William Odom: the Case for Withdrawal

[Adrian II]

Another voice has joined the chorus of experts on the Middle East, U.S. national security and military strategy who favour a speedy withdrawal from Iraq. I copy and paste it here because Odom discusses the pros and cons point by point and it is impossible to summarise his argument. Source: Nieman Watchdog (http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129)



Nieman Watchdog
August 03, 2005

What’s wrong with cutting and running?

Everything that opponents of a pullout say would happen if the U.S. left Iraq is happening already, says retired Gen. William E. Odom, the head of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration. So why stay?

by William E. Odom


If I were a journalist, I would list all the arguments that you hear against pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, the horrible things that people say would happen, and then ask: Aren’t they happening already? Would a pullout really make things worse? Maybe it would make things better.

Here are some of the arguments against pulling out:


We would leave behind a civil war.
We would lose credibility on the world stage.
It would embolden the insurgency and cripple the move toward democracy.
Iraq would become a haven for terrorists.
Iranian influence in Iraq would increase.
Unrest might spread in the region and/or draw in Iraq's neighbors.
Shiite-Sunni clashes would worsen.
We haven’t fully trained the Iraqi military and police forces yet.
Talk of deadlines would undercut the morale of our troops.


But consider this:

1) On civil war. Iraqis are already fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That’s civil war. We created the civil war when we invaded; we can’t prevent a civil war by staying.

For those who really worry about destabilizing the region, the sensible policy is not to stay the course in Iraq. It is rapid withdrawal, re-establishing strong relations with our allies in Europe, showing confidence in the UN Security Council, and trying to knit together a large coalition including the major states of Europe, Japan, South Korea, China, and India to back a strategy for stabilizing the area from the eastern Mediterranean to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Until the United States withdraws from Iraq and admits its strategic error, no such coalition can be formed.

Thus those who fear leaving a mess are actually helping make things worse while preventing a new strategic approach with some promise of success.

2) On credibility. If we were Russia or some other insecure nation, we might have to worry about credibility. A hyperpower need not worry about credibility. That’s one of the great advantages of being a hyperpower: When we have made a big strategic mistake, we can reverse it. And it may even enhance our credibility. Staying there damages our credibility more than leaving.

Ask the president if he really worries about US credibility. Or, what will happen to our credibility if the course he is pursuing proves to be a major strategic disaster? Would it not be better for our long-term credibility to withdraw earlier than later in this event?

3) On the insurgency and democracy. There is no question the insurgents and other anti-American parties will take over the government once we leave. But that will happen no matter how long we stay. Any government capable of holding power in Iraq will be anti-American, because the Iraqi people are increasingly becoming anti-American.

Also, the U.S. will not leave behind a liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq no matter how long it stays. Holding elections is easy. It is impossible to make it a constitutional democracy in a hurry.

President Bush’s statements about progress in Iraq are increasingly resembling LBJ's statements during the Vietnam War. For instance, Johnson’s comments about the 1968 election are very similar to what Bush said in February 2005 after the election of a provisional parliament.

Ask the president: Why should we expect a different outcome in Iraq than in Vietnam?

Ask the president if he intends to leave a pro-American liberal regime in place. Because that’s just impossible. Postwar Germany and Japan are not models for Iraq. Each had mature (at least a full generation old) constitutional orders by the end of the 19th century. They both endured as constitutional orders until the 1930s. Thus General Clay and General MacArthur were merely reversing a decade and a half totalitarianism -- returning to nearly a century of liberal political change in Japan and a much longer period in Germany.

Imposing a liberal constitutional order in Iraq would be to accomplish something that has never been done before. Of all the world's political cultures, an Arab-Muslim one may be the most resistant to such a change of any in the world. Even the Muslim society in Turkey (an anti-Arab society) stands out for being the only example of a constitutional order in an Islamic society, and even it backslides occasionally.

4) On terrorists. Iraq is already a training ground for terrorists. In fact, the CIA has pointed out to the administration and congress that Iraq is spawning so many terrorists that they are returning home to many other countries to further practice their skills there. The quicker a new dictator wins the political power in Iraq and imposes order, the sooner the country will stop producing well-experienced terrorists.

Why not ask: "Mr. President, since you and the vice president insisted that Saddam's Iraq supported al Qaeda -- which we now know it did not -- isn't your policy in Iraq today strengthening al Qaeda's position in that country?"

5) On Iranian influence. Iranian leaders see US policy in Iraq as being so much in Teheran's interests that they have been advising Iraqi Shiite leaders to do exactly what the Americans ask them to do. Elections will allow the Shiites to take power legally. Once in charge, they can settle scores with the Baathists and Sunnis. If US policy in Iraq begins to undercut Iran's interests, then Teheran can use its growing influence among Iraqi Shiites to stir up trouble, possibly committing Shiite militias to an insurgency against US forces there. The US invasion has vastly increased Iran's influence in Iraq, not sealed it out.

Questions for the administration: "Why do the Iranians support our presence in Iraq today? Why do they tell the Shiite leaders to avoid a sectarian clash between Sunnis and Shiites? Given all the money and weapons they provide Shiite groups, why are they not stirring up more trouble for the US? Will Iranian policy change once a Shiite majority has the reins of government? Would it not be better to pull out now rather than to continue our present course of weakening the Sunnis and Baathists, opening the way for a Shiite dictatorship?"

6) On Iraq’s neighbors. The civil war we leave behind may well draw in Syria, Turkey and Iran. But already today each of those states is deeply involved in support for or opposition to factions in the ongoing Iraqi civil war. The very act of invading Iraq almost insured that violence would involve the larger region. And so it has and will continue, with, or without, US forces in Iraq.

7) On Shiite-Sunni conflict. The US presence is not preventing Shiite-Sunni conflict; it merely delays it. Iran is preventing it today, and it will probably encourage it once the Shiites dominate the new government, an outcome US policy virtually ensures.

8) On training the Iraq military and police. The insurgents are fighting very effectively without US or European military advisors to train them. Why don't the soldiers and police in the present Iraqi regime's service do their duty as well? Because they are uncertain about committing their lives to this regime. They are being asked to take a political stand, just as the insurgents are. Political consolidation, not military-technical consolidation, is the issue.

The issue is not military training; it is institutional loyalty. We trained the Vietnamese military effectively. Its generals took power and proved to be lousy politicians and poor fighters in the final showdown. In many battles over a decade or more, South Vietnamese military units fought very well, defeating VC and NVA units. But South Vietnam's political leaders lost the war.

Even if we were able to successfully train an Iraqi military and police force, the likely result, after all that, would be another military dictatorship. Experience around the world teaches us that military dictatorships arise when the military’s institutional modernization gets ahead of political consolidation.

9) On not supporting our troops by debating an early pullout. Many US officers in Iraq, especially at company and field grade levels, know that while they are winning every tactical battle, they are losing strategically. And according to the New York Times last week, they are beginning to voice complaints about Americans at home bearing none of the pains of the war. One can only guess about the enlisted ranks, but those on a second tour – probably the majority today – are probably anxious for an early pullout. It is also noteworthy that US generals in Iraq are not bubbling over with optimistic reports they way they were during the first few years of the war in Vietnam. Their careful statements and caution probably reflect serious doubts that they do not, and should not, express publicly. The more important question is whether or not the repressive and vindictive behavior by the secretary of defense and his deputy against the senior military -- especially the Army leadership, which is the critical component in the war -- has made it impossible for field commanders to make the political leaders see the facts.


Most surprising to me is that no American political leader today has tried to unmask the absurdity of the administration's case that to question the strategic wisdom of the war is unpatriotic and a failure to support our troops. Most officers and probably most troops don't see it that way. They are angry at the deficiencies in materiel support they get from the Department of Defense, and especially about the irresponsibly long deployments they must now endure because Mr. Rumsfeld and his staff have refused to enlarge the ground forces to provide shorter tours. In the meantime, they know that the defense budget shovels money out the door to maritime forces, SDI, etc., while refusing to increase dramatically the size of the Army.

As I wrote several years ago, "the Pentagon's post-Cold War force structure is so maritime heavy and land force weak that it is firmly in charge of the porpoises and whales while leaving the land to tyrants." The Army, some of the Air Force, the National Guard, and the reserves are now the victims of this gross mismatch between military missions and force structure. Neither the Bush nor the Clinton administration has properly "supported the troops." The media could ask the president why he fails to support our troops by not firing his secretary of defense.


So why is almost nobody advocating a pullout? I can only speculate. We face a strange situation today where few if any voices among Democrats in Congress will mention early withdrawal from Iraq, and even the one or two who do will not make a comprehensive case for withdrawal now.Why are the Democrats failing the public on this issue today? The biggest reason is because they weren’t willing to raise that issue during the campaign. Howard Dean alone took a clear and consistent stand on Iraq, and the rest of the Democratic party trashed him for it. Most of those in Congress voted for the war and let that vote shackle them later on. Now they are scared to death that the White House will smear them with lack of patriotism if they suggest pulling out.

Journalists can ask all the questions they like but none will prompt a more serious debate as long as no political leaders create the context and force the issues into the open.

I don't believe anyone will be able to sustain a strong case in the short run without going back to the fundamental misjudgment of invading Iraq in the first place. Once the enormity of that error is grasped, the case for pulling out becomes easy to see.

Look at John Kerry's utterly absurd position during the presidential campaign. He said “It’s the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time," but then went on to explain how he expected to win it anyway. Even the voter with no interest in foreign affairs was able to recognize it as an absurdity. If it was the wrong war at the wrong place and time, then it was never in our interest to fight. If that is true, what has changed to make it in our interest? Nothing, absolutely nothing.


The US invasion of Iraq only serves the interest of:

1) Osama bin Laden (it made Iraq safe for al Qaeda, positioned US military personnel in places where al Qaeda operatives can kill them occasionally, helps radicalize youth throughout the Arab and Muslim world, alienates America's most important and strongest allies – the Europeans – and squanders US military resources that otherwise might be finishing off al Qaeda in Pakistan.);

2) The Iranians (who were invaded by Saddam and who suffered massive casualties in an eight year war with Iraq.);

3) And the extremists in both Palestinian and Israeli political circles (who don't really want a peace settlement without the utter destruction of the other side, and probably believe that bogging the United States down in a war in Iraq that will surely become a war between the United States and most of the rest of Arab world gives them the time and cover to wipe out the other side.)


The wisest course for journalists might be to begin sustained investigations of why leading Democrats have failed so miserably to challenge the US occupation of Iraq. The first step, of course, is to establish as conventional wisdom the fact that the war was never in the US interest and has not become so. It is such an obvious case to make that I find it difficult to believe many pundits and political leaders have not already made it repeatedly.

Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. He was Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer. From 1977 to 1981, he was Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski

[Strike For The South]

good article...and I fear he might be right. Bad intellgence leads to 2000 american dead and we are back at square 1. Getting Sadam out of a power was a great thing but was it worth it. Maybe a psychotic baby killer was the only thing that could hold them together

[ichi]

He left out the fact that the US is running huge deficits and the war is seriously draining our ability to manage our domestic issues, let alone if a real crisis should develop (say N Korea or China/Taiwan).

I also disagree that we have to go back to the reasons for invading, 'casue I think that we could have successfully pulled off the admins goals, but they choked.

Otherwise, its what a lot of us have been saying.

ichi:bow:

[Reverend Joe]

Gawain, where are you man?! ~:eek: :hide:

[Kaiser of Arabia]

good article...and I fear he might be right. Bad intellgence leads to 2000 american dead and we are back at square 1. Getting Sadam out of a power was a great thing but was it worth it. Maybe a psychotic baby killer was the only thing that could hold them together
Strike Three

[Strike For The South]

Strike Three

How does this make me any less of a conservative. Is one of the requirements supporting something even when it was a mistake

[Red Harvest]

How does this make me any less of a conservative. Is one of the requirements supporting something even when it was a mistake
He will probably count that as Strike 4, because you even had to ask. LOL.

[PanzerJaeger]

If this man really considers what is happening in Iraq as a civil war, he is not qualified to have his opinion published.

[PanzerJaeger]

That’s civil war. - Odom.

No. Its not.

Explain how my pointing out the man's inability to understand the nature of a true civil war was an attack on his character.

As a retired veteran and government official for the Reagan administration, Im sure his character is just fine.. his intelligence is what is in question here.

[InsaneApache]

and I thought the title of the thread was about a type of catholic birth control......:hide:

[Tribesman]

If this man really considers what is happening in Iraq as a civil war, he is not qualified to have his opinion published.

The country is split along ethnic/rligeous/political lines , each grouping has its own seperate agenda which it is using open conflict to attain , each group is killing other Iraqis who do not follow the same agenda .
So how is it not a civil war ? Or is it only a true civil war if one side wears grey and the other blue ~:confused:

[KafirChobee]

Good show, Adrian. The article is a concise evaluation of the problems we (as a nation) face in Iraq, and demonstrates the present administrations lack of understanding of those problems to face their realities.

It is true that the Bushys cannot tolerate dissent or arguements that oppose their policies - they simply fire (or force retirement) the naysayers, leaving a vaccume for intelligent debate.

That Iraq is in the first stages of a civil war is obvious to anyone open-minded enough to look at the situation there. Open conflict between the opposing factions is already present - how far behing can total war be? Face it, Muslims are not known for peaceful civil disobedience - they prefer blowing one another up to open discussion or political resolve.

Again, good article.

[Red Harvest]

If this man really considers what is happening in Iraq as a civil war, he is not qualified to have his opinion published.
Of course it is a civil war. Inter-faction fighting and positioning for power has been a large part of this from the start. They are using standard Mid East terror tactics, not unlike the Lebanese civil war. Most of the deadly attacks are against rival civilians and govt. That is civil war.

Fortunately, we have a free press, rather than the GOP spin machine as our sole source of information or determing whether someone "is not qualified to have his opinion published."

[Geoffrey S]

Good article, and finally one with a firm view and clear arguments to back it up. As ichi said, he did miss out the budget problems the war has increased, a rather important point.

I particularly liked the idea of the media criticising the democrat politicians on their initial support for the war and subsequent uncertainty and bitching for a change; who knows, perhaps that might finally stir them into some kind of action if they realise they've got more public support to lose if they can't come to some sort of consistent and well-reasoned policy, and start acting like an actually relevant opposition.

[Redleg]

The one part that the author captures correctly but fails to follow through is the following.


Most surprising to me is that no American political leader today has tried to unmask the absurdity of the administration's case that to question the strategic wisdom of the war is unpatriotic and a failure to support our troops. Most officers and probably most troops don't see it that way. They are angry at the deficiencies in materiel support they get from the Department of Defense, and especially about the irresponsibly long deployments they must now endure because Mr. Rumsfeld and his staff have refused to enlarge the ground forces to provide shorter tours. In the meantime, they know that the defense budget shovels money out the door to maritime forces, SDI, etc., while refusing to increase dramatically the size of the Army.

As I wrote several years ago, "the Pentagon's post-Cold War force structure is so maritime heavy and land force weak that it is firmly in charge of the porpoises and whales while leaving the land to tyrants." The Army, some of the Air Force, the National Guard, and the reserves are now the victims of this gross mismatch between military missions and force structure. Neither the Bush nor the Clinton administration has properly "supported the troops." The media could ask the president why he fails to support our troops by not firing his secretary of defense.

If the Democratics have the ability to organize a political platform to actually remove the Republican Majority in both houses of Congress - they would do well to pay attention to this little comment of General Odem's. (and its a mighty big if - as the last elections have indeed shown.) Any bets that the Democatic Party as a whole fail to capitalize on this important point?

[Idaho]

(reclines in armchair with an 'I told you so' look on his smug face)

Alas my self-satisfaction is marred by the bloodbath that has been created. This, my dear friends, is what you get from a gung-ho foreign policy that thinks the world is black and white and that military might and patriotism can do anything.

[Redleg]

(reclines in armchair with an 'I told you so' look on his smug face)

Alas my self-satisfaction is marred by the bloodbath that has been created. This, my dear friends, is what you get from a gung-ho foreign policy that thinks the world is black and white and that military might and patriotism can do anything.


Don't be so smug - it also happens when you do absolutely nothing - Somilia, Kosovo, Bosina, and many other places in the world. Most of them in Africa where the United Nations and most of the world (to include the United States) refuses to do a damn thing.

The problem comes when you don't adequately plan for the operation that the nation is about to take. Especially one that requires military might. Bosina and Kosovo also show this as a reality.

[Watchman]

Opportunism, gung-ho idealism and deficient planning ability don't mix well.

[Crazed Rabbit]

1) On civil war. Iraqis are already fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That’s civil war. We created the civil war when we invaded; we can’t prevent a civil war by staying.

For those who really worry about destabilizing the region, the sensible policy is not to stay the course in Iraq. It is rapid withdrawal, re-establishing strong relations with our allies in Europe, showing confidence in the UN Security Council, and trying to knit together a large coalition including the major states of Europe, Japan, South Korea, China, and India to back a strategy for stabilizing the area from the eastern Mediterranean to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Until the United States withdraws from Iraq and admits its strategic error, no such coalition can be formed.

Thus those who fear leaving a mess are actually helping make things worse while preventing a new strategic approach with some promise of success.


It is most certainly not a civil war level. If he thinks that people of one nationality killing others of the same nationality is civil war, then we have civil war in every city where people are murdered.

And if he thinks that US troops aren't doing anything to secure the region ad that it couldn't get worse if we left, he's out of his mind. We'd see what a real civil war looks like.


2) On credibility. If we were Russia or some other insecure nation, we might have to worry about credibility. A hyperpower need not worry about credibility. That’s one of the great advantages of being a hyperpower: When we have made a big strategic mistake, we can reverse it. And it may even enhance our credibility. Staying there damages our credibility more than leaving.

Ask the president if he really worries about US credibility. Or, what will happen to our credibility if the course he is pursuing proves to be a major strategic disaster? Would it not be better for our long-term credibility to withdraw earlier than later in this event?

Once again, wrong. Osama bin Laden was greatly emboldened after Somalia 1993, which to him showed that the US was a 'paper tiger'. Why? Because of Clinton's quick pullout. Yes, credibility can be lost.


3) On the insurgency and democracy. There is no question the insurgents and other anti-American parties will take over the government once we leave. But that will happen no matter how long we stay. Any government capable of holding power in Iraq will be anti-American, because the Iraqi people are increasingly becoming anti-American.

Also, the U.S. will not leave behind a liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq no matter how long it stays. Holding elections is easy. It is impossible to make it a constitutional democracy in a hurry.

President Bush’s statements about progress in Iraq are increasingly resembling LBJ's statements during the Vietnam War. For instance, Johnson’s comments about the 1968 election are very similar to what Bush said in February 2005 after the election of a provisional parliament.

Ask the president: Why should we expect a different outcome in Iraq than in Vietnam?

Ask the president if he intends to leave a pro-American liberal regime in place. Because that’s just impossible. Postwar Germany and Japan are not models for Iraq. Each had mature (at least a full generation old) constitutional orders by the end of the 19th century. They both endured as constitutional orders until the 1930s. Thus General Clay and General MacArthur were merely reversing a decade and a half totalitarianism -- returning to nearly a century of liberal political change in Japan and a much longer period in Germany.

Imposing a liberal constitutional order in Iraq would be to accomplish something that has never been done before. Of all the world's political cultures, an Arab-Muslim one may be the most resistant to such a change of any in the world. Even the Muslim society in Turkey (an anti-Arab society) stands out for being the only example of a constitutional order in an Islamic society, and even it backslides occasionally.

So this guy thinks that the Iraqis will support a bunch of foreign terrorists once there state is strong and secure? He also shows his subtle racism when he says that Iraqis can't deal with democracy. His whole argument seems to be 'because I say so'.

And he's saying that Japan and Germany were examples of 'constitutional orders' before 1930? What the heck is he smoking?! I hope the knowledge of history here is such that I won't have to go into a deep discussion on why he is wrong.


4) On terrorists. Iraq is already a training ground for terrorists. In fact, the CIA has pointed out to the administration and congress that Iraq is spawning so many terrorists that they are returning home to many other countries to further practice their skills there. The quicker a new dictator wins the political power in Iraq and imposes order, the sooner the country will stop producing well-experienced terrorists.

Why not ask: "Mr. President, since you and the vice president insisted that Saddam's Iraq supported al Qaeda -- which we now know it did not -- isn't your policy in Iraq today strengthening al Qaeda's position in that country?"


Iraq is not 'producing well-experienced terrorists'; there are many terrorists there, certainly, but they already dying at high rates. Nor are they leaving to practice. The only place they can get to right now is Iraq, so why would they leave? And if they are getting so much practice there, why would they leave to practice more? He doesn't make sense. He also assumes a new dictator, which he earlier implied would get power as leader of some faction of America hating terrorists, would then cut off all support to terrorists. Rather nonsensical.


5) On Iranian influence. Iranian leaders see US policy in Iraq as being so much in Teheran's interests that they have been advising Iraqi Shiite leaders to do exactly what the Americans ask them to do. Elections will allow the Shiites to take power legally. Once in charge, they can settle scores with the Baathists and Sunnis. If US policy in Iraq begins to undercut Iran's interests, then Teheran can use its growing influence among Iraqi Shiites to stir up trouble, possibly committing Shiite militias to an insurgency against US forces there. The US invasion has vastly increased Iran's influence in Iraq, not sealed it out.

Questions for the administration: "Why do the Iranians support our presence in Iraq today? Why do they tell the Shiite leaders to avoid a sectarian clash between Sunnis and Shiites? Given all the money and weapons they provide Shiite groups, why are they not stirring up more trouble for the US? Will Iranian policy change once a Shiite majority has the reins of government? Would it not be better to pull out now rather than to continue our present course of weakening the Sunnis and Baathists, opening the way for a Shiite dictatorship?"

Since when do Iranians support the US liberation, and how does he see so clearly into the minds of the ayatollahs? And another loaded question based on assumptions.



6) On Iraq’s neighbors. The civil war we leave behind may well draw in Syria, Turkey and Iran. But already today each of those states is deeply involved in support for or opposition to factions in the ongoing Iraqi civil war. The very act of invading Iraq almost insured that violence would involve the larger region. And so it has and will continue, with, or without, US forces in Iraq.

7) On Shiite-Sunni conflict. The US presence is not preventing Shiite-Sunni conflict; it merely delays it. Iran is preventing it today, and it will probably encourage it once the Shiites dominate the new government, an outcome US policy virtually ensures.

Once again, we see his assumptions that 1) civil war is inevitable and 2) Iran is the puppet master in Iraq (wait, didn't he say earlier that there already civil war? If there was, the how can conflict be delayed at the same time?)


8) On training the Iraq military and police. The insurgents are fighting very effectively without US or European military advisors to train them. Why don't the soldiers and police in the present Iraqi regime's service do their duty as well? Because they are uncertain about committing their lives to this regime. They are being asked to take a political stand, just as the insurgents are. Political consolidation, not military-technical consolidation, is the issue.

The issue is not military training; it is institutional loyalty. We trained the Vietnamese military effectively. Its generals took power and proved to be lousy politicians and poor fighters in the final showdown. In many battles over a decade or more, South Vietnamese military units fought very well, defeating VC and NVA units. But South Vietnam's political leaders lost the war.

Even if we were able to successfully train an Iraqi military and police force, the likely result, after all that, would be another military dictatorship. Experience around the world teaches us that military dictatorships arise when the military’s institutional modernization gets ahead of political consolidation.

Hmm, perhaps because the soldiers are just being trained, while the insurgents he has already described as 'well-experienced'? Does he think withdrawing and thusly taking all support from behind the new Iraqi soldiers would help them fight the terrorists?


9) On not supporting our troops by debating an early pullout. Many US officers in Iraq, especially at company and field grade levels, know that while they are winning every tactical battle, they are losing strategically. And according to the New York Times last week, they are beginning to voice complaints about Americans at home bearing none of the pains of the war. One can only guess about the enlisted ranks, but those on a second tour – probably the majority today – are probably anxious for an early pullout. It is also noteworthy that US generals in Iraq are not bubbling over with optimistic reports they way they were during the first few years of the war in Vietnam. Their careful statements and caution probably reflect serious doubts that they do not, and should not, express publicly. The more important question is whether or not the repressive and vindictive behavior by the secretary of defense and his deputy against the senior military -- especially the Army leadership, which is the critical component in the war -- has made it impossible for field commanders to make the political leaders see the facts.


Gee, could it be that the soldiers get the idea none of the Americans at home are bearing the pains because politicians constantly call for a timeline to pullout, denounce their mission, and refer to them as nazis? The only reason support is dropping is because of the constant doom and gloom spewed forth from the media and the unscrupulous lying by politicians.
He also demonstrates complete ignorance of what the enlisted troops are feeling. Does he really think they want to abandon their mission and leave the people they've come to help to die?



The US invasion of Iraq only serves the interest of:

1) Osama bin Laden (it made Iraq safe for al Qaeda, positioned US military personnel in places where al Qaeda operatives can kill them occasionally, helps radicalize youth throughout the Arab and Muslim world, alienates America's most important and strongest allies – the Europeans – and squanders US military resources that otherwise might be finishing off al Qaeda in Pakistan.);

Wrong. OBL does not want Arabs to see how quickly terrorists are killed, how swiftly Saddam fell and was found in disgrace, a regime that hated America to be dstroyed, and for Muslims to see how horrific the casulties are upon their fellow muslims. And Europeans are in no way the strongest(what give him that idea? England is with us, and France and Germany...well, I won't waste my time.) or even most important.


