Clarification

It won't really matter, what the policy wants to be in Iraq.
After 6 years, the army is done.

To win this election, it will be critical to appeal to the dwindling but stubborn group of idiots who cling to fantasies of American "victory" in this tragic disaster.

This was written as a joke, but it is close to the truth.

As is obvious to all but the most deluded HuffPo retard, the surge in Iraq has produced dramatic improvements in security throughout Iraq, and the roots of a stable pro-American democracy.

This, on the other hand, was meant to be the truth, but it is a grim joke. As is obvious to most adults in America and in the rest of the free world --- to everyone but a minority of September 11th Americans --- the surge in Iraq has only stanched the deterioration of security in Iraq. And it has watered the roots of a barely stable, fundamentally anti-American half-democracy.

... the surge in Iraq has only stanched the deterioration of security in Iraq.

Sure, as long as you don't let facts get in the way of that mirage you see through your defeatism-tinted glasses. But it's good that you and your Messiah have the audacity to continue to hope for failure in Iraq, despite massive mounting evidence to the contrary.

And here's what the "rest of the free world" is starting to realize. From the Spiegel, no less, not exactly a hotbed of Iraq optimists.

But it's good that you and your Messiah have the audacity to continue to hope for failure in Iraq,

There is a difference between predicting and hoping --- although the numerous "predictions" on this site that Obama has "no chance" don't really speak to it --- and there is also a difference between predicting the future and summarizing the present. The article in Der Spiegel is probably fair enough, but it isn't the whole truth and doesn't claim to be. Yes, if you stanch the deterioration of security in a country, the locals will be relieved or even elated. But it isn't the same as victory or stability.

There are easy ways to see that there is no foundation of victory or security in Arab Iraq. (Kurdistan, which has effectively seceded, is a separate matter.) One of them is that Americans can't travel in Arab Iraq without an armed escort. They could do that in 2002; now they can't. Another is that most Iraqi Christians have fled and aren't coming back.

Again, the real problem is that the new Iraq is fundamentally anti-American. The prime minister of Iraq sings praises to Iran. A terrorist convicted of bombing the US embassy in Kuwait was elected to the Iraqi parliament. The only Arab Iraqis that the US trusts, in particular the only soldiers, are the ones that it pays. Iraq is a prostituted imitation of an ally and the war is an expensive charade of victory. And most of the voters know it --- the cat is out of the bag.

"men of experience, organization, knowledge and the willingness to make sacrifices," are authorized to continue to carry weapons and use them "against the occupation, and no one else," and must do so in "absolute secrecy," writes the militia leader. The others, he continues, "thousands, rather millions," are obligated to fight in "cultural, social and religious" ways against "secular thoughts, against Western hegemony and globalization."

Sadr's sermon ends with a threat: "Those who refuse to abide by this assignment of duties are no longer with me

This tells me that Sadr is ultimately a loser. While he will still make trouble for as long as he is alive; He is losing the culture war. As the situation improves for the average Iraqi, he is going to lose the culture war at a faster pace as more are no longer with him.

When there are fewer bad guys in Iraq than there are here in the USA can we then call it a win?

If Obama wins, the sad thing is he will get credit for pulling the troops out which will happen only because of the stability those troops brought to the country in the first place.

Jim,
When you play directly into and help illustrate the point the obvious satire was making, then it just shows to everyone that you have become part of the joke. You really should censor your inner voice a little. Its making you look stupid.

This "speech" made me laugh out loud. Excellent satire.

"It won't really matter, what the policy wants to be in Iraq.
After 6 years, the army is done."

"It won't really matter, what the policy wants to be in Iraq.
After 6 years, the army is done."

Done is what sense? Finished with the insurgents perhaps. Spent? Only a fool would think that.

Jim, I was afraid everything you said would be mere assertion. So many on your side mistake a logically consistent argument for a fact, and do not realize that history and the mind of man is littered with bazillions of perfectly plausible, reasonable, eminently obvious and sensible ideas which are dead wrong.

However, you have asserted four facts in support of your thesis that Iraq is headed into the pit, with the recent amazing reduction in violence (something like 95% to 99%, if I recall correctly) being merely a pause on the slide into doom, viz.:

(1) Americans can't travel in Iraq without an armed escort, but could do so in 2002.

(2) Most Iraqi Christians have fled. (That they "aren't coming back" is merely your wild guess.)

(3) The prime minister of Iraq sings praises to Iran.

(4) A terrorist convicted of bombing the US embassy in Kuwait was elected to the Iraqi parliament.

Let us for the sake of argument grant every one of these facts, and ask whether that proves your thesis. I suggest not. In the first place, that Americans could travel without armed guard through Saddam Hussein's dictatorship in 2002, but not through the wilder parts of Anbar in 2008, is very likely just proof that a brutal dictatorship with a cowering populace has less in the way of ordinary criminal behaviour. No doubt wealthy American Jews could travel through Germany in 1938 without being harassed by the Gestapo, too.

