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

[GaryC 7]

The Iraqi Upturn

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

Sunday, June 1, 2008

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...3101927_pf.html

[Sheriff Uling 3]

Great posts! I actually like this one...

[HAL 9000 96]

Yay!

Nothing like winning an illegal war!

[GaryC 7]

Yay!

Nothing like winning an illegal war!

Since you think it was illegal does that mean you want us to lose?

[HAL 9000 96]

Yay!

Nothing like winning an illegal war!

Since you think it was illegal does that mean you want us to lose?

No I want us to leave where we do not belong. Intelligently, of course. We already lost that war the moment we allowed ourselves to invade based on lies.

[GaryC 7]

Yay!

Nothing like winning an illegal war!

Since you think it was illegal does that mean you want us to lose?

No I want us to leave where we do not belong. Intelligently, of course. We already lost that war the moment we allowed ourselves to invade based on lies.

What will your position be if we win? For example, are able to leave because the fighting stops and the government of Iraq can take care of itself?

[HAL 9000 96]

Yay!

Nothing like winning an illegal war!

Since you think it was illegal does that mean you want us to lose?

No I want us to leave where we do not belong. Intelligently, of course. We already lost that war the moment we allowed ourselves to invade based on lies.

What will your position be if we win? For example, are able to leave because the fighting stops and the government of Iraq can take care of itself?

Same as before.

[GaryC 7]

Yay!

Nothing like winning an illegal war!

Since you think it was illegal does that mean you want us to lose?

No I want us to leave where we do not belong. Intelligently, of course. We already lost that war the moment we allowed ourselves to invade based on lies.

What will your position be if we win? For example, are able to leave because the fighting stops and the government of Iraq can take care of itself?

Same as before.

So because you think the war was illegal (it wasn't) you want us to leave regardless of the ramifications?

[HAL 9000 96]

Yay!

Nothing like winning an illegal war!

Since you think it was illegal does that mean you want us to lose?

No I want us to leave where we do not belong. Intelligently, of course. We already lost that war the moment we allowed ourselves to invade based on lies.

What will your position be if we win? For example, are able to leave because the fighting stops and the government of Iraq can take care of itself?

Same as before.

So because you think the war was illegal (it wasn't) you want us to leave regardless of the ramifications?

The legal aspect is defined by whom is in power to legalize, surely. Of course, enough politicians voted to authorize and I guess that implies legality one way or another. It truly is a blessing to have the power to be able to bend factual intelligence information to the will of whom occupies the Oval office.

I want us to leave because we don't belong there under the actual argument to have gone there in the first place.

Given the excellent military preparation Iraqi soldiers are already receiving, their government can now pay for it without our assistance and police themselves. Thereby reducing even more so the frequency of violence aimed at our presence directly and indirectly in causing more resentment of our occupation.

[GaryC 7]

Yay!

Nothing like winning an illegal war!

Since you think it was illegal does that mean you want us to lose?

No I want us to leave where we do not belong. Intelligently, of course. We already lost that war the moment we allowed ourselves to invade based on lies.

What will your position be if we win? For example, are able to leave because the fighting stops and the government of Iraq can take care of itself?

Same as before.

So because you think the war was illegal (it wasn't) you want us to leave regardless of the ramifications?

The legal aspect is defined by whom is in power to legalize, surely. Of course, enough politicians voted to authorize and I guess that implies legality one way or another. It truly is a blessing to have the power to be able to bend factual intelligence information to the will of whom occupies the Oval office.

I want us to leave because we don't belong there under the actual argument to have gone there in the first place.

Given the excellent military preparation Iraqi soldiers are already receiving, their government can now pay for it without our assistance and police themselves. Thereby reducing even more so the frequency of violence aimed at our presence directly and indirectly in causing more resentment of our occupation.

We are drawing down because the Iraq army in gaining the ability to take over. I am just worried that if Obama should win he will set an artificial time table for leaving and cause us to lose all the hard fought gains. That would truly mean that our men and women would have died in vain.

[HAL 9000 96]

Yay!

Nothing like winning an illegal war!

Since you think it was illegal does that mean you want us to lose?

No I want us to leave where we do not belong. Intelligently, of course. We already lost that war the moment we allowed ourselves to invade based on lies.

What will your position be if we win? For example, are able to leave because the fighting stops and the government of Iraq can take care of itself?

Same as before.

So because you think the war was illegal (it wasn't) you want us to leave regardless of the ramifications?

The legal aspect is defined by whom is in power to legalize, surely. Of course, enough politicians voted to authorize and I guess that implies legality one way or another. It truly is a blessing to have the power to be able to bend factual intelligence information to the will of whom occupies the Oval office.

I want us to leave because we don't belong there under the actual argument to have gone there in the first place.

Given the excellent military preparation Iraqi soldiers are already receiving, their government can now pay for it without our assistance and police themselves. Thereby reducing even more so the frequency of violence aimed at our presence directly and indirectly in causing more resentment of our occupation.

We are drawing down because the Iraq army in gaining the ability to take over. I am just worried that if Obama should win he will set an artificial time table for leaving and cause us to lose all the hard fought gains. That would truly mean that our men and women would have died in vain.

IMO its a matter of attrition (what we've had done in our name thus far) and getting out with an intelligent exit strategy.

I think Obama won't do something rash in leaving O/N as Bush did invading in a similar fashion. Time tables with actual benchmarks to follow with consequences are one way of getting out in a more accelerated fashion than just saying it and then hoping the American public would forget about it.

[alienlovechild 75]

"It truly is a blessing to have the power to be able to bend factual intelligence information to the will of whom occupies the Oval office."

Military intelligence is never a certainty and the policymakers got the same flawed info. It also ignores Saddam pretended to have WMDs to deter the U.S. and Iran. Unfortunately, he was a gambler and he lost it all. Funny how no one recalls Clinton bombed Iraq for 8 years especially in 1998. Belief that HUMINT isn't needed when you have satellites is wrong.

"I want us to leave because we don't belong there under the actual argument to have gone there in the first place."

Great policy for 2003 but that's not a policy for 2009.

"Given the excellent military preparation Iraqi soldiers are already receiving, their government can now pay for it without our assistance and police themselves. Thereby reducing even more so the frequency of violence aimed at our presence directly and indirectly in causing more resentment of our occupation."

Laughable to believe without the billions spent in U.S. aid, suddenly they won't need a single dollar now. The frequency of attacks on U.S. forces has dropped because of the surge drawing the troop levels down will probably energize the insurgents. Resentment with the locals is building? Why are more of them snitching on the insurgents?

"I think Obama won't do something rash in leaving O/N as Bush did invading in a similar fashion. Time tables with actual benchmarks to follow with consequences are one way of getting out in a more accelerated fashion than just saying it and then hoping the American public would forget about it."

The reality Obama is could care less about Iraq since he thinks he can wash his hands of the matter. He's running on getting out of Iraq and going back in if necessary. Yeah, right. Once the radical Al Qaeda Sunnis or Iranian Shiite puppet government runs the show. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or maybe Israel can expect the jihad road show. Obama will have no support form his own party to march back into the Middle East.

[jundp 191]

Will someone explain to me what is meant by "winning" or "losing" the war in Iraq?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Will someone explain to me what is meant by "winning" or "losing" the war in Iraq?

Yeah - a country's evolution isn't exactly a matter of black and white absolutisms.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It is -- of course -- too early to celebrate;

Indeed.