« February 01, 2007 |
Main
| February 03, 2007 »
February 02, 2007
NIE Hysteria
[Greyhawk]
Cherry Picking:
About Iran. This must have been one of the most controversial elements of the estimate: Iraq's neighbors are "not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq's internal sectarian dynamics." There's the expected qualifications that Iran and Syria are up to no good, but this is the major point.
So don't bother to actually read it, this was the major point. No, really don't go read the
actual document... I've told you all you need to know. Don't do it! Stop!!!...
Iraq’s neighbors influence, and are influenced by, events within Iraq, but the involvement of these outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq’s internal sectarian dynamics. Nonetheless, Iranian lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants clearly intensifies the conflict in Iraq.
Damn.
The headline is even more of a fabrication - NIE: The Surge Can't Work.
Even more disappointing: at Hit and Run, the above becomes the authority, and the commenters line up as Greek chorus. Not what one expects of Libertarians. (That's not completely fair, of course. Weigel is Reason's token Democrat.)
Update: The NY Times goes the same route:
The intelligence report did conclude that Iran is providing “lethal support” for Shiite groups that is intensifying the violence. But it portrayed the violence as essentially “self-sustaining,” and suggested that the involvement of outsiders, including Iran, was “not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability.”
Note the technique - by simply reversing the points of the conclusion they assign a completely different meaning.
More - the WaPo tops 'em all:
Analysts studied what would happen if Iran were not a factor inside Iraq and concluded that, even though Iranian agents target U.S. troops, the absence of Tehran's agents would not appreciably alter the sectarian conflict.
For the record, I think the NIE description of Iran's activities in Iraq - and the impact thereof - is accurate, and I'm not sure why so many media outlets are compelled to offer their own interpretation of the very brief (2 sentence) comment without providing it in full.
And in more obscure news:
On the political front, Iraq said it will expel members of the main Iranian opposition group, accusing it of meddling in Baghdad's affairs by claiming that Tehran agents were active in the war-torn country.
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said members of the People's Mujahedeen would be transferred soon to countries other than Iran.
"The presence of this organisation is illegal and the cabinet has decided to put an end to it," he said.
The German chapter of the exiled National Council last week
published a list of nearly 32,000 Iraqis it said were "agents of the mullahs" employed by Iran to destabilize Iraq.
Background story here.
Last word:
“The president has made clear, the secretary of state has made clear, I’ve made clear … we are not planning for a war with Iran,” Gates said in response to a reporter’s question.
All done!
The National Intelligence Report on Iraq
[Greyhawk]
Key Judgments here.
Highlights here. (For those lacking time for the full 3+ pages of text at the first link.)
Some of the more hysterical coverage I've seen thus far seems a bit unwarranted.
The bold font found at the very beginning (which most reports have skipped, as far as I can tell) idicates the authors felt they were making an important point:
Iraqi society’s growing polarization, the persistent weakness of the security forces and the state in general, and all sides’ ready recourse to violence are collectively driving an increase in communal and insurgent violence and political extremism. Unless efforts to reverse these conditions show measurable progress during the term of this Estimate, the coming 12 to 18 months, we assess that the overall security situation will continue to deteriorate at rates comparable to the latter part of 2006. If strengthened Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), more loyal to the government and supported by Coalition forces, are able to reduce levels of violence and establish more effective security for Iraq’s population, Iraqi leaders could have an opportunity to begin the process of political compromise necessary for longer term stability, political progress, and economic recovery.
That, and most of the remainder of the document, sounds a lot like the Iraq I know.
The NIE acknowledges the forminable tasks ahead of us. These points have already been seized upon by those already inclined to throw in the towel. Given their aversion to completing tasks I believe they stopped reading before getting to the bottom line:
Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation.
• If such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge that the ISF would be unlikely to survive as a non-sectarian national institution; neighboring countries—invited by Iraqi factions or unilaterally—might intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable; AQI would attempt to use parts of the country—particularly al-Anbar province—to plan increased attacks in and outside of Iraq; and spiraling violence and political disarray in Iraq, along with Kurdish moves to control Kirkuk and strengthen autonomy, could prompt Turkey to launch a military incursion.
No surprise that there are those among us who'd prefer to "cherry pick".
All done!
Can't Read,Write or do Arithmetic at Harvard
[Soldier's Dad]
via WaPo
Medical costs for U.S. veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could range from $350 billion to $662 billion over the next 40 years, as soldiers survive injuries that would have killed them in past conflicts, according to a Harvard University study.
Due to improvements in battlefield medicine and equipment, there are now about 16 "nonmortally wounded" soldiers for every death, far more than the 2.6 soldiers wounded per death in Vietnam, the study said, citing Department of Veterans' Affairs data.
If I've figured corrected 16 x3000 = 48,000 wounded so far.
I took a look over at Defense Manpower Statistics here.
Sure enough, if we include non-hostile injuries(6,600) and disease(18,000) requiring medevac we can get pretty close to that 16-1 ratio of KIA to WIA. The fine scholars are Harvard consider someone who got a bad case of Montezuma's revenge was WIA. (I can't find the stat, but Montezuma's revenge is the #1 reason for medevacs.)
Back to the braniacs at Harvard
The potential costs include medical care, disability payments and other benefits paid to injured veterans and assume that 44 percent of veterans eventually claim disability. That was the percentage of claims from the first Gulf War. Bilmes' calculations assume that by 2016 ,2 million soldiers ,will have participated in these wars.
VA expenditures spreadsheat at http://www1.va.gov/vetdata/docs/W-GDX-FY05(000).xls
25 Million Living Veterans, annual disability and compensation payments of $32 Billion. Total VA budget for 25 Million Veterans - 70 Billion/Year. As of 2003, the number of Veterans receiving compensation and pension was 2.8 Million plus an additional 4.4 Million for healthcare. All totaled about 30% (8 million) of living veterans received some sort of service from the VA in 2003. Source - http://www1.va.gov/vetdata/docs/Unique_VA_Users_FY2003.pdf
Unfortunately for the rockets scientists at Harvard, services provided to soldiers "Wounded In Action" has very little bearing on the VA budget
We already established that 8 million living veterans are received some sort of benefit in 2003.
Via Defense Statistics
In WWII, the US Suffered 671,000 WIA
In Korea, the US Suffered 103,000 WIA.
In Vietnam, the US suffered 153,000 WIA.
In Gulf War the US suffered 467 WIA. (The VA lists 4 million living Gulf War veterans)
The number of "wounded" vets receiving VA benefits is a small fraction of the total receiving VA benefits.
OIF has enough costs without half-baked scholars inflating the numbers.
All done!
All Roads Lead to Teheran
[Dadmanly]
Call this an update from a previous post on Iran. (With a link and an improved title courtesy of Jules Crittenden.)
Michael Ledeen laments the complete lack of leadership in Washington or elsewhere on our sworn and committed enemies in Iran, over at National Review Online. Close readers of Ledeen will note he no longer calls for acceleration (“Faster, please”), as by his account, we’ve reached a final point of decision.
In contrast to the foolish Editors at the Times, and the spineless majorities in Congress, Ledeen holds this Administration and its heavy laden and latent Foreign Policymakers accountable: for too little action, too little show of strength, too little resolve, and no amount of clue at all, in dealing with Iran. Here’s how Ledeen opens his blast:
Never has a country strained so hard to avoid a conflict as the United States concerning Iran. They have waged war against us for 28 years, and we are only now beginning to contemplate the possibility of a response.
So perhaps it’s finally come to a reckoning, long overdue.
I had a chat today with my former OIF Company Commander. We spoke of the bug-swarm of Presidential wannabes, and then turned to the subject of Iran. How desperately important is has long been, to send Iran a message that can’t possibly be misunderstood. The last straw, for him, was Iranian arms and expertise, used against us in war in Iraq.
(More commentary over at Dadmanly.)
Some times you do things...
[John of Argghhh!]
...simply because you can.
More funny stuff, not always work-safe, here at FreakingNews.Com
H/t, the Auld Pharts in Korea, via Jim C.
Carl Prine Nails It
[Chap]
I don't always agree with journalist Prine. This time, I do.
A Quick Question
[Greyhawk]
You'll hear more than you could possibly want to about the Warner resolution over the next few days:
Warner's resolution opposes Bush's 17,500 troop buildup for Baghdad but supports the 4,000 troop increase against Sunni Muslim insurgents and al-Qaida in Anbar province. It also declares that it would be wrong to cut off funding for troops in the field.
I caught soundbites from members of both parties on the topic on my drive home from work. The problem with all of them, and with this or any other resolution opposing the surge, is that I know what either a) no congressman in America knows or b) no Congressman in America wants you to know. This isn't classified information - it's been released by the Pentagon and is readily available.
I've said it before. Here it comes again:
No troops are going to Iraq as part of the surge who wouldn't be going to Iraq anyhow. The "surge" is only an adjustment in departure dates - by a few weeks in some cases, and by none in others. Congress can't "cut off funding" for the surge because there's no cost adjustment for the simple change in flight plans.
Bear this fact in mind when you hear any politician (regardless of Party) bloviate on the topic over the next several days. Do the same with any report you see on TV or in the papers.
And ask yourself the question I can't answer: Are all these folks really this ignorant of the topic they're voting (or merely "reporting") on, or do they think you are?
And does the answer matter?
Additional thoughts to follow. Meanwhile read this, too.
Update:
Sen. John W. Warner will join his fellow Republicans in voting Monday to block the resolution he wrote rebuking President Bush's Iraq war policy.
All done!
News of Afghanistan
[Major John]
"Hmmm. I'll take these in a size 10. Whoops, time to go back and read the News!"
Re: Re: What would you say to this sending a message thing if you could say what you thought...
[Greyhawk]
...and by the way, shut up, because who the hell asked you?
Almost right:
Since Arkin asserts that the troops should not be allowed to influence the public's opinion on the war, and since the entire left demands that anyone supporting the war become a troop himself -- has the left pretty much created a Catch-22 by which any and all support for the war is illegitimate?
It's a bit simpler: If you're
not a troop, shut up - because you aren't. And if you
are one, shut up - because you are.
(See also here and here and here and here.)
Added thought: Perhaps this is more accurate. Political commenters who support our efforts in Iraq are chickenhawks because they aren't actually in the military. Military members who voice support for our efforts in Iraq (especially those in Iraq) should not do so because it's a political discussion.
A Chat With Admiral Fox
[Andi]
Today, a few of us were able to participate in a conference call with Admiral Mark Fox. Interesting stuff.
Click here to listen.
« February 01, 2007 |
Main
| February 03, 2007 »
