The Current Status of the Conflict in Iraq

[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..