New York Times OP-ED supporting the Iraq surge?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,158
6
81
Originally posted by: Harvey
It's a freaking lost cause. Anyone who still thinks we should continue the Bushwhackos' useless war of lies should STFU unless and until they're willing to go there and spill their own blood. That includes every member of the administration.

You forgot to put "lies" in all caps.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Unlike Peejai, I don't toe some party line like his post was suggesting all democrats do being as that 2 democrat journalists wrote it who had previously been critical of the "war". A mindless sheep would do a 180 like that and after having read about their 8 days in Iraq. I don't feel so threatened about my own views that I need to Google until I find a more articulate author who agrees with me then copy and paste their opinion as my own like some here do.
This is where I disagree...anyone who posts on this forum is basing their opinions on their own political biases.

An editorial article in the NY Times that supports the current Iraq strategy is reasonably significant...especially given that the authors have quite vocally criticized our strategy in the past...and the NY Times is hardly a bastion of NEOCON propoganda.

I also don't see the problem with people posting an editorial piece that reflects their worldview...unless I am mistaken, none of us are Pulitzer Prize winners or respected journalists...many of us do not have the time to do the extensive research necessary to support our talking points...if a respected journalist posts an editorial piece that supports our worldview, I think it is reasonable for people to post said piece.

What I do have a problem with is people attacking the poster or messenger, and not discussing the merits of the article...I found it to be a well thought out article. If you have problems with what the author is contending, refute those points...but don't dismiss the author.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am not sure what the beef some posters on here have with the guys who wrote this piece.

In 2002 Kenneth Pollack actually wrote a book calling for the invasion of Iraq.
So you might think he was some war supporter.

But look at what he wrote following the war.
?Mourning After: How They Screwed It Up? which contains the lines: ?The primary cause of our current problems in Iraq is the reckless, and often foolish, manner in which this administration has waged the war and the reconstruction. For that reason, when I think back to the prewar debate, the thought that nags at me most is that I, too, should have foreseen what Bill Galston did?that the Bush administration would not fight the war properly.?

In 2005 he went in front of congress and said the current (2005) strategy was ill suited to the task of quelling the insurgency and called for a chance in tactics to a traditional counterinsurgency strategy.

Then last year he wrote ?The debate is over: By any definition, Iraq is in a state of civil war. Indeed, the only thing standing between Iraq and a descent into total Bosnia-like devastation is 135,000 U.S. troops -- and even they are merely slowing the fall. The internecine conflict could easily spiral into one that threatens not only Iraq but also its neighbors throughout the oil-rich Persian Gulf region with instability, turmoil and war. ?

Even as recent as May he was writing negative things about the Iraq situation and the surge. Concluding with the statement: ?And that means that, in January 2009, our new president will face the same awful set of choices that confronts us today. Only it will be worse, because, by then, we will have squandered more time, more money, more Iraqi and American lives, and probably our last chance to save Iraq.?

It is very clear to anyone with an open mind that although he called for the invasion at the start this guy has been very hard on the Iraq situation. The fact that he has changed him mind at such a late date is a big deal. This guy has nothing at all to gain by painting a rosy picture in Iraq. He has never done so in the past, why would he start now?

I'd guess that he sees a way to stir up interest and controversy. Anybody can state the obvious, that things are actually terrible in Iraq (like the Sunnis leaving the government, heaps of additional dead Iraqis, nearly 90 US soldiers killed this month), but by going against the grain, they can garner almost free attention. Not to mention to try to validate somewhat the initial support for such a stupid war.

ANYBODY who supported this war at the beginning, democrat or otherwise, is a total moron.

None of the reasons add up to a hill of beans, and are just excuses for war profiteering. Applying the supposed logic behind any of the excuses only falls apart when confronted with reality.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Gotta love how the fanbois have diverted the thread to a discussion of Pollack, rather than the situation in Iraq, itself. Yeh, sure, first a war advocate, now he's a flip-flopper, and a critic of the admin's methods- what person in their right mind wouldn't be?

The surge isn't just about more troops, but about a change in tactics to those Pollack and others advocated all along. It took the Bush Admin 4 years to figure that out, having been forced by the reality of circumstance to remove their ideological blinders.

The primary cause of our current problems in Iraq is the reckless, and often foolish, manner in which this administration has waged the war and the reconstruction.

Nobody yet has disputed the veracity of that statement, merely stated that it shows some sort of bias on the part of Pollack... Baghdad Year Zero, anybody? That was supposed to be a plan, not some neocon free-market wetdream?

Pollack, if anything, may be predisposed to see what he wants to see, now that the Admin has adopted the methods he advocated from the beginning...
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am not sure what the beef some posters on here have with the guys who wrote this piece.

In 2002 Kenneth Pollack actually wrote a book calling for the invasion of Iraq.
So you might think he was some war supporter.

But look at what he wrote following the war.
?Mourning After: How They Screwed It Up? which contains the lines: ?The primary cause of our current problems in Iraq is the reckless, and often foolish, manner in which this administration has waged the war and the reconstruction. For that reason, when I think back to the prewar debate, the thought that nags at me most is that I, too, should have foreseen what Bill Galston did?that the Bush administration would not fight the war properly.?

In 2005 he went in front of congress and said the current (2005) strategy was ill suited to the task of quelling the insurgency and called for a chance in tactics to a traditional counterinsurgency strategy.

Then last year he wrote ?The debate is over: By any definition, Iraq is in a state of civil war. Indeed, the only thing standing between Iraq and a descent into total Bosnia-like devastation is 135,000 U.S. troops -- and even they are merely slowing the fall. The internecine conflict could easily spiral into one that threatens not only Iraq but also its neighbors throughout the oil-rich Persian Gulf region with instability, turmoil and war. ?

Even as recent as May he was writing negative things about the Iraq situation and the surge. Concluding with the statement: ?And that means that, in January 2009, our new president will face the same awful set of choices that confronts us today. Only it will be worse, because, by then, we will have squandered more time, more money, more Iraqi and American lives, and probably our last chance to save Iraq.?

It is very clear to anyone with an open mind that although he called for the invasion at the start this guy has been very hard on the Iraq situation. The fact that he has changed him mind at such a late date is a big deal. This guy has nothing at all to gain by painting a rosy picture in Iraq. He has never done so in the past, why would he start now?

To YOU. I read the OP-ED several times to see where this conclusive proof was and it was simply not there. Nothing more than opinion of 2 guys admittedly, only there for 8 days. If posters here in the past were pulling these guys OP-ED's out to support their non-support of the Iraq "war" then you might have something, the fact that they NOW suit YOUR agenda is not remarkable in the least way to anyone other than you. Zzzz In fact, you sound silly claiming otherwise, it is almost comical. Almost...

And how long were you there to support your views on the success or failure of the current tactics being used?
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am not sure what the beef some posters on here have with the guys who wrote this piece.

In 2002 Kenneth Pollack actually wrote a book calling for the invasion of Iraq.
So you might think he was some war supporter.

But look at what he wrote following the war.
?Mourning After: How They Screwed It Up? which contains the lines: ?The primary cause of our current problems in Iraq is the reckless, and often foolish, manner in which this administration has waged the war and the reconstruction. For that reason, when I think back to the prewar debate, the thought that nags at me most is that I, too, should have foreseen what Bill Galston did?that the Bush administration would not fight the war properly.?

In 2005 he went in front of congress and said the current (2005) strategy was ill suited to the task of quelling the insurgency and called for a chance in tactics to a traditional counterinsurgency strategy.

Then last year he wrote ?The debate is over: By any definition, Iraq is in a state of civil war. Indeed, the only thing standing between Iraq and a descent into total Bosnia-like devastation is 135,000 U.S. troops -- and even they are merely slowing the fall. The internecine conflict could easily spiral into one that threatens not only Iraq but also its neighbors throughout the oil-rich Persian Gulf region with instability, turmoil and war. ?

Even as recent as May he was writing negative things about the Iraq situation and the surge. Concluding with the statement: ?And that means that, in January 2009, our new president will face the same awful set of choices that confronts us today. Only it will be worse, because, by then, we will have squandered more time, more money, more Iraqi and American lives, and probably our last chance to save Iraq.?

It is very clear to anyone with an open mind that although he called for the invasion at the start this guy has been very hard on the Iraq situation. The fact that he has changed him mind at such a late date is a big deal. This guy has nothing at all to gain by painting a rosy picture in Iraq. He has never done so in the past, why would he start now?

To YOU. I read the OP-ED several times to see where this conclusive proof was and it was simply not there. Nothing more than opinion of 2 guys admittedly, only there for 8 days. If posters here in the past were pulling these guys OP-ED's out to support their non-support of the Iraq "war" then you might have something, the fact that they NOW suit YOUR agenda is not remarkable in the least way to anyone other than you. Zzzz In fact, you sound silly claiming otherwise, it is almost comical. Almost...

And how long were you there to support your views on the success or failure of the current tactics being used?

How long were you there? Now I suppose I have to fight in the war to support it? Oh wait, that's your guys line. :roll:
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am not sure what the beef some posters on here have with the guys who wrote this piece.

In 2002 Kenneth Pollack actually wrote a book calling for the invasion of Iraq.
So you might think he was some war supporter.

But look at what he wrote following the war.
?Mourning After: How They Screwed It Up? which contains the lines: ?The primary cause of our current problems in Iraq is the reckless, and often foolish, manner in which this administration has waged the war and the reconstruction. For that reason, when I think back to the prewar debate, the thought that nags at me most is that I, too, should have foreseen what Bill Galston did?that the Bush administration would not fight the war properly.?

In 2005 he went in front of congress and said the current (2005) strategy was ill suited to the task of quelling the insurgency and called for a chance in tactics to a traditional counterinsurgency strategy.

Then last year he wrote ?The debate is over: By any definition, Iraq is in a state of civil war. Indeed, the only thing standing between Iraq and a descent into total Bosnia-like devastation is 135,000 U.S. troops -- and even they are merely slowing the fall. The internecine conflict could easily spiral into one that threatens not only Iraq but also its neighbors throughout the oil-rich Persian Gulf region with instability, turmoil and war. ?

Even as recent as May he was writing negative things about the Iraq situation and the surge. Concluding with the statement: ?And that means that, in January 2009, our new president will face the same awful set of choices that confronts us today. Only it will be worse, because, by then, we will have squandered more time, more money, more Iraqi and American lives, and probably our last chance to save Iraq.?

It is very clear to anyone with an open mind that although he called for the invasion at the start this guy has been very hard on the Iraq situation. The fact that he has changed him mind at such a late date is a big deal. This guy has nothing at all to gain by painting a rosy picture in Iraq. He has never done so in the past, why would he start now?

To YOU. I read the OP-ED several times to see where this conclusive proof was and it was simply not there. Nothing more than opinion of 2 guys admittedly, only there for 8 days. If posters here in the past were pulling these guys OP-ED's out to support their non-support of the Iraq "war" then you might have something, the fact that they NOW suit YOUR agenda is not remarkable in the least way to anyone other than you. Zzzz In fact, you sound silly claiming otherwise, it is almost comical. Almost...

And how long were you there to support your views on the success or failure of the current tactics being used?

How long were you there? Now I suppose I have to fight in the war to support it? Oh wait, that's your guys line. :roll:

I was in Baghdad for four months last year, and I've had friends spend time there since to give me updates on what's happening.

No, you don't have to be there to support it, but if you are going to criticize the authors of that NYT piece because they only spent 8 days there, then I'd think you have a basis for assessing their experience. Since you don't, I'd say your swipe at their experience is invalid.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,322
48,584
136
Originally posted by: Deudalus

I suppose thats why no liberals ever post things from the DailyKos here or any other liberal slanted OP-ED's right?

Are you guys really going to hide behind the "OMG I will not discuss an OP-ED" shenanigans?

I'm not saying you have to agree with it, or disagree with it. I don't particularly agree with it either to be honest.

I'm just saying its interesting that the paper that is accused of being the most liberal would run this OP-ED......


I tend to think it just shows the integrity of the NY Times that it isn't afraid to post viewpoints different from its own. That's part of the reason why it is considered the best newspaper in America, and one of the best in the world. I just read an OP-ED from Tony Snow in it the other day. They do it all the time.

It's an example a lot of other publications could learn well from.
 

LongTimePCUser

Senior member
Jul 1, 2000
472
0
76
Sorry Starbuck,
But this was an op-ed article in the Times not an editorial article.
The op-ed page is something of an open forum of submitted articles. Yes, the NY Times people screen the articles but they do not represent an editorial opinion. All it signifies is that the Times will publish alternate opinions.


Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Unlike Peejai, I don't toe some party line like his post was suggesting all democrats do being as that 2 democrat journalists wrote it who had previously been critical of the "war". A mindless sheep would do a 180 like that and after having read about their 8 days in Iraq. I don't feel so threatened about my own views that I need to Google until I find a more articulate author who agrees with me then copy and paste their opinion as my own like some here do.
This is where I disagree...anyone who posts on this forum is basing their opinions on their own political biases.

An editorial article in the NY Times that supports the current Iraq strategy is reasonably significant...especially given that the authors have quite vocally criticized our strategy in the past...and the NY Times is hardly a bastion of NEOCON propoganda.

I also don't see the problem with people posting an editorial piece that reflects their worldview...unless I am mistaken, none of us are Pulitzer Prize winners or respected journalists...many of us do not have the time to do the extensive research necessary to support our talking points...if a respected journalist posts an editorial piece that supports our worldview, I think it is reasonable for people to post said piece.

What I do have a problem with is people attacking the poster or messenger, and not discussing the merits of the article...I found it to be a well thought out article. If you have problems with what the author is contending, refute those points...but don't dismiss the author.

 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am not sure what the beef some posters on here have with the guys who wrote this piece.

In 2002 Kenneth Pollack actually wrote a book calling for the invasion of Iraq.
So you might think he was some war supporter.

But look at what he wrote following the war.
?Mourning After: How They Screwed It Up? which contains the lines: ?The primary cause of our current problems in Iraq is the reckless, and often foolish, manner in which this administration has waged the war and the reconstruction. For that reason, when I think back to the prewar debate, the thought that nags at me most is that I, too, should have foreseen what Bill Galston did?that the Bush administration would not fight the war properly.?

In 2005 he went in front of congress and said the current (2005) strategy was ill suited to the task of quelling the insurgency and called for a chance in tactics to a traditional counterinsurgency strategy.

Then last year he wrote ?The debate is over: By any definition, Iraq is in a state of civil war. Indeed, the only thing standing between Iraq and a descent into total Bosnia-like devastation is 135,000 U.S. troops -- and even they are merely slowing the fall. The internecine conflict could easily spiral into one that threatens not only Iraq but also its neighbors throughout the oil-rich Persian Gulf region with instability, turmoil and war. ?

Even as recent as May he was writing negative things about the Iraq situation and the surge. Concluding with the statement: ?And that means that, in January 2009, our new president will face the same awful set of choices that confronts us today. Only it will be worse, because, by then, we will have squandered more time, more money, more Iraqi and American lives, and probably our last chance to save Iraq.?

It is very clear to anyone with an open mind that although he called for the invasion at the start this guy has been very hard on the Iraq situation. The fact that he has changed him mind at such a late date is a big deal. This guy has nothing at all to gain by painting a rosy picture in Iraq. He has never done so in the past, why would he start now?

To YOU. I read the OP-ED several times to see where this conclusive proof was and it was simply not there. Nothing more than opinion of 2 guys admittedly, only there for 8 days. If posters here in the past were pulling these guys OP-ED's out to support their non-support of the Iraq "war" then you might have something, the fact that they NOW suit YOUR agenda is not remarkable in the least way to anyone other than you. Zzzz In fact, you sound silly claiming otherwise, it is almost comical. Almost...

And how long were you there to support your views on the success or failure of the current tactics being used?

How long were you there? Now I suppose I have to fight in the war to support it? Oh wait, that's your guys line. :roll:

I was in Baghdad for four months last year, and I've had friends spend time there since to give me updates on what's happening.

No, you don't have to be there to support it, but if you are going to criticize the authors of that NYT piece because they only spent 8 days there, then I'd think you have a basis for assessing their experience. Since you don't, I'd say your swipe at their experience is invalid.

I have lived in Dearborn, Michgan (Little Iraq) my entire life so I have yours and their experience trumped in spades :p I speak to Iraqis (among others) on a daily basis, the ones fortunate enough to have made it over here, I have no choice, they have a HUGE concentration here in the Dearborn area and own just about every store there is here. These are the people whose families and loved ones are back in Iraq being "liberated". They paint a completely different picture than the 2 OP-ED writers in question and I trust their daily phone calls/communications more than I do these 2 guys. I trust the ones who are trying to, at all costs, get out of Iraq and to the States before it's too late for them. They want out just like their predecessors here in Dearborn. I shop in their stores, eat at their restaurants, pump my gas at their stations. So yes, I'd say my swipe at experience is just fine and more than valid enough for this dork swinging comparison.