Jedi Council Forums - Was McCarthyism so bad?????

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 - Previous | ~~Next~~ | Reload

Author	Topic: Was McCarthyism so bad?????
Jediflyer Registered: Dec '01	Date Posted: 8/28/07 7:03am Subject: RE: Was McCarthyism so bad????? - Date Edited: 8/28/07 7:07am (1 edits total) Edited By: Jediflyer
	Kimball_Kinnison posted: Jediflyer posted: Numbers, Kimball. The surge was designed to improve security in order to make political progress possible. If there has been an improvement in security, it should reflect in the numbers. I don't have the numbers handy right now. However, as that first article shows, they are making some political progress, which would suggest that the surge is achieving that goal to some degree. Of course, if you want numbers, you need to define what metrics you expect to change as a result of the surge. Civilian deaths? US troop casualties (which I would argue is not a good measure - you would expect them to increase when the number of operations increase)? Number of attacks? Define the criteria that you would find convincing and I can try to hunt down the numbers for you. Otherwise, don't waste my time. If I find one metric, you'll just come back and say "Oh yeah? Well what about this other metric?" You've done it before. Pick some criteria and then we can actually discuss it. Of course all of that would also go far better in the Iraq thread, rather than here. Kimball Kinnison I'd take civilian deaths, troop deaths, number of attacks, estimated strenght of insurgency, refugee flow, etc. And to draw any conclusions, I disagree that you should use only one metric. If something is clearly working, it should reflect in most, if not all, metrics. And FYI, I already have a good idea of what the numbers are and they are no improvement over this time last year. I've been asking those who are saying the surge has worked to PPOR because this idea the surge is working can be traced to congressmen getting the VIP tour during their August vacation and being suprised that they were shown encouraging things. This has been reflected in the media, with almost no basis in the numbers, so war supporters (and even Hillary Clinton) are saying the surge has been a success. I would just like to see a surge supporter make a pro-surge presentation comparable to this anti-surge one. And you are right that we should move to the Iraq thread. I tend to pickup conversations where I find them, but this is probably not the place for it. -----signature----- As long as the differences and diversities of mankind exist, democracy must allow for compromise, for accommodation, and for the recognition of differences. -Eugene McCarthy There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jabbadabbado Title: Senate Floor Manager Registered: Mar '99	Date Posted: 8/28/07 7:07am Subject: RE: Was McCarthyism so bad?????
	The Brookings Institution which has been consistently critical of the war reported some improvements last month. There has been a legitimate military shift in strategy that is showing signs of limited success, including "U.S. military forces performing superbly in counterinsurgency/stability role," Dramatically improved morale of U.S. forces in Iraq "The Iraqi army is slowly becoming a helpful partner to U.S. forces," Important things to remember: 1)these successes don't undo or redress previous failures. Some failures are permanent. Some wars in Iraq have been irrevocably lost. As I said, ethnic cleansing of Iraq is a done deal. A massive humanitarian disaster and crimes against humanity occurred under U.S. occupation of Iraq, and are still going on. Massive civilian death toll directly and indirectly caused by the U.S. presence in Iraq 2)billions and billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars wasted on Iraqi reconstruction funds that would have been put to better use distributed to Iraqis in $20 bills as toilet paper. Infrastructure rebuilding and economic growth remains an elusive goal. 3)Iraq is no longer governable as a single nation. This will never be the case absent permanent U.S. occupation or a bloody civil war that would lead to repression and additional deaths to one or more or Iraq's sectarian and ethnic minorities. The dream of an Iraqi democracy is dead. Let it die. Partitioning Iraq around an economic partnership based on oil revenue allocation is now the only feasible long-term solution for peace. -----signature----- "There is a country out there where tens of millions of white Christians, voting freely, selected as their leader a black man of modest origin, the son of a Muslim. There is a place on Earth - call it America - where such a thing happens."
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 8/28/07 7:46am Subject: RE: Was McCarthyism so bad?????
	Jediflyer posted: And to draw any conclusions, I disagree that you should use only one metric. If something is clearly working, it should reflect in most, if not all, metrics. I didn't say to give me only one metric. I said to outline the metrics that you would accept so I can find that information. What I complain about is someone focusing on one metric as an indicator, then when that shows improvement pulling a bait-and-switch by shifting to another metric. Give me the criteria, the standards that you are using and I will find the data. However, don't waste my time by shifting those standards in the middle of the discussion. Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 8/28/07 8:24am Subject: RE: Was McCarthyism so bad?????
