Life just gets worse in Iraq

[Irvine511]

wading through all the debris, i find these ...

For better understanding, just take a look at history. Your not going to be able to invade a country the size of Iraq and establish the level of prosperity and security after what this country had been through in the previous 25 years. Nation Building is a long and difficult process that takes far more time than the 3 years that has been spent so far. Defeating the average insurgency takes a minimum of 10 years.

so why, on earth, did they send in less than 150,000 troops? or, just enough troops to lose?

The current course of action is working as the commanders on the GROUND in Iraq have testified.

i would love to see the recent (not 2004) assessments of the commanders on the GROUND and their optimistic outlooks.

since that stands contrary to EVERYONE else, including the incoming Sec of Defense.

 

[Irvine511]

There is no greater middle eastern war nor is there a civil war in Iraq at the current time. You have significant sectarian violence around Baghdad, but thats it. Most of the provinces in Iraq sight the lack of services rather than the lack of security as being their most pressing problems. Again, you can't take Baghdad and extrapolate it as being all of Iraq.

oh come ON sting. i'm so glad my teammate died for your BULLSHIT.

this is horseshit, and you know it -- you need to look up your facts post-2004. there is 60 percent unemployment, oil production is well below prewar levels, and there's water service to only 30% of the population. yes, if 70% of the population doesn't have water, that's probably going to trump car bombs, but not by a whole lot.

there IS a civil war. EVERYONE is calling it a civil war, including Colin Powell, NBC News, Fareed Zakaria, numerous conservatives. what more do you want? does it have to be The Congo with 4m dead? the definiton of a Civil War is not contingent upon numbers dead but upon a collapsed central government and two clearly defined groups (usually ethnic) battling each other for control.

 

[STING2]

wading through all the debris, i find these ...




so why, on earth, did they send in less than 150,000 troops? or, just enough troops to lose?




i would love to see the recent (not 2004) assessments of the commanders on the GROUND and their optimistic outlooks.

since that stands contrary to EVERYONE else, including the incoming Sec of Defense.

They have not lost, and they sent in the maximum number of active army and marine ground combat brigades that could be sustained there over the long term, given other key US deployments in other countries, and the need to rotate ground combat brigades in and out of these deployments in order to rest and refit them. A sustained force size significantly larger than the one in Iraq can only be achieved through the full mobilization of the National Guard for years. Currently, caps on the use of National Guard Brigades prevent them from being used in this manner. But 40% of the United States ground combat brigades are in the National Guard and until the rules in using them are changed, only smaller temporary increases in force levels in Iraq can be achieved through delaying the return of combat brigades in Iraq, and accelerating the deployment of combat brigades sent to replace them, there by achieving perhaps a 5 month period where their deployments overlap naturally increasing the number of troops on the ground during that time period.

General John Abazaid just had a very important testimony before congress a few weeks ago where he defended the current strategy and mentioned he had just recently discussed the issue with ALL the divisional commanders in Iraq. Gates has yet to consult them, but has said their views will play the biggest role in his recomendations to the president. These are not 2004 assements, a year I might add that saw the insurgency at its peak, and US casaulty levels at their highest.

 

[STING2]

oh come ON sting. i'm so glad my teammate died for your BULLSHIT.

this is horseshit, and you know it -- you need to look up your facts post-2004. there is 60 percent unemployment, oil production is well below prewar levels, and there's water service to only 30% of the population. yes, if 70% of the population doesn't have water, that's probably going to trump car bombs, but not by a whole lot.

there IS a civil war. EVERYONE is calling it a civil war, including Colin Powell, NBC News, Fareed Zakaria, numerous conservatives. what more do you want? does it have to be The Congo with 4m dead? the definiton of a Civil War is not contingent upon numbers dead but upon a collapsed central government and two clearly defined groups (usually ethnic) battling each other for control.

Oh, and there wasn't 60% or higher unemployment in 2004? Much of Iraq has never had running water! If you think water service in Iraq is poor, take a look at Afghanistan. Do you think Shia area's of Iraq would prefer life under Saddam when they could not even get humanitarian supplies given by the UN because of Saddam. This is Iraq NOT France! Iraq already had problems with oil production back in the 1990s under Saddam and the sanctions regime. Insurgent attacks on the supply line are to blame for the lower levels of production.

Once again, US commanders on the ground have repeatedly stated that they do not see a civil war there. You have heavy sectarian violence in Baghdad. 90% of the sectarian violence that occurs in Iraq happens in or around Baghdad. The fact that Iraq has a central government, and the sectarian violence is such a localized event shows that this is not a civil war. Even Koffi Anan did not state that Iraq was in a civil war, but there was the threat that it could become a civil war.

There is no collapsed central government, and if all it took were for there to be elements of two defined ethnic groups fighting each other, we'd have dozens of other countries being listed as being in Civil Wars. The presence of sectarian violence in one part of the country does NOT make it a civil war!

In any event, keep in mind the following:

1. two successful democratic elections in which the majority of the population participated.
2. the passing of a constitution
3. Iraq's first elected government coming into office.
4. Over 300,000 military and police forces in training.
5. compromises between the various ethnic groups of Iraq including Sunni acceptence of Maliki as the new leader of the government when Jafferi was seen as unacceptable.
6. Iraqi military units that have performed very well in combat in various operations in Anbar province with little or no support from the US military.
7. The continued professionalism of the Iraqi military and non-sectarianism compared with police forces which have sometimes been caught in engaging in sectarian violence. The problems in the police forces are not seen anywhere near to that degree in the military.
8. Substantial GDP growth across the country.
9. Relative calm and peace in 13 of the 18 provinces of Iraq.
10. Polls in those provinces showing that "security" is not a top concern for the people that live there.
11. The distribution of humanitarian aid, electricity, and other services to many parts of Iraq that had often been denied such items for decades.
12. The standard of living of the average Iraqi is higher than that of the average person in Afghanistan, yet Iraqi's are perceived to be worse off than people in Afghanistan

 

[anitram]

2. the passing of a constitution

And how does that speak to the fact there ISN'T (according to you) a civil war?

You signed a constitution and then promptly had a civil war less than a century later. It's hardly a yardstick against which to judge success at this point.

The majority of, well, pretty much everyone in the world disagrees with you. We must all be stupid and insane.

 

[Irvine511]

and what's funnier still is that the army doesn't even agree with STING's characterization of how the army understands the situation. an editorial in the 11/4/06 Army Times editorial calling for Rumsfeld's resignation:

[q]So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth.”


That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.

But until recently, the “hard bruising” truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington.

One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “mission accomplished,” the insurgency is “in its last throes,” and “back off,” we know what we’re doing, are a few choice examples.

Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.

Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.”

Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on “critical” and has been sliding toward “chaos” for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.


But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.

For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don’t show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

Now, the president says he’ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake. It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers’ deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.[/q]

 

[STING2]

and what's funnier still is that the army doesn't even agree with STING's characterization of how the army understands the situation. an editorial in the .[/q]

Thats the view of the editoral board of the Army Times, NOT the US Army and all those serving in it. The view on what needs to be done in order to succeed in Iraq comes from Cent Com Commander, General John Abazaid, divisional commanders on the ground in Iraq, as well the officers, non-commission officers, with multiple tours in Iraq and knowledge of how to wage a counter insurgency effort. Rumsfeld is irrelevant to their view on what needs to be done, before or after he left.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

STING also disagrees with our Prime Minister, who has troops in Iraq, and believes it is going "very badly".

 

[STING2]

And how does that speak to the fact there ISN'T (according to you) a civil war?

You signed a constitution and then promptly had a civil war less than a century later. It's hardly a yardstick against which to judge success at this point.

The majority of, well, pretty much everyone in the world disagrees with you. We must all be stupid and insane.

Its not the first time the majority of the world was wrong about a given situation or how best to resolve it. Most people in Europe rejected strict enforcement of the treaty ending World War I as well as confronting Hitler in the early to mid-1930s when the cost of doing so would have been far less. Intervention then could have prevented World War II. The abandonment of South Vietnam before it was ready to stand on its own led to its collapse two and a half years later. The failure to intervene in Bosnia early on, led to the slaughter of nearly 10% of that countries population.

If the majority think the above points on Iraq were not accomplished, its uninformed, ignorant, or in denial. More importantly though, is what the majority consenses would be as far as what to do about Iraq given the long term global interest in insuring stability in the region. The majority of people who criticize Iraq strategy do not offer any alternative aside from simply removing troops, which only succeeds in removing troops from the country, and making the situation far worse than it is at the current time.

In contrast the "Iraq Study Group" does offer many important political and economic initiatives that could help the process, many of which are already apart of current strategy to some degree. But they are wrong to withdraw nearly all US combat brigades by early 2008, leaving behind trainers and other imbedded personal without sufficient forces to help them in difficult situations as well as thinking that the Iraqi military will be ready by January 2008 to assume all the task and duties of the withdrawn US combat Brigades. Early 2011 would be far more realistic for such a withdrawal, anything prior to that is way to premature, unless you think the Iraqi military has been vastly more successful in its training and equiping then even I think.

Its also more than a bit contradictory to be suggesting we should threaten the Iraqi government with the removal of troops and aid if "national reconciliation" is not proceeding as fast as we think it should, given how important the iraq study group describes the stakes as being for the United States in Iraq.

 

[Dreadsox]

When the ARMCHAIR General's and Neocon's get off thier ass and go to Iraq, I will support the effort to keep troops there until 2011.

I will now commence holding my breath.

 

[Irvine511]

12. The standard of living of the average Iraqi is higher than that of the average person in Afghanistan, yet Iraqi's are perceived to be worse off than people in Afghanistan

this is really indicative of the arguments put forward.

please go through this thread and point out where anyone has said that the people in Iraq are worse off in Afghanistan. we have different measures to guage this. we can talk about the level of violence, which is certainly worse in Iraq, but as for standard of living, Iraq is better than Afghanistan.

in fact, pretty much any country on the face of the earth is going to look better than Afghanistan when you consider the fact that the country has lived with war since 1979 and was considered a failed state and where the Taliban, arguably the worst government on earth, took over in the 1990s. the bar couldn't be any lower than Afghanistan, and if you need to use freaking Afghanistan to make Iraq look better by comparison, then you're really in trouble.

Iraq was selected for Bush's little democracy-oil-fantasy precisely because Iraq, pre-occupation, was a generally successful society especially for the Middle East. Iraq had roads, schools, a functioning (albeit tyrannical) government, oil, an army, universities, water, electricty -- Afghanistan isn't even comparable to Iraq when it comes to the conventional measures of standard of living.

so the comparison is complete and total crap, and indicative of the lengths we have to stretch to put lipstick on this pig of an invasion.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Irvine I think that you make a big mistake in drawing the destruction of Iraq to the occupation directly. It was a ruined society after two decades with war and sanctions with a deliberate policy of breaking down certain ethnic groups in the allocations of resources. The failures of the occupation - of which there are plenty - do not detract from the state Iraq was in before the war, the failure to bring it far beyond that state is where criticism should be put.

 

[Irvine511]

Irvine I think that you make a big mistake in drawing the destruction of Iraq to the occupation directly. It was a ruined society after two decades with war and sanctions with a deliberate policy of breaking down certain ethnic groups in the allocations of resources. The failures of the occupation - of which there are plenty - do not detract from the state Iraq was in before the war, the failure to bring it far beyond that state is where criticism should be put.

i didn't draw it directly -- please show me where i have. i was debunking the extremely convenient, incorrect comparisons made between the state of Iraqi society in 2003 and the state of Afghani society in 2003. the two are not comparable. yes, Iraq deteriorated throughout the 1990s, but it was in no way comparable with Afghanistan.

further, you point to the deterioration of Iraq pre-war, but after four years of occupation, society has disintergrated even farther. does this not underscore the point that the occupation has failed in numerous capacities, particularly the most important one: creating a working, functioning society with an entrenched middle class who have a vested interest in the maintenence of stability. democracy is meaningless without such people, and most of them have left.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I don't disagree with any point in particular, especially given that in the absence of that buffer sectarian religious forces will emerge.

 

[Irvine511]

I don't disagree with any point in particular, especially given that in the absence of that buffer sectarian religious forces will emerge.

and this is what is so troublesome -- we've basically reduced Iraq into another Afghanistan, removed the socialist secularist element and injected a lethal sectarianism.

i also agree that had the coalition invaded and occupied Baghdad in 1991, we might not have the same level of difficulty as we do today. twelve years of sanctions and containment have made the job harder than it would have been before, though the military operations necessary for the invasion would have been more difficult in 1991.

 

[Irvine511]

as well the officers, non-commission officers, with multiple tours in Iraq and knowledge of how to wage a counter insurgency effort.

go on and continue to fight the insurgency.

the rest of us will worry about the sectarian strife within the larger context of a Civil War.

 

[STING2]

this is really indicative of the arguments put forward.

please go through this thread and point out where anyone has said that the people in Iraq are worse off in Afghanistan. we have different measures to guage this. we can talk about the level of violence, which is certainly worse in Iraq, but as for standard of living, Iraq is better than Afghanistan.

in fact, pretty much any country on the face of the earth is going to look better than Afghanistan when you consider the fact that the country has lived with war since 1979 and was considered a failed state and where the Taliban, arguably the worst government on earth, took over in the 1990s. the bar couldn't be any lower than Afghanistan, and if you need to use freaking Afghanistan to make Iraq look better by comparison, then you're really in trouble.

Iraq was selected for Bush's little democracy-oil-fantasy precisely because Iraq, pre-occupation, was a generally successful society especially for the Middle East. Iraq had roads, schools, a functioning (albeit tyrannical) government, oil, an army, universities, water, electricty -- Afghanistan isn't even comparable to Iraq when it comes to the conventional measures of standard of living.

so the comparison is complete and total crap, and indicative of the lengths we have to stretch to put lipstick on this pig of an invasion.

You have mentioned briefly in other threads that Iraq is the worst place on the planet, but its not regardless of what gauge you use.


While in general its true that Iraq has always had a higher standard of living than Afghanistan, we need to keep in mind the following:


Iraq has had a very difficult time since 1979 as well. 8 years of war with Iran resulted in millions of casualties combined for both countries. The invasion of Kuwait, Gulf War I, sanctions, bombing, and Saddam's brutal policies killed hundreds of thousands of other Iraqi's and ruined much of the country.

What type of society is successful when its "leader" murders 300,000 people in one month? Afghanistan also had roads, schools, water, electricity, Universities, etc. There are parts of Iraq where people live essentially the same way they did 2,000 years ago. There has never been electricity, water, paved roads in these area's and people live in one room structures with their animals.


The better comparison would be how provinces like Dahuk, Arbil, As Sulaymaniyah, Al Qadisiyah, Maysan, An Najaf are doing now relative to the situation when Saddam was in power. Shia area's no longer feel the crushing grip of Saddam's power or the burden of doing without any humanitarian supplies that Saddam would rarely distribute to them during the sanctions of the 1990s. Resources that were once hoarded by the Sunni population are now more evenly distributed through out the country contributing to a rise in the standard of living in non-Sunni majority area's of the country. But all anyone will hear on the news is the situation in Baghdad and Al Anbar which gets extrapolated to being the situation in Iraq. It gives a very distorted view of the situation for most Iraqi's who do not live in Baghdad or Al Anbar province. The Kurdish provinces are also part of Iraq and wheat yields there have increased more than 40% since last year. A great improvement for a country that has been very dependent in the past on imports to feed the country. GDP is increasing, and people have money to spend as consumer imports of cell phones, computers and other house hold appliances have skyrocketed since the removal of Saddam.

If you want to accurately assess the situation in Iraq, you must consider the conditions in all the provinces, not just two of them. The insurgency and sectarian violence both overlap. They are not two seperate independent things.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Well heres a solution

As a culture, however, the West is paralyzed by the specter of civilian casualties, massive or not, that accompanies modern (not high-tech) warfare, and fights accordingly. It may well have been massive civilian casualties in Germany (40,000 dead in Hamburg after one cataclysmic night of “fire-bombing” in 1943, for example) and Japan that helped end World War II in an Allied victory. But this is a price I doubt any Western power would pay for victory today.

So, the military solution — which isn’t the same as boosting ROE-cuffed troop levels in Baghdad — is out, unless or until our desperation level rises to some unsupportably manic level. The great paradox of the “war on terror,” of course, is that as our capacity and desire to protect civilians in warfare grows, our enemy’s capacity and desire to kill civilians as a means of warfare grows also. Our fathers saved us from having to say, “Sieg Heil,” but what’s next — “Allahu akbar”?

Not necessarily. There’s another Middle Eastern strategy to deter expansionist Islam: Get out of the way. Get out of the way of Sunnis and Shi’ites killing each other. As a sectarian conflict more than 1,000 years old, this is not only one fight we didn’t start, but it’s one we can’t end. And why should we? If Iran, the jihad-supporting leader of the Shi’ite world, is being “strangled” by Saudi Arabia, the jihad-supporting leader of the Sunni world, isn’t that good for the Sunni-and-Shiite-terrorized West?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/dwest.htm

 

[Irvine511]

You have mentioned briefly in other threads that Iraq is the worst place on the planet, but its not regardless of what gauge you use.

the violence in baghdad makes it the most dangerous city on earth. please show me another country where 100 civilians are dying a day, and that's on a good month.

and then there's this:

[q]Women Lose Ground in the New Iraq
Once They Were Encouraged to Study and Work; Now Life Is 'Just Like Being in Jail'

By Nancy Trejos
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 16, 2006; A12


BAGHDAD -- Browsing the shelves of a cosmetics store in the Karrada shopping district, Zahra Khalid felt giddy at the sight of Alberto shampoo and Miss Rose eye shadow, blusher and powder.

Before leaving her house, she had covered her body in a billowing black abaya and wrapped a black head scarf around her thick brown hair. She had asked her brother to drive. She had done all the things that a woman living in Baghdad is supposed to do these days to avoid drawing attention to herself.

It was the first time she had left home in two months.

"For a woman, it's just like being in jail," she said. "I can't go anywhere."

Life has become more difficult for most Iraqis since the February bombing of a Shiite Muslim mosque in Samarra sparked a rise in sectarian killings and overall lawlessness. For many women, though, it has become unbearable.

As Islamic fundamentalism seeps into society and sectarian warfare escalates, more and more women live in fear of being kidnapped or raped. They receive death threats because of their religious sects and careers. They are harassed for not abiding by the strict dress code of long skirts and head scarves or for driving cars.

For much of the 20th century, and under various leaders, Iraq was one of the most progressive Middle Eastern countries in its treatment of women, who were encouraged to go to school and enter the workforce. Saddam Hussein's Baath Party espoused a secular Arab nationalism that advocated women's full participation in society. But years of war changed that.

In the days after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, many women were hopeful that they would enjoy greater parity with men. President Bush said that increasing women's rights was essential to creating a new, democratic Iraq.

But interviews with 16 Iraqi women, ranging in age from 21 to 52, show that much of that postwar hope is gone. The younger women say they fear being snatched on their way to school and wonder whether their college degrees will mean anything in the new Iraq. The older women, proud of their education and careers, are watching their independence slip away.

"At the beginning, we were very happy with those achievements and gains, and we were looking for more," said Ina'am al-Sultani, 36, a leader of the Progressive Women's Movement, a nongovernmental organization. "Women are now restrained."

Khalid, 30, whose only visible features as she shopped on a recent day were her round face and long eyelashes, was an accountant at the Planning Ministry until she received a death threat four months ago. She quit, moved to a new home and changed her phone number.

"We're suffering right now," Khalid said, her two sons tugging at her abaya. "The war took all our rights. We're not free because of terrorism."

[/q]

 

[Dreadsox]

What type of society is successful when its "leader" murders 300,000 people in one month? Afghanistan also had roads, schools, water, electricity, Universities, etc. There are parts of Iraq where people live essentially the same way they did 2,000 years ago. There has never been electricity, water, paved roads in these area's and people live in one room structures with their animals.

And we did not get our panties in a bunch when we courted him as our friend. Let's not equate the feelings that we are not doing enough, nor have we gone about it correctly with support of Saddam.

It was the Republican Party who was in control of the executive branch during the 80's while all of this shite was happening and they did SQUAT until he mistakenly invaded another country after our ambassador fucked up a meeting and had a communication problem.

I am so tired of this line of thinking.

Nobody, not ONE PERSON IN THIS FORUM has ever come out in favor of what Saddam did.

It has been three years there, and from the START it has not gone well, other than the first 48 hours.

 

[Varitek]

link

BAGHDAD — In a cavernous room that once displayed gifts given to Saddam Hussein, eight men in yellow prison garb sat on the floor facing the wall, guarded by two American soldiers.

Among them was Abdulla Sultan Khalaf, a Ministry of Industry employee seized by American troops who said they found 10 blasting caps and 100 sticks of TNT. When his name was called, he stood, walked into a cagelike defendant’s box and peered over the wooden slats at a panel of three Iraqi judges of the central court.

The judges reviewed evidence prepared by an American military lawyer — testimony from two soldiers, photographs and a sketch of the scene.

The evidence went largely unchallenged, because Mr. Khalaf had no lawyer. The judges appointed one, but Mr. Khalaf had no chance to speak with him. Mr. Khalaf told the judges that the soldiers were probably chasing a rogue nephew and denied that the explosives were his or ever in his house. “Let me examine the pictures,” he insisted. The judges ignored him. His lawyer said nothing, beyond declaring Mr. Khalaf’s innocence. The trial lasted 15 minutes.

The judges conducted six trials of similar length and depth before lunch, then deliberated for four minutes. Five defendants were found guilty; one was acquitted. “The evidence is enough,” Judge Saeb Khorsheed Ahmed said in convicting Mr. Khalaf. “Thirty years.”

The more I read, the more disgusted, saddened, ashamed, embarassed I become.

 

[verte76]

link



The more I read, the more disgusted, saddened, ashamed, embarassed I become.

You and me both.

 

[STING2]

And we did not get our panties in a bunch when we courted him as our friend. Let's not equate the feelings that we are not doing enough, nor have we gone about it correctly with support of Saddam.

It was the Republican Party who was in control of the executive branch during the 80's while all of this shite was happening and they did SQUAT until he mistakenly invaded another country after our ambassador fucked up a meeting and had a communication problem.

I am so tired of this line of thinking.

Nobody, not ONE PERSON IN THIS FORUM has ever come out in favor of what Saddam did.

It has been three years there, and from the START it has not gone well, other than the first 48 hours.

The points I was making had NOTHING to do with "equating feelings that we are not doing enough, nor have we gone about it correctly with support of Saddam". It was to point out that Iraq, like Afghanistan had a very difficult time prior to 2001 which makes rebuilding the country difficult. The specific event I refered to above did not happen in the 1980s, but in March 1991.


Saddam was never a friend. His invasion of Iran in the early years nearly led to his defeat which would have endangered Kuwait, Arabia and other Gulf States to the south. 5 Billion dollars, a fraction of the 100 Billion dollars given to Saddam in the 80s to fight the war, plus trucks, grain, transport helicopters, intelligence, and supplies. The Reagan administration did not build up Saddam, the Soviets did. Iraq was a Soviet client state, and received over 65% of its weapon systems from the Soviet Union, 20% from China, and the rest from other countries, the United States not being one of them.

Saddam was invading Kuwait regardless of what the US Ambassodor said or did not say. Saddam fully anticipated a conflict with the United States over Kuwait in which he thought he could defeat the United States by inflicting significant casualties. Overruning Kuwait did not require the massive numbers of tanks and troops that were initially sent which further shows his intentions of engaging in a much larger conflict.


Its been nearly 4 years now, and yes there have been many mistakes in Iraq, but also many accomplishments. Relative to other conflicts in history, especially those involving a nation building and counter insurgency task, the Iraq conflict is on the right track. In terms of cost, on the money front, the country is spending a smaller percentage of its GDP on defense/Iraq/Afganistan, than it spent on defense in the peacetime of the 1980s. In terms of cost, 4 years after the introdution of ground combat units into Vietnam the United States had suffered 30,000 Killed in action, while in Iraq, US Killed in action has been roughly 10% of that figure. The re-taking of falluja was so successful that it has re-written the rules on urban warfare. There are many things that have gone very well in Iraq relative to past conflicts the United States has been involved in.

 

[BVS]

Its been nearly 4 years now, and yes there have been many mistakes in Iraq,

Just wanted to keep this on record...

 

[verte76]

It's hard for me to believe that people are still claiming that we're winning in Iraq. The place is a messed up cesspool, terrorists all over the place.............and we're still winnning? Yeah, sure...............

 

[A_Wanderer]

Civil war or not, Iraq has an economy, and—mother of all surprises—it's doing remarkably well. Real estate is booming. Construction, retail and wholesale trade sectors are healthy, too, according to a report by Global Insight in London. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports 34,000 registered companies in Iraq, up from 8,000 three years ago. Sales of secondhand cars, televisions and mobile phones have all risen sharply. Estimates vary, but one from Global Insight puts GDP growth at 17 percent last year and projects 13 percent for 2006. The World Bank has it lower: at 4 percent this year. But, given all the attention paid to deteriorating security, the startling fact is that Iraq is growing at all.

How? Iraq is a crippled nation growing on the financial equivalent of steroids, with money pouring in from abroad. National oil revenues and foreign grants look set to total $41 billion this year, according to the IMF. With security improving in one key spot—the southern oilfields—that figure could go up.

Not too shabby, all things considered. Yes, Iraq's problems are daunting, to say the least. Unemployment runs between 30 and 50 percent. Many former state industries have all but ceased to function. As for all that money flowing in, much of it has gone to things that do little to advance the country's future. Security, for instance, gobbles up as much as a third of most companies' operating budgets, whereas what Iraq really needs are hospitals, highways and power-generating plants.

Even so, there's a vibrancy at the grass roots that is invisible in most international coverage of Iraq. Partly it's the trickle-down effect. However it's spent, whether on security or something else, money circulates. Nor are ordinary Iraqis themselves short on cash. After so many years of living under sanctions, with little to consume, many built up considerable nest eggs—which they are now spending. That's boosted economic activity, particularly in retail. Imported goods have grown increasingly affordable, thanks to the elimination of tariffs and trade barriers. Salaries have gone up more than 100 percent since the fall of Saddam, and income-tax cuts (from 45 percent to just 15 percent) have put more cash in Iraqi pockets. "The U.S. wanted to create the conditions in which small-scale private enterprise could blossom," says Jan Randolph, head of sovereign risk at Global Insight. "In a sense, they've succeeded."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16241340/site/newsweek/

 

[Infinity]

It's hard for me to believe that people are still claiming that we're winning in Iraq. The place is a messed up cesspool, terrorists all over the place.............and we're still winnning? Yeah, sure...............

Yea same here.

Either these people have too much of an ego to admit they were wrong, or they are just plain stupid.

 

[Varitek]

More crimes against human rights, the constitution, and individual American citizens:

link

Excerpts:

One night in mid-April, the steel door clanked shut on detainee No. 200343 at Camp Cropper, the United States military’s maximum-security detention site in Baghdad.

American guards arrived at the man’s cell periodically over the next several days, shackled his hands and feet, blindfolded him and took him to a padded room for interrogation, the detainee said. After an hour or two, he was returned to his cell, fatigued but unable to sleep.

The fluorescent lights in his cell were never turned off, he said. At most hours, heavy metal or country music blared in the corridor. He said he was rousted at random times without explanation and made to stand in his cell. Even lying down, he said, he was kept from covering his face to block out the light, noise and cold. And when he was released after 97 days he was exhausted, depressed and scared.

....

The detainee was Donald Vance, a 29-year-old Navy veteran from Chicago who went to Iraq as a security contractor. He wound up as a whistle-blower, passing information to the F.B.I. about suspicious activities at the Iraqi security firm where he worked, including what he said was possible illegal weapons trading.

But when American soldiers raided the company at his urging, Mr. Vance and another American who worked there were detained as suspects by the military, which was unaware that Mr. Vance was an informer, according to officials and military documents.

....

On April 15, feeling threatened, Mr. Vance phoned the United States Embassy in Baghdad. A military rescue team rushed to the security company. Again, Mr. Vance described its operations, according to military records.

“Internee Vance indicated a large weapons cache was in the compound in the house next door,” Capt. Plymouth D. Nelson, a military detention official, wrote in a memorandum dated April 22, after the men were detained. “A search of the house and grounds revealed two large weapons caches.”

On the evening of April 15, they met with American officials at the embassy and stayed overnight. But just before dawn, they were awakened, handcuffed with zip ties and made to wear goggles with lenses covered by duct tape. Put into a Humvee, Mr. Vance said he asked for a vest and helmet, and was refused.

....

Their legal rights, laid out in a letter from Lt. Col. Bradley J. Huestis of the Army, the president of the status board, allowed them to attend the hearing and testify. However, under Rule 3, the letter said, “You do not have the right to legal counsel, but you may have a personal representative assist you at the hearing if the personal representative is reasonably available.”

Mr. Vance and Mr. Ertel were permitted at their hearings only because they were Americans, Lieutenant Fracasso said. The cases of all other detainees are reviewed without the detainees present, she said. In both types of cases, defense lawyers are not allowed to attend because the hearings are not criminal proceedings, she said.

Lieutenant Fracasso said that currently there were three Americans in military custody in Iraq. The military does not identify detainees.

Mr. Vance and Mr. Ertel had separate hearings. They said their requests to be each other’s personal representative had been denied.

....

On May 7, the Camp Cropper detention board met again, without either man present, and determined that Mr. Ertel was “an innocent civilian,” according to the spokeswoman for detention operations. It took authorities 18 more days to release him.

....

The military has never explained why it continued to consider Mr. Vance a security threat, except to say that officials decided to release him after further review of his case.

 

[Irvine511]

General John Abazaid just had a very important testimony before congress a few weeks ago where he defended the current strategy and mentioned he had just recently discussed the issue with ALL the divisional commanders in Iraq. Gates has yet to consult them, but has said their views will play the biggest role in his recomendations to the president. These are not 2004 assements, a year I might add that saw the insurgency at its peak, and US casaulty levels at their highest.

and then we have this ...



[q]White House, Joint Chiefs At Odds on Adding Troops
By Robin Wright and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, December 19, 2006; A01

The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.

Sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops for a mission of possibly six to eight months is one of the central proposals on the table of the White House policy review to reverse the steady deterioration in Iraq. The option is being discussed as an element in a range of bigger packages, the officials said.

But the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House review is not public.

The chiefs have taken a firm stand, the sources say, because they believe the strategy review will be the most important decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion.

At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.

The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.

The informal but well-armed Shiite militias, the Joint Chiefs have also warned, may simply melt back into society during a U.S. surge and wait until the troops are withdrawn -- then reemerge and retake the streets of Baghdad and other cities.

Even the announcement of a time frame and mission -- such as for six months to try to secure volatile Baghdad -- could play to armed factions by allowing them to game out the new U.S. strategy, the chiefs have warned the White House.

The idea of a much larger military deployment for a longer mission is virtually off the table, at least so far, mainly for logistics reasons, say officials familiar with the debate. Any deployment of 40,000 to 50,000 would force the Pentagon to redeploy troops who were scheduled to go home.[/q]

 

[Irvine511]

[q]Pentagon Cites Success Of Anti-U.S. Forces in Iraq
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 19, 2006; A01

The Pentagon said yesterday that violence in Iraq soared this fall to its highest level on record and acknowledged that anti-U.S. fighters have achieved a "strategic success" by unleashing a spiral of sectarian killings by Sunni and Shiite death squads that threatens Iraq's political institutions.

In its most pessimistic report yet on progress in Iraq, the Pentagon described a nation listing toward civil war, with violence at record highs of 959 attacks per week, declining public confidence in government and "little progress" toward political reconciliation.

"The violence has escalated at an unbelievably rapid pace," said Marine Lt. Gen. John F. Sattler, director of strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who briefed journalists on the report. "We have to get ahead of that violent cycle, break that continuous chain of sectarian violence. . . . That is the premier challenge facing us now."

The rapid spread of violence this year has thrown the government's future into jeopardy, Pentagon officials said.

"The tragedy of Iraq is that in February in Samarra, the insurgents achieved what one could call a partial strategic success -- namely, to trigger what we've been dealing with ever since, which is a cycle of sectarian violence, that indeed is shaking the institutions," Peter W. Rodman, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, said at the briefing.

He was referring to the Feb. 22 bombing of the Askariya mosque, a holy Shiite shrine, in the ethnically mixed city of Samarra north of Baghdad.

Rodman said insurgent efforts to derail the political process, which he called "the strategic prize," had previously failed. But in 2006, he said, insurgents succeeded in hampering the new government from "getting on its feet."

The 50-page Pentagon report, mandated quarterly by Congress, also stated for the first time that the Shiite militia of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has replaced al-Qaeda as "the most dangerous" force propelling Iraq toward civil war, as Shiite militants kill more civilians than do terrorists.

And this report, unlike the prior one, omitted any explicit statement that Iraq is not in a civil war. Sunni and Shiite militias, aided at times by government forces, are gaining legitimacy by protecting neighborhoods and providing relief supplies, it said.

"The situation in Iraq is far more complex than the term 'civil war' implies," said the report, titled "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq." "Conditions that could lead to civil war do exist," it said, but added that the Iraqi government, backed by the U.S.-led coalition, "could mitigate further movement toward civil war and curb sectarian violence."

Driven by sectarian fighting, and a Ramadan surge, attack levels in Iraq hit record highs in all categories nationwide as the number of U.S. and coalition casualties surged 32 percent from mid-August to mid-November, compared with the previous three months, the report said. Over the same period, the number of attacks per week rose 22 percent, from 784 to 959.

Iraqi civilian casualties also increased, "almost entirely the result of murders and executions," the report said. Since January, before the mosque bombing, ethno-sectarian executions rose from 180 to 1,028 in October; ethno-sectarian incidents rose from 63 to 996 over the same period.

The escalation of violence in Iraq comes despite increased troop levels -- including a higher-than-anticipated U.S. force level of 140,000 troops and a growing contingent of Iraqi security forces, which this month are projected to reach the goal of 325,000 trained and equipped.

The report noted problems with Iraqi forces, however, saying the number of soldiers and police actually "present for duty" is far lower than the number trained and equipped.

Subtracting those Iraqi forces killed and wounded, and those who have quit the force, only 280,000 are "available for duty," Sattler said. About 30 percent of that number are "on leave" at a time, he said, leaving fewer than 196,000 on the job.

Iraqi police forces in particular are increasingly corrupt, according to the report, which says that some police in Baghdad have supported Shiite death squads. The police "facilitated freedom of movement and provided advance warning of upcoming operations," it said. "This is a major reason for the increased levels of murders and executions."

As a result of mass defections or police units being pulled off duty, the number of Iraqi police battalions rated as having "lead responsibility" in their areas fell from six to two, the report said, although officials said that number has since increased.

The Iraqi army has steadily increased the number of its battalions in the lead, from 57 in May to 91 in November, although some units have experienced high attrition when ordered to deploy to different regions of Iraq, such as Baghdad and Anbar.

Sattler implied that no number of U.S. or Iraqi troops would be great enough to quash the revenge killings. "I don't know how many forces you could push into a country, either U.S. or coalition or Iraqi forces, that could cover the entire country, where these death squads wouldn't find somebody," he said.

Indeed, the report documented that major U.S. and Iraqi military operations in the fall did not quell sectarian violence in Baghdad. Attacks dipped in August, but rebounded strongly in September after death squads adapted to the increased U.S. and Iraqi presence.

Asked in light of that whether they supported a surge of thousands of U.S. troops into Baghdad, one of several options under consideration by a White House review of Iraq strategy, Sattler and Rodman declined to offer an opinion. The report said the U.S. military plans to steadily pull out of cities and consolidate its bases. Meanwhile, the remaining 16 of Iraq's 18 provinces are expected to be placed under Iraqi government control in 2007.

At the same time, Iraqi public concern about a civil war has grown, while confidence in the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has dropped significantly as his efforts at political reconciliation have shown "little progress," the report said.

Nationwide, 60 percent of Iraqi people expressed a perception of worsening security conditions.

The sectarian violence has also led to an increasing number of internal refugees, as about 460,000 people have been displaced since February, the report said, citing Iraqi statistics. The United Nations estimates that more than 3,000 Iraqis are leaving the country each day.[/q]