2) The Iranians (who were invaded by Saddam and who suffered massive casualties in an eight year war with Iraq.);

By the same token, it was even more in the interests of 1) the Kurds 2) Non-Baathists 3) the people of Iraq in general 4) The people of the world in general and 5) Kuwait and every other country threatened by Saddam.


3) And the extremists in both Palestinian and Israeli political circles (who don't really want a peace settlement without the utter destruction of the other side, and probably believe that bogging the United States down in a war in Iraq that will surely become a war between the United States and most of the rest of Arab world gives them the time and cover to wipe out the other side.)

I guess the whole of the Palestinian leadership must be made of extremists then.


The wisest course for journalists might be to begin sustained investigations of why leading Democrats have failed so miserably to challenge the US occupation of Iraq. The first step, of course, is to establish as conventional wisdom the fact that the war was never in the US interest and has not become so. It is such an obvious case to make that I find it difficult to believe many pundits and political leaders have not already made it repeatedly.

If you tell a big lie long enough...

In short, this is an article rife with ignorance, assumptions, lies, and the underlying, subtle racist thought that Arabs can't handle democracy.

Crazed Rabbit

[Xiahou]

If you tell a big lie long enough...

In short, this is an article rife with ignorance, assumptions, lies, and the underlying, subtle racist thought that Arabs can't handle democracy.

Crazed RabbitBravo- it's like your read my mind. Im glad you did the point by point so I didnt have to. :bow:

[Dâriûsh]

Since when do Iranians support the US liberation, and how does he see so clearly into the minds of the ayatollahs? And another loaded question based on assumptions.

The US invasion of Iraq, and its continued presence, is embraced by two groupings in Iran.

1) The Rulers. The Mullahs can strengthen their position. Iranians are very patriotic, and the nearby presence of the Great Satan (keeping in mind that the US have repeatedly threatened Iran with sanctions and military action) is useful for rallying support. For the same reason, they would almost certainly relish US (or even better: Israeli) aggression against their nuclear facilities.

A while ago they began recruiting regional suicide brigades, and they are reorganizing and reinforcing the national militia, so that a foreign invader would face not only a mere twenty thousand insurgents, like Iraq, but well over a million. And that is even without counting the Army of the IR.

2) The Reformists. The reformists hope that the nearby US presence will aid their movement. Showing the tyrants that, like Saddam, they will eventually fall.

[Tribesman]

Bravo- it's like your read my mind
I thought your mind worked better than that Xiahou ~:confused:
would you write rubbish like this.....
If he thinks that people of one nationality killing others of the same nationality is civil war, then we have civil war in every city where people are murdered.
???????

Iraq is not 'producing well-experienced terrorists'; there are many terrorists there, certainly, but they already dying at high rates. Nor are they leaving to practice. The only place they can get to right now is Iraq, so why would they leave? And if they are getting so much practice there, why would they leave to practice more? He doesn't make sense.
Thats strange , since the same statement has been made in the past two months by US intelligence agencies , the US military , the US Administration , but I suppose we are used to them not making sense ....so ask the Brits ,oops they say the same , The Jordanians ? Iraqis ? Russians ? Israelis ? Turks ?Oh no everyone is saying the same ...except Rabbit~D ~D ~D

Since when do Iranians support the US liberation
Could it be from when America believed all the lies the Iranian agents were telling them ? or could it be from when the Iranian backed/based SCIRI got such great results in the election ? could it be from when America removed a proven threat to Iran ? could it be from when the Iranian backed Kurds did so well in the Northern elections ? could it be because Iran doesn't have to worry about the US for a while as they are stuck in Iraq ? could it be because one of the only foriegn groups that feels safe enough to open political offices and have diplomatic relations is Hiz'Ballah which in case you forgot is another Iranian backed group , but hey they share offices with SCIRI and the Badr Brigades which are Iranian anyhow .~D ~D ~D
Way to go Rabbit , you should take up comedy .


Once again, we see his assumptions that 1) civil war is inevitable and 2) Iran is the puppet master in Iraq (wait, didn't he say earlier that there already civil war? If there was, the how can conflict be delayed at the same time?)

Read what he says , he is talking of a wider conflict .

[Red Harvest]

It is most certainly not a civil war level. If he thinks that people of one nationality killing others of the same nationality is civil war, then we have civil war in every city where people are murdered.
What an incredibly weak argument. I guess then we can dismiss all civil wars with the same logic, bravo. You've completely ignored the fact that this is war by groups against other groups, within the nation. It isn't theft or random violence by a few, it is an organized effort.



Once again, wrong. Osama bin Laden was greatly emboldened after Somalia 1993, which to him showed that the US was a 'paper tiger'. Why? Because of Clinton's quick pullout. Yes, credibility can be lost.
Then he must really think Reagan was weak. ~:rolleyes: Beirut anyone?

Pulling out of Somalia was the right thing to do. It was putting in troops in Somalia in the first place that was the mistake. The cause was noble, but to complete the mission would have required deep involvement in an anarchic civil war. Nobody was willing to do that.


He also shows his subtle racism when he says that Iraqis can't deal with democracy. His whole argument seems to be 'because I say so'.
A fractured state in civil war between the parts cannot deal with democracy. First of all, they have no experience with it. Second of all, they are fighting one another. That's not racist, that is simply the way it is.


And he's saying that Japan and Germany were examples of 'constitutional orders' before 1930? What the heck is he smoking?! I hope the knowledge of history here is such that I won't have to go into a deep discussion on why he is wrong.
Germany had a constitutional govt from 1919 to 1933 when Hitler hijacked it. Helped him that the German people lost their wits and turned to fascism. (Time to quote Ben Franklin again.)

As for Japan, you might want to check out the Taisho period...

Maybe Odom should question what you are smoking?



Iraq is not 'producing well-experienced terrorists'; there are many terrorists there, certainly, but they already dying at high rates. Nor are they leaving to practice. The only place they can get to right now is Iraq, so why would they leave? And if they are getting so much practice there, why would they leave to practice more? He doesn't make sense. He also assumes a new dictator, which he earlier implied would get power as leader of some faction of America hating terrorists, would then cut off all support to terrorists. Rather nonsensical.
As the military men on the ground have been saying, the dumb ones are dead. The ones still there are adapting. Yes, I posted a quote on this very topic not long ago...if you want to find it, hunt for it.

And it is logical to assume a new dictator would clamp down on terrorism in Iraq. It is fairly standard practice. And the dictator will know full well what will happen if terrorist links get back to him after an attack on the U.S.

However, you are just trying to sidetrack from the real issue you quoted from him: the occupation of Iraq has strengthened AQ, rather than weakening it. There was no real AQ presidence in Iraq before the invasion. There is a strong one now. Yes, there are more factors to it than that, but the basic statement was true.


Since when do Iranians support the US liberation, and how does he see so clearly into the minds of the ayatollahs? And another loaded question based on assumptions.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend...even if he is still my enemy afterwards.


Once again, we see his assumptions that 1) civil war is inevitable and 2) Iran is the puppet master in Iraq (wait, didn't he say earlier that there already civil war? If there was, the how can conflict be delayed at the same time?)
Civil war was inevitable from when Iraq first attacked Kuwait. Heck, they already had one, but Saddam suppressed it--dictatorships are rather good at that, and he brought in sufficient forces to secure the place. Iran has much to gain, not much we can do about it. The mistake was Saddam's, but we still have to face the truth.


Hmm, perhaps because the soldiers are just being trained, while the insurgents he has already described as 'well-experienced'? Does he think withdrawing and thusly taking all support from behind the new Iraqi soldiers would help them fight the terrorists?
They've not shown much initiative in getting off the ground. Few results. And the basic problem now is that the country is already fractured in three pieces. It isn't functioning as a nation, but as three rival nations.


Gee, could it be that the soldiers get the idea none of the Americans at home are bearing the pains because politicians constantly call for a timeline to pullout, denounce their mission, and refer to them as nazis?
Malarkey. Congrats, you brought a gratuitous Nazi reference in. Hope you are proud of that accomlishment.


The only reason support is dropping is because of the constant doom and gloom spewed forth from the media and the unscrupulous lying by politicians. More bogus propaganda. The media has been more truthful by the Administration by far. "unscrupulous lying by politicians" must be a reference to the "we don't torture/mission accomplished/Brownie you're doing a heck of a job" team.


He also demonstrates complete ignorance of what the enlisted troops are feeling.
I doubt he knows how they feel about it any more than YOU do. ~:rolleyes:


Wrong. OBL does not want Arabs to see how quickly terrorists are killed, how swiftly Saddam fell and was found in disgrace, a regime that hated America to be dstroyed, ad for Muslims to see how horrific and uncaring of causulties are. And Europeans are in no way the strongest(what give him that idea? England is with us, and France and Germany...well, I won't waste my time.) or even most important.
~:confused: ~:confused: ~:confused: What? Huh? Not sure what you are even trying to say. However, OBL should indeed be pleased that we are sidetracked in Iraq. It helps his recruiting, and it keeps us off his back. It also gives more leeway to North Korea, Iran, and others.


If you tell a big lie long enough...

In short, this is an article rife with ignorance, assumptions, lies, and

Crazed Rabbit No, your criticism of it, perhaps. I don't agree with everything he wrote, but he is closer to the mark than your "refutation."

[Crazed Rabbit]

What an incredibly weak argument. I guess then we can dismiss all civil wars with the same logic, bravo. You've completely ignored the fact that this is war by groups against other groups, within the nation. It isn't theft or random violence by a few, it is an organized effort.
A civil war necessitates secretarian conflict. While there certainly is that in Iraq, it is not wide enough to be called a 'war'.



Then he must really think Reagan was weak. ~:rolleyes: Beirut anyone?

Pulling out of Somalia was the right thing to do. It was putting in troops in Somalia in the first place that was the mistake. The cause was noble, but to complete the mission would have required deep involvement in an anarchic civil war. Nobody was willing to do that.

He probably did think Reagan weak after Beirut. And the rightness or wrongness of Somalia does not change the fact that our pullout caused OBL to think we were a 'paper tiger'.


A fractured state in civil war between the parts cannot deal with democracy. First of all, they have no experience with it. Second of all, they are fighting one another. That's not racist, that is simply the way it is.

Germany had a constitutional govt from 1919 to 1933 when Hitler hijacked it. Helped him that the German people lost their wits and turned to fascism. (Time to quote Ben Franklin again.)

As for Japan, you might want to check out the Taisho period...

Maybe Odom should question what you are smoking?


The parts are disjointed, but not wholey fractured and there is no civil war.
Both the examples for German and Japanese 'democracy' are weak. German democracy was poorly thought of by the Germans and even today Japan is not the best example of a democracy.


As the military men on the ground have been saying, the dumb ones are dead. The ones still there are adapting. Yes, I posted a quote on this very topic not long ago...if you want to find it, hunt for it.

Well, there must be a steady stream of dumb ones. And even the smart ones are not living that long.


And it is logical to assume a new dictator would clamp down on terrorism in Iraq. It is fairly standard practice. And the dictator will know full well what will happen if terrorist links get back to him after an attack on the U.S.

Terrorists probably wouldn't take kindly to the man they put in power betraying them.


However, you are just trying to sidetrack from the real issue you quoted from him: the occupation of Iraq has strengthened AQ, rather than weakening it. There was no real AQ presidence in Iraq before the invasion. There is a strong one now. Yes, there are more factors to it than that, but the basic statement was true.

AQ has a presence in Iraq, but they aren't doing much terrorizing of the western world from there. As there goal is to destroy the western world, not blow up Iraqis, they are not stronger.


The enemy of my enemy is my friend...even if he is still my enemy afterwards.

A quote doesn't make it so.


Civil war was inevitable from when Iraq first attacked Kuwait. Heck, they already had one, but Saddam suppressed it--dictatorships are rather good at that, and he brought in sufficient forces to secure the place. Iran has much to gain, not much we can do about it. The mistake was Saddam's, but we still have to face the truth.

Civil war is not inevitable.


They've not shown much initiative in getting off the ground. Few results. And the basic problem now is that the country is already fractured in three pieces. It isn't functioning as a nation, but as three rival nations.

Any proof of this '3 nations' baloney?


Malarkey. Congrats, you brought a gratuitous Nazi reference in. Hope you are proud of that accomlishment.

Perhaps you missed the reference to one of our illustrious congressmen who compared US troops to soldiers of evil regimes.



More bogus propaganda. The media has been more truthful by the Administration by far. "unscrupulous lying by politicians" must be a reference to the "we don't torture/mission accomplished/Brownie you're doing a heck of a job" team.

One can be truthful and yet very biased. And no, its a reference to every democratic politician who voted for the war and stated that we must remove Saddam because he's a threat, and now are backtracking since its popular to do so and claiming they, with access to all the intelligence, were 'misled'.


I doubt he knows how they feel about it any more than YOU do. ~:rolleyes:

If he thinks the troops want to pack up and leave the job unfinished, I think I probably do know more than him.


~:confused: ~:confused: ~:confused: What? Huh? Not sure what you are even trying to say. However, OBL should indeed be pleased that we are sidetracked in Iraq. It helps his recruiting, and it keeps us off his back. It also gives more leeway to North Korea, Iran, and others.

No, your criticism of it, perhaps. I don't agree with everything he wrote, but he is closer to the mark than your "refutation."
The grammer has been fixed.

It helps his recruiting? So he can make posters that say "Become a Terrorist! Go to Iraq and blow up your fellow Muslims and then get killed by the Infidels!"? And I wasn't aware that we had left Afghanistan.

Crazed Rabbit

[Red Harvest]

A civil war necessitates secretarian conflict. While there certainly is that in Iraq, it is not wide enough to be called a 'war'.
So now we aren't even in a war...all those casualties each month are...what are they then? We have sectarian conflict, and we have a war...but it's not a civil war...ummm...hmmm... :vulcan: Now you've thorougly confused my pet vulcan.


He probably did think Reagan weak after Beirut. And the rightness or wrongness of Somalia does not change the fact that our pullout caused OBL to think we were a 'paper tiger'.Lots of things made him think we were a paper tiger. Like the GOP accusing Clinton of trying to distract the country from the "real problem" of Monica when the Tomahawk strike was tried. Good to know they weren't "just playing politics" with national security.

Trying to lay it on Somalia is really lame... He was going to go after us no matter what.


Well, there must be a steady stream of dumb ones. And even the smart ones are not living that long. No, that wasn't what the officer said. He said the enemy were improving their tactics, adapting. The number of attacks have increased.


AQ has a presence in Iraq, but they aren't doing much terrorizing of the western world from there. As there goal is to destroy the western world, not blow up Iraqis, they are not stronger. They seem to have stayed busy enough, same approximate frequency in attacks around the world from what I've seen. It you include Iraq then it has gone way up.


A quote doesn't make it so.
Nor does just claiming it isn't so. ~:rolleyes:


Any proof of this '3 nations' baloney?You haven't been paying any attention have you. Shiite Iraq, Sunni Iraq, and Kurdistan. They have divided into three ethnic and geographic factions. There is no sense of a nation, but instead three nations working for their own regional interest. Ignoring this reality is part of what is dooming the effort.

with access to all the intelligence, were 'misled'.
That is just laughable. The supposed access to all the intelligence is like saying you know everything someone else knows by reading their e-mail. My IQ is not low enough to believe that.

The truth is we are all guilty of wanting to believe what Bush fed us. We got what he wanted us to see. And there are certainly many parts where we were misled by intelligence that had already been deemed not credible. There was no real effort to confirm the stuff and it all proved to be bunk. That is criminal incompetence right at the top.

I've been told lies before that I wanted to believe. I get really angry when the truth becomes clear. I don't like being lied to.

Some people need to go after the whole phoney assertion that "congress had everything." I doubt it would be that difficult to *prove* that congress had only a fraction of all the relevant info. They got what was deemed worthy to pass to them.


It helps his recruiting? So he can make posters that say "Become a Terrorist! Go to Iraq and blow up your fellow Muslims and then get killed by the Infidels!"?
Apparently it works quite well. They seem quite satisfied with it. May seem assinine to you and me, but if they can blow themselves up and hit Americans or someone they believe is working with Americans it is good enough to them. Helps that they have an unemployment rate of 60%--civil wars feed off stuff like that.

And I wasn't aware that we had left Afghanistan. Nope, we are letting it fester, as we neglect it. Making the same mistake as always, not finishing the job. Bush and Pyrrhus have a similar approach to war.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

How does this make me any less of a conservative. Is one of the requirements supporting something even when it was a mistake
You missed the whole strike connontation didn't you? Go to the good place, and read Gmans' post again ~;)

If I may say so, the worst mistake a leader can make is pulling out of a war in progress. - Kaiser.

[Xiahou]

And it is logical to assume a new dictator would clamp down on terrorism in Iraq. It is fairly standard practice. And the dictator will know full well what will happen if terrorist links get back to him after an attack on the U.S.The Taliban. Heard of it? They clamped down on terrorism plenty good didnt they? ~:rolleyes:


So now we aren't even in a war...all those casualties each month are...what are they then? We have sectarian conflict, and we have a war...but it's not a civil war...ummm...hmmm... Now you've thorougly confused my pet vulcan.The war is against an insurgency. An almost wholly Sunni insurgency- a minority of Sunnis. The Shiites and Kurds have comparatively little involvement.

[Tribesman]

Any proof of this '3 nations' baloney?

Would the wording of the constitution and all the wrangling over the wording have anything to do with that "baloney" ?
How about the stated policies of the major parties in the territory ? would that be enough proof ?

The Taliban. Heard of it? They clamped down on terrorism plenty good didnt they?
Oh dear oh dear Xiahou , it may have escaped your memory but the Taliban had some very very big clampdowns on terrorism , one of the clampdowns nearly led to war with Iran .
But like America or many other countries/regimes they clamp down on terrorists they don't like and support terrorists they do like . Though just like the others they change their minds about who are the good terrorists and who are the bad ones .

Edit to add The war is against an insurgency. An almost wholly Sunni insurgency- a minority of Sunnis. The Shiites and Kurds have comparatively little involvement.

The war is a complicated mess with lots of different sides fighting for lots of different reasons , the Kurds and Shite Arabs are widely involved for their own reasons .

If I may say so, the worst mistake a leader can make is pulling out of a war in progress. - Kaiser.
If I may say so the worst mistake a leader can make is to start a war without planning , and then refuse to address the lack of planning .

[Xiahou]

The Taliban. Heard of it? They clamped down on terrorism plenty good didnt they?
Oh dear oh dear Xiahou , it may have escaped your memory but the Taliban had some very very big clampdowns on terrorism , one of the clampdowns nearly led to war with Iran .
But like America or many other countries/regimes they clamp down on terrorists they don't like and support terrorists they do like . Though just like the others they change their minds about who are the good terrorists and who are the bad ones .I wouldnt say that worked out to our benefit, would you?

[Tribesman]

I wouldnt say that worked out to our benefit, would you?
Well I don't know , the Iranian troop deployments must have cost them a fair bit of money~;)

[Franconicus]

Adrian,

thank you for this article.

I do not think that the Democrats will azzack the Bush position. Why? If they do the conservatives will blame them for not supporting the troops and being unpatriotic. And most of the Americans will believe this. So the Democrats will do nothing although they know that Bush is policy is a big mistake and the troops pay for it.

[Watchman]

Uh, Rabbit ? Did you know that Euro intelligence agencies are getting really worried about young fervent Muslims from their countries gone down to Iraq and coming back as graduated urban guerillas...? The place's an even better training ground than Afghanistan, really. Afghanistan is rocks and mountains; while you may learn to be a damn good hill guerilla against other hill guerillas over there, the usefulness of that is ultimately limited. In Iraq they learn hands on the dos and don'ts of urban insurgency with Western forces and agencies as their sparring partners...

[Red Harvest]

The war is against an insurgency. An almost wholly Sunni insurgency- a minority of Sunnis. The Shiites and Kurds have comparatively little involvement.
The attacks are by Sunni's primarily against the other two (and the U.S.). There is some fighting from the other side too. That's the definition of civil war. It only takes one major group to start one. It is in the Shiites and Kurds best interests to get the political process completed and the U.S. out, while the Sunni's don't see it that way.

[Adrian II]

The attacks are by Sunni's primarily against the other two (and the U.S.). There is some fighting from the other side too. That's the definition of civil war.This is a full-blown civil war, but it is obscured by the fact that the U.S. is doing the fighting for the Shiites and Kurds. Meanwhile the Shiites and Kurds take care of the political oppression, torture and death squads for the United States. It is a marriage made in Shiite Heaven. While it lasts.

For those Americans who still don't get it, I again recommend Mark Twain's story 'The McWilliamses and the Burglar Alarm'.

It is all there. :beatnik:

[Redleg]

This is a full-blown civil war, but it is obscured by the fact that the U.S. is doing the fighting for the Shiites and Kurds.

In military terms you have just ruled out the civil war aspect - an outside force is involved.




Meanwhile the Shiites and Kurds take care of the political oppression, torture and death squads for the United States. It is a marriage made in Shiite Heaven. While it lasts.

Your leaving out the part that makes it civil war - are the Shites and Kurds actively attacking the opposition groups. If they are not activily attacking, calling it a civil war is premature. If they are activily attacking the oppostion - then it fits well within the scope of the meaning of Civil War.



For those Americans who still don't get it, I again recommend Mark Twain's story 'The McWilliamses and the Burglar Alarm'.

It is all there. :beatnik:

Its an incomplete analogy on the current situation. It has parts and pieces of it - but it not a perfect analogy,.

[Adrian II]

In military terms you have just ruled out the civil war aspect - an outside force is involved.If you want to be formal about it, you should acknodledge that the outside force has been 'invited' in by Baghdad.
Its an incomplete analogy on the current situation. It has parts and pieces of it - but it not a perfect analogy.It has all the important parts of it. Apart fro the fact that the burglars decide to move into the McWilliams' home, just think of what the burglar alarm stands for and why it can not tell the difference between good folk and burglars. Quite hilarious.

[Redleg]

If you want to be formal about it, you should acknodledge that the outside force has been 'invited' in by Baghdad.

Not at all - just pointing out the weakness in your arguement about civil war - what you described in that sentence does not equate to civil war. Remember that Baghdad did not invite the United States, THe United States invaded Iraq - and established the new government.



It has all the important parts of it. Apart fro the fact that the burglars decide to move into the McWilliams' home, just think of what the burglar alarm stands for and why it can not tell the difference between good folk and burglars. Quite hilarious.

Its an hilarious book, but it is an incomplete analogy toward the current situation. It has parts and pieces of course - Twain was a master at writing and using analogies and satire to put about his point. His book was actually a satire on something besides an occupation in a foreign land.

[Red Harvest]

This is a full-blown civil war, but it is obscured by the fact that the U.S. is doing the fighting for the Shiites and Kurds. Meanwhile the Shiites and Kurds take care of the political oppression, torture and death squads for the United States.

I disagree with it being "full-blown" as yet. The U.S. is doing most of the fighting, although some of the fighting is govt forces versus Sunni's. The 2nd sentence I find simply offensive hyperbole. Afterall, we could let the Dutch Blue Helmets come in and things would be the same. ~D

[Adrian II]

After all, we could let the Dutch Blue Helmets come in and things would be the same. ~DThat is exactly my point. The U.S. is not doing any better.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Here's an interesting article on conditions in Iraq:


A few choice bits;

Yet in a survey last month from the U.S.-based International Republican Institute, 47% of Iraqis polled said their country was headed in the right direction, as opposed to 37% who said they thought that it was going in the wrong direction. And 56% thought things would be better in six months. Only 16% thought they would be worse.

American soldiers are also much more optimistic than American civilians. The Pew Research Center and the Council on Foreign Relations just released a survey of American elites that found that 64% of military officers are confident that we will succeed in establishing a stable democracy in Iraq. The comparable figures for journalists and academics are 33% and 27%, respectively. Even more impressive than the Pew poll is the evidence of how our service members are voting with their feet. Although both the Army and the Marine Corps are having trouble attracting fresh recruits — no surprise, given the state of public opinion regarding Iraq — reenlistment rates continue to exceed expectations. Veterans are expressing their confidence in the war effort by signing up to continue fighting.
...
FOR STARTERS, one can point to two successful elections this year, on Jan. 30 and Oct. 15, in which the majority of Iraqis braved insurgent threats to vote. The constitutional referendum in October was particularly significant because it marked the first wholesale engagement of Sunnis in the political process. Since then, Sunni political parties have made clear their determination to also participate in the Dec. 15 parliamentary election. This is big news. The most disaffected group in Iraq is starting to realize that it must achieve its objectives through ballots, not bullets.

There are also positive economic indicators that receive little or no coverage in the Western media. For all the insurgents' attempts to sabotage the Iraqi economy, the Brookings Institution reports that per capita income has doubled since 2003 and is now 30% higher than it was before the war. Thanks primarily to the increase in oil prices, the Iraqi economy is projected to grow at a whopping 16.8% next year. According to Brookings' Iraq index, there are five times more cars on the streets than in Saddam Hussein's day, five times more telephone subscribers and 32 times more Internet users.

The growth of the independent media — a prerequisite of liberal democracy — is even more inspiring. Before 2003 there was not a single independent media outlet in Iraq. Today, Brookings reports, there are 44 commercial TV stations, 72 radio stations and more than 100 newspapers.
...
Yet there is hope on the security front. Since the Jan. 30 election, not a single Iraqi unit has crumbled in battle, according to Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who until September was in charge of their training. Iraqi soldiers are showing impressive determination in fighting the terrorists, notwithstanding the terrible casualties they have taken. Their increasing success is evident on "Route Irish," from Baghdad International Airport. Once the most dangerous road in Iraq, it is now one of the safest. The last coalition fatality there that was a result of enemy action occurred in March.


Crazed Rabbit