What's Missing in this Column?

Accountability? Shame?

Oh, discussion of a political solution. Well, that is missing from that column, too.

The fact is that foreign fighters in Iraq have next to no support there. If we leave, AQI has no cause and no support, and just gets to sit around and be really unpopular. It won't last long.

This notion that because we created chaos in Iraq and invited foreign jihadis in to kill our troops, we need to stay there forever, doesn't make any sense. Especially given that they will not be given free reign if we leave, unlike al Qaeda had in Taliban-era Afghanistan.

As to the needed political solution, our occupation doesn't seem to be hastening that, either.

I think the article's headline is part of the problem I'm having. How do "We" win? Didn't we win years ago when Saddam was captured? The language and psychology of victory versus defeat is polarizing in our current political discourse and not useful as a reality check.

I hope the Iraqis win each other's trust and cooperation. The term should be "survived". I hope all the rest of the living Iraqis survive this expensive violent period. But to say we've won or lost is self-centered hubris. We've lost much in this effort. Economics call it opportunity costs. They've been huge, and I would argue that the Bill of Rights has lost much stature.

What is missing in the column is the fact that this is an illegal war for halliburton and that there are war crimes that should result in IMPEACHEMENTS.

It is difficult to treat as credible an opinion piece by two men who spent 8 days in Iraq in the company of the US Army and who met with people who, by definition, are self selected or selected by the US Army. Neither Pollack nor O'Hanlon have much credibility given the stuff they have written since the war began. I see no reason to give them the benefit of anything.

Unless I am much mistaken winning means winning and losing means losing. Only the self-deluded will use these words as euphemisms.

I would much rather see something said about the Saudi role in Anbar and elsewhere and the Iranian role in Basra and Baghdad and how these conflicts by surrogates will end. I don't mean to imply that the Iraqis are not capable of engaging in civil war all by themselves. But someone is providing arms (including the US) to the insurgents and assorted players. Against this it ought to be possible to work out a strategy for disengagement (another euphemmism!)to have some sense of what it will mean to leave Iraq with a semblance of dignity. Since it is impossible to call for unconditional surrender a la WW11 or total victory which means the establishment of a successful US controlled colonial government I see this article as yet another in the long line of hope exceeding expectations stuff.

Joe - Interesting post. You wrote: "...what rationale remains for us staying there if the Iraqis themselves are intent on slaughtering each other?"

The question is not 'what rationale remains?' because this has never been a case of crossing rationales off of a checklist. The Bush administration will simply invent a NEW rationale behind which every Republican and centrist Democrat will fall. And once they do they will scorn the war critics to give them more time for this new effort.

The reality is that we will stay there until it is safe for business to be conducted via our giant embassy. We will stay to protect the 'foreign' workers in the oil industry. We will stay so that we can watch Iran and Syria from our permanent bases on their borders. If we can mangae to make the average Iraqi happy enough so that he doesn't take a random shot at us then it just might work. But let's cut the crap about 'winning' anything. We should all be able to admit why Bush sent those troops there and why he kept them there for so long.

Besides the short shrift these think tank warbabies give to the political, they never mention the cost to the American tax payer.

200,000 dollars a minute.

In trying to "save" Iraq, we could (or have we already?) destroy ourselves.

Joe:
It is all about the oil. Haven't you figured that out by now? Besides, like you, when has O'Hanlon or Pollack been right about anything? By the way, I tried to post a second post and it has to be approved by the moderator. Please make sure it gets approved.

Two comments. First, I found ironically hilarious for Pollack and O'Hanlon to remark that Bush has lost credibility over the last four years. How in heavens name do Pollack and O'Hanlon have any credibility left? For how many Friedman Units in a row have they been optimistically saying that we should just stay the course a little longer.

Second, Joe's post is reminiscent of the columns he linked to last week where he tried to say that he really was against the war before he came out sorta accidentally for the war on the teevee. The post has everything pretty much both ways. If things get better, he can say he said that things WERE getting better. If things get worse, he can say the he SAID things could get worse. Yes, he thinks there's room for optimism, given the good news, but one can't be too optimistic, given the bad news.

The trouble with mealy mouthed positions like these is that they become justifications for preserving the status quo. When Bush was threatening war, with American forces poised to attack and the AUMF in hand, the status quo position was to invade. This was so even though the week before the UN had heard compelling evidence that Iraq represented no threat to anybody. This was so event Bush had pulled his invasion resolution off the table (after vowing to put it to a Security Council vote regardless of the "whip count.") The US was ready to go, and Joe's doubts and fears could not be used to justify stopping the train.

Likewise here, by walking the mushy middle, Joe leaves a reasonable policy maker to conclude that the best way to go is one more Friedman Unit. Things are looking up, after all. It would be a shame to reverse direction when they are signs of progress and optimism.

And after that Friedman Unit passes, we'll be right back where we are now, with a few hundred more dead American soldiers, and ten thousand or more innocent Iraqis. No doubt there will be new and different reasons why things are looking promising then, too.

Mr. Klein:
Re: O'Hanlon & Pollack, I agree with your assessment. I'm confident that we can (with Sunnis' help),cripple AQI, but what happens after that? AQI is a small player in the carnage, despite what GWB says. These Sunni leaders are not aligned with the central government, and it doesn't look they will be anytime soon. How long can we sustain the "surge" without causing great damage to our military? I was disturbed to see a CBS report that stated "1 in 10 of new military recruits have criminal records". It would take a decade of decent security for a truly nationalistic identity to emerge in Iraq. Can we afford that?

Well, Joe, it should be no shock that the column says zilch about Iraqi politics. Yeah, you're right, and they're right - we can "win" against the "enemy" (or should I use the plural "enemies"?) in Iraq but what do we get for our troubles? We get more internal Iraqi power-jockeying from all the major ethnic and religioius groups, and therefore conflicts that we can't control and have no business being a party to.

We're arming all sides and cutting deals left and right with players in the region, and putting our soldiers in the middle of it.

So, we can win, but then what are we accomplishing by this victory? If Bush/Petraeus (and their successors) can indeed achieve a "peace" in Iraq in the short term (like, over the next five years) then what coimes next?

Will it be peace under the boot of "friendly" totalitarianism, courtesy of the United States abd whatever resistant puppet goverment we're trying and failing to prop up? Will we have successive versions of al-Maliki, while US dollars rebuild the infrastructure that no one takes responisibility for? And then...? What??

