I also find it grimly amusing that Iraq Body Count has essentially become a parody of itself. It started out with the purpose of recording civilian deaths from coalition activity, but it's been ages since they've had significant coalition-caused deaths to report, so now they just report terrorist murders, accidents, executions of criminals and deaths caused by violent crime and blame them all on the fact that Iraq was invaded. As the count goes on the proportion of coalition caused deaths gets smaller and smaller, to the point where now less than a quarter of their total body count has anything to do with the invasion or coalition activity.
While we've been worrying about other things, Iraq hasn't gone away. Problems persist there, but every day they seem to be more under control and life seems to be more normal in more parts of the country. The upcoming vote on the Constitution and subsequent general election are likely to be key turning points. If Al Qaeda can't terrorize people into not voting then they have lost the ability to be politically meaningful, and their role in Iraq will effectively be over.
I'll close with a quote from Omar at Iraq the Model on the topic of the upcoming elections.
- "A high turnout will eventually bring legitimate representatives for the Sunni population and that's what Al-Qeada doesn't want to see happen because there will be no one left to defend or fight for, no pretext for their war and Al-Qaeda will be farther apart from the Sunni militant groups that once were their close allies.
This war declared by Al-Qaeda is frankly a war on elections, and the plan is to stop the elections from taking place at any cost and since confronting the American military has not brought any significant success, Zarqawi is switching to plan B, that is to provoke civil war in Iraq between the Sunni and the Sheat.
I think that's the key test. If Al Qaeda can't provoke that civil war and if Iraqis choose to vote rather than fight, then we're on the road to peace and stability.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - MCH
For an opposing point-of-view, with opinions from those who've actually served in the military (unlike Nalle), see:
Veterans Against the War, at www.vaiw.org/vet and Iraq Veterans Against the War, at www.ivaw.net/
I agree with Shark on this issue, when he wrote, "Iraq...who gives a shit!?"
2 - demabloggery
We have people on one side like Iraq Body Count who are screaming in shrill, hysterical tones and on the other side people who are telling us things are improving, despite the fact that just last week a hundred people were slaughtered. I wouldn't exactly call it the last dying gasp of the insurgency, although I agree that a few more Fallujahs and Tal Afars and the Iraqi populace might get the idea that it is safer to give up the terrorists rather than coddle them.
3 - Dave Nalle
For every link to the tiny minority of veterans MCH wants to cite who are against the war I can link to 7 or 8 who support the war and even more to the point, support the Iraqi people. His purpose here is to distract from the reality of Iraq and promote a political agenda.
The key thing about 'Veterans Agains the War' is that they are mostly NOT veterans of the Iraq War. They are mostly veterans of prior conflicts who are using their background as veterans to legitimize themselves as critics of the administration. Their criticism has little to do with the realities or reasons for the war in Iraq and much to do with their general opposition to all war. That's certainly their right, but they're not contributing anything positive, constructive or even particularly relevant to the discussion.
To see what actual Iraq War vets think about the war stop by Mudville Gazette and follow the links to some of the Milblogs. They've also got a very amusing and revealing article on the protest in DC on their main page. It shows in photos just exactly who these protestors really are.
Dave
4 - Matt
Supporting the Iraqi People. Well worth the 200 billion dollars. Well worth it.
Ahem.
5 - kittygogo
So with this new democracy, will Iraq progress just like our democracy? Enslaving people for over a hundred years and then marginalizing them after "freeing" them form slavery? And don't forget aobut the mass slaughtering of the indigineous population. And not allowing huge segments of the pop. voting and property rights. This was the US' proud path of democracy. (thank you Kurt Vonnegut and the Daily Show for this inspiration). What a bunch of hypocrites we are, no wonder we are hated around the globe.
Perhaps we should work on improving our own democracy instead of worrying about Iraq's? It seems like many of our democratic principles are being shot down in the name of terrorism and Iraq (what do they have to do with each other again, I forget). We lose our rights, while Iraq gains theirs. (on paper only)- yeah, makes sense to me. As my third grade teacher always asked, don't tell me, show me. We keep hearing how great things are going, but the show putting on certainly tells a different story doesn't it?
dave, what do al queda and Iraq have in common? If anything our govt. has created a bigger problem by creating a link of terrorism in Iraq where there was not one before. They are grasping at straws to create a connection, but there is no prood that zarqawi is al queda. From what I have heard al queda is situated in Afghanistan or Iran, but of course, I have no idea. If we really want to get to the terrorists, we should be in Saudia Arabia or Jordan. HMM, I wonder why we aren't attacking those countries? You are confusing your conflicts, which is understandable, becuase you are being brainwashed into believing there is a connection, so as to justify an unjustifiable war. You seem intelligent enough, can't you see you are being told lies and half-truths?
6 - Matt
Just wait until we leave, and then the Iraqi forces get bought by the terrorists and before you know it they are under another dictatorship. All of the infrastructure that we built will be blown to shreds, and the 200 billion will have been better spent wiping our asses with.
7 - troll
ya gotta love the link
troll
8 - simon hb
Well, at least you're right when you say the title of your piece isn't accurate...
Meanwhile, at least nine people have been killed in a bomb attack on police in Baghdad, while two died in a market bomb in Hilla, officials said.
In another attack, at least six people were killed by a bomb at a Shia mosque in Musayyib, some 60 km (40 miles) south of Baghdad, on Sunday.
You may or may not feel the continued presence of US and British forces in Iraq is wise. But let's not try and pretend that it's like Wiltshire in Iraq.
9 - 1Potato
KittyGogo:
Do you know what is most shocking about your whole post?
That Kurt Vonnegut is still alive.
I was sure he died of old age in the late 80s.
10 - Dave Nalle
>>So with this new democracy, will Iraq progress just like our democracy?<<
Of course not. Expecting that would be completely unrealistic and unreasonable. They have a different culture and history and those factors are playing a big role in the government that's developing there.
>> Enslaving people for over a hundred years and then marginalizing them after "freeing" them form slavery? And don't forget aobut the mass slaughtering of the indigineous population. And not allowing huge segments of the pop. voting and property rights. This was the US' proud path of democracy. (thank you Kurt Vonnegut and the Daily Show for this inspiration). What a bunch of hypocrites we are, no wonder we are hated around the globe.<<
What does any of this have to do with Iraq? That was then, this is now. Sure the US hasn't been perfect, but compare our record with any of the colonial powers and see if we don't come off a hell of a lot better.
>>Perhaps we should work on improving our own democracy instead of worrying about Iraq's? It seems like many of our democratic principles are being shot down in the name of terrorism and Iraq (what do they have to do with each other again, I forget). We lose our rights, while Iraq gains theirs. (on paper only)- yeah, makes sense to me. <<
Perhaps we should do both? One of the ironies of the Afghan consitution when it was written was that it had clearer and better protections for fundamental rights, including gun rights, womens rights and property rights than the US Constitution does.
>>dave, what do al queda and Iraq have in common?<<
Well, they've got Al Qaeda in common.
>> If anything our govt. has created a bigger problem by creating a link of terrorism in Iraq where there was not one before.<<
The doom and gloomers keep saying this, but it's still not true. Al Qaeda sends recruits to Iraq. Then they die. Then they have more and more trouble getting recruits. There are only so many people in the middle east willing to die for rich Saudis and their religious lunacy.
>> They are grasping at straws to create a connection, but there is no prood that zarqawi is al queda.<<
Come again? He's said he's Al Qaeda. He says he speaks on behalf of Osama.
>> From what I have heard al queda is situated in Afghanistan or Iran, but of course, I have no idea.<<
Current thinking is that Osama is in Iran, but Al Qaeda has cells all over the place.
>> If we really want to get to the terrorists, we should be in Saudia Arabia or Jordan. HMM, I wonder why we aren't attacking those countries? <<
Because they are at least somewhat cooperative.
>>You are confusing your conflicts, which is understandable, becuase you are being brainwashed into believing there is a connection, so as to justify an unjustifiable war. You seem intelligent enough, can't you see you are being told lies and half-truths?<<
When did I ever say there's a connection? I don't care about WMDs or Saddam's role in sponsoring terror or whether he provided money and hospital facilities to Al Qaeda. We're in Iraq, and I want the Iraqi people to come out of this better than they went in. Comes from growing up among Arabs. I like them and I want their lives to be better. Weird of me, isn't it.
Dave
11 - Victor Lana
I have not been for this war, but I am, as always, supporting the troops. I know that sounds like a crazy way of thinking, but they deserve support.
Anyway, I was talking to a historian the other day, and he set me straight on some things. He asked, "Do you know how messed up our country was after the Civil War? Do you know how dangerous Germany was after WWII for our troops? Korea after the ceasefire?
Basically he said that it takes years (sometimes many years) for some kind of stability after a war. So while not supporting the war, the troops that are there need support and are mired in not an unusual situation but rather one historically accurate. That doesn't make it any easier to swallow, I know.
12 - Jim Lamb
Dave,
Your post was calm and rational. Thanks. I remember the Tet Offensive. It happened about a year or so before I went to Danang. It probably cost Lyndon Johnson his presidency. Yet, a calm and rational person could easily ascertain that Tet was a victory for our side. They (the Viet Cong) threw all they had at us -- but it wasn't enough, from a military standpoint, though it was a PR victory for their side. I'd hate to lose Iraq because of PR. We won the war; we can win the peace. But some have been against this effort from the beginning and want us to fail. Why? I do not know. Perhaps it is because they hate President Bush. I believe that we can have closure in Iraq, something we never achieved in Vietnam " if we have the will to do so. Why should we give up, pull out, and declare “Defeat”?
The troops want to do their job. They want our support. Let’s give it.
Sincerely,
Jim
13 - Dave Nalle
>>Anyway, I was talking to a historian the other day, and he set me straight on some things. He asked, "Do you know how messed up our country was after the Civil War? Do you know how dangerous Germany was after WWII for our troops? Korea after the ceasefire? <<
I know a guy who was in military intelligence in Germany after WW2. A lot of the local boys from this area got jobs like that because they were native German speakers. The stories he tells about that period are scary as hell - bombs, ambushes, all sorts of dangerous situations and underground groups to deal with, and it went on for years.
Dave
14 - G. Oren
Excellent post Dave. We should all hope that the Iraqis are able to make it work and that they are marginalizing the effectiveness of the insurgents. I agree with Jim Lamb, we have to see this through (and it has nothing to do with my thoughts about Bush).
15 - Rich
Great Job Dave for making the rational arguement for Bush's policies that seems to justify our soldiers getting killed, innocent civilians killed, and a 200 billion dollar debt.
Can't wait for the next country to free.
I thought it was to find WMD, oh who gives a shit, we are freeing Iraqis!
16 - Dave Nalle
>>I thought it was to find WMD, oh who gives a shit, we are freeing Iraqis! <<
This is like a doctor cutting someone open to remove a burst appendix, and while he is there he finding out the appendix is okay, but the patient has a huge, life-threatening tumor. But since he went in for the appendix he should just sew the patient up and leave the tumor there, because that's not the reason why the operation was authorized.
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Dave
17 - RogerMDillion
"Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?"
If your referring to your analogy, then the answer is yes.
18 - Dave Nalle
Well, that's a first step anyway, Roger. So now just expand that clear thinking to Iraq and you'll be on the right track.
Dave
19 - Rich
Hey Iraqis know more and more people in the US don't want our troops in Iraq. And Iraqis sure as hell know we don't give a rodent's bottom about them. The people who want us there are the current elected/installed government officials.
When Bush's Policies (in-part) speak of "self-interest" what does that mean? Us not the Iraqi people.
"It is better to fight them over there then over here" Sure, but that sends a message that we are going to crap in your yard then ours.
No country likes to be occupied, lets get the heck out of Iraq and invade a South American country with more success of getting oil! They must have WMD, terrorists, or something the Bush Administration can fabricate to justify (rationalize) our invasion.
20 - Dave Nalle
>>Hey Iraqis know more and more people in the US don't want our troops in Iraq. And Iraqis sure as hell know we don't give a rodent's bottom about them. <<
I don't buy this. They see the efforts our troops go to and that registers to our credit as a nation and as a people. It's abundantly clear that this is the case if you read Iraqi blogs.
>>The people who want us there are the current elected/installed government officials. <<
Only to a point.
If there's an upside to the war protests, it's that it helps motivate the Iraqis to get on the ball and prepare to carry their own weight.
>>When Bush's Policies (in-part) speak of "self-interest" what does that mean? Us not the Iraqi people.<<
Are our interests and the welfare of the Iraqi people incompatible?
>>No country likes to be occupied, lets get the heck out of Iraq and invade a South American country with more success of getting oil! They must have WMD, terrorists, or something the Bush Administration can fabricate to justify (rationalize) our invasion.<<
Perhaps Venezuela - after all, they have communists. But then, of course, we don't need to invade anyone to get oil - that's one of the big lies the left is still spreading despite having been proven bogus again and again.
Dave
21 - Shark
presenting, for your entertainment...
Today's Best Demonstration That Rose-colored Glasses Can Drive a Person Insane:
-or-
"Dave Nalle Takes "liberties" With the Truth. Again."
No One Died in Iraq Today
"...The title's not exactly accurate..."
[shark's bullshit detector starts beeping at *1,915 decibels; automated voice in head says "Everything Nalle says is suspect... especially when he's giving semi-intellectual head while wrapping his digital lips around Bush's Blunder..."]
*same number of American G.I.s killed in the search for WMDs in Iraq (as of 9/26/05); what a coincidence.
=====
BTW: Dave, in the interest of truth, for September 05, coalition DEAD averaged 1.31 PER DAY.
So yeah, some American did die today.
PS: regarding Iraq -- Dave. We Lost.
22 - Shark
BTW: I gotta go. I'm working on my next esaay:
No One Lied in the White House Today
Opening line:
"...The title's not exactly accurate..."
23 - Dave Nalle
By all means, don't read further than the first line of the post, Shark. I'd hate to see you have to actually deal with the substance of it rather than just the title.
Dave
24 - Bob A. Booey
This is one of the worst analogies in human history, especially as applied to the war in Iraq.
"This is like a doctor cutting someone open to remove a burst appendix, and while he is there he finding out the appendix is okay, but the patient has a huge, life-threatening tumor. But since he went in for the appendix he should just sew the patient up and leave the tumor there, because that's not the reason why the operation was authorized."
You really have it backwards. If you had said that we went in to find a tumor, found no tumor, and then removed an appendix, that would be slightly less laughable. But it'd still be a poor analogy since a burst appendix can have possibly life-threatening consequences. Iraq was not a threat to end our lives or end the world and no rabid right-winger could think that it was. If you must insist on these piss-poor medical analogies, it was more like a benign cyst, annoying, unpleasant, and ugly, but isolated and unable to seriously threaten the health of the body as a whole. There can be a debate about whether or not the costs and risks of surgery to remove a benign cyst are worth it and many doctors would say that they'd want to remove it, but it's not what any smart physician would recommend when we know there's active cancer cells elsewhere in the body that we haven't been able to remove and when there are ACTUAL tumors in other parts of the body.
We were sold the worst-case scenario and told Iraq was trying to develop nuclear weapons, had WMDs, and had nuclear materials they were going to use against us in terrorist acts and give to other terrorist groups. We were sold the war under the image of a "mushroom cloud," an image that was actually employed in statements leading up to the war.
Our after-the-fact justifications now about human rights, torture and rape weren't our reason for going into the war and weren't part of the pitch for the war. We provided support for Iraq and Saddam in the late 70s and 80s despite rampant human rights abuses we overlooked. And our official diplomatic policy toward genocide in Africa and other far worse humanitarian nightmares has been that we don't intervene with our military for human rights. In fact, it's part of our official national policy in Presidential Decision Directive 25.
It's cynical and truly sad that people can now talk about the moral value of the war in Iraq based on rights abuses and political violence when there is ACTUAL genocide going on on a FAR, FAR worse scale than anything Iraq has ever seen in Darfur.
Shame on all of you Internet jousters and apologists for a misguided war for using language of human rights and humanitarian intervention that you don't even believe in to justify an ill-conceived war in retrospect when you condone the sin of allowing history to repeat itself in the worst humanitarian nightmare of the last decade. Rwanda and Darfur are the greatest moral sins of the modern era of international politics and show the hypocrisy of our self-serving notions of national interest, especially when you have the audacity to couch those justifications in the language of human rights.
This isn't about Dave Nalle, but about everyone who suddenly sees the moral value of the war on Iraq based on how Saddam treated his people now that the WMD argument is almost universally abandoned. The blood of the people of Darfur is on all our hands and anyone who would be so cynical to ignore that reality while making such fatuous arguments for morality in Iraq is either truly ignorant or so profoundly misguided in the way politics colors their ethics that it's impossible to take their moral values seriously.
That is all.
25 - MCH
"...I want the Iraqi people to come out of this better than when they went in. Comes from growing up among Arabs. I like them, and I want their lives to be better."
- Dave Nalle
But not enough to enlist and help their plight during Desert Storm, right Nalle? Sure, you care about them...as long as it's someone else spilling his/her blood to help make their lives better.