As the U.S. Congress and Iraqi parliament enjoy their summer recesses, reports from military officials and independent analysts in Iraq indicate that President Bush's so-called "surge" strategy for Baghdad and al-Anbar Province is beginning to have its desired effect. A serious reading of events since the final surge troops arrived in Iraq in June reveals that U.S. forces are making steady, if incremental, progress.
The new emphasis on counterinsurgency operations and securing the Iraqi population has resulted in a nearly 50 percent decrease in major attacks (the spectacular bombings generally attributed to foreign terrorist elements), Sunni tribes turning against al-Qaeda in Iraq elements, some progress toward reducing sectarian violence, something resembling normalcy in several Baghdad neighborhoods, and improved morale among U.S. military troops who now feel they have a solid strategy and a commander they can trust. Yes, there are still mass casualty bombings and unacceptable levels of violence, but the trend is clearly toward an improved security situation in Iraq.
Of course, this should come as no surprise to anyone who has been more than a casual observer of the performance of U.S. troops in the field. American military forces are the most capable and professional in the world and, given the right resources, can bring order and stability to just about any environment into which they are placed. But the improving situation in Iraq cannot be maintained indefinitely. The successes we are seeing are at the tactical level and are being paid for with the blood and sweat of American military men and women. What is required now is progress at the national level among the elected Iraqi leadership.
If there is to be any hope of maintaining a unified Iraq, the warring factions must come together as Iraqis to move the country forward while fighting together against state and non-state actors interfering in Iraq's internal affairs. So far there have been no positive signs on this front as Shi'a, Sunnis and Kurds continue to place ethnic and sectarian loyalties above any commitment to the national government.
President Bush, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, is giving Iraqis a chance to move forward. The surge is beginning to establish the breathing space the President has said is essential to political progress. The real question is what the Congress will do when General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker return to Washington to present their next Iraq report. Petraeus, who is serving as the commander of Multi-National Force-Iraq and chief architect of the current counterinsurgency strategy, has promised a candid assessment of the situation on the ground no later than September 15.
The report will not say that Iraq is on the road to recovery. Nor will it say that U.S. forces are beginning to see the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel. Instead, the September assessment is likely to be a mixed bag, showing progress in some areas while expressing worry in others. The key will be to look for indicators that provide hope for a positive outcome somewhere down the road. There is no magic solution and Iraq will not become peaceful anytime soon. But if the security situation is improving and there are signs that Iraqis want to move toward a peaceful future, the President and the Congress may have to make the hard decision to continue, or even expand, the surge, regardless of any potential political consequences.
The strategic ramifications of failure are too great, and too frightening, to just walk away because Iraq did not completely turn around by September. If there are visible signs of political accommodation, as there are in the improving security situation, governmental leaders and the American public must be prepared to continue the surge, with increased force levels if necessary. But the onus still rests with the Iraqis themselves. Despite the parliament's recess, key leaders continue to work on important issues like oil revenue sharing, de-Baathification, regional engagement and provincial elections. The Iraqis must realize by now that time is running out for them to step up to the plate and take concrete actions to move Iraq forward. American troops are doing their part; now the Iraqis must do theirs.
The outcome in Iraq is still very much in doubt, and the citizens of the United States must be prepared for a long struggle if the President decides that progress is indeed being made. To truly make Iraq a safe and secure country, America will need to maintain a significant commitment in terms of both manpower and money. That means hundreds of thousands of troops to secure Iraq's borders, expand our human intelligence capability, find and eliminate the perpetrators of violence, and continue the mission of training members of the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police forces so that Iraqis, and not Americans, can take responsibility for what happens inside Iraq's borders.
It also means that civilian employees of the federal government must be prepared to deploy to Iraq to assist in the endeavor. Representatives of federal agencies must stay in place for at least one year to ensure continuity and stability of effort. Likewise, military deployments must be determined by whatever makes sense in the context of our strategic objectives. That may mean longer tours in Iraq and shorter stays at home. No one wants to hear such talk, but that is the reality we are facing if we hope to win this war. Finally, everyone in America and abroad must understand that this is a fight that will go on for a very long time. To make Iraq work, the United States will need to be prepared to stay engaged for at least the next decade. Counterinsurgencies are long, tough affairs. There is simply no easy solution.
So while we wait for General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to provide their assessment next month, we must start thinking about what we will do if there is cause for optimism in Iraq. Does America have the stomach for continuing or increasing the surge? If there is visible progress, then I think the answer is a resounding yes. The public will support the war effort if they see that our sacrifices are resulting in positive gains. However, if America is unwilling to do what it will take to win in Iraq, the problem immediately shifts from one of war fighting to one of managing the inevitable implosion and all of its associated consequences. If you think things are bad now, brace yourself. You haven't seen anything yet.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 39
I think that form of progress is essentially independent of the military action, or perhaps somewhat exacerbated by the presence of US troops. The tribal leaders who control the blocs in the Iraqi Parliament seem content to wait out the occupation. Any MP who appears to support the occupation will be "terminated" in good time.
I agree that the US military is second to none and have done a great job. The problem is that the medicine they have to offer is not what this patient most needs. The only connection between the "surge medicine" and the sick patient is the "breathing room" construct. That's a flimsy connection.
Mind your benchmarks and show a bit of integrity, please.
Really????
I guess you didn't read your newspaper this morning: 200+ killed and 400+ wounded in multiple bombings in Kurdish Yazdid communities, a bridge on the main highway to Mosul destroyed by a suicide truck bomber, the Oil Ministry compound is stormed by dozens of insurgents in 17 "official vehicles", and the deputy oil minister and four others are abducted. So much for THAT "trend".
The sad fact is that there are ZERO " visible signs of political accomodation". The al Maliki government is corrupt and totally ineffectual, and on the verge of self-destructing.
There is no real commitment to a "unified Iraq". The country is headed for de facto partition and an interminable of civil war over the region's oil wealth. The disintegration of Iraq is inevitable.
Meanwhile, American troops are being killed, once again, in increasing numbers, while the Iraqi parliament goes on holiday. While we are supposedly "buying time" for the Iraqis to get their shit together--with seemingly endless infusions of American blood and treasure--there is no realistic prospect that that is ever going to happen.
I'm still waiting for the first American soldier to "stand down" as Iraqi security forces "stand up". How many years has it been now? I've lost count. Continuing the "surge", or even adding to it, as you suggest, is untenable, and insupportable. Our forces have been stretched to the breaking point.
Your "rose-colored glasses" point of view is plainly the result of the kind of wishful thinking, and denial of reality, that Dubya is famous for. You seem to have performed a Vulcan mind-meld with one of those fine, upstanding Bush/Cheney apologists (William Kristol, perhaps?). You can take your Rumsfeldian "long, hard slog" rhetoric and stuff it. Get real, would you please?
It's long past time for our participation in this bloody farce to come to an expeditious end. While Petraeus may be able to report some improvement in the security situation in some, select areas where his forces have focused their attentions, the fact is, in the aggregate, the country as a whole is still in a state of chaos.
Come September the Democratic majority in Congress--in concert with any Republicans who may have an epiphany of enlightened self-interest--MUST gird up their loins and take the one and only effective action they can to overcome Bush/Cheney's recalcitrate refusal to compromise, negotiate or implement an orderly withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. They MUST vote down any further supplmental appropriations for the support of this fraudulent, ill-conceived, and disastrously fucked-up war.
Also, I'm not sure that I agree with this assessment: "American military forces are the most capable and professional in the world and, given the right resources, can bring order and stability to just about any environment into which they are placed." Let's not forget, they are rarely given the right resources. After all, they screwed up their invasion of Iraq. And they screwed up their invasion of Afghanistan - they still haven't captured bin Ladin.
Obviously, the Petraeus report will have no such conclusion. So Dubya and his apologists are doing what they've always done when faced with reality, send out the minions vis-a-vie Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly and folks like Greg on places like Gather, to spin and mold the message to fit their views and justify their actions.
Those dwindling numbers who continue to drink the kool-aid don't realize that that strategy went out with WMD, links to al-Qaeda and an insurgency in its last throes.
Nothing this administration has said about this colassal military and political blunder has been true... starting from its justification, continuing thru being welcomed as liberators, to the end of major combat operations and so on and so on. Why should it be any different now?
It's over. It is now time for rational, thinking adults to figure out how to disengage from this mess in an orderly fashion and shunt our dear president off to the corner to quietly serve out the days of his failed presidency.
Families are being torn asunder while fathers, mothers, sons and daughters are overseas fighting in a war... A war that we have no vested interest in other than saving face. Sending civilian employees into a warzone is foolhardy at best, did they sign up for war duty? The answer to that would have to be resounding, NO!
The problem that I have with "neo-con's", who are the architects of this war is that when they had the opportunity to fight in a war (Vietnam)... To display their manhood, they opted for deferments and family members pulling strings to get them out of it... That my friend is not LEADERSHIP that is called COWARDICE. What you are in support of is the draft being reinstated.
Spartan, no I am not related to Tony Snow.
Paul, there is in fact progress at the tactical level with the increase in military operations, as I said in the article. There is also no progress yet at the national level, which I also said in the article. The violence will not be eradicated in one fell swoop and there will be continued attacks. But the 50% decline in major attacks that I cited was from a USATODAY report (hardly a conservative rag) that looked at the trends over the past six months. That's the thing about trends. They take time to develop. You can't look at a bombing from yesterday as a single act and connect it with a trend. It is simply one more piece of data that feeds into the overall trend.
As for Iraqi forces standing up, we've only undertaken the training mission in earnest for the past two years. In that time the number of capable Iraqi battalions has doubled and three provinces have been turned over to Iraqi control. The pace is not nearly fast enough, but it is inaccurate to say that no progress is being made in this area. As for our forces being stretched to the breaking point, where do you get your data? As a member of our Army's officer corps and a strategic planner for the Army, I can tell you that the pace of operations is straining our military, but we are not yet at the breaking point. There are about 100,000 soldiers deployed out of nearly 1 million in the active and reserve components. There is a set rotation that, while not optimal, can be sustained well into next year. There are bigger concerns, such as our ability to respond to another crisis and equipment replacement, but we are not at the breaking point.
And for those of you advocating an end to the war and withdrawal, I say this. Don't delude yourself about the probable ramifications of such a move. It will be far bloodier than it is now or has been for the past four years. Withdrawal is fine with me if you promise that I will not be sent back to clean up the mess.
Mario, take another look at the article. I'm under no illusions about the Iraqi government or the will of the Iraqi people to maintain a unified Iraq. But the president is commander-in-chief and the congress has given him the funds to execute his surge. That's the end of the discussion until voters get a chance to voice their opinions at the ballot box. And for the record, American forces did not screw up either invasion. It has been the post-invasion management that has been a problem in both theaters. And capturing bin Laden will do nothing for the war on terror but give Americans some sense of satisfaction that a mass murderer has been brought to justice. Your focus is too narrow.
Michael, good to see you back. You know as well as I do that Petraeus' report will be mixed at best. He does have a blueprint for success, but that blueprint is dependent on the willingness of Iraqis to bring their country together. So far, that willingness has not manifested itself. And I'm not an apologist for the president. I am an Army officer and strategic planner who is looking at the big picture with regard to Iraq. No one has sent me out to spin and mold the message. What I write is what I believe, pure and simple. As for the withdrawal piece, I have already said that if we are prepared to live with the consequences and not send American troops back in to clean up the mess, then I'm all for it. But we also know that such thinking is based more in fantasy than in reality.
No matter who is president, we will continue to be engaged in Iraq and we will respond to genocide and humanitarian crises as they break out as a result of our precipitous withdrawal. It's time to accept the fact that we will be in Iraq for the next ten years, minimum.
The predicitons (if we disengage from Iraq sooner rather than later) of chaos and turmoil engulfing the region as al Qaeda takes over the country to use as a launching pad for global terrorist operations are coming from exactly the same folks who gave us WMD, links to al Qaeda, welcomed as liberators, the end of major combat operations, insurgency in its last throes, de-baathification, no plan for the occupation, etc., etc., etc.
The credibility gap is far too wide for the majority of Americans to bridge.
Of course it has to be the end of the world if we disengage sooner rather than later. For it to be anything less would be to admit it was an historic blunder to begin with.
What happens if we disengage and everybody starts to "simmer down" as we say in Texas because the "Great Satan" has indicated it has no designs on controlling Iraqi oil and establishing permanent military bases in the country? What happens if we give them "breathing room," to begin the political/diplomatic process of bringing order to the coountry, by removing the element of agitation?
Of course that scenario couldn't possibly be considered. Clearly, Dubya and the crew have been spot on, in their assessments regarding Iraq, from top to bottom and start to finish. No reason to think they're anything less on this one.
This problem has and never will be about our military forces in Iraq. You claim that there will be some advancing of the political agenda as well. Exactly how do you expect this to happen while the government is on holiday?
Michael: You're joking right? I mean you can't be serious. Sure Mr. Bush says we have no designs on the oil....he is also pressuring the Iraqi government to assign 70% of the oil revenues to contracts to American oil companies. He says he doesn't intend to establish permanent military bases there while they are building permanent bases at a huge and accelerated clip. He says that we have no intention of staying forever while builiding the largest embassy anywhere in the world.
And Bush et al have been spot on about everything regarding Iraq? What sand dune have you had your head buried in all these years? People going into Iraq after the initial military action were told that they would be there for less than 45 days because by then the Iraqis themselves would come forward, establish a new government, and be running things. This is spot on exactly how?
They said there were stockpiles of WMD and we knew exactly where they were? Spot on again.
Cheney said that the insurgency was just disaffected Baathists and it would be gone in three weeks. Spot on again I see.
Mr. Bush said for years there was no need for extra troops because the Sunnis and the Shiites were not going to get into a sectarian war. Boy. That is staggeringly spot on.
You know, come to think of it, I want some of whatever you are smoking.
You know me way better than that... you've responded to my posts many times before. If you don't recall, just take a look at a few of my articles... not to mention my beloved Dubya icon. ;)
By the way, as one of those guys who went in on the initial invasion, I can tell you that no one mentioned 45 days. In fact, my orders, which I have kept for my wife's scrapbooking hobby, said 365 days. Those orders are dated early 2003. Once we were in, there was talk of reducing force levels by the end of 2003, but no one at any time mentioned 45 days or anywhere near that number. People who were not there should not speculate about events that occurred.
I can't believe we're rehashing WMD again. Virtually every intelligence agency in the world and all of Saddam's neighbor states said Iraq had WMD. George Tenet, head of the CIA, said, "We were convinced they were there." How is that a lie on the President's part? Is he or is he not supposed to take the advice of his top intelligence guy? Yes, the buck stops with the president. But just blaming him and exonerating everyone else is ridiculous. No question the war has been mismanaged and that there is a significant credibility gap, as Michael says. But just ignoring the consequences of withdrawal is stupidity at its finest.
And Michael, there is not a serious analyst anywhere that believes things will get better if we just leave. I say this not as a supporter of the war or as an apologist for the President. I say it as a guy who's job it is to assess strategic level policies and the consequences of those policies. I read assessments and reports from all political views, and the consensus is that things will get much worse if we leave. Where it diverges is in opinion about what our role should be in the aftermath.
Credibility gap.
> Sure Mr. Bush says we have no designs on the oil
> ....he is also pressuring the Iraqi government to
> assign 70% of the oil revenues to contracts to American
> oil companies.
I interpret what is being discussed here as:
designs: expropriation
contracts: locked in supply at a fair price
How do you see it, Carolyn?
WMDs were only part of the reason we went into Iraq.
There were according to all inspectors somewhere around 5% of
Saddam Hussein's weapons programs unaccounted for, which I
think mostly from Cheney's reckoning was 4% too much.
Iraq was drawing this thing our for 10 years, invading or not invading
either way was justified in my opinion, Bush chose to invade
because of additional reasons.
It is not so much the war was mismanaged ... what was this
government doing for 2 years ignoring and firing military experts
while this thing languished on? Not to mention Iran, Afghanistan
and Pakistan strategies? I hope they have something, but I
do not have a good feeling about it ... do you?
As a conservative guy, I had very high hopes for this president. He has disappointed on many fronts, but he is still the top guy.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13973/
***
Petraeus: troop reduction plan seen
By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD - The top American commander in Iraq said Wednesday he was preparing recommendations on troop reductions before he returns to Washington next month for a report to Congress. He predicted the U.S. footprint in Iraq would have to be "a good bit smaller" by next summer.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070815/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_petraeus_4;_ylt=AiN0ejNlRGmWRuRSQwrhFDkE1vAI
Yeah, that is a huge problem, the problem, and it can be laid heavily at George Bush's vacationing doorstep! Blame doesn't solve anything, it pissed me off no end though that with all the posturing of superiority they assumed that they let this happen. It is on a par with missing 911 to begin with.
All this said, I think the ball is rolling now on why the war on IslamoNazism if necessary, and Iraq though it would be nice to overcome, is not a necessary milestone, and I think we will win because of decisions that will be huge but not debatable once options run out ... like Iran, like Pakistan.
I am more concerned about domestic issues, security, civil liberties, health care, social security, taxes, education ... this is our real country, fighting international bad guys is just our day job.
I agree with your response to Mario concerning our troops having "screwed up" the invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq. They, ARE, indeed the most capable, well-trained fighting force in the world. They did exactly what they were asked to do. The problem is that--not unlike Viet Nam--they are being betrayed by an unconscionable failure of leadership in their chain of command, from the Decider/Commander in Chief on down, in putting their (your) asses on the line in a futile conflict.
You say, "Carolyn, I didn't say the number of civilian deaths was down. I said the number of major attacks, which have different casualty levels, was down over the past six months. Apples and oranges."
Yeah. Fine job of hair-splitting there. The bottom line is, the average Iraqi--the one who hasn't been able to find a way to join the mass exodus out of the country--is living in fear and squalor, with no prospect for improvement in stability and security in sight.
Your predictions of even more appalling blood-letting when our forces withdraw--and rest assured, a sizeable portion, if not all, of our forces WILL be withdrawn soon after a Democratic President takes office--are probably accurate. Thanks to our having acted, unilaterally and ill-advisedly, to topple a disreputable, but stable, government, that result became inevitable. All we are doing now is fighting a delaying action, with our troops being subjected to a war of attrition by our adversaries.
Can you honestly tell me that you believe that what we have done/accomplished in Iraq has been worth the price we've had to pay? If so, I'd like to hear how you go about justifying it.
As for major attacks being down....the last death toll I saw on the ones from yesterday are 500 and climbing. Sounds pretty major to me. What's happened over there is logical. As the U.S. military moves into the most problematic areas, the terrorists move out to somewhere else. Obviously it takes a bit for them to get reestablished and begin murdering people again. As they have now done.
To pretend everything is coming up roses over there is ridiculous. For things to be getting better the death toll overall has to be dropping. People like you were quick to point out in June that the number did drop and to use that as a rationale to say the surge was working despite absolutely no political progress. Sort of disingenuous to believe that suddenly a spike in deaths is immaterial if a drop proves something, isn't it?
they are, are just horrible to comtemplate ... it is just that
I don't know really what they mean? These kind of numbers
seem par for the "Islamic" course in other countries with
either agression, civil strife, or internal governmental abuse.
We can all talk about what we think, but somewhere
there are numbers, or at least estimates to compare against
... like Darfur and other places like it.
Are we helping or hurting or not making a difference, and
is what we are doing helping our own cause which is what
I care most about.
You mentioned oil, and a secure and locked in source of oil
at the market price is a valuable commodity in itself, and
I'll second my point that how would we steal Iraq's oil?
The US is not about that - at least I hope so, there is too
much money and stability to be gained by just making
money in a stable economy under the rule of law.
As for what was going on the previous years, I can't answer that. While I have deployed to Iraq twice, neither unit I was assigned to had the mission of training Iraqis. Others located at the same FOBs did, but I personally have no experience training Iraqis.
As for the attacks, getting them under control is the first step. There will still be big ones, with mass casualties, but if the attacks can be controlled, the casualty numbers will come down. Again, USATODAY is basing their numbers on an internal analysis of attacks. They focused strictly on spectacular bombings, implying that a steady stream of casualties could be due to other types of attacks. Bottom line, you are correct in that the only true measure is the quality of life for the average Iraqi. But for that to improve, there will have to be security first. And that fear and squalor you talk about is fear and chaos created by Iraqis and foreign fighters, not American soldiers.
Yes, Saddam's government was stable. An iron-fisted dictatorship that controls the population through fear and mass murder is a wonderful thing, isn't it? And don't count too much on a Democratic president withdrawing serious numbers of troops. Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are both too smart to set themselves up to take responsibility for the whole thing unraveling on their watch. What you are seeing now is rhetoric for the primaries. The general election will involve much more serious and responsible debate. In fact the numbers of troops both Clinton and Obama would need to accomplish the missions they want in Iraq (guard the embassy, train Iraqis, fight al-Qaeda) will be measured somewhere around 100,000. I doubt that's the number the anti-war left is looking for. It's simple math. You can't accomplish the missions they have articulated with fewer troops.
Finally, it's not my job to justify what we are doing in Iraq. All I can do is execute the orders given to me and give you what I see happening on the ground, both from experience, from friends there now, and from Army circles. And as for the price, just let me say this. I have lost friends and peers in Iraq. Every life lost is a tragedy. But the casualty rate of approximately 3 soldiers per day is the lowest rate of any serious, prolonged conflict in history involving U.S. forces.
You cannot look at one attack and discern a trend. That is why I mentioned that the data used by USATODAY covers the last six months. There will still be major attacks, and there will be days with no major attacks. But over the past six months the number of major attacks has declined by 50% according to the USATODAY data.
As for the bad guys moving to other areas, that's what the surge is designed to stop. Additional forces are meant to hit those causing the violence in multiple places at once, taking away their ability to relocate. There are initial signs of success, but the final outcome is still to be determined (remember, the last of the surge troops just arrived in June and operations for surge troops just started in July).
I am not pretending everything is coming up roses. I said we are seeing some tactical battlefield successes, but so far no movement politically, which ultimately is the key to a stable and peaceful Iraq.
If the surge is intended to stop the bad guys moving into the areas where the troops aren't, there is no way it can work. We can't be everywhere.
Ultimately, the onus is on the Iraqis. But here, the president and the congress make the decisions about whether or not to continue. Some may disagree, but the constitutional authority still rests with the executive and legislative branches. Voters get their say at the ballot box. Yet, despite the claims about the November 2006 election being a referendum on the war, the congress of Pelosi and Reid recessed for August without putting an end to the Iraq war.
And it's not because they can't end the war; they most certainly can. It's because they don't want to inherit the mess that will surely follow. General Petraeus is a very smart man and he is executing a strategy that is beginning to work at the tactical level; that is in the everday street fight. But the real test is at the political level, and so far it is not encouraging.
Part of the problem I have been seeing is there is no advantage to go after oil revenue sharing the way the U.S. is insisting they do. Essentially they would be signing away 70% of the oil revenue to U. S. companies. I still think that's part of why they are dragging their feet. The other part of why they are dragging their feet is that the al-Maliki government is in bed with al-Sadr and the wingnut President of Iran. Mr. al-Maliki has not motivation to compromise. So he doesn't.
The thing is that the so-called surge wasn't intended to be a military solution. It was just intended to quell the violence temporarily while the Iraqis took care of the political stuff which is hard to do when you're on vacation.
I am strongly in favor of taking al-Maliki at his word and beginning to withdraw our troops to all those shiny new permanent basis that we're building there (while saying we're not), withdrawing more into Kuwait and other bordering areas, then given him another breather. If they make progress then the troops remain. If they are still refusing to make political solutions, we withdraw more troops. Al-Maliki says we're not needed there and can leave at any time. Why don't we just take him at his word? He is, after all, the elected leader of the country.
