Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
Originally posted by: ultra laser
What does winning the Iraq war entail? This is a serious question.
I don't think you'll ever get an answer from any of those who are pro-bush administration.

One thing that it helped with is the u.s. image of itself. We've been licking our wounds since we 'left' vietnam for quite some time. We've now proved that our military can kick some serious ass. This is no small thing as there will always be governments who will want to challenge us.

As I see it, the main use of entering iraq was to gain a foothold in the region - mainly for oil - but also for control. This was made crystal clear by mccain and his hundred year occupation statement. I suspect that as oil depletes, there will be much aggression. And then for some of the party faithful, the defense of israel is used as a reason to be in the middle east, but this is probably a red herring. I believe there are still some who think that the world will not be right until jerusalem is back in christian hands.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: jpeyton
With violence up in Afghanistan and Osama still running loose, the Democrats still have plenty of ammo in the chamber.
Yes, but will they actually get off their asses and do anything to solve either one of those situations if they win the election?

THAT is the question.
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Seems the talking heads, media spin and outright lies from the Democrats couldnt bring about what they most wanted which was failure in Iraq. As much as the Democratic Party wants to see America fail it seems, once again, She shall prevail! No thanks of course to those on the left.

Article

Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost

By ROBERT BURNS and ROBERT H. REID ? Jul 26, 2008

BAGHDAD (AP) ? The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost.

Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace ? a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago.

Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.

That does not mean the war has ended or that U.S. troops have no role in Iraq. It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the time when President Bush optimistically declared it had. The new phase focuses on training the Iraqi army and police, restraining the flow of illicit weaponry from Iran, supporting closer links between Baghdad and local governments, pushing the integration of former insurgents into legitimate government jobs and assisting in rebuilding the economy.

Scattered battles go on, especially against al-Qaida holdouts north of Baghdad. But organized resistance, with the steady drumbeat of bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and ambushes that once rocked the capital daily, has all but ceased.

This amounts to more than a lull in the violence. It reflects a fundamental shift in the outlook for the Sunni minority, which held power under Saddam Hussein. They launched the insurgency five years ago. They now are either sidelined or have switched sides to cooperate with the Americans in return for money and political support.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told The Associated Press this past week there are early indications that senior leaders of al-Qaida may be considering shifting their main focus from Iraq to the war in Afghanistan.

Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told the AP on Thursday that the insurgency as a whole has withered to the point where it is no longer a threat to Iraq's future.

"Very clearly, the insurgency is in no position to overthrow the government or, really, even to challenge it," Crocker said. "It's actually almost in no position to try to confront it. By and large, what's left of the insurgency is just trying to hang on."

Shiite militias, notably the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, have lost their power bases in Baghdad, Basra and other major cities. An important step was the routing of Shiite extremists in the Sadr City slums of eastern Baghdad this spring ? now a quiet though not fully secure district.

Al-Sadr and top lieutenants are now in Iran. Still talking of a comeback, they are facing major obstacles, including a loss of support among a Shiite population weary of war and no longer as terrified of Sunni extremists as they were two years ago.

Despite the favorable signs, U.S. commanders are leery of proclaiming victory or promising that the calm will last.

The premature declaration by the Bush administration of "Mission Accomplished" in May 2003 convinced commanders that the best public relations strategy is to promise little, and couple all good news with the warning that "security is fragile" and that the improvements, while encouraging, are "not irreversible."

Iraq still faces a mountain of problems: sectarian rivalries, power struggles within the Sunni and Shiite communities, Kurdish-Arab tensions, corruption. Anyone could rekindle widespread fighting.

But the underlying dynamics in Iraqi society that blew up the U.S. military's hopes for an early exit, shortly after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, have changed in important ways in recent months.

Systematic sectarian killings have all but ended in the capital, in large part because of tight security and a strategy of walling off neighborhoods purged of minorities in 2006.

That has helped establish a sense of normalcy in the streets of the capital. People are expressing a new confidence in their own security forces, which in turn are exhibiting a newfound assertiveness with the insurgency largely in retreat.

Statistics show violence at a four-year low. The monthly American death toll appears to be at its lowest of the war ? four killed in action so far this month as of Friday, compared with 66 in July a year ago. From a daily average of 160 insurgent attacks in July 2007, the average has plummeted to about two dozen a day this month. On Wednesday the nationwide total was 13.

Beyond that, there is something in the air in Iraq this summer.

In Baghdad, parks are filled every weekend with families playing and picnicking with their children. That was unthinkable only a year ago, when the first, barely visible signs of a turnaround emerged.

Now a moment has arrived for the Iraqis to try to take those positive threads and weave them into a lasting stability.

The questions facing both Americans and Iraqis are: What kinds of help will the country need from the U.S. military, and for how long? The questions will take on greater importance as the U.S. presidential election nears, with one candidate pledging a troop withdrawal and the other insisting on staying.

Iraqi authorities have grown dependent on the U.S. military after more than five years of war. While they are aiming for full sovereignty with no foreign troops on their soil, they do not want to rush. In a similar sense, the Americans fear that after losing more than 4,100 troops, the sacrifice could be squandered.

U.S. commanders say a substantial American military presence will be needed beyond 2009. But judging from the security gains that have been sustained over the first half of this year ? as the Pentagon withdrew five Army brigades sent as reinforcements in 2007 ? the remaining troops could be used as peacekeepers more than combatants.

As a measure of the transitioning U.S. role, Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond says that when he took command of American forces in the Baghdad area about seven months ago he was spending 80 percent of his time working on combat-related matters and about 20 percent on what the military calls "nonkinetic" issues, such as supporting the development of Iraqi government institutions and humanitarian aid.

Now Hammond estimates those percentage have been almost reversed. For several hours one recent day, for example, Hammond consulted on water projects with a Sunni sheik in the Radwaniyah area of southwest Baghdad, then spent time with an Iraqi physician/entrepreneur in the Dora district of southern Baghdad ? an area, now calm, that in early 2007 was one of the capital's most violent zones.

"We're getting close to something that looks like an end to mass violence in Iraq," says Stephen Biddle, an analyst at the Council of Foreign Relations who has advised Petraeus on war strategy. Biddle is not ready to say it's over, but he sees the U.S. mission shifting from fighting the insurgents to keeping the peace.

Although Sunni and Shiite extremists are still around, they have surrendered the initiative and have lost the support of many ordinary Iraqis. That can be traced to an altered U.S. approach to countering the insurgency ? a Petraeus-driven move to take more U.S. troops off their big bases and put them in Baghdad neighborhoods where they mixed with ordinary Iraqis and built a new level of trust.

Army Col. Tom James, a brigade commander who is on his third combat tour in Iraq, explains the new calm this way:

"We've put out the forest fire. Now we're dealing with pop-up fires."

It's not the end of fighting. It looks like the beginning of a perilous peace.

Maj. Gen. Ali Hadi Hussein al-Yaseri, the chief of patrol police in the capital, sees the changes.

"Even eight months ago, Baghdad was not today's Baghdad," he says.





A few interesting quotes from the Socialist Heroes of the Left.....

"They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment. They don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work... This vote will limit the options of the president and should stop this surge."
~ Rep. John Murtha, D-PA, February, 2006, commenting on his plans to derail the President's plan for a surge in US troops in Iraq.

"The enemy is emboldened by a surge of American troops..."
~ Sen. Carl Levin, D-MI, March 14, 2007.

"This war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything..."
~ Sen. Maj. Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, April, 19, 2007.

"The Speaker of the House believes that the surge is not working."
~ Speaker Of The House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, June 28, 2007.

"The facts are self-evident that the progress is not being made."
~ Speaker Of The House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, September 6, 2007.

"Well that would be a real great problem for us, no question about it."
~ House Majority Whip James Clyburn,D-SC, August 31, 2007, responding to a question about what a positive report about progress being made in Iraq would mean for the Democrats in Congress.

"Well, one thing we know is what we're doing now isn't working. You know, this is our worst year for Americans killed in Iraq. So the surge was an absolute failure,"
~ Ron Paul, November 7, 2007.

"We're not going to baby sit a civil war."
~ Barack Obama, January 2007 on the "Today" show.

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
~ Barack Obama, January 10, 2007, on MSNBC.

"I did not see anything in the speech or anything in the run- up to the speech that provides evidence that an additional 15,000 to 20,000 more U.S. troops is going to make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that's taking place there."
~ Barack Obama, January 10, 2007 on CNN.

"...not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there."
~ Barack Obama, November 11, 2007 on "Meet The Press".

"Tonight Pres. Bush said that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that's just not true."
~ Barack Obama, January 29, 2008.



And finally....

"In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda ? greatly weakening its effectiveness."
~ Barack Obama, July 14, 2008 in a NYTimes Op-Ed.



It seems the Democrats were against more troops and success, until they were for it! :laugh:




Uhhhh...what are we winning? I can go beat up my neighbor because I'm tougher than he is. I won. How is this a good thing?
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Am I the only one that finds it funny that those taking credit for knowing the surge would be a success are the same people that supported Rumsfeld's original strategy, which was notoriously short on troop numbers for years?
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
In any case, here's what I see; I see terrorists being paid off for short term gain (reduced levels of violence), much the same way we supplied arms to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets while completely failing to see the future consequences of those actions. I see a new generation of potential America-hating Iraqi's being born if we don't get out of there. I see reduced focus on OBL and Afghanistan, the real perpetrators of 9/11. I also see a country that is further divided and further financially drained by a war that has done nothing good except get Saddam out of power, something that could have been accomplished with a covert assassination at 1/1,000,000th's the cost.

So forgive me if I don't chuckle at those who take credit for the surge's (wholly military) success while conveniently ignoring the numerous consequences of that success, listed above and still not completely enumerated at that (still no WMD's, no yellowcake, no mobile weapons labs, and certainly no "Mission Accomplished", etc.).
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Don't worry. The anti-war crowd will never admit to being wrong about Iraq. They'll keep spouting the same old rhetoric and sound bytes instead and will deflect, dissemble, and cry over split milk as they always have.

Clearly any success in Iraq just galls them right down to the bone. Despite all their protestations of being labeled "defeatists," the proof of that claim is clear for all to see. They are defeatists, plain and simple, and continue to be even as Iraq moves well past their hyperbolic spewage.
As part of the so called Anti War crowd I'll admit that I was wrong about the surge. My reasoning is that everything else the Bush Administration had done regarding the occupation of Iraq had been so fucked up I had no reason to believe that they'd finally get something right.

So now that I admitted that I was wrong about the surge are you as a member of the Pro War Crowd going to admit that you were wrong about the war in the first place and also acknowledge about being wrong about so many others things regarding this war?


With regards to being wrong it seems the scoreboard is
Anti War Crowd -1
Pro War Crowd -100
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Btw, if we're winning, can't we leave? Woops.

I was playing a game of monopoly the other day and after the seond time around the board I had the most money. I picked up my piece and called winner and went to watch TV. For some reason the other guys kept playing the game and later told me I lost.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Btw, if we're winning, can't we leave? Woops.

I was playing a game of monopoly the other day and after the seond time around the board I had the most money. I picked up my piece and called winner and went to watch TV. For some reason the other guys kept playing the game and later told me I lost.

Good point. We need to get back to Vietnam before we lose, and always stay there.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Don't worry. The pro-war crowd will never admit to being wrong about Iraq. They'll keep spouting the same old rhetoric and sound bytes instead and will deflect, dissemble, and cry over split milk as they always have.

Fixed that for you.

 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Like I said, Profjohn and company didn't even respond to BMW540I's statements. How typical.

GOP strategy being executed by the book. Nit pick on things you can nit pick, ignore the facts, and repeat same bullshit over and over again until people start thinking its fact.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Iran would like to thank you all for creating a new ally out of an old enemy in Iraq. They would also like to thank you for helping to propel them as the new big player in the region.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Infohawk
The whole point of the war was to get rid of the WMDs and safeguard America from the threat of Saddam Hussein. There were no WMDs and Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the US. Now the chickenhawks are declaring victory because of there's been a decrease in violence that was set off by their own invasion? Ridiculous.

The only way the Neocon-Vietnam-was-not-a-mistake right can be somewhat vindicated is if there's a long-lasting democracy in Iraq that supports US interests. This hasn't happened and even if it does the war was still illegal and started under false pretenses.
We won't know if there's a long-lasting Democracy in Iraq until we actually give it some time. Politics and instant gratification rarely go hand-in-hand.

I don't think the anti-war crew has any patience though. In fact, patience seems to be their enemy where Iraq is concerned.

So is the Iraqi patience with the US occupation. Why don't the US follow the advice of the 'democratically' elected Iraqi government and leave?

Oh yes, that's right. Uncle Sam knows best....

Mission Accomplished. The Iraqi people will never be free of the self imposed blessing of America if the US can help it...

It's not necessarily that they will be free of our presence but it's more that they won't be free of our influence and resources until we leave and they are forced to solve their own problems. If you can't withdraw because things will go ape shit over night then you haven't won anything but a permanent and expensive baby sitting job.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
So we have thus far accomplished xxxxx during this war. I wonder else we could have accomplished if most of that money were spent elsewhere? The possibilities seem endless.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
~ Barack Obama, January 10, 2007, on MSNBC.

A quote like that is going to kill Obama. How does he respond when that quote is thrown at him during a debate?

Heh, lets not pretend that the surge is "the" reason for violence being down. The Sunni Awakening was well under way before the addition of troops. There is no doubt that the surge has coincided with diminishing violence in Iraq, although kidnappings and bombings continue daily. Surge proponents always compare the present period with the worst months of 2006 and 2007 - and the arrival of 30,000 troops is not necessarily why the killing has ebbed.

In fact, it was the prospect of an early U.S. withdrawal, not the surge, that prompted the Sunni insurgents to change sides, according to the American officers who worked with their leaders. This article by Georgetown professor Colin Kahl and retired Gen. William Odom quotes Marine Maj. Gen. John Allen, who ran the tribal engagement operations in Anbar during 2007, saying that the Democratic sweep in the 2006 midterm elections and the increasing demand for withdrawal by the American public "did not go unnoticed" among the province's Sunni sheiks.

Allen also told Kahl that the Marines exploited those concerns by telling the sheiks: "We are leaving ... We don't know when we are leaving, but we don't have much time, so you [the Anbaris] better get after this." Kahl and Odom write that "the risk that U.S. forces would leave pushed the Sunnis to cut a deal to protect their interests while they still could." They also quote Maj. Niel Smith, the operations officer at the U.S. Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Center, and Col. Sean MacFarland, commander of U.S. forces in Ramadi during that crucial period, who wrote a long article on the Anbar awakening in the journal Military Review.

"A growing concern that the U.S. would leave Iraq and leave the Sunnis defenseless against Al-Qaeda and Iranian-supported militias," they recalled, "made these younger tribal leaders, who led the awakening, open to our overtures."

Why conditions became better in Iraq is a crucial issue not only because it may affect the outcome of the U.S. presidential election but, more important, because it indicates the best way out. For McCain and Bush, proving the success of the surge is important because that means the occupation must continue. For the overwhelming majority of Americans, including Barack Obama, that is an unsustainable option.

What we should learn from the history of the surge is that only the prod of withdrawal, rather than indefinite escalation, can persuade the Iraqis to defend themselves as a sovereign state.
The article that you quote disagrees with your conclusion.
In other words, the surge and the threat of withdrawal interacted synergistically: the threat of withdrawal made clear that the U.S. commitment was not open-ended, and the surge made clear that U.S. forces would be around for a while. Together they provided a strong incentive for the Anbaris to cooperate with the United States and turn on AQI.
If we had listened to the Democrats and did the withdrawal without the surge things would most likely be very different.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Like I said, Profjohn and company didn't even respond to BMW540I's statements. How typical.

GOP strategy being executed by the book. Nit pick on things you can nit pick, ignore the facts, and repeat same bullshit over and over again until people start thinking its fact.
Perhaps if you would have clicked the link and read the article BMW was quoting you would have seen that the article itself disagreed with what BMW was claiming.

BMW quoted the parts that agreed with his argument and ignored the rest.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If we had listened to the Democrats and not invaded Iraq things would be very different and much better.
Fixed.

Nah, sorry Red, many of those Democrats supported the invasion.

If you want a true anti-war, anti-world-police government, start voting for Libertarians.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If we had listened to the Democrats and not invaded Iraq things would be very different and much better.
Fixed.

Proof?

Well, for one, we would most likely have a lot less bullshit like this:

Thread

...and that is just one tiny sliver of the pie.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

Heh, lets not pretend that the surge is "the" reason for violence being down. The Sunni Awakening was well under way before the addition of troops. There is no doubt that the surge has coincided with diminishing violence in Iraq, although kidnappings and bombings continue daily. Surge proponents always compare the present period with the worst months of 2006 and 2007 - and the arrival of 30,000 troops is not necessarily why the killing has ebbed.

In fact, it was the prospect of an early U.S. withdrawal, not the surge, that prompted the Sunni insurgents to change sides, according to the American officers who worked with their leaders. This article by Georgetown professor Colin Kahl and retired Gen. William Odom quotes Marine Maj. Gen. John Allen, who ran the tribal engagement operations in Anbar during 2007, saying that the Democratic sweep in the 2006 midterm elections and the increasing demand for withdrawal by the American public "did not go unnoticed" among the province's Sunni sheiks.

Allen also told Kahl that the Marines exploited those concerns by telling the sheiks: "We are leaving ... We don't know when we are leaving, but we don't have much time, so you [the Anbaris] better get after this." Kahl and Odom write that "the risk that U.S. forces would leave pushed the Sunnis to cut a deal to protect their interests while they still could." They also quote Maj. Niel Smith, the operations officer at the U.S. Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Center, and Col. Sean MacFarland, commander of U.S. forces in Ramadi during that crucial period, who wrote a long article on the Anbar awakening in the journal Military Review.

"A growing concern that the U.S. would leave Iraq and leave the Sunnis defenseless against Al-Qaeda and Iranian-supported militias," they recalled, "made these younger tribal leaders, who led the awakening, open to our overtures."

Why conditions became better in Iraq is a crucial issue not only because it may affect the outcome of the U.S. presidential election but, more important, because it indicates the best way out. For McCain and Bush, proving the success of the surge is important because that means the occupation must continue. For the overwhelming majority of Americans, including Barack Obama, that is an unsustainable option.

What we should learn from the history of the surge is that only the prod of withdrawal, rather than indefinite escalation, can persuade the Iraqis to defend themselves as a sovereign state.

Ok, so lets say the surge isnt "The" reason. None the less it is "a" reason violence is down. The fact is we were stretched thin on manpower for some time over there. Just like in sports, if you dont have a full team your going to have problems.

So, since you say the biggest reason for things getting better is the possibility of our leaving by that logic we should have left years ago and it would be sunshine and koolaid right?

Just because they knew we were leaving doesnt mean more troops didnt have a positive effect. Otherwise, as I said, we could havce just walked years ago right?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If we had listened to the Democrats and not invaded Iraq things would be very different and much better.
Fixed.

Nah, sorry Red, many of those Democrats supported the invasion.

If you want a true anti-war, anti-world-police government, start voting for Libertarians.
I'm not so Anti War, I'm Anti Stupid War. I fully support our military actions in Afghanistan and if we hadn't of taken our eye off of that war to invade Iraq who wasn't a threat to us I'm sure that the situation there would be much different than it is today.

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

Heh, lets not pretend that the surge is "the" reason for violence being down. The Sunni Awakening was well under way before the addition of troops. There is no doubt that the surge has coincided with diminishing violence in Iraq, although kidnappings and bombings continue daily. Surge proponents always compare the present period with the worst months of 2006 and 2007 - and the arrival of 30,000 troops is not necessarily why the killing has ebbed.

In fact, it was the prospect of an early U.S. withdrawal, not the surge, that prompted the Sunni insurgents to change sides, according to the American officers who worked with their leaders. This article by Georgetown professor Colin Kahl and retired Gen. William Odom quotes Marine Maj. Gen. John Allen, who ran the tribal engagement operations in Anbar during 2007, saying that the Democratic sweep in the 2006 midterm elections and the increasing demand for withdrawal by the American public "did not go unnoticed" among the province's Sunni sheiks.

Allen also told Kahl that the Marines exploited those concerns by telling the sheiks: "We are leaving ... We don't know when we are leaving, but we don't have much time, so you [the Anbaris] better get after this." Kahl and Odom write that "the risk that U.S. forces would leave pushed the Sunnis to cut a deal to protect their interests while they still could." They also quote Maj. Niel Smith, the operations officer at the U.S. Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Center, and Col. Sean MacFarland, commander of U.S. forces in Ramadi during that crucial period, who wrote a long article on the Anbar awakening in the journal Military Review.

"A growing concern that the U.S. would leave Iraq and leave the Sunnis defenseless against Al-Qaeda and Iranian-supported militias," they recalled, "made these younger tribal leaders, who led the awakening, open to our overtures."

Why conditions became better in Iraq is a crucial issue not only because it may affect the outcome of the U.S. presidential election but, more important, because it indicates the best way out. For McCain and Bush, proving the success of the surge is important because that means the occupation must continue. For the overwhelming majority of Americans, including Barack Obama, that is an unsustainable option.

What we should learn from the history of the surge is that only the prod of withdrawal, rather than indefinite escalation, can persuade the Iraqis to defend themselves as a sovereign state.

Ok, so lets say the surge isnt "The" reason. None the less it is "a" reason violence is down. The fact is we were stretched thin on manpower for some time over there. Just like in sports, if you dont have a full team your going to have problems.

So, since you say the biggest reason for things getting better is the possibility of our leaving by that logic we should have left years ago and it would be sunshine and koolaid right?

Just because they knew we were leaving doesnt mean more troops didnt have a positive effect. Otherwise, as I said, we could havce just walked years ago right?
Or better yet, not fucked the dog and went in there in the first place.

 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If we had listened to the Democrats and not invaded Iraq things would be very different and much better.
Fixed.

Nah, sorry Red, many of those Democrats supported the invasion.

If you want a true anti-war, anti-world-police government, start voting for Libertarians.
I'm not so Anti War, I'm Anti Stupid War. I fully support our military actions in Afghanistan and if we hadn't of taken our eye off of that war to invade Iraq who wasn't a threat to us I'm sure that the situation there would be much different than it is today.

Anti-war certainly isn't pacifism, and certainly isn't against the US defending itself, and its certainly not anti-military.