The Current Status of the Conflict in Iraq

[PanzerJaeger]

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

[Odin]

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.

[Ice]

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

[PanzerJaeger]

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

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.

[woad&fangs]

Holy !!!

When did we get Sadr City?!

[Tribesman]

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 .

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 ?

[Pannonian]

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.

[rotorgun]

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.

[rotorgun]

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?

[Devastatin Dave]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[CountArach]

[Samurai Waki]

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.

[Tribesman]

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 .

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

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 .

. 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 .

[Geoffrey S]

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.

[rotorgun]

[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.

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.

[Odin]

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.

[JR-]

In the Process of Being Won

[Dâriûsh]

Lest we forget. This was yesterday in Iraq.

[PBI]

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).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I wanted an option between deadlock and in the process of a win.


Recent successes are encouraging, but there are a number of major issues that still have to be addressed.

Iraq is still divided into three large "camps" and a means for keeping them from gunning for one another are not fully in place.

A good measure of the local support that has helped generate recent successes may well be more "enemy of my enemy" than friendly support (though the changed deployment strategies of the surge have improved local support measurably).

There is little democratic/republican tradition to build on to begin with -- this is, at best, a long process.

So, we may be winning against Al Queda in Iraq, but that doesn't necessarily mean the whole thing will come up roses.

[Marshal Murat]

As long as there isn't some sort of great 'Tet' Offensive, we're going good. The issue has been submerged under the economy and energy in the media, and they're even confused over terminology (Iraq = civil war anymore).

The Iraqi Army even seems better than the Vietnamese army in trying to fight AQ. While that may be because there are more US advisors on the ground or whatever, it may be because they are actually (get ready to be shocked) capable.

So, we can stay in Iraq so long as the economy is screwing us over.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As long as there isn't some sort of great 'Tet' Offensive, we're going good. The issue has been submerged under the economy and energy in the media, and they're even confused over terminology (Iraq = civil war anymore).

The Iraqi Army even seems better than the Vietnamese army in trying to fight AQ. While that may be because there are more US advisors on the ground or whatever, it may be because they are actually (get ready to be shocked) capable.

So, we can stay in Iraq so long as the economy is screwing us over.

The Tet Offensive was an unmitigated disaster for North Vietnam and the Viet Cong. They lost so badly, in a tactical sense, that Vietnam seriously considered asking for terms to end the conflict. It was only the response of the US media and US public that led to it's strategic success for communist forces.

Our military more or less DREAMS about an enemy that comes after us en masse where we can actually apply all of our force multipliers etc. Ask Redleg or Rotorgun.

[Marshal Murat]

The Tet Offensive was an unmitigated disaster for North Vietnam and the Viet Cong.

I am aware of the disaster that the Tet Offensive was, but the effect it had on the media and the general public perception was what I was referring to. If AQ were to launch a major offensive through Baghdad, actually RPG-ing the U.S. Embassy, then I wouldn't be surprised if everyone saw Iraq as going backwards.

[Pannonian]

The Tet Offensive was an unmitigated disaster for North Vietnam and the Viet Cong. They lost so badly, in a tactical sense, that Vietnam seriously considered asking for terms to end the conflict. It was only the response of the US media and US public that led to it's strategic success for communist forces.

Our military more or less DREAMS about an enemy that comes after us en masse where we can actually apply all of our force multipliers etc. Ask Redleg or Rotorgun.

The problem with Iraq is not the military situation, but the political, and I don't see how there have been any improvements politically at all. Iran still wants and is able to get the largest chunk of influence in post-US Iraq, the Saudis aren't going to let them have this without a fight, the Kurds still want independence, Turkey still won't tolerate such. The US can stall all this as long as they remain there, but it's going to cost them dearly in money and political capital (they can probably afford the blood), and the moment they leave it'll play itself out as predicted anyway.

I said some time ago that a pan-Iraqi vision was the only way of solving all this, something for all Iraqis to unite behind so they can stand up as a single country against outsiders. I suggested that playing the ogre whom all Iraqis hate, or even playing out a nominal defeat against the Iraqis, might be a price worth paying for that goal of pan-Iraq. Related to this, I said a couple of years ago that, of the three goals of democracy, stability and a pro-American government, only two were possible, and the US should choose which two it wanted. Last year, I updated this by saying that even two out of three was over-optimistic, and that only one was possible, and everything should be directed towards the goal of stability. Right now, I see even that as less and less possible. Things have quietened down a bit in Iraq, but I don't see that as a good sign. AFAICS, Iraq has been thoroughly subdued, and now, when the day comes for the US to leave, it will be a walkover for any regional powers that care to play the game, for I think all aspiration towards an Iraqi nation is gone.

So the question of whether the war is won or lost is irrelevant, IMHO.

[Tribesman]

Where is that Odin , whassup did you actually read Panzers link or something ?
Did you notice perhaps that in the short space of a year the assesment which was already in the very very risky operation category is now even further out of date on its risk assesment:inquisitive
Israel really needs to get its arse in gear doesn't it because them Iranians are spending their petro money like crazy and doing deals with countries which make the roundabout southern route the only real possibility (which they cannot manage anyway without the US)

Then again since you wrote ...

He made an absolute statement here, let him back it up with a reference, you posting bails him out (unless he has the source to verify his statement of fact).

...it does sort of show that you hadn't read Panzers link .

Would you like the latest DEBKA reports on the issue ?

Well Odin ?...

[Odin]

Where is that Odin , whassup did you actually read Panzers link or something ?
Did you notice perhaps that in the short space of a year the assesment which was already in the very very risky operation category is now even further out of date on its risk assesment:inquisitive
Israel really needs to get its arse in gear doesn't it because them Iranians are spending their petro money like crazy and doing deals with countries which make the roundabout southern route the only real possibility (which they cannot manage anyway without the US)

Then again since you wrote ... ...it does sort of show that you hadn't read Panzers link .

Would you like the latest DEBKA reports on the issue ?

Well Odin ?...

Thanks tribes, I knew you wouldnt be able to support your position with something other then your tripe and

However the request stands, care to support your claim that Isreal cannot conduct an airstrike on Iran due to (what was the 1st one?) territorial claims by hostile nations, or the inability to travel the distance?

[Tribesman]

I see odin you havn't even read Panzers link on the assesment Thats not very clever of you is it

However the request stands

Don't you realise that all the relevant information has already been posted that fully answers your request and doesn't leave you a leg to stand on .

Your position is rather akin to claiming that America can put a man on mars next year because they have a space program and put men on the moon before .
So Odin your view is that Israel is willing to risk losing its entire long range strike force , use its entire tanker fleet , almost all its specilist weapons , commit acts of war against several countries at a time when it is desperate to make peace with those countries , face up to a retaliation that it is unable to counter , further damage the worlds economy and completely wreck its own at the same time , not to mention completely screwing America ....all on an operation that has a very very major risk of total failure and if by some miracle it does succeed in all aspects doesn't go anywhere near achieving what is needed .
Yes Odin the writing is definately on the wall for this one going ahead , right next to the writing that says Clinton is going to be your next president .

[Odin]

So Odin your view is that Israel is willing to risk losing its entire long range strike force , use its entire tanker fleet , almost all its specilist weapons , commit acts of war against several countries at a time when it is desperate to make peace with those countries , face up to a retaliation that it is unable to counter , further damage the worlds economy and completely wreck its own at the same time , not to mention completely screwing America ....all on an operation that has a very very major risk of total failure and if by some miracle it does succeed in all aspects doesn't go anywhere near achieving what is needed .

No tribes my view is that Israel is capable of making the air strike and if the Iranians continue to persue nukes the writting on the wall based on historical precedent is very clear.

The fact you want to dance around this is indicative of your inability to admit when your wrong. Additionally you posted no evidence what so ever to support your claims which is becoming a frequent unattractive practice for you.

But hey, your not letting me down my expectations for you were low going in.

Of course the offer is still there, care to support your claim:

So Odin since Israel doesn't have the ability to do the job the job is not going to be done by Israel no matter how much you like to think that the writing is on the wall . Remember this Iranian program is put together in light of events at Osirak and planned against the possibility of US strikes from naval assets or allied airbases . which means you should think a little more before writing....

Maybe you should think a little more before writing because by your own contraditction you state

So Odin your view is that Israel is willing to risk losing its entire long range strike force , use its entire tanker fleet , almost all its specilist weapons , commit acts of war against several countries at a time when it is desperate to make peace with those countries , face up to a retaliation that it is unable to counter , further damage the worlds economy and completely wreck its own at the same time , not to mention completely screwing America ....all on an operation that has a very very major risk of total failure and if by some miracle it does succeed in all aspects doesn't go anywhere near achieving what is needed .

guess you werent thinking were you? so does this qualification mean that they infact can do the job tribesman? or is this simply you pulling more tripe out of your ass?