Bored with Baseball, David Brooks Picks a Rotisserie League War Council.

Today Brierney Two wrote another column which will live in infamy. It's all about his "War Council" and how they are the grown-ups when it comes to BushCo's War on Iraq. They're pessimistic about Iraq but not panicking. That implies, of course, that we who don't agree that the best way to get out of hole that's rapidly filling with water is to keep digging, are panicking. It's a classic Brierney column written not to reasonably argue a point but instead to appeal to the emotions of people whose hands are bloody from clapping louder over a quickly-fading Tinkerbell.

As a result we get unsubstantiated and inflammatory statements, "In Washington, some blog-pleasing politicians think we should quickly leave Iraq." And scolding dolchstoslegende like "There are no optimists among my gurus. But there is no hopelessness either," contrasted with "Their faith that success is still plausible is based on a few key realities. " We who oppose Dear Leader are, after all, faithless. As usual with the Brierney, there's too much for one panic-prone blogger to handle - we do have to eat and sleep. But I hope someone explains this part of the nonsense to me:

My War Council is divided on what America's role in these operations should be. Some argue that U.S. forces are an irritant and should be kept in the background so as not to alienate Iraqis. A growing number feel that Iraqis hate anarchy more than U.S. troops, and that American forces have to move out of their bases and onto the streets if security is going to be restored.

But all agree the insurgency can be suppressed if there are enough boots on the ground, or as Marine Lt. Col. Norman Cooling told Stars and Stripes: "The insurgent activity is directly proportional to the force density in the area. But that force density doesn't have to be American."

Forget for a minute that keeping some American forces in Iraq is a cornerstone of Murtha's plan and that internationalizing the military presence in Iraq is a big part of everyone else's. I'm stuck on the math Brierney is citing. Directly proportional? If the insurgent activity is directly proportional to force density isn't that an argument to get out as soon as possible? Or is this more of that famous flypaper strategizing? I guess the pessimists can figure that one out. I'm too busy panicking that these people are in charge.

Comments

[Thomas Nephew]

You're right, either Cooling meant to say "inversely" instead of "directly", or we're weeks away from choppers-at-the-embassy photos.

[eRobin]

Whew. I thought I was going nuts. I read that paragraph five times and even double-checked the defintions of directly and indirectly proportional.

Funny you mention the helicopters on the embassy roofs. That memo leaked to the pro-war WaPo talks about Iraqis helpful to the Americans wanting to know what's going to be set up to protect them in case of withdrawal. They should talk to the Vietnamese about that. We aren't so good at that part of the equation.

[DavidByron]

Here's the article in Stars and Stripes on-line

Quote appears accurate:
“The insurgent activity is directly proportional to the force density in the area. But that force density doesn’t have to be American. That is why the Iraqi security forces are so important,”

Which means it was copied without spotting the problem. neither The Stars and Stripes people nor any of the NYT people.

LOL. Your professional stenogrophers at work.