posted
I originally wrote the following essay for my political blog that nobody (except Euripides and my cousin) reads. But I was actually looking to see what people are currently feeling about the funding battle and the results of the Iraq surge, so I thought I'd port it over here and see what people have to say:
With the debate heating up between Democrats and President Bush on Iraq war funding, I thought now might be a good time to take a fresh look at the situation as it stands and how we're currently trying to solve it. Things look dire, but there's cause for hope if we take the right actions now.
John McCain recently reported that Iraq has made great progress due to the surge of US troops Bush ordered last month. Mike Pence (R-IN) made the comment that moving about the Shorja market in Baghdad was like "a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime." McCain himself trumpeted his visit to the market saying Americans could move freely through some part of Baghdad. When asked later in the week about his comments, he responded, "I just came from one," he replied sharply. "Things are better and there are encouraging signs." He added, "Never have I been able to go out into the city as I was today." Pence went even further, to say "the most deeply moving thing for me was to mix and mingle unfettered."
What Pence and McCain both left out was that they were wearing bullet proof vests, surrounded by 100 armed soldiers, two blackhawk helicopters, and gunships. Does that sound like a nice afternoon stroll to you? Does a company of soldiers and a couple helicopters for gunship support sound like something the average Iraqi can take advantage of to secure their safety? Local merchants were aghast when told about McCain's comments. Ali Jassim Faiyad, an electronics shop owner in Shorja said "the security procedures are abnormal!" and "they paralyzed the market when they came, this was only for the media. This will not change anything." It's a refreshingly candid appraisal to contrast against McCain's assertions of safety. Despite efforts to secure the market, including restricting car access and erecting blast walls, dozens of people have died in the market in attacks, 61 alone during a three pronged attack on February 12th. In recent weeks, snipers have taken up rooftop positions in the area to pick off people indiscriminately, and gunfights have broken out between Iraqi forces and insurgents. During McCain’s visit, he was assailed with questions by the shopkeepers over what would be done to increase their security, and to tell him how unsafe they felt. Ali Youssef, a glassmaker in the market witnessed these actions. "Everybody complained to them. We told them we were harmed,” he said. "This area here is very dangerous," continued Mr. Youssef, “They cannot secure it." Youssef lost his shop in the attack on February 12th.
After McCain left, shopkeepers expressed their discontent with his visit, saying he was only there for his own purposes, to make himself look good, and the people he visited would be left in the dust. They also feared increase risk of attack, as previous announcements from the Iraqi government of safety and progress usually just gave insurgents another item to add to their list of targets.
McCain might just be on to something though. It appears attacks and violence in general has inched lower during the month of March…in Baghdad. But what about Iraq as a whole? According to the Manilla Times, 1,869 Iraqi civilians were killed in the month of March, after the security crackdown started. To compare, the pre-crackdown death toll for the nation’s civilians, for the month of February, was 1,646. In those two months alone, Iraq has lose more citizens than the US has lost soldiers during the entire war. US military casualties for March were more than double those suffered by Iraqis, suggesting US forces were taking a much more frontline role. That tells me one important thing, that after four years of war, Iraqi forces are still not capable of launching their own missions and rooting out insurgents by themselves. So much for all those optimistic reports of Iraqi units coming online any day now.
So what exactly is going on in the rest of the country? So much of the focus for the past few months has been on Baghdad alone, as if Baghdad were the only place the war was being fought. Next week’s TIME Magazine has a four page article detailing American combat operations and the situation in Diyala Province in Iraq. In November of 2006, when US troops deployed away from Diyala, insurgents took control of the area. A line of relatively peaceful farming hamlets and religiously diverse neighborhoods became sectarian enclaves separated by violent reprisals, turning what was once a calm valley into an unraveled death knell. America struck back in Diyala in February, and at the end of March reclaimed the Qubah, a small village where insurgents lived in safety. After the attack, US troops wrote numbers on the back of men’s necks and women’s hands to track their movements after curfew. Seeing the image of them writing the numbers on their hands and necks with a Sharpie brought to mind images of number tattoos on the arms of Jews in concentration camps. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not comparing US troops to Nazis or Iraqis to Jews. Far from it in fact, I think the US troops there are often a saving grace to the locals, but the images are hard not to connect.
It may be that the Bush Administration surge in Baghdad is doing exactly what we wanted, but it’s having an opposite effect elsewhere in the nation. Displaced insurgents fleeing a US crackdown in Baghdad are heading out into the countryside to join fights already in progress against undermanned US troops in the field. They are also turning once peaceful villages and cities into dens of sectarian hate. Wherever these insurgents go, they incite sectarian violence, killing and partisanship. In many cities, couples that don’t share Shi’a or Sunni as a religion can’t even get their parents blessing to marry anymore. Small arms attacks rose on Diyala against US troops from 33 in July to 98 in February. Last July there were three suicide bombings in Diyala, this February there were five in one week. On some streets in Buhriz, one of the more violent villages in Diyala, US troops face a hailstorm of mortars and shoulder fired rockets. A Stryker battalion commander in Buhriz said he lost 20 men and women from his unit, and more than 800 civilians have died in the fighting.
To underpin the differences between then and now, the situation in Diyala wasn’t always so bad. In November, tensions between Shiites, who make up 30% of the population, and Sunnis, were kept in check by tribal leaders. Captain Mike Few was stationed just outside Baqubah (the provincial capital) at the time, he said “it was manageable in the beginning. The sheikhs were working it out.” But when the US moved forces to Baghdad, sectarian violence exploded. Last year Prime Minister al-Maliki’s largely Shiite government choked off food supplies and fuel to the region, and as the resources dwindled, tribal violence escalated. Sunnis, who had gathered in the area to support al-Zarqawi, the now dead al Qaeda leader, launched an extermination campaign against Shiites, who replied in kind. It’s no surprise that according to a recent poll, as many as 70% of Iraqis don’t want US forces to leave. The locals want to help, in fact a local sheikh tried to help Captain Few and his troops by providing detailed maps of the area, with positions of insurgents, likely ammo storage areas and arms caches. The problem isn’t a lack of willingness from locals, it’s partly a lack of troops, partly a lack of local government, and partly a lack of support from the national government. But even if all that were solved, it would still take years to root out the deep seated rivalries and enmities that now exist all over the country. Troops alone won’t solve the problem, as Colonel Sutherland, the man tasked with clearing out Diyala said, “I can kill all day long. It will do no good.”
Diyala is a poster child of the problem in Iraq. Even a 20,000 troop surge to pacify Baghdad has met with limited success and only bolstered attacks elsewhere in the nation. Finding a station wagon riddled with bullet holes and finding a dead family inside, or a burlap bag with the decapitated head of a family member on your front door step is something every Iraqi has to worry or think about every day in Iraq. Bush’s surge should still be given some time before a judgement is passed, but early signs aren’t cause for celebration. It should be noted that McCain also said in recent speeches that he can’t guarantee success in Iraq. That is some refreshing candor from a US Presidential candidate. Perhaps even enough to offset the utter spin from his previous statements.
So what are we left with? Bush and McCain are wrong, Iraq is still a giant, deadly mess. A half trillion dollars and 3,200 US troop deaths later and I don’t think we’re any closer to a peaceful, independent Iraqi nation than we were after “major combat operations” ended. Pacifying Iraq means a massive troop influx. We need to root out the entire country of insurgents and hold every inch of ground we take, not allowing them to rush back in afterwards. There needs to be nowhere in the country they can escape to and simple wait us out. Right now Cheney and Bush accuse Democrats of setting a date for surrender, that by doing so, all insurgents will have to do is mark a date on their calendars and wait us out. But how is that any different than what they are doing under Bush’s stewardship of the war? Right now, with any number of places to hide, the insurgents have no problem whatsoever waiting us out, because they don’t really have any pressure to hurry up. They are perfectly content to seed discontent all over the country, watching us chase after them like a giant international version of whack-a-mole. Ultimately I think Bush is firing blanks with that one. What we are doing now, in concert with Iraqi governmental ineptitude isn’t working. If the Democrats can be credited with anything, it’s rocking a boat that needs some rocking. Al-Maliki needs a kick in the pants, and maybe the threat of a US troop withdrawal will do just that.
The status quo isn’t going to cut it. But I’m more convinced now than I was before that we need to fix what we broke, and I think that means a massive, massive new troop commitment to Iraq. We need to send enough troops to cover every city and village in the country, to root out arms caches, to search for guns and munitions and to capture insurgents. I refuse to settle for our current efforts. If we aren’t going to commit more troops, then I fully support efforts made by the Democrats to try and force Bush and al-Maliki’s hands. If we aren’t doing anything productive, why be there at all?
The efforts that need to be made aren’t entirely military however. We need to fix the Iraqi government and root out corruption, all things that were brought to light in the Iraq Commission Report, but have since gone ignored by the Administration. Further, we need to engage regional powers in diplomacy. I think Pelosi was right to head to Israel and Syria to open discussions over the situation with them. I find it curious, and ridiculously partisan of Bush to attack Pelosi for her Syria visit when he remained utterly silent over a Republican visit to Syria’s president the previous week. The discussion always seems to be hinged around “should we stay or should we go?” but that’s far too simple a question. We’re not asking: “What’s next?” If we stay, what’s next? If we go, what’s next? If we can’t answer the second question, then answering the first will only get us into far more trouble.
