Asymmetrical Information

We're not leaving Iraq.

For a number of reasons. Including a real army needs to train over the long haul. And, we've got plenty of enemies. Why would we give up stationing ourselves here? We need the Turks? Or the Germans? to give us permission? When did that happen?

My guess is that Bush is hunkered down because the press never gives him a break, anyway. And, it's not very different from what I see in Israel, where Arik Sharon has a definite majority of support; but a 5th column of dirty tricks by newspapers that spew venom is best met with silence.

Most of us don't understand this rule. And, I don't know why?

There should be a rule out there that only losers talk.

Also, Clinton's legacy isn't finished. Unfortunately, we got the worst of the people with polished resumes into positions that gave them power. And, I wouldn't be a large part of this came from the fringes. Straight out of PC.

This is the stuff that has to fly apart.

One thing I think we'll get from Wesley Clark (who, accordinag to General Shelton NEVER deserved his 4th star) ... is that these nincompoops will be left without the power they've been hoping to grasp.

Will it take rebuilding? You betcha.

But it's going to take lots of time.

And, the more time it takes the less it looks like a movie. Bush is going to come out of this fine. I think by 2004's election he will sweep the floor with the democrats.

One way to tell is to listen to the sounds of Hillary's feet. There's a good chance she will never bet on a national run. What she does well is similar to the way she invested in 'futures' way back in the days when Tyson covered both sides of the table on the bets. And, she picked up the contracts that won. She then raced the hell away from there.

In politics? My guess is she either stays in her senate seat (and what happens if Schumer doesn't?). And, what happens if she challenges the next NY Governor's run since Pataki can't run again for governor. But he can chase Schumer out of Washington. Yes, it can happen!

Lots of things can happen. But Hillary shooting her wad is not how this woman gambles. You just have to notice how Gray Davis took the fall. You didn't see a single female politician's body next to his defeated corpse. Not Pelosi. Not Feinstein. And, not Boxer.

You think it's a joke that Dennis Miller may not run as a republican up ahead? You think there are better ideas now within the republican party than to take out Boxer with NAME RECOGNITION?

You don't think Jay Leno can get some competition from the senate, itself? How so?

hmm,
so you like this article meagan? really?

what interested me was this quote: "Of course, the administration does have a plan. And central to that plan is, well, spending money to rebuild Iraq. The Democrats make it sound like all the U.S. Army is doing in Iraq is having one giant-sized Chinese fire drill every day."

what i find interesting about it is that the rest of the article doesn't tell us what that plan is! "spend blood & tresure" goldberg says. and he spends the rest of his time on the attack against democrats for being, how can i put this..."dishonest, traitorous, opportunistic, without principle, etc, etc." i wonder why that is? because they are? because he can't think of anything intelligble to say on THE PLAN?

ho-hum. this appears to be the level of debate at the moment. at least rumsfield's memo was an interesting read and pointed to some interesting ideas... this article smells off.

I liked the quote, cas. I said nothing about the article, did I?

Well, cas, I have to admit I take a certain partisan pleasure in Jonah Goldberg's stuff. But that's just me enjoying listening to someone I agree with bash the folks I don't agree with. I suppose I shouldn't advertise that, but at least I'm honest about it... does that count for anything??

As concerns the administration's plan in Iraq, I'd like to see one too, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to ask for one. It's all too dependent on variables outside the control of Bremer & co. Frankly, I think the best "plan" for Iraq right now is to give the military a free hand with reconstruction money. They seem to be doing a pretty efficient job. Of course, there was a rumor over at Instapundit today that the plug has been pulled on that particular program. If that turns out to be true, I'll be a lot less sanguine about the Administration's plan, or lack thereof.

"what i find interesting about it is that the rest of the article doesn't tell us what that plan is!"

"i wonder why that is? because they are? because he can't think of anything intelligble to say on THE PLAN?"

Iraq is an Islamic culture with many diverse and distinct ethnic types inside of it's borders. For over a thousand years it was ruled by a monarchy, and then it was ruled by military dictators. The last one was in power for a very long time because he built a police state that ruthlessly ferreted out any possible source of dissent and killed it.

What does this mean? It means that Iraq is a place where religion is more important than rationalism, where corruption and violence are endemic, and where the very idea of democratic rule is completely alien.

The first step to bring democracy to such a place is to build infrastructure to improve the lives of the citizens and encourage economic growth. The next is to lead them slowly, baby step by baby step, until they enough of them realize that corruption, cronyism and nepotism is wrong (or at least would land their butt in jail). Finally, after the basic outline of democratic government is in place, would it be possible to slowly assign ever more responsibility to the interim government.

Finally, after years of effort, they'll hold their first fair and free election. After we make sure that it is free and fair we can start to think about bringing everyone home.

This is pretty common sense stuff. It's pretty obvious to me even though I'm just some average Joe. It's also obvious that there simply can't be any hard-and-fast rules out there. The cultural diversity of Iraq means that what would work with the Kurds up north would be a disaster if applied to the Sunnis in the middle.

So I always wonder what someone means when they start going on about how they don't have enough details about "The Plan". What in the world could they possibly mean? Do they actually think that there's some sort of timetable out there? "Monday-Wave Magic Wand. Tuesday-Democracy is Created Out of Nothingness. Wednesday-Build 'Baghdad-Disneyworld'."

Most of the people who complain about the lack of details are most assuredly not stupid. So why are they asking these questions? Can't they simply see for themselves how difficult, how time-consuming a task this is?

Well, I can't speak for all of them. But it's been my experience from the few I've been able to engage in debate that they simply don't care about any of the difficulties involved. They simply want to bitch and moan about the current administration and they think this is a way to humiliate Bush.

Personally I wouldn't mind some polite, well-reasoned debate. The people who complain about things like this, so far, haven't been able to provide it.

