I'm glad that armor piercing attacks against US forces in Iraq have declined but attributing this to the success of the Basra offensive which was supposed to have somehow -- and nobody in the article explains any causal mechanism -- to have crippled Iranian capabilities is a bit bizarre. It's not clear how much of these attacks ever had anything to do with Iran, but insofar as Iran is playing a role the obvious cause of a decline in the tempo of attacks is efforts at "appeasement" like the Bush administration's somewhat renewed interest in diplomacy with Teheran and so forth.
« Data | Main | Camby Trade »
Iran in Iraq
18 Jul 2008 12:00 pm
Comments (23)
You know, I could either spend half an hour pointing out the gaping flaws in the "expert opinions" USA Today relies upon to spin this ass-backwards tale of imaginary cause and effect, or I could just point out that the "experts" named are Kenneth Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon, both of whom are are so full of shit they could fertilise half of Ohio.
Another win for stenographic 'journalism'.
The right-wingnutosphere is filled with examples of bass-ackwards justification.
Recession ends? (The old one, not the new one). Credit the tax cuts. No economic stimulus from overspending. Deficits? It's overspending, and has nothing to do with the tax cuts
Ignoring big gaps of time is another tried and true method. Oil prices up? Clinton's fault. Up a lot more? [Chirp, chirp.] Up even further? Pelosi's fault.
Just follow these easy lessons, kids, and you too can lie like a right-wing pundit!
Sorry to break it to you, but we are winning and winning big. Bush and McCain have always had a timeline and it is called victory.
"Sorry to break it to you, but we are winning and winning big. Bush and McCain have always had a timeline and it is called victory."
Heh. That's funny. If you could have dropped in a reference to Chuck Norris then it would have been Teh Funny!
Good effort though.
Tony,
You know what's funny, that you could spend an half an hour debunking the so called experts, who have been in Iraq countless times and have access to much more info than you. But you're the expert. Funny stuff. How many meetings have you had with CENTCOM, or Petraeus, or Maliki? Oh, I know, they LIE. But YOU know what's going on. Through osmosis I guess.
You know what's funny, that you could spend an half an hour debunking the so called experts, who have been in Iraq countless times and have access to much more info than you. But you're the expert.
Judd, compared to McCain, I AM an expert. It doesn't take a single visit to Iraq to figure out that if an American needs a pre-sweep, a bullet proof vest, 100 heavily armed soldiers, and 5 helicopters providing air cover just to walk through a Baghdad market, and that 24 hours after your visit 20 people are slaughtered, that it's moronic to declare it as "safe".
While we're at it, how about that "expert" Dick Cheney and "last throes" or that "expert" George W. Bush and "turned a corner".
Bush and McCain have always had a timeline and it is called victory.
BOO-YAH!!! True, they have called for victory, but since the definition of "victory" has changed once or twice a year, it's kinda' tough to take it seriously. Bush clearly defined victory once with benchmarks, but he s***-canned those long ago when they didn't work out.
As to McCain's timeline, well that's changed continually.
Yup. I am aware of all osmosian traditions.
Y'know, like how when Iranian-backed militias controlled by the Iraqi PM's Iranian-backed political faction storm into Basra to weaken an anti-Iranian nationalist militia in advance of government elections that everyone expects that same anti-Iranian nationalist militia to win big in, that means - through osmosis - that Iran has recieved a "kick in the teeth" and Teh Surge wins again.
Osmosis - it's your flexible friend.
Meh.
Or that "expert" Obama saying the surge won't work.
Um, it's still a war zone, and wasn't that like a year ago, that's the most recent example you can use, wow.
Is Obama leaving the secret service at home on his trip to Europe? No "pre-sweeps" or "armed soldiers" or "air cover" will be provided?
Great argument, expert.
Obsidian Wings just put up this timely post about McCain's claim that we've "succeeded" in Iraq.
And of course, as I discussed in an earlier thread, the answers never change when you're in the right-wingnutosphere, just the questions. They told us we needed loads of troops in Iraq to "win", and now say that because we've "won", we need loads of troops in Iraq.
Or that "expert" Obama saying the surge won't work.
Uh, it hasn't. There is a reduction in violence, but the benchmarks set forth by George W. have still not come to fruition. One major reason for this reduction was the arming of the local militias, directly contra to one of the benchmarks. Do you think it's a good idea to have heavily armed militias in Iraq? Another was the fact that we allowed ethnic partitioning to take place in Baghdad.
These moves may have been necessary to slow violence, but they are horrible for long-term stability. As the article above asks, what happens when the millions of displaced people return to find that they've had their homes taken over by "those" people?
The outcome in Iraq has been over 4,000 U.S. soldiers dead, tens of thousands wounded, over 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, infrastructure destruction, and arms everywhere. Now that may be your definition of "success", but it sure as s**t ain't mine.
Is Obama leaving the secret service at home on his trip to Europe? No "pre-sweeps" or "armed soldiers" or "air cover" will be provided?
1) What part of 20 civilians slaughtered in retribution the day after are you having trouble grasping? Hello? McFly?
2) It wasn't Obama who said it was safe, now was it? That would be Johnny "PONIES!" McCain. He said it was "safe", and he said his heavily armed walk was proof. DOH! Try again, Judd. That was uber-weak.
"Or that "expert" Obama saying the surge won't work."
Well, since in the real world, Teh Surge has been an abject failure in achieving its aims, just like Obama said it would be, I guess you could call Obama an expert in comparison to, say, George Bush and John McCain. Or, y'know, compared to someone like you who doesn't appear to have a clue what you're talking about. Or both. I say both. Show of hands?
"Um, it's still a war zone, and wasn't that like a year ago, that's the most recent example you can use, wow."
Considering that this the last time yon 'expert' John McCain was in Iraq, this is even funnier than expected. I call spoof sir, and slap you on the back for you're quality of service.
"Is Obama leaving the secret service at home on his trip to Europe? No "pre-sweeps" or "armed soldiers" or "air cover" will be provided?"
Heh. The quality just gets better and better.
Iran finally came to their senses that the more they show influencial interest to control the middle east the more their economy suffers. Recently french Total discontinued their contructions of Iran gas plant while on the other side Qatar is making big bucks on natural gas business. Why do you think Iran wants to deal with the US directly instead of the Europeans simply because they know they will never win against the Americans. Do you think the americans wanted a direct flight between Tehran and Washington DC, baloney! America can exist without Iran but Iran knew well that they will be left behind if they dont scratch elbows with the americans. From 1979 to the present all they were able to accomplish was the nuclear program concealed from western intelligence because the Mullah are still in the obsession about islam ruling the world. Remember the technology was bought from black market Pakistani Khan who is now on house arrest. What Iran had build for a deacade can be ruined by Israel & USA in a day or a week. Surely oil price will increase but after the bombing price will come down again because Iran cannot shut down the gulf because Oil is their bread and butter. Let them rebuild their nuclear program for another decade then comes Israel & USA to ruin it within a day or a week. Iran is in a no win situation. Therefore they have no choice than to stop supporting the militia in Iraq since it certainly drain also their resources and their image gets worst. That is why Iran have to decide to stop meddling in Iraq.
And regarding the "change in definition of victory" meme that your side likes to pull out. This administration, as well as the military, has always been consistent in regards to what constitutes victory. And benchmarks are still a part of it. 12 of the 18 benchmarks have had acceptable progress.
"You're" should, of course, be "your".
In my defence, the exellence of your tired old spoof trolling had me laughing when I wrote it, so you'll excuse me if it goes astray.
"Well, since in the real world, Teh Surge has been an abject failure in achieving its aims,"
If the real world means left wing blogs, than I guess you're right.
I take it all back, Judd. Next to Shariq Thanvi's magnificent effort I fear that even your quality spoof fails to deliver.
