Perhaps the Surge is Working

[Ldir]

Isn't the OP out of date ayway? He says he went in May. Wasn't there a temporary drop in violence as the resistance regrouped? That was two months ago. It sounds like it is now back as bad as before except with more dead Americans.


--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

 

[Lemon law]

I have no doubt that the majority of responsible Iraqi governmental leaders want the USA to stay and keep the things under some level of control---as do some of the students at the University.

But all of that is totally worthless until the collective Iraqi people can agree on governmental policy----which they cannot bestir themselves to do---as another thread points out most eloquently----given a large number of goals the USA requested the Iraqi government make progress on-----NOT ONE GOAL WAS MET----None nada jippo zip.

And for that kind of performance, we are supposed to keep pouring lives and money down a rat hole. Its time to say---if you want us to stay---straighten up your act or we are out of here.-----I don't care what they say---tell me what they DO to step up to the plate.

 

[Modelworks]

Bush will continue sending troops to iraq until we don't have any left to send then the response will be " I didn't have enough troops to win the war"

The iraq government needs to be locked in a room , with no weapons of course, and be held there till they reach some sort of consensus. Not pandered to and given high salaries, nice homes and four star meals, while the rest of there country goes to hell.


As for us mandating they get there act together or else.
They know its an idle threat.
They can watch our news and see how divided the congress is and see that they can
just keep dragging things out.

We should make a temporary withdrawal from iraq.
A few thousand troops to make them wake up and see " Is this what you want ?"
Back up our stance with actions and not just threats.
Instead we give them MORE support when they fail to meet goals.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Forgetting the politics surrounding the war in Iraq for a moment, many have said that the greatest mistake we made was to not dedicate enough resources to the stabilization mission...

There is NO "forgetting the politics surrounding the war," not even for a moment. Following 9-11, going after Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan was the right thing to do. They were the ones who attacked us, but as in the Geico Insurance ads, even a caveman could figure it out.

The tragedy is, for the Bushwhackos, even then, it was all politics. From day one of their administration, their intent was always to go into Iraq. Afghanistan just provided the political springboard for their fuster clucked plans. It's also the reason they've fscked up the battle in Afghanistan.

 

[kage69]

Relevant Update!


My awesome Senator Snowe showing yet again she's not afraid to stand up to the White House.


God I love her.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: kage69
Relevant Update!


My awesome Senator Snowe showing yet again she's not afraid to stand up to the White

If only she and the rest of those Republicans weren't five or six years and over 3,600 dead American troops too late to the party.

 

[Lemon law]

To Kage69,

I agree---as Snowe joins the ever growing set of GOP senators who are telling GWB they are done believing him in Iraq.

But I sure don't know if Alexander really gets it when he says---"The only difference of opinion at the moment is, the president wants to deal with the Baker-Hamilton recommendations in September," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., one of the first GOP co-sponsors.

The point is that GWB&co. does not want to deal with Baker Hamilton recommendations in September or EVER.---and will come up with an endless series of excuses or new new plans to keep themselves in control.---which is exactly what this mini-surge is now---something to buy them more time---and something without a hope of working.

The only way to derail the GWB&co. screw up express is for the Senate to muster the 60 votes needed to pass a meaningful and veto proof bill. And we are getting close to there finally, thanks to Senators like Snowe.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: magomago

Craig you claim that these two groups (ie:Sunni and Shi'ite) "lack common interests, history and democratic mechanisms" shows you are woefully uninformed on Iraq because that statement is only 33% accurate (The democracy part). Although Sunni and Shi'ite discussion cannot be avoided if you want to consider Iraq, you overly emphasize the importance that this plays as if these two "Groups" have never interacted or "mixed". Maybe in Saudi Arabia, but all of this sectarian violence in Iraq is a very recent phenomenon that has only gained traction because we tossed in absolute idiots in Iraq who played on it to gain political power.

I agree with you, in part; it's a bit complicated, and probably not worth it for the purpose of establishing the accuracy of the analogy to the North and the South in the civil war, to get into just how strong the conflict is between the groups. You would be right to say that under Saddam, they co-existed a lot better, apparently often living in the same neighborhoods and having less animosity; but it was still a very tribal culture, with little (but some) inter-marriage and such, wasn't it?

