#305: Well-intentioned people gave it their best shot.
To pass muster with [Jim O’Beirne, husband of fair-and-balanced insane person Kate O’Beirne], a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn’t need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.
O’Beirne’s staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade .
Many of those chosen by O’Beirne’s office to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq’s government from April 2003 to June 2004, lacked vital skills and experience. A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance — but had applied for a White House job — was sent to reopen Baghdad’s stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq’s $13 billion budget, even though they didn’t have a background in accounting.
A bit late to the party, WaPo? From Knight-Ridder, 6/30/05 (link dead):
The coalition government relied heavily on a revolving door of diplomats and other personnel who would leave just as they had begun to develop local knowledge and ties, and on a large cadre of eager young neophytes whose brashness often gave offense in a very age- and status-conscious society. One young political appointee (a 24-year-old Ivy League graduate) argued that Iraq should not enshrine judicial review in its constitution because it might lead to the legalization of abortion. A much more senior Iraqi interlocutor (a widely experienced Iraqi-American lawyer) became so exasperated with the young man’s audacity that he finally challenged him:
“You must have thoroughly studied the history of the British occupation of Iraq.”
“Yes, I did,” the young American replied proudly. “I thought so,” said the Iraqi, “because you seem determined to repeat every one of their mistakes.”
It seems awfully hard to question the decision to keep reasonable policy hands with relevant experience in reserve in case, say, mideast terrorists attack the unemployment office. Better to send in the College Republicans. After all, nobody could have anticipated that parachuting inexperienced partisan hacks into an unfamiliar country might not work. Well, maybe the Future of Iraq Working Group did. But listening to State is a perfect example of pre-9/11 thinking.
[/snark]Ech.
***Update***
OnTheOther Hand
We were just practicing for Iran. I’m almost confident we’ve got our act together now.
OnTheOther Hand
Almost forgot, Afghanistan doesn’t count.
srv
Yeah, I don’t get how people are surprised about this. I remember articles in 2004 about the Green Zoners.
Tsulagi
Cheney was recently asked if knowing everything he knows now about Iraq and how that has turned out to date, would he change anything. Cheney said he’d do everything exactly the same way. This admin is truly a waste of air. You get more critical thinking from a flower box.
Jess
Whatever concerns conservatives might have about the supposed lack of seriousness of the Dems in the realm of foreign affairs and military operations, how can ANYONE still believe they’d do worse than this pack of idiots? When have Dems done anything this lame in the last 30 years? Or ever, for that matter?
Sadly, even the conservatives that are finally condemning this lunacy are still convinced that liberals are secretly Marxists, evil and incompetent, and will not put aside their ideology long enough to rationally assess the reality of where we are now, instead of where we were in 1972 (see Joe Scarborough, for example). Come on, people–time to pull your heads out of your asses!
Eural
Jesse – sad but true and what’s worse I have a lot of conservative friends who still rant and rave about the Dem’s and foreign policy. It’s the same old same old = Bush is screwing up big time but if Pelosi and Reid and Kennedy were in charge it would be sooooo much worse. Because you just can’t trust Democrats to do a competent job. Talking about pulling crap out of your ass (which I guess is where you should get it, but still…).
Come to think of it, they mostly seem to to get this from listening to Limbaugh and Hannity. Hmmmmmm…
John Steven
It’s not “late to the party” or supposed to be a big breaking revelation – this article is just an excerpt promoting Chandrasekaran’s ‘Inside Iraq’s Green Zone’ book that comes out on Tuesday.
Proud Liberal
you gottal love this bunch don’t you? The damage Bush has done to the Republican party is truly amazing. The idea that they were the “adults”, the ones that were “serious” and “realistic” on foreign policy not like the idealistic Dems has been completely blown away by the amateurish incompetence demonstrated by the Bozo in Chief and his merry men.
Bruce Moomaw
The Washington Monthly indignantly points out (see Kevin Drum’s entry today) that they beat even Knight-Ridder to the punch by fully 18 months in reporting that we were cramming the CPA with young political hacks.
