whoah
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Freedom is indeed on the march with (much to the chagrin of the leftists and US haters) the United States firmly at the front.
Freedom had a good year
By Joshua Muravchik, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is working on a book about democrats in the Middle East.
Some of the credit for reversing this belongs to President Bush’s strategy of promoting freedom and democracy, including by means of war in Iraq. Saad Edin Ibrahim, the dean of Egyptian dissidents and an opponent of the war in Iraq, said recently that it had “unfrozen the Middle East just as Napoleon’s 1798 expedition did.”
On the other hand, we must not allow our divisions over Iraq to blind us to the trend toward freedom. We ought to notice it, applaud it and do everything we can to encourage it further.
OMG dude – It’s called NEO CON propaganda.
Joshua Muravchik
American Enterprise Institute: Scholar
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs: Adviser
Project for the New American Century: Signatory
Coalition for a Democratic Majority: Former director
Institutional Affiliations
American Enterprise Institute: Resident Scholar (1987-current) (1, 4)
[b]
The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs: Member of Board of Advisors (3)
Committee for the Liberation of Iraq: Advisory Board Member (3)
Project for the New American Century Statement on Post-War Iraq: Signatory (2003) (5)
Project for the New American Century Second Statement on Post-War Iraq: Signatory (2003) (5)
Project for the New American Century Letter on New Defense Strategy: Signatory (2003) (5)
Project for the New American Century Letter on Israel, Arafat, and War on Terrorism: Signatory (2002) (5)[/b]
Institute of World Politics: Adjunct Professor (1992-current) (1)
Washington Institute on Near East Policy: Adjunct Scholar (1986-current) (1)
Coalition for a Democratic Majority: Executive Director (1977-1979) (1)
World Affairs Journal: Editorial Board Member (1)
Journal of Democracy: Editorial Board Member (1)
Orbis: Editorial Board Member (2)
Joshua Muravchik - Militarist Monitor [/quote]
[quote]
The criticism has nothing to do with wanting to see Iraq fail, it has to do with wanting to know the truth. Once again, a story like this helps strengthen the position that this war is more about Israel than the US. Are you willing to die or send our troops to die to protect Israel?
This isn’t the last war you know - we still have the entire Middle East to go.[/quote]
The left has proven again, and again that they don’t want the truth. They want their truth. The left is indeed invested in failure as they have directly tied their political future to failure in Iraq.
This is sad because with a plausible, independent vision of their own, they could be a legitimate political party. As of now they’re the “whatever the right is for we’re against” party.
Truly a sad political party.
[quote]
Cheney warns of ‘decades of war’
US Vice-President Dick Cheney has said that the US must be prepared to fight the war on terror for decades.
BBC NEWS | Americas | Cheney warns of 'decades of war' [/quote]
Duh! This is a water is wet argument here. The BBC is reporting this piece of “news” like it is the first time this has been said. The administration has repeatedly said that the war on terror will be very, very long.
[quote]
Iraq was invaded ‘to protect Israel’ - US official
WASHINGTON - Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States, but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.
Inter Press Service uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the US in September 2001 - the 9/11 commission - in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch US ally in the Middle East.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FC31Aa01.html [/quote]
Once again this is a classic case of the left ignoring the facts of why both the RGHT and the LEFT in this country, along with a fair number of nations, felt that IRAQ posed a threat to the world. Too bad the dems flip floped on Iraq when it was thought politically advantageous to do so.
Everybody thought that Iraq was a threat. This had been discussed over and over and over again
[quote]
Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria
18/02/2003
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. “These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve,” Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen.
Sharon told the congressmen that Israel was not involved in the war with Iraq “but the American action is of vital importance.”
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=263941 [/quote]
Again…DUH! Of course these countries should be disarmed, this stuff isn’t rocket science. Too bad the US and Britain, along with a select few others are the only ones willing to invest in a proactive strategy to secure the world from terrorism. The rest of the world needs to get out of their skirts and let 'em drop.
[quote]
Agents of Influence
It’s not a routine spy case. According to sources familiar with the investigation, the FBI is looking at a group of neoconservatives who have occupied senior posts at the White House, the Pentagon and in Vice President Cheney’s office.
The point of the probe, sources believe, is not to examine the push to war but rather to ascertain whether Sharon recruited or helped place in office people who knowingly, and secretly, worked with him to affect the direction of US policy in the Middle East. The most likely targets of the inquiry are Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and Harold Rhode of the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041004/dreyfuss
Feith Resigns Under Pressure of Investigations
Douglas Feith, the number three man at the Pentagon who went there from the pro-Likud Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Project for a New American Century, will leave the Pentagon as of this summer.
Feith’s office is the subject of an FBI investigation as well as two Congressional investigations, one by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Feith helped set up an Office of Special Plans in the Near East and South Asia desk of the Pentagon to cherry-pick Iraq intelligence and create a case for Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and having operational links with al-Qaeda.
The Men From JINSA and CSP
On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than in its relentless campaign for war–not just with Iraq, but “total war,” as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington, put it last year. For this crew, “regime change” by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative.
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest [/quote]
Doesn’t appear that the FBI has any factual evidence to prosecute. However it’s never about silly things like “evidence” and “proof”, or if this case went any farther that an investigation with the left. It’s all about the “seriousness of the charge”.
That being said, it sounds like he should have been investigated with ties like that. He has been raising concerns since all the way back to 1999. I’m glad this was investigated, however if it was bigger news, it would have been bigger news 
Of course it was good for isreal. It was good for everybody. DUH!
[quote]
Russia to take Syria’s side if conflict with U.S. arises - Russian MPs
Russia to take Syria's side if conflict with U.S. arises - Russian MPs - 20.12.2005, Sputnik International [/quote]
Russia has always been, and will continue to be a political ally of conveniance. We deal with Russia if Russia becomes a problem.
LOL! That’s some real tinfoil hat shit there dude.
Seriously, why is it that Republicans such as myself are called cheerleaders for pointing out Iraq success, while leftists such as yourself are never called a cheerleader for failure?
At least folks like myself, RJ, Hedo, and others recognize what hasn’t gone so well while lauding what has. I’ve never heard the leftists on this board recognize on their own ANY success we’ve had in Iraq.
Cheerleaders for failure I say. I will always put faith in optimism rather than pessimism.
Hope you had a great christmas JTF!
Vroomy,
Bad intel, good one. Last time I checked there were bad guys in Iraq. But what about the rest of the world, you ask (grinning like you think you are smart, but crying on the inside)? Don’t worry, we’ll get to them soon…the world police, right? (Punch, punch I wanna that smug F?FB avatar.)
This is a good site to check out. If you want to know some of the good news from Iraq that is.
http://www.goodnewsiraq.com/index2.htm
First new generator goes on line in Iraq
Iraq’s first megawatt generator since 1976 is now operational. The 40-megawatt generator went online Aug. 18 in near Basrah, Iraq.
Haditha Dam At Full Operation for First Time Since 1990
Baghdad, IRAQ ? With the completion of new transmission projects and the rehabilitation of a turbine unit at Haditha Dam in Al Haditha, Iraq, at 5:30 in the afternoon, June 3, 2004, for the first time since 1990 all six turbines were in full operation and the clean hydropower plant operated at full capacity, generating 660 MW.
Facts on the Economy
In an effort to increase Iraq’s economic production, 128 farm families participated in Winter Crop Technology Demonstrations. Supported by USAID, the Agriculture Reconstruction and Development Program for Iraq (ARDI) established 334 hectares of demonstration plots in 15 governorates to demonstrate new technologies and techniques for growing red wheat, durum wheat, barley, chickpeas, lentils, and vetch. Farmers in Al Tarmiya, located northwest of Baghdad, achieved impressive results after planting one hectare according to ARDI recommendations. (USAID)
In Samawah, USAID partner RTI is building a covered market to help Iraqi merchants. The new market will provide vendors currently selling in the streets with an organized walled market, improving their working conditions and protecting their products from extreme weather conditions. (USAID)
The Central Bank of Iraq announced licenses for three foreign banks: Hong Kong Shanghai, National Bank of Kuwait, and Standard Chartered Bank. By liberalizing domestic interest rates and introducing modern banking practices, the Central Bank will generate foreign and domestic investment and create new jobs. (CPA)
Approximately 76,000 jobs have been created under the National Employment Program, a CPA initiative that seeks to create 100,000 new public work jobs. USAID, through its partner, BearingPoint supports sustainable economic activities in Iraq that will enable regional and international economic integration, stimulate international trade, and generate employment. (USAID)
On Dec. 27, new Iraqi dinars were delivered to nine banks, and 106 tons of old Iraqi dinars were collected from 12 banks. USAID partner BearingPoint is facilitating the currency exchange. Now 92 percent of new Iraqi dinars (4.2 trillion) are in country. (USAID)
There is now a consensus among Iraq’s major creditors (the U.S., Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Russia, and the United Kingdom) that debt reduction is required to bring Iraq back to debt sustainability. These countries have announced a willingness to work together to agree on significant reductions in Iraq’s debt through the Paris Club, which deals with government-to-government debt. (DFID)
The United Nations Development Group (UNDG) and the World Bank launched the International Reconstruction Fund Facility for Iraq. The Facility is a combination of two trust funds: the World Bank Iraq Trust Fund, focusing on technical assistance, infrastructure support and feasibility studies; and the UNDG Iraq Trust Fund, which will concentrate on quick impact projects and political and economic transition activities. The projects will be run by UN agencies and the World Bank. (DFID)
IMF and World Bank staff held joint meetings in Amman with a delegation from Iraq headed by Ministers Kamel al-Gailani (Finance), Ali Allawi (Trade), Sinan al-Shabibi (Governor, Central Bank), as well as other Iraqi officials and CPA advisors. The meetings covered a briefing by the Iraqi delegation on recent economic and policy developments; discussion of the Bank and Fund work program for Iraq; and a session on technical assistance in monetary and financial statistics. (IMF)
With all due respect to an old Marine and a member of congress. Mr. Murtha does indeed have it wrong.
I particularly like the quote from the reservist quoted as saying “the only people who don’t know we’re winning are in Washington”.
God bless the troops who are winning the war in Iraq.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/osullivan/cst-edt-osul27.html
Murtha’s got it wrong: We’re winning in Iraq
December 27, 2005
BY JOHN O’SULLIVAN
Five weeks ago a wave of hysteria swept through Washington. Suddenly the Washington establishment became convinced that the war in Iraq was lost. This conviction was sparked off by the speech of Rep. John Murtha, a crusty former Marine usually described as a conservative Democrat, who declared that U.S. policy in Iraq was “a flawed policy wrapped in an illusion” and called for “immediate redeployment” of U.S. troops.
The speech was like a match on a bonfire. Murtha was the lead story in newspapers and on network news programs. He was echoed first by columnists and, after a cautious period of watching the reaction, by his fellow Democrats. News analysts on all sides stressed the vital significance of what Murtha had said.
From the extreme left, Alex Cockburn confided that Murtha was merely retailing what four-star Pentagon generals believed to be the grim reality of failure in Iraq. On the right, Rod Dreher of National Review Online warned the GOP that this speech could be “a Cronkite moment” when the U.S. people decisively turned against the Iraq venture like the Tet offensive in Vietnam that Walter Cronkite famously (and, by the way, falsely) proclaimed to be an American defeat.
What had happened to provoke this general outburst of pessimism? Nothing on the ground in Iraq suggested a sudden turn to defeat. Indeed, attacks on U.S. troops had been declining. To be sure, murders of “softer targets” such as Iraqi civilians and policemen were continuing – but they had not increased sharply. The political news was actually favorable: The once-dominant Sunni minority apparently intended to participate in the (then forthcoming) elections. Even Sunni insurgent leaders were turning against the “foreign” al-Qaida terrorists in their midst. And we now know that when Iraq’s election was held only days later, there was a larger turnout (70 percent) than is usually the case in the United States itself.
Indeed, any dispassionate assessment of Iraq after three years of the liberation-cum-occupation must be far more favorable than not. Compare it to previous guerrilla wars and insurgencies at this point:
-
In the Malayan communist “emergency” – generally regarded as one of the most successful post-war anti-guerrilla campaigns – the British were losing after three years and had to revamp their entire strategy. (They did so successfully.)
-
In Vietnam, the three-year mid-point saw the Viet Cong’s Tet offensive – a U.S. victory obscured by defeatist anti-war reporting that led to a U.S. collapse on the home front and eventually to the destruction of America’s Vietnamese allies.
-
In Iraq, the United States has midwifed a democratic political system, protected its citizens as they voted in three free elections, handed over sovereign power to an independent Iraqi government, and is now gradually reducing its military assistance to the civil power as Iraqi military and police forces replace Americans in maintaining order.
Were there serious mistakes in the last three years? Of course. Serious mistakes are inevitable in such major enterprises as war and revolution. Are there still major problems to be overcome? Naturally, since the establishment of democratic institutions – difficult in ideal conditions such as the collapse of Soviet power in eastern Europe – is doubly so in the aftermath of war and revolution.
But are we – the U.S. armed forces and our Iraqi allies – winning?
I put that question to a friend in the Army reserve, just returned from a year in the Sunni Triangle. He is a level-headed and sober observer, a historian by profession, who was working directly with Iraqis in tasks directly related to fighting the insurgency. His reply was unqualified: “Of course we are winning. We know it. The Iraqis know it. And al-Qaida knows it. The only people who apparently don’t know it live in Washington.”
If Iraq did not explain Washington’s hysteria, what did? Well, one clue lies in how the speech was reported. Murtha was generally described as being a conservative Democrat and a supporter of the Iraq war. That description was essential to the prominence of the story. An anti-war speech from a pro-war conservative was a far stronger sign that America’s support for the war was cracking than another criticism of Bush on Iraq from another partisan Democrat would have been.
But Murtha is a partisan Democrat. And just how moderate is he? As Newsweek’s Howard Fineman pointed out, Murtha is a close associate of left-liberal Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, whose campaign for the leadership he had managed. As for being pro-war, Murtha had been anti-war for more than two years since calling for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation in September 2003.
So the initial reporting distorted and exaggerated the significance of Murtha’s intervention, the media’s first reactions largely amplified those exaggerations, and Washington’s subsequent hysteria suggested to the world, including al-Qaida and the Sunni insurgents, that the United States was about to cut and run in Iraq.
This panic attack was eventually sedated by a number of factors – the success of the Iraqi elections, the Bush administration’s fight-back (that included five major speeches from the president), a poll conducted by a (presumably horrified) BBC showing most Iraqis were optimistic about their future, and the reaction of many U.S. troops who rejected Murtha’s grim account of their situation. For now a calmer attitude on Iraq prevails.
But the Murtha episode was significant nonetheless. The sudden upsurge of support for U.S. withdrawal that he evoked took place at precisely the point that the United States was making important political and military gains. It showed fear certainly – not fear of defeat, however, but fear of victory.
In other words, many Democrats, their media allies, and others in the permanent Washington establishment are defeatist. A defeatist is not just someone who thinks his side will lose. Sometimes a prediction of defeat is realistic. A defeatist is someone who, at some level, expects to lose, even wants to lose, seeing a quagmire in every oasis. His dissent is therefore tainted.
We are not supposed, of course, to criticize such dissent. No, we have to call it patriotism.
BF: I don’t have any idea about this , i think that we will just have to wait and see because the real test of how iraq is doing is after the US leaves. If I was a high-level terrorist leader - which im not - i would tell my boys to chill out for a while , and still make a few bombings but reduce their frequency to perhaps 25% or 30% of what we could accomplish previously , and rotate squads in and out.
The terrorists who are mostly sunni’s are most defiintely playing a waiting game waiting for the US to leave so that they can do their thing without excessive interference.
[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
BF: I don’t have any idea about this , i think that we will just have to wait and see because the real test of how iraq is doing is after the US leaves.
If I was a high-level terrorist leader - which im not - i would tell my boys to chill out for a while , and still make a few bombings but reduce their frequency to perhaps 25% or 30% of what we could accomplish previously , and rotate squads in and out.
The terrorists who are mostly sunni’s are most defiintely playing a waiting game waiting for the US to leave so that they can do their thing without excessive interference.[/quote]
I would like to see where you are coming from but I can’t seem to get my head that far up my ass.
[quote]Michael C wrote:
thabigdon24 wrote:
BF: I don’t have any idea about this , i think that we will just have to wait and see because the real test of how iraq is doing is after the US leaves.
If I was a high-level terrorist leader - which im not - i would tell my boys to chill out for a while , and still make a few bombings but reduce their frequency to perhaps 25% or 30% of what we could accomplish previously , and rotate squads in and out.
The terrorists who are mostly sunni’s are most defiintely playing a waiting game waiting for the US to leave so that they can do their thing without excessive interference.
I would like to see where you are coming from but I can’t seem to get my head that far up my ass.[/quote]
What would you do if you were an insurgent then? The milatary realizes this and isn’t telling when it wants to leave so it realizes that it is in a waiting game.
That and if the US sees that the insurgents are being relatively calm , that it would be a good time to get out. Say something intelligent if you want to throw insults around
Ummm… bigdon? Don’t you think that time is against the bad guys here? The longer they wait, the lower their perceived threat becomes, and they lose power to intimidate and bluff. When we pull out a bunch of our troops, and they decide to go on a shooting spree, we’re just going to come back and waste them. There is no winning scenario for the terrorists.
They were defeated the second we decided to invade. We have too much firepower, manpower, and we have every advantage except surprise. That is why the only successful attacks against us (if you want to call them successful) are suicide attacks.
I laugh when some pussy whines how we are losing in Iraq. Yeah, whatever. The terrorists must be immortal fire-breathing demons from hell who can kill with a wayward glance. LOL
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Ummm… bigdon? Don’t you think that time is against the bad guys here? The longer they wait, the lower their perceived threat becomes, and they lose power to intimidate and bluff.
[/quote]
You are 100% correct but we don’t really disagree. The insurgents may be wanting to lay low for a while granted but the US knows that the longer they wait, the more they rebuild the country , the better democratic politics take hold and the sunni’s have a place in the political world of iraq too then the insurgency will die out , but what i am saying is that the US is playing a waiting game for the insurgents to just tire out so both sides are doing the same thing.
Right after the war ended. (The true Iraq war, not our occupation following.) I actually said I doubted the new Iraq had even a 50% chance of succeeding once we left.
I now believe it to be 85 - 90% now, if not higher.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Right after the war ended. (The true Iraq war, not our occupation following.) I actually said I doubted the new Iraq had even a 50% chance of succeeding once we left.
I now believe it to be 85 - 90% now, if not higher.
[/quote]
Still, our king GWB has messed up what wasn’t a bad thing at all when you consider that even a evil jackass like hussein is better than anarchy
[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
Michael C wrote:
I would like to see where you are coming from but I can’t seem to get my head that far up my ass.
thabigdon24 wrote:
What would you do if you were an insurgent then? The milatary realizes this and isn’t telling when it wants to leave so it realizes that it is in a waiting game.
That and if the US sees that the insurgents are being relatively calm , that it would be a good time to get out. Say something intelligent if you want to throw insults around[/quote]
The first thing I would do is spell ‘milatary’ correctly. I don’t pretend to be very smart, I read, I listen, I read some more. But WWID? (What Would the Insurgents Do?)…well, they would continue to be insurgents and blend in…hide…hence, the insurgency.
Time? Hm. I am not sure if it is either for them or against them. They do come from the Middle East so I don’t see them going anywhere. And the rat lines are called ‘rat lines’ for a reason, they sneak these guys in, even after Iraq gets better at policing their borders.
And I see them continuing to blow themselves up, even after we leave. Do we create a civil war by leaving? I am not that high in the government so I can’t speak for Mr. Rumsfeld, but I think that is part of our exit strategy. Create turmoil amongst the Iraqi constituents and the terrorists/insurgents begin targeting each other upon our departure.
I am not sure if this qualifies as intelligent, and I wasn’t trying to insult you, you kind of did that yourself.
thabigdon24 wrote:
“Still, our king GWB has messed up what wasn’t a bad thing at all when you consider that even a evil jackass like hussein is better than anarchy”
WOW!!!
I hope you take the time to delete this post.
“hussein is better than anarchy”
Unbelievable!!!
You did hear about the shredder, VX gas, torture, and mass graves???
I am completely and totally dumbfounded by your post.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
thabigdon24 wrote:
“Still, our king GWB has messed up what wasn’t a bad thing at all when you consider that even a evil jackass like hussein is better than anarchy”
WOW!!!
I hope you take the time to delete this post.
“hussein is better than anarchy”
Unbelievable!!!
You did hear about the shredder, VX gas, torture, and mass graves???
I am completely and totally dumbfounded by your post.
JeffR
[/quote]
The fighting that will follow will be greater #'s than all of this combined because it will be a fvcking civil war.
[quote]Michael C wrote:
thabigdon24 wrote:
Michael C wrote:
I would like to see where you are coming from but I can’t seem to get my head that far up my ass.
thabigdon24 wrote:
That and if the US sees that the insurgents are being relatively calm , that it would be a good time to get out. Say something intelligent if you want to throw insults around
The first thing I would do is spell ‘milatary’ correctly. I don’t pretend to be very smart, I read, I listen, I read some more. But WWID? (What Would the Insurgents Do?)…well, they would continue to be insurgents and blend in…hide…hence, the insurgency.
Time? Hm. I am not sure if it is either for them or against them. They do come from the Middle East so I don’t see them going anywhere. And the rat lines are called ‘rat lines’ for a reason, they sneak these guys in, even after Iraq gets better at policing their borders.
And I see them continuing to blow themselves up, even after we leave. Do we create a civil war by leaving? I am not that high in the government so I can’t speak for Mr. Rumsfeld, but I think that is part of our exit strategy. Create turmoil amongst the Iraqi constituents and the terrorists/insurgents begin targeting each other upon our departure.
I am not sure if this qualifies as intelligent, and I wasn’t trying to insult you, you kind of did that yourself.[/quote]
Im sure you work for the GOP-led government in Cali, if so, there is nothing that i can say that would demoralize a cheerleader.
[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
The fighting that will follow will be greater #'s than all of this combined because it will be a fvcking civil war.
[/quote]
Of course you are working under the incorrect assumption that we are ever going to completely leave Iraq. Ever since President Carter declared that the Middle East is vital to US interest we have been in the Middle East and will continue to maintain some type of FOB until it is decided that the area is no longer vital. And as to your civil war theory, look to Bosnia. President Clinton’s regime change/war, talk about bogus intel, Milosivic he was a real threat wasn’t he? Plus Clinton said we were only going to be there a year, and it’s only going on 14 years later and we are still there. That is why there hasn’t been a full blown civil war there and why, in my opinion, there won’t be one in Iraq. Once we do have a drawdown, this is not going to be an issue anyway. From watching the news you would think we are no longer in Afghanistan.
While I still maintain that disbanding the Iraqi Army after the war was a mistake, the continued good news regarding the improvement of the Iraqi security forces is refreshing. Hopefully their success will continue and their recruitment continues to rise.
US General in Iraq Gives Hopeful Security Assessment
By Michael Bowman
Washington
29 December 2005
U.S. military commander in Baghdad says, despite post-election violence, Iraq’s security situation is improving, as the strength of Iraqi security forces grows, and the ability of insurgents to mount massive attacks diminishes.
Brigadier General Donald Alston says Iraqi security forces have made great strides in numbers and capabilities. Speaking with reporters Thursday, the lead communications officer for the multinational force in Iraq said conditions in many parts of the country remain perilous, but are markedly improved from a year ago.
“The calculus has changed, because we have 223,000 Iraqi security forces that are in the fight,” General Alston said. “The calculus has changed because Iraqi security forces are now deployed throughout the country. The calculus has changed because the Iraqi security forces are doing a better job manning and securing their borders, which is denying and disrupting the flow of the critical sustenance that comes from outside the country to support Zarqawi’s efforts.”
General Alston said insurgents and terrorists, led by Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, have shown themselves unable to sustain the massive, spectacular bombing attacks that were all too common last year, despite surges in post-balloting violence, most recently after Iraq’s national elections earlier this month.
“Just as we expected and saw for the [constitutional] referendum [earlier this year], once elections security measures were lifted, attacks increased,” continued General Alston. “We are seeing that now, as well. However, the insurgency is showing little capacity to sustain numerous and persistent elevated attack levels.”
The general said insurgents have increasingly turned to smaller-scale attacks, and that even these less-lethal incidents should diminish over time. He gave credit to Iraqi security forces, but said political participation by Iraq’s disgruntled Sunni minority has also been helpful, saying, “the choice of ballots over bullets was a very positive development.”
Thursday, a suicide bomber killed four police officers in Baghdad, while gunmen killed at least 11 people in Latifiyah.
Critics of the war in Iraq have alleged that the pace of training Iraqi security forces has been too slow, and that disbanding the country’s army after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion was a mistake.
[quote]CDM wrote:
thabigdon24 wrote:
The fighting that will follow will be greater #'s than all of this combined because it will be a fvcking civil war.
Of course you are working under the incorrect assumption that we are ever going to completely leave Iraq. Ever since President Carter declared that the Middle East is vital to US interest we have been in the Middle East and will continue to maintain some type of FOB until it is decided that the area is no longer vital. And as to your civil war theory, look to Bosnia. President Clinton’s regime change/war, talk about bogus intel, Milosivic he was a real threat wasn’t he? Plus Clinton said we were only going to be there a year, and it’s only going on 14 years later and we are still there. That is why there hasn’t been a full blown civil war there and why, in my opinion, there won’t be one in Iraq. Once we do have a drawdown, this is not going to be an issue anyway. From watching the news you would think we are no longer in Afghanistan.[/quote]
18,000 Americans in Bosnia is hardly what we have in Iraq, and their bosnian counterparts biggest worry is a sprained ankle on a basketball court not IED’s.
Correct i am using that assumption, but the casualties will still be happening while the IED’s be popping. This is going to get us to get out sooner or later, because the war just isn’t as popular politically as other conflicts.
[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
CDM wrote:
thabigdon24 wrote:
18,000 Americans in Bosnia is hardly what we have in Iraq, and their bosnian counterparts biggest worry is a sprained ankle on a basketball court not IED’s.
Correct i am using that assumption, but the casualties will still be happening while the IED’s be popping. This is going to get us to get out sooner or later, because the war just isn’t as popular politically as other conflicts.[/quote]
My fault, I didn’t realize deploying to Bosnia was a vacation. Hopefully I get to deploy there next instead of back to the Middle East, I could use some work on my jumpshot. Yes, unfortunatley casualties will still be happening, but our tactics for finding them before they are used against us are getting better and the hardware we are creating to combat them keeps getting better. Is it ever going to be perfect? No, but thinking that causualties is going to get us out of there is wrong. Ted Koppel tried to use that point and it didn’t work. The uproar wasn’t over the casualties but what the motivation for actually reading the names was. Don’t get me wrong I didn’t and don’t want any casualties but it is unavoidable when you go to war. By the way I brought a copy of a video back that was recovered from some terrorist trying to snipe one of our guys. They did shoot him but he got up and took cover behind his Hummer. If anyone wants to see it or some other videos I got like, some guys throwing weapons across the border and then getting blown up by an Apache, or a F-16 dropping on some terrorist, or a great one of a AC-130 Gunship (Creeping Death) going to town, PM me with a e-mail address and I will send it too you after the New Year.