Interesting Analysis of Loss of Support for Iraq War

[GePap]

I think its the multiple false starts.

Capturing Saddam was supposed to end the insurgency.

It didn't.

Passing soverignty back to Iraqis was supposed to end the insurgency.

It didn't.

The Elections were supposed to end the insurgency.

It didn't.

If and when Zarquawi is caught, THAT supposedly will end the insurgency.

It won't.

So, just when are the American people supposed to tell victory? Its been two years of sunny optism from the admin. met only by an ever upward creeping body count.

I think the worst part of the insurgency is not even the deaths, but the fact no one feels safe to spend the billions needed to rebuild Iraq faster- most of the money allocated has not been spent, letting things stagnate.

[lord of the mark]

Ramo - that goes straight from November to March - did Gallup not poll the question in late January or early Feb? Im quite sure there was a spike in support then. Other than that the numbers are consistent with what I said.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
So, just when are the American people supposed to tell victory? Its been two years of sunny optism from the admin. met only by an ever upward creeping body count.

the cumulative body count will creep upwards if even one Iraqi a week is killed by insurgents. If thats the standard, the insurgency wont be "beaten" for 4 or 5 years, I think. Whats happening with the body count in the Islamic insurgency in Thailand? The Phillipines? Algeria. Increasing, surely. We can make a lot of progress in the next 12 months, but id be very surprised if the insurgents were killing less than say 1 iraqi a week by June of 2006.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


the cumulative body count will creep upwards if even one Iraqi a week is killed by insurgents. If thats the standard, the insurgency wont be "beaten" for 4 or 5 years, I think. Whats happening with the body count in the Islamic insurgency in Thailand? The Phillipines? Algeria. Increasing, surely. We can make a lot of progress in the next 12 months, but id be very surprised if the insurgents were killing less than say 1 iraqi a week by June of 2006.

What insurgency in Algeria? That ended a few years ago, after 100,000 dead plus.

The Phillipinnes troubles have been going on for MORE THAN 30 YEARS.

And I have no clue about Thailand.

All of which are irrelevant, as they do not feature US troops there.

I seriously doubt the vast mayority of the people who supported this war, people who did it because of the supposed threat possed by Saddam, trully expected the US to be there for this long. Those people went in to make sure the WMD's were not in the hands of terrorist. There were no WMD's. Why then should they endlessly continue to support this enterprise when it was not what they wanted?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


What insurgency in Algeria? That ended a few years ago, after 100,000 dead plus.

"2005-06-21 Africa: North
Algeria violence claims army troops
Two army troops were killed and 13 others injured in fighting in western Algeria, reports said Tuesday. French-language daily Le Soir D'Algerie reported that the casualties occurred in the region of Kabael when explosive charges allegedly planted by armed Islamic groups blew up cutting through army patrols combing the area. The Salafi Group for Daawa and Fighting, one of Algeria's most feared groups, is known to be quite active in Kabael. In another incident, security forces rounded up 21 people in the province of Saida, 250 miles west of Algiers, on charges of offering support to armed groups, including laundering money. "


Now that was on the 21st. On the 20th we get the following:

"More casualties in Algeria violence
Three members of Algerian security forces and an Islamic gunman were killed and two civilians were kidnapped by armed groups, officials said Monday. A security source said Monday that a land mine planted by Islamic armed groups blew up under a police vehicle in the province of Galfa, 187 miles south of Algiers, killing two policemen and injuring three others. In another incident, army troops clashed with Islamist gunmen as they were patrolling an area in the same province Saturday. A soldier and a gunman were killed. The source said an armed group kidnapped two civilians at a roadblock in the province of Boumedras in eastern Algeria. The gunmen posing as security forces snatched the men from their car and took them to an unknown destination. "

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

All of which are irrelevant, as they do not feature US troops there.

Right, which means that the key question in Iraq is the progress of training and equipping Iraqi forces. According to Sen Joe Biden, (D-Del) there are now about 5,000 troops who are capable of fighting effectively without US advisors or backup, another 70,000 or so who are trained and equipped but still need US advisors and back up (army and NG, excluding police, i think). IIUC he stated that there would be 160,000 or so effective Iraqi troops within 2 years.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Another point is that the Bushies have to actually talk about the war, instead of people opposing the war or libruls or anything but the war.

If they're upbeat in their pronouncements, they look clueless in view of the random carnage and lack of control. If they're negative, that hits home and they get hammered for that.

Yep. Without being able to demonize the crazy lefties, people just see the results and they don't like what they see. I think the point is that most people don't like to be told that they are lumped in with the anarchists and commies on the left and without the ability to demonize, you don't get that 'your either with us or against us' stuff which does seem to work.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Right, which means that the key question in Iraq is the progress of training and equipping Iraqi forces. According to Sen Joe Biden, (D-Del) there are now about 5,000 troops who are capable of fighting effectively without US advisors or backup, another 70,000 or so who are trained and equipped but still need US advisors and back up (army and NG, excluding police, i think). IIUC he stated that there would be 160,000 or so effective Iraqi troops within 2 years.

Which makes you wonder why, four years after we invaded Iraq, we will have a trained army less than half the size of saddam's forces before we invaded.

There are many questions you miss, like for example, the status of the 100,000 strong Peshmerga, which remains intact, or the Shia Militias which also remain armed.

As for Algeria, I was not aware the violence continued, which should actually be a sad sign, since Algeria certainly has a large trained and standing army and after 13 years they have been unable to quelch the violence, even with extreme brutality at times.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap


"Which makes you wonder why, four years after we invaded Iraq, we will have a trained army less than half the size of saddam's forces before we invaded."

Im NOT defending the competence of everything that was done in Iraq.


Though it should be added that Saddams force was hardly a competent force through and through. Im not sure we wont have a more effective, but smaller force. Different military models, I think - iraq still followed the old Soviet approach of lots of large formations.


"There are many questions you miss, like for example, the status of the 100,000 strong Peshmerga, which remains intact, or the Shia Militias which also remain armed."


IIUC there was an agreement on the Peshmerga, that they would be integrated into a regionally controlled national guard. There is of course much I dont cover. Im making a broad picture, not giving every bit of news from Iraq. Thats the advantage of having different people post, it gives us a fuller picture.


"As for Algeria, I was not aware the violence continued, which should actually be a sad sign, since Algeria certainly has a large trained and standing army and after 13 years they have been unable to quelch the violence, even with extreme brutality at times."

Sad? Im more grimly resolved than sad. Its certainly a sign of how difficult it is to completely end a radical Islamist insurgency, even when the people overwhelmingly hate it. OTOH its also a sign that such an insurgency CAN be reduced to a level where the local security forces can at least contain it, life can go on, and folks who dont watch these things closely arent even aware it exists. My point being, that we will likely reach a stage where the Iraqi insurgency is no more threatening than the Algerian insurgency, and is equally contained by local forces, well before the body count stops creeping upward. I guess im searching for a victory metric thats somewhere between Cheneys "we killed a bunch of bad people - YAY!" and a zero level of insurgent activity.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Though it should be added that Saddams force was hardly a competent force through and through. Im not sure we wont have a more effective, but smaller force. Different military models, I think - iraq still followed the old Soviet approach of lots of large formations.

Which if the issue were foreign wars might matter, but the issue if an internal insurgency, and large formations are useful in such a conflict.

IIUC there was an agreement on the Peshmerga, that they would be integrated into a regionally controlled national guard. There is of course much I dont cover. Im making a broad picture, not giving every bit of news from Iraq. Thats the advantage of having different people post, it gives us a fuller picture.

And the fact that regional ethnic militias are being retained is a sign that worries me greatly.

Sad? Im more grimly resolved than sad. Its certainly a sign of how difficult it is to completely end a radical Islamist insurgency, even when the people overwhelmingly hate it. OTOH its also a sign that such an insurgency CAN be reduced to a level where the local security forces can at least contain it, life can go on, and folks who dont watch these things closely arent even aware it exists.

The algerian insurgents udnermined themselves through immense brutality far greater than that of the insurgents. As of yet the insurgents are suing bombings, including attackes meant to fuel secterian hatred, but they haven't gotten to the wholesale massacre of villagers like in Algeria.

My point being, that we will likely reach a stage where the Iraqi insurgency is no more threatening than the Algerian insurgency, and is equally contained by local forces, well before the body count stops creeping upward. I guess im searching for a victory metric thats somewhere between Cheneys "we killed a bunch of bad people - YAY!" and a zero level of insurgent activity.

Algeria's insurgency was and is directed against an established and powerful state, not a non-existant state. That makes it different.

Besides, the insurgency's greatest threat is not itself or even the victory of some sunni militant regime, which is the least likely outcome, but in creating a vaccuum that becomes even more conducive to secterian violence and the disintegration of the state.

[MrFun]

Re: Interesting Analysis of Loss of Support for Iraq War

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
which means the Bushies don't have a domestic strawman on which to fix their typical "with us or against us," "they hate America" rhetoric.

You might want to take this statement back after reading the article linked below.

Scapegoating Concerned Democrats

[GePap]

So the whole of Washington currently is involved in mock outrage week?

God, what a bunch of imbeciles.

I don't give a **** what Karl Rove says to a bunch of republican donors, anymore than I thought what Durbin said was in any way wrong.

I prefer to save my invective for imbecilic policies that actually hurt people, not rhetorical flourishes.

[MrFun]

Did you hear how Kennedy lambasted Rumsfeld? Did that happened just earlier today?

[GePap]

Yes. I would lambast that arrogant asswipe if I were in the Senate, but that is not news.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by GePap


I prefer to save my invective for imbecilic policies that actually hurt people, not rhetorical flourishes.

I think you underestimate the power of rhetoric.