Trying to sort out the issues like how the war between the Sunni government of Saddam and the Shiite government of Iran he invaded in a ten year war in the 80's with a million casualties affected the Sunni-Shiite tensions in Iraq, it seems hard to say; the history of Sunni oppression under Saddam for decades is a factor too.

The point I was trying to make with the analogy was simply that the North and the South had at least had the common history of being colonies mutually oppressed by England (in contrast to the Saddam period of Sunni oppressoin of Shiited), who had come together to form a new nation, with political compromises, but the Shiites and Sunnis were forced together by an external force, England, into an 'artificial' country. The relevance was just speculating about the possibility of continued conflict.

The Sunnis' boycott of the elections, and therefore the government, doesn't bode well for the sort of peaceful political compromise that would improve things.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Any "good news" or "noted progress" will fall on deaf ears; as the majority of posters here are defeatists.

Some of us know some truths, but it's nearly impossible to even get people to listen to those truths, let alone convince them of their validity. three years of worsening conditions have supposedly worn out their patience.

Such is life in a society that generally lacks the patience to wait more than two hours for any story to climax and conclude.

In terms of opportunity cost, only 1% of Americans have given up anything beyond the 99 cents spent on a magnetic ribbon for their cars...

Really? And if the majority of the Iraqi people want you out of their country, why don't you listen to them?

but they dont. The majority of those I interacted with over there were VERY happy that we're sticking around, and they were also VERY afraid of the day we leave.

it's about perspective, and i'm sorry, your Holiday-Inn-Express-perspective just doesnt compare to the reality on the ground.

Have you seen the specials filmed at Baghdad's University? The students there spoke out against the violence and practically BEGGED the US to stay as long as it takes.

So, once again, media bias and preconceived notions will rule the day instead of reality doing so.

sad that.

Do the students speak for all of Iraq? And where have you "interacted" Iraqis? If that is in the green zone I can well imagine they fear the day the US leaves.

My job certainly doesnt keep me in the Green Zone...

 

[Starbuck1975]

There is NO "forgetting the politics surrounding the war," not even for a moment. Following 9-11, going after Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan was the right thing to do. They were the ones who attacked us, but as in the Geico Insurance ads, even a caveman could figure it out.

The tragedy is, for the Bushwhackos, even then, it was all politics. From day one of their administration, their intent was always to go into Iraq. Afghanistan just provided the political springboard for their fuster clucked plans. It's also the reason they've fscked up the battle in Afghanistan.

This is precisely why I made the statement I did about looking past the politics that got us into this mess...try to remove Bush from the equation for a moment, if you can.

Whether or not you support the war in Iraq, the fact remains that we are there, and leaving Iraq prematurely will set the region up for a prolonged conflict in Iraq under best case scenario, or the conflict spilling into Iran, Turkey and other neighboring countries under worst case scenario.

It is a tragedy that American lives have been lost in Iraq, but our priority now should be to do what we can to stabilize the region such that it will not cost us or others more blood in the future...the surge could arguably achieve that.

I think there is a defeatist mentality surrounding the war in Iraq, particularly in this forum...that is why I default to the perspective of those serving on the front lines, as I have found their view far more optimistic...and I trust their opinion on the situation in Iraq more than the disgruntled anti-Bush crowd.

 

[Lemon law]

To Starbucks1975---who sez----I think there is a defeatist mentality surrounding the war in Iraq, particularly in this forum...that is why I default to the perspective of those serving on the front lines, as I have found their view far more optimistic...and I trust their opinion on the situation in Iraq more than the disgruntled anti-Bush crowd.

People said the exact same thing about Vietnam---and who could disbelieve ole Willie Westmoreland?---oozing optimism out of every pore---but the Anti-Johnson and Anti-Nixon crowd was correct----because they better understood people---and the military only understood military power.

And right now the left---if we can use that term--is disgruntled---but we still feel we are correct---and the right---may not be happy to be in Iraq---but you are there by your own choosing--and the right can only look forward to the day when you are disgruntled, expelled from Iraq, and totally discredited.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Any "good news" or "noted progress" will fall on deaf ears; as the majority of posters here are defeatists.

Some of us know some truths, but it's nearly impossible to even get people to listen to those truths, let alone convince them of their validity. three years of worsening conditions have supposedly worn out their patience.

Such is life in a society that generally lacks the patience to wait more than two hours for any story to climax and conclude.

