The Bush inner circle, looking back on the Nixon presidency, sees George W Bush's Iraq posture as a calculated political stance that will have three positive consequences. First, it will pass the final resolution of the conflict to the next president; if chaos prevails, it will be blamed on the forty-fourth president, not on Bush. Second, it will solidify Bush's manufactured image as a single-minded, principled commander-in-chief who never relented in his battle against America's terrorist enemies. Third, it will strengthen the claim of Republicans to be the war party; the sector of American politics that will never countenance surrender, that believes that American military might can prevail in any circumstance given adequate political will. The White House's key figures contend that Bush's conduct of the Iraq war will - in the long run - help Republicans.posted by y2karl at 12:03 PM on July 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
Bush's Iraqi endgame
...A "staged pullback" of United States troops might appear deeply cynical, though election-year is approaching and there is little room for niceties. It could be done with a reduction in troop numbers by several tens of thousands of troops and a probable decrease in US casualties because of the need for fewer ground patrols and exposed forward operating bases. In political terms, it could be depicted - just in time for the decisive phase of the 2008 election campaign - as evidence of the slow easing of the war. If this is combined with a credible Republican candidate and the likelihood of many voters' doubts over Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and all might not be lost for the current White House incumbents.posted by y2karl at 12:03 PM on July 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
There is still one piece of the jigsaw missing. As long as there is a substantial US presence in Iraq, even if it is lower-profile, it will remain a hugely valuable jihadist combat-training zone for the wider al-Qaida movement. Even more, since that movement measures its aims (including the violent termination of elite middle-east regimes) in decades, Iraq remains an absolute gift. A new generation of paramilitaries is, after all, currently being trained to a high degree of sophistication against the world's best equipped and most powerful army.
Iraq’s pressure-point
(1) ...When something truly awful happens, and you find yourself in the presence of real danger, it is more important than ever to stop and think clearly about what you are about to do.Which is from where much of this initially comes
(2) Never substitute impugning someone's character for impugning his or her argument...
(3) One of the greatest strengths of our country is the fact that we allow debate and dissent. This means that if we choose to do so, we can debate policies before we adopt them, rather than first adopting them and only then, when it is too late, discovering the problems that a real debate might have made apparent...
(4) When the rest of the world thinks you're crazy, it's worth entertaining the possibility that they might be right...
(5) Beware of movements built on contempt...
(7) Be very wary of extrapolating from the last few wars.
(8) Never underestimate the value of an exit strategy.
(9) In wars, there are very few do-overs, and in occupations there are almost none...
(10) Just because we're going to war doesn't mean we don't need diplomacy.
Obsidian Wings: Ten Lessons From Iraq
The White House's key figures contend that Bush's conduct of the Iraq war will - in the long run - help Republicans.
True, Bush and the Republicans aren't dominant. They're a minority, but an unusually effective one. One measure of this: At the end of 2007, there will be more American troops in Iraq than when Democrats took over Congress in January.-- Fred Barnes
the peaceful, voluntary transfer of an estimated 2 million to 5 million Iraqis into distinct Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions, under close U.S. military supervision
the force that registered, finally, with Ho was B-52 strikes on Hanoi and Haiphong
This is a political war, and it calls for the utmost discrimination in killing. The best weapon for killing is a knife, but I'm afraid we can't do it that way. The next best is a rifle. The worst is an airplane, and after that the worst is artillery. You have to know who you are killing.-- John Paul Vann
our main opponents are ignorance and fanaticism
Green Zone Is Hit By Barrage of Shells -- "American Killed; Attacks Becoming Frequent, Accurate."posted by ericb at 1:46 PM on July 22, 2007
U.S. Lawmakers Prevented from Leaving Green Zone
A six-member congressional delegation recently returned from a seven-day trip that included stops in Ireland, Germany, Pakistan, Kuwait and Iraq. While in Iraq, security conditions prevented them “from meeting any Iraqis, leaving the Green Zone or staying in Iraq overnight.” Additionally, the “congressional members were required to wear full body armor, including Kevlar helmets, during the entire trip.”
Sorry, that should have been clearer, I was responding to Spiderwire's comment about the broadening of the word genocide. Of course, after thinking about it for a moment, democide isn't even an appropriate term, since there is no government organizing this violence. Maybe we should use Jon Stewart's term "catastrofuck".Inadvertent mass murder?
Maybe we should think like firefighters. They try to save every life they can, but they don’t take crazy risks. […] A “firehouse strategy” would make triage decisions. It would deploy U.S. forces so that they aren’t caught in the middle of collapsing walls and blazing timbers. It would emphasize the training of Iraqi forces to fight the blaze. It would build firebreaks so the disaster doesn’t spread to other rooms in the Iraqi house. Most of all, a firehouse strategy would try to keep this sectarian blaze from jumping national boundaries. U.S. and Iraqi troops can create buffers by moving significant forces toward Iraq’s bordersSo long as we are not the main targets or causes of violence in the region, we should remain there. So long as we can do more good than harm, we stay to clean up after our incompetent leaders. Scholars of the region agree that the current violence is sectarian, or sometimes simply feudal, in nature, and is not any sort of freedom-fighting or guerrilla-resistance aimed at a foreign occupier. The explosive violence is mostly attributable to warlords and their militias, many of whom use ethnic and religious distinctions to create loyalties, but who nonetheless are fighting for material gains for their in-group, and simply manipulating the larger Sunni/Shiite solidarities and antipathies to find sources of funding and weaponry abroad. They pursue their goals using the techniques of ethnic cleansing: terrorizing and killing the out-groups in order to create homogeneous blocs over which they can exercise their power. These guys will duke it out in Iraq regardless of our presence: their own safety depends on the destruction of their enemies, so for them it’s a fight to the death.
A Pentagon audit of $16.2 billion of this work found that $3.2 billion in KBR billing was either questionable or unsupported by documentation. Under a new arrangement announced last month, the Army has awarded three cost-plus contracts to separate companies to do the work, with a total value of $15 billion a year.3.2 billion, after all, is not that much money in a war that now costs about 12 billion dollars a month.
Distinction between criticism and fabrication regarding deaths in IraqOctober 31, 2006 - Media Lens:Lancent Report Author Responds To Questions
I read with interest the October 18th editorial by Steven Moore reviewing our study reporting that an estimated 650,000 deaths were associated with the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. I had spoken with Mr. Moore the week before when he said that he was writing something for the Wall Street Journal to put this survey in perspective. I am not surprised that we differed on the current relevance of 10 year-old census data in a country that had experienced a major war and mass exodus.
I am not surprised at his rejection of my suggestion that the references in a web report explaining the methodology for lay people and reporters was not the same as the references in our painstakingly written peer reviewed article. What is striking is Mr. Moore's statement that we did not collect any demographic data, and his implication that this makes the report suspect.
This is curious because, not only did I tell him that we asked about the age and gender of the living residents in the houses we visited, but Mr. Moore and I discussed, verbally and by e-mail, his need to contact the first author of the paper, Gilbert Burnham, in order to acquire this information as I did not have the raw data. I would assume that this was simply a case of multiple misunderstandings except our first report in the Lancet in 2004 referenced in our article as describing the methods states, ".interviewees were asked for the age and sex or every current household member."
Thus, it appears Mr. Moore had not read the description of the methods in our reports. It is not important whether this fabrication that "no demographic data was collected" is the result of subconscious need to reject the results or whether it was intentional deception. What is important, is that Mr. Moore and many others are profoundly uncomfortable that our government might have inadvertently triggered 650,000 deaths.
Most days in the US, more than 5000 people die. We do not see the bodies. We cannot, from our household perspective, sense the fraction from violence. We rely on a functional governmental surveillance network to do that for us. No such functional network exists in Iraq. Our report suggests that on top of the 300 deaths that must occur in Iraq each day from natural causes; there have been approximately 500 "extra" deaths mostly from violence.
Of any high profile scientific report in recent history, ours might be the easiest to verify. If we are correct, in the morgues and graveyards of Iraq, most deaths during the occupation would have been due to violence. If Mr. Bush's "30,000 more or less" figure from last December is correct, less than 1 in 10 deaths has been from violence. Let us address the discomfort of Mr. Moore and millions of other Americans, not by uninformed speculation about epidemiological techniques, but by having the press travel the country and tell us how people are dying in Iraq.
Conducting such a rigorous study within the constraints of the security situation in Iraq is dangerous and difficult, and deserves commendation. We have not heard any legitimate reason to dismiss its findings. It is noteworthy that the same methodology has been used in recent mortality surveys in Darfur and Democratic Republic of Congo, but there has been no criticism of these surveys.The Iraq deaths study was valid and correct
The study by Burnham and his colleagues provides the best estimate of mortality to date in Iraq that we have, or indeed are ever likely to have.
We urge open and constructive debate, rather than ill-informed criticism of the methods or results of sound science. All of us should consider the implications of the dire and deteriorating health situation in Iraq.
The Signatories
Professor James A Angus, dean, faculty of medicine, dentistry and health sciences, University of Melbourne
Professor Bruce Armstrong AM, director of research, Sydney Cancer Centre; professor of public health and medical foundation fellow, University of Sydney
Dr Jim Black, head of epidemiology, Victorian Infectious Diseases Service
Professor Peter Brooks, executive dean, faculty of health sciences, University of Queensland
Professor Jonathan Carapetis, director, Menzies School of Health Research, Darwin
Dr Ben Coghlan, medical epidemiologist, Centre for International Health, Burnet Institute
Professor Mike Daube, professor of health policy, Curtin University
Associate Professor Peter Deutschmann, executive director, Australian International Health Institute, University of Melbourne
Associate Professor Trevor Duke, Centre for International Child Health, department of pediatrics, University of Melbourne
Professor Adele Green AC, deputy director, Queensland Institute of Medical Research
Associate Professor Heath Kelly, head, epidemiology unit, Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory
Professor Stephen Leeder AO, co-director, Menzies Centre for Health Policy; professor of public health and community medicine, University of Sydney; chairman, Policy and Advocacy Group, Australasian Faculty of Public Health Medicine
Professor Alan Lopez, head, School of Population Health; professor of medical statistics and population health, University of Queensland
Professor John Mathews AM, professorial fellow, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne
Professor A. J. McMichael, director, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, ANU
Dr Cathy Mead PSM, president, Public Health Association of Australia, Canberra
Professor Rob Moodie, chief executive, Victorian Health Promotion Foundation
Professor Kim Mulholland, infectious disease epidemiology unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
Professor Terry Nolan, head, School of Population Health, Melbourne University
Associate Professor Tilman Ruff, Nossal Institute for Global Health, University of Melbourne; president, Medical Association for Prevention of War
Associate Professor Peter Sainsbury, school of public health, University of Sydney
Dr Tony Stewart, medical epidemiologist, Centre for International Health, Burnet Institute
Professor Richard Taylor, professor of international health; head, division of international and indigenous health, School of Population Health, University of Queensland; director, Australian Centre for International and Tropical Health and Nutrition
Associate Professor Mike Toole, head, Centre for International Health, Burnet Institute
Associate Professor Paul J. Torzillo AM, University of Sydney; senior respiratory physician, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney; clinical director, respiratory and critical care services, Central Sydney Area Health Service
Dr Sue Wareham OAM, immediate past president, Medical Association for Prevention of War, Canberra
Professor Anthony Zwi, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, associate dean (international), faculty of medicine, NSW University
The U.S. has more aircraft carrier deck space than the rest of the world combined.
« Older The Hello Experiment | 10 minutes of Stevie Wonder awesomeness Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments