Iraq: "A War We Just Might Win"

[Pannonian]

So do you contend that:

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

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

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

despite recent decreases in sectarian violence;

etc....

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

Yup. So pick a warlord and stick with him.

[Samurai Waki]

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

[Pannonian]

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

The regular guy and gal in Iraq is going to benefit most from an Iraq that ain't going to tear itself apart or be torn apart by outside powers. If you can't achieve this, all the civilian infrastructure in the world is going to count for nowt. If the state can't fulfill its first and primary reason for being, it might as well declare itself non-existent.

[Tribesman]

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

Again from Brookings.
The State of Iraq: An Update

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

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

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lemur]

Interesting note on the original editorial used to set off this depressing little thread; a Salon writer took the time to look at the background of the two authors, and found that their representation of themselves as longstanding critics of the war in Iraq is highly questionable.

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

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

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

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

-edit-

And for what it's worth, this looks like something worth seeing, if only because the filmmakers convinced many of the people involved in the first three years of the war to talk on the record. Let us learn from our mistakes, etc.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

[Lemur]

My new favorite line from the Salon article:

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

[Xiahou]

I found a video clip that I thought was interesting...

[Lemur]

More debunking of the Pollack-O'Hanlon editorial:

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

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

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

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

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

[Xiahou]

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

I think the media over-stated the author's opposition to Bush. They have been critics of Bush's handling of the war, but they never, it seems, were real critics of the war itself. Also, they seem to have done little to dispute this. But, I also think that Glen Greenwald is a Brazillian sock-puppet.

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

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

[Tribesman]

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

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

How about rephrasing it this way:

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

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

[Ser Clegane]

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

Hope and Despair in Divided Iraq

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

[Tribesman]

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

[Banquo's Ghost]

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

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

Thanks for the link.

[Xiahou]

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

Hope and Despair in Divided Iraq

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

Interesting read.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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


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

[Lemur]

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

[Lemur]

This makes a lemur sad.

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

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This makes a lemur sad.

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

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

But I think you will Lemury-one.

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

[KafirChobee]

Define WIN.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brenus]

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

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

[Tribesman]

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

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

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

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

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

Huh.

CR

[KafirChobee]

The Bushys' natural progression of rhetoric for the war:

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

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

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



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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Kafir':

Please answer me this.

Stipulated:

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

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

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

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

Those points having been stipulated,

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

[Brenus]

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

[CrossLOPER]

...what kind of victory do you have in mind?

War is not a time for nit-picking.

[Pannonian]

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

Mother and apple pie question.