The Failure of the Surge

Here on the CENTCOM website is Sgt. Sara Wood's report on General Petraeus' confirmation hearings, "Petraeus Supports Troop Increase in Confirmation Hearing," January 23, 2007, American Forces Press Service:

“The objective will be to achieve sufficient security to provide the space and time for the Iraqi government to come to grips with the tough decisions its members must make to enable Iraq to move forward,” Petraeus said. “In short, it is not just that there will be additional forces in Baghdad; it is what they will do and how they will do it that is important.”

And it hasn't happened.

Comments

The surge a failure? How can Mr. Yglesias say such a thing. Why just yesterday in the Washington Post, Robert Kagan, one of the infamous Kagans, said that the surge was a success. How dare Mr. Yglesias have an unKagan thought in his head. Snark.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120401146.html?sub=AR

Posted by SLC | December 7, 2007 7:04 PM

Matt's inability to do basic math is showing again. A look at a chart of violence in Baghdad over the last few months shows the levels dropping, and dropping steadily. Matt doesn't link to anything like that; he knows that actual facts don't support his ideology - so he's reduced to shoe pounding.

A few seconds with Google will show you that; I leave it as an exercise for Matt to figure that out.

Flashback to the early 1790's - Matt would have been calling the Constitution a failure in light of the Whiskey Rebellion and the Regulator movement.

Posted by James Robertson | December 7, 2007 7:25 PM

Didn't realize it was that long.

Posted by Jose | December 7, 2007 7:25 PM

I thought "the surge" was subject to redress in September.

Oh well. Fluid conditions and all.

Posted by Monty | December 7, 2007 7:43 PM

Matt was calling the surge a failure three months ago.

Posted by kwo | December 7, 2007 8:12 PM

Maybe I'm reading to much into this, but what was the point of calling out Sgt Wood by name, rather than just an impersonal "from a link on CENTCOM's website." Are you impugning her as a reporter? Because as an E-5 with an official DOD press agency, she has a far different mandate than someone working at WaPo/NYT etc.

But more likely you're just trying to call out Petraus, which is totally fair, and like I said, I'm just reading too much into this.

Posted by Kolohe | December 7, 2007 8:22 PM

James Robertson, why not just write "we win!! YAY!!" in pencil on your notepad and then read it back to yourself?

That way you needn't concern yourself with the real world, and can go on living in the candy land of the 25%-ers.

Back in the real world, 2007 was the deadliest year for American troops of this five year fiasco.

You nutjobs got to lynch Hussein and torture thousands of Iraqis in Abu Ghraib. Isn't your blood lust satiated by now? Can we finally bring our kids home?

Or do we have to keep them there through 2009 because admitting failure might cost the republicans the presidency, so better we keep the troops there and pretend we're winning for another year.

Yeah. Great idea, Kreskin. Just like the rest of your great calls on this war.

Posted by WinSmith | December 7, 2007 8:23 PM

1944 was the bloodiest year in the pacific theater as well - I suppose it was a quagmire then, too? Or how about 1864?

Channel Clement Vallandigham much?

Posted by James Robertson | December 7, 2007 8:53 PM

I posted the numbers in Matt's last "The Surge is a Failure" post, so this time I'll post the percentages:

Declines in casualties, 11/06 versus 11/07:

Iraqi Security Forces: Down 27%
U.S. Troops: Down 65%
Iraqi Civilians: Down 72%

If Matt at least acknowledged this in passing, and admitted that he was wrong in predicting that the surge wouldn't reduce the violence in Iraq, than his criticism about the lack of formal political progress in Iraq might sound more objective. Instead, it just sounds shrill and desperate.

Matt displays the zeal of the convert here, since he was once a war supporter. An original opponent of the war, like Rep. Brian Baird, is able to be more objective and acknowledge the progress in Iraq.

Posted by Captain Obvious | December 7, 2007 9:02 PM

Or do we have to keep them there through 2009 because admitting failure might cost the Republicans the presidency...

Yes.

The 'goal' for the whole bloody war was for the White House to have a stick to beat Democrats with, to reduce domestic opposition to the Glorious Revolution to a cipher.

The Vallandigham crack is telling.

This whole misbegotten escapade in Mesopotamia has been nothing more or less than a second American civil war-by-proxy, attempting to settle deep and abiding differences about what this country, not Iraq, is, means, and does, by having a war. If it wasn't in Iraq, it would have been someplace else.

Unlike the first Civil War, the actual fighting has been contracted out to professionals (no conscription in this war), while most of the dying and the actual battlefield has been sent offshore, in accord with the best practices of modern management.

People like James Robertson don't have anything invested in which particular stick they can lay their hands on to bash the other party, so long as there's a stick handy.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | December 7, 2007 9:19 PM

OK, Captain Obvious, are we supposed to be bothered about the "lack of formal political progress" or not? Or is Iraq merely all about how Matthew Iglesias "sounds"?

Posted by SqueakyRat | December 7, 2007 10:35 PM

OK, Captain Obvious, are we supposed to be bothered about the "lack of formal political progress" or not? Or is Iraq merely all about how Matthew Yglesias "sounds"?

Posted by SqueakyRat | December 7, 2007 10:36 PM

"1944 was the bloodiest year in the pacific theater as well - I suppose it was a quagmire then, too? Or how about 1864?

Channel Clement Vallandigham much?

Posted by James Robertson | December 7, 2007 8:53 PM"

Your first point is that the surge is working because violence is down. Now you're basically claiming that violence levels are irrelevant to having victory close at hand. Basically, you're saying violence levels are irrelevant. You should also ask yourself how much this has to do with 1) a lot of the ethnic cleansing being already complete (if you're someone who commits violence against Sunnis in your Shi'ite neighborhood, you won't have any opportunities to kill Sunnis when there aren't any left) and 2) arming Sunni insurgents against AQI, which doesn't require the surge.

Posted by Reality Man | December 7, 2007 11:08 PM

And Captain Obvious's figure for November Iraqi civilian casualties was bullshit there, too.

The independent news media figure is three times that, around 1,100, which is undoubtedly an undercount.

Daily, in Iraq, around 30-60 Iraqis are killed at a minimum (some Fridays tend to be quiet, with perhaps "only" twenty killed - more likely the reporters left work early.) They have THE highest death rate of any messed up area on the planet right now, apparently including Sudan and Somalia.

Not to mention an estimated four million displaced out of a total 27 million or so population. And most of those permanently displaced, since they are Shia forced out of Sunni areas or vice versa.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 7, 2007 11:15 PM

Matt said that the surge isnt working because political progress has not been made. Reducing deaths isn't the goal but a stable Iraq is the goal.

Btw, I believe the number of deaths in baghdad has been reduced because the shia have successfully removed most of the sunnis from the Shia areas of the city, not because of a troop increase. Either way, the surge has failed by Petreus' own words

Posted by Dante | December 8, 2007 1:10 AM

I would think that if the surge has failed the Democrats would make that point in their campaigning. The only Democrat that I have read about mentioning a failure lately is Reid. The surge has succeeded militarily and politically to a lesser degree. There is a lot going on in Iraq at the local level. The national level politics are still stymied. It remains to be seen if there is any improvement at that level.

Posted by danceswithgoats | December 8, 2007 1:28 AM

The "surge" has been successful in at least one regard--demonstrating that it's not so important how many troops we have in Iraq (within reason) as WHAT THEY'RE DOING. We had more troops in Iraq '03-'04, but because they were not tasked appropriately, and because we face a resourceful and ruthless enemy, things went down hill.

It is not necessary for success that all the various Iraqi groups join hands around the campfire and sing Kumbaya. Expecting quick political reconciliation is ridiculous. In some respects, this would be like expecting Israel to okay pensions and affirmative action hiring for former-SS members.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 8, 2007 1:55 AM

It looks like Matt wrote this post to garner some attention and spark some debate.

But his plan doesn't appear to be working by the low number of respondents...Because its FRIDAY NIGHT!!!!!!!!!TIME TO PARTAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!!!!!!

Posted by thehova | December 8, 2007 2:07 AM

1944 had a point. 1864 had a point.

What's the point James Robertson? What's the endgame? When do we "win?"

Please don't tell me we win because the levels of violence are down from last year's levels. So we invaded Iraq to get the levels of violence down to--er, what? Hello! McFly!! You goddamn neo-con dead-enders can't see that there is no endgame for the Decider, but to pin the whole fucking fiasco on the Dems. That's it, you goddamn dupe.

Posted by anonymoose | December 8, 2007 8:03 AM

1944 had a point. 1864 had a point.

What's the point James Robertson? What's the endgame? When do we "win?"

Please don't tell me we win because the levels of violence are down from last year's levels. So we invaded Iraq to get the levels of violence down to--er, what? Hello! McFly!! You goddamn neo-con dead-enders can't see that there is no endgame for the Decider, but to pin the whole fucking fiasco on the Dems. That's it, you goddamn dupe.

Posted by anonymoose | December 8, 2007 8:03 AM

What's the endgame? When do we "win?"

When the Democratic party is reduced to the size of the Mulroney-led Canadian PCP in 1993.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | December 8, 2007 8:51 AM

...whole fucking fiasco...

C'mon, don't be ridiculous. They got their bases, they got the oil, they killed a million Arabs, made them hate, fight and kill each other - sure it's a win, without a doubt. In fact, it's a spectacular success.

Posted by abb1 | December 8, 2007 9:01 AM

What's the point, what has been gained?

Probably not enough to justify the cost in money, though casualties, higher than we hoped for and fueled by catastrophic Bush blunders, are light by war standards.

But we have gained:

1. The intimidation of Libya to give up its WMD program, the apparant intimidation of Iran to suspend theirs,

2. Ending Saddam's drive to get atomic weapons, which he told his FBI questioners he was just waiting on sanctions to end so he could fire up his nuke program and nerve gas production again.

3. Uncovery of the AQ Kahn nuclear network, which pinned doen what he had done with those countries, plus KSA, Egypt, Sudan, N Korea - as well as dealings of two AQ nuke weapons scientists with AQ. Pakistan was shook up that their national hero was spilling the secrets of the crown jewels of Pakistan to whomever would pay, including their Shiite enemy, Iran...and equally shook up when the US said diplomatically - they might nuke Pakistan if Pak materials and technology ended up being used in a nuke bomb set off in any NATO country.

4. We shook up the ME and will be a presence in Iraq, the strategic center of the ME, for many years to come.

5. We made life a whole lot better for Kurds.
We made life much better for nutty Shiite ingrates as well, though they hate us and want to kill us. (Similar to black thugs brought up on other peoples taxes for their welfare hating whitey and the black middle class and wishing them dead).

6. We have seen AQ have a catastrophe in Iraq. Not only do we have 2,000 in custody in Iraq, we killed up to 7,000. In their haste to get into Iraq, AQ exposed networks in the ME, N Africa, and Europe by not covering their backtrail and then us and the other governments interrogating the living or checking the background and acquaintances of the ones America turned into corpses.

7. We found AQ too evil and radical for their fellow Sunnis to stomach, then formed an alliance with them that is the main topic of discussion in the Arab world. The AQ takfiris were so bad, like the Algerian radicals, that they were killing brother observant Sunni Muslims - and are being killed by those brother Muslims allied with Americans because the Americans are far better to be with, as Arabs, than AQ heretics....

8. Politically, we have drawn a new generation of anti-Americans, anti-West people out in the Open and put them on record in their statements hoping for a US defeat, another chance to damage America like they did in Vietnam. Getting out on a limb like that followed the liberals for 40 years over Vietnam with a mainstream sense that they cannot be trusted to defend the country. Broken only by post-Watergate Carter, and Clinton running as a Jesse Jackson-dissing, execution warrant-signing, pro bombing bad guys type of New Democrat. Statements made on Iraq will follow those liberals the rest of their lives. Some will escape approbation. Others, like Fonda, John Kerry, Teddy, will be dogged by it till they die.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 8, 2007 9:18 AM

Were no one to die in violence in Iraq for the next month, the surge would still be a failure. Unless there is peace and unity between the shiite and sunni populations then the surge will remain a failure.

Reducing violence was not the chief goal of the surge. Political reconcilation is the goal and that has not happened. All these guys that quote lower deaths rates (yes lower as though a few deaths are ok) should understand this point. It's not a fine or hard to comprehend point either but plain as day.

Posted by Dante | December 8, 2007 9:52 AM

Also, just because violence has been reduced in Baghdad does not mean it is because of the troops increase. See the logical fallacy Post Hoc Ergo Procter Hoc if you think differently. The truth is there are plenty of variables involved in the reduction of violence in Baghdad including the success of the shia against the sunni in the city.

