The US Military has made considerable progress in Anbar, and almost as much in Diyala and Baquoba. Not your 'war party' How is progress in those provinces politically connected to the surge, which is Baghdad-centric? I don't doubt that those gains will be a part of the Petraeus brief, but how does that tie into the surge being a political stunt back in January?

I thought you would never ask:The war Party has a political interest in maintaining the fictions of American supremacy and our alleged ability to transform entire societies by an adroit application of resources. A "kinder, gentler" form of military interventionism.

I'm starting to wish I hadn't. {{banging head against wall}} I understand DR's assesment of the surge....that it was primarily a stall tactic designed to lay blame at the feet of the Democratic Party. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I understand the opinion. That opinion is predicated on assuming that the Republicans fully expect to lose the White House in 2008.
Perhaps the question for debate was worded poorly. Maybe it shouldn't have required us to choose either plan or stunt. Fact: The surge is most certainly a plan by it's very definiton. Fact: The White House is using the surge for it's own political ends.

I believe what realistically we are being asked to theorize is this: 1. was the surge a plan devised by the Defense Department to salvage the debacle in Iraq, or 2. was the surge a scheme dreamed up by the Administration and forced upon the military?
My money is on option #1. I haven't read much where anyone can point to the plan being fatally flawed, aside from the fact that it can't hope to now undo what we have allowed to fester for the last three years.

Wrong again.


"Meanwhile, Army Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, has submitted plans to retire and will leave his post in March, the Los Angeles Times reported online Tuesday. Abizaid has opposed an increase in troop levels in Iraq, arguing that it would increase Iraq's dependence on U.S. troops."

I fear Petraeus' anti-Iran speech on the 11th will disenchant both the Mahdi army and the Maliki government. I think the big ticket news item this fall will be a broadening offensive against all Shia and this will destablize government whether directly or indirectly. This will not make your job easier. Rumour has it much of Petraeus' Sept. 11th speech will focus on pointing a finger to EFP use even though this trick has been paraded before us earlier this year.

I'm mentioning this to you DTOM because even though we butt heads frequently, this highly volatile position Petraeus will take may pose a risk for ground troops. Big time.

I'm not quite as damning as DR is at this point, but I will say you are losing the battle. This crossing point between losing and lost will be the nomination of the worst man for the job - most likely via military coup, Mr. Iyad Allawi. Should this guy come to power, the remaining Shia which still have faith in American involvment will be lost and then everything is up for grabs. If you want to recipe on how to degrade an already poor position, follow this path.

That’s your response? Are you joking? Likely this may be my last response to your posts, since they primarily only consist of unsupporting hyperlinks.

Speaking of hyperlinks…….how does your linked article make me wrong? That General Abazaid retired? That’s a mighty weak correlation. If you are attempting to imply that because he opposed raising troop strength, it was a purely political stunt……..Abazaid is one commander, not the total sum of the Defense hierarchy. Your own article goes on in the very next paragraph “Military leaders and their supporters in Congress have recently stepped up their calls for more troops.”


Trouble, I'll try to respond to your post in a bit. You bring up a good point.

This was the issue that you proposed:

"I believe what realistically we are being asked to theorize is this: 1. was the surge a plan devised by the Defense Department to salvage the debacle in Iraq, or 2. was the surge a scheme dreamed up by the Administration and forced upon the military?
My money is on option #1. I haven't read much where anyone can point to the plan being fatally flawed, aside from the fact that it can't hope to now undo what we have allowed to fester for the last three years."


Was it not?


Now in January 2007 who in the MILITARY was supporting the surge other than retired Army Gen. John Keane?

Contumacious, You trotted a quote of General Abazaid not supporting a troop increase, and are trying to imply that that means the Department of Defense and the Department of the Army did not plan or support the surge. Try again, please. Without the obnoxious lettering, I'll reiterate. I said: was the surge a scheme dreamed up by the Administration and forced upon the military?
You have most certainly failed to prove that it is the case.

Trouble, I agree that unfounded Iran bashing will not bring good results. We know with absolute certainty that weapons and munitions are coming from Iran in sizable quantities. We also know that Iran is providing technical and tactical training to some insurgent cells. What I don't know, is whether or not this support is state sponsored, implicitly or complicitly. Somebody probably knows, it's just not me. If Petraeus levels serious charges against Iranian influence, but does not back it with credible intelligence, then it will only further damage national credibility. I don't anticipate a spike in attacks strictly from that element of his speech however. Most insurgent cells are nationalist in nature. Islamic first of course, but nationalist. I don't believe that these groups will increase attacks just in support of their Iranian brothers.

In regards to the Iraqi government or it's current figurehead.......that battle is already lost. The Iraqi government is already a lost cause in my opinion. As much as it sucks to say this.......this country screams for a dictator.

Repeating:

Now in January 2007 who in the MILITARY was supporting the surge other than retired Army Gen. John Keane?




Unbelievably, you identify your party affiliation as Libertarian.

What LIBERTARIAN Principle is the Bush administration trying to defend in Mesopotamia?


Why is it acceptable for the US to bring weapons and munitions into the region but not Iran?

There really is not much evidence that the surge is working. Paul Krugman in the NY Times of Monday, September 3 addresses this. For one thing, U.S. casualites have been higher each month of this year as compared with last year. For another, the "progress" in Anbar has been achieved by striking a deal with the tribal leaders there, and does not represent a change in the ability of those leaders to control the situation on the ground. There is certainly no reconciliation of Sunnis and Shiites.

But to some extent it is useless to debate this point, since so many people -- congressional Democrats, who are in the hot seat, not the least -- want desperately to belive that everything is going to turn out all right after all. Time will tell, in any case. I shall be just as astounded by an ultimately pacified Iraq as if WMD are somehow discovered there; each is a fantasy.

Contumacious, to whom are you addressing?

The statement you quoted was not mine it is was DTOM's. He is conservative, I am not. These are his words, not mine. I think you are confused.

Just because the New York Times does it, doesn't mean anyone else should....

Like it or not America isn't defending any Libertarian Principle, it's creating a democratic government in Iraq (not Mesopotamia.) Whether it should be or not is another debate (and it shouldn't).

Thinking that Bushco is doing anything Libertarian is simply a waste of time.

Clearly you have been misled by my plain english. At no time did I defend the administration in my post, nor claim that a libertarian principle was at stake by our presence in Iraq.
Also at no time did I suggest that Iran did not have a right to influence the balance of power in Iraq. Although even you must agree with me that I am justified in not wanting Iranian munitions and training aid to the insurgents, as it poses a clear and present danger to my health and welfare.
You seem to see and read only what you wish, instead of hearing what others are saying.
Yes, unbelievably I am a Libertarian, you somehow think that my statement of some ground truths constitutes a party ideaology that you wish assiciate me with.

The question was intended for poster "dontreadonme" who objects to people treading on him but not on the Iraqis. He professes to be a "Libertarian" .






Yeah, right.

The BA wanted to "create" a "democratic" government in Iraq until it found out that PM Maliki is supporting Iran and Hezbollah. And that sunni Saudi Arabia is getting a tad perturbed.

Wait a minute - are you really saying that home-front support for a war effort has no effect at all on its success?



If you're implying that a given report treats pre-surge violence differently from post-surge violence, there's nothing to support that. As long as any given report uses the same yardstick to measure violence in both periods (and there are arguably many different yardsticks to choose from), that report will provide a fairly reliable indicator of the effect of the surge.



Here's where you get totally blinded by your own ideology. You look exclusively at one single development in one area of Iraq and without any further evidence, draw the wild conclusion that our presence is making the overall situation worse. You mentioned the ISG report a few posts above, so you might want to consider what they have to say about that idea:


Now what do you have to bring to this discussion that calls that conclusion into question? I'm looking here for more than just anecdotal citations of tactical errors.



That wasn't true when you said it six months ago and it certainly isn't any more true now. There, I showed you this Washington Post article stating that "most Sunnis now believe it would be unwise to count on or help U.S. forces because they are seen as likely to leave the country before imposing stability." I asked you more than once who in Washington was responsible for giving them that impression, and each time you either evaded the question or ignored it.

