General Petraeus is set to report the status of the Surge in Iraq this week. It is anticipated he will give a mixed - yet positive report on the progress of the surge and ask for more time. Some are already doubting it's effectiveness. September was another "Friedman Unit" (New York Times reporter Tom Friedman is always asking for another 6 months) and the "magic" date to determine the course of action needed in Iraq.

Simple questions for debate:

1. Is the surge working?
2. Should this strategy be continued? If so, for how long?

*Note: The point of the other thread "Plan or Ploy" was meant to address whether the surge was a real strategy for victory as opposed to a political stunt. Since the other thread is too unwieldy, please discuss the surge's effectiveness here.

1. Is the surge working?

Couldn't the Surge be called the "Kerry Plan?" The Bush administration's biggest mistake (in my opinion of course) was not sending enough troops into Iraq. Bush was stubborn about this, probably because Rummy was adamantly opposed to more troops.

Now we've finally added more troops and it appears that it's working. Progress is always going to be slow. We probably need even more troops, but at this point it doesn't seem likely.


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

As long as it takes. Leaving Iraq before it's stable simply isn't an option. 10 years from now we'll likely have some kind of presence in Iraq. I wish someone in Washington would just be honest about this scenario. We still have troops in Bosnia and it's almost been ten years. Things like this don't change over night.

Some corrections are in order:

The Bush administration biggest problem was sending troops to Iraq. He had no Constitutional authority to invade a country solely because he wanted to grandstand for AIPAC while simultaneously letting his war profiteers friends - at KBR Halliburton - make a few gazillion dollars.

The ONLY reason that the surge is "working" is because the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds have each decided to stay within the confines of their 'hoods.

1. Is the surge working?



No- because the entire focus of the surge was to allow some breathing room so the Shiites and the Sunni's could forge a political solution to the mess. As soon as the build up began, the lawmakers went home for the summer. - As DTOM has said on the other thread on this subject- too little, to late.

The escalation (the "surge" is a stupid euphimism) was doomed the minute the political leaders in Iraq didn't capitalize on the (temporary) security the surge provided- but really, since it didn't even do that well in providing security- it was doomed 5 minutes after it started.


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

Only those that are "ra-ra-ing" should be in Iraq- it is a good place for them- withdraw now, and send in Rumsfeld and GW to hold down the fort- that is the best plan of all - bring the troops home yesterday- screw Iraq, and the horse it rode in on.

We should have left Iraq the minute the different groups started warring with each other. It is asinine to referee a civil war.

Well, those aren't really "corrections." It's just a different opinion. The whole "should we have invaded Iraq" is a separate debate. It's too early to tell whether or not it was a mistake. A large majority agreed it was the right thing to do at the time. Today opinion is different, tomorrow it can change again. Conventional wisdom can be oh so unconventional sometimes. Anyway, that's off topic.

Not sending enough troops was a bad policy, and we now can see why. The chaos that came after the invasion made it easy for Al Qaeda and Iran's influence to grow. More troops would have prevented that from taking place.

Anyway the press coverage of Iraq is so poor that this perception of a "civil war" still continues. Michael Yon's (his work in Iraq has been unbelievable) last post on his Anbar series sums up what we face right now.

No sir , an opinion:

o·pin·ion /əˈpɪnyən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-pin-yuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

If I say to you that Ms Lindsay Lohan is the most beautiful girl in the universe I am stating an opinion.

But when I say to you that the invasion and the surge (escalation) are Constitutionally infirmed I am a stating a fact. When I state that the invasion was conducted in order to grandstand for AIPAC and KBR- Halliburton those assertions are factual.

Capisce?

1. Is the surge working?
I’m going to be brief, as I’ve probably covered most of this ground in the other thread. The surge is working, to an extent, based on the plan submitted in January. But it’s only working on the local level, to be successful it would need to work at the national level.
Security has improved, but has not stopped or mitigated the sectarian violence. Life has returned to normal in some neighborhoods, with markets and schools re-opening, but they are largely in homogenous sections of the city.
The Iraqi Security Forces, minus the Iraqi Army, are still too corrupt, too ineffective, and too rife with militia members to of any value. So much so that reports in the news have some calling for the disbandment of IP and NP.
Essential services such as water, power and sewage are making a comeback, but remain a target for opposition insurgent groups.
Neighborhood and District Action Councils are working well overall, but the Iraqi Parliament remains its own worst enemy. The Iraqi Government is not trusted by the people for a myriad of reasons, all of which spell defeat for any semblance of democracy.

2.Should this strategy be continued? If so, for how long?
As I’ve said before, the surge was a decent plan……..realistically the only plan that had a chance of working. But being conducted about two years too late will not fix Iraq, it will only result in more lives lost.
The US should begin withdrawing forces starting now. Units can start being pulled from the North and the West, reducing our footprint with minimal security risk. The entire drawdown could be completed within a year I believe, but I would attempt to broker a cease fire with the major players as we did this.


But it is an option, just not one that you agree with. I believe the threat of Iraq turning into a major base for terrorist operations, ala Al Qaeda is bogus. If anything, the Shia will dominate the central rump portion of Iraq and possibly align with Iran. I say possibly, because Jaysh Al-Mahdi and other Shia groups have developed and adjusted their strategy, harkening back to their previous Nationalistic stance with calls for unification of the Iraqi people, increased rhetoric supporting reconciliation and a highlighting of the current Iraqi governments inefficiency.
Leaving Iraq is most certainly an option to those who serve here. To a person, anytime I have ever heard or read somebody say that we should be there ‘as long as it takes’……….isn’t sacrificing or even remotely affected by the consequences of that statement.


Thank you for further defining what constitutes an opinion, not a fact…………

o·pin·ion /əˈpɪnyən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-pin-yuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

The facts identified hereinbelow clearly show that Contumacious assertions are factual:

(1) Bunnatine (Bunny) H. Greenhouse is a former chief contracting officer (Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting (PARC)) of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. On June 27, 2005, she testified to a Democratic Party public committee, alleging specific instances of waste, fraud, and other abuses and irregularities by Halliburton with regard to its operations in Iraq since the Iraq War. She described one of the Halliburton contracts (secret, no-bid contracts awarded to Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR)—a subsidiary of Halliburton) as "the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career."

(2) Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser

by Emad Mekay


WASHINGTON - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.

TIME has an excellent article that distills what the purpose of the surge was, as well as how the mixed results present a challenge for us in the future. We can't unilaterally declare it a failure as Biden has proclaimed. Neither can we view it as a complete success. The military component was designed to give the Iraqi politicians time and peace to create an adequate structure of government, as well as to train the military to take over eventually for us. The drop in violence in Baghdad as cited by the TIME articles proves that this short term military goal has been a success. The problem is that the al-Maliki government has failed to reach out to the other sectarian groups. We either have to keep it up and let him work it out, or come up with an alternative plan.

To answer the second question, I think we should keep the surge going, but we need to do away with al-Maliki and run with the Biden partition plan. His plan has been mischaracterized as carving up Iraq into three distinct nations, which is not the case. A federal entity is required to coordinate infrastructure, not to mention foreign policy. All other matters can be held in the semi-autonomous zones of each group.

Is the surge (escalation) working?

How is "working" defined?

How can a Judgment be made when the facts are controlled by the administration?

How do we know whether Gen Petraeus hasnt changed his name to Betrayus?

After all he knows what happened to the previous commanders who refused to go along with Bush and the neocrazies.

The hyperlink clarifies how it is "working." From the article:



The information isn't just from Bush, it comes from the pentagon, not to mention what regular Iraqis tell the reporters.



Hyperbole aside, how does calling him names prove anything? That doesn't prove anything contrary to what I've produced from TIME.

Is the surge (escalation) working?

How is "working" defined?

How can a Judgment be made when the facts are controlled by the administration?


Again, how do you know that Petraeus is not pulling a "Westmoreland"? The Time article doe not state that Time reporters conducted their own investigation.

Once again, average Iraqis are telling TIME and other media outlets that things are a bit more peaceful. On top of that, they are telling the media that they want it to continue, for obvious reasons!.

Read the article, it's right in there.



It is true that results are mixed at best. Violence in Baghdad has decreased, which is giving time to the Iraqi government to sort things out. To that end, we are succeeding. It is true that the surge has merely pushed violence to other areas. With that being said, that was the goal of the surge in the first place. Give the lawmakers some modicum of peace in order to create a stable government and military. When it comes to the Iraqis doing their part, that is a completely different story.

From the hyperlink:



and...



Once again, keep in mind that these are average people talking with the media, believe it or not, Bush is not some guy behind a curtain pulling all the strings and levers in some Oz like world.

I think Petraus is giving his testimony today. A few days ago, he publish a letter to the Multinational forces in Iraq that seems to touch on what he intends to say. He highlights good news while acknowledging a lack of progress in certain areas.

I do know that whatever he says, anything whatsoever favorable that might come out will simply be dismissed as Bushite speech by many (like Contumacious apparently). The man who was handed a crap pie and told to try and make it savory, can obviously do nothing right...even if some things are going right that must surely be a lie because....well, it has to be! Devoid of anything meaningful to say, resort to a schoolyard namecalling play on his last name (so clever, brings to mind 'smelly nellie' ah, the nostalgia! ).

1. Is the surge working?
Hard to say, magic queball says 'not likely'. From the blogs I've read from people on the ground, some areas are markedly better. But, often the reasons are troubling. In some places attacks are down because our forces are basically work with the Mahdi Army as the Iraqi Army units are so infiltrated. That's very bad.

But sometimes the reasons are good. From Michael Totten, a journalist in Iraq right now:

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

I'd like to see us leave. I can't remember where I heard it, but something brings to mind that the surge cannot be continued past April of 2008 because there simply aren't resources available. By that time, the military will be completely tapped out and overstretched. So something has to happen and we need a clear objective for the very very nearterm future. Hopefully, Petraeus will have something to say about that today.

Is the surge working?


Since it is impossible to get FACTS from the neocrazies or Gen Betrayus lets see what the independent media is saying:

David Petraeus: General Surge

"There has been some improvement in security in central Baghdad but it is still an extraordinarily dangerous place. A true measure of security or lack of it is that the number of Iraqis fleeing their homes has risen from 50,000 to 60,000 a month. None are returning to where they once lived. Baghdad has largely become a Shia city and sectarian killings may be down because in many areas there is no longer anybody from the other community to kill. Despite the supposed new emphasis on the safety of ordinary Iraqis, the US had increased its use of air power in the close-packed slums of Baghdad. The US military routinely claims that all the dead are insurgents even when the Iraqi police and doctors assert that they are seeing the bodies of women and children.

The high reputation of Petraeus in the US is a little difficult to explain. He is certainly an able man but his achievements in Iraq since 2003 have been limited, though his defenders might argue that he is involved in a war which the US could never have won because outside Kurdistan it has no reliable allies. "The surge" is feared by the Shia-Kurdish government as a lurch towards the Sunni, the same tactic that Petraeus pursued in Mosul with disastrous effect."

Yes to some extent. It seems to be working from the ground up which in and of itself is a good thing – but at some point the political process has to move forward on the national level. This was one of the purposes of the Surge – to give some breathing room to the central government.

Now they need to take advantage of the gains and reach agreements that will allow Iraq to unify as a country rather than as sectarian subsets.





Yes. Continue until a political reconciliation is reached and the Iraqi Army can defend the country. Hopefully this can be accomplished by next fall.

IMO we will still have 100K troops in Iraq when Bush leaves office. Hopefully they will then be in a support role only.

Since we've been over this I think the best thing to do is review as much of the evidence as we can and weigh the pros and cons.

1. Is the surge working?
I gotta admit, working can mean a lot of different things.
The short answer, no though I'm sure the sunshine of Anbar will be shovelled directly for public consumption on the 11th.

The GAO report indicates that many of the goals (benchmarks sounds goofy) were not met.

The Jones CSIS report is more forgiving, but falsely attributes the success of Anbar province to cooperation while failing to acknowledge the nationalist forces. IE they pat themselves a little too readily on the back. At least the document mentions the large footprint of the occupation and suggests decreasing it.

What is interesting is the NIE report contradicts much of the narrative Bush has been spoon feeding us in regards to Iranian munitions.
The NIE report asserts much of the resistance is Sunni based, not Shia derived which makes Mr. Bush's claims of Quds-force EFP claims absurd and facetious. It also highlights a point which should be discussed more extensively here. The schism between nationalist and separtist Shias which the Sadr army falls into.

All three together paint a rather bleak picture. I'll let people draw their own conclusions from there.

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

At this point withdrawl will not be quick or easy. Then again staying will definitely not assuage the situation. Just be cognizant that the longer the stay the greater the chance Cheney will be able to widen the war.

This is not FreeRepublic.com. This is not DemocraticUnderground.com This is a place where grownups debate civilly and with a modicum of attention things like grammar and spelling. As general rule we tend to stay away from phrases like neocrazies, pinkos, and unimaginative word play like Betrayus. Sure, sometimes we all "go to the zoo" and some of us (myself included) have a tougher time than others staying in The Rules. Do try and join us in civil, mature debate.

Well its difficult at times for me to do this but I will try. Ok, lets start with my points here. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, to date we still cant make any connection to 9-11 and Iraq, none at all. The GWOT was a reaction to the event that was 9-11, in which we promptly invaded Afghanistan to counter and or destroy the people actually responsible for 9-11. Someone this equates into needing to expand the GWOT into Iraq. Now the reasons giving are many and in many ways the reasons giving make no sense and are even contradictory in all reality. For instance, we had intelligence that was bullet proof that we could not share at the U.N, to save from this war being an illegal invasion. So we went in with a coalition of the willing, in which many were bought and paid for and have sense become a coalition of the very few and leaving. This bullet proof information turned out to be false, in which you could say anything you want at that point, much like saying the WMD is north, west, south or east of Baghdad. SO then we have to install democracy because it will end terrorism, which on its own makes absolutely no sense and has no proof to back it up, Muslims, Persians and Arabs come to America, can come to America, and or Europe first of all. Ok, so its democracy as the reason to invade Iraq now, or stay there. Well, how long will that be, the current answer is forever stay the course, for a democratic Iraq, which I would think if wanted would already exist, but that’s beside the point right? Then the next idea is it will preoccupy terrorists, so one is the think that all the terrorists then must currently be in Iraq, or else that’s a failure there, the other idea is that its a good thing to invade a nation for an indefinite amount of time killing untold amounts of civilians in the process for however long because obviously, all of the worlds terrorists are now in Iraq.

Other points are that this war subtracted in large from killing AQ and the Taliban, which are still at large, and well, don’t happen to be in Iraq. The other issue is how its fragmented the global community over an issue that needs unification to actually be combated, being terrorism is something of an unconventional, live all over the world kind of threat. The other is how Iraq and the middle east in large is reacting to the occupation of Iraq by our forces in which is not helping at all unless you consider fanning the flames of terrorism to be a plus, in ending terrorism.

Lastly, when was the last time that our dear president actually came out and said anything of substance that was not some piece of emotional laden spin that means absolutely nothing? Such does not happen, for the most part our dear leader spends his time finding ways to make the government be nothing more then his idea of how everything should be, and clearly cares not for others opinions, which is a great way to run a democracy I must say.

So in short, yes, I am tired of it. What really gets to me is when democrats, elected by the people in large to counter obviously the basic idiocy of bush if not the insane madness of his policies basically fold on themselves and in some pseudo format even extend if not accept such policies really, much like saying bush had a plan for Iraq, what a joke. It leaves me to think that politics really is a stunt, if not a special effect really, some guise perpetrated by people that will vote along with each other for pay raises, and really nothing more. Like most of these threads something becomes factually based on the mouthpiece it comes from, not from any detailed study and of course not from anything empirical in any regards. Iraq has been four years plus of the same, and well, that’s the only thing true about it. The surge was more money and more people and the same result. Don’t expect bush to say this though of course, its politically unsound even if its true, and that’s pure honesty and politics for you. I can say of course if we leave Iraq that terrorism will come to rule the world, and if I say it enough it surely is true, I mean just look what leaving Vietnam created, global domination by the communists.

Of course its working but for its intended purpose, not those advertised. The surge was designed to "kick the can down the road" and keep the 30% of die hard supporters of the administration from bolting in panic. The congressional Democrats leadership strategy to erode Republican congressional support of the war has failed miserably. The war will not end until after the elections, if then!

With 1 million dead Iraqis, 2 million in exile, 2 million displaced internally, millions of malnourished children, and a destroyed economy; it is beyond my comprehension how anyone can continue posting arguments that the unprovoked invasion and continued occupation of Iraq is in the interest of its citizens.

Sure it is, it has made a huge difference from what I have seen. I spent 12 months there and just got back and I think we are going to see troop reductions in 2008.



The surge is a part of an overall conceptual plan that is intended to control the ongoing insurgency. Strangely, the biggest success to date has been the result of Sunni leaders finally refusing to support terrorist organizations. The strategy is working, it would be a disaster if we just pulled out.

The Petraeus report was straight forward and imo honest – the surge is working. Of course he was attacked by Dems before he opened his mouth and the disgraceful MoveOn add in NYT needs no discussion.


His numbers show reduction in both civilian and sectarian deaths of 45% or more since the surge started. I believe his numbers and he maintained a drawdown of the surge troops by next summer is clearly possible.

Obviously a political solution is required and if this success does not allow and help that to happen we are still nowhere.

Excellent assessment.

And of course, its intended purpose is not revealed because "we the people" - must pay for the incursion - but can not handle the truth.

Let's put this into perspective. The drawdown of surge units is already on track by next summer, because that is when our 15 month deployments are up. There are no other units to send to Iraq to replace the manpower of the surge. This is not a 'good news drawdown' this is normal rotation cycle times.

This does not change the fact that the tactics and strategy implement by Petraeus are working one hell of a lot better than his predecessors. Makes you wonder what would have been the result if he was in charge from day one.

Could he have vetoed the disastrous mistake of Bremmer (Bush, Rummy) in disbanding the Iraqi army?

I guess that is spilt milk and all we can hope for is that the Maliki government gets moving toward a political reconciliation – soon.

I don't know Ted, we've had 14 guys wounded in the last 24 hours, some very seriously. That's a definite spike compared to the last month or so.

The surge strategy may be working better than what came before, but even you must admit that there are those who are paying a terrible price, who don't think the surge is worth the loss of life. With no political solution in sight, how do you reasonably ask people to continue dying or being maimed?

If you were snowed by the Generals charts and statistics, consider this article: Iraqi Civilian Casualties: 2007 More Deadly Than 2006.

Simple, you amplify the threats to justify the loses. Problem solved Seriously though I don't see this as a particularly valid question considering no effort was made to tally the deaths of the Iraqis. Sensitivity runs both ways. The only solution Mr. Petreus has right now is his ability to unite the separate groups and convince them that peace is more useful to them than war.

And consider this Paragraph limiting its accuracy. So I will believe the methodology of the people o the ground there.

"The two lists presented here rely on statistics gathered by the Associated Press and by Iraq Body Count, a reputable British organization that has done Herculean work in compiling civilian-casualty data. It's important to note that these lists aren't comprehensive. Tallying Iraqi civilian casualties is an incomplete and arduous task, made extremely difficult by the situation on the ground. Both surveys readily acknowledge that their figures are undercounts of the true Iraqi civilian casualty rate. "

That was a beautiful statement. We concur.

Certainly the sacrifices are appreciated and the “worth it” question needs to be looked at in light of the alternatives. If we pulled out now and left the blood bath that would follow would be bad but not nearly as bad as Iran “filling the vacuum” left by our defeat or as Petraeus points out the boost to AQ by our “defeat”.

Many strategists on both sides feel staying is important to this country. Only the far left wing of the Dem party wants to pull back quickly.

All that said I agree and always have with you about the political solution. If we cannot get this moving and soon our cause is lost. You can bet the pressure is on in Baghdad and that both Bush and Petraeus will be pushing the Iraqi government to DO SOMETHING.

Yes then comes the important question which all of these intelligent strategists cant seem to answer is for how long? Another five years, what if the situations the same, will those intelligent people still say the same thing. As a strategist surely they must notice that for what its worth terrorism is not tied up in Iraq but really we are, though that would make them look stupid and in politics that’s not a good thing. I am all for spending ourselves into a few hundred year deficit along with the constant death of U.S personal for an uncertain future that in all reality will not combat in any real aspect terrorism, its pure genius. Then again having experience with such its easy to see how detached people really make no contribution to things that be.

Should this strategy [the surge] be continued? If so, for how long?

The effort is definitely not worthy:

"The one most important thing Petraeus has been doing for the last two days, as far as the administration is concerned, is making the case for the criticality to our national security of keeping this the long war. He blew that today in a remarkable display of unbridled honesty, when Sen. Warner asked him if success in Iraq would make the U.S. safer. Petraeus responded, "I don't know."

1. Is "staying" important to the Iraqis in Iraq or important to the US in Iraq?
2. How do you propose "staying" after April 2008 when the 15 month extended tours of our combat troops time out?¹


I've been hearing/reading about this "political solution" for 4 years now. Is there any way we can judge whether or not a "political solution" is possible? If it can be judged as possible, do you, Ted, have any concrete proposals for how to make it happen? And, no, getting the Iraqi government to "DO SOMETHING" does not cut it. Finally, how do you judge when precisely we have a "lost cause" on our hands?


¹Unless you're proposing to somehow extend the combat tours even longer until after the '08 election in which case the next President (likely a Democrat) will have to make the hard decision you seem unwilling to contemplate.

Are you sure about that?



If we invited Admiral Fallon or General Pace to answer this question we would hear a much different response. I have a feeling Bush's visit had alot to do with coaching the correct response out of Petraeus for obvious political reasons.

I mean having a base with limited troops to support Iraqi forces when needed. Much like what we are doing in Bosnia – years later. Certainly having a base in an area vital to us would not hurt.


Well lets remember that a lot has happened politically. Like elections and the formation of a representative government. Now we need reconciliation between the major factions Shea and Sunni – and there are also Shiite factions. And we need a formal plan to share the oil wealth.
Like any compromise the government has to bring the parties together and each needs to make compromises that yield a solution that everyone can live with. Sounds easy but clearly it is a challenge. I am sure heavy pressure is on Maliki to get it done and the breathing space he needs imo is here. IMO the Shiites militias no longer believe they can win and the Sunni insurgents seem also to be more willing to discuss reconciliation.

“This political point was not lost on the U.S. government. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad remarked that, “To end a war,” he said, “you must balance the requirements of reconciliation with the requirements of justice,” and Maliki appears to be trying to find such a balance. [3]

The Elements of Maliki’s Plan
Prime Minister Maliki’s reconciliation plan seeks to reduce insurgent attacks through political dialogue, confidence-building measures, and limited amnesty for “lesser offenses,” which could include minor acts of sabotage or participating in Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party. [4]

The reconciliation plan also calls for:

• The creation of a commission to oversee reconciliation, with branches in all of Iraq’s provinces;
• Banning human rights violations, improving prison conditions, and punishing those responsible for torture;
• Reforming the debaathification program to make it accountable to the judicial system and reviewing the cases of some Baath Party members who were forced out of public life after 2003;
• Making the armed forces independent of political parties and banning the army from interfering in politics; and
• Requiring legal warrants to be issued before army and police raids. [6]
The plan provides a rough outline of what must happen to end political violence in Iraq.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/wm1139.cfm

Except Bosnia is akin to Nebraska compared to the instability and violence of Iraq.


Shia and Shi'ite are the same entity. Really Ted, I think it's important to know about the major players in Iraq before you speak of what they believe in. The Shia no longer believe they can win??? Who do you think controls the Government (such as it is), the Iraqi Police and the National Police? We'll throw the Facilities Protection Service in there as well.
The Sunni tribes are arming themselves against JAM, not AQI.
Ted, virtually nothing has happened politically. I was as happy as the next guy when I saw footage of the purple fingers, but then I got over here and saw what a sham the government really was. I so wish that I could post summaries of meetings between our commanders and officials from the Ministry of Defense to show you what a travesty of democracy this place is.

I understand they are the same and I know Shia and Sunni are the major rivals and as you know I am sure there are Shea factions as well.

What I was referring to with “thought they could win” was the Shea (Sadre for example) who would like Iraq to be a Shia dictatorship or theocracy rather than a parliamentary democracy where the Sunni would have any say.

I believe you when you say little has happened politically. The question is are we now in a better position in Iraq with the surge reducing violence, the Sunnis rejecting AQ and Al Sadre telling JAM fighters to “stand down” – to begin serious political progress?

What in your opinion will it take?

So acknowledging the limitations of sets of statistics (unlike the general) makes the analysis less reliable? I would argue just the opposite. At least this study compared 2 sets of death counts in 2007 to counts using the same methodologies in 2006 to give a clear trend.

To see just how much the undercount in these sets of data is likely to be, consider this article regarding the second John Hopkins cluster study in 2006. Extrapolating to the present from the probable 655,000 excess deaths to July 2006 would yield a probable excess death count closer to 800,000. This compares to the 70,000 to 80,000 confirmed deaths in the Iraqi Body Count data base.

As an aside, it is interesting to note how the President and other war supporters use the Iraq Body Count figures to discredit the John Hopkins study but dismiss them when trying to show an improvement with the "Surge."

And, Ted, do try to be more careful in your posts. There is no such thing as "Shea" in Iraq, that's a stadium where the Mets play. You used the term several times probably in reference to Shia, although that is unclear since you made reference to both terms in the same statement. You also referred to "Sader" when you presumably meant Muqtada al-Sadr. And, no, he hasn't decided he can't win. He has been very shrewd in the way he has maneuvered in Iraq and has continually gained strength. He was originally among the more nationalistic of the Shia leaders and willing to work with some Sunni elements. He has been adamant in his opposition to the American occupation.

There are many smaller factions in Iraq besides Sunni and Shia…..but Shea is a stadium in NYC.

Let me repeat your statement: IMO the Shiites militias no longer believe they can win and the Sunni insurgents seem also to be more willing to discuss reconciliation.

The Shia already control the Government. They, for all intents and purposes have already won. The only thing keeping them from consolidating their power is the US presence. Jaysh Al-Mahdi has publicly stood down offensive operations, but has retained the right to defend their territory and their interests. JAM Special Groups however, have renounced the stand down. I believe this to be no small amount of trickery on Sadr’s part. He makes public overtures to imply that JAM wishes to be a legitimate player in the political process……all the while he continues to employ violence and intimidation against the Sunni population in Baghdad. He is playing both angles.


More than I am willing to concede. If the political process in Iraq hasn’t gotten any farther than it has in the last two years, I do not see the goal being met……therefore I see American lives being lost for absolutely no gain. Families torn apart, lives forever altered……for nothing. One viewpoint that I will continue to press, is that the majority of Iraqi’s (as evidenced by their actions) will continue to place the Imam above the elected official. Our stated vision for Iraq can simply not be met unless that paradigm changes…..and that change will not come from our occupation.
I believe the most sensible thing to do would be to align with Sadr to impose stability in Iraq. I believe that Sadr is nationalist enough to be using Iranian assistance to achieve his goals, but not become a puppet state of Iran. Shia control of Iraq would keep it from becoming a haven for Al Qaeda (more so anyway than the alternative). An Iranian sphere of influence in the fertile crescent at least gives us a diplomatic avenue to work with, a failed state does not.

Sorry I was not clear in the statement. I meant they no longer believe they can as you say “consolidate power” while we are there and Sadre seems unwilling to have the US guns turned on his militia full force. I am sure he is hoping we will do exactly as you suggest. Leave Iraq and allow him to essentially make it a Shes state.

And just how if we were to “align with Sadr to impose stability in Iraq” could we prevent the Sunni uprising that would surely follow – and then the blood bath as the Shea murder them with the help of Iran.

Saudi Arabia has said they would step in to aid Sunni’s if they saw this taking place. How would we prevent this without having substantial forces there?

My hope is that the political process moves forward more quickly now that the summer is over and in a somewhat better environment due to the Surge. If this does not happen over the next few months we will have some very tough choices to make.

Perhaps I mentioned already that the Shia/JAM already control or influence the Iraqi Police, the National Police and most ministries? Of course Al-Sadr wants us to leave, but we've been fighting him on and off for the last 4 years.....and he's still around, and still wields tremendous power. For all the small victories the surge has brought, it has not emboldened the government to make any meaningful strides (if it is indeed capable or willing) in effecting change in Baghdad. How many more times are some people going to ask 'just a little more time........just a little more time'?

I hate to break this to you Ted, but the surge is over. The first surge Brigade only has a few months to go before it redeploys stateside, followed by the remaining Brigades. The normal rotation cycle is still in effect, but the influx of combat power will soon be over. Unless your plan would be to keep everyone over here indefinetly, any and all gains made possible by the surge will probably become undone, as Iraqi's again turn towards their Mosque and Imam for guidance and to the miltia's for protection.

Did you catch Petraeus on TV or see his interview with Brit Hume?

I tend to take this man at his word. He has detailed the progress and maintains we can start to draw down the Surge forces in Dec. and complete by about July. Yes he needs to meet the rotation deadline but he has not said this would cause him to fail and the progress be undone.

I don’t believe he is a Bush puppet but a man of honor and he maintains, along with Crocker that we can still win the war and that doing so is vital.

I believe him.

I think DTOM and TedN5 have made excellent points, but something that hasn't been addressed is the veracity of the report itself. Since the White House, not Gen. Petraeus wrote the report (and acknowledged that fact), to me, the whole thing is suspect. It's hard to trust anything that comes out of this White House at face value.

As DTOM mentions, troops will be coming home regardless of whether or not the escalation has "worked". What happens after that is unfortunately predictable; the imams will exercise their control, the government will collapse, and things will pretty much be back to what they were before we stuck our noses in it (except the US will be much poorer, thousands of US families will be grieving for lost loved ones, and thousands more US troops will be dealing with horrific disabilities).

Case in point - one of the US' allies in Iraq was killed yesterday.

and the beat goes on...

.



Petraeus CLEARLY said HE wrote the report and the recommendations were HIS and he did not share them with the WH, The Pentagon or Congress until he handed them out on the day of his testimony.

If you want to refute this get an article written more recently or some more corroboration because this is 180 from his statements.

Yes, I saw the hearing on TV. And I too hold Petraeus in high regard. He was one of the best division commanders this Army has had in quite some time. And I think that he believes in what he said, and the opportunity for success. But I also believe that someone in a position such as his can be insulated from the real truth. Not because he has an agenda, not because he's being deliberately lied to, but because, just as he has a grasp of the 'big' picture, he may have no vision on the little details that make up that picture.
I may not be correct in my assesment, but I do have a differing point of view concerning what is going on in Baghdad, and that comes from being on the ground, patrolling the streets and witnessing the casualties firsthand. Patraeus doesn't have that point of view. I know what I believe to be right in my heart, just as he probably does also. I don't believe this mission is vital, I don't believe that it can be accomplished, and I don't belive the majority of Iraqi's want our vision of Iraq.

Just a clarification here. There are actually two "reports", one written by the White House and the verbal report presented to Congress by General Patraeus. It is my understanding that this is per legislation passed by Congress in one of the supplementals for paying for the surge. To my knowledge the only written "report" submitted to Congress by the General was his opening statement. His testimony that that statement was solely his work product (along with his staff) and not vetted by anyone referred to that statement, not to the White House report.


Aquilla

The data used to formulate his recommendation (by him) is of course available in the chain of command. The interpretation of that relating the current situation and recommendations of the course to follow moving forward are all Petraeus and he wrote all of what he presented to Congress – of course using data as above.

Bush and the WH did not tell him what to recommend.