The Current Status of the Conflict in Iraq

[Tribesman]

As far as passage I find it unlikely that Isreal is going to run into strong opposition other then verbal condemnation from those whose air space was violated.

Follow up action maybe, but not day 1.

You don't get it at all , it involves 3 countries that are still at war with Israel and a countryy which as part of the peace deal says that Israeli planes can bugger off if they think they can overfly at all .
Are they planning a one way journey perhaps ?
Given the spread and depth of Iranian fascilities even if they go round and come over the sea to avoid early warnings they are still going to have to take out the air defence network before they have a hope of getting to the nuke stuff . Israel simply hasn't got the capacity to do it .
It isn't a matter of day 1 at all . And you can guarantee that on day one Isreali towns and villages will be recieving lots of presents of the non verbal kind from Irans little buddies .
Israel simply cannot do it without US assistance and US assistance means saying goodbye to the entire middle east network apart from Isreal .

[Don Corleone]

I think it's still on the fence. Clearly, we're doing a better job managing the insurgency, and reducing the violence against our troops. But that's a current condition, not a goal.

The Administration said the goals for the Invasion of Iraq were, in order:

1) Stop Saddam Hussein from using WMD's against us. (Thus far, I'm unaware of any credible imminent threats which were thwarted by our invasion & occupation, but clearly, he won't be using any WMD's against us anytime soon. Done.).

2) Stop Saddam Hussein from developing a nuclear weapon (Ditto, but again, done).

3) Stop Saddam Hussein from spreading terrorism around the region, particularly his support of Al-Queda. (While Hussein's ties to Al Queda are ethereal at best, clearly Al Queda has not been weakened by the war in Iraq. They have occupied their efforts in the Middle East, and therefore, domestic security has been maintained in the US. Train bombings in Madrid and subway bombings in London clearly indicate they do retain their external striking power. Mixed.).

4) Stop Saddam Hussein from victimizing his people. (Done, with the caveat that now, the individual ethnic groups and religious sects are victimizing each other, so a net wash, and the average Iraqi isn't much better off. If the goal was to improve the security and rights of the average Iraqi, Not done.).

5) Install a self-sustaining democracy based on serving the needs of the people.(Miserable failure.).

So in looking at the administration's scorecard, they've accomplished 2 goals out of 5 in 5 years.

Tactically, our troops have fought valiantly and done much more with much less than I would have thought possible. I still think if for no other reason, Rumsfeld should face treason charges for not spending the money to fully arm, equip and adquately staff our overseas presence. Making guys take scraps off of old vehicles to try to bulletproof their jeeps is pathetic.

Strategically however, we are still slipping in the mud and have shown little signs of progress towards our goals. Maybe McCain was a bit free with the use of the term '100 years or more', but I personally see no end in sight.

[Odin]

You don't get it at all , it involves 3 countries that are still at war with Israel and a countryy which as part of the peace deal says that Israeli planes can bugger off if they think they can overfly at all .
Are they planning a one way journey perhaps ?
Given the spread and depth of Iranian fascilities even if they go round and come over the sea to avoid early warnings they are still going to have to take out the air defence network before they have a hope of getting to the nuke stuff . Israel simply hasn't got the capacity to do it .
It isn't a matter of day 1 at all . And you can guarantee that on day one Isreali towns and villages will be recieving lots of presents of the non verbal kind from Irans little buddies .
Israel simply cannot do it without US assistance and US assistance means saying goodbye to the entire middle east network apart from Isreal .

No you dont get it because you havent provided a reason or rational as to what would prevent them. The 3 countries thus far havent stopped Israels occupation of palastine but they are going to stop airstrikes in Iran?

Also, I dont suggest it wont involve an all out assault from Iran, however you neglected to address the historical precedent of israeli action on past nuclear sites on arab nations that they were at war with at the time.

With that in mind, are you suggesting to me that Israel is going to sit and hope for the best on Iran? thus far I am not overwhelmed by your position on this crucial question, and you can laugh it up all you want it dosent change the historical fact that when Israel feels threatened they act. As I stated before unless a major diplomatic effort is made by obama Israel is forced to do something isnt it?

Perhaps there is a sliver of rational that MAD principle might be the future between Iran and Israel but that removes Israels major ace. So by all means convince me tribesman that Israel wont act, I'll buy it if its convincing, I will even admit I was wrong. Thus far your argument is that nations at war will not violate others airspace, because more war?

Oh the capacity thing I forgot, sure your right it wont be a one off hit and run that will eliminate all of the nuclear network, however 1 strike will certainly slow it down, but hey i will make another concession in the spirit of progress. Yep a sustained air campaign would require U.S. participation, but that dosent negate the ability of the israeli's from getting the first hit in. Not only that but my guess is that faced with a nuke armed Iran or a convential war they'll opt for the later.

Edit Oh forgot, having a look at the middle east map I dont see many obstacles militarily to israel flying over head, didnt they buzz the president of syrias house a few months back, and destroy facialities within syria unopposed? Oh and then there is Iraqi air space, dont see much of a military issue there either, do you?

I formally withdraw my prior concession :)

[macsen rufus]

1) Stop Saddam Hussein from using WMD's against us. (Thus far, I'm unaware of any credible imminent threats which were thwarted by our invasion & occupation, but clearly, he won't be using any WMD's against us anytime soon. Done.).

2) Stop Saddam Hussein from developing a nuclear weapon (Ditto, but again, done).

3) Stop Saddam Hussein from spreading terrorism around the region, particularly his support of Al-Queda. (While Hussein's ties to Al Queda are ethereal at best, clearly Al Queda has not been weakened by the war in Iraq. They have occupied their efforts in the Middle East, and therefore, domestic security has been maintained in the US. Train bombings in Madrid and subway bombings in London clearly indicate they do retain their external striking power. Mixed.).

4) Stop Saddam Hussein from victimizing his people. (Done, with the caveat that now, the individual ethnic groups and religious sects are victimizing each other, so a net wash, and the average Iraqi isn't much better off. If the goal was to improve the security and rights of the average Iraqi, Not done.).

5) Install a self-sustaining democracy based on serving the needs of the people.(Miserable failure.).

So in looking at the administration's scorecard, they've accomplished 2 goals out of 5 in 5 years.

I think scoring that at 2 out of 5 is being very generous - the 2 "scores" were paper tigers in the first place. You might as well claim points for eradicating all of Iraq's unicorns as well.

[Don Corleone]

I think scoring that at 2 out of 5 is being very generous - the 2 "scores" were paper tigers in the first place. You might as well claim points for eradicating all of Iraq's unicorns as well.

Hmm, and here I thought I qualified that very point during my discussion of progress on goals. Silly me.

[Odin]

You might as well claim points for eradicating all of Iraq's unicorns as well.

Yes, thats going to be on a plaque in the Bush library in a few years.

[Geoffrey S]

No you dont get it because you havent provided a reason or rational as to what would prevent them. The 3 countries thus far havent stopped Israels occupation of palastine but they are going to stop airstrikes in Iran?

Palestine is a flawed analogy. None of the Middle Eastern governments seriously give a flying **** about that, and have collectively done their utmost best to keep the Palestinians in camps, and more importantly away from their own borders.

[Odin]

Palestine is a flawed analogy. None of the Middle Eastern governments seriously give a flying **** about that, and have collectively done their utmost best to keep the Palestinians in camps, and more importantly away from their own borders.

It isnt flawed when the argument is the militaries of the current enemies will stop an action. Israeli action into palastine hasnt been stopped, nor was the raid on syrian nuke plant, nor was it stopped in the invasion of lebanon.

those work for you?

[macsen rufus]

I thought I qualified that very point during my discussion of progress on goals.

Indeed you did, my bad for not reading carefully

[Geoffrey S]

It isnt flawed when the argument is the militaries of the current enemies will stop an action. Israeli action into palastine hasnt been stopped, nor was the raid on syrian nuke plant, nor was it stopped in the invasion of lebanon.

those work for you?

Not really. Syria could work as an example, but Lebanon and Palestine don't. All the surrounding governments care about there is the bad press for Israel, but seeing as they don't care either way what it's like in those regions there's no way they would retaliate over those issues - whether they could even do so is an entirely different matter.

[Odin]

Not really. Syria could work as an example, but Lebanon and Palestine don't. All the surrounding governments care about there is the bad press for Israel, but seeing as they don't care either way what it's like in those regions there's no way they would retaliate over those issues - whether they could even do so is an entirely different matter.

the argument presented to me was essentially Israel wont do airstrikes because the military of its enemies wont allow it. So the argument is, whether they could or could not. I've put forth examples of where Israel did infact act via air strikes without reprisal on the actual operation.

I havent seen an argument that contradicts this, or there ability to do so in the future.

[Spino]

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.

We were in it for the long haul after WW2 when we beat and occupied the largest, most powerful fascist regimes in history. True, Germany & Japan were far more technologically advanced and 'civilized' than Iraq but in the end things worked out for the best. Had we not invested in the occupation and rebuilding of those nations' governments and infrastructures they could very well have been exploited by other nations or had their population turn to radical ideologies out of desperation. The world would not be a better place if all of Germany and Japan had fallen to Communism.