Now granted, that particular situation the article described, with regard to Anbari Sunnites, has begun to change for the better. But the general principle that was true then is just as true now. Whether we're talking Sunnites or Shi'ites, many of the good guys in Iraq, the ones who want a better future for their country, are afraid to align with us (though fortunately, some seem to be overcoming their fears). They're without a doubt terrified that if they do, and we leave prematurely, they'll suffer horrible reprisals at the hands of the people we abandon them to. And you don't need a degree in political science to know which political party has been doing everything they can to put that fear into them.

Oh by the way, don't look now, but there's (eek!) more good news.

BA said that creating a Democracy in Iraq was not a libertarian principle, and he doesn't seem to think that will happen. BA, right or wrong, is a person - a who, not an it.

Note: You were quoting BaphometsAdvocate. If you meant BaphometsAdvocate by BA then he is a who. If you meant Bush Administration by BA then "it" is correct. You weren't clear.

Edited to add:

In approaching the surge, or any other public policy, we can't always make our decisions based on what neatly fits "libertarian," "liberal" or "conservative" priniples. It's all more complex than trying to fit practice within the confines of theory. Such attempts create much frustration.

That would be true in the UK or other countries. Here in the US the executive is supposed to follow Constitutional guidelines which authorize expenditures only in order to defend these US.

The Iraqi invasion was effectuated in order to defend the State Of Israel.



If it is true that you are in Baghdad, then get the flock out. You are a volunteer not a draftee. You know that the Iraqi invasion is nothing more than a crime. That Bush and the neocrazies are nothing more than thugs.

So, a whopping 11 out of 18 benchmarks have been met in Iraq…but only after a scuffle over whether 2 or 4 had been “partially” met. I guess they should have been clearer as to what percentage of each benchmark indicated success or failure. Regardless, it’s a pitiful grade for the escalation…er, excuse me – “surge”.



I’d be willing to bet that the next words out of this administration will be something along the lines “we need more time”, and "it's hard work", and "we can't leave now", and whatever other platitudes come out of the Bush White House's latest mouthpiece.

Yes, indeed.

The "Cold War" has been replaced by the "War on Terror".

They will define who the "terrorists" are and when the mission has been accomplished, again.

I don't know about Israel, but I have always maintained that wars have to be declared to meet Constitutional muster. Congress authorized Bush to conduct the war, but did not pass a formal declaration. If there were no formal declaraion of war, I question the legality of the surge.

I dislike Bush as much as anyone on this board, so say what you will about him.



I think you would win this bet DG, but your take probably wouldn't be all that great. Vegas odds makers would consider it a safe bet.

Essentially, yes. We are not a nation AT war.......we are a nation WITH a war. That was never more apparent than when I came home on R&R. There is no burden or sacrifice placed on the American people. There is no draft. There is no rationing. There are no deprivations. Our job here would entail the same hardships and incur the same results no matter what level of support is on the home front.
In conflicts of the past, home front support played a significant role, but no longer. Please feel free to point out specific examples of home front support that has had any meanignful effect on operations in Iraq.


Thats already happening. Iraqi's who work on FOB's are already well known to the militia's (it's really not hard to figure out), and they periodicaly recieve death threats, or notices to stay away from work on given days. Doubtless some are in the employ of said militia's. Iraqi's who are nUS friendly tribal sheiks or bureaucrats are already outed. Some have been killed. I contend that no matter how long we stay, the central government will not be strong enough to deter sectarian violence. Iraq is a lost cause politically. I believe we're spinning our wheels needlessly, and the outcome is inevitable.

I'm not surprised at this type of response based on your previous posts. I don't fit into your cookie cutter? Egads!



...............

Bush LIED in order to persuade the legislators to authorize the war ; that is called a FRAUD.

Look, don't take something I've written out of context to make your "point." Here is the complete thought.



Kind of changes things, doesn't it? The hightlighted part - you left -out is important.

One can certainly make a case for the Bush Administration not being truthful in the run up to the war, just as you can make a case for them not being truthful about the surge.

I would go one step further and say this war was a vendetta between the Bush's and past flunkies. Wars of aggression are meant to exclude the public for if they do not, the public becomes privy to the more questionable ideas of intervention. You've pretty much admitted the surge is ineffectional and aren't too hopeful about new strategies. Inconvenient questions are a natural response during such a crisis. Questions are not conducive to a smooth running war, consensus is golden - hence Blackstone's comments.



I cannot fully express how long I've waited for you to say this. Unfortunately 4 years ago such a notion was considered left wing isolationism. The next logical progression in this disillusioned thinking will be "when do I disobey orders and risk a court martial". Not fun but someone has to burst bubble that everything is not "fine".

Looking at the last seven years of leadership the trait of stubborness has shown itself many times for the current president. It is very clear that there will be no retreat, no change in tactics, and no change in policy until someone forces the issue. DR has argued this point relentlessly. That much is clear. Change will only come when those under the decider-in-chief make their intentions known.

So the million dollar question that comes from the surge is:

When are you going to muster up the conviction to say this isn't working to a superior officer? Is it safe to say the 15 month rotations are fatiguing enough people that your disgruntled view has spread to a fair number of your compatriots? If I was a soldier this is what I would ask myself, "If I cannot effect change and can no longer adhere to the goals of the mission why am I here?".

A Failed Political Stunt:

LA Times: Surge Has Failed

By Tina Susman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

September 4, 2007

BAGHDAD -- The U.S. military buildup that was supposed to calm Baghdad and other trouble spots has failed to usher in national reconciliation, as the capital's neighborhoods rupture even further along sectarian lines, violence shifts elsewhere and Iraq's government remains mired in political infighting.

In the coming days, U.S. military and government leaders will offer Congress their assessment of the 6-month-old plan's results. But a review of statistics on death and displacement, political developments and the impressions of Iraqis who are living under the heightened military presence reaches a dispiriting conclusion.

Edited to remove copyrighted material

That's because in past conflicts, home front support was much greater than it has been in this one. If it was at those previous levels, then for one thing, recruitment would certainly be up. Also, allies (both in Europe and on the ground in Iraq) would be more willing to go the extra mile for for victory.

But nobody will want to stick his neck out for someone who isn't fully committed to victory in the first place.

Could you define what you consider as succeeding in Iraq?

I thought that the neocrazies were merely seeking to remove Saddam, what happened?

Everyone has covered the shift in Anbar and not only is the violence down but some areas that had attacks every day no have n one for weeks at a trime.

Certainly the Dems want to focus away from any success and into negatives about the political process and sure there are some negatives

We will see in Sept if progress can be made in this area and if not then I agree we are still in big trouble. But I disagree strongly with minimizing the drop in Sunni vs. US and Sunni vs. Shea violence. This was a goal of the Surge and while not complete is certainly on the way.

The Surge strategy is the right strategy and one could only wish we started it 2w years ago.

Is the surge working:


“Yes, comes the answer from Brookings Institution scholars Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, in yesterday's New York Times.

Their conclusion:
How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.
O'Hanlon specializes in military affairs; Pollack is an expert on Iraq and Iran. Both are Democrats; Pollack served on the national security adviser's staff in the Clinton administration. Both are first-class scholars whom I have long respected, though they differ from me in significant respects on foreign policy. For other comments on their article, see this symposium in National Review Online.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2007/7/...ge-working.html

Let's see if I understand what you're saying. You're saying that the lack of hardships and the lack of a draft is because home front support for the Iraq War is not at the same levels as previous wars? So, if support for the Iraq War were greater, then there would be more hardships and a draft? Please explain...


I can only assume that you are not now currently fighting in Iraq. Nor have I seen any posts by you advocating those who support the war in Iraq joining the military in order to fight in Iraq. Thus, I must assume that you don't want to stick your neck out because you are not fully committed to victory.

What the heck does that have to do with democrats? 70% of America is opposed to this war. Democrats have no patent on that belief.

According to your logic, we should suspend elections until there is peace because the results of the vote if it goes democratic "emboldens the enemy". Your logic is absurd.

If the democrats had cut funding or had done anything that caused real action to occur, you could have a point. We may disagree, but it's a fair argument for you to make that the democrats had done something to stop short of your constantly moving goalposts.

But they've done nothing and are being blamed for defeat. Don't blame the democrats - blame me. I'm a conservative republican former marine who's voted republican all his life. And I'm not alone. Make sure you spread that blame around.

logophage, I don't think I've seen a more blatant attempt on this forum to twist somebody's words around than your post to me. And yes, you can assume whatever you want to about me, provided you keep it to yourself. You know the rules about ad hominems.


