Captain's Quarters -

The problem with the surge is that, even if it does "work" or at least bring more stability to Baghdad, what does that really accomplish?

The intent of the surge as I know it is to buy time for training of Iraqi forces and political developments. To me, the three things go hand in hand.

I remain very skeptical that the Iraqi army will EVER stand up and fight for the Maliki government on its own. Or at least that a large enough portion of it will to successfully keep the government in power.

If the US pulls out right now, I think many people feel the Maliki government would fall. But what does that say about the state of Iraq and its support for the government? After four years, billions of US dollars toward training, it still seems the the will of the people is not behind this government.

And training really isn't the problem. How much training to the militias have? It's about WILL. And if the will of the Iraqi people is not strongly behind the government -- at least enough for men and women to stand up to fight for it -- what business is it of the US to stay and prop it up? I've said this before, but I think a major hinderence of the Maliki government gaining support is the fact that the US in propping it up.

That's why a political solution is so important. The surge MAY work somewhat in the short term, but it is in no way a long term solution to anything. Political gains need to be made so that the government has the support of most Iraqis, at least enough to stand on its own against the insurgency.

Iraq is an odd situation. In Vietnam, we entered into a Civil War to help defend one side. The side's were already drawn when we go there.

In Iraq, we created a Civil War and the sides were drawn with us in there. Our continued presence makes it difficult for those lines to clearly form. Though if we completely pull out, things will go completely to hell.

That's why I'm in favor of a phased withdrawal... not necissarily with a time-table. But we need to start getting out of there so that the Iraqis can start owning their country.

McCain goes to a market 3 minutes away from the Green zone and needs to be wearing body armor, flanked by 100 American soldiers, 3 Blackhawk helicopters, and 2 Apache gunships.

Then he tells us it's safe to "stroll" in some ares of Baghdad. That's an insult to anyone who's paying attention's intelligence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD5C5FOmK40

The guy has lost it and has no chance of leading this country.

Oh here's the Straight Talk Express ...Baghdad Style.

http://images.worldofstock.com/slides/TRO1338.jpg

Do you all understand a basic doctrine of military counter insurgency is 1 troop for 40 people of the population? Do the math. This is nothing but a stall tactic and more soldiers have and will die needlessly. Republicans and their leadership who support this need to pay seriously for this because it is THEY who are signing on to kill and maim more troops with NO hope of success.

I'm with you Captain, when you write that our success will expose Harry and Nancy and all their corrupt little gang as accolites of failure and defeat and victimology. My question would be "To whom would this be a revelation?".

Harry and Nancy and the rest of the kids will never see the point in paying any price to spread freedom in the world because they don't believe in it. They have always seen freedom as the source of racism and pollution and inequality and war and every other calamity in human history, and therefore the last thing on earth worth sacrificing to expand. They really do believe that the vast majority of human beings are too stupid to know how to run their own lives, much less the life of a nation state, and that the educated and enlightened MUST step up and assume responsibility for the masses.

So where is the revelation? And where will the outrage come from? Who will be surprised? And therefore, what price will be paid?

Tom,

Your argument is being echoed over and over again by the moderate left. We do need to put pressure on the Maliki government to increase the movement of political solutions. But that can't be done if security in Baghdad falls. The entire reason for the surge is to create more security in Baghdad, hold that security and spread it outwards as we train the Iraqi troops who are improving every week.

We learned hard lessons over these past 4 years and now we have the right General in place to move us towards creating stability so Iraq can take care of itself. We are seeing positive results...that is undeniable. Why not give it a reasonable amount of time to work? I understand you don't think it could ever really work....at least you're not pushing for a hard deadline. But a phased withdrawal at this juncture would reverse all the progress we've made over the past few months.

I think Tom Shipley has it right.

The surge is a short term strategy to allow the U.S. to draw down with some dignity. The fact that we will be drawing down prior to the 2008 elections is, in my mind, now a given.
Nervous Congressional Republicans will not continue to support a costly pacification strategy.

Even if the surge works as hoped, the Demcorats will deny and raise the ante, The Democrats enemy is Bush and the Republicans, not Islamic terrorism.

muirgeo, if you know about counter insurgency you would know troop ratios have very little to do with actual success.

This won't be won in a conventional manner, it will be won only if there is enough security for an independent society to take hold, build momentum, and fight rebelion themselves. That takes 2-5 years, and we are only now doing this correctly. The new path will work if executed correctly and the necessary time is provided. The only thing that will prevent success will be liberal politics.

I am in agreement with this is a stop gap measure for the GOP to get out of Iraq with some sort of victory on their plate. They know it is total suicide for the GOP to keep up this fight into the election cycle of 2008. We all know also that whenever we leave things will flare up. It is totally stupid to believe that this surge will continue to work after we are gone. These maniacs will bide their time and simply attack around the city and will pick up in the capital again once we are gone or start to pull out. They could care less if we are there for the next 5 years of the next 50 years.

But then again some people still think there is some sort of winnable solution here. Like McCain.

Iraq is an odd situation. In Vietnam, we entered into a Civil War to help defend one side. The side's were already drawn when we go there.

FYI Tom, South Vietnam was basically the creation of the U.S. after the Viet Minh defeated the French in 1954. The U.S. tried very hard to prop up the South Vietnamese regime after that, but that regime never managed to prop itself up.

At this point, the U.S. military is really being used by all sides in Iraq to further their own interests. The Shia would love the U.S. to keep the Sunnis down while they consolidate their power, while the Sunnis would love to provoke the Shiite militias to come out in the open so the U.S. can fight them too. The Kurds want us to stay so they can take back Kirkuk and establish their own autonomous state within a failed state. The "surge" while providing some respite in Baghdad isn't resolving the underlying problems that the failed Iraqi state faces. Then again, I think the escalation is meant more to buy time until January 20th, 2009 for President Bush than anything else. Meanwhile, more people die in Iraq than before despite the escalation, including more U.S. troops. A bit of spin now is just so much spitting in the wind, I'm afraid.

Captain's Quarters

Previewing your Comment

That McCain would be ridiculed in the MSM more than intelligently challenged to support his views is a symptom of one of the big problems with this war. Republicans have been outdone in "spin" capacity for decades by the Democrats and the MSM. The characterization of Karl Rove as an evil PR genius diverts attention from the Democrats' PR dominance.

Another part of the problem is the nature of modern news programs. Conservative positions tend not to lend themselves well to slogans and sound bites. People are encouraged to pay more attention to the fights between politicians than to the ideas behind the fights.

The current Democratic talking point that Afghanistan is far more important that Iraq is completely ludicrous. They would be laughed out of Washington if people like Helen Thomas, the "Doyenne of the White House Press Corps", did not dominate the MSM. She proudly told Vanity Fair recently that the person she admires most is Jimmy Carter, the American who gave radical islamists their biggest boost forward onto the world stage. And the person she named first as a personal hero was Ramsey Clark. She also stated that she would like to be president if she came back in another life. Some "objective reporter".

In the current conflict, media-savvy jihadists also join in tearing down Bush and our military. And you can't say that either Bush or the military are fighting back effectively in the media. Much of the pro-jihad rhetoric out there is so alarming that you would think that someone could come up with an effective way to use it to further the world's best interests.

I disagree pilsener, I think Tom Shipley has it exactly wrong.

First of all, he assumes that we have nothing at risk in the final outcome of Iraq's future, or that we have no power or influence in affecting that future. He can't imagine that there is a strategy that hold's significant promise to stop terrorism itself, or that the sacrifices attendant to its execution might be well worth the goal.

Second, he talks about the "Maliki Government" as if it had nothing to do with the Iraqi people who created and elected it. Inspite of all of those Iraqi's who risked their lives by the millions and voted to decide every crucial step along the way, Tom can't seem to imagine Iraqi's feeling any sense of "ownership" in their country like any American would and can't get past his vietnam era lexicon.

And third, he assumes that our proper objective should be nothing more than returning to some mythical status quo ante where nobody get's killed and everybody is quiet and we can all go back to debating health care and social security reform. He can't imagine that expanding representative government to the world is the same thing as reaffirming it here.

None of these assumptions are true.

"That McCain would be ridiculed in the MSM more than intelligently challenged to support his views is a symptom of one of the big problems with this war."

Karen, do you have an example of the "MSM" ridiculing McCain?

John McCain took a lot heat this week for asserting that the security situation has improved since the beginning of the surge. Michael Ware at CNN especially ridiculed his comments, and scenes of McCain touring Baghdad with a heavy security detail brough more derision.
McCain was not ridiculed for asserting that the security situation has improved. In fact, nobody argues with this. He was ridiculed for saying utter nonsense, like "there are places in Baghdad where you and I could take a stroll", and for his insane "just like a market in Indiana"/"five rugs for fives bucks" expedition.
What you say is the same as if Al Gore said that Global Warming would kill every living being on Earth tomorrow, and somebody would claim that criticizing him for saying this would mean being a Global Warming denialist.

To emphasize a point others have mentioned, the military task of pacifying is the essential first step of winning the confidence of Iraqis for their own government. If the government provides no security for them, they have to provide it for theirselves; but once it does so, and also shows that it can provide the governmental services that they voted for, they can start trusting it with other areas as well.

Thus the need for the tactic change. And yes, our soldiers are building civics projects as well... It's all part of the same fabric.

Michael Ware at CNN especially ridiculed his comments,

No, he didn't Ed. That bit of spin from Matt Drudge has already been shown to be a lie:

CNN reporter slams Drudge's charge that he 'heckled' McCain; Exclusive video confirms his claim

CNN reporter Michael Ware this morning hit back at news aggregator Matt Drudge who accused him on Sunday of "heckling" Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham at a Baghdad press conference. Video acquired by RAW STORY appeared to show a short press conference without any interruptions and with Ware himself asking no questions during the question and answer session.

On CNN this morning, Ware denied the Drudge Report "exclusive" which ran yesterday and questioned Drudge's source.

"This is a report that was leaked by an unnamed official of some kind to a blog, to somewhere on the internet," Ware told Soledad O'Brien this morning on CNN, according to an unofficial transcript posted at the conservative blog Power Line. "No one has gone and put their name forward. We certainly haven't heard Senator McCain say anything about it or any of his staff have come forward to say anything about it."

LeaningRT,

I guess I would be more optimistic -- and more willing to back further deployment of large amounts of US troops in Iraq -- if I saw more from Iraqis.