Iraq is a case of 'we're damned if we do, damned if we don't'. If we pull out right now (or within one year's time) without some kind of guarantee that ensures that Iraq's security forces can provide some semblance of stability the entire region will turn into a free-for-all and is guaranteed to go up in flames. The criticism leveled at the US for abandoning the region will go from a whistling tea kettle to a to frothing, boiling cauldron. Syrian, Turkish & Iranian intrigues will come into play and play havoc with Iraq in their bid to exploit it for their own purposes. Al Qaeda will use the ensuing chaos to regain a large foothold and the remaining nations in the region will all do their part to get a piece of the pie.

Iraq is NOT Korea... or Vietnam for that matter. Korea was a question of one race of people divided sharply over ideological lines and an infamous line of latitude. Iraq is a question of race, ethnicity, religion, ideology and regional/tribal squabbles. You cannot simply divide up Iraq into two neat parts and save one while isolating and discarding the other.

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

Umm... sort of... not really... maybe. Critics of our misguided adventure in Iraq oh so conveniently forget that Iraq's former dictator, the man we deposed and helped send to the gallows, was one of the top mass murderers and human rights offenders of the 20th century. True, Saddam wasn't in the same league with Hitler, Stalin & Mao but he was definitely major league talent and most certainly made his mark on history.

Now I agree with your non-interference position in principle. You see, I'm fully prepared to let dictators, tyrannical goons and fanatics run wild in their own little corner of the world... provided of course that they are contained to their respective little . Iraq, Darfur, Kosovo, Rwanda, Haiti, Zimbabwe, etc., makes no difference to me. I couldn't give a damn if they're eating babies and raping puppies provided they do not prevent the stability, trade and general welfare of civilized nations. Anyone who feels we should take an active role in stopping these atrocities ought to just shut their trap, learn to fire a rifle and risk their own life while playing the good revolutionary so the rest of us in the civilized world can happily go on with our lives.

[Odin]

We were in it for the long haul after WW2 when we beat and occupied the largest, most powerful fascist regimes in history. True, Germany & Japan were far more technologically advanced and 'civilized' than Iraq but in the end things worked out for the best. Had we not invested in the occupation and rebuilding of those nations' governments and infrastructures they could very well have been exploited by other nations or had their population turn to radical ideologies out of desperation. The world would not be a better place if all of Germany and Japan had fallen to Communism.

Yes but this dosent adequately take into account why we were there. Those countries declared on us and were defeated, we declared on Iraq with no good reason.

Iraq is a case of 'we're damned if we do, damned if we don't'. If we pull out right now (or within one year's time) without some kind of guarantee that ensures that Iraq's security forces can provide some semblance of stability the entire region will turn into a free-for-all and is guaranteed to go up in flames.

I am pretty sure you and i have discussed this before, I personally dont care if they are floating down the tigris with crumbled up mcdonalds wrappers, face covered in grease singing "I'd like to buy the world a coke". We made a mistake going in, and everyday we are there we spend more treasure and blood to correct the mess we made. You and i disagree, Im all for letting it go down the crapper, that dosent make me right but 5 years in Im done.

Iraq is NOT Korea... or Vietnam for that matter. Korea was a question of one race of people divided sharply over ideological lines and an infamous line of latitude. Iraq is a question of race, ethnicity, religion, ideology and regional/tribal squabbles. You cannot simply divide up Iraq into two neat parts and save one while isolating and discarding the other.

It was at the time of invasion, but Korea has become an expense for the U.S. that should be borne by the south. Essentially the way I see this is we are entering tnto the long term negotiated base leases we did in korea to provide deterence for the region. It worked for the south koreans but economicially we arent in the position to go down this road again.

[Viking]

Umm... sort of... not really... maybe. Critics of our misguided adventure in Iraq oh so conveniently forget that Iraq's former dictator, the man we deposed and helped send to the gallows, was one of the top mass murderers and human rights offenders of the 20th century. True, Saddam wasn't in the same league with Hitler, Stalin & Mao but he was definitely major league talent and most certainly made his mark on history.

Now I agree with you in principle. You see, I'm fully prepared to let dictators, tyrannical goons and fanatics run wild in their own little corner of the world... provided of course that they are contained to their respective little s--tholes. Iraq, Darfur, Kosovo, Rwanda, Haiti, Zimbabwe, etc., makes no difference to me. I couldn't give a damn if they're eating babies and raping puppies provided they do not prevent the stability, trade and general welfare of civilized nations. Anyone who feels we should take an active role in stopping these atrocities ought to just shut their trap, learn to fire a rifle and risk their own life while playing the good revolutionary so the rest of us in the civilized world can happily go on with our lives.

Oh, let's look at what the UN defines as human rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html):

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

And then look at the figures for casualties since the war started; let's operate with Reuter's numbers :

United States 4,106

Britain 176

Other nations 137



IRAQIS:

Military Between 4,900 and 6,375#

Civilians Between 85,141 and 92,871*

Closing on the numbers of Saddam's Al-Anfal Campaign; the massacre of Kurdish civilians. That's not the point though, AFAIK there was no reason expect more massacres.

[Geoffrey S]

the argument presented to me was essentially Israel wont do airstrikes because the military of its enemies wont allow it. So the argument is, whether they could or could not. I've put forth examples of where Israel did infact act via air strikes without reprisal on the actual operation.

I havent seen an argument that contradicts this, or there ability to do so in the future.

All I am saying is that using Palestine, and later on also Lebanon, as an example of the inability of surrounding nations to intervene is entirely irrelevant. They haven't retaliated over those issues because they don't care either way - it says nothing at all about their (possible lack of) capability to do so.

[Odin]

All I am saying is that using Palestine, and later on also Lebanon, as an example of the inability of surrounding nations to intervene is entirely irrelevant. They haven't retaliated over those issues because they don't care either way - it says nothing at all about their (possible lack of) capability to do so.

I know what your saying, your just not backing it up with any fact other then your opinion on what they believe to be relevant or irrelevant.

I understand what your saying, but it dosent support or deny the argument of able to defend and prevent, its conjecture. on the other hand the examples I have given are facts to support my claim that israel can enact the airstrike, its more then my opinion.

[Geoffrey S]

Iraq is a case of 'we're damned if we do, damned if we don't'. If we pull out right now (or within one year's time) without some kind of guarantee that ensures that Iraq's security forces can provide some semblance of stability the entire region will turn into a free-for-all and is guaranteed to go up in flames. The criticism leveled at the US for abandoning the region will go from a whistling tea kettle to a to frothing, boiling cauldron. Syrian, Turkish & Iranian intrigues will come into play and play havoc with Iraq in their bid to exploit it for their own purposes. Al Qaeda will use the ensuing chaos to regain a large foothold and the remaining nations in the region will all do their part to get a piece of the pie.

Criticism be damned. While not supporting an illegitimate war I can understand, if this ship sinks, it is just as much due to inaction on the part of almost the entire Western world - stepping beyond an 'I told you so' mentality was clearly something most so-called allies of the US were incapable of.

The US government made huge mistakes in attempting to restructure Iraq, but there was no reason for the rest to take the initial unilateral approach as a permanent given.

I know what your saying, your just not backing it up with any fact other then your opinion on what they believe to be relevant or irrelevant.

Try, generally closed borders and a lack of support for, and even opposition to, homegrown Palestinian organizations over the last few decades.

I understand what your saying, but it dosent support or deny the argument of able to defend and prevent, its conjecture. on the other hand the examples I have given are facts to support my claim that israel can enact the airstrike, its more then my opinion.

I am not supporting or denying the argument of being able to defend, attack or whatever - simply saying that the examples you did give are not applicable in trying to argue either way.

But this is clearly going in circles. I'd prefer to let someone else untangle this.

[Odin]

I am not supporting or denying the argument of being able to defend, attack or whatever - simply saying that the examples you did give are not applicable in trying to argue either way.

But this is clearly going in circles. I'd prefer to let someone else untangle this.

I dont see how historic air campaigns against hostile nations cant be applicable examples. Anyway I am all for agreeing to disagree. Im kind of waiting on Tribes reply anyway, the same logic applies really, we have a tangiable example of an action taken vs a supposed theory of intent.

However I enjoyed the back and forth I will happily give you the last word if you want it, Im about done in this thread too.

[Tribesman]

No you dont get it because you havent provided a reason or rational as to what would prevent them. The 3 countries thus far havent stopped Israels occupation of palastine but they are going to stop airstrikes in Iran?

Of course , since the airstikes will require at least two inflights which lengthens the time and size of the package considerably , unless they go the really long way round on the way back (which would beyond their refueling capability anyway).

Also, I dont suggest it wont involve an all out assault from Iran, however you neglected to address the historical precedent of israeli action on past nuclear sites on arab nations that they were at war with at the time.

Over much shorter ranges with less political complications and after single isolated targets , so what you are neglecting with your "precedent" is that they were completely different . So your tangible example isn't an example at all . Needless to say that even after both Iran and Isreal had bombed that target the US still had to bomb it many many times using large amounts of aircraft .

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....

on the other hand the examples I have given are facts to support my claim that israel can enact the airstrike, its more then my opinion.

because you is doing that apples are oranges thing .

Critics of our misguided adventure in Iraq oh so conveniently forget that Iraq's former dictator, the man we deposed and helped send to the gallows, was one of the top mass murderers and human rights offenders of the 20th century.

Wow has someone forgotten that when Iraqs former dictator was doing them mass murders it was certian governments that were helping him do it because he was their cute little puppy

[Odin]

Of course , since the airstikes will require at least two inflights which lengthens the time and size of the package considerably , unless they go the really long way round on the way back (which would beyond their refueling capability anyway).

You don't get it at all , it involves 3 countries that are still at war with Israel and a countryy which as part of the peace deal says that Israeli planes can bugger off if they think they can overfly at all .

So which is it tribes? got another fall back position which dosent require an address of the shooting down of your prior rational?

Nice jugle though, oh and I am pretty confident that the israeli's have the ability to cover the distance or refuel in air but since I dont have the flight ranges of their aircraft available I cant say your absolutely wrong.

I have a great idea though tribes, why dont you back up your claim with said references

Over much shorter ranges with less political complications and after single isolated targets , so what you are neglecting with your "precedent" is that they were completely different . So your tangible example isn't an example at all .

Of course it is, multiple examples of airstrikes against said enemies is an example. You saying it isnt dosent change the fact that Israel has conducted air strikes against hostile targets within the last year successfully without intervention via air or a land campaign.

Needless to say that even after both Iran and Isreal had bombed that target the US still had to bomb it many many times using large amounts of aircraft .

Needless to say? how about here is something other then my view as justification of my statement?


Maybe you should think before you post Tribes or offer something more then, cause I say so

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 .

Wonderful now something of substance that is actually based on an event, not a supposition. So do you think the israeli's might be as smart as you tribes? Think they might have adjusted for the same circumstance or are the Iranians superior tactically?

Anyway all the sniping aside I enjoy back and forth with you when your not being pissy (you know the whole smiley routine). Nice back and forth thus far and who knows we might have the potential for some real fireworks should you continue to make it up as you go.

oh yeah almost forgot, you didnt answer one of my other pressing questions, do you think israel is going to sit and hope for the best with the iranian nuke program? I'll even forget about the history, capability and the threat of war and reprisal from the countries they are already in conflict with, Im just curious if you have an answer at all.

[PanzerJaeger]

Israel has, and has had for many years, the capability to overcome air defenses and strike multiple targets within Iran. This is fairly common knowledge. The US presence in Iraq only makes this easier. I'm not sure where you're coming from Tribes. Israel does have the refueling capability and they've never respected Arab airspace so those two arguments are slightly off base.

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/...ec.2007.31.4.7

[rotorgun]

I know that things aren't anywhere near ideal, not by a long shot, but this was encouraging to read this morning. Perhaps Al Malaki is not so far from the goal as one might think Tribe. I also feel that he's not a fool. His success is bound up in ours, however unpalatable that may be to the rest of the Middle East. Without our support, he cannot really attain what he wants for his people-soverign freedom-which is what we also desire. OK, so we need to ensure that 1/4 of the oil of the world is in the safe hands of "freindly" regime. Fine. If normal Iraqis gain freedom in the end then what could possibly be wrong with how they attain it?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

BAGHDAD — Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki took a victory lap Monday through the streets of Amarah, the latest city to be retaken from the control of Shiite militias.
The Iraqi army reported no major resistance during four days of operations, and al-Maliki walked freely through the southern city Monday. In a speech attended by local tribal leaders, he vowed to continue "using force against those who revolt against the will of the people."

A string of military successes since March — in Basra, Mosul, Sadr City, and now Amarah — has brought a degree of peace to once-violent cities and significantly strengthened al-Maliki's government. The Iraqi army has routed the militias largely on their own, depending on the U.S. military for air power and strategic support but conducting most operations themselves.

There are some concerns that the militias could still regroup, though.

"We don't know yet if they don't want to fight anymore because they know the government is strong now, or if it's just a tactical retreat," said Gen. Dhafer Abed al-Mohammadawi of the Iraqi police.

FIND MORE STORIES IN: Baghdad | Shiites | Muqtada al-Sadr | Iraq | Sunni | Mosul | Parliament | Basra | Sadr City | Diyala | Iran | al-Maliki | Amarah | Sadrist | Sunni Accordance Front
Instead of fighting as they did in other cities, militia leaders in Amarah ordered their followers to dig up roadside bombs and lay down their weapons ahead of the crackdown, according to al-Mohammadawi. Senior militia leaders are believed to have fled to neighboring Iran, he said.

"Nobody fired a single bullet against the security forces," said Mohammad al-Nussairi, 26, an elementary school teacher in Amarah.

Like other residents, though, al-Nussairi expressed concerns the peace would not last. "Where did all the militants go? How can we feel sure they won't come back as soon as the army leaves?" he said.

Al-Maliki declared his next target would be Diyala, the restive Sunni-dominated province where a female suicide bomber killed 15 people Sunday.

By following a campaign against Shiite militias in the south with a crackdown on Sunni insurgents north of Baghdad, al-Maliki hopes to restore order without disturbing the fragile calm that has taken hold among Iraq's religious sects, said Salim Jabbouri, a spokesman for the Sunni Accordance Front, the main Sunni political bloc.

"It's very clever. He makes one military operation against the Shiites, and then one against the Sunnis," Jabbouri said. "He wants to prove that they are treating all the people equally."

Al-Maliki hails from the Shiite Islamist Dawa Party and until recently was criticized by many Sunnis who said he acted only in the interest of his own religious sect.

Today, it is some fellow Shiites — namely, followers of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr — who are crying foul, accusing the government of exploiting security concerns to weaken their political influence ahead of provincial elections this fall. A number of al-Sadr supporters in Amarah were detained in recent days, including the city's mayor.

Al-Sadr remains fiercely opposed to the U.S. presence in Iraq and said last week he was reforming his militia to focus on fighting American forces.

"Al-Maliki is singling out our supporters to please the Americans," said Nasser al-Saidee, a Sadrist lawmaker.

With each successive operation since March, the resistance against the Iraqi army has dwindled. Al-Maliki's supporters in Parliament, such as Shiite lawmaker Qassim Dawood, say Iraqis are increasingly willing to support the government now that they are confident it will prevail.

"The people aren't going to take risks and support the government if they think the government is going to lose to the militias," Dawood said. "The government is winning every fight now, and suddenly it's looking like the smarter team to be on."

Also Monday, a disgruntled local official fired on U.S. soldiers leaving a municipal council meeting southeast of Baghdad, killing two of them and wounding four others, the Associated Press reported.

The motive for the attack was unclear, and U.S. officials released no further details except that the assailant was killed, AP reported.

PS: I take your point about my country supporting tyrants. That's what really got us into this problem to begin with. That's the real irony of it all. At least we are doing something about it, despite how we look like a bunch of scrubs.

[Odin]

Israel has, and has had for many years, the capability to overcome air defenses and strike multiple targets within Iran. This is fairly common knowledge. The US presence in Iraq only makes this easier. I'm not sure where you're coming from Tribes. Israel does have the refueling capability and they've never respected Arab airspace so those two arguments are slightly off base.

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/...ec.2007.31.4.7

come on PJ your blowing the whole thing.

Of course , since the airstikes will require at least two inflights which lengthens the time and size of the package considerably , unless they go the really long way round on the way back (which would beyond their refueling capability anyway).

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).

My bet is it will be a series of but tribes has surprised me before with well thought out verifiable positions on other issues. I personally think he's fishing on this one but let him be the one to either dig the hole deeper or support his statement.

He would expect the same from you wouldnt he?

[rotorgun]

Now I know one can find plenty of material on why Iraq is unwinnable, for the liberal press (I consider myself as a moderate liberal) has made sure that there is very little opposition in the coverage to this view, but here is a fairly balanced, sober look at what is really at stake. It is a much more realistic estimate IMO of what it will take to succeed, and why I voted that it could go either way. Much will depend on how well the American people can see through the rhetoric and decide.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

James Joyner | Monday, February 25, 2008

Anthony Cordesman, a longtime Iraq War skeptic and administration critic, argued in yesterday’s Washington Post that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are “winnable.” It’s a tightly written piece that defies excerpting but here is the crux of it:

No one can return from the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, as I recently did, without believing that these are wars that can still be won. They are also clearly wars that can still be lost, but visits to the battlefield show that these conflicts are very different from the wars being described in American political campaigns and most of the debates outside the United States.
[…]
What the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan have in common is that it will take a major and consistent U.S. effort throughout the next administration at least to win either war. Any American political debate that ignores or denies the fact that these are long wars is dishonest and will ensure defeat. There are good reasons that the briefing slides in U.S. military and aid presentations for both battlefields don’t end in 2008 or with some aid compact that expires in 2009. They go well beyond 2012 and often to 2020.

If the next president, Congress and the American people cannot face this reality, we will lose. Years of false promises about the speed with which we can create effective army, police and criminal justice capabilities in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot disguise the fact that mature, effective local forces and structures will not be available until 2012 and probably well beyond. This does not mean that U.S. and allied force levels cannot be cut over time, but a serious military and advisory presence will probably be needed for at least that long, and rushed reductions in forces or providing inadequate forces will lead to a collapse at the military level.

The most serious problems, however, are governance and development. Both countries face critical internal divisions and levels of poverty and unemployment that will require patience. These troubles can be worked out, but only over a period of years. Both central governments are corrupt and ineffective, and they cannot bring development and services without years of additional aid at far higher levels than the Bush administration now budgets. Blaming weak governments or trying to rush them into effective action by threatening to leave will undercut them long before they are strong enough to act.

Any American political leader who cannot face these realities, now or in the future, will ensure defeat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Any Congress that insists on instant victory or success will do the same. We either need long-term commitments, effective long-term resources and strategic patience — or we do not need enemies. We will defeat ourselves.

Donald Douglas praises Cordesman as “scrupulous in his even-handedness” and Dave Schuler judges him “consistently a purveyor of sound advice on Iraq and Afghanistan,” assessments which I share. But Kevin Hayden says Cordesman is part of the “false promises” gang, noting that Cordesman called for just “one more year in Iraq” a mere four months ago.

Perhaps that’s because Cordesman reflects the sober judgment of the foreign policy community. Here’s his conclusion in that piece from last October:

The odds of success are less than even. But it’s worth a try because the stakes are immense. America’s reputation and credibility are at risk; it “broke” Iraq, put 28 million lives at risk and is morally responsible for the consequences. Global energy security — the continued flow of the oil exports that fuel the world’s economy — are also in play. We shouldn’t stay in a losing game indefinitely. I believe we should give ourselves until October 2008; if there’s no Iraqi political accommodation by then, we should get out.

Meanwhile, we must play out the hand we have dealt ourselves.

Is he already hedging his bits on the goalposts for withdrawal? So it would seem. But the underlying calculus remains the same: The odds of success aren’t as one would like but the cost of failure is high. So long as the casualties are low and there are hopeful signs, then, we may well continue to muddle through with calls for “another year” or, as anti-war wags would have it, two more Friedmans.

There’s not much question that Congress will continue to insist on instant victory and administrations will continue to blame weak governments. The question is whether we’ll continue muddling through, extending the operations a few months at a time, long enough to succeed.

I don’t have the answer to that. It’s slightly more likely to happen under a McCain administration than an Obama or Clinton administration — but only slightly. McCain would be a more reliable champion of the wars, especially the one in Iraq, but Obama and Clinton would have an easier time persuading what is almost certain to be a Democratic Congress.

This kind of sums up my thoughts more than anything else. Now that we have acted in such a boorish manor, we owe it to the world, Iraq, and ourselves to do what is right. I do not say this lightly, but as one who is willing to do my part to help my fellow service men and women to succeed.

The odds of success are less than even. But it’s worth a try because the stakes are immense. America’s reputation and credibility are at risk; it “broke” Iraq, put 28 million lives at risk and is morally responsible for the consequences. Global energy security — the continued flow of the oil exports that fuel the world’s economy — are also in play. We shouldn’t stay in a losing game indefinitely. I believe we should give ourselves until October 2008; if there’s no Iraqi political accommodation by then, we should get out.

I am in favor of diplomacy, despite what some may think here, but we must first win in order to negotiate with Iran from a position of strength. Weakness is one trait that Middle Eastern people despise. They tend to respect the "strong man rules" philosophy-hence the success of Saddam for all those years. Perhaps we can show them a different kind of strength-something more akin the stubborn pateince of someone like General Grant of our civil war.

[PanzerJaeger]

come on PJ your blowing the whole thing.

Of course.

Let the games continue..

[Redleg]

It was at the time of invasion, but Korea has become an expense for the U.S. that should be borne by the south. Essentially the way I see this is we are entering tnto the long term negotiated base leases we did in korea to provide deterence for the region. It worked for the south koreans but economicially we arent in the position to go down this road again.

South Korea does bear some of the expense of the United States Military being in thier nation. Then again you have a misunderstanding of the United States Military mission in Korea. Should they bear more of the expense for our presence might be your real question, or is our presence still required in South Korea? One would have to look at the ongoing peace talks that are a result of the 1953 cease fire between the United Nations and North Korea. Care to intince me with your knowledge on South Korea? Then again you might want to look into the CFC and the UN mission to South Korea also.

So unless you care to address that particuler point - you might want to just stick to your points about Iraq and leave any side-bar discussion about South Korea alone.

[Tribesman]

Israel has, and has had for many years, the capability to overcome air defenses and strike multiple targets within Iran. This is fairly common knowledge. The US presence in Iraq only makes this easier. I'm not sure where you're coming from Tribes. Israel does have the refueling capability and they've never respected Arab airspace so those two arguments are slightly off base.

Not really Panzer since Israel has very few of the I versions of either the 15s or 16s and what they gain in range(which still is insufficient even with the full external combat capacity carried) they lose in ordinance and performance .As for the 130 tankers they are too slow for the strike aircraft and don't carry enough and the 135 are too few and have servicability issues at the moment . Even if they could get 6 of the 135s on mission it would be very borderline for even a limited strike .
So not off base at all .
Now I could add that the Israelis have said they cannot take out Irans nuclear program and at most could delay it for a year or two which is a very small return for the possibility of an all out disaster , but I will let you mull over their actual air capabilities first . The global security site has a pretty thorugh run down on the Israeli air force or you could go to the IAF website itself as they are very proud of the fuel capacity upgrades .
None of which yourself or Odin have raised goes anywhere near addressing the size of the strike that would have to be launched, the time it takes to get there or how the hell it would expect to get back, not even touching on Israels worries that its curent arrow and patriot deployment would not be sufficient to deal with Iranian ballistic missiles.
I suppose you could mention the submarine launched missiles , but once again given the nature of the targets Israel just doesn't have sufficient capability to do the job .
What you fail to realise is that this would be an all or nothing enterprise and as Isreals friend cannot risk it for a while Israel cannot risk it alone .

Just read the rest of your article PJ , a slight ballsup in there on the northern route .With refueling over the med on the outbound they run dry long before they complte the return leg .

[Odin]

Then again you have a misunderstanding of the United States Military mission in Korea. Should they bear more of the expense for our presence might be your real question, or is our presence still required in South Korea?

You're right, the inferred point I was making was the south Koreans have the resources to defend themselves. The U.S. military presence is no longer a necesity given the reality on the ground. Ongoing combat operations ceased decades ago, stationing U.S. forces in Korea as a buffer for a potential North Korean ground assault is no longer necessary IMHO.

Linking it to Iraq in the same breath as "leasing bases" was a stretch on my part to make a larger point in comparisson to what I believe will be the end game should we go down that route.

One would have to look at the ongoing peace talks that are a result of the 1953 cease fire between the United Nations and North Korea.

Again, technically your right. Assuming we continue to adhere to international commitments under the UN. My position is its no longer necessary to fufill those commitments as the U.S. has over played its international police/deliverer of freedom role.

But your point is taken, I used the Korean situation to draw a comparisson to Iraq thats based on what I think should occur, not the reality of the antiquated mission parameters and internaitonal commitment.

its been a while but as I recall the UN resolution regarding the Norths invasion was a condemnation only and asked that memebers provide support for the south korean government, the U.S. was the only nation that had the manpower via japan to act so we did. Truman gave MacAuthur authorization to use ground forces, but the action was under the UN mandate of supporting the south.

Care to intince me with your knowledge on South Korea?

My knowledge of south korea is primarily finanical, but one only needs to look at the CIA world fact book to discern that they do infact have the financial resources to muster there own defense at this point. Considering there GDP is over a trillion and they spend 3% of it (roughly) on defense I am wagering they might be able to match the North on military investment, considering we are a potential supplier.

So unless you care to address that particuler point - you might want to just stick to your points about Iraq and leave any side-bar discussion about South Korea alone.

I think given the clarifications I made in this post I have stepped back enough and provided an adequate cavaet that my infrence was in theory but not based on internaitonal law. I think its a valid comparisson in substance due to my belief that the expense we still incurr in Korea is a relic of a cold war policy relevant 50 years ago.

Again, your point is taken on the technical aspects of the various treaties/commitments we have that keeps us there, but that dosent mean they are prudent. In my view that directly compares to a sustained presence in Iraq, it isnt a prudent expenditure of treasure and assets.

Nor was defending foreign entities with federal tax dollars and intent of the constitution. So is that a tangent as well Redleg? Or a valid remark based on historical precedent? I claim the later but if you dont think so, fine I will defer to the cavaets already given in the post, but stand firm by the comparissons made.

references:

1. http://www.korean-war.com/TimeLine/K...hronology.html

2. https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/ks.html

[CountArach]

I just realised that the question never specifically stated that this is from the American point of view. So really, the war has been lost by at least one side.

[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.