In an essay ironically titled “McCain’s Confusion On Iraq,” Steve Chapman only demonstrates his own:
Iraqi civilians died at a higher rate in the first four months of this year than in the same period of 2005…. Here is McCain’s definition of success: returning to a pace of bloodshed that was once regarded as intolerable.
This is not even close to accurate; as p4 of the Iraq Index clearly shows, Iraqi civilian casualties were 2-3 times higher in the first few months of 2005 versus the same period in 2008.
What I suspect Chapman has done here is take the old “violent deaths from war-related causes” statistic (which was eventually discarded by most analysts as too difficult to figure) and compared it to the current “violent deaths from all causes.”
And here’s some more stats for you: in the last few months of last year, 1,000 people a month died from violent causes in Venezuela, which has roughly the same population as Iraq and isn’t generally considered to be in the throes of an “intolerable” bloodbath. And lest we forget, an average of 7,000 people a month died under Saddam, while the current rate of violent death in Iraq is around 500 a month, and lower than any month recorded since the regime’s fall. This may be the most peaceful Iraq has been in decades.
Nearly as fatuous is the conflation by Chapman (and the antiwar crowd in general, esp the MSM) of a withdrawal in victory (bringing home troops based on them not being needed due to improving conditions) with withdrawal on a fixed timetable regardless of conditions, which could mean surrendering the country to extremists. These are very obviously not the same thing.
What’s “intolerable” here is the cluelessness of antiwar sanctimony.
{ 11 comments }
You, of course, are picking on a minor point and missing the big picture.
You seem to not understand that the lack of any kind of timetable, time line or plan for withdrawal of US forces from Iraq was one of the factors fanning the flames of the insurgency. The radical insurgents could point to the US refusal to set any kind of plan or schedule for withdrawal, no matter how conditional on security improvements, to claim that the US forces would never leave unless they were forced to leave. They told their supporters the US was planning to permanently occupy Iraq, and it sounded believable to many Iraqis given US actions.
Hogwash. We said over and over and over that we would leave when security allowed the elected government to ask us to. The insurgents could tell all sorts of lies to justify their violence. A timetable would not have changed that one iota.
I actually enjoy Mikeca’s dogged opposition since it seems (to me) that the general vibe at Dean’s World has decisively shifted towards supporting our effort in Iraq, and, derivatively, McCain’s steadfast support of said course of action.
Question for Mikeca:
Obama was asked by Terry Moran of ABC: "Knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?"
His response was "No."
Do you think that’s an honorable answer?
HB
HB,
what do you mean by "an honorable answer?"
reasoned, seasoned, or honest?
P Mike,
I think he means intellectually honest. I heard the sound bite that Hank is referencing here. Obama said "No" and then meandered around for a moment and effectively dodged the question. He then stated that "we don’t know if my plan would have worked because we never tried it".Â
So, we know what *did* work, and he does too; yet his response is "No". That’s intellectually dishonest. He’s merely pandering to his constituency and trying to save political face.
You seem to not understand that the lack of any kind of timetable, time line or plan for withdrawal of US forces from Iraq was one of the factors fanning the flames of the insurgency. The radical insurgents could point to the US refusal to set any kind of plan or schedule for withdrawal, no matter how conditional on security improvements, to claim that the US forces would never leave unless they were forced to leave.
mikeca
The concept of withdrawal timetables is a hopelessly simplistic approach to the problems we faced and still face in Iraq. Do you leave a conflict while the enemy is still present and committing violence against the civilian population? Would it be acceptable for a surgeon to leave cancerous tissue in a patient because his "timetable" required him to go play golf? Should police officers end a standoff and walk away after some period of time?
It’s abundantly clear what the "insurgents" told the Iraqi people: "You will do it our way or we will kill you and your families until you do." And the Iraqi response to the terrorists ultimately was "Fuck you!". With significant support from US forces, they were able to retake their lives. And the process has been repeated in multiple places. Iraqi’s don’t want to be occupied by foreign forces, but they’ve learned which foreign forces they can trust, and it’s not the terrorists.
Do you think that’s an honorable answer?
Ok, I will rephrase:
Do you think it’s a good answer?
HB
Obama was asked by Terry Moran of ABC: "Knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?" His response was "No." Do you think that’s an honorable answer?Ok, I will rephrase:
Do you think it’s a good answer?
If this is what Obama believes, then it is clearly the "honorable" answer.
Obama clearly understands that only some of the improved security situation in Iraq is because of the surge. The problem with the surge was it was never a sustainable strategy. The surge troops were kept in Iraq as long as they could be kept there, and then they were forced to leave. We have no more reserves that can be deployed. The commanders in Afghanistan need more troops, but the US just does not have any troops to send and will not have any troops available to send until next year. That is the price that we have to pay for the surge in Iraq.
Obama has said that Afghanistan and Pakistan are the centeral front in the war on terrorism, not Iraq. I aggree with Obama that is was a major strategic error to make Iraq the centeral front.
Mikeca:
If this is what Obama believes, then it is clearly the "honorable" answer.
No! Honor is not merely a function of subjective belief. Many people "believe" things that aren’t good. (Also, I changed "honorable" to "good")
The surge has demonstrably worked to pacify Iraq. It was a necessary change to a policy that wasn’t working. For him to STILL be opposed to the surge, despite the new facts on the ground, means that he is a "bitter-ender." He wants to leave without victory, regardless of what is happening.
That’s not honorable.
After reading a lot of Totten, Yon and the 2 Daves here, I’m breathing a sigh of relief that we are doing good work in Iraq, improving the lives of the Iraqi people.
That’s why, in part, I am voting for McCain.
To me, Obama’s opposition to the surge, and his subsequent failure to acknowledge its objective success is an absolute deal-breaker.
If he were in charge, these Iraqi people would be getting raped and oppressed by Saddam and his sadistic sons.
The man lacks the guts to change his view in light of new facts, and thus, lacks the judgment to become Commander-in-Chief
HB
To me, Obama’s opposition to the surge, and his subsequent failure to acknowledge its objective success is an absolute deal-breaker.
Obama has acknowledged that the surge has helped to reduce violence in Iraq. He simply does not believe it was the best policy. The two questions are not the same at all.
If he were in charge, these Iraqi people would be getting raped and oppressed by Saddam and his sadistic sons.
And there would be 4000 American soldiers that would not have been killed, 30,000+ American soldiers that would not have been seriously wounded. We might well have captured Osama bin Laden and everyone may well have already forgotten about al Qaeda too.
Instead, we got Saddam and we are still letting Osama, the architect of 9/11, run around the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. I think that was the worst strategic blunder in American history. Any person that thinks these decisions were absolutely the right choices, as McCain does, clearly lacks the judgment to be president.
Ok, good response. We will have to agree to disagree.
HB
Comments on this entry are closed.