So...WHAT NEXT? Why are we not having this conversation within the media? Why would the Times even run this piece without that context of WHAT NEXT? Why is the media failing to ask of our political leadership, what is the long-term plan for the whole region, once Iraq is "pacified"? Who gets the keys to the car here?

American media are stuck in a sick cycle of conceiving the Iraq occupation in terms of it's domestic political impact only. They seem to have no concern for the humanity involved - and never have. There should be a rebuttal piece placed side by side with this piece asking two simple words: WHAT NEXT?

O'Hanlon and Pollack are a sick joke.

I think Magisterludi is onto something. Already, under Bush, the situation has evolved to the point where the single best coefficient of correlation for people completing college is family income. College is difficult even for people in the upper 10% of incomes, because of the collapse of the housing market. The government's solution to this has been to provide subsidies to cronies to loan college money at credit card rates of interest.

Obviously, this doesn't work. A nation that can't educate its children will fail in the global economy, even if it were heartless enough to make them do without health care.

Welcome to Bush's America. Soon we will compete with Mexico to pay our children $5 a day.

But we will still be trying to "free" Iraq.

Why are Pollack and O'Hanlon given a platform? What exactly has to happen for pundits to be held accountable? (The Very Serious Jim Hoagland, for example, seems to think holding his tribe accountable for their advocacy is like witch burning).
What's missing from even JK's acknowledgement that O'Hanlon and Pollack seem to think that the political situation in DC has more to do with what happens in Iraq than than the political situation in Bagdhad is that Maliki asked Bush to recall his Blessed Infallibility Saint Petraeus. They cite Tal Afar and Mosul as places where Iraqis have "stepped up"; how many times have those two cities been declared pacified and then we watch them explode again?
Very Seriously: The guy who wrote "Dow 40,000" in 1998 (and whose name escapes me) seems to have vanihsed into deserved obscurity, whether of his own choosing (unlikely) or that of TV producers and newspaper editors. What, exactly, would it take for the same thing to happen to people like O'Hanlon and Pollack?

Klein buddy, the (warning: irony alert) oh-so serious Tauscher -- or at least her office -- is utterly clueless about impeachment and what can be done about Gonzales. In particular, among other errors, she is apparently claiming that the Attorney General can't be impeached. Link on my handle. I don't really want to be called an "infant[ile]" "Robespierre", but I can see why a primary challenge in her safe Democratic district might make sense.

OK, I hear this all the time: "The war can't be won militarily, it must be won politically".

Since the first time I heard it I've wanted to ask: Can political progress be achieved WITHOUT the security our military is working to provide?

I'll venture to answer my own question: no, it can't. So I'm left to conclude that those who say they want political progress while demanding our military withdrawal...well, they don't really want progress. They simply need to find a way for "Bush to lose".

atrios links to Rich Lowry telling us the same thing a couple of years ago:

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_07_29_archive.html#3544512441182964331

**Since the first time I heard it I've wanted to ask: Can political progress be achieved WITHOUT the security our military is working to provide?**

"our military" has been there for four years now: How much "political progress" has been acheived?

**They simply need to find a way for "Bush to lose".**

Bush has never needed anyone's help at finding a way to lose in Iraq. Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld showed him how to do that in 2002. Eric Shinseki told Our Little Princeling that those two bureaucrats were full of crap. He got fired for it.

reese lloyd:

"It would take a decade of decent security for a truly nationalistic identity to emerge in Iraq. Can we afford that?"

The US will not permit an actual representative Iraq political identity to emerge. The reason for this war is to create, at best, an ally in Iraq. (At worst, and, I believe, more accurately, the reason for this war was the creation of an imperialist subject state.)

An actual nationalist government in Iraq would not permit the basing of forces to be used in support of Israel and in opposition to Iran. Only a despotic state like Egypt or Saudi Arabia would be a reliable US ally.

Nobody explains why we should expect to have bases in a democratic Iraq. All of this stuff is just Kabuki theater. I seriously wonder whether people really believe the stuff they write.

"Can political progress be achieved WITHOUT the security our military is working to provide?"

That's artful, Anonymous. You don't claim that they're actually _providing_ the security, but they're _working_ to do so. How's that working out?

Our presence is creating neither a military nor a political solution. Both are needed.

Also, the line of rationale you attribute to Bush-haters has been endorsed by Gen. Petraeus and Secretary of Defense Gates. Why do they hate America and want Bush to lose?

Terrapin,

I agree with you and have maintained for a long time that establishing a permanent base was the real reason for the Iraq invasion, in addition to the Iranian threat. Isreal is too far, Turkey too unreliable, and Afghanistan to mountainous.

But what you, and many other liberals who have consistently opposed the Iraq invasion from the beginning fail to realize is that this is also Bill Clinton's war. He may not have ordered the invasion, but his adminstration prepared the war plans, racheted up the rhetoric between 1998 and 1999. He also appointed CIA director George Tenet.

You also let Sen. John Kerry off the hook in 2004. In 1998, John Kerry said that we should put "boots on the ground" in Iraq on the David Brinkley show.

You write "Yes, progress has been made in the fight against the most extreme jihadis (AQI)."

The most visible success has nothing to do with our military presence: what's happening in the Andar province would likely have happened with or without us there.

I saw Pollock on cable news this morning spouting his BS about the remarkable progress in Anbar and restating his position that if things are going this swimmingly we should be prepared to stay through 2008.

Why is it that the NY Times, which is touted as the premier "liberal" newspaper in the country always seems to be leading the charge in encouraging a new war (Iraq, Iran) or encouraging our disastrous presence in Iraq?

Thanks for a little common sense Joe-it seems to be a missing quality there at your paper.

Joe i should leave you alone with a column that is mostly right. however.
1. there is no "political solution" till the 20%baathist alquaida saddamist sunnis are disarmed and subdued, or there is complete separation.
2.your prosunni political solution had been all along to giv the sunnis a lot of special minority rights, and ways to keepon asserting them selves militariy, which in effect means they can keep terrorizing like they have for 30 years, or more.
3. the first part might have worked and kept our saudi israeli buddies happy if we could have imposed order in the country and shackled the sunnis there.
4 Instead, there is a full bore, major civil war on, for the last 17 months.Got it? its here already. Theres 4+ million refugees, 100-300 thousand violent deaths, 300-900 thousand excess mortality from no power, water, medical care,from stress and bad sanitation. its hell there. Please spare me how its going to get bad, or be "full blown"
if casualties have fallen a third, its likely because the Shia are restraining themselves, and the Sunnis are putting on a show for us so we will arm them even more. Ill believe al quaida is gone when the suicide bombings mostly stop.
4 your Srebrenica chicken little post-withdrawl scare scenario nothing more than that. you could think about what i sent earlier. just because a batch of prosunni "experts" here are repeating it to each other is not evidence. As far as i can tell the shia mainly shoot and torture military age males. Indiscriminate civilian killing is dihonorable. Of course if we stick around and further arm both sides with heavy weapnons that could change. they and we feel its ok or an understandable mistake to massacre women, children and other noncombattants if its hi tech and distant (Oh i forgot we are only arming the "moderates")

Joe,
I'm glad you have of late begun noting the Shiite internecine fighting in the south. I think you should be aware, however, that this is not only about to happen but is in fact ongoing - it may not have blown up completely yet, but the internecine fighting between Sadr, Hakim, and the Fadhila organization (which you consistently and inexplicably fail to mention) has been occurring for at least a year.

"you really can't write a piece about the wae in Iraq and devote only two sentences to the political situation"

Well said.

The surge was supposed to give the Iraqi pols a "window" in which to hash out some progress. They've done less than f*ck-all. So now this primary objective has failed, the pro-surge windbags focus on how well AQI is being confronted.

In other words, saying that the the original Murtha Plan of 2005 (redeployment of most troops, focus the fight Al-Qaeda) was absolutely dead right.

Any chance that Murtha gets an apology, or God forbid, will now be listened to?

wagonjak -

"Why is it that the NY Times, which is touted as the premier "liberal" newspaper in the country always seems to be leading the charge in encouraging a new war (Iraq, Iran) or encouraging our disastrous presence in Iraq?"

If you think that the NYT is encouraging our presence in Iraq, you either don't read the Times or you are such an angry, zealous partisan that you are incapable of seeing reality.

The usual cast of pseudo-intellectuials are out in force with their armchair analysis of the column by two writers who actually WENT to Iraq. We are very lucky in any event to have this news coming out. This will war will eventually end and history, not basement pundits, will sort out the truth.

So what's the reliability level of these reports that Maliki hates Petraeus and wants him fired?

Does anyone know what Hillary's current attitude is towards these two? Is a vote for Hillary a vote to bring Pollack back to the NSC where he can screw things up some more? Remember his book on the Saddam threat before the war is what convinced a lot of non-neocons that the war was necessary.

Joe i should leave you alone with a column that is mostly right. however.
1. there is no "political solution" till the 20%baathist alquaida saddamist sunnis are disarmed and subdued, or there is complete separation.
2.your prosunni political solution had been all along to giv the sunnis a lot of special minority rights, and ways to keepon asserting them selves militariy, which in effect means they can keep terrorizing like they have for 30 years, or more.
3. the first part might have worked and kept our saudi israeli buddies happy if we could have imposed order in the country and shackled the sunnis there.
4 Instead, there is a full bore, major civil war on, for the last 17 months.Got it? its here already. Theres 4+ million refugees, 100-300 thousand violent deaths, 300-900 thousand excess mortality from no power, water, medical care,from stress and bad sanitation. its hell there. Please spare me how its going to get bad, or be "full blown"
if casualties have fallen a third, its likely because the Shia are restraining themselves, and the Sunnis are putting on a show for us so we will arm them even more. Ill believe al quaida is gone when the suicide bombings mostly stop.
4 your Srebrenica chicken little post-withdrawl scare scenario nothing more than that. you could think about what i sent earlier. just because a batch of prosunni "experts" here are repeating it to each other is not evidence. As far as i can tell the shia mainly shoot and torture military age males. Indiscriminate civilian killing is dihonorable. Of course if we stick around and further arm both sides with heavy weapnons that could change. they and we feel its ok or an understandable mistake to massacre women, children and other noncombattants if its hi tech and distant (Oh i forgot we are only arming the "moderates")

From TP (go there for the links proving TP's points)

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/30/ohanlon-pollack/

"Pollack and O’Hanlon applaud the administration’s military strategy for providing “basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people,” praise the ‘reliability‘ of Iraqi security forces, and express genuine surprise over “how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working.” O’Hanlon’s metrics of success have no grounding in reality:

– Residents of Baghdad are now receiving just one or two hours of electricity each day
– Iraqi security forces are deserting in large numbers
– A new report released last week found that reconstruction has stalled"

Pollack and O'Hanlon likely benefited from some of the opium smuggled into Iraq from Afghanistan. Either that or they are two rabid war supporters who, having been wrong all the way, continue to be dead wrong out of stubborness.

The occupation is indeed going "brilliantly"!

These two guys have been deadly wrong about Iraq before during and after the war. Now they are treated to a trip to Iraq and a dog and pony show in which they are told the usual fairy tales and propaganda bullshit, they travel around by armed helicopters and then tell us that we just might win this war and Joe Klein gives them credibility?! If the stock broker who gave you consistently terrible advise which ruined you financially called you about this "can't miss new stock", would you waste even one second on him or would you slam the phone in his face?

**Posted by Larry Boston
July 30, 2007
The usual cast of pseudo-intellectuials are out in force with their armchair analysis of the column by two writers who actually WENT to Iraq. **

yes, they WENT to Iraq for whole WEEK.

Next WEEK maybe John McCAIN will go back and go for his STROLL.... without a company of soldiers and three helicopter gunships and a team of snipers along the strolling route

Maybe YOU can go WITH him LARRY. In fact, I URGE you to do so.

and you guys (and gals) really have to allow links. All the blogs are doing it these days....

As Greenwald (you know where to find him) points out these guys have been writing the same column over and over again for the last four years.

Why do these people still get a platform?

**Fadhila is a presence, mostly in Basrah, but intelligence sorts seem to think that it doesn't have the military capabilities that the Mahdi Army and Badr Corps have.**

Enough of a presence to keep things unstable, and thus more dangerous and bloody, in Basra and the surrounding region?

Jim i've been there. Some of my buddies have gone back for the third and even fourth times. Have you?

I'm sick of focusing on what will happen in Iraq if we LEAVE and not ask the question of what will happen (200.000 dollars a minute) to America if we STAY.

