Iraq - The Best Story of the Year
NCfan
Posts: 945
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/tim_hames/article3059926.ece
Never make predictions,” said the American baseball manager Casey Stengel, “especially about the future.” Alas, I have never been able to resist an invitation to emulate Nostradamus, though without developing the flair for ambiguity and impenetrability that has enabled his enthusiasts to claim that he foresaw everything.
So when, for the January 1 edition of this newspaper, I was asked to write 100 words of predictions for 2007, I embraced the task with diligence and as many prophecies as possible were squeezed into the space available.
So imagine my horror when I opened the page of predictions and discovered that most of my colleagues had deftly managed to offer the fewest possible hostages to fortune in their contributions or had written elegant homilies on how mad it was to be straying into this line of business in the first place.
Daniel Finkelstein noted that “the record of experts making predictions is not very good” and, hence, the best strategy was “to forecast that what happens in the coming year will follow very closely what happened last year”.
The first of these rules is undoubtedly robust. My favourite expert insights include “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers” (Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943) — my household, incidentally, has those five — along with “who the hell wants to hear actors talk?” (H.M.Warner, the founder of Warner Brothers, defending the silent movie, 1927), and “All attempts at artificial aviation are not only dangerous to life but doomed to failure from an engineering standpoint” (the Editor of The Times, 1905).
The second rule works most of the time but is less useful than it might appear. It is no help if the event involved lacks a precedent. This is demonstrated by the distinctly mixed record of my own reckless predictions. These were, on the one hand, that Gordon Brown would be elected Labour leader unopposed, that Nicolas Sarkozy would become the President of France and that Steve McClaren would not be in charge of the England football team by December 31 and, on the other, that Hilary Benn would be elected deputy leader of the Labour Party (Harriet Harman surely has made the case that he should have been) that Jack Straw, not Alistair Darling, would be the Chancellor (Mr Darling seems to be striving to show that Mr Straw was the smarter bet) and, worst of the lot, that Barack Obama would not run for the US presidency (I blame Oprah).
And there was one more that defied the notion that “the future is the past” completely. It was “Iraq is more peaceful in 2007 than at any time since the 2003 invasion”. Not only is this essentially correct but it is the most important story in the world this year.
By any measure, the US-led surge has been little short of a triumph. The number of American military fatalities is reduced sharply, as is the carnage of Iraqi civilians, Baghdad as a city is functioning again, oil output is above where it stood in March 2003 but at a far stronger price per barrel and, the acid test, many of those who fled to Syria and Jordan are today returning home.
The cheering has, of course, to come accompanied by caveats. Security has certainly been improved, but it remains fragile. Basra and the surrounding areas, handed back by Britain yesterday, are not as violent as they were a few months ago but this comparative peace has been bought at a high price in terms of tolerating intolerance (particularly towards women).
Also, there is a telling contrast between what has been won by the American “surge” and lost through the British “slump”. We once boasted about the virtues of a “softly-softly” style, allegedly honed in Northern Ireland, but the truth is that the British Forces have been so softly-softly that the local militias long ago decided that we were not very serious about using our troops to exercise influence. The Baghdad Government is not impressive and what progress there has been is despite, not because of it. There is much hard work to be done if a constitutional settlement is to be completed.
Yet none of this should detract from what has been achieved in Iraq so unexpectedly this year. First, the country will now have the time to establish itself. A year ago it seemed as if American forces would have been withdrawn in ignominious fashion either well before the end of the Bush Administration or, at best, days after the next president came to office. This will not now happen. The self-evident success of the surge has obliged the Democrats to start talking about almost anything else and the calls to cut and run have abated. If the US Army remains in Iraq in strength, continuing on its present path, then deals on a constitution and the division of oil revenues between provinces will be realised.
Secondly, the aspiration that Iraq could be some sort of “beacon” in the region is no longer ridiculous. It will never be Sweden with beards, but there has been the development of a vibrant capitalist class and a media of a diversity that is unique in the region. Were Iraq to emerge with a federal political structure, regular local and national elections and an economic dynamism in which the many, not the few, could share, then it would be a model.
Finally, Iraq in 2007 has illustrated that the words “intelligent American policy” are not an oxymoron. The tragedy is that the approach of General David Petraeus could and should have been adopted four years ago in the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's enforced departure. One prominent American politician alone has spent that time publicly demanding the extra soldiers which, in 2007, have been Iraq's salvation. That statesman is John McCain. Is it too much to hope (let alone predict) that he will reap his reward at the polls in 2008?
Never make predictions,” said the American baseball manager Casey Stengel, “especially about the future.” Alas, I have never been able to resist an invitation to emulate Nostradamus, though without developing the flair for ambiguity and impenetrability that has enabled his enthusiasts to claim that he foresaw everything.
So when, for the January 1 edition of this newspaper, I was asked to write 100 words of predictions for 2007, I embraced the task with diligence and as many prophecies as possible were squeezed into the space available.
So imagine my horror when I opened the page of predictions and discovered that most of my colleagues had deftly managed to offer the fewest possible hostages to fortune in their contributions or had written elegant homilies on how mad it was to be straying into this line of business in the first place.
Daniel Finkelstein noted that “the record of experts making predictions is not very good” and, hence, the best strategy was “to forecast that what happens in the coming year will follow very closely what happened last year”.
The first of these rules is undoubtedly robust. My favourite expert insights include “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers” (Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943) — my household, incidentally, has those five — along with “who the hell wants to hear actors talk?” (H.M.Warner, the founder of Warner Brothers, defending the silent movie, 1927), and “All attempts at artificial aviation are not only dangerous to life but doomed to failure from an engineering standpoint” (the Editor of The Times, 1905).
The second rule works most of the time but is less useful than it might appear. It is no help if the event involved lacks a precedent. This is demonstrated by the distinctly mixed record of my own reckless predictions. These were, on the one hand, that Gordon Brown would be elected Labour leader unopposed, that Nicolas Sarkozy would become the President of France and that Steve McClaren would not be in charge of the England football team by December 31 and, on the other, that Hilary Benn would be elected deputy leader of the Labour Party (Harriet Harman surely has made the case that he should have been) that Jack Straw, not Alistair Darling, would be the Chancellor (Mr Darling seems to be striving to show that Mr Straw was the smarter bet) and, worst of the lot, that Barack Obama would not run for the US presidency (I blame Oprah).
And there was one more that defied the notion that “the future is the past” completely. It was “Iraq is more peaceful in 2007 than at any time since the 2003 invasion”. Not only is this essentially correct but it is the most important story in the world this year.
By any measure, the US-led surge has been little short of a triumph. The number of American military fatalities is reduced sharply, as is the carnage of Iraqi civilians, Baghdad as a city is functioning again, oil output is above where it stood in March 2003 but at a far stronger price per barrel and, the acid test, many of those who fled to Syria and Jordan are today returning home.
The cheering has, of course, to come accompanied by caveats. Security has certainly been improved, but it remains fragile. Basra and the surrounding areas, handed back by Britain yesterday, are not as violent as they were a few months ago but this comparative peace has been bought at a high price in terms of tolerating intolerance (particularly towards women).
Also, there is a telling contrast between what has been won by the American “surge” and lost through the British “slump”. We once boasted about the virtues of a “softly-softly” style, allegedly honed in Northern Ireland, but the truth is that the British Forces have been so softly-softly that the local militias long ago decided that we were not very serious about using our troops to exercise influence. The Baghdad Government is not impressive and what progress there has been is despite, not because of it. There is much hard work to be done if a constitutional settlement is to be completed.
Yet none of this should detract from what has been achieved in Iraq so unexpectedly this year. First, the country will now have the time to establish itself. A year ago it seemed as if American forces would have been withdrawn in ignominious fashion either well before the end of the Bush Administration or, at best, days after the next president came to office. This will not now happen. The self-evident success of the surge has obliged the Democrats to start talking about almost anything else and the calls to cut and run have abated. If the US Army remains in Iraq in strength, continuing on its present path, then deals on a constitution and the division of oil revenues between provinces will be realised.
Secondly, the aspiration that Iraq could be some sort of “beacon” in the region is no longer ridiculous. It will never be Sweden with beards, but there has been the development of a vibrant capitalist class and a media of a diversity that is unique in the region. Were Iraq to emerge with a federal political structure, regular local and national elections and an economic dynamism in which the many, not the few, could share, then it would be a model.
Finally, Iraq in 2007 has illustrated that the words “intelligent American policy” are not an oxymoron. The tragedy is that the approach of General David Petraeus could and should have been adopted four years ago in the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's enforced departure. One prominent American politician alone has spent that time publicly demanding the extra soldiers which, in 2007, have been Iraq's salvation. That statesman is John McCain. Is it too much to hope (let alone predict) that he will reap his reward at the polls in 2008?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
not much to bitch about - is it perfect? nope.
go back and read some ny times stories after ww2...exact same headlines..bottom line is, these things take time.
in this day and time, instant gratification is all that matters. not many want to go through the ups and downs that life brings, much less wait 4 or 5 years for something.
it has the dems flip flopping yet again - i think it's funny as hell.
it was a big change over there, it's gonna take time...right now at least, it looks like things are going in the right direction.
this country has supported regime change since the early 90's...it's stupid to put it all at bush's feet. he just had the balls to do what bill was too chickenshit to do
oh yeah, now i'm waiting for those who will come a bashing
the million already dead is old news I guess... guess the rate of death had dramatically decreased.... that is good news.
Iraq is a story that is more than a few years in the making
Iraq is a very sad tale of great suffering and death
...
And the bottom line of all of this... 'Staying The Course' was a bad strategy. Yet, we stuck with it (and it was supported) for a long time.
Hail, Hail!!!
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
they are already talking about scaling back troops...they will be there for awhile i'm guessing...just like every other war or conflict
better off with samddam in there right? as long as he was killing his own, it was hunky dory.
except for every other place in the world, then we should rush in and help
Wipe out a few billion people perhaps, but nukes will probably darken the skies like a swarm of locusts first.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Don't kid yourself... this is not a war... it is an occupation.
In a war... we can expect an unconditional surrender by military commanders... right? Do you really expect that in this case? No.
This is going to be a long... drawn out process where the only Americans having to pay the consequences are the one in our military. Not you... not me. Them.
So, let's at least be honest with them. Tell them they are going to be there for a long... long time. Don't use bullshit semantics that suggest their stay is temporary.
Hail, Hail!!!
"It was “Iraq is more peaceful in 2007 than at any time since the 2003 invasion”. Not only is this essentially correct but it is the most important story in the world this year. "
...
That suggests that it is as peaceful as it was under Saddam's Reign.
Is that considered to be an 'improvement'?
Hail, Hail!!!
no crap - did i say "bringing home the troops"????
scaling back is a different thing
we are still in Germany, japan, everywhere else we've been..
which is what i said.."for awhile"
edit - the soldiers signed up to pay the price
Yes they signed up to defend this country, not to be used in some bullshit war based on lies.
Did soldiers sign up to be lied to or misled? Yeah.. 'Support Our Troops', huh?
...
As for Germany and Japan... why are we still there? Is Germany going to restart WWII if we leave? Is Japan? And how much is all that costing us in taxes?
Comparing WWII and this Iraq does not equate in regards to history or war.
Hail, Hail!!!
is that what we did in Iraq, rush in and help?
Nobody signed up to pay the price. That is ignorant. Soldiers signed up to support and defend the constitution.......
we shouldn't rush in anywhere. let the rest of the world sort out its own damn problems. i want our soldiers here protecting our borders.
look, in this day and age, you know what you are getting into when you join..
You mean, like the guys who signed up on September 12, 2001 to fight and defeat the ones who attacked us in New York and Washington, D.C?
...
Shouldn't they be actually fighting the ones who attacked us... instead of being stuck in an endless cycle of re-deployments in a country that had no involvement in those attacks?
Hail, Hail!!!
dude, get a new record...it was justified..the end
Dude... get your mouth off of George Bush's dick... it had nothing to do with September 11th.
Afghanistan... yes, directly involved with the attacks and global terrorism. Iraq... no. No involvement with September 11th and only localized threat not extending beyond its borders.
Try stepping into reality for a change.
Hail, Hail!!!
how dare you call out anyone on the board and question if they served or why they didn't!
you support the cause so much yet you give the typical bullshit chicken-hawk deferrment response "they knew what they were getting into when they joined".
how typical......
the objective in war is to take territory and take prisoners, which incapacitates the enemy army. when the enemy can no longer fight, you win. we have not taken territory, we launched into iraq from friendly allied nations like saudi arabia and are occupying what was already there. we have not taken many prisoners, but we killed a shit ton or civillians and "terrorists". the objective is NOT to babysit oilfields and independant contractors and diplomats. this is an occupation and it should be ended immediately.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
If it were up to me (it isn't) we would let the Iraqi people vote not just on their leader but what should the American troops do. That is the path to success: we cannot stay in Iraq forever and neither is it responsible to leave immediately. The absolute best course of action comes from the people we are/were trying to help. They know what they want.
As for segregating Iraq into Kurd/Sunni/Shii sections to create peace, that has no good outcome. If America tried to split the land up, you're sure as hell we'd do it unfairly. Does anyone really believe we can tell millions of people: "scooch"? I can think of one other time when the West tried to create religious haven out of an entire country. We all know how that worked out.
That is the one statement that pisses me off more than any other statement out there. Anyone who makes that statement is not supporting the troops in the field... they are supporting the policies made in the White House. It makes me sick... and it makes me angry.
Especially when it is spewed from civilian pansy asses that cheer the sending off of other American lives into harm's way.
Hail, Hail!!!
mmm...tumors
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
if i was sucking a dick, it would be you - you seem to be dick all over
If you were sucking dick.. you'd be sucking mine?
...
I bet you say that to all the boys.
...
The sucking Bush dick means you are constantly making excuses for his poor decision making... the war and occupation... the stay the course bullshit... the constant excuses. You make excuses for his mistakes... yes, mistakes... like he's your homosexual lover or something.
Everyone makes mistakes. Wusses and assholes fail to admit to them.
Hail, Hail!!!
if the war is so worth fighting, why haven't you enlisted to help the effort? occupation in iraq not worth dying for? not worth a few months away from your job for?
Man, you really showed him.
Meanwhile...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7139974.stm
Wednesday, 12 December 2007, 14:59 GMT
Triple car bombs hit south Iraq
Three car bombs have exploded in the southern Iraqi city of Amara, killing at least 39 people and injuring more than 100, police say.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7132111.stm
Friday, 7 December 2007, 16:50 GMT
Double bombing in Iraqi province
At least 26 people have died in two blasts in Iraq's Diyala province. One attack was carried out by a female suicide bomber.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iraq;_ylt=At2.zvd3R.gyKZxqQQQC3jFX6GMA
'...the Iraqi Army is losing up to 17 percent of its troops a year because of higher casualty rates, which are two to three times that of coalition forces, as well as desertions.
As of November, 21,000 Iraqi soldiers had been dropped from the rolls this year after going AWOL, the report said.'