About Michael Dunaway
Subscribe
User login
Recent comments
- Ummm, no.
The rightness or
2 weeks 20 hours ago - I recently saw the re-trial
2 weeks 21 hours ago - I am a conservative who did
2 weeks 23 hours ago - Amen.
We're called to serve
2 weeks 3 days ago - I have to disagree with your
2 weeks 6 days ago - To break up the monotony of
3 weeks 3 days ago - Although I am a conservative
3 weeks 4 days ago - Been reading your blogs,
3 weeks 6 days ago - Excellent post, Will.
3 weeks 6 days ago - Thanks for the reminder,
3 weeks 6 days ago
Friends of GWH
Recent blog posts
- Evangelicals and the Future of Politics: Wise Words from Joel Hunter
- Election 2008: The Day After
- The 2008 Good Will Hinton Voting Guide
- Dumb Reasons To Not Vote For Barack Obama
- The Immorality of the Housing Bailout
- Random Non-Partisan Thought of the Day
- Good: Bad on the Election and Voting
- Good Will Hinton Interviews Eric Metaxas
- Good Will Hinton Interviews Bridget Kibbey
- More On Obama and the Ayers Non-Story
Recommended Blogs
Who's online
There are currently 1 user and 58 guests online.
Online users
Surge Report
It seems obvious by now that, only one month in, the surge is already producing amazingly positive results in Iraq. See, among many others, this article in today's Wall Street Journal. In fact, I don't think I've seen a single negative post-surge analysis (and believe me, if the evidence was there the MSM would be trumpeting it loudly).
So here's my question -- regardless of whether you think we should have gone to Iraq in the first place, to what standard should the surge be held? What results will prove to you that it was a wise choice? Or are you so far gone that you don't think GWB can make a wise choice at all, on anything?
Comments
Michael: you must be joking.
Michael: you must be joking. "so far gone that you don't think GWB can make a wise choice at all"?
How is this any different than me asking if you are so far gone as to blindly follow GWB no matter what?
This is a conversation stopper.
As to the substance of your post, it ISN'T obvious that the surge is working. Didn't I just read that over 200 people were killed in Iraq this past weekend? That sounds like things are getting worse, not better. And don't think that I am only reading MSM and what they want me to believe. I read all sorts of sources about Iraq including people on the ground like Michael Yon.
I don't think things are better and am not sure when they ever will be. In fact, no matter what we do, I think things will get worse whether we pull out soon or stay much longer. We are in this mess because of a colossal mistake by GWB and his people
It's not, and that's okay.
You asking me that would not be different, and that's okay. I would answer that there are many things I would not follow GWB blindly into, and many areas I disagree with him on (illegal immigration, federal spending, etc). But like it or not, there are millions of ignorant people in this country who wouldn't applaud if GWB discovered a cure for cancer (ditto the millions on the other side during the Clinton years). How is it a conversation stopper to ask those on the left (as I did those on the right during the Clinton years) to take an honest look to see if their dislike for a person is not blinding them to some good decisions he's making?
Again, I am trying to honestly evaluate the surge itself, not the entire decision to go to war in Iraq. Your bringing up that initial decision here is not helpful to the immediate situation -- it's like if we were lost on the road, and instead of looking at the map, you just kept harping on the first turn we took that you though was wrong. That's helpful for next trip, but not this one.
So how is it not fair to ask what criteria should be used to judge the surge's success or failure?
(By the way, in case I was unclear, I didn't mean the "you" in "are you so far gone" to mean Will Hinton, except in the sense that I wanted each war opponent to ask it of himself)
Is this satire?
First of all, I think you'll have to provide more evidence than the WSJ editorial page to back up your claim that the surge is working. But as to your question as to what standard the surge should be held: We already have standards and aren't meeting any of them.
The surge included political and economic targets, and according to the interim assessment that is required by law, none of those targets have been met by the Iraqi government.
Even the Bush administration is not so bold as to say "the surge is producing amazingly positive results in Iraq." Their response? That "there was not enough evidence from Iraq to justify a change now in current policy."
Completely wrong.
Those targets are not for the surge, or for our actions at all; they are for the Iraqi government's development and have nothing to do with military action.
Now, you can argue that they SHOULD be the standards for evaluating the surge, but I think that would be a tough row to hoe. But please make your case, if that's what you think.
Then what ARE the targets for the surge?
If the ultimate goal is to leave Iraq as a stable, democratic society, then I view the political and economic benchmarks as (partial) standards for evaluating overall success in Iraq. I always viewed the surge as a tool for meeting that end, and think it should be held to similar standards.
What are the other options for measuring success for the surge? Body counts? Tactical victories? You could make this case, as the surge is the military component of the operation in Iraq. But success in the military component means nothing if the other two components--political and economic--fail and Iraq doesn't develop into a sovereign nation that we can leave responsible for its own security.
The surge is inextricably tied to overall success in Iraq. Many who cling to the notion that the war was the right thing to do seem to seek validation in a successful surge, ignoring big-picture success. It's like declaring victory in a baseball game by only looking at the impressive 10 runs your team scored, ignoring 15 runs your opponent racked up.
Fair enough.
Fair enough, I would agree with your long-term goals for the Iraq operation, and that the surge is part of that. But can't we agree that with only one month of the surge complete, we can't really expect it to have a significant impact yet on those larger goals? Shouldn't we be looking at what it is, in fact, doing so far, and whether that is likely to contribute to those goals?
I think your baseball game analogy is a good one. The 10-run inning doesn't make it a good game overall. But doesn't it mean you executed well during that inning, you're gaining ground quickly, and you should keep doing what you did that inning if you want to win?
Keep doing what you are doing....
Hmmm. After one inning, you are down by five runs. 'Keep doing what you did in that inning if you want to win.' O.K. So in the second inning, you give up fifteen runs again and score ten...wait a second, now we're down by ten runs, not five!
r.johnson
mixing up the terms
Well, if we're trying to keep the analogy relevant, the 10-run inning (or half-inning, maybe I should have said) is what you should keep doing.
Basically, if the surge is making progress, then yes, we should keep doing it. Surely you don't disagree with that?
relevant?
We never should have played 'baseball' in the first place and thousands of people are dying on every pitch, whether it's a hit or an out. Of course in this idiotic version of baseball we were guaranteed to lose as soon we started the game and there is no limit to the number of innings either.
Simplistic
Nice try with the frame, but I don't buy into the premise. It is far too simplistic to say 'if the surge is working, keep doing it.' Just because a policy leads to something that might be described by some as "success" does not mean that the policy should be followed. There are moral and legal reasons for not following a given policy, even if it leads to "success". Moral and legal issues aside, if you do more damage than good in pursuing these objectives, or if you cause harm that will be felt for generations in pursuing these goals, that "success" is illusory. So no, just because something leads to what you might describe as short term success does not mean that I agree that that policy should be followed.
Seems to me we have been hearing this administration touting the "success" in Iraq for over four years now. If we have had such great "success" in Iraq over the last four years, why is it that things are so bleak?
To use your baseball example, you can't pretend that a half of an inning is a whole inning or the whole game. Try as you might to focus on some positive element, you are taking one small element away from 'the bigger picture' and pretending that it is the big picture. That is why news of bombings, which kill on average a hundred people a day in Iraq, overshadow the "success" of a new school opening, or someone voting for the first time. You have to place the "success" in context of the whole picture, and the countless lives lost and billions of dollars spent mean that nothing we do in Iraq can ever be described as "success".
r.johnson
Podhoretz
Interestingly enough, the next article I found after writing the above was John Podhoretz's column (http://www.nypost.com/seven/07132007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/benchmarks__nobody_cares_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm?page=1) on the relative unimportance, for now, of the benchmarks. The money graphs:
So once again we have left the realm of honest politics and entered the realm of Kabuki theater. War opponents will add the "political benchmark" problems to their indictment of the entire effort, while war supporters will basically ignore it.
And that is exactly how it should be. Because the political benchmarks really aren't important right now. The only matter of importance is the new offensive against Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq and the Sunni and Shia insurgents who are fomenting sectarian chaos.
What is going on in Iraq is a war. For three years, America pursued a strategy that put the war in the background and the political process in the foreground. The idea was that political progress would have positive consequences on the battlefield - that free elections would choke off the insurgency's oxygen.
It made sense theoretically, and it led to three successful elections, the convening of a Parliament, and overwhelming Iraqi participation in determining their own political future.
But it turned out to be a disaster otherwise. We were so solicitous of Iraqi political needs that we neglected our own military needs.
We allowed the city of Fallujah to turn into an insurgent bomb factory because we were fearful of the political effects of invading there after the kidnapping and beheading of four American contractors in early 2004. And we didn't kill Moqtada al-Sadr, the Iranian agent and key fomenter of Shiite violence, when we had the chance.
