Of course I ask a lot of questions, because they are there to be asked. You talk of cleaning out the insurgents, but what if you clean out their weapons cache and they replenish, that is a cat and mouse game that could go on forever. As long as their weapons supplier is willing to make money off the sale of arms to the insurgents, there is no end in sight. The McMaster's plan was not successful if American forces were absent, which means Iraqi Security Forces cannot perform the task, another recipe for eternal deployment.

You have to admit on some level that we are part of the problem. There is an opposition force that is not Sunni or Shia, but anti-American. In that sense, we are part of the problem. I support the Murtha Plan because it allows the Iraqi government and Security Forces to take the test that we have been preparing them for the last three to four years. There is no way to know that Iraq's new government can govern itself unless we leave. We can still maintain a force in the region without being in Iraq. The Maritime Prepositioning Force Doctrine has proven to be successful. We know for a fact that works, why not put the Iraqis to the test and see if they can govern? Let's see if we are more of a problem than we are a solution. Iraq has a governing body. They have a military. They have local police. They have laws in place. They have, as you said and I agree, a citizen population more interested in peace than political power. That is a foundation to build on, but our continued presence undermines the validity of Iraq's government, divides the population, alienates one religious sect, and creates new insurgents with every innocent death. It's time to leave.

You have to differentiate between military failure and a failure of policy. The American military has done what they were asked to do. This is no different than following a clueless lieutenant, which all that served have done. The ones that have failed are not the military, but the civilian leadership. The generals have been rotated out when their opinions have run contrary to the Administration's desires. You have to know that. Could you possibly conceive a career general officer retiring during a war? This is what career military men live for, the opportunity to show their worth. These men are not retiring "to spend more time with their family." They are being forced out by an Administration that abuses your service and dedication to our country.

I agree..........with your first sentence. But it is not born of fact. Tommy Franks retired in July of 2003, and had not spoke contrary of the Bush Administration, Abizaid announced hi retirement plans in Nov 2006:

Link

General Casey is being promoted to serve as the Army Chief of Staff.

Even the General trotted out by many liberals as proof of what you state, Shinseki, announced his retirement an entire year before his testimony before the Senate:

Link

I've already outlined my disapproval of past policy. We both endorse withdrawl, I'm simply willing to give another six months, and a different strategy.

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


I don't think this is a political ploy, but I am not sure it is a real plan that will really work. I have very little faith that our current President can successfully manage this war.

I do however believe militarily the US will succeed, I have no doubts of that. But it is not just military solutions Iraq needs. Politically is where we so often fail, and so often seem ill equipped.




I am sure Sadr would be very pleased with your narrative of his reputation.

You have highlighted above what I assume is a belief that Sadr's influence politically and even militarily is so overwhelming that it surpasses and hampers American ability in the region. You use various examples to give the impression that not only is the man untouchable, but well protected. I don't really believe this to be true, I don't think US forces are frightened by him or feel hindered by his “political force” Last mo. the US, with Iraqi military assistance, openly went after and killed one of his top aides:
Close Adviser to Sadr Dies in U.S.-Iraqi Raid
A top deputy of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr was killed Wednesday during a raid by U.S. and Iraqi troops in the southern holy city of Najaf
link
Yes he is an obstacle to peace, but not an unsurmountable one.

But most importantly I wanted to address your comments because your claim that “Sadr is just one of the militia leaders never before openly confronted” is totally false. Sadr has been confronted by the US military, with success too, imagine that! In 2004 he attempted to take control over a good portion of Southern Iraqi cities and was confronted by the US military. His overly ambitious, and disastrous plan failed horribly and his second attempt only reminded him why he chose to call for a truce to begin with. I don't think the US military has any fears of openly confronting this man, it is just the we chose to wait out the political process first. I think we can all agree that this process has moved too slowly and taken far too many lives. But should we have avoided it? Should we have been more aggressive earlier? It is a tough thing to try and evaluate for me even in hindsight as we have always supported and proclaimed the importance of the political process in Iraq.

Al-Sadr is powerful because he controls thousands of people's actions. The U.S. military fears nobody and for justified reasons. We can destroy anyone or anything at our discretion. That is really not a consideration. The problem al-Sadr creates is that his death could set off an escalation in violence. How many of al-Sadr's lieutenants are rational and analytical? How many people under al-Sadr's control do you think would come to a political solution if al-Sadr is killed? Probably none of them. What would likely happen is all out war. A war that is not going to end in six to nine months. Bush's plan has one year to succeed. After that, he will have no political allies in the Congress because Republicans will want to get re-elected. You don't get re-elected by siding with the 30% of Americans that approve of this war. Any Republican incumbent not running in the South will have the same fate as Lincoln Chaffee and Rick Santorum.