Not that Knight-Ridder hasn’t done tremendous service to this country for their consistently energetic probes into the more scandalous aspects of our little adventure. If there is any justice, they’ll get the Pulitzer for it. But then there isn’t, is there?
The Other Steve
You haven’t heard?
We’re not fighting in Afghanistan
Zifnab
Let’s just hope these conservative friends are too stupid and ignorant to vote.
Eural
Actually, they vote every election cycle, including local ones. I admire their civic values while I detest their electoral judgement. One of them is even thinking about getting involved in the local Republican party structure – “to clean things up”, as he would say (which is also very admirable).
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
Let’s just get the fuck out of Iraq. Right now. They can have their Mideastern Bosnia without us.
The only other option is to start conscripting College Republicans and sending them over there to fight the war. Apparently there are millions of them willing to cheerlead it, so why don’t some of them take their rhetoric up to the front lines?
The story of corruption and nepotism emanating from this Administration is nothing new. It’s been their standard operating procedure since Day 1. This example is especially flagrant, and especially poignant in that the sheer incompetence of it has cost 2700 American lives and only-God-knows-how-many Iraqi ones. But it conforms pretty well with everything else this Administration has done in the last 5 years. (You did a heckuva job, Coalition Provisional Authority Brownies!)
craigie
That’s why they questioned whether Wilson was sent to Nigeria by his wife – because nepotism and cronyism are bad. Bad!
And boy, they oughta know…
DougJ
No one’s called Jim “Mr. Ole Sixty Grit” here yet. What gives?
BlogReeder
I’m skeptical of your premise that we’re failing in Iraq. It’s not perfect but the goals are being accomplished. Get rid of Saddam – check – set up a constitutional government – check – get rid of a lot of bad guys – check. Could we have done better? Sure. I absolutely believe that several appointments would have been bad. That’s part of doing anything. Especially when it has to do with the government appointees. I’ll reserve judgment until we can uncover that roster of Paul Bremer’s 1800 staff members to find out if all of them are patronage jobs. One or two bad apples don’t a failure make.
For example, on Amazon.com, the book Imperial Life in the Emerald City has several editorial reviews listed citing their books also. I’m not surprised that none of them seem favorable to the administration’s efforts in Iraq. Where are the unbiased reviews? I don’t think that would sell a lot of books. Now think of setting up an appointee for Iraq. I can see where some bias would creep in there also.
Are you talking about her book Women Who Make the World Worse or are there other things that make her insane?
Pb
BlogReeder,
I’m skeptical of your skepticism. But let’s say that for the sake of argument, you might have a real point to make. What is the goal? Are we achieving it?
Destabilize the Middle East – check. Lose hearts and minds – check. Ethnic cleansing – check. What is the goal, and are we achieving it? Do you think that things are actually getting better?
Rummy? Is that you?
If you actually want that to happen–if you really want some actual oversight on this–then vote for a Democrat in 2006, because otherwise it won’t happen.
Perhaps those are the unbiased reviews? Or do you think that–for example–Steve Coll is being unfair here?
I’ll say–it’s obvious that bias *did* creep in there–they were working in tandem with The Heritage Foundation on this one. In fact, they gave a job to Simone Ledeen. Yes, *that* Ledeen–Michael Ledeen’s daughter!
I’m no psychologist, but all I had to do to make that tentative remote diagnosis was watch her on TV for like 20 seconds.
Jess
Blogreeder,
I’m curious–if we were all to put aside our partisan bias for a moment and analyze the situation objectively, what SHOULD set off alarm bells for us when assessing whether an administration–Rep or Dem–is handling a war effort competently? Is there one standard that we could apply to both parties? As citizens of a democracy, it is our duty to critically assess the job our elected officials–our employees, in fact–are doing; at what point are you going to be willing to do this?
The Other Steve
That’s because you look at the world through Republican colored glasses.
The Other Steve
No, no… You don’t understand.
It’s only ok to critically assess the job our elected officials are doing when they are Democrats.
