I understand perhaps in error, (like that could even be possible) that Fallujah was even in Saddam's day a little fiefdom unto itself overrun with even more criminality or rather criminals than the rest of Iraq.

Is it still largely run by 'criminals' ? Who does 'run' the place ? Is there any sense of 'community' there now ?

Who now runs Iraqi Security in the city ? Is it the 'police' or neighbourhood groups or both ? Are Fallujans more or less 'content' as long as the US although they are 'occupiers', don't behave as 'occupiers'.

What jobs are available for Iraqis there ? Are there plans to do anything about the problems of people having no income or having too much time on their hands ?

A while ago I read about US plans to restart some large Iraqi manufacturing operations which were closed by the War. It was understood that these were by nature inefficient but they soaked up large numbers of people and kept them out of mischief. Is anything being done on this front ?

What 'systems' actually work there. Water, sewage, electricity. You know the basic stuff.

When will the traffic be free to flow in the city as I understand that at last report, it was devided up into more or less self-contained security areas and freedom of movement was seriously restricted due to the risk of car bombs.

I guess what I am really interested in is ---

If the conflict all stopped tomorrow, what would the people there do with themselves ?

Michael,

If you read The Honoured Society by Norman Lewis, you will find a description of Corleone, a Mafia stronghold with a fearsome reputation and a physical presence that reflects it, has strong echoes with your description of Falluja.

I'm afraid the comparison is not optimistic. He wrote this in the 1950s and, by all accounts, not much has changed to this day. Sadly, such cultures are ominously persistent.

Did the highly kinetic scrubbing of Fallujah kill a lot of locals, or did mostly foreign fighters die? Is there a definable harking back by locals to that event, or are they realistic about it?

Good luck. I guess I'm not going to add something like "try and get the opinions of people off the USArmy radar map", because I don't want you to die...

As always, your personal experience and perception of the city, and what the Marines think of the city.

Should be interesting. 2-1 IA Bde moved out of the city to the Thar Thar region and IP is in-lead there...

I’m out of fresh material from Iraq, so I’ll be heading back in a few weeks to get more.

So that you can cater more to the war boosters. You might as well stay home. You of all people have the sense to know better than what you're doing. You know a lot about the Arabs and, in bits and pieces, real empathy comes through in your writing. But you always make it add up to a bottom line that pro-war readers want. You'll quote mercenaries from private security who brag openly about how the war made them rich, but that will just whiz by as coloratura. You'll describe a swampland of tribal and religious authority, but you'll summarize it only as who we won over. As if you can't guess that the US is paying the sheiks and they will turn when the payments stop. Or that Iraqis know how to cater too, when they talk to Americans.

You summed it up pretty well in your article on the Shia "awakening". "If you're looking for a reason to hope" was the conclusion. That is a good description of your paying readers. The problem is, one day that source of money will dry up. Then no one will respect a record of reporting "reasons to hope" instead of the truth.

Jim Harris,

"You summed it up pretty well in your article on the Shia "awakening". "If you're looking for a reason to hope" was the conclusion. That is a good description of your paying readers. The problem is, one day that source of money will dry up. Then no one will respect a record of reporting "reasons to hope" instead of the truth."

Are you accusing Michael of being dishonest or you just do not like conclusions he arrives to based on facts?

Please, clarify.

Then no one will respect a record of reporting "reasons to hope" instead of the truth.--Jim

Well at the worst he has until that point in time. I don't respect some people now.

But you did one thing with your posting,Jim. You made 'glasnost' seem almost detached. And as to the 'truth' you babble on about so forcefully. What you mean ,of course, is YOUR truth. Not THE truth. BIG BIG difference.

We ALL know about the sheiks and their attraction to money. And about the 'religious figures'. These revelations are not a surprise to anyone, and certainly not something a genius like you needs to point out to the rest of us war boosters . We might be a trifle slow for your tastes, but we're not that slow. We plod along and when facts smack us in the face we tend to notice. Sometimes we even throw in a Doh ala Homer when something interferes with our preferred narrative. But we do notice.

Thanks anyway for sharing. I'm sure others appreciate it as much as I.

Instead of Michael 'staying home' as you so cheerfully advise because his reports don't fit YOUR required narrative, how about you simply don't visit here ? You'd evidently be much happier not to have your world-view disturbed, and the rest of us could happily continue to wander around in our self-delusional fantasy world. A win-win for all as I see it. For example I myself NEVER visit certain sites because they aggravate me. I know what they are saying and I don't agree with it. Why should I listen to it again ? Been there : done that.

Frankly, Jim, as to the truth which you say you possess, as opposed to those who listen to those few reporters who 'cater to the war boosters', you'll forgive me if I say that IMO, you couldn't handle the TRUTH.

Some of us are 'optimistic' on Iraq but MJT has said that he is at best only about 50% optimistic that things might work out well. And before Sept-Oct he was a lot less optimistic than that, and he has pointed out in graphic details the flaws he has seen in Iraqi society, and the many problems he sees in the future. Now maybe that makes him a 'war-booster' in your books.

I suggest however ,Jim that perhaps instead of casting aspersions on Michael's 'honesty', that you might try to read some new books.

Just FYI and all that.

Are you accusing Michael of being dishonest or you just do not like conclusions he arrives to based on facts?

His conclusions are a face of "hope" that doesn't fit his facts. It's like the vacation from hell when the relatives just keep telling each other that they are having a great time.

On the contrary, he is a lot more honest in the details than a lot of his rivals. That is why the spin over them is such a big disappointment.

Michael,

I would be interested in a comparison between Fallujah today and Fallujah of 6 months or a year ago. Not just on the military side but also on the local economy and infrastructure. Are things improving, static or getting worse? I think the best way to gauge where we are going is to take a look at where we have been.

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 10/22/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

To anyone that criticizes Michael's reporting, I have one thing to say: you can go to Iraq too. It is a big country, no one is stopping you from going there and doing your own reporting.

If you think someone doesn't have the facts right, or they are spinning it, then go do your own research.

Jim Harris: You might as well stay home.

I write what I see, hear, and think. Not what you think. Who the hell are you? And tell me why I shouldn't just kick you out of here right now?

If you have anything constructive to add, stick around and add it without insults. Otherwise, leave.

You summed it up pretty well in your article on the Shia "awakening". "If you're looking for a reason to hope" was the conclusion. That is a good description of your paying readers.

My paying readers did not pay me for that article, nor did they pay me for the article I quoted inside that one where I was more pessimistic. Commentary and the New York Daily News paid for those.

Also, I cited a New York Times article as the source, which is hardly a "pro-war" newspaper.

If I wanted to put a happy spin on everything I wouldn't have felt the need to publicly take back some of my previous pessimism that was corrected by the reporting in the New York Times.

You might think you have Iraq all figured out by staying home, but I'm not arrogant enough to think I have it all figured out even while traveling and working there on a regular basis.

Anyway, I don't need to justify myself to you. You have no effect on my life, and if you only came here to insult me you won't last long.

Doug F - I'm quite sure you're the one who can't handle the truth - particularly if you have to come to this site to get 'information'.

The truth is the Iraq disaster is a war crime of the highest order. Fact.

And as such, we should leave immedietely, apologize for our crimes and pay massive reperations to a government of the Iraqis own choosing.

And by the way - we can go where we like. And more of us interested in truth and justice should be coming here to tell sadly delusional people such as yourself what a fact is....

Bon voyage. I look forward to reading what you write. Be careful.

Neo Lies: if you have to come to this site to get 'information'.

You are banned, not for thinking the Iraq war is a "war crime of the highest order," but for introducing yourself by calling me a liar on my own Web site.

Any future comments by you will be deleted.

Michael-

My questions revolve around-"What are we doing to enable the civilian and political infrastructure to stand up on its own?"

What are city services like? Electricity, water, sewer, garbage collection, etc.? What is the Fallujan's attitude toward reconstruction?(Assuming that reconstruction is occurring.) For example, are they enthusiastic participants? Do they feel that it is owed to them? Is it a plum to be awarded to friends and withheld from enemies? From your Ramadi reporting, there seemed to be community spirit to clean up and rebuild the city. Is that the case in Fallujah? What are the Marines doing to build the community up?

Also, do the Marines act as intermediaries with the Iraqi government? I've heard that Baghdad withholds support from Sunni areas; do our Marines get involved in these internal problems?

Thanks,

Marty

Michael,

How has "COIN" impacted Fallujah? Other independant journalists report Iraq (thru 2007) is turning favorably due to the realization "WE" are the lesser of two evils. We (US) don't want their oil or women. AQI destroys the civil population. Can a society locked into a 1700 mentality live peacefully now that they have experienced the barbarianism of AQI?

How is this possible given the teachings of the Qur'an?

Thanks for your work, keep defending your honor, and stay safe.

Jim Harris sys:

"His conclusions are a face of "hope" that doesn't fit his facts. It's like the vacation from hell when the relatives just keep telling each other that they are having a great time.

On the contrary, he is a lot more honest in the details than a lot of his rivals. That is why the spin over them is such a big disappointment."

I am confused. If Michael's facts are correct what upsets you?
Do not like Michael's conclusions? Draw your own. See the spin? 'Unspin' it.

If you came here in hope to change someone's mind you will not succeed by throwing insults. Quite the contrary.

May be you should apologize to Michael and to all of us and start anew?

leo: If you came here in hope to change someone's mind you will not succeed by throwing insults.

Oh, man. I knew I was doing something wrong.

If you came here in hope to change someone's mind you will not succeed by throwing insults. Quite the contrary.

Well said leo. When one is insulting and degrading all that happens is stubborness. People shut down and hold onto their own beliefs even more tightly. Leave out the insults and people will give more thought to what is said. Understand that that doesn't mean they will change their position, but will at least give consideration.

I'd quite like to know what the locals believe the international forces in Iraq are hoping to achieve.

I know that attitudes have beem far more optimistic in the country in the past year, but Fallujah seems to be aside from the rest (as you noted in your comparison with Baghdad, and as I've noticed in your writing on Ramadi compared with the description you've given). After all, the allied forces did invade their country, depose the government and provide the kindling for a civil war. Falluja seems to be worse for wear in terms of reconstruction and positive attitude, and I was wondering what they think of that in terms of the occupying forces.

Incoherence! Score!

best wishes, don't get shot or anything,

James L.
Edinburgh

Michael,

Personally, I suspect that Fallujah will remain a nasty place to visit for many years. But it doesn't necessarily have to be a hotbed of anti-American sentiment.

If bad people come like us, or at least become indifferent to us, is that a bad thing?

Michael:

I'd like to know if any changes in the attitudes translates to how they deal with the central government, i.e. are they now more prone to work within the government rather that boycott?

What I'd like to know about Fallujah is the average citizen's view on the insurgency there in 2004. Is it viewed as "us against the occupiers" or "foreign terrorists against liberators" or something in-between. Are these Iraqis just waiting it out to strike at a moment of their choosing, is it a place where radicals are mixed with ordinary people wanting to live their lives, how can we view this region? Thanks for your info, keep safe.

`come to like us,' I meant

Sounds like fun, wish I could join you ;-)

I'm interested in perceptions. Here the perception depends on the color of your politics, it seems. If you're Red then every mistake 'isn't that bad' and every win is a Big deal, if you're Blue then every win is lame and every mistake is the next Disaster.... and its not our lives on the line.

So what about the people in Iraq and Fallujah? Do they get fed spin? Do they see the daily issues as just more of life in Iraq? Do they see American troops as responsible or irresponsible when it comes to mistakes? How honest are our troops and the Iraqi government being about problems (like the current mess with Blackwater)? Does that issue exist only in the minds of Americans, fed by the media, or are the Iraqis really pissed, or do they see it as a mistake made by non-US military?

On top of that, your interviews in Anbar showed a group that hated AQ, but also hated the government in Baghdad... or at least didn't seem to think much of them. Is Fallujah the same? Are they standing up for themselves as a community or as part of a nation?

So be safe and bring back the scoop ;-) As always, we'll be waiting with baited breath!

Oh and to Jim Harris, if he's still reading here. I'm not a war booster. I have never supported the invasion of Iraq and I hang out here because MJT appears more honest in his reporting than 99.9% of the other media sources. His personal optimism is not the same thing as political spin...

Ratatosk: His personal optimism is not the same thing as political spin...

I appreciate that you see the difference. I am by nature an optimist. And I did support the invasion initially so I'd like to think that wasn't a horribly stupid move. I also know many Iraqis personally and would like to think they won't be massacred because of what's happening and may happen.

Still, as I have said before, I'm not terribly optimistic. If I had to bet money on the outcome, I'd bet on a bad outcome. But the way I see it, odds of a decent outcome are somewhere around 30 percent, whereas earlier this year I figured the odds were more like 5 percent.

Really, though, I don't have a freaking clue. These percentages are based as much on gut-level instincts as they are on information. Iraq is way too fluid and unpredictable for any of us to honestly think we know what is going to happen. If Fallujah, of all places, is sort of okay, maybe Baghdad can be too. But Fallujah erupted very suddenly and horribly, and could do so again. No one predicted the Samarra mosque bombing (how could they?), and that catalyzed at least two years of stupid gratuitous violence.

Michael,

Safe travels. I look forward to your next dispatches. A small addition to the tip jar to help cover some of the expenses. I hope others that enjoy your work will do the same.

Rob

No one predicted the Samarra mosque bombing (how could they?), and that catalyzed at least two years of stupid gratuitous violence.

If a reasonably easy task like destroying a building can cause years of sectarian strife, and there are enough people there who benefit from sectarian strife, then a + b = c.

Hence my pessimism.

How do Fallujahns see themselves -- before Saddam and now after?

BTW: Anyone know what happened to Dan: did he get banned?

MJT, keep up the stellar work!

Dan is not banned.

DPU: Hence my pessimism.

I hear ya.

God speed, Michael, stay safe. If you are passing thru NYC let us know.

I am very interested in organizational change. Cultural change. It's almost impossible to do at a corporate level, although lots of management consultants make bucks trying. Several orders of magnitude more difficult/complex/etc for a country, obviously.

But it can be done to some extent. Heck, look at NYC. (Vote for Rudy.) I am interested in the micro changes which percolate out to the macro level. Sounds like Fallujah is a control group - a town that was nasty before Saddam. Does Fallujah revert to being nasty, but the way it was before? How does that fit into the new Iraq? Does Fallujah undergo some higher order change as a result of confronting people even nastier than they were?

Michael if you want to write a screenplay, an Iraqi version of Kurosawa samurai movies would be very appropriate. Worked for Sergio Leone, and it does seem like the Wild West out there.

dougf:

you couldn't handle the TRUTH.

Did you order the code red?

And tell me why I shouldn't just kick you out of here right now?

Because first of all what I have to say is not mainly about you as a person. I don't think that you're ugly or stupid or even inherently dishonest or anything like that. You write well and at times you have expressed real sympathy for the people that you write about. Otherwise there would be no point in my praising or criticizing you in your blog.

No, this is about the approach that you have chosen to take in your work. What you call "optimism" is really taking sides. It's about a war that you asked for and a guy that you said you voted for. So it's a very convenient kind of optimism. Of course in a war, there is a fine line between optimism and callous disregard. After all, William Westmoreland was an optimist in Vietnam and Vladimir Putin is an optimist in Chechnya.

Do you want to ban that criticism? That's your call of course, but you would do better to follow the example of the New York Times. They do accept bashing in their letters section from time to time; and they accept it in their blogs all the time. The comments in their blogs don't have to be "constructive", they just have to stay broadly on topic. That is how to take the high road. If you want to restrict your comment section to fans, it won't hurt me; the Internet is a big place.

You objected that I have nothing constructive to say. In fact I did already imply constructive criticism. In passing you talked to two war profiteers who openly gloated about the money they were making. And how a lot of it was tax free if they spent it on vacations. It was almost prescient, because just a few months later some of these guys shot and killed 17 civilians in Baghdad, without any demonstrated provocation. And they're exempt from both Iraqi and American criminal law. A few weeks later another crew of them killed two Armenian Christian women.

So one constructive suggestion is that you should find out more about the contractors who you can meet by accident and who describe themselves as addicted to money. It seems that some of them are addicted to violence too.

Another suggestion would be to go to talk to the millions of Iraqi refugees in Jordan and Syria. And if you do talk to them, it's very important not to just be an optimist. Obviously you have to be pretty desperate to bang on Syria's doors. Optimism amounts to disregarding the real grief of these people.

Jim,

I'll grant that sometimes it feels like MJT provides little depth into lots of ugly side alleys ... While focusing instead on the giant street carnival. Those alleys are full of lots of really nasty stuff that might get someone killed. Sure he only gets to meet the people that his protection can let him meet. Yes, that will slant the story somewhat... but its not like he's hiding that fact. We understand that these are stories of his experiences and what he gets to see/hear within limits of his personal safety, not solid objective facts.

The way in which people see only a black and white world may be most obvious in ignorant actions and words by people deluded by religion and politics, but your brand seems just as insidious. Not every person who writes must do so objectively. Not every person who writes a good story is trying to hide the bad ones and not every positive story from Iraq has the White House spin on it... only the ones from Fox News.

Jim Harris: What you call "optimism" is really taking sides. It's about a war that you asked for and a guy that you said you voted for.

Well, fine. I've said as much already myself. Isn't the same true of you, too? Your pessimism is also a way of taking sides, and is about a war you opposed and a guy I'm sure you did not vote for.

That's fine and perfectly natural. Nothing wrong with you, and nothing wrong with me. We all have our opinions and are lying if we say otherwise. I know many reporters who oppose the war and predict a bad outcome -- and vice versa -- and who do a good job reporting the facts. Professionalism is not for hawks or doves alone.

We all take or took sides in this argument. I'm not automatically wrong just because you don't happen to agree with me. Someone will think I'm wrong no matter which side I'm on, so I can't take the mere existence of disagreement from a stranger seriously unless you have something substantive to say and can make a convincing fact-based argument.

Maybe supporting the Iraq war was wrong. Believe me, I've considered the idea hundreds of times. But I'm not going to reverse myself until it's over. What if we win and Iraq turns out okay? I'm not going to keep changing my mind back and forth as the death toll rises and falls. There is no point. My opimism waxes and wanes, and like I've said many times, I'm ultimately not optimistic at all at this time.

That doesn't mean I don't hope for a good outcome. Iraq is a real place where real people live. Many of them are good people, and some of them are my friends. I do not want them to have to live in a California-sized Gaza.

So one constructive suggestion is that you should find out more about the contractors who you can meet by accident and who describe themselves as addicted to money. It seems that some of them are addicted to violence too.

Those guys I met worked in construction. They are not "mercenaries." They haven't commited any violence, nor have they seen any violence. They are paid well because they work under crappy conditions that are intolerable for most people. They earn every penny because they suffer every minute. Being in Iraq sucks, believe me. I don't go there because it's fun. It isn't.

Another suggestion would be to go to talk to the millions of Iraqi refugees in Jordan and Syria.

I'm not in Syria or Jordan so I can't really do that. Getting a visa for Syria will be very difficult for me (because of what I have written about the Assad regime), and going to Jordan is not economically viable unless you want to give me a whopping donation. I'll be happy to go there if so. It would be a nice break from Iraq.

I did publish an interview with an Iraqi who desperately wants to be a refugee and will do whatever he must to get out. It was gloomy as hell, but -- despite what you seem to think -- I am not in the business of whitewashing Iraq. Maybe you missed that story, or have forgotten about it.

Ratatosk: We understand that these are stories of his experiences and what he gets to see/hear within limits of his personal safety,

I should hope so. This should be obvious.

I published lots of photos of friendly children, and also pointed out that children in Sadr City throw rocks at soldiers. I'm not hiding a damn thing, but I'm not stupid enough to wander around Sadr City either. Soldiers rarely go into Sadr City at all (at least as of July when I was in Baghdad) and I'd get away with going there by myself for about 20 minutes before something bad would probably happen to me.

I write primarily about what I see and hear myself. I can't be everywhere and see everything, but I am aware of much of what I can't see -- even if that awareness is skewed by the second-hand nature of the information.

Everything most people know about Iraq is second-hand. So I find it more than a little irritating when some random person tells me I'm wrong about what I saw and heard with my own eyes and ears. It doesn't happen very often, but it did happen in this very thread, and in many other threads, too. I may not always understand correctly what I see and hear, but I'm sure as hell not making shit up or leaving important facts out.

I appreciate, Ratatosk, that you and I have differing opinions and yet you still get this. It's hard for some people.

Michael,

I am headed to Camp Lejeune tomorrow morning to greet my son, 2/6 Golf company (which had responsibility for the entire Southern half of Fallujah and into the Euphrates River valley towards Baghdad). The commenter above is correct, the IA has left and Fallujah has been turned over to the IP -- sort of, but not exactly. The IA was never a significant actor in the pacification of Fallujah. It was the 2/6 Marines and IP, and the IP needed much confidence building and relied on the Marines for kinetic operations. They will still rely on the Marines in combined IP precincts / combat outposts.

See my coverage on Operation Alljah (interview with then Lt. Col. now Col. William Mullen), along with Bill Ardolino's fantastic coverage. As one interesting thing you might cover, I would like to know how well the replacement for 2/6 does at keeping Fallujah pacified once the ban on vehicular traffic has been slowly lifted. The foundation has been built in Operation Alljah, involving kinetic operations, biometrics, gated communities and neighborhood watches. There is no excuse for going backwards now in Fallujah. Time will tell -- and you can give us the story.

No one predicted the Samarra mosque bombing (how could they?), and that catalyzed at least two years of stupid gratuitous violence.
If a reasonably easy task like destroying a building can cause years of sectarian strife, and there are enough people there who benefit from sectarian strife, then a + b = c.
Hence my pessimism.--dpu

Everyone keeps mentioning this act as if it was THE causative factor, and absent it the whole 'civil-war' thingy might not have erupted.

All the Samarra bombing signified was a 'tipping-point'. An historical marker by which it was then possible to measure subsequent events. Sure it was an important Shia symbol, but its destruction represented a reality on the ground. Perhaps it served as a 'justification' for but it did not 'cause' what happened after. What happened BEFORE Samarra led to that. A lot of large-scale terrorist attacks on Shias. A lot of senseless brutal Sunni supported attacks. And after each one the Shias were urged to 'be calm'. Samarra was merely a 'Popeye' moment. A collective -- I've had all I can stands, I can't stands no more. A moment when the Shia collectively came to the conclusion that the bombings were not going to stop unless someone stopped them by whatever means worked. And that far too many of the Sunni were 'colloborating' with the bombers.

So if the pessimism is indeed resulting from an application of an a+b=c formula as dpu states, then the formula should more properly be expressed as a+b+c...+x =z.

It will now,imo, be MUCH more difficult in Iraq to get that many letters to line up in the proper ignition sequence. One just won't do it. It didn't before.

Hence the optimism.

ps--- To Creamy Goodness. I AM indeed finding Jack's character more 'sympathetic' by the day. I'm fairly sure that the makers of that film regret having given him that line.

Your pessimism is also a way of taking sides, and is about a war you opposed and a guy I'm sure you did not vote for.

No, I didn't vote for him, but I also didn't know to support or oppose the war until they had already kicked in the barn door. Only then did it become clear (to me at least) that the case for war had been larded with an obscene amount of optimism.

And you'd be hard-pressed to describe 2003 in any other way. After all, back then they fired their own Treasury Secretary for saying that the war would cost $200 billion. Now no one knows a way to make $200 billion even a fifth of what it will cost.

But I'm not going to reverse myself until it's over.

That's basically saying that you won't reverse yourself until it's too late to matter. That does come through in what you write and that's basically the problem. In any story, not necessarily as serious as a war, you should have the courage to change your mind before it's over.

Those guys I met worked in construction.

All right, they were in construction. But they sounded like mercenaries given the way that they shamelessly bragged about their wealth. (Or maybe not; maybe the real mercenaries are tight-lipped about it.) You certainly could have talked to mercenaries who are paid the same way as these guys. They can't be hard to find.

Besides, the construction contractors don't exactly have a stellar record in Iraq. And rationalizing that they are just well paid for dirty work does not quite explain their attitude. How many people do you meet who brag to total strangers about how much money they make? Who even gloat about their tax breaks? Something was very wrong in that conversation and you didn't follow up on it.

After all, if you're only 30% optimistic, where does the other 70% come from? I hope you're not so partisan as to say that the only problem is Democratic politicians and biased media. Surely war profiteers are part of the problem.

I did publish an interview with an Iraqi who desperately wants to be a refugee and will do whatever he must to get out.

I remember. He was blatantly catering to a certain stripe of American opinion, and beyond that he sounded like he was on crack. Of course he would do whatever he had to do. He would sound like Dick Cheney crossed with Curtis LeMay if he had to. Again, you reported the facts respectably enough, but you didn't connect the dots.

What you call "optimism" is really taking sides.

That's your entire thesis in a nutshell-- according to you, MJT took the wrong side. Everything else you write is just window dressing for that.

Michael--

Godspeed. Wish I could send you a few bucks for your trip. I might have to catch you on the flip-side when the finances get more stable.

If you can't take my money, you can take my prayers.

Jim Harris: Again, you reported the facts respectably enough, but you didn't connect the dots.

He has a point, you know.

You might consider interspersing little notes in your interviews.

For example:

MJT : Do you like working with Americans?

Hammer : A lot. [That is, he likes taking our money]

MJT : Why do you have to cover your face?

Hammer : To protect my family. [Meaning his family can't stand the sight of him.]

MJT : Is there a solution to the problem in this country?

Hammer : Nuke Iraq. [Well, he's getting a visa to the U.S. anyway--why should he care?]

MJT : What is the most beautiful thing you have ever seen in this country?

Hammer : In all my life? When I was seven years old I heard the sound of wild pigeons every morning. Then something happened and I never heard them again. [That "something" was probably him shooting at them with an air gun. Moron.]

Dougf: So if the pessimism is indeed resulting from an application of an a+b=c formula as dpu states, then the formula should more properly be expressed as a+b+c...+x =z. It will now,imo, be MUCH more difficult in Iraq to get that many letters to line up in the proper ignition sequence. One just won't do it.

A good point. Still, they won't be starting from zero exactly. All the attacks before and since the Samarra attacks have not been forgotten.

Hammer : Nuke Iraq.

That one line pretty much sank the interview. It proved that he is willing to say anything to get his family out. And that he is either crazy, or doesn't respect his employer (the US Army), or doesn't respect Michael Totten himself, or some combination. His fear for his family was the only part that sounded genuine.

Nonetheless his "opinions" were taken by the war boosters as confirmation that Iraqis want the US to stay. I would be surprised if that interpretation was lost on the interviewer. After all, the current slant of Commentary Magazine is no mystery either.

Jim Harris: That one line pretty much sank the interview.

Well, it was a joke. Middle Eastern humor is grim.

Nonetheless his "opinions" were taken by the war boosters as confirmation that Iraqis want the US to stay.

Bah. There are so many anti-American Iraqis that Hammer wants to leave forever and has to hide his face so his family isn't massacred. He very clearly set himself apart from his countrymen. That theme ran throughout the entire interview.

I would be surprised if that interpretation was lost on the interviewer.

It's a stupid interpretation. It only makes sense if you ignore 90 percent of what he said.

the current slant of Commentary Magazine is no mystery either.

So what? I also published some pieces in Reason Magazine, which has the opposite slant on Iraq. Reason, as it turns out, which has an anti-war slant, wrote my accreditation letter for the United States military.

What's your point in bringing up something like this, anyway? That I should only let anti-war editors publish my articles? That would be a pretty dumb move on my part. I'll be happy to have my articles appear in any publication of the mainstream left, center, or right as long as they don't edit me to death -- which did happen once.

Please consider asking Iraqis --a) do they think Iran is supporting the terrorists and the bombings? b) what, if anything, should Iraq be doing about Iran? c) would they feel safe if Iran got nukes?

Partly thanks to you, I'm even MORE optimistic -- so much so, I'm considering voting for Ron Paul! (I really am Libertarian ... paternalist ... pro-freedom)

To Jim Harris, future politics are never "facts". If the USA was willing to commit to staying in Iraq for the next 50 years (it's been 62 and counting in Germany), I'm certain Iraq would "make it" -- into a reasonable place, and the most democratic and economically developed Arab (plus Kurd) country in the Mid East.

[Logically, every "if A then B" statement has a truth table value of true, if A is false]

It is a historical fact that in 1973, there was Peace Accord signed over S. Vietnam -- the US "won". It is also a fact that the Dem Party stopped military intervention and reduced the US cash going to the (corrupt, inefficient, cowardly) S. Viet gov't. It is a fact the N. Viet commies, as any evil empire would do, violated the treaty and took over S. Vietnam, murdering, not war-killing, tens of thousands, estimated hundreds of thousands. And Cambodia suffered the Killing Fields, thanks to the Dem Party (which Michael mostly supports, like so many educated elites in America). Those murders wouldn't have happened if the US had stayed in S. Vietnam, like it stayed in S. Korea.
The future is based on what we choose to do, today -- combined with what others choose to do. Of course, those who think the Iraqis are just (mindless?) "victims", so every death is because of Bush, they don't care any more about Iraqis as people than they care about those in Darfur, or Burma, or Zimbabwe (where is a Peter Gabriel or Bono song now?) -- zilch.

Michael, I'm pretty sure you'd find my 2003/2004 claims about giving Bush an "A-", now "B", based on 2500 US deaths for "A", 5000 US deaths for "B", 10 000 US deaths for "C".

I'm really really glad you're trying to give 30% optimistic, actual numbers. It helps me -- Bush could still drop to a "C". I have yet to see any objective standards of evaluation from anti-war folk. ($200 bil ... now 300, now 500, now 900 ... how much is good, how much is too much? Leftists never have standards) The right metric is US lives lost in Iraq, about 1000 / year, less than 100/month. A lot less than US auto accidents.
(Which would be hugely reduced if all car riders would wear helmets -- which I don't advocate for laws, but it's a point where reduced freedom and comfort increases safety. If drivers aren't willing to save thousands of lives each year by wearing helmets...)

War zone insurance? Don't shoot for me less than the deductible?

Jim Harris,

I can understand your position on the war and can appreciate your opposition to stories that have a spin on them, but I have no comprehension of your last diatribe.

I think that most, if not all, of the readers understand that you feel MJT spins his reporting. You have offered a few, weak examples and had your moment. Michael has rebutted and now you decide that being nasty is the best counter reply? You lost the debate.

We all have our opinions here, pro and con, and argue them openly. When it gets too snarky, Michael gives a cool down notice. He gave you yours and you should listen. He has consistently shown that he values opinions from all contributors (except the trolls). I am confident that he values what you say as well, up until the point where you attack him personally.

Michael,

Have you considered more about how to pursue the female perspective of the Iraqis?

Do people on the ground think any sort of lasting peace is possible? Is it possible for a Democracy to last (after we leave) in a country as disfunctional as Iraq? Are there leaders at any level who can guide the nation? Do the Iraqi's do anything that doesn't offer an immediate reward (ie: not being corrupt or constantly bringing outside force into the country in an attempt to gain an advantage over rival tribes or other groups)?

Basiclly, are the Iraqi's even capable of maintaining a functioning society or is it another Gaza?

Kevin: Have you considered more about how to pursue the female perspective of the Iraqis?

Unfortunately, that's a tough one in Iraq. I'll be in one place longer when I get to Fallujah (in mid November), so I may have the opportunity to drill down a bit more, so to speak.

Well, it was a joke.

There were a lot of other crazy lines in that interview that were just blatant catering to the American right wing. Like the one about crying because he couldn't wear an American pin in the mess hall. Or the one about 60 Al Qaeda guys raping one woman and then killing her --- who was there to count?

Which is not to say that that guy doesn't believe his act. He probably does believe some of it. But the whole interview was over the top, and it was implicitly partisan to offer it as face value.

What's your point in bringing up something like this, anyway?

Actually you brought it up. I said that your conclusions don't really fit the picture that you paint, but that they do cater to a certain paying audience. And you said, but your articles were paid for by Commentary and New York Daily News. That's hardly different though.

But to be fair, you claim to really believe in this "optimism". Or if not optimism, then other rationalizations for the war. So maybe it isn't just about the money. But still, the plain truth is that the Iraq war destabilized and Islamized Iraq. Even withholding judgment until it's "over" is a disservice to Iraqis. It may never be "over", just as it hasn't been in Gaza or Lebanon. It's a disservice to people that you are prepared to understand and sometimes help. Nor is the war any good for America. Yes, I'm taking sides too, but it's the right side. There is no middle ground left in the question and no symmetry in the debate either.

Building the trust relationship sufficient to gain access to women in Iraq is a huge pain. There is no sense of confidentiality towards reporters, all men are suspected of dishonorable intentions. Michael and I are each incredibly married to wonderful women and not interested in fooling around. This does not matter because males are presumed to be untrustworthy.

Earlier this year we got to interview one woman in Iraq, and only because she was intensely angry about how Zarqawi's thugs had treated her before the war started.

Jim Harris: Yes, I'm taking sides too, but it's the right side. There is no middle ground left in the question and no symmetry in the debate either.

You might as well just write blah blah blah blah blah rather than assert that you're right and I'm wrong and you're superior because of it. No one in the history of the universe has been persuaded by someone with that kind of attitude.

MJT: No one in the history of the universe has been persuaded by someone with that kind of attitude.

Unless, of course, that person is holding a gun.

I didn't say anything about anyone being superior. All I'm saying is that rationalizing the Iraq war, or even withholding judgment, is a big mistake on the part of someone who otherwise understands Arabs. There is a consistent picture of tragedy from most of the Iraqi blogs, and a rather different wait-and-see picture on this site. You and they can't both be right.

Washington also provides a consistent picture of war as a financial hemorrhage. $600 billion has been requested so far, which is more than 20 grand for every man, woman, and child in Iraq. What sense is there in waiting until it's "over" when that much money has been spent?

The part of your position that you're putting forward now is intellectual relativism: the debate has two sides and anyone who claims to be right is acting "superior". But the morality of a war is almost never like that. It's usually quite obvious whether a war is a good idea. How could you possibly have no "freaking clue" about this one, after there has been so much water under the bridge?

How could you possibly have no "freaking clue" about this one, after there has been so much water under the bridge?--Jim Harris

Blah,blah,blah -- dougf

Hey MJT was right. It does save a lot of time. Now where is that gun again?

Jim Harris: The part of your position that you're putting forward now is intellectual relativism: the debate has two sides and anyone who claims to be right is acting "superior".

Obviously everyone thinks they are right. That goes without saying. If I thought I was wrong, I would change my mind so I would no longer be wrong. My point is that you should not be a dick about it.

But the morality of a war is almost never like that. It's usually quite obvious whether a war is a good idea. How could you possibly have no "freaking clue" about this one, after there has been so much water under the bridge?

I know people who will be killed if the US withdraws. I am not going to look them in the eye and say "sorry, you need to die now." That just isn't going to happen. I would hate myself if I could do that.

I know people, especially in the North, who get really pissed off when I describe the war as an invasion instead of a liberation. You can ignore these people if you want to, but I can't.

I can make the same kind of point to war supporters: I've met people (Iraqis and Americans) whose family members were killed in fighting that would not have taken place if the US had not invaded. How am I supposed to look them in the eye and say "sorry, but I support the decision that led your loved one getting killed."

War is hell, and I'm in the middle of it. People die if the US does A, and people die if the US does B. I know some of these people personally. If you think this is easy for me I suggest you visit Iraq for yourself and see what it's like when the war comes to life and stops being a left-wing and right-wing talking point. It's a hell of a lot easier to be a self-righteous gasbag about it -- regardless of which side you're on -- when you're eight time zones away from it.

None of the Americans I've met in Iraq are half as certain they're right, whatever their point of view, as the people back home who have never been there.

I know people, especially in the North, who get really pissed off when I describe the war as an invasion instead of a liberation.

Well, yes, the Kurds. It's not just a liberation; in fact, it's their war of independence. You've talked a lot about that. You just didn't spell out that the White House repeatedly promised that Kurdish secession is not supposed to be the outcome. The Kurds particularly aren't supposed to just grab the northern oil fields.

So to describe this with phrases like "The Other Iraq" is disingenuous. I'm glad that you are pro-Kurdistan; the Kurds are fine people. But something big is missing from your story, if you use euphemisms instead of saying straight that the White House is wrong about Iraqi unity. There are important reasons for the pretense in Washington. On this side of it too, you aren't connecting the dots.

Jim Harris,

Washington also provides a consistent picture of war as a financial hemorrhage. $600 billion has been requested so far, which is more than 20 grand for every man, woman, and child in Iraq. What sense is there in waiting until it's "over" when that much money has been spent?

Big numbers! To quote the immortal Count Floyd: Scary!

This kind of alarmist irrationality does nothing to support your argument. The United States has a $13+ Trillion dollar GDP, which means that in the over four years that the war has passed, we have consistently spent 1/86 of our wealth on the war! Put differently, the war in Iraq has cost the US less than $2,000 for every man, woman and child. Our war expenses are coming close to our annual beer spending! Office football pool amounts are being spent to free millions of people! Stop the insanity!

It makes sense to put things in perspective, but you aren't very good at that so far. We are the richest nation in the world and we are treating an insurgency as a minor but lingering threat. All you are pointing out is that rich people can afford to spend a ridiculous amount to protect themselves.

Would it make you feel better if our troops wore comic opera costumes that looked really rich? More chrome plated mess kits? Big parades and pretty horses? Fashion has changed, and we no longer display our troops as fetishes to frighten our opponents...that no longer works. We have to fight our enemies, otherwise they come and kill us.

To honor the sacrifices our troops are willing to make, we choose to spend what is necessary to keep them as safe as possible, as comfortable as we can. That often is not very safe or comfortable, even when it is incredibly expensive. The point of the fight is not to select the lowest bidder, it is to win.

Edgar: It was probably the gun that did it, not the attitude.

Jim: I look at your argument - Mr. Totten gives too much of a positive spin to his articles. Though he is optimistic, you believe there is a point where optimism should end and Mr. Totten should change his opinion. Fair enough.

But then I see sentences like these:
"you reported the facts respectably enough, but you didn't connect the dots."
"Yes, I'm taking sides too, but it's the right side."

These make it plain that your complaint is NOT that he's putting positive spin on his facts. YOUR complaint is that he's not putting enough NEGATIVE spin on the facts. And until he does, you won't be satisfied, because until then his reports won't fit with the narrative you've constructed from the other blogs you read. And see that first sentence I quoted? You admit that his facts are straight. If you've been able to draw conclusions from them, good job. Post those conclusions. DON'T tell Mr. Totten that he isn't doing a good job because he didn't draw the same conclusions you did. Besides, if you were able to draw those conclusions from the facts, then presumably other readers will too, and you specifically will be able to keep drawing your own conclusions from the facts he gives, so what's your problem?

Then there's this line:
"It's usually quite obvious whether a war is a good idea."

Since I'm not old enough to remember past wars, I'm no authority, but without evidence backing that statement up it's worthless. If you're willing to tell me whether going into Kosovo, Somalia, Vietnam, various South American and African countries, Korea, etc. etc. etc. had an obvious right vs. wrong, I'll agree with you. But without the evidence it just doesn't seem that way.

Another of your lines:
"But to be fair, you claim to really believe in this "optimism". Or if not optimism, then other rationalizations for the war. So maybe it isn't just about the money."

Ad hominem will get you nowhere.

"But still, the plain truth is that the Iraq war destabilized and Islamized Iraq."

Because the stabilized, Saddamized version of Iraq was so much better? And how is destabilization during war not par for the course?

And another:
"$600 billion has been requested so far, which is more than 20 grand for every man, woman, and child in Iraq. What sense is there in waiting until it's "over" when that much money has been spent?"

When has war not been a financial hemorrhage? That is, when we actually saw the war through to the end. As has been noted, what defines war is not money, but casualties. I don't want to marginalize the deaths of nearly 4000 US troops, but that's a comparatively small number for five years of war. It's not like we're being militarily defeated in Iraq these days.

One last line:
"How could you possibly have no "freaking clue" about this one, after there has been so much water under the bridge?"

Because as Mr. Totten has indicated, he believes (as do I) that there's plenty of room for victory in Iraq thanks to events of the past months. If you disagree, then you disagree, but you've certainly presented no good reasons why the conclusions Mr. Totten reached are invalid.

Jim Harris,

Well, yes, the Kurds. It's not just a liberation; in fact, it's their war of independence.

You are wrong. This is their war for survival. The traditional cycles of genetic cleansing that the Kurds have resisted successfully for thousands of years have become overwhelmingly lethal.

The Kurds are looking down the barrel of a three-way ethnocide and you are disparaging their political ambitions. If the West does not preserve liberal civilization, the racists will have no restraint in the coming century. Part of the reason why your comments seem so disingenuous is that they consistently ignore the increasing trend of violence by unrestrained governments.

The Kurds would like to be independent and united. I would like to travel with my great-grandchildren to the moon on my 200th birthday. Both of these things may happen, but they are on the same schedule. The KRG knows this, even if some of your sources about the Kurds don't. The KRG is not going to throw away survival to pursue an impossible independence and unification.

Gah, sorry for double post. Noticed something missing from the above, and wanted to clarify:

Note that I'm not saying that we're necessarily going to win. Neither is Mr. Totten. Though there's room for victory, there's probably more room for defeat (thus his 30% optimism rating). However, Jim, you make it sound like Totten's only option is to concede defeat because there's no chance whatsoever of victory - and that opinion is as wrong as the "sunny skies" opinion that states we've won already. THAT is the point I was trying to make, not that we're going to win or anything.

Jim Harris: But something big is missing from your story, if you use euphemisms instead of saying straight that the White House is wrong about Iraqi unity.

The White House is wrong about Iraqi unity.

Isn't it obvious that I think that since my opinion is at odds with the Bush Administration? So what, though? I'm not using euphemisms to describe a policy disagreement with the White House. I'm just putting my thoughts out there for everyone to consider, whether they're Republicans or Democrats or Iraqis or Israelis or whatever.

I know very well that I can be more effective if I put constructive ideas out in the world rather than seethe and whine about other people's ideas. That's something you should consider yourself.

I don't work for the White House, I've never been in the White House, I don't know anyone in the White House from any administration, and I don't check White House policy or talking points before figuring out what my view is. I form my views from my own knowledge and experience and try my best to write it straight.

Like I said, I'm not interested in left-wing or right-wing politics. I'm not particularly interested in American politics at all. I wouldn't be a foreign correspondent if American politics was my biggest concern.

We have consistently spent 1/86 of our wealth on the war!

You're rather playing with denominators there, Patrick. Iraq is less than a tenth of the size of the United States --- it is not like the 1941-45 Pacific War --- so of course it can only possibly be a small fraction of our wealth. But it's not all THAT small a fraction of our wealth.
The Pentagon has never estimated more than 20,000 insurgents in this supposedly minor insurgency. So how exactly do 20,000 insurgents cost 30 million dollars each? Something is very wrong with their story of how much this war has cost and for what gain.

To honor the sacrifices our troops are willing to make, we choose to spend what is necessary to keep them as safe as possible, as comfortable as we can.

It would be one thing if that really were what we're spending the money on. But Michael Totten says that you can just bump into contractors in Iraq, who will tell you that they are addicted to money and make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Which is many times what the soldiers make. So who is really being "kept comfortable"?

When has war not been a financial hemorrhage?

When it was any other American war since Vietnam. Or even all of them put together. All of the wars that the US has fought since, put together, fit into a corner of the cost of the Iraq war. Here are the main ones: Panama, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan. All of that put together has been maybe $200 billion on the outside, while no one has a plan to keep the Iraq war by itself under a trillion. Iraq is about as expensive as Vietnam, and for the same reason. In both wars, the US chased after a victory that simply does not exist.

You are wrong. This is their war for survival.

I said that the Kurds see it as a war of independence, while you say I'm "wrong", it's actually a war of survival. If we both saw a red apple and I called it an apple, you would tell me that I'm wrong, it's actually red.

Of course the Kurds see it as both at once. Only the White House sees it differently. The White House calls it a war for Iraqi unity. That description just doesn't fit the facts as presented by Michael Totten. But the White House is supposed to be in charge. Why the disconnect?

Jim Harris: The White House calls it a war for Iraqi unity. That description just doesn't fit the facts as presented by Michael Totten. But the White House is supposed to be in charge. Why the disconnect?

I have nothing whatsoever to do with the White House. The White House and I don't see Iraq the same way. You don't see Iraq the same way as the White House either. We both think the White House is wrong about something or other. Okay, but what does that have to do with anything?

If I were the president and there was a disconnect between me and the White House, well, that would be an issue. But there is no alternate universe where I am president of the United States.

Perhaps I misunderstand your point here, but I'm baffled why you think it's significant that I don't agree with the White House.

Jim Harris,

So how exactly do 20,000 insurgents cost 30 million dollars each? Something is very wrong with their story of how much this war has cost and for what gain.

On 9/11/2001, 19 terrorists caused 1.2 trillion dollars of economic damage. That would come to 63 billion per terrorist when we take your advice. By that accounting, we are spending less than 1/20,000th as much to kill the terrorists in Iraq than when we wait for them here. Maybe you should stay away from numbers.

But Michael Totten says that you can just bump into contractors in Iraq, who will tell you that they are addicted to money and make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Which is many times what the soldiers make. So who is really being "kept comfortable"?

I have a good friend who is making great money as a contractor, after he pulled a tour as a Reservist in my unit. Making money is not evil, even if it makes you angry. The going rate for contractors is what we have to pay to get the people who can do the job in the conditions required. I have worked as a consultant in Iraq and charged significantly because that is what my work was worth. I also am a Reservist and eligible for recall at any moment.

The problem you have is that people are making money for enduring harsh and dangerous conditions to do necessary jobs. So what? The Navy spent over $500,000 on training me to kill Soviet submarines, and I never got to. That was the price the US spent to counter the threat when we were winning the Cold War. You may recall that expenditure strategy worked.

Only the White House sees it differently. The White House calls it a war for Iraqi unity. That description just doesn't fit the facts as presented by Michael Totten. But the White House is supposed to be in charge.

The White House is not the boss of Michael Totten. Perhaps you could have picked up on that from the way his email address doesn't end in (at)whitehouse.gov.

I could spend all night destroying your arguments, but I was hoping that DPU or glasnost was going to pop in here and put up something challenging.

Perhaps I misunderstand your point here, but I'm baffled why you think it's significant that I don't agree with the White House.

You wrote many stories that entirely contradict a main objective of the Iraq war as stated by the people who run it. But you wrote them in a style that did not look like a contradiction. You say that it's unintentional, in fact that you have no reason to care. But even if that were true, it's still catering. In many ways the war simply contradicts its objectives. For instance, an old friend of Bush cut an oil deal with Kurdistan that undermines Iraqi unity. If you really want to think of yourself as a responsible independence journalist, then you should be awake enough not to play along with these charades.

Michael,

I have no interest in getting tangled in the current kerfuffle, but I did have a suggestion about your next Iraqi trip.

I've read a few too many articles on sexual assault of female soldiers by their own male comrades. It's only begun to be reported in the last few months, but its an issue that I'm unfortunatly familiar with.

In 1996 when I was stationed at Redstone Arsenal, a fellow soldier was raped by a Marine she met on base. While consoling her, two other females admitted to sexual abuse on base. Two weeks later, the Aberdeen Proving Grounds scandal broke. I always looked back at those incidents and considered them anomolies, but what I've been reading lately about female personnel in Iraq and Kuwait is disturbing to say the least. I know you focus primarily on the concerns of the people of the middle east, but any information you could bring back on this issue would be greatly appreciated.

The problem you have is that people are making money for enduring harsh and dangerous conditions to do necessary jobs.

If they make a lot more money from the government than the soldiers themselves, then yes, that's a problem! Besides, many of these contractors who rake in the federal money don't endure harsh and dangerous conditions.

Astroninja,

This is the most gender integrated military activity in US history. Even though the punishment for harassment and abuse is the most draconian in US military history, there are still problems. A tremendous source of the problem is when units with bad discipline and poor coherence are brought into contact with units they have never seen.

Traditionally, military people look out for their own. When different units are brought in from different services and even countries, accountability lapses. This is a problem, this is being looked at all the time.

By way of counter-point, it is worth considering the libels of Scott Beauchamp published in TNR. The liar Beauchamp claimed to have verbally abused a disfigured woman at a base in Iraq, and later changed his story to say it happened in Kuwait. Within days of this publication, the story was tracked down and found false. Think about that for a minute. I cannot tell you how angry it would make the people in my unit if any of our female sailors were assaulted in any way, and most good units are exactly the same kind of protective.

There are young people in our military who get stupid and do bad things. In the main, though, there has never been a mixed gender military with better discipline in the face of the enemy than ours is now.

Jim Harris,

If they make a lot more money from the government than the soldiers themselves, then yes, that's a problem! Besides, many of these contractors who rake in the federal money don't endure harsh and dangerous conditions.

That is not true. Michael rode in a helicopter with the contractors. Waiting on the unshaded pad was harsh. Flying over Baghdad was dangerous. Mortars fired at random into the Green Zone do not check ID cards before landing, ever. Power outages and air conditioning failures do not avoid contractors. Wind borne dust and disease is not solely attracted to uniforms.

I make a lot less money when I am on active duty than when I am consulting in Iraq, but I still volunteer. QED, your argument is flawed because I exist.

Michael,

My hand to God, Jim Harris is not a straw man I'm making up to demolish. It just looks exactly like it.

Jim Harris: You wrote many stories that entirely contradict a main objective of the Iraq war as stated by the people who run it.

I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Which stories?

But you wrote them in a style that did not look like a contradiction.

So what? The Bush Administration isn't my North Star. I don't check with them and their positions before writing. I don't pay much attention to the administration at all, frankly. When I write about Iraq, I'm writing about Iraq. It's a country, not a Republican or Democrat talking point.

You say that it's unintentional, in fact that you have no reason to care. But even if that were true, it's still catering.

This conversation has gone completely off the rails. Why on earth would I cater to the Bush Administration? I doubt anyone there reads my work.

For the last time, I am not interested in the Bush Administration. If you want to talk about the Bush instead of Iraq, find someone else to talk to. You're changing the subject, and you're talking at me instead of to me.

Jim Harris: If they make a lot more money from the government than the soldiers themselves, then yes, that's a problem!

Oh please. Guys who hang sheet rock for a living are not going to work in Iraq for 24,000 dollars a year. And soldiers are not going to make 200,000 dollars a year if you have any say in the matter since you're obsessed with keeping down war costs.

Anyway, I make a hell of a lot less than 200,000 dollars a year. My job has non-financial rewards, as does the job of soldiering. Hanging sheet rock in Iraq doesn't.

Jim Harris,

Would you please state your credentials? I have tried to guess but so far I am still baffled; a professor of journalism, perhaps a jihadist, or a politician, a military strategist? I just can't find where you are other than out in left field.

I have to admire Michael for allowing you to continue the ridiculous, unsubstantiated rants. A mere mortal would have already pulled your plug.

Seriously, by what authority are you able to make your critique? It is easy to see by reading the comments that no-one is supporting your position, and that is from a readership that ranges the spectrum from left to right. Put up something credible or get your own "freaking clue" and stop the bashing. Please.

Can't we all just get along and respect our different opinions? I know debate is the instigator of change and all, but this one has gotten a bit out of hand, to the level of personal detriment and "I'm right and you're wrong"

But I'm diving in anyway :)

Anything posted on these forums is not going to change the situation in Iraq. It might influence people's opinions though. And Mr. Harris, what you are doing is, when you make another pointless post, you are beckoning another thrashing, which might just make people more sympathetic to Mr. Totten and his views. Surely this is counterproductive to you?

And regarding the issue about the White House and Bush and whatever (American politics elude me), I live in Scotland, Britain. Mr. Totten's articles have no effect whatsoever on my voting power, or attitude to politics, in the US. And yet I am sympathetic to his views, and see them as an honest interpretation of the situation out there. Additionally, I see no possible benefit to Mr. Totten from "pandering" to pro-war views. I'm sure there are other interpretations, but I'm equally sure that those interpretations are products of the daily news-grind attitude that pervades mainstream journalism everywhere.

I'm willing to bargain that many more of the readers on this site are non-American. Since when have America and her politics been the most important things in the world?

lots of love,
James L
Edinburgh

sorry for the double post:

I'm aware that America and her politics currently CONTROL the situation in Iraq, but they ain't changing anytime soon.

I haven't proved anything. Damn.

xx

Jim:
"When it was any other American war since Vietnam. Or even all of them put together. All of the wars that the US has fought since, put together, fit into a corner of the cost of the Iraq war. Here are the main ones: Panama, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan. All of that put together has been maybe $200 billion on the outside, while no one has a plan to keep the Iraq war by itself under a trillion. Iraq is about as expensive as Vietnam, and for the same reason. In both wars, the US chased after a victory that simply does not exist."

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me like most of these were never going to be nearly as troublesome or expensive as Iraq (except Afghanistan, which is in the same class and is still happening). The only war fought against any huge resistance would have been in the Persian Gulf, and defensive wars lasting weeks generally cost less than offensive wars lasting years. And by your logic, WWII was expensive because we "chased after a victory that simply does not exist." Korea was expensive because we "chased after a victory that simply does not exist." Iraq is a major conflict, not a mop-up style operation like the ones you describe. Or were your expectations so high? No wonder you think it's hopeless now, if your definition of success was "settling the squabble in a month and leaving some troops behind to maintain order."

Michael,

The only question I hope you get an answer on is how many Iraqis did we have to kill in Fallujah to finally "quiet" the town.

Since when have America and her politics been the most important things in the world?--James

Since about 1945. Give or take a year or two.

"It's usually quite obvious whether a war is a good idea."
Flies in the historical face of about every single conflict we've ever had. There have been strong pro- and con- arguments every single time. But where our ancestors fought amongst themselves also, they at least weren't stupid enough to try and lose those wars.

As far as costs go, it could be a never ending argument, but we spent (in today's dollars) more than 3 trillion dollars on WWII in a similar time span and with a much, much lower GDP. If you're worried about affording it, we can (Patrick pointed out what a low percentage of GDP our expenditures represent).
And while you may use some self-made system of calculating out what that amount means and if it is worth it, the percentage of GDP is widely accepted as the most accurate when calculating what "x" dollars means to the overall financial picture (for the same reason as you calculating out how much of your overall money you can afford to spend on a car, house, etc.).
If you asked me before the war, "Is removing Hussein from power, and trying to promote an Iraqi brand of democracy in the vacuum that is left worth less than 2% of our overall wealth?" my answer would have been yes. If you ask me now, "Is it worth spending less than 2% of our overall wealth to stay and try to give the Iraqis something better than the government we oustered & prevent their wholesale slaughter?" my answer would also be yes.
If you'd rather argue human costs, morality, etc. then go ahead. But I think Patrick is right, you should stay away from the dollar figures. Of course, doesn't look like you have much going on with the historical context and knowledge side either.

I wouldn't be a foreign correspondent if American politics was my biggest concern.

Of course it's an American war. Covering the Iraq war without American politics is like researching sushi with no mention of Japan.

But sure, one way not to notice contradictory war objectives is to take no interest in politics. It's a war for Iraqi unity and Kurdish secession; a war against Iran and a war to defend a pro-Iranian Iraqi government. But that's all just politics, so if it's not interesting, it's that much easier to look for rays of hope.

To be fair, tuning out contradictions could be a hazard of spending a lot of time in the Middle East.

Guys who hang sheet rock for a living are not going to work in Iraq for 24,000 dollars a year.

You wouldn't want to hire anyone from the region to hang that sheet rock. It's a job that requires American money addicts. But hey, that's just American politics. Why did you waste words on these contractors anyway? Objectively speaking it was good journalism, but by your stated standard, it was extraneous.

Most of these were never going to be nearly as troublesome or expensive as Iraq (except Afghanistan, which is in the same class and is still happening).

That's right, they weren't going to be as troublesome because they made sense. It's not as if the architects of the war prepared for this much trouble. They fired their own treasurer when he warned that Iraq would cost a fifth as much as it will actually cost. They declared the end of major combat when it had actually only just started.

You'd have to squint pretty hard to put Afghanistan "in the same class". It's less than a fifth of the Iraq war. And the Persian Gulf War was not in any germane military sense a "defensive" war. That one really was a war of liberation. It was also accurately planned and budgeted. The Persian Gulf War was what they wanted the Iraq war to be. That comparison has a lot to do with why there is an Iraq war at all.

WWII was expensive because we "chased after a victory that simply does not exist."

Actually, American involvement in World War II was less than four years. It was expensive because it involved 40 times as many people and comparably matched armies.

Dan: The only question I hope you get an answer on is how many Iraqis did we have to kill in Fallujah to finally "quiet" the town.

Ok, good idea. But let's determine how many of them wanted to die.

There sure have been quite a few in Fallujah.

Jim Harris: You wouldn't want to hire anyone from the region to hang that sheet rock. It's a job that requires American money addicts.

Well, people "from the region" might end up costing their bosses more than $200,000 if they come to work one day with a knapsack full of C-4.

American contractors, as greedy as they are, are moderately less likely to do something like that.

If you ask me now, "Is it worth spending less than 2% of our overall wealth to stay and try to give the Iraqis something better than the government we oustered & prevent their wholesale slaughter?" my answer would also be yes.

If Iraq is worth 2% of our wealth, what about the rest of the world? After all, Iraq has less than half of a percent of the world population. And it's not as if all of our wealth can be used for foreign adventures. In fact, Iraq is more than half of all US foreign policy. That's the problem. The US is treating Iraq as if it's China united with India.

But you're onto something when you define the mission as giving Iraq something better than Saddam Hussein. They have no viable plan for it. The reason that the war is dragging on now is that after they deposed Saddam Hussein, they could not accept what they had achieved. They aren't preventing wholesale slaughter --- on their best days they slow it down.

But granted, if you have no interest in American politics, you could fairly ignore the lack of logic to the Iraq war and seek rays of hope.

Well, people "from the region" might end up costing their bosses more than $200,000 if they come to work one day with a knapsack full of C-4.

Are Turks and Indians that dangerous? Besides, if we can't tell friend from foe among the Iraqis, then what's the point of the war?

Jim Harris: Are Turks and Indians that dangerous?

No, and I'm sure there are plenty working in construction all over Iraq. But I have a feelingfor more sensitive jobs they hire Americans, even at great cost, because they can be sure about them.

There is plenty of work at sensitive sites across Iraq, for which they need people with the highest security clearances. That requires Americans, not Turks or Indians.

Dan,

Fallujah was used by the terrorists as an urban stronghold that they believed could not be broken in house to house fighting by Americans. Their doctrine was certain that we could not dislodge them in a stand up fight. To a very large extent we allowed the terrorists to do this because we were respecting the wishes of the local government that assured us they could establish order in their own city with their own methods.

When the time came to destroy the enemy in Fallujah, we allowed anybody who wanted to come out of the city unarmed. A friend of mine who was at the controls of an unmanned aircraft monitoring the situation watched people get on buses to leave. He showed me declassified video of one bus where the men getting on it were carrying rifles onboard...until the strike he called on it destroyed it.

When we took Fallujah in 2004, everybody in the city was there to die killing Americans. The terrorists used drug cocktails of adrenaline, painkillers, and speed to ensure they they were as hard to kill as possible. They expected to be able to destroy thousands of our troops. We lost less than 200 and beat the terrorists on their choice of ground after six months of preparation. The premise of insurgent superiority in urban terrain was destroyed in that battle.

I am uncertain what you would consider of sufficient value to destroy a persistent and dangerous barbarian belief. One of our own theories was destroyed in Fallujah that you are not taking into account. We allowed Fallujah self-governance at their request to be diplomatic. After Fallujah, we didn't give our diplomats supremacy in negotiations because their doctrine failed so spectacularly. If you want to assign blame for murdering civilians, look first to the people who made the deals that killed the most.

Dan: "Are Turks and Indians that dangerous?"

What is wrong with Americans?

"Besides, if we can't tell friend from foe among the Iraqis, then what's the point of the war?"

To make firends and tell foes.

leo,

Dan wasn't the one who asked whether Turks and Indians are dangerous.

He's well aware of their ultra-violent tendencies, I'm sure.

Patrick Lasswell: The terrorists used drug cocktails of adrenaline, painkillers, and speed...

Ron Snyder takes something similar before he posts.

Jim Harris: Objectively speaking it was good journalism, but by your stated standard, it was extraneous.

Whatever. I don't have to answer to you. You're not my editor, nor are you my writing teacher. Obviously you're more interested in bitching than having a serious conversation.

Edgar:

The Indians in Texas are no longer ultra-violent.

They were not into beheading, but scalping was popular.

Edgar: Ron Snyder takes something similar before he posts.

Well wasn't that gratuitous.

Tom,

I'm not being serious. And I think he was referring to Indians from India, not Native Americans.

MJT Well wasn't that gratuitous.

Yeah, but if Ron had toned down his steady whine ("I find Edgar's posts shocking and reprehensible," etc.) I never would have bothered with him.

"leo,

Dan wasn't the one who asked whether Turks and Indians are dangerous."

Edgar,

You are correct. Thank you.

My apologies to Dan and Jim Harris.

Edgar: I wasn't being serious either.

Why have I donated $100's to Michael Totten over the years? Because he is one of the very few journalists who can look at and report several perspectives of an issue objectively, instead of going off on a dogmatic blah blah blah rant. I'm sure if Michael were asked to give 10 reasons why it was a good idea for the US to invade Iraq he could provide 10 logical reasons and back them up. And if he were asked to give 10 reasons why it was a bad idea to invade Iraq he could provide 10 logical reasons and back them up. Very few posters on this site could do that without having a nervous breakdown. The war is extremely complex with many variables (many unknown), non-linear, and since humans are involved much of the decision making is irrational and unpredictable. Simplifying down to "it's good" or "it's bad" is meaningless. Remember what Shakespeare wrote, "nothing is either good or bad, only thinking makes it so." It's always a good idea to challenge your beliefs.

Tom in Texas: I wasn't being serious either.

Thank God. I thought you were one of them for a moment.

Remember what Shakespeare wrote, "nothing is either good or bad, only thinking makes it so."

Close, but not quite. "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Scene II

Michael,
I heard that OSL has issued an "apology". Other than the obvious reason for doing so, losing ground in Iraq, what would he have to gain by apologizing? If memory serves, I don't think he ever has.

Also, read that it looks like we had a chance to strike OSL. Apparently he made a trip into Afghanistan and we found out. According to the article I read, more of an op/ed really, we had him cold busted but didn't pull the trigger. Now the author stated it was because the order was given because the leadership was being stupid. Just wondering if anyone has a more reliable source on this.

markytom,

"Remember what Shakespeare wrote, "nothing is either good or bad, only thinking makes it so." It's always a good idea to challenge your beliefs."

Not that I diasagree but I find it funny as well.
Applying Shakespearean logic. One, two, three - "Is it good idea to think? Is it bad idea to think? I better think about it."

MJT, I'm interested in what the popular culture is like in Fallujah and how it may have changed. What sort of music do people listen to? What do they watch on TV - assuming they have electricity? How do they spend their leisure time? What are their hopes and (more importantly) plans for the future?

I'm sure if Michael were asked to give 10 reasons why it was a good idea for the US to invade Iraq he could provide 10 logical reasons and back them up. And if he were asked to give 10 reasons why it was a bad idea to invade Iraq he could provide 10 logical reasons and back them up. Very few posters on this site could do that without having a nervous breakdown.

Ooo! A challenge!

10 reasons why it was a good idea to invade Iraq.

1. Hussein was a persistent military threat to neighbors, and thereby a destabilizing influence in a region of strategic importance to the US.

2. The presence of the US military in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States were causing political unrest in those allied states, and a liberated and allied Iraq would have been an ideal new location for them.

3. Because of its oil wealth, and because that oil wealth would be likely to increase in value, it is unlikely that even prolonged sanctions would have resulted in regime change in Iraq.

4. The military overthrow of Hussein would demonstrate US willingness to do so to neighboring Middle Eastern states, particularly Iran and Syria. As the US has little in the way of diplomatic influence in those nations other than threat of military action, this would provide a lot of working capital.

5. The US needs to show the world that it will act unilaterally if necessary in order to protect its interests, and Iraq is a decent demonstration of that.

6. The Iraqi military was severely weakened by sanctions, and morale was low, so it was a reasonable time to push it over.

7. Hussein's human rights record was abysmal, and he was widely regarded by the international community as a thug, so there was every reason to believe that there would be much in the way of political opposition to him being overthrown.

8. Iran's growing power and influence in the region needed a military counterbalancing. Saudi Arabia was certainly not up to it, and the traditional opposition from Iraq had been gutted by sanctions and the Gulf War I. The only realistic opposition to it would be nearby US military bases.

9. At some point, the trend toward military humanitarian intervention and democratization needed to be tested. For reasons provided above, Iraq was a good test case for this.

10. Hussein was a total dickhead.

--------

I think I've provided more than ten reasons in the past why invasion was a bad idea, but I can provide them again if anyone wants them.

Close, but not quite. "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Scene II

Sorry - I actually googled part of the phrase and took the first full one I saw. Man, I thought everything on the internet was accurate.

leo - Thinking isn't bad, it's forcing judgements using a dogmatic belief structure that can get you into trouble. Things aren't always what they seem.

THE FARMER AND THE HORSE

There was once a farmer who owned a horse. And one day the horse ran away. All the people in town came to console him because of his loss. "Oh, I don't know," said the farmer,"Maybe it's a bad thing, and maybe it's not."

A few days later the horse returned to the farm, accompanied by 20 other horses. All the townspeople came to congratulate him on having a stableful of horses. "Oh, I don't know," said the farmer,"Maybe it's a good thing, and maybe it's not."

A few days later the farmer's son was out riding one of the new horses. The horse got wild and threw him off, breaking his leg. Again the townspeople came to console the farmer because of the accident. "Oh, I don't know," he said ,"Maybe it's a bad thing, and maybe it's not."

A few days later the government declared war and instituted a draft of all able-bodied young men. They carted off hundreds of young men,except for the farmer's son,who had a broken leg. "Now I know," said the farmer, "that it was a good thing my horse ran away."

Michael Yon: "There is a bizarro-world contrast between what most Americans seem to think is happening in Iraq versus what I see in Iraq."

DPU-

Should we consider only reason that appear valid in hindsight, or were presented at the time?

How about:

Prevention of Saddam reconstituting his WMD programs (since he did not have an active program)

Attempted assassination of an ex-President

Reverse domino theory-Iraq has a secular and educated population. Iraq could become the democratic, prosperous model for the Middle East.

If I have time, I'll post ten reasons why the war in Iraq was a bad idea tonight. I think it's a good idea to examine viewpoints other than the ones you hold.

DPU,

Well played.

3. Because of its oil wealth, and because that oil wealth would be likely to increase in value, it is unlikely that even prolonged sanctions would have resulted in regime change in Iraq.

It is important to note the literal and metaphoric liquidity of that mineral wealth makes it very difficult to constrain. The primary achievement of the sanctions was to strip the populace of economic power and aggregate it in the Hussein regime. The limited wealth that was coming in from reduced and covert oil sales was overwhelmingly going exactly where the sanctions were trying to prevent the flow of power.

I agree with your statement, but note that many people view any mention of Iraq oil wealth as a red flag. They then proceed to do their best cartoon bull imitation and go chasing after it bellowing about "blood for oil!" You might have made that point a bit more clear, even at the risk of going on about it forever like I do.

Covered, I think, by my point 6.

Attempted assassination of an ex-President

Sure, why not.

Reverse domino theory-Iraq has a secular and educated population. Iraq could become the democratic, prosperous model for the Middle East.

Covered by my point 9.

markytom,

There is part deux to this story.

Months passed, horse run away again, farmer son's leg heeled, government called for another draft, farmer still cannot decide whether it was good or bad thing with the horse.

"Thinking isn't bad"

I agree, question "To think or not to think" shouldn't even come up. TO THINK!!!

Another reason I like Michael Totten's articles is that he doesn't spend too much space trying to speculate on the cause and effect of what's going on - he seems to use more of a system thinking approach rather than a linear thinking approach which seems to be rare in the media. I recommend to everyone to apply systems thinking when looking at complex systems like Iraq. I'm donating another $50 to him today. I think he's one of the best journalists around.

Michael:

In preparation for your trip to Fallujah, you might wish to review the history of the incident that put the city on the map for the average American: the murder of a private security patrol and the desecration of their bodies. That incident and its aftermath have definitely put their mark on American-Iraqi relations.

Was this the action of a small faction or merely an expression of the prevailing deeply anti-American sentiment there?

Have public perceptions there toward Americans and our motives changed markedly since the Anbar Awakening? If so, why? (However bad AQ was, its hard to imagine that the local population could ever come to like us in such short order.)

During the first American offensive against Fallujah insurgents, there was such widespread sympathy for the city among Iraqis, even Shias, that Washington ordered its troops to withdraw. What happened politically in Iraq that allowed a second American offensive to finish the job six months later?

Take care and don't get complacent about your safety. I'll make a contribution to your "tip jar" shortly. If you get a chance to meet NY Times Bagdad reporter, John Burns, on the trip, I would be very interested to know his views on the current state of Iraq as well; I rarely see his reports now.

What is wrong with Americans?

According to Michael Totten, some of these Americans make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year just to lay sheet rock in Iraq. What's wrong is that profiteering is wrong. Either they can find Americans who can lay sheet rock for a salary closer to what the soldiers make, or it shouldn't be done by Americans.

The argument has been made that sometimes laying sheet rock is a sensitive job that requires Americans. The idea being that yes, Turkey may be in NATO, but some sheet rock jobs are too sensitive for just NATO membership.

Another argument that has been made is that laying sheet rock is a highly skilled job that goes well beyond what soldiers are paid to do. It's not as simple as, say, flying a helicopter.

Frankly, both of these arguments sound like nonsense in defense of war profiteers. If there are reasons to be 70% pessimistic about Iraq, and given that they are spending more than Iraq's entire GDP to somehow help that country, surely war profiteers are part of the problem. Michael Totten deserves real credit for quoting these shameless contractors, but unfortunately there was so no follow-through.

Since the original question of the post was what Michael should be looking for in Fallujah, one great direction would be to find other shameless contractors. Particularly contractors who are doing things that don't make any sense for contractors, like engaging in military-style firefights or interrogating detainees. Or not in Fallujah; there may also be plenty of it in Baghdad.

I know that Michael has dismissed a lot of what I have said as "just bitching" instead of "serious discussion". But the truth is, sometimes bitching is constructive criticism. It's not always about finding creative new ways to succeed. Sometimes people make mistakes, and they would do better to fix those mistakes before trying anything new. Likewise, sometimes governments and contractors do a lot of bad things, and the world would be a better place if they just stopped.

Was this the action of a small faction or merely an expression of the prevailing deeply anti-American sentiment there?

That hits both past and present topics, Cordell. Have you considered that maybe some of it is anti-private-security sentiment? Or that private security creates anti-American sentiment? That's certainly something that a foreign correspondent could look into in Fallujah.

Jim Harris,

According to Michael Totten, some of these Americans make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year just to lay sheet rock in Iraq. What's wrong is that profiteering is wrong. Either they can find Americans who can lay sheet rock for a salary closer to what the soldiers make, or it shouldn't be done by Americans. </