posted
According to OSC's latest Worldwatch column it was.
quote:He cannot admit that the troop surge worked. Why? Because that surge was John McCain's idea, not even President Bush's. Bush gets full points for instituting it and supporting Petraeus and the troops in making it work. But McCain was the maverick -- the guy who called, not for defeat, but for change that would lead to victory.
No, actually it wasn't his idea. McCain supports it, certainly, and has been its persistent flagbearer for years now, and MoveOn ran ads declaring it McCain's plan in the hopes of sinking him with it, but other military leaders were asking for just this direction soon after it became obvious that Iraq might be too much for us to control. McCain himself credited others with it in his policy address to the American Enterprise Institute in 2005:
quote:Instead, we need to clear and stay. We can do this with a modified version of traditional counterinsurgency strategy. Dr. Andrew Krepinevich, AEI’s Tom Donnelly and Gary Schmitt and others have written about this idea. Whether called the “ink blot,” “oil spot,” or “safe haven” strategy, it draws upon successful counterinsurgency efforts in the past. (italics mine)
This policy address (and Joe Lieberman's), along with the work of the men mentioned and others, led directly to the formation of the official surge plan so McCain definitely played a huge part, but the wording above suggests it was all his and I consider that unfair to the rest of the people involved.
If OSC is going to quibble about Obama's declaration of "no preconditions" being at odds with his later clarification that he would meet after preparations (what does "no preconditions" mean, anyway? Doesn't call first? Just drops in, like James Bond?) then it behooves us to be precise about everyone's claims. (Marc Ambinder parsed this clarification at length here)Obama has also said the surge's success surpassed everyone's wildest dreams, but that interview may have occurred after this article was written, I dunno.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: "By the launch of the surge, many of the targets of conflict had either been killed or fled the country, and they turned off the lights when they left," geography professor John Agnew of the University of California Los Angeles, who led the study, said in a statement.
"Essentially, our interpretation is that violence has declined in Baghdad because of intercommunal violence that reached a climax as the surge was beginning," said Agnew, who studies ethnic conflict.
While this is not conclusive, it's certainly eye-opening for me, and should be for those who keep insisting that "the surge WORKED".
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
don't you know that McCain is the most perfectly honorable and prescient politician ever? And everything good that could happen can only happen if he is to lead us? of course the surge was his idea!
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, OSC is for the Iraq war and seems to support anyone who also supports it.
Or rather, the successful prosecution of the war in Iraq as it pertains to the overall war on terrorism is so important to Mr. Card, that it strongly influences who he votes for.
I suppose it's doubtful you were saying, "If super villain X was running, OSC would vote for him."
I don't think Mr. Card is aware of O'Reilly's interview with Obama where the latter admitted the surge succeeded better than he anticipated. But beyond that, it's likely Mr. Card just wants Obama to come out and admit that he was in the wrong when he his rhetoric was along the lines of, "Get out now."
I personally think Obama would do well to say something like, "On the war in Iraq, there was a time when things looked extremely grave by all accounts. Fortunately after listening to the experts in the field who requested more troops, President Bush responded with the surge. More importantly, the Iraqi people have been establishing their own mandate for the country, and after discussing this with the president of Iraq, we both agreed that timetables are essential for a positive resolution. It is my intention as president to always listen to the experts there to advise me, regardless of political affiliation, as well as the leaders of other nations, regardless of popularity."
But of course Obama would say it more eloquently and effectively.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama has said at least, and probably several times before, that militarily the surge has been successful. As it turns out, it may be that the assumed benefits of the surge, the drop in violence, actually had less to do with military power and more to do with our massive infusion of cash into the local tribal areas. In other words, we put all the guys we were fighting on our payroll, where they now remain, and it remains to be seen what will happen when we send them all pink slips.
But Obama's point in the past when he has said the surge was a success (which is a point many have missed) and even on O'Reilly's show, is that the surge had a lot of specific purposes, only a few of which were military, and the rest were political and economic. While many of the military goals have been met, arguably because of the surge, many of the political and economic goals have not been, and the point of the surge was to allow the political coverage for those laws and reforms to be passed. Everyone for the war likes to trumpet the tamped down violence while ignoring all the marks that have been missed or are still incomplete.