The problem with your logic, DR, is that you assume that something is false if you're not comfortable with what you imagine the implications of it would be if it were true. But the factual truth of something in no way depends on the desirability of even its actual implications, let alone its imagined implications.

Now I'll ask you again:

Who in Washington has been most responsible for giving the good guys in Iraq the distinct impression that our commitment to them is shaky?

What effect has this had on their willingness to make common cause with us?

Feel free to keep evading these questions if you like, because your doing so will only more solidly confirm that you know exactly what the answer is.

Let me take a stab at these.


Since many Republicans are finally calling for a withdrawal, I’d say it is now a draw between them and Democrats. And it’s not as if the administration supported Coalition Provisional Authority was known for having the best interests of the Iraqi people foremost. It’s not as if we still aren’t occupying just about every one of Saddam’s former palaces, instead of returning them to the Iraqi people who should be the rightful owners. I’d say that the administrations commitment to the average Iraqi is shaky at best.


Nearly none. One of the upsides of our invasion of Iraq, and likely a temporary one, is that most citizens can now have unfettered access to news and information from around the world. They see what is reported on CNN, and I believe that they see what many of us see……..that the Administration is willing to slog it out in Iraq no matter how long it takes, or how many lives are lost. And that the Democrats, if truly willing to see us leave Iraq, which most Iraqi’s want, could end our involvement…….by not paying for it anymore. But they seem more interested in using the Iraq war as a political bludgeon to win elections…….no matter how long it takes, or how many lives are lost.

So who exactly should the Iraqi’s trust?

Perhaps, it's just a misunderstanding. Perhaps, you can explain precisely what you meant when you wrote:
You seem so eager to blame the failures in this war on those who are "against" the war.

BAGHDAD (AP) - Four U.S. Marines were killed in fighting in Anbar province, and three were killed by a roadside bomb in northern Iraq, the military said Friday.

The four Marines were killed Thursday while conducting combat operations in Anbar, a predominantly Sunni province west of Baghdad that has seen a recent drop in violence, according to a statement.

Three soldiers also were killed Thursday when a bomb exploded near their vehicle in the northern Ninevah province, the military said separately. link

Meanwhile...

A day after the Government Accountability Office reported that the Iraqis have met just three of 18 benchmarks they had agreed to meet, George W. Bush offered a slightly rosier assessment of the war during his visit to Australia today. Asked by Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile to say how things are going in Iraq, the president of the United States declared: "We're kicking a**." link2

The profanity filter prevents me from quoting him accurately, but is any more proof needed that George W. Bush and reality aren't on speaking terms?

Wow NT! That article you quoted sure did have a lot of substance. You nearly quoted the entire article with 3 lines of text.

I don't know one way or another if the surge is working because I am not on the ground in Iraq, but I have to question your true motives NT, because all you have done since the start of this war is be a cheerleader for the death count.

This small blurb by the guardian is only to point out, "LOOK!! More soldiers died!"

I can't help but wonder what the reporting would have been like during WWII. If we had the kind of global media we have today. Do you think we would have been successful?

I have a question for you as a journalist NT. If you had information about the military's plan to bomb Hiroshima/Nagasaki, would you have reported it knowing that the support from the US population as a whole would have been very weak and most likely caused Truman to not go through with the bombing?

I know you probably won't answer the question. But that's cool, I still asked it.

I agree with DTOM that we are not a nation at war, but a nation with war. And the line that soldiers over there are fighting for our freedoms is an exaggeration at best.

I wouldn't exactly call it a draw, since the Democrats are much more solidly in favor of withdrawal than the Republicans, but regardless of party affiliations, those politicians who are calling for withdrawal I'd say are the ones most responsible for giving potential allies on the ground in Iraq the impression that our commitment is shaky.


So what do you make of that Washington Post article I cited, when it pointed out that most Sunni Iraqis felt it would be unwise to help U.S. forces who were seen as likely to leave before imposing stability?

By the way, as for the view that most Iraqis are opposed to U.S. presence, I've seen the polls, too. But the problem I see with them is that I assume they're conducted by telephone, right? How does the respondent know that the person on the other end of the line is a legitimate polling firm, and not some jihadist group?

