"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Adder
But your point was that this issue hadn't been addressed politically. You were wrong.

Which is not to say that the political solution was perfect. But it is closer to perfect than Bremmer's completely fucked up shit.

No, my point was that there was no political reconciliation. I actually knew about that law from sources like that article even before you posted it. Shiites touted that law as a tool to go after Sunnis, and in particular as a way to go after key Sunni militias. That's the opposite of political reconciliation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This article is pretty good is describing the basic situation. In my book, bottom-up reconciliation is a pipe dream, and the article shows that the surge has been a failure. Spanky can now tell me that the Financial Times is every bit as much a biased lefty tool as the GAO.

• ANALYSIS: Iraq surge brings a lull in violence but no reconciliation
  
  By Steve Negus, Iraq correspondent, Financial Times
  Published: Jan 07, 2008
  
  Already, the "surge" of US troops into Baghdad is beginning to recede, leaving behind a country where, by most accounts, levels of political violence are much reduced.
  
  But the surge has not accomplished the goal that the administration of US President George W. Bush set when it announced the policy at the beginning of last year - to buy time for Iraqi politicians to reach compromises on the country's future that would reconcile its feuding ethnic and sectarian factions.
  
  US officers say that such a grand compromise may not be so important. They have achieved "bottom-up" reconciliation by cementing local alliances and arranging for the amnesty of prisoners, the pensioning off of former regime officials and other measures to win Sunni acceptance for the Shia-led government.
  
  Over the next year, as neighbourhoods, towns and districts lose the US garrisons that helped suppress sectarian militias and insurgent groups and maintain the balance of power, the ability of these improvised measures to withstand the centrifugal forces of Iraqi sectarian politics will be put to the test.
  
  US forces numbered approximately 160,000 at the end of December, down from a high of over 170,000 in October. Robert Gates, US defence secretary, said last month that the military should be able to withdraw five brigades, or around 20,000 soldiers, by mid-2008, and hoped to take out another five by the end of this year.
  
  British troops will also be winding down their deployment in Iraq, with numbers expected to fall from 5,000 to 2,500 in the middle of next year.
  
  In terms of reducing violence, the strategy orchestrated by General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, appears to have succeeded beyond its planners' expectations. Both US military casualties and Iraqi civilian casualties have fallen dramatically since the summer.
  
  But many Iraqi politicians and Iraq analysts fear that unless the government can reach agreement with its political opponents, the lull in violence may not last. "If this improvement in security is not matched by improvements in political life, economy, unemployment and the services for the standard of living, [or] if there is no reconciliation, nobody can guarantee that this security would not deteriorate again," says Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish politician.
  
  "What Petraeus has accomplished is a lull that is sustainable through the American elections [in November 2008]," says Joost Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based think-tank. "It's not indefinitely sustainable without political accommodation at the top . . . This is conventional wisdom and it makes sense."
  
  Gen Petraeus himself said last month that, although the violence that had brought Iraq to the "brink of civil war" had receded, the progress had been "tenuous in many areas and could be reversed".
  
  According to American officers, the surge worked by allowing the US and Iraqi governments to blanket strategic districts, in some cases placing troops in positions where they could overlook virtually every main road junction.
  
  This allowed US forces to intercept guerrillas moving in and out - and, more importantly, to break the hold that insurgents had gained on neighbourhoods via intimidation. Fatalities suffered by the US-led coalition fell to 40 a month in October and November, and 23 in December, from well over 100 a month in each of April, May and June. Figures for civilian dead also suggest a drop of more than 50 per cent since the summer.
  
  In addition, both Sunni and Shia armed groups appear to have suffered a significant loss of legitimacy among their support bases. Members of both sects say that the gunmen alienated the civilian population by imposing a puritan version of Islamic law or by killing locals suspected of being informants.
  
  Iraq's al-Qaeda network, in particular, sparked a massive backlash. Over 70,000 paramilitaries, or "concerned local citizens", enlisted in neighbourhood patrols targeted mainly at the radical Sunni movement.
  
  Shia militants also appear to have lost legitimacy. Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical cleric, continues to enforce a ban on all armed activity in areas controlled by his movement, and his deputies say that that they have formed a special "Golden Unit" to purge members suspected of criminal violence or sectarian killing.
  
  However, the retreat of the armed movements does not appear to have been accompanied by a corresponding increase in the authority and legitimacy of the Iraqi state. Gen Petraeus has said that as al-Qaeda activity lessens in Sunni areas, "mafia-like" criminal organisations practising kidnapping and extortion expand to fill the gap. Meanwhile, the British military's recent withdrawal from Basra city stems from the realisation that it could do little to stop feuding among Islamist militia groups.
  
  Some analysts have suggested Basra is a glimpse into Iraq's medium-term future. The violence there, which probably results in several dozen dead a month, is hardly a serious threat to the Iraqi state. But the climate of lawlessness ensures that investors steer clear of an oil-rich port city that could be Iraq's economic and commercial capital - and that the middle class, which fled en masse to neighbouring countries, does not return.
  
  Meanwhile, Iraqi politicians have failed to deliver the hoped-for "national reconciliation" package of legislation. Parliament adjourned at the end of the year without having approved important legislation on the distribution of oil revenues and the fate of members of the former ruling Ba'ath party. Given the heated rhetoric that continues to fly between Kurds and Arabs, Sunni and Shia, it appears that the much-vaunted "consensus" may not in fact exist.
  
  It could be the US troop presence, rather than low-profile trust-building measures, that is the crucial factor in keeping the feuding factions apart. "The Americans can [prevent local conflicts] now because they have leverage through the military," says Mr Hiltermann.
  
  The US surge does appear to have interrupted the cycle of violence that a year ago seemed to be pushing Iraq inexorably into all-out sectarian war. But it has not bought Iraqis enough time to resolve their differences and it is unclear whether local ceasefires can last without US troops to help resolve disagreements and prevent groups from settling their disputes by force.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What we're arguing about is whether winning some military victories and losing the larger political battle -- like Tet, or like winning some evidentiary rulings and losing the verdict -- can fairly be called a partial victory. For reasons that elude me, you think so. You appear to think that our strategy in Iraq is to side with the Shias over the Sunnis and Kurds. You either aren't paying attention to what we're doing over there, or you're so incredibly cynical that you understand what we say but attribute it all to some other secret agenda.

I don't think McCain is misguided because we're actually losing battles that he thinks we're winning. I think he's misguided because military successes are not enough.

That's not what we're talking about, and you're not redefining this argument or dragging it out further to save face here. This is the crux of the debate, and these posts explain how and why you are embarrassing yourself:

1419
1421
1433
1438
1451
1459
1461

Have you ever admitted you overreached or mis-spoke or lost on a point of contention or are you one of those douchebags who just keeps filing reconsideration briefs over and over? On the issue of whether you glaringly and knowingly overreached and wrongly asserted broadly that the Surge is a total failure, you'd have lost pages of posts ago.

Oh, and by the way, in regard to the "in your book" standard upon which you repeatedly base your claim the Surge is a total failure, please PM me the Ty Slothrop Codebook along with updates on annotations so that I may have the proper authorities at hand when we debate.

I like you, but you're nuts.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
That's not what we're talking about, and you're not redefining this argument or dragging it out further to save face here. This is the crux of the debate, and these posts explain how and why you are embarrassing yourself:

1419
1421
1433
1438
1451
1459
1461

Have you ever admitted you overreached or mis-spoke or lost on a point of contention or are you one of those douchebags who just keeps filing reconsideration briefs over and over? On the issue of whether you glaringly and knowingly overreached and wrongly asserted broadly that the Surge is a total failure, you'd have lost pages of posts ago.

Oh, and by the way, in regard to the "in your book" standard upon which you repeatedly base your claim the Surge is a total failure, please PM me the Ty Slothrop Codebook along with updates on annotations so that I may have the proper authorities at hand when we debate.

I like you, but you're nuts.

I am arguing about Iraq, and you are arguing about arguing. My first post on this subject was #1412, which read:

• The scary thing is that McCain thinks the surge worked. Its proponents set out benchmarks by which its success could be judged. By those benchmarks, it failed. This a Tinker Bell foreign policy -- if you just really believe, Iraq will be OK.

There is no daylight between what I said then and what I keep saying.

Your reply, #1414, read in part:

• Yes, if something doesn't hit an absolute 100% of its goals it is an utter failure.
  
  I don't support the war, but I'll meet you in the middle and say the Surge has made a considerable difference, somewhere in the area of 70% of its goals.

You don't seem to know what the surge's goals were, and you pulled the 70% figure out of your ass. I did know what the surge's goals were, I never said anything about wanting "an absolute 100%" success rate, and -- unlike you -- I've linked to articles about what I'm talking about.

If you want to explain your theory that we are really siding with the Shiites against the Sunni, or vice verse, and that is success in your book, go nuts. If you can't, go on arguing about how I argue.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


But the surge has not accomplished the goal that the administration of US President George W. Bush set when it announced the policy at the beginning of last year - to buy time for Iraqi politicians to reach compromises on the country's future that would reconcile its feuding ethnic and sectarian factions.

by this standard it is 100% successful. it has bought the time, the Politicians may not have moved as fast, but some hesitation is understandable. and as long as some of the steps happen over the next months, the fact that they are a few months late is a rather lame complaint.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
by this standard it is 100% successful. it has bought the time, the Politicians may not have moved as fast, but some hesitation is understandable. and as long as some of the steps happen over the next months, the fact that they are a few months late is a rather lame complaint.

I bought a mail-order pony. They charged my credit card, but I don't have a pony yet. That's OK -- I'm sure it's coming.

Incidentally, "a few months" is about equal to a "Friedman unit," which is the upcoming interval which Tom Friedman is always saying will be crucial to whether we succeed or fail in Iraq. Success is always just around the corner.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I am arguing about Iraq, and you are arguing about arguing. My first post on this subject was #1412, which read:

• The scary thing is that McCain thinks the surge worked. Its proponents set out benchmarks by which its success could be judged. By those benchmarks, it failed. This a Tinker Bell foreign policy -- if you just really believe, Iraq will be OK.

There is no daylight between what I said then and what I keep saying.

Your reply, #1414, read in part:

• Yes, if something doesn't hit an absolute 100% of its goals it is an utter failure.
  
  I don't support the war, but I'll meet you in the middle and say the Surge has made a considerable difference, somewhere in the area of 70% of its goals.

You don't seem to know what the surge's goals were, and you pulled the 70% figure out of your ass. I did know what the surge's goals were, I never said anything about wanting "an absolute 100%" success rate, and -- unlike you -- I've linked to articles about what I'm talking about.

If you want to explain your theory that we are really siding with the Shiites against the Sunni, or vice verse, and that is success in your book, go nuts. If you can't, go on arguing about how I argue.

And you were wrong in post 1412 because you spoke in an absolute, knowing as you later admitted, that the surge did not fail to meet all of its benchmarks and was in fact a tactical and military success on many levels.

This is an argument about the way you argued because your in initial point was too broad, and implied that the Surge was a complete failure when in fact that wasn't the case. You omitted noting that important fact, however, for reasons having to do with, I believe, your political views.

The Surge has created military and tactical successes, by your own admission. How do you square that with "This is a Tinker Bell foroegn policy -- if you just really believe, Iraq will be ok"? That's clearly not the case.

I'm not getting into the Shiite/Sunni issue one bit because that's beyond the scope of my simple point, and I have no interest in hearing your dilletante's primer on the subject. I can get that kind of cheap sketch from the New York Times, without the self-righteous "I am always right!" hook on the end of it.

Well, maybe not. We are talking about the Old Grey Whore there.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I bought a mail-order pony. They charged my credit card, but I don't have a pony yet. That's OK -- I'm sure it's coming.

Incidentally, "a few months" is about equal to a "Friedman unit," which is the upcoming interval which Tom Friedman is always saying will be crucial to whether we succeed or fail in Iraq. Success is always just around the corner.

Congratulations. You are now on an intellectual continuum with Laura Bush, who if I recall correctly used the same irrefutable logic in defense of refusing to fund stem cell research. "We just don't know for sure when these things might create advances, so why try?"

We're already there and everybody who doesn't have shit for brains on this issue realizes it's the stupidest fucking move imaginable to just up and run from the place. Do you really believe that Obama or Hillary would withdraw us? Are you that gullible or wrapped up in reading academic noodlings about the matter or listening to talking heads discuss it on NPR to see that obvious fact? Jesus Christ. A Ten year old with a few months of social studies and geography under his belt could understand that simple reality of the situation.

We're there for another ten years, at least, whatever party's in office. This whole silly debate is academic nonsense.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You don't seem to know what the surge's goals were, and you pulled the 70% figure out of your ass.

You're right, I did. That was a back of the envelope guess and is not credible as a piece of tested, empirical evidence.

But that's an irrelevant point, because the comments which got you into this argument were absolutes, and the point of my criticism was that you were wrongly making an argument about degree into an argument about absolutes to make a broader point you couldn't support. And that doing so is part of a disingenuous method of argument you apply on these issues because, I think, you can't deal with anyone disproving what you desperately want the situation in Iraq to be (a stunning defeats of every inch of every Republican policy).

So yes, you have my concession on the 70% thing. But no, I'm not going to let you change the argument so you can now present the initial dispute as one of degree. You offered an absolute and you were wrong and you can write until your fingers fall off but that fact isn't going to change.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I bought a mail-order pony. They charged my credit card, but I don't have a pony yet. That's OK -- I'm sure it's coming.

Incidentally, "a few months" is about equal to a "Friedman unit," which is the upcoming interval which Tom Friedman is always saying will be crucial to whether we succeed or fail in Iraq. Success is always just around the corner.

here's what I'd do- I'd try to get my pony, make some calls, bug some people. I'd keep at it as long as I saw some progress in getting the pony. But you plan on selling your house because the pony hasn't arrived?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
And you were wrong in post 1412 because you spoke in an absolute, knowing as you later admitted, that the surge did not fail to meet all of its benchmarks and was in fact a tactical and military success on many levels.

When I wrote that post, I had the GAO report about 3 of 18 benchmarks in mind. So if you think I was talking in the sort of absolutes you describe, perhaps the fault lies with your reading. When I look back at my earlier posts in this exchange, I think they're consistent with what I've said all along. My main point is that the fact that McCain looks at what happened and thinks that it was a good idea makes me question his judgment and think that I don't want him to be President.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
here's what I'd do- I'd try to get my pony, make some calls, bug some people. I'd keep at it as long as I saw some progress in getting the pony. But you plan on selling your house because the pony hasn't arrived?

No -- I'm just going to stop the payments on a pony I'm never going to see.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No -- I'm just going to stop the payments on a pony I'm never going to see.

sounds like you didn't really want a pony in the first place

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No -- I'm just going to stop the payments on a pony I'm never going to see.

Excellent analogy. For a different debate.

In this debate, if you stop making payments on that pony, a multinational terror haven for Islamist extremists bent on attacking our country will erupt in our wake and destabilize the entire Middle East and have hideous economic effects on every single global market.

We have made a mess in Iraq, but it is ludicrous and imbecillic to argue that the best course is to cut and run. I appreciate your anger that Bush has put us into a war we can't leave, but the fact is, if we leave, that nation will implode. You're reasonable enough to recognize that fact.

We broke it. We bought it. It's a rotten, shitty situation, but that's the reality of it. So if we're stuck there and have to keep troops on the ground, then why not a Surge that has shown some positive results?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When I wrote that post, I had the GAO report about 3 of 18 benchmarks in mind. So if you think I was talking in the sort of absolutes you describe, perhaps the fault lies with your reading. When I look back at my earlier posts in this exchange, I think they're consistent with what I've said all along. My main point is that the fact that McCain looks at what happened and thinks that it was a good idea makes me question his judgment and think that I don't want him to be President.

It was a good idea, and you can't make a single logical argument that it wasn't.

A. We're stuck there indefinitely because leaving would plunge the country into chaos (it's simply idiotic to argue otherwise, so don't waste my time with that sort of silly reply).

B. The surge has shown positive results militarily (Read: the country is safer in some spots, and the size of those spots is getting bigger).

C. The surge is the only plan we've enacted that has had any positive impact so far.

There's simply no sensible logical reason to not utilize the surge since we're there already, and John McCain's judgment it has been a success, while a bit overzealous because it is an election year, is based on a simple logical consideration that a situation made even a tiny, incremental bit better has been improved and therefore whetever policy led to that improvement ought to be continued.

What would you do? We aren't cutting and running, no matter who gets elected, so put that Left Wing Fantasy tale out of your mind for now and tell me, while we're stuck there, would you rather have our soldiers just stand around and do what they were doing before the surge or try to improve the situation? And if not the surge, what plan would you have us follow over there? I hear a lot of criticism from you, but not a whole lot of ideas, which tells me your arguments are informed more by forthing anger with our administration than clear thinking on the issues. So tell me... We're stuck there and you're president. What's your plan?