The surge is over and the additional Brigades are heading home. Many insurgents have been chased out of Baghdad and into the Arab Jabour region to the south and the Diyala Province to the north, where the level of attacks are still high.
In Baghdad, overall violence is down, but suicide attacks are rising. The Jaysh Al-Mahdi cease fire holds, but is tenuous. US forces are in essence, paying Sunni’s to patrol their own neighborhoods, many of which are/were insurgents. AQI is staging bold attacks again. And the central government still has made virtually no progress on the political and national reconciliation front.

There is a Kurdish push to remove Al-Maliki from the position of Prime Minister. And there is an increasing movement by Shia fundamentalists to create an autonomous region centered in the holy city of Najaf.

In many cases -- particularly on the political front -- Iraqi solutions bear little resemblance to the ambitious goals for 2007 that Bush laid out in his speech to the nation last Jan. 10.
....
For some observers, the approach indicates a new realism in Washington, a recognition that long years of grandiose plans drawn from U.S. templates have not worked in Iraq. But others charge that the phrase "Iraqi solutions" implies a cynical U.S. willingness to turn a blind eye to sectarianism, political violence and a wealth of papered-over problems -- if that is the price of getting the United States out of Iraq.
WaPo

Whether or not there resides a Democrat or a Republican at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, some important and timely decisions are needed. This administration and the following team after January must decide to 1) stay the course, 2) implement a withdrawal plan or 3) inject new dynamics to hasten a goal of a stable and democratic Iraq. The Republicans, minus Ron Paul, clearly favor option 1. The Democrats, in my estimation, seem divided between 2 and 3; and the American public is probably evenly divided between all three options.

Questions for debate:

Where does US policy, both political and military, go from here? For success, what dynamics need to be addressed, that haven’t been?

Does a decrease in violence, but a lack of political movement signal success or failure of the surge?

In the eyes of Iraqi’s and other Middle Easterners, are we promoting democracy and peace, or are we imperialists bent on military/economic occupation? If it's the latter, how do we overcome that view?

In the eyes of Iraqi’s and other Middle Easterners, are we promoting democracy and peace, or are we imperialists bent on military/economic occupation? If it's the latter, how do we overcome that view?

Here's my view: someone who has been to Iraqi, or knows Iraqis, or is Iraqi, or has an omnipotent ability to read Iraqi public opinion like some human pew research poll can elaborate.

I think it is hard for us, at our distance to understand much of anything of what Iraqi opinion of the US is. I'm sure it's very complex. For us to discern it might be like staring in one of those mirrors that totally disfigures the shape of your nose.

It would be easy for me to play leftist, and say that we are viewed as occupiers and hated ubiquitously -- but clearly, as the Al-Anbar truce suggests, there are those who at least strategically view as a potential source of protection. On the other side, I don't think it is possible for me to say anything so clumsy as we are liked, or even tolerated. From reading RiverBend's blog the sense I get from her is that we are clueless. Strangers trying to make familiarity out of a very strange place. RiverBend's writing to me conveys a sense of loss that is beyond homefront pieties about 'anti-america resistance' or 'pro-american liberation.' I suspect that to her, the idea that we are spreading democracy and peace is too abstract to even be considered farcical. What we have done is open a very pressurized bottle, in which backward titles like Sunni and Shia have suddenly taken on new importance, for any number of difficult to comprehend reasons... Maybe it could even be competition for jobs, I don't know.

Whatever the case, I think our image in Iraq is beyond some slide-able bead on a liked-hated spectrum. This is the latest public opinion poll from Iraq I could find, right from when the surge was starting. It states that a whopping 51 percent of Iraqis believe that attacks on coalition forces are 'acceptable.' Imagine the people, and community you know: can you imagine 51 percent of your neighbors and friends believing the murder of foreigners is 'acceptable'? I can't.

Imagine being a soldier here... you're fighting for the security and promise of a people, half of whom, find your death 'acceptable.' God bless our troops for dealing with that conundrum!

But I'm asking honestly, out of slight ignorance, what long term goals are we accomplishing at this point? What PR battle can you win in these conditions? The surge saved so many lives... that it would do so was never in question. But what difference has it made on the big picture? I challenge anyone to tell me, what in Baghdad has changed other than the size and effectiveness of our security operation? I'm really curious to know, I haven't read anything expounding on that. And soon, that surge will end. At some point, we have to change the big picture... it is simply not feasible for us to wait in Iraq for what could be decades before this strife dies down.

We have to try something different. I, obviously prefer a phased withdrawal, but one of the tragedies of our bi-partisan system is that we have only two ideas on the table. 2 1/2 if you count partition. Maybe Mike Bloomberg has a plan. What a wonderful development that would be.

Back to the question. Liberal doctrine states that the way to overcome being disliked is to build schools and ask questions before shooting. Here, I have to say those two things might help, but I suspect that they might be drops of water to the sea. 69 percent think US troops make the security situation worse. On the other hand, a majority thinks we should stay until the security situation stabilizes. What do you do with that? How much coca-cola can you give away until that predicament makes sense?

You know, Bush will always be tethered to this war in history books. But I hope the books record congress's total lapse of judgment, total inability or political abstention to consider the likely outcome of this invasion. I hope history books have a big picture of John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, all of them, with a caption: "These senators sought the presidency only months after failing to question one of the oddest, most tangential US foreign policy blunders in our history. How ambitious."

Where does US policy, both political and military, go from here? For success, what dynamics need to be addressed, that haven’t been?

The Iraqis seem to be spoiled children. They resent the paternal presence of US troops but still want the security. They appreciate the US toppling the Saddam regime, but hate our presence in their country. It's time for a serious lecture about responsibility and to let them figure it all out. No more toys, no more money, go out and earn a life. Try not to blow yourselves up kids, it's bad for survival.

Does a decrease in violence, but a lack of political movement signal success or failure of the surge?

The surge successfully gave breathing room to the Iraqi government, which took two months off during the surge. Maybe we should have just locked the doors on their way out. But do we really want that country? I don't. It'd be like holing up in the spoiled brat's room.

In the eyes of Iraqi’s and other Middle Easterners, are we promoting democracy and peace, or are we imperialists bent on military/economic occupation? If it's the latter, how do we overcome that view?

It depends on who you talk to out there in the ME. Besides, why should I care? They've got their problems and we've got ours. I'm for getting the hell out ASAP and locking down this country against terrorists. Plus a few other things somewhat relevant to the ME, such as getting off oil. If they become Taliban Central and AQ University, then we know where to bomb. My thinking is that something else will happen, and nobody knows what that is.

I'll post answers to my own questions when I get a little more time, but you hit on what I'm seeing. What has changed? In Baghdad violence has decreased, but the dynamics that cause that violence are still present. Baghdad is still just as much of a war zone as one year ago, as two years ago. The big picture really hasn't changed at all.

Today Baghdad looks as you imagine it: a war zone direct from central casting. The detritus of car bombs and truck bombs, suicide bombers and firefights would be ample documentation of urban decimation if it only were safe for photographers to walk around and work on the streets. It is not.

Thick, 15-foot high blast walls are everywhere. Some form extended contiguous barriers, like paranoid rat mazes of concrete-and-sky tunnels. Some connect to nothingness, sitting at odd angles, left littering the highways, neighborhood streets and alleyways, forgotten pieces of drab, tan cityscape. Except for the helicopters thumping just above the low skyline, views in Baghdad are therefore always partly obscured.
Violence may be down 60%, but that only brings the city back to 2006 levels. Life in Baghdad in January 2008 is still a far cry from normalcy. Those of us who were here in 2003 and 2004 remember the backed-up traffic and streets wheezing with raw, unencumbered capitalism, let loose after decades of state-controlled socialism. Back then we ate lunch at hole-in-the chicken shacks. Today, those places literally are holes in the walls.

Four years later Iraq is exactly none of those things: free, democratic, peaceful internally or externally. Lines of humongous, heavily-armored American Humvees with steel chains dangling from their front ends roll through Baghdad, America's tax dollars in action, a panorama of monstrous battle cats going anywhere they want. It was never like this before. Back then, you could at least see the fresh faces of young American soldiers, even if their eyes were obscured by wrap-around Oakleys. Now their faces are steel plates, their eyes electronic sensors.
Yahoo/Time

Where does US policy, both political and military, go from here? For success, what dynamics need to be addressed, that haven’t been?

Oh boy- where to start? Well, I think the best course of action is to "Declare victory and go home"- tell the poeple there- it is up to you to sink or swim. You had no problems living together under Saddam, and I don't recall too many suicide bombings directed at Saddam loyalists why he was in power. If you are so willing to die now, and not then- well, damn, it is on you and your poeple to lead yourselves. Good luck with all that.

Does a decrease in violence, but a lack of political movement signal success or failure of the surge?

I think this one is so obvious as to need a big "duh" as a comment. The surge is an abject failure. NOT because of violence, or any of that- as many have pointed out all along- the STATED goal of the surge was to decrease violence enough for the factions to have some "breathing room" to hammer out a political solution. If we don't have that political solution- you have an utter an abject failure of the strategy. To even TRY to defend this as a success is really quite dishonest. OF COURSE the individual missions of various brigades and such were succesful in thier specific missions. Who really thought that the US military, when given a clear mission, won't be successful? A military success was NEVER in doubt- the entire REASON for the surge was a political solution. We don't have a political solution, nor is one on the horizon. Iraq hasn't even come close to that solution- so, therefore, the surge was an abject and overwhelming failure.

In the eyes of Iraqi’s and other Middle Easterners, are we promoting democracy and peace, or are we imperialists bent on military/economic occupation? If it's the latter, how do we overcome that view?

Um, no, you see, those that have had to endure one of our "promotions of democracy"- well, those that survived it- aren't very happy with those we usually leave in power. Let's see the list for a moment, shall we? Assasinated Allende, popularly elected by his people-, Iran, toppled the popular goverment to install the Shah. Gave the "okay" to Saddam to develope chemical weapons so they could slaughter Iranians. And on and on. We support monsters that slaughter and kill thier populations, with US help and sanction. I don't think much of the world thinks that US coming into thier country is good, let alone, safe.

Where does US policy, both political and military, go from here? For success, what dynamics need to be addressed, that haven’t been?

Clearly some movement needs to occur on the diplomatic front. Some of the Shia militia’s are in a position to conduct dialogue with us, and our interaction with the Sunni’s is twofold. We are paying some of them; many at least were former insurgents, to patrol some of their neighborhoods in Baghdad. And we have conducted combined operations with members of the 1920 Revolutionary Brigade in Diyala.

If we can very publicly thank Jaysh Al-Mahdi for not attacking us, and essentially pay the Sunni militia’s to not attack us, why can’t we [or an outside agency] foster diplomatic negotiations with the disparate elements in Iraq? Why can’t we bring all parties together to try and reach a consensus on how Iraq should be governed? Many of the militia’s are attempting to legitimize themselves as political parties; shouldn’t we reach out to them?

On the military front, we are seen as occupiers, plainly and simply. The transition plan for ISF to take control of all security functions looks good in PowerPoint, but has not exactly been a formula for success. Between general corruption, militia infiltration, religious factors, theft, and a Saddam era malaise concerning logistics and command and control…………..the much touted plan really hasn’t made much headway. I believe a drawdown of US forces coupled with a deployment of an international peacekeeping force in key areas, may be the only viable solution.

Does a decrease in violence, but a lack of political movement signal success or failure of the surge?

The enabling goal of the surge was to decrease violence through focused and deliberate clearing of the contentious neighborhoods in Baghdad. Once clear, the next goal was to shift to stability and security operations and to then transfer command and control to the Iraqi Security Forces.
The overarching goal of the surge was to provide the environment as stated above, in order to allow the Iraqi Government to rehabilitate the economy, cleanse corruption, solidify control over civil functions that the militia’s currently operate, and to pass legislation that fosters National Reconciliation.

We are still clearing [and in many cases, re-clearing] neighborhoods in Baghdad. US forces conduct joint patrols daily with ISF, but they are in no way capable of maintaining overall security. News of the political stalemates, lawmaker vacations and infighting are all over the news, no need for me to re-hash it here. In my opinion, neither the enabling nor the overall goal of the surge can be termed a success. So then why are we still there, with the same strategy?

In the eyes of Iraqi’s and other Middle Easterners, are we promoting democracy and peace, or are we imperialists bent on military/economic occupation? If it's the latter, how do we overcome that view?

Imagine if you will, the American Revolution, but with a twist. Instead of Lexington and Concord sparking the rebellion, France decided [as it was in their national interest] to invade the colonies, overthrow King George’s rule, and give the colonists ‘Democracy’. But they install themselves in Independence Hall, and in Boston, and in New York; they patrol the roads and waterways detaining or killing anyone, Tory or Rebel, with a weapon; and they install a few colonial expatriates living in France to set up a French style government complete with Catholicism as the state religion.

Would the Sons of Liberty be aligned with the French, or would they be rebels? Democratic change must be sparked from within; it can’t be installed from without. A devoutly Muslim nation can become at least in some ways Democratic, but it must happen at the people's insistence, and in their time.
How arrogant have we been not only invading, but actually installing ourselves in the palaces of the former tyrant? How could most Iraqi’s see us as anything but another tyrant at worst, or colonists at best?

Does a decrease in violence, but a lack of political movement signal success or failure of the surge?

I'll address this one for now. Way back when I started a thread on what the "indicators" of success or failure of the surge might be. One of the more intriguing responses to that thread came from Drewyorktimes where he discussed small business as an indicator of social progress. I thought at the time it was a brilliant indicator because it incorporates a variety of factors in the equation - security, political, economic....

So, I did a little research on what's being done on that front and it turns out there is quite a pro-active program in operation in Iraq. There is an organization called the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) that has been quite active in Iraq. Here is a summary of their progress thus far. Reading from that summary......



Not a rosy picture by any means, but there does seem to be some significant progress on this aspect of Iraqi re-construction.


Aquilla

I completely agree that economic success is one of the keystones needed for a stable Iraq. The question is, what is the strategy for the Bush and Maliki administration to over come the enormous obstacles in the road to economic solvency?
One interesting proposal is an 'Alaska Model':

While Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish politicians bicker over sharing oil revenues, the Iraqi people should demand their own share: an Alaska-like oil trust that would invest a portion of Iraqi oil profits - some $40 billion this year - and pay dividends to every citizen. Next, bypass Baghdad. Government-managed reconstruction programs have been windfalls for corrupt Iraqi ministries and militias, but a bust for impoverished Iraqis. Instead, foreign aid could go directly to Iraqi communities, as with a successful World Bank-funded program in Indonesia where 40,000 villages have managed $1 billion worth of local projects. For major infrastructure projects, the former Iraqi Finance Minister Dr. Ali Allawi tells me that dedicating a major portion of oil revenues to an independent, professional development board, as Iraq had in the 1950s, would "bypass the government machinery altogether."
Link

Before they can attempt this however, there is going to have to be a serious shift in the ideaologies of the major players. Unemployment, and the power struggles that lend cause to the unemployment rate has to be addressed. If they are ever going to work together in a national sense, they are going to have to find a way to trust one another. As illustrated in the following two links:

Years of political turmoil, U.S.-imposed sanctions and war have devastated Iraq's workforce. Hundreds of thousands of skilled professionals have left the country. Businesses have closed. Insurgents and thugs have targeted professors, doctors and businesspeople, killing them, abducting them or driving them out of their jobs and out of Iraq. Even as sectarian violence subsides, the options are limited for those who remain. Shiite Muslims, who say they were held back from good jobs under Saddam Hussein's Sunni Muslim-led regime, complain that corruption and violence now limit their opportunities. Sunni Arabs say they are discriminated against as payback for Hussein's past mistreatment of Shiites, who now dominate the government.
Link

and

Key benchmarks Washington is using to measure progress in Iraq are the adoption of a law regulating the oil and gas industry, and a law allowing former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party back into the government.

Shiite and Sunni legislators recently clashed over the controversial de-Baathification measure, which is stalled in the Iraqi parliament. Corruption and sectarian strive within the Ministry of Interior -- in charge of Iraq's police -- remains a major problem, while corruption "at all levels of the oil industry remains a significant problem." The report notes that the Maliki administration has also failed to improve the supply of water and electricity.
Link

There has to be a hope of stability for Iraq to prosper. With suicide attacks and EFP attacks on the rise, Iraqi's are quite probably waiting to see if the surge was successful, or if we had merely witnessed a lull in the violence, as has happened before.

I found an OpEd in the January 15th edition of USA Today that I would have used as an opener for this thread. James Reston highlights my first question in a sense by asking, why aren't the presidential candidates really talking about a post-war plan for Iraq? The Republicans are falling all over themselves in a contest of who supported Bush the most, while Democrats are doing the same with who supported Bush the least. None seem to have any viable plan for Iraq. No compromise, no critical thought. Either stay the course or pull out. Of course, staying the course is naive and simply pulling out is irresponsible. So while candidates [even Romney unbelievably] are all calling for change, none are offering any rational discourse as to what change they would bring to the subject of Iraq.

A year from now, no matter who is elected, this country will inaugurate a postwar president. Depending on the continued success of the troop surge, the growing confidence of Iraqi authority and the safety of the withdrawal, the details might be different. But essentially, the nightmare of Iraq will be over and a new era of U.S. history will begin. So why are none of the candidates putting forward their vision of the post-Iraq era in America?

The desperate imperative of the post-Iraq era is to repair the terrible damage that this war has done to the basic fabric of the nation and to its standing in the world. Reconciliation and reconstruction after Iraq is the great undiscussed issue of this campaign. The voters in the primaries should be asking themselves who among the candidates has the right temperament to preside over the healing of the nation.
USA Today

I don't necessarily agree with all of the solutions Reston puts forth, but he gives us more than the candidates are.

It's easy for a writer to dream up solutions to any particular problem. Reston has the advantage of not running for public office, so he can envision any darn thing he wants. He won't have to pay for it.

Richard Nixon announced his secret plan to end the Vietnam conflict when he ran for POTUS. It had to be secret because he basically did not have a clue. That's where the candidates are, they really don't know how to make Iraq better.

The Demos are wanting to pull out ASAP, and all I can say is that I agree with the idea. Whether this is the best way to go is beyond me, but I haven't seen anything convincing that would cause me to declare, "Hey, the neo-cons were right all along! Foolish old me, good thing I wasn't in control of this thing." But no, the direct opposite has happened. I don't trust their opinions on the price of bread, let alone international politics.

The Republicans make no indication that they'd do anything different. I do not agree with that, and I am certain that a Republican POTUS will mean more of the same. Maybe the Libertarians are right that a Democratic POTUS will not make a difference either, but I doubt it.

Meanwhile maybe somebody with the power to make a difference will pay attention to Reston and try some of his ideas. Maybe not. He needs to run for office to up the chances of his ideas being anything but black marks on shiny paper. Even if he gets office his ideas may not fly. The difference in positions is highly significant between those who govern and those who write about those who govern, like the difference between a sports commentator and a pro football player.

This is not to say that commentary is useless. It serves an important part of the whole buzzing and thrumming of discourse, no matter what the subject. It's just that running for public office and putting forth some kind of solution for the Iraq situation would at this time be self-destructive politically, even a secret plan. So you get the vague generalizations.

I imagine too that it depends on who gets cabinet positions, consulting slots, that sort of thing. It's just too early to figure out what to do next, and the present administration still calls the shots.

I hear what you’re saying AM. Instead of really tackling the largest issue in American foreign policy for this generation, and showing voters why they should be the person at the helm, the majority of candidates are being intentionally vague. But is that the standard we should expect from presidential candidates? Should we not expect at least a synopsis of a long term plan, complete with answers to some major what if’s?

For example, the Republican candidates are praising the “success” of the surge, and vowing to continue the Bush plan, but only in relevance to the surge actually being successful and the political benchmarks being met. Today Moqtada Al-Sadr proclaimed that the Jaysh Al-Mahdi cease fire may not be extended, and is due to expire next month. If that happens, we will be back where we were in May-June-July. I want to know what the next Republican president would do if the surge is an utter failure.

Radical Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr put the United States and the Iraqi government on notice Friday that he may not extend a six-month cease-fire by his militia.
Link

Meanwhile, Sadr's militia may be asserting mafia-like control over the poor Shi'ite areas where it has long provided the services and security the government has not. "What you do have is, the Mahdi Army, Inc.," said Petraeus, backing up an earlier assessment by U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker. The militia has come to dominate not simply by force, but also by controlling staples like fuel and electricity.

Thus, in contrast to AQI, the Mahdi Army enters 2008 with its military capability and its base of support largely intact. If the political or military dynamic changes in 2008, the militia's leadership could just as easily choose to once again unleash its fighters. By mid-summer the surge will be over, and U.S. troop strength will be back where it was in late 2006. So, if the cease-fire does end, the U.S. will not be fighting with the 30,000 reinforcements that contributed to the gains of 2007. It will also face an adversary with strong support in Shi'ite communities and elements of the Iraqi government. At that point it may be the U.S., rather than its foe, that will have to make a tough choice about whether it can or should continue to fight.
Link

The Democratic candidates want to leave, either immediately or on a timeline extending through the next 2-3 years. If the surge is a failure, would they hasten the pullout? What diplomatic and aid actions might they undertake coinciding with the withdrawal?

Neither party seems to offer anything close to specifics on Iraq. We will be forced to choose in November between 'cut and run' or 'stay the course', with neither side publicly confronting the dynamics of the current situation nor possible obstacles.

Finally, I want an indication of just how much taxpayer money is going to be sunk into Iraq. When is enough going to be enough?

Finally, I want an indication of just how much taxpayer money is going to be sunk into Iraq. When is enough going to be enough?

Ah, taxpayer money and soldiers lives- it seems in endless supply when we talk about Iraq, but something like "global warming" or "universal health care" is too expensive.

the coffers are never empty when we talk war- but always empty when we talk about helping our own.

Any post surge strategy will also have to "close the books" regarding the cost of this war. how many trillions for health care for returning vets will we have to spend?

Who knows, and no one is asking the questions, and the one that has the answers- no one wants to hear.

1.) Seemingly the only direction from here: Up. Key aspects of a post-Iraqi Surge world will be bolstering the diplomatic corps of this nation and attempting to rebuild clout and goodwill with other nations. America has been in a unique position since the collapse of the Iron Curtain as the planet's sole superpower and it will take some magic on the part of our foreign service officers to sustain and deserve such responsibility.

On the domestic-front, tens of thousands of veterans and their families will require benefits, expenses, compensations, etc. that will strain the Veterans' Administration beyond the breaking point. One reason to be anti-war is the realization that each conflict creates a new wave of veterans for which to provide. And yes, we have a moral obligation to provide for their service. The fiscal burden will overload the system, and that must be redressed now.

Politically, we as a whole have to get out of the Starbucks line and get back into the magical land of realism. There's a war going on. While it may've been an important issue for a little bit, most of us forget it every time we step into a department store. The politics of fear don't work so well at driving the message home, but there's a healthy middle ground that deserves exploring in order to shock the nation back into having a vested interest in the well-being of our soldiers. Not accusing anyone of not, just saying that as a whole, the economy trumps the war in the polls.

2.) A failure on the part of the Iraqi government, a victory for our forces. It's terrific that our forces were able to quell the violence, but when Iraq fails to meet political expectations that it set for itself, I would call that a failure if ever there was one. What's the point of sending additional troops if a "back in five" sign hangs on the door of parliament?

3.) I briefly touched on the issue in item one. It'll take years to overcome the burden we've placed on the Middle-East. Our occupation has been an imposition to the development of a sovereign nation and removed it from its natural evolution. Would history have been different if we had not invaded? Certainly. Would Hussein have really attacked America? It does not seem likely since according to Bush he had the means prior to the invasion.

But to overcome the theory that the children of Iraqis today are tomorrow's terrorists and give us the kick out the door, Iraq has to play ball. Recent comments from Iraq's second-in-command of the military certainly buffet any argument for gradual troop withdrawal, but it will take a strong pro-American Middle-Eastern presence to repair some of the damage wrought. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia don't begin to cut it in the pro-democracy front. From a diplomatic standpoint, the best thing we can do is to form a democracy and then leave.

However, history has showed the whole region unfriendly to foreign occupation [Crusades, anyone?] and it is likely bad blood will exist for the next few centuries. Something for future Americans to look forward to.

That's been one of my major points for a while now. Not only does healthy democracy need to grow from within, instead being imposed from without, but we are the catalyst for violence in Iraq. If we were only engaged in combat with AQI, the case could be made that we were fighting for Iraqi's against an enemy of Iraq. But we're fighting Iraqi's. As long as we remain in Iraq [easily 100 years according to McCain], then violence will exist, not only against us, but also using our presence as a proxy to fight opposing sects.

I have a copy of a GAO report titled Focus Groups on Reconciliation in Iraq. I can't find it on the web, but I will keep looking. Nineteen focus groups were conducted between November 9-16, 2007, with men and women who were interviewed separately in the cities of Ramadi, Najaf (al-Ameer neighborhood), Irbil, Abu Ghraib, and Baghdad. Although several groups focused mainly on the positive aspects of the recent security improvements, most would describe the negative elements of life in Iraq beginning with the “U.S. occupation” in March 2003.

The key findings were summerized as follows:

First, there is a strong contention that until the U.S. military intervention in 2003, all Iraqis had co-existed peacefully for decades, despite differences in their sects or religious faiths. “Iraqi people were brothers, but they separated as Sunnis and Shiites since the day the American occupiers came to Iraq,” said a Shi’a man from Abu Ghraib.

Second, there is another consensus that this “tragic situation” was brought on by factions outside of Iraq, and is believed to have little to do with Iraqis themselves. Blame is directed toward the United States for the initial intervention, and then at insurgent groups or militias believed to have affiliations with neighboring countries (Iran is widely mentioned, but so are Syria, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia) who are perceived to be exploiting the resulting turmoil for their own purposes.

Several participants volunteered reasons for those foreign interventions. Americans, they say, want to control Iraq for the single purpose of controlling the nation’s vast oil reserves, and the Iranians want to extend their political, economic, and religious agendas into Iraq.

Third, a majority of participants emphasize that security is much improved in the last several months, and they cite al-Sahwa, or the Awakening Movement that began in Anbar province as both a prime example and a workable model for other regions.

And the US response? Karen DeYoung from the Washington Post wrote an article about the GAO study, which says:

Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of "occupying forces" as the key to national reconciliation, according to focus groups conducted for the U.S. military last month.

That is good news, according to a military analysis of the results. At the very least, analysts optimistically concluded, the findings indicate that Iraqis hold some "shared beliefs" that may eventually allow them to surmount the divisions that have led to a civil war.

Interesting theory. Iraq is showing progress because disparate groups are showing common beliefs about wanting the US occupiers out or Iraq? I foresee no means for the healing to begin until we pull forces out and stop de facto running the Baghdad government.

Looks like AQ is not doing well and may be less of a factor as time goes on.

“ Al-Qaeda in Iraq faces an “extraordinary crisis”. Last year's mass defection of ordinary Sunnis from al-Qaeda to the US military “created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight”. The terrorist group's security structure suffered “total collapse”.
These are the words not of al-Qaeda's enemies but of one of its own leaders in Anbar province — once the group's stronghold. They were set down last summer in a 39-page letter seized during a US raid on an al-Qaeda base near Samarra in November.
That second document is a bitter 16-page testament written last October by a local al-Qaeda leader near Balad, north of Baghdad. “I am Abu-Tariq, emir of the al-Layin and al-Mashahdah sector,” the author begins. He goes on to describe how his force of 600 shrank to fewer than 20.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle3346386.ece

As you can see by recent events, Ted.........AQI has been rather busy since last October, when this letter/diary was written. Car bombs and suicide vest bombers in Baghdad, major offensive in Mosul, continued operations in the DRV (Diyala River Valley)...........
There is no danger of AQI usurping power at the national level in Iraq, but they will continue to be a player [the major player as long as JAM is on the sidelines] until we leave Iraq. We are the catalyst for AQI's presence. Not long after we leave, they will whither and die, as the Sunni and Shia militia's will be able to turn their attention on them.

I have seen and it is obvious DTOM they are now desperate. The recent bombing where they wired up two incompetent women without their permission and detonated them “remotely” tell you something.
Do you think theses tactics are winning them supporters – or the opposite?
Imo are doing anything to raise the body count now as we go into the election season. I am sure the strategy is to get a person in the WH who will pull out while they still have a chance to help take Iraq.

Where does US policy, both political and military, go from here? For success, what dynamics need to be addressed, that haven't been?
Politically, there needs to be greater outcry over signing statements which contribute to a permanent Iraqi presence. Mr. Bush has used them to great effect, most recently with the Defense Act which placed restrictions on base spending.



Militarily, I cannot see increasing the air support to cover withdrawl as useful to either policy or humanitarian aims so every effort should be made to curtail their use. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) paints a rather bleak picture as troops achem "sorta withdraw".

Does a decrease in violence, but a lack of political movement signal success or failure of the surge?
I cannot speculate at this time. I can predict with some confidence that time is not on America's side. My personal opinion is that there is not a 100% agreement on withdrawl and as a consequence there have been conflicting signals as to the timeframe and the strategy. IE dilly-dallying.

In the eyes of Iraqi's and other Middle Easterners, are we promoting democracy and peace, or are we imperialists bent on military/economic occupation? If it's the latter, how do we overcome that view?
I would recommend calling the Syrian delegate and setting a joint task force which provides aid to the refugees. By doing so you pull the Assad government into your sphere of influence and force them to take an active role in providing and monitoring the influx of Iraqis. I would then provide financial incentives to all neighbouring countries handling refugees including Iran. By doing so would fly completely in the face of the last 5 years of misinformation involvling secret cabals and is the only way left to really contradict Bush. What needs to happen is the freeing of capital for these countries so that the growing drug problems of Afghanistan and Diyala province do not follow these refugees who are just looking to survive and blossom into surrogate militias. The idea is simple, some militias bad, more militias worse (or badder if you are talking in Bushisms...)

How is it 'obvious' that they're desparate? You write as if you have a great insight into the philosophy of AQI. The use of the two incompetant women was ingenious on their part, no worries about the bomber having second thoughts, and who's going to pay attention to those two in the market? Is the offensive in Mosul desparate?

AQI is intent on keeping US forces leashed to a chaotic Iraq, draining money and manpower. Their 'desparate acts' go farther to wear down the US militarily and economically at less of a cost and more of a certainty than attempting a terrorist act on US soil. And we play right into their hands by remaining in Iraq.

see my post above and this:

Sunday, February 10, 2008
BAGHDAD — A diary and another document seized during U.S. raids show some Al Qaeda in Iraq leaders fear the terror group is crumbling, with many fighters defecting to American-backed neighborhood groups, the U.S. military said Sunday.
The military revealed two documents discovered by American troops in November: a 39-page memo written by a mid- to high-level Al Qaeda official with knowledge of the group's operations in Iraq's western Anbar province, and a 16-page diary written by another group leader north of Baghdad.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330235,00.html

Yes, Ted.....we know about the diary and the memo, which are believed to have been written 7 or 8 months ago as stated by your own link. So I ask again, how is it obvious that AQI is desparate? I'm not asking for some sort of vacuous rhetoric where you'll call AQI stupid or morons, or how our boys are just kicken' butt Team USA style.

I am asking for a serious response as to why you believe that AQI is depsarate or wishes the next president to be one who pulls troops out of Iraq. The fact that we are still in Iraq is their greatest victory yet.

And I ask you are they doing better today than 8 months ago? Is blowing up incompetent women by remote control not a sign that they are having trouble recruiting suicide bombers. Is anything they said 8 months ago not valid today?

Do the recent bombings as above mean they are “back” to you – with local support and aid?

Gosh Ted, thanks for answering my question to you with a question.

I'll answer your and maybe you will respond in kind. I believe AQI is doing better than they were 8 months ago. They have never been able to get their feet back on the ground strategically since alienating many of the Sunni Tribes, but tactically they remain on par as a threat compared to a year ago. AQI remains adaptable at tactical levels by altering targeting methods and reacting to shifting security operations, as we have seen recently. This isn't a last gasp [to quote Cheney oh so long ago] this is adaptation and improvisation. Another example of this is target selection. Since the surge forces hampered operations in Baghdad, they have chosen other locales in which to strike, emphasizing areas where rifts could be caused between Sunni Security Groups and US/ISF forces, as we see in the Mosul region.
That they are not cohesive at a national level isn't much cause for joy, since fragmented cell and local networks are often more able and willing to conduct spectacular attacks such as the recent market bombings and Suicide vehicle borne IED's.

So Ted, are you going to answer my question, and possibly relate it to your opinon of where future strategy should take us in Iraq [or out of Iraq]?



It would appear that there's virtually no chance of this administration engaging anybody on the diplomatic front.

The White House on Wednesday issued an order expanding sanctions against Syria, saying the nation's leaders have engaged in a pattern of violating human rights in their own country and harmed the peace and stability of other nations in the region, including Iraq.
In the executive order, President Bush accuses Syria of actions "including, but not limited to, undermining efforts with respect to the stabilization of Iraq."
CNN

My view from what I read here is that the “popularity” of AQI is at an all time low and dropping. Imo they cannot “recover’ as too many Iraqi’s see them as the enemy at this point.
Certainly they will find ways to kill people going forward but will that really “help” them or further alienate them from a population (or segments of it) that they need to support them. They could, at some point, become a crime problem as opposed to a military force of any magnitude. They be at that point now.

The biggest problem is still the unification of the disparate groups at a local and national level. I don’t believe all segments of the population will ever love all others but there could come a time that they agree to work together for the greater good (of a unified Iraq). If the central government cannot do what is required to pull this off over the next year or so it will be a problem.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8021202350.html

Ted, the entire idea that AQI is popular and/or relevant is absurd.

When we invaded, there was no Al Qaida in Iraq. After we invaded, Muslim nutjobs took the name to give themselves credibility. They didn't move from Afghanistan or Pakistan - those idiots stayed there. The new terrorists in Iraq were not terrorists before we got there.

On top of that, they are less than 5% of the problem. So, how does someone enjoying low credibility or popularity make themselves more relevant than what they are? They use people like you as tools. Ted, you are the voice of Al Qaida. You give them what they can't do themselves.

They happend to be the little group that set off and fanned the sectarian violence - or did you miss that DR

This just in:

"After months of gridlock in Baghdad, Iraqi lawmakers overcame their differences to pass three key laws yesterday, including two legislative benchmarks set by the U.S. Congress to measure the country's political progress amid the continuing U.S. troop presence there. The passage of the three bills is being hailed as a significant development toward reconciliation, particularly among Iraq's Sunni and Shiite factions, although analysts caution that serious hurdles remain.
The three measures passed yesterday include approval of the $48 million budget for 2008, an amnesty bill for Iraqi prisoners, and legislation outlining provincial powers and paving the way for elections later this year. The latter two are considered crucial benchmarks of Iraqi political progress.
To help smooth passage after months of bitter debate and political deadlock, the three provisions were bundled together into a single bill, which allowed members dissatisfied with one or more measures to accept them as a whole.
http://thegate.nationaljournal.com/2008/02...eak_impasse.php

No more so than the Sunni and Shia milita's themselves. Are you implying that we should remain in Iraq as long as AQI remains in Iraq?

Yes. What better place to have bases than Iraq? Right in the middle of an area vital to our economy, security and self interest.

Why are we maintaining major troop deployments in Japan, Germany, etc?

What is the major security threat to the US in South Korea? Esp. after we helped the north get nukes? All we can do is die if that attack the south.

"The U.S. role in Korea was motivated by the sudden attack from North Korea, which ultimately served to validate the strategy of containment, that is, the need to aggressively contain communist ambitions. Only 510 servicemen were based in South Korea in 1950, prior to the attack. U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) records show that 326,863 troops were deployed in South Korea in 1953, a number that stabilized between 50,000 and 60,000 in the 1960s and 1970s. A slow draw¬down continued as troops averaged 40,000 in the 1980s and 35,000 in the 1990s."


http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalS...ty/cda04-11.cfm

We've tackled this argument before. There is no comparison between Iraq and Korea/Japan/Germany. None. None of the three listed nations had a resistance/insurgent movement after the war. And I don't believe that we should maintain troops in those nations any longer.

But it is arguable almost to the point of being fact, that as long as we remain in Iraq, there will be at the very least, a low level insurgency by Iraqi nationalists. Add to that, our presence in a muslim nation will continue to recruit and motivate AQ and other outside groups to attack us. So you're hegemonic, imperialistic point of view would consign X number of American soldiers to die every month, every year.....to occupy a nation whose populace doesn't particularly want us there, especially since our presence will continue to fan the flames of sectarian violence.

Don't you get it? Your plan is counter to American economy, security and self interest. Not to mention un-American.

Could be but if the level is low enough and it will be some day than Iraqi security forces should be able to deal with most of it.

Since the dopes we have in the Congress have failed miserably to wean us from dependence on foreign oil imo we having a base in Iraq makes one hell of a lot more sense than having troops scattered all over the world for the last 60 years. And the government says they do want us there. When that changes we should leave.

So to recap, you're OK with near perpetual American casualties? The paradigm of infidel western armed forces perpetually stationed on muslim holy land is a situation that you are good with? That's worked out for us so well in the past......

Strangely, the administration's line up to recently has been "oh no, we wouldn't dream of permanent bases in Iraq, that's just arab street paranoia...."

Now the heir apparent for Bush's third term is quite adamant about exactly the opposite. Well, it wouldn't be American foreign policy if it weren't hypocritical....

Of course the 'Government of the Green Zone' wants us to stay in Iraq. It wouldn't exist without our presence and our supervision. For a novel approach, why don't we consider what the Iraqi people want instead of what we want? Or is that type of 'democracy' not what we're really trying to export?

We have “with near perpetual American casualties” in every country we have troops posted and have had for 60 years. At some point you have to say – where should we post troops to safeguard our vital interests and I think more people would say the ME than Japan – all day long.


So do you really believe that if we never came or left now that the “Iraqi people” would decide on their government? You have to be kidding.

the 'Government of the Green Zone' – is still a government (actually elected) as opposed to a brutal dictatorship. Do you really "know" what the "iraqi people" want?

"Angelina Jolie: US Must Stay In Iraq
February 29, 2008 8:01 AM

In a Washington Post op-ed all-but-ignored by most of the media, actress and United Nations High Commission for Refugees goodwill ambassador Angelina Jolie writes seems to make the case against an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

"My visit left me even more deeply convinced that we not only have a moral obligation to help displaced Iraqi families, but also a serious, long-term, national security interest in ending this crisis," she writes.

"Today's humanitarian crisis in Iraq -- and the potential consequences for our national security -- are great. Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won't explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder? "

"What we cannot afford, in my view, is to squander the progress that has been made. ...As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible…"



http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...lina-jolie.html

That’s news to me….we’ve had soldiers killed by insurgents in Japan, Germany and Korea for the last 60 years? I’ve been stationed in two of the three and have never been shot at or blown up.



And I contend that the location best suited for our safety and national interests is in the United States. I realize that a great many people will disagree with me on this point, but I am of the mind that like all empires before us, this too will end if we maintain our present course. I’m not looking to hasten the fall.



It’s certainly a possibility. Dictators have been overthrown from within or have died on numerous occasions, leading to a change in government. There’s really no reason to believe that it could not have occurred in Iraq, with possibly far less bloodshed and chaos.



Do you?

The Washington Post recently had a great article about George Washington’s instructions to General Arnold on the prospect of invading Canada. In part it reads:

First, if the citizens don't want us there, don't go. Washington told Arnold, "You are by every means in your power to endeavour to discover the real sentiments of the Canadians towards our cause, and particularly as to this expedition; ever bearing in mind that if they are averse to it, and will not co-operate, or at least willingly acquiesce, it must fail of success. In this case you are by no means to prosecute the attempt."

Second, the safety of American personnel depended on how they treated people.

Third, proper treatment of prisoners was necessary.

Fourth, any Americans who mistreated Canadians should be punished.

Fifth, respect the people's religion.

My how we squander lessons from our forefathers……

Dear god........did you really post something by Angelina Jolie???

Your right I disagree. To run from Iraq and let Iran “fill the vacuum” seems insane to me. If this was the middle of Africa or southeast Asia I would agree but not in the ME with the US married to the oil and out government can’t even agree to let us drill for out own oil.

The Washington Post recently had a great article about George Washington’s instructions to General Arnold on the prospect of invading Canada. In part it reads:

My point is that by being there we allow the Iraqi people to determine the future rather than turn the country over to, what would surely be warring factions with Iran coming in heavily on the Shiite side hoping to install a dictator they would have control of.

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008...n-iraq-pullout/

Many soldiers there don't agree with you either.

"FORWARD OPERATING BASE SYKES, Iraq, Nov. 5 -- For the U.S. troops fighting in Iraq, the war is alternately violent and hopeful, sometimes very hot and sometimes very cold. It is dusty and muddy, calm and chaotic, deafeningly loud and eerily quiet.

The one thing the war is not, however, is finished, dozens of soldiers across the country said in interviews. And leaving Iraq now would have devastating consequences, they said."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6110500770.html

I would hope that you can understand that your fears have come to pass more than you may realize. The major players in Iraq are the Shia, due to demographics. The major Shia players are the Badr Corps, ISCI [and Maliki's Dawa Party] and Jaysh Al-Mahdi. The Badr Corps was taken in by Iran during the last half of Saddam's reign. The ISCI/Dawa are heavily influenced by Iranaian clerics and the Iranian Government. And JAM has continually received training, arms and cadre from Iran since our invasion. Iran's influence is already huge in Iraq.

