General Iraq War Thread

[NorthSideSox72]

As a follow-up on Sadr's army striking out, there now appears to be a ceasefire in place. This is good news.

 

Here's an interesting twist, though. The attempts by the Iraqi government to put down the rebellion were a failure, but, guess who succeeded in getting Sadr to back down?

 

Iran.

 

Lots of implications here. Lots to be concerned about. Very interesting in any case.

 

[Balta1701]

As a follow-up on Sadr's army striking out, there now appears to be a ceasefire in place. This is good news.

 

Here's an interesting twist, though. The attempts by the Iraqi government to put down the rebellion were a failure, but, guess who succeeded in getting Sadr to back down?

 

Iran.

 

Lots of implications here. Lots to be concerned about. Very interesting in any case.

It's also worth noting who exactly got whom to back down. It appears, for example, that Maliki's people were the ones asking for a cease fire, and in fact were the ones who went to Iran to try to get a cease fire.

[StrangeSox]

Gen. David Petraeus is due up at Congress tomorrow. Lieberman and Graham wrote this op-ed in the WSJ today:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1207523086...in_commentaries

Iraq and Its Costs

By JOE LIEBERMAN and LINDSEY GRAHAM

April 7, 2008; Page A13

 

When Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress tomorrow, he will step into an American political landscape dramatically different from the one he faced when he last spoke on Capitol Hill seven months ago.

 

This time Gen. Petraeus returns to Washington having led one of the most remarkably successful military operations in American history. His antiwar critics, meanwhile, face a crisis of credibility – having confidently predicted the failure of the surge, and been proven decidedly wrong.

[iraq and Its Costs]

 

As late as last September, advocates of retreat insisted that the surge would fail to bring about any meaningful reduction in violence in Iraq. MoveOn.org accused Gen. Petraeus of "cooking the books," while others claimed that his testimony, offering evidence of early progress, required "the willing suspension of disbelief."

 

Gen. Petraeus will be the first to acknowledge that the gains in Iraq have come at a heavy price in blood and treasure. We mourn the loss and pain of the civilians and service members who have been killed and wounded in Iraq, but adamantly believe these losses have served a noble cause.

 

No one can deny the dramatic improvements in security in Iraq achieved by Gen. Petraeus, the brave troops under his command, and the Iraqi Security Forces. From June 2007 through February 2008, deaths from ethno-sectarian violence in Baghdad have fallen approximately 90%. American casualties have also fallen sharply, down by 70%.

 

Al Qaeda in Iraq has been swept from its former strongholds in Anbar province and Baghdad. The liberation of these areas was made possible by the surge, which empowered Iraqi Muslims to reject the Islamist extremists who had previously terrorized them into submission. Any time Muslims take up arms against Osama bin Laden, his agents and sympathizers, the world is a safer place.

 

In the past seven months, the other main argument offered by critics of the Petraeus strategy has also begun to collapse: namely, the alleged lack of Iraqi political progress.

 

Antiwar forces last September latched onto the Iraqi government's failure to pass "benchmark" legislation, relentlessly hammering Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as hopelessly sectarian and unwilling to confront Iranian-backed Shiite militias. Here as well, however, the critics in Washington have been proven wrong.

 

In recent months, the Iraqi government, encouraged by our Ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has passed benchmark legislation on such politically difficult issues as de-Baathification, amnesty, the budget and provincial elections. After boycotting the last round of elections, Sunnis now stand ready to vote by the millions in the provincial elections this autumn. The Iraqi economy is growing at a brisk 7% and inflation is down dramatically.

 

And, in launching the recent offensive in Basra, Mr. Maliki has demonstrated that he has the political will to take on the Shiite militias and criminal gangs, which he recently condemned as "worse than al Qaeda."

 

Of course, while the gains we have achieved in Iraq are meaningful and undeniable, so are the challenges ahead. Iraqi Security Forces have grown in number and shown significant improvement, but the Basra operation showed they still have a way to go. Al Qaeda has been badly weakened by the surge, but it still retains a significant foothold in the northern city of Mosul, where Iraqi and coalition forces are involved in a campaign to destroy it.

 

Most importantly, Iran also continues to wage a vicious and escalating proxy war against the Iraqi government and the U.S. military. The Iranians have American blood on their hands. They are responsible, through the extremist agents they have trained and equipped, for the deaths of hundreds of our men and women in uniform. Increasingly, our fight in Iraq cannot be separated from our larger struggle to prevent the emergence of an Iranian-dominated Middle East.

 

These continuing threats from Iran and al Qaeda underscore why we believe that decisions about the next steps in Iraq should be determined by the recommendations of Gen. Petraeus, based on conditions on the ground.

 

It is also why it is imperative to be cautious about the speed and scope of any troop withdrawals in the months ahead, rather than imposing a political timeline for troop withdrawal against the recommendation of our military.

 

Unable to make the case that the surge has failed, antiwar forces have adopted a new set of talking points, emphasizing the "costs" of our involvement in Iraq, hoping to exploit Americans' current economic anxieties.

 

Today's antiwar politicians have effectively turned John F. Kennedy's inaugural address on its head, urging Americans to refuse to pay any price, or bear any burden, to assure the survival of liberty. This is wrong. The fact is that America's prosperity at home and security abroad are bound together. We will not fare well in a world in which al Qaeda and Iran can claim that they have defeated us in Iraq and are ascendant.

 

There is no question the war in Iraq – like the Cold War, World War II and every other conflict we have fought in our history – costs money. But as great as the costs of this struggle have been, so too are the dividends to our national security from a successful outcome, with a functioning, representative Iraqi government and a stabilized Middle East. The costs of abandoning Iraq to our enemies, conversely, would be enormous, not only in dollars, but in human lives and in the security and freedom of our nation.

 

Indeed, had we followed the path proposed by antiwar groups and retreated in defeat, the war would have been lost, emboldening and empowering violent jihadists for generations to come.

 

The success we are now achieving also has consequences far beyond Iraq's borders in the larger, global struggle against Islamist extremism. Thanks to the surge, Iraq today is looking increasingly like Osama bin Laden's worst nightmare: an Arab country, in the heart of the Middle East, in which hundreds of thousands of Muslims – both Sunni and Shiite – are rising up and fighting, shoulder to shoulder with American soldiers, against al Qaeda and its hateful ideology.

 

It is unfortunate that so many opponents of the surge still refuse to acknowledge the gains we have achieved in Iraq. When Gen. Petraeus testifies this week, however, the American people will have a clear choice as we weigh the future of our fight there: between the general who is leading us to victory, and the critics who spent the past year predicting defeat.

 

Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut. Mr. Graham is a Republican senator from South Carolina.

[lostfan]

"It is unfortunate that so many opponents of the surge still refuse to acknowledge the gains we have achieved in Iraq. "

 

It is also unfortunate that those backing the surge are selling it as the single reason for the drop in violence levels in Iraq and completely ignoring other strategic gains/losses.

[Balta1701]

"It is unfortunate that so many opponents of the surge still refuse to acknowledge the gains we have achieved in Iraq. "

 

It is also unfortunate that those backing the surge are selling it as the single reason for the drop in violence levels in Iraq and completely ignoring other strategic gains/losses.

And that, in a nutshell, I think is a perfect example of one of, if not the biggest reason why this war was a debacle from the start and still is.

 

If you're doing something risky, like fighting a war, you should try to put yourself in a position where if things don't work out well, you're not totally screwed. This is the reason why the Pentagon probably has hard drives filled with warplans for everything from a war with China to what happens if hostages are taken by Zimbabwe. Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

 

But because of the way we got in to this war, and because the people who were the biggest cheerleaders for it have been more motivated by trying to get political gains out of it, we have planned for the best, and ignored the worst because it wasn't really happening. So, for the people loving this war, the surge is great. There's nothing else risky going on that we should worry about, and we can stay there the next 100 years and stabilize the region. There's no risk in having Iran basically controling the situation to the point that they can call a cease fire, there's no risk in 30% of Iraqi units failing to perform, there's no risk in the de-baathification law they cite having been written by the Shi'ites and strongly opposed by the Sunnis (the group it's supposed to help!), there's no risk in the provincial elections handing control of the country to Sadr, no risk at all. Everything's groovy, it's totally ok to have 800 or so bodies turning up a month because that's lower than the 2000 that were showing up a year ago, now vote for me and give me money.

 

 

[lostfan]

I'm really glad that other people can see the same things I see so that I can call out the people I believe to be blind and blissfully ignorant to reality while at the same time separating myself from the apparently braindead antiwar protesters. It's kind of a relief actually. The more people that share my point of view, the easier it is to talk about it - and I can respect an opinion so much more when it comes from this train of thought whether it's for a continued presence or for a withdrawal.

 

Absolutely nothing good has come out of this whole thing and we've blown the major strategic gains we had so badly that I kind of have a hard time wrapping my mind around it. Yet we continue to hear "keep doing it... it's working" in a condescending tone to the people that aren't buying it. The irony is that this argument sort of wins by default because doing otherwise would show weakness and the bad guys can claim a victory like they did in the '80s (propaganda I might add that we totally validate when we use words like "we will not surrender" and setting unrealistic conditions for "victory").

[Balta1701]

Whether you're for the war or against, I think you have to admit that this is simply dishonest. In that Op-Ed piece, the 2 write:

No one can deny the dramatic improvements in security in Iraq achieved by Gen. Petraeus, the brave troops under his command, and the Iraqi Security Forces. From June 2007 through February 2008, deaths from ethno-sectarian violence in Baghdad have fallen approximately 90%. American casualties have also fallen sharply, down by 70%.

The problem? They stop in February, despite the fact that the March numbers are actually available. And why would they do that? Because the March numbers are significantly worse. The AP count went back up to over 1,000 last month, up from 700 in Feb. and 500 in January.

 

In other words, everyone who ignores the success of the surge has, in their words, "a crisis of credibility – having confidently predicted the failure of the surge, and been proven decidedly wrong." And yet, in the process, they're spinning just as much to make their numbers look better.

[HuskyCaucasian]

60% of Americans want to set a time table to back out of Iraq:

 

[lostfan]

The testimony looked about like what I expected. Petraeus seemed like he was being mostly straight-up from what I can tell and there didn't look like there was a whole lot of administration doubletalk/lying by omission.

 

The comments I see from CNN readers is pathetic though. 80% of them are either in the "BRING THE TROOPS HOME" camp or the "DEMOCRATS HATE AMERICA AND WANT US TO LOSE" camp. The other 20% is intelligent people who either say "regardless of why we were there in the first place there is too much of a risk to national security for us to leave in a hurry now" or "this is a short-term tactical success in a long-term strategy that has failed miserably, from here on out we need to either develop a better strategy or quit wasting our time."

 

Ignore the 80% and pay close attention to the 20%. If anybody says something like "Democrats just want this to be another Vietnam" then it should be clear they don't understand how complex this is.

[HuskyCaucasian]

The testimony looked about like what I expected. Petraeus seemed like he was being mostly straight-up from what I can tell and there didn't look like there was a whole lot of administration doubletalk/lying by omission.

McCain got owned in the Petraeus briefing today. (Ok, owned might be a little strong) McCain asked if Al-Quida in Iraq was still a significant threat in Iraq. (He was trying to find a talking point that Al-Quida is still very strong in Iraq). Petraeus' response: they are still a threat, but it is a greatly reduced threat. He then kept trying to push Al-Quida in Iraq is strong, yes? Al-Quida in Iraq is strong, yes? Al-Quida in Iraq is strong, yes? He was practically BEGGING Petraeus to say Al-Quida was a major threat. He then tried to push the Iran threat right before his time expired.

 

Crocker also added that Al-Quida has SIGNIFICANTLY been reduced in Iraq.

 

OOPS!

[lostfan]

Heh, no idea why McCain would do that because if they WERE still a "significant threat" then that would mean the surge failed, or at least didn't succeed as much as he hoped, and it hurts him politically. Seriously, every time McCain opens his mouth I start thinking more and more that he is just on the "stay the course" bandwagon and doesn't understand that confronting terror goes far beyond Iraq. If this was as simple as being sure that staying there would give us a clear victory (a delusional belief shared by waaaaaaaaay too many people in this country unfortunately) then that mentality is fine.

 

So far, honestly the only candidate that seems to "get it" is Obama. He might not have the right plans, at least not yet, but when you listen closely at least he sees the big picture, he knows this is a cluster**** and he knows he needs to be adaptable and change his mind. When I listen to Hillary and McCain it sounds like they are just responding to the partisan rhetoric I was complaining about earlier. The only other candidate that was saying anything different was Paul, but his ideas were a day late and a dollar short, too focused on the past, and therefore impractical.

[HuskyCaucasian]

So far, honestly the only candidate that seems to "get it" is Obama. He might not have the right plans, at least not yet, but when you listen closely at least he sees the big picture, he knows this is a cluster**** and he knows he needs to be adaptable and change his mind.

Two points on this:

1) I have said for a while now, the "success" of the surge has nothing to do with the US. It's Muqtada al Sadr's cease fire that has reduced violence and now that cease fire is on VERY shaky ground.

 

2) One thing I respect about Obama is that he, as you said, is willing to allow for other points of view. He has said he PLAN is to have them out within 15-18 months. However, he has been very clear if the pull out causes Iraq to implode, we will have to rethink it all. McCain is stay the course and Clinton is "get them out now".

[HuskyCaucasian]

Interesting note:

Sen. Claire McCaskill (an Obama supporter) used an Obama talking point to ask Petraeus about how we are spending so much money in Iraq and have a massive budget deficit while Iraq currently has a budget surplus.

[Balta1701]

McCain is stay the course and Clinton is "get them out now".

I really don't think that Clinton's Iraq rhetoric or plans have been that different from Obama's.

 

You can argue effectively that they'll behave differently in office based on their past performance, or based on the quality of their advisers, etc., but I just don't think this is right.

[lostfan]

I really don't think that Clinton's Iraq rhetoric or plans have been that different from Obama's.

 

You can argue effectively that they'll behave differently in office based on their past performance, or based on the quality of their advisers, etc., but I just don't think this is right.

I dunno, I mean they both do a lot of pandering to the anti-war crowd in their campaign speeches, but listening to both of them when they're being interviewed and whatnot either there is just not as much focus on her plans and they hit Obama harder because of his lack of foreign policy experience and they want him to answer for it, or I've just been tuning her out lately because she lies and distorts the truth so much.

 

On the other hand, I can say I've heard McCain talk a lot about it in detailed specifics, but what he says is not that different from what I've been used to hearing from the current administration and it doesn't make me optimistic or buy into it.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Joe Biden is ripping into Petraeus and Crocker.

[StrangeSox]

Joe Biden is ripping into Petraeus and Crocker.

 

He sounded like a whiny, annoying jerk.

 

Edit: Still sounding the same. Completely condescending. Sounds mad/ annoyed whenever they talk of progress made.

Edited April 8, 2008 by StrangeSox

[HuskyCaucasian]

Democrats just got their talking point. Bidden asked Crocker flat out, "if you had to pick between fighting Al-Quida in Iraq or in Afghanistan/Pakistan, which would you choose?". Crockers response: "Afghanistan/Pakistan"

 

Bush aint gonna like that.

 

Let me give you the background on this question. it might like a hypothetical, but it is not. we do not have enough troops to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. So, it was basically a "pick the most important" question.

Edited April 8, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[lostfan]

The problem is the fact that we can't close the can of worms we opened. Well theoretically we can, but it's really hard to do now and we have to find another way.

[Balta1701]

The problem is the fact that we can't close the can of worms we opened. Well theoretically we can, but it's really hard to do now and we have to find another way.

That's not the biggest problem to my eyes. The biggest problem may well be that we opened up Pandora's Box, not just a can of worms...and there may be simply nothing we can do to fix it other than let the disaster happen and try to stay out of the way. It may not just be hard to do, it may be impossible.

[lostfan]

Hillary actually asked a very, very good question, I have to give her credit. It sounded something like "if the Iraqi parliament is voting on a long-term troop commitment, is the American Congress going to vote on it too?" She knew the answer was no but she just wanted that to be on the record. I actually never even thought about that. Isn't the Senate supposed to ratify treaties? That would basically be bypassing our laws altogether.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Isn't the Senate supposed to ratify treaties? That would basically be bypassing our laws altogether.

and Bush has followed the law when?

And yes, they are supposed to.

[kapkomet]

and Bush has followed the law when?

And yes, they are supposed to.

I don't think I need to remind you that Congress voted to allow Bush to use military action against Iraq.

[kapkomet]

The testimony looked about like what I expected. Petraeus seemed like he was being mostly straight-up from what I can tell and there didn't look like there was a whole lot of administration doubletalk/lying by omission.

 

The comments I see from CNN readers is pathetic though. 80% of them are either in the "BRING THE TROOPS HOME" camp or the "DEMOCRATS HATE AMERICA AND WANT US TO LOSE" camp. The other 20% is intelligent people who either say "regardless of why we were there in the first place there is too much of a risk to national security for us to leave in a hurry now" or "this is a short-term tactical success in a long-term strategy that has failed miserably, from here on out we need to either develop a better strategy or quit wasting our time."

Ignore the 80% and pay close attention to the 20%. If anybody says something like "Democrats just want this to be another Vietnam" then it should be clear they don't understand how complex this is.

DING...

[kapkomet]

Heh, no idea why McCain would do that because if they WERE still a "significant threat" then that would mean the surge failed, or at least didn't succeed as much as he hoped, and it hurts him politically. Seriously, every time McCain opens his mouth I start thinking more and more that he is just on the "stay the course" bandwagon and doesn't understand that confronting terror goes far beyond Iraq. If this was as simple as being sure that staying there would give us a clear victory (a delusional belief shared by waaaaaaaaay too many people in this country unfortunately) then that mentality is fine.

 

So far, honestly the only candidate that seems to "get it" is Obama. He might not have the right plans, at least not yet, but when you listen closely at least he sees the big picture, he knows this is a cluster**** and he knows he needs to be adaptable and change his mind. When I listen to Hillary and McCain it sounds like they are just responding to the partisan rhetoric I was complaining about earlier. The only other candidate that was saying anything different was Paul, but his ideas were a day late and a dollar short, too focused on the past, and therefore impractical.

This part (what I bolded) is a very important point. There is NO clear victory in this war. There never will be. However, when you're dealing with a psychological type of warfare, you have to have victories in the battlefield for the psychology to work. That's the problem here. Winning a "traditional" war is easy for us. No one on the planet could stop us now on that level. However, the American population as a whole has a spoiled brat mentality and they don't want to sacrifice a damn thing to really win this new type of warfare. And don't think that our "enemies" understand this all too well. That's why we can never "win".