Fred Kagan takes to the virtual pages of The Weekly Standard to assure us that the recent NIE concludes that the "surge" policy Fred Kagan designed is succeeding. That every other media organization in the United States reached the reverse conclusion independently isn't something you should worry about too much (they hate the troops, dontcha know?) -- after all, who better to assess Kagan's work than Kagan himself? It does, however, make you wonder where Robert and Kimberly Kagan are on all this. . . .
« Turkey, Israel, and the ADL | Main | The Allawi Surge »
More Kagans! More Surge!
24 Aug 2007 11:29 am
Comments (13)
Does he contend with Peter Pace's call to cut troop levels in half? That's from the outgoing chairman of the JCS. I doubt he hates the troops.
You're confusing your terms. When they support endless occupation, they're called "generals," "military commanders" and "troops." When they oppose them, they're called "hidebound careerists at the Pentagon."
Point taken. Pace's logic, by the way, seems based on just how much pressure the US miiltary can withstand. The JCS, apparently, believes that the US should not stake the future of its armed forces on the outcome in Iraq. Bush, the consummate patriot, is willling to hull out the armed forces to make sure his legacy doesn't get ruined. Now that's leadership.
Are there enough Kagans around to staff the surge themselves? Maybe we could stabilize Iraq with an All-Kagan force!
Whoa [again]. Has "every other media organization in the United States" reached the opposite conclusion to Kagan's? Then why did I awaken this morning to NPR saying that the NIE shows an improvement in security? I find this dubious, to say the least--and NPR's full report undercuts the top-of-the-hour headline--but evidently there's enough wiggle room to make it possible to say that. And, if, like Kagan, you think Iraq's simply a military problem, that's enough.
"Whoa [again]. Has "every other media organization in the United States" reached the opposite conclusion to Kagan's? Then why did I awaken this morning to NPR saying that the NIE shows an improvement in security? I find this dubious, to say the least--and NPR's full report undercuts the top-of-the-hour headline--but evidently there's enough wiggle room to make it possible to say that. And, if, like Kagan, you think Iraq's simply a military problem, that's enough."
That's a bit like the Council of Economic Advisers talking about how great the economy is. What is more illuminating is seeing what part of the Bush rhetoric has started to fall out of NIE reports. In addition, the whole point of the surge is allow Baghdad to have breathing room in which to reach political conciliation. It hasn't done that.
That every other media organization in the United States reached the reverse conclusion independently
Huh?
The WaPo said:
NIE Cites 'Uneven' Security Gains, Faults Iraqi Leaders
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 24, 2007; Page A10
The U.S. intelligence community yesterday provided a mixed picture of the security situation in Iraq but cautioned that a drawdown of U.S. forces there and a scaled-back mission for the remaining U.S. troops "would erode security gains achieved thus far."
The addition of 30,000 U.S. troops in Iraq over the past several months has so far brought "uneven improvements in Iraq's security situation," according to declassified key judgments of a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, an update of a January assessment.
I'm witholding judgement till the Father of All the Kagans, Donald, has spoken.
I obviously don't understand how to cite things that back up my propaganda.
Kagans = Klingons.
Warlike creatures who have their own language and despise the human race.
After hearing the NPR report this morning that David and Reality Man mentioned, I really wanted to read some kind of well-thought-out response to it in the blogosphere--even a knee-jerk refutation of it to appease my knee-jerk liberal soul as I sip my morning latte. So far, nothing except Matt's post above.
It's one thing to go gunning for the ridiculous crap coming out of Washington, but to attack Kagan for saying something that--pace the original post--most of the major news media also said is just lame. If the NIE is statistically incorrect or irrelevant, fine--tell me about that. But leave the ad hominem attacks to Rush Limbaugh.
OK, so Fred Kagan, though expert, is biased. Fair enough. So why not listen to what Rep. Brian Baird has to say? After returning from Iraq, Rep. Baird argues that "Our troops have earned more time":
As a Democrat who voted against the war from the outset and who has been frankly critical of the administration and the post-invasion strategy, I am convinced by the evidence that the situation has at long last begun to change substantially for the better. I believe Iraq could have a positive future. Our diplomatic and military leaders in Iraq, their current strategy, and most importantly, our troops and the Iraqi people themselves, deserve our continued support and more time to succeed.
Fred Kagan ..Bah!
Armchair Generals will be the ruin of the U.S.
The surge is like the war on terror. It doesn't have an end.
Quagmire!
Comments closed September 07, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Does he contend with Peter Pace's call to cut troop levels in half? That's from the outgoing chairman of the JCS. I doubt he hates the troops.
Posted by Unreal Veal | August 24, 2007 11:35 AM