Well Ted, if I'd had my eyes shut, I wouldn't have seen the stories of daily disasters and chaos in Iraq -- stories that you have always seemed to miss. In spite of Left drivel and Right drivel, there is reality, you know? Blood and iron, not this debate, will decide the future of Iraq. And not only now but ever since this began, in this affair of blood and iron, it has been clear to most people that Bush and his buddies have been losing.

And you didn't respond to my challenge, Ted. Want to bet that Iraq will be a much more stable country by the new year, at the stakes I mentioned?

You bet grl. Oil was and is a major reason why the ME is so vital to US interests – nothing sad about it. Our 12 TRILLION $$$/year economy depends on it. It will remain that way until we replace oil or dill for our own – don’t hold your breath.

I hope to hell out oil companies get more business in Iraq (Halliburton is not an oil company). After making them free I will be dammed if the French get the business!! No deal that has to do with billions of barrels of oil will go smoothly through the Iraqi government but we are well on the way to getting there.

Yes, and we can be sure that about 30 years from now, the Right will look back on our Iraqi folly and say that that it was a grand and noble cause that would have prevailed, but for the interference of the polititians in Washington. And the people will believe them, and wave flags and cheer for the next episode of blantant military adventurism.

Interesting way to further an argument......attack my credibility....a common tactic, but usually there is a basis for such an attack....no matter. I may have a different opinion of how well the surge may or may not work, but I can respect your opinion without attempting to discredit who you are or what you do......

You know very well the answer to your questions. We are not allowed to fight as a NATO class division. As in every conflict where public relations is concern number one, one hand is effectively tied behind our back. When we take incoming mortar or rocket fire, we cannot fire back if the point of origin from counter-fire radar is less than 150 meters away from a building. Ironically, the insurgents fire mortars and rockets from deep inside neighborhoods. We cannot enter Mosques on Fridays, even though in the past, such actions have netted countless insurgents. The list goes on.
The plan may fail in the end, but I haven't witnessed a soul on this board explain why it isn't the best plan to action, if we have to be in Iraq anyway. The fact that we are there isn't going to change in the next few months. It's easy to speak in the macro sense, with broad generalizations, but once again a specific debate has taken the turn down the 'why are we in Iraq anyway' road.......

I have to say DTOM- I agree with you completely- I would absolutely LOVE for GW to be right on this one- that the surge will work, that Iraq will be a stable, somewhat liberal, democracy in the heart of the ME, and the cradle of civilization.

What has got me all emotional about this war is the "DAMNED if you do, DAMNED if you don't" catch 22 of where we are at now.

The surge is clearly NOT working. Small lull in violence, then a big violent uprising, all over again- you have to recognize this pattern as well as, or better than, anyone on this board.

You are in a bad place, and I am a godless man, but I say prayers for the soldiers anyway- thinking it couldn't hurt, could it- but, GW has given you no "plan B" to fall back on, and, even worse, made for LESS options now.

How can anyone say that the "dems have no plan" when GW has boxed us in to the point where there is NO good alternative? That is where we are at now- we are in a civil war, that has nothing to do with Al-Quaida, and our soldiers caught in between.

Now what do we do as this goes right back to where we were a couple months ago- and all the options the ISG laid out are now gone- what next?

Who could even say? I don't think we have ANY options but two- stay and die, or an orderly withdrawal, to use another euphimism.

It pains me to my very core that we have only these options left- and no other.

So what next DTOM? I sure as heck don't have the answers- and the folks that did- were treated like garbage by the right wingers, and now, our options are going away so very, very quickly.

The key to working is to make Baghdad and other cities safe. To drive out the terrorists and keep the insurgents under control until the Iraqi army is strong enough to take over and police the country.

It seems to be working as my posts indicate. People are moving back into Baghdad and sectarian violence is down. What is not down and won’t be for some time are the terrorist suicide car bombings. This is their best weapon and they will continue to use it until they are rooted out.

The hope is that as safety returns to an area and both Sunni and Shiite see a common interest in a unified Iraq that they will turn in the terrorists, who are for the most part from other countries and obvious (to them). If this does not work – we lose.

I challenge anyone who says the “surge” is working to prove it. March was the bloodiest month in Baghdad yet; with nearly 2,000 people killed. Far from reducing the violence, the surge has not only increased attacks, but has pushed the violence into outlying areas, also.




Despite John McCain’s willingness to stroll the streets of Baghdad (I guess he doesn’t mind wearing a helmet and a bulletproof vest and ducking a lot), the city isn’t “safe”. Perhaps John’s getting a little senile.

And the administration keeps saying “it’s going to take time”. How much time is enough? Five years down the road, when we hear the same thing – will that be enough time? Ten years? Fifteen?

And our old buddy, the prez of Saudi Arabia had this to say:

Uh oh.

Might this be a reaction to the insurgents moving out of Baghdad and into the countryside? Just a thought, as the arguments included the move of the insurgents out of Baghdad, or foreigners in your (Ted's) terminology. Trying to put myself in the place of Iraqis, it'd make sense to go where the troops are concentrated. It must be like trying to find a comfortable spot on a hot griddle.

Meanwhile, I'll not try to second-guess what's going on with the overall strategy, as I am certain that's classified. Hope it works, have my doubts that it will but I'll keep that to myself. I will say this: Squirting naphtha onto a fire doesn't help put it out and makes the griddle hotter.

I just wish I knew what the solution could be. I don't.

I think the surge is working great. As Bush and the pundits had declared before the surge, THIS plan will work.

McCain did in fact, take a tour of Bagdad. It was a great photo opportunity to show the world that more than the Green Zone has been conquered.

First, they sent out U.S servicemen to sweep the area. According to reports, they searched for explosives, sent informants into the crowd, set up a perimeter, and secured the area before the Senators showed up. Then with only 100 soliders surrounding him, 3 blackhawk helipcopters, 2 Apache gunships, and a bullet proof vest (see? It's true - some get armor!), McCain took his stroll through a section of Bagdad. No sweat. Nobody died until snipers returned to that area today.

Only a few short months ago, it might have taken twice the soldiers, more of a neigborhood clearing excercise, a few more helicopters, and a humvee for McCain to make that stroll. And maybe a couple snipers.

I feel so much better now.

The basic problem that we face is that the old paradigm of ruthless occupiers and noble revolutionaries has tilted to the other extreme. In warfare today, no longer do we see the mighty redcoats conducting oppressive tactics against farmhands and shopkeepers. The insurgents today now conduct themselves in a savage manner when compared to the conventional forces of an occupation army.
In Iraq, the surge is the only plan that can possibly work…..and maybe it won’t. The key problem even within this era of counter-insurgency is that it is almost wholly urban based and urban executed. The architecture of Baghdad favors the insurgency completely. They know that they can fire a mortar, an RPG or small arms fire…..and fade immediately into the woodwork or masonry as it were. Without employing heavy handed tactics, we have almost no hope of countering this. The only chance is to establish safe neighborhoods and trust of the local and national police, and deny their ability to move and hide with impunity among the populace.
As it stands, US forces cannot utilize firepower such as tank and Bradley weaponry, missiles from attack helicopters or ordinance from fixed wing aircraft, except in the direst of situations; and the insurgents, who know this, do not attempt to engage us in a protracted battle.
And to be honest, as we take IED strikes each day, gunfire, rockets and mortars on the FOB…….many days it seems pointless and futile. Other days, when we bag a big target or cache, or we receive the gratitude of the locals, it buoys the morale for another day.

If the surge does fail, it will be attributed to two main factors: the lack of local will to overcome sectarian division; and the inability to help the Iraqi’s form stable, trustworthy and capable police forces. In the meantime, the Sunni’s and Shia appear to be playing a big game of Risk, vying for control of each Muhallah.

The escalati...errr...."surge" is a military solution to a political problem. It can't work because the problem in Bagdad is not a military one.

Bush is reaping what he has sown. He (through his spokespeople) trashed countries that used to be our allies so he could invade Iraq. He marginalized the UN and did an end run around them so he could invade Iraq. To sum it up, he bet the farm on a military solution while making diplomacy a sacrificial lamb. He left no other options open.

Now that it has gone horribly wrong, he has no other options other than using the military, When all he has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

The only political actions he is making is trying to pin the failure on the democrats - at the expense of many, many lives. If Bush were truly committed to solving the problem, he would resign. This would allow his successor to go back and get the international support we need. Bush can't do it - he's burned all those bridges.

The escalation (can we call it what it really is?) so far have only proved to be a big game of whack-a-mole. Violence has not really decreased - it's simply moved. Casualty numbers may be lower only because of population density.

We need international help and nobody will help Bush. Get rid of Bush, and we'd probably get the help we need.

The surge (so much nicer than saying "escalation," don'tcha think?) is a military mission camouflaging a political ploy. Bush in his typically, blundering, myopic and bull-in-a-china-shop way has decided to stay on a failed course. One suspects the surge will be proclaimed a huge success and provide the excuse Bush needs to start withdrawing some troops to prevent the GOP nominee in 2008 from going down in flames. There's no way Dubya wants to hand over the keys to the White House to Hillary Clinton.

I was struck by how deftly TIME magazine's Joe Klein skewered Bush on his failure in Iraq.

Iraq comes first, as always. From the start, it has been obvious that personal motives have skewed the President's judgment about the war. Saddam tried to kill his dad; his dad didn't try hard enough to kill Saddam. There was payback to be had. But never was Bush's adolescent petulance more obvious than in his decision to ignore the Baker-Hamilton report and move in the exact opposite direction: adding troops and employing counterinsurgency tactics inappropriate to the situation on the ground. "There was no way he was going to accept [its findings] once the press began to portray the report as Daddy's friends coming to the rescue," a member of the Baker-Hamilton commission told me. As with Bush's invasion of Iraq, the decision to surge was made unilaterally, without adequate respect for history or military doctrine. Iraq was invaded with insufficient troops and planning; the surge was attempted with too few troops (especially non-Kurdish, Arabic-speaking Iraqis), a purposely misleading time line ("progress" by September) and, most important, the absence of a reliable Iraqi government.

