About The War
By Mitch Berg
A commenter yesterday broke into an unrelated thread (as is his wont) to demand that I write about Iraq and Afghanistan.
OK.
We’re winning in Iraq. The tide turned during the surge, and it’ll stay turned. Iraq’s fractious politlcs will take years to settle, and Al Quaeda and the Ba’athists will try to mount a campaign of harassment to try to affect the US election (because the most important front in that war, since the very beginning, has been inside the beltway.
And yes – we’ll likely be in Iraq for a long time, if not 100 years. People who read and understand little enough of history to be liberals point at Senator McCain’s statement and snigger.
The more curious among them – the ones that dont’ get all their news from Jon Stewart – point out that comparisons to our 60+ year involvements in Germany, Italy, Korea and Japan aren’t the same – and they’re right. Counterinsurgency is a very different cat to skin. The Iraq war is much more like the Philippines; a very brief conventional war (and accomplished mission!), followed by six years of “hot” insurgency and years of low-level troubles from groups that were both unrelated to and utterly provoked by the original rulers, and 35 years of military involvement (that dovetailed into another war that headed off the planned handover of all sovereignty by five years). It’s also got a lot more in common with El Salvador – where an asymmetric assortment of US troops, diplomats, contractors and aid workers conducted a compaign that brought medical care, money and security to the Salvadoran hinterlands, and the rule of law to the Salvadoran military, government, and eventually society as a whole.
Afghanistan is still very much in the balance. More on that later.
So – ask a question, get an answer. For whatever it’s worth.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Aw, man, you fed the Peev!
Now he’ll never go away. It’ll be like that backyard cat you gave a 1/4 can of tuna to that one time, so it hung around for months hoping for me.
I may be projecting here.
Still, you NEVER feed a Peev. EVER.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Sweet chocolate Christ. Now Peev’s going to think he manages this blog.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Nah. I manage it.
Merely stating that “discussion” point in the form of a near-absolute.
May 1st, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Now he’ll never go away.
Banning him as “PB” didn’t work. He got his name from James Lileks, by the way. James dubbed him “Peevish Boy”. So apt.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Reason number gazillion why I know this war is lost.
No one ever argues, ‘Here are the facts on the ground in Iraq which show we are winning’. Instead we get ‘Here are the facts about some other war in some other place in some other time, which we did (or could have) won, so we will win in Iraq’. The pathological inability to discuss the details of Iraqi life and politics makes it clear you have no idea about what is happening there.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Calling out examples for purposes of illustration – primarily to show the historical myopia of someone else’s approach to the argument – is a far cry from “not arguing”.
The pathological inability to discuss things other than situational details of iraqi life and politics makes it clear you have no idea what is happening there.
(That, and your – I’ll be charitable – ideological approach to the issue. Remember when you said that sending troops out among the locals in the smallest groups possible was a recipe for disaster? As opposed to being a recipe for success – which, indeed, it was?)
May 1st, 2008 at 3:49 pm
“The pathological inability to discuss things other than situational details of iraqi life and politics makes it clear you have no idea what is happening there.”
That does not even make sense.
May 1st, 2008 at 5:09 pm
“No one ever argues, ‘Here are the facts on the ground in Iraq which show we are winning’.”
Oh really?
Have you read Michael Totten? Michael Yon? Bill Roggio? There are plenty of bloggers covering the on-the-ground reporting in Iraq (more so than in the mainstream media), and the stories they’re finding don’t at all much the conventional narrative of defeat.
You want to discuss the details of Iraqi life and politics? Like how the Sunnis have been driving al-Qaeda away, and how Sunni militias are now coordinating with the US and the Iraqi government? Like the continued marginalization of Moqtada al-Sadr? Like the fact that the Iraqi economy is growing despite all the violence?
If you understood more about the details of Iraqi life and politics, you’d be less likely to support the idea of a US withdrawal and more likely to understand why we’re winning in Iraq, and why it’s important we maintain the momentum of the last 12 months.
May 1st, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Speaking of unrelated threads, please file this under “Suck it Moonbat”:
“May 1 (Bloomberg) — Northwestern University withdrew an invitation for the Reverend Jeremiah Wright to receive an honorary degree at this year’s commencement.”
May 1st, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Jay:
“Have you read Michael Totten? Michael Yon? Bill Roggio?”
Yes, there reports are often valuable.
“There are plenty of bloggers covering the on-the-ground reporting in Iraq (more so than in the mainstream media), ”
Baloney. McClathy’s correspondents on their Inside Iraq blog outnumber your three and any others you can find, plus they have the added advantage of living in Iraq and speaking the language.
“the stories they’re finding don’t at all much the conventional narrative of defeat”
Sure, they impose their wishful thinking on events, but you rarely read actual facts that make you think the war is going well.
“Like how the Sunnis have been driving al-Qaeda away, and how Sunni militias are now coordinating with the US and the Iraqi government?”
You mean the guys we are paying huge sums of cash to not attack us. You call that winning.
