[excon]

Hello:

The war in Iraq is confusing. I think we're losing…. But, I don't know - my president is saying that we're winning. Doesn't that count? Therein, lies the heart of my question.

Yesterday I saw an all day production on the History Channel of our own Revolutionary War. I was particularly intrigued with the knowledge the producers (and HISTORY) has regarding the details of that war.

Now, either those details are not to be believed because they're spin, and the other side has a completely different view, or they're history. Since I don't think the other side has a much different view, I conclude that what I saw was history – not spin.

Or was it? When I read the “history” of the Iraq war in 2020, will I be reading history, or will I still be in the dark? Are we forevermore consigned to interpret history through our own ideological viewpoint? Will we EVER find out what happened in Iraq?

excon

PS> I'm sure my right wing friends will notice the straight line I gave them to take pot shots at me. But, I can take it.

[Synnen]

History is written by the victors.

The HUGE deal that the Revolutionary War is here in the states is (from what I have been told by European friends) less than a hour's worth of history for them, and even then, it's glossed over as an inconvenient colonial uprising, not as a "war for freedom" or anything like that.

Do you think we have all of the details yet of the Vietnam War? Isn't the spin on THAT war quite a bit different now from the spin it got at the time? I mean, did we go there to fight communism, or what? I still can't figure it out!

I think that when history talks about the Iraq war, it will have a definite spin on it. WHOSE spin, it's too early to say.

[NeedKarma]

MadTV happened to nail Apple and Bush's Iraq war all at once:
YouTube - Madtv - Apple I-rack

[Dark_crow]

Hello:

The war in Iraq is confusing. I think we’re losing…. But, I dunno - my president is saying that we're winning. Doesn't that count? Therein, lies the heart of my question.

Yesterday I saw an all day production on the History Channel of our own Revolutionary War. I was particularly intrigued with the knowledge the producers (and HISTORY) has regarding the details of that war.

Now, either those details are not to be believed because they’re spin, and the other side has a completely different view, or they’re history. Since I don’t think the other side has a much different view, I conclude that what I saw was history – not spin.

Or was it? When I read the “history” of the Iraq war in 2020, will I be reading history, or will I still be in the dark? Are we forevermore consigned to interpret history through our own ideological viewpoint? Will we EVER find out what happened in Iraq?

excon

PS> I'm sure my right wing friends will notice the straight line I gave them to take pot shots at me. But, I can take it.

Historians, can, I believe chronicle events, dates, and places very well. As to motives, the right and wrong of these events, the impact on societies, and the drawing of conclusions as to where to place blame or confer Honor- these can become very murky.

For instance; I believe in the ‘Natural Rights’ and the Constitution on which this government in America was founded. A constitution is a thing antecedent to the government, not created by the government. A constitution, therefore, is to a government what the laws made afterward by that government are to a court enlisted for the dispensation of justice. The court does not make the laws, neither can it alter them; it only acts in conformity to the laws made; and the government is in like manner governed by the constitution.

Therefore, when the government of the Untied States dispensed with the due process afforded its citizens by the Constitution- it placed itself above the Law and therefore forfeited its right to rule.

[tomder55]

Good question

When I was in school there was a revisionist movement going on regarding post-Civil war reconstruction . Turns out that history post-war was written with a bit of a white wash .In an attempt at reconciliation much of history written resembled the movie The Birth of a Nation by D.W. Griffith .

Turns out all those radical Republicans were not so bad after all. In fact ;had their policies been carried out to their conclusion then we probably would not have lived through another 100 years of Jim Crow South .

The answer to your question is that history is always revised as new information is available and the information is filtered through new prisms .

That's just the way it is .

[ETWolverine]

As mentioned above, history is written by the victors. Does that make it spin? Perhaps. But spin is also history.

If we had lost the Revolutionary War, British history books would have listed Washington and the other Founding Fathers as rebels. And that would BE TRUE. Washington et. al. were rebels and traitors to their government.

Benedict Arnold is seen as a traitor to America, but if the Brits had won the war, he would have been celebrated as a loyalist and defender of the crown. (The truth is that he was probably a dupe anyway... his wife, a British loyalist, was manipulating him, and he was actually a witless dupe.)

The point is that "spin" doesn't make it any less factual. Facts are facts. But how those facts are interpreted is often open to debate. That is where the spin comes into play.

Let's take Abu Ghraib as a modern example of "spin". Nobody denies that several guards at Abu Ghraib made naked prisoners climb on each other to form a human pyramid, or that naked prisoners were led around on dog-collars to have pictures taken of them. But the "spin" is with the interpretation of these facts. The media tried to "spin" it as Bush and Cheney being responsible for what a few guards did to their prisoners. They tried to "spin" it as terrible torture and inhuman treatment of prisoners. I personally see something that was nothing worse than a frat-boy prank in which nobody was hurt or injured or killed, and in which the responsible parties were punished for their misdeeds. I personally do not see where Bush and Cheney are responsible for any of it. And I certainly don't see a story that deserved front-page news coverage for months on end. The facts themselves are not subject to debate... but the interpretation of those facts clearly is, and that is what constitutes spin.

So... how do we apply this concept of "spin" to the Iraq war?

We both see a war. We both see casualties on both sides of the war. You see 3000 US military casualties, the continuing terrorist attacks against Iraqi civillians, etc. and interpret that as too high a cost for a war that you do not support. I look at the history of war in general and modern war in specific and come to the conclusion that 3,000 casualties is a very small number, that the number of enemy dead and captured outnumbers friendly force casualties by an order of 10-1, and that progress is being made in Iraq's security situatuion (civillian casualties down 36% since January, capture or killing of enemy leadership, increasing support from Sunni and Shia for US troops in Iraq, etc.), and say that the cost for the progress being made is incredibly low by global standards.

We are looking at the same information, and neither of us disputes the facts themselves. It is in our interpretation of the facts that we differ... and therein lies the spin.

Which interpretation becomes "history" will be determined by the victors of the war AND the victors of the domestic political battles. If our troops win (and I don't doubt that they can), and Bush's supporters are in power when that occurs, history will say that Bush was right. If our troops loose the war (which can only happen if the politicians make it happen), hsitory will interpret Bush to have been hopelessly wrong. If the troops win and Bush's enemies are in a position to write the history books, history will say that the war was won DESPITE anything that Bush did, not because of him.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

Since this is still history in progress it remains to be seen how it will be written, but how it turns out will depend on whether the historians tell us what happened or if they tell us how we should interpret what happened. But I think you know how that is, everyone is going to tell their side of it... period.

All sides of course are going to portray "current" events from their point of view and that's fine, but what annoys me is that our own people are spouting off about how much they care about this country, our troops, and innocent Iraqis while going out of their way to undermine all three with their portrayals. Tell us about the bad stuff, but don't neglect the good and realize as long as you're hammering every aspect of this effort you're doing so to the detriment of those you supposedly care about.

At least Bush is still speaking of victory, freedom and resolve against those who wish us harm - a future history that's promising. Some, like our Senate "leader" have already decided the history of this war as we've "lost."

[NeedKarma]

Speech,
How is "winning" defined in this context?

[speechlesstx]

Speech,
How is "winning" defined in this context?

Actually I spoke of "victory" not "winning." Victory would be the "defeat of an enemy or opponent." Anything else?

[NeedKarma]

Which enemy would the US have considered to be defeated for this to be a victory?

[Curlyben]

Hang on the WAR in Iraq is OVER, Mr Bush said so, a couple of years back ;)

[speechlesstx]

Which enemy would the US have considered to be defeated for this to be a victory?

Do you not know who we're fighting over there? I believe I know the point you're trying to get at, but if I'm right it's entirely irrelevant to my point, which is at least Bush is still trying to win the battle, still trying to win freedom for Iraqis, still trying to protect this country and its citizens from Islamofascist terrorists intent on world domination and a theocracy far worse than anything anyone in this country could imagine from "right-wing neocon evangelical conservatives." Meanwhile, the spinmeisters on the left are all too eager to cheer OUR defeat, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and appease the very people that are intent on destroying their way of life. Which is the more prudent action to take, to push for victory or push for your own demise?

[ETWolverine]

Needkarma,

I know you posted your question to Speechless, but I hope you don't mind if I chime in with a response.

Winning in the context of Iraq is defined like this by the Bush Administration:

The establishment of an Iraqi government chosen by the people of Iraq that is capable of handling its own affairs, most notably security, without the assistance of foreign powers.

So far, we have a government chosen by the people in democratic fashion. That government is a constitutional parlimentary democracy that differs significantly from the US government in form and method. Nevertheless, it is the format the people chose overwhelmingly. So the first part of that definition, "an Iraqi government chosen by the people of Iraq", has been realized.

Furthermore, the Iraqi military now has over 200,000 fully trained soldiers (outnumbering coalition forces, btw), and that number is growing. They have an officer's corps that is beginning to otain significant operational experience, and who are now leading significant missions without US assistance in the field. The police force in Iraq has been a bit slower to get up to speed, but is now progressing as well. And since January 2007, civilian casualties from terrorist activities have dropped by as much as 36%.

Moving on, Newsweek reported that Iraq's eonomy is booming, with major growth in all sectors. Iraq's unemployment, while still about 27% is down from 50% just a couple of years ago. GDP has grown about 17%. Average salaries are up too. Oil production has increased with the creation of at least 2 new refineries, and because the military is doing a better job of protecting oil pipelines, more of it is getting where it is supposed to go, which is helping the Iraqi economy all the more. Electricity production is approximately 6000 MW, up significantly from the rough 4500 MW capacity of just two years ago. There are still huge problems to overcome, mostly associated with security-related issues. But there is significant improvement.

So there is clear evidence that there is significant progress in Iraq. This wa is indeed winable by the definition that I stated above.

Now... let me ask you a question, Needkarma. Given the relatively low number of military casualties the coalition has suffered since the beginning of the war, and the fact that the terrorists have not been able to significantly damage the US military or force them to leave... they haven't even been able to win a single stand-up battle against US troops... how do you define "losing"?

Elliot