I fear much of the confusion arises from conflating todays antiwar movement with the Vietnam-era movement.

The true roots of todays antiwar movement lie in the peace movement of the 1980s which, in the word of Michael Howard, "did not sympathize with the Soviet alternative: it ignored it," and "driven by moral fervour, it did not overly concern itself with prudential considerations of power." (_The Invention of Peace_, 81)

Replace "Soviet" with "Islamist" and we have a winner.

Lancer

As far back as I can remember, going back to the 60's, the left has always had more than its fair share of pompous, moralistic egotists who were more concerned about the public pose that they were stiking than with the actual welfare of the great unwashed. It's no coincidence that the term 'limosine liberal' was coined. Nor is it a coincidence that they don't really care about others. They are and always were elitists. Look at how they denigrated anyone who voted for Bush in 2004. Not only were they wrong, they were stupid.

Modern liberalism sounds good on its face, to support the working class, poor, blacks, fill in the blank. To march, to demonstrate also makes you look, superficially at least, like you care, are engaged and aware & think about the events of the day.

It's too easy to fake that pose and many do. It's also emotionally satisfying and doesn't require too much of that hard thinking stuff and 'really' trying to improve society by coming up with viable solutions to problems. That's best left to adults.

Also, modern liberalism has always had at its core a good bit of self loathing. That is self evident to any casual ovbserver. How can you begin to care about others in any serious fashion when you don't even like yourself deep down inside?

Sure, the anti war crowd all walk the same way talk the same way and wear the sme clothes. Everyone of them wants to withdraw from Iraq completely yesterday and they all hate America.

Wow!! That was easy and gives me such a warm feeling of belonging.

I would like to get out of Iraq because we aren't helping the Iraqi people and we have serious problems here at home that need to be taken care of immediately. I'm sorry we screwed up their country more than it already was. They didn't use to have to worry about being blown up while shopping and people still come in the dead of night and drag people from their homes never to be seen again. We have improved nothing for anybody, including ourselves. Posturing for the media will not solve anything. I like America and believe that when we are a good example of working democracy for everyone within our borders, then we can worry about exporting it to countries who have expressed a wish to wipe us from the earth. If you are determined to stay could you please make certain that our troops have armor, bullets, health service, decent death benefits and veteran's services after discharge.

As Page and Plant so eloquently sang "the pain of war is only exceeded by the woe of aftermath.

Let me translate Debra down for you: If that brown bastard ain't serving me a vente grande at Starbucks, screw 'em.

Debra wrote:

"They didn't use to have to worry about being blown up while shopping and people still come in the dead of night and drag people from their homes never to be seen again."

This is patent nonsense. Under Saddam rape was sport and mass graves were filled.

I am struck by the sublime indifference of most critics of insurance-motivated arson to the fate of the people within the burning building. They are totally unexultant about the destruction of an eyesore that might be replaced with a much more attractive new building in the future and seem to have no interest at all in what would happen to the residents if the firefighters leave suddenly.

I dunno about this premise...
Remember that GW was against nation building before 9/11 with probably a good number of conservatives and libertarians alike.
9/11 did change a lot of minds, but it's hard to parse outwhy many changed on whether it's the because of that or because GW is behind it...

Old Dad

Rape is still sport and they still have mass graves being filled on a semiregular basis. We have improved exactly nothing. We just added suicide bombers to the mix.

Numbers and facts, Debra, numbers and facts. That's what matters, and what indicates just how intellectually bankrupt your position is.

Conservative estimates of average number of people killed a month by Saddam's regime, based on mass grave counts and other tangible metrics, was at least 2000-3000. Some experts put it even higher, and there was no end in sight.

The insurgency has averaged killing about 500 people a month since it began, and for some stretches has managed 800 per month. A total of about 13,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the insurgency started. During the same time, based on historical trends, Saddam would likely have killed or caused the death in some fashion of about 50000-60000.

But those 35000+ people who have been saved don't count with you, do they? No, according to you, things are just as bad or worse than they were before the invasion. Even though that many people have been saved, even though 2/3 of Iraq is far more safe and secure than it's ever been in these people's lifetimes.

Then there's Quaddafi's abandonment of nuclear capabilities, Lebanon out from under Syria's thumb, opening up in minor amounts from Kuwait to Egypt. None of that counts with you, does it?

How about the number of dead jihadis, none of which will ever be over here blowing people up. Have you noticed that there hasn't been any attack worth mentioning on US soil in four years? Doesn't that count for something? How many dead Americans would we have if we had not taken the battle to the Middle East and allowed those fanatics to focus on getting at us instead of fighting for their survival?

So it looks like the Iraqi invasion likely saved both their lives and ours. But you don't care.

No, rather than admit that Bush might actually have done something with some positive effects, you'd rather just whine about how things are as bad or worse than ever.

Your moral blindness is appalling.

Debra, your disconnect with reality is breathtaking.

I care, just about American lives first. Also, the bad numbers just keep increasing don't they?

Our solutions have not helped their overall quality of life and if you are a woman you have been reduced to little more than a disposable floormop. Jumping from a frying pan into a fire, or throwing gasoline on an open flame have never been known to turn out well. What we are currently doing is not working. It is not a sign of shame or weakness to step back and look for an alternate route out for us and them, but it is a sign of insanity if you keep doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different result. What you seem to have forgotten is that it was a sovereign country before we got there and made it our problem. They had no weapons of mass destruction, they had nothing to do with 9/11 and they weren't homeschooling terrorists. What the leader of their country does is their problem and always has been. For wacko dictators that pose a threat I nominate Kim Jong Il. We had no business invading Iraq for whatever reason we are using this week and creating a modern day version of the Hydra. That country is breaking up, just like the Baltics, and they do not want us there.

A good proportion of our troops are National Guard and Reserves who have pulled more than one tour of duty. When does their work get to be considered the equal of the regular military? When do they get to come home to their lives? When do they get to quit dying in a country that has recently been advised to start executing with bullets instead of beheadings to avoid alienating the potential religious base? You want to spend more American lives in a foreign shooting gallery and you call me morally bankrupt? Positive effects?

I think not. And yes, I do think. Frequently. And I read other points of view hoping that I will learn something new. I'm tired of hatred, I'm tired of namecalling, I'm tired of it always being an either or situation.

If the winter is as cold as they keep babbling about we are going to have more serious problems here in the USA. Can we please take care of us? Kindness and charity begin at home. Let's start tomorrow.

Debra,

If in two or three years Iraq is stabilized, Iraqi troops and police have control of the "insurgency", there is a constitution and free elections, the economy is improving, the quality of life is improving, Iraqis are optimistic for the future, and THEY ARE FREE, NO LONGER UNDER THE BOOT HEEL OF A SOCIOPATHIC DICTATOR, will you come on this blog and admit you were wrong all along and that George Bush was right?

I didn't think so.

Debra's worried about a cold winter. Great to see the "compassionate left" has it's priorities straight.

Ok, Debra. Group hug with Al Quaida, Saddam and the Taliban. Then we'll all feel better. Right?

Debra, you don't get it.

-- They had no weapons of mass destruction, they had nothing to do with 9/11 and they weren't homeschooling terrorists. --

If the world had allowed US to finish the job in 1991, we wouldn't be here today. But the world prefers "stability."

Haven't you ever noticed our unfinished biz keeps biting US in the ass? Domestically - Nam. Internationally, Korea, Iran and Iraq.

Do you think everything's just a coincidence? You need to take a step back and look at alternative routes.

Our solutions have not helped their overall quality of life and if you are a woman you have been reduced to little more than a disposable floormop.

False to fact, according both to surveys done there and to testimony from returning soldiers.

What we are currently doing is not working.

Depends on what you mean by "working". I named a slew of effects towards making the Middle East a decent place to live instead of a terrorist-breeding hellhole. You seem to think we wave a magic wand and it just happens. Do you realize how long we had troops in Japan after WWII? We still have them on Okinawa, in fact.

...they had nothing to do with 9/11 and they weren't homeschooling terrorists.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, and Hitler had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. Read some history, especially history of megalomaniac dictators.

And Iraq supported terrorists in various ways. Remember Abu Nidal? Look him up, if you don't. And of course, there were the payoffs to Palestinian suicide bombers. Besides, for all we know, Abu Nidal may have been the tip of the iceberg.

For wacko dictators that pose a threat I nominate Kim Jong Il.

Yes. And you don't think it's much easier to deal with him and his threats when he knows he's facing a country that can use force if it has to? That has the finest fighting machine the world has ever seen? If not, you are abysmally naive about diplomacy and international relations.

Do you think our position against Kim would be helped if we turned tail and ran from Iraq? That's silly - he would be emboldened to make ever more demands from us, convinced that we didn't have the stomach to make hard choices. And he would be right. Apparently you think it's just fine to embolden someone who apparently has nuclear weapons, and is borderline insane to boot.

When do they get to come home to their lives? When do they get to quit dying in a country that has recently been advised to start executing with bullets instead of beheadings to avoid alienating the potential religious base? You want to spend more American lives in a foreign shooting gallery and you call me morally bankrupt?

Have you talked to them about it? Almost all our soldiers there are fine about it, and believe they are doing some of the most positive things in their lives. Sure, they'd rather be at the beach, but they understand moral choices. Something you seem to have trouble with.

I'm tired of hatred, I'm tired of namecalling, I'm tired of it always being an either or situation.

And I'm tired of false choices, of Bush hatred, of failure of the mainstream media to tell us what's really going on in Iraq, and most of all, of people whose moral calculus is as simplistic as yours.

...we are going to have more serious problems here in the USA. Can we please take care of us? Kindness and charity begin at home. Let's start tomorrow.

1000 people died because of Katrina. 3000 died on 9/11.

If we allow the Middle East to revert to being a terrorist-friendly hellhole in which we have no influence, then you can pretty much be sure of one eventual outcome - someday, an American city will be attacked with a nuclear device. If you don't believe that, then you are simply ignorant of the psychology of the jihadis. If they are prepared to kill thousands of innocents, and themselves, do you really think they would blanch at using a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb? No way. They'd get excited about it!

Whether you like it or not, whether you think there are other priorities or not, here's a simple fact. We can't possibly keep terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons if we have no presence or influence in the Middle East. And long term, they must move towards more prosperous, open societies to reduce or eliminate the environment that creates religious fanatics. Otherwise, we might as well write off perhaps a hundred thousand or more Americans, and who knows how many Muslims who could die in retaliation.

I know someone like you does not want to look that vision in the face. But pretending it's not there does not make it go away. There is nothing more important for our federal government to do than finding a long term solution to keeping terrorists from killing Americans by the thousand.

Debra:

I think you are mistaken as to the goals of the battle in Iraq.

First was to establish democracy in an arab country. That goal has been met, however embryonic that democracy may be it exists.

Second was to weaken Al Queada and groups like it by showing them to be weak and morally bankrupt. Also accomplished. AQ has admitted that Iraq is a central battlefield for them, and they are losing. The average arab also frowns upon innocent muslims getting blown up and is less likely to support those who do it.

Third is to weaken radical islamists by killing or capturing their support and recruiting base. It may be true that for every terrorist we kill 10 spring up, but not for long. Eventually they will exhaust their population of idiots willing to blow themselves up for the cause (and the reports coming out of Iraq of drugs, kidnappings, and other forms of coercion indicate that point is near).

It is not insanity to continue a course of action when it is working. Especially when the alternative is so much worse. To date almost 2000 American servicemen have died to save Iraqi and Muslim lives. If we pull out or Iraq, if we spend our resources on problems at home, there will be civil war in Iraq, it will be bloody, and it will almost certainly spread to the greater middle east. And then we will have real problems at home. You think a cold winter is bad? Imagine what a Iranian nuke could do in Times Square on New Year's eve.

Our oceans haven't protected us in over 60 years. We will have to either fight them here or fight them there. If you truly value American lives you'll fight them there.

It is not insanity to continue a course of action when it is working.
You people need to get some kind of grip on reality, and stop believing all the Fox network BS. Here's some facts and figures.

The "cakewalk war" is now two and one-half years old. U.S. casualties (dead and wounded) number 20,000. As 20,000 is the number of Iraqi insurgents according to U.S. military commanders, each insurgent is responsible for one U.S. casualty.

U.S. troops in Iraq number about 150,000. Obviously, U.S. troops have not inflicted 150,000 casualties on the Iraqi insurgents. U.S. troops have perhaps inflicted 150,000 casualties on the Iraqi civilian population, primarily women and children who are the "collateral damage" of the "righteous" and "virtuous" U.S. invasion that is spreading civilian deaths all over Mesopotamia in the name of democracy

What could the U.S. have possibly done to give America a worse name than to invade Iraq and murder its citizens?

According to the Sept. 1 Manufacturing & Technology News, the Government Accounting Office has reported that over the course of the cakewalk war, the U.S. military's use of small caliber ammunition has risen to 1.8 billion rounds. Think about that number. If there are 20,000 insurgents, it means U.S. troops have fired 90,000 rounds at each insurgent.

Very few have been hit. We don't know how many. To avoid the analogy with Vietnam, until last week the U.S. military studiously avoided body counts. If 2,000 insurgents have been killed, each death required 900,000 rounds of ammunition.

The combination of U.S. government-owned ammo plants and those of U.S. commercial producers together cannot make bullets as fast as US troops are firing them. The Bush administration has had to turn to foreign producers such as Israel Military Industries. Think about that. Hollowed-out U.S. industry cannot produce enough ammunition to defeat a 20,000-man insurgency.

U.S. military analysts are beginning to wonder if the U.S. has been defeated by the insurgency. Increasingly, Bush administration spokesmen sound like "Baghdad Bob." On Sept. 19, the Washington Post reported that US military spinmeister Major General Rick Lynch declared "great success" against the insurgency that had just inflicted the worst casualties of the war, including a three-day mortar attack on the "safe" Green Zone. Now US Army generals say that the US presence in Iraq is the cause of the insurgency, and Iraq can't improve until the US leaves. So much for "Stay the Course".

Obviously, the US, not knowing who or where the insurgents are, is just striking blindly, creating a larger insurgency.

You people need to get some kind of grip on reality, and stop believing all the Fox network BS.

Sounds like somebody needs to stop believing all the NYTimes BS.

Total enemy deaths, insurgent and Baathist, are in excess of 10,000. Some estimates go up to 20,000. And that's with our guys handicapped by avoiding civilians. Now, since you're that far off on one number, I'm not putting much credence in some of your others. 900,000 bullets per insurgent death? Hah!

And you obviously are not reading what the US analysts and generals are saying, except maybe to see what you want to see. First, I've seen no credible US source claiming that the insurgency has defeated anyone, or is even a serious threat to do so if we stick to our guns. Can you produce any such references that say otherwise?

And the generals' comments on us needing to get out of Iraq are completely different from what you claim. They do sometimes discuss the fact that Iraq will not be a complete success until we leave - nobody disputes that - but that we still have a job to do, and even a majority of Iraqis don't want us out right away. I've seen no one in the military saying anything like "Iraq can't improve until the US leaves", and again I challenge you to produce such a source.

In fact, the military expects there to be improvement if their constitution is approved, and steady long term improvement as their army takes over defense of their nascent democracy. That has been the plan for quite a while. It was known to be slow because you can't build a professional army overnight, but there's no indication that it's not working.

It seems like you guys would just love for Iraq to be Vietnam. But it's not.

You can argue the merits of the Iraq war all you want, but I find Will's post that the "Left" didn't give a damn Iranians, Lebonese, etc. to be so completely wrongheaded that I won't bother refuting it.

I'm not going to argue (as Debra has) that Iraq is worse today than it was under Saddam- to me that's a foolish proposition. I'm a foreign policy realist- I opposed Iraq because I didn't think it would achieve our objectives in the War on Terror. You can tell me I'm wrong, and I've heard plenty of arguments claiming that we're "winning". Fair enough, though I've yet to be convinced.

If my initial fears about Iraq are realized, I won't feel smug and vindicated. Hardly. I would feel sad that so many fine soldiers were slain in an effort that did little to make our position stronger in the War on Terror.

This isn't a partisan or ideological issue. Plenty of compassionate, competent people feel that invading Iraq was a strategic error. To argue that opposition to Iraq derives from some a priori Bush hatred is just ludicrous.

And for the record, I don't think we should just pull out now, as things would surely go to hell in a handbasket. But what progress are we making? I don't see any signs that the insurgency is weakening. I don't see any signs that the Sunni population will cooperate with the Shia/Kurd alliance.

At what point do we claim victory and step down? At what point do Iraqis take full responsibility for their fate? I don't find Bush's vague proposals to "stay the course" reassuring, at all.

> For wacko dictators that pose a threat I nominate Kim Jong Il.

If Debra actually supports doing something useful about KJI, she'll be the first.

Bush isn't doing much about KJI, but if he did, Debra would be at the front of the line arguing against it.

Talking to Debra and Earl is like talking to a brick wall, but not as satisfying!

AR

Well I was against the invasion because I didn't trust the current administration to do a very good job of occupation/rebuilding and I can't say I've been proven wrong.
An Iraqi friend who was in favor of the invasion (on the principle "anything would be better than the present situation" is perplexed and frustrated by the massive scale of US non-military incompetence (he's actually been back a time or two since so he has first hand knowledge of what's going on, a year ago he was optimistic, now he's more hoping the worst won't happen. Oh, and one of his inlaws was recently murdered because he lives near the road to the airport, which the US has _still_ yet to secure adequately.
I'd say those who enthused about Iraq as "flypaper" or Iraq as some sort of tabula rasa the US could mold as it wished displayed very little regard for the wellbeing of the Iraqi people.

The MSM has been anti America for 55 years. In the case of the NYT it goes back 83 years. Absolutely not news. But still worth reminging people of every so often.

Deb will disagree with this but I bet she voted for Gore.

Michael,

I wouldn't say such people disregarded the Iraqi people so much as woefully underestimated the complexity of their operation. Remember, Richard Perle predicted that they'd have built a statue of President Bush in Baghdad after our invasion.

What I resent is the false dichotomy presented by some of the more virulent war supporters: either you support the war uncritically, or you're an Islamofascist sympathizer who doesn't care about the lives of the Iraqi people themselves.

We are either invested in a war or we are crippled by critics who are not. During Nam it was peaceniks/Fonda/Hayden/Kerry who dealt with the enemy but were never tried for treason. The initiator now is islamic jihad which started the whole thing, especially on 911. We did not fire the first shot.

Saddam was a pain in the ass for 17 UN resolutions over 11 years. Do you just let a killer like him continue after 911? No. Now he is lawyered up when he should have been shot up in his spider hole. We are too nice to these killers.

But, also now we have hard core islamic countries Iran and Saudi Arabia surrounded with troops, carrier fleets, subs, fighters, bombers [ps: I am invested with a son in service which gives me no more right to speak than anyone else btw]. This is good. If these nations and like minded people desire giving us more gut-punches like 911, or making us the US of Islam, I say give it to them first. Right or wrong concerning being in Iraq, we put the muzzle much closer to those who think we infidels should die just because we are infidels to their ideology.

Next traitor: Robert Frost signing on with al jezeera.

matt,

The dichotomy isn't false - it is, however, a generalization.

To be precise: Most, but not all, anit-war folks do not offer any alternatives. It's perfectly fine to HAVE BEEN against invading Iraq. However, that's beating a dead horse. We're there now. We have to do SOMETHING. Simply pulling out isn't a viable option.

The very concept of an anti-war movement at this late date is idiotic. Sure, be against the NEXT war. But we have to deal with the one we're in. The question is: How?

Earl,

I don't recall anyone saying it would be a "cakewalk". I seem to recall Bush saying it would take years. It was in the same speech during which he said Iraq was NOT YET an immiment threat. Apparently that was a very much misundercomprehended speech.

And what's wrong with buying bullets from other countries? Welcome to the 21st century. This war is costing 100s of billions of dollars. If we can save a bit of money by outsourcing bullet production, all the better as far as I'm concerned.

Matt:

Read "The Belmont Club" and The Fourth Rail" as well as Michael Yon's reports from Mosul to find out why the insurgency is doomed to failure. Google them and read if you REALLY are interested in some level headed analysis and a different viewpoint than the media is bent on providing.

We are aware some people like you oppose OIF from a strategic standpoint and that's a legitimate point of debate. But there is a huge number of reflexive Bush haters on the left who only care about thwarting the administration, regardless of the cost in human suffering both abroad and at home. Those are the people Will is refering to, and we all know who they are.

The cakewalk comes from Cheney and Richard Pearl, Pearl also said the Sadam statute would be replaced with a statute of Bush.

Well I was against the invasion because I didn't trust the current administration to do a very good job of occupation/rebuilding and I can't say I've been proven wrong.

The lesson most of the rest of us learned from Iraq and Katrina was that the Bush Administration was a bunch of incompetent clowns, who, in Lyndon Johnson's wonderful description about Gerald Ford, "couldn't dump shit out of a boot if they had it by the heel."

We can have dueling experts about whether we're winning/losing the war, here's my expert.

Zachary Scott-Singley, Location:United States

I am a SGT in the 3rd Infantry Division (I'm an Arabic translator). I have a wonderful wife named Tara, and 2 beautiful kids Jacob and Linnea.

There are battles which need to be fought and there are battles which serve no good purpose. Afghanistan and Bin Laden lay forgotten as if they were discarded toys left by a spoiled child.

Iraq is the new frontier of poor foreign policy and poor planning. Even the soldiers can see it. Why do you think nobody is re-enlisting? They don't want to keep leaving their families to go fight a loosing battle and to die for an empty promise. The promise that somehow staying in Iraq makes America safer.

We have created a martyr factory here, and we are beginning to wade through the next Vietnam. How wrong do you want to be before you close down shop and send the troops home? 2,000 dead? Is that wrong enough? How about 10,000?

There is a field back home at Ft. Stewart, Georgia. There a tree has been planted for each soldier who has been killed in Iraq. After we returned in 2003 there were only a few trees, now an entire side of the field is full of them. My sister asked where they would plant more now that the row was complete and sadly I replied, "we still have three more sides to fill." Maybe then when we have enough names for a beautiful war memorial we can leave Iraq.

Here's a man who is doing a job for all of us, but what about you other war-supporters, the army is hurting for recruits, why don't you help fight the war you support instead of just running off-the-mouth.

Afghanistan and Bin Laden lay forgotten as if they were discarded toys left by a spoiled child.

How interesting. I'll have to fill in my brother-in-law; he's commanding a brigade in Afghanistan right now. Golly, I guess he can just come on back home, since some sergeant says we're not doing anything useful there.

Yep, that's good enough for me.

As I recall, Timothy McVeigh was a noncom with strong foreign policy opinions as well. Pity we didn't listen, hey?

Assuming of course, we even credit the existence of this sergeant of yours. What's your source, Earl?

And Earl, I gotte hear this, where the hell did you come up with that 900,000 round number per insurgent? You're assuming what, that the rate of expenditure has continued unabated since the start of the war, when we were fighing tank and infantry divisions? Or that the cunning insurgents are hiding in the impenetrable Iraqi rain forest, while we fire daily "Mad Minutes" into the treeline from our bunkered firebases?

So, Earl, you're challenged on a bunch of assertions about what "analysts" and "generals" are saying about how we've screwed up and are losing in Iraq, and you come back with... one sergeant.

Might as well come right out and admit it - you're one of the anti-war types that just makes sh!t up to support your position.

The logic is sort of interesting here... Bush is criticized on the one hand for supposedly saying this would be a cake-walk and on the other hand for not *producing* a cake-walk. Heh.

Watched Serenity... *great* movie. My SF self got a good belly laugh at the beginning though... terraforming all the planets took DECADES! Wow. I decided later that it was a brilliant way of clueing the audience that this was not *attempting* to be anything but fantasy space opera and shouldn't be judged as such.

What did anyone expect from Iraq? Fantasy space opera? Rebuilding the country took MONTHS? How is it *possible* for people to claim they've been misled about the time frame and difficulties? If this is another example of the general Democrat or lefty or peace activist attitude toward military reality... heck, Clinton thought he could just drop a few bombs in the Balkans and everything would be great... so I guess I'm not surprised.

I have no idea where people got the idea that this would be quick and easy. If Bush or anyone else said something that sounded a little bit like that I automatically assumed that they were speaking of success in a more limited scope rather than the whole shebang because "cake walk" or any variation on that theme, is not logical.

And Earl, yes, I'll take my experts over your expert. I expect our service members to hold a variety of opinions... military service doesn't require lock-step ideology, after all. But I worked with stupid people and smart people and I don't feel any need to give credence to the stupid ones. If it were "dueling experts" the ones who say that we're doing good things and who are optimistic about Iraq and Afghanistan and perhaps even a bit attached to the people there, outnumber the "experts" who say otherwise. And since your expert claims that we're not doing anything about Bin Laden or Afghanistan when we provably *are*, then I figure he's not any more aware of the bigger picture than anyone else getting their information from the news... which certainly *does* ignore Afghanistan.

And Debra, it's going to be okay. Stop listening to the doom-sayers, they will always be with us, always have my whole life, but it's not healthy to listen to them. They don't build you or anyone else up, they pull you down and count it success when you live fearfully. Bad stuff happens, always has, always will, and life and love go on anyhow. Utopia and Distopia are opposite sides of the same counterfeit coin. Joy and progress and *life* happen in the muddy middle with the good stuff and bad stuff all mixed up together. It's a messy, but ultimately robust world. It doesn't break easily. Stop listening to people who want the world, and you, to be fragile. They are not your friends.

Stephen, don't worry about it. When they finally get this President, and all the other hawks politically hamstrung or cowered, and Iraq goes to shit in a great outburst of bloodshed, they will care plenty.

They will care because it will give them yet another reason to hate and complain about Bush, conservatives, Republicans, Christians, liberal hawks, and everybody else on their shitlist. Just as the Cambodian slaughter was somehow Nixon's fault (paging Noam Chomsky... blood red courtesy phone...) anything bad that happens from now on will be Bush's fault, or Jerry Falwell's, or Doug Feith's, or the Neo-Cons (aka the jooos) or Glenn Reynolds' or Howie Kurtz's fault.

You see, the left cares plenty about what happens in Iraq and elsewhere: they care that events unfold in such a way as to give them plausible bumper sticker sayings around which to base speeches and peace march signs. See, e.g. Everything AlGore Has Said Since 2002.

To all the fact-challengers, I suggest you query google with "military can't end insurgency", you should get about 1,240,000 hits, from newspapers, tv and blogs from all over and on all sides. Some may differ, but those words, by themselves, tell us all we need to know that we're not winning in Iraq. Two and half years, 20,000 US killed and wounded, we've been pounding with everything we've got, the insurgency is putting out more attacks, more road-side bombs more suicide bombers, and more adjustments to our own tactics.

Julie if you could find over a million refences that the insurgency is in it's 'last throes' and things-are-great except on the Daly show and the late night commedians, then I might reconsider, for now I think you have your smart people and dumb people mixed up.

How interesting. I'll have to fill in my brother-in-law; he's commanding a brigade in Afghanistan right now. I'll say two things about Afghanistan - Osama Bin Forgetten and Bora Bora. The Iraq war took too many troops away from Afghanistan to finish the job there. If your brother-in-law is on the front lines, he has a tough road to hold - cause the Taliban are coming back. I hope for his sake and the other soldiers we can talk/bribe England into putting some of the troops they're taking out of Iraq into Afghanistan.

I don't recall anyone saying it would be a "cakewalk". I seem to recall Bush saying it would take years. Bush never said cakewalk others like Cheney and Pearl did. Bush said the War On Terror would take years, 6 months after the Iraq war started Bush said 'Mission Accomplished'.

And Earl, I gotte hear this, where the hell did you come up with that 900,000 round number per insurgent?
U.S. military's use of small caliber ammunition has risen to 1.8 billion rounds. If there are 20,000 insurgents, it means U.S. troops have fired 90,000 rounds at each insurgent.
The best estimate of the insurgency has been 20,000. If we had killed 20,000 then the war would be over, if we had killed 10,000 the insurgency would be half as effective now as it once was. The US has always refused to give kill numbers, until very recently when they have reported about 200 killed. So take a guess that matches the situation on the ground and is between 200 and 10,000. I choose 2000 and that computes to 900,000 bullets per insurgent killed. Do you think 3000, 4000 or even 6000 insurgents killed makes things any better? I don't, and what they are shooting at, I don't know.

Someone said maybe we were buying bullets from outside the US to save money. Not true, the law says that US arms dealers must be the first choice for the military. The US is making all the bullets they can - we are maxed out, and we are buying more bullets from Israel because we need more bullets to fight a 20,000 man insurgency.

Who is my army expert? First I include all the military in the above google links. I count Zach as special. He's a translater, which means he can talk to the Iraqi people and he understands their culture better than most of the other 150,000 troops. Which I think is fundamental to all our problems.

We don't know what we are doing, it changes so often, we don't know the people and do a lot of stupid, even mean things out of frustration, and we don't know anything about the insurgents and so do a lot of blind shooting at anything and everything.
Zach has this blog;

http://misoldierthoughts.blogspot.com/2005/09/promise.html

I'm sorry we screwed up their country more than it already was.

On page 13 at the bottom... I think that man holding the woman's hand has a family member in that plastic bag.

It's not a very big plastic bag.

Yes, Earl, some ineffectual ass in a cave in Pakistan is just so much more important.

You keep your moral superiority and I'll keep mine.

Just a couple of things to point out to earl.
You said that the US Military is using 1.8 billion rounds of ammo per year. You make a huge mistake in assuming that this is being used exclusively in Iraq. I suppose that means that we are not fighting at all in Afganistan or giving our troops ANY livefire training anywhere else in the world. Also this would seem to be include Navy and Airforce as well as the National Gaurd, Army and Marines. Alot of rounds are going to be used for just training purposes.
Also your 'evidence' for the number of insurgents killed based guesstimation inferred from a collection of unsupported numbers. You then back these up with the assertation that if 10,000 terrorists out of 20,000 where killed then the insurgency would be half as effective, this apparently porves that there is no way that the military could have killed more than ten thousand terrorists. I thought th common liberal line was that Iraq is a breeding grounds for terrorists, but now you seem to be saying that there are only 20,000 terrorists no new recruits at all.
Hmmm
I seem to sence an inconsistency somewhere.
Also while you claim that there are more attacks now than earlier in the campaign you have yet to show any evidence which backs up you assertation. Ditto for the "taliban are coming back into Afganistan argument".
just my two sence anyway.

Earl wrote:
" Bush said the War On Terror would take years, 6 months after the Iraq war started Bush said 'Mission Accomplished'."

That is an outright lie.

Post the transcript of the speech showing where he said the mission was accomplished. Hell, read the entire speech and see if it gives you the impression that everything was going to be easy from then on. That our forces could kick back, relax, play some volleyball and have barbeques.

Well?

Mr Sizer and Paul,

I never mentioned the anti-war movement, and in fact I myself think that rallying against the Iraq war at this point is a bit silly. But Will's over-generalization was very sloppy blogging and I wanted to point it out.

I do read The Belmont Club and Michael Yon (haven't heard of The Fourth Rail, though....what's the URL?) but don't find their analysis to be completely convincing. I've agreed with analysts like TNR's Spencer Ackerman much more frequently.

Anyway, about the war. Yes, pullin g everyone out right now would be a disaster, but what does "stay the course" mean? At some point (if we haven't gotten there already), our presence in Iraq will inhibit rather than assist their fledgling democracy. When will that be? We can't remain there forever.

Quite a few smart liberals and war opponents are contributing to the Iraq debate. It's disingenuous to assume that the entire Left, to borrow Will's term, is composed of narcissistic blowhards who only want immediate withdrawal to make The Republican Party look bad.

Are there some? For sure. But there are plenty of war supporters who aren't contributing much by mindlessly blathering on, "stay the course".

southern(USA) whiteboy,

I think you mean David Frost is appearing on Al-Jazeera. I'd be quite impressed if the network dragged up the ghost of our long-dead poet Robert to provide political commentary. :)

I suggest you query google with "military can't end insurgency", you should get about 1,240,000 hits, from newspapers, tv and blogs from all over and on all sides.

In other words, when you said you US analysts and generals were saying these things, you were making it up.

Of course, you can find lots of hits for such multi-word phrases. In addition to leftist rabble-rousers such as yourself, who pull such analyses out of their a$$, many of those articles would use those words in various distributed ways that would never support your conclusions. And some would just point out the fact, which everyone agrees with, that ultimately the Iraqis must secure their own country.

If there are that many legitimate hits, it can't be that hard to find some credible analysts that back up your "sky is falling" position. But somehow you can't find 'em.

This is snarky, but I can't resist.

The phrase "Earl is an idiot on the Iraq War" generates 178,000 hits on Google. I guess that proves it then.

I don't understand why anybody as knowledgeable as Barone would be at all surprised. The western Left didn't give a tinker's damn for the fates of the Iranians, Lebonese, Nicaraguans, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Koreans, Cubans, Czechs, Hungarians, Poles, or even Russians, so long as the eeeevil American right-wingers were dealt a political defeat (and let's not even start on Israelis).

Wow.
I wish I could say that I've never before seen such staggering mendacity, but this kind of sham characterization of the anti-war left is, sadly, par for the course in the shrill fantasy world of the right-wing internet punditocracy.
In order to believe this, one would have to ignore the vast mountains of left-wing prose dedicated to complaining about the number of Iraqi civilians killed in the war. One would have to pretend that the anti-war left has totally and completely ignored the lack of electricity, running potable water and other basic services that the Iraqis have had to live with since we invaded. One would have to dismiss as non-existent the shrill calls from the anti-war left for something, anything to be done for the people in countries like Uzbekistan and Pakistan, countries that are aiding us in the war in in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In short, in order to say this publicly, one would have know one was lying, egregiously and brazenly.

It's like I'm standing neck-deep in a swimming pool, and you're kneeling at the side, telling me that water isn't wet.

Also, it's Lebanese.

Ya know, kodos, you really ought to have your coffee before posting.

Ya know, kodos, you really ought to have your coffee before posting.

So much for the intellectual bankruptcy of the right...

In order to believe this, one would have to ignore the vast mountains of left-wing prose dedicated to complaining about the number of Iraqi civilians killed in the war.

That's kind of the point, actually. They don't care that Saddam killed 2 million (where are the mountains of prose for that?) or that the Iraqis have the right to vote now. They just dwell endlessly on America's perceived sins, ignoring the greater good achieved by the war.

The truth is, they don't care that Iraqis have democracy now. They don't care that Iraqis aren't being put in mass graves anymore. They don't care that the state-sanctioned rape rooms and Olympic athlete torturers are gone. All they care about is defeating "eeeeeeeevil right wingers."

A perfect example is the "notorious" Abu Ghraib prison. Not notorious for the thousands murdered and maimed with full approval by Saddam's regime there, but for the few dozen humiliated with dog leashes, human pyramids, and panties on their heads by a few Americans who were tried and punished for their transgressions.

Also don't forget how the Left ( along with the U.N., Kofi Annan, and Bill Clinton) forgot to protest against the "war" in Rwanda. Oh, that's right we didn't get involved in that one did we - that's why the Left had nothing to say - and millions of Rwandans died.

Kodos,

Well, it depends on where you buy your water. KMart water doesn't get you as wet as Nordstrom water, for example...

"One would have to dismiss ... like Uzbekistan and Pakistan, countries that are aiding us ..."

Bingo. You just gave the game away. Find those 'calls' that PRE-DATE our joining the war, and our involvement with them. Don't bother, you won't.

"about the number of Iraqi civilians killed in the war."

So, if your side is that concerned about the Baathist / AlQaeda depredations, how's about some help on the infowar front? WE'RE not killing the civilians, THEY are.

"One would have to pretend that the anti-war left has totally and completely ignored the lack of electricity, running potable water and other basic services that the Iraqis have had to live with since we invaded."

Ummm, who's doing the building, AlQaeda? Saddam didn't build that stuff either. Look up the Lefty outrage at the PALACES he built. With Oil for Food money. Administered by the U.N.

It's not about Lebanon, Pakistan or anywhere else. It's actually about the Left's adolescent, even childish pique at the nonutopian state of the world. I've said it other places, and repeat it here: "Liberalism is a political maturity disorder".

I do believe the current 'anti-war' movement has roots back to the 1960s. Back then, they filled the streets in the name of ending war and wanting peace, but when Saigon fell the 'peace types' were silent and no where to be found in alleviating the plight of those in Southeast Asia facing on-going brutality.

30 years later, the 'peace' crowd remains equally selectively when voicing their concern about war and violence.

Remember the human shields who traveled to Iraq in 2003 to protect Iraqis. Where are they now with their concern and righteousness? Besides really putting their money where their mouth is, the ball is also on the other side of the political spectrum.

Matt:

Staying the course means not resting until the ISF is up to the task of dealing with the insurgents and the constitutional-political process is in order. It's quite simple.

If you read the details of the battles on the ground you'll see that the insurgents are indeed losing ground, are deploying a much poorer quality of fighter as their experienced members are killed and captured, have alienated Iraqis with their random slaughter of civillians, and are increasingly being dealt with by the ISF.

I think no real progress was possible until the Iraqis themselves are doing the fighting, and that process takes time.

Here's the URL for the fourth rail, though if you read The Belmont Club with any regularity Wretchard links to the site often.

http://billroggio.com/

"In order to believe [that the left doesnt' care], one would have to ignore the vast mountains of left-wing prose dedicated to complaining about [everything] that the Iraqis have had to live with since we invaded."

Um... you forgot a word there... inbetween "since" and "we" should be a "before".

Which, as others have pointed out, is sorta the point.

Nor does listing countries such as Rawanda have any relevance at all when the point being made isn't that intervention is a good thing that we should do unilaterally in the face of such horrors. Is the left or the peace crowd calling for unilateral invasion of Rawanda? No? They bring it up as some supposed evidence of hypocracy (the ultimate of all sins.)

So *why* doesn't the left call for unilateral invasion of Rawanda? (Or any of those other places?)

Earl, you are the king of baseless assertions. Where to begin?

"cause the Taliban are coming back"

You might want to look at this I'll summarize it for you: Al-Zawahiri concedes that Al-Qaeda is resigned to defeat in Afghanistan. Go ahead and read it, no matter how sad it makes you.

"Why do you think nobody is re-enlisting?"

Read this. And this.

To dispell more of your lies, read the Brookings Institute's Iraq Index

To wit:
-Approx 50,000 insurgents killed
-Power production exceeds prewar levels
-Power demand also exceeds prewar levels (a good indicator of increasing quality of life)
-Oil production exceeds prewar peak production
-Car traffic has quintupled
-98% of houses are on the electricity grid
-Amount of sewage treated has increased from 25% to 50%
-We've killed far more insurgents than civilians, so you're claims of indiscriminate shooting and cluelessness are completely ludicrous.

Be sure to read the whole thing.

One more thing, Earl. Read Micheal Yon's Blog to get a real sense of how our forces are operating over there.

Matt: "Anyway, about the war. Yes, pulling everyone out right now would be a disaster, but what does "stay the course" mean? At some point (if we haven't gotten there already), our presence in Iraq will inhibit rather than assist their fledgling democracy. When will that be? We can't remain there forever."

What does "stay the course" mean to you? What do you think our goals should be? When you read reports from Iraq do you look for evidence of those things happening.

Because it doesn't really matter if some people are chanting "stay the course" with no substance to it. So they're idiots, what do you care? At least they aren't saying "pull out and to hell with the Iraqis," huh? So in conversation you say, "We need for these things to happen. This is what our goals should look like."

Personally, I don't see how our mere presence will inhibit an Iraqi democracy. We have a long standing presence in England, Italy, Turkey, Germany, and Japan amoung other places. These places manage to run their own affairs. I think that if you look at reports from Iraq you'll see that we are dedicated to local control and Iraqi independance. If we end up with permanent bases there it won't be a failure of Iraqi independance. (Another time, perhaps, I'll explain why *I* think permanent bases would be a good thing in Afghanistan and Iraq. My reasons aren't a simple "we need bases" either.)

For me, "stay the course" doesn't mean "stay until we fix what we broke" because it was broke before we got there. What we *need* in Iraq is for them to be free and prosperous. This is good for them, but it is also very good for us. (It would be good in Rawanda, too, for that matter.) In the past we've supported governments, even Saddam, on the theory of prefering "stability" as if stability, rather than liberty, is the primary virtue. Let's please allow ourselves to learn from History? Stability is a lie. If infrastructure was destroyed by our invasion, it is still a lie to claim that the "stability" of electric service was a "good" that outweighed liberty. Saddam filled those mass graves because that's what his "stability" was built upon.

Who else have we supported in the past in the name of stability? Did it work?

So, what our goal is and must be in Iraq is Freedom and Prosperity. Stay the course, means staying until they've estabilished their democratically elected government and can defend themselves against those who want to return to one tribe ruling by fear.

One thing you should expect, Matt, is that if you start to express your version of "stay the course," your definition of "victory" as if victory is important, that the anti-war left is going to turn on you.

Try it and see.

One more excellent resource I forgot to mention: Good News From the Front.

Now Earl, I know it might be painful to gain a more balanced perspective, but you should at least make an effort to read some of the links I've posted. I read the daily torrent of doom and gloom from the MSM. So, who's perspective is more balanced? So much for being a loyal "Faux News" acolyte.

Read about the dramatic transformation of Sadr City too.

See that link is an LA Times story. Even the MSM is getting in on the act.

Did anybody tell Earl's questionable sergeant about the re-enlistment numbers?
Way above expectations and there is correlation: The more time a unit spends in the sandbox, the higher the re-enlistment rate.

Excellent points, Richard. I think the two links I posted about reenlistment covered both of them.

Matt, thanks for the correction! and all: If you are able to read this, thank a teacher. If you are able to read this in English, thank a Veteran. Or would you prefer German, Japanese or Arabic?

Earl Bockenfeld wrote: "To all the fact-challengers, I suggest you query google with 'military can't end insurgency', you should get about 1,240,000 hits, from newspapers, tv and blogs from all over and on all sides. Some may differ, but those words, by themselves, tell us all we need to know that we're not winning in Iraq."

They tell us all we need to know about Earl, which is that he is a liar. I just tried his recommended Google search, and got "about 431" hits. So much for Earl's *bona fides*: he's off by a factor of 2877:1.

Of course, anyone who makes repeated allegations about someone named "Richard Pearl" is already pretty dubious. The man's name is Perle. Perhaps Erle (that's a joke) is thinking of Daniel Pearl, the American reporter beheaded in Pakistan. Or perhaps he doesn't have a clue. The fact that he boldly made up his factoid about Google suggests that he also made up his argument about 1.8 billion bullets. He certainly hasn't provided any URL to back it up.

It seems most of commenters here, like your dear leader form your opinions from their gut and not from your heads. And maybe none of you want to mess up your beautiful minds with anything else than what gets blasted from the Fox echo chamber.

Someone mentioned how Jane Fonda was the reason that we lost the Vietnam war. Here are some comments of the current crop of Iraq peaceniks in addition to Cindy Sheehan.

"I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede that... this insurgency is not going to be settled, the terrorists and the terrorism in Iraq is not going to be settled, through military options or military operations," Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said last week, in a comment that echoes what other senior officers say. "It's going to be settled in the political process."

Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, expressed similar sentiments, calling the military's efforts "the Pillsbury Doughboy idea" - pressing the insurgency in one area only causes it to rise elsewhere.

"Like in Baghdad," Casey said during an interview with two newspaper reporters, including one from Knight Ridder, last week. "We push in Baghdad - they're down to about less than a car bomb a day in Baghdad over the last week - but in north-center (Iraq)... they've gone up," he said. "The political process will be the decisive element."

The recognition that a military solution is not in the offing has led U.S. and Iraqi officials to signal they are willing to negotiate with insurgent groups, or their intermediaries.

"It has evolved in the course of normal business," said a senior U.S. diplomatic official in Baghdad, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of U.S. policy to defer to the Iraqi government on Iraqi political matters. "We have now encountered people who at least claim to have some form of a relationship with the insurgency."

The message is markedly different from previous statements by U.S. officials who spoke of quashing the insurgency by rounding up or killing "dead enders" loyal to former dictator Saddam Hussein. As recently as two weeks ago, in a Memorial Day interview on CNN's Larry King Live, Vice President Dick Cheney said he believed the insurgency was in its "last throes."

But the violence has continued unabated, even though 44 of the 55 Iraqis portrayed in the military's famous "deck of cards" have been killed or captured, including Hussein.

'We Can't Kill Them All'

Lt. Col. Frederick P. Wellman, who works with the task force overseeing the training of Iraqi security troops, said the insurgency doesn't seem to be running out of new recruits, a dynamic fueled by tribal members seeking revenge for relatives killed in fighting.

"We can't kill them all," Wellman said. "When I kill one I create three."

These statement came out just before the testimony before the Armed Services Committee when the Iraqi Battalion Reports showed that we had progressed from 3 battle-ready battalions down to 1 battle-ready battalion. The US will stand down when the Iraqi forces stand up - which will be when?

I see many here think the reenlistment numbers prove how popular the war is to Iraq veterans. Their belief in the cause is one reason however the Army offers a $30,000 bonus for another tour of duty, or another tour without $30,000 due to stop-loss. Such a deal. Soldiers who have any medical problems have to be concerned about how all the veteran benefits are being chipped away.

If you want to see the true face of war, go to the amateur porn Web site NowThatsFuckedUp.com. For almost a year, American soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan have been taking photographs of dead bodies, many of them horribly mutilated or blown to pieces, and sending them to Web site administrator Chris Wilson. In return for permission to post these images, Wilson gives the soldiers free access to his site. American soldiers have been using the pictures of disfigured Iraqi corpses as currency to buy pornography.

This could become an international public-relations catastrophe. The Bush administration claims such sympathy for American war dead that officials banned the media from photographing flag-draped coffins being carried off cargo planes. Government officials and American media pundits have repeatedly denounced the al-Jazeera network for airing grisly footage of Iraqi war casualties and American prisoners of war. The legal fight over whether to release the remaining photographs of atrocities at Abu Ghraib has dragged on for months, with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Meyers arguing that the release of such images will inflame the Muslim world and drive untold numbers to join al-Qaeda. But none of these can compare with the prospect of American troops casually bartering pictures of suffering and death for porn.

Wilson’s Web site has made the news before — but not for posting pictures of murdered people. Last October, the New York Post reported that the Pentagon was investigating him for posting naked pictures of female soldiers in Iraq. After a few months, the Post reported that the Pentagon had blocked access to the site from US military facilities in Iraq. In the wake of the Post’s stories, Wilson says, he was bombarded with requests for interviews from newspapers and radio stations. Even after he began posting photographs of corpses late last year, media inquiries focused exclusively on his nudie pics. It wasn’t until reporters from the European press contacted him in early September that anyone took notice of Wilson’s snuff-for-porn arrangement with American troops.

Earl finally provides a URL, and it's a porn site. What a surprise!

Earl also lies again, in his last sentence. The words "snuff-for-porn" imply that American troops are going out to kill people and filming the killings (that's what "snuff" means) in order to trade the pictures for porn. Evidence?

Taking pictures afterwards of corpses killed in legitimate military action as virtual souvenirs is certainly disgusting, but Earl can't leave it at that, he has to sensationalize the charges.

Of course, taking pictures of corpses is perfectly proper in a forensic context, and CSIs take plenty of pictures that should be kept off the net and out of the papers. We all know that it is now impossible to keep (e.g.) autopsy pictures of famous people off the web. The fact that the Defense Department is no more able to keep such pictures out of circulation than the average police department proves exactly nothing about the rights or wrongs of the war.

That some soldiers in Iraq have either taken pictures of corpses or gotten hold of CSI-type pictures taken by others and traded them for porn is disgusting, but so what? It appears that Earl likes to talk about them because he's hoping that more people in and out of the U.S. will form their opinions "from their gut and not from [their] heads".

He conveniently forgets that there are actual snuff films being made in Iraq, but they're made by the other side, which gleefully videotapes the beheading of Nick Berg and quite a few others and proudly distributes the films over the web.

I don't watch "Faux News" very often simply because I don't watch television news. When I do watch Faux News it's always confusing to me because I hear the tirades against it and as far as I can tell it's pretty much the same as the other news... same stories, same data, same take... with the addition of a few conservative pundits. Like any 24 hour news network, it recycles Aruba as if no other young women have disappeared since then, or at least none as pretty, which I find somewhat disgusting.

It goes something like this... "Oh gawwd... that Fox News is just a pile of crap, and people watch it!" "Oh, have you ever watched Fox News." "Ugh, no! I flipped past it once."

Uh huh.

Julie: You're going to confuse poor Earl, not matching the stereotype he setup for you and other icky people who disagree with him by not watching "Faux News" and such. ;)

"These statement came out just before the testimony before the Armed Services Committee when the Iraqi Battalion Reports showed that we had progressed from 3 battle-ready battalions down to 1 battle-ready battalion."

Once again, you fail to do your research. We have actually progressed from 3 battle ready battalions to about 50 battle ready battalions. What the good General meant was one Iraqi Battalion was ready to conduct operations without any American assistance whatsoever. The other approximately 50 battalions have a small number of American advisors embedded in them. We used to have 3 battalions with small numbers of American advisors, now we have 50. In other words, 1 battalion is ready to go, and about 50 are damn close.

Also, you should read this bit from Reuters:

" Saleh al-Mutlak, a secular nationalist who was involved in negotiating a draft constitution, said a coalition of Sunni political groups close to insurgents was ready to promote such a dialogue to end the bloodshed that has ravaged Iraq since 2003.

“The fighting should stop,” Mutlak, who represents the National Dialogue movement, told Reuters. “We have fought for two-and-a-half years and the problem is it doesn’t work.”
...
“We must find a political solution,” he said. A ceasefire during Ramadan, which began this week, “should be a start for direct negotiations between the two sides."

Apparently the Sunnis didn't get the message that they are winning. Maybe you should try a little harder, eh Earl?

Here's a link about the true status of the progress of the ISF. It explains the whole mixup about the different figures quoted by various generals. Oh and I was wrong about the numbers above. It's actually 80 battalions :) Be sure to read this Earl.

Jordan wrote:
Once again, you fail to do your research.

Actually, I'm starting to suspect it's more like he's hoping other people won't do their research.

"And maybe none of you want to mess up your beautiful minds with anything else than what gets blasted from the Fox echo chamber."

I just don't get your obsession with Fox News, Earl. None of the links I provided are connected with Fox News in any way. But, if you want to cling to your absurd caricature go ahead.

"To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided there is little we can do--for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.
To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom--and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.
To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required--not because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge--and more."

i guess what i want to say is that we often appear to be talking past each other,

For instance, what I would want to say to Matt is that I have deep respect for the guy's position. Many guys like me--too old to serve at 37, or at least enlist--but who support the war and voted for it, bear some responsibility. I drink no KoolAId about the situation over there. Too many dipshits think it is hunky-dory. I do some Nat Sec reporting as part of my job and I can assure you that the men who designed this war had figured that we would have full utilities and water for Iraqis; were about 50% there.

I beleive in the victory but holy crap, we are in a fight.

that said, we are not disdainful of people who have concerns or reservations about OIF, which is totally legitimate, but the reflexive anti-American, anti-west sentiment that is expressed vituperatively by the Left.

you know of what we speak. they are on the other side. I feel Debra is close to this team; Earl, well, hes just pissed off. Thats ok, even if i completely disagree with the guy.

Hey, Rod, you claim to be

...too old to serve at 37, or at least enlist.

Guess what, pal? This war you think is such a good idea?

The Army raised the enlistment age to 39. Back in March.

You're good to go!

"Guess what, pal? This war you think is such a good idea?

The Army raised the enlistment age to 39. Back in March.

You're good to go!"

Implicit in your statement is the tired old chickenhawk argument. Support the War in Afghanistan did you? Why aren't you in Tora Bora?

There are two logical conclusions that such an argument can lead to: 1) you think the U.S. should be a military junta, or 2) you're a "peace at any cost" pacifist.

"Too many dipshits think it is hunky-dory."

I hope this wasn't a backhanded insult towards me. If it was than you've misread my position. Posting goods news does not mean I think everything is hunky dory over there. It merely means that there is good news coming from there. You'll notice I said earlier that I read the regular gloom and doom reports that are so ubiquitous. Also, the Iraq Index which I pointed Earl to presents a very balanced picture of the situation (i.e. no sugarcoating).

Hey, Jordan, I don't think I mentioned a damned thing about my age, previous service record, or position on the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq.

But I was responding to a poster who lamented the fact that, since he was 37 and a war supporter, he -- sadly -- couldn't sign up to serve. I pointed out the simple fact that he was -- happily -- mistaken. He can sign up.

All the other inferences you draw from that post are the product of your own fevered imagination. If you don't want him to sign up, that's your problem, not mine.

Though I might be tempted to ask why you don't support the war effort.

I do think, though, that the reflexive- America haters comprise a smaller part of the "left" than many of you suspect. Certainly, they are the loudest component- those appearing at the ludicrous DC rally, the tiresome Cindy Sheehan, and the odious George Galloway.

I am of "The Left" (I guess, in a broad sense) for a variety of reasons that I won't get into here, and I cannot identify at all with the fools I cited above.

That being said, I would caution war supporters not to caricature the entire "Left" as extremists, just like I would caution those of us on the Left not to caricature the "Right. The reality, as we all know, is far more complicated.

With Iraq, I do recognize that there is plenty of good news, and I desperately hope that more comes.

What bothers me is that certain war supporters view all bad news as being part of some vast liberal-media conspiracy that only wants America to lose. If the MSM isn't your cup of tea, then I would suggest that you read any one of a number of fine center-left foreign policy blogs. These provide a healthy dose of skepticism to balance Wretchard, Michael Yon, etc.

Democracy Arsenal
www.democracyarsenal.org

The Duck of Minerva

www.duckofminerva.blogspot.com

America Abroad

americaabroad.tpmcafe.com

Stickler:
cool. I have 4 kids,2-15 and a mortgage, but have thought long and hard on it. All liklihood is that i still cant do it.

Jordan, I wasnt mocking you or making fun of you. I simply was referring to a certain mindset found on little green footballs, among other places, that equates any concerns with defeatism.

Matt, I am trying to make a distinction between the Left and liberals. I do not support or agree with liberals in most fashion, but i do not question their patriotism or concern for the greater good of America. Having covered the left extensively in 2004 for a newspaper, let me reiterate that their is widespread antipathy for AMerica on the left.

and it is a shame that liberals do not do more to reign in the left, or at least marginalize it.

"If you don't want him to sign up, that's your problem, not mine.

Though I might be tempted to ask why you don't support the war effort."

Well, now who's inferring what wasn't there? I didn't say I didn't want him to sign up. I merely said he doesn't have to sign up to have a favorable opinion of the war.

"All the other inferences you draw from that post are the product of your own fevered imagination."

Fine. Although phrasing it as "the war you think is such a good idea" and then telling him he's eligible to sign up certainly sounds like "if you support the war you should sign up" to me.

"What bothers me is that certain war supporters view all bad news as being part of some vast liberal-media conspiracy that only wants America to lose."

I don't think that kind of sentiment is very widespread. I think the opinion of the majority of war supporters (including me) is that the selectivity in almost exclusively reporting the bad news is ample evidence of wanting America to lose.

The whole "the one battle ready battalion" mess is a perfect example of such selectivity. The follow up by Gen. David Petraeus explaining that "There are now over 197,000 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces," and "there are over 115 police and army combat battalions in the fight" received almost no attention, as opposed to the initial quote which was shouted from every rooftop. (I posted the link earlier in case you want to go back and read it).

Also, a significant number of the news items at Good News from the Front come from foreign media. Why the reluctance on the part of our media to report such things?

Anyway, just as you, Matt, recognize that there is plenty of good news from Iraq, I recognize there is also plenty of bad news. I must say that it's refreshing to debate a reasonable and moderate guy such as yourself.

For those who won't bother to read the rest of the statement by Gen. Petraeus, let me spell it out that there are 115 "combat ready" battalions. There are 3 stages of combat readyness. 80 battalions are at stage two (only 3 were at stage 2 last year), 35 at stage 3, and 1 at stage 1 (completely self-sufficient; none last year).

As I understood it, stage 2 is able to operate independantly as far as operations go... planning, execution, etc. they can take the lead. What they aren't is able to supply themselves without our help. And stage 3 is able to undertake operations alongside coalition units as fighting partners, holding up their end of the operation reliably.

Stage 1 is entirely independant in every way, including supply.

Even stage 3 is operating *effectively*. I wonder if maybe the military version of function "independantly" is meant in absolute terms but the general news consumer thinks in terms such as a fast food employee being able to handle a shift on their own.

Stage 1 means they *own the store*.
Stage 2 means they are the *store manager*.
Stage 3 means they are well trained and can work the 10-2 noon rush.

Somewhere below that is the hand-holding.

Amen, Will. Well said.

Debra and her ilk deserve to live under the boot of a two bit dictator. She wouldn't last long though. The first time she whined she would be raped, tortured and murdered.

Maybe we do have a good use for a dictator or two. Send Dera Democrats there as missionaries.

Now, now, RA. Anytime you feel tempted to use the word "ilk" in a sentence, you should stop and reconsider. No one deserves that, not Debra, not anyone. Saying so is nasty and reflects on you, not her.

So remember... "ilk" is an indication that more thought may be required.