General David Petraeus has repeatedly said, "A military solution to Iraq is not possible." Translation: This thing fails unless there is a political deal among the Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds. There is no such deal on the horizon, largely because of the President's aversion to talking to people he doesn't like. And while some Baghdad neighborhoods may be more peaceful--temporarily--as a result of the increased U.S. military presence, the story two years from now is likely to resemble the recent headlines from Tall 'Afar: dueling Sunni and Shi'ite massacres have destroyed order in a city famously pacified by counterinsurgency tactics in 2005. link

The surge will probably work. At least long enough to accomplish the political goal of saving the Republican Party from imminent disaster, if not the fledgling experiment in democracy in Iraq.

Well nighttimer you didn't really say much other than your normal N.I.B.F.I fears and quoting some article. So I take it you believe the surge will work, but somehow that's a bad thing and an evil ploy by the Bush administration?

Well, Vampiel, if it wasn't for the fact that you have your "Yay, Bush" cheerleader gear on you might have noticed what I was saying it isn't so much that the surge is actually going to work as it is Bush will declare that it has worked and provide the GOP presidential candidate some political cover from an unpopular war that has already wiped out Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

Then again, since you tried to shape my post to fit into your vacuous acronym it comes as no surprise you missed the message. A trait you share with your boy, Dubya.

Right, I believe it will be a rather hard case to make that the surge has worked if it doesn't unless you believe that GWB controls the media. Also im not a cheerleader for Bush no matter what you believe, I simply do not blind myself from N.I.B.F.I.

Either way can you give me the specifics as to why this plan is not the best course of action? Would you also specify how this change in tactics is "staying the course"? Im really confused, the strategy has completely changed, as DOTM has personally seen, soldiers living among the population instead of in large bases, yet somehow this is more of the same?

Today's (April 9th's) NY Times, front page: "There is little sign that the security push in Baghdad is accomplishing its main purpose: creating an island of stability for Iraqis."

The full text is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/world/mi...amp;oref=slogin

289 Iraqis slaughtered today.

Freedom's on the march and the dead-enders are in their last throes.

Mark my words - this "surge" is nothing more than a way to place blame on the democrats when they put a stop to this madness.

Geee I have read differently and posted – but then what did you expect from the morons at NYT – good news???


And the fact the troops are still not all there should not allow the NYT to diss the policy. Typical of this liberal rag

Ted are you advocating abridging freedom of the press. That sounds like Bush/Cheney might like to do - with our best interest at heart, of course.

Is president Bush's plan to send more troops into Bagdad a real plan, or is it a political stunt?

Whatever it is, it doesn’t appear to be working.

Here’s story about the suicide bomber who managed to penetrate the Green Zone this week.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...tional/America/

Today in Karbala a bus station was bombed. If Bagdad is fortified, the insurgents will move elsewhere.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18104441/

Guess we missed some of this during the feeding frenzy over Don Imus.

No you haven't.

You posted 2 links a while ago to reports commenting that at the beginning of march the violence had dropped slightly in Iraq. You used this drop in violence to create an amusing thread saying this was a 'sign of victory'. When several people have responded with many links pointing out that the violence has since surged again, that the deaths in Iraq have spiked, that April is looking like one of the bloodiest months for the US, that attacks are up to pre-surge levels in Iraq, and are ABOVE pre-surge levels outside Iraq: you cut-and-run, ignoring all those posts as if they never happened.


One cannot call the surge a 'failure', s it is too early to tell as of yet. But the signs so far, increasing violence and more deaths, are hardly encouraging. What would you expect, every other 'troop surge' tried in the last four years in Iraq failed for very, very similar reasons. Calling it a success or failure right now is impossible, but we can say that to date the surge has managed to kill more Americans and increase the overall level of violence in Iraq, not to mention further weakening the power of the central Iraqi government. After the last attack on the Iraqi parliament, less than a third of the government even showed up for the next legislative session. What does that tell you?

I agree with Vermillion, but there is more discouraging news.

Gee Ted, you and Dick Cheney talk about the good things going on in Iraq.

This story came from MSNBC about two hours ago.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18116217/page/2/

Let's review Ted.

1. Forty-five more people including some U. S. service men died today in Baghdad - the place we propose to pacify.

2. It looks like al-Maliki’s cabinet and the government we hailed as Democratically elected, is near collapse.

3. Protestors are demanding that U. S. forces leave.

Sounds like an Island paradise, Ted.

To answer the question, the surge doesn't appear to be working. I think it is a political ruse. Bush knows and has known damned well it wasn't going to work.

It's a hard thing to say, but the U. S. soldiers and civilians who have died in Iraq died in vain. Why do we insist on getting more people killed to honor those who have already been killed. It's a vicious circle.

Are you ready for the test Ted?

1. It's a war zone- and even more especially- a hot zone in Iraq right now. People dying is now the norm in Iraq, having fourty five is just a larger number of a usual occurrence. If you ask me if we were planning to do a surge like Bush said there would have to be many more men to stabilize the area. But you can't use 45 deaths as a huge evidence of total failure, theres two wars going on in the city, the U.S. against everybody and Shi'a vs. Sunni.

2. Or it looks like six men don't agree with their P.M. and decided to resign. Frustration can make people boil and do rash things.

3. When haven't there been protesters in a war? I can answer that- never. No matter where or what war people, and especially people like the Iraqis who have to live with it everyday, will disapprove, and now that there isn't a totalitarian dictator that would poison gas them, they're allowed to speak out with their voice. Protesters hardly look like a sign of total failure to me, because if that was the issue, we've lost every war we've ever fought in.

And please- I know its a figure of speech- but are you seriously going to expect a war zone to be peaceful all in the sudden? Surge or no surge any city in a war environment, in this case Baghdad will never be a island paradise as you said. Figurative or literally.

The point is we've had two days in a row with higher than "usual" death counts, including a suicide bomber who managed to get inside the Green Zone. Do you really expect things to get much better soon?



My interpretation is that they are quitting because they don't think the rewards of office are worth the risks of getting killed.



This isn't exactly Cindy Sheehan protesting the war near Bush's dump in Crawford. These are Iraquis who want an occupying force out of their country - meaning us.



No, I don't think it’s going to be peaceful, any time soon, and “island paradise” was a hyperbole for all this crap we hear about the “good” things some would have us believe are going on in Iraq. If Baghdad is never going to be, let’s drop the hyperbole and just say “peaceful” then what are we trying to accomplish there? That is why we need to find our way out of this god-awful mess Bush, Cheney and others have gotten us involved in. It doesn't mean getting out tomorrow, but it should mean planning to get our troops out of the middle of a civil war. It also means we should quit listening to the ever evident string of lies that have come from this administration and piped to people through Faux News and similar sources.

It appears that that people have finally stopped listening to Bush and Company. Here are some figures from a recent CBS poll taken April 12.



http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/april_iraq.pdf

It seems a majority of the American people reject your position S92K and they have tuned out the empty promises of this administration.

BTW: S92K, in my last three posts on this thread, I've provided three links to sectarian violence in Iraq and one to a recent CBS poll. It's time for you and Ted to back up what you are saying up with something.

Edited to add:

Here's an update that brings the violence count to more than 60.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1897462.htm

You know S92K these are not just numbers, but people. People who leave behind wives, husbands, children, elderly parents, etc. It is quite easy for you to defend the war from the comfort of a computer chair, (mine is made of Tempurpedic foam) while the warm blood of victims flows in the streets of Baghdad leaving cold bodies or pieces of bodies waiting for the morgue.

Actually BoF, I agree with the American people on this. I know there is very little to no chance of "success", whatever that entails. As far as I can see, the only success the U.S. can get out of this is having a potential ally in a overall hostile region and exclusive rights to Iraqi gas. There is no real "success", the insurgents will never completely stop. I also agree that the Congress/Senate need to put more funding into the war, but with a timetable- except longer than the one planned.


I'm sorry, what do I have to back up? I have expressed opinion, the facts of the violence are known.


I know that, the sooner we can get out of Iraq and sooner that people can stop dying at a rate like this, is better for me. But we have to get the job done first. I'm not inhumane BoF, I understand how those deaths affect people. Just makin sure you got that. Just because I defend continuing the war for a while longer doesn't mean I don't have feelings towards all the people that have died in this war.

"...but we have to get the job done first?"

Fine! Please define "the job." What do you mean by this? Is this just another way of saying the same old threadbare thing about "stay the course"? It seems to me that this is part of what cost Republicans both chambers of Congress in 2006. Who gets to decide when the job is done? The people, through their Reps. in Congress (uh, purse strings) or the Bush, Cheney, and others neocon thugs, who manipulated every bit of intelligence possible in order to get into a war they already wanted to get into and were practically wetting their pants to do so?

Thats a reasonable suggestions SK, but with a few problems. Firstly, much of this thread is directed not against the cautious optimists like yourself, but against the blind fanatacism of other posters who have insisted every step of the last 4 years that everything was going to plan, that the media ignored all the good news, that the war is being won and (without contradicting their past assertions) that any loss now underway is the fault of the Democrats and/or Ted Kennedy. That kind of Jonestownsian devotion to fantasy gets Americans killed for no reason whatsoever, and is quite literally the WORST possible mentality to have when planning out what is to happen in Iraq. What is even worse, there are many in Bush Jr's circle who seem to be of that bizarre opinion.


So you listed two benefits of potential sucess: one is invalid, as the system the US has set up does not and will not grant exclusive rights to Iraqi oil to the US. The small amount of oil currently being sold is going into the OPEC world market and is being purchased by everyone. the Iraqi State Oil Marketing Organization (SOMO) has contracts for purchases with British, French, Russian, Turkish, Japanese and a lot of US companies. Exclusive rights to Iraqi oil is simply not on the table, nor would Irq or the wold accept it if it now suddenly became part of the US plan for Iraq.


The second potential benefit you listed is an ally in the region. That would be nice, but at the moment seems somewhat unlikely. The current regime in Iraq is very possibly about to collapse under pressure from the Iraqi power base to set a timetable for US withdrawal. The odds that the current Iraqi leader stays in office are small, and most of the King-makers in the regime are hostile to the US. Nobody right now can tell what the future government of Iraq will look like, or what its view of the US will be, but the assumption it will be positive is a huge assumption. And all that is even assuming a stable govrnment of ANY KIND emerges over a unified Iraq, which is itself looking less and less likely.



