Discuss

[Johnny Coli]

There is a new plan. It is not Bush's plan. It was formulated by General Petraeus and he's over there implementing it now as the top commander. Petraeus was confirmed by the Senate for the job after explaining his plan in Senate hearings.

 

And the bottom line, as Tom points out, is that whether we leave today, in a month, or in 17 months, if we don't leave before the region is stabilized things will be about ten times worse in the long run. Leaving for the sake of leaving is not a solution.

It's not a new plan and you are on hallucinogens if you think Patraeus was picked because he'd be anything other than another general in a long line of yes-men. Adding 21,000 (and counting) more troops is not a plan. Staying and adding more troops because you don't have a plan (and you're trying to save your own legacy) is not a solution. And, there is no guarantee (if anything you're guaranteeing the oppostite, see Iran) that a huge US military presence in Iraq is going to stabilize the region. The evidence (and bodies) to the contrary is mounting.

[GG]

It's not a new plan and you are on hallucinogens if you think Patraeus was picked because he'd be anything other than another general in a long line of yes-men. Adding 21,000 (and counting) more troops is not a plan. Staying and adding more troops because you don't have a plan (and you're trying to save your own legacy) is not a solution. And, there is no guarantee (if anything you're guaranteeing the oppostite, see Iran) that a huge US military presence in Iraq is going to stabilize the region. The evidence (and bodies) to the contrary is mounting.

 

Isn't it great to argue that the failed reconstruction effort is akin to having no plan, at all? Or that a change in strategy to stabilize Baghdad first, is not a plan? What are you basing your assertion that there is absolutely no plan, other than a blind hatred of Bush?

[Johnny Coli]

Isn't it great to argue that the failed reconstruction effort is akin to having no plan, at all? Or that a change in strategy to stabilize Baghdad first, is not a plan? What are you basing your assertion that there is absolutely no plan, other than a blind hatred of Bush?

At Least 50 Killed In Iraq Violence (3-24)

At least 20 died when a truck bomb struck a police station in a mainly Sunni area in Baghdad.

...

At least 10 people were killed when a parked truck exploded near a Shiite mosque south of Baghdad.

 

Another 10 were killed when a suicide bomber struck a pastry shop northwest of the capital.

...

Meanwhile, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Salam al-Zubaie has been moved out of intensive care. He's said to be in good condition, a day after being wounded in a suicide bombing that killed nine others.

Roundup of violence in Iraq - 23 March 2007

Probably too long to quote here.

 

Reports of Progress In Iraq Challenged

Sectarian attacks in Baghdad are down at the moment, but the deaths of Iraqi civilians and U.S. troops have increased outside the capital.

...

If violence is down in Baghdad, analysts said, it is likely because the Shiite militias operating there are waiting out the buildup in U.S. troops, nearly all of whom are being deployed in the capital. At the same time, Sunni insurgents have escalated their operations elsewhere.

 

There is no plan, GG. We could pull up a "violence in Iraq" round-up for every day for the past four years, and they'd all look the same. Unless you count the upsurge in chlorine tanker explosions. Those are new.

 

EDIT: Quick Update

If you blink you miss it, I guess. 5 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq bombings

The clashes broke out a day after at least 74 people were killed or found dead in Iraq — 47 in suicide bombings — one of the deadliest days since a U.S.-Iraqi security sweep began in Baghdad on Feb. 14.

 

Calling this progress is insulting.

[GG]

At Least 50 Killed In Iraq Violence (3-24)

Roundup of violence in Iraq - 23 March 2007

Probably too long to quote here.

 

Reports of Progress In Iraq Challenged

There is no plan, GG. We could pull up a "violence in Iraq" round-up for every day for the past four years, and they'd all look the same. Unless you count the upsurge in chlorine tanker explosions. Those are new.

 

Thanks for the voluminous links. Why didn't you include this passage from the available quotes in Wash Post's story?

Bush prefaced his report, given in a speech to the American Legion, by saying that it is too early to judge success. Others have added similar caveats. "I think people have been badly burned by letting hopes outride analysis" in the past, said one senior administration official, "and there is going to be a genuinely careful look at everything before saying it." Though there are positive indicators, he said, "right now there is no trend."

 

Has the troop surge really been implemented yet? I didn't think so. It's just as disingenuous to call the recent plan a failure before it's even close to having been installed than using the tired "Mission Accomplished" cliche in separating the military victory from the failed reconstruction.

[X. Benedict]

There is a new plan. It is not Bush's plan. It was formulated by General Petraeus and he's over there implementing it now as the top commander. Petraeus was confirmed by the Senate for the job after explaining his plan in Senate hearings.

 

And the bottom line, as Tom points out, is that whether we leave today, in a month, or in 17 months, if we don't leave before the region is stabilized things will be about ten times worse in the long run. Leaving for the sake of leaving is not a solution.

 

I am curious about this point. There was a bi-partisan committee which advocated a gradual redeployment.

Bush - as a politician and commander in chief - clearly ignored their advice.

 

Is it Petraeus's plan? Perhaps within the parameters he was given, not to redeploy.

 

By ignoring the Baker-Hamilton - Bush basically screwed his opportunity for political cover because, hell, he's either just plain smarter, or truly believed he found a better plan.

 

But that's his call.

 

I really do think Petraeus is the best guy to have over there - regardless of a surge.

[Johnny Coli]

Thanks for the voluminous links. Why didn't you include this passage from the available quotes in Wash Post's story?

Has the troop surge really been implemented yet? I didn't think so. It's just as disingenuous to call the recent plan a failure before it's even close to having been installed than using the tired "Mission Accomplished" cliche in separating the military victory from the failed reconstruction.

I didn't include the quote because it's a load of sh--. Shrub is always proclaiming that it's too early to judge success. We've had four years of "You have to be patient. This is the plan that will work. It's too early to judge whether it will be successfull." It's a load of crap. There has been no improvement. None.

[erynthered]

I didn't include the quote because it's a load of sh--. .

 

 

That sure reads like an opinion.

 

But, that's OK, cause its your opinion. Right. Got it.

[Johnny Coli]

That sure reads like an opinion.

 

But, that's OK, cause its your opinion. Right. Got it.

One opinion of many.

 

Newsweek poll 3/14-15/07: 69% disapproval of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, 64% oppose President Bush's decision earlier this year to increase the level of U.S. troops in Iraq

 

Polls suck.

[erynthered]

One opinion of many.

 

Newsweek poll 3/14-15/07: 69% disapproval of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, 64% oppose President Bush's decision earlier this year to increase the level of U.S. troops in Iraq

 

Polls suck.

 

 

Went over your head, I guess. You chastise others for posting opinion, yet yours is an absolute.

 

Yeah, and polls do suck poles. I noticed how that poll is really judging Shrub or our troops. Good job. Try again.

 

Nice to see you overlooking our troops, though I'm not surprised. Afterall, its the polls that are fighting the war.

[Taro T]

I think the phased withdrawl plan is the best scenario for leaving. Despite what Cheney and the GOP will have you believe, the Dem plan is giving Bush more money in this bill than he asked for. The US military isn't pulling up stakes on a friday and the country won't be empty by Sunday afternoon. There would be specific benchmarks, measurable goals, however you want to term them, for the Iraqis to achieve. It is their country afterall, is it not (at least that's what Bush/Cheney are telling them)? If the goals aren't met and the Iraqis show the same lack of urgency they've shown in getting their crap together after the past four years, then the US troops mediating (caught in, really) the Iraqi Civil War start to come home even sooner. And even after all that, there will still be a US presence advising them wrt training and setting up their own forces.

 

As for "get[ting] us out of this situation without creating additional problems in the future", that's an incredibly unrealistic goal to think that a considerably longer (and larger) US military presence in Iraq will be a long-term benefit to that region at all. There isn't a single shred of evidence that the region is any more stable with the US bogged down over there than if the US was using diplomacy and the help of any number of the more benign countries over there. All of those countries have a vested interest in achieving some level of Mid East stability.

 

The region is not going to descend into chaos simply because the US occupation of Iraq ends.

I do appreciate the serious reply. I don't think we will see eye to eye on this one though. I don't know how much longer U.S. troops will be required there, but I don't see where setting an artificial deadline for withdrawl has any realistic possibility of resulting in an outcome we'd consider successful. Perhaps it will scare the moderates into getting their acts together, but I just don't see it happening.

 

I don't think the whole region will descend into chaos when the U.S. declares victory and walks away, but I see it creating a lot more problems than we currently have.

[X. Benedict]

I do appreciate the serious reply. I don't think we will see eye to eye on this one though. I don't know how much longer U.S. troops will be required there, but I don't see where setting an artificial deadline for withdrawl has any realistic possibility of resulting in an outcome we'd consider successful. Perhaps it will scare the moderates into getting their acts together, but I just don't see it happening.

 

I don't think the whole region will descend into chaos when the U.S. declares victory and walks away, but I see it creating a lot more problems than we currently have.

 

I'm not being facetious - but what does 'artificial deadline' mean? I've heard it used many times - for some I think it means

a "soft deadline" and others "arbitrary" and others use it to mean something other than a strategic goal.

[Taro T]

I'm not being facetious - but what does 'artificial deadline' mean? I've heard it used many times - for some I think it means

a "soft deadline" and others "arbitrary" and others use it to mean something other than a strategic goal.

I can't speak for others, but setting an arbitrary date to be out of Iraq because it sounds good or is nice "round" date, such as September 30, 2008, is what I would consider arbitrary. Especially when that date is not tied to ANY on site results or situations. We're out of there ~5 weeks before the 2008 election whether we're winning, losing, or somewhere inbetween.

 

If the deadline isn't "arbitrary", I'd be interested in hearing (reading, actually) what it is.

[X. Benedict]

I can't speak for others, but setting an arbitrary date to be out of Iraq because it sounds good or is nice "round" date, such as September 30, 2008, is what I would consider arbitrary. Especially when that date is not tied to ANY on site results or situations. We're out of there ~5 weeks before the 2008 election whether we're winning, losing, or somewhere inbetween.

 

If the deadline isn't "arbitrary", I'd be interested in hearing (reading, actually) what it is.

 

Thanks. I think there is merit to what you'r saying. But would it not also be of some benefit to let the Iraqis know when

we plan on leaving? Conceivably come 2008 our situation there could be no better or even worse, and then we are back to

the same discussion in 2009 or 2010.

 

The administration's goals here seem so inchoate that it is hard to see an end.

The administration has rejected a staged withdrawal so if

there is no endgame, then a deadline may be the best we got.

 

If there is no deadline, what stands to be accomplished?

What is the best scenario that can be hoped for?

[Taro T]

Thanks. I think there is merit to what your saying. But would it not also be of some benefit to let the Iraqis know when

we plan on leaving? Conceivably come 2008 our situation there could be no better or even worse, and then we are back to

the same discussion in 2009 or 2010.

 

The administration's goals here seem so inchoate that it is hard to see an end.

The administration has rejected a staged withdrawal so if

there is no endgame, then a deadline may be the best we got.

 

If there is no deadline, what stands to be accomplished?

What is the best scenario that can be hoped for?

It is possible. (I also wouldn't be shocked to find out that behind the scenes we HAVE been telling them what conditions wll cause us to say it's hopeless.) But considering the way the U.S. basically turned it's back on the Shia after Desert Storm, I don't see how saying we're out of there on 9/30/08 doesn't prevent Iraqis from supporting a government that currently doesn't appear to be able to keep order without outside assistance. I do believe that given time, things can get better over there. (Not saying they will, saying they can.) I don't see where a radically different leadership / government would or could be a good thing (for us or the majority of Iraqis).

 

Will the current government fail regardless of what we do? Again, it's possible. (Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if it's probable, but I think it is currently far from a given.) From my position, far outside the loop, I don't see how it can succeed without our help in getting it going. I don't see any particularily "good" options currently, but if we hold our ground (or ramp up security around Bagdad) I believe people far smarter than I will come up with some better options.

 

Right now, I'm not certain what the best scenario that could be hoped for is. But I do see some worst scenarios, most of which begin with the U.S. turning tail and telling the world, once again, that we don't care about Muslims / Arabs / however else you want to state it.

[X. Benedict]

Right now, I'm not certain what the best scenario that could be hoped for is. But I do see some worst scenarios, most of which begin with the U.S. turning tail and telling the world, once again, that we don't care about Muslims / Arabs / however else you want to state it.

I appreciate the entirety of your post Dave. I really have very mixed feelings about it all and want to balance our national interests with our obligations. What best does that? Just wish I knew.

[molson_golden2002]

It is possible. (I also wouldn't be shocked to find out that behind the scenes we HAVE been telling them what conditions wll cause us to say it's hopeless.) But considering the way the U.S. basically turned it's back on the Shia after Desert Storm, I don't see how saying we're out of there on 9/30/08 doesn't prevent Iraqis from supporting a government that currently doesn't appear to be able to keep order without outside assistance. I do believe that given time, things can get better over there. (Not saying they will, saying they can.) I don't see where a radically different leadership / government would or could be a good thing (for us or the majority of Iraqis).

 

Will the current government fail regardless of what we do? Again, it's possible. (Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if it's probable, but I think it is currently far from a given.) From my position, far outside the loop, I don't see how it can succeed without our help in getting it going. I don't see any particularily "good" options currently, but if we hold our ground (or ramp up security around Bagdad) I believe people far smarter than I will come up with some better options.

 

Right now, I'm not certain what the best scenario that could be hoped for is. But I do see some worst scenarios, most of which begin with the U.S. turning tail and telling the world, once again, that we don't care about Muslims / Arabs / however else you want to state it.

Dave, do you think our being there is really a problem towards stability itself? Really, when anyone who works with us is killed, can't you see that the government we prop up is viewed as a foreign entity?

 

And why after all these years, with unemployment so high there, can't they get an army, police force and everything else together? The middle class has fled, the government is corrupt to the core and a majority of Iraqis think attacks on our troops is a good thing. Its time to bring our kids home. How many tours of duty do we ask them to serve there? Its so unfair.

[Taro T]

Dave, do you think our being there is really a problem towards stability itself? Really, when anyone who works with us is killed, can't you see that the government we prop up is viewed as a foreign entity?

 

And why after all these years, with unemployment so high there, can't they get an army, police force and everything else together? The middle class has fled, the government is corrupt to the core and a majority of Iraqis think attacks on our troops is a good thing. Its time to bring our kids home. How many tours of duty do we ask them to serve there? Its so unfair.

Actually, I think the threat of us leaving before the institutions that will/should protect the citizenry are capable of handling the task on their own is a bigger threat towards stability today. (Ask me again in 12 months and my opinion may have changed.)

 

While being far from an expert, I'd wager that the reason the country is having problems with developing an army and police force have to do with punting ALL officers from the old Iraqi army and not finishing the job when we have gone after the Mahdi army and other militias. Throw in the history of what happened after Desert Storm and the constant media barrage that makes it sound like it's inevitable that we will cut and run within the next 2 years and I think you have some legitimate reasons for these institutions to have difficulty staffing.

 

Also, could you please show me some sources for the information that "anyone who works with us is killed"?

[Johnny Coli]

I served under and deployed with Petraeus. The guy is a hard charger and one of the brightest the Army has to offer.

I don't think anyone would argue that Patraeus is a fine commander. But do you think he has complete autonomy to handle the Iraq occupation? I don't, and nothing I've seen so far wrt how Bush has interacted with the military suggests otherwise.