(Secretary of State Condoleezza) "Rice, in an article appearing on Time magazine’s Web site, argued against viewing the war solely through the rising death toll. More than 1,820 American troops have died in Iraq, at least 30 of them in the last week." - MSNBC.com
Someone help me out here. Is "losing steam" better (for us) than "in its death throes"? Are we gaining or losing? It seems to me that it is worse, but reading spin is just so complicated. It would be so much better if they just came out and said, "Folks, we screwed up, and we have no idea how to get out of this." ******************************************************************** 08-07-05, 08:16 PM newnickname Cheney eventually appealed to the dictionary definition of 'last throes', pointing out that last throes could be violent. 'Losing steam' is also a usefully vague metaphor. Steam engines 'lose steam' when they are functioning just as their operators want them to - that's why you have to keep stoking the boiler and filling the water tank, to make more.
There seem to be two schools of thought in the administration, when it comes to spin. On the one hand, there's Rumsfeld with his 'metrics' - body counts, billions spent, hours of electricity available in Baghdad and so on. On the other hand, there are those who prefer fine-sounding but meaningless metaphor - 'freedom on the march', 'fight them there so we don't have to fight them here' and so on.
If things were actually going well, they would have no need of such rhetoric - they could just describe things as they were.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: newnickname, 08-07-05 08:51 PM ******************************************************************** 08-07-05, 11:01 PM AMoore I saw the story recently on Yahoo, and had a feeling of deja vu. Didn't she make this same claim about a year ago?
Fortunately, it's easy to tell whether or not the "Insurgency" is losing steam -- just check the chart updated on a fairly regular basis by "Professor Pollkatz:"
At a glance you can tell that the "Insurgency" had more steam in 2004 than in 2003, and that 2005 isn't going to be much different than 2004.
Maybe the "Insurgency" is switching from steam to electrical power.
Alan Moore ******************************************************************** 08-08-05, 04:29 AM FredPuli Dr Rice says "You defeat it [an insurgency] not just militarily but politically"
So the line is going to be that when the political structure is in place the Iraqis can be left to their own devices.
Rep.Duncan-Hunter (R) quoted in the same piece, is giving the game away: " There are always going to be insurgents in Iraq" [Q. Where were they under Hussein, who was from a minority comunity himself ? ] He goes on to say that the key is whether this Iraqi military can hold an insurgency (and he thinks that they can)
So we declare the new system of government OK and start getting out. Anything that happens after that is not our fault.
[Something suggests that the political pressure is not in Iraq and its fumbling towards an agreed constitution, but in the USA ] ******************************************************************** 08-08-05, 06:59 AM Kendor You guys continue to blow me away. Even with the evidence right in front of you, (Amoores link), you still can't admit that progress is being made. On the graph in the link, if you apply a linear trend line across all of 2005, the trend is downward. If you apply a linear trend line across the entire graph, from Apr03 to Aug05, the trend is again, downward. ******************************************************************** 08-08-05, 09:18 AM newnickname How sad. From hopes of being greeted by jubilant crowds throwing flowers, and then setting up a shining beacon of democratic capitalism in the Middle East - to a downward trend in a graph of how many people are killed every day. ******************************************************************** 08-08-05, 07:43 PM newnickname Meanwhile... "Anticipating a new burst of insurgent violence, the Pentagon plans to expand the U.S. force in Iraq to improve security for a planned October referendum and a December election.
Although much public attention has been focused recently on the prospect of reducing U.S. forces next spring and summer, defense officials foresee the likelihood of first increasing troop levels.
Lawrence Di Rita, spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, noted Monday that troop levels were raised last January during Iraq's first elections, and then returned to the current level of about 138,000 several weeks later..."www.boston.com ******************************************************************** 08-08-05, 08:25 PM AMoore
quote: Originally posted by Kendor: You guys continue to blow me away. Even with the evidence right in front of you, (Amoores link), you still can't admit that progress is being made. On the graph in the link, if you apply a linear trend line across all of 2005, the trend is downward. If you apply a linear trend line across the entire graph, from Apr03 to Aug05, the trend is again, downward.
Strange, when I apply the method of least squares, the best fit straight line trends up.
Alan Moore ******************************************************************** 08-08-05, 09:15 PM methos "If you apply a linear trend line across the entire graph, from Apr03 to Aug05, the trend is again, downward."
I wasn't about to enter in all the data, but just using the deaths per month (rather than the moving average of deaths per 14 or 60 days given on the graph), I get
y = 0.8205x + 59.55
(using Excel's linear fit)
In other words, an upwards trend.
I don't attach much, if any significance to a linear fit to something like this, but I felt the need to respond to this claim. ******************************************************************** 08-09-05, 07:54 AM Kendor You're correct methos, my apologies. But I was correct about 2005 trend being steeply downward, y= -4.4852x + 83.429, and going back to January 2004 it is still down albeit ever so slightly, y= -0.1211x + 68.321
I, for one, can admit when I am wrong. ******************************************************************** 08-09-05, 08:16 AM methos I haven't done just the 2005 analysis, but I'll trust you on that. As I said, "I don't attach much, if any, significance to a linear fit to something like this." The trend, whatever it is, is clearly not linear. I do wonder, however, if your 2005 trend includes the data not yet on that graph (the 18 deaths on August 3rd). ******************************************************************** 08-09-05, 09:22 AM newnickname How sad. From hopes of being greeted by jubilant crowds throwing flowers, and then setting up a shining beacon of democratic capitalism in the Middle East - to an upward trend in a graph of how many people are killed every day. ******************************************************************** 08-09-05, 10:39 AM Kendor Yes methos, my data actually indicates 31 casualties for August '05.
Source data ******************************************************************** 08-09-05, 11:12 AM methos Kendor - If you're using monthly numbers, you can't include August yet - it's not even 1/3 over. Yes, even with August excluded, it is a downward fit, but again, since the data is obviously not linear, it doesn't mean much.
One note - your source actually reports 35 dead so far this month. The 31 number is just the number whose names have been released - the next column notes that there are four more whose names are being held pending notification of the families. ******************************************************************** 08-09-05, 12:35 PM methos Something worth noting is that the insurgents appear to be directing more of their focus towards the Iraqi military than they used to. No official statistics are available, as far as I know, but this pag e makes an attempt, and gives 1300 as the estimate for pre-2005 and 1548 as the estimate for so far in 2005.
There are different ways of looking at this. One is that it could be a sign of greater Iraqi involvement - but it hardly seems a ringing endorsement of their performance.
Another is that, by attacking more Iraqis, the insurgents seem to be alienating those they claim to be fighting for (based on reporters accounts of opinion on the street). ******************************************************************** 08-09-05, 11:59 PM AMoore More on this subject, from UPI.
Alan Moore ******************************************************************** 08-07-06, 01:44 PM Adi The insurgency is getting stronger, not weaker. Same applies for Afghanistan, when (only the latestyou animals incident) continue to act as the best Hizbollah, Hamas, Taleban, etc recruiting sergeants money can buy.
To paraphrase Capt. Willard "Ah man, the ******** piled up so fast in Iraq, you needed wings to stay above it."
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 17236 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
AnswerPool.com 
