Well then, I'm sure your cousin enjoys being here. For whatever reason, his assesment of the situation bears little relation to mine.



Suicide bombings aren't on the increase. Suicide bombings usually do not have American forces as the primary target. Command wire IED's are the primary killers of American forces, and we have not seen a marked decline in insurgent recruiting or overall manpower.



One perk of being here I suppose, is that I don't have to merely rely on the news that is fed to consumers, I get to live it daily. That gives me my perspective to base my beliefs and opinions on, more so than news outlets. I'm not saying that my assesments are always correct, but I certainly can't be as wrong as the people who simply regurgitate talking points without context or situational knowledge.



See response above.



I contend that I'm not the one confused here. When I see corruption being fought in the ministry's, when I see the Iraqi and National Police purged of militia members, when I see rocket attacks into FOB's abate, when I see the government rather than militias providing essential services to the people.......then I'll believe we have positive momentum.



When I see the average American citizen knowing more about their representatives and how bills are passed, than who the contestants on American Idol are......I'll be more concerned with 'national support'.



And you base this off of what exactly? I mean...you're sure, you said so yourself.......so please back this up.



Well said Lesly. Both reasons for AQI's existance are plausible. If it is the former, AQI wanting to force the US withdrawal from Iraq, then they will be fighting for their very existance once we leave. They will find precious few allies among the Sunni's now, and virtually none from the Shia, Christians and the Kurds. AQI's logistical apparatus is built for short duration, high profile attacks. They do not posess the base from which to carry out protracted operations. It may well be that Al Qeada are attempting to mire our military into a post-Vietnam style morass of low morale, low motivation and a general state of unreadiness. Of course, this type of strategic thinking is something I had not attributed to them before....

net2007, I believe that you are attempting to be an honest broker in this debate. You are trying to be conciliatory but then you write things like: why not be in it to win it. Let's deconstruct this statement.

First, you are implying that this war is winnable -- from your point of view seems possible. Yet, you are unable to give a concrete notion on how you wish to achieve this win. For example, you bank much on this "surge" and yet it has been iterated over and over that it is by definition short-term. Our troops extended tours are timing out starting last month. There are no more new soldiers to bring into the mix. But even if you can magically solve that problem, you aren't able to give a concrete notion on how long these soldiers will need to fight in order to "win". You wave your hands around and say the generals know how to do this or there have been problems in the past but now it's turning around. You are unable to articulate a strategy except for "more troops and more time". You want us to stay longer but cannot describe how you will achieve it.

Second, "why not be in it to win it" is often found as a response to the anti-war "pull out now". This statement implies that the anti-war folks don't want us to "win" which is far from the truth. The anti-war folks believe we cannot "win" (assuming winning=stabilizing Iraq and stabilizing Iraq=pro-US democratic government with rule of law). I believe you are either deliberately ignoring this difference OR you are just incapable of understanding this difference. I hope it's not the latter.

Third, "why not be in it to win it" means that the current volunteer service of our armed forces will be "in it". It is technically true that, since this is a volunteer service, they are on the hook for being shot at, blown up, dismembered and killed in Iraq. Yet, I detect no attempts on your part to remedy this. Until about 1 year ago, I had been calling for the Draft as the only means for us to have achieved the necessary troop levels to stabilize Iraq. If we really are in war, then we should bear this burden democratically. This was my attempt to remedy the issue. What's yours?


I admit that we have sometimes drifted off-topic, but if the pro-war folks argue that anti-war folks don't want us "to win", then it's fair for the anti-war folks to level the same accusation on the pro-war folks. Using phrases like "anti-war folks who want us to pull out now means that the troops will have died in vain", opens yourself up to counter-phrases such as: "pro-war folks who do not advocate for the draft means they don't support winning the war".

Do you see how this works? If you really want to put this behind you and actually argue the merits of the "surge", then avoid the catchphrases and the implicit put-downs. I'll meet you halfway. I promise.

Hey we don’t agree- you have the stupid “if you want it go fight” line and I think there are things we need to finish once started and I trust Petraeus to get the job done. We will be out of there but not soon. You want to run – good – tell your Dem buddies to get a backbone and cue the damn funds – they did say they were here to “RULE” – so let em DO IT.

End of story.

Meanwhile the serg is working and you folks on the left just hate it - don't you.

BAGHDAD - The monthly toll of U.S. service members who have died in Iraq is on track to being the lowest in nearly two years, with at least 34 troop deaths recorded as of Tuesday, but the military cautioned it's too early to declare a long-term trend.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,155106,00.html

This statement makes no sense. Why would one advocate, enable, and expedite a clearly illegal war and genuinely bad idea? This thread has chronicled how indifferent the surge was to implementing progress. Offering up manpower and lives to strategists who have no real game plan for success strikes me as unsound and foolish. In fact I am sceptical one would even be defending their country by serving time over there. The correlation between safer there, safer here has fallen to pieces.

A larger point that has escaped debate is if the surge fails to get a passing grade, adding undisciplined 'new' recruits may add fuel to the fire. That is if you can agree Iraq has become an atrocity generating sinkhole. It takes a trained career professional to withstand the rigors of a losing war, something a draft newbie is unlikely to fix.

