How is it that the surge is working?

[Narmer]

A bit off-topic but has anyone found it odd that the Iraq Prime Minister, the President of Afghanistan, and the President of Pakistan have all said they have good relations with Iran and that the Iranians are a force of good (in or around their nation) but President Bush strongly denies these leaders' assessments? It looks like Bush views these men as mere viceroys and he's the emperor who has final say in their national affairs.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Narmer
A bit off-topic but has anyone found it odd that the Iraq Prime Minister, the President of Afghanistan, and the President of Pakistan have all said they have good relations with Iran and that the Iranians are a force of good (in or around their nation) but President Bush strongly denies these leaders' assessments? It looks like Bush views these men as mere viceroys and he's the emperor who has final say in their national affairs.

Maybe because the Iranian gov't continually defies and lies to the UN and EU? Maybe because the Iranian gov't is cracking down on its people? Or maybe it was when Ahmadenijad (sp) called for the destruction of Israel?

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Narmer
A bit off-topic but has anyone found it odd that the Iraq Prime Minister, the President of Afghanistan, and the President of Pakistan have all said they have good relations with Iran and that the Iranians are a force of good (in or around their nation) but President Bush strongly denies these leaders' assessments? It looks like Bush views these men as mere viceroys and he's the emperor who has final say in their national affairs.

Maybe because the Iranian gov't continually defies and lies to the UN and EU? Maybe because the Iranian gov't is cracking down on its people? Or maybe it was when Ahmadenijad (sp) called for the destruction of Israel?

Or maybe our commander and thief has it all wrong. After all Iran is being hit on its east flank by quite a bit of US sponsored terrorism--and the same on its North West too.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Narmer
A bit off-topic but has anyone found it odd that the Iraq Prime Minister, the President of Afghanistan, and the President of Pakistan have all said they have good relations with Iran and that the Iranians are a force of good (in or around their nation) but President Bush strongly denies these leaders' assessments? It looks like Bush views these men as mere viceroys and he's the emperor who has final say in their national affairs.

Maybe because the Iranian gov't continually defies and lies to the UN and EU? Maybe because the Iranian gov't is cracking down on its people? Or maybe it was when Ahmadenijad (sp) called for the destruction of Israel?

Let me get this straight: the leaders of the nations that border Iran say that it is a good neighbor and it is helping them. But Bush wants to speak for them when he says Iran is being harmful and destabilizing her neighbors. Does that make sense to you?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Narmer
A bit off-topic but has anyone found it odd that the Iraq Prime Minister, the President of Afghanistan, and the President of Pakistan have all said they have good relations with Iran and that the Iranians are a force of good (in or around their nation) but President Bush strongly denies these leaders' assessments? It looks like Bush views these men as mere viceroys and he's the emperor who has final say in their national affairs.

Maybe because the Iranian gov't continually defies and lies to the UN and EU? Maybe because the Iranian gov't is cracking down on its people? Or maybe it was when Ahmadenijad (sp) called for the destruction of Israel?

Let me get this straight: the leaders of the nations that border Iran say that it is a good neighbor and it is helping them. But Bush wants to speak for them when he says Iran is being harmful and destabilizing her neighbors. Does that make sense to you?

Iran sends weapons and bombs and provides training to insurgents and terrorists in Iraq. Iran funds Hamas and works somewhat in concert with Syria who's been assassinating Lebanese leaders left and right.

Does that sound like a stabilizing force in that region?

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Narmer
A bit off-topic but has anyone found it odd that the Iraq Prime Minister, the President of Afghanistan, and the President of Pakistan have all said they have good relations with Iran and that the Iranians are a force of good (in or around their nation) but President Bush strongly denies these leaders' assessments? It looks like Bush views these men as mere viceroys and he's the emperor who has final say in their national affairs.

Maybe because the Iranian gov't continually defies and lies to the UN and EU? Maybe because the Iranian gov't is cracking down on its people? Or maybe it was when Ahmadenijad (sp) called for the destruction of Israel?

Let me get this straight: the leaders of the nations that border Iran say that it is a good neighbor and it is helping them. But Bush wants to speak for them when he says Iran is being harmful and destabilizing her neighbors. Does that make sense to you?

Iran sends weapons and bombs and provides training to insurgents and terrorists in Iraq. Iran funds Hamas and works somewhat in concert with Syria who's been assassinating Lebanese leaders left and right.

Does that sound like a stabilizing force in that region?

Do you have proof of what you just said about Iraq? And if the Iraqi government has no problem with Iran, is it any of the US Government's business to overide the Iraqi's satisfaction FOR THE SAKE of the Iraqi's? Last time I checked Iraq was a sovereign nation and could speak for itself. Do you understand what I'm saying here?

EDIT: The US is invading nations in the ME and threatening others. I suppose you call that stabilization, right?

 

[maluckey]

Narmer,

I'm just blown away by your posts in this thread. I am also suprised that nobody has called you on it. You are far off the mark in almost every single statement that you have mase regarding the Surge. A few days actually reading up on the military, Iraq, and local politics could do you well.

O.K.

Sixth, the British have failed miserabely in the south and (in the coming months) are about to retreat to the Basra airport where they will make easier targets. In fact, the warlords in the south can't wait that long and are killing them at a higher rate.

Seventh, Turkey is poised to invade Iraq.

Eight, Iraq is facing a humanitarian crisis unlike any seen outside Africa.

Your points 6, 7 and 8 are just not true in the least. I don't know if you are making up information to suit you or just very misinformed, but I just am shocked that you would even post stuff like that without any merit. I expected better from you. In the past, you've at least made clear when you are posting opinions versus facts.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yeah, things there are going great since the surge

That has less to do with the military aspect (which has been successful) and more to do with the political process which is currently the most problematic part of the equation.

How has the military part of the surge been working? I'd like to know. And another thing, the new catchphrase in Washington D.C. seems to be "localization", meaning that the locals are taking the initiative and doing a much better job than the federal government in Baghdad. What I find odd is that this is now seen as a success. Well why don't you spit on my shoes and tell me it's raining while you're at it. The fact that locals are taking the initiative where the federales have failed IS INDICATIVE of a failed state and goes to show how far backwards Iraq has gone.

You have to understand the OLD methods to try and secure Baghdad vs. the new Patreus strategy.

At most, the old method led to ~40 out roughly 400 neighborhoods being "secure" at any given time. We would secure a neighborhood and move on, only to have the enemy come behind us and screw up the neighborhoods again after we left. The Iraqi forces for insufficient or incapable of maintaining their security.

That is no longer the case.

Now, we are thoroughly securing the neighborhoods, one at a time. When we leave each one, Iraqi forces are finally able to maintain the security effectively. This has led to nearly half of Baghdad being secure (~200 out of 400 neighborhoods). The plan is to continue this trend until the job is done.

That's the elevator pitch to describe the methodology being used in the new surge, and every observer has admitted that it is finally working. The only requirement at this point is a bit more patience. It really is working...

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Narmer,

I'm just blown away by your posts in this thread. I am also suprised that nobody has called you on it. You are far off the mark in almost every single statement that you have mase regarding the Surge. A few days actually reading up on the military, Iraq, and local politics could do you well.

O.K.

Sixth, the British have failed miserabely in the south and (in the coming months) are about to retreat to the Basra airport where they will make easier targets. In fact, the warlords in the south can't wait that long and are killing them at a higher rate.

Seventh, Turkey is poised to invade Iraq.

Eight, Iraq is facing a humanitarian crisis unlike any seen outside Africa.

Your points 6, 7 and 8 are just not true in the least. I don't know if you are making up information to suit you or just very misinformed, but I just am shocked that you would even post stuff like that without any merit. I expected better from you. In the past, you've at least made clear when you are posting opinions versus facts.

General

http://news.independent.co.uk/...ast/article2841425.ece

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared...56995/html/default.stm

http://news.independent.co.uk/...ast/article2846551.ece

Six

http://news.independent.co.uk/...ast/article2851431.ece

Seven

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6730215.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/n...=6&nol_storyid=6737281

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6284718.stm

Eight

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6921623.stm

http://news.independent.co.uk/...ast/article2816666.ece

http://news.independent.co.uk/...ast/article2817108.ece

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yeah, things there are going great since the surge

That has less to do with the military aspect (which has been successful) and more to do with the political process which is currently the most problematic part of the equation.

How has the military part of the surge been working? I'd like to know. And another thing, the new catchphrase in Washington D.C. seems to be "localization", meaning that the locals are taking the initiative and doing a much better job than the federal government in Baghdad. What I find odd is that this is now seen as a success. Well why don't you spit on my shoes and tell me it's raining while you're at it. The fact that locals are taking the initiative where the federales have failed IS INDICATIVE of a failed state and goes to show how far backwards Iraq has gone.

You have to understand the OLD methods to try and secure Baghdad vs. the new Patreus strategy.

At most, the old method led to ~40 out roughly 400 neighborhoods being "secure" at any given time. We would secure a neighborhood and move on, only to have the enemy come behind us and screw up the neighborhoods again after we left. The Iraqi forces for insufficient or incapable of maintaining their security.

That is no longer the case.

Now, we are thoroughly securing the neighborhoods, one at a time. When we leave each one, Iraqi forces are finally able to maintain the security effectively. This has led to nearly half of Baghdad being secure (~200 out of 400 neighborhoods). The plan is to continue this trend until the job is done.

That's the elevator pitch to describe the methodology being used in the new surge, and every observer has admitted that it is finally working. The only requirement at this point is a bit more patience. It really is working...

Hooray, it's working!!! It really is working...!!!:roll:

Four years after the invasion and we have HALF the capital under control. Great job. Under whose control? The militias that are killing your friends at night while they fight the sunni insurgents "shoulder-to-shoulder" with their American friends at day?

If the goal of the surge was to wrestle control of parts of Baghdad from the Sunnis and give it to the Shi'ites, then I guess it is working...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yeah, things there are going great since the surge

That has less to do with the military aspect (which has been successful) and more to do with the political process which is currently the most problematic part of the equation.

How has the military part of the surge been working? I'd like to know. And another thing, the new catchphrase in Washington D.C. seems to be "localization", meaning that the locals are taking the initiative and doing a much better job than the federal government in Baghdad. What I find odd is that this is now seen as a success. Well why don't you spit on my shoes and tell me it's raining while you're at it. The fact that locals are taking the initiative where the federales have failed IS INDICATIVE of a failed state and goes to show how far backwards Iraq has gone.

You have to understand the OLD methods to try and secure Baghdad vs. the new Patreus strategy.

At most, the old method led to ~40 out roughly 400 neighborhoods being "secure" at any given time. We would secure a neighborhood and move on, only to have the enemy come behind us and screw up the neighborhoods again after we left. The Iraqi forces for insufficient or incapable of maintaining their security.

That is no longer the case.

Now, we are thoroughly securing the neighborhoods, one at a time. When we leave each one, Iraqi forces are finally able to maintain the security effectively. This has led to nearly half of Baghdad being secure (~200 out of 400 neighborhoods). The plan is to continue this trend until the job is done.

That's the elevator pitch to describe the methodology being used in the new surge, and every observer has admitted that it is finally working. The only requirement at this point is a bit more patience. It really is working...

Hooray, it's working!!! It really is working...!!!:roll:

Four years after the invasion and we have HALF the capital under control. Great job. Under whose control? The militias that are killing your friends at night while they fight the sunni insurgents "shoulder-to-shoulder" with their American friends at day?

If the goal of the surge was to wrestle control of parts of Baghdad from the Sunnis and give it to the Shi'ites, then I guess it is working...

OK, first, you have to note that we've gone from ~40 secure neighborhoods, to ~200, in under three months. Second, the Iraqi forces who are being used to secure each neighborhood throughout Baghdad are actually very diversified in their personnel. Many sunnis and Kurds are working side-by-side with shi'ites to secure and hold each neighborhood.

You simply refuse to admit that anything may be working, so it's probably pointless to prove anything to you...

And four years is nothing... this entire project was always expected to take at least 7-10 years, and probably a bit longer with reduced forces. Your impatience and lack of commitment may ultimately prove to be our undoing... swell.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yeah, things there are going great since the surge

That has less to do with the military aspect (which has been successful) and more to do with the political process which is currently the most problematic part of the equation.

How has the military part of the surge been working? I'd like to know. And another thing, the new catchphrase in Washington D.C. seems to be "localization", meaning that the locals are taking the initiative and doing a much better job than the federal government in Baghdad. What I find odd is that this is now seen as a success. Well why don't you spit on my shoes and tell me it's raining while you're at it. The fact that locals are taking the initiative where the federales have failed IS INDICATIVE of a failed state and goes to show how far backwards Iraq has gone.

You have to understand the OLD methods to try and secure Baghdad vs. the new Patreus strategy.

At most, the old method led to ~40 out roughly 400 neighborhoods being "secure" at any given time. We would secure a neighborhood and move on, only to have the enemy come behind us and screw up the neighborhoods again after we left. The Iraqi forces for insufficient or incapable of maintaining their security.

That is no longer the case.

Now, we are thoroughly securing the neighborhoods, one at a time. When we leave each one, Iraqi forces are finally able to maintain the security effectively. This has led to nearly half of Baghdad being secure (~200 out of 400 neighborhoods). The plan is to continue this trend until the job is done.

That's the elevator pitch to describe the methodology being used in the new surge, and every observer has admitted that it is finally working. The only requirement at this point is a bit more patience. It really is working...

Hooray, it's working!!! It really is working...!!!:roll:

Four years after the invasion and we have HALF the capital under control. Great job. Under whose control? The militias that are killing your friends at night while they fight the sunni insurgents "shoulder-to-shoulder" with their American friends at day?

If the goal of the surge was to wrestle control of parts of Baghdad from the Sunnis and give it to the Shi'ites, then I guess it is working...

OK, first, you have to note that we've gone from ~40 secure neighborhoods, to ~200, in under three months. Second, the Iraqi forces who are being used to secure each neighborhood throughout Baghdad are actually very diversified in their personnel. Many sunnis and Kurds are working side-by-side with shi'ites to secure and hold each neighborhood.

You simply refuse to admit that anything may be working, so it's probably pointless to prove anything to you...

And four years is nothing... this entire project was always expected to take at least 7-10 years, and probably a bit longer with reduced forces. Your impatience and lack of commitment may ultimately prove to be our undoing... swell.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
Now you're blaming people like me for the debacle in Iraq.

I'll give you a simple challenge: Prove to me that the Baghdad you speak of is as rich, vibrant, cosmopolitan and diversified as it was 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years ago. If it is better than it was then I will say the alien forces in Iraq have done a good job.

By the way, I'm not as simple-minded and/or limited as our American viewers who only speak English. I also understand French, Arabic, Japanese, and Chinese, so I often see through the eyes of countless others around the globe. Don't think that my scopes are limited to your simplistic Conservative/Liberal "battles" and P.O.V.s in America either.

With that said, why don't you answer my challenge and show me the fruits of your intractible labor in Iraq. Oh, and I don't want to read alien opinions either. Show me native opinions and numbers.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yeah, things there are going great since the surge

That has less to do with the military aspect (which has been successful) and more to do with the political process which is currently the most problematic part of the equation.

