Left Behind

Maybe, but take a look at Jay Bookman's column in today's Atlanta Journal Constitution http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/bookman/index.html). This suggests that some supporters (and/or implementers) of the new policy may not not be any more convinced of its likely success than critics. What might they be if neither cynical nor delusional? Let's say: prepared to believe that the White House needs one final chance to recognize the error of its ways.

A lot of this issue turns on what we are willing to sustain in losses of blood and treasure. When we 'surged' last time in Baghdad, it worked. That is, we succeeded in suppressing violence during the daylight hours when our troops were patrolling. The chaos moved to the night when our troops were back in their bases.

Are we prepared to sustain the losses involved in confronting an insurgency in the nighttime in an urban environment. I very much doubt it.

There are plenty of Democrats who have done their homework on these issues, but Joe Klein apparently hasn't done his homework (finding and responding to them).

I'd say Krugman is on the mark and you need to widen your telescope to see it. Mr Klein. You are hinging your judgement that Krugman has made a fool of himself on the distinction between a handful of retired generals being "wrong" and "delusional" on the troop surge. This borders on being a non-point.

[quote]Liberals won't ever be trusted on national security until they start doing their homework.[/quote]
This amounts to a "shot," IMO. The American people seem to be having trouble taking Bush seriously, not his opponents, the views of pundits notwithstanding.

PS -- thanks for Politics Lost. It's an important book and what I learned resonates almost daily as election '08 unfolds.

Liberals have an uphill climb being trusted on national security as long as the punditry's stand-ins for liberals hold the left to a standard of omniscience, while failing to demand basic accountability from conservatives.

Does anyone, anywhere, with actual experience fighting wars, genuinely believe that a mere 20,000 troops is enough to make a difference in pacifying the civil war?

(Answer: No.)

This is life and death stuff. Please stop carping at liberals for being right.

Perhaps "wrong" but not "delusional"? And that - says you - makes Krugman appear the fool?

What exactly are you talking about?

When you are consistently wrong (K & K & Klein), it does not matter how much "homework" you do. . .you have NO RIGHT to more respect than those who are - and have been - consistently right (Krugman).

"But at least they've taken the trouble to read the doctrine and talk to key players like Keane and General David Petraeus."

How on earth do you know whom Paul Krugman has talked to? Did you talk to him? Perhaps you should do some homework before spouting off. If we're keeping a record of who's more often been right -- Klein or Krugman, I believe the needle tips in Krugman's favor.

Umm, Joe.

In Krugman's piece he cites Nobel Prize winning economist Daniel Kahneman's work on the psychology of decision making, and specifically one aspect of how 'bad' decisions are made.

A 'delusion' is nothing more than a 'false belief'. For example, when you edited this post you were under the delusion that the link you provided was current.

It was not.

I'm afraid I'm going to get cranky about this: The Democrats who oppose the so-called "surge" are right. But they have to be careful not to sound like ill-informed dilettantes when talking about it.

Well, what about the people who are supporting the surge? If, as you say (and I agree, BTW), the surge is a bad idea, then pushing ahead with it will accomplish nothing more than getting more US troops killed for no good reason.

Isn't that a little bit worse than the risk of being seen as a 'dilettante'?

So, the President is proposing a policy that is clearly wrong-headed, and the main thing is that Paul Krugman uses "delusional" to describe those who reflexively are trying to win a war that is already lost?

Priorities, mate. Priorities. Write about what's important, no?

Yeah, all the great military minds who claim we could have won in 'Nam were also not delusional.

Over at Tapped:

So, Klein thinks Krugman's right about a surge, and he also thinks General Kean and other military "intellectuals" are wrong about it. But because those "serious" latter folks aren't delusional, but are merely misguided, Krugman's made a "fool" of himself for not consulting them?

And speaking of the reporting Klein wants to see more of in the blogosphere, did Klein bother checking to see if anyone has recently polled on whether "liberals" are trusted on national security? If by "liberals" Klein means "Democrats" -- a reasonable assumption given Klein's attacks on Dems on security -- there is lots of polling on the question. And it has mostly found that on national security issues in general, Dems are currently about as trusted as Republicans are, and they're more trusted than President Bush on Iraq. Profound apologies for repeating this point yet again, but it's apparently necessary.

And speaking of reporting again, which liberals aren't doing their homework? Krugman, one gathers. But how does Klein know Krugman didn't read that "counterinsurgency doctrine"? Did Klein call him up and ask him? If so, there's no indication of that here.

This doesn't bode well.

--Greg Sargent

1. How do you know that Krugman didn't do his homework on this?

2. How can people who have been consistently wrong about this war, and are now advising more of it, be "serious" and those who've been consistently correct about it "fools"?

3. So these folks are "wrong about Iraq now" and "reflexively trying to complete a mission that has been lost" but they're not delusional?

I'm glad you are attacking liberals for how they got us into this mess in Iraq but I'm afraid that a lot of liberals might just dismiss your important words because they have something against you personally. Your words might have more credibility if you posted as Anonymous instead and it would preserve your objectivity as a journalist. It's probably difficult for your writer's ego to sign something as Anonymous but people do it in the blogosphere all the time. You might want to try it.

1. Democrats - ill-informed dilettantes
2. Krugman - is a fool
3. Liberals won't ever be trusted on national security until they start doing their homework.

Gee Joe, you aren't a republican or anything are you?
How do you know Krugman and democrats don't do their homework? You don't, you just don't like them, that is obvious.

After some low level name-calling ("fool", "ill-informed dilettantes") you make several statements:

1. General Jack Keane is not deluding himself.

2. "And they, not Kagan and Kristol, are the motivating force behind Bush's new policy."

3. Krugman has not read "the doctrine".

My question to you is, how do you know these things? Clearly Keane has deluded himself in the past. Nobody really seems to have a handle on Bush's decision making process. Unless Krugman said he didn't read it, who would know what he has read?

Reflexively trying to complete a mission that has been lost -- how is that not delusional?

Joe, is Wes Clark a dilettante? Because he seems to agree with Krugman.

In the very first line of your post, you acknowledge the correctness of the Democratic position, and then attack the position for being....not wrong, but somehow incorrect without actually specifying how. Apparently you are more concerned with how Democrats sound than whether or not they're correct.

I did read the COIN document you link to and, frankly, it scares the hell out of me.

The fact that military intellectuals "may be wrong about Iraq now" makes them delusional if they still want to follow this plan. Sending 20,000 people into a war with little hope that these extra bodies will achieve much good sounds like a bad idea.

The COIN document has historical reflections on insurgencies and counterinsurgencies. Be sure to read the one on pages 4-1 and 4-2 about Napoleon in Spain, especially this bit

The French should have expected ferocious resistance. The Spanish people were accustomed to hardship, suspicious of foreigners, and constantly involved in skirmishes with security forces.

Huh, sounds oddly familiar. We further learn that Napoleon required 4 times the 80,000 troops he planned for Spain.

I will admit you never actually say we should be following this doctrine in Iraq, but you seem to be happy that even if this is a shocking failure, at least Kagan and Kristol gave it the ol' college try. Seriously?!? That's good enough?

The counterinsurgency doctrine they published in 2006 is exactly what the U.S. military should be doing in places like Afghanistan.

So what you're saying is that the "serious" guys are right about the "surge" except they're in the wrong country?

I'm not sure what "serious" is supposed to mean, but since Joe Kline thinks that all the people who were right about the invasion were unserious, and the people who he thinks are serious have been wrong about everything, I think it's time we listen to the unserious people, because it would be really nice to do something right for a change. God knows we can't afford to keep being wrong.

"not bene" questions above whether Wes Clark is a dilettante. After Wes Clark's anti-Semitic rant, as published by Arianna Huffington on her blog, Joe may have ignored Clark's views on this and other issues. Here's a small portion of what she wrote: "When we asked him what made him so sure the Bush administration was headed in this direction [i.e., bombing Iran], [Clark] replied: 'You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.' "

Perhaps most remarkable were the Blog posters and the comments of these "progressive" and "enlightened" anti-Semites cheering on Clark's anti-Semitic diatribe.

When will we have some analysis on why anyone should listen to an Administration that has been CONSISTENTLY WRONG on every issue pertaining to Iraq? One would be hard-pressed to find a majority of American citizens or military experts who agree with the surge, but I'll bet that a majority of delusional people agree with the surge!

Of course, Klein omits the fact that others, not Krugman, called the surge "cynical" or "delusional." Once again, here's Kein, reporting via stereotype rather than fact. Enough with this trying to have it both ways in everything Klein writes, hoping to push this false Centrism he advocates. I'm just tired of it and it's wrong.

I'm glad you are attacking liberals for how they got us into this mess in Iraq

[they]have something against you personally

[you could]preserve your objectivity as a journalist

Posted by: Jon Swift | January 8, 2007

*cough*

Joe.
Do you really want to be part of a movement that spawns dishonesty as displayed by sycophants such as this ?

Nobody hates forever. When you regain your moral center you will be welcomed back into the fold.

Believe me, it's where you want to be.

Speaking of wrong, Time's Dec 11th cover stated "The Iraq Study Group says it's time for an exit strategy. Why Bush will listen."

Perhaps the reason why folks from Time are afraid of setting a precent valuing the factual accuracy of past statements - it's not a standard that makes them look very good.

On that note, btw, Klein doesn't seem to take the point of view of Generals on the ground, as opposed to "military intellectuals" who have been wrong in the past. His little blog post above doesn't quote them, so I have to assume he doesn't know their opinions (at least by his own standards.)

So,a shorter version of your column would go something like this: Democrats and liberals have been right about the war in Iraq, but because they have not performed sufficient genuflections and kissing of rings of the almighty punditocracy, they are really not as right as you, who has been wrong about this since day one...

Andy -

Relax, good buddy!

The original Jonathan Swift was a satirist of some note who built a career making the hard yards for snark long before there was such a thing.

I feel I can safely say our Jon Swift has ... trolled you.

I just wonder what does it tell about TIME's assessment of their reader's intelligence when one of their major political news scribe is a nullity like Mr. Joke Line.

Well, if one reads Terry's assessment of Wes Clark comments as anti-semitic, then Time's strategy might make sense after all.

Dearest Terry:

Not normally being one to criticize typographical errors, nevertheless I note you couldn't get my handle right, despite it being right there on the same board you are obviously reading. Obviously, accuracy is not your strong suit. I suggest using the cut-and-paste command next time.

Having already started off on the wrong foot, you willfully misread what I meant by (rhetorically) asking whether a 4-star general is a dilettante on military matters, and then proceeded to make a complete fool of yourself by slandering Clark and Arianna Huffington (and presumably, myself, and by extension, the entire American left) as anti-Semites, without even one modest scrap of evidence.

Clark may or may not be wrong about Israeli opinion of a potential American strike on Iran. I hardly think that (contextless) comment makes him an anti-Semite. In any event it has less than nothing to do with the topic at hand. Meanwhile, you did nothing to address the substance of the critique offered of Joe Klein by myself and others, which was the subject of my post.

Perhaps you're just not cut out for this Internets thing.

Love,

You know what I would consider serious?
A pundit with a kid in Iraq.
Oh sorry, you make 6 figures, your kids don't have to stoop to serving their country, you just get to keep mocking those of us who have been right about Iraq since before it began.

Retired General Odom (Reagan's head of the NSA) thinks we should leave Iraq ASAP, why is Keane more "serious" than Odom?

Who is the fool?
The fool, or the fool who says we have to seriously consider the fool and give him one last chance?

Oh Andy, did you really miss "Jon Swift"'s humor? Did you miss Primary Colors? The movie version too?

This is my first visit to this blog and it will be the last. The insults, the juvenile name-calling ("fool," "ill-informed dilettante," "delusional neo-cons") - in this post fall far short of even minimal standards of civilized discourse.

Good day, sir. I said, GOOD DAY!

Oh, just one more thing: Joseph Galloway opposes a "surge." (http://tinyurl.com/y9xmxk)

Would you also characterize Mr. Galloway as an "ill-informed dilettante," Mr. Klein?

"but they are not delusional."

Um, Mr. Klein, I would say anyone, anyone, who still thinks sending 20K troops over there will lead to victory is delusional. More importantly, anyone who thinks George Bush has any clue how to get out of this situation is delusional.

And frankly, your insistence on focusing on how Democrats are wrong, wrong, naive, ill-informed, etc, while Bush and his Republican enablers have spent 4 years headed very deliberately in the wrong direction-- well, that's delusional. If you are still obsessing about how liberals are wrong (even when you admit they're right), you truly need to think this through. Your own continued enabling of Bush is probably very hard to deal with. I understand. But you will be just as worthless as you have been unless you figure out why you went so wrong, and insist on blaming the wrong people for it.

All I can say is,

Sullivan >>> Klein

It's not even close.

wow Joe - have you been smoking the same thing that Richard Cohen has? because it sure seems that both of you have become increasingly nonsensical. perhaps you are upset at Krugman simply because of jealousy - he's been right all along, and you were the one deluded and wrong.

hey, but maybe we can still bomb Iran right? keep those nukes on the table... nothing delusional in that.

"the significant number of military intellectuals who have favored a labor-intensive counterinsurgency strategy in Baghdad for the past three years. . . are serious people." So is Mr. Krugman. Like the unnamed serious people alluded to, Krugman "may be wrong." That does not mean he is a fool. So why call him that? Where is the civility?

Yet again, in Klein's world, those who were wrong are right. I'm trying to decode what "making a fool of oneself" means in Klein's bizzaro world. What will it take for always wrong pundits like Klein to be discredited?

you continue to earn your nickname "Joke Line". I know it must be very, very hard to step away from the bright set lights and pretty cameras with red lights on them... but please, for the good of the country, STEP AWAY FROM THE PODIIUM! You have long since given up any right to represent the Democratic Party, and instead, parrot GOP talking points like a second cousin to Rush Limbaugh.

Andy, you might want to follow the link to the Jon Swift homepage and sample a couple of posts there. (Skip the "Who Needs Books?" one - too many words.)

Alternatively, you can always spend money and buy a clue instead.

I think Krugman is actually being generous by including "delusional" alongside "cynical." Perhaps some "military intellectuals" have been calling for more troops for three years, but only the deluded would think that would work at this point.

The Bushies are cynical as hell, and after watching them operate for the past six years (and more for many of them, stretching back to Nixon years), anyone who really thinks that they are anything but cynical is himself hopelessly naive...

Joe,

Here is my question for you. What makes you more than a dilettante? Your position as a pundit? Have you served? Weren't you ready to call anyone who opposed this mess a traitor?

How is it that you cannot remember how wrong you have been about this war from the very start? Do you read your own columns? Paul Krugman has predicted this would be a disaster and he was right. That said, what have you correctly predicted about this invasion that you cheerlead that turned out?

Um....( sound of crickets)

Tell you what..mention one thing Dr. Krugman predicted about this war that has not proved true.

I wish I could be a big time political pundit and be utterly wrong and still keep my job.

Let me get this straight: PAul Krugman - who has been consistently CORRECT about the motives, strategy, and results of this disaster - is "making a fool of himself" because he doesn't trust the People who have gotten everything wrong to now - what - magically start getting everything right?

Since before the war, Krugman WAS doing his homework - and you, let us remember, were not, warning Democrats that they would be foolish to oppose what was sure to be a victorius war - - I'll take Krugman's opinions any day.

For the last months, you have written column after column, admitting that the Democrats have been right about Iraq all along - but then, somehow, trashing them BECAUSE they were right.

I tell you what: first YOU apoplogize to Howard Dean, Al Gore, Paul Krugman, and all the other anti-war Dems you belittled when they tried to stop this war.

Then maybe you'll have to the credibility to criticise people with much more sagacity - and much more courage - than you.

Forgive me, but I'm going to get cranky about this, Mr. Klein: your insufferable take-down (attempt; it didn't work) of Krugman reveals something singular, and it ain't about Krugman - it's about you, Mr. Klein.

You're one of "those" people - you know, the ones who cleave to the establishment and get their panties twisted like mad over syntatical presumptions. I'm surprised you're willing to call it a surge; wouldn't escalation be better? I mean, if we're splitting hairs and splitting them again, all because of "delusional," why let "surge" stand? Call it escalation, Mr. Klein, and let the Vietnam vapors come a-wafting on in. You want spades called spades, after all, right? I'd say you sure do.

Mr. Klein, if even one soldier or Iraqi civilian is killed because of this wretched surge idea it would be a sin of incalculable reckoning. Now, being a thoroughgoing dilettante, I was against the war in 2003; I see nothing but sins of incalculable reckoning everywhere. But for those who flatly refuse to see - and worse, to feel - I have a word:

Delusional. Sinfully so.

People who are right about war are "foolish."

But people who are wrong about war are "serious."

I'm trying my best to not be cranky. But my personal reaction is one of nauseau at the utter lack of morality by the custodians of our civic discourse. This is why thousands are dead and maimed and wounded: to entertain the clowns.

Hey! Time! We need people who care!

But they have to be careful not to sound like ill-informed dilettantes when talking about it.

Joe, you have perfected the projectionism of the neocons. In your informed opinion, it's the language of dissent that is more important than the observable facts. Krugman, once again is right. You aren't. So get cranky if you like, but just remember that one definition is insanity is expecting different results from the same actions. The decision to be an enabler is yours. Please forgive those of us who have an opinion in spite of the fact that we don't fit your idea of what a professional is. Why don't you and Tom Friedman just talk to each other, and ignore the rest of the world.
You've been so right, right?

By your own admission the general's advice has been ignored for three years. What might have worked in 2003 is not necessarily workable in 2006 after the civil war has broken out.

The idea that this failed bungler is going to do anything more than fail on an even larger scale than before is truly delusional.

Ever piece of data we have is compatible with assement that Bush is an incompetent, a liar and a fool.

Yeah but Krugman's going to turn out to be right, again. All of these "serious" people will be wrong, again. Maybe liberals will be "taken seriously" on foreign when somebody bothers to keep score.

And isn't it likely that the very counterinsurgency doctrine that you argue that is correct does not, in fact, support the idea of a surge because the "surge" of troops required by the plan aren't available? Every "serious" analysis of the Iraq War indicates that 20,000 troops will accomplish absolultely nothing.

It doesn't sound like you have done your homework Mr. Klein.

I rarely consider wasting my time reading any "columns" you author these days. It's not that there aren't nuggets of information and insight in some of them--there are. But, often as not, they are swamped by the deluge of self-revisionism you practice. I believe you see yourself as leaning towards the liberal-democratic side of the spectrum, and see yourself as a gadfly who is here to keep the liberals/democrats honest.

But to be frank, that is the only delusion here. The truth is that you seem to be desperately trying to find a victory strategy for you from a five-year history of unceasingly wrong punditry and poor moral choices. You are likely to find this victory as elusive as victory in Iraq, and rather than "surging" rhetorically you might want to consider the most sensible solution: admit that you've been suffering from the same disease that has afflicted most of our media since stained dresses first became front-page news, take your lumps and move on.

It might feel humiliating, but it would be less so than continuing in the same vein. And, as a bonus, it might actually help render your opinions relevant again.

This may sound patronizing, but it's free advice that I feel you would benefit in listening to, and I offer it in a spirit of respect for your intelligence and abilities, despite the hectoring tone. As I am sure you intended with regards to Mr. Krugman.

They may be wrong about Iraq now, reflexively trying to complete a mission that has been lost, but they are not delusional.

They are wrong about the current situation, and their current beliefs are "reflexive" rather than based on reality, but they are not delusional?

Joe, I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Joe,

You seem to object to Krugman's direct talk--after 3,000 American dead, tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, and many more Iraqis forced out of their homes it's time for a little honesty. It's also time for a little honesty about the divisons in the US military. Bush did not like the advice he was getting, so he went shopping until he found a plan that could let him continue to play at being a "leader." So Joe Klein--do you simply think we should fal in line behind a President who continues to ask servicemen and women to die for a reason that changs every other month? this is real life, and it's time for you to show some greater courage and candor.

"I'm afraid I'm going to get cranky about this: The Democrats who oppose the so-called "surge" are right. But they have to be careful not to sound like ill-informed dilettantes when talking about it.
"

Funny. Bush is about to make the debacle that is Iraq even worse and Klein's complaint is that he doesn't like the Democrats tone. Anyone who thinks that throwing more good American soldiers into the swamp will help is so seriously wrong that "delusional" is the only word that applies.

Joe:

Who fact-checks your work? It looks like nobody. And Time's supposed to be some kind of high-powered "journalistic" magazine?

It seems to me that journalism has really taken a nose-dive - how else do you explain the way you're permitted to run amok with unsubstantiated accusations and opinions?

The only purpose I can see in your piece is the smearing of Paul Krugman. Very poor job. You should be ashamed.

So you conflate a New York Times columnist with the Democratic party, take issue with that columnist's choice of words and declare that his choice of words will damage the Democrat's ability to be taken seriously on National Security Issues.

Meanwhile, the President is planning to send more young Americans to their deaths and spend tens of billions of dollars in the process to continue a mission that most consider hopeless.

Yet you choose to focus on the columnist's verbiage. That is why I can never take you seriously on national security issues.

Liberals won't ever be trusted on national security until they start doing their homework.

They won't?! Oh no! Then I guess we'd better redo all the polling which shows that the American people find the Dems vastly preferable to Republicans on issues on national security. All that data must be flat-wrong, because as Joe Klein can tell you, liberals "aren't trusted" on security issues.

Once we're finished with that, I guess we'd better un-inaugurate the Democratic House and the Democratic Senate which were elected by historic margins only a few months ago, largely on the basis of national security issues--I mean, after all, as Joe Klein can tell you, liberals "aren't trusted" on such issues. There must just have been a lot of butterfly ballots.

Seriously--have you been awake for the past six months? There's no "won't be trusted." Liberals ARE trusted on national security issues! And they got there by being right about every single national security issue for the last five years, where conservatives were consistently, 100% wrong. Really, who in their right mind would trust a conservative on national security issues anymore?

But maybe you weren't talking about who the voters trust--after all, we voters have been pretty clear about that. Maybe you were talking about yourself. *You* are far too "serious" to trust a liberal on foreign policy, aren't you? I'm sure Harry and Nancy will cry themselves to sleep every night until they have Joe Klein's trust once more.

If someone is pursuing a strategy that is wrong and believe it will succeed, what are they if not delusional?

When will we have some analysis on why anyone should listen to an pundits like Joe Klein who have been CONSISTENTLY WRONG on every issue pertaining to Iraq?

...military intellectuals...

Good one, Joe.

Joe, if you'll just look at your own polling data you will see Americans no longer take G.W. Bush seriously on matters of national security. He's the president. Krugman is just a columnist, like you.

What's the over/under on how long comments are active on this blog (or how long this blog stays up).

Sometimes "cranky" degenerates into "crackpotty." Such is the case with so much of the bloviation that escapes the lips and pen of Joe Klein. His presence in the public forum, so to speak, is a thorn in the side of useful thought more often than not.

Mr. Klein.

I have to disagree. First, Mr. Krugman was engaging in rhetoric to make a point, which he did effectively. Second, we generally do not hold columnists with set word limits accountable for failing to note every potential counter-argument of opponent. Since you now have a blog, I suppose we will be allowed to hold you to a higher standard. Third, “Liberals won't ever be trusted on national security until they start doing their homework.” Thank you for being condescending. I know of many Liberals who have “done their homework.” The fact that you did not address the detailed and nuanced arguments every single one of them has made suggests that we cannot take you seriously.

Equally importantly, the DC press corps and establishment long focused on “tone” and “seriousness” and political strategy at the expense of substance, policy, and details. This column is yet another example. You seem more concerned with what Liberals or Progressives or Democrats will say than the substance of the proposal. I wish that we could have one year where not every columnist tried to justify their policy position by linking it to its (alleged) political efficacy in a completely absurd way. Among other things, there is (unfortunately) not evidence that the American people base their trust in politicians to manage foreign policy on that politician’s mastery of national security (see, e.g., Bush).

Further, why do you disagree with Keane? Why is the counterinsurgency doctrine right in other situations but not here? Why is Krugman wrong (aside from failing to cite to certain things)? Or would you rather churn out a questionable article based on the “pox on both your houses” script. So tiresome.

The 2000 presidential campaign was dominated by individuals like you – obsessed with appearances and tones. It was filled with “pox on both your houses” columns such as this (the Republicans are wrong to want to escalate, but the failure of their opponents to refute each individual argument for escalation makes them equally bad).

I do not expect to read your blog in the future. I have always been disappointed that you were the Time Liberal – you have never seemed particularly Liberal, and you have seemed far more ready to insult those who disagree with you on the left than those on the right.

But I welcome you to the blogosphere.

I find Joe Klein's comments as a nit pik and slightly insulting. Clearly the whole Iraq invasion rationale and invasion plans were based upon delusion assumptions. To further escalate with 10,000 or 20,000 troops, at this point, will not produce a solution. New York City has 40,000 police officers and it does not have sectarian violence.

If there is an escalation, it should be part of a plan which brings in money, support, and troops from other countries including Arabs. Short of this, there is no reason to commit the US for another year. To fully stablize Iraq would take more that 100,000 troups (using conservative soldier to civilian ratios suggested for insurgencies) and years of commitment, something the US public is not ready to do.

Paul Krugman has been right every step of the way about the involvement, whereas Joe Klein, Joe Lieberman, John McCain, Bill Kristol, and Fred Kagen have not. These individually were very dismissive of dissent until recently. It is time to pay respect for the wisdom of Paul Krugman.

Joe, you're overlooking the essential point: the war and occupation against Iraq is as immoral as Germany's occupation of Poland.

Its obvious Joe Klein is trying to have a foot in both camps, saying that the policy of more troops in Baghdad won't work but then criticizing those that also say it won't, just to shield himself from criticism from the right and maintain his patriotic credentials.

Similarly, he says he opposed the war but attacks others that did, and as it turns out he didn't really oppose it after all, according to an interview in 2003.

No, Joe, those that have gotten Iraq consistently right don't wish for it to happen that way, they are just vindicated because they know what they are talking about. Then they pay the price for it through barbs from people who keep getting it wrong because these ignoramuses have nothing else to say.

At least it can be said that Mr. Klein sees things, not in black and white, but in PRIMARY COLORS.

"I'm afraid I'm going to get cranky about this: The Democrats who oppose the so-called "surge" are right. But they have to be careful not to sound like ill-informed dilettantes when talking about it. "

Jesus Joe, you sure have a high and mighty opinion about yourself. You've been consistently wrong throughout this whole affair and you tell the Democrats to "be careful not to sound like ill-informed dilettantes"??

My what hubris you have.

What the Democrats ought to do so that they don't appear like foolish ninnies, is come up with a really cool name for this. Like Operation Surge.

Although Surge sounds kind of small. How about Operation Tidal Wave!

See, having a cool name for your plan is what differentiates you from being an intelligent pundit, and a foolish ninny like Paul Krugman.

As a follow up to comments above, General Wesley Clark's remarks are not simply "anti-Israeli," which is the usual label that folks such as commenter, noto bone, attach to such language. As a former Clark supporter put it, "I was disappointed (though not surprised) to hear he's learned so little since 2004. To paint so a broad brush with coded language ("New York money people") is not only out of line--it shows a lack of sensitivity that is unforgivable in today's politics.

"To anyone thinking of support[ing] Clark in '08, I say: forget it (even if he did have a chance, which, imo, he doesn't). We need unbiased, competent critical thinkers to get us out of the mess we're in. That description does not include anyone obtuse enough to recite a line that sounds like it belongs in 'Gentleman's Agreement,' [the late 1940's movie that exposed widespread anti-Semitism in post war America.]"

"Ill-informed dilettantes?" Wouldn't that comment accurately describe you, Joe? You are supposed to be informed and sophisticated but was gulled by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Gaffney and the rest of the neocons. But I forgot, you all share a similar background: refusal to wear the military uniform and subject yourself to danger. So book and policy paper reading, draft-dodging (or didn't you meet the height requirement?) and talk tough is the low bar that should be stepped over to qualify oneself to comment on foreign and military affairs. What next? "I slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night." That may be okay for the regular, er, Joe, but for people who want to control or influence government policy or influence the public or policy-makers, it's unacceptable.

Bush is a disgrace to the uniform and as far asm I'm concerned, a deserter. If anything he is, the French have a word for it, how ironic, an embusque. And the rest of you fire-breathing neocons, who made sure the Vietnam was a segment on the evinng news, I feel nothing but contempt.

That a supposedly sophisticated man, such as yourself, didn't think Bush's unseemly Iraq bloodlust was motivated by combination of revenge ("he tried to kill my dad") and oedipal out do Poppy desire, is difficult for me to believe.

I would never suggest that Saddam's regime was owed sympathy, but the idea that the invasion was ordered for noble reasons, strains credulity.

But the differnce between you, the neocons and me is that I served in Iraq, though I never believed the Administrations reasons (where are the WMD?).

