• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost

Specop 007

Diamond Member
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:
 
Originally posted by: Dari
I thought we already won back in 2003?

Actually, we've never really been losing. We've just went after the win half assed and not full force. Even if you have a winning strategy if you only pursue it half assed it takes a while to see changes.
 
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Dari
I thought we already won back in 2003?

Actually, we've never really been losing. We've just went after the win half assed and not full force. Even if you have a winning strategy if you only pursue it half assed it takes a while to see changes.

Whatever. Remember, we won all the battles in Vietnam and still lost the war. I don't trust those Arabs or Iranians one bit and I have a sick feeling things will come to a head again soon.

But the less Americans troops that die is good in my book. I hope things stay this quiet.
 
And what happens when we decide to stop spending a half-billion dollars per day on foot patrols?

:laugh: I guess since our children are footing the bill, we can keep spending indefinitely to wallow in our victory.
 
The reporter Michael Yon who has spent a ton of time in Iraq declared that the war was over last month. He based this on his first hand experience.

Based on the news stories coming out he is most likely right. This is great news for America and bad news for the Democrats, especially those who predicted the surge would be a failure.

I am sure we will see Obama's words about the surge in many campaign adds.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The reporter Michael Yon who has spent a ton of time in Iraq declared that the war was over last month. He based this on his first hand experience.

Based on the news stories coming out he is most likely right. This is great news for America and bad news for the Democrats, especially those who predicted the surge would be a failure.

I am sure we will see Obama's words about the surge in many campaign adds.

Again, I thought the war ended in 2003? But it doesn't matter considering you still have the mind of children playing in a sandbox. Wasting over a trillion dollars on a stupid war is reason enough to kick out of congress anyone who supported this debacle. It was a worthless war from the very beginning and you claiming victory is ignoring how we've managed to fuck ourselves over in the long term. Iraq is now a nation we're committed to, hindering our ability to fight anything seriously (without losing Iraq) that comes up.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The reporter Michael Yon who has spent a ton of time in Iraq declared that the war was over last month. He based this on his first hand experience.

Based on the news stories coming out he is most likely right. This is great news for America and bad news for the Democrats, especially those who predicted the surge would be a failure.

I am sure we will see Obama's words about the surge in many campaign adds.

It's not bad news for the Democrats unless you think someone can actually prove that this war, as a whole, has helped the United States more than it has hurt it. Good luck with that.
 
Originally posted by: Balt
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The reporter Michael Yon who has spent a ton of time in Iraq declared that the war was over last month. He based this on his first hand experience.

Based on the news stories coming out he is most likely right. This is great news for America and bad news for the Democrats, especially those who predicted the surge would be a failure.

I am sure we will see Obama's words about the surge in many campaign adds.

It's not bad news for the Democrats unless you think someone can actually prove that this war, as a whole, has helped the United States more than it has hurt it. Good luck with that.
With violence up in Afghanistan and Osama still running loose, the Democrats still have plenty of ammo in the chamber.
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Balt
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The reporter Michael Yon who has spent a ton of time in Iraq declared that the war was over last month. He based this on his first hand experience.

Based on the news stories coming out he is most likely right. This is great news for America and bad news for the Democrats, especially those who predicted the surge would be a failure.

I am sure we will see Obama's words about the surge in many campaign adds.

It's not bad news for the Democrats unless you think someone can actually prove that this war, as a whole, has helped the United States more than it has hurt it. Good luck with that.
With violence up in Afghanistan and Osama still running loose, the Democrats still have plenty of ammo in the chamber.

This really isn't a Democrat-Republican issue. It's an American problem. If Iraq was never fought, I have no doubt that Iran would be in pretty serious fucking trouble instead them thumbing their fucking nose at us. Now they may get nuclear weapons and we won't be able to say shit to them. This is a huge problem for American supremacy in the Middle East. Iraq is a pyrrhic victory.
 
"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?
 
...winning...not won. Throw a couple trillion dollars and millions of lives at any problem and you'll most likely get favorable results. Great Wall of China, Pyramids of Egypt, Iraq....wait we don't have shit to show for that except for an economy on the rocks and worldwide disdain. Of course we're winning, we've killed 1/5 of the population. You can't fight an idea. We could leave now or later and sooner or later someone will attack us for some stupid reason, so I'd rather leave now and try to save what we have before it all goes to hell in a hand basket. It would be a better idea to use our troops to scan shipping containers for smuggled weapons or drugs as opposed to having them across the ocean, while any would be terrorists can just sneak in our unwatched backdoor. This goes for all the overseas soldiers. We don't need 750 bases around the world. If a country specifically asks us to have a base and they pay for it, sure why not. But I don't fear, Japan, Korea, Germany, etc etc. If there is ever a conflict of proportions where the United States is needed, I'm sure neighboring countries will be more than willing to accommodate our military presence if we've shown we have not desire to be there long term.
 
Hooray! Now Iraq has a new puppet government to replace the former government we tried to make a puppet by arming them! Yahoo!

I wonder how long until America has the balls to just take whatever steps necessary to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and then the Middle East can bomb itself into the stone age for all we care and we can stop meddling in their affairs for our precious black crude.
 
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?

point out that the war was wrog in the first place and he was right about that?
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
And what happens when we decide to stop spending a half-billion dollars per day on foot patrols?

:laugh: I guess since our children are footing the bill, we can keep spending indefinitely to wallow in our victory.

Link to source?

Oh thats right, your pulling numbers out of thin air...... We spend more on people who want to sit around making babies then on the war. That should concern you far more then the war.
 
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
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?
point out that the war was wrog in the first place and he was right about that?
I suppose the response to that answer is to then ask him if he thinks the world would be better off if Saddam was still in power.
 
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: jpeyton
And what happens when we decide to stop spending a half-billion dollars per day on foot patrols?

:laugh: I guess since our children are footing the bill, we can keep spending indefinitely to wallow in our victory.

Link to source?

Oh thats right, your pulling numbers out of thin air...... We spend more on people who want to sit around making babies then on the war. That should concern you far more then the war.

So you're saying Iraq's well-being is worth more than those of (some) Americans?
 
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: jpeyton
And what happens when we decide to stop spending a half-billion dollars per day on foot patrols?

:laugh: I guess since our children are footing the bill, we can keep spending indefinitely to wallow in our victory.

Link to source?

Oh thats right, your pulling numbers out of thin air...... We spend more on people who want to sit around making babies then on the war. That should concern you far more then the war.
I was being generous with the figure; some estimates are as high as $750/million per day with long-term care costs included. But the GOP enjoys shitting on returning veterans, so it could be closer to $500/million if they keep their health benefits low enough.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
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?
point out that the war was wrog in the first place and he was right about that?
I suppose the response to that answer is to then ask him if he thinks the world would be better off if Saddam was still in power.

It would be. Not that Saddam was a beacon of anything Good, just that he wasn't much of an International Villain to begin with. The US would have spent a small fraction keeping him in check, the US Deficit would be much smaller and possibly even eliminated, the US probably would not be in Recession and even if it was it would be much less serious.
 
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: jpeyton
And what happens when we decide to stop spending a half-billion dollars per day on foot patrols?

:laugh: I guess since our children are footing the bill, we can keep spending indefinitely to wallow in our victory.

Link to source?

Oh thats right, your pulling numbers out of thin air...... We spend more on people who want to sit around making babies then on the war. That should concern you far more then the war.

So you're saying Iraq's well-being is worth more than those of (some) Americans?

I dont know, do they have a job and are they a productive member of society, or do they sit around waiting for the next monthly check?

But seriously, the point is anyone who pisses and moans about the costs of the war (And it is frightfully high) cannot turn a blind eye to the even higher costs of social programs. To do so is borderline criminal when discussing the budget and expenditures.
 
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
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?
point out that the war was wrog in the first place and he was right about that?
I suppose the response to that answer is to then ask him if he thinks the world would be better off if Saddam was still in power.

It would be. Not that Saddam was a beacon of anything Good, just that he wasn't much of an International Villain to begin with. The US would have spent a small fraction keeping him in check, the US Deficit would be much smaller and possibly even eliminated, the US probably would not be in Recession and even if it was it would be much less serious.

WOW! Made up statements FTW!
We were running a deficit before the war, please provide some hard proof that without the war spending we would have a smaller deficit. I really want to see THOSE numbers!
And after you do that hat trick I'd like to see how you equate war spending with the current economic situation. Most people I talk to generally agree wars boost the economy, and our current economic woes are more from housing then war.
 
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?

By pointing out he was against the war? By pointing out the Iraqi government is still not stable, Iraq is now primarily Iran's forte, that we are going to spend several trillion to boost a regional enemy and fatten the pocketbooks of the Chinese who will be overtaking the U.S. as the preeminent power even sooner than if the Iraq war never occurred?

Here is why the pro-war chickenhawks are so stupid.

1. They keep proclaiming MISSION ACCOMPLISHED thinking that the more they do it it'll eventually become true.

2. They insist that the decrease in violence is PERMANENT and not part of a wait and see strategy by various SHIITE militias.

3. They insist that the surge is the PRIMARY if not ONLY cause of the decrease in violence. McCain was even revising history to make the surge the cause of the anbar awakening.


You know, that condi advisor stated the Iraq war was a mistake DESPITE the recent changes. The problem that will remain now is that THE U.S. IS GOING TO HAVE SPENT TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO WEAKEN ITS POSITION IN THE WORLD.

That sound like victory to you?
 
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: jpeyton
And what happens when we decide to stop spending a half-billion dollars per day on foot patrols?

:laugh: I guess since our children are footing the bill, we can keep spending indefinitely to wallow in our victory.

Link to source?

Oh thats right, your pulling numbers out of thin air...... We spend more on people who want to sit around making babies then on the war. That should concern you far more then the war.

So you're saying Iraq's well-being is worth more than those of (some) Americans?

I dont know, do they have a job and are they a productive member of society, or do they sit around waiting for the next monthly check?

But seriously, the point is anyone who pisses and moans about the costs of the war (And it is frightfully high) cannot turn a blind eye to the even higher costs of social programs. To do so is borderline criminal when discussing the budget and expenditures.

Let's see: On one side we have a worthless war costing over a trillion dollars (that over 7% of America's GDP) and on the other hand we have social spending on Americans.

Pissing away money on Iraqis that could be spent on education, infrastructure, or other long-term issues is extremely imprudent and stupid.
 
Back
Top