Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Operation Phantom Thunder: The Spin Begins, Part II
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, June 28, 2007

This time it is Juan Cole doing the spinning. Leveraging off of Sen. Richard Lugar's premature dismissal of the surge, Cole says:
His alarm has been illustrated by the difficulties the U.S. and Iraqi militaries faced in the recent offensive operation dubbed "Operation Arrowhead Ripper," aimed at subduing Baquba (pop. 300,000), the restive capital of Diyala province, located 31 miles northeast of Baghdad. American generals admitted that 80 percent of the guerrilla leadership there had slipped away, and that the Iraqi army lacked the equipment and training to hold areas taken in difficult hand-to-hand fighting. The U.S. military compounded its public-relations problem by implausibly branding virtually everyone it fought or killed in the Sunni-majority city as "al-Qaida."

The failure of the offensive casts doubt not only on its purpose of securing swaths of territory, but also on the way the strategy has been sold to the American public.
One more time:

"The center of gravity for the surge is Baghdad."

I cannot emphasize that point enough.

Cole is concentrating his "failure" message on an operation outside of Baghdad comprised on 3 brigades of a 25 brigade operation. But he's presenting it as a failure of the whole. Additionally, he's misinformed or doesn't understand the purpose of the operation or the desire end-state.

With that in mind, let's take apart the Cole paragraph.

First the last part. This "everything is al-Qaeda" meme has been thoroughly discredited. It was a meme started by Josh Marshall and Glenn Greenwald and has absolutely no basis in fact as Confederate Yankee demonstrated here and here. And I also provided a quote from a June 22nd briefing given by LTG Ray Odierno which directly contradicts the claim:
Operation Phantom Thunder is a corps-level offensive operation that began on 15 June to defeat al Qaeda insurgents and extremists, deny enemy safe havens, interdict movement, logistics and communications. It is an open-ended operation that will extend through the summer and will be done in conjunction with civil-military operations to support political and economic efforts.

It consists of carefully synchronized simultaneous operations at division and brigade level to clear al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shi'a extremists in, near and around Baghdad. It also includes aggressive shaping operations by our Special Operations Forces focused on al Qaeda in Iraq and other special groups.
Apparently Cole couldn't be bothered to research the assertion, preferring instead to use the unproven claim because it better fits the spin he was trying to give his failure message.

Part two, of course, is the "80 percent of the guerrilla leadership there had slipped away" meme. I pointed out previously that his number would be the bone opponents to the war would grab and run with. And Cole is no exception.

As expected, Cole states the "offensive" is a failure and implies that's the primary reason. But as pointed out previously, that has little if anything to do with the primary mission. What it points out, however, is Cole's complete misunderstanding of the purpose of the operation in Babuqua. As LTC David Kilcullen, one of the architects of our counter-insurgency doctrine patiently explained about Babuqua:
When we speak of "clearing" an enemy safe haven, we are not talking about destroying the enemy in it; we are talking about rescuing the population in it from enemy intimidation. If we don't get every enemy cell in the initial operation, that's OK. The point of the operations is to lift the pall of fear from population groups that have been intimidated and exploited by terrorists to date, then win them over and work with them in partnership to clean out the cells that remain – as has happened in Al Anbar Province and can happen elsewhere in Iraq as well.

The "terrain" we are clearing is human terrain, not physical terrain. It is about marginalizing al Qa’ida, Shi’a extremist militias, and the other terrorist groups from the population they prey on. This is why claims that “80% of AQ leadership have fled” don’t overly disturb us: the aim is not to kill every last AQ leader, but rather to drive them off the population and keep them off, so that we can work with the community to prevent their return.
Or, said shortly and sweetly: to this point, mission accomplished.

Cole then makes the following claims about the 5th Iraqi Army Division, presently deployed in the Baquba area:
The Iraqi 5th Army, which is largely Shiite, was supported by special police commandos from the Ministry of the Interior, a Shiite force mostly drawn from the Badr Corps paramilitary of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council — which was trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. In practical terms, the U.S. military was helping a Shiite government and a Shiite security force impose itself on a majority Sunni population.

