More and more every single day, we witness absolute proof that President Bush's latest strategy to end the centuries-old conflict between Sunni and Shiites in Iraq is working.
The Democrats can't see this, and are only playing politics with the war funding supplemental bill. They need to stop trying to hold President Bush and the Iraqi government accountable for progress in Iraq (by making funding contigent on timetables and benchmarks) and send the President a "clean" bill that he can sign.
The surge is working. The proof is in the pudding. Give President Bush the time he needs, and we will continue to get these kinds of results on our way to a peaceful Iraq and a democratic greater Middle East:
1. BAGHDAD - A bomb rocked Iraq's parliament building in the heavily fortified Green Zone Thursday, killing at least two lawmakers in a stunning security breach in the third month of a U.S.-Iraqi crackdown on violence in the capital, officials said.
http://www.auburnpub.com/articles/2007/04/12/ap/headlines/d8of1nho0.txt
2. On April Fool's Day, Senator John McCain went for a stroll in Baghdad's central, sprawling Shorja Market. There were "encouraging signs", he said "progress" was "evident". To prove his point, McCain wore body armour and was accompanied by a security detail of one hundred soldiers, three Blackhawk helicopters and two Apaches.
http://uruknet.info/?p=m32069&s1=h1
3. The New York Times reported on April 9, "For American troops, Baghdad has become a deadlier battleground as they have poured into the capital to confront Sunni and Shiite militias on their home streets. The rate of American deaths in the city over the first seven weeks of the security plan has nearly doubled from the previous period."
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0704/S00198.htm
What more do you need to know? The Surge is working, end of story.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 56
Your incisive wit and cunning insight are very much appreciated. Yet again, you've zeroed in on the issue at hand and have offered a no-holds barred commentary that gets right to the heart of the matter, summing it up brilliantly.
Thank you for the comment. You're truly a great American. God bless.
Just trying to keep it balanced. It's easy to only focus on the bad.
In Baghdad, like everywhere else, there are only in existence a finite number of people to kill.
Another point...this data is based on a botched reading of a brookings.edu report
"as of April 8" but showed the 9 (April 1- 8) vs. 51 (March 1- 31) !!.
Ridiculous!
(source: http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf )
Find me the actual text of that WP article...I've got some numbers to crunch.
This makes me FURIOUS that morons can enter this forum and quote this mathematical garbage as FACT!
But that's okay. Keep up the attacks and avoid intelligent debate. It suits you.
When these 21,500 soldiers fully engage, the Sunni vs. Shiite issue will be resolved once and for all... not only in Iraq but all across the greater Middle East. I predict it will all be settled by August 12th.
We're talkin facts here, folks. The situation in Iraq is better now than it's ever been. Sunnis accept Shiite for who they are and are completely willing to cede political dominance to them for the sake of national unity. Once the 21,500 additioanl troops are fully established, it's only a matter of months before Iran, Syria, Palestine, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Yemen, Oman and the rest of the "extremist" crew get on board...
Islamic radicals take notice... 21,500 and you're done. Victory in Iraq by August 12th... only two months after Iraqi Prime Minister al Maliki stated Iraqi troops would be ready to assume control of security for the country themselves.
Let freedom ring!
What is it with you liberals? Here's an interesting point, the troops, by and large, believe in what they are doing. The ones who express liberal viewpoints on the war are in the vast minority. It's THEIR lives on the line, THEIR blood in the sand and THEY BELIEVE in what they are doing. They see the changes the every day that we don't hear about. They SEE things improving. So WHAT is YOUR problem? Maybe if you saw the things they saw, you might understand.
Short-term, we will see some successes, like the ones already being reported. But long-term we just can't maintain it. It's a simple matter of mathematics; we just don't have the numbers to do it for more than about a year, and even that's pushing it. Retired Major General Bob Scales, former commander of the Army War College, did a great job a few weeks ago breaking down the numbers of combat brigades, etc. and why the troop increase was not a long-term solution.
The problem in the past has been that we did not have the forces to "hold" an area after we had cleared it. That's what the increase is supposed to fix. The idea is to buy enough time for the Iraqis to get their act together. Can they do it? Honestly, no one knows until this thing plays itself out. But the odds are stacked against it.
Either way, I think this is the President's last chance to make something happen over there, and I say that for two reasons: 1) the public and the Congress won't tolerate a plan "C" (plan A being the original strategy, plan B being the new security plan). There will be no tolerance for it, period. 2) we do not have the forces to sustain current operations, effectively eliminating the option of implementing a plan C (unless plan C is to nuke the place and start over).
A lot of folks on Gather misinterpret my remarks and think I support the surge. Actually, I don't support it and I don't oppose it. That's not what I get paid to do. Where I get in trouble with Gather users is when I say that the President has the constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to execute the surge if, and only if, Congress funds it. That's our system of checks and balances.
Telling the President his plan is wrong and doomed to failure is irrelevant. He has the authority, granted by the Constitution, to execute it if it is funded. Congress can exercise their right to check and balance by taking away the money if they truly believe he's wrong.
But the votes aren't there to deny the funds. So, if that's the case, why all the rhetoric? To tell the President he's wrong? One, it won't do any good, and two, he knows what his opponents think already. It's a waste of time and resources to continue with nonbinding resolutions and bills that he won't sign.
Anyway, I've ranted long enough. To end, I will say that al-Maliki is ineffective and does not have the confidence of Iraqis. He has favored Shiites in everything from law enforcement to reconstruction. His bias is glaringly obvious and he should have been gone a long time ago.
21,500 troops will fix some of the problems short-term, but in the long run the Iraqis will have to step up and take responsibility for their own security or the country will break up along ethnic lines. Either way, the day of reckoning is coming because public will and a stretched military will not allow this to continue for more than another year or so, at best.
You couldn't be more right. The Sunnis pummeled the Shiites... and now the Shiites are totally willing to forgive and forget... in the name of national unity. Sure, there may be a stickler or two like al Sadr and al Maliki, but who is quibbling here?
Let's get real. Iraq is the success story of the 21st century. One need only listen to all the military personnel returning from duty there whio cite progress, and unity among Shiite and Sunni all across the land. A suicide bomb here or there notwithstanding... Iraq is well on its way to becoming the model for the rest of the Middle East to emulate on their long pent-up desire to become just like the USA.
McCain is probably right: this increase is not enough to "fix" the "hold" requirement. In fact, it is so inadequate I would call the surge "More Plan A." We are already seeing "surge" forces shuttling west, shuttling south, chasing the Iraqi Civil War wherever it flares up. It IS dynamic--Mahdi Army elements head south to avoid contact with the "surge," encounter SCIRI elements (the ruling party in the area); assassinations on both sides ensue. The coalition is forced south to deal with it. Similar goings-on in Anbar Province. There is really no infrastructure country-wide in the form of hardened HQs for the policing ("hold") required to meet this objective, and as you correctly point out, inadquate preparation by the Iraqi military.
More importantly, the diplomatic parallel to the military "surge" is in disarray. It ends up looking (to many Iraqis) like sectarian collaboration against opposing elements in each region.
In summary, Michael S., things are hunky-dory, and the road to freedom is clear!
As for more of plan A, that is an inaccurate statement. Tactics for coalition forces have changed completely. Instead of leaving FOBs, conducting operations or patrols, and then returning to FOBs, we are slowly building outposts so that soldiers can stay among the population. Iraqis are being forced into the lead more and more, with results that are not necessarily encouraging. Baghdad saw its largest firefight a few days ago since the increase began. American soldiers were kept in a support role, and the Iraqi Army took disproportionate casualties compared to insurgent losses. But we did not take over the operation. We kept it from falling apart. In the past we used to step in and take charge when an operation went to hell. Time is running out for the Iraqis to step up. They know it and we know it.
Also, surge troops have not moved out of Baghdad to "chase" the insurgents. The increase in troop levels specifically designated some troops for Baghdad and some troops for al-Anbar province. There is no question that insurgents are fleeing the city proper, and that explains the increased activity on the outskirts. But those American units involved are units that were already there. To suggest a migration of Baghdad surge troops and al-Anbar surge troops is just not accurate. They are two separate animals and have been since the announcement in January.
I agree with you on the infrastructure problem. The setting up of outposts is being done on the fly, as troops move into areas. It takes time, though, to establish hardened, easily defendible positions that can withstand enemy attack. And time is not necessarily on our side.
The most difficult thing about the Iraqi military is that we have had to build it from the ground up. I'm not talking about foot soldiers. Anybody can fill that role. But under Saddam the leaders were appointed based on loyalty and family ties and not on competence or ability. This doesn't change overnight. Leaders take years to develop and there is ample evidence of insurgent infiltration into the ranks.
I think it's an understatement to say the diplomatic effort is in disarray. It is completely broken. The underlying problem is that there is no desire on the part of any of the warring parties for a national reconciliation. This is reflected in the failure of the oil law, the favoritism shown by the Shiite dominated government, the proposals for independent ethnic regions, etc. Unless that mindset changes, there will be no diplomatic accommodation. Period. It looks like sectarian collaboration because it is.
Finally, nobody said things were great. There are reports of initial successes (unless, as Michael S. implies, the soldiers are lying (why they would do that will have to be explained to me) associated with the increased troop levels. But for every success there is a setback. For either proponents or opponents of the surge to paint it any other way is just inaccurate. Again we return to the point that we cannot sustain this long-term. It's all up to the Iraqis and judgment day is coming. The Congress and the public will not allow another plan from the President. If the Iraqis do not wake up to that fact soon, they will find themselves alone.
Wake up soon? How about by March of '08? Is that enough time to roust them from their slumber?
According to this LA Times report:
April 7, 2007... Iraqi and coalition forces rolled into Diwaniya before dawn Friday [April 6] to rout elements of Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada Sadr's Al Mahdi militia that had fled the Baghdad security crackdown and sparked an increase in violence in regions south of the capital.... The U.S. troops had been called down from Baghdad to reinforce the Iraqi army's 8th Division and the region's Polish-led soldiers.
www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq7apr07,1,2052657.story
If there is a clear training plan for Iraqi troops that says x number are trained each week or month, then you shoud be able to mathematically deduce how many weeks or months are required to reach the necessary number. That at least has some method to it and something you can measure. If the Iraqis fall behind, you can at least say they are failing in their obligation. But just picking March of 2008 is no different than picking tomorrow, or next week, or next month.
I'm not opposed to a timetable based on metrics that can be graded. It's the arbitrary act of picking a date on a calendar that bothers me.
Thanks for clearing that up. Link?
I am very skeptical about most of the stories in the mainstream papers. The ones I do trust are ones I have verified through alternative media. I did not see the LA Times report, but based on past experience would have to see it elsewhere as well. Not saying it isn't true, but I have a tough time with that publication.
The other piece to that is this: If neighborhoods in Baghdad have been cleared and are then taken over by Iraqi troops, freeing up U.S. soldiers, would it make more sense to move them to other areas where they could do some good?
After all, the idea behind the surge is that at some point the Iraqi troops have to hold these neighborhoods. We just don't have the numbers to do it for them indefinitely.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3926
And at the bottom I read this:
Copyright (c) 2007 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500 1000 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005, USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government.
Yeah -- FNS. Great.
There's nothing arbitrary about the proposed timetables... they are based on achieving the types of benchmarks you are describing and hold the Iraqis responsible for their end of the bargain... regardless.
Last time I checked, the mission in Iraq has been accomplished: Saddam is gone, no WMD found, no links to 9/11 or al Qaeda, new freely elected government in place, no civil war, violence contained in a relatively small area of the country, etc.
By most estimations on the Right we've already won... it's time to call it what it is, a victory, and come home.
The mission: I actually agree with you 100% that mission definition has been a problem. One of the things I have said in the past is that the military in Iraq has suffered from what we call "mission creep." New missions are continually added on because someone believes they are relevant to what we were doing before. It is a huge problem and tends to rear its ugly head in just about every war.
Saddam is gone, and the mystery of the WMDs may never be solved. We know he had them at some point because he used them on both the Kurds and the Iranians. The problem after that is that he wouldn't allow any real transparency on his weapons programs. If he was bluffing all the times he said he had them and threatened to use them, then he gambled badly. I don't know, and I'm not sure we'll ever know.
The al-Qaeda link was always weak; what the administration should have done if it wanted to associate the Iraq action with the war on terror was to cite the known terrorists residing in Baghdad and Saddam's payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Enough to justify invasion, no. But a link to terrorist support.
To say violence is contained in a relatively small area is technically correct, with virtually all attacks happening in Baghdad and Anbar province. The problem, though, is that the bulk of the Iraqi population also lives in these two areas. Yes, 14 of 18 provinces are pretty quiet, but they are also the most sparsely populated. My point in the previous post about that was that we didn't have to surge troops in every part of the country.
I fall into the category of the "right," but I would hardly even suggest that we've already won. In fact, we are in greater danger of losing, but we have not lost yet. Victory for me is an Iraq that is not a satellite state of Iran. But we are rapidly approaching that reality.
Michael A, I apologize. I read about 100 news articles a day from different sources. I found the info I was looking for in Stars and Stripes, not the FNS. In fairness, Stars and Stripes runs just as many articles critical of the war as they do in favor of the war. In fact, the largest grass roots movement among active duy soldiers to end the war in Iraq started in, and is regularly featured in, Stars and Stripes. I don't remember the exact name, but it's soldiers for redress, or veterans for redress, or something along that line. It was started by a senior sergeant from the Air Force, which is a pretty bold thing for him to do.
Again, I don't save every article I read, and I apologize for mixing up the source. But it doesn't change what the unit commanders on the ground are saying. Unless of course everyone in the military who says we are making progress is lying. That would be one hell of a conspiracy, wouldn't it?
You wrote that: "Victory for me is an Iraq that is not a satellite state of Iran." Actually, how can this be prevented at all? The Shiite-controlled government in Iraq has much more in common with their Mullah brothers in Teheran than they do with the good Christian folks in D.C.
Iran and Iraq make up the only Shiite-controlled governments in the entire Middle East... everyone else is Sunni. It's impossible, at this point, to keep Iran and Iraq apart. Witness al Sadr's hiding in Iran, Iranian support for al Maliki and the Shiite militias, etc. It's less than a pipe dream to say these two won't forge ahead as allies.
Despite warnings from both his father and his Secretary of State (Powell) that he would be gift wrapping a Shiite-controlled Iraq for direct delivery to the Mullahs in Iran, Dubya went ahead with this foreign policy disaster, and we will be paying the price for his colossal blunder for decades to come.
This is not a "noble cause" for which our military men and women should lay down their lives.
At best, it was a political blunder brought on by fumbled and misconstrued intelligence. At worst, it was a deliberate deception brought on by lies and malfeasance. Pick your poison. In either case, it ain't good.
The sooner we end this exercise in stupidity and bring the troops out of Dubya's pathetic quagmire, the better... by whatever means necessary.
How 'bout we focus on the original job... left entirely overlooked and undone... Afghanistan? Remember that place, the sanctuary for al Qaeda and bin Laden... the folks who actually attacked us?
The original article was a minor attempt, on my part, at satire... if you read my post just above yours, you'll get the gist of my thoughts regarding Iraq.
Operation Black Eagle begins in Ad Diwaniyah
Friday, 06 April 2007
Multi-National Corps – Iraq
Public Affairs Office, Camp Victory
APO AE 09342
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
RELEASE No. 20070406-17
April 6, 2007
Operation Black Eagle begins in Ad Diwaniyah
Multinational Division - Baghdad PAO 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division Public Affairs
AD DIWANIYAH, Iraq – Iraqi Army troops swept into the city in the early morning hours April 6 to disrupt militia activity and return security and stability here back to the government of Iraq.
Soldiers of the 8th Iraqi Army Division supported by Soldiers and paratroopers from Multi-National Division-Baghdad began Operation Black Eagle at approximately 6:30 a.m., in response to the recent violence threatening to destabilize the region.
"Instead of showing instability and bowing to intimidation, the Iraqi government and its security forces have taken action and boldly responded to the militia threat," said Col. Michael Garrett, commander of the 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division, who are assisting in the operation. "The decisive actions taken by the 8th Iraqi Army Division is just the beginning of the government's plan to re-establish security in the area and create an environment where the government can improve the quality of life for the people of Ad Diwaniyah."
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11176&Itemid=128
Oh brother, not this lame "list-filler" again. How many years did Mohamed Atta and Marwan Alshehhi live in Florida, Greg? Does that make the US a terrorist state? Pleaaase.
Nope. He's in Iraq, and has been for essentially the entire time that he is supposed, due to a bogus statement by an Iraqi official weeks ago, to have "fled" to Iran. He has a theological mentor in Iran, and has paid brief visits. Not that he isn't feeling the heat from the "surge." Of the clerics in Iraq, al-Sadr is the most nationalistic and least Iran-leaning of the bunch.
al-Sadr's militias spend more time battling the Iran-backed Badr fighters than they do the Sunnis. Wake up and smell the chlorine gas, dude!
An additional point, one or two units extending operations just outside the city does not translate into surge troops chasing insurgents all over the country. You can call that my reality if you want, but it is a serious stretch at best.
It's fine if you disagree with the war or the surge or the President or whatever. All I ask is that you not have blinders on. Progress and setbacks go hand in hand in war. If you read all my comments carefully you will notice that I don't support or oppose the surge, and that I put its prospects for success somewhere around minimal at best. I try to examine everything that's happening and put events in context. If preconceived notions exist, then anything you read will reinforce those notions in some capacity.
Not that it matters, but the mainstream media is made up of reporters paid to write stories that sell papers or tune in viewers. There is little original material and reports are shared between organizations, resulting in few first hand, real accounts.
As for my credibility, take this for what you will. I don't purport to know everything about the war, but I do have some background. I am an active duty field grade officer who studies strategic plans and policy in the context of national military strategy and national security strategy. I have a Master of Science Degree in National Security Studies and have served two tours in Iraq. I have seen the good and the bad up close. That makes it hard to be objective, but I do my best. A thorough reading of my comments, I believe, will make this clear.
Michael S., thanks. My only concern with just pulling out is the potential for a wider conflict if the Saudis, Egyptians, and Jordanians make good on their hints and threats to intervene on behalf of the Sunnis. I don't doubt for a minute that we would be sucked right back in.
As for Iran, I'm leaning in that direction. I've said before that we may not be able to prevent it, and each week that passes makes it less likely that we will contain Iranian influence. But that is still my definition of victory. We are a long, long way from winning (achieving that definition) and are much closer to losing. I've not disputed that.
Anyway, good discussion but this is taking up way too much of my time. It just sucks me in!!
Dave, you can't compare Mohammed Atta to Abu Nidal. Apples and oranges. Atta was trained for years for his operation without conducting any previous terrorist attacks. Nidal was a known terrorist responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands. That's a ridiculous comparison. Besides, I said the link to terrorists was weak, but it was the way the administration should have gone if it wanted to link Iraq to the war on terror. This approach makes much more sense than a link to 9/11 or al-Qaeda.
Hope you don't mind if I commend you for being an apparently level-headed, clear-thinking, non-ideologue. Although I agree more with Michael S. and Dave A. -- that the Iraq occupation is a foreign policy disaster perpetrated by an unscrupulous group of neocons in the Executive branch -- I have to say I had yet to come across a "right-leaning" person on Gather who was capable of discussing Iraq without tossing around anti-liberal rhetoric and personal insults until I came to this thread. (case in point -- Mark M.).
I have lost friends and colleagues in Iraq, but I do make an honest effort to stay objective--the subject is too important to allow the debate to devolve into name calling and partisan rhetoric.
Michael S., you did a good job here getting discussion going. I look forward to more in the future.
It's not whether a master criminal like Abu Nidal is a more capable thug than Atta. It's whether there is a shred of evidence (which you are NOT prepared to provide) of a meaningful relationship between the Hussein government and al Qaeda. The high water mark on that story line is that somebody got medical care in Iraq (*yawn*). It's not credible, and a careful historian of the issue like you should not maintain that in your inventory. THAT is ridiculous.
MND-Baghdad forces were pulled 100 miles out of their primary area of responsibility to help quell a rising wave of violence including a series of assassinations, sectarian and political strife. The locus of violence addressed by Operation Black Eagle is a direct result of "surge" operations in Baghdad, and more importantly, calls by al-Sadr for militiamen to cease and desist their operations in Baghdad. Many militiamen migrated to the Diwaniyah area.
However patiently delivered, your spin just does not square with the facts.
For the record, the MNC units are: MND-Baghdad, MND-NC (North Central), MNF-W, MND-CS, and MND-SE.
At least 56 killed in Shiite holy city of Karbala, officials say
Updated: 1:07 a.m. PT April 14, 2007
BAGHDAD - A car bomb exploded Saturday in a bus station in the Shiite holy city of Karbala, killing at least 56 people, police and hospital officials said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18104441/
Greg Reeson: "The al-Qaeda link was always weak; what the administration should have done if it wanted to associate the Iraq action with the war on terror was to cite the known terrorists residing in Baghdad..."
This interactive map for Baghdad from 2003 to 2007 shows the progression of integrated sectors falling to Shi'a control. It also maps out the bomb attacks for the same time period.
With the recent demonstration of thousands of Iraqis against the U.S. occupation -- and by extension, against the Iraqi government -- and with no corresponding pro-government/U.S. presence demonstrations, it would appear the game is over.
Muqtada al Sadr wins having allowed the U.S. to eliminate his competitors. I think Juan Cole predicted this scenario early on.
In order to have credible metrics to evaluate the "surge," one would have to have a credible historical time line rather than the political propaganda we've been force-fed through the years.
I heard Dick Cheney remarked a few weeks ago that Americans didn't have the stomach for war or something along those lines.
Well, apparently Mr. Five-time Deferrment Cheney and Bubble Boy Bush didn't have the stomach for war either -- along with most all of the chickenhawks now mismanaging our country and our military.
Expecting Bush/Cheney and their pals to find solutions to the quackmire they created is akin to expecting your vehicle to roll on four flat tires or with the drivetrain sitting on the ground.
"It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them." Alfred Adler
It's more than just Bush and Cheney. The vast majority of the people who pushed for the Iraq invasion (and subsequent occupation) -- including those in the Bush administration, Congress, and media pundits as well -- are people who's "stomach for war" was conspicuously absent during the period of time that they themselves were able and eligible to fight in one.
I agree; however, as we are being force-fed the "surge," it is interesting (and in a larger sense our responsibility as citizens) to try to figure out whether the goals of the "surge" even as defined by the MNF themselves are being met. Is the general strategy of "clear and hold" being achieved and does it even make sense?
One of the disturbing elements of "clear and hold," as I mentioned earlier, is that Iraqi troops working alongside coalition troops are often of an opposing sect to those being "cleared." In Ad Diwaniyah, (which is ruled by SCIRI elected officials), it was primarily SCIRI loyalists in the Iraqi forces that were "clearing" Mahdi, or Sadr loyalists. This led directly to the call for nationalist demonstrations by al-Sadr, and the massive flag-waving throngs that followed. In the absence of a convincing "hold" (meaning an dramatic reduction in violence and a sense of security returning to the population in "held" areas) it is easy to see how these tactics could foment even greater sectarian strife (and anti-coalition sentiment) in just those areas "cleared." Yet, although violence is down in Baghdad, it has skyrocketed outside the capital (where many fighters have migrated). We are left with watching the metrics of violence as well as anecdotal evidence of the security concerns of the populace in the affected areas.
The other metric, almost invisible in the south and west at present, is the connection between political and military governance.
While I disagree with some of what you think I really am impressed with your ability to articulate you position and knowledge of the situation! I, too, feel that this is a major foreign policy decision on the part of the president and that there is no real way to "win" at this time. We need to look at defining an exit policy, which is doable, and declaring victory on the war which we promptly won, and implementing the exit strategy.
If the Egyptians and Saudis have indicated going to the assistance of the Sunnis it is not a surprise and they have standing in the region to become involved!
I would love to see the "surge" actually work! It cannot, in my opinion, because of the hatreds which exist in the area and because, no matter what, we are seen as outsider and interlopers in the process! To create a democratic society where the people involved know only their tribal governments and the dictatorships to which they've been subjected, is hopeless at this time! Democracy is very cumbersome, expensive and requiring of tremendous dedication to its cause! This is not available in Iraq.
In no way am I disparaging the actions of the American troops in Iraq! They've done a fantastic job which never should have been theirs to start with! But, once Bush invaded, he had the proverbial tiger by the tail. His and the PNAC's plans for the area have been knocked into a cocked hat by reality! If he'd listened to his dad and stuck with Afghanistan and Osama, Bush would have gone down as a very popular president with higher marks than his actual skills would allow! But he listened to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove and the rest of the PNAC to his own detriment. The American soldiers and the American nation and people will pay the price!
Again, I really appreciate your intelligent and articulate thoughts and look forward to reading more from you in the future, whether we agree or not! Thanks!
(1) "Preemptive attack"
(2) Hold
(3) Contain
(4) Back to (1)
Preemption means cutting off the attacker(s) before they attack. Containment means reducing the overall mobility of the attacker. But the very result of having to "hold" a territory means that any insurgency attempt to infiltrate the held territory is inevitably cut off and placed into containment. And then the contained territory that was "held" earlier becomes a new threat providing justification for further "preemption."
Dave said -- "as we are being force-fed the "surge," it is interesting (and in a larger sense our responsibility as citizens) to try to figure out whether the goals of the "surge" even as defined by the MNF themselves are being met. Is the general strategy of "clear and hold" being achieved and does it even make sense?"
You are persuasive. Of course, you're correct. I'm afraid I was leading with my emotions on that post. I appreciate the opportunity to correct my assumptions about al Sadr. Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me.
I don't see how clear and hold can work in the environment of contradictions you described.
Snark, snark, snark!
Laughing and crying here.
From what I've been told, our soldiers, liberal or conservative, serve primarily out of a sense of brotherhood, taking care of one another. Since any expression outside of the political expressions of the CIC [bubble boy bush] can land a soldier in deep deep trouble, we're not going to be hearing much in the way of disagreement from our troops.
You cannot, Mark -- nor Bush/Cheney -- speak for our troops when they are not allowed to speak for themselves candidly.
Nor can you speak for the families of those deployed.
I am so sorry I missed this when it was posted.
http://bushwacker.gather.com/