Support NeoGAF

[MIMIC]

If a student had a vocabulary list, and on that vocabulary list was the word "oxymoron," that child would receive extra-credit points for using the word phrase "catastrophic success" as one of his or her examples.

I didn't hear about this fucked-up description of Iraq until yesterday.

Bush constantly cites the example of postwar Germany and Japan to argue that it is far too soon to call Iraq a failure. In turn he sounds like Truman, Johnson and Reagan when he says war and its aftermath are always hard and messy, that a failed state would be a disaster causing dominoes to fall, that a free Iraq would be a beacon to the world. Asked again last week what his greatest mistake was, he is ready with an answer. "Had we had to do it over again," he says, "we would look at the consequences of catastrophic success, being so successful so fast that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in escaped and lived to fight another day." If he learned in Texas that even failure can yield benefits, he learned in Iraq that even success comes at a cost.

Time Magazine (subscription)

 

[Semjaza Azazel]

Even ignorning the "catostrophic" part, I'm really not understanding what he is trying to get across in that sentence. Can anyone explain that?

 

[Outdoor Miner]

Yeah, that sentence looks like a jumbled mess. Can the man speak? Translation?

 

[MIMIC]

Even ignorning the "catostrophic" part, I'm really not understanding what he is trying to get across in that sentence. Can anyone explain that?

EXACTLY! I read his explanation over several times and I can't even wrap my mind around what he means.

 

[G4life98]

the man is proving to be functionally reterded.

 

[Catapult Beetle]

As far as I can tell... what's he's saying is that our success came too fast, thus enabling our enemies to escape. I have no idea how that works.

So I guess what he's saying is that military action should be drawn out as long as possible? And that would prevent our enemies from escaping. I... I think. Maybe.

 

[Phoenix]

Its funny because I've watched him speak so many times and every time he stops/pauses I just think to myself - you know he's about to say something stupid. And more often than not, he does. Its like his brain has problems compiling sentences or something. He gets a 1/10 on the impromptu speaking scale.

Then again, this one could just be a freudian slip

 

[Memles]

You know...these "Q and A" sessions are seeming like a smarter move every day now.

 

[yoshifumi]

what the fuck does that mean?

 

[open_mouth_]

EXACTLY! I read his explanation over several times and I can't even wrap my mind around what he means.

Maybe his intellect is so advanced that his his usual unique combination of words are above and beyond normal human comprehension. Maybe.

 

[sc0la]

The phrase is not an oxymoron.

From the book "Going Nucular: Launguage, Polotics, and Culture in Contentious Times" by linguist Geoffry Nunberg: italics mine

Embeded reporters use embedded language, the metallic clatter of modern military lingo; acronyms like TLAMs, RPGs, and MREs; catchphrases like "assymetric warfare," "emerging targets" and "catastrophic success" — the last not an oxymoron, but an irresistibly preverse phrase for a sudden acceleration of good fortune.

Bush is simply trying to hit the modern buzz words. Since the Gulf War, and coinciding with the rise of cable television, a controlled language has been important to all military actions: from the naming of operations, to the defenitions used to describe. This language is as deliberate as the images you are willingly provided, and the information you are given. It is after all a PR campaign, an advertisement if you will as much as it is anything else.

That doesn't keep what he is trying to say from being absolute bullshit though. They knew exactlyhow fucking long it was going to take them to finish the initial phase of the Iraq war. This was picked specifically as a short and simple war, part of an overall strategy to "rid the public of the scar of vietnam's memory." Had they known they were going to face heavy insurgency (which they absolutely should have, any reasonable "expert" was saying before all this started that Al Qaida and other groups would look at Iraq as a viable front against America, not to mention all the other factors and groups contributing to the resistance*). If they would have planned for this then they simply would have had more trrops on the ground (if that were even practically possible), and what they should have done was made sure enough countries were involved to help the US support the post "Mission Accomplished" phase of the war. As has been mentioned many times before, the US can destroy any country it wants by itself, rebuilding it is another story alltogether however.

Another phallacy of the statement is that they stumbled into all of this, which again is false, the position they are at was planned, its not like they wanted to drag it out, and oops! they fell into a big hole of success. Additionally the statement implies that most of the people fighting here somehow escaped the erlier campaign (shock and awe?) when a significant make up of the fighters are foreign, from egypt, Syria, Sudan etc. or are companies of militia men made in part of new recruits, though a strong element of former military and former Baathist/saddam loyalists certainly exists there.

*please don't try to spin the use of the word resistance here, I simply mean "those fighting against the US"

 

[GG-Duo]

Bush says Iraq was a "catastrophic success"

and I say that Iraq was a successful catastrophe.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

sounds like what he is trying to say is that the Iraq war was SO successful that it became a failure.

"The Iraq War is like the Guns 'n Roses of wars..."

 

[MetatronM]

"The Iraq War is like the Guns 'n Roses of wars..."

:lol

 

[DarienA]

Somebody should have asked him to define catastrophic success i.e. his sovereign nation definition...

 

[Mandark]

The idea of "catastrophic success" is that objectives are accomplished so quickly that it makes it difficult to accomplish the next set of objectives. In this context, it means that Baghdad was taken so soon, and the Iraqi military resisted so little, that the US was unprepared to step in as an authority figure immediately (think the immediate post-war looting).

It's basically a way of reminding everyone that part of the war did go well, over a year ago, and shifting the blame away from the poor preparation, best-case scenario planning, and intramural feuds that produced the Phase IV mess we've got today.

 

[SKluck]

We owned them so hard that leftover ownage carried over to ourselves.

 

[Saturnman]

The idea of "catastrophic success" is that objectives are accomplished so quickly that it makes it difficult to accomplish the next set of objectives. In this context, it means that Baghdad was taken so soon, and the Iraqi military resisted so little, that the US was unprepared to step in as an authority figure immediately (think the immediate post-war looting).

It's basically a way of reminding everyone that part of the war did go well, over a year ago, and shifting the blame away from the poor preparation, best-case scenario planning, and intramural feuds that produced the Phase IV mess we've got today.

But they were unprepared for the occupation no matter how long victory would have taken. And besides, they attacked Iraq because it was an easy target so saying victory came too quickly is an overstatement in itself.

 

[Go Go Ackman!]

Enjoy the mess you've created, guys.

 

[DarienA]

The idea of "catastrophic success" is that objectives are accomplished so quickly that it makes it difficult to accomplish the next set of objectives. In this context, it means that Baghdad was taken so soon, and the Iraqi military resisted so little, that the US was unprepared to step in as an authority figure immediately (think the immediate post-war looting).

It's basically a way of reminding everyone that part of the war did go well, over a year ago, and shifting the blame away from the poor preparation, best-case scenario planning, and intramural feuds that produced the Phase IV mess we've got today.

Bah the above still brings me to the same conclusion that detractors have been saying... we went in with a complete war plan... not a complete after-war plan.

 

[EarthStormFire]

I just hate bush. People like Bush are why I don't beleive in god, because if god was real, bush and people like him wouldn't exsist any more. No loving god could allow such evil and disgusting people in power to murder countless humans. Hopefully the U.S will wise up, and Bush will be out of power next January from losing the November election.

 

[FightyF]

Don't blame God, blame yourself.

*insert Lance Storm pic here*

 

[Cool]

Bush says Iraq was a "catastrophic success"

 

[Dead]

EXACTLY! I read his explanation over several times and I can't even wrap my mind around what he means.

look man, the guy is operating on a wholly different plane of thought

 

[iapetus]

People like Bush are why I don't beleive in god, because if god was real, bush and people like him wouldn't exsist any more. No loving god could allow such evil and disgusting people in power to murder countless humans.

I hate to break it to you, but God doesn't get a vote.

 

[RiZ III]

Who woulda thought a mentally handicapped person would be the first kind of minority to become president. Universe works in strange ways.

 

[Mandark]

But we had a physically disabled president 70 years ago.

 

[Alcibiades]

wow, he's getting ambigous and talking with seemingly conflicting words, wonder if Kerry voters will consider him now

I just hate bush. People like Bush are why I don't beleive in god, because if god was real, bush and people like him wouldn't exsist any more. No loving god could allow such evil and disgusting people in power to murder countless humans. Hopefully the U.S will wise up, and Bush will be out of power next January from losing the November election.

If "murdering countless humans" is your standard for not believing in God, I'd say long before Bush got elected you have much more powerful driving factors, like Saddam Hussein or the Chinese government, or better yet, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

If anything, thanks to Bush, more Americans will die (in the thousands maybe -> soldiers plus terrorist attacks on civilians), but more people overall will have their lives saved (Iraqis). Major reason why I opposed the war was the use of so many solidiers. As an American, I definitely care way more about their lives than some random (in my perspective) Arab dudes killed cause they opposed Saddam. I definitely see a more civilized Middle-East years down the road thanks to US actions, I just don't see why it had to be such a polite war other than international politics...

either way, your use of the word "countless" is interesting, since there are pretty accurate (no 100% of course) figures for military/civilian deaths that are happening in the sphere of US war action, very different from the more massively numbered situation that were taking place in Saddam-Iraq and no doubt are triggered by hunger/opposition issues in the regime that currently holds power in the nortern region of the Korean Peninsula (Democratic People's Republic).

 

[RiZ III]

But we had a physically disabled president 70 years ago.

got me there. We've probably had gay presidents too. But to think a retarded person woulda become president before say.. a black guy or a woman.

 

[Mandark]

RiZ: I'm sure a black man could be president if he were retarded. I mean, who doesn't like a Magical Negro?

Main Entry: count·less
Pronunciation: 'kaunt-l&s
Function: adjective
: too numerous to be counted : MYRIAD, MANY

I really hate to say this, but it's not clear at all that fewer Iraqis are dying violent deaths now than were under Saddam Hussein.

Right now, both CSIS and our own government's intelligence say things are not going well in Iraq. Why would anyone believe it's headed towards being a democratic state that will reform an entire region?

And why don't you just say North Korea? So much easier.

 

[Alcibiades]

I really hate to say this, but it's not clear at all that fewer Iraqis are dying violent deaths now than were under Saddam Hussein.

which is why I use future tense when making that reference

Right now, both CSIS and our own government's intelligence say things are not going well in Iraq. Why would anyone believe it's headed towards being a democratic state that will reform an entire region?

I don't know if anyone believes that will happen, so much as believe that it's a step towards having a democratic state, and that if that were to happen, it would be a step towards reform.

As bold as plans have been laid out by Blair/Bush, it's still being looked at as a step-by-step affair.

And why don't you just say North Korea? So much easier.

Because Koreans from northern region of the peninsula find "North Korea" a disrepectful and slanderous term.

There is only one Korea FYI, no "North Korea", it just so happens that the regime ruling that particular region of that ONE Korea prefer for their State to be referred to as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Since the overall mood of the many in the world seemd to lean in the direction of dictator-appeasement, I thought I'd join the party.

 

[Mandark]

As bold as plans have been laid out by Blair/Bush, it's still being looked at as a step-by-step affair.

What does this even mean? All I've heard Bush say is that Iraq should be free, democratic, and a partner in the war on terror, without saying how the heck it's going to happen (other than mentioning the scheduled January elections, which nobody thinks will happen fairly and on schedule). What plan? Where?

Also, you keep mentioning a "polite war." What exactly has been done for the sake of politeness that has cost American lives?

 

[Alcibiades]

What does this even mean? All I've heard Bush say is that Iraq should be free, democratic, and a partner in the war on terror, without saying how the heck it's going to happen (other than mentioning the scheduled January elections, which nobody thinks will happen fairly and on schedule). What plan? Where?

well, it's been very messy and ugly, and very unorganized without a clear sense of what the major steps in the plan are

the goal has been clearly defined, but I agree the implementation of whatever plan Bremer and the State Department had hasn't been 100% successful.

some steps that I'd gathered from watching TV and reading online columns have been (not that everything has been successful or that good plans to carry out these steps have happened, this is just what I gather from hearing Powell, etc.. speak):

-topple Saddam
-secure oil fields and have them running eventually to Saddam-era levels
-appoint interim government council
-hand over power officially to interim President/Prime Minister (and dissolve interim council)
-capture Zarqawi
-gain control of some major insurgent hold-outs

some things definitely didn't end up working, like caucus-style representation for the constituational meeting or something like that...

overall, it has been an utter mess and somewhat of a quagmire. It's no Vietnam, but it definitely could have been handled better.

That said, there is a plan, it just hasn't been going "according to plan" as much as I'm sure many Americans hope.

Do I think Bush is directly responsible for it? maybe to the extent that the personnal there (troops-wise) may not have been trained for a lot of the happenings, but to be honest, I kinda imagined even worse possible situations like 5000+ of Americans dead, destroyed cities, Kurd/Sunni/Shi'ite violent breakouts, etc. Even on Fox News sometimes you'd hear commentators saying things (pre-war) about the possibilities of a "bloody mess" to a much larger scale than we are seeing even now.

