Why Bush's troop surge won't save Iraq

[DeadCanDance]

Don't take that victory lap yet....

The reduced violence in Iraq in recent months stems from three significant developments, but the clock is running on all of them, Iraqi officials and analysts warn....

Officials attribute the relative calm to a huge increase in the number of Sunni Arab rebels who have turned their guns on jihadists instead of American troops; a six-month halt to military action by the militia of a top Shiite leader, Moktada al-Sadr; and the increased number of American troops on the streets here.

They stress that all of these changes can be reversed, and on relatively short notice. The Americans have already started to reduce troop levels and Mr. Sadr, who has only three months to go on his pledge, has issued increasingly bellicose pronouncements recently.

The Sunni insurgents who turned against the jihadists are now expecting to be rewarded with government jobs. Yet, so far, barely 5 percent of the 77,000 Sunni volunteers have been given jobs in the Iraqi security forces, and the bureaucratic wheels have moved excruciatingly slowly despite government pledges to bring more Sunnis in.

And the Guardian adds:

Iraq's main Sunni-led resistance groups have scaled back their attacks on US forces in Baghdad and parts of Anbar province in a deliberate strategy aimed at regrouping, retraining, and waiting out George Bush's "surge", a key insurgent leader has told the Guardian.

US officials recently reported a 55% drop in attacks across Iraq. One explanation they give is the presence of 30,000 extra US troops deployed this summer. The other is the decision by dozens of Sunni tribal leaders to accept money and weapons from the Americans in return for confronting al-Qaida militants who attack civilians. They call their movement al-Sahwa (the Awakening).

Here's the director of the political department of the 1920 Revolution Brigades, and uses the nom de guerre Dr Abdallah Suleiman Omary.

Besides Ramadi, the Awakening movement was also operating in Sunni-majority districts of Baghdad, such as Ameriya, Adhamiya, and parts of Ghazaliya and Jihad, Omary said. He predicted it was unlikely to last for more than a few months. It was a "temporary deal" with the US and would split apart as people realised the Americans' true intentions.

He cited last week's announcement that the Bush administration plans to work with the Shia-led government of Nuri al-Maliki on arrangements for long-term US military bases and an open-ended occupation in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/world/middleeast/05surge.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

 

[doniston]

Except for the fact that I explaied exactly why I said Jan 2009, with said explanation proving you to be absolutely incorrect.

Your explaination is crap, and that should be obvious, even to you.

 

[Annie]

And the Guardian adds:

Iraq's main Sunni-led resistance groups have scaled back their attacks on US forces in Baghdad and parts of Anbar province in a deliberate strategy aimed at regrouping, retraining, and waiting out George Bush's "surge", a key insurgent leader has told the Guardian.[/QUOTE]IF this is the case, why would they think they could 'wait it out?' Oh I know, they recognize that there is a contingent in the US trying to bring home the surge, before the political changes have the chance to happen.




http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/world/middleeast/05surge.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

 

[maineman]

Iraq's main Sunni-led resistance groups have scaled back their attacks on US forces in Baghdad and parts of Anbar province in a deliberate strategy aimed at regrouping, retraining, and waiting out George Bush's "surge", a key insurgent leader has told the Guardian

IF this is the case, why would they think they could 'wait it out?' Oh I know, they recognize that there is a contingent in the US trying to bring home the surge, before the political changes have the chance to happen.




http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/world/middleeast/05surge.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

how long are YOU willing to have our troops play traffic cop/babysitter while Iraqi politicians do next to nothing? when will YOU say enough is enough?

Ever? Never?

 

[Annie]

IF this is the case, why would they think they could 'wait it out?' Oh I know, they recognize that there is a contingent in the US trying to bring home the surge, before the political changes have the chance to happen.




http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/world/middleeast/05surge.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

how long are YOU willing to have our troops play traffic cop/babysitter while Iraqi politicians do next to nothing? when will YOU say enough is enough?

Ever? Never?[/QUOTE]
I don't know. Seems if there is a benefit to the US, which there is, what is 'long enough?' You?

 

[maineman]

"benefit to the US"???? dead and wounded GI's and a trillion dollars down the shitter? I am sorry. Where I come from, that is not considered a "benefit".

If I thought for one moment that Iraq would be our bosum buddy in the middle east - even after we left - and be a multi-cultural jeffersonian democracy serving as a beacon of freedom against all the evil in the area, I would say - let's stay the course. But, if it wouldn't make me sick to my stomach to take your money, I would bet you a lot of it that Iraq will be an ally of Iran within a year of our departure whenever that is...so why should we spend a shitload more in blood and treasure waiting for the inevitable?

 

[Annie]

"benefit to the US"???? dead and wounded GI's and a trillion dollars down the shitter? I am sorry. Where I come from, that is not considered a "benefit".

If I thought for one moment that Iraq would be our bosum buddy in the middle east - even after we left - and be a multi-cultural jeffersonian democracy serving as a beacon of freedom against all the evil in the area, I would say - let's stay the course. But, if it wouldn't make me sick to my stomach to take your money, I would bet you a lot of it that Iraq will be an ally of Iran within a year of our departure whenever that is...so why should we spend a shitload more in blood and treasure waiting for the inevitable?

Funny, I wasn't looking for a 'bosum buddy', more a station in a part of the world that we currently get the fuel for our economic engines as they were, not to mention our creature comforts. It's under 25F tonight. Iraq is a central location in a very bad neighborhood. Iran? Syria? Lebanon? Jordan? Israel? All are enemies or possible friends, but how can we help or keep them in check?

That is what I was referring to. Do I think it worth the sacrifices of our military? Hmmm, how to answer that one. What would you suggest, having spent the majority of your life in the military?

 

[maineman]

Funny, I wasn't looking for a 'bosum buddy', more a station in a part of the world that we currently get the fuel for our economic engines as they were, not to mention our creature comforts. It's under 25F tonight. Iraq is a central location in a very bad neighborhood. Iran? Syria? Lebanon? Jordan? Israel? All are enemies or possible friends, but how can we help or keep them in check?

That is what I was referring to. Do I think it worth the sacrifices of our military? Hmmm, how to answer that one. What would you suggest, having spent the majority of your life in the military?

I would suggest that I was trained to hunt submarines and keep sea lines of commerce and communication open...but those fellow veterans of mine from the land services that I know have told me that they were not trained to be policemen trying to keep the peace between warring sects of Islam.

When we leave, Iraq is going to cozy up to Iran. period. It will happen if we leave tommorow morning...it will happen if we leave in a decade. What do you think the difference between those two extremes is?

In the former, we could save a lot of money and lives and focus the attention of our military and our intelligence services AND OUR DIPLOMATIC RESOURCES in seeking out and destroying the leadership of Islamic extremism that is so hellbent on upsetting the applecart.... we could better protect ourselves, our ports, and our borders from them, and we could take steps to economically mitigate the inequities that help foster them.

In the latter, we continue to hemorrhage blood and treasure all over the sands of Iraq until we run so low on both that we are forced to withdraw.

 

[Annie]

I would suggest that I was trained to hunt submarines and keep sea lines of commerce and communication open...but those fellow veterans of mine from the land services that I know have told me that they were not trained to be policemen trying to keep the peace between warring sects of Islam.

When we leave, Iraq is going to cozy up to Iran. period. It will happen if we leave tommorow morning...it will happen if we leave in a decade. What do you think the difference between those two extremes is?

In the former, we could save a lot of money and lives and focus the attention of our military and our intelligence services AND OUR DIPLOMATIC RESOURCES in seeking out and destroying the leadership of Islamic extremism that is so hellbent on upsetting the applecart.... we could better protect ourselves, our ports, and our borders from them, and we could take steps to economically mitigate the inequities that help foster them.

In the latter, we continue to hemorrhage blood and treasure all over the sands of Iraq until we run so low on both that we are forced to withdraw.

And you will feel the same if your party of choice wins and then decides we should stay? You'll work against their reelection, right?

 

[maineman]

And you will feel the same if your party of choice wins and then decides we should stay? You'll work against their reelection, right?

of course not, because I agree with the democratic platform on so many other issues...but I WILL certainly be in contact with my democratic congressman and the white house demanding our returm.

I have never been, nor will I ever be, a one issue voter.

 

[trobinett]

Juan Cole is a noted MiddleEastern expert, and his predictions have been pretty close to being 100% right over the last five years (compared to BushCo. who've nearly always been wrong)

You are ONE fucked up dude!

How you balance the statements you make is beyond me.

Juan Cole hasn't got a fucking clue, as to whats right, or whats needed.

Wrong, right, tell me the difference...............

You left wing pieces of shit, ya got no conscience.

 

[Annie]

You are ONE fucked up dude!

How you balance the statements you make is beyond me.

Juan Cole hasn't got a fucking clue, as to whats right, or whats needed.

Wrong, right, tell me the difference...............

You left wing pieces of shit, ya got no conscience.

Yep, he was denied a position at Yale and he supported Jihad Johnnie. Juan Cole has yet to find an anti-US cause he can't rally behind, no matter how off the wall.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your explaination is crap...

Only to a partisan bigot, such as yourself.

 

[doniston]

Only to a partisan bigot, such as yourself.

Now THAT IS YOUR BEST JOKE YET> Me ? PARTISAN? Nuts. True I am oposed to bush, but he's not the party. He is an idiot who has somehow pulled the wool over a party. If you really paid attention to my posts you would know that I am strictly a fence-sitter-upon when it comes to the parties.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Now THAT IS YOUR BEST JOKE YET> Me ? PARTISAN? Nuts. True I am oposed to bush, but he's not the party. He is an idiot who has somehow pulled the wool over a party. If you really paid attention to my posts you would know that I am strictly a fence-sitter-upon when it comes to the parties.

Blah blah blah....
You dont like my postion? Too bad.
Rather than dismiss it as 'crap' like a good Bush-hating partisan bigot, tell me what's wrong with it.

 

[maineman]

Blah blah blah....
You dont like my postion? Too bad.
Rather than dismiss it as 'crap' like a good Bush-hating partisan bigot, tell me what's wrong with it.

do you think that the word "partisan" refers to people who do not like our president?