[...]

In mid-May, the Iraqi government relieved the 5th Army commander in Baquba, Brig. Gen. Shakir Hulail Hussein al-Kaabi, of his command. The U.S. military suspected him of seeking Shiite dominance in the mixed Diyala province, and of lending surreptitious support to Shiite militias and death squads while conducting punitive campaigns of his own against Sunni Arabs. After months of pressure from U.S. generals, the Shiite government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki finally relented.
The implication? The 5th is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Yet Michael Yon, who is actually on the ground in Baquba and monitoring both the situation and the 5th IAD says:
The Fifth Iraqi Army Division is considered an increasingly competent group of fighters, and from the limited scope of 5th IA that I personally witnessed, that judgment seems correct. The 5th is committed to battle. Whereas the Iraqi Army is coming into the fight, and playing increasingly critical roles, the local police force is less impressive.
The implication of Cole's assertion that is left unaddressed, of course, is the result of the relief of the 5th's commander. Remember, it happened in May. Obviously when a commander is relieved, the new commander is going to bring in his own people, and that usually brings significant change to the unit. If the 5th is the problem Cole believes it to be, Yon, a practiced and experienced observer, certainly isn't seeing it. Yon does, however, see a problem with the local police, which, of course, everyone has acknowledged to be a problem for quite some time.

Cole then tries to support his assertions by describing various and sundry alliances and how these are misreported or misrepresented. Yet, to that point, Cole has seriously misreported and misrepresented everything about the Baquba operation. Why would anyone who realizes that take anything he says afterward with more than a grain of salt?

Cole, like many, are declaring the surge a failure based on their misunderstanding of the purpose of a supporting operation, dated information and baseless assertions made by bloggers such as Greenwald. What Cole attempts to do is paint a false picture which depicts the effort in Baquba as the main effort as well as an effort which is ignoring one of the biggest threats in Iraq, the Mahdi army. Additionally, he infers that we're essentially arming the Mahdi army through the 5th IAD.

Yet Bill Roggio reports:
While the major offensive operation is occurring in the Baghdad Belts against al Qaeda and Sunni insurgent holdouts, major raids continue against Sadr's forces and the Iranian cells in Baghdad and the south. Two major engagements occurred against Sadr's forces since Monday — one in Amara and one in Nasariyah. Scores of Mahdi Army fighters were killed during both engagements after Iraqi Special Operations Forces, backed by Coalition support, took on Sadr's forces.

The Iraqi government and Multinational Forces Iraq are sending a clear message to Sadr: when the fighting against al Qaeda is finished, the Iranian backed elements of the Mahdi Army are next on the list if they are not disbanded. Also, the Iraqi military and Multinational Forces Iraq possesses enough forces to take on Sadr's militia if they attempt to interfere with current operations.
So much for "all al Qaeda all the time."

Which brings us to the statement that finally makes an informed reader recognize that Cole has absolutely no idea of the scope of the mission or what is meant by "synchronized simultaneous operations":
Games of Whack-a-Mole like those being played in Diyala province at present are highly unlikely to deliver a decisive victory to the U.S. military or to its Iraqi allies.
That's simply uninformed twaddle. It is colossally ignorant. If the effort in Diyala were a stand alone operation, Cole could make such a claim. But since it is one of many "synchonized simultaneous operations", something he apparently doesn't understand, he hasn't a leg to stand on.

Maybe, just maybe, Cole will avail himself of other sources besides Greewald. For instance, Frederick Kagan, who explains the overall strategy in recent testimony to Congress:
Generals Petraeus and Odierno did not allocate the majority of the new combat power they received to Baghdad. Only 2 of the additional Army brigades went into the city. The other 3 Army brigades and the equivalent of a Marine regiment were deployed into the areas around Baghdad that our generals call the "Baghdad belts," including Baqubah in Diyala province. The purpose of this deployment was not to clear-and-hold those areas, but to make possible the second phase of the operation that began on June 15. The purpose of this operation—Phantom Thunder—is to disrupt terrorist and militia networks and bases outside of Baghdad that have been feeding the violence within the city. Most of the car bomb and suicide bomb networks that have been supporting the al Qaeda surge since January are based in these belt areas, and American commanders have rightly recognized that they cannot establish stable security in the capital without disrupting these networks and their bases.

But even this operation—the largest coordinated combat operation the U.S. has undertaken since the invasion in 2003—is not the decisive phase of the current strategy. It is an operation designed to set the preconditions for a successful clear-and-hold operation that will probably begin in late July or early August within Baghdad itself. That is the operation that is designed to bring security to Iraq's capital in a lasting way that will create the space for political progress that we all desire.
As Kagan explains, we're in the second phase of a multi-phase operation which is not centered in Baquba as Cole attempts to infer and as I warned you would happen. As Kagan says:
To say that the current plan has failed is simply incorrect. It might fail, of course, as any military/political plan might fail. Indications on the military side strongly suggest that success—in the form of dramatically reduced violence by the end of this year—is quite likely. Indications on the political side are more mixed, but are also less meaningful at this early stage before security has been established.
So to the Juan Coles of this world, it might be useful if you made an attempt to actually understand the operation and its goals, not to mention where we are in its execution before declaring it a failure. And that goes for Sen. Lugar as well.

(Part one spinning Operation Phantom Thunder here.)

UPDATE: Welcome Hot Air readers.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
McQ: And you expected anything else from Juan Cole? The man is a Muslim apologist who grabs at any straw that supports his position that Islam is a religion of peace reacting to the oppressions of a capitalistic west. This has been his stance from day one and will remain so regardless of 9/11 or anything else presented to him.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Cole is an Arabist. Remember in 2004, when he said Bush would never let Iraqis hold elections and was going to install a military dictator? He’s not a serious analyst, just a paid mouthpiece for Arab thugocracies. Even Yale managed to recognize that, when a normally rubber-stamp committee put the kibosh on giving him a position there.

It’s a remarkable testament to the incredibly bad MSM reporting that very few people seem to understand the strategy of the surge is to permanently own space rather than just clear insurgents out of an area and move on. It’s as though we invaded Normandy and the papers just reported we’d suffered massive casualties with no mention that we secured a critical beachhead.
 
Written By: TallDave
URL: http://www.deanesmay.com
And you expected anything else from Juan Cole?
Not really. But again, when these things are out there, they need to be addressed.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Well, it’s interesting to read your spin, McQ. Senator Lugar, though, isn’t about to react to spin, I suspect Cole is more on target than you are. But time will tell whose "spin" is closer to reality. Cole has a good track record, especially in taking apart past claims about "steady progress" (he was noting it was steady deterioration early on — something now everybody admits). I’ve read elsewhere that almost every one killed is simply called "al qaeda" — quoting a general noting there are other enemies doesn’t deny that claim. I’m not sure if it’s true or not, but I suspect often claims of "50 al qaeda were killed" are not trustworthy.

OK, I’ve got your "spin," Juan’s "spin," and a lot of other interpretations. Time will tell is correct.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Come on now.

Juan Cole and that other guy, Greeenwort or whatever, live on a different plane of existent. Arguing or any other attempt to reason with them will be as fruitful as bull-milking.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Nice to see the moonbat professor community stick together.



 
Written By: Kevin
URL: http://www.punditreview.com
In Cole’s defense, Michael Yon’s "Surrender or Die" post did give a strong impression that the goal was to physically trap and kill the enemy, not simply ’clearing the area.’ Which isn’t by any means meant to denigrate the actual strategy expressed here, but
The initial attack on 19 June achieved enough surprise that al Qaeda was caught off guard and trapped. They have been beaten back mostly into pockets and are surrounded and will be dealt with
says to me "put ’em in a cauldron and cook ’em" not "chase them out."
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
... says to me "put ’em in a cauldron and cook ’em" not "chase them out."
Tactically that may have been the desire and the intent, but the point is, as Kilcullen explains, in strategic terms, it doesn’t matter as long as they’re gone.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I think you mean "Confederate" Yankee in the cites.
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://rocketjones.mu.nu
Achillea - I also believe that somewhere in M.Y.’s or Roggio’s writing you’ll see that kill/capture them all was the commanders personal goal. With the public lead up to these operations, that was an unrealistic goal.

The fact remains, we’re only in the 2nd week of the operation, and people are already declaring it has failed.

Lugar is talking out of his ____ at this particular point in time. He’s looking at a report about the past 3 months, and not taking into account that we are actively changing the conditions in Baghdad and the surrounding areas.
 
Written By: keith_indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
I think you mean "Confederate" Yankee in the cites.
Heh ... you’re right ... Merlin had my brain.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"Or, said shortly and sweetly: to this point, mission accomplished."

Of course you know that, in spite of the ’to this point’ qualifier, people will focus on the ’mission accomplished’ part to discredit you later.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
A good point made by the editors of the Hill...
the senator may be right in his suggestion that the U.S. troop surge, and therefore the war in Iraq, can already be seen to have failed. But that seems quick, to put it no more strongly, in its willingness to write off the tactics of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander in Baghdad, who said he would need until September to have an idea of how his plan was working.
You know, Petraeus, the guy who was voted 81-0 by the Senate to be the commander...
 
Written By: keith_indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Dr. Cole is an extremely reliable advisor on 20th century Middle Eastern religious movements (his area of study). On military affairs or politics, not so much.
 
Written By: Dave Schuler
URL: http://www.theglitteringeye.com
Achillea - I also believe that somewhere in M.Y.’s or Roggio’s writing you’ll see that kill/capture them all was the commanders personal goal. With the public lead up to these operations, that was an unrealistic goal.

Fair enough. My point (such as it was) was just that I could see where Cole had gotten the ’goal = AQ annihilation’ from. That he failed to address (and possibly failed to even research) anything beyond that is on his own head. It was never my intention to malign Mr. Yon, Mr. Roggio, or our troops in the field.

in strategic terms, it doesn’t matter as long as they’re gone

Okay by me. Being myself (a) a civilian and (b) not there, I’m quite content to leave that to the professionals on the scene. On the other hand, the whys and wherefores of how the operation may be perceived by my fellow not-there civilians is something I’m qualified to address.

 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
Dave S. is right, though I think Cole does a decent job in considering the internal politics of Iraq (he knows, for instance, that al Sadr is a nationalist and a pawn for Iran, as some with less intimate knowledge of the political scene claim). One learns a lot from Juan Cole about the religious and social issues facing Iraq (or Islam), and he does a good job giving insights from what Arab and Iraqi media is saying, as well as the nature of politics and religious ideas in Iran and Iraq. For instance, he has very clearly explained the differences between Khomenism and Sistani’s view of "church-state" relations.

On military and foreign policy issues, I put him in the same category as McQ. He is smart, he has a real bias, and he sometimes launches into personal ridicule (for Cole it is ridicule of Cheney and Bush, etc.) For me, reading Cole and McQ are part of getting the balance, they each interpret the situation from their very different perspectives, and I believe each is trying to be honest and strongly believes what they claim. My mode of operation is to gather different interpretations and, rather than choose a "side" and defend it, ridiculing the other side, is to compare, contrast, and then watch how events unfold, making my "best guess" at what kind of interpretation is accurate. Given how complex the situation is, and how limited and biased most information is (biased one way or another), all any of us can do is guess.

Senator Lugar, on the other hand, is someone who really takes a careful read of the situation, and has access to a lot of information we don’t. He has to be taken seriously. He may be wrong, it may be too soon to really make a call, but Lugar can’t simply be dismissed. Not only is a bellweather as to where the Senate his going (centrists will follow him), but I am convinced he is not playing politics and sees his role as trying to assure the Senate does the right thing for American interests in the world. He has a lot of experience. One doesn’t have to agree with him, but he should be listened to.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
All that matters is they are gone? There needs to be another step — namely, if insurgents simply move around to avoid where America has its forces, they can play that cat and mouse game for a long time — they are never truly gone. The next step is, of course, Iraqi forces. My "best guess" is that Senator Lugar knows something about the state of Iraqi preparedness and internal Iraqi politics that gives him pessimism that even if the US offensive works on the military side, there is little to no chance the Iraqis can follow through. That would explain why he is willing so soon to declare failure. But that’s only conjecture...
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Okay by me. Being myself (a) a civilian and (b) not there, I’m quite content to leave that to the professionals on the scene. On the other hand, the whys and wherefores of how the operation may be perceived by my fellow not-there civilians is something I’m qualified to address.
Absolutely and your point is well taken. Sometimes it is hard to separate the tactical from the strategic and this is a good example. However I simply wanted to point out that not achieving a tactical goal doesn’t necessarily mean the strategic goal is in jeopardy or a failure.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Dr. Cole is an extremely reliable advisor on 20th century Middle Eastern religious movements (his area of study). On military affairs or politics, not so much.
I’d go further and say "not at all". But he’s not the only one out there throwing around stuff he doesn’t understand. However when he chooses to do so, he is fair game and he certainly doesn’t do his credibility in other areas any favors when he does.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"My mode of operation is to gather different interpretations and, rather than choose a "side" and defend it, ridiculing the other side, is to compare, contrast, and then watch how events unfold, making my "best guess" at what kind of interpretation is accurate. Given how complex the situation is, and how limited and biased most information is (biased one way or another), all any of us can do is guess."
Once again, Professor Erb attempts to position himself as a reasonable arbiter, observing that his past efforts in that regard have bourne no fruit. Of course we all know very well which "side" he has chosen.

Like all Democratic propagandists, he is adrift during this period of adjustment in the LN. The NYT has been trying various trial balloons, but has been giving no clear guidance. This leaves the Professor Erbs of the world to repair fences and attempt to position themselves so that they have credibility when the NYT decides the appropriate strategy. Since the course of the LN is unclear right now, the Professor Erbs have no idea how to position themselves - hence the fibrillations.

One zap of the NYT defibrillater, when it comes, will clarify his position and then Professor Erb will be done "guessing" and be commenting again with absolute certainty.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Juan Cole: "80% of the enemy leaders ran away, which means we have failed and are defeated!"

Steve-o: Juan, you are a f*&$ing idiot. But we knew that.
 
Written By: Steve-o
URL: http://
"Run a limited, small federal government with a low flat tax. Leave most social welfare programs and government policies/planning to the individual states — with states being able to experiment and learn from each other. I would also get rid of the current national military and defense spending, and shift that burden to the states, who could spend what they want on military and then engage in voluntary cooperation for national defense.

Nothing against the constitution, but in my heart of hearts I think the articles of confederation weren’t that bad."

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

Scott continues on with his mindless narrative. Slowly trying to achieve, through a constant mind numbing pessimistic set of posts, his goal of dissolving the military for the good of the country.
 
Written By: coater
URL: http://
Like all Democratic...
Robert, I’m not a Democrat. I’m not a Republican. I usually vote a third party in Presidential elections, and in my last two Senate elections I have voted Republican, though in the House races I’ve usually voted Democrat. My views don’t fit well with any party — so I tend to vote for politicians I think are honest, rather than trying to go with a partisan approach.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
My views don’t fit well with any party
Or any form of logic...
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"incredibly bad MSM reporting" that’s generous. Sometimes it seems to me this is on purpose.

Michael Yon does get more of a tactical feel in his reporting while the stuff we’ve been reading from Kilcullen (sp?) is the strategy. I’m sure they would have loved to have caught 100% of AQ leadership in place, but I cannot imagine that would be easy to do.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
"I would also get rid of the current national military and defense spending, and shift that burden to the states, who could spend what they want on military and then engage in voluntary cooperation for national defense."

As I believe I said previously, read a lot of books but understands very little. As an ’expert’ in Political Science, do you have an opinion(silly question) about why the framers of the Constitution made national defense a national function? Perhaps you should give some thought to the economics and organizational and management aspects of having an efficient and effective defense establishment. Not to mention the financing.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
While Prof. Cole may very well know the whys and wherefores of the religious cast of Iraq, and that does influence politics to some degree, he has yet to give a full-throated roar on the tribal cultural basis underlying the entire Nation, the total depravity of the Saddamist regime to use internal factions to degrade the fabric of society there, and the quite nasty police state that was being run where tens of thousands went into places like Abu Ghraib... but finding out if they came out was quite difficult to do. Then moving into the area of Nationalism, he forgets that allying oneself with folks trying to form a Caliphate doesn’t make them all too amenable to keeping lovely Nation States around, so if Sadr is a ’Nationalist’ he is of a damn strange sort looking to liquidate his ’Nation’ at the behest of outsiders. Yes, that entire set of ethnic divisions also goes unlooked-at by Mr. Cole and how that then plays into tribalism and factionalization within tribes and within religious sects. The one thing *not* missing from the Middle East are factions, and that entire ’playing both ends against the middle while I cheer on’ concept of governing doesn’t seem to get much of a looking at by him. And that is even before adding in such lovely bits like pan-arabism of the Nasser style, which a few still try to aspire to.

Plus I would not trust someone who had not done a hard and deep study of how that cultural context is reflected in military capability to then say how well the US is *losing* against it. The man uses the blithe citation of the Badr Brigades, trained by the Qods, and then asserts that they are the ones controlling the IA, in particular the 5 ID, but that broad assertion covers the entire gamut of Iraqi Forces. So one would expect that it would also happen in other places. That is patently not the case as has been reported on the ground by multiple individuals. Apparently he has also not bothered to look and see *what* kind of army is bieng stood up in Iraq, which is a real eye-opener as it is unlike anything fielded there outside Israel. The simplistic view of Iraq that Cole offers in no way reflects the hard and fast complexity of the place, and because he is unable to draw out those distinctions, realize any lacks in his knowledgebase, and treat his knowledge as a functional tool that needs constant updating and re-assessment he gives us a sweet, 1980’s view of the Middle East.

If Professor Cole wants to stick to religion,fine with me! But when he decides to go wandering over a large field, he had better be able to explain the cultural and societal problems that are now seen in Iraq. He does not do so, save to those who don’t bother to look beyond their ideology and mind-set to try and give an assessment of the situation there. Iraq and the entire Middle East has hard and fast problems that, when looked at from that multiple overlay view, should be absolutely horrifying to the West. That is due to the fact that Western foreign policy has failed in the entirety of the Middle East (both capitalist and communist), and that the education system of the West no longer teaches the valuable lessons of post-war situations and *why* something work and others didn’t.

But then I really don’t much like all of those who have supported that foreign policy and are stuck in the world of it, for all the fact the 20th century ended a bit ago with that outlook in threadbare tatters. And it is the parroting of that by Cole and others, who cannot let go of the 20th century, that is a deadly danger in and of itself. There was, for a very brief while, a multi-causational and integrated viewpoint perspective of history that recognized multiple different vectors all coalescing to form this thing known as history. And that it was a living and vital part of how to examine human history as it reflects upon the knowns and unknowns of actually *living*. The whole swath of foreign policy ’experts’ went for simplistic analysis instead of looking for multiple, simple vectors in the affairs of mankind... that gets emergent complexity which is not amenable to simplistic analysis. That can and will come back to bite us, and hard, if we do not get used to this world we are in, of the 21st century where a few groups want to drag the entire planet back to pre-1648. I hope that our society and culture wakes up to this as our very lives depend upon it.
 
Written By: ajacksonian
URL: http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/
Well, it’s interesting to read your spin, McQ. Senator Lugar, though, isn’t about to react to spin, I suspect Cole is more on target than you are.

No. Compare Cole’s claim of military failure to Lugar’s own words:

Cole said,
His (Lugar’s) alarm has been illustrated by the difficulties the U.S. and Iraqi militaries faced..."

The failure of the offensive...


This is what Lugar said,

Its prospects for success are too dependent on the actions of others who do not share our agenda. It relies on military power to achieve goals that it cannot achieve.


 
Written By: liontooth
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider