An Alternate Reality

Just a quick reminder that in his speech to the nation outlining the purpose of the troop surge, Bush argued that it was needed, in part, to reinforce the Sunni Awakening against al Qaeda in Iraq:

Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders, and they are protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. And as a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to keep up the pressure on the terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan -- and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq.

The reason why this is important to understand is that those who wish to deny the importance of the troop surge argue that the Sunni Awakening is what really gets the credit. As I noted before, if that's true, then it must be the case that al Qaeda was a huge problem in Iraq after all (just as Bush and all reasonable analysts -- yet no virtually Democrats -- have claimed for the better part of 2 years). After all, the Sunni Awakening was an awakening against al Qaeda.

Democrats often argue that a troop withdrawal was the best way to "pressure" the Iraqis to deal with matters on their own instead of being dependent on us (as if 3000 civilians being slaughtered every month was not pressure enough). By that logic, Bush's troop surge should have been counterproductive. I doubt that many would try to defend that point of view, but, in a truly silly article, Newsweek comes close to doing that in an apparent effort to get Barack Obama out of his troop surge jam. With no apparent concern for its own credibility, Newsweek has this to say about Obama's plan to withdraw U.S. forces during the height of violence in Iraq:

Obama has said his early-2007 plan for a careful troop pullout could have also calmed Iraq. Most Iraqis would have said that a U.S. withdrawal then would have continued Iraq's horrible downward spiral. Probably. But the promise of a withdrawal might have won over some Iraqis. Combined with active diplomacy, it might have convinced neighboring countries that don't want a black hole next door to stop fanning the flames. It seems less than likely, but, as Obama says, it wasn't tried, still hasn't been tried and can't be ruled out.

Less than likely? This could go down as the understatement of the century, and even the New York Times -- the paper that will undoubtedly endorse Barack Obama for president -- would not come close to entertaining this fantasy. It is not "less than likely" that Obama's plan would have led to stability in Iraq. It is inconceivable. The New York Times (and everyone else) knows perfectly well what would have happened. Here is the scenario that accurately portrays what would have transpired had Barack Obama gotten his way (this according to the liberal, pro-Obama editors of the New York Times):

It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost...When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda...Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.

Even genocide? You don't say! This, of course, corresponds to what McCain has said, and when the left and the right agree, there is some reason to take the issue seriously. Bush chose a different course, and, at the time, Obama had this to say about it:

It is my firm belief that the responsible course of action - for the United States, for Iraq, and for our troops - is to oppose this reckless escalation and to pursue a new policy.

This reckless escalation? According to the New York Times, a reckless escalation of violence is what we would have witnessed had Barack Obama's judgment prevailed in Iraq. Obama will not concede that he was wrong about the surge, which is a little creepy to me, but I wonder if he would at least concede that he was wrong to characterize it as a "reckless escalation?" Does he still defend that reckless choice of words? I guess we'll never know.

I'll probably be off blogging for about a week, but this time it is just a vacation-related pause.

Pressing for Obama

I enjoy summarizing the available evidence on the question of whether or not the media sees the world through a political lens. They almost certainly do, and the question is this: do they see the world through a left wing filter or do they see it through a right wing filter?

All of the evidence -- and I do mean all -- supports the widespread theory that the media leans pretty far to the left (and that it interprets world events from that perspective). I summarized that small mountain of evidence most recently here. Today, I add some recent observations, and I'll start with a mere anecdote. An anecdote is just a story -- an example that highlights the potential problem but does not by itself provide compelling evidence. After all, you can always find a few anecdotes that seem to suggest that the media leans to the right (e.g., Judith Miller's pre-war and seemingly pro-war reporting about Saddam's WMDs for the New York Times). The little story that got the ball rolling for me again this time was this recent mini-controversy:

New York Times rejects McCain essay

(CNN) -- The New York Times has rejected an essay that Sen. John McCain wrote defending his Iraq war policy.

The piece was in response to an op-ed from Sen. Barack Obama that was published in the paper last week.

In an e-mail to the McCain campaign, Opinion Page Editor David Shipley said he could not accept the piece as written, but would be "pleased, though, to look at another draft."
...
Shipley, who was President Bill Clinton's senior speechwriter from 1995 to 1997, had advised the McCain campaign that "the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.

"It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator's Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan."

Those sentiments would appear to be the views of Democrat who did not like McCain's arguments (but who loved Obama's). To be fair, he probably should have demanded of Obama that he lay out a clear plan for achieving the absence of victory (which I would call "defeat") in Iraq. Obama had such a plan, and it was called the Iraq De-escalation Act of 2007, which Obama introduced at the height of violence in Iraq (in January of 2007). Even the New York Times, in advocating a similar policy of troop withdrawal, acknowledged that it would likely lead to what most would regard as the absence of victory. In fact, in defining the absence of victory for the editor who wants McCain to define the presence of victory, Obama could have quoted straight from a New York Times editorial that advocated the same action that Obama advocated in his de-escalation act (namely, withdrawing our troops from Iraq in the midst of uncontrollable sectarian violence):

It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost...When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda...Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.

That's as good a definition of the absence of victory as I have seen. If the New York Times editor is going demand a definition of victory from McCain, he should have demanded a definition of its opposite from Barack Obama.

In any case, the editor of the New York Times obviously leans to the left, but that's not evidence that the media in general does. But this is some brand new evidence of that:

An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .

Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

Reporters favor Obama to McCain by a mere 20-to-1? I honestly never would have guessed that it would be that close.

Here is a related story that recently appeared at MSNBC and that bears on the question of interest:

Is media playing fair in campaign coverage?

News executives say there are reasons for disparity

NEW YORK - Television news' royalty will fly in to meet Barack Obama during this week's overseas trip: CBS chief anchor Katie Couric in Jordan on Tuesday, ABC's Charles Gibson in Israel on Wednesday and NBC's Brian Williams in Germany on Thursday.

The anchor blessing defines the trip as a Major Event and — much like a "Saturday Night Live" skit in February that depicted a press corps fawning over Obama — raises anew the issue of fairness in campaign coverage.

The news media has devoted significantly more attention to the Democrat since Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign and left a two-person contest for the presidency between Obama and Republican John McCain, according to research conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
...
For each of the weeks between June 9 and July 13, Obama had a much more significant media presence. The Project for Excellence in Journalism evaluates more than 300 political stories each week in newspapers, magazines and television to measure whether each candidate is talked about in more than 25 percent of the stories.

Every week, Obama played an important role in more than two-thirds of the stories. For July 7-13, for example, Obama was a significant presence in 77 percent of the stories while McCain was in 48 percent, the PEJ said.

Sure, there are some weeks Obama's going to make more news, said Tom Rosenstiel, the project's director.

But every week?

"No matter how understandable it is given the newness of the candidate and the historical nature of Obama's candidacy, in the end it's probably not fair to McCain," he said.

Is this evidence that the media leans to the left? Yes it is, even though you can, if pressed, explain it away without appealing to a liberal bias. It's that way with every piece of evidence when each one is considered in isolation. That is, for each piece of evidence considered alone, you can come up with an explanation that has nothing to do with media bias. What makes the case for a liberal media bias compelling, however, is that you have to do that for every single shred of available evidence (i.e., you never have to concoct an explanation as to why the evidence apparently suggests a conservative bias in the media). When every piece of evidence points in the same direction, you have to go with the simple theory. As you might expect, most Americans go with the simple (and almost certainly true) theory, according to this new Rasmussen poll:

The idea that reporters are trying to help Obama win in November has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey, taken just before the new controversy involving the Times erupted, found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help the Democrat with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

I happen to fall into the category of voter who believes that reporters do try to offer unbiased coverage. I also believe that the coverage they provide seems unbiased and objective to them (i.e., reporters are not engaged in a conscious conspiracy to advance the liberal agenda). But I also believe that most reporters will try to help Obama to win the election by passing all information about Obama and McCain through a left wing filter. If reporters supported McCain by a 20-to-1 ratio, the same would be true, only in reverse. Or would you really be comfortable getting all your news from pro-McCain enthusiasts? Of course not. For the same reason, even if you are all caught up in the rhetoric of "hope" and "change," you should not be comfortable getting all your news from pro-Obama enthusiasts. But that's the way it is, Thursday, July 24, 2008.

The Washington Post States the Obvious

The New York Times will definitely endorse Barack Obama for president (if they haven't already), but I'm beginning to think that the Washington Post will endorse John McCain. In its editorial today, the Post makes some points that I have been emphasizing for a long time now. These are points that I have never seen raised in the mainstream media, even though they are glaringly obvious and not debatable (and even though they bear directly on Obama's claim that the war in Iraq is a distraction and has never been the central front in the war on terror, whereas Afghanistan supposedly has been). In truth, anyone with an ounce of curiosity and a milligram of investigative ability could quickly determine for themselves that al Qaeda abandoned Afghanistan long ago to fight America in Iraq (blame Bush for that, if you must). For background on that, read this post. Moreover, I have repeatedly pointed out that Obama and many others on the left obscure this reality by constantly referring to the fact that al Qaeda's leaders are free to plan terror attacks from the hideouts along Afghanistan/Pakistan border. This makes it sound as if sending more troops to that region might stand a chance of putting a stop to such activity (i.e., it makes it sound as if our troops would be heading out to the central front in the war on terror). What renders this way of thinking invalid is the fact that high-level al Qaeda commanders are believed to be across the border -- inside Pakistan -- which means that no amount of additional troops sent to Afghanistan will help to nab them (unless, of course, they invade Pakistan, which is not going to happen). References to the Afghanistan/Pakistan border seem designed to obscure this critical detail. That is, such references seem to be a gimmick designed to capitalize on the fact that most Americans are not paying attention to the details. It might be politically wise to do that, but it does not seem completely honest to me.

If you read my blog, these arguments are old hat, but I don't believe you have ever seen them made in the mainstream media. Not ever.

In a more recent post two days ago, I further argued that while the world was gushing about Msaliki's apparent endorsement of Obama's plan to withdraw our troops in 16 months, the fact is that Maliki endorsed McCain's view, not Obama's. What amazes me is that all of these points just showed up in today's editorial in the Washington Post:

THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy.
...
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki's timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama's. More significant, it would be "a timetable which Iraqis set" -- not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki "wants some flexibility in terms of how that's carried out."
...
He insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.

Obama claims that Afghanistan, not Iraq, is and always has been the central front in the war on terror, yet "...there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan." You don't say! Moreover, Obama himself credits the unexpected Sunni awakening in Iraq with helping to defeat al Qaeda in Iraq, which, in turn, helped to bring violence way down to the low levels we see today. Obama has never shown the slightest hint that he understands who the suicide bombers of Iraq are, but he at least seems to acknowledge that defeating al Qaeda has been a large part of the reason for our success there. In this way, his views are similar to the views of many on the left who simultaneously hold these two incompatible positions:

1. al Qaeda was a minor force in the violence that gripped Iraq in 2006 and 2007 (the violence mainly being attributable to a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis, who have long hated each other)

2. the dramatic reduction in violence that began in September of 2007 is due mainly to the Sunni rebellion against al Qaeda, not to the troop surge itself

In any case, from where I sit, Obama's positions on Iraq and Afghanistan (and on the war on terror in general) are not coherent. The fact that al Qaeda is in Iraq and not in Afghanistan is perhaps the key to understanding the problem with his attempt to think through this issue. Once people understand that al Qaeda is not in Afghanistan, they might begin to awaken to the idea that Afghanistan has not been the central front in our war with al Qaeda.

I congratulate the editors of the Washington Post for their insight, but why has it taken this long for someone in the mainstream media to take note of this obvious point?

UPDATE: Americans are not that well informed about the war on terror, I am sorry to say, and polling results like these help to explain why Obama is pushing the false narrative that the editors of the Washington Post finally exposed:

The survey taken Tuesday night finds 43% agree with Obama that Afghanistan is the central front in the war on terror. One-third of voters (33%) disagree. Again, nearly half (48%) believe that Afghanistan is a greater threat to the security of the United States than Iraq, while 28% rate Iraq as the bigger concern.

Americans think that the Taliban is a bigger threat than al Qaeda? No, of course they don't. These poll results merely show that most Americans do not appreciate the fact that al Qaeda has been a major force in Iraq over the last 5 years, during which time they have done next to nothing in Afghanistan. Americans have this wrong because virtually all mainstream media reporters have it wrong. One can only hope that today's editoial in the Post is the beginning of a shift in reporting on this issue.

Barack Obama Reiterates his Opposition to the Surge

In a recent post, I said that now would be a good time to ask opponents of the troop surge if they would still oppose it even knowing what they know now. That is, would they oppose it even when looking at casualty figures like this, which show that many thousands of innocent lives have been saved?


I didn't really think that anyone would have the audacity to ask this question of Barack Obama. Thus, I must admit that I'm a little surprised that a mainstream media reporter actually did ask Obama about the wisdom of his opposition to the troop surge in light of its obvious success. ABC correspondent Terry Moran interviewed Obama about this issue yesterday, and here is the exchange:

Q: If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?

Obama: No. Because, keep in mind that —

Q: You wouldn’t?

Obama: Keep in mind, these kind of hypotheticals are very difficult. You know hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one I just disagreed with.

In closing his story, Moran added this:

“And so, when pressed, Barack Obama says that he still would have opposed the surge but said he didn’t anticipate what people here call the Iraqi surge uprising against Al Qaeda and Shi’ite extremists. He said he didn’t anticipate that, but he is insisting that he is focusing forward on what needs to be done — setting that timetable for withdrawal.”

He didn't anticipate the Sunni uprising? I'd like to see the transcript of what Obama actually said. For the moment, I'll assume that Moran has it right, and I'll take it all back if the transcript of the interview shows Obama to have said no such thing.

It's one thing to be wrong in your predictions. Predicting the future is a hard thing to do, and everyone needs to be a bit more humble in their efforts to do that (whether the topic is Iraq, the economy, or the temperature of the earth). While it's fine to be wrong in prospect, it is quite another thing to remain wrong in retrospect. In my opinion, Obama remains wrong, even in retrospect. Assuming that Moran is portraying his comments accurately, Barack Obama claims that he did not anticipate the Sunni uprising against al Qaeda in Iraq, so he'd oppose the surge if given a chance to weigh in on it again. Is Obama's explanation plausible? Not to me.

George Bush, in his speech to the nation outlining the purpose of the surge, said this:

Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders, and they are protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. And as a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to keep up the pressure on the terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan -- and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq.

This speech was given right about the time that Barack Obama was introducing a bill that would have seen our troops withdrawn in about 14 months. Did he miss Bush's speech? Is that why he didn't know about the Sunni uprising? There were, before that, lots of news stories about this phenomenon as well. Here, for example, is a story from almost a year before Bush's speech:

from the February 06, 2006 edition

Sunni tribes turn against jihadis

To fight foreign terrorists, US and Iraqi forces are looking to the Sunni Arab resistance

BAGHDAD – Sheikh Osama al-Jadaan, head of the influential Karabila tribe in Sunni Arab-dominated western Iraq, is more politician than traditional sheikh these days. He's given up his dishdasha and Arab headdress for a pinstripe suit with a silk handkerchief in his breast pocket.

He's also turned away from supporting Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi and other foreign fighters in Iraq. "We realized that these foreign terrorists were hiding behind the veil of the noble Iraqi resistance," says Mr. Jadaan. "They claim to be striking at the US occupation, but the reality is they are killing innocent Iraqis in the markets, in mosques, in churches, and in our schools."

In Anbar Province, an insurgent hotbed that borders Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, US and Iraqi officials say they have a new ally against the Al Qaeda-inspired terrorists: local tribal leaders like Jadaan and home-grown Iraqi insurgents.

Just to be clear, Barack Obama says that he would oppose the surge again because, at the time, he didn't anticipate the Sunni uprising against al Qaeda in Iraq. However, signs of the incipient Sunni uprising were clearly evident at the time. In addition, in explaining the purpose of the surge in a televised speech to the nation, George Bush stated that one of the main reasons to go ahead with the plan was because the Sunnis were starting to rise up against al Qaeda. Bush argued that a surge of troops would reinforce that very positive development. It now seems that Bush was right.

I suspect (but do not know for a fact) that Obama did not anticipate the Sunni uprising because he did not believe that al Qaeda was a major force in Iraq. If you didn't believe that al Qaeda was a major force (which characterizes the view of nearly every prominent Democrat, including Barack Obama), then an uprising against al Qaeda in Iraq would not seem to be a very significant phenomenon. In January of 2007, when Obama was opposing the surge, it seems clear that he firmly believed in the now-discredited "civil war" scenario, and that's probably why he did not think that a Sunni uprising against al Qaeda was terribly relevant. It wasn't relevant because al Qaeda wasn't relevant, and al Qaeda wasn't relevant because Iraq had simply fallen into a state of civil war:

Posted: Thursday, 11 January 2007 9:49AM

Obama: 'We're Not Going To Babysit A Civil War'

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration is working to persuade a skeptical Democratic-led Congress to accept the president's announced troop buildup as the last best chance for reversing Iraq's slide into anarchy.

President Bush's new strategy, announced Wednesday in a prime-time address to the nation, increases U.S. forces in Iraq by 21,500 and demands greater cooperation from the Iraqi government.

"We're not going to baby sit a civil war," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told NBC's "Today" Show Thursday. He said the Democratic-controlled Congress would not undercut troops already in Iraq but would explore ways to restrict the president from expanding the mission.

Back then, no Democrat was concerned about al Qaeda in Iraq, and many explicitly argued that the Bush administration was hyping the al Qaeda threat to justify "endless war." To this day, Barack Obama claims that Iraq was not the central front in the war on terror. If so, why does he now see the Sunni uprising against al Qaeda as being so significant? So significant that, apparently, he might have supported the surge had he realized that it would happen?

Iraq Endorses McCain's View, not Obama's

Here is a story on MSNBC that gets it exactly backwards (in a way that favors one candidate over the other):

Iraq appears to share Obama's pullout hope

Statement on U.S. troop withdrawal by 2010 follows meeting with al-Maliki

BAGHDAD - Iraq’s government welcomed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday with word that it apparently shares his hope that U.S. combat forces could leave by 2010.

A much more accurate title for this news story would be:

Iraq shares McCain's position on pullout and disagrees with Obama's position

I'm not kidding. Back in January of 2007, when approximately 3000 Iraqi civilians were being killed each month as a result of sectarian conflict that was deliberately engineered by al Qaeda, Barack Obama introduced a bill called the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007:

Obama Bill Sets Date For Troop Withdrawal

Candidate Goes Further Than Rivals

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 31, 2007; Page A04

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, one of the most prominent Democrats in the 2008 presidential field, proposed for the first time setting a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq, as part of a broader plan aimed at bolstering the freshman senator's foreign policy credentials.

Obama's legislation, offered on the Senate floor last night, would remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008. The date falls within the parameters offered by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which recommended the removal of combat troops by the first quarter of next year.

So, at the height of violence, he was calling for the removal of U.S. troops in about 14 months. Nowadays, with violence reduced to dramatically lower levels (civilian deaths are one-fourth or one-fifth of what they once were), Obama is still calling for a withdrawal of our troops over a similar time frame:

Barack Obama believes we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

As you can see, Obama's position is that U.S. troops should be withdrawn independent of conditions on the ground. If 3000 civilians are being slaughtered each month as a result of sectarian conflict engineered by al Qaeda, withdraw the troops. If al Qaeda has been largely crushed and civilian casualties have dropped to much lower levels, withdraw the troops. Fine. That's a point of view shared by many on the left and perhaps by many centrist Americans as well.

A different point of view can be found on John McCain's web site:

"I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there. Our goal is an Iraq that can stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighborhood. Our goal is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops. And I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine. But I do not believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for President that they cannot keep if elected. To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility. It is a failure of leadership."

In other words, McCain wants our combat troops out as well, perhaps sooner than many believe possible. But the withdrawal is conditional on the security situation in Iraq. If the security situation worsens, our troops stay. That's the key difference between his position and Obama's position. Unless I am missing something, there is no disputing this.

Now, back to the MSNBC article (entitled "Iraq appears to share Obama's pullout hope"). Is Iraq's position more like Obama's or more like McCain's? Later in that article we find this:

“We are hoping that in 2010 that combat troops will withdraw from Iraq,” al-Dabbagh told reporters, noting that any withdrawal plan was subject to change if the level of violence kicks up again.

That is, Iraq would like our troops out, perhaps as soon as 2010, but any withdrawal is conditional on maintaining security gains. That's McCain's position position, not Obama's position. Obama has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he wants our troops withdrawn no matter what the facts on the ground might be. He has a bill to prove it (the one called the "Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007").

I hope that one of those news anchors following Barack Obama around the world asks whether he would favor withdrawing troops in 16 months even if al Qaeda causes sectarian violence to flare up again. He must say "yes, I favor withdrawal even under those conditions." If he says "no," then the next question would be this: "why, then, did you introduce a bill advocating withdrawal when sectarian violence was at its worst in January of 2007?"

Maliki's Timetable

It seems that Iraq's Prime Minister Maliki did not endorse Barack Obama's plan to unconditionally withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq over the next 16 months after all. But let's say that he had fully endorsed that plan. Some of the reaction to such an endorsement seems wildly off the mark to me, as this analogy tries to make clear:

The setting: an operating room, with a patient on the table and a world-class heart surgeon halfway through an 8-hour by-pass operation. In attendance are these additional people: an attending physician, who is in charge of final decisions, two critics (Critic A and Critic B), and a mainstream media reporter. Critic A says that the operation was not needed and never should have started. Now that it is underway and the patient is hemorrhaging on the operating table, Critic A still insists that the surgery was a mistake and that the heart surgeon should just walk away. Critic B says that, no matter what the wisdom of the initial decision, the operation should continue until the bleeding has stopped, the wound is closed, and the patient's condition has stabilized. Only then should the surgeon walk away.

Well, fortunately for the patient, Critic B's view prevails. The heart surgeon has completed the operation and bandaged the wound, but he is still standing by to make sure that the patient really is as stable as he appears to be based on his increasingly positive vital signs. The attending physician finally weighs in and states his belief that the patient has stabilized to the point where the heart surgeon can finally walk away. At this point, the reporter rushes out to explain to the world how the attending physician agrees with Critic A that the heart surgeon should just walk away and how this fact is at odds with the position of Critic B.

Such is the state of news coverage these days. Obviously, even if Maliki wants a 16-month withdrawal plan (as Obama does and always has), it is because he believes that the situation has stabilized to the point where the Iraqi's can now handle security on their own. That is, Maliki's position would still be the same as the position advocated by Bush and McCain (i.e., the troops should stay until the situation has stabilized). A stable Iraq is still a relatively new phenomenon, and it might be the case that Bush and Maliki will not see eye-to-eye about exactly when the country is stable enough to manage security on its own. But that is a very far cry from Obama's position, which is that the troops should have been withdrawn even when chaos ruled the day in Iraq. Withdrawing our troops unconditionally (Obama's position) or withdrawing them conditional on success (the Bush/McCain/Maliki position) is the key distinction in the debate about Iraq over the last 2 years. The fact that reporters have trouble understanding this simple fact probably should not surprise me, but it does.

Did America or al Qaeda Fall into a Trap in Iraq?

Our recent military success in Iraq is so remarkable that I am now less interested in reading articles that attempt to highlight that success than I am in reading articles that bend over backwards to portray it in a negative light. The most common technique is to simply assert that the vastly improved security situation in Iraq is "fragile" and that it will all fall apart due to a lack of political reconciliation (as if new signs of political reconciliation are not apparent every day). In a new article entitled "Al Qaeda: Winning or Losing?," the normally sensible Economist takes a slightly different approach to minimizing our apparent victory:

Seen in this light, one of the objectives of the September 11th attacks was to provoke the Americans into invading Muslim lands. But if al-Qaeda intended to trap America in Afghanistan, its plan went badly awry, at least initially. The Taliban fell quickly in 2001 and al-Qaeda’s followers were forced into hiding.

A hubristic America, however, then walked into a trap of its own making by invading Iraq in 2003. It got rid of a dangerous dictator but gave the jihadists a popular cause against American occupiers in the Muslim heartland. For a while the jihadists thought they could carve out a base in Iraq from which to destabilise the region. That danger may now have been averted. Helped by al-Qaeda’s excesses, a bloodied America seems to be fighting its way out of the worst of the troubles it created for itself.

Yes, for a while the jihadists did think they could carve out a base in Iraq from which to destabilize the region. However, I might add that these "jihadists" were the foot soldiers of none other than Osama bin Laden's global terrorist organization known as al Qaeda. I might further add that al Qaeda concentrated virtually all of its efforts in winning the war in Iraq, that in so doing it sacrificed its once vaunted reputation throughout the Muslim world because of the nearly successful tactic it used (namely, using suicide bombers to slaughter innocent Shiites), and that the victory that was nearly at hand for al Qaeda in January of 2007 (when Bush ordered the troop surge and Obama wanted to withdraw our troops) is gone forever. In other words, America is not "fighting its way out of the worst of the troubles it created for itself," as if our troops are successfully retreating under fire. Instead, America is crushing al Qaeda's full-on response to our invasion of Iraq.

Thus, it was al Qaeda, not America, that "walked into a trap of its own making." Perhaps they did goad America into invading Iraq, but the trap in question was the "fly trap." Remember that? It was well known at the time of the invasion that jihadists would flock to the war in Iraq like flies. The thinking at the time was that it would be better to draw the jihadists to fight our professional soldiers than allow them to attack unarmed innocent civilians here at home. George Bush even issued a cordial invitation to the jihadists with his "bring it on" speech. And bring it on they did. Bush badly underestimated what al Qaeda was capable of doing. In return, al Qaeda badly underestimated Bush's resolve (while correctly estimating that the resolve of the American public would wilt in response to their relentless suicide bombing campaign against Shiite civilians).

Al Qaeda fought a war of choice against America in Iraq, not a war of necessity. I blame them, not Bush, for doing that (you are free to do otherwise, of course). But here is the key point: It is al Qaeda, not America, that is fighting its way out of the worst of the troubles it created for itself in Iraq. It is al Qaeda, not America, that is giving up its goals for Iraq and is retreating under fire. In my eyes, it is not sensible to portray the situation as being the other way around.

You can say that America's effort in Iraq was not worth the cost (a perfectly respectable position), but you can't reasonably say that nothing has been achieved. The cost has been very high, but the achievement has been very high as well. If you are on the left, I suspect you will disagree with that assessment, but, as I see it, it is a monumental achievement to have defeated al Qaeda's central effort in recent years and to have replaced a brutal dictator with what increasingly appears to be a functioning democracy in the heart of the Middle East. You can reasonably say that we violated international law by not allowing a genocidal tyrant with the blood of a million people on his hands to remain in power (and I would agree with you), but I don't think you can reasonably say that the high cost of the invasion has not been somewhat offset by dramatically positive results.

Someday, pollsters will again ask the Iraqi people if they are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein. You might not care what they say in response to that question, but I do, and I can hardly wait to get the answer.

Al Qaeda may be Shifting to Afghanistan

If you think that al Qaeda has been resurgent in Afghanistan over the last 5 years while the U.S. has been distracted by the war in Iraq, and if you further believe that al Qaeda in Iraq is essentially a myth, as many on the left have suggested (see this amazing article, for example), then this news must seem odd to you:

BAGHDAD - Senior leaders of al-Qaida may be diverting fighters from the war in Iraq to the Afghan frontier area, the top American commander in Iraq told The Associated Press on Saturday.

Gen. David Petraeus also said al-Qaida may be reconsidering Iraq as its highest priority war front.
...
Petraeus said his information about a possible shift in al-Qaida resources away from Iraq was based on human intelligence, meaning informants. If confirmed, it could have profound implications not only for Iraq, where terrorist and insurgent violence has been on a steep decline, but also for Afghanistan, where militants crossing the border from Pakistan are a growing threat to the government in Kabul.

"There are unsubstantiated rumors and reflections that perhaps some foreign fighters originally intended for Iraq may have gone to the FATA," he said, referring to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, where extremists have a secure staging ground for movements into neighboring Afghanistan.
...
The implication of Petraeus's remark is that al-Qaida might be turning more attention, resources and fighters to Afghanistan, where more than 30,000 U.S. troops are part of an international security force that has fought increasingly bloody battles over the past two years, especially in the south.

Thus, according to Petraeus, al Qaeda has been fighting in Iraq (Iraq was, in fact, their highest priority), but now that they effectively lost there, they are shifting resources back to Afghanistan. This fits with that story from long ago suggesting that, back in 2003, al Qaeda decided to fight the U.S. in Iraq, not Afghanistan:

Bin Laden's Iraq Plans

By Sami Yousafzai, Ron Moreau and Michael Hirsh
Newsweek

Monday 15 December 2003

During the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, three senior Qaeda representatives allegedly held a secret meeting in Afghanistan with two top Taliban commanders.
...
At that meeting, according to Taliban sources, Osama bin Laden's men officially broke some bad news to emissaries from Mullah Mohammed Omar, the elusive leader of Afghanistan's ousted fundamentalist regime. Their message: Al Qaeda would be diverting a large number of fighters from the anti-U.S. insurgency in Afghanistan to Iraq. Al Qaeda also planned to reduce by half its $3 million monthly contribution to Afghan jihadi outfits.

All this was on the orders of bin Laden himself, the sources said.

How many people in the United States (or around the world, for that matter) understand that al Qaeda abandoned Afghanistan and threw everything they at had at fighting the war in Iraq? That is, that al Qaeda chose to make Iraq the central front in the war on terror? The fact that al Qaeda did this is not an arguable point (it's not even close), which is why it is downright creepy to me that almost no one understands it (only those who dig into the details do).

Are you interested in Barack Obama's opinion on this matter? I am. Does he accept or deny that al Qaeda fought a war of choice against America in Iraq, not in Afghanistan? Does he accept or deny that al Qaeda's central focus for the last 5 years has ended in utter failure for them? Well, as you might imagine, he pretty much avoids directly discussing the issue altogether. Here is the relevant section from his web page, where he still unambiguously promises to withdraw troops from Iraq (which is what he also wanted to do when violence was at its peak and the New York Times was suggesting that any such withdrawal -- which they also favored -- would lead to the very catastrophe that supporters of the war envisioned). On his web page, Obama also strongly implies that al Qaeda has been fighting in Afghanistan all along and says barely a word about al Qaeda in Iraq (as if it was of minor significance there):

Resurgent Al Qaeda in Afghanistan: The decision to invade Iraq diverted resources from the war in Afghanistan, making it harder for us to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden and others involved in the 9/11 attacks. Nearly seven years later, the Taliban has reemerged in southern Afghanistan while Al Qaeda has used the space provided by the Iraq war to regroup, train and plan for another attack on the United States. 2007 was the most violent year in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001. The scale of our deployments in Iraq continues to set back our ability to finish the fight in Afghanistan, producing unacceptable strategic risks.

Well, ironically, he's right in a way. What he apparently thinks has been happening for the last 5 years may finally be happening (i.e., having lost in Iraq, al Qeada may be sending its fighters there). If I were one of those news anchors who was about to interview Barack Obama, I would ask him this question:

While most analysts agree that al Qaeda's leadership has been increasingly active in Pakistan over the last 5 years, they disagree about the role that al Qaeda has played over that period of time in the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. John McCain argues that al Qaeda played a major and extremely deadly role in Iraq, and General Petraeus says that al Qaeda may be shifting their fight to Afghanistan only now that their fortunes are diminishing in Iraq. Your past comments appear to suggest that al Qaeda's role in Iraq was not the central focus for that terrorist organization and that the conflict there was mainly a civil war. In opposing the troop surge, for example, you said, quote "We're not going to baby sit a civil war." Instead of a surge, you favored withdrawing our troops even though violence was very high in Iraq. Your past comments also suggest that al Qaeda has been long resurgent in Afghanistan while the U.S. has been distracted by the war in Iraq. What is your understanding of what al Qaeda has been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 5 years?

I would love to hear his honest answer to this question. Wouldn't you? In reality, the answer would probably be unsatisfactory. He'd probably make some acknowledgement of al Qaeda in Iraq (and credit the Sunnis for dealing a blow to them), and then he'd obscure the issue by talking about the resurgence of al Qaeda along the "Afghanistan/Pakistan border." Still, I'd love to hear this question put to him.

The Liberal Perspective on Iraq from the New York Times

In my new quest to understand the views of those who disagree with me on the issue of Iraq, I simply present, without additional comment, the evolution of thinking on this matter at the New York Times. As best I can tell, the views of the editors exactly parallel the views of Barack Obama, so it comes as no surprise that the most recent editorial that I quote from (at the end of this blog entry) concludes that Obama (not McCain) is the one with a clear understanding of what to do about Iraq now.

My purpose is just to highlight a point of view that I simply cannot comprehend. To do so, I present excerpts from 4 editorials written by the editors of the New York Times, beginning with their judgment about the likely value of the troop surge that Bush ordered in January of 2007. This is when civilian casualties in Iraq were at their peak (roughly 3000 civilians per month being killed) and Barack Obama had just introduced a bill calling for the withdrawal of American troops. Comments by the editors that are especially difficult for me to understand are in bold. To me, it makes for fascinating reading.

The Real Disaster (January 11, 2007):

Talk of a “surge” ignores the other 132,000 American troops trapped by a failed strategy...There is nothing ahead but even greater disaster in Iraq.

The Road Home (July 8, 2007):

It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost...When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda...Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.

Empty Calories (September 11, 2007):

For months, President Bush has been promising an honest accounting of the situation in Iraq, a fresh look at the war strategy and a new plan for how to extricate the United States from the death spiral of the Iraqi civil war. The nation got none of that yesterday from the Congressional testimony by Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. It got more excuses for delaying serious decisions for many more months, keeping the war going into 2008 and probably well beyond.

It was just another of the broken promises and false claims of success that we’ve heard from Mr. Bush for years, from shock and awe, to bouquets of roses, to mission accomplished and, most recently, to a major escalation that was supposed to buy Iraqi leaders time to unify their nation. We hope Congress is not fooled by the silver stars, charts and rhetoric of yesterday’s hearing.

Talking Sense on Iraq (July 17, 2008):

Mr. Obama’s Republican rival, Senator John McCain, is no longer able to ignore the situation on the Afghan-Pakistan border, where Al Qaeda and the Taliban — the true threats to American security — are resurgent. But he has not matched Mr. Obama’s seriousness on Iraq. Mr. McCain is still tied in knots, largely adopting Mr. Bush’s blind defense of an unending conflict.

Mr. Obama has a better grasp of the big picture, despite Mr. McCain’s claim to more foreign policy experience.
...
And it was distressing to hear Mr. McCain still talking about “winning” the war in Iraq and adopting the tedious tactic of accusing Mr. Obama of “giving up” when he talks about a careful withdrawal of troops.

We have no idea what winning means to Mr. McCain. Mr. Bush initially promised a free and democratic Iraq. After spending $656 billion, his administration has retreated from such grandiose notions and he will be lucky to leave behind a marginally functioning central government in a very fragile and violent country.

Al Qaeda is in Iraq, not Afghanistan

It's not unreasonable to say that Iraq was not the central front in the war on terror when we invaded in March of 2003. That's Barack Obama's position, and I tend to agree. However, after the invasion, all evidence suggests that al Qaeda committed itself to the war in Iraq and abandoned its war in Afghanistan. That's why a new statement by Barack Obama caught me by surprise:

Barack Obama (July 15, 2008):

"As should have been apparent to President Bush and Sen. [John] McCain — the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was," Obama said in what his campaign called a major policy address on Iraq, Afghanistan and national security.

Iraq never was the central front in the war on terror? Let me quickly step through the evidence that convinces me otherwise:

Osama bin Laden (2003):

Bin Laden's Iraq Plans

By Sami Yousafzai, Ron Moreau and Michael Hirsh
Newsweek

Monday 15 December 2003

During the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, three senior Qaeda representatives allegedly held a secret meeting in Afghanistan with two top Taliban commanders.
...
At that meeting, according to Taliban sources, Osama bin Laden's men officially broke some bad news to emissaries from Mullah Mohammed Omar, the elusive leader of Afghanistan's ousted fundamentalist regime. Their message: Al Qaeda would be diverting a large number of fighters from the anti-U.S. insurgency in Afghanistan to Iraq. Al Qaeda also planned to reduce by half its $3 million monthly contribution to Afghan jihadi outfits.

All this was on the orders of bin Laden himself, the sources said.

Osama bin Laden (December 27, 2004):

A second Bin Laden tape, released on December 27, 2004, underscored Al Qaeda's interest in Iraq and support for the ongoing insurgency. In this recording, Bin Laden personally welcomed and endorsed Jordanian-born terrorist leader Abu Musab Al Zarqawi as an Al Qaeda affiliate and leader of Al Qaeda operations in Iraq.19 Bin Laden identified the insurgency in Iraq as "a golden and unique opportunity" for jihadists to engage and defeat the United States, and he characterized the insurgency in Iraq as the central battle in a "Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation."20 Describing Baghdad as "the capital of the caliphate," Bin Laden asserted that "jihad in Palestine and Iraq today is a duty for the people of the two countries" and other Muslims.

On a tactical level, Bin Laden has encouraged Islamist insurgents in Iraq to work with "Socialist" groups (Baathists) and compared cooperation between Islamists and Baathists to Arab and Persian collaboration against the Byzantine empire in the 7th and 8th centuries.

Osama bin Laden (March 20, 2008):

Al-Jazeera broadcast on Thursday an audiotape on which a voice identified as Osama bin Laden declares "Iraq is the perfect base to set up the jihad to liberate Palestine."

The voice calls on "Muslims in neighboring countries" to "do their best in supporting their mujahedeen brothers in Iraq."

Zawahiri (Al Qaeda's #2, 2005 letter):

"So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals:

The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq."

Zarqawi (Leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, 2004 Letter):

The Shi'a in our opinion, these are the key to change. Targeting and striking their religious, political, and military symbols, will make them show their rage against the Sunnis and bear their inner vengeance. If we succeed in dragging them into a sectarian war, this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis who are fearful of destruction and death at the hands of these Sabeans, i.e., the Shi'a.
...
As far as the Shi'a, we will undertake suicide operations and use car bombs to harm them.

MSNBC (March 16, 2008):

Suicide bomber is al-Qaida's deadliest weapon

BAGHDAD - The suicide bombers who have killed 10,000 people in Iraq, including hundreds of American troops, usually are alienated young men from large families who are desperate to stand out from the crowd and make their mark, according to a U.S. military study.

As long suspected, most come from outside Iraq. Saudi Arabia, home of most of the 9/11 hijackers, is the single largest source. And the pipeline is continually replenished by al-Qaida in Iraq's recruiters.

What do you make of this evidence if you really believe that Iraq never became the central front in the war on terror? Did Zarqawi not follow through on his plan? Were Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri just kidding? Were the foreign suicide bombers just coming to join a civil war and for no other reason than that? Is al Qaeda not the organization that helped to funnel these suicide bombers into Iraq? I honestly don't get it. To me, it seems glaringly obvious that al Qaeda declared war on the U.S. in Iraq after the invasion. It was a "war of choice" for them, and they chose Iraq instead of Afghanistan. Moreover, they had big plans for Iraq after they arranged for the defeat of U.S. forces there. That is, they were not freedom fighters who were merely seeking to assist the Iraqis in their efforts to throw off a foreign invader. Instead, al Qaeda's leaders were seeking to seize Iraq for themselves. Not by providing a stable government there but instead by creating a failed state characterized by sectarian chaos. That was Zarqawi's stated plan.

Barack Obama often suggests that Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq, have always been the central front on the war on terror. Let's set Pakistan aside for the moment because everyone agrees that (a) high-level al Qaeda operatives are active there, (b) we'd kill bin Laden in Pakistan if an armed drone ever identified him, and (c) the U.S. will not send troops into Pakistan no matter who is president. Obama talks tough about Pakistan, but, like Bush, he's not going to send in the troops, and everyone knows it. After all, people who have bumper stickers that say "I'm already against the next war" have another bumper sticker that says "Barack Obama." They know perfectly well that he will not invade Pakistan. Pakistan is a big problem, but there is no clear solution. For example, sending more troops to Afghanistan will not help to address the problems we face with Pakistan.

So, as I see it, al Qaeda went into Iraq in a big way after we invaded, and al Qaeda's leadership runs the show from Pakistan. What's the story with Afghanistan? Let's walk through the evidence suggesting that al Qaeda has been active there for the last 5 years. I've placed all the evidence that I can find between the lines below so that you can easily grasp it in a single glance:

==============================
--- Evidence Placeholder ---
==============================

What do you think? Are you convinced by my evidence that al Qaeda is active in Afghanistan? Probably not because, obviously, I don't have any such evidence. That's because no matter how hard I look, I can't find any. But if you believe that al Qaeda is active in Afghanistan (not in Iraq), then you surely must have some evidence supporting that claim. Otherwise, you would not agree with Barack Obama on this matter. Would you please share that evidence? I would honestly like to know what I am missing.

Remember, the Taliban and al Qaeda are not the same. The Taliban is not a terrorist organization with global reach. Their suicide bombers are few in number and are generally hapless, in sharp contrast to the extremely deadly suicide bombers of Iraq. The Taliban are "resurgent" in the sense that they are becoming more deadly as they, themselves, become more willing to die in ever larger numbers. It is important to defeat the Taliban, but the Taliban should not be confused with a terrorist organization that has global reach. Now that al Qaeda has been defeated in Iraq, bin Laden may shift resources back to the Taliban, in which case the Taliban will become a lot more deadly. In fact, I would not be surprised to learn that al Qaeda helped the Taliban carry out that recent attack that killed 9 U.S. soldiers. But this would just mean that the central front in the war on terror is once again shifting to Afghanistan, not that it has been there all along (as Barack Obama constantly implies).

So, if you find Obama's argument compelling (i.e., that Afghanistan, not Iraq, has always been the central front in the war on terror), then shouldn't you be able to point to one single shred of evidence from the last 5 years or so that suggests that al Qaeda was extremely active in Afghanistan? Some horrid attack that was clearly attributed to them? Some high-level al Qaeda operative (analogous to Zarqawi in Iraq) who was killed or captured there? Anything will do. If you believe that Barack Obama is right, then there must be some evidence that has convinced you of this. All I am asking is that you share it with me.

Here is a Wikipedia article entitled "Timeline of Al Qaeda Attacks." The article includes this nice summary chart of al Qaeda's attacks throughout the world:


Lots of these attacks will be familiar to you. Look at entry number 6 ("2003-present attacks in Iraq"). If you go to the article and click on that link, it will take you to another link to an article that lists all of the deadly attacks perpetrated by al Qaeda in Iraq over the years. It makes for painful reading. Here is the table of contents for that article, which is entitled "Terrorist Attacks of the Iraq War:"


Obviously, al Qaeda has been extremely active in Iraq (and the result of their effort is what you mistakenly thought was a spontaneous civil war).

In the first Wikipedia article that lists all of al Qaeda's attacks everywhere in the world, where is the link that says "2003-present attacks in Afghanistan"? It's not there. Even though we have been in a war in that country over this entire period of time, there simply are no such attacks to be found. That being the case, what evidence convinces you that Barack Obama is right to say that Afghanistan (not Iraq) is the central front in our war with al Qaeda? Joe Biden appears to think a lot like Barack Obama:

Biden, the chair of the Senate foreign relations committee, also criticized McCain for putting too much emphasis on Iraq.

“If John wants to know where the bad guys live, come back with me to Afghanistan,” Biden said. “We know where they reside. And it’s not in Iraq.”

I assume he is talking about the bad guys of al Qaeda. Do you agree with Biden? Fine, but why? It seems like a fair question.

Even if you are a big fan of Barack Obama, you must admit that my reasons for believing that he has it exactly backwards are clear and that my case is backed by links to a great deal of relevant evidence. That is, although you might believe that I am wrong to think that Iraq (not Afghanistan) has long been the central front in the war on terror, you can't possibly believe that I am just making it all up. Why do you think that Barack Obama is not just making up a story? That is, what are your reasons for believing that Barack Obama has it exactly right (i.e., that Afghanistan, not Iraq, has always been the central front in the war on terror) and that I have it exactly backwards? My current belief is that you have no such evidence -- none whatsoever -- but I am happy to be proven wrong. I'd like to believe that my views shift with the relevant evidence, so I'd like to see the mountain of evidence that apparently convinces Barack Obama ( and you, perhaps) that, contrary to what I believe, al Qaeda has been fighting away for the last 5 years in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

Casualties in Iraq, June 2008

I missed the June update on casualties in Iraq, so let's take a look:





A while ago, people were fond of asking this question: if you knew then what you know now, would you still have supported the invasion of Iraq? I think now might be a good time to ask a similar question of those who opposed the troop surge. Specifically, if you knew how successful it would turn out to be, would you have still opposed it?

Barack Obama's answer would appear to be "yes," and that really amazes me. In a new op-ed, he says:

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

As an aside, political accommodation was very definitely not the stated purpose of the surge, but that's another story. This is not even a debatable point, but it seems that when a politician on the left regurgitates a standard canard that originated on the left, the media quickly forgets its obligation to check the facts. In case you are wondering, the purpose of the surge, according to George Bush, was to defeat al Qaeda in Iraq because our failure to do so would have catastrophic consequences for our own national security. Bush also said that a reduction in sectarian violence would give Iraqi politicians a chance to move forward on the political front, but he did not come close to saying that this was the main purpose of the surge. Either I am right about this or Barack Obama is right to say that the stated purpose of the troop surge was to achieve political accommodation in Iraq. How do you decide? You just read the speech in which Bush -- the man who ordered the surge against great opposition (from Obama and others) -- actually stated the purpose of the surge:

As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.

Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders, and they are protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. And as a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to keep up the pressure on the terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan -- and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq.

Well, I guess these words don't count if you think that the al Qaeda angle in Bush's speech was just another big lie. Is that why the media can't seem to get this straight? And is that why Obama has it wrong? I wish someone who thinks that Obama is right and that I am wrong about the purpose of the troop surge would explain this to me. Am I citing the wrong evidence? Am I misreading the speech? I wonder.

In any case, the real question on my mind today is this: if you knew how successful the surge would turn out to be (look at my charts above), would you have still opposed it? That is, are you comfortable with the idea that tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis would have surely perished in the God-forsaken bloodbath that would have undoubtedly followed our quick departure? Remember, the fighting at the time had nothing at all to do with a lack of political accommodation. Instead, al Qaeda was relentlessly sending its suicide bombers against innocent Shiite civilians. Here is one of many such attacks, and it is a special one in my mind because it is the very attack that prompted Harry Reid to declare that this war is lost:

Suspected Qaeda bombs kill nearly 200 in Baghdad

18 Apr 2007

BAGHDAD, April 18 (Reuters) - Suspected al Qaeda militants killed nearly 200 people in a wave of car bombings in Baghdad on Wednesday, including one that was the single deadliest attack in the Iraqi capital since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

A combination of car bombs and suicide bomb attacks were used to kill these innocent Shiites. Here is the Wikipedia story on this attack, and the entry includes this summary table:


Always remember to investigate the suicide bombers of Iraq before you formulate a strong opinion of what happened there. Find out who they are, what they were trying to accomplish and how many people they have killed. After you do that, then form an opinion about whether or not the hellacious violence in Iraq amounted to a civil war.

The suicide bombing attacks in Iraq occurred one after the other for a long time, and American and Iraqi security forces were simply unable to stop them. So, in late February of 2006, Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army took matters into its own hands and started slaughtering Sunnis in Baghdad by the thousands every month. This had the effect of reducing (but not eliminating) the suicide bomb attacks. That's what was happening, and neither side cared at all about revenue sharing bills or amnesty for former Baathist officials (i.e., neither side had the slightest interest in political accommodation). Al Qaeda wanted to instigate sectarian violence (that's how they'd demoralize America and topple the democratically elected government of Iraq), and the Mahdi Army was only too happy to comply with their wishes. Once the Mahdi Army entered the picture, the Sunnis were in big trouble. At this point, even if the Sunnis decided that al Qaeda was bad for them (which they eventually did), Muqtada al Sadr was unlikely to call off his vengeful and ferocious killing spree.

Or is that how one can justify opposition to the surge? That is, do you imagine that, in the absence of the surge, the Sunnis would have fully distanced themselves from al Qaeda (even in Baghdad) and that Muqtada al Sadr would have responded by calling off his dogs and by supporting the elected government of Iraq (instead of seeking to empower himself)? I have never heard anyone try to make that case, but if that's what you believe, perhaps you can feel good about yourself for having opposed the surge. This is not the argument that Obama makes. He very definitely believed that sectarian violence would continue to worsen even with the addition of more troops:

We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality -- we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

This was not an unreasonable position at the time. I, myself, had doubts about the effectiveness of the surge because I thought that al Qaeda would just continue its suicide bombing spree wherever the extra troops were not. America's will was flagging, and it seemed to me that al Qaeda had the upper hand. I'm glad to say that I was wrong to think that al Qaeda could not be stopped. Barack Obama does not appear to feel the same way. I am sure that he is glad that al Qaeda has been crushed, but I do not see the slightest hint that he appreciates the fact that he may have been wrong to propose withdrawing our troops at the height of violence in Iraq. Doesn't that reflect the kind of bullheaded mindset that people on the left simply hate about George Bush?

By way of explanation...

My sudden (and lengthy) cessation of blogging resulted from a perfect storm of unforeseen and uncontrollable events. It began with greatly increased work-related demands on my time, but then a variety of other unexpected and time-consuming events occurred in rapid succession. Included in these was a completely unexpected death in the family (not my immediate family, but close enough).

While forced off-line by these events, I began to think about my motivation for blogging. More than anything else, it seems clear that my primary motivation to blog came from my belief that, unbeknownst to many, we were in an actual war against al Qaeda in Iraq (and we were not in any kind of war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan -- there, we are fighting the hapless but relentless Taliban). That is, according to my view, many Americans, most Democratic politicians, and virtually all reporters had the story exactly backwards in that they all seemed to believe that the "real terrorists" were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. That belief motivated me to blog.

The war with al Qaeda in Iraq was declared by al Qaeda after our invasion. Thus, you can blame the post-invasion war either on them or on Bush, depending on your personal politics. Regardless of who gets the blame, the passionate belief that I have steadfastly defended on my blog was that we could not possibly consider withdrawing our troops until we had defeated the vicious and evil force that declared war on us after we liberated the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. Al Qaeda came because we were there, but they would not just dry up an bow away if they had succeeded in defeating the U.S. military. That is, al Qaeda was not seeking to liberate Iraq from the tyranny of U.S. domination. Their plans were much more sinister than that, and the stature and strength of their global terrorist organization would have been greatly enhanced if they had succeeded in their efforts in Iraq. That's why we had to stay and finish them off.

Well, it now seems clear to me that al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated. Really, truly, militarily defeated. The Shiites and Sunnis of Iraq may yet choose to have a civil war on their own (probably not, though), but I see no path for al Qaeda to make a comeback. To me, that's the important thing. It is the outcome that has global significance, whereas a civil war (or not) between Shiites and Sunnis has less significance. Now that al Qaeda has been defeated, the single greatest motivating force behind my blogging efforts has all but disappeared. Not only has al Qaeda been defeated in Iraq, they have seriously tarnished their once-vaunted reputation throughout the Muslim world because of the nearly successful strategy they employed to indirectly defeat American forces. That strategy was to slaughter innocent Shiite civilians by the thousands in spectacular mass-casualty attacks that were covered in gory detail and incorrectly interpreted as evidence of "civil war" by an easily manipulated and largely anti-Bush world media. The fact that al Qaeda's evil strategy failed spectacularly does not mean that it wasn't brilliant. It was, and it came closer to working than I ever thought possible. But it didn't work, and that seems clear now. With al Qaeda's defeat in Iraq goes much of my motivation for blogging.

And there is one more contributing factor to my recent lack of blogging. As I reflect on what I have written, I am not entirely proud of it. The reason is that political debate is absurdly polarized in America (and throughout the world, I assume), so much so that each side treats the views of the other side with contempt (not with respect). Too often, I think that I have been that way myself. Not like bloggers who, in a fit of anger, hurl invective and spew profanity at those with whom they disagree. I never blog out of anger, and I'd never sink to that low level of debate. But what I don't always do is to respect mainstream views on the left that I simply cannot comprehend. In that sense, I am a bit like those on the left who say that "Bush lied!" and other such nonsense. They simply cannot comprehend the legitimate reasons Bush had to invade Iraq, so they resort to analyzing (and always demonizing) his internal motivations, as if they have keen insight into his mind. That does not seem like evidence-based reasoning to me. Instead, it seems like a lower form of political debate (i.e., strongly advocating your own diagnosis of the internal mental state of those with whom you disagree).

Recently, I've begun to worry that I am like that, too. I try not to demonize the anti-war left, but I often act as if there is not a legitimate point on view on that side of the spectrum (at least not with respect to post-invasion Iraq -- I certainly do respect the view that we never should have invaded in the first place). How could withdrawing our troops at the height of violence in Iraq (violence that was deliberately engineered by al Qaeda) be a legitimate position when virtually everyone agreed that genocide would result (the very outcome sought by al Qaeda)? I cannot understand that point of view anymore than the anti-war left can understand that Bush had legitimate reasons to invade in the first place. That being the case, I've accused some Democrats of lying about their reasons for wanting us to withdraw our troops in the face of al Qaeda's malicious offensive against the Shiites of Iraq. I wish I hadn't done that. Those who adhere to that impossible-to-understand position (i.e., withdrawing U.S. forces at the height of violence) include the center left, and, that being the case, I should just accept that they had what seemed like good reasons to them for advocating what even they must have known would, with a fairly high probability, result in a genocidal explosion of violence. The mere fact that I cannot comprehend their reasoning should not be taken by me to mean that no decent and clear-thinking person would ever hold to that view. I think their view was that an explosion of genocidal violence was going to happen regardless, so our withdrawal would only be accelerating the inevitable (something like that, anyway). In any case, my failure to understand their position sometimes caused me to attribute their positions to anti-Bush rage instead of to reasoned analysis. The anti-war left does seem to have a lot of anti-Bush rage, but my mistake was to simply take for granted the fact that such emotionality explains their impossible-to-understand point of view on post-invasion Iraq. When I take that step of diagnosing the secret origins of their position, I become just like the "Bush lied!" crowd. I definitely don't want to go there. Yet that's just where I sometimes find myself. Right now, as I write this, I know that decent and intelligent people had legitimate reasons for wanting to withdraw our troops at the height of violence in Iraq. In the heat of daily political debate, though, that thought is nowhere to be found in my writings.

I've come to think that polarized political debate (and the impossibility of understanding the views expressed by the other side) stems largely from differences in what each side counts as evidence. I am an evidence maniac, and I marshal massive amounts of objective evidence to make my case, whether the topic is Iraq or the economy. When I do, the case often seems open and shut to me. But if you have a different political orientation, it won't seem that way to you no matter how much evidence I present, and that's often because what you count as evidence differs from what I count as evidence. Occasionally, both sides slip into talking about the same evidence, as if the evidence can determine who has the stronger argument, but that's just an illusion. Take casualties in Iraq, for example. Sometimes, people on the left have said that it's a lie to suggest that casualties have decreased substantially since the onset of the troop surge (e.g., Hillary Clinton told General Petraeus that it required a willing suspension of disbelief to take that idea seriously), and they predict that violence will only get worse. Such claims seem to suggest that, to the left, casualty statistics are directly relevant to the debate. That, in turn, prompts me to start summarizing the objective evidence on the matter even more furiously. In time, though, I have come to appreciate that such evidence is not considered to be very relevant to those who strongly disagree with our efforts in Iraq (even if they occasionally make reference to that evidence). What matters to them, I believe, is other evidence and other considerations that do not matter very much to me, such as international law and the opinion of ordinary people in other countries (opinion as expressed in simple opinion polls but not as expressed in the outcome of election polls). To me, international law is critical when the topic is free trade but is largely irrelevant when the topic is national security. It's not that way if your political worldview leans to the left. Thus, the real source of the heated disagreement seems to lie in the answer to this question: what evidence should get the greatest weight when we were trying to decide whether or not to withdraw U.S. troops at the height of violence in Iraq? The left and the right attach much different weight to the various bits of evidence, and then they find the views of the other side incomprehensible. Demonization seems to be the automatic next step.

In any case, I'd like to find a way to forcefully disagree with others using evidence-based reasoning (always and in great detail) without also disparaging their views. By its very nature, that is hard to do when it comes to political debate. I'd like to someday better understand the nature of polarized political debate, but even if I never fully understand it, I want to argue forcefully yet in a way that better respects the views of those with whom I disagree (even if I am completely unable to comprehend their position). It could be, of course, that my political opponents really are evil or are driven by emotional rage (just as many on the left really believe their own diagnoses of the evil Bush White House), but, odds are, they are not that way. They are (from my point of view) just wrong. Being wrong is not the same as being morally depraved.

OK, that's it. I know that soul-searching is about as uninteresting a topic as one can imagine for a blog post, but I've gotten a lot of e-mails asking what is going here. That's the story. I think I will plunge into blogging again, but I'd like to find a way do it in a way that better resists the natural tendency to disparage the seemingly incomprehensible views of those on the other side of the argument.