more bad news from Iraq
 

I don't know that he's ever believed anything else. The paradox is finding a way to do that by force without alienating the people you are trying to develop.

more bad news from Iraq
 

True. And I think we're mostly there. The death rate in Iraq today is lower than the murder rate in Chicago. (I'll try to find where I read that last night, and cite to it.)

Pretty much all true - the only reason I call it a coup, and not a counter, is that it brought the U out from the old way (of, basically, military control, no matter what they called it for public consumption) into a more true democracy. It was a regime change at heart - old, corrupt U to the new U.

more bad news from Iraq
 

Look, things seem bad there, and the only solution is for Iraquis to step up and take over. But still, there's something to what bilmore's saying here. I used to have Newshub.com bookmarked. It was a news linkage site that was updated every 15 minutes. There was way more violence going on daily across the US than I could possibly have imagined. People are violent and if you look at violence with extreme detail, you will get an sense of lack of order. At times, I wonder whether the US is "ready for elections."

more bad news from Iraq
 

I don't disagree with you or Bilmore here.

I didn't believe we went in at the right time (we should have gone straight on through from Kuwait under Bush I) and I still believe that Bush II's administration engaged in some creative thinking, rather than fact-finding, to justify their invasion.

However, having gone in, it was clearly necessary to find a way to restore the Iraqis to power under a regime chosen by the people. It appears that, to the extent possible, that is going to happen.

What I wonder about, and I don't see evidence of this yet, is how we or they are going to move things to the next level - development of a market-based economy and a society that rewards maintaining democratic principles and a growth economy.

PB Book Club
 

I'm in the midst of reading this:

http://a1055.g.akamai.net/f/1055/140...00/7426369.gif


Which might be described as Friedman plus a military outlook. Barnett is a military analyst who posits, among other things, that:

* We have little to fear from countries who have bought in to the global economy (so that the Pentagon's planning over the last 15 years for an eventual showdown with China was a horrible misapplication of resources)

* The real risk comes from those regions and countries that are the most disconnected from the global economy.

I'm still working through the book, but the argument is pro-Bush in that he argues that new, shared and agreed-upon "rule-sets" are required in the post Cold War era to deal with these problems.

It's critical of current Bush policy in that pre-emption is necessary to this new rule-set but is in no way sufficient, because (a) getting other "core" nations who are part of the globalized economy to buy into these new rule-sets is critical, and (b) for the disconnected nations in which we intervene, "smoking holes" alone will not solve, and will actually exacerbate, the problem -- the dedication to making that country more "connected" is the only thing that will ultimately work.

None of this is earth-shattering material, but it seems to provide a good way to frame the discussion. Interesting stuff.

A small success in Iraq.
 

Freedom is hard.

Its fun to make shit up
 

In Chicago last year, there were 449 murders, out of a population of just under 3 million. So that is about 15 murders per hundred thousand. (FYI, with 8 million people, NYC had 570 homicides, so a rate of less than half Chicago's - Chicago is about as bad as it gets in the US).

With a population of 25 million, a similar death rate would result in just over 3700 deaths (and I assume you mean deaths in war, not all deaths). Can you find anyone who will estimate that there have been fewer than 3700 deaths in Iraq in 2004?

The most verifable count of reported civilian Iraqi deaths is at http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ , which added well over 7,000 civilian deaths to its total in 2004. This would not include all deaths, only those reported by mutilple credible (mostly Western) sources and only civilians, so not people considered by them to be combatants. This number would exclude the run of the mill murders; it only looks to deaths resulting from the occupation. This is also the minimum number, and does not include all deaths reported by multiple credible sources - that number would be higher.

Just getting the facts straight
 

It seems like a distinction can be drawn, too, between run-of-the-mill murders that occur in connection with robberies, or spousal abuse, or killing your husband's piece-of-ass-on the side, or intimidation relating to payola, and killing specifically intended to interfere with people voting.

Just getting the facts straight.
 

I read somewhere that if you are an American soldier in Iraq, you are four as likely to die or be injured as a Chicago gang member, mainly because the gang member's have better armor for their bullet-proof Escalades.

Just getting the facts straight
 

I just can't let this go, as it is so wrong.

Hi from Detroit! (341 murdered through November, population under 1 million)

Carry on.

Just getting the facts straight
 

Congratulations - would you like to move to Falluja?

That's not what I got out of those articles at all. The siloviki did their level best to keep army and interior troops from imposing martial law and evicting protesters, but that's not a coup. [eta: stp]

The most affecting bit, I thought, was about the leading generals whose wives and daughters were protesting.

This is what a mandate looks like
 

http://home.ripway.com/2003-8/22463/approvalrating.jpg

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...os_bush_method

1. Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track?

_Right direction, 44 percent (46)

_Wrong track, 51 percent (51)

_Not sure, 5 percent (3)
(Results from early December AP poll in parentheses)


2. Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

_Approve, 49 percent

_Disapprove, 49 percent

_Mixed feelings, 2 percent


3. And when it comes to handling the economy, do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?

_Approve, 47 percent

_Disapprove, 51 percent

_Mixed feelings, 2 percent


4. And when it comes to domestic issues like health care, education and the environment, do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?

_Approve, 43 percent

_Disapprove, 56 percent

_Mixed feelings, 1 percent

5a. When it comes to handling foreign policy issues and the war on terrorism, do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?

_Approve, 50 percent

_Disapprove, 48 percent

_Mixed feelings, 2 percent

5b. When it comes to handling the situation in Iraq (news - web sites), do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?

_Approve, 44 percent

_Disapprove, 54 percent

_Mixed feelings, 2 percent

6. Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way Congress is handling its job?

_Approve, 41 percent

_Disapprove, 53 percent

_Mixed feelings, 4 percent

_Not sure, 2 percent

Its fun to make shit up
 

When I calculate my current speed, I don't factor in how fast I was going last July. I was (and the article, for which I've now begun to look for again, was) speaking of the current rate, in the last couple of months. I'm talking about a great drop-off in the killings recently. That's good news.