brilliant doc! thanks!
I would only add this:
When it comes to DENIAL and the Left, IT AIN'T JUST IRAQ!
As a former Lefty, I feel that the real reason most current Lefties are in DEEP denial is because their ENTIRE ideology has been discredited. They must put their finger in each and every hole in the dike, so-to-speak. And Iraq is just one little hole in the dike.
It's not only that - in spite of their RAVINGS and obvious mendacity - the Iraq War was and remains a just war, but that welfare as we knew it was ended - successfully, free trade hasn't caused a giant sucking noise, tax-cuts didn't bring on a great depression, the population explosion did not cause massive starvation, etc. etc. etc. and so forth and so on.
For the Leftie holdouts, admitting they were wrong on any one of these issue threatens to bring down the ENTIRE obsolete edifice that is Leftism.
That's another reason why their reactions are so wacky/extreme - as in BUSHITLER/ASHKKROFT/Blood for Oil, etc.
Their hysteria and histrionics is so hyperbolic because they're not just defending one foreign policy position; they're defending their entire committment to Leftism.
Yes, I agree with you about their ideology being discredited and their reaction. We have been seeing a complete mental breakdown of the Left since the mid-90's and the collapse of Communism. They must deny that this is happening, but we can see it in the intellectual and moral bankruptcy that is now evident in almost all the leadership of the Left. Denial, projection and paranoia are their main coping strategies, I'm afraid.
The recent abduction of peace activists I expect will be denied via a conspiracy theory of sorts - the CIA did it or Iraqis on Halliburton's payroll did it....anything to deny the reality of the situation.
Outstanding, Doc!
The above comments sum up my own position so well I can add only one thought:
Regarding the Doc's analogy to substance addiction, ask yourself what often happens when the addict is "forcably" deprived of his "fix" (thru repeated electoral and legislative defeat)?
(Yeah, I know its not a good stretch of the analogy - but its free!)
I don't mean to come off as excessively paranoid, but we really need to be kinda watching our backs. Pies in the face and verbal/physical abuse of conservative speakers, slandering. misquoting, (framing?), etc of conservative legislators, etc is a clear symptom (uh...I think) of potential trouble of a whole new sort.
Doc, I got here via our mutual friend The Anchoress, and find this post absolutely brilliant.
Of course, I have to say that: it upholds my tagline. 
Now all you need to do is come up with a cure...
leibermanhas been a stand-up guy on iraq. one of the few who have.
Think of all the intel we have gathered, we have learned how to fight a guerrilla war, we have coordinated all our forces to focus on one battle, we have learned how to build a nation, an armed force, we have projected power and fear, I'm sure thats why we haven't been attacked again, some one would pay big time. We have learned tons in this battle. It is not a zero sum war.
Fantastic post Dr. S.
But looking at your Shame posts, with Neo-Neocon and Dymphana (in NNC's comments), denial is one of the main ways of dealing with shame.
The Left supported the Vietnam policy of "out now" -- when the US left, the results were genocide.
I suggest attempting to focus on results, not intentions, for criticism. Like questions: If one president has good intentions, but bad results, is that better or worse than one that has bad intentions, but good results?
@ macleod
And there is a cost for this politically for Lieberman, higher than what Republicans, whose base is presumably in more agreement with the aims of the war, have to pay.
May we all say what we know to be right, even when the cost is unfairly high.
I bet Mitzell, Marshall and the other Leftools are stewing up denials right now as we speak...
Fifty cents says they include some reversal of the denial claim, attempting to put it on the Doc and the regulars here instead of the Dems. Hopefully, this observation is berired deep enough in the comments that they won't see it before they post their response... IITL.
Good post, Doc. A long read but worth it.
Dr. Sanity,
You make me smile! 
I'm sending this off to the Family.
No, they will not think this is a hostile missive.
kelleyb
The WWI flying Ace has shot down another squadron!
It's all true Dr. Sanity. The 90 million or so Americans who self identify as Democrats, including yours truly, are as interchangable as peas in a pod: hopelessly neurotic, terminally feeble-minded, and in massive denial of reality and self-evident truth.
And of course the millions of "the Left" are uncountable, since nobody knows where the Left ends and the Center begins. So those millions may even be billions. And they are not only neurotic, feeble-minded, and denial-ridden, they are also actively in the embrace of evil.
But that's not the worst of it. We have still greater defects of character than that.
We also all like watermelon, loose shoes, and strumming on banjos.
Well, Mr. Marshall. That was truely...
Bizzare.
Talk about a swan dive into De Nile...
But then, we've come to expect nothing less.
J.
Well, Mr. Marshall, not ALL Democrats. She does quote Joe Lieberman, after all.
Just Democrats like you, I guess.
From one doctor to another:
A brilliant article. I would only add to the mix that there are demagogue opportunists who are not in denial, but who deliberately take advantage of those who are.
All I can say is brilliant. I have frequently thought the same thing but cannot say it like you can.
Related to your point, Doc, is that linguists with a political agenda have concluded that words have no intrinsic meaning, that they mean whatever the speaker, writer, or listener intends...at the moment. Thus, slippery manipulators of whatever persuasion think that they can walk away from their own utterances.
Well, Junior, we are what is known as a "big tent". But I note that Dr. Sanity hasn't the nerve to openly name or to quote any of the Democrats who are supposedly "in denial".
This is very convenient. For one thing Dr. Sanity then doesn't have to be bothered with reading anyone whom she actually disagrees with, confronting what they actually say or do, and working to think through why it is wrong. This is very hard work, by the way.
I doubt she ever does any of this, if what she links to is any indication. From my vantage point, at least, she is merely part of a Mutual Admiration and Back Scratching Society and doesn't want to step beyond it.
Further, if she took on real people and cited real evidence from their words or actions, she would actually have to actually put her professional judgement on the line and defend her pop psychologial diagnoses and generalizations.
In such a case, it would become rapidly clear that they are indefensible.
Real evidence, by the way is more than merely citing the opinions of other members of the M.A.B.S.S. Dr. Sanity is very good at this last, as the links in this post show.
As it is, she can merely wave her professional reading, her professional terminology, and her credentials at us all, use it to say anything she pleases about "the Left", "the Democrats" or "the Heeper Jeepers" [you know all about those dastardly Heeper Jeepers, don't you?] and leave what she says essentially inarguable because it is neither asserts anything in particular nor is it about anyone in particular.
It is merely empty "feelgood" wind for other members of the M.A.B.S.S.
It is also pseudo-intellectual claptrap.
yo marshall dude: i'm a democrat!
and a hawk.
and pro bush.
cuz i aint' in denial.
Well, I'll post some who I THINK are marinating in de Nile...
Kerry
Kennedy
Biden
Murta
Not that it really matters. For some reason, I think Mr. Marshall's not here to convince, he's here to argue. Or, as was put in Lee Harris's excellent Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology -
"My first encounter with this particular kind of fantasy occurred when I was in college in the late sixties. A friend of mine and I got into a heated argument. Although we were both opposed to the Vietnam War, we discovered that we differed considerably on what counted as permissible forms of anti-war protest. To me the point of such protest was simple — to turn people against the war. Hence anything that was counterproductive to this purpose was politically irresponsible and should be severely censured. My friend thought otherwise; in fact, he was planning to join what by all accounts was to be a massively disruptive demonstration in Washington, and which in fact became one.
My friend did not disagree with me as to the likely counterproductive effects of such a demonstration. Instead, he argued that this simply did not matter. His answer was that even if it was counterproductive, even if it turned people against war protesters, indeed even if it made them more likely to support the continuation of the war, he would still participate in the demonstration and he would do so for one simple reason — because it was, in his words, good for his soul.
What I saw as a political act was not, for my friend, any such thing. It was not aimed at altering the minds of other people or persuading them to act differently. Its whole point was what it did for him.
And what it did for him was to provide him with a fantasy — a fantasy, namely, of taking part in the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed against their oppressors. By participating in a violent anti-war demonstration, he was in no sense aiming at coercing conformity with his view — for that would still have been a political objective. Instead, he took his part in order to confirm his ideological fantasy of marching on the right side of history, of feeling himself among the elect few who stood with the angels of historical inevitability. Thus, when he lay down in front of hapless commuters on the bridges over the Potomac, he had no interest in changing the minds of these commuters, no concern over whether they became angry at the protesters or not. They were there merely as props, as so many supernumeraries in his private psychodrama. The protest for him was not politics, but theater; and the significance of his role lay not in the political ends his actions might achieve, but rather in their symbolic value as ritual. In short, he was acting out a fantasy.
Brave Joseph, going up against his enemies, with only words as his weapons. That he makes little sense doesn't matter - he's making himself feel good.
J.
Joseph,
Did I just read a comment scribed by you over at the Anchoress' Sanctuary?
I do wish someone who is far more articulate than I would PLEASE fisk this fellow. He is ripe for it.
I deal with folks like this every day. No, I will not address their denial. I just want to paint, in peace. I wear my headset and ignore their insanity. ( I'm a fine artist , not a writer.)
Oh, Joseph! Just incase you think I only read those with whom I agree...I read 6-7 newspapers a day (Lord sometimes more.) Papers of all strips. And you know??? Dr. Sanity's post still makes me smile. She is dead right!
kelleyb
> For one thing Dr. Sanity then doesn't have to be bothered with reading anyone whom she actually disagrees with, confronting what they actually say or do, and working to think through why it is wrong.
Yes, Joseph, demonstrate what an undeniably useless putz (in the actual Yiddish sense of the word) you are.
Ignore the LINK in the, oh, 10th or so paragraph, which says:
"...it permits someone to pretend they are feeling "love" or other altruistic emotions when they are actually behaving in a hateful manner; ..."
WHICH EXPLICITLY LISTS OFF A NUMBER OF THESE PEOPLE.
Actually READING it would be, how do you put it?
Oh, Yes:
> This is very hard work, by the way.
Yes, I guess actually READING things really IS hard work for someone of your vast intellectual capacity for ignorance.
Then you go on to attempt to define what she's written as easily written "pop crap" even as you take the ridiculously **cheap** step of equating what is being said with overt racism:
> We also all like watermelon, loose shoes, and strumming on banjos.
You're an ignorant twit, Joseph... a prime example of Tiger Food -- people whose genes would long since have been culled from the pool if civilization had not gone too far in neutralizing the effects of damnfoolishness on survival.
Too much tiger food,
not enough tigers.
Great post! You describe exactly what is going on. I touched the subject briefly a few days ago but not even remotely as well or as thoroughly as you. Bravo!
Great post as usual. One only has to read the comments of a couple of posters to see the relevance of the article in action.
There are a lot of Democrats who no longer vote for so called democrats. Citing number of democrats is irrelevant.
Outstanding post Doctor! I couldn't agree more.
I predict we will see more and more disillusioned democrats who have the courage to change their views when confronted by reality.
Joe Lieberman did the right thing, and I hope his constituents and other democrats actually think about what he said.
Those who claim to support our Troops
should listen to what they have to say.
Fabulous post, Dr. Sanity. Those of us who have managed to slip out of the Matrix and see the real world are constantly amazed at the continued sleepwalking of those in denial (my entire social circle).
For a few years, I tried to convince with facts, but finally gave up, since the problem is not "facts" but self-image. Now I'm mainly curious to see if any of my social circle will change any of their petrified-in-stone views when a new President is inaugurated.
Great post as usual Dr. Sanity. You should put a collection of your best essays together in book form and publish them.
"...we will see more and more disillusioned democrats who have the courage to change their views when confronted by reality."
I just wish we could get one president to have the courage to do that.
who did you have in mind, Jeff? Bill Clinton? Jimmy Carter?
Yeah, I was thinking of Jimmy Carter. If only Jimmy would come out and admit that building houses for the underprivleged is a bad idea. Damn him.
All events will simply be reinterpreted to fit into the belief system of that world--no matter how ridiculous, how distorted, or how psychotic that reinterpretation appears to others. Consistency, common sense, reality, and objective truth are unimportant and are easily discarded--as long as the world view remains intact.
Example in three words:
Young. Earth. Creationists.
But a childlike response to reality is not so cute or sweet when it is a behavioral strategy engaged in by a full grown man or woman...
From what I've seen along the fringes of fandom:
Living off Mommy & Daddy while telling everyone about All The Great Things I'm Going To Do Someday or throwing a screaming temper tantrum any time I Don't Get My Own Way is one thing in a five-year-old. But in a 50-year-old?
-the fact that even when their own words are pointed out to them, Democrats and the Left deny that is what they meant and cling to the belief that they "did not support" the war.
Doc, I recommend "The Theory and Practice of Newspeak" by George Orwell (one of the appendices to 1984), with emphasis on the words "doublethink" and "blackwhite".
Oceania has NEVER been at war with Eurasia...
Jimmy Carter doesn't have the balls to stand up to a dictator--which is more to the point.
However, if he wants to build houses for the underprivileged I laud him for it if he will STFU about foreign policy.
What a post! This one is a keeper. You have crystallized much of what I find puzzling about everyday living and social discourse in one of the bluest of blue zip codes in the bluest of blue states. Immersed in the asylum, one can easily lose ones' bearings and question who is really in denial. Your professionally informed view on how to do that is sorely needed.
> If only Jimmy would come out and admit that building houses for the underprivleged is a bad idea.
We were thinking more along the lines of acknowledging, for example, that elections in just about anywhere he's supervised them have been anything but a sham... Certainly they were so down in South America...
His unrelenting support for the dictators of the world, as Anon notes, is similarly subject to such reassessment.
Were Jimmy to do nothing but support the building of houses for the underpriviledged, that might be a useful activity.
When the man whose presidency was the worst one in recent history (yes, worse even, than Bozo Bill's) actually has the temerity to criticize a president who is handling a major foreign crisis far better than he ever could dream of, this would be specious action (Carter's solution to 911, were he president: Fix oil prices. Create a new Department of Antiterrorism. Offer Bin Laden money. Meet with Saddam to discuss what he can do to help us with them. Send an ill-trained, too small, multibranch military force into Afghanistan when Bin Laden snubs his offer of money. Embarrass the nation when said far-too-small force gets wiped out by the Afghans in a complete cluster f*** -- Yeah, HE's the one who should be telling Bush what to do, uh-huh.).
Wow. I'm sure you feel better after getting that Jimmy Carter rant off your chest. Now, does anyone want to talk about Iraq?
Sure. Read this.
National Strategy for Victory in Iraq
Of course, you could just look at the executive summary instead of reading the whole thing.
This stuff isn't new, either. This is what Bush has been working toward, and a whole lot of folks wanted to pretend didn't exist.
J.
J.
Just out of curiosity, what has to happen for you, as a citizen of these United States, to consider the mission to have been accomplished in Iraq? I mean, I know if the president says it, you'll repeat it. But what, honestly, are you looking for as concrete markers of victory? What must the situation on the ground be for you to say "Yes! We've done it!"?
First off, drop the attitude about the "If Bush says it, I'll believe it" garbage. You really interested in the markers I'm looking for, or are you just here to be an argumentative asshole because it makes you feel good?
See if you can redo your question without telling me what you think my attitudes and feelings are.
J.
Wow, if I didn't have any good answers, I guess I'd pull the old tough-guy cop-out, too.
Thanks for proving my point. You're not looking for answers, kid.
J.
Why did I ask the questions then? What point was I trying to prove by asking how we are going to measure victoy, son?
Read your original post. Find anything someone might consider objectionable? Or is it an article of faith to you that anyone who doesn't think like you do can't think at all and depends on others to tell him what to think?
J.
Okay, I'll help you get started:
1) Their military must be 100% trained and ready to handle their own security. Do you agree with this?
2) They must have a fully functioning, capable, democratically elected government in place. This is a must, right?
Okay, take it from there...
For God's sake, you wanna shut me up? Then tell me how you percieve victory in Iraq. You're avoiding the issue with these little hurt feelings games. Have you read the other posts on this blog? I've been called everything from stupid to spineless and everything in-between. Get over it!
And again, you don't answer my question. You give me an answer - do you believe that anyone who doesn't think like you do on this issue can't think at all and depends on others to tell him what to think about it?
Sorry to take up your ever-so-precious time here, but I really want to know where you're coming from when you address other folks.
J.
Holy crap, the first sentence of my post was "Just out of curiosity, what has to happen for you, as a citizen of these United States, to consider the mission to have been accomplished in Iraq?" And who are you to tell me my time is ever-so-precious! I'm offended! How dare you address other folks with such shameful rhetoric? I can't even answer your very simple, direct question I'm so flabbergasted!
Gee, dude, didn't mean to gast your flabber. (Um, that's an unsettling thought.)
Try reading your second sentence, and again - do you believe that anyone who doesn't think like you do on this issue can't think at all and depends on others to tell him what to think about it?
'Cause it sure seems to me like that's what you were implying there.
J.
I tell you what, I'm about to get in my car and begin my commute. I'll log on when I get home (maybe an hour and a half). That'll give you some time to come up with how you, personally, qualify success in Iraq. Hope you post some interesting points we can debate.
And you can't answer a simple yes or no question. Why should I debate with you?
I'll ask again - do you believe that anyone who doesn't think like you do on this issue can't think at all and depends on others to tell him what to think about it?
J.
You are a trip. It's okay to say that you're not really sure either what the objective is. It's really okay. Most of us can't articulate it. The lengths you're going to avoid trying are awesome, but understandable. Okay, seriously, I gotta go. We'll talk.
Deflection and handwaving. Why don't you just answer the question, Jeff? It's a pretty simple one, and wouldn't take much time at all.
One more time, just for show...
Do you believe that anyone who doesn't think like you do on this issue can't think at all and depends on others to tell him what to think about it?
J.
> Wow. I'm sure you feel better after getting that Jimmy Carter rant off your chest. Now, does anyone want to talk about Iraq?
jeff, you're coming closer and closer to resembling a complete troll.
Don't refute anything said, just make assinine comments.
YOU were the one who acted like he's done NOTHING more political than help people get homes.
Jimmy Carter was a friggin' useless POS as a president (I know, I LIVED through it), and he's been equally useless as an EX-president. There's nothing he's done since 1980 that could not have been better done by a trained donkey.
> to consider the mission to have been accomplished in Iraq?
Yep. Troll. No one HERE has claimed "mission accomplished" -- nor has Bush in terms of the whole enchilada (THAT term was used to deal with the elimination of the Iraqi armed forces, and nothing more)
What people HERE have said (most importantly, the Doc) is:
a) It does no good to bury your useless Dhimmicrat head in the sand. We fight them here or we fight them there. Me, I vote for there.
b) There are ample signs that things are steadily improving, and that they have never been as bad as the useless MSMs have been painting, to say nothing of the vast Full Tilt Boogie Brigade wing of the Dhimmicrat Party.
Wow. Okay, well does anyone else on this blog know where I can find a clear explanation of what factors have to line up in order for us to delare victory? Anyone? Seriously, just point me in the right direction and I'll never bother any of you again.
> Or is it an article of faith to you that anyone who doesn't think like you do can't think at all and depends on others to tell him what to think?
A: Yes -- Since it's true of him, he presumes it of everyone else. He has no idea where original thoughts come from.
> Okay, I'll help you get started:
1) Their military must be 100% trained and ready to handle their own security. Do you agree with this?
F*** no. What kind of nitwit are you? You think the police and the military ANYWHERE operate at 100% all the time?
More than likely, if they are operating at something like 75% then they'll be able to do the majority of the job without help. They will suffer more casualties than ideally as a result of being less experienced and less trained, but they easily will be able to do the job with some occasional help from us.
> 2) They must have a fully functioning, capable, democratically elected government in place. This is a must, right?
Uh, once more -- F*** No. It needs to be STABLE. There is a considerable difference between a fully functioning, blah blah blah government and a STABLE government (i.e., one not vulnerable to a coup by military force) which is on its way towards that goal. The STABLE one might not get everything done as efficiently as might be desired, but it will get things done and solve those problems which are amenable to government solutions.
In other words, we are, if things continue on their current trend, likely to substantially reduce our forces there next year, as Iraqis take over as at least the front line of action in both military and paramilitary forms, and the new government refines its Constitution rather than blowing each other up by an unwillingness to compromise (yes, there will occasionally be exceptions and deaths, but, for the most part, they should be able to settle disagreements without resorting to weaponry). My guess: one half next year, then one half the year after that, probably the rest (aside from any mutually-agreed-on forces and treatied milbases) within 2.5 to 3 years. That's a guess, just from the progress made so far in the last 2 years.
> I've been called everything from stupid to spineless and everything in-between.
Yes, but in your case, jeff, all the evidence available suggests these claims are TRUE.
> where I can find a clear explanation of what factors have to line up in order for us to delare victory
Well, jeff, since you can't quite seem to actually read anything posted, that will be exceedingly difficult.
I'll twy one more time to point youw widdle Dhimmicwat head in the wight diwection, alweady given by JL:
Sure. Read this.
National Strategy for Victory in Iraq
Of course, you could just look at the executive summary instead of reading the whole thing.
Oh, Jeff!
One more time, with feeling...
Do you believe that anyone who doesn't think like you do on this issue can't think at all and depends on others to tell him what to think about it?
(And, BTW, what OBH said.)
J.
Hey O.B.H., thanks for helping me prove to J that this blog isn't exactly know for polite, respectful discourse.
Okay, so let's talk numbers. You say they should be 75% ready before we can claim a victory. 75% of what number? What is the size we're hoping to ahieve? Let's figure that out so 75% can actually be measured. "Stay the course" means nothing without tangible, real parameters.
You also use the phrase "if things continue on their current trend." It makes me wonder, if the violence there continues to escalate on it's current trend, aren't we obligated to stay? November was the deadliest month of the war for U.S. troops and civillians are increasingly being targeted and slughtered. If these things continue on their current trend, can we really claim victory and withdrawl?
Okay, I read the damn overview. Very interesting read. I liked this line: "Our mission in Iraq is to win the war. Our troops will return home when that mission is complete." The truth is, we won the war in a matter of days. That sentence would be more acurate if you replaced "war" with "nation building." And it's also funny how you guys threw a 2-man pissy fit when you felt I implied you couldn't think for yourselves, then when I asked for your opinions as American citizens, you point me to a beaurocratic document. Nice. You showed me.
Come on, Jeff - answer the question.
Do you believe that anyone who doesn't think like you do on this issue can't think at all and depends on others to tell him what to think about it?
J.
Jeff doesn't seem to be a very capable reader. I see:
* Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
* Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
* Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.
"When it comes to DENIAL and the Left, IT AIN'T JUST IRAQ!
As a former Lefty, I feel that the real reason most current Lefties are in DEEP denial is because their ENTIRE ideology has been discredited. They must put their finger in each and every hole in the dike, so-to-speak. And Iraq is just one little hole in the dike."
To understand DENIAL one should really have a basic understanding of the philosophy of Post-Modernism (Reality is a chimera and exists only in our imagination, Reason is a form of western male-dominance, Intellect is impotent, subjectivity over objectivity, etc.)
Post-Modernism has been primary in acadamia since the eearly 1900's and dominant since the 1950's. It is the foundation for modern leftist "thought"(if one can call rampant emotionalism "thought").
While conservatives have many vestiages of Post-Modernism in their world view, the left is totally innured in the irrationalism that stems from PM.
It has been said that PM is the establishment of schizophrenia (inability to discern fantasy from reality) as a major cultural basis.
"Well, Junior, we are what is known as a "big tent". But I note that Dr. Sanity hasn't the nerve to openly name or to quote any of the Democrats who are supposedly "in denial". "
Typical!!
The quotes would take TERABYTES.
Dr. Sanity(and dear readers)
First,as someone who has some experience with drs.(MD after my name)Ann Arbor (always bet against U-M in big games) and Democrats(some of my best friends were liberal arts majors),I want to hypothesize" Dr. Sanity" is actually a male mechanical engineering prof.And don't try to tell me differently.
Post-Modernism has been primary in acadamia since the eearly 1900's and dominant since the 1950's. It is the foundation for modern leftist "thought"(if one can call rampant emotionalism "thought").
While conservatives have many vestiages of Post-Modernism in their world view, the left is totally innured in the irrationalism that stems from PM.
It has been said that PM is the establishment of schizophrenia (inability to discern fantasy from reality) as a major cultural basis.
And that's supposed to stand up to Islamic Fascism? (Maybe Taliban John was just a bit ahead of his time...)
If Jeff wanted a serious discussion he wouldn't lead off with sneers. Maybe when he's grown up he'll understand that.
Dr. Sanity,
Things are moving so quickly in the War on Terror, specifically on the battle front within the beltway, that I have started a new rant on my blog three times now to try to stay current and relevant. But you have solved my problem. I am just going to put in a link and a pitch to this article, which is excellent and far better than anything I could have put together.
As for names of those in denial, I nominate Kerry, Reid, and Pelosi more than the others.
Dr. Sanity,
I just stumbled upon your blog today, but it is a refreshing relief to discover that not everyone in this great country is a blithering idiot (an impression you get from watching the MSM!).
The truth and reality (and plan)of the war against terrorists being waged in Iraq is this: kill all the terrorists (insurgents is a misnomer) encountered; build up the Iraqi forces so that they are able to continue killing all the terrorists encountered until they pack up and leave or none or left; focus U.S. wrath on Iran -- they have 26 years' worth of butt-kicking coming to them; get rid of the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Tehran and obliterate their nuclear program; notify Syria that they are next.
I guarantee you the rest of the ME falls in line (remember Libya?). This is the reality of the situation, regardless if the traitorous left-wing liberal elite recognizes it. Diplomatic negotiations go a long way; but sometimes, a little butt-kicking goes further.
Wow, Doc! What a tour de force! You're bookmarked!
Seriously, this is the second-best thing I've read today, the first being Dubya's speech...which is sort of an apples-oranges comparison. Your essay is brilliant, and so are the links you included. Thanks!
> isn't exactly know for polite, respectful discourse.
You haven't earned a continuation of the polite respectful discourse we gave you in the first place. I refuse to waste it on obvious trolls.
At that, any derogatory comments directly feed into your own bad faith responses which don't answer any questions asked of you or totally ignore things already answered, such as the Doc's list of individuals under discussion in the initial narrative or JL's answer on conditions for victory.
Then you respond like that you define yourself as a troll, not as a respectable dissenter.
> It makes me wonder, if the violence there continues to escalate on it's current trend
1) Wrong "its"
2) VIOLENCE THERE IS NOT ESCALATING!
It is
a) virtually ENTIRELY located in a limited number of provinces, less than 1/4th of the population or the land area. This does not change, the precise subset of the violent provinces where things are happening varies, but the violent provinces are fixed and unvarying.
b) The force levels of the terrorists in these provinces is DECREASING, not increasing -- and that is certain to reduce futher still now that enough Iraqis are coming on line so that they can KEEP clean an area which our military cleans out for them.
c) the primary issue is the classic Vietnamese one -- we can move into an area and have them run across the border into Syria, where we won't (yet) chase them. Once the Iraqis are reasonably operational, then they will patrol the borders and prevent them from coming back.
d) A large percentage of the violence is neither insurgents nor foreign terrorists but criminal activity. This is far more susceptable to paramilitary (i.e., Iraqi Police) solution than military solutions.
> when I asked for your opinions as American citizens, you point me to a beaurocratic document. Nice. You showed me.
1) "Bureaucratic".
2) You asked for what the definition of victory was. What we personally define it as does not matter as much as it does to those directly in charge. Obviously, we can vent if we feel nothing is being accomplished, but we actually read other things than the WaPo and NYT, so we realize that is not even close to the current case.
3) November was the deadliest month of the war for U.S. troops and civillians are increasingly being targeted and slughtered.
Yes, this was also true for the Battle of the Bulge, in WWII, and Okinawa was certainly a very deadly month for WWII. Were we losing then? No? So the remarkably dim-witted interpretation of "pure body count" -- it might not be a particularly valid one for the success level of the war, then?
Oh, and, as far as the expected course of things, the military has been "declaring victory" for about a month now, not that the Press and the Dhimmicrats in Congress have noticed,as No Oil For Pacifists notes:
Why Can't Johnny Media Read?
Dr.
This is not just a U.S. belief but a world wide belief. Other nations belive the same as the left of this country. It is sort of a scary insanity isn't it. I believe it is a "Deception"
Okay, one more on this and I'll leave it alone.
Wasn't it the Democrats crying and criticizing Pres. Bush for not having enough troops in Iraq? And now they're crying that we have too many troops in Iraq, and that THEIR presence is causing all the terrorism.
I don't get it . . .
DDennis:
If you look at it from a "No matter what Bush does, it's wrong" standpoint, it makes perfect sense. Things are stabilizing in Iraq, so we have to pull out before the process is far enough along that it'll actually complete. It takes a great deal of courage to pull defeat from the jaws of victory, and the DNC's showing just what's more important - the good of the country/world or their ability to maintain power.
If Kerry'd gotten into office, we'd be out of Iraq and Afganistan already and Saddam would probably have gotten an apology, a few billion bucks, and have been put back into power. Kerry'd be all sad about how things fell apart but he could salve the wounded psyche of the Left by blaming Bush for it all in the first place.
We dodged a bullet in 2004 - and it was named Kerry.
J.
OBH -
Conveniently, the 'civillians are increasingly being targeted and slughtered.' bit lacks just WHO is doing the targeting and slaughtering.
Of course, a half-truth's better than no truth at all - right?
J.
> Conveniently, the 'civillians are increasingly being targeted and slughtered.' bit lacks just WHO is doing the targeting and slaughtering.
True, but in the context of his argument, it does have relevance as a metric, but, as my response notes, it's a really sucky metric.
It's about as good a metric as jumping off the top of the Empire State Building, and noting, after 90 floors, "Hey, nothing wrong here!" in a perversely inverted way, good for bad and vice-versa.
Wasn't it the Democrats crying and criticizing Pres. Bush for not having enough troops in Iraq? And now they're crying that we have too many troops in Iraq, and that THEIR presence is causing all the terrorism.
I don't get it . . .
Ddennis, I recommend the essay "The Principles of Newspeak" by George Orwell (one of the appendices of 1984), especially the explanations of "doublethink" and "blackwhite".
Or, in four words:
"Ees Party Line, Comrades."
JLawson,
I am in total agreement with you. I was simply making the facile point that, as usual, the Dems are trying to have it both ways.
DDennis:
I think a lot of folks are looking at what the Dems are saying, and they'll be remembering it around the next elections.
10 more years of them acting like this, and the DNC'll join the Whigs on the shelf of Historical Party Has-Beens.
J.
Dr. S,
Well said. Thank you.
OBH:
Two things. First, you made the comparison to WWII with this comment: "Yes, this was also true for the Battle of the Bulge, in WWII, and Okinawa was certainly a very deadly month for WWII. Were we losing then? No? So the remarkably dim-witted interpretation of "pure body count" -- it might not be a particularly valid one for the success level of the war, then?" WWII was a real war where we were advancing against an enemy army, where we were taking land and pushing forward. Iraq is, presently, anation building operation, and we're treading water and sitting ducks for insurgents. Not really the same situations. You're comparing army vs. army combat to a situation where the president himself called an end to combat operations many, many months ago.
Secondly, you made this comment: "What we personally define it as does not matter as much as it does to those directly in charge." I don't think you and I see government the same way. You seem to think they're in charge. The way I see it, they work for us. We're the boss, they're the employees. I don't think it's crazy for citizens to not only be informed, but to have goals and standards they expect their representatives to accomplish. If you don't think your opinion of how we measure success is important, why do you pay attention to Iraq?
Hmmm. Interesting metric.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10276071/
"Sucide blasts at lowest level in 7 months."
Of course, they could be hoarding their resources for one last push before the elections. Or they could be running out of people stupid enough to be suicide bombers.
Jeff, don't be so damn eager to declare Iraq a loss. That MSNBC had this on their front page for a while is telling - you don't normally see anything good about Iraq there. That they'd put good news up means there's enough that they can no longer ignore it - as has been their habit.
J.
I think a lot of folks are looking at what the Dems are saying, and they'll be remembering it around the next elections.
10 more years of them acting like this, and the DNC'll join the Whigs on the shelf of Historical Party Has-Beens.
-- JLawson
Not if they sieze power first (like in 200
. Then nothing will ever change again, because then we will have (gasp, with trembling lips) the Republique of Perfect Virtue, which by definition is Perfect in Every Way. (And justifies smashing an infinite number of eggs to make its Perfect Omelette.) Rejoice, Comrades, as you dance Joyfully with Great Enthusiasm before Dear Leader! The Rule of The Party is FOR EVER!
Incredibly to the point. I'm in Novi, MI (virtually next door to Ann Arbor). I have an EMU brainwashed sibling who is in extreme denial. I have hopes she will see the light, but after years of trying I've almost given up. She is full fledged - Clinton was the greatest President in history - despite endless scandals. Bush lied, people died...blah, blah, blah. I've sent her a link to this post.
It's also refreshing to see that not all Ann Arborites (especially a Psychiatrist) lean to the left.
Please help find find where I declared a loss. I can't seem to find it. With all the psycho-babble on this blog, I'm sure we can find a name for a condition where you hold one person accountable for something they heard some other person say. I've been consistantly asking individuals here for their opinions on things, so we, as U.S. citizens, can actively engage in thoughtful discussions on the most important foriegn policy event of our lifetimes. I try to defend my thoughts on the war, but I can't defend other folks thoughts.
Hey, Jeff, now that I've got your attention -
Do you believe that anyone who doesn't think like you do on this issue can't think at all and depends on others to tell him what to think about it?
J.
Sure. Why else would I ask for their opinion?
So what is the trick to being able to see things so clearly? surely it must be some sort of gift, perhaps from God? I guess some got it and some dont.It must be a wonderful feeling to know you are always right.Right?
Thanks, Jeff. You answered the question just as I expected you to.
"Sure."
So you do think we need someone else to tell us how to think.
(grin.)
Is that from personal experience in having someone tell you how you should be thinking? And if so - who's programming YOU day by day?
J.
Sorry, I can't answer right now. I'm at the DNC talking points meeting getting my information download for today. They're telling us how to demoralize the troops and how to really, really hate America. I'll ask them how I should answer your post, and then do their bidding. All hail Harry Reid!
May I be permitted to just point out re your remark that WMD are "not the first or second reason" for the use of force against Iraq listed in the Joint Resolution, they are mentioned in the second. The reasons are also not listed in order of priority. Also "weapons of mass destruction" appears 7 times in the document. "Democracy" appears 0 times.
Hey Jeff, OBH,
I agree with OBH about body count being a POOR metric. In fact, it is IRRELEVANT.
Let's look at some facts.
In 1 year in the US the following, ON AVERAGE, is true:
Killed in car accidents 42,116*
Killed by the common flu 20,000*
Killed by murders 15,517*
Killed in airline crashes
(of 477m passenger trips) 120 (1)
Killed by lightning strikes 90*
Killed by Anthrax 5
Link: http://www.unitedjustice.com/
dea...statistics.html
We've lost over 2000 in Iraq OVER TWO YEARS!!!!
That's a little less than 1000 per year for a cause that MOST of the soldiers believe in -- including this concerned citizen.
I don't see Air America protesing the local Lexus dealers.
Just amazing that people don't engage their brains.
Hey Jeff, OBH,
I agree with OBH about body count being a POOR metric. In fact, it is IRRELEVANT.
Let's look at some facts.
In 1 year in the US the following, ON AVERAGE, is true:
Killed in car accidents 42,116*
Killed by the common flu 20,000*
Killed by murders 15,517*
Killed in airline crashes
(of 477m passenger trips) 120 (1)
Killed by lightning strikes 90*
Killed by Anthrax 5
Link: http://www.unitedjustice.com/
dea...statistics.html
We've lost over 2000 in Iraq OVER TWO YEARS!!!!
That's a little less than 1000 per year for a cause that MOST of the soldiers believe in -- including this concerned citizen.
I don't see Air America protesing the local Lexus dealers.
Just amazing that people don't engage their brains.
I guess you're refering to this comment from one of my earlier posts:
"You also use the phrase "if things continue on their current trend." It makes me wonder, if the violence there continues to escalate on it's current trend, aren't we obligated to stay? November was the deadliest month of the war for U.S. troops and civillians are increasingly being targeted and slughtered. If these things continue on their current trend, can we really claim victory and withdrawl?"
My point was, if the violence continues to escalate, will we be able to withdrawl our forces and declare a victory? Is there a level of suicide bombings and car-bombings and violence against Iraqis that we will consider to be acceptable? Do we owe it to them to saty util it sinks to a certain level? Does anyone want to engage their brains and say if this is irrelevent? Don't we owe the Iraqis the stability we've promised?
This article reminded me of the 1st "Matrix" movie where Neo is asked to take either the Red pill or the blue pill. In other words, he can accept reality or embrace denial. Didn't he take the "Red" pill? If so, was that a political message?
I just read this entire comment thread, and I'd like to hand out some awards:
Most Adept at Deflecting Debate: J. Lawson
Bizarrest Grammer: OBH
Biggest Pile Jumper-On-er:DDennis
Sorest Loser/Most Misguided (this one's a gimme): Jeff
As for myself, I don't read Dr. Sanity with any regularity, but find her/him (depending on whether or not you believe lincoln) alternate interesting and pretty offensive. I'm a registered independent, and I have problems with the Christian right (attack dogs?).
Although I initially disagreed with the war and have been saddened by what can only be described as the failure of intelligence that has emerged, I fully support staying the course. While I think "The National Strategy" is pretty lacking in new information or foresight, I find it refreshing to know that our president won't back down from his commitments, because, I think we can all agree that the worst thing we could do at this point is to abandon ship.
In conclusion, can you all please stop getting into semantic debates? They are just a massive waste of my procrastination time. We're all in denial about something, and no one wants to admit it (except me, your moral superior). Have a good weekend.
Since you're actually answering questions rather than behaving like a troll, I'll respond more sociably:
> we're treading water and sitting ducks for insurgents.
Since my information on this comes from other sources besides the MSMs, you're inaccurate on this point. I think the vast majority of the military (the ones you claim are sitting ducks) radically disagrees with you, I'm pretty sure my perception trumps yours in validity.
> You're comparing army vs. army combat to a situation where the president himself called an end to combat operations many, many months ago.
In a sense, yes, but this does not refute the statement, it merely calls attention to an avenue through which the assertion might be discredited. The simple fact is, a straight up body count is a lame metric, period. Refute that by some counterfacts, not merely claiming that my examples don't apply. All you've done so far is go: "NU-huh!?!? Does NOT!"
> I don't think you and I see government the same way. You seem to think they're in charge. The way I see it, they work for us. We're the boss, they're the employees.
Really? So, why don't you simply go into the oval office and tell that nasty evil Bush what to do instead of what he's doing? Go up to him like any boss to an employee and give him direct orders on how to do his job (bosses can do that, no matter how stupid their own orders may be... so the sensibility of your orders notwithstanding, he'd still have to obey).
What?
He'll totally ignore you?
You'll probably be arrested for forcing your way into his presence?
Gee, not much of a boss, are you?
You are, of course, twisting my words and applying them in a fashion which is clearly noncontextual for them, for one, but I'll go with it anyway:
The flaw in your perception is somewhat obvious: This isn't a democracy. It's a republic.
We ain't the bosses, we get to SELECT the bosses. Every once in a while, we get to CHANGE the bosses if we want. That's the difference.
The bosses who are currently in charge get to define what victory is. We can certainly indicate to them what we want, but that, as in many cases, does not force them to obey -- see Security, Social; and Education, Vouchers; for examples.
> We've lost over 2000 in Iraq OVER TWO YEARS!!!!
That's a little less than 1000 per year for a cause that MOST of the soldiers believe in -- including this concerned citizen.
Yes, and further the straight-up number ALSO ignores a simple but highly relevant fact:
Soldiers get killed in peacetime, too.
In fact, the expected number of militarily-related deaths during that same period for the same forces would have been in the 700 to 1000 men range (soldiering is an inherently dangerous occupation, and practice exercises can kill just as dead as being in an unpacified zone) -- so, in reality, the number of deaths due to the war is more like 1000 to 1300.
BTW, jeff:
Try actually refuting any of the below points, restated for your benefit:
The violence is:
a) virtually ENTIRELY located in a limited number of provinces, less than 1/4th of the population or the land area. This does not change, the precise subset of the violent provinces where things are happening varies, but the violent provinces are fixed and unvarying.
b) The force levels of the terrorists in these provinces is DECREASING, not increasing -- and that is certain to reduce futher still now that enough Iraqis are coming on line so that they can KEEP clean an area which our military cleans out for them.
c) the primary issue is the classic Vietnamese one -- we can move into an area and have them run across the border into Syria, where we won't (yet) chase them. Once the Iraqis are reasonably operational, then they will patrol the borders and prevent them from coming back.
d) A large percentage of the violence is neither insurgents nor foreign terrorists but criminal activity. This is far more susceptable to paramilitary (i.e., Iraqi Police) solution than military solutions.
Point a) BTW, is clearly derivable from the fact that we have been steadily killing and capturing their "officer class", while most "recruits" (what there are of them) are buck privates. The significance of this comes to the fore when you grasp the fact that Zarqawi had to use one of his most trusted lieutenants in order to pull off the fairly mundane operation which resulted in pissing off Jordan... You don't use a defacto colonel on a suicide mission unless you're really, really desperate. Colonels are too hard to find and train. Hence, Zarqawi is desperate for men he can rely on to do things.
This, I'd cite, would *not* be a sign of success on his part.
Sorry, "point b)", not "point a)"...
I have an EMU brainwashed sibling who is in extreme denial. I have hopes she will see the light, but after years of trying I've almost given up. She is full fledged - Clinton was the greatest President in history - despite endless scandals. Bush lied, people died...blah, blah, blah.
-- Ray
I'd describe her this way:
She's accepted Bill & Hillary as her Personal LORDs and Saviors. That's the only way I can describe it -- a religious conversion experience as rigid as any Young Earth Creationist or Conspiracy Theorist.
OBH
Sorry, but I spent six months in Iraq. So, to quote some douche-bag, "I'm pretty sure my perception trumps yours in validity."
Dr. Sanity does read opposing views, exampled by how she doesn't agree with me most of the time.
Here's the daily morale booster.
Washington Times
November 22, 2005
Pg. 21
A Marine Reports From Iraq
By An anonymous Marine
Editor's note: There's nothing like word from the field to know what works, what doesn't and how the enemy's tactics are affecting our soldiers in battle. Below is one U.S. Marine's take on those questions, verified and relayed to us through his father, a retired Marine. We've withheld the Marine's name and his father's to spare them the inevitable political or institutional flap. Among the most interesting tidbits: Our Marine reports that servicemen are shocked at negative press coverage of the war, and they believe the United States is winning decisively -- but that the number of troops in the field should be bolstered. On equipment, our Marine thinks the older, battle-tested parts of the U.S. arsenal are the most useful equipment in the fight against insurgents. M-16s aren't much good, but "Ma Deuce" is, and the .45 pistol is highly coveted. Body armor has plusses and minuses.
Hello to all my fellow gunners, military buffs, veterans and interested guys. A couple of weekends ago I got to spend time with my son... [He] spent seven months at "Camp Blue Diamond" in Ramadi, a.k.a. "Fort Apache." He saw and did a lot. The following is what he told me about weapons, equipment, tactics and other miscellaneous information which may be of interest to you. Nothing is by any means classified. No politics here, just a Marine with a bird's eye view's opinions.
•The M-16 rifle: Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the sand over there, which is like talcum powder. The sand is everywhere. You feel filthy two minutes after a shower. The M-4 carbine version is more popular because it's lighter and shorter, but it also has jamming problems. Marines like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons lights on the picatinny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinderblock structure common over there and even torso hits cannot be reliably counted on to put the enemy down. Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate use.
•The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon) .223 cal: Big thumbs down. Drum-fed light machine gun. Universally considered a piece of s***. Chronic jamming problems, most of which require partial disassembly. That's fun in the middle of a firefight.
•The M9 Beretta 9mm: mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in a desert environment, but everyone hates the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns for self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm: Bad guys get hit multiple times but are still in the fight.
•Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Works well and is used frequently for clearing houses, to good effect.
•The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 Nato (.30 cal belt-fed machine gun: Thumbs up. Developed to replace the old M-60 -- what a beautiful weapon that was -- it is accurate, reliable and the 7.62 round puts 'em down. Originally developed as a vehicle-mounted weapon, more and more are being dismounted and taken into the field by infantry. The 7.62 round chews up the structure over there.
•The M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun: Thumbs way, way up. "Ma deuce" is still worth her considerable weight in gold. The ultimate fight-stopper, puts their d**** in the dirt every time. The most coveted weapon in-theater.
•The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there. Everybody authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on one. With few exceptions, it can reliably be expected to put 'em down with a torso hit. The special-ops guys -- who are doing most of the pistol work -- use the HK military model and supposedly love it. The old government model .45s are being re-issued en masse.
•The M-14: Thumbs up. It is being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a modified version to special-ops guys. Modifications include lightweight Kevlar stocks and low-power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in the sandy environment, and people love the 7.62 round.
•The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle: Thumbs way up. Spectacular range and accuracy and hits like a freight train. Used frequently to take out vehicle suicide bombers -- we actually stop a lot of them -- and barricaded enemies. Definitely here to stay.
•The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. Mostly in 308 but some in 300 win mag. Heavily modified Remington 700s. Great performance. Snipers have been using them heavily to great effect. Rumor has it that a Marine sniper on his third tour in Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hathcock's record for confirmed kills with over 100.
•The new body armor: Thumbs up. Relatively light at approximately six pounds and can reliably be expected to soak up small shrapnel and even stop an AK-47 round. The bad news: Hot as s*** to wear, almost unbearable in the summer heat, which averages over 120 degrees. Also, the enemy now goes for head shots whenever possible. All the bull**** about the "old" body armor making our guys vulnerable to improvised-explosive devices was a non-starter. The IED explosions are enormous and body armor doesn't make any difference at all in most cases.
•Night Vision and Infrared Equipment: Thumbs way up. Spectacular performance. Our guys see in the dark and own the night, period. Very little enemy action after evening prayers. More and more of the enemy are being whacked at night during movement by our hunter-killer teams. We've all seen the videos.
•Lights: Thumbs up. Most of the weapon-mounted and personal lights are Surefires, and the troops love 'em. Invaluable for night urban operations. [Name redacted] carried a $34 Surefire G2 on a neck lanyard and loved it.
I can't help but notice that most of the good fighting weapons and ordnance are 50 or more years old. With all our technology, it's the World War II- and Vietnam-era weapons that everybody wants. The infantry fighting is frequent, up close and brutal. No quarter is given or shown.
Bad guy weapons:
•Mostly AK47s. The entire country is an arsenal. Works better in the desert than the M16 and the .308 Russian round kills reliably. PKM belt-fed light machine guns are also common and effective. Luckily, the enemy mostly shoots like s***. Undisciplined "spray and pray"-type fire. However, precision weapons are more and more common, especially sniper rifles. Fun fact: Captured enemy have apparently marveled at the marksmanship of our guys and how hard they fight. They are apparently told in jihad school that the Americans rely solely on technology, and can be easily beaten in close quarters combat for their lack of toughness. Let's just say they know better now.
•The RPG: Probably the infantry weapon most feared by our guys. Simple, reliable and as common as dog****. The enemy responded to our up-armored Humvees by aiming at the windshields, often at point blank range. Still killing a lot of our guys.
•The improvised-explosive device: The biggest killer of all. Can be anything from old Soviet anti-armor mines to jerry-rigged artillery shells. A lot found in [name redacted]'s area were in abandoned cars. The enemy would take two or three 155mm artillery shells and wire them together. Most were detonated by cell phone, and the explosions are enormous. You're not safe in any vehicle, even an M1 tank.
Driving is by far the most dangerous thing our guys do over there. Lately, they are much more sophisticated "shape charges" (Iranian) specifically designed to penetrate armor. Fact: Most of the ready-made IEDs are supplied by Iran, the country which is also providing terrorists, Hezbollah types, to train the insurgents in their use and tactics. That's why the attacks have been so deadly lately. Their concealment methods are ingenious, the latest being shape charges in Styrofoam containers spray-painted to look like the cinderblocks that litter all Iraqi roads. We find about 40 percent before they detonate. The bomb-disposal guys are unsung heroes of this war.
•Mortars and rockets: Very prevalent. The Soviet-era 122mm rockets, with a range of 18 kilometers, are becoming more prevalent. One of [name redacted]'s NCOs lost a leg to one. These weapons cause a lot of damage "inside the wire." [Name redacted]'s base was hit almost daily his entire time there by mortar and rocket fire, often at night to disrupt sleep patterns and cause fatigue (it worked). More of a psychological weapon than anything else. The enemy mortar teams would jump out of vehicles, fire a few rounds and then haul *** in a matter of seconds.
Bad guy technology is simple yet effective. Most communication is by cell and satellite phones and also by email on laptops. They use handheld Global Positioning System units for navigation and "Google Earth" for overhead views of our positions. Their weapons are good, if not fancy, and prevalent. Their explosives and bomb technology is top of the line. Night vision is rare.
They are very careless with their equipment, however, and the captured GPS units and laptops are intelligence treasure troves when captured.
Who are the bad guys? Most of the carnage is caused by the Zarqawi al Qaeda group. They operate mostly in Anbar province -- Fallujah and Ramadi. These are mostly "foreigners," that is, non-Iraqi Sunni Arab jihadists from all over the Muslim world and Europe. Most enter Iraq through Syria -- with, of course, the knowledge and complicity of the Syrian government -- and then travel down the "rat line" which is the trail of towns along the Euphrates River that we've been hitting hard for the last few months. Some are virtually untrained young jihadists who end up as suicide bombers or are used in "sacrifice squads."
Most, however, are hard-core terrorists from all the usual suspects -- al Qaeda, Hezboll
Great site, Dr Sanity. Excellent post and useful (mostly) comments. Since Joe Lieberman has been to Iraq 4 times, I guess his facts trump most others.
And since most of the Troops have been there much longer than anyone else, then I assume their opinion trumps everyone elses? Not to mention Iraqis, who actually live there....
Dr. Sanity,
Just found your blog by accident (comment section in ScrappleFace). Great post. Will keep your blog bookmarked.
I also see the usual fools/trolls infestations in your comment section. That's to be expected, I guess.
Keep up the good work, and thank you for spelling things out so clearly for the rest of us.
Wonderful stuff! Thank you! The Philosopher
I don't see that you're communicating in any creative way but just giving the converted more excuses to believe what they already believe. How about working to unite America instead of separating it?
What I don't like about the "Self denial" argument, is that instead of focusing on the arguments of your opponent, you point to his behaviour, i.e. being in a state of self denial. (It's like saying "If this is what you think, you're dumb, because what I think is so obviously true").
The truth or reality is often not as obvious as you make it sound, namely with Iraq war. It is often controversial. If some don't agree with what seems evidently true to you, well, maybe they have a point which you missed. If you can't accept this possibility, maybe then you are in self denial too.
I only have one thing to say, my son is in the military on his was to Iraq, my comment is "Thank you" you have made sense to me, a Viet Nam veteran.
You're a fucking idiot.
Why don't you take a look at where electricity production is, where CLEAN WATER delivery is, where OIL PRODUCTION is?
Iraq is a barely functioning society and WE are the ones largely responsible for it.
Saying that democrats are in denial over success is utter stupidity. Where are the WMD'S? Where are the delivery systems which could hit the US in 45 minutes? Where is the smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud?
It seems to me that there are people in DENIAL here, but it certainly, isn't the dems who are trying to get us OUT of the civil war George Bush created through his utter incompetence and ineptitude.
Until you hold YOUR politicians to the same standard you apparently reserve for democrats, you are utterly meaningless.
Oh and thanks for proving that old saying that if you don't LEARN from history, you're doomed to repeat it. As PROVEN by George Bush's remarks about Vietnam.
Thanks for this page. I found it by Google when I was looking for 'In denial'.
I was writing an article about denial in the dutch society. If you want a terrible and hilarious example of denial, you should read this.
Hmmmmm . . . estimated 1 million Iraqis displaced by the war, a shattered infrastructure (just a minor inconvenience), in a war cooked up with funky intelligence and an under-response to the 19 Saudi's who attacked the World Trade Center.
OH, and it must be an odd quirk that Bush had to save the Iraqis from Saddam in a country with the second largest oil reserves in the world and the Neo Cons wrote this all up years before 9/11 in the document for a new American Century.
I do like your catchy: intellectualization is denial gone to college. Where did you go to school?
Having looked through several pages on this site I must say that they read as ideological tirades without much coherent focus. If you want a better example of how writing of this type should be done I'd suggest scanning through some online pieces such as this one:
www.publiceye.org/welfare/Decades-of-
Distortion.html
Whether or not you agree with the author's viewpoint or not, the style deserves some emulation. The author avoids depending endlessly upon generic usage of the term "Right" but instead follows upon the general word with clear references to individuals and organizations and citations of their literature. That's one of the very first differences between a paper that deserves some kind of a serious look versus an ideological tirade. This blog simply waves around the term "Left" as a general bullflag used to cover for the lack of specifics to an argument.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
