http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I've like Petraeus long before he was the Commander in Iraq, his successes (no matter how large or small) only prove his prescient command choices.

~String

One would like to believe, but:

The electricity is apparently not on yet in Baghdad, and the US has stopped releasing such info as the number of hours the average Baghdad resident receives electricity.

The oil wells are not metered yet, and the oil money remains unaccounted for - about the only thing we know is that essentially none of it is going for infrastructure.

All the gains described depend on the continued presence of US soldiers.

Having each area post up its own security forces, in opposition to the central government, sounds ominous - at least, it's not necessarily good news.

The Sunni who are joining us against AQ are not joining the central government, - which is going on vacation in foreign countries, and whose members spend much time abroad even when not on vacation (see "oil money" above).

Al Maliki, the Prime Minister, is not getting along well with Petraeus - which is no slur on Petreaus, but does not count as good news for Iraq.

and finally: After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference. That's not what these guys were saying about troop morale back then back then. What will now look like in a year or so, to them - similarly revised?

What do you mean exactly by "these guys?" Pollack is no Bush supporter...

These reporters went to Iraq, but who did they speak to and what did they see?

"Keith Negley
VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place. "

This whole article seems surreal, I was looking for some indication that it was some kind of spoof, but it's not.

Look up Kenneth Pollack. He's no dummy. And he's no Republican mouthpiece, either.

Look up Kenneth Pollack. He's no dummy. And he's no Republican mouthpiece, either.

I hadn't heard of him, but I've googled him and it seems that the man is well respected and a liberal.
For this to come from his pen is a shot in the arm for Bush.
The article was very generalised though. Did it appear anywhere else in greater detail I wonder?

All this proves is that more troops were needed in the beginning to establish security. The political and diplomatic issues are still a mess. Nothing is going to make Bush look good at this point.

All this proves is that more troops were needed in the beginning to establish security. The political and diplomatic issues are still a mess. Nothing is going to make Bush look good at this point.

For it to come out on the same day as the Oxfam report is an odd coincidence
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12866706&dopt=AbstractPlus

I'm not implying that there is any connection.

For it to come out on the same day as the Oxfam report is an odd coincidence
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12866706&dopt=AbstractPlus

I'm not implying that there is any connection.

I think you mean this?

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-28727320070730

I think you mean this?

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-28727320070730

That's the one!

Nothing is going to make Bush look good at this point.

Thanks for proving your overt bias, once again. "Nothing" would make Bush look good? What if Iraq worked out in the end? Would he not at least look better?

I think the NYT discusses, in brief, all the issues in the Oxfam report. It does not deny there are serious problems in Iraq. All it says is that many of those problems are getting better and the surge is working in certain areas.

You have to go all the way to bottom of the story, but the headline's info is in there...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QNLKJ00&show_article=1

Thanks for proving your overt bias, once again. "Nothing" would make Bush look good? What if Iraq worked out in the end? Would he not at least look better?

After 4 years, uncounted billions, so many dead, so much war profiteering, so much lawlessness and treasonous behavior? Nope. But it's not some kind of inherent political bias. Bush himself has provided sufficient reason to think he's a terrible president and highly deserving of impeachment.

I'm not defending Bush, believe me. All I'm saying is that if Iraq works out it can only increase one's appreciation of Bush, not matter how low that appreciation is to begin with. If it doesn't work out, then one's appreciation of Bush decreases. This seems logical to me, but you deny it?

Nope, if Iraq gets better now, it's in spite of Bush, not because of him.

That's just a flaty ignorant and biased statement. Bush may have screwed up Iraq with his initial choices, but the surge (which Dems bemoaned) and the appointment of Pertaeus were his choices, too. You can't just judge him on the bad and ignore the good, not matter how much you'd like to...

More good news, the U.S. military said Tuesday that the American death toll for July was 73,which is the lowest in eight months.

I posted the story, Mad. Don't worry. Nobody will comment on it. Or if they do, they will cite other negative aspects of the occupation.

........Great news! I'm sure the families of those 73 are thrilled.

And how many Iraqis died in July? Oh wait, that doesnt matter......

........Great news! I'm sure the families of those 73 are thrilled.

And how many Iraqis died in July? Oh wait, that doesnt matter......

beat me to the punch....


73 is 73 too many.

That's just a flaty ignorant and biased statement. Bush may have screwed up Iraq with his initial choices, but the surge (which Dems bemoaned) and the appointment of Pertaeus were his choices, too. You can't just judge him on the bad and ignore the good, not matter how much you'd like to...

Reference the Post from spidergoat, blames President Bush for screwing up and then gives him no credit for changing directions and improving the situation and getting on the right track for stabilizing Iraq and defeating the terrorist in Iraq.

spidergoat Nope, if Iraq gets better now, it's in spite of Bush, not because of him.

........Great news! I'm sure the families of those 73 are thrilled.

And how many Iraqis died in July? Oh wait, that doesnt matter......

73 is actually a relatively low number, when one considers other military conflicts in American history (in Vietnam, for example, that many died per day). Plus, these numbers occurred during the surge, which increased US military activity. Of course, nothing but zero and pulling out will please some people...

73 is actually a relatively low number, when one considers other military conflicts in American history (in Vietnam, for example, that many died per day). Plus, these numbers occurred during the surge, which increased US military activity. Of course, nothing but zero and pulling out will please some people...
A relatively low number? An amazingly low number. I've read that more servicemen died during the Clinton presidency due to random accidents and whatever than have died during the Iraq war.

Of course every American death is a trajedy. It seems damned near every day I'm hearing about some Hoosier that died in Iraq.

But despite the wishes of Democrats and others who live in fantasyland, freedom isn't free. These men are dying to serve their country. They volunteered, and are heros. Without men like them our country wouldn't stand for long.

As Jefferson said, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of heros and tyrants.

These men are dying to serve their country.

They are? Thats a first.

What do you think they're dying for, then?

What do you think they're dying for, then?

So some people can make a lot of money; isn't that what war is about?

So why did they waste so many years and so many lives before appointing Petraeus. It does look like he's learnt how to do these things properly.

They surrounded themselves with liers, yes-men, and party hacks. They were deluded by an insane foriegn policy philosophy and the influence of Iraqi exiles who also told them what they wanted to hear. They were also rushed, since they had to take advantage of 9/11, otherwise no one would have agreed to a unilateral invasion.

So why did they waste so many years and so many lives before appointing Petraeus. It does look like he's learnt how to do these things properly.

Read von Clausewitz, Vom Kriege, translated into English as On War, and his theory of the Friction of War, also known as the Fog of War.

Remember the initial invasion was very successful, and we crushed the forces of Saddam, and we didn't loose the tens of thousands that were predicted by the loony left, were we screwed the pooch was when we failed to plan for the actions of Saddams loyalist, and the actions of the al Quaida Terrorist, and allowed them to get established. The left doesn't seem to want to believe that the terrorist have the ability to react to our forces, and for a time they were making our Forces react to them, that has now changed and we are making the Terrorist react to our action, that is how you win a war, you make the enemy react to your strategies, and don't allow him to set the pace and tempo of battle, that is what we are doing now and the terrorist are being destroyed, and they are loosing their support from the population because of their attack against civilian targets and their sadism to the people of Iraq, instead of fighting the U.S. and our allies.

They surrounded themselves with liers, yes-men, and party hacks. They were deluded by an insane foriegn policy philosophy and the influence of Iraqi exiles who also told them what they wanted to hear. They were also rushed, since they had to take advantage of 9/11, otherwise no one would have agreed to a unilateral invasion.


unilateral invasion

As of June 13, 2006, MNF-I reported that 27 countries (including the US) maintained responsibility over the six major areas of Iraq. Since that time, Japan has withdrawn all of its forces from Iraq.

For the purposes of this tally, only countries that contribute troops as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom are counted.

Countries which had troops in or supported operations in Iraq at one point but have pulled out since: Nicaragua (Feb. 2004); Spain (late-Apr. 2004); Dominican Republic (early-May 2004); Honduras (late-May 2004); Philippines (~Jul. 19, 2004); Thailand (late-Aug. 2004); New Zealand (late Sep. 2004); Tonga (mid-Dec. 2004) Portugal (mid-Feb. 2005); The Netherlands (Mar. 2005); Hungary (Mar. 2005); Singapore (Mar. 2005); Norway (Oct. 2005); Ukraine (Dec. 2005); Japan (July 17, 2006); Italy (Nov. 2006); Slovakia (Jan 2007).

Countries planning to withdraw from Iraq: Poland had earlier claimed that it would withdraw all soldiers by the end of 2006. It however extended the mandate of its contingent through at least mid-2007. Denmark announced that it would withdraw its troop contingent by August 2007.

Countries which have recently reduced or are planning to reduce their troop commitment: South Korea is planning to withdraw up to 1000 soldiers by the end of 2006. Poland withdrew 700 soldiers in Feb. 2005. Between May 2005 and May 2006, the United Kingdom reduced the size of its contingent by 1,300. The United Kingdom also is planning to reduce significantly the size of its contingent by the end of 2007, with an initial reduction of 1,600 troops followed by an additional 500 troops by end of 2007.

With the exception of Britain, those are merely symbolic numbers of foriegn troops.

As far as your previous post, get with the times. The Transformation of War by Martin Van Creveld is way more relevent than Clausewitz. There's no "fog of war" involved here, just complete ignorance of what it takes to occupy a nation, which is at least one troop for every 40 civilians.

With the exception of Britain, those are merely symbolic numbers of foriegn troops.

As far as your previous post, get with the times. The Transformation of War by Martin Van Creveld is way more relevent than Clausewitz. There's no "fog of war" involved here, just complete ignorance of what it takes to occupy a nation, which is at least one troop for every 40 civilians.


Ah yes, dismissal of the facts, to say that you have won the debate, sorry the fact show that it wasn't unilateral, and that there were many nations that backed the Invasion, and they backed this with Troops from their countries, and many of them are still there. 27 countries went to war with us, Big and Small, they supported the removal of Saddam.

That is a interesting opinion that you have, Occupy Iraq? We went their to remove Saddam, and to establish a new government, not to occupy the country. Please provide any proof of a policy decision by the U.S. government, that we went into Iraq to occupy the country.

just complete ignorance of what it takes to occupy a nation, which is at least one troop for every 40 civilians

We didn't even have those numbers for the occupation of Japan or Germany, and Germany after the war was still not pacified and safe for Allied troops.

So some people can make a lot of money; isn't that what war is about?

Take your head out of your butt. The people dying are soldiers. They aren't making money, except the nominal amounts the armed forces pay for combat service.

Take your head out of your butt. The people dying are soldiers. They aren't making money, except the nominal amounts the armed forces pay for combat service.

Reading comprehension 101

Some people != soldiers.

The "coalition" wasn't really a coalition of any major nations (except Britain). That's a fact. Most of them pulled out already.

Please provide any proof of a policy decision by the U.S. government, that we went into Iraq to occupy the country.
If we didn't anticipate occupying Iraq, then you can list that among the many mistakes Bush made.

...The Americans were still thinking entirely in terms of classical warfare, which involved finding the enemy’s focal point and eliminating it. The enemy army and political centre comprise the focal point. According to these guidelines, the war, with the capture of Baghdad, had settled the argument.

But the literature about war has been in doubt for quite some time about whether such wars do still exist. In the pioneering work The Transformation of War, Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld wrote in 1991 that modern-day military conflicts no longer fit into the pattern of more or less rational wars between states.

Failure
The entire project to liberate Iraq and to make a democracy of it was doomed to failure. The formation of stable democratic states in general is an exceptional historical process in which foreign intervention seldom works out favourably. In Iraq, three factors helped to guarantee that the process became a fiasco. (http://www.thebrokeronline.eu/en/articles/the_fog_of_war)

This article makes the case that there was a fog of war involved, and that one of our biggest mistakes was the hubris of the US that mere technology could overcome it. Beyond this was an ideological blindness to recognize how war has really changed in the 21st century. Obviously, the Bush administration has not taken Creveld to heart, they are stuck in the Napoleonic era with Clausewitz.

Reading comprehension 101. Some people != soldiers.

The fact some people profit off war is irrelevant. We can disagree with the war and its reasons, but make no mistake, the men doing the dying are willing to do so because they know they are supposed to die for their country, right or wrong...

The fact some people profit off war is irrelevant. We can disagree with the war and its reasons, but make no mistake, the men doing the dying are willing to do so because they know they are supposed to die for their country, right or wrong...

Yeah, people can be recruited for any ideology; the LTTE haven't run short of suicide bombers since the 1970s.

Yeah, people can be recruited for any ideology; the LTTE haven't run short of suicide bombers since the 1970s.


Yes S.A.M. can insult and belittle all but her own Islamic terrorist, as long as they are on Jihad they are immune from criticism, if it is done in the name of Allah and Jihad nothing is forbidden in the eyes of S.A.M. and her brand of Islamo-terrorism, kill the innocent, kill the children, kill the women, kill your fellow Moslem, on Jihad all is forgiven in the name of Allah, Yes S.A.M. is a old fashion kind of girl, she believes in the Dhimmitude and the law of Jizya, the Moslem protection racket, better know as extortion, for protection, S.A.M. is typical of islamists to sugarcoat the bitter truths.

When they are pointed to hadiths saying prophet had sex with young and beautiful wives of infidels after killing them, they say he honored them by taking them as wives. When you point out to the captured women he distributed among his jihadis after a raid, they say those ladies had become homeless so they were given shelter .

When you point out to the cold blood beheading of 900 quraizan Jews they say they had committed treachery. When you point out to his raids and violence, they say they were defensive tactics. When you point out to the jizya he imposed on the survivors after brutal raids death and destruction, they say it was harmless little protection money.

Well the first harmless little protection money of Islam was on the survivors of Khaybar raid by Mohammed. It was 50% levied on the poor wretched surviving Jews of Khaybar whose land was occupied. Men were killed and women were captured and raped.

Mohammed slept with 17 year old beautiful wife of their chief Kinana after brutally torturing and then beheading him. The islamists have the audacity to say that Safia happily accepted Islam and enjoyed sleeping with the 60 year old killer of her father, brothers and husband. Here are related sahih hadths.

Bukhari,Volume 5, Book 59, Number 512:
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, "Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned." Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet . The Prophet made her manumission as her 'Mahr'.

Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 543:
Narrated 'Umar:
But for the other Muslims (i.e. coming generations) I would divide (the land of) whatever villages the Muslims might conquer (among the fighters), as the Prophet divided (the land of) Khaibar.


Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 550:
Narrated 'Abdullah:
The Prophet gave (the land of) Khaibar to the Jews (of Khaibar) on condition that they would work on it and cultivate it and they would have half of its yield.

Irrelevant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Now can the troops come home?

73 is actually a relatively low number, when one considers other military conflicts in American history (in Vietnam, for example, that many died per day). Plus, these numbers occurred during the surge, which increased US military activity. Of course, nothing but zero and pulling out will please some people...

Enlist!

The "coalition" wasn't really a coalition of any major nations (except Britain). That's a fact. Most of them pulled out already.


If we didn't anticipate occupying Iraq, then you can list that among the many mistakes Bush made.

...The Americans were still thinking entirely in terms of classical warfare, which involved finding the enemy’s focal point and eliminating it. The enemy army and political centre comprise the focal point. According to these guidelines, the war, with the capture of Baghdad, had settled the argument.

But the literature about war has been in doubt for quite some time about whether such wars do still exist. In the pioneering work The Transformation of War, Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld wrote in 1991 that modern-day military conflicts no longer fit into the pattern of more or less rational wars between states.

Failure
The entire project to liberate Iraq and to make a democracy of it was doomed to failure. The formation of stable democratic states in general is an exceptional historical process in which foreign intervention seldom works out favourably. In Iraq, three factors helped to guarantee that the process became a fiasco. (http://www.thebrokeronline.eu/en/articles/the_fog_of_war)

This article makes the case that there was a fog of war involved, and that one of our biggest mistakes was the hubris of the US that mere technology could overcome it. Beyond this was an ideological blindness to recognize how war has really changed in the 21st century. Obviously, the Bush administration has not taken Creveld to heart, they are stuck in the Napoleonic era with Clausewitz.


But the Fog is clearing, thing are changing and we have moved to new tactics and are starting to clear the Terrorist out of the holes that they hid in, it isn't over yet, spidergoat your such a looser, with your attitude you would loose and quit the moment anything went wrong, no brass just peanuts, as old and as crippled as I am I'd whip your ass, why because I don't quit the fight the first time I'm hit, or the second, or the third, I jack my self back on my feet, I may die, but I never quit, I got the Brass, the size of basket balls.

I got the Brass, the size of basket balls.

I believe that is a condition called elephantiasis; I've seen it, its terrible.

You have my sympathies.:(

http://www.salon.com/health/sex/urge/world/1999/12/23/elephantiasis/index.html

I believe that is a condition called elephantiasis; I've seen it, its terrible.

You have my sympathies.:(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephantiasis

As usual HUAS.

As usual HUAS.

No I believe it may have been the mosquitoes in Vietnam

Drooping, low-slung testicles are considered sexy by some erotic aficionados, while others prefer the aesthetics of a puffy, engorged pair of sacs. Beware, though! Although big balls sometimes suggest churning testosterone, if the pouch is too prodigious, it might spell a case of the horrifying tropical disease, elephantiasis.

The pachyderm-titled ailment can swell scrotums to stupendous, ungainly dimensions. The heftiest case of swollen nuts on record, according to Sexualrecords.com, is a 154-pound African specimen that measures almost 2 feet in diameter, but archived photos of other afflicted crotches suggest that a number of other ball sacs have bloated to this size.

Male sex glands stricken with elephantiasis may look like they're pumped up with gallons of proliferating semen but the truth is far less glamorous. Parasitic filiarial worms infest the lymph system, which fills the afflicted cavities with watery fluid. Mosquito bites transmit the disease; legs, arms and non-testicular organs can also be enlarged by the monstrous malady.

No I believe it may have been the mosquitoes in Vietnam

No S.A.M. I was talking about your problem with rectal inversion syndrome.

No S.A.M. I was talking about your problem with rectal inversion syndrome.

I believe you are confusing me with the President. Is that where your head is? If you pull it out you may see better.

You just made my case for me, yes you have a bad case of RIS.

No I believe it may have been the mosquitoes in Vietnam

OH SNAP LOL

Enlist!

What does being enlisted or not enlisted have to do with the facts on the ground in Iraq?

73 is actually a relatively low number, when one considers other military conflicts in American history (in Vietnam, for example, that many died per day). Plus, these numbers occurred during the surge, which increased US military activity. Of course, nothing but zero and pulling out will please some people...

....and the Iraqis? How many died in July?

I'm not sure. It's certainly more than 73. I guess having failed with one argument, you're widening the scope to something else, in the hopes of winning on another front? Look, lots of Iraqis are still dying. I don't deny this. I don't think Pollack would deny it (or any of the other obvious problems in the country). That's why the article and this thread deal with things "getting better", not things "that have been solved."

I guess having failed with one argument...
That 73 isnt low? That wasnt my argument.

Neocon supporters are conspicuously clinging to any shreds of hope in the Bushevik Iraq nation-building crusade, even as the basics of the disaster remain unchanged. Iraq has been shattered beyond political and military solution. Iraq the nation is deceased, and will never be transformed into a US-friendly democracy. Armed, scared young Americans knocking down doors and shooting up cars simply aren't going to herald a new-and-improved Iraq back together again, better than ever. So it's not easy cheerleading for Dubya, Policeman of Earth, Builder of the New American Century, The Originator of Truth and Justice. But the True Believers can't find a psychologically-comforting way out of denial.

As reality becomes increasingly dissonant with their illusions, the remaining Bush faithful typically shift uncomfortable subjects into Islam-bashing, and they will surely turn their bitterness on their fellow citizens. After the US withdrawal from Iraq is complete, these same ideological hold-outs will bitterly blame American critics of this misguided war for having screwed it up- as if the initiating strategy of this American misadventure in Iraq was never ignorant of reality, and as if American nation-building in the Mideast was never doomed from the start.

The only peaceful transition and example of nation building would be East Timor, and the foreign force (AUS) was not rebelled against, It was only there to keep the peace ironically.

The only peaceful transition and example of nation building would be East Timor, Not quite the example of "peaceful" I would have chosen - one of the bloodiest civil wars of the twentieth century.

But the Fog is clearing, thing are changing and we have moved to new tactics and are starting to clear the Terrorist out of the holes that they hid in, it isn't over yet, spidergoat your such a looser, with your attitude you would loose and quit the moment anything went wrong, no brass just peanuts, as old and as crippled as I am I'd whip your ass, why because I don't quit the fight the first time I'm hit, or the second, or the third, I jack my self back on my feet, I may die, but I never quit, I got the Brass, the size of basket balls.

It's not about wanting to "win", at least not anymore. While your attitude is a commendable thing in a military force, the true picture of the situation is more complex that you care to admit. The biggest bloc of Sunnis in the government walked out, the parliament went on vacation for a month, and Iraqis don't want us there. I learned that from our soldiers that call in to US talk shows while on R&R. They don't know why we are there. You all but admitted that it's pride that prevents us from doing the right thing and leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

They don't know why we are there. You all but admitted that it's pride that prevents us from doing the right thing and leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

That's odd-- my loss prevention manager just got back from Iraq where he served as part of his Army Reserve unit that was called-up. His story is one of some sad, grotesque and amazing shit. Moreover, the biggest thing he discussed is how the US media clings to as much negativity as possible and that things are indeed improving there, how greatful the people were who he spoke with and how some of the recent changes have been good for both morale and the overall functionality of the effort. The other thing that I noticed from him: pride.

Now, I've never been there, and I'll be the first to admit that I'd avoid going there, but after being there for the better part of a year, I'd say he has a pretty good idea as to what's going on there.

~String

Many of those on the front lines don't get to hear the real news out of Iraq. They are force-fed government propaganda.

That's information well worth following up on superstring99, specifically;

"how greatful the people were who he spoke with"

Was your associate able to candidly talk politics with everyday Iraqis in a personal and private capacity?

"some of the recent changes have been good for both morale and the overall functionality of the effort."

What specific changes did he mention, and how are they benefitting?

"I'd say he has a pretty good idea as to what's going on there."

Then let's ask what he knows. If things are going great, and the lives of remaining and surviving Iraqis really are improving, it would be welcome news.

Yes string, I have the same experiences with the guys that I know from work and around town from the National Guard, and the Recruiting Team who have rotated in and out of Iraq, their biggest bitch is that the news media doesn't cover the success that are being achieved in Iraq, the fact that we are winning, not only the war, but the hearts and minds, that the Iraqis are not supporting the terrorist because they are seeing that the Terrorist are killing more Iraqis than anybody else, by a 100 to 1, the Troops that I talk to have a deep seated dislike for the Democrats and anyone who has the mistaken impression that you can support the Troops and not support the Mission.

That's information well worth following up on superstring99, specifically;

"how greatful the people were who he spoke with"

Was your associate able to candidly talk politics with everyday Iraqis in a personal and private capacity?

"some of the recent changes have been good for both morale and the overall functionality of the effort."

What specific changes did he mention, and how are they benefitting?

"I'd say he has a pretty good idea as to what's going on there."

Then let's ask what he knows. If things are going great, and the lives of remaining and surviving Iraqis really are improving, it would be welcome news.

And yes they are free to express their opinion, these are buddies that I talk to at the watering hole, and when they come over for a Steak and Beer Blast, one of them I am the God Father to his kids, one of them I worked with as a Armored Security Guard, one of them is a guy I worked with on ATM repairs, 3 of them are Recruiters in the area, and a lot of their friend that they served with in Iraq, so don't tell me that they aren't freely expressing their opinions.

Many of those on the front lines don't get to hear the real news out of Iraq. They are force-fed government propaganda.

Really? They are the one making the News, up close and on the spot, first hand, eyeball to eyeball.

Buffalo Roam:"the mistaken impression that you can support the Troops and not support the Mission."

That's not a mistaken impression- it is a point of basic logic and democratic principle that one can think and act for the benefit of our service personnel, while opposing a failed policy. We cannot defend democracy by closing our minds.

Our civilian leadership is not infallible. Our system of government is predicated on the idea that we must never make such a dangerous assumption. If the troops are assigned a misguided mission that harms them and our country, then it is both patriotic and mindful of our troops to see that mission aborted, and to see a counterproductive campaign halted.

Your expressed loyalty is not the loyalty of American patriots. It is the loyalty of the lackeys of tyrants.

"yes they are free to express their opinion, these are buddies that I talk to at the watering hole"

I was asking about Iraqis remaining and surviving in Iraq.

"don't tell me that they aren't freely expressing their opinions."

In my experience, people are not very candid during personal encounters with members of an occupying army.

Buffalo Roam:"the mistaken impression that you can support the Troops and not support the Mission."

That's not a mistaken impression- it is a point of basic logic and democratic principle that one can think and act for the benefit of our service personnel, while opposing a failed policy. We cannot defend democracy by closing our minds.

Our civilian leadership is not infallible. Our system of government is predicated on the idea that we must never make such a dangerous assumption. If the troops are assigned a misguided mission that harms them and our country, then it is both patriotic and mindful of our troops to see that mission aborted, and to see a counterproductive campaign halted.

Your expressed loyalty is not the loyalty of American patriots. It is the loyalty of the lackeys of tyrants.

"yes they are free to express their opinion, these are buddies that I talk to at the watering hole"

I was asking about Iraqis remaining and surviving in Iraq.

"don't tell me that they aren't freely expressing their opinions."

In my experience, people are not very candid during personal encounters with members of an occupying army.

It is a impossibility to support the troops and not support the mission, I went through the same thing in Vietnam, and there the Demorats didn't support the Troops or the Mission, they wasted 58,000 lives 4 of those lives were my room mates.

My buddies are the ones making the news, and they are the ones that the Iraqis are going too, to turn in th eterrorist and to show were they are hiding, they are the one who deal with the Iraqis face to face and they have told me that there is a up turn of Iraqis who are fed up with the terrorist killing more Iraqis by a order of 100 to 1 and have decided that the U.S. and coalition forces aren't so bad, and that they are willing to see if we kick the terrorist out of Iraq that there will be a draw down of American Forces, and a recovery for Iraq, these guys work with the Iraqi Battalions, the Civic Action Teams, they are setting up units in the neighborhoods, of the Iraqis to give 24 hour protection, we are rebuilding the infrastructure, and yes the terrorist are blowing some of it back up but that is hurting them with the Iraqis, why? because the Iraqis are tired of not having electricity, sewers, clean water, telephone service, they are tired of not being able to get jobs and dieing because they try to get jobs to support their families, yes sit in your ivory tower and pontificate your hatred of President Bush, the Republicans, Conservatives, and the war, but nothing you have shown stand the test of reality as reported to me and testified to by the stories of the returning troops of the success they are starting to achieve in Iraq, do you want defeat so badly that you will not recognize progress when it happens?

In my experience, people are not very candid during personal encounters with members of an occupying army.

You claimed to have served on submarines? so were did you get your experience as a occupying Army?

Did your buddies find the WMDs too?

What do they think of the Oxfam report?

"I went through the same thing in Vietnam, and there the Demorats didn't support the Troops or the Mission"

The mission was unsupportable then, and is unsupportable now. Or do you still want to go back to Vietnam to install a corrupt but US-friendly regime? 58,000 American lives, and 4 of your roommates were taken in folly. We all did ultimately forsake that doomed mission conceived in lies, but millions of lives and fortunes too late.

"My buddies are the ones making the news"

Really? I'm very sorry for them.

"they are the ones that the Iraqis are going to"

Then your buddies must feel very safe and gratified now- heading off-post to Iraqi parties, where they hang out with all their new friends.

"there is a up turn of Iraqis who are fed up with the terrorist killing more Iraqis by a order of 100 to 1 and have decided that the U.S. and coalition forces aren't so bad"

Great! We should be able to slam-dunk shock-and-awe all those dead-enders in weeks, since the Up Turn will have all the Bad Guys exposed soon.

"we are rebuilding the infrastructure"

When did that start? Please give details.

"the Iraqis are tired of not having electricity, sewers, clean water, telephone service"

But you said we're fixing it, and all the Bad Guys are being turned out.

"they are tired of not being able to get jobs and dieing because they try to get jobs to support their families"

Sounds very tiring. Who could blame the US for Iraq's present misery?

", yes sit in your ivory tower and pontificate your hatred of President Bush"

I'll just hate him in my own unpretentious way, thank you.

"nothing you have shown stand the test of reality as reported to me"

How about the fact that Iraq is still a bloody shambles after 3 years of neoconservative meddling.

"do you want defeat so badly that you will not recognize progress when it happens?"

There is no American victory to be desired or had in Iraq, and there never was.

-----------

In my experience, people are not very candid during personal encounters with members of an occupying army.

"You claimed to have served on submarines? so were did you get your experience as a occupying Army?"

I think this is exemplary of your apparent cognitive and sympathetic disabilities, that so often leave you stuck on absurd generalizations. I have not claimed to serve as an occupier- you made the wrong assumption, even though I have broached this topic with you before. I have not lived out my entire existence in a submarine, nor have I made any claim so nonsensical.

I have had other experiences, such as witnessing the Syrian occupation of Lebanon first-hand. I also made a lot of Palestinian friends. As a result, I did learn about the relationship between occupied and occupier.

Growing up in the Mideast may have predisposed me to a greater sensitivity to Iraqi concerns than you, so I'll be patient while you catch up to this disaster of our own American making.

hypewaders

I have had other experiences, such as witnessing the foreign occupation of Lebanon first-hand. As a result, I did learn about the relationship between occupied and occupier.

You know something, I really don't believe any thing you claim to have done any more, you have no knowledge of military procedure, you make claims about situations that you aren't involved in, you dismiss the statement of friend and don't seem to understand that as friends with a military back ground, and me being from a military back ground, retired, the Bull shit factor is zero when the talk about their experiences in Iraq, now why are their experiences invalid? they are the ones who were there, not you, on the ground, doing the job up close and personnel with the Iraqis, they are the one who tell of Iraqis coming forward to point out ambushes, and safe houses of the terrorist, the bomb factories, they are the one who tell of the change in direction of the Sunni Insurgents who have turned against al Quaida and the foreign Islamic terrorist because they are killing and maiming innocent Iraqis and trying to destroy Iraq with out mercy.

"me being from a military back ground, retired, the Bull shit factor is zero when the talk about their experiences in Iraq"

You're telling me there's no bullshit in war stories? Are you trying to tell me that soldiers don't try to rationalize (in both senses of the word) what they experience?

"now why are their experiences invalid?"

I never claimed that their experiences are invalid. I have here been asking for clarification of those experiences.

"they are the ones who were there, not you, on the ground, doing the job up close and personnel with the Iraqis"

How do you mean "up close and personal"? Can you please describe some close personal relationships between occupying troops and everyday Iraqis?

"they are the one who tell of Iraqis coming forward to point out ambushes, and safe houses of the terrorist, the bomb factories, "

Obviously that doesn't happen enough to avert hundreds of U.S. casualties month after month, and thousands year after year.

"they are the one who tell of the change in direction of the Sunni Insurgents who have turned against al Quaida"

You mean the militias that the CIA is funding? Big scoop.

"and the foreign Islamic terrorist"

You mean the Saudis who are the largest contingent?

"they are killing and maiming innocent Iraqis"

An our boys aren't?

"destroy Iraq with out mercy."

Mission Accomplished.

"me being from a military back ground, retired, the Bull shit factor is zero when the talk about their experiences in Iraq"

Remember we are talking about what isn't being reported in the news.

You're telling me there's no bullshit in war stories? Are you trying to tell me that soldiers don't try to rationalize (in both senses of the word) what they experience?

Yes war stories, there is the old and honored tradition of war stories and everybody recognizes war stories and the bull shit factor, but these conversations weren't about tar stories, and if you had been in the military as you claimed you would know the difference.

"now why are their experiences invalid?"

I never claimed that their experiences are invalid. I have here been asking for clarification of those experiences.

I am afraid you did, you brought out your claim to experiences in Lebanon of experiencing interaction between Occiupieriers and the Occupied.

"they are the ones who were there, not you, on the ground, doing the job up close and personnel with the Iraqis"

How do you mean "up close and personal"? Can you please describe some close personal relationships between occupying troops and everyday Iraqis?

How about daily foot patrols, civic action projects, bringing medical aid to neighborhoods with out access to medical facilities, setting up mini bases in those same neighborhood to guard the Iraqis living there, meeting with the local leaders and the councils, rebuilding schools, clinics, wells, water works, the simple infrastructure, that make life better.

"they are the one who tell of Iraqis coming forward to point out ambushes, and safe houses of the terrorist, the bomb factories, "

Obviously that doesn't happen enough to avert hundreds of U.S. casualties month after month, and thousands year after year.

Thousand year after year? 4 years and 3,660 KIA, 17,000 WIA, what was the total in WWII for 4 years? Battle deaths 291,557, Other deaths in service (nontheater) 113,842, Nonmortal wounding, 671,846. Dam you are really a weak sister aren't you? ready to call defeat and we haven't lost as many troops in Iraq as people killed in the top ten cities by murder here at home, we loose more people in car accidents every year then we are losing in combat in Iraq and you want to claim defeat.

"they are the one who tell of the change in direction of the Sunni Insurgents who have turned against al Quaida"

You mean the militias that the CIA is funding? Big scoop.

But again you fail to realize the Militias are coming over too our side, and it isn't the CIA that is funding them. Please provide a source for that.

"and the foreign Islamic terrorist"

You mean the Saudis who are the largest contingent?

I mean any foreign terrorist, it doesn't matter were they are from, the Iraqis have realized that they don't have the best interest of Iraq in mind, and so they now are killing them on their own or turning them in to the eU.S. and the Iraqi Government.

"they are killing and maiming innocent Iraqis"

An our boys aren't?

Dam your persistent, our boys aren't targeting Iraqi civilians as primary targets, the terrorist are, and the terrorist are the one who are using the civilians as shield to make their ambushes, and that is the reason that the Sunni, and Sheia, are turning against the foreign terrorist, because they use innocent Iraqis with no concern for their welfare,

"destroy Iraq with out mercy."

Mission Accomplished.

That is what seem to be the plan for the terrorist, every week the tally has been hundreds of Iraqis killed in suicide bombings, kidnappings, revenge killings to terrorize the people, Mosque Bombings, yes the terrorist are trying to destroy Iraq for their own purpose with out mercy.


...

Many of those on the front lines don't get to hear the real news out of Iraq. They are force-fed government propaganda.

First off, I love the fact you post anecdotal information, then question it when someone else posts other anecdotal information. Secondly, what you say just isn't true. The military personnel in Iraq have access to radio, satellite televisions, email from home and internet access. It's the 21st century baby. Keeping things a secret or feeding someone propaganda isn't easy to do...

their biggest bitch is that the news media doesn't cover the success that are being achieved in Iraq

And I don't understand why this surprises anyone. For the most part, the media doesn't cover positive stories here. Is it really a stretch to think they don't in Iraq, too? Especially, considering most of them are virulently anti-war?

Can you please describe some close personal relationships between occupying troops and everyday Iraqis?

Buffalo Roam: "daily foot patrols, civic action projects, bringing medical aid to neighborhoods with out access to medical facilities, setting up mini bases in those same neighborhood to guard the Iraqis living there, meeting with the local leaders and the councils, rebuilding schools, clinics, wells, water works, the simple infrastructure, that make life better."

That's not what I asked. Can you please describe in detail specific close personal relationships between occupying troops and everyday Iraqis?

"everybody recognizes war stories and the bull shit factor, but these conversations weren't about tar stories, and if you had been in the military as you claimed you would know the difference."

I do know the difference: Bullshit is impeachable. Bullshit lacks consistent details, and bullshitters typically revert instead to sloppy polemic and distractions.

I do know something about military life, because I personally served in the US Navy. I also know something about the impediments to personal relationships between occupied and occupiers, because I have personally experienced occupation as a civilian. I can easily provide you with many details to corroborate what I have lived. More appropos to this thread, I have asked for details about personal relationships in Iraq between occupied and occupiers. Your response has been an evasive attempt to shift the focus.

"Iraqis coming forward to point out ambushes, and safe houses of the terrorist, the bomb factories"

Obviously that doesn't happen enough to avert hundreds of U.S. casualties month after month, and thousands year after year.

"Thousand year after year?"

Yes. For as long as we stay.

"4 years and 3,660 KIA, 17,000 WIA, what was the total in WWII for 4 years?"

Our casualties in WWII that were sustained in resistance to US occupation were miniscule. After the cessation of "major combat operations", as the President announced, US casualties have been much higher than our occupations of the 1940s The comparison isn't even close. Iraq is the most violent occupation we have ever attempted, primarily because our intervention lacked justification, and also because the target was an obvious powderkeg of sectarian war before the neoconservatives hatched the idiotic plan.

"Dam you are really a weak sister aren't you?"

It takes courage to acknowledge reality. In this case, I suspect my courage exceeds your own.

"ready to call defeat and we haven't lost as many troops in Iraq as people killed in the top ten cities by murder here at home, we loose more people in car accidents every year then we are losing in combat in Iraq and you want to claim defeat."

So we can gear up our troops and deliberately throw them into the sea to drown for nothing, so long as their deaths don't exceed accidents? I don't think so.

"you fail to realize the Militias are coming over too our side, and it isn't the CIA that is funding them. Please provide a source for that."

The militias are fighting each other. As in the Lebanese civil war, they are supported by a multitude of competing foreign interests. NPR: Shia-Sunni Conflict Forces U.S. Shift in Iraq (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7439998) / The Redirection (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7439998)


"I mean any foreign terrorist, it doesn't matter were they are from"

It does matter. There is a civil war underway in Iraq.

"the Iraqis have realized that they don't have the best interest of Iraq in mind"

That goes double for what most Iraqis think about U.S. meddling.

"our boys aren't targeting Iraqi civilians as primary targets, the terrorist are"

The effect is the same, especially because we routinely unleash devastating munitions with faulty and even nonexistent intel.

"every week the tally has been hundreds of Iraqis killed in suicide bombings, kidnappings, revenge killings to terrorize the people, Mosque Bombings, yes the terrorist are trying to destroy Iraq for their own purpose with out mercy."

That's both obvious and true. What you are loathe to confront is the reality that the Bush Administration irresponsibly caused this disaster, which they cannot repair with the troops and allies available. Our Iraq occupation is the epitome of ill-conceived and failed policy. Dressing it up as a success is not rational.

No hype, you show that these are not personnel contacts, and that personnel relationships are not formed, and friendships are not formed, show were your personnel prejudice are not being use to deny the facts, and the attempt by you to define the definition of subject is nothing more than a attempt to control the debate to your advantage, you have not shown that the shift hasn't occurred, you by omission and co-mission, accuse the Men that I know and are my friend of being liars, and from your lack of knowledge of military mission, and procedure, tells me that you misrepresent your self, and your experiences.

the Troops that I talk to have a deep seated dislike for the Democrats The military personnel in Iraq have access to radio, satellite televisions, email from home and internet access. Would these be the same troops who polled at 85% believing that Saddam was behind 9/11 ? The same ones who voted en masse for W&Co for his leadership and abilities, over actual proven veterans like Gore and Kerry?

Are soldiers like Tillman, who wanted to meet Chomsky, was not Christian, and said more than once to his friends that he thought the Iraq occupation was completely illegal and wrong, included in your "troops" ?

And have you yet realized that using the soldiers for your political purposes, using their lives and sense of duty and honor to back your cheap little political rantings, reveals more about you than it does about the validity of your opinions ?

As far as the personal opinions of Iraqis, we have various blogs (Baghdad Burning, etc) that are not as subject to circumstantial influence. We have the obvious behavior of those Iraqis not directly under US supervision. And we also have occasional hints - such as the team captain and hero of the recent soccer tournament triumph, who went out of his way during his brief moment on international TV to state that he wanted the US out of Iraq immediately.

Excellent points, iceaura. It is fitting to give heed to Iraqis who have spoken out against the occupation. Here is a short sample of such remarks-

Younis Mahmoud (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/jubilant-iraqi-captain-scores-political-goal-as-well/2007/07/30/1185647827415.html), Iraqi National Football Captain:
I have only one thing to say: I want America out of Iraq now.


Faleh Abood Umara (http://www.nowpublic.com/interview_faleh_abood_umara_general_secretary_iraq i_federation_oil_unions_and_hashmeya_muhsin_hussei n_president_electrical_worke), general secretary of the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions:
We ask people in the US to tell their government to leave as soon as possible. The troops should be evacuated, without making the implementation of the oil law a condition...we can protect ourselves and bring security to our nation, with no need of the US forces. To those who believe that if the US troops leave there will be chaos, I say, let them go; and if we fight each other afterwards, let us do that. We are being killed by the thousands already. If the occupation continues, there will only be more bloodshed by the US forces and the Iraqi people.


Hashmeya Muhsin Hussein (http://www.nowpublic.com/interview_faleh_abood_umara_general_secretary_iraq i_federation_oil_unions_and_hashmeya_muhsin_hussei n_president_electrical_worke), president of the Electrical Workers Union of Iraq:
Put pressure on the US administration to leave as soon as possible. Not just for the sake of the Iraqi people, but for your sake too. We don't want any American soldier killed in our land. We want good relations with the American people.


Houzan Mahmoud (http://www.local2627.org/labor/Mahmoud.shtml), Federation of Workers Councils and Unions in Iraq, Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq, Iraqi Freedom Congress:
In the history of colonialism, and in the history of occupations by the United States and other governments, you can see they usually install puppet regimes. These puppet regimes are almost dysfunctional and irrelevant to the society. They just fulfill the demands of the occupier. That's the case in Iraq. We don't have a government. We don't have services and security, or the most basic standards of society. The occupation has to end.

They [the United States] don't want any countries to be in the hands of their own people. They don't need countries that have egalitarian, secular governments. Look at Saudi Arabia. Look at other countries that are extremely Islamist, where human rights violations are widespread. They are best friends with the American government. So the war is not really about bringing democracy and liberation to people in the region. It's about the American government's political and economic interests.



Since you so often compare this occupation with WWII BR, please consider in particular the words of Muhammad al-Duri (http://www.lewrockwell.com/wanniski/wanniski57.html), former Iraqi UN Ambassador:
US bases in Germany and Japan were set up in different international conditions! It came after a world war involving Germany and Japan who waged an aggressive war and occupied foreign countries, and the US and its allies fought to drive out German forces from occupied Europe.

That was not the case with Iraq. There were no Iraqi forces out of Iraqi soil, and the war took place on its soil with forces which came from overseas to occupy it. How can we compare what has happened in Iraq with Nazi Germany?!

If the US really wants to help, there are dozens of poor and undeveloped countries out there, let it help them instead of helping a country which possesses the world's second largest oil reserve and which has achieved high rates of development before it occupied it.

Buffalo Roam: "No hype, you show that these are not personnel contacts"

I asked you to describe some personal relationships between occupied and occupiers in Iraq. Stop squirming: Either you have examples from personal relationships in Iraq or you do not.

"show were your personnel prejudice are not being use to deny the facts"

From personal experience, I know that it is extremely difficult to hit it off with occupying forces. The situation is particularly impossible in Iraq, because US troops can not leave their garrisons relaxed. This is because their presence is resented by the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi population. As a result, Americans can not safely mingle in Iraq. It is clearly not an environment conducive to open personal encounters between Americans and Iraqis. I have asked you for anecdotes disproving this assessment, and you have balked.

"accuse the Men that I know and are my friend of being liars"

No, I have accused you of failing to back up your claim.

"you misrepresent your self, and your experiences."

No, I am willing to honestly answer any questions that you have regarding my own experiences right here.

Would these be the same troops who polled at 85% believing that Saddam was behind 9/11 ? The same ones who voted en masse for W&Co for his leadership and abilities, over actual proven veterans like Gore and Kerry?

They're human. They can believe as many foolish things as you do and act as foolishly as you do...

Are soldiers like Tillman, who wanted to meet Chomsky, was not Christian, and said more than once to his friends that he thought the Iraq occupation was completely illegal and wrong, included in your "troops"?

I'm tired of this being repeated as dogma. What's the source for it? And what does it have to do with the topic of this thread? Tillman was one man, one soldier. This thread is about Iraq as a whole.

And have you yet realized that using the soldiers for your political purposes, using their lives and sense of duty and honor to back your cheap little political rantings, reveals more about you than it does about the validity of your opinions?

Didn't you just reference the soldiers in your previous remarks to offer some sort of evidence that supports your political point?

As far as the personal opinions of Iraqis, we have various blogs (Baghdad Burning, etc) that are not as subject to circumstantial influence. We have the obvious behavior of those Iraqis not directly under US supervision. And we also have occasional hints - such as the team captain and hero of the recent soccer tournament triumph, who went out of his way during his brief moment on international TV to state that he wanted the US out of Iraq immediately.

So you can choose to believe the sources you want and disregard the others? This is a disturbing pattern echoed by people on both sides of the political spectrum. Why not assess the situation honestly before reaching a conclusion?

countezero: "Why not assess the situation honestly before reaching a conclusion?"

Sure, let's everyone by all means honestly assess how Iraqis really feel about being invaded and occupied by a nation that they did not provoke- take your time. Let's all honestly assess how we would feel about the destruction of our own nations, in operations precipitated by the ambitions of an unpopular foreign leadership. Let's include in our honest assessment that it's been nearly 3 1/2 years now, that more than 100,000 innocent people have perished, and that millions have had their lives devastated at American intitiative. Let's bear in mind that this has already been a longer campaign than the US fought against Nazi Germany.

A more-than-adequate period for honest assessment has long passed, while misery, desperation, despair, and even cries for revenge have been compounding day by day. Honesty doesn't take so long.

They're human. They can believe as many foolish things as you do and act as foolishly as you do... They are obviously not well-informed humans, however, in general - contrary to your assertion, which was foolish. We cannot rely on them for judgments that depend on being well-informed about Iraq overall or anything else not directly associated with their training, daily routine, immediate experiences, etc.

We weigh their opinions and assertions according to their circumstances and record, like anyone else's.

And hiding behind them - deflecting criticism of US military behavior or the arguments against those who defend it - as if it were attacks on the character of soldiers or attempts at one-upmanship over them - is something you do subtly, and buffalo does flagrantly; it's not admirable, or honest, and you shouldn't do it IMHO.
So you can choose to believe the sources you want and disregard the others? This is a disturbing pattern echoed by people on both sides of the political spectrum. Why not assess the situation honestly before reaching a conclusion? I choose to regard all the sources, and regarding all the sources - paying attention to their records, motives, circumstances, etc, - is part of what I regard as assessing a situation honestly. That means weighing the public testimony of Tillman's family, friends, and fellow soldiers, along with other sources, in that matter, and the statements of Iraqis with various backgrounds and opportunities on the subject of Iraq in that matter.

The "disturbing pattern" you describe is one of your own, and you should not carelessly project it unto others.

What you regard as "honest", considering the the various forms of misrepresentation and outright lying you have subjected my posts to in your responses, is of little and diminsishing concern.

btw: As far as asking the Iraqis - the lefties and critics have for years been pushing for a binding public referendum in Iraq on the presence of US soldiers. It would have been easy to include it on any of the ballots - and by all accounts might have greatly increased Sunni participation in the voting and subsequent government.

They are obviously not well-informed humans, however, in general - contrary to your assertion, which was foolish. We cannot rely on them for judgments that depend on being well-informed about Iraq overall or anything else not directly associated with their training, daily routine, immediate experiences, etc.

We weigh their opinions and assertions according to their circumstances and record, like anyone else's.


Where did I saw they were well-informed? I said they access to virtually all the information you and I do. Access is not the same thing as being informed. And being able to understand the information you absorb is something totally else. My only point in mentioning the access was to punch a hole in Spider's ridiculous claim that they are fed propagada and lack the ability to find unbiased news sources, because that's just not true.

On a side note, I find it typical and interesting that you find a group of people uninformed simply because they do not hold the same political views you do, make the same sort of choices you do at the ballot box and reach the same sort of subjective conclusions you do about information. That shouldn't surprise me, but it still does. Your fits of arrogance are amazing to behold.

And hiding behind them - deflecting criticism of US military behavior or the arguments against those who defend it - as if it were attacks on the character of soldiers or attempts at one-upmanship over them - is something you do subtly, and buffalo does flagrantly; it's not admirable, or honest, and you shouldn't do it IMHO.


I never hide behind them. I never referenced the troops. Not once. My comments were that Spider referenced them, then refused to believe others who did the same. Go back and re-read the thread, if you like. Everything you write above is a gross mischaracterization of my comments here, and I'd appreciate a retraction.

The "disturbing pattern" you describe is one of your own, and you should not carelessly project it unto others.

Please, I look at information and make a decision on it. You look at information and determine how it fits into your preordained view of things. The mere subject of this thread and the topic it evokes show that I am questioning and trying to reach a conclusion about how things in Iraq are going now. To contrast, you know how it's going, regardless of what new data is presented, and have spent your time here essentially arguing the same points you did two or three months ago. So who's really trying to be fair here and who isn't?

What you regard as "honest", considering the the various forms of misrepresentation and outright lying you have subjected my posts to in your responses, is of little and diminsishing concern.


I challenge you to show one instance where I have lied.

My only point in mentioning the access was to punch a hole in Spider's ridiculous claim that they are fed propagada and lack the ability to find unbiased news sources, because that's just not true. Spider never said they lacked the ability, in theory, to find unbiased news sources, and his assertion that they are fed propaganda is true - both true and not contradicted by your mentioned access.

On review, I see that I bungled one of the links in a response. I'm posting it again, having corrected the bad link and I have also added a few more.

There's no excuse for someone with internet access to be ignorant of what Iraqis are experiencing, or to be ignorant of US funding for militias. There is no excuse for you, Buffalo Roam to remain ignorant as to how the totality of American intervention has become a monstrous curse upon Iraq- a curse that by definition has no American remedy. We can't clean up this mess we initiated, because we have worn out our non-existent welcome.

I'm not here to just say "I told you so": There is no excuse for failing to recognize now that it's time for the American military bull to leave the Mideast china-shop. This compounding disaster is not only damaging the future of the Mideast, it is also hurting the United States.

Buffalo Roam: "you fail to realize the Militias are coming over too our side, and it isn't the CIA that is funding them. Please provide a source for that."

The militias are fighting each other. As in the Lebanese civil war, they are fueled by a multitude of competing foreign interests, the most disruptive of which by far has been the USA.

CIA Plans New Secret Police (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/04/wirq04.xml) -Julian Coman March 1, 2004

The Redirection (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh) - Seymour Hersh March 5, 2007

Shia-Sunni Conflict Forces U.S. Shift in Iraq (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7439998) -Mike Shuster February 16, 2007

US Arming Iraqi Insurgents? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bryan-young/us-arming-iraqi-insurge_b_52145.html) -Bryan Young June 14, 2007

US Confirms it is Arming Insurgents (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/US_confirms_it_arming_Sunni_insurgents_0610.html) -John Byrne June 10, 2007

Iraq Blog Count (http://iraqblogcount.blogspot.com/) is an excellent resource for Iraqi perspectives.

Spider never said they lacked the ability, in theory, to find unbiased news sources, and his assertion that they are fed propaganda is true - both true and not contradicted by your mentioned access.

Spider's exact words were these: "Many of those on the front lines don't get to hear the real news out of Iraq. They are force-fed government propaganda."

I have shown they do get to hear real news out in Iraq, from numerous sources, which was all my intention was. Your claim and his claim they are "fed propaganda" has not been bolstered by any supporting claims or evidence.

I challenge you again to show one place where I have lied. And I ask you to stop mischaracterizing my posts simply because you do not agree with them and lack the data to refute them.

countezero: Spider's exact words were these: "Many of those on the front lines don't get to hear the real news out of Iraq. They are force-fed government propaganda."

I wouldn't go so far as to say troops deployed to Iraq are force-fed propaganda. However, US troops in Iraq do operate in cultural isolation. It is not likely for them to get to know Iraqis on an equal and personal basis, because there is far too much fear interposed. For young Americans experiencing intense culture-shock along with isolation and combat, empathy and identification with "hajjis" is uncommon. When a young American is transported far from his home, finding himself and his buddies suddenly surrounded by a foreign language, foreign culture, and danger, it just isn't a situation conducive to cultural and political discoveries in a foreign land. They aren't cultural or political tourists- they are young men in body armor, keeping lethal weapons at the ready as they interact across thick barriers of language, culture, and multilateral conflict. This is not an ideal vantage point from which to gain sociopolitical understanding of a foreign environment.

Force protection, self-defense, cultivated self-assuredness, and affirmations of shared American cultural identity are certain to far outweigh reflections on Iraqi perspectives, including how Iraqis perceive the progress/lack of progress of this forced nation-building experiment. While I don't dismiss the comments from American servicepeople in Iraq as to the progress of our democracy-building, counter-terrorism, or other objectives in Iraq, neither do I consider American foot-soldiers to intrinsically hold unimpeachable or even "fair and balanced" sympathies and perspectives regarding Iraq. For cultural outsiders, there is more clarity available from a distance.

However, US troops in Iraq do operate in cultural isolation. It is not likely for them to get to know Iraqis on an equal and personal basis, because there is far too much fear interposed.

Part of the new surge is putting American soldiers in neighborhoods with Iraqis so they all live together and suffer power disruptions, etc. together. So I would argue they aren't operating in a "cultural isolation."

When a young American is transported far from his home, finding himself and his buddies suddenly surrounded by a foreign language, foreign culture, and danger, it just isn't a situation conducive to cultural and political discoveries in a foreign land. They aren't cultural or political tourists- they are young men in body armor, keeping lethal weapons at the ready as they interact across thick barriers of language, culture, and multilateral conflict. This is not an ideal vantage point from which to gain sociopolitical understanding of a foreign environment.

Right, but journalists encamped in hotels with valets are a better guide?


For cultural outsiders, there is more clarity available from a distance.

From who?

countezero: "Part of the new surge is putting American soldiers in neighborhoods with Iraqis so they all live together and suffer power disruptions, etc. together."

I'm completely unaware of any such togetherness. Can you provide us with any references to this turnabout?

"journalists encamped in hotels with valets are a better guide?"

Certainly. Even hotel-lobby journalists are not nearly so threatening as a harried American patrol. But beyond the Green Zone and Palestine Hotel, there are many others who take the necessary risks to tell us what has been happening throughout Iraq.

About 200 journalists and their assistants have been killed bringing us these stories from Iraq. Not many of these dead observers were encamped in hotels with valets. If you have read or watched many reports from Iraq, then you have very likely seen the foreshortened life's work of journalists who have died, sometimes instantly, and sometimes in agony. And the dedicated journalists keep coming- but you won't see their work on CNN, and certainly not through Murdoch's conglomerate.

At the Reporters Without Borders (http://www.rsf.org/country-43.php3?id_mot=616&Valider=OK) website, you can gain some sense of the human price being paid to bring (to those of us who are paying attention) stories out of Iraq. I won't divert this thread into tributes and tear-jerking personal sacrifices, but if you do even a little digging, you can learn how much of what we know beyond embedded reporting has been purchased with a horrendous butcher's bill that keeps mounting.




For cultural outsiders, there is more clarity available from a distance.

"From who?"

From Iraqis. If you wanted to learn about Tibet, would you think it reasonable to consider Chinese soldiers and media your best sources? This is a blossoming information age, and from media to blogs, there is a wealth of information readily available, if you go beyond the spoon-fed pabulum of CNN and other corporate infotainment.

Over at The Carpetbagger Report (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/11682.html#more-11682), it's noted how the article that kicked off this thread (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?_r=1&oref=slogin), and that has been ballyhooed at Fox and other major US media all weekend is leaking air:

I talked to Pollack yesterday. In answer to some of the questions I raised: he spoke with very few Iraqis and could independently confirm very little of what he heard from American officials…. The improvements in security, he said, are “relative,” which is a heavy qualification, given the extreme violence of 2006 and early 2007. And it’s far from clear that progress anywhere is sustainable. Everywhere he went, the line Pollack heard was that the central government in Baghdad is broken and the only solutions that can work are local ones.

Mr. O’Hanlon said the article was intended to point out that the security situation was currently far better than it was in 2006. What the American military cannot solve, he said, are problems caused by the inability of Iraqis to forge political solutions. “Ultimately, politics trumps all else,” Mr. O’Hanlon said. “If the political stalemate goes on, even if the military progress continued, I don’t see how I could write another Op-Ed saying the same thing.”


So why did this pair write this in the first place? Excepting the title, of course:
It was a step back from the almost definitive tone of “A War We Just Might Win” (a bad headline, and not the authors’).

I think the authors (or their editor-pimps) may have tipped their hand in the incongruous closing phrase of the article:

But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

My guess is that some pretentious editor thinks he's got his sly little pinky on the scales of Congress.

I don't know what that report is, nor do I care. Regardless, Pollack's "remarks" to him don't refute a word of what he wrote in the Op-ed. Nor does O'Hanlon's comments to the Times, which are here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/washington/02assess.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1186027555-JC9ioUuJAoxuiAVTkIzGng&oref=slogin

Editors routinely write headlines, based on page size, etc. I don't think that headline is in any way misleading, which is what your report seems to be asserting...

I'm completely unaware of any such togetherness. Can you provide us with any references to this turnabout?

There are so many stories about Iraq, that it's tough to dig through them online and pick out the ones that discuss this tactic, but I've read about it fairly often in the Times. Basically, the soldiers were living on base and going out on patrols, the Generals changed that. Now many of the soldiers are living in the neighborhoods they're responsible for...

About 200 journalists and their assistants have been killed bringing us these stories from Iraq. Not many of these dead observers were encamped in hotels with valets. If you have read or watched many reports from Iraq, then you have very likely seen the foreshortened life's work of journalists who have died, sometimes instantly, and sometimes in agony. And the dedicated journalists keep coming- but you won't see their work on CNN, and certainly not through Murdoch's conglomerate...

Thanks, I know all about my profession's sacrifices...

From Iraqis. If you wanted to learn about Tibet, would you think it reasonable to consider Chinese soldiers and media your best sources? This is a blossoming information age, and from media to blogs, there is a wealth of information readily available, if you go beyond the spoon-fed pabulum of CNN and other corporate infotainment.

How do I do that, being that I am not in Iraq and don't speak the language? Answer: I have to rely on the reporters you talk about in such glowing terms above. Yet, here you seem to be undermining their work? So which is it? Are they worth listening to or not?

countezero: "Basically, the soldiers were living on base and going out on patrols, the Generals changed that. Now many of the soldiers are living in the neighborhoods they're responsible for."

Credible reports of American soldiers safely sleeping outside of secure, exclusive perimeters and instead mingling within Iraqi neighborhoods would be a highly significant development. Such arragnements would not be safe for American soldiers in any Arab country I have lived in (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Lebanon). Our firebases, patrol bases, and combat outposts have been under routine attack throughout this occupation. US soldiers living within Iraqi neighborhoods would be truly extraordinary. Moving off-post would certainly increase our casualties and kidnappings. I've Googled generally, and at the NYT for corroboration for any such policy to no avail. If you do see one of the several articles describing this again, I would appreciate a link.




For cultural outsiders, there is more clarity available from a distance.

"From who?"

You are living in a blossoming information age. There is a wide spectrum of media, and an even more diverse variety of blogs, offering an unprecedented wealth of information available, just a few mouse-clicks beyond the spoon-fed pabulum of CNN and other corporate infotainment.

"How do I do that, being that I am not in Iraq and don't speak the language? Answer: I have to rely on the reporters you talk about in such glowing terms above."

Many unembedded and independent reporters in Iraq speak Arabic, and are published in English, and often speak English themselves. Here are a few links in addition to others I have already posted in this thread:

eIraq (http://electroniciraq.net/news/abouttheproject/index.shtml)
IraqSlogger (http://iraqslogger.com/)
Al-Sumaria TV (http://www.alsumaria.tv/en/Iraq-News/index.html)
Aswat AlIraq (http://66.111.34.180/look/english/section.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=4&NrIssue=2&NrSection=4)
The Middle East (http://www.asharq-e.com/)

Here are some Iraq veteran accounts you won't read in the New York Times:

The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness - The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/hedges)
These attitudes reflect the limited contact occupation troops said they had with Iraqis. They rarely saw their enemy. They lived bottled up in heavily fortified compounds that often came under mortar attack. They only ventured outside their compounds ready for combat. The mounting frustration of fighting an elusive enemy and the devastating effect of roadside bombs, with their steady toll of American dead and wounded, led many troops to declare an open war on all Iraqis.


countezero:"Yet, here you seem to be undermining [the work of the reporters you talk about in such glowing terms above]."

I don't understand what you mean by that.

"So which is it? Are they worth listening to or not?"

Since this Iraq experiment has global implications, and since the neoconservatives are betting the entire American farm on it for us, it would seem worth a glance now and then.

Time for a little perspective on this thread. It started out by posting an article that was supposed to have come from former critics and disparagers of the US efforts, "liberals" converted to optimism by their trip to Iraq and first hand viewing of the successes on the ground.

Most of the credibility came from their presumed anti-war status prior to seeing Petreaus's strategy in action, and the fact that the article was from the NYT, a certified "liberal" news source in some people's view.

Along the way, praise for Petreaus and inclusion of the supposedly low total of 73 US deaths for July.
What do you mean exactly by "these guys?" Pollack is no Bush supporter...

Look up Kenneth Pollack. He's no dummy. And he's no Republican mouthpiece, either.

I hadn't heard of him, but I've googled him and it seems that the man is well respected and a liberal.
For this to come from his pen is a shot in the arm for Bush

I've like Petraeus long before he was the Commander in Iraq, his successes (no matter how large or small) only prove his prescient command choices.

More good news, the U.S. military said Tuesday that the American death toll for July was 73,which is the lowest in eight months.

So why did they waste so many years and so many lives before appointing Petraeus. It does look like he's learnt how to do these things properly.

Moreover, the biggest thing he discussed is how the US media clings to as much negativity as possible and that things are indeed improving there, how greatful the people were who he spoke with and how some of the recent changes have been good for both morale and the overall functionality of the effort.

Why not assess the situation honestly before reaching a conclusion?

Please, I look at information and make a decision on it. You look at information and determine how it fits into your preordained view of things.

The mere subject of this thread and the topic it evokes show that I am questioning and trying to reach a conclusion about how things in Iraq are going now.

I don't know what that report is, nor do I care. Regardless, Pollack's "remarks" to him don't refute a word of what he wrote in the Op-ed. Nor does O'Hanlon's comments to the Times, which are here:
So days late and a dollar short, what should have been done immediately (since alert people know very well the NYT often publishes government propaganda, without caveat or cautioning info) - check out the actual war-reporting background of the authors, their status as reliable journalists in this matter, Petreaus's history of relieable info, etc. And what do you know - the OP appears to have been from a couple of war apologists with a long track record of praising W's tactics and only cursory acquaintance with the situation in Iraq, and Petreaus, for all his superiority in comparison with predecessors, is not to be relied upon for assessments of progress delivered to civilians. And the 73 deaths? That's a high total for this time of year,not a low one. Deaths typically drop in the heat of midsummer - - - couple of links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49283-2004Sep25.html
By David H. PetraeusSunday, September 26, 2004; Page B07
BAGHDAD -- Helping organize, train and equip nearly a quarter-million of Iraq's security forces is a daunting task. Doing so in the middle of a tough insurgency increases the challenge enormously, making the mission akin to repairing an aircraft while in flight -- and while being shot at. Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. - -
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/31/ohanlon/index.html The piece is a decent, if opinionated, summary of the general findings, and it links to supporting documents.
Glen Greenwald
Tuesday July 31, 2007 08:38 EST
A new low of mindlessness for our media

It is difficult to remember a media spectacle to match yesterday's grand pageant where Ken Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon were paraded across virtually every network and cable news show and radio program and heralded as "war opponents" and "Bush critics" who nonetheless returned from Iraq and were forced by The Truth to admit that we are Winning. For sheer deceit and propaganda, it is difficult to remember something quite this audacious and transparently false.

As was demonstrated yesterday, O'Hanlon and Pollack were among the most voracious cheerleaders for Bush's invasion and, as the war began to collapse, among its most deceitful defenders. But it goes so far beyond that.

Even through this year, they have remained loyal Bush supporters. They were not only advocates of the war, but cheerleaders for the Surge. They were, and continue to be, on the fringe of pro-war sentiment in this country. And yet all day yesterday, this country's media loudly hailed them as being exactly the opposite of what they really are. It was 24 hours of unadulterated, amazingly coordinated war propaganda that could not have been any further removed from the truth.
- - -
I spent yesterday and today reading through virtually all of the writings and interviews of these two Brookings geniuses over the past four years concerning Iraq. There is no coherence or consistency to anything they say. It shifts constantly. They say whatever they need to say at the moment to justify the war for which they bear responsibility. It is exactly like reading through the writings of Bill Kristol, Tom Friedman and every other individual who flamboyantly supported this disaster and -- motivated solely by salvaging their own reputations -- are desperate to find some method to argue that they were right

The very same NYT, who you are attempting to demean here, carried an Op-Ed by Frank Rich on Sunday slamming Pollack and O'Hanlon with the same sort of words that Greenwald used. So what's your point?

I've like Petraeus long before he was the Commander in Iraq, his successes (no matter how large or small) only prove his prescient command choices.

~String

It's amazing how intelligent and niave you're all at the same time. The Republicans are setting up for the Iraq exodus before the 08 Presidential election. That's why they're saying the surge is working, so when they announce the Troop withdrawl next year, they'll have a justifiable reason for doing so. And they'll demonize the Democrats for not supporting the very surge that allowed to troops to come home.

Ganymede: "The Republicans are setting up for the Iraq exodus before the 08 Presidential election."

That's ridiculous. Both Democrats and Republicans are deeply bogged down with Iraq. There is no politically-advantageous way to break this disaster to an American public that is still under a lot of majority illusions, and generally doesn't know how to lose gracefully. Most Americans haven't begun to realize what will be lost, and nothing is going to reveal that loss more obviously than withdrawal- not just the fact of it, but the surreal scenes of what we are going to leave behind.

Sadly, there is far too much political and fiscal inertia for the established parties to make a quick turnabout. The blood-and-treasure investment, and the disinformation over Iraq have been far too monumental. Putting aside the dead and wounded (much mitigated by tactics, body armor, and the advance of medicine) may ironically be easier for the public to do, than it will be to ignore the truly massive material investments. After 9 years in Vietnam, our military and administrative infrastructure investments were nothing like what has been quietly yet conspicuously invested in Iraq.

Construction of 14 "enduring" or "contingency operating bases" (as artfully termed in public Pentagon communications) in addition to 120 or so FOBs has not slowed at all. New barracks and offices are still being built of concrete, not like the initial temporary metal and wood structures. Within the massive American garrisons are PXs, Burger Kings, Subway, Pizza Hut- all the trappings of Americans settling in to stay; All the trappings of a new colony, but without the admission of colonialism. The immense new 104-acre, $20-Billion US Embassy is the largest facility of its kind ever seen in the world- It's as big as Vatican City. A microwave and fiber-optic network has been completed that provides Americans with reliable communications across the protectorate. The abandonment of all this is not going to play well in inspiring public American confidence in the wisdom of our leadership.

Camp Victory AKA Al-Nasr (Baghdad Int'l Airport), Camp Renegade (Kirkuk) Al Asad (Western Desert) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/11/wirq11.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/11/ixworld.ht), Anaconda (Balad) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020302994_pf.html), Camp Falcon / Al Sarq Taji (Fallujah),Marez (Mosul), Irbil, Nasiriyah, and Kirkuk are all vast complexes. These aren't just "camps". They are immense facilities that speak much louder than words as to the intentions behind them. Iraq was intended to be our strategic stronghold in the Mideast, replacing all the ground lost in Saudi Arabia, and surpassing it. The Gulf staging areas aren't comparable at all to what has been invested in Iraq. Most people with Mideast experience knew it wouldn't work from the outset, but that didn't stop the neoconservatives from betting every last one of America's Mideast strategic chips on the great Iraq long-shot.

I can agree with you that the United States will inevitably be leaving Iraq entirely. Across the Arab world, the USA is unlikely to be able to sustain permanent bases, such as were built in Saudi Arabia for the Rapid Deployment Forces during the Cold War. The neoconservatives have badly botched our long-term strategic position in the Mideast, and mega-wealthy but politically wobbly Gulf Disneylands will not be firm ground either.

But is the American public ready to face the magnitude of this strategic debacle? Is Wall Street? Absolutely not. There is no way that the Republican Party can effectively announce the folding of our petroleum empire before the next election, pin the disaster on the Democrats, and avoid an economic and political tailspin.

No, the Republican Party, and Democratic Party must both keep up appearances through the next election. They can't turn things around now. The process underway is the long curtain-call for the American Century, and for American Mideast hegemony it will be a very long and dramatic death-scene.

I don't like it, but that's the way it is. The best hope for the American public, for the future of this country, is that we use this thought-provoking interval to catch up both on current events and history, sufficiently to understand what has happened to us. Don't expect any help with that from the Washington establishment.

Robert Parry has posted a worthwhile reality-check (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/080907.html) at Consortium News.

On the low reported US casualties this July as proof of surging success:compared to earlier July casualty reports, the July 2007 death toll of 80 was the worst of the war for U.S. troops. In July 2003, 48 American soldiers died; in July 2004, the death toll was 54; in July 2005, it was 54; in July 2006, it was 43.


On Pollack's supposed "war critic" status, and purported about-face, having witnessed the wonders of the Surge: Yet the authors – and the New York Times – failed to tell readers the full story about these supposed skeptics: far from grizzled peaceniks, O’Hanlon and Pollack have been longtime cheerleaders for a larger U.S. military occupying force in Iraq.

Pollack, a former CIA analyst, was a leading advocate for invading Iraq in the first place. He published The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq in September 2002, just as the Bush administration was gearing up its marketing push for going to war.

British journalist Robert Fisk called Pollack’s book the “most meretricious contribution to this utterly fraudulent [war] ‘debate’ in the United States.”

Americans must never leave liars' lies unchallenged, if we believe in sufficiently elevating the debate to cause keener popular awareness, in the hope of ultimately sparing our country avoidable blowback and disgrace.

It's amazing how intelligent and niave you're all at the same time. The Republicans are setting up for the Iraq exodus before the 08 Presidential election. That's why they're saying the surge is working, so when they announce the Troop withdrawl next year, they'll have a justifiable reason for doing so. And they'll demonize the Democrats for not supporting the very surge that allowed to troops to come home.

Gany, I don't want to make this personal: But coming from the guy who thinks that the weather doesn't turn bad without a conspiracy causing it to happen, you'll pardon me if I am suspicious of anything you say.

The USA (democrats and republicans) aren't planning to leave, EVER. At least anytime soon. We are bulding three GIGANTIC bases there. We aren't giving them up anythime in our lifetimes without being forced out.

I stand by my comments.

~String

string: "We aren't giving up [our new Iraqi military bases] anythime in our lifetimes without being forced out."

Our eviction is being organized. However, it will take considerably longer than 15 months to happen. I doubt that it will take more than 5 more years for it to become impossible for Americans to stay. Wildest guess: We'll be down and out in 2009.

Apparently Iraq is full of peach pits.

-ungrateful peach pits :mad:

*Bump* could we review and discuss this thread some more? Hindsight is 20:20, and we've had some time to gain a clearer view. Now that the Surge has run its course; and now that the GOP is eagerly heaving the red-hot baton of this campaign and our economy into the laps of the Democrats-

How are you Sciforums warheads holding up, in terms of explaining our hearts-and-minds "victory" in Iraq? Could we please have some more edumacation on the "Support Our Troops = Support the PNAC Mission" premise? These remain very important issues. Of course, if you really want to be pussies about it, you can cower in silence, in hopes of blaming a Democrat administration for our failures.

oops, okey, I gotit now.

/lurks

I'm gonna have to say no.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/08/iraq.women/index.html#cnnSTCText

Nothing much has changed. There's very little political movement, but the violence is still down. Al Qaeda are looking desperate.

Al Qaeda are looking desperate.

Source?

Fuck alqaeda taliban whatever else.....Iraq is for IRAQIS of all religion race whatever. DEMOCRACY not theocracy. Not a pure democracy but secularism, I support that 100% and capitalism too

The Sunni in Anbar who were sometimes "mistaken" for AQ, recently armed by the US during the successful bribing of them to cut back on attacking US forces (the "surge"), are allegedly feeling their oats - no more taking shit from the Shiites in the Baghdad "government", apparently .

I figure wherever they feel as though they can handle themselves, it's one more place in Iraq we don't need to be.

Example of the trends:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,159357,00.html

Here's an excellent clip from Keith Olberman regarding progress in Iraq. Bush has been saying we're making progress in Iraq since the war started. Just enough progress to justify our pressence, but not enough progress to leave.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biX0qI1P7B4

Source?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe the past seven months of journalism on the subject...

If there's seven months of it, it shouldn't be hard to provide a recent source supporting your statement. :shrug:

I'm not disputing whether or not this is true. I'd just like to read something that confirms.

So would I. Lopsided conversations like this can be balanced into something so much more informative, countezero. It only requires that you share with us some tangible representation of the background supporting your opinions.

countezero: "Al Qaeda are looking desperate."

ashura: "Source?"

countezero: "Oh, I don't know."

There is no excuse for ignorance of the most provocative generalizations of the threats we face. There was no excuse for ignorant acceptance of the exaggerated threats about Iraqi WMDs- the oft-repeated lies from the BushII Administration that got the USA entangled in this whole mess.

Which means there's even less excuse for accepting present exaggerations and misapplications of the "alQaeda" label from the same White House sources, or from sources (and lacks thereof) that you would have us accept here without references. A quote and a link is a nice way to show some care and respect for those taking the time to read your posts, and for those taking an interest in understanding the reasoning behind your perpective.
Alex Rossmiller, who worked in Iraq as an intelligence officer for the Department of Defense, says that real uncertainties exist in assigning responsibility for attacks. "It was kind of a running joke in our office," he recalls. "We would sarcastically refer to everybody as al-Qaeda."

To describe AQI's presence, intelligence experts cite a spectrum of estimates, ranging from 8 percent to 15 percent. The fact that such "a big window" exists, says Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center, indicates that "[those experts] really don't have a very good perception of what is going on."

Washington Monthly: The Myth of AQI (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0710.tilghman.html)


countezero: "Maybe the past seven months of journalism on the subject..."

You must be reading more selectively than I, to be drawing such radically different conclusions. It would enhance discussions here, if you would please try and be more forthcoming, and less evasive about the sources that are informing your opinions.

I have yet to see any clear explanation of alleged organizational ties between insurgents in Iraq and Osama Bin Laden's lines of communication and command, or an explanation of the ties between insurgents in Iraq, and the logistical structure of the visible organization (whatever that was) that attacked the USA on 9-11. Further, I haven't seen evidence that the many factions opposed to the occupation, opposed to the Baghdad government, and opposed to Shi'a ascendency are being exposed and disarmed. The Sunni "Awakening" is turning into something the occupation forces may soon wish that they could quietly put to sleep- a real threat to the security of the occupation, that will be particularly difficult to convincingly label for the USAmerican public as "al-Qaeda":
We hereby declare suspension of all co-operation with both US military, Iraqi security forces and the local government

-Abu Abdullah, Diyala Awakening Council Spokesman (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/CACF2A61-B627-4B67-84E2-A6FCFDC25AAE.htm)


Among the militias "Awakened" by US support, tribal loyalties and rivalries are proving as persistent as Iraq's larger ethnic tensions:The thin teenage boy rushed up to the patrol of American soldiers walking through Dora, a shrapnel-scarred neighborhood of the capital, and lifted his shirt to show them a mass of red welts across his back.
He said he was a member of a local Sunni “Awakening” group, paid by the American military to patrol the district, but he said it was another Awakening group that beat him. “They took me while I was working,” he said, “and broke my badge and said, ‘You are from Al Qaeda.’”

The soldiers were unsure of what to do. The Awakening groups in just their area of southern Baghdad could not seem to get along: they fought over turf and, it turned out in this case, one group had warned the other that its members should not pay rent to Shiite “dogs.”

NYT: In a Force for Calm, Seeds of Conflict (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/world/middleeast/23awakening.html)

Here's a link about a recent and ground-breaking film documentary examining Iraqi militias:

Meeting Resistance (http://meetingresistance.com/)

Thanks, for taking my remarks out of context, Hype, and using them to launch into one of your typical rants. You're such an honest broker.

For anyone interested more in truth than confirming their own dementia, I've posted dozens of links in this thread and others about the situation in Iraq, which biased ideologues like Hype refuse to accept or choose to ignore. But if more is demanded, then here's another to add to the pile.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3346386.ece

As for my "sources," I typically read my daily newspaper, the Times, and the Economist, the last of which had a substantial cover story about Iraq about a month ago. Nothing I have read or seen on television has posited the situation any differently than I briefly described above, besides Mrs. Pelosi's strange remarks of late...