What an immature, snarky statement. By the way who is "serg"?

It seems to be the modus operandi of the 'war supporters' to label anyone who doesn't agree with them as "the left", and to continue to make graded assesments of the surge, based on sound bites and single issues. Yes Ted, US casualties were lower the past month. What will happen when Sadr's Mahdi Militia ends it's freeze? Will the surge be working then? What happens when the government continues to be absolutely ineffectual, will the surge be working? What happens as the surge Brigades are withdrawn from Baghdad?

I agree with Trouble that a draft would be a huge nail in the coffin of our military, that is already nearing life support. But the draft would at least force some true believers to take a long hard look at what is at stake, when they may be intimately confronted with the realities of war.

There's really been a lot of petty bickering back and forth on this thread - as well as sidetracks into areas that could make for a couple of other good discussion threads.

But I'll just get to the point. In the end, tactical successes, reductions in US troop casualties or of Iraqi civilian casualties mean absolutely nothing unless the strategic goals of the surge are met. Time is running out; this surge in troop number is unsustainable - as DTOM has stated several times. However, no substantive progress had been made in achieving the key strategic objective: the reduction in levels of violence as a result of the surge was never a goal in itself - it was meant to provide space for political progress at the national level. This has not happened. No substantive progress has been made towards de-Ba’athification reform, provincial elections, militia disarmament, or reconciliation. The Iraqi Cabinet did pass legislation establishing a framework for an oil law - but it has yet to address the sensitive issues of revenue sharing, or the status of the Kurdish region (now potentially under threat by the Turks).

I won't even begin to go into the cascading second and third order effects of Iraq's refugee crisis - both IDPs and across borders.

If substantive progress (I know I keep repeating the term, but its important) in these areas isn't made before we start drawing down the surge, it can be considered a definitive failure. Period.

Dontreadonme


Im sure nobody enjoys being at war. Being at home sippin on a Budwiser beats getting shot at in Iraq and not many would disagree with that. To have honor in fighting for your nation doesn't equate to enjoying things like boot camp, or 100 degree temperatures, it simply means you get a great since of pride in fighting for a greater cause than yourself. Im an average american Joe, but I understand this as its true of many things in life. Nothing worthwhile is easy, or even necessarily safe.









What do you do in Iraq? Are you in Iraq? If so it seems your point of view comes with some massive opposition. I see it all the time as direct testimonies from generals. Even watching specials on National Geographic of all places, Ive seen more optimism from footage of soldiers on the ground than from you. I don't doubt there are those that flat out don't support the war effort in any way, and I respect your point of view, but couldn't disagree with it more.






Some progress is being made, but it is not near enough yet, but we will get there. I said we reversed negative momentum, in other words things aren't continuing to get worse, and in places like Abnar provenience which as you know, makes up about a third of the country, things are actually improving in many ways. I'm not pulling this stuff out of the air, this isn't the testimonies of people like Bill Oriley, its the testimonies of highly ranked generals Like David Petraes , Maj. Gen. Lynch, and Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno. I'm not not saying anything they aren't saying, in my post read section 4. That particular section is titled (Has there been sucsess?) it talks about prior and current success in the war, and has many links.....

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry228304

So you wouldn't be calling these generals Liars now would you?



Unless those American Idol watchers are against the war, right? lol JK, you are right though too many people know more about what John Stewart reports or who was last years American Idol winner than world affairs.




So you want me to substantiate the fact that those who enlisted during the cold war are now older? In turn many of them having been in the military as long as they have, have moved up in the ranks? Was that actually a serious question?

logophage



Well, it cant be substantiated in a few paragraphs, being the reason why I spent a month off and on, writing a complete WOT post that explains everything you just asked about in detail. Half the time was spent researching, so everything is well substantiated. It covers 9 subtopics, and the topics are pretty self explanatory, so regarding troop levels, and how we win, sections 5 and 6 talk about that the most....

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry228304



Everyone varies, I say (some) Anti War or (Many) anti war have done this or that, depending on what I'm talking about. For example some anti -war in this nation I honestly believe did not want to hear what they did on September 10'h in regards to progress being made. Its not everyone, it may not even be most antiwar, in fact I believe most of the anti-war are sensible people just like most war supporters are sensible people, I rarely put anyone all in the same boat. As for this bit (anti-war folks who want us to pull out now means that the troops will have died in vain) Its a fact that many people will die in vein if we pull out early and accept Iraq as a loss, as for who's fault it will be I believe it will be the fault of this administration for having stuck with poor war planning long enough to permanently damage public moral, but also the fault of whoever it is that pulls the plug, or plays politics with this war. In general I try and see things for what they are, not how it would be most convenient for me. If we lose it will be the faults of many people on both sides, including many conservatives, although I do not see a conservative pulling the plug, given the lineup of presidential candidates we have.

Right but this is beyond control of the US military so you cannot ask this of any general. I believe the surge has worked as of yet to the best of it's ability and so far at least has been a success.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/30/...main/index.html



No matter what the military may do you cannot expect them to control the politicians of Iraq unless you rule under a dictatorship which would defeat the purpose.

The surge has shown progress, it is not up to the U.S. from this point.

Somebody watched too many war movies.......but to an extent I agree. If I were fighting for a cause greater than myself, I would have more pride. Since we're not however........I'll simply be here for my comrades and visa versa. I should be pretty content I guess, I get internet access and haven't gotten blown up yet.



Be honest.....you..don't..really..read..any..of..my..posts..do you? Scan left real quick, I've not hidden where I currently am. At least until May 08 anyway. The 'massive' opposition may stem from the fact that I have to live with death daily; the deaths of my friends and the deaths of Iraqi's. If you will read any of my posts from prior to or just getting here, you may notice a tad more optimism. Oh how I pine for the days of innocence.......



You speak quite vaguely of how things are improving. But how well are things going to be when Sadr lifts his freeze on JAM, not that it has applied to Special Groups to begin with. Anbar is great...woo-hoo for Anbar. Baghdad is the center of gravity for Iraq. Control Baghdad, control Iraq. We control Anbar......so control a whole lot of desert.

And for the love of all that is grammatically correct, please, please spell General Petraeus's name correctly.



I'll use your technique, since you failed to see the relevant unsubstantiated portion of that quote, I'll put it in red.

Well individuals who joined during the cold war, are now older and have higher ranking positions in our military, and they don't represent the majority of our forces on the ground thats for sure.

One might wonder why so many senior NCO's and Officers are turning down promotions and retiring or getting out. I don't have to wonder, I'm one of them.



Go Ron Paul!



Very true, but given the track record of those politicians, there needs to be a time where we say enough! We've been dying for going on four years now, how much blood must we spill waiting for Iraqi politicians to get their act together? The security situation had provided the needed environment for legislative and civil action. And still JAM supplies fuel and medical care to most of Baghdad. And still the Iraqi and National Police are corrupt, inept and actively working against us.

Much more is "up to the US" than mere military operations. Public perception of "the surge" is partly the fault of the media, but also the fault of the administration failing to adequately explain efforts to the public.

The troop surge itself is only one aspect of the current strategy - as I stated earlier, the goal of the troop surge and the shift in military operations is to provide space for the other elements to work.

This fight is not a simple (to misuse that word) counterinsurgency. It is complex blend of COIN, counterterrorism, post-conflict reconstruction, and dealing with sectarian and factional violence as well as vicious bands of organized criminals. In the old days, we used DIME (Diplomatic, Information, Military, Economic) as the acronym to describe the fusion of interagency elements required to address a complex unconventional conflict. Today PMESII is the buzz-acronym (Political, Military, Economic, Social, Infrastructure, Information), although MIDLIFE (Military, Intelligence, Diplomatic, Law Enforcement, Information, Finace, Economic) also gets thrown around a bit. (Although I grew up with DIME, I prefer PMESII - MIDLIFE is not only redundant, it just lends itself to too many jokes about midlife crises)

These are not just fuzzy acronyms. The elements represent the degree of interagency collaboration required to address the problems in Iraq. Hell, as a prime example the State Department is also surging its personnel in a desperate attempt to adequately staff the burgeoning number of PRTs.

The military is not acting on its own in this fight. The ultimate responsibility for success or failure lies not with GEN Petraeus, who has done reasonably well with the hand he's been dealt, but with our national level decision makers. Unfortunately, despite the hard-learned lessons of the past few years, the decision making process is still hampered by agency and personal turf issues as well as poor (and poorly informed) planning.

The efforts will either show substantial progress at the national level as it has locally and sectarian violence will end through political reconciliation or we lose the war. Progress is being made and it must continue or I agree with you.

I could not disagree more with you on the draft. You may not be old enough to remember my war – Vietnam but the draft not only did little to end it put provided enough troops for the idiot LBJ to continue to pour men to their deaths at a rate that makes Iraq look like a skirmish.

It did get students who would be soon drafted onto the street but little else. This disaster that cost us 58,000 Americans was truly a disaster followed by a cut and run. I agreed with that policy because it was clear LBJ had done everything he could to tie the hands of the military so that absolutely nothing was accomplished after over 5 years and 50,000 + dead.

Iraq is not in that category – yet.

The ones in charge aren't the ones blowing themselves up. It's a mistake to think that because they're radical they therefore don't carefully calculate their actions.


What percentage of the problem they make up depends on how you define the problem. When it comes to the Iraqis themselves, maybe you can say they make up only 10% of the problem. When it comes to the War on Terror that we're fighting, AQ in general makes up much more than that. If they should "define our policy" when it comes to Afghanistan (as Democrats and Republicans have both agreed), why should it be any different for Iraq? If they should get set up in Iraq, is it not likely that they would use it, like they did Afghanistan, as a base of operations for attacks against us, the way they've already used it against other countries?

Again, you are making AQ in Iraq more relevant than they actually are in Iraq to make your point. And while you are doing that, you ignore the many other places in the world they actually have command and control logistical support.

If Al Qaeda in Iraq wanted to attack us, they would walk across our borders with any other person that is already doing so.

Wikipedia defines terrorism as such:


It's the relevance we give uncivilized gasbags such as AQ in Iraq that makes them stronger. The more scared we are, the more powerful they are. That's terrorism's only point. Blackstone, you have AQ firing on all cylinders because you are as afraid as they want you to be.

You know, I love my family as much as the next person and would lay down my life without delay if they were in danger. But I'm not a coward either. I am not willing to send someone else's kid off to die to protect my family from threats that only exist in my head. The possibility of AQ in Iraq doing something is no more likely than AQ in Afghanistan, Algeria, Somalia, Kenya, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Bosnia doing something.

You've picked the major threat in Iraq when it doesn't exist. That is not our biggest threat. It's not even Iraq's biggest threat. Our biggest threat is our own government - they refuse to close our borders and enforce existing immigration laws.

You forget that AQI was responsible for the destruction of the Golden Dome in Samara which lead to a dramatic rice in sectarian violence. Thus they have been very important in Iraq. We also know they are responsible for numerous other attacks on both Sunni and Shiite civilians in a successful attempt (until recently) to “keep the sectarian violence going”. In fact this is what ultimately got them in trouble locally esp. in Anbar and is the reason Bin Laden just “apologized”.

So to say that AQ has not been significant a driver of events in Iraq is just plain wrong.

I agree that the war has an illegal foundation, however I believe that if we really wished to stabilize Iraq, then we should have ponied up the troops to quell the inevitable insurgency that resulted from our invasion. The only way to achieve this was to have a massive troop presence for a few years. The only way to have a massive troop presence is to institute the draft.

The reason we didn't institute the draft is because it would be political suicide for anyone instituting it. Dubya and the other pro-war politicos who are mostly Republicans would effectively kill their party. It would take decades to recover from the political backlash. This is why the draft was never instituted. It's because politicians wanted to save their party over what it would take actually stabilize Iraq. There are words to describe this behavior.


Right now, you are correct. Three years ago the draft could have worked (at the cost of the Republican party and the 2004 election, of course). This is why I probably won't ever vote Republican again (even though I used to). This is a political party who has earned my enmity.

Good point Ted. Now tell me exactly what that has to do with us and why good people like DTOM have to die.

If those thugs wanted to destroy us instead of golden domes, they could hold hands with a Mexican, ride an elephant over our open borders, and with a Mariachi band serenading them, kill unarmed Americans at will. The reason they are not doing this is a topic for another thread. In any case, there are far more likely groups to do major damage to us than a bunch of nitwits in that hellhole called Iraq. Tell DTOM - to his face (at least relatively speaking here) - that you have no problem with him dying in Iraq because you are afraid of somebody bad somewhere in the world maybe doing something bad here.

DTOM is in Baghdad right now fulfilling your wet dream of peace, democracy, and oil fields. If you don't have the courage to physically help in this fight, at least have the courage to tell someone who may die for your beliefs that his life is worth the costs to his face. C'mon - I'm challenging you.

It's only a talking point until it puts an eye out.

Dontreadonme



Are you referring to the "Whiskey Drinking Porn Loving Infidel" part or the "From Baghdad" part? Ive read your post, and I don't know specifically why your there, another member of this site recently went to Iraq, yet isn't a soldier from what I know. I haven't gotten around to checking your page out until just now. However if your unaware that some of your superiors have been publicly stating that violence trends are down some, then I suppose thats the kind of thing that makes me ask are you in Iraq? Everything I have stated has been said by people on the ground there, and remember I haven't said violence is low, I'm saying violence is down. I'm not making any outrageous claims that others in Iraq themselves aren't saying.



Success in Abner "Woo Hoo"? Your friends are risking their lives securing what is a substantial percentage of the country and the most they get from you is a Woo Hoo? If your really in Iraq you know how big Abnar provenence is, and how overrun its been by the enemy in the past. Also Ive been very specific about how things are improving, did you look at the stats link I posted earlier? There is much more than public opinion stats at that link, there are violence trend stats as well. Additionally there are other links on my WOT post.






I really hate to be sarcastic, I'm not here to question why a soldier in Iraq wouldn't know that the average age of an active soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan is actually in the 20's, but if you need substantiation for such a well known fact that I honestly believed I needed no substantiation for, I know this for a fact because my cousin told me, If however you want more proof for that claim I found a couple links for you just by doing a quick google search....

Link one...

http://klobuchar.senate.gov/multimediagall...?id=279445&

The quote below is from the .gov link above.........


I said originally that those who signed in with our military during the Cold War don't represent the majority of our forces on the ground. Since the average age of active soldiers is 27, and the cold war ended officially in 1989 or 18 years ago. Anyone who is 27 today was only 9 years old, 18 years ago at the very end of the cold war, and remember this was a long war. At the start of the Cold War 27 year olds weren't even born yet. This proves that the bulk of our active soldiers fighting in the middl-east did not join our military during the Cold War. I believe you have to be 18 years old to enlist in our military, so unless of course your suggesting the minimum enlisting age during the cold war was 9 years old I don't know what your getting at.

No doubt there are soldiers fighting in this war that enlisted sometime during the cold war, but like I said they don't represent the bulk of our forces in Iraq.

Here is another link that states what the average age of soldiers is....

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpap..._001_bilmes.pdf



He is the exception amongst conservative candidates, but he wont win. He gets a lot of attention online, and with phone votes after debates, but in national polls he is not even in the top 3. I believe he gets the attention he does more from the unaffiliated and democrats than from republicans, he would have a much better chance winning as an independent. The second teer candidate making the most headway seems to be Mike Huckabee, but thats a different story.

Since we were discussing locations, that would be the "in Baghdad" part I was referring to, obviously.....

I've stated it before in posts on this thread or the previous Surge thread, but I'll throw it out there again. I am in one of the surge Brigades in Baghdad, starting month ten of this glorious adventure. I'm not at all unaware of what current commanders such as Gen's Petraeus and Odierno are saying. I get the chance to listen in on many VTC briefs and visits by these same people. The problem is that at that level of field grade command, a certain amount of politics comes into play. I'm not saying that they're shilling for the republican party, but they most certainly do what they can to put a sugar coating on the situation here. What Petraeus said in his report wasn't factually wrong, but it didn't take everything into account, and some of what he stated didn't include enough context to paint the clear picture. I'm surprised that you don't give as much credibility to former commanders who served in Iraq, such as Batiste and Sanchez. You appear to give Petraeus demi-god status, but ignore anyone who sees things differently.
You equally wonder if I could possibly be in iraq, since I don't speak glowingly of how *ahem* well things are going over here. I think you are letting what you want to be reality, taint what is reality.



Your spelling is killing me.....
I've said before and you have disregarded myself and others, that Anbar represents an large portion of Iraq.......Iraqi desert. Curious at how we were able to cleanse Anbar of the majority of AQI and other milita presence? It's because the insurgents did not wish to fight and die for a huge patch of desert. It's as if we were occupying California, and we had near complete control of the Mojave Desert. Whoop-de-doo. LA and SF would be the key to controlling the state wouldn't they? It's the same with Iraq. If we don't control Baghdad, we don't really control anything. Guess what......the bad guys know that as well.

When will a true believer starts actually coming to terms with the reality in baghdad and not simply sound bites? The information is out there......

As for the age of soldiers, that wasn't at all in my interest in the first place. As I was reading your posts and wondering why you seem to give so little credibility to people actually in Iraq who don't agree with you, I misread your post and believed you were saying that service members of higher rank or age didn't represent the opinion of the majority of troops on the ground. My mistake.



You're right, he likely won't win, but the Iraq situation is simply one more reason for me to vote for him, since there's not a thimble worth of difference between the rest on either side.

Well, yeah. That's why I called them followers and copycats. The "important" people retain logic (i.e. they don't take a vow to ignore self-interest).


If AQ makes up 10% Blackstone, why did we invade a country without them? I can't get over this when speaking broadly of the GWOT.


Because AQ wasn't even in Iraq circa 2003?

As for 2007, according to this CATO article there are an estimated 18,000 AQ fighters in Afghanistan. That's 19,300 AQ fighters total, 93% of which are in Afghanistan. About 150,000 US troops are in Iraq. Just in case let's be conservative and bring it down to 130,000. According to this Dept. of Defense press release, there were 19,000 US troops in Afghanistan in 2005.

I don't imagine our numbers in Afghanistan have improved with the surge going on. That's about a 1-to-1 US:AQ ratio in Afghanistan and a 100-to-1 ratio in Iraq. How the hell are we allocating our resources in an appropriate manner if AQ is our priority?

Iraq isn't about taking the fight to AQ, or even terrorists, Blackstone. The GWOT hasn't been about taking the fight to terrorists since we invaded Iraq.


I don't think AQ can set up a base of operations in Iraq. Judging by their tactics when AQ showed up, a majority of members were grunts, not the visionaries, the rational people, the Machiavellis; they are too important to endanger themselves—and perhaps too few.

The thing about AQ is that they're mainly made up of True Believers. Now this is speculation on my part watching the news. I don't have access to classified information or anything. Heh, I'm not even a privileged conservative blogger. You can't simply strong-arm your way into a hostile and unstable situation and expect residents to allow you to set up shop without offering them something more than extrajudicial executions. You can't eat fear and obeisance. At least AQ could offer something more than death in Afghanistan with a country under occupation. Iraq already has its would-be nationalist liberators. AQ is another outsider. They rolled in and started killing Iraqis off the bat. They came bearing no gifts, nor do they have the logistics in place to offer Iraqis something in return for obedience.

That's the way the world works. If you want people to do what you want, you need something tangible to offer to coerce them without resorting to violence. This is why local militias started rationing goods like gas and food to their respective sects as soon as they could. It's how you start support networks from the ground up in a situation like Iraq.

I'll just leave you with a quote from Ian's diary at this point. It's late, my head is muddled, and I think he states the rules pertaining to the game of political power better than I can. Circumstances may change but the rules don't. AQ can't use Iraq as a base of operations by force alone, and they lack the personnel and resources to carve a place for themselves.

QUOTE(The Rules of Power)

Dontreadonme



General Sanchez retired before the Troop Surge anyway, as did General Batiste. General Sanchez relinquished his command of the M.N.F.I. to George Casey in 2004. I think he went to Germany at that point. As for General John Batiste, didn't he retire before the troop surge as well? He highly criticized the Rumsfeld approach just as I have, I read up on him while doing research for my post. You can be critical of aspects of a war, or even how a war is being fought, yet still support winning and from what I remember thats exactly what the position of General Batiste was.

I support winning the war, but have been highly disappointed and critical of how we have fought the war. For example going into this war with 130,000 troops when most were recommending about 400,000 troops, was in by opinion a flat out stupid thing to do.


Ok lets look at this and you tell me what Petraeus meant......

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/...11e7a42302.html

The quote below is from the link above and its either true or it isn't true. Saying men like this are sugar coating things is basically a polite way of saying you believe they are lying, so lets look at this.........



Notice the reference to Baghdad? Baghdad is not in Anbar province, yet there is talk of some success there. You should know that they have talked about improvement in a number of places, including Baghdad. So you either believe that is true, or you don't. Its really that simple, so in your eyes is he a lier or not?

I've been reflecting on why people return to the numbers game in times of crisis, when things go wrong the 'if only', 'just a little more' and the perennial 'almosts' come out to play. I understand why pundits like Bill Kristol appear on the Daily Show and espouse this, to give Bush a little breathing space from criticism. What you have said though strikes me as philosophically flawed because it seeks to move the moment of force projection up to a point where total repression was indeed possible. On a society as complex as Iraq's the lid could not be kept shut forever. In fact if memory serves me correctly I remember Bush forced quite a few generals into retirement for suggesting we start with more people or not start at all. This speaks volumes about the Bush's character. Evidence is the reason for broad Arab support for Gulf War I as opposed to II. Had Colin Powell actually given the UN something authentic to work with the numbers you seek would have been there and had Bush let the military implement a plan instead of his plan we might have changed history. He is the decider-in-chief after all.

The only area where I might give a little ground was if the Iraqi military had not disbanded. Unfortunately this was not a realistic expectation as such action was predetermined by neocon intents as early as 1999 with the small but significant point that Bush only takes counsel from a small group of men. Specifically I'm talking about David Wurmser, one of Richard Perle's advisers and protege. The idea of using Shiites to foment a new populism against Iran was a reconsidered idea that was touched upon in the Bush Senior years except that the only large dominant group that stood a chance of toppling both Saddam and causing headaches for Tehran were the Shiites. The result, a pre-ordained future was chosen over good judgement. This is not the only example of fixing intelligence around the policy. At some point we must acknowledge an agenda is at play, that the same arrogance that thought it could preach democracy to a 7000 year old society was the same arrogance the didn't ask for a military opinion - especially Jay Garner's. (Remember the guy who refused to disband the army?) This nicely segways into your second assertion by constructing a profile of indifference where you assert fear from reprisal.



I hate to break this to you but the president doesn't care about what his party thinks. At all. Same goes for the public. The VP shares this trait. You've misdiagnosed Bush's character. Had Bush respected public outcry he would have accepted his father's Hamiliton-Baker plan of a phased in withdrawl rather than the surge. Had the president cared about congressional backlash, he wouldn't continue his record setting pace of presidential signing statements. What I am trying to convey is Bush's contempt is a distinguishing feature of this administration and is diametrically opposed to your assertion. There is no fear, there is no wariness, there is no respect. One of the best assessments of the man was given at a lecture by Seymour Hersh. I find it hard to disagree with him on Bush's mindset. Such dogmatic thinking comes as no surprise because the surge becomes a metaphor for a man who fantisizes himself as the new Churchill.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by a "numbers game". I'm merely agreeing with what Gen. Shenseki said back in 2003. He wanted at least 300,000 troops in Iraq. In order to maintain that level of troop presence for greater than 12 months, we would have had to institute the draft. In fact, to have even 50,000 troops in Iraq after May 2008 will be impossible without the draft unless we extend the rotations for our already overtaxed military again.

While I disagreed with the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I do believe it would have been possible to quell the nascent insurgency with a massive troop presence. We didn't do this. The insurgency will need to burn itself out now; there's very little we can do except remove ourselves.


I don't think the Iraqi military would have made any significant difference with regard to the insurgency. It would have helped with AQI, but AQI was (and is) a bit player in the scheme of things. The fact is we invaded, we occupied, we instituted a pro-US government of the Green Zone. Everyone knows this. Every Iraqi knows this. However, I agree that there were huge strategic mistakes: mistakes which in the end may not have made any significant difference sans a massive troop presence a la the draft. That's just my opinion though.


I wasn't only talking about Dubya/Cheney. The pro-war Congress could have passed a law forcing Dubya to institute the draft. Barring that, the pro-war Congress could have lobbied heavily for the draft. Neither of these things happened, obviously. You're narrowly focusing on the executive branch here.

Nevertheless, I submit that Dubya didn't call for the draft in 2003-2004 at least partially because of the 2004 election. A draft would have been extremely unpopular and the Republicans would have lost: the presidency included. So, even if Dubya doesn't care about anyone but himself, he still needed to win the 2004 elections.

However, I don't believe that Dubya is a strictly self-involved megalomaniac. He does have an interest in the Republican party even if it's only "his" style of Republican. And besides if he were to take a massively unpopular position (like the draft), he would no longer enjoy the support he did. Even now, post-2006 Democratic takeover and a 30% approval rating, he still has considerable power: power which would quickly fade if he were to institute the draft.

you list yourself as “conservative” yet you disagree with most conservatives and even many Dems. I have said numerous times the decision to go into Iraq without knowing exactly where the WMD was hidden was stupid – that said once into it just up and leaving is not a good idea as evidenced by the experts and Congress. WHO if they want to could end the war tomorrow.

The region is important to us and this imo is why we cannot just run out of there. Apparently more experts and people in Congress agree since we are still funding the troops. So save your attacks on me for you congressman - please. They make the policy not me.

That has nothing to do with this discussion.


Yet, you're pretty well describing how the Taliban came to power in Afghanistan (before there was any U.S. "occupation"). What they had to offer was the same thing AQI had to offer: raw oppressive power in exchange for basic protection from widespread random violence. At first, AQI wielded a lot of influence in Anbar, because they offered (or as your cited author stated, were "seen" to offer) protection against Shi'i death squads. In comes U.S. forces to offer similar protection, and support for AQI declines.* Take away that protection, and if the death squads come back, the tribes could very well find that the enemy of their enemy is once again their friend. That's a phenomenon that pops up in history again and again.

Should that happen, AQ's ranks in Iraq could easily swell. Only this time, they'd be in a far more convenient location than Afghanistan.

* I know that Donttreadonme has disputed that U.S. forces were a principal factor in the split between Anbari tribes and AQI, but I don't consider that a settled matter. For one thing, I don't dispute that the actual motivation for the split had nothing to do with the protection offered by the U.S., but rather had to do with the fact that they just didn't like each other. But I would still maintain that U.S. protection took away whatever motivation the tribes had to overlook their differences with AQI. Additionally, there's evidence to suggest that part of the reason the tribes are going after AQI is to take away the draw for us having troops there.

Really? I thought this discussion between us got started with your concern about AQ's strength in Iraq. You like to cite the ISG report to back up your concerns.

You quote one line and ignore everything else I wrote about 2007. Oh well. I tried acknowledging the situation in Iraq had changed since 2003—for the worse.

All in all I don't understand why you think AQ is our biggest problem. Besides failing to allocate resources responsibly we've never invaded Saudi Arabia and/or deposed Wahhabi members of the royal family supporting AQ, to say nothing of the fact that most foreign fighters are Saudis.


Please try acknowledging the fact that AQ came to power by joining with the Taliban to kick out Soviet troops. There are literally dozens of native militias already filling this role in Iraq.


Is that situation—the Sunnis requiring protection—a condition AQ created?


If Sunni militias were as law-abiding as we are I wouldn't have faith in them. They're just as ruthless as AQ and they stand to lose more than we do. Besides, when has our support in dirty wars ever required deploying our entire military?

What does their retirement date have to do with anything? When I retire next fall, does that mean that after that point I have no credibilty on discussing Iraq? They have the same access to media information as you do, as well as access to information in military circles..........that and having commanded troops in Iraq.



I've said before, and I'll say again.....the 'gains' made during the surge are typically not spoken about in context with other interacting issues, but merely as sound bites that true believers suck in like air. The gains made during the surge are temporary, they will not last and we are perpetuating the cycle of suffering, chaos and mismanagement the longer we stay there.

I am concerned far more with the state of US military affairs than I am with any possibility that AQ will have a base in Iraq. Comparisons to Afghanistan are meaningless, since they established their support system under the compliance of the Taliban government. No such luck for them in Iraq, since they will fight for whatever terrain they wish to occupy, with Shia, Sunni and Kurds.
I am concerned with the fact that the US military structure has been completely re-organized in terms of training, logistics and research and development to meet the threat in Iraq. Not only is this excursion an exercise in quicksand, but as senior leaders retire or pursue opporunities that don't take them away from families for years on end, basic insitutional knowledge will leave with them, leaving behind a hollow, broken-spirited military that only knows how to fight in Iraq. Once we come across the next actual threat to national security, conventional warfare will have to be re-learned, at a price. This would be an acceptable risk, if Iraq indeed posed a threat to national security. As it does not, we are merely setting the conditions for casualties in our next endeavor.

A French officer named David Galula wrote a manual in 1964 titled Counterinsurgency Warfare, (Theory and Practice) and stated:

A victory is not [just] the destruction in a given area of the insurgent’s forces and his political organization. It is that, plus the permanent isolation of the insurgent from the population, isolation not enforced upon the population but maintained by and with the population.

He outlined 8 steps to defeat an insurgency using the oil spot technique. Surge, quarantine, control, isolate, purge, build, test, nationalize, and mop up. Test in one area where conditions are favorable, then spread out (oil spot).

