Michael J. Totten: The Four Wars for Iraq

November 26, 2004

The Four Wars for Iraq

I'm blogging via Web TV or I'd iclude a proper permalnk, but I would urge you to read a post today by Norm Geras titled "The Four Wars for Iraq." If I have linked to Norm more than once in my brief tenure at this blog and you want to know why, read that post.

I wish I were more able to read and conribute to comments here, but I'm looking forward to being able to do so again starting Saturday night.

Posted by Jeremy Brown at November 26, 2004 09:29 AM

Comments

I learned a new word today. Succinct.

So therefore in response to this excellent article written ONLY because the 'leftist'oppositionists are clearly mad as hatters ---------

WELL DUH !!!!

Posted by: dougf at November 26, 2004 11:05 AM

Good article, but the one after it refering to a article written by an American history prof(Herf) to the German audience is even better. ANother liberal for the war.

Posted by: Mark Hamm at November 26, 2004 08:25 PM

More rarely voiced common sense (from an 11/17/04 Reuters article):

"[Jack] Straw blamed military and civilian casualties in Iraq directly on the action of insurgents. "If the terrorists and insurgents gave up their campaign, the violence in Iraq would cease," he said."

This is an article disputing that Lancet article claiming 100,000 killed to date. It further states:

"The government supports an estimate from Iraq's Ministry of Health that 3,853 civilians were killed and 15,517 injured between April and October this year, Straw said in a statement. Those figures may include insurgents."

The article does not mention an estimate of the number of deaths caused in the 3 weeks prior to the fall of Baghdad on April 9th. It is the casualties from this "first" war that are the undisputed responsibility of the US. Anyone seen any estimates?

Posted by: Caroline at November 26, 2004 08:38 PM

He writes, "In the face of gloomy predictions of quagmire from those who opposed this war, it was over in a matter of weeks, with Saddam and his cronies gone from power, and in hiding", when of course the 'predicted quagmire' is his second, third and fourth wars. This is dishonest.

But the main problem is that the post is a response to: "the blaming of pretty much everything on the Coalition". Saying that the Coalition should take responsibility for the results of their actions is certainly not 'the blaming of pretty much everything'. He is deliberately distorting the views of those who disagree with him. Or perhaps he is just ignoring any considered opposition to the war and only going for the easier opponents.

Later he says, "One counter-argument here is likely to be that those who initiate an unjust war are responsible for everything they unleash". Why unjust? Are those who initiate a just war not responsible for the consequences?

He accuses those against the war of 'all or nothing' thinking yet seems to be opting for 'nothing' himself. The post gives the impression that he thinks the coalition should bear absolutely no responsibility.

Posted by: Daniel at November 27, 2004 04:54 AM

“Later he says, "One counter-argument here is likely to be that those who initiate an unjust war are responsible for everything they unleash". Why unjust? Are those who initiate a just war not responsible for the consequences?”

Morally speaking, not in the least. The blame belongs entirely upon the heads of the wrong doers. Moreover, the very survival of civilization depends on our making this distinction. Thugs must never think that hiding behind innocents protects them from retribution.

Thankfully, posters like Daniel, Novakant, and Benjamin are effectively being marginalized. They are on the outside looking in. President Bush’s reelection guarantees that the antiwar crowd will be nothing more than a nuisance.

Posted by: David Thomson at November 27, 2004 07:41 AM

Risible. Of course the US as the occupying power has the obligation under international law to ensure public safety and meet the material needs of the occupied and they have been failing and are continuing to fail in this regard.
(Cf. Art. 43 of the Hague Regulations, Art. 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention)

But then, in line with the new AG, you'll probably dismiss the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" and international law as not binding if the CIC deems it inconvenient.

As for the moral case, you would probably argue that a government that fails to protect its citizens from violent crime and arsons by understaffing the police and fire brigades, bears no moral responsibility, because, after all it was evil muggers and arsonists who did it. Yet, the fact that the perpetrators are evil does not relieve the responsible powers of their obligations, and failure to live up to them amount to neglect which is indeed immoral.

I'm sure you are happy to see dissenting voices mariginalized, since your ultimate goal seems to be a one party state, where Our Leader is regarded as infallible and mere criticism amounts to treason.

Posted by: novakant at November 27, 2004 08:46 AM

“I'm sure you are happy to see dissenting voices mariginalized, since your ultimate goal seems to be a one party state, where Our Leader is regarded as infallible and mere criticism amounts to treason.”

George W. Bush is hardly infallible. I have been among his harshest critics when it comes to the national budget, and I’m glad that the U.S. Congress is forcing a reexamination the Homeland Security bill. Still, President Bush is the lesser of evils next to the defeated John Kerry. I may forgive those like Andrew Sullivan, Mickey Kaus, and Daniel Drezner who supported the Massachusetts senator---but I will never forget. They have proven themselves to be intellectually inadequate. I will be blunt: there was no rational justification voting for a John Kerry. Such individuals may be kind to their dogs, polite to the elderly, but should be regarding as second rate thinkers.

Marginalization is the responsible way a Democratic society deals with those who cannot think straight. They are neither harmed nor censored, merely directed to the back room so that the adults can resolve the issues of the day. It is OK to pity them, but one should never take them seriously. I’m relieved that we now only have to respond to these naive souls mostly in an abstract philosophical manner, and not as a practical necessity.

Posted by: David Thomson at November 27, 2004 09:39 AM

“Excuse me if after a while one just wants to scream "What the f**k do you want??? What perfect world do you live in???”

They are indeed utopians. The real world is messy and imperfect. This fact frustrates their immature minds. We must marginalize them. Adults should not have to endure children running around the room when there are important matters to be resolved.

Posted by: David Thomson at November 27, 2004 09:46 AM

Frankly - I think it just hasn't dawned on them yet that given the brutality and fanatisicm of the enemy in the global war on terror - in combination with the increasing Islamization of Europe - that we could actually lose. I think once that fact sinks in on some level, more and more on the left will realize how potentially dangerous their relentless anti-Americanism is.

Posted by: Caroline at November 27, 2004 09:56 AM

"I'm sure you are happy to see dissenting voices mariginalized, since your ultimate goal seems to be a one party state..."

No, actually the goal of the Democrats is a one-party state (where the GOP gets all the votes).

Personally I think this is unhealthy for our Republic, but who am I to stop you Democrats from making yourselves irrevelent? It is because of YOU that I get paid the big bucks (ha ha, what a scam! I get a six-figure bonus this Xmas because of dumbshits like novakant fuck over their own cause! Ha!)

Posted by: Karl Rove at November 27, 2004 10:48 AM

novakant -

Where you referring to this part of the NYT article: "And even after this tense and vituperative campaign, 56 percent said they were generally optimistic about the next four years under Mr. Bush. Mr. Bush's job approval rating has now inched up to 51 percent, the highest it has been since March."?

Posted by: Ben at November 27, 2004 12:25 PM

Look here (detailed PDF) or here (better readability) and check for the public opinion concerning Bush's handling of Iraq.

Cheers

Posted by: novakant at November 27, 2004 12:42 PM

"And even after this tense and vituperative campaign, 56 percent said they were generally optimistic about the next four years under Mr. Bush. Mr. Bush's job approval rating has now inched up to 51 percent, the highest it has been since March."

The Republicans can get cocky and lose the somewhat ambivalent support of the middle of the road voter. President Bush was considered the lesser of evils by Michael Totten, Jane Galt, Glenn Reynolds, Roger Simon, Ann Althouse, and countless others. All of them regretted that they had to make this decision. But will they opt for the Democratic candidate in 2008? Nope, this is very unlikely. We will still be at war against the nihilist Muslims---and the Democratic Party is unable to marginalize its antiwar members. Its presidential candidate will ultimately be dragged down to defeat.

The Republicans have a large number of moderately wealthy supporters. Someone who is merely modestly well to do can always be marginalized if they get too goofy. This cannot be done to the ultra rich like George Soros. Thus, if you disagree with them---you will have to leave the party. Soros and the other looney billionaires aren’t going anywhere.

Posted by: David Thomson at November 27, 2004 12:53 PM

novakant: We want more! ;) ;) ;)

Posted by: Karl Rove, getting richer at November 27, 2004 03:30 PM

Alright, for the slow learners and reading impaired, who seem to be unable to read a poll:

The topic was Bush's Iraq policy.

A majority of US citizens now believes that:

- we should have stayed out of Iraq

- Bush cannot succesfully end the war in Iraq

- it is not possible for the US to create a stable Iraq

- Iraq is not a part of the WoT

For good measure a majority disapproves of Bush's handling of the situation with Iraq.

Any questions?

Posted by: novakant at November 27, 2004 05:21 PM

Jeremy Brown

Are you more optimistic than I am concerning the Democrats presidential chances nationally in 2008? Can they overcome the pacifism of their more vociferous members? How do you marginalize the super rich like George Soros? I think the Democratic Party is relegated to merely being competitive regarding the US Senate or the House of Representatives. Do you disagree?

Sincerely,

David Thomson
Houston, Texas

Posted by: David Thomson at November 27, 2004 07:47 PM

"Are you hinting, via the formality of structure in your last comment, that you think I'm acting like the Soup Nazi?"

You are reaching an incorrect conclusion. The thought (literally) never entered my mind. Four years is indeed a long time. Nevertheless, I don’t see the Democratic Party marginalizing its pacifists anytime in the near future. This inevitably means that the Republican candidate should easily beat its standard bearer.

Another theory also cast doubts on the Democrats ultimate survival: the overall reluctance of the blue staters to opt for a large family. Republicans appear to have more children---and they will likely grow up and vote for the GOP.

Posted by: David Thomson at November 28, 2004 02:26 AM

“My point is that dismissing half of the population as crazy, delusionary pacifist wingnuts is an untenable position.”

Who ever said that? It would indeed be a mistake to conclude that half of the American adult population are “crazy, delusionary pacifist wingnuts.” The actual figure is probably only around one/sixth. However, these individuals are mostly found within the Democratic Party---and are its power brokers. They will ultimately choose the next presidential candidate. This is why the Democrats are doomed nationally in 2008.

Posted by: David Thomson at November 28, 2004 07:21 AM

novakant -
"If I was a hawk, I would take this shift seriously and start questioning what has gone wrong." This depends on how much weight a "hawk" would give this poll. It appears 39% were republican, 46% were democrat and 15% were either independent or not affiliated with either party.

Posted by: Kim at November 28, 2004 08:06 AM

Kim, you can find similar results in many other polls. Naturally results vary slightly, but the general trend (comparing 03/03 to 11/04) is overwhelming.

Posted by: novakant at November 28, 2004 08:30 AM

“Kim, you can find similar results in many other polls. Naturally results vary slightly, but the general trend (comparing 03/03 to 11/04) is overwhelming.”

So what? The bottom line is that the majority of American voters reject pacifist solutions. They will vote only for a presidential candidate who they perceive will not cut and run. This is the central reason why John Kerry lost. The Democratic Party cannot get rid of its pacifists---and therefore it is doomed when it comes to national elections.

Bill Clinton won only because he was the “end of history” candidate. Many Americans naively thought that we were safe from attack after the fall of the Soviet Union. The continuing war on terrorism has changed everything. From here on end, a candidate’s position on defense issues will not be a secondary issue. It will be front and center.

Posted by: David Thomson at November 28, 2004 08:51 AM

David Thompson,

Sorry, man. This form of communication can make a person paranoid (and I don't have far to go to get to paranoid).

Posted by: Jeremy Brown at November 28, 2004 09:24 AM

" David T.--
Sorry, man. This form of communication can make a person paranoid (and I don't have far to go to get to paranoid).--- JB

I liked the 'soup nazi'allusions,and besides we all 'know' that David T is out to get you.
You just can't be too careful.You can trust me though, old buddy.old pal.

Posted by: dougf at November 28, 2004 09:39 AM

Scroll down in your link to the CBS News/New York Times Poll. Nov. 18-21, 2004. N=885 adults nationwide. Look at the trend for the few polls listed among the 885 back to 03. I still do not see anything in this data that would make a "hawk" pause.

Posted by: Kim at November 28, 2004 11:31 AM

From www.freep.com/news/politics/jinx4e_20041104.htm

"The Weekly Reader claims to be the "oldest and most accurate predictor of presidential election results." Readers of the national classroom magazine in grades 1 through 12 in urban, suburban and rural schools voted for several weeks in a mock election. This year, kids gave Bush the vote."

I highly doubt that children are voting independently of their parents...

Regarding other predictors:

Washington Redskins - out
Cookies - in
Halloween mask sales - in
Ohio - in

Posted by: Caroline at November 29, 2004 03:51 PM

The only real way to look younger is not to be born so soon.
-- Charles Schulz, Things I've Had to Learn Over and
Over and Over
Loan http://www.epaycash.com

Posted by: Loan at December 16, 2004 09:48 AM

Scotty: Captain, we din' can reference it!
Kirk: Analysis, Mr. Spock?
Spock: Captain, it doesn't appear in the symbol table.
Kirk: Then it's of external origin?
Spock: Affirmative.
Kirk: Mr. Sulu, go to pass two.
Sulu: Aye aye, sir, going to pass two.
Payday Loan http://www.epaycash.com

Posted by: Payday Loan at December 16, 2004 10:30 AM

Dimensions will always be expressed in the least usable term.
Velocity, for example, will be expressed in furlongs per fortnight.
Payday Loans http://www.paylesspaydayloans.com

Posted by: Payday Loans at December 17, 2004 06:19 AM

Check out How to Gamble in America :: Poker Index :: Poker Room Review :: Sports Index :: Sports Book Review :: Casino Index :: Casino Review :: Craps :: Blackjack Strategies :: Roulette :: Let It Ride :: Three Card Poker :: Video Poker :: Gambling Quotes :: Online Gambling :: Online Poker :: Draw Poker :: Poker Hand Rankings :: Texas Hold’em :: Seven Card Stud :: Seven Card High/Low :: Omaha :: Omaha High/Low :: Guide To Sports Betting :: The Basics to Wagering on Sports :: Parlays :: Teasers :: Half Point :: Sports Betting Tips & Tricks :: Money Management :: Sports Betting Terminology :: Horse Racing Tips :: Free NFL Pick