Second, what you are (conveniently?) overlooking is the fact that violence against Americans is clearly the act of a small wacked minority of Iraqis (or even in many cases of non-Iraqi infiltrators), and is not a broad-based popular resentment. If it were, we'd see soldier's convoys pelted with rocks, a civilian population eager to hide the perpetrators and reluctant to rat them out, no cooperation from local authority, people putting rat shit in the food they sell to the troops, et cetera. None of it is happening. That a small minority of Iraqis hates the Americans is unimportant. A small minority of Australians undoubtably hates the Americans and would blow a few up if it were convenient.

Next, the fact that Christians have fled is, first of all, not especially impressive. How many Christians were there to begin with? If all the Samoans or Fiji Islanders were to flee America, would you say America was on the brink of collapse?

Secondly, if Christians per se are fleeing, it would seem likely the result of religious hostility from their Islamic neighbors. That may be regrettable and boorish, but it is not evidence of civil breakdown. Quite a lot of Muslim countries are intolerant of Christians. A number of Christian countries have been, at least, intolerant of Muslims. So? This does not mean the countries don't function. It just means they're not pleasant to live in if you're part of a certain disapproved-of minority group. It is a sad historical fact that brutal dictatorships do tend to be more broadly religiously and ethnically tolerant (it's only political deviation that is severely punished). Under the Soviet Union the various ethnic and religious factions in the USSR (Ukrainian, Georgian, Armenian, Russian, Muslim, Christian, Tatar, et cetera) mixed more freely. Religious and ethnic intolerance tends to be a "grassroots" kind of thing you get spontaneously from your neighbors. It's suppressed by a dictatorship, and flourishes as central power decreases and democracy increases.

Next, the fact that the prime minister of Iraq says positive things about Iran certainly does not prove that Iraq is "fundamentally anti-American." George Bush says negative things about Iran. Does that prove America is "fundamentally anti-Iranian?" Let us strive for logical consistency here.

Finally, the fact that one legislator is provably toxically anti-American is nothing more than proof that Iraqi democracy is alive and well, and that even the vicious bastards have their (tiny) share of representation. What does it prove that Maxine Waters, who thinks AIDS is a plot by the Pentagon to destroy the black people of America, and who would nationalize oil companies without a second thought, is a U.S. Representative? Certainly not that her attitudes are mainstream US thinking, but rather just that in a democratic republic even the moonbats are able to elect a representative, if they are geographically concentrated enough.

I'm wondering in general if you realize that a free society is a rather messy and disordered place to live, and that a calm, polite, well-ordered, completely efficient and blandly inoffensive society is pretty much proof of brutal oppression. Human beings are not insects, you know.

Jim, I always thought you were an idiot for your opinions. Now I know you're an idiot for falling into this trap. This particular thread makes you look like the moron I now know you to be for reasons that have nothing to do with your political leanings. Congratulations.

I wish Rand had an "Ignore poster" feature ...

The limit on policy is the ability to enforce a policy.
The ultimate tool for enforcement is military force,
and above that are embargos, blockades, sanctions,
diplomatic pressure, and angry words at the UN.

The US has about 15 brigades in Iraq, and has been
stuck at above 10 brigades since 2003. Add in the 5 brigades
on UN border duties, Korea, Bosnia, Afghanistan, that's
a lot of force at high op-tempo and particularly not
training for full-spectrum warfare.

Consequently most US military brigades are at very low levels
of readiness, and the wear on the men has been hitting the
breaking point for 2 years. 40% of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan now take anti-anxiety pills, 15% are problem
drinkers when they return stateside. Drinking is a problem
on bases in Iraq, which raises issues about Morale and Leadership.

Whatever forces are being reduced from deployment in Iraq
are now being redeployed to Afghanistan, so, the strain
is not being relieved from the Regulars.

It is highly unlikely that the Next President will have
any ability to continue deployments at this level and
will be forced by reality to reduce presence down to some
minimum, most likely 30,000 men or fewer.

It is highly unlikely Iraq will handle that transition
well. The other choice is a significant increase in
Guard or Reserve callups, or a draft.

Given the current deterioration in the Regulars, I cannot
see them handling another 2 deployments in Iraq at the
current level.

Geez, Brock, I think that's unfair and mean. I dunno what he's said elsewhere, but in this thread I don't think Jim Harris has given evidence of being a moron, and he did make factual points to support his assertions, which is distinctly non-moronlike behaviour.

He may be wrong (and I think he is), but I don't think he's a moron, and I don't think he's been (at least in this thread) obnoxious enough to deserve being called names. He's done no worse than vigorously express his opinion, as have we all. I think he should be given credit for being willing to step into a hostile arena and argue his case. So many people these sad days just sit around the ol' echo chamber with like-thinking people and say Yeah! What he said!

Carl, I don't blame the bull for attacking the cape instead of the Matador, but when people do it, that says to me they're morons. Jim even used the very same beliefs attributed to "deluded HuffPo retards" without an ounce of irony or attempt to show why someone not a HuffPo retard would believe this; just more baseless assertions, as Rand said.

And that's dumb. Saying that may be mean, but it's not unfair.

Carl, just to elaborate, you admit that you believe Jim is wrong on this issue. I agree. Further, I recognize at least two kinds of "wrong" (in the sense of "not correct"). You could call them "understandably wrong" and "ignorantly wrong."

Examples of Understandably Wrong: Aristotle, John Maynard Keynes, and the Bush/Blair assessment re: Iraq's WMD's circa 2003. Also historically, me, on issues important and petty.

Examples of Ignorantly Wrong: Communist/Socialist sympathizers (especially since the crimes of the USSR and Mao's China have been revealed), Creationists and Jim Harris.

People in the second category don't get a lot of patience from me.

"Given the current deterioration in the Regulars, I cannot
see them handling another 2 deployments in Iraq at the
current level."

Less than 15 percent of our total force structure is deployed in SW Asia. Your information is highly suspect.

john smith wrote:

"The US has about 15 brigades in Iraq, and has been
stuck at above 10 brigades since 2003.....that's
a lot of force at high op-tempo"

And they just had a record setting number of troops re-up their commitment to stay in the services and stay in Iraq. If it is so bad, why do so many want to stay?

"40% of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan now take anti-anxiety pills, 15% are problem
drinkers when they return stateside."

Even if these figures are true I wonder how they stand up against the mean averages of general population that have issues with anti-anxiety pills and alcoholism. The military is comprised of people and people aren't perfect. Therefore, you will find the same types of social issues faced by general populations at large present in the military. If the percentages of issues rise above general population rates then you can say their may be some potential issues and find ways to have those addressed. Regardless, I don't see how that equates to a military writ all having to withdraw because of drug abuse.

"It is highly unlikely Iraq will handle that transition
well. The other choice is a significant increase in
Guard or Reserve callups, or a draft. "

Well this is a mighty big leap. I think you are making the fallacy of purposely limiting the potential of your propositions in order to support your conclusion. Besides, some would argue that we are in the transition phase of turn over and that the downturn in violence is as a result of the Iraqi's trying and willing to show us they can head into a transitory direction. Are we anyway near that point in terms of a hard deadline. Don't know, tough to say because a transition certainly is not going to be easy. We have shown that we can work at this Iraq situation so far by tackling the major issues and flesh out the small ones along the way. We still have a number of critical tasks ahead that is for sure.

john smith - "15% are problem drinkers"

Um, have you ever lived near a military base? The percentage is WAY higher than that, war or no war. Something about young men having fun, etc.

Yes, war is hell - they knew that when they enlisted, and many enlisted after 9/11. A couple of my friends did - they were all college grads (one has a masters), and they enlisted in the army as non-officers. These are people that will do what is right and necessary no matter what the personal cost, and they deserve our thanks and support.

Even if they do drink more than average. (I mean really - they are mostly college age. How many people at your college didn't have a "drinking problem"?)

When you play directly into and help illustrate the point the obvious satire was making, then it just shows to everyone that you have become part of the joke.

There are times when someone tries to wave away the simple truth by casting it as a satire, and this is one of them. I suspect that you can appreciate this analogy.

Iowahawk: Today I'll be the smug anti-libertarian who thinks that Burt Rutan gets his jollies by blowing stuff up in the desert and killing people. HAW HAW HAW HAW

Reasonable person: It wasn't a source of jollies, but in fact Scaled Composites did have an accidental explosion that killed three of their workers. Rutan unaccountably said that nitrous oxide isn't dangerous.

Iowahawk fan: Son, you proved the point of the satire by walking right into it. HAW HAW HAW HAW

I see that Jim Harris continues to utilize my web site to beclown himself. I wonder why?

The DoD total force is quite large, but the working end of
the US Army is the Battalion and the Brigade. While 15% of the
human count is in Iraq/afghanistan, it is varying between
30-40% of the trigger pullers who compose our battalions
and brigades. This has resulted in infantry officers
who have done as many as tours in southwest asia in the
special forces and 5-6 tours for the marines.
This is very hard on soldiers with wives, children,
family obligations (Aged parents), and each of these tours
has been hard on the men.

Add in the requirement for other hardship duty posts, Korea,
Egypt, Bosnia,Kosovo, and you see over 40% overseas.

Add in mandatory training time, refit, debrief, and the
men get very little time to decompress.

In Vietnam Hard core types did two tours, Real stone cold
warriors did 3, now in the Leg infantry, there are very
few NCO's or Officers who have NOT done 3 overseas combat
rotations.

and while many americans take Xanax and Zoloft and other anti-anxiety pills, the sole metric is what percentage
of soldiers in 1997 were on anti-anxiety pills. I suspect
it's almost na order of magnitude increase.
That it is newsworthy enough to make the cover of Time
should indicate that this is a substantial and troubling
change.

When President Bush ordered the commitment of large scale forces, Gen Shinseki gave a speech at his retirement
entitled "Beware the 12 division strategy and the 10 division
army". All of his warnings have come true.

That these problems will take a long time to wring out
will list Sec Rumsfeld alongside Sec McNamara as
one of the worst Defense secretaries in the history
of the Union.