It’s time to have a serious discussion on the situation over there. Democrats would do well to poke holes in Bush’s war plan and offer their own plan for success. They need to put the discussion on equal grounds. Say what is necessary for a victory, and then we can discuss whether or not we have what it takes to win. Bush is making victory sound like something that is always just over the next hill, whereas Democrats are making it sound like victory is at the base of a rainbow. Both of them are wrong, as victory is neither that near, nor that impossible to achieve. Bush is a lame duck, he has nothing to lose by actually being honest with us. His name is political black death to his party, his legacy is currently one of blunder and error. Democrats are losing every major fight they’ve tried to pick with Republicans, who stone wall with Bush’s support, any measure they put forth. Neither of them have anything to lose by having an honest discussion. But I think neither of them realize that putting aside scoring partisan points would probably score them both a lot of points with a populace just looking for a way out of the mess over there.
Source for quotes: AOL Time Warner
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Democrats would do well to poke holes in Bush’s war plan and offer their own plan for success.
Yes, they would. Not a one of them is trying to, however. They are all offering plans for a pull out, not for victory.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course is McCain were to walk through the middle of New York City he would likely have a bullet proof vest and a bunch of Secret Service agents around him.
The fact that he needed guards in Iraq doesn't really say anything.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
I agree. I think it's a major blunder of theirs to not try to address what it would take to win. Contrasting that with their current plan would probably help them more than hurt. Like McCain said though, I think it should be recognized that victory, especially give our current efforts, and as defined by the president, might never be achieved.
lupus -
You don't see a difference in scale there?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course is McCain were to walk through the middle of New York City he would likely have a bullet proof vest and a bunch of Secret Service agents around him.
The fact that he needed guards in Iraq doesn't really say anything.
It does when he is trying to represent his experiences as representative of the reality of the situation for average people.
If he did walk around surrounded by a cordon of secret service and other security in New York at 3am and then said "Look, there's no problem with walking about late at night." it would be around as honest or as productive.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lupus: Of course is McCain were to walk through the middle of New York City he would likely have a bullet proof vest and a bunch of Secret Service agents around him.
Do you have any basis for such a claim? He has given speeches in many cities, including New York, without wearing a flak jacket and surrounded in a manner to protect him from fire. I request that you qualify that kind of statement, even for someone who is joining the primary presidential race. Security has tightened, but there is no indication it has tightened to the degree you seem to imply. I would like to know if you have information that shows the contrary.
quote:Jim-Me posted: Yes, they would. Not a one of them is trying to, however. They are all offering plans for a pull out, not for victory.
The Democrats do not need to poke holes, they need to offer alternatives, which they have. Most serious Democratic candidates would like to begin by following the suggestions of the recent Iraq Study Group conclusions, for example. Your accusation that "They are all offering plans for a pull out" is not accurate.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mike Pence (R-IN) made the comment that moving about the Shorja market in Baghdad was like "a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime."
I guess it's an apt comparison. Why, last time I was in Indiana in the summertime I remember that the suicide car bombings had inched down to an average of only about 1.24 a day!
And if that's not encouraging, then good sirs, I ask you -- what could possibly be?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Maybe not to the letter, but look at what they are saying. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, any of the other candidates, and even some leading Republicans like Chuck Hagel, are only talking about withdrawel of most forces with a few thousand left behind to patrol and to train Iraqis. The Iraq Commission Report suggested more troops to hold regions of the country that get left behind whenever troops are redeployed. I've yet to see a comprehensive plan from a Democrat (or frankly, from a Republican) on how to win the war, only on withdrawel with differing degrees of what we leave behind and when we leave.
The problem is that Bush demands victory without telling us how we're going to get it, and Democrats demand withdrawel without telling us what could be done to achieve victory, or what a withdrawel might cost us.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: They are all offering plans for a pull out, not for victory.
You know, that's not actually true. Even most of the Democrats that are pushing for the withdrawal now were and (for many) are currently pushing for other plans. However, the Bush administration has made it clear that it is their way or nothing.
The only way to deal with that, to avert the continuing failure and irresponsibility that many see as the most likely response to letting the President have his way, is to play by the rules the President has defined. Which is what they are doing with the withdraw thing. Many of them are trying to get the President to negotiate, to inject opinions from people outside his inner circle that are responsible for the current mess, so that there is at least a chance (in their eyes) of a successful resolution.
But that doesn't seem to be something that the President is willing to do.
---
I'm not at all pleased with the way the Democrats have been conducting themselves, but that doesn't mean people should say things that are untrue about them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. If someone says that 'the democrats are not looking for ways to win' or 'the democrats are not offering solutions, only surrenders' then they've bought into the a load of the administration's negative hype machine and are conveniently believing something that is not at all true!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Maybe not to the letter, but look at what they are saying. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, any of the other candidates, and even some leading Republicans like Chuck Hagel, are only talking about withdrawel of most forces with a few thousand left behind to patrol and to train Iraqis. The Iraq Commission Report suggested more troops to hold regions of the country that get left behind whenever troops are redeployed. I've yet to see a comprehensive plan from a Democrat (or frankly, from a Republican) on how to win the war, only on withdrawel with differing degrees of what we leave behind and when we leave.
The problem is that Bush demands victory without telling us how we're going to get it, and Democrats demand withdrawel without telling us what could be done to achieve victory, or what a withdrawel might cost us.