“Like the continued marginalization of Moqtada al-Sadr?”
Says which Iraqi not working for Malaki or the U.S.?
“Like the fact that the Iraqi economy is growing despite all the violence?”
The economy is ‘growing’ because of the violence. You blow up a house and rebuild it, you just got a big jump in GDP. Quick, what percentage of the Iraqi population are internally displaced refugees?
May 1st, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Mitch..
We’re winning in Iraq..
Because you say so, apparently.
Mitch – you’re as decidely biased as you are apparently ignorant. You failed to address the Shiaa/Sunni divide other than to placate that we’ll ‘be there for years” – hardly winning my friend – in fact, we’ve done little to nothing. The surge worked to do one thing only, provide temporary relief in Baghdad neighborhoods. Your claims notwithstanding, there’s been no substantive progress on what ALWAYS was the major problem – always. Just because you say it isn’t the major problem, doesn’t make it so.
This isn’t Korea, it’s not Germany, there were NOT 66% of the indiginous populous looking to kill the other 33%. This is Serbia, and we’re trying to keep the Serbs from killing the Kosovars, from inside Serbia. We also have Russia next door (in the form of Iran) – supplying the Serbs. It’s far more akin as well to Vietnam.
Westmoreland said we were ‘winning’ in Vietnam, and he was far more right than you are. We are beating Al Qaeda in Iraq, my response BFD. You’ve moved the goal posts, that’s all you’ve done. You said 6 months would see political progress, it hasn’t except at the meaningless edges. You said the violence would be much less within a year, and while violence in some sections is down, it’s growing again… because the remedy was teh wrong approach. We, arrogantly, assumed we can just tell the A Rabs (as you republican freaks would condescendingly refer to them) how to live, the government to have. They don’t agree.
Whether we stay 50 years or 100, just like Yugoslavia, this powder keg will erupt in ethnic and sectarian violence.
You proved nothing with your post.
Next.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:21 pm
See, Mitch?
You fed the Peev, but the Peev was not sated. Not that anyone thought he would be, but now he’s here FOREVER. Damned cat.
And Peev? If you need a reminder, you can still go eat a fart.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:30 pm
“(as you republican freaks would condescendingly refer to them) ”
Thanks, I wasn’t sure exactly how to refer to them. I was using the term Iraqi, I guess in error.
Oh, and fuck off asshole.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:49 am
A Rabs (as you republican freaks would condescendingly refer to them)
OK, Peev. You just tipped your hand.
You aren’t interested in “discussion”, like you claim in between condescensions and insults. You just love to keep some kind of argument going. Baiting flames keeps the attention on you, keeps a dyspeptic buzz rattling around that is centered on nohting but Peevish (and since you’re anonymous, it’s perfectly safe).
I know this – because I used to be like this. At one particularly shitty time of my life, throwing bombs and watching the fuss was about the only diversion I had. I’m not sure what your motivation is – that’s for you to figure out.
But I’m going to treat you as a simple troll from now on.
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:03 am
RickDFL and peevish are quite obviously dedicated to losing.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:24 am
Jay wrote”
“Like the continued marginalization of Moqtada al-Sadr?”
Lets go to some people who actually spend time in Iraq:
According to a recent Refugees International report
“The largest “humanitarian” organization in Iraq is the Sadrist movement
affiliated with Muqtada al Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric, and his local Offices of the Martyr Sadr, which exist throughout Iraq — from Kirkuk to Baghdad to Basra. Operating on a model similar to the Lebanese Hezbollah, his sustainable program provides shelter, food and non-food items to hundreds of thousands of Shiites in Iraq.”
Sadr does more to provide services to Iraqis than the Malaki government.
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:28 am
Peev:
“We’re winning in Iraq… Because you say so, apparently.”
Hmmm. I seem to recall Mitch posting a little more than just that. However, I doubt Peev bothered to read it. He was just a little to excited and frothed up to jump in on the unfounded claim that folks “like us” refer to certain people as A-Rabs.
What a putz.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:29 pm
RickDFL quoted:
“Operating on a model similar to the Lebanese Hezbollah, his sustainable program provides shelter, food and non-food items to hundreds of thousands of Shiites in Iraq”
and said:
“Sadr does more to provide services to Iraqis than the Malaki government”
I had no idea that RickDFL though so highly of the “Lebanese Hezbollah” model?
RickDFL also, by his comment here, seems to think Iraq is populated exclusively by Shiites?
Yes, RickDFL, your opinion on Iraq is very weighty and important…to you alone.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Troy:
Check the diaper, your brain leaked out.
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
That counters which arguement exactly?
May 5th, 2008 at 7:44 am
Badda:
If you can find an argument in Troy’s post, please share it with the rest of us.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:52 am
*snicker*
“Reaon number gazillion” why I know RickDFL is obtuse.
May 5th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Troy:
Feel free to try to find an argument in your 12:29 post and explain it to the rest of us.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Brave, Brave, Brave Sir Troy, bravely ran away.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Um, or he just ignored you. *shrug*