James Denselow on Iraq

Analysis of the news, from another planet (reality-based?).

Meanwhile politicians on both side of the Atlantic have taken continued advantage of the huge public support given to the soldiers, despite opposition to the war itself, to defer political decisions to military commanders informed by "conditions on the ground". Yet the abrupt substitution of General Casey for Petraeus shows that if commanders on the ground disagree with new strategies from Washington then they are replaced. President Bush has consistently hidden behind a popular military to explain the catastrophic failure of his Iraqi adventure.

But the president is running out of people to hide behind. Most of the planners of the war have gone and despite an attempt to replace the divisive Rumsfeld with a "big tent" approach by including pragmatic generals like Petraeus, as well as hard bitten realists like Ryan Crooker and Robert Gates, the situation is all but lost. The surge represents a gamble for resurrection, as if by putting more chips on to the table Bush can win back the blood and treasure that has been lost in Iraq over the past four years.

(The Guardian)

I'd be interested to see some polling of "those who oppose the war" that goes into the depth of their opposition.

What would they be willing to allow to get U.S. or British troops out of Iraq? A genocide taking millions of lives? An Iraq in political orbit around Iran? A war between Turkey and Kurdistan?

Is Denselow's perception that Casey replaced Petraeus ("the abrupt substitution of General Casey for Petraeus") an indication of how well he is paying attention?

I don't even understand this sentence: "President Bush has consistently hidden behind a popular military to explain the catastrophic failure of his Iraqi adventure."
How would hiding behind the military "explain" catastrophic failure, if we were to grant that the operation is a catastrophic failure? Does Denselow mean to say that Bush blames the failures on his generals and military advisers? Seems to me that Bush uses "we" when he talks about the successes and failures in Iraq. A pity Denselow provides no examples. How are we supposed to understand the term "explain" as Denselow is using it?

Denselow suggests that the situation in Iraq is "all but lost"--but why? What areas of Iraq are controlled by insurgents? What major victories have insurgents registered? There simply isn't any data that supports the claim that the situation is all but lost except on the political front--and even then the main threat is on the political front in the United Kingdom and in the United States.
A stalemate during an insurgency is not a loss. The analogy has been drawn before, but the type of view Denselow give us could have come during the Civil War or during WW2--except that things were truly poised to be disastrous in both cases. The fastest way to ensure disaster in the case of Iraq would be to institute a speedy withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Denselow talks about the "gamble for resurrection," but again the resurrection is on the political front, since Iraq has never been a dead situation. And the positive happenings in Iraq, exemplified by the flipping of Anbar, provide excellent reason for a corresponding flip in the politics of Iraq.

Apparently that prospect doesn't sit well with folks like Denselow who have their Iraq War narrative mapped out, and intend to stick with it regardless of the facts.

May I call you "Dense" for short, Mr. Denselow?