General Iraq War Thread

[NorthSideSox72]

Some of you may recall, back when violence began to drop, I cited a few articles here, written by journalists actually on the ground in Iraq (as opposed to the national news windbags). They had indicated that the drop in violence could only be attributed in small part to the "surge". Bigger factors were a voluntary calming of sectarian violence by Sunni's, an internal squabble among the Shia army with half going for alignment with the Iraqi gov't, and then also a change in US military tactical style. Those first two were predicated on one very important message - that the Sunni and Shia groups that were militants, were willing to dial down the violence (although its still quite high) if they could be allowed more involvement in the political process.

 

I had stated that, if the Iraqi government and the US didn't act swiftly to do that, the lull in violence would be only temporary. Well, it appears the rumblings of an end to this cooperation have now begun. Let's hope this can be addressed.

 

[Balta1701]

Haven't we had more than a few of these "General Iraq threads" and usually each time they wind up falling off the main screen and vanishing?

[NorthSideSox72]

Haven't we had more than a few of these "General Iraq threads" and usually each time they wind up falling off the main screen and vanishing?

Sort of. We've had one specific, like the one that last for a while that was titled something like "Democrats want war to go badly!!!!!1!111!!!1" or whatever. I may have changed it to a general thread at some point.

 

[KipWellsFan]

Well perhaps also good news was that Muqtada al-Sadr renewed his ceasefire for 6 months last saturday. I've heard that this ceasefire was also credited as one of the main reasons that violence is down.

[southsider2k5]

Sort of. We've had one specific, like the one that last for a while that was titled something like "Democrats want war to go badly!!!!!1!111!!!1" or whatever. I may have changed it to a general thread at some point.

 

IIRC it turned into the death count thread and got pretty ugly, which is why it was ended.

[NorthSideSox72]

IIRC it turned into the death count thread and got pretty ugly, which is why it was ended.

I actually think that was yet a different one. There have been a few, and all have had ugly moments.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Well perhaps also good news was that Muqtada al-Sadr renewed his ceasefire for 6 months last saturday. I've heard that this ceasefire was also credited as one of the main reasons that violence is down.

That was what I referred to earlier. As I recall, he runs the Shia Ma'adhi army. I could be confusing him with someone else though.

 

[mr_genius]

NSide72, you were wrong about the surge. admit it. don't make excuses.

 

your pal,

mr_genius.

[NorthSideSox72]

NSide72, you were wrong about the surge. admit it. don't make excuses.

 

your pal,

mr_genius.

Heh. OK. I'll rely on the guys who seem to know best, on the ground. The information is all there anyway, just not at the top of the news pile.

 

This isn't about the surge being a bad idea, mind you - I just would hate to see this opportunity squandered. The change in tactics that went with the surge did indeed help. But its like a microcosm of the whole war, and the BushCo policy on Iraq...

 

Step 1: Invade/surge

 

Step 2: ... pause...

 

Step 3: Peace in Iraq!!!!

 

That second step is the political part of the solution. And its necessary for success.

 

 

[mr_genius]

Heh. OK. I'll rely on the guys who seem to know best, on the ground. The information is all there anyway, just not at the top of the news pile.

 

This isn't about the surge being a bad idea, mind you - I just would hate to see this opportunity squandered. The change in tactics that went with the surge did indeed help. But its like a microcosm of the whole war, and the BushCo policy on Iraq...

 

Step 1: Invade/surge

 

Step 2: ... pause...

 

Step 3: Peace in Iraq!!!!

 

That second step is the political part of the solution. And its necessary for success.

 

Well, there are plenty of guys on the ground who will say the surge has been a major factor in the decrease in violence (generals and stuff). I'll go with them. But let's not digress.

 

I agree it's time for the Iraqis to take control of their own country. IMO, time to declare victory and bring the troops home.

 

[Balta1701]

I agree it's time for the Iraqis to take control of their own country. IMO, time to declare victory and bring the troops home.

If we bring the troops home, we lose.

[mr_genius]

If we bring the troops home, we lose.

 

not really. there has to be a point where we withdraw some resources, i think thats something everyone can agree on. but hey, the US soldiers are nazi's killing for G W bush's amusement right? viva la che and farakhan for all...

 

if you wan to go this direction i can all day.

[Rex Kickass]

After the surge is pulled back, the remaining force will be larger than it was pre surge.

[jackie hayes]

Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes write an op-ed on the war's costs (direct and indirect) in yesterday's WaPost:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8030702846.html

 

Their headline estimate is $3 trillion, minimum $1.5 trillion, and as high as $5 trillion.

 

They just released a book that details the estimate. Which I'd like to read, but not enough to pay the hardcover price.

 

Some discussion:

 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

 

Anyway, food for thought.

[Balta1701]

They just released a book that details the estimate. Which I'd like to read, but not enough to pay the hardcover price.

Just look at it this way. As an American, your share of this war's cost is roughly $10,000 or so (going by total # of Americans, not # of taxpayers. Or if you don't buy his estimate, take the $600b already spent on Iraq and go by # of taxpayers, works out pretty close either way).

 

The cost of that book is around 0.2% of your share of the cost of the war.

[jackie hayes]

I actually do believe that the estimate is reasonable, considering the CBO estimate is (iirc) $1.2-1.7 trillion, and they typically use rather conservative rules for their projections. (Conservative meaning "cautious", here, not politically conservative.)

 

Just think, these estimates only extend to 2017 -- what'll they be like if we're there for 100 years?

[CanOfCorn]

I actually do believe that the estimate is reasonable, considering the CBO estimate is (iirc) $1.2-1.7 trillion, and they typically use rather conservative rules for their projections. (Conservative meaning "cautious", here, not politically conservative.)

 

Just think, these estimates only extend to 2017 -- what'll they be like if we're there for 100 years?

 

And McCain claims he wants to balance the budget. Good luck with alllllll that if we're in Iraq for 100 years?

[jackie hayes]

US military casualties nearing the 4k mark, and a car bomb killed 11 in Baghdad.

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oY...s98w8wD8VCHSSG1

[NorthSideSox72]

This particular snippet of news from Iraq may get buried, so, I wanted to highlight it. As I've pointed out before, one of the key reasons for the reduction in violence that started this past fall was the voluntary draw-down of actions by Al Sadr's Mahdi Army. The cease-fire they went into was specifically targeted towards making headway with the Iraqi government, trying to win some influence over government affairs for the minority Shi'ite population.

 

Apparently, they are not perceiving a positive result of the ceasefire. They are now beginning calls to civil disobedience, and the Mehdi Army is starting to show itself in force again. Let's all hope that the Iraqi government can work with the Shi'ites to prevent this from getting worse again.

 

[BigSqwert]

Looks like that surge is working.

[Balta1701]

Moqtada al-Sadr's militiamen battled troops in four Iraqi cities on Tuesday, including the capital, as the hardline Shiite cleric threatened a countrywide campaign of civil revolt.

 

Heavy clashes broke out between Sadr's Mahdi Army fighters in the southern oil city of Basra, killing at least seven people and wounding 48, and in Kut and Hilla, both south of Baghdad, officials said.

 

As evening fell, Mahdi Army fighters fought with Iraqi and US forces in their Sadr City bastion in eastern Baghdad for the first time since last October, a security official and witnesses told AFP.

 

Troops had surrounded the sprawling impoverished neighbourhood of two million people and armed Shiite fighters were roaming the streets, a witness said.

Supporters of Moqtada al-Sadr rally in the Shiite holy city of Najaf

 

The fighting, which severely strains a ceasefire declared by Sadr in late August and renewed last month, prompted the cleric to issue a stern warning that he would launch protests and a nationwide strike if attacks against his movement and "poor people" are not halted.

 

"We demand that religious and political leaders intervene to stop the attacks on poor people. We call on all Iraqis to launch protests across all the provinces.

 

"If the government does not respect these demands, the second step will be general civil disobedience in Baghdad and the Iraqi provinces," Sadr said in a statement read by his representative Hazam al-Aaraji in the holy city of Najaf.

 

Liqa al-Yassin, an MP from the Sadr bloc, told AFP that the Sadrists would boycott parliamentary proceedings "until the government agrees to our demands."

 

"We are also starting a signature campaign to express no confidence in (Prime Minister) Nuri al-Maliki's government," he said.

Link.

 

"The cease-fire is over; we have been told to fight the Americans," said one Mahdi Army militiaman, who was reached by telephone in Sadr City. This same man, when interviewed in January, had stated that he was abiding by the cease-fire and that he was keeping busy running his cellular phone store.

CS Monitor. Edited March 25, 2008 by Balta1701

[Balta1701]

It's never easy to judge these days how accurate each report out of Iraq is since the U.S. media has cut back significantly on their coverage over there and it's hard to corroborate anything, but here's the Times of London painting a pretty bleak picture of the last few days' fighting.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I wrote this 2 days ago...

 

In case you missed it: On January 10, 2008 John McCain and his "running mate" Joe Lieberman declared "the success of the surge". They say boldly that "violence across the country has dropped dramatically". They say the surge is the main reason for this "success" in Iraq.

 

What they fail to see is the underlying reason behind the decrease in violence. It isn’t the surge that is working. It’s the drawdown of hostilities by radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al Sadr. However, the tide seems to be turning…

 

A cea

s

e-fire critical to the improved

s

ecurity

s

ituation in Iraq appeared to unravel Monday when a militia loyal to radical

S

hiite Mu

s

lim cleric Muqtada al

S

adr began

s

hutting down neighborhood

s

in we

s

t Baghdad and i

s

s

uing demand

s

of the central government.

 

S

imultaneou

s

ly, in the

s

trategic

s

outhern port city of Ba

s

ra, where

S

adr'

s

Mahdi militia i

s

in control, the Iraqi government launched a crac

k

down in the face of warning

s

by

S

adr'

s

follower

s

that they'll fight government force

s

if any

S

adri

s

t

s

are detained. By 1 a.m. Arab

s

atellite new

s

channel

s

reported cla

s

he

s

between the Mahdi Army and police in Ba

s

ra.

 

Civilian ca

s

ualtie

s

in Baghdad are al

s

o on the ri

s

e, according to a McClatchy count. After a record low through November, when at lea

s

t 76 people were

k

illed and 306 were injured, the death

s

began to ri

s

e. In December, it crept up to 88 people

k

illed, in January 100 and in February 172. A

s

of March 24, at lea

s

t 149 people were

k

illed and 448 were injured.

The success of the surge in Iraq is a fraud. Keep close attention to this story as it unravels. It very well may prove that the so called “success” of the surge really had nothing to do with the surge at all.

Edited March 28, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[southsider2k5]

It's never easy to judge these days how accurate each report out of Iraq is since the U.S. media has cut back significantly on their coverage over there and it's hard to corroborate anything, but here's the Times of London painting a pretty bleak picture of the last few days' fighting.

 

I get the feeling if this fighting lasts, or worse yet spreads, you will see a lot more coverage again.

[NorthSideSox72]

I get the feeling if this fighting lasts, or worse yet spreads, you will see a lot more coverage again.

Yeah. I happen to know that journalists from some major papers have been given notice to saddle up and prepare to go.