Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: A Weblog

Uhm, this isn't just about endangering Americans. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died, many at the hands of suicide bombers. The bombing of that schoolbus full of children, for example.

If he is specifically lauding the movement of terrorists into Iraq, he is condoning that schoolbus bombing. And everything else.

Yeah, Susan, but you have to assume that would be true to begin with!
The other problem is that these jokers keep changing their minds about why we should be in Iraq.
One minute it's about WMD, next about Al-Qaida, then about democracy, and now this rubbish...

the bush coup is there for one reason--oil and power. We beat France to the punch (they had been working with Saddam) and now through military show we are trying to put a wedge in the middle east. Easterbrook in deed shows his ignorance or perhaps he's just a propaganda mouthpiece. Marshall makes a good point: there is no finite number of terrorists. With our cruel and unusual methods (including torture and "precision bombing") the U$A has become what it hates: the new face of global terror.

C'mon, Susan. Do you really believe that suicide bombings account for a significant percentage of the "tens of thousands" of Iraqis killed in the wake of the U.S. invasion? We are responsible for the overwhelming majority of Iraqi civilians deaths. And do you actually imagine that Josh Marshall is "lauding" an influx of terrorists into Iraq? Or that there has even been such an influx as opposed to a homegrown movement in response to the occupation?

"As I've said, this election is no longer a matter of partisanship but of patriotism. Love of country and excuses for the George W. Bush administration are no longer compatible--if they ever were."

Yeah, you tell 'em. And another thing I hate about Bush and those evil Republicans - how they're always questioning the patriotism of people who oppose them. Those bastards.

Ugh. To me, the ultimate irony is that the War on Terrorism seems to be headed in the direction of the War in Vietnam, the War on Drugs, or the War on Poverty, or whatever war the government seems to want to fight this year; these wars all suffer from the Bigger Hammer syndrome, i.e., the only thing that separates our present failures from future successes is more Committment -- more money, more soldiers, more mindless Patriotism. Isn't that attitude supposed to represent the very antithesis of convervatism?

I used to defend Easterbrook, about five shark jumps ago. Now I just feel like Emilio Estevez watching the band in Repo Man: I can't believe I used to like this guy.

Easterbrook is losing it. Just a few weeks ago in TNR he wrote about why can't we just up leave Iraq. Now he seems to be spouting the Neocon line that we may have had good luck of having created a killing field for the terrorists.

Last week he wrote in TNR how high in the future, the US might be able to fight insurgents in tough terrain like cities at relatively low cost in human life(at least US soldier's lives)by using High Tech drones. Another Neo-Con fantasy??
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=easterbrook090704

Salon has an article today that seems to say that the insurgency is increasing a spontanious response to the occupation by impoverished average Iraqs with out a single religious or political agenda.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/13/iraq_insurgent/index.html

...
Intelligence experts in Iraq talk of three main types of insurgent. There is the Mahdi Army of Shiite Muslims who follow radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and have led recent resistance to coalition forces in northern Baghdad, the central shrine city of Najaf and Basra, the southern port under British control. There is also "al-Qaida" -- non-Iraqi militants who have come to Iraq to wage jihad. And finally there are the "former regime loyalists," who are said to want the return of Saddam Hussein or, if that is impossible, his Baath party.

Abu Mujahed, worryingly for the analysts, fits into none of these easy categories. For a start, he was pro-American before the invasion. "The only way to breathe under the old regime was to watch American films and listen to their music," he said. He had been a Bon Jovi fan.

"It gave me a glimpse of a better life. When I heard that the Americans were coming to liberate Iraq,I was very happy. I felt that I would be able to live well, travel and have freedom. I wanted to do more sport, get new appliances and a new car and develop my life. I thought the U.S. would come here and our lives would be changed 180 degrees."

