BS: Iraq...What next???

Subject: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 08:13 AM

Well, not that it is increasingly obvious that the US led coilition has lost the war in Iraq, what next???

BTW, this is a serious question...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 08:20 AM

They can lose the war in Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea next.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 08:49 AM

"now", not "not" Bobert.

Chaos and murder in Iraq, business as usual in the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 10:02 AM

I'm still waiting for the idiot who said the US would be out of there over two years ago to post. Of course, it was a member posting as a guest, so I s'pose the guy will never show up that anyone would know.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 01:13 PM

There is a small, no large, army of people who have made stupid statements about Iraq that have been shown by time to be stupid. But nobody ever acknowledges this, they just keep making new stupid statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: JeremyC
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 01:16 PM

I saw on 60 minutes last night that Iraq had lost around $800,000 as a result of inside corruption, no-bid contracts, etc. I figure it's time to withdraw now, because we've taught Iraq everything we know.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 02:11 PM

Which wouldn't normally take very long, would it? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 03:26 PM

"I saw on 60 minutes last night that Iraq had lost around $800,000 as a result of inside corruption"

Should that be $800,000,000 ?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Big Phil
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 03:17 AM

Bobert
" Well, not that it is increasingly obvious that the US led coilition has lost the war in Iraq, what next???
BTW, this is a serious question"

Serious answer, No one knows "what next", that IS the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: GUEST,Keinstein
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 04:23 AM

the US led coilition

Surely you mean "coition"?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: JeremyC
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 06:29 AM

D'oh. Yeah, I dropped three zeros from that figure. Really, to a poor guy like me, $800,000, $800,000,000, and $800,000,000,000 are equally incomprehensible.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 05:53 PM

Well, okay....

I was just wondering id anyone had some bright ideas for Mr. Bush on just how to say, "Okay, this was a dumb idea from the outset and we have lost" but then offer some some post-defeat policies which could be better accepted by the Americna people and the world in general...

Maybe this is impossible...

But I'd think that Bush could really put some backbone into trying to create a more harmoneous relationship between the next5 president and Iran ans Syria... I think he could also dust of the "Saude Proposal" and ask the Saudis to step to the plate, as well...

And, of course, he could put even more efforet on the Isreali/Palestian conflict(war) which I will give him some credit for starteing to do...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Aug 07 - 07:32 PM

"The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the "battle space" remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers' expense.

"A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

"As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.

"Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda."

And Much More- from 7 Returning Soldiers

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 19 Aug 07 - 07:47 PM

What's next?

Hoards of military men and women will return to our shores with little or no hope of meaningful employment. They will be physically, mentally and emotionally unable to cope with a civilian population that never wanted a war with anyone. They will feel that they have wasted their time and energy serving the rich by killing people. In other words, they will feel ashamed and useless.

In the meantime, the rest of the world will be paying for the reconstruction of Iraq, which has been destroyed by the U.S. At home, U.S. citizens will be busy trying to recover from the costs of this blunder.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Amos
Date: 19 Aug 07 - 08:25 PM

DV,

You need to keep in perspective the amount of the destruction that was caused not by the US but by factional psychosis internal to Iraq. If the Shiites and Shia had just put their tribal and sectarian revenges behind them, the death toll would have been much, much lower.

This does not in any way mean to reduce the blatant psychosis of invading Iraq in the first place; it was unspeakably stupid, ignorant and inept.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Aug 07 - 08:36 PM

Well, one thing is for sure... The current paradyme is not working... The US's military can beat any conventional militray in the world... Problem is that there aren't any "conventional militaries" that want to take the US on...

No, what Bush and his neocons have missed is that the "War on Terrorism" cannot be won with military might... It can only be won, like the Cold War, with our ideolgies prevailing over those of the other side... This is what happened in the Cold War and this is what needs to happen in the "War on Terrorism"...

The US needs to stand strong on what it *** believes***, it's core principles of fairness and justice... Secret courts, torture, rendering, militarizations, suspension of civil rights, aren't going to win this battle... No, might of fact, these things are going to loose this battle, an perhaps the war...

We need to stand tall... We need to tell the better story... We need to have both understanding and compassion...

The current paradyme is a loosing one... It will only insure and endless conflict... It is downright stupid!!!

You will never impose peace at the nd of a barrel...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 07:06 AM

Bobert,

"... I think he could also dust of the "Saude Proposal" and ask the Saudis to step to the plate, as well..."

He already did, some months back.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 09:18 AM

Not exactly, bruce... What Bush did was ask individual nations to join in in paying for the rebuilding of Iraq's infastructure...

That's not what the "Saudi Proposal" was all about... What is was all about was a framework for a ragional peace that included the US sitting in the same room with folks that Bush says he won't sit down with unless certain pre-conditons are met...

Google up "Saudi Porposal"...

There was a parrellel plan called the "Mitchell Plan" which is very similar....

These plans could still work...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 10:12 AM

Bobert,

I was refering to the "Roadmap for Peace", concerning Israel and Palestine. THAT has been what Bush has been pushing the last several months.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 04:50 PM

Well, yeah, bruce... While the Isreali/Paletinian situation was part of the "Saudi Proposal" it wasn't ther entire ball of wax...

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 02:14 AM

Amos - "You need to keep in perspective the amount of the destruction that was caused not by the US but by factional psychosis internal to Iraq."

That is very true but that is exactly why the U.S. should have refrained from invading and causing an all out civil war.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 02:48 AM

Agree dianavan. Also, one could argue that the US should have foreseen that and tried to avoid it/manage it. That's why one needs to plan for the peace too before one goes in jack-booted.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: GUEST,Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 02:56 AM

Just watched the amazing John Pilger film of the US behaviour in Central America - fascist or what?
What next? - whatever suits US policy: as the CIA man said about losing democracy American domestic well-being - "get used to it".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 08:02 PM

Yeah, the US has been behaving very badly in term of foreign (and domestic) policies under Bush...

I given it some thought and here is my conclusion:

I think this started with Bush the Senior... He taught his boys that the best way to gain political power among stupid people was to put down anyone with an education and work hard to get stupid people to the polls...

Well, Bush Junior has made a living at putting down educated people, intellectual, Volvo drivers, liberals... And, my hat is off to him, he has been very consistent...

Here's where my theory comes into play... At some point in time Bush Junior lost sight of daddy's lesson of how to get power and started believing that educated people were actaully the stupid people???

I'm not too sure when that occured but he started to surround himself with, ahhhhh, stupid people with stupid ideas...

I mean, just about everywhere you look you find stupid people, who just happen to be anti-abortion, running agencies and doing jobs that should involve being, ahhhhh, friggin' educated...

I think this explains the entire Bush presidency...

Other than he was smart enought to hire the best lawyer in 2000 that money could buy and still just barely stole the election in 5-4 in a Supreme Court packed with Republican appointed justices... Guess those lawyers weren't all that smart either... Should have been 7-2...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 10:31 PM

Also, though Bush must have used Cliff's Notes all the way through Yale--(still can't believe he had anything to do with any good school)---he did manage to get some guys on his side who had some acquaintance with history--at least the effectiveness --and the techniques-- of propaganda.   He had a fearful country looking for scapegoats--and he exploited the situation to the hilt.

As I've said before, Goebbels would be proud.

As to whether anybody who voted for Bush should be proud--or even admit it--that's a different story.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 03:31 AM

Hi Jim...Haven't seen the film, but read a review in one of the "newspapers" by some numbskull (Andrew Billen ...TV critic for The Times)

He reckoned John was.."Noam Chomsky's representative on ITV" and that the film was full of "left wing bias"

According to Mr Billen "Pilgers qestioning of Chavez, was a disgrace"

I suppose he meant *to journalism* Although how he could tell remains a mystery.


Pilger is of course the finest investigative journalist of our generation. More power to his elbow!....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:39 PM

To refresh this thread in light of recent developments, here is an interesting analsyis on the anatomy of the civil strife under the surface in Iraq:

"To suggest that good intentions will cross fundamental cultural, social and religious differences and win over a damaged population is at best dangerous and wishful thinking."

UNDERSTANDING PLAYERS IN IRAQ'S CIVIL WARS: As Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Brian Katulis explained, the violence "brings into the open this long-running intra-Shi'a civil war." The fighting across southern Iraq has pitted Sadr's Madhi Army against Abdul Aziz Al Hakim's Islamic Supreme Council (ISCI) of the so-called Badr Brigade, which has support from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.ÊAdding another layer to just one component of Iraqs many civil wars, "a third Shi'a faction, the Fadhila movement, is also engaged in the struggle for power in Basra," Katulis writes. The result is a show of force from Sadr. "If these violations continue, a huge popular eruption will take place that no power on Earth can stop,"Êsaid Nassar al-Rubaei, leader of the Sadrist bloc in parliament. MostÊironically, if Iraqi security forces and their militia allies prevail, Iran's hand in Iraq will be heavily bolstered. "The Badr Organisation and the ISCI had always been and remained the most pro-Iranian political-military forces in Iraq, having been established, trained and funded by the IRGC from Shiite exiles in Iran during the Iran-Iraq war," notes journalist Gareth Porter.

NOT GOOD VERSUS BAD: The Bush administration has tried to simplify the violence into a government versus militia struggle. "The Prime Minister has gone to Basra....to re-establish the rule of law," said National Security adviser Steven Hadley yesterday. But as analyst Anthony Cordesman noted, it is not that simple. A better explanation is thatÊthe Iraqi government -- allied with ISCI militias -- is trying to suppress its political enemies. "[T]his is really a fairly transparent partisan effort by the Supreme Council dressed in government uniforms to fight the Sadrists and Fadila," said Joost Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group. "Maliki in alliance with ISCI are doing their best to marginalize their political enemies locally Ð in preparation for local elections in October 2008," argued historian Reidar Visser. The result?Ê"It seems far more likely that even the best case outcome is going be one that favors Iraqracy over democracy," says Cordesman. Furthermore, this is not a hands-off situation. The U.S. is providing air support --Ê"help just in case they need it," explained White House Press Secretary Perino.

AND THE SURGE?: The administration is trying to spin the new activity as a "by-product of the success of the surge." President Bush even called it a "positive moment" today. But the violence shows the surge's failure to contain Iraq's vicious internal power struggles. One only has to look at British military activity in southern Iraq in 2006 and 2007 (Britain withdrew from Iraq last year). "At first, there were signs of progress" such as diminished violence, but local militias "were not defeated; they went underground or, more often, were absorbed into existing security forces," noted Robert Malley and Peter Harling at the time. Ironically, "heightened pressure" on Sadr "is likely to trigger both fierce Sadrist resistance in Baghdad and an escalating intra-Shiite civil war in the south." Tuesday's violence "looks like a preview of what will happen as we approach provincial elections in the fall,"ÊHiltermann added. New Iraqi legislation has alsoÊstirred anger from Sadr, whose followers complain that too fewÊ"have been granted amnesty under a new law designed to free thousands held by the Iraqis and Americans."

More here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Amos
Date: 24 May 08 - 09:17 PM

S Ambassador Ryan Crocker said Iraqi troops had displayed leadership in the Mosul operation and the Al Qaeda network was close to being completely defeated.

Iraqi police detained 400 people during search operations in two Shi'ite neighbourhoods of southwest Baghdad and also seized weapons.

Legislators loyal to Shi'ite cleric Muqtada Al Sadr yesterday denounced the Iraqi government, accusing it of trying to crush the movement and warning of "black clouds" on the horizon for truces that have eased fighting between Al Sadr's militia and security forces.

Elsewhere, three people were killed and four wounded when a minibus was attacked with a roadside bomb in Baghdad.

Separately, medics in Iraqi Kurdistan yesterday said that they had seen a surge in violence against women in May, with both so-called "honour" killings and female suicides on the increase.

Fourteen women died in the first 10 days of May alone, a doctor said in the region's second largest city of Sulaimaniyah. Seven of them took their own lives, the other seven were murdered.

Meanwhile, an internal audit in the US has shown that the Pentagon cannot account for $15 billion (BD5.7bn) in payments for goods and services in Iraq, something which members of Congress blasted as a "shocking" accountability failure.

An Iraqi baby boy was found alive yesterday inside the cloak of either his mother or aunt after both women were shot dead execution style in Alton Kobri, outside Kirkuk.

The two sisters had been abducted hours earlier following a dispute between two neighbouring families and were shot in the head.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 25 May 08 - 05:35 PM

This might sound shallow to some, but I can tell you how at least on chapter in this mess is going to turn out.

When we do finally pull out (or retreat if you're of that mind set) somebody will once again set the dogs on the military budget as we try to bring down the deficit. As has happened so often through U.S. History there will be a massive draw down, not in spending on equipment and weaponry, but on troops and support services. Thousands of servicemen and women will be turned out of the service into a bad economy. This will lead to an increasingly bad economy and also cause the degradation of the military. On top of that the spending for the VA that has been well behind needs for years will also be cut. The promises made to our veterans will once again be betrayed.

But if you call on those same soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coasties the next time the shit hits the fan...they'll be there for the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 08:39 AM

Washington Post

The Iraqi Upturn
Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war.

Sunday, June 1, 2008; Page B06

THERE'S BEEN a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks -- which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war. While Washington's attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda. So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have "never been closer to defeat than they are now."

Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained "special groups" that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans. It is -- of course -- too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments -- and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the "this-war-is-lost" caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).


Gen. David H. Petraeus signaled one adjustment in recent testimony to Congress, saying that he would probably recommend troop reductions in the fall going beyond the ongoing pullback of the five "surge" brigades deployed last year. Gen. Petraeus pointed out that attacks in Iraq hit a four-year low in mid-May and that Iraqi forces were finally taking the lead in combat and on multiple fronts at once -- something that was inconceivable a year ago. As a result the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki now has "unparalleled" public support, as Gen. Petraeus put it, and U.S. casualties are dropping sharply. Eighteen American soldiers died in May, the lowest total of the war and an 86 percent drop from the 126 who died in May 2007.

If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq's 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 11:19 AM

I've already pointed out in another thread that the reason the situation in Iraq has improved lately has nothing to do with any alleged success of the "surge" and everything to do with the overreaching by al-Qaeda in Iraq--especially their efficient alienating of their fellow Moslems, above all their fellow Sunnis-- by their insistence on their brand of Moslem Puritanism. An insistence they are enforcing by maiming and murder.

And since al-Qaeda in Iraq has thereby relegated itself to a bit part in Iraqi politics, there is no danger it can take over in Iraq--though this is the threat we have heard constantly from GWB and now McCain.

Their argument for our staying in Iraq--except in "Kurdistan" where we are actually wanted, and our military presence serves the purpose of deterring any rash moves against the PKK by the Turks--- is now destroyed.    So we can and should withdraw our combat troops from non-Kurdish Iraq---now.

This is not what McCain is saying.   And it's far closer to what Obama says.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 11:34 AM

Well, the US hasn't really "lost the war in Iraq" - since the original stated objective of the war was the ouster of Saddam Hussein as Iraq's leader. The basic problem, IMHO, is that there was never a real understanding of what came next, especially by our illustrious leader. As a result, we have been flailing around ever since the military defeat of the Iraqi army, trying to define "peace" and "success". Just as we never "lost" the war in Vietnam, but rather gave up trying to define winning, it is now time (well past time) to disengage and bring the troops home - but this must be done in a deliberate, organized manner.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 11:52 AM

The "failed enterprise" isn't even debatable... It was a failed enterprise from the very beginning... What Bush is hoping for is for Iraq to return to something as secure as before he ordered up the invasion...

(Well, Bobert, won't that be "victory")

Depends on one's definition of "victory"...

BTW, can anyone explain why exactly why our troops are still in Iraq???

(Well, Bobert... They are there, ahhhhh, to train the Iraqis to defend themselves...)

From whom???

(You know... The bad guys...)

Which bad guys??? Seems we have fought with ever danged sect, save the Kurds, and keep chamging our minds on who the bad guys are...

(No, Bobert... The bad guys who are the bad guys today...)

Oh...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 01:55 PM

It appears hat the morale and cohesiveness of the Iraqi army is increasing rapidly because f their relative success lately. But a much larger factor is Sadr's orders to stay cool for the time being. That's what cleared the path for any success the surge had, because it decimated the number of attacks.

In my humble opinion and subject to better data...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 02:05 PM

Decimated? Reduced by 10%? Surely the decrease was more than that!

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 08:15 PM

Somehow I keep going back to Nelson Rockefeller's promise to make the Long Island Railroad the country's best commuter railroad in a year. And at the end of the year, he simply declared that it was the country's best commuter railroad. Simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 11:21 PM

You're right, Dick. Something similar was famously suggested in Vietnam--declare victory and go home.

Not a bad idea right now in Iraq--(aside from "Kurdistan" where they actually want us, and a real purpose is served by our being there.)

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 10:04 AM

The NEw York Times offers a report card on Iraq--the good, the bad, and the ugly.

I am surprised that almost all those who comment on the "success of the surge" ignore the other major factor of change at the same time, Sadr's stand-down orders.

The article offers a link to the GAO's latest assessment, "GAO-08-837 Securing, Stabilizing, and Rebuilding Iraq: Progress Report: Some Gains Made, Updated Strategy Needed".

"...We agree with congressional investigators that American strategic planning is weak and Washington needs a new, long-term blueprint for Iraq that goes beyond July 2008 when the surge in troop levels is to end.

" As the report correctly notes, such a plan should "provide an estimate of the time and forces required to reach the conditions for mission success or termination."

" America has been in Iraq for more than five years now. It's time to accelerate serious thinking about how to bring the troops home and how to hand off responsibility for Iraq to the Iraqis.
"

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 02:20 PM

Interesting Article in todays Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4221376.ece

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: GUEST,Susu's Hubby
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 11:27 PM

Teribus,

That's a great article. So was the one that bb posted earlier. You mean we're actually winning?

By the way, my 19 year old son will be heading over there in a little less than a month to join with his comrades in the continued battle of good versus evil. Whether or not you agree with the reasons we're over there, keep him in your thoughts and prayers. He'll be leaving behind a wife and child on the way.

Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 11:37 PM

I wish him luck and a safe homecoming, Hub.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 03:55 AM

Fucking idiots! You have removed a secular regime, handed a radicalised Iraq to your enemies and called it "victory."

The homecoming coffins may be getting fewer, but the game changes,new tactics come into play, as Amos says.

History will record the "War in Iraq" as one of the biggest political blunders!....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 04:39 AM

Hi Susan's Hubby,

I too wish your son the best of wishes and a safe return, same goes for you and the rest of the family, particularly your son's wife and "mum-to-be". My youngest son is currently out in Afghanistan and expected to be home sometime in September.

As Amos has apparently said somewhere that the game changes and new tactics come into play. He is right in both Iraq and Afghanistan the days are gone when members of Al-Qaeda or the Taleban can swagger through towns and villages executing at will for whatever supposed offence. Gone are the days when they actually controlled towns, villages and districts. Anytime they do confront either MNF in Iraq, or ISAF/US Enduring Freedom Forces in Afghanistan they come off decidedly the worse for it. So yes they have changed tactics they have reverted to car bombings, roadside bombs, suicide bombers, this in itself is a sign that they are in retreat. No terrorist organisation has ever managed to defeat the forces they opposed using such tactics:

- The CT's didn't in Malaya
- The Tamil Tigers haven't in Sri Lanka
- ETA hasn't in Spain
- The paramilitaries didn't in Northern Ireland
- The various "Palestinian" factions haven't in Israel

It doesn't work because in such a campaign the only people who really get hit are the civilian population. Who, once they've had enough turn against the terrorists - that is exactly what has happened in Iraq, that is what is in the process of happening in the so-called Taleban heartlands of Afghanistan.

I fully support the efforts both my son and yours are engaged in and appreciate what they are trying to achieve. With some degree of success to the chagrin of such as Akenaton and all the fellow travellers.

Here is an old Scot's Borders saying, that I send to your son, "SAFE OOT - SAFE IN"

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 05:01 AM

Come on T let it all hang out!
What about "fighting for democracy?"
Oh no I forgot....that was last month!

I too want to see your sons get home safely, but have your political opinions not helped to persuade them that this was a just, legal.or sensible war.
If I were the position of either of you, I would be feeling just a little bit guilty today.

I have told my sons of the futility and degredation of war.
Especially an unprovoked war of aggression
The deaths and mutilation of Iraqi children, are as horrific to me as the loss or injury of our own troops...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:25 AM

Akenaton! You are as much an aging hippie as Bobert and just as delusional - "Come on T let it all hang out!" - I ask you, just what the hell are you on about, "let it all hang out" - exactly what on earth does that mean? Nothing a meaningless phrase from the 1960's - it's 2008, try and catch up.

As for "fighting for democracy" - Are the troops of the MNF and ISAF "fighting for democracy"? I'd say that they were, they are also fighting on behalf of democracy.

Tell me Akenaton before the most recent elections in both Iraq and Afghanistan when was the last time that the people of either country ever cast a vote that reflected their choice, their opinion, their preference? Don't bother wracking your brain my little Heilan' Anarchist - Never in living memory is the answer. So as far as "fighting for democracy" that is aleast a step forward - an improvement. Before you launch into accusations of them being "Puppet Governments", I'd just like to remind you that the UN found both to be free, fair and representative of the peoples choice, voter turn-out in Iraq there was over 70% - voter turn-out in the last election in Scotland was what Akenaton? Less than 35%? Just on that alone I'd say that the people of Afghanistan got the better deal.

"have your political opinions not helped to persuade them that this was a just, legal, or sensible war."

Odd though it may seem Akenaton, I very, very rarely discuss politics with my family, we've better things to do when we are all gathered together. Do I think that the actions taken in Afghanistan and in Iraq were just, legal and sensible? Yes damn right I do. Does my son think that the actions taken in Afghanistan and in Iraq were just, legal and sensible? I'll ask him, I think that his answer will accord with mine, but that is not the result of any prompting on my part, in exactly the same way as him joining the Royal Marines was entirely his own choice.

So you have told your sons "of the futility and degredation of war." have you, what exactly was that based on Akenaton? Experience at first hand? Stories told? Something written by others that you have read and agree with? I doubt very much if it were the former.

As for "unprovoked wars of aggression", what wars are you talking about Akenaton?

In chronological order taking Afghanistan first, when did the US launch an unprovoked war of aggression on Afghanistan? When did the US invade Afghanistan? Truth is that they didn't, what they did do is provide assistance to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan to help in ending the civil war in that country, war was never declared against Afghanistan and there was never any US invasion. US troops assigned to Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan are there at the request of the Government of Afghanistan. NATO troops of the ISAF in Afghanistan are present in Afghanistan under UN Mandate. Now all of that might be slightly hard for you to swallow Akenaton but it is the truth. If you challenge that come up with fact not your usual leftist-anarchist rant.

In Iraq between summer of 2002 until spring 2003, Iraq, and Saddam Hussein in particular, was given ever opportunity to satisfy the international community of their concerns in relation to WMD and Iraq's continued flaunting of UN Security Council demands. Saddam Hussein chose to defy the UN, the USA had clearly stated that it would act, alone if necessary, but Saddam Hussein and his French, Russian and Chinese backers for reasons best known to themselves chose not to heed that warning and suffered the consequences. Hardly a pre-emptive strike.

"The deaths and mutilation of Iraqi children, are as horrific to me as the loss or injury of our own troops"

Well then Akenaton its high time that you started condemning those responsible for the vast majority of those deaths - oddly enough Akenaton that is not the US or UK Forces on the ground in either Iraq or Afghanistan. So if that last sentence of yours actually means anything let's hear you condemn Al-Qaeda and the Taleban for the misery that they, entirely through choice, are inflicting on "their" people.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 09:00 AM

"Cheer up. We're winning this War on Terror", says the Times, while the US government says otherwise...

