Surge working? Apparently not

The Brits are having some of the same issues.

Have we fixed things, or just put a cork in the bottle that may explode at any time?

A final all-out battle for Basra is seen as 'inevitable' as persistent violence looks set to keep British troops mired in southern Iraq longer than was expected.

An uneasy truce has been maintained between Iraqi security forces and Shia militia groups since Britain handed over control last December and moved to a base outside the city. Gordon Brown announced that the number of troops in Iraq would be cut from 4,700 to 2,500 by spring but that timetable appears increasingly optimistic.

Last week four British soldiers were injured, one seriously, by a roadside bomb during a night patrol and three contractors, two Indian and one Sri Lankan, died on the British base after it was hit by 19 rockets in 24 hours. Two private security company staff were injured after a visit to the Basra Children's Hospital. Negotiations for the release of a kidnapped British photojournalist continued without a breakthrough.

In an unusually frank analysis, Colonel Richard Iron, military mentor to the Iraqi commander General Mohan al-Furayji, said 'There's an uneasy peace between the Iraqi Security Forces [ISF] on the one hand and the militias on the other. There is a sense in the ISF that confrontation is inevitable. They are training and preparing for the battle ahead. General Mohan says that the US won the battle for Baghdad, the US is going win the battle for Mosul, but Iraqis will have to win the battle for Basra.'

Basra has been the scene of a violent power struggle between rival Shia factions, prominently Jaish al-Mahdi (JAM) led by the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who last week announced an extension to its six-month ceasefire. It has seen armed groups move into hospitals and university campuses to impose their religious and political ideology, bullying or even beheading women for going out to work or dressing inappropriately.

Asked who runs the city now, Iron, who has been in Basra since December, said: 'There's no one in charge. The unwritten rules of the game are there are areas where the army can and can't go and areas where JAM can and can't take weapons.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/24/iraq.iraq
 
Then what was/is the point? Iraq shall forever have acts of terrorism? Unstable govt? Be unable to look after itself? If these things were known BEFORE the invasion then surely the Bush admin were negligent in getting involved in the first place??

The Bush administration was not negligent. They apparently believed removing Saddam from power to be the lesser of two evils. It's arguable either way you want to go.

The legal authority was certainly there as the first time Saddam violated the terms of the ceasefire HE agreed to.

The people of Iraq were handed their own destiny. If they choose to not fight for it, that's their problem. They have a government in place that was voted for by the Iraqi people. It is now up to them to stand on their own.

Or is it that you suggest the US military should indfefinitely prop up the Iraqi government?
 
No liberals I have met have changed the definition. To succeed in Iraq would be to have a govt and social structure in place that can take care of itself and have no acts of terrorism. That is it.

Then America must be unsuccessful itself, it has acts of terrorism, both domestic and foreign.
 
the surge was always designed to do one thing: create enough peaceful "space" for Iraqi politicians to accomplish the compromises necessary to form a multicultural democracy. Our military succeeded in creating the "space". The Iraqi politicians have failed to uphold their end of the bargain.

another instance of the failed vision of the PNAC assholes who thought that creating a jeffersonian democracy blossoming like crocuses on the banks of the Euphrates was a reasonable task for the US military.

There has been political gains since the surge.
 
There has been political gains since the surge.

not anything major or anything that cannot be immediately reversed by Sadr calling an end to his cease fire.... and 67 shiites getting slaughtered on their way to a religious ceremony makes that a significant possibility.
 
So has the surge made just Baghdad or the whole country more secure? If only Baghdad, then how many more troops have to be surged to secure the whole country?

I will believe in its success when I see the Iraqis taking over more of their security and government and the number of our troops begin reduced.

If this takes another 2,3 or 4 years, then the surge didn't work as it was promised.


Don't bother listening to Bush voters. They've been wrong on nearly everything for the past five years. They spent the first three years of the war chanting at us that things were going pretty well, that hospitals and schools were being built. Those of us who hadn't drank the Bush kool aid could see what was happening: Iraq was spiraling out of control.

What's happening with the "surge" is not what's being reported on Fox News. The surge is a band aid, designed to kick the can down the road to the next president. There is virtually no political reconcillation in the country, and its hopelessly fractured beyond repair. Its a failed state, segregated by sectarian lines. The drop in violence is largely because we started bribing and paying off sunni insurgents to not attack us. As long as we keep paying them, they'll lay off us to an extent. When we stop paying them, they'll go back to shooting at us. They have their own agenda.

The Mahdi Army declared a cease fire in August that has also resulted in a drop in sectarian violence. It's to their benefit to lay low. They're not doing it to help Bush. They're using Bush. The american army and iraqi army are cracking down on sunni resistance groups. Which suit the Mahdi Army just fine. It suits their agenda.
 
the surge is only phase one.. phase 2 of McCain's brilliant and strategic plan tentatively call the big shove
its kind of beyond most people with out highest levels of military strategy but in lay mens terms it means to lower the recruiting standards ,instituting compulsory services ,extending tours...and sending many more young men and woman to be killed and maimed brining much needed security to all of Iraq and beyond
We should have never done away with conscription in the first place. In realty it historically takes about population/20 or so to successfully occupy a defeated nation-state. That means roughly 1,200,000 troop in the case of Iraq. We had over 2,000,000 under arms at the height of the cold war, but in this modern day of Shock and Awe, our forces are designed for quick victory in strike and then turning over the occupational duties to lower tier police level forces that most nations employ as their "military".

In spite of that the surge was very successful in military terms, but has yet to be matched in political terms, because, the reality is, the Iraqi people are simply not up to the task. They lack the fortitude to do anything beyond tribal level activity. They have no concept of a modern "nation".

As for casualties, this has been BY FAR the cleanest, least violent "war' America has ever fought in.
 
not anything major or anything that cannot be immediately reversed by Sadr calling an end to his cease fire.... and 67 shiites getting slaughtered on their way to a religious ceremony makes that a significant possibility.



The Democrats were wrong in their assessments of the surge. Attacks per week on American troops are now down about 60 percent from June. Civilian deaths are down approximately 75 percent from a year ago. December 2007 saw the second-lowest number of U.S. troops killed in action since March 2003. And according to Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of day-to-day military operations in Iraq, last month’s overall number of deaths, which includes Iraqi security forces and civilian casualties as well as U.S. and coalition losses, may well have been the lowest since the war began.

Do Obama and Clinton and Reid now acknowledge that they were wrong? Are they willing to say the surge worked?

No. It’s apparently impermissible for leading Democrats to acknowledge — let alone celebrate — progress in Iraq. When asked recently whether she stood behind her “willing suspension of disbelief” insult to General Petraeus, Clinton said, “That’s right.”

When Obama was asked in the most recent Democratic presidential debate, “Would you have seen this kind of greater security in Iraq if we had followed your recommendations to pull the troops out last year?” he didn’t directly address the question. But he volunteered that “much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar Province, Sunni tribes, who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what? — the Americans may be leaving soon. And we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shias. We should start negotiating now.”

But Sunni tribes in Anbar announced in September 2006 that they would join to fight Al Qaeda. That was two months before the Democrats won control of Congress. The Sunni tribes turned not primarily because of fear of the Shiites, but because of their horror at Al Qaeda’s atrocities in Anbar. And the improvements in Anbar could never have been sustained without aggressive American military efforts — efforts that were more effective in 2007 than they had been in 2006, due in part to the addition of the surge forces.

Last year’s success, in Anbar and elsewhere, was made possible by confidence among Iraqis that U.S. troops would stay and help protect them, that the U.S. would not abandon them to their enemies. Because the U.S. sent more troops instead of withdrawing — because, in other words, President Bush won his battles in 2007 with the Democratic Congress — we have been able to turn around the situation in Iraq.

And now Iraq’s Parliament has passed a de-Baathification law — one of the so-called benchmarks Congress established for political reconciliation. For much of 2007, Democrats were able to deprecate the military progress and political reconciliation taking place on the ground by harping on the failure of the Iraqi government to pass the benchmark legislation. They are being deprived of even that talking point.

Yesterday, on “Meet the Press,” Hillary Clinton claimed that the Iraqis are changing their ways in part because of the Democratic candidates’ “commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009.” So the Democratic Party, having proclaimed that the war is lost and having sought to withdraw U.S. troops, deserves credit for any progress that may have been achieved in Iraq.

That is truly a fairy tale. And it is driven by a refusal to admit real success because that success has been achieved under the leadership of ... George W. Bush. The horror!

•http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14kristol.html

This is from the Liberalistic Times...LOL
 
Then what was/is the point? Iraq shall forever have acts of terrorism? Unstable govt? Be unable to look after itself? If these things were known BEFORE the invasion then surely the Bush admin were negligent in getting involved in the first place??

Iraq is a Middle East Zimbabwe. When in control of capable, educated, smart, western people like the British, Zimbabwe was the bread basket of southern Africa. A food EXPORTING state, self-sufficient and prosperous. Turned over to it's indiginous people, it has become a failed stated, racked by famine and disease.

People need to face reality that the bulk of nations on this planet are inhabited by people completely unable to function beyond privative, savage, tribal levels. Without the guidance and control of advanced, educated people driven by higher principals, they devolve into the primitive savagery of prehistoric human existence.

That is Iraq. The Iraqi people are primative Neanderthals. In future regime changes we should just go in, take out the irritants to us, then leave those countries to their own. If they fail, let the insects that inhabit them starve to death. It;s their own fault if they are too stupid to figure it out.
 
This is from the Liberalistic Times...LOL

I don't disagree with the fact that there has been a degree of progress. Most of the successes have been military in nature and due, in large part, to the mahdi army's cease fire. Sadr can change that at any time and will, if he feels he is being cut out of the action or if the shiite death toll rises disproportionately. I do not trust sunnis and shiites in Iraq to play nice with each other. that is my opinion.... but a fairly well educated one.
 
not anything major or anything that cannot be immediately reversed by Sadr calling an end to his cease fire.... and 67 shiites getting slaughtered on their way to a religious ceremony makes that a significant possibility.

Sad thing is, in 2004 we could have eliminated most all of Sadr's militia and killed Sadr, himself. In the aftermath of WWII in Japan and Germany occupations, to allow a man like Sadr to live or a militia to survive would have been the very height of gross STUPIDITY. Now we pay the price for worrying about political correctness. Take the bastard out, blow up the mosques and shrines they are hiding in and squash ALL resistance. It's how we did it in Japan and how we SHOULD have done it in Iraq.

The truth is somewhere over 1,000,000 Iraqis should have been killed or imprisoned AFTER the fall of Sadaam to secure the country. Martial law, if you move after curfew, you DIE. And that means women and children and pets. It's how we did things in Germany and Japan and how we should have done things in Iraq.

But I can hear the whiney liberals in our midst had begun executing Iraqi "civilians" on site for curfew violations like we did in Japan in 1945-46. The "greatest generation" knew how to take care of business. This dickless generation can't find it's ass with two hands.
 
I don't disagree with the fact that there has been a degree of progress. Most of the successes have been military in nature and due, in large part, to the mahdi army's cease fire. Sadr can change that at any time and will, if he feels he is being cut out of the action or if the shiite death toll rises disproportionately. I do not trust sunnis and shiites in Iraq to play nice with each other. that is my opinion.... but a fairly well educated one.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695253568,00.html
 
Sad thing is, in 2004 we could have eliminated most all of Sadr's militia and killed Sadr, himself. In the aftermath of WWII in Japan and Germany occupations, to allow a man like Sadr to live or a militia to survive would have been the very height of gross STUPIDITY. Now we pay the price for worrying about political correctness. Take the bastard out, blow up the mosques and shrines they are hiding in and squash ALL resistance. It's how we did it in Japan and how we SHOULD have done it in Iraq.

The truth is somewhere over 1,000,000 Iraqis should have been killed or imprisoned AFTER the fall of Sadaam to secure the country. Martial law, if you move after curfew, you DIE. And that means women and children and pets. It's how we did things in Germany and Japan and how we should have done things in Iraq.

But I can hear the whiney liberals in our midst had begun executing Iraqi "civilians" on site for curfew violations like we did in Japan in 1945-46. The "greatest generation" knew how to take care of business. This dickless generation can't find it's ass with two hands.

Taking out Sadr and his militia - let alone children and women who didn't obey a curfew - would have exacerbated the problem a 100 fold.

That's the problem with you warmongering right-wing nutjobs - you place Jeffersonian morals and mores on the ME. That is why Bush's folly was doomed to failure from day one....
 
Iraq is a Middle East Zimbabwe. When in control of capable, educated, smart, western people like the British, Zimbabwe was the bread basket of southern Africa. A food EXPORTING state, self-sufficient and prosperous. Turned over to it's indiginous people, it has become a failed stated, racked by famine and disease.

People need to face reality that the bulk of nations on this planet are inhabited by people completely unable to function beyond privative, savage, tribal levels. Without the guidance and control of advanced, educated people driven by higher principals, they devolve into the primitive savagery of prehistoric human existence.

That is Iraq. The Iraqi people are primative Neanderthals. In future regime changes we should just go in, take out the irritants to us, then leave those countries to their own. If they fail, let the insects that inhabit them starve to death. It;s their own fault if they are too stupid to figure it out.

Zimbabwe turned out the way it did because Mugabe (a teacher by profession) became a meglomaniac. Africa and the ME were not helped by the fact that the colonial rulers of those regions (Britain and France in particular) failed to take tribal/ethnic boundaries into consideration when dividing the place up. In fact Iraq and Zimbabwe are classic examples because both had/have three factions vying for power. It is the same in most sub-saharan African countries (not that there are three factions exactly, just a number of different tribes wanting to run the place - Kenya being just the latest example, and Rwanda being the most horrific example of mass genocide).

Arabia was once the cradle of civilisation. The invented algebra and were the leading lights in astronomy until Islam came along.

I'd just settle for the US to stay the fuck out of the region period. I agree, let them eat themselves...
 
The people of Iraq were handed their own destiny.

How benevolent America. Thanks! :clap2:

It is now up to them to stand on their own.

With their infrastructure fucked and no real strength in government, brilliant! What does Bush do for an encore? Drain the Tigris and Euphrates and tell the Iraqis to sort out their own irrigation problems?

Or is it that you suggest the US military should indfefinitely prop up the Iraqi government?

No, you should prop up the government until it can stand on its own two feet. If that takes decades, so be it. You created the situation, you fix it. You conservatives are big on taking responsibility for your own actions, right?
 
So is pratically the entire world....

Depends. I mean there is a difference between an act of terrorism (say the train bombs in London) and continual acts of terrorism. Tell me: you're one of those literalists, right? You know, to you the guy who smoked one cigarette in his life is an ex smoker, as is the guy who smoked 40 a day for 30 years and there's no difference between them. Before you go down that road re terrorism, you might wanna rethink your strategy, because it fools noone and you start looking a little silly...
 
Depends. I mean there is a difference between an act of terrorism (say the train bombs in London) and continual acts of terrorism. Tell me: you're one of those literalists, right? You know, to you the guy who smoked one cigarette in his life is an ex smoker, as is the guy who smoked 40 a day for 30 years and there's no difference between them. Before you go down that road re terrorism, you might wanna rethink your strategy, because it fools noone and you start looking a little silly...

You made a statement defining success, just making you stand behind your statement....no terrorism
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top