I guess for you guys other people's children can die for a mistake.

Mr. Klein-

Have you read anything by Barry Posen or Jim Fearon or Larry Korb or Roger Petersen on Iraq? These are people who have done their homework and are deeply pessimistic about sticking around Iraq, much less surging. Maybe you should read a little outside of your DC bubble and see what liberal experts think. . .

Dear Time:

You do not perform a service to your readership by publishing silliness like this.

"The surge belongs to the neocons and in particular to Frederick Kagan..."
Micheal Duffy,
Time Magazine

Who's making the fool of themselves Joe?

"The latest to make a fool of himself is Paul Krugman of the New York Times."

But he wont be the last leftist to do so.

The problem is the near lunatic level anti-America hysterics and rantings of the left wing, e.g "Mother" Sheehan. How do the Democrats suddenly become unassociated with it's "ill-informed dilettante" anti-America fringe?

That is, if a Democrat displays a tendency to an informed and reasoned viewpoint, the "hate America" gang can't accept it. They are used to a steady diet - and reliant on - emotionalism (ala Krugman), not clear thinking.

That being the case, any Democrat who offers well thought out reasoning - on this or any other issue - just doesn't stand a chance.

And that's really a sad state of affairs for the Democratic Party, the nation and the world. I remember when reason, thoughtfulness and statesmanship was the "default M.O." for Democrats and Republicans. Again, it's just so sad.

Joe, in your post above, you state this:

The latest to make a fool of himself is Paul Krugman of the New York Times, who argues that those who favor the increase in troops are either cynical or delusional. Mostly the latter. Delusional neocons like Bill Kristol and Fred Kagan, to be precise. But what about retired General Jack Keane--whom Krugman doesn't mention--and the significant number of military intellectuals who have favored a labor-intensive counterinsurgency strategy in Baghdad for the past three years? They are serious people. They may be wrong about Iraq now, reflexively trying to complete a mission that has been lost, but they are not delusional. The counterinsurgency doctrine they published in 2006 is exactly what the U.S. military should be doing in places like Afghanistan. And they, not Kagan and Kristol, are the motivating force behind Bush's new policy

And yet, in your own magazine's cover story from this week, we see this quote:

From: http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1574148,00.html

The surge belongs to the neocons and in particular to Frederick Kagan, who taught military history at West Point for a decade and today works out of the American Enterprise Institute as a military analyst. Kagan argued for a surge last fall in the pages of the Weekly Standard, the neocons' house organ, after the military's previous surge, Operation Forward Together, failed in late October. Kagan turned to former Army Vice Chief of Staff Jack Keane, a retired four-star general who still has street cred at the Pentagon, to help flesh out the plan and then sell it to the White House. The neocons don't have the same juice they had at the start of the war, in part because so many of them have fled the government in shame. But they are a long way from dead.

Is the cover story lying, or are you? 'Cuz one of you sure is...

Mr. Klein, you posess an inerrant ability to trivialize the most difficult and critical issues facing the republic.

How is being on the right side of history WRT the prime issue of the day AND calling out a complicit pundocracy make us "sound like ill-informed dilettantes"?

Those of us (Krugman included) who warned of a diplomatic, national security and economic disaster as far back as 2002 were either ignored or reviled as ill-informed defeatists.

I understand where Krugman is coming from, it's incredibly wearing to be taunted for being prescient.

I mean where's the credit for being right all the time and why should we keep on listening to the guys who (almost) always get it wrong?

Dont' put any "facts" out there, Joel, just put bad labels on everyone who disagrees with you. Speaking of labels, as I recall, in German, Klein means "little". Funny how things things sift down through the ages....

I know, whenever I speak to General Petraeus I just forget to bring it up.

Kudos for telling it like it is. Krugman is delusional and always has been. How right has he been on the economy predictions?

Exactly.

I don't read too many blogs but I have never seen a blogger completely bashed on his own page before. I know that liberal and conservative blogs have "trolls" who bait other people in the comments but this whole thread has been about how wrong the original post was. Joe, and I say this from the heart, you really need to rethink your stance on some of these issues.

Sometimes a leader needs to fall on his sword for the good of the people.

"Are you misrepresenting the facts in order to blast liberals, or is your magazine's cover story a heap of lies?"

As a political and foreign policy pundit you're an OK movie and culture critic.

Joe: I can't believe you are that careless (or maybe I can ...): "But what about retired General Jack Keane--whom Krugman doesn't mention--and the significant number of military intellectuals who have favored a labor-intensive counterinsurgency strategy in Baghdad for the past three years?" Well, that's exactly the problem: it should have been done years ago, and that's the whole point that you're missing. Now is probably too late. Read George Will's column on the surge, quoting MacArthur.

Is there an individual here with an I.Q. above room temperature that believes anything Paul Krugman says?

Signed:
A first year economics student.

You're even worse as a blogger than as a pundit.

You're out of touch, Joe.

You're even worse as a blogger than as a pundit.

You're out of touch, Joe.

It would have taken about 500,000 troops (1 per every 50 citizens) originally in order to have any kind of shot at pacifying Iraq after knocking off Saddam Hussein's regime. I have to believe that it would take at least that many troops now, with the proverbial toothpaste not only out of the tube, but smeared all over the bathroom mirror. Accordingly, the idea that 21,500 American troops can have any significant and lasting effect on Iraqi security is almost surely a pipe dream. Rather than pointing that out, however, Mr. Klein chooses to strike his usual arrogant, condescending and dismissive attitude toward "liberals," chastising them for opposing this latest delusion ( yes, I'm making a fool out of myself just like Krugman) without following the drawing room niceties adopted by the mainstream, corporate, don't-rock-the-boat media. I'd be more impressed with Mr. Klein if he would occasionally take to task Bush and his radical right-wing Republicans who seem to be intent on destroying our Constitutional form of government and driving our country into the ground. Instead, he plays their apologist. He should leave that to his new Time colleague, William Kristol.

Klein linked to the wrong version of the counterinsurgency report.

I know because the first thing I saw when I clicked through was a message directing me to the final draft.

The manual is a set of platitudes. It contains a lot of advice like: Make a good plan, gather lots of information, stop people from killing each other, keep gathering information to determine if there's less killing, if there's still a lot of killing reassess your plan, then maybe do something else or not be flexible(!), whatever you do, don't stop building sewer systems while you're trying to figure out how to stop the killing, but don't be afraid to reassess. Maybe try to manage expectations downward about the quality of the electrical grid, because you know nothing builds an insurgency like rolling blackouts. Remember, every insurgency is unique, and so is every counterinsurgency. Arguably effective counterinsurgencies are extra-special-super unique because they are so very rare.

Major General Mattis' 1st Marine Division's approach to counterinsurgency in Al Anbar province is held up as models for future counterinsurgencies.

Yes, the guys who are currently losing in Iraq have codified their non-expertise. Serious people take note.

And you think conservatives are "doing their homework?"

Sorry, but it seems to me that conservatives have gotten an awful lot wrong.

Anyway, you're just a pundit. What do you know? Not much.

Why don't you post all the comments that have been offered ?

Is there an individual here with an I.Q. above room temperature that believes anything Paul Krugman says?

Signed:
A first year economics student.

Yes. Those of us who have studied more than one year of economics, and plenty of history.

Hello Mr. Klein.

It is getting so difficult to have a discussion on these matters isn't it? The rage of the leftists has been fanned to such a degree that debate is all but impossible. They're Information Shock Troops, mental guerillas. Assertions become facts, projected numbers become solidified into arguments, mysteries become conspiracies, all efforts are in bad faith, all explanations are lies...

As Stalin said, "The Truth Doesn't Matter, Only Emotions Matter." He knew the left well.

Mr. Klein, you are now officially a liberal that's been mugged by reality. Welcome to the club.

The only question left is, is the attempt to engage the hysterics even worth it?

"But what about retired General Jack Keane -- whom Krugman doesn't mention..."

Krugman should have and could have mentioned him. Keane had written in December:

"Bringing security to Baghdad -- the essential precondition for political compromise, national reconciliation and economic development -- is possible only with a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so. Any other option is likely to fail."

There's no misinterpreting that. Keane has said, explicitly, directly, unambiguously, that Bush's 20,000-troop surge is "likely to fail."

I have no idea why Klein cited this as an example of a *Democrat* not doing his homework. Why wasn't the media asking *Bush* to answer Keane's analysis?

pagine piuttosto informative, piacevoli =)

9 su 10! Ottenerlo! Siete buoni!

Stupore! ho una sensibilità molto buona circa il vostro luogo!!!!

E grande io ha trovato il vostro luogo! Le info importanti ottenute! ))

"Liberals won't ever be trusted on national security until they start doing their homework."

Same for conservatives, right? Where were you in April '03?

Joe Klein's "Thoughts" On Scooter Libby
by BarbinMD
Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 07:44:59 AM PDT

Should Paris Hilton be in jail? Joe Klein says yes, writing that her sentence:

...strikes me as a public service--it is exemplary: It sends the message, as Gilmore suggests, that even rich twits can't avoid the law.

Scooter Libby? Not so much:

I have a different feeling about Libby. His "perjury"--not telling the truth about which reporters he talked to--would never be considered significant enough to reach trial, much less sentencing, much less time in stir if he weren't Dick Cheney's hatchet man. [...]

But jail time? Do we really want to spend our tax dollars keeping Scooter Libby behind bars? I don't think so.

It's sad to see a "journalist" like Klein using his "intellect" to dismiss perjury, making false statements to a Grand Jury and the FBI, and obstruction of justice, as a politically motivated waste of time. When a "man" like Klein uses his position as a "well respected" and well known "writer" to mischaracterize Libby's actions and to ignore the reality of his crimes and their implications, well, it's just another day at the Swampland.

And as for his question of what we really want, the answer is yes.