Now we're putting security and military needs first. And just as we are doing so, we're hearing complaints from people who criticized the ineffectiveness of the war effort three years ago - complaints that we are not doing enough on the political front!
Evidence
And, by the way, if you want more evidence than the WSJ op-ed page (not editorial page; written by someone who actually WENT there this month, unlike nearly every MSM reporter who writes about Iraq):
"The Iraq Surge: Why It's Working," NY Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/03202007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/why_its_working_____opedcolumnists_gordon_cucullu.htm?page=0)
"Lieberman says Iraq Surge is Working," Washington Times (http://wpherald.com/articles/5271/1/Lieberman-says-Iraq-surge-Is-working/Lieberman-challenges-Lugars-negative-assessment.html)
"Iraq Surge Working, US General (Petraeus) Says," ABC (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1874644.htm)
"Surge is Working, Senator (Graham) Says," Tacoma News Tribune (http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/nationworld/story/104723.html)
"McCain to Obama: Iraq Surge Plan Working," Newsmax.com (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/29/72528.shtml)
Like it or not, signs point convincingly toward the surge working.
And, contra Will's assertion about increased casualties, NRO's editorial (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGM1N2NmZDNjYTgyMDQzNjU5ZWM2YTk5Mzc2NTllZTI=)reads, in part:
It is folly to dismiss the surge as a failure. It has — unevenly — brought down the number of sectarian killings in Baghdad and the number of civilian casualties around the country. Most important, it has helped turn the tide against al Qaeda in Iraq, as Sunni tribes side with us against the terror group.
Critics of the surge point to increased U.S. casualties and the failure of the central government to meet political “benchmarks” by passing important legislation. The increased casualties are the awful but inevitable result of our increased combat operations, and in no way a sign that the surge isn’t working. The lack of political progress in Baghdad is disappointing, but has to be kept in perspective. The reason we wanted key pieces of legislation to pass was that we thought they would promote reconciliation with the Sunnis and split some of them from the insurgency. That has happened anyway, without the meeting of “benchmarks.”
This is an extremely consequential development. To build on it, the central government will indeed have to share resources equitably with the Sunnis, but that is going to be a difficult step. Critics of the war seem to forget that — at best — this is a country just beginning to step back from the intense sectarian conflict of 2006, and it will take time to heal those wounds. Our role is to provide the security that is a necessary condition for political reconciliation.
In the meantime, we are dealing al Qaeda in Iraq serious blows. Everyone in the American political debate professes to want to fight al Qaeda in Iraq, but now that we are finally doing it effectively Democrats and some Republicans are all but ignoring it. Defeating al Qaeda should be our minimum goal in Iraq no matter what broader policy we choose, whether it is simply a U.S. bugout, a so-called soft partition, or the eventual establishment of a stable, self-sufficient government. If we draw down now, we would give back our hard-won progress against al Qaeda.
But opponents of the war are now willing to retreat from Iraq, no matter what the consequences. Sunday’s New York Times editorial calling for a withdrawal had this extraordinarily candid passage: “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.”
Good assembly of evidence
Michael,
I agree with your analysis of the evidence. The most signficant change, to my mind, lies in the willingness of Iraqi Sunnis in Anbar and Baqubah to cooperate with U.S. and government forces to drive out al Qaeda.
And yes, it's unfortunate that casualties are a product of a more active military posture, but American casualties have been remarkably low, all things considered. Civilian casualties are largely the result of suicide bombings, which will be harder to mount as the surge continues to disrupt al Qaeda staging areas.
If we "lose" in Iraq, it will be by choice. And the consequences will be awful, in the first instance for ordinary Iraqis, then for the wider Middle East, and finally for us.
Joe Knippenberg
Joseph and Michael, How do
Joseph and Michael,
How do you we define winning?
What Evidence?
You seem to be confusing opinion pieces with evidence. If opinions count as irrefutable evidence of a given proposition, I would need only cite the statements made by the flat earth society to "prove" that the world was, indeed, flat.
You can't look at these eighteen benchmarks, see that fewer than half are met, and say 'this is good.' And lets not lose sight of who is deciding whether these benchmarks are met: the US military. The assessment itself is not some partisan 'spin' offered by critics of the war, although some war critics are spinning the results, just as war supporters are. If you believe that these benchmarks are the appropriate measure of success, the report should be sobering. On the other hand, if you believe that these 'benchmarks' have little to do with real success and are simply political tools to justify a course of action adopted long ago, the report is irrelevant.
r.johnson
Evidence
The opinion pieces assemble some evidence.
And it strikes me that the military and political pieces of the picture are interdependent, but not necessarily in the way that some critics think. Yes, there must ultimately be a political solution to this conflict, but that solution itself depends upon a conviction on the part of the "irreconcilables" that they can't win militarily and impose their will that way. Many Sunnis (al Qaeda excepted) seem to be coming around to this point of view, hence the progress in Anbar and elsewhere.
In other words, political success depends upon military success, and that military success seems to be occurring. Read Michael Yon; read Krauthammer; read John Burns.
Joe Knippenberg
An Opinion is an Opinion.
Opinions are evidence because they contain some evidence? That is like saying candy bars are good for you because they have "some" nutritional value. And while I recognize that an opinion can can be objective evidence, it is generally held to be objective evidence of what that person was thinking, not of the truth of the underlying premise. The statements that 'this plan is working' by the former speech-writer for Ronald Reagan and GWB, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain, all supporters of the plan and staunch defenders of anything and everything that George Bush does (ok, so maybe that was slightly overstated, except for Lieberman) do not provide evidence that the plan is working, only their opinions.
And upon what do these individuals base their opinions? The reports of General Petraeus, whose job it is to conduct the surge, saying it's working.
I hope you see the difficulty you have with this argument, for all I would need to do to counter your 'evidence' is to produce any number of citations to those are of the opinion that the surge is not working. Please tell me you would treat the opinions I offer in the same light as the opinions you offer, and not criticize them as 'partisan politics.'
Joseph, if you are telling me to read Yon, Krauthammer or Burns for an understanding of the argument you are making, I understand it and would be happy to point out my comments or criticisms on a particular op-ed piece, if you have one in mind. If you are telling me to read these writers' opinions, I do read them when my stomach allows (not on a daily basis). What I find are opinions so divorced from my reality, so simplistic and even twisted in their reasoning (Krauthammer), that I do not find them credible and give them little weight.
r.johnson
A Different Analogy
"It's like declaring victory in a baseball game by only looking at the impressive 10 runs your team scored, ignoring 15 runs your opponent racked up."
I like baseball analogies just as much as the next guy, but it seems to me a better analogy in this case would be that of an alcoholic asking the rest of the world to join him for a few drinks at the local bar and nearly everyone refuses lest they encourage that indulgent and self-destructive behavior, the alcoholic goes to the bar anyway and starts knocking back whiskey shots. The longer he stays in the bar, the more unpredictable and disconcerting it all becomes. Eventually seeing that this situation is going nowhere, the alcoholic decides to take a big, dramatic step in a new direction... he switches to beer.
TheOldMan
Michael: You still haven't
Michael: You still haven't provided one bit of evidence that the surge is working. I'm not saying the surge isn't working but I have not read any evidence to suggest it is.
I love the WSJ but recognize that they have one particular perspective on this topic. The other sources you provided aren't evidence at all.
You provided links to an opinion piece in the conservative NY Post, Lieberman's opinion, General Petreus's opinion (whose job depends on the surge succeeding), Republican Senator Graham's opinion, Republican Senator John McCain's opinion, and an opinion piece in the conservative National Review Online.
That body of evidence is only going to convince people who don't need any convincing and whose minds are made up.
I am very open to the idea of the surge working but have not seen any evidence to suggest that.
Facts form the basis for the opinion pieces
If you look at the opinion pieces, they draw conclusions based on the facts. So there's plenty of evidence referred to. For instance, in the NRO editorial:
"(The surge) has — unevenly — brought down the number of sectarian killings in Baghdad and the number of civilian casualties around the country. Most important, it has helped turn the tide against al Qaeda in Iraq, as Sunni tribes side with us against the terror group."
Now, absent any substantial contrary evidence (and, again, I'm sure the MSM would be all over it if it were there), I'm assuming those two pieces of evidence are true. Do you want the tables showing sectarian killings day by day? The names of Sunni tribes that have joined up with us in the last month?
A good source for honest to goodness fact
The BBC World Service is monitoring Baghdad during the "Surge". It is probably the best place to find facts. They are looking at casualty figures, the pressure on hospitals and quality of life for ordinary civilians.
For the week ending July 11th, violent deaths were way up, but pressure on local hospitals was down. For families trying to survive, no one had more than 2 hours of electricity a day from the grid.
Some more facts
Kevin Drum over at Washington Monthly has this tidbit:
Post new comment