Robert Farley discovers that in wingnutland if the Mahdi Army lies low in the face of the surge, that proves the surge is working, while if the Mahdi Army decides to fight US forces, that proves the surge is working. Farley feels this is illogical. He's forgetting that the surge is Bush's policy, which means that it's working by definition and, thus, whatever reaction the Mahdi Army has to the surge is evidence of success.
« Happy Easter! | Main | Moderates Running Scared »
Heads I Win, Tales Perpetual War
08 Apr 2007 05:22 pm
Comments (80)
do yu thinck its a gud idea to corect someones speling erors with you're own?
I think Petraeus has betrayed us.
Not only is he turning the tribes of al Anbar province into a heavily armed Sunni milita, he has started a fight with al Sadr, a guy who was at least trying to be a part of democracy in Iraq.
Not sure what the U.S. military is trying to do in Iraq during the surge, but it sure ain't trying to bring about a peace.
Which is why anyone counselling to give the "surge" a chance is either a wing-nut or just nuts. If security is better in six months, Bush will argue we can't leave just as things are improving. If security is worse, Bush will argue we can't leave because the "enemy" is making a desperate last stand.
In the best of all worlds I wouldn't be for a congressionally set deadline. In the best of all worlds, of course, Bush would be an AA counselor in Midland Tx.
Oh, yeah, and it's Tails.
People, Matt misspells things. That's far less annoying than all the comments which note that, over and over.
One thing Ive always wanted to Know.....
If they dynamic in Iraq shifts from being a sectrarian bloodbath with US forces acting as referee's (or onlookers) to a multi-religious, national insurgency, what will the pro-war crowd's position be?
Because in the event that we go after the Shi'ia, I could very well see the entire Iraqi army just disbanding or switching sides. The mantra before was 'we stand down when they stand up'. What if they stand up, in unison, against the US occupation? What encore? "We must stand up and make them stand down, so that they can later stand up as civilized people, in which case we will finally stand down".
Do we fight the insurgency, and then try to rebuild a government that is somehow friendly to us? That sounds bloody impossible, frankly. If we anger the Shi'ia what then do we establish - a Turkomen dictatorship?
Of course, one realizes the futility of asking these questions. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot have an Iraq allied in the war on terror and at the same time try to keep a lid on sectarian conflict. Either they hate eachother or they hate us (or more plausibly both).
"I could very well see the entire Iraqi army just disbanding or switching sides."
Disbanding. There are multiple Shia factions, and the "Mahdi Army" is not one that Sadr could use to attack the Green Zone with 50000 soldiers. I see the Iraqis defending their neighborhoods, and attackig trespassers, but Sadr City will neither attack or defend Basra in force. I suppose the US could hide out in the FOBs for decades. The storefront companies of Petraeus will get stomped, of course, unless massive air support is used against urban areas.
Perpetual anarchy, chaos and terrorism is more accurate.
Bob, I think the one thing you're overlooking is logistics. A generalized Shia uprising could pinch off the few and long supply lines to the FOBs.
The positive is having the Mahdis come out to fight. If they tried to go underground, that would be a huge negative. The upshot would have to be that the people in that area are feeding intelligence on the Mahdis to our forces - thus making the Mahdi army get desperate enough to engage in a battle it can't win.
i guess james robertson is going to have to be our window on what the dead-enders think. the fact that we've heard jejune comments like this for 4 years now doesn't seem to influence the likes of robertson one bit: this time, it must really be true that whatever is happening is good!
a more perfect demonstration of matthew's final sentence one could hardly hope to read.
I agree with Matt that, as Bush's policy, the surge is by definition successful. But does that mean 'whatever reaction the Mahdi Army has to the surge is evidence of success'? I mean, if nothing could count as evidence of its failure, can anything count as evidence of its success? Do Bush's policies even need evidence? But perhaps I'm being too cynical--absolutely everything is evidence of the success of Bush's policies, for instance my writing this note right now. I feel better already now that I've accepted this.
