Iraq: Getting Better All the Time!

P Brooks | September 18, 2007, 2:34pm | #

Good thing Bremer gave the mercenaries blanket pre-emptive immunity. Otherwise, they might get in trouble.

Finkelstein | September 18, 2007, 2:46pm | #

Good for the Iraqi government. Nice to see them get rid of those who target Iraqi civilians.

JBinMO | September 18, 2007, 2:52pm | #

I have a great idea to handel the personel shortages. We go to England and take all the people in their prisons and sent them to Iraq. We can give them nice uniforms, maybe....blask and tan ones.

JonBuck | September 18, 2007, 2:54pm | #

On the other hand, Reuters is reporting a huge drop dead and wounded in the morgue and hospital in Baghdad. We're talking 70%.

That really is good news.

Betcha Horton can't hear me! | September 18, 2007, 2:57pm | #

WHO?

Timothy | September 18, 2007, 3:02pm | #

YAY, FREEPERS!

JBinMO | September 18, 2007, 3:03pm | #

Damn!!!! Things are going well in Iraq!!!! I am so sure that if things in Iraq go poorly the libertarian cannidate is bound to win the Whitehouse in 08. What to do? What to do?

Engrish, Prease. | September 18, 2007, 3:12pm | #

YES!!! TUTORING!!! IN THE FRESHLY PAINTED SCHOOLS!!!

joe | September 18, 2007, 3:20pm | #

Uh, yeah. No way people could independently arrive at the conclusion that the Iraq War is a clusterfuck after having watched it unfold for five years.

Take a look back through the archives, Horton. There were plenty of libertarians who supported this war when it was launched. There are a lot fewer now.

Ayn_Randian | September 18, 2007, 3:23pm | #

Oh, yes, Horton, because libertarianism isn't just a political philosophy, it's A WAY YOU HAVE TO COMPLETELY LIVE LIFE! DON'T YOU GET IT? IF LIBERTARIANS AGREE, NOW THEY'RE IN A GROUP! OH, THE IRONY.

*Ahem*

now to the more interesting portion of our program...

John | September 18, 2007, 3:27pm | #

"Take a look back through the archives, Horton. There were plenty of libertarians who supported this war when it was launched. There are a lot fewer now."

I guess the question is what does "support" mean. I would think that regardless of what you think of the war you would want things to work out well in the end and view the reduction in deaths in Baghdad as good news. As far as comparing it to Hungary, first, there are still plenty of Sunis and Shias in Bahgdad, second al Quada is perfectly willing to kill anyone, and third if the morges were full of bodies people would certainly look at that as a sign of failure. It only makes sense that the declining deathtoll is therefore good news, as if that needs to be said anyway, how could fewer deaths not be good news?

Honestly Joe, I really hope a Democrat wins in 2008. We will still be in Iraq but it will then be okay for people like you to pull for us to win. The country will be a lot better off.

JBinMO | September 18, 2007, 3:29pm | #

"Some English tutoring, perhaps?".

Whats wrong with my post. Maybe a comma is needed.

josephdietrich | September 18, 2007, 3:30pm | #

Folks, I have it on good authority that things have improved. Somewhat, anyway. What, you were hoping for miracles? Hey, $500 billion only goes so far, after all. Let's just wait a couple of years and spend a few more hundred billion of our taxpayer dollars. You'll see then ... those Iraqis will be happy and peaceful. It'll be money well spent! Sure, Al Qaeda will still be a threat, but hey, you can't have everything.

What, you think you could have done something more productive for national security with that amount of treasure (and blood)?

Jake Boone | September 18, 2007, 3:32pm | #

John,

Away from the real point of this thread, you need to recognize the difference between "I don't think we can win this war" and "I hope we don't win this war."

I'd love a perpetual motion machine. That doesn't mean it's possible for me (or anyone) to build one.

joe | September 18, 2007, 3:35pm | #

John,

There are a lot fewer Sunnis in Baghdad than there used to be. The whole east side of the city has been cleansed, and the Sunni area in the west is getting smaller and smaller.

I suspect that those bodies in the morgue will drop even further as soon as it gets rubbed out completely.

how could fewer deaths not be good news?

OK, I'll type it again: by demonstrating that the campaign of cleansing has succeeded. Which it has. During the period of the Surge, aka the Baghdad Security Plan.

And in case you didn't notice, we didn't "win" in Iraq when 80% of the country was "pushing for it." Sometimes, feelings and ze Will aren't the only things that matter.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm pushing very hard for our troops, and the Sunnis in the provinces, to succeed in cleaning up the al Qaeda mess we made. But I'm not deluded enough to pretend that my "pushing" is going to make any difference in the outcome.

Taktix® | September 18, 2007, 3:42pm | #

Hey guys,

WTF?

Thanks for telling me that we libertarians weren't doing the "Hitting-Self-In-Head-With-Hammer" thing anymore!

You know how many hammers I've gone through these last few weeks?!?

James | September 18, 2007, 4:00pm | #

Libertarians do not support wars of choice. Our current war is a waste of life the men and women in uniform have been betrayed by our governments leaders and those dumbasses who supported it. I believe that our occupation has caused more Iraqis to die then any of the worse excesses of Sadaam. I find it disturbing that the MSM downplays the number of Iraqis that are being killed while we try to deliver "democracy" by bullet. So how many are dead I have seen numbers as high as a million + and even if that is high number do you really believe the governments numbers. The American people don't really appear to care that we have destroyed a sovereign nation through an illegal war. You cannot fight a war for peace it is an oxymoron.

matt | September 18, 2007, 4:18pm | #

"Whats wrong with my post. Maybe a comma is needed."

Oh, the irony.

TrickyVic | September 18, 2007, 4:37pm | #

"""How are they not answerable to anyone? They just lost their contract rights because they aren't reigning in there guys enough."""

For the record no one's lost anything yet. The kicking them out talk is rhetoric at this point. We'll have to wait and see. They do have immunity so they can kill at will with little recourse, as long as it stays out of the spotlight. I'm sure Blackwater is crapping their pants on this, not because of what actually happend but the attention it's receiving. I don't know if Iraq should kick them out, but they should be forced to operate lawfully and under the laws of the host nation. That alone will force them to behave, or pout like a baby and leave.

The whole idea needs to be revisted. What if there was war in this country? Are these guys going to be driving around shooting any armed citizen that disagrees with them. Citizens that have a right to armed defense under the Constitution.

"""We will still be in Iraq but it will then be okay for people like you to pull for us to win."""

It depends on your definition of "win". I don't think any American citizen wants us to lose. That's bullshit rhetoric from the right. How can you expect the average citizen to support it when the President can't really explain what a "win" looks like. Even the general are back tracking from the western style democracy that Bush claimed was victory. If that was victory and it's being said to lower expectations, they are talking about "not winning". At lest from the original goal. They are spinning the failure of victory as some sort of winnable situation.

If your car mechanic tells you he can make your car run as good as new, and it runs only so-so when you pick it up. I don't think you would call that a win when you're paying the bill.

I think there would have been less negativity if the war wasn't sold as a "cakewalk" to be won in a "matter of weeks not months" and "paid for by Iraqi oil". Very little, if any of what the Bush admin has said has proven true. A Democrat President can't fix that. If a Democrat is elected and does what is necessary to salvage this endeavor, I'm sure the right side will whine like there is no tomorrow. It's a mess and the outcome probably will not look pretty. I'm sure those who are supporting Bush's mischaracterizations, will not support a Democrats mischaracterizations.

It reminds me of people who will hang on to a stock when in heads for the ground thinking I have lost until I've sold.

fyodor | September 18, 2007, 4:42pm | #

Horton,

Whether someone thinks for themself or not is pretty much impossible to demonstrate, so don't make a fool of yourself with your preening.

Meanwhile, your independent thinking completely missed my point, which is that you were doing, in that post, exactly what you were accusing others of doing, focusing more on who's right or wrong, you or those with whom you disagree (since you have no "opponents," being so high and mighty and independent and all) than about the situation itself.

joe | September 18, 2007, 4:45pm | #

What I want to win, John, is the war against al Qaeda.

It is because of my desire to win that I opposed invading Iraq, and support leaving.

George H. W. Bush | September 18, 2007, 5:23pm | #

Willie Horton, boogah boogah!

joe | September 18, 2007, 5:29pm | #

SIV,

No, I am not. The vast majority of Iraq opponents were not.

We actually raised a number of objections quite different from the silly charactures you mention.

Perhaps we wouldn't be in this sanguinary quagmire if the administration and its allies had bothered to acknowledge and think about them, instead of having a good old time calling us racists, cowards, America-haters, appeasers, and terrorist sympathizers. A lot of good people would still be walking the earth.

SIV | September 18, 2007, 5:32pm | #

What I want to win, John, is the war against al Qaeda.

Well a lot of the "anti-war" types who now want to "get" al qaeda and bin Laden were against that front of the war before we re-entered Iraq. Democrats have made noise about North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran as having been better choices than Iraq.

So yes, it matters a lot.

SIV | September 18, 2007, 5:38pm | #

If Ron Paul wins, do you think he would give Blackwater letters of Marque and Reprisal?

He ought to pledge to do so now it could only boost his chances of getting the GOP nomination.

SIV | September 18, 2007, 5:56pm | #

Pretty clever of those anti-war types to discredit themselves so they could call their own positions "propaganda".

GILMORE | September 18, 2007, 6:07pm | #

The kicking them out talk is rhetoric at this point.

Actually the Iraqi government doesnt even have the discretionary authority to "kick them out" anyway. Seriously. We forced the govt to let us make decisions re: contracting agencies when they formed the constitution, and all they can do is bitch about it. Hence blackwaters shrug about the whole deal. They also FWIW often provide security for Iraqi politicians. If we up and left tomorrow along with all out contractors, the Iraqi govt would be some of the first targets of the purges. This whole deal is just posturing.

thoreau | September 18, 2007, 7:26pm | #

Pain-

If you think that losing a contract is sufficient incentive to refrain from killing people without cause, then perhaps you think that the penalty for murder should simply be a large fine?

Muttley | September 18, 2007, 7:54pm | #

amazing article. didn´t know that Joseph Heller was alive and writing for the Rolling Stone.

Pain | September 18, 2007, 8:58pm | #

Actually the Iraqi government doesnt even have the discretionary authority to "kick them out" anyway. Seriously. We forced the govt to let us make decisions re: contracting agencies when they formed the constitution, and all they can do is bitch about it. Hence blackwaters shrug about the whole deal. They also FWIW often provide security for Iraqi politicians. If we up and left tomorrow along with all out contractors, the Iraqi govt would be some of the first targets of the purges. This whole deal is just posturing.

That sounds more like a fault of our government than Blackwater's. Blackwater is simply fulfilling a contract as outlined by the government agencies that have hired it. If the government gives them autonomy to do what they want, then they need to revise the stipulations of the contract if that's the problem. If however Blackwater violated rules put in place by it's employer then the issue is with Blackwater. And for them to continue to be hired they better adjust their way of doing things.

Fluffy | September 18, 2007, 10:21pm | #

It's really very tiresome watching rump war advocates glam on to new metrics and new milestones every year to "prove" that the war is at last going well and that those dastardly antiwar folks will get their comeuppance soon.

It was relatively rational to present such an argument in 2003. It was a little less rational in 2004, but still quite understandable. It was getting annoying in 2005. In 2006, it was comical, but not in a good way - more of a black comedy vibe going on there. In 2007, it's just an insult to my intelligence.

You know and I know we'll be having the same conversation next September. Probably in an even more bitter way, because the remaining war supporters will be even more desperate, and the sane people - excuse me, the war opponents - will be that much more frustrated by the refusal of our own dead-enders to view reality, or to perform even a rudimentary cost/benefit analysis.

With regard to the subject at hand: I am not one of those anarcho-capitalist libertarian types who is pleased as punch to see private armies being formed. I view them as a long-term threat to civil society. Personally, I'm not particularly thrilled at the prospect of a 20,000 - 50,000 man armed force with no loyalty to the Constitution or to anything other than a paycheck hanging out inside our borders. I should hope for them to stay in Iraq, I guess - that's a lot better than having them around here. Personally I think we should audit all the Iraq security firms Truman-style, and if there's even a single fucking stapler or box of post-its missing, smash these companies and throw as many of these guys as possible in jail.

Rick Barton | September 19, 2007, 12:27am | #

edna:

all wars are wars of choice. even if invaded, one has the choice of surrender.

That absolute expansion of the definition of the expression "wars of choice" so as to make it meaningless evades the sound libertarian principle, posited by the founders of the American republic, that wars that are unnecessary to our liberty and security should be avoided.

Pain | September 19, 2007, 8:34am | #

Personally, I'm not particularly thrilled at the prospect of a 20,000 - 50,000 man armed force with no loyalty to the Constitution or to anything other than a paycheck hanging out inside our borders. I should hope for them to stay in Iraq, I guess - that's a lot better than having them around here. Personally I think we should audit all the Iraq security firms Truman-style, and if there's even a single fucking stapler or box of post-its missing, smash these companies and throw as many of these guys as possible in jail.

If we were in 16th century Europe with free companies roaming around the countryside I might agree. But we live in a world with large (comparitively) permanent professional armies with little danger of being overcome by roving bands of mercenaries. And why do you assume these mercenaries aren't anymore patriotic than the next guy. Most of these guys are former US military anyway. Do think they would just sell out their country just like that?

wayne | September 19, 2007, 2:09pm | #

One of the local news channels listed some of their rules of engagement. One was to fire only targeted shots. If true, they violated their own rules. Shit happens when the bullets fly, that doesn't mean it's an excuse.

In a firefight, targeting gets much more difficult.

Security companies should alway be more resticted than the military. If you need more military, supply it..

blackwater works for the state department, but philosophically I agree with your point. Personally, I would prefer to see the private security companies out of Iraq. Private security companies do most of the movement of Americans aroung Iraq. I am personally acquainted with a lot of the private security guys working in Baghdad. They are very professional, and show extreme restraint in sometimes very scary situations. I don't know any blackwater guys because I am over here with the army, but these security guys are all drawn from the same pool: retired special forces, marines, some cops. This blackwater incident could have happened with any of the companies.

edna | September 19, 2007, 3:37pm | #

wars that are unnecessary to our liberty and security should be avoided.

then you've made a fuzzy, ill-defined phrase... muddy and unclear. ;-)

supporters of the current occupation of iraq would argue that it is necessary for the preservation of our liberty and security. i think they're wrong about that, but that is the sincere belief of a not-inconsiderable number of people. i haven't met a supporter of the occupation who thinks it's "unnecessary."

the phrase is gaseous. no-one supports "unnecessary war" any moreso than anyone isn't "pro-life."

highnumber | September 19, 2007, 11:49pm | #

Why would an anarcho-capitalist be happy that the government is hiring mercenaries?

Rick Barton | September 20, 2007, 2:30am | #

that's where we diverge.

Ok, but note I said: chief supporters.

wayne | September 20, 2007, 3:43am | #

legitimate reason for anybody to shoot a non-combatant

I meant to say "intentionally shoot a non-combatant..."