Fair enough. But for me to accept the need to continue the war 'for a while', I need to see some evidence that a good outcome is even possible. let us remember that US troops have already been in Iraq far, FAR longer than was predicted by Bush jr and his circle: what was it Rumsfeld said, unlikely the insurgency would last 6 months? 4 yearsin, and we have a situation where the on-the-ground status ets worse every year, the casualties rise every year, the insurgency gets stronger every year, the attacks per day increase every year. In 4 years the US NOT ONLY has been unable to win, they have been unable to even halt the sucess of the Insurgency. So given that 4-years of conflict has given the US complete failure on all its short term objectives, has made the situation progressively worse, and with the loss of half a trillion US dollars and some 30,000 US casualties... one needs to have a DAMN good reason to want to further this situation.

The big banner comments of the US a couple years ago have all rung hollow: rants about 'the good we are doing' and reconstruction turned out to be another fiction as 85% of the contracts for reconstruction were unfilfilled and abandoned (with no prosecution of the failed US companies, all of which made a massive profit), and there is NO MORE MONEY for reconstruction, the process has stopped. The Insurgency is in every measurable way stronger each year than it was the year before.


So when you say keep the war going for a little while, or Ted accuses everyone of 'cutting-and-running' (a tactic he seems to understand well) it is meaningless without an open aknowledgement that everything done so far has been a failure and thuse logically a continuation of the status quo will continue that failure. You seem to be aware of this SK, others are not. This troops surge was touted as the next big thing, but it has been tried as a tactic half a dozen times in this war so far in different reagions, and ALL with failure as a result.

Its great to say the 'job must get done' and other such can-do type slogans, which certainly sound pretty, but the right wing hawks forget (or try to ignore) that we HAD a massive, bipartisan study group in the US dedicated to answering this question, and they determined the BEST way to 'get the job done' was to set a timetable for withdrawal, and try to compel the Iraqis within that timeframe to keep their own house in order. The ISG examined all the other options and determined this WAS the best chance of getting the job done. But Bush jr, his diminishing cricle, and a few on this board who fit into that also-diminishing far-right hawk mentality, chose to ignore the very ISG they had advocated and put forth because it DARED suggest a smart and reasoned solution that did not meet with their ideological dreamworld.


A timetable for withdrawal is what EVERYONE wants, from the majority of Americans, to the majority of Iraqis, to the majority of US troops on the ground in Iraq.

Ted, this is ridiculous. I'm sure you could have read much the same thing in the Chicago Trib or the Des Moines Register. Facts are facts, you know, and whacking your liberal straw man won't change it.

By the way, it might interest you to know, according to a new CBS News poll, only 29 percent of voters believe Congress should allow war funding without a time limit, while 67 percent either want to cut off funding or impose a time limit.

Furthermore I will say that unless the Republicans have the good sense to recant their support for this war and draft Hagel, this issue is going to sweep the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she may be, into the White House in 2008, and result in increased Democratic control of both chambers.

No its not. And I don't use those "stay the course, yourr with us or against us" type of slogans. You don't have to stereotype the people in a party based on one administration. Obviously, the choice of what "getting the job done" is in the Bush Admin's hands as of now. But I think that getting the job done means making sure we get the benefits we can out of this basically-occupation before we leave- so the soldiers don't die in vain. Although the point of saving thousands of peoples lives from a dictator (Saddam) by taking him out of power isn't the worst of things either

Our soldiers have died in vain, the only question is, how many more will have to do so. The whole project was in vain. There were never sufficient military resources to control the ground, and there is no obvious indication that even if we had mobilized vastly more resources (something politically infeasible, in any case) we would then have had enough.

You want to get control Iraqi oil and gas. Well, at least you understand that in spite of all the official rhetoric, control of Iraqi resources and the establishment of an Iraqi client state is precisely what we went to war for.

The fact is, however, we've been beaten. I don't mean that our forces have been overwhelmed or driven off, only that it's been demonstrated in four years of fighting that with all of our military power, we are never going to be able to control the ground, much less gain any sort of control of Iraqi resources. So it strikes me as idiotic to say, "Well yes, but we should stick around until we finally get control of Iraq's oil and gas." That's just what we've been trying to do, you know, with no success whatever.

As for removing a dictator, that is a joke. The U.S. is in bed with dictators today, in central Asia and elsewhere. Being a dictator definitely is not a disqualification for being a close friend of the U.S.. Only in comic books and animated cartoons is the U.S. some sort of world democratizing force that goes around squashing dictators. Further, there is very little chance that a democratic Iraqi regime will emerge from this fiasco.

Saving Iraqi lives is an even more ridiculous joke. On the order of 100,000 Iraqis have died in this war, which was a war of our choosing. And hundreds more are dying every day. This will not, I admit, immediately cease when we leave, but I am sure that our departure will hasten eventual peace in Iraq.

All honor to our troops, but better had their lives not been spent, or at least had been spent in a better cause. The best way to honor those that remain is to get them out of this mess, forthwith.

