Kevin Drum is having some fun with the Powerpoint presentation supplied by Petraeus to Congress, and singles out the alleged timeline for troop withdrawal. Amusingly enough, the timeline for withdrawal is missing one key component- an actual timeline for withdrawal. That will be decided, according to the timeline for withdrawal, in approximately one Friedman Unit (March of ’08).
If Kevin wants to get really frisky, he could look at this baby:
Check out the way IED attacks are tabulated:
Total IEDs = IEDs Explosions + IEDs found + IED hoaxes
For good clean fun at home, replace the letters IED with UFO. Hell, we can do it right here:
Total UFO’s = UFO Explosions + UFOs found + UFO hoaxes
I am betting you all did not know there were that many alien invasions in the United States last year (and no, Malkinites, I don’t mean illegal aliens).
I would submit that, if all we have access to is this chart, IED hoaxes should probably be dropped from the tally of IED attacks if we really want to know how many IED attacks there have been in the past few years, and whether or not the attacks are dropping. There may be valid reasons for including hoaxes- I don’t know. But I want to find out why. Maybe if we had access to the data, we could check that out.
Zifnab
Yeah, you would ask for the data. And you know who else would ask for the data? Osama Bin Laden. Freak’n terrorist.
demimondian
Yeahm, really. C’mon, Cole, you know that only Dems (and fifth-columnist Dem symps) want the numbers and the math. Remember, it’s Karl who has access to *the* math.
Ugh
I wonder if the supposed drop in IEDs has anything to do with the British withdrawal from Basra.
Pb
Here’s another graph… IED fatalities by month.
Tom Hilton
What constitutes an “IED hoax”, anyway? Is that like a fake bomb threat? Is it a gizmo that looks like an IED but doesn’t explode? Or is it one of the imaginary IEDs that Iran is flooding the country with? What on earth are these people talking about?
Tom Hilton
And he took it with him when he left, so they couldn’t give it to us even if they wanted to.
cleek
FYI, i fixed Petraeus’ rainbow graph
CDB
So the military got better at spotting the Real IEDs from the fakes? Experiance will do that.
Cassidy
My only guess is: Possible IED’s that are found and determined to not be one or IED’s that didn’t inititate.
Punchy
Think about this for a minute…
Hypothetical month A:
100 IEDs found + 100 exploded + 400 IED hoaxes = 600 total
Next month B
100 IEDs found + 400 exploded + 0 IED hoaxes = 500 total
Patraeus’ argument–it’s gettin safer! Look at the chart! It slopes down!
WTF?
Zifnab
Well, see now that’s the rub isn’t it? My guess would be that “IED Hoax” refers to all the times a soldier shouted “OMG! IED Guyz!” really loud into the radio, then burst into laughter.
I don’t know. You don’t know. The only people who know are the ones who tallied the report, and they don’t have to tell us anything, or provide the numbers that they used to reach their conclusions.
“IED Hoax” could refer to the number of pies Petreaus eats every day for breakfast and there’s nothing you can show me that proves that statement wrong. It could be a number that was completely fabricated in some small office at the Pentagon – kinda like “The number of WMDs in Saddam’s palace” or “The number of years we’ll be in this shithole of a civil war before a party grows the balls to take us out.”
I mean, you get what I’m saying, right Cassidy? The number could not represent anything at all. It could just be an integer between positive and negative infinity, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. We don’t know, and that’s why these graphs are so much wasted paper. The very fact that Petreaus is presenting them at all proves him for the lieing sack of shit that he is.
Cassidy
Also, the enemy has planted false IED’s, knowing that they would slow us down, etc. It takes quite a while to nuetralize an IED, and most of that is securing the area and waiting for EOD to show up.
Jake
This chart gives me a craving for freedom.
I mean Froot Loops. It makes me want Froot Loops.
Are there question marks beside some of the stars?
I’ve decided that if one of these hacks would grow a pair and say: “Look beotches, we’re in Iraq until I get a new C-i-C, so suck it!” I will at least applaud the honesty of the sentiment.
Instead we get the Technicolour DistractoVision treatment.
Fuck ’em.
Cassidy
You could very easily be right. I doubt it, but I won’t throw it out. For one, as a General Officer, Petreaus has had a long and successful career and I don’t believe for a second he would be willing to ruin that by committing perjury. I am sure that there is a source for that number. It is most likely a cherry picked source, but it’s still there.
Secondly, my judgement, based on my own experience, is the source of my comments so far. It is anecdotal and I can’t tell you how many “false” IED’s my patrols came upon, but they are there. IED’s have been disguised in ever imaginable way possible, to include dead animals and Soldiers. Theoretically, every bit of trash on the side of the road could be an IED.
cleek
i guess that settles that.
sure the source could be the RNC, or some wingnut blogger, or Rush Limbaugh’s fat ass – we’ll never know – but it’s still a source!
Punchy
Yes, fair. But how does this graph, basically adding up “Big problem + minor problem + Absolutely no prob at all” tell one about the relative safety in Iraq?
When you are adjusting 3 variables, 2 of which don’t lead to death and destruction, a drop does NOT indicate what part of the equation actually went down. Why can’t I read this to say that the insurgents just stopped planting 100 hoaxes and instead planted 75 real ones? THat would signify “progress” according to Gen P…although something tells me the dead would feel otherwise.
Cassidy
I’m not sure why this is such a disputed position. There is a source for everything. Global warming exists. Global warming doesn’t exist. Cigarettes cause cancer. Cigarettes don’t cause cancer. Abortion leads to teenage pregannacy. Etc.
Anyone can find real data to support their agenda.
chopper
this is true. and if this number has gone down, that’s great, but it means little in terms of a drop in violence or IEDs overall. that being said, it does beef up the number of soldiers who are able to work on more important things.
Tom Hilton
Well, clearly, if the insurgents are so busy planting real IEDs that they don’t have time to plant fake ones, and the overall number goes down as a consequence, the surge must be working.
Cassidy
Exactly. The numbers are based in some sort of factual data, for sure. That’s not the issue. It’s how they are being presented and how they are being filtered. Only Petreaus knows the answer to that question.
Does anyone here beleive these guys are stupid enough to just make shit up? Why fabricate evidence when you can cherry pick it to suit your conclusions?
Cassidy
Now, in a completely not agreeing with Iraq and the surge, etc. way, it is possible that the surge has worked as he’s saying it.
Anecdotally, when my unit created a position away from the FOB, deep in insurgent territory, there was a marked drop in attcks north of us, as we had cut, figuratively and literally, a transportation route for the enemy. Logically, more troops, conducting more operations, would have a detrimental effect on the insurgencies ability to move freely and plant IED’s.
chopper
two words: pat tillman.
whippoorwill
That chart is so easy to read. Really. the yellow squiggly line represent little bombs, the red squiggly line represents big bombs, and the blue squiggly means anything you want it to mean.
The Other Steve
Don’t worry, according to Cassidy all of these charts will be proven to be factual.
Patrick S Lasswell
Maybe if we had access to the data, we could check that out.
You mean this data: http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=1&id=4&Itemid=21
Or this kind of data: http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/images/Daily%20Attacks%20in%20AO%20Topeka.JPG
Or are you just looking for data that supports your argument?
Hoax IEDs are reports of bomb sites anonymously called in to draw our forces out to be ambushed. It’s a tactic the enemy uses in addition to IEDs and mortar/rocket attacks. They are worth tracking because they are indicative of the enemy’s ability to attack us.
It is disappointing that people so stridently against the war are so unwilling to learn the particulars of it. Indicates a basic lack of integrity. If the war is important enough to lose, it is important enough to learn about.
John Cole
Awesome! More charts!
Pro-tip: charts are not data.
Then they definitely should not be in the same chart as found and expoded IED’s.
Hi! I voted for Bush twice and supported the war. At this point, I think we are throwing good money and lives after bad. Why don’t you urge Petraeus to publicly release his data and the methodology for presenting his data, and prove me wrong. I would love to know we are winning.
Punchy
Hiaditha.
Bubblegum Tate
Pro tip? Are you an ex-GamePro reader or something?
John Cole
Ex?
By the way- this link is very informative and relevant to the current topic.
demimondian
Eh? What are you trying to express with that video link? Superficiality? Deception? Transient relationships based on lies?
