It Seems All Is Not Lost, Despite What Some Say
 

This is good.http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/smile.gif

As fay as what the dems do, eh.

There's progress in Anbar against the Salafis, but no one honestly believes ether that they're the primary problem in Iraq (foreign fighters make up a tiny portion of detained insurgents) or that we need to be there to see that work finish out. It's worth pointing out that Maliki is vociferously opposed to this strategy since he sees us backing his once and future oppenents in the civil war. He regularly gets in shouting matches with Petraeus, and has demanded that Bush fire him. Very healthy situation over there http://www.discussworldissues.com/im...ons/icon14.gif

As for the popular animus against Sadr and the Mahdi Army, I'd attribute that to a health dose of making **** up.. It's worth pointing out that Sadr has recently rejoined the gov't. It's the same script we saw before: SIIC (formerly SCIRI)/Da'wa and Sadr piss each other off, split up, and Sistani knocks some heads and gets 'em to make up. On the ground, I certainly haven't heard of Sadr loosing influence. I have no idea what they're referring to

But getting to the central point - the logic of the surge is all but bankrupt. Since we were supposed to create a breathing space for national reconciliation. And leaving aside the questionable existence of a breathing space (due to the weather, violence usually goes down during the Summer), none of the political benchmarks that Bush set for the Iraqi parliament were met, and they're about to take a month vacation. Needless to say, little's going to change between now and when Petraeus hands in his report.

And including their supposed anti-war credentials in the article is cute. As has been thoroughly documented in the blogospher (see Glenn Greenwald and Greg Sargent), they've been supporters of both the initial invasion and the "surge."

As for what the Dems'll do when everything's peachy and the country becomes a Disney-themed amusment park, well I guess they'd be pretty screwed. And I'm sure that'll happen...

You are suprised a group of brand new elected leaders working in an basically made from scratch government system are taking more than 3 months to settle the driving issues of 50 million people? Again, none of the major issues have been addressed in the least. They failed precisely the same benchmarks that Bush set for them. All of them. And the last Parliamentary election was over a year and a half ago, so no, this isn't a newly elected Parliament that has only had three months to get its act together. It's worth pointing out that Jaafari also failed to resolve these issues during his year in power after being elected in January of 2005 and when violence was considerably lower than it is right now (i.e. before the Al-Askariya mosque bombing when all hell broke lose). Placing the beginning of time after the "surge" started is ludicrous.

If you mean there were not the normal harbrigners of doom and gloom you are correct. No, I mean specifically supporting the invasion and the surge as policies. Painting themselves as the harshest of critics is ridiculous. And how exactly is that a "smear?" What a pathetic charge...

Oh yeah, didn't even notice that...

I would like to hear some no-BS information on how good Petraeus is doing, according to the troops. He's the first general that we've had who has made known that he wants to fight this war as a classic counter-insurgency -- in fact, he seems to relish the opportunity. The others really want no part of something like that. They have no background in it and want no background in it, as far as I can tell.

It's tough to see through the avalanche of spears that Petraeus is catching here in DC.

Glenn Greenwald = Hack whose best and only (as far as I can ever tell) logical arguements are the fine art of strawman and ad-hominem.

I figured I'ld let this one play out a bit and let someone else post. But sure as the sun rises I knew immediately as soon as I heard of this story the inevitable response would be kill the messenger memes from leftistan. Not surprising or for that matter imaginitive.

Happened with Burns as well when he reported all was looking surprisingly well in Anbar.

leftist propaganda skills http://www.discussworldissues.com/im...ons/icon14.gif


The left doesnt even want to see a victory.

Originally posted by Patroklos
But, this should of course be taken with a grain of salt.

The left has been trying to downplay the credentials of these guys on the news and radio all day, but they have not found any traction. They are of the same house. Actually, the reason the left has been pissed is because every program these charlatans have been on have called them critics of the President and antiwar. They have never been antiwar and their only criticism of the President is that he hasn't gone far enough. Other than that, they are saying nothing new that they haven't said for five years. In fact, one of them was one of the people who signed off on the neoCon letter to the President telling him that he should invade Iraq.

You righties are such tools.

Originally posted by Agathon


They aren't paying for it.
They are sure as hell paying more for it than Pelosi, Kennedy, or Bush are.


As for staying or getting out. There comes a point in time that we can't do anymore than we are and if the Iraqies can't stand up and go beyond Sunni-Shia differences or find some way to go about their own ways without constant boodletting than maybe we should leave, find some way to contain them in Iraq, break the country up or some combination of the three. If no groups are willing to live together in the same country than we can't force them. Allow the country to break apart if it has to. It was artifical in the first place.

About as plausible as communism, I'll give you.

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I've told you prople a dozen times, minimum, that I talk to Iraq veterans all the time, many returning to Iraq.
They all say the same, don't stop until it's done.
I'll listen to them over anybody else. And do they have any particular ideas on how we might do that when tours are already being extended and repeated far more than anticipated, recruitment is falling short of its goals, and even the Pentagon says that, by April of next year, the military will be stretched to its breaking point?

I meet the same guys Sloww -- I work with the military. And, sure enough, they say "don't stop til it's done." But when asked, "even if that means that you, personally, are going to spend most of the next decade in Iraq?" they tend to have somewhat more ... circumspect ... answers.

Do you really think that the issue with the Turks is NOT going to cause a great deal of more problems? Really?!

The whole (rather stupid) arguement in favor of the surge was that it would clamp down on the violence long enough to give the government enough breathing to deal with the political issues that caused all of the violence in the first place. But there is absolutely no sign that there is any progress on the political side of things whatsoever.

The main thing that the surge will do is ensure that the US Army will be in a massive world of hurt manpower wise come 2009...

That is not what Mullen said, God the left is grasping for any handhold http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/rolleyes.gif

What he said was that we should have a plan for withdrawal for when it happens, however that occurs. Obviously, no matter what happens, we will have to withdraw eventually. But especially if, IF, theings deteriorate despite the trend (note you failed to mention his comments on that) in Iraq. Seems prudent doesn't it?

Care to mischaracterize his "more troops won't make a difference" comment now to?

Care to mischaracterize his "more troops won't make a difference" comment now too?

You are absoluelty correct, I should be flogged for neglecting such an important thing.

To be fixed shortly http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif

What about them. Since nobody has smeared the left, what are you on about? Unless you consider discussing their policy points a smear.

It's rather pathetic to watch "the Right" still trying to paint a rosy picture of all of this.

The common allegation that those who are critical WANT defeat is really disgusting. Paranoid delusion, perhaps?

Meanwhile, the parallel psychoanalysis would of course lead to the conclusion that those on the "Right" are so "married" to victory in Iraq that they are simply incapable of accepting defeat, even if it's staring them in the face. We're always about to "turn the corner" or somesuch, right guys?

I continue to hold faint hope for something better than defeat. No way it's going to look like the original architects of this war thought it would back in 2003, but perhaps something palatable is still attainable.

-Arrian

continue to hold faint hope for something better than defeat. No way it's going to look like the original architects of this war thought it would back in 2003, but perhaps something palatable is still attainable. Incidently, "the Right" has not said anything but this in referance to this article.

Originally posted by Patroklos
Is stating the fact that the left is trying to discredit these guys somehow a smear?

Is stating the fact that decidedly leftist posters here (Poly) did the same a smear? Alright, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

That said, How do you explain/discount those on the "right" that disagree with the war?

I really would love an answer to this question thrice asked.

I'm not sure I understand your point but that is okay.

The issue bothers me b/c I don't see matters of war and peace in such stark political terms. Dem or Rep should not matter when the "best interests" of the nation and it's military personal are at stake.

That doesn't mean one should be prohibited from being critical (sometimes the "best interest" would be to leave it alone) nor should it mean blind acceptance (what Arrian was on about).

You (perhaps your nation?) have deginerated this debate into a left vs right issue which IMHO it should not be.

We have the same issue surfacing in this country wrt Afghanistan. The right wing government is trying to paint all those that disagree with the mission as political opponents (hence their opposition) when it simply is not true. I voted for our government but do not support the mission. It has nothing to do with left vs right but rather good policy vs bad.