in anti-Persian sentiment, coincident with a rise in Iraqi Arab nationalism. But back in the United States, the debate over Iraq is scarcely tethered to reality on the ground. In the simple terms suitable to that debate, then, suffice it to say that neither shared Shia faith nor a shared border has historically led to Iranian domination of Iraq. There is no reason to assume it will do so now.

An ally in the struggle against militant Islamism. Whatever Saddam Hussein's ties were to al Qaeda before the invasion, the reality today is that an important al Qaeda franchise has established itself in Iraq. It initially had the support of a significant portion of Iraq's Sunni Arab community, but that community--with critical American support--has rejected al Qaeda and united with Iraq's Shia and Kurds to fight it.

As a result, there is no state in the world that is more committed than Iraq to defeating al Qaeda. None has mobilized more troops to fight al Qaeda or suffered more civilian casualties at the hands of al Qaeda--or, for that matter, taken more police and military casualties. Iraq is already America's best ally in the struggle against al Qaeda. Moreover, the recent decision of Iraq's government to go after illegal, Iranian-backed Shia militias and terror groups shows that even a Shia government in Baghdad can be a good partner in the struggle against Shia extremism as well.

Much has been made of the inadequacy of the Iraqi Security Forces' performance in Basra. If the Pakistani army had performed half as well in its efforts to clear al Qaeda out of the tribal areas, we would be cheering. Instead, Pakistani soldiers surrendered to al Qaeda by the hundreds, and Islamabad shut the operation down; it is now apparently on the verge of a deal with the terrorist leader who killed Benazir Bhutto. Iraqi Security Forces who underperformed were fired and replaced, and operations in Basra and elsewhere continue. The United States has given Pakistan billions in aid since 9/11 so that it could fight al Qaeda in the tribal areas. To be sure, it has spent far more billions on the Iraq war. Still, one may wonder which money has produced real success in the war on terror, and which has been wasted.

PROGRESS MEASURED

Stability. Violence is the most obvious indicator of instability and the easiest to measure. The fact that violence has fallen dramatically in Iraq since the end of 2006 is evidence of improving stability. But critics are right to point out that areas tend to be peaceful both when government forces control them completely and when insurgents control them completely. Violence can drop either because the government is winning or because insurgents are consolidating their gains. So in addition to counting casualties and attacks, it is necessary to evaluate whether government control has been expanding or contracting. In fact, it has expanded dramatically over the past 15 months.

At the end of 2006, Sunni Arab insurgents controlled most of Anbar province, large areas of Salah-ad-Din and Diyala, southern Baghdad and northern Babil provinces (the "triangle of death"), and large areas of Baghdad itself including the Ameriya, Adhamiya, Ghazaliya, and Dora neighborhoods, which were fortified al Qaeda bastions. Shia militias controlled Sadr City almost completely--American forces could not even enter the area, and virtually no Iraqi forces in Sadr City operated independently of the militias; the militias also controlled the nearby districts of Shaab and Ur, from whence they staged raids on Sunni neighborhoods; they operated out of bases in Khadimiyah and Shula in western Baghdad; they owned large swaths of terrain in Diyala province, where they were engaged in an intense war against al Qaeda; they fought each other in Basra and controlled large areas of the Shia south.

Today, al Qaeda has been driven out of Dora, Ameriya, Ghazaliya, and Adhamiya; out of Anbar almost entirely; out of the "southern belt" including the former triangle of death; out of much of Diyala; and out of most of Salah-ad-Din. Iraqi and coalition operations are underway to drive al Qaeda out of its last urban bastion in Mosul. Remaining al Qaeda groups, although still able to generate periodic spectacular attacks, are largely fragmented and their communications partially disrupted. Iraqi Security Forces have been on the offensive against Shia militias in the "five cities" area (Najaf, Karbala, Diwaniya, Hilla, and Kut) and have severely degraded militia capabilities and eliminated militia control from significant parts of this area; the attack in Basra resulted in a reduction of the militia-controlled area, including the recapture of Basra's lucrative ports by government forces; tribal movements in Basra and Nasiriya are helping the government advance and consolidate its gains against the militias; and Iraqi Security Forces, with Coalition support, are moving through parts of Sadr City house by house and taking it back from the militias.

The fall in violence in Iraq, therefore, reflects success and not failure. Enemy control of territory has been significantly reduced, and further efforts to eliminate enemy control of any territory are underway. Spikes in violence surrounding the Basra operation reflect efforts by the government to retake insurgent-held areas and are, therefore, positive (if sober) indicators.

As for the argument that this stability is based solely on the increased presence of U.S. forces, which will shortly end, or that it is merely a truce between the Sunni and the Shia as they wait for us to leave--we shall soon see. Reductions of U.S. forces by 25 percent are well underway. The commanding general has recommended that after we complete those reductions in July, we evaluate the durability of the current stability, and President Bush has accepted his recommendation.

Representative government. The Iraqi government is the product of two elections. The Sunni Arabs boycotted the first, with the result that Iraq's provincial councils and governors do not reflect its ethno-sectarian make-up. The second saw a large Sunni Arab turnout and the seating of a multiethnic, multisectarian government in Baghdad. The Iraqi government recently passed a law calling for provincial elections later this year, and the United Nations special envoy to Iraq, Steffan de Mistura, has been consulting with Baghdad about the details of the election, including efforts to ensure that the various committees overseeing it are not unduly influenced by militias or political parties. Surveys show that the Iraqis are nearly unanimous in their desire to vote, particularly in Sunni areas. The Anbar Awakening has turned into a political movement, introducing political pluralism into Sunni Arab politics for the first time. Similar movements, including the splintering of Moktada al-Sadr's "Sadrist Trend," are underway more haltingly among the Shia.

Each of Iraq's elections has been more inclusive than the last. Each has seen more enthusiasm for voting among all groups. Political pluralism is increasing within both sects. Whatever the popularity of the present government of Iraq, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis see elections as the correct way to choose their leaders, believe that their votes will count, and want to participate. The provincial elections this fall--and the national legislative elections next year--will be important indicators of the health of representative government in Iraq, and we should watch them closely. So far, all indications in this area are positive.

Control of territory. The restoration of large urban and rural areas formerly held by insurgents and militias to government control is a key indicator of Iraqi progress. And there are others: the Maliki government's determination to clear Basra and Sadr City of militia influence; Iraqi operations to clear Mosul of al Qaeda fighters; the dramatic growth of the Iraqi Security Forces in 2007 and the further growth underway in 2008. There is anecdotal confirmation of this progress, such as the dramatic decline in the number of illegal militia-controlled checkpoints, most of them set up in and around Baghdad in 2006 for purposes of control, extortion, and murder. Although some war critics claim that the Anbar Awakening has simply put the province into the hands of a new militia, the truth is that the first stage of the movement saw more than 10,000 Anbaris volunteer for the Iraqi Security Forces. Two divisions of the Iraqi army remain in Anbar, and they are mixed Sunni-Shia formations. The Iraqi police force in Anbar, paid for, vetted, and controlled by the Iraqi government, has also grown dramatically. The "Sons of Iraq," who are the security component of the awakening movement, are auxiliaries to these government forces, supplemented by the presence of American troops. In Baghdad's neighborhoods, Sons of Iraq are dwarfed in number by the two Iraqi army divisions stationed in the city (in addition to the mechanized division based just to the north in Taji) and the numerous police and national police formations, all supported by American combat brigades. The Iraqi government is steadily extending its control of its own territory, and has demonstrated a determination to retake insurgent-held areas even from Shia militias.

Orientation toward the West. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Iraq in March 2008 and was warmly received, prompting concern in the United States that the Iraqi government was tilting toward Tehran. War critics, attempting to spin the Iraqi government's offensive against Shia militias in Basra, argued that Iran "supports" both the militias and the principal Shia parties fighting them--the entire operation, they claimed, was simply "Shia infighting" among groups already devoted to Tehran.

A closer examination shows this to be false. While it is true that Iran "supports" both ISCI and Dawa, the two leading Shia parties in the government, with money, and it provides the Sadrist militia not only with money, but with lethal weapons, training, trainers, and advisers inside Iraq to support the militia's fight against the United States and the Iraqi government--nevertheless, Iran does not provide such support to the government of Iraq or to the Iraqi Security Forces, which the United States and its allies have worked hard to develop into effective fighting forces, at the behest of the United Nations and the request of the legitimate government of Iraq. This is not simply "Shia infighting" in which the United States has no stake.

More to the point, we might ask what the Iraqi government itself has done to show its preferences. It has asked the United Nations to endorse the Multinational Force mission supporting it, a mission that includes American forces--but not Iranian ones. It has requested a bilateral security agreement with the United States--and not with Iran. It has determined to purchase American weapons and equipment for its armed forces, to replace the Warsaw Pact gear it had been using--and has not requested equipment from Iran or its principal international suppliers, Russia and China. Baghdad is organizing, training, and equipping its military and police forces to be completely interoperable with the United States--and not with Iran. For a government accused of being in Tehran's thrall, the current Iraqi government appears to have demonstrated repeatedly a commitment to stand with the United States, at least as long as the United States stands with Iraq.

An ally in the war on terror. Al Qaeda has killed many more Iraqis than Americans. Iraq has eight army divisions--around 80,000 troops--now in the fight against al Qaeda, and another three--around 45,000 troops--in the fight against Shia extremists. Tens of thousands of Iraqi police and National Police are also in the fight. Thus, there are far more Iraqis fighting al Qaeda and Shia militias in Iraq than there are American troops there. Easily ten times as many Iraqi as Pakistani troops are fighting our common enemies. At least three times as many Iraqi soldiers and police as Afghan soldiers and police are in the fight. And many times more Iraqi troops are engaged in the war on terror than those of any other American ally. In terms of manpower engaged, and sacrifice of life and limb, Iraq is already by far America's best ally in the war on terror.

These facts will surely not put to rest the debate over definitions and measures of success in Iraq. Certainly, the American people have a right to insist that our government operate with a clear vision of success and that it develop a clear plan for evaluating whether we are moving in the right direction, even if no tidy numerical metrics can meaningfully size up so complex a human endeavor. As shown here, supporters of the current strategy do indeed have a clear definition of success, and those working to implement it are already evaluating American progress against that definition every day. It is on the basis of their evaluation that we say the surge is working.

The question Americans should ask themselves next is: Have the opponents of this strategy offered a clear definition of their own goals, along with reasonable criteria for evaluating progress toward them? Or are they simply projecting onto those who have a clear vision with which they disagree their own vagueness and confusion?

Here is a gauntlet thrown down: Let those who claim that the current strategy has failed and must be replaced lay out their own strategy, along with their definition of success, criteria for evaluating success, and the evidentiary basis for their evaluations. Then, perhaps, we can have a real national debate on this most important issue.

posted May 13, 2008 09:13 PM            

quote:

---

You are part of the problem, Eleanore.

---

HSC,

posted May 13, 2008 10:34 PM            

Friendship is precious,
not only in the shade,
but in the sunshine of life;
and thanks to a benevolent
arrangement of things,
the greater part of life is sunshine.
~Thomas Jefferson~

posted May 13, 2008 11:04 PM            

Is it the article or my comment to HSC?

*edit: 12:10 am

I think I see what you mean, Mel.

Whatever sadness you may feel, embrace it. Love it. Adore it. This sadness is our greatest ally.

posted May 14, 2008 07:17 AM              

quote:

---

Al Qaeda has killed many more Iraqis than Americans.

---

The name Al Qaeda never existed as such until after September 11th.

The government and the Bin Laden family were "buddies" already.

The whole thing pulled over us by the media reeks of lies, lies, and more lies.

You only have to take a look at the history of the foreign policies to see where the priorities of the US government really lie. It isn't humanitarian.

I just did a quick search to find someone who could articulate this better than I can, and found such an article:

quote:

---

It is no wonder former U.S. Attorney General William Ramsey Clark has said that "the greatest crime since World War II has been U.S. foreign policy." And Murray Rothbard, who was at once the twentieth century’s greatest proponent of liberty and opponent of the state, was perfectly justified in saying that "empirically, taking the twentieth century as a whole, the single most warlike, most interventionist, most imperialist government has been the United States."

From a Christian perspective there is only one way to describe U.S. foreign policy: it is evil. It was evil before the United States invaded Iraq, and it would still be evil if the United States withdrew all its forces from Iraq tomorrow. It is because of our foreign policy that the U.S. military has become – through its wars, interventions, and occupations – the greatest force for evil in the world. U.S. foreign policy sows discord among nations, stirs up strife where none existed, intensifies the hatred that many foreigners around the world have for Americans and each other, and creates terrorists faster than we can kill them.

The United States has pressured, destabilized, undermined, manipulated, and overthrown governments, including democracies. We have assassinated or attempted to assassinate foreign leaders. We have destroyed industry, culture, and infrastructure. We have helped install autocrats and dictators. We have sponsored regime changes in countries that no longer favored U.S. corporate interests. We have backed and engineered military coups. We have been involved with torturers, death squads, drug traffickers, and other "unsavory persons." We have allied ourselves with murderous regimes. We have downplayed massive numbers of civilian casualties by dismissing them as collateral damage. We have labeled violence perpetrated by our opponents as terrorism, atrocities, ethnic cleansing, and genocide while minimizing or defending the same actions committed by the United States or its allies. We have engaged in thousands of covert actions. We have undertaken massive propaganda campaigns to deceive foreigners about their own country. We have kidnapped foreign citizens in their own country. We have transported insurgents and detainees to torture-friendly countries. We have looted and confiscated government documents from foreign countries. We have selectively intervened in countries for dubious humanitarian concerns while ignoring real suffering and death in other countries. We have used humanitarian interventions as a guise for imperialism. We have encouraged favored governments to engage in human rights violations. We have supported corrupt and tyrannical governments. We have crushed populist and nationalist movements struggling against tyrannical regimes. We have trained foreign soldiers and police to suppress their own people. We have influenced, sabotaged, financed, and otherwise interfered with elections in other countries. We have taken sides or intervened in civil wars. We have recklessly tested and knowingly used chemical and biological weapons on both U.S. citizens and foreigners in their countries. We have encouraged the use of chemical and biological weapons by other nations, and trained foreign nationals to do the same. We have downplayed the slaughter of civilians killed in civil wars if they were on the side we didn’t agree with. We have provided military hardware to and trained the paramilitary forces of foreign countries. We have engaged in provocative naval actions in international waters under the guise of protecting freedom of navigation. We have bribed, blackmailed, and bullied our way around the world. Say what you will, believe what you will about the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea, the fact remains that the United States is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons on people – and we did it twice.

The United States is an overextended, out-of-control, rogue nation. Yet, the mere mention of the evil that the United States has perpetrated throughout the world upsets and angers many Americans because they have the mindset that a terrorist is someone who detonates a bomb but doesn’t wear an air force uniform. But because we live in an imperfect world of nation-states that is not likely to change anytime in the near future, the question of U.S. foreign policy cannot be ignored. Randolph Bourne’s observation almost one hundred years ago that "war is the health of the State" has never been more relevant than right now. Those who disparage the welfare state while turning a blind eye to the warfare state are terribly inconsistent. There is an intimate connection between foreign policy and domestic policy, as I will point out in my conclusion.

---

posted May 14, 2008 07:37 AM              

quote:

---

“The Georgian soldiers used to give bullets to kids to play with, and if you gave them some vodka or cigarettes, they’d give you anything – a small gun or grenade.” Georgi, aged 14, Georgia

If you find that shocking, try this. From 1998 to 2001, the USA, the UK, and France earned more income from arms sales to developing countries than they gave in aid.

The arms industry is unlike any other. It operates without regulation. It suffers from widespread corruption and bribes. And it makes its profits on the back of machines designed to kill and maim human beings.

So who profits most from this murderous trade? The five permanent members of the UN Security Council – the USA, UK, France, Russia, and China. Together, they are responsible for eighty eight per cent of reported conventional arms exports.
“We can’t have it both ways. We can’t be both the world’s leading champion of peace and the world’s leading supplier of arms.” Former US President Jimmy Carter, presidential campaign, 1976

---