Idiots and appeasers

Uh oh, the normally calm and controlled Publius drops an F-bomb!

To take a step back from Sullivan to the pro-war rhetoric more generally, there are at least two reasons why I’ll never really forget (as long as I live) the rabid hysteria of 9/02 to 3/03 – that is, there are two reasons why it really bothers me. The first is the nature of the criticism against war opponents. That one is obvious and I won’t rehash old complaints.

But the second reason is less obvious. It wasn’t just the nature of the criticism that was so maddening, it was also the nature of the source. To be blunt, some of the leading pro-war pundits (both then and now) don’t have the first fucking clue about the Middle East. The decision to invade Iraq – for reasons we now better understand – should have been made only by those with a deep and detailed understanding of the Middle East, its complex history, its ethnic groups, its religions, its subjective view of America, it’s collateral effects, etc. – and only then after serious debate.

That’s not exactly what we got though. In fact, I would guess that approximately 0.01% of the conservative pundits and politicians clamoring for war were actually qualified to make that sort of judgment. Of course, you don’t always need expertise to make this decision (e.g., if some nation bombs Hawaii, you should vote for war – not a tough decision). But in most cases, you need experts. And instead of experts, we were persuaded to war by a bunch of people with literally zero academic or policy training in Middle Eastern history, culture, or politics – with predictable results.

Go ahead and read the "CVs" of the wise mandarins who influence the media and policy on subjects of which they know nothing. Not. One. God. Damned. Thing.

Meanwhile, ol' Mr. Resolute has announced plans to cut and run.

President Bush vowed for the first time yesterday to turn over most of Iraq to newly trained Iraqi troops by the end of this year, setting a specific benchmark as he kicked off a fresh drive to reassure Americans alarmed by the recent burst of sectarian violence.

Bush, who until now has resisted concrete timelines as the Iraq war dragged on longer than he expected, outlined the target in the first of a series of speeches intended to lay out his strategy for victory. While acknowledging grim developments on the ground, Bush declared "real progress" in standing up Iraqi forces capable of defending their nation.

[...]

How meaningful or achievable the president's new goal is seems uncertain. In the speech, Bush said Iraqi units today have "primary responsibility" over 30,000 square miles of Iraqi territory, an increase of 20,000 square miles since the beginning of the year. As a country of nearly 169,000 square miles, Iraqi forces would need to control about 85,000 square miles to fulfill Bush's target.

What constitutes control, however, depends on the definition, since no Iraqi unit is currently rated capable of operating without U.S. assistance. And vast swaths of Iraq have never been contested by insurgents, meaning they could ultimately be turned over to local forces without directly affecting the conflict.

Bush said 130 Iraqi battalions are participating in the battle with radical guerrillas, with 60 units taking the lead, an increase from 120 battalions and 40 in the lead when he last delivered major speeches on Iraq at the end of 2005. But Democrats pointed out that a Pentagon report last month showed that the number of Iraqi units rated "Level 1," or fully independent of U.S. help, has fallen from one to zero.

Good luck, people of Iraq. Have yourselves a nice civil war.