When Will Reality Bite? (Or At Least Nip? Or Nip And Tuck?)

Are the Iraqis engaged in a civil war?  They are at Obama '08!

When the topic is Iraq the Obama website opens with a self-congratulatory statement from Barack hailing his vision and courage in opposing the war in 2002, then delivers this:

The Problem

The Surge: The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq's civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war.

Let's see - per yesterday's Times:

Violence in all of Iraq is the lowest since March 2004.

And what about the "civil war" in Iraq?  Both the White House and Fox News had some fun at the expense of NBC News, which declared Iraq to be in a civil war back in November 2006 but has apparently dropped that label without similar fanfare.  Does Team Obama still feel comfortable with the "civil war" label, or is the website due for a cosmetic change?

Comments

[Pofarmer]

It seems to me the Dim's would do better to be looking forward rather than always harping on the past, even when those past decisions were correct. Picking the opposite position of the administration EVERY time does not make you look like someone who reaches across the isle.

[Elliott]

Does Team Obama still feel comfortable with the "civil war" label

The campaign worker who filled out that section of our website made statements that in no way reflect the Senator's view on this issue. Barack Obama has always considered the conflict "The War of Western Aggression." [/satiric press release "quote"]

[Rick Ballard]

The resolution of the oil revenue sharing issue, which, once again, appears close, will provide a nice moment of reality "biting". The Reuter's piece has some nice tidbits at the end which indicate that a resolution will occurr within 30 days.

As to Obama sticking with the lies which brought him to the ball - as Elliott notes, the good Senator's words have an inestimable value of a very temporal nature.

[Porchlight]

LOL Elliott. If pushed on the matter Obama may insist that it wasn't really his "website," in the same way he said Jeremiah Wright wasn't really his "spiritual mentor."

[chip]

The website also neglects to mention Obama's mysterious switch in 2004 to keeping troops in Iraq to support reconstruction. As Belmont Club pointed out, that switch lasted to 2006, when pal and felon Tony Rezko saw his Iraqi reconstruction project fall through.

As for the website's claim that "no progress" has been made in meeting the Iraqi benchmarks, well, that is quite the baldfaced lie. Almost all the military benchmarks have now been met, and regarding the political benchmarks, four of those were met in February alone.

Normally, I would put such misrepresentations down to a politician's slippery grip on the truth, but with Obama there is good reason to believe that he simply has no idea that these benchmarks were met.

[T.B.]

The Times report is wrong; the number of Iraqis dying in Iraq, while lower than in most of 2007 (that is, when the failed surge caused more Iraqis to die, and before Sadr's cease-fire caused violence levels to drop despite the failure of the surge), are still at the levels of early 2005. The violence levels of 2005 caused the breakdown of civil society in Iraq, and were generally described at the time as a low-level civil war.

So Obama should change "2006" to "2005," but otherwise the website doesn't need much updating. We are now in the same position we were in after the elections of 2005: Iraq is in a civil war, it's a bloody mess, political "progress" is fake, but the violence levels are below 2007 levels so conservatives can deny that there is a civil war.

[bio mom]

NRO reports that the Huffington Post commenters are hitting Cindy McCain for her trip to Vietnam in support of children with facial deformities. Suffice it to say that they are their usual crude selves. I wonder if they know that the McCain's daughter Bridget was adopted by them as a baby from Mother Teresa's orphanage at her request because the child had severe facial deformities (cleft palette, etc.) and would stand no chance if left as an orphan in India. The McCain's adopted her and have had numerous facial surgeries for her. She is now about 15 years old. They do not trumpet any of this and do not use Bridget as a campaign ploy. May those posters on the H-Post burn in hell someday.

[kim]

Heh, Elliott. How about 'The War Between the Sects'?
=================================

[Elliott]

That's a nice idea, kim. Plus it sounds more like the real Obama, i.e. he says A (which everyone logically equates with B) and then later claims he never said B.

[kim]

TB, would you agree that things got worse from 2005 and now are getting better? Is your half full glass filling or emptying?
=================================

[Chris]

How to resolve the uncivil war between Hillary supporters and Obamabots? It's unsustainable. Democrats out of the Democrat Party, '08. Recreate '68? A quagmire! The Obama campaign was supposed to reconcile this great divide but instead, thus far, has only exacerbated it.

[Buford Gooch]

Hey Kim,
How about "The Sects War"? (Sounds better out loud than in the screen.)

[RichatUF]

So shall the Obama has written, so shall it be done.

[bad]

TM The title post suggests a discussion of Andrea Mitchell. (h/t clarice)

[JM Hanes]

Surely, Obama's tangential website is run by volunteers!

[JM Hanes]

T.B.:

Who'd a thunk it?: The Times is wrong, the surge failed, Sadr's holding all the cards, political progress is fake, and bloody civil war rages on unabated. It almost sounds like we've finally gotten our very own Obama cybernaut here. What impresses me most in this litany of woe, is seeing the NYTimes thrown under the bus.

[MikeS]

I hope Brocko doesn't change his website. The only thing better than Obama's stubborn refusal to accept the facts, is Democrat after Democrat going on TV to say, "No way in hell, are we going to allow anyone to drill for oil."

[James]

T.B. Pay attention to what is happening. The Iraqi government recently delivered a major defeat to Sadr and by extension, Iran. The leftists feeding your news are not telling the truth.

As Mike and the Mechanics once sang,"... do you believe the things they've told you. Do you believe the things you've read?...'cause they don't want you any wiser. You're just towing the party line... Get out and listen to the whispers, because the times are changing fast."

[Sara]

Oy Vey!

Noemie Emery, writing at NRO "The Corner":

Here's a pair of tickets worth thinking about:

Obama & Hillary, vs McCain & Bill.

[Neo]

Yet another low level staffer filling out the web site when Obama was outside smoking a few dozen cigarettes.

[Neo]

Obama is so .. yesterday.

[Neo]

TM: I sense that you have the same level of skepticism reading Obama's web site that you have when reading a Nigerian e-mail.

[Sara]

Ah c'mon Neo, cut the guy some slack, he probably believes all those male enhancement emails too.

[Terry Gain]

TB

Keep denying what is happening in Iraq and tell all your lefty friends to stay firm in their denial.

"The attempted liberation of Basrah was a disaster. Sadr city is uder miitia control. al Sadr's miitia has overwhelming support".

And when that doesn't work sing from the NYT hymn book: "any apparent progress is fragile".

The more disconected you lefties are from realty the better.

[PeterUK]

What is happening in Iraq really isn't a war,more of a "police action" similar to those that occurred on the North West Frontier of India and your own frontier in the 19th century.
Liberals need to get a sense of proportion ,else they won't last long in the new political and demographic realities.

[Sara]

This may be the third or fourth time I've posted this same link:

Iran On Its Heels As Iraqi Government Gets Stronger

According the WaPo it appears the Iranians miscalculated when they backed Sadr instead of the Maliki government:

Although it is probably wishful thinking to think that a moonbat is capable of reading and absorbing the import.

[Sara]

Is anyone else watching Saddam and the Third Reich on the History Channel right now?

[ParseThis]

Of course Obama feels comfortable with the "civil war" label. People are writin' fancy papers to back him up. For example, here:

Some backers of the surge even argue that the Iraqi civil war is over and that victory on Washington's terms is in sight -- so long as the United States has the will to see its current efforts through to their conclusion.

And here:

In short, contrary to the Bush administration's claims, the Awakening began before the surge and was driven in part by Democratic pressure to withdraw.

Expect to hear more of conditional engagement "within the context of negotiating a time horizon for the departure of U.S. forces from Iraq." Some of those conditions will include regional diplomacy. Obama is out in front on this. McCain's plan seems based on hope, and his goal is more about making Americans feel good than about victory for Iraqis.

[kim]

I agree that the Anbar Awakening started well before the surge, but it is a joke to give any credit to the Democrats. We might give a little credit to Saudi Arabia alarmed at Persian eyes on the Mediterranean, and we might give a lot of credit to the even handedness of our military forces, whom the rural tribal Sunni saw protect their city mouse cousins from the Shia death squads. Far and away the most important impetus, though, was the horror of al Qaeda, whose destruction of reasonable means in aid of terrifying ends is only rivaled by American Democrats, today.
====================================

[Soylent Red]

When talking about "civil war", always ask whose definition is being used. Because what you think it means might not be what someone else thinks it means.

DoD has a definition for "civil war", and by that definition, there was never a civil war in Iraq. Not all internal struggles qualify.

[Cecil Turner]

I agree that the Anbar Awakening started well before the surge, but it is a joke to give any credit to the Democrats.

The "surge" is really a misnomer. The main issue here was a strategy shift, to the COIN approach championed by Gen Petraeus, and based on lessons learned in his earlier efforts (and written into doctrine with his COIN manual):

In October 2003, when I first met Petraeus when he was commander of the 101st Airborne based in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, he was implementing a counterinsurgency strategy with this central principle: Winning over local Sunni tribal leaders was a higher priority than military action. The sheikhs were given economic aid and jobs to get the economy restarted, and their men were hired into a new local security force.

That strategy shift predated the actual troop increase, and the efforts to support the Anbar sheikhs was certainly a part (though obviously unworkable without local support . . . but just as unworkable without a strategy to capitalize on it). This has been Petraeus's baby all along, and the credit is almost entirely his. Political credit goes to GWB for recognizing and putting him in place to accomplish it; and various Congressmen--especially Sen McCain--for supporting it. Trying to credit the Democrats' "run away before we win" strategy is of course risible revisionism.

But for real entertainment value, I recommend revisiting doomsaying from leftists (and slightly more informed stupidity from MSM and think-tank defeatists). And of course, Obama's brilliant observation:

"I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground."

So, is Gen Petraeus not talking to him . . . or is he not talking to Petraeus. Somehow I think it's the latter, and it doesn't speak well for Boy Wonder's claim to superior judgment.

[Neo]

Cause ..

WASHINGTON — Roadside bomb attacks and fatalities in Iraq are down by almost 90% over the last year, according to Pentagon records and interviews with military leaders.

.. and effect ..

coverage of Iraq has been “massively scaled back this year.” Almost halfway into 2008, the three newscasts have shown 181 weekday minutes of Iraq coverage, compared with 1,157 minutes for all of 2007.

[fdcol63]

When is Obama going to announce his strategy for dealing with the ongoing civil war in Washington, DC?

[Bubbalicious]

When is Obama going to announce his strategy for dealing with the ongoing civil war in Washington, DC?

After his next smoke break. Exactly what is he smoking?!?

[ajacksonian]

At some point there needs to be an English-Leftist dictionary so that you can look up words and phrases used by the Left and find the conventional meaning of them... We should be so lucky as to have these various sets of killers try to set up a government, put out a rule of law, wear uniforms and then establish the areas they would protect. You know the actual definition of a civil war, as known through the modern era and actually going quite far back into history? Yes there is, indeed, a military definition that sounds pretty straightforward:

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

There you have it: the major checklist of what constitutes a civil war from DoD. You know, the folks who fight wars? Seems they have to be able to properly define what they are seeing so as to address it... fancy that! From just doing the very simple 'put a checkmark by it if it is happening' sort of deal going via the US Army FM 100-20, incorporated into the JCS definitions of things (in part), you get what I saw going on in Iraq way back when things looked bad and, more or less, today:

"An insurgency using intimidation and terrorists, while competing with professional terrorists and other players such as amateur terrorists, resistance movements and vigilante groups, for headline space to conduct National and International PSYOPS so as to destabilize the government or cause a Civil War to come about, all of which adds up to a Low Intensity Conflict of diverse factions with diverse goals, although using similar means and methods to achieve those goals."

No wonders the Left can't understand that - too complicated for them and has no easy emotional tags to put on it, either. For those with nuance impairment syndrome, which is a problem many have on the Left with 'nuance', this falls under a broader category of warfare known as: private war. that category is only... well, lets see... Lincoln understood it having put forward military regulations on it in accordance with the Congressional view, Jefferson most certainly understood it, Washington knew the difference to his bones, Blackstone helped define it in the Common Law, de Vattel did a great job with it with the Law of Nations, so did Grotius in the Laws of War and Peace, and the Republic of Rome had a good idea on it for an 'on the ground, how do you deal with it' way, and so did the Egyptians as far back as Ramases II... hmmmm.... ok call it at least 3,000 years.

Today?

Nope.

Too advanced for actual definitions that are historically pertinent and accurate so that everyone can know what you are talking about in these realms of warfare.

Yes an English-Leftist dictionary is needed as it is now a foreign language being made up on-the-fly. Perhaps with monthly updates via subscription to keep up with the latest and greatest of misnomers, misused and misinterpreted words that just mean whatever someone feels they should mean.

Looking glass included.

[Paul M Hupf]

Isn't obvious by now that Senator Obama has no consistent position on anything other than to say what, at the moment, he thinks is appropriate. Consider " public funding for campaign financing"! Formerly he supported the idea. Now that he has more than enough from contributors, he rejects public funding. But in doing so he removes from public view the source of his funding. Who are the people (not fictitious names of organizations) who are his backers, those who will have access to him should he be elected? We should know now, not later!

[mike d]

Regrettably, I dont think any of this matters or will resonate with the portion of the electorate likely to decide the Presidential race. The Obama has skillfully and cravenly sold tainted goods to this bloc, and nothing will change their minds about him.

This race is Obama's to lose. Aided by a willing and orgiastic press corps, Obama needs only to show minimal competency, at a level never before allowed in a Presidential candidate.

About the only consolation is that Obama's ego, arrogance and sense of entitlement are as big as his resume is small.

[pdxpunk]

This is not the Barack Obama Website I knew

[baldilocks]

Does Team Obama still feel comfortable with the "civil war" label, or is the website due for a cosmetic change?

They don't care what that website says because they know that it won't matter to the Changelings.

Heck, the site still has the following up about Iran:

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.

[Koblog]

Obama: "My website is not the website I know."

[Koblog]

Obama: "My website is not the website I know."

[JM Hanes]

"No wonders the Left can't understand that - too complicated for them and has no easy emotional tags to put on it, either."

They can understand it when they want to. In the latest from the NY Times, note the revised version of al Qaeda "in Mesopotamia":

The Islamist Sunni insurgents alienated many Iraqis with a trail of blood and bans on alcohol and smoking.

OTOH, perhaps this particular author actually had too much self-respect to use the patently spurious NYTimes approved misnomer. I do think you give short shrift to the political cynicism underlying euphemism development and meme production on the left. "Controlling the adjectives" quickly evolved into "controlling the narrative" and -- this is key -- cementing it through repetition and thus rendering it impervious to new information. It is, for example, an immutable political fact that there was zero al Qaeda presence in pre-war Iraq. Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions springs to mind.

With that proviso, however, compiling a Lefty Dictionary strikes me as a useful enterprise. In case you haven't seen it, Rep. Thad McCotter has made a gallant start:

Progressive = Regressive
Invest = Waste
Energy = Lethargy
Green Collar Jobs = Unemployment
Change = The 1970's
Government =Socialism
Enhance Revenues = Raise Taxes
The Rich = You
Diplomacy = Magic
Engage = Appease
End = Lose

Obvious additions include:
Redeployment = Retreat
Recession = Economic Growth under a Republican Administration
Insensitivity = Corruption

A Fellow Traveler section on message coding and disclaimers might be handy as well. For example, it is, in fact, possible to refer to actual progress in Iraq without instant excommunication by making it clear that the war's status as The Worst Foreign Policy Blunder Evah remains unchanged.

Of course, terminological corruption is not exclusive to the left. The deliberate vulgarity of Intelligent Design "Theory" is similarly perverse.

[truthynesslover]

To use the wingnut logic is this where the hundred years starts??

[Cecil Turner]

If you're gonna rely on that "hundred years" crap, really ought to leave "truth" out of the nickname.

[truthynesslover]

You leave my nickname alone you wingnut!

If you must know, it has the word "truthy" in it, which I got from the prophetic Stephen Colbert, who you would know if you were as hip and post-modern as I am.

In fact I get my entire political philosophy from Comedy Central. And bumper stickers.

Free Tibet! Question Authority! Obama '08

[James Thompson]

I'm kicking all of your asses.

[Broadsword]

Ah yes, B'rak and the Dims...they are the party who always know what should have been done, and always tell us "What I meant to say was..."

[huxley]

TB -- In case you're still around, the claim that "Violence in all of Iraq is the lowest since March 2004" is documented on p. 20 of
Measurriing Stability and Security in Iraq.

A discussion of the different attempts to count Iraqi casualties, which includes Iraq Body Count but not iCasualties, can be found here.

[kim]

James, don't you mean 'Come closer, I'll byte you'?
===============================