Ex-Commander Says Iraq Effort Is ‘a Nightmare’

[rmnunez]

The draft bill mentioned (anti de Ba'athification) is one of the 'benchmarks' sought by the US legislators from their Iraqi counterparts and expected to result from the political reconciliation induced by the breathing room the surge has created.

[Zeebadee]

Hey, let's get all the "good news" out into the open. Why does the MSM only publicize the bad??

"President Bush on Monday signed a deal setting the foundation for a potential long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq.

The agreement between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki means that the U.N.-mandated occupation of Iraq will end in December 2008. Any U.S. troop presence in the country after that time will be subject to U.S.-Iraq negotiations that are to be completed by next summer.

<snip>

Two senior Iraqi officials said that among the details to be negotiated will be preferential treatment for American investments.

Such preferential treatment could provide a huge windfall if Iraq can achieve enough stability to exploit its vast oil resources. Such a deal would also enable the United States to maintain leverage against Iranian expansion at a time of growing fears about Tehran’s nuclear aspirations." www.kansascity.com | 11/26/2007 | Bush, al-Maliki sign agreement on troops in Iraq

The time is approaching when Maliki has to pay for the support he's been getting from the U.S.

Our 4000 or so GI's haven't died in vain, and the $2,000,000,000,000 that some estimate this war has cost the taxpayers hasn't been wasted. The big corporations that actually run this country are set to make tons of money. Let's hear it for democracy!

[rmnunez]

the U.N.-mandated occupation of Iraq will end in December 2008

What do they mean by that "UN-mandated occupation", wasn't intervention supposed to be a unilateral and unlawful Bushian outrage? What does the UN have to do with anything?

[grandpa]

The Raw Story | US, Iraq deal sees long-term US presence

President Bush on Monday signed a deal setting the foundation for a potential long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq, with details to be negotiated over matters that have defined the war debate at home — how many U.S. forces will stay in the country, and for how long. The agreement between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki confirms that the United States and Iraq will hash out an "enduring" relationship in military, economic and political terms.

I'm not surprised about this.

Grandpa h.

[rmnunez]

Neither am I, it would be anticipated an "enduring" relationship would have to be fashioned to sustain those "permanent" military bases. The need for "regime change" also becomes so much more obvious.

If one were concerned with suicidical Islamic terrorism and could not contemplate an accomodation, would you just live with it or use force to defend your interests?

And if you found that terrorism had to be answered with force and was found predominantly in a specific region, wouldn't you need a base in the area?

Any Middle Eastern country would be a fine location to host US military bases from which they could engage in counterterrorist interventions, but if you scanned the egion for the best and most ideal place which could be better than Iraq?

We can differ on the advantageousness of having a long-term military presence in Iraq, but I expect everyone to agree on the advantgeousness of removing Saddam. No place else would substituting the ruler with someone more amenable be more beneficial to everyone.

[rmnunez]

Nearly 6,000 Sunni Arab residents in Hawija joined a security pact with American forces Wednesday in what US officers described as a critical step in plugging the remaining escape routes for extremists flushed from former strongholds. The new alliance (called the single largest single volunteer mobilization since the war began) covers the "last gateway" for groups such as al-Qaida in Iraq seeking new havens in northern Iraq, US military officials said. US commanders have tried to build a ring around insurgents who fled military offensives launched earlier this year in the western Anbar province and later into Baghdad and surrounding areas. In many places, the US-led battles were given key help from tribal militias (mainly Sunnis) that had turned against al-Qaida and other groups. The Associated Press: 6,000 Sunnis Join Pact With US in Iraq

The insurgency is on it's last legs. They've got nowhere to run and nowhere to hide in Iraq as Iraqi citizens have turned on them and they can not sustain themselves. Bin Laden released another statement today focusing attention on Afghanistan as he knows Iraq is lost cause for Al Qaida in Iraq and the rest of the insurgency.

[jose]

Australia's prime minister-elect says the country's 550 combat troops will leave Iraq by the middle of 2008.

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Iraq pledge by Australia PM-elect

[rmnunez]

The Australians have provided a substantial and significant contribution to the US-led initiative and surely will continue, but by mid 2008 they will no longer be necessary. The other Coalitioneers who left a bit early should have stuck it out, but couldn't handle the pressure.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez The Australians have provided a substantial and significant contribution to the US-led initiative and surely will continue, but by mid 2008 they will no longer be necessary. The other Coalitioneers who left a bit early should have stuck it out, but couldn't handle the pressure.

Give me a break. Australia has had 2 casualties in Iraq, 1 in 2005 and 1 in 2006 (DeathsByYear). Australia's contribution to the "coalition" has been all political.

In the meantime, more lies and disinformation from the bush administration.

"At least 20,000 U.S. troops who were not classified as wounded during combat in Iraq and Afghanistan have been found with signs of brain injuries, according to military and veterans records compiled by USA TODAY.

The data, provided by the Army, Navy and Department of Veterans Affairs, show that about five times as many troops sustained brain trauma as the 4,471 officially listed by the Pentagon through Sept. 30. These cases also are not reflected in the Pentagon's official tally of wounded, which stands at 30,327."
20,000 vets' brain injuries not listed in Pentagon tally - USATODAY.com

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez The insurgency is on it's last legs. They've got nowhere to run and nowhere to hide in Iraq as Iraqi citizens have turned on them and they can not sustain themselves. Bin Laden released another statement today focusing attention on Afghanistan as he knows Iraq is lost cause for Al Qaida in Iraq and the rest of the insurgency.

Ah, but this is not being reported as well:

McClatchy Washington Bureau | 11/29/2007 | U.S. sponsorship of Sunni groups worries Iraq's government BAGHDAD — The American campaign to turn Sunni Muslims against Islamic extremists is growing so quickly that Iraq's Shiite Muslim leaders fear that it's out of control and threatens to create a potent armed force that will turn against the government one day. The United States, which credits much of the drop in violence to the campaign, is enrolling hundreds of people daily in "concerned local citizens" groups.

It seems the 'liberal media" (what some would call factual reporting) is complicating things yet again.

Grandpa h.

[rmnunez]

Its interesting to find people concerned over US efforts to integrate Iraqis in the effort. Though its true there could be disgruntled insurgents or terrorists infiltrating among the joining civilians, the risk is worth it in exchange for the commitment, involvement and local 'savvy' among the citizenry. Making them stakeholders assures a greater commitment, their participation guarantees more equitable apportionment of effort and resources.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez Its interesting to find people concerned over US efforts to integrate Iraqis in the effort. Though its true there could be disgruntled insurgents or terrorists infiltrating among the joining civilians, the risk is worth it in exchange for the commitment, involvement and local 'savvy' among the citizenry. Making them stakeholders assures a greater commitment, their participation guarantees more equitable apportionment of effort and resources.

Good old Nunez. When his claims are debunked he simply ignores it and moves on to new ones.

[rmnunez]

I don't think keeping the Iraqis disengaged is better, that hasn't worked so far and common sense suggests getting them more involved would be better.

Critics of the war often tell us of the fallacy behind trying to "impose" democracy, how the people themselves must be engaged to adopt and develop their own system of government independently.

Getting civilians to run patrols, man checkpoints and apprehend delinquents necessarily empowers them and makes them "stakeholders". Iraqis should feel they have a role in their country's future. Iraqis should be encouraged to appreciate how they can influence the way their country is governed.

All they can hope for right now is to just see how the occupying forces run things and maybe have some influence in moving things along. If they 'play along' with the occupier's rules and meet expectations, they will accomplish more than they've been able to with their hodge-podge sectarianist insurgency or terrorism.

[BugsBunny07]

Quote by: Zeebadee Great! Let's hear it for all those willing to donate body parts in Iraq for the advancement of "medical technologies".

its bad for the soldier that gets wounded, but the fact is that wars accelerate medical technology.

Sorry, but I don't have you to thank for anything. Iraq was never a threat to me, so you've really done nothing for me to thank you for. Some of us have already participated (1966-1975), and the one good thing we got from that participation was the idea that we, as a nation, might have learned something from it. So I guess you don't have anything to thank me for either, as you evidently haven't learned a damned thing.

I dont expect you to, and dont see that I deserve much, at least not near as much as those who came before and did the real shooting, and I dont just mean in Iraq. But wars are won and lost by (among other factors) how many men you have willing to pick up a rifle and actually use it.

And yes, we did learn quite a bit. LBJ and Nixon tried to win hearts and minds. Our president has sense enough to just about damn near write them a check. And guess what...it is working.

We did learn, a lot. Thats why Sunni and Shiite neighbors are cooperating. Thats why militant clerics are calling cease fires and telling thier looneytoon assclown followers to quit blowing up the roads. It's why OBL is conceding to "setbacks". Cultural awareness training is mandatory, arabic classes are encouraged. Religeosly neutral headresses are available in just about every PX in theatre.Enough guys (like me) are aproaching these people with tan headresses under there kevlar, with as much facial hair as they can get away with, speaking in (broken, but polite) Arabic and NOT waiving guns in everyone's face like an idiot...it gets results.

All THAT is why this war is NOT a nightmare. Whether it was a good idea to go or not, whether its worth it, whether people like me belong in a cage...this war is not a nightmare. And that is the whole point.

[Osborn F Enready]

Funny how we respect Armed forces leaders opinions when they are in the uniform, but once they retire they are labeled "mistaken", "biased" or "motivated by another agenda".

I think a bit of the change of attitude may come from not being liable to the UCMJ anymore.

I don't see any good coming from Iraq, no matter how it turns out.

[rmnunez]

I think its remarkable anyone could question the righteous leadership Bush exemplifies in this effort in Iraq. Obstacles and adversities, deficiencies in strategic planning, political and tactical errors abound, developments have arisen. Foreign terrorist interest, sectarianism, oil markets, seccessionism, Iranian, Saudi, Syrian and other involvements -may have been more or less foreseable and ought to or could have been better dealt with.

Bush lead the way to end decades of political repression, human rights abuses and genocide; impede reckless dallying with terrorists, prevent dangerous proscribed weapons proliferation, enforce long delayed international obligations and compell removal of an oppressive, corrupt regime sustaining a violently agressive tyrant with a proven track record threateningly poised over a vital resource.

The invasion itself was excellently executed, by May Day Bush could claim a resounding victory -despite Saddam's escape. Quite clearly there was a regime change and no fighting.

Screwups at the top with reconstruction funding are the most likely source, but delays on the ground spelled disaster for the occupation. Had the US adequately held up Baghdad's electric and water supply, everything would have gone peachy. Delaying this fostered insurgency which fed on itself delaying reconstruction.

But the surge added exactly the additional 'umph' the Coalition needed on the ground to change things -insurgents and terrorists have definitely been pushed back, breathing room was created, mission accomplished.

As anticipated, the breathing room did facilitate reconciliation. More is sought, efforts have been undertaken to obtain it, its not as forthcoming from top figures in the Baghdad legislature. Meanwhile we see Sunnis and Shias in the countryside embracing and working together with Coalitioneers to improve security.

Next we must see some reconstruction gains. With locally empowered civilians on armed patrols guarding improvements and on the lookout for the slightest sign of trouble, US helicopters at the ready behind the hills, progress should ensue. Schools and clinics, markets and other public buildings should be rebuilt, restored or put up immediately.

With any luck we can have Giulianni some photo ops welcoming returning troops to ticker tape parades down their Canyon of Heroes -on or near the elections.

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez I think its remarkable anyone could question the righteous leadership Bush exemplifies in this effort in Iraq.

It's not particularly remarkable to question anything. I'm guessing that's what we have brains for.
When it comes to those in positions of "righteous leadership," we can question them because they are.
As far as I'm concerned, we a have a practical obligation to do so.

Quote by: rmnunez Obstacles and adversities, deficiencies in strategic planning, political and tactical errors abound, developments have arisen.

Here you provide all the more reason to question Bush (and his predecessors and future presidents, of course).

It should be considered bizarre to claim the US has ever worked hard to minimize repression in Iraq, seeing as to how the US provided much support to Saddam (even after he infamously gassed Kurds), acted significantly in fostering three recent wars in Iraq (I'd still consider the Iran/Iraq War fairly recent), and spearheaded sanctions which did far, far more to punish Iraq's general population than they did Saddam. Not only that, but the US originally did not intend free elections after Saddam -- thousands of Iraqis protested for them.

That sounds more like aiding various forms of repression and otherwise acting to destroy the country.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

Nunez, you sure are a cheerleader for the Bushbots.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready ... cheerleader for the Bushbots.

Sounds like the title to a really bad skin flick.

Grandpa h.

[rmnunez]

the US provided much support to Saddam (even after he infamously gassed Kurds)

Some, not "much" and all the time or in the same levels. Saddam was shunned most of the time as he put Iraq in the the Soviet orbit. With pro-US shah next door in Iran, things stayed that way until they installed US repudiating ayatollahs. When Saddam attacked Iran it was an ideal situation, a new arch-enemy of the US was attacked by an inadequately supported ex-Soviet ally. Supporting Saddam was the playbook answer. After the Iran-Iraq war came Kuwait and that put Saddam definitely in the liabilities column.

(the US) acted significantly in fostering three recent wars in Iraq (I'd still consider the Iran/Iraq War fairly recent)

Iraq has had a number of recent conflicts besides its present occupation. Immediately before the present occupation it made war on Kuwait and was repelled by the US under a UN mandate. prior to that there was the war against Iran. Before Iran Saddam didn't attack anyone except Iraq's minorities and dissenters. The only role the US may have played in fostering the Kuwait war is based on interpretations of alleged diplomatic failure to reject with enough emphasis some vague suggestion the place would be attacked.

(the US) spearheaded sanctions which did far, far more to punish Iraq's general population than they did Saddam.

That is an inevitable consequence of sanctions, they will always have a broad impact on the general population. Third world tyrannies typically feature tremendously affluent rulers who are relatively immune to suffering from economic sanctions.

Not only that, but the US originally did not intend free elections after Saddam -thousands of Iraqis protested for them.

That Iraqis protested to secure a democratic process for their government bears absolutely no relationship to earlier US plans for their government.