Think the former USSR and Afghanistan.

For some great O'Hanlon moments that counteract the NYT's claim that these are "two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq," check out
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

But please note that it's now fashionable to have been harshly (if only privately) critical of the war or Bush's conduct of it.

I think we'll see bellbottoms on David Broder soon!

**Posted by Larry Boston
July 30, 2007
Jim i've been there. Some of my buddies have gone back for the third and even fourth times. Have you?**

Nope. The fact that your buddies are going back for their fourth tour (assuming you're telling the truth) ought to be proof enough that Bush has FUBARed this war. Had O'Hanlon or Pollack been there before they started cheerleading for this disaster in 2002? I doubt it.These two fools have been spewing the same nonsense for five years. They have never been right. Same goes for McCain, Lieberman, Shays, and anyone else who thinks that going to Iraq for a few days and coming back and spouting the same foolishness as before they left.

Larry: Bill Kristol is going to Iraq next week, I gather. Will that retroactively make him right when he said that people who thought there was conflict between Sunnis and Shi'ites were praciticing "pop sociology"?

Jim some have changed their MOS and are more than willing to go to make sure the country is stable and the people have a chance, The fact that you are rooting for a bad ending and that you are only pessimistic shows that you have never been there and therefore can have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. That is like talking about space walks when you have never been in a plane.

Greg Sargent has more on O'Hanlon and Pollack's sorry history on Iraq (link on my handle).

**The fact that you are rooting for a bad ending**
I'm not "rooting for a bad ending", and that's a profoundly stupid and dishonest strawman attack.

I'm looking at the facts on the ground and history, from the last five years and the last five hundred years, the history of Iraq and the history of the Bush administration, that's why I'm pessimistic. I'm looking at what people like Bush and Cheney and O'Hanlon and Pollack have said about Iraq (and been wrong) and what people like Erik Shinseki said about securing and stabilizing Iraq (at least 350,000 troops--you'll recall he was fired for telling Bush something he didn't want to hear) and what David Petraeus said about counter-insurgency and peace-keeping (a twenty to one ration, I believe he called for before he let himself get tangled up in Bushism, which would put the necessary troop levels at half a million) just a few years ago. Your intentions may be noble, and you may have an emotional investment in this war (still assuming that you're telling the truth) but that doesn't change the facts on the ground. Fact-free good intentions is one of the big reasons we're where we are in Iraq.
But by all means, since you're apparently both very angry and a sincere believer in this war, I encourage you to visit college campuses all over the country. There are several thousand able-bodied, prime-fighting-age college Republicans who agree with you on the war, but don't understand that they need to go there to legitmize their opinions.
Good luck with that.

Jim I am not angry and what is happening on the ground is that we are winning. Plain and simple. I havent been on a campus in twenty years but from your answer I assume you are on one. When I was that age I thought I knew what was going on in the world. Was I wrong. Age and experience does have its advantages. Facts are facts. Just hoping as you do for the worst possible out come wont make it happen. the evidence is that we are making great headway. God knows we have killed plenty of bad guys who neede killing. If you had ever been there you would understand what I am saying.

"the New York Times ran a potentially seismic op-ed piece today by Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the hard left Brookings Institution"

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/10c28f95-6024-412d-b884-14ffcbdc5534

Brookings is "far left"? Since when? Is Heritage and AEI "center"?

These guys live in a world of fun house mirrors...

**. Just hoping as you do for the worst possible out come wont make it happen**

Okay, you're an idiot.

Bye.

The Angry Left gotta love em. Never a dull moment with the I hate everything and believe nothing crowd.

I can answer the question that Joe Klein asks! Call on me!
Facts.
Thanks. Now, ask us a tough question.

**Posted by Larry Boston
July 30, 2007
The Angry Left gotta love em. Never a dull moment with the I hate everything and believe nothing crowd.**

You don't make me angry, Larry. Just sad. (Again, I'm assuming you're tellng the truth, and you're not just a parody of a 29%er, though it does strain credibility that anyone could be as delusional as your posts suggest).

Can the snark Jim. I dont really care what a dorm inhabiting pundit thinks of me. Your total lack of real world knowledge by never having experienced Iraq, or war or sacrifice in general, is what is important when discussing such an important subject.

**Your total lack of real world knowledge by never having experienced Iraq, or war or sacrifice in general**

So, Lar, following your logic, George Bush is unfit to be commander in chief? and should never have been elected president? and his decision to take the country to war is thus illegitimate?

We finally agree on something!! Obama is right! We can find common ground!

Says Mr. Klein: "But Iraq is primarily a Shi'ite country--and we're not doing so well with those guys, especially the most prominent of them, Muqtada al-Sadr."

Speaking of prominent Shi'ites we're not doing well with, what're the chances that al-Maliki really does ask for the replacement of Gen. Petraeus? Will the Great Oracle of September be removed before he even has time to become a proper scapegoat?

(http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/07/ap_petraeusmaliki_070727/ )

Obama is a naive fool. He proved that in the debate. Jim when you have trained to be a pilot in what is considered one of the most dangerous aircraft to fly as Bush did instead of jockeying a laptop in a lecture hall lets talk.

Larry: "I havent been on a campus in twenty years but from your answer I assume you are on one. When I was that age I thought I knew what was going on in the world. Was I wrong."

You are making a huge assumption about who's on this blog. Did you know that the average user on the Daily Kos is 46 years old?

**when you have trained to be a pilot in what is considered one of the most dangerous aircraft to fly as Bush did.**

...especially when you're whacked out on the happy powder!

Oh my god I can't believe I fell for your schtick! This is brilliant. You should blog this regularly, or do a YouTube thing, cuz you is Teh Funny.

"what is happening on the ground is that we are winning. Plain and simple.."

Larry -

1. What is the metric we use to determine what 'winning' is? In other words, define what it means to win. Please be as specific as possible in your answer and provide examples of victory.

2. Once we 'win' (however you define it above) - WHAT NEXT?

3. I believe you've been to Iraq as often as Dubya went to Vietnam. Charter member of the 101st Keyboard Kommandos is more like it.

Jim prove your allegation with evidence of you will be proven to be a liar. Otherwise it's here we go again with the truely disfuntional whacked out leftist/ kos kid/ huffpo/ commie crap/

From yesterday on the very shaky relationship that Petreaus has with Maliki:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/29/le.01.html

and something about the Humanitarian situation:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/30/iraq.humanitarian/index.html

just a walk in the market. Censorship is rampant from the front. The Pentagon Patriot Police make this war far worse than Vietnam.