Think about it like this bucket; if the Iraqis launched a successful attack against George W. Bush during one of his visits there and killed him, would the American people give up or seek revenge? They would want revenge. The Iraqis are no different. If al-Sadr is killed, the war will escalate to an unacceptable level. This is the President's last chance and his plan has to succeed because once election season comes around the Democrats will have the Presidency and 60 seats in the Senate.

Hmmmm, I didn't understand you prefaced your support on a 6 month withdrawel timetable DTOM- in that case- with a hard end date to implement- instead of "well, this policy failed, let's muck about some more here, and those that don't agree with us are anti-american" rhetoric we have been getting for the length of this fiasco.

I agree, if that is the case- go for it- maybe it will work, maybe it won't- either way- we are out.

And Barnaby- if it were JUST GW and not Cheney with him- THEN I would be upset and seek revenge- because they left us with Cheney. That is the 'pubs ace in the hole- just like with Quayle- why bother when you have THAT for second in command? LOL

Essentially, yes. While I'm not tied to an exact day.......I believe that six months from the time the 'surge' Brigades enter the Baghdad area, is plenty of time to decide if the plan has merit and is working, or the cause is completely lost. With the additional time of training Iraqi units, and allowing the Iraqi local and national politicians that time to sort out a compromise, I still have an optimism in the plan.

But seriously- do you see GW supporting ANY kind of withdrawal like you are talking about?

If our Americans weren't getting slaughtered in the process, your optimism might be warranted. But nobody seriously believes this plan will work while many husbands, wives, sons, and daughters will come home in a body bag.

We went from the Powell doctrine of attacking with overwhelming force to crossing our fingers and hoping for a miracle. Pretty sad...

What, do you think that the people who thought up the surge will admit, no matter how bad things are in six months, that the cause is lost? The whole point of the surge is to delay the admission of defeat until George Bush is off watch. After six months, they will certainly say that it will take more time to tell. And when eventually it becomes clear to everyone that the Surge has failed, they will have Operation Recharge Batteries or whatever, with nice new ideas and shiny power point presentations to go with it, and ask for six more months! And again they will say that Operation Recharge Batteries is the only alternative to -- oh horror! -- withdrawal.

Moreover, isn't it obvious by now that the cause is lost? In fact, it has been lost since the war was six months old and probably longer than that. The cause, I mean, of pacifying Iraq and turning it into a nice, friendly client state willing to host our bases and cut favorable deals with U.S. companies and especially, oil companies (the appearance of democracy was desired, but that was a peripheral objective). But if you, like most earnest, U.S.-government-trusting souls here, think the cause was something else, substitute anything you think it was, and it is eqully true that the cause has been lost for years.

It will be a shame if George Bush talks the American people into another round of waiting and seeing, because he really does deserve to have to be the one to give the withdrawal order. But perhaps the nation at large, which arrogantly and ignorantly allowed itself to be led into this misconceived adventure, deserves another two years of its children being killed and wounded, and its treasure being flushed down a gigantic toilet.

[Parenthetically, I myself was saying here three years ago that the war was lost, and that it was only a question of when the American people would realize it. Well, it appears that most of them have. Though I was hardly alone in that view, I was fairly alone in it on this forum, where there is a remarkable preponderance of right-wing ideology.]

Al Sadr is indeed a charismatic leader and he has built a powerful organization that will live well beyond his lifetime. Eventually, like Hezbollah or Hamas, there will be a political component (or faction) and a military component (or faction) with varying degrees of overlap. At this point, destroying the head will make little difference to the overall organization, its goals and its effectiveness. It must be brought into the political fold or there is no hope at all of creating stability.


To be fair, Lincoln Chaffee was the only Republic who voted against authorizing the Iraq War. He lost because he was a Republic not because of his views on the war.


I disagree with this read. Dubya doesn't have to succeed; he just has to appear like he wants to succeed. I think Vladimir is essentially correct in this regard. Election season will likely turn on significant events that can be spun in a way to give one side or another the advantage. Also, I believe you're giving Al Sadr (or his martyrdom) too much significance for the increasing violence in Iraq over the next year. Violence will incease over the next year and the year after that and the year after that -- completely independent of Al Sadr.

You weren't alone! I was posting quite regularly then and expressing the opinion that the invasion was a disaster for Iraq, for American foreign policy, and for regional stability. I, too, vehemently opposed the invasion and the shocking disregard for civilian deaths and mistreatment and torture of captives. I stood on street corners with protest signs or dressed as a tortured prisoner once or twice a week for two years. I also made myself well known to my Representative and Senators with frequent letters and emails and office visits whenever possible. At least 1/3 of my fellow citizens shared my opposition if not my activism. Shockingly, we could get very little coverage of our concerns in the establishment press.

