Trip to Iraq - Not offensive enough I guess

[jBirch]

The military are ultimately judged by civilians. Their missions are designated by civilans.

So then, who is responsible for the failure in Iraq? The military or the civvies? The problem in my mind has always been poor strategic choice at the outset and poor execution of the non-military aspects of occupation post-invasion. That makes the failure, a failure of the non-military actors, not of the military itself.

Ultmately I don't see, though am willing to discuss, why Soldier is in a better position to make these judgements. And it is these judgements that underpin my rejection of the missions viability. I still believe a soldiers account lacks perspective and I am not convinced that they have the time on tour (as Inq says) to understand how the War began (not how it is fought) any better than me. I am still unaware that Soldier has even been to Iraq.

I disagree. The most credible source of information is the perceptions of the people that came from here, went to there and stayed, and then came back with experience. The next most credible source are those who have spoken at length to those who have been and returned. The next is the third hand account where we talk to one of those people. Finally, the least credible is the sound bite of information we get from the news.

Soldier is getting his information from people who have been there. We are getting ours from mass-media and some academic analysis.

Still, he never made any arguments for or against the current status of the mission. His only argument was to assert that not all people in the military are convinced that the mission is a failure.

But the main thrust of your argument (and source of offense) seems to relate to your statement: "It's frustrating to get people to understand the fact that all freedom and peace is derived from a gun."

Whilst it is tempting to cite Gandhi, MLK or Mandela, in general I accept this statement- all three stood as barriers to violence, but the threat of violence was an implicit source of their strength.

But this seems an observation wildly unrelated to a judgement as to whether Iraq was a good idea, or going to improve from its almost totaly accepted state of chaos.

You're right, it is tangential to the argument. But it is on point for my specific objections to the tone of your response to Soldier. It is the disrespect implicit in the phrases you chose and the dismissal of his points based on your implied position of superiority. Your arguments are not MORE important because you are NOT in the military, in my mind, they are LESS because you are at least one step removed from the information that Soldier is hearing.

That's moral proposition that it unrelated to the situation in Iraq. I would go one on one with a Grizzly to save my family, but only if I felt my family was in mortal danger. It is clear in my mind that their freedom was not at stake in this war.

And yet you choose to mock those who believe otherwise. Like it or not, a very large number of serving people in Iraq BELIEVE, with all their reason, that they are protecting their families.

But that's the easy part, the hard part is choosing which one of your family members you would send to die. And THAT is what military command is all about: choosing which one of your brothers and sisters will die for the mission. So when commanders stand up and say that yes, the price is high, but yes we have a chance at victory if we just do our jobs and do them well, then it behoves us to listen.

What Soldier is saying is that there are many in the military who would send their sons and daughters to die in Iraq. Who are still prepared to make the blood sacrifice. That hardly makes it a forgone failure in my mind.

And it certainly is not an excuse to mock people who are prepared to pay the price in their own flesh and blood.

What I hear is that the mission in Iraq is on the rocks. It is on the rocks because the political and economic actors have failed to sway the people. It is on the rocks because the warriors that are soldiers are no good at policing. It is salvagable if you get enough police, get enough political and economic achievement. Sadly, the US administration keeps throwing troops at a police and engineering problem and THAT is probably what is dooming the situation. Until the US finds tens of thousands of expeditionary police officers and judges to go to Iraq, figures out how to restore services to the people and keep them safe, the situation will stay doomed.

James.

[Inquartata]

I meant that nearly all of the people who know what's going on in Iraq who don't have a stake in saying that we're winning the war.

I am at a loss how you can possibly know what even "nearly all" of these people think. At most, and assuming complete objectivity, you might be able to say "most of the people I've heard venture an opinion". Which is a long way from the vast multitudes whom you are attempting to draft into your service.

I'll spare you the Latin name for the fallacy. Just this once.

We should add, too, that a tough situation and---historically speaking---light casualties do not necessaril "losing" make. Nor is "losing" synonymous with "not winning"...if it were then we had "lost" the Korean war 50 years ago.

Unfortunately, "balanced journalism" usually means reporting what's actually going on, or true.

Or even more unfortunately, that selection of what's going on that sells the most ad copy and renders the best chances for Pulitzers for our intrepid reporter in the field.

As many a propagandist has shown, you can show only 100% accurate events and still mislead quite easily.

Right now, there are soldiers dying occaisionally and no visible progress against the insurgents, while the Iraqis are breaking into smaller and more violent fragments.

Aha. "No visible progress." This demonstrates my point that either the media are not making successes as "visible" as the bombings and beheadings, or else you do not find them as memorable ( which is WHY the media don't focus on them ).

Remember the deaths of Udai and Qusai? Remember the death of Zarqawi? This is not "progress" in your estimation?

So, what WOULD constitute progress to you?

Again we get to the news agencies who are trying to dodge the news. I just don't believe that this is true.

For the most part neither do I---in the sense that they are deliberately trying to promote a pessimistic view of the state of things in Iraq for politically partisan reasons.

But like all of us they act out of personal and professional self-interest. They choose what seems to them to be the "most important" out of all the possible stories; such choices cannot but be filtered through their own personal experiences, preferences and beliefs. And then there are the economic pressures on and the bureaucratic dysfunctions of their organizations.

It's a wonder to me that we get as much balance as we do.

[Slim]

Here is a little more "non progress"...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2813235&page=1

[Inquartata]

But, to return to the fencing anology; the fact remains that key decisions about the overall state of British or American Fencing is based upon perceptions of success and failure that result in more or less funding by state funded bodies such as Sport England (or the US equivalent). These bodies are not fencers yet they are the ones judging perceptions of success.

Or misjudging them. Or distorting them.

The argument, as I understand it, is not that civilians and journalists and NGO workers are not "on the ground" in Iraq. It's not that these people are not forming opinions based on what they see, or that their opinions have no relevance and no effect on public perceptions and policy. The argument is that they are not in anything like as close or as informed a position as the individual members of the military there, who know and see everything the reporters see and then some.

The military are ultimately judged by civilians. Their missions are designated by civilans.

True, but it does not prove that said civilians are necessarily more qualified to render judgements and form accurate opinions on operations in a combat zone. Still less are we armchair generals qualified to do so...

The remainder of your post I cannot find objectionable, because it deals mostly with what you yourself believe to be or to have been. And your opinions are of course your own affair.

[pigeonmeister]

[QUOTE]

So then, who is responsible for the failure in Iraq? The military or the civvies? The problem in my mind has always been poor strategic choice at the outset and poor execution of the non-military aspects of occupation post-invasion. That makes the failure, a failure of the non-military actors, not of the military itself.

Yes James, which is why I identified the war as CONCEPTUALLY flawed- a definite failure of the non military actors. I'm fully in agreement with those members of the Military who believe they have been sold out on a mission in which they have to fight with one hand behind their back- balancing an objective of destroying an insurgency whilst conducting hearts and minds and recontruction efforts. That is why I am unconvinced that America's military and political aims, as stated at the start of the war, cannot be reconciled. I find that the constant shifting in what America hopes to achieve (or more accurately what acceptable state they feel Iraq can be left in) as evidence of my observation.

I disagree. The most credible source of information is the perceptions of the people that came from here, went to there and stayed, and then came back with experience. The next most credible source are those who have spoken at length to those who have been and returned. The next is the third hand account where we talk to one of those people. Finally, the least credible is the sound bite of information we get from the news.

You have stated that the war is being lost, not by the military, but by the non military actors- why is Soldier in a better position to judge these non military factors? I have spoken personally to America's British Ambassador Tuttle (he visited my uni) I have spoken to the embassies cultural attache and under-secretary. All of whom claimed to be in constant touch with realities on the ground, as perceived by the average GI. All three are obviouslt briefed to a higher level than you or I (and probably Soldier). I have watched as many military interviews as I possibly can, I have spken to my cousin and other firends who served there. Again I defer to their knowledge on tactical and operational realities.

But It's like the classic right wing position- Vietnam was lost in Washington by opportunistic senators and lazy hippies. Fair enough..but you cannot have it both ways- you can't say that a war was lost by non-military actors but at the same time discount analysis of these non military actors as irrelevant to making judgements on success and failure.

If someone makes, and defends, a judgement that a mission is not viable BEFORE a war is fought, based on a rejection of the concepts underlining it, then this judgement is largely irrespective of events during the war. It's up to other to prove me wrong. I would like to have a discussion with those who disagree... but as just that- a discussion, not: "whatever you say is based on media idiots that have no idea what they're talking about, and make money selling bad news." That is contempt for my ability to make any judgement, a charge you are violently (and equally unpleasantly) levelled at me.

I have made a judgement that it Iraq is not working- it is up to those who believe otherwise to give their reasoning and then by all means back it up with their personal credibility of having been there. Having been there adds weight to an argument, but it is not an argument in itself. It doesn't negate the need to justify an assertion.

Soldier is getting his information from people who have been there. We are getting ours from mass-media and some academic analysis.

Yet you place your opinion on pedestal above mine- because you have previously been a soldier?

Still, he never made any arguments for or against the current status of the mission. His only argument was to assert that not all people in the military are convinced that the mission is a failure.

No it wasn't. His argument was "The media idiots have no idea what they're talking about, and make money selling bad news"

That amounts to a contemptous discounting of any opinion outside those made by the military. Quite different, and something that angered me....though quite clearly not enough for me to start telling people to **** off as you did. Indeed it seems that at least some military people agree with my position.

Your arguments are not MORE important because you are NOT in the military, in my mind, they are LESS because you are at least one step removed from the information that Soldier is hearing.

Soldier's information MAY be more important, but until he offers to share an opinion based on his information it is impossible to tell. All I am saying is that arguments stand and fall against other arguments- not just qualifications. If you have the qualifications then you should be able to defeat the arguments, by all means lets discuss....

Can journalists not make a judgement on the performance of a politician or President, even though they have never held office and thus experienced the pressures and context behind their decisions. Of course they can.

And yet you choose to mock those who believe otherwise. Like it or not, a very large number of serving people in Iraq BELIEVE, with all their reason, that they are protecting their families.

Then let them give their reasons, let them blow my naivity out the water with their first hand accounts and experience based judgements. I'll give you mine...My sister lives in London, her husband was in central london on 7/7. Those bombers explicitely stated that they were acting to avenge UK involvement in Iraq. Every single intelligence agency in America recently stated that we are more vulnerable to attack after the invasion of Iraq. Therefore I have given evidence to show that my familiy are actually in more mortal danger because of American and British actions.

I bet if my familiy had been blown up you would take my argument more seriously- and that underlines the hypocracy I am trying to elucidate.

But that's the easy part, the hard part is choosing which one of your family members you would send to die. And THAT is what military command is all about: choosing which one of your brothers and sisters will die for the mission. So when commanders stand up and say that yes, the price is high, but yes we have a chance at victory if we just do our jobs and do them well, then it behoves us to listen

That's another generalised statement, a manifestation of you own military experience. I accept that is how you feel, and genuninly believe you should be proud of your military experience. But what does it mean re-Iraq?

What Soldier is saying is that there are many in the military who would send their sons and daughters to die in Iraq. Who are still prepared to make the blood sacrifice. That hardly makes it a forgone failure in my mind

Just a minute- aren't recruitment figures down? It's also a very bizzare measure of success- that the military are not mutinous?

And it certainly is not an excuse to mock people who are prepared to pay the price in their own flesh and blood.

Fine- I have apologised. The Iraqi insurgents are prepared to pay with their lives, does that legitimise their cause?

Until the US finds tens of thousands of expeditionary police officers and judges to go to Iraq, figures out how to restore services to the people and keep them safe, the situation will stay doomed.

And your qualifications to make that judgement are better than mine because?

[jBirch]

PM,

We seem to be arguing both sides against the middle.

I apologise for leaping down your throat. Obviously, text is an imprecise medium and words have a different interpretation based on perspective. My issue was specifically with my interpretation of your closing lines vis-a-vis Soldier, not your argument, which I think is persuasive and well put. I dismissed his comment about "media idiots" as irrelevant and did not realise that it offended you. In hindsight, I can see you responding specifically to that insult.

My position on the argument at hand is specifically that the military thinks it can win. That the military believes in the righteousness of the mission and in the possibility of success. I think they are wrong, but I don't doubt their belief.

I think that the war was in trouble as soon as the US decided to stay in Iraq. I think this specifically because the US has no ability and no experience at Peacekeeping or Peacemaking and that the Military establishment dismisses this lack of skill as irrelevant to the problem of post-invasion occupation. Or they pass the buck to the non-military actors in-theatre and obviously those actors have failed in their impossible duty.

I also think that the reconstruction and stabilisation efforts require the whole support of the US populace if there is even a hint of success to be had. US travellers must learn to better portray their country to the people they visit. Sadly, I do not think this is possible.

It may not even be possible for success to be had as those who argued against the war are more interested in pointing out the flaws in its execution rather then helping to figure out how to navigate out of the problem. And those are the people who need to help because they have the skill and the reason to do it right. But I suspect that won't happen, because to help out would be to prove that the mission could be achieved, which would make them wrong.

I don't think that the mission is lost though as I have hope in the rationality of people. That the bright people opposing the mission can be persuaded to help solve the problem. I think that the whole set of people trying to build a nation over there have to do a better job and that the situation is not yet so far gone that no change can make a difference.

The Iraqi insurgents are prepared to pay with their lives, does that legitimise their cause?

Yes, in a nutshell, it does. An insurgency thrives on the willingness of people to fight. At the core of any insurgency is a group of true believers who can not be swayed from their position. If these people can convince others to join their cause, can arm them and can give them some hope of success, then you have a real insurgency. This is what has happened in Iraq.

The real question of interest is WHY are people willing to fight the US in Iraq and what can be done differently/more effectively to stop them?

To some, the US has proven to be a worse ruler then Saddam and so they fight for what they perceive is their freedom. It is hard for many in the US to understand the proposition that the practice of Sharia law can be a free thinking woman's choice. And that repressing that choice in the name of freedom is hypocrisy. And it is the divergence between the espoused ideals of the US (freedom, peace and the pursuit of happiness) and their execution on the ground (you must have a democracy, you must have free markets, you must have Christian values) which causes the violent backlash experienced in non-western countries to US advances.

What y'all need are some Canadians to sort the situation out. *grin*

James.

[Soldier]

Alright, alright, I'll bite. The reason I didn't state anything with that short post is that I long ago grew sick of the continuous political bickering of this place, and do not wish to be drawn in again. Sadly, I had the poor judgment to look back once more, and here I am. This really is the last one, though, I promise.

First off, thank you Inq, jBirch, Slim, and any others I'm currently forgetting for coming to my defense in my absence.

Now, to the rest of you, a little about me.

1. I made this profile when I was an overzealous four-dig straight out of basic, and have hardly touched it since; hence the now-embarrassing machismo.

2. As surmised by looking at the fact that I am a cadet, no, I have not been in combat (though cadets do spend time in-theater).

3. I speak daily with people that have been in combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We have regular briefings from people currently in-theater. I have spoken to E-3 Marines on the ground, generals who have commanded there, and everything in between, including one particular major who spent time in a bunker with access to every military information feed from both theaters - every single ATO, satellite feed, SpecOps movement, and every other bit of information that came back to the States. On the other side of the room from that, he had all the news stations. He has made abundantly clear the ability (or lack thereof) of the media to report with any kind of accuracy what was happening.

4. We have endless classes on grand strategy, political science, joint and coalition warfare, and all of the above. I'm not claiming a doctorate in anything, but I'm not a simplistic grunt with no ideas beyond the tactical, either.


Given the plenty of objective experience I have with the media's reporting methods, I feel completely justified in condemning the reporting ability of, and I'll say it again, those media idiots. While I don't discount anyone's opinions just because they're civilians, I do heavily discount the opinions of anybody who has no better information source than the news, or nothing more than a simple tactical view of the theater.

Now, go ahead and rip me to shreds again; I know you what I just posted won't change a thing in your minds. But you asked to see the backup behind my assertions, and there it is. No further arguments will be forthcoming, since they've all been stated already, time and time again, and I'm not getting dragged back into the mire.


Inq, jBirch, good to "see" you again, if only for a few posts.

[mrbiggs]

I am at a loss how you can possibly know what even "nearly all" of these people think. At most, and assuming complete objectivity, you might be able to say "most of the people I've heard venture an opinion". Which is a long way from the vast multitudes whom you are attempting to draft into your service.

I'll spare you the Latin name for the fallacy. Just this once.

Argumentum ad populum or something? I had to learn it last semester...

In any case, citing expert opinion is not a logical fallacy. No, I don't have statistics for exactly how many people think that we're not doing well in Iraq. I do, however, watch the news regularly and I've never seen an expert say that we are, in fact winning. (Apart from Donald Rumsfeld).

These people include the President, the new Secretary of Defense, a slew of retired generals...I mean, who else is there?

We should add, too, that a tough situation and---historically speaking---light casualties do not necessaril "losing" make. Nor is "losing" synonymous with "not winning"...if it were then we had "lost" the Korean war 50 years ago.

You're right, there are three options: win, loss, stalemate. A stalemate is, in my opinion, a loss because unlike South Korea, Iraq does not have a functioning government.

Or even more unfortunately, that selection of what's going on that sells the most ad copy and renders the best chances for Pulitzers for our intrepid reporter in the field.

As many a propagandist has shown, you can show only 100% accurate events and still mislead quite easily.

True. But this can be argued for literally anything on the media. It's possible that there's a huge media conspiracy to cover up anything. More likely, it's also possible that there's a bias to report certain events in a certain way. However, we have to draw the line somewhere on what we do and do not believe is true. And I think that no matter the bias, it is true that soldiers are dying constantly in Iraq, that it is unlikely that the violence will slow down, and that Iraqis are turning against each other rather than uniting to form a government. It is on these three facts that I base my statement that we're losing.

Aha. "No visible progress." This demonstrates my point that either the media are not making successes as "visible" as the bombings and beheadings, or else you do not find them as memorable ( which is WHY the media don't focus on them ).

Remember the deaths of Udai and Qusai? Remember the death of Zarqawi? This is not "progress" in your estimation?

So, what WOULD constitute progress to you?

Less violence.

More specifically, the deaths of those people were great successes for our Army and for justice. However, our goal in Iraq at this point is not to kill people, but to set up a stable, functioning government. If these people were alive they would certainly be working to overthrow the government, but the big picture has not changed. With their deaths, did Americans stop dying? Did Iraqis start working together to form a government rather than turning against each other and starting new wars?

For the most part neither do I---in the sense that they are deliberately trying to promote a pessimistic view of the state of things in Iraq for politically partisan reasons.

But like all of us they act out of personal and professional self-interest. They choose what seems to them to be the "most important" out of all the possible stories; such choices cannot but be filtered through their own personal experiences, preferences and beliefs. And then there are the economic pressures on and the bureaucratic dysfunctions of their organizations.

It's a wonder to me that we get as much balance as we do.

The media is pretty bad at what they do in general. But as I said before, we need to get the big picture about what is happening in the world from somewhere. And I trust them not to mess that up.

[erooMynohtnA]

Alright, alright, I'll bite. The reason I didn't state anything with that short post is that I long ago grew sick of the continuous political bickering of this place, and do not wish to be drawn in again. Sadly, I had the poor judgment to look back once more, and here I am. This really is the last one, though, I promise.

First off, thank you Inq, jBirch, Slim, and any others I'm currently forgetting for coming to my defense in my absence.

Now, to the rest of you, a little about me.

1. I made this profile when I was an overzealous four-dig straight out of basic, and have hardly touched it since; hence the now-embarrassing machismo.

2. As surmised by looking at the fact that I am a cadet, no, I have not been in combat (though cadets do spend time in-theater).

3. I speak daily with people that have been in combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We have regular briefings from people currently in-theater. I have spoken to E-3 Marines on the ground, generals who have commanded there, and everything in between, including one particular major who spent time in a bunker with access to every military information feed from both theaters - every single ATO, satellite feed, SpecOps movement, and every other bit of information that came back to the States. On the other side of the room from that, he had all the news stations. He has made abundantly clear the ability (or lack thereof) of the media to report with any kind of accuracy what was happening.

4. We have endless classes on grand strategy, political science, joint and coalition warfare, and all of the above. I'm not claiming a doctorate in anything, but I'm not a simplistic grunt with no ideas beyond the tactical, either.


Given the plenty of objective experience I have with the media's reporting methods, I feel completely justified in condemning the reporting ability of, and I'll say it again, those media idiots. While I don't discount anyone's opinions just because they're civilians, I do heavily discount the opinions of anybody who has no better information source than the news, or nothing more than a simple tactical view of the theater.

Now, go ahead and rip me to shreds again; I know you what I just posted won't change a thing in your minds. But you asked to see the backup behind my assertions, and there it is. No further arguments will be forthcoming, since they've all been stated already, time and time again, and I'm not getting dragged back into the mire.


Inq, jBirch, good to "see" you again, if only for a few posts.

I'm sorry, but I don't side with your opinion for the same reason you don't trust the media. In my own experience, servicemen often display a powerful bias and ignorance.

I've met media personnel (and others) who have 1. been macho 2. not seen combat 3. talked to people who have 4. studied warfare. I just don't see why I should believe you over any of them.

[pigeonmeister]

Now, go ahead and rip me to shreds again; I know you what I just posted won't change a thing in your minds. But you asked to see the backup behind my assertions, and there it is. No further arguments will be forthcoming, since they've all been stated already, time and time again, and I'm not getting dragged back into the mire.

No one wants to rip you to shreds. But it is difficult for you to change my mind re-perceptions of success and failure when, again, you offer no judgements or analysis contrary to what I am saying re-success.

Arguing that the war is badly reported is only one part of this discussion. The other relates to perceptions of success and failure. If you are going to slam the media's portrayal of the war (and again I belive you would have to move beyond the American media) you need to explain how they have it wrong, backed up with the first hand sources you are so proud of.

Why not share some of the hope around? What information, based on your sources, have you to offer. It seems that all you offer is a basic explanation of your training programme?

If I thought I had a sprained my ankle, and a doctor told me it had to be immediately amputated, I would respect his position to make that judgement. But I would, at the very least, want him to explain why I was wrong to believe my anle was only sprained. If none was forthcoming, other than 'I'm a doctor' I would hobble out of the hospital quick smart.

I too have seen military personnel display bias and ignorance way beyond anything I have even read in the Socialist Worker. I have also heard serviceman talk sense about Iraq. For that reason I need arguments to change my mind, not just uniforms.

[pigeonmeister]

Sorry- another point I forgot to mention.

Is it not possible that the US miltary would themselves, perhaps, filter the information going to the young men being preparing to go to war in Iraq. I am re-reading Tim O'Brians 'If I die in combat'- the drill instructors say things like 'Its not so bad in Vietnam'.

Would the military want to pass on any of their negative inner thoughts to young cadets?

Senator Jim Webb, Navy cadet graduate, highly decorated Vietnam vet and former secretary for Navy, also claims that the military do not support 'the way this war in fought'

What's he reading?

[Capt. Slo-mo]

...including one particular major who spent time in a bunker with access to every military information feed from both theaters - every single ATO, satellite feed, SpecOps movement, and every other bit of information that came back to the States. On the other side of the room from that, he had all the news stations. He has made abundantly clear the ability (or lack thereof) of the media to report with any kind of accuracy what was happening.

...thereby pointing out one of the major issues with accurate reporting: access to reliable information.

If you had to write a report on the formation of the Grand Canyon, and all you had for source material was the Usborne "Big Book of Science" for elementary school children, and "Grand Canyon: A Different View" by Tom Vail, how accurate might your manuscript be?

[jeff]

I've managed to stay out of this, especially during the poo-flinging stage, but y'all seem to have calmed down a bit, so: The idea that the military has comprehensive and superior knowledge, disseminated even as far as cadets in the military academies, yet unavailable to civilians (in particular, the civilians that comprise the government and direct and oversee the military's objectives) is a non-starter. This isn't WW I, where news of carnage in the Somme could be hidden.

Consider the questionable impartiality of such sources (just as some like to question the impartiality of the media). Consider, for example, General Westmoreland. Our military's leaders publically state that things are in bad shape, with General Petraeus calling the situation "dire". Our civilian leaders also know things are in difficult straits, on a bipartisan basis. Republicans Hagel, Lugar, Collins, Brownback, Coleman and others have already expressed total or partial rejection of Bush's plans. The Iraq Study Group was not a bunch of leftists. There is no need to pose this as a partisan issue or one to be blamed on the favorite scapegoat of "mainstream media".

The fundamental nature of the situation is that this has to be solved on a political basis, not solely on a military one. The US military was never defeated on the battlefield in Vietnam, yet the overall war was lost due to lack of a feasible political solution, and eventually lack of support back home. The war in Iraq will not be successful if the inherent conflicts in political structure there are not solved. Those look pretty daunting, considering the !000+ year conflict between Sunni and Shia, and the sectarian nature of the support for the current Iraqi government.

[Inquartata]

Argumentum ad populum or something? I had to learn it last semester...

Hurrah! The news of the demise of education appears to have been somewhat exaggerated.

But I think it's actually closer to ad numeram.

In any case, citing expert opinion is not a logical fallacy.

Ad populam is not a resort to expert opinion, but rather to popular opinion. The fallacy for expert opinion is ad verecundiam, the resort to ( irrelevant ) authority.It's fallacious only when the expert's knowledge isn't germane to the field in question, eg citing Alan Greenspan on climate change or something.

See what you've done? Opened the floodgates.

Anyway, reporters and editors scarcely qualify as "expert opinion" on military matters, at least not presumptively. Soldiers are more likely to do so. Your point about the validity of expert opinion therefore really weakens your position rather than strengthening it, don't you think?

No, I don't have statistics for exactly how many people think that we're not doing well in Iraq.

So how can you claim that "everyone" thinks so?

I do, however, watch the news regularly and I've never seen an expert say that we are, in fact winning. (Apart from Donald Rumsfeld).

Insufficient sample size, and possibly biased source. One of the ongoing arguments after all IS that "the news" is more inclined to report the bad than the good, pessimism and gloom than optimism and hope.

These people include the President, the new Secretary of Defense, a slew of retired generals...I mean, who else is there?

I say again: That one does not say "We're winning" does not mean that one is affirming "We're losing". Acknowledging problems and difficulties is not tantamount to capitulation.

You're right, there are three options: win, loss, stalemate. A stalemate is, in my opinion, a loss because unlike South Korea, Iraq does not have a functioning government.

There is also the fourth dimension to consider. Stalemate is not necessarily a permanent condition, and sometimes the struggle goes to he who can hold out the longest, even if it takes many years. From the Punic Wars to the Hundred Years War we have seen that a nation or a general can win every battle and still lose the war. So can the United States...or an insurgency.

Less violence.

So every time the violent crime rate goes up in an American city, it means that civilization is losing and society ought to cut its losses and give up the fight?

Things usually get worse before they get better.

Yes, I'm aware that there is no guarantee that they will get better. But there is a much better chance that they won't if we simply quit.

our goal in Iraq at this point is not to kill people, but to set up a stable, functioning government.

Why should the two be mutually exclusive?

[Inquartata]

The idea that the military has comprehensive and superior knowledge, disseminated even as far as cadets in the military academies, yet unavailable to civilians (in particular, the civilians that comprise the government and direct and oversee the military's objectives) is a non-starter.

Perhaps. But it certainly has different information, otherwise the whole idea of "classified" is a colossal waste of time and money.

[jeff]

Well, yeah, to be sure - but classified information goes to both military individuals and civilians with need-to-know who are in the government. It would definitely be a colossal waste to be called "classified" if it was published to uninvolved undergrads at military academies (and Soldier doesn't claim access to classified material)

[introspective]

Are there any 'winners'? No my friends, only on the piste can one declare a winner in the classical sence of the word - that the fencing victor still stands usually unscathed. However, in real world conflicts, the unfortunate facts are, people get hurt, killed, or permanently disabled for life. It's something that we are having difficulty coming to terms with. In listening to the various politicians and the assorted generals - no one wants war - and an American General said it best "War is hell"". In other words, it's nothing to go into lightly - therefore, I would suggest that perhaps the incidents of September were in hindsight -a mistake. A mistake based on a belief, that many many people held in concert - that the world was the abyess - and the end nigh, a mere one or two years after the turn of the century/millinium and everyone went nuts. The pitiful thing was 1. watching two giagantic buildings melt down with 3,000 people in them 2. watching that man jump to his death courageously holding onto a secretary's hand at 3,000 feet. 3. watching those thousands of people walking home on foot miles and miles. and now what we are seeing is 1. the crumbling of Iraq 2. the slowness of comprehension of the european west 3. the dissappointment of not having much support from other people whom we really want to develop more understanding with 4. watching people run all over the countryside in the middleeast trying to ''arrest'" people and finally the sheer 5. dustyness of all of it over there - it is unreal that no-one can see a blessed thing.

I wish everyone the very best of luck - and hope it all smooths out fairly soon, but I can't see a truely dignified ending to all of this. I have hopes that our former President Carter who is basically an expert on the Middle-east can assist everyone once again in developing more peace proposals for that area of the world. They've tried just about everything......I was willing to go over there somewhere and pitch a tent on one condition - that they let me practice my religion - it would have been sort of interesting - I'm sure we would have gotten along. I can cook up a mean lamb-kabob with yogurt - nan bread - salad - and rice with the crust on the bottom thing - with parsley and carrots.

[TrainingDummy]

So every time the violent crime rate goes up in an American city, it means that civilization is losing and society ought to cut its losses and give up the fight?

Things usually get worse before they get better.

Do they, now? Sources? Or is this one of those things I won't understand until I'm a geezer?

[Inquartata]

It's a proverb, so it MUST be true.

[lochinvar]

It's a proverb, so it MUST be true.

You mean, like the one about the monkey and the hand grenade?...or is that more of an aphorism?

I especially like proverbs that contradict each other, like "Look before you leap" and "He who hesitates is lost"...

Remember, the early bird may get the worm, but it's the second mouse that gets the cheese!