He spoke of how his faith in the U.S. was shaken when, via a friend's illicitly imported satellite TV system, he saw "barbaric, savage" pictures of civilian casualties of the fighting and bombing. The next blow came in the conflict's immediate aftermath, as looters ran unchecked through Baghdad. "When I saw the American soldiers watching and doing nothing as people took everything, I began to suspect the U.S. was not here to help us but to destroy us," he said. Abu Mujahed, whose real name is not known by the Observer, added: "I thought it might be just the chaos of war, but it got worse, not better."

He was not alone and swiftly found that many in the Adhamiya neighborhood of Baghdad shared his anger and disappointment. The time had come: "We realized we had to act."

Nothing had been planned in advance. There has been speculation, especially among American officials, that Saddam's henchmen had planned a "guerrilla war" if defeated. But Abu Mujahed, who described himself as "a Muslim but not religious," and the others in his group were not working to any plan. Everything they did was improvised. And each of his seven-man group had a different motive: "One man was fighting for his nation, another for a principle, another for his faith."

Significantly, his group contains several former soldiers, angry at the controversial demobilization of the Iraqi military by the coalition last year. Others, like Abu Mujahed, have salaried government jobs. The cell is not part of any broader organization and does not have a name, he said. "We are just local people ... There is a sheik who coordinates some of the various groups, but I do not know who he is."

To start with, the group lacked armaments and knowhow. "We made some careful inquiries. Some people gave us weapons; others sold us stuff they had looted," he said. The group also sought out experts, often former military officers, who gave impromptu tutorials in bomb making and communications .
...

Read the rest of the article.

Sounds to me like the bulk of the insurgent problems today has been the result of a failed occupation policy. Not following the Pentagon's plan for an Iraqi occupation like James Fallow's said prevously. Is it now too late to change things??? Killing average Iraqi's who may be righteously pissed off at us is not going to work. It certainly is not morally justified.

I still think a Galbraith's concept of allowing Iraq to evolve to a defacto spilt into several separate states affords the best framework for a US exit. Perhaps an International Peace keeping force could be use to prevent civil war and to oversee the reconstruction since the US seem to have lost all crediblity in this area.

Easterbrook is losing it. Just a few weeks ago in TNR he wrote about why can't we just up leave Iraq. Now he seems to be spouting the Neocon line that we may have had good luck of having created a killing field for the terrorists.

Last week he wrote in TNR how high in the future, the US might be able to fight insurgents in tough terrain like cities at relatively low cost in human life(at least US soldier's lives)by using High Tech drones. Another Neo-Con fantasy??
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=easterbrook090704

Salon has an article today that seems to say that the insurgency is increasing a spontanious response to the occupation by impoverished average Iraqs with out a single religious or political agenda.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/13/iraq_insurgent/index.html

...
Intelligence experts in Iraq talk of three main types of insurgent. There is the Mahdi Army of Shiite Muslims who follow radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and have led recent resistance to coalition forces in northern Baghdad, the central shrine city of Najaf and Basra, the southern port under British control. There is also "al-Qaida" -- non-Iraqi militants who have come to Iraq to wage jihad. And finally there are the "former regime loyalists," who are said to want the return of Saddam Hussein or, if that is impossible, his Baath party.

Abu Mujahed, worryingly for the analysts, fits into none of these easy categories. For a start, he was pro-American before the invasion. "The only way to breathe under the old regime was to watch American films and listen to their music," he said. He had been a Bon Jovi fan.

"It gave me a glimpse of a better life. When I heard that the Americans were coming to liberate Iraq,I was very happy. I felt that I would be able to live well, travel and have freedom. I wanted to do more sport, get new appliances and a new car and develop my life. I thought the U.S. would come here and our lives would be changed 180 degrees."

He spoke of how his faith in the U.S. was shaken when, via a friend's illicitly imported satellite TV system, he saw "barbaric, savage" pictures of civilian casualties of the fighting and bombing. The next blow came in the conflict's immediate aftermath, as looters ran unchecked through Baghdad. "When I saw the American soldiers watching and doing nothing as people took everything, I began to suspect the U.S. was not here to help us but to destroy us," he said. Abu Mujahed, whose real name is not known by the Observer, added: "I thought it might be just the chaos of war, but it got worse, not better."

He was not alone and swiftly found that many in the Adhamiya neighborhood of Baghdad shared his anger and disappointment. The time had come: "We realized we had to act."

Nothing had been planned in advance. There has been speculation, especially among American officials, that Saddam's henchmen had planned a "guerrilla war" if defeated. But Abu Mujahed, who described himself as "a Muslim but not religious," and the others in his group were not working to any plan. Everything they did was improvised. And each of his seven-man group had a different motive: "One man was fighting for his nation, another for a principle, another for his faith."

Significantly, his group contains several former soldiers, angry at the controversial demobilization of the Iraqi military by the coalition last year. Others, like Abu Mujahed, have salaried government jobs. The cell is not part of any broader organization and does not have a name, he said. "We are just local people ... There is a sheik who coordinates some of the various groups, but I do not know who he is."

To start with, the group lacked armaments and knowhow. "We made some careful inquiries. Some people gave us weapons; others sold us stuff they had looted," he said. The group also sought out experts, often former military officers, who gave impromptu tutorials in bomb making and communications .
...

Read the rest of the article.

Sounds to me like the bulk of the insurgent problems today has been the result of a failed occupation policy. Not following the Pentagon's plan for an Iraqi occupation like James Fallow's said prevously. Is it now too late to change things??? Killing average Iraqi's who may be righteously pissed off at us is not going to work. It certainly is not morally justified.

I still think a Galbraith's concept of allowing Iraq to evolve to a defacto spilt into several separate states affords the best framework for a US exit. Perhaps an International Peace keeping force could be use to prevent civil war and to oversee the reconstruction since the US seem to have lost all crediblity in this area.

Easterbrook is losing it. Just a few weeks ago in TNR he wrote about why can't we just up leave Iraq. Now he seems to be spouting the Neocon line that we may have had good luck of having created a killing field for the terrorists.

Last week he wrote in TNR how high in the future, the US might be able to fight insurgents in tough terrain like cities at relatively low cost in human life(at least US soldier's lives)by using High Tech drones. Another Neo-Con fantasy??
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=easterbrook090704

Salon has an article today that seems to say that the insurgency is increasing a spontanious response to the occupation by impoverished average Iraqs with out a single religious or political agenda.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/13/iraq_insurgent/index.html

...
Intelligence experts in Iraq talk of three main types of insurgent. There is the Mahdi Army of Shiite Muslims who follow radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and have led recent resistance to coalition forces in northern Baghdad, the central shrine city of Najaf and Basra, the southern port under British control. There is also "al-Qaida" -- non-Iraqi militants who have come to Iraq to wage jihad. And finally there are the "former regime loyalists," who are said to want the return of Saddam Hussein or, if that is impossible, his Baath party.

Abu Mujahed, worryingly for the analysts, fits into none of these easy categories. For a start, he was pro-American before the invasion. "The only way to breathe under the old regime was to watch American films and listen to their music," he said. He had been a Bon Jovi fan.

"It gave me a glimpse of a better life. When I heard that the Americans were coming to liberate Iraq,I was very happy. I felt that I would be able to live well, travel and have freedom. I wanted to do more sport, get new appliances and a new car and develop my life. I thought the U.S. would come here and our lives would be changed 180 degrees."

He spoke of how his faith in the U.S. was shaken when, via a friend's illicitly imported satellite TV system, he saw "barbaric, savage" pictures of civilian casualties of the fighting and bombing. The next blow came in the conflict's immediate aftermath, as looters ran unchecked through Baghdad. "When I saw the American soldiers watching and doing nothing as people took everything, I began to suspect the U.S. was not here to help us but to destroy us," he said. Abu Mujahed, whose real name is not known by the Observer, added: "I thought it might be just the chaos of war, but it got worse, not better."

He was not alone and swiftly found that many in the Adhamiya neighborhood of Baghdad shared his anger and disappointment. The time had come: "We realized we had to act."

Nothing had been planned in advance. There has been speculation, especially among American officials, that Saddam's henchmen had planned a "guerrilla war" if defeated. But Abu Mujahed, who described himself as "a Muslim but not religious," and the others in his group were not working to any plan. Everything they did was improvised. And each of his seven-man group had a different motive: "One man was fighting for his nation, another for a principle, another for his faith."

Significantly, his group contains several former soldiers, angry at the controversial demobilization of the Iraqi military by the coalition last year. Others, like Abu Mujahed, have salaried government jobs. The cell is not part of any broader organization and does not have a name, he said. "We are just local people ... There is a sheik who coordinates some of the various groups, but I do not know who he is."

To start with, the group lacked armaments and knowhow. "We made some careful inquiries. Some people gave us weapons; others sold us stuff they had looted," he said. The group also sought out experts, often former military officers, who gave impromptu tutorials in bomb making and communications .
...

Read the rest of the article.

Sounds to me like the bulk of the insurgent problems today has been the result of a failed occupation policy. Not following the Pentagon's plan for an Iraqi occupation like James Fallow's said prevously. Is it now too late to change things??? Killing average Iraqi's who may be righteously pissed off at us is not going to work. It certainly is not morally justified.

I still think a Galbraith's concept of allowing Iraq to evolve to a defacto spilt into several separate states affords the best framework for a US exit. Perhaps an International Peace keeping force could be use to prevent civil war and to oversee the reconstruction since the US seem to have lost all crediblity in this area.

Sorry about the multiple posts

Under some scenarios - not the Iraq - one a "fly paper" strategy would make sense.

The classic instance was during the Second Punic War, when the Romans, under Scipio Africanus - forced Hanibal to cease ravaging Italy by invading Africa and attacking Carthage. This forced Hanibal to withdraw from Italy in order to defend his home. "In order to defend Italy, invade Africa!" was the battle cry.

Taking the fight to the opponent is a high risk venture, however, as Robert E. Lee found out at Antitum and Gettysburg, Hitler at Stalingrad, and the Japanese at Midway. It is particularly dubious when the target is not one of vital need to the opponent, as Athens found out when it attacked Syracuse. There are two ways of viewing an offensive strategy. The first is that you are boldly moving all over your opponent. The second is that you are exposing your own forces as easier and more convient targets to your opponent.

The problem with Iraq is that the United States' opponents can afford to bloody American forces without feeling the need to commit their resources to a pitched battle. They continue to have at their disposal other targets and - while a neocon triumph in Baghdad would be a setback for them - they nevertheless could survive to fight another day.

Max's Sandwichman should do a comparitive study of the "Lump of Labor Fallacy" fallacy [sic] and the "Lump of Terrorism" fallacy.

This is also a referendum on the way in which the US is viewed by the rest of the world. If Bush is returned to the White House, it will be taken as an endorsement of a demented foreign policy by pretty much everywhere outside the border. I'm sure that many Republicans would consider that a point of pride; which is another reason why they must be defeated.

Quote:

Sounds to me like the bulk of the insurgent problems today has been the result of a failed occupation policy.

Well, duh!

It is reason for despair that you -- presumably a rational person who cares about world affairs -- is only figuring this out now. What did you not understand about the events of April, 2004?

All the killing of insurgents since has merely intensified the anti-American convictions of every non-Kurdish Iraqi not on the payroll.

Easterbrook's on quite a roll: first creationism, then anti-big-bang, and now this. I can't imagine what foolishness and knavery he'll pimp for next.

The proper metaphor is not flies and fly-paper, but flies and horse-shit. Bush has dumped a truck-load of manure in the front yard and is now trying to convince us that it will keep flies from entering the house.

When is the butcher's bill too high for Bush and Cheney and their ilk? Is there a limit?

Easterbrook is becoming a Kudlow sort of character. He bases his views on the thinnest exposure to the basis knowledge in the field he discusses, does a great job of packaging his drivel, and defense what he has to say rather than reconsidering it when objections are raised. The problem with Easterbrook is that he is willing to write uninformed things about such a wide variety of subjects.