Asymmetrical Information

"How do you build a sound economy when insurgents keep blowing everything you build up?"

Step 1: Hope oil goes over $60/barrel to provide you (Iraq) with extra capital to absorb these losses.

Step 2: Do everything else.

Of course, the other approach that I think may have worked just as well is:

Phase 1: Steal Underpants.
Phase 2:
Phase 3: Profit.

Great questions.

Maybe the administration should have tried to answer those questions before they started on Bush's excellent adventure.

A) Kill the insurgents.
B) Go back to building things.

By the very act of highlighting the success of the insurgents, the mainstream media is guilty in prolonging the insurgency and thus delaying Iraq’s economic reconstruction. I get a sense that many Iraqis are quick to blame others for their problems before taking responsibility to solve them themselves. Nevertheless, it’s impressive that Iraq can grow at all with the daily violence, and I’m confident that it will emerge from the muddle. The capitalistic drive is too great in the people to relinquish it to terrorism. Or so that is my hope.

corbusier.

Don't know how you stop the MSM highlighting the success of the insurgents.
There's an annoying little thing called 'free speech' to overcome, as well as the very thing which we are using to comment on this blog; the Internet!
Your comment goes on; "mainstream media is guilty in prolonging the insurgency"
No; the terrorists are prolonging the terror/insurgency!

I get a sense that many Iraqis are quick to blame others for their problems before taking responsibility to solve them themselves

I think if some other country had invaded your country without so much as a "by your leave," you'd be quick to blame others, too.

corbusier -- I have to agree with Mike that it is hard for me to follow the reasoning that a comment in the US press will cause a resident of Iraq to make or not make an economic investment.

The same reasoning applies to the decision by someone to take up arms against the US. I really find it hard to believe that some individual is going along minding his own business and because the NYTimes reports a story about the problems the US is having in Iraq the individual decides to chuck everything and go risk his life in an a
pitched battle against US troops. Can you provide a single example of a terrorists that decided to be a terrorists because of a report in a mainstream US newspaper?

You or at least others keep claiming that this is a major reason for the problem, so but your money where your mouth is and show a single example of it.

In response to the previous posts, here off the top of my head are several examples of mainstream media outlets acting as catalysts to the “insurgent” cause

-Remember the Koran flushed in the toilet incident at Gitmo? A small story with no fact checking was enough to prompt the killing dozens of Afghani civilians. Had that story not been recklessly circulated, there would have been no premise for the ensuing violence. Even if it is suspected that the groups who organized those riots would have found other excuses to cause trouble, media reports were convenient.
-What about all those beheading videos broadcasted on Al-Jazeera? They certainly weren’t made to scare American military forces nor were they designed to change Bush’s mind. They were essentially recruitment videos to advertise to frustrated youths who would relish to follow in the terrorists’ footsteps.
-Two jets smashing into the trade towers? Al Qaeda never expected to defeat the U.S. militarily, nor did the U.S. suffer much beyond the local damage that accompanies all bombings, but it’s evident that this spectacular footage drew many to the jihadi cause with its overwhelming sense of power, the revenge of the weak over symbols of the strong.

The very fact that bombs can go off and there’s little to be done to prevent them is a quite seductive notion to many suicidal muslim teenagers. It’s at the very heart of terrorism as tactic. Terrorism was never meant to conquer territory by traditional means. It was meant to bypass the clash of military forces by defeating the hearts and minds of those who were watching. It’s no accident that terrorism as we know it was the product of the age of television and televised journalism. The murder of Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich is a testament to the success of the new medium: use a widely viewed spectacle to promote your political cause. Arafat was living proof that you could get what you wanted through the union of modern media and television.

