Why Bush's troop surge won't save Iraq

[M14 Shooter]

Why Bush's troop surge won't save Iraq?

Because it wasnt supposed to.

It -is- supposed to create sufficient security so that the Iranian government can functiuon, and do all the things it needs to do in order to create a stable Iraq.

And it HAS done that.

Now, its up to the Iranian government to do its job.

 

[Shogun]

And it HAS done that.


so you don't mind bringing em home then, eh?

 

[maineman]

it is similar to getting out the snowblower with the express purpose of clearing a pathway for the car to get back in the driveway. If you snowblow the driveway completely clear, but the family car does NOT come home on time, and, by the time it does, the snow has continued to fall and now blocks the driveway once again, was the snowblowing venture a "success"?

The surge, without concurrent political success, is relatively meaningless in the long term.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Why Bush's troop surge won't save Iraq?

Because it wasnt supposed to.

It -is- supposed to create sufficient security so that the Iranian government can functiuon, and do all the things it needs to do in order to create a stable Iraq.

And it HAS done that.

Now, its up to the Iranian government to do its job.

In principle, I agree. Our Army has done its job.

So, how long will you be willing to wait for the iraqis to "do their job". Surely, you don't suggest a never-ending, open ended committment, to using our army as a police force or baby sitter to keep waring sectarian factions apart.

How long should we wait for the iraqis to make real progress?

 

[JimH52]

What the surge has done is move the insurgency. I pray the violence will not return but I wonder what will happen if our troops begin redeploying and the government is still fractured.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/06/africa/06mosul.php

 

[Annie]

What the surge has done is move the insurgency. I pray the violence will not return but I wonder what will happen if our troops begin redeploying and the government is still fractured.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/06/africa/06mosul.php

Where did it move to?

 

[maineman]

Where did it move to?

the article answers that question

 

[DeadCanDance]

Where did it move to?

Its in the link he provided

 

[JimH52]

Where did it move to?

MOSUL, Iraq: Sunni insurgents pushed out of Baghdad and Anbar Provinces have migrated to this northern Iraqi city and have been trying to turn it into a major hub for their operations, according to American commanders.

A growing number of insurgents have relocated here and other places in northern Iraq as the additional forces sent by President George W. Bush have mounted operations in the Iraqi capital and American commanders have made common cause with Sunni tribes in the western part of the country.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/...ca/06mosul.php

(this is a link to a web page)...

 

[DeadCanDance]

MOSUL, Iraq: Sunni insurgents pushed out of Baghdad and Anbar Provinces have migrated to this northern Iraqi city and have been trying to turn it into a major hub for their operations, according to American commanders.

A growing number of insurgents have relocated here and other places in northern Iraq as the additional forces sent by President George W. Bush have mounted operations in the Iraqi capital and American commanders have made common cause with Sunni tribes in the western part of the country.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/...ca/06mosul.php

(this is a link to a web page)...

Well, we've seen this movie before.

American troops secure an area, and the insurgents migrate elsewhere.

 

[Annie]

MOSUL, Iraq: Sunni insurgents pushed out of Baghdad and Anbar Provinces have migrated to this northern Iraqi city and have been trying to turn it into a major hub for their operations, according to American commanders.

A growing number of insurgents have relocated here and other places in northern Iraq as the additional forces sent by President George W. Bush have mounted operations in the Iraqi capital and American commanders have made common cause with Sunni tribes in the western part of the country.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/...ca/06mosul.php

(this is a link to a web page)...

All 'not found' from IHT.

 

[Annie]

Just looking around based on the above posts:


http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/4742

Iraq Update 12/06/07

Lots and lots of progress still pouring out of Iraq. First up is news of a Sunni-Kurd power sharing deal in the North of Iraq - ironically the last bastion of major al-Qaeda activity:

Sunni Arabs ended a yearlong political boycott Tuesday in Kirkuk — the hub of Iraq’s northern oil fields — under a cooperation pact that marked a bold attempt at unity before a planned referendum on control of the strategic region.
The Sunni-Kurdish deal — urged by U.S. diplomats — could also move ahead other reconciliation bids demanded by Washington but stalled by disputes that include sharing oil wealth and compromising with Sunnis who backed Saddam Hussein’s Baath party.​

As promised, the Surge has produced breathing room for reconciliation to occur. As I mentioned, this is an area were the remnants of al-Qaeda’s forces are still active - or it might be better to say “the area al-Qaeda are retreating through”:

MOSUL, Iraq, Dec. 5 — Sunni insurgents pushed out of Baghdad and Anbar Provinces have migrated to this northern Iraqi city and have been trying to turn it into a major hub for their operations, according to American commanders.

A growing number of insurgents have relocated here and other places in northern Iraq as the additional forces sent by President Bush have mounted operations in the Iraqi capital and American commanders have made common cause with Sunni tribes in the western part of the country.

The insurgents who have ventured north include Abu Ayyub-al Masri, the leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a predominantly Iraqi group that American intelligence says has foreign leadership. American officials say the insurgent leader has twice slipped in and out of Mosul in Nineveh Province to try to rally fellow militants and put end to infighting.

“We have seen some migration of Al Qaeda,” said Col. Stephen Twitty, the commander of the Fourth Brigade Combat Team, First Cavalry Division, which is returning to the United States after 13 months here. “What has driven that are the operations down south.”
​

Well one look at a map explains why this actually may be the path of retreat through Norther Iran and into Afghanistan - where we are seeing the fleeing forces heading”. Commanders in the region are requesting a shift of forces to the northern region, which will result in the finally purge of al-Qaeda from Iraq. Please note the public pronouncement of troop movements is meant for media digestion and dissemination - which means this ‘request’ is a done deal. At the same time Sec Def Gates is saying a successful end for Iraq is nearly at hand:

And he said much work remains to be done to ensure Iraqi forces are ready to take over more military duties from U.S. troops. Iraqis who have been fighting insurgents on the local level must be integrated into Iraqi security forces, for example, he said.

“I believe that a secure, stable Iraq is within reach,'’ Gates said. However, he added, “We need to be patient.'’​

Actually, the planning for the change over is happening and key milestones are being announced for 2008. First off is the news the Iraqi volunteer patrols will become part of the formal government security forces and be expanded next year:

The number of volunteer militiamen helping patrol the Baghdad area should grow nearly fourfold to 45,000 next year and will assume roles under Iraqi military command, a security official said Wednesday.

The comments marked the clearest signal yet that Iraq’s Shiite leadership may now be willing to work with the mostly Sunni factions — praised by the Pentagon as a key ally against extremists such as al-Qaida in Iraq.

Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, the chief Iraqi military spokesman in Baghdad, predicted that the volunteer forces could swell to 45,000 next year from the current 12,000 in the Baghdad area. He also cited their contribution in the recent downturn in violence in the capital.
​

This was another major reconciliation point recently demanded by the Sunnis and is a huge step in reversing the de-Baathification restrictions. Of course it will also help to allow us to shift forces northward to chase the remnants of al-Qaeda back to their caves. This absorption of the US sponsored citizen patrols will entail the Iraqis will be taking over the financial responsibilities for them:

Iraq will put most of the mainly Sunni Arab neighbourhood patrols currently employed by U.S. forces on the Shi’ite-led government’s payroll by mid-2008, a senior security spokesman said on Wednesday.

The announcement means tens of thousands of armed Sunni Arabs, some believed to have fought as insurgents until this year, will soon be working for the government in Baghdad.​

In another clear indication Iraq is standing up to its own responsibilities it is now purchasing its security supplies from the US:

According to Multi National Forces-Iraq, supplies are coming into the Taji National Depot recently. The most current shipment includes in the form of M-16s and M-4s. The shipment was due to the Foreign Military Sales program operated by the U.S.

The depot, located at Camp Taji, is for storage of such items for use by the Iraqi military, and multiple deliveries have been made recently to help continue the efforts of the soldiers working in Iraq.

Other items are sent to Taji for distribution besides weapons. Among the supplies are clothing, ammunition, equipment, vehicles, and parts used for repairs on various items.

“Hundreds of countries purchase supplies and equipment from the United States,” said U.S. Army Colonel Michael S. Skardon, Multi-National Security Transition Command - Iraq Security Assistance Office, section chief. “Iraq is the newest customer and using their own money to purchase items to fit their needs.”
​

Expect the naive and shrill cries of war-profiteering now that the US tax payer is taking on less and less of the responsibility for Iraq’s future. You know how knee-jerk liberals can be! There never is a silver lining - only grey clouds.

The tide turned in Iraq. al-Qaeda is attempting their last gasp of bloodshed to see if they can turn the SurrenderMedia back around to doom & gloom stories, but the result is further uprising in the Iraqi communities al-Qaeda must control. They are on a dead end path to defeat. There will be much progress in Iraq by the time the November elections come - heck, before the primaries are done! The dire and wrong predictions of defeat by the Dems will echo as grim reminders of how not to lose a pending victory.

Posted by AJStrata on Wednesday, December 5th, 2007 at 11:22 pm.

Then there is this:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-12/06/content_7212644.htm

Suspected al-Qaida murderer captured in Iraq's Mosul
www.chinaview.cn 2007-12-06 22:00:38 Print

Special report: Tension escalates in Iraq

MOSUL, Iraq, Dec. 6 (Xinhua) -- A key member of al-Qaida network in Iraq, who was allegedly behind an attack on members of the country's Yazidi minority, was captured in the city of Mosul, an Iraqi Army commander said on Thursday.

"During an overnight raid in the al-Zahraa neighborhood in northeastern Mosul, the Iraqi soldiers arrested Hatim Sultan al-Hadidi, a key member of the Islamic State of Iraq," Brigadier Nur al-Din Hussein, commander of Iraqi Army's 4th Brigade, told Xinhua.

Established on Oct. 15, 2006, the Islamic State of Iraq is an umbrella insurgency group led by al-Qaida terror network.

Hussein said that al-Hadidi was behind the killing of 23 Yazidi workers in April in the northeast of Mosul, 400 km north of Baghdad.

Yazidis are primarily ethnic Kurds, and most live near Mosul, the capital of Nineveh province. They practice an ancient Middle-Eastern religion.

and this:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/06/MN5KTP2U1.DTL

... The Americans and Iraqis have responded to the influx of militants with operations to cut off the insurgents' financing and by pursuing insurgent leaders, including al Qaeda in Iraq's emir for the eastern side of the city, who was killed in a raid in late November.

U.S. and Iraqi units have been able to hold off the insurgents and disrupt their planning. But they have not been able to push down the rate of attacks in Mosul, which has held stubbornly steady over the past year even as attacks have fallen in Baghdad and Anbar province, according to an analysis by U.S. officers.

That has prompted U.S. and Iraqi commanders to propose the return of two Iraqi battalions that were sent from western Mosul earlier this year to reinforce Iraqi forces in Baghdad. Such a move would increase the Iraqi troop strength in Mosul by 1,400 troops or more, according to estimates by U.S. officers, and enable the Iraqis to establish more outposts in some of the city's more violent areas.

"We are in the process of seeing what might come out of the situation in Baghdad as they consolidate down there," said Col. Tony Thomas, the deputy commander of the 1st Armored Division. "Our biggest push, to be honest, as we looked at Mosul security, is to ask for an emphasis on getting those Iraqi battalions back here."

There are no plans to send additional U.S. units to Nineveh province, though the replacement of Twitty's unit by the somewhat larger 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment has led to a small troop increase. But Thomas noted that other regions north of Baghdad have been under pressure from insurgents.

He added that his division's leadership has been "in dialogue" with Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the second-ranking U.S. general in Iraq, to see if reinforcements might be provided to "address our problem areas."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who visited Mosul on Wednesday before flying to Baghdad, said U.S. commanders had suggested to him that they could use more combat power in the north and would welcome the return of the Iraqi battalions, but that they had not asked him for additional U.S. troops. "They did indicate to me that they are having a continuing challenge up there," he said.

Mosul, a city of 1.7 million, has often been buffeted by the fighting in other parts of Iraq. When U.S. forces prepared to reclaim Fallujah in 2004, many insurgents streamed north.

In late 2004, the local police in Mosul fled their posts in the face of an insurgent assault, leaving much of the city under the militants' control until Kurdish peshmerga fighters helped restore order.

The province is 65 percent Sunni and also home to a diverse array of ethnic groups, including Kurds who dominate the Nineveh provincial government.

Unlike Baghdad, Mosul was never scheduled to receive U.S. reinforcements under Bush's plan. The mission of the U.S. troops in Mosul has been to prevent the city from falling again into the insurgents' hands and to partner with Iraqi forces, while the main effort was focused on stabilizing Baghdad.

The result is that Mosul is secured by about 6,500 Iraqi soldiers and police officers and a much smaller U.S. contingent of about 1,000, Twitty said. The relatively small concentration of U.S. forces in Nineveh has attracted insurgents, who have long sought to exploit ethnic tensions in the region by portraying themselves as the defenders of Sunni interests against Kurdish expansionism. Mosul is also close to Syria, which has often been a conduit for foreign fighters.

Insurgents from Baghdad, Diyala and Ramadi first appeared in western Nineveh six months ago and later turned up in Mosul, Twitty said.....

 

[M14 Shooter]

In principle, I agree. Our Army has done its job.

So, how long will you be willing to wait for the iraqis to "do their job". Surely, you don't suggest a never-ending, open ended committment, to using our army as a police force or baby sitter to keep waring sectarian factions apart.

How long should we wait for the iraqis to make real progress?

However long -I- would wait, its apparent that they have until at least Jan 2009. If they cannot do it by then, then the situation needs to be re-assessed.

 

[DeadCanDance]

However long -I- would wait,

Thanks for the honesty. You would keep our troops in Iraq for decades, if needed.

its apparent that they have until at least Jan 2009. If they cannot do it by then, then the situation needs to be re-assessed.

Why would you tie an reassessment of the situation, to a US election timeframe? Why wouldn't it be tied to actual conditions of the ground in Iraq? Is this part of the GOP narrative to hold out and tread water, just long enough, to pass their mess off to someone else?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thanks for the honesty. You would keep our troops in Iraq for decades, if needed.

You obviously didn't read what I said.

Why would you tie an reassessment of the situation, to a US election timeframe? Why wouldn't it be tied to actual conditions of the ground in Iraq?

Wow. You really DONT read what people post.

Let me put it in a manner you might understand:
- GWB isnt pulling the troops out.
- GWB will be out of office in Jan 2009.
- Jan 2009 is over a year from now
- More than a year from now seems like a reaonable amount of time in which the Iraqi government should be able to make progress, now that the security situation is improving
Thus:
In Jan 2009, the situation - the "actual conditions of the ground" should be assessed. If there is porgress by the Iraqi government, then our reaction should be commesurate with that progress. If not, then it should be commesurate with that lack of progress.

Is this part of the GOP narrative to hold out and tread water, just long enough, to pass their mess off to someone else?

Remove your head from your ass long enough to actually TRY to comprehend what someone is saying, and you won't look so stupid.

 

[maineman]

so what sort of reaction would you recommend or approve of if there is little to no political progress by 01/09?

 

[DeadCanDance]

so what sort of reaction would you recommend or approve of if there is little to no political progress by 01/09?

The reference to waiting to reassess anything until January 2009, is a reference to the fact that the GOP is treading water, until they can pass off the mess they created to someone else.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The reference to waiting to reassess anything until January 2009, is a reference to the fact that the GOP is treading water, until they can pass off the mess they created to someone else.

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

 

[DeadCanDance]

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

Your spin is obvious.

Bush said in January 2007 that the surge in US troops MUST be accompanied by significant and profound reforms in iraq, and political reconcilliation. It doesn't take two years (until January 2009) to determine if the iraqis are living up to their end of the bargain. That our patience was limited. Those were Bush's words.

You and Bush just want to tread water until you can pass off the mess you created to someone else. I sure hope I never hear the word "accountability" ever leave the lips of a bush voter again.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your spin is obvious.

So is your denial.

Bush said in January 2007 that the surge in US troops MUST be accompanied by significant and profound reforms in iraq, and political reconcilliation. It doesn't take two years (until January 2009) to determine if the iraqis are living up to their end of the bargain.

You're forgetting the fact that there hasn't been a significant degree of security in Iraq -- the security that your side has been whining and crying is necessary for the political process to take hold -- until just recently.

YOU think Jan 2009 is too long to wait to see if the political process doesnt work now that is has a chanc eto work? I could not possibly care less.

All YOU are concerned with is losing the war as rapidly as possible so that your side can win elections.

You and Bush just want to tread water until you can pass off the mess you created to someone else.

As I said -- your denial is obvious.
I explaied exactly why I said Jan 2009, with said explanation proving you to be absolutely incorrect.