And I think part of the problem is that with the US there, there's no room for a real Iraqi leader to step. If we start withdrawing and Iraqis realize how screwed they may be once we completely leave, then maybe people will start standing up for a strong, central government. I don't know.

But this article pretty much reflects a lot of what I feel about Iraq, especially these paragraphs...

"The foremost challenge is to persuade a sufficient number of Iraq's people to overcome a visceral desire to see their occupiers humiliated, and act on the basis of self-interest. However successful are Petraeus and his brightest and best in holding the ring, only the Iraqis can save themselves.

Today, as McCaffrey acknowledges: "No Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat, reporter, foreign NGO, nor contractor can walk the streets of Baghdad, nor Mosul, nor Kirkuk, nor Tikrit, nor Najaf, nor Ramadi, without heavily armed protection." Surge or no surge, there are not remotely enough western troops in Iraq to alter this wretched reality. Only the people who live there can do it.

At the end of my own spasm of soul-searching, I cannot quit my place among the gloom-mongers. It is hard to believe that, whatever tactical military successes Petraeus's people are achieving - and these are real enough - Iraq's leaders, security forces and citizens can take the strain in real time. We still look like losing."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2048806,00.html

But then again some people still think there is some sort of winnable solution here

The price the people of Iraq, (and our military), have paid for releasing themselves from tyranny and establishing a workable and secure government should NOT be dictated by a timeline or any political persuasion as implied by muirgo and monkie.

Would the declaration and the forming of our own government have been possible if our forfathers put their political asperations, (or a timeline), ahead of the goals of a united nation?

I would suggest that it has been the total lack of support by a democrat party that is partially responsible for the extention of tours necessary to bring stability to the Iraq.

Attacking Bush, McCain, the GOP are perfect examples of this.

Trusting that the Iraqi people would prefer living in a free and stable society should be the forefront of our sacrifices and not what our political adversary's next position would be.

SF Dude,

I'm talking about Ware's appearance on CNN after McCain's statement, not the press conference.

"Michael Ware at CNN especially ridiculed his comments"

Yeah, to back-up Starfleet Dude, that story was completely false (if that is what Ed is referring to). I watched the video, and as far as it show, Ware just sat there the entire press conference.

Ware did challange McCain on what he said later on CNN, but he didn't ridicule him. He did come down hard on Drudge for that report, though.

Lew -

The part that I thought Tom Shipley had right is that :

1. We will substantially withdraw fom Iraq within the next 18 months.

2. The Maliki government will probably fall.

Will there be a whole lot of Iraqi on Iraqi killing - YES
Will the U.S. position in the world be weakened - YES
Will this hurt the War On Terrorism - YES
Will Iran's position in the Middle East be strengthened to the U.S. detriment-YES
Will we be able to maintain some isolationist status quo that does not involve fighting Islamic fundamentalist terrorism - NO

By going into Iraq, President Bush adopted a high-risk strategy to remake the Middle East and reduce the base for terrorists. I supported that effort. Unfortunately, in the sense that it is no longer politically sustainable, it appears to have failed, . So it is time to formulate new strategies, both short-run and long-run, for the War against Islamic Fundamentalism.

I fully agree that none of it has anything to do with Vietnam. I also believe that the Democrats are hurting themselves by portraying Bush as an enemy, and the real enemies as just misunderstood victims of the U.S.

Thanks for clearing that up for me Ed, I do appreciate it. However, I think that Ware's critisism of McCain's silly assertions about Baghdad and Iraq were on base, and that the attempt to smear Ware via Drudge in response is totally dishonest.

No sweat. I should have been more specific in the post.

"Would the declaration and the forming of our own government have been possible if our forfathers put their political asperations, (or a timeline), ahead of the goals of a united nation?"

Would the declaration and the forming of our own government have been possible if a foreign country was running the show?

THAT'S the real question.

"I guess I would be more optimistic -- and more willing to back further deployment of large amounts of US troops in Iraq -- if I saw more from Iraqis."

If you saw the Iraqis carrying their own weight we wouldn't need to be there. Your logic is backwards. The reason we're there is that the Iraqis don't have confidence in their government to fulfill their security, so they invest in other providers of security. Once their government can provide their security, they will be able to invest in it -- and they won't need or want to invest in the groups they're having to now.

And I still have my hopes that the Democrats won't be able to bring themselves to gut ourselves so close to the finish line. They have to suspect that their propaganda machine won't work as well as it did back with Vietnam (where they were easily able to pretend that we had been losing at the time of the drawdown).

McCain was much more specific than that. Ware was responding to McCain's specific claims of Petraeus being able to frolic through Baghdad, not generic statements that the surge is working. Ware himself has said that the surge is working and Dems who want to pull out are idiots. This is what he said:

"anyone trying to put artificial deadlines upon this conflict is only aiding the enemies, so-called, of America, Al Qaeda and Iran. ... [I]n terms of the broader strategic framework, it serves only America's enemies."

Source: MediaMatters whining about it

What really happened? McCain said something stupid, Ware called him on it, and now people are out to destroy Ware as an enemy. That's a mistake.

And I still have my hopes that the Democrats won't be able to bring themselves to gut ourselves so close to the finish line. They have to suspect that their propaganda machine won't work as well as it did back with Vietnam (where they were easily able to pretend that we had been losing at the time of the drawdown).

wtanksleyjr ,

Dafydd at Big Lizzards has an excellent (and as usual, a long) post up titled How to Win/Lose In Iraq

His analogy is spot on for how victory or defeat is defined, as well as how either could be achieved.

And I still have my hopes that the Democrats won't be able to bring themselves to gut ourselves so close to the finish line. They have to suspect that their propaganda machine won't work as well as it did back with Vietnam (where they were easily able to pretend that we had been losing at the time of the drawdown).

wtanksleyjr, at the risk of derailing this topic, you're wrong about why the U.S. withdrew its forces from Vietnam. It wasn't because the U.S. was losing the war or the media, it was because Americans were sick and tired of suffering over 50,000 dead and many more wounded for little or no result. Nixon and Kissinger negotiated a "Peace With Honor" settlement with North Vietnam in 1973 that allowed the U.S. to withdraw its forces while simultaneously pursuing a policy of "Vietnamizing" the war by building up the South Vietnamese Army. That allowed for a window of opportunity to withdraw U.S. forces after 1973, and by 1975 there were relatively few left. When South Vietnam fell in May, 1975 a majority of Americans were not willing to sent troops in again, for good reason.

"If you saw the Iraqis carrying their own weight we wouldn't need to be there. "

If I saw Iraqis carrying their own weight, we'd be making progress and supporting them, not providing security FOR them.

It's troubling when training of the Iraqi army and security forces is going so slowly/poorly. It tells me that Iraqis don't want to step up and be part of this government, or at least protect it.

The US providing security is not going to solve anything long term. Iraqis need to step up, and they just aren't right now.

After four years and with their own country at stake, the lack of will of the Iraqi army and police for is very troubling.

And I think the US being there is part of the problem. I don't know that this Malaki government will ever stand on its own given its close ties and dependence on the US.

"Would the declaration and the forming of our own government have been possible if a foreign country was running the show?

THAT'S the real question"

Indeed it is. And the real answer(s) can be found by asking the Germans or the Japanese.

"And the real answer(s) can be found by asking the Germans or the Japanese."

Are we going to get into this one again?

Insofar as I took your comment to mean that it is not possible for an occupying power to set up a stable democratic government, then no we don't have to get into this again, because you are demonstrably wrong. If, OTOH, you mean specifically Iraq can't be made into a stable democracy, I don't think anyone can say for sure either way. FWIW, I seriously doubt that if we had cut and run from Germany and/or Japan in the late '40's that either would have succeeded as a stable democracy.

The surge must be working, because our resident libs (who assured us that it was a waste of time a month ago) now say that a safer Baghdad doesn't make any difference.

The Maliki government, like any born into a war-torn country, is in a vicious cycle that is hard to break. They can't effectively govern without the faith and support of the people, who won't give support unless the government can keep them safe (i.e. effectively govern).

Incidentally, the leftist bleat that the Iraqis somehow aren't pulling their weight is both untrue and sickening. Reliable ISF casualty figures are not easy to come by, but a Sept. 2006 report from FAS has a chart with several estimates:

Iraq Coalition Casualty Count estimate of Security Forces and Police killed,
June 2003 - September 7, 2006 --- 5332

Brookings’ Institution, Iraq Index, estimate of Security Forces and Police
killed, June 2003 - July 30, 2006 --- 5332

Associated Press, estimate of Security Forces and Police killed, January 2006
- June 2006 --- 805

General Peterson’s spokesperson, estimate of Iraqi Police Officers killed
2005 (General Peterson is the top American police trainer in Iraq) --- 1497

General Peterson’s spokesperson, estimate of Iraqi Police Officers wounded
in 2005 --- 3256

Who's carrying the load here?

The FAS report also shows a bar graph of daily casualty rates. Throughout the course of the war, average Coalition casualties have hovered at around twenty per day. As of the period May 20 through August 11 2006, Iraqi casualties (civilian and ISF) were around 120 per say, or six times greater.(1)

Who's carrying the load here?

Oh, and one more note about how impossible it is for a people to make a government when there are lots of foreigners around, carrying the load:

At the Battle of Yorktown, the following armies were present:

American - 8845

British - 7500

French - 10800 (2)

Had it not been for all those frenchies (you know: foreigners who protected our army?), it isn't at all unreasonable to assume that we would NOT have won our independence and formed our own government.

----------

(1) http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22441.pdf

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Yorktown

doc - you're a treasured commentor here. I was going to make the same points (though not as well as you) you made here -

1) CE's thread hit a major nerve with our resident cut and runners here because they all came out in overwhelming force.

2) YORKTOWN!!! The cut and runners wouldn't know about this because they do not study history.

"Had it not been for all those frenchies (you know: foreigners who protected our army?), it isn't at all unreasonable to assume that we would NOT have won our independence and formed our own government."

Well, I don't know. Yes, the french certainly did help OUR cause. The problem with Iraq is that there doesn't seem to be much of an "iraqi" cause.

In the revolutionary war, WE declared independence and started a rebellion and were later aided by the French.

We had a CAUSE. Iraqis didn't start this war, we did. I think that's a major, if not fatal, flaw with US involvement in Iraq. It's one of the reasons I've been against the war from the start.

Tom, concerning my statement that John McCain was "ridiculed", it might be a good idea to quote an exchange reported via Newsweek's "Checkpoint Baghdad", April 1:

"On a radio talk show last week, the Arizona senator said, "There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through - today." Later in the week, CNN reporter Michael Ware blasted the claim, "I don't know what part of Neverland Senator McCain is talking about when he says we can go strolling in Baghdad".

I guess what I am really talking about is "spin". Michael Ware has more "street cred" to challenge McCain's statement that about any other MSM reporter in Iraq. But he subtly misquotes McCain. Instead of "walking through" some Baghdad neighborhoods, McCain now seems to be claiming that senators and reporters can "go strolling" in Baghdad. Precision in language should matter to reporters. McCain's original on-air statement may have sounded too optimistic, but the Ware misquote makes McCain sound really flaky. And the sarcastic crack about Neverland is clearly meant to preclude a thoughtful answer from McCain.

And as suggested by Nikolay's comment, a lot of people think that Ware's statement reflects what McCain really said. Comments by other senators concerning purchase of a rug and similarities to a market in Indiana are also being attributed to McCain. He's the presidential candidate, after all. The Newsweek piece above suggests that McCain was trying, during the walk-through with other senators, to portray the situation in Baghdad as nearly normal, and that he was trying to hide the fact that there was tight security around the group.

The report in the Washington Post quotes many qualifying statements by McCain which give a more balanced picture of the event. McCain carefully acknowledges that the senators still had to be accompanied by security. It was noted in the Washington Post that the group removed their helmets but left their flak jackets on. Why does the part about removing helmets get omitted in other accounts? McCain was quoted in the Washington Post as saying he was "cautiously optimistic". This does not sound like the mindlessly unrealistic John McCain described in several other accounts of the senatorial walk-through.

I, personally, hope that Senator McCain's cautious optimism is warranted. But spinning accounts to make those who express optimism sound like nut cases slightly lessens the chances of success.

Karen, since you care so much about accuracy in statements, what do you feel about McCain saying:

“There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today.”

AND

"General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed humvee. I think you oughta catch up. You are giving the old line of three months ago. I understand it. We certainly don’t get it through the filter of some of the media."

McCain was absolutely WRONG in those two statements.

And his little photo-op at the market to show that he CAN walk through areas of Bahgdad? Come on... he had more secrurity than the pope.

he was just flat out wrong. and you're nit-picking about Ware changing "walk through" to "stroll"?

And perhaps Ware was out of line with the Neverland comment, but I give him a little bit of a break when a politician waltzes into a place he's been covering for a while and goes on CNN and says something absolutely false about the situation on the ground.

If you care about accuracy, McCain is the one you should be criticizing, not Ware.

Soldier's Mom

Thank you very much for your kind words.

Tom Shipley wrote (April 4, 2007 02:54 PM):

We had a CAUSE. Iraqis didn't start this war, we did. I think that's a major, if not fatal, flaw with US involvement in Iraq. It's one of the reasons I've been against the war from the start.

Um, I guess you've forgotten the Kurdish and Shiia rebellions against Saddam after Gulf War I. You remember: when we led them to believe that we'd help them overthrow the dictator, then left them in the lurch? How many of them died from our fecklessness?

How many of them will die in the future when we sell them out again?

But, you know, you're right. To hell with the Iraqis. They didn't have the guts to go up against Saddam's Revolutionary Guard more than once with nothing but bare fists, and so they don't deserve our help. Even when we gave them the opportunity to vote for their own government, only about 2/3 of them bothered to get out and vote. What ingrates!

Why, when we revolted against the Crown, no less and authority than John Adams estimated that a whopping 1/3 of American colonists were in favor of "the cause" (the other two thirds being split between those who supported the Crown and those who didn't care either way).

The Iraqi police and army clearly demonstrate why we shouldn't waste our time. They've got the finest weapons and equipment they could find in Saddam's junkheaps and among our cast-offs, and they've had a couple of years to go from a tradition of being a dictator's hired thugs to trying to be professional police and soldiers. Plenty of time! If they don't perform as well as the US Marines or the New Orleans Police Department, it's because they're lazy and unmotivated.

Yep, until the Iraqis decide to take seriously the business of becoming a peaceful, multiethnic, politically-correct democracy that doesn't allow smoking or trans fats, screw 'em. Just not worth our time and trouble to pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Oh, by the way: should we repeal the Reconstruction Amendments, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act? After all, black people didn't start the Civil War.

Tom Shipley,
We are not at war with "Iraq" in the sense that you pretend.

We are at war with Baathist dead-enders and Al Qaeda.

For the billionth time: our goal in Iraq is to RECRUIT THE IRAQIS AS ALLIES.

Those people who voted in January 2005: ALLIES. OUR ALLIES.

Iraqis who turn in Al Qaeda cells: ALLIES.

Iraqis who are taking control of their country, bit by bit, as they help us stomp our MUTUAL ENEMIES: they too are ALLIES.

(Actually it doesn't matter how many times I say it, or that Bush says it, or Cheney, or anyone. You are so consumed by BDS that you cannot hear it.)

Yes, Tom, McCain did exaggerate improvements on the ground in Iraq. I don't like this. I do want politicians to be careful what they say. But if I were a reporter with Ware's background on conditions in Iraq, I would really want to find out why McCain's apparent perception that improvements were under-reported may have led him to exaggerate improvements or to shoot from the hip before getting his facts straight. McCain has an interesting history with regard to war. And McCain should have known that some reporter somewhere would call him on any exaggerations or extrapolations. It doesn't make sense for him to exaggerate. Someone with Ware's experience was in a position to really get a meaningful, interesting story. I would expect a good reporter to call McCain on his statements. But I do not want a reporter to make news by digging a pit for a politician through sarcasm, making it impossible for the politician to respond to questions that the reporter said he wanted answered.

I really do want reporters to report the words of politicians precisely even when they are frustrated because a politician says things that are wrong. Even when the reporter is more familiar with the subject under discussion and when he has a rather emotional history concerning the subject. Ware really does have "street cred" on this issue. But I have the old-fashioned notion that a reporter's main job is to report truthfully. It was Ware's colorful distortion of McCain's words that made it into the echo chamber as a true representation of what McCain said. Other distortions were added on top of Ware's. Political discourse starts to become cartoonish under these conditions. Reporters who try to present a more accurate, balanced picture (as in the Washington Post in this case) seem dull by comparison. This is extremely unfortunate.

A point I was trying to express in my original comment was that today's Republicans are just not very effective at spin, as a general rule. McCain spins and he gets his head handed to him on a platter. Ware spins and he becomes a hero, with others riffing off his spin in careless or imaginative ways.

In contrast, Gore dramatically exaggerates risks of future global warming, even by the standards of the UN summary for policy makers, and he gets to give a speech at the Oscars. Gore's home town paper has the story on the extravagant energy use in one of Gore's mansions but decides not to "speak truth to power" until after someone from outside the MSM reports the data. Scientists who point out Gore's exaggerations or provide other explanations for current climatological observations get death threats and are also compared to holocaust deniers by Ellen Goodman. When the New York Times finally decides it must say something about Gore's exaggerations because respected scientists continue to express concern about them even in the face of hostility, it does so in the gentlest possible manner.

After a while, a pattern emerges. It doesn't hold true all the time, of course, but Republicans often seem to be held to a different standard than Democrats by the MSM. This may, in part, explain the Bush administration's maddening failure to vigorously engage the enemy in the "media war on terror".

Retreat has a tendency to embolden the enemy. One doesn't have to read Sun Tzu to realize that whether it's self promoting Hanoi Jane or Pelosi (or Peanut Carter) trying to become comfy fwends with those who'd like to see us dead... to realize that pacifism or procrastination is capitulation to those whose doctrine is the ending of Western Civilization.

My suggestion to those who seek political solutions with fanatics is to take care not to stand too close to the suicide bombers with whom they wish to negotiate.

"But if I were a reporter with Ware's background on conditions in Iraq, I would really want to find out why McCain's apparent perception that improvements were under-reported may have led him to exaggerate improvements or to shoot from the hip before getting his facts straight."

McCain's claims were WRONG. The CORRECT stats that he citing in saying progress was being made (Secterian violence being down is the one I can think of) WAS being reported.

And Ware DID go out and check McCain's claims after he made them:

“[I]n the hour since Sen. McCain’s said this, I’ve spoken to military sources and there was laughter down the line. I mean, certainly the general travels in a humvee. There’s multiple humvees around it, heavily armed.”

And in the press conference in which Ware supposedly heckled McCain, a reporter asked McCain to name a neighborhood a Westerner to walk safely in. McCain responded he had just come from one, though he didn't mention is 100+ plus member security team that included helicopters and sharp-shooters.

"McCain spins and he gets his head handed to him on a platter. Ware spins and he becomes a hero, with others riffing off his spin in careless or imaginative ways."

I'm sorry Karen, but you equating what McCain and what Ware said is rediculous. McCain was utterly WRONG in the statements he made. He has since backed away from them.

Ware was RIGHT in his reporting. Your issue with him is that he was a little smug about it. But that's his style. He's hit democrats before as well. Get over it.

Bottom line. McCain was absolutely wrong in what he said. Ware hit him hard on it. The truth prevails. And you don't like Michael Ware.

"My suggestion to those who seek political solutions with fanatics is to take care not to stand too close to the suicide bombers with whom they wish to negotiate."

EVERYONE (except you, apparently) is trying to find a political solution in Iraq... commanders on the ground even say there's no military solution in Iraq, only political. So tell that to them.

"Um, I guess you've forgotten the Kurdish and Shiia rebellions against Saddam after Gulf War I. You remember: when we led them to believe that we'd help them overthrow the dictator, then left them in the lurch? How many of them died from our fecklessness?"

I agree, Bush I did mislead the Kurds and Shia and f*cked em over.

A phased withdrawal does not mean we still won't support Iraqis, and still won't mean we won't continue training and funding them. And we'll still have armed forces inside Iraq for years to come.

The reason for the withdrawal, i believe, would be because there's a kind of stasis in Iraq right now. Many people don't want to side with the Militias, while many don't want to side with the Maliki government.

If we START withdrawing troops, forcing the Iraqis hand in stepping up, giving them more ownership of the country, we'll start to see the real Iraq emerge. I don't advocate abandoning Iraq, I just think for progress to be made (most likely with more bloodshed), we need to start reducing our presence.

Tom Shipley wrote (April 5, 2007 08:59 AM):

I don't advocate abandoning Iraq, I just think for progress to be made (most likely with more bloodshed), we need to start reducing our presence.

I agree that we need to eventually draw down. And, I think, President Bush would agree. Nobody wants a permanent US garrison in Iraq, constantly battling al Qaeda and any other terrorists who happen to show up, suicide vest in hand. However, if we leave too early, then the immature ISF will be swamped. Goodbye hopes for democracy, hello Taliban v2.0.

Further, by constantly talking about "withdrawal", we do nothing but embolden and encourage the terrorists while discouraging the Iraqis.

Finally, if we leave, then it's over. Short of some absolute catastrophe, no US Congress will vote to send troops back. Indeed, if history is any guide, we'll sell out the Iraqis shortly after we leave. Remember that the Congress, which solemnly promised to continue aid to South Vietnam after our withdrawal, reneged almost as soon as the last GI left. Result: South Vietnam collapsed and about three million people were murdered by the victorious communists.

We're in this until we win... or we lose. There can be no timetable, and talk of one plays into the hands of our enemies.

Tom,

A couple responses to your posts:

"And in the press conference in which Ware supposedly heckled McCain, a reporter asked McCain to name a neighborhood a Westerner to walk safely in. McCain responded he had just come from one, though he didn't mention is 100+ plus member security team that included helicopters and sharp-shooters"

There's a difference between an American high level politician walking around the streets and locals now being able to walk around the streets. As a caucasian I wouldn't feel as comfortable walking around the alley's of Tijuana at night as somebody who appears to be a local would.

Of course McCain is going to travel with a great deal of protection....keep in mind, 3-4 months ago, he wouldn't have even been able to walk the streets with protection because of all the car bombs and random gun fire.

"If we START withdrawing troops, forcing the Iraqis hand in stepping up, giving them more ownership of the country, we'll start to see the real Iraq emerge. I don't advocate abandoning Iraq, I just think for progress to be made (most likely with more bloodshed), we need to start reducing our presence. "

This is a point we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't know what examples in history lead you to this conclusion....you're making the same leap of faith that we are making in staying. I'm in sales....if I'm trying to close business and am in a tough dog fight with the competition, I don't think, well...maybe if I back off things will just work out. No, I keep using strategy to forward the deal. I don't know why people think by walking away, things will just naturally improve.

You're correct to one point, the fighting is between factions in Iraq...one's that will still be there when we leave. But what you're missing is what we owe to the people of Iraq for taking away that Iron Fist that was controlling these factions through death and torture. We need to finish the job and for now, the momentum is on our side.

Tom, maybe you miss some of my points because they are outside your world-view.

Why do you suggest that I thought that improvements due to the surge were not being reported? You twist my words. I wondered why Ware was not more curious about McCain's apparent perception that improvements were being under-reported.

Why do you suggest that I thought that Ware did not check out McCain's claims after he made them? I suggested that Ware had been in a position to get a deeper story if he had gone beyond the "gotcha" mindset. But your last comment suggests that being "smug" and "hitting" politicians are parts of Ware's "style", and that I should "get over it". I didn't know these things about Ware before. I am now fully prepared to "get over it" if this means I can factor in his "style" when deciding how much weight to give his reporting. This "style" suggest superficiality to me.

You say that Ware was RIGHT in his reporting. Once again, I am old-fashioned enough to want reporters to report the words of politicians precisely even when they are frustrated because a politician says things that are wrong. I guess this is one area where our world views differ.

Ware did not just "get a little smug". "Smug" is an attitude, not an action. Ware put words in the mouth of a presidential candidate. You can only consider this to be RIGHT for a reporter if you believe that "truth" and "truthiness" are equally ethical. If this is how you think, maybe people should take any declarations of fact you make with a grain of salt.

If Ware wants to be "smug" and hit politicians hard, I am willing to consider him to be a commentator. But I don't consider him to be an ethical reporter when he deliberately mis-reports the words of politicians for effect.

Your final dismissal of my reasoning is your bigoted suggestion that I said what I did because I "don't like Michael Ware". This is very, very weird. Why so defensive? You sound more credible when you defend you positions on their own merits.

" I suggested that Ware had been in a position to get a deeper story if he had gone beyond the "gotcha" mindset."

Karen, Ware IS deeper in the story... he's a Westerner LIVING IN BAHGDAD. He also gets regular updates from the US government.

You'll notice that Ware cites the US military when commenting on McCain's comments. He says they have said NOTHING that's close to McCain's optimistic statement about Westerners being able to walk around Baghdad.

And, when someone says something that's just NOT TRUE, it's not "gotcha" journalism to point it out. It's called correcting the record and is GOOD journalism.

I'm still baffled by the fact that you're taking issue with Ware changing "walk through" to "stroll" but don't seem to care much that McCain told Americans that the top US general regularly drives around Baghdad in an unarmored humvee. I mean, if anyone deserve criticism here, it's McCain. It's baffeling that you can't see that.

What Ware did was a SMALL semantics change while telling Americans the TRUTH about FALSE statements that McCain made.

Your final dismissal of my reasoning is your bigoted suggestion that I said what I did because I "don't like Michael Ware".

Karen, here’s why I don’t think you like Michael Ware.

Say you’re in church. A few pews up, you see a young boy picking his nose. While you’re shaking your head in disapproval, another kids a few pews away punches another kid in the face.

After church, everyone is gathered outside talking about what the kid did in church and you chime in “I know, I can’t believe that Michael Ware was picking his nose.”

People look at you kind of funny. “No, we mean John McCain punching someone in the face.”

“O, well, yes that’s wrong, but call me old fashioned, I just don’t think kids should be picking their nose in church.”

The fact that you’re focusing in on this minor infraction (changing “walk through” to “stroll” is, yes I admit, not ideal journalism, but it really doesn’t change the meaning of McCain’s words that much.)

This bigger issue is that McCain, in an attempt to make a point that the surge is working, cites that the top US general in Iraq regularly drives around in an unarmored humvee (and has the gall to tell Blitzer “you need to get caught up”) which is just plain old fashioned incorrect, and tells a radio host that some parts of Baghdad are safe for both of them to walk through… which is misleading at best as the only way it’s safe for Westerners to walk through ANY part of Baghdad is with security.

So, the only logical explanation for harping on Ware and not McCain is a bias against Ware or journalists. Or in other words, you don’t like him or them.

Good grief, Tom. Where did you get the idea that I was trying to divert attention from what McCain said by criticizing what Ware said? I stated that it was right for journalists to call McCain on his dumb statements. I was trying to address a tangental topic: the contribution the "zinger soundbite" orientation of much of the media to the poor quality of our political discourse. I suggested that journalists could have also gotten a deeper, more interesting story from McCain. I said that Republicans, in general, tend not to well in a soundbite-oriented environment. Policies and positions based on principles generally do not translate to soundbites as well as policies and positions based on immediate feelings, immediate public compassion or "moods of the electorate" do.

I believe that McCain's statements fit into the category of extremely ineffective "spin", don't you? And I have a sense that worrying about how journalists will use their words paradoxically dumbs down the discourse and actions of conservative politicians (and some liberal politicians, too). You brilliantly confirmed my point that the MSM generally does "spin" better by pointing out that Ware had made the deeper story about himself rather than about McCain.

But you seemed to think that anyone who did not limit themselves to your priority of criticizing McCain must have their credibility destroyed. This seemed to justify substantially mischaracterizing what I wrote in order to set up straw men which you could then knock down. I still don't think I have a good understanding of your motivations. I don't even know you were intentionally changing what I said or if you just unconsciously read what you wanted to read into my comments.

The reason I may seem to you to be "harping" on Ware is that you challenged me to provide an example from the MSM of McCain being ridiculed. So I offered the following example:

"On a radio talk show last week, the Arizona senator said, "There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through - today." Later in the week, CNN reporter Michael Ware blasted the claim, "I don't know what part of Neverland Senator McCain is talking about when he says we can go strolling in Baghdad".

I think that the "Neverland" crack qualifies as "ridicule". I am not trying to get you to agree with me. You can call it part of Ware's smug, hard-hitting style if you want to. And Ware's words about "strolling" in Baghdad were gleefully quoted over and over and over again as if McCain said them. Even if you do not consider this colorful change in wording to be "ridicule", Ware's words (rather than McCain's less colorful ones) were clearly used by many others to ridicule McCain.

And many people sprang to McCain's defense only because they though the results of Ware's "smug", hard-hitting style were unfair. So, a lot of people started fighting with each other over a few words rather than looking more seriously at the "big picture". This is part of what I mean when I talk about superficiality in politics. It sort of reminds me of those TV programs where journalists and policy wonks try to shout sound bites over each other. I admit that I hate those types of programs. You can suggest that this disqualifies me from criticizing the media because I am biased against journalists if you want to. But remember that I also contrasted the superficial "echo chamber" treatment of Ware's soundbite with the more careful reporting of the Washington Post on this issue. I believe that careful, accurate reporting is under-appreciated today. It is also hard.

We could have agreed to disagree about whether or not Ware's words qualified as "ridicule". But instead you challenged my credibility by stating "If you care about accuracy, McCain is the one you should be criticizing, not Ware". In other words, if I really cared about accuracy, I would abandon my point about the contribution of media coverage to the nature of politics and obediently limit my focus to your apparent personal priority of nailing McCain's hide permanently to the wall. Your slam to my credibility ignored the nature of your initial challenge. And to me, It seemed silly to repeat once again the widespread condemnation of McCain's words. You had handled that quite nicely in this thread. How would it have enlightened anyone if I had joined the chorus against McCain rather than trying to clarify my own line of reasoning?

I do have to correct myself on one point. I had imagined that with his experience, Ware might have gotten McCain to give him a deeper story. But I now think that Ware may have been one of the last reporters McCain would have chosen to give a big story to. I watch almost no television, and after Eason Jordan admitted that CNN had lied for Saddam in order to keep their Baghdad bureau open during the Gulf War, I particularly avoided following what was said on this station.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003336

As a result of your challenges to me, I read up a little on Michael Ware. He seems to be a polarizing figure. You seem to admire him. You may be surprised to learn that you have something in common with Tim Blair.

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/the_hugh_mike_show/

I admit that I was irritated at first by your demand that I "get over" Ware's smug, hard-hitting style. You suggested that he had used similar tactics with other politicians, including Democrats. Part of me started to look forward to what would happen when Ware tried subtly distorting the words of Hillary Clinton, and started issuing sarcastic challenges to her. But a more principled part of me realizes that this would also be an entertaining side-show diverting our attention from larger issues. And I hope that Ware doesn't try out this smug, hard-hitting style against the insurgents he likes to interview.

You've put me through a real workout. You get the last word, Tom.