Not if you define it as let’s run now and the hell with all we have done and died there for – no, guess not.

By the way just heard Lt Col. Ralph Peters (ret) of FOX say the press got the Al Sader story 100% wrong.

The Iraqi troops took Basra and secured every oil facility and the city. Same for the towns nearby. Al Sader is now saying he may disband his Militia if the clerics ok it.

He has little choice since Maliki says his people will not vote if they don’t. And do you have a picture of the Maliki rep in Iran? Seems he may have never sent one.

So Maliki seems to have won and he did it with the “Shiite sectarian army” you say would never oppose the Shiite Militia - and maliki a Shiite. – Seems the surge has worked and things are different in Iraq.

.

Is that right. Maybe Iran would like us to lose and will support anyone who would take a shot at us. But I agree with you. Most Iraqi’s hate em and they will never control Iraq – unless we run and they take it by force of arms.

Since I define it as not wanting more Americans to die fighting a sectarian war [4000 have already died in vain], I have my answer on if you support the troops.



Read some accounts from people who are actually in Iraq, not simply from pundits who get their bread buttered by the administration and various questionably fair MSM sources. The Iraqi Army would have been soundly defeated had the Americans not intervened, they were never close to taking Basra [and don't control the city today]. Read accounts from Iraq Ministry of Defense officials who say the same thing. Peters is absolutely incorrect, and "Sader" is spelled Sadr.



Your motto is never let facts get in the way of propaganda, eh? If the surge was so successful, we could continue with the drawdown instead of keeping more troops in Iraq now than before the surge. If the surge was so successful, we wouldn't still be losing so many Americans.....the ones you claim to support.



Do you have anything resembling factual data to back up any of your drive by claims? Educate yourself on the behind the scenes power plays Ted, don't rely on Fox and Bush for your information.

And Sadr got his butt kicked and we did minimal support and no casualties. THIS is what we have been looking for and the surge has helped bring it about. The Iraqi Army winning with minimal American help.



I have and “behind the scenes” the man you said could not rule and go after Shiite Militia is doing just that. He is ruling and he will win against Sadr and all the factions. The Sunni except for AQI are out of the insurgent business and the JAM thugs will come over or die imo. This is what I call political progress.

Ted are you delusional? Do some research please, Administration talking points will only get you laughed at these days. Sadr's militia retired intact, confidant and composed. Iraqi Security Forces deserted in droves. Since the 'Sadr Surge' took place in Basra and Baghdad, you might want to rethink your claim of minimal American help; the cordon of Sadr City and Shulla [in Baghdad] was entirely American, and more than a few paid a price. In Basra, the ISF still can't go anywhere near Five Mile Market.

Since you bring up casualties, Jaysh Al-Mahdi 107mm rockets have inflicted 3 KIA and 33 WIA in the last 2 days alone; that's not including EFP casualties. Is THAT what the surge was supposed to bring about? Supporting a political party with deep, familial ties to our 'supposed enemy' [Iran] against another more nationalist political party?



I see you're still abiding by your time honored practice of not backing those tough words with anything except vague bush logic. Since you are far removed from the reality on the ground in Iraq, I can only wonder where you bought your crystal ball. I'd ask for a refund.



Really? Jaysh Al-Islam, 1920 Revolutionary Brigade, Ansar Al-Sunna and others have simply given up and gone home? What pray tell do you base that on?

Am I debating with a 13 year old here?

Wrong. Stop preaching the NYT and Dem talking points DTOM. Some of the local police did break. The Army stood and took the city, oil assets, and ports and Sadr called his men off because they were about to be demolished.

“The news is that the government force launched a massive strike supported by US and British air and they are taking the battle to the militia. The fight did not "erupt" but was the result of a planned attach that was executed by the government forces. The two papers are using the passive voice because they are locked into a mindset that any violence is a failure of the government and US effort in Iraq. In this case it is the opposite. It is a sign that the Iraqi army has matured to the point where it can take the lead in a large operation to secure control of a large city.

It is a sign the Iraqis are standing up to the challenge of leading and securing their country.

Sadr's cease fire has been more for the benefit of his weak militia than for the benefit of the government”
http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/...e-in-basra.html




Once again I will be listening to Petraeus and not to the cut and run crowd. And as you know and ignore, not one of the candidate will do as you would like – does that tell you something DTOM?
"Petraeus' plan would allow the five extra brigades ordered to Iraq last year to withdraw by July without ordering their replacement. After that, he and other military officials would wait to see whether Iraq was stable enough to allow additional troops to leave."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347909,00.html





Want to post data on major Sunni insurgent operations against us? Or just your personal attacks?

Uh... are we talking about the same population that allowed a dictator to gas them, torture them and take advantage of sanctions to their detriment? Because, it seems to me that this population let that happen. So... why is it so far fetched that they would let Iraq become a "client state" of Iran?

This is a population that appears, for the most part, to let a lot of things happen unless they have someone helping them not let that happen. So, if the current elected GoI is under Iranian influence, it seems like a very small hop to being controlled. The population also didn't seem to have much a problem with the leader of Iran when he visited. He seemed to be able to walk around as if he was in a "normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime" - not so much as a bullet proof vest.



Well, even the White House said that this wasn't a success for the Iraqi Army. They described it, basically, as a learning experience. Now, when the White House... the White House claims that the only success was in learning what the Iraqi Army is capable of... read - not much... it makes your argument appear even more ludicrous. Even the Bush Administration couldn't bring themselves to seriously claim it as a success for the Iraqi Army.

Perhaps its because there are few families in Iraq without a relative killed by Iran? Iraqis are not Persians? They do not want to be anyone’s “client state”. They want to be free?


They are far more capable than they were last year. US troops were not holding their hands there and doing all the shooting. The key point for me is that Maliki has labeled the Militia as criminals to be rooted out. Lets see if Sadr disbands.

Ah, and how many families had a relative killed or tortured by Hussein? Life was pretty rosy for them under Hussein? Are individuals in a tribal culture "free" in the sense that we know the word? Or are the tribal leaders free and everyone else just sheep?



Well, that's a nice bit of backpedalling. We've gone from the Iraqi Army winning to simply being more capable than they were last year. So for you, winning is doling out labels? "You are a criminal to be rooted out... We win!!!" Wow, if only everyone could win a battle with labelling... far fewer deaths that way.

Do you honestly believe that being labelled as criminals is going to make Sadr disband?

You lost me. The question was why they would not want to be ruled by Iran. Certainly they would not want to be ruled by Saddam again. Except of course the fraction who actually benifitted most.

Well no. We went from screaming there was no “political progress” to ignoring it when it happens. We went from the Iraqi Army can do nothing to denying that this was a success for them. Keep reading the NYT – they will give you the best view. No matter what happens you will downplay it unless/until a Dem is in the WH at which point it will all look “better”.

No, the question was why wouldn't the population let Iran control the government. You said that 40% of the population wouldn't let that happen. I never said they wanted it - that doesn't mean they wouldn't let it happen. I'm sure they didn't want to be ruled by Saddam when he was gassing them and torturing them, but they let him continue.



No, you said, the Iraqi Army was "winning with minimal American help." Then you backpedalled to simply, "They are far more capable than they were last year." Did you not?



Are you claiming that the White House didn't say that it wasn't a success?



I was reading a quote from a White House spokesperson... not something the NYT wrote.

I would also add that Gen. Patraeus testified today that the Iraqi plan in Basra was not adequately planned or prepared. So, it wasn't a success, right? This isn't just me or the left or Dems denying this was a success, denying this was a "win" for the Iraqi Army; the White House and Gen. Patraeus have also stated that this was not a success... this was not a "win".

The Iraqi Army took and is holding Basra and the surrounding town with minimal US help. That is what I mean. If we stay they will improve to the point where the help they get/need from us is very minimal imo.

So, what do you define as minimal? They couldn't take the city without US help... they didn't plan adequately, they didn't prepare properly, they moved in too fast, they ignored the advice of Gen. Patraeus and it is only because the US stepped in that they got control of Basra. I don't think that help could be considered minimal. It wasn't like they were on the verge of gaining control and we assisted them in getting over the top. We had to move in because they were unable to take control on their own. It was less assistance and more bailout. That is not a "win" for the Iraqi Army, is it? And is the Mahdi Army out of Basra, or are they still there?

We had no ground troops and tanks backing them up. We did air recon for them. The help we gave them is what we can give them going forward and could be adequate to beat back Sadre people.

Ted, who is 'Sadre'? If you can't be bothered to spell someone's name correctly, why should any attention be paid to your posts at all?



The ISF does not maintain control over wide swaths of Basra. The last time a patrol went through the Five Mile Market suburb, they were soundly beaten back by JAM.

An April 4 Washington Post article entitled "Basra Assault Exposed U.S., Iraqi Limits; Anti-Sadr Gambit Seen Aiding Cleric", has this to say:

The offensive, which triggered clashes across southern Iraq and in Baghdad that left about 600 people dead, unveiled the weaknesses of Maliki's U.S.-backed government and his brash style of leadership. On many levels, the offensive strengthened the anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

The United States has spent more than $22 billion to build up Iraq's security forces, but they were unable to quell the militias. Maliki had to call on U.S. and British commanders for support. In some areas, such as Sadr's Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City, U.S. forces took the lead in fighting the cleric's Mahdi Army militiamen.



Show me where I'm wrong Ted. I'm in Baghdad and we don't get the NYT at our local sidewalk coffee shop where everything is sunshine and puppies. Show me where I'm wrong instead of repeating administration script like a trained parrot.



I shouldn't waste my breath asking you to back up your statements, but one of the many articles covering Basra reads like the one below.

His closest scrutiny, however, was reserved not for the few civilian motorists daring to venture on to the streets, but for other Iraqi army vehicles.

"Some of our soldiers have refused to fight the Mehdi Army and have instead handed their vehicles and weapons to them," he said, looking disgusted. "Now we are having to check every Iraqi army patrol that passes through to ensure they are genuine soldiers."

The scene on the other side of the battlefield proved his suspicions right. Dug in behind a wall was a squad of Mehdi Army fighters, the Shia militiamen Lt Abbas and 15,000 other Iraqi soldiers have been sent to quell.

Sure enough, one was driving an American-issue Iraqi army Humvee - one of seven, said the squad's leader, Haji Ali, handed to them by sympathisers within the Iraqi army.
Link

You use phrases like "Sadr called his men off because they were about to be demolished" yet sitting in the comfort of your own home, you don't even try to back any of it up. I wonder why?



You're either lying or you're ignorant of any facts. I'm sitting at a dusty internet cafe with a 30 minute time limit, and I can back up what I've been posting, how hard could it be for you?

The US military later confirmed that US aircraft had carried out Wednesday night's air raid in Basra.

Military spokesman Lt David Russell said aerial fire had been directed against enemy forces fighting Iraqi troops in the city, where hundreds of people were killed in last week's upsurge of violence.
Link

Maliki's gambit in Basra against his political foes failed. The Iraqi Army failed when pitted against 'criminals'. And the surge has quite obviously failed. With no political reconciliation worth mentioning, and military operations struggling just to keep rockets from firing into the IZ........there's no tangible success to point to. And all the while, people will continue to support it like a team at a sporting event.......and all the while your fellow countrymen continue to die. Way to support the troops.

Air recon? That's it?! Wow. Amazing that we didn't even have to fire a shot to help them... I admit, then... I don't know why the White House, Gen. Patraeus would claim that this wasn't a resounding success... they only did it with "air recon" support from the US. Perhaps we should just remove all the troops and do more "air recon" from off shore. Sound like a plan? Between our "air recon" and the GoI's incredible talent for labelling people as criminals, they just might be able to get the job done. Perhaps that's what the air recon was for... to be able to more accurately label the criminals.

I'm saddened to say that even the US military is engaging in that vein of propaganda. We frequently push out IO Messages (Information Operations) to the public that labels Shia nationalists as 'criminals'. The message is so transparently patronizing that it's embarrassing.

I don't even think Goebbels knew the accurate impact of his famous propaganda statement......



Seems a bit hypocritical of Maliki to make that statement, since his Dawa Party and ISCI rely on Badr Militia muscle. Care to prove thats not the case?

According to recent press, Sadr seems more likely to lift the cease-fire than to disband Jaysh Al-Mahdi.

Again sir WADR I am with you boss who just came from there and he said this:

“Petraeus said it remains in the United States' interest to stay in Iraq.
"It clearly is in our national interests to help Iraq prevent the resurgence of Al Qaeda in the heart of the Arab world, to help Iraq resist Iranian encroachment on its sovereignty, to avoid renewed ethno-sectarian violence that could spill over Iraq's borders and make the existing refugee crisis even worse, and to enable Iraq to expand its role in the regional and global economies," he said.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347909,00.html

Here is his complete report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8040801378.html


By the way the hearing are amusing. The Dems don't mention the "milestones" anymore since 2/3 have been met. Hillary still trying to make believe she did not support the war from the start - a real comedy.



It would seem he could lose that unles Sadr wants to disband. I bet he disbands since not doing so means his men die. You?

Why did you bother posting the Petraeus quote? It was typical vague generalities in a continuing dog and pony show.

You have made several BOLD statements that have either been soundly refuted or unsurprisingly ignored by you when asked for the foundation for such quotes. Will you EVER back up what you say, or will you remain the undisputed king of drive-by propaganda?

I am forced to believe you are merely a shill for the adminsitration and unable or unwilling to engage in debate.

I have stated my position. I believe Petraeus – I also believe Col. Peters. The fact is Sadr did not win in Basra does not hold Basra and cannot take Basra back. Can he make trouble – sure for a while – like he just did – timed no doubt with the Petraeus report to Congress. Will he “win” or control any part of the country by force of arms – I don’t think so.

So you maintain no doubt Petraeus is a liar and a “shrill for the Administration”?

I'll ask again Ted, will you ever back up any of your BOLD statements? You just made another; you imply that the ISF fully controls Basra. Prove it. Put up or shut up time.

I'll refresh your memory with but a small and recent sampling of your work:

The Iraqi Army took and is holding Basra and the surrounding town with minimal US help.

We did air recon for them.

US troops were not holding their hands there and doing all the shooting.

The Army stood and took the city, oil assets, and ports and Sadr called his men off because they were about to be demolished.

And Sadr got his butt kicked and we did minimal support and no casualties.

He is ruling and he will win against Sadr and all the factions.

The Sunni except for AQI are out of the insurgent business.

So Maliki seems to have won.........Seems the surge has worked and things are different in Iraq.

All statements that you don't even have to take my word that they're wrong. Do some research from sources that don't include whitehouse.gov, Fox News or Heritage.

Funny you should mention backing up statements. Want to go back a few pages in this forum to when you claimed everything while presenting very little when debating with me? Links don't mean anything to you anyway, he is showing you some links. Heck I showed you over 40 links in this forum alone to substantiate darn near everything I said, I don't even think you look at them. You just don't agree with his opinion, therefore you say he is unable or unwilling to engage in debate.

My stance remains the same as it was, the surge has worked, obviously it hasn't won us the war and thats never been my argument, but it was effective. Don't worry I'm sure if the next president is who I think it might be, this may very well all be irrelevant and we will lose at our own will in a year or two, so keep your fingers crossed. Of course you figure the war for being lost already anyway which it isn't, but whatever.

I suppose if the goal of the surge was to reduce levels of violence to 2005 levels, then break out the cigars....you're a winner! That whole pesky political reconciliation thing is another story isn't it? I sort of thought that surge supporters would further define success as being able to leave less forces in Iraq instead of more. Additionally, I figured success might also include reduced violence after the surge forces left.......



No the quotes that I pulled of his, are either outright lies or politically motivated hypotheses.

I may believe the war to be lost, but I'm not in that argument for political reasons as are many here. The key difference is that you believe the war can be won, no matter how many Americans go to their deaths for a needless adventure. Way to support the troops.

You seem to try to give the impression that you understand as much about the surge as you do about what our overall missions were in going into Iraq. You did say you were confused on the latter correct? Well in any case all you ever had to do understand the objective behind this War, or the recent troop surge is to be able to read, plus your a soldier so that doesn't make sense anyway. I actually don't believe that you believe some of the stances you say you take. I don't think your that naive in other words. You act as if you've been confused about the Wars objectives for some time, but I don't believe it. Now your acting as if you don't know the main objective of the surge was to reduce violence and give the Iraqis a chance to regain control.

We were quite underpowered in Iraq before the Surge, and in fact it remains difficult to maintain control because we should have gone in their with 300,000 troops or more according to many strategist and generals, just as we did in Desert Storm. The point of the surge was indeed to lower violence, but not break out cigars afterwards, which nobody is doing.

Was it successful? We don't know yet for sure because, some jokers up in Washington decided to assign Iraq benchmarks that couldn't all be realistically met in the the time line provided. I'm guessing they did this to appease to left wing America, because many of them seem to want to believe there is an overnight miracle solution, and some of the democrats in Washington today seem to have no understanding of what it is to make a commitment to a nation, as we did, and following through with that commitment. If their not happy about the timeliness they hear about, pressure heightens, and in some cases funding is cut.

Now even though this surge is not over it has indeed seen much success, more than the skeptics would have guessed when they first heard about it, and if they were honest with themselves I'm sure many would admit that. The only lie or deception going on that I see is you trying to play down everything we have done as if its minor, insignificant, or even non existent. Sometimes I just flat out don't get some of the things you say Dontredonme. At one point in December of last year I believe, you claimed things were getting worse fast in Iraq, which in my opinion was a flat out disregard of the situation in Iraq. Then you changed arguments a couple times at that point.

You say you have no political motive in this? Well neither do I. If this same war, and same situation occurred under a democratic president, I'd still be right here supporting it for the same reasons. However Political bias, and bias based on pride, are two different things. People get stuck in believing that what they believe is the truth and with some it pains them to be wrong, I think if we went on to win this war and stabilize Iraq you would still have people trying to spin as much negative into this whole thing as possible. Is this your story? I'm not saying it is, I obviously don't know what motivates you, but what I do know is that Bias and Agendas can be based on much more than politics.

YOU.............


Again you believe its a needless, pointless adventure, I don't believe that, and never have, and if I did I wouldn't be supporting it. By the way whats this ((No matter how many lives are lost )) bid? You know whether or not Id be supporting this war if it actually had an out of control American death toll? I never talked about my opinion on that one way or another from what I recall.

ok Lets do this sir since you rarely post more than one liners with little to no backup.

YOU refute my statements with data. SHOW ME the thousands of US troops shooting over the shoulders of the Iraqi Army in Basra. The US Abrams tanks rolling in to “save” the Iraqi Army etc. Show me up DTOM with your data.

Have at it sir. I won’t hold my breath

Well, how about the air strike that assisted the Iraqi Army in Basra, Ted. You seem to be denying that this occurred. You claim that we only provided "air recon." A patent falsehood.

WOW. You mean we actually helped them with an air strike!! Oh my god. No how many Americans died? Zero. How many were getting shot at? How many wounded? YES the operation was poolly planned by the Iraqi Army and they need to and will improve - but Sadr people backed down.

This operation is exactly what we have been talking about for 2 years. The Iraqi Army fighting insurgents – and Shiite insurgents at that, with minimal US support. But instead of praise the operation got the usual bad press from the NYT etc. Typical

More backpedalling. Okay. You won't accept that you've made some false statements. Fine.

And the operation got bad press from the White House, from Gen. Patraeus...

What is there to praise? Should we praise the poor planning? Should we praise the lack of adequate preparation? Should we praise the fact that as a result of the aforementioned, we had to go in to help? What exactly is praiseworthy again? You're saying that we should be excited that the Iraqi Army after all the training that has been done can't even plan a raid? We should praise the fact that no Americans died helping to fix the Iraqi Army screwup? Yeah, cool... no Americans died helping to fix the screwup of the Iraqi Army... this time.

And, if all we need to do is provide air support... again... let's do it from off shore... let's give them that minimal support that you're suggesting we are giving them, right? Let's pull the troops out except for some aircraft carriers and let's provide this "minimal help". Sound good?

No but lets recognize that the US did not have to lead the Iraqi troops or bail them out with ground forces. Flying overhead is one hell of a lot different. This is imo the model for future operations once security is firmly established. Which will take more time.




http://www.blackanthem.com/News/iraqi-free...asra15667.shtml

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oY...s98w8wD8VP6BS00

I don't think we can judge what is considered minimal help by the manner in which we helped. They Iraqi Army, according to your link, killed 2 out of the 10 killed in the raid. The US killed the other 8 in the air strikes. I would say that, while it may be minimal effort on the part of the US, the resulting assistance was not minimal.

Effort and assistance are not the same thing. They needed major assistance which we provided with minimal effort. And it was assistance that they may not have needed had they followed advice, planned properly and adequately prepared.

Sooooo you believe Sadre had his “army” back off for what reason. IMO they knew that they would lose a lot of men if they did not. Will they be back? Could be. And maybe next time the Iraqi Army will have better plans. This also shows that Sadr cannot plan large operations in secret.

So imo this shows that the Iraqi Army is close to being able to deal with even the largest and best armed insurgent group and win – with minimal US help. And they are Shiites – and many here have said maliki would never go after his fellow Shiites – esp. Sadr who gave him political support and essentially got him the job. Guess that idea is dead wrong.

Maliki has labled the Sadr “army” outlaws and criminals – a big step imo.

And as I said earlier – we hear no more Dem ranting on political progress since 2/3 of the 18 benchmarks have been met. Amusing.



Nonsense. Just trying to minimize it. An air strike will never be “major” anything. NO troops, no tanks, no US losses. MINIMAL involvement and minimal risk to American lives. THIS is what we need to get to throughout the country.

It's not nonsense. It is actually possible to provide an incredible amount of assistance with minimal effort.



Right because of that whole "air recon" stuff that killed the majority of the people lost in the battle.

Fine – play word games if it makes you feel better. The point is they backed off when faced with only a US air strike and the Iraqi Army.

Are you not even willing to accept that this is where we want to be and this is a big step in that direction?

It is quite clear that you really don't understand anything about Iraq Ted, pretty much ignoring any evidence, well, all evidence, and believe only what GW tells you- which is fine.

But I do have to thank you for helping me "cheer up the troops"- I have been e-mailing your propagandist mewlings to some friend of mine, and a couple family members there.

The whole idea that the Basra operation was a "victory" for Maliki is pretty funny- especially since it was a complete and utter humiliation for him and for the US

you do realize that it was the Iranians that brokered the cease fire?

And you completely ignored the evidence, again, that DTOM provided, and provided no credible evidence to the contrary.

Seriously- if you want to debate- please be kind enought to, you know, provide some credible source to rebutt DTOM, right now I wouldn't say you look silly- but more like childishly niave

So far, you have offered NOTHING credible to rebutt DTOM, who, at some point, you must recognize has some more credibility, seein' as he is there and all that?

You never have served in the military have you Ted? Every soldier, or former soldier- knows the difference between reality and the claims and announcements by the "brass".

But hey, you do provide some humour for my friends, albiet "dark comedy", and they get a kick out of it!

I am breaking my rule in even responding to your crap and personal attacks. If you want to address my point above do so – otherwise spare me please.

For years we have been saying that the Iraqi Army could never “carry the load” without US troops and tanks right with them doing the fighting. Sooooo when they do exactly that , even badly planned and executed, we call it a disaster? Its like the “benchmarks” that was the primary issue and now that this is no longer workable you and your Dem buddies are on to this “failure”.

And Iran did not broker anything. Sadr offered to stand down from his hideout in Iran rather than get his butt kicked completely and by the way no one from the Maliki government went there – another LIE.

Okay- so here goes

1) Iran did not broker the cease fire- so all other accounts to the contrary are wrong?

2) DTOMs ground view assessment is wrong- and he has asked you several times to provide evidence to the contrary- you have not done that- not even on one post.

3) You are saying that even the GW administration's assessment of the Iraqi efforts were wrong?

4) You do not believe this was humiliating for Maliki- and he even retracted his statements about the "criminals" and such less than 24 hours later?

All these posted facts are NOT facts in your opinion?

If so, please post non-biased or even only barely biased source to say otherwise? As DTOM has asked you, oh, ten times or more?

Is that too much to respond to Ted?

Ted, nobody is attacking you. But if you don't want to be considered a propagandist, prove your points instead of repeating what are widely believed as absurdities. Using sources such as Stephen Hayes at NRO - a site I visit daily as much as any other site I visit daily - will not advance your cause. Stephen Hayes has been a good soldier on Bush's USS Failboat, but he's neither an objective or credible source. Except for people seriously in denial, Basra was a complete flop. Obviously, you could find some good. But trying to give credit there is like trying to give Hitler credit because he built highways and had a prosperous economy. You can find a silver lining in almost anything no matter how horrible it was. However, you are using the minute amount of good that can be found in any situation as a basis for your beliefs. And that's just patently absurd.

You're becoming a parody of yourself because almost everything you say is counter to the facts - not the opinions you choose to support. These are not attacks and you're getting called out on it.

Sadr did not get his butt whipped. The military underestimated his strength and found themselves flanked. Sadr had more to gain politically by standing down because it shows Malaki's weakness. If the battle in Basra had been a success, there would have been no bad guys left.

Right now, the militias are in control of Basra. I wouldn't call that success.

Ya sure.

The Iraqi army with minimal help from the US and takes the city, oil refineries, and every strategic point there. Then the Sadr forces “retire” – translate stand down rather than be butchered – and this is a complete “flop”.

I get it now.

Certainly the planning and poor execution of the battle by the Iraqi Army was a “flop” but despite this the result was a strategic victory. Unless you want to show me the strategic points “held” by the madi army. LOL.



Come on please- victory is one hell of a lot more than “standing down”. And maliki has told them to disband or they get no votes. What do you think will happen?

Thanks for giving me a laugh today, surely you can't be serious? This coming from the king of drive-by posting? I'll let my posts speak for themselves.



You made the statements, you back them. Time to man up. You are savvy enough to realize that the Sadr Surge took place not only in Basra, but in Sadr City and Shulla, right? Fox might not have covered that.....



As I posted before, Sadr flexed his muscle and snubbed Maliki. The Sadr Surge had the additional effect of uniting mainstream Jaysh Al-Mahdi and JAM Special Groups more closely than they have been since the Sadr cease fire. If you believe that Sadr backed off in the face of certain defeat, you're more naive than I previously thought. JAM is stronger now that he placated his lieutenants who wanted to fight. The Sadr Surge has renewed their sense of purpose and resolve. On an interesting side note, while some possible thousands of ISF defected to JAM, not one JAM fighter willingly surrendered.

With a word JAM rose up and fought, and with a word they backed off. I have more respect for JAM than I do the ISF.

As the smoke clears over new rubble in Iraq's second city, at the heart of Iraq's oil region, it's apparent that the big winner of the Six-Day War in Basra are the forces of rebel cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army faced down the Iraqi armed forces not only in Basra, but in Baghdad, as well as in Kut, Amarah, Nasiriyah, and Diwaniya, capitals of four key southern provinces. That leaves Sadr, an anti-American rabble rouser and nationalist who demands an end to the US occupation of Iraq, and who has grown increasingly close to Iran of late, in a far stronger position that he was a week ago. In Basra, he's the boss. An Iraqi reporter for the New York Times, who managed to get into Basra during the fighting, concluded that the thousands of Mahdi Army militiamen that control most of the city remained in charge. "There was nowhere the Mahdi either did not control or could not strike at will," he wrote.
CBS

I invite you to read the entire article, it may clear up some of those pesky misconceptions that you have.



What are you talking about? Sadr's fighters rose up against an ISF offensive operation. Might I remind you as I posted many months ago, we do not share most of our intelligence with the ISF, because it will be out on the street before the briefing is over.



Unsurprisingly, you continue to fail to have grasp on Shia politics and Shia dynamics. I suppose your too busy lambasting the NYT to educate yourself.



Only if propaganda will win the war.



Speaking of just trying to minimalize, tell that to the families of the fallen soldiers in Sadr City.



Ted.......prove it. There are reams of articles at your fingertips that call you a liar.



Ted......prove it. Prove that the Iraqi Army even now, almost two weeks later, holds more than a cordon and checkpoints around Basra. At least your not making the same claim about Sadr City, there may be hope for you.



Five Mile market, for one.



Uh, Net.......that was sarcasm...



Interesting statement. In a way it is my story, but not in the way you have worded it. You see, I sat back stateside and watched the news, listened to the reports coming out of Iraq, was a conservative [though a Libertarian]........and generally supported what I thought was happening in and for Iraq. I made supportive posts here and backed the propaganda.

Then.....I came to Iraq.

I was lucky enough to have a position that allowed me a seat at the table for planning and operations, a daily dose of intelligence, and the ability to speak with average Iraqi's on an almost daily basis. Slowly but steadily, I started to realize that much of what is being told about Iraq is [while not an outright lie] supreme examples of distortion and omission. I don't have a political agenda concerning Iraq, other than the civil liberties lost while we're in this "time of war". I'm not supporting the Democratic candidate. And I don't hold my position out of pride. It took some serious emotional events to reach honesty with myself in the face of what I had believed. You support your position on Iraq because you want it to be the case, you want to win. My position is one of reluctance. I don't want to lose, I truly wish your vision for Iraq would happen. I had to swallow my pride in changing my position, especially when done on a public forum. I had to admit that i was wrong. You treat spin as a game, and rightly so, but assigning negative spin to my position is unfounded. What I've seen and experienced here, plus the dynamics of sectarianism, Islamic politics and Iranian intervention, lead me to believe without a doubt that your vision will not pass.
I've been as snarky with you as you have been with me, and I apologize. I don't wish for this to be personal, and I don't fault you for your opinion, it's the same one that I had [generally] before I experienced it first hand. But for me this issue has taken a far higher precedence than the game of debate. I've lost dear friends in a voluntary escapade. I've been wounded, and when I return home in a few days, I will bring emotional trauma home that I haven't fully wrapped my head around yet.

And for what? So we can continue to support a politican who has deep familial ties and backing from the next door nation who the Adminstration publicly pronounces as our enemy? To pay off insurgents to not attack us? How have 4000 not already died in vain in this charade?

Right a bunch of these thugs is running around Sadr City shooting and launching mortars – and killing civilians – tactics that will surely generate lots of local support. They hold nothing and have accomplished nothing except showing that Iraqi forces still need more work. But as Petraeus said yesterday this operation could not have been handled by Iraqi forces a year ago.

So we will see what Sadr does next. Do they have the power to take more than a few neighborhoods in a poor city? Tell me so I can write it down for future reference. They are toast.

Ted, Sadr's fighters control Sadr City and Shulla.

Yep, thugs and criminals.....the propaganda continues. So does your knowledge deficit concerning Iraq. Do you ever attempt to educate yourself, or do you sit by and wait for the next script to come from Bush or Petraeus? I'm still waiting for you to prove that the Iraqi Army holds Basra. Guess I'll be waiting for awhile huh?



Are we also "turning the corner"? Chasing down "dead enders"? Your rhetoric is so 2004.....

BTW, your assertion of no US ground troops in Basra is a lie:


Link

Come on Ted, I'm in an internet cafe on a time limit, and I can find plenty of refutations of your claims.

DTOM. You should know that facts have a liberal bias. Clearly, since these facts have a liberal bias, they cannot be true.

Dontreadonme


Sarcasm my foot, you sounded serious enough to me. You want to know what I think? This will be a complement as well as a criticism based on all your post Ive read. Ok for starters as a complement I don't think your naive enough to believe many of the things you say, as I've said, and aparently I'm wright since you just tried to blame sarcasm for your last fallacy. Now while I don't think your naive enough to believe bush is comparable to the Taliban, or things were getting worse in Iraq when they were getting better, or that your confused about what the objectives have been in Iraq, Im starting to believe you just may be deceitful enough to push forward pessimism at the expense of honesty. There are no shortage of examples I could give as to why I'm beginning to come to that conclusion, but I can tell you its based on things of yours I'm reading, not guessing.





Conversations regarding politics or racism often get heated or snarky when two opinions are at opposite ends.

The section in bold above is interesting although what your saying is simply the story of war. Even successful wars with higher public opinions are hard and trying for those who experience it. However what has changed your opinion for the negative, often does just the opposite and strengthens the beliefs of other soldiers. Your one example of two possible outcomes. Either a person goes to war and loses the will to support it or just the opposite happens. Not supporting the war may be your story, as well as others even, but its not the story of millions of soldiers such as my cousin James who went to Iraq supporting it, and left supporting it. It also remains fact that the percentage of soldiers supporting the war is higher than that of the general public, which rules out the assumption that experiencing Iraq is generally changing peoples opinions from supportive to non supportive.

Ya, pretty sad, that is for sure - I am sure DTOM, in fact, is a news reporter for the NYT, and is a card carrying commie liberal of the support Billary fan club.

But one has to ask, will it be more or less stable after we leave? Will genocide actually occur? - will the lives lost in Iraq after we leave be any higher than while we have been there?

Can McCain, if elected, change the reality of what DTOM is posting here, despite the fact that, apparently, there is a segment of our country that believes even more peechy keen goodness in Iraq that the "liberal" news media just doesn't want to report.

But DTOM, please, tell us once again- it looks like, to me, the surge failed, and one "benchmark" is the "slowing down" of the "draw down" portion of the "surge" (OMG- I am starting to use the vocabulary of the administration- that stuff is insidious! ) -

however- is there some sort of stability occuring in Iraq?

For instance- I read in the paper yesterday that there is a threat to Sadr to kick him out of the goverment, and unseat his reps from JAM that are seated- will this stabilize or destabilize the country? Is this just another grand pronouncement from Maliki that mimic bahgdad bob?

If stabilize- does this mean the surge has worked enough for us to withdraw?

Silly me, I had forgotten that you like to tell people what they think and what they really believe. Please stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

Next time I use sarcasm I'll dumb it down in bold purple text just for you.



Net, I asked you to compare the destruction and casualties brought on by OBL to that brought on by Bush. I understand that in your simplistic world, that equated to calling Bush a terrorist, but again, you're embarrassing yourself.



And yet, I'm still correct. Iraq has been getting worse and is still getting worse. You rely on simple charts and graphs telling you how many acts of violence have occurred but never seem to take the time to dig deeper into the underlying currents in Iraq. Not entirely your fault, that's what the MSM pushes out. You also favor propaganda over military science. You place much stock in your consistant view, much like Bush, but it would seem that you are not capable of evolving your opinion with new information and re-assessment. That is an intellectual deficit. The ability to admit you are wrong is a far stronger trait than blind consistancy.

The recent Sadr Surge is but one flare up that was months in the making. The ire of the Sunni insurgent/American paid SoI's are the next problem that will rear it's ugly head. A PowerPoint slide of violent events doesn't even scrape the surface of metrics to gauge progress. To understand Iraq, you have to understand the paradigm and the power plays; and you have to understand clan dynamics and Iranian influence. Educate yourself in that instead of spending so much time railing against my observations that only you seem to have a fetish with.



My posts speak for themselves and I stand by my assessments. If you think I'm lying, bring it on.



True as well is the fact that there are many soldiers who never leave the FOB, never see danger, never meet an Iraqi and never see any news outside of the MSM, not to mention any classified information. It would be an interesting survey to compare levels of war support with levels of war interaction. It would be interesting to see how combat in Baghdad affected your opinion. Don't blindly say that it wouldn't change, because you have no idea.
I'm also not surprised that you would term it as 'losing the will to support it' implying that the culprit for any dissent is at some fault rather than the guy who is supportive. 'Millions' of soldiers support the war in Iraq? You sure about that number?

Again I'll state [with some sarcasm], I thought that a success of the surge would lead to fewer instead of more troops in Iraq when the surge ended? I thought that success of the surge would lead to sustained lower violence, instead of levels rising with the reduction in surge troops?

It absolutely disgusts me that Americans are dying to prop up one miltia over another, when both are in the influence of the nation that Bush calls our 'enemy'. That doesn't disgust you net? That's how you support the troops?

I'm curious how you arrived at those conclusions. For first hand experience of "being there" I would have thought the destructive patterns of search raids, cement walls and bombing runs would have made themselves apparent - the first time. The point is such behaviour does nothing to promote strong central governing because it reduces the functionality of day to day civilian life. The surge was a continuation of previously failed ideas, everyone including their pet dog Bingo understood it. We've been around this corner before so it should come as no surprise when the results are the same. Or was this a pyschological 'try harder' exercise where we have a sergent play a coaching role and we all end up in a huddle, you know one of those "go-team-go" moments?



There are two options available to this statement. You can either,

A ) follow the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton report and increase the American prescence in each militia or,

B ) after experiencing the on the ground reality of 28 plus 'official militias' in Iraq as of 2008 with more popping up all the time - you can call it quits. This is a manpower issue and no one wants to accept this simple fact. There really is no in-between if the entire nation turns to local militias as a form of security which will pressure military policy to control them. You can either attempt to control them or not. The alternative of dropping money and guns does not strike me as remotely sane as this relies on alliances which are routinely shifting.

Maybe it is time to stop letting Mr. Bush frame the discussion about 'who' the enemy is? His track record is rather circumspect. If orders come down the chain of command you can either remove yourself from the chain of command or push up from the bottom until that same chain forces the top to reconsider or more preferably pulls down a presidency.

The surge is a failure- an abyssmal one:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080410/ts_nm/iraq_dc

President George W. Bush on Thursday announced a suspension of U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq this summer to allow the military to reassess the security situation.

This means "it still sucks"


U.S. military deaths have averaged roughly one a day over the past six months, but that number has doubled in April.

This means it still sucks too, and everything that DTOM has said is dead nuts accurate.

Dontreadonme


You, a poster who Ive seen criticize and exploit this war more than almost anyone apart from Cruisingram, in his case pretty much criticizing anything right wing, wants me to assume that your 150th criticism was not serious? Say what you mean and mean what you say, is my advice. If you don't want people bringing up the fact that you compare the President to the Taliban, then don't do it! lol. If you don't want me to believe your confused about what the objectives are in Iraq, then don't say you are, its really very simple.


You made direct comparisons between both Bush and OBL, and Bush and the Taliban in more than one post, unfortunately for you my memory doesn't get wiped clean once a month, sorry.



Lol, dude the primary thing you did to back your arguments was tell me your a soldier, yet your unsatisfied with what I presented? Thats a trip. I had the links to back up almost everything I said, including not only graphs, charts, and figures, but multiple news reports from both left and right wing news sources, including the New York Times, which is a paper that has been highly critical of this war in the past!! You on the other hand showed me nothing but occasional links that showed violent acts still occur, which I already know. Other than that, you had nothing, at least nothing definitive.




Yes in some cases I think your at the very least stretching the truth, and Ive already taken on most everything you've said one issue at a time, and it always ended up with you telling me your a soldier, people like cruisingram defending you because it fits his left wing agenda to do so, and me scratching my head wondering what it is you ever said or showed that proved some of your accusation's.



Well I know the percentage of soldiers supporting the war is higher than the general public, and thats based on the poll you presented, lol. Also my cousin saw time out on the field, as have many supportive soldiers who give personal testimonies to their support all the time.



Yes but the surge isn't over, although 2 months ago you were saying it was over. The benchmarks and time tables set were unrealistic to say the least, and despite whatever sarcasm you have, you know this surge has been successful in lowering violence throughout Iraq, and that Iraqis are making progress. Is it a flat out success? Again We don't know yet, but if things stay optimistic through the remainder of this year, perhaps if a left wing politician becomes president they will consider not voluntarily losing us the war, although thats probably wishful thinking.

I thought that I had made the intent of that paragraph clear when I inserted [with some sarcasm].




You're absolutely correct, though it is a point lost upon the sheep who care only for headlines.



How have I exploited this war, you're the one who supports it. Your statement makes about as much sense as when you say that I 'downplay' the war.



Again, if sarcasm and allegory are lost upon you, I'll dumb it down in the future.



I'll never know why you continue to embarrass yourself......instead of referencing my alleged comparison, why don't you re-post it? If I had said anything other than asking you to compare the destruction and casualties brought on by OBL to that brought on by Bush, then it should be obvious for all to see. Scared?



In response to your headline only references, I have detailed the behind the scenes power plays that direct the currents and dynamics of Iraq; that which must be understood in order to make an impartial judgement on the success of the surge. That you fail to educate yourself on those dynamic is not my responsibility or my concern. Stick to your PAO produced YouTube spots and your MSM headlines, and your head won't hurt.



Two of the five surge Brigades are gone, another is getting ready to RIP/TOA; clearing operations have ceased in December; All efforts are now being directed at the Sadarist Trend, giving AQI the tim