I'm not sure he ever said that. What he has been consistent on however, is that the situation is not getting any better.

Violence may be down. But the way stats and figures are being manipulated, we probably wouldn't know. What we do know, is journalists (or any westerner for that matter) cannot go anywhere and have to have a military escort. That skews reports right from the start. Also, you'd have to suspend a great deal of logic to conclude Al Sadr's cease fire - which coincided with the surge - has nothing to do with reduced violence (assuming that is the case).

Also, militias are in charge now. Violence may be reduced because many of the fights for territory have been settled. Less innocents are being killed because they are either already dead or have left the country.

But most importantly, there is no functioning government and there will be none anytime in the near future. So, after 5 years and a trillion dollars, we have nothing to show for it. Yet you hope that will suddenly reverse itself because of what you read.

The purpose of the surge (I seem to recall the Bush Administration stating this was not an escalation - only a temporary last ditch measure) was to give the government cover. The surge is not and will not be successful because it's purpose has never been fulfilled.

But don't let that keep you from moving the goalposts once again. Winners move the chains - losers move the goalposts.

I quoted where he said attacks are on a fast increase in my last post, you must have missed it. Also do you have any evidence that figures are being manipulated, beyond a hunch?

You said......

Also, militias are in charge now. Violence may be reduced because many of the fights for territory have been settled. Less innocents are being killed because they are either already dead or have left the country.

Thats not true, while there has been massive loss of life, Iraqi citizens are returning to Iraq at a rate of 1000+ civilians a day, largely because of the increased security. Another thing you brought up is how westerners cannot go anywhere, and have to have a military escort. Coincidently one of the videos I posted yesterday talks about that specifically. Many of the areas that were deemed terrorist hot spots have recovered enough for people to walk freely in places they couldn't before. Now I paint no sunshine and lolipops picture on Iraq, as Iraq remains dangerous. The improvement we see today you can either cast a shadow over like its nothing, or you can acknowledge and embrace it.

Here you said......

Also, you'd have to suspend a great deal of logic to conclude Al Sadr's cease fire - which coincided with the surge - has nothing to do with reduced violence (assuming that is the case).

Well thats not the case, and you wont find me say that anywhere. I believe what I said is that a number of factors have contributed to this increase in security. The three main factors are (the increase in American troops, the increased enthusiasm by the Iraqis to make a stand, and I'm sure Sadr's cease fire played a part as well.) So is that so unrealistic? I dont go with whatever scenario best favors my position. I could very well say that our presence their is the sole reason violence is down to further credit our military. There are 1000 things I could pull out of thin air to better support my position, but I dont have to do that to believe in this war. I just stay informed, research often, and typicaly I take a fair and open minded approach.

If your expecting me to be the guy that says We'll be attacked tomorrow if we leave Iraq, or there is no doubt Saddam had a connection with Al Qaeda, then your going to be coming up short. On the flip side wouldn't it be convenient for you to believe that our military commanders in Iraq are sugar coating the situation without a shred of proof, as you have? Since you don't support the war that sure is a perfect measure to deter attention away from any spark of hope in Iraq. I see this when people say bush was involved with the 9/11 attacks, I see it when they suggest that we only started out in Iraq with the intent of finding WOMD, and the idea of developing a democracy came later in an attempt to prolong a pointless war. This stuff is everywhere, but I'm not going to take such measures, because like I said I don't have to. I can believe what I do without attempting to rewrite the history books to support my stance.

Quite true. The majority of the Iraqi Ministries are under the control of the Badr Corps or Jaysh Al-Mahdi. Sadr and JAM are using this time to wrest as much control as they can from Badr while the freeze is still in effect. Neighborhoods are far more homogenized now compared to the start of the year. Some mixed neighborhoods remain, but they are the ones where Coalition presence is strongest. I will try to find an Unclass neighborhood breakdown.

Concerning Sadr's freeze, one doesn't take the largest and most influential insurgent force in the country out of play, and not expect to see a drop in attacks. The concern is that the freeze was intended to last only six months, with Sadr allowing his enemies to defeat his enemies, and to refit and consolidate his political power. That six months is almost over. Couple that with the surge Brigades leaving, and the recent rise in US backed Sunni security forces, analysis points to JAM re-surfacing with a vengance.



I have read this somehwere online, maybe you've seen it, but haven't some senior military leaders come out against a war footing with Iran? If what I remember reading is true, then perhaps your hope is being realized.

On edit: I haven't yet found an Unclass slide of the Sect breakdown in Baghdad Neighborhoods. But I found an interesting compariosn chart between the Petraeus brief and the NIE, Jones and GAO reports. Read into it what you will, but it's interesting. Link

And I found for FYI purposes, an Unclass MNC-I Briefing slideshow. Gives a breakdown of where we are and accomplishments. It's 'good news' story to be sure, but it's informational compared to what the MSM releases.
Link

Fallon has been calling for a phased with drawl for over a year. After rereading some his comments, I get the feeling he knew of the current Pakistani crisis before anyone else and made pleas over a year ago to reroute resources into western Pakistan.

Sanchez has been the most vocal but neither he nor Fallon seem to be getting a lot of traction. My concern is the Veep is quite adept at replacing or retiring those who do not agree with him. What I suspect will happen is another pair of generals will be contracted for the next phase of operations. This way any reservations or criticisms can be swept eloquently under the door while giving the impression of 'moving things along'.


I had attempted something similar in the September though this does a better summary. I was aware of mixed reviews in the NIE but overall gave me the impression of failure. The GAO was the clearest assessment. Whether it is the most accurate I cannot verify at this time. I walked away with a distinct partisan feeling after reading Petraeus' brief but this was expected considering the pressure he was under.

There was a new memorandum of understanding this week which may complicate any phased with drawl. The "Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America" from Al-Hayat newspaper reports in Arabic that the Sadr Movement and the Sunni Iraqi Accord Front both denounced the declaration. (Source: Juan Cole)



It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the direction the president is pushing. When he said the Korean model I think he meant it.

Quite true is right. I found a sectarian map that is color-coded. It places a dramatic perspective on things. It's going to be quite a trick to resettle those returning refugees whose houses have been taken over.

From the article:

I have avoided posting much on the occupation of Iraq lately because I find the situation so dismal and what passes for political debate in this country on the issue so empty of real content. Today, however, I encountered an article which I would like to share. It closely mirrors my own position regarding what is going on in Iraq and how events there relate to the real US goals in the occupation. See Catch 22 in Iraq).

Seems there is some disagreewmnt from your ait-war.com site

"US, Iraq Agree to Principles for Future Relationship
The United States and Iraq have spelled out basic principles for a future bilateral relationship as a first step to normalizing ties between Washington and Baghdad. VOA's Michael Bowman reports from Washington, the declaration, issued Monday, envisions a long term U.S. security commitment in Iraq after a United Nations mandate for multinational troops expires.

The document outlines the foundations for future U.S. - Iraqi ties regarding security, economic, and political matters. Titled the "U.S.-Iraqi Declaration of Principles for Friendship and Cooperation," it is intended to guide next year's planned negotiations on the relationship between the two countries.

Before those negotiations proceed, Iraq will ask the United Nations to renew the annual mandate for multinational troops for one final year.

The document does not spell out a specific long term U.S. troop presence in Iraq, but such an arrangement is widely expected to be a cornerstone of the future U.S.-Iraqi relationship"

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=50724

So I never could find an Unclass MNFI or MND-B sectarian map slide. But I did find a comparison of slides from the Jones Report and the Petraeus Brief from a blog on The Atlantic.com.

Then there is the argument that many others have already made that ethnic cleansing in Baghdad had already caused Shi’a and Sunni to separate, which meant that they were no longer as easily able to kill each other. Again, General Petraeus’s slides don’t tell the whole picture. Compare his maps below with those that the Jones report used. Jones actually shows July 2006, when the city was still very much mixed. As the maps indicate, by the end of 2006 the Shi’a and Sunnis had completely separated giving credence to the argument that a central reason for the drop in violence was the ethnic cleansing. Unfortunately, you don’t get that understanding by looking at General Petraeus’s slides
The Atlantic

Matthew Yglesias also comments on the slides from his Atlantic blog.

Jones' maps show the exact same downward trend in violence as Petraeus' do. But they also show something else. In particular, they show the disappearance, over time, of mixed neighborhoods with violence, refugee flows, and ethnic cleansing producing a city that's much more starkly segregated along sectarian lines than it was twelve months ago. In short, the number of incidents is plausibly declining not because of improved security, but simply because there's relatively little fuel left for the fire.
The Atlantic

Although this may seem like quasi-good news, that at least violence is down, Sadr is making comments concerning the Sunni security forces (PPV/IPV/ISV). He views them rightly as a threat to Shia hold on Baghdad. I fear that the Doura and Sadiyah Districts will be the battleground between the Mahdi and the ISV.

Ted, I don't see the disagreement. I do see a definite difference in emphasis, however. Your article identifies the recent "Declaration of Principles" as a US/Iraqi agreement while my article goes to great lengths to stress that there is no support among Iraqis for even continuing the UN mandate outside of al-Maliki's close circle and that the agreement is essentially one between al-Maliki and Bush not Iraq and the US. Pursuing it guarantees future conflict.

al-Maliki is Iraq and I have no clue what you mean. Certainly al-Maliki knows Iraq will need the US to stave off Iran in the coming years and you can bet that after the war we are not going to pull out and leave Iraq.

We have been in S. Korea for over 50 years for gad sake – and Japan, and Germany.

Ted - Maliki has a far greater affinity for Iran than the US. What leads you to believe he wishes a perpetual occupation as a bulwark against his neighbor? Not to mention that since the people of Iraq do not wish a perpetual occupation, there will most definetly be a perpetual low grade insurgency at the very least.
You're OK with with losing service members for the next few decades to occupy a nation that doesn't want to be occupied?

Since we invaded Iraq we have found no wmd, no initial terrorist connections, nor plans for future WMD. Iraq as scary as it sounds was not a bastion of terrorism, it simply was not. This has come to light. Iran, which was an enemy or Iraq is though, and with us tied up in Iraq how do we react to Iran? I mean we might be able to leave Iraq in the state its currently in and win a traditional ground war against Iran, but we cant hold that many fronts. So basically Iraq was a mistake that for what its worth broke a sort of stasis in the mideast. We are stuck in Iraq currently forever, I mean there is no end to this war in sight. That means forever it will require X in resources, with what benefits? None currently, so what’s the strategy, shot in dark, react to ambush, wing it?

I don’t like any of those options. I also do not like how the mideast in general is slowly becoming more and more unstable like a hornets nest. I also do not like how our unilateral U.S policy or the highway policy has basically destroyed real international resolve to combat terrorism, it basically hurts us more then it helps us, there is no arguing this. Pretty soon it will be just the U.S doing what, and all alone to boot. The devout conservative fervor that leads to terrorism is not going to go away at the hands of Iraq. We are allies with a nation that has more of that going on then Iraq did Tell me where is the logic in that. bin laden escaped, Pakistan is falling apart, soon to be what, a home of terrorism possibly? Tell me are we going to take over Pakistan and turn it into an Iraq, then do the same with Iran? what about the rest of the mideast ted.

The bushco strategy has lead to nothing but dismal failure, I also do not see how anyone can really support it anymore. There is nothing positive coming from it in regards to peace or stability, nor is there any glimmer for such really. We will be in Iraq forever, unable really to react to any other large scale threats that may come about unless we do drastic changes back at home. For instance if Iran decided to go whack tomorrow, what will we do, leave Iraq, hold a draft? I mean what really...

Lastly where is the end of terrorism. I mean during Clintons administration we did not happen to be fighting wars all over the world and it was years between attacks. The threat is not gone at all, in fact with the death toll in Iraq, and constant fighting, I would only think its growing. More so with how Pakistan is turning out.

There is no real physical or tangible benefit to Iraq, there is merely propaganda anymore and rhetoric. IN fact I would wager to say that’s what this war is entirely built on really, that and the dead. There was no benefit to the surge, we are no closer to having a stable Iraq today then we were three or four years ago. I still find it shocking in all of this that all the intelligent people that speak on Iraq basically accept a permanent U.S presence there, that’s basically accepting the Iraq of today to be the same say fifty years from now, it will ruin our nation.

I still think being green would do more damage to terrorism and its support then anything bush will or has done currently. Simply put they would have no money, then again its probably that same simple hard reality of why the world is the way it is currently. How could any rational person support this? I mean its war for global suicide really...

One of the original debate questions has reached its logical maturity:

Should this strategy be continued? If so, for how long?

The surge Brigades are starting to leave. Remaining and following units will cover the same battlespace, but with fewer soldiers. Combat Outposts will continue to be manned, but some are being closed. The security strategy and reconciliation effort will be pursued as during the surge, but with fewer assets, so while the strategic direction remains the same, enabling that direction will require new tactical planning.

DR's first question of Is the surge working? continues to generate different answers. If you look at only the overall rate of violent acts, as some do, then it may be a success. If you look at what the goal of the security plan was, [to provide an atmosphere of stability to enable reconciliation, infrastructure repair, and the generation of competant, loyal Iraqi Security Forces] most indicators point to failure.

The Iraqi Government (GOI) extends practical rule only within the borders of the International Zone. Sunni militias armed and paid by the US, while turning from AQI, are now organized and emboldened to constitute a viable threat to the Sadrists. Iranian influence on Jaysh Al-Mahdi threatens the neutrality of any Shia dominated Iraqi government, present or future. And the Sunni political bloc has again walked out of Parliament, this time over a De-Ba'athification bill.

The Sunni 1920 Revolutionary Brigade, which was recently touted in the press as working with American forces in Diyala, still has some elements working with AQI, making that alliance tenuous. Many Baghdad insurgents used the surge as an excuse for a country vacation:
Despite a decline in violence in Iraq, northern Iraq has become more violent than other regions as al-Qaida and other militants move there to avoid coalition operations elsewhere, the region's top U.S. commander said Monday.
Link

The drop in violence is likely temporary:
But few in Baghdad believe the insurgency is spent. Many, including Fil, take as a given that some bold strike by Sunni extremists will come.

When and how remains to be seen. Sunni extremists have been largely forced out of Anbar province by tribal fighters aligned with the U.S. military.
Link

Geraldo Rivera [and his mustache] came to my little neighborhood a couple days ago, and after Public Affairs disseminated the FNC clip of his visit, we were collectively jaw dropped. The only message was the reduction in attacks. It seemed to be 'fewer attacks=surge is a success'. Nice, simplified and canned as a consumable for the American public, without any regard to the host of pressing problems still facing Iraqis and American forces.

So I guess the question now would be, given a reduction [temporary?] in violent attacks versus failed reconciliation, corruption and rampant militia activity...........is the surge a success?

Well, after sixteen pages, and now a bit of history, the surge brigades are leaving- and we have NO political solution.

so- the questions are

1) Is the surge working?

A very loud "hell no" - as has been stated so eloquently " a winner moves the chains, a loser moves the goalposts"- the entire reason for the surge was to find a political solution that gives us some benchmarks to get the hell out. That didn't happen.

Surge = failure, totally and complete failure.

NOT a military failure- of course- we have one of the finest militaries in the world- give a clear objective, it will be met. The military objective was met.

The reason for the surge- the political one- never even came close.

Surge=failure. Again.

"Should the strategy be continued"-

One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again yet still expecting different results.

We need to push the baby birds out of the nest. We need to leave and contain.

DTOM
My impression is not an “occupation force” but a military support base much as we have had in Korea, Germany, Japan etc and it seems this is what they would like as well.

Maliki, imo, has no love for the Persians in Iran past the Shiite connection and certainly would not want them telling him what to do.


No plans for future wmd? Where, pray tell did you get this wild idea>

I've seen no widespread indication, no indication at all really, that Iraqis want any American or western [read infidel] armed force in their nation. Given the reality on the ground concernng militia's, factions and corruption......I don't see the security situation evolving to a point akin to Germany or Japan.

I'll state again that as long as we stay in Iraq, there will be at the very least, a low grade insurgency. You're OK with losing American soldiers on a continuing/perpetual basis?

Yea I found Geraldo Rivera's support of this surge rather surprising, hasn't he been largely against this war in the past? His opinion is rather hard to believe as being slanted in favor of neo-cons. Since in your eyes Petraeus possibly sugar coated the situation, it seems this enthusiasm in Iraq is becoming quite widespread. Lets hope as soldiers come home we can maintain this.

He wasn't against the war. You are thinking of Satanism, I believe.

He was dismissed as an embedded reporter for disclosing information about an upcoming operation. Stupid doesn't equal lack of support.

Well, that answers how you could have possibly come up with your point of views regarding this topic based on your research as opposed to someone actually there on the ground. Geraldo has been a typical Fox News propagandist.

I didn't bring him up actually, DTOM did remember? Figures you believe he is a propagandist, since he seems to support the war and is part of Fox news, Fox by the way being the news channel most attacked by the left while having all other networks well beat in the ratings department. Thats not where the bulk of my knowledge comes from anyway. Take a look in this forum, since Ive started posting in here Ive used at least 20 links to show where I get my knowledge, probably more. These sources were creditable and came from a number of places. The only reason you agree with DTOM is because well, you agree with him in a nutshell. If you had heard from a soldier in Iraq who was supportive of this effort, you wouldnt give him much more credidt than me, if any. If this was more than about our positions differing, then every person in here to launch credibility attacks wouldn't have all coincedently been against this war, holding an opinion that is opposite of mine.

Thats not a coincidence at all, and you must think I'm a fool to believe the reason DTOM is deemed creditable is anything more than him sharing your viewpoint. I realize 3 out of 4 people making post at this site about the war do not support it, this is why I've been very explanatory of my stance while supporting that stance with many links, lately Ive gotten less than that in return. Often its been petty credibility attacks that are counterproductive.

Mrsp


I don't know much of him I see him on fox news now and then, I think he has a show on fox but I never catch it. I heard him be very critical of the war on one occasion a while back, and he rarely agrees with Bill O'riley which is where I see him the most. I figured he was left wing and against the war, but I could be wrong on that.

"Iraq's government, seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups, will offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership, two Iraqi officials said Monday.

The proposal, described to The Associated Press by two senior Iraqi officials familiar with the issue, is one of the first indications that the United States and Iraq are beginning to explore what their relationship might look like once the U.S. significantly draws down its troop presence...

The Iraqi officials said that under the proposed formula, Iraq would get full responsibility for internal security and U.S. troops would relocate to bases outside the cities. Iraqi officials foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 U.S. troops, down from the current figure of more than 160,000.

The Iraqi target date for a bilateral agreement on the new relationship would be July, when the U.S. intends to finish withdrawing the five combat brigades sent in 2007 by President Bush as part of the troop buildup that has helped curb sectarian violence. "

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/11/...ations-for.html




There may be one in any case but imo if you are going to have troops camped anywhere what better place than the vital ME area home to ½ the worlds oil supply.

Ted, the Iraqi's I'm referring to in my post are the ones that matter, the Iraqi people. I could care less what a handful of policy dreamers in the IZ have to say. They might as well have been saying what you posted right before they blew out their birthday candles.

So when I ask "You're OK with losing American soldiers on a continuing/perpetual basis?".....I can mark you down for an enthusiastic yes?

We deploy soldiers all over the world, and in harms way, and have for decades. All I am saying is this is no different and actually makes more sense than having 30,000 men in So. Korea with N. Korea having nukes. We could lose them all in one day.

So you can bet that after all of this effort we are not likely to just pull out and hope for the best knowing that going back in would not be easy.

As for what the Iraqi people think I am not sure I agree that the vast majority want us completely out. I am sure they would love to see less of your face out there and more Iraqi security but some of the locals in Anbar have said they would like us to stay around. The opposite may be said I am sure for some Shiite folks.

In any case with our self interest strong in the region how the people feel is certainly not as important as the view from the government (both countries).

In any case it will be a policy judgment that will not require our approval. Personally I would like to see most of out troops brought home from everywhere. Let the world go to hell for a decade or two – but it won’t happen. And no I am not enthusiastic about losing American lives.

If fact many would have us run like hell from Iraq and send you guys right to Darfer.

You up for that?

Sidestepped there Ted- or dare I say "cut and run"

You are okay with the amount of casualties in Iraq with no end in site?

AS DTOM said- mark you down for an enthustiastic "yes"?

Wanting to win the war does not = no end in sight. The casualties in this war are actually freakishly low in comparison to other long wars by the way. I broke down the numbers in this forum a while back to see how likely it is for the average soldier in Iraq to be killed, take a look.........



Now how many wars in our past apart from Desert Storm do you think our soldiers had less than a 1% chance of being killed while serving? Id imagine not many if any, there were single battles in WW2 that took more American lives than this entire war. Now the loss of any of our men is tragic, but this is a volunteer army and it wasn't me nor TED nor any other person who supports our troops who took their hand and forced them to sign enlistment papers.

Now that being said two things are aparently obvious. This is not a bloodbath anywhere near the scale of WW2 or Vietnam, and this is a volunteer war. Nuff said. Lets not forget that most these men appreciate our support for them.

Your verbage is incorrect. This is a volunteer military. Iraq is NOT a volunteer war.

Low casualty numbers compared to wars past do not atone for failed policy. Nuff said?



I guess you have your beliefs and I have mine. I see no outpouring of love for American presence.



Wow. Thats one of the more arrogantly American statements I've heard in quite some time, and I'm a proud American. It's the citizens who are going to continue to kill and maim US soliders as long as we remain in Iraq. They not only have a voice in this matter, they have the upper hand. The Iraqi government has the realistic power of a PTA.

Surprisingly, the New York Times ran a piece yesterday that did a fairly good job of laying out the situation. It states some of the same things I've been saying for awhile now:

The reduced violence in Iraq in recent months stems from three significant developments, but the clock is running on all of them, Iraqi officials and analysts warn.

“It’s more a cease-fire than a peace,” said Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih, a Kurd, in words that were repeated by Qassim Daoud, a Shiite member of Parliament.

Officials attribute the relative calm to a huge increase in the number of Sunni Arab rebels who have turned their guns on jihadists instead of American troops; a six-month halt to military action by the militia of a top Shiite leader, Moktada al-Sadr; and the increased number of American troops on the streets here.

They stress that all of these changes can be reversed, and on relatively short notice. The Americans have already started to reduce troop levels and Mr. Sadr, who has only three months to go on his pledge, has issued increasingly bellicose pronouncements recently.

The Sunni insurgents who turned against the jihadists are now expecting to be rewarded with government jobs. Yet, so far, barely 5 percent of the 77,000 Sunni volunteers have been given jobs in the Iraqi security forces, and the bureaucratic wheels have moved excruciatingly slowly despite government pledges to bring more Sunnis in.
NYT

I highly recommend this article.


Additionally, concerning the state of the US Army [freakishly low casualty rates aside] , the National Journal ran a piece:

But Casey emphasized that the strain on his troops and the wear and destruction of equipment from the current pace of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan are "unsustainable."
Even if the commitment to Iraq is reduced and the Army can meet its goal of adding 74,000 soldiers, he said it would take three or four years of effort and increased funding to restore a force that is capable of meeting the full range of military challenges.

Casey stressed the need to reduce the pace of deployments so his troops could remain home more than a year. With such a rapid turnaround between combat tours, the Army is unable to train for anything but the current counter insurgency operations, he said.
It would require at least 18 months between deployments for the Army to train a force able to handle "the full spectrum of combat," which would include a conventional conflict against a major adversary, Casey added.
NJ

Yes, the death rate has been lower than in times past. That does not mean casualty rates are all that low either. Just means that wounds that weren't survivable even 20 years ago. We have thousands, tens of thousands of men and women that gave a chunk of themselves that essentially ruined thier lives, living in a nearly ruined chunk of flesh they are calling thier bodies.

I have helped counsel of a few of those guys- and those are just the ones you can see the wounds.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0829/p03s02-usmi.html

Because of new body armor and advances in military medicine, for example, the ratio of combat-zone deaths to those wounded has dropped from 24 percent in Vietnam to 13 percent in Iraq and Afghanistan. In other words, the numbers of those killed as a percentage of overall casualties is lower. At this writing, 2,955 American service men and women have been killed (2,622 in Iraq and 333 in Afghanistan), and 20,174 have been wounded.
For the Army and the Marine Corps in particular, which have some of the most dangerous jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan, casualty rates can affect personnel recruiting and retention efforts, not only for psychological reasons but because the military must replace the 500 or so troops lost each month to battlefield deaths, injuries, illness, and psychological problems tied to combat.

Still- overall- the article states that generals and such are very aware that casualty rates too high will cost them thier jobs- so you won't see Gettysburg type casualties.

I still notice Ted and Net are "cutting and running" from the very specific question DTOM asked- you seem to be okay with an open ended occupation that has no end in sight, and no end of American casualties, dead or otherwise

Even if the next prez gets us out of Iraq the next day after swearing in, I will bet we will be close to 100k personel, civilian and military, permanently maimed due to fighting in Iraq.

Not one of those poeple's injury has been made worth it by developements in Iraq. Not even a hangnail of worth.

And Ted and Net continue to "cut and run" on the issue of WHAT the surge was supposed to accomplish, which DTOM has pointed out over and over- the stated goal of the surge is to give "breathing room" for a political solution- well, guess what- TOTAL FAILURE.

CR

YOU as usual have not the slightest clue as to what I think and I am real tired of you putting words in my mouth.

Stop it please.



Come on please this is an ELECTERD government – and one elected with a VERY HIGH voter turnout. If they are doing what the people, as you maintain, do not wat how long will they stay “elected”. I doubt you know how all Iraqi’s think.

Yes and this is the key reason why a cut and run will surely lose everything we have spilled so much blood to achieve. There is work to do, as I have said, and we best be about it.

So, you are okay with the casualities going on for, say, 10 years, at the same rate now, with the same economic support it takes as well, by the US?

Of course I don't know how all Iraqi's think. You are absolutely correct. Let's check how much you know: Who wields more real power, the Iraqi Government or the militias? Who has a greater impact on reconciliation efforts and stability, the Iraqi Government or the militias?

Now its time for the bonus round: In who's interest is a semi-perpetual US occupation, the Iraqi Government or the militias?

* here's a cheat code: the militia's provide more civil support for Iraqis than the government does.

Now tally up your score and tell us who wants a US occupation, the Iraqi Government or the militias?



We have been about it for four years now, and look at all that we have to show for it...........

Ok, to be technical its a war being fought through a volunteer military, and unless a solder was miraculously sleep signing when he or she signed up, they knew what signing up obligated them to. Plus I believe they have to take a verbal oath as well , that is pretty self explanatory. So they would have to be half sleeping when they did that as well. In other words, thats probably never happened, and these are grown men who knew what they were doing.

Now as for your other comment, I believe low casualty numbers are more than important. Its great to see that our men are not dropping like flies, I would think you would agree, and the low casualty rate is just one of several things about this war that id consider an important positive attribute yet is dismissed by individuals such as yourself, just like everything else, such as lets see hmmmm oh yea the surge progress we are making. You have the same stance on everything Ive talked to you about so far and that stance is in a word "Hopelessness".

I may not be a military commander or even a solder for that matter but I'll tell you right now if the glass was always half empty to the generals currently leading Americans in this war, we'd be in a world of trouble over there, that I know. You have to be willing to look at the things we have accomplished every bit as much as the things we need to. Now that doesn't mean sugar coating things, and it doesn't mean lying, it means acknowledging the good with the bad as it presents itself.

CruisingRam


I haven't cut and run from a single question in here, some of your statements in particular however are purposely composed in a manner that make them hard or impossible to seriously address. For example, lets look at one out of this last post of yours............

you seem to be okay with an open ended occupation that has no end in sight, and no end of American casualties, dead or otherwise rolleyes.gif

Now here you have taken my obvious support for the war but substituted my definition of the war for yours. Lol, what I mean is, do I support the war? Yes However I do not believe it has no end in sight, has that ever occurred to you? You believe that, not me and if I actually honestly believed this war had no end in sight I probably wouldn't support it either.

Now in this post you pointed toward the advance in medicine as the reason for the death toll being low when compared to other wars. It sounds reasonable to believe that has been a factor and I'm sure its accounted for many saved lives but its not the main reason. The primary reason the death toll has been so low is because we never had the proper amount of boots on the ground in this war. The rumsfeld approach was specifically designed to accomplish more with fewer troops in hopes that we could avoid the higher casualty rates of previous wars, and in turn avoid the public backlash we saw in Vietnam. The approach was effective in significantly lowering the casualty rate in this war but the problem is the approach wasn't as effective as they planed resulting in a longer war.

I'm afraid to say this administration deserves partial credit for a low death toll in this war. After the insight on "modern conservatives" you gave the other day I'm sure crediting this administration for anything is probably physically impossible for you, your DNA in combination with crediting the Bush administration would equate to your head popping off and blood squirting out of your eyes. The condition is known as Bushisbadeidous, another symptom of the disease is unless Bush and other conservatives are constantly demonized you become psychically Ill. The condition is usually irreversible, so I understand.

lol, come on, I'm just trying to lighten up the atmosphere in here with some nighttime humor.

Blame is only bad and unhelpful when untrue-

okay- so what is your magic ball say about when this war will change for the better, when are political groups indigious to Iraq going to come together and bond together for mutual security of all of Iraq?

When does your magic ball say we should expect things to get better, and what are these indicators that they are better- for all of Iraq?

What does your magic ball say we are going to spend less money?

You do realize that the medical bills sustained alone for all vets of this war is going to probably cost as much as the war itself by the time we are done, even if it IS only 10 years?

What is your deadline for troops before you say "okay, enough is enough"?

How do you suppose we are going to keep recruiting and retaining troops as this thing wears on for over a decade- or do you see less time than a decade?

How long do you think we will keep doing this- GW is out in a year- let's say your favorite republican wins the oval office, and has the votes and confidence to get lawmakers to go along with it-

how long then? How do you see this changing anything by our staying there?

Don't try and tell me what will happen when we leave- tell me what is going to happen while we are there, and how long we should put up with it!

Your post did nothing to refute my point: compatively lower casualty rates do not atone for failed policy. You obviously believe the opposite is true, that soldiers dying and being wounded in Iraq is quite acceptable, because you believe it to be worthwhile. Surely however, you can understand how some of us do not believe that Iraq is or was a threat to US national security, and that our continued occupation is only perpetuating the sectarian violence. And that soldiers dying for that situation is unacceptable.

One wonders if this double edged ethical sword will come back to cut you when a Democratic president sends US forces into a morass, where you don't believe national security is at stake.

In the meantime, since all servicemembers volunteered for the Armed Forces.....in your opinion, if they disagree with the policy that places them into harms way, are they to keep silent? To have no means of redress? Should they just 'suck it up'?

Hopelessness?

OK, then to me your stance would be considered......."wishful".

CruisingRam



Ok then the idea that the entire modern conservative movement since 1980 is based on removing freedoms from other Americans is untrue as well as being ridiculous. Yea like I'm proud to be a modern conservative because we are based on removing freedoms from Americans, what a crock.

Also the idea that "Surge = failure, totally and complete failure." Just like that, no matter what, is also untrue. I'm not going to counter that highly conclusive and premature claim by providing and equally premature claim by saying that "Surge = sucsess, totally and complete success." The truth is you don't have a time machine and neither do I, although the surge is producing significant results which I'll address more as I respond to the rest of your reply.

CruisingRam


I don't need a magic ball to answer any of those to the best of my knowledge, so that I'll do.

As for the first question, its things like this that convince me you made up your mind about this war a long time ago, this is obviously a very deeply rooted matter of political favoritism in your case. This is based on a combination of things you have said on this site. You obviously loath this presidency as well as Modern conservatives therefore you probably don't support the war for reasons such as that more than anything. Otherwise you would realize that for the last several months things have in fact been improving already, and Iraqis are in many cases standing and fighting with coalition forces on as scale we haven't seen since the start of the war. In fact I'm not so sure we have seen this level of cooperation yet.

I think Iraqis are sick and tired of getting blown the hell up, and are sick and tired of being displaced. This is becoming increasingly evident in the news, I'm seeing it mentioned on multiple networks as well as increasing online sources. Ive provided some substantiation to that in links already. This is not just some bull crap lie that General Petraus concocted to support the president. Now I can understand the initial skepticism back on September 10th when news of this progress was first shown in figures. However today I'm even seeing democrats starting to acknowledge this in many cases, and its because this positive news is coming from multiple sources, 1000's of Iraqis are returning home now because get this, Iraq is now actually safer than many other areas like for example Syria.

If "and I stress the word IF" this progress continues on in the months to come, its going to get harder and harder for people like you to ignore the massive changes being made throughout Iraq, and its more than just our military that is to credit for this because Iraq is finally making some ground on its own, like I said many Iraqis may be in doubt about our presence there, but what they doubt even more at this point is the idea that these extremest lowlife thugs can be ignored any longer, being the reason many are now making a stand. This story has been extremely exiting for those who have supported this effort either emotionally from home, or physically by being in Iraq. Although some American soldiers so it seems have given up hope unfortunately.


The second question addressed money, How are we going to spend less money, I believe you asked. The answer is were not, as long as this war continues we're going to obviously be spending more money. The question is, is our money today being effectively spent on this war, or is money getting lost in the loop through bad politics and corruption? See just like you I don't like this administration, not at all, I think in many cases they have proven to be incompetent and quite possibly corrupt. The difference between you and me is I criticize him because he is a poor president, you criticize him because he is a poor president who happens to be conservative. Ive come to that conclusion on you by reading your post in the last 3 days in the "I hate America" forum.

If the next leader supports the war they will almost certainly be an improvement over Bush. Seeing to it that our money is spent wisely in Iraq would be key, but as long as the war continues our gouvernment will have to fund it obviously. Now if you want to know a little about what our nations abilities are and how long we might be able to sustain this war go here....... http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry228304 and Read section 5. Its relatively short but may help to put that much into perspective.




CruisingRam



Ok, pretty good question. Seeing that things are improving, if they continued to improve and the Iraqi military is further strengthened I see us pulling the bulk of our forces out in as little as 2 years with some troops remaining for as long as 4 or 5 years, because we wont leave all at once unless someone not interested in winning the war is elected next year. If violence levels get back to where they were earlier this year and stay that way then I'm not sure when id lose support for our troops. It would all depend on who is president. If its someone who doesn't intend to win the war, then I say don't stay till 2013 like Hillary suggested. In that scenario we might as well tell Iraq good luck, then take about a year to draw out our troops to let them adjust, but staying till 2013 for a war were not going to try and even win is a waste of time and life.

The difference between me and you here is I think we will win if we stay and fight, I don't have this "cant win no matter what" view on Iraq, so with a supportive president id probably support the war for several years, especially if things continue to go well. If not I don't know what my cut off point would be.

CruisingRam



Ive nailed that one specifically here in this forum already, because I've been asked that about 100 times in recent years and researched it throughly.
Your welcome to look for that in section 6 of my WOT post or read what Ive already said about it here. Its too long to get into again but I broke down the numbers, and presented a troop expansion plan that is already underway and also effectively reaching requiting goals. The latter part of that I found out thanks to DaytonRocker I believe.


CruisingRam



Well if a republican is elected, by the line up I'm convinced any of the top runners would do better than George Bush. Interesting thing is that things are already changing now, you keep talking about change as if it isn't occurring but it is, thats not propaganda and its no lie. Things are still bad, in fact we are behind where we should be, because we could be wrapping this thing up now if things were done a little differently. We are making up for lost time but things are improving, not just in Anbar, not just in Baghdad, but in most locations in Iraq things on the ground are improving by the month. I'm sure you will keep your fingers crossed that, things continue to improve in Iraq, hrm well what tells me thats wishful thinking?



You.........

Your post did nothing to refute my point: compatively lower casualty rates do not atone for failed policy. You obviously believe the opposite is true, that soldiers dying and being wounded in Iraq is quite acceptable, because you believe it to be worthwhile. Surely however, you can understand how some of us do not believe that Iraq is or was a threat to US national security, and that our continued occupation is only perpetuating the sectarian violence. And that soldiers dying for that situation is unacceptable.

This is how I see it, we went to war in 2003. Our President got the support he needed from congress to go to war In Iraq, so here we are. Now it was a controversial move even at the time but we are there now, our men our dying, and our resources and time are being spent on the goal of freeing another nation. Now I do agree with those that say this mission can be accomplished, but do you know what retains my support the most? Its because I dont want to see the money and time we have spent, and most importantly the blood our men have shed in the last 4+ years to have been for nothing. You say our continued occupation is only perpetuating the sectarian violence. To an extent it was, and still is. Terrorist don't want us there whether they be Al Qaeda, AQI, or whoever. What your saying is true of many wars. Remember I believe I said here weeks ago that Birds of a Feather Flock together, and its true.

Now the civil war aspect of the war in Iraq some say make the war unique but civil unrest is common in a time of war. As you surely know Iraq was being lead by an evil man trying to expand his influence and power. We brought that empire down, so Iraq today is raw, Its a country that will either redefine itself as a breeding ground for another Saddam to come along, or a struggling new democracy that with time on its own can grow and expand. They would be a crucial mid eastern Ally if this war is won. They would also have the same enemies in the middle east that we do, as they have in the past. This works to our advantage while at the same time we have helped a nation rid of an evil dictator and rebuild itself. Now you can call all this Nonsense, but you are welcome to that criticism.

Now you also said in that last quote..... Surely however, you can understand how some of us do not believe that Iraq is or was a threat to US national security

Absolutely, this is from my WOT post addressing what you just said....

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

Net2007 ........... Oct 17


I went on to explain more on that in my post. So I actually agree with you there.

You......


In the meantime, since all servicemembers volunteered for the Armed Forces.....in your opinion, if they disagree with the policy that places them into harms way, are they to keep silent? To have no means of redress? Should they just 'suck it up'?

Absolutely not speak your mind, thats what you should do. I enjoyed hearing your stance when the credibility attacks weren't being used. Also, as long as a person does not distort facts in order to further support their view, then whatever their view is it should be expressed.

You...

Hopelessness?

OK, then to me your stance would be considered......."wishful".


I don't paint a picture of an Iraq without violence, or without mistakes. I admit the bad, and in fact I even do a large amount of criticizing of my own on what policy has been. I will criticize whoever I think is screwing up whether they be on the Right or Left. Of course I try and be informed before doing so but it just seems to me with some people this war is demoted and undermined in almost every conceivable way. Now am I wishful? Well I wish for the best to happen as always and thats to win this war as soon as we can. Now on top of that I'm confident we will win if we don't give up. I was never in a position where I felt I was supporting a war that cant be won. I strongly believe we will win, we are seeing some progress, and it will be interesting to see how some on the left will spin this one if this progress continues until election time rolls around. If we are in a position next summer where we are clearly winning, it will have a big effect on the next election. The Michael Moore's out there will have to rewrite the Bush bash play book, to include some new material.
People like that are unfortunate, although Bush has really dug his own grave in many ways.

This is the exact reason why I'm usually on the opposite side of my conservative republican counterparts - consistency. I hold republicans accountable to the same standards I would demand from a democrat.

If Hillary had drug us into a war of choice, allowed torture, spied on Americans under the guise of "terrorism", trumped up intel to try to start another war, and used CIA agents as political fodder, the republicans would have hung her. It is completely delusional to think otherwise.

So, every time I see someone apologizing for poor behavior, policies, and decision making skills, they are allowing the opposition party leader to do the same.

You hit the nail on the head DR- net seems to think, that, since I have lived through the entire conservative movement post 1980, and had to deal with thier inconsistancies on issues like this- good when our guy is in power, bad when he is not- that it is just some "irrational hate" that I have for them- It is the inability of poeple like net and Ted to say "oh damn, if hillary did this badly, I would have her burned at the stake"- I would be just as critical, really more critical, of somebody like Bill Clinton in this situation, then I am even of GW. More angry because he has proven that he is not incompetant- just corrupt- it is the double whammy that is killing us here.

So, Net- what political progress has been made that we are going to be getting out in 3 years, or even reducing forces, that rebutts DTOMs very nicely laid out political issues of total chaos that we have now?

I remind you again- the surge was not about a military solution, but rather, an attempt to give a boost to a political situation=

do you think that DTOMs characterization of the different political groups is wrong? And why so?

And for the record Net- not one military member here, some that have worked in recruiting during GOOD times, feels you have answered in any lucid form the question of all these extra troops.

Heck, you don't even know how many support personel it takes to keep one ground troop fighting. Yet, of course, you magical plan for recruiting new personel has been lost on the thousands of recruitment offices around the nation.

Perhaps you should e-mail them your ideas on recruiting and retention?

How about the lying and breaking of the enlistment contracts of those that signed up for say, 4 years, and have been told they need to stay in another 3 years or more? Guess what- when you "volunteer" they don't mention that at all- that came up very recently.

There are a large percentage of soldiers that volunteered for X years, and were drafted for the rest- NOT a choice, BTW.

And who are the people who make up the militias? Are they the many of the people who voted for this government or did they drop in from mars?

Hint: Martians have not been identified in iraq.

And as you well know the impetus and purpose behind the militias was the lack of security allowed by an Iraqi army not ready and US forces parked safely away. Now that the serge is working and security has improved dramatically all we need imo is the government to get their butts in gear and make the political accommodations necessary to essentially end the insurgency and do away with the need for (or incorporate) the militias.

As I have said numerous times if this cannot be brought about by this time next year then we have a real problem in Iraq.

Kudos on the total and utter evasion of my question to you. Afraid to face the answer?



Absolutely incorrect. You write as if you believe that if the Iraqi Security Forces show resolve and competance, the militia's will go away. They will not. I'm curious as to how much you know of the militia's, their structure and their goals. Let's have a primer, shall we?

The currently largest Sunni group is Ansar al Islam, who's goal is to unify all Sunni extremists under one leadership umbrella to combat coalition forces. The Sunni 1920th Revolutionary Brigade is an Iraqi Rejectionist network established in 2003 to act as an umbrella organization for insurgents against Coalition Forces. These and other, smaller Sunni insurgent groups are not pining for the current Maliki government to grow a backbone, they wish to instill a Sunni/Ba'athist regime.

I've mentioned Jaysh Al-Mahdi on countless occasions and their affiliation with the Office of the Martyr Sadr. Their main opposition, aside from the Maliki government and Sunni's, is the Badr Organization. The Badr Corps as they're also known due to it's inception as as Iranian Revolutionary Guards unit, has as its primary goal to dominate key Iraqi government ministries and specific agencies; the Ministry of Interior in general and the Iraqi National Intelligence Service (INIS) in particular. This they are accomplishing as they are the largest militia influence in the current government.

The [Shia] Army of the Guardians continue to reject the political process, regardless of the results or consequent success of the Shia politicians. This group vies for power against Badr and JAM. A smaller, but more militant Shia group is Thar Allah. Thar Allah’s motivation is to avenge the persecuted Shia. Although presenting itself as a political party, it has no known political manifesto and is not regarded as a legitimate political group by others. And there is Iraqi Hizbollah which is an umbrella organization of smaller opposition groups that has occasionally sought funding, and at times sanctuary, from the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iran, in order to establish a Shia theocracy in Baghdad.

Jaysh Al-Mahdi's cease-fire, ordered by Sadr in August was a shrewd move on his part to identify groups who are disloyal and relieve pressure from Iraqi and US operations. JAM's Special Groups continue to defy the order, and Iranian influence threatens the cohesion of JAM altogether. What will solidify JAM again, and restore Sadr's image among Shia is to end his six month cease-fire; either then or earlier. The cease-fire is the single largest contributor to the reduction in violent attacks, and if the order is lifted, as Sunni security groups are solidifying their neighborhoods, and the surge Brigades are leaving..........the security gains made in the last few months can be washed away by a tidal wave of blood and bombs.

These militias will not go away peacefully, at least not anytime soon. They have infiltrated the Iraqi Security Force structure to such an extreme that we are unable to share intelligence with them. They have infiltrated ministries and other bureaucracies in order to gain and consolidate turf and power. They are not biding their time until a strong central government attains power over Baghdad, much less Iraq, to then live peaceful lives. The milita's to a group, want power and the spread of their ideaology and want western influence out of Iraq. As long as we remain, we are perpetuating the existence of the militias and the violence and chaos that comes with them.



Ted, the sUrge is over. The Brigades are starting to and preparing to depart. Additionally, as has been brought up here by smarter members than I, the goal of the surge was not to decrease violence, that was the enabler. The goal was to create an atmosphere of stability in order to allow the political process to evolve and to conclude reconciliation, civil and economic improvements and to attain a legitimate, neutral Iraqi Security Force. The goals have not been met. If they can't be accomplished during the surge, and during a JAM cease-fire, what are the odds that they will be accomplished later when neither of the above are in place?



With this in depth analysis, its no wonder you find it so easy to support our involvement in Iraq.



Yes it is sad. If only they could block out daily life and only ingest canned, consumable news bites.......they might be much more optimistic.

You knowledge of the landscape is impressive. No doubt, as you say, there will be a low level insurgency in Iraq for some time to come but your boss Petraeus says we can win and I still believe him. And I know your feeling is that the we can throw any possible gain, victory, win or whatever into the dumpster rather than lose one more American soldier because the mission and the people there are worthless to you – GOT THAT sir.


The idea is to incorporate into the political process as many “insurgents” as possible – as we have seen in Anbar and elsewhere. Petraeus thinks this will bring the country together and give the political process a chance to work. People are coming back to Bafhdad. Those that resist can be killed by the Iraqi Army if the security forces cannot do it. Yes the surge is over and it has accomplished a great deal.

Bottom line I think running out now would be a disaster and a waste of the lives spent and very well could have us back in the future to lose even more lives than we have. And YES that means that staying is going to cost more American lives – but imo that is preferable to the alternative.