PDA

View Full Version : Holy crap...patteeu might be right that Iraq is winnable


mlyonsd
07-31-2007, 10:23 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5087%0A&em&en=25372190b5db8e13&ex=1186027200
July 30, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
A War We Just Might Win

By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
Washington

VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.

In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.

In Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.

We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.

But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).

In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.

In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.

The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.

In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.

Another surprise was how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.

In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to dozens of military officers who before the war had known little about governance or business but were now ably immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi with a decent life.

Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control.

In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever.
But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

Michael E. O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kenneth M. Pollack is the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings.

mlyonsd
07-31-2007, 10:23 AM
And if it is I for one don't mind eating crow.

Adept Havelock
07-31-2007, 10:57 AM
And if it is I for one don't mind eating crow.
Agreed. However, from my perspective that's a mighty big "if".

96 pt. type, at least.

dirk digler
07-31-2007, 11:07 AM
And if it is I for one don't mind eating crow.

I will eat crow too if this ends up true.

jAZ
07-31-2007, 11:09 AM
Why would you find yet another OpEd from war promoters noteworthy?

Brock
07-31-2007, 11:11 AM
Why would you find yet another OpEd from war promoters noteworthy?

Probably for the same reasons you find OpEd from the opposite viewpoint so enthralling.

dirk digler
07-31-2007, 11:12 AM
Why would you find yet another OpEd from war promoters noteworthy?

What? This is from the NY Times Jaz.

Maybe you missed this quote about the authors of the OpEd
As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq,

StcChief
07-31-2007, 11:17 AM
better start ending this like Vietnam. Pull 'em now and snatch defeat. Let the civilian slaughter in Iraq begin

jAZ
07-31-2007, 11:19 AM
What? This is from the NY Times Jaz.

Maybe you missed this quote about the authors of the OpEd
That's like calling John McCain a "harsh critic" of the war...


http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/30/media-ohanlon-pollack/

O’Hanlon:

But despite this week’s proof that war is not always easy, the invasion is not going badly. As President Bush said at his news conference yesterday, “Coalition forces are advancing day by day in steady progress against the enemy.” Here’s why things are going well and why they will soon go even better. [New York Times, 3/28/03]

And now we’re talking about a crisis that may require much more rapid response in Iraq, if we decide to go to war. We’ve got to go to war by March, I think, if we’re going to use the good weather. [Fox News, 1/3/03]

But the Iraqis we met were nonetheless grateful for the defeat of Saddam and passionate about their country’s future. Their enthusiasm, and their desire to work together with U.S. and other coalition forces, warmed the heart of this former Peace Corps volunteer. Maybe that is why, on balance, I couldn’t help but leave the country with a real, if guarded and cautious, feeling of optimism. [Brookings, 9/30/03]

The United States and coalition partners would win any future war to overthrow Saddam Hussein in a rapid and decisive fashion. This will not be another Vietnam or another Korea. [O’Hanlon, 9/25/02]

O’REILLY: Mr. O’Hanlon, what do you think? Any doubt about going to war with Saddam?
O’HANLON: Not much doubt. [Fox News’s The O’Reilly Factor, 2/28/03]

Rather than force a showdown with Mr. Bush this winter and spring, Congress should give his surge strategy a chance — while preparing for the real fight this fall. [Wall Street Journal, 3/1/07]

Pollack:

What should the United States do about Iraq? Hawks are wrong to think the problem is desperately urgent or connected to terrorism, but right to see the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein as so worrisome that it requires drastic action. … The United States has no choice left but to invade Iraq itself and eliminate the current regime. [Foreign Affairs, March/April 2002]

Given Mr. Hussein’s history of catastrophic miscalculations and his faith that nuclear weapons can deter not him but us, there is every reason to believe that the question is not one of war or no war, but rather war now or war later–a war without nuclear weapons or a war with them. [New York Times, 9/26/02]

FOX HOST: What about nuclear? What’s his — how long before he’ll have it?
POLLACK: I think the best estimates are that he probably will take four to six years, unless he can buy fissile material on the black market. If he can get it on the black market, it’s probably a matter of months. [Fox News’s On The Record With Greta Van Susteren, 9/30/02]

I think it’s very important that the president receive a very clear statement of support by the Congress, by the representatives of the American people. What we’re embarking on is potentially a very big military operation, and what’s more, the military operation itself might be the easiest part of what we’re doing. [NPR, 10/2/02]

Increasingly, the option that makes the most sense is for the United States to launch a full-scale invasion, eradicate Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, and rebuild Iraq as a prosperous and stable society-for the good of the United States, the Iraqi people, and the entire region. [The Threatening Storm, 2002]

Given Saddam Hussein’s current behavior, his track record, his aspirations and his terrifying beliefs about the utility of nuclear weapons, it would be reckless for us to assume that he can be deterred. Yes, we must weigh the costs of a war with Iraq today, but on the other side of the balance we must place the cost of a war with a nuclear-armed Iraq tomorrow. [New York Times, 2/21/03]

[T]he president’s plan is almost certainly the last chance to stabilize Iraq. It is the last chance to save Iraq would probably be a more accurate way to put it. [Brookings, 1/29/07]

Direckshun
07-31-2007, 11:20 AM
To be fair, I saw Pollack on Wolf Blitzer yesterday.

Pollack's first words out of the gate were that he would not have chosen the title, as that's the NYT's domain, and that if he were allowed to give the title it would have sounded nothing like "we just might win."

His summary was that after a series of trips to Iraq that were nothing short of disheartening, this trip has been a refreshing change of pace: that it's entirely possible that a long-term establishment of a solid, compromising government is not the pipe dream it once was.

The Iraqi politicians have not taken this process seriously, grandstanding for their beliefs rather than compromising for the better of Iraq. It's the compromising nature of local grassroots leaders that Pollack has seen massive improvements, and while that's not going to change Iraq overnight, it can change Iraq eventually if it continues.

jAZ
07-31-2007, 11:21 AM
What? This is from the NY Times Jaz.
And for the record... the NY Times has its own editorial board. This is from 2 guys from the Brookings Institute who have been arguing for the war and the surge for years now.

Direckshun
07-31-2007, 11:22 AM
Why would you find yet another OpEd from war promoters noteworthy?
Now, now... Take the blinders off, jAZ.

Pollack is a brilliant mind, for my money. I've read two of his books.

While he is a staunch supporter of the war, his assessments have been bleak across the board until this one. And even this one isn't glowing, it's just positive.

dirk digler
07-31-2007, 11:28 AM
Now, now... Take the blinders off, jAZ.

Pollack is a brilliant mind, for my money. I've read two of his books.

While he is a staunch supporter of the war, his assessments have been bleak across the board until this one. And even this one isn't glowing, it's just positive.

Yep Jaz just doesn't want to admit things could be getting better over there so he dismisses people just because he disagrees with him. Michael Yon has been saying the same thing. Things are slowly getting better but there is a ton of work left to be done.

Nightwish
07-31-2007, 11:31 AM
And if it is I for one don't mind eating crow.
Sure, it's winnable, if one doesn't mind moving the goal posts a lot and settling for a new definition of "victory" that is far more realistic than Bush's.

jAZ
07-31-2007, 11:49 AM
Yep Jaz just doesn't want to admit things could be getting better over there so he dismisses people just because he disagrees with him.
That's 100% bullshit.

This is an article that's been written (or an interview that's been given) 100 times before.

Bush did it, Cheney did it, McCain did it, Leiberman did it, every conservative talk radio show host did it, every neo-con pundit in existance has done it, ... Excuse me for pointing out that this looks just like every other "it's getting better" PR push.

It's not like war supporters haven't been repeating this pattern for years now.

Advocate for the war... it goes bad.

Then take a trip... come back and say its getting better... buy more time... try to change public opinion in the hopes that more time will mean a better shot at winning the next election or advancing your ideology next time around.

And ultimately, as we've talked about before... the political sacrafices are the only benchmarks that mean anything in terms of "success" in Iraq. Without that, a reduction in violence in Iraq just makes Iraq another Isreal/Palestine or any other place where occuption is an eternal reality.

Success might come, but it can't happen until the Iraqis come back from vacation.

chagrin
07-31-2007, 11:50 AM
Why would you find yet another OpEd from war promoters noteworthy?
The same reason you find the eleventy billion articles you plaster all over this board and in the lounge noteworthy

Amnorix
07-31-2007, 12:05 PM
And if it is I for one don't mind eating crow.

Word.

It would be a TREMENDOUS victory if it is achieved, and if we have evidence that it really is acheivable, I would support a longer stay there if necessary to accomplish it.

I also want to pause and give a giant middle finger to Don "Who Needs Troops, We Win with Technology" Rumsfeld for his entire approach to all this. It may well end up that his stupid preconceptions are what doomed us to a longer-than-necessary stay in Iraq at higher cost, both $$ and in American blood, than was required.

Donger
07-31-2007, 12:06 PM
Why would you find yet another OpEd from war promoters noteworthy?

ROFL

Nice to see jAZ hasn't changed.

dirk digler
07-31-2007, 12:31 PM
That's 100% bullshit.

This is an article that's been written (or an interview that's been given) 100 times before.

Bush did it, Cheney did it, McCain did it, Leiberman did it, every conservative talk radio show host did it, every neo-con pundit in existance has done it, ... Excuse me for pointing out that this looks just like every other "it's getting better" PR push.

It's not like war supporters haven't been repeating this pattern for years now.

Advocate for the war... it goes bad.

Then take a trip... come back and say its getting better... buy more time... try to change public opinion in the hopes that more time will mean a better shot at winning the next election or advancing your ideology next time around.

And ultimately, as we've talked about before... the political sacrafices are the only benchmarks that mean anything in terms of "success" in Iraq. Without that, a reduction in violence in Iraq just makes Iraq another Isreal/Palestine or any other place where occuption is an eternal reality.

Success might come, but it can't happen until the Iraqis come back from vacation.

I understand what you are saying Jaz but in recent days there has been alot of positive news coming from Iraq, minus the vacation crap.

I was against the war from the start and up until a few months ago I too wanted to pull our forces out or at least dramatically decrease the troop level but I honestly believe militarily we are kicking AQ's ass all across Iraq and winning.

Now that doesn't mean I think Iraq is a success because in the end it all comes down to the Iraqi people stepping up and getting rid of AQ, making peace with each other, and supporting the Iraqi goverment. They have a very long way to go for that to happen but at least the people are now actively turning against AQ and I think that is great.

And for the record I don't believe anything that comes out of Bush\Cheney's mouth I base my opinions from the people that are there reporting on what is going on.

Direckshun
07-31-2007, 12:32 PM
Sure, it's winnable, if one doesn't mind moving the goal posts a lot and settling for a new definition of "victory" that is far more realistic than Bush's.
Yeah.

Over time, it's undeniable, the definition of "victory" has been consistently morphed.

jAZ
07-31-2007, 12:39 PM
ROFL

Nice to see jAZ hasn't changed.

January 2004 - December 2005...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/iraq-where-alternative-_b_26779.html

January 6, 2004. Coalition forces "have turned the corner" in western Iraq." Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack, Jr.

July 21, 2004. "We've turned the corner in extending freedom throughout the world." President George W. Bush.

May 7, 2005. "I think we've turned the corner, if you will." Vice President Dick Cheney.

November 11, 2005. "I really think we've turned the corner here" President George W. Bush. quoting an Iraqi lieutenant

December 17, 2005. "The President has turned the corner on Iraq" Sen. Joseph Lieberman [D-CT].

December 19, 2005. "The United States has 'turned the corner' in Iraq." Vice President Dick Cheney.


March 2006
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/03/21/national/w101013S84.DTL

Part of a broad effort to counter polls that show waning public support for the war and for President Bush personally, Cheney emphasized what the administration has said is underreported evidence of improvement in Iraq. He also took on those who have been questioning Bush's approach in the three-year-old war.

