It's still working. There wasn't much coverage of General Petraeus when he appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee last Thursday. Even C-SPAN didn't show it live. Petraeus reported that violence is at a 4-year low and that he will likely reduce troop levels this September after the 45-day pause. His comments were more upbeat than six weeks ago, when the Basra offensive was in full flux, but he is still cautionary about the political situation. Here is what he said about al-Sadr and Basra.
There's more on the success of the Basra offensive.
Even the New York Times is acknowledging the turnaround in Basra, but the writer seems befuddled about how it happened. Here's my answer: Clear. Hold. Build. The Brits played the caretaker role in southern Iraq, but the reality is that they took care of nothing except for avoiding getting shot at. The Basra offensive improved al Maliki's political standing, which has enabled him to take on al Sadr's home base in Sadr City and the last urban al Qaeda stronghold in Mosul.
A hat tip to Amy Proctor for the video. Going by Roggio , Sadr City is still in the clearing and holding phase, but they should start building soon. Muqtada al Sadr gets quite a bit of support from Sadr City residents because his group provides services and security. With the Iraqi Army and related groups doing the same, al Sadr's usefulness and relevance are reduced. Here's how Dr. iRack describes the Mosul operation:
Meanwhile, the Iraqi Army has continued its clearing operations in Mosul, arresting more than 1,000 suspected supporters of AQI, but apparently hasn't had to fight much. According to Interior Ministry spokesman Major-General Abdul-Karim Khalaf , Iraqi-led operations in Mosul, capital of Nineveh province, had destroyed "most of the insurgents' network." He continued: "We have arrested most of the wanted men and the operations are continuing. The are no longer big challenges in Mosul. There will always be sleeper cells, but that is not important because we will be able to deal with those cells." Clear? Check. Now the Iraqi government intends to recruit 7,000 Mosul residents into the security forces to help police the city. Hold? Check. And Maliki has promised $100 million to provide services and construction projects . Build? Check.
On the al Qaeda front, U.S. Ambassador Crocker said yesterday that the terrorist group has "never been closer to defeat than they are now." A little over a year ago, this is what a certain defeatist Democratic Senator from Nevada said.
The "extreme violence yesterday" that gloomy Reid was talking about was a series of four suicide bombings that killed 183 . Thirteen months ago, Harry Reid was ready and willing to surrender because of al Qaeda's evil acts. Now, al Qaeda is the one approaching defeat. Reid also said this : "As long as we follow the President's path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course and we must change course." Bush had changed course two months prior to Reid's statements, but Reid's version of changing course was (and perhaps still is) unilateral cut-and-run.
There's even more building taking place in southern Iraq, and Iraqi Airways just signed a multi-billion dollar order with Boeing for a fleet of new passenger jets. Next week, the Iranian foreign minister and a Syrian envoy will attend UN meetings in Sweden for the Iraq Compact Annual Review, which will make this a forum where U.S. officials can talk to a couple of adversarial nations. More on the International Compact with Iraq here .
None of the above means that all of al Qaeda or Special Groups or "rogue" JAM militias are defeated. I'm sure quite a few have melted away, some leaving or quitting, but others waiting to fight another day. Also, the truce between al Sadr and the Iraqi government is fragile and tenuous. But al Sadr is in a weak position, which was exposed as early as last August when he stood down his militias after the mess in Karbala. Also, none of this means that I believed we've turned the corner or that we're winning in Iraq. There's plenty left to accomplish. Although political strides have been made, more benchmarks need to be reached and more security needs to take hold and more building needs to take place.
If you look at the Iraqis then things aren't quite so rosy.
Since the start of 2008 we've lost another 177 soldiers in Iraq. If the ratio is true to form we've had an additional ~20,000 wounded.
And for what? So we can help the Shia group most heavily associated with Iran (Maliki's government) attack the Shia group that is more interested in Iraqi sovereignty (Sadr)?
Can you honestly say one of those kids died for anything more than to help disprove neoconservative geopolitical theories?
They are well below the levels since the Golden Mosque bombing in Feb-2006, and they've stayed at these comparatively low levels since last September (cite ).
Al Maliki may be in charge of the Shiite-led government, but Sunnis and Kurds have stood behind al Maliki in the Basra, Sadr City and Mosul operations. The Sunnis are virutally certain to expand their participation in the upcoming elections, and the door isn't closed on al Sadr for doing the same.
As for your final question, if we unilaterally withdraw all combat brigades in 16 months like what Obama want, I would venture to say that U.S. deaths really would have been pointless. I don't know if the current strategy will utlimately bring about a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic that can protect itself and not threaten its neighbors, but right now it's our best shot.
Its hard to wrap one's arms around support for a second war when:
Bush43 Administration believed a snake oil salesman and anyone else just trying to gain German citizenship.
It appeared to me at the time, and still does, that many supported the original rationale for going in because Saddam had name recognition as a not good-guy, and therefore would work with any other evil-doer.
Iran has vested interested in having a friendly neighbor regime that doesn't need to take its queue's from the US to stay in power.
We're fighting in the Iraqi's front yard, back yard, living room, and kitchen because we opened up the doors for others to come in and play "Bring em' [in]"
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Bush43 Administration believed a snake oil salesman and anyone else just trying to gain German citizenship.
are you referring in this point?
We're fighting in the Iraqi's front yard, back yard, living room, and kitchen because we opened up the doors for others to come in and play "Bring em' [in]"
See, the fly paper really worked ... at least according to the liberal rhetorical positions. As we all know from their talking points at the time that we went into Iraq there were virtually no terrorists to be found. The terrorists were quite literally everywhere else in the world but none could be found in Iraq for some reason, hmmm. Now we are killing them by the hundreds so obviously we drew them into the fight. (Note the underlined portion of the quote above.)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
I would argue that anyone you claim is a "created terrorist" was, in point of fact, a potential terrorists all along and they have simply been drawn out of the woodwork regardless of whether they had signed up before the war or not. It was only a matter of time before they succumbed to their baser tendencies anyway in this respect.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
by the time we are fighting them they have demonstrated themselves to be full fledged terrorists by virtue of the fact that they joined the ranks of al Qaeda, Hamas, or whomever. My argument is that the truly peace loving people, regardless of their race, wouldn't join such groups under any circumstances. Only a small percentage of the population, regardless of race, would have such tendencies.
So the bottom line is that if you're willing to join any of these groups you are, in effect, a terrorist in my book and we are better off getting you out in the open sooner rather than later. The peace loving people who don't join these groups I have no problem with and in fact the world will be a better place for all of them as soon as the terrorists have been exterminated.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
An occupying army is going to bring out "terrorist" tendencies in any citizen who loves his country. These are the people that you are now lumping in with Al Qaeda. This mindset justifies any invasion of any sovereign nation - if they fight back, they're terrorists, so it's okay.
Of course this is not what you said, but it is what your words mean, if you will only take the time to look more closely at them.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
An occupying army is going to bring out "terrorist" tendencies in any
citizen who loves his country. These are the people that you are now
lumping in with Al Qaeda.
I did not mean, nor can my comments be legitimately interpreted as saying, that anyone who fights back is a terrorist.
I said:
... by the time we are fighting them they have demonstrated themselves to
be full fledged terrorists by virtue of the fact that they joined the
ranks of al Qaeda, Hamas, or whomever.
Please note that I didn't include the militias in my comment. That was your bias, not mine.
My comments are strictly limited to people who have joined and are fighting as part of a terrorist organization such as al Qaeda or Hamas. If you somehow inferred that the "whomever" (which was a member of a list of terrorist organizations) somehow included militias that is not because I implied it.
Of course this is not what you said, but it is what your words mean, if
you will only take the time to look more closely at them.
Oh, so you DO understand the distinction. Note that your interpretation of my statement is just that, your interpretation. My meaning is not determined by your interpretation.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
You said that now we are killing them (terrorists) by the hundreds in Iraq. While there are probably some foreign nationals that have come into Iraq (your flypaper), there are many more Iraqis fighting us (my rotten meat), using terrorist tactics. Do you think the only people fighting us in Iraq are members of Al Qaeda or something?
I guess if your comments are "strictly limited to people who have joined and are fighting as part of a terrorist organization such as al Qaeda or Hamas," then I don't really understand your point. How do you distinguish between an Iraqi who sets an IED because he wants the US out of his country, and an Iraqi who sets an IED because he has "joined" some terrorist group? What about the Iraqi who joins a terrorist group because they will provide resources to fight the US, whom he wants out of his country?
I would argue that anyone you claim is a "created terrorist" was, in point of fact, a potential terrorists all along
So if I claim that an Iraqi fighting us using terrorist tactics, because he wants us out of the country, is a created terrorist, then you must believe that he was a potential terrorist all along, right? And it makes no difference that it was the US invasion of Iraq that directly caused him to realize his potential?
It really sounds to me like you are claiming that it is OK to prod perfectly innocent people with a sharp stick, to see if they have any potentially violent tendencies, and then arrest them if they do. Better to find out now then later, right?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
You said that now we are killing them (terrorists) by the hundreds in Iraq. While there are probably some foreign nationals that have come into Iraq (your flypaper), there are many more Iraqis fighting us (my rotten meat), using terrorist tactics. Do you think the only people fighting us in Iraq are members of Al Qaeda or something?
Obviously not.
On the other hand, when we are engaging a group or doing a sweep do you honestly believe that we have no idea whether those people are part of say, Sadr's militia as opposed to a terrorist group? Do you honestly believe that our guys are just randomly shooting at groups of unidentified individuals or random houses and neighborhoods?
I guess if your comments are "strictly limited to people who have joined and are fighting as part of a terrorist organization such as al Qaeda or Hamas," then I don't really understand your point. How do you distinguish between an Iraqi who sets an IED because he wants the US out of his country, and an Iraqi who sets an IED because he has "joined" some terrorist group? What about the Iraqi who joins a terrorist group because they will provide resources to fight the US, whom he wants out of his country?
I would say that the intent matters. Do you expect that Iraqi patriots are setting off suicide bombs and car bombs which are primarily targetting other Iraqi civilians? Do you expect the Iraqi patriots to be setting up IEDs in places which are more likely to kill other Iraqi's than they are to kill Americans?
So if I claim that an Iraqi fighting us using terrorist tactics, because he wants us out of the country, is a created terrorist, then you must believe that he was a potential terrorist all along, right? And it makes no difference that it was the US invasion of Iraq that directly caused him to realize his potential?
I believe that using the human intelligence gathered on the ground that we pretty much know which groups are which. We may not be able to pinpoint specific individuals, but when we come across resistance I have no doubt that they know if that resistance is a militia versus AQI. I am merely claiming that when we are killing AQI we are killing terrorists regardless of where they came from. Militia groups are a completely different story.
It really sounds to me like you are claiming that it is OK to prod perfectly innocent people with a sharp stick, to see if they have any potentially violent tendencies, and then arrest them if they do. Better to find out now then later, right?
Well, that's the thing about flypaper (or rotting meat for the matter), it is NOT a pointy stick. It is innocuous enough in its own right and only those that seek it out get caught. So you analogy is flawed in that respect, there is no prodding ... only bait setting.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Do you honestly believe that our guys are just randomly shooting at groups of unidentified individuals or random houses and neighborhoods?
The mercenaries that the US hired as bodyguards do just about that exact thing when they think they may possibly have a small reason to randomly shoot at groups of people.
Do you expect that Iraqi patriots are setting off suicide bombs and car bombs which are primarily targetting other Iraqi civilians? Do you expect the Iraqi patriots to be setting up IEDs in places which are more likely to kill other Iraqi's than they are to kill Americans?
If the Iraqi Patriots are going after Torries, I'd expect them to start tar and feathering any suspected Tory sympathizer as American Patriots did.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
The mercenaries that the US hired as bodyguards do just about that exact thing when they think they may possibly have a small reason to randomly shoot at groups of people.
This may, or may not, be the case for the bodyguards. I would hope that it is self-evident from the discussion above that we are talking about US Military Forces and not bodyguards. If this was not the case then here is your clarification.
If the Iraqi Patriots are going after Torries, I'd expect them to start tar and feathering any suspected Tory sympathizer as American Patriots did.
Hmmm. I don't recall reading about a lot of suicide bombings during the revolutionary war. Even so I accept your point to some extent. For example, the bombings that targetted the recruitment of the Iraqi security forces. But I don't believe that those particular bombings represent a majority of all such bombings where civilians were specifically targetted. I could be wrong though, so if you care to dig up any statistics to shed light on this aspect please feel free to do so.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
I would hope that it is self-evident from the discussion above that we are talking about US Military Forces and not bodyguards. If this was not the case then here is your clarification.
The mercs were brought in to do the job in a way that American soldiers wouldn't [be allowed to] do.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Now we are killing them by the hundreds so obviously we drew them into the fight.
This "[drawing] them into the fight" is throwing others, the Iraqi civilians, into the fire.
Farming out the assumption of risk is not a good thing.
according to the liberal rhetorical positions. As we all know from their talking points at the time that we went into Iraq there were virtually no terrorists to be found
Try finding anything recent that says anything different.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
hey are well below the levels since the Golden Mosque bombing in Feb-2006, and they've stayed at these comparatively low levels since last September (cite favicon).
True, the surge managed to tamp down violence temporarily. But the surge is ending and violence is ticking back up. That's the true value of the surge- it was a campaign commercial. Nothing more.
Al Maliki may be in charge of the Shiite-led government, but Sunnis and Kurds have stood behind al Maliki in the Basra, Sadr City and Mosul operations.
And why not? They love to see the shia turning on each other, it only helps their position.
As for your final question, if we unilaterally withdraw all combat brigades in 16 months like what Obama want, I would venture to say that U.S. deaths really would have been pointless. I don't know if the current strategy will utlimately bring about a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic that can protect itself and not threaten its neighbors, but right now it's our best shot.
It won't. There's no need to guess, a simple factual appraisal will spell out in detail why it won't work, and if that doesn't work for you then listen to Petraeus himself.
The deaths are every bit as senseless as in Vietnam, and the only real solution is the same- end the matter before more die needlessly. Victory is simply not possible.
The ICCC stats are from indendent media reports and the IBC uses media and Interior Ministry data. Both have showed similar trends, except IBC numbers are a month or two slower in getting reported.
they show them bottoming out at the end of last year and creeping up this year. Hence the effect of the surge seems played out. It held the civilian casualty rates down from unthinkable to merely monstrous...
I did not follow it completely, I admit. But the thrust was that the lessening of violence is only temporary, as there is no formation of consensus among the Shias and Sunnis.
And we are paying the Sunni leaders large amounts not to act out their conflict. In the absence of the top down resolutiion, the article contends, that chaos will ensue, if we leave next year or in a decade.
...totally confusing (and ignoring) the distinction between a very localized (and unsustainable) regional tactical move (the Surge) versus the overall strategic/geo-political situation (the War/Occupation).
Why don't you check out how we've done in terms of the Surge's actual benchmarks as set by the Bush administration over a year ago? According to all non-Bush sources its been an overwhelming failure. Only one or two of the dozen or so measures barely improved and none enough to get a passing grade.
That's certainly worth 4000 dead servicemen and women, 30000+ casulties and another $100 billion in the hands of every other multinational "security" firm on the planet.
You can defend the "success" of a localized Surge (sort of). You cannot defend the catastrophic failure of the war in which it has been implemented. We - as American citizens - are going to be paying for this disaster for generations to come.
And I don't go by what the White House says. FTR, I have no confidence in this president, and I support Bush only to the extent that Bush supports the Petraeus strategy. Your thesis about localized activity and the larger strategic/geo-political situation is interesting but ultimately non-sensical, and dare I say confusing.
Part of the counterinsurgency strategy is to help implement governmental reforms at all levels. If you saw Amb. Crocker's testimony last April, you'd see that he outlined the political progress made and what he'd like to see accomplished.
Your opinion of the decision to remove Saddam is irrelevant. We are where we are, so the most vital question is what to do going forward. So far, since Feb-2007, civilian casualties are way down, military casualties are way down, Kurdistan is stable, Anbar is stable, Baghdad is improving, Basra is improving, political advancement is occurring and Iraqi troops are getting trained.
Plenty of challenges remain, of course, and I'm still not sure if we're going to achieve the ultimate benchmark of Iraq becoming a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic that can protect itself and not threaten its neighbors.
of AQI, but apparently hasn't had to fight much. According to Interior Ministry spokesman Major-General Abdul-Karim Khalaf
, Iraqi-led operations in Mosul, capital of Nineveh province, had destroyed "most of the insurgents' network." He continued: "We have arrested most of the wanted men and the operations are continuing. The are no longer big challenges in Mosul. There will always be sleeper cells, but that is not important because we will be able to deal with those cells." Clear? Check. Now the Iraqi government intends to recruit 7,000 Mosul residents
into the security forces to help police the city. Hold? Check. And Maliki has promised $100 million to provide services and construction projects
.
Comments :
Four year low?
Sure, if you're only counting US deaths.
If you look at the Iraqis then things aren't quite so rosy.
Since the start of 2008 we've lost another 177 soldiers in Iraq. If the ratio is true to form we've had an additional ~20,000 wounded.
And for what? So we can help the Shia group most heavily associated with Iran (Maliki's government) attack the Shia group that is more interested in Iraqi sovereignty (Sadr)?
Can you honestly say one of those kids died for anything more than to help disprove neoconservative geopolitical theories?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Civilian casualties
They are well below the levels since the Golden Mosque bombing in Feb-2006, and they've stayed at these comparatively low levels since last September (cite
).
Al Maliki may be in charge of the Shiite-led government, but Sunnis and Kurds have stood behind al Maliki in the Basra, Sadr City and Mosul operations. The Sunnis are virutally certain to expand their participation in the upcoming elections, and the door isn't closed on al Sadr for doing the same.
As for your final question, if we unilaterally withdraw all combat brigades in 16 months like what Obama want, I would venture to say that U.S. deaths really would have been pointless. I don't know if the current strategy will utlimately bring about a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic that can protect itself and not threaten its neighbors, but right now it's our best shot.
An Aside
Its hard to wrap one's arms around support for a second war when:
Bush43 Administration believed a snake oil salesman and anyone else just trying to gain German citizenship.
It appeared to me at the time, and still does, that many supported the original rationale for going in because Saddam had name recognition as a not good-guy, and therefore would work with any other evil-doer.
Iran has vested interested in having a friendly neighbor regime that doesn't need to take its queue's from the US to stay in power.
We're fighting in the Iraqi's front yard, back yard, living room, and kitchen because we opened up the doors for others to come in and play "Bring em' [in]"
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
To what ...
are you referring in this point?
See, the fly paper really worked ... at least according to the liberal rhetorical positions. As we all know from their talking points at the time that we went into Iraq there were virtually no terrorists to be found. The terrorists were quite literally everywhere else in the world but none could be found in Iraq for some reason, hmmm. Now we are killing them by the hundreds so obviously we drew them into the fight. (Note the underlined portion of the quote above.)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Rotting meat
Rotting meat is a better analogy than fly paper. Not only does rotting meat attract flies, it also creates an environment that breeds more flies.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Nicely put. -nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Only if you believe that terrorists are "created".
I would argue that anyone you claim is a "created terrorist" was, in point of fact, a potential terrorists all along and they have simply been drawn out of the woodwork regardless of whether they had signed up before the war or not. It was only a matter of time before they succumbed to their baser tendencies anyway in this respect.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Egad
So now where in a war on "potential terrorists?" And you are OK with that? Talk about a neverending war. This is ridiculous.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
The racist aspects of this "war"
aren't hidden very deep.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Of course this is not at all what I said ...
by the time we are fighting them they have demonstrated themselves to be full fledged terrorists by virtue of the fact that they joined the ranks of al Qaeda, Hamas, or whomever. My argument is that the truly peace loving people, regardless of their race, wouldn't join such groups under any circumstances. Only a small percentage of the population, regardless of race, would have such tendencies.
So the bottom line is that if you're willing to join any of these groups you are, in effect, a terrorist in my book and we are better off getting you out in the open sooner rather than later. The peace loving people who don't join these groups I have no problem with and in fact the world will be a better place for all of them as soon as the terrorists have been exterminated.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Defense of the homeland
An occupying army is going to bring out "terrorist" tendencies in any citizen who loves his country. These are the people that you are now lumping in with Al Qaeda. This mindset justifies any invasion of any sovereign nation - if they fight back, they're terrorists, so it's okay.
Of course this is not what you said, but it is what your words mean, if you will only take the time to look more closely at them.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I said what I meant, and I meant what I said.
I did not mean, nor can my comments be legitimately interpreted as saying, that anyone who fights back is a terrorist.
I said:
Please note that I didn't include the militias in my comment. That was your bias, not mine.
My comments are strictly limited to people who have joined and are fighting as part of a terrorist organization such as al Qaeda or Hamas. If you somehow inferred that the "whomever" (which was a member of a list of terrorist organizations) somehow included militias that is not because I implied it.
Oh, so you DO understand the distinction. Note that your interpretation of my statement is just that, your interpretation. My meaning is not determined by your interpretation.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Potential terrorists
You said that now we are killing them (terrorists) by the hundreds in Iraq. While there are probably some foreign nationals that have come into Iraq (your flypaper), there are many more Iraqis fighting us (my rotten meat), using terrorist tactics. Do you think the only people fighting us in Iraq are members of Al Qaeda or something?
I guess if your comments are "strictly limited to people who have joined and are fighting as part of a terrorist organization such as al Qaeda or Hamas," then I don't really understand your point. How do you distinguish between an Iraqi who sets an IED because he wants the US out of his country, and an Iraqi who sets an IED because he has "joined" some terrorist group? What about the Iraqi who joins a terrorist group because they will provide resources to fight the US, whom he wants out of his country?
So if I claim that an Iraqi fighting us using terrorist tactics, because he wants us out of the country, is a created terrorist, then you must believe that he was a potential terrorist all along, right? And it makes no difference that it was the US invasion of Iraq that directly caused him to realize his potential?
It really sounds to me like you are claiming that it is OK to prod perfectly innocent people with a sharp stick, to see if they have any potentially violent tendencies, and then arrest them if they do. Better to find out now then later, right?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Flypaper is not a pointy stick.
Obviously not.
On the other hand, when we are engaging a group or doing a sweep do you honestly believe that we have no idea whether those people are part of say, Sadr's militia as opposed to a terrorist group? Do you honestly believe that our guys are just randomly shooting at groups of unidentified individuals or random houses and neighborhoods?
I would say that the intent matters. Do you expect that Iraqi patriots are setting off suicide bombs and car bombs which are primarily targetting other Iraqi civilians? Do you expect the Iraqi patriots to be setting up IEDs in places which are more likely to kill other Iraqi's than they are to kill Americans?
I believe that using the human intelligence gathered on the ground that we pretty much know which groups are which. We may not be able to pinpoint specific individuals, but when we come across resistance I have no doubt that they know if that resistance is a militia versus AQI. I am merely claiming that when we are killing AQI we are killing terrorists regardless of where they came from. Militia groups are a completely different story.
Well, that's the thing about flypaper (or rotting meat for the matter), it is NOT a pointy stick. It is innocuous enough in its own right and only those that seek it out get caught. So you analogy is flawed in that respect, there is no prodding ... only bait setting.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Do you honestly believe that
The mercenaries that the US hired as bodyguards do just about that exact thing when they think they may possibly have a small reason to randomly shoot at groups of people.
If the Iraqi Patriots are going after Torries, I'd expect them to start tar and feathering any suspected Tory sympathizer as American Patriots did.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I am going to resist the urge to keep prodding you ...
since you seem to not take it well. :)
This may, or may not, be the case for the bodyguards. I would hope that it is self-evident from the discussion above that we are talking about US Military Forces and not bodyguards. If this was not the case then here is your clarification.
