GAO report on rebuilding Iraq. A noteworthy graphic:
Printable View
GAO report on rebuilding Iraq. A noteworthy graphic:
and yet the supply of electricty doesn't meet demand.
Does the increased violence include the increase in Al-Qaeda attacks against united tribal leaders trying to remove terrorists from the equation in building their nation? I believe it does. Has anyone else noted the increase attacks during our election cycle?Quote:
...demand for electricity has been stimulated by a
growing economy and a surge in consumer purchases of appliances and
electronics. In addition, electricity is subsidized in Iraq, which leads to
increased demand.
The GAO is wonderful because its often just the facts based on data available not politics. Yet another ringing endorsement for removing ourselves from Iraq sooner rather then later
You guys are making OBL look like a genius :help: I bet most of these attacks are not on our troops. Arent US troop casusalties down?Quote:
The GAO is wonderful because its often just the facts based on data available not politics. Yet another ringing endorsement for removing ourselves from Iraq sooner rather then later
Attacks and casualties are two different reports Gwain, I am generally suspect of anything that comes out of the government post Bush and WMD, but the GAO usually uses good data from what I have seen in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Does it matter if us troop casualties are down if the civilian losses are going up, you think?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Aside from the overall increase, which is blatant, it also seems to indicate that there's a growing proportion of the attacks being made against Iraqi forces and civilians. Guess that's the civil war that's not happening, then....
Being as I'm not going to read the full 64 page report in the five minutes before I go home, do those figures indicate number of attacks or number of casualties in attacks? 5,000 a month sounds hell of a lot, either way round, so what actually constitutes an "attack"? And I'm sure Iraqi civilian population is sustaining far higher casualties than the occupying forces, so is, say, a car-bomb in a crowded Baghdad market counted as "one attack" along with a sniper's bullet ricocheting off a hummer also being "one attack"?
I'm sure I'll have a lot of debate to catch up on tomorrow morning....
Excellent questions all around imo. Its important to know what things mean. I remember when deaths from regular criminal activity and even some natural deaths weren't being subtracted from daily reported "death tolls" with retractions and revisions happening on page 10002, eight days later. This report does seem solid aside from making all relevant and necessary definitions.
Indeed, does an attack on the occupying forces that also constitutes civilian casualties and civilian targets and vice versa get chalked up twice or which is determined what and what are the criteria. Going to eventually read more than the first paragraph of the methodology used and hopefully answer some of these....Quote:
Originally Posted by macsen rufus
It does to me. As has been pointed out its to be expected that the closer they get to a real solution the more violence there will be. Ever hear of the Battle of the Bulge? Did that mean we should have packed up and left?Quote:
Does it matter if us troop casualties are down if the civilian losses are going up, you think?
Okay I covered the methodology and it just covers the scope of the financial reports as the primary focal point of the release. The graph above which appears in the release is provided by MNFI, haven't' delved far enough there for methodology yet.
Nope they are up , both killed and wounded , so are the Iraqi military casualties .Quote:
I bet most of these attacks are not on our troops. Arent US troop casusalties down?
So how much was you betting ?:dizzy2:
You make a good point here Gawain, but I hardly think that the two situations are analogous. WWII was a far different matter from this little shin-dig going on in Iraq. I will admit that it is all about the national will to take casualties for the gains expected. So far, as this report indicates, I can't think if it is worth it. I certainly wouldn't want to sacrifice my life for such a miserable situation such as we have in Iraq. Yet still, we expend more lives, more treasure, more sweat-all for a country that could care less if we fell off the face of the Earth. If you feel that strongly about it, I'll be glad to sign you up with my unit, so that you can share the load any time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
See you in the trenches Gunga Din. :rifle:
I dont either. In fact I never did. But that was before we invaded. Im still all for getting out. The problem is how.Quote:
So far, as this report indicates, I can't think if it is worth it.
I wouldnt either and I agree with you here.Quote:
I certainly wouldn't want to sacrifice my life for such a miserable situation such as we have in Iraq. Yet still, we expend more lives, more treasure, more sweat-all for a country that could care less if we fell off the face of the Earth.
Only if you go back in time and serve with mine in Nam :laugh4:Quote:
f you feel that strongly about it, I'll be glad to sign you up with my unit, so that you can share the load any time.
See you in the trenches Gunga Din.
Excellent that you make this point as this is exactly the aim of those who face us in Iraq and was one of the clearly stated reasons for the offensive stated by Gawain. In this scope alone I see that as a good comparison, however beyond that I won't endorse. WW2 comparisons are very difficult from the sheer scope to casualty totals to the war being felt by the civilian populations not in theater.Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
I would differ slightly in my opinion as to whether this is worthless, but to each his own. I do find some encouraging items amongst the financial costs. Of course I could think of worse ways to die, like from that of congressional laziness and the 7,000+ Americans who die each year because pharmacists get prescriptions wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
Funny that you should ask this as I was contacted a couple months ago by some people about serving again. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
A little more reality.
More than three months into a U.S.-Iraqi security offensive designed to curtail sectarian violence in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, Health Ministry statistics show that such killings are rising again.
From the beginning of May until Tuesday, 321 unidentified corpses, many dumped and showing signs of torture and execution, have been found across the Iraqi capital, according to morgue data provided by a Health Ministry official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information. The data showed that the same number of bodies were found in all of January, the month before the launch of the Baghdad security plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
US casualties in Iraq
Thanks thats why I asked. I looked and could only find an article stating they were down in march. Their not terribly up either considering the violence seems to have escalated. Again I wish the Iraqis would vote on whether they want us to stay or not. Please let then say go.
Thanks for the link. I would add that with dealing with such small numbers (not meaning to minimize the human cost but in meaning the reality of math) the fact that "wounded" have not been released for 2006 or 2007 leaves the door wide open to degrees of increase if at all or even to a greater degree than some think it currently is. Deaths to wounds ratios are not always equally and absolutely proportional.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
-edit-
So its safe to say death totals are higher, but the full picture of casualties is unclear.
But there are numbers for "wounded" - apparently just the methodology of reporting has been changedQuote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
Which is what I'm considering as this was a discussion on increased attacks, wishing to differentiate that which occur in combat. Non-combat wounds cover a ton of ground. Unfortunately deaths are not broken down in this list either, but I'm sure it could be researched.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
If I understand the notes correctly the numbers for "wounded" for the last 3 years have been "wounded in action" only.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
The numbers during the last 12 months have been higher than those in the previous 12 month period it seems (just looking at the graph - I haven't actually added up the numbers)
Oh okay, I misread the triple *'s and quadruple *'s notes. :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
The deaths being the ones not differentiated, but in fairness these get readily reported.
I think a rise in casualties is also expected to follow the change in tactics. The surge strategy involves troops moving from large bases into smaller neighborhood ones and having a more visible presence on the streets. It only follows that this would increase casualties at least somewhat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
lets not forget the 64,000--70,000 iraqi civilians killed thus far in the war.
The figures most definitely represent the number of attacks and not the number of casualties. The rate of both Iraqi civilian and security force casualties are considerably higher than the rate of Coalition casualties. Most attacks on Coalition Forces do not result in casualties-- for example, indirect fire which lands in an empty area or even which never gets to hit the ground, would be counted as an attack, even though no casualties or damage resulted.
I seem to recall a thread on this board that had data which put that number way higher, to the tune of 500 000 IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
I'm guessing the ludicrously low-balled number in the above quote is from a US government source rather than a truthful source.
:laugh4: Boy Zak will love this ! Imagine the massive glass of water he will need to swallow this pill? Zak using a low ball U.S. government number !Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
Sorry man, but so far this is the post of the day for me. :beam:
Oh, I agree it is much much higher, but those are documented cases that can be proven. THe others are mostly "reports", and indirect deaths due to disease, starvation, etc.
Point is, the USA is responsible for a humanitarian and refugee crisis in Iraq that will take a generation or two to begin recovery. That's much more than Saddam ever killed, by the way.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/
You just get worse and worse. How many in Iraq do you think want to return to the days of Saddam. According to your reasoning the allies are responsible for all the death and suffering in WW2 lol :help:Quote:
Point is, the USA is responsible for a humanitarian and refugee crisis in Iraq that will take a generation or two to begin recovery. That's much more than Saddam ever killed, by the way.
contrary to what the propaganda machines have spun up, sad-man wasnt all that bad for a brutal dictator. He was responsible for the huge increase in education and health care in Iraq, nationalizing the oil industry which led to record profits, and while he stole alot of it for himself, there was great investment in infastructure and the economy making it the most propsperous, literate, and educated middle eastern country aside from israel. Sure, he was brutal against his enemies, but the vast majority of iraqis had nothing to fear from his rule and most of the clamp-downs came only after the repressive sanctions were imposed by the US and others. As has recently been brought up, we were bombing them for the past 10 years.
Thank you Zak, for a minute I forgot that the org is a site I come to for entertainment puposes primarily. You've literally had me LOL at the screen twice today and thats awesome (no sarcasm intended, you know I dont agree with you mostly). Your consistancy is most appreciated :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Is there another poor soul on these boards who agrees with this? :dizzy2:Quote:
contrary to what the propaganda machines have spun up, sad-man wasnt all that bad for a brutal dictator. He was responsible for the huge increase in education and health care in Iraq, nationalizing the oil industry which led to record profits, and while he stole alot of it for himself, there was great investment in infastructure and the economy making it the most propsperous, literate, and educated middle eastern country aside from israel. Sure, he was brutal against his enemies, but the vast majority of iraqis had nothing to fear from his rule and most of the clamp-downs came only after the repressive sanctions were imposed by the US and others. As has recently been brought up, we were bombing them for the past 10 years.
The funny (or perhaps not so funny) thing is, that you could say almost say the same thing about Hitler in Germany - great investments (Autobahn!), most Germans could do fine (as long as they did not decide to develop an opinion that went against the regime), actually things just got really bad when the neighbouring countries decided that they did not like being invaded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
And Hitler probably took less money for personal purposes than Saddam.
I share your sentiment though that living in Iraq or more specific in some areas of Iraq (e.g., Bagdad) did not really get better for a lot of people.
Facts don't lie friends. Look into it, you might be suprised. There is no doubt Saddam was a criminal and a madman. However, his country prospered under his rule. Its the same way most Russians see Stalin as "the right man for the job" and praise him as their greatest of leaders. What the propaganda machine did to Saddam is the same thing it did to over dictators over the years, in places like Panama, Ecuador, Brazil, Iran, etc, etc. Its the same thing they're trying to do to Venezuela's president today.
The point of all this is, Iraq was in fact a much more peaceful and safe place under Saddam, and people could lead normal lives which is impossible today.
I have and you couldnt be more wrong.Quote:
Facts don't lie friends. Look into it, you might be suprised.
You really believe that. What of the 5 million babies dying each year?Quote:
his country prospered under his rule.
So you favor dictators then and martial law? Normal lives? Do you have any idea of what your talking about? Is freedom worth nothing to you?Quote:
The point of all this is, Iraq was in fact a much more peaceful and safe place under Saddam, and people could lead normal lives which is impossible today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
:oops:....he say's wiping the egg off his face. I hope I didn't step on any toes here Gawain. I only meant my comments rehtorically. I just get a liitle tired of all the so called "military experts" handing out jingoistic advice about what we ought to do in a war that they never have, or ever will be likely to fight. As anyone who has done so should know, it "ain't no Sunday picnic."
I honor your service, and would be glad to sit in a foxhole with you any time,
as long as we could be drinkin' a beer at the same time. :beam:
Well, if you're not a Kurd, anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Come on, Gawain - where did you get these numbers from?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Iraq has a population of ca. 30 million with a current birthrate of 30 on 1000 inhabitants (source). There is absolutely no way that your number is even close to reality.
Even if I agree with you that Saddam's Iraq was certainly not "Happy Valley" (although there are certainly various reasons of infant mortality that could be discussed), there should at least be some real(istic) numbers be used as a basis for discussion.
You know, I was holding out for a Flat Earther, but I'll settle for a Baath-loving Saddamista.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Off the top of my head. Im not sure of the real number but I do remember that thousands at least were dying every year and that we were being blamed for it because of the embargo. Sorry if I was off. The point is Iraq was terrible under Saddam.Quote:
Come on, Gawain - where did you get these numbers from?
The same to you m8. Ill bet your foxholes are a lot drier than ours were :laugh4:Quote:
I honor your service, and would be glad to sit in a foxhole with you any time,
And on that point I fully agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Iraq was terrible under Saddam--but is more terrible under Bush, I'd propose. By the way, those babies dying had nothing to do with the sanctions did they? hmm.
Thats your opinion and your certainly entitled to it. But thats all it is.Quote:
Iraq was terrible under Saddam--but is more terrible under Bush,
Did you read my post?Quote:
I'd propose. By the way, those babies dying had nothing to do with the sanctions did they? hmm.
Quote:
Im not sure of the real number but I do remember that thousands at least were dying every year and that we were being blamed for it because of the embargo.
It had far more to do with the Oil for food scandal and Saddam taking the money and using it for other things.
One things for sure your not a conservative. Are you one of those guys who joined the Army for the benifits and then got stuck in this war? J/K'
But really why did you enlist then?
I enlisted after 9/11 because I thought our country was under attack. I hold two bachelor's degrees and was working on a post-graduate in classical history before i quit college and became an intel guy and delpoyed to iraq the first time. after return I went to OCS and became a military intelligence officer. I certainly did not join for any benefits.
After Iraq and Afghanistan, I've come to learn the truth of American foreign policy from the ground level, the "tip of the spear" if you will. While a fiercely loyal, patriotic American, I see the belligerance and corruption of our current regime, (which is not party-specific) which is ruining our country. We need to return to our roots as a nation and uphold liberty, democracy, and equality for all in the world-- not imperialism, exploitation, and greed.
Oh and by the way, I used to be a staunch neo-conservative, flag-waving, bush-saluting maniac who watched fox news 24/7. For years I believed in the advancement of the american empire.
I think the famous quote is about the only ones who are pro-war are those who havent seen it?:balloon2:
Well you will get no argument from me on this point. Seems were closer in ideas than I imagined.Quote:
While a fiercely loyal, patriotic American, I see the belligerance and corruption of our current regime, (which is not party-specific) which is ruining our country. We need to return to our roots as a nation and uphold liberty, democracy, and equality for all in the world-- not imperialism, exploitation, and greed.
I would caution you, as a fellow Orgah, to avoid swinging to the opposite extreme. There is much to love about America, and much that is unique. Everything in the world is not our fault. Everything we do is not mired in greed and venality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Don't hand patriotism and its trappings to the far right; they deserve the mantle less than most.
Here here Lemur. Whats happening. Have I been bitten by a Lemur? :help:
Sadaam was never ever good for Iraq. Iraq's happiest days were before he came to power. The Baath Party did do a number of good things for Iraq-- but as for Sadaam, he fought a losing war against Iran, a disastrous war against the Western coalition, and starved his own people in the name of national pride all the while building bigger and more extravagant Palaces of Pleasure for himself. Dozens of these palaces were built during the years of the sanctions regime, using money that was earmarked to provide food, clothing, and medicine for the Iraqi people.
Sadaam never was and never could be in any way good for Iraq. The disaster which has resulted from the US's wishful thinking is an entirely separate matter.
Quoted for shock and awe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Arroyo
Well this thread has been bombed and shot to pieces so....Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I don't know exactly how accurate these numbers would be, but some of the answers in this thread are much more interesting. Together they constitute a small study in denial. Posters touched by the affliction should (re)read Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly as therapy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
While all that is true, its not the whole story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Arroyo
We are never told that he led an extensive modernization program of Iraq that included:
* He redirected the control of Iraqi oil from international monopolies so that Iraq would receive their oil revenues, which caused a huge economic boom to the country.
* Iraq started providing social services to its citizens that were unprecedented in the middle east.
* He established a campaign to eradicate illiteracy from Iraq and free education became compulsory to the highest educational levels.
* The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free health care to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers.
* Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
Linky pleaseQuote:
We are never told that he led an extensive modernization program of Iraq that included:
* He redirected the control of Iraqi oil from international monopolies so that Iraq would receive their oil revenues, which caused a huge economic boom to the country.
* Iraq started providing social services to its citizens that were unprecedented in the middle east.
* He established a campaign to eradicate illiteracy from Iraq and free education became compulsory to the highest educational levels.
* The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free health care to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers.
* Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
You do realise your job in itself is an oxi moron.
Military Intelligence indeed :laugh4:
don't I know it.. I do have access to lots of records and things though..
from wiki:
Quote:
t the center of this strategy was Iraq's oil. On June 1, 1972, Saddam oversaw the seizure of international oil interests, which, at the time, dominated the country's oil sector. A year later, world oil prices rose dramatically as a result of the 1973 energy crisis, and skyrocketing revenues enabled Saddam to expand his agenda.
Promoting women's literacy and education in the 1970s
Promoting women's literacy and education in the 1970s
Within just a few years, Iraq was providing social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).[11][12]
To diversify the largely oil-based Iraqi economy, Saddam implemented a national infrastructure campaign that made great progress in building roads, promoting mining, and developing other industries. The campaign revolutionized Iraq's energy industries. Electricity was brought to nearly every city in Iraq, and many outlying areas.
Before the 1970s, most of Iraq's people lived in the countryside, where Saddam himself was born and raised, and roughly two-thirds were peasants. But this number would decrease quickly during the 1970s as the country invested much of its oil profits into industrial expansion.
Nevertheless, Saddam focused on fostering loyalty to the Ba'athist government in the rural areas. After nationalizing foreign oil interests, Saddam supervised the modernization of the countryside, mechanizing agriculture on a large scale, and distributing land to peasant farmers.[6] The Ba'athists established farm cooperatives, in which profits were distributed according to the labors of the individual and the unskilled were trained. The government's commitment to agrarian reform was demonstrated by the doubling of expenditures for agricultural development in 1974-1975. Moreover, agrarian reform in Iraq improved the living standard of the peasantry and increased production, though not to the levels for which Saddam had hoped.
Saddam became personally associated with Ba'athist welfare and economic development programs in the eyes of many Iraqis, widening his appeal both within his traditional base and among new sectors of the population. These programs were part of a combination of "carrot and stick" tactics to enhance support in the working class, the peasantry, and within the party and the government bureaucracy.
Saddam's organizational prowess was credited with Iraq's rapid pace of development in the 1970s; development went forward at such a fevered pitch that two million persons from other Arab countries and Yugoslavia worked in Iraq to meet the growing demand for labor.
NOTICE THE DATE. As has been said you could say a lot more for Hitler.
Hey I never said he was a good guy. I said he did some good things for Iraq, and that they were better off under him than the current chaos and death that reigns.
And thats where we part. Your leaving out that he did a lot TOO Iraq as well.Quote:
and that they were better off under him
Sadaam Hussein did not become president of Iraq until July of 1979.
Im glad someone else noticed
He was de facto leader well before Bakr abdicated. Saddam and his Tikrit clan had controlled energy and defense for over a decade with Saddam conducting all oil, military and nuclear business on behalf of the regime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Arroyo
Wait, what? :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Yeah I am scratching my head as well. Didn't most Russians hate him?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2822029.stm
Pretty disturbing. Kinda like still thinking facism is a good idea, or something.Quote:
A survey by the All-Russian Centre for the Study of Public Opinion released this week showed that 53% of 1,600 people polled said Stalin had played a "mainly positive role" in the country's history.
That's right. And every Russian I've ever known (granted, they're all military) look up to him as their greatest leader.
I find it funny that people insist comparing Saddam Hussein to Hitler and Stalin. It makes him look a lot scarier and worth bothering with than he really was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
As for Stalin, I say again: Even though he was a paranoid psycho, he transformed the nation from a fractured series of rebellious farming villages into a powerful entity that rivaled (and to an extent still does) the powers of the world.
I would not go as far as saying that he was as bad as Hitler - my point rather was that even for Hitler - who was even worse, in terms of the overall impact - you could start to paint a rather rosy picture based on the same line of arguments that has been used here for Saddam.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
In actuality though Hussein was no worse than the myriad other Arabic dictators the west has propped up for decades. The same things he did happen in Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria too, you know.
If Saddam had the same amount of power that Hitler or Stalin did heaven help us. You would see just how bad he really was. Thats the only difference . Germany and Russia were a bit stronger than Iraq.Quote:
I find it funny that people insist comparing Saddam Hussein to Hitler and Stalin. It makes him look a lot scarier and worth bothering with than he really was.
I am not sure that you can show the same level of genocide-like (Kurds?) activities in those countries. Granted, when a lot of these things happened Saddam was also propped up by the West - but that does not excuse his actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Please note that I have not been a supporter of the Iraq invasion and I fully agree with you that the results have been far from satisfactory (although - once the invasion was a fact - I would have rather loved to be proven wrong by seeing Iraq being turned into a stable and peaceful country).
However I have a bit of a problem with accepting statements that Saddam wasn't such a bad guy. He was - that things do not look rosy now either does not change that..
If you will excuse me, the whole debate about exactly how nasty Saddam was seems like a bit of a distraction from the here and now.
An article that sums up much of the conundrum we're facing:
To put all this in context: Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted candidly in mid-March that without sectarian reconciliation among Iraqis the “strategy won’t work.” Indeed, the entire point of the surge is to bring such reconciliation about by, in Gates’s words, “buy[ing] the Iraqis time.” But that’s the problem. The United States is ever more dearly buying time, and Iraq is ever more freely spending it. As this article goes to press, the parliament is set to embark on a two-month vacation, during which, if current trends hold, 200 more American troops will be killed.
It seems so straightforward -- they are wasting time, and therefore wasting American lives, while the various insurgencies provide valuable training for future terrorists. But the politics are so frickin' complicated:
Haunted by Vietnam, Democrats are determined to express support for the troops. This is admirable. The truth of the matter, however, is this: many troops in Iraq, perhaps even most of them, want to stay and fight. That doesn’t mean that we should stay in Iraq any longer. It does mean, however, that if Democrats want to bridge the divide between themselves and the military—an effort further complicated by their opposition to the war—they’re going to have to recognize that arguing in the name of the troops isn’t going to work.
Elsewhere the author has the most elegant summary of the problem I've ever read:
The uncomfortable reality is this: nothing in Iraq worth fighting for remains achievable, and nothing achievable in Iraq remains worth fighting for. Democrats have made the decision — rightly, I think — that withdrawing from Iraq is the least bad of many bad options. But they shouldn't kid themselves into thinking that a majority of the troops doing the fighting agree with them.
I remember reading an article recently in which an Army officer argued that we had to stay in Iraq because of the sheer evil we're facing. He said something along the lines of "every day I'm saving children from being run over by a bus." Of course our troops, who are moral, loyal, good men and women, want to stay and save everyone they can. But as a blogger put it today:
If the Democrats are smart, they will immediately start figuring out and debating the way in which the US withdraws and redeploys in Iraq. How we do this strikes me as more important than the simple fact that we will do it. How do we do so while strengthening the Anbar tribes' hand against al Qaeda? Which of the Shiite and Sunni factions are we going to grant more sway in Baghdad as we disengage? How do we keep control of the Turkish-Kurdish border? What constellation of diplomatic initiatives best complements the withdrawal - and what is our game-plan? All I can say is that I hope someone in the Pentagon and State Department is figuring a serious strategy out. The Darfur Dems, in particular, are going to have a serious quandary if they do not advance a realistic and hard-nosed strategy for the most advantageous withdrawal - for the West and our friends. They're against a genocide in Africa but in favor of one directly precipitated by US forces in Iraq? Run that by me one more time.
-edit-
If anyone's interested, here's a link to my How Will the Iraq War End? thread, which contains a reprint of the best article on the subject I've read anywhere. Some of the political analysis is now dated, but the underlying military issues are as sound and sharp as the day it was written.
That is very true. However, support for the war by Soldiers is not as large as some in the media like FOX would have you believe. From my experiences 3 out of 5 soldiers (and these are infantry soldiers, mind you) refer to the war on less than kind terms and largest motivation is the pay bonsues we receive while in iraq which will let us buy new cars or boats when we get home. sure, there are idealists who believe the junk about bringing 'liberty' and 'democracy', but they're increasing rare.
Update of some importance.
This is fascinating. Let me deconstruct it:
1. The split in the Bush Administration on middle east policy is going public. First we had Steve Clemons' report yesterday about the Cheney v. The World split on Iran. Now we have a split between the Secs. Def and State, the Pentagon brass, the intelligence community, and possibly the President on one side and the Generals in the field--Petraeus and Odierno--and the GOP hawks (Cheney, McCain etc) on the other.
2. This plan is very similar to the withdrawal strategy proposed by the Senate Democrats--Carl Levin and Jack Reed. (And which I favor.)
3. The notion that we would continue to train Iraqis may be very significant. It may mean that we've decided to side with the Shi'ites in the civil war since they're the majority and--I don't agree with this, by the way--the best hope for stability. (I disagree because you're likely to get even more instability, with the various Shi'ite factions fighting each other for control).
4. If that's the thinking, it's incoherent. It directly contradicts one of the few recent successes we've had in Iraq: backing the Sunni tribes in Anbar against Al Qaeda.
5. What to watch for: Bush's reaction to all this. My guess is he makes it plain that he's opposed to this plan very quickly.
legitimizing al-sadr has always been our 'punt' backup plan anyway... seems the most sensibile thing to do and put the shia in charge with a weak central government in baghdad.
Wow thats pretty good. Im amazed that many speak in good terms. No one was happy when I was in:laugh4: Soldiers are born to complain. But seriously thats why we really cant fight a war and win unless the man in the trenches believes in the cause. Then everything eles is irrelevant.Quote:
From my experiences 3 out of 5 soldiers (and these are infantry soldiers, mind you) refer to the war on less than kind terms and largest motivation is the pay bonsues we receive while in iraq From my experiences 3 out of 5 soldiers (and these are infantry soldiers, mind you) refer to the war on less than kind terms and largest motivation is the pay bonsues we receive while in iraq
Right. That's why Bush tried to trick us into thinking we were going into Iraq for some sort of security reasons, like we were protecting America. Alot of us believed that, at first.
[QUOTE=Lemur]If the Democrats are smart, they will immediately start figuring out and debating the way in which the US withdraws and redeploys in Iraq. How we do this strikes me as more important than the simple fact that we will do it. How do we do so while strengthening the Anbar tribes' hand against al Qaeda? Which of the Shiite and Sunni factions are we going to grant more sway in Baghdad as we disengage? How do we keep control of the Turkish-Kurdish border? What constellation of diplomatic initiatives best complements the withdrawal - and what is our game-plan?
I think this is the only way to treat the situation in Irak.
Your president was not exact when he said about 'if we leave Irak, it will be chaos there'.
The correct sentence is 'when we will leave Irak, it will be chaos there'.
It is exactly the same for the 'we cannot afford to loose'.
I do not know if this is true but what i do know is that the us army cannot win in this situation as there is nothing to win.
So it is necessary to stop thinking in black/white terms, to fix an achievable objective and to try to leave with as few damage to what remains of US military and diplomatic credibility. At the difference of the numerous different plans to end insurgency in bagdad, it must be precise, adaptable to the changes of the circumstances and include all the necessary compromises with whoever is required.
This is neither a time nor a place for harsh slogans and US politic game based decisions.
...but how can the people do with overly-simplified slogans and generalizations of complex plans????!Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrus
Get drunk?Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
If anybody's got the stomach for another long PDF report about Iraq, here it is. (In fairness, this one's only twelve pages long.)
Some highlights from the BBC coverage:
This latest paper, written by Dr Gareth Stansfield, a Middle East expert, is unremittingly bleak.
Dr Stansfield, of Exeter University and Chatham House, argues that the break-up of Iraq is becoming increasingly likely.
In large parts of the country, the Iraqi government is powerless, he says, as rival factions struggle for local supremacy.
The briefing paper, entitled Accepting Realities in Iraq, argues that "There is not 'a' civil war in Iraq, but many civil wars and insurgencies involving a number of communities and organizations struggling for power."