What I said regarding troop levels is I think the majority of soldiers support winning the war, yet have a great deal of skeptisisms just like me, particuarly about the leadership skills of the current administration. Pollsters know this, so my thinking is they try to associate the war with the president. Now if thats the case, and I have seen poll questions composed that way, then some soldiers could very well support the war but not bushes hadling of the war, these pollsters are slick and they cant be ruled out as having an agenda.

What was the title of the link you gave?

A majority disapprove of the president's handling of the war in Iraq and are more in line with the views of the general public.

Hmm well so do I, but I support winning the war. See what I mean?

Now the specific questions in the chart provided in that link spoke of "Military Families" as a whole including the active soldier or soldiers in the family correct?
This is another method cleverly used to squeeze a couple more percents away from the supportive half of soldiers. Why? Well think about it protective mothers and fathers are more likely not to support the war than anyone who is participating in it. For example if I went to war, my mother, and sisters don't support it, while my father is kind of neutral on it.

Now I don't disagree that the numbers are very close to half and half at this point anyway you look at it, I read just like you that support has dropped, this I believe. However how much is the question, the very first Poll organization I thoroughly researched was family owned by an anti war democrat, and based on his own poll figures he predicted that John Kerry would win the 2004 presidential election, and of course he got that wrong. He also ran for office himself I believe some time ago, as a democrat. So there is no question if he were bias, who he might favor. Ive heard great things about Zogby International, and bad things. in general their polls are actually highly accurate, with the exception of certain political polls. Some of this researched I posted links for a few days ago.

Now my thinking is that the numbers are closer to half and half than I originally thought, I'm not seeing that many new polls online however, all the older ones 1yr+ place troop support above 50%, Ive seen two more recent polls by zogby, and that link you showed but even these place it really close, within the statistical margin for error id imagine. It said 53% give a thumbs down, and thats including the mothers and fathers in the tally. Do you believe a momma is going to be more likely to support a war their little girl or boy is fighting in, or the young lad who signed up under their own will?

Pay attention to those fine details. I could be wrong but in any case the percentage of soldiers fighting in the war that support the war is higher than the general public. Being in Iraq is not more likely to turn me against the war, if you consider even the numbers you and DTOM provided.

you said..........

I have to give you credit. You write your posts well and are thorough. The problem is, your views are what you believe and counter to the facts.

I appreciate that, I suppose but my beliefs don't counter the facts, I just support the war, based on most of all the same things you've likely read about. Your welcome to check anything I post. If something is factually incorrect let me know. As far as I know Ive only posted false info twice accidentally on this site in reference to WW2. I'm not highly researched on that war, well primarily what I know of it is from school but Ive been trying to catch up.

I offer my opinion as well as facts and figures, and I usually try and distinguish between the two. Usually By saying "I think", "I believe"/ or "I know", or "The facts are" to make the distinction.

You've brought up a lot of hard questions in one post.
Concerning a 'partition', I would rather see a form of confederation of Iraq. Minus a dictator, I'm not optimistic about a strong national government. The problem lies with dividing key infrastructure [oil, water, electricity, transit hubs], national culture sites [Babylon, Hit] and most importantly, mosques. Even though many neighborhoods are homogenized, negotiations over those key features of man-made terrain would dwarf any previous attempts at peace making. Add to that, many neighborhoods that were historically Shia, are now controlled by Sunni......and visa versa. The housing situation in Baghdad, in reference to neighborhood demographic shift, is so bad that Iraqi officials are literally begging former residents to not return yet. That may come as a surprise to those who are touting returning refugees as a sign of success.

Concerning civil war, one just has to look at the signs. Sadr's cease fire will likely end prior to the six month mark for two reasons: He is losing his grip on many of his Mahdi supporters. Supporters who wish to resume operations against the Sunni militias, and splinter factions who are continuing to be armed and prodded to action by Iran. Secondly, the oft-touted success of arming Sunni volunteer security groups to police their neighborhoods and to fight AQI, is serving to further prod Sadr into action. He is looking weaker by the day in the face of Sunni militias showing armed solidarity. If Sadr is to remain in the seat of power over a large percentage of Shi'ites, he will be forced to act. This will likely come to a boil when the number of US forces are being drawn down from the numbers present during the surge. I may turn out to be wrong, but this analysis isn't based on opinion, and we've come a long way from reading tea leaves........



Let me put it this way. In any Army operation [in attaining a goal or accomplishing a mission] we have one or more supporting efforts and we have the main effort. If the main effort fails, the entire operation is a failure no matter what success the supporting efforts had.



I'm not trying to make you change your beliefs. I am attempting to show you that the MSM doesn't always paint the truest of pictures in their reporting, and that senior ranking officers have a fair bit of politican in them, and may often trumpet highlights while pretending less flattering information isn't as important.



Danger aside, it is actually quite interesting to study the various factions, their motivations and their shifting alliances. There is so much that I wish I could post here, that gives insight into this culture and how they view us. But I tend to err on the side of caution with classified information.....I don't want to be that guy.

Here is a direct example of the above. It's a bit like a Saturday night live skit:

DTOM


In other words as a soldier you believe that A four star American General with an exceptional record of consistency, who was actualy chose to head the MNF-I for his credibility and consistency, is indeed more likely to distort the facts than an American civilian who is against the war and our president?

John Zogby who owns Zogby International, has shown in the past what I consider to be potential distortion of facts. For the most part he is consistent in his polls, but not always. Now I'm not saying that I know for a fact that he distorts the facts to favor his viewpoint, although it is certainly possible. He's been wrong before as Ive shown. However I wonder why you would trust someone like him, rather than one of your own superiors and the only conclusion I can come to is that its simply because your views are more in line with some of the anti war American civilians than that a supportive General fighting within the same military you are.

I wouldn't put Bias past anyone, or fact distortion past anyone, including a General. However unless I have reason to believe that is in fact the case I don't willingly believe anyone is distorting facts just to favor my viewpoint. With John Zogby there is evidence he has conducted polls that had results which favored his politics, only to later turn out and be inaccurate. In my research of General Petraeus I'm not able to find anything relevant in terms of him distorting facts. Nothing solid anyway, primarily a bunch of anti war gurus claiming what you are, with nothing at all to go on. Do you have anything beyond your willing disbelief in a highly ranked general to go on? Has he been caught lying, has he been caught tampering with evidence, anything?

Or are you just so disgusted with this war that anyone who simply points out that progress is being made, is quickly ridiculed. Now perhaps you and 90% of the left saw a different Iraq report than I did, because the Petraeus Ive seen and read about is under no illusions that everything is peachy in Iraq. In fact he more than acknowledged that benchmarks were not made, and that Iraq has a long way to go. Do you want proof of that in the form of quotes?
He didn't cover that up, or sugar coat it whatsoever. He simply mentioned that substantial progress is being made, and people didn't want to hear it, too bad. So is this your willing disbelief or do you have something to go on?

If you have factual evidence of bias, then please present it to us. Attributing bias just because someone has a party affiliation does not constitute evidence.

Just because a poll predicted an outcome that didn't come to pass doesn't say anything about the pollster necessarily. First, the 2004 election poll could be verified by the outcome of the actual election --- there's no point in falsifying polling data. Second, the 2004 election poll had a margin of error and the outcome of the actual election was within that margin of error. Of course, if you have actual evidence that Zogby International fabricated the data or the aggregation of that data for any of their polls, then please present it to us.

You seem to have an incomplete understanding of the statistical measurement process used in polls, net2007.

So I'm on the left now?

Thanks to logophage for addressing Zogby.

For Petraeus, I've said before in this thread and I'll maintain that he was one of the best Division Commanders that this Army has seen in a couple generations. But his report to congress said little to nothing about Sadr and Jaysh Al-Mahdi. They were, and remain our number one enemy in Iraq. The decrease in violent attacks is better attributed to Sadr's freeze than any other single factor. Yet wasn't mentioned at all, at least in his submitted report. We watched the hearing, as we had a vested interest, and I don't recall any pointed answers that attributed this to Sadr. Now, the esteemed General is in the news [as Mrs. P noted] applauding Sadr for his assistance in reducing attacks. Convienently, the remarks are coming at a time when rumblings are growing of lifting the freeze. He is in essence saying to Moqtada Al-Sadr "thank you for not attacking us". Sounds more like a politican than a commander there.......

I have re-read the Petraeus brief and the accompanying charts, and found no mention of JAM or Sadr, yet they remain our largest threat. So yes, I accuse the General of surpressing information that is relevant, yet not positive. I don't expect that you will agree with me, however. In your vast research, the estimation that you offered of Jaysh Al-Mahdi was, and I quote "I take the mid-ground Muqtada al-Sadr, told his men to lay low because the pressure of this surge he knew would overwhelm his militia. Now thats a strategic move yes, but we were putting him under enough strain that he would have likely wanted to regroup his forces anyway, the surge put enough pressure on him to force him to hide like a coward just like Bin Laden. There is however no evidence that I know of that he is able to do much at this point, from what I understand his abilities are down."

So when you accuse me of simply believing something, you suspend logic. You read about Iraq and draw your conclusions, you believe. You disregard information that you don't agree with, label it anti-war or liberal, and toss it to the side. Unlike you net, I don't have a political bias in this fight, I'm a conservative. Politics, winning, and the gamesmanship of being right, don't come into play for me. When I post my opinion, I label it as my opinion. When I post about Sadr or other events in Baghdad, it's not my opinion, it's reality for me and those alongside me.

So define for us "willing disbelief". If your definition is that I don't want us to be successful, that I want us to for some inane reason, lose......then you are mistaken. If your definition is that I simply have a case of saggy diapers and hate being in Iraq......then you are mistaken.

I believe I said I cant prove that Zogby has tampered with any evidence, Did I not? My only objective was to look for inconsistancies
in both these men to see what they are all about. Now critisisms on John Zogby seem consistant and based on prior mishaps. Critisisms
on Petraus seem constant yet based on nothing more than millions of people being more than willing to accept that if someone says progress
is being made they are surely distorting facts.

Now neither of these men I can prove distorted any information, but by researching both I can tell you who has more consistancy. DTOM
believes one of his superiors is sugar coating the situation in Iraq. Im asking where is the proof? In regards to John Zogby all I
have to say for him is that there is just as much reason if not more to believe he would distort facts than the chance of petraues doing
the same. This is based on researching both these men.

DTOM



DTOM, nice try but you are putting words in my mouth. I said you and 90% of the left, I didn't say you were a liberal for believing what you do, I simply pointed out what you and the left share as beliefs. Or disbeliefs rather, that being general disbelief in the importance of winning this war. Lets face it you don't believe we should try and win this war, and neither does the left. Thats a valid common ground that you and the left share, but I never said you are a liberal, you put that in suggestion my mouth.

You.......


For Petraeus, I've said before in this thread and I'll maintain that he was one of the best Division Commanders that this Army has seen
in a couple generations. But his report to congress said little to nothing about Sadr and Jaysh Al-Mahdi. They were, and remain our
number one enemy in Iraq. quote


So he is one of the best Division Commanders who also distorts the facts? Yea ok bud, whatever you say. As for Sadr, I didn't hear everything Petraeus mentioned with the Iraq report, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if he mentioned Sadr. What I do know for a fact is that general Petraeus acknowledged the bad with the good in his report, I heard and read enough of it to know that much. If you or anyone else say he is sugar coating anything, its because you want to believe it. You want to believe he is part politician, who would paint a pretty picture to appease to war supporters, because if you believe this its easier for you to dismiss that progress is indeed being made in Iraq, which by the way is all this man ever suggested in the first place. He painted no sunshine and lolipops picture on Iraq, and like I said give the word and I'll prove it in the form of links and quotes.

Why so many of the things you say are contradicting each other I'm not sure, but you do it a lot. First you tell me General Petraues is covering up the negative news coming out of Iraq by not mentioning it, then you tell me he is one of the best Division Commanders. Whats next?


You........

So when you accuse me of simply believing something, you suspend logic. You read about Iraq and draw your conclusions, you believe.
You disregard information that you don't agree with, label it anti-war or liberal, and toss it to the side. Unlike you net, I don't
have a political bias in this fight, I'm a conservative. Politics, winning, and the gamesmanship of being right, don't come into play
for me. When I post my opinion, I label it as my opinion. When I post about Sadr or other events in Baghdad, it's not my opinion, it's
reality for me and those alongside me.


I disregard information I don't agree with? Really? Tell us all about this information I disregard. In fact pull up specific paragraphs of me disregarding information. Do I disregard information simply because I want us to win the war? Well lets hear about it, I'm highly interested at this point. The truth is Ive gone out of my way to make criticisms of this administration in regards to the war, criticisms that I agree with, in order to show I don't believe what I do because I'm misinformed. I know every anti-war and anti-bush criticism by heart by now, and actually agree with many of them, yet guess what man? I still support the war for the same fundamental reasons I always have.

You.........
So define for us "willing disbelief". If your definition is that I don't want us to be successful, that I want us to for some inane
reason, lose......then you are mistaken. If your definition is that I simply have a case of saggy diapers and hate being in Iraq......
then you are mistaken.

I believe the second scenario is true for you. I don't believe you want us to lose, but saggy diapers sounds more like it, since you brought it up. With everything you have said, I'm not about to believe you like being in Iraq, thats for sure. Hell even people that do support the war, don't necessarily like being in Iraq, I mean come on. You've denied progress is being made in this very forum, you've suggested the head of the MNF-I is telling the American public a sweetened up version of the actual situation on the ground, you've suggested the U.S. cannot expand its own military by a puny 100,000 troops, well actually less, you've suggested this war cannot be won realistically, while simultaneously suggesting that you interject reality into the conversation by convincing everyone the war cant be won, with your pessimistic viewpoint, yet you don't hate being in Iraq?

Sorry for being so blunt and forward but come on throw me a bone here man, Ive been talking to the anti-war on both the left and right for years, Ive gotten to understand them on many levels. Its ok, you can admit you hate being in Iraq, just be honest about it, its obvious in your words. Do you want about a dozen quotes of yours that have me believing this? I can do that if you want, my memory is sharp, so I know this is not misplaced logic on my part.

Then, why bring it up?


And these criticisms would be...


Well, I can't speak for millions of people (though you seem to have no trouble doing so). I can speak for what I've read on this debate thread and I do not think anyone has accused Petraeus of "distorting facts". I believe DTOM has made the argument that Petraeus has omitted facts. DTOM makes a convincing case for this too.


First, John Zogby runs/owns a political/social/market research group called Zogby International. Zogby International creates the polls; manages the data; and generates the methodology. John Zogby may decide what to poll but, after that, it is out of his hands. If it were otherwise, the Zogby poll would not be respected and no one would purchase the data. Zogby International exists to make money: it isn't a charity.

Second, you have not presented any evidence about John Zogby's "constistancy" [sic] other than to impugn his polls because he's liberal --> thus must have bias --> thus this bias has tainted the polls produced by his company. This is nothing but an ad hominem attack and a type of fallacy that often appears in your posts.

Third, Petreaus, unlike John Zogby and the polls produced by his company, wrote his own report about Iraq. It was his words and not words of anyone else. In other words, these are not comparable situations.

If you'd like a bit of advice, I'd suggest that you avoid the ad hominem fallacies. Instead focus on the actual arguments and evidence. If you can prove that the Zogby 2004 election poll (or any Zogby poll for that matter) is biased, tainted, corrupt or any way invalid, then please share this with us (I would certainly like to be aware of this). If you can prove that John Zogby is biased, tainted, corrupt, etc. AND that this bias affects his polls to invalidate them in any way, then please share this with us. Otherwise, please stop with the ad hominems. It's too tiring to dissect the parts of your posts that are meaningful from that which is not meaningful: it'll just be easier to ignore them entirely.

You........

If you'd like a bit of advice, I'd suggest that you avoid the ad hominem fallacies. Instead focus on the actual arguments and evidence. If you can prove that the Zogby 2004 election poll (or any Zogby poll for that matter) is biased, tainted, corrupt or any way invalid, then please share this with us (I would certainly like to be aware of this).

When I first replied about Zogby in this forum pages back I provided links to back the conclusion I came on him, which was basically that I have no reason to trust him beyond anyone else. While consistent in most fields with his polling, political related stuff has not always been so consistent. I highly disagree that he has little influence over his polls by the way, he leads the company, hes not even the only Zogby on the staff list from what I remember. Not only did he found his company, he also obviously probably played a large part in hireing employees and overseeing the material they compose. Any head of any business is going to oversee the work of the company and make changes as they deem necessary. Maybe he is right in this particular poll, but I do know several things. He is against the war, he does not like Bush, he is a self proclaimed left wing democrat, he has been wrong in the past with polls that clearly favored his politics, and he has a high amount of criticisms made online for this reason. Ive shown that in links.

While ultimately inconclusive, I wonder why so many throw somebody like Zogby the bone, yet not someone as consistent and highly regarded as General Petraeus. The conclusion Ive come to is none other than a great deal of people need to believe Petraeus is a liar, otherwise god forbid, this administration has done something right in regards to this surge. Thats a notion some people don't want to consider, they just don't. So they will look elsewhere, whether it be at Sadr's ceasefire, or the idea that Petreaus is just flat out lying. Call it sugar coating all you want, but what people are really suggesting is he is lying. Saying he is lying has earned many the insensitive unsubstantiated award, so many people changed the criticism to "sugar coating" to avoid such a label.

Perhaps you should read a little closer before you embark on a diatribe. in 2003 Major General David Petraeus was the Commander of the 101st Airborne Division. As such, I hold him to have been one of the finest Division Commanders this Army has seen in at least two generations. Not is a Division Commander net, was a Division Commander. There is a chasm of press briefings, congressional hearings and juggling the politics of national security and foreign policy concerns between a Division Commander and a Multi-National Combatant Commander. If you don't believe that political forces come into play at that level, then there is a bridge somewhere with your name on it.

And what's with 'bud'? Can I start calling you 'sport'?



Ah, so you don't know everything that he briefed, but "you wouldn't be surprised if he mentioned Sadr"? That's some crack research. I'll save you the trouble. I re-read his submitted testimony and accompanying charts this morning to make sure I didn't miss hearing him mention Sadr, as I don't remember him doing. After searching the documents, not...one...mention. So while we're on Sadr, let's review what else you had to say, bear with me as this doesn't fit into your argument, you may find it painful.

"So they will look elsewhere, whether it be at Sadr's ceasefire, or the idea that Petreaus is just flat out lying."

If I wanted to simply ignore all the good news and find anything bad, as you seem to claim.....I don't have to look far. Jaysh Al-Mahdi perpetrated the majority of attacks against coalition forces. Moqtada Al-Sadr announces a cease fire at the end of August. Attacks decrease. Petraeus fails to mention the cease fire as not only the primary instrument, but not at all when he briefs Congress. Now that there are growing reports and fairly solid analysis that the cease fire will be lifted [for reason I have mentioned already in this thread] Petraeus publicly applauds Sadr for not attacking us. Starting to sound like a garden variety politician.


BBC


GlobalSecurity

Having said that:

You want to believe he is part politician, who would paint a pretty picture to appease to war supporters

Not necessarily war supporters [I don't think he is specifically out to please you], but yes.

If you or anyone else say he is sugar coating anything, its because you want to believe it.

Well, OK. But you appear to be the one who doesn't really understand the Sadr/JAM dynamic. Whatever I believe would seem to be irrelevant in the face of facts.

because if you believe this its easier for you to dismiss that progress is indeed being made in Iraq

For what possible reason would I simply 'believe' in something with no facts or reality to back it up? That sillyness would be akin to believing in a deity.

I will state again: I believe [based on analysis of intelligence] that in order to maintain control over a splintering Madhi Army, and in order to keep Tehran from controlling the largest Shia militia in Iraq, Sadr will lift the cease fire on or before the six month mark. That [if it occurs] will bring back into play the largest armed threat to US forces, not to mention Baghdad in general. Further compounding Sadr is the rise of Sunni milita, ordained by the US, but spurned by the Maliki government. These militias, [call them CLC, IPV, PPV....] constitute a threat to Sadr's control over ministries and key neighborhoods in Baghdad.
Add to that the increased violence in other parts of Iraq, namely north of Baghdad, as insurgents escaped the effects of the surge. Will they return with a decrease in US manpower? We shall see, but I don't believe they would not return. So while you see progress, I see a cauldron ready to boil over.

The conclusion Ive come to is none other than a great deal of people need to believe Petraeus is a liar, otherwise god forbid, this administration has done something right in regards to this surge.

No net, a great deal of people have actually attempted to see more than black and white, which ironically is what you exhort us to do.

Dontreadonme


Ok he has moved on since 2003, on to bigger and better things so to speak. However this dodges the inconsistencies I was pointing out, You said he is both giving inaccurate descriptions of the situation on the ground, and you hold him to have been one of the finest Division Commanders this Army has seen in at least two generations, and you said both in the span of like 3 post. So did it take him holding the position of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, which he took on this January for you to basically label him a liar, or did that pretty much become the case after September 10th when he reported the situation in Iraq to the American people. Did that just erk you or what?

You basically went from calling him a Mercadies Bends, to calling him a ford POS just like that. Although I think most say he "Sugar Coated" the situation, rather than just blurting out he lied, same thing if you ask me.

Lol, and whats wrong with bud? I could call you Mr Rogers, if you like the sound of that. However I risk having you sing "Wont you be my Neighbor" at the end of each post, consequently scaring most of the people in here.






No I wouldn't be surprised, if somewhere in hours of reporting (and mind you they spoke to more than congress) that he mentioned Sadr's cease fire. If not, then its probably because he wasn't asked. Now the point I'm making is regardless of that he did say a number of things that obviously indicated that he was giving no false impressions. He reported that political benchmarks were not meet by Iraq, he reported that Iraq is still more than dangerous and that they are not where they need to be. When asked if being in Iraq makes America safer he replied "I don't know" Thats not something that can be known for sure anyway, unless you can compare today to what would have happened if we flat out ignored Iraq. So to me he seemed to give honest and sincere answers to serious questions.

Regarding the first part of the second paragraph above, well why on earth do you think I would suggest you ignore the good news? Things you say basically. You put a negative spin on most of the good news there is, while failing to give any real credit to our military for helping to bring down violence. 3 weeks ago you flat out said things are getting worse fast in Iraq, and I later quoted you saying that. At one point I mentioned the improvement in Anbar, and you said its not important because its nothing but desert out there, you said Baghdad was important, so I showed that statistically things improved their dramatically as well, which was not what you were reflecting at all. When I debate I tend to remember little things so say what you mean and mean what you say. I have every reason to claim that you ignore the good, its evident in your own posting. You may mention some good stuff because you don't really have a choice,
but I don't particuarly remember you doing so without following it up with why its not important or not occurring because of our actions.


Thanks for admitting that




What your not considering is one very important thing however, Iraqi citizens are cooperating with us now on a level that they were not before the surge, do you agree? Now thats a factor because you have to consider that the overall objective anyway as you know is to have Iraq get in a state where they can deal with these problems on their own. You were talking about that in some of your most recent post. Now it is true from what I know that this is more progress with Iraqi locals than the Iraqi military but I see it playing a part in this when Sadr does have his men venture back out. Unfortunately we don't know for sure what effect this will have when it happens, but we will see. I hope for the best, while having confidence in our men, and in Iraq for that matter. I know they have failed to meet benchmarks, but at the same time they have not been taking steps backwards either. We can do this, however the key will be maintaining this level of violence or lower till election time next year, if we manage that we could very well be in a position where we are within reach of a win enough so that perhaps someone like Hillary would be willing to finish the job.

I'm optimistic now, and I want so bad for this thing to be over soon. I do not want our men to have done this for nothing however, I'm not willing to accept 4000 dead Americans fought for a lost cause. I'm sure you've looked at many of our accomplishments and thought to yourself how great it is to be a part of this nation. I mean I love this country, we take some hits from around the world, as well as some ridicule, and like Randy Newman would sing "We're not perfect, but heaven knows we try" Yet we've accomplished things that no other nation has even come close to in so many areas. In retrospect it seems pretty hard to believe that we cant win this war, with all the things we have accomplished in the past, things that mind you many people said we would fail at doing.
There are many examples of this but my favorite would have to be the Apollo Moon program of the 60's and 70's.

What do you mean by "no reason to trust him beyond anyone else"? This seems like a meaningless tautology to me.


This is your argument?

1. Zogby is the head of a company and is a liberal
2. A liberal CEO will introduce liberal bias into his company's products
3. Therefore, Zogby International produces polls with a liberal bias

In my previous post, I demonstrated how this is clearly a type of logical fallacy, known as the ad hominem fallacy. Please read here for a description of both the ad hominem and the ad hominem tu quoque fallacies.

Let me reiterate, your links and your "vast" research into the matter for John Zogby and Zogby International has proven nothing. All you've done is state that liberals will bias their work towards liberal ideology. Not only is this simply an unproven poisoning the well fallacy but one wonders how you're able to form "unbiased" opinions at all given this assertion of yours. If someone with a known political ideology -- be it liberal, conservative, libertarian, green, etc. -- were to create a poll or make any sort of factual argument, you (net2007) must by definition dismiss their position as biased.


You seem very defensive here, net2007. Let me see if I can clear up your confusion on this matter (I suspect not)...

DTOM was attacking the position promoted by Petraeus, that is, he was not attacking the person. DTOM made very convincing counter-arguments to Petraeus' Iraq report. DTOM demonstrated how Petreaus' omission of certain items (such as the JAM ceasefire) was very telling -- painting a picture (via omission) that avoids the reality on the ground in Iraq.

DTOM was not saying: because Petraeus was pro-war or conservative or what have you, that his arguments were tainted, biased, corrupt and thus unreliable and should be dismissed. DTOM was not saying this and you seem to have missed this.

On the other hand, you (net2007) proceeded to attack John Zogby, the person, in order to dismiss his company's poll concerning US troop morale in Iraq. Do you even understand the difference?

Please, please, please read the primers provided right here on AD in order to learn how to debate. This forum is not a blog or a flamefest. You'll need to go elsewhere if that's your agenda.

So you're saying that I can't believe Petraeus was a great Division Commander, AND believe that he omitted speaking of Sadr and Jaysh Al-Mahdi in the briefing to Congress? Let's test your theory: I believe that Petraeus was a great Division Commander AND he omitted briefing the Sadr/JAM dynamic to Congress. Your logic is now faulty. You're trying to mix pineapples and tomatoes to suit your argument.


He seemed to omit a very real and looming threat to any future stability, and seemed to omit a very real reason for the reduction in attacks. One might say that his testimony would give people a false impression.



It may seem that way to you, but it also seems that you take the 'good news' stories at headline value, but fail to consider any context. Not entirely your fault however, the Mainstream Media frequently only reports what is nicely canned and consumable by the public. Allow me to demonstrate.



On the surface, the increased numbers of Sunni armed militia's seem like a positive move. They are collectively named Concerned Local Citizens, Provincial Police Volunteers, Iraqi Police Volunteers, etc.....
They have contributed to a safer environment, for Sunni neighborhoods. But for every action, there is a reaction. I'm quite sure you wish to believe that these fine fellows are altruistic and standing side by side American forces in solidarity. These militias are being paid and otherwise supported by American forces, which aligns them with the occupiers, in the eyes of many Iraqi's. The Shia Maliki government is spurning efforts [spearheaded by the US] to incorporate these militia's into the Iraqi Security Forces umbrella. The Shia dominated government does not particularly want a homogenous armed Sunni presence in Baghdad.

Iraq's main Sunni-led resistance groups have scaled back their attacks on US forces in Baghdad and parts of Anbar province in a deliberate strategy aimed at regrouping, retraining, and waiting out George Bush's "surge", a key insurgent leader has told the Guardian.
...
He predicted it was unlikely to last for more than a few months. It was a "temporary deal" with the US and would split apart as people realised the Americans' true intentions.
He cited last week's announcement that the Bush administration plans to work with the Shia-led government of Nuri al-Maliki on arrangements for long-term US military bases and an open-ended occupation in Iraq.
Link

While these Sunni militia's had halted any further cleansing by Shia militia's, their presence serves only to inflame Jaysh Al-Mahdi, contributing to the internal problems that Sadr is having keeping control.

Away from public view, however, Sadr's top aides say the anti-American cleric is anything but idle. Instead, he is orchestrating a revival among his army of loyalists entrenched in Baghdad and Shiite enclaves to the south from the religious centers of Karbala and Najaf to the economic hub of Basra. What is in the making, they say, is a better-trained and leaner force free of rogue elements accused of atrocities and crimes during the height of the sectarian war last year.

Many analysts say what may reemerge is an Iraqi version of Lebanon's Hizbullah - a state within a state that embraces politics while maintaining a separate military and social structure that holds powerful sway at home and in the region.
Link

In considering these dynamics, why don't you tell me how the current situation is contributing to a goal of Iraqi stability and sovereignty?



You've underscored a key difference in our two positions. You hope for the best, but I'm not hoping for the worst. You are stating the obvious desires, to maintain lowered violence. But if you're truthful with yourself, you have to take all of the information, all of the religious dynamics, all of the tribal dynamics and all of the political dynamics into consideration. Measure that against a reduction in US forces, a very possible lifting of the Sadr freeze and a very possible return of many insurgents to Baghdad, post-surge. I don't want to see Iraq devolve into further sectarian violence, but I see the ingredients for that on a daily basis, and it doesn't make me optimistic.

In Petraeus's defense, Sadr's cease-fire was less than two weeks old when he gave his testimony in early September. I don't think that was enough time to draw any conclusions, especially since Petraeus was reporting on six months' worth of the surge.

We had a thread on the Zogby poll here last year. Mark Blumenthal (professional pollster and author of the "Mystery Pollster" blog) also posted about problems with the Zogby/Le Moyne poll: the sampling methodology was not explained. The survey included some leading questions. (The question "How long should U.S. troops stay in Iraq?" immediately followed a question about whether the invasion was conducted "[t]o provide a long-term base for U.S. troops in the Middle East.")

Zogby's polls are frequently outliers, but not always in favor of Democrats/liberals/anti-war sentiment. In this case, I don't know of any other polls that have attempted to measure the opinion of troops in Iraq, so I can't really call it an outlier. Whatever its strengths or flaws, though, it's been 20 months since it was conducted. Support for "staying the course" must have changed since then, and I doubt it's increased.

I'll give that logic credit. The cease fire wasn't very old at the time of the report. However, when the cease fire was announced, it was huge for us. Imagine, the entity most responsible for attacks on US soldiers announces a cessation of hostilities. In any accurate overview of the progress of the surge, it should have merited some remarks. Planners and intel analysts were in a maelstrom for many weeks after the announcement.

As polls are concerned the Military Times has been conducting a poll of readers concerning various subjects including Iraq around December of each year, to be released in January. This years results will be interesting.

I don't think I've read this news in the forum yet. Seems appropriate here. The Iraqi government has now ordered all women police officers to hand over their weapons



Good grief. The Iraqi government is beyond hope. This is what we're working with? There are some signs that we are cultivating a new Islamic state. How ironic would that be?

Dontreadonme



Lol well think about it. Personally I don't know about you but its hard to imagine someone who is a flat out lier, or sugar coater, or whatever you want to call it, also being a great commander. To me if someone is distorting the facts, that makes me think to myself, what else has this person lied about?
If he was willing to help the president by withholding information he deemed important, thats corrupt, no doubt about it. I think what your doing by saying he is a great commander yet suggesting he is a liar, is softening the sound of what you believe.

Afteral there has been widespread criticism on those attacking this man for no apparent reason, so much that the democrats running for president have in some cases tried to distance themselves from moveon.org. I believe your doing the same. You want to both suggest he has been withholding information from the public and from congress, yet knowing you have nothing to go on you try both to be vague about what you believe, while even suggesting you have a great deal of respect for him.



No he didn't, I have had a long day and don't have any on hand sources, so while I don't have the time at the moment, later if you want I'll prove he got into specifics regarding real and looming threats, what you just said is flat out wrong. My memory is good enough to know that without a doubt, if you want proof of this in the form of links, you know I'll get them. Not like it ever helped before.



You want to know why I take the good news and highlight it as important? Because it is important, and there are millions of people not willing to do it. We know about the negatives, its on the news, the papers, and the internet, because bad news sells. Bad news is important however and I do talk about it, and acknowledge it when people bring it up, I'm very realistic when it comes to that. However far too many Americans could care less that this surge is producing results, they don't care DTOM. Thats not everyone but its far too many, I try and balance the equation by mentioning the good news, while staying true to the situation as it stands.

You, hrm well you I don't know about. I find some of the things you say hold inconsistencies that make me wonder. Most recently, I found the post that Jobius did to be highly interesting. You acknowledged his claim that Sadr's cease-fire was less than two weeks old when Gen. Petraeus gave his testimony in early September. I thought it was further back but If I had known this I would have used it as a strong arguing point because this means not only was it fresh news possibly being the reason Petraeus didn't mention it (if he didn't mention it that is), it also means violence was already going down before Al-Sadr's cease fire even began. Yet you seem like you want to give him more credit than the military you fight in, and your doing that makes sense to me at this point given the other stances you have taken. Its really funny you didn't mention that, but I'm not surprised


Jobius also seemed to outline similar issues with John Zogby, that I have.




Ive considered that the situation on the ground is complex, Many Iraqis have their own agendas. Their are a lot of factors that make this situation both unique and difficult to manage. I'm not confident we will win because I have confidence in Iraqis near as much as having confidence in our men. Now after we leave, it will be up to them to maintain their own country and we cant be over their forever, yet finishing the job is important. You don't go into a nation and say hey we are going to help you do this and this and this, because we share your concerns in the middle east, then just leave when its most convenient for us. There are Iraqis that believe in us, and believe in the mission, and want to have a free nation. If we leave and completely turn our backs on Iraq we will probably lose most remaining support, and Iraq will eventually go from Ally to Enemy.

If someone came into my county, only to leave it a god awful mess Id never trust them again. Problem with this is Iraq really is in the heart of the middle east, surrounded by nations of great concern to us, having an ally their gives us so many advantages militarily. For one we would easily be able to station in Iraq in a time of war with another mid eastern nation, and we would likely get military aid from Iraq as well. Iraq shares our enemies, so they have common interest in that respect. Abandoning Iraq, means we probably lose that support and Iraq would in all likelihood have another Saddam like dictator rise to power.



logophage



I researched him, hes been wrong with polls in the past, he's been wrong with polls that favored his politics, his methods have been questioned before, and
I haven't seen a variety of new polls, so no I have no reason to trust him beyond anyone else.



A lot of liberals are highly bias and will do things, and research things that only favor their politics, I see it all the time, its not the majority, but its enough. Conservatives do it as well, but in regards to the war the ones I see guilty of seeing things from one angle, have been mostly liberal. Thats from my own observations, and your welcome to disagree with that. The recap of my argument above, is an over simplified version of what I said.

I researched Zogby in particular before I commented on him. I decided not to put a great deal of trust on him because of things I read about him, not necessarily because he is liberal. I like to read and research a person before I comment on them specifically, so your recap is off in that respect. Most liberals are people I can talk to and relate to in many ways, Zogby I don't know enough about to say anything for sure, but what I said in prior post regarding Zogby is based on what I read about him. The fact that he is an anti-war left wing democrat, is only interesting to me because it gives him a motive to lie, it doesnt mean he would lie, it means he has a motive. That in combination with what happened with his own poll regarding the 2004 presidential election is even more interesting. I've already explained why.



Right DTOM was not saying all of that, yet he was suggesting that he covered up the reality on the ground by not mentioning the negative factors which is not the case. Call it what you want, but if you ask me thats calling him a liar. Which is fine, he can believe that if he wants, but why not just admit it?

As for John Zogby, who is not a member of this site to be flamed, I gave an honest criticism of him. No name calling, no elaborate flamefest, I simply researched the one conducting the poll and found he has a great deal of criticisms for his methods, and has been wrong with political polls before.
There has been no flamefest, wait well technically there has been when my personal status as a non solder was brought up about 6 times, in order to suggest I'm a hypocrite for supporting the war yet not fighting in it, and when I explained my medical condition a member said I flat out made it up, and that I'm pathetic. Other than that I've seen no flamefest, but whatever you say, I'll continue to post here in any case. Now show me acting like that anywhere in this forum by pulling up a quote a quote of mine, and then you can talk about me flaming.

You are misinformed. I don't think it's possible to even become a commander in the first place without the ability to "sugar coat" things. Being a commander requires the ability to dish out bad and sometimes downright stupid tasks because a superior officer demands it. It's absolutely poor form and very bad leadership to say, "Okay, people, the (superior officer/supreme commander) is an idiot but he says that you have to do this!" What would that do for morale? That type of attitude would destroy the mission. A good leader has to put a brave face on it and say "Okay, people, we need to do X,Y, and Z because (....insert some compelling, factual reasons).

So it is entirely possible (and, IMO, likely) that the General has simultaneously both told the truth and purposely omitted certain pertinent facts and remains a great commander.

I think this speaks to the basic disconnect between US civilian and US military thinking Mrs P.

Anyone that has been in the military post AIT understands this concept- in fact, it is part and parcel of everyday barracks life. The "read between the lines" statements in briefings and all the other areas of military life. I can bet when Alexander the Great was making a big speech and saying this or that, the enlisted folk were saying "oh great, what kind of crap is he getting us into now> this sucks."- in fact, I believe they did do that to him,

Yes, Jobius cited references arguing that there were problems with the methodology in his 2006 poll of troops deployed in Iraq. That was interesting & useful. You, on the other hand, argued that because he is a liberal, that his polls are suspect. That is not interesting and not useful. Based on what you've written below though, I don't expect you to understand the difference.


Nice. You've managed to incorporate a number of logical fallacies all in a few sentences.

1. Guilt by association
2. Composition (for liberals) and Division (for John Zogby)
3. Biased sample
4. and last by not least: Ad hominem tu quoque


Let me use your logic back at you...

You are part of the pro-war right wing movement, thus you have a motive to lie about the war. I'm not saying you are lying; you just have a motive to do it. Thus, since you have a motive to lie, then your arguments should be...um...ignored.


Yes, it is clear that you don't understand the difference between a criticism of Petreaus' report and a criticism of Petreaus, the man or general. If you can't understand this difference, there is no point in debating further on this subject. In fact, I suspect this is the foundation of all your defensiveness here on AD. When someone questions your arguments, you seem to think they are questioning you, the person, that they are somehow calling you a liar (which they are not).

I knew him as the Commander of the 101st Airborne Division, I respect the job he did there, and I respect his distinguished career. He omitted the single most important event to occur during the surge. What is difficult for you to grasp?



He omitted the single most important event to occur during the surge, only now to take to the press briefings and thank Sasdr for not attacking us. Sugar coat it all you want, facts are facts.



If I was prone to lie, I would give credit to my military wouldn't I? I have enough intellectual honesty to report things as I see them and as I know them. I don't make this point of argument simply on what I believe or want to believe.



Then when those myriad of agendas, sects and power plays are brought up, why do you gloss over them, turn a debate personal or ignore them? In all of your posts you have treated Iraqi's, the militia's and ISF as one body, not as a complex situation, with no clear answer. I ask again, given what I outlined in the preceeding post to you, how does any of that contribute to stability and sovereignty?



I rest my case. Which part of Iraq are you referring to? Shia, Sunni, Kurd? JAM, BADR, Ansar Al-Islam? If you were to combine all of the elements in Iraq and divine their aggregate common enemy, it would be us.