Irvine511 said:
see, no one thinks this.
you think that others think it, but that's about it.
you consistently put intentions and words into other people's mouths and claim they've said things that they haven't said, and all those things are entirely self-serving and, ironically, as black-and-white, as much the flip side of the same sclerotic coin that you keep arguing.
You consistently refuse to mention any of the consequences or cost to the strategy you would like to see pursued in Iraq as well consistently not mentioning any of the accomplishments of the coalition in Iraq. Afghanistan has many of the same fundamental problems, but you won't answer any questions about Afghanistan and seem willing to pursue the same strategy there, but not in Iraq.
i don't understand why you'd want to continue pursuing a strategy that has clearly not worked.
The strategy has been working and is the only one that is capable of working. Simply abandoning Iraq is not even a strategy.
there is no basis for a serious and lasting political settlement in Iraq.
That is in the process of being formed at the moment, and its sad that some people want to ruin Iraq's chances of achieving it.
it is no closer to existing than it was in mid-2007
Its light years ahead of where it was in mid-2007. Many former Sunni-insurgents are now working with US military forces and Iraqi military forces in hunting down other insurgents and Al Quada terrorist. The government is making progress on new debathification law, and provincial elections will likely be held this fall. Sunni's and Kurds in the government were impressed with Maliki's attempts to go after Sadr's thugs and other cirminal elements in Basra.
and the recent clashes between the government and the Madhi army simply show the extent to which the Iraqi government and it's troops are dysfunctional.
I was impressed given that they conducted much of the operation independently, moving nearly 15,000 troops hundreds of miles in an organized fashion, and succeeded in actually freeing 25% of the criminally controlled area of the city.
They certainly bit off more than they could chew at this stage, but given the scale of the operation and how independently it was conducted of US forces, it is light years ahead of where the Iraqi military was 2 years ago when much smaller multi-company or multi-batalion level operations would come close to falling apart even with extensive US support.
But I'm sure you'll continue to call anything and everything the Iraqi's do a failure and be unwilling or unable to either recognize progress or at least aknowledge it.
the declared goal of the surge has failed.
The surge is working and the results on the ground show it. Lives have been saved. The casualty rate in most of Iraq is down to 2003 levels. US casualties over the past 6 months are the lowest they have been the entire war. There has been more political movement at both the national and local level than at any time over the past 5 years.
But because someone thinks that a nation building and counterinsurgency exercise of this scale can be completely wrapped up in 18 months, its considered a failure.
all that you are doing by keeping troops and treasure in the middle of mesopotamia is pause a centrifugal disintegration.
By not withdrawing pre-maturely, your allowing the Iraqi government and military to successfuly develop the capacity to take over the job that US troops and civilian personal are currently doing for them. Your preventing Al Quada from establishing a base in the country as they attempt to rebuild and develop. Your reducing the ability of other countries to operate and cause problems in Iraq during a time in which it is unable to defend itself. Your creating the conditions for a stable government, that is not a threat to its neighbors and prosperous economy which will go along way to ending the insurgency and reducing tensions.
Iraq has problems well beyond the capabilities of the US military. they are soldiers, they are not miracle workers.
The US military, other coalition military and civilian workers continue to prove on a daily basis what you have longed claimed is impossible is in fact possible and happening as we speak.
Iraq is no better off today than it was in 2005, and in many ways it was worse
Much of the casualty data as well as the economic indicators show that is not true. Most US troops say that conditions in terms of combat are more like 2003 now. Iraq's per capita GDP is more than 4 times that of Afghanistan and is closing in on Syria. Iraq will likely pass Syria in per-capita GDP in 2009 or 2010. Oil production per day has steadily improved. The Iraqi military is light years ahead of where they were in 2005. The elected Iraqi government did not even exist in 2005. Now you have an elected government that is making progress on key benchmarks.
what the surge has done is made it even harder for us to leave Iraq. if that doesn't qualify a military tatic as a failure, what else does?
The surge has helped speed up the development process and knocked out specific problems that were impeding development. The worse the situation in Iraq is, the harder it would be to leave. Ironically, because of the rapid success experienced during the Surge, the US is much closer potentially to a partial withdrawal of pre-surge forces than at any time during the conflict.
it's not working. the US is now the new Saddam Hussein, the glue that's holding together an Arab Yugoslavia.
Its working, but you have to step away from the democratic talking points and objectively take a look at some figures and facts on the ground, in addition to appreciating the scale of this task and the time the operation needs to succeed.
Iraq has yet to go through anything like the internal hell that Yugoslavia, in particular Bosnia experienced. But look at what US intervention helped achieve in the former Yugoslavia. Just as many people said the US operations in Bosnia would never bring peace there and that the people would be fighting there for the next thousand years. The opponents of US military intervention and occupation in Bosnia and Kosovo were wrong, so will be those who oppose the operation in Iraq provided the United States does not withdraw pre-maturely.
but why not continue. i'm sure we can borrow another trillion from the Chinese. and what's another 4,000 US soldiers? or 600 dead Iraqis a month (and this is a reduction!)
Again, what do you think the cost and consequences of essentially abandoning Iraq would be. How many US soldiers would have to die when were forced to re-deploy to Iraq because of a regional war, mass genocide, another 9/11 launched from inside Iraq by a relatively safe established Al Quada base there. How much money do you think a worse terror attack than 9-11 or a large re-deployment of US troops under any number of conditions brought about by a pre-mature withdrawal of US troops would cost? How many Iraqi's will die when you suddenly yank all the US troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible?
While were at it, how long do you think the United States should remain in Afghanistan? What is the end point there? If you think Iraq has ethnic and sectarian problems, Afghanistan's potential problems dwarf Iraq's in that area. Kabul does not have nearly the capability of the government in Baghdad, does that mean the US should pick up and leave?