ABC, CBS, NBC Skip Report of Benchmarks Met in Iraq - Page 2

Singularity · 07-22-08, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Well how do you define "losing?"

The government in place was corrupt, ineffective and incompetent. The country wasn't secure by any means. We lost control of various cities. It was (and still is) a financial black hole. The security forces of Iraq were a joke. Iran was supply weapons almost overtly. Not a pretty picture.

By those measures, no. But by the measures of success, we were failing quite hard.

I'll agree that as a cohesive military force, the coalition was never at any time in danger of being overrun and forced from the country. But that is a criteria you normally apply to war, not occupations, especially occupations where you are working with the population to leave a stable environment and to get out ASAP.

Yes, it can certainly be argued that we weren't achieving the measure of success that we would like. But we achieved reform and, arguably, stabilization. Of course, you can dispute the latter and chances are i'd agree with you on a few tenets. But the country isn't in wide-scale revolt, nor are our forces in danger of being driven out by the enemy insurgents. So is it fair to say we are losing the occupation when such a thing isn't taking place? I don't think so at all. And I think you'd agree with me on that point.

So it seems our argument is with the measure of success achieved during the occupation. If i'm reading yours right, we will lose the war (or rather the occupation) if we don't achieve the measure of success and stability that we want. And that's where I disagree. I don't think we are in danger of losing simply based on less-than-stellar success.

The point I am trying to make is that all this is subjective. One side can argue that success and stabilization in the region indicates victory, while lack of either indicates defeat. Someone else can argue that this isn't true and make a reasonably good case. Again, this is dependent on point of view and is, of course, debatable regardless of position due to it's subjectivity. What isn't debatable is the fact that we weren't in any danger of forcible removal, thus losing the war/occupation, which is what I meant. The statement by Aquapub, "Since we've started winning, all coverage has dropped to 429", seemed to imply this, which is what I took issue with. To make sure, I clarified my position (in bold) with "Erm, when were we ever losing in Iraq? Was there some point where the insurgents were actually beating the American soldiers over there?" As you can see, this wasn't an argument over our success rate; the words in bold were pretty clear. The fact that he argued against this statement seems to say that yes, he believes we were literally losing the occupation by military reprisal from the enemy.

And that's what I don't buy into. We were never losing. While our success rate and stabilization is debatable, saying that we were on the verge of military defeat is not correct. Again, I think you'd agree. I think Aquapub would not, based on his arguments against my statement.

But of course, there is always the possibility that he misinterpreted my statements. I've certainly been guilty of that in a few debates!

bhkad · 07-22-08, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Remember that you can win all of the battles and still lose the war. Until the Surge, or more accurately, until the change in tactics, command and strategy that came with General Petraeus as the head honcho in Iraq and his think tank of counterinsurgency experts, we were losing the fight aside from Mosul which interestingly enough, was under his jurisdiction.

Merely because we could kill lots of terrorists doesn't mean we were winning. In insurgent wars, it isn't about the body count of dead terrorists. It's about the support of the population. As Nagl (he was on the think tank) likes to write, it's about "separating the fish from the water." We were failing to do that: bringing the population in on our side.

What I find amusing is that the pro-war group is praising Bush for the gains made by Petraeus's strategy that essentially gave the finger to Bush's ideas.

Nice post.

Invoking Nagl was especially appreciated!

I've long been an admirer of his.

Singularity · 07-22-08, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

The loss would have been effected here in the United States.

That was how we lost Viet-Nam despite never losing a major military engagement.

And that is the formula the opposition was banking on in Iraq.

The short-sighted cynical Islamism-ignorant leftists and liberal opposition here and the variously motivated anti-American, anti-Westerner, anti-Democracy, anti-Occupation, anti-law & order & stability, anti-strong central moderate government, anti-sectarian opposition was banking on the losses being suffered in the battlefield to prompt the domestic US leftists/libs/Democrats to increase their pressure on the US government to end the war.

So, yes, despite the fact of our military superiority we very well could have "lost" in Iraq and the losses would have reached far beyond the geographical boundaries of that nation.

Osama bin Laden said that America was weak and would run from a fight as soon as we got our noses bloodied. And because the images broadcast to the world show nothing but the fun, sexually promiscuous, drug addicted, petty, criminal, show biz side of America, the liberal portrayal of America depicted by a liberal media from a liberal Hollywood, no wonder OBL thought we'd run.

And he was right.

The liberals wanted to run.

The only thing the liberals didn't fear was the US government. Because they knew the laws would protect them. So they fought Bush to show how tough they were.

I'm not arguing potentiality here; yes, we certainly _could_ have lost the war based on whatever reasons. I don't disagree with that. What I am arguing is were we actually losing the war before the surge?

In your opinion, were we actually losing the war at any time before the surge? Not potentially, but actually.

I say no for reasons afore mentioned. And you?

bhkad · 07-22-08, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singularity

Yes, it can certainly be argued that we weren't achieving the measure of success that we would like. But we achieved reform and, arguably, stabilization. Of course, you can dispute the latter and chances are i'd agree with you on a few tenets. But the country isn't in wide-scale revolt, nor are our forces in danger of being driven out by the enemy insurgents. So is it fair to say we are losing the occupation when such a thing isn't taking place? I don't think so at all. And I think you'd agree with me on that point.

So it seems our argument is with the measure of success achieved during the occupation. If i'm reading yours right, we will lose the war (or rather the occupation) if we don't achieve the measure of success and stability that we want. And that's where I disagree. I don't think we are in danger of losing simply based on less-than-stellar success.

The point I am trying to make is that all this is subjective. One side can argue that success and stabilization in the region indicates victory, while lack of either indicates defeat. Someone else can argue that this isn't true and make a reasonably good case. Again, this is dependent on point of view and is, of course, debatable regardless of position due to it's subjectivity. What isn't debatable is the fact that we weren't in any danger of forcible removal, thus losing the war/occupation, which is what I meant. The statement by Aquapub, "Since we've started winning, all coverage has dropped to 429", seemed to imply this, which is what I took issue with. To make sure, I clarified my position (in bold) with "Erm, when were we ever losing in Iraq? Was there some point where the insurgents were actually beating the American soldiers over there?" As you can see, this wasn't an argument over our success rate; the words in bold were pretty clear. The fact that he argued against this statement seems to say that yes, he believes we were literally losing the occupation by military reprisal from the enemy.

And that's what I don't buy into. We were never losing. While our success rate and stabilization is debatable, saying that we were on the verge of military defeat is not correct. Again, I think you'd agree. I think Aquapub would not, based on his arguments against my statement.

But of course, there is always the possibility that he misinterpreted my statements. I've certainly been guilty of that in a few debates!

There was pressure in Congress, in the Senate, in the Media and in the streets of America to cut the funding for the war despite what you accurately assess as our not being close to losing. And that was the danger. That is how we'd have lost.

The political pressure here at home would have forced the elected representatives to act on what was perceived to be an overwhelming desire by the majority of Americans to stop funding the war and bring it to a close and withdraw all the troops no matter what.

The 18 benchmarks (see the OP) that had been established to determine how much progress was being made in Iraq was played up by all the networks and was being cited as proof that we should get out asap when only 3 of those 18 were met.

So, now that 15 of the benchmarks have been achieved you would expect that the Democrats and liberals, if they aren't simply opposed to the war for their own selfish partisan political purposes, would applaud the progress.

But they haven't. They are invested in our defeat. They have put their own selfish ambitions ahead of what is best for this nation.

And there are some who have done this even though they understand the danger of global Islamism.

But some may not understand it.

And I truly don't know who is worse: those who would put their own ambitions before the welfare of this country or those who, after 7 years STILL don't understand why we can't allow Iran to expand their Islamic Revolution to Iraq and elsewhere around the world, or to intimidate their neighbors.

And by the way, I'll remind you that the 2006 election which have the Democrats the majority in the House and Senate was decided on the 'promise' that these Democrats would end the war! That's why the electorate voted them in.

bhkad · 07-22-08, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singularity

I'm not arguing potentiality here; yes, we certainly _could_ have lost the war based on whatever reasons. I don't disagree with that. What I am arguing is were we actually losing the war before the surge?

In your opinion, were we actually losing the war at any time before the surge? Not potentially, but actually.

I say no for reasons afore mentioned. And you?

I say that if we left before the Iraqi government was able to stand on it's own and resist the military and other, non-military, aggressions of Iran we would have lost.

And the cause of that loss isn't at all important.

What would be important is that Iran would be able to make progress in it's religious ambitions to apply Sharia law to every person on Earth.

No. No. A thousand times no. We were not in danger of being militarily defeated in Iraq.

But yes, yes, yes, we could have lost.

If Congress stopped funding the war we would have had to withdraw.

If we withdrew and Iran asserted their will over Iraq we would have lost.

But instead of there being a million people killed outside of our view (as what occurred as a result of our pulling out of Viet Nam and defunding the South Vietnamese government so they could continue fighting on their own) the aftermath of a premature withdrawal from Iraq would have been in our faces and it would have been ugly and far more deadly that what has gone on so far. And we would have had to have gone back in and the violence would have been much, much greater.

PeteEU · 07-22-08, 06:16 AM

I don't see the problem. All the benchmarks have not been met, hence no story. And its funny how right wingers are being critical of the main networks coverage Iraq, when their own station Fox News has the lowest coverage of all TV news organisations.

Now saying that, should they have mentioned it even just briefly.. sure would have been nice, but frankly on the "OMFGS ITS NEWS"' ameter... not exactly high up there. Now if all benchmarks were met.. that would be a whole other matter.

Singularity · 07-22-08, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

No. No. A thousand times no. We were not in danger of being militarily defeated in Iraq.

But yes, yes, yes, we could have lost.

If Congress stopped funding the war we would have had to withdraw.

If we withdrew and Iran asserted their will over Iraq we would have lost.

But instead of there being a million people killed outside of our view (as what occurred as a result of our pulling out of Viet Nam and defunding the South Vietnamese government so they could continue fighting on their own) the aftermath of a premature withdrawal from Iraq would have been in our faces and it would have been ugly and far more deadly that what has gone on so far. And we would have had to have gone back in and the violence would have been much, much greater.

So where do we disagree on this issue? You and I both agree that we could have potentially lost. You and I both agree that at no time prior to the surge were we ACTUALLY losing the war or occupation, and that's what I specifically stated the last two pages.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

And by the way, I'll remind you that the 2006 election which have the Democrats the majority in the House and Senate was decided on the 'promise' that these Democrats would end the war! That's why the electorate voted them in.

Oh, you don't have to remind me nor the majority of Americans who are against the Iraqi war of this fact. And it probably explains why their approval rating is so low.

But your interpretation of their actions aside, i'm going to re-ask a question I directed to you on the first page. Have large numbers of people (including those liberal news organizations) specifically stated that they want us to lose? You've done an excellent job clarifying WHY you think they want us to lose, and I thank you for your input. I disagree with it because I don't think that liberals or the news media actually want us to lose the conflict. They may adopt an "I told you so" stance against Bush's decision to invade in the first place, and a few of the more extreme whackos may even revel in our lack of success there, but do they actually desire us to lose? To be forcibly driven out of the country by the enemy at the expense of many soldier's lives?

No. I don't think so. The extreme whackos may certainly be accused of this and rightfully so, but do large groups of people or the "liberal" news media believe we should lose? I don't subscribe to that. But again all this is debatable based on point of view. If you believe that they really are unpatriotic and desire us to lose, then that's your opinion and it can certainly be argued.

That being said, though, has any large group of Americans or the news media actually made a specific statement about wanting us to lose over there?

donsutherland1 · 07-22-08, 10:12 AM

Bhkad,

Unfortunately, there is more to the story. What I find particularly troubling, is that the major responsibility for the lack of dissemination of information on recent developments in Iraq may rest with the White House. If so, it suggests a badly broken public relations operation.

Here's what The Washington Post reported on July 2, 2008:

Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress, according to a report by the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad...

The original legislation required no reports beyond the September testimony. More recently, the White House has maintained that the benchmarks are no longer a useful measurement of Iraq's progress. But the embassy prepared the new assessment in response to a request by Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.) to update the benchmarks.

A copy of the nine-page document, labeled "Sensitive but Unclassified," was obtained yesterday by The Washington Post.

One would reasonably assume that informing the public of progress in Iraq would be in the interest of the White House. Yet, the White House took a completely different tack. Instead, it was a Congressman who requested an updated assessment.

Worse, even after the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad prepared the assessment, the White House has not posted that assessment on the section of its website that is devoted to Iraq. Neither has the U.S. Embassy posted a public copy of the assessment.

At a minimum, I believe the U.S. public deserves to have access to a copy of the report considering that it does not contain classified information. Otherwise, some information that might well be critical to the public's making informed judgments will be unavailable.

aquapub · 07-22-08, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singularity

Well, I think I do! Let me see if I got this right...

According to you, we were losing the war in Iraq up until the Iraqi troop surge in 2007.

We weren't losing, just losing ground, in Iraq and with the American people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singularity

Apparently these rag-tag Iraqi insurgents were somehow kicking our butts...

Not kicking our butts. The problem was that our troops, expected to follow ludicrous rules of engagement more like that of a state trooper, were struggling to stop sporadic terrorist attacks in a country the size of California, by extremists funded, armed, and orchestrated by Iran. It is way more difficult to prevent terrorism than it is to commit a terrorist act.

So I don't agree with your dismissive characterization here at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singularity

But let's put this theory of yours to the test. Can you link me a reputable source that actually says we were losing in Iraq prior to the surge?

You keep inserting the notion that we were losing the war. My contention is and has been that we were losing ground, quickly losing support, and that something urgently needed to be done to save things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singularity

Did you ever think for a moment that our military could actually LOSE this war to a gang of terrorists?

With liberals in power we can (and usually are forced to) lose to anyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singularity

Hogwash! They never stood a chance against our military machine!

Neither did the Viet Cong, but with liberals, defeat is always possible, and usually right around the corner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singularity

But then again, maybe I don't "pay attention much", as you say!

As evidenced by your continued insistence on addressing points no one has made.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singularity

Actually, I asked you for clarification and statements where major news organizations or large groups of citizens have specifically said they wanted America to lose this conflict. While appreciate your attempt at rationalization, again, that isn't what I asked for. I would like specific statements, please, not interpretation and exaggeration.

Um...liberals sabatoging and opposing everything we do to defend ourselves and lying, contradicting themselves to ensure our defeat in Iraq IS evidence that they want us to lose, rather than simply disagreeing with the mission.

And I guess liberals must also not want to raise taxes, being that they don't say so, right?

shuamort · 07-22-08, 11:02 AM

MSNBC
Iraq report: 15 of 18 benchmarks ‘satisfactory’Date: 7/1/2008

FoxNews:
White House Report: Iraq Meets 15 of 18 Benchmarks

Interesting take from China which may explain why some news outlets chose not to cover it:
Democrats: White House overrates Iraq progress

Quote:

Congressman Mike McIntyre, a Democrat from North Carolina, said the report used false standards to determine whether satisfactory progress was made in 18 benchmarks set by the Bush administration.

Or when the NYTimes covered it a week earlier when they said:

Quote:

Beyond the declines in overall violence in Iraq, several crucial measures the Bush administration uses to demonstrate economic, political and security progress are either incorrect or far more mixed than the administration has acknowledged, according to a report released Monday by the Government Accountability Office.

Over all, the report says, the American plan for a stable Iraq lacks a strategic framework that meshes with the administration’s goals, is falling out of touch with the realities on the ground and contains serious flaws in its operational guidelines.

I haven't had a chance to read the 94 page GAO report that the NY Times is referencing, but here is a copy of it (PDF warning).

So, I'm going to suggest either hijacking this thread to go into the details of whether or not the 15 of 18 benchmarks are being met or not and then after that, getting back to the debate over media bias. It seems only fair to find the full facts first.