[sicheAscems]

I like the results of the buy-off so far (saw a good report on it on BBC News America last night), but I'm still wary as hell - the whole thing could go right back into the shitter in a blink. Anyway, in the short term, it's been good. In the long term?

I do think the Shiites/Kurds are right to be worried about large bands of armed, officially sanctioned Sunnis (just like Sunnis are right to worry about Shiite-dominated police/death squads).

-Arrian

[Karlmarks]

Good so far...but here's the problem:

The Sunni who've switched sides (because they realize that al Qaeda is for more evil than the U.S.) HATE the central Shia-dominated government.

We are now arming and training both the Shia and the Sunni, neither of which wants national reconciliation. Sooner or later, that place is going to go BOOM with the Mother of all Civil Wars.

[SnareeWer]

Originally posted by DanS
I take that back. May and June, 2003 were slightly more peaceful. But I think it reasonably could be said that this was pre-insurgency. The insurgency began immidiately after the fall of the Saddam Regime, since it was at that point that the US assumes control. Any time after April 2003 is during the insurgency.

[occalmnab]

Originally posted by GePap
As has already been said, the lack of political reconciliation is the main problem left, and nothing appears to be going on, at least no large signs. Does this mean we have to stay there indefinitely? The AQ types lost popular support due to their fanaticism (No duh) and the nationalist Sunni types got the clue that the US is their best bet to keep the Shiites (Persian agents in their eyes) from taking completely over. Does this mean we have to stay there indefinitely? The Shiites have been able to reign in the more violent groups now that most of the cleasing of neighborhoods in Baghdad is complete, and because their constituncie wanted some peace and quiet. But no one has done much to have a real Iraq, and they still haven't had the referrendum about Kirkuk yet, and as last month showed, an independent minded Kurdish region is going to disquiet the Turks for some time. Does this mean we have to stay there indefinitely?
Basically, even if we accept the premise that the insurgency is complete, we are finished with problem #2 (#1 was Saddam) in Iraq. That has taken some time. Now how long until #3 (having an Iraq stable enough not to collapse into a full blow civil war) is complete? If it means staying there indefinitely does that mean that "mission" wasn't accomplished?

[simmons latex mattress]

Originally posted by GePap


Why are you asking me?

If the supporters of the war ever get to defining success, only then will we know how long US troops need to be there. You have it backwards, GePap. Supporters of the war are excellent at defining success, probably because of all the practice they've had; there's a new definition every few weeks.

This week: forget that the success of the surge was supposed to be about political reconcilliation and the preparedness of the Iraqi security forces; success is now about declining violence.

Surge Successtm! - Now with a new, tastier metric!

[Kuncher]

That site has all of those statistics. And the coalition deathrate is running 1.3 per day, not 2.81.

[Taunteefrurge]

Scroll down to "Military Fatalities by Month," genius. For the Iraqi soldiers, scroll down to "Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths," which also are by month.

[QQQQQ-Trek]

It's the front page graph on the source sighted by DanS!!!!!

[abishiots]

Originally posted by GePap
Basically, even if we accept the premise that the insurgency is complete, we are finished with problem #2 (#1 was Saddam) in Iraq. That has taken some time. Now how long until #3 (having an Iraq stable enough not to collapse into a full blow civil war) is complete? Very interesting.

How long until an unstable Iraq without US forces is in our interest? If the answer to that question is that an unstable Iraq is never in our interest, then I think you just acceeded to a long term US presence in Iraq if needed to prevent a collapse.


*****

Oerdin, when you were in Iraq, you didn't inhale the fumes from all those WMD containers everbody was looking for did you??

[taesrom]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
We are now arming and training both the Shia and the Sunni hold on. we want peace and to achieve it we give guns to people?

[LarpBulaBus]

I think some people need to get less personal and stick to discussing the topic and NOT the posters.

Thank you

[adolfadsermens]

Admin. whores like Patrokolos Nice Gepap.

Please list the positions of the Admin I agree with. Not as easy as you thought is it? Oh right, I disagree with YOU, so I must be a neocon Jesus-nazi BUSHITLER supporter.

and who am I to pose theoretical possible outcomes in Middle Eastern geopolitics to some family whose loved one misses the holidays, is injured, is maimed or scarred for life, if they come back alive? I disagree with you having no right, but since you think that way I don't expect you to comment/disagree with anything I mention on this topic every again.

[gardeniyas]

Originally posted by Patroklos

I disagree with you having no right, but since you think that way I don't expect you to comment/disagree with anything I mention on this topic every again.

I didn't say I had no right, did I? Only that why should they listen to me? (Or you) about the sacrifice they and their families are being asked to make.

Eventually the American people will tire of this, and that is their right - and maybe when they do excercise their right to be finished with covering up for Bush's mistakes, then we might see the full extent of the damage done, though hopefully not.


Please list the positions of the Admin I agree with.

from your posting, it appears you support:
Opposition to abortion
Staying in Iraq and Afghanistan long term
Oppositon to gay marriage and the DADT policy continuing
Admin's position on most if not all social issues
Admin's general economic direction
Opposition to environmental regulations

Seems a substantial list.

[medshop]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Because I am one of them maybe? So was Oerdin, and he sacrificed a lot more on the issue than you seem to have (boots on the ground and all), yet you dismiss his opinion. So, again, why should they listen?

As for your support for Bush, why be so defensive? I obviously don't respect many of your positions, but why should you give a ****? I don't care about what you think about my positions.

[22CreessGah]

The point to bringing up the year by year comparison chart prominently displayed on the top left corner of DanS's own source was to show the real cost of the last 9 months and not just the last 2 months.

I honestly feel that in all the cheering about how much improved Baghdad is that people are ignoring the utter failue which has been the other 10 months of this year. Take and average for the year, as DanS's source did, and you find the situation was the worst ever. It puts the last two months into perspective even if certain douche bags don't like it.

[lorrieholdridge]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I honestly feel that in all the cheering about how much improved Baghdad is that people are ignoring the utter failue which has been the other 10 months of this year. Take and average for the year, as DanS's source did, and you find the situation was the worst ever. It puts the last two months into perspective even if certain douche bags don't like it. I do think February through August are relevant to a broader discussion, but it's not really the topic of this thread. For instance, I could say that Petraeus accepted increased violence against the troops as they put themselves increasingly in harms way. I have no reason or desire to gainsay it. You can add these up-front costs in blood to the $400 million per annum in treasure.

[Junrlaeh]

Less people dying is success in one way. But I am more interested in this thread of whether this is an indication of the insurgency having been defeated or on its way to defeat.

[angelxmagic]

Listen, this shouldn't be tough. Take a look at that site. In November, the number of reported Iraqi military and civilian deaths in October and November are the lowest months since that information started to be gathered (January '06). If you want to look at just the Iraqi military, they have that information back to January '05.

As I recall, the site is anti-war, so it's not as if I'm picking and choosing sources.

[VioletttaJosetta]

Indeed, they are factoring in all coalition deaths. Just look at the goddamn site!

Normalizing for the number of troops would be the correct thing to do, but it's not as if the pure counts are useless. Do you have any reason to believe that we have drawn down our troop count in the last two months enough to make a difference? Do you have any reason to believe that the Iraqi forces or civilians have been drawn down in the last two months enough to make a difference?

[ATTILAGLIC]

I do think February through August are relevant to a broader discussion, but it's not really the topic of this thread. No, the topic of this thread is cheerleading for a short-term success that may, or may not, turn out to be significant in the long run.

So yay for the drop in violence. Huzzah. But there really isn't much else to say.

-Arrian