Disinfopundit

I hardly ever do this, but sometimes I get so annoyed that I can't help myself. Bruce's post put me over the edge.

Apparently Instapundit has been getting a lot of flack for an old comment of his, so he decided to strike back at the "antiwar left" by cobbling together a post that lectures folks for gloating about the war, even though that's precisely what he did. He also implies that the predictions of the antiwar side were completely off base in regards to the Iraq conflict.

In all, the post is not worth noting, except for the fact that I think it betrays the feelings of those who still cling to the Iraq war as a noble venture worth supporting, even to this day. It also exhibits the rather callous views of a ridiculously influential blogger who I think sees the war like some kind of game of Risk.

I started cutting into it, and this is what I came up with. I tried to excise what we might deem, fairly, as relevant or coherent statements. Insty doesn't approach this subject sans snark, but I think it's serious enough for me to.

Some people like to call this a "Fisking," but I will dare not besmirch the name of someone with the bravery and insight of Robert Fisk. It's a riposte. Take it or leave it.

IP: "Did the antiwar left want us to lose?...Quite a few did, and some even admitted it...and the steady stream of self-satisfied gloating I get from antiwar lefties whenever there's bad news about Iraq, hardly evidence a desire to see America do well, either."

What would winning the war entail? On one level, the US did win the war, if by war you mean the initial incursion. The regime was displaced rather quickly.

The trouble is that the US is losing (lost?) the occupation, and Iraq has not been rehabilitated to anything closely resembling that which was envisioned by western acolytes.

Personally, I will admit that "winning the war" was never a priority for me. Frankly, I don’t even know what winning the war would have meant. Iraqis and Americans living in peace and prosperity today? Sure, sounds good, but I never thought the war had a remote chance of realizing that.

The war itself was a massive crime. The truth of the matter is that once the bombs were launched, we all lost. It’s hard to see any real victors in this whole affair, besides, maybe, those who have gorged themselves at the trough. Or Iran. Or Islamists, "radical" and otherwise.

Lastly, the obvious point, as alluded above: who the hell is Insty to get up on his high horse today about gloating, particularly when he's just been called on it?

IP: "Civilian casualties were, in fact, far lower than predicted."

What’s the prediction here? The two major estimates that I recall came from MEDACT (50k+) and the CASI-leaked UN estimate (100k/400k). Those figures don't seem unreasonable to me now, by any means.

The best study we have of deaths from the war – not casualties – is still the Lancet survey, which approximated 98k "excess deaths." Back in late 2004. Nearly 1.5 years ago. The figure today is undoubtedly higher. Extrapolating the findings, Andrew Cockburn estimates it’s up to about 180k now, with a ceiling as high as 500k.

Yes, pro-warriors attacked the Lancet survey hard, but their criticisms were typically shallow. They accomplished their task, though. The study has been marginalized to such a degree that few bother to cite it and, when they do, they invariably throw up the "controversial" disclaimer. The only figure of Iraqi war deaths you see frequently mentioned is the IBC number, which is a huge underestimate.

Mind you, this doesn’t even take into account all the casualties – meaning people injured or maimed in the war. If you have anywhere between 100-500k killed, can you imagine how many people have been injured? Do you want to?

IP: "In fact, as I noted in the post from 2003, the antiwar predictions generally turned out badly. But don't take my word for it. Here's an excerpt from Gateway Pundit's (GP) roundup on that topic:"

GP: "German politicians predicted: 'Millions of people in Baghdad will be victims of bombs and rockets.'"

In so far as the entire city was bombarded by bombs and missiles, this is accurate. If the intention of the German commenter was to suggest that millions would be killed in Baghdad, it's safe to say that didn't happen. However, I can't find the quote in its original context, so I'm doubtful about it's rendering in the GP post.

GP: "Ted Kennedy predicted: "A war on Saddam might also cause an unprecedented humanitarian crisis with an estimated 900,000 refugees, a pandemic and an environmental disaster as Saddam lit the oilfields on fire."

Predicted? How about Ted Kennedy cited these warnings, which were coming in from the more prominent refugee agencies and UN auxiliary offices. Granted, at the outset of the war oil fires were hardly a problem, as far as I recall, and the refugee crisis was not nearly as severe as feared.

I'm not sure why Mr. Kennedy deserves to be taken out to the woodshed for merely citing these predictions, though. You'd expect people to cite authorities when deliberating something as serious as launching a "pre-emptive" war.

GP: "The UN predicted...'It is also likely that in the early stages there will be a large segment of the population requiring treatment for traumatic injuries, either directly conflict-induced or from the resulting devastation. Given the population outlined earlier, as many as 500,000 could require treatment to a greater or lesser degree as a result of direct or indirect injuries.'"

There’s perhaps a willful effort here to misread "casualties" for "deaths." Again, that prediction doesn't seem unrealistic now, whatsoever. (See above)

GP: "Ted Kennedy also predicted: 'The U.S. could run through "battalions a day at a time" and that the fighting would look like "the last fifteen minutes of 'Private Ryan.'"

Cuing my broken record: why we should persecute people for relaying the opinions of other informed sources is beyond me -- in this case, from within the US military (!). Maybe this didn’t happen from March – April 2003, but I wouldn’t gloat over that now. The US has been, by all accounts, chewing through its military equipment and personnel at an alarming rate over the past three years. Plus, many battles have been far worse than anything Spielberg has put on film, particularly Fallujah I and II, to name the obvious examples.

IP: "Although each fatality is a tragic loss for America, this is still one of most successful military campaigns the US has ever fought."

Huh? By what measure? Nobody doubted the American military, in all its ~$400 billion/year glory, would be able to overrun Iraq. Did the toppling of the regime happen faster than most predicted? Yes, but that’s in large measure because Hussein’s military didn’t put up much of a fight and receded back into society. By all means, then, go ahead and cheer the initial campaign as successful.

IP: "I should also note that despite predictions of 50,000 casualties in the initial invasion, three years later we're at less than 5% of that. And U.S. casualties are falling as Iraqis pick up the load."

Again, casualties vs. deaths. The US military is at ~2,300 deaths today, but casualties are in the several tens of thousands. DoD formally estimates about 17,000, but the figure is far higher than that -- yes, even higher than 50,000.

IP: "The 'Arab Street' didn't rise (the Iraqi insurgency, which is a mixture of foreign fighters and Ba'athist holdouts hardly counts, and there weren't riots and insurrection elsewhere in the region, as was predicted -- apparently, we neglected to publish cartoons, which seem to incite more unrest than invasions)."

This is silly. Maybe you didn’t see mass chaos in Arab capitals, but the anger towards the invasion has not been hard to find. The central accusation of the antiwar movement on this front, as I recall it, was that the invasion would turn the Arab world against the US (even more) -- not that Riyadh or Beirut would burn to the ground. The former has indeed happened, as the most relevant polling from the Pew Center has shown.

Additionally, not too much is known about the Iraq insurgency. But of what we do know, foreign fighters play a small role (Cordesman’s study, the best there is, estimates them at around 4-10%) and the "vast majority" of the identified foreign fighters were radicalized by the war itself. In other words, the American invasion created them out of thin air.

Lastly, it's worth acknowledging that the "home grown" insurgency is rather diverse. It’s not just composed, as we’re constantly told, of Baathist "remnants" or "dead-enders." We’re talking about ex-military members, the unemployed, religious radicals, and, generally, people who have been severely alienated in some way. There are a lot of what we might call "good, honest" people in the insurgency who have taken up arms against an unjust occupation.

IP: "I had actually planned not to rub this in -- the "antiwar" movement has shrunk to such a pitiful remnant of its not terribly impressive former self that it hardly seems worth it. But, hey, ask and ye shall receive."

In actuality, the anti-war movement encompasses a broad swath of the country today. As everyone knows, public opinion has turned decisively against the war. You may not see bodies in the streets today at the same level as you saw before the war (a regrettable and scandalous fact), but that’s in large measure because people are not clear about what’s the best option for the US and Iraq right now. Personally, I advocate immediate withdrawal, but I’m sympathetic to those who sit on the fence about whether troops should be "out now."

More to the point: if you want to mock the antiwar movement for its small numbers, then by what evaluation do you measure the diminishing numbers of people who still support the war or, at least, think the war wasn't a mistake?

IP:"As for the French oil merchants and Russian arms-deal creditors, or the strained efforts at moral equivalence, well, nothing's happened to change that...Yep. Today's antiwar movement: tools of the international oil companies and arms traders. They used to say that kind of thing about war supporters, of course, but that's just another example of the way things have gone all topsy-turvy of late."

This is one of my pet peeves. I don't understand why we should castigate France and Russia for being greedy and self-interested in their dealings with Iraq. You can cite "oil-for-food" graft as being lucrative for their business and oil interests, but the kickbacks and skimming were probably more lucrative for American interests.

At base, the idea that we should take on its face the implied criticism that France and Russia were acting greedily and deceitfully while the Americans had purer motives is absurd.

Also, if you’re going to repeatedly denounce the UN corruption in Iraq, for the sake of consistency I think it would behoove you to show at least some relative concern about the corruption that has characterized the war and occupation, what's been called potentially the "greatest corruption scandal in history."

Beyond what's above, I don't have much to say. I find it rather curious that someone would choose to defend their war stance by saying, in essence, "I was closer than you in my predictions over the period March - April 2003, even though the war has proceeded in a manner since that I never foresaw or expressed much interest in." It might be a good way of scoring cheap political points, but it doesn't do much for our general dialogue about the war now, does it?