James

Goldberg is, of couse, quite correct on the point in his quote. Which, however, still leaves us with the question of why we got into Iraq in the first place, given that (A) the Administration seriously exaggerated the evidence of a nuclear-weapon development program, and (B) the fact that, as a result, a very large part of our military is now tied down in this region at precisely the times when Iran and North Korea are souping up their own very real Bomb programs (to say nothing of the possibility that Pakistan may give us trouble in the not-too-distant future, and the need to provide more troops to keep Al-Qaida from triumphantly reentering a large part of Afghanistan).

The reason, as we all now know, is that the dominant wing of this administration ridiculously overestimated the ease with which Iraq could be reformed, and thus felt justified in telling itsy-bitsy fibbies about the WMD evidence in order to persuade Congress and the people to back a war (as well as deliberately concealing from Congress for three weeks the White House's discovery that North Korea had restarted its own Bomb factory until Bush had his Iraq war resolution, after which it revealed the news to Congress within hours).

So: we may very well have to stay in Iraq NOW. The question is whether we should politically reward an administration both inept enough to get us into it in the first place for glaringly incorrect reasons, and dishonest enough to tell major lies to back up (and now try to conceal) their misjudgement. It still seems obvious to me that we are, on the scale of the world as a whole, confronted with WW III; we will not only have to massively increse our military spending to cope with it, but probably also bring back the draft. But do you really trust either event in the hands of this collection of dishonest clunkheads?

Well, at least you were one-upped by The National Review. It could've been worse- it could've been Mother Jones.

what i find interesting about it is that the rest of the article doesn't tell us what that plan is!

Sure he does. Here it is in Goldberg's own words:

Of course, the administration does have a plan. And central to that plan is, well, spending money to rebuild Iraq.

Obviously this isn't good enough for some people. They want a powerpoint presentation by some professorial type. They want a high-minded lecture in the Science of Nation Building.

(What, by the way, was the "plan" in Kosovo but to stop genocide? What is the "plan" there now?)

I thought Goldberg did a pretty good job exposing the fatuity of plan-obsessed nitpickers:

One can just imagine John Kerry going to the local garage:

Kerry: I won't pay you to fix my car until you have a plan.

Mechanic: Um, I do have a plan: You pay me. I replace the engine I just took out. Your car works. That's the plan.

Kerry: How can you say you have a plan? Look at the terrible shape my car is in. It's worse than before; there isn't even an engine.

Mechanic: You're an idiot.

But maybe it's just me.

Owen, that is the best part. Did Jane pay you to bring it up, so she could avoid quoting the sarcastic part where Jonah calls Kerry an idiot, and thereby maintain her editorial even-handed, non-biased economist, just the facts persona? (But still get the laugh.)

On other threads, I've seen it suggested that there's insufficient planning for the $87 billion because the paperwork was only 200 pages long. Only.

I'm not nearly as interested in what the plan is as I am in the execution. It's possible to become so obsessed with a detailed plan that you spend a huge amount of time and attention replanning every time the plan has to be amended, which is pretty much a given in any endeavor.

Imagine the plan for Columbus' crossing of the Atlantic. Even more interesting would be the plan for the voyage of the Beagle. I'm sure those documents have survived and serve as valuable lessons to those of us who follow in their footsteps.

So Jane, I guess now that you're a Big Media type this isn't just amateur jealousy?

hi all,
thanks for the feedback on the question i raised re: THE PLAN. the issue i see is simply this. we have a large document of minutiae for spending $87 billion. we have people saying: how can you expect to have something like THE PLAN in such a complex historical environment as iraq? and i read an interesting statement of what THE PLAN looked like if one were articulated in a rational way. for all that, thank you.

but, as i see it, and you are welcome to disagree with me, we are skirting the issue of why we haven't had THE PLAN. bush got up and asked for $87 billion dollars. did you not notice in that speech that he did not articulate what we would be in for and for how long, apart from generalized platitudes of "the long haul"; and "how ever much dinari it takes." great. if that is "maintaining a flexible response" and keeping options open, and you are happy with that, so be it (if stockholders in a company were asked to go along with an ambitious plan, i think they might a bit more than this). but i am not. and here is why.

the major fear right now is that we will bug out of iraq BEFORE the job is done. and what will help that to happen? perhaps sinking poll numbers, and a poll driven presidency that sees its chances of winning slipping away in november next year because of continued difficulties in iraq. the issue for the next election won't be the economy (which should be healthy--as long as we don't look at the down the road costs of all this increase in aggregate demand). its going to be iraq, if we are still there.

so, this is were the vague assurances come in. hands up those of us who think that we will still be in iraq in july/september next year if things are still unimproved and americans are still coming home in body bags in the same or increasing numbers (or if we have a bit of a disaster with 20-40 american dead in a bad day?), and international orgs are leaving, etc., etc., etc.? how many of us find us declaring victory, have a constitution in place, elections held, and "mission finally accomplished" scrolled across the news channels, and us leaving?

many folks trust that bush and co will do the right thing and stay, even if it costs them politically. everything i have seen so far about this presidency (and i had no higher regard for clinton) tells me they will cut bait and run if the choice is to stay or be re-elected.

summary: we don't have an articulated PLAN with clear performance goals because the white house wants maximum flexibility to fight and win the next election. if that means cutting iraq off at the knees, they will do it.

Cas:

I can see you've convinced yourself, but the some of the rest of us require something resembling a cogent argument that supports an opinion like that.

Other than that, there's a few other flaws. Bush doesn't have to present US with a specific plan, because we're not the ones who approve funding. If you're unsatisfied with the degree of planning WRT Iraq, I suggest you contact your congressman and communicate those concerns.

And I will go on record to say that if Iraq is cut off at the knees (whatever that means) for whatever reason, Bush can count on losing my vote. And I will deliver on that promise. I'm not saying that I'll vote for any of his opponents, just that he won't get my vote. It's myunsubstantiated opinion that if we screw Iraq, Republicans will return the favor by throwing Bush in the dumper. Even if it means a guaranteed four years under a President who's a Democrat.

"...but, as i see it, and you are welcome to disagree with me, we are skirting the issue of why we haven't had THE PLAN. bush got up and asked for $87 billion dollars. did you not notice in that speech that he did not articulate what we would be in for and for how...."

You need to take a chill pill concerning this "The Plan" stuff. Human beings can only plan to a certain extent. At best, they usually have no more than a general idea---and then they muddle through with the details. The plan should also not be forevermore unchangeable. We should go with the flow in Iraq.

Dear Cas,

I disagree with you about Pres. Bush.

He seems more honest, smart, tough, and decent than any previous President that I know about.

I don't agree with everything he does. But I trust him so much that when he does something that seems strange to me, my initial reaction is that he knows something that I don't, and I should find out more about it.

I actually find that most people are very trustworthy. It just seems unusual that a President should have such an honest character.
His dad seemed to mean well, but he was less scrupulous about promising things he didn't deliver on.
As for Clinton, he was the most unscrupulous President of the twentieth century. I will never be able to forgive his dishonesty, because he will never stop being dishonest. I'm very disappointed in him.

I'm sorry to go negative, but I don't want to ignore reality. It's hard to appreciate how important it is to have an honest President now, without remembering what we had before.
Democrats are not dumber or more dishonest than Republicans. But Democrats need to learn that Bush is much more honest than Clinton. I hope most already have.

“But Democrats need to learn that Bush is much more honest than Clinton. I hope most already have.”

The tragedy is that I’m convinced that Bill Clinton is more talented than George W. Bush. Our previous president’s basic dishonesty prevented him from becoming one of the greatest leaders in the nation’s history. Bush is a hard working man who possesses the right basic instincts. In the long run, those values are far more valuable than mere talent.

This is very enlightening. I had no idea Bill Clinton was to blame for our unjustified war against Iraq. The Internet is truly amazing.

summary: we don't have an articulated PLAN with clear performance goals because the white house wants maximum flexibility to fight and win the next election. if that means cutting iraq off at the knees, they will do it.

Rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.

Establish a viable democratic government.

Equip and train a responsible Iraqi police force.

Find and kill Saddam and his supporters.

Investigate WMD.

Seal the borders against foreign terrorists.

Etc.

This is THE PLAN, and everyone knows it's THE PLAN. It has been articulated by many different people including the President hundreds, perhaps thousands, of times. Anyone who claims not to know THE PLAN is not paying attention.

But I suspect you know this, else you would not have been so careful as to require THE PLAN contain "clear performance goals."

With all due respect, you have got to be kidding me.

We are trying to rebuild a country crawling with deadly enemies -- not lay down a ten-point memo for some internet startup.

What would such "performance goals" look like anyway? Kill Saddam by Nov 15? Establish democracy by two-in-the-afternoon? Setting such goals, whether defined by time or some other metric, would be an exercise in pure artificiality. There is no standard, after all, against which to base reconstructing Iraq -- not until we're done, that is.

But it occurs to me establishing artificial performance threshholds is quite useful for those itching to scream FAILURE!!! at the first available opportunity.

But surely that's too cynical. ;)

"The plan" appears to be to just kind of hang out rebuilding stuff and hope the attacks stop.

I agree with Owen.

Jason, there is a lot more going on than "hanging out." BTW, checked out your site, don't agree with any of it, but wish you had comments there so we could argue.

“’The plan’ appears to be to just kind of hang out rebuilding stuff and hope the attacks stop.”

Yup, and that’s a pretty good plan. We are doing our best to rebuild Iraq, and hope that eventually the attacks cease. The odds are in our favor that we will be successful. A twenty point plan should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Things change too rapidly to get stuck adhering to a plan which no longer makes sense. Flexibility and a willingness to adopt to unexpected developments are mandatory.

A twenty point plan should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Yes, and if the administration had a twenty-point plan, they'd be derided for their unrealistic expectations.

"There is no plan" is a non-substantive objection, much like "This raises serious questions", used by non-substantive politicians who want the appearance of gravitas while never actually laying out their own ideas for debate.

hi all,
i am going to leave off now on this issue, apart from these comments: i am touched by the way you think bush is an honest politician. i have no idea why you think this (given the fact that he is a politician and the fact that he and the administration he heads are very uncomfortable with the truth). i agree that most people are honest, but politics is not designed for honest people on the whole.

and as i said before, many folks like to refer to bush as our ceo. if you want to use that metaphor, then start taking some responsibility for it when folks a little more jaundiced (like me, i guess) start to explore what that metaphor implies about other aspects of the job our "ceo" is doing. any way you cut it, the administration has been caught flat-footed after invading iraq, and has been playing catch-up. to keep playing with this ceo metaphor, they took over the company, claiming all kinds of synergies, and it looks like when the rhetoric disappears, there is now an $87 billion write-off, with plenty more to come, and perhaps a bleeding parent company... enough.

i promise this: if those of you give up using the ceo metaphor, i will stop dumping buckets on it. i think that sounds fair. the fact is: i have touched a raw nerve here, folks. it is raw for a reason. and that is not because i am a partisan, or dislike bush (who knows, he might be a good and honest man, personally). but he plays a role as a politician. machiavelli has been invoked on these pages before. folks who have not read "the prince" ought to do so. its raw, because there is some incompetency on dsplay here. and faith or no, we are ALL hoping that it is not a fatal amount.

sorry, gotta go and carve a jack-o-lantern. a peaceful halloween folks.

"if you want to use that metaphor, then start taking some responsibility for it when folks a little more jaundiced (like me, i guess) start to explore what that metaphor implies about other aspects of the job our "ceo" is doing."

Actually, it's not the rest of us who have to assume responsibility for your opinions. That onus lies with the guy who has the opinions.

So far as "Bush is our CEO" is concerned, I've never used it. Heck, I never even heard of it before you trotted it out.

"any way you cut it, the administration has been caught flat-footed after invading iraq, and has been playing catch-up."

Actually, any way you cut it things have been going much better than anyone could have possibly expected. If you don't think so then, I'm afraid to say, you're profoundly uninformed about military matters and history. We had similar problems when we occupied Germany at the end of WWII, except it was much worse. And Germany was a Western country without the cultural problems that we will inevitably have when dealing with an Islamic culture.

"the fact is: i have touched a raw nerve here, folks. it is raw for a reason."

It's a "raw nerve" because people disagree with your opinion and think that you only hold said opinion because you're hopelessly partisan. If I'm not misreading many of the comments, many of those who disagree with you think that you're only looking for some reason to complain about the current administration, and you're willing to ignore the (rather obvious) facts in order to do so.

So far as a debate goes, this is very mild. No one has been particularly personal so far as I can see.

Anyway, cas, if you want to have a debate on the military and historical situation then please feel free to Email me. My address is right there with my real name.

So far no one from your side of the political fence has taken me up on it, though.

James

“So far no one from your side of the political fence has taken me up on it, though.”

Don’t hold your breath. They also ignore me when I’ve pointed out the exact same thing. Yes indeed, only a historical illiterate would think that our Iraqi adventure has not been a rousing success. It is actually flabbergasting that we have lost (relatively speaking) so few soldiers. The money spent is almost a joke. Rarely in history, has so much good been accomplished at such little cost.

> But do you really trust either event in the hands of this collection of dishonest clunkheads?

I don't trust them much, but I trust them way more than I trust any of the Dems. And their criticisms of Bush in Iraq only make this feeling stronger.

Going into 2004, one of the Dems biggest problems is that most everyone knows that if Clinton/Gore had done exactly as Bush has, the carpers would be singing C/G's praises.

Mr. Rummel: I feel your pain. As a philosophical anarchist (i.e. I'm smart enough to recognize the problems with those idiots in black balaclavas -- they're dishonest anarchists-- they want *everyone else* to follow their rules) who teaches organizational theory from time to time, I tend to recognize quite a few organization problems that have known methods for being dealt with, but most (all?) of the carpers don't want to deal with that.

The concept of "muddlin' through" never reaches them. Goal displacement is a foreign term. "Paralysis by analysis" (thy name is Clinton) evidently is the operation of choice. The Five-Year Plan is God.

It is sad that we are finally (!!) getting a little bit of a grip on actual theory in organizations and it is widely ignored in favor of methods not only known but historically proven to fail.

I had high hopes for Clinton, and most of them were dashed. Mediocre presidency at best, and the best of that was forced on him by Republicans. My low hopes for Bush have been exceeded and may well continue to be.

I'm sorry, but grandiose plans and speeches are no substitute for even ordinary decent results. Until some Democrat comes up with actual alternatives instead of whining, I can't vote for them.

And the alternatives offered by Kucinich and Sharpton are unacceptable in any real world. It's pretty sad when former Sen. Carol Mosley-Braun is the most thoughtful candidate on Iraq.

hi all,
i hope your halloween was a good one.it is fun watching the children doing the t& t thing...

"“So far no one from your side of the political fence has taken me up on it, though.”

Don’t hold your breath. They also ignore me when I’ve pointed out the exact same thing."

james i left email address with your site. if you want me to talk to you through your comments section, let me know. david, i suspect that many people have difficulty mixing it up with your passionate firebrand ways.

i would appreciate the opinion of those of you who feel i am "partisan" to the current ny times article "blueprint for a mess" at http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/02/magazine/02IRAQ.html

is this hopelessly partisan, or is it pointing to something that we should be concerned about? if it is partisan, how do you see it as being so? what is it ignoring or biasing, to get its point across, in a manner that you find offensive?

in gentleness

Part of this might be a reflexive Vietnam hangover - where as I recall, in hindsight the plan actually followed must have been, "bomb them until they like us." But dig a little deeper - Johnson and McNamara had plenty of plans, and terrorizing the villagers certainly wasn't in there. They just didn't find it politically convenient to match their plans up against reality, which is that hunting an enemy that hides behind the villagers without terrorizing the villagers is hard. You can't do it from the air, and you can't do it on the ground using draftees and officers that rotate home every six months.

So they're criticizing Bush for not planning everything ahead of time. If he had planned everything ahead of time, I think that now they'd be criticizing him for changing the plans - because he's not pointy-headed enough to stick to a plan even when it veers 180 degrees from the real goals. The goals have always been quite clear. Figuring out how to get there takes experimentation and flexibility. This doesn't mean we won't get there...

One quite unexpected thing is all the non-Iraqi terrorists that are turning up in Iraq. It might slow down the Iraqi reconstruction, but it's a great thing for us. Instead of trying to whack American civilians (or even Aussie and Balinese civilians), they're getting into fights with the best professional soldiers this country has ever produced, and it sounds like we're winning by at least 100 to 1.

> is this hopelessly partisan,

Maybe, but that's not its biggest problem

> or is it pointing to something that we should be concerned about?

It's pointing to an author who writes well, but doesn't have anything worth reading.

Cas asked nicely, so I'll reply constructively.

Let's talk about Halliburton and Bechtel getting contracts (as that's may be far enough from the article to let me make general points without getting bogged down in irrelevant details).

There are two arguments against that - how they got said contracts and whether they should have gotten said contracts.

If you think "they're politically connected" is an interesting argument, you're either naive or insulting your audience. All such firms are politically connected.

It's beyond dumb to argue that Halliburton and Bechtel are incompetent, so the "they shouldn't have gotten the job" argument is basically "we should have given the money to French firms", firms which are both competent and politically connected (albeit to a different politics). I don't think that's a winning argument.

In short, the contract argument is a counter-productive gotcha game that discredits you.

Moving up a level, it's worth asking what you're trying to accomplish and whether your arguments serve that purpose.

It's pretty clear that effective nation building isn't one of your major concerns. (If you disagree with that perception, you really need to look at your arguments.) I'm sympathetic - I think that it's mostly a mugs game.

However, do you really think that a failure in Iraq works to your advantage? For example - do you think that the American people will let you do anything similar? (Hint - the answer has two letters.)

Also, do you really think that the "anything to beat Bush" perception is to your advantage? (Same answer as before.)

You might argue that the arguments aren't about defeating Bush but about the best way to help Iraq. If that's actually the case, you need to work on your presentation and your ideas.

hi andy, thanks for the comments. i am a bit mystified by this: "You might argue that the arguments aren't about defeating Bush but about the best way to help Iraq. If that's actually the case, you need to work on your presentation and your ideas." fair enough, though explaining what you thought was ill-conceived would have been helpful. in a nutshell, i would like to see a democratic iraq flourish, but i do not believe we will get it with this current administration (on the evidence they have shown so far. by all means, if they start making good choices, etc, etc, than i will be first in line to cheer them on).

for the contract game--i don't have to play the "haliburton is bad" game. i can play the "why are we not giving contracts to iraqis game"--if news reports are to be believed, and this could be a big bunch of bs, there are jobs that the iraqis can do more easily and less expensively than us interests can in iraq and are not doing because they can't get into the tender game(this is in fact why i think it is unfair for iraqis to pay for their reconstruction as some dems and reps want them to: they get to pay back money that was paid to american companies to reconstruct their country--that's cheek!)

as far as i can tell, i have made it clear that i don't think the bush admin is doing a good job. i am not certain why that makes me partisan? i hope i have made it clear that i would like the iraq rebuilding to succeed, i just think if the doody hits the fan, the bush admin will run from iraq. and i think this because they have made a number of political calculations in the past and currently (e.g., increasing protectionism which as far as i can tell flies in the face of "republican values") that they think will help win the next election. why would i expect them to do otherwise, given their political track record.

also andy, i do not know what to make of the comment that "It's pointing to an author who writes well, but doesn't have anything worth reading."

one could argue (and i do) that a wilful desire to ignore potential problems and not plan for them does not bode well for the future, when we are asking bush admin folks to "lift their game" so to speak, right now to bring stability to iraq. the i ching puts it very nicely: "if it is not right at the beginning, it will not be right at the end." why you discount this possibility is unclear to me, given how much miscalculation went on before the invasion (and after as well), if this article is to be believed. if you feel the article is not credible, then i would like to understand why you think this. if you think that the past is past, and the bush administration will get its act together, ok. that seems like a matter of faith, but i am ok with that. we tend to take a lot on faith, and i won't argue with you about it anymore if that is what it is about for you.

as for markm's comments that its good that lots of young terrorists/freedomfighters in the making are coming to iraq to be killed by professional soldiers--i know that is the administrations line, and andy sullivan's as well, but if they do come in, and they do organize, and they do spread, how will that help us if we are, as many analyst argue, stretched too thin on the ground as it is? doesn't that make things more difficult for us if our resources are finite and limited, and their resources (at least in manpower) are increasing? or am i missing something here?

...am i missing something here?

Just as we require time, effort, money, and manpower to rebuild Iraq; so terrorists require the same to terrorize Iraqis and US troops. I'm sure we'd all prefer terrorists not attack anyone. If they're going to attack, however, let it be against well-armed professional soldiers capable of defending themselves.

The "stretched too thin" argument cuts both ways. Terrorists do not have limitless resources anymore than we have. Every terrorist drawn to Iraq is one less terrorist preparing to fly planes into our tallest buildings, crop-dust cities with anthrax, bomb airports, gas subways, etc.

The fact that this is not obvious to many Americans is unfortunately evidence of how complacent we've already become in fighting the war on terror.

P.s. There are no "freedom fighters" in Iraq. Freedom is what we gave Iraqis -- not what we took from them.

> i have made it clear that i don't think the bush admin is doing a good job.

Yes, and it's also clear that Cas doesn't want to help them do a better job. In other words, Cas' priority is in defeating Bush and Iraq is merely an excuse.

I note that Cas didn't respond to my comment that a Bush failure in Iraq dooms such efforts in the future.

> i hope i have made it clear that i would like the iraq rebuilding to succeed, i just think if the doody hits the fan, the bush admin will run from iraq.

Cas says that he wants the Iraqi rebuilding to succeed, but his actual actions have been to help Bush fail. He claims to be concerned that Bush will abandon, yet he's working to make that happen.

> i can play the "why are we not giving contracts to iraqis game"

Not honestly you can't. The vast majority of the workers are locals. The vast majority of the subs are locals.

And, "let Iraqis work" isn't Cas' complaint. He's been whining about Halliburton and Bechtel and political connections.

> the i ching puts it very nicely: "if it is not right at the beginning, it will not be right at the end."

The i ching is wrong. And, if the i ching says that rightness at the beginning means rightness at the end, it's wrong there too.

BTW - Those who work against increasing manpower can't honestly complain about inadequate manpower.

hi andy, thanks for the reply. some points:

1. "I note that Cas didn't respond to my comment that a Bush failure in Iraq dooms such efforts in the future."
i think that is why we HAVE to succeed in iraq. if we fail, pull out amid increasing violence, then we have really blown it. it may not doom future action, but it will cast it under a cloud for a generation, just as vietnam did.

2. "it's also clear that Cas doesn't want to help them do a better job. In other words, Cas' priority is in defeating Bush and Iraq is merely an excuse."
what would you have me do andy: adopt a faith based viewpoint, and prayer for the president each night? ok, i can do that, but if they still keep making bad decisions, what then? look, i take a realpolitik view of the world, and i am not really enamoured with positions that emphasize the "good guy coming to the rescue" view of our actions above others. i grant some of that view, but i think that history shows that american foreign policy mainly works on pragmatic considerations of benefit and cost, even if sometimes these relative benefits and costs are hideously distorted (as i think they were in this case). so, andy: what should i do to be one of the "good guys," in your view?

3. "Not honestly you can't. The vast majority of the workers are locals. The vast majority of the subs are locals. And, "let Iraqis work" isn't Cas' complaint. He's been whining about Halliburton and Bechtel and political connections."

there is a big difference between giving some sub-contractual work to iraqis, and letting them be a contractor. we still don't know how much work has been sub-contracted to locals. and even if we sub-contract, we don't have much of an idea of who is taking the lion share of profit from this exercise, or even the degree of mark-up that is being charged for these contracts. why is this important? on an actual level, most of the benefit of the reconstruction could be going to american companies and not to locals (which doesn't do as much for the local economy as it could). symbolically, we are saying to iraqis that we don't trust them to play a major role in reconstructing their own country. both of these issues are cause for concern. if you don't think so, MOUNT AN ARGUMENT TO REFUTE THEM. at the moment you assert i am wrong. why you feel that my position is intellectually dishonest on my part escapes me.

4. "The i ching is wrong. And, if the i ching says that rightness at the beginning means rightness at the end, it's wrong there too."
ok, that's an honest disagreement.

5. "BTW - Those who work against increasing manpower can't honestly complain about inadequate manpower."
exactly where do i argue this? the bush admin argues against putting more people into iraq, not me. and the article i cited didn't argue that either. it said that that was a reason why things have been much harder than they otherwise would have been.

hi owen,
thanks for the reply. a question for you based on your comment:

"The "stretched too thin" argument cuts both ways. Terrorists do not have limitless resources anymore than we have. Every terrorist drawn to Iraq is one less terrorist preparing to fly planes into our tallest buildings, crop-dust cities with anthrax, bomb airports, gas subways, etc."

out of curiosity: why do you discount the possibility that invading iraq, and having american troops in iraq has not radicalized elements of muslim society, so that folks who had not thought they would get involved, now do? as an example, after 9/11, a lot more folks in america wanted to do something, so there was an increase in positive country supporting activism in this country (peace corps, armed forces retention and recruiting, etc). why do you discount this possibility of increased activism in other societies? if the implications of my question seem a reasonable possibility to you, how does that affect your pov?

Dearest cas,

Thanks for your post.

Out of curiosity, why do you discount the possibility that invading Iraq sets a healthy example for aggressive dictators? Why do you discount the possibility that attacking Al Qaeda shows that America cannot be attacked with impunity? And why do you assume that Iraqis -- being liberated from one of the cruelest regimes in all human history -- will automatically want to exercise their new freedoms by "martyring" themselves?

If the implications of my questions seem a reasonable possibility to you, how does that affect you pov?

Yours Always,

Owen

hi owen,
let us take your questions in stages:

1. "Out of curiosity, why do you discount the possibility that invading Iraq sets a healthy example for aggressive dictators?"

if by "healthy," you mean, will make them less likely to hurt their own people because "america is here to defend them, should dictators hurt their own" then i think this unlikely. history, both recent and distant has shown that the us is not really interested in "liberating" peoples from dictators, unless there is a perceived benefit to it (hence why we supported dictators who were against communism--even with republican presidents, even though these dictators still treated their own people like doody). remember, we even supported saddam before gulf one. is it uzbekistan were we are friendly, though the ruler is an absolute bastard? so, i think the message we give rulers in the world is: "be a dictator, and we will turn a blind eye to how you treat your own, as long as you support "greater" usa interests. but if you don't, watch out." so, as a dictator, i don't see this as a necessary cause for concern in how i conduct myself or my state (the question i ask is: does the us need me? if i am pakistan, the answer is yes)

2. "Why do you discount the possibility that attacking Al Qaeda shows that America cannot be attacked with impunity?

attacking iraq was not about attacking al-qaeda. it was about attacking iraq. so far, and the white house has CONCEDED this point, though i know vp. cheney wants to keep waving his hands about it: there was no connection between iraq, al qaeda, and 9/11--as far as we know. true, there is plenty of evidence to link saudi arabia, al qaeda, and 9/11, but arabia is a repressive regime (see point one above) that happens to supply us with a lot of oil, and who happens to be our faithful (apparently) ally. the irony is that in the chaos follwing the downfall of saddam, intelligence estimates have suggested that al qaeda has infiltrated into iraq. i could also add that al qaeda is not a country, but an organization. true, afghanistan showed the world that if you harbor these guys willingly, than we can invade you. that message was sent then, not with iraq.

3. "And why do you assume that Iraqis -- being liberated from one of the cruelest regimes in all human history -- will automatically want to exercise their new freedoms by "martyring" themselves?"

i do not. but, and this is the thing, they do perceive us ambiguously. as far as i can tell from the reports i have read, most iraqis are thankful that we have freed them from the yolk of saddam. on the other hand, they don't want us there. the longer we are there, the more likely we will end up alienating more and more iraqis, till the bloodshed becomes more than the exercise of a baathist remnant, and the exercise of more mainstream iraqi opposition, especially amongst shiites (which is the big fear, as i understand it, and of which we got a taste with that recent firefight between american & shiites that left 4 dead americans). i asked my iraqi friend, ahmed, and he says that he keeps his fingers crossed, and hopes for the best. he is worried because he picks up on anti-american rhetoic from people living in iraq. i have to ask him if he has detected it increasing. when i see him next, i will (and i will let you know what he said, if there is a thread going on the subject at the time).

"If the implications of my questions seem a reasonable possibility to you, how does that affect you pov?"

as regards implications-what do you think: do my responses to your questions sound rational or present a reasonable viewpoint to you, owen? or do they just seem "hopelessly partisan"? if so, why? in any case, i would still love an answer to my questions to you.

in gentleness

> what would you have me do andy: adopt a faith based viewpoint, and prayer for the president each night?

Cas didn't like it when I suggested that he'd rather Bush lose and Iraq fail than Bush win and Iraq succeed. Then, out pops the above.

If he's actually as clueless as the above suggests, perhaps he ought to learn about constructive criticism.

I don't think that Cas is clueless. I think that he's trying to evade the consequences of his position, that he's more interested in defeating Bush than helping Iraq.

BTW - The point of reconstruction is NOT to pump money into the Iraq's economy. It's to produce infrastructure. (Money pumped in is somewhat inflationary, and inflation will hurt Iraq.)

cas, your responses not only seem hopelessly partisan -- they seem hopelessly long-winded, naive, and irrelevant. (Don't bother asking me why -- I'm not going to dignify your school-marmy if-so-why? nonsense.)

At first your overly-familiar debating come-ons were cute; now they just seem affected and dishonest. And go peddle that "in gentleness" crap somewhere else -- I'm not buying.

But speaking of gentleness, I notice on your blog you're actively puzzling over whether Stalin was right to snuff out the lives of 30,000,000 people.

Let me know when you figure that one out.

> 4. "The i ching is wrong. And, if the i ching says that rightness at the beginning means rightness at the end, it's wrong there too."
ok, that's an honest disagreement.

Actually, no, it's not an "honest disagreement". The quoted statement is false. If your position relies on false arguments, you've got a problem, no matter how profound said arguments sound.

But, let's play the Iraq funding game.

Given Bush's spending plan, is $87B:
(a) too much,
(b) too little, or
(c) just right?

If we adopt Bush's spending plan, should future changes be allowed as the situation evolves? (This is a yes or no question.)

Does Cas' preferred spending plan require:
(a) more than $87B,
(b) less than $87B, or
(c) $87B?

If we adopt Cas' spending plan, should future changes be allowed as the situation evolves? (This is a yes or no question.)

> 4. "The i ching is wrong. And, if the i ching says that rightness at the beginning means rightness at the end, it's wrong there too."
ok, that's an honest disagreement.

Actually, no, it's not an "honest disagreement". The quoted statement is false. If your position relies on false arguments, you've got a problem, no matter how profound said arguments sound.

But, let's play the Iraq funding game.

Given Bush's spending plan, is $87B:
(a) too much,
(b) too little, or
(c) just right?

If we adopt Bush's spending plan, should future changes be allowed as the situation evolves? (This is a yes or no question.)

Does Cas' preferred spending plan require:
(a) more than $87B,
(b) less than $87B, or
(c) $87B?

If we adopt Cas' spending plan, should future changes be allowed as the situation evolves? (This is a yes or no question.)

> i do not believe we will get it with this current administration (on the evidence they have shown so far. by all means, if they start making good choices, etc, etc, than i will be first in line to cheer them on).

Why does Cas think that we should believe that he'd be making the same arguments if Clinton/Gore had done exactly what Bush has done?

As I've written here and elsewhere, Bush isn't doing a particularly good job. However, the choice isn't between Bush and perfection, it's between Bush and a crop of Dems who are all significantly worse.

The criticism merely reinforces that perception. And it is also throwing away whatever "do the right thing" credibility that Dems thought they had.

There are consequences to a "Beating Bush is the most important thing" belief system.

dear andy and owen,

1. "At first your overly-familiar debating come-ons were cute; now they just seem affected and dishonest. And go peddle that "in gentleness" crap somewhere else -- I'm not buying."

you feel that i am not sincere in asking you to engage in rational discourse. i thought i was doing that in answering your questions (though you have not answered my queries or addressed the meat of my arguments). clearly, you don't think i was doing that.

i do not think you read what i have said carefully. for example, you will find that your outrage about the i ching comment is due to your willingness to change what i originally said into something else (i was not careful enough to catch your changed gloss).

and thanks for looking at the web-site, owen. the job is not for me to work "that one out" re stalin and those he murdered, for my students. its for my students to work that one out for themselves, with some help from me in structuring the process: using rational discourse, argument, and debate, based on their evolving knowledge of history.

cheers
cas

The Goldberg variations are no more compelling then Jane's Tech Central Station article a week ago. Does anyone actually believe we can make Irag a "stable, peaceful, and prosperous democracy"? The tone of the comments suggest a desire for constructive suggestions for the current administration. Well, they will have my support as long as they credibly frame the solutions to problems in Iraq as improving our own(USA!!) national security. When they stop doing that or start talk about liberating an oppressed people then I'm hopping off that train.

> i do not think you read what i have said carefully. for example, you will find that your outrage about the i ching comment is due to your willingness to change what i originally said into something else

Cas needs reading lessons.

I pointed out that the i ching statement that he quoted was false. I also pointed out that a variation that would apply to a related situation (one more favorable to him) is also false. I never said that the i ching included my variation.

Yes, I did type my variation and merely quoted his original, but that's not a "change".

Mark,
"Does anyone actually believe we can make Irag a "stable, peaceful, and prosperous democracy"?"

I see no reason why we should not succeed. ^_^ Our experiences with Japan and Germany have set a historical precedent in that direction that we may use for the present day.

Wow, the inability of anybody on the pro-war side to grasp reality continues to astound me.

"Actually, any way you cut it things have been going much better than anyone could have possibly expected. "

"Yes indeed, only a historical illiterate would think that our Iraqi adventure has not been a rousing success. It is actually flabbergasting that we have lost (relatively speaking) so few soldiers. The money spent is almost a joke. Rarely in history, has so much good been accomplished at such little cost. "

Are you guys kidding me? Can I assume that these comments are facetious?

Over 300 of our troops and their families could have expected this war to go better. Millions of American taxpayers would be better off if we hadn't invaded.

We've managed to oust an undemocratic (though secular) leader. Great. Big deal. Now we are occupying a previously sovereign country and have to stay on lest the country fall into more chaos that it already endures. 300 troops are dead. Billions of taxpayer dollars are wasted. We've managed to further enrage the Muslim world and have alienated many of our allies. Get your heads out of the sand. Iraq was a big mistake - nothing gained, PLENTY lost. The sooner we can admit that and move on the sooner we can extricate ourselves from the situation in a manner that won't leave Iraqis in a worse position than they were before.

Yes, 300 troops could have expected it to go better; millions expected it to go worse. In order for it to have gone any better at all, though, it never would have begun in the first place. So, is your argument that the war shouldn't have been started, or is it that it's been incompetently waged? And do you think it would have been a valid approach to kill a lot more Iraqi civilians and maintain an extremely repressive interim regime to save a few U.S. soldiers, or does your military genius have a workable alternate approach whose selection would have been intuitively obvious to the casual observer?

Small Pink mouse, the web is a large place and may I suggest you scurry over to some other folks who are more skeptical of the Japan/Germany analogy(Steve Sailor, Talking Points Memo and even Stanley Kurtz).

Finally, "And do you think it would have been a valid approach to kill a lot more Iraqi civilians and maintain an extremely repressive interim regime". I don't care if it is valid, I care that it be effective. One way or another, the Iraqi civilians are going to have to learn that resistance is futile and we won this war. The problem seems to be that there are some Iraqi civilians who don't know that they lost. I have no suggestions aside from bloody ones to change their minds.

Small Pink mouse, the web is a large place and may I suggest you scurry over to some other folks who are more skeptical of the Japan/Germany analogy(Steve Sailor, Talking Points Memo and even Stanley Kurtz).

Finally, "And do you think it would have been a valid approach to kill a lot more Iraqi civilians and maintain an extremely repressive interim regime". I don't care if it is valid, I care that it be effective. One way or another, the Iraqi civilians are going to have to learn that resistance is futile and we won this war. The problem seems to be that there are some Iraqi civilians who don't know that they lost. I have no suggestions aside from bloody ones to change their minds.

I think Pres. Bush has done an extremely good job in Iraq.
I don't think anyone else, right, left, or center could have done better (except by accident: for example, killing or capturing Saddam early on).

Back in April, it seemed we had won so overwhelmingly that all we needed to do was a little more hunting and pacifying. But the war has taken a turn for the worse, and resistance is stiffening.

One could make the point that we didn't have enough troops, and we have waited too long to put more troops in. That is a very interesting point, and it may be true (I don't agree with it).

But even if it were true, it doesn't mean Bush and Rumsfeld made a mistake. It means they took a calculated risk and in hindsight, they should have taken a different calculated risk. But the nature of hindsight is that you can't use it to make decisions! You can use it to make future decisions, but then it really isn't hindsight any more.

If anything, Pres. Bush seems to be very nimble and quick to learn from his "mistakes".

I think Cas has made somewhat provocative comments about Pres. Bush's leadership. I disagree with them, but many people disagree with my severely negative judgements on Bill and Hillary Clinton. As long as we're both being sincere, and willing to listen to others, then it's a good thing that we're being "partisan". It means we care about what our government is doing.

Cas also raises serious questions about the war. The war is NOT won yet, but to use sports lingo, at this point it's still our war to lose. I think the probability of our losing the war in Iraq is so small (less than 100 to 1} that I'm not worried about that. But the situation is not under control yet, and Rumsfeld and our generals in Iraq are dealing with some of the problems that Cas describes.

David - my argument is that the war shouldn't have been started. Yes, things could have gone much, much worse... all the more reason to say that we shouldn't have started this war in the first place.

I really have no problems with the way the war has actually been waged......our military has once again proven its efficiency and ability to conduct operations while minimizing US and civilian casualties. The cost however, in dollar terms, is still staggering, and we haven't gained anything for our losses, except the "I told you so's" of the French..

Andrew Freeman, disagree strongly with cas all you wish -- frankly I share some of your positional sentiments -- but considering he has been doing a rather admiral job of being direct and civil, what do you gain from being abrasive and repeatedly addressing him in the third person?

Understood, wallster. Thanks for responding. Our opinions on the question of whether we ought to have gone to war with Iraq couldn't be much more different, I think. But given that the question had been mooted for some months now, it's a little disconcerting to hear people still voicing it.

Wallster, if your expectation was pancakes NOW, a cook, a bowl of batter, and a hot griddle probably are not going to look like breakfast. But that's a failure of your own lack of patience.

That doesn't mean your POSITION will fail -- it may even be proven correct although I hope not -- however that proof is still at least a couple years away.

Mark,
With all due respect Steve Sailor, Josh Marshall, and Stanley Kurtz are not present in this thread. You are. Therefore your views are a *lot* more interesting to me than theirs are. If you truly have reasons to believe the examples of Japan and Germany are not proper precedents to consider then perhaps you would be kind enough to share them with the rest of us? I might decide to refute them or I might ruefully agree with you but either way they'll be a lot more convincing then offhand references to what some faroff King of Xanadu might think! ^_~

> what do you gain from being abrasive and repeatedly addressing him in the third person?

I'm not addressing Cas. I'm talking to other people, discussing his arguments.

There are, as one might note, many people reading and writing here. If I was writing in the second person, I'd be using e-mail.

hi all,

thanks for the feedback. at the risk of taking another beating, i would still be interested in discussion (especially folks who found my comments "provocative," or just plain "wrong," or "false") if such discussion would substantively address the arguments that i (or others) have raised originally or in response to queries, rather than just assert that they are wrong or silly. the possibility does exist in an open society, for us to change our minds, on the basis of rational discourse.
cheers

I'm not addressing Cas. I'm talking to other people, discussing his arguments.

Interesting form of debate, and one rather foreign to myself -- meaning, I have used it when dealing with vitriolic nincompoops who assert positions while refusing to answer any counterpoint presented, but only rarely, and never with the intent of communicating neutral context.

Given that this medium is completely open and visible to all participants, the collective is quite capable of reading commentary posted to the medium and interjecting thoughts when the desire arises. So the use of third-person versus first-person pronouns seems irrelevant in that sense.

Meanwhile, it is more relevant in this sense: When someone responds directly to an argument but uses third-person language, i.e. "Andy Freeman thinks that third-person language is appropriate when responding to an arguer but that's obviously incorrect based on [rebuttal/refutation/summary dismissal]," it potentially puts a negative spin on the response.

How? Well, at least some members of the collective (myself included among them) will find it difficult to discern whether the respondant is actually trying to broaden the conversation to a collective (but a collective already capable of accessing the conversation?), or simply finds the arguer's points so vaccuous as to no longer merit direct engagement of said arguer.

> How? Well, at least some members of the collective (myself included among them) will find it difficult to discern whether the respondant is actually trying to broaden the conversation to a collective (but a collective already capable of accessing the conversation?), or simply finds the arguer's points so vaccuous as to no longer merit direct engagement of said arguer.

My sympathies are with such people, especially since there are still other possibilities. (Suppose that certain blog discussions were intended to be persuasive. Who are some of the intended targets of said persuasion?)

Me - I'm not particularly interested in engaging the person. I am interested in the ideas.

Comments are Closed.