Iraq: "A War We Just Might Win"

[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?