The script for the Iraqi gov’t is still to be writ. It was impossible for the Iraqi gov’t to function in the midst of massive violence. Now that the violence has dramatically subsided, will they do what they needed to do all along? imo, Nobody really knows, and anyone who predicts the outcome is either a fool or an ideologue. However, what is clear is that the Iraqi gov’t stands a better chance today than it did a year ago. Then, al Sadr was a divisive force. Today, his isn’t. In fact, he may have decided that his best chance for power lies in involving himself in the peaceful, democratic process rather than with death squads and militias. How he goes may determine the future of the Iraqi gov’t.

Afghanistan still doesn’t have a functioning gov’t. After all, Afghanistan is less of a country than Iraq. Yet, nobody complains about the non-functioning Afghani gov’t. Why not? Such arguments don’t score political points.

Sure, Bacevich can be called a realist. And, realists are OK. They can present reasonable arguments argued reasonably. However, Bacevich’s article is political spin. Key cite:

In only one respect has the surge achieved undeniable success: It has ensured that U.S. troops won’t be coming home anytime soon… But a prerequisite to perpetuating the war — and leaving it to the next president — was to get Iraq off the front pages and out of the nightly news. At least in this context, the surge qualifies as a masterstroke.

My bet is that Bacevich pines for those halycon days when Iraq dominated the front pages and nightly news. His article is essentially a call to arms directed at the anti-war crowd to disparage the surge as he has done and change the media narrative back to what it used to be. Well, it ain’t gonna happen. Ogle the metrics in graphical form from Odierno’s 17 Jan briefing:

http://www.defenselink.mil/dodcmsshare/briefingslide/321/080117-D-6570C-001.pdf

These metrics are a dagger in the heart, a kick in the nads, and a finger in the eye to the anti-war crowd. Since they are so devastating, Bacevich decided that his response had to be tumescent, engorged, and palpitating; hence, his overuse of emotionally incendiary language in his article.

I’m LFDF, not LFOD. ‘LFDF’ is an acronym for “Last f—ing dude fighting”.

Bacevich’s article is interesting. From whence does he come?

Researching his background, he was a Colonel in the Army, a former commander of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Rumsfeld’s deemphasis of 3000-tank armies just might have stuck in Bacevich’s craw.

His primary thesis? From a link:

http://www.cceia.org/resources/to_be_read/932.html

The germinal insight for his book came to him as he reflected on developments in the years after “the Soviet Union effectively called off the Cold War.”

Although it was expected [after the Cold War] that America’s military supremacy would make it unnecessary to go to war to pursue America’s objectives, that expectation proved, according to Bacevich, to be a mere “pipe dream,” and American diplomacy has become more and more a military diplomacy, a diplomacy of force.

If you start from the premise that military force is anathema, then Iraq is a quagmire.

An interesting article, but some words extracted from his article; Fabulist, myth, miracles, hallowed, facile, prophets, flagrant, dysfunction, scant, fiction, Katrina, ineptitude, paralyzing, rampant, abandoning, irrelevance, shredded, dismal, irretrievably, fantasy, failure, masterstroke, feckless, lavish, cul-de-sac, blinkered, wishful, bullying, myth-making, adrift, & egregious.

Let’s call the article for what it is: An ideological screed, more rhetoric than substance.

There’s no challenge debating someone incapable of understanding the difference between “research” as a substitute for critical thought, and analytical thought that uses research to illustrate and supplement critical thinking.

Pre-school lessons are over for now. Sedona and Live Free, feel free to continue Dan’s education on the fundamentals of critical thought. I’m through with explaining the obvious to the incapable.

Some of us call that research. I’m sure you did a little of that when he wrote your dissertation didn’t you, or did you just pontificate off the top of your head?

** I use links myself, on occasion. What I object to is people who are incapable of forming a coherent thought themselves, and rely on a plethora of links to make their points for them.

Phil, you really need to read this. I know you hate links. (I have never quite understood why. I would think it would be evidence of me trying to back up my opinions.) The “reporter” Gordon in this article is just like you. He just assumes that continued indefinite occupation is the only reasonable and “serious” options so anyone who believes otherwise is by definition unserious. (How convenient.) Try and be a little introspective and see if you don’t see a little of yourself in him.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/20/gordon/index.html

And here is an article on how hopeless the political situation is in Iraq? LFOD, were you being serious when you declared the War in Iraq to be won?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/18/AR2008011802873.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

I really do hope y’all read this. Here is a small excerpt.

“Presumably Kagan and his comrades would have us believe that recent events vindicate the prophets who in 2002-03 were promoting preventive war as a key instrument of U.S. policy. By shifting the conversation to tactics, they seek to divert attention from flagrant failures of basic strategy. Yet what exactly has the surge wrought? In substantive terms, the answer is: not much.”

Shifting the conversation to tactics. Hhmm … sounds familiar.

Re: my economic analyses, I always rely on others to crunch the numbers for me (particularly my MBA brother). That kind of detail is beyond me. What I am pretty good at is relating the outcome of this effort to the social and political dynamics of the society in which it operates. This is how the numbers end up talking to me.

The income tax system in this country went off the deep end a long time ago as entitlements replaced personal responsibility. I’m not really sure how to fix it anymore (vs. just try to stem the hemmorage). My only concern nowadays is to keep my own tax obligation as low as I can. There’s something really wrong when I end up paying more taxes in 2007 than I earned in total income in 2001.

Take care, Phil