So bascially, I definitely think progress is being made, and after watching even military-related programming on CSPAN, I'm convinced that the military/Defense Department/intelligence will learn quite a bit from this Iraq episode (and they've started to already, even with the historically sluggish rate of change) that will serve the US well in the so-called "War on Terror".

Also, you keep mentioning a "polite war." What exactly has been done for the sake of politeness that has cost American lives?

Maybe I've been influenced too much by the Ayn Rand-crowd, but from seeing them on CSPAN, they had me convinced that that US was being very careful in terms of reducing the number of military targets that potentially held civilians. I know there have been many civilian deaths, but I remember reports about soldiers having let some Iraqis get too close and holding off firing. Part of the reason I buy their reasoning is that I expected decimated cities when I first saw the "shock and awe" headlines.

In general I guess I think that there have been times when the US has held back (for example, staying away as much as they can from targeting Holy Places)

 

[Zaptruder]

I definitely see a more civilized Middle-East years down the road thanks to US actions, I just don't see why it had to be such a polite war other than international politics...

And that is where the views of Bush supporters and haters differ.

I personally see that he's DESTABILIZED the region (and indeed put the world's security at jeopardy). He's gone and done something that will ultimately cause more resentment and extremism, which will definetly come back and bite the world in its ass in the long term.

When you attack a nation, before you defeat them you will have to raise the ire of its people; extremists will be formed... only when you've utterly subdued them (as with germany and japan) will the long term effects of those extremists be reduced or even nullified. Unfortunately for the US, many people in the region saw the UNREASONABLE attack on Iraq as an attack on Islam, or even as many others around the world saw it; a war of oil.

 

[Mandark]

So it's a mess and a quagmire but progress is being made? What on Earth makes you think progress is being made (remember, progress is when things continually get better, not when the situation is better than the absolute worst-case scenario).

The Center for Strategic and International Studies has released a report on the situation in Iraq. This is the largest, most comprehensive, most detailed study to be released to the public on this subject, by a respected think tank that was actually invited to look at what was going on in Iraq last year by Donald Rumsfeld.

In the five categories measured (Security, Economic Opportunity, Governance and Participation, Services, and Social Well-Being), they concluded that progress is not being made, and in some areas is backsliding substantially. The government's own internal report is just as pessimistic, if not more so.

As for the indicators of success that are usually trotted out, they said "It is possible to recognize progress in certain areas (e.g., number of hospitals rebuilt) while also concluding that it is insufficient, overshadowed by massive remaining hurdles, or not making a quantified or qualified difference to Iraqis. The U.S. efforts thus far have been largely divorced from the Iraqi voice and undermined by security problems and the lack of jobs and they are not leading toward entrenched sustainability of Iraqi capacity."

What is Bush's plan to solve these problems? Not a list of things that have been done already, but what does he propose we do now? What is the guarantee that any of his plans will be more successful than all the screwups so far (not securing Baghdad, Jay Garner, disolving the army, creating the Fallujah brigade, the original plan for the IGC that Sistani derailed, any decision regarding Sadr)?

Listen to Bush talk, and you'd think everything was alright. How can you trust someone to solve a problem if you can't get them to even admit a problem exists?

 

[Shinobi]

We owned them so hard that leftover ownage carried over to ourselves.

:lol

 

[ErasureAcer]

Bush is mad because our "enemies" escaped. BS.

We know exactly where they are: Fallujah, Baghdad, Ramadi for starters.

Another Bush lie.

Think I saw a Kerry commercial the other day that made it all too clear. Talking about how Bush won't even recognize the problems thus he can not fix them.

Bush is living in fantasy land and so are his supporters.

 

[Jim Bowie]

Catastrophic:

1. Of, relating to, or involving a catastrophe.
2. Involving or resulting in substantial, often ruinous medical expense: a catastrophic illness.

Success:

1. The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted: attributed their success in business to hard work.

What he was saying was that he planned a catastrophe, and by gum it, it happened!

 

[DJ Sl4m]

You can't trust Bush, same way with Kerry who voted to got to war with Iraq when congress voted, then voted against every other vote about Iraq afterwards such as more troops, and more money to help support more weapons and food.

Nice, let's vote Kerry to have Vietnam all over.

And don't even get me started on his lame idea to strt using the US's sources for oil, I suppose he isn't smart enough to figure out the US isn't using much of it's sources for when oil starts to run dry, and we have some conserved untill the transition is made to a new feul source.

 

[ManDudeChild]

If anything, thanks to Bush, more Americans will die (in the thousands maybe -> soldiers plus terrorist attacks on civilians), but more people overall will have their lives saved (Iraqis). Major reason why I opposed the war was the use of so many solidiers. As an American, I definitely care way more about their lives than some random (in my perspective) Arab dudes killed cause they opposed Saddam. I definitely see a more civilized Middle-East years down the road thanks to US actions, I just don't see why it had to be such a polite war other than international politics...

You know, I just don't see the US domino plan working out.

 

[Phoenix]

The idea of "catastrophic success" is that objectives are accomplished so quickly that it makes it difficult to accomplish the next set of objectives. In this context, it means that Baghdad was taken so soon, and the Iraqi military resisted so little, that the US was unprepared to step in as an authority figure immediately (think the immediate post-war looting).

Don't think so, we expected it to be shorter because we were expecting large numbers of surrenders and defections according to Rumsfeld and company. So we shouldn't accept this as an excuse.

 

[Phoenix]

I just hate bush. People like Bush are why I don't beleive in god, because if god was real, bush and people like him wouldn't exsist any more. No loving god could allow such evil and disgusting people in power to murder countless humans. Hopefully the U.S will wise up, and Bush will be out of power next January from losing the November election.

That's faulty logic at the core. God gives us all free will.

 

[ManDudeChild]

That's faulty logic at the core. God gives us all free will.

Well since it's going to happen anyways, I'll throw in the obvious question: but is that free will an illusion? Well played btw, thread hijacked. :lol

 

[ShadowRed]

That's faulty logic at the core. God gives us all free will.

Presumably God knows what is going to happen, ie Revelations in the Bible. So do we really have free will or are we programed to act in a certain way regardles, but think we can act own our own.

 

[Jim Bowie]

We have psuedo-free will. We can do whatever we want, but it will never shock God, since he's all knowing.

Oops, theology! Bush sucks el oh el

VOTE KERRY
VOTE KERRY
VOTE KERRY
VOTE KERRY
VOTE KERRY
VOTE KERRY

 

[freaky zeeky]

what is "god"? the constant invocation of this thing termed "god," in the absence of any corroborating evidence testifying to its existence, is maddening. any mentioning of "god" should be accompanied by proof. otherwise, you tend to invalidate anything you have to say, imo. there is something inherently lazy in the typical use of the term "god."

 

[Zaptruder]

We have psuedo-free will. We can do whatever we want, but it will never shock God, since he's all knowing.

Oops, theology! Bush sucks el oh el

VOTE KERRY
VOTE KERRY
VOTE KERRY
VOTE KERRY
VOTE KERRY
VOTE KERRY

Free-will? the will maybe 'free' but the actions are limited by physical restraints, monetary, practical, etc, etc.

But do we even have free-will? After all, is our will not limited by not only restraints of practicality, but by things like limited intelligence, biases and the lack of information? We humans like to operate on heuristics... rules of thumbs that reduces the cognitive resources required to make all the everyday decisions we make. The trade off is that, we're so good at doing this, that we often use it in places where it's not appropriate to do so. The illusion of freewill is there certainly... but what is happening on a practical level is that your lazy brain hijacks your free will.

 

[iapetus]

what is "god"? the constant invocation of this thing termed "god," in the absence of any corroborating evidence testifying to its existence, is maddening. any mentioning of "god" should be accompanied by proof. otherwise, you tend to invalidate anything you have to say, imo. there is something inherently lazy in the typical use of the term "god."

I look forward to receiving your proof that there is something inherently lazy in the typical use of the term "god", and also proof that there is any such thing as laziness.

 

[Jim Bowie]

what is "god"? the constant invocation of this thing termed "god," in the absence of any corroborating evidence testifying to its existence, is maddening. any mentioning of "god" should be accompanied by proof. otherwise, you tend to invalidate anything you have to say, imo. there is something inherently lazy in the typical use of the term "god."

Religion isn't backed up by science, sillyhead.

 

[Outdoor Miner]

You know the shit is hitting the fan when even high-ranking Republicans here at home are starting to bad-mouth the situation in Iraq.