Richard WarnickIraq: Up-is-Downism
I read somewhere that the Bush administration’s approach to public discourse can best be described as “up-is-downism.” That is, they just say the opposite of the truth and expect to get away with it. Let’s take a quick look at some of the things they want us to believe about the occupation of Iraq.
1) Sectarian violence is down. There are differences of opinion between the GAO and the Pentagon about how many Iraqi civilian deaths are the result of sectarian conflict, however it is clear that civilian casualties have doubled in recent months. The reason for the artificial focus on sectarian violence? It’s number 13 on the list of benchmarks that President Bush agreed to last May: “Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security.”
Next week General David Petraeus is expected to tell Congress that religious and ethnic killings in Baghdad are down 75 percent compared to last December. Petraeus can only say this because he doesn’t count car bombings. It may also be due to the fact that the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad neighborhoods is almost complete by now. The number of internally displaced Iraqis is way up, many of them Sunnis thrown out of their homes in western Baghdad.
The GAO’s graph of the average daily enemy-initiated attacks indicates that June 2007 was the worst month since May 2003. The pace of attacks slackened during the hot months of July and August, but can be expected to rise again in September.
2) U.S. casualties are down. Again, this is only true if by “down” you mean “up.” Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly provides a handy graph:
As you can see, although the numbers killed in action declined in July and August, these months were worse than last year. April, May and June 2007 were the deadliest months ever for US soldiers in Iraq. You can expect casualties to go up again as the pace of enemy activity increases this month.
3) The next 3-4 months will be crucial. General Odierno says that the next three to four months will be crucial in determining whether the United States can start to withdraw troops from Iraq. Where have we heard that before? Why is it that previous “critical,” “crucial,” or even “decisive” periods in Iraq have come and gone without affecting Bush’s dedication to a costly stay-the-course occupation regardless of results?
UPDATE: The Washington Post has an article by Karen DeYoung about the systematic under counting of civilian casualties in Iraq.
September 5th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Patraeus is also not counting the number of dead bodies which has INCREASED.
The whole quantitative review begs the question the surge has ANY direct material effect on sectarian violence anyway.
Rich, you seem to be a truth seeker. Is there any evidence the surge has ANY impact on violence in Iraq anyway?
I don’t think we have enough troops making daily field trips into a few villages to effect shit one way or another.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
I predicted that the main effect of more combat operations by US forces would be to add to the general level of random chaos and violence. Especially when you consider the additional artillery and air strikes on civilian areas, that prediction has come true. It just does not seem possible that Americans can bring stability to Iraq– even in the US embassy, only a handful of people speak Arabic or have any sort of grasp of Iraqi politics.
As for the so-called Iraqi security forces, they are mostly controlled by sectarian militias, Kurdish separatists or (in the case of Al Anbar Province) insurgent groups. The GAO estimates that only 65 percent of the Iraqi Army and National Police are present for duty at any given time. There are not enough of them to hold areas secured by Americans, even if they were capable of doing so. The clearing phase was a wasted effort that cost a lot of lives.
September 5th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Re: The nuke flight exposure…The Airforce has completely lost confidence in the spuadron commanders abilities when it comes to nukes.
In other words It was the SC who blew the whistle!
Glenn, would you suppose that to be about right?
September 5th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Suppose those missles were in some loop for iran, I’m not saying they were - just supposing, and suppose that a little nuclear winter was needed to counteract the shrinking polar ice, then wouldn’t the planners of such a stupendous plan be in fact the saviors of the world.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:33 am
Cav; This is just the first time recently anyone found out. C’mon, remember the Cold War? There wasn’t a moment where SAC didn’t do what it thought necessary without the consent of civilians. 24/7/365.
Part and parcel of the naivte’ of the American public, those that might care anyway.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
SAC?
Acronyms suck!
September 6th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Did anybody consider the Possibility that American troops saved US and everybody else from nuclear winter?
Those oil fires were shut down months before anybody thought they would be, didn’t they?
September 6th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
SAC-Strategic Air Command. The nooklear boys, among other things.
Stop worrying about a few bombs in plane. We could nuke Iran from a missile command in any number of States.
We could even nuke Iran from sea, with a Trident(600 ft, 24 missiles, each with 8 *MIRV able SLBM(submarine launched ballistic missile). There are 192 nuclear warheads on one Trident submarine. When I see them pass each other up here in the Puget Sound, one going in, the other out, there is enough power in that square 1/4 mile to end ANYONES nonsense. Including our own.
Yeah, the Arabs don’t even make a toaster, and they are a threat to ending civilisation. Keep listening to the aipac lobby and we’ll nuke somebody for the bastards for sure.
*multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles. i.e space ships with a guidance system and a nuclear bomb. Go look at some up at the Thiokol facility, up there by Promontory. That’s about an hour and a half from you. Or you can look at a bunch of cool stuff, and some nuke mock up, at the FREE air museum at Hill AFB(air force base). One of the best anywhere, and FREE.
September 7th, 2007 at 2:05 am
“Those oil fires were shut down months before anybody thought they would be, didn’t they?”
I never thought I would sound like GWB, but there it is.
Let’s try this:
Those oil fires were shut down months before anybody thought they would be, weren’t they?
One of the benefits of commenting as opposed to posting, I guess.
Huh glenn?
September 7th, 2007 at 7:15 am
Shutting down the oil fires was a private activity, under the security perimeter of the military force.
I would gladly post, but it doesn’t fit in with the “agenda”.