Just a little... bit... longer

[CDarwin]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7336731.stm

 

General Petraeus has told Congress that to keep the gains made by the surge, it is going to need to be maintained just a bit longer after the first withdrawals to be made in July. Is this reasonable? Perhaps predictably, Hillary and Obama don't think so, while McCain is probably more gung-ho than Petraeus.

 

I'm really not sure of much of anything with Iraq. I've almost come to the point where I doubt I'm qualified even to have an opinion. I am quite sure of one point on which Petraeus and I seem to agree, however: leaving permanent bases in Iraq is a bad idea. Military bases aren't inherently bad, obviously, and if it turns out that our strategic interests are served by a base in Iraq, then there's no reason the US shouldn't try to strike a deal with the Iraqi government to host one. But that government has to come to that negotiation as an equal partner representative of the Iraqi people and after every single Coalition troop has left the country. Anything else is imperialism, and that is exactly how the Middle East would see it.

 

But that's not really what the article was about.

[iNow]

[Pangloss]

No, that cartoon is not applicable, and we're not Charlie Brown here because we weren't expecting actual militry withdrawl to take place at this time. (Not if we were paying attention, that is.) What he's asking for a delay on was not departure, but rather a slight drawn-down from the surge. A change in the rotation pattern, essentially.

 

This is tactics, not strategy. You know, the stuff we always say we're not going to criticize for political reasons.

 

By all means criticize Bush for not pulling the troops out, but you can't say that he's been telling us that he was about to pull all the troops out and then changed his mind.

[iNow]

Does the concept of a deadline no longer have meaning in the United States of America?

 

 

It's due tomorrow!

Oh, that's okay. We can get an extension. We'll worry about it next week (and ask for another extension then).

[Realitycheck]

I say we send a black ops unit into Iran and decapitate al Sadr, then call me in the morning.

[Pangloss]

I agree about the threat of departure having an impact, but you don't really lose that threat by approving General Petraeus' request. If anything it actually underscores to the Iraqis the point that we're not going to be there in large numbers much longer. Although it's not as if they're not getting the message, IMO.

 

I just think this falls under the same category as whether to ship more guns and armored Humvees. This whole thing has been an exercise in half-baked, and only got better when we STOPPED doing it that way -- just like the critics said. Of course the moment we put more troops there, the critics starting saying the opposite. But I think the last thing we want is to go back to what we saw in 2006. If that means the surge troops need a few more weeks to firm things up, so what? I'm not saying keep all the troops there until the job is done, whatever the frack that means, but I do think we should do what General Petraeus says we should do the moment he says to do it.

 

Long term is another matter. But I tell you what, if there's a chance for Iraq to become another South Korea or Germany if a FEW thousand long-term troops are left in a base where they are welcomed and are helping in some way, then we damn well need to do that.

[Blade]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7336731.stm

 

General Petraeus has told Congress that to keep the gains made by the surge, it is going to need to be maintained just a bit longer after the first withdrawals to be made in July. Is this reasonable? Perhaps predictably, Hillary and Obama don't think so, while McCain is probably more gung-ho than Petraeus.

 

I'm really not sure of much of anything with Iraq. I've almost come to the point where I doubt I'm qualified even to have an opinion. I am quite sure of one point on which Petraeus and I seem to agree, however: leaving permanent bases in Iraq is a bad idea. Military bases aren't inherently bad, obviously, and if it turns out that our strategic interests are served by a base in Iraq, then there's no reason the US shouldn't try to strike a deal with the Iraqi government to host one. But that government has to come to that negotiation as an equal partner representative of the Iraqi people and after every single Coalition troop has left the country. Anything else is imperialism, and that is exactly how the Middle East would see it.

 

But that's not really what the article was about.

 

I wonder if general betray US would pay for it.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, I'm not a military expert so I say go with Petraeus' opinion on the matter since he is. Funny how certain Global Warming advocates that have posted in this thread are also the same people who criticize conservatives for pretending to be "experts" and denouncing scientific evidence as conjecture. Surely we're not going to turn right around and do the same thing we accuse others of doing here?? Surely not...

 

Climate scientists are experts in climate matters, and military generals are experts in military matters. Let's try to be consistent with that premise and listen to Petraeus.

[iNow]

Yeah, I'm not a military expert so I say go with Petraeus' opinion on the matter since he is. Funny how certain Global Warming advocates that have posted in this thread are also the same people who criticize conservatives for pretending to be "experts" and denouncing scientific evidence as conjecture. Surely we're not going to turn right around and do the same thing we accuse others of doing here?? Surely not...

 

Climate scientists are experts in climate matters, and military generals are experts in military matters. Let's try to be consistent with that premise and listen to Petraeus.

 

Hmmm... There were only 6 posts in this thread before yours and after the OP, and none of those other members are regulars in climate change threads. If my powers of deduction don't deceive me, then it would appear you are talking about me.

 

 

So, uh... how exactly does a Charlie Brown cartoon equate to me saying we should denouce what the General has said? You and Pangloss have both attributed quite a lot of meaning into a post I made which had zero words, and it's quite telling how you've biased your perception of me pretty extremely regarding matters of political outlook.

 

 

The only opinion I've intended to portray in this thread is that a) the goal posts seem to keep moving, and b) we seem to have a habit of communicating with the congress and the public very particular milestones and reasons for our actions when arguing for the ability to start them. However, we too commonly are not achieving those milestones in the alotted time, and further, our leaders then wind up arguing for new milestones using new reasons once the alotted time has past.

 

I don't know about you, but when I went to school, you handed in your assignments on time, regardless of it's level of completion, or you got an F.

 

I have made no comments on the need, the recommendations, nor how we should act on the request from General Petraeus. His knowledge on this topic far exceeds my own, and I'm comfortable taking his recommendations quite seriously.

 

 

But hey, maybe my powers of deduction have deceived me, and you were talking about someone else. That's possible.

[ParanoiA]

So' date=' uh... how exactly does a Charlie Brown cartoon equate to me saying we should denouce what the General has said? You and Pangloss have both put a lot of meaning into a post without words, and it's quite telling how you've biased your perception of me pretty extremely.

 

 

The only opinion I've stated in this thread is that a) the goal posts keep moving, and b) we seem to be failing regularly at meeting out commitments and deadlines. I have made no comments on the need, the recommendations, nor how we should act on said recommendations.[/quote']

 

So now you're taking Pangloss's Captain Obvious title?

 

Does the concept of a deadline no longer have meaning in the United States of America?

 

 

It's due tomorrow!

Oh' date=' that's okay. We can get an extension. We'll worry about it next week (and ask for another extension then). [/quote']

 

You're not making a value judgement here on extensions? Gee, I'm sorry, it seemed pretty obvious to me you were scraping from the bottom of the intellectual barrel to pretend that spoken deadlines trump reality...you know, people lives. I don't think there's any room for politics in this do you?

[iNow]

Okay, I can see how you'd get that interpretation. All I can do is repeat what I said above. It was not my intention to scrape the bottom of any intellectual barrels. I'm not sure what more I can say here...

 

 

My point is, we keep kicking at that damned football, and it keeps being pulled away. What meaning you attribute to that football and what you see as the reasons for it being pulled away, or even the moral implications of leaving the football in place when we launch our foot towards it... have no relation to my point.

 

 

The football has been moved every time we've kicked at it.

 

That's all I intended to say. A lot of venom already in such a short thread...

 

Good grief.

[Pangloss]

iNow I have no problem with your opinion on this -- I can understand how someone can see this, at least initially, and especially in the partisan atmosphere that everything about Iraq generates, as an example of moving goalposts. I just see it differently.

 

 

I wonder if general betray US would pay for it.

 

In what way has he betrayed us?

 

And how does making fun of the man's name enlighten us on this issue, Blade?

[Mr Skeptic]

 

Um, there does not seem to be a correlation between troop numbers and deaths.

 

Not that we shouldn't follow a general's advice on how to withdraw, though I agree with iNow that repeatedly missing deadlines to withdraw makes us look silly. However, it may be more clever to help the Iraqi army indirectly via equipment and training, for both practical reasons and social/political ones. Keeping permanent bases in Iraq seems like a wise (re oil) if unethical idea.

[Pangloss]

It's at least as good a correlation as some of the global warming charts I've seen. But you have to at least acknowledge that the chart shows a correspondance between the surge and a vast drop in casualties. The two drops in 2006 are obviously low-spikes in an otherwise horrid year, for example. There IS a correlation.

 

I agree that the surge is not the only reason for the drop in casualties, but I've said that all along and so has the administration. It corresponds with the cease fire by Muqtada Al-Sadr and the similar cease fire by Sunni insurgents.

 

You know. Political progress. Gee.

[iNow]

In what way has he betrayed us?

 

And how does making fun of the man's name enlighten us on this issue, Blade?

 

I agree completely with Pangloss on this. Blade's comments are ignorant, and seek only to reawaken a past distraction from the truly important issues. General Petraeus is an honorable man who has served his country at great personal expense. You may not agree with the points he makes, but you cannot challenge his character as a leader and patriot.

[Realitycheck]

Yeah, but I AM an expert on military AND economics and I say that this is what we should do. Iraq already has about 50 billion saved up in oil reserves money, They open up a lot more army recruitment offices across the nation. Get everybody off the street, out of the militias and on the government's payroll. People just don't bite the hand that feeds them. Get these people working - protecting their infrastructure, protecting their oil reserves, just protecting something, at least, building infrastructure, oil wells, get the machine rolling and get them to stop thinking about revenge or whatever. Get a sense of nationalism going on in their hearts. They are already used to having something of a socialistic government. Get them into it. They've already insisted on reinstating Baathists in the government so everybody is welcome. The scapegoat is out. I think the real reason why al Sadr keeps being a turd is because he doesn't want Baathists to have anything to do with his land.

 

I really like the part where McCain said to Petraus, "So, you failed ....", to which he replied, "Well, uh, sir ..."

[john5746]

Yeah, I'm not a military expert so I say go with Petraeus' opinion on the matter since he is. Funny how certain Global Warming advocates that have posted in this thread are also the same people who criticize conservatives for pretending to be "experts" and denouncing scientific evidence as conjecture. Surely we're not going to turn right around and do the same thing we accuse others of doing here?? Surely not...

 

Climate scientists are experts in climate matters, and military generals are experts in military matters. Let's try to be consistent with that premise and listen to Petraeus.

 

So let's listen to one climatologist, which replaced several others that have "retired"? Are we even sure that a consensus of generals agree or are even aware of his strategy? He is basically asking us to trust him on this, not presenting a bunch of data as evidence.

 

I appreciate the importance of troop deaths, but if the prime motivation is to reduce American troop deaths, the answer is obvious - get out. So, I would like to see similar charts with Iraqi deaths, Iraqi troop levels, expenditures and so on. This surge is supposed to allow Iraq to get its act together, so we can leave EARLIER.

[iNow]

This surge is supposed to allow Iraq to get its act together, so we can leave EARLIER.

 

"Was" supposed to.

[Aardvark]

This surge is supposed to allow Iraq to get its act together, so we can leave EARLIER.

 

Which is exactly what is happening.

 

What's this argument about? The surge has worked. The Iraqi government and army are getting much stronger and forcing the militias to back down. al-Qaeda in Iraq is almost broken.

 

And the complaints come because some artifical deadline hasn't been kept to? I can just imagine how that would have gone down in the past 'General Eisenhower (Lies n' Power), you have failed and betrayed your country. You have only given the West victory by May of 1945 when the Deadline for victory was for March 1945! Disgraceful!

 

What is happening is Iraq is victory, after a slow, long bloody process with a lot of setbacks, victory is finally being achieved. It looks like there are a lot of people who simply don't want to see victory, they'd prefer to see defeat. Maybe it would help give them that little thrill of self righteousness as they criticise GW Bush, and that has got to be more important that the lives of millions, right?

[ParanoiA]

I truly believe the name George Bush incites a stronger charge of emotion than the Iraq war. Hatred and opposition to Bush trumps Iraqi lives. We can't talk honestly about Iraq and how to fix the mess we were drug into until the baggage is dropped, or the names of the leaders have changed. Until then, politics and teenage angst will undermine the discussion.

[Psyber]

The invasion of Iraq, if it was going to happen at all, should have happened after the first Gulf War when there was an Arab nation that had been attacked by Saddam, whose government may have agreed to, and been able to, run the peace-keeping force and occupation.

 

Any occupation of a Muslim country by an even nominally Christian force is going to have a negative effect, more so the longer it goes on.

 

The "Coalition of the Willing" should have united to push the UN into action with a moderate Muslim administration ready to go in afterwards, not just charged in themselves. Now there is no easy way out.

[Aardvark]

The invasion of Iraq, if it was going to happen at all, should have happened after the first Gulf War when there was an Arab nation that had been attacked by Saddam, whose government may have agreed to, and been able to, run the peace-keeping force and occupation.

 

Rehashing what should have been done nearly two decades ago isn't really very helpful.

 

Any occupation of a Muslim country by an even nominally Christian force is going to have a negative effect, more so the longer it goes on.

 

Do you really think that the Iraqis are that bigotted?

 

The "Coalition of the Willing" should have united to push the UN into action with a moderate Muslim administration ready to go in afterwards, not just charged in themselves. Now there is no easy way out.

 

There never was a 'Coalition of the Willing' to push the UN to do anything. The UN was always an obstructionary force which we now know was corrupted by the Hussien regime. As for a mythical 'moderate Muslim' coalition, what magic wand are you going to wave to create that?

[john5746]

And the complaints come because some artifical deadline hasn't been kept to? I can just imagine how that would have gone down in the past 'General Eisenhower (Lies n' Power), you have failed and betrayed your country. You have only given the West victory by May of 1945 when the Deadline for victory was for March 1945! Disgraceful!

 

Yeah, Yeah, we can all play these games. I can imagine Eisenhower invading Mexico during WWII to bring democracy there and Roosevelt not mentioning Hitler, except to say he was in a bunker somewhere and not bothering anyone. Let's stay in reality, OK?

 

 

What is happening is Iraq is victory, after a slow, long bloody process with a lot of setbacks, victory is finally being achieved. It looks like there are a lot of people who simply don't want to see victory, they'd prefer to see defeat. Maybe it would help give them that little thrill of self righteousness as they criticise GW Bush, and that has got to be more important that the lives of millions, right?

 

I typed up a response citing how I do not hate Bush and actually support Patraeus, but since you had taken a little snipet way out of context and tried to sabotage my character by implying that I was just a Bush hater, I don't think it merits such a response.

 

 

I truly believe the name George Bush incites a stronger charge of emotion than the Iraq war. Hatred and opposition to Bush trumps Iraqi lives. We can't talk honestly about Iraq and how to fix the mess we were drug into until the baggage is dropped, or the names of the leaders have changed. Until then, politics and teenage angst will undermine the discussion.

 

I truly believe there are people on both sides of the issue that have the interests of their country, Iraq and the world at heart. If you want to close your ears to any disagreements and throw manure on them, that is your problem, not mine.

[Realitycheck]

al Sadr is supposedly taking instructions from the clergy, making this a holy war. Oh wait, I guess we already knew that. Just who is in charge?

 

Obviously, al Sadr is the biggest internal impediment to unity, especially if he is being backed by the clergy. I can't say much about the Sunni contingent, basically because I don't hear much about them. However, when a significant contingency, backed by the clergy, is signalling for us to move on, this indicates that this is a major stumbling block to unity, that they can deal with it. I don't see this as a move for continual power struggles on their part. They are full of hurt about the incredible number of innocents included in the carnage. This is all about enforcing a benchmark, dissolving militias, instead of hiring them. This is why the Iraqi government was so hesitant to accomplish this benchmark.

 

Oh man, I just read this article from al Jazeera. From their perspective, al Sadr is the Shia spiritual leader of Iraq, not al Sistani, and this is what they broadcast all over the news.

 

I'm going to throw this out as a little poll. What do you think is al Qaeda's primary motive in continuing to send suicide bombers into Iraq? I still believe that it is primarily to protest American interference and make things difficult for us, which includes targetting Shiites to foment war, just as Zarqawi stated as his mission statement.

[Aardvark]

Yeah, Yeah, we can all play these games. I can imagine Eisenhower invading Mexico during WWII to bring democracy there and Roosevelt not mentioning Hitler, except to say he was in a bunker somewhere and not bothering anyone. Let's stay in reality, OK?

 

Except my example was a perfectly relevant use of a historical parrellel. Unlike yours. Maybe you need to recheck in to reality.

 

 

I typed up a response citing how I do not hate Bush and actually support Patraeus, but since you had taken a little snipet way out of context and tried to sabotage my character by implying that I was just a Bush hater, I don't think it merits such a response.

 

You're the one who wrote that the main aim of the surge is to reduce American casualties. Very weird priorities, and very revealing about your character.

 

I'd have thought most people who actually care about victory would have thought that the aim of the surge was, you know, that thing called victory. There are millions of people out there depending on that.

 

 

I truly believe there are people on both sides of the issue that have the interests of their country, Iraq and the world at heart.

 

And it is very very obvious that there are millions of people out there who do not have the interests of their country , Iraq and the world at heart. People so blinded by hatred for GW Bush that they'd prefer to see defeat in Iraq. A huge number of people are very invested in the idea of defeat, which is why they react so badly to any positive news from Iraq.

 

If you want to close your ears to any disagreements and throw manure on them, that is your problem, not mine.

 

Awwww, did i hurt your feeling? Grow up.

 

al Sadr is supposedly taking instructions from the clergy, making this a holy war. Oh wait, I guess we already knew that. Just who is in charge?

 

al Sadr is linked with the Iranians, who obviously want to create as much chaos in Iraq as possible.

 

Obviously, al Sadr is the biggest internal impediment to unity, especially if he is being backed by the clergy. I can't say much about the Sunni contingent, basically because I don't hear much about them. However, when a significant contingency, backed by the clergy, is signalling for us to move on, this indicates that this is a major stumbling block to unity, that they can deal with it. I don't see this as a move for continual power struggles on their part.

 

al Sadr is losing, the Iraqi government and people are facing down him and his militia. The 'significant contingency' is signally for al Sadr and his gang to be disarmed, disbanded and kicked out. The tide has turned.

 

 

They are full of hurt about the incredible number of innocents included in the carnage.

 

They are the ones who have deliberately inflicted hurt on innocents as a tactic. They aren't feeling any hurt about that, but the Iraqi people are turning against them now, recognising them as the source of hurt to innocents, not the Western forces.

 

This is all about enforcing a benchmark, dissolving militias, instead of hiring them. This is why the Iraqi government was so hesitant to accomplish this benchmark.

 

On the contrary, the Iraqi government has acted as quickly and firmly as possible. It has been a very hard job for them, but they are doing it, fighting hard, taking casualties, and winning.

 

Oh man, I just read this article from al Jazeera. From their perspective, al Sadr is the Shia spiritual leader of Iraq, not al Sistani, and this is what they broadcast all over the news.

 

Al Jazeera is not a very reliable source. al Sadr is a local militia leader of dwindling influence and important. He is certainly not the spiritual leader of Shias in Iraq.

 

I'm going to throw this out as a little poll. What do you think is al Qaeda's primary motive in continuing to send suicide bombers into Iraq? I still believe that it is primarily to protest American interference and make things difficult for us, which includes targetting Shiites to foment war, just as Zarqawi stated as his mission statement.

 

It's to create chaos. As far as Al Qaeda goes, the worse things are the better. They've almost lost, the Iraqi people have turned against them, their only chance is a premature American withdrawal and a secterian civil war breaking out. The first is a possibility considering the number of Americans who want to see America defeated, the second is looking less likely.