[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
All the rest of the other bullshit, WMD’s and Saddam being a bad guy and all the rest of that was just buttering up all the morons who forgot what happened in the previous decade, when our foreign policy consisted of sticking our fingers in our ears and saying LALALALALA. [/quote]
Irrefutable proof that there are men on the moon.
Top Republican urges Iraq pullout
An influential Republican senator has called for the withdrawal of some 5,000 US troops from Iraq by the year’s end.
Senator John Warner, former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the US needed to show that its commitment to Iraq was not open-ended.
US troops, he said, had enhanced security in Iraq but had been let down by the Iraqi government.
He spoke after the release of a US intelligence report which said Iraqi leaders could not govern effectively.
The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) acknowledged some military successes since January, following the “surge” in US troop numbers.
But it also said Iraqi security forces were still not capable of operating without support from American forces, and divisions between Sunnis and Shias continued to drive political instability.
It predicted that the situation would only get more precarious over the next six to 12 months.
Ever since the Bush Administration coined the nonsensical term “cut and run” candidates from both parties have been hesitant to commit to withdrawing our troops. At the very least they are suggesting some sort of phased withdrawal.
However when the Clinton Administration deployed troops to Somalia - it was the Republican Senators and Congressmen that argued for immediate withdrawal.
We left Somalia having never completed the mission and once we left, Somalia went about it’s business just like we had never been there in the first place. We should have never gone to Somalia in the first place but there was no point in staying any longer.
Reagan deployed Marines to Beirut in order to bring stability to a country with a newly formed government and suppress the fighting between Christians and Muslims.
After 18 months Reagan decided to withdraw all troops because “Once the terrorist attacks started there was no way that we could really contribute to the original mission by staying there as a target just bunkering down and waiting for further attacks”.
We should have never gone to Lebanon in the first place but there was no point in staying any longer.
Now in Iraq we have a similar situation except that we are engaged in a war that has put a severe strain on our economy, military, and foreign relations. Could this also be a war that we should have never started in the first place and is there really a point in staying any longer?
Nobody wants us in Iraq anymore so why are we there? For all of you who are ready to pull out your doomsday caps and start marching around the cities with your “end of the world” signs maybe you should consider the other conflicts we have engaged and wisely withdrawn from in the Middle East.
You guys can keep following Sean Hannity around blindly and spouting your armageddon prophecies around here but the fact of the matter is we are going to exit Iraq anyways and we aren’t making that country any better in the meantime.
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
Ever since the Bush Administration coined the nonsensical term “cut and run” candidates from both parties have been hesitant to commit to withdrawing our troops. At the very least they are suggesting some sort of phased withdrawal.
However when the Clinton Administration deployed troops to Somalia - it was the Republican Senators and Congressmen that argued for immediate withdrawal.
We left Somalia having never completed the mission and once we left, Somalia went about it’s business just like we had never been there in the first place. We should have never gone to Somalia in the first place but there was no point in staying any longer.
Reagan deployed Marines to Beirut in order to bring stability to a country with a newly formed government and suppress the fighting between Christians and Muslims.
After 18 months Reagan decided to withdraw all troops because “Once the terrorist attacks started there was no way that we could really contribute to the original mission by staying there as a target just bunkering down and waiting for further attacks”.
We should have never gone to Lebanon in the first place but there was no point in staying any longer.
Now in Iraq we have a similar situation except that we are engaged in a war that has put a severe strain on our economy, military, and foreign relations. Could this also be a war that we should have never started in the first place and is there really a point in staying any longer?
Nobody wants us in Iraq anymore so why are we there? For all of you who are ready to pull out your doomsday caps and start marching around the cities with your “end of the world” signs maybe you should consider the other conflicts we have engaged and wisely withdrawn from in the Middle East.
You guys can keep following Sean Hannity around blindly and spouting your armageddon prophecies around here but the fact of the matter is we are going to exit Iraq anyways and we aren’t making that country any better in the meantime.[/quote]
Do you have thoughts - read: do you want to quess - how things in Iraq would develop without american presence? What would Syria and Iran do? You seem to be willing to share your thoughts, and I’m interested to hear them.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Do you have thoughts - read: do you want to quess - how things in Iraq would develop without american presence? What would Syria and Iran do? You seem to be willing to share your thoughts, and I’m interested to hear them. [/quote]
You didn’t ask me, but here it goes any way…
None of the bordering countries (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey…) will be happy about having chaos at their doorstep.
Iran can’t make a single move because it’s already in a tough position on the international scene. The majority of Iraqis being Shi’ites, and Al-Sadr being close to Tehran, Iran will see its sphere of influence naturally extended if a democratic Iraq blossoms. But that’s not gonna happen. Partly because Iraq is an artificial country in the first place.
Iranians have no problems with Sunnis, but Saudis have big issues with Shi’ites knocking at their backdoor. Kinda like the Turks don’t like the idea of Kurds demanding better treatment.
If I was to guess, I’d say the Saudis will make the first move and up their support for the Iraqi Sunnis (may be even including Al-Qaeda, who knows?). The Kurds won’t be too comfortable, and will aspire to have their own state, something the Turks are certain to repress militarily.
We are then left with a Shi’ite group that will enter the political sphere en masse after the US withdraws. So in effect, the Shi’ites will get proper representation, while the Sunnis (and their Saudi friends) start trying to destabilize the country.
The north will still be a blood bath, expect that this time, it’ll be the Turks instead of Saddam doing the killing. The Turks were always efficient at exterminating Kurds and Armenians, so it shouldn’t really be a surprise to anyone.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Do you have thoughts - read: do you want to quess - how things in Iraq would develop without american presence? What would Syria and Iran do? You seem to be willing to share your thoughts, and I’m interested to hear them.
[/quote]
Well as far as the doomsday forecasts of Iran and Al Qaeda taking over and ruling the world - I think those are pretty far fetched. When the Pentagon held war games developing the scenario of withdrawal they came to the same conclusion.
With our empowering and arming of the Kurds I think for sure there will be problems in Northern Iraq.
If the Kurds try to claim their own piece of land I think we will have a similar situation as Palestine/Israel except shorter and more violent because Turkey is not going to let that happen. If the Kurds ask for the US to help and if we do - then we are going to open a whole new can of worms; same exact mess, different location.
I think we need to try to work with Turkey and the Kurds to have some sort of diplomatic solution but that whole situation has a real ugly potential.
The bloodshed will probably get worse before it gets better but hopefully it will be short lived. Without the presence of American troops we will probably see Tribal Leaders taking the initiative and the government working out it’s own problems without relying on the US.
The civil war between the Sunnis and Shi’ites may get worse or it may get better. Right now in Iraq the mindset is on defense and protection - Shi’ites are sick of getting killed and they’ve been ignoring Sistani’s calls for peace. That may change once they realize the Americans are gone and nobody is going to deal with all of their enemies for them.
If we follow the advice from the Baker Commission then we will open discussions with both Iran and Syria. We should.
I think the whole situation is a little reminiscent of what happened in Lebanon. The people of Iraq are not stupid - they can settle their civil war just like we settled our’s.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Top Republican urges Iraq pullout
An influential Republican senator has called for the withdrawal of some 5,000 US troops from Iraq by the year’s end.
Senator John Warner, former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the US needed to show that its commitment to Iraq was not open-ended.
US troops, he said, had enhanced security in Iraq but had been let down by the Iraqi government.
He spoke after the release of a US intelligence report which said Iraqi leaders could not govern effectively.
The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) acknowledged some military successes since January, following the “surge” in US troop numbers.
But it also said Iraqi security forces were still not capable of operating without support from American forces, and divisions between Sunnis and Shias continued to drive political instability.
It predicted that the situation would only get more precarious over the next six to 12 months.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6961494.stm[/quote]
And another Democrat notes that progress is being made in Iraq:
[i]Our troops have earned more time
By Brian Baird
Special to The Times
The invasion of Iraq may be one of the worst foreign-policy mistakes in the history of our nation. As tragic and costly as that mistake has been, a precipitous or premature withdrawal of our forces now has the potential to turn the initial errors into an even greater problem just as success looks possible.
As a Democrat who voted against the war from the outset and who has been frankly critical of the administration and the post-invasion strategy, I am convinced by the evidence that the situation has at long last begun to change substantially for the better. I believe Iraq could have a positive future. Our diplomatic and military leaders in Iraq, their current strategy, and most importantly, our troops and the Iraqi people themselves, deserve our continued support and more time to succeed.
I understand the desire of many of our citizens and my colleagues in Congress to bring the troops home as soon as possible. The costs have been horrific for our soldiers, their families, the Iraqi people and the economy. If we keep our troops on the ground we will lose more lives, continue to spend billions each week, and, given the history and complex interests of the region, there is no certainty that our efforts will succeed in the long run. We must be absolutely honest about these costs and risks and I am both profoundly saddened and angry that we are where we are.
Knowing all this, how can someone who opposed the war now call for continuing the new directions that have been taken in Iraq? The answer is that the people, strategies and facts on the ground have changed for the better and those changes justify changing our position on what should be done.
To understand the magnitude of the challenge and why it is taking time for things to improve, consider what happened as the result of the invasion and post-invasion decisions. Tens of thousands of Iraqi lives have been lost and hundreds of thousands have fled the country. We dismantled the civil government, police, armed forces and the nation’s infrastructure. We closed critical industries and businesses, putting as many as a half million people, including those who best knew how to run the infrastructure and factories, out of work and filled with resentment. We left arms caches unguarded and the borders open to infiltration. We allowed schools, hospitals and public buildings to be looted and created conditions that fanned sectarian conflicts.
It is just not realistic to expect Iraq or any other nation to be able to rebuild its government, infrastructure, security forces and economy in just four years. Despite the enormous challenges, the fact is, the situation on the ground in Iraq is improving in multiple and important ways.
Regardless of one’s politics or position on the invasion, this must be recognized and welcomed as good news.
Our soldiers are reclaiming ground and capturing or killing high-priority targets on a daily basis. Sheiks and tribal groups are uniting to fight against the extremists and have virtually eliminated al-Qaida from certain areas. The Iraqi military and police are making progress in their training, taking more responsibility for bringing the fight to the insurgents and realizing important victories. Businesses and factories that were once closed are being reopened and people are working again. The infrastructure is gradually being repaired and markets are returning to life.
Without question, these gains are still precarious and there are very real and troubling problems with the current Iraqi political regime and parliament at the national level.
The Iraqis are addressing these problems along with our own State Department but these issues will not easily be resolved and could, if not solved, throw the success of the entire endeavor into jeopardy.
Those problems notwithstanding, to walk away now from the recent gains would be to lose all the progress that has been purchased at such a dear price in lives and dollars. As one soldier said to me, “We have lost so many good people and invested so much, It just doesn’t make sense to quit now when we’re finally making progress. I want to go home as much as anyone else, but I want this mission to succeed and I’m willing to do what it takes. I just want to know the people back home know we’re making progress and support us.”
From a strategic perspective, if we leave now, Iraq is likely to break into even worse sectarian conflict. The extremist regime in Iran will expand its influence in Iraq and elsewhere in the region. Terrorist organizations, the people who cut off the heads of civilians, stone women to death, and preach hatred and intolerance, will be emboldened by our departure. In the ensuing chaos, the courageous Iraqi civilians, soldiers and political leaders who have counted on us will be left to the slaughter. No American who cares about human rights, security and our moral standing in the world can be comfortable letting these things happen.
Our citizens should know that this belief is shared by virtually every national leader in the Middle East. There is also near-unanimity among Iraq’s neighbors and regional leaders that partition of Iraq is not an option.
“You may think you can walk away from Iraq,” I was told by one leader. “We cannot. We live here and have to deal with the consequences of what your nation has done. So will you eventually, if the Iraq conflict spreads and extremists bring us down as well.”
I do not know the details of what the September report will contain, but I trust and respect Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker. I have seen firsthand the progress they have made, and I firmly believe we must give them the time and resources they need to succeed.
Though we would all wish this conflict would end tomorrow, it will not. We are going to have to begin to withdraw troops next spring because our equipment and our soldiers are wearing out. However, even with the progress that has been made of late, we will have a significant military and civilian role in Iraq and the region for some time to come. That is the price we must all pay for the decision to invade. We cannot shirk that responsibility.
Progress is being made and there is real reason for hope. It would be a tragic waste and lasting strategic blunder to let the hard-fought and important gains slip away, leaving chaos behind to haunt us and our allies for many years to come.
Rep. Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, represents Washington’s 3rd Congressional District.[/i]
Also, here is the most recent National Intelligence Estimate:
http://www.npr.org/documents/2007/aug/20070823_nie.pdf
Recall that due to the time it takes to aggregate and parse data, this would reflect the conditions of a few months ago.
[quote]lixy wrote:
If I was to guess, I’d say the Saudis will make the first move and up their support for the Iraqi Sunnis (may be even including Al-Qaeda, who knows?).
[/quote]
This is a really good point. I don’t think we need to worry about Iran as much as we do Saudi Arabia.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
And another Democrat notes that progress is being made in Iraq:
Rep. Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, represents Washington’s 3rd Congressional District.[/i]
[/quote]
Brian Baird, you say? Let’s see…
#Voted YES on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
Hmmm…in any other country, this guy is pretty far off on the right.
Top general likely to urge troop cut
WASHINGTON – The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half, potentially creating a rift with top White House officials and other military commanders over the course of the war.
Administration and military officials say Marine Gen. Peter Pace is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military. This assessment could collide with one being prepared by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, calling for the U.S. to maintain higher troop levels for 2008 and beyond.
[quote]lixy wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
And another Democrat notes that progress is being made in Iraq:
Rep. Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, represents Washington’s 3rd Congressional District.[/i]
Brian Baird, you say? Let’s see…
#Voted YES on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
Hmmm…in any other country, this guy is pretty far off on the right.[/quote]
Ummm, I note the first response doesn’t deal at all with what was said, but tries to smear the man holding the opinion with insinuations. I believe there’s a term for that: ad hominem.
Secondly, those votes aren’t related to Iraq – Baird voted against it at the outset, and has been critical since. He still isn’t convinced it was the best idea, as you can tell from reading the piece - but he is paying attention with an open mind to what’s progressing.
Thirdly, I’d like to see those bills. Obviously one needs to be a flaming right winger to think the military should be given equal opportunity to recruit. The horror.
Voting to fund foreign operations under Clinton – Shocking!
Some of your others are actually liberal positions – see the first two listed.
And voting not to cut off funds for the troops, and to voice general or specific support for the troops, divorced from the administration: Shocking!
Obviously a closet neo-con. Or perhaps a relatively left-of-center Democrat who wants to do what he thinks is best going forward?
New ‘surge’ report paints grim picture
WASHINGTON - While there have been some improvements in Iraq’s security situation over the past seven months, the level of overall violence remains “high”, with only modest improvements possible over the next six to 12 months, according to a study by the US intelligence community released on Thursday.
At the same time, prospects for a political settlement to Iraq’s multiple internal conflicts - particularly between the Shi’ite majority
and the Sunni minority - appear bleak. The Shi’ite-led government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is likely to “become more precarious over the next six to 12 months”, according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which reflects the consensus view of Washington’s 16 intelligence agencies.
“Iraq’s sectarian groups remain unreconciled; AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] retains the ability to conduct high-profile attacks; and to date, Iraqi political leaders remain unable to govern effectively,” according to the 10-page “Key Judgments”, the only section of the report that was declassified.
“We assess, to the extent that coalition forces continue to conduct robust counterinsurgency operations and mentor and support the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), that Iraq’s security will continue to improve modestly during the next six to 12 months, but that levels of insurgent and sectarian violence will remain high and the Iraqi government will continue to struggle to achieve national-level political reconciliation and improved governance,” it said.
The NIE, titled “Prospects for Iraq’s Stability: Some Security Progress but Political Reconciliation Elusive”, comes as the administration of US President George W Bush is preparing its own report on how well its “surge” strategy - which added 30,000 US troops to the 135,000 who were already in Iraq in January - has been working.
In other news, the New York Times reports the number of Iraqis fleeing their homes due to sectarian violence has soared since the so-called surge began in February. The UN’s International Organization for Migration found that in recent months the rate of displacement in Baghdad had increased by as much as a factor of 20.
JeffR, is that what you mean by “win”?
[quote]lixy wrote:
New ‘surge’ report paints grim picture
WASHINGTON - While there have been some improvements in Iraq’s security situation over the past seven months, the level of overall violence remains “high”, with only modest improvements possible over the next six to 12 months, according to a study by the US intelligence community released on Thursday.
At the same time, prospects for a political settlement to Iraq’s multiple internal conflicts - particularly between the Shi’ite majority
and the Sunni minority - appear bleak. The Shi’ite-led government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is likely to “become more precarious over the next six to 12 months”, according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which reflects the consensus view of Washington’s 16 intelligence agencies.
“Iraq’s sectarian groups remain unreconciled; AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] retains the ability to conduct high-profile attacks; and to date, Iraqi political leaders remain unable to govern effectively,” according to the 10-page “Key Judgments”, the only section of the report that was declassified.
“We assess, to the extent that coalition forces continue to conduct robust counterinsurgency operations and mentor and support the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), that Iraq’s security will continue to improve modestly during the next six to 12 months, but that levels of insurgent and sectarian violence will remain high and the Iraqi government will continue to struggle to achieve national-level political reconciliation and improved governance,” it said.
The NIE, titled “Prospects for Iraq’s Stability: Some Security Progress but Political Reconciliation Elusive”, comes as the administration of US President George W Bush is preparing its own report on how well its “surge” strategy - which added 30,000 US troops to the 135,000 who were already in Iraq in January - has been working.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IH25Ak01.html[/quote]
Hmm, that’s one way to spin it. I’ll note your LA Times piece is a news story, not an opinion piece. Let’s think about what they leave out.
First, here’s the NIE itself again: http://www.npr.org/documents/2007/aug/20070823_nie.pdf
Here are the key judgments from the last page of the NIE:
[i]There have been measurable but uneven improvements in Iraq’s security situation since our last National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in January 2007. The steep escalation of rates of violence has been checked for now, and overall attack levels across Iraq have fallen during seven of the last nine weeks. Coalition forces, working with Iraqi forces, tribal elements, and some Sunni insurgents, have reduced al-Qa’ida in Iraq’s (AQI) capabilities, restricted its freedom of movement, and denied it grassroots support in some areas. However, the level of overall violence, including attacks on and casualties among civilians, remains high; Iraq�??s sectarian groups remain unreconciled; AQI retains the ability to conduct high-profile attacks; and to date, Iraqi political leaders remain unable to govern effectively. There have been modest improvements in economic output, budget execution, and government finances but fundamental structural problems continue to prevent sustained progress in economic growth and living conditions.
We assess, to the extent that Coalition forces continue to conduct robust counterinsurgency operations and mentor and support the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), that Iraq’s security will continue to improve modestly during the next six to 12 months but that levels of insurgent and sectarian violence will remain high and the Iraqi Government will continue to struggle to achieve national-level political reconciliation and improved governance. Broadly accepted political compromises required for sustained security, long-term political progress, and economic development are unlikely to emerge unless there is a fundamental shift in the factors driving Iraqi political and security developments.
Political and security trajectories in Iraq continue to be driven primarily by Shia insecurity about retaining political dominance, widespread Sunni unwillingness to accept a diminished political status, factional rivalries within the sectarian communities resulting in armed conflict, and the actions of extremists such as AQI and elements of the Sadrist Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM) militia that try to fuel sectarian violence. Two new drivers have emerged since the January Estimate: expanded Sunni opposition to AQI and Iraqi expectation of a Coalition draw down. Perceptions that the Coalition is withdrawing probably will encourage factions anticipating a power vacuum to seek local security solutions that could intensify sectarian violence and intra-sectarian competition. At the same time, fearing a Coalition withdrawal, some tribal elements and Sunni groups probably will continue to seek accommodation with the Coalition to strengthen themselves for a post- Coalition security environment.
�?� Sunni Arab resistance to AQI has expanded in the last six to nine months but has not yet translated into broad Sunni Arab support for the Iraqi Government or widespread willingness to work with the Shia. The Iraqi Government’s Shia leaders fear these groups will ultimately side with armed opponents of the government, but the Iraqi Government has supported some initiatives to incorporate those rejecting AQI into Interior Ministry and Defense Ministry elements.
�?�Intra-Shia conflict involving factions competing for power and resources probably will intensify as Iraqis assume control of provincial security. In Basrah, violence has escalated with the draw down of Coalition forces there. Local militias show few signs of reducing their competition for control of valuable oil resources and territory.
�?� The Sunni Arab community remains politically fragmented, and we see no prospective leaders that might engage in meaningful dialogue and deliver on national agreements.
�?� Kurdish leaders remain focused on protecting the autonomy of the Kurdish region and reluctant to compromise on key issues.
The IC assesses that the emergence of “bottom-up” security initiatives, principally among Sunni Arabs and focused on combating AQI, represent the best prospect for improved security over the next six to 12 months, but we judge these initiatives will only translate into widespread political accommodation and enduring stability if the Iraqi Government accepts and supports them. A multi-stage process involving the Iraqi Government providing support and legitimacy for such initiatives could foster over the longer term political reconciliation between the participating Sunni Arabs and the national government. We also assess that under some conditions “bottom-up initiatives” could pose risks to the Iraqi Government.
�?� We judge such initiatives are most likely to succeed in predominantly Sunni Arab areas,where the presence of AQI elements has been significant, tribal networks and identities are strong, the local government is weak, sectarian conflict is low, and the ISF tolerate Sunni initiatives, as illustrated by Al Anbar Province.
�?� Sunni Arab resistance to AQI has expanded, and neighborhood security groups,occasionally consisting of mixed Shia-Sunni units, have proliferated in the past several months. These trends, combined with increased Coalition operations, have eroded AQI’s operational presence and capabilities in some areas.
�?� Such initiatives, if not fully exploited by the Iraqi Government, could over time also shift greater power to the regions, undermine efforts to impose central authority, andreinvigorate armed opposition to the Baghdad government.
�?� Coalition military operations focused on improving population security, both in and outside of Baghdad, will remain critical to the success of local and regional efforts until sectarian fears are diminished enough to enable the Shia-led Iraqi Government to fully support the efforts of local Sunni groups.
Iraqi Security Forces involved in combined operations with Coalition forces have performed adequately, and some units have demonstrated increasing professional competence. However, we judge that the ISF have not improved enough to conduct major operations independent of the Coalition on a sustained basis in multiple locations and that the ISF remain reliant on the Coalition for important aspects of logistics and combat support.
�?� The deployment of ISF units from throughout Iraq to Baghdad in support of security operations known as Operation Fardh al-Qanun marks significant progress since last year when large groups of soldiers deserted rather than depart their home areas, but Coalition and Iraqi Government support remains critical.
�?� Recently, the Iraqi military planned and conducted two joint Army and police large-scale security operations in Baghdad, demonstrating an improving capacity for operational command and control.
�?� Militia and insurgent influences continue to undermine the reliability of some ISF units,and political interference in security operations continues to undermine Coalition and ISF efforts.
�?� The Maliki government is implementing plans to expand the Iraqi Army and to increase its overall personnel strength to address critical gaps, but we judge that significant security gains from those programs will take at least six to 12 months, and probably longer, to materialize.
The IC assesses that the Iraqi Government will become more precarious over the next six to 12 months because of criticism by other members of the major Shia coalition (the Unified Iraqi Alliance, UIA), Grand Ayatollah Sistani, and other Sunni and Kurdish parties. Divisions between Maliki and the Sadrists have increased, and Shia factions have explored alternative coalitions aimed at constraining Maliki.
�?� The strains of the security situation and absence of key leaders have stalled internal political debates, slowed national decisionmaking, and increased Maliki’s vulnerability to alternative coalitions.
�?� We judge that Maliki will continue to benefit from recognition among Shia leaders that searching for a replacement could paralyze the government.
Population displacement resulting from sectarian violence continues, imposing burdens on provincial governments and some neighboring states and increasing the danger of destabilizing influences spreading across Iraq’s borders over the next six to 12 months. The polarization of communities is most evident in Baghdad, where the Shia are a clear majority in more than half of all neighborhoods and Sunni areas have become surrounded by predominately Shia districts. Where population displacements have led to significant sectarian separation, conflict levels have diminished to some extent because warring communities find it more difficult to penetrate communal enclaves.
The IC assesses that Iraq’s neighbors will continue to focus on improving their leverage in Iraq in anticipation of a Coalition drawdown. Assistance to armed groups, especially from Iran, exacerbates the violence inside Iraq, and the reluctance of the Sunni states that are generally supportive of US regional goals to offer support to the Iraqi Government probably bolsters Iraqi Sunni Arabs�?? rejection of the government’s legitimacy.
�?� Over the next year Tehran, concerned about a Sunni reemergence in Iraq and US efforts to limit Iranian influence, will continue to provide funding, weaponry, and training to Iraqi Shia militants. Iran has been intensifying aspects of its lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants, particularly the JAM, since at least the beginning of 2006. Explosively formed penetrator (EFP) attacks have risen dramatically.
�?� Syria has cracked down on some Sunni extremist groups attempting to infiltrate fighters into Iraq through Syria because of threats they pose to Syrian stability, but the IC now assesses that Damascus is providing support to non-AQI groups inside Iraq in a bid to increase Syrian influence.
�?� Turkey probably would use a range of measures to protect what it perceives as its interests in Iraq. The risk of cross-border operations against the People’s Congress of Kurdistan (KG) terrorist group based in northern Iraq remains.
We assess that changing the mission of Coalition forces from a primarily counterinsurgency and stabilization role to a primary combat support role for Iraqi forces and counterterrorist operations to prevent AQI from establishing a safe haven would erode security gains achieved thus far. The impact of a change in mission on Iraq�??s political and security environment and throughout the region probably would vary in intensity and suddenness of onset in relation to the rate and scale of a Coalition redeployment. Developments within the Iraqi communities themselves will be decisive in determining political and security trajectories.
�?� Recent security improvements in Iraq, including success against AQI, have depended significantly on the close synchronization of conventional counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations. A change of mission that interrupts that synchronization would place security improvements at risk.[/i]
Second, here’s a piece with the opposite take on the NIE:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/007eptfo.asp
The key conclusion from that article:
The main conclusions of the document is clear: the strategy inaugurated in January 2007 has improved security in Iraq and will continue to do so; the development of grassroots movements within the Sunni Arab community focused on fighting al Qaeda in Iraq is an extremely important and positive development; Iraqi Security Forces are fighting effectively, if not yet independently of Coalition assistance; Sunni and Shia are not yet reconciled; the Maliki government is under great pressure and is not yet able to govern the country effectively; and Iraq-wide political progress will be required to solidify the gains made by the new strategy.
Just a little bias creeping into that “news” story from the LAT.
Overall, it’s a mixed bag – but I think in general there is more that helps the cause to stay in Iraq than helps the argument for quick withdrawl.
[quote]lixy wrote:
You didn’t ask me, but here it goes any way…
[/quote]
All of that being said, outside the fact that you do not think we should have gone into Iraq in the first place and blame the US for everything that has happened since…
Do you think we should leave Iraq? Would that be a good thing for the US to do? Would that be a good thing for the ME? For the world?
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
[/quote]
Kaaleppi, how about a shot at the same questions I just posted to Lixy?
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
lixy wrote:
This is a really good point. I don’t think we need to worry about Iran as much as we do Saudi Arabia. [/quote]
The freaking Saudis already made their position known. They will arm Sunni militias against Shia in the event of the US pulling out. I think that means arms and money to al-qaeda through Syria.
The latest NIE report is completely legit and probably the strongest argument for keeping US Troops in Iraq. It is interesting to read how different news publications will add their own spin to the intelligence assessment but overall the report clearly lends credibility to the argument that the surge which was initiated in January has improved levels of security in Iraq.
However the assessment did lend ammunition to opposing voices as well in that it clearly states the government of Iraq is in a precarious state and will remain in that position for the next 6-12 months. It was also an NIE report last January that informed us Al Qaeda was now operating at strength levels equal or greater to 9/11 and in another NIE report it was revealed that the war in Iraq has created a greater terrorist problem than existed prior to the invasion and enhanced the terrorist threat against or homeland security(see NIE report “Trends in Global Terrorism”).
In looking at all of the NIE reports and not just the latest offering one can still build a strong argument that we should be focusing our efforts on withdrawing troops from the region rather than engaging in this conflict any longer.
If we factor in the costs of this war which has now reached $450 billion dollars (a nobel prize winning economist came to the conclusion that the total cost will more than likely exceed 1 trillion dollars) and is costing another couple billion every week, I just don’t see the end justifying the means. In my opinion we should be focusing more of our efforts on working with the Syrians, Turks, Iranians, Kurds, even the Sauds and especially the government of Iraq, in orchestrating a task force that will relieve our military and still support the government of Iraq. This is clearly within the realm of possibilities and in all likelihood much more feasible than ever winning the war on terror. We should give total freedom to the people of Iraq in building a government and nation as they see fit.
We should do all of this and wrap it up in one big giant apology and promise that we will quit toppling governments and waging wars in peoples backyards. We have enough domestic issues and concerns that should be occupying our time; not the way other people are running their countries.
Sorry, rant off.
For the more cynical among us, this story:
[i]Democrats Refocus Message on Iraq After Military Gains
Criticism Shifts to Factional Unrest
By Jonathan Weisman and Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, August 22, 2007; Page A04[/i]
That’s just the headline - read the whole thing.