The Current Status of the Conflict in Iraq

Just a friendly poll to gauge people's opinions, and maybe spark some discussion..

in the process of being won. The iraqi's seem to be moving toward political independence, even though we might not like the outcome it will afford the next president the last lever needed to completely withdraw forces from the country.

As they say, time to cut bait.

As long as we keep paying, it will be in the process of being won.

From the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/op...=1&oref=slogin

Quote:

---

The State of Iraq: An Update
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Share
DiggFacebookMixxYahoo! BuzzPermalink

By JASON CAMPBELL, MICHAEL O’HANLON and AMY UNIKEWICZ
Published: June 22, 2008

IRAQ remains a violent country plagued by high unemployment, raw wounds from sectarian conflict, extremist militias aided by Iran, more than four million people still displaced by violence, and very limited government capacity to meet the country’s core needs. There has, however, been major progress this spring on two fronts. Together they give reason for hope that the major improvement in security resulting from the surge of American forces may endure even as the surge itself ends this July.


The State of Iraq in Numbers First, the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki showed real backbone by undertaking major military operations that ultimately reclaimed Iraq’s chief southern city of Basra, the Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, and much of the northern city of Mosul. Iraq’s government now controls almost all of the country for the first time since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Second, in these recent battles the Iraqi security forces performed far better than previously. While American (and British) combat support and advisory teams remain critical, Iraqis are doing much of the fighting now. Although some units performed badly, as with the Iraqi Army’s inexperienced 52nd Brigade in the Basra operation, the reasons have been identified and addressed. The Pentagon now rates about 55 percent of the Iraqi security forces as “good” or “very good” — and for the first time, such American metrics seem accurate.

On the whole, we feel that the Iraqi government is about halfway to meeting the 11 “Iraq index” benchmarks we have laid out, which include steps like establishing provincial election laws, reaching an oil-revenue sharing accord and enacting pension and amnesty laws. (Our system allows a score of 0, 0.5, or 1 for each category, and is dynamic, meaning we can subtract points for backsliding.)

It would be too much to talk of imminent victory in Iraq. But we may at least be able to avert strategic defeat with a careful plan for gradual handoff of more responsibility to the Iraqi government over the coming years.

Jason Campbell is a research analyst at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Michael O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at Brookings. Amy Unikewicz is a graphic designer in South Norwalk, Conn.

---

I chose the "Deadlocked-could go either way" choice. I do admit that the longer we have been there, the better the situation has gotten, and that isn't saying that it's a gravy train yet. I also feel that we are at the crossroads politically. If the Democrats succeed in taking the White House, a distinct possibility, then I am afraid that they will have the executive power they need to end the war, which they will do, even at the expense of a defeat. If Senator McCain can win, then I think he will commit the kind of rescourses the military needs to fully neutralize the insurgency. He has gambled on a very unpopular message, one that I think he feels will get through to the public as sincere, that it is the only honorable course to take. I happen to support him, despite my utter hatred for this war, and what it has cost us so far.

It will be vital to me that my government stands behind the mission, for I will be going there next year not long after the inaugural adress. I seriously doubt that my marching orders will change no matter who gets elected. I just don't want to be there if I'll be part of a "Great Skeddadle" in the vernacular of the south. Can you imagine the boldness of an insurgency if they see us cutting and running? No, I think we owe it to Iraq, our heroic dead and wounded, and ourselves to follow through with this Gotterdammerung of our own making.

I hate a people who make a mess of things and just leave, don't you?

Holy :daisy: !!!

When did we get Sadr City?!

Quote:

---

Holy !!!

When did we get Sadr City?!

---

When Al-Sadr was pressured by Sistani and khamenei to do a deal with Mailki and told his militia to not fight Iraqis and only attack the coilition . The price demanded was a change in military and police leadership for Basra though their prime choice was turned down and they got a compromise commnder that both the Sadrists and Badr brigade could agree on .

The current status of Iraq will be determined in December , it all depends on what deal Maliki does with Khamenei , and at present it doesn't look like the deal is going to be by any stretch of the imagination what could be called a win for the coilition .

Quote:

---

It will be vital to me that my government stands behind the mission, for I will be going there next year not long after the inaugural adress. I seriously doubt that my marching orders will change no matter who gets elected.

---

Didn't you know that its out of your governments hands no matter who wins in November ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

When Al-Sadr was pressured by Sistani and khamenei to do a deal with Mailki and told his militia to not fight Iraqis and only attack the coilition . The price demanded was a change in military and police leadership for Basra though their prime choice was turned down and they got a compromise commnder that both the Sadrists and Badr brigade could agree on .

The current status of Iraq will be determined in December , it all depends on what deal Maliki does with Khamenei , and at present it doesn't look like the deal is going to be by any stretch of the imagination what could be called a win for the coilition .

---

Do we have any idea yet what Saudi's view of the resultant Iraqi government will be? I can't imagine they'll be too pleased with an Iran-dominated Iraqi state, while I can't see Iran being satisfied with any Iraqi government where they don't have the greatest influence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Do we have any idea yet what Saudi's view of the resultant Iraqi government will be? I can't imagine they'll be too pleased with an Iran-dominated Iraqi state, while I can't see Iran being satisfied with any Iraqi government where they don't have the greatest influence.

---

As far as I am concerned what is bad for Saudi Arabia is good for the world. The government of Saudi Arabia has been double-dealing the west for years, feeding the religious extremists with reasons and excuses to hate the west, at times even encouraging it to focus its people on forgetting what their own government is doing to them. While at the same time the royal family continues to reap the wealth of a single vital resource.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

As far as I am concerned what is bad for Saudi Arabia is good for the world. The government of Saudi Arabia has been double-dealing the west for years, feeding the religious extremists with reasons and excuses to hate the west, at times even encouraging it to focus its people on forgetting what their own government is doing to them. While at the same time the royal family continues to reap the wealth of a single vital resource.

---

Fair enough. I assumed that, as Saudi is at least ostensibly a US ally, there would have been some desire to back their side. Personally, even before the Iraq invasion, I felt Saudi and Pakistan were the two countries we should have done something about.

At this point it does not matter. Even if there is "victory" the majority and most especially the media will never allow it to be seen as a victory. At this point we have gift wrapped it and put a bow on it for the Iranians. they will control this region within 5 years. Israel will be destroyed shortly after.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

When Al-Sadr was pressured by Sistani and khamenei to do a deal with Mailki and told his militia to not fight Iraqis and only attack the coilition . The price demanded was a change in military and police leadership for Basra though their prime choice was turned down and they got a compromise commnder that both the Sadrists and Badr brigade could agree on .

The current status of Iraq will be determined in December , it all depends on what deal Maliki does with Khamenei , and at present it doesn't look like the deal is going to be by any stretch of the imagination what could be called a win for the coilition .


Didn't you know that its out of your governments hands no matter who wins in November ?

---

I'm sorry Tribe, but I had to attend to some business for a bit, and just now got back to the Org. Do you really think that Washindton is going to let Al Malaki ruin all the hard work done so far? They will stall or ignore him until they can see him replaced. This matter is too serious to leave in the hands of someone so obviously in the Iranian camp. It is really at the crux of the matter that we finish the job. Iran's regime is licking its lips to see us fail, now that we have done all their dirty work for them. These are the times which shall try mens' souls, in the words of Thomas Paine. We are about to witness something something remarkable in our times, a people who have never known a real representative Democracy in their history could finally achieve it, and eveyone seems to want to see it fail. I hate this war with every fiber of my being, but sometimes the rain must fall before the sunshine appears. I think that something astounding could happen here despite the intentions of those who started this conflict. If we quit now, it will only mean another victory for the forces of tyranny.

PS: I would have thought that ridding the world of tyranny is something an Irishman would applaude.

Nice little article from a guy with whom I seldom agree(but increasingly as of late).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Bush Paradox
By DAVID BROOKS

Let’s go back and consider how the world looked in the winter of 2006-2007. Iraq was in free fall, with horrific massacres and ethnic cleansing that sent a steady stream of bad news across the world media. The American public delivered a stunning electoral judgment against the Iraq war, the Republican Party and President Bush.

Expert and elite opinion swung behind the Baker-Hamilton report, which called for handing more of the problems off to the Iraqi military and wooing Iran and Syria. Republicans on Capitol Hill were quietly contemptuous of the president while Democrats were loudly so.

Democratic leaders like Senator Harry Reid considered the war lost. Barack Obama called for a U.S. withdrawal starting in the spring of 2007, while Senator Reid offered legislation calling for a complete U.S. pullback by March 2008.

The arguments floating around the op-ed pages and seminar rooms were overwhelmingly against the idea of a surge — a mere 20,000 additional troops would not make a difference. The U.S. presence provoked violence, rather than diminishing it. The more the U.S. did, the less the Iraqis would step up to do. Iraq was in the middle of a civil war, and it was insanity to put American troops in the middle of it.

When President Bush consulted his own generals, the story was much the same. Almost every top general, including Abizaid, Schoomaker and Casey, were against the surge. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was against it, according to recent reports. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki called for a smaller U.S. presence, not a bigger one.

In these circumstances, it’s amazing that George Bush decided on the surge. And looking back, one thing is clear: Every personal trait that led Bush to make a hash of the first years of the war led him to make a successful decision when it came to this crucial call.

Bush is a stubborn man. Well, without that stubbornness, that unwillingness to accept defeat on his watch, he never would have bucked the opposition to the surge.

Bush is an outrageously self-confident man. Well, without that self-confidence he never would have overruled his generals.

In fact, when it comes to Iraq, Bush was at his worst when he was humbly deferring to the generals and at his best when he was arrogantly overruling them. During that period in 2006 and 2007, Bush stiffed the brass and sided with a band of dissidents: military officers like David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno, senators like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and outside strategists like Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute and Jack Keane, a retired general.

Bush is also a secretive man who listens too much to Dick Cheney. Well, the uncomfortable fact is that Cheney played an essential role in promoting the surge. Many of the people who are dubbed bad guys actually got this one right.

The additional fact is that Bush, who made such bad calls early in the war, made a courageous and astute decision in 2006. More than a year on, the surge has produced large, if tenuous, gains. Violence is down sharply. Daily life has improved. Iraqi security forces have been given time to become a more effective fighting force. The Iraqi government is showing signs of strength and even glimmers of impartiality. Iraq has moved from being a failed state to, as Vali Nasr of the Council on Foreign Relations has put it, merely a fragile one.

The whole episode is a reminder that history is a complicated thing. The traits that lead to disaster in certain circumstances are the very ones that come in handy in others. The people who seem so smart at some moments seem incredibly foolish in others.

The cocksure war supporters learned this humbling lesson during the dark days of 2006. And now the cocksure surge opponents, drunk on their own vindication, will get to enjoy their season of humility. They have already gone through the stages of intellectual denial. First, they simply disbelieved that the surge and the Petraeus strategy was doing any good. Then they accused people who noticed progress in Iraq of duplicity and derangement. Then they acknowledged military, but not political, progress. Lately they have skipped over to the argument that Iraq is progressing so well that the U.S. forces can quickly come home.

But before long, the more honest among the surge opponents will concede that Bush, that supposed dolt, actually got one right. Some brave souls might even concede that if the U.S. had withdrawn in the depths of the chaos, the world would be in worse shape today.

Life is complicated. The reason we have democracy is that no one side is right all the time. The only people who are dangerous are those who can’t admit, even to themselves, that obvious fact.

https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/...complished.jpg

Even if the war were to come out a victory, it will still be a loss. Pessimism...

Can't believe I agree with Dave for once.

Quote:

---

I'm sorry Tribe, but I had to attend to some business for a bit, and just now got back to the Org. Do you really think that Washindton is going to let Al Malaki ruin all the hard work done so far? They will stall or ignore him until they can see him replaced.

---

Once the mandate runs out it runs out . As for replacing him can you name any politician or party that has said anything other than yankee go home in elections ?
Besides which any attempt to force a western backed leader on the country will backfire and be a loss .

Quote:

---

PS: I would have thought that ridding the world of tyranny is something an Irishman would applaude.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-cZWVChgYk
No don't forget that you have just said that the local choice will be fecked out by the foriegn occupiers if he doesn't do what the occupiers want , so perhaps you should drop that tyranny line eh .

Quote:

---

. Even if there is "victory" the majority and most especially the media will never allow it to be seen as a victory.

---

Dave can you envisage any event that could be called a victory using your presidents speeches of what the aims for Iraq were ?
If you can then perhaps you can moan about the media and the majority ....if not then you are trying to rewrite history to fit with your denial .

It's lost. Can't see the damage the invasion has done to US prestige and the region being fixed anytime soon. And how much longer can the US afford to remain there? Public opinion is turning against (has turned? Not up to date on this), probably more because of the financial burden than anything else.

In the Process of Being Won

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

PS: I would have thought that ridding the world of tyranny is something an Irishman would applaude.

---

Is...is....is that - could it really be - is that a non-ironic 'why do you hate freedom?'

Lest we forget. This was yesterday in Iraq.

It is already lost. The ethnic cleansing is largely complete and has led to a vast humanitarian catastrophe, and as Geoffrey S states the damage to the prestige and reputation of the US will take many years to heal. We may yet be able to prevent further catastrophic bloodshed and bring Iraq to a relatively stable state, but the damage has largely already been done. At best the situation may be brought to a Pyrrhic victory, and if that had been an option on the poll that's what I would have voted for (i.e. technically a victory, but at a cost outweighing the benefits of victory).

[QUOTE=Tribesman;1953799]Once the mandate runs out it runs out . As for replacing him can you name any politician or party that has said anything other than yankee go home in elections ?
Besides which any attempt to force a western backed leader on the country will backfire and be a loss .

No don't forget that you have just said that the local choice will be fecked out by the foriegn occupiers if he doesn't do what the occupiers want , so perhaps you should drop that tyranny line eh .QUOTE]

Good point. We would look like a sad bunch of srubs forcing "our guy" on the Iraqis. Still, if they are dumb enough to think that they can slavage this situation without our help, then they deserve everything that will come their way. That we have gotten ourselves to this point in the first place is our fault entirely, but that doesn't mean we should just quit, now that things are getting a bit tough.

Quote:

---

Is...is....is that - could it really be - is that a non-ironic 'why do you hate freedom?'-Louis VI the Fat

---

No Louis, that was just lil' ole' me, asking Tribe about tyranny, something he's an appearant expert on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

That we have gotten ourselves to this point in the first place is our fault entirely, but that doesn't mean we should just quit, now that things are getting a bit tough.

---

Well tribesman is right if the mandate runs out its over, hence the Bush boys trying to negotiate a long term defence arraingment (think south korea as a comparative). The best possible scenario would be to leave now, no mandate and no defense deal.

Otherwise your in for the long haul. 20-30 years of rebuilding, defending and dying for a country we shouldnt be in in the first place and dont want us there.

I say lets cut bait now and let the chips fall as they may, to much blood and to much treasure has been spent already Im not up for shelling out more of either.

Quote:

---

Well tribesman is right if the mandate runs out its over, hence the Bush boys trying to negotiate a long term defence arraingment (think south korea as a comparative). The best possible scenario would be to leave now, no mandate and no defense deal.

---

And the problem there is that while americais trying to negotiate a defence deal the Iraqi government is doing meetings in tehran to get their defence deal ..one major condition of which is US out of Iraq .
So there is a real possibilty that Americas dream of creating a western friendly environment in mesopotania is resulting in a military pact for Iraq/Iran and Syria(and by extention Lebanon) and the majority of the other gulf states stating quite clearly that they ain't gonna play ball with the US down that road .

Quote:

---

No Louis, that was just lil' ole' me, asking Tribe about tyranny

---

It works better if you ask that question and come from a country that doesn't have a long and continuing history of supporting tyrants Rotor .:whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

And the problem there is that while americais trying to negotiate a defence deal the Iraqi government is doing meetings in tehran to get their defence deal ..one major condition of which is US out of Iraq .
So there is a real possibilty that Americas dream of creating a western friendly environment in mesopotania is resulting in a military pact for Iraq/Iran and Syria(and by extention Lebanon) and the majority of the other gulf states stating quite clearly that they ain't gonna play ball with the US down that road .

---

I have absolutely no issue with this outcome at all (admitadly I am in the minority). Let them make a deal with Iran, the iranian threat to the U.S. is vastly overstated anyway, of course Im not so out of it that I dont recognize the pro israel lobby will keep us engaged in sabre rattling.

Im all for allowing the arabs to sort out there own paths at this point, I am even willing to issue an official appology for lying about the intelligence on Iraq in the first place. However Tribes, i suspect that once we do get out of there they full impact of the sunni/shia schism will play out via proxy wars etc (to a larger extent then it is now) and oil and gas prices skyrocket, forcing us to finally get off foriegn oil.

should have happened in the 70's, sadly it didnt. Iraq is a major opportunity for the U.S. to refocus its resources and efforts internally (see signature) and remove ourselves from where we unjustly stuck our noses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

I have absolutely no issue with this outcome at all (admitadly I am in the minority). Let them make a deal with Iran, the iranian threat to the U.S. is vastly overstated anyway, of course Im not so out of it that I dont recognize the pro israel lobby will keep us engaged in sabre rattling.

---

Cheers. :2thumbsup: State has changed plenty over the years since the revolution, easily the most progressive population of the region, and the government is fast losing control over social changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Cheers. :2thumbsup: State has changed plenty over the years since the revolution, easily the most progressive population of the region, and the government is fast losing control over social changes.

---

Iran? I wouldnt know I find the culture less then intresting. That being said have a look at the wall my friend, the writting on it spells israeli airstrikes. There is a line in the sand in which the Israeli's, once Iran crosses it, will strike. Successfully? I dont know but I want no part of it personally however the assets are in Hormuz to assist.

The real shame is that the invasion of Iraq literally proclude us from a major intervention in Iran. Clearly they are the ones who have the nuke ambitions (yep the WMD bit on saddam didnt pan out). Wonderful that there culture is thriving and the government is loosing control, yet that magic line for israel inches ever closer and if I were putting money on it I would say that within a year there is either a major diplomatic push from the U.S. to reel the iranians in (gasp an obama summit with dinnerjacket?) or israeli airstrikes.

I prefer it happen later in 09 so we have ample time to pull out of Iraq.

Quote:

---

That being said have a look at the wall my friend, the writting on it spells israeli airstrikes.

---

No it doesn't , carrying out their practice in the Med is one thing but getting to Iran is another entirely , they cannot manage it without using US assets or negotiating passage from countries that are not exactly friendly with them . So since passage is out that leaves American military involvement and Americas "friends" in the region have said exactly what will happen to their agreements if America is involved in any attack on Iran .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No it doesn't , carrying out their practice in the Med is one thing but getting to Iran is another entirely , they cannot manage it without using US assets or negotiating passage from countries that are not exactly friendly with them . So since passage is out that leaves American military involvement and Americas "friends" in the region have said exactly what will happen to their agreements if America is involved in any attack on Iran .

---

It does, unless you think Israel is going to sit back and hope Iran stops the nuclear process? You're going to have to pull a big rabbit out of your butt to convince me on that one. If history is any indication of future behavior Israel has a solid track record of striking arab nations who desire a nuclear program.

As far as passage I find it unlikely that Isreal is going to run into strong opposition other then verbal condemnation from those whose air space was violated. Of course the mightly iraqi airforce might offer up token resistance but all in all I dont see a big problem with israeli jets flying sorties over Iran at initiation of the strike. Follow up action maybe, but not day 1.

A victory for the USA, but a defeat for reason and human rights. :yes: