Iraq: "A War We Just Might Win"

[Xiahou]

From the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=login) of all places:

VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.

In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.

In Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.

We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.

But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).

In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.

In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.

The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.

In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.

Another surprise was how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.

In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to dozens of military officers who before the war had known little about governance or business but were now ably immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi with a decent life.

Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control.

In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

Michael E. O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kenneth M. Pollack is the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I have to say I admire your fortitude and belief Xiahou. :bow:

I wonder though, whether the war will be won because there's no-one left (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2816666.ece), or because the bad guys finally drown in money (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6922347.stm)?

Iraq: One in seven joins human tide spilling into neighbouring countries

Patrick Cockburn in Sulaymaniyah
Published: 30 July 2007

Two thousand Iraqis are fleeing their homes every day. It is the greatest mass exodus of people ever in the Middle East and dwarfs anything seen in Europe since the Second World War. Four million people, one in seven Iraqis, have run away, because if they do not they will be killed. Two million have left Iraq, mainly for Syria and Jordan, and the same number have fled within the country.

Yet, while the US and Britain express sympathy for the plight of refugees in Africa, they are ignoring - or playing down- a far greater tragedy which is largely of their own making.

The US and Britain may not want to dwell on the disasters that have befallen Iraq during their occupation but the shanty towns crammed with refugees springing up in Iraq and neighbouring countries are becoming impossible to ignore.

Even so the UNHCR is having difficulty raising $100m (£50m) for relief. The organisation says the two countries caring for the biggest proportion of Iraqi refugees - Syria and Jordan - have still received "next to nothing from the world community". Some 1.4 million Iraqis have fled to Syria according to the UN High Commission for Refugees, Jordan has taken in 750 000 while Egypt and Lebanon have seen 200 000 Iraqis cross into their territories.

Potential donors are reluctant to spent money inside Iraq arguing the country has large oil revenues. They are either unaware, or are ignoring the fact that the Iraqi administration has all but collapsed outside the Baghdad Green Zone. The US is spending $2bn a week on military operations in Iraq according to the Congressional Research Service but many Iraqis are dying because they lack drinking water costing a few cents.

Kalawar refugee camp in Sulaymaniyah is a microcosm of the misery to which millions of Iraqis have been reduced.

"At least it is safe here," says Walid Sha'ad Nayef, 38, as he stands amid the stink of rotting garbage and raw sewage. He fled from the lethally dangerous Sa'adiyah district in Baghdad 11 months ago. As we speak to him, a man silently presents us with the death certificate of his son, Farez Maher Zedan, who was killed in Baghdad on 20 May 2006.

Kalawar is a horrible place. Situated behind a petrol station down a dusty track, the first sight of the camp is of rough shelters made out of rags, torn pieces of cardboard and old blankets. The stench is explained by the fact the Kurdish municipal authorities will not allow the 470 people in the camp to dig latrines. They say this might encourage them to stay.

"Sometimes I go to beg," says Talib Hamid al-Auda, a voluble man with a thick white beard looking older than his fifty years. As he speaks, his body shakes, as if he was trembling at the thought of the demeaning means by which he feeds his family. Even begging is difficult because the people in the camp are forbidden to leave it on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Suspected by Kurds of being behind a string of house robberies, though there is no evidence for this, they are natural scapegoats for any wrong-doing in their vicinity.

Refugees are getting an increasingly cool reception wherever they flee, because there are so many of them and because of the burden they put on resources. "People here blame us for forcing up rents and the price of food," said Omar, who had taken his family to Damascus after his sister's leg was fractured by a car bomb.

The refugees in Kalawar had no option but to flee. Of the 97 families here, all but two are Sunni Arabs. Many are from Sa'adiyah in west Baghdad where 84 bodies were found by police between 18 June and 18 July. Many are young men whose hands had been bound and who had been tortured.

"The majority left Baghdad because somebody knocked on the door of their house and told them to get out in an hour," says Rosina Ynzenga, who runs the Spanish charity Solidarity International (SIA) which pays for a mobile clinic to visit the camp.

Sulaymaniyah municipality is antagonistic to her doing more. One Kurdish official suggested that the Arabs of Kalawar were there simply for economic reasons and should be given $200 each and sent back to Baghdad.

Mr Nayef, the mukhtar (mayor) of the camp who used to be a bulldozer driver in Baghdad, at first said nobody could speak to journalists unless we had permission from the authorities. But after we had ceremoniously written our names in a large book he relented and would, in any case, have had difficulty in stopping other refugees explaining their grievences.

Asked to list their worst problems Mr Nayef said they were the lack of school for the children, shortage of food, no kerosene to cook with, no money, no jobs and no electricity. The real answer to the question is that the Arabs of Kalawar have nothing. They have only received two cartons of food each from the International Committee of the Red Cross and a tank of clean water.

Even so they are adamant that they dare not return to Baghdad. They did not even know if their houses had been taken over by others.

Abla Abbas, a mournful looking woman in black robes, said her son had been killed because he went to sell plastic bags in the Shia district of Khadamiyah in west Baghdad. The poor in Iraq take potentially fatal risks to earn a little money.

The uncertainty of the refugees' lives in Kalawar is mirrored in their drawn faces. While we spoke to them there were several shouting matches. One woman kept showing us a piece of paper from the local authority in Sulaymaniyah giving her the right to stay there. She regarded us nervously as if we were officials about to evict her.

There are in fact three camps at Kalawar. Although almost all the refugees are Sunni they come from different places and until a month ago they lived together. But there were continual arguments. The refugees decided that they must split into three encampments: one from Baghdad, a second from Hillah, south of Baghdad, and a third from Diyala, the mixed Sunni-Shia province that has been the scene of ferocious sectarian pogroms.

Governments and the media crudely evaluate human suffering in Iraq in terms of the number killed. A broader and better barometer would include those who have escaped death only by fleeing their homes, their jobs and their country to go and live, destitute and unwanted, in places like Kalawar. The US administration has 18 benchmarks to measure progress in Iraq but the return of four million people to their homes is not among them.

Corruption 'mars Iraq rebuilding'

Reports of widespread fraud and waste of funds in Iraq

The US agency overseeing reconstruction in Iraq has told the BBC that economic mismanagement and corruption there is equivalent to "a second insurgency".
The chief auditor assigned by Congress, Stuart Bowen, said the Iraqi government was failing to take responsibility for projects worth billions of dollars.

Mr Bowen also said his agency was investigating more than 50 fraud cases.

Meanwhile, nearly a third of Iraq's population is in need of emergency aid, a report by Oxfam and Iraqi NGOs says.

The report said the Iraqi government was failing to provide basic essentials such as water, food, sanitation and shelter for up to eight million people.

It warned that the continuing violence was masking a humanitarian crisis that had escalated since the US-led invasion in 2003.

On Monday, six people were killed and at least 12 injured in a car bomb attack in Baghdad. The US military also announced the deaths of three of its soldiers in the western province of Anbar.

'Troubling'

US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen was appointed to audit $44bn (£22bn) allocated since 2003, after reports of widespread fraud and waste.

The agency publishes quarterly reports on the situation, most of which have complained about a serious lack of progress. Monday's report was no different.

Alarming humanitarian crisis

In an interview with the BBC, Mr Bowen said corruption was endemic and described it as "an enemy of democracy".

He added: "We have performed 95 audits that have found instances of programmatic weakness and waste, and we've got 57 ongoing cases right now, criminal cases, looking at fraud."

Mr Bowen said the transfer of projects to Iraqi government control was "troubling", and expressed concern about delays and cost overruns.

The report gave the example of the Doura power station, rebuilt with tens of millions of US dollars, which fell into disrepair once it was transferred to Iraqi control.

Mr Bowen also said Iraqi ministries were struggling to administer funds.

Last year, Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government only spent 22% of its budget on vital rebuilding projects, while spending 99% of the allocation for salaries, he said.

He said "a pathway towards potential prosperity" could be found only if oil production was brought up to optimal levels, and security and corruption effectively managed.

'Ruined by war'

The Iraqi parliament has now adjourned until 4 September, despite US calls for it to remain in session and pass already-delayed legislation.

The recess means parliament will reconvene just days before America's top commander in Iraq, Army Gen David Petraeus, reports to Congress on the US troop "surge" strategy.


OXFAM/NCCI REPORT IN FULL (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18_07_07_oxfam_iraq.pdf)
Rising to the humanitarian challenge in Iraq (324KB)


His assessment will likely provide the backdrop to the next round of war spending.

The BBC's Nicholas Witchell in Baghdad says the report by the UK-based charity and the NGO Co-ordination Committee in Iraq (NCCI) makes alarming reading.

The survey recognises that armed conflict is the greatest problem facing Iraqis, but finds a population "increasingly threatened by disease and malnutrition".

It suggests that 70% of Iraq's 26.5m population are without adequate water supplies, compared to 50% prior to the invasion. Only 20% have access to effective sanitation.

Nearly 30% of children are malnourished, a sharp increase on the situation four years ago. Some 15% of Iraqis regularly cannot afford to eat.

The report also said 92% of Iraq's children suffered from learning problems.

It found that more than two million people have been displaced inside the country, while a further two million have fled to neighbouring countries.

On Thursday, an international conference in Jordan pledged to help the refugees with their difficulties. Oxfam has not operated in Iraq since 2003 for security reasons.

[Xiahou]

I have to say I admire your fortitude and belief Xiahou. :bow:
Mine? I didn't write any of that. It was published in the NYT- written by a guy from a liberal think tank that's run by a former Clinton administration official.

I was quite deliberate in adding no commentary of my own. :wink:

[Lemur]

From the Brookings Institution (http://www3.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf):


JULY 23, 2007- With what promised to be a pivotal summer now more than half over, the situation in Iraq remains tenuous at best. Even with all surge forces in place and operational, the modest progress made in the security sphere thus far has not had the hoped-for subsequent influence on the political and economic sectors. Adding to the pressure is the steadily increasing demands stateside for a change in strategy. Indeed, the “political clocks” in Washington and Baghdad are perhaps farther apart today than they have ever been.

From a security standpoint, having the full allotment of surge troops in theater has allowed for intensified coalition operations in and around Baghdad aimed at rooting out militants from their sanctuaries. Initial reports indicate that these have led to a decrease in the levels of violence in these areas. However, violence nationwide has failed to improve measurably over the past 2-plus months, with a resilient enemy increasingly turning its focus to softer targets outside the scope of the surge. And while the number of internally displaced persons has declined, it has done so not as a result of security improvements but because there are fewer places for Iraqis to run with a number of provinces unable to accept any more refugees. In assessing the overall sentiment of the Iraqi people recently, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker summed it up in one word: fear.

Politically, there has yet to be significant progress in the legislation of any of the critical benchmark laws. This has been made exceedingly more difficult with recent boycotts of the government by both the Shiite officials loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr and the largest Sunni bloc, the National Accord Front. Though both have now agreed to return their members to parliament after weeks of abstention, neither has resumed participation at the cabinet level, leaving 13 of the 38 Iraqi cabinet positions vacant. With Kurdish lawmakers denouncing the most recently proposed oil revenue sharing law and the National Accord Front threatening to resume its boycott, it is difficult to see how any measurable political progress will take place before the all-important September update from Ambassador Crocker and commanding General David Petraeus.

Economically, “stagnation” continues to be the key word. The precarious security situation has continued to stymie any significant improvement of such macro indicators as unemployment, GDP and inflation. Fuel production fluctuates from week-to-week with insurgent attacks on infrastructure and suspected widespread corruption causing the average Iraqi to endure interminable lines to obtain scant amounts gasoline and propane. In addition, the availability of electricity has deteriorated over the past couple of months with Ambassador Crocker recently stating that the average person in Baghdad can count on only one or two hours of electricity per day.

[Del Arroyo]

Xiahou: It is true that we have been making progress, and it is nice that someone is recognizing that. However, there are many people one the ground here who do not believe it is enough. There are many people who are more pessimistic now than they have ever been. It's nice to think nice thoughts, though.

People are happy now, of course, because of the Asia Cup.

[Xiahou]

Here's (http://www.nypost.com/seven/07262007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/winning_in_iraq_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm?page=0) another interesting read. This time from retired military intelligence officer, Ralph Peters.

In a similar vein, is this (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=5bdb3520-d829-4fdb-a2bc-6611d80faba4) interview with NYT bureau chief John Burns.

I think there’s no doubt that those extra 30,000 American troops are making a difference. They’re definitely making a difference in Baghdad. Some of the crucial indicators of the war, metrics as the American command calls them, have moved in a positive direction from the American, and dare I say the Iraqi point of view, fewer car bombs, fewer bombs in general, lower levels of civilian casualties, quite remarkably lower levels of civilian casualties. And add in what they call the Baghdad belts, that’s to say the approaches to Baghdad, particularly in Diyala Province to the northeast, to in the area south of Baghdad in Babil Province, and to the west of Baghdad in Anbar Province, there’s no doubt that al Qaeda has taken something of a beating.

This part is really striking to me:
But it seems to me that the mood in Congress has moved beyond that. The mood in Congress, as I read it from here, at least those who are leading the push for the withdrawal, are not much interested anymore in incremental progress by the Iraqi government.
Do any successes matter at this point? Or is the writing on the wall as far as our politicians are concerned?

[Zaknafien]

Iraq, By the Numbers

Tom Engelhardt

Sometimes, numbers can strip human beings of just about everything that makes us what we are. Numbers can silence pain, erase love, obliterate emotion, and blur individuality. But sometimes numbers can also tell a necessary story in ways nothing else can.

This January, President Bush announced his "surge" plan for Iraq, which he called his "new way forward." It was, when you think about it, all about numbers. Since then, 28,500 new American troops have surged into that country, mostly in and around Baghdad; and, according to the Washington Post, there has also been a hidden surge of private armed contractors--hired guns, if you will--who free up troops by taking over many mundane military positions from guarding convoys to guarding envoys. In the meantime, other telltale numbers in Iraq have surged as well.

Now, Americans are theoretically waiting for the commander of US forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus, to report to Congress in September on the "progress" of the President's surge strategy. But there really is no reason to wait for September. An interim report--"Iraq by the numbers"--can be prepared now (as it could have been prepared last month, or last year). The trajectory of horror in Iraq has long been clear; the fact that the US military is a motor driving the Iraqi cataclysm has been no less clear for years now. So here is my own early version of the "September Report."

CONTINUED BELOW
A caveat about numbers: In the bloody chaos that is Iraq, as tens of thousands die or are wounded, as millions uproot themselves or are uprooted, and as the influence of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's national government remains largely confined to the four-square-mile fortified Green Zone in the Iraqi capital, numbers, even as they pour out of that hemorrhaging land, are eternally up for grabs. There is no way most of them can be accurate. They are, at best, a set of approximate notations in a nightmare that is beyond measurement.

Here, nonetheless, is an attempt to tell a little of the Iraqi story by those numbers:

Iraq is now widely considered # 1--when it comes to being the ideal jihadist training ground on the planet. "If Afghanistan was a Pandora's box which when opened created problems in many countries, Iraq is a much bigger box, and what's inside much more dangerous," comments Mohammed al-Masri, a researcher at Amman's Centre for Strategic Studies. CIA analysts predicted just this in a May 2005 report leaked to the press. ("A new classified assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency says Iraq may prove to be an even more effective training ground for Islamic extremists than Afghanistan was in Al Qaeda's early days, because it is serving as a real-world laboratory for urban combat.")

Iraq is # 2: It now ranks as the world's second most unstable country, ahead of war-ravaged or poverty-stricken nations like Somalia, Zimbabwe, the Congo, and North Korea, according to the 2007 Failed States Index, issued recently by the Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy magazine. (Afghanistan, the site of our other little war, ranked eigthth.) Last year and the year before, Iraq held fourth place on the list. Next year, it could surge to number one.

Number of American troops in Iraq, June 2007: Approximately 156,000.

Number of American troops in Iraq, May 1, 2003, the day President Bush declared "major combat operations" in that country "ended": Approximately 130,000.

Number of Sunni insurgents in Iraq, May 2007: At least 100,000, according to Asia Times correspondent Pepe Escobar on his most recent visit to the country.

American military dead in the surge months, February 1-June 26, 2007: 481.

American military dead, February-June 2006: 292.

Number of contractors killed in the first three months of 2007: At least 146, a significant surge over previous years. (Contractor deaths sometimes go unreported and so these figures are likely to be incomplete.)

Number of American troops Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and other Pentagon civilian strategists were convinced would be stationed in Iraq in August 2003, four months after Baghdad fell:): 30,000 to 40,000, according to Washington Post reporter Tom Ricks in his bestselling book, Fiasco.

Number of armed "private contractors" now in Iraq: At least 20,000-30,000, according to the Washington Post. (Jeremy Scahill, author of the bestseller Blackwater, puts the figure for all private contractors in Iraq at 126,000.)

Percentage of US deaths from roadside bombs: (IEDs): 70.9 percent in May 2007; 35 percent in February 2007 as the surge was beginning.

Percentage of registered US supply convoys (guarded by private contractors) attacked: 14.7 percent in 2007 (through May 10); 9.1 percent in 2006; 5.4 percent in 2005.

Percentage of Baghdad not controlled by US (and Iraqi) security forces more than four months into the surge: 60 percent, according to the US military.

Number of attacks on the Green Zone, the fortified heart of Baghdad where the new $600 million American embassy is rising and the Iraqi government largely resides: More than eighty between March and the beginning of June, 2007, according to a UN report. (These attacks, by mortar or rocket, from "pacified" Red-Zone Baghdad, are on the rise and now occur nearly daily.)

Size of US embassy staff in Baghdad: More than 1,000 Americans and 4,000 third-country nationals.

Staff US Ambassador Ryan Crocker considers appropriate to the "diplomatic" job: The ambassador recently sent "an urgent plea" to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for more personnel. "The people here are heroic," he wrote. "I need more people, and that's the thing, not that the people who are here shouldn't be here or couldn't do it." According to the Washington Post, the Baghdad embassy, previously assigned fifteen political officers, now will get eleven more; the economic staff will go from nine to twenty-one.

US air strikes in Iraq during the surge months: Air Force planes are dropping bombs at more than twice the rate of a year ago, according to the Associated Press. "Close support missions" are up 30 percent to forty percent. And this surge of air power seems, from recent news reports, still to be on the rise.

Number of years Gen. Petraeus, commander of the surge operation, predicts that the US will be engaged in Iraq counterinsurgency operations: Nine to ten years.

Number of years American troops might have to remain garrisoned at US bases in Iraq: Fifty-four, according to the "Korea model" now being considered for that country.

Number of years before the Iraqi security forces are capable of taking charge: "A couple of years," according to US Army Brig. Gen. Dana Pittard, commander of the Iraq Assistance Group.

Amount of "reconstruction" money invested in the CIA's key asset in the new Iraq, the Iraqi National Intelligence Service: $3 billion, according to Asia Times correspondent Pepe Escobar.

Number of Iraqis who have fled their country since 2003: Estimated to be between 2 millionand 2.2 million, or nearly one in ten Iraqis. According to independent reporter Dahr Jamail, at least 50,000 more refugees are fleeing the country every month.

Number of Iraqi refugees who have been accepted by the United States: Fewer than 500. (Under international and congressional pressure, the Bush administration has finally agreed to admit another 7,000 Iraqis by year's end.)

Number of Iraqis who are now internal refugees in Iraq since 2003: At least 1.9 million, according to the UN.

Percentage of refugees, internal and external, under the age of twelve: 55 percent, according to the President of the Red Crescent Society.

Percentage of Baghdadi children age three to ten, exposed to a major traumatic event in the last two years: 47 percent, according to a World Health Organization survey of 600 children. 14 percent showed symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. In another study of 1,090 adolescents in Mosul, that figure reached 30 percent.

Number of Iraqi doctors who have fled the country since 2003: An estimated 12,000 of the country's 34,000 registered doctors since 2003, according to the Iraqi Medical Association. The Association reports that another 2,000 doctors have been slain in those years.

Number of Iraqi refugees created since January 2007: An estimated 250,000.

Percentage of Iraqis now living on less than $1 a day: 54 percent, according to the UN.

Percentage of Iraqis who do not have regular access to clean water: 70 percent, according to the World Health Organization. (80 percent "lack effective sanitation.")

Rate of chronic child malnutrition: 21 percent, according to the World Health Organization.

Number of Iraqis held in American prisons in their own country: 17,000 by March 2007, almost 20,000 by May 2007 and surging.

Average number of Iraqis who died violently each day in 2006: 100 -- and this is undoubtedly an underestimate, since not all deaths are reported.

Number of Iraqis who have died violently since January 2007: 15,000 -- again, certainly an undercount.

Percentage of seriously wounded who don't survive, based on the above calculation: Nearly 70 percent, according to the World Health Organization.

Number of university professors who have been killed since 2003: More than 200, according to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education.

Percentage of Americans who approve of the President's actions in Iraq: 23 percent, according to the latest post-surge Newsweek poll. The President's overall approval rating stood at 26 percent in this poll, just three points above those of only one president, Richard Nixon at his Watergate worst, and Bush's polling figures are threatening to head into that territory. In the latest, now two-week old NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 10 percent of Americans think the "surge" has made things better in Iraq, 54 percent worse.

The question is: What word best describes the situation these Iraqi numbers hint at? The answer would probably be: No such word exists. "Genocide" has been beaten into the ground and doesn't apply. "Civil war," which shifts all blame to the Iraqis (withdrawing Americans from a country its troops have not yet begun to leave), doesn't faintly cover the matter.

If anything catches the carnage and mayhem that was once the nation of Iraq, it might be a comment by the head of the Arab League, Amr Mussa, in 2004. He warned: "The gates of hell are open in Iraq." At the very least, the "gates of hell" should now officially be considered miles behind us on the half-destroyed, well-mined highway of Iraqi life. Who knows what IEDs lie ahead? We are, after all, in the underworld.

[Gregoshi]

I get the point you are trying to make Xiahou. While it is an interesting shift in perception for the parties you cited, I think it may be too late unless such a viewpoint sweeps across a larger section of the media. It is a bit refreshing to know that somebody is seeing something positive going on in Iraq as I've been really bothered that we weren't doing any good there.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Those numbers paint an incomplete picture at best, Zak. Most of them don't address pre-Surge conditions, and not all of them are necessarily negative changes.

[Tribesman]

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Iraq:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: win:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: bloody hell:thumbsdown:

[Spetulhu]

Hope is a virtue, and the virtuous always win. Don't they?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

According to Englehardt's numbers, we've got 156k US troops, 25k contractors, our allies, plus those Iraqi units that pass muster.

This means we're short and that the surge will be nothing but a shell game in the long run -- even though the effort to suppress Bagdad is having some effect.

Guerilla/terrorist forces are suppressed by the tactics we are using, but (historically) only when occupier v guerilla numbers reach a ratio of at least 7-1. The recommended level is 10-1.

If there truly are 100,000 opposition force fighters, that means roughly 750k worth of usable troops will be needed to suppress the vast bulk of the violence and establish a lasting sense of stability. My best guess is that we're no more than 2/3 of the way there in numbers.

Even if the numbers are half those claimed (50k) that means a force of roughly 500k to suppress the guerilla/terrorist forces. The coalition is providing a little less than half of that total now -- are Iraqi forces up to providing the other 60%?

Question to any of our military types. Are you aware of anything in the way of force multipliers that can change that 10-1 ratio?

[Xiahou]

Here's (http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/rodman/20070729.htm) more sense from the Brookings Institute:

Today, Congress, too, faces a pivotal choice on Iraq. The moment that Congress enacts a law constricting the president's freedom of action in Iraq, it buys a considerable share of responsibility for the war's outcome. Will tomorrow's narrative be that the strategic military situation in Iraq was starting to improve in 2007 but Congress pulled the plug anyway—emboldening Islamist extremists throughout the region and demoralizing all our friends? If so, perhaps it's not President Bush who needs political cover from his opponents but they who want political cover from him.



According to Englehardt's numbers, we've got 156k US troops, 25k contractors, our allies, plus those Iraqi units that pass muster.

This means we're short and that the surge will be nothing but a shell game in the long run -- even though the effort to suppress Bagdad is having some effect.You're forgetting the almost 350k of Iraqi security forces Seamus. Regardless, I have disdain for such a hard and fast "formula" that only implies one way to success- it's never that simple. You might say Gen Petraeus wrote the book (http://www.amazon.com/Counterinsurgency-Field-Manual-Intelligence-Ring-bound/dp/1422008517/ref=cm_lmf_tit_2_rsrscs0/102-5045118-8115354) on counterinsurgencies- if anyone can pull it off at this point, it would be him. Anyone know if the 10-1 type figures made it into his book?

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Question to any of our military types. Are you aware of anything in the way of force multipliers that can change that 10-1 ratio?

I would bet that having highly mobile units in the area would help make the ratio a bit more forgiving, but even if every infantry squad has an APC, or Blackhawk they still can't be everywhere at once....

[Crazed Rabbit]

NYT...excuse me, I need to go check Hell for snowflakes...

Okay, I'm back, and it's not snowing. Raining and cloudy, but not snowing.

Oh, and I find it funner when some people don't respond to the NYT article, they just spit back an article of their own. 'Can not compute...article...must reinforce own notions...' ~;p

CR

[Gregoshi]

Oh, and I find it funner when some people don't respond to the NYT article, they just spit back an article of their own. 'Can not compute...article...must reinforce own notions...' ~;p

I've noticed that in another thread or two recently - standard topics but with a twist. The discussion is supposed to be about the twist, but falls back on the same old, same old. :shrug:

[Lemur]

Oh, and I find it funner when some people don't respond to the NYT article, they just spit back an article of their own. 'Can not compute...article...must reinforce own notions...' ~;p
That would be directed at moi. I'm sorry you found the Brooking Institute's overview to be, well, what exactly? A dodge? A distraction?

The propaganda war in September will be all about whether or not we should "stay the course" for the foreseeable future, and I see it's starting early. Broad overviews are entirely appropriate when trying to sort out the dung that will be flung about in the monkey cage. Apparently the NYT editorial was so well-received by the White House that they've been faxing and emailing it to every press representative and congressman under the sun.

What the editorial fails to address is the lack of political progress. In fairness, they mention it in the last sentence or two, and it isn't really the focus of their essay. Nevertheless, without political reconciliation, military progress is a game without an ending. I'm disgusted that the Iraqi parliament insisted on taking their August vacation (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/GRA049304.htm), while our soldiers continue to fight and die in the streets.

That General Petraeus will report "progress" in September is a foregone conclusion. Given his wholesale embrace by the Bush administration, I fear he will become the latest prop for the President to continue his policies. There's an article about the President's public use of Petraeus here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/14/AR2007071401140.html)

It's nice, though, that the right-wing Orgahs have found something to crow about in the New York Times.

[Papewaio]

I would bet that having highly mobile units in the area would help make the ratio a bit more forgiving, but even if every infantry squad has an APC, or Blackhawk they still can't be everywhere at once....

I think its feet on ground patrolling the zone not equipment that is the key. APC's and Blackhawks would be great from getting from A to B, for a non combat patrol in an urban area it still comes down to feet.

I'm pretty sure the 'best' model would be whatever the Brits did in Northern Ireland... and learning from their mistakes too.

[Tribesman]

Guerilla/terrorist forces are suppressed by the tactics we are using, but (historically) only when occupier v guerilla numbers reach a ratio of at least 7-1. The recommended level is 10-1.

There was an article the other week which used those figures ,but it was a ratio at 10-1 of the population not the guerillas , it noted that in South Armagh the British army was at a ratio of 8-1 yet couldn't even drive on the roads . When you add police numbers to the army it changes the ratio even more

[Papewaio]

I assume that is 1/10th of the population not 10 times the pop...

[Fragony]

All is not lost, qualifying for the cup that what nobody could. Now win it, that should give them something to do.

[Pannonian]

You're forgetting the almost 350k of Iraqi security forces Seamus. Regardless, I have disdain for such a hard and fast "formula" that only implies one way to success- it's never that simple. You might say Gen Petraeus wrote the book (http://www.amazon.com/Counterinsurgency-Field-Manual-Intelligence-Ring-bound/dp/1422008517/ref=cm_lmf_tit_2_rsrscs0/102-5045118-8115354) on counterinsurgencies- if anyone can pull it off at this point, it would be him. Anyone know if the 10-1 type figures made it into his book?
If Petraeus wrote the book on counterinsurgencies, then perhaps he will fight a counterinsurgency with great success. The problem with Iraq is that it's not the insurgency that's the main problem, it's disorder. There are goodness knows how many "sides" (if one can call them that) in Iraq, and their main target is not the Americans, but each other. Indeed, it might make things easier for Petraeus if they did indeed have the Americans as their principal target. But they don't. They're going to wait the Americans out, perhaps occasionally bombing them to get them credibility and support, but they're looking for a share of power (in whatever form) in post-occupation Iraq. It might be a share of political power they're after, or it might just be power as a local mafia boss, but the formula is fairly similar - get some supporters together, make sure they won't defect by finding some common enemies (other Iraqs being the easiest targets) to victimise, then buy some officials who will look the other way when you do your stuff.

To tell the truth, this disorder shouldn't really matter to us, but for two factors.

1. Iraq has lots of oil.
2. The countries around Iraq have lots of oil.

As long as Iraq can't stand up for itself as a buffer between the surrounding countries, the disorder will spread to and draw in the surrounding countries. If we lose Iraq as a potential source of oil, it's bad luck. But if we lose the neighbouring countries as well, it will be disaster. The problem with Iraq is not Iraq itself, but its aftermath. Our goal should be to ensure a strong Iraq that can hold off the neighbouring states and keep itself within itself. This is a primarily political goal, via political means. The military may give you some time to pursue these political goals, but they cannot solve them by themselves.

The question to ask is: are the political parties any closer to extending their authority over the whole of Iraq? AFAICS, if one takes away the American support which will inevitably end, the answer is no.

[Husar]

They need something to unite the people and spread the love, maybe hold the next Tour de France there or something.:idea2:

[Zaknafien]

actually, according to Petraeus' own doctrine in FM 3-24, we dont have near enough forces still to pacify Baghdad. The "surge" is a shell game to keep the war going at any cost. Its downright criminal the lengths these men will go to to maintain their profits.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

actually, according to Petraeus' own doctrine in FM 3-24, we dont have near enough forces still to pacify Baghdad. The "surge" is a shell game to keep the war going at any cost. Its downright criminal the lengths these men will go to to maintain their profits.

I have never accepted your premise that the war is being purposefully run in a "low-intensity but long duration so that we can milk the money cow" fashion.

I still worry, however, that Patreus is not being given the full support to actually win/suppress this thing. I worry that our government/nation has not truly accepted the need to increase the Navy, Marines, AND put the Army up to 1.5 million boots so that we can actually apply the appropriate amount of force to win these kind of wars.

Xiahou: Hadn't known that the ISF had managed to field 350k of fairly reliable troops. Where'd you get that? Obviously, if they're all more or less field ready, that would get us almost to a 7-1. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that Patreus is enjoying a measure of success?

Rebuilding a nation is not a quick process. There will always be an insurgency as -- even if all of your personnel qualify for sainthood -- they are still "damn furriners" to the locals. Suppressing that insurgency takes boots, time, and a track record of diminishing success on the part of the guerillas until they (save for the inevitable 0.01% whack jobs) finally call it quits. The USA marginalized the insurgency in the Phillipines (1899-1903) in about 4 years -- and that was an almost completely "local" insurgency. To expect faster results with fewer troops per rebel in Iraq seems silly.

Pan-man and the Lemury one, as they often do, have hit upon the biggest potential problem issue of all -- Iraq's ability to move "forward." So far, too many of them are choosing a tribalistic model and reveling in a level of graft and corruption that makes the Mexican govt. seem like a group of amateurs. This will cripple any hope of a Democratic Republic of Iraq just as -- if not more certainly than -- guerilla warfare. It is at least possible to shoot the guerillas and make them stop. This is the harder problem.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I think its feet on ground patrolling the zone not equipment that is the key. APC's and Blackhawks would be great from getting from A to B, for a non combat patrol in an urban area it still comes down to feet.

I'm pretty sure the 'best' model would be whatever the Brits did in Northern Ireland... and learning from their mistakes too.

That was pretty much my point. Even if each squad is equipped with an APC or Blackhawk (which is definitely not the case) they will not be able to manage the insurgency at this point because we just don't have enough people on the ground. Forces equipped to be highly mobile will be able to cover a little bit more ground and will be slightly more effective at suppressing the insurgency, but in the end you still need a lot more men on the ground than we have to ensure relative stability.

[Lemur]

This will cripple any hope of a Democratic Republic of Iraq just as -- if not more certainly than -- guerilla warfare. It is at least possible to shoot the guerillas and make them stop.
Actually, counterinsurgency doctrine would suggest that it is not possible to shoot the guerillas to make them stop. Not to say that patrols shouldn't shoot, or that extremists shouldn't die, but rather that without political reconciliation, victory is impossible.

To win, all a guerilla or insurgent has to do is not lose. To lose, all an occupier (or liberator, if you will) has to do is not win. It's a bad equation for the occupier, and the only way to change it is to deny the enemy support amongst the populace. And the only way to do that is to create a new political reality, something that cannot be accomplished by armed forces alone.

Right now every faction in Iraq thinks that it will get to control the death camps and the oil fields. They have zero history of compromise, and less of clean government.

[Xiahou]

Xiahou: Hadn't known that the ISF had managed to field 350k of fairly reliable troops. Where'd you get that? Again from Brookings.
The State of Iraq: An Update (http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20070610.htm)

Iraqi Security Forces (in thousands) 0 136 168 266 349Those numbers are for May of 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 respectively.


That would be directed at moi. I'm sorry you found the Brooking Institute's overview to be, well, what exactly? A dodge? A distraction? How do you find that from their homepage? It's obviously from the Saban center, but I can't seem to find it via navigating. Regardless of the "overview" you posted, this now graces the top of their homepage (http://www.brookings.edu/).

As Iraqi lawmakers prepare to recess for the summer, the debate over Iraq policy continues on Capitol Hill. Following a recent trip from Iraq, Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack argue that the U.S. is making progress there. And Peter Rodman argues for "resisting calls for any U.S. withdrawal not warranted by conditions in Iraq."

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

Or maybe not? (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/30/ohanlons-research/)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Actually, counterinsurgency doctrine would suggest that it is not possible to shoot the guerillas to make them stop. Not to say that patrols shouldn't shoot, or that extremists shouldn't die, but rather that without political reconciliation, victory is impossible.

I meant that sardonically, as in shooting everyone whose involved in the corruption would be impossible as it seems endemic -- whle killing insurgents is useful it is not, as you note, the basis for victory. I should probably have tried for clarity more than humor, please excuse.


To win, all a guerilla or insurgent has to do is not lose. To lose, all an occupier (or liberator, if you will) has to do is not win. It's a bad equation for the occupier, and the only way to change it is to deny the enemy support amongst the populace. And the only way to do that is to create a new political reality, something that cannot be accomplished by armed forces alone.

Agree with you absolutely as to the new "political reality." However, an insurgency must do much more than simply continue in order to win. They must continue long enough for the occupier to "take its marbles and go home" or they must develop the capability to defeat the occupier in the field. The occupier, on the other had, does not need to eradicate the insurgency -- close to impossible in terms of absolutes -- but to degrade the insurgency's ability to de-stabilize the nascent "political reality" that is being evoked. Endemic corruption can greatly slow the establishment of a new "political reality" and therefore make the job exceedingly difficult.

[Del Arroyo]

A question for discussion: Are we on the same side as ISF?

Also: Is ISF on the same side as ISF?

[Divinus Arma]

Defeat, militarily, is an impossibility. Our success or failure rests in the political will of our leaders. And that is it.

The Dems want America to fail in Iraq and will undermine the military effort in every way possible in order to secure a political failure which will lead to a military withdrawal. Failure in Iraq, characterized by early withdrawal and a resulting collapsed failed state in civil war, would prove to be a political victory of lasting consequence for the American left as well as a disastrous defeat in the war against terror with even longer lasting, albeit dire, consequences for western security.

[Xiahou]

House Majority Whip, Jim Clyburn, said to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380.html) that a positive report from Iraq would be "a real big problem for us". :dizzy2:

[Pannonian]

Defeat, militarily, is an impossibility. Our success or failure rests in the political will of our leaders. And that is it.

The Dems want America to fail in Iraq and will undermine the military effort in every way possible in order to secure a political failure which will lead to a military withdrawal. Failure in Iraq, characterized by early withdrawal and a resulting collapsed failed state in civil war, would prove to be a political victory of lasting consequence for the American left as well as a disastrous defeat in the war against terror with even longer lasting, albeit dire, consequences for western security.
You make it sound as though victory or defeat depends on the will and nerve of the politicians to stick it out for long enough. That is, as I've shown on numerous occasions, not the case. It's not the political will that's going to decide the fate of Iraq, but the political direction. At the moment, it's going in the same wrong direction as always, adjusting for wind (coming from the helmsman's backside). You're not circumnavigating the globe, where if you keep going in the wrong direction for long enough you'll eventually end up where you started. There's only so long you can keep going before your boat falls apart, and if you insist on aiming for the wrong goal, your destination is going to be the bottom of the sea.

[Papewaio]

Defeat, militarily, is an impossibility. Our success or failure rests in the political will of our leaders. And that is it.


True military failure is a virtual impossibility, this will come down to a political solution. However a proper military solution will give the leverage in the political arena. I would say your failure is in the hands of the political will of your leaders. Success however is in the hands of their political leaders.

It is when the Iraqi government can sit down and have peace talks with the insurgents that a victory can be achieved. That is not something the political leaders can rush on any of the sides. Until it becomes a situation like Northern Ireland where Sinn Fein had the political will and authourity to rein in a large percentage of the IRA... peace in Iraq will be very hard to achieve until the political side is addressed and those in charge of the politics have the actual ability to control the military... compare the PLO with Hamas for instance... Hamas if anything has a nastier terrorist and military arm then the PLO, however the political side of Hamas seems to have more control over their military brethren and more coordination overall... so although they are 'worse' terrorists a lasting peace might be easier to achieve as the political arm can and will get things done given a large enough carrot.

Of course while carrots have to be given out to political concessions, the entire time a large stick has to hover over any violent outbursts... but the military counter strikes have to be proportionate and seen to be just... otherwise they erode the goodwill that is trying to be formed by the political process.

=][=

Of course a cheap energy source like say the mythical 'cold fusion' and wham, the middle east loses all economic leverage and then the ability to buy and supply arms there would be minimal... they would have to have economies based on knowledge or have their economies dwindle into dust... those same knowledgeable workers make it hard to be a dictator/monarch and would encourage democracy to rise from the grass roots... which is really the only proven way that democracies have risen... a top down approach works for dictatorships, while democracies require a larger base of informed citizens.

I don't think a democracy is possible to install when people are more concerned about survival and getting their needs looked after. It is less important to stay knowledgeable and informed when you are trying to stay alive and supply yourself with clean water, food and shelter that doesn't explode.

[Somebody Else]

At least with our soldiers out there, would-be terrorists are going out there to bomb people rather than bombing people at home... they have (sometimes) protective armour for that kind of behaviour.

Did I mention that we screwed the country over, and should fix it before we leave? Or that it'd simply be inhumane to leave them to slaughter each other? (Whilst we're at it, there's a fair few African states that need intervention as well... but they have no oil, and they're black, so people don't seem to care).

[Lemur]

The Dems want America to fail in Iraq and will undermine the military effort in every way possible in order to secure a political failure which will lead to a military withdrawal.
Who knew the Dems were planning a Dolchstosslegende (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab_in_the_back)? Are they plotting this with the Freemasons and the Jews?

DA, if there are signs of improvement, our country will adjust to the new reality. There's nothing the Dems can do about that except carp from the sidelines. If, on the other hand, we're still refereeing a 20-way civil war, our country can't be demagogued into believing it's the birth pangs of a Jeffersonian democracy.

The American people are not infinitely stupid. You know the old adage about fooling people, involving the variables "time" and "all." Your dystopian vision of an emasculated America rotted from within by leftists and the intelligentsia, welcoming jihadis with open arms in the name of multi-culturalism ... well, let's just say that I'm rather more worried about octosquids and zombies.

America may veer from left to right and back again, but it's a fundamentally sane nation, with a good head on its collective shoulders. Excesses will be corrected over time. I don't believe in the leftie pinko takeover any more than I believe in the fascist right-wingnut takeover.

Just chill, man.

-edit-

Oh, and to answer Xiahou's question, the main index of the Saban archives is here. (http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/indexarchive.htm)

[Divinus Arma]

I'm no fool who sees a conspiracy of the left alone. I think it is quite reasonable to believe that both parties are willing to engage in nearly any level of politics, to the detriment of the nation, in order to gain or retain power.

I am simply making the observation that this is an instance of Democratic party sabotage of this military campaign in order to gain political advantage.

The Republicans are doing the same thing with Global Warming, with consequences of similar ruin.

While that may be considered pessimism, I see it as realism.

[Crazed Rabbit]

That would be directed at moi. I'm sorry you found the Brooking Institute's overview to be, well, what exactly? A dodge? A distraction?

Actually, it wasn't. (Well, not mainly, but firing for effect on the tubes of the internet means miscommunication)



Did I mention that we screwed the country over, and should fix it before we leave? Or that it'd simply be inhumane to leave them to slaughter each other? (Whilst we're at it, there's a fair few African states that need intervention as well... but they have no oil, and they're black, so people don't seem to care).

Good point. Apparently, we didn't do enough about Rwanda, and here we've caused a great mess and we're supposed to run out and let them kill each other off. Wander what they would've said if we had gone to Rwanda and our soldiers had died...

CR

[Papewaio]

Surely the Republicans had the upper hand and the early start with regards to sending the required amount of troops to deal with an insurgency... blaming it on the Democrats a couple of years after the fact is a little bit rich IMDHO... more troops should have been sent earlier, the Republicans dropped the ball on this one.

I would say the Republicans were too optimistic and the Democrats too pessimistic... I have to agree that both sets are doing so to pander to voters... it would have been best if the politicians had set out the goal of the war (which would include either an exit time or exit goal point), a budget and then let the military decide how many boots it required... and allow the military to give an honest opinion on whether it could be achieved with a boy scout troop or a million hardened veterans.

[Lemur]

Apparently, we didn't do enough about Rwanda, and here we've caused a great mess and we're supposed to run out and let them kill each other off. Wander what they would've said if we had gone to Rwanda and our soldiers had died...
Yeah, this is a major cognitive disconnect for some Democrats. They'll rail on and on about Rwanda (in retrospect) and Darfur (in anticipation), but I never get the sense that they've thought it through. How will the Darfur Dems justify leaving Iraq to its own little genocide? Have any of them tried to address this, or have they been out of power too long to think about cause and effect?

Personally, I don't think Darfur is our business, and I don't think it's worth seeing our kids in harm's way. Mercenaries are always an option, and maybe one of these decade Africa will decide to police its own.

Likewise, I don't think it's in the U.S.'s national interest to referee the civil war in Iraq. If the world wants us to behave as a mass-scale world policeman, we have a lot to discuss, and everybody had better be on board.

[Pannonian]

Likewise, I don't think it's in the U.S.'s national interest to referee the civil war in Iraq. If the world wants us to behave as a mass-scale world policeman, we have a lot to discuss, and everybody had better be on board.
It's even less in America's interest in leave behind an unstable Iraq. The goal should be to reconcile the need for a stable Iraq with the desire to leave. IMHO there's still a chance of pulling it off, just about, but the die hard stick-it-outers won't contemplate it until it's too late for it to be workable any longer.

[Xiahou]

Likewise, I don't think it's in the U.S.'s national interest to referee the civil war in Iraq. If the world wants us to behave as a mass-scale world policeman, we have a lot to discuss, and everybody had better be on board.We broke it, we need to fix it. If we pull out, the prevailing wisdom is that the current violence could look like a cake-walk compared to what will happen. Worse still, Iraq would become an Al Qaeda safe haven and would also be trumpeted as a major victory.

Did anyone take the time to read the John Burns interview (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=5bdb3520-d829-4fdb-a2bc-6611d80faba4) I linked earlier? It's quite informative.


HH: No, I was asking when al Qaeda was in Afghanistan under the Taliban regime, they obviously developed potential and capabilities and operational abilities that resulted in 9/11. If they anchored themselves in a lawless Iraq, would their lethality towards the United States be even greater or lesser than it was when they were in Taliban Afghanistan?

JB: I would say it would probably be greater, and for these reasons. Let’s remember that the Afghanistan, that was a sanctuary for al Qaeda and bin Laden, is a very, very underdeveloped, I dare say primitive country. Iraq is not. Iraq is a country that had and potentially still has a major industrial base, it has among Middle Eastern countries one of the most highly educated corps of scientists and engineers, people who were on their way, certainly in the early 1990’s, to developing nuclear weapons, even if that program, as we now know, fell by the wayside after the first Gulf War. Many of these people have left, but would some of them come back? You would then have to add to that the fact that this is an oil country, which even in the situation of a civil war, is exporting billions of dollars of oil to the world, and could potentially export much more. So I would say add to that the question of geography. We’re a thousand miles closer here in Baghdad to Western Europe and the United States than Mr. bin Laden and his followers were when they were in Afghanistan. So I think yes, it could be a serious problem. Whether that problem can be overcome in any foreseeable or acceptable period of time here, I don’t know. If we knew the answer to that, we’d be well on our way to deciding whether or not it’s worth staying here. But I think to deny that there is such a problem, or even simply to blame it on the Bush administration…

[Papewaio]

Likewise, I don't think it's in the U.S.'s national interest to referee the civil war in Iraq. If the world wants us to behave as a mass-scale world policeman, we have a lot to discuss, and everybody had better be on board.

I agree with Xiahou on this one.

If you borrow something you should always return it to its owner in equal to or better condition to which you borrowed it.

The world, bar a couple of nations (that being the coalition which Australia is part of) was very much against the US of A going in and being a policeman and the ones that did follow used some very dodgy data supplied primarily by the USA and UK to go in and lend a hand. End of the day this is a mess made by the coalition and has to be fixed by the coalition, it is a bit cheeky to turn around and say to the world that told you not to go in, to now fix it.

If the US wasn't willing to listen before why should it conveniently want the world to rubberstamp its actions in Iraq now. Seems like a way to pass the blame to someone else. Personally that is not a very mature thing for an individual or a country to do, in the end of the day you knocked up Iraq and you can't abort it now... so the coalition will have to see it through until it can look after itself independently.

[Marshal Murat]

US Deaths in July lowest in 8 Months (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070731/D8QNPVAG0.html)

I see definite improvement.

[Lemur]

If the US wasn't willing to listen before why should it conveniently want the world to rubberstamp its actions in Iraq now. Seems like a way to pass the blame to someone else. Personally that is not a very mature thing for an individual or a country to do, in the end of the day you knocked up Iraq and you can't abort it now... so the coalition will have to see it through until it can look after itself independently.
I guess my perspective is skewed on this one, since I was opposed to this misadventure from the start. So the Backroom's collective wisdom is that the U.S. will have to look after and pay for Iraq in blood and gold until ... well, until whenever? Ye gods, Bush/Cheney have really done a number on us.

You do realize that counterinsurgency is a pointless exercise without political reconciliation? And that for the last few years, none of the parties on the ground have seen a need for any compromise? You do realize that this means we are in for an indefinite stay?

[Papewaio]

Yeap, so suck it up. Part of being in a democracy is that you sometimes get a head of state you didn't vote for. It doesn't however absolve you from the ethics of leaving Iraq in a worse state then before involvement by the prior administration when a new one comes along.

Sure you can drop the ethics and walk away, but it will be the administration that walks away that gets the blame (much like current administrations get the glory for economic booms that were started by prior administrations)... so whoever is next on line is really going to be in a lose-lose situation.

How much leverage is a US administration going to get if they fail in Iraq? And how long will the damage last?

[Ronin]

I guess my perspective is skewed on this one, since I was opposed to this misadventure from the start. So the Backroom's collective wisdom is that the U.S. will have to look after and pay for Iraq in blood and gold until ... well, until whenever? Ye gods, Bush/Cheney have really done a number on us.

You do realize that counterinsurgency is a pointless exercise without political reconciliation? And that for the last few years, none of the parties on the ground have seen a need for any compromise? You do realize that this means we are in for an indefinite stay?

yes...that is the situation the US is in right now....

it´s one of those "I don´t wanna say I told you so...but I told you so" situations...as far as I see the US has no choice now but to suck it up and hang on for the duration......as long as that might be....the fallout that would occur if the American administration appeared to "run away" from this problem would be a nightmare.

[Zaknafien]

Defeat, militarily, is an impossibility. Our success or failure rests in the political will of our leaders. And that is it.

The Dems want America to fail in Iraq and will undermine the military effort in every way possible in order to secure a political failure which will lead to a military withdrawal. Failure in Iraq, characterized by early withdrawal and a resulting collapsed failed state in civil war, would prove to be a political victory of lasting consequence for the American left as well as a disastrous defeat in the war against terror with even longer lasting, albeit dire, consequences for western security.

then again, Victory, militarily, is also an impossiblity.

[Zaknafien]

At least with our soldiers out there, would-be terrorists are going out there to bomb people rather than bombing people at home... they have (sometimes) protective armour for that kind of behaviour.

Did I mention that we screwed the country over, and should fix it before we leave? Or that it'd simply be inhumane to leave them to slaughter each other? (Whilst we're at it, there's a fair few African states that need intervention as well... but they have no oil, and they're black, so people don't seem to care).

thats the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard, spouted directly from pundits at Fox Noise machine. Iraq had nothing to do with alqaeda before the war, and AQIZ or alqaeda in mesopotamia, or the islamic state of Iraq, have nothing to do with binladen's alqaeda. Alqaeda, for that matter, isnt even a real organization. Aside from that fact, the 100,000 insurgents in iraq are 90% local resistance fighters from the disaffected sunni AND shia tribes in the area, not terrorists. They have no intrest in attacking American soil. They just dont like invading soldiers in their country. and neither would we. while there are hardliners out there who want to die for allah, its a much smaller percentage than the warmongers at Fox would have you believe.

[Rodion Romanovich]

The worst problem is that the British-American policy in Iraq is now not only a meaningless slaughter of Iraqi citizens, but also causing big problems that threaten European countries and their cultural richness. The murder and destruction in Iraq is making Europe drown under a wave of refugees - WE have to pay for the expenses and destruction caused by the USA and Great Britain. The consequences of a British-American policy is tremendous suffering for European countries that were previously friends and passive allies of the USA and Britain. Perhaps USA and Great Britain might wish to pay a huge sum of money to all countries economically burdened by these waves unless they wish to make the passive allies turn into passive enemies? To treat allies and friends in such a careless manner as has been done now, is not honorable. USA and Israel depends fully on the passive to active support of western Europe to be able to carry out any policies at all in the Middle East. A separation between USA-Britain and the rest of Europe also opens the field for Russian imperialism, which in the long run is a great threat to USA and Britain, as well as Chinese and Iranian imperialist policies. The separation and mutual carelessness between the democratic countries is now making the anti-democratic countries stronger. While we fight internally, the imperialists and dictatorships grow stronger and we'll soon be back at a early 20th century scenario. The greatest threat to peace is now a dirty, small-scale, meaningless war in Iraq, the schism it causes between the western countries, and the withdrawal of more and more democratic rights in the western countries, officially in the name of "anti-terrorism". The best way to lose in Iraq is to stay. The longer you stay, the more waves of refugees come to Europe and the more disliking towards USA and Britain grows in these countries. The longer you stay, the more innocent Iraqi civilians are murdered by undisciplined maniacs who somehow slipped through the controls and ended up in the army, and the more scandals and hatred from the local Iraqis - indeed the sunnis have now left the puppet government: the support among sunnis is so low that it's impossible to even find a single self-serving puppet among them. The longer you stay, the more the regular citizens - those who aren't capitalist trade partners of the occupants - will suffer social injustice under the reppressive rule of right wing occupants cooperating with right wing locals and quislings, and the more the terrorism will grow. The longer you stay, the greater impression you will give of weakness by inability to know when to retreat and regroup. Etc. etc. Surely you will lose a lot if you retreat, but if you stay you will only lose more. It's not rational to be so desperate of making things right fast, that you end up making them worse.

[Somebody Else]

thats the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard, spouted directly from pundits at Fox Noise machine. Iraq had nothing to do with alqaeda before the war, and AQIZ or alqaeda in mesopotamia, or the islamic state of Iraq, have nothing to do with binladen's alqaeda. Alqaeda, for that matter, isnt even a real organization. Aside from that fact, the 100,000 insurgents in iraq are 90% local resistance fighters from the disaffected sunni AND shia tribes in the area, not terrorists. They have no intrest in attacking American soil. They just dont like invading soldiers in their country. and neither would we. while there are hardliners out there who want to die for allah, its a much smaller percentage than the warmongers at Fox would have you believe.

Fox?

Nor am I in any way referring to Iraq before the war. The 90% of local fighters you mention are indeed from the sunni and shia tribes, and they're slaughtering each other wholesale. If you think that I think that all of the killing is due to some kind of mass Islamic jihad against our soldiers, you're sorely mistaken. They're killing each other because people, the world over, are self-serving gits, and in the power-vacuum that we made the mistake of creating, local warlords &c. have free reign to exert these tendencies.

Where did I mention al-Quaida by the way? If you're referring to my somewhat light-hearted comment about terrorists going to blow themselves up over there, rather than here... You yourself say that a proportion of the insurgents are not local. Therefore they've travelled there from somewhere else. Seems to me, that someone who's so inclined to travel somewhere to take part in such a struggle will do so. The sandpit just happens to be a conveniently obvious place to go.

My point was, and still is, that the place is a mess. We can help, therefore we should help.

Oh, and American soil, Iraqi soil... it's all just dirt.


Blah

[Divinus Arma]

The worst problem is that the British-American policy in Iraq is now not only a meaningless slaughter of Iraqi citizens...

Indeed. Meaningless slaughter of civilians means more money for Haliburton and Coca-Cola.

:inquisitive:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Indeed. Meaningless slaughter of civilians means more money for Haliburton and Coca-Cola.

:inquisitive:
Those are just conspiracy theories from nutcases. I thought you knew better than listening to liberal conspiracy theories, Div.

[Del Arroyo]

Leggo-XXX-Dominatrix: No Sunnis are cooperating with Coalition objectives? What about the anti-terrorist tribal coalition in Al-Anbar? Just to pick on one point. In general-- your knowledge on this topic is sorely lacking.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Leggo-XXX-Dominatrix: No Sunnis are cooperating with Coalition objectives? What about the anti-terrorist tribal coalition in Al-Anbar? Just to pick on one point. In general-- your knowledge on this topic is sorely lacking.

Del Arroyo (as you can see I spell your name better than you spell mine), the major sunni party has left the puppet government. Have you not heard this? Therefore, the sunnis have no political representation any more. I have stated my point out of pity and helpfulness, but if you wish your country to pursue a self-destructive and ignorant policy I will not stand any further in your way. However when such a policy threatens to destroy others than yourself, I tend to have difficulties in refraining from stating my opinion and explaining the dangers. Why is it that suicidals so often wish to drag others with them into their destruction?

Anyhow, let me again repeat my point about what the danger is: floods of muslim USA and Israel haters are coming to European countries as a result of the Iraq war. They have many more children on average than the local populations in these countries. Europeans elect their governments by majority voting. Soon muslims will be a majority in all European countries as well due to the clumsy interventions in the Middle East by the USA. How will the armies and navies of the European coutnries be used when that happens? Most European countries have their very own muslim party already. The muslims will also hold significant numbers in USA itself due to these refugee waves. The muslims in Europe will hate USA for obvious reasons, while the whites in Europe will hate the USA for causing a muslim hijacking of all European countries, due to the warfare that caused refugee waves to Europe. Is that what USA needs for it's security? I think not. A long American involvement in Iraq, or a war in Iran, will contribute to this flood of west-hating refugees. No matter what the military actions achieve, USA and Britain can only lose more if they continue their involvement in Iraq.

This argumentation should be perfectly easy to understand for anyone. I would say that if you really disagree with withdrawing Iraqi troops after thinking about this danger, your agenda is more likely to damage the USA than to help it.

[Del Arroyo]

What happens in the Iraqi parliament is linked only loosely with what actually happens in the real Iraq, and that link is getting looser every day. The fact is there are plenty of Sunnis who are willing to work with us, even if it is only because they fear sectarian Shia maneuvering. And though you call the current Iraqi government a "puppet" of the US, I would say that this is a very inaccurate characterization.

[Pannonian]

What happens in the Iraqi parliament is linked only loosely with what actually happens in the real Iraq, and that link is getting looser every day. The fact is there are plenty of Sunnis who are willing to work with us, even if it is only because they fear sectarian Shia maneuvering. And though you call the current Iraqi government a "puppet" of the US, I would say that this is a very inaccurate characterization.
Dependent parasite would be a better description. It feeds off the host, and cannot live without it, and once the host goes, it must follow or die. Unfortunately for it, the host can't stay forever.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Dependent parasite would be a better description. It feeds off the host, and cannot live without it, and once the host goes, it must follow or die. Unfortunately for it, the host can't stay forever.

So do you contend that:

...despite the publicized votes by the Iraqi population in favor of a new government and constitution;

despite the military successes of the "surge" (admittedly somewhat limited);

despite the increasing number of trained Iraqi forces working for the central government;

despite recent decreases in sectarian violence;

etc....

That the Iraqi government has little or no real credibility in the eyes of Iraqis and that upon the withdrawal of US/coalition forces the situation must devolve into warlordism regardless?

[Xiahou]

What happens in the Iraqi parliament is linked only loosely with what actually happens in the real Iraq, and that link is getting looser every day. The fact is there are plenty of Sunnis who are willing to work with us, even if it is only because they fear sectarian Shia maneuvering. And though you call the current Iraqi government a "puppet" of the US, I would say that this is a very inaccurate characterization.
I had always thought that the term length for the Iraqi government was a tad long- certainly for their first election. I would guess a lot of Iraqis are feeling some buyers remorse on some of the selections. IIRC, they're stuck with the current yahoos until almost 2010. :sweatdrop:

[Pannonian]

So do you contend that:

...despite the publicized votes by the Iraqi population in favor of a new government and constitution;

despite the military successes of the "surge" (admittedly somewhat limited);

despite the increasing number of trained Iraqi forces working for the central government;

despite recent decreases in sectarian violence;

etc....

That the Iraqi government has little or no real credibility in the eyes of Iraqis and that upon the withdrawal of US/coalition forces the situation must devolve into warlordism regardless?
Yup. So pick a warlord and stick with him.

[Samurai Waki]

I'm at a point now, where at one time I was all for this "Free Iraq" thing, and perhaps it was a little bit of a nationalistic nieve I had as a younger lad. Then I was all for pulling out of Iraq, that this must be done. But, ultimately now, I feel like if we stay or leave, I just want the Regular Iraqi Joe to benefit. None of us here can dare imagine what its like to be the Civilian, afraid, alone, and impoverished. And while, I feel as though they would benefit by taking a few notes from the Western World (as seems to be the case in some areas), that banishing any cultural or religious influences would also be an affront to the identity in which they present themselves (It would be like me, an American claiming I was Brazilian, knowing full well that everyone else around me knows I'm full of crap). So, whatever happens over there, God...allah, just let the Iraqis for a little bit live in peace and prosperity.

[Pannonian]

I'm at a point now, where at one time I was all for this "Free Iraq" thing, and perhaps it was a little bit of a nationalistic nieve I had as a younger lad. Then I was all for pulling out of Iraq, that this must be done. But, ultimately now, I feel like if we stay or leave, I just want the Regular Iraqi Joe to benefit. None of us here can dare imagine what its like to be the Civilian, afraid, alone, and impoverished. And while, I feel as though they would benefit by taking a few notes from the Western World (as seems to be the case in some areas), that banishing any cultural or religious influences would also be an affront to the identity in which they present themselves (It would be like me, an American claiming I was Brazilian, knowing full well that everyone else around me knows I'm full of crap). So, whatever happens over there, God...allah, just let the Iraqis for a little bit live in peace and prosperity.
The regular guy and gal in Iraq is going to benefit most from an Iraq that ain't going to tear itself apart or be torn apart by outside powers. If you can't achieve this, all the civilian infrastructure in the world is going to count for nowt. If the state can't fulfill its first and primary reason for being, it might as well declare itself non-existent.

[Tribesman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Xiahou: Hadn't known that the ISF had managed to field 350k of fairly reliable troops. Where'd you get that?

Again from Brookings.
The State of Iraq: An Update

Quote:
Iraqi Security Forces (in thousands) 0 136 168 266 349

Those numbers are for May of 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 respectively.


Now Seamus , you use the words "fairly reliable" in your post .
So if from the same source up to 45% of those deemed to be competant enough to be deployed for "surge" operations in Baghdad simply don't turn up for work how reliable are the figures of 349,000 ?
Would the less competant units have higher or lower no-show figures ?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Now Seamus , you use the words "fairly reliable" in your post .
So if from the same source up to 45% of those deemed to be competant enough to be deployed for "surge" operations in Baghdad simply don't turn up for work how reliable are the figures of 349,000 ?
Would the less competant units have higher or lower no-show figures ?

Well, common wisdom would suggest that their absenteeism would be higher still. Though it might be lower since such units aren't at the sharp end.

I'm not in a position to judge the reliability of Iraqi security force contingents -- though I would concur that it would be nicer to know if the cited strengths are barracks or field #s.

Even if the 349k are all effectives and mostly present for duty, we're still talking 600k of coalition/Iraqi forces -- enough to suppress approx 60k of insurgents using the old metric. So a lot would depend on a reliable estimate of the numbers of those insurgents as to whether or not there are enough boots to make a workable effort.

Note: Xiahou, I realize the ratio figures are not a simple "surge enough bodies into the zone" issue -- would that it were that easy.

[Lemur]

Interesting note on the original editorial used to set off this depressing little thread; a Salon writer took the time to look at the background of the two authors, and found that their representation of themselves as longstanding critics of the war in Iraq is highly questionable (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/30/brookings/).


The Op-Ed is an exercise in rank deceit from the start. To lavish themselves with credibility -- as though they are war skeptics whom you can trust -- they identify themselves at the beginning "as two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq." In reality, they were not only among the biggest cheerleaders for the war, but repeatedly praised the Pentagon's strategy in Iraq and continuously assured Americans things were going well.

Worse, they announce that "the Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility," as though they have not. But let us look at Michael O'Hanlon, and review just a fraction of the endless string of false and misleading statements he made about Iraq and ask why anyone would possibly listen to him about anything, let alone consider him an "expert" of any kind.

Full article contains many, many examples of things these guys have said and written over the last six years, most of which fall into the "Mission Accomplished!" vein of thinking. Most amusing example:


On April 9, 2003, he published a piece for the Brookings Daily War Report entitled "Was the Strategy Brilliant?" -- in which he struggled with the deeply Serious question of whether Don Rumsfeld's strategy was unprecedentedly brilliant or merely mind-blowingly smart.

-edit-

And for what it's worth, this looks like something worth seeing (http://www.apple.com/trailers/magnolia/noendinsight/trailer/), if only because the filmmakers convinced many of the people involved in the first three years of the war to talk on the record. Let us learn from our mistakes, etc.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, that certainly casts doubt on their hoped-for "spin" on things.

[Lemur]

My new favorite line from the Salon article (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/30/brookings/#postid-updateS6):

"Attention: journalists and news producers: they have these new things now called 'computers' that record what people say and write and keep all of that stored. So if someone claims to be a 'war critic' or 'war opponent,' you can actually look and find out whether that is true."

[Xiahou]

I found a video clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuUzk_5uy8k) that I thought was interesting...

[Lemur]

More debunking (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/12/ohanlon/index.html) of the Pollack-O'Hanlon editorial:


But the far greater deceit involves the trip itself and the way it was represented -- both by Pollack/O'Hanlon as well as the excited media figures who touted its significance and meaning. From beginning to end, this trip was planned, shaped and controlled by the U.S. military -- a fact inexcusably concealed in both the Op-Ed itself and virtually every interview the two of them gave. With very few exceptions, what they saw was choreographed by the U.S. military and carefully selected for them. [...]

The entire trip -- including where they went, what they saw, and with whom they spoke -- consisted almost entirely of them faithfully following what O'Hanlon described as "the itinerary the D.O.D. developed."[...]

But this only begins to convey how ludicrous and misleading a spectacle this whole event was. O'Hanlon and Pollack were in Iraq for a total of 7 1/2 days. They spent every night ensconced in the Green Zone in Baghdad. They did not spend a single night in any other city. As O'Hanlon admitted, they spent no more than "between 2-4 hours" in every place they visited outside Baghdad, and much of that was taken up meeting U.S. military commanders, not inspecting the proverbial "conditions on the ground."

Yet in their Op-Ed, they purported to describe the encouraging conditions in four places other than Baghdad -- Ramadi, Tal Afar, Mosul, and the Anbar Province -- as though they could possibly have made any meaningful observations during their visits which were all roughly the duration of the average airport layover. Worse, both O'Hanlon and Pollack -- and especially Pollack -- in their interviews repeatedly described their optimistic observations about Iraqi cities in such a way as to create the misleading impression that these were based upon their first-hand observations.

Of course, at this point nobody cares, as the news cycle has moved on. It just goes to show that a lie can circle the world while the truth is still getting its boots on.

[Xiahou]

Of course, at this point nobody cares, as the news cycle has moved on. It just goes to show that a lie can circle the world while the truth is still getting its boots on.
I think the media over-stated the author's opposition to Bush. They have been critics of Bush's handling of the war, but they never, it seems, were real critics of the war itself. Also, they seem to have done little to dispute this. But, I also think that Glen Greenwald is a Brazillian sock-puppet (http://patterico.com/2006/07/20/devoted-fans-of-glenn-greenwald-emphasize-the-same-points-about-his-resume-from-the-same-ip-address/). ~D

If they're phonies for having supported the invasion, what does that say about the majority of democrats currently in congress? If advocating a troop surge makes you a Bush shill, what does that say about Reid, Pelosi, and others who criticized Bush for staying the course and even advocated a surge (until Bush was for it at least- then it became a bad idea and they tried to block it, thus advocating "staying the course"). The charge that they were led around by the DoD could be valid- but then again, they would've gained information prior to this the same way and that often led to less rosy conclusions. To be sure, there's plenty of double-talk to go around on Iraq.

Brookings aside, we have the Iraq bureau chief for the NYT speaking to the benefits of the surge. We have Senators Durbin and Casey even grudgingly admit to military progress via the surge. There's plenty support for it without O'Hanlon, ect. You can keep linking all the liberal blogs you want, but it doesn't really change the reality of the current situation.

[Tribesman]

Brookings aside, we have the Iraq bureau chief for the NYT speaking to the benefits of the surge. We have Senators Durbin and Casey even grudgingly admit to military progress via the surge. There's plenty support for it without O'Hanlon, ect. You can keep linking all the liberal blogs you want, but it doesn't really change the reality of the current situation.

And the reality of the situation is that any military progress is useless without political progress , and there isn't any political progress worth mentioning .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And the reality of the situation is that any military progress is useless without political progress , and there isn't any political progress worth mentioning .

How about rephrasing it this way:

While the surge has generated the first significant military progress in months, it will all end up being wasted unless the Iraqis can make similar steps towards political stability and establishing local control -- and I have my doubts that they can (or are willing to) do this.

Your original phrasing makes the whole thing seem a pointless exercise. However, some degree of military success MUST precede political strides -- a truly concurrent change is unlikely and in some ways impractical. Unfortunately, I too have doubts that the part "B" will get accomplished. I wish we had more Iraqis on forum to give us a different perspective.

[Ser Clegane]

This has been the cover story of the news magazine Der Spiegel last week:

Hope and Despair in Divided Iraq (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,499154,00.html)

It's a rather long article but I think it might be worth a read in the context of this thread.

[Tribesman]

OK Seamus , I'll go along with your rephrasing , but with one alteration . Change the word "months" into "years" for the sake of accuracy .

[Banquo's Ghost]

It's a rather long article but I think it might be worth a read in the context of this thread.

Very well worth a read. A fascinating and considered article - I'm going to have to reconsider some of my own preconceptions, I think.

Thanks for the link. :bow:

[Xiahou]

This has been the cover story of the news magazine Der Spiegel last week:

Hope and Despair in Divided Iraq (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,499154,00.html)

It's a rather long article but I think it might be worth a read in the context of this thread.Interesting read. :bow:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Excellent piece. Seems to give a good sense of the "progress but still uncertain" context that my returning soldiers in this area point to.

Heard Limbaugh comment on the quality of the piece (about as we are) but then suggest that Der Spiegel's editorial decision to publish it was to provide political cover for the Democrat party in the USA. :rolleyes3:


Tribes: I'd like to argue your counter-correction, but think I'll just have to agree.

[Lemur]

Great piece, thank you for sharing. I would rather read a detailed, nuanced discussion of the street reality in Iraq than read any more op-ed pieces by supporters or opponents of the war.

[Lemur]

This (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pullback15aug15,0,4840766.story?page=2&coll=la-home-center) makes a lemur sad.

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

Call me naive, but I had a vague hope that we would hear the commander's actual assessment of ground conditions. Silly of me, I know.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pullback15aug15,0,4840766.story?page=2&coll=la-home-center) makes a lemur sad.

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

Call me naive, but I had a vague hope that we would hear the commander's actual assessment of ground conditions. Silly of me, I know.

But I think you will Lemury-one.

After NYT and others -- even some democrat leadership in Congress -- acknowledging progress on the military side, I don't think you'll see any of that edited at all. Patreus will get to review his points pretty well unredacted. Now, as to what the administration adds regarding the political benchmarks.......:deal:

[KafirChobee]

Define WIN.

Military victories do not necessarily equate to political, economic, or social-regional stability.

The "SURGE" is more a political spin tactic, than a true military one - it simply delays the inevitable (our military withdrawl from Iraq) and promotes the "stay the course" attitude of the Bushys. It is something that looks great on paper, and can demonstrate short-term levels of success; but, that its long term resolve is dependent on the country's government and military for its maintenance makes its idea of being a permanent solution for all the socio-religious problems seem far fetched.

In fact is this tactic that much different (as someone mentioned) than the one employed by the French in Algiers back in the 1950's (54-62)? The answer is no. In numerous articles depicting how the French won the war, but lost the hearts and minds is demonstrate that their exact tactics are the same being employed by us today (including the torture and murder on civilians).

References [maybe old, but they are still applicable]:
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_02_02/article1.html
The conservative view - sorta.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War_of_Independence
If you can't see the comparrisons here - then nvm.

http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/mideast/iraq/960.html
http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=10908
Ineptitude of the first 100 days.

Or, go rent the film mentioned in my first link that the Bushys reviewed prior to the invasion - "The Battle of Algiers". Different reasons - same story. Oh, believe it is in French with subtitles - sorry.

Thing is, we're on our 6th General and (atleast) 10th war strategy (which have all really been tactics) - and none of this is more than a natural progression propagated by malfeasance to continue a failed policy. It is just the flavor of the month - maybe we can sell this one. Lord knows no one liked last previous months flaves - Abu Ghraib ala mode, or strawberry covered torture is necessary .... :no:

But, the chocolate-nut surge - gee, who wouldn't want some? "Can I have some more, please? Sir?"
:balloon2:

[Brenus]

“54-62”: Not only the US tactic is the one apply by the French (which by the way started the helicopter’s air tactic vastly improved by the Air Cav. tactic in Vietnam) but even the Iraqis insurgents/Rebels: Random bombing, slaughtering, ambushes…
And that is why Chirac, who served in Algeria as a platoon leader, refused to go for Iraq. He knew what was ahead.

Like KafirChobee, I would ask a definition of winning. Because yes, the French Army won, but at what price!!! Heroes of the French Resistance, some had been tortured by the Gestapo (Cpt Jeanpierre, Gal Massu, Gal Aussaresses etc) will become torturers. Torture, summary executions, slaughter of civilians, all kinds of war crimes, were the price to win militarily, and to loose what was the political goal, to keep Algeria as a French territory
And the French had great advantages, compared with the US in Iraq. A local population, mostly from European origin, and a quite huge number of local (Harkis) were in favour of France. A lot a them spoke Arab, knew the field and were able to understand the internal politic and to play with it.And France won the battles and lost the war...:beam:

[Tribesman]

Good news from Iraq on the political front , they have formed a new government to try and get things moving through consensus .
Things like finishing the constitution and sorting out which ethnic groups get which share of the oil revenues .

Bit of bad news though , there are no Sunni parties represented in the new government so it cuts down on the consensus bit just a little .

[Crazed Rabbit]

A democrat who voted against the war in 2002 now believes we can't make a hasty exit:
http://www.theolympian.com/news/story/192500.html
http://www.theolympian.com/news/story/192500.html


Baird voted against giving President Bush authority to invade Iraq in 2002. He said he knows his change of heart about what needs to happen next might cost him political support.

"If I didn't think there was some chance of a reasonable outcome by staying a little longer, I would be calling for immediate withdrawal," he said. "The party leadership may be in a different place than I am right now."

Huh.

CR

[KafirChobee]

The Bushys' natural progression of rhetoric for the war:

http://www.whitehouse.org/iraq/index.asp

http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/victory/index.asp

This is of course a tongue in cheek summary of the coming victory and nothing less attitude of the Bushys. If it means lying about the realities to promote their own truths ... so be it.

:balloon2:

Reality:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
added

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Kafir':

Please answer me this.

Stipulated:

1. You view the war in Iraq as a bad policy choice from the outset.

2. You view the war in Iraq as effectively unwinnable and a pointless waste of lives.

3. You view the Bush administration as being a combination of inept and/or actively evil in their reasons for pursuing a conflict in Iraq.

4. You believe the Bush administration to be running roughshod over the Constitution and worthy of impeachment.

Those points having been stipulated,

As of this moment, would you prefer a US victory in Iraq or a US defeat?

[Brenus]

“As of this moment, would you prefer a US victory in Iraq or a US defeat?” And to what kind of victory are you referring Seamus? In theory, you can nuke Iraq and pretend to have won. And de facto you (or the US more precisely) would have won…
Definition of winning urgently needed: Let’s say, the Soviet scenario in Afghanistan, withdrawing with dignity then blowing up the bridge behind the last men, the French in Algeria, living allies to slaughter, the British in India with a civil was completely un-spoken because it should ruin the image of Ghandi, or the Vietnam with a government left to fall by his own?
Of course we could imagine a stable and democratic Iraq, model of development, kind of Post Western Germany after WW2, but I don’t think that would be possible…
So Kafir, Seamus, what kind of victory do you have in mind?

[CrossLOPER]

...what kind of victory do you have in mind?
War is not a time for nit-picking. :wink:

[Pannonian]

As of this moment, would you prefer a US victory in Iraq or a US defeat?
Mother and apple pie question.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Mother and apple pie question.

True enough. My point in posing that question is that the U.S. citizen who would prefer such a loss is bringing in a VERY different (and to me disturbing) frame of reference than the person who would like to see us succeed but believes that we're going about it entirely wrong.

I did lay out my stipulations to note that I was aware of his expressed views on the subject to date and that I was not seeking to argue against them with this question.

[KafirChobee]

Kafir':
Please answer me this.
Stipulated:

1. You view the war in Iraq as a bad policy choice from the outset.

2. You view the war in Iraq as effectively unwinnable and a pointless waste of lives.

3. You view the Bush administration as being a combination of inept and/or actively evil in their reasons for pursuing a conflict in Iraq.

4. You believe the Bush administration to be running roughshod over the Constitution and worthy of impeachment.

Those points having been stipulated,

As of this moment, would you prefer a US victory in Iraq or a US defeat?

To answer:
1) Absolutely true - and today so do +80% of Americans and +85% of Iraqis. Who does that leave, but the neo-cons that started this quagmire and their die-hard robotons.

2) Again, define win. We already won the war, it's the occupation we are losing.

3) and your point is? They aren't?

4) Yes. I did start a seperate thread on why Bush and Cheney needed to be impeached. Regardless, all the GOPists players remain in place and we all know they would simply be pardoned before any serious charges were fully investigated. So, what would be the point.

U.S defeat? Obviously you chose to ignore my post about the "Battle of Algiers", or opted to believe it is somehow a completely different scenario from our quagmire in Iraq. I mean, the French had many more advantages in Algiers - than we do in Iraq, and they ultimately lost. They to won all their battles and still lost.:wall: We've already been defeated, some just don't want to accept or realize it.

As to defining a victory in Iraq, Brenus. It must remain up to the Iraqi's themselves to define one, no one else.

It would be wonderful if suddenly all the imaginings of Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice and friends became reality - a free secular-democratic Iraq, that Iraq became the cornerstone for spreading democracy throughout the region and the world. That all the factions there laid down their vendettas, hugged one another, and began singing "cumbaya". But, past military historys involving a nation imposing its political will over a foreign region prove my point, what history proves another out come (in the modern era?).
The present situation can not be resloved with arms, but maybe affected by a united diplomatic effort by the (all) western powers and those of the region (including all the "evil" ones). Staying the course is no longer a practical option - it is a failed policy and will remain one regardless of what they call it.
:balloon2:

[JR-]

This has been the cover story of the news magazine Der Spiegel last week:

Hope and Despair in Divided Iraq (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,499154,00.html)

It's a rather long article but I think it might be worth a read in the context of this thread.
good article, i read that when it came out.

there may yet be hope.

[Brenus]

“citizen who would prefer such a loss is bringing in a VERY different (and to me disturbing) frame of reference than the person who would like to see us succeed but believes that we're going about it entirely wrong.” I voluntarily cut the US, because this sentence brings a question. If I understood it well, of course. Do you think, Seamus that all victories should be what a citizen should wish for his country? And to be more explicit do you think that we should always support our country, even if our country is wrong?

“As to defining a victory in Iraq, Brenus” Kafir, you don’t answer the question because it is trapped one. If you say I want US to be defeated, you’re a traitor, but if you say well I wish our victory knowing it is just one based on lies, deception and financial interest, you betrayed what you believe in…

The problem is a complex one. Why am I proud of the French defenders in Dien Bien Phu? They fought with courage. However their fight was NOT for justice and freedom but to keep Michelin its plantation and Schneider it coal and iron mines…:no:

The PC answer to this question is: I wish the US victory bringing peace, democracy, stability and happiness to the people of Iraq and theirs neighbours. This victory won’t be a peace from war but a beam of freedom in the region, built by the people of Iraq, showing to the world what free men can achieve when tyrants are put down… Vive l’Irak, et vive l’Irak Libre ( in French in the text, with De Gaulle’s accent)…:beam:

[Lemur]

A contrasting view of the surge, from grunts on the ground. Sample (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?_r=4&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin):


A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.

August 19, 2007
Op-Ed Contributors

The War as We Saw It

By BUDDHIKA JAYAMAHA, WESLEY D. SMITH, JEREMY ROEBUCK, OMAR MORA, EDWARD SANDMEIER, YANCE T. GRAY and JEREMY A. MURPHY

Baghdad

VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.

A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.

Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.

However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.

In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a “time-sensitive target acquisition mission” on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse — namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force.

Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.

Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.

The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment.

Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington’s insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made — de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government — places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.

Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict — as we do now — will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.

At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. “Lucky” Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, “We need security, not free food.”

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.

Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist. Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant. Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant. Omar Mora is a sergeant. Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant. Yance T. Gray is a staff sergeant. Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant.

[Xiahou]

A contrasting view of the surge, from grunts on the ground. An interesting perspective. I wonder where in Baghdad they were deployed? Things have been pretty hairy in much of that city for quite awhile. I think they're being truthful in their assessments, but it doesn't extrapolate to Iraq as a whole any more than an rosy assessment from a relatively passive part of Iraq. Both would have very different pictures of Iraq, and both would be accurate.

Even if there is significant progress, it should surprise no one that there are still substantial areas where violence continues almost unchecked. Btw, I thought you disapproved of op-eds.~;p

[CrossLOPER]

An interesting perspective. I wonder where in Baghdad they were deployed? Things have been pretty hairy in much of that city for quite awhile. I think they're being truthful in their assessments, but it doesn't extrapolate to Iraq as a whole any more than an rosy assessment from a relatively passive part of Iraq. Both would have very different pictures of Iraq, and both would be accurate.
Did they leave out the "good part"?

[Lemur]

Btw, I thought you disapproved of op-eds.~;p
Yeah, I should clarify that. I get tired of people with no first-hand knowledge pontificating about the war. Grunts can op-ed all they like, and I'll read it gladly. Likewise journos who have the guts to get out of the Green Zone.

When there's too much spinning going on, I prefer firsthand accounts. And lordy, I don't think there's ever been a war as spun as Iraq. The confusion on the ground is weirdly reflected in the multiple sides, multiple agendas, and multitudinous lies being slung about it in Washington, D.C. Very, very hard to get a grip on what's real and what's partisan obfuscation.

[Tribesman]

Did they leave out the "good part"?
Don't be so cruel .
Over the years there have been many many "good news from Iraq" topics by Xiahou from the State of D'Nile , you just have to have an exceptionaly positive outlook and a special ability which allows you to ignore reality to truly appreciate them .

[Xiahou]

Did they leave out the "good part"?Like I said, they commented on what they saw and how they felt about it.


Yeah, I should clarify that. I get tired of people with no first-hand knowledge pontificating about the war. Grunts can op-ed all they like, and I'll read it gladly. Likewise journos who have the guts to get out of the Green Zone.

When there's too much spinning going on, I prefer firsthand accounts. And lordy, I don't think there's ever been a war as spun as Iraq. The confusion on the ground is weirdly reflected in the multiple sides, multiple agendas, and multitudinous lies being slung about it in Washington, D.C. Very, very hard to get a grip on what's real and what's partisan obfuscation.So, just to be clear, someone who's made several visits to Iraq, was a CIA analyst on Iranian/Iraqi affairs and was the NSC Director of Near East and Persian Gulf Affairs under president Clinton can offer no worthwhile insight on Iraq in the Lemur's opinion?

Personally, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that there can be more than one view on Iraq that can be equally valid. There are improvements, and there are many areas where there are significant, ongoing problems.


Don't be so cruel .
Over the years there have been many many "good news from Iraq" topics by Xiahou from the State of D'Nile , you just have to have an exceptionaly positive outlook and a special ability which allows you to ignore reality to truly appreciate them .I'm not going to take the bait today- but I encourage you to keep right on trolling. You never know, it might pay off one of these days. :yes:

[Lemur]

So, just to be clear, someone who's made several visits to Iraq, was a CIA analyst on Iranian/Iraqi affairs and was the NSC Director of Near East and Persian Gulf Affairs under president Clinton can offer no worthwhile insight on Iraq in the Lemur's opinion?
Speaking of trolling. Please show me where I took that position.

[Xiahou]

Speaking of trolling. Please show me where I took that position.How is that trolling? If I misunderstood you- great. I got the impression that since you posted a number of approving posts from a blogger who was trying to slime and discredit Ken Pollack and then went on to express disdain for op-eds from non-grunts. If your disdain wasn't directed at them, I guess we're ok. I wasn't sure, so I asked for clarification. :bow:

[Lemur]

How is that trolling? If I misunderstood you- great. I got the impression that since you posted a number of approving posts from a blogger who was trying to slime and discredit Ken Pollack and then went on to express disdain for op-eds from non-grunts. If your disdain wasn't directed at them, I guess we're ok. I wasn't sure, so I asked for clarification. :bow:
It's trolling when you take a number of positions I've taken an boil them down in a patently absurd way, claiming that you're seeking "clarification." Whatever.

I'm far from decided on the surge. I am fully sure, however, that the whole thing is being spun so fast that it may come apart from centrifugal force.

The "number" of links to the debunking of Ken Pollack was two. I haven't seen anyone contesting the debunking, by the way. Pollack positioned himself as a "longtime critic" of the war, which was 100% false. The liberal MSM missed this, and a blogger caught it. Contest the blogger's facts if you like, or scream "bias!" to the rafters. "Slime," not so sure about, but he did a fine job at "discredit."

Are you seriously suggesting that Ken Pollack has been Swiftboated by an evil blogger? Post the rebuttal, then.

The related point I made later was that there's a lot of spin and lying going on, both by the administration and the anti-war camp, and that in the weltering swamp of partisan hackery, I have more faith in firsthand accounts when trying to piece together something resembling a truth. If that equals "disdain" in your book, that's entirely your problem.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

To answer:
...
U.S defeat? Obviously you chose to ignore my post about the "Battle of Algiers", or opted to believe it is somehow a completely different scenario from our quagmire in Iraq. I mean, the French had many more advantages in Algiers - than we do in Iraq, and they ultimately lost. They to won all their battles and still lost.:wall: We've already been defeated, some just don't want to accept or realize it.

This was the only paragraph needed to answer my question. By stipulating (which is what a person is doing when they say "Let's accept that point just for the sake of argument") the other points, I was stating that I knew them to be your position and that you did not need to address them.

You still don't answer whether such a defeat is your preference, but you clearly believe that my question is moot -- which is a clear answer of itself.

[Xiahou]

It's trolling when you take a number of positions I've taken an boil them down in a patently absurd way, claiming that you're seeking "clarification." Whatever.That would be a strawman- a characterization I still disagree with. I outlined the absurd position you seemed to be boxing yourself into and wanted you to disavow it. Regardless, moving on...


The "number" of links to the debunking of Ken Pollack was two. I haven't seen anyone contesting the debunking, by the way. Pollack positioned himself as a "longtime critic" of the war, which was 100% false. The liberal MSM missed this, and a blogger caught it. Contest the blogger's facts if you like, or scream "bias!" to the rafters. "Slime," not so sure about, but he did a fine job at "discredit."

Are you seriously suggesting that Ken Pollack has been Swiftboated by an evil blogger? Post the rebuttal, then.You missed post 71 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1637834&postcount=71)? I'll summarize 1)they have criticized Bush's handling of the war- nothing false about it. 2) By the measuring stick applied by the sock-puppet, most Democrats in congress could be written off as administration shills as well. Most of them have, to varying degrees been supportive of the war.

Edit: Speaking of someone whom Greenwald would doubtlessly characterize as a Bush lapdog, Carl Levin released a joint statement (http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroom/release.cfm?id=281076) with John Warner today that, in between bashing Al-Maliki, acknowledged significant improvement in security from the surge.

We visited forward operating bases in Mosul and Baghdad. In these areas, as well as a number of others in Iraq, the military aspects of President Bush’s new strategy in Iraq, as articulated by him on January 10, 2007, appear to have produced some credible and positive results.
....
We have seen indications that the surge of additional brigades to Baghdad and its immediate vicinity and the revitalized counter-insurgency strategy being employed have produced tangible results in making several areas of the capital more secure. We are also encouraged by continuing positive results -- in al Anbar Province, from the recent decisions of some of the Sunni tribes to turn against al Qaeda and cooperate with coalition force efforts to kill or capture its adherents. We remain concerned, however, that in the absence of overall “national” political reconciliation, we may be inadvertently helping to create another militia which will have to be dealt with in the future.

We note the continuing improvement in the ability and willingness of the Iraqi Army to conduct combat operations against the insurgents, but remain concerned about the lack of experience of some of its leadership and the lack of critical military capabilities needed before more of its units can operate independently. Chief among these are modern small arms, artillery, combat and lift aviation, explosive ordnance disposal, transportation assets, and engineer capability essential for force protection. Logistics capabilities are virtually non-existent and are a major hindrance to independent action.


The related point I made later was that there's a lot of spin and lying going on, both by the administration and the anti-war camp, and that in the weltering swamp of partisan hackery, I have more faith in firsthand accounts when trying to piece together something resembling a truth. If that equals "disdain" in your book, that's entirely your problem.Plenty of spin, to be sure. But it's also a mistake to give too much weight to first-hand accounts. They present a valuable insight, but usually only a 'snapshot' of a specific time/place. A sergeant would almost certainly have plenty of insight on what's going on in the area he patrols, but he would also be likely to have sparse information to offer on the overall strategy or events outside of his area. Does that mean their insights are without value? No, it does not- their views are an important part of trying to for a whole picture.

[Lemur]

Xiahou, I don't think we're that far apart on this issue, to be honest. I'm very much in a wait-and-see mode regarding the surge. You are certainly free to believe whom you like and trumpet whatever headlines you like.

Post 71 was a bit of a scattershot indictment of quite a lot of people, with an amusing aside about Greenwald's adventures in sock-puppetry. It didn't cohere as any sort of rebuttal to this lemur, beyond the ad hominem stuff on the blogger.

If you're convinced the surge is great and victory is around the corner, then more power to ya. This lemur is unconvinced.

-edit-


Plenty of spin, to be sure. But it's also a mistake to give too much weight to first-hand accounts. They present a valuable insight, but usually only a 'snapshot' of a specific time/place. A sergeant would almost certainly have plenty of insight on what's going on in the area he patrols, but he would also be likely to have sparse information to offer on the overall strategy or events outside of his area. Does that mean their insights are without value? No, it does not- their views are an important part of trying to for a whole picture.
The administration has shown time and time again that it will say anything and do anything to get its way. That ranges from the outright fabrications used to get us into this mess to any and all forms of propaganda and story-placing to spin it their way. You will pardon me if I am heartily suspicious of anything they have to say on the matter.

In my (futile?) quest for a little more solid ground, I'll place whatever emphasis I like on firsthand accounts. At least a grunt is going to tell it like it is. Will his viewpoint be limited? By definition. But at least his reporting is likely to be honest. That's a starting point.

[Xiahou]

Xiahou, I don't think we're that far apart on this issue, to be honest. I'm very much in a wait-and-see mode regarding the surge.I agree.


If you're convinced the surge is great and victory is around the corner, then more power to ya. This lemur is unconvinced.Convinced? No. Hopeful? Yes. It really is imperative that we stabilize Iraq, the alternative is disaster. So I am quite pleased when we hear credible news of any improvement.

[KafirChobee]

Er, Seamus, you asked if I prefered "defeat". Which is about the same as asking "when did I stop beating my wife?"

Personally, I answered as honestly as possible, and thoroughly.

Again, define victory. Define, defeat. For America in Iraq, is defeat our turning over full responsability there to the Iraqis - all facets? Immediately.

Or, is that vitory?
:dizzy2:

Iraq is no longer an American conflict, unless we continue to encourage it. America is an occupying force - nothing more. When 85% of a the populace being occupied view that the killing of our solidiers is OK, one ought to ask what our goals really are and why the present administration has so much difficulty defining them (as opposed to spinning the same old "stay the course" or the hornets nest we created will follow us home - just as they did in the Vietnam era).

Understand, the only condition for a US victory is to create a secure region to allow the economic stability of the region. Since we cannot do this, we need to pull back and allow the Iraqis to sink or swim. It is a regional problem, by our insistance that only we know what is good, and all that differ with those reasonings are evil - we encourage those that wish us to get the hey out - or that have presented suggestions that were welcomed and ignored (Iraq Study Group, etc.). We cannot win something that is not our to win - it is up to the Iraqis and their neighbors, not us.

:balloon2:

[Tribesman]

An interesting final line there Kafir , its only today that two neighbours after meeting with Iraqi leaders said they would help , you know help stabilise and all that jazz .
One ever so slight little condition they put on it though . They will only do it if the coilition buggers off home .
Isn't it funny , two terrorist sponsoring nations saying they will step in to help a nation with lots of terrorist problems if other terrorist sponsoring nations get out of that country and go home .
Hey Iran might even be really nice and stop the artillery bombardment of Iraq that it has maintained for the past 4 days , apparently the shelling is an attempt to get rid of terrorists in Iraq to bring stability to the region .:laugh4

Anyway to answer Seamus' question .
Perhaps defeat would be preferable , it might just make the muppets think twice next time and put some proper planning into it before they try such a large scale very dangerous adventure based on half baked ideas and a pile of lies

[rory_20_uk]

The British, being an extremely belligerent nation over the years has committed bungles all over the world. Have we learnt from this? Doesn't appear so.

Of course next time the blinkered brass will assure us that there are no problems as with the new means that water will flow uphill and the natives will [I]enjoy THE USA dropping bombs on potential targets.

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Er, Seamus, you asked if I prefered "defeat". Which is about the same as asking "when did I stop beating my wife?"

Personally, I answered as honestly as possible, and thoroughly.

I wasn't upset with your answer. Calling the question moot -- while not a direct response per se -- was pretty clearly stated. The question asked did not exactly parallel the classic question you refer to, but I do admit I was positioning you for a forced choice response.



One ever so slight little condition they put on it though . They will only do it if the coilition buggers off home .
Isn't it funny , two terrorist sponsoring nations saying they will step in to help a nation with lots of terrorist problems if other terrorist sponsoring nations get out of that country and go home.

Do you mean that to imply:

a) Since the USA's hands are not absolutely clean, we have no right to demand a say in the conflict resolution process

b) that all 4 nations Syria, Iraq, Iran, and the USA are equally guilty and that any such agreement is ludicrous

c) other

?


Anyway to answer Seamus' question.
Perhaps defeat would be preferable , it might just make the muppets think twice next time and put some proper planning into it before they try such a large scale very dangerous adventure based on half baked ideas and a pile of lies

Would you still hold that opinion if it were Eire in the role of the USA (I'll stipulate that this is PURELY hypothetical as that would not mesh with modern Ireland's track record at all)?

[Ironside]

Would you still hold that opinion if it were Eire in the role of Iraq (I'll stipulate that this is PURELY hypothetical as that would not mesh with modern Ireland's track record at all)?

Fixed it for you. :laugh4:

Your original question is too easy to hold that option on. A muppet screwing up should not be rewarded with a miracle.

[Tribesman]

Since the USA's hands are not absolutely clean, we have no right to demand a say in the conflict resolution process

They can demand all they like , if the people that matter don't give a damn what America "demands" then Americas demands are irrelevant , Iran knows it played the US for a sucker , its sitting pretty while your government still pretends that it hasn't been exceptionaly stupid .



that all 4 nations Syria, Iraq, Iran, and the USA are equally guilty and that any such agreement is ludicrous

What agreement and why only four players ? The offer is a joke , but so is the occupation , you cannot take it but you cannot afford to not take it .
Besides which its regional so add in Israel , Jordan , Saudi ,Turkey for starters then add some of the bit players . Complicatedisn't it , but it was obvious since long before the start of the fiasco that it was a very complex and dangerous mess that they willingly chose to jump into .


Would you still hold that opinion if it were Eire in the role of the USA (I'll stipulate that this is PURELY hypothetical as that would not mesh with modern Ireland's track record at all)?
Yep . Ireland is just a country like any other it would make no difference if it was Luxembourg or Timor Leste(unless blinded by patriotic nonsense).
If it makes a crazy screw up then it is time for it to stop , sit down , think very hard and try and work out how and if anything remotely worthwhile can be achieved .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yep . Ireland is just a country like any other it would make no difference if it was Luxembourg or Timor Leste(unless blinded by patriotic nonsense). If it makes a crazy screw up then it is time for it to stop , sit down , think very hard and try and work out how and if anything remotely worthwhile can be achieved.

Not quite at my point. Were it YOUR country that was occupying Iraq, would you still think defeat was the preferred result?

I'm not saying that a bad policy shouldn't be re-thought and/or changed. This is always a worthy thought.

I'm not saying that you (or anyone for that matter) had to agree with the original option -- I'm well aware that you did not.

I'm asking you if you really would prefer defeat over success -- forced choice -- if you believed your country was wrong. I'm well aware that your actual preference would be for the policy etc to be changed instead, so set that aside.

[Tribesman]

I'm asking you if you really would prefer defeat over success -- forced choice -- if you believed your country was wrong.
Well thats an easy one , you put in an important word there .
Yes .
How could anyone prefer something that is wrong to be a success .

Anything else would be the realm of those who go for the "my country right or wrong" line , which is an absolute pile of tripe

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm asking you if you really would prefer defeat over success -- forced choice -- if you believed your country was wrong. I'm well aware that your actual preference would be for the policy etc to be changed instead, so set that aside.

Surely Seamus, any clear thinking person would prefer the defeat of their country if it was wrong? I would agree with Tribesman - the ideal would be a properly humiliating defeat that ensured such foolishness never happened again.

At the risk of invoking Godwin, surely some Germans hoped for the defeat of Hitler's Germany - and were right to do so. Japan likewise, and in both cases the humiliation of defeat helped create better societies than victory would have done.

Not quite the same, but for an Irish example: I would have hoped that the anti-treaty rebels of the Irish Civil War lost (despite my sympathy for their political ambitions) because they were wrong to reject the decision of the people to accept the treaty, however flawed. That would have made me an outcast among my community then, as it did my grandfather.

So yes, when one's country is wrong it is right to hope and work for her defeat. And I would argue that this is the highest form of patriotism.

[Tribesman]

Surely Seamus, any clear thinking person would prefer the defeat of their country if it was wrong? I would agree with Tribesman - the ideal would be a properly humiliating defeat that ensured such foolishness never happened again.

That is an incredibly insulting and inflamatory post .:2thumbsup: