Time to take a little stock

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.

.