You mean Joe Biden's model of 3 partitioned states? YOu mean they could have listened to him 3 years ago and saved all the time and energy?
You mean Joe Biden's model of 3 partitioned states? YOu mean they could have listened to him 3 years ago and saved all the time and energy?
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
There's little doubt that the surge played a significant role in the military success (i.e. the safer conditions in Iraq and fewer total deaths) since June. As Bush has reiterated on many occasions, the whole point of the surge is to give the Iraqi people the ability to reconcile politically from the top down and stabilize their country in general. The direction from there, is up to them.
What's actually happened is that the political reconciliation at the top in Iraq has been a miserable failure since the surge began. However, reconciliation has instead been achieved from the bottom up; local gov't and tribesmen, which is good to hear. However, we still see disturbing trends; like buying off and arming Sunnis for what seems like short-term stability as well as ethnically cleansed neighborhoods that could easily erupt as they did earlier in the year.
But no one here is fooled into thinking that Iraq is anywhere near stable, no one here will be fooled into thinking that the country is close to back to normal, no one here is fooled into thinking the large reduction in violence means that the levels of violence are anywhere near acceptablel, because if any of that were true we'd be talking about declaring victory and coming home.
What's actually happened is that the political reconciliation at the top in Iraq has been a miserable failure since the surge began. However, reconciliation has instead been achieved from the bottom up; local gov't and tribesmen, which is good to hear. However, we still see disturbing trends; like buying off and arming Sunnis for what seems like short-term stability as well as ethnically cleansed neighborhoods that could easily erupt as they did earlier in the year.
But no one here is fooled into thinking that Iraq is anywhere near stable, no one here will be fooled into thinking that the country is close to back to normal, no one here is fooled into thinking the large reduction in violence means that the levels of violence are anywhere near acceptablel, because if any of that were true we'd be talking about declaring victory and coming home.
"Declaring victory and coming home" is the last thing the US wants. The only "home" they want is the giant US "home" bases in Iraq. All the US wants is for Iraq to be under it's boot.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No unfortunately. As soon as there is a Kurdish State, that same Kurdish State is going to want pieces of Iran, Syria, and gasp BIG chunks of Turkey. And if nothing else, Turkey is going to go ballistic over even thinking a Kurdish State. And even if the Iraqi Kurdish State shows no such ambitions, Kurdish elements within Iran, Syria, and Turkey will rebel.
Then there is that other problem, the Shia in the Iraqi South have oil, the Kurds in the the Iraqi North have oil, and the Sunnis in the Iraqi center have no such oil or natural resources required to make their own viable State.
Of course we can all wish that all five million Iraqi Sunnis would all grow gills and swim away, but any Iraqi three State solution requires a huge amount of diplomatic salesmanship and amounts to a total redrawing of all mid-east maps.
Iraq is the ultimate energizer bunnies of all quagmires, a gift that keeps giving and giving.
A pottery barn damed if you do and damned if you don't.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
I still think we owe Iraq a win. It's the only way we can ever salvage anything from the total disaster. I do not know, however, if we can win. But I think this reality, this real need for a win will keep us there through Democrat or Republican.
I am not arguing in favor of an endless war. I said 3 things. The first is that we owe Iraq a win. That means we screwed them over by starting an unnecessary war and we have a moral obligation to fix that as much as we can. The consequences of failure there, however, will have political repercussions very unfavorable to the rest of the Middle East. Second, I said I don't know if we can fix it because it may not be possible for us to return Iraq to a peace. Third, regardless of whether we can fix Iraq or not, and long after I would perhaps have quit, I think the negative consequences of failure will keep us drinking at that tough. We could and would leave tomorrow, I think, if victory or defeat didn't matter. My opinion will not matter, but politicians have their ego's and careers at stake in this and they won't give up, in my opinion.
I am not in favor of anything. I think the cosmos, as it were, is lined up for us to stay.
And where did you get the idea there is no Santa Clause? That's just rubbish.
Ouch. :laugh:
Not that Murtha has any credibility, he's just looking at polls like the other Democrats.
Murtha's Comments On Surge A Problem For House Democrats
Cad and Pab, what is it about you two that you can't read anything? The OP says political progress is not being made. The article says military progress is being made.
See the problem here? This was so obvious it's sad anybody has to point it out.
See the problem here? This was so obvious it's sad anybody has to point it out.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 173
- 106
Yeah, I see the problem here. Too many are trying to ignore the substantial political progress that HAS taken place.
But it's mostly at the local level, not the federal. So they keep harping on that, which is rather meaningless outside of political demagoguery.
The hope, and objective was that national polical progress would generate the local political progress, which is really more important and the ultimate objective. (Look at Afganistan, not anywhere near disputed -among ourselves- as Iraq. They have the national government we planned. Big deal, the problems persist primarily due to a lack of the necessary local governments. Contrary to conventional wisdom, and a certain party's talking points, could be we are substantially ahead government-wise in Iraq.)
So we got the local political progress without, what was thought at the time the necessary, national progress.
IMO, government needs to be built from the ground up (as we did here in the ISA), not from the top down (which is really more a model suited for totalian regimes, IMO).
Given their tribal nature, seems like the "top down model" we planned was a mistake from the begining. But my guess is the infatuation with a national goverment type model is the obvious result from those in Washington DC so worshipful of and vested in such a thing.
When good things "breal out" by themselves in an unexpected way, it's time to dump your braintrust/planners and get some new ones. We should be capitalizing on the welcome development of functioning local governments instead of focusing on the national level. Luckily for us the military "get's it" even if Washington doesn't.
Anyway, as I've said numerous times, I don't see how their national government is any more disfunctional and acrimoneous than ours. We can't agree on sh!t, can't protect our borders, can't control finances and are busy hurling accusations and investigating each other. I suppose in some ways their goverment is MORE functional and civilized acting than ours.
Fern
Fern? You're engaged in the same thing the bushies have been doing for 5 years, i.e. shifting the goals around so often nobody knows what they are any more. If you really think a tri-sect rapprochment is possible at the non-national level, then you are wrong. Afghanistan's never had a strong post taliban national government, and truthfully, it was designed that way by Russian proxies. Afghanistan does not have iraq's problem either.
And where do you see significant "local" governmental progress? Al-Anbar? The regions that have been ethnically cleansed? The regions that are so laden with bribes that the u.s. mint needs to open a subsidiary there?
Dont' make sweeping statements based on incomplete data.
You also made the same mistake and pab and cad with regards to that murtha article. For Iraq, a thousand things have to go right at the same time. Bushies tend to point to one or two things working while ignoring the rest. Don't make the same mistake.
Most importantly, don't be too confident that even the military aspect of the surge is working.
And where do you see significant "local" governmental progress? Al-Anbar? The regions that have been ethnically cleansed? The regions that are so laden with bribes that the u.s. mint needs to open a subsidiary there?
Dont' make sweeping statements based on incomplete data.
You also made the same mistake and pab and cad with regards to that murtha article. For Iraq, a thousand things have to go right at the same time. Bushies tend to point to one or two things working while ignoring the rest. Don't make the same mistake.
Most importantly, don't be too confident that even the military aspect of the surge is working.
Murtha's already "clarifying" his comments. The left-wing nuts have sent him his marching orders - they're not happy with his report.
Explain to me again what you're missing here. Murtha said the military aspect of the surge is working but does not say political progress is being made as promised. The OP SAID THE EXACT SAME THING. So where's the beef?
OH yeah, you can't read
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 173
- 106
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Fern? You're engaged in the same thing the bushies have been doing for 5 years, i.e. shifting the goals around so often nobody knows what they are any more.
Shifting the goals? Man, you're really not getting what I'm saying. The goal all along has been to develop a local government, that's where the stability is going to come from. Not a bunch of polititions sitting around in some far away captial. I'mreally saying our approach on achieving the objective was wrong. We suck at nation building.
If you really think a tri-sect rapprochment is possible at the non-national level, then you are wrong.
O'rly? We just disagree then. "All politics is local" is the famous saying. Maybe should be "all politics is tribal" for Iraq.
I still contend that governments need be built from the ground up. That's what I see happening.
Afghanistan's never had a strong post taliban national government, and truthfully, it was designed that way by Russian proxies. Afghanistan does not have iraq's problem either.