The surge MIGHT be a success, it might have done absolutely nothing at all, or it might be a failure. We don't know yet. This is one of those situations without a clear yes and clear no.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
even though I support Obama, and I think that he will do a better job of fixing Bush's messes that he has created, I am a bit worried about his whole "get the heck out of Iraq" philosophy. We should never have gone into iraq, but leaving before they are ready to run the military there without us will be a mistake. we should however make it a huge priority in getting the iraqi govt. ready to handle things there without us.
Posts: 104 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
His Iraq mantra is "we should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in."
His push to leave is part of the effort to compel Iraq's government to get off their butts and pass needed legislation that they've been sitting on for months and years. I don't think he'll just yank them all out like some Democrats have called for, but I don't think he'll agree to leave them there for years and years to come without the threat of withdrawel like most Republicans who seemingly support an open ended commitment.
I think his approach is what has been sorely missing on the diplomatic side of things.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, McCain was calling for the troop surge at a time when no one as prominent as him was doing so. While the idea did not spring whole from his head like Athena from the mind of Zeus, he was calling for it at a time when no one else in leadership was. At least none of the other major presidential candidates of either party--or the President himelf--were calling for it that early.
Politically, he owned this idea. In that sense, it was "his." At least, it was sufficiently "his" to support the points Card was trying to make in the article.
From your last paragraph, it seems your arguement here is just that Card is being imprecise. If that is the case, I'd say that the fault is in traditional political rhetoric, not in Card. Pretty much everybody always gives credit for an idea to the most prominent or loudest public policy maker who champions the idea, no matter where they got their ideas. Hillary Clinton did not lock herself in a room and emerge with the 1993 Clinton health care plan, but it's still called "hers."
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the new one is that a McCain aide claimed McCain invented the Blackberry because he was on the senate communications comittee.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Political partisans understand that people are generally uninformed and ignorant. They're not stupid because they're rarely exposed to any actual information.
Thus it's easy to make up something about Al Gore claiming to invent the internet (actually he took credit for working with President Clinton to set the climate for the perpetuation of the internet into society, a far less audacious claim). The McCain advisor "gaffe" involving the Blackberry is nothing more than a corny joke that, predictably, got blown out of proportion by similar dishonest morons.
Still, if we focus on the pretend issues (McCain/Blackberry), then we can ignore the real idiocy in this campaign, like the idea that Sarah Palin has political experience because she can dimly make out Russia on the horizon from the Alaskan coastline.
Furthermore, rarely does a major idea (like the troop surge) come from a single individual like John McCain. Being an early, powerful supporter of a policy can be equivalent to inventing it yourself. I don't know if McCain came up with the idea (sources say no), but if he provided momentum for public support of the policy then he deserves more than a little credit.
Posts: 127 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:(actually he took credit for working with President Clinton to set the climate for the perpetuation of the internet into society, a far less audacious claim).
ACTUALLY when Gore was in the Senate he helped pass a couple bills that ended up being pretty instrumental in the creation of the internet as it exists today. He didn't hop into the computer lab to create it from scratch, but it wouldn't be what it is today without him. Off the top of my head, I think the exact quote from Gore was something like 'I took the initiative in creating the internet.' Given the facts, I don't think it's hard to accept that statement as true.
Really though, the surge being McCain's "idea" is irrelevent. This isn't a discussion over which candidate has the actual tactical experience to suggest troop movements and battle tactics. Presidents don't do that (well, unless you're Eisenhower, Grant or Jackson I guess). It's a question of judgment, of seeing a good strategy when it's presented and supporting it to fruition.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't Obama openly admit that the troop surge has met with success beyond his expectations? I believe he said so when he spoke with Bill O'Reilly recently. That wasn't good enough for O'Reilly, who insisted that therefore Obama's lack of support was a mistake, which is logically faulty.
O'Reilly's position in insisting that Obama erred in not supporting the surge, because of its subsequent success, is ridiculous. If we chose to evaluate our decisions according to outcome, we would have no sense of what decisions to make in the future. Though outcome is important to consider, it is based on more variables than can be included in one's judgment- the simple fact of having been proved incorrect, in this case, does not invalidate Obama's judgment. (And when you consider that his lack of support factored into the outcome, you cannot prove that his actions in not supporting the surge were detrimental to the situation.)
As an example: You're playing blackjack, and you get 17 against a dealer 5. Your best play is to stand on 17, but instead, you hit, just to see what happens. There is a chance you will get 4. You get 4, and your 21 is now safe against the dealer; you will get at least a push.
Your friends might say: you made the right decision, you are now going to (probably) win. However, you have made the wrong decision. If you act upon this experience and hit 17 again, you will probably lose. Also, you have upset the order of the decks, and the chances against you and every other player at the table are now very slightly lower, until the next shuffle.
O'Reilly essentially argues that Obama not look at the factors involved in his decision critically, and simply learn that he is wrong to not support more aggressive action in Iraq. Though the war is not a game of Blackjack, and it may be that Obama should have seen the (possible) wisdom of a troop surge, and supported it, the most important thing in the situation is the question: Did he refuse to support the surge for the right reasons? Given his information and judgment, did he make the right decision for America, and not himself? If he weighed the consequences carefully, and judged that the surge was unlikely to succeed, or would have negative consequences that outweighed good, and for this reason refused to support it, then he made the right decision, even if he turned out to be wrong. You just have to pick your best chances every time- you don't get the play the hand again, or claim that not hitting on 17 is a mistake, even when the next card dealt actually turns out to BE a 4.
I wouldn't want a president who thought that way- that person would be a problem gambler.
Edit to Add:
I can't let OSC get away with this piece of inanity (though I agree with a couple of his points):
quote: as if Americans should be willing to die to protect the nonexistent constitutional rights of noncitizens.
Noncitizens have constitutional rights. In fact, they have most of the rights afforded to American born citizens and naturalized citizens. The 4th Amendment is not, as far as I am aware, restricted to citizens.
So what's the plan here? We get all the rights, and to hell with everyone who isn't a member? That's what's going on with your precious Bush administration and Guantanamo bay, where the constitutional rights of many, many prisoners have been violated, along with a handful of international treaties, like the Geneva Conventions, which were also violated repeatedly by our military during the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Oh, but it's ok, because we are winning? Who are you?
posted
Once upon a time it was "Black people don't get any rights". It wasn't as if the American Constitution ever distinguished between white and black people. The VILLAINS simply added the word "white" in their heads, whenever the Constitution spoke about "people".
Now, it's "Non-citizens don't get any rights" OSC has now fully transformed into a amoral villain also, no better than the slave-owners were, by taking the side that non-citizens don't have rights.
The American constitution quite clearly specifies which rights are only limited to citizens. But just like slavers of 150years ago did with the word "white", OSC chooses to add the word "citizen" whenever the Constitution speaks about "people".
Non-citizens aren't people, isn't that nice to know. You can murder them, or rape them, or torture them to death, and who gives a damn? They're not people.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: as if Americans should be willing to die to protect the nonexistent constitutional rights of noncitizens.
...what? I'm really hoping for an explanation or clarification here...there's no way he really means that noncitizens don't have any rights.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope not. If one is fighting against terrorism it's a good idea to avoid creating new terrorists acting on revenge and anger.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Unless they aren't US citizens, in which case, not so much.
Okay, so that isn't the constitution. But I hope that isn't what he meant.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is the reasonable reading of his words in this essay. He's talking specifically about Bush's illegal unwarranted wiretapping, which concerns only calls made and or information stored in the United States.
As far as I know, we recognize the constitutional rights of others in any country. He may specifically be referencing the storage of foreign call information in U.S. based computers, but again, and still, this information is afforded protection against unwarranted search. He's basically defending Bush for breaking our laws and flouting our constitution.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
His wording seems to me to be rather hyperbolic. While it would be a fair literal interpretation to claim Mr. Card said that non citizens have no rights, I read a much more complex meaning into his comment.
Espionage is a part of conflict and war, whether we like it or not. Governments are always trying to discover the plans of their enemies (and often their friends). Our constitution provides citizens of this country with a certain amount of protection and privacy from the invasive eyes of the government. This was very likely put in place first as a protection for those who would like to engage in lawful protest and civil discourse. (Keep in mind please that I am discussing this with a woeful lack of knowledge of the history of the constitution and its amendments, and try to look at the larger point, not the details.)
In the old-world way of thinking, espionage was relatively easier than it is today. Consider the larger conflicts of the 20th Century, wherein it was pretty easy to see that, say, Germany was our enemy, and if we send some spies in to figure out what their plans are, where their munitions are being made, etc. then we have a better chance of military success. It is about as moral an act as any military act. (Though if you ask my Quaker grandfather about the morality of war - even cold wars, you will hear that there is none.)
In a war on terrorism, where there is not really an official state or organization with which we are regularly in conflict, it is more difficult to define the morality of espionage and privacy. This is largely because it is much more difficult to find out on whom we must spy.
Mr. Card brings up the idea that the wire tapping in question is morally acceptable because it is espionage on conversations involves non citizens, who, the argument goes, are potentially enemies of the state.
When it comes to war, I think it is pretty evident that people regard their enemies as NOT having the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that the citizens have. Otherwise why would they be fighting?
All that being said....
I certainly take issue with defining all citizens as friends of the state, but more importantly, I take a larger issue with defining all non-citizens as potential enemies of the state.
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your caveat is all that is required to defeat the claim that you are advocating- as a devil's advocate. The rules of war are defined in the Geneva conventions. We have broken those rules, and we have persisted in breaking them in full view of the world, telling all of them that we have no respect for the accords we have signed with them. This is why things like South Ossetia happen, in the long term, because the Russians want to test our commitment to the agreements we have made in NATO, by attacking a potential member.
I call your attention to the words of Sun Tzu, since we are talking about the Art of War. The enemy is defined by action. The first action should be that of the enemy. If there is no action, there is no enemy.
What did we do in Iraq? What are we doing now? Engaging in attacks (either covert or open) on the privacy and sovereignty of individuals who may not have attacked us. That makes us the enemy, and it makes us wrong, at least in the eyes of Sun Tsu. The very idea of "The Bush Doctrine," that we may attack a "percieved threat," not even a real threat, but a percieved one, or a potential one, makes us wrong in this. It makes us the aggressor, and it makes our position naturally weaker. Because we continue to believe that we must stay aggressive, we will never know the consequences of a defensive posture. At the same time, our defensive aggressiveness blinds us to any number of alternative courses of action, both our own and that of others.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Non-citizens don't have rights, no matter what the Constitution says about the rights of all people.
Non-white and non-christian people don't have rights, no matter what the Constitution says about the rights of all people.
In fact, nobody except people that voted Republican have any rights, no matter what the Constitution says about the rights of all people.
Very soon nobody except the U.S. President will have any rights.
OSC's so-called hyperbole is indistinguishable from mere villainy.
When Evangelists arbitrarily decide that Mormons don't have any constitutional rights, same way that OSC arbitrarily decided non-citizens don't have constitutional rights, it'll be too late for him to react.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But hey, anything negative you ever have to say about OSC's religion is bigotry. He gets to understand your religion and all others, but you don't get to understand his. He knows the way you think, and you have no idea how he thinks. I thought you would have learned this by now?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Your caveat is all that is required to defeat the claim that you are advocating- as a devil's advocate. The rules of war are defined in the Geneva conventions. We have broken those rules, and we have persisted in breaking them in full view of the world, telling all of them that we have no respect for the accords we have signed with them. This is why things like South Ossetia happen, in the long term, because the Russians want to test our commitment to the agreements we have made in NATO, by attacking a potential member.
I call your attention to the words of Sun Tzu, since we are talking about the Art of War. The enemy is defined by action. The first action should be that of the enemy. If there is no action, there is no enemy.
What did we do in Iraq? What are we doing now? Engaging in attacks (either covert or open) on the privacy and sovereignty of individuals who may not have attacked us. That makes us the enemy, and it makes us wrong, at least in the eyes of Sun Tsu. The very idea of "The Bush Doctrine," that we may attack a "percieved threat," not even a real threat, but a percieved one, or a potential one, makes us wrong in this. It makes us the aggressor, and it makes our position naturally weaker. Because we continue to believe that we must stay aggressive, we will never know the consequences of a defensive posture. At the same time, our defensive aggressiveness blinds us to any number of alternative courses of action, both our own and that of others.
I'm glad you call attention to my caveat, as it is indeed the most important thing in my post.
I was concerned that the conversation was becoming one of whether Mr. Card claimed that "non-citizens have no rights" (which, while literally appropriate, is not in my mind his intended statement) but instead stating that "enemies have different rights than citizens". As you point out, we have a definition of those rights with the Geneva Conventions.
Now, however, we can focus on other important questions, like:
1) Given that the Geneva Conventions were drafted to deal with 20th-century warfare, are there ways in which they need to be modified to fit the 21st Century? (TBH, I haven't done much research on the Conventions or whether they have been amended, what that process would be like, etc. I'd be fascinated to find out).
2) How do we define who is an enemy? Sun Tzu's definition works for the most part, but then leaves a nation in the state of always having to react to attacks and defend. Other military experts have said something to the effect that a defensive war is a lost war.
3) How do we locate the enemy when he blends in so well with surroundings and we wish to avoid collateral damage?
There are certainly other important questions, but all I'm trying to do is avoid pointlessly criticizing Mr. Card for his... hyperbole, for want of a better word.
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Geneva Conventions do not in all cases protect terrorists, saboteurs, spies, etc. However, they afford specific rights to combatants and non-combatants who:
[Quote]"shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." [Quote]
That is a part of the Geneva conventions which we have flouted for years, by imprisoning civilians and combatants in Guantanamo bay, keeping them from going to trial, and subjecting them to extremely harsh treatment, as has been documented by many witnesses at Guantanamo, as well as former inmates.
The Bush administration has chosen to insist that, essentially, the conventions do not apply to these inmates because they are suspected of links to terrorist groups. They are not subject to rights under our constitution because they are being held as P.O.W.s, but at the same time they do not apparently have the rights of P.O.W.s. They have no rights, as recognized by our President.
Sun Tzu's definition of "the enemy" also only concerns the Art of War, and not the process of diplomacy or foreign relations. It is not necessary to fight a defensive war once one has been attacked. For instance, the U.S. involvement in WWII was initiated by an attack on the U.S. The U.S. did not fight a strictly defensive war.
An important part of defining the enemy, for Sun Tzu, was that one's actions be appropriate reactions to the situation. Having entered initially into a war in which the enemy refused to define itself, never attacked or took an offensive posture, the U.S. committed to an aggressive posture it could not relinquish. Now, we are enemy, and it is a simple thing for a culture of resistance to build around our presence in Iraq, because we are expending energy to maintain a position that we cannot hold indefinitely. This is why Rome fell- it couldn't strike a balance between aggression and defense.
As to your third question, this is the problem with our conflict in Iraq. WE are the enemy, and the agressor. You're describing an enemy that, by its nature, does not present a united front. Because we present a united front, we are vulnerable, and visible, and therefore we take a defensive posture. We are aggressors with our arms over our eyes, stumbling blindly through Iraq. This kind of enemy doesn't come to your home and attack you- it waits for you to come to its home and attack it. That is why, honestly, I don't see a solution to the problem in Iraq. Escalating conflict and deft maneuvering benefit us, as they allow our superiority of technical strength to win the day, but that doesn't lead to nation building. There is nothing we can do ourselves to make Iraq whole, and we may have to accept that fact in the near future.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is why, I believe, both presidential candidates advocate the eventual relinquishment of control to Iraqi authorities as we pull U.S. troops out. The difference, as OSC pointed out, was that Senator Obama wished for the pull-out to happen at a time when doing so would likely have led to collapse. A measured transition of power from the U.S. and its remaining allies in the area to the government of Iraq, I believe, is what is necessary.
For those wishing for the process to go faster, I think it is important to recollect that it took quite a while (nearly a decade) for the government of the newly independent United States to form a workable constitution....and then less than a century later, many of the constitution's flaws became evident as the nation engaged in the bloodiest, costliest war up to that date. Say what you will, there may be heavy costs for going to quickly into any action...
And yes, the same could (and probably should) be said about our ENTERING the conflict in the first place...
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not granting Constitutional rights to non-citizens is a good way to disrespect the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If we really believe that the rights granted in the Bill of Rights are God-given then not granting them to non-citizens is merely a dishonest loophole.
Posts: 127 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The main problem with the war in iraq is that you were using the wrong tools for the job. Its like fishing by tossing grenades in the river instead of patiently waiting with a fishing rod. If you dont care about the consequences of your actions, its fine but you shoudl know that the US has killed several times the number of innocent civilian non-combatants than the terrorists.
The war on terror needed to be fought with diplomacy, intelligance and like a police action. there was no need for a conventional war becuase they never were much of a threat.
Posts: 12 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If we really believe that the rights granted in the Bill of Rights are God-given then not granting them to non-citizens is merely a dishonest loophole.
I doubt anybody believes that all the rights granted in the Bill of Rights are God-given.
For example, I can conceive of a civil system that is just that does not grant the right to a trial by jury for civil suits w/ an amount in controversy over $20. Similarly, I don't think a grand jury is necessary for a just criminal system - there are numerous ways to fulfill its role. Several prominent liberals, including Justice Beyer, have argued extensively for sentencing guidelines that take certain elements related to sentencing out of the hands of the petit jury.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Qadar: you should know that the US has killed several times the number of innocent civilian non-combatants than the terrorists.
That is a very bold assertion, could you please provide some evidence to substantiate it.
Also thread necromancy is typically frowned upon, but I suppose this thread has not been decomposing that long.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd argue that three to four times counts as "several," and I'd put that in the "credible" range.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the political realm it was McCain's idea. Most politicians don't come up with ideas wholly on their own. Do you honestly think any of the plans on any issue proposed by Obama or McCain were creations of their own? We have no way of knowing for some of them of course, but I very much doubt it. Yet all discussions act as if these ideas came from the politicians purporting them, because it is in them that the ideas will have bearing on American policy.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'd argue that three to four times counts as "several," and I'd put that in the "credible" range.
I wouldn't. I'm as much an opponent of this war as anyone, but I haven't seen data to back up the fact that US troops have killed three to four times as many civilians as enemy combatants have.
I don't argue that it's implausible, but I've seen nothing to confirm it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, we decline to count the civilians we have killed.
So President Elect Obama has admitted that the surge was successful (as far as it goes). Has Sen. McCain admitted that we shouldn't have invaded in the first place?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course, we decline to count the civilians we have killed.
There are only estimates on both sides. I haven't seen any that suggest a 3 or 4 to one advantage. Give me numbers and I'll bite.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh...there are always going to be just estimates. Of course, I can't give you actual numbers - no one can. We don't keep count even if we could.
Of the people who tried to count (Iraq Body Count, ORB, Lancet) there have been at least four times as many civilians killed as insurgents killed.
Wikipedia does a reasonable job of gathering the different estimates here.
And...I just realized I am answering the wrong question. I read it as a comparison between how many civilians killed and how many insurgents killed instead of who was doing the killing.
Still, I have typed this up and people should look at the numbers anyway. They are staggering.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Eh...there are always going to be just estimates.
Well, yeah. I guess my point was that you seemed to be saying that we intentionally weren't counting the number so no one could hold us to anything in comparison. There will only ever be estimates of civilians killed in war. Some of those estimates will be better than others.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, sort of. Our military doesn't even estimate civilians killed. And they would be in the best position to know.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
