Results 1 to 32 of 32

Thread: USA TODAY: Surge's Success Holds Chance To Seize The Moment In Iraq; Dems 'Lost in Ti

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740

    USA TODAY: Surge's Success Holds Chance To Seize The Moment In Iraq; Dems 'Lost in Ti

    USA TODAY: Surge's Success Holds Chance To Seize The Moment In Iraq; Dems 'Lost in Time'...
    http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/...ew-on-war.html

    Our view on war in Iraq: Surge's success holds chance to seize the moment in Iraq.
    Instead, Democrats are lost in time, Bush lowers the bar for Baghdad.
    Iraq remains a violent place, but the trends are encouraging.

    U.S. and Iraqi casualties are down sharply. Fewer of the most lethal Iranian-made explosive devices are being used as roadside bombs. In community after community, Sunni groups who were once in league with al-Qaeda have switched sides and are working with the U.S. forces.

    On the Shiite side of Iraq's sectarian chasm, something similar is happening. About 70,000 local, pro-government groups, a bit like neighborhood watch groups, have formed to expose extremist militias, according to Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations.

    But as much as facts have changed on the ground, little seems to have changed in Washington. There are plans to withdraw some troops next year, but there is no clear picture of the endgame in Iraq. How long will troops be needed? Exactly what do we expect success to look like? Will we leave behind a permanent presence?

    None of the answers are any clearer than they were when the news began improving. In fact, they seem fuzzier.

    On the Republican side, the White House has been busy making excuses for the Iraqi government's failure to move toward national reconciliation (which is the goal of the troop surge), and it has lowered the benchmarks for success to the level of irrelevance. That translates into reduced accountability, continued dependency and an open-ended commitment. Lowering the bar for the Iraqi government sends a message that Baghdad can enjoy security paid for in American lives, and reconstruction aid paid by America's taxpayers, and ignore its responsibilities.

    Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, seem lost in a time warp. They could try to impose new benchmarks that acknowledge the military progress. Instead, too many seem unable or unwilling to admit that President Bush's surge of 30,000 more troops has succeeded beyond their initial predictions. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who in the spring declared the war lost, said last week that "the surge hasn't accomplished its goals." Anti-war Democrats remain fixated on tying war funding to a rapid troop withdrawal. Yet pulling the troops out precipitously threatens to squander the progress of recent months toward salvaging a decent outcome to the Iraq debacle.

    What's needed is acknowledgment that the surge is achieving what was intended: not complete military victory but enough stability to make political compromise possible. What's missing is Iraqi will to take advantage of the success.

    So far, the Iraqis have missed just about every benchmark that Congress set early this year and Bush promised to enforce. Too often, they just don't seem to be making an effort. Those benchmarks included passing laws on sharing oil revenue, allowing more former Baath Party members into official jobs and holding provincial elections.

    To some degree, the positive "bottom up" developments mitigate that failure. The Sunnis, for instance, have abandoned their political isolation and now want to participate in the government. But the Shiites' persistent resistance to letting them in makes a case for new, meaningful benchmarks, not trivial certainties such as simply passing a budget, one of the requirements the White House has set.

    Beyond benchmarks, the military progress has been paralleled by a less aggressive stance by Iran, creating another opening. Iran has enormous influence in Iraq, particularly in Shiite regions. More aggressive diplomacy of the kind advocated by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group would help — even a regional conference such as the one the United States recently hosted in Annapolis, Md., to restart Middle East peace talks.

    If the United States has learned anything over the past few years of war, it's that apparent calm can change in an instant. (Just Wednesday, car bombs killed at least 41 people and wounded 150 at the main market in the southern Shiite city of Amarah.) The U.S. military is stretched thin and cannot maintain 160,000 troops in Iraq beyond next spring. So now, before the surge starts to unwind, is the time to refocus the war effort and begin defining the endgame, while leaving the timetable flexible.

    The Iraq war, which has cost so much in U.S. lives and treasure, deserves far more than muddling through with fingers crossed. It demands a credible, long-term plan that will allow the United States to get out in a way that preserves U.S. interests in the region, not a political stalemate that forces it to stay in.

  2. #2
    Latest reported Coalition Fatality: Dec 13, 2007
    Current War Spending Request: $100-200 Billion (or about $10billion/month)
    Current troop levels: over 160,000 (effectivly 200,000 with foreigners and contractors)
    Territory controlled by Iraqi governemnt: virtually none with militias taking over where colatition forces withdraw
    # of Iraqi battalions that can operate w/o direct US support: pretty much none
    Iraqi Air Force: None
    Iraqi Armor(Tanks, APCs, Artilery): very few
    Political reconciliation: none

    Progress?

    Bush's surge of 30,000 more troops has succeeded beyond initial predictions?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Getting madcow treatments
    Posts
    16,450
    Did you read the article or is this just your daily anti-american rhetoric?


    Quote Originally Posted by eliteforce View Post
    Latest reported Coalition Fatality: Dec 13, 2007
    Current War Spending Request: $100-200 Billion (or about $10billion/month)
    Current troop levels: over 160,000 (effectivly 200,000 with foreigners and contractors)
    Territory controlled by Iraqi governemnt: virtually none with militias taking over where colatition forces withdraw
    # of Iraqi battalions that can operate w/o direct US support: pretty much none
    Iraqi Air Force: None
    Iraqi Armor(Tanks, APCs, Artilery): very few
    Political reconciliation: none

    Progress?

    Bush's surge of 30,000 more troops has succeeded beyond initial predictions?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041
    Quote Originally Posted by roidattack View Post
    Did you read the article or is this just your daily anti-american rhetoric?
    ^^^I think we know the answer to that.

    It's quite disturbing that the ones that cared soo much about our troops dying are so upset that the attacks on them have dramaticly decreased since the surge???

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Sam's Club
    Posts
    4,034
    Quote Originally Posted by eliteforce View Post
    Latest reported Coalition Fatality: Dec 13, 2007
    Current War Spending Request: $100-200 Billion (or about $10billion/month)
    Current troop levels: over 160,000 (effectivly 200,000 with foreigners and contractors)
    Territory controlled by Iraqi governemnt: virtually none with militias taking over where colatition forces withdraw
    # of Iraqi battalions that can operate w/o direct US support: pretty much none
    Iraqi Air Force: None
    Iraqi Armor(Tanks, APCs, Artilery): very few
    Political reconciliation: none

    Progress?

    Bush's surge of 30,000 more troops has succeeded beyond initial predictions?
    Oh silly, you forgot one..

    Iran: next country the US will use to wipe its arse with.

  6. #6
    yea right JTS, where were you the last week, attack on Iran is officially off..and exposing the American military occupation of Iraq is 'anti-american'-not everyone would agree with that.

    I read the article, it's another piece that is totally exagerated as far as how much 'progress' is being made.

    even if there is less violence..obviously at this point the insurgents only need to wait out the bush administration as it will be the next one that is charged with getting America out, it's only necessary to keep up a moderate level of attcks and they can turn it up anytime they need to.

    comments like this:
    In community after community, Sunni groups who were once in league with al-Qaeda have switched sides and are working with the U.S. forces.

    actually 'al-queda' was never more that 10% of the insurgency to begin with, and these 'communities' are generally beholden to other insurgent groups, they havn't switched sides to the Iraqi maliki govt. and these are the communities where US forces still get attacked everyday..only not as much..
    Last edited by eliteforce; 12-14-2007 at 07:37 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    67
    The International Compact with Iraq is about to be invoked; it is, essentially, the equivalent to the Marshall plan after WWII. When the economic progress is made, the insurgency will end for good, and final victory will be ours. I still don't think that any of this is due to any effort of ours, though. At least, not any effort of ours in the past year.

  8. #8
    The Iraq was illegal because had not launched an invasion against us or was not in the process of or capable of doing so. So that makes this it a war of aggression which is the ultimate war crime.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    DON'T ASK ME FOR A SOURCE
    Posts
    11,728
    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants View Post
    The Iraq was illegal because had not launched an invasion against us or was not in the process of or capable of doing so. So that makes this it a war of aggression which is the ultimate war crime.
    What? Neither did Germany. Why do you say that it was illegal?

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by rana173 View Post
    What? Neither did Germany. Why do you say that it was illegal?
    Germany and Italy declared war on the on December 11, 1941, three days after the pearl harbor attacks and the United States responded with it's own declaration of war. Iraq had not attacked us and was not in the processes of attacking us (so no self-defense), Congress did not declare war (and they haven't since WW2), and the UN Security Council to not approve attacking Iraq (although I am not a fan of security council declaring war).

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants View Post
    Germany and Italy declared war on the on December 11, 1941, three days after the pearl harbor attacks and the United States responded with it's own declaration of war. Iraq had not attacked us and was not in the processes of attacking us (so no self-defense), Congress did not declare war (and they haven't since WW2), and the UN Security Council to not approve attacking Iraq (although I am not a fan of security council declaring war).
    You need to become familiar with the Constitution. The President has the right to send troops anywhere without Congress declaring war. Congress votes to declare war and assig the budget, but the President is Commander and Chief. Another example of someone who let's others form their opinions for him. Were you not ignorant of US law, perhaps you would save yourself from such unfounded rhetoric.............

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Middle East
    Posts
    3,511
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    You need to become familiar with the Constitution. The President has the right to send troops anywhere without Congress declaring war. Congress votes to declare war and assig the budget, but the President is Commander and Chief. Another example of someone who let's others form their opinions for him. Were you not ignorant of US law, perhaps you would save yourself from such unfounded rhetoric.............
    Logan, for everyones benefit, would you please post the passages from the Constitution which illustrates this power of the Executive branch to do so...

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    You need to become familiar with the Constitution. The President has the right to send troops anywhere without Congress declaring war. Congress votes to declare war and assig the budget, but the President is Commander and Chief. Another example of someone who let's others form their opinions for him. Were you not ignorant of US law, perhaps you would save yourself from such unfounded rhetoric.............
    Your response reminds me of the smug episode of south park

    The president is not a dictator and he can't do anything he wants. Congress has the authority to declare war and it has been a**icating it's constitutional authority since WW2.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    USA TODAY: Surge's Success Holds Chance To Seize The Moment In Iraq; Dems 'Lost in Time'...
    http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/...ew-on-war.html

    Our view on war in Iraq: Surge's success holds chance to seize the moment in Iraq.
    Instead, Democrats are lost in time, Bush lowers the bar for Baghdad.
    Iraq remains a violent place, but the trends are encouraging.

    U.S. and Iraqi casualties are down sharply. Fewer of the most lethal Iranian-made explosive devices are being used as roadside bombs. In community after community, Sunni groups who were once in league with al-Qaeda have switched sides and are working with the U.S. forces.

    On the Shiite side of Iraq's sectarian chasm, something similar is happening. About 70,000 local, pro-government groups, a bit like neighborhood watch groups, have formed to expose extremist militias, according to Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations.

    But as much as facts have changed on the ground, little seems to have changed in Washington. There are plans to withdraw some troops next year, but there is no clear picture of the endgame in Iraq. How long will troops be needed? Exactly what do we expect success to look like? Will we leave behind a permanent presence?

    None of the answers are any clearer than they were when the news began improving. In fact, they seem fuzzier.

    On the Republican side, the White House has been busy making excuses for the Iraqi government's failure to move toward national reconciliation (which is the goal of the troop surge), and it has lowered the benchmarks for success to the level of irrelevance. That translates into reduced accountability, continued dependency and an open-ended commitment. Lowering the bar for the Iraqi government sends a message that Baghdad can enjoy security paid for in American lives, and reconstruction aid paid by America's taxpayers, and ignore its responsibilities.

    Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, seem lost in a time warp. They could try to impose new benchmarks that acknowledge the military progress. Instead, too many seem unable or unwilling to admit that President Bush's surge of 30,000 more troops has succeeded beyond their initial predictions. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who in the spring declared the war lost, said last week that "the surge hasn't accomplished its goals." Anti-war Democrats remain fixated on tying war funding to a rapid troop withdrawal. Yet pulling the troops out precipitously threatens to squander the progress of recent months toward salvaging a decent outcome to the Iraq debacle.

    What's needed is acknowledgment that the surge is achieving what was intended: not complete military victory but enough stability to make political compromise possible. What's missing is Iraqi will to take advantage of the success.

    So far, the Iraqis have missed just about every benchmark that Congress set early this year and Bush promised to enforce. Too often, they just don't seem to be making an effort. Those benchmarks included passing laws on sharing oil revenue, allowing more former Baath Party members into official jobs and holding provincial elections.

    To some degree, the positive "bottom up" developments mitigate that failure. The Sunnis, for instance, have abandoned their political isolation and now want to participate in the government. But the Shiites' persistent resistance to letting them in makes a case for new, meaningful benchmarks, not trivial certainties such as simply passing a budget, one of the requirements the White House has set.

    Beyond benchmarks, the military progress has been paralleled by a less aggressive stance by Iran, creating another opening. Iran has enormous influence in Iraq, particularly in Shiite regions. More aggressive diplomacy of the kind advocated by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group would help — even a regional conference such as the one the United States recently hosted in Annapolis, Md., to restart Middle East peace talks.

    If the United States has learned anything over the past few years of war, it's that apparent calm can change in an instant. (Just Wednesday, car bombs killed at least 41 people and wounded 150 at the main market in the southern Shiite city of Amarah.) The U.S. military is stretched thin and cannot maintain 160,000 troops in Iraq beyond next spring. So now, before the surge starts to unwind, is the time to refocus the war effort and begin defining the endgame, while leaving the timetable flexible.

    The Iraq war, which has cost so much in U.S. lives and treasure, deserves far more than muddling through with fingers crossed. It demands a credible, long-term plan that will allow the United States to get out in a way that preserves U.S. interests in the region, not a political stalemate that forces it to stay in.
    Sweet, the surge is more successful then planned... And what does that mean? Absolutely nothing. We pull out any time and the country is still going to go to hell in a hand basket.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041
    Do you think that if you say the war is ILLEGAL enough that someone will arrest Bush. Why do you insist on saying illegal, name the law that was broken, please.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •