Patton on the war on terror

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by aoxamaxoa

Here's a message for you....pull out of Iraq....get preparred for Pakistan.

Far left bs? Nope. Progressive thinking. Beats what we got from the neo-con lying chickenhawks in the Whitewash House and the schmoes in Con gress who backed this war.
Hillary included...
Patton is so passe...that's all....

My question for you dear aox, is what is going to happen to the countless numbers of Iraqis who have sided/are siding with the US?  They are known in their nieghborhoods, they will be exposed once we are gone, and they will be slaughtered.

The surge is working, and violence is the lowest it has been in 8 months.  Real facts beat bed-wetting, cut-and-run politics.

Where were you when Bush convinced NK to dismantle their nuclear program?  Seems like you just like to complain.

You continue to do an amazing job of reading directly from the neocon book of talking points. "The surge is working" is right up there with "mission accomplished" and "heckuva job, Brownie".

[Conan71]

Well, AJ, according to two consistently harsh critics of the WOT in Iraq, the surge IS working.

As published in the NY Times, a paper whose editorial has hardly been kind to our Iraq policy:

NYT

For those of you who don't like links, here's a snippet:

"Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with."

[iplaw]

quote:
You continue to do an amazing job of reading directly from the neocon book of talking points. "The surge is working" is right up there with "mission accomplished" and "heckuva job, Brownie".

 Reading the news once in a blue moon might help.

[rwarn17588]

Conan, O'Hanlon already has backed off on his rosy assertions. From the NYT:

"In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. O'Hanlon said the article was intended to point out that the security situation was currently far better than it was in 2006. What the American military cannot solve, he said, are problems caused by the inability of Iraqis to forge political solutions. 'Ultimately, politics trumps all else,' Mr. O'Hanlon said. 'If the political stalemate goes on, even if the military progress continued, I don't see how I could write another Op-Ed saying the same thing.'"

Talk about backing off ...

In essence, Iraq's political situation -- which is absolutely key to its future stability -- is still FUBAR.

And Pollack and O'Hanlon weren't "fierce critics" of the war. They were cheerleaders in the early going, then turned against it. I certainly read enough of Pollack's stuff at the time to know this was true, and Bill Moyers confronted him about it.

It seems they're more like weather vanes than analysts.

Sure, U.S. casualties are down somewhat (they're still at a high level compared to even two years ago). But Iraqi coalition and civilian deaths are creeping up again in July and August after a slight lull in June. In June, the Iraq deaths averaged 45 a day. In July, it was 54 a day. In August, it's over 60. And the totals are nowhere close to the deaths of 1,000 a month or less that Iraq saw in early 2006.

(This is illustrative how crapped up it's gotten in Iraq. We're talking about 1,000 deaths a month as being a *better* situation.)

And this is as good of a thoughtful, well-researched analysis of the Pollack/O'Hanlon piece as I've read. And, yes, it was linked favorably from a conservative site:

http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2007/08/post_93.html

This doesn't change the fact that this war has cost a half-trillion dollars, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, 3,670 American lives, raised the number of terrorism attacks around the world, and al-Qaida is its strongest since 9/11.

I dunno about you, but I expect a helluva lot more return in an investment of blood and treasure.

[iplaw]

quote:...hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives...

Care to substanitate this with anything other than that debunked Lancet journal entry?

quote:...raised the number of terrorism attacks around the world...

Evidence please?

quote:
and al-Qaida is its strongest since 9/11.

May be true, but can you establish a link for me that proves they wouldn't be just as strong even without Iraq.  If I remember correctly, we were told that Afghanistan was just as much of a catylist.

From what I see the terrorist attacks happening around the globle are little more than independent and loosely affiliated kooks doing random acts of terror.  We have yet to see a rise in concerted, well developed, terrorist attacks since 9/11, Madrid and the UK (Spain got it even after removing troops from Iraq!  That's the b%tch of being a former Islamic caliphate I suppose).  Al-Qaeda may be growing in numbers, but their effectiveness pales in comparison to what it was before Bush took office and has been sliding ever since.  They are having great troubles transferring and acquiring large sums of money, and their leadership can't afford to poke their heads too far out of their caves, lest they be severed from their bodies.  Leadership and money are two things a terrorist organization can't do without and we've been pretty damned successful in keeping the two out of their hands.

[rwarn17588]

The terrorism attacks rising comes from the State Department:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18399660/

That's *your* opinion that the Lancet Study was debunked. The British Ministry of Defence disagrees:

"But the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser said the survey's methods were "close to best practice" and the study design was 'robust'.

"Another expert agreed the method was 'tried and tested'."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6495753.stm

[cannon_fodder]

IP, let me make this easy for you.  Terrorist attacks are up if you count every attack by insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan as terrorist attacks.  

If that is the case, then our troops are over seas fighting the terrorist and keeping the attacks from our shores.  That is contrary to the idea that this war is not about terror and we are not fighting "terrorists."

If, however, you are not counting current theaters of the war on terror the number of terrorist attacks in the world has plummeted by a great deal.  28 U.S. citizens were killed by terrorist attacks.  Or about 5,000 less than at the peak of terrorism on the US.

Interestingly, the article also goes on to talk about Iran as the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world. It fails to mention what percentage of terrorist attacks were a result of Islamic conflict (read all but Nigerian oil fighting).  The article also fails to make any indication about the number of terrorist attacks outside of existing theaters of war (most theaters of war have many terrorist attacks, from bombings in Saigon to Paris).

The article could have been written either way, and been correct.

[iplaw]

quote: The terrorism attacks rising comes from the State Department:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18399660/

Are you kidding me?  This article says that the increase in terror attacks "worldwide" is only increasing because of the violence INSIDE IRAQ.  Terror attacks outside of Iraq are virtually unchanged.  Outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, Africa was the major recipient of the rest of the increase, but that obviously has nothing to do with Iraq.

quote:That's *your* opinion that the Lancet Study was debunked. The British Ministry of Defence disagrees:

"But the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser said the survey's methods were "close to best practice" and the study design was 'robust'.

"Another expert agreed the method was 'tried and tested'."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6495753.stm

Talk about not reading your own article you cite.  They accept the methodology, but REJECT THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY.

"Asked how the government can accept the Lancet's methodology but reject its findings, the government has issued a written statement in which it said: "The methodology has been used in other conflict situations, notably the Democratic republic of Congo.

"However, the Lancet figures are much higher than statistics from other sources, which only goes to show how estimates can vary enormously according to the method of collection.

"There is considerable debate amongst the scientific community over the accuracy of the figures."

Dr Michael Spagat of Royal Holloway London University says that most of those questioned lived on streets more likely than average to witness attacks: "It would appear they were only able to sample a small sliver of the country," he said. "

Of course Lancet also stated in 2006 that Hussein had 600,000 WMDs at his disposal before we invaded....

Maybe it's as good as their "cancer research" study where it was discovered that they fabricated cancer patients.

I feel comfortable in echoing numbers from Iraq Body Count

[rwarn17588]

Oooo, 65,000 to 75,000 dead -- and that is, by all accounts, a low number.

That makes me feel really good. []

You're still dancing around the fact that Iraq has turned into a big sh*thole. The country's in worse shape than when we started. Why have we spent a half-trillion dollars again?  Where's the return on the investment? Where's the justification?

[iplaw]

quote:Oooo, 65,000 to 75,000 dead -- and that is, by all accounts, a low number.

Compared to your number it's a world away.  You should really read the articles you cite to before you misstate their conclusions.

quote:
You're still dancing around the fact that Iraq has turned into a big sh*thole.

Danced around nothing...actually didn't address the point at all.  I commented on your lack of objectivity by pointing out the falsity of the Lancet study for about the third time for you.  Your "rise in terror" point was also solidly sh%t canned.

quote:
The country's in worse shape than when we started.

Really?  Care to explain?  It's certainly a mess, but how do you quantify that it's in "worse shape?"  Worse shape as compared to not being under the thumb of a nutjob dictator who actually DID kill hundreds of thousands?  That's it!  Maybe Lancet was counting numbers from when Hussein was still in power!

[rwarn17588]

I read the story about the Lancet study. The Brits basically said: "The methodology was sound, but we disagree with it anyway."

Kinda like: "We're not going to let sound science get in the way of our opinions."

And if you're still uncertain about whether Iraq is in worse shape than when we started, I can do nothing about that.

In the past week alone, there have been stories about Iraqis not getting water and the electrical grid about to collapse. When people can't even get necessities, something has gone horribly wrong.

That doesn't even account for the sectarian killings that go unabated.

And, again, do you think the loss of life and half-trillion dollars spent were worth it? Do you always expect such poor results with so much expense?

[iplaw]

quote:I read the story about the Lancet study. The Brits basically said: "The methodology was sound, but we disagree with it anyway."

Kinda like: "We're not going to let sound science get in the way of our opinions."

For God's sake are reading the article with someone else's glasses? That's not what it says.  It says that the methodology as used in other countries is typically sound, but was implimented incorrectly in Iraq. They surveyed a highly dangerous sliver of the country and that data was incorrectly extrapolated out to say it was representative of the whole country.  Imagine if Tulsa's body count was determined by looking at North Tulsa and extrapolating that over the entire city.  Tulsa would "appear" to have over 10,000 murders a year.

quote:
In the past week alone, there have been stories about Iraqis not getting water and the electrical grid about to collapse. When people can't even get necessities, something has gone horribly wrong.

Iraq is suffering because of antiquated infrastructure due to 40 years of Hussein diverting funds for "other purposes" instead of spending money on necessities.  Credit the US with rebuilding it from the ground up, but that takes some time.  The only reason Iraqis are being vocal about the lack of electricity and water is because they have the opportunity to complain.  Before, Hussein simply denied people those services as he did during the "Anfal" campaign.

[rwarn17588]

You still haven't answered the question.

Do you think we're getting our half-trillion dollars' and thousands of lives' worth?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

You still haven't answered the question.

Do you think we're getting our half-trillion dollars' and thousands of lives' worth?

Yes.  In fact, I do.  Especially if the surge continues to produce results as is the indication now.  I know you don't believe the reports, but it's clear you can't decipher even a clearly written newspaper article.

Care to address any of the points in my last post or should we assume that you really haven't read that article and just cherry-picked quotes?

[rwarn17588]

Yes, I read the article. I stand by my assertion.

You, apparently, don't give a rip about being prudent with lives and dollars.

Thanks for confirming your unconscionably spendthrift ways.

Tax and spend ... tax and spend ...