CNN War Correspondent Says Surge is a "Blessing" in Iraq
Monday, November 12, 2007 at 10:42AM Bottom Line Up Front: The surge has created a successful atmosphere for security and political progress in Iraq. CNN's war correspondent Michael Ware said, "It truly is a blessing the Iraq that I have returned to".
CNN’s war correspondent Michael Ware from Baghdad took a brief hiatus from his long stint in Iraq but recently returned. Appearing on CNN’s This Week at War, he was asked what the Iraq he returned to was like. This was his answer:
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I have to say it truly is a blessing what the Iraq that I have returned to. Whichever way you look at it, yes, American and Iraqi lives are still being lost, but they are at levels phenomenally lower than they were a year ago. There is considerably less violence. This is still a war zone. There is still sectarian bloodshed, but at least now, there is something of a lid to that and that has to be celebrated as a success.
In the rest of the interview, Ware and Brigadier General David Grange discuss all things Iraq in greater detail. It is still a war, there are still complications, but the stage has been set for continued success. When looking at whether or not the Iraqi government has been successful or not, we should look to the context of the incredibly complex issues it must deal with, including decades of fracture, scarring and abuse, as well as our own Congress and Senate, and how incapable we seem to be in bringing about progress and unity.
Food for thought.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1365290
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (13)
http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/16/military-support-for-the-republican-candidates
Ron Paul is leading money donations from Military personel. Here is a breakdown by branch.
Our own Congress and Senate is definitely a factor, and especially Congress! Do you think they'll ever admit we have made wonderful progress? I'm not going to be holding my breath, Amy.
nor luap,
I'll analyze the stats in a bit, I've done so before and they aren't active duty, they're usually consumer outlets that cater to soldiers like AAFES..
In the meantime, I don't care if people waste their donations on Ron Paul. It's good for the economy. But he is in single digits in every Republican poll so next year none of this will matter.
I will be interested in your analysis. I expect that you will have to overcome these statistics to advance your dismissal. Either you have to prove that the stats are not real, or that the stats based on active soldiers broken down by branch are not important for some other reason. You claim that they are not active duty, but taken at face value, they are broken down by active duty branch.
What would it take for you to change your opinion on this. I would change mine if you could prove that there is some error in collecting or reporting these stats. I would assume that if you become convinced that these stats actually reflect reality you would then change your statement about the nature of Ron Paul's support. I think that this would undermine your position generally. I look forward to your analysis and for a clear mechanism explaining the agenda and the hidden misrepresentation that is included in these seemingly objective counters to your general position.
Here is another link on the statistics.
http://phreadom.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-paul-is-most-financially-military.html
I agree that it is counter-intuative, but what is going on here?
I actually did some anaylsis at the link you offered. It's very deceiving because these are not soldiers giving to Ron Paul. I'm an Army wife and not a single friend or military person I know would vote for him. In fact, he disgusts us. For now, here's my commentary from the first link you gave:
Again, this report of funds is completely unclear. "The Army" is a category... "The Army" cannot by law endorse a candidate for President so obviously this is flawed or totally made up, which wouldn't surprise me. And I wouldn't calle $100 an overwhelming donation.
Ron Paul is to national defense what George McGovern was to National Security: a flash in the pan with a dedicated core group and 100% unelectability. There may be a handful of younger Soldiers not too politically savvy (how many 20 year olds are?) that find his kooky, off-beat libertarianism attractive, but all Ron Paul will do is throw the election to Hillary if he peels off and runs as an independent. We that Mayor Bloomberg has similar designs on assassinating the GOP's chances with an indy bid as well. Without an independent to peel off GOP votes, Republicans have a good chance at winning the presidency. The democrats are in charge of Conress and have approval ratings in single digits.
Jon,
You have a very nice way of dismissing a republican who have views very similar to your own when he extends his consistency to your profession.
Ron Paul represents a strict constitutionalist position. Go ahead and take issue with that. I think you will find that argumentation will not justify where you deviate with the constitution, which Ron Paul and you have both sworn to protect. Jon, you will have to reconcile how nation building fits into that document. Until you do all of the supposed benefits that you say Iraqi blood is buying in Iraq cannot be evaluated in terms of good (which is surely there) and the bad which is certainly obvious to the American public and according to the statistic is painfully obvious to the majority of the military. If you want to spill your blood for Iraqis, no one will stop you. But don't drag this nation down for your panglossian view of justice. All goods have to be evaluated in terms of how they undermine the laws and the constitution of this nation. You don't even bother to take that into consideration, instead this post is dedicated to the superficial opinion of progress of a cub reporter. This hardly justifies a betrayal of the constitution.
Amy, it looks like you are the final arbitrator for who counts (in your cut and paste above) -- this is nice and might be correct, but you did not meet the burdens that were set forth. "The army" as you put it does not do anything -- because "the army" does not exist, it is a collection of people in costumes who are not prosecuted for killing others because of a concept of justice which calls what they do work and not murder. While I agree that there is need for these individuals, I am not willing to cede a methodological position to some collection of such people. However, you will note that in the vernacular people refer to "the army" when they are trying to generalize, I am sure that you can read this as reflection the majority opinion without trying to make an ontological turn which you make no effort to contextualize.
You offer anecdotes to counter statistics -- please show how the statistics are wrong or don't claim to have a theory about how the military supports who the statistics do not show that they support. You are simply dogging the facts here, and that is beneath the level of argumentation that you are capable. I take your anecdotes. My knowledge of confirmation bias makes me suspect them, but I do not disagree that a large community of people feel the way you do. However, I have anecdotal evidence that is counter to yours. Statistics are a way of rising above our mutually limited knowledge about what is occurring. I suspect the statistics, but you have done no work to prove your assumption that they were made up. Until such time as you have shown that they are made up or offer some statistics that run counter to these, you will have to change the strength of your opinion vis-a-vis the potential reality that you are not in the mainstream of the Army community (assuming that you will admit that such a thing exists).
Also, as a last note -- unless "the army" declares its votes separate from the rest of the field, you will have to rely on exit polling that addresses how army members voted. The primaries do not mark people's votes based on what profession they are -- so how exactly is this going to dis-confirm the statistics. We are back to the same point, prove the statistics wrong or offer alternative statistics. Otherwise you have to come to terms with the fact that your assertion is weaker in light of the evidence that you are actually willing to consider.
BTW, McCain is not the front runner -- so by your own logic you would have to claim that no one in the army supports him. The stats bear out support for McCain. Do you at least agree with that?
Nor laup, McCain is not the front runner, but neither is Ron Paul. My point was that McCain is in front of Ron Paul by a long shot. I’m not sure what you mean when you say “by your own logic you would have to claim that no one in the army supports him.” I never claimed no one supports McCain. To the contrary, he is very well loved by the military. I would vote for him. I wouldn’t even say no one in the military would vote for Ron Paul. I think John made that clear as well.
What you said was this:
Ron Paul is leading money donations from Military personel. Here is a breakdown by branch.
I just didn’t see that anywhere in the stats you sent. I saw no evidence that the so-called Army gave more than $100. As I said, the Army as an organization cannot endorse a political candidate so there is absolutely no context to the stat.
When the report reads that the Air Force donated $100 to Ron Paul, what does that mean? The Air Force is a branch of the Defense Department, not a person (the ridiculous item being overlooked is that $100 is an embarrassingly low donation). Maybe some airmen donated but that doesn’t mean the Air Force endorses him.
In other words, that link was not a breakdown of donations by branch, but you’re welcomed to break it down for me.
Don’t get me wrong, there are quite a few things I like about Ron Paul. He’d be a terrible commander in chief in my opinion and John, who is an E-8 MSG in the Army has a good consensus on this thing. Some young soldiers may “find his kooky, off-beat libertarianism attractive” as Johnny said, but if he really had the support of the military as you said, Paul wouldn’t be in single digits. In the last Presidential election, 75% of the troops voted for Bush. That’s a better indicator.
