For the November casualty figure, I removed casualties from a mass grave that was recently discovered because it involved deaths that probably occurred several years ago. As you can see, the story of Iraq remains impossibly positive. Military casualties tell the same story:
Did you oppose the troop surge? That is, did you favor a course of action that even the editors of the New York Times realized would lead to genocide and a foothold for al Qaeda in Iraq? If so, I wonder how your views have changed in light of a reality that was not deemed possible (by you, that is)? If you are like most, the data will not alter your views at all, and that's just plain bizarre.
Thomas Friedman wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in which he discussed the Iraq that Obama is inheriting. It is amazing in several respects. First, it casually mentions some obvious truths that the editors of that paper have long worked overtime to deny:
Obama’s Iraq Inheritance
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: November 29, 2008
...
Al Qaeda has not been fully defeated in Iraq; suicide bombings are still an almost daily reality. But it has been dealt a severe blow, which I believe is one reason the Muslim jihadists — those brave warriors who specialize in killing women and children and defenseless tourists — have turned their attention to softer targets like India. Just as they tried to stoke a Shiite-Sunni civil war in Iraq, and failed, they are now trying to stoke a Hindu-Muslim civil war in India.
If Iraq can keep improving — still uncertain — and become a place where Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites can write their own social contract and live together with a modicum of stability, it could one day become a strategic asset for the United States in the post-9/11 effort to promote different politics in the Arab-Muslim world.
If you get your news from the New York Times, you likely believe that al Qaeda in Iraq is a neocon myth that was purposely hyped in order to justify Bush's misbegotten adventure in Iraq. Fortunately, we had the paper of record to repeatedly swat down that myth and make sure everyone understood that it was really just a complex and hopeless civil war that would only be made worse by Bush's troop surge. Thus, as the editors saw it, the thing to do was to just withdraw our forces at the very height of sectarian violence and allow genocide to unfold unfettered (I kid you not).
Friedman also casually states that Iraq could "one day become a strategic asset for the United States" that might help our efforts to "promote different politics in the Arab-Muslim world." And here I thought that spreading democracy throughout the Middle East was merely a neocon pipe dream. Any sensible liberal analyst could tell you that you can't impose democracy by force, so that part of the neocon plan was doomed to failure. People who steadfastly hold to that view have been reduced to repeatedly asserting that the current peace in Iraq is "fragile." That's their entire argument now.
Friedman said one other thing that called to my mind a much earlier op-ed:
Shaking Up the Neighbors
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: August 6, 2003
Shortly after the 25-member Governing Council was appointed in Iraq, the head of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, questioned the U.S.-appointed Council's legitimacy. ''If this Council was elected,'' complained Mr. Moussa, ''it would have gained much power and credibility.''
I love that quote. I love it, first of all, for its bold, gutsy, shameless, world-class hypocrisy. Mr. Moussa presides over an Arab League in which not one of the 22 member states has a leader elected in a free and fair election. On top of it, before the war, Mr. Moussa did all he could to shield Saddam Hussein from attack, although Saddam had never held a real election in his life. Yet, there was Mr. Moussa questioning the new U.S.-appointed Iraqi Council, which, even in its infant form, is already the most representative government Iraq has ever had.
Nicely said. Now back to his more recent op-ed, in which he included this howler:
If he can pull this off, and help that decent Iraq take root, Obama and the Democrats could not only end the Iraq war but salvage something positive from it.
To paraphrase the man himself: I love that quote. I love it, first of all, for its bold, gutsy, shameless, world-class absurdity. The idea that we need the Democrats to "end this war" -- a war that the U.S. military has effectively ended already (no thanks to the Democrats) -- and that the Democrats may salvage something positive from Iraq is almost too comical to seriously entertain. Actually, it is too comical to seriously entertain, so I won't waste any time doing so.
16 comments:
It is notable that AQI is still active and doing things like this.
While the Bush-Petraeus successes are obviously good, I am concerned what may happen if the US and Iraq relax their vigilance.
Don't forget those Iraqi Security Force and Sons of Iraq fatality numbers from Icasualties as they tell an important story about the present stability.
While the final number is not in yet, November will have the lowest ISF casualties of any month since Icasualties has kept track of ISF deaths. The November number is going to set a new record low by a pretty wide margin, as it stands now there is a 44% drop from the previous record low month Oct 2008. The fall off in the past two months in ISF deaths could be a very significant trend about the viability of the insurgency at this point and the strength of the mounting security gains.
thank you for your ongoing analysis and thoughts on this topic. it has been a good sorting through the spins and data to reach reasonable assessments.
Sort of shifts the responsibility to Obama if things don't work out well.
It doesn't look like the 2 month dip in ISF casualty numbers is going to hold. Icasualties is reporting 25 ISF forces killed on Dec 1, that is just 2 less than the whole month of November. At least 5 more were killed on the 2nd.
Two days in it looks like the insurgency wants to increase intensity in December.
Thanks so much for keeping an eye on this. Your work and analysis is much appreciated.
Engram-
I think this is a moment where some introspection might be valuable. For months you voiced your strong concerns about Obama's positions on National Security, on the basis of "relying on evidence." I agree with you that relying on evidence is the only way to go. Yet, now that the election is behind us we see that Obama's cabinet appointments and other statements indicate a more responsible approach to National Security- to the extent that you've said you may have voted for him had you known the direction he would head.
Now, with the benefit of hindsight, is it worth investigating whether there was evidence we overlooked that would have foretold the more centrist actions Obama has actually taken?
-cmd
So present the evidence, cmd.
Just wanted to re-iterate the thanks to Engram for continuing to track and make this data available. It is a great one-stop source for consistent trending data on the Iraq conflict.
Engram, a little while back, you also said you might also try to provide similar info on the Afghanistan theater - - are you still planning to do this? I think it would be useful info.
Thanks again,
a regular reader
Mrs Davis- well, I didnt mean to suggest I have an answer at my finger tips- I meant to suggest it is worth asking ourselves (those of us like me who generally agree with Engram's line of thinking/evidence) why the line of evidence was misleading in this case. It might make us a little more astute next time.
My first idea is to look at the likelihood of previous presidents to campaign from a political extreme, and then govern from the center. That would be historical evidence.
I am also fairly certain Obama made many caveat remarks over the campaign about "responsible withdrawl" and "conditions permitting" withdrawl.
And what about the 8 billion other rhetorical promises any politician makes when campaigning that anyone with a half-full skull knows must be taken with a grain of salt?
The history and nature of political campaigning is evidence itself that its foolish to believe campaign promises are a verbatim, unalterable, to-the-letter recipe of what a candidate will do once elected.
Do you disagree?
-cmd
CMD,
I dont know about Mrs. Davis, but I disagree.
First off, Obama is still not the president yet.
But this is not just an example of a politician running for office as an extremist. He has always been an extremist.
Obama's behavior was not only as a presidential candidate, but as a U.S. Senator. He had the most liberal voting record in 2007.
His previous leftwing radical background and membership of a racebaiting church was ditched for the presidency. If he never ran for president he would have never disowned Rev. Wright and would still be attending a church that overwhelmingly reacts positively to its leader's declaration of "God Damn America".
So this could be an example of an extremist toning down his radicalism to be president, but his campaign accurately reflected his beliefs and actions up to that point. He wasnt just pretending to be a radical when campaigning. That was who he has always been. When the guy actually assumes office and governs then we will have solid evidence of how he governs.
We should base our evaluations of his presidency on the proper data. No matter how conciliatory his appointments of advisors are, their advice can be overruled and they can be fired. Once again, Obama is not president yet.
FreedomNow- Well put. I've always felt the rev wright and bill ayers things were way overblown, but your other points about "wait and see" are fair.
-cmd
If you think that Obama's connection with Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers was a fluke just read Obama's autobiography, "Dreams of My Father".
It was written before Obama had national political ambitions. Therefore he didnt have his political expedient cautiousness yet and still had his guard down.
While it is mostly domestic in its nature, the reverse racism that it displayed is disturbing. His abandonment by his African father hurt him terribly and he attacked his whiteness to compensate himself for it. This led him to dive into radical politics.
Yet he was saved by his most notable traits... His bland safeness and lack of accomplishment.
Reverse racism is perfectly acceptable for most Americans. Even for a presidential candidate, it didnt hurt his campaign at all. But to be safe he refrained from such displays when he began to act upon his ambitions for national political office.
You know ,I have some flyff penya,and my friend also has some
flyff money,do you kouw they have the same meaning,Both of them
can be called
flyff gold，I just want tobuy flyff penya,because there are many cheap penya
“胡一刀，曲池喝花酒，天樞！苗人鳳酒店喝酒 ，地倉，合谷！個嘶啞的嗓子低沉地叫暑假打工 著。叫聲中充滿著怨毒寒假打工 和憤怒，語聲從酒店小姐 牙齒縫中迸出來，似是酒店兼職 千年万年、永恒的咒禮服店 ，每一個字音上涂著血和仇恨。 突突突突四酒店經紀 聲響，四道金光酒店兼差，四枝金鏢連珠發出，射向兩塊木牌。木牌的酒店 正面反面都繪著一個全身人酒店經紀人 形，一塊上繪的是個濃髯粗豪的大漢，旁注“胡一刀”三字；另一塊上繪的是個瘦長漢子，旁注“苗人鳳”三字，人形上書明人体周身穴酒店現領。木牌下面接有一柄，兩個身手矯捷的壯漢各持一牌，在練武廳中滿廳游走東北角一張椅子中坐著酒店經紀爆米花個五十來歲的白發婆婆，口中喊著胡一刀或苗人鳳穴道的名稱。一個二十來歲的英俊少年勁裝結束，鏢囊中酒店經紀帶著十几枝金鏢，听得那婆婆喊出穴道名稱，右手打工揚，就是一道金光射出，釘向木牌。兩個持牌壯漢頭戴鋼絲罩子兼差上身穿了厚棉襖再罩牛皮背心，唯恐少年失了准頭，金鏢招呼到他們身上。兩人竄高伏低，酒店打工擺木牌，要讓他酒店上班不易打中。 大廳外的窗口，伏著一個少女假日打工一個青年漢子。兩人在窗紙上挖破了兩個小孔，各用台北酒店經紀右眼湊著向里偷窺。兩人見那少年身手不凡，發鏢甚准，不由酒店pt 互相對望了一眼，臉上酒店pt都露出訝异的神色。
天空黑沉酒店應酬 沉的堆滿了烏云。大雨傾盆而下，夾著一陣陣的電閃雷轟，勢道嚇人粉味。黃豆大的雨點打在地下，直濺到窗外兩酒店經紀PRETTY GIRL少年男女酒店經濟 的身上。 們都身披油布雨衣，對廳上的事很感好奇酒店經濟再湊眼到窗洞上去看時，只听得那婆婆打工兼差道：“准頭還可將就，就是沒勁儿，今日就練到這里。”說著慢慢禮服店站起身來。
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領高薪的工作嗎、想要兼職、有缺錢的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?想找看看傳播妹的工作??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的賺錢的方法,酒店的工作?,想要輕鬆的假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,酒店上班想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要打工兼差、打工,兼差,八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,便服店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當日領上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、兼差、打工兼差、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有鋼琴酒吧又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
Post a Comment