Check out some similar questions!

Dark_crow · Sep 3, 2007, 02:26 PM

Good news from Iraq where President and others in the administration have determined that recently even the Sunni tribes have cooperated with U.S. forces to drive out insurgent groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq. And the even better good news is that if progress continues some troops will soon be coming home because the same level of security can be maintained with fewer troops. This was concluded after a surprise visit by the President and some of his staff to Iraq where officials there were interviewed.

Read more of the story here.washingtonpost.com

paraclete · Sep 3, 2007, 04:58 PM

Yes it is indeed good news if the iraqi people take responsibility for their own security.

Is that lesser evil or lesser weevil?

Choux · Sep 3, 2007, 06:55 PM

I was just reading how Bush may have a plan in place to pit the Sunni Muslims(Saudi, Jordan, part of Iraq, etd) against the Shiia Muslims(Iran and most of southern Iraq)... which includes 1,200 air strikes on Iran... destroying Iran's military. Balance of power? Part of the deal is that bin Laden is taken out.

More later.

BABRAM · Sep 3, 2007, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Good news from Iraq where President and others in the administration have determined that recently even the Sunni tribes have cooperated with U.S. forces to drive out insurgent groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq. And the even better good news is that if progress continues some troops will soon be coming home because the same level of security can be maintained with fewer troops. This was concluded after a surprise visit by the President and some of his staff to Iraq where officials there were interviewed.

Read more of the story here.washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

The attacks in the Anbar province have been cut in about half. Folks, that is thirty attacks compared to sixty in the last ninety days. How much of this is attributed to the insurgents having moved their attack to other locations? Now, according to the GAO the civil unrest is still high and this apparently is true because of the concerns represented by natives that the President appears to be favoring the Sunni's. I'm not suggesting this is correct policy of our President [Bush] to favor the Sunni or others for that matter. Just that it points to a case of perpetual civil unrest in their country.

Here's another concern of mine. Read the following quote:

"We welcome him as a friend in Anbar, and we expect a great deal," said Ali al-Khalifa, a sheik in the Dulaimi tribe. "We have drafted a list of demands which we hope Mr. Bush will not be late in realizing, such as providing electricity, water, communications, hospitals, and other infrastructure, as well as complete compensations to the citizens."

Oh? So how much debt will we (the US citizens and legal residents) carry in meeting these demands. I'm concerned about keeping my own family compensated and now I have some waa-hoo from the Dulaimi tribe that wants in my back pocket? I know some of you think that this compensation demand, if met by our President, would come from the newly formed Iraqi govt, but that's not going to be the case. As long as we stay, and Dubya keeps claiming to be by their side, WE (YOU and I) as Americans will pay. This war has already been costly enough. After WWII, we helped Japan back onto their feet so well that fifty years later they were building cars better than Detroit ever thought about. Not that this will happen in Iraq, because it's not the same scenario. But Dubya better not use us to extend welfare when we can't afford our own.

Bobby

tomder55 · Sep 4, 2007, 07:21 AM

Anbar was considered the most challenging province in Iraq. It wasn't that long ago that we defacto conceded the province to al-Qaeda. Now ,not only is the counter-insurgency working ;but for the most part the bulk of our personnel there are doing stability and training missions to new and growing Iraqi security institutions and are in a post-counter insurgency operation .

That is what Gen P. and Ambassador Crocker will report in 2 weeks.

BABRAM · Sep 4, 2007, 08:59 AM

Crocker's report will probably perpetuate the view that returning soldiers home will be based on the Iraqi's ability of stability and that everything is looking better. Is that new news? No. Dah! Is that good news? Yes. Most everyone wants the troops home. However this is only a half truth, which means of course, partly misleading. This is also a triangulation issue for the upcoming election in conjunction with Bush trying to help the GOP, along with his mostly unpopular soon exit. In actuality any extra troops that Bush ordered into Iraq could be brought back later slowly appearing to be a reduction. When in fact it just puts us back to the original levels. The original article in the Washington Post didn't mention this, but just a few days ago I found this report:

"THE US President, George Bush, has given his strongest indication yet that he intends to continue with plans to increase troop numbers in Iraq after the September 15 report to Congress, when he delivered an upbeat assessment of military progress and a more positive view of the political outlook."

Bobby

tomder55 · Sep 4, 2007, 09:54 AM

Yes I suppose anything can be read into it. But the President said repeatedly that "when they stand up we can begin to stand down"(paraphrase)
I think the report DC cited is consistent with Bush's long help policy.

Dark_crow · Sep 4, 2007, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Yes I suppose anything can be read into it. But the President said repeatedly that "when they stand up we can begin to stand down"(paraphrase)
I think the report DC cited is consistent with Bush's long help policy.

Great metaphor in that paraphrase; Bush should adopt it.:D

BABRAM · Sep 4, 2007, 10:23 AM

No. Bush doesn't need to adopt more political rhetoric or bluster. If anything he needs to shut-up, sit down, and wait for the U-Haul to pull into the White House driveway. The next President will have to try and make sense of the big mess.

Bobby

excon · Sep 4, 2007, 11:30 AM

Hello DC:

If a trend line is headed down, but it ticks slightly less down one day, some people would call that progress. Not me.

excon

Dark_crow · Sep 4, 2007, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello DC:

If a trend line is headed down, but it ticks slightly less down one day, some people would call that progress. Not me.

excon

If the troop count deployed in Iraq is reduced, and security is sustained, that won’t exactly be like "burning up daylight".:p

ETWolverine · Sep 5, 2007, 06:18 AM

Excon,

Bad analogy. The trend is upward, not downward. It has been for months... that's what makes it a "trend". The body count is lower.

The number of terrorist incidents is lower. The number of terrorists caught or killed is up. The number of terrorist strongholds broken is up. The number of tips about terrorist activity from locals is up. Retail activity is up. Every single indicator of military success in Iraq shows a sustained positive trend over the past 7 months.

Now... you can argue that the Iraqi government has been a failure. That I am willing to debate with you. But that has NOTHING to do with the military equation. Militarily, the trend is clearly a sustained upward one, not a downward one with a single upward tick as you seem to claim.

Elliot