What happens if/when the Iraqi people determine that they wish to live in an Islamic Theocratic State, or simply as a nation free from western/infidel influence? Do you still support their right to self determination?



That's true, many don't agree with me for various reasons and levels of knowledge. But there's many who do agree with me. Unfortunately, I've found that the opposing viewpoints don't seem to find their way to meet and greets with visiting reporters, or asked to speak a moment on a PAO uploaded YouTube video. Unfortunately many soldiers are bombarded with official propoganda such as the MND-B Chaplain stating two days ago that 'our being in Iraq is all part of Gods plan'. I guess God doesn't particularly care for Iraqi's.

Now, you were saying something about American soldiers being killed perpetually in Korea, Japan and Germany during those occupations?

In the eyes of Iraqi’s and other Middle Easterners, are we promoting democracy and peace, or are we imperialists bent on military/economic occupation? If it's the latter, how do we overcome that view?

Clearly the later! It's hard to overcome because it is true. This is one of the few times Ted is right. We have always been there for the oil and geopolitical control of the region. Take a look at these UPPC introductory remarks and the Army Times Article.



Of course, even judged from an imperialistic perspective, the project has been a massive failure thus far with oil at 4 times pre-invasion prices and the dollar continuing its fall.

Yes



Accidents which may not have happened if they were not deployed over seas. I believe we need not keep troops deployed in countries like Japan and Germany or even South Korea. As a minimum we should have pulled out after 1990 – as Clinton butchered the Army he should have brought the troops back home.



So your contention is we would have been safer if we had let Saddam have Kuwait and NCB weapons amidst ½ the world's oil?

Excellent. So you support the actions of the various militia's who are attempting to rid Iraq of western influence, and determine the course of their nation on their own?



So we agree that we need not garrison the post-WWII and post-Korea countries. Are you however, attempting to liken the counter-insurgency casualties that we will incur with accidents and injuries, ala McCain's 100 years in Iraq?



The case for our safety can easily be made by stating that not going into Iraq would have saved 4000 American lives, not swelled the ranks of Al Qaeda, not made enemies of many more groups.......and could we possibly be paying much more for barrels of oil?

?

Silly question DTOM. No I support the elected government and that process. The militia don’t want an elected anything they want a dictatorship lead by their faction – as you well know.




Obviously we need to have some presence for some time to come and that is what McCain is referring to as I suspect you clearly know. Certainly when the country is peaceful. And under government control we should minimize our forces. But in this region we need to have a long term presence – perhaps 10- 15 years depending on the actions of countries like Iran, Syria, etc.




So you would have let him have Kuwait?

AQ was never stronger than in the 90s and they can always get all the poor cannon fodder they need in the ME. But Saddam with nukes and owning Kuwait would not be pretty.

We are far too dependant on oil to allow the ME to be dominated by a nutcase like Saddam imo.

One reason oil is high today is the war, others include the week dollar and of course OPEC.

We as well, with the Dems in control of Congress, show no desire or inclination to actually drill for oil right off our coasts or in Alaska – so the longer we are thus STUPID the longer we will be in Iraq protecting the oil that drives our 15.5 Trillion $$$ economy – and with good reason.

Wait.......I'm confused. Now you support the Iraqi's right to self determination only if it is on US terms? You're now certainly in favor of disenfranchising a huge part of the population who want nothing more than western influence removed from their nation. You know, sort of like if a foreign power were attempting to impose Sha'ria law on the United States.



Kuwait is/was no more free and democratic than Iraq was, and Kuwait was historically part of Iraq. Those reasons at least make the subject up for debate.



But would it be uglier than thousands of Americans dead and wounded.......and counting? You're trying to equate fact with supposition.



I know exactly what McW is referring to. And the prospect of an occupation of Iraq that is remotely peaceful is around zero. Which is aside from the fact that such an occupation is colonial and imperialistic. Which is aside from the fact that with economy as it is, dumping money down the Iraq drain is just about the most economically retarded plan. These are things I guess modern conservatives have no problem with.

Thousands of civilians dead in the US. Clearly AQ does not have infinite resources – no country, army or organization does. IMO if we were not tying up lots of fighters, resources, planners and money in Iraq we would have seen more effort into attacks on the US which could have been more costly in lives and economic damage than the war in Iraq.


I disagree. If we win the “war” and are an ally to a free country. One that has adopted an elected government – regardless of how they modify it in the future – we need to support them as we did Germany, Japan or any other country. Even if the country decided to become an “Islamic state” (more so than their current Constitution allows) we should maintain them as an ally in the region.

As I said, what better place in the whole dam world is there to have “bases” than in an area as critical to out self interest than the ME. There is none – period.

Ah the 'fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here' line. The problem with your theory is that it is based wholly on hope and not a bit on fact. If we were in Iraq fighting against AQ and only AQ, your theory may hold water. But we spend more time, effort and resources fighting Iraq nationalists and Islamists who want nothing more than for us to leave their country. The hypocrisy of our actions is palpable.



I see....and you think we can 'win' the war obviously. So we can 'win' against AQI, simultaneously 'win' against the Sunni insurgents, simultaneously 'win' against the Shia [and by proxy Iran] while at the same time this ally nation, our colony is being invaded by Turkey in the north.

And the Iraqi's who do not want western presence, who do not want permanent military occupation, who do not want a perpetual insurgency, there just out of luck I guess? What makes you think [or fervently hope] that the insurgency will ever whither and die completely? It has shown no signs of that after five years; the top stated goal of every insurgent group is to rid Iraq of US presence.

The realistic viewpoint is that a permanent presence of US forces on Shia holy land will not only permanently fuel nationalists to attack us, but draw foreign jihadists to attack us.....consinging Americans to certain death every day we are there. You're cool with that?

Unsurprisingly for this administration, the NIE due to be released in April will likely be kept secret instead of making it available to the public. That's odd, if so much improvement had taken place due to the surge, and since last September......I surely would have thought the good news would be released.........

A new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq is scheduled to be completed this month, according to U.S. intelligence officials. But leaders of the intelligence community have not decided whether to make its key judgments public, a step that caused an uproar when key judgments in an NIE about Iran were released in November.

The classified estimate on Iraq is intended as an update of last summer's assessment, which predicted modest security improvements but an increasingly precarious political situation there, the U.S. officials said.
WaPo

Surely things can't be bad in Iraq........

Well the issue is more than how much time we spend fighting other elements in Iraq but how much time, money, effort, and people AQ spends in Iraq. And since Bin Laden himself has said this is the “front” against the US devils I say it is a lot – so back to my first point – bolstered by the fact that AQ has not succeeded here or even in Europe and Africa to attack our interests anywhere near what they did in the 90s – and this with what you claim is expanded (fueled) resources.



Certainly.



It may not but when the Iraqi forces are up to full or nearly full strength and capability they can handle it. And most of our troops can come home.



Possible – but will we leave Saudi Arabia (which is why BL started this "war")? How about abandoning Israel? All issues with the same effect. Sure we can run and hide but – will it matter?