Hmmm. I don't recall reading about a lot of suicide bombings during the revolutionary war. Even so I accept your point to some extent. For example, the bombings that targetted the recruitment of the Iraqi security forces. But I don't believe that those particular bombings represent a majority of all such bombings where civilians were specifically targetted. I could be wrong though, so if you care to dig up any statistics to shed light on this aspect please feel free to do so.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I would hope that it is
The mercs were brought in to do the job in a way that American soldiers wouldn't [be allowed to] do.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
The war is the pointy stick.
Which is a failure of both analogies, the flypaper and rotting meat. Because the invasion of Iraq was decidedly not innocuous.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
But it is our continued presence in Iraq ...
that constitutes the fly paper.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4"Bush43 Administration
Snake Oil Salesman
Just tying to gain German citizenship
This "[drawing] them into the fight" is throwing others, the Iraqi civilians, into the fire.
Farming out the assumption of risk is not a good thing.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
True and yet not important
True, the surge managed to tamp down violence temporarily. But the surge is ending and violence is ticking back up. That's the true value of the surge- it was a campaign commercial. Nothing more.
And why not? They love to see the shia turning on each other, it only helps their position.
It won't. There's no need to guess, a simple factual appraisal will spell out in detail why it won't work, and if that doesn't work for you then listen to Petraeus himself.
The deaths are every bit as senseless as in Vietnam, and the only real solution is the same- end the matter before more die needlessly. Victory is simply not possible.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
quite rosy
your stats show that Iraqi deaths have been relatively low since Aug 07 (civilian deaths were high fom Mar06 to Aug07).
anyway, stats on iraqi civilian casualties aren't terribly trustworthy.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
ICCC and IBC are the best available sources
The ICCC stats are from indendent media reports and the IBC uses media and Interior Ministry data. Both have showed similar trends, except IBC numbers are a month or two slower in getting reported.
Not really
they show them bottoming out at the end of last year and creeping up this year. Hence the effect of the surge seems played out. It held the civilian casualty rates down from unthinkable to merely monstrous...
for a time.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Doh, typo
that should be 2,000 wounded, not 20,000. We've seen about a 10:1 ratio of wounded to killed.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Article in Foreign Affairs Mag refutes this....
I did not follow it completely, I admit. But the thrust was that the lessening of violence is only temporary, as there is no formation of consensus among the Shias and Sunnis.
And we are paying the Sunni leaders large amounts not to act out their conflict. In the absence of the top down resolutiion, the article contends, that chaos will ensue, if we leave next year or in a decade.
Great job...
...totally confusing (and ignoring) the distinction between a very localized (and unsustainable) regional tactical move (the Surge) versus the overall strategic/geo-political situation (the War/Occupation).
Why don't you check out how we've done in terms of the Surge's actual benchmarks as set by the Bush administration over a year ago? According to all non-Bush sources its been an overwhelming failure. Only one or two of the dozen or so measures barely improved and none enough to get a passing grade.
That's certainly worth 4000 dead servicemen and women, 30000+ casulties and another $100 billion in the hands of every other multinational "security" firm on the planet.
You can defend the "success" of a localized Surge (sort of). You cannot defend the catastrophic failure of the war in which it has been implemented. We - as American citizens - are going to be paying for this disaster for generations to come.
I don't go by Bush's benchmarks
And I don't go by what the White House says. FTR, I have no confidence in this president, and I support Bush only to the extent that Bush supports the Petraeus strategy. Your thesis about localized activity and the larger strategic/geo-political situation is interesting but ultimately non-sensical, and dare I say confusing.
Part of the counterinsurgency strategy is to help implement governmental reforms at all levels. If you saw Amb. Crocker's testimony
last April, you'd see that he outlined the political progress made and what he'd like to see accomplished.
Your opinion of the decision to remove Saddam is irrelevant. We are where we are, so the most vital question is what to do going forward. So far, since Feb-2007, civilian casualties are way down, military casualties are way down, Kurdistan is stable, Anbar is stable, Baghdad is improving, Basra is improving, political advancement is occurring and Iraqi troops are getting trained.
Plenty of challenges remain, of course, and I'm still not sure if we're going to achieve the ultimate benchmark of Iraq becoming a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic that can protect itself and not threaten its neighbors.