[speechlesstx]

Is this really coming from al-AP?

U.S. making new military gains in Iraq

Robert Burns
Associated Press
Aug. 7, 2007 12:00 AM

BAGHDAD - The new U.S. military strategy in Iraq, unveiled six months ago to little acclaim, is working.

In two weeks of observing the U.S. military on the ground and interviewing commanders, strategists and intelligence officers, it's apparent that the war has entered a new phase in its fifth year.

It is a phase with fresh promise yet the same old worry: Iraq may be too fractured to make whole.

No matter how well or how long the U.S. military carries out its counterinsurgency mission, it cannot guarantee victory.

Only the Iraqis can. And to do so they probably need many more months of heavy U.S.-military involvement.

It's been an uphill struggle from the start to build Iraqi-security forces that are able to fight and able to divorce themselves from deep-rooted-sectarian loyalties. It is the latter requirement that is furthest from being fulfilled.

There is no magic formula for success. And magic is what it may take to turn military gains into the strategy's ultimate goal: a political process that moves Iraq's rival Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds from the brink of civil war to the threshold of peace - and to get there on a timetable that takes account of growing war fatigue in the United States.

Efforts at Iraqi reconciliation saw another blow Monday: Five Cabinet ministers loyal to Iraq's first post-Saddam Hussein leader decided to boycott government meetings, further deepening a crisis that threatens Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

U.S.-military leaders want Congress and President Bush to give them more time to keep trying - to reach a point, perhaps in 2009, when the Iraqis will be closer to reconciliation and ready to provide much of their own security.

U.S. officers insist it is unrealistic to expect the Iraqis to resolve their problems in a matter of months. And they argue that withdrawing would only lead to bigger problems, for the U.S. and for Iraq.

That is likely to be the message that Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. officials in Iraq, convey to Congress and to Bush in September. They are in no position to predict how long it might take the Iraqi government to achieve reconciliation, but they are likely to concede, if asked, that if the Iraqis do not take key steps in the months ahead the entire U.S. approach may unravel.

First of all, after 4 years of daily detailing the carnage, the chaos, the 'conspiracies' and 'abuses', I'm floored that al-AP would say the surge "is working." But then again, there comes a point when critics must acknowledge even the most unwelcome facts, or is there?

Steve

[excon]

Hello Steve:

Yeah, we're making progress... (you should excuse me if I snicker a bit about that)

And I don't disagree with you. We're kicking butt.. But, the gubment of Iraq is falling apart. So, I ask... progress doing what, and for whom?

The gubment is looking more and more like an Iranian puppet. No? And, THAT'S who we're doing this for??

excon

[tomder55]

Here is the link to Iraq the Model . Omar is pretty down on the gvt. There himself.

The Untimely Recess
The withdrawal of the Accord Front from Maliki's cabinet and the persistence of the parliament on taking a month long recess is a major embarrassment for Baghdad and Washington alike and for anyone who was looking forward to seeing some political progress in Iraq before the September milestone.

When it comes to the recess, two main factions can be identified as the cause of the deadlock:

First there is the Accord Front. This bloc apparently trying through the withdrawal from the cabinet and preventing the passage of legislations by insisting on taking the recess to show that the government and particularly Maliki have failed.
Their moving in this direction suggests that they are betting that by proving their point they will have a chance to oust Maliki and form a new government by joining forces with other opposition groups namely Allawi's bloc, the Dialogue Front since these two blocs supported the Accord's decision and Allawi's is even planning to follow the Accord's steps out of the cabinet. The Fadheela Party and some independent UIA members could be potential partners as well.

Second we have the pro-withdrawal anti-American factions in the parliament; mainly represented the Sadr bloc in addition to some radical elements from the UIA and a few from the two Sunni blocs who are not getting along well with the moderate wing in the bloc. These simply want to halt the legislative process at this point hoping that this would put more pressure on Washington to withdraw from Iraq.

I don't have the vote record of the session in which the recess was approved but from the number (150 votes in favor of the recess) I think Allawi's bloc, or at least its members who were present that day have voted similarly perhaps for the same reason the Accord did.
I suppose Petraeus will not have a difficulty in showing progress military-wise but the question is, could that be enough to make up for the damage done by these political setbacks?

There's no question that achieving a dramatic military victory in 30 days is very unlikely when we're fighting terrorists and militias. On the other hand reversing the political damage dealt by the two developments in 30 days seems to need something close to a miracle.

These developments show that a majority in our parliament care only about themselves and their blocs' interests much more than they do about the country's in such difficult time and their attitude tells that the blocs don't want to work together and don't want to reconcile their differences.
Like we always said, we don't need reconciliation among the people, we need reconciliation among the components of the political class and if they don't want to do this then I think the best solution to ensure a fresh political start would be to change the political class through early elections once the security situation allows for. And to do this Iraq will need the "surge" to continue for several months beyond September.

One thing makes me worried these days and I'm afraid that someone is planning a different bad solution. The rift between the minister of defense and the senior commanders including chief of staff of the army which led to a group resignation is an ominous sign that indicates a deep dispute between the two leaderships and this dispute seems to be over a political issue given their history in the military institution.
It would be too early to speculate that someone is planning a coup-or preparing to crush one-at this point but the mere thought of it remains a little bit scary.

IRAQ THE MODEL

[speechlesstx]

Hello Steve:

Yeah, we're making progress...... (you should excuse me if I snicker a bit about that)

And I don't disagree with you. We're kicking butt.. But, the gubment of Iraq is falling apart. So, I ask... progress doing what, and for whom?

The gubment is looking more and more like an Iranian puppet. No?? And, THAT'S who we're doing this for?????

See ex, now that's a start. I'll concede your point about the Iraqi government, but my point is this, everyone knows the power of the written and the spoken word. It is my firm belief that the lack of support among the American people in general is largely due to the message of failure, incompetence, abuse and chaos that's been pounded at them for all these many years by the media, moonbat bloggers and other lefties - and Democrats - that should have the integrity to avoid feeding this propaganda monster.

What does that have to do with success or failure in Iraq, including the Iraqi government? The left has dismissed the notion that all of this negative talk "emboldens the enemy," but any reasonable person knows that in fact it does. They know the power of words, which is why they've chosen to use those words over and over in an unceasing attempt to undermine the administration and turn the tide of public opinion against the war. That's why I posted this AP column, it is the rare instance of highlighting something positive after years of daily body counts and overall doom and gloom. If they were able - and I believe they were - to turn public opinion against the war, what COULD happen if they suddenly became cheerleaders to getting this thing done?

Seriously, in spite of all the conspiracy theories, all the charges of trumped intelligence, etc. the fact is we're there, so why not get behind the effort? Everyone knows what will happen if we leave prematurely, even Michael Moore acknowledged they'd kill each other and then we'd have to come in and mop things up. There can be no reason to be so willing to abandon the Iraqi people than the left can't politically afford for Bush to win this thing. They've even admitted as much. Would it not be refreshing - and I believe effective - for people to put aside politics and do the right thing here? When al-Qaeda admits the left is helping their cause, how can anyone deny that an about face would hurt their cause?

And that my friend, is precisely where Hillary was right about Obama saying he would meet with thugs like Fidel, Hugo and the Mahdi Hatter, we don't need to be used for their proganda purposes... any more than we need to be used for Jihadist propaganda purposes.

Steve
P.S. Yeah, I actually said Hillary was right about something.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

We just have a fundamental disagreement as to who is causing us to lose the war. I think Bush lost it years ago, and the left simply recognizes it. I'm not a lefty, and I recognized it years ago. Nothing has happened to change my mind, the surge notwithstanding.

Furthermore, if it's freedom that Al Qaeda hates, as Bush says, then our own government has helped reduce our freedoms by leaps and bounds. The Democrats just did it again, yesterday. They're not one iota better than Bush.

excon

[Choux]

We just have a fundamental disagreement as to who is causing us to lose the war. I think Bush lost it years ago, and the left simply recognizes it. I'm not a lefty, and I recognized it years ago. Nothing has happened to change my mind, the surge notwithstanding.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Choux]

I guess I have a lot more opportunity to watch political commentary and speeches than most, and Bush *admitted* that it was his fault for mishandling the war on Iraq after the landslide election in November 2006 for the Democrats.

Now we have surges against well-organized guerilla homicide bombers receiving directive from a newly strong AlQuaeda and who knows else.

[speechlesstx]

I guess I have a lot more opportunity to watch political commentary and speeches than most, and Bush *admitted* that it was his fault for mishandling the war on Iraq after the landslide election in November 2006 for the Democrats.

And apparently you think we've forgotten what Bush said. He actually acknowledged mistakes at least as early as 2004, and what you're talking about is when he said "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me." But what does that have to do with my post concerning media and Democrat behavior?

Now we have surges against well-organized guerilla homicide bombers receiving directive from a newly strong AlQuaeda and who knows else.

And your point is what?

[Choux]

THE SURGE IS WORKING----THE WAR IS A **FAILURE**.

"The Associated Press has run a story by its military writer Robert Burns making the claim that the so-called "surge" is "working" in Iraq and now the war is entering "a new phase." Burns, however, rather weakens his argument by conceding that, for all of US efforts, the US can't guarantee victory -- "only the Iraqis can." Then he points out that "it is far from certain that they are capable" of doing this because of "deep-seated sectarian loyalties", because of a "deepening crisis" in the government coalition, and many related issues, all leaving American commanders "clinging to a hope that stability might be built from the bottom up... " According to Burns, though, beyond the "clinging hope", there is another reason why the US military chiefs do not want to give up -- "they feel that so much has been sacrificed already that it makes no sense to quit now" referring to the 3,665 US soldiers lost so far, and the current average of two per day dead. But, of all the arguments for staying, this last one undoubtedly is the most dangerous and most futile. By dint of this belief, the US should have remained in the Vietnam War indefinitely since we lost 55,000 lives -- and Ronald Reagan should never have pulled US forces out of Lebanon after losing several hundred US troops to a terrorist attack. America cannot base its national security decisions on romantic fantasies but on realities -- and the truth is that the US is embedded in an intervention it should never have undertaken, caught up in a civil war that it cannot settle or stop, and, most importantly, has lost the support of the only constituency that counts -- the American people."

A big neo-Con failure.

[ETWolverine]

Chou,

Not only is the MSM starting to admitt that the surge is working, but so are the Dems themselves. In fact, they have pretty much said that if it is working, they are in big trouble.

In fact, House Majority Whip James Clyburn actually said so in an interview by washingtonpost.com. He said that a good report from General Patreus would be bad for the Dems. "I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us." In other words, WINNING THE WAR IS SOMETHING THAT THE DEMS DO NOT WANT TO OCCUR FOR PURELY PARTISAN REASONS!!

He has finally admitted what we all have known for a long time now... the Dems want to lose the war in Iraq so that they can blame Bush and win Congressional seats and the White House. Winning the war is a problem for the Dems. They would actually rather lose the war than give up political power.

Sickening.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

THE SURGE IS WORKING----THE WAR IS A **FAILURE**.

Let me help you out, Choux. Here is the link to the blog you failed to cite.

Now, do you have anything original to add to this, or is "THE WAR IS A **FAILURE**" the best 'argument' you can come up with? I know you can do better, let's see it.

[speechlesstx]

He has finally admitted what we all have known for a long time now... the Dems want to lose the war in Iraq so that they can blame Bush and win Congressional seats and the White House. Winning the war is a problem for the Dems. They would actually rather lose the war than give up political power.

Yep, I linked to the NY Sun article on that above, but here it is again so everyone has a chance to read it for themselves.

Sickening.

You know Elliot, that's an understatement. Especially considering all the BS we've put up with and all the moral grandstanding by the Dems. On the other hand, it's kind of nice to be vindicated by their admission of what we've been saying for a long time... but it's still sickening and then some.

[Choux]

Elliot, The Iraq war was lost a long time ago. Take off your rose colored glasses. :)

Since the war has been lost because of the neoCons bad decisions, the DEMOCRATS want to make sure Bush etal get the FULL BLAME for that horrific WAR OF **ADVENTURISM**.

[BABRAM]

"...if the Iraqis do not take key steps in the months ahead the entire U.S. approach may unravel."


On one hand there are some people that don't want timlelines and yet most people regardless of party affiliation know there is a time coming when the Iraqis need to take the reigns. I'm in favor of ceding the govt control to the Iraqis in 2008, including a slow redeployment phase.



Bobby

[BABRAM]

"Everyone knows the Iraqis need to take the reins, but too many are willing to jerk the rug out from under them to get elected."


"Everbody knows" means very little if we are having the same conversation two years from now. After five years of war you'd think the American public wouldn't still be having public forum discussions over the effectiveness of beating back the insurgents? I have a brother in the fight of his life daily. Many of the Republican candidates are prepared to cede govt power to the Iraqis gradually and you know all the Democrats hopefuls are ready to redeploy asap. I think most people are going to run out of patience soon. I know I already have.



Bobby

[ETWolverine]

Elliot, The Iraq war was lost a long time ago. Take off your rose colored glasses. :)

Why? Because you say so? Seems to me that the fighting is still going on. If there is still fighting, then the war hasn't been lost. That's another thing they teach in the military.

Since the war has been lost because of the neoCons bad decisions, the DEMOCRATS want to make sure Bush etal get the FULL BLAME for that horrific WAR OF **ADVENTURISM**.

Aha... so the idea is to ENSURE the loss of the war so that Bush gets the blame. This despite the fact that they voted for the war too.

And if, G-d forbid, we do actually win the war, that would be a terrible event. So the Dems have become cheerleaders for defeat.

Well, it's starting to bite them on the butts. Congress' poll numbers are worse than Bush's at something like 25% and as low as 22% by one poll. Support for the troops surge has grown by 9% since June, and anti-surge sentiment has dropped by about 10% (as per a USA Today/Gallup poll dated August 3-5, 2007).

Elliot

[excon]

Seems to me that the fighting is still going on. If there is still fighting, then the war hasn't been lost. That's another thing they teach in the military.

Hello again, El:

Nope, not really. Vietnam was lost in 1968, yet it took another 7 years and thousands more American lives before they admitted it.

Aha... so the idea is to ENSURE the loss of the war so that Bush gets the blame….. So the Dems have become cheerleaders for defeat.

Yeah, that’s the spin, isn’t it? Always has been from your side. If you don’t like the war and say so, you’re a traitor…

So, uhhhh, that’s what, about 70% of us?? Traitors?? Nahhh, nobody’s buying that schtick anymore.

Well, it's starting to bite them on the butts. Congress' poll numbers are worse than Bush's at something like 25% and as low as 22% by one poll.

Yeah, congress sucks. The Dems have no backbone. They have no leaders.

But there’s not a disloyal person amongst them. You should be ashamed.

When you want to discuss the war instead of carrying Bush’s water, let me know.

excon

PS> If you want to talk about disloyalty, let’s talk about how Bush destroyed the Constitution.

[ETWolverine]

Excon,

Vietnam wasn't lost in the field. It was lost at home by the politicians in Congress. In 1968, the war was still a viable entity, it could still have been won. It could have been won right up until the politicians decided to pull out, if the politicians had let us.

Yeah, that's the spin, isn't it? Always has been from your side. If you don't like the war and say so, you're a traitor…

So, uhhhh, that's what, about 70% of us?? Traitors?? Nahhh, nobody's buying that schtick anymore.

You haven't been reading what I wrote, Excon. These guys aren't against the war. They are against WINNING the war. THAT is treason.

The difference between them and you is that if you believed that we were winning the war, you would be happy about it. You like winning. You just don't think that we are winning. Fine, that's up for debate.

But these guys are saying that if it turns out that we are ACTUALLY WINNING, THAT IS BAD!! That's what makes them traitors. Huge difference between what they are saying and what you believe.

You can be against the war without being a traitor. But being against winning the war and saying that winning is bad based purely on the fact that it would be bad for their party politically? Being SORRY and DISAPPOINTED if we are winning? HOPING that we lose so that they can gain more political power? Sorry, that isn't patriotism. That's out and out treason.

But there's not a disloyal person amongst them. You should be ashamed.

Well, there's at least one, and his name is James Clyburn. There are others too, they are just smart enough to keep their mouths closed about it.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

Yeah, that’s the spin, isn’t it? Always has been from your side. If you don’t like the war and say so, you’re a traitor…

Think back, ex, do you recall us calling the Dems traitors prior to say, the 2004 election season? I didn't think so, because unlike the left we try to give our countrymen the benefit of the doubt until they show their true colors. The Dems have shown themselves to be traitors in this, a group of people with a professed core principle of standing for the weak and the oppressed, pro-human rights - that are perfectly willing to abandon the Iraqi people knowing full well what will happen if they manage to force our troops out of Iraq - all for the sake of personal political gain. That is a traitor in my book, not only to the United States but to the Iraqi people.

So, uhhhh, that’s what, about 70% of us?? Traitors?? Nahhh, nobody’s buying that schtick anymore.

How many of that 70% you cite were influenced purely by the anti-war rhetoric and intentionally negative press?

Yeah, congress sucks. The Dems have no backbone. They have no leaders.

But there’s not a disloyal person amongst them. You should be ashamed.

No? Then explain why they ditched Joe Lieberman? Explain how they can know al-Qaeda is using them for propaganda and willingly feed them more. And explain why they would admit success in Iraq would be a "big problem" for them while doing everything in their power to get us out of Iraq ASAP.

No doubt there are loyal American Democrats, and I don't doubt the sincerity of belief among most, but right now most Democrats in congress seem to be perfectly willing to throw whoever is in their way - including the country - under the bus to get a Democrat sweep next year.

[excon]

Then explain why they ditched Joe Lieberman?

Hello again, Steve:

It's a matter of perspective... How about, he ditched them?

excon