New York Times OP-ED supporting the Iraq surge?

Deudalus

Golden Member
Jan 16, 2005
1,090
0
0
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07...ref=slogin&oref=slogin

A War We Just Might Win


VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration?s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration?s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily ?victory? but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated ? many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services ? electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation ? to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began ? though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.

In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks ? all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups ? who were now competing to secure his friendship.

In Baghdad?s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.

We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.

But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).

In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army?s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.

In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few ?jundis? (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless ? something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.


The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus?s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.

In war, sometimes it?s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr?s Mahdi Army.

These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.

Another surprise was how well the coalition?s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.

In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to dozens of military officers who before the war had known little about governance or business but were now ably immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi with a decent life.

Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control.

In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation ? or at least accommodation ? are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.


Well this is kinda interesting.

I know this wont make our resident knee jerking trolls happy, but it is interesting none the less. I will be waiting with anticipation for one of you to chime in saying that the NYTimes is a conservative mouthpiece now :)

I think the report is fairly accurate though:

Plenty of military gains
Not enough political gains either here or in Iraq

Thoughts?
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
I don't know what you are expecting to hear other than the things you think you are going to hear. Are we supposed to just change our minds because of an OP-ED story because it is from the NYTimes? Sorry, but this OP has not swayed my opinion about the Iraq war nor the surge. When this "surge" figures out a way to keep people from wanting to become human bombs and stop killing our soldiers that are over there, I will concede that "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms."

Edit: I just don't subscribe to the logic that "If we could just throw enough lives at the problems over there, THAT would be the key to victory". More "surge" seems to only equal more soldiers over there for them to take aim at. When the suicide bomber looks just like the millions of other people over there you are trying to protect, it is really hard to win.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
Yep, numbers don't lie. If things are do damned good, fine let's get our soldiers home and recuperated for the original mission that needs to be finished in Afghanistan.
 

Deudalus

Golden Member
Jan 16, 2005
1,090
0
0
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Yep, numbers don't lie. If things are do damned good, fine let's get our soldiers home and recuperated for the original mission that needs to be finished in Afghanistan.

What numbers are you talking about?

The numbers are actually getting better in Iraq.

If you are talking about our soldiers dying, well not to be so blatantly honest but it is war after all.

In wars, people die. Some of them will unforunately be the good guys too.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
It's a freaking lost cause. Anyone who still thinks we should continue the Bushwhackos' useless war of lies should STFU unless and until they're willing to go there and spill their own blood. That includes every member of the administration.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: umbrella39
I don't know what you are expecting to hear other than the things you think you are going to hear. Are we supposed to just change our minds because of an OP-ED story because it is from the NYTimes? Sorry, but this OP has not swayed my opinion about the Iraq war nor the surge. When this "surge" figures out a way to keep people from wanting to become human bombs and stop killing our soldiers that are over there, I will concede that "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms."

Edit: I just don't subscribe to the logic that "If we could just throw enough lives at the problems over there, THAT would be the key to victory". More "surge" seems to only equal more soldiers over there for them to take aim at. When the suicide bomber looks just like the millions of other people over there you are trying to protect, it is really hard to win.

So what youre saying is, we need a surge of psychiatrists instead of sodiers? If you honestly think thats what this war is about...well...you understand neither our enemy or our mission.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Originally posted by: Deudalus
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07...ref=slogin&oref=slogin

A War We Just Might Win


VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration?s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration?s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily ?victory? but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated ? many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services ? electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation ? to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began ? though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.

In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks ? all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups ? who were now competing to secure his friendship.

In Baghdad?s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.

We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.

But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).

In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army?s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.

In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few ?jundis? (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless ? something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.


The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus?s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.

In war, sometimes it?s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr?s Mahdi Army.

These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.

Another surprise was how well the coalition?s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.

In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to dozens of military officers who before the war had known little about governance or business but were now ably immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi with a decent life.

Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control.

In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation ? or at least accommodation ? are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.


Well this is kinda interesting.

I know this wont make our resident knee jerking trolls happy, but it is interesting none the less. I will be waiting with anticipation for one of you to chime in saying that the NYTimes is a conservative mouthpiece now :)

I think the report is fairly accurate though:

Plenty of military gains
Not enough political gains either here or in Iraq

Thoughts?


OP ED=/= Editorial. Anyone can submit an OP ED.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: umbrella39
I don't know what you are expecting to hear other than the things you think you are going to hear. Are we supposed to just change our minds because of an OP-ED story because it is from the NYTimes? Sorry, but this OP has not swayed my opinion about the Iraq war nor the surge. When this "surge" figures out a way to keep people from wanting to become human bombs and stop killing our soldiers that are over there, I will concede that "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms."

Edit: I just don't subscribe to the logic that "If we could just throw enough lives at the problems over there, THAT would be the key to victory". More "surge" seems to only equal more soldiers over there for them to take aim at. When the suicide bomber looks just like the millions of other people over there you are trying to protect, it is really hard to win.

So what youre saying is, we need a surge of psychiatrists instead of sodiers? If you honestly think thats what this war is about...well...you understand neither our enemy or our mission.

something i read the other day would make me think we need a surge of unmarried women, actually.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
To per say conclude too much yet in regards to the mini-surge is somewhat of a mixed bag. But Patraeus is the best army insurgency thinker we have and you can somewhat tell that somethings have changed for the better. And a somewhat clearer and more understandable mission always has to motivate troops clearly confused by former clueless commanders. But I am always skeptical of any set of positive anecdotal incidents. Even if the entire set is true, it blurs what has to be the real measure in any similar leaky boat problem. Namely is the water coming in faster than it can be bailed out or is it sitting higher in the water now for the first time in four years? And more importantly can the conclusion of the editorial be sustained. Namely the congress should give GWB&co. an extension past the 9/15 deadline.

And I still conclude the following things.

1. Congress should not grant an extension and should demand that required 9/15/2007 mid term surge report card. The picture will be far clearer in 45 days than it is now.

2. Just because Al-Quida seems to be retreating now is no reason to even feel optimistic. After all, the National Intelligence Estimate has said that Al-Quida was never even more than 15% of the Iraqi problem anyway and what we may be seeing is that the Sunni part of the insurgency has decided that it is best not outsourcing its agenda. And that the various tribal leaders we are now arming are playing us as we play them. And that we are just seeing a temporary lull while the Sunni insurgency regroups.

3. We have to realize we are somewhat fooling ourselves on the size of the overall Iraqi insurgencies. At this point and as the most aggrieved party, the Sunni insurgency is the most active. But the overall Iraqi insurgency could, just on a population basis, get four times bigger if both the Shia and the Kurds decide to that existing events are threatening
their futures. And if nothing else, all the various Iraqi insurgencies have one thing in common. They are all lead by local groups engaged in setting up their own fiefdoms and power bases. And human nature and the inevitability of greed tells us that these local power bases are now well entrenched and will resist the formation of an Iraqi central government. Because job one of an Iraqi government will be to break their power and local control. And right now, the prospect of an strong central Iraqi government is not immediate enough to panic the Shia or Kurdish insurgents. And meanwhile The Shias take enough pot shots at the Sunnis to keep them stirred up.

4. The New York Times editorial lacks prudence. And is more of the strategy of an Ostrich confident that if they stick their heads in the sand, nothing can bite their head off. But we have to also acknowledge that Iraq could spin out of control or require a 2 billion/wk US presence for the next two decades. And as Sen. Lugar points out, we need to explore many other plan B's. And all these options take time to explore and develop. And gambling everything on a surge that could turn to shit at anytime is putting all eggs in one basket foolish.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
Seems like Iraqis can do a good enough job fighting insurgents by themselves. Time to reduce our presence to that needed to provide intelligence, training, and air support and leave the ground work to the natives.

 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: umbrella39
I don't know what you are expecting to hear other than the things you think you are going to hear. Are we supposed to just change our minds because of an OP-ED story because it is from the NYTimes? Sorry, but this OP has not swayed my opinion about the Iraq war nor the surge. When this "surge" figures out a way to keep people from wanting to become human bombs and stop killing our soldiers that are over there, I will concede that "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms."

Edit: I just don't subscribe to the logic that "If we could just throw enough lives at the problems over there, THAT would be the key to victory". More "surge" seems to only equal more soldiers over there for them to take aim at. When the suicide bomber looks just like the millions of other people over there you are trying to protect, it is really hard to win.

So what youre saying is, we need a surge of psychiatrists instead of sodiers? If you honestly think thats what this war is about...well...you understand neither our enemy or our mission.

I am not surprised you chose to bold that sentence tbh.

You know perfectly well what I meant and it had nothing to do with psychiatrists, though after reading your reply I am starting to think one might be warranted.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: umbrella39
I don't know what you are expecting to hear other than the things you think you are going to hear. Are we supposed to just change our minds because of an OP-ED story because it is from the NYTimes? Sorry, but this OP has not swayed my opinion about the Iraq war nor the surge. When this "surge" figures out a way to keep people from wanting to become human bombs and stop killing our soldiers that are over there, I will concede that "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms."

Edit: I just don't subscribe to the logic that "If we could just throw enough lives at the problems over there, THAT would be the key to victory". More "surge" seems to only equal more soldiers over there for them to take aim at. When the suicide bomber looks just like the millions of other people over there you are trying to protect, it is really hard to win.

So what youre saying is, we need a surge of psychiatrists instead of sodiers? If you honestly think thats what this war is about...well...you understand neither our enemy or our mission.

I am not surprised you chose to bold that sentence tbh.

You know perfectly well what I meant and it had nothing to do with psychiatrists, though after reading your reply I am starting to think one might be warranted.

OK then enlighten me. What did you mean exactly?
 

Deudalus

Golden Member
Jan 16, 2005
1,090
0
0
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: Deudalus

Thoughts?

Thoughts? You posted an OP-ED piece..... which means little to nothing in the grand scheme of things....

I suppose thats why no liberals ever post things from the DailyKos here or any other liberal slanted OP-ED's right?

Are you guys really going to hide behind the "OMG I will not discuss an OP-ED" shenanigans?

I'm not saying you have to agree with it, or disagree with it. I don't particularly agree with it either to be honest.

I'm just saying its interesting that the paper that is accused of being the most liberal would run this OP-ED......
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: umbrella39
I don't know what you are expecting to hear other than the things you think you are going to hear. Are we supposed to just change our minds because of an OP-ED story because it is from the NYTimes? Sorry, but this OP has not swayed my opinion about the Iraq war nor the surge. When this "surge" figures out a way to keep people from wanting to become human bombs and stop killing our soldiers that are over there, I will concede that "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms."

Edit: I just don't subscribe to the logic that "If we could just throw enough lives at the problems over there, THAT would be the key to victory". More "surge" seems to only equal more soldiers over there for them to take aim at. When the suicide bomber looks just like the millions of other people over there you are trying to protect, it is really hard to win.

So what youre saying is, we need a surge of psychiatrists instead of sodiers? If you honestly think thats what this war is about...well...you understand neither our enemy or our mission.

I am not surprised you chose to bold that sentence tbh.

You know perfectly well what I meant and it had nothing to do with psychiatrists, though after reading your reply I am starting to think one might be warranted.

OK then enlighten me. What did you mean exactly?

Well then the cliff notes version I guess though I have made my position clear: they were in the ME before we ever stepped foot in Iraq and they are there in even greater numbers now, all our military might does not stop the insurgency, and even if we double our count it won't ever stop them from trying to kill us 1 or 1 million American troops will not make them stop wanting us out of Iraq and willing to die to see that through. They seem content to hold out indefinitely. I see no reason why we should do the same. Our goal should be to put timelines on Iraq to take control of their own country again. They and we, seem content to just keep things status quo. No one is saying pull them all out now, but FFS, I think we need to start holding Iraq and little more accountable for their lack of getting their shit together.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: Deudalus

Thoughts?

Thoughts? You posted an OP-ED piece..... which means little to nothing in the grand scheme of things....

I suppose thats why no liberals ever post things from the DailyKos here or any other liberal slanted OP-ED's right?

Are you guys really going to hide behind the "OMG I will not discuss an OP-ED" shenanigans?

I'm not saying you have to agree with it, or disagree with it. I don't particularly agree with it either to be honest.

I'm just saying its interesting that the paper that is accused of being the most liberal would run this OP-ED......

Does that mean we got the WMD?
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: Deudalus

Thoughts?

Thoughts? You posted an OP-ED piece..... which means little to nothing in the grand scheme of things....

I suppose thats why no liberals ever post things from the DailyKos here or any other liberal slanted OP-ED's right?

Are you guys really going to hide behind the "OMG I will not discuss an OP-ED" shenanigans?

I'm not saying you have to agree with it, or disagree with it. I don't particularly agree with it either to be honest.

I'm just saying its interesting that the paper that is accused of being the most liberal would run this OP-ED......

Nothing against you. I'm just not a big fan of OP-EDs, even ones that I might agree with. Unfortunately, too many folks post these as "proof" that what they believe in NOW has more credibility...

 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
This was all over Tucker tonight and the bigger tragedy than the Iraq war and perhaps even the Sudan is that Tucker is still allowed on TV and moreover that I actually watched it for 10 minutes.
 

bGIveNs33

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2002
1,543
0
71
Originally posted by: Harvey
It's a freaking lost cause. Anyone who still thinks we should continue the Bushwhackos' useless war of lies should STFU unless and until they're willing to go there and spill their own blood. That includes every member of the administration.

Did you even read the article?? I swear, some people would rather see Bush fail, than him succeed and be able to bring some troops home. I don't think it's a lost cause and I know the majority of the people fighting the war don't think so either.
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
Originally posted by: bGIveNs33
Originally posted by: Harvey
It's a freaking lost cause. Anyone who still thinks we should continue the Bushwhackos' useless war of lies should STFU unless and until they're willing to go there and spill their own blood. That includes every member of the administration.

Did you even read the article?? I swear, some people would rather see Bush fail, than him succeed and be able to bring some troops home. I don't think it's a lost cause and I know the majority of the people fighting the war don't think so either.

To see Bush fail is NOT to want to see Iraq fail.

I want Bush to fail. Every policy he enacts SEEMINGLY fvcks things up well, that it becomes obvious he is trying to split the country. He wants to "secure" ie: steal Iraq's resources for his use as well as take advantage of Iraq geographically ie: have our own military bases so we can do whatever we want to do. That is what people mean they imply how we should "ensure a government that is friendly towards us" -- it is a much softer way of stating the realities of how we want to control SouthWest Asia; as if those who live there cannot carve their own paths.

I hope Bush fails in whatever he tries to force on us and the Iraqi people.

I hope that Iraqis themselves can succeed and ultimately give us the boot.

I hope that less troops die, and those (like palehorse, although from his posts I have the impression he is a merc there) who want Iraq to succeed through their own involvement in Iraq can come back and ultimately watch the Iraqis succeed themselves.

 

bGIveNs33

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2002
1,543
0
71
Originally posted by: magomago
Originally posted by: bGIveNs33
Originally posted by: Harvey
It's a freaking lost cause. Anyone who still thinks we should continue the Bushwhackos' useless war of lies should STFU unless and until they're willing to go there and spill their own blood. That includes every member of the administration.

Did you even read the article?? I swear, some people would rather see Bush fail, than him succeed and be able to bring some troops home. I don't think it's a lost cause and I know the majority of the people fighting the war don't think so either.

To see Bush fail is NOT to want to see Iraq fail.

I want Bush to fail. Every policy he enacts SEEMINGLY fvcks things up well, that it becomes obvious he is trying to split the country. He wants to "secure" ie: steal Iraq's resources for his use as well as take advantage of Iraq geographically ie: have our own military bases so we can do whatever we want to do. That is what people mean they imply how we should "ensure a government that is friendly towards us" -- it is a much softer way of stating the realities of how we want to control SouthWest Asia; as if those who live there cannot carve their own paths.

I hope Bush fails in whatever he tries to force on us and the Iraqi people.

I hope that Iraqis themselves can succeed and ultimately give us the boot.

I hope that less troops die, and those (like palehorse, although from his posts I have the impression he is a merc there) who want Iraq to succeed through their own involvement in Iraq can come back and ultimately watch the Iraqis succeed themselves.

So you would rather see Bush fail than him succeed in creating a self-sustaining stable Iraq, there for allowing for our troops to come home?? Our troops over seas thank you for your relentless support! Love him or hate him... the best thing is for him to somehow get Iraq to become stable, our troops aren't coming home until then. You can spew your whole "bush is a warmonger speech" but the bottom line is that he wants stability in Iraq. In fact he is sometimes blinded by that. So I would respectfully disagree with you, to want Bush to fail(which is so completely absurd you would root for a presidents failure) in my eyes is not care about Iraq's stability. You are basically saying "I want my trash picked up, but I don't want the garbage man near my yard". Well, do you really want the trashed picked up??
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
No you are wrong. I don't believe Bush wants a self sustaining stable Iraq - that is where we diverge in our opinions. I thought I was explicit about that. The parts about "he is trying to split it" and...everything after that spelled it out clear.

 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Some of us have been saying similar things for months. Way back in April we started to see signs that the surge was going to change the status quo in Iraq.

We still have another month plus until the September so let?s see how things go between now and then.

I am thinking that Bush is going to stick with the surge till spring and with stories like this in the NY Times of all places it will be harder for the Democrats to force him to change tactics.

BTW as of today the American military fatalities for the month of July are lower than any month this year.
 

bGIveNs33

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2002
1,543
0
71
Originally posted by: magomago
No you are wrong. I don't believe Bush wants a self sustaining stable Iraq - that is where we diverge in our opinions. I thought I was explicit about that. The parts about "he is trying to split it" and...everything after that spelled it out clear.

So you think Bush is intentionally trying to keep the conflict in Iraq going? You think he doesn't mind American troops dying? You think he is greatly benefiting from this war?

We have plenty of military bases in the Middle East and SW Asia right now, the ones in Iraq are at most temporary. And how exactly is Bush going to "use" Iraq's resources, especially when he's out of office in 1.5 years?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Originally posted by: Hacp
OP ED=/= Editorial. Anyone can submit an OP ED.
This is the NY fricken Times. Their OP-EDs have more power than most newspapers news stories.
This is HUGE for them to post something with a title like this.