Vermillion I think what Blackstone is trying to say is there is a time lag from idea to implementation and finally result. Maybe we should be more realistic with our expectations?

This is not as significant as you state, but more indicative of the muddled way of arming both sides escalates the problem. Blackstone, you have attributed the anti AQ sentiment as function of American input. They are less than 5% of the fighters - common information, yet you classify this as significant? I don't think so. You've misinterpreted the inherent nationalism as proof of progress. That is probably the most egracious statement I've witnessed for some time.

In reality, Anbar represents an opportunity to arm a resistance movement against Shia opponents, most likely Sadrists. Petreus is shaking in his boots and praying that Mr. Sadr does not make a move against Mr. Maliki. Well- before they can put forth an American approved strongman, with a name ending in Allawi or Chalabi. If arming the very same people responsible for the bulk of IED attacks is progress, I think we need a new definition of the word.

As a side note the internal politics of Anbar are interesting because Anbar had made some significant discoveries of oil in their region. As I understand it, they had proceeded to make separate side deals outside the oil law implemented earlier this month. The deals were made 6 months prior. By tagging insurgent behaviour onto Anbar province, the american prescence was drastically increased with the end result of voiding these new contracts. I'm currently verifying the depth of this charge as we speak. If can I get a few more sources and find some time, I will post. If true Anbar represents a misuse of power to void prior resource deals outside the control of the large multinationals. And by tagging this as AQ activity, such action becomes corrupted by ulterior motives.

An interesting Op-ed in today's New York Times written by two Brookings Institute people who have just returned from Iraq. Brookings is hardly a right wing organization and these two people have been pretty harsh critics of the war in Iraq. They may be changing their minds though. The link to the Op-ed is here. From that opinion piece (I encourage everyone to read the entire thing).......



and later on........



and finally.....




A most interesting development I think.

Aquilla

Yup...harsh critics....taken from here:

O’Hanlon:


And now, the other harsh critic Pollack:


After these scathing commentaries, I'm at a loss to explain their current optimistic view...

Of course ThinkProgress characterizes themselves as "non-partisan". Pot and kettle perhaps? Of course they're going to cherry pick snipets from the extensive writings that both Pollack and O'Hanlon have done regarding Iraq. I find it interesting that they use quotes from these two from 2002-2003 and then jump to 2007. Wonder why? Did these two "Bushbots" take 5 years off? Hardly, In fact, from this article in 2005, O'Hanlon writes the following.....



Now there's a real lockstep pro-Bush attitude for you. The actual fact of the matter is that the Brookings Institution is widely regarded as a liberal-leaning think tank. They just don't quite match the whacko factor of that great "non-partisan" ThinkProgress group where basically anyone to the right of Hugo Chavez or Cindy Sheehan is a right wing warmonger. Quoting them to take issue with what O'Hanlon and Pollack wrote in the New York Times (another arm of the right no doubt) hardly advances this debate if the idea is to truly examine whether or not the surge in Iraq is effective. Of course, if the true purpose of this thread is to just have another thread to throw rocks at Bush and declare defeat, they are a perfectly acceptable source of "information".


Aquilla

Good grief - you frame the argument as if there's actually someone out there that thinks everything went well and as planned. Even Bill Kristol has admitted mistakes have been made and he's the guy that would break his nose if Dick Cheney came to a sudden stop.

Everybody agrees the military went in and did their job perfectly while Bush mismanaged the occupation. There is no news there. Fnding people who criticise Bush's handling of the occupation is like finding someone who has slept with Paris Hilton - you really don't have to look very far.

But these two BushBots supported the invasion and supported the surge. There is nothing unusual about that from war supporters. And while I agree ThinkProgress are a bunch of partisan hacks, show me one quote that is false. I don't use sites like that for editorial support, but the site contained quotes - show me where false claims are made.

Actually, while I feel this assessment of the progress of the surge might be somewhat optimisiuc considering recent events, the upwing in violence and 'counter-surge' if you will in attacks per day, overall I don't have a huge problem with this assessment. In terms of the status quo. Yes, the increase in troops in baghdad brought in a slight, short-term reduction in violence. And to be fair, thats all it was SUPPOSED to do, the hope was that the reduction would last longer, but whatever. People need to remember that the surge was NEVER about providing a military solution to the insurgency, not even in the eyes of Petraeus or Bush himself: it was to provide a temporary bubble of relative stability, in order to allow the Iraqi government to start governing. THAT is the absolute failure in Iraq, something the article cited agrees with entirely. Iraq responded to the sacrifice of the surge by going on vacation, which means by definition, the men dying as a part of the surge in Baghdad are dying for NO REASON.

The reral error of the article cited is the following:



Firstly, that is untrue: it might be possible to say that the US is getting somewhere in BAGHDAD, but not in Iraq: as attacks in Iraq decreased, attacks around the country surged, resulting in an overall increase in violence.

Secondly, that is out of date: the situation in baghdad is deteriorating again, and quickly. The minor beneficial effect of the surge seems to have run its course.

Thirdly, and most importantly, as even Petraeus himself admits, military progress in Iraq (even if it DID occur) is completely irrelevant.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/08/...aeus/index.html
Unless the Iraqi government steps up and tries to govern, then the entire venture is a costly waste: and that is exactly what is happening. More troops, more sacrifice and more expense is an absurdity is the Iraqi government is going to respond to the opportunity given by this minor bubble of very temporary reduced violence and GO ON VACATION. (Not that they were accomplishing anything when they were in session...)


The article also ignores the reality that the current surge has a practical end date, the US is going to run out of troops in a few months. The surge was accomplished by extending tours and bringing in new units ahead of schedule: now those extended tours are going to expire, and the planned replacements have already been committed: the surge will end on its own due to the logistics of the US military in a few months. So why on earth would anyone consider 'continuing support of the war' into 2008 when even the current failing plan is going to shudder to a stop inescapably?

As former Senator Ernest Hollings might say, "It ah seems ta me like we got a lot a circular arguing a goin' on here". If one supported the invasion of Iraq and then supported the surge, that apparently makes their opinion, informed as it might be, suspect. Therefore under this "logic" the only valid opinion on the effectiveness of the surge can come from those who opposed it in the first place. People like Harry Reid who declared it a failure before it ever became fully implemented. Oookkaaayyy.....

Now, as far as ThinkProgress, an oxymoron to be sure, is concerned, I'll address one of their "quotes" to demonstrate their tactics......



"The Threatening Storm" is a book. An entire fricking book and they quote ONE line from it to "prove" their point. Hell, most posters here quote more than that to at least add a little context. If one visits the Amazon link to that book here, they will find out that Pollack worked on Iraq policy for the Clinton Administration as a principal responsible for implementation of US policy towards Iraq. This DR would term a "Bushbot"? Real open mind you have there dude. But then again, they think the surge has a chance of working based on their recent visit to Iraq and that makes them "wrong" - back to that circular thing again. One wonders why DR opened this thread in the first place since anyone who thinks the surge has a chance is automatically a "Bushbot".

Now, on to Vermillion........



There is a parallel thread to this one that I started some time ago where we discussed "indicators" of success or failure of the current situation in Iraq. You can review that thread here. Join in if you like. From reading what you've written in this thread and others my guess would be that your indicator would be the number of attacks per day or something along those lines. I would argue that that's not a leading indicator, but rather a lagging one. To be sure it is the eventual goal to reduce the violence, but to use that as the most important measure in gauging the progress is a foolish thing to do. It is foolish because it gives control of the situation to the enemy. It is the enemy who determines when, where and how often they attack in the kind of conflict we're seeing right now in Iraq. They can mount a "surge" of their own following the blueprint of General Giap and his Tet Offensive in Vietnam. However, just as you correctly point out that our surge can't last forever, neither can theirs. Eventually they're going to run out of people willing to blow themselves up. Either that or they'll run out of virgins in heaven. So, in the short term, and we are on a short term right now with the report due in September. I wouldn't use the level of violence as a prime indicator of whether or not the surge is worth pursuing.

Another indicator you've identified is the political one, and I would agree that's a pretty valid indicator and on the national level, the Iraqi government has been an abject failure. But, and I talked about this in the afore-mentioned thread, that's only half of the political equation. That's the "top down" approach, but there is also the "bottom up" aspect as well. Local governments, local communities, local infrastructure and neighborhood security. According to the sources I cited in that other thread, that approach seems to be having more success and the Op-ed piece by O'Hanlon and Pollack affirms that. From their Op-ed......



Local solutions to local problems and you build from there. That's right out of "Reagan Conservatism for Dummies, Part One". I know that approach works, I've seen it first hand here in Los Angeles in "outlaw neighborhoods". In LA we call it "Community-based Policing" where law enforcement works directly with community leaders to rid their communities of the criminal elements. They do this through building a shared trust in each other. And, that doesn't sound a whole lot different than what's happening now in Iraq according to numerous reports coming out from there from people on the ground.

I'm not willing to declare the surge a "success" yet, but I'm not going to declare it a failure either. If that makes me a "Bushbot", so be it. I've been called a lot worse.

Aquilla

Here's a good example of your "community building": Sunni Block Quits Iraqi Government. I did think this statement was interesting though:

We should greet this as "not bad" news, then?

I suppose it's just like LA. Where the national government is paralyzed by infighting and whole blocks are quitting. Where roadside bombs and suicide bombers kill soldiers, police and civilians pretty much every day. Where the police force has been infiltrated by sectarian fighters whose interests are less than savory. Just like LA, we have radicalized sectarian groups doing reprisal killings. We have "opportunists" who kidnap for ransom. I don't recall where LA's "green zone" is; but, it must certainly be true that the entire city otherwise is in chaos. LA's infrastructure must be in shambles and people must be fleeing the city in droves. I don't recall where exactly those refugee camps are but I'm sure if I looked I'd find them somewhere. And I almost forgot about the foreign troops occupying LA trying to give LA the chance to be democratic again; I'm sure the LA'ers are welcoming them with open arms.

Oh, I know, I'm focusing on the bad news.

Busy building strawmen I see, Logo. I specifically stated in my last post here that the government of Iraq on the national level is an abject failure and contrasted it with the local governments which do seem to be taking hold in some areas. That's the "bottom up" approach and the other half of the political equation.





I was wondering why the price of straw shot up today on the COMEX. Once again, I didn't say the situation in Iraq was "just like" it is in LA, but rather that the concept of local solutions to local problems works in LA and seems to be working somewhat in Iraq. Community-based policing is not a federal program. We don't have FBI agents walking the streets in the hood. Instead, we have LAPD officers, many of whom came out of those neighborhoods working with the local people to affect a change. And yeah, we do have "sectarian violence" in LA. We have the Bloods and Crips, and the Latino gangs from East LA not to mention the Asian gangs, he Armenian gangs and the White gangs all going at it with each other. And yeah, we have "green zones" only we call them "gated communities". Some times when things blow up we do end up with troops in the streets, only we call them the California National Guard. It ain't Baghdad by any means, but the concept of local solutions to local problems applies in each place. The authorities can't get the bad guys off the streets unless they know who the bad guys are and where they are. Building trust with the local population is the best way to find out that information.




Well, yes you are, but that's simply a reflection on the position "your side" has placed itself in. They have a vested political interest in the US NOT succeeding in Iraq. It has become more important to the Democrats in Congress that they win the next election than the US win the war. Pretty strong statement on my part to be sure, but I have proof. Proof from none other than one of your own in Congress, Congressman James E. Clyburn, the Majority Whip (#3 person in the leadership) told the Washington Post in an interview yesterday the following......



Here's the link to the entire article.

A positive report would be a "real big problem for us"? What in the hell is he thinking? How in the world could the US making progress in a war be a "real big problem"? Apparently that is the party line for the Democrats in Congress though. I know I sure wouldn't want to be associated with a party who's fortunes ride on failure of US troops in battle.


Aquilla

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for "bottom up" approaches. The "surge" strategy depends on the Iraqi government working. Isn't that what the whole "breathing space" argument was about? If we really are going to follow the "bottom up" localized strategy, such as you are arguing, then why aren't you advocating splitting Iraq into autonomous regions? I'm just not getting it.


You keep bringing up LA like it is a salient example. It isn't. In fact, I responded directly to this in the other debate (which you never replied to). To compare LA to Iraq is so completely specious that it borders on ludicrous. Basically, I am calling you out on your "strawman" by demonstrating how these places are not comparable.


My side? You mean the side that was advocating increasing the troop numbers to 300-400 K back in 2004? You mean the side that if "we're in for a penny, then we're in for a pound?" My side has wanted to win in Iraq even if it didn't agree with the invasion. Your side has wanted to lose in Iraq because it is not willing to pony up the necessary troops to do the job. By advocating a losing strategy, those who support a losing strategy want the US to lose in Iraq.

I'll go one further. It is "your side" who doesn't want to admit the complete, abject and miserable failure done to Iraq because to do so would be to admit that your guy (Dubya) and his party (Republicans) cannot lead.

He's thinking about liberals bailing on the party; the people who really determine Clyburn's fortunes and want Iraq to fail by your logic. People like me who hope the military withdraws without U.S. corporations seeing a single oil contract so we foot the bill completely because I know hurting our wallets will go farther to discourage preemptive war than tens of thousands of dead and misplaced Iraqis. Not to mention a few thousand dead soldiers and tens of thousands of injured soldiers.

Congress' approval rating is as low, if not lower, than Bush's. It plummeted between 20 and 30 points after Congress passed the last "emergency" supplemental. This is not coincidence. It's a freaking meltdown. This is the 110th Congress' Terry Schiavo moment and Clyburn knows the issue will dog Democrats until Democrats do what Democratic voters want.

Clyburn can vote out of fear of failing to "support" the troops and give Bush whatever he wants, or he and his colleagues can do the right thing.

That's the Biden approach and it's something I've thought about quite a bit. It would certainly be easier in the short term to split Iraq up, but I think in the long term it would lead to increased instability in the area. Instead of one infant nation, you'd have three with conflicts between them and their neighbors. I know Turkey would never put up with an independent Kurdistan for example and there would likely be a conflict there. Ideally, from at least a western standpoint Iraq would be unified with a central national government, but really run though local governments. Not unlike our own model. I don't know if that's a practical solution though since the cultures are so very different between the US and Iraq. I think it would be a big mistake for us to attempt to write their constitution and dictate a form of government that won't work in their culture. That's something that has to evolve just like ours did. Remember we had democratically elected state governments long before we had a federal government. Sometimes I think those were the "good ole days".








If you can link to your response I'd be happy to go back and take a look at it. I am not comparing the atmosphere or level of violence in LA with that in Iraq, that would be ludicrous. But I am looking at each situation as a social problem where the local community has a mutual distrust with the authorities. There are parallels there although they vary in degree in terms of violence. One innocent person might be killed in a drive-by in LA where 50 innocent people killed in a bomb attack in Baghdad, but the principle is the same. In both cases you need to know who's committing the violence and the people in the best position to know that are the people living there. If you can get them to trust you enough to tell you who and where the bad guys are, you can get them off the streets. Getting a person to "drop a dime" on a gang banger in LA used to be an impossible task for the LAPD. Now, people are doing it more often because of the policies of community based policing adopted by the LAPD. It seems to me that a similar concept is being adopted by US/Iraqi forces in Iraq and it seems to be working to some degree.





No, I mean your side that has declared defeat before the current strategy had even had a chance to be fully implemented. Your side who tells the Washington Post that a positive report would be "real bad news". That's the side I'm talking about, the side vested in defeat.

Aquilla

If I read this correctly, you somehow want a "bottom up" approach that culminates into a centralized approach. Maybe, you can explain how this would work. Note that I agree with your read on Turkey and Kurdistan. I disagree though at your presumption that a centralized government would obviate the issue.



Here it is: http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=221558


I respond to this in my earlier post. Civil societies are fundamentally different than war-torn societies. In fact, a "war-torn" society is hardly a society at all. Iraq isn't like LA only worse; it is fundamentally different.


I see. Now, I understand. By backing a losing strategy with losing leadership, the only thing remaining for you to do is to blame those of us who didn't think the losing strategy would work. And not only that but you get to extend this losing strategy fervor forever but saying "it hasn't been fully implemented". And in September when again we get "mixed" signals from Petraeus (only 1 month from now, btw), you will ask us to wait for more time to "fully implement" this strategy. And so it goes. On and on... 6 months becomes a year becomes 4 years becomes 10 years becomes 20 years.

The war could have been won; I'll even go so far to say it could be won. We would need close to a half million troops to do this. Are you willing to support the draft? I bet not. But, somehow, you want "to fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" by sacrificing our troops and 100s of thousands Iraqi civilians for an indefinite time period. How brave.

I want to do whatever is going to work and I think this approach has a chance to work. Better than any other ideas I've heard. Historically successful democracies have been built from the bottom up .ie. gaining support from the people (or as we call it grassroots level) first in the form of local governments and then evolving into a national government of some form from there. I support this approach in Iraq simply because I think it has the best chance of working in the long term.

The reason I would prefer to see a centralized government in Iraq (a one Iraq policy if you will) is that I think a single strong country would be better able to secure itself than three weak countries. I think Turkey would be far less inclined to mess with the Kurdish areas in the north If they knew that by doing so they would face the entire Iraqi nation. Something to be said for that old cliche of "strength in numbers".





I agree that Iraq faces far more complex problems than LA does, but I'm not so sure that there is a "fundamental difference". Violence is violence. If we accept your premise on the surface that there is some sort of a fundamental difference then we might very well conclude that Iraq will never ever be stable. That is not a conclusion with which I agree. I think there is a mechanism to go from "war torn" to not "war torn". That was kind of what my "Indicators thread" addressed.




The final combat troops that composed the surge didn't even arrive in Iraq until June. Long before that Harry Reid and others on "your side" had already declared the surge a failure. Building more strawmen isn't going to change that. By the time Petraeus and Crocker report to Congress in September, the surge will have been underway for a few months and hopefully there will be some sort of indication of whether or not it's working. If the news is good, then your side will view that as "real bad for us". Aren't you proud, Logo. Real bunch of standup folks you have there.


Now, as far as your personal attack with your "how brave" crap is concerned. We don't need that sort of garbage in this forum and normally I wouldn't bother to respond to it. But, as I have stated elsewhere in this forum I have a nephew in a combat unit right now fighting in Iraq. He's already been wounded at least once in battle, but he hasn't missed any patrols. You want to talk about bravery? Fine, tell me all about it. If you think we are going to lose in Iraq, then BRING THEM HOME NOW. Cut funding. Take the political hit for it. That would be the "brave" thing to do wouldn't it? Where's the courage on "your side", Logo? You folks are really good at throwing excrement, but man oh man, you run for cover when it comes your way. And you want to lecture me with a "how brave" comment? Give me a fricking break. You're great at standing up with all this military genius and how we should have done this and that and how bad Bush is, but when push comes to shove and "your side" has the chance to put their money where their mouth is, they run for cover and whine. They huddle in shadows and decide to "bleed it to death" (in Murtha's words) rather than demonstrating any political courage and doing what they claim they want to do. How brave indeed.


Aquilla

I've tried to convey this point now going on 7 years. Cutting the funding is the only way to bring closure to this problem. To be fair this was voted on with the democrats came back into power but was tabled with Rahm and Pellosi. I think your anger would be better diverted at them and not the people who voted them into office for precisely that reason. Heck Cindy Sheehan is thinking about challenging Pellosi in her own riding because of her failure to deliver on campaign promises. This is all very common knowledge.

It is clear that somewhere down the line people are going to force the issue. This is what you are incensed with. As vulgar as it sounds it may take a few more bodybags to come to that conclusion.

No, it's been asserted again and again that this has been the status quo since 2003. What's been pointed out to you - with actual evidence, not just bare assertions - is that this is happening now on an unprecedented scale. Calling it the "status quo" since 2003 would be like reacting to the victory at Iwo Jima by saying, Big deal, defeating the Japanese in island battles has been the "status quo" since Midway.


This whole argument of "we better not fight them or we'll encourage more recruitment" just doesn't wash. Yes, fighting evil people encourages recruitment on their side, whether we do it in Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan. Running away from them encourages them even more.

As for letting al-Sadr and his ilk take care of al-Qa'ida, the same criticism you give of us (that our presence there is helping AQ in Iraq by provoking them) can be said of them even more, because they wantonly murder Sunni civilians. Then of course AQ and other aligned groups return the favor by murdering Shi'i civlians, thus boosting al-Sadr's recruitment numbers. Great deal for the both of them. Sucks for the rest of us.


For centuries? On anywhere near the kind of scale they're doing now? Any major incidents you can point to?


And so having this motive, how did the Shi'ites act on it? If you remember, it was the Sunnites who were causing the most trouble in Iraq in the early days post-Saddam. To the extent that people like al-Sadr got in on the act, he was fighting ALONGSIDE the Sunnites. The growth in sectarian violence that we see today came later, with the worst jump happening after the bombing of the al-Askari mosque, probably at al-Qa'ida's hands.


I presume you're aware that two persons can look at the same set of facts and draw different conclusions. And even at that, their conclusions don't support yours to the extent that you apparently seem to think. Every mention they make of al-Qa'ida makes it clear that they view its presence in Iraq far more seriously than you do. And they certainly don't give any indication that the Iraqis themselves (least of all the Shi'i militias) can be counted on to rid the country of them if we depart.


I fail to see how any of this contradicts the proposition that al-Qa'ida has been the prime mover of the internecine violence. The first paragraph you quoted doesn't even deal with internecine violence, so I have no idea what point you were trying to make there. As for the second, of course once AQ provokes it with a spectacular attack of some kind, it begins to reverberate on its own. That's the whole point of why they do it. What do you think you've proven here, exactly?


The first point is diametrically at odds with the conclusions of the ISG. In the second point, here's where you completely ignore what I typed right after my "shred" comment:

"And no, criticizing the decision to go in doesn't count as evidence for your proposition, unless you have some basis for arguing that pulling out would return us to anything remotely resembling the status quo ante."

And as to the suggestion you made in your third point, it's A. not supported by the ISG, and B. not supported by reality. Al-Qa'ida had no trouble attracting foreign fighters in Afghanistan during the Taliban era, when there was nary a U.S. soldier to be found. The "draw" for these turds isn't the chance to pick off an American G.I. or two. It's the chance to kill American (and Western) PEOPLE in very large numbers. Once again: running away from them, however seductive an idea that might be, doesn't lessen the threat. It exacerbates it.


Cite?


You really think you can dig yourself out of this one, don't you? Unfortunately for you, all you're succeeding in doing is digging yourself deeper and deeper. I didn't say a damn thing about liberals in general, or war opponents in general, or any other words you think you can cleverly get away with slipping into my mouth.

Give it up, Vermillion. I know exactly what I said and what I didn't say, and you're not Harry Houdini. So stop trying to squirm out of your lie, and just own up to it. It'll do you a lot of good. It'll do productive dialogue a lot of good (you know, the thing you claim to care so much about).


I already told you that I don't answer questions that have false premises. And my point you quoted remains unrebutted.


Nothing except for the country to unite and make it clear to our allies and potential allies on the ground in Iraq that we won't abandon them so soon. It's not like I haven't had to explain over and over again that when we give them the opposite impression, we needlessly make our job over there much harder.

I agree that successful democracies have been built from the bottom up. How do you reconcile this with an invasion and occupation by a foreign power? That is, by definition, top down. If there are enough people willing to do what you desire, then, yes, it is certainly possible to construct a government from the bottom up. The problem is that there is no agreement on the type of "bottom up". The insurgency is itself a manifestation of "bottom up" -- not a good one, certainly, but "bottom up" nonetheless.


I would prefer this as well, but it's unrealistic to think this will occur. Either we have a weak centralized Iraq or a set of stronger sub-Iraqs.


Yes, there *is* a mechanism to go from "war torn" to not "war torn"; I've been describing this all along. In fact, there are two mechanisms:

1. The complete and utter annihilation of Iraq, such as what was done to Germany and Japan.
2. Taking complete control of the country with a massive (and I mean massive) occupation force.

Those are your choices.


I'd be absolutely happy to have Iraq suddenly turn around. However, I'm looking at the actual data and track record; not wishful thinking. I think "your side" is so desperate to not be wrong that you're willing to sacrifice anyone to do so. Ergo, "bravery".


I've been consistently calling for a massive occupation force in Iraq since day one on this board. If we are unable to do this, then the *only* viable solution I see is to withdraw. These half-measures being taken by Dubya and the Republicans have made things worse and have continued unabatedly to get worse. Every month it goes from worse to worse.

I'm willing to make a trade with you, Aquilla. I'll advocate cutting funding if you'll advocate instituting a draft. These are our choices. Are you willing to take the political hit for this?

BTW, I don't care if Democrats take a political hit; I rarely vote Democrat anyway. One thing is for sure though: voting Republican (which I've done quite often) is not something I will ever do again. I can't support the corruption or the chickenhawks.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We see a lot of this in this forum. Everyone is against stuff, but few actually are willing to stick out their neck and actually support anything. Oh well, nature of the beast I guess.


Aquilla

They elected a government; it has been singularly incompetent. We've been trying to give them "breathing space" for 4.5 years now; we just aren't willing to pony up what it really takes. Not only is the Iraqi government failing but our will to do what it takes was never there. 300-400 thousand troops is what Shinseki called for. To deploy that many necessitates the draft. That would be political suicide for the Republicans. Republicans have been unwilling to do what it takes and now they expect Democrats to solve their problems for them.


In September, Petraeus will again report "mixed" results discussing how some things are going well and others are going badly. He will discuss how it will "continue to get worse before it gets better." And the hopeful souls, such as yourself, will continue to buy that line. Soldiers will continue to die; Iraqi civilians will continue to die. But, hey, at least "we're fighting them over there so we don't fight them over here."


I agree that this could work and is basically along the lines of what I was thinking of. However, the mutual defense thing is unrealistic. I foresee Iraqi substates having their own defense forces. Turkey, of course, won't be happy about this. I expect a Turkey-Kurdish war to break out in the next 3 years.


The *only* way to create the umbrella of security in Iraq is choice number (2.). You need a *massive* occupation force. These half-measures, such as we've been taking for the past 4.5 years, have been proven to be unworkable. Unfortunately for the Republicans, this requires a *draft* and implies political suicide for them. Because it is political suicide, doing the *right thing* is not what's happening.


Of course, you're not willing to make the trade, Aquilla. To accept this trade would be tantamount to killing the Republican party. Clearly, the Republican party is more valuable to you than either Iraqi civilians or our troops. And, I find it completely ironic that now you want the Democrats to clean up the Republican's mess. Come on, take a little personal responsibility and do the right thing.

Oh, and what happens when Petraeus doesn't "succeed" in September? My bet is you'll again ask for "more time", for us to "wait" for the next report. Let's say January '08? Which will move to March. Which will move to the summer again. And, hey, by then election season will be in full swing, so what Dubya does (or doesn't do) won't matter.

I disagree. As I've pointed out, al-Qa'ida is on the retreat in Iraq, and will continue to be if we don't sacrifice the current momentum. And the evidence strongly suggests that they've been the prime pot-stirrer when it comes to sectarian violence. Remove them from the equation, and I think the chances of a resolution will go up dramatically.

File this under "Whoopsie!"

That's a lot of firepower. It's a pretty safe bet that they went to insurgents or crossed the border into Iran.

This is precisely the reason arming the so-called friendly Sunnis is such a BAD idea on so many levels.

At the risk of "harping" on the bad news coming out of Iraq, I would direct your attention to this story which is for some reason less-than-headline-news.

(CBS/AP) The U.S. military tells CBSNews.com that 26 American service members have been killed in action in Iraq in the past week alone, including three soldiers who were killed by a single roadside bomb attack reported Tuesday.

Most recently reported were the three Task Force Marne soldiers killed Saturday when a roadside bomb struck their convoy south of Baghdad, according to a brief statement that provided no more details. link

If the level of violence ISN'T the prime indicator of whether or not the surge is worth pursuing, then what is, Aquilla? Because all the happy talk and think tank columns aside, I'm willing to wager that the only "prime indicator" of success Americans really give a damn about is how many of our soldiers aren't returning home in caskets.

I can't blame you for wanting to ignore the level of violence in Iraq. It certainly doesn't help your assertion that the surge is working.

I believe you are most certainly correct in that the important indicator to most of us is the number of killed and wounded Americans. However looking at the big picture, it would also be remiss to ignore all other indicators. Speaking of Iraq as a whole, news in some sectors is encouraging. In the North, the Commander and MND-N is proposing a drawdown of forces. In the West, the Marine Commander of MND-W is proposing that his marines start conducting patrols and other daily business sans body armor, much as the British already do in the South. The problem lies in Baghdad, with the defunct parliament taking a vacation, those that haven’t resigned that is. The problem lies in the fact that Baghdad is the center of gravity for Iraq. Pacify Baghdad, and success will have been met. Fail to pacify Baghdad and the entire effort will fail.
The surge operations are still a mixed bag in the tactical sense. We continue to bag high value targets, uncover sizable caches and erode insurgent support in many neighborhoods. Somewhere lies the tipping point, that will have just enough effect to give just enough security to start Iraq on the path to stability. That tipping point is hiding somewhere in Baghdad. The question is, will we find it……..ever?
Prior to the Surge, I stated on AD that I was willing to give the plan six months to work or to fail (I believe it was in a dialogue with CR). I have been on the ground in Baghdad for six months; I have traveled extensively throughout my portion of Baghdad; I have been privy to all aspects of combat reporting from our subordinate units, and have had peeks at minutes of meetings involving the highest levels of command in US and Iraqi military circles. I will now state that I believe the surge will not succeed, for the following reasons:
-It was the right plan, but about two years too late (if it would have ever needed to be conducted at all, given the missteps of our first year).
-Iraqi’s as a whole are not willing to take the risks necessary to make their country stable. They see militias or AQI come in and take control of their neighborhoods and only in isolated cases, do they make any attempt to stop them. This is a country where every household is allowed an AK-47.
-The Iraqi Army is fairly competent and reliable, but the Iraqi Police and National Police are their polar opposites. Countless times I have witnessed an IED detonate or RPG fire occur near an IP checkpoint, and find that the IP’s are not present prior to and during the attack. It makes one wonder if they are simply lazy or completely infiltrated with insurgents. (Wait….I know the answer to that one….both).
Too many other times I have seen NP’s firing wildly into neighborhoods after receiving some scattered fire. Not exactly winning the hearts and minds. Too many times, I have witnessed them fail to come to the aid of even their brother police, citing ‘it’s not in our area’.
-While we may make strides in capturing or killing cell leaders and take technical knowledge and leadership off the street, the fanaticism that holds many young men will not abate
-Iran’s covert and overt assistance to Shia groups, notably Jaysh Al-Mahdi, will not be curtailed by our presence.
-The Iraqi government (if one can call it that) is an on again/off again grouping of petty bureaucrats, bent only on power or religion. Purple fingers aside, Iraqi’s really aren’t all that interested in Democracy. They really aren’t all that interested in self determination. They would rather have their lives dictated by Imams and strongmen. I say let ‘em rot then.

The surge will fail because we expended whatever goodwill we had at the outset on bad PR stunts, tragic mistakes and careless acts. It will fail due to the disaffection of the populace. It will fail due to the petty, amateur behavior of its politicians. And it will fail due to the iron grip of Islam. The grip that overrides judgment, logic and sensibility.

Some of you have brought up wanting to wait for General Petraeus’s report before deciding about the surge.

From Bush’s press conference this morning, it doesn’t seem to matter. It looks like we might be there in significant numbers until he leaves office.

It seems clear to me that Bush is going to do what he wants to do – right or wrong.

It seems Petraeus's role will be one of logistics.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20070809-1.html

When you get a spare moment, could you comment on this article? Do you consider it basically accurate, basically inaccurate, wildly misleading, or just plain wrong? I'd be interested in seeing your perspective. Thanks in advance.

It’s not easy for me to comment with any authority on the situation in Anbar. Baghdad I know pretty well now, the rest of Iraq I haven’t set foot in since Desert Storm.
The thing to remember about Iraq is that the various portions of the country, West (Anbar), North (Kurdistan), South (Basra) and Central (Baghdad) all operate under different political, geographical and cultural dynamics. Those affect both coalition forces and insurgents. One major reason that Anbar is easier to pacify is the relative openness. What was once rife with outlaws and oil pirates is now easier to control now that the area has been swept. Baghdad on the other hand, aside from being the center of gravity for the country, is a warren of alleys, interconnected homes and industrial infrastructure. Baghdad possesses far more of a three dimensional threat than Anbar does.

Some things to think about; clan loyalty in Anbar is probably stronger than in Baghdad, so while young men are signing up for the police forces in droves………where will their loyalties lie when the Americans pull out? To a weak central government in Baghdad or to the predominate tribes of the region? If the surge has some measure of success, might not some insurgent cells relocate to Anbar, as some have done moving from Baghdad to Baqouba and Diyala? This relocation may come at the time Marine commanders decide to ease the requirement of wearing helmets and body armor, as they are discussing now.

I’m encouraged by the news out of Anbar, but I remain pessimistic. Baghdad is the key. If we pacify the country minus Baghdad, we will still have lost.

I guess that depends on what our objectives are. I know I've been back and forth with Vermillion on what our objectives are, and I think I might be ready to concede to him that perhaps I don't know for sure what the administration's objectives are. B