OR, it could be the fact that after 4.5 years of war:

• the insurgency is still active and still growing;
• the casualty rate is not decreasing;
• the Iraqi police are "infiltrated" by sectarian AND secular interests (other than those of the government);
• Iraq's infrastructure is bad and getting worse;
• there is mass unemployment;
• the Iraqis who were able have fled (you know the middle class);
• the US will do things unilaterally if it doesn't get its way (doctrine of preemption);

This info from Paul Krugman in todays (September 7, 2007) NY Times:

First, no independent assessment has concluded that violence in Iraq is down. On the contrary, estimates based on morgue, hospital and police records suggest that the daily number of civilian deaths is almost twice its average pace from last year. And a recent assessment by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found no decline in the average number of daily attacks.

So how can the military be claiming otherwise? Apparently, the Pentagon has a double super secret formula that it uses to distinguish sectarian killings (bad) from other deaths (not important); according to press reports, all deaths from car bombs are excluded, and one intelligence analyst told The Washington Post that “if a bullet went through the back of the head, it’s sectarian. If it went through the front, it’s criminal.” So the number of dead is down, as long as you only count certain kinds of dead people.

In fact, the "decline" Patreaus is pimping is pure spin.

In December 2006, violence spiked big time. Patreaus has measured the casualties against THAT figure and said violence has dropped from that point. Which is true. However, it's settled down from that spike to double the casualties from last year.

If the surge is working, why is it necessary to distort the numbers? If the surge is working, shouldn't you be able to display solid figures instead of playing math games and/or using classified data not open to peer review?

I wouldn’t expect Sunni’s to say anything else than what they have. They are a minority in Iraq, and the ruling Shia aren’t likely to treat them as full political partners when we leave, no matter how long we say. I simply do not wish to expend more American lives in the pursuit of a stability that I don’t believe will ever come. It’s not worth my life to make the Sunni Iraqi’s feel safe. I do not feel beholden to a people who do not embrace an opportunity to pursue a democratic way of life, but would rather fight with their brothers over an interpretation of Islam.

The September 6th issue of GovExec.com has an interview with Army Chief of Staff General Casey, who says:
The decrease in violence in Iraq caused by the infusion of 30,000 additional American troops is only "a temporary tactical effect," limited to those neighborhoods and streets where the troops are located, the Army's chief of staff said Monday.
Absent significant political reconciliation among Iraq's competing Sunni, Shia and Kurdish populations, the "surge" strategy is unlikely to have a broader influence on security in Iraq, said Army Gen. George W. Casey, at a breakfast in Washington hosted by Government Executive. But he added he is skeptical that such progress will be made, citing numerous earlier opportunities squandered by Iraqi leaders.

The bottom line is that the surge is having a positive effect, but that effect is only as long as US troop levels are maintained or even increased, AND the Iraqi government pulls itself together and convinces the Iraqi people to pursue a peaceful democratic process.
But at what cost? NT’s signature may be offensive to some who liken it an anti-war political statement……..but just as offensive to me is the reasoning that American lives are worth an uncertain Iraqi future.

You aren't the first person on this board to question my motives for the casualty count, Sleeper. You probably won't be the last.

What is the "true motive" for the count? Well, primarily it's to remind people who have been doped into a stupor by a lazy, cowardly, play-it-safe, celebrity-obsessed corporate media and a lying, secretive and morally corrupt presidential administration that there is a war going on out of the sight of the cameras that don't show the images of the carnage in Iraq or the flag-draped coffins coming home to America.

The true motive is beyond the happy talk of the successful surge and other bluster and blather from right-wing radio, Faux News and the professional pundits or the macho crap spewed by the Cheerleader-In-Chief is to note that there are real soldiers still fighting and still dying and coming home wounded and scarred for life physically and mentally to be plugged into an inadequately funded, understaffed and overburdened veterans health care system.

The "true motive" is to remind those who'd rather not be reminded that some Americans are paying a terrible price for the rest of the indulge ourselves in the luxury of forgetting about them.

And if that makes me a "cheerleader for the death count" that's still better than being a uninformed, unobservant and impassive sleeper, Sleeper.

For what it's worth, I'm sorry the casualty count bothers some people here. But I'm sure it bothers the dead and wounded and their families a helluva lot more.



Are you really trying to ask me if I would provide aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States by revealing the plan to drop the atomic bomb on Japan?

I usually don't waste my time with hypothetical scenarios. This is exactly the reason why.

Think whatever you like. Anyone who would ask such a ridiculous question isn't really interested in a serious answer.

Hard to argue with a military savant like Krugman, but Petraeus was unanimously confirmed to his position by a 81-0 vote in the Senate...can't we at least wait until he actually submits his report to Congress before skewering him and challenging his credibility? Then we'll, like, actually have something to read.

And the GAO report found no difference in the average number of attacks from July to July, not December to July. Different numbers that do not contradict Petraeus. Here they are. On figure 4 you can see a large spike up in attacks against coalition forces in June while the attacks against civilians went down (that's the GAO report, not the supposed "fancy math" of comparing forehead shootings with backhead shootings). Attacks against civilians is significantly lower in July of 2007 than October 2006. The numbers aren't exactly encouraging, but they do not seem to contradict Petraeus. If the downward trend continued through August (which we don't know until the report comes out), that might be a slightly encouraging sign.

The fact that we must wait for Gen Petraeus assessment is an admission that the civilians who initiated and managed the Iraqi incursion have lost all credibility. Of course the question remains whether the administration is stage-managing Petraeus's congressionally mandated appearance. Let's not forget that Bush has routinely fired commanders when they offered advice he didn’t want to hear.

Assuming, for argument's sake that the figures we are provided are true then that can be construed as a de facto division of the country into three ethnic/sectarian regions – Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the west, Shi'ites in the south and increasingly dominating Baghdad, given that the Shi'ites have pretty much driven all the Sunnis out of western Baghdad, which used to be Sunni-dominated.

See. There you go again. All your arguments attack and try to lump a person into a category that you paint. It's actually quite amusing to watch you foam at the mouth as you go on about right wing radio(which demolishes left wing radio in our current free market) and Fox news. If you can find posts where I said everything was peachy-hunkydorey in Iraq please come with it, otherwise you are looking like a fool. You on the other hand are always pointing out the negative.



The body count doesn't bother me, as I said nothing about the body count in your sigline.

I'll come right out and say it. I really don't think a majority of the left who display your BDS antics really care about soldier's deaths in Iraq, it's just convenient to use them in your political posturing.



Why is it liberals scream you can't ask certain questions? You sound like Hillary when she said she wouldn't get into hypothetical scenarios involving Iran. Must be hiding something.

I think DR may have hit the nail on the head with hopes (by Bushco) that the failure in Iraq could be laid at the feet of democrats- just look at sleeper, blackstone's and ted's posts- they are pretty much "see, you guys lost us the war because you didn't "ra ra" enough with the cheerleading of the troops".

Unfortunately for the Bushbots- this isn't really even happening- most of the nation pretty much knows who is to blame for this abject failure, for even entering into something so stupid in the first place.

Patreaus has pretty much already said the surge was a failure, as of this AMs local paper has reported.

The dems don't have enough votes without republican help to unilaterally withdraw the troops, unfortunately.

So the political stunt of attempting to blame "liberals" for the failures in Iraq may work in the end- hard to say, the American population is pretty stupid, ignorant and dumb for the most part, and actually believe things like "the WMD were moved to syria" (suuuurre, got some land to sell ya BTW , and, oh, I love you and the check is in the mail)

Karl Rove was pretty good at manipulating the stupid and weak minded, so, sticking with this game plan may help the RNC some, but I think GWs legacy will be blown, no matter what happens at this point, and may very well go down in history as one of the worst presidents in US history.

And Sleeper why do certain silly questions NOT get answered by NT or Hillary- okay- an example:

Sleeper - you are a male according to your bio profile- so, answer this question, yes or no only please- Is this the first time you have been pregnant?

What I'm asking is if you think what they were saying was an accurate reflection of how they felt. In other words, was it truly because of their perception that we would leave prematurely that they were unwilling to align with us?

As for the prospects of near-term Sunnite-Shi'ite reconciliation, I'm not all that optimistic about that either. Fortunately for us, that's not absolutely necessary. Maybe they won't reconcile, in which case there would wind up being some kind of partition of Iraq, either de facto or de jure. Though reconciliation may be impossible for now, reducing the actual fighting to a much lower level is not, if the two sides are effectively separated.


I don't think anyone's suggesting that this war is being fought merely for the Iraqis' benefit. We have a War on Terror to fight, and it would be a bad thing to let our enemies in that war use Iraq as a base of operations.

Yes but then you have to think that using Iraq as a base of operations as you would put it would be to our benefit or not. Personally I could only see it as the reason we are losing and have been losing, we cant win hearts and or minds period over there. You cant come out and say the war is for a liberated Iraq, then not allow Iraq to be the way any particular Iraqis want it with such liberty, and then turn on a dime and say we are here to fight terrorism so we don’t have to fight it at home. I don’t know about you but I seriously doubt for the common Iraqi to be so ignorant as that. How long do you think they would put up with a war torn nation that has no where to go save a continuous pile of the dead. Its in urban areas combat is committed to for the most part, in which collateral damage becomes and unavoidable reality. Basically put to accept the notion of using Iraq as a means to combat terrorism by turning it into a war zone will basically lose you favor in any regard I would think, so in that light the idea of making a democratic Iraq becomes a lost point, or anything past the reality that an Iraqi is to view U.S occupation as a means of ruining his or her nation. Simply put, no goals in Iraq that we desire will come to fruition if the Iraqi people do not support such. It also I would say serves to undermine any legitimacy to our WOT we are supposedly conducting at home and abroad. As for the surge working, well is it, or is it whack a mole still that can only persist as long as troop levels stay infinitely as it stands, and really is Iraq any more secure or better off today then it has been any day of the past days of this conflict. I don’t think any politician past wanting to support a position from a non factual base would attest to this. You can call the democrats all kinds of things, but the last time I checked the only reason they won any votes was on countering what’s currently being conducted by our government, personally that sounds like the democracy the chickenhawks so cry about in importance.

You have it exactly backwards. Withdrawing from Iraq now would turn the place into much worse of a war zone than it is presently, and that would be a boon to the terrorists. The whole idea is to prevent that from happening.

Possibly, except that as long as we remain involved in Iraq, with a partition, we may be trading one Pandora’s Box for three. Partitioning the countryside doesn't pose as much of a challenge, but how to partition Baghdad? Neither Shia nor Sunni would accept any partition plan without having rights and access to Baghdad. The city's infrastructure is not evenly divided throughout the city, and the fact that Shia and Sunni mosques dot the city like 7-11 Stores, only compound the problem. If the country (and Baghdad) is partitioned, one must still deal with policing buffer zones, controlling checkpoints, regulating fair water and power usage, and the dispersion of oil revenues. And that's not even delving into the issue of armed groups on either side, with Iran supplying the Shia, Turkey finally invading Kurdistan, and AQI or other nationalist groups in the Sunni territory. Barring a massive involvement by the UN or other entity, we would have to police the entire country (sound familiar?) without the benefit of a somewhat reliable and marginally competent Iraqi Army.


I don't hang out with many Sunni's, and I'm definitely not in Anbar, but my perception is that Sunni groups have been taking up arms against AQI primarily because they are not prone to accept outside influence in their tribal affairs. AQI wishes to establish a fundamentalist caliphate and the Sunni's wish to maintain a semi-autonomous tribal confederacy. Sunnis recognize that the Americans will eventually leave, and they will be left to not only defend themselves against Shia/JAM incursions but against AQI intimidation. Sunni groups are arming themselves not so much in conjunction with American operations or to stave off our withdrawal, but in preparation for our withdrawal. In my estimation, they are being prudent, as I don't believe that Jaysh Al-Mahdi Special Groups are considering themselves included in the so-called Al-Sadr ceasefire.
It's time to face facts, Shia and Sunni reconciliation is one of the major cornerstones to a peaceful Iraq. If the surge cannot bring this about, no matter what other successes, our vision for a united Iraq is doomed.

That is PURE nonsense. Al Qaeda in Iraq is a myth; a fraud being perpetrated by Bush and the neocrazies.

98% of the acts of violence are sunni vs shiite violence trying to grab as much real state as possible.