'TheFactor's' Person of the Year

Bill O'Reilly's December 18th Talking Points Memo

Bill O'Reilly has decided on his person of the year and it's General David Petraeus. I don't have a problem at all with his selection. The situation is Iraq is improving based on US death tolls. The "surge" in Iraq is apparently working in that regard. What is lost, I think, is Iraqi civilian deaths. According to www.iraqbodycount.org, there has been a steady increase in civilian deaths per day in Iraq from vehicle bombs from 2003 to 2007 (from .9 to 14 per day). As for deaths per day in Iraq from gunfire/executions, the number has declined from 55 in 2003 to 35 in 2007. In 2003, however, the number was at 14 per day, and in 2005 the number was at 25 a day. So there is a moderate improvement from the year before, but not exactly better overall. I guess the question could be, why do I bring up these numbers? We're losing less troops so the fight must be going well, right? I bring up these numbers because the Iraq war is not like other wars we've fought before with the possible exception of Vietnam, though even that war differs greatly. It pretty much stems from one question: what is our mission in Iraq? It's not a situation where we are trying to topple an invading government as it was in WWII, nor are we trying to defeat an army so we can keep the union together as it was in the Civil War, nor are we attempting to remove a foreign power's army from our soil as it was in the Revolutionary War. This is a situation where we are attempting to clean up the mess we have made after toppling a government. We are attempting to force our own government on the people of Iraq and bring security to the region. And we are attempting to defeat terrorist activity in the region as well. So, civilian casualties are very much at the crux of success. As long as civilians are getting killed in great numbers, we are not doing a good job of securing them and we are not doing a good job of creating a democratic nation. So when Mr. O'Reilly claims that "[General Petraeus] has given the good people of [Iraq] a chance to prosper", I question that claim. But, I will say that General Petraeus has probably done a better job than his predecessors. I just don't think this is a war that can be won based on the criteria for success. No country can have democracy forced upon it. They need to desire it.

Now I'm going to harp on a consistent theme in Mr. O'Reilly's Talking Points Memos. Since he harps upon it, it is only right that I should harp in counterpoint. Mr. O'Reilly again brings up "Americans who desperately want the USA to lose in Iraq." He brings up the "hate-Bush crowd" who "simply never will admit anything good can come from the Iraq conflict." He includes media in that group, though won't disclose which media sources. Once again I respond with the point that nobody wants the United States to lose the war in Iraq. We simply disagreed with going into Iraq and we don't think it is a war that can be won. The United States damages its image more and more in the region each day. Regardless of the intentions the United States military has (and I think they are fine intentions), the continual civilian deaths in Iraq will be blamed on the United States as instigators in this unjustified war. The question will be whether Iraq would be better served without our presence or not. I honestly cannot answer that question, but I believe we should make it our primary goal to extricate ourselves from this unfortunate situation. This might also be where the "hate-Bush crowd" comes in. I'm none too happy that the Bush Administration has put us in this disastrous situation. I'm anxious for the day he leaves office. Does that mean I automatically consider every decision he makes to be bad? No. It just means I haven't been pleased with his past decisions. So once again I need to explain to Mr. O'Reilly the difference between dissent and treason. That's a shame.

And that's "The CounterPoints Memo."