The successful surge strategy in graphs
Every picture tells a story, don't it. The following graphs don't tell the whole story of the surge strategy because Iraq is a big and old and complex place, but they do provide some measures of how the strategy is going, and it's going quite well. Civilian casualties are way down, to historic lows.
So are U.S. military casualties.
A hat tip to Engram for the above two graphs. The graphs below came from a Powerpoint file, courtesy of Michael Yon. The Powerpoint link is more complete than what I cut-and-pasted, and I blame my inferior blogging skills. Security incidents are way down.
ISF and U.S. military casualties are way down, even though the ISF launched major operations in Basra, Sadr City and Mosul.
High-profile attacks are way down, which is testament to our success against al Qaeda and their ability to find 'splodeydopes Islamists who are willing blow themselves up (and anyone else who happens to be in their blast zones).
Ethno-sectarian violence is pushing zero.
This is not because all the neighborhoods and communities have already been ethnically cleansed. They're still mixed albeit less than they used to be. The reason is because al Qaeda is getting shredded and Shiite militias no longer have a reason to go on late-night hunts for military-age Sunni males.
IED explosions are way down, which is a strong indicator that we're making progress against Sunni insurgent groups and Iranian-backed Shiite militias.
Weapons caches found and cleared are way up, which is also a measure of our strategy because obtaining intelligence against the various insurgent and terrorist groups is a key component.
Political progress is also being made, as Ambassador Crocker has testified. Sorry, no pictures for that. Engram has some commentary which is worth excerpting:
A while ago, people were fond of asking this question: if you knew then what you know now, would you still have supported the invasion of Iraq? I think now might be a good time to ask a similar question of those who opposed the troop surge. Specifically, if you knew how successful it would turn out to be, would you have still opposed it?Barack Obama's answer would appear to be "yes," and that really amazes me. In a new op-ed, he says:
But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge....In any case, the real question on my mind today is this: if you knew how successful the surge would turn out to be (look at my charts above), would you have still opposed it? That is, are you comfortable with the idea that tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis would have surely perished in the God-forsaken bloodbath that would have undoubtedly followed our quick departure? Remember, the fighting at the time had nothing at all to do with a lack of political accommodation. Instead, al Qaeda was relentlessly sending its suicide bombers against innocent Shiite civilians.
Perhaps Obama didn't catch Crocker's testimony, what with his campaigning and all. Political accommodations are happening all over the place in Iraq. We haven't reached all of them because the strategy is a work in progress, but given the progress made since last September, it would be reasonable to conclude that we should stick with a plan that is working, not abandon it. Obama did not make that conclusion. He was on the wrong side of the issue in January 2007, during Iraq's darkest hour, and he's on the wrong side of the issue today. He hasn't acknowledged that the strategy has worked, he hasn't said that he would adopt this strategy if elected, and he's rejected the Petraeus plan every step of the way, despite the clearly mounting evidence that Iraq is becoming more stabilized by dint of this plan. General Petraeus doesn't get all the credit because several fortuitous events have happened along the way, but at least partial credit is due. On the single most important decision on Iraq since 2003, Obama's decided poorly. Like with Kerry on the Gulf War, Obama is on the wrong side of history.
While I'm on the subject of Obama's NYT op-ed, here's another statement, and it's patently ludicrous:
Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been.
Never has been? This is judgment you can trust? It is true that Iraq was not a central front of the War Against Militant Islamism in 2003, but al Qaeda made it one in the ensuing years. At the very minimum, Iraq is one of two main fronts in the WAMI. To verify this, all you have to do is look at the suicide bombings in Iraq this year. I count 31, not including the latest attack in Baquba. Imagine if Israel experienced that many suicide terrorist attacks in 2008, and I'm pretty sure there hasn't been more than 31 suicide bombings in Afghanistan, which is Obama's stated central front. This is why I say that al Qaeda is losing, but they're not vanquished, and it's also why I say that Obama's statement that Iraq never was a central front in this war is patently ludicrous. Engram has more on Obama's ludicrosity.
There're a couple of more things about Obama's op-ed that stick in my craw. First, his opening sentence:
The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity.
The shelf life of this sentence was about four hours. The BBC has an accurate translation of what al Maliki actually said:
US presidential contender Barack Obama has repeatedly seized on statements attributed to Iraqi leaders to support his call for a troop withdrawal deadline.The key statement cited by Mr Obama and others was made by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki last Monday in his address to Arab ambassadors in the United Arab Emirates.
The prime minister was widely quoted as saying that in the negotiations with the Americans on a Status of Forces Agreement to regulate the US troop presence from next year, "the direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on a timetable for their withdrawal".
That was the version of Mr Maliki's remarks put out in writing by his office in Baghdad.
It was widely circulated by the news media, and caught much attention, including that of Mr Obama.
There is only one problem. It is not what Mr Maliki actually said.
In an audio recording of his remarks, heard by the BBC, the prime minister did not use the word "withdrawal".
What he actually said was: "The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence."
I don't blame Obama for his incorrect opening sentence because it was al Maliki's own office that inserted the word "withdrawal" instead of "presence". But the fact still remains that Obama's opening sentence is inoperative, and a key leg of his argument has been knocked out from under him. Dr. iRack has a fair perspective on the State of Forces Agreement negotiations.
1. The Iraqi leadership knows that the Iraqi public continues to dislike the U.S. presence, and in an election year those concerns have to be accounted for.2. The Iraqi leadership--Maliki in particular--is much more confident in the capabilities of the ISF, making them willing to bargain harder during negotiations.
3. Whether or not they want a timetable for withdrawal, they want a "time horizon" that establishes some parameters for the draw down of U.S. forces and the transition from a lead-U.S. role to a U.S. support role.
But . . .
4. Most Iraqi leaders recognize, deep down, that they will still need the U.S. to provide support and critical enablers to the ISF for a while to come even as the U.S. moves out of the lead in combat operations.
Here's another Obama statement:
That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.
So here are the questions: What war is Obama talking about? And how would withdrawing troops under his iron timetables end it? Obama can't be talking about al Qaeda because, by his own words (which are obviously wrong), Iraq isn't a central front in our war against al Qaeda, plus he said he would leave residual forces for counterterrorism operations. Is he talking about civil war? It can't be that because, with one keystroke, Obama ended the civil war in Iraq. One minute there's this on his webpage:
"The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq's civil war."
The next minute, the civil war is gone. Peace in our time. Is Obama talking about Sunni insurgents? Or Shiite paramilitias? Or Shiite Special Groups? I can't say for sure, but if we're at war with any or all of these groups, how does withdrawing our troops under an arbitrary and politically contrived timetable end the "war"? The groups are still there, and they're still mounting operations. Only, if we withdraw, they target fellow Iraqis (which they've already been doing) exclusively, instead of fellow Iraqis and American forces.
The bottom line is this. Barack Obama either doesn't understand or is unwilling to acknowledge the nature of the conflict and the steps to address it. Al Qaeda is in Iraq, they've made it a central front and they're still a threat there. Iraq remains a major battlefront in the WAMI. Leaving won't end that war. Rather, we'd be exiting a field of battle, and for all the wrong reasons. Iranian-backed Shiite militias are a threat to Iraqi security. Leaving won't end that war because the Quds forces are still there and they're still meddling. So what is the nature of the situation in Iraq? Given the graphical data above, my take is that we are entering (finally) a genuine phase of stabilization and reconstruction. Obviously, there are still hot spots, but if you look at Brookings' numbers, there are over 478,000 trained Iraqi forces, and an increasing number of battalions are taking the lead as time passes. Because of the improvement in these conditions, we should be able to send more troops home, with their replacements deployed to Afghanistan.
This is why Obama's proclamation to "end this war" is such a cheap slogan, and disingenuous to boot.
[PROMOTED TO THE F-P BY YOUR FAV. DEPARTING MOD. I'D LIKE TO SEE THE SITE MAKE A MORE SERIOUS EFFORT TO ADDRESS THE SURGE'S APPARENT SUCCESSES. THANKS TO BD FOR A FINE DIARY.]
--
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left -- Ecclesiastes 10:2
--
"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Bird Dog's blog
- Login or register to post comments
The US is limited by the methods we can use to fight Al Qaeda, the Iraqis, not so much. If the terrorists are standing between the Iraqis and their oil money they will be taken care of rather quickly. Of this I have no doubt.
I don't understand why you are so afraid of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The Iraqis will take care of them if we let them.
--But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie
- Login or register to post comments
)There is so much nonsense in this post that has been rehashed to death before. But a few points. Under BD's logic, leaving is failure simply beause the war can never be "won" per his definitions. We must always be there, and cannot leave since that cedes the field to Al Queda (which is a minor sideshow anyway -- a serious flaw in the post is to pretend that we are primarily fighting Al Queda while in Iraq).
Also overlooked is what the terms will be on our future occupation given the difficulty with the status of force agreement. The Iraqis want us gone, although they are busy jockeying over the details based on each factions perception of how different withdrawal scenarios favor each faction. Thinking that process means they want us to stay is wildly incorrect. But that is BD's posture.
Also nonsensical is the fear that we might be turning Iraq over to Iranian-backed militias. Maliki's party is at the head of one of those militias, and the Iraqi government is already closer to Iran than to the USA. Pretending otherwise, and thinking that lessening Iranian influence is a reason to continue to waste lives and treasure in Iraq, is lunancy. Iraq will be more of an ally with Iran than with the USA -- we cannot change that fact except for a perpetual occupation that prevents Iraqi leadership from acting on that desire.
- Login or register to post comments
)Really? Where did I say that? Where did I say that we must always be over there? Can you at least try to deal in some facts instead of delving into massive projections? As to the Iraqis wanting us gone, where do we disagree? Today's NYT quotes an Iraqi general who I'm sure would want us gone, but said the following regarding Obama's withdraw schedule: "Any army would love to work without any help, but let me be honest: for now, we don’t have that ability." The general knows it, al Maliki knows it, everyday Iraqis know it. If they don't want the gains to reverse, then we keep enough forces there to maintain trendlines. My non-bold prediction is that Petraeus or Odierno are going to announce significant reductions because the situation on the ground warrants them, especially if our soldiers are getting bored.
Maliki's party is at the head of one of those militias.
Again dm, try to deal with facts. Like it or not, al Maliki is in charge of the Iraqi government and he is commander-in-chief of his government's armed forces. Those armed forces are not militias, they are government troops and their operations are backed by al Maliki and the Sunni and Kurd leaders in the government. Ironic that you're saying my post is "nonsense" when your own comments are so nonsensical.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Can you please, please do your discerning readers the favor of not bending logic to its breaking point like this?
WE chose to invade Iraq. WE chose to decapitate the government, disband the army, destroy civil services and generally create a situation of anarchy in Iraq. WE chose to make Iraq a failed state. WE handed al Qaeda every opportunity to fill the resulting vacuum. We created a battlefield where there used to be a country.
Iraq is only a part of the War on Terror because we made it one.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
)as a result of what we chose to do, al Qaeda had no choice? It was taken out of their hands? We made al Zawahiri proclaim that Iraq is the central war of their war against us? Seems to me like free will goes both ways, Jordan. I think we do agree that, because of our incompetence, we opened the door to al Qaeda, giving them a foothold.
But why couldn't the bin Laden have said, "Bah, the Americans are distracted in Iraq, let's refocus our efforts on Afghanistan and the nether Pashtun regions. Zarqawi can sink or swim." But they didn't go that way. They chose to funnel their personnel resources to Iraq instead. Zawahiri chose to adopt a plan that called for expelling the Americans first.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )that resources have been drawn from other al Qaeda
operations to be sent into the Iraq theatre ?.
That assets placed elsewhere in the world were
activated and sent to Iraq rather than the west or
other local operations ?.
By being in Iraq and presenting a big target and
a recruiting drive in the local area we get some
people branding themselves as al Qaeda in Iraq but
are these people that would have trooped off to be
sleeper cells, financial channels, or active units
elsewhere... doubt it.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )First, suicide bombings are a trademark of al Qaeda & affiliates. Most of the suicide bombers were non-Iraqi, and most of those were Saudi. Most of the AQI leadership is non-Iraqi. I've written about this before, and I believe I have this link in my post. As early as 2003, bin Laden was reallocating monies away from local Afghan outfits in favor of Iraq. We've captured plenty of correspondence which confirmed their plans.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I suppose in that other, saner world we both wish we lived in, the Iraq invasion would've been well-planned and well-supported, and al Qaeda cells would have found themselves about as welcome as the clap.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. Any country would do, Iraq just got lucky.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I posted them separately for a reason. The Surge discussion assumes complete good faith on the OP's part and sticks to discussion of facts in evidence. The Partisan discussion assumes, well, partisanship on the OP's part and sticks to discussion of the partisan nature of the war.
I have assumed that every factual statement made is essentially correct, and only that conclusions drawn from the facts presented may be incorrect. You ask for engagement, you get engagement. I hope it won't degenerate into the usual cherrypicking and namecalling too quickly.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
)This diary also illustrates the partisan nature of the Iraq War.
The title of this post is "The Successful Surge Strategy in Graphs." The graphs themselves mention Democratic, but not Republican leaders, 3 times (the only other organization mentioned is Al Qaeda). There are 21 original paragraphs in this diary. Of them, 10 have as either their thesis sentence or overall theme Barack Obama. There are 7 quotations in this diary. Of them, 6 deal directly or indirectly with Barack Obama.
Now, one may hold that Barack Obama is a very important topic when it comes to the Iraq War, as there is a nonzero chance he will become President (unlike most of us). But that doesn't have anything to do with the objective success of the surge. Unless it does.
Now, in general, we do trumpet the successes of the political Parties to which we belong. This is how things should be; people should be informed as to which sets of folks did which good (and bad) things. But the level of partisanship surrounding the Iraq War is astounding. On an article which discusses the nature of the Surge, the very first graph has three references to Democratic leaders, juxtaposed with a reference to Al Qaeda. If the purpose of the Surge was to cause the facts above to take place, then the proper response is to thoroughly document them, then say, "As you are aware, McCain supported and Obama opposed the Surge, and since we've had this discussion repeatedly on this site, I put forth that this is a sign of McCain's superior policy platform." But no -- we need paragraphs detailing how awful Obama was (and note the lack of support for how good McCain was). Of course, the fact that McCain supported the surge is uncontroversial, but so is the fact that Obama opposed it. We have paragraph upon paragraph in a supposedly Iraqi diary about US electoral politics.
This encapsulates the Iraq War to me. The "success" of the surge strategy is domestic, not Iraqi. There are counterarguments as to why the Surge was not responsible for the changes (or was counterproductive in the long term), and those arguments are the only part of the diary in which a dismissal is asserted without support. If the purpose of the diary is to create a US narrative, whether or not it fits the Iraqi facts on the ground, then that makes complete sense. The only reason to give serious consideration to one's opponents' ideas is if being wrong about the overall situation is important.
The Iraq War had many objectives -- US control over a strategic resource, the creation of a relatively free and friendly Iraqi state, the creation of a launching pad for an invasion into Iran, the reelection of George W. Bush, and the creation of an immense number of no-bid contracts for politically connected insiders. I do not view it as a coincidence that none of the foreign policy goals were achieved, and all of the domestic ones were.
So long as we continue to fight here over what the facts are in Iraq -- and what the facts were (let's face it) in Vietnam -- we will withdraw from Iraq. This country does not stay in a conflict when a majority of its citizens want out. Those supporting the Iraq War must come to terms with the fantastic corruption and partisanship surrounding the war, and (if their goal is Iraqi rather than American) find ways to bridge the gap between those who know that we went to Iraq for some noble reason and those who know, with equal certainty, that we went to Iraq for the most base reasons imaginable.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
).
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )As are the general comments on whether Iraq was ever the central front of the war w. al Quaeda, etc. I'm tempted to post things on whether there is even something useflly thought of as WAMI.
But why not focus:
there was a lot of ridicule about giving the surge one friedman unit, yet that's about the time it t0ok for things to start improving.
There was a lot of ridicule of congressional testimony last fall, but improvements were right around the corner.
There were a lot of pronouncements that continued US involvement was stoking the insurgency and things would never get better there until we left.
And there was a lot of talk that Iraq had been de facto at civil war for decades and only a strong central head such as Saddam could calm things down.
That's just to bring up some security predictions off the top of my head that I think prima facie should bring about some reflection + revision on the left.
At least that's where I['m at.
Doesn't necessarily mean we should stay or that the war was justified, but I'd like to try and isolate some mistakes if possible.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I viewed it as a major part of the diary, which is why I had to change my opinion of the diary's thesis.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Any thoughts on predictive errors by the left? Is it your sense that many were made?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I expected Iraq to be much worse by now, and I'm happy that things did not spiral as much as they seemed like they were going to. Gen. Petraeus, whatever else is going on, seems to be very good at keeping the lid on.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )What is our endpoint in Iraq? At what point do we get to say Mission Accomplished and mean it?
First, says the Administration and its apologists, we need the Surge: we need to stay and stabilize Iraq! But now, we need to stay because the Surge worked: if we leave it will all fall apart!
So how will we know when it's "safe" to leave? Under what set of circumstances would you support an orderly withdrawal of forces from Iraq? Are there any?
I would remind you that there are practical considerations at play, too. The Army is nearly broken under the strain of repeated deployments, and the Pentagon seems more interested in buying high-tech toys than it is in replacing trucks and repairing tanks. Where does the manpower for a continued military presence in the Middle East come from. Are you ready to advocate the return of the Selective Service?
The whole d*mned country is nearly broke, Bird Dog: you can add to the deficit created by Bush's childish refusal to pay for his pet war the imminent cost of bailing out FreddieMac and FannieMae. To quote one analyst:
Where indeed. Yet the GOP and your preferred candidate continue to treat the notion of tax increases as the moral equivalent of child abuse. Nobody wants to talk about how we pay for Bush's little wargasm.
So back to my question, BD: what constitutes victory in Iraq?
- Login or register to post comments
)I still don't know if victory is achievable but I'd like to get close. My endpoint is that Iraq is a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic that can protect itself from its neighbors and doesn't threaten its neighbors.
I don't think your characterization that "we need to stay because the Surge worked" is accurate. Petraeus has consistently said that our troop levels are dictated by the situation on the ground. Right now, we're in the 45-day pause period, but given how the situation is, I'm guessing that Petraeus or Odierno will order more withdrawals in August/September, and they could be substantial. Beyond that, our manpower will also be dictated on whatever agreement is reached with the al Maliki government.
As for what Gates will do about the Pentagon or what others will do about FreddieMac and FNMA, I'll leave that for another diary.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )that it's not at all clear that our presence will lead to a "free and peaceful" Iraq. It may well be that we need to leave and let whoever's left in Iraq beat each other senseless until they're ready to come to some political accommodation.
Here's another question for you: if 'victory" is not achievable, when will we know?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the answer when it comes to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - there will be no bail out or explicit guarantees that show up in the budget, what there will be is an increase in the creation of capital and assumption of the bad debt they have accumulated. It will be the government equivalent of off balance sheet entities. The result will be increasing inflation, which has the benefit (to Wall Street) of devaluing dollar denominated debt and scaring labor into being more compliant.
I had to laugh when I read an article a few days ago where Paulson was asking for literally unlimited funds to bail out Freddie and Fannie on the theory that if he has unlimited funding he won't have to use it, as if he can scare off the derivatives markets. As Timmy would say, what's the size of the derivatives market compared to the actual paper Freddie and Fannie are holding?
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Well, we could just borrow a trillion dollars and buy a 20% stake...
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The two major counterarguments to this is that the Surge is essentially irrelevant to two factors which combined to first reduce Iraqi attacks on other Iraqis and second reduce Iraqi attacks on US soldiers.
The first is that the Surge came about when the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad had roughly come to a close -- that is, when the murders to drive off persons of other ethnicities in given neighborhoods had been successful enough to create districts of different ethnicities. The conclusion of the "messy" part of the civil war meant that the cost of killing people went up (neighbors are harder to kill than people across the highway) and the benefits went down (it's less and less likely that a given neighborhood will accrue to one's ethnicity if it is supermajority the other guys.)
The second is that the Surge did not implement COIN tactics (or that such tactics were essentially irrelevant) so much as provide cover for the US to pay off militias and local sheiks to stop harassing US soldiers. The concern with this is that it is a fundamentally destabilizing concept long-term, as it sets up neither the US military nor the incoming central Iraqi government (insofar as one exists outside the Green Zone) as the owners of a monopoly on state violence. In addition, this is based on the notion that we will be leaving soon; if it becomes clear that we plan to stay, some or all of the aforementioned will resume their efforts to eject us, bolstered by the resources we have transferred to them.
There is one unalloyed success, however -- it does seem that by buying loyalty instead of trying to kill people to get it, we have convinced a large number of people that they should not allow Al Qaeda to use Iraq as human quicksand for US lives and treasure. This is a victory, though those who opposed the war from the start are enraged to see it trumpeted, rather than quietly acknowledged. "Things have gotten as bad as they were before we started the war in one area." It's a good thing, but it's irrelevant to the overall debate on the wisdom of starting the war or how to continue it.
I'm not an Iraq expert, but I suppose what I want to know is -- how could we reasonably disaggregate the effects above from an overall improvement in the Iraqi security situation? A partitioned Baghdad is a massive net minus in the creation of a viable Iraqi state; Baghdad's status as a highly mixed city was one of the single greatest arguments in favor of maintaining some kind of peace between the major Iraqi factions. Well-armed militias with little connection to official Iraqi regiments seem like a huge destabilizing force. Are the reductions in US casualties coming exclusively from the areas where we are passing out money to militias and neighborhoods in Baghdad that used to be mixed but now are not?
And what's up with those huge bases? Are we just going to abandon them as a testimony to the power of connections in war profiteering? And the mind-blowing idiocy of the neocons in starting their General Mideast War?
This post gives definitive proof of something which is important. Casualties in Iraq are nontrivially down, for a meaningful period of time, and both US troops and for ordinary Iraqis. But it does not answer the fundamental question -- are we engaged in a true COIN strategy designed to bequeath lasting and legitimate government structures on our departure, or are we taking unearned credit for the conclusion of a Baghdad civil war that we engendered and successfully bribing and arming factions which will make the unification of Iraq even less possible than it was?
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
)Correlation does not equal causation.
This is the big reason I chuckle at BD's surge diaries.
--Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President. - Bruce Springsteen
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )for the correlations put forward, but no real arguments for actually preferring liberals' causes to BD's.
I wuz hoping to make some progress in that regard.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If Baghdad is ethnically cleansed, then our expectation is of fewer attacks. At that point, it falls on persons claiming success of a given policy to demonstrate that their policy created even fewer attacks yet.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'm just trying to figure things out.
Perhaps you are simply more familiar w. the data than I. But I'd want to know if this could explain fewer civilian casualties in other parts of the country, if the timing of the ethnic cleansing matches as well as w. the timing of the surge, etc., if the ethnic cleansing levels correspond in ny systematic way to the decreased casualty levels, etc.
At this pt. I wouldn't claim Baghdad ethnic cleansing is the only component in explaining fewer civilian casualties. I don't even know if it's a larger component than surge tactics.
Also, is it your position that ethnic cleansing explains fewer US military casualties? What's to stop segregated Sunnis from making attacks on US troops?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the Sadr cease fire too, or the Sunni Awakening against AQ consolidated by US bribe money.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )as an interim solution while Iraq's central gov. gets its act together?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )except claiming the cessation of hostilities and drop in US casualties is a result of surging additional troops into Iraq and COIN tactics rather than the bribe money. Unless by COIN tactics you mean dropping serious coin on the problem which doesn't represent a change in strategy so much as a change in beneficiary.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )PM claimed we could've just bribed w/out the surge and gotten the same results.
Is that your position as well?
If so, what's the reasoning?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the Awakening preceded 'the surge'.
We could have not disbanded the Iraqi army and instead kept paying the soldiers that became insurgents and simply purged it of top level Bhathists. We could have tried to employ more Iraqi's in the reconstruction effort instead of the no bid contracts that import cheap foreign labor. We could have bribed the legions of the unemployed and disaffected unwilling to join US constituted Iraqi forces or police. We could have done a lot of things but didn't.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )In September 2006, a Marine colonel reported that all was lost in Anbar. The trickle began later in November when the Anbar Salvation Council started pushing its people to join the police, etc. (cite) It was a rickety start, and other councils didn't awaken until well into 2007.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The Awakening was started independent of US action and independent of 'the surge' but did compliment it and the bribes reinforced it. Take out 'the surge' and you still have the Awakening, take out the Awakening and the bribe money and you don't have the results now being attributed to 'the surge'.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )No. U.S. forces had been negotiating with those tribal leaders for awhile, and the tribal leaders finally agreed to join us after hitting a tipping point with al Qaeda. The Shiite-led government approved of the Awakenings, but because of their own politics, we paid 'em instead of the Iraqi government, and it's going to take some time to incorporate Sunnis into a Shiite-led military and government. Most of the Awakening movement started up after the new strategy started, and the strategy dovetails with Sons of Iraq operations. The timing was fortuitous, but the movement wouldn't have grown the way it did absent the strategy, which identified al Qaeda as public enemy number one and made concerted attempts to take them out. We sold the Sunnis (and Shiite Sons of Iraq, too) and they joined the program.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It sounds like what we really did was shuffle money around to the local guys. Which, again, is the question -- did we sponsor local militias in order to keep violence down, and are the consequences of sponsoring those militias conducive in the long term for the ostensible goals of our occupation?
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...to say that the Awakenings would have happened in the same fashion without the surge strategy. Maybe it could have, maybe not. But it is factual to say that the Awakenings dovetail with counterinsurgency doctrine. Also, the change in strategy wasn't like a big light switch. It was tried here and there in piecemeal fashion, but the tactics were utilized most by the Marines, most of whom were in Anbar. The Marines in Afghanistan are also using those tactics.
As for whether or not the Awakenings were a good idea, something had to be done to beat back al Qaeda. The real question is how the Sunnis can incorporate under the larger Iraqi umbrella.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The question is how to reasonably disentangle it.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )for the fall in casualties: the fighters are mostly dead. Everyone with any sense and/or money has already left the country. The only people left are desperately poor, and they're fought to exhaustion. A bleary anomie has descended over Iraq.
We're now witness to the shell shocked American troops leaving Iraq, thousands upon thousands of servicemen and women are entering the mental health system. But consider the Iraqis themselves: every single human being has lost someone dear to them. They've lived through this apocalypse, they're in autopilot, barely eking out an existence. One out of five Iraqis is a refugee.
Now what? The Surge is Successful! The Surge is Successful! Well, maybe its just the case that the house fire went out because the thing's burned to the ground.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'd have to look at the #s, but I'm uncertain emigration levels correspond meaningfully to casualty reductions.
Similarly, why did Iraqis grow exhausted late last fall/winter vs. another time frame?
Surge effects are perhaps uniquely suited to explain the timing.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )your last sentence seems to be the best description of the situation. As a wise man once said,
To plunder, to slaughter, to steal, these things they misname empire;
--and where they make a wilderness, they call it peace.
I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )hope you had a good vacation + welcome back to the grind!!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but after visiting my parents and relatives I'm looking forward to the relative sanity of work.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )As mentioned above, my position is also that buying off local owners of violence -- sheiks and militia leaders -- would also have the same effect. However, said bribes are explicitly not part of a COIN operation, if they are given for military goods rather than civilian goods.
BD addresses both of these issues briefly but provides no support for his dismissal thereof.
(Alternately, successful ethnic cleansing would cause a total decrease in violence, which would create fewer times US soldiers were caught in crossfires, a smaller overall set of folks who use munitions on a regular basis and might turn them on us, and a smaller number of extremely distraught persons who suffered terrible recent losses and might make self-destructive decisions.)
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Further more your prejudice is showing. If I may qoute you
" It is true that Iraq was not a central front of the War Against Militant Islamism in 2003..."
1. I thought the idea was to combat terrorism...when exactly was the war declared against Islamism?
2. If you understand any history then you should know that you can't fight terrorism with "central fronts". Any belief, idea or notion in that is neither here nor there.
"...but al Qaeda made it one in the ensuing years."
So you actual belief that every attack on troops in Iraq, every bomb, every killing is coordinated by AQ?
You truly think that all hostilities in Iraq is perpetrated by terrorists? What's next I wonder? When can we see the statistics and a 1,200 word post by you defending the fly-paper principle and what a brilliant strategy it was by that big military genius which is George W.?
It does make me wonder if really believe that there are vast armies, in the classical military sense, that have been trained by AQ, from the generals all the way down to the privates, which have all been sent to Iraq to fight the war of wars against the great big freedom bringing, democracy loving, caring Christian brave heroes of the United States of America.
Small suggestion btw, if you are going to start using big words such as disingenuous then it would sound a whole lot more better if the one using it did portray himself as being just that. You clearly have a problem with Obama. You attack on every word uttered. Just look at how you jump on the "withdrawal" having been switched by "presence" by Maliki's own office and how you then use that fact against Obama. I for one don't recall you having any problems with any downright lies by George W. "I know I'm lying but I'm the prez so deal with it" Bush or anyone working with him.
There's a word for someone that sees the errors in the one side but being utterly blind and forgiving for the other sides faults, lies, crimes, war profiteering and utter incompetence... now if only I could remember it.
- Login or register to post comments
)Militant Islamists declared on war on us, and then acted on that declaration on 9/11. Therefore, I think it's fair to say that we are at war against both them and their ideology.
As for central fronts, al Qaeda declared that the central front in their war was Iraq, and they acted on the declaration by encouraging jihadists to go there. Read the Brookings link to see how many non-Iraqi Islamists entered Iraq. Or read al Zawahiri's own words. Perhaps you can teach them a little history, tell them they got it all wrong about this "central front" business.
So you actual belief that every attack on troops in Iraq, every bomb, every killing is coordinated by AQ?
Please show me where I said that. As my wiki link made clear, there's been a whole raft of suicide bombings from 2003 through June 2008, and al Qaeda & Co. are responsible for most if not all of them. I've seen no evidence of other groups perpetrating these acts. It's been pretty well proven that al Qaeda was responsible for killing and intimidation campaigns against Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Yezidis, etc. This doesn't mean that every violent act in Iraq is coordinated by them. There are plenty of other groups and people.
When can we see the statistics and a 1,200 word post by you defending the fly-paper principle and what a brilliant strategy it was by that big military genius which is George W.?
Please show me when I've ever said that fly-paper principle was a brilliant strategy or that Bush was ever a big military genius. I support the Petraeus plan, but I have no confidence in this president. Could it be that your own prejudice is showing?
It does make me wonder if really believe that there are vast armies, in the classical military sense, that have been trained by AQ, from the generals all the way down to the privates, which have all been sent to Iraq to fight the war of wars against the great big freedom bringing, democracy loving, caring Christian brave heroes of the United States of America.
If does make me wonder if you're trafficking in ignorance and bigotry.
Just look at how you jump on the "withdrawal" having been switched by "presence" by Maliki's own office and how you then use that fact against Obama.
Yes, facts are such inconvenient things.
I for one don't recall you having any problems with any downright lies by George W. "I know I'm lying but I'm the prez so deal with it" Bush or anyone working with him.
I'm not responsible for your poor recollecting skills, nor your conclusions about "downright lies".
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )have been in any position to encourage jihads to go Iraq and pursue their war absent the US invasion of Iraq?
No. Bush enabled them that opportunity.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Let's just talk about the world pre 9/11. Americans were fat, dumb and happy. Bush had been elected, sneering loudly at Nation Building. He wanted tax cuts, and got them. He studiously ignored problems building up in the Middle East. His people, notably Condi Rice, were asleep at the switch.
For decades, America had been propping up vile dictatorships in the ME. In fits of schizophrenic outrage, America would rattle on about Islamic terrorism, but nothing was done. Rumsfeld was busily gutting the military, pruning it down to nothing, building up his Buzz Lightyear super-expensive soldier to fight yesterday's war. Long-held military doctrines were thrown out.
Meanwhile, in intellectual circles in the ME, thoughtful people were warning of trouble building in Afghanistan, Yemen, Algeria, Lebanon, Egypt, KSA and the like. The USA wasn't paying attention, though the threat of OBL had been known for a decade and more. America was seen as a bully, cruelly grinding down the people of Iraq with an embargo which never impacted Saddam Hussein. The Islamists took the high ground in the war for hearts and minds. America was not involved, and didn't give a goddamn about the ordinary Muslim or his struggle against the dictatorships we were supporting. We were dealing with the Devil We Knew, as we'd always done. Well, that Devil was also known to the Islamists. That Devil was throwing them in jail and executing them. The extremists moved into Europe, where they could plot, camouflaged in the thickets of a free society. They kept to themselves and their plot matured.
There was no difference between the world of 9/11 and 9/12. America acted So Surprised, but I had to laugh a bit to watch George Bush start acting all presidential and warlike thereafter. The rampant paranoia of the days and weeks which followed was idiocy on a colossal scale.
Al Qaeda had declared war on us long before. Osama bin Ladin telegraphed his punches. Bush did nothing. Oh, he did plenty afterward, but he invaded the wrong country. He thought the country was sufficiently buffaloed by 9/11 that they'd let him do anything. Well, the American people did let him. Now, seven years later, we're still in the same tired predicament.
"The Surge is Working! The Surge is Working", trumpet various and sundry hereabouts. All those casualties we took in the first five years of the war were mostly unnecessary. Had we left after the overthrow of Saddam, Bush would be seen as the greatest liberator of peoples in modern times. Of course, now he's the goat. He finally had to cashier Rumsfeld and put some competent leadership in place. But Bush stupidly promoted Condi Rice, who should have been cashiered on 9/12: she was his national security advisor and manifestly got caught with her panties around her ankles on 9/11.
Maybe it's time someone did some recollecting about the world before 9/11. Clinton kept a weather eye out for Al Qaeda, and Bush didn't keep up the pressure, continuing the policies of Bush the Wiser. Clinton didn't aggravate the world with his idiotic War on Terror. Bush had the perfect opportunity to put the screws to these terror movements, all across the world, and blew it. Instead of saying "Islamism is a serious threat which grew up under repressive regimes and now thrives in lawless corners of the planet.", he made the matter worse by reducing Iraq to a lawless hell. Now that the fires are burning down in Iraq, we're supposed to praise and thank him for allowing it to burn down in the first place.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Al Qaeda was around during most of the Clinton administration, and Clinton should have done more than "keep a weather eye". Osama was emboldened from the aftermath of Blackhawk Down, a singularly embarrassing moment of driftless Clinton policy. The evidence from Khobar Towers and the embassy bombings should've been enough for Clinton to take more action, and the USS Cole should've been the clincher. When he did take action in '98, it was politically timed to divert attention away from his Monica problem, and the actions were supremely ineffectual anyway.
I agree that Bush should've done more, too. I also agree that Bush screwed the pooch because his people ignored the workable plans, understaffed the invading force and incompetently mismanaged the post-Saddam environment. It cost Bush the majority in Congress, and the GOP is going to pay for this clusterf*ck for a long time to come. But we are where we are, and the big question remains, what is the best way to go forward. For me, the evidence tells me the current is working and should not be abandoned. From everything I've heard and read, Obama will abandon it.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I don't buy the Monica explanation. That's such a post-hoc fallacy, please don't go there. Fact is, Bush did nothing and worse than nothing. But in fairness to Bush, he was just plain old badly advised. This screwup was far too large for two hands to bring about.
We'll both see what Obama does, it's rather pointless speculating on it now. The way out is the way through. The current scenario does not look good, and we lack the momentum. We lack choices: the higher the monkey climbs, the better you can see his ass. The world knows, to the millimeter, how far US power can be extended, itself a huge blow to our national security.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I know that you know why this is done, and that it goes back to the very formation of Saudi Arabia (aramco in the vernacular) with the valuable, arguably essential assistance from Standard Oil. And that the vilest of the ME kleptocracies, the desert bandit Saud family of 4,000 piggish, lazy and generally worthless misogynist sybarites calling themselves "princes", continue to control their oppressed people with our help and connivance. And that every war fought in the ME since the 1930s was fought at least in part to secure the continued flow of oil and gas from SA, Bahrain, the Emirates, Kuwait and related dictatorships. And that a huge land- and sea-based US military presence is quietly maintained there for the same reason. And that if the Saudi people revolted against their revolting leaders, we would help Prince Turki and his relatives put down their own populace if that could be done in an excusable way. And that very few insurgents within SA survive any contact with Saudi security forces, sparing the regime the trouble and potential embarrassment of a trial. And that if the Israelis had large oil reserves we would drop our "friendship" with the Arabs (and maybe even Mexico) in a heartbeat.
So where's the mystery in our support of corrupt and oppressive ME regimes who think "human rights" means being drugged before being beheaded in the public square? It stems from US energy policy, which is self-sustaining in a very calculated way. Neither candidate will even mention this, let alone do anything concrete about it. (Though McCain is nibbling around the edge with his support of nuclear plants.)
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and tonight I'll go out and fill up the tank of my little truck for another 80 dollars. I just hate this situation, and goddamnit, it's more than a Republican or Democratic issue.
Now Al Gore gave a tremendous speech, which I don't completely agree with, I think we've come to some common conclusions about global warming between the two of us, it's both better and worse than most people realize. But he's absolutely right about getting off our dead asses and clean ourselves up from this addiction.
Trouble with KSA is this: remember when we "freed" Kuwait from Saddam? We strong-armed them into an elected parliamentary body. So who did the Kuwaitis elect? A bunch of Islamofundies. Now Kuwait's more, not less conservative.
But yeah, you're preaching to the choir, at least this singer, if you continue saying things of this sort.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Brazil achieved energy independence because it decided to make that a national priority. Today its unionized oil workers went on strike; however, the government says that will have no effect on oil production. Nationalization of oil production there allowed the government to ensure that all oil produced from Brazilian reserves goes to Brazilian consumers; despite Maxine Waters' threat to US oil companies, nationalization is not the only way that could be done here. The Brazilians have made some appalling decisions w/r/t their environment, much of it in pursuit of the myth of ethanol, but that doesn't have to happen here either. We've been outdone by a South American country (admittedly a very sophisticated one) while we watch the Chinese try to imitate the Apollo program.
If we had kept to Jimmy Carter's foreign oil reduction initiative and targets, we would be close to energy independence now. The answer is not just Gore's solar/wind mixture; it requires a comprehensive, fully funded energy mandate (not just a "policy") that mixes oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, solar, hydro and wind. Environmental concerns in one area may have to be offset in another, but that isn't rocket science. Carbon emission reduction can only be done effectively when there is comprehensive coordination of energy production on a national scale. There's nothing socialistic about this, and it is a goal far more important than putting a man on the Moon was.
I see neither the plan nor the will to accomplish this in Congress or in this Administration. Or in either candidate, though McCain is closer than Obama, who thinks we need to "study" the nuclear issue some more. When a politician says he wants to study something, you are hearing a weakly encrypted promise that nothing concrete will ever be done. No nuclear plants would be built in an Obama administration; he would spend whatever time he devoted to the issue re-reading twenty year old studies on Yucca Mountain and listening to Harry Reid's NIMBY directives. Anyone who is still saying "no nuclear power plants" is directly aiding OPEC dictators and the terrorists they export and fund.
On guilt and gas; it kills me, as it should. When I buy gas for my car I know that I am directly supporting fearsomely corrupt foreign leaders who are using that money against me and against this country. Our money, laundered through Prince Turki's GSF and given to ISI (who we formerly funded directly, helping fundamentalists establish the virtual control over Pakistani security that they still hold today) is just one example.
I've been working for weeks on a diary positing that whenever an American pumps gas refined from Saudi oil into their tank, they essentially are getting blood as an additive. Someone else's blood, of course, but like some old white male playwright said, we all bleed when pricked, and the blood is the same color.
This obviously is not a pleasant subject for me to get going on because once started, a rant is hard to stop. But I'll stop here.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Absolutely brilliant strategy. The only right leaning guy willing to put any consistent and extensive effort to add to the site, and you come out of the cracks to condemn him. Once he's gone, the site will be ohhh so much better.
Brilliant.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Why is he the only one?
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...when we already know the answers?
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Why not share?
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )There is a massive lack of good faith being extended on this site. It's why I don't comment more.
-bro
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Given what conservatives have achieved in office the past 7 years with nary an apology or acknowledgment of the damage done other than to election prospects for Republicans, that good faith needs to be earned.
I will acknowledge that we need conservatives, we just don't need them in positions of power in the foreseeable future. But that doesn't mean they can't be useful in their more traditional role of keeping the democrats honest, from within and without.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Everyone who doesn't share your parochial view doesn't deserve good faith.
And, the best part? The only way they can "earn" it...?
...is to embrace your parochial view.
What an unintentionally hilarious thing to say, *particularly* as a response to bro's comment. Way too funny.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )We'll see just how parochial in Nov. I guess.
Apologies, rationales and acknowledgments received prior to Nov. will score double the credibility of those received after the fact while bemoaning the loss.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Really, just wonderfully hilarious. Thanks.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I am not in office, no other person here is either that I am aware of. Your comment isn't an explanation, it's an excuse for bad behavior.
-bro
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Libs. holding conservatives to account for their comments or conservatives unwilling to submit themselves and their comments to account?
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )But thanks for weighing in bro.
I agree that 'the Bush admin. F'd up and that's why there's fewer conservatives on theforvm' explanation ain't zactly sensible.
Anyway, I hope there's goodwill extended in this diary to at least some conservative positions in light of the reasonable set of data BD put together.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )As I noted elsewhere, about half of the diary is confirmation of facts known, half is partisan attacks, and 0.1% is addressing the legitimate concerns of those reading it. And the comments section bears this out. At the end of the day, I wish that assuming disinterest in the facts and exclusively partisan motivations weren't such an effective way to sort the information.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...and we know the answer to that one too.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )One assumes these developments will lead to further re-deployments of US soldiers and marines.
- Login or register to post comments
)Is there a graph on the number of returning refugees? I remember there was very jubilant talk of refugees flooding back into Iraq from neighbouring countries. It was about a year ago. Any news on the refugees?
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
)The USA is supposed to take in 7,000 refugees, but that's only a face-saving move: Sweden's taking in more Iraqi refugees. Refugees International's March report was grim.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )There isn't much in the way of reliable data on returning refugees. The Brookings link is updated only through last February, IIRC. There was a recent article on Shiites returning en masse to a farming community in Diyala. The government just instituted a plan to increase pay to government employees based on their educational attainment, fueled by increased oil revenues, as a way to trigger a reverse brain drain. PhD's get a 200% increase, those with masters get a 150% bump, etc. I wish I had better information.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I wish I had better information too. But these refugees know the score better than we do, and they appear to be staying put for the most part.
The difficulty in obtaining data on refugees speaks pretty clearly to me. With the UN, Iraq, Syria, Jordan and the US in the picture, we're more likely to get a well-rounded (if only roughly accurate) view of situation. On the other hand, the information you present is obtained with extreme ease - and it all comes from the White House or its minions. I don't take it too seriously.
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The civilian casualties numbers come the ICCC, which bases its information on independent media reports and morgue data. The other data is from MNF-Iraq, not the White House. Do you have evidence to show that MNF-Iraq under Petraeus has been cooking the numbers? If you don't, why would you not take the data seriously.
Brookings has data on refugees (2.2 to 2.4 million), and it's a problem that so few have returned. Through March of this year, 78,000 have returned according International Organization of Migration. It's a concern.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )has it between four and five million. Brookings has been glad-handing this war since it began, I don't trust their numbers. Maybe that's internally displaced refugees, by Refugee International's numbers, that's about a correct number for internally displaced Iraqis.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )They've got, like, a 100± footnotes. The number of internally displaced is 2,770,000. I'm less concerned with that (because they're at least in-country and contributing in some fashion or other) and more concerned about the 2.2 to 2.4 million who've left the country, which is the real economic and societal and brain drain. But it doesn't mean I'm not concerned. I'd still to see more political progress, and I'd like to see more of the displaced become undisplaced.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Ann Coulter has footnotes. Seriously. If the accusation is that they cook their data, that means they are perfect capable of reporting facts not supported by their references.
--