Continuing the Klein serious watch - let's see. Last week he tells us he has been a serious reporter, unlike that Greenwald, seriously reported, once, on Saudi Arabia, and had a few delicious lunches with some Saudis in 2003, during which he got the impression they weren't down with the invasion of Iraq, but why bother to report about that?

So he seriously tells us to go to an article about how the Saudis are seriously giving weapons to Sunnis to kill American soldiers. Then - Saturday - comes the news that we are selling 30 billion dollars of weaponry to the Saudis, which is a pretty nice reward for killing American soldiers, I believe. And we get, instead of any further discussion of this, a reference to the very serious surge reporters, disguised now as 'critics of the administration', O'hanlon and Pollack, writing that we are winning militarily in Iraq - a story foreshadowed by Klein's own writing, and of course as bogus as any of the canned propaganda given out by the Pentagon since 2003.

Ah, the joys of seriousness! I bet, in another year, Klein will again report on the Saudis. Meanwhile, let's pretend we are winning the war, and the Iranians are training al qaeda. Makes perfect sense in the Beltway.

This had some interesting numbers for the record books:

http://meteor-blades.dailykos.com/

I will refrain from commenting about the authors and their think tank that the NYTs felt was fit to print, except that many have already have stated the obvious about them. I would like to borrow from 'the somebody' yesterday who used the 'judithmillered again' which was pricelessly serious.

"Jim prove your allegation with evidence of you will be proven to be a liar. Otherwise it's here we go again with the truely disfuntional whacked out leftist/ kos kid/ huffpo/ commie crap/"

Larry, Bush's backstory is common knowledge. The guy had problems during his salad days (which seemed to have lasted quite a long time).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_substance_abuse_controversy

As for the us "disfuntional" [sic] "commie kids", here you go:

***Here are the results for "Democrats" in the 2006 Blogad readers survey (17,251 respondents), with the 2005 results in parenthesis (11,475 respondents):

Median Age: 46.4
Post-Graduate Degree: 41.1%
College Graduate: 38.5%
Some College: 17.63%
High School or less: 2.83%
Median Annual Income: $80.2K***

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/4/26/11425/2563

You see, I live on a Marx-inspired commune and I'm verging on flunking out of Hampshire College, blah blah blah.

Whats missing in this column?

Some acknowlegement that these two guys have been stupendously wrong in each and every analysis they've made of this war dating all the way back to 2002.

Hey Larry from Boston, or QH - if you love Bush's illegal war so much why don't you head on over to the local enlistment office and sign up so you can go and fight for Halliburton also.

Otherwise your opinion is meaningless as those of us who patriotically oppose this illegal war choose to go no where near the military. We support them by wanting them to come home so they can be downsized and the ex-soldiers given an education so they can have productive and peaceful civilian lives.

I think the reason joe linked to this column is this line...

"As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq..."

Joe's rewriting of history regarding his opposition to this war is pure amateur night compared to this bit of self-serving BS.

Of course, despite the fact that these two have been consistently WRONG on Iraq, and have consistently reported on "progress" in Iraq while the situation deteriorated there, they are "serious", and have to be taken "seriously" enough to discuss their little essay.

Joe, O'Hanlon and Pollack are NOT SERIOUS. You should have just quoted their self description, and written "HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA"....

Basra, Brown and the Brits? 500 Brit troops to draw down leaving 5000 with Brown saying AFGHANISTAN is the front against terrorism and the Brits less than happy with forces in Basra.

Out of the cobwebs without looking it up, haven't the Brits been making deals with the local militias to 'keep the peace'?

>>>Marine's family suing the VA over their son's suicide. How is that Pat Tillman-Bush thing coming?<<<

Jim those stats prove nothing. I had too explain how a circuit breaker box worked to a Smith professor once so I have intimate knowledge of Post grads. Dont brag about that for godness sakes. That much time in University doesnt give anyone a leg up in the real world. Quite the opposite, I find most to be as fish out of water unless within their narrow fields. Unless it is combined with Military and of some other public service. I felt rather sorry for the prof myself as he was perplexed by something so simple. I guess that is why Obama was so perplexed by a simple question about dictators and how to treat them. Are you one of the huggy kissy kum by yah type? Also garbage like the Dan Rather papers are not proof of anything. You have no intimate knowledge of any drugs Bush did. You only perpetuate unsubstantiated rumors. Usaeless old biddy gossip.

Linda - it is heading toward the righteous IMPEACHMENT that is called for. If Bush hadn't ordered 9/11 so he could attack Iraq for Halliburton Pat Tillman would still be in the NFL and the Cardinals would have won a Super Bowl by now.

**Posted by Larry Boston
July 30, 2007
Jim those stats prove nothing.**

Lar- work on your reading comprehension, there, Genius. That wasn't my post.

Oh and as for Hampshire College those poor parents woul've been smarter taking that tuition to Foxwoods and letting it ride. More would likely have come of it.

Sorry I meant JJ. Forgive me my transgretion.

It's JJ, not Jim, Larry. That page I linked to has plenty of links to sources and stories with sources. If you're paranoid enough to think that all of those sources are wrong, then I don't know what I could tell you. Maybe start a militia to protect us all against the moles who have infiltrated the system and are busily spreading rumors about our fearless leader.

Yes, a college degree is no guarantee of common sense by any stretch. But you tend to learn something by age 46.4. Near the top of the list of those things is to connect the dots when your leadership has a remarkably consistent record of screwing up. (And, since I have a life, that will be the last thing I'll have to say in this little exchange...)

>What's Missing in this Column?

Mr. Klein,
Seriousness?
Helpfulness?

This has been another edition of answering rhetorical questions rhetorically.

Tim - Thanks for the reply. You wrote: "But what you, and many other liberals who have consistently opposed the Iraq invasion from the beginning fail to realize is that this is also Bill Clinton's war. He may not have ordered the invasion, but his adminstration prepared the war plans, racheted up the rhetoric between 1998 and 1999."

I was not aware that Donald Rumsfeld used Bill Clinton's war plans for his invasion of Iraq. Please point me to your source for this. I would not be surprised, however, because the invasion was a smashing success! We marched into Baghdad, deposed Saddam Hussein and suffered very few losses. The invasion was a smashing success! The OCCUPATION has been an absolute and entirely predictable disaster - and that is why Bill Clinton never ordered the invasion.

What Bill Clinton DID do was order limited strikes on Iraqi targets in order to prevent Saddam Hussein from rebuilding his military or his infrastructure for the production of weapons of mass destruction. All the while preventing us from being bled white in a long war of attrition. And Bill Clinton was very successful at that seeing as how quickly the Iraqi military fell and the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were ever found.

"You also let Sen. John Kerry off the hook in 2004. In 1998, John Kerry said that we should put "boots on the ground" in Iraq on the David Brinkley show."

I did no such thing. What Kerry was doing on that show was upholding the Democratic Party's media strategy (the ratcheting you mentioned) in order to get public and Republican approval for the limited military action that Clinton was planning to do. If you cannot remember, the GOP position at the time was to obstruct Clinton from ordering military action and to undermine him at every turn. If you think that Bush is under seige then you clearly do not remember what the GOP did to Clinton.

Tim: "Bill Clinton's ...adminstration prepared the war plans..."

I don't know about the invasion either. But it's pretty clear that Clinton had nothing to do with the plans for the occupation. Those plans were pretty clearly the work of people who you'd have to call his opponents:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1022-06.htm

Jim prove your allegation with evidence of you will be proven to be a liar. Otherwise it's here we go again with the truely disfuntional whacked out leftist/ kos kid/ huffpo/ commie crap/
--Larry in Boston

Larry -- prove your allegations with evidence or you will be proven a liar.

Prove you're in the military.

Prove you've been in Iraq.

Give a definition of what winning is, along with FACTS that prove we're headed that way.

Otherwise it's here we go again with the truly dysfunctional, whacked out rightie / Freeper / Coultergeist / Nazi crap /

Larry is an LGF troll.

>What's Missing in this Column?

Credibility. Period.

Let's examine Michael O'Hanlon's pristine record of spot-on analysis over the past few years, shall we?

First there is this incredible column from the Washington Post, entitled (ludicrously enough)

How to Stop a Civil War
By Michael O'Hanlon
Monday, March 27, 2006; Page A15

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/26/AR2006032600875.html

in which O'Hanlon actually argues that, as of spring 2006, *there isn't really a civil war going on in Iraq*:

"Administration officials have been right in recent weeks to argue that there is no large-scale civil war underway in Iraq. As long as the Iraqi political leadership remains generally united in trying to calm the situation, and as long as sectarian violence remains more sporadic than strategic (with no systematic ethnic cleansing, for example), true civil war remains a threat rather than a reality."

So what's the advice of the clear-eyed realist O'Hanlon?

(from the same piece)
"Of course, preventing a civil war is primarily a political task....But if the political process continues to falter and the risk of civil war looms larger, we will also need a military plan for quelling it."

Oh, he means some kind of new military action to solve what he admits is primarily a political, sectarian issue. That unsettling incongruity aside, what kind of new military action does he envision?

(from the same piece)
"Much of the American debate has been asking how to handle an all-out conflict in which Iraq has already fractured and violence is rampant. But the more important question is how to quell violence in the early stages, before such a scenario develops fully. And this is not the typical debate over how fast and soon we can draw down U.S. troops in Iraq; rather, it is a debate about what they do while they are there."

OK, so getting out of the way is out...what else is there to do, we wonder? O'Hanlon does not leave us hanging...

"The foreign coalition can do a great deal to discourage this. By deploying with Iraqi police and army troops on the streets, it can provide enough manpower to do the labor-intensive work required to restore order as anarchy begins to spread. It can help give Iraqi security forces the backbone they need to hang together and do their job for the country rather than fight for their Kurdish or Shiite or Sunni Arab interests. It can act as a glue, helping to hold them together by working with them and providing an example worthy of emulation.

In his statements about letting Iraqis handle their own civil strife, perhaps Rumsfeld was trying to drive home to Iraqis the message that they should not count on the distant American superpower to bail them out if civil war begins. This message is grounded in a sound logic; Iraqis do need to step up to the plate and solve more of their own problems. But as a full indication of what our military plans would be for any incipient civil war, it is not the right strategy. Now is the time to reassess."

I get it! O'Hanlon is advocating some kind of "new strategy"...some kind of new military action that gets our troops off of the sidelines, out of their bases and "on the streets"...something...it's coming to me...something like...A Surge! A Troop Surge! To Quell the Violence!

Yes, that's what O'Hanlon is advocating...a new offensive, as it were, "to restore order", so that the political process can finally get underway.

What does O'Hanlon claim will convince the Iraqis to get on board with our wonderful unity plan for them? Get this:

"By deploying with Iraqi police and army troops on the streets, it can provide enough manpower to do the labor-intensive work required to restore order as anarchy begins to spread. It can help give Iraqi security forces the backbone they need to hang together and do their job for the country rather than fight for their Kurdish or Shiite or Sunni Arab interests. It can act as a glue, helping to hold them together by working with them and providing an example worthy of emulation."

That's right...he's saying that we're just going to, you know, act like Americans, and they'll kind of, you know, get the idea that they should all hold hands together...or something like that.

There it is, folks. Michael O'Hanlon is a person we can invariably trust as an impartial judge with respect to the outcome of the current new "Surge" strategy...because he's been an advocate of it even prior to the term "Surge", and opposed to even "the typical debate over how fast and soon we can draw down U.S. troops in Iraq".

Why would Michael O'Hanlon feel such responsibility to advocate such radical adjustment in our response to a civil war that he barely even acknowledges exists (just last year, mind you)?

What prompts the need to assert "Now is the time to reassess" so emphatically?
Why is withdrawal necessarily excluded from such a reassessment?
Why not recognize the whole dismal enterprise as a failure while losses can still be cut and lessons can still be learned?

Perhaps the answer can be found in another brilliant quote from Michael O'Hanlon in an interview he did in 2004:

(From http://www.echochamberproject.com/ohanlon )

"ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: And during the build-up to the war in Iraq, what were you perspectives of the current situation -- the situation that led to the actual military intervention?

O'HANLON: I had one of the more probably complex sets of views on Iraq, and so I was not always trying to maintain a single position. There were times, for example, where I debated Richard Perle or Ken Adelman, whether it's through the media of -- the print media or radio -- and my argument against them was often "This will be a more difficult venture than you and many of the so-called neo-cons and many of the Bush administration officials from whom we hear are trying to argue." If we're gonna do this, it's gonna be big, it's gonna be tough. *Personally, I thought more of the toughness would come in the invasion phase and less in the aftermath, so on that detail I was wrong, and that's an important detail.* But I think I was still generally correct to say this is going to require hundreds of thousands of troops, it's gonna be a long-term, multi-year venture to stabilize Iraq afterwards, and the entire operation will involve quite possibly many thousands of American casualties."

He was wrong on an "important detail", but he's still "generally correct".

Perhaps this mindset explains the need for Michael O'Hanlon to do anything, anything other than actually admit that his opinion was and still is the polar opposite of what prudent judgment and a grasp of the facts would entertain, and that instead of "debating" the "difficulty of the venture" with absolute incompetents like Richard Perle, he should have been actively opposing said idealogue incompetents (like those who did at the time prior to the invasion).

I mean, this is a man who says that he ultimately supported the invasion because he was afraid that the troops were getting too hot in their gas-masks waiting for "disarmament negotiations" to conclude:

(from the same interview)

"ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: In like mid-March, you were basically arguing to not go for a second resolution at all. Can you speak to that? Like why we should – "Because that would ruin our legal argument" is what you [said.]
O'HANLON: By mid-March it was clear to me that the French and the Germans were not serious about trying to develop a consensus. *They were talking about a four-month delay before war, which would have brought this right into the heart of the summer when American troops would have to wear chemical protective gear in 130 degree or 120 degree environment.* I was in Iraq in September when it was 110 without chemical gear on. That's a very hard environment to operate in. And I think at some point -- I think that's why I say the moment was missed in January and February. And the real shame is that the United States and France developed such an adversarial diplomatic relationship in January, because that's the time we should have been trying to develop the ultimatum strategy. We still had the opportunity, and I fault both sides for that. By the time it got to March, I was worrying about the well-being of our troops as much as I was worried about the legal basis for war. *In retrospect I have to acknowledge that given how difficult the post-Saddam period has been, it may have been better to consider postponing the war until the Fall, if necessary.* And perhaps at that moment in time, knowing what I know now, I would have said let's try even harder, even though we've missed these couple of months. But at that point, we had had a couple of months to develop an ultimatum strategy and we had failed to do so. And it seemed fairly apparent by that point that any kind of further discussions being proposed by countries like France were delaying tactics that could have redounded to the detriment of American troops if and when they had to carry out this operation. So that's why I took the position I did in March."

In retrospect, Michael O'Hanlon does not think that we should have kept our soldiers and marines out of the blazing summer in Iraq for the past four years, he merely says that he now believes that we should have waited until, say, the fall, when it would be slightly cooler outside.

This is who's judgment and credibility on the war, both of which would have been irreversibly tarnished had these not been the shallowly-held opinions of our political and media elites, are held in such esteem as to be the subject of a New York Times column.

This is whose assessments on the current "strategy" we are asked to thoughtfully consider.

What's missing from this column?
What's been missing from the vast majority of columns written by "serious", respected analysts?

The answer is: a track record of having gotten *any part of this mess* right since its miserable inception four years ago; credibility.

Why do we stay?
What is the price of staying?
What is the price of leaving?
Do the cost analysis.

Don't forget to figure in the fact that this is also BORROWED money.This is your class assignment. Project due tomorrow.

You learn nothing by going on BushCo. Military field trips. They make sure of that. They are all ruled by the GOP and image control is all they do. You learn far more reading Juan Cole than going on propaganda tours. That these clowns even use all the approved lingo shows they either haven't got a clue or know who butters their bread. At this point it doesn't matter which one is true.

"...And if we manage to put a major hurt on AQI--which is Bush's (current) rationale for us being there--what rationale remains for us staying there if the Iraqis themselves are intent on slaughtering each other?"

Bring on the genocide, Say Joe?

Winston Churchill must be flipping in his tomb.

that stuart zechman comment is infinitely more interesting than klein's post (though too long--cut it down next time please). is stuart a "reporter"? is he "serious"? does he live in the beltway, cultivating sources? can he read a pollack/o'hanlon column in which each man self-identifies as a "war critic" without throwing up?

i mean, really. it took glenn greenwald about an hour (with help, i'm sure, from his researcher) to find endless examples of the fact that with the "anti-war" preface, pollack/o'hanlon were lying. it seems to be the main skill in elite circles these days, particularly in the DC/NY axis. the guys lie about themselves in their (regular) forum on the pages of the NYTimes. no one in the paper will call them on it (maybe clark hoyt?), their friends at brookings and AEI (i mean, come on, these guys are all buddies at the end of the day) will give them a high-five for nice op-ed placement, and our public discourse will find its coffin that much harder to open, thanks to the extra nail.

thanks joe. time, as usual, please fire him and hire infinitely superior thinker and writer glenn greenwald.

In case you missed it, Pollock was on Wolf this PM. Would imagine that it might be rerun later or the transcript will be for sure be posted.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/

Pretty much, he did a lot of bobbing and weaving. Yaz, ya' just gotta read it. Sure sounded like he was trying to walk a crooked mile to nowhere.

Robert Green:

Thanks for taking the time to read the whole comment.

"though too long--cut it down next time please"

Sure thing--I wrote the post in, like, 15 minutes, so I didn't exactly figure out a way to distill the most relevant passages from the O'Hanlon quotes I dug up in 10 minutes. I didn't want to give anyone the impression that I was misquoting or taking out of context O'Hanlon's confessed lunacy, so I just left the whole damning evidence in.

After reading through my post again, I did repeat one quoted part, and next time I'll try harder to cull down for readability. I'm obviously not a professional writer. So thanks for the criticism, it's welcome.

BTW:
(after reading Glen's blog today) I'll bet Greenwald took less than five minutes to come up with his examples. The searchable record is replete with O'Hanlon's misjudgments and inanities...which makes it's absence from Joe's commentary so puzzling--I mean, Joe *is* a professional with thirty-five years' experience...

I'd like it if we were doing better in Iraq. I even believe that it actually is better, if going from the 9th ring of hell back to the 8th is progress. I watch CNN and read a bunch of different online new sources, none of which are owned by Rupert Murdoch (at least yet). What they say is similar to what Joe Klein is saying, things have gotten better is some areas of Iraq, but the level of violence throughout the country is still intolerable.
If what these two are saying is true, wouldn't some of the people who refugeed themselves out of Iraq be coming back?

What I'm really wondering is when will the level of less horrible be reached that we can leave Iraqis to solve the problem for themselves?

Neither O'hanlon nor Pollak is an expert on Iraq. If one person told them told them that the violence level has increased by 30% and another that it decreased by 30%, they wouldn't even begin to know who's telling the truth or if any of them is telling the truth. They just accept the Pentagon's numbers, which can't be verified. We know however, based on the Pentagon's dismal record on truth and honesty, that those numbers are cooked and pulled out of thin air. Joe Klein has the same nasty habit- he just believes in the information the Bush/Cheney regime is feeding him and uses it as a basis for his opinions. In addition, anyone who would use the opinions of two phony "experts" who have shown astonishing level of bad judgment on Iraq before, during and after the invasion as a basis for formulating ideas about what is really going on Iraq has got to be insane.

The DoD, as an arm of the Bush administration has an interest in convincing the public that the US presence in Iraq should continue. As part of their propaganda campaign, they use and manipulate discredited so called liberal "experts like O'hanlon and Pollack. They pay their way and feed them the "information" they want them to spread, under completely controlled conditions. This is horrifically reminiscent of those German controlled Red Cross visits to the Terezinstadt concentration camp, in which the Red Cross people wee fed lies about how great the inmates were having it. Many of those happy inmates were transported to Auschwitz the next day.

Paragraph 1: When, exactly, did the wae begin. I heard about the 'war', AKA a criminal armed incursion into a sovereign nation under false pretenses that is failing miserably. But I had not previously been aware of any 'wae'. Did I miss something? Has Time heard of spellcheck yet?

I exchange e-mails almost daily with a number of Iraqi journalists and intellectuals, all of them pro-west and pro-democracy. They just laugh at the "analysis of people like O'hanlon and Pollak. They also consider Joe Klein a boob and Patreous nothing but a political tool for Bush who misrepresent what is really going on in Iraq and even worse, has no clue.

Another interesting set of numbers:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/30/191410/768

As an aside for Larry Boston, it now appears that there are three million people suffering cancers and other disease symtoms associated with Agent Orange (as well as Black, Purple, and the whole palette that was used.) Vietnam vets are leading the fight to force the US government to help with medical care --having been through the whole business already. As one veteran spokesman said --there aren't too many people left who were actually involved in spraying the defoliants--they are all deceased.

Now call me a left wing pinko commie blah blah blah. A real substitute for sentient behavior.

We were winning militarily in Vietnam, I suppose, and our intentions were benign, possibly. Nonetheless, if we'd left earlier, Danang would not have concentrations of these chemicals 500 times higher than the safe limits for human beings (as verified by Canadian scientists --another left wing conspiracy?)

While we have been "winning" in Baghdad, daily power gas fallen from 6 hours to 1 hour per day. What other prices for our aid are Iraqis paying that we don't know about?

For more data about Agent Orange:
http://www.wbez.org/Program_WV.aspx

Three questions for Larry Boston, whose repeated rudeness to anyone who disagreed with him was almost entirely unforgiveable:

1. If you think it's such a great war, how come you only went once? Were you wounded? (if so, I forgive you for your rudeness, but urge you to get counseling.)

2. Do you understand that, in a democracy, the military doesn't get to decide which wars are fought?

3. If the supporters of the war are all about sacrifice, how come it is being financed with IOUs which our children will have to pay? How come your Hero in Chief didn't ask his capital gains buddies to pony up another 10% as seed money?

YEah YEAh YEAH!
You Go Tim!
Tell the stupid neocon where he can stuff his warmongering ideas!

Don B.: The 'denial of agent orange' was followed by the denial of 'Gulf War Syndrome'. However, new research is supporting the reality of this syndrome despite the VA/DoD denials.

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/gulf.html

The Iraq war is producing service personnel with all kinds of head injuries and PTSD. Besides the insufficent or poor treatment that has been identified, many who have served are being discharged with a Dx of Personality Disorder [preexisting] losing all benefits. Public awareness is forcing reexamination of this. Class action and individual lawsuits have been filed against the VA/DoD and Sec. Nicholson by vets and their families.

Reports from Iraq indicate that all types of 'mental disorders' among the population are prevalent without suffers having access to appropriate medical treatment. Numbers--unknown

Another oops; the 'Don B.' should have been to Tim Connor about agent orange.

I was laughing about Colbert and the Badgers in Basra. So much for multi-tasking.

Tim
I know that agent orange was not used in Iraq so your ghost of chemicals past dredging is apples and agent oranges. Also your numbers are totally suspect. Anyone can pull that cheap stunt. Also WWII was far more costly in terms of lives and materiel's by an exponential amount but our way of life not only survived but flourished, and that was accomplished with far fewer Americans and much less productivity. I don't recall anyone ever crying the false wail of "bankrupting our grandchildren" that is a nonsensical piece of rhetorical tripe. And I guess that the inconvenience of a power outage is far more troubling for you than slaughter and Sharia law under the Islam-fascists? What kind of nonsense is that?

You forgot to mention that you support the troops, right?

I know the troops do you? A buddy of mine got an Ak round trough the hand and has splinter grom an IED in his side. He just went back for the third time because he KNOWS first hand he is doing good.

Mr. Boston,

I have been reviewing your posts. They all exhibit the following pattern:

>you claim special knowledge of Iraq for yourself, and even more, for your "buddies",because you've "been"
there
>this empowers you to disregard all factual
information, because of your "special" knowledge --you just "know"

However, a lot of your statements don't support the idea that you HAVE been there. For example, anybody who knows even a liitle about Islam knows that there is no daylight between Sunni and Shi'a on the subject of Shariah. There never was an Islamic reformation. The dispute is seccessional, not doctrinal.

Thus, the use of the term "Islam-Fascist" does not come from special knowledge. It comes from "Bushie" talking points.

Secondly, anyone who has spent significant time in a climate that peaks at 130 degrees (I have, although not Iraq) knows the importance of electricity, for air-conditioning, and, even more importantly, the preservation of food.

None of our bases are getting by on 1 hour per day, I can assure you.

Consequently, I have come to the conclusion that you HAVE NOT BEEN THERE. A less kind person would call you a liar. I would simply ask you to hush unless you can either provide support for your claims of special knowledge, or information that would promote a valid discourse.