U.S. says Taliban attacks may rise this year

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 09:24 AM

Ummmm, I know I've asked this a few hundred times but would one of the war-mongers define this "victory" thing that you all keep talking about... We've never gotten a clear definition and it really isn't too much to ask given the sacrifices the American working class is paying for in Iraq...

I mean lets do a little review here of the various reasons that you all said we were in Iraq for and seeing as they no longer exist then why are we there:

1. Uranium cakes form Niger

2. WMDs

3. Poisonous gas

4. Nuclear attack (mushroom clouds)

5. Saddam gased his own people (30 years ago with our gas)

6. Saddam is a bad man

7. Iraq needs democracy

8. Saddam tried to kill my daddy

9. Iraq/alQeada link

10. ___________________________

11. ___________________________

12, ___________________________

And the beat goes on...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 09:35 AM

Meanwhile, the Republicans are hoping for another terrorist attack on the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 06:00 PM

Any idea why Taleban "attacks" will increase this year? Well they are not actual "attacks" they are incidents, the fight is being taken to them so obviously the number of incidents are going to rise, but they are losing big time.

Now let's take a look at Boberts list shall we:

1. Uranium cakes form Niger

Oddly enough Bobert the British Secret Service never did declare that this was a load of bull and say that it was kosher. Iranian moves in this direction would tend to make me believe that this was indeed fact. Rational being that there was absolutely no way that Saddam Hussein in Iraq was ever going to let Iran develop a nuclear programme. Now then Bobert counter that arguement.

2. WMDs

As of summer 2002 nobody knew - Fact

Now if you are on the list of those about to be attacked you do not give your enemy the benefit of the doubt - If you do you are without any shadow of a doubt a complete and utter fuckin' idiot (matches up to Bobert but not the population of America as a whole)

3. Poisonous gas

Track record shows that he used it when he had it

4. Nuclear attack (mushroom clouds)

Tell me Bobert how do you think that Saddam would have responded to a nuclear Iran?

5. Saddam gased his own people (30 years ago with our gas)

Eh? No did not.

6. Saddam is a bad man

Undoubtedly and he has been removed

7. Iraq needs democracy

Everywhere needs democracy Bobert

8. Saddam tried to kill my daddy

Yes he did. Now tell me Bobert list your objections at that time denouncing that act - Or were you silent. If the latter then shut the fuck up unless you are prepared to condone murder.

9. Iraq/alQeada link

Mullah KreKar

10. _???????__________________

11. _???????___________________

12, _???????___________________

And the beat goes on... Fuckin' right it does, and you continue to live with benefits of it!

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 04:02 AM

Reading the 'timesonline' article above was a bit like reading a note to an arsonist congratulating him for making good progress in extinguishing a fire which he, himself, had started!

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 10:02 AM

The Taliban have been losing big time since October of 2001. After all these years (eight years this coming October, to be precise), when people say the Taliban are losing, they sound a lot like the Iraqi Information Minister did during the US invasion of Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 01:11 PM

Next, the murderer Bush will attack Iran and the congress will let him do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 02:57 PM

So, T... Let me see if I have this right??? I point out all the bogus reason why we attacked Iraq and you have done your best blah-blah-blah, which was ever entertaining BTW but you didn't answer the question of why exactly are we still in Iraq??? That was the question and still, for that matter, is the question...

And, Strings, I pray that he doesn't but Bush ain't right in the head... He has a severe personanlity disorder which has worsened over the last few years... So, who knows??? I mean, the little coward is laible to do anything to prove to his daddy that inspite of being a life long screw-up that he is really a tough guy... Problem is that he isn't... He's just mentally unbalenced...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 03:02 PM

Stop!!!!!!!! you are all right!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: GUEST,homosum
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 03:10 PM

And gentlemen, what will you say when Obama starts invading other nations and bombing away?

And you can be certain he will do it, because we are shameless imperialists. All the Democrat aristocracy is. They all voted to invade Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11. They all voted to invade Iraq.

Electing Obama will not change the behavior of the imperial US government one iota.

Will Obama be judged by you as more "innocent" of murders than Bush, for doing the same thing Bush is doing?

Yes he will--but only by those of you who are satisfied with American global bombing and bloodletting, so long as it is one of YOUR bastards (as Jeanne Kirkpatrick was fond of saying) sitting in the White House playing commander in chief.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 03:35 PM

Nah, homosum, they "all" didn't vote to invadeeither Afganistan or Iraq... A short trip thru Googleburg will tell you which Dems didn't go along with Bush...

And as for Obama bombing and invading other countries??? At this point in time he hasn't made any statements that supports that claim... He did say that if he had actionable intellegence that there were some bad guys planning to attack us and hiding in Pakistna and Pakistan refused to get them he would order a surgical air strike... That statement alone is not the kind of satement that supports your assertion that Obama will invade and bomb other nations...

Now we know how much you hate Obama... We even started a thread just for you entitled "Slam Obama Here"...

The situation in Iraq is not Obama's doings...

Now, if he gets elected and he does stupid stuff, guess what... I'm gonna be like the measles and be all over him... What other realistic choices do we have... Face it, Ralph ain't gonna get elected...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 03:45 PM

Dear Gawd, what mellerdramatic, purblind histrionic arm-waving.

Chill out, Homosum. You will survive to panic another day.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: GUEST,homosum
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 04:00 PM

Bush couldn't have invaded Baltimore without the capitulation of the Democratic party.

Capitulate they did, and capitulate they continue to do, as the whole world saw last week AGAIN over the FISA mess.

It doesn't appear to me, Bobert, as though you keep very current of what is going on in politics. You just find your man, stick to him without thinking critically whatsoever, and never consider changing your mind.

You are one of those scary, scary Americans who have self-lobotomized in order to stay on your propaganda feed bag when it comes to looking at your country's government.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: GUEST,Homosum
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 04:07 PM

Look fellas, everyone who comes to the BS section here knows the two of you won't change your mind. In that sense, you are the Dem version of DougR, Teribus, et al.

You are both rigid liberal ideologues, who can't think outside the presidential politics box because you are addicted to horse race politics.

The majority of people working on authentic, genuine social, political, religious, and economic change don't even pay attention to the horse race game, much less participate in it.

They are too busy out building the movement that will overthrow the system you two believe in as if it were the Holy Grail itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 05:11 PM

lol, fantosum... What, you think callin' me a dem is gonna get me all thinkin' that Obama says stuff that he doesn't say??? I'm followin' real good... It's you who has fallen off the pace here of late...

As for rigid idealogues check out yer closest mirror... You are the true believer of rigid idealogues... Your mind is tighter than a mouse's ear... No, make that tree bark... Now that is tight...

BTW, I don't consider Teribus a Repub at all... He doesn't even live in the US... He's a UK'in war monger of the highest order... Never met a war he didn't like... But not a repub...

DougR??? Yup, he a repub which is hard to understand 'cause he's also a purdy nice guy... Prolly a wiring problem... Either that 'er he's super rich... One or the other...

Now, fantosum, here's yer homework assignment: Provide yer source that Obama plans on invading and bombing other countries... That oughtta keep you busy a couple hundred years...lol...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Conservative...YES!!
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 08:41 PM

Homosum,

I agree with Bobert.

I don't think that Obama will try to go after other countries with the military. I think he'll just wait and then after our homeland gets hit again with another few terrorist attacks, he'll find one or two and turn them over to the FBI for prosecution.

They'll wait in jail for a couple of years and then go through a lengthy trial just to sit in our jail for the rest of their lives.

In the meantime, oil prices will continue to skyrocket, we WILL go into the deep recession that most in here think that we're already in, and to top that off, because we aren't using our military for anything, they'll be cut so the money that we are currently spending there can be spent enacting socialist programs such universal helathcare or some global warming initiative that will make our taxes go up even more than they will be by the first few months that he is in office.

Yep, Bobert, I'm in total agreement with ya!

YES

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 09:17 PM

Bin Laden, on the other hand, is still roaming free, thanks to the Bush administration. I guess we can expect more of the same under McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 09:35 PM

You are such a jerk, fantz...

Get a life...

You don't know jack from jack and, not only that, in case I haven't made it clear??? You are a jerk...

You remind me of something that John Lennon wrote about "beiong classless and free, but you are all fucking peasants as far as I can see"...

Yeah, when it comes to intellectualism, you are a peasant in my eyes and every time you open your self reighteous mouth you just add another leyer to the bankrupcy in your thinking department...

Like I said, get a real life that isn't some 24/7 crusade where you have elected yourself the "martyr with your papers in order"...

Get it yet???

You are such a friggin' jerk...

Serious business, creepo!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 11:12 PM

Teribus and other giant intellects supporting the Iraq war--

I don't know where you're living, Teribus. It seems you're not in the UK. But wherever it is you should start working on your government to throw its money down the Iraq rathole. The US electorate is tired of doing so. There is no longer any danger that al-Qaeda can take over in Iraq--due to al-Qaeda's stupidity--the typical stupidity of a Puritan group--in efficiently alienating their fellow Sunnis by their vicious and brutal attempt to enforce their brand of Islam.   Not due to spectacular feats of arms by the US military.   If anything, it's also due to total rejection of your brilliant attitude--that all Sunnis were like Nazis at the end of World War II. I said from the start that Sunnis' views would have to be taken into account.

And as Amos has pointed out, al-Sadr's direction to his "Army" also has a bearing on the recent lull.

But the US has no more money to waste in Iraq. Facing a recession--perhaps with stagflation-- and with precious little political progress in Iraq to show for the "Surge"--which was of course the reason for it, it's time for our priorities to be elsewhere.

The US wants US troops to be immune from prosecution under Iraqi law and that US troops should be able to arrest Iraqi civilians and keep them in US facilities. Iraq is against both of these.

I think Iraq is right. But since there is no agreement, there is no legal basis for US military operations in Iraq after the UN mandate expires in December.

Fine. The troops' families would like to see them more often, there is more of a need in Afghanistan, and contrary to some pro-Iraq war posters, the US does not have unlimited funds to waste in Iraq. As I've said before, we can have a combat presence in "Kurdistan" where it serves a real purpose-- as a buffer against Turkish adventurism. "Kurdistan" has oil--and they want us. And the rest of the troops in Iraq should come home.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Conservative...YES!!
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 02:52 AM

Ron Davies says,

"There is no longer any danger that al-Qaeda can take over in Iraq--due to al-Qaeda's stupidity--the typical stupidity of a Puritan group--in efficiently alienating their fellow Sunnis by their vicious and brutal attempt to enforce their brand of Islam."

But yet the liberal press is still printing stories such as the following!

After reading this, Ron, you're irrelevant.


YES!!

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 11:29 AM

"irrelevant"--that would describe somebody who can't read, perhaps. And therefore doesn't realize that the article cited does nothing but confirm what I just said----there is exactly zero chance that al-Qaeda can take over in Iraq.   So the justification for keeping US combat troops in Iraq is now gone--except for in "Kurdistan", where they want US troops and those troops play a useful role in deterring adventurism of Turkish governments.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 12:58 PM

Excerpt:

"Iraqis lead final purge of Al-Qaeda

Marie Colvin in Mosul

American and Iraqi forces are driving Al-Qaeda in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country in the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.

After being forced from its strongholds in the west and centre of Iraq in the past two years, Al-QaedaÕs dwindling band of fighters has made a defiant Òlast standÓ in the northern city of Mosul.

A huge operation to crush the 1,200 fighters who remained from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000 began on May 10.

Operation LionÕs Roar, in which the Iraqi army combined forces with the AmericansÕ 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, has already resulted in the death of Abu Khalaf, the Al-Qaeda leader, and the capture of more than 1,000 suspects.

