Semi-Daily Journal

Fatalities:

American soldiers 141
British soldiers 18
---
159 Since May 2

American 280
British 51
---
331 Since March 20

Wounded ~1205

Note: Danish fatality listed with British
Spanish fatality listed with British

Note: American forces have risen to 148,000
British forces have been cut from 10,000 to 5,000

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/27/opinion/27DOWD.html

The Jihad All-Stars
By MAUREEN DOWD

Yep, we've got 'em right where we want 'em.

We've brought the fight to their turf, they're swarming into Iraq and blowing up our troops and other Westerners every day, and that's just where we want to be.

Our exhausted and frustrated soldiers are in a hideously difficult environment they're not familiar with, dealing with a culture America only dimly understands, where our desperation for any intelligence has reduced us to recruiting Saddam's old spies, whom we didn't trust in the first place, and where we're so strapped that soldiers may have to face back-to-back yearlong overseas tours.

We don't know exactly which of our ghostly Arab enemies are which, how many there are, who's plotting with whom, what weapons they have, how they're getting into Iraq, where they're hiding, or who's financing and organizing them.

And we certainly don't understand the violent internecine religious battles we've set in motion....

"We don't know exactly which of our ghostly Arab enemies are which, how many there are, who's plotting with whom, what weapons they have, how they're getting into Iraq, where they're hiding, or who's financing and organizing them.

And we certainly don't understand the violent internecine religious battles we've set in motion...."

I understand why she doesn't know. There is nothing in her background to indicate a particularly strong grasp of Middle East politics.

"Maureen Dowd was appointed a columnist of The New York Times's Op-Ed page in January 1995 after having served as a correspondent in its Washington bureau since August 1986. There, she covered two Presidential campaigns and served as White House correspondent, gaining a wide following of admirers and imitators for her witty, incisive and acerbic portraits of the powerful. She also wrote a column, "On Washington," for The New York Times Magazine.

Ms. Dowd joined The Times as a metropolitan reporter in October 1983. She began her career in 1974 as an editorial assistant forte Washington Star, where she later became a sports columnist, metropolitan reporter and feature writer. When the star closed in 1981, she went to Time magazine.

A Pulitzer Prize finalist for national reporting in 1992, Ms. Dowd received the Breakthrough Award from "Women, Men and Media" at Columbia University in 1991 and a Matrix Award from New York Women in Communications in 1994. She was named one of Glamour's Women of the Year for 1996.

Born in Washington, D.C., on January 14, 1952, Miss Dowd received a BA. degree in English literature from Catholic University (Washington) in 1973.

Ms. Dowd lives in Washington."

Source: http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1999/commentary/bio/

I don't understand her assumption of total ignorance from the rest of us. She should give Tom Friedman a call. He can clue her into a lot of what "we" don't know.

Yeah, before we invaded Iraq, there were no problems anywhere. Al Qaeda had turned into Quakers. Saddam Hussein was spending half his time volunteering for Habitat for Humanity, and the rest of it setting up funds for the victims of terror. Bush is so-o-o-o dumb. Makes me want to bang my head against the wall.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3183979.stm

Iraq 'needs tens of billions'
BBC

America's administrator in Iraq has warned that the country will need tens of billions of dollars to rebuild its shattered infrastructure.

Paul Bremer said it was "almost impossible to exaggerate" the country's economic needs.

The bill to overhaul essential services like electricity and water - running intermittently in many areas at present - would reach almost $30bn, Mr Bremer said.

The economic bill comes on top of the estimated one billion dollars per week the US already spends on its forces in Iraq as well as a spiralling budget deficit at home....

Josh Marshall writes, "Look at the difference thus far between Afghanistan and Iraq. In the first place, we drained the swamp. In the second, we've made the swamp."

Perhaps the swamp we're "creating" is just one of the ones Saddam Hussein drained? Y'know, as part of his genocide against the Marsh Arabs?

Which is separate from his genocide against the Shiites...

Which is separate from his genocide against the Kurds...

Which isn't related to his wars of aggression against Iran or Kuwait.

The latter of which is related to his to his lobbing Scud missiles into Israel, a neutral country, in GW I.

Yeesh, Josh Marshall! Get a clue! The fact that Saddam Hussein didn't kill anyone in your immediate family doesn't mean he wasn't a swamp monster. To pretend Iraq wasn't a swamp is absurd. If it wasn't a swamp, why was Bill Clinton routinely bombing Iraq during his entire presidency?

In fact, if Iraq wasn't a swamp, why was Madeleine Albright, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. and later Secretary of State, willing to "pay the price" of having 500,000 Iraqi children die from economic sanctions that continued throughout the Clinton Administration's ***8 YEARS*** of power?:

CBS Reporter Lesley Stahl (speaking of post-war sanctions against Iraq):
"We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And - and you know, is the price worth it?"

Madeleine Albright (at that time, US Ambassador to the UN):
"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."

http://home.comcast.net/~dhamre/docAlb.htm

"Bear in mind that the author of these words is a fairly convinced Wilsonian, a strong supporter of our interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo,..."

Yes, could it be that the author of these words is...oh, a Democrat, perhaps? It's amazing how cluelessly two-faced some Democrats are! One could easily argue that our intervention in Iraq was wrong, but it was FAR more justifiable than our intervention in Kosovo!

1) There was absolutely no threat to the United States (or any other country) from the civil strife in Kosovo.

2) An objective third party (Human Rights Watch, as I recall) estimated that some 1300 people were killed in Kosovo in the YEAR before the U.S. bombing. Of those 1300 people, slightly MORE than 10% were ethnic Serbs. (Kosovo was about 10% ethnic Serbian...at least before it was ethnically cleansed of Serbs after the U.S. bombing.) In any case, since there were about 1.5 million people in Kosovo, roughly 1 in 1000 was killed in the year prior to the U.S. bombing. That certainly doesn't qualify as "genocide"...especially when the deaths on both sides were proportional to the populations of each side.

3) The Rambouillet Agreement was an absolute abomination. It contained (cleverly hidden in an Appendix, so people like Josh Marshall who weren't paying attention wouldn't notice it) a demand that U.S. troops be allowed to bivouac ANYWHERE in Serbia, and to have use of any Serbian airport, and to have use of Serbian TV...or else the U.S. would start bombing. Hitler himself couldn't come up with a more outrageous "Agreement." No country in the world would have signed it.

4) The attacks in Kosovo, just like Iraq, didn't have UN approval.

"But the White House is being run by men and women who've already made a lot of really stupid mistakes that are going to cost a lot of American lives, money and credibility."

As opposed to the previous occupants of the White House, who gave us the brilliance of blowing up a pharaceutical factory in the Sudan, or intervening in Somalia, and then cutting out when 18 brave servicemen were killed?

You want talk about costing lives and credibility? Look at how many times Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein referred to the U.S. pullout from Somalia as proof that the U.S. is weak.

Or look at how many times Osama bin Laden referred to U.S. troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia...which the Clinton Adminstration had ALL 8 YEARS of its rule.

And if you want to talk about costing lives and credibility, look at how any sane and reasonably moral person would view the statement made by Madeleine Albright. Ms. Albright thinks it's "worth it" that "half a million Iraqi children" die? Why would any Iraqi/Arab/Muslim then be terribly concerned about 3000 innocents dying in the U.S.?

"Makes me want to bang my head against the wall."

Makes me want to do something even more drastic; makes me want to vote for Bush in 2004. ;-) (But I'll probably be able to resist my urge. ;-))

>> Perhaps the swamp we're "creating" is just one of the ones Saddam Hussein drained? Y'know, as part of his genocide against the Marsh Arabs?

Mark, wipe the spittle from your mouth, and consider -- just consider -- that Josh Marshall may be more than slightly aware of the history of the Marsh Arabs, and that it's one reason why he chose the metaphor. You know, as one of the unstated 'ironies' that he says 'abound' in Iraq?

Gee, Mark, I hate to point this out, but Marshall isn't saying that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq -- he can be just as easily interpreted as saying that we should now provide a remotely adequate occupational force (which requires going to the UN). Which is exactly what Tom Friedman is now saying (and attacking Bush in even more forceful terms).

