Surge working? Apparently not

[Dr Grump]

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

No you are not. You are trying to make an example by taking the extremes and pretending they are the norm. My smoking example just proves I'm way ahead of where you are at and just to show how predictable you are. And just to show how predictable you are, you only focused on one aspect of that post. The one that would give you the cheapest shot. The other two points you ignored. Gee, I wonder why?

 

[Dr Grump]

What is a reasonable amount of terrorism as defined by Gump?

There is no reasonable amount. There is a difference between an incident once every 10 years and acts happening on daily or weekly basis. If you don't know that, then it is pointless talking to you. If you wanna score cheap points, go play bridge...

 

[rayboyusmc]

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

The jury is still out an whether it is working. We are now keeping the extra troops there who were supposed to be brought back home. If we are just tamping down the violence temporarily, then it's hard to justify saying the surge is working.

The only ones on the working bandwagon are the ones on the right who have been for the war all along.

Let's see what happens.

 

[Gunny]

How benevolent America. Thanks!



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?



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?

No, we shouldn't prop up the government at all. Assisting the government to its feet I have no problem with.

If in fact we provide the Iraqi government and people all the tools and opportunity to succeed and they fail to do so, that's on them, not "conservatives." At some point the responsibility has to pass from whom you never miss a chance at pointing a finger at to the Iraqi people themselves.

Or you can shut up about us being there and building bases cuz we're just "propping up the Iraqi gov't for as long as it takes."

You CAN'T have both.

 

[Zoomie1980]

No, we shouldn't prop up the government at all. Assisting the government to its feet I have no problem with.

If in fact we provide the Iraqi government and people all the tools and opportunity to succeed and they fail to do so, that's on them, not "conservatives." At some point the responsibility has to pass from whom you never miss a chance at pointing a finger at to the Iraqi people themselves.

Or you can shut up about us being there and building bases cuz we're just "propping up the Iraqi gov't for as long as it takes."

You CAN'T have both.

I had a very interesting meeting with General Chilton(STRATCOM commander), a University of Nebraska regent and 77 grad of the Air Force Academy, and a two other general officers on their recent fact finding trip to Iraq. They were charged with observing and interviewing, left mostly to the Regent as a civilian. Their conclusions and their briefing to General Patreus had these main points:

1) Democracy was tried far too soon. Should have had a minimum of one year of martial law, followed by at least four years of appointed benevolent dictatorship under US/UK control, along with mass re-education of the Iraqi populace. Then a waiting period until a strong national leader rose from the populace and then gradually institute Democratic tenants (aka the Japan model from after WWII). The occupation was essentially a doomed failure from 2003 on.

2) The surge has been a near complete military success but a near 100% political failure.

3) Al Queda has been nearly 100% eradicated in Iraq. Most because the Sunni Tribal leaders turned on them, en-masse and Shia and Kurds NEVER supported them.

4) Iraq has a 75% chance of breaking into three states, Kurdistan in the north, a Sunni state in the West, and a Shia State in the south

5) The Shiites will NOT ally with Iran because a) they are nationalistic, and b) the Iranians are Persians and they are Arabs.

6) The US military can only sustain another 18-24 months of engagement at these levels and after that will be almost completely out of functioning equipment. The Pentagon's leaders are already quietly beginning withdrawal plans starting as early as this fall and that is regardless of who wins the election.

7) We will have a permanent base, most likely Camp Striecher in the north (Kurdish region) and about a 15-20,000 troop presence for the next 50+ years.

8) General Patreus and the new Centcom commander cannot stand each other and have been openly hostile to one another.

This is about the best "inside" info I have gotten on Iraq to date, and it was "illuminating".

 

[Gunny]

I had a very interesting meeting with General Chilton(STRATCOM commander), a University of Nebraska regent and 77 grad of the Air Force Academy, and a two other general officers on their recent fact finding trip to Iraq. They were charged with observing and interviewing, left mostly to the Regent as a civilian. Their conclusions and their briefing to General Patreus had these main points:

1) Democracy was tried far too soon. Should have had a minimum of one year of martial law, followed by at least four years of appointed benevolent dictatorship under US/UK control, along with mass re-education of the Iraqi populace. Then a waiting period until a strong national leader rose from the populace and then gradually institute Democratic tenants (aka the Japan model from after WWII). The occupation was essentially a doomed failure from 2003 on.

2) The surge has been a near complete military success but a near 100% political failure.

3) Al Queda has been nearly 100% eradicated in Iraq. Most because the Sunni Tribal leaders turned on them, en-masse and Shia and Kurds NEVER supported them.

4) Iraq has a 75% chance of breaking into three states, Kurdistan in the north, a Sunni state in the West, and a Shia State in the south

5) The Shiites will NOT ally with Iran because a) they are nationalistic, and b) the Iranians are Persians and they are Arabs.

6) The US military can only sustain another 18-24 months of engagement at these levels and after that will be almost completely out of functioning equipment. The Pentagon's leaders are already quietly beginning withdrawal plans starting as early as this fall and that is regardless of who wins the election.

7) We will have a permanent base, most likely Camp Striecher in the north (Kurdish region) and about a 15-20,000 troop presence for the next 50+ years.

8) General Patreus and the new Centcom commander cannot stand each other and have been openly hostile to one another.

This is about the best "inside" info I have gotten on Iraq to date, and it was "illuminating".

Interesting analysis.

In regard to the 3-state thing, my first question would be can any one of them tolerate the existence of the other two?

I completely agree on the way the occupation should have been handled, but our more sensitive political bunch could never tolerate such a thing.

The Arab-Persian thing is something new to me. Not that they are, and are different, but that the Shia would not unite because of it.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Interesting analysis.

In regard to the 3-state thing, my first question would be can any one of them tolerate the existence of the other two?

I completely agree on the way the occupation should have been handled, but our more sensitive political bunch could never tolerate such a thing.

The Arab-Persian thing is something new to me. Not that they are, and are different, but that the Shia would not unite because of it.

The General did cover the risks and problems of the three state thing. The main flash point is the status of Tikrit. Tikrit is essentially the Jerusalem of Kurdistan. The Kurds will have it. But both the Sunni;s and Shiites will supposedly will not tolerate the Kurds having Tikrit. Of course the Kurds are by far the most militarily capable of the three and will simply take and hold Tikrit no matter what.

The Sunnis have no producing oil however sit on top a lot of untapped reserves. It is expected their Saudi allies will assist them in drilling and tapping into it so all three states would eventually have oil access. However, only the Shia region has access to a sea port, so that will be interesting to see how it develops.

The Turks will have a hard time tolerating a Kurdish state so we may see war between a new Kurdistan and Turkey and a Turkish withdrawal from both the EU and NATO because of it and possibly the collapse of the secular democracy there.

All because we screwed up in 2003 and used the wrong nationbuilding strategy from the get-go, completely ignoring the enormous success of the Japanese transformation 60 years before....

 

[Gunny]

The General did cover the risks and problems of the three state thing. The main flash point is the status of Tikrit. Tikrit is essentially the Jerusalem of Kurdistan. The Kurds will have it. But both the Sunni;s and Shiites will supposedly will not tolerate the Kurds having Tikrit. Of course the Kurds are by far the most militarily capable of the three and will simply take and hold Tikrit no matter what.

The Sunnis have no producing oil however sit on top a lot of untapped reserves. It is expected their Saudi allies will assist them in drilling and tapping into it so all three states would eventually have oil access. However, only the Shia region has access to a sea port, so that will be interesting to see how it develops.

The Turks will have a hard time tolerating a Kurdish state so we may see war between a new Kurdistan and Turkey and a Turkish withdrawal from both the EU and NATO because of it and possibly the collapse of the secular democracy there.

All because we screwed up in 2003 and used the wrong nationbuilding strategy from the get-go, completely ignoring the enormous success of the Japanese transformation 60 years before....

Why do you see the possible collapse of secular democracy in Turkey? From the propaganda being put out, they sound little different than their Ottoman ancestors.

I also have to wonder where the US falls in that equation since we are allied with Turkey (at least when it suits Turkey), but the Kurds have been open and friendly to the US all along and from what I've seen, have a sort of behind-the-back blessing from us.

I can also see Turkey being upset if the Kurds themselves don't do something about the PKK.

We didn't ignore the successes of the Marshall Plan nor the Japanese transformation. What it amounts to is they aren't politically correct ways of doing business and the PC would rather their own nation lose than deal with something for what it is and address it as such. Someone might be offended.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Why do you see the possible collapse of secular democracy in Turkey? From the propaganda being put out, they sound little different than their Ottoman ancestors.

I also have to wonder where the US falls in that equation since we are allied with Turkey (at least when it suits Turkey), but the Kurds have been open and friendly to the US all along and from what I've seen, have a sort of behind-the-back blessing from us.

I can also see Turkey being upset if the Kurds themselves don't do something about the PKK.

We didn't ignore the successes of the Marshall Plan nor the Japanese transformation. What it amounts to is they aren't politically correct ways of doing business and the PC would rather their own nation lose than deal with something for what it is and address it as such. Someone might be offended.

As for Turkey, General Patreus is a LOT more concerned about hostility between the Kurds and Turks than he is any trouble coming from Iran. The Iraqis according to Gallup (now the "official" polling agency handling public opinion polling in Iraq) are fed up with ALL foreign fighters in their country, Al Queda, the US and UK, and Iranians and their proxies. And that is universal in all three regions. The Kurds are friendly to us and thus the base near Mosul. And the PRIMARY short term purpose for that base it to keep the Turk-Kurd thing under control. He is briefed daily on the rising tide of anti-western, pro Islamic sentiment in Turkey and the Islamic theocrats are nearing a majority coalition in the Turkish parliament. And war in which the US is seen as backing the Kurds against Turkey could be the death knell of current ruling secular politicians in Turkey.

As for the PC stuff, see my statement on this current "dickless" generation of whinnying babies we have in this country now... If MacArthur we in charge of Iraq following the fall of Baghdad, we'd have 1 to 2 MILLION more dead Iraqi citizens, a completely cowed and DISARMED Iraqi society, and re-education well on it's way and a country well on its way to a pro-western democracy by now. But it would have been a bloody road, as it was in Japan in the late 1940's... Always surprised more hasn't been written about the often brutal occupation of Japan immediately after WWII. Over 400,000 Japanese civilians died, mostly from disease and exposure as MacArthur refused to rebuild ANY housing or medical facilities during the first year of occupation to "punish and cow" the Japanese people for their 20 years of crimes inflicted on the people of Korea, China and the Phillipines...