The problem I have arguing with that is not in the details, but the wording. I honestly don't think there is any victory to be had over there at this point. What we need to focus on is damage control and gaining some credibility, both for ourselves and for the new government in Iraq. The language of "win" and "victory" are part of the problem that got us into this mess in Iraq, because it isn't that simple and never was. We aren't losing military battles over there, we are losing credibility, face, and confidence. That isn't going to change using the language espoused by the current administration, and so far the Iraq Study Group has offered the best methods of engaging other sources for actually getting back some stability, credibility, and confidence in the US.
The troop numbers issue has more to do with securing areas. This latest troop surge is the fifth in the last three years, so its significance is overplayed in the media and by the administration. The more significant steps being taken are the transfer of control and planning to the Iraqi military and police forces.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, there have been troop surges and troop reductions since the initial invasion first took place. If they had been five consecutive surges with no reductions, we'd have a lot more troops there than we currently do.
But I think there is still a victory to be had over there. The Iraq Study Group had a lot of great ideas to help get us there, we just need the political will to follow through.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heck, I think General Petreaus has some great ideas on what needs to be done too. The work he oversaw for the counter-insurgency manual was pretty compelling to me. But they are largely not being followed or supported by the Bush administration's plans.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there may have occasionally been slight hints that sometimes at least one of those guys might say things that are somewhat less than honest.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have not heard of any Democrat plans for victory. If anyone is aware of any please post them, because I think that would be helpful. Maybe some of them are exactly what is needed.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Well, there have been troop surges and troop reductions since the initial invasion first took place. If they had been five consecutive surges with no reductions, we'd have a lot more troops there than we currently do.
A "surge" by definition is temporary in the context used by the military for this campaign. So yes, five consecutive times there was an increase of troops and a gradual decline. This latest surge isn't even the largest one in terms of numbers.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah I misunderstood what you said the first time. No I think you're right, theoretically this one shouldn't be that big of a deal. The only reason it's so big a deal is because Bush made a big deal of it, and that gave the press a ball to run with. The projected RESULTS of the surge is what is overblown.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a pretty good essay. A couple of years, maybe even a year ago, I might have agreed with the premise that, given more troops, Iraq might be containable. I'm not sure I do anymore, and I don't think the troops are there to be drawn upon. Not in a ready state, anyway. Many of the troops presently on active duty in Iraq are exhausted and demoralized, and it doesn't seem like we have the base necessary to relieve them in a timely fashion, let alone bolster them.
As far as the Democrats, I think they're doing pretty much what they can, and what they feel their constituents have asked of them: to bring the troops home. That their efforts may be in vain on a literal level, given the promised veto, doesn't take away from their efforts making two clear statements: The continuation of problems in Iraq rests largely with the President, and this Congress, unlike the last, is unwilling to simply sign away resources without any say in the conditions of their deployment. In my more cynical moments, I think that Iraq itself is a distant second to riding the perceived fiasco to a Democratic presidency.
There was a horrifying interview on "Fresh Air" a few days ago with a reporter who'd written an article about how Iraqis who worked with the coalition forces were being singled out for death as collaborators, yet unable to get any sort of protection from the coalition, and how betrayed many of them felt as a result. It's such matters that make me feel that perhaps it's just too late. Even those who desperately want our success in Iraq wonder if We understand the realities there. And from the early notions that Iraqis would greet us with flowers to McCain's PR trip to the failure to protect those who risk their lives to aid us, We answer: "No."
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The status quo isn’t going to cut it. But I’m more convinced now than I was before that we need to fix what we broke, and I think that means a massive, massive new troop commitment to Iraq. We need to send enough troops to cover every city and village in the country, to root out arms caches, to search for guns and munitions and to capture insurgents.
I'm just not sure that this is possible without a full scale draft.
I myself haven't heard any good Democrat plans for victory, but neither have I really heard any from the current administration. I am really not sure that it is possible for us to achieve "victory" at all.
Not through military means, anyway.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That might just be the case. In which case I'd fully support a withdrawel of our troops. I've said many times before on Hatrack that if we aren't willing to go all out, we should just pull out. All evidence seems to point to a lack of willingness to go all out, but I'd at least like to see a good national government level discussion on what it would really take to secure such a victory.
At the end of the day, given the current course of public discourse on the subject, I'm going to support the Democrats, but I'll do so kicking and screaming along the way for a more in depth look at the situation.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, it doesn't have to be an all or nothing game. The problem is that this isn't a situation that our military is best suited to fix. Our military can aid with security or controlling the borders, but the actual enforcement and rebuilding needs to be conducted by the Iraqis for there to be any lasting effects.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It should be mentioned as well that a large emphasis in the anti-insurgency manual was on non-military or at the very least non-fighting side of things. You don't successfully counter an well-entrenched insurgency by focusing on killing people. Doing things like that leads to things like the conduct of the war in Iraq actually swelling the ranks of terrorists and insurgents and making the U.S. less safe.
The often more important part, according to the manual written under the guidance of the guy who is nominally in charge over there now, is the diplomatic aspect.
One of the major issues Iraqis have with the U.S. troops being there is that it seems like an indefinite occupation. While setting a date for pull out seems foolish (although, as I covered above, absent the President allowing any other options, it may be the best you can get), some form of assurance that we are going to be leaving would likely be of huge benefit. I've talked several times here about a goal based time table that says things like "We expect to achieve X in this time frame, which will allow us to then do Y.", culminating with "And then we leave." The administration has strongly resisted doing anything like this.
And that's just a few of their many diplomatic/non-military screw ups. The McCain trip is another example. Or how about describing the situation that wrecked a large portion of the country as something we set up so that we don't have to fight terrorsits here. Or how about making the primary criteria for people being put in positions of authority over there not being how competent they are, but rather how loyal they are to President Bush, We sent a flock of Harriet Myers's over there.
Is it any wonder that the Iraqi people don't trust us and generally want us to leave?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: Lyrhawn, it doesn't have to be an all or nothing game. The problem is that this isn't a situation that our military is best suited to fix. Our military can aid with security or controlling the borders, but the actual enforcement and rebuilding needs to be conducted by the Iraqis for there to be any lasting effects.
I would say that a peace would need to be established before the types of things you're talking about could happen. No such peace exists, and present day Iraqi security forces are totally incapabale of creating one.
Once that situation exists, I agree.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the peace won't happen without those things. As MrSquicky pointed out, many of the Iraqis are concerned about an indefinite occupation.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well looks like they are screwed then. We've been rebuilding the country for years now but every time we make progress, insurgents rush in and destroy a power plant, or blow up a pipeline, etc. etc. Infrastructure rebuilding, and rebuilding their economy, CANNOT take place and stay in place until the insurgent problem is taken care of, and that is something the Iraqi army CANNOT do, not even with US forces helping to guide them.
Plus recent polling data states that a majority of Iraqis don't want us to leave yet. They know that when we leave, all hell will break loose, and chances are good a civil war will be a fact in name as well as reality.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Q25 Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq? 22% support, strongly or somewhat. 78% oppose, strongly or somewhat.
Q26 Do you think that bringing more US forces into Baghdad and Anbar will make security in these areas better, worse, or have no effect on the security situation in these areas? Better 29% Worse 49% No Effect 22%
Q28 Overall, do you think the presence of US forces in Iraq is making security in our country better, worse, or having no effect on the security situation? Better 21% Worse 69% No Effect 10%
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, can you provide a link to your polling data? If they're really that much at odds (and they'd have to be, to go from 78% opposing to less than 50% opposing), then the difference has to be either in the methodologies of the polls, or in the timing. If we could compare both polls directly, we could probably make an educated guess as to their relative validity.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Polls in Iraq are like hens teeth. This is the only serious one I know about this year. I think Q27 is the result you are referring to, where only 35% want the US to leave precipitously.
I have some problems with the design of Q27, but even as is, Q27 should be read in the context of Q25, Q26 and Q28. Looking at the series of questions suggests that complex motivations must play a part in determining when someone thinks America's departure is in their best interest.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reading through that whole poll, I don't really think they put a lot of thought into what they want.
A slim majority wants a democracy at all for the country, 51% think it is acceptable to attack coalition forces but only 35% think they should leave immediately. That's an odd overlap. Do they want us to stay so they can attack us? 42% think they are currently embroiled in a civil war.
The numbers in that poll don't all jive with each other. I think they are confused and are using the US as a scapegoat, not that I don't think the US has plenty of blame earned to it, but that poll just doesn't make sense.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are polling across what is obviously some very diverse groups. And within those groups there is a great variety of opinion.
I think it is plain that sending hundreds of thousands more American soldiers would not go over well with anyone.
Further, I would argue that whatever reduction in violence the surge has seen comes from the political part of the plan rather than military. Specifically, the Shia forces like al Sadr's Mahdi Army that were accused of death squad activity but agreed to stand down for the surge probably account for most of the missing violence.
This boils down to US troops fighting mostly Sunni insurgents and a de facto picking of sides in a civil war. An uncivil war. No wonder many Shia don't think the hated Americans should leave just yet.
The solution is horrible. But all options are horrible from here.
Redeploy the troops 'over the horizon' to Kurdistan and Kuwait. Strike al Qaeda at will. Wait.
If the Sunni and Shia work it out, great. If it turns to the mess everyone expects, the Security Council would insist the Americans return, which they would, under the UN flag. Maybe we could even get it right the second time.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
And I think if we did redeploy over the horizon, which I'm not entirely against, they'd destroy each other, and no one else in the world would lift a finger to help the US clean it up.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't necessarily agree.
And I think if we did redeploy over the horizon, which I'm not entirely against, they'd destroy each other, and no one else in the world would lift a finger to help the US clean it up.
Not unless we ask for help, which has currently been suggested and rejected by the administration.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the Iraqis will see a difference, and I'm willing to bet everything I own that the insurgents won't see a difference.
UN troops in past peacekeeping measures have built themselves up a bit of a reputation for being rather ineffectve, if Rwanda is any indication.
If there were other countries, neutral, trusted countries entering the fray with those blue helmets, then I'd say it has a chance, but giving American troops a blue helmet and some UN flags aren't going to change their entire outlook on the effort.
I question whether or not that qualitative difference doesn't have built in strings that will harm their peacekeeping efforts. Their rules of engagement are already rather restrictive compared to what they used to be, and to what the Iraqis have.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't think the Iraqis will see a difference, and I'm willing to bet everything I own that the insurgents won't see a difference.
On what do you base that certainty? The Iraqi people are more likely to begin turning from sectarian violence to nationalist issues if they can be given concrete evidence that the foreign soldiers in their towns and cities are not an occupation force. That image, whether true or untrue, is the single greatest recruiting tool for the backers of the insurgency. I am willing to bet right back with you that all the Iraqi people need is an excuse to be nationalist to begin behaving that way.
quote:UN troops in past peacekeeping measures have built themselves up a bit of a reputation for being rather ineffectve, if Rwanda is any indication.
That would be because the US did not engage with the UN forces, which would have made the difference. In this case, if the US remains engaged and begins operating under the auspices of the UN, it is at least probable that more resources will become available. Other countries may not be willing to commit as many troops, but the more nations putting money into the rebuilding pot, the better.
Would you say that the UN peacekeeping forces in Lebanon currently are ineffective?
quote:If there were other countries, neutral, trusted countries entering the fray with those blue helmets, then I'd say it has a chance, but giving American troops a blue helmet and some UN flags aren't going to change their entire outlook on the effort.
There is no such thing as "neutral" when it comes to things like this. There are some nations that might stay completely out of the conflict, but every nation still has its own best interests in mind before everything else, just like the US does.
quote:I question whether or not that qualitative difference doesn't have built in strings that will harm their peacekeeping efforts. Their rules of engagement are already rather restrictive compared to what they used to be, and to what the Iraqis have.
posted
Before I answer any of that. When you think of UN peacekeepers in Iraq, who exactly are you thinking of?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They should send in some Iranian troops under the UN flag, that should sweeten things up a bit.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
UN cover would certainly bring more countries into Iraq. Canada, for instance, is guaranteed. How much help they would be is probably not important. The US military is more than capable of projecting power wherever and whenever they want. They can easily defeat any enemy willing to come out and fight.
I won’t take your bet because the category ‘insurgents’ includes everything from al Qaeda to the Shiite militias, tribal sheiks to petty criminals. All hiding amongst that 78% opposed population. We are not going to forcibly pacify 78% of Iraqis. We must peel away each group from the pack, one by one, largely through political means. Give the intractable fighters nowhere to hide. In the open, they don’t stand a chance.
The war is already won. It's peace that needs making.
But we keep fighting a war. And no one is talking peace.
quote:"US military casualties for March were more than double those suffered by Iraqis, suggesting US forces were taking a much more frontline role. That tells me one important thing, that after four years of war, Iraqi forces are still not capable of launching their own missions and rooting out insurgents by themselves."
While I don't disagree with the conclusion, isn't it also possible that insurgents tend to concentrate their attacks on US soldiers as opposed to Iraqi units? I don't know if that's the case; maybe they're targeted just as much, as collaborators. Just suggesting another factor that would probably enter into it.
Up until a few months ago, it used to be that by and large US and coalition troops weren't really the ones being targeted at all. The emphasis of the attacks was on Iraqis civilians, soldiers and police officers, anything that might wear down the government or scare the hell out of the people. It's possible that that has changed recently, but I haven't read anything about it. But considering how well trained our troops are, how well armed and how well armored compared to Iraqi troops, even if they were being targeted more, I still think all those factors put together means they are just plain in harm's way more often than Iraqi soldiers, which means there aren't as many Iraqis soldiers out there fighting as we might have believed or been led to believe.
quote:"It’s no surprise that according to a recent poll, as many as 70% of Iraqis don’t want US forces to leave."
As others have noted, I've seen figures that are less in favour of a continued US presence.
True, it does seem that many want us to leave, but they don't want us to leave YET. They want more progress made before we leave. I know things have changed in recent months. It used to be that the American security forces were the only thing that Iraqis trusted, and that appears to no longer be the case. But they know what will happen once we leave, and they want some measure of stability before we're out.
quote:Also, where are these troops going to come from? Isn't public will also an important factor? Like you say, the Democrats and most of their supporters do believe that victory is at the foot of a rainbow. To continue the war effort at a scale which is an order of magnitude beyond what it is today, wouldn't it be critical to change their minds? What might you say to them in order to convince them 'victory' is possible? What is victory, anyway? If it involves creating a US friendly democratic regime that will counteract Islamic fundamentalism and other terrorist groups, the closest example would probably be Saudi Arabia, and they're not doing a great deal to make the world safer for America. Part of the problem is that the rest of the Middle East also has to warm up to the US.
Most of those are questions I don't really have answers to. Where will the troops come from? I don't know. Pull them from elsewhere in the world, make a new impassioned plea to the United Nations and beg for more troops on behalf of the Iraqis, anywhere.
Yes the public is important, but right now the public is being told a dozen different things. The Bush Administration keeps assuring the public that we're on the verge of winning if we can just hang on for a little bit longer, and after 4 years of hearing that, they don't believe it anymore. According to the media, it's a giant mess of a civil war (I think the media is closer to the truth than Bush, but it's still not the whole story). According to the Democrats, by and large, you hear the tale of how Administration ineptitudes have driven this war into the ground, and there's no way to save it. Again, I think the Democrats are much closer to being right, the Administration HAS driven the war into the ground, but that doesn't mean there isn't a way to save it. A big multinational effort to stablize the country, talk with their neighbors to help secure the borders, get their economy up and running, and using the UN to mediate the massive disputes that have formed between the various groups in Iraq I think can save the country, but it has to be ALL of those things. There's no pure military solution, and even that won't guarantee victory if the Iraqis continue to stubbornly stonewall efforts to help them. But if the public believes there's a plan that will work, I think they'll support it.
I don't know what a "victory" will look like. There's a few scenarios I'm willing to live with. A partitioned Iraqi Kurdistan as a separate nation is fine with me. A three way partition will create a politically and economically unviable Sunni state, so that will never happen, they'll go to war over it. There's no oil (no sizeable amounts) in the center of the country, it's all in the north and south. I would be satisfied if the insurgent attacks were done away with, their economy got near to back on its feet, and the people felt safe, with a democracy in place. We can't control what they choose for themselves after that point, we just have to let them go. We can't guarantee that they will be a US friendly country when we leave. Hopefully after we leave they'll be a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, but that's something that is out of our hands at this point, and something Bush is going to have to let go of in his shining vision of how Iraq should look.
quote:I don't know what the consequences of a phased withdrawal will be, exactly. Probably something like what's happening in Afghanistan? But I think that ultimately, better PR for the US in the Middle East will do more for the country and for the Western world in general than a major troop surge will.
The best PR we could possibly get would be to actually fix Iraq, apologize for the mess we made, then leave. Leaving BEFORE we fix Iraq will create a PERMANANT negative PR scene for us for years. Because it won't be like Afghanistan, where things mostly just returned to the status quo, it'll be a full blown civil war. Places like Kirkuk will explode into street to street battles, and that might happen anyway come this November after they vote on who they want to be a part of. Right now the US keeps things in check in many places, with that gone, there's no force around to keep the peace, especially not the woefully inadequate Iraqi police and army. If/when we leave, it's going to turn into a disastrous legacy for America. Our PR campaign needs to be a successful Iraq, as well as a major new effort to help solve the Palestinian/Israel problem. Debate is starting to heat up again between Israel, Syria and Saudi Arabia. All sides have a renewed interest in solving the problem. I agree that we need to do something to improve our image over there, but it has to include a measure to help fix Iraq, or we'll just keep shooting ourselves in the foot.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"US military casualties for March were more than double those suffered by Iraqis, suggesting US forces were taking a much more frontline role. That tells me one important thing, that after four years of war, Iraqi forces are still not capable of launching their own missions and rooting out insurgents by themselves."
While I don't disagree with the conclusion, isn't it also possible that insurgents tend to concentrate their attacks on US soldiers as opposed to Iraqi units? I don't know if that's the case; maybe they're targeted just as much, as collaborators. Just suggesting another factor that would probably enter into it.
Up until a few months ago, it used to be that by and large US and coalition troops weren't really the ones being targeted at all. The emphasis of the attacks was on Iraqis civilians, soldiers and police officers, anything that might wear down the government or scare the hell out of the people. It's possible that that has changed recently, but I haven't read anything about it. But considering how well trained our troops are, how well armed and how well armored compared to Iraqi troops, even if they were being targeted more, I still think all those factors put together means they are just plain in harm's way more often than Iraqi soldiers, which means there aren't as many Iraqis soldiers out there fighting as we might have believed or been led to believe.
Good points. Also, by casualties do they mean fatalities, or as usual deaths and injuries? If it was the former, it would be an even stronger indicator of your conclusion, since 9 out of 10 wounded US troops typically recover from their wounds.
quote:
quote:"It’s no surprise that according to a recent poll, as many as 70% of Iraqis don’t want US forces to leave."
As others have noted, I've seen figures that are less in favour of a continued US presence.
True, it does seem that many want us to leave, but they don't want us to leave YET. They want more progress made before we leave. I know things have changed in recent months. It used to be that the American security forces were the only thing that Iraqis trusted, and that appears to no longer be the case. But they know what will happen once we leave, and they want some measure of stability before we're out.
Yep, I agree. Just asking your opinion here; do you think Hillary's or Obama's plans could provide that stability to an extent? The major feature of both their plans is the phased withdrawal, but that's not the sum total of their plans (as you know better than I do).
quote:Yes the public is important, but right now the public is being told a dozen different things. The Bush Administration keeps assuring the public that we're on the verge of winning if we can just hang on for a little bit longer, and after 4 years of hearing that, they don't believe it anymore. According to the media, it's a giant mess of a civil war (I think the media is closer to the truth than Bush, but it's still not the whole story). According to the Democrats, by and large, you hear the tale of how Administration ineptitudes have driven this war into the ground, and there's no way to save it. Again, I think the Democrats are much closer to being right, the Administration HAS driven the war into the ground, but that doesn't mean there isn't a way to save it. A big multinational effort to stablize the country, talk with their neighbors to help secure the borders, get their economy up and running, and using the UN to mediate the massive disputes that have formed between the various groups in Iraq I think can save the country, but it has to be ALL of those things. There's no pure military solution, and even that won't guarantee victory if the Iraqis continue to stubbornly stonewall efforts to help them. But if the public believes there's a plan that will work, I think they'll support it.
It doesn't seem particularly feasible at the moment. International support especially is in short supply these days. Though I'd imagine much of the western world will see a democratic administration as more worthy of cooperation.
quote:The best PR we could possibly get would be to actually fix Iraq, apologize for the mess we made, then leave.[quote]Depending upon what is meant by fix, I'd agree. There would always be those that would see Iraq as some kind of American protectorate or a victim of cultural imperialism (because most definitions of 'fix' include establishing a democracy), but leaving Iraq stable and apologising definitely would be the best option. If Iraq can be fixed soon though. The consequences of staying at the moment (as you said in the OP) aren't appealing either.
[quote]Leaving BEFORE we fix Iraq will create a PERMANANT negative PR scene for us for years. Because it won't be like Afghanistan, where things mostly just returned to the status quo, it'll be a full blown civil war. Places like Kirkuk will explode into street to street battles, and that might happen anyway come this November after they vote on who they want to be a part of. Right now the US keeps things in check in many places, with that gone, there's no force around to keep the peace, especially not the woefully inadequate Iraqi police and army. If/when we leave, it's going to turn into a disastrous legacy for America. Our PR campaign needs to be a successful Iraq, as well as a major new effort to help solve the Palestinian/Israel problem. Debate is starting to heat up again between Israel, Syria and Saudi Arabia. All sides have a renewed interest in solving the problem. I agree that we need to do something to improve our image over there, but it has to include a measure to help fix Iraq, or we'll just keep shooting ourselves in the foot.
posted
Good question...I think it's casualties (inclusive of fatalities and non-lethal injuries) and not just fatalities. You know the real untold story of this war is the utterly amazing advances that have been made in battlefield hospital procedures. The survival rate, and the retention of limbs that should have been hacked off has increasted substantially and dramatically since Vietnam. I think it's half the reason, along with body armor, that so few troops (relatively) have died in Iraq. The next generation of body armor coming up, combined with new technology aimed at urban combat, and new medical equipment should increase that percentage even more. I think it speaks volumes about American dedication to our soldiers that we spend billions of dollars and thousands of hours coming up with ways to keep them safe and healthy as possible (well, at least until they get to Walther Reid). In history so many nations have considered their soldiers as disposable at best. Even today many nations, especially those with large populations, view their troops as expendable to a degree, but we never stop coming up with ways to incrase battlefield survival. I could start a thread and talk at length about the ways we're coming up with to protect troops in the field.
To be honest, I don't know all the specifics of the Obama and Clinton plans for withdrawel. If you give me a couple hours to look them up and read them I'll give you my opinion later. Frankly I didn't think they were that substantially different from what I've heard second hand. I think Hillary has us staying longer with a larger contingent, which I think is smarter, but I'll check to be sure later.
And no, I guess it really isn't feasible, but I think it is what is NECESSARY. Long I've said that we should at least lay out on the table what we'd need to do to win, and if we can't get it done, then we should execute a phased withdrawel and try to salvage the situation as best we can while leaving.
I also think there is a chance that if we laid down such a comprehensive plan before the UN, and got everyone involved, admitted our mistake, and offered to open the plan up to suggestions, that it's possible we'd get a totally different reaction than what we've gotten in the past couple years. It's possible, but we have to be honest about it. Right now I think honest is in short supply.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:To be honest, I don't know all the specifics of the Obama and Clinton plans for withdrawel. If you give me a couple hours to look them up and read them I'll give you my opinion later. Frankly I didn't think they were that substantially different from what I've heard second hand. I think Hillary has us staying longer with a larger contingent, which I think is smarter, but I'll check to be sure later.
You can have more than a couple of hours.
Maybe the topic of a future email or IM session.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
