This is a version 2.0 of a legendary article written here back on March 19, 2006, noticed and linked by Hugh Hewitt, which led to The Futurist getting on the blogosphere map for the first time. Less than four years have elapsed since the original publication, but the landscape of global warfare has changed substantially over this time, warranting an update to the article.
In the mere 44 months since the original article was written, what seemed impossible has become a reality. The US now has an upper hand against terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, despite the seemingly impossible task of fighting suicidal terrorists. As regular readers of The Futurist are aware, I issued a prediction in May of 2006, during the darkest days of the Iraq War, that not only would the US win, but that the year of victory would be precisely in 2008. As events unfolded, that prediction turned out to be precisely correct. As readers continue to ask how I was able to make such a prediction against seemingly impossible odds, I claim that it is not very difficult, once you understand the necessary conditions of war and peace within the human mind.
Given the massive media coverage of the minutia of the Iraq War, and the fashionable fad of being opposed to it, one could be led to think that this is one of the most major wars ever fought. Therein lies the proof that we are actually living in the most peaceful time ever in human history.
Just a few decades ago, wars and genocides killing upwards of a million people were commonplace, with more than one often underway at once. Remember these?
Second Congo War (1998-2002) : 3.6 million deaths
Iran-Iraq War (1980-88) : 1.5 million deaths
Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan (1979-89) : 1 million deaths
Khmer Rouge (1975-79) : 1.7 million deaths from genocide
Bangladesh Liberation War (1971) : 1.5 million deaths from genocide
Vietnam War (1957-75) : 2.4 million deaths
Korean War (1950-53) : 3 million deaths
This list is by no means complete, as wars killing fewer than one million people are not even listed. At least 30 other wars killed over 20,000 people each, between 1945 and 1989.
If we go further back to the period from 1900-1945, we can see that multiple wars were being simultaneously fought across the world. Going further back still, the 19th century had virtually no period without at least two major wars being fought.
We can thus conclude that by historical standards, the current Iraq War was tiny, and can barely be found on the list of historical death tolls. That it got so much attention merely indicates how little warfare is going on in the world, and how ignorant of historical realities most people are.
Why have so many countries quitely adapted to peaceful coexistence? Why is a war between Britain and France, or Russia and Germany, or the US and Japan, nearly impossible today? Why are we not seeing a year like 1979, where the entire continent of Asia threatened to fly apart due to three major events happening at once (Iranian Revolution, Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, Chinese invasion of VietNam)?
We can start with the observation that never have two democratic countries, with per-capita GDPs greater than $10,000/year on a PPP basis, gone to war with each other. The decline in warfare in Europe and Asia corelates closely with multiple countries meeting these two conditions over the last few decades, and this can continue as more countries graduate to this standard of freedom and wealth. The chain of logic is as follows :
1) Nations with elected governments and free-market systems tend to be the overwhelming majority of countries that achieve per-capita incomes greater than $10,000/year. Only a few petro-tyrannies are the exception to this rule.
2) A nation with high per-capita income tends to conduct extensive trade with other nations of high prosperity, resulting in the ever-deepening integration of these economies with each other. A war would disrupt the economies of both participants as well as those of neutral trading partners. Since the citizens of these nations would suffer financially from such a war, it is not considered by elected officials.
3) As more of the world's people gain a vested interest in the stability and health of the interlocking global economic system, fewer and fewer countries will consider international warfare as anything other than a lose-lose proposition.
4) More nations can experience their citizenry moving up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, allowing knowledge-based industries thrive, and thus making international trade continuously easier and more extensive.
5) Since economic growth is continuously accelerating, many countries have crossed the $10,000/yr barrier in just the last 20 years, and so the reduction in warfare after 1991 years has been drastic even if there was little apparent reduction over the 1900-1991 period.
This explains the dramatic decline in war deaths across Europe, East Asia, and Latin America over the last few decades. Thomas Friedman has a similar theory, called the Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention, wherein no two countries linked by a major supply chain/trade network (such as that of a major corporation like Dell Computer), have ever gone to war with each other, as the cost of losing the presence of major industries through war is prohibitive to both parties. If this is the case, then the combinations of countries that could go to war with each other continues to drop quickly.
To predict the future risk of major wars, we can begin by assessing the state of some of the largest and/or riskiest countries in the world. Success at achieving democracy and a per-capita GDP greater that $10,000/yr are highlighted in green. We can also throw in the UN Human Development Index, which is a composite of these two factors, and track the rate of progress of the HDI over the last 30 years. In general, countries with scores greater than 0.850, consistent with near-universal access to consumer-class amenities, have met the aforementioned requirements of prosperity and democracy. There are many more countries with a score greater than 0.850 today than there were in 1975.
Let's see how some select countries stack up.
China : The per-capita income is rapidly closing in on the $10,000/yr threshold, but democracy is a distant dream. I have stated that China will see a sharp economic slowdown in the next 10 years unless they permit more personal freedoms, and thus nurture entrepreneurship. Technological forces will continue to pressure the Chinese Communist Party, and if this transition is moderately painless, the ripple effects will be seen in most of the other communist or autocratic states that China supports, and will move the world strongly towards greater peace and freedom. The single biggest question for the world is whether China's transition happens without major shocks or bloodshed. I am optimistic, as I believe the CCP is more interested in economic gain than clinging to an ideology and one-party rule, which is a sharp contrast from the Mao era where 40 million people died over ideology-driven economic schemes. Cautiously optimistic.
India : A secular democracy has existed for a long time, but economic growth lagged far behind. Now, India is catching up, and will soon be a bulwark for democracy and stability for the whole world. Some of the most troubled countries in the world, from Burma to Afghanistan, border India and could transition to stability and freedom under India's sphere of influence. India is only now realizing how much the world will depend on it. Optimistic.
Russia : A lack of progress in the HDI is a total failure, enabling many countries to overtake Russia over the last 15 years. Putin's return to dictatorial rule is a further regression in Russia's progress. Hopefully, energy and technology industries can help Russia increase its population growth rate, and up its HDI. Cautiously optimistic.
Indonesia : With more Muslims than the entire Middle East put together, Indonesia took a large step towards democracy in 1999 (improving its HDI score), and is doing moderately well economically. Economic growth needs to accelerate in order to cross $10,000/yr per capita by 2020. Cautiously optimistic.
Pakistan : My detailed Pakistan analysis is here. The divergence between the paths of India and Pakistan has been recognized by the US, and Pakistan, with over 50 nuclear warheads, is also where Osama bin Laden and thousands of other terrorists are currently hiding. Any 'day of infamy' that the US encounters will inevitably be traced to individuals operating in Pakistan, which has regressed from democracy to dictatorship, and is teetering on the edge of religious fundamentalism. The economy is growing quickly, however, and this is the only hope of averting a disaster. Pakistan will continue to struggle between emulating the economic progress of India against descending into the dysfunction of Afghanistan. Pessimistic.
Iraq : Although Iraq is not a large country, its importance to the world is disproportionately significant. Bordering so many other non-democratic nations, our hard-fought victory in Iraq now places great pressure on all remaining Arab states. The destiny of the US is also interwined with Iraq, as the outcome of the current War in Iraq will determine the ability of America to take any other action, against any other nation, in the future. Optimistic.
Iran : Many would be surprised to learn that Iran is actually not all that poor, and the Iranian people have enough to lose that they are not keen on a large war against a US military that could dispose of Iran's military just as quickly as they did Saddam's. However, the autocratic regime that keeps the Iranian people suppressed has brutally quashed democratic movements, most recently in the summer of 2009. The secret to turning Iran into a democracy is its neighbor, Iraq. If Iraq can succeed, the pressure on Iran exerted by Internet access and globalization next door will be immense. This will continue to nibble at the edges of Iranian society, and the regime will collapse before 2015 even without a US invasion. If Iran's leadership insists on a confrontation over their nuclear program, the regime will collapse even sooner. Cautiously optimistic.
So Iraq really is a keystone state, and the struggle to prevail over the forces that would derail democracy has major repurcussions for many nations. The US, and the world, could nothave afforded for the US mission in Iraq to fail. But after the success in Iraq, all remaining roads to disastrous tragedy lead to Pakistan. The country in which the leadership of Al-Qaeda resides is the same country where the most prominent nuclear scientist was caught selling nuclear secrets on the black market. This is simply the most frightening combination of circumstances that exists in the world today, far more troubling than anything directly attributable to Iran or North Korea.
But smaller-scale terrorism is nothing new. It just was not taken as seriously back when nations were fighting each other in much larger conflicts. The 1983 Beirut bombing that killed 241 Americans did not dominate the news for more than two weeks, as it was during the far more serious Cold War. Today, the absence of wars between nations brings terrorism into the spotlight that it could not have previously secured.
Wars against terrorism have been a paradigm shift, because where a war like World War II involved symmetrical warfare between declared armies, the War on Terror involves asymmetrical warfare in both directions. Neither party has yet gained a full understanding of the power it has over the other.
A few terrorists with a small budget can kill thousands of innocents without confronting a military force. Guerilla warfare can tie down the mighty US military for years until the public grows weary of the stalemate, even while the US cannot permit itself to use more than a tiny fraction of its power in retaliation. Developed nations spend vastly more money on political and media activites centered around the mere discussion of terrorism than the terrorists themselves need to finance a major attack on these nations.
At the same time, pervasively spreading Internet access, satellite television, and consumer brands continue to disseminate globalization and lure the attention of young people in terrorist states. We saw exactly this in Iran in the summer of 2009, where state-backed murders of civilian protesters were videotaped by cameraphone, and immediately posted online for the world to see. This unrelentingly and irreversibly erodes the fabric of pre-modern fanaticism at almost no cost to the US and other free nations. The efforts by fascist regimes to obstruct the mists of the information ethersphere from entering their societies is so futile as to be comical, and the Iranian regime may not survive the next uprising, when even more Iranians will have camera phones handy. Bidirectional asymmetry is the new nature of war, and the side that learns how to harness the asymmetrical advantage it has over the other is the side that will win.
It is the wage of prosperous, happy societies to be envied, hated, and forced to withstand threats that they cannot reciprocate back onto the enemy. The US has overcome foes as formidable as the Axis Powers and the Soviet Union, yet we managed to adapt and gain the upper hand against a pre-modern, unprofessional band of deviants that does not even have the resources of a small nation and has not invented a single technology. The War on Terror was thus ultimately not with the terrorists, but with ourselves - our complacency, short attention spans, and propensity for fashionable ignorance over the lessons of history.
But 44 months turned out to be a very long time, during which we went from a highly uncertain position in the War on Terror to one of distinct advantage. Whether we continue to maintain the upper hand that we currently have, or become too complacent and let the terrorists kill a million of us in a day remains to be seen.
What strikes me - we can't get off imported oil fast enough. Our greatest danger will always come from resource rich and HD poor countries, since these are the nations that export tyranny to the rest of the world. There is little doubt that the overall level of freedom and human development will increase markedly when the financial underpinnings of these export nations are removed.
I think China will make it. They are fortunate to have Taiwan and Hong Kong as good examples.
Churchill reportedly once asked an wealthy woman if she would sleep with him for 1 million pounds. She said she would have to consider it. He then asked if she would sleep with him for one pound. She was appalled and said "What do you think I am?" He replied "We have already establish what you are, now we are merely negotiating the price." China is like that. They have already established they will sell out communism and tyranny to get rich, now all that remains is to negotiate the final price. I suspect it won't be that high.
China will never invade Taiwan. Why? Because it would disrupt trade too much, and might piss off the U.S. Not that we would fight, we would just stop buying their stuff, which would be even worse.
I'm very bullish on India. I wonder if Pakistan and Bangladesh will ever realize that breaking from India was possibly the worst decision they ever made?
Breakup of Pakistan is not impossible. In fact it may be desirable.
One thing to note - the countries that you are most pessimistic about are problematic, but all the largest countries (China, India, Indonesia) are not on that list. If only those three make it, it will still represent enormous progress in the human condition.
Posted by: Geoman | November 21, 2009 at 03:49 PM
What strikes me - we can't get off imported oil fast enough.
We'll be importing much less of it in a decade. See the 'Why I want oil to hit $120/barrel' article.
China will have 'graduated' by 2017, and hopefully transitions to more freedom without much trouble.
Pakistan is the scariest. AQ Khan was already selling nuclear secrets, and Al-Qaeda leadership resides there.
Posted by: The Futurist | November 21, 2009 at 04:06 PM
Kondratief's view of history predicted there would be no significant wars during the bad times, the Kondratief Winter. This approach does call for significant wars as the Winter ends and countries try to grow through political and military conquest. The last such war was WWII. Thus, I expect significant war at the end of the current Winter.
Japan's death rattle.
Since the changes that happened after WWII little has changed in Japan's politics and culture.
I have posted for a very long time that Japan is a dying culture and economy. The Japanese fail to change their politics and culture as the death rattle eminates from 2 lost decades of declining population and GDP. Their population is generally getting older and less capable of performing work while their women refuse to marry and have children. They are prejudice and declare themselves to be a 'mono culture'.
Bad Japanese politics results in bad economics. Japan continues to do the same debt building for government spending. The recent change in leadership has not changed Japanese politics of depending on government jobs and expenditures that has failed to change their failing economy. Bad Japanese created jobs and programs have not promoted cultural changes leading to sucessful cultural and economic growth. The democracy and culture of Japan is doing the same thing over and over again.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein, (attributed) US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955).
I predict that Americans will enact laws and regulations to correct the current abuse just as Americans enacted reforms in the 1930s.
====================================================
Deflation Returns To Japan; Black Hole Madness In U.S.
Japan has been hopping in and out of deflation for decades. Japan is back in deflation once again. The Wall Street Journal is reporting Deflation's Return Weighs on Japan
The Bank of Japan faces mounting pressure to loosen its policy as deflation tightens its grip on the nation's economy, even as some other central banks begin to roll back stimulus steps amid signs of economic recovery.
The Japanese central bank on Friday kept rates unchanged and upgraded its assessment of the economy, citing rising exports and industrial output. The bank, which has stuck with super-easy monetary policy for more than a decade, has hoped to follow other central banks in looking at ways to tighten policy. Instead, Japan's government and economists are urging it to adopt new easing steps, such as purchasing long-term government bonds.
The calls grew louder Friday after the government declared that the nation's economy was in deflation -- a decline in the general level of prices for goods and services -- for the first time since 2006. That year, policy makers concluded the nation had finally shaken off the deflation that had hindered its economy since the late 1990s. The heightened pressure for easing also follows a spate of recent data showing accelerating price declines in broad parts of the economy.
"Deflation is getting very severe," said financial services minister Shizuka Kamei. "We are closely watching what the BOJ can do in this environment."
During the third quarter, the domestic demand deflator -- a measure of changes in prices of goods and services except for exports and imports -- fell 2.6%, its fastest pace since 1958.
"It's very important for the BOJ to show the market it has the will to conquer deflation, both through action and through words," Mr. Shirakawa, of Credit Suisse, said. "Otherwise, expectations for deflation will only get worse."
Pure Insanity
Japan has interest rates at 0% and cries scream for more easing. Japan has debt of 200% of GDP in a ridiculous fight against deflation and Mr. Shirakawa, of Credit Suisse wants Japan to "show the market it has the will to conquer deflation".
When does the insanity stop?
Meanwhile back in the US....
Core deflation in the US continues to gather pace
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports Core deflation in the US continues to gather pace
Core inflation for factory goods in the US fell to minus 0.6pc in October from a year earlier, edging the country closer towards Japanese-style deflation despite massive monetary stimulus.
Janet Yellen, the head of the San Francisco Fed, said emergency measures had prevented the US economy from sliding into a “black hole of deflation”, insisting that it is still far too early to talk of tightening policy.
A combination of “enormous slack in the economy” and fading fiscal support raised the risk that prices could fall below the Fed’s safe level. “It seems probable that core inflation will move even lower over the next few years,” she said.
While the Fed appears split over its exit strategy, even arch-hawk Richard Fisher of the Dallas Fed said the sheer scale of excess plant will curb prices and wages for a long time. Capacity use in manufacturing is near a post-war low of 67.6pc.
Mr. Fisher said the “peak impact” of the Obama fiscal blitz has already come and gone.
The M3 money supply has been shrinking at a 7pc annualised rate since June. Paul Ashworth from Capital Economics said it is not yet clear whether this is the harbinger of a crunch next year, or a blip caused by portfolio shifts. “We think deflation is still a bigger risk than runaway inflation,” he said.
Black Hole Madness
The black hole is not deflation. The black hole is fighting it like Japan did, or as the US is doing now. For the $trillions spent fighting this mess, all we have to show for it is a lousy bump in GDP at an annualized rate of 2.5%. Now, Fisher suggests (and rightfully so), that's all there is.
Meanwhile all the consumer debt and housing debt is still intact. Moreover, another turn down in commercial real estate and residential real estate is coming. To top it off unemployment is 10.2% and rising, likely headed far North of 11%.
Given that the US is essentially following the same idiotic path as Japan, there is every reason to believe the problem manifests itself in a similar fashion.
[I disagree with Mish's view that America will be the same as Japan. The Fed's view is that it wants mild inflation and will do whatever it takes to prevent Deflation. American politics and culture continue to produce positive population growth which means to me that there remains sufficient faith and confidence to grow even in the face of America's current abuse by bad government, the banking class and financial entities. I have not changed my prediction of the end of the financial world as we know it by 2013. I predict that Creative Destructionism will work again in America and that after the collapse America will adapt and recover. I predict that this means that Americans will enact laws and regulations to correct the current abuse just as Americans enacted reforms in the 1930s.]
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.c....black-hole.html
Posted by: jeffolie | November 22, 2009 at 10:19 AM
jeffolie predicts & bank agree on collapse.
This is the first very big bank backing jeffolie's prediction of the end of the financial world. I am gratified that such a very big bank would advise clients to prepare for an economic collapse. Soc. Gen. even agrees on my prediction of a Dollar crisis.
=====================================================
Société Générale tells clients how to prepare for potential 'global collapse'
Société Générale has advised clients to be ready for a possible "global economic collapse" over the next two years, mapping a strategy of defensive investments to avoid wealth destruction.