"A few seem almost eager to conclude that the whole struggle is already lost," Cheney told an enthusiastic military audience, from a stage bedecked with flags and camouflage netting. "But they're wrong."

...

"Progress has not come easily but it has been steady and we can be confident going forward," the vice president said.


April 2006...
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/09/boehner-iraq-improving/

BOHENER: Beyond a few hot spots, the situation in Iraq is improving. More kids in Iraqi schools than any time in their history. Their electricity grid is up and running. Their water plant. Their economy is growing. It’s in a handful of places that are still under attack by the insurgents.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You say that, except the front page of The New York Times says a “U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord” and they show that according to U.S. government reports six of the 18 provinces are in serious or critical condition. That’s not just a handful.

BOEHNER: That means 12 of the 18 provinces are safe, the economy is growing. We are improving our situation there. But back to the point.


April 2007...

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWE3Mjc0YWRjNzdiOTY3MzZkNWRhYWNiNGZjOGExYzE=

Turning the Corner in Iraq
Democrats are ignoring real progress.

By Charles Krauthammer

By the day, the debate at home about Iraq becomes increasingly disconnected from the realities of the actual war on the ground. The Democrats in Congress are so consumed with negotiating among their factions the most clever linguistic device to legislatively ensure the failure of the administration’s current military strategy—while not appearing to do so—that they speak almost not at all about the first visible results of that strategy.

And preliminary results are visible. The landscape is shifting in the two fronts of the current troop surge: Anbar province and Baghdad.

Yet another op-ed that claims we are turning the corner in Iraq is nothing new.

BucEyedPea
07-31-2007, 12:43 PM
I also want to pause and give a giant middle finger to Don "Who Needs Troops, We Win with Technology" Rumsfeld for his entire approach to all this. It may well end up that his stupid preconceptions are what doomed us to a longer-than-necessary stay in Iraq at higher cost, both $$ and in American blood, than was required.
Pyhrric Victory is the word.

Even at that still completely unecessary...and per Bush there's gonna be more these...until we "makeover the world."

Then again a few more victories like these, perhaps the quest for empire will finally end.

jAZ
07-31-2007, 12:53 PM
I understand what you are saying Jaz but in recent days there has been alot of positive news coming from Iraq, minus the vacation crap.

....but I honestly believe militarily we are kicking AQ's ass all across Iraq and winning.

....but at least the people are now actively turning against AQ and I think that is great.

...I base my opinions from the people that are there reporting on what is going on.
What is all of this assessment based on?

jAZ
07-31-2007, 12:55 PM
I also want to pause and give a giant middle finger to Don "Who Needs Troops, We Win with Technology" Rumsfeld for his entire approach to all this. It may well end up that his stupid preconceptions are what doomed us to a longer-than-necessary stay in Iraq at higher cost, both $$ and in American blood, than was required.
We never would have invaded Iraq had the plan for war involved 4x as many troops as Rummy wanted (enough to do the job right). Rummy's plan was part of the pre-war PR efforts to undersell the costs and over sell the benefits.

BucEyedPea
07-31-2007, 01:23 PM
Well, I gotta admit, that having Fox news pump this story and these writers up, as being liberals critical on Iraq particulary is suspicious. Particularly when Judith Miller was at the NY Times as a planted journalist to PR the NC-Bush administration line. How do we know these guys aren't doing the same so that there is a positiver report for September from Petraeus. I have to say, that taking this administration at its word is not something to continue to do but be cautious of its pronouncements.

So I did a little checking myself....and found that these writers are nothing but liberal hawks..aka neocons.


Yet the authors – and the New York Times – failed to tell readers the full story about these supposed skeptics: far from grizzled peaceniks, O’Hanlon and Pollack have been longtime cheerleaders for a larger U.S. military occupying force in Iraq...


Along those lines in early 2007, O’Hanlon emerged as a defender of Bush’s plan to send more than 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq. On Jan. 14, he published a Washington Post op-ed entitled, “A Skeptic's Case For the Surge.”...


While perhaps a clever debating point, O’Hanlon’s argument is disingenuous. It is not accurate to say that war critics “collectively” wanted Bush to invade with a larger army and then to throttle Iraq with a bigger occupation force.

Many – indeed probably most – war critics opposed any invasion and any occupation, basing their objections on legal and moral grounds, noting that international law prohibits aggressive wars and that Iraq was not threatening the United States.

It’s also disingenuous today for O’Hanlon and Pollack to present themselves as harsh critics of Bush’s Iraq War when, in fact, they either advocated the invasion (in Pollack’s case) or eagerly promoted the surge (as O’Hanlon did). At minimum, they should have given a fuller accounting of their past positions.

To read their op-ed in the New York Times, an unsuspecting reader would get the impression that these two hard-boiled anti-war skeptics have finally been won over to Bush’s wisdom by the strength of the evidence. That simply isn’t the case; they were predisposed to Bush’s position to begin with.

The reality appears to be that these two on-and-off war supporters were given an administration-sponsored tour of Iraq with the expectation that they would return to Washington with glowing reports about the war’s progress, made all the more believable by them playing up – or puffing up – their credentials as war critics.

In that case, Mission Accomplished.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/073007.html

BucEyedPea
07-31-2007, 01:26 PM
....but at least the people are now actively turning against AQ and I think that is great.
It's not binLaden's AQ though. Bush tries to create that impression. It's homegrown. But I do believe this part...it however, does not change the fact that Sunnis still have a problem with US occupation as do others.

jAZ
07-31-2007, 01:44 PM
So I did a little checking myself....and found that these writers are nothing but liberal hawks..aka neocons.

Glenn Greenwald has a long piece highlighting the past statements of these guys.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/31/ohanlon/index.html

Tuesday July 31, 2007 08:38 EST
A new low of mindlessness for our media

It is difficult to remember a media spectacle to match yesterday's grand pagent where Ken Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon were paraded across virtually every network and cable news show and radio program and heralded as "war opponents" and "Bush critics" who nonetheless returned from Iraq and were forced by The Truth to admit that we are Winning. For sheer deceit and propaganda, it is difficult to remember something quite this audacious and transparently false.

As was demonstrated yesterday, O'Hanlon and Pollack were among the most voracious cheerleaders for Bush's invasion and, as the war began to collapse, among its most deceitful defenders. But it goes so far beyond that.

Even through this year, they have remained loyal Bush supporters. They were not only advocates of the war, but cheerleaders for the Surge. They were, and continue to be, on the fringe of pro-war sentiment in this country. And yet all day yesterday, this country's media loudly hailed them as being exactly the opposite of what they really are. It was 24 hours of unadulterated, amazingly coordinated war propaganda that could not have been any further removed from the truth.

Let's just look at their record within the last year alone. In December of 2006, the NYT -- as it frequently does -- invited O'Hanlon to write an Op-Ed on "The State of Iraq -- an Update," and this is what the vicious Bush critic and war opponent O'Hanlon said was needed in Iraq:

I started to quote the whole thing, but it's really long because of all of the quotes. Click the link above to read the rest.

dirk digler
07-31-2007, 01:59 PM
What is all of this assessment based on?

From the OP posted story also from Michael Yon and various other outlets.

Alot of the stories I have read recently is that the Iraqi population is finally turning on AQ because of their brutality of the people.

jAZ
07-31-2007, 02:06 PM
From the OP posted story also from Michael Yon and various other outlets.

Alot of the stories I have read recently is that the Iraqi population is finally turning on AQ because of their brutality of the people.
I'd like to read a few of those... if you don't mind posting a few links.

dirk digler
07-31-2007, 02:16 PM
I'd like to read a few of those... if you don't mind posting a few links.

Well you read the OP posted story which states this.

Also here is Michael yon


http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/

The people of Baqubah learned to hate and be terrified of al Qaeda. On the evening of the 18th, just hours before the attack scheduled for 0100 on the 19th, C-52 gathered around the back of the Strykers. Men and machines were loaded for toe-to-toe combat with al Qaeda. But they were not going in alone. Local enemies, who previously were deeply entwined with al Qaeda and had blown up and shot Americans, had turned on al Qaeda, and their help would lead to the death and capture of many of our now common enemy.

Or how about this

Turning on al-Qaeda in Baquba
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1635614,00.html

or this
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3223434

BucEyedPea
07-31-2007, 02:29 PM
...had turned on al Qaeda, and their help would lead to the death and capture of many of our now common enemy.

Now see this is what I don't like about Yon. It's not the same AQ and it's only a common enemy while we remain there. It's just imprecise language. Is this guy really independent? I asked for a list of his donors on his site.

dirk digler
07-31-2007, 03:48 PM
Now see this is what I don't like about Yon. It's not the same AQ and it's only a common enemy while we remain there. It's just imprecise language. Is this guy really independent? I asked for a list of his donors on his site.

Is it AQ or not BEP?

No it is not the EXACT same Al Queda but AQ is definitely in Iraq.

This link tells how he is funded and he wants to remain independent so he remains credible. I don't know why you don't trust his reporting BEP.
Is it because he doesn't believe what you believe?

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/how-this-project-is-funded

Logical
07-31-2007, 03:54 PM
This is good news, but why do people believe that good news in Baghdad translates into good news for the entire Iraq nation?

jAZ
07-31-2007, 03:58 PM
Well you read the OP posted story which states this.

Also here is Michael yon



Or how about this

Turning on al-Qaeda in Baquba
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1635614,00.html

or this
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3223434
Pateus, Klein, O’Hanlon and Pollack all have a history of cheerleading this war in spite of the facts. So my skeptical comments stand even in response to those links.

Yon, I don't know much about.

I'm not dismissing the possibility, I'm saying that there's absolutely no justification for setting aside skepticism on this matter. This article, along with the entire "focus on al Queda (drop the "in Iraq" portion)" storyline being played up fits exactly what the pro-war PR machine needs to do in the months prior to the September review.

This op-ed has the look and feel a a media spin campaign. Particularly given the heavey emphasis on their supposed "war opponents" and "Bush critics" credentials.

jAZ
07-31-2007, 03:59 PM
Is it AQ or not BEP?
In a yes or no sense.. the only answer is "no".

penchief
07-31-2007, 04:01 PM
That's 100% bullshit.

This is an article that's been written (or an interview that's been given) 100 times before.

Bush did it, Cheney did it, McCain did it, Leiberman did it, every conservative talk radio show host did it, every neo-con pundit in existance has done it, ... Excuse me for pointing out that this looks just like every other "it's getting better" PR push.

It's not like war supporters haven't been repeating this pattern for years now.

Advocate for the war... it goes bad.

Then take a trip... come back and say its getting better... buy more time... try to change public opinion in the hopes that more time will mean a better shot at winning the next election or advancing your ideology next time around.

And ultimately, as we've talked about before... the political sacrafices are the only benchmarks that mean anything in terms of "success" in Iraq. Without that, a reduction in violence in Iraq just makes Iraq another Isreal/Palestine or any other place where occuption is an eternal reality.

Success might come, but it can't happen until the Iraqis come back from vacation.

They have been buying time and that's why it's so hard to believe anything they say. I do want us to succeed in Iraq. But this administration's agenda will not allow it to do what is necessary to facilitate success.

We have to stop trying to impose our eco-political will on that region before things can begin to improve. In other words, Bush has got to let go of that realm he envisions lording over in the history books. He's got to recognize that imposing our values on that part of the world is not going to do anything but rile up more Muslims and make the ones that are already pissed more pissed.

Neocons are punks. They're bad citizens of the planet. Their actions have unjustly caused more world chaos and killed more innocent people than al-Qaeda ever has.

All of that said, I'm hoping that we're turning the corner in Iraq. How this administration handles progress will be the key.

mlyonsd
07-31-2007, 06:18 PM
This is good news, but why do people believe that good news in Baghdad translates into good news for the entire Iraq nation?

Re-read it. It isn't just about Baghdad.

