The General Petraeus Report (stream link & discussion)

[Patroklos]

So it is your opinion that the government officials (specifically the general and ambassador - obviously not any of those damned Democrats) are the only ones who really know what is going on

Yes, and the ones who work amongst them.

and are the only ones qualified to interpret the data for the rest of us little people?

No, but given the data we know, especially what they presented, there is little more than hackery (or an ideological difference, if you just want out do numbers matter at all?) that could make you come to a conclusion counter than what they just did.

As if their picture was rosy anyways. That’s how sad this is, all they said was progress was being made (the truth) and future progress probable but over a long time frame (I have always said at least a decade) and some how this gets turned into "mission accomplished" as Kid would say.

[Ramo]

Both of these things, specifically mentioned, are happening so to say "none of this has happened" is false.

The reports basically all say that sectarian violence in Iraq has remained constant. If Petraeus doesn't, he's the outlier, not McClatchy. As for basic services, I do know that the AP has reported decreases in electricity and petroleum production relative to the Summer of last year.

This is weak, dude.

He was exactly talking about revenue sharing and amnesty.

Can you get a little more ambigous, please. I still can make out the words you're using...

Have you listened to any Democratic lawmaker speak in the last two weeks?

This is relevant because McClatchy = anonymous Dem Congressman?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I have always said at least a decade

A decade isn't good enough. No one in America wants to maintain a troop presence there for that long, especially because of the casualties we're taking now, and especially becase we were initially told we'd be in and out in no time.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Ramo
Incidentally, there's another assessment coming from the Pentagon that goes further than Jones

It looks to me like the rear guard action in the congress against fighting a proper counterinsurgency is proving unsuccessful. I expected this lack of success, but am surprised to see it conceded even before Petraeus' testimony has been completed.

Seems likely at this point that the Petraeus view will set the agenda.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Lorizael


A decade isn't good enough. No one in America wants to maintain a troop presence there for that long, especially because of the casualties we're taking now, and especially becase we were initially told we'd be in and out in no time.

That's why it is the "left's" fault. You won't stay long enough to get the job done.

When this cluster**** ends badly (and it will) you will be to blame.

[Ramo]

The trend in sectarian violence is the most blatant. "Civilian deaths haven't decreased in any significant way across the country...despite military assertions to the contrary." They say it themselves. Then they say the military didn't provide numbers, which of course Petreaus did.

Wow, what an incredible act of intellecutal dishonesty. Here's what the article ACTUALLY said:

Civilian deaths haven't decreased in any significant way across the country, according to statistics from the Iraqi Interior Ministry, and numbers gathered by McClatchy Newspapers show no consistent downward trend even in Baghdad, despite military assertions to the contrary.

Lame

[Patroklos]

Can you get a little more ambigous, please. I still can make out the words you're using...

What is ambiguous about the "revenue sharing" and limited amnesty?"

Since you didn't actually watch it, for you (I finally tracked down some text).

tp://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap...s/5123152.html

On revenue sharing...

"Unlike our states, Iraqi provinces have little ability to generate funds through taxation, making them dependent on the central government for resources. The growing ability of the provinces to design and execute budgets and the readiness of the central government to resource them are success stories.

On Sept. 5, for example, Iraq's senior federal leadership traveled to Anbar where they announced a 70 percent increase in the 2007 provincial capital budget, as well as $50 million to compensate losses incurred by Anbaris in the fight against al-Qaida."

"The 2007 governmental budget allocated $10 billion, nearly one-third of Iraq's expected oil export revenue, to capital investment. Over $3 billion was allocated to the provinces in the Kurdish region for spending.

The latest data show that the national ministries and provincial councils have proceeded to commit these funds at more than twice the rate of last year."

[Patroklos]

Wow, what an incredible act of intellecutal dishonesty. Here's what the article ACTUALLY said:

And that does not contridict the militay how? Yeah exactly

Stop grasping at straws. You posted an article from before the testimony and it is outdated, get over it. Read the testimony and return when you know what your talking about.

[Patroklos]

A decade isn't good enough. No one in America wants to maintain a troop presence there for that long, especially because of the casualties we're taking now, and especially becase we were initially told we'd be in and out in no time.

I didn't say otherwise. Agathon thinks I did because I am a "militarist" apparently, but hey when did what I actually say matter?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I didn't say otherwise. Agathon thinks I did because I am a "militarist" apparently, but hey when did what I actually say matter?

For the sake of clarification, do you support continued military presence in Iraq? If so, what actions would you advocate to ensure we aren't there for a decade?

[Wezil]

Kill 'em all.

I'm going to watch Borat again.

[Ramo]

11-09-2007 14:11
#112
Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote:
Can you get a little more ambigous, please. I still can make out the words you're using...


What is ambiguous about the "revenue sharing" and limited amnesty?"

Since you didn't actually watch it, for you (I finally tracked down some text).

tp://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/a...cs/5123152.html

On revenue sharing...

"Unlike our states, Iraqi provinces have little ability to generate funds through taxation, making them dependent on the central government for resources. The growing ability of the provinces to design and execute budgets and the readiness of the central government to resource them are success stories.

On Sept. 5, for example, Iraq's senior federal leadership traveled to Anbar where they announced a 70 percent increase in the 2007 provincial capital budget, as well as $50 million to compensate losses incurred by Anbaris in the fight against al-Qaida."

"The 2007 governmental budget allocated $10 billion, nearly one-third of Iraq's expected oil export revenue, to capital investment. Over $3 billion was allocated to the provinces in the Kurdish region for spending.

The latest data show that the national ministries and provincial councils have proceeded to commit these funds at more than twice the rate of last year."

The Kurds are already part of the gov't, a pivotal member of the ruling coalition with plenty of oil in their own province. They were always going to get their bacon. Anbar is ~5% of the Iraqi population. 5% of the capital budget is $500 million. Accoring to stories elsewhere, the increase in the Anbar budget is $70 million. That makes the total Anbar capital budget $170 million. In other words, they're only getting 1/3 of what their population warrants. If you want to include the AQ related expenses (something the other Sunni provinces are not getting), that only goes up to less than 1/2. So, no, a non-legislative/constitutional solution is not going to be effecitve.

[Ramo]

And that does not contridict the militay how? Yeah exactly

That doesn't contradict all four other assessments. That was the question Like I said, weak.

Incidentally, the McClatchy data (if you look at the charts) shows violence in Baghdad going down. Whether you want to call the decrease consistent or not is an irrelevant question, and certainly not a serious reason to doubt McClatchy's numbers.

Hell, my own argument took for granted that violence in Baghad went down (I would assume that truth is somewhere near the average of all the estimates). You're the one grasping at straws...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos
It does make me academically honest. And not a hack, hack.

Actually it doesn't. You're being obtuse, blaming for something you know I haven't done. You aren't honest in the least bit.

[Ramo]

Incidentally, there was a discussion of Iraqi troops taking over combat ops. Matt Yglesias points out something interesting about one of Petraeus' graphs:



That shows some progress... except that category IV has questionable meaning. The "progress" is 20k non-fighting troops. At this rate, we'll have a functioning army in a few decades....

On the important categories (particularly the first two), there has been stagnation over the past several months. Hell, the current situation including category IV is virtually identical to the beginning of May. According to his own metrics, the progress during the several months before the surge started was much more meaningful than the several months afterwards.