What insurgency?...or, yet another throe-away statement by the Bush administration

I must admit that although I had the idea for this post once I heard about Rumskull's comments about how long insurgencies last, much of the information herein was presented first by The Daily Show in a segment from June 27 entitled "War of the Words" (for the near future, a video of the segment can be seen here). With that in mind, make sure you have your hip waders handy, 'cuz the bullshit is going to get mighty deep.

The tipping point: Cheney on Larry King

On May 30, 2005, Larry King interviewed Vice President Cheney. Of course, the subject of Iraq was addressed:

KING: When do we leave?

D. CHENEY: We'll leave as soon as the task is over with. We haven't set a deadline or a date. It depends upon conditions. We have to achieve our objectives, complete the mission. And the two main requirements are, the Iraqis in a position to be able to govern themselves, and they're well on their way to doing that, and the other is able to defend themselves, and they're well on their way to doing that. They just announced that in the last day or two here, there've been stories about a major movement of some 40,000 Iraqi troops into Baghdad to focus specifically on the problem there.

KING: You expect it in your administration?

D. CHENEY: I do.

KING: To be removed. It's not going to be -- it's not going to be a 10-year event?

D. CHENEY: No. I think we may well have some kind of presence there over a period of time. But I think the level of activity that we see today, from a military standpoint, I think will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency. We've had reporting in recent days, Larry, about Zarqawi, who's sort of the lead terrorist, outside terrorist, al Qaeda, head of al Qaeda for Iraq, may well have been seriously injured. We don't know. We can't confirm that. We've had reporting to that effect.

(emphasis added). For the sake of convenience, here are the main points from the above excerpt:

• The U.S. will leave Iraq in less than 10 years.
• The U.S. will leave before the end of the Bush administration.
• The insurgency is in its last throes.

A U.S. General and the Iraqi Prime Minister say something different.

On June 23, 2005, General John Abizaid, Commander of U.S. Central Command and the highest ranking officer for the Middle East, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. As reported by the AP:

The top American commander in the Persian Gulf told Congress on Thursday that the Iraqi insurgency has not grown weaker over the past six months, despite a claim by Vice President Dick Cheney that it was in its "last throes."

*******

Abizaid told the panel: "I believe there are more foreign fighters coming into Iraq than there were six months ago." As to the overall strength of the insurgency, Abizaid said it was "about the same" as six months ago.

The New York Times quoted General Abizaid as adding, "There's a lot of work to be done against the insurgency." Gosh, that ain't quite what Cheney said, now is it?

Last week Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari was in Washington, and he spoke at the Council of Foreign Relations last Thursday. The New York Times reporting the following:

Dr. Jaafari, speaking at the Council of Foreign Relations here, supported the White House argument that the situation in Iraq was steadily improving, despite continuing attacks. He also warned against setting a timetable for troop withdrawal. When he was asked Thursday evening about Mr. Cheney's recent comments, he sidestepped the issue.

*******

Yet despite his care not to differ with the White House, Dr. Jaafari appeared at one point to side with General Abizaid, who told Congress that foreign fighters were still entering Iraq. Mr. Jaafari agreed that Iraq's borders were still not secure and that terrorists continued to flow into Iraq. He made no effort to quantify how many have entered the country, or how important they have been in the insurgency.

As shown below, Cheney tried to seriously spin his "last throes" comments, but there is no reasonable argument that he did not intend to convey that the insurgency was close to being finished. The statements last Thursday by the top U.S. military commander in the region and the Iraqi Prime Minister plainly show the contrary, and there is no reasonable argument to the contrary.

Cheney the Prime Spin-ister

Following Gen. Abizaid's testimony, Cheney was interviewed on CNN by Wolf Biltzer.

BLITZER: Let's talk about some controversial comments you recently made suggesting the insurgents in Iraq were in, your words, in their "last throes." Do you want to revise or amend those comments?

CHENEY: No, but I'd be happy to explain what I meant by that. If you go back over a year ago, we intercepted a message from Zarqawi, the top terrorist in Iraq, sent to Osama bin Laden. And it basically said that, if the Iraqis were successful in establishing a democracy in Iraq -- standing up a viable government -- that he'd have to pack his bags and go elsewhere. And he was obviously very concerned about that possibility.

And what's happened since then, of course, is that we've had considerable success. We've transferred sovereign authority about a year ago, held elections in January. [The] first free elections in Iraq in a very long time. We've set up an interim government. There's a constitutional process in place now. ...

Later this year, there'll be a referendum on the constitution, and then national elections ... at the end of the year in the fall. So the political process is ... making significant progress.

To be fair, there has been some progress. However, there is some question as to just how "established" the Iraqi government is (see Larry Diamond on "democracy" in Iraq). Still, let's just assume that all the progrees cited by Cheney is at the level he proclaims it to be. Cheney's theory is that establishing a democracy in Iraq will end the insurgency. Thus, the best case scenario under Cheney's analysis is that by the end of 2005 the insurgency will be finished. Of course, just because a new Iraqi government will be elected by the end of the year does not guarantee an end to the violence, as evidenced by the continued violence--and insurgency--since the elections in February. Now I know what some of you are thinking. The level of violence has decreased since the February elections, so Cheney is right. Well, I'll let Rumskull address that argument, but for now understand that Cheney's "explanation" does not in any way address the facts as stated above by Gen. Abizaid and Prime Minister Jaafari. In Cheneystan, democracy will magically bring an end to the insurgency--just like the Iraqis would greet us as great liberators and there would be no insurgency.

Ah, but Cheney was not finished.

BLITZER: The commander of the U.S. Military Central Command, Gen. John Abizaid has been testifying on Capitol Hill.

CHENEY: Right.

BLITZER: He says that the insurgency now is at a strength undiminished as it was six months ago, and he says there are actually more foreign fighters in Iraq now than there were six months ago. That doesn't sound like the last throes.

CHENEY: No, I would disagree. If you look at what the dictionary says about throes, it can still be a violent period -- the throes of a revolution. The point would be that the conflict will be intense, but it's intense because the terrorists understand if we're successful at accomplishing our objective, standing up a democracy in Iraq, that that's a huge defeat for them. They'll do everything they can to stop it.

Notice that Cheney really avoided answering the question. He did not in any way dispute what Gen. Abizaid said. Instead, he focused on "what the dictionary says about throes." Dictionary.com defines "throes" as "A condition of agonizing struggle or trouble: a country in the throes of economic collapse." Merriam-Webster Online defines the term as "a hard or painful struggle." So, on the one hand, Cheney was right in saying that throes can be a violent period, but he did not use only the word "throes." He said "last throes." That means that Cheney was indeed saying that the insurgency was about to end. And that meaning stands in stark contrast to what Gen. Abizaid and Prime Minister Jaafari said.

Some choice Rumskull riffs

This past Sunday morning, Rumskull appeared on Fox News Sunday. Host Chris Wallace specifically asked Rumskull "Is the insurgency in its last throes?" Rumskull metaphysically grabbed his bongos and started laying down one of his copascetic musings:

Well, you know, everybody's running around trying to make a division between what the vice president said or someone else said.

The fact is that if you look at the context of his remarks, last throes could be a violent last throe, just as well as a placid or calm last throe. Look it up in the dictionary.

Now, is that any different from what General Abizaid said or General Casey? No.

I mean, the insurgency is going on. It ebbs and flows. At the moment, the insurgents know they have a great deal to lose. The election was a big success. There's political progress. There's economic progress. The insurgency's been about level. And the progress on the political side is so threatening to the insurgents that my guess is it could become more violent between now and the constitution referendum and the election in December.

But does progress on the political side suggest that the insurgency ultimately will lose? I believe so, and I believe that others believe that. If you think about it, that's what General Abizaid said and General Casey and General Myers all said yesterday, that they do not believe that there's a, quote, "quagmire" as people are trying to characterize it.

(emphasis added). Let's address the emphasized portions one at a time.

• As seen by the dictionary definitions above, there is no such thing as a placid or calm throe.
• I have seen nothing to indicate that Gen. Abizaid said that a "throe" could be calm or that the insurgency was in its last throes. Indeed, when specifically asked if he agreed with Cheney's "last throes" statement, Abizaid said, "I don't know that I would make any comment about that other than to say there's a lot of work to be done against the insurgency."
  
• Saying that the insurgency exists and ebbs and flows is not the same thing as saying it is in its last throes.
• If you think about, Abizaid did not say that political success would mean the end of the insurgency. He said that it was as strong as six months ago and that there is a lot of work to be done.

In other words, Rumskull was full of shit. Still, he was at that time doing his best to back up Cheney. And then later in the interview, Rumskull said something in total contravention of Cheney:

That insurgency could go on for any number of years. Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years.

Un-freaking-believable. Five to twelve years does not in any conceivable way constitute last throes. For once, I agree with Rumskull. This insurgency could go on for years.

Rumskull went from Fox over to NBC's Meet the Press, where the following exchange took place:

MR. RUSSERT: For the sake of clarity for the American people, what about this insurgency? Is it in its last throes or is it alive and well and vibrant and strong as it was six months ago?

SEC'Y RUMSFELD: Well, there are various ways to measure it. If you measure the number of incidents, it's gone up during the election period and now it's back down. If you look at lethality of those instances, it's up.

This is not quite as good as his "We know what we know..." missive, but it nonetheless controverts any argument that the violence has decreased since the February elections, which in turn weakens Cheney's theory that the elections in December will end the insurgency.

So...who are you going to believe?

The top U.S. military commander in the region and the Iraqi Prime Minister are in positions of having firsthand knowledge of the actual facts in Iraq, and they say the insurgency has not weakened, that foreign fighters continue to come in through Iraq's still unsecured borders, and that there remains a lot of work to be done. Then, despite his best efforts to confuse everyone, the Secretary of Defense says the insurgency could last for as many as 12 years. And lastly there is Dick Cheney, who says that the insurgency is in its "last throes" and should be finished in 6 months. If any of you are thinking that Cheney is the one to believe, I offer you these words from Juan Cole:

This is the man who "knew where exactly" Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction were and who was sure Iraqis would deliriously greet the US military as liberators.