Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: A Weblog

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/29/international/middleeast/29attacks.html?hp

Iraq Study Sees Rebels' Attacks as Widespread
By JAMES GLANZ and THOM SHANKER

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Over the past 30 days, more than 2,300 attacks by insurgents have been directed against civilians and military targets in Iraq, in a pattern that sprawls over nearly every major population center outside the Kurdish north, according to comprehensive data compiled by a private security company with access to military intelligence reports and its own network of Iraqi informants.

The sweeping geographical reach of the attacks, from Nineveh and Salahuddin Provinces in the northwest to Babylon and Diyala in the center and Basra in the south, suggests a more widespread resistance than the isolated pockets described by Iraqi government officials.

The type of attacks ran the gamut: car bombs, time bombs, rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades, small-arms fire, mortar attacks and land mines.

"If you look at incident data and you put incident data on the map, it's not a few provinces, " said Adam Collins, a security expert and the chief intelligence official in Iraq for Special Operations Consulting-Security Management Group Inc., a private security company based in Las Vegas that compiles and analyzes the data as a regular part of its operations in Iraq.

The number of attacks has risen and fallen over the months. Mr. Collins said the highest numbers were in April, when there was major fighting in Falluja, with attacks averaging 120 a day. The average is now about 80 a day, he said.

But it is a measure of both the fog of war and the fact that different analysts can look at the same numbers and come to opposite conclusions, that others see a nation in which most people are perfectly safe and elections can be held with clear legitimacy.

http://www.juancole.com/

On the Virtues of Changing the Mind

It is depressing for me to see George W. Bush on the stump doing a stand-up comedy routine about John Kerry, parroting the predictable line that Kerry has had more than one opinion about Iraq. Serious news reporters who have gone back over the record find that Bush's charge is without merit, and that Kerry has been consistent on his Iraq position.

The thing that most worries me is not when a politician's thinking evolves on a subject and he changes his mind. It is when a politician refuses even to consider changing his mind. Such inflexibility is almost always a sign of rigidity, which can be catastrophic in the most powerful man in the world.

So Bush vowed not to retreat in Iraq.

Bush has been refusing to retreat, or even to reconsider, for a long time now. At a news conference in the spring, Bush was asked if he had made any errors, and he replied that he could not think of any. Yesterday he said he did not regret his "mission accomplished" speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, in which he declared the Iraq war over. Bush keeps saying that there are 100,000 fully trained Iraqi security personnel, and seems to think that there are hundreds of UN election workers on the ground in Iraq.

Mark Kleiman has something to say to say relevant to the Iraq situation.

http://www.markarkleiman.com/

He offers "wishful thinking" as a catch phrase to get at Bush's unwillingness to consider facts, listen to contrary opinions, or change his mind. This is not meant to accurately characterize Bush's thinking, which is likely to be far worse than merely wishful (as demonstrated by his use of schoolyard bullying tactics on the stump and behind the scenes). Rather, it is meant to be a way to get the undecided voter and the waffler to see how dangerous Bush's thinking is, without requiring them to think of him as simply bad.

Just came back from the Shrill Blog and now feel that "Shrill" is not enough. "Rage Blog" (tm) is needed.
God I am sick of this crowd.

Any room left on Kerry's staff for the brilliant editors of the Lonestar Iconoclast. Why can Kerry not deliver such a plain spoken, clear, and cutting indictment of Bush? Sign them all up and send them to get the message out on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC.

A couple of comments on the posts by Lise. It is perfectly possible that most people in Iraq are living in relative peace, just as most people in the labour force are working when the unemployment rate is 15 percent. I've been waiting for the Republican party to brag that 94.4 percent of the people who WANT to work in the US are actually working, and that this is a good batting average.

As to Bush's refusing to retreat. He may refuse, but the money market won't. He has to come up with another hundred billion or so short term if he wants to keep troops there (not to mention the problem of replacing the depleting ranks). Reality sucks for him, too, as it often does for us. He can be as unyielding as he wants, but he still has to sell the bill to the public, who though they don't know much else, know something about the financial cost of the war.

Has Bill Moyers been inducted yet?

Because I think this certainly qualifies.

It's misnamed allright. Should be The Self-Unaware Blog.

And does someone who invents F-102 crashes, really want to use the phrase: "simple disconnection from reality"?

http://www.tompaine.com/print/journalism_under_fire.php

Notice that Bill Moyers will soon retire, with NOW on PBS beging cut to 30 minutes. In turn PBS has added 30 minutes with the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page writers. PBS has become increasingly conservative in orientation these last couple of years.

So all these Bush critics and bearers of inconvenient facts are lacking in self-awareness? Does that mean if I were more in touch with my inner-most being I would reject the ranks of the shrill and support Bush? Does lack of support for Dear Leader indicate mental instability? Or is this some kind of groovy, new age conservatism? "Dude, you don't support Bush?, come on, he is like so totally self-aware."

TNR isn't shrill yet, but they've made me think a couple of times lately that their decibels are increasing. NB: I'm not a subscriber -- just read 'em on line. Maybe in print they're just as anal and self-conscious as they have been for years...

I agree with lise's assessment of PBS's growing inclination to the right.
But knut seems to think that things aren't so bad in Iraq as all that.
"perfectly possible that most people in Iraq are living in relative peace, just as most people in the labour force are working when the unemployment rate is 15 percent."
So those air raids on those "troublesome" spots that Cole mentioned the other day are "possibly" over-blown? The other 85% possibly consider these evening air strikes entertainment --free fireworks?

TNR is so pro-war. Their new cover is about the "end" of the Second Intifada. Of course, in reality, the bombing continues. TNR funding is entirely questionable.

Wasn't David Hackworth a non-stop guest on FOX during the early days of the war?

The Times? Shrill? I haven't caught it lately, but it still hasn't fired Miller.

Lise,

I wish your assessment of the WSJ's editorial writers were true. They are, by and large, not conservative in any dictionary or historical sense. A decent conservative editorial outlet, one not virulently and irrationally anti-Democrat, bought-and-paid-for supporters of Bush, creators of a fictional record for Reagan...you know what I mean, would be a welcome read. That ain't the WSJ.

There is even worse, dilbert dogbert, it's called "The Cheese Monkey" (http://zacheesemonkey.blogspot.com/). After reading that piece of crap, you'll come to think that the ShrillBlog is fair and ballanced...

The Presidential "debate" between Kerry and Bush revealed a lot more about these men than I had expected to see:

John Kerry revealed himself as a strong and steady leader who understands how to make the best of the mess we have gotten into in the Iraq war. Kerry consistently stated that Bush's invasion of Iraq was a collosal mistake, diverting our effort away from the real fight against terrorists. Although he voted to authorize the President's use of force against Hussein in Iraq, Kerry fealt that we were all mislead when Bush broke his pledge to go to war as a last resort,and in cooperation with old allies. Bush had his opportunistic war in spite of US, got thousands of our best people killed, and squandered over 200 $$ billion of our treasury; John Kerry knows how to win help from our friends, and then come home. He knows we cannot and must not lose this one.

I was really hoping to hear President Bush tell the truth about Iraq, but he babbled about fantasies. Bush's neo-con-men turned down help from the UN, and they lied about the real reasons for this war in Iraq. We didn't plan for winning the peace, and our troops are now mired in the quicksands of Babylon. Iraq is in chaos according to our own State Deptartment and CIA intelligence; The people of Iraq want us to get out. Bush still paints a rosey picture of Iraq, but I detected a plaintively pathetic note when Bush talked about their new "Freedom". We're less safe now.

These debates give us new hope for the future: John Kerry is a leader we can believe and count on for America's security. George Bush has blown our country's credibility and trust; I'm ready for real change at the top.