So what is your strategy for winnin the war Mr "Certainly?" - genocide, more men we don't have, more resources we don't have? Al-Quaida has done an excellent job of using minimal resources while we use massive resources with no goal or end in site. We have a problem getting enough recruits- they have millions being born and recruited every day. They use low-tech against our high-tech. People that have nothing to lose against an enemy with nothing to win- there is good plan for ya Ted!

The Iraqi "troops" are loyal to whom Ted? You think they are loyal to the "green zone" goverment or thier own tribal factions, who do you think they will fight if called to fight against thier countrymen?

Let's not forget that the Prez of Iran was greeted with flowers and parades, and though the GW regime proclaimed WE would be greeted as liberaters- it turns out Iran is being greeted as liberators.

We have an entire nation that sees us as a bad guy, over 5 milllion refugees, and a completely destroyed infrastructure that we destroyed initially and have not been able to repair.

The far and above majority of ALL Iraqis, including the rich and the leaders- live in abject fear of kidnapping, murder and runaway crime and assasination. Everbody in that country that was alive the day we invaded were doing better in that country that right at this moment.

I mean, damn, Ted, the surge didn't make things better than under Saddam, the surge made things temporarily not as bad

I guess we will have to see who wins the election as to a "pre-surge strategy"- but lets face it, there really hasn't been a "strategy" since we invaded accept "um, let's um, walk around over here, then, um, over here, lets look at some stuff over there, build a wall here- okay- why at they shooting at us again? "

Since Saudi Arabia is the #1 contributor of man, machines and materials of terrorism in the world- ya, walking away from Saudi Arabia and washing our hands of that toilet of the world would not be a bad idea. Let all the extremist factions go to war against each other and let them wipe themselves out- hey- give them what they want- and see if it is a good thing to have your "wants" realized.

Israel? Well, there are more Jews in the US than in Israel, yep, and allow all Jews in Israel that want to immigrate do so- let the Arabs have that as well. They can have the whole damn desert.

That doesn’t make any sense. The time, effort and resources that we have to expend fighting the Sunni and Shia militia groups takes away from fighting against AQI.



How do you square that theory with the fact that the Iraqi Security Forces are rife with militia and AQI infiltration, corruption and apathy?

An interesting point that I’ve noticed from various supporters of the Iraq war. They wish to believe that the Government of the Green Zone and the Iraqi Security Forces are entities of democracy and good, and represent some homogeneous Iraqi desire for law, order and self determination.
They would also lead others to believe that we must maintain our support for this feeble government as a bulwark against Iran. This idea is the most perplexing, since even a casual study of the religious, social and geo-political dynamics of the region speaks much differently than what the Bush administration would let the public believe. Net2007 has gone so far to say that Iran is the enemy of our friends in Iraq.

A little background on who runs the Maliki Government- our ally- may be in order. The most powerful ministry in the GoI is the Ministry of the Interior (MoI), which among other functions controls the National Police and the Iraqi Police. The MoI is controlled absolutely by the Badr Organization, formerly the Badr Corps.
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force (QF) was until 2003, comprised of 4 subordinate commands. The 4th command was the Badr Corps, comprised of Shia exiles and dissidents who had fled Saddam’s regime. The Badr Corps is the military arm of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) which is an even larger player in government functions and in providing social services to Iraqi’s. After the fall of the Hussein regime, Badr Corps changed its militia leaning and became more of a political organization under ISCI.
They renamed themselves the Badr Organization and separated from the QF. While Badr is no longer a subordinate command of the QF, reporting indicates that BADR and ISCI are heavily supported by Iran through the QF. Reporting further indicates that this support is to the tune of over $70 million a year.

I’ve spoken on many occasions of Iranian support to Jaysh Al-Mahdi and the Office of the Martyr Sadr. Although Badr and JAM/OMS are at odds and frequent battle against one another, they are both supported by Iran. Think of Badr as more of the white collar, educated Shia idealists….and JAM/OMS as the unemployed, undereducated blue collar Shia. While Badr continues to receive support from IRGC-Quds Force, JAM receives most from the Tala’at, which is a type of special operations militia separate from QF

It is then the epitome of absurdity to think that while we support the GoI, we are standing firm against Iran. The administrations line in this regard is an embedded fallacy. Absolutely laughable.

The second theme is the Administration’s desire to label our fight in Iraq as a battle against Al Qaeda; this speaks volumes towards the absurdity of our being there in the first place. The WMD theme didn’t work; the regime toppling-democracy building theme isn’t going well…..so even though our invasion invited AQ into Iraq, the party line is that we must fight them over there, so we don’t fight them over here. This of course is based purely on hypothesis, and the case is easily made that our continued presence in Iraq has served and is serving as a wildly successful recruitment tool for AQI.

We have left the Wahabi Sunni holy land of Saudi Arabia and entrenched ourselves in Shia holy land of Iraq, devastating the country, degrading our military and ruining our economy. Osama bin Laden [if alive] must be feeling as if he has won Allah’s Holy Lottery.

Another dynamic that doesn’t get talked about among Iraq war supporters is the psychological impact that a continued occupation has on soldiers. Most service members are smart enough to realize that WMD didn’t pan out, so we are occupying a nation that was not a threat to us. The continued presence, extended tours and trauma inflicted on both soldiers and Iraqi’s is already being felt as the services scramble to find more mental health professionals, as suicides and desertions rise, and as diagnosis’s of PTSD increase. The longer we remain in Iraq, the more these effects are going to occur. Does this constitute ‘supporting the troops’? Do affixing yellow ribbons to one’s car assuage this trauma?

Soldiers will find various methods to cope with this trauma; some will force themselves to believe that they are truly fighting for a just cause, or God's will or whatever. Some will turn it inwards, leading to depression and unfortunately violence upon returning home. And some will take risks and play fast and loose with life, which also endangers the lives of their brothers around them. But make no mistake, the trauma of this war will, in the end, far surpass what we have seen from vietnam........and we are still dealing with the efffects of that war.

War is a black symphony, and when our soldiers aren’t fighting for American national security, it is a waste of the very lives that many claim to support.

You miss my point. AQ will use its resources to fight us here there or elsewhere. They cannot fight full strength on all fronts at all times – soooooo by definition if they are putting great effort in to defeating us in Iraq, and they are, they have fewer resources to fight us elsewhere.

The idea that we are “exhausted”, limited, worn out and AQ or AQI etc are fresh as a daisy and have infinite resources makes no sense.





I never believed they were perfect or ever will be. The question is can they maintain a government without descending into civil war – I think if we stay they can – and come out the other side to be a stable ally in the region – and I know you disagree.

And while militia may accept help from Iran I cannot believe that the Iraqis have forgotten that their Persian neighbors killed 500,000 of them not to long ago. No love lost on balance.

I must be a masochist, becuase apparently my time and posting is wasted on you.

I made my point quite concisely....the Government of Iraq is virtually owned by Iran. Certainly influenced to the point of being counter-productive if our goal is to stand firm against Iran! We fund our own enemies, we fight against our own efforts and we squander our most sacred resoucres. Our entire purpose in Iraq is akin to a fart in a whirlwind.