Also note that, at the same time that the White House was deliberately exaggerating the evidence of Saddam's nuclear progrrm, it was deliberately CONCEALING from Congress -- for 3 weeks -- its discovery that North Korea had restarted its own Bomb factory. Then, afer Congress gave Bush his Iraq war resolution, the White House informed Congress of this within hours. What we have from Bush, I think, is initial ridiculous overconfidence on how cheap and easy the occupation would be, and a resultant willingness to mislead Congress and the voters (the "Nervous Nellies", as LBJ called them under similar circumstances) as to which enemy we should deal with first.

One of my rougher rules of thumb is, if someone says he's a Wilsonian, stop listening to him. Half of self-proclaimed Wilsonians are lying, but they are fools either way.

To be sure, tuning out someone like Josh Marshall is painful, but what does not kill us makes us stronger.

All of that having been said, note carefully that the *real* Wilsonian in this situation is George W. Bush. Let's see...

Willful ignorance--check.
Shutting out all informed advice--check.
Wading into complicated situations after they have fallen completely into the shit, throwing wild punches until one of the bad guys has a bloody nose, claiming credit for saving the world, then turning his back--check.
Attorney General jugging people for dissent--check.

We're gonna party like it's 1919!

I wasn't aware that the situation in Afghanistan was such an unqualified success as the metaphor "drained the swamp" would imply. I'm sure that the Taliban, having retaken a province, might be amused to know how badly defeated they are as well.

Not to mention Omar and Bin Laden.

>All of that having been said, note carefully that the *real* Wilsonian in this situation is George W. Bush. <

Well, as the man said, ironies abound.

After the Great War, Wilson was loved in Europe, and hated in his own country.

As the man said, ironies abound.

"...consider -- just consider -- that Josh Marshall may be more than slightly aware of the history of the Marsh Arabs, and that it's one reason why he chose the metaphor."

Well, his metaphor is a crock, as I pointed out. It's nothing less than leftist lunacy to attempt to claim that G.W. Bush "created" a swamp in Iraq. Josh Marshall completely loses all credibility as an objective observer of facts when he attempts to claim that's the case. And the familes of all the innocents in the mass graves scattered around Iraq know better.

"Gee, Mark, I hate to point this out, but Marshall isn't saying that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq..."

Gee, Bruce, I hate to point this out, but Marshall WAS saying that "we" (which means "G.W. Bush"...I defy anyone to argue otherwise) "created" a swamp in Iraq.

It is a complete crock to claim that G.W. Bush "created" a swamp in Iraq. All the actions of the Clinton Adminstration--not to mention the mass graves throughout Iraq, and the hundreds of thousands of soldier's graves in Iran and Iraq--demonstrate that any swamp in Iraq was there LONG before G.W. Bush came to power.

"What we have from Bush, I think, is...a resultant willingness to mislead Congress and the voters...as to which enemy we should deal with first."

Are you trying to say that the U.S. should have "dealt with" North Korea before Iraq? Just what would you recommend as to HOW the U.S. should have "dealt with" North Korea? Pre-emptively reduce it to rubble, perhaps?

Lise, on this comments thread and many, many others, tells us that:
>British forces have been cut from 10,000 to 5,000<

Odd, because the NYT,BBC and other major news organisations are stating that there are 11,000 British troops in Iraq- down from 45,000 at the war's peak.

Eg:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3187133.stm#graphic

Sorry, Lise, your source is....?

"Are you trying to say that the U.S. should have 'dealt with' North Korea before Iraq? Just what would you recommend as to HOW the U.S. should have 'dealt with' North Korea? Pre-emptively reduce it to rubble, perhaps?"

Then, why, pray tell, did the White House feel it necessary to conceal from Congress for 3 weeks the fact that NK had acquired the Bomb, until Congress gve Bush his Iraq war resolution? No doubt they had a Completely Honest Motive. (And, incidentally, "preemptively reducing it to rubble" is, just possibly, something Clinton SHOULD have done before NK got the Bomb at all -- and perhaps he should also have done it to Pakistan.)

