Everything you have said here is not evidence that there is no progress. Of course there are going to be attacks. But in recent days and weeks I’ve read articles that make good arguments that progress is being made. To make a conclusion that Iraq is not progressing only based on attacks reported in the media, while ignoring any other factor, is closed-minded and frankly not responsible. I would respect your opinion ordinarily, except for one thing. Your opinion was made up a long time ago, and even if there is evidence of progress, you’re not going to change your mind. You want to beat it out of there, and if progress is ever made you don’t care. And unfortunately that’s where many people stand today. That is sad, because that kind of mindset is what leads to defeat. Subconsciously wishing defeat is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and it appears to be the only outcome. Thank God not everyone sees it the same way.

I’ve said a number of times that the other factor to consider when we’re talking about Iraq is the relative population. The USA has about ten times as many people as Iraq does, so if you take the Iraqi numbers and multiply them by ten, then you get an idea of what it’d be if it were in the USA.

Cc: First, if the amount of violence is not an indicator of progress, then why do Bush, McCain, and so many others who support the war say that violence is decreasing and that is a sign of progress? What was McCain’s whole trip to Baghdad about except to try to claim that things have quieted down, and therefore progress was being made? Why has Bush pointed out specific cities like Tal Afar and pointed to specific decreases in violence at certain times as evidence of progress? Why have conservatives tried to claim that the Surge is working because violence, they claimed, was down in Baghdad? The level of violence being used as an indicator of progress has been a common theme amongst conservatives practically since day one of this war–but when I point out that violence is increasing, I’m wrong because violence levels are not an indicator of violence? Please.

Second, what are indicators of progress? You neatly neglected to list these. What will ensure progress towards stabilizing Iraq and “winning” the war? What exactly is the end-game scenario? Bush and others who support the war shift endlessly on this, claiming a myriad of different “signs of progress” while never specifying what the end game actually is. The reason is pretty clear: they have no freakin’ clue, because there is no end game they have planned. Oh, I’m sorry–they have a “secret plan” to end the war, but it’s top secret. Right.

The standard fit-to-the-situation take is that progress can be measured by how well the Iraqi government is coalescing into a stable authority which can control the violence within its own borders, and somehow ride herd on the sects and get them to live together.

This has also been a common theme with conservatives. The problem: it’s been done to death. We’ve been through, what, ten, twenty, thirty different “major milestones” that were all such indicators of progress? End of major combat, establishment of a provisional authority, several separate “handovers” of power, authority, sovereignty, and so on, provisional governments, interim, transitional, “permanent” governments; various and sundry elections, coalitions, compromises, steps to establish constitutions, so on and so forth and et cetera…

Every single one of these steps was ballyhooed as “progress,” and yet every single step forward was marked by several steps backwards, and things just kept getting worse, not better. The escalating violence is not the only indicator, but it is a very important one.

I suppose that you feel that the ever-growing insurgency is not a threat to progress?

That we can just ignore the eruption and escalation of sectarian violence as something that has no bearing on progress?

That civil war is a moot point and really doesn’t affect progress?

That we should simply ignore the massive and ever-increasing slaughter because the government has formed, even though it is completely ineffective in dealing with the issues that matter?

Or perhaps you see as “progress” the fact that Iraq’s middle class, the people we were depending on to form a stable core, have virtually all fled the country? Is that progress?

Or how about the fact that even after all this time of setting up and training the Iraqi police and other security forces, they still are incapable of even the most basic independent actions to keep the peace? Does that count as “progress”?

So how about the current situation? Do you really see as “progress” Sadr’s power play with Maliki, and Maliki’s weakened stance and inability to act decisively? You really see the Iraqi government making “progress” here?

No viable end game for success, a weak and faltering government, sectarian violence at civil-war levels, insurgents escalating to massive attacks, U.S. soldiers dying in ever-increasing numbers in heroic but ultimately vain attempts to create a momentary zone of quiet… vain not due to their efforts but because the Iraqi government will piss it away, the country not being even close to stable enough to work.

So I am at fault here because I decided, apparently without any justification so you seem to feel, that the situation in Iraq is hopeless, even if we didn’t have a complete f***up running the show from Washington D.C.

I am glad you are so hopeful. That must feel nice. Keep reading those right-wing publications for your weekly dose of rosy vision, and that will make it all real, and things will be all better, real soon.

I, on the other hand, prefer reality. It sucks, but recognizing it tends to get better results. Or, in this case, where Bush has dug us into a situation with no possible good results, we must settle for the least bad result.

Getting back to your main point, the main difference is that anyone who lives in Iraq goes out with the possibility in mind that today may be their final day alive. But on a college campus in suburbia America, one expects to complete their four years without getting killed.

When we have something like Virginia Tech, the media personalizes the event very ably. But they put faces on the dead American soldiers in Iraq far less often, and they never do so for the Baghdad victims. Maybe if the media spent more time providing context for the hell that is life in today’s Iraq, maybe that would help fuel the outrage in America into something more contructive. Like impeachment proceedings or pulling at least some troops out.

Luis, from a political – and sometimes a military – standpoint, progress has been reported… not often enough, but occassionally if you actually took the time to look. Once again, only counting deaths is not an indication what the progress (or the lack of it) is in a conflict, be it one way or the other way. I am not going to argue about this, since you’re the one who bases your argument on the death toll. Which after five years, by the way, is still lower than most of our major conflicts have been in far shorter spans of time.

CC: the wording of what you say is telling–not that overall progress has been made, but that “progress has been reported.” The “overall” part is the key. Of course, progress is being made… but in a one-step-forward-three-steps-back kind of way. You’re talking about the one step forward, and I’m talking about the net two steps backwards. Important distinction, there.

Update: to put icing on the cake, one major source of reports of “progress,” i.e. construction of infrastructure in Iraq, is now taking a hit: so much of what companies like Halliburton were paid to rebuild have already broken down, including vital equipment at hospitals, water purification plants, airports, and so on. Another example of those “steps back” I mentioned.