If they are Republicans, you are supposed to keep your mouth shut, because criticizing them is equivalent to criticizing God.
BlogReeder
Pb I think destabilize the Middle East was one of the goals.
The bias I’m talking about is “first lets assume this has all been a failure” and write a book about it. Steve Coll wrote Ghost Wars about how the CIA caused all the terrorism in Afghanistan or something like that, wasn’t it? I haven’t seen Kate on TV yet, she’s really that batty?
DougJ
Then why would anyone listen to anything else you have to say?
Don’t take this the wrong way, but I think we’d all be better off if you, the Blogs For Bush crowd, and the handful of others who think Iraq is going well moved down to Jonestown, Guyanan and drink poison Kool-Aid at the request of a Bush imperonator. It’s the logical next step, in any case.
John's Flower Box
Thank you. It’s about time someone noticed my thinking acumen.
BlogReeder
what SHOULD set off alarm bells for us when assessing whether an administration—Rep or Dem—is handling a war effort competently?
Good question Jess. I think the first thing should be deciding what are reasonable criticisms. What I mean for example, let’s not imply that we can fight a war with no casualties. So when our body count is brought up, I don’t think that’s reasonable in this context. We know we’ll have them what are we doing to reduce them?
As citizens of a democracy, it is our duty to critically assess the job our elected officials
That’s true. All I’m saying is let’s try and be reasonable. The decision was made to go into Iraq. That can’t be undone. We have to finish it successfully. Are these constructive criticisms to achieve that goal?
By the way, I’m not Republican just a fellow traveler in the case.
BlogReeder
Wow, a scathing post by DougJ.
too true
The article absolutely distorts the situation with the CPA. The administration managed to attract some very highly qualified people to guide key areas of reconstruction. Case in point, an elderly friend of mine who came out of retirement (and requalified with an M-16) to lead the revamping of their banking and currency setup.
His qualifications? Decades as an international bank president with a substantial involvment in the middle east. He’s still helping to guide the integration of Iraqi finance/banking sectors with the international trading markets and currency exchanges.
The Other Steve
Is it possible to respond in a reasonable manner to someone who is not honest?
The Other Steve
We need a name so we can verify your claim.
Tim F.
Doug, dial it back a bit. People raised hell when Darrell did that sort of thing.
JWeidner
I think you’re somewhat missing the point of the article. The article never claimed that there were NO experienced people holding powerful positions in the reconstruction. Only that ideology trumped experience in many critical cases.
In your example (and if you could provide a name for confirmation, I think we’d all appreciate it), it wouldn’t surprise me at all if your elderly friend were a hardcore Republican. THAT’s the point the article makes. Regardless of experience, ideologically pure Republicans were favored for almost all positions of importance. Some would have been experienced in what they were sent to do, but some obviously weren’t.
And the problem with that is, as the article point out, these ideologically vetted Republicans were put in charge of some vital areas of the Reconstruction. And when you’re trying to rebuild a completely war-torn nation, it’s going to be more important to get important infrastructure actually….I don’t know….working, rather than worry about what ideological format such infrastructure will take.
In other words, trying to rebuild Iraq in the mold of a Republican fantasyland was the wrong way to go about it. More important goals would have been to just get everything to work. Putting off solutions until an adequately conservative answer could be implemented isn’t the way to go about winning hearts and minds, and worrying about ideology should never have entered the equation.
Buck
I agree. And on that part we have been wildly successful. You have to destroy nations before you can practice nation building.
Practice being the operative word.
Pb
Oh, well then–Mission Accomplished!
Rusty Shackleford
Blogreeder,
If you haven’t already, I suggest you read Fiasco and The Assassins Gate.
I recommend these two books to anyone wanting to know more about our military adventure in Iraq. When you are through with the books your skepticism will have evaporated.
Rusty Shackleford
I always preferred “Sandpaper Snatch” for Kate O’Beirne.
Old Kate hasn’t been looking too good lately in her appearances on Hardball. Her jowls have a little more droop and the bags under her eyes makes her look like she’s still mourning Reagan’s passing.
Tsulagi
Hey too true,
While your international finance/banking friend has been in Iraq, has he gotten a clue where the over $8billion went that CPA couldn’t account for? Or is the line still that they were too busy doing their good works to write down where millions went.
Oh well, I’m sure all the Bushy acolytes were firmly on top of things while updating their resumes. None of those unaccounted for bricks of cash sent by truckloads to ministries could have found their way to insurgents to finance any of their BMW car bombs.
mrmobi
BlogReeder, previous to this administration it was common for members of both parties to be hired when filling career government jobs. A person’s qualifications had more to do with their hiring than their party affiliation. There are plenty of examples of this, i.e., Richard Clarke served under Reagon, Bush I and Clinton. With this bunch, it’s all about party and ideology. Examples abound of un-qualified people in the Bush administration, so why do you think it’s unlikely that this same problem didn’t exist in the CPA? Do the results so far indicate the presence of competence or expertise?
To me, they demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of the region, in addition to simple incompetence. Unless that is, the real agenda was not bringing democracy to the people of Iraq. Have you thought of that? Might it be that our leaders have an agenda here that has little to do with democracy and everything to do with establishing a permanent military presence in the most oil-rich region in the world?
So how do we finish the war successfully? If you accept my premise, success in Iraq means a permanent military presence, and likely an on-going struggle much like the Israeli/Arab conflict. See, we’ve made our own quagmire, and we are willing to pay in blood and treasure because there’s black gold in them thar hills! The permanent bases are already being built.
As far as constructive criticisms. You need to pay more attention to current events. The Party of Torture doesn’t brook any criticism. The President doesn’t do critical thinking, it’s unnecessary because God has told him what is right. Funny thing is, I disagree, and I’ve always thought it was the duty of every citizen to question his government. These guys have some strange ideas about democracy.
Andrew
Gosh, nothing says banking and currency like qualifying with a rifle. How many others went to Iraq to play soldier while they were stationed in the Green Zone, protected by real soldiers who getting blown up?
DougJ
Look, you’re a subhuman moron. It’s hard for me to work up the requisite anger to trash you. It’s like getting mad at a tree.
DougJ
Ban me if you want to.
DougJ
I have a whole strategy to get banned here, but I can’t work up the energy to go through with it without being obvous about it.
RSA
I’m not sure I understand the bit about we have to finish it successfully, and it’s not clear to me that many conservatives do, either. Does success means that Iraq has a stable democracy? That’s the impression that Bush gives. Here’s a constructive criticism then: Bush needs to argue that the U.S. should plan to spend about 5% to 10% of the U.S. federal government’s budget per year (I think that’s in the ballpark for what’s being spent now and in projections for the future) in Iraq, for another four or five years at a minimum, and that there needs to be a significant increase in the number of trained soldiers in Iraq, to quell the violence (100% to 200% more, per pre-war estimates). If the fate of civilization hangs in the balance, as Bush also implies, then he needs to argue that this is a small price to pay. Further, if Bush actually believes this, then it’s the height of irresponsibility to take chances by doing Iraq on the cheap.
That’s my suggestion for “success”. Can a conservative improve on it?
Andrew
Blackwater: Inside America’s Private Army
This is a fantastically thorough look at one of the more insanely expensive hand outs to right wing toadies: their own private army.
BlogReeder
Rusty, I haven’t read either of those. That link to Fiasco was really interesting because of the interview with Thomas Ricks the author. He pointed to a book by David Galula titled Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice that sounds really good. In searching for a review of that I came across this pdf Relearning counterinsurgency warfare by Robert R. Tomes. This seems to be a more balanced criticism of how we’re fighting over there. In it, he says:
Which seems to indicate there was some planning.
BlogReeder
It’s hard for me to work up the requisite anger to trash you
Bring it on. I’ll bet you’ll use all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire.
The Other Steve
Don’t forget logical fallacy!
Faux News
Well that certainly settles everything!
Mission Accomplished.
Tim F.
