Quote:
Originally Posted by DuH2";p="
Quote:
Nothing to do with surrendering. That's your job as a Democrat/liberal.
It's nothing new. We've told them all along, they'd best get their act together---that our patience is NOT unlimited.
|
You worded your post in a manner that gave the usual crowd of SURRENDER types an opening.
Note not single comment mentoned or even dealt with the content of what you posted.
Politically they are moving slowly but they also have made progress..kinda mixed bag and you can't expect much more then that specially when you look at our Congress. Passage of those issues may help some but it will not cause theenemy to giveup not with te cheerleading squad in the USA telling them they are winners every day.
Militarily the surge has had a significant impact in al Anbar with a moderate impact in Baghdad and the immediate surrouding area...overall though the coutr has becomemore stable then it was. Iraqis are in fact taking more of an active role in combat as well as policing duties. |
Wondering if you just repost the same comments year after year. Do you feel it necessary to update it with any evidence at all, or do you just stick with vague generalties so you don't have to edit your comments? Did you originally write this in the fall of 2003? And then repeat it in 2004, 2005, 2006, and now in 2007? I'm curious. Will you keep repeating yourself ad infinitum?
In fact, of course, the DoD has concluded that the "surge" has had little overall effect. It has not accomplished (and shows no sign of accomplishing) its major objective: the creation of an opening for the Iraqi government to be an actual government. Violence in some Baghdad neighborhoods is down, primarily in those where ethnic cleansing has already driven out minority Sunnis and Shi'ites and where American troops provide alternate targets.
Progress in Anbar? Sure. As long as we arm one side in a civil war we can expect short-term "progress." Of course, as we've discovered in the past, arming folks so they can kill their enemies is no guarantee they won't turn those weapons on us when they're done. Remember Afghanistan in the 1980's?
The Iraqi army? The reliably Republican Chicago Tribune had this to say today. "What can be said without hesitation is that U.S. forces are stretched thin and the Iraqi army has yet to prove it is an effective fighting force. Some Iraqi units perform well. Others don't. The overall readiness of the force remains doubtful; the Pentagon's own analysis estimates as many as half the soldiers in Iraqi units fail to show for duty each day because of scheduled leaves, absences without leave, or attrition. Some soldiers refuse to deploy when units are ordered outside their home territory." Virtually the same comments could have been made in January (of 2006.)
As far as the claim that US patience is "not unlimited," just why do you suppose Iraqi politicians would believe that? Without a timetable or even seriously enforced benchmarks, just what evidence of "limits" on patience exists?
The results have been predictable. The oil bill, supposedly ready for a vote since February sits stalled in parliament. Political reconciliation? Nada. Provincial elections? Likewise. Disarming the militias, undoubtedly the most important single action that could be taken? That one is especially laughable. The al Maliki government promised that one almost a year ago. And each time they're asked about it, the can gets kicked down the road.
The problem is several fold. We've never had a clue about the intricacies of Iraqi politics. We started this absurd war putting all our chips on Ahmed Chalabi, a reportedly charming con man without a constituency that we air dropped into Iraq in the first weeks of the invasion. Within a year we were raiding his home claiming he was an Iranian agent. Things haven't improved since.
Iraqi politicians, (at least the ones who haven't moved out of the country, estimated to be about 1/3 of the Parliament), are working on time lines both shorter and far longer than ours. Squabbles over control of revenue, good old fashioned corruption, and sectarian rivalries are their short term concerns. But in the long term, Iraqi politicians realize that the US will eventually leave and when we do their goal is not "reconciliation," but victory over their enemies.
Probably the most ironic aspect of this farce is the notion that Secy Gates' finger wagging will make an iota's bit of difference in the long run. US priorities are not Iraqi priorities. We want them to "get along." They want to defeat their rivals.
There is, of course, an alternative for the neocons, if for no one else. The US could do what the generals said should have been done four years ago: flood the country with US troops. Double or triple the occupation force. Put American troops on every Baghdad street corner along with street corners in Samarra, Najaf, Basra, etc. Commit to running the country for at least a decade before turning it over to the Iraqis (as we did in Germany and Japan.) The trouble is, of course, we don't have the forces to do that; the electorate won't support it (as they said they wouldn't before the war started); and there's little realistic chance, much less a guarantee, it would result in success.
Meanwhile, the adolescent fantasy that this is all about defeating the "terrorists" so they won't "follow us home" will continue to obsess those whose earlier fantasies of WMD and victory parades have turned to dust.