	I'm double posting this because this one will take me a while to put together. Jediflyer posted: I'd take civilian deaths, troop deaths, number of attacks, estimated strenght of insurgency, refugee flow, etc. ... And FYI, I already have a good idea of what the numbers are and they are no improvement over this time last year. Before I answer this, I will submit that your standard given there (comparing to last year) is inappropriate to determine whether the surge is working or not. There was a massive explosion (figuratively) of violence starting in January, which I can demonstrate for you. It is more appropriate to look at the trends of the numbers, not simply against a year ago. Remember, the surge was in response to the increase in violence starting late last year and early this year. For civilian deaths, you can look here. Specifically, they have a graph showing civilian deaths by month through July 2007. Notice that starting about a year ago, the violence started to ramp up, but civilian deaths have been in decline since the start of the surge. For troop deaths, as I said, I don't feel that it is a good indicator at this time, because they are more actively involved in operations. When you step up operations, you are going to see increases in casualties. The real check here will be after they finish the increased operations, whether the number of troop deaths decline at that time. Number of attacks: according to this article, the number of major attacks have declined by almost 50% since March (the high point of the violence the surge is trying to contain). I'm trying to find a source that gives month-by-month numbers for attacks. Feel free to present your own sources, if you want. One side point (as an additional metric showing US/Iraqi cooperation) that article mentions that the number of tips from Iraqis about the locations of insurgents has almost quadrupled over the last year. Estimated strength of insurgency, I've found a wide variety of numbers, depending on who is doing the estimating and how they define the insurgency. Some have gone up, others have gone down. Pretty much all of the reports that I have seen show that Al Qaeda in Iraq's membership has rapidly declined making it a far less effective organization, hence the comments about starting to shift focus to other organizations. Refugee flow, I haven't found any real numbers so far. Please feel free to supply them yourself, since you claim to be so familiar with them (I'll keep looking, though). So, of the five metrics that you specified, we have two showing clear positive trends (civilian deaths, number of attacks), two that show more-or-less neutral trends (troop deaths, strength of insurgency), and one that we lack data on. Even if you count troop deaths as a negative trend (although, as I said above, I don't believe that it is a good indicator), the overall trend for those that we know tends to be more positive than negative. And I'll keep looking for more numbers on those statistics. Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jabba-wocky Registered: May '03	Date Posted: 8/28/07 8:53am Subject: RE: Was McCarthyism so bad?????
	It seems to me that there is only one sensible measure of the surge's success: Iraqi political progress. All parties acknowledge that there is no military solution, after all, and the whole purpose of the surge was to provide "breathing room" for political compromise. Yet, we haven't seen a great deal of political progress this year. Yes, there's a newly announced reconciliation agreement, but all the Sunni parties have pulled their support from Al-Maliki, and most substantive legislation has stalled. Even if the surge was entirely successful from whatever other metrics we decide on, failure on the political front means failure overall. -----signature----- ays Darius the king: 8 of my family (there were) who were formerly kings; I am the ninth (9); long aforetime we are kings. All Hail His Excellency, Barack Obama Roma vincit Tearing Up a Lane (TERRIN UP A LAAAANE!!!)
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jediflyer Registered: Dec '01	Date Posted: 8/28/07 6:09pm Subject: RE: Was McCarthyism so bad?????
	So, of the five metrics that you specified, we have two showing clear positive trends (civilian deaths, number of attacks), two that show more-or-less neutral trends (troop deaths, strength of insurgency), and one that we lack data on. Even if you count troop deaths as a negative trend (although, as I said above, I don't believe that it is a good indicator), the overall trend for those that we know tends to be more positive than negative. I very much disagree on not comparing on yearly basis. The violence in Iraq over the past 4 years has a strong annual pattern. If you notice, in 2006, the winter and spring months had high amounts of attacks which fell off during the summer months and picked back up in the fall. Also, the surge was proposed and pushed by the President in January, so it was not in response to violence early this year. As for the major Al-Qaeda style attacks, I agree that is a success, but I don't know if it can be attributed to the surge. With all the talk of the An-Albar province now working with the U.S. against Al-Qaeda, many forget this turnaround happened last fall and is in part due to the fact that we are willing to work with and arm Sunni insurgents. Also, the Iraqi Red Crescent reports refugee displacement is increased rapidly since the surge began. So what do we have? The only real security improvement I see is that the Sunni insurgents have turned against Al-Qaeda. Some other things to consider would be "can the surge be sustained" (it can't), and how much does any security improvement have to do with the insurgents simply waiting out the surge, as any good revolutionary army would do? An aside: it seems to me that if Shia don't like Al-Qaeda, Kurds don't like Al-Qaeda, and Sunni don't like Al-Qaeda, than Al-Qaeda will not take over the country if we leave, a red herring that is always seems to be frantically waved when people talk of pulling out. -----signature----- As long as the differences and diversities of mankind exist, democracy must allow for compromise, for accommodation, and for the recognition of differences. -Eugene McCarthy There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 - Previous | ~~Next~~ | Reload

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »