But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).
Falcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1332 times:
I hope they're right. Nothing would be better for both nations. But I still fear for Iraq after we pull out. I just don't see it having the internal strength to stay united, stay at peace, and ward off Iran.
Siren From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 300 posts, RR: 12 Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1258 times:
Yeah, no, it's not working. The only reason US troop deaths are down over last month is because it's 130 degrees in Iraq. It's too hot for the insurgents to operate. Summer has seen a decrease in violence in the previous years of the war - this summer isn't any different. It would be great if the 'surge' worked, though the truth is Iraq is lost and has been lost since Gen. Franks blundered and didn't secure Baghdad and disbanded the Army in the first days of the war...
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18800 posts, RR: 64 Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1252 times:
My oh my, all the hawks are going to have to agree with the evil liberal mainstream media, all of a sudden. I can hardly wait to see the posts!
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1219 times:
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 6): Glad to hear things are moving along in Iraq.
Meanwhile: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/news...4c2cc0f6c99e87f284df922a039cad.htm
""We were having a good life in Iraq [before 2003] - good food, nice clothes and we enjoyed travelling - but everything went out with the occupation," Zeid said."
"IRAQ: Unemployment and violence increase poverty"
And the reverse of the title is also clearly at work, poverty increases violence.
So, having reduced Iraq from one of the more developed ME countries to a shambles, in four years, the next trick is?
It would be really nice if some of the article were true, but it all sounds like the productions from Gen Westmoreland, so many years ago. Wonder how the tiger pits are going!
I don't suppose that the article mentioned that the corrupt and sectarian commanders removed will be soon be back again, either in their old jobs or as leaders of a new insurgency.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19686 posts, RR: 56 Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1218 times:
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4): A couple? Even the article says the situation is still "grave". It may be working to some extent, but there's a lot to overcome.
Well, the reason it's so grave is that there were so many f*ck-ups right after the war. We're finally getting our act together over there, and look at the results. Bush finally woke up and realized that things were not well over there, and he deserves at least some credit for taking necessary steps (which does not in the least excuse him from the disasters of the past). There is a long way to go, but if the authors are correct and the soldiers have had a change of attitude for the better, then I'm hopeful that the trend will continue.
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 1): But I still fear for Iraq after we pull out.
Depends on when. If we pull out now, or in 2008, or even 2009, I'd agree. But eventually Iraq will become more stable. Unfortunately, we'll have to stay in until then, especially if there is actual progress there.
I worry about this as well, but I'm not so sure there's a lot we, or Iraq, can do. We might as well have knocked on Iran's door back in 2003 and said "we're going to get rid of one of your enemies and create a power vaccuum on your border - would you like some extra influence in the region?"
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 6): My oh my, all the hawks are going to have to agree with the evil liberal mainstream media, all of a sudden. I can hardly wait to see the posts!
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1211 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 8): I worry about this as well, but I'm not so sure there's a lot we, or Iraq, can do. We might as well have knocked on Iran's door back in 2003 and said "we're going to get rid of one of your enemies and create a power vaccuum on your border - would you like some extra influence in the region?"
Correct. Blaming Iran now for being sucked into the maelstrom is about as bright as complaining that crocodiles have big teeth. I can remember in the previews to the war, there were long discussions about which Shiite Imam had what backing from Iran.
Some day there will be a definitive explanation of what went wrong after the Taliban were expelled from Afghanistan. For a while the Iranians and the US seemed to be on the brink of collaborating. But soon it descended into allegations of Iran hiding Taliban and Al Q. What REALLY happened there?
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1184 times:
Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 10): Iraq started selling oil in euros.... Iran started talking about creating an oil trading market based mainly on trading in Euros
Could be. It was a great opportunity missed. And the Bush administration was so proud of its tag for Arafat that he never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. It seems Arafat had some over-eager pupils!
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12556 posts, RR: 64 Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1133 times:
Quoting Siren (Reply 5): The only reason US troop deaths are down over last month is because it's 130 degrees in Iraq. It's too hot for the insurgents to operate.
One of my best friends is a cop here in Arizona, and he's the first to point out how criminal activity goes sky-high when it gets incredibly hot out. Too hot to operate? So when it's warm they don't hate the U.S. quite enough to brave the outdoor temperatures?
Puh-leeeze....
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
RJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1115 times:
Quoting Siren (Reply 5): The only reason US troop deaths are down over last month is because it's 130 degrees in Iraq. It's too hot for the insurgents to operate
??? Sorry most respected Mullah, it is too hot to go blow myself up! While there are a lot of excuses that could be made for the decrease in violence, that has to be one of the funniest I've read.
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 6): My oh my, all the hawks are going to have to agree with the evil liberal mainstream media, all of a sudden. I can hardly wait to see the posts!
Or perhaps we are enjoying getting to see that even the mighty NYT might finally be starting to see the light. Over the weekend several of the on call analysts for the talking heads basically said pulling out now, in a hurry, would be wrong.
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4): A couple? Even the article says the situation is still "grave". It may be working to some extent, but there's a lot to overcome
As usual you had to work to find that and then take it out of context. The surge is working, Iraqi politics is mirroring American politics, all show and no go.
"In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation --- or at least accommodation --- are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely.'
You could substitute America and American politicians in that paragraph and it would fit just as well.
On the battlefront effort and our part in it you somehow managed to miss this.
"But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008."
But then you have proven adept at twisting any article to look like a negative when it comes to Iraq, or this administration in general.
UAL777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1478 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1015 times:
Quoting Siren (Reply 5): Yeah, no, it's not working. The only reason US troop deaths are down over last month is because it's 130 degrees in Iraq. It's too hot for the insurgents to operate. Summer has seen a decrease in violence in the previous years of the war - this summer isn't any different. It would be great if the 'surge' worked, though the truth is Iraq is lost and has been lost since Gen. Franks blundered and didn't secure Baghdad and disbanded the Army in the first days of the war...
Wrong. Things are starting to turn around for a couple of reasons.
1. The surge is helping a lot in Baghdad. There is a formula out there that states in order to successfully put down an insurgency you must have 1 soldier to every 8 civilians. With the surge the US is able to better police the streets.
2. Change in Tactics. The US is spending A LOT more time (thanks to Gen. Patreaus) interacting and helping the population. The population is giving far more tips and information to the Coalition troops due to this and point # 3.
3. The population is tired of terror. The terrorists in Iraq have caused over 90% of the civilian deaths in Iraq since the war began. Even in the Anbar province, the local tribes are capturing and turning in insurgents to Coalition forces because they are flat out tired of people coming into their towns and peeling off peoples faces with piano wire.
The US is also now allowing limited participation on the part of local militias in the hunting of insurgents just as they used the Northern Alliance extensively in Afghanistan.
What people fail to realize is that with only 170,000 troops in country, it takes more time to turn things around due to a lack of resources. The Iraqi Army is finally STARTING to become a force that can police the country, and the majority of IEDs are being found before they explode.
Weapons caches are being uncovered, terrorist hide-outs are being destroyed, and the population is starting to TRUST Coalition forces.
Do not expect flowers and sunshine when the US has the nasty habit of half-assing military conflicts. If we can continue to do things right, I think Iraq will be stable by the end of 2010.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16245 posts, RR: 52 Reply 15, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1007 times:
Quoting CO7772WUH (Thread starter): I'm surprised to this coming from the NYT. However, it appears the surge is working.
Listening to talk radio the last couple of days all the usual suspects are touting the NY Times article as if the New York Times is some sort of anti-war paper that has been fighting against the administration from the beginning. The opposite is true, the New York Times was one of the biggest (if not thee biggest) reporters on the WMD, AL Qaeda training connection etc prior to the war. The New York Times did investigative reporting to support all assertions Bush and Cheney were making, the biggest war hawks were Judith Miller, Thomas Friedman and a few others.
This notion that the NY Times is anti-war is bogus spin, they were huge hawks prior to the war. They changed their reporting to reflect the situation on the ground (grim), the administration with everything they do was late to the realization that the NY Times and other reporters had come to. That the US administration of the post invasion Iraq situation was a cluster f**k through and through, and that there were not enough troops , something the New York Times, John McCain, Joe Biden and others were arguing in favor of two years prior to the "Surge".
The New York Times was right about the building insurgency in late '03 and early '04, hopefully they are right about the recent military success.
CupraIbiza From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 831 posts, RR: 7 Reply 16, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1002 times:
Quoting UAL777 (Reply 14): Wrong. Things are starting to turn around for a couple of reasons.
Not a good day. 76 killed and Sunnis walking away from cabinet.
Whilst IU understand the benefits of a positive outlook I suggest we re-examine the facts.
Iraq is made up of Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%. In Iran its more like 89% Shi'a, 9% Sunni.
However the rest of the region is overwelmingly Sunni. There is no way the rest of the region is going to allow Iraq to become another Shi'a stronghold.
No amount of surges will change this.
Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
Siren From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 300 posts, RR: 12 Reply 17, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 983 times:
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 12): One of my best friends is a cop here in Arizona
It's not 130 degrees in Arizona.
Quoting RJdxer (Reply 13): Sorry most respected Mullah, it is too hot to go blow myself up!
Suicide bombings aren't the leading cause of US troop deaths. It's IEDs. Most large blasts that kill people these days are car bombs - not suicide bombs. And, uh, Mullah really isn't the popular term out there. It's Ayatollah. Have to remember that the terrorists are using this war as a training ground, much as they did Afghanistan with the Soviets in the 1980s. It is not constructive to their goals to get killed or blow themselves up - it's not time to be a martyr yet.
Most of the insurgent groups (I deliberately did not use terrorist - they are two different animals within Iraq) are not answering to religious leaders with the exception of al-Sadr's Madhi Army and assoted other Shia militias. By far, these are sectarian militias operating individually. Most of the foreign fighters are Saudis (Sunnis). Sunni militias are being armed by the United States military (Gen. Patraeus) over the express will of Prime Minister al-Maliki.
al-Maliki has in turn promised to arm Shia militias - the ones who are most likely to be allied to Iran, though there is overwhelming evidence that they are not receiving material or financial support from the Iranian government. Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani is the primary religious leader of the Shia (residing in Iran) - and those in Shia militias take orders from him. Many times he's called for calm - al-Sadr has defied him, and has called for Shia within Iraq to fight the US occupation.
We will only see an increase in violence with the course Gen. Patraeus is taking. He's arming death squads. In turn, al-Maliki will arm Shia death squads with fresh weaponry.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 18, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 942 times:
Quoting Siren (Reply 17): We will only see an increase in violence with the course Gen. Patraeus is taking. He's arming death squads. In turn, al-Maliki will arm Shia death squads with fresh weaponry.
Interesting post Siren. You could be right about the long term effects of Patraeus' current policies. What is certain is, as Cupral notes, getting any sort of stability into Sunni Shia relations is at best, very difficult.
The Kurds remain a sleeper issue, but if they gain strength that sets off two additional and different effects, one the Turks fancy invading and second the Sunnis get possessive over the Kirkuk oil. Saddam carefully introduced Sunnis into the Kirkuk area and they now feel they own it whereas it is historically more a toss up between Turkmen and Kurds with the odds on the Turkmen. http://members.lycos.nl/soitum/CensusP.pdf
At least with Iraq divided into four, their leaders could sit down for a game of bridge!
CupraIbiza From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 831 posts, RR: 7 Reply 19, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 937 times:
Quoting Baroque (Reply 18): could sit down for a game of bridge!
Is there a game that 6 can play? Then you could deal Israel and Palastine in as well. Without wanting to be all doom and gloom, its quite forseable that Iraq will be in a similar situation in decades to come
Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
ME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13872 posts, RR: 28 Reply 20, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 921 times:
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 1): But I still fear for Iraq after we pull out. I just don't see it having the internal strength to stay united, stay at peace, and ward off Iran.
Iraq will stay united, thanks to the armed forces and their commanders. It will stay at peace with its neighbours. And the incoming government then not only will ward off Iran but also send the clerics back into the mosques and out of politics.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 21, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 891 times:
Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 20): Iraq will stay united, thanks to the armed forces and their commanders. It will stay at peace with its neighbours. And the incoming government then not only will ward off Iran but also send the clerics back into the mosques and out of politics.
That still has to be the best assessment of what will happen. Question is MAF, will we live long enough for the enthusiasts to let us see if it really is the case?
And when I think about it a bit more, the neighbours might be persuaded to keep their digits out, but will the west? Less optimistic there my friend!
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, 
While there are a lot of excuses that could be made for the decrease in violence, that has to be one of the funniest I've read.
From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13872 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
