DarkRen

October 3, 2004

Previous: News – Sudan: Not so massive a problem?

Muse – The Facts? (1 of 5)

Asked by a noter to look into some articles by another diarist, I took a peek and decided to muse them for myself. One of the things I find the most amusing when it comes to this recent election year is the easy way in which people bandy about the word fact. As if using the word itself carries some grand weight.

Anyway, personal peeves aside, the entries are from the diary of liberals*suck. Are you feeling the impartiality yet? Links to the entries and snippets from the entries will be presented along with my commentary and, of course, links to back it up. Considering my boredom after compiling the first, I think I’ll limit myself to covering one a day at most. Unless I get bold or something.

The Entry in Question for today

Question One: Safety & Security

Kerry’s Claim: The Bush Administration Has Shown Disdain For Allies, Treaties And International Organizations.

The Facts:

Kerry Dismissed Coalition Partners As “Window Dressing” And Claimed They’re Not Sharing Burden Of War And Reconstruction. (CNN’s “American Morning,” 3/2/04)

Kerry Mocked Coalition As “Coerced” And “Bribed.” (Herbert A. Sample, “Kerry Blasts Bush On Iraq Effort,” Sacramento Bee, 3/14/03)

A Multinational Force Of Some 30 Nations Continues To Help Secure A Free Iraq. PRESIDENT BUSH: “The multinational force of some 30 nations continues to help secure a free Iraq, and we are grateful for the service and sacrifice of all.” (President’s Radio Address, 9/25/04)

In Addition to the United States, Other Coalition Members Are Providing Approximately 25,000 Troops To Assist Our Efforts In Iraq. (Robert Burns, “U.S. Offensive Hinges on Iraq Elections,” The Associated Press, 9/29/04)

37 Nations Are Contributing Troops To The NATO-Led Force In Afghanistan. (NATO in Afghanistan Factsheet, NATO, http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-factsheet.htm)

NATO Is Training Iraqi Security Forces And The United Nations Is Helping Iraq Prepare For Elections. (President’s Radio Address, 9/25/04)

Kerry has pretty much said those things. Personally, I don’t entirely disagree with him. While calling them ‘window-dressing’ was a bad idea from a point of taste, the fact remains that while there are a number of nations involved now(wasn’t always so), they still provide a collectively small portion of the forces in Iraq, largely because most allies are small countries.

Musing the above number, lets see what we have now.

The US has around 140,000 troops in the field. The most any one ally has in their individually is under 8,000. Most under 1000. Grand total is about 22,000(from the Wikipedia list – If it’s wrong, feel free to update it, anyone can) rounded up from a little over 21k. About 30 nations involved by that page, with eight more listed as having pulled out for various reasons.

US Casualties in Iraq, over 1000. Total casualties of foreign troops accounted for, 112. Both totals including insurgent attack and friendly fire and accidents.

Truthfully, it’s a small coalition if you pull out the US. Window dressing is a harsh term, but it’s disproportionate. Of course, I think it’s fitting considering the US prompted this assault. We broke it, we bought it, essentially. Of course, the above figures are today’s figures, after over a year in.

Initially the “coalition of the willing” was made up of about 15 nations, including the US. The numbers then were: United States (250,000), United Kingdom (45,000), Australia (2,000), Denmark (200), and Poland (54), with the other ten providing small numbers of troops, mostly non-combat. Not exactly a grand coapition considering the number of nations in the world and the reletive size of most involved. I don’t consider it a collection to be proud of. The 1991 Iraq war was quite a bit better.

Calling htem bribed, again, is something that is best decided by the individual. Personally, I wouldn’t use that term. But I’m sure most of the nations who particupated will receive judicious economic consideration for hteir efforts. The US is famous for lauding upon those who support it while cutting off those who don’t where it is feasible. This is even more notable when you consider the state of many of the small nations involved, who would benefit greatly from US economic favor. It is also quite true that several of the countries are famous for the open majority opposition of the war amongst their citizens. Calling them bribed is, while somewhat true, a bit of a meanspiritwed way of saying it.

So what am I trying to prove? Nothing, really. The above direst offered no real facts that Kerry’s words are, in their prime essence, wrong. Are they mean? Yeah. Are they entirely out of line? Not necessarily. The US is pulling the majority of the weight and even after the contributions of these other nations, they’ll be favored with economic gains that will likely outweigh their own contribtuions to the war(outside of human casualties as human life has no price).

The direst above presented no facts, especially when quoting the president’s radio address and showed no clear reason why Kerry’s words, at their core, were wrong.

Kerry’s Claim: Compared To Our Coalition Partners, America Is Bearing A Disproportionate Amount Of The Burden In Iraq. 90 Percent Of The Casualties Are American.

The Facts:

The U.S. Army General In Charge Of Training Effort In Iraq Says “Iraqi Security Forces Are In The Fight” And Have Made Tremendous Sacrifices. “Most important, Iraqi security forces are in the fight — so much so that they are suffering substantial casualties as they take on more and more of the burdens to achieve security in their country. Since Jan. 1 more than 700 Iraqi security force members have been killed, and hundreds of Iraqis seeking to volunteer for the police and military have been killed as well.” (Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, US Army, “Battling for Iraq,” Washington Post, 9/26/04)

Kerry Dismissed Coalition Partners As “Window Dressing” And Claimed They’re Not Sharing Burden Of War And Reconstruction. (CNN’s “American Morning,” 3/2/04)

Kerry Mocked Coalition As “Coerced” And “Bribed.” “‘If the federal government can find billions of dollars for the “coalition of the coerced and the bribed,” why can’t it provide vital aid for schools, health care and law enforcement?’ asked Kerry.” (Herbert A. Sample, “Kerry Blasts Bush On Iraq Effort,” Sacramento Bee, 3/14/03)

In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President’s Action In Iraq. KERRY: “I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (John Kerry, Remarks At Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)

Kerry Previously Questioned Where Russia And France’s Backbone To Stand Up To Saddam Was. SEN. JOHN KERRY: “So clearly the allies may not like it, and I think that’s our great concern where’s the backbone of Russia, where’s the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity, but in a sense, they’re now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq.” (CNN’s “Crossfire,” 11/12/97)

NATO Is Training Iraqi Security Forces And The United Nations Is Helping Iraq Prepare For Elections. (President’s Radio Address, 9/25/04)

Again, the above diarist offers no real refutation for Kerry’s words. If you’ll refer to the numbers in my previous section, you’ll note that, indeed, US casualties are about ten times higher than those of other contributing nations, not including the Iraqis currently involved in security. So Kerry, again, spoke truth. By the numbers.

Turning to the Iraqis, we have an interesting topic. Yup, they’re out there. They’re fighting the insurgents and dying. OF course, their casualties are disproportionately high, likely due to lackluster training and equipment in comparison to US forces.

Of course, the above diarist takes none of this into account, spouting Kerry’s prior words rather than proving that US forces haven’t taken 90% of the casualties. When it comes to 700 of Ira’s new security sorts being killed, I’d think that’s a black mark on their ability, considering how short a time(relatively)they’ve been in service. Poor training, poor gear or both.

Kerry’s Claim: The President Is Fueling Anger At America.

The Facts:

In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President’s Action In Iraq. SEN. JOHN KERRY: “I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)

British Prime Minister Tony Blair Called The War On Terror An “Effective Multilateral Action Against WMD.” “Britain, America and our partners are determined to stop the threat of weapons of mass destruction. We have played a leading role in the International Atomic Energy Agency, with our closest allies, on the issue of Iran and nuclear weapons. We strongly support the six party talks on North Korea. We have enforced Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq. We have played a leading role in the Proliferation Security Initiative designed to interdict the passage of cargoes which could be used in WMD programs. These actions show that we are serious about effective multilateral action against WMD.” (“Text Of Blair’s Address Concerning Libya,” The Associated Press, 12/19/03)

The 9/11 Commission Judged That International Cooperation In The War On Terror Is Now “On A Vastly Enlarged Scale.” (9/11 Commission Report, p. 365)

Once again, our challenging diarist gives no actual information on the current world climate with regard to the US. Personally, I don’t give a rat about Blair’s words. He’s Bush’s ally no matter what(though recently even the UK government has taken a few minor stands against US intent).

What we need to look at for the real scoop on world regard for the US is among the people, not in the government. Governments, as many of is well know, aren’t the guage of a country’s regard. It’s people are. I plugged “The President Is Fueling Anger At America” into Yahoo and came up with this.

As the United States debates going it almost alone against Iraq, the question of whether anti-U.S. views are on the rise is more than academic. State Department officials are sufficiently concerned about growing anti-American sentiment in Europe and Russia, as well as the Middle East, that they have invited a select group of scholars to address the topic at a private conference that started this past Thursday. (Sept 8th, ABC News)

I’ve seen no evidence that Bush has calmed anger at the US and I’d love to see some if anyone has it. No, don’t show me certain world leaders kissing up to him, I want to see some show that the people of the world in general are looking more favorably upon the US as of late. I’ve not even seen commentary that sentiment against America is stabilized. Considering the show of solidarity that existed just after 9/11, it wouldn’t be inappropriate to say Bush and his administration have fueled anger at America.

Kerry’s Claim: Just 5,000 Iraqi Soldiers Have Been Fully Trained, And Of The 35,000 Police Now In Uniform, Not One Has Completed A 24-Week Field-Training Program.

The Facts:

The U.S. Army General In Charge Of Training Effort In Iraq Says There Are “164,000 Iraqi Police And Soldiers (Of Which About 100,000 Are Trained And Equipped) And An Additional 74,000 Facility Protection Forces.” “Today approximately 164,000 Iraqi police and soldiers (of which about 100,000 are trained and equipped) and an additional 74,000 facility protection forces are performing a wide variety of security missions. Equipment is being delivered. Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being reestablished.” (Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, US Army, “Battling for Iraq,” Washington Post, 9/26/04)

The 5,000 Number Kerry Cites Is Just The Number Of The Iraqi Army That Have Been Trained And Excludes, The Iraqi National Guard, Intervention Force, Special Ops, Air Force And Coastal Defense Forces.

The State Department’s Iraq Weekly Status Report That Kerry Was Relying On Clearly States That Nearly 42,000 Members Of The Iraqi Armed Forces Have Been Trained. More than 14,000 Iraqi armed forces members are currently in training. Kerry’s math also doesn’t account for the fact that more than 56,000 members of the Iraqi military are already “on hand” or “on duty.” (http://www.defendamerica.gov/downloads/Iraq-WeeklyUpdate-20040915.pdf)

That Report Also Showed That Over 100,000 Iraqi Police Forces On Duty, Over 50,000 In The Process Of Being Trained, And Another 50,000 That Have Completed Their Training. Again, Kerry hand-picked a single cell of a larger chart to play into his message of pessimism and defeat.

Kerry Advisor Richard Holbrooke Says French Troop Contribution in Iraq is “Not Realistic.” HOLBROOKE: “Well, I don’t think that anyone expects Chirac to call up the White House next January and say, ‘How many divisions in Iraq?’ That’s not realistic, and John Kerry knows it.” (Fox News’, “Fox News Sunday,” 9/12/04)

Lets go to the Pentagon’s own paper, brought to light by Reuters.

It says that of the nearly 90,000 Iraqis in the police force, 8,169 have had a full eight weeks of academy training, 46,176 listed as untrained, with a deadline of 2006 before the goal of 135,000 fully trained police is reached.

It also says six army battalions(300 to 1000 soldiers) are in initial training. And 57 National Guard battalions of about 896 troops each are being recruited or awaiting equipment. Only eight battalions guard battalions have reached initial operating capacity. The Pentagon also acknowledges the Guard’s performance has been “uneven.”

Training hasn’t started for a ,800-man civil intervention force and none of the 18,000 border enforcement guards have received centralized training to date despite claims they have. It’s estimated that 22,700 Iraqi personnel have received enough training to be considered “minimally effective at their tasks,” not 100,000.

You should note, liberals*suck, that the administration defines “fully trained” as having gone through “initial basic operations training.”

No wonder so many of the Iraqi forces are dying.

So what do we have here? WE have a Republican trying to prove facts with quotes and notes that are outside the realm of relevance for each contention, direct quotes from a president whose words are often contested and whose administration is one of the more questionable when it comes to presenting figures bereft of spin and a distinct lack of anything looking to directly disprove the words of Kerry.

Mind you, some of Kerry’s commentary, while generally on the mark, is of questionable verbiage. Like I said, deriding who is active in Iraq by calling them window dressing was a bad move, even if the statement has a modicum of truth to it.

The moral of the story is this: When someone comes to you, liberal, conservative or otherwise, and says they have the ‘facts’, you’d best look up them facts to make sure they’re not just blowing smoke out of a major orifice. Look for those who, like me, give opinions. Absorb what they have to say, then make up your own damn mind. 😉 Speaking of which, what do you think about the above fact and opinion?

I’ll hit one of the other five entries chock full of ‘facts’ later. Perhaps tomorrow after I do news.