Filed under: Iraq, New York Times — Marc Schulman on November 20, 2007 @ 5:53 pm CET
New York Times editorial, November 17:
It has been two long months since Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, cowed Congressional Democrats into silence, championing President Bush’s misguided course on the war.
New York Times article, November 20:
The security improvements in most neighborhoods [in Baghdad] are real. Days now pass without a car bomb, after a high of 44 in the city in February. The number of bodies appearing on Baghdad’s streets has plummeted to about 5 a day, from as many as 35 eight months ago, and suicide bombings across Iraq fell to 16 in October, half the number of last summer and down sharply from a recent peak of 59 in March, the American military says.
By the Times’ logic, “President Bush’s misguided course on the war” has produced real “security improvements in most neighborhoods.”
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments
policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or
willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email.
1 Chris
November 20, 2007 @ 6:36 pm CETYay. Mission Accomplished!
Violence is down to mildly horrific levels! Bush has been vindicated!
2 Michael van der Galiën
November 20, 2007 @ 6:52 pm CETChris, as usual, quite a sad remark. “Mildly horrific levels” might do well on the Daily Show, but more serious people realize that the violence isn’t on a ‘horrific’ level anymore and that it continues to improve.
It’s fascinating to see liberals attack good news.
One gets the impression that some of them don’t care as much about Iraq and human beings, as they do about pushing through their agenda, the consequences be damned.
3 Chris
November 20, 2007 @ 7:01 pm CETNot going to even thinly veil your insults anymore are you?
So, not only are the people that oppose the war cowards and defeatists, we now have no respect for human life. Your logic is twisted to the extreme.
Besides, don’t you think it’s a tad ironic to make that statement when I have never seen you do anything but advocate for the use of force? Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, the occupied territories… is there anywhere I’m missing?
4 Jim Et Al
November 20, 2007 @ 7:14 pm CETSo lemme see…First we Shock & Awe ‘em; then we humiliate ‘em by occupying their country; then we fund Shia militias; then the Shia militias catch and kill Sunnis; then AQI car bombs Shia mosques; then shias begin ethnically cleansing the neighborhoods of Baghdad; then we begin arming the insurgents who were recently killing our own troops; then we look at what we hath wrought and call it “real security improvements”…
Yeah…That’s the ticket…
5 Michael van der Galiën
November 20, 2007 @ 7:17 pm CETThe difference is that I think that it’s necessary to safe more lives.
On the other hand, when you get confronted with increasingly more convincing evidence that the surge is working and thus preventing unnecessary loss of life, you reply: “pull them out!”
And, how is that an insult? It’s simply summarizing what you say and how you act.
If it’s insulting, I’d say change your (irrational and contradictory) behavior.
6 jpe
November 20, 2007 @ 7:18 pm CETHere’s the key part of the Times editorial:
Seems accurate enough to me.
7 Marc Schulman
November 20, 2007 @ 7:25 pm CETWhat I am missing here?
More than anyone else, those who want our troops out of Iraq sooner rather than later should welcome news that the surge is working. The faster security in Iraq improves, the quicker our troops can be withdrawn. And, yet, their reaction to favorable news is to look back rather than ahead. I’d say it’s biting off your nose to spite yourself.
8 Michael van der Galiën
November 20, 2007 @ 7:25 pm CET“I’d say it’s biting off your nose to spite yourself.”
American expression?
9 Jason Steck
November 20, 2007 @ 7:37 pm CETMarc, as I have observed in several posts, the issue is not that many anti-war types want bad things for the Iraqis, but rather that they prioritize their domestic political vendetta higher than good things for the Iraqis, the most practical path to a draw-down, or any of the other merely secondary considerations.
Thus, their inner cheering for the improvement of the Iraqis does exist, but is drowned out by the downside that better lives for Iraqis might might might slow the BDS machine.
And that is the most disastrous outcome of all for those people for whom anti-Bushism has become the center of their entire political existence.
Anyway, that is why the first reaction to any news (good or bad) from Iraq seems so often to be exactly what it is on this thread — a wildly off-topic hijack to the demonic name: “Bush”. At the end of the day, “Bush” is not ALL that they care about, but it is clearly what they care about more than everything else combined.
10 Jim Et Al
November 20, 2007 @ 7:39 pm CETThat would be true if the goal of the Administration was to bring the troops home. It is not. The goal was to invade and permanently occupy Iraq. Bush won’t bring the troops home beyond the number that are required to rotate home to maintain “normal” future rotations. Unless Congress forces Bush to bring home the troops, it will be left up to the next President to clean up the mess…
11 Jason Steck
November 20, 2007 @ 7:42 pm CETYou know, Jim, for someone who constantly calls out others for their alleged lack of research and evidence, you sure never provide any evidence in support of your own assertions.