1. Concentrate enough armed forces to destroy or to expel the main body of armed insurgents.
2. Detach for the area sufficient forces to oppose an insurgent’s comeback in strength. – This has been contested, but I feel that enough forces are currently present to establish a relatively secure situation, short of all the other considerations of course.
3. Establish contact with the population; control its movements in order to cut off its links with the guerrillas. – Movement is tightly controlled in Baghdad, more so by militia’s and individual neighborhoods than us however.
4. Destroy the local insurgent political organizations. – Not even close to happening.
5. Set up, by means of elections, new provisional local authorities. – Has been accomplished, however, they remain ineffectual and incompetent due to corruption, infiltration and lack of real power.
6. Test these authorities by assigning them various concrete tasks. Replace the soft and the incompetents; give full support to the active leaders. Organize self-defense units. – Happening daily and they continue to fail.
7. Group and educate the leaders in a national political movement. – Also happening daily, but by the Imams and militia’s, not by us.
8. Win over or suppress the last insurgents. – Probably not in my lifetime.

Galula also explains that ‘The Population is the Prize’. Meaning that control over the population, through a combination of coercion and consent, is the goal of both government and insurgent. The insurgents have been most effective at isolating us from the population. We cannot hope to make any real progress of winning the trust and confidence of the people when we remain ensconced in HMMWV’s instead of walking the streets like a neighborhood cop. In some areas where we have been effective to an extent, it has led to a kiss of death syndrome. We surge into areas and introduce civil and security programs, which exposes moderates and cooperative leaders to insurgents. Then when security improves, we reduce US presence in that area and insurgents kill or intimidate the people who cooperated with us.

The bottom line is that the US cannot be the substitute for lack of institutional capacity & political support on part of the Iraqi Government. Added to that, there is an extreme lack of integrated conflict management between the US and Iraqi Governments to unify effort.


edited to add one of Galula's steps.

That's true. I served my country in the USMC. I am pro-life. I want smaller government and less government in our lives. I want conservative fiscal policies. I want moral authority.

In other words, you and I have nothing in common. I demand more from the republican party. You support whatever it is they do. And most of all, I have the intellectual honesty to say that I would be asking for Hillary's head had she done any one thing Bush has gotten away with - let alone all of them. If Hillary were president, you would be supporting her policies of nation building, rendition, torture, massive spending and debt, outing covert operatives for political gain, and open borders. And you call ME something other than a conservative?

Ted, our soldiers are dying while the Iraqis do nothing for themselves. This surge is lipstick on a pig. You are ok with that and I'm not. The most vocal people demanding more sacrifice don't have the courage to serve themselves. If the stakes were that high, I wouldn't leave it up to someone else to protect my family. I would be part of the solution instead of being a keyboard tough guy.

But I have seriously turned the corner on the call to bring our troops home, so maybe we do have one thing in common. Clearly, the military believes it should stay and finish whatever this "mission" is. So, I don't care any longer how long they stay or get sent back. I'm tired of being branded a liberal democrat because I want to stop the bleeding - instead of pouring more wasted life on top of wasted life because if we don't, lives will be wasted. I feel like the cop being attacked by the woman defending her husband when I stop his beating on her.

The surge is so successful that the diplomats being forced to Iraq are calling it a death sentence. Yippee for you. You must be so proud.

By the way, I didn't personally attack you. I just want to see if you war supporters at least have the courage to tell DTOM to his face that his life is worth losing. Show a little courage. I'm challenging all of them - not just you.

Sorry I had to step in on this one, but since I support the war and happen to be talking back and fourth to DTOM right now anyway, I'll be very direct. If he enlisted he sacrificed himself to a greater cause, and took an oath too.... well lets see how does this part go? (.....Protect the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic.........) http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthem...athofenlist.htm

Neither I nor Ted nor any other American who supports this war held up anyones hand and forced them to take any oath. They do so themselves, knowing that the prospect of war is always right around the corner. They know that this legally binds them to fight for America if and when necessary, so lets quit plain games if you want to understand the position of those in this country who support the war in Iraq, at the very least I'll explain my position. A position I feel many of us share.

For me I have family their, and I hope for the safety of all our men. I believe that for the most part these are individuals that believe in what they are fighting for, and from the soldiers I have talked to thats the general impression I get, with a few exceptions. In any case these men signed up on their own, for their own individual reasons. So would I personally approach a soldier and say "that his life is worth losing"? Nope, but what I would say is I am honored that you chose to risk your life to protect our nation and I believe that sacrifices like yours have made America what it is today. I'm proud of anyone who wakes up every morning and fights for this nation, and I'm not saying that the Anti Iraq war enthusiast in this country aren't proud necessarily, but since this debate over who has the right to support our troops keeps coming up, well I suppose I'll jump on it as I see it.



Dontreadonme
I never said that, but if your in Germany your assessment of the situation in Iraq very well could be based off what the situation was when you were in Iraq to access the situation. Beyond this I don't believe these men share your stance anyway. I know General John Batiste doesn't, he simply criticized the tactics being used, but very much supported winning the war the right way, last I read. As I said he was highly critical of Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, then again so was I.