"Gee, Bruce, I hate to point this out, but Marshall WAS saying that 'we' (which means 'G.W. Bush'...I defy anyone to argue otherwise) 'created' a swamp in Iraq."

Gee, Mark, I hate to point this out, too, but Marshall was advocating a US invasion of Iraq (and quoting Kenneth Pollack to that effect) for about a year before the war started. His argument is that W. has created a swamp by starting the war and then NOT providing remotely enough of an occupation force -- thereby managing to make things even worse than they would have been had we not invaded at all.

For a typical sample of Marshall's prewar attitudes, see http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0211.marshall.html .

Marshall yesterday:

"To the extent that there is war-weariness -- and that's a complicated, fluid reality -- it's not so much because of casualties as the administration's own pervasive dishonesty in building the case for the war.

"(Actually, dishonesty before the fact, mixed with incompetence after the fact, which is a really bad combination.)

"Before the war, I had many conversations with war-hawks who said something like this. 'If this is a good war, it really doesn't matter if you hype up the arguments to get the country into it. It's a good thing. And a little rallying the country is okay, if the goal is a good one and a necessary one.'

"The thinking was that once you've got the country into Iraq you can rely on American gumption to stick it out till the job is done, even if you weren't completely honest about what that job really was going in.

"But there's a problem with that kind of thinking. Once it becomes clear what sort of enterprise you've gotten the country into, it may turn out they really don't have the stomach for it. And then what do you do?

"Or, actually, that's an unfair way to put it. Let's try this instead ... Once it becomes clear what the stakes really were and what the costs really are, you may find out that the country doesn't think it's a good bargain and doesn't support it.

"The reasoning of many war-hawks on this point was extremely cynical. In essence, it went like this: Once we're in, we'll have the wolf by the ears and it really won't matter what people think. We'll have created a fait accompli. They'll have no choice.

"Of course, there's another possibility. The public might start wanting to pull the troops out when the effort has barely even begun.

"Today those same war-hawks are arguing that it's a moral failing for the public not to want to follow through on the enterprise that they bamboozled the public into.

"Now, let's draw back and make a few points ...

"The war still has a lot of public support. And the situation is far from irretrievable. War-hawks want to portray the situation as something akin to the late stages of Vietnam, with a defeatist press and establishment, a war-weary public, and a few brave souls who've read their Churchill and remember the lessons of Munich wanting to stick it out.

"But that's not where we are. What you've got is a lot of people who are unhappy about the administration's dishonesty, an equal number who don't think the current plan is working, and a pretty broad consensus that we need to make some course corrections if we're going to be successful.

"So let's make those course corrections and give ourselves a shot at an outcome which is good for us and the Iraqis.

"One thing we shouldn't do is give those liars a chance to question people's moral fiber for not signing on to their latest fairy-tale, the never-ending-story about why we did all this in the first place. Let's write those folks out of the conversation entirely."

So, Mark, PLEASE don't shoot off your mouth indignantly on subjects you know absolutely nothing about. (Incidentally -- although even Howard Dean says he favor quintupling our forces in Iraq [which of course will require the UN] -- an NBC poll last month showed that a majority of the American people themselves will support a pullout as soon as we hit 500 American deaths in Iraq -- which, at the current rate, will be the end of January.)

Josh Marshall is a tedious clueless blowhard with nothing significant to say, so he whines ad nauseam about the uranium story. The man is as irrelevant as he is dull.

This particular tedious clueless blowhard has been dead on target from the start regarding what would happen in Iraq -- and, lest we forget, the uranium scandal (A) was real; (B) was very serious; (C) seems increasingly likely to bring down Tony Blair's government; and (D) remains totally uninvestigated by any branch of the government here. (Incidentally, Marshall has always stuck me as one of the LEAST boring liberal bloggers -- he makes a point of avoiding leftist cliches -- and I notice that quite a few cosnervative bloggers say the same thing about him. Willingham, on the other hand, seems downright fond of shallow conservative cliches.)

I asked Bruce Moomaw, "Are you trying to say that the U.S. should have 'dealt with' North Korea before Iraq? Just what would you recommend as to HOW the U.S. should have 'dealt with' North Korea? Pre-emptively reduce it to rubble, perhaps?"