Petreus just might be our Grant.

ChiefaRoo
07-31-2007, 06:19 PM
Listen, you fence sitting p*ssies. Patteau is a good man but I've been saying the same thing just as long. Jiz is a lost cause but the rest of you who are now swinging towards the positive need to remember that the only way the USA loses is if it beats itself. It will get nasty again in the future in Iraq but we can beat the insurgency if we stay at it long enough. YOU'RE WELCOME!!

mlyonsd
07-31-2007, 06:31 PM
Why would you find yet another OpEd from war promoters noteworthy?

I underrstand your position since you are so invested in us failing in Iraq.

I have no idea how it turns out but I am a little closer in sending my son to help the Iraqi's under Petreus's leadership than I was one year ago.

ChiefaRoo
07-31-2007, 06:33 PM
I underrstand your position since you are so invested in us failing in Iraq.

I have no idea how it turns out but I am a little closer in sending my son to help the Iraqi's under Petreus's leadership than I was one year ago.


Good luck! We're going to defeat the insurgency. The rest is up to the Iraqi's.

mlyonsd
07-31-2007, 06:35 PM
Sure, it's winnable, if one doesn't mind moving the goal posts a lot and settling for a new definition of "victory" that is far more realistic than Bush's.

Keep in mind I don't consider this thread by any means a victory in Iraq.

But I see your post as moving the goal posts waaaaaayy back.

mlyonsd
07-31-2007, 06:37 PM
And FWIW it won't be beneath me coming back to eat crow if things don't pan out.

I just think this stupid ****ing forum full of haters should admit to good news when it happens.

Must be the realist in me.

Taco John
07-31-2007, 06:51 PM
Haters? Like we're just in it to hate Bush, we're not actual realists like you who knows a good thing when he sees it.

Got it. This isn't a left-right issue. Either this thing is a cluster**** or it isn't. Can something good come of it? Sure, why not. But that doesn't change how this thing has been managed from the start.

This idea that there are people sitting around praying for a bad outcome in Iraq is nothing more than a political farce. Everyone is making arguments based on what they think is best for America.

You make an offer to come back to eat crow, like there isn't already penty to eat on the table. Good news is great, but it's going to take more than a wave of good PR planned for the beginning of the Iraqi parliment vacation to make all the crow that is currently on the table go away.

The Iraqis have got a long way to go politically before whatever the new definition of "winnable" is achieved in this war. Hopefully they saved the "mission accomplished" banner, to give the US taxpayers a break.

stevieray
07-31-2007, 06:54 PM
And FWIW it won't be beneath me coming back to eat crow if things don't pan out.

I just think this stupid ****ing forum full of haters should admit to good news when it happens.

Must be the realist in me.

anyone downplaying it has nothing more than a personal agenda.

ChiefaRoo
07-31-2007, 06:56 PM
Haters? Like we're just in it to hate Bush, we're not actual realists like you who knows a good thing when he sees it.

Got it. This isn't a left-right issue. Either this thing is a cluster**** or it isn't. Can something good come of it? Sure, why not. But that doesn't change how this thing has been managed from the start.

This idea that there are people sitting around praying for a bad outcome in Iraq is nothing more than a political farce. Everyone is making arguments based on what they think is best for America.

You make an offer to come back to eat crow, like there isn't already penty to eat on the table. Good news is great, but it's going to take more than a wave of good PR planned for the beginning of the Iraqi parliment vacation to make all the crow that is currently on the table go away.

The Iraqis have got a long way to go politically before whatever the new definition of "winnable" is achieved in this war. Hopefully they saved the "mission accomplished" banner, to give the US taxpayers a break.

TJ, I'll take you at your word but the fact is the Democratic leadership has invested itself in defeat. Harry Reid has publically said the "the war in Iraq is lost". I don't have it in for you but Harry Reid, Dick Durbin (who likened our guys to nazis), John Kerry (who directly inferred our soldiers are stupid) and John Murtha (who pre-judged the Marines at Haditha) can all go to hell. If you support them then you may be a good guy personally but you're supporting Democrats who are hurting our troops with their public words. Where do you stand? Are you with the likes of Joe Lieberman or Harry Reid?

penchief
07-31-2007, 07:29 PM
TJ, I'll take you at your word but the fact is the Democratic leadership has invested itself in defeat. Harry Reid has publically said the "the war in Iraq is lost". I don't have it in for you but Harry Reid, Dick Durbin (who likened our guys to nazis), John Kerry (who directly inferred our soldiers are stupid) and John Murtha (who pre-judged the Marines at Haditha) can all go to hell. If you support them then you may be a good guy personally but you're supporting Democrats who are hurting our troops with their public words. Where do you stand? Are you with the likes of Joe Lieberman or Harry Reid?

I don't think either side should put the cart before the horse. It's going to take more than just a bit of good news to turn this thing around. What is more important is what this administration does with it.

Do they use it to create momentum by opening the diplomatic toolbox?

Or do they do what they usually do when they get a PR nugget? Which is use it to justify all of their **** ups and proceed to ram their agenda even farther down everybody's throats.

Let's wait before we start uncorking the champaign considering all of the great things that have been touted in the past that were supposedly turning points in Iraq. So far, all the turning points have been illusions manufactured to continue selling a military occupation.

This administration could easily piss away any positive developments simply by staying true to their track-record.

mlyonsd
07-31-2007, 08:05 PM
Haters? Like we're just in it to hate Bush, we're not actual realists like you who knows a good thing when he sees it.

Got it. This isn't a left-right issue. Either this thing is a cluster**** or it isn't. Can something good come of it? Sure, why not. But that doesn't change how this thing has been managed from the start.

This idea that there are people sitting around praying for a bad outcome in Iraq is nothing more than a political farce. Everyone is making arguments based on what they think is best for America.

You make an offer to come back to eat crow, like there isn't already penty to eat on the table. Good news is great, but it's going to take more than a wave of good PR planned for the beginning of the Iraqi parliment vacation to make all the crow that is currently on the table go away.

The Iraqis have got a long way to go politically before whatever the new definition of "winnable" is achieved in this war. Hopefully they saved the "mission accomplished" banner, to give the US taxpayers a break.

If anything this post should be documented for wanting Iraq to be a failure.

jAZ
07-31-2007, 08:06 PM
I underrstand your position since you are so invested in us failing in Iraq.

I have no idea how it turns out but I am a little closer in sending my son to help the Iraqi's under Petreus's leadership than I was one year ago.
Maybe now you can understand a little bit of what it's like for my faimily and I have felt having both of my wife's brothers, my cousin, and my uncle all serving there on multiple tours over the last 4 years.

Maybe you can also relate to how one might guard their loved ones lives and sacrafices like gold and oppose actions that put them at greater risk for political or ideological reasons.

ChiefaRoo
07-31-2007, 08:06 PM
I don't think either side should put the cart before the horse. It's going to take more than just a bit of good news to turn this thing around. What is more important is what this administration does with it.

Do they use it to create momentum by opening the diplomatic toolbox?

Or do they do what they usually do when they get a PR nugget? Which is use it to justify all of their **** ups and proceed to ram their agenda even farther down everybody's throats.

Let's wait before we start uncorking the champaign considering all of the great things that have been touted in the past that were supposedly turning points in Iraq. So far, all the turning points have been illusions manufactured to continue selling a military occupation.

This administration could easily piss away any positive developments simply by staying true to their track-record.


I'm not advocating popping any corks. If you read my previous post (#38) you'll see I already addressed that issue. What I want to know from Penchief, Taco John Jaz and others is where do you guys stand as Democrats. Do you back Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, John Kerry and Jack Murtha and their views of our soliders and the war or do you back Joe Lieberman and other blue dog Dems views on the war in Iraq? It's a simple question.

stevieray
07-31-2007, 08:08 PM
Maybe you can also relate to how one might guard their loved ones lives and sacrafices like gold and oppose actions that put them at greater risk for political or ideological reasons.

Sounds like something a soldier volunteering for duty would say to his family.

mlyonsd
07-31-2007, 08:13 PM
Maybe now you can understand a little bit of what it's like for my faimily and I have felt having both of my wife's brothers, my cousin, and my uncle all serving there on multiple tours over the last 4 years.

Maybe you can also relate to how one might guard their loved ones lives and sacrafices like gold and oppose actions that put them at greater risk for political or ideological reasons.

First, I completely acknowledge your family's sacrifices. I am humbled by their duty.

I also am guarded by this report and am in no way looking at it as a means to say we are winning.

My intent on posting the thread is to admit I could be wrong in that Iraq is not a lost cause, no matter what Reid and Pelosi tell us.

God speed to your family.

penchief
07-31-2007, 08:30 PM
I'm not advocating popping any corks. If you read my previous post (#38) you'll see I already addressed that issue. What I want to know from Penchief, Taco John Jaz and others is where do you guys stand as Democrats. Do you back Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, John Kerry and Jack Murtha and their views of our soliders and the war or do you back Joe Lieberman and other blue dog Dems views on the war in Iraq? It's a simple question.

First off, that's a phony choice. Jack Murtha is advocating things that really do support the troops. Things like not overusing them and not sending them into combat situations without the proper training. Common sense things that seem not to matter to an administration that seems hellbent on using the military to impose it's political will.

All of those democrats you cite have a history for standing up for members of the military. Most of them have served. Which is contrary to the chickenhawk administration which knows how to start a war but not how to fight one.

ChiefaRoo
07-31-2007, 08:45 PM
First off, that's a phony choice. Jack Murtha is advocating things that really do support the troops. Things like not overusing them and not sending them into combat situations without the proper training. Common sense things that seem not to matter to an administration that seems hellbent on using the military to impose it's political will.

All of those democrats you cite have a history for standing up for members of the military. Most of them have served. Which is contrary to the chickenhawk administration which knows how to start a war but not how to fight one.

It's not a false choice it's two distinct views. One advocates cutting and running and the other advocates defeating the insurgency and getting Iraq to stand up. Look at the words of the party leaders that you support.

By the way the guy who rolled two grenades into the tents of fellow soldiers before Desert2 served in the military as well and he's in jail now for killing a couple of them.
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/niPmXym7u3g"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/niPmXym7u3g" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/b7FaSEQ-fKc"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/b7FaSEQ-fKc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zo-lyc4tcsM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zo-lyc4tcsM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/r_Ve4JoY5GA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/r_Ve4JoY5GA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

I'll ask you one more time. Do you agree with these men or do you agree with Joe Lieberman a fellow Democrat who truly suppports the troops and their mission? I'd like a straight answer from you Dems.

Taco John
07-31-2007, 08:58 PM
TJ, I'll take you at your word but the fact is the Democratic leadership has invested itself in defeat.

You say tom-may-to, they say that George Bush and co have invested this country in defeat when he went into Iraq without a plan to win.

ChiefaRoo
07-31-2007, 09:00 PM
First off, that's a phony choice. Jack Murtha is advocating things that really do support the troops. Things like not overusing them and not sending them into combat situations without the proper training. Common sense things that seem not to matter to an administration that seems hellbent on using the military to impose it's political will.

All of those democrats you cite have a history for standing up for members of the military. Most of them have served. Which is contrary to the chickenhawk administration which knows how to start a war but not how to fight one.

One more thing PC. War is an extension of politics by it's very definition. Bush is the duly elected President of the US. The US is a Representative Republic and Bush is using the military as he sees fit which is within his power as the President of the United States. You may not like it. You may pout and protest but it doesn't matter. All you can do is wait for Bush to leave office. Why don't you just grow up a little bit and start supporting the US in Iraq and help push for the victory over the extremists? In 17 months or so maybe your candidate will win the presidency.

ChiefaRoo
07-31-2007, 09:04 PM
You say tom-may-to, they say that George Bush and co have invested this country in defeat when he went into Iraq without a plan to win.

So whose view do you support Harry Reid or Joe Lieberman? Some of you libs are gutless.

ChiefaRoo
07-31-2007, 09:04 PM
You say tom-may-to, they say that George Bush and co have invested this country in defeat when he went into Iraq without a plan to win.

This is a meaningless statement.

Taco John
07-31-2007, 09:15 PM
I'm not advocating popping any corks. If you read my previous post (#38) you'll see I already addressed that issue. What I want to know from Penchief, Taco John Jaz and others is where do you guys stand as Democrats. Do you back Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, John Kerry and Jack Murtha and their views of our soliders and the war or do you back Joe Lieberman and other blue dog Dems views on the war in Iraq? It's a simple question.


I'm not a Democrat, but I have a lot of respect for Kerry and Murtha's honorable service to this country, and weight their views much more heavily than I would someone like Lieberman, who is nothing more than a handy political tool for whatever party is deciding to exploit him at the time. In 2000, it was the Democrats, and now it's the Republicans. Why should I care what he thinks?

I see no reason to doubt Murtha's sincerity, given how shoddy the troops have been treated by the Bush Administration. I find that people who bag on him are more interested in being right themselves, than actually concerned about "the troops" and "their mission." The fact that "their mission" was barely defined this year after the confirmation of General Patreaus tell me all I need to know about that.

As far as I'm concerned, our troops have accomplished their mission and I'd feel ok about bringing them home right now. I see little reason for them to take any further blame for the success or failure of the Iraqi government. It's up to them to secure that victory. Not our guys. I think it's a shame that "The Right" in this country are so hell bent on nation-building that they'd hang that loss on our soldiers if they walked out today.

The Iraqi government is for Iraqis to win or lose.

Taco John
07-31-2007, 09:18 PM
So whose view do you support Harry Reid or Joe Lieberman? Some of you libs are gutless.



I'm not a liberal, nor a democrat.

I'm actually more conservative than you are, with the key difference between you and me being that I actually know what "conservative" means. You're a Republican, not a conservative. There's a huge difference.


Pre-emptive wars... Nation-building... That's not conservative. Re-distributing American wealth across the globe... That's not conservative. Spending record amounts of taxpayer dollars in the process... Not conservative.

Cutting taxes while cutting spending... That's conservative. The Monroe Doctrine. That's conservative. Paying down the debt... That's conservative.

Using our military flippantly and then blaming the people who cry foul about is not conservative. It's Republican. There's a difference.

ChiefaRoo
07-31-2007, 09:28 PM
I'm not a liberal, nor a democrat.

I'm actually more conservative than you are, with the key difference between you and me being that I actually know what "conservative" means. You're a Republican, not a conservative. There's a huge difference.


Pre-emptive wars... Nation-building... That's not conservative. Re-distributing American wealth across the globe... That's not conservative. Spending record amounts of taxpayer dollars in the process... Not conservative.

Cutting taxes while cutting spending... That's conservative. The Monroe Doctrine. That's conservative. Paying down the debt... That's conservative.

Using our military flippantly and then blaming the people who cry foul about is not conservative. It's Republican. There's a difference.

I've been reading your posts for a long time. Maybe you aren't a R or a D but the vast majority of the time you are wrong.

alanm
07-31-2007, 09:33 PM
Why would you find yet another OpEd from war promoters noteworthy?
Yeah.. we all know how Pro war and Pro Bush the New York Times and the Brookings Institute are. :rolleyes:

Taco John
07-31-2007, 10:41 PM
I've been reading your posts for a long time. Maybe you aren't a R or a D but the vast majority of the time you are wrong.



Coming from a guy who voted for Bush two times, I'll take that comment in stride.

Boyceofsummer
07-31-2007, 10:42 PM
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072007A.shtml

Go to Iraq and Fight, Mr. President & ChiefaRoo the Asslicker.

"We have been in Iraq longer than it took to defeat the Nazi's."

Taco John
07-31-2007, 10:45 PM
If anything this post should be documented for wanting Iraq to be a failure.



It's funny that you say that, because Bush's Joint Chiefs Nominee pretty much agrees with me (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073100990.html?hpid=topnews).

Unless the Iraqi government takes advantage of the "breathing space" that U.S. forces are providing, Mullen said, "no amount of troops in no amount of time will make much of a difference."

ChiefaRoo
07-31-2007, 11:38 PM
It's funny that you say that, because Bush's Joint Chiefs Nominee pretty much agrees with me (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073100990.html?hpid=topnews).

Unless the Iraqi government takes advantage of the "breathing space" that U.S. forces are providing, Mullen said, "no amount of troops in no amount of time will make much of a difference."

Agreed the US will defeat the insurgency and it's up to the Iraqis to decide if they want a country or if they want to turn it into a shite hole via sectarian violence. We also need more troops so we can minimize troop rotations. Carl Levin and the Dems should get out in front of this and get a bill sponsored to increase troop size for the Marines and the Army.

Logical
07-31-2007, 11:51 PM
Re-read it. It isn't just about Baghdad.

Petreus just might be our Grant.I think you need to read these two paragraphs carefully:

Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control.

In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.

ChiefaRoo
07-31-2007, 11:53 PM
I think you need to read these two paragraphs carefully:
Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control.

In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.


Like I've said Log. we are going to be in Iraq a long time. Well after the Bush Presidency.

Taco John
08-01-2007, 01:13 AM
Agreed the US will defeat the insurgency and it's up to the Iraqis to decide if they want a country or if they want to turn it into a shite hole via sectarian violence. We also need more troops so we can minimize troop rotations. Carl Levin and the Dems should get out in front of this and get a bill sponsored to increase troop size for the Marines and the Army.


At some point in time, you guys are going to have to come to the realization that the US can't "defeat" the insurgency as a matter of politics. The only thing that we can do is either absorb bullets, or deal them out. Revolution isn't something you can do for other people. They have to commit themselves to it.

Can we blow up Al Queda douchbags? Until the end of time. We've gotten pretty good at it, and can probably do it indefinitely. But it's going to take Iraqi people pulling together to build a country that drives out insurgency. Failure to do so belongs to them, not our troops. Not to mention that as long as our troops are there, there will always be insurgency. To say we can defeat the insurgency is like looking uphill at a river and say you can drink it dry. You can sure try to drink it dry, but that water is going to keep coming regardless, and next year there will be more. This is a culture of martyrdom and everybody wants to get into heaven. This isn't a failure of our troops. It's a failure in understanding the enemy that we're up against.

Not a single word of this is Anti-soldier, Anti-American, or even Anti-Bush. It's just the matter of fact. You guys can be as macho as you want about this, but keep in mind that you're doing it at the expense of the soldiers on the ground. It's their blood who is being drained for this cause, not ours.

Taco John
08-01-2007, 01:18 AM
we are going to be in Iraq a long time. Well after the Bush Presidency.



I doubt that. This is already the longest war engagement in US history, and the American people are 70 behind getting out. Lost in the news coverage of Gonzales last week was the fact that Robert Gates is currently involved with Withdrawl Planning (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-07/27/content_6435931.htm). Once a plan is put together, Republicans are going to have more political cover towards getting out of Iraq.

ChiefaRoo
08-01-2007, 02:04 AM
At some point in time, you guys are going to have to come to the realization that the US can't "defeat" the insurgency as a matter of politics. The only thing that we can do is either absorb bullets, or deal them out. Revolution isn't something you can do for other people. They have to commit themselves to it.

Can we blow up Al Queda douchbags? Until the end of time. We've gotten pretty good at it, and can probably do it indefinitely. But it's going to take Iraqi people pulling together to build a country that drives out insurgency. Failure to do so belongs to them, not our troops. Not to mention that as long as our troops are there, there will always be insurgency. To say we can defeat the insurgency is like looking uphill at a river and say you can drink it dry. You can sure try to drink it dry, but that water is going to keep coming regardless, and next year there will be more. This is a culture of martyrdom and everybody wants to get into heaven. This isn't a failure of our troops. It's a failure in understanding the enemy that we're up against.

Not a single word of this is Anti-soldier, Anti-American, or even Anti-Bush. It's just the matter of fact. You guys can be as macho as you want about this, but keep in mind that you're doing it at the expense of the soldiers on the ground. It's their blood who is being drained for this cause, not ours.

I disagree. The insurgency is not made of a huge amount of soldiers that are 10' tall. They are cowards who drive IED's into crowds of people and on the roadside. When they engage us directly we crush them in short order. The goal of the insurgency is to get the sunnis fighting the shia by blowing up their holy sites etc. I think the Iraqis are starting to get this and are helping us ferret out what is a relatively small number of people. We will crush them eventually and they won't reload as the Iraqis don't want them in their country. The Iraqis need to get their issues worked out amongt their people as that is something we cannot control. Regardless, we can't just bail out and let the chips fall where they may. This is going to go on for a long time period.

CHIEF4EVER
08-01-2007, 06:18 AM
I doubt that. This is already the longest war engagement in US history

Actually, no, it isn't. We were in Vietnam 10 years and don't forget the Revolution.

Velvet_Jones
08-01-2007, 07:00 AM
Yep Jaz just doesn't want to admit things could be getting better over there so he dismisses people just because he disagrees with him. Michael Yon has been saying the same thing. Things are slowly getting better but there is a ton of work left to be done.
Fuggin Karl Rove has something to do with this. Things getting a little better in Iraq? 16 months before an election? I knew he was gunna use the Iraqi people against the Democrats. That muthafugga needs to be indicted in two weeks (in dog weeks of course. Why do you try to take out of context like that?).

Chief Henry
08-01-2007, 07:00 AM
It's not a false choice it's two distinct views. One advocates cutting and running and the other advocates defeating the insurgency and getting Iraq to stand up. Look at the words of the party leaders that you support.

By the way the guy who rolled two grenades into the tents of fellow soldiers before Desert2 served in the military as well and he's in jail now for killing a couple of them.
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/niPmXym7u3g"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/niPmXym7u3g" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/b7FaSEQ-fKc"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/b7FaSEQ-fKc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zo-lyc4tcsM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zo-lyc4tcsM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/r_Ve4JoY5GA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/r_Ve4JoY5GA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

I'll ask you one more time. Do you agree with these men or do you agree with Joe Lieberman a fellow Democrat who truly suppports the troops and their mission? I'd like a straight answer from you Dems.


I think the answer your wanting to hear is pretty obvious from reading there previous posts and threads.

Velvet_Jones
08-01-2007, 07:08 AM
TJ, I'll take you at your word but the fact is the Democratic leadership has invested itself in defeat. Harry Reid has publically said the "the war in Iraq is lost". I don't have it in for you but Harry Reid, Dick Durbin (who likened our guys to nazis), John Kerry (who directly inferred our soldiers are stupid) and John Murtha (who pre-judged the Marines at Haditha) can all go to hell. If you support them then you may be a good guy personally but you're supporting Democrats who are hurting our troops with their public words. Where do you stand? Are you with the likes of Joe Lieberman or Harry Reid?
Hey - Taco is a fuggin Libertarian. Just ask him. He doesn’t follow the Democrat party line. Just ask him. He is totally reasonable in thinking 9/11 was an inside job. Just ask him.

stevieray
08-01-2007, 08:26 AM
At some point in time, you guys are going to have to come to the realization that the US can't "defeat" the insurgency as a matter of politics. The only thing that we can do is either absorb bullets, or deal them out. Revolution isn't something you can do for other people. They have to commit themselves to it.

Can we blow up Al Queda douchbags? Until the end of time. We've gotten pretty good at it, and can probably do it indefinitely. But it's going to take Iraqi people pulling together to build a country that drives out insurgency. Failure to do so belongs to them, not our troops. Not to mention that as long as our troops are there, there will always be insurgency. To say we can defeat the insurgency is like looking uphill at a river and say you can drink it dry. You can sure try to drink it dry, but that water is going to keep coming regardless, and next year there will be more. This is a culture of martyrdom and everybody wants to get into heaven. This isn't a failure of our troops. It's a failure in understanding the enemy that we're up against.

Not a single word of this is Anti-soldier, Anti-American, or even Anti-Bush. It's just the matter of fact. You guys can be as macho as you want about this, but keep in mind that you're doing it at the expense of the soldiers on the ground. It's their blood who is being drained for this cause, not ours.

Great PR job!

I think you just can't handle the fact that some are willing to spill their blood for others.

Not a single word? ROFL

Hell, you could hardly answer a direct question without deflecting to back to Bush. Reminds me of little kids.."did you eat cookies before dinner?" ..." ya, but Bush did it too......"

BucEyedPea
08-01-2007, 08:35 AM
Like I've said Log. we are going to be in Iraq a long time. Well after the Bush Presidency.
Petraeus said until mid 2009. Bush has invoked the Korean model.
No wonder we have 14 permanent military bases being built and an embassy the size of the Vatican. I don't think Bush ever intended to leave.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2007, 08:51 AM
Is it AQ or not BEP?

No it is not the EXACT same Al Queda but AQ is definitely in Iraq.

This is not binLaden's AQ. binLaden's AQ is in Pakistan.
Iraq AQ's enemies are occupation and Shia's not the American mainland.
They take inspiration from binLaden's AQ. If we don't leave they may just come here as binLaden's AQ has urged. Still, it is home grown.
This per Scheuer, former chief of the CIA's binLaden counterterrorism unit as well as at least three other veteran CIA on this point.

This link tells how he is funded and he wants to remain independent so he remains credible. I don't know why you don't trust his reporting BEP.
Is it because he doesn't believe what you believe?

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/how-this-project-is-funded

Credible is subjective. What does this have to do with belief?

I don't completely distrust his reporting. It's that this administration has been using embedded journalists, and paid bloggers to advance the party line. So one has to be careful. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

It's an outpoint when someone uses some terms that are the same as the administration ( one that the CIA refutes). One has to wonder about their independence. It's independence I question. Besides former military lean toward believing their CiC.

Besides, everyone, comes to the table with a viewpoint from which they view events and facts. I don't care how you slice it.

I know how Yon is funded. I saw that on the site. That's what it is says...BUT there are no disclosures on who they are. I'd love to see the names but I'm sure the response will be that they don't disclose. For all we know it could be what's called a sanitized site that also takes donations.

stevieray
08-01-2007, 08:58 AM
This is not binLaden's AQ. binLaden's AQ is in Pakistan.


BS. Bin Laden is the founder of AQ. All of AQ comes from Osama.

Adept Havelock
08-01-2007, 09:09 AM
BS. Bin Laden is the founder of AQ. All of AQ comes from Osama.

So every new Wal-Mart comes from Sam Walton? Even if he's rotting in a silk lined box somewhere? :p

stevieray
08-01-2007, 09:14 AM
So every new Wal-Mart comes from Sam Walton? Even if he's rotting in a silk lined box somewhere? :p

Is George Washington still called the Father of our Country?

BucEyedPea
08-01-2007, 09:16 AM
BS. Bin Laden is the founder of AQ. All of AQ comes from Osama.
You can believe the politicians. I'll stick with the professionals who worked in the counterrorist unit in the CIA: Sheuer, Giraldi, McGovern. Even the binLaden AQ in Pakistan, is not well organized and in disarray per these experts as opposed to what Bush administration is saying. Bearing false witness again is a sin in his religion right?

Can't win unless we KNOW who our real enemy is. Unless, you need confusion for propaganda.

Adept Havelock
08-01-2007, 09:17 AM
Is George Washington still called the Father of our Country?
Are you suggesting every leader in our nation "comes from" him?

You can believe the politicians. I'll stick with the professionals who worked in the counterrorist unit in the CIA: Sheuer, Giraldi, McGovern.


Stevieray or CIA CTU... :hmmm:

stevieray
08-01-2007, 09:25 AM
Are you going to suggest every political leader in our nation "comes from" him?

No, I'm suggesting that without Bin Laden, AQ never gets created. Same with Sam and Walmart.

but then, you already knew that, but chose to play semantics....

stevieray
08-01-2007, 09:32 AM
Unless, you need confusion for propaganda.

Irony.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2007, 09:33 AM
Not really. It was Z. Brezinski who boasted about creating AlQaeda.*
And the CIA considers binLaden's right-hand man al Zawahiri the real mastermind behind bin Laden.


Made in the USA, Iran and Saudi Arabia and a host of other countries.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2007, 09:35 AM
Irony.
No blowback!

stevieray
08-01-2007, 09:41 AM
And the CIA considers binLaden's right-hand man al Zawahiri the real mastermind behind bin Laden.




...who is nothing without bin Ladens money.

Taco John
08-01-2007, 09:41 AM
I disagree. The insurgency is not made of a huge amount of soldiers that are 10' tall.


Who said anything about how tall they are? Your understanding of the insurgency is shoddy at best. I know you dislike media, but really, you should give it a try. There's plenty you can pick through in order to educate yourself.

Radar Chief
08-01-2007, 09:45 AM
You can believe the politicians. I'll stick with the professionals who worked in the counterrorist unit in the CIA: Sheuer, Giraldi, McGovern. Even the binLaden AQ in Pakistan, is not well organized and in disarray per these experts as opposed to what Bush administration is saying. Bearing false witness again is a sin in his religion right?

Can't win unless we KNOW who our real enemy is. Unless, you need confusion for propaganda.

"The CIA" is also saying that AQ in Iraq is being run from outside Iraq. Supposedly by Osama himself but more likely by Zawahiri or one of his subordinates.
Again, it depends on what part of the CIA you wish to believe.

Taco John
08-01-2007, 09:46 AM
No, I'm suggesting that without Bin Laden, AQ never gets created. Same with Sam and Walmart.

but then, you already knew that, but chose to play semantics....


And US foriegn policy created Bin Ladin.

Funny how that works. Or do you draw a line there and seperate our funding and arming of Bin Ladin from his rise to prominence?

Taco John
08-01-2007, 09:47 AM
"The CIA" is also saying that AQ in Iraq is being run from outside Iraq.



No they're not. Prove it.

Radar Chief
08-01-2007, 09:49 AM
Stevieray or CIA CTU... :hmmm:

You’d have been closer if you’d posted “StevieRay’s opinion or BEP’s opinion”.

Radar Chief
08-01-2007, 09:50 AM
And US foriegn policy created Bin Ladin.

Funny how that works. Or do you draw a line there and seperate our funding and arming of Bin Ladin from his rise to prominence?

And the Soviets had absolutely nothing to do with it. :rolleyes:

Taco John
08-01-2007, 09:50 AM
It's hard to have a discussion of the facts with people who make them up as they go along.

Radar Chief
08-01-2007, 09:51 AM
No they're not. Prove it.

Your Google broke?[/Teej when confronted]

Radar Chief
08-01-2007, 09:52 AM
It's hard to have a discussion of the facts with people who make them up as they go along.

Yea, and 9/11 was an “inside job”. ROFL
I know exactly what you mean.

Taco John
08-01-2007, 09:53 AM
Your Google broke?[/Teej when confronted]



How can I google your imagination? Google hasn't gotten THAT advanced.

Radar Chief
08-01-2007, 09:54 AM
How can I google your imagination?

I assume the same way you do yours. :shrug:

BucEyedPea
08-01-2007, 09:54 AM
...who is nothing without bin Ladens money.
Half truth. US money via the CIA funded it along with a host of other countries.

Taco John
08-01-2007, 09:57 AM
I assume the same way you do yours. :shrug:



In other words, you *did* just make that up.

I brought it up, because I knew you would deflect like this. There's nothing out there to support your claim.

Hydrae
08-01-2007, 09:57 AM
As much as I would love to hear that things are improving for our guys and the average man on the street in Iraq I have to have my doubts. I will agree that the only way this ends is by the politicos over there getting their act together. Hard to do while on a break. And now they are starting to lose pieces of their own parliament including the Deputy Prime Minister.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070801/ts_nm/iraq_dc

As a part time observer of what is happening over there I am getting the impression that while the number of daily attacks does appear to be going down the death totals are about the same. The attacks are just being more "efficient."

Oh, and I am puzzled how we get reports that we are having success battling the insurgents and so forth but we are also hearing that AQ is back to the level of strength it was before 9-11. How can this group be growing and we be making progress in the "War on Terror" at the same time?

Radar Chief
08-01-2007, 10:02 AM
In other words, you *did* just make that up.

I brought it up, because I knew you would deflect like this. There's nothing out there to support your claim.

I can’t help it that you’ve been living in a cave for the past month. I’ve only responded to you in the same way, even using the same words, that you’ve responded to me. So, if I’m “deflecting” what exactly is it you’re doing?

BucEyedPea
08-01-2007, 10:04 AM
In other words, you *did* just make that up.

I brought it up, because I knew you would deflect like this. There's nothing out there to support your claim.
I never understood why RadarCon ceaselessly has to bring up a stand you take on another subject and then accuse others of "deflectin'?" Then claim others are obsessed. I mean really let it go already and come up with a real argument on the current topic.

Radar Chief
08-01-2007, 10:08 AM
I never understood why RadarCon ceaselessly has to bring up a stand you take on another subject and then accuse others of "deflectin'?" Then claim others are obsessed. I mean really let it go already and come up with a real argument on the current topic.

Please quote where I’ve ever posted that to anyone other than you.

And I notice you’re not denying what I posted, so I assume you already know it to be true but just prefer not to believe it.

Taco John
08-01-2007, 10:14 AM
I can’t help it that you’ve been living in a cave for the past month. I’ve only responded to you in the same way, even using the same words, that you’ve responded to me. So, if I’m “deflecting” what exactly is it you’re doing?



Actually, you're just lying now. I never force people to go to Google to support my own takes. In fact, I make it a habit to link my supporting evidence so that there is little doubt of its veracity.

I'm a fact driven individual who insists on being on the same page when having a discussion. You made a claim about the CIA. I know that claim to be false. If you can't back it up, then fine. Just say so. But stop deflecting to put the blame on me. I'm not the one who forced you to lie.

Adept Havelock
08-01-2007, 10:17 AM
You’d have been closer if you’d posted “StevieRay’s opinion or BEP’s opinion”.

Actually, I'd have been closer if I posted Stevieray's opinion, or the opinion of "several members of the CIA CTU". ;)

Radar Chief
08-01-2007, 10:25 AM
Actually, you're just lying now. I never force people to go to Google to support my own takes. In fact, I make it a habit to link my supporting evidence so that there is little doubt of its veracity.

I'm a fact driven individual who insists on being on the same page when having a discussion. You made a claim about the CIA. I know that claim to be false. If you can't back it up, then fine. Just say so. But stop deflecting to put the blame on me. I'm not the one who forced you to lie.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-07-18-al-qaeda_N.htm

Make no mistake, you’re “driven off" what you want to believe, not “the facts”.

Taco John
08-01-2007, 10:28 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-07-18-al-qaeda_N.htm

Make no mistake, you’re “driven off" what you want to believe, not “the facts”.


You just proved my point. That article doesn't mention a thing about the CIA. I knew it wouldn't because I knew which story you were drawing on to make up that little gem.

Radar Chief
08-01-2007, 10:31 AM
Actually, I'd have been closer if I posted Stevieray's opinion, or the opinion of "several members of the CIA CTU". ;)

That’s only if you can take BEP’s word for it. It’s been my experience that what she claims as set in stone by the CIA actually has several dissenting opinions from the very same CIA.

jAZ
08-01-2007, 10:32 AM
BS. Bin Laden is the founder of AQ. All of AQ comes from Osama.
Saying that is like saying that all "Yellow Pages" come from Alexander Graham Bell.

Radar Chief
08-01-2007, 10:35 AM
You just proved my point. That article doesn't mention a thing about the CIA. I knew it wouldn't because I knew which story you were drawing on to make up that little gem.

Ok, and I knew you were lying when you claimed to not to know what I was talking about.
But at least you can hang your hat on the whole “CIA” angle while dismissing the "fact" that AQ in Iraq is being run from outside. But you’re, like, against “deflection”, right? :rolleyes:
FYI, the CIA has acknowledged this and when I find the article again I’ll post it here.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2007, 10:55 AM
FYI, the CIA has acknowledged this and when I find the article again I’ll post it here.
Which CIA is that? The current one is mainly inexperienced youth after the defections and/or clean out of the veterans that refused to be the Bush administration's political lackeys and tell him what he wanted to hear.

And let's not forget that former CIA from past administrations and before this current war have admitted placing false reports on the news wires for propaganda purposes. Yup!

Radar Chief
08-01-2007, 10:58 AM
Which CIA is that?

Exactly. :thumb:

BucEyedPea
08-01-2007, 11:02 AM
Philip Giraldi, a former veteran CIA officer, far more reliable than a politician:


In an attempt to reverse plummeting approval ratings, the Bush administration is mounting an unprecedented, sustained campaign of disinformation on the terrorist threat confronting the United States. Even the mainstream media has noted how the White House has attempted falsely to tie al-Qaeda to the war in Iraq, with President Bush increasing the number of references to the group in speeches made during the month of July. On July 10, al-Qaeda was referred to 30 times in a Cleveland speech on the Iraq war. By July 25, the president referred to al-Qaeda no less than 95 times in a speech made before a group of airmen in Charleston, S.C.


The frantic attempts to fearmonger by linking the failed venture in Iraq to the other failed venture dubbed the "global war on terror" is pathetic, even by the standards of an administration that cannot tell right from wrong and that cannot, apparently, differentiate one terrorist group from another. One of the most troublesome aspects of the Bush agenda is the conflation of a whole basket of groups with the terrorism menace even if they pose no actual danger to the U.S. Buying into the Bush rhetoric, even to a small degree, makes it impossible to classify and confront the genuine terrorists that actually threaten the United States. It makes a confused and unfocused America weaker rather than stronger.

There should be no confusion about what constitutes the terrorist threat against the United States. There is only one terrorist group that is genuinely willing and able to attack the U.S., and that is al-Qaeda in Pakistan. Al-Qaeda in Pakistan has attacked the United States, has both the desire and capability to do so again, and has stated its intention to stage new attacks on a number of occasions. And the danger of even al-Qaeda in Pakistan should be put in some kind of perspective. The group is weaker than it was in 2001, having lost many of its leaders and funding mechanisms. It has decentralized and is largely dependent on unreliable local resources: witness the bungled planning and execution that went into the recent attempted attacks in Britain. There is no evidence whatsoever that al-Qaeda has anything like a weapon of mass destruction that could cause massive damage or fatalities, and there is no intelligence that suggests that al-Qaeda has any group or organization currently in place in the U.S. that might be capable of carrying out a major terrorist attack. Recent arrests of terrorism suspects in the United States suggest that while there are a number of disgruntled individuals who have made the transition into terrorism supporters, most of the groups have been infiltrated FBI informants and there would appear to be little danger that any of their frequently far-fetched plans might evolve into actual terrorist attacks.

Cochise
08-01-2007, 11:17 AM
The main thing that leads me to believe the security situation may have improved in the past month (since the surge troops have all been in place) is the fact that Congressional Democrats have all switched the talking point to political objectives being the problem and not security.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2007, 11:22 AM
There's more and I forgot the link:

Bush's increasingly strident rhetoric is supported by the unclassified summary of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of July 17 on the terrorist threat to the homeland. The NIE is a curious document, on one hand a frank admission of failure but in other ways surely one of the most dishonest and politically motivated documents to be seen since the Iraq estimate of October 2002. It is a sign, if one were needed, that the new chiefs of the intelligence community are willing to play politics, adopting the admittedly low standards for professional integrity established by former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet. The document concedes that al-Qaeda has reconstituted itself in three out of four core areas – an admission that nearly six years of global counter-terrorism warfare at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars has been a failure – but it then goes on to grossly over-hype the significance of the al-Qaeda affiliate in Iraq and place Hezbollah into the terrorism threat matrix in a bid to further blacken "axis of evil" state Iran.


Al-Qaeda affiliates in Iraq and North Africa do not threaten the United States. Such groups use the al-Qaeda trademark, but they are financed, organized, and recruited locally. They are operationally independent. Hezbollah and Hamas likewise do not threaten the United States and almost certainly have little to no capability to carry out an operation on this side of the Atlantic Ocean. The NIE's assertion that al-Qaeda in Iraq has stated its intention to attack the U.S. is reportedly based solely on a speech made by the group's leader, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, in which he threatened to "bomb the White House." Hezbollah and Hamas have no intention or ability to attack the U.S. They do indeed threaten Israel, though some in the White House and Congress appear to have some difficulty in separating the legitimate security concerns of Tel Aviv from American interests.

The White House argument that al-Qaeda in Iraq is controlled by al-Qaeda in Pakistan and will be directed to stage attacks against the United States is false and is not even supported by the NIE, which merely stated that the parent organization al-Qaeda might well try to use the Iraq affiliate as a resource for recruitment and fundraising. Al-Qaeda in Iraq is small, amounting to 5 percent or less of the broader insurgency and having only 1,000 to 2,000 activists. Most of its attacks have been directed against the Iraqi government and, most particularly, Shi'ite religious institutions, like the Samara mosque attack in February 2006 that almost produced open sectarian war. Most of the known leadership consists of foreign jihadists, but intelligence on the group is poor, and the makeup of the rank-and-file is not clear and might be mostly Iraqi. The group does not have a completely comfortable relationship with al-Qaeda in Pakistan, which has criticized it more than once for its killing of civilians. There is no indication whatsoever that the group is controlled from Pakistan or that it has any capability of carrying out operations outside of Iraq and its immediate neighborhood.

The real terrorism threat that persists in Pakistan's ungovernable tribal areas should be the focus of American efforts. Al-Qaeda could have been destroyed in late 2001 through early 2002, but the opportunity was wasted through the sheer incompetence of policymakers in Washington. Now, after six years of dithering, there are problems in developing any strategy for rooting out al-Qaeda that might be successful without destabilizing all of central Asia. The comments of the White House Homeland Security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend on July 22 were particularly maladroit, suggesting that it might be necessary to take military action against Pakistan to solve the al-Qaeda problem. Her comments suggest that she is unaware that the U.S. lacks the kind of tactical intelligence that would make such a strike effective. Nor were her comments coordinated with the Pentagon or the State Department, both of which have been taking pains to reassure Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf that Washington will do nothing that will lead to his overthrow. Both Musharraf and some of the better-informed voices in the administration know that a U.S. invasion of the tribal areas would lead to an immediate change in government in Islamabad. The new government would almost certainly have to incorporate religious extremists and would be unlikely to continue to cooperate with the United States. Ironically, Pakistan is also under pressure from some of its American allies. It has been increasingly criticized by the U.S. Congress in spite of the fact that its security services have arrested and killed more al-Qaeda than the rest of the world's intelligence services combined. The U.S. would have no effective program against al-Qaeda without Pakistani assistance.

Philip Giraldi, July 31, 2007 (http://antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php)

Taco John
08-01-2007, 11:28 AM
...while dismissing the "fact" that AQ in Iraq is being run from outside.



Actually, that's not a fact. That's a claim made by a captured insurgent, probably coerced through forcible means. The reliability of the claim is in doubt.

Radar Chief
08-01-2007, 11:50 AM
Actually, that's not a fact. That's a claim made by a captured insurgent, probably coerced through forcible means. The reliability of the claim is in doubt.

Prove it.

Weee, this is fun.

dirk digler
08-01-2007, 11:56 AM
wow this thread has gotten fun. Too bad patteeu isn't around to enjoy it.

go bowe
08-01-2007, 02:09 PM
Re-read it. It isn't just about Baghdad.

Petreus just might be our Grant.grant, you say?

he just kept throwing bodies against the rebs and wore them down over time, mostly because grant had virtually unlimitted manpower while lee's losses could not be replaced...

imo, stonewall and the father of our country were the two of the best generals we've ever had in terms of actually commanding troops in the field...

but since they aren't available, we might as well give petreus a try...

ChiefaRoo
08-01-2007, 04:01 PM
grant, you say?

he just kept throwing bodies against the rebs and wore them down over time, mostly because grant had virtually unlimitted manpower while lee's losses could not be replaced...

imo, stonewall and the father of our country were the two of the best generals we've ever had in terms of actually commanding troops in the field...

but since they aren't available, we might as well give petreus a try...


That's how all land wars were fought throughout history. until Desert Storm1.

mlyonsd
08-01-2007, 06:29 PM
grant, you say?

he just kept throwing bodies against the rebs and wore them down over time, mostly because grant had virtually unlimitted manpower while lee's losses could not be replaced...

imo, stonewall and the father of our country were the two of the best generals we've ever had in terms of actually commanding troops in the field...

but since they aren't available, we might as well give petreus a try...

Back then throwing bodies was the only solution.

I was talking more from a historical perspective in that finally a general was found that knew WTF he was doing.

mlyonsd
08-01-2007, 06:47 PM
This is good news, but why do people believe that good news in Baghdad translates into good news for the entire Iraq nation?

:shrug:

I still don't get your point. Please explain.


Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.



In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.



We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.



Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control.


I tried to make clear I only look at this report from the Brookings Institute dude that this was good news. I in no way suggest Iraq has been won or even turned a corner.

The report clearly still shows the Iraqi government is not ready to grow some balls and that is where the biggest problem lies.

But for the life of me I can't think of any reason why anyone would look at this op-ed as a negative, unless of course one is vested in failure.

go bowe
08-01-2007, 09:41 PM
Back then throwing bodies was the only solution.

I was talking more from a historical perspective in that finally a general was found that knew WTF he was doing.petreus sure gives that impression, and he appears to be an able commander...

i wonder about all the generals who "retired", and the generals who've been demoted...

didn't any of those generals know what they were doing?

my impression is that generals/admirals or whatnot disagreeing with the president's views on how to conduct the war can get themselves shitcanned in a hurry...

even if they're right...

Logical
08-01-2007, 09:55 PM
:shrug:

I still don't get your point. Please explain.









I tried to make clear I only look at this report from the Brookings Institute dude that this was good news. I in no way suggest Iraq has been won or even turned a corner.

The report clearly still shows the Iraqi government is not ready to grow some balls and that is where the biggest problem lies.

But for the life of me I can't think of any reason why anyone would look at this op-ed as a negative, unless of course one is vested in failure.


It appears you ignored my quote of two key paragraphs in that op ed piece that show that outside of Baghdad there is very little to see positive. You can see my thread today for further proof. I am vested in ending the occupation, our failure was in staying as an occupying force.

go bowe
08-01-2007, 10:07 PM
* * *The report clearly still shows the Iraqi government is not ready to grow some balls and that is where the biggest problem lies.

* * *wow, i just realized how easy it is to misread a username...

for a moment, until i shifted my glasses, i thought it was nylonsd...

then i noticed my user name, and figured that i must have misread it too...

back to the topic, being ready to grow some balls has a lot to do with how you define balls...

and no matter how huge the balls grow, balls alone are not enough to defeat aq in iraq...

or enough to overcome the political realities in iraq...

it sucks burro balls, but that's the way it goes...



free kurdistan, free kurdistan, free kurdistan...

patteeu
08-01-2007, 10:55 PM
wow this thread has gotten fun. Too bad patteeu isn't around to enjoy it.

It is a good thread and I'm sorry I can't participate because I'm in the middle of a vacation with my family, but I have 2 things to add:

1) I don't know why mlyonsd used the word "might" in the thread title and it reads a little like "Holy crap... dog bites man" to me. :D

2) This whole side issue of Al Qaeda in Iraq versus Osama's Al Qaeda is dumb. I ate at a "homegrown" McDonalds yesterday (as opposed to one built by Ray Kroc with his own hands) but the quarter pounder with cheese tasted just like all the rest. :shake:

And now I've got to get back to planning some details for the next leg of my trip. We just finished Yosemite today and tomorrow I travel through enemy territory (Oakland) to the home of Joe Montana's other team. Steve Bono told me they have good restaurants there. I'll be back in a couple of weeks.

ChiefaRoo
08-01-2007, 10:59 PM
It is a good thread and I'm sorry I can't participate because I'm in the middle of a vacation with my family, but I have 2 things to add:

1) I don't know why mlyonsd used the word "might" in the thread title and it reads a little like "Holy crap... dog bites man" to me. :D

2) This whole side issue of Al Qaeda in Iraq versus Osama's Al Qaeda is dumb. I ate at a "homegrown" McDonalds yesterday (as opposed to one built by Ray Kroc with his own hands) but the quarter pounder with cheese tasted just like all the rest. :shake:

And now I've got to get back to planning some details for the next leg of my trip. We just finished Yosemite today and tomorrow I travel through enemy territory (Oakland) to the home of Joe Montana's other team. Steve Bono told me they have good restaurants there. I'll be back in a couple of weeks.

Have fun. Kotter, CB and I will hold off the dolts until you get back.

ClevelandBronco
08-01-2007, 11:00 PM
It is a good thread and I'm sorry I can't participate because I'm in the middle of a vacation with my family, but I have 2 things to add:

1) I don't know why mlyonsd used the word "might" in the thread title and it reads a little like "Holy crap... dog bites man" to me. :D

2) This whole side issue of Al Qaeda in Iraq versus Osama's Al Qaeda is dumb. I ate at a "homegrown" McDonalds yesterday (as opposed to one built by Ray Kroc with his own hands) but the quarter pounder with cheese tasted just like all the rest. :shake:

And now I've got to get back to planning some details for the next leg of my trip. We just finished Yosemite today and tomorrow I travel through enemy territory (Oakland) to the home of Joe Montana's other team. Steve Bono told me they have good restaurants there. I'll be back in a couple of weeks.

Stay safe, man.

Logical
08-02-2007, 12:34 AM
Safe trip to you patteeu.

Nightwish
08-02-2007, 12:36 AM
It is a good thread and I'm sorry I can't participate because I'm in the middle of a vacation with my family, but I have 2 things to add:

1) I don't know why mlyonsd used the word "might" in the thread title and it reads a little like "Holy crap... dog bites man" to me. :D

2) This whole side issue of Al Qaeda in Iraq versus Osama's Al Qaeda is dumb. I ate at a "homegrown" McDonalds yesterday (as opposed to one built by Ray Kroc with his own hands) but the quarter pounder with cheese tasted just like all the rest. :shake:

And now I've got to get back to planning some details for the next leg of my trip. We just finished Yosemite today and tomorrow I travel through enemy territory (Oakland) to the home of Joe Montana's other team. Steve Bono told me they have good restaurants there. I'll be back in a couple of weeks.
Steve Bono is still alive? Third most hated man in Kansas City, and nobody's killed him yet?

Radar Chief
08-02-2007, 06:49 AM
It appears you ignored my quote of two key paragraphs in that op ed piece that show that outside of Baghdad there is very little to see positive. You can see my thread today for further proof. I am vested in ending the occupation, our failure was in staying as an occupying force.

I’m just amazed that you finally see there is more to Iraq than just Baghdad.

BucEyedPea
08-02-2007, 07:06 AM
I2) This whole side issue of Al Qaeda in Iraq versus Osama's Al Qaeda is dumb. I ate at a "homegrown" McDonalds yesterday (as opposed to one built by Ray Kroc with his own hands) but the quarter pounder with cheese tasted just like all the rest. :shake:

I'll stick with the professionals on this.
Of course it matters, AQ in Iraq's targets are not America. Their target is the occupation and Shi'ias. So it'll die down once we leave for us while they turn their attention on killing Shi'as.

Only thing the same is they get to serve (kill) our guys, in another location. So don't eat there. Even McDonald's franchises have non-compete's by area so their publics don't cross. :) It's division of labor....more efficient.

I'm jealous of your trip. Sounds nice. Have fun.

dirk digler
08-02-2007, 07:10 AM
It is a good thread and I'm sorry I can't participate because I'm in the middle of a vacation with my family, but I have 2 things to add:

1) I don't know why mlyonsd used the word "might" in the thread title and it reads a little like "Holy crap... dog bites man" to me. :D

2) This whole side issue of Al Qaeda in Iraq versus Osama's Al Qaeda is dumb. I ate at a "homegrown" McDonalds yesterday (as opposed to one built by Ray Kroc with his own hands) but the quarter pounder with cheese tasted just like all the rest. :shake:

And now I've got to get back to planning some details for the next leg of my trip. We just finished Yosemite today and tomorrow I travel through enemy territory (Oakland) to the home of Joe Montana's other team. Steve Bono told me they have good restaurants there. I'll be back in a couple of weeks.

Good to hear from you patteeu and have fun on your vacation.

go bowe
08-02-2007, 11:26 AM
...who is nothing without bin Ladens money.didn't we intercept a letter from dr.Z where he was asking aq in iraq to send money to him and osama?

iirc, the letter was addressed to the former head of aqi, the one we killed...

go bowe
08-02-2007, 11:29 AM
Have fun. Kotter, CB and I will hold off the dolts until you get back.i haven't had enough coffee yet, but who's cb?

edit:never mind, i figured it out... (that second cup of coffee has kicked in)

go bowe
08-02-2007, 11:46 AM
The main thing that leads me to believe the security situation may have improved in the past month (since the surge troops have all been in place) is the fact that Congressional Democrats have all switched the talking point to political objectives being the problem and not security.talking point?

i would disagree, but chiefapoo might call me a dolt or worse...

oh, to hell with it...

while congressional democrats may have switched talking points, i think that both things are true and have been true since mission accomplished...

worse than that, it's very difficult to separate security and political objectives...

by and large, you can't achieve political objectives without a tolerable degree of security...

and you can't achieve security without meeting some political objectives first...

not exactly chicken and egg, but it is hard to achieve either without the other...

Adept Havelock
08-02-2007, 12:30 PM
That's how all land wars were fought throughout history. until Desert Storm1.

The combined-arms visionaries of pre-WW2 like Patton, Tukhachevsky, Rommell, Guderian, De Gaulle, and Liddel-Hart would dispute that. :p

Desert Storm was simply the apex of a doctrine formed and executed years before. Blitzkrieg writ large.

Radar Chief
08-02-2007, 12:34 PM
The combined-arms visionaries of pre-WW2 like Patton, Tukhachevsky, Rommell, Guderian, De Gaulle, and Liddel-Hart would dispute that. :p

Desert Storm was simply the apex of a doctrine formed and executed years before. Blitzkrieg writ large.


I was going to mention that the GWI tactic he mentioned of using air power and artillery to amplify the force of troops on the ground is actually something we stole from the Nazi’s when they called it a “blitzkrieg”, but didn’t have the time to spell it out this morning. ;)

BucEyedPea
08-02-2007, 12:37 PM
That's why.....

PGWI=pansy UN police action

Radar Chief
08-02-2007, 12:38 PM
That's why.....

PGWI=pansy UN police action

:LOL: What combat have you seen? :hmmm:

BucEyedPea
08-02-2007, 12:44 PM
At least I haven't fought for the UN! :LOL:

go bowe
08-02-2007, 02:02 PM
If anything this post should be documented for wanting Iraq to be a failure.does it really say that?

do you seriously believe that anyone other than meme wants iraq to be a failure?

some would say that the iraqi is already a failure, depending on how you define victory and failure...

however i am encouraged by recent developments, particularly the anbar turn around...

i think the jury's still out on whether or not the iraqi govenment can survive the conflict between sunnis and shiites...

the recent resignations of the sunni's from government posts isn't going to help the situation any...

Radar Chief
08-02-2007, 02:35 PM
At least I haven't fought for the UN! :LOL:

Which would lend what credibility to your calling any action, “pansy”? :shrug:

Adept Havelock
08-02-2007, 02:39 PM
Which would lend what credibility to your calling any action, “pansy”? :shrug:


I wondered about that. Korea 50-53 was also a UN action.

:hmmm:

I wonder how many of the Marines at Chosin or troops from the Pusan Perimeter would call that a "pansy UN police action". Or how they would respond to that notion...though I think I can figure that one out pretty easily.

ChiefaRoo
08-02-2007, 02:42 PM
The combined-arms visionaries of pre-WW2 like Patton, Tukhachevsky, Rommell, Guderian, De Gaulle, and Liddel-Hart would dispute that. :p

Desert Storm was simply the apex of a doctrine formed and executed years before. Blitzkrieg writ large.

Blather, blather, point head, split hair, blather.

BucEyedPea
08-02-2007, 02:46 PM
I wondered about that. Korea 50-53 was also a UN action.

:hmmm:

I wonder how many of the Marines at Chosin or troops from the Pusan Perimeter would call that a "pansy UN police action". Or how they would respond to that notion...though I think I can figure that one out pretty easily.
I know Korea was a UN action as was Vietnam. Both were done under SEATO which is under the UN. The Balkans, was doneunder NATO which is also under the UN.Is why we don't declare war anymore. Because they're police actions.

However, I have said before I don't think Korea was a pansy action or Vietnam. In fact I think we coulda won Korea had we not done it under the UN.

But PGW1? I mean come on.

Radar Chief
08-02-2007, 02:49 PM
Blather, blather, point head, split hair, blather.

:LOL: I take it this is you’re way of saying he’s right? ;)

ChiefaRoo
08-02-2007, 03:00 PM
:LOL: I take it this is you’re way of saying he’s right? ;)

Not really. Anyone can disagree with any arguement by using this kind of a technique. It's a stalling technique and allows the user to get the last word in. No one would argue that Desert1 ushered in a new type of warfare with force multipliers, instant communication et al that led to very low casualties. So instead of just agreeing with that AD decides to play the role of the anal retentive chef and parse words, nit pick and basically stall the discussion by latching onto 1 percent of the arguement as a distraction. If you like I can do the same thing but it will make for a very tiresome and useless board.

Taco John
08-02-2007, 03:07 PM
however i am encouraged by recent developments, particularly the anbar turn around...




The cool thing about the Anbar turn-around -- and it's going to be politically incorrect to say this -- is that the US had nothing to do with it. That was a case of local Iraqis having enough regional pride to band together and drive out these foriegn fighters. That's exactly the kind of progress that needs to happen in order for Iraq to work as a nation.

The question I have, though, is would those guys be willing to head North and defend their Kurdish countrymen from Turkish invaders if they needed to? Do they even consider the Kurds to be their countrymen? Do they even have a concept of countrymen?

The question isn't about whether or not the US fails in Iraq. Iraq isn't for the US to pass or fail. It's up to the Iraqi nationals to determine whether they can put aside their sectarian differences and compromise to build a nation.

Right now, our forces are stuck in an open-ended engagement, with no actual "mission" to "accomplish." Policing Baghdad neighborhoods isn't a "mission." It's police work. Sounds like the job of someone other than the United States military.

Adept Havelock
08-02-2007, 03:10 PM
Piffle, bluster, poppycock, and balderdash

It's simple ChiefaRoo, even if you don't want to see it. AirLand Battle (IIRC, the proper name of the doctrine employed in PG 1) is simply the logical conclusion of a doctrine started 70 years ago. Same concepts: concentration of forces, rapid exploitation of breakthroughs, integrated communications, and the use of artillery and air support at the point of the schwerpunkt. Different toys, same ideas.

I will of course accept that it was greatly enhanced by modern technology (especially GPS and sat. recon).

ChiefaRoo
08-02-2007, 03:31 PM
Then we agree AD. I thank you for ending your filibuster.

Adept Havelock
08-02-2007, 03:37 PM
Then we agree AD. I thank you for ending your filibuster.

ROFL

You're quite welcome. As a bonus gift here is one of the great filibusters of all time.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/S5gSrfcDxYo"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/S5gSrfcDxYo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Calcountry
08-02-2007, 03:44 PM
Haters? Like we're just in it to hate Bush, we're not actual realists like you who knows a good thing when he sees it.

Got it. This isn't a left-right issue. Either this thing is a cluster**** or it isn't. Can something good come of it? Sure, why not. But that doesn't change how this thing has been managed from the start.

This idea that there are people sitting around praying for a bad outcome in Iraq is nothing more than a political farce. Everyone is making arguments based on what they think is best for America.

You make an offer to come back to eat crow, like there isn't already penty to eat on the table. Good news is great, but it's going to take more than a wave of good PR planned for the beginning of the Iraqi parliment vacation to make all the crow that is currently on the table go away.

The Iraqis have got a long way to go politically before whatever the new definition of "winnable" is achieved in this war. Hopefully they saved the "mission accomplished" banner, to give the US taxpayers a break.How would you define a "win" in Iraq?

Calcountry
08-02-2007, 03:55 PM
"The Right" in this country are so hell bent on nation-building that they'd hang that loss on our soldiers if they walked out today.
Just how in the heck do you have "The Right" pinning any kind of loss on our troops.

Harry Reid is on record as having us "lose". No one else, except for the left wing.

Taco John
08-02-2007, 04:53 PM
How would you define a "win" in Iraq?


Are you talking a military win, or a political win?

Our military has already won the military battle. There's nothing more for them to "win" despite the right saying that we "lose" if we pull out now. We can't lose what we've already won. The only people who can lose right now are the Iraqis. They've got a political battle on their hands that should have nothing to do with American troops.

BucEyedPea
08-02-2007, 05:09 PM
Which would lend what credibility to your calling any action, “pansy”? :shrug:

Adept Havelock
08-02-2007, 05:20 PM
Heh. Nice pic.

Mark M
08-02-2007, 10:01 PM
Our military has already won the military battle. There's nothing more for them to "win" despite the right saying that we "lose" if we pull out now. We can't lose what we've already won. The only people who can lose right now are the Iraqis. They've got a political battle on their hands that should have nothing to do with American troops.

That is easily the smartest thing TJ has ever posted here and, quite possibly, the smartest thing I've seen posted about the war here or anywhere else.

Nicely done.

MM
~~:clap:

Taco John
08-02-2007, 10:05 PM
You should read me more often then... ;)

jAZ
08-03-2007, 01:20 AM
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2007/08/ohanlon-and-pol.html

O’Hanlon and Pollack (2)
August 01, 2007
...

I talked to Pollack yesterday. In answer to some of the questions I raised: he spoke with very few Iraqis and could independently confirm very little of what he heard from American officials. In eight days he travelled to half a dozen cities—that’s not much time in each. The evidence that four or five Iraqi Army divisions, with most of their bad commanders weeded out, are now capable of holding, for example, Mosul and Tal Afar, came from American military sources. Pollack found that U.S. officers sounded much more realistic than on his previous trip, in late 2005. He gauged their reliability in answers they gave to questions that he asked “offline,” after a briefing—there was a minimum of happy talk, but also a minimum of dire gloom. The improvements in security, he said, are “relative,” which is a heavy qualification, given the extreme violence of 2006 and early 2007. And it’s far from clear that progress anywhere is sustainable. Everywhere he went, the line Pollack heard was that the central government in Baghdad is broken and the only solutions that can work are local ones.

It was a step back from the almost definitive tone of “A War We Just Might Win” (a bad headline, and not the authors’). That tone was misplaced, and it is already being used by an Administration that has always thought tactically and will grasp any shred of support, regardless of the facts, to win the short-term argument. But look at this little tempest outside of politics, in the context of the war: Pollack and O’Hanlon were genuinely surprised by the changes they saw and heard about in Iraq, and they considered those changes significant enough to tell war critics here—in the overconfident shorthand of an Op-Ed—not to pull the plug just yet. Whatever you think of their past mistakes and present methods, it’s a case that shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.

jAZ
08-03-2007, 01:22 AM
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/02/ohanlon-begins-backpedaling-from-op-ed/

O’Hanlon begins backpedaling from op-ed.Just a few days after writing about the progress he saw in Iraq, Brookings analyst Michael O’Hanlon claims that if the situation remains as it is currently, he could not “write another Op-Ed” declaring success:

In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. O’Hanlon said the article was intended to point out that the security situation was currently far better than it was in 2006. What the American military cannot solve, he said, are problems caused by the inability of Iraqis to forge political solutions. “Ultimately, politics trumps all else,” Mr. O’Hanlon said. “If the political stalemate goes on, even if the military progress continued, I don’t see how I could write another Op-Ed saying the same thing.”

ChiefaRoo
08-03-2007, 01:25 AM
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/02/ohanlon-begins-backpedaling-from-op-ed/

O’Hanlon begins backpedaling from op-ed.Just a few days after writing about the progress he saw in Iraq, Brookings analyst Michael O’Hanlon claims that if the situation remains as it is currently, he could not “write another Op-Ed” declaring success:

In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. O’Hanlon said the article was intended to point out that the security situation was currently far better than it was in 2006. What the American military cannot solve, he said, are problems caused by the inability of Iraqis to forge political solutions. “Ultimately, politics trumps all else,” Mr. O’Hanlon said. “If the political stalemate goes on, even if the military progress continued, I don’t see how I could write another Op-Ed saying the same thing.”

No shit Jiz. Everyone knows the Iraqis have to get themselves stable while the US holds off the bad guys. You're not making any news. If fact, you're weeks behind. Check some of the other threads this has been discussed.

Amnorix
08-03-2007, 05:09 AM
We never would have invaded Iraq had the plan for war involved 4x as many troops as Rummy wanted (enough to do the job right). Rummy's plan was part of the pre-war PR efforts to undersell the costs and over sell the benefits.
That may be true, but I'm not sure I can give him credit for that much fore-thought and preplanning. After all, he never indicated he had such abilities regarding other matters under his control.

:LOL: :deevee:

Amnorix
08-03-2007, 05:10 AM
I guess I should have known that these are closet neo-cons or whatever. *sigh*

Radar Chief
08-03-2007, 06:33 AM
Heh. Nice pic.

Yea, but I’m confused. Is she saying her credibility is worth potting soil? Or is it the fertilizer? :shrug: Know which one I think it is? ;)

Adept Havelock
08-03-2007, 09:52 AM
Yea, but I’m confused. Is she saying her credibility is worth potting soil? Or is it the fertilizer? :shrug: Know which one I think it is? ;)

Ouch...El-i-ot.

LMAO

I've got to say this little battle between you two is pretty damn entertaining. Please keep it up.

go bowe
08-03-2007, 12:50 PM
Yea, but I’m confused. Is she saying her credibility is worth potting soil? Or is it the fertilizer? :shrug: Know which one I think it is? ;)well, it depends on what kind of fertizer you're talking about, doesn't it?

CHIEF4EVER
08-03-2007, 03:40 PM
It's simple ChiefaRoo, even if you don't want to see it. AirLand Battle (IIRC, the proper name of the doctrine employed in PG 1) is simply the logical conclusion of a doctrine started 70 years ago. Same concepts: concentration of forces, rapid exploitation of breakthroughs, integrated communications, and the use of artillery and air support at the point of the schwerpunkt. Different toys, same ideas.

I will of course accept that it was greatly enhanced by modern technology (especially GPS and sat. recon).

You are precisely correct sir, as usual. The AirLand Battle doctrine was an improvement on the Blitzkrieg doctrine of Rommel, Guderian, von Manstein et al. using more advanced C3 and tactical and strategic real time intel, not to mention the maneuverability of modern troops from the air and ground made previously impossible due to the technology restraints of that era.

ChiefaRoo
08-03-2007, 04:35 PM
You are precisely correct sir, as usual. The AirLand Battle doctrine was an improvement on the Blitzkrieg doctrine of Rommel, Guderian, von Manstein et al. using more advanced C3 and tactical and strategic real time intel, not to mention the maneuverability of modern troops from the air and ground made previously impossible due to the technology restraints of that era.

I'm not really arguing your points about blitzkrieg et al. What I am specifically talking about is the low casualty rates as it relates to the size of the enemy force and the large numbers of troops involved. In DStorm1 I think we lost more troops to training accidents and friendly fire than were killed by the Iraqi Army. By contrast we lost 55,000+ in Vietnam and going back to the Invasion of Normandy we lost something like 4,000 US guys the first day. Wars won't be fought like that anymore due to the fusion of technology and tactics.

Logical
08-03-2007, 04:48 PM
I'm not really arguing your points about blitzkrieg et al. What I am specifically talking about is the low casualty rates as it relates to the size of the enemy force and the large numbers of troops involved. In DStorm1 I think we lost more troops to training accidents and friendly fire than were killed by the Iraqi Army. By contrast we lost 55,000+ in Vietnam and going back to the Invasion of Normandy we lost something like 4,000 US guys the first day. Wars won't be fought like that anymore due to the fusion of technology and tactics.
I am pretty sure we had almost a half million men on the ground or off the coast in naval ships for the Vietnam war. They really are not comparable when it comes to death tolls.

CHIEF4EVER
08-03-2007, 04:54 PM
By contrast we lost 55,000+ in Vietnam

In 10 YEARS, not weeks.

Taco John
08-03-2007, 05:56 PM
Did you know, however, that the captain of the team said he wanted us OUT? Methinks the Iraqis may want to 'get it together' so to speak but without our assistance. That is the vibe I am getting anyhow.


Oh yeah... I'm very well aware that Iraqis want Americans out. There was a poll about 3 months ago, and just over 50 percent of the Iraqis felt that shooting at American troops was justified. I guess you could look at that stat and say that 50% DON'T think it's ok to shoot at American troops. But I still don't know what that gets anyone.

They wanted us out last year (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html). And in fact, they ASKED for a timetable on withdrawal two years ago (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1122/dailyUpdate.html).

What people who demand we stay in Iraq fail to realize is that our presence is actually undermining Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's ability to govern (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IH04Ak02.html). He's seen as an American stooge, and thus the whole thing is falling apart. So what happens during the next election? Likely something very similar that happens here: they'll vote from one extreme to the other.

They're going to get their wish soon enough. No matter what Patreaus comes back with, the only progress that is going to be worth noting is political progress, and with the Iraqis on vacation through August, there isn't going to be any to speak of. If you read the last link I posted, you'll see that any imminent would have to come by some miracle. Defense Secretary Gates knows this and has already begun planning for withdrawal (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-07/27/content_6435931.htm).

It really only a matter of time at this point. And the Iraqis believe that they'll be better off without the US there. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19760628/) I don't know how true that is.

The whole situation is FUBAR. It's really a damned if we do, damned if we don't scenario here. In the end, it almost looks like no matter what we do, Iran reaps the benefits of this thing. But that's a whole 'nother post...

ChiefaRoo
08-03-2007, 06:01 PM
I am pretty sure we had almost a half million men on the ground or off the coast in naval ships for the Vietnam war. They really are not comparable when it comes to death tolls.

We had 500,000 in DStorm1 as well.

ChiefaRoo
08-03-2007, 06:04 PM
In 10 YEARS, not weeks.


Exactly my point. By comparison we've lost 3,500 in 4 plus years and during D1 and D2 which is traditional war we lost guys only in the 100's. The point is land warfare is becoming less and less costly as the US gets more and more advanced.

Taco John
08-03-2007, 06:04 PM
An interesting development that will not help Maliki's image in Iraqi politics:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Story?id=3444767&page=1

Like I say, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.