Is the surge a success?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


No, we do not choose the seeds themselves, only where they are planted. Are you saying that the Americans made the people of Iraq?

No. Again setting aside that I think the analogy is dumb, I figured the seeds were "the seeds of democracy" or somesuch. After all, we're not growing people. We're trying grow democracy, no?

Are you saying that the people of Iraq are naturally unable to govern themselves? That's pretty autocratic.

No, I didn't say that. They are struggling to, which is understandable given the history and makeup of the country (things our government didn't have the first ****ing clue about when we decided to invade, btw). Furthermore, we want them to govern themselves in a manner that mimics the way we govern ourselves - which isn't quite the same as saying "govern yourselves."

It takes time. I believe I even cautioned everyone that an invasion would mean a long term obligation on the part of Americans, which is why I objected to both the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Once the US went, they took on the obligation of fixing things as best as they can.

Absolutely agreed. Which is on of the main reasons why I was against the Iraq war. I saw little alternative to Afganistan, despite the obvious downside.

I even made an analogy to India. It took Britain 100 years to instil democracy in India. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither will Iraq. We are seeing improvements as time goes on, which is the most important thing. Despite Oerdin's blindness, things are improving in Iraq. Just because the job is not yet done is not an excuse for saying the job cannot be done.

We've seen improvement over the past year... after several years of deterioration. Things were awful for several years, and now things are improving. I think it's just a tad premature to get all triumphant (which is what many people are doing). This could very well turn out to be a blip... after all, you're the one talking about 100 years.

The Brits shouldn't have been ruling India for 100 years in the first place, Ben. Frankly, that it took them 100 years to instill democracy should tell you something: imposing on a foreign culture it is terrifically hard.

-Arrian

[Ramo]

I didn't choose any period of time

I meant to refer to the asymmetry between 2005 and 2006, not 2007 and 2008.

And yes, you did. I said late 2005/early 2006. You chose to include more of 2006 than 2005, and then told me that I "didn't do the math." If the distribution were more symmetric, the 2005/6 number would be lower.

You said that, not me. Now, there is no reason to do that comparison regardless given Oeridn's parameters, but when I humor you by using your own stated parameters and you fail anyway don't blame me.

Wrong. This is what I said first (as Aggie quoted right before your post): "Late 2005/early 2006 is the period (i.e. that just preceding the al-Askariyah Mosque bombing) that the past few months' violence most resembles." I omitted the parenthesis the second time since I qualified the time period the first time.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Arrian


No, Sloww, that's not what I'm saying. Nice try, though.

I'm saying we shouldn't have gone in the first place. Saddam was contained - he wasn't a threat and I said so at the time, and the facts have borne that out. Invading and taking out Saddam made us responsible for helping the Iraqis through the aftermath. I don't think that invading, knocking off Saddam, and immediately leaving would have been morally right. The chaos would likely have been worse and the end result would almost assuredly have been a bloody sectarian war that ends with a new Saddam in command.

-Arrian

What does the word "contained" mean to you?
I can't imagine the definition in regard to Hussein. If so, you're very easy to please.

[Patroklos]

And yes, you did. I said late 2005/early 2006. You chose to include more of 2006 than 2005, and then told me that I "didn't do the math." If the distribution were more symmetric, the 2005/6 number would be lower.

1.) No, I didn't. You entered this thread in defense of Oerdin, and have yet to seperate yourself from his insanity. He clearly said 2006. There is no reason to include any of 2005, but if we are going to we certainly are not going to include more of it than 2006.

2.) There is no symmetry in the time periods you want compared given the original framing of the debate, which you defend.

Wrong. This is what I said first (as Aggie quoted right before your post): "Late 2005/early 2006 is the period (i.e. that just preceding the al-Askariyah Mosque bombing) that the past few months' violence most resembles." I omitted the parenthesis the second time since I qualified the time period the first time.

Unfortunelty you did it while still defending Oerdin original statement. So you are admitting that Oeridn was absolutely wrong in his assesment and want to frame your position on your words alone? Was that so hard?

Now, the fact that current numbers resemble 2005 is irrelevant to the point of the surge. It was supposed to reduce violence from pre surge levels (early 2007), that it went much further than that and has reached (and continues to decline) 2005 levels is not a critisism.

[Ben Kenobi]

This could very well turn out to be a blip... after all, you're the one talking about 100 years.

It wouldn't surprise me. After all, the US is still in Germany and that was 65 years ago that the war ended.

The Brits shouldn't have been ruling India for 100 years in the first place, Ben. Frankly, that it took them 100 years to instill democracy should tell you something: imposing on a foreign culture it is terrifically hard.

Democracy isn't easy. The good thing about India is that it was successful. Elsewhere, as in most of Africa, the independence experiment has been an unremitted failure. I can't name one state since independence that has not suffered from a military junta.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


What does the word "contained" mean to you?
I can't imagine the definition in regard to Hussein. If so, you're very easy to please.

He was not a threat to our national security. Further, he was not a threat to regional security (other states in the ME), because he had been rather thoroughly stomped, by the original Bush v. Saddam war and via sanctions and inspections. That is not to say the sanctions/oil-for-food/inspections were all that good: they weren't. However, the invasion was utterly unecessary. Having gone and done it, we took on responsibilities that meant we couldn't just go in, bomb the **** out of 'em, kill Saddam and bail. We had to then do this stuff called "nation building" which dear leader was (correctly! Stopped clocks and all that) dubious of back in 2000.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


It wouldn't surprise me. After all, the US is still in Germany and that was 65 years ago that the war ended.

Do you really see much similarity between Germany and Iraq? Because I see a ton of differences.

Democracy isn't easy.

No, it's not.

The good thing about India is that it was successful.

It's a good thing that India is democratic. I wouldn't go so far as to say that British rule in India was successful.

Elsewhere, as in most of Africa, the independence experiment has been an unremitted failure. I can't name one state since independence that has not suffered from a military junta.

Meaning what, exactly? Colonialism > Independence? And what do you mean by calling independence an "experiment?" Surely the natural state of African peoples was independence, not colonial rule...

-Arrian

[Ramo]

No, I didn't.

Yes, you did. Here is what you wrote:

I figured youhad already done the math, but I guess not.

You are wrong.

Regarding "defending Oerdin," I expressed exactly how I felt about this argument when in my first post about it. I don't have anything more to add.

It was supposed to reduce violence from pre surge levels (early 2007), that it went much further than that and has reached (and continues to decline) 2005 levels is not a critisism.

What's amusing is that, unless you believe one or two month averages are a good way to define the security situation, you just did what you accused Oerdin of ("blatantly lying"). The web site you're using doesn't have numbers for Jan and Feb (which are likely to be much lower than the rest of the given the apparent correlation between civilian fatalities and ISF fatalities), but if you look at the March to June period, the 2008 numbers are almost 40% higher than the 2005 numbers. As I was saying, the difference is likely to be even greater if the first two months were included. By contrast, there was only a 20% increase (edit: that should be decrease) from 2006 to 2008. So Oerdin was roughly twice as accurate as you.

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you really see much similarity between Germany and Iraq? Because I see a ton of differences.

Sonderweg or "special path".

Up until 1945, Germany's entire experience with democracy lasted from 1919 to 1933. That's 14 years of democracy.

Add to that the very recent unification, as compared to Britain and France, and you've got an explosive mixture.

It's a good thing that India is democratic. I wouldn't go so far as to say that British rule in India was successful.

India is prosperous, as a result of the Raj. Britain improved the infrastructure in India, and brought about a workable system for national unity.

Meaning what, exactly? Colonialism > Independence? And what do you mean by calling independence an "experiment?" Surely the natural state of African peoples was independence, not colonial rule...

If that were so, we would have seen a rebellion sweep across Africa demanding independence. That was not the case. Instead we saw Britain and France relinquish all of their colonial appanages within the span of 10 years between 1955 and 1965, leading to massive regional upheaval.

India was much more managed. They had reliable and effective leadership in place.

Democracy can be sustained if derived from the desire of the people, but I don't see a significant outcry in the form of rebellion from the people of africa, who for the most part have been betrayed by their leadership.

I see no reason why democracy cannot be successful in Africa, but I don't feel that the sudden independence was helpful to them acquiring the experience necessary for a successful democracy.

[Patroklos]

What's amusing is that, unless you believe one or two month averages are a good way to define the security situation, you just did what you accused Oerdin of ("blatantly lying"). The web site you're using doesn't have numbers for Jan and Feb

Of what, 2005. Irrelevant to both you and Oerdin's point.

The web browsing abilities of you an Oerdin are truly disappointing. Every month is available Ramo, may I introduce you to the hyperlink.

There is no munipulation of the numbers that makes Oerdin right. You, since you seem to think any random grouping of months is a valid comparison, can go back as far as you need to. However, the further you have to go back (2005 at least), the more you illustrate the level of success the surge already achieved (which continues to increase). As it looks right now (which can change), you have to go back to at least March 05 to find a month less deadly than civilians than this month.

While you are looking feel free to note that ISF casualties are down from 2005 as well. Is there any metric that doesn't totally debunk you and Oerdin?

I will also note while reading the details on Iraqi civilan deaths case by case, a lot of them are indistiquishable from normal crime, which is why I asked that question earlier. Iraq has a natural crime rate like any other, how good are we at culling that out?

[Imran Siddiqui]

India is prosperous, as a result of the Raj. Britain improved the infrastructure in India, and brought about a workable system for national unity.

Britain also gutted the national industries when they took over (and a product of colonization.. can't have the colony make finished goods). Who knows how India would have come without that?

[Ramo]

The web browsing abilities of you an Oerdin are truly disappointing. Every month is available Ramo, may I introduce you to the hyperlink.

Are you blind? Look at the Jan and Feb 2005 listing and the Civ column. It says N/A. Which means either they don't have the data or that it's small.

[Ramo]

Of what, 2005. Irrelevant to both you and Oerdin's point.

No, it's not. This is what you wrote:

It was supposed to reduce violence from pre surge levels (early 2007), that it went much further than that and has reached (and continues to decline) 2005 levels is not a critisism.

[Patroklos]

So now you want to use early 2005 too? What happened to "late 2005/early 2006?" Sorry Ramo, you have been placated enough. By any comparison of 2008 to corresponding months in any year data is availabe, violence is lower. Even when I use your arbitrary comparisons, violence is still lower.

[Ramo]

So now you want to use early 2005 too? Sorry Ramo, you have been placated enough. By any comparison of 2008 to corresponding months in any year data is availabe, violence is lower. Even when I use your arbitrary comparisons, violence is still lower.

You're going schizo on me. You claimed that violence is at 2005 levels. I repeat, that is twice as wrong a claim as Oerdin statement.