If so, good job…
Patrick S Lasswell
John Cole,
Pro-tip: Data is not warfighting. Especially with an enemy that uses our media against us.
Defeat is an event that occurs in the mind of the enemy. There is no direct way to track defeat, all indicators are tangential.
The Iraqi’s I talked to this spring were shocked to discover that the US was about to pull the plug. We had suffered fewer casualties over four years than were inflicted on Halabja on a March morning in 1988. The survivors of that attack I talked to are utterly in favor of the war because they know the price of allowing the fascists to hold power. They know we are winning the war because intolerant jerks aren’t raining death on them.
I’m sorry that it is so unclear for you. Have you considered going to Iraq and seeing for yourself?
r4d20
The “IED Hoax” thing MAY not be a odd as it sounds.
1) A fake IED cant blow up but it can still stop and disrupt a patrol/convoy/etc. for some time. If someone spots a “possible” IED they are certainly not just going to continue walking/driving past it. First, at the very least they will have to stop and establish some sort of “perimeter security” while a new route is planned, communicated to the other vehicles/people further back, and then implemented. Second, unless they have something VERY pressing they are not just going to leave a possible IED on the side of the street, where it will be a danger to soldiers and Iraqis alike, while they move on. They are going to call in ordinance-disposal experts, wait for them to show up and protect them while they examine the device – all of this before they even know it is a fake.
If you want to slow-down some group – for example, because you heard they were coming to raid the HQ of your militia and you want more time to clean the place out – a fake IED can be as effective as a real one and both cheaper and easier to deploy at short notice.
Even if there is no specific reason to want to slow down a given patrol/convoy/etc. it STILL can be used as a form of “psychological warfare” when combined with enough real ones. I imagine it is annoying and tiring to be forced to stop again and again to deal with potential roadside bombs, and the use of fake ones is a cheap way of increasing the emotional wear on the soldiers who have to deal with this. In fact, the fake ones are probably more annoying because it would be a case of “all that effort and nothing to show for it” – finding out you spent a hour in the heat because of a hoax cant be pleasant.
Ugh
I have to say that I do love the MNF-I web page for its extremely well done propaganda. Their ability to pump out positive press release after positive press release is simply amazing, and only interrupted with the daily U.S. soldier death toll. Also, reading the press releases you would think that our operations never kill or injure innocent bystanders.*
I also love the “Freedom Facts”, “The New Face of Iraq”, and “Fight for Freedom” sections.
*I haven’t read them all so I could be wrong about this.
Cassidy
It really amazes me how you refuse to actually read anything.
Perry Como
That data is classified. If we release the data showing how awesomely the surge is “kicking ass”, it will embolden the terrorists. Why do you hate America?
Pb
Err, yeah, about that…
That must have been quite a vehicle accident… icasualties lists them as US Army in Western Baghdad, other details presumably forthcoming. Of course, this (like the helicopter accident last month) wouldn’t necessarily make it into Petraeus’ charts, because these are “Non-Hostile” deaths…
Bubblegum Tate
Wow, still? I actually worked at GamePro for a couple years (2003-2005ish). I hope you made good use of the various strategy guides, because I had to edit them, and I hated doing it. The somewhat-geeky bonus was that at the time, we also published Star Wars Insider for Lucasfilm, and I did a lot of work on that mag as well.
It had better be well-done propaganda, considering what we’re paying them!
whippoorwill
Of course the surge is working in the military sense. More US troops on the ground in a certain area equals less violence there. This has happened throughout Iraq for the past 5 years. The problem has been when US troops hand over the area to the Iraqi’s all hell breaks loose again. Now we’re being told the new strategy is to clear an area and hold. The question is for how long? The Iraqi Army has gone from several brigades to one brigade that can operate independently. And the National Police is nothing more than a large Shia death squad. The problem is not the training it’s the loyalty and determination of the Iraqi security services to a state of Iraq. And please tell me how the US military can fix that. So the question remains how long to our GI’s stay and hold an area they’ve pacified?
