Althouse: Good news.

May 24, 2007

Good news.

From Iraq. From Afghanistan.

132 comments:

Jeff with one 'f' said...: Ann, don't you understand the reality-based community's NewSpeak? Good News = Bad News!; 5/24/07, 9:46 AM
Tim said...: That is good news - that Time has finally gotten around to publishing what close observers have known for months now.

As for the rest of the article, some might think it ironic that the Dem's rush to abandon Iraq because "it is a civil war" has only served to entrench the Shia majority for the time when they truly are on their own, rather than provide the Shia in Iraq's government the time and space necessary to reach some kind of rapprochement with the Sunni.

Hey, it's a two-fer. The Dem's stated (o.k., shrilly screamed) policy preference hurts both the US AND the Iraqis. Damn, but those Dems sure are smart!; 5/24/07, 9:58 AM
Anonymous said...: There's going to be a lot more good news from Iraq and Afghanistan—practically nothing but—when President Clinton is elected in '08.

BTW, the economy will be great, too.; 5/24/07, 9:59 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: Klein couldn't resist throwing in some cold water and an "I told you so" in his Iraq piece. How much it had to gall him to have to write the first half of the article admitting the Bushitler, et al., had done something right.

Despite that, it is good news. Anbar has been a pain for us for quite awhile now, and without the help of the tribes there, we just didn't have the manpower to subdue it. For quite awhile, it was the most dangerous place in Iraq. No more. And it is good that the Sunni tribes in these other provinces are looking at the Anbar example, and starting to follow it.

And this is good for us too, since it allows us to use these tribal Iraqis as shock troops, leaving us to follow up with massive force, when necessary - something that is much better suited to our military.

So, after a couple of battles where the foreign terrorists came out a distant second, Anbar has become significantly safer since the beginning of the year.; 5/24/07, 10:08 AM
AllenS said...: And don't forget, Theo, no more homeless.; 5/24/07, 10:10 AM
Brent said...: What Tim and Bruce said.; 5/24/07, 10:11 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: The Taliban's much-vaunted spring offensive

I had to laugh when this was being touted cause it reminded me so much of the much vaunted-brutal Afghan winter that was supposed to send us packing.

I think it was colder in Indianapolis than it ever got in Khandahar.

I've come to the conclusion that whatever the MSM says, assume the opposite.; 5/24/07, 10:11 AM
Brent said...: Again,

"Good News . . . from Iraq. from Afghanistan."

follows Ann's post

"Bush Won Confrontation on Iraq"

Yes, there is a correlation.

Thank God.; 5/24/07, 10:14 AM
vrse said...: This post is laughable, sadly so.

Go ahead, fall in line with Bush's "we're fighting Al-Qaeda" meme. Of the 3,400 plus men and women who've died so far, how many were killed by Al-Qaeda?

Sad day when you're willing to continue sacrificing American lives on the off chance that things will turn a bright turn in Iraq -- just so you can say "I was right," or link to bogus stories to this effect.

Hack.; 5/24/07, 10:19 AM
Anonymous said...: I found this bit jaw-dropping:

It's not impossible that the Iraqis will eventually remove the al-Qaeda cancer from the Sunni insurgency—which would put a serious crimp in President George W. Bush's current rationale for the war, that we're there to fight al-Qaeda.

Yes, if we win, that will remove the rationale for the war. No shit, Sherlock.; 5/24/07, 10:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Theo, Theo, Theo...what to do with someone whose mind is so divorced from reality?

A study by the CBO of a fifteen-year period shows that the poorest 20% of American families received the most benefit from economic growth. Earnings increased for this economic stratum by 78%, more than three times the increase of the next three quintiles:

It's been a rough week for John Edwards, and now comes more bad news for his "two Americas" campaign theme. A new study by the Congressional Budget Office says the poor have been getting less poor. On average, CBO found that low-wage households with children had incomes after inflation that were more than one-third higher in 2005 than in 1991.

The CBO results don't fit the prevailing media stereotype of the U.S. economy as a richer take all affair -- which may explain why you haven't read about them. Among all families with children, the poorest fifth had the fastest overall earnings growth over the 15 years measured. (See the nearby chart.) The poorest even had higher earnings growth than the richest 20%. The earnings of these poor households are about 80% higher today than in the early 1990s.

This shows that a lightly managed capital market, a restriction on the crippling effects of government handouts, and a reduction in the tax burden creates more opportunities for all wage earners, including and especially those at the bottom. We have the data to show that we are on the right track, and that expansive and expensive government programs do not work.

More at: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/; 5/24/07, 10:32 AM
Anonymous said...: The news would be even better if the Democrats would stop cowering beneath their $400.00 haircuts and help us defeat the Islamofascists.; 5/24/07, 10:33 AM
J. Cricket said...: Oh, that IS good news!!!

"A couple of days recently during which there were zero effective attacks."

Not zero attacks. Zero "effective" attacks.

Talk about redefining success. Next thing you know, it will turn out we won in Vietnam too!!!; 5/24/07, 10:46 AM
Bissage said...: Yachira, Yachira, Yachira . . .what to do with someone whose mind is so divorced from irony?; 5/24/07, 10:48 AM
Tim said...: "The news would be even better if the Democrats would stop cowering beneath their $400.00 haircuts and help us defeat the Islamofascists."

Except, of course, that's the best they can do. It's probably better for all concerned EXCEPT our enemies for them to cower beneath their $400 haircuts as otherwise they'd just get in the way of those doing the heavy lifting.

Think "Jerry Lewis" without the good intentions, at best. I know I'd be happier if they just shut up, cowering beneath their $400 haircuts.

The irony, of course, is that Red State Americans disproportionately comprise those fighting, bleeding and dying in this war; you'd think the ever-so-smart free-riding liberals and Dems would say two things: thank you, and how can I help?

That would be the decent thing to do. But Michael Walzer warned us all we need to know about the Left and decency, didn't he?

Just wait for it.; 5/24/07, 10:53 AM
John Stodder said...: The recent good news from Iraq underscores for me the X factor in the whole saga of this war: The fatal errors of the first 6-8 months after "Mission Accomplished."

History is not inevitable. If Paul Bremer and Donald Rumsfeld had never been born, things in Iraq would have gone much better, sooner, and everything would be different. Iraq was not a no-win situation. It was bungled by a handful of arrogant losers.; 5/24/07, 11:00 AM
Tim said...: "Next thing you know, it will turn out we won in Vietnam too!!!

Except, of course, the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese did not defeat the U.S. military in any significant military encounter; the Viet Cong lost the Tet Offensive and afterwards the war was fought entirely by the NVA; No American military unit surrendered its colors on the battlefield; the enemy was unable to capture and hold any territory inside of S. Vietnam.

So yes, we didn't win in Vietnam, but because we abandoned Vietnam before victory could be secured (and yes, it was apparent U.S. policy wasn't to win the war, rather not to lose it). The enemy did not defeat us on the battlefield; his "victory" over us was unearned, a gift from the American people and Democrats in Congress. I understand the Cambodians and lots of Vietnamese now living in the U.S. are particularly thankful for the resolute Democrats - always ready to abandon any ally for any reason at any moment.; 5/24/07, 11:04 AM
MadisonMan said...: The irony, of course, is that Red State Americans disproportionately comprise those fighting, bleeding and dying in this war

I've never seen a fact to base this statement up. Considering the large population advantage that many blue states hold over red (think CA and NY), I'd be very surprised to see that most deaths come from blue states.

Even on a per capita basis, I don't believe the statement holds water. I know that early on in this conflict -- I think it was before 2000 died, so a while ago -- WI was near the top in per capita deaths. WI cannot be called a red state.; 5/24/07, 11:04 AM
MadisonMan said...: For example, Blue State WI has a population of 5.5 M, and 73 Wisconsinites have died in Iraq, a death rate of 13.27 per million. South Carolina, no one's definition of a blue state, has a population of 4.25 M and has seen 46 deaths, a death rate of 10.82 per million.

I thought NC -- with some famous military bases, might have a high percentage, but it's seen "only" 80 deaths in a population of 8.68 M -- 9.2 deaths per million.; 5/24/07, 11:19 AM
Jeff with one 'f' said...: I'll bet that a county-by-county breakdown along Red and Blue lines would reveal that rural Wisconsin contributed most of the state's military volunteers.

Just look at the map.; 5/24/07, 11:29 AM
MadisonMan said...: Vermont has had 18 deaths from a population of 623000 -- a death rate of 28.8 per million. I can't find a higher per-capita rate. Also a non-red state.

Maybe I've made my point.; 5/24/07, 11:30 AM
MadisonMan said...: Jeff, This mapping is much more accurate (IMO) than the USA Today mapping. Not all reds/blues are created equal.

I don't believe the deaths in Iraq are available on a county-by-county basis (at least the stuff at icoalition.org isn't). If you can track them down, however, that would be interesting to read. (Some rural WI counties are surprisingly blue, btw).; 5/24/07, 11:38 AM
An Edjamikated Redneck said...: Interesting correlations MadisonMan; especially since most military voting records show a predominance of republicans.

Maybe the military is a way for conservatives to escape the blue state oppression?; 5/24/07, 11:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Thank you, Bissage.

I think I'll go back to putting up long, boring comments about theology with links to sites in Medieval Latin.

Then at least there'd be an excuse.

P.S--AllenS, that too!; 5/24/07, 11:46 AM
An Edjamikated Redneck said...: Again MM; interesting maps.

I have to question the statistics though, only because some of the selections of data points seems to be skewed.

Why settle for a 70% number, if they are looking at counties that went red with a slight majority? Why not 85% or 90%? My guess is because those numbers would not have given the data they wanted to present.

I would be interested in a map that would gradiate between red & blue showing just the difference between the candidates, red for couties where Bush won by the largest majority to Blue for Kerry's largest and all points in between various shades of purple.; 5/24/07, 11:51 AM
MadisonMan said...: Why settle for a 70% number,

On the website, they claim that few counties were >70% R or D. (I have no idea whether that's a true statement.) I like your idea of blue for Kerry's biggest %age win and red for Bush's.; 5/24/07, 12:00 PM
The Drill SGT said...: And this is good for us too, since it allows us to use these tribal Iraqis as shock troops, leaving us to follow up with massive force, when necessary - something that is much better suited to our military.

I think a better analogy than "shock troops" is "indian scouts".

The model is:

- find em
- fix em (meaning pin them down)
- finish em

The tribes know the terrain, know the routes from Syria to Bagdad, know what a local accent sounds like, know who is a cousin and who is not.

They find the enemy and pin them down while calling for back-up.

Backup is the Iraqi army or US airpower to finish the AQ foreign fighters.; 5/24/07, 12:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Tim said..."...the Dem's rush to abandon Iraq because "it is a civil war"...

"RUSH" to abandon??

Uh, we've been there for over 4 years.
(3,431 dead / 25,378 wounded)

How long do YOU propose we referee the "civil war??"

*And please, no more of the Bush talking point of: "as long as it takes"...we,ALL know that really means...until he's out of office and someone else can take the blame.; 5/24/07, 12:12 PM
The Drill SGT said...: How long do YOU propose we referee the "civil war??"

Maybe a quarter as long as we stay in Korea, another civil war? We got there in 1945

Maybe half as long as we end up staying in Kosovo, another civil war? We went there in 1998. gonna be there another 10 years at least.; 5/24/07, 12:19 PM
Anonymous said...: MadisonMan said..."Vermont has had 18 deaths from a population of 623000 -- a death rate of 28.8 per million. I can't find a higher per-capita rate. Also a non-red state. Maybe I've made my point."

Well, here are some numbers to digest.

With a population of 23,000,000 (approximately 1/13 that of America ...that means every time we hear about 550 Iraqis dying (last month's total / 800 the month before)...it would compute to 7,150 Americans dying.

Oh, and keep in mind, each of those dead Iraqis have extended families and friends.

*And we wonder where the next generation of terrorists will come from?; 5/24/07, 12:22 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: How long do YOU propose we referee the "civil war??"

Just out of curiosity, do you think Truman was asked the same thing about referring the Korean Civil War?

That war lasted 3 years, 36,576 KIA, 103,000 wounded and 8,142 MIA. Heck by those figures, Bush has been postively brilliant, a regular Hannibal.

Then again maybe that's why Harry's approval rating was 22% at the end of his 2nd term and decided to not run for a third.

What do you think Lucky?; 5/24/07, 12:29 PM
George M. Spencer said...: Read an essay last night in the new book by Princeton Civil War historian James McPherson....

http://www.amazon.com/This-Mighty-Scourge-Perspectives-Civil/dp/0195313666/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-0724243-5759833?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180027536&sr=1-1

....

Said Lincoln imprisoned 13,000 (?!) anti-war civilians when he suspended habeas corpus....rioters in Maryland cut train and telegraph lines...he went to war against the South in 1861 without Congressional approval and repeatedly acted in advance of that body's actions...

I wish I had the book with me...It listed one example after another of how the guy stomped on the Constitution and how his critics screamed that it was the end of civil liberties in America....; 5/24/07, 12:30 PM
MadisonMan said...: a regular Hannibal.

Given how Hannibal's life ended, maybe this isn't a great comparison.; 5/24/07, 12:32 PM
Anonymous said...: drill sgt,
Korea had a homogenous society, unlike Iraq's multi-faceted religious and secular society.

And comparing Korea or Germany or even Kosovo, is ridiculous.

We never refereed civil wars in Korea or Germany.

And how many soldiers are on the ground in Kosovo...and how many were killed last month??

You're merely regurgitationg Bush's talking points.; 5/24/07, 12:39 PM
Lars Porsena said...: I'm constantly baffled by the 'it's a civil war' argument of the Left.
The war in Afghanistan is as much a civil war as the war in Iraq. What's the Demo time table for abandoning Afghanistan?; 5/24/07, 12:41 PM
Anonymous said...: george,
And Geroge Washington grew and smoked pot.

Jefferson had black babies.

Why do you people keep trying to compare something Lincoln did (as if it was okay), during the course of a civil war right here in America...with what Bush does now...again, as if it's just fine??

What's that old saying? Two wrongs don't make a right?; 5/24/07, 12:43 PM
Anonymous said...: lars,
How many soldiers do we have on the ground in Afghanistan? How many were killed last month? How many Afghans were killed?

There are civil wars being waged elsewhere too...but does that mean WE have to be there???

What is your point???; 5/24/07, 12:45 PM
Lars Porsena said...: I'm asking when we should abandon
Afghanistan? Is your benchmark the number of American dead?? If so what is it??; 5/24/07, 12:51 PM
Anonymous said...: hoosier,
Truman didn't "referee" anything, and...unless my memory of history is incorrect...we were part of a UN force....not SOLO...as we are, for all intents and purposes, right now in Iraq.

You want to bring in OTHER countries to EQUALLY share the burden...BRING IT ON.

Otherwise...get back to the Rush Limbaugh show.; 5/24/07, 12:55 PM
Fen said...: Wasting your time Lars. He's too invested in losing Iraq to deal with reason.; 5/24/07, 12:55 PM
Paco Wové said...: "...Sad day when you're willing to continue sacrificing American lives on the off chance that things will turn a bright turn in Iraq -- just so you can say "I was right,"..."

Maybe she's willing because such an outcome would be good for the U.S. and for Iraq, not just so she can do a little superiority dance.

Of course, I realize for you such a motivation is inconceivable.; 5/24/07, 12:57 PM
Anonymous said...: lars,
we went into Afghanistan to find and kill Osama...remember him??

We left Afghanistan before finishing the job and...for no apparent reason...invaded Iraq...who had absolutely NO connection to 9/11 or Osama.

*Oh, and keep in mind...the poppy cultivation is UP over 60% right now...and the Taliban has re-grouped and is growing...so we're evidently not doing a great job there either.; 5/24/07, 12:58 PM
Lars Porsena said...: Fen,
Your channeling me.; 5/24/07, 12:58 PM
Anonymous said...: lars:
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 22, 2007; Page A12

CRAWFORD, Tex., May 21 -- President Bush vowed Monday to ask NATO allies to commit more troops and other resources to quell the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, calling the success of the alliance's mission there vital to the future security of both the United States and Europe.; 5/24/07, 1:01 PM
Lars Porsena said...: Well, LOS, why don't you make it a package deal ..two withdrawals for one? Iraq/Afghanistan are one in the same.; 5/24/07, 1:01 PM
Anonymous said...: fen
Hi.

See you're still full of shit.

Why not provide your tactics for us to WIN in Iraq.; 5/24/07, 1:02 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Given how Hannibal's life ended, maybe this isn't a great comparison.

But he was a great general....

We never refereed civil wars in Korea

Nope, just helped them fight it.

And how many soldiers are on the ground in Kosovo...and how many were killed last month??

So are you saying its ok to referee a civil war as long as none of our guys die? Did you support the Serbian Air War? Was it ok to kill Serbians as long as none of our guys bought it?

Why do you people keep trying to compare something Lincoln did (as if it was okay), during the course of a civil war right here in America...with what Bush does now...again, as if it's just fine??

I think its called historical precedent. The left has been screaming that Bush is turning the country into a police state yet he hasn't done anything on par with what Lincoln or FDR did yet, the left holds them up as saints. It's what one might call irony or ignorance.; 5/24/07, 1:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Fen:
Here's the current results of Bush's SURGE:

Morgue Data Show Increase In Sectarian Killings in Iraq

By Sudarsan Raghavan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, May 24, 2007; A01

BAGHDAD, May 23 -- More than three months into a U.S.-Iraqi security offensive designed to curtail sectarian violence in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, Health Ministry statistics show that such killings are rising again.

From the beginning of May until Tuesday, 321 unidentified corpses, many dumped and showing signs of torture and execution, have been found across the Iraqi capital.

The data showed that the same number of bodies were found in all of January, the month before the launch of the Baghdad security plan.

In the 14 weeks preceding the start of the plan on Feb. 14, at least 821 people died in 11 attacks -- typically suicide car bombings -- that killed more than 20 people at a time, according to a Washington Post analysis.

There have been at least 20 such attacks in the 14 weeks since the start of the plan, causing a death toll of at least 1,098, the analysis showed.; 5/24/07, 1:06 PM
Lars Porsena said...: Hi, LOS
Why don't you tell us how to win in Afghanistan? After all we've been there longer and by your metric no further along. Just a lower body bag count.; 5/24/07, 1:08 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Truman didn't "referee" anything,

So he wasn't President during the Korean Civil War?

and...unless my memory of history is incorrect...we were part of a UN force....not SOLO...as we are, for all intents and purposes, right now in Iraq.

What difference does it make? Is it ok to referee a civil war as long as you have a per capita contribution of soldiers from the world to help?

Otherwise...get back to the Rush Limbaugh show.

I listen to O'Reilly actually. Lucky, I am really trying to engage in an intelligent conversation but your inconsistency is pretty much destroying your arguments.

You're against being a referee in a civil war, except it appears in places like Kosovo where no US troops are killed or like in Korea where lots of US troops were killed but other countries contributed a lot of troops too so I guess that would qualify as an offset.

I may need a drink.; 5/24/07, 1:11 PM
Anonymous said...: hoosier says: "I think its called historical precedent."

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,

So are you saying that since GW grew and smoked pot...we can, too?

Illegitimate babies are okay...since Jefferson had them?

Nixon authorized break-ins...so we're okay with that, too?

Clinton diddled interns...okay?

LBJ lied about Vietnam strategies...okay?; 5/24/07, 1:11 PM
Anonymous said...: hoosier,
Like I said before:

Bring on the supporting countries and we can deal with Iraq.

If it's just going to be America...I want us OUT.

Period.; 5/24/07, 1:12 PM
Anonymous said...: lars,
We're not going to WIN in Afghanistan either.; 5/24/07, 1:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Who does THIS GUY think he is??

Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell said that the United States is losing what he described as a "civil war" in Iraq and that he is not persuaded that an increase in U.S. troops there would reverse the situation.

Fen/hoosier/lars...call and straighten him out.; 5/24/07, 1:19 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Instapundit has an interesting email from Michael Yon who is embedded in Anbar. Yon paints probably an even more positive picture there than did Klein.; 5/24/07, 1:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Bruce:
It's n ice to hear...but...

Morgue Data Show Increase In Sectarian Killings in Iraq

By Sudarsan Raghavan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, May 24, 2007; A01

BAGHDAD, May 23 -- More than three months into a U.S.-Iraqi security offensive designed to curtail sectarian violence in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, Health Ministry statistics show that such killings are rising again.

From the beginning of May until Tuesday, 321 unidentified corpses, many dumped and showing signs of torture and execution, have been found across the Iraqi capital.

The data showed that the same number of bodies were found in all of January, the month before the launch of the Baghdad security plan.

In the 14 weeks preceding the start of the plan on Feb. 14, at least 821 people died in 11 attacks -- typically suicide car bombings -- that killed more than 20 people at a time, according to a Washington Post analysis.

There have been at least 20 such attacks in the 14 weeks since the start of the plan, causing a death toll of at least 1,098, the analysis showed.; 5/24/07, 1:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Brownie would be proud:

President Bush Job Approval
Thursday, May 24, 2007

Thirty-four percent (34%) of Americans approve of the way that George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Just 14% Strongly Approve.

This marks the eighth straight day that the President’s Job Approval has been at 35% of below.; 5/24/07, 1:27 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Bring on the supporting countries and we can deal with Iraq.

Ok this is what I am referring to your inconsistency. You have been screaming about being a ref in a civil war and now out of left field you come up with a common cause for the world and then you're on board.

Then you link:

Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell said that the United States is losing what he described as a "civil war" in Iraq and that he is not persuaded that an increase in U.S. troops there would reverse the situation.

So an increase in US troops won't work but you're all for bringing in more from other countries and then we can deal with Iraq. Ok that makes perfect sense.

I'm going to get that drink. I wonder what Prof. Althouse would recommend.; 5/24/07, 1:32 PM
Anonymous said...: hoosier,
Oh, please...get your facts straight.

First of all...I want us OUT...period.

BUT...if we have to be there...I WANT OTHERS TO HELP...TO SHARE THE BURDEN...TO SHARE THE EXPENSE...TO SHARE THE RISK.

What is you can't understand?????; 5/24/07, 1:35 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: LOS,

First, you are talking ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, and not calming down Anbar.

But you also are repeating talking points about a "civil war". The evidence that you cite is not of a civil war, but of ethnic cleansing. Very simply, the Sunnis blow up innocent civilians, and the Shi'a respond by abducting and killing Sunnis, many of whom had some tie to either Saddam Hussein or the IEDs.

No matter how many times you repeat the talking point that it is a civil war, it still won't be. The Sunni Arabs who live in mixed areas are fleeing Iraq as fast as they can, because their support of the terrorists killing innocent civilians has alienated the Shi'a majority. Probably half of the Sunni Arabs in Iraq have already fled the country, and the remainder, somewhere around 10% of the population, are massively outgunned, outtrained, etc. by the Iraqi security forces, U.S. military, Shi'a militias, etc. They use IEDs and suicide bombs because that is all they have. That they can and do kill innocent civilians is no indication that they are engaged in a civil war, but rather, that they don't have the capacity to fight one.; 5/24/07, 1:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Notice how Fen bails out the instant facts or counter positions are provided?

Chickenhawk.; 5/24/07, 1:37 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: OLS,

You seem to be assuming that we embed a bunch of troops around Baghdad with the Iraqi security forces, and all of a sudden, the violence would stop. So, even as the troop levels are being topped off, you declare the "Surge" to be a failure.

Convenient, but unrealistic.; 5/24/07, 1:39 PM
ShadyCharacter said...: This lucky guy sure is flailing wildly, isn't he? WHat like 20 posts already in this thread.

It's fun to watch an idiot grasping at straws like this.

Don't worry, lucky, things might turn around. If you keep the faith alive, we might still just manage to LOSE this war...; 5/24/07, 1:44 PM
Anonymous said...: shady,
Got an angle on this Iraq thing?

Otherwise...stuff it.; 5/24/07, 1:55 PM
Anonymous said...: bruce,
I didn't say the surge isn't working...the people in Iraq did.

Killing the messenger means nada.; 5/24/07, 1:56 PM
Eli Blake said...: Interesting:

I've been saying (including in posts in this and other blogs) for years that the whole argument that if the U.S. left Iraq it would become a new home for al-Qaeda was false, because the locals would fight against the foreign invaders, just as we would if foreigners occupied the U.S.

But when I say it, somehow I get told that I'm crazy for thinking that, but if someone reports that it is in fact happening, all of a sudden the righties jump on it as 'good news.'; 5/24/07, 1:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Bruce,
Wow!!!

Are you saying that YOU know more about whether this a a civil war...than Colin Powell??; 5/24/07, 1:58 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Oh, please...get your facts straight.

Mine are fine, it's you who're all over the board.

First of all...I want us OUT...period.

Then it doesn't matter if others join in.

BUT...if we have to be there...I WANT OTHERS TO HELP...TO SHARE THE BURDEN...TO SHARE THE EXPENSE...TO SHARE THE RISK.

Did you or did you not link a quote that Powell stated that additional troops won't help yet you state above you want more to come in. Can the war be won or not? If not, then be consistent, say so and stop flipping between get us out but bring more troops in if we have to stay.

Ok, off to the bar. I've fed you for far too long.; 5/24/07, 1:59 PM
Anonymous said...: eli,
These people are so entrenched in the right wing talking points, along with being just another band of Bush sycophants...they don't want to hear ANYTHING they don't already believe...or want to be so.

They think that some day we'll march out of Iraq, victorious...and the Iraqis will live happily ever after.

Kind of like that candy and flowers thing Cheney and Wolfie threw out there.; 5/24/07, 2:01 PM
Anonymous said...: hoosier,
Powell's talking about OUR troop increase...not a coalition of many country's troops sharing the risk and responsibility.

If there were 500,000 or more troops from around the globe...maybe we'd stand a chance.

*Oh, and exactly how long do YOU propose we stay???; 5/24/07, 2:05 PM
Brian Doyle said...: WHEEEEEE!!!; 5/24/07, 2:06 PM
Roger J. said...: My inner epidemiologist notes the rate of the chickenhawk with respect to numbers of posts is 1/60 in today's thread.

I was happy to hear that the president announced today the metric for remaining in Iraq: Until the government of iraq asks us to leave. While some may not agree with that criterion, it is quite clear, IMO.; 5/24/07, 2:15 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: There is no universal definition of a civil war but here are two as defined by Geneva Conventions and the US Military:

The Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, (Volume II-B, p. 121) does not specifically define the term ‘civil war’. It did, however, describe the criteria that separate any act committed by force of arms (anarchy, terrorism, or plain banditry) from those qualifying as ‘armed conflict not of an international character’ which includes civil wars. Among those conditions listed are these four basic requirements.

• The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory. This was most suprising.

• The insurgent civil authority must exercise de facto authority over the population within the determinate portion of the national territory.

• The insurgents must have some amount of recognition as a belligerent.

• The legal Government is “obliged to have recourse to the regular military forces against insurgents organized as military.”

U.S. Military Definition
The U.S. military has adopted the principles set by the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva for their definition of civil war. However, it does include an additional requirement for identifiable armed forces. The December 1990 version of FM 100-20 (Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict) defines a civil war as:

“A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: the contestants must control territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations.”

Then LOS said:If there were 500,000 or more troops from around the globe...maybe we'd stand a chance.

So if we placed 500,000 additional US troops there that wouldn't work but 500,000 from the UN would. Is that what you're saying?

*Oh, and exactly how long do YOU propose we stay???

Oh hell, I didn't think we should have been there to begin with. I say we leave now and let slip the dogs of secterian violence. I had little use for the first gulf war, Kosovo, Somalia and now this one. I just get a little irked over intellectual dishonesty that gets portrayed over Iraq. Seems no one minded it when Saddam was feeding people into mass graves but now swoon with tears over the killing now. Hell, nothings changed except the killing is noiser and CNN isn't covering it up like they did when Saddam was in charge.; 5/24/07, 2:15 PM
eelpout said...: After a short hiatus it's so gratifying to come back and see Joe Klein, Instapundit, Ann Althouse (and regulars) still "get it". Yes there is good news in Iraq, and yes we need to win. Good thing we're still not listening to all those idiots that were against this liberation.; 5/24/07, 2:18 PM
Anonymous said...: roger,
stay until they ask us to leave, huh?

have you mentioned this to the families of the fallen, wounded and still serving?

i'm sure they'll be thrilled to know we're leaving it up to the iraqis...we put into office.; 5/24/07, 2:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Lucky is the shrillest, most annoying poster I have seen here in a long while.

We are still in Iraq. We are not leaving. President Bush is still the president and will be until January, 2009.; 5/24/07, 2:20 PM
Anonymous said...: naked braindead,
how's rush?; 5/24/07, 2:20 PM
David Drake said...: Luckyoldson said:

"You're merely regurgitationg (sic) Bush's talking points."

And LOS and a couple of others in this thread are merely regurgitating Al Qaida's.; 5/24/07, 2:20 PM
Anonymous said...: seven,
oh, sorry.

i'll try to be a better bush sycophant.

*like i said: most of the right wing nutcases here only want to hear what they already believe to be so...period.; 5/24/07, 2:22 PM
George M. Spencer said...: Lucky--

It's a crummy situation...in Iraq. War is that way.

My point with Lincoln was to note with some bemused astonishment that Bush isn't the first President to be wildly unpopular or do to "unconstitutional" things (if, in fact, Bush has acted unconstitutionally). He certainly hasn't thrown his political opponents in jail, as Lincoln did!

Better to stand and fight and try to outlast the bad guys who in good part are the Iranians. They provide arms, money, and manpower to the opposition in Iraq and to Syria and thereby Hezbollah which sort of controls Lebanon.

Would you prefer that we withdraw, allowing the Iranians to dominate the region?; 5/24/07, 2:24 PM
Anonymous said...: hoosier,
do you know how to read???

i never said anything about 500,000 AMERICAN troops (although zinni did...remember? right before he was fired.); 5/24/07, 2:24 PM
Anonymous said...: The families of the fallen, wounded, and still serving are surely able to read the newspapers and the Drudgereport.

Lucky: your problem is that you are more interested in the snide comment and checkmate logic (something you are probably incapable of) rather than resolving an issue that is vital to the national interest in the best possible way. Young, bratty people often exhibit this behavior. Yet you call yourself "old."; 5/24/07, 2:27 PM
Tim said...: MadisonMan,

While most of us (me because of my own experiences) intuitively understand conservatives/Republicans comprise the majority of the military services, esp. the combat arms rather than liberals/Democrats (why else did Gore/Lieberman 2000 labor so hard to exclude overseas military votes from the post-election day counts in Fl? You think they didn't know exactly why they were doing that??), the military itself issues studies on its demographics. The latest one has this bit:

Geographic Representation. Since FY 1996, the percentage of new recruits from the Northeast region has decreased with a corresponding increase in the percentage of recruits from the West region. The geographic distribution of enlisted active accessions for FY 2004 shows that the South, and in particular the West South Central and South Atlantic Divisions of this region, continued to have the greatest representation. Forty-one percent of NPS accessions hailed from the South. In fact, this was the only region to be slightly over-represented among enlisted accessions compared to its proportion of 18-24 year-olds. The representation ratio (percentage of accessions divided by percentage of 18-24 year-olds from the region) for NPS active accessions from the South was 1.2, compared to 0.8 for the Northeast, 0.9 for the North Central, and 1.0 for the West.

More can be found here: http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/poprep2004/summary/summary.html; 5/24/07, 2:29 PM
Anonymous said...: george,
we shouldn't have gone in in the first place...saddam provided the perfect buffer to keep iran, syria, pakistan and turkey OUT. remember?

or...how about this from Supreme Leader Cheney:

As for replacing Saddam with a democracy, Cheney asked his audience, “How much credibility is that government going to have if it’s set up by the United States military when it’s there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for the government, and what happens to it once we leave?”

Cheney also said:

“The notion that we ought to now go to Baghdad and somehow take control of the country strikes me as an extremely serious one in terms of what we’d have to do once we got there. You’d probably have to put some new government in place. It’s not clear what kind of government that would be, how long you’d have to stay. For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who’s going to govern in Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire.”; 5/24/07, 2:29 PM
Anonymous said...: seven:
Here are some "snide comments" from one of YOUR heroes:

As for replacing Saddam with a democracy, Cheney asked his audience, “How much credibility is that government going to have if it’s set up by the United States military when it’s there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for the government, and what happens to it once we leave?”

Cheney also said:

“The notion that we ought to now go to Baghdad and somehow take control of the country strikes me as an extremely serious one in terms of what we’d have to do once we got there. You’d probably have to put some new government in place. It’s not clear what kind of government that would be, how long you’d have to stay. For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who’s going to govern in Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire.”; 5/24/07, 2:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Lucky -- Why do you keep positing remarks allegedly made by Dick Cheney to buttress your claims against the current administration?; 5/24/07, 2:32 PM
Anonymous said...: seven:
the drudge report??

now, that tells me quite a bit about where YOU get your news.; 5/24/07, 2:32 PM
Anonymous said...: seven,
Cheney isn't part of the current administration anymore???

Do YOU know something we don't know???; 5/24/07, 2:33 PM
Anonymous said...: seven,
and by the way...they're not "alleged" comments by cheney...they're QUOTES.; 5/24/07, 2:34 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: hoosier do you know how to read???

Evidently a whole lot better than you do.

Have a nice day.; 5/24/07, 2:35 PM
Anonymous said...: seven,
here's a recoding of cheney himself...saying exactly what i posted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGIe1gPaTXY; 5/24/07, 2:35 PM
Anonymous said...: hoosier,
wow...good one.; 5/24/07, 2:36 PM
Anonymous said...: The Drudgereport does not itself report news. It is one of the top-10 websites in the country. Al Gore reads it. The editors of every major American newspaper are glued to it.

The fact that you are against the Drudereport suggests that you are a far-left crank. It is also a sad commentary that you think that is a witty comeback.

By the way, the story I was referencing came via Drudge from whitehouse.gov.; 5/24/07, 2:37 PM
George M. Spencer said...: Hilarious photoshopped Pres. pix with captshunz
at Fark...

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2823158&thread_type=voteresults&ok=1

Just a little tenshun breakurh....; 5/24/07, 2:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, I'm off to play a round of golf.

I suggest everybody reads "Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks while I'm gone.

Thanks for the insanity.; 5/24/07, 2:40 PM
Anonymous said...: al·lege [uh-lej]
–verb (used with object), -leged, -leg·ing.
1. to assert without proof.
2. to declare with positiveness; affirm; assert: to allege a fact.; 5/24/07, 2:41 PM
LutherM said...: Afghanistan - This is a very tenuous and difficult situation. Because of a less than maximum effort, because of the lessons of history, I fear,
"I think we are in rats' alley
Where the dead men lost their bones"

Iraq - I heard the same sort of "good news" about 'Nam from the Lyndon B. Johnson administration - again and again, even after TET was declared to be a victory. But Americans kept getting killed, and the local government remained incompetent. "We gotta get out of this place, If it's the last thing we ever do"; 5/24/07, 2:41 PM
Anonymous said...: seven,
damn, caught me on the way out the door...as to your "allege" stand...I REPEAT:

here's a recording of cheney himself...saying exactly what i posted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGIe1gPaTXY; 5/24/07, 2:45 PM
Anonymous said...: WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. intelligence agencies warned the Bush administration in early 2003 that invading Iraq could create internal conflict that would give Iran and al Qaeda new opportunities to expand their influence, according to an upcoming Senate report.

Officials familiar with the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation also say analysts warned against U.S. domination in the region, which could increase extremist recruiting.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the report's declassification is not finished. It could be made public as soon as this week.

The committee also found that the warnings predicting what would happen after the U.S.-led invasion were circulated widely in government, including to the Defense Department and the Office of the Vice President. It wasn't clear whether President Bush was briefed.

Asked to comment on Wednesday evening, the White House's National Security Council did not directly respond to the report's findings that intelligence analysts predicted many of the troubles ahead in Iraq before the invasion.; 5/24/07, 2:47 PM
Cedarford said...: The irony, of course, is that Red State Americans disproportionately comprise those fighting, bleeding and dying in this war

Madisonman - I've never seen a fact to base this statement up. Considering the large population advantage that many blue states hold over red (think CA and NY), I'd be very surprised to see that most deaths come from blue states.

Even on a per capita basis, I don't believe the statement holds water. I know that early on in this conflict -- I think it was before 2000 died, so a while ago -- WI was near the top in per capita deaths. WI cannot be called a red state.

I think Madisonman got led astray on the premise that all Red State Americans are alike, and all Blues State Americans think the opposite.

The reality is the most Red or Blue States only have a 60-65% majority of Dems or Reps, and an assortment of those who vote Democratic are different than the Dem Left. Lifelong Democratic blue collar families are with the Dems only on jobs, unions, or some other single issue - otherwise they are conservative and deeply patriotic with top volunteer rates for the US military. (W Virginia, rural Vermont, upstate NY, non-coastal Californians, Native Americans)

As he intuitively knows, his semantic argument aside, plenty of Blue State Americans are conservative, patriotic citizens who volunteer for the military.

****************
Luckyoldson - You post too much, you say little, and most of what you do say is stupid stuff not based in fact.
****************
Generally, I think all of us should be happy that some good news is coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The Taliban appears not to have operational strength, the Ba'athist extremists have begun their exodus concluding they cannot win a civil war against the Shia, Sunni are now helping to eradicate Al Qaeda, and the Americans have finally smartened up somewhat and told the Green Zone Iraqis that they best divvy up the oil revenues right and get their act together or they are toast.
Not disappointed with positive news - as some with questionable loyalty, on the Left, appear to be.

Bad news of course on Iran flipping off the Euroweenies and their instructing Iran it must submit to "Ultimate International Law" and the "Moral Authority of the UN & IAEA". The Iranians, bound by the Holy Qu'ran, the destruction that must happen to trigger the appearance of the 12th Imam - not stinking laws concocted by "jewish human rights lawyers", Eurolefties - have effectively said "f*ck off, we are going for nukes and ICBMs".

Iran, according to Mohammed el-Baredi, has said that Iran is on verge of industrial scale enrichment of atom bomb material, that his IAEA is helpless, and diplomacy between Iran and nations led by the EU 3 has collapsed.; 5/24/07, 2:47 PM
The Drill SGT said...: I think Madisonman got led astray on the premise that all Red State Americans are alike, and all Blues State Americans think the opposite.
Taking off on what MM and Cedarford said...

I don't know precisely who is dying in Iraq, county by county, but I know the general demographic of the Army.

each Army cohort is:
- slightly more rural
- slightly better educated
- somewhat more Southern
- more conservative (by that I include all those sons of blue collar UAW workers. this is not a GOP/DEM term here)

than your average 18yr old.

Units in Combat are more male and more white than the average army unit.

casualties are going to flow from that. This is why states like WV have historicly have had higher participation rates and higher casualties.; 5/24/07, 3:16 PM
Roger J. said...: Am I the only person who was surprised the LOS is golfer? Not my mental image at all; with all the acid in his/her system, he's going to have a really bad short game today.; 5/24/07, 3:17 PM
Laura Reynolds said...: I just hope he's playing 18..; 5/24/07, 3:47 PM
Laura Reynolds said...: Of course he would say

a "round" is 18

Duh; 5/24/07, 3:49 PM
Cyrus Pinkerton said...: Roger wrote:

Am I the only person who was surprised the LOS is golfer? Not my mental image at all...

Oh, this could be fun. Roger, please share your mental image of some other commenters with us. :); 5/24/07, 3:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Lucky is the shrillest, most annoying poster I have seen here in a long while.

Lucky's the guy who wanted to beat everybody up for being mean to his mother.; 5/24/07, 4:02 PM
MadisonMan said...: Tim, I was specifically responding to your claim that people in "Red" States disproportionately shoulder the burden of dying in Iraq. (I will grant, however, that New York needs to step up to the plate). If you want to claim that Republicans are dying more than Democrats in Iraq, then please say that -- in other words, write clear sentences. (Boy am I snippy today).; 5/24/07, 4:12 PM
The Drill SGT said...: MM,

I have no idea about the registration or affiliation of KIAs in Iraq. I will state, based on 2004 survey and absentee vote counts that:

Bush voters are dying more in Iraq than Kerry voters.

Since the majority of the troops voted for Bush. BTW: they support staying to finish the job. and they vote at the ballot box, and they vote by reenlisting; 5/24/07, 4:22 PM
LoafingOaf said...: Cut 'n' Paste spaz-boy Lucky said: we shouldn't have gone in in the first place...saddam provided the perfect buffer to keep iran, syria, pakistan and turkey OUT.

I'm glad I caught this while scanning the thread. Now I don't have to read your other 89 postings and pastings. Your policy recommendation to the administration was to support Saddam Hussein's genocidal, terrorist-funding, warmongering Baath regime. Someone with that morally repugnant point of view is not someone I care to listen to on foreign policy.; 5/24/07, 4:28 PM
Brent said...: Lucky,

This is your old friend "B", back for just a second before I head away for a 4 day weekend with NO computers, pda's and only 1 cell phone.

Hope your golf game goes well.

As I told you before, you're in danger of eventually having no one acknowledge your comments - like the surge in Iraq, there will be a flurry of comments at your outrageous name calling, followed by an eventual decline of anyone wanting to play.

Which will be sad, because you bring up some excellent points that deserve answering. But, you cannot continue to follow up someone's parry to your post with a comment about their talk radio preferences, as if that makes what they have to say invalid.

So . . . self edit, or expect eventual invisibility. If you want, peruse some old Althouse archives, find the nasties, and watch how they eventually went unanswered and . . . . faded off into the netherblogosphere.

Will be back to pick up the chase next week. Bring your A game and your best sword. Leave the snarky comments - and your ego - at the door.

Have a nice weekend.; 5/24/07, 4:41 PM
LoafingOaf said...: By "perfect buffer" Lucky means: A million dead people in Saddam's war against Iran, Saddam invading Kuwait, torturing its citizens and lighting its oil on fire, Saddam gassing Kurds, Saddam requiring us to place U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, Saddam providing havens and funding for international terrorists including paying for Jewish children and other civilians to be blown up in Israel and harboring terrorists who killed Americans, Saddam plotting assasinations on American traveling leaders, Saddam taking American children hostage (in Kuwait), Saddam firing on American planes that were preventing further Baathist genocide, Saddam making missile deals with North Korea and ultimately Saddam one day being able to say, "If you do something about me now I will kill millions of people in one day."; 5/24/07, 4:45 PM
Cyrus Pinkerton said...: The Drill SGT wrote:

...they vote by reenlisting.

Sorry, but re-enlisting isn't voting no matter how you spin it.; 5/24/07, 5:22 PM
KCFleming said...: Re: "re-enlisting isn't voting.."

Cyrus, of course it is. It's commonly known as "voting with your feet." People do it with jobs, houses, States, and marriages. You vote with dollars too, when you buy one thing instead of another.; 5/24/07, 5:32 PM
KCFleming said...: Now polls aren't votes. That's for damn sure. Fact is, they mean nothing.; 5/24/07, 5:36 PM
Eli Blake said...: Tim (2:29):

What is your point? You say that there are more military recruits from the South (though the highest proportion of casualties in Iraq relative to population is the north central-- the Dakotas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana and Idaho).

What in the South? The South contains some very conservative regions (i.e. the hill country of most states, and some suburbs) and some very liberal ones (i.e. the Delta region of Mississippi, or downtown Memphis.)

It is no secret that ethnic minorities join the military in higher relative numbers than white people.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm

This study shows that blacks are overrepresented by 43% in the military, American Indians by 53% and Asian Americans by almost 250%, relative to their percentages in the population.

Now, I don't dispute that many military members are conservative, just to point out that your statistic is somewhat misleading-- i.e. the South has the highest proportion of African Americans of any region of the country (as high as 40% of the overall population of some states like Mississippi), so if they are overrepresented in the military by 43% then that is significant enough to skew the numbers for the South as a whole.

Interestingly (also available in the link):

The states with the highest enlistment proportional ratings by far are Montana (1.67), Alaska (1.42), Wyoming (1.40), and Maine (1.39). (A proportional rating of 1.00 means that a state's enlistee and general populations ages 18-24 are exactly proportional to their respective national populations.)

What this shows is that the recruits are not so much southern, as predominantly rural (since none of these states has a large city.)

Here is your second fallacy: You assume that because someone is conservative that they therefore support the war, especially if they are troops. However we've seen more and more testimonials from troops who entered the army believing that they were doing the right thing and now that they can speak out they believe that the Bush administration has screwed up the war badly. General Batiste (one of Bush's commanders, not a Clinton guy at all) is the most high profile (and he directly challenged Bush's 2004 campaign promise that the commanders on the ground would get what they asked for, saying they don't), but there are many more-- Lieutenants, Sargeants, Specialists and Corporals.

You can be conservative and still be honest. And many soldiers have been both.; 5/24/07, 5:40 PM
Eli Blake said...: Pogo:

Now polls aren't votes. That's for damn sure. Fact is, they mean nothing.

OK, then. Look at the most recent vote.; 5/24/07, 5:41 PM
Cyrus Pinkerton said...: pogo wrote:

Cyrus, of course it is. It's commonly known as "voting with your feet." People do it with jobs, houses, States, and marriages. You vote with dollars too, when you buy one thing instead of another.

Oh Pogo, good point! When you responded to my comment, you "voted" on which words to use and you then "voted" on how to combine them to achieve maximum stupid effect. At dinner you will "vote" on how many times you chew your food before swallowing. And later, when you wipe, you'll "vote" on how many sheets to use.

Another brilliant observation, Pogo!

Incidentally, Pogo, will you tell me what character traits you share with Walt Kelly's Pogo, other than a preference for being out and about without pants?; 5/24/07, 6:01 PM
Eli Blake said...: For that matter, Tim: Check the following table:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/upload/cda05-08_t6.gif

The most Republican state in the union (Utah) has the lowest rate of military recruitment (though it is still higher than the District of Columbia). So don't 'assume' all of what you seem to be from your post.; 5/24/07, 6:13 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Eli said...It is no secret that ethnic minorities join the military in higher relative numbers than white people.

No Eli, I read your study. That is not what it said.

We found that whites are one of the most proportionally represented groups?making up 77.4 percent of the population and 75.8 percent of all recruits?whereas other racial categories are often represented in noticeably higher and lower proportions than the general population.

Basically whites enlist at about their share of the population cohort. some minorities are higher (e.g. blacks) and some lower (implied Hispanics by elimination). Your statistical examples were NOT from the military overall, but rather from the Army, which has the highest minority representation, but even there, combat units are whiter than the combat support troops. and before you go there, this is not a vestige of racism, but rather, whites enlist for the adventure, and minorities for job training. In summary for MM above, I wasn't quoting today from this source before, but it was the place I had read months ago, in summary:

In summary, we found that, on average, 1999 recruits were more highly educated than the equivalent general population, more rural and less urban in origin, and of similar income status. We did not find evidence of minority racial exploitation (by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). We did find evidence of a ?Southern military tradition? in that some states, notably in the South and West, provide a much higher proportion of enlisted troops by population.; 5/24/07, 6:24 PM
The Drill SGT said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/24/07, 6:42 PM
The Drill SGT said...: corrected:
There you go again Eli....The most Republican state in the union (Utah) has the lowest rate of military recruitment (though it is still higher than the District of Columbia).

1. First of all, I expect that the Utah numbers are depressed by the fact that many Mormon 18 year olds go off on a Mission for there adventure rather than the Army as I just got done commenting on.

2. Lets give a fuller picture and decide which red and blue places rank at the bottom:

(Last is first below) place in contribution % of eligble
1. Puerto Rico (VERY BLUE)
2. District of Columbia (Very BLUE)
3. Utah (very RED)
4. MINN (Very BLUE)
5. Wisconsin (Pale BLUE)
6. Conn (very BLUE)
7. Iowa (BLUE)
8. Mass (Very BLUE)
9. Michigan (BLUE)
10 Indiana (BLUE)
11. Vermont (very BLUE)
12. New York (BLUE)
13. Illinois (Very BLUE)
14. New Jersey (BLUE)

see a different pattern now?; 5/24/07, 6:54 PM
KCFleming said...: Re: "Another brilliant observation, Pogo!"

Gosh, thanks!
It's hard to be humble with effusive praise like that.

And possums don't blush, so....; 5/24/07, 7:07 PM
Cedarford said...: Drill SGT 6:54 PM. Interesting list. I think you called it on the religious missionary requirement for Mormons in Utah. When a Draft is on though, Mormons are among the absolute best.

It would be interesting to see a demographic breakdown by ethnicity and by family income.

I have heard that the highest volunteer rates are Native Americans, French Canadian stock, and Scots Irish. That the lowest volunteer rates are Jews, Japanese Americans, Puerto Rican natives and then Muslims (and maybe we should be happy that the latter do not join at or above the average).

Demographically, the lower middle class from small towns or rural joins at the highest rate. The lowest rates are the bottom 10% in family income (many want to join but are too stupid to qualify) - and- the top 10% in family income. (Many could join but why when time could be spent learning how to get richer than their rich parents?? Let the little people fight.); 5/24/07, 10:41 PM
Fen said...: Lucky is the shrillest, most annoying poster I have seen here in a long while.

You'll see more of that as the situation in Iraq gets better, esp if Anbar is replicated in other provinces [as many sheiks are asking for].

Don't take Lucky seriously. He thought we invaded Iraq based on intell that those aluminum tubes were meant for the manufacture of missiles [not enriched uranium]. In short, he doesn't really understand what he's frothing about, he just knows that winning in Iraq/Afganistan would be bad for the Democrat Party. Alot of them are like that, and it will only get worse.; 5/25/07, 2:09 AM
Fen said...: Drill SGT: Units in Combat are more male and more white than the average army unit.

And that trend is even more pronounced in Marine Corps victor units.; 5/25/07, 2:14 AM
Tim said...: "What is your point?

Surely it is obvious.

When I served in the Infantry in the early days of the All Volunteer Force, most of my cohort were conservative, if not Republican. In keeping in touch with those who serve, and in reading the demographic studies, and in just casual but interested observance over the last 25 - 30 years of military recruitment, it is exceedingly obvious that Red state, conservative, Republicans comprise the majority of the services, especially the combat arms.

This is no accident.

Urban high schools across the nation routinely bar military recruiters; JROTC programs are practically invisible; the Left/Dem talking points about racist warmongers has been assumed as truth; Left/Dem discomfort with the military and its lack of knowledge about things military is both pathetic and a threat to national security [i.e., too many members of Congress (Barbara Boxer, Barbara Lee, David Obey, Lynn Wolsey and the list goes on) voting on things they have no interest or capacity of understanding]. The Democrat "peace dividend" is a weakened military, a price being paid right now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In short, the Left/liberal/Democrat antipathy to the military is now practically genetic, and the defense of the country relies upon those who aren't. This antipathy is also seen in media, which has hardly the first clue about military matters. It decidedly colors the reportage, to the detriment of the Republic.

And while I appreciate your citing the Heritage analysis, source materials are always better:

http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/poprep2004/summary; 5/25/07, 7:15 AM
Roger J. said...: Hi Cyrus: seriously: don't you ever visualize to whom you are talking on a blog? Its hard to conjure up physical manifestations to go with what people write. I assume that when bloggers post a picture of themselves its really them (but doesnt have to be.)

This gets a bit at the point I tried to make on another thread about trying to infer things about people based on what they post.

I havent figured your physical appearance out yet Cyrus: you are a lot younger than I would have assumed (based on your comment about Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan.)

A general question for all the group: dont you fill out a mental image of posters? I do.; 5/25/07, 7:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Fen-Fen,
First of all, why would I give a flying fuck about anything you have to say about me, my politics or what I have to say?

99% of what you blather on about I can hear straight from the horse's asse's mouths in the form of Rush, Sean, Bill, Michael or Ann.

As for your continuing support of Bush and his ill-conceived war and inept administration (did I mention corrupt?)...why not spend less time whining about me and more time thinking about the following:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The U.S. military announced on Friday the deaths of six more soldiers in Iraq. (3,438 / 25,378)

History will prove this to be the worst Presidency in our nation's history.

P.S. Cedarhead - Show me where I have represented anything (other than my own opinion) that is not "factual."; 5/25/07, 10:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Fen-Fen...TAKE YOUR PICK, but either way...it appears America agrees with ME.

Latest Bush job approval/disapproval polling:

Approve Disapprove
% %

CBS/NYT 30 63

FOX 34 56; 5/25/07, 10:15 AM
Anonymous said...: From Bush's press conference yesterday:

“The Middle East looked nice and cozy for awhile. Everything looked fine on the surface, but beneath the surface, there was a lot of resentment, there was a lot of frustration, such that 19 kids got on airplanes and killed 3,000 Americans. It’s in the long-term interest of this country to address the root causes of these extremists and radicals exploiting people that cause them to kill themselves and kill Americans and others."

1. The Middle East was "nice and cozy?"
(15 were from Saudi Arabia...did we invade?)

2. 19 "kids?"
(They weren't "kids"...they were terrorists.)

3. Explore the "root causes?"
(Invading Iraq is a form of "exploring root causes?")

*And that's when the bird shit on him.; 5/25/07, 10:33 AM
The Drill SGT said...: Tim said...
most of my cohort were conservative, if not Republican

Tim, while I agree with your premise... I made the same one earlier and I used the word conservative, I made note that this included the sons of UAW workers and really wasnt precisely a GOP/DEM thing.
having thought about it, I think the best word to describe the new recruit is NOT conservative, but TRADITIONAL.

second point: whereas those urban schools dont send kids to the military. However, those rural communities and much closer to the miltary. examples

- local NG Armory is likely also the community center
- lots of uncles or teachers who were vets
- a school district that doesnt bar recruiters
- youth organizations that play nice, like Boy Scouts, 4H and FFA

drives up rural numbers; 5/25/07, 2:57 PM
Cyrus Pinkerton said...: Roger wrote:

A general question for all the group: dont you fill out a mental image of posters? I do.

Yeah, I do, even though you took me to task for it the other day.; 5/25/07, 6:15 PM