Why do you say that? The excerpt actually suggests that people debated planning for counterinsurgency, not that actual planning took place.
Once again I will ask: who did the planning? Where is their work product?
capelza
At least he was “musing”…planning, that’s another thing.
This whole thing isn’t news to me. Heard about quite awhile ago. Nice that it’s getting some attention finally.
My favourite tidbit is the one about the wheat. Iraqi farmers used to save seed. The new shiny young things came in and declared that they couldn’t do that anymore, because there was a copyright or patent on the seed from the US. I’m going from memory here. Oh, and the whole inserting the evangelical vision for reporductive rights in Iraq into the new constitution. See, it’s been so long that I can’t even remember where i read this stuff. But the one word that has stuck in my mind is Carpetbagger.
Punchy
Jesus Christ…for the last fucking time, there WAS NO PLANNING
Here’s the money shot:
BlogR–quit posting this crap. I debunked it (with the same link and same blockquote) last week. Again…was there an attempt to plan? Yes. Was it done? NO.
Case closed. Sorry, but your ilk are incompetent boobs.
Andrew
Note to all: BlogReeder references a memo from October 2003.
It’s not “planning” if it happens after the invasion.
Larry
No. Iraq had a “stable democracy” before we invaded it. But it was an illiberal democracy, one in which the people could not force real change or get a regime change peaceably. I know of no examples of stable, liberal democracy in the Arab world, and one can only wonder how our government might have “planned” the creation of one, without any examples from history on which to base the plan. Even outside the Arab world, the failure rate for creation of new liberal democracy in the 20th century was something like eighty percent.
There wasn’t any plan because there was no vision, there was just magical thinking.
Pb
If one of the goals was to destabilize the Middle East, then why waste time planning for stability? That would be counterproductive, so Rummy didn’t do it.
Andrei
BlogReeder yet reminds us again why we need to institute the Draft.
Americans have no real sacrifice to make in this “war” that is not officially declared a War by Congress. It’s all pandering, thought experiments and divisive partisan bickering. (And I bet if BlogReeder was over there in the trneches, he’d have a new appreciation of what “planning” really means.)
As Tim pointed out previously, the Draft would bring every single issue to the political forefront: That the War on Terror is important enough to sacrifice one’s life for the cause of freedom (both ours and those we are fighting for), that taxes should be raised to pay for a real military effort in the region, and that our politicians have the political will to stand behind the policy decisions in face of elections. Policy decisions which have life or death consequences for the many Amercians who hhave to actuallly fight on the front lines.
By forcing a real discussion, asking for a resinstituion of the Draft is the kind of bluff in poker called a semi-bluff. By forcing Amercians to be faced with the potential of having their entire lives interrupted and put on the line by becoming enlisted, they are then forced into action either for or against it. If the Draft passed, we theorectically will have the troops needed to actually fight a War. If it failed, it would finally bring down all the incompetents in both the political arena and those driving mainstream war mongering like Limbaugh, Hannity and Brooks.
Andrei
trenches* and re-institution* … one of these days I’ll learn to type.
BlogReeder
Punchy, Sorry the discussion came up again. Can you find something better than what one guy said?
Tim F. I found something close.
Too bad it’s classified. :)
HyperIon
what does it say about the citizens of this country that only when *they* or *their children* are “sent off to die” can a substantive discussion occur about the war in iraq?
Andrew
That they are selfish bastards. Much like people in every country.
Say hello to the basis of capitalism.
BlogReeder
This sounds like an ad hominem logical fallacy.
I’m unqualified to discuss any Iraqi issues unless I’m over there?
Punchy
Yeah, cuz a retiring Major General in the US Army has NO credibility with respect to the military, and it’s planning. All those Generals, so prone to lying and manipulation and backstabbing.
I bet Rush Limbaugh might be a better spokesman, right? Should I find his quotes? Should I quote Hannity, too?
You Republicans are fucking sick. Anytime you’re proven wrong, it’s “he’s partisan”, or “he’s selling books” or “he’s a military guy, what could he possibly know about the military?” DougJ is right–you’re one dishonest ass, and I’m done proving you wrong.
Tim F.
Do you recall that question that you posed to me a few threads back about the Future of Iraq Working Group? You posed a good question and I answered it. The history of what happened vis a vis Iraq planning is simply no longer a secret. We already know who did what an when, all that you need to do is ask. The documentation is everywhere.
Rumsfeld’s secret memo is nothing more than cheap CYA. Try to imagine an adiministration which leaks like a sieve when it might help them politically sitting on a document which could pull their ass out of a major fire. If you can do that then you have a long way to go, padawan.
Just ask who did what and we will gladly provide you with the documentation. No need to wait for imaginary memos or antyhing.
Tsulagi
Whether there was or there wasn’t planning, you still have the same end result.
If there wasn’t any planning, then they’re derelict and retarded. Time to go. If there was planning, then they’re incompetent in their plan formulation and execution. Time to go.
The Other Steve
Fortunately you are a noted expert on the use of logical fallacy in internet discussions, so I shall take your advice on this matter with all due consideration.
RSA
This is the odd thing: the administration claims that the total disaster in Iraq was the result of planning rather than not planning? Um, okay. The only way to salvage that strategy is to keep saying that everything’s going fine in Iraq. We meant to touch off a civil war, destabilize the Middle East, and so forth.
Jess
I never quite feel up to trying to explain this because it’s one of those cases of vastly different paradigms that appear to share no common language, but let me give it a go.
In the simplist terms possible:
The reason why critics of the war point out the number of casualties and suggest that supporters should go put their asses on the line is because the people who “planned” this war and those who supported them even when it was clear that it was essentially unplanned seem to have no idea of the human cost. No understanding that their fantasies of America uber alles translates to the reality of dead loved ones and crippled bodies. I think most people in the military will tell you that it is absolutely essential that commanders never lose sight of the fact that these are human lives on the line, not chess pieces on a board. They are not tools to use to fulfill Bush’s childish fantasies of what it means to be a real man. If their lives are going to be sacrificed, it had better be absolutely fucking necessary and unavoidable. There had better be a clear point to it, and there had better be an end in sight. And as someone who has friends in the military (haven’t lost any yet, thank god, but they have lost many friends), my criticism of how this war has been conducted might not be “reasonable,” if by that you mean restrained and cautious, but it will be grounded in reason and facts, not wishful thinking, and it will be utterly merciless when confronting gross, possibly criminal, incompetence.
Does that clear up the pansy-assed, terrrorist-lovin’ liberal position on these matters for you, BlogR?
lard lad
Jess:
Nicely put. You gave me chills.
BlogReeder
Tim F., master yoda says I’m old to start the training…
I’m interested in documentation that doesn’t come from obviously biased sources. Either way, so that goes the same for anything from “Powerline”. So the link to the Future of Iraq was interesting in that it showed the planning that was available. Did Rumsfeld use it? You say no and some of the links you provide I find… disturbing… because I can see the bias right away. “Hey, he’s trying to sell a book!” or “This guys got an agenda!”
I found Global Security org hot documents . Now this seems like a non-biased source. It’s got everything on it. Still haven’t found Rumsfeld plan, though. There is a document The U.S. Military:Under Strain and at Risk that could be read as a funding request.
Anyway I don’t know how I got back to the “no planning thread”, I thought we started out different. I think what bothers me most is the mantra “We failed in Iraq” that permeates these Iraq postings. I don’t think we have yet. Yes, even after you have post after post showing the military’s mistakes and bumbling. The US had a lot of mistakes in WWII and we still won. The democrats could still cause a Vietnam by pulling funding if you guys get in control after we leave Iraq. So I could agree you’re right eventually.
And I’m still not a Republican no matter what DougJ thinks. (punchy don’t matter)
BlogReeder
Fortunately you are a noted expert on the use of logical fallacy in internet discussions
Other Steve, I’m blushing. No, it’s really Tim F. who is the expert.
Tim F.
Here you go. We got back to the ‘no planning’ thread because you brought up a mythical memo that Rumsfeld claims will exonerate him when in fact the truth is well known.
BlogReeder
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately (like before) I can’t read the whole thing because I don’t have a subscription to the NY Times. I’m still a little dubious of that one because of the source. Sorry. Right now my new best site is Global Security that I pointed to ealier. They list “lesson’s learned” documents from the various branches and other coalition members. In one of them: Third Infantry Division (Mechanized) After Action Report
Seems to be a smoking gun, right? But what does this really mean? I don’t know.
Tim F.
Look blogreeder, if you cannot handle the New York Times as a news source then you are too far gone for me to bother with.
But yes, your quote describes precisely what the rest of us have been trying to tell you. “Phase IV” describes everything that happens after the Iraq army stops fighting as an organized force, so if the Pentagon provided no Phase IV planning that means that no planning for postwar was done. Or I should say that plenty of planning for postwar Iraq was done but the Pentagon proceeded as if it did not exist.
Think about what that says about Rumsfeld’s leadership.
RSA
So what do you count as success and failure?
Tsulagi
LOL!! What that means is you have scenes after Baghdad fell of Army engineers pressed into patrolling the streets riding atop a mobile crane with it floored doing all of about 10km an hour down Baghdad boulevards while snipers are casually plinking away at them. At least the snipers were probably laughing too hard to accurately shoot at the hillbilly armor the engineers were crouched behind.
BlogReeder
Look blogreeder, if you cannot handle the New York Times as a news source then you are too far gone for me to bother with.
Ouch. Well, you may have a point since I don’t read it all the time but the articals that I do read seem biased. So there could be some sort of filtering going on, where the ones that reach my attention through other sources (left or right) are biased. IMO. Has there been a story or editorial opinion from the NY Times regarding Iraq that you haven’t agreed with?
BlogReeder
So what do you count as success and failure?
Fair enough question. Can we move this to the open thread? I could really get pounded on then.
Tim F.
I will assume that you know the difference between news and opinion journalism and dispense with the question about op-eds. Regarding news, you cannot disagree with an article simply because you do not like what it says. If the article names sources and documents its facts then it stands on its own merits. The reporting that I disagreed with, for example Judy Miller’s Iraq reportage, I disagreed with not because of its conclusions but because it represented sloppy reporting. Miller used single, anonymous sources who had obvious conflicts of interest and blatant credibility problems. At the time of her reporting you could tell that she was being (willingly) spun, and even in that light her work has not aged well.
Plenty of news reports things which I would prefer not to be true. That doesn’t mean that the source is biased, just that my preferences sometimes run counter to reality. The grown up calibrates his preferences while the immature calibrate reality.
BlogReeder
…while the immature calibrate reality
Is that where the term “reality-based” comes from? :)
Like you, I can take bad news. And like you, I look at how the story is being spun. So we’re agreed there.
Tim F.
In fact, yes. The administration has previously stated that their imperial power shapes reality to fit their preferences, in comparison with the “reality-based community” (their words) which studies reality and reacts to it. That is a fundamentally immature perspective.
BlogReeder
Something’s not right with your clothes, emperor. That’s not maturity it’s elitism, arrogance. Think about it. Once you say that you and only you speak for reality, everybody else must be delusional. How can anyone disagree with you? What an awesome power.
How would that little train get over the mountain with that attitude? The better saying is:
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can
and wisdom to know the difference.
Not that I’m getting religious on you but I think reality-based assumes wisdom.
Tim F.
Amazing. A Bush official coins the phrase ‘reality-based community’ and you reflexively blame the left. Do you have problems with reading comprehension or are you trying to annoy me?
BlogReeder
A Bush official coins the phrase ‘reality-based community’ and you reflexively blame the left
Now you got me there. I always thought it was a self-described term that the right was making fun of. I even thought I read it on a left leaning site. I had never heard of it being coined by the Bush official. Now I hope you don’t tell me that Moonbat was coined by the left to describe the right.