Trust me eventually through murder and intimidation you can force peace unto any city. The Shiite population is winning because there are more of them. I'm not picking sides just saying that given enough time violence will fall naturally because the populations will seperate/become exterminated.

Posted by Dante | December 8, 2007 9:57 AM

...Politically, we have drawn a new generation of anti-Americans, anti-West people out in the Open and put them on record in their statements hoping for a US defeat, another chance to damage America like they did in Vietnam...

Chris Ford

I eagerly -- no, no, jubilantly look forward to your types trying to sell this political sh*t point and trying to make electoral hay over it.

Please, please, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease make this a central part of the election campaign by the candidates you favor. Please. Please. I beg you. Please.

Posted by El Cid | December 8, 2007 10:07 AM

1. The intimidation of Libya to give up its WMD program,

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

It's nice to occasionally get a glimpse of the delusional republican mind first-person every so often (in other words, not mediated by the pros at Fox News).

Yeah, the "intimidation of Libya." The same Libya that, unlike Iraq, actually financed terrorism. The same Libya that spent the entire 1990s begging Bill Clinton to make peace so they could get a cut of the foreign aid.

But yeah, I'm sure Bush cozying up to Libya because he was desperate to find someone, anyone, out there to show his "successes" is an example of how great this Glorious War To Save Civilization has been.

What a fucking dupe, you are.

Get back to the fringe where you belong. I still can't comprehend that you people siezed power for 8 years. Maybe we should be grateful the damage wasn't worse.

Posted by WinSmith | December 8, 2007 11:07 AM

What El Cid said--please base your political efforts around the notion that a majority of Americans (as you know, a majority think Iraq was a mistake and think we need a plan to leave soon) hate the West and the U.S.

Posted by Andruw | December 8, 2007 11:10 AM

Anyone who wants to base a political campaign on the proposition that we are incapable as a nation of achieving a satisfactory conclusion to a war we entered nearly twenty years ago for perfectly valid reasons, is asking for a tour of the Political Wilderness. Bon voyage.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 8, 2007 11:34 AM

I vote for Chris Ford and Robert Powell to be campaign advisers for any nominee they choose.

Posted by El Cid | December 8, 2007 12:43 PM

"Anyone who wants to base a political campaign on the proposition that we are incapable as a nation of achieving a satisfactory conclusion to a war we entered nearly twenty years ago for perfectly valid reasons, is asking for a tour of the Political Wilderness. Bon voyage.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 8, 2007 11:34 AM"

Ok, now we entered the Iraq War in 1987 around the time when Reagan was telling the Democrats in Congress not to condemn the gassing of the Kurds because it would upset our key ally in Saddam? This is just a farce.

Also on the Libya point: Germany and Italy caught Libya soon before the Iraq War red-handed transporting materials needed to make WMD's and that they were being transported illegally under false pretenses. We, along with our European allies, responded by engaging Libya and helped to reach a diplomatic agreement. This is less than a decade after Britain put one of its spies in jail for violating the Official Secrets Act for leaking to the press that the British government had paid off an Al-Qaida operative to kill Qadaffi. In addition, we took advantage of the fact that Qadaffi's son was then a student at the London School of Economics who wants Libya to turn westward and thus pressures his dad to do so in preparation for when he takes over after Qadaffi dies. I also failed to notice how Bush made the case to the American people that we had to go to war in Iraq to make sure Libya ended its WMD program. The Libya agreement has been one of the actual successes the US government has been involved in under Bush, yet he never mentions it because it was solved diplomatically, which just would give the base conniptions like they did over Reagan talking with Gorbachev in Iceland.

Posted by Reality Man | December 8, 2007 12:57 PM

Excellent point on Libya, at least in so far as what's written above explicates the importance of having a diplomatic game underway in order to take advantage of events. We did it with Libya, but failed to use the same opportunity with Iran at about the same time. Too bad.

"...nearly twenty years ago..." is a reasonable rounding off from 1990-91. What's a farce is pretending that nothing of any particular relevance to the decision to invade Iraq occurred between '91 and sometime early in Dubyah's first administration, or the idea that Iraqi wmd's were similar to mythical creatures when we know that they were used to kill tens of thousands of people, and that the regime was continuing to stonewall on the clearly delineated path to compliance with the Resolutions concerning them.