As you have pointed out earlier in this thread, the most disconcerting things in GWB's address were his renewed threats against Syria and Iran. When these are juxtaposed with the appointment of an admiral as Centcom Commander and the deployment of an additional carrier task force to the Persian Gulf together with Patriot missiles, the rhetoric is really troubling. For anyone who has followed the reporting of Sy Hersh and exposes of Scott Ritter the situation is truly frightening. What Bush and the Neocons have wrought in Iraq is a disaster but it will pale in comparison to the chaos that could follow a US bombing of Iran or an Israeli attack supported by the US.

Well then comrade, I salute you. And I think you're right to fear that Bush, clearly now somewhat detached from reality, will indeed expand the violence into Iran. He twists and turns and can't get out of his little box of defeat, so why not gamble the world?

When it comes to Dems, follow the politics. This isn't about the War on Terror, and it isn't about securing Iraq or even national security. It's all about the Dems desire to execute their political agenda, and the war doesn't fit in. It takes precious resources away from socializing America. These resources can better be applied to the social education of our children so that the Democratic Party has future voters. The Democratic Party is never about problems or solutions, they are about power and control of the government which is their sacred cow. They feel they have a birth right to this power and position. They are policy wonks, who love to roll around in policy debates like a pig in mud. Whether their polices address a real problem or even resolve it, is immaterial. It's the bureauocracy that they love, it's part of loving government.

Sources?

I notice that the Dems DO have a plan- the ISG report- why that ommision FI? Do you think it was the founders intent to bankroll a civil war in another country?

I must ask- if Clinton had done all GW has done- would you be so eager to give him a "pass" for incompetance at this point?

Even if you are vehemently in approval of this war- the "execution" of planning has been nothing short of criminal-

GW's regime has no long term planning (except, curouisly, and you seem to omit this in your rant as well) and no vision past the next election, trying to salvage what they can before the republicans get tromped again in the next election.

No mattter how you slice it- even if you are in favor of invading Iraq- it has been handled worse than badly.

[quote name='DaytonRocker' date='Jan 9 2007, 07:27 PM' post='204431']
Question for debate:
Is president Bush's plan to send more troops into Bagdad a real plan, or is it a political stunt?

Right now, Bush is in a lose-lose position. If he withdraws troops from Bagdad, he loses his base completely and will certainly be viewed in history as a failed president. On the flip side, he can't get enough troops to actually make a difference in salvaging Iraq. There is literally nothing he can do.

But the third option is the best for him - pin the loss on someone else. Announce your plan for victory knowing the democrats will kill any plan that involves escalating the war and putting more targets between the Sunnis and Shi'ites. And when that plan gets killed, what do you do? Tell America the democrats are soft on terror, tell America you can't fight a war because the democrats won't let him, and tell America we are less safe because of defunding "the central front on the war on terror".

Bush will use the "it's not my fault" excuse to defend the loss in Iraq. And if he frames the debate and takes control of it, the democrats will suffer big. If we get hit with a terror attack between now and Nov 2008, America might hand the keys to the house back to the republicans.

In my opinion, the democrats have already taken the bait and not left themselves a very effective out.

Plan or ploy?




[b]President Bush must think this is a real plan! That is really chilling when you think about it! In my opinion the only person within the administration who knew what was right, opted out in the very beginning and that person was Colin Powell. As you probably already know, in Powell's opinion if we were to enter Iraq, we needed to go in with unremitting force quickly!! Get it done and get out! It makes me wonder if Bush ever listens or adopts any of the advice from his military advisors! Now we're in the middle of a Civil War in that country and nothing good is going to come from sacrificing our young men in this venture. Thank heavens Americans remember the Viet Nam War debacle well enough and hopefully, we won't stand for this to go on much longer! Do you think?

Ahhh, this would be hilarious if it wasn't so darned serious. Now the surge needs a surge!!

It's estimated that the surge's surge would require an addition $1 billion. More lives and money down the rathole that is Iraq. And what's that I hear from the newly Democratic Congress?

<sound of crickets chirping>
Edited to add this sobering analysis:

What is startling is that even Bush has had to admit that we are on the brink of catastophe, that "failure" in Iraq (what's success?) will damage America immeasurably.

And guess who put us in this situation? Bush and his conservative party supporters.