And where do you see significant "local" governmental progress? Al-Anbar? The regions that have been ethnically cleansed? The regions that are so laden with bribes that the u.s. mint needs to open a subsidiary there?
I see it pointed out in countless articles from numerous sources, whether US or foreign (e.g., DerSpeigel the German publication), whether Dem or Repub.
Dont' make sweeping statements based on incomplete data.
Hasn't stopped anybody esle, yourself included.
You also made the same mistake and pab and cad with regards to that murtha article.
What mistake? That we understand English and can read what Murtha said?
For Iraq, a thousand things have to go right at the same time. Bushies tend to point to one or two things working while ignoring the rest. Don't make the same mistake.
Most importantly, don't be too confident that even the military aspect of the surge is working.
Look, even the vehemantly anti-war anti-GWB media types that have visting there over the past several months say so.
I don't thinks it's utopian over there. Nor do I expect the progress to be perfectly linear, there will be setbacks. But to ignore the weight of the evidence and the reality of the progress is silly. How far will the progress go? IDK, but neither does anybody else in spite of what ever they may profess.
Fern
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
Fern, several prominent generals and military officials have come out and said that some political progress is being made at the local levels in some parts of Iraq, but even they, as well as Bush and his WH staff, are conceding that the overall political progress has arguably gone no where since the surge, or even since this year began. Local progress is good, but without federal laws to abide by you're going to have little respect for the rule of law in Iraq unless you split it up into soverign nations. How's that going to work out? Is that the solution? We've gotten no guidance from the WH on that, that's for sure.
Even the vehemently anti-war types have been wrong because they are vehemently anti-war about everything. Those specifically against this iraq war, like myself, are in a different boat. First, I dont' think Tip Oneil understood iraqi politics so invoking his notorious statement isn't winning the argument here. As for claiming that local stability was all that we asked for, where do you get that from? What happens when the sunni on shiite civil war involves ethnically coalesced areas? You understand ethnic cleansing would aid local government stability correct?
And about the murtha article, nowhere does that article contradict the OP. There's no point in me discussing anything with you if you can't understand that simple point.
Also, try remembering the entirety of this war. I can distinctly remember everybody, even left wing anti war types, thinking iraq was on the mend after the first successful election. What people fail to realize is the same factions that encourage violence still exist. THey have an interest in biding their time for now. See the shiites being relatively tame for now? You see the sunni's wanting the americans there now? What side do you think would win a civil war? How long do you think the american army can remain there en masse? How do you think centuries of sectarian hatred have been suddenly quelled in the past 8 weeks?
And about the murtha article, nowhere does that article contradict the OP. There's no point in me discussing anything with you if you can't understand that simple point.
Also, try remembering the entirety of this war. I can distinctly remember everybody, even left wing anti war types, thinking iraq was on the mend after the first successful election. What people fail to realize is the same factions that encourage violence still exist. THey have an interest in biding their time for now. See the shiites being relatively tame for now? You see the sunni's wanting the americans there now? What side do you think would win a civil war? How long do you think the american army can remain there en masse? How do you think centuries of sectarian hatred have been suddenly quelled in the past 8 weeks?
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
To Stoneburner,
While I largely agree with the body of your post, I don't think we are just dealing with simply centuries of hatreds in this brand of Sunni vs. Shia hatreds in Iraq. Granted these hatreds have always been there for centuries but not at the levels we see now. In MHO, it was largely Saddam who exploited these hatreds by elevating his own Sunni sect and favoring them with economic advantages during his rule. That and Saddam's proclivity to assassinate influential Shia, Kurdish, and even Sunni leaders who might get influential enough to rival Saddam. That and the fact the the police State Saddam ran relied largely on Sunni enforcers and touched nearly every family in Iraq leaving the level of distrust very high.
And for the Iraqi Shia and Kurds, it has become payback time as the US occupation now gives free rein for too many to nurse their petty and recent grievances. In most neighboring Muslim countries, Shia and Sunnis manage to co-exist in relative harmony. As for the Kurds, its a whole another problem because they are the largest ethnic group on earth without their own State. And because a potential Kurdish State has appeal to Kurdish populations in Syria, Iran, Iraq, and big chunks of Turkey, just makes the Kurdish issue a huge and explosive problem.
