No, Korea, Japan and Germany were not quasi-colonies. The key difference however is that those three nations had no active insurgency, which Iraq has, and I argue will have as long as we have combat formations on the ground there. Right now, we control the battlespace. As long as we remain in Iraq and are in armed conflict with an insurgency, we will continue to control that battlespace; I don't foresee ceding control to the Iraqi military. That reality as well as not having the support of the Iraqi people to stay there, makes Iraq a colony not de jure, but de facto.

All of which needs to be considered during the currently ongoing negotiations. Colonization is a permanent thing, so the current state isn't really the issue. I don't see us attempting to make Iraq as a US colony. The same conditions you describe would have been present in German and Japan at the close of that conflict, yet they are not US colonies. I do see one major problem in what you say here, though. You don't foresee us ceding control to the Iraqi military, yet that seems to be the only way we can leave. I believe this is the primary reason we are sticking to the conditions for withdrawal, as opposed to the timeframe. The primary condition is that Iraq already has control of Iraq, taking that issue away. The timetable can't make any such guarantees. FWIW---I suspect the agreement, when reached, will probably contain elements of both...a conditional timetable.

Let me clarify; as long as we have combat formations remaining in Iraq, with an active insurgency........I don't believe we will cede that control. We will of course put an Iraqi face on all that we do, we're doing that now. But with the unbelievable security leaks, sectarian loyalties and arguable effectiveness, the Iraqi military will not be calling the shots as long as we remain.

If that is the case, then I don't believe much of a case can be made for Iraqi sovereignty. But I agree, Maliki will probably eventually agree to a watered down version of a vague conditional timetable. I'll be interested in seeing if he survives the next round of national elections.

I agree with all of the problems you cite, but I think we will cede control anyway. Essentially, we have to. It's just a matter of when, and under what conditions. I think the reason we're pushing against a timetable is that we want the Iraqi's to demonstrate that control first. However, I am not against a timetable, either, as that would force the Iraqi's to take control, something they seem to be reluctant to actually do. However, I don't think the discussions will really focus on that issue as much as they do on the bases. There are lots of very good military reasons for keeping bases there. I am not sure what the political ramifications would be. If those outweigh the military reasons, then I'd be for foregoing those as well...although if that's the case, it would probably extend the withdrawal period, as we wouldn't leave until things were more surely in Iraqi control.

One thing I thought I would add, in the hopes it might frame the SOFA discussion a little more, is the fact that the UN's authorization for our presence in Iraq (stop laughing, I mean it!) expires in December. I doubt the US wants to let the authorization expire without a SOFA in place.

I don't think the surge is working. My local Fox News channel reported that several U.S. troops are surrendering to insurgents.

Well, normally an isolated incident doesn't serve to illustrate a trend, but this particular one seems quite interesting. I can't really imagine A); any situation in which impoverished, disorganized militants could force an American military unit into full surrender, and B ); that the military would allow word of it to leak out even if this were true. A source would be very nice, if you could provide one.

Otherwise, I'm chalking this one up as another FOXnews blunder. THere are quite a few of them.

Didn't happen. The simple fact that there is no link, and a cursory check of the Fox News site confirms that.

I know from first hand experience that the Surge worked, the clear, hold, build strategy was long overdue when implemented but it worked. The press has gotten strangely quiet about the situation in Iraq and it is very strange. Does it mean anything to anyone that for five years our brothers, sons, fathers, daughters and friends have been doing to bring democracy to a country where it has been virtually unknown? Sure the British tried for 40 years, unsuccessfully, but we are starting to see signs of a tapering off of the bloodier violence.

On Monday, Austin said the average number of weekly attacks has been holding at roughly 200 this month, compared to more than 1,200 in June 2007 -� a reduction of about 80 percent.

In addition, roadside bombs have plunged by more than 70 percent since last year, while the number of weapons caches found shot up by more than 85 percent compared to a year ago. As the Iraq buildup ends, what's next. MSNBC

I know these people, I know what they have done and I think they deserve some credit. I didn't like the decision to invade Iraq and I really hated hearing how bad thing got years into the campaign. I'd just like to pitch in my two cents worth and say, in spite of all of that, I'm encouraged by the stability that is starting to emerge as a result of the Surge and I think it's high time it was recognized.

Rock of the Marne!

After a 15 month Baghdad vacation as a member of a surge Brigade, I too know from first hand experience how well the surge worked. The surge strategy was sound, but overdue. It hasn't worked because the ultimate goal hasn't been reached. The supporting effort was successful, but the main effort was not. I could go on for pages [and I will if you wish], but suffice it to say that if we had implemented a surge-like strategy as late as 2005, we might be in an entirely different position in Iraq than we are today. We have established Combat Outposts in predominately Shia muhallahs, yet failed to stem the militia control over hospitals, gas stations and other civil services in those areas.

I'm not going to knock the 3ID effort, it was admirable and tough work, but ultimately, it hasn't changed the paradigm in Iraq. We have bought off Sunni clans and merely forced Shia militia's to go to ground. We were successful in integrating Human Terrain Teams into the Brigades and loaned out plenty of money through the microgrant and CERP programs, all of which have given a semblance of success on the surface, but we haven't addressed the issues that will surface once we pull out combat formations. If my belief is correct, then why have we wasted the lives of my brothers? Not to mention the tens of billions of dollars?

First of all feel free to elaborate at will about how you believe the 'main effort' was not met. We all benefit from success in Iraq and failure would have profound and lasting consequences and I would be very interested in whatever you have to offer. That said, I really think that real progress has been made and I think it's important to find the positives in this campaign that has cost us so much in lives and the blood, sweat and tears of the American taxpayer.

I don't consider it a gold standard for success but if you look at the benchmarks for success offered by the Bush Administration many of them have been met and there has been satisfactory progress on most of the others.

12 of Iraq's 18 benchmarks for success have been met

Do note, I took this from the most liberal source I could find since they are the most vocal opponents of a continued military presence.



The fact of the matter is it's their country and sooner or later they will have to manage it themselves. As to the cost so far:

3,990 troops killed,
29,395 wounded,
$12 Billion spent monthly,
$526 Billion already appropriated by Congress for the war.
$3 Trillion, total cost of the war.
8,000 Iraqi Military and Police lost.

Senator Harry Reid's estimates

I won't accept without an argument that this was all for nothing. The Bush administration has said there is no timetable for withdraw and they shouldn't be but the Surge troops won't be replaced and if Obama gets in the withdraw will begin in the first 100 days. The Surge did work and progress has been made but I think it would be premature to plant our flag and do a victory dance. I just think it's a little early to lament it as an abject failure.

Well, there's the rub now isn't it. If the Iraq adventure had been a just, honorable and necessary invasion, we wouldn't have to find the positives, would we? They would be apparent. Iraq has been a distraction from the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us, and by funneling the majority of our military through that meat grinder, we are now paying the price of ignoring Afghanistan. All in the name of forcibly planting the seeds of western democracy in a nation that had not attacked us and had not previously known or cried out for western democracy. By invading Iraq and the fumbled handling of the entire post invasion phase, we have insured that Iraq will be allied to Iran. Hardly ironic since the Ahmed Chalabi's talking the neo-cons into invading are proxies for Iran. No wonder you're having to try to find the positives in this campaign.

OIF has finally achieved a slim veneer of success on the surface, I'll give you that. But it's superficial. It's a facade. The underlying issues that drive the sectarian and anti-occupation engines have not been solved, hardly even addressed. To gain this sheen of success, we have ignited the three traditional forces that have always led to instability in the middle east: tribalism, sectarianism and warlordism. We have temporarily bought off one major sect, the Sunni's, who ally with us for money and control against the sect that should have been our main ally in an invasion of a Sunni dominated dictatorship. We pay those former insurgents to fight the insurgents that we can't pay off; those current insurgents who are supported by many players in the government we enable and support.

The dominant civil service infrastructure in Iraq, especially in Baghdad, is the domain not of the government, but the insurgent militia's. We apparently have not thought through the impact of abetting the massive government corruption and the tribalism, as we play one against the other, when convenient. No matter what eventual outcome, when we withdraw, we will leave an Iraq far more divided than when we invaded. The illusion of short term stability is all that the administration and MNF-I have focused on.

The various 'benchmarks' that have been promoted by surge cheerleaders are for the most part a facade. The actual legislation being so flawed that they remain unworkable and spurned by most Iraqi's. Baghdad resembles a Warsaw ghetto much to the revulsion of many citizens.

Fixating on a specific timetable for withdrawal is probably unhelpful at this point in time, but the Bush Administration owes it to the Iraqi and American people to make it clear that we will withdraw, and soon. The sooner that the Iraqi political and social processes can go through the naturally tumultuous evolution, without foreign occupation, the sooner Iraq can go from being a failed state in a jar back to being a sovereign nation.



You don't have to accept it. You are perfectly free to believe that this was a noble venture and worth the lives of our brothers. I do not.

Strangely, the Republican candidate for president has gone so far to say that the surge has succeeded. Dementia is just one more reason not to vote for him. Aside from his statement of being fine with a 100 year military presence in Iraq, today Maliki appeared to be in favor of the Obama desire to withdraw the majority in 16 months.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned." He then continued: "US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

He also bemoaned the fact that Baghdad has little control over the US troops in Iraq. "It is a fundamental problem for us that it should not be possible, in my country, to prosecute offences or crimes committed by US soldiers against our population," Maliki said.
link

Does anyone know what the status is on basic services, electricity, water and police protection? Last I heard electricity was still intermittent. I'm curious how effective the contracting has been. I'm unsure whether DisneyIraq is a go or not. It is too absurd to be taken seriously. At first I thought is was some bad joke, but it seems the developer is serious. I can't imagine what kind of audience it can sustain over the long term though. I can't speak for a uniformed soldier but doesn't this outlandish bid kinda make the surge seem rather farcical?



With statements like these, I can't help but wonder if these shamless attempts at crony capitalism only reinforce the Iraqi perception of profiteering.

Apparently Iraq is serious about defending themselves after the US leaves and looking to the US for the hardware to do it with.

Iraq Seeks $10.9 Billion in U.S. Weapons for Security (Update2)
By Edmond Lococo and Gopal Ratnam

Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Iraq is seeking to buy $10.9 billion in weapons and services from U.S. defense contractors including General Dynamics Corp., Boeing Co., Textron Inc. and Raytheon Co. to ``establish security and stability'' throughout the country.

The government of Iraq requested 140 M1A1 Abrams tanks built by General Dynamics and other vehicles valued at as much as $2.16 billion, the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency said on its Web site today. The request also includes at least 156 Humvee transports built by AM General.
Iraq's armed services want the equipment to help fill a void when the U.S. eventually withdraws from the region. The tank request was one of six from Iraq that the Pentagon told Congress about this week for items including light armor, helicopters, security vehicles and transport planes.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...d8&refer=us

Since I left in April, I haven't been as privy to the real truth in Baghdad, but when I left the city electricity was on for around 6-8 hours a day......of course not all in one block of time.

Speaking of DisneyIraq, in related propaganda, it appears Fox News in their zeal to put happy faces on our occupation, forgot to do a little fact checking. On 7/31/08, Fox and Friends ((ugh)) aired a report about a KFC opening in Fallujah. Turns out its not a legitimate KFC, which a simple phone call could have told them.


TPM

My guess is that nothing will get built but the stories of larger commercial ventures will lull people into a false sense of quiet. Still the idea of Mickey Mouse being the poster child of freedom is funny.

In case anyone missed it from Thursday nights Bill O'Reilly show.



Just Sayin

Obama is a politician....did you expect any different behavior than from the Republicans?

Strange for it being such a success, that the widely anticipated troop drawdown isn't going to happen.

He sure is. He didn’t admit the surge worked and never will. His tepid admission things are different was as far as he would go. His plan to have all troops out by last March was not discussed. Obviously this would have been a disaster.

He gave some credit to the “Anbar Awakening” not mentioning that the general there (Robinson?) used the same strategy there that would later prove so successful with the surge troops throughout the country.

You have something in common with McCain!!!

You...do...realize....that the Anbar Awakening was the Sunni tribal rebuke of Al Qeada, known to the Iraqi's as Sahwa?

Let me guess, just like McCain stated at the convention, I'm willing to bet that you believe that our occupation of Iraq has made Americans safer?

Yes and did you ever meet the American general so instrumental in helping it happen?

“But Petraeus, Bush's handpicked commander, intelligently recognized that something interesting was happening in Anbar province, once a deadly haven for Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda terrorists. Sunni tribal sheiks were getting fed up with the al-Qaeda foreigners and seemed ready to kick them out.
Petraeus did everything he could to encourage this trend, pouring largess into Anbar to forge new relationships with warlords who used to be bitter enemies. Once the local Sunni leaders decided -- for now -- that they would rather work with the Americans than shoot at them, attacks on U.S. forces in the province fell sharply.
However, this works directly against the "strategy" of counting on the central government in Baghdad to work everything out. Maliki initially reacted with alarm at seeing the Americans strengthen the hand of the Sunnis in Anbar. Unable to do anything about it, he changed tactics and tried to take credit for the drop in violence.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7091301679.html

Ted, your last and previous posts make no sense when put together. Sahwa was happening regardless of American largess. We merely employed the Sunni clans, paying them a salary not to fight against us.

Since US money won't last forever, and Maliki has quite publicly stonewalled incorporating the SoI's into the ISF, the very real danger of the tribes reverting to anti-US and anti-GOI [Shia] violence is high. That's the problem with touting the surge as a 'success'. It has failed to address the problems that simmer under the surface, problems that make the previous levels of insurgency look tame.

.


“The change in U.S. strategy announced in January 2007 and the surge of forces over the ensuing months did not create this shift in Anbar, but accelerated its development.
And in an NRO spot from Sept 2007 he offered more detail:
The tribal leaders in Anbar began to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq last year, largely due to unspeakable atrocities committed by the terrorists against their own hosts. Many analysts and observers have seized upon this fact to argue that the movement in Anbar had nothing to do with the surge, began before the surge did, and would continue even without the surge. This argument is invalid. Anbari tribal leaders did begin to turn against AQI in their areas last year before the surge began, but not before Colonel Sean MacFarland began to apply in Ramadi the tactics and techniques that are the basis of the current strategy in Baghdad. His soldiers and Marines fought tenaciously to establish a foothold in Anbar’s capital, which was then a terrorist stronghold, and thereby demonstrated to the local leaders that they could count on American support as they began to fight their erstwhile allies. Even so, the movement proceeded slowly and fitfully for most of 2006 and, indeed, into 2007. But when Colonel John Charlton’s brigade relieved MacFarland’s in Ramadi and was joined by two additional Marine battalions (part of the surge) elsewhere in Anbar, the “awakening” began to accelerate very rapidly.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2008...nbar-awake.html

Thanks for the in-depth and constructive post. You've gone from drive by one liners to simply posting a link. Are you trying to increase your post count or are you here to actually debate?

Nothing in your link contradicted anything I've just said, except giving more credit than I believe is due to US forces and policy in Anbar. Not surprising coming from a pro-administration online magazine and an AEI employee. They are entitled to their opinions however. It's still a far cry from [whichever General you actually mean] being 'instrumental' in helping it happen.

Instead of merely reading the Heritage/AEI/WH/MNF-I propaganda, take a look at exactly why the Anbar Salvation Council formed, and what the goals were and still are of the Sunni Sheiks. If you don't mind exploiting warlordism, sectarianism and tribalism, all factors that lead to instability rather than a national stability, then you have no reason to be blue. But the nurturing of this strategy is counter-productive to folding the tribes into a central government.

We helped with the elimination of AQI in Anbar and elsewhere. The sectarian differences will no just magically disappear there any more than they did here in 1865. But people who want to live in peace will hopefully back a single central government there as we did here.

Sooo....even though our policies are counter-productive to facilitate national reconciliation and unity.........we should just continue to go on hope? That's what you will accept after the lives lost and the billions of dollars spent?

Much reconciliation has taken place and more will follow. I respect you opinion because you were there but still put my trust in the commanders on the ground there.