Unless that's you posting under a different name, in which case, I just kiss my fingers and slump back in wonder at your dedication to the art.
And benchmarks are still a part of it. 12 of the 18 benchmarks have had acceptable progress.
Sure. Just ask George "Turned a Corner" Bush. Just DON'T ask the GAO. (They must have partisan goals for disagreeing with the boy king.)
BTW, here's a graph (I'm assuming you can read one) that shows that there was a reduction of violence from the screaming peaks in '06 until this past November. (Of course, it was the "surge" and not the completion of ethnic cleansing and control that took place just about that time, at least per Patreaus's own maps of Baghdad.) Now we're sitting comfortably at well over 1,000 attacks per months.
VICTORY!
Shariq Thanvi: You're an idiot.
Yes, Iran would like the same access to the rest of the world that everybody else has. The only country standing in the way of that is the US. Everybody else wants to deal with Iran. China, Russia, India, Germany, France, Turkey, everybody.
Iran has been bending around the sanctions and has done pretty well minimizing their impact. Most of the countries nominally supporting the sanctions are still doing big business with Iran. Massive oil and gas contracts being let every week in Iran by other countries.
As for destroying Iran's infrastructure, yes, the US can do that. It's considerably harder to defeat Iran itself. Whereas it's going to be fairly easy for Iran to use 4th Gen War to bleed the US militarily, economically and geopolitically to death within ten years. It will be like Vietnam but magnified by a factor of about two to four.
Just the impact of an Iran war on the Chinese, with the result that they will dump the US dollar - on top of a $200-500/barrel oil price spike - and the US economy will evaporate is enough to demonstrate how badly Iran can hurt the US without firing a shot.
In the end, the US will limp back home bleeding and Iran will use its oil revenues to rebuild its nuclear energy program - which never was a nuclear weapons program and probably never will be since they don't need nukes to screw the US and Israel.
LFC: udd, compared to McCain, I AM an expert. It doesn't take a single visit to Iraq to figure out that if an American needs a pre-sweep, a bullet proof vest, 100 heavily armed soldiers, and 5 helicopters providing air cover just to walk through a Baghdad market, and that 24 hours after your visit 20 people are slaughtered, that it's moronic to declare it as "safe".
Judd: Is Obama leaving the secret service at home on his trip to Europe? No "pre-sweeps" or "armed soldiers" or "air cover" will be provided?
What are you trying to prove here? That it is hypocritical to criticize McCain for calling Iraq safe when he needed such an entourage when we do not equally criticize Obama for the same entourage?
There's only one problem - no one is cirticizing McCain for his security precautions. We are just pointing out that they belie the claim that Iraq is "safe."
What are you trying to prove here?
That he's an idiot that can't understand the most basic logic imaginable?
With all due respect, LFC, this is not the thing you should be trying to prove.
Glaivester dispels Judd's inapt analogy effectively. Except for that, though, I for the most part agree with Judd.
Thanks to Shariq Thanvi, with advice to ignore the insults frequently thrown around here. I don't agree with you about the US and Israel's ability to destroy "in a day or a week" what Iran has built, but you do make some good points. It is in the interests of the US, Iran, Iraq, and the world in general that we sort out the most pressing of our differences. I'm cautiously optimistic that we could have a diplomatic breakthrough based on the same thing diplomatic breakthroughs always are--recognition of mutual advantages.
My point was that LFC was using security precautions for a McCain visit to Iraq as proof that the surge has not worked. First of all, it was and is still a war zone and second, the visit was almost a year ago. Now, is it your contention that security has not improved dramatically since McCain's last visit? It seems the only people who can't see or admit success of the surge are those people that put political victory over all else. The left wing blogosphere to be precise.
Comments closed August 01, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I don't understand why you are so happy that such attacks have declined. We are the bad guys.
My vision for peace in Iraq is that all factions join together to drive the invading U.S. army into the sea.
Posted by voice of reason | July 18, 2008 12:17 PM