Do you really trust them to come up with a strategy to get us out of it? I don't. It's pure politics. Bush just wants to keep the war going until the 2008 election so you can attempt to blame the Democrats for not ending it. That how cynical he and his conservative political advisors like Karl Rove are.

No actually it’s a good general and a plan that can work – as much as Dems would hate for us to WIN it may just happen. And if we do lose the cost in the years to come will make what we spent so far look like lunch money

How long will speculation be enough to continue the reality in Iraq. If the surge does not work will that be enough to decide to pull out or will we need a draft.

Now, now, stop the ad hominen attacks on all democrats.

This seems to be an admission on your part that Bush and his conservative strategists have put us in a horrible situation that will cost the nation vast amounts of money and cause vast amounts of damage unless Bush pulls a rabbit out the hat and somehow "wins" in Iraq: something he hasn't been able to do in 5 years of useless "nation building."

Given he's the one that put us in this horrible situation, it's quite amazing you trust him to get us out of it.



I suspect the Bush administration will do what it has done throughout this entire ordeal, and tell us that success is just around the corner, if only we spend another trillion dollars and lose another couple thousand soldiers.

Remember this quote from a year ago: "The insurgency is in its final throes."

How's that for spot-on leadership.




It's these kinds of broadbrush insults that have utterly discredited conservatism. Conservatives get us into a fiasco in Iraq, and whom do the conservatives blame -- democrats?

It's like clockwork.

I can and will say anything I like about them as you do constantly about Bush, conservatives, Bill Gates, the top 1% etc. etc. etc.



“Vast” amounts??? Actually the cheapest “war” in the nations history by any measure – look it up.



Well he was not alone. He had help from a UN that did squat for years – and he did have the votes in Congress didn’t he. And if you are going to tell me only Bush thought Saddam was a dangerous nut with WMD I have lots of quotes from Dems to back it up – Try me.

We fled from terrorism in Somalia, primarily under pressure from republicans on the Clinton administration.

So why now the change of heart, save in Somalia the situations was a bit different, like no oil and proof positive existence of terrorists.

Is it political, I think so, and thusly like global warming it surely cant be trusted. I mean it would look bad for the bush administration to fold in Iraq that is.

OK.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p01s03-usmi.html

Ooops, turns out this is the second most expensive war in US history (adjusted dollars) after the Second World war. That must be awfully embarassing, Ted...

(EDIT to add: actually that Afghanistan AND Iraq, so Iraq on its own is, just barely, third behind Vietnam and WWII, at least it was in 2006. Now, with the price of an additional year and the troops surge, its likely back into second place)



Actually, he was alone. He specifically sabotaged the UN's proceedure on dealing with Iraq, pre-empting them before they could decide on action. Regardless of weither or not the action would have been taken and what effect it would have had, we will never know because Bush jr chose to pre-empt it and take the entire decision upon himself.

And yes, many other people, Americans and non-Americans, Democrats and republicans, thought Hussein was a dangerous nutcase. True, and completely irrelevant. None of THEM invaded the country with half a plan and got the US embroiled in this losing fiasco which, four years later, has been progressively worse every single year.

Ok...I'll bite.

Get me the quotes from democrats saying we needed to go to war the month before Bush pulled the inspectors out and invaded.

I know all the quotes you have in your back pocket, but they were all before the inspectors had true unfettered access, went to sites directed by the White House, and stated they could find no evidence of WMD.

Give me the ones right before the invasion. I'm not saying you can't - in fact, maybe you can make a better case than Sean Insanity.

I know you will continue your ad hominem attacks and blanket statements. Your arguments are so defective you can't do anything else. So stop whining to the moderators.



You got to be kidding. $1 trillion and counting -- all so conservatives could install a radical Shi'ite regime in Baghdad, something Iran tried to do for years. And it only cost us $1 trillion. We could have done it for free by not supporting Saddam in the Iraq/Iran war!



More confusion. The decision to INVADE was Bush's and Bush's alone. Just because Saddam was a madman (supported by Reagan) doesn't mean we needed to invade his country. Easier ways to deal with secular madmen. Embargoes for instance, which worked and had reduced his military to nothing.

You have no such quotes. You're confusing concern over Saddam with a policy of invasion. Two different things. Only a nut would invade Iraq. And so Bush and the conservative ideologues did.

The invasion was approved by Congress. “Bush” did not “invade”. The Dems can run from the war but not from the vote.

And they seem to have felt Iraq was a very dangerous enemy in 1998 – needing to be dealt with. (see below) So what changed that after 1998? No inspectors, WMD missing, US planes getting shot at daily etc.

JANUARY 30, 2004 | Printable Version
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
| Source
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml


And the serge seems to be working already.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...early_resu.html

But something interesting is happening on the way to the "new direction." Early indications are that the troop surge into Baghdad is working. It hasn't been reported on widely, but murders in Baghdad are down 70%, attacks are down 80%, Mahdi Army chief Moqtada al-Sadr has reportedly made off for Iran, and many Baghdadis who had fled the violence now feel it's safe enough to return. The strategy that Congress is busy denouncing is proving to be our best hope for victory.

In Iraq, there's a sense that change is in the air -- literally. Omar of Iraq the Model spots a B-1 Bomber in the skies of Baghdad for the first time since the end of the major combat. On the ground, Omar writes that the signs that Iraqis are getting serious about security are more palbable. With the help of Compstat-like technology, security forces are cracking down at checkpoints (even ambulances are getting stopped) and getting nimbler about locating them strategically so the terrorists don't know what to expect.

This turnaround in Baghdad is confirmed at home by the media's near-deafening silence. If it seems like you've heard less about how Iraq is spiraling into civil war in the weeks since the surge was announced, this is why. Even some discordant voices in the media are starting to wonder what's happening. Time magazine worries that it's "Quiet in Baghdad. Too quiet." That's right -- a dramatic reduction in violence is actually bad news.

I'm curious: since I assume you are logically consistent Ted: You posted the reduction of violence in badghdad at the initial stages of the surge as evidence of its 'sucess'. OK, so:

Since that relative reduction is gone, since violence is back up at the 100 Iraqi deaths/day it was before the surge, and attacks on US troops are back up ate pre-surge levels, and US casualties are in fact higher than pre-surge levels, then you would HAVE to accept that the increase of violence is a sign of failure?

I mean, if drop of violence = success, as you claimed, then surely increase of violence = failure? Or does that logic only work for you when it supports your personal opinion?


The surge is not yet a failure of course, as it is still ongoing, but consider:
-The Pentagon has already admitted its troop surge was insufficient, and has placed TWO additional requetss for troops.
-Levels of violence in the city, after a short drop you made MUCH of, have increased to at or above their pre-surge levels,
-Maliki's government is on the verge of collapse due to lack of support from the Militias, done at the bequest of the US,

Does that mean its hopeless? Of course not, the surge is still early, and though it is going questionably so far, it could turn around. I'm just curious as to how the far-right will wiggle its way out of any admissions of error if the surge turns out to have little or no effect on sectarian violence or Iraqi stability.

The surge is barely begun sop perhaps we should give it a chance before proclaiming defeat. No one said that in “March” there would be no violence. We will know more by Sept.

You neatly avoided my question Ted. The fact that it has just begun did not stop you from loudly showing off the temporary drop in violence as signs of victory, now are you consistent here? Does the vanishing of that realtive peace and the increase of violenfce not show signs of defeat? This is YOUR logic and YOUR words we are using Ted, I just want to be consistent.

As to the final result, you are correct, we don't know what will happen. But one of the most irritating things about this debate is how every time there is yet anothe rmajor nfailure in Iraq, the far right ignores it, pretends it never happened, ignores all their OWN WORDS about how sucessful it was going to be and continue to defend the war to the hilt. I wish to prevent that here. So Ted, tell us all:

I will admit that sucess is possible in this surge, who knows, everyone's predictions and early signs might be wrong, and this would bring around a water change in baghdad, permenantly lower violence and stabilise the city. I don't think its likely, and neither do any analysis in any country, but its possible.


So what about you Ted? What are your failure standards? If the troop surge results in MORE US dead, MORE iraqi dead and NO lessening in the violence in baghdad, will you admit it was a failure, and that Bush jr's policy of the surge, like all his other policies, have resulted in an abject failure? Or will you just ignore it and try and blame it on nacy pelosi or Ted kennedy?

.


No actually the drop in violence is a demonstration that, even in the very initial stages of the strategy, that it can make a difference. And no one said it was going to be a straight line drop in violence. Needless to say the enemy, who has everything to lose, will try his best to counter the strategy. You say you have written on war and certainly this is not uncommon.

The real question is can our “surge” troops and the Iraqi troops continue to react and (on average over time) reduce the violence so that it can ultimately be controlled by the Iraqi government. If this cannot be shown to be having an effect by next summer and working by next fall then I will agree with you that the strategy may not solve the problem.

Certainly the left view, as represented by you and others, will push to declare defeat before giving the men a chance to get there and fully implement the strategy

I think the failures of past plans leads to the presumption that this plan is just another failed policy. However it is different in many ways and is also a copy of a strategy that has worked for long periods in other previously dangerous area's of the country. It's certianly pre-mature to brand the plan successful but there have been many power plays made by political parties and tribes in Iraq that is a HUGE benefit to the government and the coalition. Such as some of the tribes in Anbar province turning on AQ, who I believe has always been enemy #1 in the country despite their smaller numbers due to their ruthless tactics that cause secretarian strife. As well as limited cooperation with the Medhi army.

Numbers, numbers, numbers can show good and bad but ultimately the Iraqi's with influence must make amends towards each other for any peace to show itself. The MNF is the buffer between the factions forcing talks with enemies of the government or pay the consequences. That's also why they are bullet magnets but defeating these forces to gain any ground is simply not possible, take away this force and taking land becomes a real possibility. On the other hand the Iraqi forces seem to be doing surprisingly well on their own in many recent instances. That's the key, reliable forces in large numbers working for or with the government with a strong presence on the ground (not locked behind barriers), concessions with various tribes and factions, and once security permits economic reconstruction. An immense task but far from unrealistic and very doable, the war is far from over.

Past failures can become future success as long as lessons are learned. I believe the plan is realistic and has some good chances of success, the alternative that Democrats seem to like on the other hand is certain to fail. I'll take the former.

Many do not realize that this is NOT just an Iraqi conflict but a Sunni/Shiiate conflict that spans many countries and thousands of years.

That's funny, that NOT what you said when the vuiolence lulled for a few days: your post a few back says the drop in violence is proof the surge is working. I ask you for the third time, does that not mean then that a surge in violence is evidence it is not working? You can't have it both ways Ted (though you DO try).



Thank you, that was an unusually frank response from you, and I appreciate it. So IF that happens, then this will be another in the list of failures directly attributable to Bush jr. It's important you admitted that, so people can remind you of it in 6 months. Certainly i would expect the same for myself on the off chance the predictions are all wrong and the surge does have some sucess...



Oh Ted, you were doing SO well, and then off you go making things up again. In fact in my last post I specifically said victory was possible, and if it does happen i will absolutely welcome it. But you just can't help but pretend that those who see a bad plan and recognise the predictions of the experts (military and civilian) who say it won't help, are actually traitors ROOTING for the enemy to win. How Lordhelmety of you.

I'm not pushing to declare defeat, I'm pointing out this is an idiotic plan that has never worked in the past, every time previous troops surges occurred in iraq, (and they have), a plan which few think has a chance, a plan which even Bush's top generals thought wouldn't work, so he replaced them. But as you have said, its still early, and we shall see.



That's off, the bi=partisan Iraqi Researcg Group completely disagrees with you, and their bi-partisan plan, which is only a 'democratic plan' because its advice was so thoughoughly ignored by the President, has a much better chance. The troops surge idea was examined and discarded by the ISG, so forgive me if I take their expert bi-partisan opinion over yours.

Not trying to “have it both ways” V. What I am saying is that in any war there are going to be ups and downs. Sooooo as the surge tactic moves forward we should see a (on average) decline in violence and a trend of people moving back into Baghdad – which is happening. If you subscribe the ludicrous argument that if we don’t see a straight line drop in all violence we have “lost” I will never agree – as I am sure you know – no war in history has ever gone this way.

Washington -- U.S. troops continue surging into Baghdad, Iraq, where hundreds of Iraqi families are returning to their homes, a senior U.S. military official says, adding that coalition forces in Afghanistan are preparing for Taliban attacks against Central Asian New Year's celebrations beginning March 21.

"In Iraq, our top priority continues to be reducing violence and providing security in Baghdad to give Iraqi leaders the breathing room they need to make political progress," Major General Michael Barbaro said March 20 at a Pentagon briefing. Barbaro, who has served in Iraq, is deputy director of regional operations for the Pentagon's Joint Staff.

http://www.aina.org/news/2007032395745.htm

The surge plan may yet fail, but I see signs of encouragement. Here in south Baghdad, my unit has moved into Combat Outposts and Joint Security Sites in the various neighborhoods, or Mulhollahs, in our sector. The greeting from the populace has by and large been friendly and helpful. Attacks and IED strikes are up, but that can easily be attributed to the fact that we are living in the neighborhoods now, instead of simply passing through them.
Our junior commanders on the ground are just starting to reap intelligence from citizens, ID'ing outsiders and analyzing patterns of movement and everyday life. In a short time, we have already seized countless caches of explosives and weapons. Of course there is always more still out there, but when compared to the small victories in this area prior to the surge, I am encouraged.
The best part is that we're learning as we go, making each next endeavor more successful than the last. Key to success however, will be ensuring the legitimacy of the Iraqi Police and National Police, both in competance and in the eyes of the citizens. So far this is a mixed bag, as some of the NP commanders are less than stellar, but I try to temper that with the fact that we tend to look at them through the prism of our own expectations.

There is a government in place. There are police and Security Forces. But I don't understand who are the IED attacks directed at? If it is our troops, then why not leave? That would make us the source of the problem. If they are attacking each other, why not let the government defend its citizens? The surge is a failed policy because it doesn't allow for the Iraqi nation, in cliche terms, to learn to walk. You make an excellent observation about our expectations of Iraq and the Iraqi people. We see them as we see ourselves, and they are not us. We should employ the Murtha Plan and get a better analysis of the problem. Until then, we are simply complicating the conflict and to say otherwise is just spin.

The IEDs are directed at all of the above. The plan is to kill American soldiers where possible but as you may have noticed, most of the targets are “civilian” including women and children. The “purpose” is to foment civil war and to demonstrate to the people that the elected government cannot control Baghdad (or anywhere else). Thus people by the thousands have been leaving Baghdad and one goon sign is they are now coming back. Once people feel safe in their neighborhoods they will feel better about turning in the bad guys for capture.


As the situation stabilizes we should be able to start leaving. The “Murtha plan” does not give the Iraqi army the chance it needs to take over territory. Leaving too soon ensures defeat.

Well Ted, in about 9 months everyone here will know whether you are a profit, or a fool.

The only problem I have is, the prophesies you made two years ago demonstrate you to be a fool. In those days I was saying "The war is lost, it's only a question of when the U.S. people realize it." You were saying, "Stay the course, everything is all right; Bush has it all in hand." Well, everything wasn't all right, and it went from bad to worse and worse again. And by now the U.S. people have realized what a great mistake it all was. One is tempted to conclude that your "understanding" of Iraq is that everything is always under control, and that victory is always just around the corner. Not because it has any correspondence to reality, but because it is necessary to your cherished preconceptions.

I'll make a bet with you, in earnest. If by January 1, 2008 there have been very widely recognized gains in security in Iraq, not just touted by the administration but conceded by most Americans, and that the situation in Iraq is generally recognized as under control, I'll tip my hat to you and never post here again. If on the contrary, the insurgency is still very robust and killing our people at about the same rate they are now, with no end to the violence in sight except in Fox News fanstasies, you never post here again. Is that a deal?

Because in all frankness, I suspect that I am not the only one here tired of your ignorant, windy blather.



Lots of luck with your struggle there, if indeed you are there and not some poseur, but it seems to me that when five NATO-class divisions, multiple CV attack groups, and the world's most powerful air force have taken four years and not only failed to subdue a bunch of ragheads with RPGs and AK-47s, but have seen their strength and audacity increase month by month, the handwriting is very boldly written on the wall. It's time to come home. It's nobody's defeat but Bush's and Cheney's. And to those who are truly in uniform I would say, for more of this, you want to reenlist? I sure as h--l would not.

And please don't call me a traitor; I served eight years of active duty in Vietnam times. And one of the happiest days of my life was the day I got out, O my brothers.

Oh sure. Four years of miserable failure? 3,200 dead and 25,000 wounded? What's that? Drop in the bucket. Bring 'em on!

Vladamir
Because in all frankness, I suspect that I am not the only one here tired of your ignorant, windy blather.


Hey I love you too pal and the far left drivel . The personal attacks are not necessary. To you, with eyes tightly shut, we lost from day one. I am willing to let the new general and new strategy have time to work – and indications are this is happening. I know it will hurt you deeply if we actually win but then…….


Unlike you I believe that much has been accomplished in Iraq – and there is more to do. Time will tell sir.

Have a nice day.

Well, let’s see. In the past few days, two truck bombs went off in Baghdad, killing more than 100 Iraqis. One soldier and one contractor were killed, and several more wounded in a rocket attack on the Green Zone. Additionally, a suicide bomber killed 10 Iraqi civilians. And that’s just in Baghdad.

In outlying areas, where the insurgents seem to be headed after the “surge” of American troops in Baghdad, a Marine died in Anbar, two nuns were stabbed to death in Kirkuk, more suicide bombings in Ramadi killed 10, and two policemen were killed in Baqouba. Car bomb attacks have doubled in areas outside Baghdad.

The “surge” is not the solution; it is exacerbating and relocating the problem.

The serge is working to push the main force of “insurgents” out of Baghdad and get the residents back. Of course the “out of country” suicide bombers will still kill people for some time but as the Iraqi forces gain strength and the tribal leaders in places like Anbar turn against the outside forces the tide could turn.

The serge will not work alone and is not the entire strategy. If it can stop sectarian violence long enough for an accommodation to be reached. There is plenty of wealth in Iraq for all – all that is needed is for Sunnis and Shiits to find common ground.


[Phillip Carter, Tuesday February 13, 2007 at 11:58am EST]

UPI defense correspondent Pam Hess reports from Ramadi about some positive developments in Ramadi. Sunni tribes are aligning with U.S. forces to support the development of the army and police, and to support joint U.S.-Iraqi security efforts. Attacks are down, and parts of Ramadi once under siege are now more peaceful.
By MacFarland's teams count, the Ramadi area has 21 tribes. Twelve are cooperating in the security effort, six are considered neutral, and three are actively hostile. That is almost the reverse of the tribal posture in June, when three were cooperative and 12 were hostile.

As each neighborhood has established a security force, reconstruction money from the brigade has flowed in — roughly $3 million in projects have been undertaken. The active fight has moved out of the main areas of the city where there are local police — the government center, the primary street through town — to the north and east.

http://www.intel-dump.com/posts/1171385935.shtml

Ahh, but DaffyGrl, you're focusing on the bad news. If you just ignore the bad news or hand-wave if off with some euphemism, then the surge in Iraq looks like it's working. Besides we all know about the "liberal media conspiracy" who only wants the US to lose and Republicans to look bad. And even if it isn't working now, we can just take the "historical perspective" -- in 50 years we'll have other things to worry about and this conflict will fade into the past. The lessons we learn from Vietnam and from Iraq can be "re-purposed" as a justification for why we need to escalate conflicts even more in the future since we clearly didn't escalate enough...

If that is "all" that is needed, this war was lost before it began. These two factions have never and will never find "common ground", as this incident brings home.


Oh, and just by the by - "serge" is a sewing technique to prevent edges from fraying...which, when you think about it, isn't all that far off the mark...

I never said they would be hugging each other in the street did I. But if the oil money is spread – and a deal to do that has been reached, and both sides realize they need the other then an accommodation can be reached.

So ya I know you gave up on it – If Bill was President would you be so pessimistic?

Nice dodge.

"A deal has been reached"? What sort of "deal"? Do you have a source to substantiate that?

The lovefest has obviously not begun, since the Shiite police massacred a bunch of Sunnis in retaliation for the bombings. That's a mightly long way from hugging each other...or even being in each others' presence without committing violence.

Nice dodge.

"A deal has been reached"? What sort of "deal"? Do you have a source to substantiate that?

The lovefest has obviously not begun, since the Shiite police massacred a bunch of Sunnis in retaliation for the bombings. That's a mightly long way from hugging each other...or even being in each others' presence without committing violence.


Dodge? You seem to search out the negative in Iraq and will always find it. I am tired of responding to every bad story – below is the “deal” I was speaking of which by the way is a major achievement. I am not surprised you missed it as it, no doubt, did not make the front page of the NYT and the other “unbiased” media.



Iraq's oil
That long-awaited share-out

Mar 1st 2007 | BAGHDAD
From The Economist print edition

A NEW oil law, apparently agreed upon at last by Iraq's politicians, should prompt a gush of much-needed foreign investment to reach the country with the world's second-biggest petroleum reserves. The law's passage was delayed for over half a year by a row between Iraq's federal government in Baghdad and the Kurdistan Regional Government, which runs much of the north-east, including some of Iraq's richest oilfields.

There is a liberal media bias (not significantly but leaning to the left).
UCLA Political Scientist Study

Alrighty then, something concrete to work with. As for the unnecessary remark about liberal media, I get my information all over the 'net (don't get your knickers in a bunch because the 2 sources here are "liberal"). Very few stories of substance reach the mass media these days, because it has been reduced to entertainment. But that is not the topic of this thread, now is it?

Researching this agreement, I see that Iraq’s powerful oil unions are against privatization, which is what the US wants (naturally).

Sadly, it tends to confirm the belief that this whole invasion of Iraq, if not 100% to do with oil, it had a lot to do with oil. This law turns over control of Iraqi oil to private companies (and you can bet it will be a US or US-friendly company Halliburton, anyone?) There are fears that this deal will split the country into 3 ethnic factions.

From Raed Jarrar, an Iraqi blogger who translated the revised agreement into English:

This law is far from a done deal. Iraqis are suspicious that the foreign oil companies’ presence means the US occupation will continue to provide protection for these oil companies’ employees, and they fear privatization is an attempt to “steal” their oil.

As for "negative news", one doesn't have to look far to find it. The news is neither good nor bad, it just is.