John Cole
Oh christ, here we go. You don’t have the data, you won’t pressure Petraeus to release his, you reject the data from the independent assessments, and instead implore me to guess as to what the enemy is thinking and how he experiences defeat in his head.
WTB Smarter Wingnuts, PST.
And no thank you, I like not being blown up. I won’t be going to Iraq any time soon.
John Cole
How about we compromise? We continue to include them in the master list, but break down the three types included so we know how many have been exploded, how many have been found, how many were hoaxes.
Zifnab
Once again, the right-winger logic seems to skip over the difference between what a word means in colloquial English and what the word happens to mean on a given bar chart. In much the same way as you guys confused “WMDs” with “Nothing”, it appears that you are falling into the trap of confusing “Hoax IEDs” with “Numbers on a piece of paper.” Whatever the military lingo for insurgent trap based on an IED happens to be, it doesn’t tell us anything about the metric for counting said traps. And as the metric for counting everything from sectarian killings to morgue head-counts to active-duty Iraqi soldiers appears to be as fluid and ephemeral as our reasons for entering the war, I haven’t seen anything to indicate that the method by which they calculate “Hoax IEDs” will give any more credible information.
For that matter, their entire IED count is similarly suspect for the exact same reasons. Congress and the American people don’t get to read how Petreaus came up with his numbers. Congress and the American people, thusly, have no way of knowing if his numbers represent actual conditions on the ground, or some cherry-picked illusion of what the White House wants us to see. Congress and the American people have no reason to believe anything presented to them.
Face
I want to be a mathematician in Bush’s Administration.
Hot Chicks Face Gets = Hot Chicks He Sees + Hot Chicks He Hopes to See + Hot Chicks That Actually Talk to Him After He Steps On Their Foot.
I foresee the result being quite high. My Hot Chick Collection is therefore, without a doubt, successful.
Pb
But if we release that classified data, then the terrorists win!
See, I have it all explained on this handy little chart:
1. Release Classified Data
2. [Redacted]
3. The Terrorists Win!
Patrick S Lasswell
John Cole,
Oh christ, here we go. You don’t have the data, you won’t pressure Petraeus to release his, you reject the data from the independent assessments, and instead implore me to guess as to what the enemy is thinking and how he experiences defeat in his head.
I trust my eyes from when I was in Kirkuk this spring. I trust my business partner from when he was in Anbar last month: http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001514.html
Or perhaps Michael Totten and I are liars about what we have seen and heard ourselves. I prefer to think of myself as a qualified observer capable of coming up with reasonable conclusions based on personal observations of facts on the ground and conversations with dozens of experienced soldiers.
Patrick S Lasswell
Pb,
2. [Redacted]
2.a. Terrorists become aware of primary tracking data points.
2.b. Terrorists ask terror financiers for money to inflate statistics
2.c. Statistics we use to track terrorist effectiveness are inflated
John Cole
No. That is called anecdotal fucking data. If I go to a whorehouse, and find 10 women willing to give me oral sex, and then talk to several other people who also tell me they found women that would provide them oral sex, that does not mean all women are going to give me oral sex. Not only is it a skewed sample, but..
Fuck it. I quit. It is pointless.
Patrick S Lasswell
John Cole,
I quit.
Bad habit to get into.
Go to Iraq, talk to the people on the ground. I can help you a lot on this. Just because data is anecdotal, doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
demimondian
What’s the perhaps about it? Perhaps you’re a liar, and perhaps you’re merely deluded?
Perry Como
Indeed. Iraqis on the ground think the surge is going very well.
alphie
Wow, small world, Patrick.
From the looks of Totten’s photos, Ramadi is now a ghost town.
Yet he claims there are over 400,000 Iraqis living there…the same number of Iraqis that lived there before our invasion.
The Other Andrew
Having lost the battle in reality, formerly subjectivity-hating conservatives have decided that subjectivity is in fact everywhere.
Toolshed
Gee Patrick,
The BBC seemed to talk to a shitload more iraqis then you could even pretend to and it seems 60% of them found attacks on our troops justified.
Who do you think you’re kidding?
alphie
Starting dates on the x-axis for Petraeus’ slide show:
Slide 2 – October, 2004
Slide 3 – January, 2006
Slide 4 – May, 2006
Slide 6 – July, 2006
Slide 7 – June, 2006
Slide 8 – August, 2006
Slide 9 – May, 2006
Slide 12 – November, 2005
That is odd.
chopper
‘anecdote’ is not the singular of ‘data’. just because your experiences are anecdotal doesn’t mean that they’re wrong, but it doesn’t mean that they’re right either when we’re talking about something as large as an occupation.
Perry Como
Everyone knows statistics have a liberal bias.
Tsulagi
LOL, that was my first thought when I saw the chart on this post. Followed by does this include all types of IEDs such as VBIEDs and EFPs? I thought one of the arguments for tagging Iran was that EFPs are manufactured, not improvised, and Iraq was being flooded with them from Iran.
Another thing, how much damage are we sustaining from the IEDs that do explode. If the bad guys are getting much more damage from fewer but nastier IEDs, that wouldn’t be a good trend line.
We’re counting hoaxes in one IED total? Along with found and exploded? Okay, so if several thousand Iraqis phoned in IED threats and those were counted, does that mean we’re really fucked because the IED total shot up?
Also, has the methodology remained constant over the period represented by the chart. For that matter, what is the methodology. Oh, that’s right, it’s classified.
Bubblegum Tate
Incidentally, Patrick, your bro-ham Michael Totten wrote an interesting piece about why a given base hadn’t been mortared in quite some time (a stat no doubt used to prove that “Teh Serg iz working!!1!!!eleven!”):
So in all your touting of “the data,” have you considered things like this? That insurgents aren’t attacking for strategic reasons? Or are you only interested in data that supports your argument?
Tsulagi
You don’t see the big picture. Plus you’re just trying to get even for a couple of war critic’s op-ed.
Wasn’t that said to seven guys who were finishing 15 months on the ground who recently wrote their views. Somehow I think they saw a little more than your drive-by and had a firmer grasp on reality. Just an anecdotal opinion.
alphie
“One of the reasons Michael and I went into business was to prove that honest people could make a decent living without distorting facts. We both worked for Enron at one time or another…”
–Patrick S Lasswell
http://www.moderaterisk.net/2007/07/
cleek
paging Scott Beauchamp.
Kathy
“Look At All the Pretty Colors”
That is exactly what I thought when I saw those slides, LOL! Couldn’t figure out what they meant, but they sure were pretty.
The Other Steve
Is this a possibility that we should consider seriously?
TenguPhule
Since nobody else said it, I will.
DAMN YOU SCOTT BEAUCHAMP!!
TenguPhule
And if we apply that standard to the Iraqis…they will never be defeated. Why does Patrick hate our troops by insisting they fight an enemy they can’t defeat according to the law of Patrick?
TenguPhule
I call bullshit on Cassidy.
Taking anything said or claimed by this Whitehouse and this military command on face value without independent confirmation is stupid. They lie under oath, they damn well will lie when not under oath too.
JR
The absurdity of this chart goes beyond the questionable methodology of including “IED hoaxes.” Just look at the numbers, Petraeus is saying that there are still somewhere above 2,000 “IED events” on a monthly basis and more than 500 a month in Baghdad.
It is pretty far from 500 bombs and bomb threats in a given city per month and “peaceful.” If a city the size of, say, Indianapolis, had stuff blowing up and people threatening to blow stuff up 500 times in the last 30 days, I would be worried about leaving my house.
And it appears that this is happening on a nationwide basis. In March there were more than 3,000 such incidents and this month there are more than 2,000. Here in the U.S., we get all fearful and nervous when we hear that some brown guys somewhere here TALKED about getting the pieces for a bomb. Imagine if that was happening 2,000 times a month and a certain percentage of those were actual bombs going off! Holy crap, would we be in a tizzy!
This is the “progress” we are making??
Don’t the war supporters even have the empathy to try to picture what it would be like to live in a city where hundreds of dead bodies are being dumped in the street every week, there are ongoing shootings and executions every day and bombs are going off all over the place?
And this doesn’t even take into consideration the occupying force we represent! All the other unbelievable violence is going on and in addition there are foreign troops knocking down doors, blocking streets, taking over large swaths of the city and shooting people at will.