James, who do you think controls the supply route from Basra to Baghdad? Why do you hate American troops?
We've outted the Iranian catspaw, and the leftie-libs want to make it our fault!
Where in the annals of treason does this particular Dem policy position fit?
If the Shi'ites let loose with a major uprising, we can look forward to them breaking out the big guns. The same type of equipment that was used by Hez in Lebanon last summer. That'll be a big problem.
If an opponent tries strategy A, but switches in mid-stream to strategy B, it's a pretty good indicator they feel their side is losing, or at least is in danger of losing. Granted, it could be that the opponent is winning with strategy A but feels it is time to use strategy B because strategy A is becoming less effective, actually or potentially, and/or the opponent wants to keep the other side off balance. I would assume this latter to be more likely if the opponent's leadership is very savvy in military strategy.
Seems to me Sadr is not a top notch military strategist, so I would guess the surge IS working and he is looking for ways to counter it
Fraley sez: US casualties since the beginning of the Surge are running at 3.14/day,
Pie! (er..PI)
Didn't I read somewhere recently that some GOP wingnut was trying to legislate a new value for PI?
If the casualty rate is now 3.14, perhaps the Repubs could make it better by an Executive Order (or National Security Letter) saying it is 1.0. Or zero, even.
Success has a 1000 mothers, and failure is an orphan, so BushCo has to have success. Perhaps another Executive Order will do the trick.
more dishonest bunk from the true earl of sandwich. The blog entries your co-mentalist points to in order to suggest that the blogger is simply interpreting information coming out of iraq in whatever way is anemable to his position do no such thing.
In none of the linked posts does the blogger cite what he is describing as evidence that the surge is 'working'. He is simply pointing out the effects resulting from the surge and discussing possible further ramifications, do either you or your co-mentalist deny that the surge was the cause of the events he is describing?
It also didnt take me very long on poking around the captain's quaters blog to find entries in which he expressed skepticism about and disatisfaction with the surge, therby further discrediting the smear on his person you so eagerly endorsed.
It should also be pointed out to you and your co-mentalist that the rapid and multiple strategic changes of the mahdi army would suggest that the surge is having an impact on them. Afterall you dont change a strategy if you think it is working.
God you are a fucking disgrace
If an opponent tries strategy A, but switches in mid-stream to strategy B, it's a pretty good indicator they feel their side is losing, or at least is in danger of losing.
We blitzed on successive downs to jam up their running game, and now they're lining up with 3 wideouts. Ha! Our blitz strategy is working! BLITZ! Oh. Screen pass, 54-yard gain. Wait -- what if we dropped the linebackers back, creating a sort of "surge" in the backfield? That'd be guaranteed to work. Ha! As you can see, they've now gone back to two wideouts and two backs -- our strategy is working! Oh -- counter trey up the middle, seven yard gain. And yet their strategy keeps changing; why aren't they losing?
Is co-mentalist an actual word these days? I remember that Marxists used to mangle the language like that, but since when did wingnuts sign on for the anti-English crusade?
mattsteinglass:
If Sadr were known to be a savvy military strategist, your point would be excellent; he'd deserve the benefit of the doubt that he is staying "one step ahead". My sense is that Sadr knows politics in Iraq and has used that strength to ride out the bumpy road he faces; but I get the impression he is much less accomplished in managing the field of combat to his advantage (as the coaching staff in your example is doing).
So, my inference stands: I infer things are getting tougher for his "cause" and followers, and he is trying to find a workaround.
vhjyw npevjzsiy tymkz zukjvy cpnbhts wzteu cpeqmwn
vhjyw npevjzsiy tymkz zukjvy cpnbhts wzteu cpeqmwn
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! plhwamognptsb
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! aupgbshghturr
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! frbzsbqtpsiclj
Comments closed April 22, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Tails.
You're "remember info" box doesn't work. Fix it!
Posted by chris | April 8, 2007 5:45 PM