Mr. Moomaw responded, "'...preemptively reducing it to rubble' is, just possibly, something Clinton SHOULD have done before NK got the Bomb at all..."

Heh, heh, heh! Yes, "just possibly" **Clinton** should have reduced NK to rubble before NK got the Bomb. But I thought we were talking about G.W. Bush!

Should G.W. Bush have reduced NK to rubble? If so, when? And don't you think he should ask South Korea first? If so, what if South Korea said, "no"? (Which I'm virtually certain they would!) Should Bush still have done it, if South Korea objected?

Mr. Moomaw adds, "...and perhaps he (Clinton) should also have done it to Pakistan."

Yes, perhaps. Again, though, let's forget about what **Clinton** should or should not have done, and stick to G.W. Bush! Should Bush have reduced Pakistan to rubble? If so, when? And should he first have asked for India's blessing? And if they said "no" (which I'm sure they would!) should he have done it anyway?

BTW, lest you think I only ask questions, and don't have the courage to answer any, let me answer my own questions: No, I do NOT think G.W. Bush should have pre-emptively attacked either North Korea or Pakistan. Especially not without the approval of South Korea or India!

Mr. Moomaw concludes with, "Gee, Mark, I hate to point this out, too, but Marshall was advocating a US invasion of Iraq (and quoting Kenneth Pollack to that effect) for about a year before the war started."

Gee, Bruce, if Josh Marshall truly DID advocate a U.S. invasion of Iraq, then Josh Marshall must have ALREADY thought there was a "swamp" in Iraq!

Or does Josh Marshall advocate that the U.S. just go around invading other countries that aren't swamps?

Bruce, face it, you've lost this debate. Josh Marshall's characterization that G.W. Bush "created" a "swamp" in Iraq is completely indefensible. I have already provided a huge amount of evidence that Iraq was a "swamp" long before G.W. Bush took office. And if Josh Marshall advocated invading Iraq, that is actually even MORE evidence that his characterization that G.W. Bush "created" the "swamp" is irrational babbling. (Unless Josh Marshall advocates invading countries for the fun of it.)

As I wrote in previously, Josh Marshall, Dr. DeLong, and people like you probably won't be enough to get me to vote for G.W. Bush in 2004. But should Bush win, y'all's writings will make me very tempted to do a little victory dance for the man! ;-)

So, Mark, PLEASE don't shoot off your mouth indignantly on subjects you know absolutely nothing about.

I know enough about this particular subject to know that Josh Marshall's characterization that G.W. Bush "created" a "swamp" in Iraq is irrational leftist babbling.

And your contention that Josh Marshall advocated for the invasion of Iraq before it happened is simply further evidence that Josh Marshall was irrationally babbling when he wrote that Bush "created" the "swamp." Unless, of course, Josh Marshall just likes the U.S. to invade other countries.

"(Incidentally -- although even Howard Dean says he favor quintupling our forces in Iraq..."

If Howard Dean truly does favor a "quintupling" of our forces in Iraq, I think that is merely proof of what a lousy president he'd be. I think that not only should we NOT send more troops to Iraq, we should be pulling troops out as quickly as possible ("possible" meaning, "to the extent we can train an Iraqi police force and military to replace U.S. troops).

I think we currently have 150,000 troops in Iraq. If I were president, in 6 months we'd have fewer than 75,000 troops in Iraq...with 150,000 Iraqi police and military to replace the 75,000 U.S. troops taken away.

"...an NBC poll last month showed that a majority of the American people themselves will support a pullout as soon as we hit 500 American deaths in Iraq -- which, at the current rate, will be the end of January.)"

And you think the president should move troops in accordance to what opinion polls show a majority of the country wants to do?

Mark's plan is the right one, although his timing may be a little optimistic. I don't see how anyone can disagree with the basic idea: Help the Iraqis set up their own army, police and government and reduce our own forces.

The Republican demeaned themselves and the political process by their relentless attacks on President Clinton as a person, as opposed to serious and reasoned discussions of policy. Now the Democrats are playing the same game. Only this time we are in a war, and the security of the country is at stake.

This whole thread is showing a ridiculous degree of misreading of the
initial text.

Saddam Hussein's a bloody villain; by about half-way through the peace
march in London in September, I'd got enough fed up with the lack of
chants to that effect that I started chanting it myself. But Saddam
Hussein's Iraq was a well-regulated oppressive dictatorship. As
pointed out in one of the Josh Marshall articles, or in something like
Kanan Makiya's _Republic of Fear_ a group like Ansar al-Islam would
have survived a few days in Saddam's Iraq before its members were
arrested and horribly executed.

Iraq now appears to be the popular destination for young jihadis from
across the Middle East, from Khartoum to Kabul; before this invasion,
whilst an unpleasant country, whilst throwing gasoline on the Israeli-
Palestine situation by offering substantial payments to the family of
suicide bombers, it *didn't* harbour terrorists. It didn't harbour
terrorists because they'd have provided a power base that wasn't
Saddam.

It used to be a desert filled with the bones of dead dissidents. It's
now a terrorist-breeding swamp. I would have advocated war for the
sake of the dead dissidents; but at the time I did *not* predict that
the result would be the transformation of a stable catastrophically
unpleasant dictatorship into a pretty stereotypical failed state, of
precisely the kind the abolition of which has been a point of foreign
policy for a decade.

We went to war in Iraq because we were told we were being threatened with an accumulation of WMDs. That appears not to have been true. Iraq was contained, and we could have continued continued containment and the war against terrorism readily. Now, we have a most costly and threatening terrorist problem in Iraq. Even if we did the right thing in going to war in Iraq, we should have been able to have an honest and rational debate before the war.

"But Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a well-regulated oppressive dictatorship."

You mean after Saddam Hussein brutally repressed a revolt in which people who were dramatically out-gunned managed to control 14 out of 18 provinces in Iraq?

"It's now a terrorist-breeding swamp."

It's not a terrorist *breeding* swamp. The principal terrorists in Iraq are: 1) Saddam Hussein's regime remnants, who were always terrorists...they were simply terrorists in power, and 2) those terrorists who have been bred in Saudi Arabia for more than a decade.

"It didn't harbour terrorists because they'd have provided a power base that wasn't Saddam."

Again, this is complete nonsense. Saddam's regime ARE terrorists. It's simply that the didn't need to bomb people when they were in power, because they could arrest and murder people where no one would notice.

"I would have advocated war for the sake of the dead dissidents; but at the time I did *not* predict that the result would be the transformation of a stable catastrophically
unpleasant dictatorship into a pretty stereotypical failed state,..."

More nonsense. That Iraq was stable at all was due primarily to the fact that Saddam Hussein was not allowed to fly helicopter gunships into northern and southern Iraq to finish the genocides against the Kurds and the Shiites that he'd started after the revolts ending the Gulf War.

Further, excerpt for the area of Iraq controlled by the Kurds, human development indicators were collapsing in Iraq...even with the Oil for Food program. Infant and child mortality was dramatically increasing. GDP per capita (purchasing power parity) is probably not substantially higher than 20 years ago, if at all. The GDP per capita in Iraq is $2496...ahead of only the West Bank, Yemen, and the Gaza Strip in the Middle East:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp_cap/MID

Today, Iraq has the greatest freedom of speech and most free press in the Arab world. It has far more freedom of religion than its neighbors Saudi Arabia and Iran.

"...of precisely the kind the abolition of which has been a point of foreign policy for a decade."

This would be the wondrous foreign policy of the Clinton and G.H.W. Bush administrations? The ones that protected the corrupt and illiberal Saudi monarchy...the reward for which was a generous donation from Saudi Arabia of 15 of the 19 September 11 terrorists?

It's definitely a truism that, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." But while I don't credit G.W. Bush for being an exceptionally smart man, at least he is intelligent enough to recognize that the Middle East *is* broke...and Iraq was one of the best examples.

Once again, G.W. Bush did NOT create a swamp in Iraq. You Democrats can pretend all you want that he did, but the facts do not support such an assertion.