I agree with much you have written here, Vladimir, except this statement. US troops in Iraq or withdrawn from Iraq will not change how fast peace arrives in Iraq. The US has set in motion what will eventually be seen as the Middle East War where almost all nations in the ME will be at war. Israel will be the obvious target and allies like the US will be drawn in. And once Israel drops a nuke in an act of self-defense, all the gloves will come off. The only peace we will see is the peace of the battlefield after the fight where everyone is too dead and too exhausted to continue the fighting. The only beneficiaries of this violence will be forces of chaos (like Al Qaeda) who will offer to fill the vacuum with fanatical theocratic structure and the people will be glad for it.

Though it is of course impossible to predict the future, I would tend to disagree with this prediction. The conflict in Iraq is a sectarian conflict, fought in Iraq, with small proxy assistance by Iran and Saudi Arabia (Though people only ever complain about Iran because Saudi is an 'ally'). Al Qaeda, though they punch above their weight through use of suicide bombings, are a relatively minor force, and are hated by most of the domestic Iraqi militias which vastly outpower them.

I can't imagine a scenario where the situation escalates into a wider war frankly. Iran has no desire (and no need) to get officially involved. Nor does Saudi. Israel has had nukes for two decades and has never used them, so I don't really see why they would need to now, despite the fanatic armageddon-esque rhetoric from the far-right, there is no reason to believe that Iran would deploy nukes offensively against Israel: they are not suicidal.

The war will continue in Iraq, it will lessen once the US leaves as at the very least the Anti-US portion of the insurgency is left with no targets, and from there, who knows. But it will be in Iraqi hands and up to the Iraqi government to govern.

Dying in vain is such a tread bare cliché that it’s almost meaningless. I addressed this earlier.



What logic is there in getting more people killed so the lives of people already dead have meaning? It’s a vicious circle.



That’s what scares me. To date those hands haven’ta been overly capable. Congress does have a role – the power of the purse – for instance. You may be content to put the Faux, no pun intended, in charge of the chicken coop. I’m not. I’fe been accused by one of our dear members of being anal retentive on this point, but I’m from the old school, again no pun intended, and think we should go back to the practice of Congress following the constitution and actually declaring war, rather than authorizing it.



Your humor lacks substance and maturity. While it might be technically correct to say some are alive, who might have died under Saddam. It’s a flat argument. It’s like a bowling ball hitting the pocket with so little revolution that you leave a 7/10 split. According to The Washington Post deaths in Iraq have far outstripped those under Saddam. Here’s a link to bolster that point, an idea you dismissed earlier.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...01001442_2.html

Naturally I agree, but I do think that there is one very tricky problem, and that is the interest of the Turks to ensure that there is not an autonomous Kurdistan. So if U.S. forces don't remain in Kurdish Iraq, and I would prefer they not do so, there is some potential for some sort of Turkish incursion there. Perhaps that would not be injurious to the interests of the United States, but it would be embarassing and perhaps bloody.

I don't know the answer to this quandary, but I'm quite sure that prolonging the Bush administration's failed Iraqi project isn't it.

I'm not suggesting that Al Qaeda will be the downfall of Iraq: clearly, the civil war/sectarian conflict will have that honor. What I'm suggesting is that Al Qaeda (or some Taliban-like entity or entities) will offer "peace" in the form of a strict theocracy.


A theocracy intent on creating a new caliphate (a stated goal of Al Qaeda) will surely not be viewed favorably by dictatorships (such as Pakistan) or monarchies (such as Saudi Arabia). These countries are comfortable with their power and place in the ME; they will not relinquish their power willingly.


I wish I could be so sanguine. What's happening in Iraq now is not up to the Iraqi people; it is up to the insurgents and various waring factions. Eventually one (or a few) of them will come out on top. These will be the most bloody, the most brutal and ruthless of the factions. They will instill peace through harsh repressive tactics and the Iraqis will be glad for it. However, I do not believe that Iraq will be sufficient for them, hence the wider conflict.

But, I am prone to make predictions based on my opinions of human nature. I could most certainly be wrong. However, I wasn't wrong about Iraq (if you were to research my early posting on this site); I don't believe I will be wrong in this case either.

I tend to agree. If we leave IMO the country immediately breaks into 3 factions. The Kurds (with the help of Turkey if they need it) the Shiites with help from Iran and the Sunni with help from Syria and Saudi Arabia. The wider war could be in any of a number of forms. Iran and the Shiits of Iraq against the Sunni and their allies. The Sunni and Syria against the Kurds etc. Certainly with much of the oil in the Shiite areas they will be a bloody fight for it. IMO the French will come in on the side of the Shiites because they still want the oil field contracts.

It will be a disaster of major proportions. IMO there will not be a theocracy anywhere with the possible exception of Al-Sader with aid from Iran. He has been there recently and I am sure he and Iran are planning their next move if we pull out.

My contention is that the US presence makes no difference to the eventual outcome in Iraq -- it was *only* the US invasion which did. Had the US not invaded, then Iraq would not be in this predicament. Iraq splitting into 3 or 4 separate states would actually be the least awful outcome of all this, IMHO. At least, it will take longer for a consolidation of power under a theocracy to occur.

Ted, one of the many, many differences between me and you in regards to the current republican party, is you think our government is a solution to every problem. That's why the government has bloated 30-40% under Bush (while you deride liberals and call us Bush haters).

And here, it's the same thing. You see our military as a solution to the problem while ignoring we are part of the problem. We can't fix the problem militarily - and especially with the miniscule number the DOD has consistently supplied - because our military only destroys and kills things. That's their only job. But like your beloved republican party, we are relying on our government for a solutions instead of letting locals do it themselves.

Your doom and gloom scenarios might be correct, but it will get to that point anyhow. We are not winning, are doing nothing to win (defined as quelling the insurgency), and are using "hope" as a military tactic.

So, we say bring them home. To steal part of a quote from another website, we want to bring the troops home to protect them from Bush. And in turn, people like you that are coughing up our nation's finest hoping for a miracle while they are targets.

That average must include the same 30+% minority satisfied with Bush’s job performance.


Question for you. Did al Qaeda and/or the Taliban entertain plans of expanding territorially? As in, a classic armed conflict? I don’t see why any terrorist organization, including established terrorist organizations, would bother going toe-to-toe with other Middle East nations to install a caliphate when a) the advantages of backwardness and cheap offense works so well for them, and b) no state, I don’t care who you are, can prevail against the U.S. in open war (defense and firepower advantage).

Alternatively an Iraq Taliban may subtly pursue goals through assassinations and funding armed conflict (I hear we’re already doing that). But trying it this way would, in my opinion, encourage Syria and Turkey, to name two states off the top of my head, to put the squeeze on suspected extremists that threaten their political power inside their territories.

b), in fact, makes me want to pull out even faster, repair our military equipment, and give the ranks time to recuperate for an “inevitable outcome” we actually stand a decent chance of winning by engaging a conflict that doesn’t require benchmarks and public broadcasts with a president bleating Armageddon predictions.

I am not a big Bush fan or the bloated government. What has this to do with Iraq? This is a vital area – not Africa. We had a country with WMD, unfulfilled UN Resolutions and a UN sitting on their butts trying to decide how to let Saddam off the hook. I would have waited (before invading) and I would have made idiot Tennant have a locations for the WMD but that is all water over…… the question now is how do we finish this without leaving the area in chaos. A VITAL area to our 12 TRILLION $$$$ economy. Make no mistake this is about oil and our economy – any great ideas???

We can whine all day about casualties and 400 billion used but if chaos ensues there and oil hits $200 + a barrel the “cost” is going to be MUCH worse.

Keeeep beating that dead horse Ted. Perhaps if you repeat these utterly disproven (By Bush's own government) claims often enough, the more gullible people will believe your made up tales of phantom WMD and UN trying to decide how to let saddam off the hook, when of course in reality those are both just Ted-like inventions.



Thats funny, coming from you I would not think taking issue with thousands of dead Americans, and tens of thousands of crippled Americans to be 'whining'. Nor with the wasting of half a trillion dollars of your money. I guess these things are not a big priority for you.

However, like the '19 plans' assertion, and frankly most of your assertions, I have asked again and again and again for you to justify or explain this silly '$200 dollars a barrel' comment you keep making, yet you steadfastly refuse, cuting-and-running every time. Ted, at the start of the war Iraqi oil exports were reduced to ZRRO for a time, yet nothing even remotely close to $200 a barrell ensued. How do you justify this comment? Are you making things up again?

It's all speculation, of course. But whatever the likely eventuation, it's only a question of whether it happens next year or four years from now. The progress toward control of the ground during the last four years has been nil. Worse, in fact; the insurgency (or insurgencies, really) are stronger now than they ever were.

The deaths of so many more Americans only purchase the delay of these outcomes, not their avoidance.

Actually, however, I do think that among those predicting the worst outcomes in case of American withdrawal, there's a curious unwillingness to recognize that America has much more than military power. There are many things that this mighty nation of ours can do to influence the behavior of Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the others, even without a military presence in Iraq or, for that matter, in the region. There is also that the entire world has an interest in the stability of the Middle East, and that once Iraq ceases to be a private American project, there is prospect of some sort of international collaboration toward stability there. This is even in Iran's interest.

I do not agree that if there is unrestrained civil war, it will be the "most ruthless" who are likely to win. I do agree that it will be the most powerful, whoever that may be. But if, at the last, the ownership of Iraq or its various pieces is decided by blood and iron, so what? Control of land is always decided by blood an iron; it is only a question of whose. I fail to see that these outcomes are so important to the United States that any more of the blood and iron should be ours.



No one is expecting that. But we've been waiting four years for some progress in controlling the Iraqi ground and there hasn't been any. Due to this, there hasn't been any progress in rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure, either. Electric production and oil production have been on a plateau for many, many months. The security situation keeps getting worse. If we concentrate our forces in one area, it doesn't do much, and the insurgency intensifies in another. They just detonated a bomb in the parliamentary caffeteria, for crying out loud! We can't even ensure peace in the Green Zone.

So what is our choice, more and more and more of this, or an end to our morally dubious, destructive, and very expensive project to dictate the future of Iraq and gain control of its resources?

Yes we have some limited power but little over countries like Syria and Iran who sit and wait for their chance to move in. And you say “Europe” has interests and yet we know from 1998 – 2002 they did squat – in fact they followed their economic interests – like France requesting a dropping of all sanctions in 1999 so they could get lucrative oil field contracts. The total inaction of the UN and EU in this period makes me less willing to agree with you here Vladamir. I trust only that countries will work to secure an economic advantage – and if this is to our detriment - so what.

As we stumble alone with our total dependence on foreign oil we are obliged to care about Iraq and the ME in general. Have you seen or heard of more liberalized oil drilling??? Neither have I. How about new nuclear power plants? The stupid Congress and Energy Committee is doing squat. We are trapped into this dependence and there is no short term way out – thus the ME is not a place we can “turn over” and hope it will “work out”.

In the first place, I fully agree with you that nations never act except in their own perceived interest, or let's say, in the interests of the elites that govern them. It's always a question of carrots and sticks.

Also I see your point about "countries like Syria and Iran," but to a large extent, our lack of leverage with these countries is the result of the administration's lumping them into an "Axis of Evil" and refusing to have anything to do with them. This would have to change if we withdrew from Iraq, I admit. The invasion of Iraq and the supposed irredemability of these two regimes are part and parcel.

To put it bluntly, we will have to make concessions to Syria and Iran to get them to work with us toward regional stability while/after our forces leave Iraq. I don't think the price will be small, either. But this is a necessary consequence of the war. As with chaos in Iraq after we leave, we can postpone this, not avoid it.

Syria and Iran will not be the first detestable regimes we put our arms around and treated like bosom buddies.

As for Europe, it is we who broke with them, not the other way around. They were all making anti-Saddam sounds, issuing warnings to Iraq, and so forth, but the administration decided to push a Security Council resolution which everyone at the time was pretty sure would not pass. Remember, at the time, we had reached the pinnacle of our buildup, and it would have been quite inconvenient to delay war? (Ha, ha, -- how much inconvenience have we suffered since then?) And the rejection of the resolution was the pretext for our attack. France and Germany aren't enemies of the United States; they know we share a common interest in the security of the Middle East. That's why NATO is in Afghanistan.

So what if the French cheated on the embargo, really? That doesn't make them part of the Axis of Evil. The French didn't really want the embargo in the first place, but they went along. Which is more important, a few hundred million under the table to Saddam, or our longterm relationship with France?

As for action by the EU or the UN, they can hardly be expected to do anything decisive while our forces are on the ground, can they? Not, at least, without joining in an American project of conquest that runs, if anything, counter to their interests. Why would France, or any European nation, want to see an American Raj in Baghdad? But when our troops come out, that equation changes entirely.

I think that energy independence is a pipe dream, largely because no matter whether we produce enough for our own needs or not, the price of energy will remain extremely volatile due to world market forces -- at least so long as we have free trade in coal, oil and natural gas. But for what it is worth, I fully join in your call for liberalized investment in nuclear power. High time too. Look at France, for example. That's not meant to be sarcastic, by the way; France has a very successful state-supported nuclear power program.

Ted et al.

Here is more evidence tht the surge is not working.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169833/

BTW: Ted despite calls for supporting information, you have not yet explained where you get the figure of $200 per barrel of oil.

What type debating tactic are you using when you just skip over calls for information like they weren't there? Selective posting? Where's the credibility?

Tell you what Bof et al. I am not going to say the “surge is not working” until we actually have the troops there and give it a chance – this will take months. So posting every bit of bad news is pointless esp. since Petraus SAID clearly that if we go out to fight them in Baghdad and elsewhere casualties will go up in the beginning – and as we can see he knew what he was speaking of.

Petraus isn't a panacea. What the hell though. We might as well take our time - why not years vs. months. It's just human life, you know.

You still haven't told us where you got this business about $200 per barrel oil?

I keep asking you this, and you keep cutting-and-running (Like with the $200 barrell and the 19 democratic plan, and every time you are ever challenged for evidence), but hope springs eternal, so i shall ask again.

Doesn't your comment above seem a touch hypocritical when YOU, Ted, were the one who started a thread declaring signs of victory when the violence dipped for a week and ahalf at the beginning of the surge? Now that things have turned around, why is it suddenly 'to soon to judge'? Is it only 'too soon to judge' when things are not going the way you predicted?


As for Petraus, I don't doubt he knows what he is doing, just as he knew what he was doing when he wrote that a troops srge in baghdad would need at least 120,000 extra troops to suceed, and when he criticised Bush for his mishandling of the war. So make up your mind, do you trust him or not? If so, then why do you only trust him when it is convenient for your arguments?


Lastly, Petraus may be a good commander, but he does not command the insurgency, insurgency wheich has been growing nonstop for 4 years (Thank you Bush jr and his (rapidly diminishing) hawk republicans), and continues to grow, along with sectarian violence in baghdad and around the country... I've said it many times, one cannot declare victory or loss as it is too soon, but one can point out that things are going poorly so far...

The man said it would be a fight and it is. There are signs of victory as I have posted – along with heavier casualties as Petraus predicted (and you pointed out). And given we have not even got all the “surge” troops there it seems premature to declare defeat as you are doing now along with all the Dems.

I know the Presidential race is started in earnest but IMO it is disgusting that the Dems approve the man and set out to undermine his efforts a short time later? And then they tell us they