While I largely agree with the body of your post, I don't think we are just dealing with simply centuries of hatreds in this brand of Sunni vs. Shia hatreds in Iraq. Granted these hatreds have always been there for centuries but not at the levels we see now. In MHO, it was largely Saddam who exploited these hatreds by elevating his own Sunni sect and favoring them with economic advantages during his rule. That and Saddam's proclivity to assassinate influential Shia, Kurdish, and even Sunni leaders who might get influential enough to rival Saddam. That and the fact the the police State Saddam ran relied largely on Sunni enforcers and touched nearly every family in Iraq leaving the level of distrust very high.
And for the Iraqi Shia and Kurds, it has become payback time as the US occupation now gives free rein for too many to nurse their petty and recent grievances. In most neighboring Muslim countries, Shia and Sunnis manage to co-exist in relative harmony. As for the Kurds, its a whole another problem because they are the largest ethnic group on earth without their own State. And because a potential Kurdish State has appeal to Kurdish populations in Syria, Iran, Iraq, and big chunks of Turkey, just makes the Kurdish issue a huge and explosive problem.
Hehe. I'm focusing on narrow issues because that's what certain people like to do. I fully agree that people need to see the larger picture and realize it's a massive jigsaw puzzle. The Kurdish problem has already potentially flared up and I"m guessing there was some extraordinary bribery by condi to turkey to assuage them. You can't also forget the ancient arab v. persian hatred which does not translate well for shiite arabs who support shiite persians. Too many people on this board, and in this nation in general, seem to believe their partisan cheerleading is enough to compensate for their lack of knowledge and understanding of the region. Just look at FERN invoking Tip Oneil to explain Iraq!
EXman
Lifer
- Jul 12, 2001
- 20,079
- 15
- 81
Funny how you say it isn't working even with one of the most outspoken critics of the war just came back from Iraq and said
It is right there an Uber Libby declaring it is working!
Why do you Libbys want us to lose? You seem to have a vested interest in it? We were losing... Turned out to be a bitch and now that even Iraqi's are tired of getting bombed by Al Qiada and helping themselves by either turning them in or killing the terrorists butts themselves. That is another reason why violence has fallen sharply. Al Q's never should have bombed other muslims. Looks to be a fatal error. Sorry bad pun.
It is right there an Uber Libby declaring it is working!
Why do you Libbys want us to lose? You seem to have a vested interest in it? We were losing... Turned out to be a bitch and now that even Iraqi's are tired of getting bombed by Al Qiada and helping themselves by either turning them in or killing the terrorists butts themselves. That is another reason why violence has fallen sharply. Al Q's never should have bombed other muslims. Looks to be a fatal error. Sorry bad pun.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
The EXman fantasy seems to be that the democrats want us to lose in Iraq or want to simply force total withdrawal.
What we need is a smarter kind of leadership in Iraq not to be found anywhere in GWB&co. And a bipartisan commitment also not to be found anywhere inside of GWB&co.
We already have a Baker Hamilton Report blueprint GWB refuses to follow that stresses the diplomacy GWB refuses to use.
But EXman is partially right about AL-Quida shooting them selves in the foot with stupid tactics. But by our own NIE, Al-Quida was never more than 15% of the total Iraqi insurgencies, Al-Quida can still come back with smarter tactics, and that 100% of the various Iraqi insurgencies are still there and stronger than ever still makes the Iraqi insurgencies an a totally unaddressed problem only political progress can overcome.
What we need is a smarter kind of leadership in Iraq not to be found anywhere in GWB&co. And a bipartisan commitment also not to be found anywhere inside of GWB&co.
We already have a Baker Hamilton Report blueprint GWB refuses to follow that stresses the diplomacy GWB refuses to use.
But EXman is partially right about AL-Quida shooting them selves in the foot with stupid tactics. But by our own NIE, Al-Quida was never more than 15% of the total Iraqi insurgencies, Al-Quida can still come back with smarter tactics, and that 100% of the various Iraqi insurgencies are still there and stronger than ever still makes the Iraqi insurgencies an a totally unaddressed problem only political progress can overcome.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter