I get your context now; sort like if an armchair patriot exploits a war that they personally agree with. Thanks.



I know I have? There you go again......It's fine that you consider it ridiculous to assert that Bush is responsible for more death and chaos than OBL. Even the fuzziest of math doesn't back you up, but that's all right......keep telling us what I mean and what I think. It's entertaining.



You're criticism has been extended only to scapegoat Rumsfeld and the combat power in 2003. You've hardly been anything but a rabid cheerleader concerning the surge. The levels of violence were reduced to that of 2005 averages; more troops will be left in Iraq after the surge Brigades leave than before; you say that you don't trust militia's, but I suppose Badr doesn't count; militia's still control more of Baghdad than the central government does; political reconciliation is a pipe dream and we give the former Sunni insurgents who had been killing our forces a paycheck, so they don't kill us! With all that success, what's left to criticize right?



You don't really know much about the tactical aspects of the surge do you? The surge is over; not only is almost half of the combat power out of Baghdad, but much of what remianed from the other surge Brigades have been sent north to the Diyala River Valley. If you remember, that's where many of the insurgents escaped to during the surge. Now, almost all combat power in the city is reacting to the Sadarist push in Northeast Baghdad and the rocket and mortar fire into the IZ.



The Maliki gambit strengthened the Sadarist Trend by uniting mainstream JAM and the Special Groups in a coordinated effort not seen since early 2007.

"President Bush was right that Basra marked a defining moment for Iraq, but not in the way that he intended," said Vali Nasr, a scholar of Shiite politics at Tufts University who has advised U.S. policy makers. "This is the birth of Sadrist power. Mr. Nasr said that the biggest loser in the Basra fighting was Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, who has been battling Mr. Sadr for control of southern Iraq for several years."

Mr. Hakim is an American ally who leads Iraq's biggest Shiite political party, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, or ISCI [who supports Maliki's Dawa Party and the Badr Militia-insert by me]. Mr. Hakim's forces have gradually taken control of several large Shiite regions, including the holy cities of Karbala and Najaf, but they have been unable to extend their reach into Basra, a stronghold of Mr. Sadr and his followers.

Mr. Nasr argues that the fighting in Basra was intended to strengthen Mr. Hakim's hand by killing large numbers of Mr. Sadr's followers and leaving forces loyal to Mr. Hakim in control of swaths of the southern port city.
Link



Nope, I was just trying to find out your level of scathing criticism over what our soldiers are dying for. I have my answer.....not much.



I disagree. Sadr does not want an all out war between his Sadarist Trend and the Badr/ISCI/Dawa alliance while US forces are occupying Iraq. He knows which Iranian subjugate that we support. He used Makili's ISF assault as a metric; to show that with a word he can rise his followers up, fight them at least to a standstill, and with a word leash them in. Sadr comes out with more power and credibility than Maliki in the eyes of most Iraqi's, I believe. The poor Shia are the majority in Southern and Central Iraq, and Sadr has credibility with them over the more elitist Maliki and the ISCI.

The Sistani angle is interesting, but he's equivocated before. I'm not sure how much to read into his support in this instance. Likely, whomever would give lip service to his vision of a federated Southern Iraq, under Sha'ria law and headed by the clerics in Najaf, will receive his weight.

Al-Sadr is urging his gunmen to stop fighting in the streets, but he demands that the government end its offensive and release his followers in prison. So far, the crisis has defined the government as one that can't control the country, while al-Sadr is strong enough to challenge the government, the United States and rival Shiite groups — all at once.
Link



It's bit hypocritical for Maliki and by extension MNF-I, to call for and expect that armed militia's be labled criminals and be disbanded, when the Badr militia wields so much power and is in league with Maliki himself!

Just had a flash of clarity, so it must be a blue moon.

Since the Iraqis have split up into so many factions, and since it is basically Iraqi against Iraqi, and since the Iraqi government is stashing away oil profits to the tune of 30 billion, then . . .

We pull out all regular military, Blackwater takes over security and Iraq pays for it with oil profits.

Voila, the surge has worked.

Then there's Iran . . . the clarity fogs.

Dontreadonme


Since thats about all you would see, see it as you will, at least you understand I didn't invent that use for word exploit. Yae!



Ahhhh but thats just the thing, I don't have to guess with you, your own mouth takes all the guess work out, lol. Or your typing fingers, whatever. In any case I'm mentioning things you say in forum debate, not things you might think. You say one thing, then you go around talking about how just because you said something, its not what you meant? Sure man

Also your comparisons between Bush and OBL hold no meaning, the intentions of both these men were different and remain different. OBL organized a plot to crash fully loaded Jumbo Jets in to Sky Scrapers, with one intension. KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE! As for bush, yea he may be a screw up in many ways but hes not a murderer, its all about intent. For your comparisons to be valid you have to assume Bushes primary goal in this war was to kill innocent people as well, rather than bring democracy to Iraq, accepting that death is part of the sacrifice of war. So because of this key difference in intentions, you have absolutly no point to make here. Unless of course you stoop to the new low of assuming our president enjoys watching people die, and democracy was just his excuse. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if you did say that, not at all.


No thats one of the criticism Ive made, but beyond Rumsfeld there is the overall incompetence of president Bush, which I believe the war effort suffers for till this day. There are many things I would have done a whole hell of a lot differently than him thats for sure. First off we shouldn't have gone into Iraq in 2003 if you ask me, I think that was a mistake because we were ill prepared, and had unfinished business in Afghanistan on top of that. The new troop expansion plan that you assume is impractical even as it works ((another of your fallacies)), should have been called for in 2002 as a part of being prepared to fight a battle they already knew would be long. I can go on and on, they disregarded the advice of many in the CIA, and even Generals on the field. They continuously over trust militias, and this by the way is nothing new they did this in Afghanistan as well. The reason they do it is because they don't have the forces they should have had, which they could have had by preparing before hand. So don't tell me I don't criticize many things about how this war has been handled when Ive been doing it long before I ever spoke to you.


The additional forces aren't even half out yet, and the surge isn't over. That simple



What I want are figures showing that overall in Iraq the enemy is better organized, and stronger by the numbers. Not isolated incidents. You said things are getting worse in Iraq fast, so prove it. I already showed several times it was inaccurate, so for once put your money where your mouth is. I want to see line graphs and overall stats that show just the opposite of what Ive already showed you. If you cant do that then I don't believe you, sorry.



And my cousin James another soldier form Iraq (just like you) does not believe that, and neither do I. You believe what you want, but its probably best your getting out of their anyway, no point in fighting for something you think is a joke right? Anyway I'll get back in here sometime soon, to read another of your fun post, in the mean time I have a lady friend coming over so I'll get back when I get back. Also in the meantime I suppose you can go back to telling Ted he doest support his claims, while you fail to support yours, lol. Thats funny right? Irony, gotta luv it

The context of the thread that I posted spoke in terms of who has done more damage to the US. If you want to believe that it was OBL with his three buildings and 3000 killed, as opposed to 4000+ Americans killed, 30,000 wounded, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's dead, Iraq in ruins and the US economy in the toilet, be my guest.



Educate yourself, please. Tell me what Farq Al-Qanoon (Iraqi name for the surge) operation is still ongoing.



The line charts and graphs that you showed represented violent events. Surely you needn't go far to find charts from the last month and a half. Afraid of what you might find?



I'm not going to malign your cousin, but like you he has apparently failed to educate himself on the political and sectarian dynamics in Iraq.

I guess it must hurt your head to think that we are allying with the entities whom Dear Leader calls our enemy and part of the 'axis of evil'.

For someone who trumpets his 'research' skills, you maintain an intellectual deficit when you only research in line with your pre-conceived notions and biased opinions.

Whether Maliki and his beleaguered government have the clout to permanently quell the strife is far from certain. After nearly a week of clashes, Sadr ordered his militia to halt operations (RFE/RL) on March 30, and calm returned to Baghdad and Basra soon after. But McClatchy reports Iranian intervention had a significant role in securing the ceasefire, prompting some experts to suggest Maliki’s political standing has suffered. Qassim Daoud, a former national security adviser and Shiite party leader, says Maliki’s failure to disarm the militia leaves his government “in a weak position” (NYT). Maliki’s troubles may not be the most important aspect of the stand-off, however. CFR Adjunct Senior Fellow Vali R. Nasr tells CFR.org the true players in the dispute are Sadr and rival Shiite cleric Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. Both control powerful militias, and both command important political blocs in Iraq’s evolving power structure. “Maliki is completely irrelevant” in the dispute in the south, Nasr says.
CFR

If SCIRI/ISCI has so far failed in achieving respectability, it is because it has never quite managed to shake off its past as an Iran-bred group of exiles with a narrow sectarian agenda enforced by a potent militia. SCIRI claims with justification that it was established and inspired in response to the Iraqi regime’s tyranny and crimes but perceptions forged during the hard years of the Iran-Iraq war, in which the party and its Badr militia fought alongside Iranian forces, have been slow to change; suspicion that SCIRI remains guided by a foreign hand even as it plants its roots in Iraqi soil has hobbled its ambition.

Still, the party is a formidable force. As a result of the U.S. surge, it is benefiting from coalition efforts to suppress not only al-Qaeda in Iraq but also ISCI’s principal rival, the Sadrists’ Mahdi army (Jaysh al-Mahdi). As long as the U.S. remains in Iraq, its alliance with ISCI will help entrench the party in the country’s governing, security and intelligence institutions, in Baghdad as well as most southern governorates. Its only true challenger remains the Mahdi army, which despite its ruffian credentials and bloody role in sectarian reprisals enjoys broad support among Shiite masses. Their rivalry now takes the form of a class struggle between the Shiite merchant elite of Baghdad and the holy cities, represented by ISCI (as well, religiously, by Sistani), and the Shiite urban underclass.
CrisisGroup

On the other side, Iran's leaders have made a realistic assessment of the Iraqi scene. They realize that, leaving aside a secular minority, Shiites are divided among four religious parties, two part of Maliki's coalition government and the other two in opposition. Iran treats all equally. That’s why they succeeded in brokering a ceasefire between Maliki's government and the Mahdi Army militia of Moqtada al Sadr in Basra on March 30.

The Iranian government is close to the leading members of Maliki's coalition government – Al Daawa, headed by Maliki, and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq of Ayatollah Abdul Aziz al Hakim. The latter was established in Tehran in 1982 during the Iran-Iraq War. Its militia, the Badr Brigades, was raised, trained and armed by Iran.

Al Daawa leaders, including Maliki, took refuge in Iran during the course of the Iran-Iraq war. Little wonder, that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad greeted Maliki as a long-lost brother during two visits to Tehran. Maliki returned the hospitality when Ahmadinejad visited Baghdad last month. Though the five-year-old Sadrist movement does not owe birth or sustenance to Iran, Sadr takes refuge there when he finds his life endangered in Iraq.
Yale Global

Given the current trajectory, significant Sunni segments of the postsurge Iraqi state will continue to be funded by the United States, but they will remain beyond the control of either Baghdad or Washington. They will also be in a position to establish ties with neighboring countries. All of this may well accelerate the centrifugal forces unleashed by the bottom-up strategy. When it withdraws from Iraq, the United States will be leaving a country more divided than the one it invaded -- thanks to a strategy that has systematically nourished domestic rivalries in order to maintain an illusory short-term stability. This could mean that Iraq will remain essentially unreconstructed. The authority of the state would plummet, and the United States' ability to influence events, already limited, would become even weaker. Iraq would become a running sore, and successive crises within the country and on its borders would distract Washington from other priorities and sap its ability to normalize relations with Iran. Great article from RCP

If you are not disgusted at the reasons that your countrymen are dying and being maimed, then maybe your patiotism does need to be called into question.

Oh, I know.....give it another 6 months......we've turned a corner.......we're chasing down dead-enders; then 6 months after that, wash rinse and repeat. We surely don't want the 4000+ to have died in vain, so we'll make sure that more die imposing a puppet government on a people who want us out of their nation. (for net - that was sarcasm)

Net- there is an old military saying "Civilians think wars are won with tactics, military men know it is won with logistics"

What that means is this- when a operation ends, 5 brigades don't just pack up that day and leave- there is period of time needed- DTOM has told me, in the past, that if we declared a cease fire tomorow, and all the militias stuck to it (which there is 0 reason for them to do otherwise) it would take over a year. I have debated him that I didn't think it would take that long, but I will yield to his more modern experiance to my more out-dated experiance in all things military.

That means- "when the surge is over"- it means this

THEY ARE NOT CLEARING BUILDINGS AND LOOKING FOR BAD GUYS TODAY- it means they are packing up support services and moving out.

It is a function of field support and support personell- in other words- to put one Ranger in the field, it takes X amount of soldiers nearby to make sure he has supplies he needs, a base to return to etc.

To be honest- I no longer know this number. If I had to guess, I would say it would be around 1 to 6 or more- one army ranger- 6 truck drivers and cooks or whatever.

That is why there are far more support personel in the military than direct, front line combat personel.

So in other words, yes, Net- the surge is over. They are NOT doing that mission anymore, and have stopped doing that mission for a couple months now.

"stopping the drawdown" that Bush has called for, doesn't 'continue the surge" - it simply give more personel to protect whatever gains they had, or to dig in further in the green zone- DTOM can hopefully elaborate on this part some more- I can't say I know enough about it to say for sure.

Net- ya, your inability to see or rebutt the argument that DTOM is making is pretty, well, almost wierd, to the point one has to,um, call in to question your grasp on reality.

Can't argue right now Net because you "gotta lady coming by"- how nice for you! You do realize folks like DTOM have family they aren't seeing today?

He has asked you several times, and you have avoided the question- so I will put it in bold

How many American lives is it worth to prop up an Iranian backed militia?

Can you answer that question- or refute that point as far as who is who in Iraq please?

The ENTIRE surge argument CAN NOT be seperated from the key players ( and thier private militias) in Iraq, and the political situation there.

You have the situation of the different militias and key political players as pointed out by DTOM

IS HIS ASSESMENT OF WHO IS WHO IN THIS ARGUMENT WRONG? If so, please let us in on your impressive research skills (insert sarcasm voice here, just in case) to rebut DTOM?


Amlord- you said in your opinion, Sadr was weakened by the recent action and then ceasefire- and DTOM rebutted that- what is your opinion on that after reading DTOMs response?

Dontreadonme



I hate to be rude again, but Edited to remove belittling commentary I would hope that you would notice and acknowledge what makes that comparison completely inaccurate.. For one OBL helped orchestrate and fund a plan which had a primary objective
remember those words primary objective that didn't go far beyond killing as many innocent people as possible. The most you can read into it beyond that is to say he wanted a war which is precisely why he struck us at home in the most vile way he could manage with the recourses he had. Bush did not have that intent, and all you as well as some on the left could do with that to counter it, is assume our president wanted blood, not democracy. This is where the key underlying difference lies, but your stuck on the technicalities of the 4000+ death toll, so much, that you have flat out forgotten that those men died at the hands of terrorist, not our president. Men and Women Having voluntarily joined our military under their own will to protect and serve. Your comparisons are not only wrong, but immensely so!

Why? Because here you come along and assume that Al Qaeda is responsible for 3000 deaths on 9/11 and thats it lol, and the rest is on Bush just like that, when it was Al Qaeda and other terrorist who were the ones directly involved in KILLING OUR MEN!! What about that don't you get? I should keel over dead hearing some of the stuff I hear from some people. You put absolutly no thought into these comparisons you make, thats the problem, either that or you know what your saying is a stretch of the truth yet you say it for the same reasons people like Michael Moore do. Now I don't like being the one here grilling you at this moment, but not many others here are going to call you on this when 4 out of 5 people making post here have no intension of defending a conservative, especially Bush, even when he's exploited in a way that makes absolutly no sense. When I hear some of the things I do coming from people like you, that saddens me, in fact it makes me weep. I expect it from people like Cindy Shean, or Rosie O'Donnell, but you? You who says he has no political agenda? You a soldier of the U.S military?



What are the remaining forces in Iraq doing? Playing tennis? Golf? XBOX360? Are they at Strip Bars? Will some of them sit around for possibly months to come doing nothing to help this effort? From an efficiency standpoint if you ask me that makes no sense whatsoever. Can you show me they are doing nothing? This ought to be interesting.




Thats your argument, so back your argument. I'll look at what you show, but it better be something specific, rather than another bombing, or statement from Al Sadr who would spin a miserable defeat to make it sound as if he is progressing. Show me something that shows a trend of increasing violent acts throughout Iraq in recent months. I gave you just the opposite, so go ahead. You said the same thing 2 months ago regarding violence increasing yet I never saw you present a thing, then you said it again 4 months ago, when just the opposite was true. So I don't particuarly trust you, again sorry about that. I could be wrong I haven't seen stats for, March or April. I periodically check them but since Ive posted more links than you by a factor of 4 to 1 already, what can I say I'm tired of showing you things you don't look at or take seriously anyway. So your turn.



You see this is what I don't do, you just passed a judgment on someone you've never even heard speak, based on the sole fact that he supports the war, lol.
I criticize you a lot, because you ask for it. However its based on things your saying in debate. You just said that someone you've never even heard speak, while knowing nothing about him has failed to educate himself on the political and sectarian dynamics in Iraq??????????? So are your ideas regarding Bush and violence levels in Iraq based on equally unsubstantiated guesses? We could ask Mr. Owl again

Edited to add....... You know At the last minute this just came to memory. You know you claimed the surge was over already right? It was about two months ago. I called you on that because I knew it was inaccurate and then you changed your argument by saying its winding down. So I don't know what believe with you. Funny the little things people remember.



And this shows that violent acts in Iraq are on a sharp increase because?



At the homepage of this link at the top it says International Crisis Group Working to prevent conflict World Wide

so a site that lives by the standard Working to prevent conflict World Wide they would show information which would support continuing the war, because? Also I saw nothing in it that showed what the overall situation is in Iraq anyway.



Those are predictions, not stats, predictions that come with a great deal of opposition to boot. So here I am still wondering where your real data is.



You have got that scenario so exasketched into your brain man, that a part of me wonders if you want us to lose.

Net, you wrote two fine and eloquent [for you] paragraphs explaining what I and others have been saying. That in response to 9/11, Bush committed the military and the ecomony to a war in which far more people have died, far more chaos has reigned......fighting an enemy that wasn't responsible for the 9/11 attack in the first place. Good job! Then you proceed to defend your Dear Leader on his platform of democracy for Iraq in which he has allied our military with armed militia's that are in bed with the next door nation that he calls our enemy. Bush's policy is one of imperialist intervention where Iraq but one symptom. Instead of spreading democracy, it will spread a message to other nations as well, that the price of US occupation is their nation in ruins due to inept and arrogant policies.
But way to support the troops! Way to be a patriot! Ah well, as long as it doesn't affect your dating life right? - sarcasm tag added for net -

Believe me, you're not grilling me.

Your knowledge deficit concerning the surge has been covered as well as what the bulk of US forces are engaged in at this time. No need to cover it again. Might I suggest some quiet time and some copies of Armchair General magazine?



What defeat would that be? Are you also on the Ted bandwagon that the ISF was victorious and holds Basra? There's no shortage of links that state Sadr is now stronger after Basra. Remember when you said that Sadr and JAM were down for the count last fall?

Your links have been fine.....if you want the headline. It's the paradigms behind the headlines that matter, something I've been trying to make you understand, in vain. I shouldn't bother, you don't seem to be able to see past the banners and the charts to educate yourself on any level of depth that isn't in line with your opinion. You are the adminstrations model citizen.

20 Americans have died in the first 9 days of April.

Since the US military began reducing its troop presence in Iraq three months ago, several key indicators of violence in the troubled nation have risen, according to new military figures released this weekend, sparking fears that security gains hailed by the White House are already eroding.

The rise in violence - blamed on both Shi'ite militants and Sunni extremists allied with Al Qaeda - has prompted war critics to argue that President Bush's surge of 30,000 more troops last year, designed to stabilize the nation, merely postponed the inevitable deadly chaos that will follow an eventual US withdrawal.

Two key measures of the security situation tracked by US commanders - suicide bombings and Iraqi casualties, mostly civilians - have spiked in the last few months, according to official US military statistics.

Overall, Iraqi deaths rose from a low of 568 in December and 541 in January to roughly 721 in February to more than 1,082 in March, according to statistics compiled by Iraq's ministries of health, interior, and defense and confirmed by Smith. The vast majority were civilians.

"There was somewhere on the order of a 25 or 30 percent increase in the number of civilian casualties when you consider March compared to February," Smith said, although "the numbers are still nowhere near what they had been last summer."
Link

There's even a colorful line graph just for you!

If you're sure that the surge is still ongoing instead of the emphasis that I already spoke of, what Farq Al-Qanoon operations are currently ongoing? I'm sure you will take any military action in Iraq as part of the surge, but that's being intellectually lazy. To be fair, some of the unit's in MND-C are still clearing villages, but in MND-B the action is all Sadr.

By supporting the war, you support paying off Sunni insurgents to patrol their own neighborhoods and not attack us [at least as much]. By supporting the war, you support Americans dying to prop up one militia and one warlord over another. By supporting this war, you support Americans dying fighting the right hand of our alleged enemy while protecting the left hand. Since there is no national security interest at stake in Iraq, since it has greatly helped to torpedo our economy and since it has led to the senseless loss of national treasure, her sons and daughters........it would be no great stretch to consider supporting the war an act of treason. And it's supporters traitors. On purely logical terms anyway......

I have no idea how my detailed reply of your entire post disappeared this morning, but I addressed every bit of this. Perhaps it was a server foul up of some kind. Well you haven't kept me engaged in here enough to go through that effort twice. However what I will do is post the short short version of my last post, and give you the raw data that debunks your post.

I looked at your figures, did my own research and found the same old approach being used by you for the 10 thousandth time. First of all In my last post I made a point that while most of the information you give is accurate, It's incomplete as well, in the sense that the figures you gave were hyped up to sound more significant than they were. I also commented on your link stating that even at your link your line graph does not back your claims. It shows 3 different types of bombings and there was a very marginal increase in violence recently but compared to the levels from last year, I said the recent fluctuation, looks like an ant hill compared to mount Everest. In other words its not evidence for your claims. One line didn't even go up at all.

To go further I posted an 11 page recent rundown on the current situation in Iraq from the MNFI, official website. IT has much more than bombing stats and is very thorough. http://www.mnf-iraq.com/images/stories/Pre...eus_handout.pdf

Now I did go over this report page by page, in the post that disappeared, and one of the pages contained the same graph you showed. The most interesting chart is the (Weekly Security Incidents) chart on page 1, because it adds up a number of different types of attacks to come to a more accurate conclusion to what is happening in Iraq. There was a little fluctuation in violece, but it stayed far below levels from last year, and to further prove this is not yet evidence on a destabilization, notice the very last bar in this bar graph, what does it do? It drops. Violence levels will always fluctuate by the month, it would be an odd coincidence for the levels to flat line and not change. Just like with the stock market. Every page that I looked at showed the violence levels are not on a significant trend up or down.

In fact while some things go slightly up, other stats show no change, while others even show signs of improvement.

Page 2 for example is the civilian death line graph. Two different estimates here show no change. Well one goes very slightly up while the other estimate has it going slightly down. So nothing there, to make sense of your ramblings either.

Look at page 7 which covers AQI and Sunni Insurgents density. It compares December 2006 to March of this year, and according to it there is less RED on the map which represents dense areas of Insurgents. Look at page 10, and especially at page 11. Why is it you don't mention positive changes like this, and why is it that you don't mention that the increase in some bombings recently is so minor that it would have to increase many many times that much to be comparable to last year? You just show numbers for their shock value and cross your fingers that I'm to stupid to cross reference you.

Anyway is that really all you had?

Net- at no point did you adress ANY of the salient points

1) Al Sadr was strengthened by the Maliki led attack on Sadr city.

2) All of the political entities are Iranian backed, and we will basically be transforming the country into a friend of our enemy

3) There is still no political stabilizing solution

4) you continue to unknowingly embarras yourself with your posts.

No, I am not baggin your syntax or spelling- I have no time for that silliness.

But your avoiding of the real issues in Iraq is getting silly.

I have no major issue with your slides, other than to say that they don't capture the recent Sadr City and Basra events. Some violent events were already on the rise prior to the Sadr Surge. Don't expect next months data to reflect a reduction. All of these metrics [which are but one set of data to gauge success in Iraq] say that violence levels are comparable to 2005. You could say that it's progess, but in the big picture, I certainly think the term success is a reach. Also remember that a reduction in violence wasn't the primary goal of the surge, it was the enabler for political reconciliation. That has been a stalemate at best. The two recently trumpeted bills passed were the De-Ba'athification Bill and provinical elections. The De-Ba'athification bill is seen by most Sunni to be a farce, and the provincial elections are behind Maliki's embarrassment in Basra as one warlord went after another.

So you're barometer of progress seems a bit biased; as long as things do not get worse [by whatever standard you're happy with at the time] you support our continued presence on Muslim holy land apparently oblvious to the consequences that entails. It would appear that you would have to agree with me that as long as US troops remain in Iraq, violence will occur, in fact will fluctuate like the stock market; considering that the core causes of the violence are not being solved, merely held at bay. This is exemplified by your apparent lack of interest in the context behind the statistics.

You put great stock in the charts and graphs on violence. Have at it. I think the far greater concern is the currents and tides of political and sectarian machinations. Even though violent acts decreased to that of 2 1/2 years ago, the parties in play weren't packing up their arms and trying to be good citizens. JAM emerged stronger after the cease fire than they were before. Sunni SoI militia's gained legitimacy in the eyes of Americans, and only as long as the dollars continue and the major violence is Shia on Shia. They have yet to gain any real legitimacy in the GoI. Concerning the surge itself, you argued last summer that the surge hadn't really begun because all of the Brigades were not yet in place. Now that almost half are gone, you want to argue that it is still ongoing......

I'm still surprised that a patriot such as yourself doesn't seem to have much issue with the Iranian dynamic. It boggles the mind how someone can support the administration and Maliki in Iraq, and be at peace that the administration labels Iran as an enemy and the key contributor to violence in Iraq. The press dutifully reports how Americans are killed with weapons and tactics that comes from the IRGC-Quds Force, and that we've labeld the Quds Force a terrorist organization. Yet we back the regime in Baghdad who's chief backer and strength lies in an organization that until 2003 was a subordinate command of the Quds Force; still maintaining financial and logisitical ties to this day.

It's treasonous. And your countrymen are dying for it.

Net- DTOM makes a point, that I will hammer on again- "the underlying causes of violence"

One thing, DTOM pointed out very, very long ago is this- some violence will be seen to decrease, as the nieghborhoods are completely segregated.

In other words- we don't have nieghbor killing nieghbor like at the begining of this un-civil civil war.

It's not just divided neighborhoods, many militia leaders simply decided to curtail their offensive activities until the US started to pull out the surge troops. They know our force level is unsustainable, and they have more patience than Americans do. Inshallah.

All of the Shia militia's have continued to receive training and arms from Iran during the surge and the Sadr cease fire; and the Sunni's have consolidated a renewed grip on portions of Baghdad, under US auspices and legitimacy. The questions remain: is it only a matter of time until the Shia on Shia violence subsides and they turn their attention on the Sunni portions of Baghdad? Will the US continue to pay the Sunni SoI/insurgents, and even if so, if the GoI refuses to incorporate them into the ISF and there continues to be distrust and exchange of bullets between the two, will they wage a campaign against the Shia?

Add to the mix, the doubtful capapbilities of the ISF, including their ability to provide for themselves:

An $833 million Iraqi arms deal secretly negotiated with Serbia has underscored Iraq’s continuing problems equipping its armed forces, a process that has long been plagued by corruption and inefficiency.

An anatomy of the purchase highlights how the Iraqi Army’s administrative abilities — already hampered by sectarian rifts and corruption — are woefully underdeveloped, hindering it in procuring weapons and other essentials in a systematic way. It also shows how an American procurement process set up to help foreign countries navigate the complexity of buying weapons was too slow and unwieldy for wartime needs like Iraq’s, prompting the Iraqis to strike out on their own.

Such weaknesses mean that five years after the American invasion, the 170,000-strong Iraqi military remains under-equipped, spottily supplied and largely reliant on the United States for such basics as communications equipment, weapons and ammunition, raising fresh questions about the Iraqi military’s ability to stand on its own.
Link

Add still the unresolved issue of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDP's), and the staggaring arrogance of some of the enablers of that problem:

The government argued at the tribunal that there was no 'internal armed conflict' in Iraq as defined by the directive. And Home Office lawyers successfully argued the general risks to the refugee in the test case - a man known as KH - were not sufficient for him to be granted protection.

The tribunal ruling has wide implications for Iraqi asylum seekers. It stated: 'Neither civilians in Iraq generally, nor civilians even in provinces and cities worst affected by the armed conflict, can show they face a "serious and individual threat" to their "life or person"... merely by virtue of being civilians.'
The ruling has prompted a strong reaction from the UN, which has urged the government not to start sending people back to the most dangerous parts of Iraq. 'We strongly advise against the return of anyone to central or southern Iraq,' said Jacqueline Parlevliet, deputy representative with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. 'As things now stand a sword of Damocles hangs over the head of every Iraqi in the UK. The way this ruling has been phrased means their protection needs are no longer recognised by the Home Office.'
Link

And finally the inane arrogance of our present administration:

Last week's violence in Basra and Baghdad has convinced the Bush administration that actions by Iran, and not al-Qaeda, are the primary threat inside Iraq, and has sparked a broad reassessment of policy in the region, according to senior U.S. officials.

Evidence of an increase in Iranian weapons, training and direction for the Shiite militias that battled U.S. and Iraqi security forces in those two cities has fixed new U.S. attention on what Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates yesterday called Tehran's "malign" influence, the officials said.

The intensified focus on Iran coincides with diminished emphasis on al-Qaeda in Iraq as the leading justification for an ongoing U.S. military presence in Iraq.

Iran has long been seen as a spoiler in Iraq, with such strong ties to all of the major Shiite political and militia groups, including that of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, that other Arab countries have begun to regard Iraq as almost a client state of Iran.
Link

Unless these and the myriad of other issues are resolved, violence trends and statistics are almost meaningless in the grand scope.

Well since nobody else is going to bring it up, I might as well. Iraq recently sacked 1300 soldiers and policemen, including high-ranking officials, for refusing to fight during recent operations in Basra.



It's not mentioned in this article, but reports have people all the way up to the rank of brigadier general being dismissed. Another shining example of the fair and efficient fighting force we're nurturing in Iraq?

Well, it has already been mentioned (I think) that the reason that these men deserted was their ties to the local militias. In fact, it was brought up that these forces were actually infiltrated by militia members.

Your job is to fight and you desert... seems like no brainer that you'd sack them. Saddam would have tortured them and their families but that isn't an option in the new "kinder, gentler" Iraq.

DTOM's arguments are all from anti-Iraq war sources. Dilip Hiro (the author of the Yaleglobal piece) is an admitted war opponent. No wonder that he would criticize this latest effort as a failure. To the anti-war crowd, nothing besides retreat is a success.

The RCP article was interesting. But instead of seeing how the Sunni are cooperating with the US forces, we focus on the Sunni tribal leaders who are "getting rich" off the surge. Paying people not to fight shows that their allegiance is not to jihad against westerners, but that they want money. The surge has brought enough peace so that the insurgents realize that they can get by in a post-Saddam Iraq.

Therefore, I don't think it follows that former insurgents will return to their belligerent ways in the near future. Of course, certain sect leaders will attempt to use the situation to their own benefit, using Iraqi tribesmen as cannon fodder, as it were. However, the longer the uneasy peace lasts, the more the footsoldiers realize that post-Saddam Iraq ain't so bad as their leaders have said.

In Post #22 on 9/11/2007 I stated:



These sentiments are doubly true today! None of the stated political goals have been achieved. In fact, Iraq is even more fragmented than it was with Sunni groups armed by the US biding their time before reopening hostilities with the Shia government. We have also witnessed the opening clash between hostile Shia militia. We have chosen to back the Maliki government and its allied Badr Corps (openly backed by Iran) against the nationalistic Mahdi Army while cynically condemning Iran for its more limited support of this group.

Amlord, why are antiwar sources not to be trusted? Their track record of reliability beginning from before the invasion and extending to today is infinitely superior to public statements from the administration and the lap dog corporate press.

Just pointing out the source's pre-determined and pre-conceived point of view.

Today, Sadr condemned the sacking of those 1,300 "troops". I wonder why? Maybe because those were his guys?

I have no more use for blatant anti-war propaganda than I do for blatant pro-war propaganda. But I found nothing in the articles that I linked that was not consistent with what I know to be true from other sources; sources that I cannot quote from due to OPSEC.

One of the many problems with the Basra debacle is that to many Americans, it probably seemed as if we were lending our support to the legitimate, national government of Iraq. But to many Iraqi's, it just as probably looked as if we were taking sides in an intra-Shia political dispute between ISCI and Sadr/JAM in the run-up to the provincial elections.

This also comes after years of conflicting messages about Sadr and his movement. In 2004 C-JCS alluded to American naiveté in hindsight by stating Sadr is a marginalized figure, and he's being marginalized more and more every day by his own actions. When the Iraqi people know the story, the full story of how he used his militia to kill Iraqis, I think they'll understand, if they don't now, they'll understand that point.

Two days prior, MNF-I Commander Gen. Sanchez stated that "The mission of US forces is to kill or capture Moqtada al-Sadr,"

Now, four years and a couple of thousand American deaths, the current MNF-I Commander, Gen. Petraeus states: "I think the way, the best way to characterize Muqtada al-Sadr is that he is the face and the leadership of a very important and legitimate political movement in Iraq"

I see a continued pattern of intellectual and logical laziness used by the administration, it's military commanders, enablers and supporters to justify perpetual conflict.



The other facet not being covered by the MSM in any detail is how these Sunni Awakening Councils and SoI are primarily previous insurgents; and that a primary reason for their cooperation is to shore up their remaining feifdoms in Baghdad and other areas in expectation of a continued Shia vs. Sunni conflict.

When people talk about not wanting Americans to have 'died in vain', after these charades and machinations, how can anyone argue that they have not already?

edited to add: For another take on the surge itself, I highly recommend an article by LTC Gentile:

The reduction in violence has had more to do with the Iraqis than the Americans. First, senior American leaders began paying our former enemies -- non-al-Qaida Sunni insurgents -- large amounts of money to become U.S. allies in fighting al-Qaida. Second, the Shiite militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr announced a six-month ceasefire and stood down his attacks against Iraqi Sunnis and coalition forces; recently, he extended the cease-fire for another six months. Absent those two necessary conditions, there would have been no let up in the level of violence despite the surge.

If U.S. commanders and policymakers believe that the surge lowered violence by applying "new" counterinsurgency methods at the small unit level, then the U.S. military might be tempted to travel down the counterinsurgency path many times again, placing further strain on an already heavily strained American Army, and dangerously damaging its ability to fight the sort of battles that the Israelis tried, and failed, to win against Hezbollah in Lebanon in summer 2006.

Getting the truth right about the surge, so-called new counterinsurgency methods, and the causes for reduced violence in Iraq, is essential for the future for the American Army and its continued ability to fulfill its constitutional duty to provide for the common defense.
Link

And a follow-up interview:

In COIN, a precondition for success is the existence of a legitimate government. The United States has one success in the history of counterinsurgency since WW II to its credit: it succeeded in assisting the legitimate government of El Salvador defeat an internal communist insurgency. However, it was not the U.S. military that defeated the FMLN guerrillas, but the Salvadoran military under the control of its own government, with U.S. encouragement and no more than 50 or so U.S. military advisors. Moreover, El Salvador was not simply a sovereign state: El Salvadoran society was and is a single identity -- an essential prerequisite for successful internal defense of a government struggling for survival and legitimacy.

None of these conditions apply to Iraq, where the Iraqi government does not appear to be legitimate in the eyes of its people -- whether Shia, Sunni or Kurd -- and it seems that one Iraqi society does not exist.
Link

The US has given its backing to the legitimate parliamentary rulers of Iraq: the United Iraqi Alliance won the elections. Are you saying we should be backing Sadr because he is more nationalistic?

Of course "many Iraqis" do not understand that you can lose an election and still have political power. Sadr, despite being the country's number one outlaw, is a force in the the political opposition.

I think you draw some conclusions that are difficult to follow. Many of the parties in Iraq today have their roots (in one way or another) in Iran. That is because with the ousting of the Baathists, the only parties left were also opposition parties to Saddam. Of course, Iran was an enemy of Saddam and supporting those within Iraq that would help them defeat the Iraqi dictator. It is complicated.

So when you say that the Badr Organization (formerly, the Badr Brigade. They intentionally de-militarized their name to stress that they will pursue more peaceful methods.) is just as bad as the Mahdi Army (JAM), it gives me pause. Of course, both are militias and both are armed. Neither is controlled by the Iraqi government. I would agree if you suggested that all militias (including these two) should be disarmed.

The difference you should be looking at is that ISCI is a political party and the Mahdi Army (JAM) is a militia. They are not equivalent. Sadr's political strength is fairly weak, but his strength "on the ground" is strong due to his thugs. Unfortunately, the Islamic blending of politics and religion along with Iraqi tribalism makes this whole situation messy to understand.



At the time, the Mahdi army was actively fighting the Coalition forces. Of course, as the leader of the Mahdi Army, Sadr was a military target.



Now, four years later, Sadr has at least shown some amount of restraint. He is a political force and he does have influence, and he doesn't exclusively use JAM for violence. In that respect, he should be treated as the head of a "political movement".



Why? Because there is politics going on in Iraq?

Of course not, that would be silly. But we as a nation need to understand that whomever comes out on top in the sectarian strife in Iraq will be Shia, and will be in some manner, beholden to Iran. Unless some form of miracle occurs that the winning entity severs the familial ties with their neighbor after the dust settles, the administration and the MSM would do well by its citizens to stop acting as if Iran is the enemy and the Maliki government is the legitimate voice for the people of Iraq, unencumbered by ties to said enemy. Both bemoan the weapons, training and financial aid given to Sadr's militia and the dreaded 'criminal Special Groups' while turning a blind eye publicly to the same assistance and influence towards ISCI/Badr and thus conferred upon the Maliki regime.



I don't see them as difficult at all.



Why does it give you pause? Is JAM far worse than Badr simply because Maliki and Bush have labeled them as 'criminals', and you as 'thugs'? JAM for all their off and on violent nature, has been providing more social and civil services to the Shia poor in Baghdad than have the ISCI/Badr. Is JAM worse than Badr because they want the US out of Iraq, while Badr is content to allow us to assist them in consolidating their power?



Again we part ways of opinion. The Sadarist Trend and the Office of the Martyr Sadr are every bit as legitimate as political movements as ISCI. Badr is the militia of ISCI and JAM is the militia of OMS. The difference is that ISCI maintains power of the Southern governates and other offices in Baghdad due to it's UIA and Dawa politicians that reign in the IZ. But it can be easily argued that the rank and file Shia, especially the poorer masses support Sadr over Hakim. It is still a case of warlord vs. warlord and militia vs. militia. That's why I posted about the concern of taking sides. As long as we support Maliki, I don't believe there will be any compromise with JAM and the Sadarist Trend. And I don't believe that ISCI can overcome them on the battlefield.





Recently with the cease-fire, JAM had not been heavily engaged in offensive action against US forces. However, with Sadr's declaration of self defense for all JAM members, most of the US casualties this month have been due to JAM. Sadr is still the leader of the Mahdi Army [not entirely true, but close enough for our discussion], and thus should still be a military target. But Sadr will never be targeted by US forces, because the awareness has finally set in as to the repercussions of such an act.

JAM has been and still is responsible for killing Americans; it would seem that an understanding that we are not likely to defeat him on the field of battle, has caused a shift in tone, towards conciliation. I find the idea that some do not want our soldiers to 'die in vain', yet are supportive of the sectarian and intra-sect chicanery both amusing and disgusting.



If you are at peace with your countrymen dying for foreign internal politics as opposed to US national defense, then you needn't ask me.....I won't be able to change your mind.

I agree. In any democracy (or pseudo-democracy) we can expect the leaders to be representatives of the largest sub-group. In this case Shia.


I believe you are wrong on this point.

Let me ask you this: when the US won its independence from Britain, were we beholden to France? Was it inevitable that we would be unduly influenced by French interests? After all, one could view the US revolt as a simple extension of the centuries long Britain-France war. Without the French, we would not have won our independence.

Yes, the various Shia parties (the majority of the political players in Iraq) all have ties to Iran because they all are born out of opposition to Saddam (a Sunni). However, it does not follow that because the Shia have supported in the past or even currently support one party or another (or all of them, by your understanding) that once "free" of US occupation and influence that they will automatically bow down to their masters in Tehran. Sadr has said he is no pawn of Iran, as has Maliki. Both have spent considerable time in Iran. What you've stated is a jump in logic.

Again, the tribal dynamic is in play here. These political leaders all want their piece of the pie and they don't want to share it with Iran. I think I've shown that the militia members are motivated by their economic interests more than any sectarian belief that they must kill their opponents. Religious fanatics cannot be bought off. People looking to make a living (in a militia, let's say) can be. I think that is what is in play here. Individuals are choosing to give their allegiance to the leaders who they think will give them the best future. It is human nature.





Maliki's government IS the legitimate authority in Iraq. His coalition won the elections.



Badr is more legitimate (not entirely legitimate, but moreso) because it is affilitated with the ruling government. They aren't running (to my knowledge) an extra-judicial justice system, as JAM is. They have changed their name to remove the militantcy angle.




We have to support someone as long as we are there. That someone is not Maliki, it is whomever the people of Iraq elect. If Sadr's coalition wins the next elections and ousts Maliki, so be it. Sadr will likely (or maybe not...) evict our people. Again, so be it. But that hasn't happened.




You have to demonstrate how our leaving will make the situation better and not make it deteriorate into a scenario where the sectarian violence explodes once again, with Sunni and Kurds being the first targets. That could spark a region-wide conflict as each side gets support from their sectarian brethren.

The US does have a national security interest in Iraq and, more broadly, the Middle East. This involves not only keeping AQI from returning (a relatively minor point since if we leave, the Sunni AQI would almost immediately be targeted by the Shia militias) but also oil. The world's economy (if not ours, directly) runs on oil. We have an interest in keeping the world's economy (which we are a large part of) from being disrupted.

You're right. Obviously the circumstances haven't changed and the same dynamics apply; regardless of the fact that the political structures are different, the scale and source of the conflict is different, the religions involved are different (and much more prevalent), and 240 years have passed. I mean, why even bother considering such minor details in drawing comparisons, right?



There's a mish-mash of ideas in here, and almost all of them are faulty; my hat is off to you sir.

How do you think someone that's power hungry will choose if presented with the options of A) Ruling Iraq (or parts thereof) as a client of Iran, or B) Ruling nothing. When you're thinking on this, consider Syria, and our good friends in Hezbollah.

It's pretty obvious in this conflict that support from Iran will decide the victor once America leaves, and that a stalemate is likely to continue as long as America stays.

I'm not sure what your fascination is with the rank and file of the militias. We all know that these are the poor and desperate type... (Which is intensely satisfying since yourself and others have argued in the past that aid and politics are the worst way to respond to the global jihadist movement). Again, the leader that can provide the best future in Iraq (at least in a shallow security and money sense) is the one that has the best cash and arms flow. Again, once America leaves, that'll be whomever stays coziest with Iran.

So which is better... continuing the current "stalemate" as you put it, or speeding the takeover of Iraq by Iranians?

I think you have it wrong. DToM calls the militas "nationalist". Unless he means "sectarian", then I would guess a nationalist will kick out all foreign influences, including Iran.

Iraq does have a flow of money. Iran can not possibly be giving them more than the billions flowing in from oil proceeds. The ultimate rulers of Iraq will be rich men and will not need Iranian petty cash. Of course, if they are like the rest of the Middle East, they will squander their riches and the poor citizens will suffer.

Our number one goal in Iraq right now is making sure that Iraq does not become a client state of Iran after we leave. I think most people would agree with that assessment. In order to accomplish this, they must have stability, maybe not in the sense of the western world, but a relative stability. With stability will come money and with money comes security (and conflict, ironically).

I think the Iraqis need to make it through at least one more transition between governments before we can say they are ready. It is always the transitions when problems break out.

One facet that you’re not adding to your equation concerning the GoI vs. militia's and legitimacy is this: legitimacy of a government must be conferred upon it by its citizens, not us. There is I believe, a majority that views the US as occupiers, bent on molding Iraq for our own ends. The GoI is seen by many as Quisling or puppet regime.

I think that the facts and our actions make this belief plausible.

To tackle the issue of legitimacy, we must contend with ideology. American ideology usually holds that when government fails, insurgency is both the right and the duty of the populace. It would be a fair assessment I think to state that the GoI hasn't been wildly successful, and is seen a failure by its opponents. Proper and fair governance can provide immunity against ideological attacks.

I think you have poorly phrased the question. Iranian backing is anything but a foregone conclusion. The upset is when the displaced come back home to roost. There may come a point where any form of cohesion may well become impossible. Air strikes have been stepped up this year and reconstruction has trailed off. We may be comparing Iraq as the new Sudan. What bothers me is the nonchalent way you've stated Iranian activity as automatically corrosive when every political party less the Kurds want a timetable set. Failure to address this issue has lead to the creation of mulitple militias which are slowly overwhelming the occupation. The timetable must be set.



Work with that. This may be the one last ace in the hole for westerners as the Sadrists are pretty nationalist. This can work to our advantage.



Considering the amount of damage the country has sustained we [as in the west] must accept a few things as probable.

First, Iraq may for a time use the Iranian banks. There is much reconstruction to be done. Sure you can fear an arms trade, but your fear is simply a foreign concern projected on to Iraq. We'll get plenty of arms should Iraq devolve into a narco state, remember they are only an Afghan-entrepreneur away from poppy startup. If drugs come into the picture I will blame it whole heartedly on the holding pattern philosophy. The longer a stalemate remains the more difficult it will become to pull out of the destruction which has been labelled worse than the sacking of the mongols.

What the west can do is get pledges from each of the neighbouring countries in order to balance out competing interests. However, as it stands now any plea for help would come off as self serving until all of the occupation has left including the subcontracted work.

Second, until the Iraqis can get control of their pipelines and cut down on the sabotage, there is a probability that Iraq may use petroleum products from Kuwait, the UAE or Iran. It will happen. Don't get choked up over it. I realize this may pop the embargo fantasy which has been fostered these last few years but it is for the best. I'd rather have a functional relationship with Iran than instilling another strongman which agrees to wage another Iran-Iraq war.

Third, if the Jordanians and the Syrians ever expel their share of the displaced Iraqis, the political turmoil between the parties will heat up - again. If there is concern that Maliki will fall to Sadr in the elections, I would be doing everything possible to get the displaced back into Iraq and in a protected zone. Most of there refugees were a Sunni mix and their votes would be crucial in taming a runaway Shia vote. Displaced people do not return home, one sided vote.



Amlord, to whom the Iraqis choose to befriend is not for the occupiers to decide. It makes no sense instilling fear of a neighbour as a precursor to be part of the ruling party. These are our interests projected onto them. The only way to overcome this is to have a joint talk between the Iranians and the Saudis and foster a reconstruction program together. Essentially an pan Arab UN is the only method that may seem halfway credible to the Iraqis at this point. This is the only way to diffuse the violent opposition that both Sunni and Shia parties now possess. If Iran can be used a partner, than I believe the fear of Iranian influence can be balanced against the Sauds, and without backing away from American interests.



Keeping a lid on gangerstism and racketeering should be the only priority. That and an arms embargo.

For those who continue to believe that the Surge is an effective way to allow the Iraqi military to begin asserting itself, more good news:



I believe someone mentioned earlier that the action in Basra demonstrated the ISF's ability to do it's job with only a minimum of American support? Ted was it? Is this another shining example?

To be fair, this appears to be an isolated incident in terms of entire companies of troops leaving. I'm more curious who this "elite Iraqi unit" is this situation was turned over to and how many of these exist.

Now let's be really fair, Dayton. This isn't an isolated incident. There have been reports of Iraqi's deserting their posts and the fighting since the new push on Sadr City began about a month ago. In the first couple of weeks, over 4,000 Iraqi troops and Security Forces deserted. And another 1,000 or so in the last two weeks, according to this news story, not counting this latest report.

At this rate, in a few months we'll be looking at training a whole "new" Iraqi Army, because there won't be anyone left in the "old" Iraqi Army. I swear, I don't understand the die-hards in here and elsewhere, that can read reports like this and still buy into the Administrations talking points that we're "winning". What exactly is it we're winning? A lifetime contract to babysit the Iraqis?

Amlord, you say:

"The Basra assault was a necessary first step in asserting ISF control over the country. The militias must be disbanded, by force if needed, before the country can become anything close to normal. This is the type of operation that the US needs Iraq to fight, but Iraq must win these fights. Any defeat would embolden the opposition in a time when the future of the country is still in doubt."

The Basra "campaign" wasn't fought by "Iraq," whatever that would be, but by the Maliki regime. This regime is one force within a spectrum of forces that are competing for eventual governance of this country. That it happens to be the one currently preferred by the United States does not render it any more legimite in anyone's eyes (outside this country, anyway) or any more likely to prevail. There is an ongoing civil war in Iraq, and the only question is, how much longer the United States wants to spend its blood and treasure trying, mostly unsucessfully, to determine its outcome.

"