50-50
Can't find the link right now, but maybe one of you saw the same results.
I saw recent poll numbers showing that--I believe--military officers surveyed put the odds of winning in Iraq at about 50-50.
If that's right--that is, if the experts now think that we have merely a 50-50 chance of winning--then this is important evidence of the complete failure of Bush's Iraq policy.
It's important to keep the following in mind:
For purposes of assessing the wisdom of Bush's decision to invade, it doesn't matter whether we ultimately win or lose. We were told it was going to be a piece of cake, that more resources were not needed, etc. If it is true that Bush's policies have gotten us into a position in which the odds of our winning are, in fact, as low as 50-50, then his policies are a failure even if we get lucky and pull this thing off (as I, of course, hope we do.)
We should never have been put in a position of having merely a 50-50 chance of winning. It's absurd. We would never have allowed the administration to undertake this war if we thought that there was a significant chance of ending up in a coin-toss for supremacy with Iraqi insurgents. And there is absolutely no excuse for the administration's having put us in such a situation. Even if we end up winning we cannot forget the perilousness of our current circumstances.
If your doctor told you that a certain treatment was necessary, virtually guaranteed to succeed, and had no significant chance of serious side effects, and then later you find out that he spun the evidence, exaggerated the danger of your condition, downplayed the risks of treatment, made numerous stupid technical mistakes, and put you in a situation such that you had a 50-50 chance of dying, you could not and would not later judge the doctor to have been competent just because you got lucky and survived. (In fact, if you were smart and morally responsible, you would impeach...er...sue him.)
This should be the battle-cry of Americans outraged about the administration's handling of the whole Iraq fiasco:
50-50.
Can't find the link right now, but maybe one of you saw the same results.
I saw recent poll numbers showing that--I believe--military officers surveyed put the odds of winning in Iraq at about 50-50.
If that's right--that is, if the experts now think that we have merely a 50-50 chance of winning--then this is important evidence of the complete failure of Bush's Iraq policy.
It's important to keep the following in mind:
For purposes of assessing the wisdom of Bush's decision to invade, it doesn't matter whether we ultimately win or lose. We were told it was going to be a piece of cake, that more resources were not needed, etc. If it is true that Bush's policies have gotten us into a position in which the odds of our winning are, in fact, as low as 50-50, then his policies are a failure even if we get lucky and pull this thing off (as I, of course, hope we do.)
We should never have been put in a position of having merely a 50-50 chance of winning. It's absurd. We would never have allowed the administration to undertake this war if we thought that there was a significant chance of ending up in a coin-toss for supremacy with Iraqi insurgents. And there is absolutely no excuse for the administration's having put us in such a situation. Even if we end up winning we cannot forget the perilousness of our current circumstances.
If your doctor told you that a certain treatment was necessary, virtually guaranteed to succeed, and had no significant chance of serious side effects, and then later you find out that he spun the evidence, exaggerated the danger of your condition, downplayed the risks of treatment, made numerous stupid technical mistakes, and put you in a situation such that you had a 50-50 chance of dying, you could not and would not later judge the doctor to have been competent just because you got lucky and survived. (In fact, if you were smart and morally responsible, you would impeach...er...sue him.)
This should be the battle-cry of Americans outraged about the administration's handling of the whole Iraq fiasco:
50-50.
posted by Winston Smith at
4:25 PM
3 Comments:
I saw 64% positive recently, which isn't all that high either. But I would also think there are officers who think we won't win because Uncle Sam will turn tail again.
All over the internet today is this one:
Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale — with 44 percent saying morale is hurt “a lot,” according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.
The results surely will rankle many Democrats, who argue that it is patriotic and supportive of the troops to call attention to what they believe are deep flaws in President Bush’s Iraq strategy. But the survey itself cannot be dismissed as a partisan attack. The RTs in RT Strategies are Thomas Riehle, a Democrat, and Lance Tarrance, a veteran GOP pollster.
Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to “gain a partisan political advantage.”
Oooops. Even I would not have predicted that. Word up.
Uhhhhh...not really meaning for this to be a post about politics.
Dunno what the Dem.s' motives are, don't care what most people think about them. Expect the Dems to lose virtually every political battle to the GOP. Just the way of things in American politics. Wag the flag and praise jebus and 40% of the population is on your side no matter what else you do.
I'm just interested here in how lousy our Iraq policy has been.
One of the surveyed groups (possibly top brass?) thought 64%, another group (possibly officers on the ground in Iraq?) thought 50-50. Most academicians (who cares?) thought like 20%. Don't take these numbers seriously until we find the real ones.
I've gotta find those numbers...
Winston,
Somewhat off topic, but do you remember that one component of Wesley Clark's prescription for mitigating the Iraqi disaster was to include Iraq's neighbors in a regional dialogue? Including the 'evil' states of Iran and Syria? Remember how it was roundly derided as delusional?
Well, surprise, surprise, the Bush administration is apparently belatedly hewing to that recommendation by speaking directly with Tehran. Not that they'd ever admit that the idea originated with Clark, of course.
http://www.juancole.com/2005/11/khalilzad-to-talk-to-iranians-monday.html
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home