The insurgency in Iraq has no plan in taking complete sovereignty from the existing government. It hasn’t created any identifiable political confederation with a list of grievances, nor uniform army, nor a governed territory. All that it has in common are acts of terrorism, which seems to have little effect on Iraqis as they continue to join the army and police. But terrorism has worked wonders when reported in great detail internationally, each and every bombing giving left-leaning politicians more reasons to oppose the mission. The insurgents know they won’t be able to defeat the U.S. Armed forces, and they do know that as a democracy, American voters can be swayed to end their country’s involvement in Iraq. The North Vietnamese understood this knowing well that Walter Cronkite had more influence on the direction of the Vietnam war than any military victory or surrender. Remember Tet? The Vietnam war ironically was the first and so far only war in which America retreated in spite of overwhelming military success namely because of the rise of television and its power to broadcast devastating and persuasive images.

Your examples are not examples at all.

1. The Gitmo story didn't cause the riot. An administration official said it did. Later the military said that the riot had local reasons and was not caused by the Newsweek story.

2. Al-Jazeera? I was unaware this was mainstream American media. Which cable providers carry here in the States.

3.Two jets smashing into the trade towers? So coverage of 9/11 causes terrorism? That doesn't track at all.

You state,"The insurgency in Iraq has no plan in taking complete sovereignty from the existing government." I dispute that. They want the existing government to fail in order to seize power. While your notion might be right about the foreign fighters but the former Baathists have very clear goals.

Actually you missed a clear example - Abu Grabib. If the current batches of photos and videos are released - Iraq and Afghanistan are lost. There were a number of videos and photos that were not released. Certain senators saw them as well as Rumsfield and they call them horrific. According to reports in two of them depict a 14, and 15 year old boy being raped. Another has 12 year old girl being raped. The rapes were not committed by US personnel but rather by US contractors. The ACLU has FOIA request for them. They were supposed to turn them over on June 30. They are still fighting this out in court. A US general recently testified that due to the graphic nature of these photos and videos they would seriously hinder US war efforts. I would have released them with the last batch but that was before the presidential election so I suspect someone made that call higher up.

Information and timeline here
http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/
General Meyer's testimony (PDF)
http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=18836

Actually reading his testimony makes it clear that terrorist are already using doctered photos for propaganda.

The real propaganda victory of the Tet offensive lie in the fact that Johnson administration had claimed that the NVA was "on it's heels" or to quote Dick Cheney "in it's last throes." In this war we are not getting horrific images on the television every night largely because Iraq isn't nearly as safe for reporters Vietnam was Indeed current casulities for reporters in Iraq are higher than Vietnam. In this regard the NVA were much smarter than Joe Jihadist, they realized the propaganda value of reporters, while jihadists simply kill them.

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/about/episodes/401_transcript.html

The images of Vietnam were horrific and I am sure they contributed to the peace movement. However more telling is the loss of credibility of Johnson on the state of the war. Tet provided that Johnson wasn't telling the whole truth about the war. We are beginning to see a similar loss of credibility for the current "they are going throw us flowers and candy" administration despite the tremendous lack of images for this war. When I turn on the news I don't see images from Iraq but I hear about a car bomb. We aren't getting the media saturation we get in Vietnam.

Thanks Brian.

I agree that the recent recent riots in Afghanistan were something waiting for an excuse
to hang the riots on. It was too quick and too well organized to have been the spontaneous reaction to the story.

2. The beheadings. I asked for an example of someone joining the terrorists because of a MSM
story. This does not qualify. You show no evidence that anyone decided to fight against the US because of the beheadings.

3. 9/11 - yes, some individuals probably did joint the terrorists because of 9/11. But are you really seriously claiming that the MSM should not have reported anything on 9/11 because it would aid the terrorits.

And you respond with the Tet story. The objective of war is to make the enemy quit fighting. The communist in Vietnam had been fighting since 1938-- some 30 some years before tet. There is no evidence that after tet the communist were unable or unwilling to continue fighting even though they had suffered a major defeat. Your comment that the US had massive overwhelming success is just true and is not supported by the facts. Tet was about the only battle the US won. We continued to send more and more troops to VN every year because we were losing, not because we were winning.

The hardest thing to do in the world is edit yourself.

I meant to say the tet story was just "not"
true but somehow left the not out.

Sorry about that.

Although most Vietnam analogies to Iraq are gratuitous, there are a few that might be valuable, and I think this is one. America’s enemies believe they have learned a lesson from Vietnam – that we are unwilling to sustain significant losses in service of virtually any cause. Hence Vietnam which, while an astonishing military success given the restrictions place on the military in the fighting of the war, became a defeat when the American people decided that war was not winnable. The media played an important role in fostering this believe, typified by Walter Cronkite’s declaration that Tet represented a major setback to the US and South Vietnam, when in fact it effectively destroyed the Viet Cong.

The notion that Tet destroyed the government’s credibility because “Johnson wasn’t telling the whole truth” underscores how effective the media’s interpretation of events in Vietnam was. In fact, I don’t believe there is any evidence that Johnson was withholding critical information, just as there is no evidence that George Bush lied about Iraq. In both cases, intelligence was imperfect because of the inefficiency of the system for gathering, process and disseminating information. This happens in all wars (e.g. WWII and the Battle of the Bulge and Pearl Harbor). It took media involvement to turn an intelligence failure that led to a resounding military victory into a “lie” that led to a strategic defeat.

Spencer,

Your assertion that “Tet was about the only battle the US won” is simply historically terribly inaccurate. The US and ARVN defeated the Viet Cong and NVA in battle after battle. The US began pulling troops out of Vietnam after Tet because ARVN, with US air support, demonstrated an increasing capability to defend the country without massive US ground troops. ARVN ultimately failed because Congress refused to provide them with ammunition and spare parts, and stopped President Ford from providing the air support they were promised as a part of the peace accords.

No offense but it's clear if Johnson wasn't getting the right information (ie body counts that added up to more than the opposing army etc) it did affect his credibility. I didn't say Johnson or Bush lied. What happened was there was a serious disconnect between what administration officials (this included Westmoreland in Vietnam) were saying and what was apparent to anyone watching the conflict or on the ground in Vietnam. In a certain regard I think we agree. Militarly we were winning Vietnam however we lost the will to war. Blaming the media isn't entirely accurate. When you tell the American people the truth, they will follow you to hell. When you dissemble and spin (ala fictional body counts, last throes comments) you tend to lose them. Blaming the media is alot like blaming the messenger here. Vietnam was probably unwinnable in a tactical sense. The French had their heads handed to them as well. I don't really chock Vietnam up as loss. In the strategic sense it succeed in that the entirety of southeast Asia didn't fall to the communists. I realize that view is also somewhat Pollyannish as well so I usually keep it to myself ;-)

Knowing what I know about Johnson (a man who signed every single letter to a solidiers family) I am sure that he NEVER lied. The problem was that he was getting faulty information and his credibility was damaged when he repeated it (remember those 16 words in the State of the Union for Bush?).

This war was sold on a whole series of statements that simply turned out not to be true. I am not just talking about failures of intelligence with WMD. After awhile statements like that take their toll on the credibility of the administration. When they continue to make them the public wonders, "Are these guys hearing the same thing I am hearing on the news?" Blaming the media because the Administration has consistently declared a corner turned in Iraq and it turns out not to be the case is somewhat silly. I mean don't blame the messenger here. Is it the media's fault that of the 20 billion we allocated for reconstruction, over half remains unspent. Is it the media's fault that we sent to few troops to Iraq to win the peace the media's fault. Was Bremer's decision to disband the Iraqi army the media's fault. Was the fact that the intelligence about WMD completely wrong the media's fault? Was it the media's fault that we were hardly greeted with flowers the media's fault?

The answer is obviously no. However in this administration loyalty is prized above performance. That's way Paul Bremer and George Tenet both recieved the Medal of Freedom. When you refuse to admit you make mistakes, how can you learn from them?

America’s enemies believe they have learned a lesson from Vietnam – that we are unwilling to sustain significant losses in service of virtually any cause.

If the cause is questionable and victory is ill-defined, that's true. In WWII, winning was clearly defined - marching into Berlin and sailing into Tokyo Bay. Can you define "win" in Iraq? Can anyone? Bush re-defines it on a weekly basis. Politicians decided the Vietnam war wasn't winnable long before the people did - because they never told the troops just what "win" meant, or that they were willing to do whatever it takes to "win."

The lesson of Vietnam is unless you have clearly defined goals and are prepared to use unrestrained force to attain them, don't even bother. Gulf War I reflected this. The Goal: remove Saddam from Kuwait. Once we attained this, with overwhelming force, we went home. Or at least we should have.

(Signing off as "Ivan" because I used "John" earlier, but I'm not the same "John" as the post before mine).

John -- I am sure you can document your claims that disagree completely with my memories of what happened in VN.

The typical battle in VN consisted of US forces settling down on a hill and the VC attacking them until the US tried to go on the offense. The VC then disappeared into the jungle. Very few battle ever had a winner or a loser. Tet was the exception to the rule when the North Vietnese tried to actually fight a conventional battle.

Here's an example of the disconnect I see every day. I am subscribed to the DoD press service. I get every single release that the military puts out.

At 8:10 this morning I recieved this, "Casey Predicts Success in Iraq, Calls Mission 'Realistic'"

Although terrorists continue to launch more than five dozen attacks around Iraq each day, Casey pointed out that most are ineffective. "One of the interesting points is that of the 60 or 70 attacks a day, only around 20 of those attacks are effective (and) actually produce a casualty," he said. "And that has held true for months."

there's more to the release but that's a good summary.

At 9:44 AM I recieved this
Car Bombs Kill Dozens Near Baghdad Bus Station, Hospital

"Thirty-two Iraqi civilians and six Iraqi police are confirmed to have been killed, and at least 68 civilians were wounded in the terrorist attacks, Capt. Eeba, a civil affairs officer with 2nd Brigade, 6th Iraqi Army Division, reported."

See the disconnect? While attacks on US troops are ineffective, attacking the Iraqi infrastructure isn't.

A good question raised in the post above is what is the mission? While I thought it was to establish a democracy in the Middle east to "drain the swamp" and provide a model for a democratic Arab society.

I'm a long-time fan of the site, but as legit as some of the IMF's concerns are, the questions posed here are a little overstated.

First, I think we ought to take the old and current IMF projections with a tanker full of salt; we have a tough enough time making macro-predictions like this for the U.S. economy, which is far more stable.

Second, if you consult the current Iraq Index from Brookings, you will find that oil production and export are nearing the prewar peak. On the former, the Economist reports an average of just 2m barrels daily, but the current figure for August is 2.2 m barrels daily -- so the gap identified in the Economist article has been cut in half. In fact, production has been over 2m daily for 4 1/2 months. Moreover, attacks on infrastructure are way down, suggesting the trend of higher oil production and export will continue, contrary to the IMF estimate. Iraq does have to deal with inflation, banking reform, etc., but security will start being a major concern only if things go off-track between now and a year from now.

Spencer – First, there were nominally two forces involved from the communist side in Viet Nam, the Viet Cong and the NVA. The Viet Cong were a guerilla group, ostensibly consisting of South Vietnamese and independent of the NVA, but in fact directed from Hanoi. The Tet offensive was an “uprising” by the Viet Cong that General Giap expected would lead to a general insurrection by the downtrodden South Vietnamese. In fact, the South Vietnamese resisted the simultaneous uprisings pretty much everywhere. It is true that the Tet offensive brought the Viet Cong out of hiding, but it was hardly a conventional offensive. The US and ARVN forces were able to destroy the Viet Cong root and branch, and they were never again a factor in the war. From that point on, the war in Viet Nam was fairly conventional, with NVA regulars battling against US and ARVN forces.

The battle I believe you are describing is Khe Sanh, in which a group of Marines, later replace by the Army, established a stronghold on a hill along the so-called Ho Chi Minh trail. Giap, imagining another Dien Bien Phu, massed something on the order of four infantry divisions (this is an accurate description – they were infantry divisions, not pajama-clad insurgents) around Khe Sanh and attempted to overrun it. Through closely coordinated artillery fire and air strikes, the four divisions were decimated. By comparison, US casualties were very light.

Evidence of how good a job the media did in Viet Nam, many Americans remember Khe Sanh as an American defeat.

UPDATE: via Instapundit, we find that oil production may now be between 2.7 and 2.85 mil bpd -- higher then the pre-war high of 2.67 mil bpd.

The IMF should have Al Gore come teach them how to use his interweb thingy.

Don't know how you stop the MSM highlighting the success of the insurgents

Stop purchasing their product and let market pressure do the rest. It isn't like the news media have ever been a terribly useful source of accurate information.

Anyway, markm's plan sounds like a decent one to me. There is a finite supply of assholes in the world; kill enough of them quickly enough, and eventually you run out.

Karl writes:

>>>UPDATE: via Instapundit, we find that oil production may now be between 2.7 and 2.85 mil bpd -- higher then the pre-war high of 2.67 mil bpd."

How does that oil production help the Iraqi people, or the reconstruction in light of Paul Bremer (Bush) policies installed there?

>>>"A few of these rules, left over from the Bremer occupation period, as collected last year by Foreign Policy in Focus, the independent Washington research outfit:

Order #39: Privatize the country's 200 state-owned enterprises, permit 100 percent foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses, allow for complete repatriation of profits without tax. No requirements for reinvestment, hiring local labor, or provisioning public services. Labor rights non-existent.

Order #40: Foreign banks can enter the Iraqi market and take a 50 percent interest in formerly state-owned banks.

Order #49: Drop the corporate tax rate from 40 percent to a flat 15 percent. The income tax is capped at 15 percent.

Order #12: Suspension of "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq, and all other trade restrictions that may apply to such goods." Result: A tidal wave of cheap imports wipes out locally made goods.

Order #17: Security firms get full immunity from Iraq's laws.

Bremer created a Board of Supreme Audit, and named a pro-American president and assistants to oversee inspectors in all ministries who in turn oversee government contracts and classified programs.

Having done all this to assure continued American, i.e., Western, control over the Iraqis whom everyone knows are just plain greedy and corrupt by nature, Bremer's crew somehow managed to lose $9 billion in oil revenues meant for humanitarian needs and for rebuilding the country.

Veteran journalist Helen Thomas reported last week that the $9 billion had been transferred to Iraqi ministries, where it disappeared. Stuart W. Bowen, the special inspector general appointed by the U.S. occupation authority, reported the disappearance in January."

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11936

And furthermore, if only 60% of Iraqis have clean water, and electricity , if you can get it, only lasts three hours a day, with no sewage lines in 120+ degree average daily heat, you have to ASK why people are upset with the US occupation and the promises made to them?

--Cobra

John -- I was not refering to a specific battle -- I was refering to almost every battle in VN.

Look, believe what you want. Feel free to make up your own history-- but do not expect anyone who knows what really happened to take you seriously.

But the truth is we left VN because the American people decided that it was no longer worth the lives of their sons and daughters. It is that simple and your made up histories will not change that.

If you chickenhawks had your way we would not be
debating Iraq, because we would still be fighting in Vietnam.

Cobra: So how is that different from the situation under Saddam?

spencer,

I'm afraid your characterization of the Vietnam War is innaccurate. I can't blame you, the media and entertainment accounts portray the Vietnam War exactly as you describe it: pointless hill sitting and vanishing NVA/VC. The reality was different.

For just a basic primer, see:

http://www.vietnam-war.info/myths/

I'm referring especially to the second to last myth response which states: "The American military did not lose a battle of any consequence." With time, any person with an interest in the history of the Vietnam War could find other, more comprehensive accounts.

Jimmy

In WWII, winning was clearly defined - marching into Berlin and sailing into Tokyo Bay.

That's funny. I'd always thought the goal was to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

To follow on just a bit to Markm and Dan, whatever the number of asshole/insurgent/religous freakshows happens to be, because their sole program is to kill us, we have no choice but to kill them.

Evidence of how good a job the media did in Viet Nam, many Americans remember Khe Sanh as an American defeat.

The NVA certainly lost, but I can't quite say the Americans won either. To me, victory is when you can hold the territory. Prior to the seige at Khe Sanh, there were US defeats at the special forces base at Lang Vei. With extraordinary air support, Khe Sanh held. But we abandoned the base. The price in support and in lives was too high.

If you can't hold the territory, you haven't won.

Jimmy -- Go right ahead blamming the press.

But, just to make the record clear I spent most of the the war as an intelligence analyst at the CIA and had access to all the classified information flowing from the people on the scene.

The people in government making the decisions -- both military and civilian -- agreed with the points I am making almost accross the board.

Jimmy -- maybe you should go back and read the Pentagon Papers.

I was in Vietnam; my recollections are different than those of the Vietnam War info site. Most of the people in my marine unit were draftees, especially those who were not Southerners. US forces had much more firepower and killed many of those attacking. In that sense, I think that we won the battles, but lost the war. US forces could never tell who was on our side or talk to the locals, and areas that were cleared of enemy became enemy controlled again as soon as we moved on. I think that’s true today in Iraq, although I distrust all the reports coming from Iraq. US military reports seem to be as dishonest as those issued by commanders in Vietnam; only Arabic speaking reporters can really talk to the people. I’ve seen that in Latin America- reporters from the US and Europe getting a twisted translation from their translators, not what the local guy was actually saying.
Your military career depends on giving an optimistic report, your translator is likely to tell you what he thinks you want to hear, and locals may be afraid to tell anyone, Arabic speakers or not, what they really think. This is the fog of war; attempts to rewrite the history of Vietnam by people who were never there are not to be trusted.

Markm asks:

>>>Cobra: So how is that different from the situation under Saddam?"

Because the LATEST rhetoric that is used by the Administration, in place of the WMD/Iraq/9-11/Al Qaeda mythology that proved false, is that we "liberated Iraq" and the people are better off with him gone. If the conditions in Iraq are worse NOW under us than they were under Saddam, who in this scenario is going to liberate Iraq from the results of US occupation? If the Shia majority wins in the Iraqi Constitution (if it ever gets written, that is) and sharia law is put into place in the "Islamic Republic of Iraq", Iraqi women will have LESS RIGHTS than they did under Saddam. If you don't believe me, look up the tennents of Islamic fundamentalism and sharia law in regards to women.

McKinney writes:

>>>To follow on just a bit to Markm and Dan, whatever the number of asshole/insurgent/religous freakshows happens to be, because their sole program is to kill us, we have no choice but to kill them."

That doesn't seem to be the strategy of the Pentagon or the Secretary of Defense, however.

>>>"But on Sunday US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave the first indication Sunday that some members of the Bush administration recognize that the insurgency may not be in its "last throes," as Vice President Dick Cheney said recently. Mr. Rumsfeld told Fox News Sunday: "Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years."

"Coalition forces, foreign forces, are not going to repress that insurgency. We're going to create an environment that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi security forces can win against that insurgency."
Mr. Rumsfeld warned that violence could escalate ahead of new elections for a permanent government, due in December."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0627/dailyUpdate.html

Also, there are Pentagon plans in the works to REDUCE the number of troops in Iraq next year. How does REDUCING troops levels help with your "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" strategy?
The plan all along with these neo-cons was already written in the Project for the New American Century. Topple the Hussein regime, install a US corporation friendly Iraqi economy, secure a syphon on the world's second largest oil reserves, and build permanent bases (up to 14) from which Israel's millitary rivals can be buffered.

>>>The actual amount depends on how many troops are stationed there for the long term. If the US decides to reduce its forces there from the 138,000 now to, say, 50,000, and station them in bases, the costs would run between $5 billion to $7 billion a year, estimates Gordon Adams, director of Security Policy Studies at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. That's two to three times as much as the annual American subsidy to Israel. Providing protection for Israel is one of several reasons some analysts cite for the US invasion of Iraq."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0930/p17s02-cogn.html

Now you can argue that all I'm saying is a bunch of "MichaelMoore/Moveon.org/leftist/moonbat/pinko/Bushhatred" but, this is going according to the PNAC script, which I certainly didn't write.

>>>"In 1992, then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney had a strategy report drafted for the Department of Defense, written by Paul Wolfowitz, then Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy. In it, the U.S. government was urged, as the world's sole remaining Superpower, to move aggressively and militarily around the globe. The report called for pre-emptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions, but said that the U.S. should be ready to act alone when "collective action cannot be orchestrated." The central strategy was to "establish and protect a new order" that accounts "sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership," while at the same time maintaining a military dominance capable of "deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." Wolfowitz outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil" and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism."
http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm

And it gets EVEN more familiar here:

>>> In September of 2000, PNAC, sensing a GOP victory in the upcoming presidential election, issued its white paper on "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for the New Century." The PNAC report was quite frank about why the U.S. would want to move toward imperialist militarism, a Pax Americana, because with the Soviet Union out of the picture, now is the time most "conducive to American interests and ideals... The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace'." And how to preserve and enhance the Pax Americana? The answer is to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major-theater wars."

http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm

I could go on and on, but the point is, Karl Rove and the Corporate MSM has done a bait and switch on the American people in regards to these campaigns, and at least the TRUTH about the ACTUAL strategy behind all this should be known.

--Cobra

I GUESS CAPITALIZING THINGS MAKE THEM TRUE!!!

Cobra:

You ask how the oil production figures help the Iraqi people. However, if you read Jane's initial post and the Economist story to which it is linked, you would discover that it is a discussion of forecasts for the Iraqi economy that are based on the oil production figures. My sole point was that the IMF projections were based on numbers that are months old already.

As to whether any of it helps the Iraqi people, I expressed no opinion. However, now that you mention it, the Iraq Index I linked shows polling that the Iraqis think the country is headed in the right direction by a 2:1 margin. 82 percent things will be even better next year.

But maybe Karl Rove is brainwashing the Iraqi people, just like he did in the U.S.

Karl writes:

>>>" However, now that you mention it, the Iraq Index I linked shows polling that the Iraqis think the country is headed in the right direction by a 2:1 margin. 82 percent things will be even better next year."

Which Iraqis believe that the "country is heading in the right direction?" The Shia majority who see a Constitution that may impose Islamic fundamentalist sharia law and make the country a theocracy? The Sunnis, who by and large support the insurgency and hope to regain power? Or the Kurds, who feel that autonomy, and splitting off into their country could be well at hand if these talks break down? I'd love to see the methodology of these "polls" when there's practically no security outside the green zone.

--Cobra

Yes, Brookings is part of the VRWC, too.

The very same Iraq Index shows that the numbers for the Sunnis have gone from about 20 percent approval to about 40 percent approval. Not that you would bother to read it. It's obviously much more comforting to you to rely on your talking points.

Which Iraqis believe that the "country is heading in the right direction?"

The man linked the document. Go read it.

It even has footnotes, should you feel the urge to indulge your intellectual curiousity.

"Anyway, markm's plan sounds like a decent one to me. There is a finite supply of assholes in the world; kill enough of them quickly enough, and eventually you run out."

I think the problem here lies in the "quickly enough" qualification. When we go in and start killing apparent assholes, we are going to end up killing non-assholes by accident. This will cause the instant creation of more assholes, who will be ready to kill for revenge. It's called a vicious circle.

I think the problem here lies in the "quickly enough" qualification. When we go in and start killing apparent assholes, we are going to end up killing non-assholes by accident. This will cause the instant creation of more assholes, who will be ready to kill for revenge. It's called a vicious circle

It is also called "a myth".

Common sense (and history) should tell you that the "vicious circle" phenomenon doesn't exist -- if it did, no war would EVER end for longer than it took the defeated nation to rearm itself. Where, for example, were the "new assholes" created by our nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Why weren't the occupying American soldiers regularly attacked by Japanese insurgents every day until we left that country? Answer: because we'd killed so many of them that we broke both their ability AND their will to fight.

You get the vicious circle phenomenon when you don't commit to really wiping out your enemies -- when you hit them just hard enough to get them pissed off, but not hard enough to finish them.

Comments are Closed.