The Arabs are building their wall. Iran would love to see us bail. I am afraid that the proverbial "Can of worms", has been opened.
I just hope our economy can survive decades of war. I believe this is how Rome fell.
Ed: You say it well. It's not the troops' fault their CiC is an incompetent idiot. Mr. Bush was planning this war since before 9/11. That's why he dumped the effort in Afghanistan and let them slide back into the chaos in which they now exist. It didn't have to be this way. It is now because of Mr. Bush's blundering.
We are currently holding 23,000 Iraqis in prisons in Iraq. This "surge" has only been successful in sending troops out to go house to house, disrupting peoples' lives, forcing them into humiliating and terrifying subjugation in the middle of the night, and for what? So that the few foreign fighters that are in Iraq just go into hiding for a couple of months or set up camp in another part of the country? This is truly the definition of insanity.
There is no evidence that bloodbaths will ensue once the U.S.-led coaltion leaves Iraq. This is more propaganda. The genocide of the Sunnis in Iraq is all-but-complete, millions having been killed by Shiite militias or displaced to neighboring countries. Foriegn (al queda in Iraq) fighters make up only 10% of the insurgents in Iraq and their beef is with the U.S. Al Queda has no designs on fighting the Shiite majority to take over the country. Once we leave, they'll leave.
"We know that the surge has to come to an end," Petraeus said, according to the Associated Press. "I think everyone understands that, by about a year or so from now, we've got to be a good bit smaller than we are right now. The question is how do you do that."
Obviously, we will be disengaging.
Third, while Iraq may not have posed a direct threat to the U.S. homeland, Saddam's regime was a source of instability in an already troubled region and had occupied our attention because of the danger to our allies in the region for the past 12 years. We can't focus just on the threat to us. We have commitments to regional allies as well. As for Bush planning the war before 9/11, Bob Woodward refutes this idea in "Bush at War," consistently demonstrating through Bush quotes and the words of other key administration officials that Iraq was not on the table until well after operations in Afghanistan began. And Woodward is by far no fan of the president.
Joseph, give me a break. I cited figures from USATODAY, not the government (unless you believe the Government Printing Office has a secret operation to publish a national newspaper that is left leaning at best). I took an article from USATODAY and provided my own thoughts on it. Period. As for spending time in Iraq, I have sixteen months there in Fallujah, Ramadi, Al Asad, and Baghdad. How much time do you have? It may be more than that, but I'm curious. I agree that Iraq has been bad for us internationally, but generic attributions to anyone who has spent time there are dubious at best. And while you are correct that there is no hard evidence of an inevitable bloodbath if we withdraw, there is also no evidence to the contrary. Most serious analysts expect the bloodletting to get worse as the fighting factions work to consolidate as much power as possible in the vacuum that will be left. And recheck your sources. Al-Qaeda in Iraq elements have consistently attacked Shi'a militias and civilians in an effort to increase the chaos as a means for forcing our withdrawal.
Yes, Michael, we will be disengaging, but I suspect not until late next year at the earliest. We simply cannot sustain the force levels forever. But we do have some time left. The key, again, is the Iraqis, and so far they have not provided us much hope.
I've been saying it all along: we're going to disengage. We will start the process of leaving sooner than you think.
BTW... the credibility gap continues...
Poll: Majority mistrustful of upcoming Iraq report
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A majority of Americans don't trust the upcoming report by the Army's top commander in Iraq on the progress of the war and even if they did, it wouldn't change their mind, according to a new poll.
President Bush frequently has asked Congress -- and the American people -- to withhold judgment on his so-called troop surge in Iraq until Gen. David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq, issue their progress report in September.
But according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Thursday, 53 percent of people polled said they suspect that the military assessment of the situation will try to make it sound better than it actually is. Forty-three percent said they do trust the report.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/16/poll.iraq.report/index.html
The "thumpin" in '06 wasn't about Iraq and neither will be the one coming in '08. We call that "whistling past the graveyard" where I come from.
I'm done. Nice chatting with you, as usual. Take care.