Explosion of debt: Japan's public debt could reach as much as 270pc of GDP in the next two years. A bullet train is pictured speeding past Mount Fuji in Fuji city, west of Tokyo Photo: Reuters In a report entitled "Worst-case debt scenario", the bank's asset team said state rescue packages over the last year have merely transferred private liabilities onto sagging sovereign shoulders, creating a fresh set of problems.
Overall debt is still far too high in almost all rich economies as a share of GDP (350pc in the US), whether public or private. It must be reduced by the hard slog of "deleveraging", for years.
'Debt levels risk another crisis' "As yet, nobody can say with any certainty whether we have in fact escaped the prospect of a global economic collapse," said the 68-page report, headed by asset chief Daniel Fermon. It is an exploration of the dangers, not a forecast.
Under the French bank's "Bear Case" scenario (the gloomiest of three possible outcomes), the dollar would slide further and global equities would retest the March lows. Property prices would tumble again. Oil would fall back to $50 in 2010.
Governments have already shot their fiscal bolts. Even without fresh spending, public debt would explode within two years [2 years is close to my prediction of 2012-13] to 105pc of GDP in the UK, 125pc in the US and the eurozone, and 270pc in Japan. Worldwide state debt would reach $45 trillion, up two-and-a-half times in a decade.
(UK figures look low because debt started from a low base. Mr Ferman said the UK would converge with Europe at 130pc of GDP by 2015 under the bear case).
The underlying debt burden is greater than it was after the Second World War, when nominal levels looked similar. Ageing populations will make it harder to erode debt through growth. "High public debt looks entirely unsustainable in the long run. We have almost reached a point of no return for government debt," it said.
Inflating debt away might be seen by some governments as a lesser of evils.
If so, gold would go "up, and up, and up" as the only safe haven from fiat paper money. Private debt is also crippling. Even if the US savings rate stabilises at 7pc, and all of it is used to pay down debt, it will still take nine years for households to reduce debt/income ratios to the safe levels of the 1980s.
The bank said the current crisis displays "compelling similarities" with Japan during its Lost Decade (or two), with a big difference: Japan was able to stay afloat by exporting into a robust global economy and by letting the yen fall. It is not possible for half the world to pursue this strategy at the same time.
SocGen advises bears to sell the dollar and to "short" cyclical equities such as technology, auto, and travel to avoid being caught in the "inherent deflationary spiral". Emerging markets would not be spared. Paradoxically, they are more leveraged to the US growth than Wall Street itself. Farm commodities would hold up well, led by sugar.
Mr Fermon said junk bonds would lose 31pc of their value in 2010 alone. However, sovereign bonds would "generate turbo-charged returns" mimicking the secular slide in yields seen in Japan as the slump ground on. At one point Japan's 10-year yield dropped to 0.40pc. The Fed would hold down yields by purchasing more bonds. The European Central Bank would do less, for political reasons.
SocGen's case for buying sovereign bonds is controversial. A number of funds doubt whether the Japan scenario will be repeated, not least because Tokyo itself may be on the cusp of a debt compound crisis.
Mr Fermon said his report had electrified clients on both sides of the Atlantic. "Everybody wants to know what the impact will be. A lot of hedge funds and bankers are worried," he said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econo....-collap se.html
Posted by: jeffolie | November 22, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Jeffolie,
Sheesh dude, can you at least try and keep it in your pants once in a while? Perhaps post on your pet ideas when, I dunno, the actual topic comes up?
Also cutting and pasting long articles from other sources isn't as helpful as you might think. How about just providing a link for us tech savvy individuals to follow?
Posted by: Geoman | November 24, 2009 at 09:22 AM
I believe that politics and economics are two sides of the same coin.
My first above post was about when the next significant war will happen. I believe that the politics and economics for the next significant war will not happen until the economic bad times wane and the politics provide motivation for popular support to have nations seek power and expansion. For this to happen nations populations must be desparate enough to support war as a means of change from their dire economics. Typically such desparation comes with the destruction of entrenched industries and the emergence of new technologies to replace the old discredited industries. This dynamic is a portion of the Kondratief theory and the Creative Destructionism theory.
I reprinted the lengthy above articles to demonstrate where I believe we are in this process that I believe in. I could have just posted the links and will consider doing that next time.
Posted by: jeffolie | November 24, 2009 at 10:31 AM
jeffolie,
Yes, a summary/link would be preferable to a whole article.
I don't think there will be wars between any major nations over a resource like oil.
Also, I don't agree there is core deflation in the US, given the rise in Gold prices we are seeing. The deflaton is the good sort, from Moore's Law.
Posted by: The Futurist | November 24, 2009 at 04:35 PM
I agree it is unlikely that the next significant war will be over oil.
The last significant war was for territory and ideology: WWII.
The next significant war will probably also be about territory and ideology or religion.
Posted by: jeffolie | November 25, 2009 at 09:13 AM
Define "significant war". Is Iraq significant? Afghanistan? So, you're saying that if GP and HD indices fall back below certain thresholds then war may occur? Possible. But maybe the war is something we wouldn't even recognize as war - economic war, Internet war, financial war.
But how you get there will determine the actions. If it is via economic and religious reasons that is one thing. If the cause is infertility amongst your people, that would seem unlikely to translate into a hostile and expansive country. Such countries are more likely to be conquered than conquer.
We are sailing in uncharted waters here. At some time soon technology derationalizes our existing economic systems. It derationalizes war. It derationalizes everything.
We have arrived at a situation where at some price point, any commodity becomes infinitely available. For example, oil. At some price point you can build a nuclear reactor, take carbon dioxide from the air, and make all the hydrocarbons you want. At some price point, we can send spaceships to mine asteroids for gold. We can make diamonds. We can build food growing skyscrapers. Any basic commodity can be had for the right price.
In the future, the price point will decrease for all these things. Next will be manufactured goods. Then health. What happens when at some price point you can live forever? What happens when that price point falls? Maybe rich depopulating countries start growing again, rapidly.
I guess I'm saying, Kondratief cycles and all may apply, but not in a way we may even recognize.
Past performance is no guarantee of future returns...
Posted by: Geoman | November 25, 2009 at 09:31 AM
You have a very odd notion of winning a war. There have been nearly 4000 civilian deaths among the many thousands of casualties in Iraq due to sectarian violence so far in 2009—a country with a population a tenth the size of the United States.
Guerrilla wars are not a new phenomena, and there is a familiar trajectory of struggle followed by exhaustion. Clearly, a major turning point in the war occurred in 2008 as Iraqis turned away from the senseless violence. But that is not the same as saying the war was won decisively.
Posted by: Zachriel | December 01, 2009 at 07:26 AM
Zachriel,
You have a very odd notion of not winning a war. 4,000 civilian deaths in a country of 30 million? That is 1 per 7,500. New York, with a population of 8.3 million, had 522 murders this year. That is 1 per 16,000. Baltimore had 379 murders out of 2.7 million people, or 1 per 7,124 residents.
Not to pick at 4,000 civilian dead, but that seems to be getting pretty close to what we might define as "normal" levels of violence. My guess is it might take 10 years for the murder rate to fall further. But fall it will further.
The definition of victory in a guerilla war is everyone agreeing that you have either won, are are going to win. I'd guess Americans, Iraqis, and Al Qaeda would all subscribe to at least one of those two positions.
It seems as "wars" have been defined down, so have our victories.
Posted by: Geoman | December 01, 2009 at 09:32 AM
Zachriel,
You are utterly dishonest, and would not consider Iraq to be a victory no matter what the outcome was, simply because your opinions are based on fashion rather than proper analysis.
Iraq has a tenth of the population of the US, and the US does in fact have about 40,000 murders a year.
Furthermore, in the 1990s, during Clinton's time, 500,000 children died under Saddam on account of the UN oil for food program. I suppose you would prefer that were still the case. You have a very odd notion of right and wrong.
Even US Democratic politicians consider Iraq to be a victory. It is not 2006 anymore.
Posted by: The Futurist | December 01, 2009 at 11:06 AM
That's in addition to the background murder rate. That's deaths attributed to sectarian violence, such as car bombs. That doesn't include the tens of thousands of wounded, and the hundreds of thousands still living as refugees.
Listen to yourself. Three thousand civilians died due to the attacks on 9/11/2001. According to your reasoning, that's "pretty close to what we might define as 'normal' levels of violence." In fact, political violence and terrorism are more than mere murder. They strike at the fabric of a society.
Posted by: Zachriel | December 01, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Well, Zachriel, many of these body count analyses are fairly inaccurate, so be wary. Lancet is a very bad source to hang your hat on, I'm sorry to say.
I'd argue that the actual number of dead and injured is fairly irrelevant at this point. You are of course playing the classic game, the one where we all talk abstractly about death rates, which are much less than the year before, so that is a good thing. Then you swing in and say "Only 4,000 deaths is a good thing?! You monster!" It is transparent reasoning and lame pontificating.
4,000 people dead in Iraq is a very bad thing. We all agree to that here. That is in addition to the normal murder rate. I know that. My point is that, while unacceptable, it isn't that high a number, is much lower than it was until very recently, and it seems to be steadily falling into the range of what we might define as "normal" levels of violence.
The question is not how many people are being killed in a country. The question is what do you define as victory in Iraq? It is a fairly simple question. The Futurist has given his definition of victory as what we have currently achieved. You disagree. So what is you definition? Whether you were for or against the war, whether you think it was moral or not, all these things are irrelevant to the question (and please don't post saying "Morality is irrelevant?!!").
The cost of the victory is also irrelevant to the question of what victory looks like. You seem to think that because XX number of people were killed, it cannot be counted as a win under any circumstances. If that is true, then I'd suggest no one has ever won a military victory in the history of mankind, which makes this conversation with you fairly pointless.
Now, my own definition of victory.
I think that we have decisively turned a corner in Iraq. The economy is growing, the political class seems stable.
Who leads the armed factions in Iraq? There was a time when we all knew their names. Now we don't, because their names are irrelevant, and they are largely irrelevant.
When violence in Iraq isan't in the news, then we have sorta won, havn't we? I mean the whole point of terrorism is to...terrorize, which requires the news to report what was done.
I suspect that some elevated form of violence will linger in Iraq for the next 10 to 20 years. But the country will progress forward on a much more hopeful path than it would have done under Saddam. That seems like victory to me.
George Bush was clearly and unmistakably right about the surge. That cannot be argued.
So my answer is, this is clearly a victory for the America, in that we accomplished what we set out to do. It is not yet clearly a victory for the Iraqis, but currently appears that it will be, some day, maybe soon.
Posted by: Geoman | December 01, 2009 at 06:38 PM
The Al-Qaeda that perpetrated the attacks of 9-11 were never in Saddam's Iraq.
The Kurds have been free since the Clinton era.
Iraq Body Count lists them by name. But even 2500 dead due to sectarian violence or terrorism just this year alone, in a much smaller country than the U.S., with the ensuing destruction, clearly means the war is ongoing.
And that's why saying that 9-11, or that 2500 dead 2009 in Iraq due to sectarian violence, is just a blip in the murder rate is a fallacious (and frankly appalling) position.
I asked you politely to quit misrepresenting my position.
Posted by: Zachriel | December 02, 2009 at 04:57 AM
Tell that to GK who introduced their study concerning early childhood death under the Iraq sanctions regime. (The Lancet used standard cross-sectional cluster sample survey methodology.)
It's completely relevant to whether there is an ongoing conflict in Iraq.
If, in your country, hundreds were being killed each month in sectarian violence, car bombs in the capital, organized snipers roaming the streets of major cities, mortars going off in the night, you would consider the conflict as ongoing. (As you don't immediately see this, I assume you are an American. Correct me if I'm wrong.)
I had mentioned that in my first comment to this thread, but that is a different claim than what is under discussion.
Sigh. Seriously. You must be an American.
Posted by: Zachriel | December 02, 2009 at 05:23 AM
Zachriel,
You are flailing badly.
The Al-Qaeda that perpetrated the attacks of 9-11 were never in Saddam's Iraq.
This sentence alone betrays a complete lack of understanding of what AQ is. "Hey, let's go after only that part of AQ and not this part of AQ." How about only blame the 19 who did the hijackings, and since they are already dead, why conduct a war even in Afghanistan?
You fail to define what victory in Iraq means (despite whining about it not being met), so that you can keep it open-ended, because under no circumstance would you actually admit that victory has occurred, and that you are on the wrong side of history.
I noticed that you refuse to define what level of violence constitutes 'victory'.
The linked article has the defined parameters of victory in Iraq. I see that you are avoiding having to acknowledge those. That is telling about what your true position is (which is not being misrepresented).
Democrats and even Europeans have stopped claiming that the war is going poorly, and the majority of the US public considers the war to be won. That is victory. You may not like it, but too bad.
Posted by: GK | December 02, 2009 at 01:54 PM
Because the people who attacked the United States did not operate alone, but were led and supported out of Afghanistan.
Please quit misstating my views. You do a very poor job of it.
Guerrilla wars don't always have distinct endings. But Iraq is not in such a gray zone. Though the situation has improved, by any real measure, Iraq is still in a serious state of armed conflict. As long as pressure is maintained on security and on political reconciliation, there is reason to believe the situation will continue to improve.
They really made a mess of it.
That is a truly bizarre definition of victory. In any case, most Americans realize there is still an ongoing war in Iraq. Most are opposed.
Posted by: Zachriel | December 02, 2009 at 07:34 PM
Because the people who attacked the United States did not operate alone, but were led and supported out of Afghanistan.
With a network harbored in many countries, notably Saddam's Iraq.
Please quit misstating my views. You do a very poor job of it.
You have failed to define what victory is, and refuse to address my detailed definition of victory. This leads to a conclusion of what your true views are.
You could, of course, define victory, and address my definition point by point.
Iraq is still in a serious state of armed conflict.
Not really. US troop withdrawals are happening in an orderly manner. A certain level of violence exists in the background of any Arab-Muslim country.
That is a truly bizarre definition of victory.
So a majority of the public is 'bizarre' to you, but you won't define your own specific parameters of victory?
Posted by: GK | December 02, 2009 at 10:30 PM
That is simply incorrect. The Bush Administration went so far as to abuse prisoners in a futile attempt to justify such links.
You can continue to argue against views I don't hold, but it won't convince fair readers.
You point to The Lancet's study about early childhood mortality, then wave your hands at other studies using the same methodology published in the same journal, saying "all Lancet stats on Iraq have been thoroughly debunked." You equated sectarian violence to the background murder rate, which would be to reduce the 9-11 attacks to a mere statistical blip. Instead of modifying your claims, you ignore your errors and proceed to argue against imaginary positions.
Osama is still on the loose, still plotting, symbolizing the impotence of the forces arrayed against him. The most important requirement for victory is that those responsible be brought to justice. Guerrilla wars don't always have a distinct ending. But as pointed out above, Iraq is not in the gray zone. The war is ongoing, and sectarian violence still represents a threat to the stability of the region. Furthermore, the years of bungling did little to advance the cause of regional peace and global security. The worst impulses in Iran have been strengthened. All the goodwill after 9-11 was spurned. Of course, one can't unwind time, so the world has to deal with the current situation.
A certain level of violence exists in all countries, including the United States. If, in your country, hundreds were being killed each month in sectarian violence you would see things quite differently.
It's Orwellian to equate the state of awareness of the American public, at the center of power, with the existence of war in other regions of the world.
Posted by: Zachriel | December 03, 2009 at 06:57 AM
I appreciate the idea of looking at history from a very broad vantage in order to find the most important patterns. In that sense, The Futurist seems to provide an interesting viewpoint. But from that same broad view, the claim of victory is overstated. From Osama's point of view, just standing is a victory. It represents a miracle to his followers that he could still be fighting when faced with the greatest military complex the world has ever seen. That the United States even attacked Iraq was a huge strategic blunder. That the war is still ongoing is quite evident.
Napoleon conquered Moscow.
Posted by: Zachriel | December 03, 2009 at 07:46 AM
A word of caution: In days prior to WWI there was a great deal of writing about how the cultural and economic inter-dependencies of Old Europe made any notion of a major war clearly obsolete.
While I find your vision of a better future to be quite laudable, we must not forget that others long gone have had the same visions . . . and then had bitter experience to the contrary.
The means to wage war does change over time, I'll admit. My father rode to war on horseback, I rode heavy armor with a megawatt of power under the back deck and my grandson flies above Afghan hills even now.
But what of the motivations of those who start wars? Are they really going away, as some might suggest? What if a few passionate, dedicated or simply mad actors could gain power that only great nations could wield in the past?
Consider the ever-decreasing resource threshold required to effectively perform genetic engineering on micro-organisms [it is a grim exercise]. Now consider Al-queda with air-delivered smallpox bio-weapon (Army War College says 20 yrs, tops)
This is going to be an INTERESTING century.
Posted by: Emery S. Almasy, MAJOR, US Army (RET) | December 03, 2009 at 02:29 PM
That the United States even attacked Iraq was a huge strategic blunder.
No it wasn't. It was a brilliant strategic move (and supported by 40 countries at the start) that destroyed most of Al-Qaeda and prevented an attack on US soil in 8 years, plus created a democracy in the ME, AND moved Sunni Arabs away from suicide bombing (which does not happen in Palestine anymore either).
You spurt out sentences that betray a lack of awareness of events that have occured since 2006. As well as an investment in a narrative that has been visibly proven wrong.
Also, you refuse to define what you consider to be victory, nor can you dispute my clearly defined parameters of victory on a point-by-point basis, and are dodging by going to side issues. Fair readers can see this.
That is your position. It is not 'misrepresenting' your position to state that you demonstrably cannot assess the facts.
Osama is still on the loose, still plotting, symbolizing the impotence of the forces arrayed against him. The most important requirement for victory is that those responsible be brought to justice.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was more of a direct mastermind of 9/11 than Osama, and he was caught. Educate yourself on matters beyond soundbites.
It's Orwellian to equate the state of awareness of the American public,
But your knowledge of the issue (or lack thereof) is correct? Anti-Americanism is a very petty jealousy.
You were on the wrong side of history. Accept it. Even other critics have moved on, recognizing that it is not 2006 anymore, and Bush's prosecution of the War on Terror succeeded in a) keeping America safe, and b) reducing Muslim interest in terrorism.
Posted by: GK | December 03, 2009 at 10:42 PM
I see you continue to ignore the content of my comments and refuse to correct even direct contradictions in your position (e.g. regarding The Lancet). Good luck with that.
Very important point. The energy available to the individual has increased dramatically over modern history. The musket changed a peasant into a citizen. Samuel Colt's revolver became the Great Equalizer. Today, it means that an otherwise insignificant individual can disrupt the balance of power.
Posted by: Zachriel | December 04, 2009 at 06:59 AM
Another example is the spread of nuclear weapons, once the sole possession of superpowers.
Of course Iran wants a nuclear weapon. They feel threatened by all sorts of external forces. And it's not just their government. Nuclear power is symbol of pride and independence for the Iranian people. It's a Faustian bargain, though, something they need to take to heart; but the politics of the moment will probably prevail.
Posted by: Zachriel | December 04, 2009 at 07:07 AM
I keep waiting for Zachriel to call someone, anyone, a Nazi. In vain. Perhaps insisting I must be "American" is his substitute catch phrase. But hey, at least he brought up "torture". Good show on that.
11 posts. That is how many posts it takes Zachriel to NOT say what he would define as victory in Iraq. That is some impressive dissembling. I salute you sir.
I assume you would also define the Korean war as "on-going". There is no formal peace treaty, and the North Korean's still occasional shoots across the border. Also by your (likely) definition, Saudi Arabia is in a state of war. Yemen too. Lebanon of course. Iran. Syria. Turkey. Israel. India. Nepal. Russia. South Africa. Burma. Morocco, Spain. Columbia. Peru, Egypt, Sri Lanka (I know they think they won, but really, the war continues), Bangladesh, Pakistan of course.... Sheesh...I'm having trouble naming many countries not at war, which you would appear to define as some armed group performing terrorist acts in any given year.
If you define war in this way, then yes, things are not better. Of course if you had read the Futurist article carefully, you would of realize that the entire point was how the concept of "war" is being steadily defined downward, and that in fact we live in a much more peaceful and prosperous world than we did just a few decades ago. So, every one of your posts reads like performance art, in that each one proves the basic premise of which you seem blissfully unaware.
Currently there are about 200 violent incidents in Iraq per month. This is too high, but of course, pre-surge there were 1,600 per month. Mortar, suicide, and sniper attacks are down around zero. So are attacks against the government and government facilities. What is left is mostly IEDs.
Notice something? Attacks that require any kind of organization or commitment by the individual are way, way down. What is left is probably bombing for hire. If I had to guess I'd say anyone with a grudge against the U.S. (Iran?) pays local thugs to plant bombs. Or Iraqis pay other Iraqis to plant them. Why? For revenge, political power, criminal activity, etc.
That sounds less and less like a war to me.
Let us pose a thought problem. Say the Iraq war had not been fought in the 21st century, but in the early 1950s. What would it have looked like? Technology and society being what they were, probably Baghdad and other major cities would look like Stalingrad or Berlin after WWII. Perhaps they would even be in radioactive ruins. Millions would be dead. Tens of thousands of American troops would be dead.
Okay, another thought problem. Say the U.S. had not invaded Iraq, where would we be today? Sanctions would have collapsed, and Saddam would probably have WMD weapons. There is a very good chance he would have started another war, and perhaps used them. His tally, by the way, is around 1.4 million killed due to his invasion of Iran, and around 100k killed due to his invasion of Kuwait. And several hundred thousand of his own people he brutally killed. So, in the 20 years prior to our invasion he killed perhaps 2 million people, or approximately 100,000 per year. Projecting forward, over the last eight years he'd have butchered another 800,000? If we were fortunate.
But on the plus side our hands would be...ahem...clean.
You keep (intentionally I think) confusing victory with cost. There is such a thing as a pyrrhic victory (as was Napoleon's invasion of Russia), and it is possible that Iraq will ultimately prove to be that. Right now we seem to be trending against that outcome, but time will tell.
Posted by: Geoman | December 04, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Correction, Zachriel now has 13 posts without giving his definition of victory in Iraq. Amazing. What does it say about a person that they cannot conceive of conditions for military victory, or under what conditions they might have to finally admit they were incorrect?
And yes, Zachriel, a fair reading of what you have written suggests you have only a slogan level understanding of the facts, and haven't bothered yourself with looking up recent events. Whenever you feel yourself getting pinned down, you retreat to posting on side issues (nuclear weapons?) or cheap moral preening. Which by the way, is the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt. "I'm right not because the facts support my case...but because....I'm a better person."
What is really sad to see is there is a reasonable argument to be made that Iraq was a mistake, or has not resulted in a victory. I might not agree, but I can see how someone might generate a persuasive, fact based argument. Unfortunately you just don't seem intellectually or emotionally capable of making such an argument. Pity.
Posted by: Geoman | December 04, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Demonstrating your use of strawman arguments in place of acumen. You might focus on the points raised instead.
Peace means at the least a reasonable cessation of hostilities (a : freedom from civil disturbance b : a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom). There is not always a clear dividing line between war and peace, especially in a guerrilla war, but that doesn't mean the term can't be applied unambiguously in many cases. With regards to Iraq, the war continues by any reasonable measure. (I've already said all this.)
Just another day: A car bomb went off in capital, killing one and wounding six. Another was killed and two wounded by a bomb when an adhesive bomb exploded on a civilian car. In other cities, a child was wounded by a bomb, gunmen attacked a police checkpoint, two Iraqi soldiers were killed in clashes. The commander of a government anti-riot force, three guards, and seven civilians were killed with 15 others wounded by a suicide bomber.
Iraq didn't have a nuclear weapons program. They had disarmed per U.N. mandate.
Posted by: Zachriel | December 04, 2009 at 12:24 PM
An entire post dedicated to a personal assault. Good for you.
(edited by siteowner)
Posted by: Zachriel | December 04, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Zachriel,
Until you can define, in detail, exactly WHAT your definition of Victory in Iraq is (in contrast to mine), you haven't said anything of value.
Of course, the question I could ask is, do you really *want* Iraq to become a peaceful democracy, if that means Bush/America is vindicated?
Posted by: GK | December 04, 2009 at 02:50 PM
15 posts. Care to make it 20 without answering a simple question? I believe in you Z! You can do it buddy!
Er..the Nazi comment doesn't really qualify as a "strawman". I was speculating that you seem to be the type of person who will eventually dissolve into sputtering invective. I think your last post probably checks that box. Therefore it seems not to be a "strawman" argument per se, but an accurate speculation on where you were likely to end this conversation. One proven by your subsequent post. QED.
I should say it would please me to no end to have been wrong about you.
Also, WMD clearly doesn't mean what you think it means. It includes nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Saddam used chemical weapons before the war. I think it is fair to assume he would have had them again after sanctions collapsed.
I also don't think you are clear on what an IED is either. Spend some time looking that up - it is an improvised explosive device (a bomb). So when I say "attacks are down, except for IEDs" and you respond with "Oh yeah? Well a bomb just went off the other day!" you look pretty silly.
Also, if I say attacks have decreased significantly, saying "Oh yeah, well one just happened the other day" isan't exactly the zinger you think it is.
Personal attacks? I think I have been more than patient and generous with you. I've even tried to make your argument for you a couple of times. I've said you continue to evade answering a simple question. You still do. Your continued evasion leads me to speculate on your motivations and causes.
You seem like a reasonably intelligent individual, one who is not exactly up on all the facts, and constrained by certain words or concepts you simply cannot confront or admit, even anonymously. "Victory in Iraq" seems to be one of them. Probably "George Bush was right about...something" is another. I would guess there are many more.
You could post that victory in Iraq would be no less than complete absence of violence and a Jeffersonian democracy modeled after our own. It would be a silly answer, but an answer nonetheless. We could then have a fruitful discussion comparing and contrasting your vision of victory and The Futurist's, one that might have some value. But you seem incapable of doing that. Instead we all chase butterflies.
How about this - don't nitpick this post. Just tell me why that is so hard for you to discuss this issue. I'm interested. I wouldn't keep asking for your opinion if I didn't want to know it.
Posted by: Geoman | December 04, 2009 at 06:14 PM
I answered you several times, in several different ways. By any reasonable measure, Iraq is still in a state of war.
Gratuitous ad hominem are arguments of diversion.
The commander of a government anti-riot force, three guards, and seven civilians were killed with 15 others wounded by a suicide bomber. That was just yesterday.
Attacks have decreased. That wasn't the issue raised. None of the rest of your post responds to that issue, or makes any substantive points.
Posted by: Zachriel | December 04, 2009 at 06:50 PM
So...16! Some people thought you couldn't do it, but I'm a believer!
1) I understand that you don't think conditions in Iraq NOW constitute victory. It has been many posts since anyone asked you that question, if anyone ever did ask you that question. You have been asked, five or six times now, what conditions would have to be for YOU to agree on victory. The count is 16 posts without you even understanding the question exists. You seem to read right past it every time it has been asked, or proceed to answer a question not asked.
2) Hmmmm. You not only don't understand the proper meaning and use of the term "straw man", "IED", "WMD", but now "ad hominem". That means, by the way, that your argument is flawed because I think you are a flawed person. That is not the case, in fact just the opposite. I think you may be a flawed person because you refuse to make an argument. Really, quite a different beast altogether. But you can sweep that away with just a sentence or two. Just respond to #1. Anything at all will do. Go ahead. What would the situation in Iraq have to be before you would consider it victory?
3) "The commander of a government anti-riot force, three guards, and seven civilians were killed with 15 others wounded by a suicide bomber. That was just yesterday." Yes violence continues in Iraq. Do you presume that I (or anyone) disagrees? When I say violence has decreased, I obviously don't mean to zero. But you know that, don't you?
It has the appearence of a classic straw man argument. You pretend I think Iraq is a peacefull paradise, and then proceed to demolish me by presenting evidence of a recent attack. I don't respond because I don't get your point and...double word score!
4) "Attacks have decreased. That wasn't the issue raised. None of the rest of your post responds to that issue, or makes any substantive points." Er, so what is the issue raised? Ah yes, what consitutes victory in Iraq! The Futurist says it is the current level of violence. As for me, I'd like it a bit lower before I'll declare absolute victory, but I concede we are close. And you think...?
Sigh. If we only knew.
Posted by: Geoman | December 05, 2009 at 12:19 AM
Peace means at the least a reasonable cessation of hostilities (a : freedom from civil disturbance b : a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom). There is not always a clear dividing line between war and peace, especially in a guerrilla war, but that doesn't mean the term can't be applied unambiguously in many cases. With regards to Iraq, the war continues by any reasonable measure. (I've already said all this.) Unless you claim that a U.S. victory entails ongoing violence and instability in Iraq, then the U.S. has not yet won in Iraq, much less achieved its long term strategic goals.
An ad hominem is a fallacy when it's a diversion. These are examples of gratuitous attacks.
Your constant personal invectives are irrelevant to the topic, and dilute whatever argument you think you are presenting.
That was in response to your statement "So when I say 'attacks are down, except for IEDs'," I responded that there was a suicide attack that day killing a police commander among many others. (Suicide attacks are not IEDs.) It was not the only violent incident of the day, and it was not an unusual day by any means.
Yes, as was pointed out in my first comment on the thread.
Without a sense of irony, you present an argument I never made. We agree that violence in Iraq continues. My point has been that claiming victory in Iraq is premature.
The invasion of Iraq was a gross strategic blunder that damaged the cause of international stability. Ongoing violence in Iraq means the situation remains precarious, but the Iraqi people are slowly rebuilding from the traumas of the last few years. Events in neighboring countries may make modest advances in Iraq of little consequence to the prospects of long term peace, but that depends on a number of actors and actions.
My position can be found in my first post on the thread, which you followed by conflating sectarian violence with the background murder rate.
Posted by: Zachriel | December 05, 2009 at 09:20 AM
You still managed (quite cleverly I might add) to avoid answering the question. "There is not always a clear dividing line between war and peace, especially in a guerrilla war, but that doesn't mean the term can't be applied unambiguously in many cases." Yes, you say that Iraq is unambiguously not at peace now. But you refuse to say where you might draw the line in the future. Just give us an example. What would Iraq have to look like? Pre-invasion Iraq? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Yemen? Turkey? Name a country and tell us that when Iraq is like XXX then you will unambiguously agree that victory has been achieved. Easy. But you know that.
Your position on you first post was that you disagreed with The Futurist. After that...not much progress. Quite an impressive array of evasions, I must say.
"Gratuitous attacks?" "Constant personal invective?" This from the only one of us that has had a post excised from this site, presumably for bad language. I would note you seem to be very easily offended. And I'm sure you will interpret that observation as an "ad hominem" attack. Sorry. And my observation of such as another. Ouch. It is hopeless.
Soldier on brave sir, soldier on. I however, will bid you a fond farewell, and allow you to have the last word.
Posted by: Geoman | December 07, 2009 at 09:20 PM
You presume a lot. To my knowledge, there has been no moderation of my comments.
I'm sorry that the world more complicated than will fit into your philosophy. There is no strict dividing line between war and peace, between political stability and chaos. Even countries at relative peace may have regions at war or the threat of war.
The issue is whether the U.S. has "won" in Iraq. Iraq is not politically stable and the enemy is capable of coordinating attacks across the capital, so unless you claim that a U.S. victory entails ongoing violence and instability in Iraq, then the U.S. has not yet won in Iraq, much less achieved its long term strategic goals.
Posted by: Zachriel | December 08, 2009 at 05:02 AM
So Iraq really is a keystone state, and the struggle to prevail over the forces that would derail democracy has major repurcussions for many nations. The US, and the world, could nothave afforded for the US mission in Iraq to fail. But after the success in Iraq
I cannot agree what you said. Obviously US and others went to Iraq without have nay thing in mind really implanted on the ground. Paul Bremer was busy with privatisation of Iraqi assets and he surrounded by joiners unskilled staff according to recent revelations by UK/Blair saga,.
There is no democracy built on ethnic and sectarian’s pillars in the world, only just one that Paul Bremer built in Iraq with falsely called democracy. that lead to continues straggle inside Iraq with proxy gangs and thugs rolling and controlling some km in Green zone.
Is this the sort of democracy you talking about or the US success you believe in?
Posted by: John Hoover | December 10, 2009 at 06:02 PM
الأمريكيون يسلمون العراق نصف مساحة المنطقة الخضراء
http://www.sotaliraq.com/iraqnews.php?id=53568
Posted by: John Hoover | December 10, 2009 at 06:05 PM
When I saw the American movie “Final Destination,” I told myself that was exactly what was happening to us. As of late 2006The toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue on April 9, 2003, felt to me – and to millions of Iraqis – like the symbolic birth of a nation. But instead, another scene was watched by millions of Iraqis in the following years, and Iraqi officials eventually banned photographers from capturing it.
Posted by: John Hoover | December 10, 2009 at 06:24 PM
John Hoover,
You, like Zachriel before you, still think it is 2006.
I have laid out the specific definition of victory in Iraq here, correctly predicted in May 2006 for 2008.
http://www.singularity2050.com/2008/12/how-we-decisively-won-in-iraq-in-2008.html
You would have to discuss each parameter of democracy, and offer an alternative definition of victory, in order to be taken seriously.
Posted by: GK | December 10, 2009 at 07:37 PM
and offer an alternative definition of victory, in order to be taken seriously.
This archair views.
US went to country destroying it, set secterian/enthnic system and put thugs corrupted ganges and know you asked alternative definition of victory?
From start you distractions of the country this first fault, then your reconstructions plane was fake second fault, handover plane another shamble plan, followed by sectarian killing which know doubt that there are fingers to ignited in 2005-2006 with help of Iranian's Qudes Forces and some terrorists Al-Qaeda invited to come as Paul Bremer refused to secure the Iraqi borders, were ten of thousands of Iraqi killed just to cause havoc between Iraqi to accepted your definition of victory to them not their definition of victory.
So after all these you asked us alternative definition of victory, its to late to say what victory Iraqi can achieved under all this shamble victory you talking about.
Posted by: John Hoover | December 11, 2009 at 11:14 AM
John Hoover,
You are not even coherent.
I have clearly stated what the parameters of victory in Iraq are (and that they have been achieved). You have not discussed those points, nor can you define what victory would be. So you are not discussing the topic in good faith.
The more obvious question for you is : Do you WANT Iraq to succeed. It would appear that you don't.
Posted by: GK | December 11, 2009 at 03:03 PM
Not responding to Zachriel (I promised not to, and I fully intend to keep that promise), but I want to understand what is at the end of one of his uncharacteristically short posts:
(edited by siteowner)
Posted by: Zachriel | December 04, 2009 at 12:26 PM
I assumed this meant that The Futurist had cut some of the post off, presumably for bad language. Is this correct?
Posted by: Geoman | December 11, 2009 at 04:19 PM
Geoman,
No, no bad language. He made some typos, and then made another post correcting that. I cleaned that up for him.
Posted by: GK | December 11, 2009 at 09:30 PM
The moderator had kindly corrected a misattribution.
That condition has not been met. If hundreds were being killed every month by coordinated attacks in the United States, a nation with ten times the population of Iraq, it would be considered more than sufficient to declare a de facto state of war, justify the mobilization of the military, including the invasion of any countries believed to be supporting those violent elements.
Posted by: Zachriel | December 12, 2009 at 07:34 AM
The more obvious question for you is : Do you WANT Iraq to succeed. It would appear that you don't.
The more obvious question for you is : Do you WANT US to succeed in Iraq?..........
Posted by: John Hoover | December 12, 2009 at 04:57 PM
Zachriel,
You have yet to define what YOU consider to be victory, plus you are only contesting one of my 5 points (false too, I might add). This is far to little to be considered a serious counterargument.
Until you define your own parameters of victory (which I find unlikely), there is nothing of value for you to say on the subject. You are just being a broken record, that is dodging basic questions that both parties knows will refute your claim.
John Hoover,
Your response is much dumber still. You clearly are on the side of Al-Qaeda, and against that of the elected Iraqi government, and US troops. It must trouble you to know that you were on the wrong side of both history and basic decency.
Posted by: GK | December 12, 2009 at 09:00 PM
What the F* you talking, are you madman.
Ohhh.... the words touched your nerve.
Please shut up you crazy thought and be balances and not biased dude.
Posted by: John Hoover | December 12, 2009 at 11:13 PM
John Hoover,
I see that you cannot make an intelligent argument, much less define what victory in Iraq would constitute.
Now you can't dispute the broadly accepted victory without defining an alternative standard, now can you?
You were on the wrong side of history. Get over it, and quit projecting.
Posted by: GK | December 13, 2009 at 08:19 PM
GK, You were on the wrong side of history our new terrorist.
You are so mild deaf and blind that your IQ can't involve in simple discussion with norm human people.
Posted by: John Hoover | December 13, 2009 at 10:04 PM
John Hoover,
Classic projection. You were required to provide a definition of what you consider victory in Iraq to be, and you were not capable of doing that. Nor can you discuss the precise points I described of our superb victory in Iraq as of 2008.
I ask adult-level questions, but you have no tool other than namecalling.
No wonder your side lost. You probably don't even know where Iraq is on the map.
Posted by: GK | December 14, 2009 at 02:39 AM
I ask adult-level questions,
You are adult Terrorist who justifying the terrorists and massacres of innocent people in name of your version of democracy and victory.
You probably don't even know where Iraq is on the map.
Hahhh, you think you smart like your boss who don’t know Iraq or where Iraq is on the map.
Did you see your folk on your TV when they struggle to find many cities include Afghanistan and Iraq on the world map?
On the other hand, your War criminal Bush and his gangs who do not know Sunni from Shiites.
Iraq and Babylonians they made you today talking about law, order, and the basic rule of democracy 3000 year ago when they put first ever Code of Law King Hammurabi our adult Terrorist on his black statue that looted or theft and now in one of France ore Germany museums .
Go do your homework to learn what stated above reads these links about your handlers
FOR the past several months, I’ve been wrapping up lengthy interviews with Washington counterterrorism officials with a fundamental question: “Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?”
A “gotcha” question? Perhaps. But if knowing your enemy is the most basic rule of war, I don’t think it’s out of bounds. And as I quickly explain to my subjects, I’m not looking for theological explanations, just the basics: Who’s on what side today, and what does each want?
Can You Tell a Sunni From a Shiite?
This above writer like you calling others “enemy” why he thing so? Just because of his racial sickness mind on top of his ugly body.
Posted by: John Hoover | December 14, 2009 at 11:06 AM
John Hoover,
You still can't define what YOU consider victory in Iraq to be, can you? A simple question that even a child should be able to answer.
Everything else you wrote is pure garbage, and reveals the great inner shame you feel.
Posted by: GK | December 14, 2009 at 01:16 PM
Everything you wrote is pure garbage you should ashamed dude.
Go do your homework before your childish tagging people who have different view that your sick one.
There is no point talking to deaf and blind adult terrorist like the one you shame on you who seek victory on killing innocent people and disturbing million of innocent people for hoax democracy and victory.
Your victory you seeking like looking for pin in ashes.
One last question why you don’t go and invade N. Korea which much threaten to you and your nation than Iraq dude, go get your victory and give them your democracy show us your victory there.
Last thing as you believe there is an Iraqi elected government, that means elected by major Iraqi people , wheat if US withdraw now are they will stay in power you think?
If not they run before you finish your with draw, ohhhh, no Al-Qaida will take over what a hoax a group of terrorist take a country that US with all here smart guys and billion who spent seven years to trained Iraqi forces and police cannot stop a terrorist group, why not al-Qaeda get another country if they are effective to that level to take control of country?
Your seminal lies can stack up ... shame on... you shame on you, with your bad taste of garbage writing about victory.
Posted by: John Hoover | December 14, 2009 at 09:41 PM
Readers,
Two polite questions that John Hoover is too much of a coward to answer :
1) What is YOUR definition of what Iraq needs to meet for the war to be a victory?
2) Do you want the US to win in Iraq?
Instead, all he can produce is projection and incomprehensible childlike crying.
Note how limited his discussion capacity is, where if he doesn't like something, it is a 'lie'. The substantial difference between an opinion and a 'lie' is beyond his capacity to grasp. Much like they claimed Bush 'lied', but can't express exactly what he lied about.
They don't have any range or variety other than 'you lied'. Again, classic textbook projection.
Read here how to swiftly win debates against unintelligent leftists like John Hoover.
Such examples are useful for educational purposes.
Posted by: GK | December 15, 2009 at 01:29 AM
A nation at peace. A nation that is reasonably stable, that is, likely to remain at peace. Of course, there is no perfect peace and no perfect stability. However, we can use a simple metric(which has been mentioned many times previously). If bombs were going off in major cities every month with a continuing death rate in the hundreds due to sectarian violence, would your nation consider itself in a state of war?
Much depends on American efforts to stabilize Iraq. However, they also need to extricate themselves as soon as practical as their very presence is destabilizing.
Posted by: Zachriel | January 13, 2010 at 09:38 AM
Subsequent to all the above in the late Spring of 2010 essentially the entire top management of AQ in Iraq was captured or killed.
Here and there an occasional bomb is detonated -- to no political effect.
There was a time when Islamists from KSA, Libya and Algeria pined to get into action against the occupation. That flow is now but a dribble. The Syrian connection died at the hands of US special forces.
Diversion of Iraqi oil by way of Iran has been shut down, too.
As expected the war has ended in a whimper.
Posted by: blert | June 29, 2010 at 09:25 AM
Tuesday 6 July: 11 killed
Baghdad: 2 by mortars, 4 by bomb, 3 by mortars
Mosul: 2 by gunfire
Monday 5 July: 3 killed
Baghdad: 1 by bomb
Mosul: 1 by bomb, 1 by gunfire
Sunday 4 July: 11 killed
Baghdad: 1 by gunfire
Ramadi: 4 by suicide bomb
Mosul: 2 by suicide bomb, 1 body found
Kirkuk: 1 body found
Mandili: 2 by gunfire
Saturday 3 July: 3 killed
Baghdad: 3 by bomb
Friday 2 July: 3 killed
Ramadi: 1 by gunfire
Mandili: 2 killed
Thursday 1 July: 8 killed
Baghdad: 1 by bomb, 1 by bomb
Falluja: 1 by bomb
Aziziya: 1 by gunfire
Samarra: 1 by bomb
Kirkuk: 1 by gunfire
Mosul: 2 by gunfire
Wednesday 30 June: 13 killed
Baghdad: 2 by gunfire
Mosul: 1 by bomb, 1 by bomb
Kirkuk: 1 by gunfire, 1 body found
Baquba: 1 by bomb
Hit: 6 by gunfire and bombs
June 1-30: 379 total killed
If hundreds were being killed in sectarian violence each month in the U.S., including in the U.S. capital, the U.S. would certainly consider it a state of war. (That is not even accounting for Iraq's much smaller population.)
Levels of violence are down from their peaks of 2006-2007, but it certainly can't be considered peace.
Posted by: Zachriel | July 17, 2010 at 07:02 AM
Zachriel,
It is peace. June had only 127 civilians killed. The montly stats show this to be the case :
http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx
Even Joe Biden tried to take credit for Iraq having been won (when in fact this was due to Petraeus, McCain, etc.).
If hundreds were being killed in sectarian violence each month in the U.S., including in the U.S. capital, the U.S. would certainly consider it a state of war.
The population of the African American community in the US is roughly comparable to that of Iraq. What is the murder rate of African Americans? (Hint : Much higher than the death rate in Iraq).
You are desperately hoping for a higher death rate because you cannot admit you were on the wrong side of history. Hoping for deaths is a shameful stance to take, even if it is a futile one.
Posted by: GK | July 17, 2010 at 01:20 PM
Iraqi Body Count, June 1-30: 379 total killed.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/recent/
All such counts are almost certainly low, but even going by your source, that's 1367 dead, and presumably thousands others severely injured, just in 2010.
GK: The population of the African American community in the US is roughly comparable to that of Iraq. What is the murder rate of African Americans? (Hint : Much higher than the death rate in Iraq).
There are virtually no deaths due to sectarian violence in the United States. The 1367 dead in Iraq are those killed by sectarian violence, such as by bombs and mortar fire.
(And it is a vacuous comparision. It's like saying 9-11 is a statistical blip because far more people die in auto accidents.)
GK: Hoping for deaths is a shameful stance to take, even if it is a futile one.
That is obviously meant to avoid answering the objection. If the United States had a similar level of organized sectarian violence; such as mortals and bombs in the capital and other major cities; the American people would not consider it to be "peace," and the situation would be politically unstable.
Posted by: Zachriel | July 17, 2010 at 02:17 PM
The latest date tabulated bu iCasualties is 7/8.
http://icasualties.org/Iraq/IraqiDeaths.aspx
07/08/10 BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb targeting Shi'ite pilgrims killed two people and wounded 21 in Palestine Street, northern Baghdad, police said.
07/08/10 BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb targeting Shi'ite pilgrims returning from the Iman Moussa al-Kadhim shrine killed three and wounded 31 in the Mashtal district of eastern Baghdad, an Interior Ministry source said.
07/08/10 KIRKUK - A sticky bomb attached to a car killed the driver and wounded one person near the blast, in southwestern Kirkuk, 250 km (155 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.
07/08/10 RAMADI - Four policemen were killed and six wounded in western Ramadi...after bombs planted near the houses of local policemen went off, followed by a roadside bomb when security forces arrived at the blast scene, police said.
Posted by: Zachriel | July 17, 2010 at 02:36 PM
but even going by your source, that's 1367 dead, and presumably thousands others severely injured, just in 2010.
A small number. Quite peaceful, as evidenced by Joe Biden trying to take credit for success in Iraq. Even the Democrats have left you behind.
Why else would US troops be withdrawing?
The number will never be zero, and has never been.
There are virtually no deaths due to sectarian violence in the United States.
Gang violence between black gangs is 'sectarian'.
The fact that you actually *want* the deaths of more Iraqi civilians to be higher says it all.
Posted by: GK | July 17, 2010 at 04:09 PM
GK: Gang violence between black gangs is 'sectarian'.
Sorry, but repeating yourself doesn't strengthen the argument. There are not bombs going off in the U.S. capital just about every day.
-
07/08/10 Washington- A roadside bomb targeting Catholics on the way to church killed two people and wounded 21, police said.
07/08/10 Washington - A roadside bomb targeting Jews returning from temple killed three and wounded 31 in northeast Washington.
07/08/10 New York - A sticky bomb attached to a car killed the driver and wounded one person near the blast in downtown Manhattan, police said.
07/08/10 Philadelphia - Four policemen were killed and six wounded after bombs planted near the houses of local policemen went off, followed by a roadside bomb when security forces arrived at the blast scene, police said.
So far this month (through 7/8), nearly a hundred civilians have been killed and over a thousand seriously wounded in continued sectarian violence in the U.S. Since the beginning of the occupation, 100,000 Americans have been killed with untold numbers of casualties. Millions have fled to Canada and Mexico to escape the continuing conflict.
-
Anyone who reads can see there is a significant difference between crime and organized, violent political conflict.
GK: The fact that you actually *want* the deaths of more Iraqi civilians to be higher says it all.
Repeating your slur doesn't make it any more valid.
Posted by: Zachriel | July 17, 2010 at 07:22 PM
Washington D.C. 7/18/2010 -- A suicide bomber killed at least 43 people and wounded 40 others in an attack outside Washington on Sunday morning, police said.
The attacker targeted former militants now in the pay of the U.S. government -- as they waited to receive paychecks, police said.
A second suicide bomber hit an office in Buffalo, on the U.S.-Canadian border, killing three and injuring six, U.S. official said. The attack also took place Sunday morning.
And another person was killed and three were hurt when a bomb attached to a car went off in northeastern Washington later on Sunday, police officials said.
At least 66 people were killed in more than half-a-dozen attacks on Christian worshipers on July 7-8.
Posted by: Zachriel | July 18, 2010 at 07:25 AM
GK: The fact that you actually *want* the deaths of more Iraqi civilians to be higher says it all.
Just to be absolutely certain to put this to rest, the Iraqi people and the world would be much better off with a peaceful and democratic Iraq. Democracy is still very tentative, and fraught with corruption. More importantly, the level of organized sectarian violence is destabilizing and politically unsustainable over the long run. However, that doesn't mean there is no possibility of a salubrious outcome.
Posted by: Zachriel | July 18, 2010 at 07:26 AM
Link to previous news report concerning bombing in the U.S. capital.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/07/18/iraq.suicide.bombing/
-
Posted by: Zachriel | July 18, 2010 at 07:28 AM
Zachriel,
Your links don't change the facts. The death rate is very low, and even Democrats have been trying to take credit for victory, with media focus on Afghanistan now rather than Iraq.
In fact, if things were to worsen from here, you would have to attribute those to Obama.
Posted by: GK | July 18, 2010 at 07:43 PM
GK: The death rate is very low, and even Democrats have been trying to take credit for victory, with media focus on Afghanistan now rather than Iraq.
You continue to conflate sectarian violence with ordinary crimes, which are not counted in the statistics above. You compared the rate of sectarian violence with gang violence in America's inner cities, an unsupportable position.
There are fatal bombings aimed at the stability of the Iraqi government occurring nearly every day. Just yesterday, several bombings, including 48 killed in a single attack near the capital. Another attack today. Again, if this were occurring in the U.S. it would be considered a state of war.
Posted by: Zachriel | July 19, 2010 at 04:38 AM
You seem to be attributing your own definitions to the way the public and population at large understands them.
Sectarian violence IS gang violence. Just because you seem to add more merit to the "dangerousness" because Iraq has more bombings than gang shootouts doesn't mean shit. A war isn't happening, not in the conventional sense. The "War on Drugs" has more in common with what the state of affairs is in Iraq than what you seem to be prescribing by.
Instability does not correlate so strongly with war-time and a "country at war" that they are not mutually exlusive ideas. And these ideas aren't so black and white that they can only be considered negative. Bad things happen in instable or war torn countries, whether the country is growing more hostile and instable or weeding out the danger in a steady pace (rather than all at once, as you want it to be).
I believe Zach defines Victory when a country is like the US or Canada, as he is most likely a citizen of one of these places. He seems incapable of seeing that, though the war at this point shows superfluous signs of an ongoing nature, it has inevitably and irrevocably been won.
Posted by: Deck | August 13, 2010 at 04:48 PM
Deck: You seem to be attributing your own definitions to the way the public and population at large understands them.
It is this blog that directly compared the ordinary murder rate in Western nations with the sectarian violence in Iraq, without having actually accounted for the ordinary murder rate in Iraq, which is in addition to political violence. Such fatuous comparisons leads one to declare that the attacks of 9-11 were just a statistical blip.
Deck: Sectarian violence IS gang violence.
The sectarian violence in Iraq is politically destabilizing in a way that gang violence in the U.S. is not. Hundreds are killed every month in Iraq, including in direct attacks on the security forces.
Such levels of violence lead to loss of confidence in the government. Ordinary citizens are forced into corruption to protect their families, because they simply can't rely on the government. Authority becomes fragmented whihc makes resolving the underlying political issues more difficult. It doesn't mean there is no hope. If you were to say the situation has improved, that might be a defensible position, but to claim victory is not.
Just this week; assassinations, police burn on street in Baghdad, soldiers bombed. This doesn't even begin to count the hidden damage the insurgency is doing.
Posted by: Zachriel | August 14, 2010 at 08:24 AM
Sectarian violence in Iraq is tapering off and will continue to do so as long as the democracy lasts. As GK has noted, an increase in per capita gain leads to stable nations. You're focusing so intently on any issues that come up you fail to think from anything more than your deluded 1st world upbringing.
You say that people would "lose confidence" in the new state of affairs, but you don't apply that from THEIR view, but your own priviledged one. The entire argument you present is ridiculous because their lives now are better than any other time in the past 20 years, yet you believe they'll ditch this government when it's barely started?
You think small and focus small. Look at the big picture once in a while, it's what successful people do.
Posted by: Deck | August 14, 2010 at 10:07 AM
Deck: Sectarian violence in Iraq is tapering off and will continue to do so as long as the democracy lasts.
That's a more reasonable point than your previous error equating ordinary crime with sectarian, political violence. The state of democracy in Iraq is still tentative. However, once the underlying balance of power finds a working model, then the prospects will continue to improve.
Deck: You're focusing so intently on any issues that come up you fail to think from anything more than your deluded 1st world upbringing... You think small and focus small.
Those are not arguments. Nor do they accurately reflect our views. "Mission Accomplished" is the viewpoint that is small because it ignores the vast long-term damage to the U.S. strategic position due to an ill-conceived war.
Deck: The entire argument you present is ridiculous because their lives now are better than any other time in the past 20 years, yet you believe they'll ditch this government when it's barely started?
There are very real prospects for progress in Iraq. That wasn't the issue, of course. Nearly all experts in the field consider the stability in Iraq to be fragile and tentative. In addition, unless the central government can exert authority throughout Iraq, al Qaeda can continue to use the chaos to mount attacks. The prospects of exerting such authority is better in Iraq, though, than Afghanistan.
Finally, it is difficult to consider mere stability to be "victory" when the entire expedition was such a strategic debacle. The lack of WMD severely damaged the reputation of the U.S., and even the limited goal of removing safe havens for terrorists has not been achieved.
Posted by: Zachriel | August 15, 2010 at 06:35 AM
Zachriel you are an Islamophobic racist Arab-hater who wants America to abandon the Iraqis so that they can be destroyed by the mullahs of Iran and their terrorist surrogates. You homo leftists didn't say anything when Saddam was murdering us by the tens of thousands, now you claim to care about "the Iraqi people the best chance of finding a solution to their political problems"?! You fucking pig bastard.
Posted by: sayyid_q1967 | August 23, 2010 at 11:07 PM