In the end, this conversation will be for nothing because Ron Paul won't be the Republican nominee. I'd be interested to see someone else anaylize the data that supposedly proves that Ron Paul is #1 with military donations, but I don't see it. The numbers don't add up.
RON PAUL: 24,965 [6,975] [6,765] [4,650] [5,075] [1,500]
McCain: 17,475 [6925] [6305] [1795] [800] [1600]
Romney: 3,551 [2,051] [0] [1500] [0]
Giuliani: 2,320 [1,450] [370] [250] [250]
Hunter: 1000 [0] [1000] [0]
Huckabee: 750 [250] [0] [500]
Tancredo: 350 [350] [0] [0]
Brownback: 71 [71] [0] [0]
Thompson: 0 [0] [0] [0]
Units are contributions in dollars by employees of the respective military organizations.
Source: Finance Reports for the 2007 July Quarterly.
Percentages**:
49.5% Ron Paul
34.6% McCain
7.0% Romney
4.6% Giuliani
2.0% Hunter
2.3% Others
Where are you getting the X donates $100?
I don't see you engaging the link, so I posted it here. Please explain becuase it seems like you are making some leap that you are not explaining.
Ron Paul COULD be the canidate -- there is no reason for you to say that he won't be, that possibility is still open -- ERGO it does still make sense to talk about his policiies. Just like when Hilary Clinton is president it will still make sense to talk about how socialized medicine is wrong.
By your own logic, Hilary is frontrunner and it makes no sense to talk about or support any other canidate.
"I’m not sure what you mean when you say 'by your own logic you would have to claim that no one in the army supports him.' ” - A.P.
Let me explain: you say that the polls from Iowa are the official source and then make the leap that if the military supported a candidate their lead would be stronger in the polls. You then rule Ron Paul out as having support among the military because he is not leading in the polls. ERGO my claim that by your own logic -- substitute McCain for Paul and you get the same conclusion. This conclusion is counter-intuitive, so I would rearrange your logic because it doesn't see to stick.
"I think Jon made that clear as well" -- This seems to make the same fallacy that you claim the stats site made, that Jon has his finger on the pulse of the army. I am sorry, but by any demographic jon is not the typical soldier. (you can read that as a compliment as well). So I don't really understand how you can claim that his opinion mirrors the opinion of the average or median soldier. We move even further away from average when we take your opinion. This is not bad in anyway, and I encourage you not to read it that way, but the simple fact is that you and he are not representative of the typical anything regarding the army, you both do highly specialized things and have more experience doing it than the majority.
Jon's dismissal of younger soldiers (most of whom are average) is patently absurd. My understanding is that they do most of the grunt work and therefore, at least on this dimension their opinions are more valuable.
nor luap,
I'll respond more later but first, the $1000 figure from the Army and Air Force comes from the original link you posted. I'll post a link to that info later.
The CBS/NYTimes poll for hte Iowa caucus places GOP candidates like this:
Romney: 27%
Huckabee: 21%
Giuliani: 15%
UNDECIDED: 14%
Thompson: 9%
Paul: 4%
He cannot and will not win.
As for my husband, his name is not "Jon", it's "John" or "Johnny". You know nothing about him or his work as a soldier in the army. He is a grunt, my friend, serving with the 82nd ABN in Iraq, 101st ABN, 4th ID, 2nd ID... he most certainly does have his finger on the pulse. He's also an extraordinary soldier promoting from E-1 private to E-8/MSG in 14 years. He can only go one rung higher.
His resume is too lengthy to discuss and I won't go into all his qualifications, but I know for a fact he is in touch with the military. It's foolish to say otherwise, particulary since you don't know him. He worked under GEN Petraeus last year and was moved up to work in the general's office who took his place, GEN Caldwell. I'll leave it at that.