Four years into this mess and these are the “good signs?” What the holy hell would “bad signs” look like? I’d love to get into a war supporter’s head so I could understand, how bad would it have to be before we aren’t “making progress?” Can they give any sort of cognizant answer on what “failure” looks like if this is “success?” How bad would it have to be for things not to be working in their mind? What threshold has to be passed before they would declare this isn’t working? And what would life in Baghdad look like for those poor people in that scenario?
And how far have they moved those goalposts in their own minds since this mess started? 500 IED events a month in the capital city four years into the war is pretty frickin’ far from “being greeted with chocolates and roses” and “plazas and streets named after George W. Bush” and a stable, functional democracy.
Matthew Stinson
John, I agree with you that it’d be better to see the chart plotted with a narrower data set.
That said, contra the best and brightest commenters here, it’s almost impossible to imagine that a decline in fake IEDs are responsible for the downward slope in the slide. Fake IEDs are “real” insomuch as the enemy really uses them to divert and confuse coalition forces. As you know, one of Kevin Drum’s commenters gives a good historical example of this from World War II. People calling “bullshit” on the idea of fake IEDs need to stop thinking like political guerillas and start thinking like a real guerilla.
If the general is going to be faulted here, it’s not for grouping too many data points together but for his time window, which shows a decline, while the larger overall trends in the IED casualties graph (helpfully linked by one of your commenters above) shows a cyclical pattern of IED attacks that seem to peak every six months before falling off. The general could say that the surge is affecting the rate of IED attacks if we can revisit the issue in January and still see a negative slope on the graph. I’d wager the graph would be positive again by that time, however.
Sapper
I am a Combat Engineer presently stationed in Baghdad. It’s my job to look for IEDs in the AO. We take hoax IEDs seriously because they are still considered “contact” with the enemy. Insurgents us hoaxes to stop patrols to shoot at them with RPGs and small arms fire or other wise gauge a coalition patrols reaction. A Hoax can as simple as water bottles painted green to look like artillery rounds and then have wires sticking out of the top. My platoon has never found a hoax but other platoons in my company have.
Cassidy
Yawn…shrug…okay
It’s an opinion. As I’ve said before, while I may not agree with the data presented or the filter used to present it, I seriously doubt a General, at the end of his carer, is going to commit perjury.
jake
You’re being too hasty TF.
The WH numbers could well be based on the factual data in that the WH looked at the actual data to determine what it didn’t want in the report. For example, if they wanted to show civilian casualties are down they could look at the tally and decide that they didn’t want to count people blown up by car/truck bombs.
Get it?
As a side note and completely OT. If I could, I would pimp slap the folks who refuse to figure out embedded links. Click on the little >> box at the top left of the comments box. Do you see that box labeled Link? Do you see it? You’ll also notice the handy dandy blockqoute box (B-Quote).
Cassidy
Essentially, if forced, hypothetically, the WH and Petreaus would be able to present a source for the report. MOst sne people would probably be dumbfounded, but it would be sourced nonetheless. Like I said earlier, why lie, when you can cherry-pick data.
Barry
Cassidy Says:
“For one, as a General Officer, Petreaus has had a long and successful career”
Long, yes. Successful at getting promoted, yes. Accomplishing the alleged mission, not so much.
“and I don’t believe for a second he would be willing to ruin that by committing perjury. ”
How the h*ll would committing perjury for Bush ruin somebody’s career? Even the one guy who got caught and convicted hasn’t suffered worth jack.
“I am sure that there is a source for that number. It is most likely a cherry picked source, but it’s still there.”
Well, as long as there does exist a source, I guess we’re seeing the truth. And cherry-picking must give that source extra fruity truthiness.
chopper
exactly. there are people lined up around the block willing to go to bat for this administration. because membership has its privileges.
Blue Sun
Whenever the police in a major city put a strong and visible force out on the streets where drugs are sold, the area quiets down. Some dealers just wait it out, while others merely move to where the police aren’t.
Two years ago, we were being told that most of Iraq’s provinces were pretty stable, and only several Sunni provinces, primarily Anbar, were where all the statistics came from.
