Waiting for Fitzgerald

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We've been there for how many months, and there is one battalion of 800 Iraqis (read: Kurds) capable of fighting on their own. At that rate, success it right around the corner.

A deliberately calculated mis-statement of the truth, and I suspect you know why. (That was as politely as I could say that. Sorry.)

----------------

"AT HIS PRESS CONFERENCE ON October 4, President Bush took a question about the number of Iraqi military units engaged in fighting insurgents and terrorists. Bush, the reporter noted, had once said there were 100 Iraqi battalions in combat "across the nation." But in an appearance on Capitol Hill, two U.S. Army generals had recently said "there's only one battle-ready battalion" of Iraqi soldiers, according to the reporter. "Something is not adding up here."

Bush offered only a little help in reconciling the numbers. "Right now there are over 80 [Iraqi] battalions fighting alongside coalition troops," he said. "There are over 30 Iraqi battalions in the lead. And that is substantial progress from the way the world was a year ago." But what about the single "battle-ready" unit of Iraqi troops? Bush didn't say.

The result was confusion, as with so much else about Iraq when viewed from Washington. This is not solely the fault of a press corps unsympathetic to the Bush administration and the war in Iraq. The president and the generals had tried to say the same thing about Iraqi troops, but ended up sounding like they were contradicting each other. Reporters, most of them anyway, didn't go to the trouble of straightening out the numbers.

. . . . .

But what about that single "battle-ready" battalion of Iraqis? Bush didn't broach the subject, but the man in charge of training Iraqi soldiers, Gen. David Petraeus, did. Speaking at the Pentagon the day before Bush's speech, Petraeus cleared up the troop numbers, but only after weeks of confusion. He got minimal media coverage. "There are now over 197,000 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces," he said. And "there are over 115 police and army combat battalions in the fight."

The mixup came over the four categories that measure the level of independence of Iraqi forces. About 80 battalions "are assessed as fighting alongside our forces," Petraeus said. Bush got that right. They belong to category three. Only one battalion needs "no coalition assistance whatsoever--i.e., fully independent." That's category one. A "substantial number" of another 35 "have their own areas of operation," but fight with American soldiers embedded in their units. These "allow coalition units to focus elsewhere or eventually to go home." They comprise category two. So Iraqi battalions rated one, two, and three add up to roughly 115 "battle-ready" units--not one. Category four troops aren't ready for combat."

---------------

More

(ETA) - Sorry, forgot to make my point.

You made that statement with the intention of communicating how little progress we've made - how we've come up with ONE Iraqi battalion in all this time, when (as I'm sure you're aware) we have made up almost a complete army, most of which is getting close to that truly independant stage. You tried to communicate a false paradigm by using just-the-right misleading words.

Can I assume that the strength of your positions and logic is such that truth doesn't help you advance them?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
What you saw was a power play by McCain, pulling a PR move that effectively pulls power from the executive branch that needs to stay with the executive branch.

The executive branch should be able to determine both what the law is, and how to enforce it.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by bilmore
To my memory, he's freed several more countries from totalitarian despot governments than did the last several presidents. Maybe Reagan might give him a run for his money, but . . . Carter? Clinton? Bush 1? (Okay, he's probably tied for second with Reagan.)

When did you guys become the party of "ignore that crying child, he's not mine"?

Who gets credit for all of the Iron Curtain? Because whomever that is (Bush I? Reagan?) totally kicks W's ass on the totalitarian despot government ending department. That was like, what, 20?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The executive branch should be able to determine both what the law is, and how to enforce it.

No, that's Justice Kennedy's job.

(In this instance, I think the Constitution has something to teach us. It even deals with things like war. Cool document, that.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Then Bilmore said:
The people at Treblinka were happy for a less- than-perfect result. So, apparently, were many Iraqis.

Neither I nor Bilmore thought that was what he was saying. Nor could anyone think that in suggesting that it was hubris to think that we could change another country's culture, I was trying to suggest that any "less-than-perfect result" is, perforce, unacceptable.

But thanks for playing.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Who gets credit for all of the Iron Curtain? Because whomever that is (Bush I? Reagan?) totally kicks W's ass on the totalitarian despot government ending department. That was like, what, 20?

Touche'.

(But, wait . . . Ty told me that wasn't Reagan, it was just an accident of history.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
A deliberately calculated mis-statement of the truth, and I suspect you know why. (That was as politely as I could say that. Sorry.)

My point -- which is that there is just one Iraqi battalion capable of fighting independently -- was accurate. Your article confirms this, and I'm not sure what your beef is.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
While the thug Hussein is no longer taking shots, it turns that Iraq is much more fucked up than might be suspected by those whose grasp on the situation there reduces to calling the head despot a thug.

Which is to say that if you think Iraq is a big success story, we have a lot to talk about before we get to matters of abiding principle. Which was, after all, my point.

I don't think you grasp how bad things were in Iraq before we came in. No human rights, no economy and total opressoin. And, I almost forgot, incarceration and torture on a massive scale that makes the "torture" at Gitmo seem like a tea party. And lets not forget the liquidation of hundred of thousands of people. And there was no end in sight to this situation.

So instead of mass incarcertaions of innocent people, we have some insurgents going to jail. Instead of massive torture chambers where people are hung on meat hooks, have wire attached to their genitals, and are slowly beaten and starved to death, prisoners are having their photographs taken while naked next to - oh no - women. Yes the torture has gotten a lot worse.

Today there are daily car bombings where before we had massive killing fields and mass graves. Today civilians are getting caught in the cross fire, where before they were the targest on a massive scale.

Today some people lose their homnes, where under Saddam he drained the swamps of southern Iraq, not only depriving millions of people of their homes but also of their livelihood. Oh, and lets not forget the gassing of the Kurds.

But hey, women had as much rights as men (none) but of course any day they could be picked up by the national guard or one of Saddams sons and raped and beaten to death.

In addition, with all the great things happeneing under Saddam there was no hope that it was going to change. In the current situation things may just get better.

And, I know, the elections in Iraq today are not nearly as free as they were under Saddam, because under Saddam you had a 99% turnout and everyone voted for him. That way no one had to be killed for trying to vote the wrong way.

Hey - you know you are right - things were much better under Saddam.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Hey - you know you are right - things were much better under Saddam.

Unless you find where I said that, stand in line behind Bilmore for those remedial reading comprehension classes.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Neither I nor Bilmore thought that was what he was saying. Nor could anyone think that in suggesting that it was hubris to think that we could change another country's culture, I was trying to suggest that any "less-than-perfect result" is, perforce, unacceptable.

You said "Ty might say that you shouldn't try to haphazardly change a culture, since government doesn't do that well."

"Since" had some meaning, right? Like, as a causative factor? And, "haphazardly" also has some meaning, right? Like, without a perfect plan or expectation of a perfect result?

Sorry, but Spanky was dead-on.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
My point -- which is that there is just one Iraqi battalion capable of fighting independently -- was accurate.

It was exactingly accurate. Precise. Dead on.

And a calculated lie in that you attempted to infer a larger point that is completely untrue.

Can't you defend your own positions honorably?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Unless you find where I said that, stand in line behind Bilmore for those remedial reading comprehension classes.

Well excuse me. So are you saying that things are better now than they were under Saddam? So the invasion had a positive net effect for the Iraqi people?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
While the thug Hussein is no longer taking shots, it turns that Iraq is much more fucked up than might be suspected by those whose grasp on the situation there reduces to calling the head despot a thug.

Which is to say that if you think Iraq is a big success story, we have a lot to talk about before we get to matters of abiding principle. Which was, after all, my point.

I had assumed that when you said this that you were implying that Iraq was not better off after the invasion. I apologize for that. It is good to know that you recognize that things have improved for the Iraq people after our invasion.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
You said "Ty might say that you shouldn't try to haphazardly change a culture, since government doesn't do that well."

"Since" had some meaning, right? Like, as a causative factor? And, "haphazardly" also has some meaning, right? Like, without a perfect plan or expectation of a perfect result?

Sorry, but Spanky was dead-on.

I feel like I am talking to a pair of particularly slow kindergarteners in having to say this, but one might use force to stop what is happening at a concentration camp (e.g., Treblinka) without using (more) force to try to change that country's culture.

If -- if -- Hussein had been killing people in 2002 on anything like the scale achieved by the Nazis in 1944, then we could have found a way to use force to stop him without embarking on the project of turning Iraq into a western democracy. As it happens, we did not need to contemplate this problem, because the no-fly zone was already preventing Hussein from committing genocide against many Iraqis.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Well excuse me. So are you saying that things are better now than they were under Saddam? So the invasion had a positive net effect for the Iraqi people?

In some ways, things are better (e.g., people can vote). In some, they are worse (e.g., the power is on less often, and there are more car-bombings). The key question is, where are we headed?