Troop Surge

Read your own sig. It works both ways. And it doesnt help when a person always looks for the alternative explanation for what is right in front of him.

I think I've explained it over a number of posts.... there is nothing we can do other than give Iraqis time and space to develop their own path without violence. The surge worked because it was NOT the Powell doctrine, which amazingly some on the Lib side seem to want to apply to this, then complain when innocents get caught up in it.
Put all the spin you want on it, when the Sunnis and Shia in a region decide it is in their mutual interest to reject those who try to play them off against each other to gain or retain power, then there's real progress.

When Sunni, Shia and Kurd when questioned on the options prefer to go with a unified Iraq, with some regional autonomy... but stiil Iraq.. then there's progress.
And there IS security for politicians, though obviously terror tactics will ALWAYS work wont they?

Plans are in and scheduled for drawdown of our troops.
The Iraqis are finally getting some pride in serving their country in the IDF, especially and they dont have too much trouble integrating. You need background in this...We beat Iraq so easily because all military decision were made by the officer corps... and select few of those. When Iraqis see how our military works they are excited. No longer are the enlisted just 'cannon-fodder' And that's just one aspect.

And unlike the popular conception.. our enlisted are far from 'stupid academic rejects'.
- - - - - - -- -
And your response to number 2 is truly mind boggling... you were ALL too willing to consider the 9/11 inside job theory. So why cant you accept that Saddam was playing a shell game?

Are you willing right here and now to flatly state that was NOT what Saddam was doing?

It pisses me off I cant get to Matchnight forums anymore because I laid out almost exactly the same scenario on there over two years ago.
- - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- -
You NEVER answer the hard freaking questions... I'm putting it to you again.

If the WMD were trumped up, then WHY didnt we find any? And explain it in detail... like a troofer would.

 

Look.. you want a sop for your view? Here it is.. the WORST mistake Bush made in the occupation:

Putting Bremer in charge. And the second was letting Rumsfeld manage the military response to the occupation situation the same as he did the warfighting.
In defense of Rumsfeld, remember he had to reshape our military in light of what he was given to work with. The ranks had been depleted and the concept was "smaller, lighter, rapid pin-point reaction."

Which Petraus had to reverse.. because 'reaction' doesnt work in occupation. What WORKS is obviously 'Neighborhood Cop'

But unlike what some lefty critics have said, forcing an election was not a mistake. It gave Iraqis the idea that what they voted actually mattered and they DO have a government.. though it's about as dysfunctional as our own at the moment.

But here is a watershed issue, which will tell us if they REALLY have a functional government:

Former Shiite officials can face trial over hospital deaths, Iraq judge rules

- IHT

If the Iraqi government does take them to trial.. a fair open, trial.. then most Iraqis will buy in.

 

How do I ask two questions and you go off on a rant (not rare) about how I dont own up to my questions. You criticize me for being curious. Thats why we dont get along...

Funny, thats how the Greeks did it... and the got pretty far, infact it they "invented it", its called critcal thinking.

OK, #2 first,

The '80's were full of IRAN vs IRAQ scenarios. Alot of posturing and eventually a war, and then MORE posturing... Then Saddam found out, as did the American public, well some of you, I was 10, that O.North had been selling both sides weapons. With this in mind, regardless of who the bad guy is, I find it hard to blame Saddam for being paranoid about IRAN, the US, or whoever.

On top of that, this is the 15th misdirection for why we went to war, we forget after this highly convenient news that Neocons have it indoctrinated that war in IRAQ is inevitable. Meetings days after 9/11, and memos befroe the IRAQ war have Rumsfeld in the Middle East before they had a chance to pull out a file of DECADE old intelligence to justify preemption. Remember when Collin Powell went to the UN and he presented OLD evidence??

So this new uncovering of the actual goings on in Saddams head are irrelevant OR further make the BUSHIES and intelligence community look REALLY stupid and extremely imcompetent.

#1 then... I think you had a great point in the infastructure argument and I'll accept that some Iraqi's have higher morale and are therefore more confident about taking their country back. The trial bit is inspiring too.

Ask me some hard questions. I'll be happy to answer them. Please respond quickly because this question doesnt make sense and seems like a stab about my openmindedness about 9/11.

I'll start a whole new thread so you can try to beat me up about it again.

 

How is it a 'misdirection' on why we went to war?
How can explaining what REALLY might have happened affect the original premise?
And, BTW, Saddam told our guy that he planned to restart the nuke program once sanctions were lifted. But that has NO bearing on this.

And also by the way... would you like to go into the REST of the story on why North gave Iran arms? i can handle it. It was stupid but it wasnt just selling them arms to start a war. Selling Saddam arms was to help him against Iran.... and maybe buy some favors, yoou know... like using 'Diplomacy'.

 

I have a hard time with that too... but we have to start learning lessons from this. Sure 20/20 and I agree, but if we dont have these discussions who'd remember we Fuk'd up?

We had no right to preempt war, NOTHING can justify that, our culture has been to never do that as Americans simply because we are the THE superpower.

I thnk we can leave... See VietNam.

 

I dont understand that point. For better or worse... and there ARE two sides to it.. to say our culture has never been interventionist is absurd. In fact one of our darkest hours was when certain despots were sure we wouldnt intervene, while we were nominally isolationist.

ONLY if you TOTALLY disregard history! The only argument about the aftermath of the way we left SE Asia is whether it resulted in 1.5 or over three million deaths in Viet Nam and Cambodia.

We know NOW... and on basis of the writings of NVN officials.. that we had that war almost won. The Tet offensive was their LAST Stand and fought mainly for propaganda purposes.
And it worked.

- - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -

Speaking of which:

We're now waiting for the 'insurgents' to mount their own 'Tet'. They know our history as well, or better, than many of us. The purpose: to show that they arent going to go away, no matter what the US or the Iraqis do.

The whole thing hinges on whether or not the Iraqi public is willing to ignore evidence of the attacks being planned.

Right now, it looks good

I Think this further illustrates:

What it illustrates to ME is that Iraqis, EVEN those whose religion is tied to Iran, want to run their own affairs. The writers here take a somewhat pesimistic view, dont they!

Which brings us to the British experience in Basra. Initially we thought the British were doing it the right way and we were doing it wrong. The point was that they were engaging and working with the locals... through various opinions and attacks, though, THEY reverted to a bunker mentality... withdrawing to revetments and were no longer doing what had seemed to work. So, the more they withdrew, the bolder Iran and the Sadrists became.

Then Petraus started doing essentially the British-Basra paradigm in Sunni and Sunni/Shia territory and it DID work. A question of right place and time? Probably. But what if the Brits had stuck with it!

This in light, remember, that the Brits were there because the US had already betrayed the Shia once, and didnt trust us at all.