Time to take a little stock

I'll admit you were for the most part right. I was quite wrong, and now it seems vey wrong. It doesn't change that I am against the war, and it doesn't change that I hate people having to die for no reason apart from being at the wrong place at the wrong time. But I now see that those people in Iraq seem genuinely happy to be free, and don't seem to mind so much that it is Americans doing it.

I don't know what the outcome of this war will be, as it's not yet over and the squabbling over the pieces hasn't really taken off yet, but I won't make any predictions any more. Time I gave up making predictions.

Very manfully said. Actually, I'm not trying to take credit for having predicted anything. I think I actually made rather few actual predictions. Some I did make seemed obvious. i did predict that there wouldn't be any carpet bombing of civilians. But that, like most of what I said was simply rejecting some of the wilder predictions made by others.

Anyway, as you say this isn't over. I just think it is important to establish something before the next round of doom-mongering starts (no, I'm not saying from you).

Time to take stock will be in about 24 months from now.

Will the Iraqis be allowed to run their own country?
Will there be a puppet regime in power or will there be genuine democracy?
Will genuine democracy be tolerated should the Iraqi people chose to elect a muslim government?
Who will benefit from the wealth created by the Iraqi oil?
What will happen with Iran, Syria and Aghanistan?
What will happen to the Kurds, what will happen to the Shi'ites?

I am still against this war. I still think we could have achieved the same results with far less bloodshed. That doesn't mean that I am not hugely relieved that it appears to be going as well as it does.

And, I'd love to see what the Iraqi minister of information would make out of these pictures

Edit: Removed stray "l"

In terms of uprising, we need to keep watch onthings AFTER the fighting stops. It will be in the "civilization" building that this will become a very real potential problem. Reports today are that even the moderate clerics throughout the muslim world are calling for jihad. This makes me nervous, and we'll have to wait and see how the post-conlict administration goes....

For the record, I thought there would be more casualties than we have seen. I'm very impressed with that part, even if I disagreed that it needed to be done.

"There is one God and Saddam is his enemy!" This was the chant of thousands of Iraqis in Baghdad this morning.

We're coming to the end of the beginning. There's still a long road ahead but the Iraq's journey from tyranny has begun.

damn no stalingrad carnage, guess i'll have to rent the dvd again. oh well it has better quality anyway, not the pixelated videophone crap.

guess i was totally wrong on that one.

i'll second theolein's post, it's seems to be a very good day today.

absolutely. I knew when I logged on this morning I'd be getting "I told you so's" from the lesser intelligent right wingers....I was sorry it was from Simey, who I normally respect.

At any rate, this does NOT change that:

1. I still think pre-emptive invasion is a wrong turn for american policy
2. I still think that Iraq is ethnically fractious, and will be a tough bronco to ride. We need only look at Basra today with looting and reprisal executions that the Brits have given up trying to control. They're on the roof of the hospital firing warning shots at looters.
3. I still think that we have incurred diplomatic damage that may never be undone
4. I still think that the overall plan is to reshape the middle east and control the oil. In fact, that was mentioned IMMEDIATELY after the celebration last night about how "SYRIA is next" and how "NOW let's stop thinking about Iraq and start thinking about the REGION" Nothing about last night changes that assessment. And I still think that's WRONG to the very core of my being.


HOWEVER, I still think our fighting men and women have done as exemplary a job as possible, and I said so BEFORE last night.

ALSO, I am happy this (seems) to be over as quickly as it has. I am happy the casaulty count was not higher

I feared this, that does not mean I predicted it. Glad my fears (thus far) are wrong.

? Dont remember this prediction so can't comment.

Well, this was predicted or feared by our own republican leaders, as well, right? Can't see this as an anti-liberal jab.

I think this is specifically directed at me. Thanks. All I said was they have 80,000 body bags on ship in the persian gulf (red sea actually). I did not know the reason and openly speculated. But thanks for remembering incorrectly.

I never saw anyone predict this at all...where did you see this? I think people universally accepted the cruel regime of Saddam was feared and hated by the civilians.

Could still happen, and probably will. You can't check this one off your list, yet, or ever.

True, this didn't happen, but historically there is legitimate reason to be alert to its possibility....or are you selectively forgetting the first gulf war and the scud missile care packages Saddam fired into Israel?

Too early to call this one a dead possibility. The idea of a Kurdish independent state is what they really don't want, and its too soon to count out the Kurds demanding that.

You can check that one off, for now. Wait until the aid cannot keep up with the need, though. Which should be in about 2 weeks.

Well, this works AGAINST your side here of wanting justification to militarily invade the entire region to control it. I'm sure we'll find sufficient justification anyways to take Syria next, then Iran. Has to be before the election.





you forgot the "nyah, nyah" at the end. Really, Simey, this is very beneath you.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not demanding that anyone switch sides on their position on the war. However, many of the arguments (not pointing any fingers) have been based on the kinds of predictions I have listed. And the fact is they were wrong. Very, very, wrong.

My point in throwing it back is to prevent goalpost-shifting. This will clearly happen, and to some extent it is legitimate. You and Mastrap are right that time will tell on the long-term situation. I said as much in my original post. Nevertheless, this is, as I said in the thread title, a moment to take a little stock. And so far, the verdict on the predictions is pretty damn one-sided.

I dunno, read my post directly before this one (we cross-posted). I think your assessment of the predictions differs from mine.

Sorry about saying I was disappointed in you.
What I meant was, I expected it from spliffdaddy, finboy, Zimphire, etc. I don't normally expect you to be in the same group.

None of them were aimed at any individual here. They were based on the general tenor of one side of the debate in the last year on the board, but also in politics, and in the media (both in the US and in Europe). If you see yourself in any of them, that is purely coincidental.

I read your "break-down" post above, and I think you are taking some of this wrong. I recognized "predictions" from both sides of the aisle. There were predictions that Iraqis would rally around Saddam. There were predictions of a lot of bodies coming back home thank god it didn't happen). Doesn't matter if the administration was the one predicting (actually fearing) a Stalingrad in Baghdad.

These were just some of the horrors predicted that haven't come to pass in this conflict.

I think the real horrors are ahead of us. Mostly in terms, as you already said, of the fundamental shift in us policy, the breakdown of diplomatic ties, etc. The seeds have been sewn, and we must wait to see if they grow into weeds or flowers.

I have also been very careful not to make predictions but I will also admit that I have feared all of the above and have argued that side on a number of occasions here.

Mostly because I hate complacency and I fear that we are also victims of propoganda.

Is still think we are yet to hear the real truth.

But I am *very* glad that Saddam has left Baghdad and I hope they catch up with him. I am also glad that this time we didn't just stand on the border throwing high explosives in at will.

I *hope* that my many fears are still unfounded. And I will continue to argue againmsed complacency.

Just saw a banner held by two Iraqis: "Go home human shields! You U.S. wankers."

I don't understand. It was just monday that the Iraqi ambassador to Egypt was declaring his country's victory:

link

Well, it certainly is time for him to take stock... and update his resume.

Or his will, I suppose.

I'm kind of curious how the media elsewhere is reporting this. The BBC seems to be showing the same stuff we are seeing in the US (judging by their web site). The Guardian and The Independent also seem to be reporting the scenes in Baghdad, as is The Telegraph. But the German papers still seem to be talking about streetfighting and urban combat when the TV images I'm seeing are of people walking around freely and soldiers looking very unguarded.

My French is pretty poor, but my impression from Le Figaro is that the bad news is getting most of the play there too. It kind of contrasts with the 1989-like scenes I'm seeing on TV. But maybe I am misreading it, or seeing web sites that have yet to be updated. Most of the sites I have looked at (e.g FAZ, Spiegel, Le Figaro) are ones that I have found to be reliable in the past.

Could people with better language skills and/or access to broadcast media comment?

FWIW, CNN has also been reporting some fighting via videophone. Then they abruptly cut to commercial (not sure why, unless their reporter got hit or something).

It appears the center of Baghdad is within control, but some of the outskirts are still offering sporadic resistance, or at least snipers.

but now they're back at the statue, trying catch them actually toppling it.

Just now as I'm typing, a marine column going into the city facing stiff opposition.

So, all is not as calm as we could hope, and CNN still covering a balance.

Point taken.

I don't think those people stand much of a chance with the rope. It's a little comical watching them try. There is an M-88 recovery vehicle parked next to it. Those Iraqis need to get off it and persuade the crew to help them. An M-88 is used to recover 70 ton tanks. It has a boom and a steel cable winch. It could easily haul old Saddam down!

Edit: My mistake. They seem to have thought of that.

The big Iraqi guy with the sledge hammer cracked me up.

The whole thing in kinda sureal...It reminds me of the images of people taking cracks at the Berlin Wall.

Understandable but not a good idea:

This is a lot like that. I hope people notice the guy on the M88 with an Iraqi flag.

But I think they should have let the big dude do it. It looked like it might have taken him an hour or two - at most.

Well, it's down!

Let me guess, cheering in Iraqi culture is a sign of dismay, right?

Saddam's a hard bastard to topple in any form.

What an incredible sight that was!

Replaced with the pre gulf war Iraqi flag.

The guys in the lab suggested that maybe they should have used a French flag as a skirt for Saddam's statue before they pulled it down.

Wow, what a great sight to wake up to. Just the fact that that the soldiers can lounge around so openly seems to indicate the situation has changed dramatically.

Not a good time for 'I told you so''. I think we should all be relieved that something like this scene has actually happened. Looks like the beginning of the end to me.

LOL...

Wow, I wish I had a TV right now. This seems like it's one of those things you just have to see...

Anyone know of any news channels with a streaming feed on the net??

It was awesome. I just watched a group of Iraqis dragging and even riding the statue's head down the street. Apparently, Al-Jezeera is also showing images of Iraqis waving the Stars and Stripes. On the other hand, the Pentagon is saying there is shooting going on elsewhere.

I just woke up too and this is amazing! I am ecstatic for the Iraqi people and look forward to the days ahead to see what else develops.



After reading this whole thread, I just want to say that I'm not an "I told you so" kinda guy. I think it should be noted that people (mainly those who oppose the war and Bush) have made doomsday predictions or at the very least pessimistic predictions. Those people need to be held to that. Up to this point, this war has gone astonishingly well. It's been absolutely incredible. Of course, there's a long way to go (and already some negative outlooks for that phase).

Thank God that we are at this stage of the war plan at such a quick pace. Let's hope and pray it continues. "Cautious Optimism" is definitely in order here.

And now Fox News is showing a live feed from the streets of Dearborn, Michigan (one of the or THE highest population of Iraqi-Americans).

American flags, Iraqi flags, chanting...

Amazing!

Sure, make me more jealous I don't have a TV...

This is the kind of thing that can lift the spirits!

Here you go guys.

This thread started out pretty silly Simey! I think what you said is about as silly as the people who said, "I told you so," after the 9/11 attacks.

The intelligent criticism of this war didn't center around the denouement of the war itself, but around the effects of the war and its buildup on international law, global stability, relations and international institutions. International law, some well-established alliances, the UN, NATO and the EU are already casualties of this war (the first three are in intensive care, the other two will probably pull through). The USA is more hated in the world today than it was a year ago. In fact, it's probably more hated in the world today than it has ever been which necessarily has negative consequence for American security. Islamic terrorist groups have been given a lot more to work with and we see a visible increase in anger and hostility for America on the streets in the Middle East.

Even if you gloss over all of that, there is still a lot of work to do in Iraq itself. If you're going to take stock, maybe you need a column for losses and liabilities too. Judging by the state of Afghanistan where the Taliban appears to be back in business all of a sudden, I think it's a bit premature to be calling out the cheerleaders and putting Monday morning quarterbacks on TV ... although I'm sure that's exactly what the script writers have in store for this Reality TV show.

the BBC has live videofeeds, news.bbc.co.uk

RealMedia at .. oh ok quality.

I expected the "just waits" from all of the Leftists.

You won't find me saying "I told you so" or anything like that. The fact that you expect that kind of response shows how little you understand about your "opposition." As for intelligence, let's don't get personal on that one. As we've seen in these fora, the Left obviously has no monopoly on brightness. Self-righteousness, yes, but aptitude and reason, not necessarily.

This is hilarious. You really should read your own posts. ... (Hint: Thanks for not being self-righteous!)

I didn't make any "I told you so' statements for a very good reason - I didn't tell you so. My attitude has always been wait and see but don't prejudge and presume a negative outcome. This merely points out that others told us things, and that many of their predictions haven't exactly panned out.

Actually, I think most of the predictions were always possible. Some very intelligent people were on the negative side. For example, Sir Michael Quinlan. Those people aren't fools, and their predictions and concerns were reasonable. The question has always been how likely those scenarios were. Some of the more negative predictions were a bit over the top and seemed to be predicated on some bizarre assumptions about American and British bloodthirstiness and incompetance.

The point about the predictions I highlighted is that all of them (with the possible exception of the last one, Middle East uprisings) were predicted to occur at or before this point in the war. For example, missile attacks on Israel, Israeli reprisals. That was supposed to happen in the first 24 hours or so. The same goes for the terrorist attacks in the US, and the refugee flow. Those were supposed to be present at the outset of the war. Obviously, those didn't happen. Nor did the Stalingrad-style house-to-house streetfighting, and the thousands of US and Iraqi casualties that it would have produced. So far, there has been resistance, but neither side have engaged in that kind of warfare. It is therefore perfectly legitimate to point out that those predictions were just wrong so that we can bear that in mind when the same people make predictions in the future.

This doesn't tell us what the political fallout will be. Nor does it tell us what the rest of the military campaign will turn out as, or how the new government (when chosen) will fare. The future is as yet unwritten and I don't make any predictions. But what is past is past and so far, the pessimists have been pretty much wrong.

Of course, if you want to make more predictions about how things will go from here, you are welcome to do so. We can check back with those preiodically as well, if you like.

Iraqi-Americans in Dearborn, Michigan were heard chanting in Arabic:

"Let the Germans and French say whatever they want, as long as the Iraqis and Americans say it together!"






Edit: From Fox News Channel.

That is a classic line ^^

Of course now that all their positions are crumbling like a Saddam statue, the antiwar crowd is going to retrack and say stuff like:

"The intelligent criticism of this war didn't center around the denouement of the war itself, but around the effects of the war and its buildup on international law, global stability, relations and international institutions."

Well Duh, nobody ever said this was going to be easy. Of course I tend to believe that we have people whose whole job it is to analyze situations like this and make their best judgements, and they usually know more about the situation then people posting in some internet bulletin board.

Its really a stupid generalization to accuse the US of "cowboy" tactics here. Our government doesn't do anything from a kneejerk reaction. We have far too many people on a government payroll for that to happen. Do they make misguided decisions sometimes? yes.

Go ahead bring up afghanistan. Of course that place is being run by the UN now, so you can't blame the US for all of it. And don't forget its still a 3rd world country. Your not going to turn it into a peaceful civilization overnight. Hence the reason why Bush has said all long that this will be a long hard road.

What alot of Americans are saying is that they feel the US needs to reevaluiate their role in international law, policies and alliances. What has worked for us in the past does not work now. You can disagree with that assessment, but it doesn't make their beliefs any less valid then yours. Of course you can always resort to calling them naive, ignorant and foolish.

The US was built on taking risks. Sometimes educated, sometimes seat of the pants. Yes that does project a "cowboy" image if you will, but it is also the reason that the US leads the world after only 200 + years of existence. Talk is cheap, sometimes action is needed.

OK, I'm done with my cliches, you can go crawl back under your rock now.

But the truth non-the-less.

One quick thing before I go back to work...

Was there ever any doubt that America would swoop in and crush the Iraqi regime in a very quick timeframe? It is understood that a long protracted war would quickly lose public support, a la Vietnam, so subsequent US policy has centered around easily winnable wars (at, perhaps, the cost of a few hundred american lives). Anyone who thought we'd be seeing thousands of casualties has, I think, a poor grasp of our military history.

Not that this is an excuse for war. Obviously killing people, whatever your pretext, is unjustifiable.

Sorry to disappoint, my position is not crumbling, its well intact. Not that you've ever understood my position, you've just assumed it was X when it was really Z.

My concerns are still, and have always been:

1. Pre-emptive invasion is a wrong turn for american policy, signaling a new mode wherein attacking any country, any time, without provocation is considered acceptable. That makes us bullys in the global playground.
2. Iraq, and the middle east in general, does not operate in ways the west either understands or appreciates. We cannot rubber stamp puppet regimes in the area, it does not work. By doing so historically we have fueled the motivations for terrorism. The coercion of Iraq will not change that perception, it will in fact reinforce, especially if we do not handle correctly afterwar. Don't be fooled: they are happy if we remove saddam, they are not happy if we just install a puppet regime. To them, that would simply be changing owners when they no longer want to be dogs.
3. I still think that we have incurred diplomatic damage that may never be undone in the global arena. The fact that we have alienated several previous allies, and have pushed away the UN will come to haunt us in days ahead. Behind a bully AND an isolationist country is not a good combination.
4. I still think that the overall plan is to reshape the middle east and control the oil. In fact, that was mentioned IMMEDIATELY after the celebration last night about how "SYRIA is next" and how "NOW let's stop thinking about Iraq and start thinking about the REGION" Nothing about last night changes that assessment. And I still think that's WRONG to the very core of my being.


And, finally, something I"ve said for the past year now at macNN, not just related to this present conflict, is that as a species we've let our diplomatic muscles atrophy, and have praticed and become very skilled at war and killing efficiently. I am very upset about that and as a result I lodge my complaint on EVERY conflict which has not been resolved diplomatically.

Now, all those positions or concerns are not crumbling because you think at this premature juncture that Iraq is a cakewalk.
If anything, the outcome of the war was never in doubt. I never doubted we would be victorious eventually. What I said was that even if we are victorious, this is not the way to handle the situation that I would have preferred, and I still feel that way.

so please, go crawl back under your own rock.

I was certainly someone who felt much more pessimistic about this war. I don't feel particularly embarassed that the worst case scenarios didn't happen. I'm ecstatic.

I didn't invent the worst case scenarios. The ones I paid most attention to were coming from the Pentagon, after all. I thought it was entirely reasonable to expect this thing to get very very very ugly.

Hats off to military planners who adapted quickly and correctly to early surprises and kept this thing surprisingly surgical. They showed a lot of patience and self-control, I thought.

Civilian casualties are significant, but not devastating.

Iraqi military casualties are probably devastating. Every report says that they fought tooth and nail and just couldn't withstand US/UK firepower. I suspect the Iraqi military casualties are staggering considering how few surrenders there were and how doggedly they fought.

Bagdad seems to have been taken with no catastrophes. I suspect this is mostly due to the efforts at destroying the chain of command. All reports indicate that Iraqi troops were totally disorganized and showed little or no understanding of modern warfare and tactics. That tells me that they were mostly acting independent of central command. They were completely uncoordinated and isolated.

So yes. Cautious celebrations and great big sighs of relief. I'm happy to have been wrong about the predictions thus far.

Of course, as others have pointed out (and as I've always said) the battle was only the first step and not even the most critical. We succeeded in keeping the damage to infrastructure and civilians to a surprising minimum, all things considered. That was key to the success of the next stage so I think it's fair to be optomistic at this point.

As I've always maintained, the real test of this adventure is the post-war plan. It's just beginning.

When I watched Bush & Blair talking about post-war plans, it seemed to me that Blair was subtly trying to make the point that the UN and EU should really be part of it and that the coalition shouldn't assume a position of approving or disapproving of what Iraqis want to do. In fact, I got the impression (he kept glancing at Bush as he spoke) that he might have been trying to convince Bush a bit because he fears American cronyism could really undermine the reconstruction and transition. Anyone else get that impression?

I am so glad that Blair is there to counter balance Bush. Blair's skilled diplomacy, focus, and eloquence in reinforcing the need of UN involvement puts Bush's stuttering, disjoined, and convoluted style to shame.

.