The group has been reduced to hit-and-run attacks, including one that killed two off-duty policemen yesterday, and sporadic bombings aimed at killing large numbers of officials and civilians."

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 02:25 PM

Iraqi government wants the US to leave Iraq...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080708/ts_nm/iraq_dc_8


" BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq will not accept any security agreement with the United States unless it includes dates for the withdrawal of foreign forces, the government's national security adviser said on Tuesday.

The comments by Mowaffaq al-Rubaie underscore the U.S.-backed government's hardening stance toward a deal with Washington that will provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to operate when a U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

On Monday, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appeared to catch Washington off-guard by suggesting for the first time that a timetable be set for the departure of U.S. forces under the deal being negotiated, which he called a memorandum of understanding.

Rubaie said Iraq was waiting "impatiently for the day when the last foreign soldier leaves Iraq."

"We can't have a memorandum of understanding with foreign forces unless it has dates and clear horizons determining the departure of foreign forces. We're unambiguously talking about their departure," Rubaie said in the holy Shi'ite city of Najaf...

..."There is a big difference in outlook between us and the Americans," Rubaie said, adding the capability of Iraq's 500,000-strong security forces had greatly improved...

...In a further complication, Iraq's deputy parliament speaker Khalid al-Attiya said lawmakers must approve any deal the Iraqi government reaches and will probably reject the document if American troops are immune from Iraqi law...

... "Without doubt, if the two sides reach an agreement, this is between two countries, and according to the Iraqi constitution a national agreement must be agreed by parliament by a majority of two thirds," Attiya told Reuters in an interview.

Washington has SOFA pacts with many countries, and they typically exempt U.S. troops from facing trial or prison abroad.

But Attiya said this would not work in Iraq.

"The immunity that renders U.S. troops completely outside of Iraqi jurisdiction and law, I do not think Iraq's parliament will agree on this," he said."

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 02:31 PM

Ahh.. more name calling in the kindergarten play yard.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 10:38 AM

Washington Post

The Democrats' Baghdad Two-Step
By Peter Hoekstra
Monday, July 21, 2008; Page A15

It's hard not to have heard about the positive developments in Iraq lately. On Friday, the White House announced that President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had reached agreement on a "time horizon" for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last Wednesday that "security is unquestionably and remarkably better." Iraqi security forces recently took responsibility for a 10th province and expect to assume responsibility for all 18 of the country's provinces by year-end. There have been virtually no sectarian killings in 10 weeks. The Iraqi government has made important progress in political reconciliation. Regional neighbors are reestablishing embassies in Baghdad, and some of Iraq's creditors have begun to forgive the enormous debts incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.

How have Democrats reacted to these developments? Have they reveled in the news that U.S. casualties have plummeted? Have they praised the achievements for which our troops have fought so hard? Have they congratulated the Iraqi government for progress in political reconciliation?

Not exactly.

Last Friday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi continued to ignore recent gains and instead criticized Bush and Maliki for pushing a "vague" plan to withdraw U.S. troops. Addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual convention last month, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid gave major foreign policy speeches. Neither even mentioned Iraq. Last Tuesday, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden, the leading foreign policy expert among Democrats in Congress, ignored the achievements made in Iraq and the importance of promoting stability there when he said: "If John [McCain] wants to know where the bad guys live, come back with me to Afghanistan. We know where they reside. And it's not in Iraq."


Why are the Democrats in denial about recent gains in Iraq? Unfortunately, it appears that they realize that progress is being made and want to change the subject to some other policy they can use to attack the president. Indeed, they are so opposed to acknowledging America's hard-won achievements that in a May 28 interview Pelosi credited "the goodwill of the Iranians" for "some of the success of the surge. . . . They decided in Basra when the fighting would end." As Sen. Joe Lieberman noted in a speech last year, "Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus's new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq."

Over the past few years, Pelosi and Reid have taken full advantage of every piece of bad news in Iraq to attack the Bush administration. Whenever American fatalities went up or there were major terrorist attacks, they ran to microphones to denounce the war as a hopeless failure. Al-Qaeda took a similar approach, issuing audio and video messages from Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, statements that threatened more U.S. casualties and described their plans to drive America from Iraq so they could make it the center of their crazed fantasy of creating a radical Islamic global caliphate.

Sen. Barack Obama's (current) position on Iraq is hard to nail down. He still favors the same arbitrary 16-month withdrawal timetable he promoted when violence in Iraq was at a high point. After insisting for months that the troop surge was doomed to fail, Obama now credits it with some security improvements while simultaneously claiming in a speech last week that the surge did not meet all of its benchmarks and was too expensive. Setting aside Obama's verbal acrobatics on Iraq, his campaign was caught last week trying to purge his earlier harsh criticism of the surge from its Web site.

This is no time for our elected leaders to play games about the successes and challenges in Iraq. Our troops and the Iraqi people need and deserve the recognition and support of all U.S. elected officials for their efforts to stabilize that country. They need to know that we are with them and do not want them to fail.

While there is much still to be done in Iraq, recent events give many reasons for hope. Rather than always focusing on the negative of one front in the battle against radical jihadists, Democratic congressional leaders need to acknowledge success, highlight challenges and lay out a comprehensive long-term strategy to confront, contain and ultimately defeat the threat facing America. Our country cannot be led by naysayers who slide from issue to issue. The responsibilities of leadership go far beyond what Democrats in Congress are demonstrating today.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Joe_F
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 08:51 PM

This is the least bad I can imagine in, say, 2020:

The Kurdish region is incorporated into Turkey, forming, with the present Kurdish regions of Turkey, the Kurdistan Autonomous Region, formally under Turkish sovereignty, but with cultural autonomy guaranteed by the EU, which Turkey has joined.

The Shiite region is an Iranian protectorate, after Iran has had its revolution.

There is a Sunni rump state that no-one cares much about.

All of this is highly unlikely, and if it happened it wouldn't be a long-term solution, because partition of ethnic pest zones always leads eventually to irredentism & war. I submit, however, that all the likely alternatives are worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 04:42 PM

If you really think about it,
this all new kind of imperial horrific warfare in which your armed enemy are paid in cash not to shoot you
and CIA teams tour the countryside to award families thousands of dollars for the loss of family members,
is a step in the right direction. A sick direction but a step none the less.
Also paying no bid private contractors for the management, interrogation and upkeep of the war is very profitable
for profiteers.

What next? bankruptcy.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 06:19 PM

Donuel is absolutely correct... "The Surge" has been nothing more than a surge of US tax follars going to pay off the bad guys not to shoot our good guys...

This is not success any more than the mom and pop pizza joint paying "protection money" to The Mob...

This is reality...

Success, my boney hillbilly butt...

Sucess this, John McCain!!!

$12,000,000,000 a month and you can talk about sucess???

Even the Wes Ginny Slide Rule knows that "The Surge" is nothin' more than Bush's latest PR stunt...

Hey, lets talk truth here fir one froggin' minute... Troop level have gone up and down and up and down during this entire quagmire... Puttin' 15,000 more troops in has been done several times... Any of those troop movements could have been called "The Surge" but they weren't...

No, "The Surge" is a trick...

Follow the money...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 04:06 PM

Does anyone remember the character of Milo in "Catch-22"? A hustler in the quartermaster corps who had set up a black market scheme on such a grand scale he was making massive deals with everyone, including the enemy. At one point it had gotten so convoluted he had to finagle Yossarians unit to bomb its own airbase as part of one of his deals. Sort of like paying your enemy not to attack you only the other way aound.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 06:37 PM

Hey and remember GUEST,Neil D, that "Catch-22" like "Wag the Dog" was fiction.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 08:45 AM

"Wag the Dog" was fiction.   Don't forget to tell that to the people who attacked Clinton for planning to attack al-Qaeda at the height of the Monica affair.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 05:43 AM

A couple of relevant articles from todays papers in the UK:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/24/barackobama.iraq

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/2481460/Al-Qaeda-leaders-leaving-Iraq-to-bolster-fight-in-Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 10:48 AM

WSJ today: 6 Sept 2008

"The Iraqi government reacted sharply to published allegations that the US spied on its prime minister".

GWB sure is a master at endearing himself to Iraqis.

No wonder the whole world loves him.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq...What next???
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 10:23 PM

Bush sounds the retreat from Iraq
The hubristic talk of 'victory' in Iraq is long-gone, but will the painful lessons prevent a similar debacle in Afghanistan?
All comments (15)

Robert Fox
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday September 09 2008 23:30 BST
Article history
It is hardly the great retreat from empire, but it was a resonant moment when George W Bush announced the withdrawal of 8,000 troops from Iraq. This will leave troop levels at the end of his presidency at around 138,000 US soldiers in Iraq – slightly more than when the surge of reinforcements began just under two years ago.

Bush has tried to claim success and that "victory", as he always loves to put it, is within reach. But in truth, if his saner military advisers are to be heeded, it is not so much a story of too little, too late, but too little, too soon.

His overall commander in Iraq now, General Ray Odierno, has said he would like to keep US troop levels at around 140,000. They have much to do in the coming year, from trying to give security to provincial elections, to preventing the partisan politics of Prime Minister al-Maliki pitching Iraq into round two of a Shi'ite-Sunni civil war.

He knows, come next summer, that he has to put the framework of a divisional structure into Basra, an unwelcome and unexpected chore 18 months ago when the surge began. But the British in Basra are exhausted and want out. For them, it is part of the long recessional from Empire. The Brits have been going into Basra since 1912, and put four expeditions there since 1917.

This time, they will be out, and out for good: a strange retreat – or better to be blunt and use the title of the great Marc Bloch's memoir of the collapse in France in 1940, Strange Defeat. Either way, retreat or defeat, the folly of the UK's post-imperial last incursion into Iraq must be accounted for. Not by the soldiers, but the political masters who sent them in the first place: Blair, Straw, Hoon, Reid, Brown, Miliband, Browne. Four of those are lawyers, and might well note that, in the days of Warren Hastings at least, they would have been ripe for articles of impeachment.

Iraq is now America's – and the Iraqis' – game and the coalition, so called, counts not a fig. Tuesday's announcement of the pull-out of 8,000 American soldiers sends a clear message of "over to you" to the US presidential contestants. They have a deadline, too, for the Iraqis want all international forces out in 2012.

Sounding a pianissimo note of caution, Bush said, "the progress in Iraq is fragile and reversible" – an astonishing note of realism by his standards. The great fear is that the provincial elections could lead to a settling of scores for real local power across the country, and national cohesion with a coherent government and constitution will become all but impossible.

Bush's muted assurances that things are going in the right direction now hasn't won over the critics. "I am stunned that President Bush has decided to bring so few troops home from Iraq and send so few troops to Afghanistan," said Democrat Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader.

Military commanders are now going public about concerns over the rising violence in Afghanistan, their main serial foreign nightmare. Commanders like the new Cent Com chief, General David Petraeus, would like an extra US brigade sent now to southern Afghanistan, bringing the overall US troop presence from the current 33,000 to around 40,000. Even so, this would bring the combat power of international forces to something less than half that available in Iraq.

The US has started to go public about its contempt for its Nato allies, particularly the British who they believe have let them down badly in Iraq. Within European governments and armed forces, however, there is a growing sense that not only is the US scheme of operations in Afghanistan muddled and wrong-headed, but ultimately self-defeating.

International media, particularly in the world of blogs, are now filled with allegations of US aircraft and drones hitting women and children in Afghanistan in targeting cock-ups on an almost daily basis.

Behind the scenes, British commanders have been warning of the lack of strategic focus – in other words lack of coherent purpose – of the international enterprise in Afghanistan. "The thinking is all tactical and not strategic," a senior British commander stated bluntly two months ago.

Putting a few thousand more US troops into Afghanistan – any more than pulling a few thousand out of Iraq – will make not much difference in the audit of history on both conflicts. For neither problem is the solution primarily military. And that is what George W Bush failed to appreciate at the end of 2001, in the spring of 2003, and right now.

(Guardian.co.uk)