So you won't read it at the New York Times. Because, you know, it's all about the narrative.

So you won't read it at the New York Times.

That's just not true. The New York Times already did publish this stance, in the form of the widely-discussed piece by O'Hanlon and Pollack, "A war we just might win". That wasn't the first or the last time that the Times gave space to war boosters. In particular, it published a full transcript of Bush's speech on Iraq on Wednesday, all 5000 words.

So the Times certainly does show its readers what the war boosters say. They're eager to do it. They just don't do it on demand.

In this case, the "Vets for Freedom" aren't saying anything that O'Hanlon and Pollack didn't already say. Worse, they dodged two of the central points of "The War as We Saw It". Their point was, first, that the Iraqi Army is treacherous and not worth training or fighting with. Second, that most of the Iraqi people resent the American occupation, regardless of what they think of the toppling of Saddam Hussein; and the US Army will never dispel that resentment. The "Vets for Freedom" only said that Iraqi has been made safer in some regions if not others. "The War as We Saw It" said the same thing. Moreover the Iraq War has always been such a patchwork; the real problem is that they keep buying time without any strategic gain.

Meanwhile the Times has a wise editorial on Nouri al-Maliki that contradicts both Bush and Clinton:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/24/opinion/24fri1.html

They explain that Maliki is a piece of **** as a statesman: he's divisive and Islamist to the core. But he's only a replacement for another guy who was hardly different. Replacing the prime minister again would look colonialist and would only produce another loser. The real problem is that the invasion destroyed both Iraqi secularism and Iraqi unity.

I see that the coward has once again decided to miss the point. There is a huge difference between printing an oped by pundits, and printing one by soldiers in the field. The oped that the NYT saw fit not to print was a response to one written by combat veterans a while ago that was being touted SPECIFICALLY because the writers were veterans. To ignore the difference in the impact of publishing articles from 'just another group of pundits' and those from veterans is either willfully ignorant or simply dishonest...you choose...

As for the fact that the NYT had already published a pro-surge oped...well la-di-da! So they met their quota? Shouldn't the real test be not how many were published (and I would wager that the ratio of pro- to anti- in the Times would be something on the order of 1:5 or so, so much for balance), but how relevant were those chosen.

On the subject of Maliki...perhaps he is not an ideal prospect, but rarely do we get ideal prospects in reality. Suggesting that Iraqi unity (enforced at gunpoint by a sadistic dictator, or are we now going to endorse Saddam and his methods?) or Iraqi secularism (also enforced at gunpoint...or do you think that sectarian divisions in society just poppped up in response to Bushitler?) were necessarily things to cherish. I am sure that we would ALL prefer that Iraq was a peaceful secular state where decisions were made in New England -style town meetings and all was participatory and cool... Not going to happen, and the sooner we learn to accept that, the better. Perhaps it was overly optimistic to hope that democracy would flourish (as for myself, I am not ready to give up yet, but I will concede that many differ), but suggesting that a better alternative would have been to leave Saddam in power is revolting even for the sort of comments one often sees submitted anonymously.

Scott:"There is a huge difference between printing an oped by pundits, and printing one by soldiers in the field. "

A fact so obvious that one would hope that it would never be necessary for anyone to have to point it out. But the left ignores many obvious facts all the time, any that don't fall in line with their slanted world view, so I should not and am not surprised that anonymous coward missed this one.

So they met their quota?

They don't have any "quota", except in the minds of those who resent the Times for its "bias". (Or really, for not catering enough to their own bias.) And as relevance goes, nothing is more relevant than the words of the Commander in Chief, which on Wednesday they published in full, faithful copy. After all, the troops aren't the "decider".

Suggesting that Iraqi unity (enforced at gunpoint by a sadistic dictator, or are we now going to endorse Saddam and his methods?) or Iraqi secularism (also enforced at gunpoint...or do you think that sectarian divisions in society just poppped up in response to Bushitler?) were necessarily things to cherish.

That's right, Scott, they are too expensive in Iraq to "cherish". Iraq already has democracy: it has already had several rounds of elections. Unity and secularism are the only positives that the US is still chasing in Iraq. But you're absolutely right that unity and secularism were enforced at gunpoint in Iraq. Now that we shot that gun away, it's time to go home.

So let me see if I get this right...we are to be blamed for plunging Iraq into chaos and violence, but it is OK for us to just shrug and leave because the cost of helping to remediate a problem that you claim we caused is too high? Wow, am I glad that the left is composed of such caring humanitarians...we would be in big trouble if it were in the hands of us heartless conservatives...

On the subject of bias, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the Times being biased. It is a privately held corporation, and is thus entitled to any bias it wishes to show. With that said, however, it is NOT entitled to claim itself 'unbiased' or somehow suggest that it is presenting anything more than whatever Pinch and the boys think will support their own narrative.

If this is the best you can come up with, please go waste someone else's time. I will happily debate wtih those that choose to give a name.

So let me see if I get this right...we are to be blamed for plunging Iraq into chaos and violence, but it is OK for us to just shrug and leave because the cost of helping to remediate a problem that you claim we caused is too high?

No, the cost of wishing that we can fix Iraq's disunity and theocracy is too high. It's a $100 billion a year just for wishful thinking. Actually fixing them would be great, but that's not what we're doing.

You yourself said that we shouldn't necesssarily "cherish" unity and secularism in Iraq. You're right, in the sense that you shouldn't cherish what you can't have.

" ",

What was the cost of US Army Europe in (say) 1985? How about the cost of US Forces Korea, in (say) 1989?

Why is $100 billion / year too high?
By what measure? Is this $100 billion / year ALL spent on expendables, and therefore gone?

I submit that much of this $100 billion / year is making up for the 1990's "procurement holiday", and other defense ossification of the Clinton era.

The post-Cold War reconfiguration that US Forces needed, but didn't get, in the 1990's is happening now, in the most cost-effective way possible. The changes are occuring in the crucible of combat, where bad ideas disappear very quickly, and good ideas get implemented even faster -- and without all the polito-bureaucratic crap that screws things up in peacetime. Five years in Iraq creates over 15 years' worth of peacetime capacity upgrades, and with less money wasted on bad ideas and political pet projects.

For that, $100 billion / year is a bargain.

Five years in Iraq creates over 15 years' worth of peacetime capacity upgrades, and with less money wasted on bad ideas and political pet projects.

It's actually the opposite. The Iraq war is wearing down both people and equipment and creating huge future liabilities, on top of the $100 billion per year authorized. There is some debate as to just how big these liabilities are, but a typical estimate is that they are at least as big as the contemporaneous budget. That was what happened after the Vietnam War. In Iraq, they ask for and spend $100 billion per year, and create at least another $100 billion per year in future costs.

They have spent $450 billion so far on the Iraq war. No one expects the end total to come in under a trillion. Two trillion may be a good median estimate.

What was the cost of US Army Europe in (say) 1985? How about the cost of US Forces Korea, in (say) 1989?

I don't know about 1989, but right now it costs about $3 billion per year to deploy 37,000 troops to South Korea. The Iraq war is 30 times that, and 8 times as high per soldier deployed. Combat is much more expensive than just standing guard.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/GD08Dg01.html

No, the cost of wishing that we can fix Iraq's disunity and theocracy is too high.

Theocracy? That's just stupid. How can a country be both "disunified" and a theocracy? Iran is a theocracy. Afghanistan under the Taliban was a theocracy. Saudi Arabia is a theocracy. Iraq isn't religiously or ideologically unified, but this has always been the case since the country is a forced grouping of several major and numerous minor ethno-religious groups.

We're in Iraq not out of some Wilsonian zeal to perfect the place, but because it's a large and influential country that was a major danger to us under the old regime, because it's a centrally located choke point for exerting political leverage in the Middle East, and because everything else we tried short of invasion and democratization failed.

How can a country be both "disunified" and a theocracy?

The part controlled by the Shiites is a Shiite theocracy; the part controlled by the Sunni Arabs is a Sunni theocracy. Eventually Iraq's lack of unity (civil war) will disappear. Kurdistan will secede and the Shiites will crush the Sunni Arabs. Then it will just be a Shiite theocracy.

Kurdistan will secede and the Shiites will crush the Sunni Arabs. Then it will just be a Shiite theocracy.

How happy exactly will the Saudi government be about having a Shiite theocracy next door?

Gee, here I was thinking Saudi Arabia was a monarchy with a king and all.

""

Actually, it is NOT the exact opposite. The equipment wear rates are higher, but equipment can be refurbished, IF it fits the military's long range needs. Otherwise, it can be sold or transferred (Foreign Military Sales).

The "wear out" of soldiers and Marines is more a wearing on families. The soldiers and officers are mastering the lessons of the 21st century battlefield, instead of rehearsing the Cold War in a very constrained, conservative, resource limited environment.

Years of improvement occurring in months. That is the consequence of warfare in general, and for our forces in Iraq specifically.

Contradict me all you want, but a counterargument would be more effective in convincing me -- if you care to try.

PS: Costs of USFK is actually much higher than 3 billion -- but the host country picks up much of the tab, now that it is fairly wealthy.

Gee, here I was thinking Saudi Arabia was a monarchy with a king and all.

Think about what else the majority of Saudi Arabia is. Please. I know it's hard, but think.