In terms of opportunity cost, only 1% of Americans have given up anything beyond the 99 cents spent on a magnetic ribbon for their cars...

Really? And if the majority of the Iraqi people want you out of their country, why don't you listen to them?

Because they're pussies, right Pale?


The American people have been told "truths" for over 4 years. The majority of these "truths" have turned out to be "untruths". But, being the non-pussy that you are, you KNOW some truths that should not only be listened to, they should be written in stone.

 

[Starbuck1975]

People said the exact same thing about Vietnam---and who could disbelieve ole Willie Westmoreland?---oozing optimism out of every pore---but the Anti-Johnson and Anti-Nixon crowd was correct----because they better understood people---and the military only understood military power.

And right now the left---if we can use that term--is disgruntled---but we still feel we are correct---and the right---may not be happy to be in Iraq---but you are there by your own choosing--and the right can only look forward to the day when you are disgruntled, expelled from Iraq, and totally discredited.

I don't have a problem with those opposed to the war in Iraq, as the Bush Administration have provided ample justification for such sentiments.

Interesting that you bring up the spectre of Vietnam...the war in Iraq is a very different conflict.

As for Vietnam, the anti-Johnson and anti-Nixon crowd were not correct...American involvement in Vietnam did prevent the march of communism across Asia, and sent a very clear message to both China and Russia that America was willing to fight proxy wars. Vietnam ultimately fell because we chose to fight that war by arbitrary rules of engagement that our enemy ultimately exploited...but that tends to happen when politicians try to run wars from Washington, D.C.

Neither the North Vietnamese nor the Viet Cong ever won a decisive strategic victory against American forces.

As for a withdrawal from Iraq, it would not upset or discredit me...all it would mean is that many of my friends would come home safely.

It is not false optimism or sabre rattling to hope that the current surge strategy enables the safe withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, with no potential threat of a future or wider scope conflict pulling us back in.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Starbucks1975---who sez----I think there is a defeatist mentality surrounding the war in Iraq, particularly in this forum...that is why I default to the perspective of those serving on the front lines, as I have found their view far more optimistic...and I trust their opinion on the situation in Iraq more than the disgruntled anti-Bush crowd.

People said the exact same thing about Vietnam---and who could disbelieve ole Willie Westmoreland?---oozing optimism out of every pore---but the Anti-Johnson and Anti-Nixon crowd was correct----because they better understood people---and the military only understood military power.

And right now the left---if we can use that term--is disgruntled---but we still feel we are correct---and the right---may not be happy to be in Iraq---but you are there by your own choosing--and the right can only look forward to the day when you are disgruntled, expelled from Iraq, and totally discredited.

Look what happened after vietnam. Thousands were executed after the north invaded the south. Thousands of people, people that we convinced to support us, were killed. That is morally wrong.

Bush lied to the American People. He went into the war for the wrong reasons. He mishandled the war. He went in without enough troops. He disbanded the Iraqi Army. He mischaracherized Saddam's relations with Al-Qaeda. But leaving Iraq, and throwing Bush's mistake at the Iraqi people, would be morally unjust. We need a solution to Iraq that will ensure that the violence ends. Thats why I support John McCain, Hillary, and Biden. They have plans to make sure that Iraq will at least have a chance to get out of this with the minimal amount of blood. They'll make sure that things will at least be right before we leave.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Any "good news" or "noted progress" will fall on deaf ears; as the majority of posters here are defeatists.

Precisely.

In terms of opportunity cost, only 1% of Americans have given up anything beyond the 99 cents spent on a magnetic ribbon for their cars...

Right on.

The level of apathy, pacifism, and defeatism shown on a daily basis here is truly astounding.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Pabster



The level of apathy, pacifism, and defeatism shown on a daily basis here is truly astounding.

QFT

 

[kage69]

Look what happened after vietnam. Thousands were executed after the north invaded the south. Thousands of people, people that we convinced to support us, were killed. That is morally wrong.

Morally wrong, like say, telling the Kurds and Shi'a to rise up against Saddam and assist us, then letting them face the music alone?

Where was the concern for Iraqi life then? Pro-war supporters didn't give a sh!t then, they won't in the future either.


