I conclude from this (actually I already knew it) that we can expect John McCain not to care about details, events and states in time, as tense, as he sees it, becomes flat, linear and One with all that there is, like Parmenidies’ Universe

Oh man…your a hoot!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

McCain national security adviser Randy Scheunemann somewhat concedes McCain said troop levels “have” been drawn down to pre-surge levels:

“If he had said ‘we’d drawn down,’ he’d be accurate,” Scheunemann said. “If he had said ‘we were drawing down,’ he would be accurate.”

“To get into a debate about a verb tense rather than the real fundamental national security issues … is really a distraction.”"

Strange parse. Using time tenses doesn’t seem helpful to me. McCain was clearly thinking and speaking in the present tense, as his two previous sentences indicate: …”So, I can tell you that it is succeeding. I can look you in the eye and tell you it’s succeeding.”

The first sentence is even a concluding sentence, which, of course, is supposed to reiterate earlier statements resulting in a ‘concluding’ final understanding of the matter: “So, I can tell you that it is succeeding”– Which also explains why McCain continues in the same tense. If he’d have spoken in the past tense or future tense regarding the troops levels, the statement would have been incoherent or awkward with the analytics of the the argument.

One should also note this was a perfect present tense McCain used: “We have drawn down to pre-surge levels.” He expressed an action that has been completed with respect to the present; it’s not simple past, which is less empathetic, as it lacks the auxiliary verb ‘have’.

I conclude from this (actually I already knew it) that we can expect John McCain not to care about details, events and ‘facts’ in time, as tense, as he sees it, since they become flat, linear and One with all that there is, like Parmenidies’ Universe:

—“I said we have drawn down, and we have drawn down,” — “We’ve drawn down three of the five brigades. We’ve drawn down the Marines. The rest of them will be home at the end of July. That’s just the facts and those were the facts I stated.”

Prepositions like ‘to pre-surge levels’ get absorbed into the One also.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

There’s quite a spat growing over McCain mistakingly saying yesterday, “We have drawn down to pre-surge levels.” As everyone knows we haven’t, and won’t until Fall.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/30/obama-camp-grills-mccain-for-quote-on-iraq-troop-levels/

I know from teaching hours a day sometimes, like these candidates, that you can wander and say things you wish you hadn’t, but isn’t Iraq McCain’s signature event, isn’t he supposed to be the expert here; isn’t his campaign the measure of his knowledge of military matters and national security– he was off the mark by months and 15,000 troops. …And when you place this statement into the narrative of the ‘troop surge’ —which he practically “authored”—you can’t not know the troop levels aren’t currently at pre-surge numbers, especially when Gen. Petreaus was just discussing the matter just last week.

I know if Obama made this mistake you gentlemen would be laughing your sides sore.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Doug sez: Using conditional statements is required when describing the tentative nature of Iraq’s institutions, politics and general security.

Take, for example, Bush’s 18 benchmarks he hoped the troop surge would complete. Almost a year and a half later, to this day, not even half have been completed: most unmet, some partially met, and some even regressed (as with the Sunni’s suspending talks yesterday).

Therefore, one must use conditional terminology; otherwise, to describe or foretell Iraq in one particular state of affairs ‘may very probably’ result in something like Bush’s Benchmark’s.

First off, Doug. It appears only the negative Americans have a hard time giving the Iraqis well deserved “atta boys” for their persistence. World leaders at the Stockholm Conference do not share your personal harsh assessments.

However why is it that all your “conditional” analyses offer only the negative result? If positive isn’t in your blood, allow me to give you an example with your own sentence…

Some Mahdi Army leaders in Sadr City are already willing to splinter over the above 5 deaths with the core membership — which seems to be a breach of show encourgement for the ceasefire deal— and may mean an end to the truce daily bombings in Baghdad by Sadr forces; if not, then very probably Sadr’s army will continue to break away from him and continue insurgent activities collapse from within, forming small rogue, controllable cells.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I’ve added this post to Blog Scan so more people can see it. Blog Scan is a system where visitors can vote to put articles like this one as a top post (five votes puts it on the list – no registration is required)

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Doug,

Voluminous posting of garbage does not constitute truth.

Just go away somewhere, making sure that your supply of Prozac is adequate.

Bye!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

DS:

Here’s how I see it:

Benchmark 1: Perform constitutional review. Unmet.

Benchmark 2: Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Baathification–
While the USIP describes this benchmark as met, I don’t. Why? The legislation was passed over the protests of the Sunni Arabs in Parliament, which was supposed to help the Sunni Arabs. The former Shia-Baathists may have been assisted, but the Sunni-Baath’s objected. The benchmark was met in theory, but not in practical terms: Partial.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4139

Benchmark 3: Oil laws: unmet

Benchmark 4: semi-autonomous regions legislation: Partial

Benchmark 5: Enacting and implementing legislation establishing an Independent High Electoral Commission, provincial elections law, provincial council authorities, and a date for provincial elections— Unmet
This marker is now in question and cannot be described as met:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gFrAeDnwRmhu0qNxNT2aZdFr01TAD90TGUC81

Benchmark 6: Enact and implement legislation addressing amnesty:
MET

Benchmark 7: Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the constitution of Iraq: MET

Benchmark 8: Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan— Partial: Why? Google ‘baghdad, water, electricity’ or “baghdad infrastructure”. Further, this could not have been established during the last Maliki sieges in Basra, Sadr City or Mosul as all institutional support structure would have been hampered, cut-off, hand-tied or destroyed: Partial

Benchmark 9: Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations:
Partial— Why? See challenges and criticisms here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Army
Further, the April assault in Sadr City ended up with very mixed results and significant American troop and air support. Partial

Benchmark 10: Providing Iraqi commanders with all authority to execute this plan and to make tactical and operational decisions, in consultation with U.S commanders, without political intervention, to include the authority to pursue all extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias—
Again, this is mixed: Political intervention in the military and police forces still persists along sectarian lines. We saw this in Basra and more so in Sadr City. Further, we are still waiting for Maliki to accept 10 of thousands into the security positions the members of the Sunni Awakening Council militias. Further, “political intervention” is hard to difficult to define. One might say that US forces only act with political intervention. Reasonable minds can differ, so I think it’s difficult to mark this one completely done: Partial.

Benchmark 11: Ensuring that the Iraqi Security Forces are providing even handed enforcement of the law. Unmet: http://www.brijit.com/abstract/24005/Measuring-Iraq's-Security-Forces

Benchmark 12: Ensuring that the Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws of any sectarian or political affiliation— Certainly, Maliki tried in Baghdad; that’s been my argument: the city’s truce is fragile and weak. Sadr city is not safe, nor quiet as McCain says.
Not met.

Benchmark 13: Reduce the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminate militia control of local security– Sectarian violence has dramatically been reduced, so has militia control in Basra and Sadr City. Met.

Benchmark: 14:Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad. Partial. It is in process now.

Benchmark 15: Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces units capable of operating independently. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-04-25-iraqsecurity_N.htm unmet.

Benchmark 16: Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected— Hardly. The Sunni’s suspended talks in Parliament yesterday. Unmet:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/28/world/middleeast/28iraq.html?ref=world

17: Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis. met. Sort of if you don’t count the corruption: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB02Ak05.html

18: Ensuring that Iraq’s political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi Security Forces. Unmet.

My tally: 8 unmet, 6 partial, and 4 met.

The USIP and the Weekly standard are simply out of date with the political and military fluctuations that have taken place in Iraq.

Furthermore, the WH has given up on the benchmarks:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/washington/25policy.html?_r=2&ex=1353733200&en=67ba7b472e949a4f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Doug claims that:

“Take, for example, Bush’s 18 benchmarks he hoped the troop surge would complete. Almost a year and a half later, to this day, not even half have been completed: most unmet, some partially met, and some even regressed (as with the Sunni’s suspending talks yesterday).”

That of course is a lie.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/933bmtiu.asp

The key quote is:

“As the tally below shows, the Government of Iraq has now met 12 out of the original 18 benchmarks set for it, including four out of the six key legislative benchmarks. It has made substantial progress on five more, and only one remains truly stalled.”

Never let the facts get in the way of a good old lib fantasy eh?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Curt,

First, you and Bill, as I see it, don’t acknowledge the diversity of the enemy; you tend to see them as a homogeneous entity, some singular target, like a bug, that can be killed and be done with. However, JAM itself exists in numerous incarnations, it’s loosely centralized: men determined to confront the occupiers; men loyal to their tribe first, Sadr second; men loyal to Sadr; men wanting a job; men seeking a nationalist thrill; men that hate Maliki; the goal of ‘wiping them out’ is not possible– as ‘them’ only somewhat exists.

Second, you also don’t acknowledge the endless supply of young men that immediately fill the ranks of those killed or arrested. There is an endless river of human resources of here. There are no reports of young and old bodies being in short supply, but, on the contrary, there is evidence of plentifulness.

Third, the same applies for caches, arms, weapons, and vehicles; there is an endless supply of them, too. Fraud, corruption and weapons are ubiquitous now and continue to increase.

Fourth, you don’t acknowledge the degree of the public hostility in Iraqi’s that dislike us. While we have a good percentage that think we are decent and want to help them, still more than half find it acceptable to attack us, and 70-80% want us to leave.

Fifth, and finally, you don’t acknowledge the fragility of the “truce.” And I know you and Bill understand it is very delicate.

Therefore, all the above arguments are not accented significantly by McCain, or Bill, and cannot accurately describe Sadr City or Basra (or Mosul or Baghdad) as “quiet” and that we are consequently “succeeding”.

Mata Harley,

Using conditional statements is required when describing the tentative nature of Iraq’s institutions, politics and general security.

Take, for example, Bush’s 18 benchmarks he hoped the troop surge would complete. Almost a year and a half later, to this day, not even half have been completed: most unmet, some partially met, and some even regressed (as with the Sunni’s suspending talks yesterday).

Therefore, one must use conditional terminology; otherwise, to describe or foretell Iraq in one particular state of affairs ‘may very probably’ result in something like Bush’s Benchmark’s.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Let’s see, Doug….

which seems to be … snip… and may mean … snip…if not, then very probably …

Like Curt says, you sure hedge your bets for failure. Even when that “seems to be”, “may mean” and “if not, then very probably….” stuff hasn’t happened yet.

Why not just hope they have an easier go at stitching their country together? Would that hurt oh so very badly? And ya know… just like we have crime and thugs here, they’re still going to have their violence in our wake. The trick is not to make Iraq violence free, but to make whatever violence arises controllable by the Iraqis, without foreign aid.

Like or Dislike: 0  0