Show me the plans, Part 2

Seixon replied to my previous request for postwar planning in Iraq. He cited:

DoD’s Operation Polo Step - Iraq War Plan — 15 pages in all of Tab K - Planning for Phase IV

and a recent Senate Intelligence Committee Report, which after some current introduction, offers these four appendices of 2002-03 planning:

Appendix A - Regional Implications of Regime Change in Iraq (39 pages)

Appendix B - Principal Challenges in Postwar Iraq (40 pages)

Appendix C - Overview of Other Intelligence Sources (15 pages)

Appendix D - Distribution Lists (~120 pages)

I encourage all readers and commenters to actually read these documents. This is what passes for planning in the Bush administration and in the the deni-osphere. Look at the documents. The DoD Phase IV Powerpoint that Seixon cited has been used to demonstrate how unrealistic and delusional such Phase IV planning as existed was, notably assuming only 5,000 troops would be needed by Dec. 2006. Seixon’s point is “there was too planning … unrealistic and delusional, but WE HAD PLANNING.”

The documents in the Senate Intelligence Committee report are similar. Here are screencaps from App. A and App. B, typical of the ‘Time Magazine’ level of detail throughout:

Sample paragraph from Appendix A:
app_a.jpg

Sample paragraph from Appendix B:

app_b.jpg

Appendix C refers to other sources. Maybe that’s where the thorough, detailed plans are.

Jeff Goldstein’s follow-up, personal attack on me is more detailed than these docs. He briefly quotes Seixon’s comment as the authoritative answer. For Jeff, a personal attack, heavily laden with “Bush McChimpyHitler” constitutes a reply. Rather telling.

Seixon,

Is that the best you have? A few high-level summaries, telling us that the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia don’t like each other much?

The point here is the unbelievably thin, rosy-colored, abstract, high-level of planning. Of course there were some documents. I am delighted that Seixon took up the challenge. Now … look at the documents. Taking over, owning a country of 25 million people, and all we have is a few dozen pages of this high-level stuff? If anyone wants to believe that what you see there was appropriate for the task, so be it.

Comments

  1. B Moe wrote:

    By Golly, you have convinced me! I am writing my Senator right now requesting… Nay! Demanding, I say! DEMANDING! That ALL documents regarding planning and strategy for the war be unclassified and released to the public, and Al Quaada, immediately. After all, what matter is the safety of our troops and the future of 25 million Iraqi’s when compared to an indignant, cartoon blogger’s NEED TO KNOW!

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 12:55 pm

  2. canuckistani wrote:

    Commissar-
    These people have invested years of their lives in supporting Bush against leftist attacks. They would rather lose the war, lose the election, lose the atmosphere of the earth than admit that they, or Bush, was ever wrong about anything. Anyone with any sense got out when the manure got up to their necks. But arguing with Bush zealots is like arguing with Young Earth Creationists. Not only do they not know, they don’t want to know, and they’ll tell you Jesus rode a brontosaurus if that’s they only way they can get a grip on the evidence.

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 1:14 pm

  3. B Moe wrote:

    These people have invested years of their lives in supporting Bush against leftist attacks. They would rather lose the war, lose the election, lose the atmosphere of the earth than admit that they, or Bush, was ever wrong about anything.

    Uh, no. I didn’t vote for Bush. I disagree with most of his policies. But I am able to differentiate between policies and make decisions on them based on my own opinions, rather than what any parties position is, and I support the overall plan of attack against militant jihad. Has the plan worked perfectly? Of course not, very few, if any, military plan in history has ever worked to perfection, it is the nature of war. But just because something is difficult, or time consuming, doesn’t mean it was poorly planned or a bad idea, it just means it is hard to do.

    Unfortunately, people like you choose to politicize the effort by branding all who support the war “Bush zealots” and dismissing our arguments out of hand. That is why it is so easy to suspect you of wanting the war to fail for political reasons, as it seems to be the only way you are capable of seeing things.

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 1:34 pm

  4. Alan wrote:

    So in other words, Canuckistani, they’re acting like FReepers.

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 1:37 pm

  5. Alan wrote:

    As far as I can tell, the Bush Administration’s “plan” to establish democracy in Iraq has only succeeded in making Kadafi look like a chump to his fellow Middle Eastern leaders.

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 1:48 pm

  6. canuckistani wrote:

    Has the plan worked perfectly? Of course not, very few, if any, military plan in history has ever worked to perfection, it is the nature of war.

    Has the plan worked perfectly? The British failing to take Caen by sunset on D-Day is a plan that didn’t work perfectly. The plan to seize Iwo Jima is a plan that didn’t go perfectly. They succeeded, but in a world where we don’t use sarcasm, a plan that does not go perfectly is one that succeeds, but the details aren’t quite right; casualties are high, or timing is wrong. I would be fascinated to hear of a single thing in Iraq that went according to plan, if we make the assumption that there was a plan to begin with. WMD’s found? Stable democracy formed? Occupation paying for itself with oil profits? Sectarian violence averted? Electricity? Medical services? Iraqi army composed of less than 50% insurgents? Al Qaeda weakened? If that’s your idea of a plan that didn’t work to perfection, I’d love to see your idea of a disaster.

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 2:03 pm

  7. Redhand wrote:

    I wasted some time, and energy, debating much the same thing with some of the more simian types who [still] defend the Bush Administration’s postwar Iraq “planning” over at Althouse.

    An alternative explanation for the lack of planning may simply be that nothing coherent or logical could have been cobbled together with the force level that the Bush Administration wanted to use. Dealing with the details may have forced the war cabal actually to grapple with Eric Shinseki’s considered opinion that:

    something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We’re talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that’s fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground-force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.

    Absent extraordinary recruiting, or a draft, perhaps we simply didn’t have the assets to do the job right from the get go with the volunteer Army we had in 2001. (Heaven knows we don’t now). Perish the thought that assembling a prudent number of troops would have delayed, or derailed, commencement of a “you go to war with the Army you’ve got” conflict that the Bush Administration was hell bent on starting no matter what. Besides, why bother to think when you know you’re right to begin with? Who really needs postwar plans when “we will be greeted as liberators”? C’mon, it’ll all fall into place, let’s get started!!

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 2:03 pm

  8. scarshapedstar wrote:

    By Golly, you have convinced me! I am writing my Senator right now requesting… Nay! Demanding, I say! DEMANDING! That ALL documents regarding planning and strategy for the war be unclassified and released to the public, and Al Quaada, immediately.

    You’re scared shitless that Al-Qaeda watches everything we do and yet you voted for John Qerry?

    Worst. Concern. Troll. Ever.

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 2:07 pm

  9. Redhand wrote:

    Oops, “2001″ should have been “2003.”

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 2:07 pm

  10. B Moe wrote:

    I’d love to see your idea of a disaster.

    My idea of a disaster would be the complete and immediate withdrawal. And I suspect you would indeed love to see it.

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 2:07 pm

  11. B Moe wrote:

    You’re scared shitless that Al-Qaeda watches everything we do

    I am aware that they are aware of the media. I don’t consider an awareness of the capabilities and strategies of my enemy to be an indication I am scared shitless. Are you scared shitless of Bush and Rove? Could be a reason for your over-emotional irrationality I suppose.

    …and yet you voted for John Qerry?

    Still can’t read, huh?

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 2:13 pm

  12. B Moe wrote:

    WMD’s found?

    What does that have to do with a plan?

    Stable democracy formed?

    The government is stable, security is not, that is why we are focusing on building a functioning police force and military, these things take time when the best and brightest have been fed to plastic shredders for the last 30 years.

    Occupation paying for itself with oil profits?

    We are moving in that direction, ten years of sanctions and being the target of jihadists make this difficult.

    Sectarian violence averted?

    That is a joke, right?

    Electricity?

    Better than before and improving, demand is much higher so shortages are still high.

    Medical services?

    Knock it off with the jokes, already.

    Iraqi army composed of less than 50% insurgents?

    You honestly believe this? And yet they are only managing to kill three of us a day?

    Al Qaeda weakened?

    Unless you believe that there is strength in martyrdom, I would think so.

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 2:26 pm

  13. Redhand wrote:

    And yet they are only managing to kill three of us a day?

    I’m convinced! That’s only 1095 dead a year, plus another 7000 a year wounded with a liberal sprinkling of traumatic injuries. And for what, to make Iraq ripe for a Mookie al Sadr takeover, and an alliance between Iran and Iraq because the al-Maliki government is a slimy, double-dealing, incompetent joke?

    The insanity of the current situation there is tragic beyond words. Here we are simultaneously fighting Sunni extremists, the Mahdi Army, while trying to keep the Kurds on the reservation, dealing with Al-Q foreign fighters, and failing to halt a constant stream of recruits, bad actors and munitions flowing in from Syria and Iran, through borders we don’t have the ability to plug.

    We should never have gone into this cesspool. It’s all been a total waste of lives and money, and has gravely stained our international reputation. The only thing it’s accomplished is to reduce our ability to counter Al-Q in Afghanistan, and to maintain a credible military deterrent against Iran. (You will pardon me for thinking that Cheney’s lunatic rantings from a carrier in the Persian Gulf have anything to do with real deterrence).

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 3:07 pm

  14. canuckistani wrote:

    Sectarian violence averted?

    That is a joke, right?

    Are you telling me that averting sectarian violence was *not* part of the plan? If not, why not? If it was, why did it go so wrong?

    My idea of a disaster would be the complete and immediate withdrawal. And I suspect you would indeed love to see it.

    Islamic Fundamentalism is too serious to be dealt with by the neocon clowns who aimed for Al-Qaeda and hit Iraq instead. If losing Iraq is what it takes to get rid of these incompetent bozos, well, do it now and get someone smart on the job for the next phase of the war. Iraq is already lost. Next time, start with a leader who knows how to plan ahead, and knows that torturing Iraqis is going to create millions more enemies that in suppresses.

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 3:12 pm

  15. commissar wrote:

    B Moe,

    Do have any evidence of anything more than the high-level, superficial, “delusional and unrealistic” plans shown?

    As I said, this isn’t PW, nor Atrios. Your childish comments are not persuasive nor very intelligent.

    If you some evidence to offer, please do so.

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 3:23 pm

  16. R.L.Page wrote:

    The arrogance of the American mind (such as it is) never ceases to amaze.

    Whatever plan the U.S. government has for the future of Iraq is only of interest to Iraqis that they may more quickly defeat it.

    All the phony idealism of the so-called ‘classical liberals’ is nothing more than Imperialism re-branded.

    The U.S. does not want a free and independent nation of Iraq. The U.S. government wants a docile client-state, a province, its resources free for the taking.

    To have had (or not had) good plans for doing a bad and stupid thing is irrelevant.

    The invasion & occupation of Iraq was wrong. Admit to committing the crime
    and accept the penalty with humility and contrition.

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 3:46 pm

  17. sockpuppet wrote:

    The invasion & occupation of Iraq was wrong. Admit to committing the crime
    and accept the penalty with humility and contrition.

    This is the thinking of the people you have laid down with commie. Funny you accuse B moe of being childish, yet you accuse Jeff of a personal attack on you.

    I dismiss your argument with an attack on your person! Go run the Iditarod , buy a convertible, or just stick it to the man in general. Get it out of your system.

    Assuming your opponents are arguing in bad faith is fruitless, especially when you used to be on the other side.

    Poor management or bad planning is a whole different ball of wax than no plan. You know this. The problem is, you seem to be in hammer mode, and everything looks like a nail.

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 4:08 pm

  18. Grim wrote:

    I didn’t work for the government before the invasion of Iraq, so I can’t say one way or the other what was out there. I started working for the military in May 2003. I did work for the government at the Joint and Interagency level (i.e., what you’re calling ‘high’ level); and for the DOD at other levels.

    These documents aren’t impressive, but I think you should take into account how they’re produced. You don’t start off with a ‘high level summary’ — you start off with a bunch of experts, who contribute their expertise to a low-level working document. These are then summarized for the upper ranks, in the same way that corporations ask for executive summaries. These several such summaries are, if everything is working as it should, further summarized into summaries for the President and his top advisors.

    My sense of things — and again, it comes not from having been there, but from having been there afterwards and listening to people gripe about it — is that there were lots of plans for postwar Iraq. State had plans, DOD had plans, CIA had plans, etc. Sub-offices within each of those agencies had plans, some of which contradicted each other.

    Where the administration flat failed was in not getting a final plan that everyone agreed to follow. There were tons of ‘good ideas’ out there; there was a lot of thought given by a lot of experts, none of whom were talking to each other, none of it came together. The interagency infighting, and internal agency politics at State and DOD, were allowed to carry on through the invasion. When it came time to do the postwar, it’s not that there were no plans — it’s that there were too many, and nobody knew which one to follow. The CPA was slapped together and nobody even really knew if DOD or State was in charge of it.

    That’s a serious, fall-down failing, to be sure. But it’s not that nobody thought about what to do. It’s that executive management was willing to let it sort itself out on the ground, rather than forcing the groups at the interagency level to compromise and work something out that they would all agree to obey.

    Now, I don’t have the documents to prove that, couldn’t release them if I did, and as I said, I wasn’t actually there at the time. Having been there shortly thereafter, though, that’s my understanding of what happened. FWIW.

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 4:42 pm

  19. R.L.Page wrote:

    “… don’t have the documents …”

    “… couldn’t release them if [you] did .. ”

    “… wasn’t actually there at the time …”

    Thanks for sharing.

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 4:58 pm

  20. Grim wrote:

    Best you’re gonna get on a blog, son. Everybody who really was there has to worry about getting summoned before a Congressional committee. :)

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 5:01 pm

  21. canuckistani wrote:

    I gotta say, the idea that State and the Pentagon and everyone else all had their own plans, none of which were enacted is a scenario that carries the ring of truth to me.

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 5:11 pm

  22. commissar wrote:

    Grim, Canuck,

    Several books have been written on this topic, notably Tom Ricks’ Fiasco. From those books, I get the impression that there is a large element of truth to what Grim says, but that the depth of plans that did exist was quite shallow. Some of the best stuff was at State, whose players Rummy consciously excluded from the postwar effort.

    The reality is complex, and to some extent there was a lack of planning (my post), an absence of coordination of plans that did exist (Grim’s comment), and Redhand’s suggestion that no realistic planning was possible. We can elaborate, combine, or add new perspectives. Whatever.

    At this point, 3-4 years after the fact, with numerous, well-researched books published, it is astounding that the Goldsteins, the BMoes, the Sockpuppets, and the other 28% still cling to … whatever it is they are clinging to.

    B Moe’s first comment is the best. He insists that plans for postwar Iraq existed, but must be classified. What we supposedly thought five years about bringing stability to post-Saddam Iraq is, in his unshakable belief system, still classified.

    And the denialists see everyone who doesn’t buy their fantasy as a “truther.”

    Mind boggling.

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 5:31 pm

  23. commissar wrote:

    Grim, Canuck,

    But, it’s important to keep in mind, that what matters is facts on the ground, and in the real world.

    At the end of the day, it does not matter at all who’s the bigger jerk: Markos or Jeff G., Greenwald or Reynolds, B Moe or some lefty troll.

    Nothing could be less important in figuring out the right thing than the character of extremist, ill-informed advocates on either side.

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 5:38 pm

  24. sockpuppet wrote:

    Commie, not to play gotcha! but you just accused Rumsfeld of tanking Iraq on purpose, and 4 paragraphs later you scoff at being called a “truther”.

    Good faith man, Good faith. If you think this is all something else, come out and say it. Don’t be one of these types who sees evil genius and total incompetence in the same administration .

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 5:41 pm

  25. commissar wrote:

    Sock,

    Rummy did not ‘tank Iraq on purpose.’

    He did deliberately exclude State from the rebuilding efforts.

    A move of arrogance, not treason. An easy-to-understand difference.

    Honestly, Sock, your PW-style internet gotcha stuff bores me; if you’d like to have a reasoned discussion, you’re welcome here. So far, you’re not adding much. Perhaps some examples would help. DavidC, Grim, Bloodspite, and John the Marine disagree with almost every post I write, but they carry on ordinary, civil, reasonably thoughtful discussions. If that manner of discussion doesn’t interest you, please go back to PW or whatever blog you ordinarily frequent.

    BTW, do you have some docs on the planning that you could direct me to? Or some comment on the depth and thoughtfulness of the plans Seixon mentioned?

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 5:51 pm

  26. Grim wrote:

    I read the same story about Rumsfeld in the Emerald City book (which was my Christmas gift from a liberal friend of mine, who told me she wanted to discuss it with me. So, after I finished reading it, I asked her what she wanted to discuss, and she said she’d not actually had time to read it herself). In that version of the story, Rumsfeld shuts down some ongoing cooperation between DOD and State actors who are trying to get their offices together. He claims, though, that it’s a decision that was made over his head — by Cheney, if I recall correctly.

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 5:55 pm

  27. R.L.Page wrote:

    “At the end of the day, it does not matter at all who’s the bigger jerk: Markos or Jeff G., Greenwald or Reynolds, B Moe or some lefty troll.”

    I’m voting “B Moe” all the way.

    But, seriously, this is exactly the point Mr. G and NorwayGeorge (et al.) will never grasp. None of this is about their egos, it is about what is Right and Wrong.

    Perhaps they once did, but I do not believe these men (& others) are now arguing ‘in good faith.’

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 6:04 pm

  28. commissar wrote:

    Grim,

    You are referring (I just checked pp. 33 & 37) to Rummy blocking Tom Warrick from joining Jay Garner. I see Cheney’s role mentioned there.

    From Fiasco, Cobra II, and State of Denial, it’s clear that Rummy shut out as much of State as he could. (Some authors noted that Powell figured it was losing bureaucratic battle over a privilege not worth having, i.e. holding the bag in postwar Iraq).

    My point is that Rummy’s exclusion of State went far beyond Tom Warrick’s situation.

    Grim, not directed at you, but this gets more than a little frustrating. Books and books and books have laid this stuff all out. At this point, the Bush admin’s failures in Iraq, from 2002 to the present, are a matter of historical record. “You could look it up,” as Yogi Berra used to say.

    But if I make a blog post, some moron (not you) challenges stuff that’s been established beyond any reasonable doubt. Guys like sockpuppet think it’s clever or productive to intentionally mis-characterize a wholly unremarkable comment I make about Rummy.

    And one either lets it stand, block the morons, or bother to refute it, while they move on to some other nonsense.

    To be clear, Grim, all your comments are thoughtful and more than welcome!

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 6:08 pm

  29. Dan Kauffman wrote:

    National Strategy
    for Victory
    in Iraq

    It’s about a 400K pdf file

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 7:03 pm

  30. sockpuppet wrote:

    A move of arrogance, not treason. An easy-to-understand difference

    Not by your writing. Pardon me for being so obtuse. PW style GOTCHA!

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 7:04 pm

  31. Saddam Hussein wrote:

    I would be fascinated to hear of a single thing in Iraq that went according to plan, if we make the assumption that there was a plan to begin with.

    You had to bring that up, didn’t you?

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 7:07 pm

  32. rabit wrote:

    Re previous post on Powerpoint:

    Yes, my post that Powerpoint makes people stupid was tongue in cheek. Is that allowed here?

    But here’s where a Yale statistics professor says basically the same thing in so many more words.

    PowerPoint is mentioned as a component to bad planning in the book Fiasco.

    I’ll stay out of the discussion about whether post-war planning existed or not, because it’s pointless.

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 8:01 pm

  33. sockpuppet wrote:

    Commie, I have seen you move the goalposts too many times in the past few days to be moved about cries of “reasonably thoughtful discussions”. First torture never happened here in the USA. Later it happened, but it wasn’t sanctioned. Finally, it happened and was sanctioned, but things were different then.

    Your latest example of bad plans=no plans, while still demanding that no plans existed, is just confusing.

    In your own words, I am a denier. Tell me what you actually believe so I can put my nature to use.

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 8:33 pm

  34. BloodSpite wrote:

    disagree with almost every post I write

    I wouldn’t go THAT far ;)

    I minor point I want to bring up, playing my Devils Advocate card again.

    It took 11 years for 13 colonies to create a form of government that stands still today. This is after a war, where the primary leaders were deposed, a make shift handful of sectarian leaders from each of the 13 colonies placed in a rickety system of power while an overall draft of freedom to be created. Meanwhile reconstruction also had to take place.

    Now we’re expecting to Iraq to complete the same process the United States did, in half the time?

    And they have the added problems of some of those sectarian groups are still fighting, against each other, whereas in the US they worked together?

    Ok Things I will agree with:
    *War Mishandled. Absolutely.
    *Bush making poor war time Decisions. Definitely.
    *Administration attempting long range control of the military arm. Yes.
    *Congress undermining troop ability. Yes.
    *Torture bad. Yes.

    Even taking all these things, what I am hearing from everyone is we should just throw our hands up and walk away?

    I am not a Bush supporter. I voted for him yes, and as I have said numerous times I felt he was the lesser of two evils. Such is my opinion, and I am entitled to it.

    That being said we have a responsibility….whether you look at it as a global, moral, ethical, or directive that is indicative of our past transgressions of the above leader; to stay and complete Iraq’s reconstruction no matter how long it takes

    We created the problem. We created the power vacuum. We destabilized the Middle East.

    Are we willing to allow the slaughter that will ensure by walking away because we are tired of the war?

    The Left screams Vietnam. Your right. 4 million people slaughtered after we left. In fact the real numbers to this day are still unknown. Because Congress intervened in the military arm, just like today. I guess the Left *wants* a Vietnam since it’s mostly the Democratic Senators who are screaming time tables. Yes I admit there are Republicans involved as well so this is not strictly right versus left (but I do find it amusing that it’s Democratic Rep’s proposing draft bills, Democratic reps proposing time tables, Democratic reps saying “Leave Now!’ all the while saying “Iraq is Vietnam” heh.)

    Philippines. The guerrilla warfare that took place after our overall land based departure was second only to the violence we waged on them ourselves.

    Korea. We stayed until the job was completed, and the damage was minimal. No wholesale slaughter ensued versus the two previously mentioned.

    India. One of my favorites to use. Brittan returns India to it it’s people. Louis Mountbatten orchestrates a massive splitting of the country to placate each of the Sectarian groups. The carnage that ensues claims the lives of over 5 million people and one of the worlds renowned pacifist leaders, Ghandi.

    To date the war in iraq has been the least costly of American wars in regards to dead soldiers. But to demand a pullout based on “Bush screwed the war” (which he did!) “War is bad” (well duh. No one will agree with you more than a soldier on that one) “Haliburton is making money” (Here’s t ip: I don’t care. By removing Saddam we put our selves responsible for the populace of an entire country. Deal with Haliburton latter. Right now we have bigger issues. Mkay? Thx.) is wrong wrong wrong no matter how you color it.

    If you guys can sleep at night with the “Loss of global community respect” When we leave and a real Civil War starts, if you can handle the lives of over 5 million people being dropped in your lap becuase we left, if you can handle the fact that if we leave there will be a 99.9% chance that we will return because UN will request intervention due to the violence in the region, and because we crated the proble, we left the problem unchecked, and because we supply more troops than any other country to the UN we will be asked to go back under their doctrine (And lets not forget the UN is no angels either. How many officers were arrested in the child prostitution ring recently? How many people kill on the Ivory Coast by UN troops?) then by all means, demand a pull out.

    You probably didn’t clean your room after making a mess either.

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 9:18 pm

  35. Alon Levy wrote:

    Commissar, according to George Packer’s The Assassins’ Gate, the neocons believed that they’d install Chalabi and be out of the country by August 2003. They mostly followed the advice of one well-meaning but ignorant exile, who hadn’t lived in Iraq since the 1960s, and who believed that Iraqis were still as secular and non-sectarian as they were when he lived in Iraq.

    BloodSpite, What you say about the American Revolution is misleading. If pre-1787 United States were like Iraq, Northerners and Southerners would be killing each other, infrastructure would be in shambles, and people of all political persuasions would be fleeing to Canada. Iraq isn’t some country with a weak government that is begging for a new constitution; it’s an area so war-torn that its violent death rate is on a par with the most militaristic and barbaric cultures anthropologists have ever encountered.

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 11:34 pm

  36. rho wrote:

    To date the war in iraq has been the least costly of American wars in regards to dead soldiers. But to demand a pullout based on “Bush screwed the war” (which he did!) “War is bad” (well duh. No one will agree with you more than a soldier on that one) “Haliburton is making money” (Here’s t ip: I don’t care. By removing Saddam we put our selves responsible for the populace of an entire country. Deal with Haliburton latter. Right now we have bigger issues. Mkay? Thx.) is wrong wrong wrong no matter how you color it.

    AFAICT, the Commissar is making none of these points. Well, perhaps the “Bush screwed up” one, but only as a side issue.

    The question has become was this adventure worth it? has it done more to protect the US or done more to harm it? and how can we best salvage the situation? I don’t know for sure, but I do know for sure that ridiculing people who hold legitimate differing views is pretty unproductive, especially if you’re holding yourself out to be intellectually discerning.

    Painting the Commissar as a “Truther” is ridiculous and obviously a rhetorical ploy. It is beneath contempt.

    Posted 28 May 2007 at 11:38 pm

  37. Russ from Winterset wrote:

    Getting back to the original point here, I seem to remember that the Commissar stated that we had “no plan” for post-war Iraq. When he was presented with links to the plans that he had declared non-existent, the Commissar proceeded to deride those plans as being “Mickey Mouse” (not his words, but I think I summarize his feelings with that phrase).

    I must have missed the post where the Commissar said “Wow, I screwed up. There WAS a plan. Sorry about that.” He could have followed it up with a post scorching the content of said plans (the existince of which he had recently denied) and I would have considered it fair game, but simply pretending that his original “there is no plan” meme was never debunked is poor work, IMHO.

    Of course, I guess he’s just playing the role of an “Intelligent War Plan Design Advocate” here. You know the people I’m talking about: Folks that believe that every step of our activities in Iraq were predetermined by the “unitary executive”, the Flyin’ Spaghetti Monster, or even “alien grays”. God forbid he realizes that war planning is an …….. evolutionary process.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 12:48 am

  38. BloodSpite wrote:

    If pre-1787 United States were like Iraq, Northerners and Southerners would be killing each other, infrastructure would be in shambles, and people of all political persuasions would be fleeing to Canada

    You misunderstand the point under which I was attempting to make, and I concede the fault is more with my explanation than in your reading of it. My apologies.

    What i was trying to show is that, no country has ever recovered from such a absence of power in under 12 to 15 years in History unless it was of a Military Coup, or a voluntary seccesion of power.

    America has turned the war in Iraq in to a “microwave dinner’ wanting it now now now, when in reality it will not happen now now now

    Sorry if I didn’t make that clear Alan.

    The question has become was this adventure worth it? has it done more to protect the US or done more to harm it? and how can we best salvage the situation? I don’t know for sure, but I do know for sure that ridiculing people who hold legitimate differing views is pretty unproductive, especially if you’re holding yourself out to be intellectually discerning.

    The question is not is it worth it. The question is now how we can slavage it. My intent is not insult Commissar in any way shape or form, as my opinion is my own and I’m assured he knows that.. If any slight was taken i whole heartedly apologise.

    That being said if you choose to address the questions that you have laid forth by passing a much bigger question then i have to ask your motive in this at all.

    The bigger question must be: Are you willing to sacrifice lives in the Millions by our withdrawl, or Thousands by our occupations?

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 1:11 am

  39. Seixon wrote:

    commissar,

    Yes, that is all I have, a normal American who has no special access to classified government information. What, you expect me to break into the CIA and the Pentagon, and come out wielding every document produced for Iraq-planning???

    Hey, bud, you asked for the PowerPoints, I gave them to you. I’m not the omniscient Oracle that can see through the walls of our nation’s most fortified institutions to give you all the things you desire. Sorry.

    It’s called reality.

    One of the main slogans the Democrats and anti-war hordes used in the 2004 presidential campaign, and ever since, was that the Bush administration had “no plan”.

    There was a plan, as I have so ably unearthed by using the Internets, providing you with what may be only the tip of an iceberg of planning documents.

    So do you wish to move the goal posts and say that, yes OK, there were plans, but they weren’t good?

    Fine, but acknowledge once and for all that there were actually plans in place, and tell all your anti-war goons to stop pretending otherwise.

    As I also said previously, criticizing in hindsight is oh so easy, especially when you’re sitting tight back in the USA, far away from the action that has been going on for four years.

    It took around 45 years for Germany to resemble anything near a functioning society and country after WWII, but I’m not so sure you were criticizing the Marshall Plan and all the planning that went into that, did you?

    If there is something that annoys the hell out of me these days, it is when anti-war people keep pretending that reforming an ethnically and religiously heterogeneous Arab dictatorship into a functioning, peaceful, democracy is supposedly to have been a piece of cake and competently done in four years.

    As Bush said, to many snickers, “It’s hard work.”

    It’s just too bad that some people don’t appreciate hard work and would rather take the selfish easy way out of every damn situation in life, regardless of the consequences to themselves and others.

    PS. By the standard you are operating under right now, I could just boldly assert that the Clinton administration did absolutely no planning before bombing Kosovo. You know, because no one has done the dirty work of finding the documents and shoving them in my face. If you actually cared about the truth, you’d have found the documents I dredged up on your own.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 1:12 am

  40. Alon Levy wrote:

    This is not a plan:

    1. Attack Iraq.
    2. ??????
    3. Pull out of a stable, democratic Iraq.

    Neither is, “I’ll get a pony.”

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 3:00 am

  41. commissar wrote:

    Seixon,

    So the notion that the plans were superficial, unrealistic, and delusional, that’s just nit-picking. And, there’s still lots more “secret” stuff that we haven’t seen it.

    Gotcha.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 6:50 am

  42. Dan Kauffman wrote:

    So the notion that the plans were superficial, unrealistic, and delusional, that’s just nit-picking. And, there’s still lots more “secret” stuff that we haven’t seen it.

    Gotcha.

    I don’t think the plan I posted about is the same one you are speaking of, does it in your estimation have the same failures?

    “superficial, unrealistic, and delusional,”

    Of couse I am wondering if any plan that was made public could be other than superficial in many respects if it were not to be suicidal

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 7:00 am

  43. Pablo wrote:

    So the notion that the plans were superficial, unrealistic, and delusional, that’s just nit-picking.

    No, that’s another argument. The notion that the plans were non-existent, which was the question at hand, is wrong. As in false and untrue and mistaken and incorrect. Not nit picking, but full blown wrong.

    This is like saying “There is no one armed man!” and then having been introduced to him, following up with “But look how ugly he is!”

    You remember this, don’t you?

    But, since Jeff wants to talk about ‘pesky little facts’ and all that …

    Can I see the plans themselves? The Powerpoint presentations? The pdf files? The briefing books? The actual documents?

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 7:18 am

  44. R.L.Page wrote:

    Another fine display of misdirection from George of Norway; but let’s consider “the goalpost” that was actually on the field — the one that this President pushed right out of the stadium.

    The invasion & occupation of Iraq was sold on the ludicrous assertion that Mr. Hussein was in possession of terrible weapons and was preparing to attack the United States (– again, if you consider the relentless attempts to link him to the attack of September 11, 2001.)

    After the invasion, when the Weapons of Mass Destruction tale was revealed to be absolute nonsense, it was then that Mr. Bush “moved the goalpost” and informed the nation that he had really invaded Iraq in order to reform its culture — to transform Iraq into a western-style, democratic nation.

    And now these people want to tell us that, well, yes, everything has gone wrong, but that only means we have to stay and fix it. These people with blood on their hands tell the rest of us the next river of blood will be on our hands if we leave.

    From the beginning there was no ‘exit strategy’ because there was never an intention to leave. The plan was for a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq. Now, they grab for any excuse to justify their never-ending occupation.

    If you supported the invasion & occupation of Iraq, it’s your mess. Get your sorry asses over there and clean it up.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 7:44 am

  45. BloodSpite wrote:

    If you supported the invasion & occupation of Iraq, it’s your mess. Get your sorry asses over there and clean it up.

    Been there done that thank you. Want a t-shirt? I have a few to spare.

    We digress. Whether any of us felt the war was or is wrong is moot.

    The fact is, we are there.

    Period. Finite. We are there.

    I’m not grasping at straws, I’m not clamoring at futility, I’m saying we have a responsibility no matter what we voted for to clean up the mess we are now in.

    4 people in a car are driving a long. They all want to get to their destination, but each want to go another way. The driver picks away and the group ends up lost. Does that now mean the it is the drivers sole responsibility to get the passengers to the destination, yet all of them are in the same situation?

    My point is there is one thing we can all agree on: We want out of Iraq.

    Some want now. Some want 10 years from now. Some want to see something resembling a peaceful accord there before our dispersal. It took 45 years for Germany to clean up the mess. And thats with over 14 countries assisting.

    I’m not a war trumpeter. I’m not a invade Iran trumpeter. But the reality is we are in Iraq right now. And such arguments as “go over there and fix it yourself” are nonsense. it’s a problem we need to cope with here and now and stop pointing fingers at who said this, who did that, who voted this way and who acted that way.

    Solutions people.
    We can do the whole BushChimpMcHitlerHaliburtonWarForOilRepublicansDoItBackwards song and dance After we are out of the country.

    I’ll even play the music for it if you like.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 7:53 am

  46. B Moe wrote:

    Are you telling me that averting sectarian violence was *not* part of the plan? If not, why not? If it was, why did it go so wrong?

    You know who you should be bitching at: Smokey the damn Bear. Right now south Georgia has been burning for weeks, the smoke is messing up the air all the way in Athens. How come all that talk he does, he don’t even have a plan to stop forest fires?

    B Moe’s first comment is the best. He insists that plans for postwar Iraq existed, but must be classified. What we supposedly thought five years about bringing stability to post-Saddam Iraq is, in his unshakable belief system, still classified.

    Comments like this make me seriously consider the intellectual maturity of the commenter. Are you of the opinion that five years is a long time? You do understand the conflict is still unfinished? That any strategy that is sucessful should still be kept a secret? Even R. L. Page can grasp that with his atrophied little caricature of a 60s brain:

    “Whatever plan the U.S. government has for the future of Iraq is only of interest to Iraqis that they may more quickly defeat it.”

    Although he seems to assume they are all revolutionaries much like himself, which doesn’t seem to be the case.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 7:57 am

  47. R.L.Page wrote:

    Here’s a proposal: when the current president who created this tragedy, (and his administration, and his enablers in Congress) apologize for their incompetence (and where appropriate are prosecuted for their crimes) and they resign, then the new administration can get to work on the problem.

    Agreed ?

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 7:58 am

  48. R.L.Page wrote:

    All of the American colonists were not “revolutionaries” in 1776, but the King got handed his crown nonetheless.

    Maybe ‘George’ is just an unlucky name for a monarch.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 8:01 am

  49. B Moe wrote:

    Yes, R. L., in a couple of years this administration will step down and another will take-over. That is an awesome plan! You are a very smart little boy! Now stop playing with your cereal and get ready for school.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 8:18 am

  50. Dan Kauffman wrote:

    After the invasion, when the Weapons of Mass Destruction tale was revealed to be absolute nonsense

    Not exactly nonsense, what David Kay reported to the Senate Select Intelligence Commitee was reported in a very edited form.

    But since all you probably heard was the unending Mantra

    Kay says NO WMDS! It is not really your fault.

    Senator McCain: “[Y]ou agree with the fundamental principle here that what we did was justified and enhance the security of the United States and the world by removing Saddam Hussein from power?”

    David Kay: “Absolutely.”

    “It would be hard to come to a conclusion other than Iraq was a gathering, serious threat”

    Senator Kennedy: “Many of us feel that the evidence so far leads only to one conclusion: that what has happened was more than a failure of intelligence, it was the result of manipulation of the intelligence to justify a decision to go to war………..”

    David Kay: “…….All I can say is if you read the total body of intelligence in the last 12 to 15 years that flowed on Iraq, I quite frankly think it would be hard to come to a conclusion other than Iraq was a gathering, serious threat to the world with regard to WMD.”

    This next bit is what gets my attention

    I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein. I have said I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought.

    More dangerous than we thought.

    That’s pretty clear to me.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 8:36 am

  51. DavidC wrote:

    The U.S. does not want a free and independent nation of Iraq. The U.S. government wants a docile client-state, a province, its resources free for the taking.

    Utter nonsense. If the U.S. wanted a client state it would have co-opted an Iraqi general or colonel, made him the new president of Iraq, had him pay some lip service to establishing democratic rule in the future, backed him in crushing opposition, extracted some basing rights and oil concessions, and been in none of the difficulty it is now.

    The invasion & occupation of Iraq was sold on the ludicrous assertion that Mr. Hussein was in possession of terrible weapons

    So ludicrous that every major intelligence service supported that assessment. But of course you knew
    better.

    From the beginning there was no ‘exit strategy’ because there was never an intention to leave. The plan was for a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq. Now, they grab for any excuse to justify their never-ending occupation.

    Idiotic anti-Americanism at its worst. U.S. policy can’t just be mistaken, it has to be evil too.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 8:50 am

  52. rho wrote:

    No, that’s another argument. The notion that the plans were non-existent, which was the question at hand, is wrong. As in false and untrue and mistaken and incorrect. Not nit picking, but full blown wrong.

    You can read it however you want, but a perfectly fair and acceptable reading is also:

    “Where are the plans?”

    “Here are the plans.”

    “That’s it? Those aren’t plans.”

    You’re playing Internet Gotcha. A fine game; long history; enjoy it myself, etc. But since the Commissar suggested going and looking at the presentations, it’s hard to say that he’s denying that they exist. You can call it moving the goalposts if you want, but it looks more to me like he’s moving the argument forward.

    It amuses me to no end to see people who previously cheered the Commissar to shun him for heresy once he shifted positions.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 9:01 am

  53. DavidC wrote:

    R.L.Page,

    The invasion & occupation of Iraq was wrong. Admit to committing the crime
    and accept the penalty with humility and contrition

    This from a person who is calling others arrogant. In my opinion the invasion of Iraq was completely justified, regardless of the lack of WMD stockpiles. Saddam Hussein was an open enemy of the U.S. who in the post-9/11 environment could not be allowed to remain in place as a potential threat. Neither you, nor anyone else knows what Saddam may have done had he been left in power. Fortunately we don’t have to wonder anymore, since his existance and regime have been eliminated.

    The occupation has been a miserable series of screwups and blunders. That doesn’t make it in any way a “crime.” As for your advice, I think you know where you can stick it.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 9:03 am

  54. ZaMoose wrote:

    The Comissar’s positions strike me as more than a little similar to what we used to call “front-running” back in my high school days.

    See, you’d have “fans” that absolutely loved the Dallas Cowboys,right up until a week before the Super Bowl ™, when some ESPN commentator would assert that The Bills were where the winning money was. Next day, said front-runners would show up in Kelly jerseys and bright orange hats emblazoned with Buffalo’s logo and then get miffed when you called their motives into question. Then, as soon as the Dallas offensive line was through demolishing the poor Bills’ D line, there they’d be, Lone Star blue jersey flapping in the wind and a “What? Nothing’s changed!” look on their face.

    That’s the sad part about front-running: one day, you’re rooting for a vaunted pewter-helmeted defense ready to take over the world and the next you’re a loser in a “peach”-colored Testaverde throwback jersey. It’s just sad, man.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 9:45 am

  55. Pablo wrote:

    “That’s it? Those aren’t plans.”

    They’re certainly part of the plans, which y’all claim don’t exist. That you don’t like them does not change the fact that they exist, and as has been previously mentioned, the notion that we do ANYTHING free of any sort of planning is bone stupid.

    You’re playing Internet Gotcha. A fine game; long history; enjoy it myself, etc. But since the Commissar suggested going and looking at the presentations, it’s hard to say that he’s denying that they exist.

    Right, once Seixon dropped them in his lap. But before then, and in his criticism of the PW response to Maha? Yup, that sure looks like a denial.

    You can call it moving the goalposts if you want, but it looks more to me like he’s moving the argument forward.

    Let’s just split the difference, and call it moving the goalposts forward. Which makes sense, as they weren’t working out where he left them.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 10:20 am

  56. Pablo wrote:

    Here’s a proposal: when the current president who created this tragedy, (and his administration, and his enablers in Congress) apologize for their incompetence (and where appropriate are prosecuted for their crimes) and they resign, then the new administration can get to work on the problem.

    And in the meantime, let’s run away!

    Brilliant.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 10:22 am

  57. canuckistani wrote:

    That’s the sad part about front-running: one day, you’re rooting for a vaunted pewter-helmeted defense ready to take over the world and the next you’re a loser in a “peach”-colored Testaverde throwback jersey. It’s just sad, man.

    Very enlightening metaphor, ZaMoose. You do know, though, that war is not a football game, right? That people are dying right now because the war is being prolonged for no useful purpose? That critics of the war may have more on their minds than calling the war supporters “losers” when it’s all over? That citizens in a democracy have a higher duty than blind loyalty to their “team”?

    Well, never mind. When America triumphs again, you can laugh at the Commissar all you like, I’m sure he won’t mind.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 10:22 am

  58. commissar wrote:

    Canuck,

    From one of the PW commenters:

    In 5-years when Iraq’s national stature exceeds that of Portugal and Turkey combined, what will the Kommissar have to say?

    Yes, I will be duly chastened when that day comes.

    But, there’s a funny thing about the denialists. Since they “always knew it was going to be long slog,” no matter how bad it gets, no matter how long it stretches out, there will never come a point for them when they will admit error.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 10:28 am

  59. ZaMoose wrote:

    That people are dying right now because the war is being prolonged for no useful purpose?

    (Emphasis mine).

    See, that’s where you and I part ways. I definitely see a useful purpose in staying in Iraq until it’s able to stand on its own two metaphorical feet. You’d rather consign an entire nation to Dark Ages zealots whose very panties twist at the notion of storing cucmbers next to tomatoes, seeing as they’re differently-gendered and all. And by “panties in a twist”, I mean they get all stabby, head-choppy and blown-uppy in their righteous fury.

    And, while the sporting arena certainly serves as a stage for my point, I’m not talking metaphors, I’m talking mindsets. Commissar has a war front-runner mentality, one that I would argue is far more invidious and disgusting than simply switching one’s loyalties from the Jets to the Pats.

    Clear enough?

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 10:31 am

  60. commissar wrote:

    I definitely see a useful purpose in staying in Iraq until it’s able to stand on its own two metaphorical feet.

    If we left tomorrow, al-Maliki’s people would not be defeated by al Qaeda.

    So they can stand on their own two feet, right now.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 10:55 am

  61. R.L.Page wrote:

    The United States has no right (let alone the moral standing) to dictate by force of arms the future of Iraq or any other nation.

    I will admit, however, to the guilty pleasure of watching the Right Wing stuck again with its usual Hobson’s choice: incompetent or corrupt. (Of course, to avoid the charge of ‘false dilemma, we can allow them the third choice of being both.)

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 11:01 am

  62. Jeff G wrote:

    Commissar has several times in this thread intimated that I argue in bad faith, and that I’m not too bright.

    Yet he claims he wants to have reasoned discussions.

    No. He wants to pretend he wants reasoned discussions. He wants to pretend he’s above the fray.

    To rho: I wasn’t even aware of Commissar’s switch until he began trolling for traffic by linking things I write with some snarky comment. And for the most part, I’ve simply ignored it — on one or two occasions offering up something in his comments, or linking to the post in question on my own site.

    So it is disingenuous to argue that since he’s changed positions I’ve somehow treated him shabbily. If anything, you’ve got it exactly ass backwards.

    I’m not the one trying to gain street cred with the likes of Mr Page (”Jeff Godlstein, ABD” har!).

    I don’t recall Commissar stepping in to defend my motives; in fact, all he’s done of late is call me unintelligent and suggest I’m in denial about something or other.

    He also seems to think we “denialists” will never admit any mistakes. Which is untrue. For instance, I once considerd Commissar a decent human being rather than a preening, self-righteous blowhard who would throw people under the bus the minute it became convenient for him to do so.

    I was wrong.

    As to the nature of this exchange: Commissar can keep pretending he is running a forum here unlike Atrios and PW (note the careful, non-partisan balance! See, Commissar is truly about the ideas). But again, this is so much posturing.

    He knows that I make actual, detailed arguments on my site. He knows that I’m capable of arguing my points quite at length and not unintelligently.

    Making pretend he doesn’t know these things so that he can perch himself on some moral high ground is simply his way of convincing himself that he isn’t being a total jerk for treating people with whom he once had a friendly relationship as poorly as he has.

    If it is easier for you to argue that my posts have no substance — or that you are “bored” by sites such as mine, which don’t further the debate, in your estimation — by all means, do so. I’ll let people make their own determinations as to whether or not I offer substance.

    But if you believe that way about my site, why read it? Why site it? Why draw me into these debates?

    Oh, that’s right: because all you wish to do is set yourself alongside me and my commenters, utter a few platitudes about keeping the debate “civil” and “substantive,” and you can convince yourself you are some deep thinker — apart from the internet riff raff and bloviators.

    But face it: you aren’t anywhere near as opaque as you seem to think you are. In fact, I can see your intestines twitch.

    You wrote a smartass post that called into question my rejoinder to Maha that there was indeed a plan for post-war Iraq.

    I cited the NYT in that post, which you noted was just dutifully reporting what the Administration told it (”That’s exactly what the Germans want you to think!”). Seixon provided you with documentation. Others have explained how and why the documentation, once it reaches a certain level, looks summarized and scant (and it seems to me, a similar point was made during the whole WMD intel debate — with many on the left seemingly of the belief that the President pores over raw intel data, rather than takes into account briefings that, having argued through things, come to a kind of uneasy consensus).

    And Dan Kaufman has provided you with additional documentation.

    Your reply has been that the plans were delusional or unrealistic. Which conclusion is only available to you with the benefit of hindsight.

    All of which is moot, because my argument was never that the plans were brilliant or bulletproof. Just that they existed. And that the CIA provided LOTS of warnings, many of which are simply common sense. Yes, an insurgency can happen. And it can get ugly. But Iraq does have WMDs, and Saddam is indeed a threat to pass them off to terrorists.

    So, W. What are you gonna do?

    Your post was wrong. Your follow-up post was disingenuous, inasmuch as I most certainly did address your prior “arguments” (which amounted to, “Oh yeah? Well if plans existed, Mr Fact Guy, show me some.”

    Which Seixon did — which is why I quoted him.

    And by the way, while you’re cherrypicking comments from the threads, why not choose a few that cite active military?

    Sure, their arguments fly in the face of your own, but at least then you’d be showing some intellectual honesty.

    “Rather telling,” indeed.

    What a fraud you are. Congrats. You should fit in just fine with your new chums.

    But cut the bullshit and just come out and call me “Pasty Godlstein, ABD.” Because this mock-measured thing you’re trying isn’t fooling anyone.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 11:18 am

  63. ZaMoose wrote:

    I’m not talking about al Qaeda alone — Syria and Iran can cause trouble aplenty and have been doing so for the better part of 4 years. Sure, Iranian “moderate” Shiite interpretations of the Koran “only” allow for public beatings of “scantily”-clad females, hangings of minors for being “insolent” and imprisonment for such crimes as listening to music, dancing or congregating with the opposite sex in public, but, you know, you’ve convinced me!

    Withdraw to our borders! Man the fences! Isolate ourselves, and damn our fellow men! Selfishness is a virtue! Turning tail is the highest form of patriotism! Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are gods among men and Buckley is their chief!

    You people make me sick.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 11:21 am

  64. ZaMoose wrote:

    And, for those that would argue against progress being made in Iraq, see Anbar Awakening, The.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 11:33 am

  65. commissar wrote:

    Jeff,

    The plans, such as existed, were insubstantial, rosy-colored, and high-level. “Delusional.”

    It’s also a matter of record that Rumsfeld forbade his generals from planning from Phase IV.

    But all that’s good enough for the denialists. “We DID TOO have plans.”

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 11:34 am

  66. commissar wrote:

    ZaMoose,

    Do you want to have a discussion or rant and rave? The denialists make me sick, too. So, be civil, or go back to PW.

    You claimed that we needed to stay in Iraq to defeat the zealots. Ok. I replied that al-Maliki’s people can stand on their own two feet.

    Your last comment roped in Syria, Iran, and (I think) the Shiites. I thought you were referring to al Qaeda.

    Rather than put words in your mouth, please tell me what you think we’re trying to accomplish … succinctly, without the sports metaphors, and without shrieking.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 11:42 am

  67. R.L.Page wrote:

    Other than for the sport of it, I fail to see any further need to bother with characters on the radical fringe of the Right Wing.

    Mr. G (and his acolytes, Pablo & Dan Collins) and anyone else still pretending that there was credible evidence for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq (and sometimes seeming to believe they were actually found) can no longer be taken seriously on any important issue.

    Dump the baby with the bath-water; these self-anointed pundits should go the way of the administration they blindly support — out the door.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 12:06 pm

  68. Sal Bandeaux wrote:

    Jeff, why don’t you just do what you do best, and threaten to slap the dude in the face with your awesome ****?

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 12:41 pm

  69. ZaMoose wrote:

    “Shrieking”. Funny, that. Apparently your sarcasm detectors need emergency recalibration.

    You took a stand in your earlier post. You were proven wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

    Now, this is your blog and you’re free to do as you wish — delete comments, stick your metaphorical fingers in your metaphorical ears, post till the cows come home, etc., but the plain point of fact is that you’re moving goalposts at a startling rate and have left your former intellectual “fellow travelers” behind because, well, why, exactly, have you done so? This is what I fail to understand.

    As for al Q vs. Syria and Iran, I view the first and third as two faces of the same coin: Islamists with a global domination philosophy. The mullahrchy in Iran seeks an imposition of a religious/”moral” view that is anathema to Western ideals of freedom of religion, press, expression, movement, and self-determination. They seek to ransom and bully the other nations in their neighborhood in furtherance of their ideals, while al Q operates at the far more literal level and directly bullies and ransoms its opponents, innocents and mere bystanders.

    My contention is that your statement in re: Maliki’s gov’t being able to stand on their own two feet is manifestly wrong as long as al Assad and the mullahs are in power and occupying real estate on either side of the fledgling Iraq democracy. I do not argue that the Iraqi police and army are able to conduct counter-terror ops with increasing effectiveness. I do argue that they would be unable to repel a full-on assault supplied and abetted by fully-vested neighbor nation states.

    Clearer?

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 12:58 pm

  70. Pablo wrote:

    The plans, such as existed, were insubstantial, rosy-colored, and high-level. “Delusional.”

    And where were you when they were offered, Herr Commisar?

    Cheering, if I’m not mistaken.

    They say memory is the first thing to go…

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 1:34 pm

  71. Pablo wrote:

    Mr. G (and his acolytes, Pablo & Dan Collins) and anyone else still pretending that there was credible evidence for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq (and sometimes seeming to believe they were actually found) can no longer be taken seriously on any important issue.

    Thanks, R.L. That’s good to know. Hillary and John Edwards should be out of the running, and we can finally stop bowing and scraping to this guy:

    “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

    ‘Cuz he said we know it to be true!

    Global what?

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 1:40 pm

  72. commissar wrote:

    Pablo,

    First of all, I’m incredibly bored and short-fused with the endless gotcha-games of the PW habitues, always speaking in snarky half-allusions, and when disputed, you holler “that’s not what I said.”

    So ….

    If what you meant by my “Cheering,” you are referring to my early support for the war, then you are correct. And I screwed up. Big time.

    If you were referring to something else, please say so.

    Pablo, I’m really not interested in PW-games. Please make a civil response or go away.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 1:49 pm

  73. R.L.Page wrote:

    That you could be foolish enough to listen to Senators Clinton, Edwards, or Gore (on any issue) would not surprise me. Of course, you and I both know you have never trusted one word any of them has said, and yet you cite them in support of your Iraqi delusions.

    As I said above, you’re not worth the time and trouble.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 1:50 pm

  74. Pablo wrote:

    Pablo, I’m really not interested in PW-games. Please make a civil response or go away.

    Sir, yes, sir! Would you, sir, kindly make a statement regarding your assertion that there were no plans, and the subsequent revalation that there were indeed plans, sir? And would you, if you wouldn’t mind, kind sir, juxtapose it with the reality that plans are made and executed on the fly in war, and not the result of some planning capability connected with some ability to predict conditions? Sir?

    Either that, or you could bite me, you pompous, dissembling gasbag.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 2:23 pm

  75. Pablo wrote:

    As I said above, you’re not worth the time and trouble.

    You said it, R.L. I just filled in the blanks. If you’ve got a problem with that, you’d better get out there and vote Ron Paul.

    Posted 29 May 2007 at 2:25 pm

  76. Alon Levy wrote:

    He knows that I make actual, detailed arguments on my site. He knows that I’m capable of arguing my points quite at length and not unintelligently.

    Yeah, you do, I suppose. But so does Amanda Marcotte. She’s shrill, offputting, and often deliberately offensive, but she’s intelligent and capable of making actual, detailed, fact-based arguments, some of which are even right. The problem isn’t about intelligence. It’s that shrillness blinds; consistently one-sided forums tend to cause the participants to radicalize, since erring on the side of extremism is less likely to get one flamed, and then believe that their ideas are not fringe.

    And derision aside, this is a pretty good forum for discussing Iraq. It had people arguing intelligently on both sides when the Commissar was pro-war, and it has people arguing intelligently on both sides now that he’s turned against the war. Nor are the arguments peddled here repetitive talking points; pro-war people here make a lot of historical comparisons and other arguments that make me think. I think they’re still too weak to make a good case for staying, but most arguments even for a factually correct position are false - see e.g. the average Pandagon post purporting to prove that there’s gender inequality around.

    Posted 30 May 2007 at 12:32 am

« Show me the Powerpoint
What they believe »