2007-04-02

McCain vs. CNN's Ware: Is Baghdad Safer?

BLIZTER: Sen. John McCain, a Republican presidential candidate speaking here in The Situation Room within the past hour. Let’s go live to Baghdad right now. CNN’s Michael Ware is standing by.

Michael, you’ve been there for four years, you’re walking around Baghdad on a daily basis. Has there been this improvement that Sen. McCain is speaking about?

WARE: Well, I’d certainly like to bring Sen. McCain up to speed if he ever gives me the opportunity. And if I have any difficulty hearing you right now Wolf, that’s because of the helicopters circling overhead and the gun battle that is blazing away just a few blocks down the road.

Is Baghdad any safer? Sectarian violence, one particular type of violence, is down. But none of the American generals here on the ground have anything like Sen. McCain’s confidence.

I mean, Sen. McCain’s credibility now on Iraq, which has been so solid to this point, is now being left out hanging to dry. To suggest that there’s any neighborhood in this city where an American can walk freely is beyond ludicrous. I’d love Sen. McCain to tell me where that neighborhood is and he and I can go for a stroll.

9 comments:

Paul Hue said...

Our friend Vassar, who works near Sadr city, says that his area has gone from hourly, 24-hour-a-day attacks on the US troop compound where he works, to only about one attack every few days since the "surge" started. He says that the major difference is that US troops are now firing back, whereas before the surge they did not fire back so as to avoid any collateral damage. Such damage is inevitably, Vassar says, because the tyrants fire on US troops from civilian locations, knowing this will cause one of two favorable outcomes for them:

1. US troops will not fire back, so Nadir and Tom and various tyrannical groups can claim that the US is losing; or
2. US troops do fire back, destroying homes and harming civilians, so Nadir and Tom and various tyrannical groups can characterize this as deliberate US attrocities.

I fault Bush and his teammembers for not knowing -- or ignoring -- that this would happen: that the tyrants would fight such a war, and that a sizable fraction of the US population would act as a domestic US PR arm for the tyrants.

Bush really believed that the Arab Iraqis were as ready for civilization as were the Kurdish Iraqis, and I really believed that he and his designated leaders would wage a competent war. Neither appears to be the case. Vassar assures me that a majority of the Arab Iraqis do want civilization, but that too many are violently and bravely opposed to it in comparison to those equally devoted to achieving it.

In looking at the grand sweep of history -- South Korea took about 30 years to achieve civilization after the defeat of communism there, and Mississippi took nearly 100 years to achieve civilization after the defeat of confederacy there -- I still hold hope that the seeds of civilization have been planted in Iraq, and that the Arab 2/3rds will blossom into a suitable match for the Kurdish 1/3rd.

Paul Hue said...

To Nadir's question: No, surely Iraq today is not safer than under the tyranny of Hussein. But neither was Berlin in 1941, nor Atlanta in 1864. The mere fact of a locale plunged into violent chaos does not preclude the possibility that the locale is transforming from entrenched, stagnant tyranny to institutional freedom and prosperity.

Nadir said...

"...and that a sizable fraction of the US population would act as a domestic US PR arm for the tyrants."

You have serious problems with your notion of patriotism if you believe those of us who dissent are working on behalf of "the tyrants". If you are foolish enough to follow Bush blindly then your ass should be in Sadr City with an M-16 in your hands, and those soldiers who want to come home should be allowed to leave.

"Bush really believed that the Arab Iraqis were as ready for civilization as were the Kurdish Iraqis, and I really believed that he and his designated leaders would wage a competent war."

This statement shows that you 1) have the incredible talent of ESP if you can read Bush's mind and say what he really believed about the Iraqis being "ready for civilization" (I counter that Bush probably can't spell civilization much less understand its meaning)

and 2) you didn't pay attention when Bush fired all of the military brass who disagreed with his ideas about this invasion from the number of soldiers needed to the amount of budget required for the occupation to the lack of planning for the occupation to his own father's reasons for not occupying Iraq in 1991. Your faith in these idiots goes far beyond that of the military experts who were predicting that this imperial adventure was a very bad idea especially when the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't complete.

"Vassar assures me that a majority of the Arab Iraqis do want civilization, but that too many are violently and bravely opposed to it in comparison to those equally devoted to achieving it."

I would assure Vassar that most Iraqis probably just want peace. They don't want shooting in their neighborhoods and they want occupying forces to be off of their streets. This would include the US occupying forces and the insurgents who are now fighting for national self-determination. I don't side with those so-called insurgents, but I know that I would be doing the same thing they are doing if the Canadian army invaded Westland.

Nadir said...

"The mere fact of a locale plunged into violent chaos does not preclude the possibility that the locale is transforming from entrenched, stagnant tyranny to institutional freedom and prosperity."

Your constant comparisons of the Iraqi invasion and occupation to WWII and the US Civil War are, as always, off based and complete bullshit. The US wouldn't even have declared war on Germany in 1941 if Hitler hadn't declared war in the US first. And the reasons for the US Civil War are nothing like the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Your analogies are completely off. Again.

Paul Hue said...

Nadir wrote: ==================
You have serious problems with your notion of patriotism if you believe those of us who dissent are working on behalf of "the tyrants".
===============================

"Patriotism" may indeed require blind obedience to any president's policies. That is why I am an absolute and enthusiastic opponent of patriotism. I believe only in devotion and allegiance to ideals.

Regardless of the authenticity and accuracy of your criticisms, they do serve to further the efforts of the US military opponents in Iraq, and those people are tyrants, as they oppose democracy.

It chaffs me less that you and Tom loudly join with these brutes in blaming the US military for every civilian death in Iraq -- whether from US troops targeting tyrants firing on them from a civilian home, or from deliberate mass-killings by the tyrants -- than it does Bush's lack of accounting for this. At worse, it makes it impossible for a modern democracy to wage this type of war, and at best it at least requires that such a war include such features as zero torture and a fully native composition to the interim government.

Paul Hue said...

Nadir writes: ============
I would assure Vassar that most Iraqis probably just want peace. They don't want shooting in their neighborhoods and they want occupying forces to be off of their streets.
==================

Vassar says that these people want peace, but that they generally do not want the US troops to leave.

Paul Hue said...

Nadir writes: =====================
This would include the US occupying forces and the insurgents who are now fighting for national self-determination. I don't side with those so-called insurgents, but I know that I would be doing the same thing they are doing if the Canadian army invaded Westland.
==================================

The people deliberately killing civillians, or even fighting the US troops, are certainly not "fighting for national self-determination." They are clearly tyrants, who do not seek to establish a government "of" and "for" the people, nor a government that permits and enforces personal liberties. These people fight to prevent just that.

If the Canadians invaded Westland, I would oppose them to, because Westland's residents are organized by a government "of" and "for" them, and which generally respects broad personal liberties. To the extent that I or any of my fellow residents want to change our government, we have the mechanisms in place to do so. Thus the Canadians could not have any justification for invading our city.

Paul Hue said...

Nadir wrote: ===================
you have the incredible talent of ESP if you can read Bush's mind and say what he really believed about the Iraqis being "ready for civilization"
=================================

You sort of have me here because indeed I cannot read Bush's mind, and abhor those who in rhetorical contests resort to assigning motivations to other people's opinions. However, Bush openly claimed to believe this, providing a portal into his thoughts, and his actions concur with this claim of his: he really seems to have erected the template of democracy there, and in 2007, "democracy" represents one necessary component of "civilization".

Paul Hue said...

Nadir wrote: ==========================
you didn't pay attention when Bush fired all of the military brass who disagreed with his ideas about this invasion from the number of soldiers needed to the amount of budget required for the occupation to the lack of planning for the occupation to his own father's reasons for not occupying Iraq in 1991.
============================

I did pay attention, but I accepted Bush's claim that the other military experts were correct. It appears that Bush certainly got many things wrong, especially: torture, and American honkies serving all the key roles in the interim govt.