How has the military part of the surge been working? I'd like to know. And another thing, the new catchphrase in Washington D.C. seems to be "localization", meaning that the locals are taking the initiative and doing a much better job than the federal government in Baghdad. What I find odd is that this is now seen as a success. Well why don't you spit on my shoes and tell me it's raining while you're at it. The fact that locals are taking the initiative where the federales have failed IS INDICATIVE of a failed state and goes to show how far backwards Iraq has gone.

You have to understand the OLD methods to try and secure Baghdad vs. the new Patreus strategy.

At most, the old method led to ~40 out roughly 400 neighborhoods being "secure" at any given time. We would secure a neighborhood and move on, only to have the enemy come behind us and screw up the neighborhoods again after we left. The Iraqi forces for insufficient or incapable of maintaining their security.

That is no longer the case.

Now, we are thoroughly securing the neighborhoods, one at a time. When we leave each one, Iraqi forces are finally able to maintain the security effectively. This has led to nearly half of Baghdad being secure (~200 out of 400 neighborhoods). The plan is to continue this trend until the job is done.

That's the elevator pitch to describe the methodology being used in the new surge, and every observer has admitted that it is finally working. The only requirement at this point is a bit more patience. It really is working...

Hooray, it's working!!! It really is working...!!!:roll:

Four years after the invasion and we have HALF the capital under control. Great job. Under whose control? The militias that are killing your friends at night while they fight the sunni insurgents "shoulder-to-shoulder" with their American friends at day?

If the goal of the surge was to wrestle control of parts of Baghdad from the Sunnis and give it to the Shi'ites, then I guess it is working...

OK, first, you have to note that we've gone from ~40 secure neighborhoods, to ~200, in under three months. Second, the Iraqi forces who are being used to secure each neighborhood throughout Baghdad are actually very diversified in their personnel. Many sunnis and Kurds are working side-by-side with shi'ites to secure and hold each neighborhood.

You simply refuse to admit that anything may be working, so it's probably pointless to prove anything to you...

And four years is nothing... this entire project was always expected to take at least 7-10 years, and probably a bit longer with reduced forces. Your impatience and lack of commitment may ultimately prove to be our undoing... swell.

Exactly! We need to look at Iraq like South Korea. We will have a permanent force present there for decades to come.

And Iran is like North Korea. May as well be. Axis of Evil.

 

[lozina]

Well, according to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...my%2Dlying%2Dcamera%2F

The surge has worked! It is completely safe now to be in the Baghdad market. Just look at how safe this FOX News reporter is.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: lozina
Well, according to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...my%2Dlying%2Dcamera%2F

The surge has worked! It is completely safe now to be in the Baghdad market. Just look at how safe this FOX News reporter is.

My God, those American soldiers remind me of Israeli soldiers when they went into the West Bank during the hot days of the intifada 7-6 years ago. Huddled together in large numbers, scared and distrustful of the people surrounding them.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Narmer
A bit off-topic but has anyone found it odd that the Iraq Prime Minister, the President of Afghanistan, and the President of Pakistan have all said they have good relations with Iran and that the Iranians are a force of good (in or around their nation) but President Bush strongly denies these leaders' assessments? It looks like Bush views these men as mere viceroys and he's the emperor who has final say in their national affairs.

Maybe because the Iranian gov't continually defies and lies to the UN and EU? Maybe because the Iranian gov't is cracking down on its people? Or maybe it was when Ahmadenijad (sp) called for the destruction of Israel?

Let me get this straight: the leaders of the nations that border Iran say that it is a good neighbor and it is helping them. But Bush wants to speak for them when he says Iran is being harmful and destabilizing her neighbors. Does that make sense to you?

Iran sends weapons and bombs and provides training to insurgents and terrorists in Iraq. Iran funds Hamas and works somewhat in concert with Syria who's been assassinating Lebanese leaders left and right.

Does that sound like a stabilizing force in that region?

Do you have proof of what you just said about Iraq? And if the Iraqi government has no problem with Iran, is it any of the US Government's business to overide the Iraqi's satisfaction FOR THE SAKE of the Iraqi's? Last time I checked Iraq was a sovereign nation and could speak for itself. Do you understand what I'm saying here?

EDIT: The US is invading nations in the ME and threatening others. I suppose you call that stabilization, right?

Just a quick Google search for Iran weapons Iraq

BBC

ABC

CNN

Read the military bloggers and independent journalists like Michael Yon and Michael Totten as well.

Speaking of Yon - Link

The mantra that ?there is no political progress in Iraq? is rapidly becoming the ?surge? equivalent of a green alligator: when enough people repeat something that sounds plausible, but also happens to be false, it becomes accepted as fact. The more often it is repeated?and the larger the number of people repeating it?the harder it is to convince anyone of the truth: alligators are not green, and Iraqis are making plenty of political progress.

There may be little progress on political goals crafted in America, to meet American concerns, by politicians who have a cushion of 200 years of democracy. Washington might as well be on the moon. Iraqis don?t respond well to rules imposed from outside their acknowledged authorities, though I have many times seen Iraqi Police and Army of all ranks responding very well to American Marines and soldiers who they have come to respect, and in many cases actually admire and try to emulate. Our military has increasing moral authority in Iraq, but the same cannot be said for our government at home. In fact, it?s in moral deficit because many Iraqis are increasingly frightened we will abandon them to genocide. The Iraqis I speak with couldn?t care less what is said from Washington but large numbers of them pay close attention to what some Marine Gunny says, or what American battalion commanders all over Iraq say. Some of our commanders could probably run for local offices in Iraq, and win. To say there has been no political progress in Iraq in 2007 is patently absurd, completely wrong and dangerously dismissive of the significant changes and improvements happening all across Iraq. Whether or not Americans are seeing it on the nightly news or reading it in their local papers, Iraqis are actively writing their children?s history.

That is probably the single greatest impediment to success in Iraq. As the politicians in DC lose their will to fight or use political games to attack the other party, it hurts progress in Iraq and bolsters the insurgents and terrorists.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: palehorse74


And four years is nothing... this entire project was always expected to take at least 7-10 years, and probably a bit longer with reduced forces. Your impatience and lack of commitment may ultimately prove to be our undoing... swell.

Wait...what? "Always expected to take 7-10yrs"? I thought we went in after WMDs, and knew where they were. Why would that take 7-10yrs? I don't know when the "project's" time line is supposed to have begun, but if it was before we were in country, they forgot to tell the American people about that time frame.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: palehorse74


And four years is nothing... this entire project was always expected to take at least 7-10 years, and probably a bit longer with reduced forces. Your impatience and lack of commitment may ultimately prove to be our undoing... swell.

Wait...what? "Always expected to take 7-10yrs"? I thought we went in after WMDs, and knew where they were. Why would that take 7-10yrs? I don't know when the "project's" time line is supposed to have begun, but if it was before we were in country, they forgot to tell the American people about that time frame.

Yep, I'd like a link to someone in the administration supporting this invasion saying anything like that back in '03. I call BS.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: palehorse74


And four years is nothing... this entire project was always expected to take at least 7-10 years, and probably a bit longer with reduced forces. Your impatience and lack of commitment may ultimately prove to be our undoing... swell.

Wait...what? "Always expected to take 7-10yrs"? I thought we went in after WMDs, and knew where they were. Why would that take 7-10yrs? I don't know when the "project's" time line is supposed to have begun, but if it was before we were in country, they forgot to tell the American people about that time frame.

I meant the reconstruction efforts, once they were realized, following the capture of Baghdad.

Eventual "success" would take a commitment that I know many here, and in DC, are unwilling to make. Anything that takes longer to conclude than a two-part two hour mini-series seems to be beyond the grasp of most Americans...

Sad that.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Narmer
A bit off-topic but has anyone found it odd that the Iraq Prime Minister, the President of Afghanistan, and the President of Pakistan have all said they have good relations with Iran and that the Iranians are a force of good (in or around their nation) but President Bush strongly denies these leaders' assessments? It looks like Bush views these men as mere viceroys and he's the emperor who has final say in their national affairs.

Maybe because the Iranian gov't continually defies and lies to the UN and EU? Maybe because the Iranian gov't is cracking down on its people? Or maybe it was when Ahmadenijad (sp) called for the destruction of Israel?

Let me get this straight: the leaders of the nations that border Iran say that it is a good neighbor and it is helping them. But Bush wants to speak for them when he says Iran is being harmful and destabilizing her neighbors. Does that make sense to you?

Iran sends weapons and bombs and provides training to insurgents and terrorists in Iraq. Iran funds Hamas and works somewhat in concert with Syria who's been assassinating Lebanese leaders left and right.

Does that sound like a stabilizing force in that region?

Do you have proof of what you just said about Iraq? And if the Iraqi government has no problem with Iran, is it any of the US Government's business to overide the Iraqi's satisfaction FOR THE SAKE of the Iraqi's? Last time I checked Iraq was a sovereign nation and could speak for itself. Do you understand what I'm saying here?

EDIT: The US is invading nations in the ME and threatening others. I suppose you call that stabilization, right?

Just a quick Google search for Iran weapons Iraq

BBC

ABC

CNN

Read the military bloggers and independent journalists like Michael Yon and Michael Totten as well.

Speaking of Yon - Link

The mantra that ?there is no political progress in Iraq? is rapidly becoming the ?surge? equivalent of a green alligator: when enough people repeat something that sounds plausible, but also happens to be false, it becomes accepted as fact. The more often it is repeated?and the larger the number of people repeating it?the harder it is to convince anyone of the truth: alligators are not green, and Iraqis are making plenty of political progress.

There may be little progress on political goals crafted in America, to meet American concerns, by politicians who have a cushion of 200 years of democracy. Washington might as well be on the moon. Iraqis don?t respond well to rules imposed from outside their acknowledged authorities, though I have many times seen Iraqi Police and Army of all ranks responding very well to American Marines and soldiers who they have come to respect, and in many cases actually admire and try to emulate. Our military has increasing moral authority in Iraq, but the same cannot be said for our government at home. In fact, it?s in moral deficit because many Iraqis are increasingly frightened we will abandon them to genocide. The Iraqis I speak with couldn?t care less what is said from Washington but large numbers of them pay close attention to what some Marine Gunny says, or what American battalion commanders all over Iraq say. Some of our commanders could probably run for local offices in Iraq, and win. To say there has been no political progress in Iraq in 2007 is patently absurd, completely wrong and dangerously dismissive of the significant changes and improvements happening all across Iraq. Whether or not Americans are seeing it on the nightly news or reading it in their local papers, Iraqis are actively writing their children?s history.

That is probably the single greatest impediment to success in Iraq. As the politicians in DC lose their will to fight or use political games to attack the other party, it hurts progress in Iraq and bolsters the insurgents and terrorists.

There are weapons from dozens of nations in Iraq. I simply asked you to prove that Iran was sending those weapons directly to the terrorists.

 

[maluckey]

Narmer,

being at work, I didn't have time to review the links except for number 8 reference.

Bunk! OXFAM is NOT BASED IN IRAQ, and has ZERO actual presence in Iraq. They get their data from polling other organizations, which at best have only limited presences. Even the UN has only a limited presence in Iraq. USAID is the ONLY organization with any presence, and they are basically bound to the PRT's.

I'll wok on the others as I get the time

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Narmer,

being at work, I didn't have time to review the links except for number 8 reference.

Bunk! OXFAM is NOT BASED IN IRAQ, and has ZERO actual presence in Iraq. They get their data from polling other organizations, which at best have only limited presences. Even the UN has only a limited presence in Iraq. USAID is the ONLY organization with any presence, and they are basically bound to the PRT's.

I'll wok on the others as I get the time

Wow, you sound so excited. Well, if you read the article, it also says that OXFAM is not based in Iraq because of the security situation. However, it says that they worked with local NGOs in Iraq. What was the point of what you just said?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: palehorse74


And four years is nothing... this entire project was always expected to take at least 7-10 years, and probably a bit longer with reduced forces. Your impatience and lack of commitment may ultimately prove to be our undoing... swell.

Wait...what? "Always expected to take 7-10yrs"? I thought we went in after WMDs, and knew where they were. Why would that take 7-10yrs? I don't know when the "project's" time line is supposed to have begun, but if it was before we were in country, they forgot to tell the American people about that time frame.

I meant the reconstruction efforts, once they were realized, following the capture of Baghdad.

Eventual "success" would take a commitment that I know many here, and in DC, are unwilling to make. Anything that takes longer to conclude than a two-part two hour mini-series seems to be beyond the grasp of most Americans...

Sad that.

Reconstruction efforts by whom? You realize that our own military planning had us drawing down and leaving starting less then 6 months after the conclusion of the war part vs. Saddam right? They never... never... never planned on having a significant military presence 4 years (and counting!) after the capture of Baghdad. They definitely didn't plan to be engaged in a catastrophic civil war in which having half the capital 'secured' from death squads would be considered a sign of success. (and those are the always optimistic administration/military estimates which have proved to be so wildly and deliberately inaccurate in the past.)

If you want to make some sort of statement about how things were "always expected to take 7-10 years" then if you are being honest you will admit that the sort of commitment envisioned then, and the sort that we are in now are simply not on the same planet. That is delusional.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yeah, things there are going great since the surge

That has less to do with the military aspect (which has been successful) and more to do with the political process which is currently the most problematic part of the equation.

It's all related.

Didn't say they weren't. Just different parts of the equation.

The big question on the military side, is how long can these troop levels be sustained despite the military progress IMHO. Because of the reduction of the size of the armed forces in the 90s, who knows how long troops can take near constant deployment.

Good point - though I don't know how much the RIF really has to do with it . . . . Apparently April, 2008, is becoming a serious question on our ability to maintain force structure - surge or no surge:

Joint Chiefs Nominee Notes Toll on Military, Need to Plan for Iraq Drawdown

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Now, we are thoroughly securing the neighborhoods, one at a time. When we leave each one, Iraqi forces are finally able to maintain the security effectively. This has led to nearly half of Baghdad being secure (~200 out of 400 neighborhoods). The plan is to continue this trend until the job is done.

That's the elevator pitch to describe the methodology being used in the new surge, and every observer has admitted that it is finally working. The only requirement at this point is a bit more patience. It really is working...

I hate to use my Rums-failed quote but we have yet to see the 'unknown unknowns'. These pissants scatter like cockroaches when you turn on the lights and we would be foolish to under-estimate their ability to adapt. I'm happy that the IDF is 'standing up' but if you are 'in-theater' I wouldn't trust any one of the sum-beeches.

And as noted by the link above, the timetable is getting tighter and tighter. I find it somewhat ironic that redeploys more than likely will commence paralell to presidential political races.

 

[Lemon law]

I will beg to point out that the Brits tried to occupy Iraq during the 1920's. Its stretched into the 1930's and ultimately resulted in the Brits giving up after about 17 years. When you have a fairly smart occupation, the insurgency may give up after 7-10 years because the insurgency offers nothing better. Run the kind of occupation we are now running,
the insurgency keeps going and going and going stretching into hundreds of years. Read all about it in history books.