Edit: Just realized I pulled a palehorse-esque move. I meant "pro-Iraqi War" supporters. I'm not anti-war at all; I believe in the utility of force, given adequate cause.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Pabster



The level of apathy, pacifism, and defeatism shown on a daily basis here is truly astounding.

QFT

We aren't one year into hostilities. We are over 4 years in. With progress not just spotty, but overshadowed by the daily horrors. The day before we pulled out of Vietnam people like you were calling war protesters defeatists and traitors. Do we really have to wait another ten years and 50,000 deaths before voicing dissent?

 

[piasabird]

Most reports always claim we dont have enough troops, so why dont we just enlarge the military a little? This is an obvious question but it seems to be unpopular. Just think what we could do with just 200,000 more troops. We probably need than many for rotational support.

 

[piasabird]

You might ask yourself why the Wall Street Juournal would run such a story?

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Pabster



The level of apathy, pacifism, and defeatism shown on a daily basis here is truly astounding.

QFT

We aren't one year into hostilities. We are over 4 years in. With progress not just spotty, but overshadowed by the daily horrors. The day before we pulled out of Vietnam people like you were calling war protesters defeatists and traitors. Do we really have to wait another ten years and 50,000 deaths before voicing dissent?

Free country; voice all the dissent you would like; likewise "people like me" may also freely refer to you as defeatists and traitors.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Any "good news" or "noted progress" will fall on deaf ears; as the majority of posters here are defeatists.

Precisely.

In terms of opportunity cost, only 1% of Americans have given up anything beyond the 99 cents spent on a magnetic ribbon for their cars...

Right on.

The level of apathy, pacifism, and defeatism shown on a daily basis here is truly astounding.

The level of ignorance, war-mongering and clueless optimism shown here on a daily basis is truly astounding.
Hey, Joe Lieberman says we are winning.
Amazing how a bunch of draft-dodging chicken hawks have brainwashed so many into thinking Iraq is a just cause that must be continued at all costs.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Ldir
Isn't the OP out of date ayway? He says he went in May. Wasn't there a temporary drop in violence as the resistance regrouped? That was two months ago. It sounds like it is now back as bad as before except with more dead Americans.


--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

Well? Why should we accept two month old news as relevant today?

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: magomago

Craig you claim that these two groups (ie:Sunni and Shi'ite) "lack common interests, history and democratic mechanisms" shows you are woefully uninformed on Iraq because that statement is only 33% accurate (The democracy part). Although Sunni and Shi'ite discussion cannot be avoided if you want to consider Iraq, you overly emphasize the importance that this plays as if these two "Groups" have never interacted or "mixed". Maybe in Saudi Arabia, but all of this sectarian violence in Iraq is a very recent phenomenon that has only gained traction because we tossed in absolute idiots in Iraq who played on it to gain political power.

I agree with you, in part; it's a bit complicated, and probably not worth it for the purpose of establishing the accuracy of the analogy to the North and the South in the civil war, to get into just how strong the conflict is between the groups. You would be right to say that under Saddam, they co-existed a lot better, apparently often living in the same neighborhoods and having less animosity;b] but it was still a very tribal culture, with little (but some) inter-marriage and such, wasn't it?[/b]

Trying to sort out the issues like how the war between the Sunni government of Saddam and the Shiite government of Iran he invaded in a ten year war in the 80's with a million casualties affected the Sunni-Shiite tensions in Iraq, it seems hard to say; the history of Sunni oppression under Saddam for decades is a factor too.

The point I was trying to make with the analogy was simply that the North and the South had at least had the common history of being colonies mutually oppressed by England (in contrast to the Saddam period of Sunni oppressoin of Shiited), who had come together to form a new nation, with political compromises, but the Shiites and Sunnis were forced together by an external force, England, into an 'artificial' country. The relevance was just speculating about the possibility of continued conflict.

The Sunnis' boycott of the elections, and therefore the government, doesn't bode well for the sort of peaceful political compromise that would improve things.

This is where it is dead wrong - not the tribal culture part (in the sense of loyalty to a "clan") but the part about no intermarrying. A LOT intermarrying occured because most saw themselves as "Muslims" instead of sunni/shi'ite. I come from one of the MANY "mixed" families; go read many personal stories on BBC of families escaping because "they threatened to kill my wife, a Sunni/Shi'ite" or other various ridiculuous stories - religious identity is simply used an excuse to kill in this situation.

A person on a very famous blog who I talked to put it the best in a personal email (no relation to this person, but a post really got to me and I emailed them):

Then one day, a neighbor moved in right next to us and they had a girl
who was my age. She asked me one day if my family ate "qeemeh" and I
was confused as I didn't know what qeemeh was. Then she described it
to me, and I told her that we did eat qeemeh. She wasn't satisfied-
she asked me if we went on ziyarehs and I naively thought ziyareh was
what you did when you went to your grandmother's house or friend's
house I eventually asked my parents about it and they both got
angry. I was then introduced to the whole Sunni and Shia concept- for
the first time in my life- and scolded for discussing it. We were
Muslims and that's all that mattered. I was told anyone who discussed
or discriminated against either faction was silly and backward and
didn't deserve my time or respect.

We also come from a mixed family. My parents are both Sunni, but most
of my cousins are Shia and I have friends that are also from mixed
families- Sunnis and Shia.

I still stand by my belief that Iraqis didn't originally create this
situation. I swear to you [edited] that the majority of Iraqis prior to
the war didn't give this any thought. We had both Sunni and Shia
idiots who talked about it every once in a while but it was considered
childish and incredibly narrow-minded.

You mean the history of "Shi'ite Opression" under Saddam? That is also a false idea because many groups were put in the shitter under Saddam - the rule was simple: if you don't obey, you die. Saddam had no reason to favor Sunnis as it was only later in life in which he displayed any kind of religouis zeal - but then again that was after the whole "Gulf War" where he was on the verge of losing power and asserting religion is always a good play. Those in the highest govt positions were all Sunni yes, but that isn't the reason they were there~ they were all his relatives because Saddam engaged in a type of "spoils system for the family". Go look at MANY other government positions - they are all Shi'ites in there as well. Stuff like scholarships and educations were NOT restricted to "Sunni/Shi'ite" - hell they went to EVERYONE. This is why Iraq's older generation - Sunni Shi'ite Arab Kurdish are all educated because they got free college.

How can you draw to America's history of being "oppressed" as a common factor of unite and Say Iraq doesn't have its own situation? America had ours in 1776 of booting out the British - The Iraqis united after WW1 to kick out the British ~ that was only 80 years ago (And it took the British almost 20 years till after WW2 before they realized they could not have any "low key"bases there as the people will not accept it...I wonder how long it will take us) ! Did you not know about that?

I know you mean well, but there are a LOT of dangerous inaccuracies in your comments that feed a lot of incorrect thought.


Sometimes I'm for our troops being there to fix the situation when I read comments of People like Palehorse who wants to make a real difference, sometimes I'm opposed because I see withdrawl as the only solution to actually reducing tension and violence there in the long run...but ultimately I lean against this simply because those pulling the strings up at the top of the peak are intoxicated and seek to speak their poison far and wide

 

[Starbuck1975]

The level of ignorance, war-mongering and clueless optimism shown here on a daily basis is truly astounding. Hey, Joe Lieberman says we are winning. Amazing how a bunch of draft-dodging chicken hawks have brainwashed so many into thinking Iraq is a just cause that must be continued at all costs.

Did you even bother to read the thread?

The entire premise of the article I posted, and the subsequent discussion, is that if you examine the war in Iraq INDEPENDENT of the partisan and political spin surrounding it, you will find a conflict that is very much winnable...assuming that we institute a strategy for which the endstate is our withdrawal.

To say we should simply pull out regardless is premature and ignorant of the fact that in doing so, we are essentially setting the stage for a wider or more bloody conflict later...as other have pointed out, such a decsion would amount to dumping our mistake on the Iraqi people, if not the entire region.

However, we cannot continue to blindly follow the Bush strategy for Iraq.

Pulling out immediately is not an option...blindly moving forward is not an option either...hence the reserved optimism towards the surge, as it effectively solves both problems.

Well? Why should we accept two month old news as relevant today?

The OP editorial I posted is from today

Moving Forward in Iraq

For those who bothered to read the whole thing, Ms. Kagan based the editorial on her trip in May and subsequent analysis...given her position as an affiliate of Harvard's John M. Olin Institute of Strategic Studies, and as executive director of the Institute for the Study of War in Washington, I think she is qualified to offer such an opinion...

...unless of course such opinions are only valid if they provide a doom and gloom assessment.