Now on ScienceBlogs: The Galaxy's Biggest Valentine

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Thoughts from Kansas

You will notice that it lacks definiteness; that it lacks purpose; that it lacks coherence; that it lacks a subject to talk about; that it is loose and wabbly; that it wanders around; that it loses itself early and does not find itself any more. --Mark Twain

Search

Profile

Josh at work Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at the National Center for Science Education. He is formerly a doctoral candidate at the University of Kansas, in the department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. When not battling creationists or modeling species ranges, he writes about developments in progressive politics and the sciences.

The opinions expressed here are his own, do not reflect the official position of the NCSE. Indeed, older posts may no longer reflect his own official position.

Sb/DonorsChoose Drive


Thanks!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Subscribe to TfK:

Accolades

Best of Kansas City

Good posts from history

The Birth of Intelligent Falling

A failure of Intelligent Design

Why it's called Intelligent Design Creationism

Write a letter to the editor

My photo albums.

Support TfK

Buy me things from my Amazon.com wishlist.

Buy yourself things!

Search Now:
Search Amazon.com
Add yourself to the Frappr map!
Check out our Frappr or add yourself to it!

    follow me on Twitter

    « Limbaugh is a turd | Main | Cato's Coulson on Creationism »

    Iraq and the curse of Cassandra

    Category: Policy and Politics
    Posted on: February 4, 2007 3:00 PM, by Josh Rosenau

    Knight-Ridder's Washington Bureau, now owned by McClatchy, was long-regarded as the most reliable source of information about the invasion of Iraq both during the run-up to the invasion and throughout the occupation. I mention this because I think it gives useful context to their report that soldiers in Iraq view troop surge as a lost cause:

    Soldiers interviewed across east Baghdad, home to more than half the city's 8 million people, said the violence is so out of control that while a surge of 21,500 more American troops may momentarily suppress it, the notion that U.S. forces can bring lasting security to Iraq is misguided. …

    Almost every foot soldier interviewed during a week of patrols on the streets and alleys of east Baghdad said that Bush's plan would halt the bloodshed only temporarily. The soldiers cited a variety of reasons, including incompetence or corruption among Iraqi troops, the complexities of Iraq's sectarian violence and the lack of Iraqi public support, a cornerstone of counterinsurgency warfare.

    Senator Pat Roberts gives the war in Iraq another 6 months, another six months, saying "I don't think this war can be sustained for more than six months if in fact we don't see some progress." Of course, he'll probably forget that statement, and blame the lapse on his "memory pills."

    In any event, Senator Roberts is no longer what I'd call a reliable source on the matter. Neither is President Bush, nor wash Secretary Rumsfeld. The simple fact is that they were wrong about Iraq. McClatchy (née Knight-Ridder) was right, as were various other people who were ignored. At this point, when Pat Roberts or George Bush says that Iraq will get better, that's only plausible if someone like McClatchy agrees. In this case, McClatchy's reporting is confirming the concerns of the sorts of people who were right before the war, concerns that the U.S. troops will simply be placed in the middle of a civil war without the ability to actually prevent that war, or diminish its effects.

    Or, as Sergeant Chance Oswalt told McClatchy "They can keep sending more and more troops over here, but until the people here start working with us, it's not going to change." And that will mean engaging the political process in Iraq, and engaging neighboring nations, including Saudi Arabia.

    Cassandra's curse is to be right, but ignored. The first time that voices of wisdom were ignored, it may have been an honest mistake. The second time will be inexcusable.

    Share on Facebook
    Share on StumbleUpon
    Share on Facebook

    TrackBacks

    TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/32421

    Post a Comment

    (Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





    ScienceBlogs

    Search ScienceBlogs:

    Go to:

    Advertisement
    Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

    © 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.