(P.S. Quotations from others who provide no evidence does not constitute evidence, just in case you were thinking of throwing out some Chomsky or other post-Marxist interpretations of the Bush administration as your “evidence”.)
12 jpe
November 20, 2007 @ 7:47 pm CET13 Jim Et Al
November 20, 2007 @ 7:48 pm CETIs there a dispute here? I thought it common knowledge…
http://www.counterpunch.org/zoltanbases.html
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/042103B.shtml
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030421-secdef0121.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm
14 Jim Et Al
November 20, 2007 @ 7:51 pm CETYour comment is awaiting moderation?
Does this mean I win?
15 C Stanley
November 20, 2007 @ 7:56 pm CETjpe,
That is obviously Jason’s opinion, and he does back it up with factual observations, and it’s actually somewhat of a defense of those he disagrees with because he’s saying that his observations don’t show that they truly don’t care about the Iraqis- just that their agenda for fighting the Bush administration is stronger than their desire to have hope for a better future for Iraqis.
There’s also a strong degree of difference between one’s opinions about other pundits, bloggers, and commenters and the claims one might make about them vs. the claim that Jim et al is making- that Bush’s intent is for a perpetual occupation of Iraq. The latter is quite a bit more insidious and is a lot more consequential, and therefore should have more solid factual basis rather than the anti war crowd doing mindreading. Bush has never indicated that the war is an attempt to colonize Iraq (to create a democracy which we’d hope would be a friend and ally, yes, but given that this would also benefit the Iraqi people it’s certainly not an evil desire). The fact that he’s been unwilling to bring troops home is much more likely due to the fact that the previous drawdowns led to disintegration of progress and security in Iraq than it would be due to a plot to keep a perpetual occupying force.
16 C Stanley
November 20, 2007 @ 8:02 pm CETJim,
I haven’t even had time to look at all of your links, but here’s just an excerpt from one of them with my emphasis added to show why your point is unproven to say the least:
17 Marc Schulman
November 20, 2007 @ 8:08 pm CETMichael,
“I’d say it’s biting off your nose to spite yourself” is, indeed, an American expression. The best translation I can come up with is this: it means taking a position that’s against your true interests, just to oppose someone with whom you disagree.
If other Americans can come up with a better translation, please do so.
18 Jason Steck
November 20, 2007 @ 8:13 pm CETJim, the fact that your unfounded assumptions about “real motives” behind the Iraq invasion are shared by some others doesn’t make them true. People of a like mind simply citing and quoting each other doesn’t constitute “evidence”. Indeed, a “common knowledge” claim is often a red flag that what is really going on is nothing more than group-think.
The way in which the sources that you cite wave away contrary evidence shows that their minds are closed and that their claims about Bush administration motives are emotional, not analytical.
Anyway, thank you for providing yet another demonstration of how ANY good news from Iraq can and will be immediately hijacked by a Bush-is-evil link.
I’m sure you don’t comprehend how ridiculous and purposeless this behavior appears to those whose criticism of the administration’s policies does not rise to the level of a crusade. Then again, if the payoff is emotional rather than instrumental, then the observed behavior makes perfect sense.
19 C Stanley
November 20, 2007 @ 8:17 pm CETMarc,
I think the phrase is meant to be, “cutting off your nose to spite your face”, but your explanation of the meaning of it sounds right to me. Another similar expression would be “shooting yourself in the foot”.
20 Jason Steck
November 20, 2007 @ 8:20 pm CETjpe,
I did not cite or use the NRO. I am not a neocon.
Keep your name-calling to yourself.
And try arguing using your own words rather than snarky “editing” of others. “Gotcha games” are a quick way to get yourself banned.
21 Jason Steck
November 20, 2007 @ 8:22 pm CETNo, it means that posting a comment with a list of links inevitably triggers the spam filter and requires that your comment wait until it is manually approved.
22 Michael van der Galiën
November 20, 2007 @ 8:40 pm CETLOL - quite right.
Thanks Marc… and Christine: Christine’s version makes more sense I think. I mean, why would you spit on your own face, by biting your nose off first?
23 Chris
November 20, 2007 @ 8:45 pm CETJason,
Are you denying that U.S. military brass (Like General Petraeus), have endorsed an “enduring” military presence? Of course, these same people have all tempered those remarks with lip-service to Iraqi sovereignty, but that’s all it is, lip-service.
What about Dick Cheney? “Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow”
24 Michael van der Galiën
November 20, 2007 @ 8:48 pm CETThere are still bases in Europe, but I can tell you that no European is under the impression that the US is ‘occupying’ us.
What a weak argument. I’m surprised to read it in your comments Chris.
25 Chris
November 20, 2007 @ 8:57 pm CETMichael,
It’s an occupation if the majority of the people in the country don’t want us there.
A full 47% of the population wants us out immediately, and 79% oppose our presence there. 0% want us there indefinitely.
Check out the poll here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/10_09_07_iraqpoll.pdf
26 Michael van der Galiën
November 20, 2007 @ 9:02 pm CETUmh. No it’s not. It’s an occupation if you control the far majority of the country, not if you have some bases somewhere.
It’s called nuance Chris.
Try it for once.
27 Chris
November 20, 2007 @ 9:11 pm CETSo you think the U.S. will stay out of the political process there? You’re being intentionally blind.
Let me pose this question to you. If tomorrow Al Maliki and their parliament demanded our troops leave and requested assistance from the Iranian military, would the U.S. allow that to happen?
28 Jason Steck
November 20, 2007 @ 9:19 pm CETYes, Chris. It has been stated policy for some time that the U.S. would leave if asked, just as it did in the Philippines, France, Libya, etc. In fact, I notice that you added the Iranian element since the last time I saw you ask this question. Could it be an attempt to evade this same response that you received last time? Well, if so, plus 5 for rapidly learning nuance, but minus several million for underhanded reframing.
Your problem is that you operate from an assumption that the Bush administration always intends the worst thing imaginable. From that assumption, you derive predictions that the Bush administration will do the worst things imaginable. It’s called “circular reasoning” and every time you hijack yet another Iraq-related thread with a Bush comment, you provide yet another demonstration of why it leads the list of logical fallacies.
P.S. Anyone who has a basic education on survey research techniques would tell you that you can’t read as much into the survey figures as you do. There is nothing in the survey response about HOW or WHEN U.S. troops should leave, nor is there any evidence that the respondents were made aware of the full state of affairs throughout the country or what would happen if all U.S. troops left immediately. The elected Iraqi government is empowered to ask U.S. troops to leave any time it wants — it has not done so yet.
29 Jason Steck
November 20, 2007 @ 9:31 pm CETAnd Chris, a desire for an “enduring presence” is a long, long way from an insistence on a non-consensual set of bases.
Your claim that it is merely “lip-service” has no evidentiary support. It is just another manifestation of circular reasoning from paranoid presumptions — the U.S. will pursue an imperialist policy because they are imperialists!!!!!!!!! I’ve read the lit, I get it. I just don’t buy the presumptions because they stand free from — and indeed contrary to — the evidence.
And, of course, the other issues that plague its authors’ credibility (i.e. double standards, misrepresentations of history, frequent use of other logical fallacies) are further problems with the “American imperialism” genre from which you appear to be drawing…
30 rudi666
November 20, 2007 @ 9:33 pm CETCS - You forgot to include the first two paragraphs in your response.
The first two paragraphs state US interests in LONG term bases.
31 Jason Steck
November 20, 2007 @ 9:34 pm CETWITH THE CONSENT OF THE ELECTED IRAQI GOVERNMENT, RUDI.
Even when quoting passages directly, you and Chris seem determined to ignore that crucial element. Why?
It is also interesting that the best source you can find is from 2003, long predating the many intervening developments that have dramatically shifted U.S. policy in the region.
I thus refer you back to your desperate digging through the massive weight of the evidence on Google in search of yet another tidbit to be cherry-picked away from the overwhelming weight of contrary evidence to try to support y’all’s preferred narrative.
32 Chris
November 20, 2007 @ 9:36 pm CETJason,
Seems like you have Bush BDS-DS. I never mentioned Bush in my comments.
First, the poll makes specific reference to leaving “now.” Second, providing respondents with OPINIONS on the state of affairs in Iraq and an OPINION on the POSSIBLE effects of a U.S. pullout would sway the results. Maybe you’d know that if you had a basic education in survey research techniques.
The question as stated in the poll was this: How long do you think US and other Coalition forces should remain in Iraq? Should they leave now, remain until security is restored, remain until the Iraqi government is stronger, remain until Iraqi security forces can operate independently, remain longer but leave eventually, or never leave
would you rather is be something like this?
How long do you think US and other Coalition forces should remain in Iraq given that security has greatly improved and a withdrawal would be mean disaster genocide and regional war? Should they leave now, remain until security is restored, remain until the Iraqi government is stronger, remain until Iraqi security forces can operate independently, remain longer but leave eventually, or never leave
33 jpe
November 20, 2007 @ 9:37 pm CETActually, that’s not circular reasoning. It’s simply utilizing a particular premise (such as “Bush will, given two options, pick the worse course of action”) that has been a pretty reliable predictor of conduct.
34 Jason Steck
November 20, 2007 @ 9:39 pm CETActually, Chris, your first comment on the thread was of the same Bush-obsessed type you usually post whenever the subject is Iraq:
Now, if you want to KNOCK OFF with the CONSTANT attempt to link to Bush anyone and everyone with whom you disagree with about Iraq, you might find a much more civil and comprehensive discussion about which we might actually agree on things. I am NOT a “neocon” and I am NOT a Bush supporter. And I am NOT saying that you can’t disagree with me or with anyone else with regards to SUBSTANCE. But if you continue with the constant Bush linkages even after I have repeatedly called you out on its inaccuracy and offensiveness, I will assume it is intentionally offensive behavior on your part and I will react accordingly.
Same goes for you, jpe and any other anti-Bush obsessives who may actually be hijacking threads or considering indulging in that particular bit of fun. I’ve had enough of seeing every single thread related to Iraq get hijacked and its authors accused of being closet Bushies. You’ve successfully used such tactics to drive out all disagreement with the anti-war narrative on some sites, but this is not to be your next domination. I’ve even tried writing posts that go out of their way to criticize the Bush administration along with the anti-war and/or anti-Bush people, but these just get ignored the next time a Bush-bashing opportunity comes up. You guys are going to stop with the constant Bush-linking and hijacking or it’ll get stopped for you with an IP ban.
ENOUGH. Argue with the issues all you want, but stop with the Bush-bashing references and hijacks.
35 rudi666
November 20, 2007 @ 9:53 pm CETJS - I just pointed out that CS neglected to include a couple of paragraph which may have taken the NYT’s article out of context.
Of course the occupation will end when we turn over the keys to the miniture golf course in Balad to the Iraqis. With the practice there some day young Iraqis will be on the PGA tour, maybe even the LPGA. The Iraqis may even manage the local Tiger Woods Academy instead of playing soccer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020302994_pf.html
36 Jason Steck
November 20, 2007 @ 9:55 pm CETSo your evidence of a non-consensualist imperialist policy is a miniature golf course built by MWR?
P.S. I recently heard Thomas Ricks’ keynote address to the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society where he put out some very provocative and challenging questions about the directions and implications of Iraq war policy. Would that such serious critical engagements with the issues about Iraq were the typical fare from commenters instead of dumb, snarky Bush linkages. Somehow, Ricks managed to make all the legitimate points about failures (actual and potential) in Iraq policy without a SINGLE accusation that those who disagree or challenge his ideas must be Bushies.
Some people here could stand to learn from Ricks’ example.
37 Chris
November 20, 2007 @ 10:03 pm CETI mentioned lip-service didn’t I…
Petraeus made his comments about the Korea model in June of this year. Same with Secretary Gates and Odierno.
But more to the point, we were saying that “enduring” bases were the intention all along. Quotes from 2003 and before would be more appropriate in proving that case.
Stated policy is different from actual policy. Did we leave Vietnam when it was clear the population wanted us gone? How many Filipinos did we kill before we left? 500,000? What about Guantanamo Bay? What about all the brutal dictators we’ve propped up like the Shah and Pinochet?
Democracy is on the march!
38 Chris
November 20, 2007 @ 10:08 pm CETYou keep saying it, but I haven’t done that in this thread. I await some-sort evidence.
What you keep quoting from me was a direct response to:
By the Times’ logic, “President Bush’s misguided course on the war” has produced real “security improvements in most neighborhoods.”
39 rudi666
November 20, 2007 @ 10:28 pm CETJS - I was including a little snark with my comment. Please give a link or discuss Ricks keynote address, I would welcome that discussion compared to the “pissing/spitting match” both sides are in on this thread.
40 Tom
November 20, 2007 @ 11:04 pm CETLet’s not engage in stereotyping Michael.
I will admit to having experienced this myself; if you feel that the Iraq War was a terrible mistake and Bush is a terrible president, then it’s hard to admit that anything he’s done, particularly in regards to Iraq, has been right or successful. That may sound distorted and vindictive (and it is) but I’m not sure you realize that even those who don’t suffer BDS can have a visceral opposition to the Bush administration
41 Jason Steck
November 20, 2007 @ 11:09 pm CETTom, I can sympathize with a degree of suspicion or even “visceral opposition to the Bush administration”. As I have said repeatedly (almost always to be completely ignored and lied about later), I am NOT a Bush supporter and I am NOT a “neocon”. But when it crosses the line is when its infectees go the extra step of attacking anyone who reports or analyzes contrary information as a closet Bushie. As I said, I’ve reached the limits of my tolerance with that.
The majority of “stereotyping” that happens on these comment threads, unfortunately, comes in the form of anyone who disagree with the anti-Bushies about anything being stereotyped as a “neocon” or other Bush-related pejorative category. Also, Michael said “some” — a type of anti-stereotyping caveat which many of the anti-Bushies around here frequently demand but rarely if ever practice.
42 Jason Steck
November 20, 2007 @ 11:14 pm CETChris, it is not open for debate. You did what you have done many times before — linking anyone you disagree with on Iraq to Bush and/or “mission accomplished” and/or other snarky stereotyping and then lying or dissembling when called out on it. If you keep doing it, you won’t be commenting here any more. I won’t tolerate such dishonest and abusive misrepresentation of others’ views from you any longer, as you have been warned repeatedly. If you stick to the issues, your disagreement (and even, shockingly, your occasional agreement) is welcome, so this is not about stopping disagreement (as has been dishonestly claimed by some on other sites).
Rudi, I would post the address but it was in person. It was not published, as far as I know. I’ve been planning on emailing Ricks to ask for a copy of the address and I will post about it if I can obtain permission to do so.
And I think the “pissing match” is the inevitable result of being on the receiving end of the same offensive and dishonest rhetorical tactic for literally months on end. Literally every single time Michael or I write a post related to Iraq that disagrees with the dominant anti-war narratives, one or more of the usual crowd (there seems to be just a few people who do this, though they do travel across multiple sites to keep up the pattern of harassment) posts a snarky Bush/neocon linkage. I’ve reached the limits of my tolerance for it, period.
43 rudi666
November 20, 2007 @ 11:26 pm CETI hope you don’t paint me in that corner(pissing match) here. At the old site OK, but not here.
44 Chris
November 20, 2007 @ 11:46 pm CETJason,
Your indignation remains unaccompanied by evidence of where I did what you claim in this thread. You know… implying that YOU are a Bush supporter.
If I did it, I’d like to know where, so I can adjust my behavior accordingly. It’s certainly not my intention. I know you are not an unwaivering Bush supporter.
45 Jason Steck
November 20, 2007 @ 11:58 pm CETRudi, that’s true.
Chris, claiming that you didn’t mean to paint ME doesn’t help you here. Marc and Michael and the rest of the authors on this site also do not deserve to be stereotyped and misrepresented as Bushies, “neocons”, “warmongers” or any of the other pejoratives you might have in your quiver. Caricaturing and misrepresenting others’ views is a problem no matter who you target it at. There are ZERO “unwaivering Bush supporters” on this site that I am aware of.
46 Chris
November 21, 2007 @ 12:02 am CETMaybe, but Marc Schulman appears to be defending Bush in this post…
47 Jason Steck
November 21, 2007 @ 12:07 am CETDefending one aspect of one policy is a long, long, long way from a general “defending Bush”. More to the point, it does not include a general claim of “mission accomplished” as you snarkily misrepresented it on this AND OTHER threads.
48 Tully
November 21, 2007 @ 12:13 am CETBut the self-referential circle-jerk of non-evidentiary cross-linkage REQUIRES that you all be “unwaivering (sic) Bush supporters…”
49 Marc Schulman
November 21, 2007 @ 12:27 am CETChris,
I’m not defending Bush. There’s a huge difference between defending him and defending one of his decisions — the surge. I’m defending the surge for one reason and one reason only: there is now convincing evidence that it’s working. There were a lot of people who said it couldn’t and wouldn’t; I’m not aware of a single one of them who’s now owning up to the fact that he was wrong.
This doesn’t mean I’ve ruled out the possibility that the situation could worsen in the future. I’m well aware of the fact that there have been other turning points that turned out to be anything but. However, my judgment, which could be wrong, is that this turning point is different. If that judgment is wrong, I’ll be the first to admit it.
If you take off the ideological glasses, you’ll be able to see the facts. One of the chief and mostly accurate criticisms of Bush was and is that he’s too ideological. Those who fail to recognize that progress has been made in Iraq are guilty of exactly the same thing.
50 Interested
November 21, 2007 @ 12:34 am CETI wouldn’t hold your breath (doubt that you are). It brings to mind Reid and those of his ilk that were loudly claiming that they would not believe Petraeus if his report was anything but bad.
51 Chris
November 21, 2007 @ 1:23 am CETMarc,
Gotchya… I guess I just felt that your snarky post deserved another in reply