and (b) without political reconciliation the surge hasn’t accomplished its task, a point even Petraeus would probably concede

I would dare say that the Iraqi government is better reconciled than the US government.

factoid on November 20, 2007 at 1:54 PM

In case you haven’t heard, this is “The Long War”. But I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your comments warrant an answer. (Frankly, it would be easier to treat you as Professor Blather did.)
The nature of the situation in Iraq, and much of the Middle East, is this; admittedly we don’t necessarily know exactly what results our actions there will have. What we know, at least for those who’ve been there and/or understand the region, is that if we’d done nothing the result in the future, both near and far term, would *most likely* be much worse.
Guarantees? Don’t get many of those in real life. Likelihoods? Easier to come by.
Thought experiment factoid. Take your #4 and assume that there had been no intervention in Iraq. What is your best/worst case?
For extra credit, set the calendar back to the mid-1940s, make appropriate historical changes (you can guess what those might be) to all your ‘questions’. Now press play and figure out how many of them we answers for then. The point being that we don’t always know the consequences of our actions, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t act.

No. No you’re not. You’re exactly the opposite of delighted. Obviously.

You know that factoid isn’t Michael Moore, right?

Factoid, we can be happy about seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, yet still recognize that there’s a long way to go and that a successful surge doesn’t mean permanent stability in Iraq. We should be critical, but I don’t think AP is breaking out the good champagne. As for commenters on this website, commenters on any website tend to include those who oversimplify or engage in schadenfreude. I think the pokes at the Times are nothing compared to the type of alternative “reality” you’d see at a site like DailyKos. Most non-Democrats are just happy to see something good happening in Iraq. Heck, I’d like to think that most Democrats are glad, too.

certainly not if the liberals get their way and do everything possible to unseat a potential Ataturk (Musharaff?)

Don’t get me wrong, I am delighted …

factoid on November 20, 2007 at 1:54 PM

No. No you’re not. You’re exactly the opposite of delighted. Obviously.

Your belief system – even your ego – is apparently solely dependent on continued bad news from Iraq. If George Bush turns out to be right, you and your ilk may vanish in a puff of logic.

You aren’t pleased at all. People who are pleased don’t write 6 paragraphs worth of caveats and “yeah, but ..”

It speaks volumes about you.

And it makes me pity you. I can’t imagine having to hear this good news, and then write that horrid post you just offered. I really can’t. The cognitive dissonance involved, the abandonment of all principles … it must be shameful and painful.

All because you just can’t be wrong. Dead Americans don’t matter, and certainly dead Iraqis don’t matter. All that matter is proving George Bush wrong.

I pity you, friend. I truly do. The one thing we should all share is a willingness to cheer for peace.

You and yours can’t do that.

JiangxiDad on November 20, 2007 at 2:11 PM

So this whole thing about the success of the surge … the imminent collapse of the New York Times Corporation … Petreaus being like Grant (and by extension, Bush like Lincoln) … peace through strength — this was all just hype, is what you’re saying?

factoid on November 20, 2007 at 1:54 PM

Get up from your computer. Go to the window and open it. Look outside. See or hear any celebrating? Didn’t think so. Swoon alert over.

That’s the question CNN’s Poodle Spritzer should have asked her in the “Great Debate”! Think a Republican would have skated by without getting that thrown in their face had they made such a public slander? Rush gets nailed all over the MSM for one sentence extracted out of context, but Herself gets the velvet gloves treatment, after insulting the honor a General who is looking like a military genius. What would we do without the MSM protecting our right to know what they know is right?

1) During Saddam’s 30-year reign of terror about 300,000 people are said to have died unnaturally as a direct consequence of his rule (killed by his goons or slaughtered in various wars he initiated). That’s just shy of 30 dead Iraqis per day. How are we doing compared to Saddam? Can we keep the number of dead Iraqis (war related; clearly I don’t mean crime, disease or old age) substantially under 30 a day?

2) Are the achievements of the past few months sustainable without keeping close to 200,000 armed Americans (military and Blackwater types) there?

3) How long can we sustain the economic effort (spending the equivalent of 2.5% of our GDP in money borrowed from China) involved in keeping close to 200,000 armed Americans in Iraq?

4) What is our best-case scenario in, say, five years? Is Iraq going to be like Saudi Arabia (a theocratic human rights hellhole with a strong and stable central government and a pro-American foreign policy)? Is it going to be like Iran (a theocratic human rights hellhole with a strong and stable central government and an anti-American foreign policy)? Is it going to be like Afghanistan under the Taliban (a fracticiouos land made up of fiefdoms held together in the iron fist of a sectarian militia)? Can we dream about something as stable, prosperous and democratic as Turkey?

5) Looking back on March 19, 2013 (the ten-year anniversary of the invasion), what tangible, lasting benefits will the United States have derived from this venture?

6) What will happen (and when) to the 2.5 million Iraqi refugees in nearby countries and to the additional 2 million internally displaced Iraqi citizens? Will they be able to return home? Will they be absorbed by the places where they are now? How many of them will the United States absorb?

Don’t get me wrong, I am delighted that we don’t seem to have the daily, multi-dozen-victim terror attacks and intense sectarian cleansing that we had a year ago. But until we can find some reassuring answers to these questions, any talk of success rings kinda hollow to me.

BTW, I heard a clip from Laura Ingraham yesterday and she had audio of the CNN reporter who was sneeringly negative last year and who now sounds a different tune. His name escapes me at the moment, but I think it’s the guy who was suspected of being drunk during a press conference.

JammieWearingFool on November 20, 2007 at 1:15 PM

Michael Ware?

The NY Times didn’t survive the Iraq war. R.I.P.

JiangxiDad on November 20, 2007 at 1:20 PM

One can only hope and pray…

Also, the NYT is getting thinner.

BTW, I heard a clip from Laura Ingraham yesterday and she had audio of the CNN reporter who was sneeringly negative last year and who now sounds a different tune. His name escapes me at the moment, but I think it’s the guy who was suspected of being drunk during a press conference.

But it’s more than just extra soldiers, it’s also the tactics. God bless our Troops!