And that still leaves the political issue of how we propose to bring this thing to a reasonable conclusion. I, for one, think the voters will be expecting a different answer than "we deserve to lose even if we don't have anyone immediately handy to surrender to."

Posted by Robert Powell | December 8, 2007 2:08 PM

Anyone who wants to base a political campaign on the proposition that we are incapable as a nation of achieving a satisfactory conclusion to a war we entered nearly twenty years ago for perfectly valid reasons, is asking for a tour of the Political Wilderness...

Oh that's brilliant!

So given the admission that the entire GOP platform is based around 20 years of failed war, I can see how that's a winner.

"We need you all to bleed more while we pass another tax cut. Also, we want y'all to join us on another snipe hunt in Iran...open-ended of course."

Posted by Condor | December 8, 2007 2:17 PM

Why just yesterday in the Washington Post, Robert Kagan, one of the infamous Kagans, said that the surge was a success.

Speaking of the Washington Post, maye if you don't believe Kagan, you'd believe Maj. General John Batiste (ret.)? You know, one of the famous generals who called out Rumsfeld, and the guy who made the famous VoteVets.org anti-war ad earlier this year. Well, apparently Batiste recently quit VoteVets.org (he's no longer listed on their website), and has come out in favor of the surge. And he says the surge is "showing promise of success and, if continued, will provide the Iraqi government the opportunities it desperately needs to stabilize its country."

But what does Major General Batiste know? Matthew has a much better handle on the situation than does Major General Batiste.

Posted by Al | December 8, 2007 3:13 PM

Shorter Gen. Batiste: We need a draft.

He states that the surge needs to be continued, despite Iraq politics not matching the peace, while also acknowledging that the surge cannot be sustained...yet won't bring himself to use the word 'draft,' instead insisting that "Americans will heed a call to arms." I also love his attempt to blanket 9/11, the IW, and all other conflicts under the oh-so-original 'Long War.' No more need for Friedman units, I see.

If you want someone as milquetoast and wishy-washy as Batiste to support your side, Al, he's all yours. I thought you folks didn't tolerate flip-floppers?

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | December 8, 2007 4:39 PM

What Batiste actually said:

Third, the counterinsurgency campaign led by Gen. David Petraeus is the correct approach in Iraq. It is showing promise of success and, if continued, will provide the Iraqi government the opportunities it desperately needs to stabilize its country. Ultimately, however, these military gains must be cemented with regional and global diplomacy, political reconciliation, and economic recovery -- tools yet sufficiently utilized. Today's tactical gains in Iraq -- while a necessary pre-condition for political reconciliation -- will crumble without a deliberate and comprehensive strategy.

Also, the 'gains' of Teh SURGE!(TM) would also benefit if George W. Bush Jr. would make it rain gold coins and delicious candies all over Iraq. Because what some people, who apparently don't mind wasting their time arguing to walls, are trying to point out to the YEAH! YEAH! SURGE SURGE SURGE! crowd is what General Batiste just said.

And his words are currently being taken and will continue to be taken just as seriously by the administration (and the vast majority of the political leadership in DC) as seriously as that Baker Commission was, which is to say, flushed down the toilet.

Posted by El Cid | December 8, 2007 4:53 PM

Anyone get the feeling that all the uber-machismo from republicans is simply political policy manifested as psycho-sexual insecurity? The "Surge" is about as sexual a term as it gets. Why not call it the "Jizz" or the "Erection"?

"Shock and Awe," Bush's giant crotch on the aircraft carrier, I can't tell if the entire republican party is suffering homoerotic bathroom confusion and using uber-heterosexual gestures to cover it all up.

Starting wars won't change your sexual problems, wingnuts.

Posted by WinSmith | December 8, 2007 5:25 PM

The National Strategy for Victory in Iraq defines victory as "an Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure." That didn't happen.

Posted by croatoan | December 8, 2007 8:44 PM

"What's a farce is pretending that nothing of any particular relevance to the decision to invade Iraq occurred between '91 and sometime early in Dubyah's first administration, or the idea that Iraqi wmd's were similar to mythical creatures when we know that they were used to kill tens of thousands of people, and that the regime was continuing to stonewall on the clearly delineated path to compliance with the Resolutions concerning them.

And that still leaves the political issue of how we propose to bring this thing to a reasonable conclusion. I, for one, think the voters will be expecting a different answer than "we deserve to lose even if we don't have anyone immediately handy to surrender to."

Posted by Robert Powell | December 8, 2007 2:08 PM "

Well, you did have Wolfowitz in 1992 write a defense planning initiative for Cheney that said we had to take out Saddam to prevent the emergence of hegemonic rivals in places like China, Russia and Europe. You also had the PNAC nutjobs lobbying for this, but they were always disappointed that Clinton didn't go to war. If the architects of this war believe that we weren't at war then but you do, that makes you even more delusional than a bunch of crazy neo-Trotskyites. Clinton's actions on this were more along the lines of "maybe if I do this just short of going to war, the Republicans will shut up." Having two countries that are unfriendly towards one another is not a war. Dual containment, as the policy was called in the 1990's, is not the same thing as a war. Technically, we never signed a peace treaty with North Korea, but only an idiot would call our current relationship an actual war. The fact that you keep on nursing this delusion of a twenty-year war with Iraq shows just how emotionally dependent you have become on ex post facto justifying your support for this war. It makes me laugh. After all, if your support was based on reality, you wouldn't need to end your argument with that strawman argument.

Posted by Reality Man | December 8, 2007 9:48 PM

As for Batiste, if he isn't willing to back a draft, then he isn't really saying anything. The surge has to end by April no matter what or else our ground forces will be broken by the Pentagon's own estimates. We stayed in Germany and Japan, where the job was a lot easier (nearly homogeneous, no real oil deposits, an actual history of democracy under the Weimar Republic and Taisho democracy that could be restored instead of built from scratch, etc.) for many years after hostilities ended. This idea that we're going to see any of the positive on-the-ground changes cemented by April would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

Posted by Reality Man | December 8, 2007 9:53 PM

Al rolls in with his usual little "here's some guy you never heard of, but he's some fucking GENERAL, so he's got to have all the answers" bullshit.

Once again demonstrating that Al is purely somebody who's function is to derail discussion here into meaningless noise.

In other words, a paid troll.

Or more likely, somebody stupid enough to be an UNPAID troll.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 9, 2007 2:38 AM

RM--
One could make the stretch that we're still at war with North Korea given the lack of a peace treaty, the nature of our relationship, our ongoing deployments over fifty years after the ceasefire, etc. It hasn't been cheap either--a close friend and colleague lost a son there in '98 when his helicopter went down near the DMZ killing him and twelve other Marines. Unfortunately this hasn't been a particularly unusual occurrence there. But that would still leave significant differences with Iraq.

First, North Korea has mostly stuck to the terms of the ceasefire; Iraq comprehensively violated theirs.

Second, unlike North Korea (or Iran, or anyone else), Iraq was in manifest material breech of over a dozen Chapter VII Security Council Resolutions. Such Resolutions according to the UN Charter, automatically contemplate the use of "all necessary means" for enforcement, and continuing violation was a Big Problem.

Third, the UN sanctions supported by the US were by their nature an act of war. It seems to be a matter of no particular concern to revisionists, but these sanctions killed about ten times more Iraqis than the invasion has done so far even if one wants to hold us responsible for everyone killed in the country by our enemies, and count the enemies we've killed intentionally as "civilians". Those killed by the sanctions were virtually all innocents, about half of them children according to UNICEF. Ask Iraqis if they thought it was a war.

Forth, we were spending about $70 billion per year deploying tens of thousands of troops to enforce the sanctions. Some of them were dropping bombs and dodging rockets on a regular basis, and collecting combat pay. There are campaign medals from some of these operations, and our military presence had been cited as a major act of war "against Islam" by most of our enemies. Then there was the Khobar Towers bombing, the USS Cole attack, Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, Desert Fox, etc. How was this NOT war?

I don't have any personal need to justify anything, but I think it would be a shame after all this if the important lessons we need to learn from this affair are lost or distorted because of partisan political analysis. Iraq has been a national, not to say bi-partisan, problem for a long time. It figures to carry on being one for a good while yet. Attempting to characterize it all as the result of some kind of individual psychological problem shared by a tiny cabal within the Republican Party is unhelpful, and obviously dead wrong.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 9, 2007 2:41 AM