Now, the 9 Shi’ite provinces in the south have hotted up – and the last 5500 Brits have now retreated to the Basra airport, where they are holed up while they evacuate.
Violence in the north has increased, too. Witness August’s four carbombs near Mosul that killed some 575 members of a minority Kurdish religious sect called the Yazidis. Sunni insurgents (our allies du jour) are generally believed to be behind the attacks.
We should remember the sobering fact that asymmetrical guerilla war is not won or lost with statistics of enemy killed or territory pacified. Vietnam taught us that lesson at great cost. Guerilla war ebbs and flows, as the guerillas react and adapt to our changing tactics.
Mao Zedong described the guerilla’s tactics succinctly when he said:
“When the enemy advances, withdraw; when he stops, harass; when he tires, strike; when he retreats, pursue.”
Lastly, while Petraeus and Bush and their followers are gloating over the statistics in al Anbar province, here are several reality checks to consider:
1) Anbar represents only about 3% of Iraq’s total population.
2) Even so, some 25% of Americans killed in Iraq in July were killed in Anbar – so, though it is safer than it was last year, it is still the most dangerous place per capita for Americans with the possible exception of Baghdad proper.
3) The Sunni tribal warlords who were fighting us last year are exploiting our tardy realization that the Shi’ites in the central government are basically pro-Iranian and have no interest in a unity government, combined with Bush’s need to re-paint this war as the U.S. against al Qaeda. They are doing what the Shi’ites were doing last year – playing along with the Americans to get weapons, training, and funding. In the short run, they get rid of an annoying rival, the couple thousand fighters in the surrogate al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Meanwhile, their long term goal is to arm themselves for the real struggle against the Shi’ites when we leave – be it tomorrow or five years from now.
We have now managed to arm all sides in this civil war – good going.
4) Nobody in Iraq wants al Qaeda in Mesopotamia to have a destabilizing presence in their country. If we left today, Sunnis, Shi’ites, Kurds, Marsh Arabs and everybody else in the country would swat them out of existence. They would have enthusiastic support in this from the Saudis, Jordan, Syria, and Iran, none of whom want Salafist radicals in their vicinity.
Blue Sun
I’m sure Petraeus remembers all too well what telling a truth the administration did not want to hear did for General Shinseki’s career.
Blue Sun
zifnab posted:
While the effect of the Tet offensive in Vietnam on America’s support of the war is still hotly debated, IMO, there was one critical reason it played an instrumental part in our disillusionment.
At the time of the Tet attack, we had been fed phony, grossly inflated figures of VC bodycounts by the military and the administration for years. When some 100,000 VC who had been removed from MACV’s Order of Battle as KIAs suddenly came back to life and attacked us all over the country, millions of Americans finally became aware of how egregiously our military and civilian leaders had been lying to us about the progress of the war.
I think that, though Tet was a strictly military defeat for the VC, it was a victory in the larger war. After the war, during negotiations on MIAs, American Colonel Harry G. Summers was in Hanoi. There he had an exchange with his counterpart, Vietnamese Colonel Tu. Summers said, “You know, you never beat us on the battlefield.” Colonel Tu responded, “That may be so, but it is also irrelevant.”
Here we are more than 40 years later still trying to fit asymmetric guerilla wars into our conventional military mentality.
TenguPhule
That doesn’t stop this administration, now does it?
Rumple
So all we need to do is make is fill the country up with soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder. If there’s no room to move around there’s no room to be an insurgent. War solved.
Rumple
You’re right, it doesn’t mean that it is wrong. What it does mean is that we have no real way of being sure that it is right OR wrong without actual hard data to show us one way or the other.
an individuals observations have value for a person, in a place, at a time…maybe. That is all that you can really say without more to go on.
Have you ever read accident reports from multiple people observing the same accident? I go through them every day, have seen thousands of them in my life, and I nearly never read two that describe the same event in the same way. I have seen maybe a dozen examples of matching observational data in my entire career.
This doesn’t mean that this type of data has no value, only that the value is extremely limited and requires other sources to verify how the events actually took place. So we do scientific testing on the objects involved in the accident to get hard data and use the observational data only to back up the real data.
It would be nice if we would treat this war with the same level of importance and care as a damned fender bender.