Last December -- even before the additional troops arrived in Iraq -- I reported how the "Awakening" in violent Anbar province had created conditions where, for the first time, Sunni police, Shia soldiers and American troops were working together against Al Qaeda.Given that the "Anbar Awakening" began before the surge, there's no reason to give credit for the Sunni change of heart to General Petraeus or the surge.
And, as I mentioned before, there's good reason to wonder why the surge has accomplished so little despite the Anbar Awakening and the relative standing down of the Shiite militias.
Posts
14 comments:
We've a pretty solid reputation over there for packing up and taking our ball with us. Leaving the Shia in the lurch in 91, along with the whole 'nam thing hasn't done us any favors. Top that off with the Dems constant attempt to raise a white flag over the Capitol Building and we have an awfully big hill to climb. I'm not at all convinced that we will, but it is possible. Outside of a soldier or two that are using their Iraq experience to launch a literary or political career, most that have served seem to believe we'll manage as well. Soldiers are constantly volunteering ( <----- read that again ) to go back or reenlisting while there.
Now, if we can get the dems to stop trying to turn that hill into a mountain, we may get to see the other side.
Caste?
Racist
At least ef has the honesty to forego any claim that the surge is a big success.
We're failing in this war because it was a poorly conceived effort from the beginning. Part of the reason the invasion of Iraq was poorly conceived is that people like President Bush were thinking that they could replay the Vietnam War and win this time. Ironically, the Bush administration was even more arrogant than the people who planned the escalation in Vietnam and thought that we'd be able to win with relatively fewer assets (130,000 troops vs 500,000) troops. As a result, the situation in Iraq is even worse than Vietnam.
The only people who care about our "reputation over there for packing up and taking our ball with us" are right-wingers in the United States. But the deteriorating reputation of the U. S. has become a problem. As a result of the blundering incompetence of the Iraq occupation, the U. S. now has a world-wide reputation for arrogance and stupidity. Sort of like the Soviet Union used to have.
As for troops continuing to volunteer, I haven't heard anything about they're volunteering because the war's going so well and because they're having a great time. One of the minor revelations from the O'Hanlan/Pollack op-ed was that troop morale has been pretty poor in the sense that American troops thought they were wasting their time.
To be clear, I am not claiming it is either a success or failure of any level. At this point I don't really know.
The only people who care about our "reputation over there for packing up and taking our ball with us" are right-wingers in the United States.
Apparently true, in the sense that the Dems are not concerned with our reputation.
But the deteriorating reputation of the U. S. has become a problem.
Mostly correct, though we are certainly not talking about the same aspect of it, our reputation for not seeing things through has been a problem from the beginning.
As a result of the blundering incompetence of the Iraq occupation, the U. S. now has a world-wide reputation for arrogance and stupidity.
Our own statements, in pursuit of legislative and executive power sure haven't helped here. Anyway, it's not the image of blundering through this thing that is preventing us from sealing the deal over there.
An image of arrogance and stupidity may impact in high level international relations, but on the ground, it is the expectation that the US will at some point call it quits and leave those that have supported our efforts in the lurch, as happened to the Shia following Gulf 1, thatis having the most direct impact. Given that view, it has been perceived as a huge risk to provide any assistance to US forces.
A large factor in the violence over there is the belief that sometime soon, both sides will be left to fend for themselves. The US has therefore been marginalized by both sides as a sort of interloper in a larger conflict, rather than being seen as a means to a resolution of the conflict.
The importance of the Anbar awakening, whenever it happened is that it is a large group of people that were willing to stake their lives on cooperation with the US. Fostering that sort of confidence, through surges or any other open support is perhaps the quickest way to success.
I won't defend the way this has all been executed. I haven't, in my inexpert opinion, been thrilled with many of the decisions. I do however believe it was right to go in there, and I want to come out successful. Crowing about being right wherever Bush went wrong isn't productive, neither is wishing the whole thing away by bringing troops home early.
For all that I missed a couple points...
We're failing in this war because it was a poorly conceived effort from the beginning.
This is immaterial to the question of withdrawing. If the tactics originally used are ineffective, you adapt and keep going. There are no mulligans. We can't ask for a do over. We can't smile sheepishly and say "oops, our mistake, don't mind us we'll just be leaving".
Part of the reason the invasion of Iraq was poorly conceived is that people like President Bush were thinking that they could replay the Vietnam War and win this time.
I'm not convinced that vietnam thinking was so directly involved. Were it, I think it would have influenced the administratin away from many of the choices it made. Instead it was poorly conceived because of the "liberators welcome" mindset. The overestimation there is largely related to my earlier point about our reputation for abandoning those relying on us. We just weren't trusted to hang around.
You don't get it because you're still in the right-wing mind set. Unlike the American right, the rest of the world doesn't think in terms of movie and cartoon images like "Wanted: Dead or Alive," "Bring It On," or "Cut and Run." So, they're not looking at the U. S. and thinking "they're going to fold." Instead, they look at the Bush administration and the American right and your arrogance and stupidity and sees us as being a bigger problem for them than al-Qaeda or Iran. It's no big surprise. We have a $573 billion dollar military. Al-Qaeda is a rag tag organization and Iran has a $6.2 billion military budget. In the proportion of things (which we never recognize), we're the bigger problem.
They don't get it. What they never speak of with all their holier-than-thou rhetoric is the fact that War costs. It costs the lives and the limbs of young men and women who are sent into battle. Their families, their loved ones, their communities and their nation lose the potential of some of the best young citizens. Those soliders are to be honored, commended, and praised to wearing the uniform of the United States military. They enlist to protect the rest of us. That is why the Iraq war is all the more tragic. Over 3300 of them are dead and nearly 25,000 wounded, with tens of thousands more scarred psychologically, often permanently, from the horrors they witnessed.War,even failed war feeds on itself. The violence it generates fosters hatred, vengeance and more violence. The Iraq war, our own intelligence services report, has been the best recruiting tool for al Qaeda across the world. The failed occupation in Iraq is costing this country lives, resources and security. The nation will pay for it with our future. The commitment of the military generates demand for more military. We spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on the military. As a result, other things drop from the agenda. When Katrina hit, and exposed the shame of American poverty, we vowed that we would never forget. Two years later, the lights are still off in many poor neighborhoods in New Orleans. Thousands are still dispersed around the country with no progress made on rebuilding their homes. Also sacrificed at the alter of war are energy independence; rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure both urban and rural; insuring that every child is properly fed, does not grow up in poverty, and has the best best public schools in the world. We sacrifice making college affordable. The war overshadows growing inequality, poverty, violence here. The lives of our soldiers. The well-bieng of our people here at home; These terrible costs can not be recovered. It's way past time to end this thing.
That you see the size of the military budget as the sole identifier of the size of the "problem" says much. The problem is not how much we spend on tanks. If we took all that money and gave it to the impoverished around the world, it would do nothing to change that fact that there are nations or groups of people that have chosen to hate the US. The US is by far the largest donor of both public and private aid. For some, that means nothing. We exist and they want that to change.
Osama himself believed the US to be a paper tiger. I can think of no better source for proving your contention that they don't think of us as going to fold. They were planning on it before Iraq and Afghanistan.
Blaming Bush for the hatred also misses the fact that this has been happening far longer than he's been in office.
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/chronology.html
If anything in particular can be blamed, it is our support of Israel, not our budget. Israel is the absolute number 1 focus of hatred in the Middle East, not for it's policies, but for it's existence. We support Israel's right to exist and are just as evil in their eyes.
Mayo, nice spittle flinging rant, but save the tears. Soldiers do what soldiers do and continue volunteering to continue doing it.
Oh, and those videos they put together showing their succesful attacks on western or israeli targets like skyscrapers, pizza joints and school buses then sell in the backrooms of their western businesses or over the internet, also great recruiting tools. I prefer that they at least consider the possibility that we will shoot back as a consequence of them signing on for a stint of Jihad.
insuring that every child is properly fed, does not grow up in poverty, and has the best best public schools in the world. We sacrifice making college affordable.
None of which is a federal resposibility, but it's great to know you care.
In the preamble to the Constitution, the framers state that one of the purposes of the government is to "promote the general welfare." All of these things fit easily within the definition of promoting the general welfare.
"insuring that every child is properly fed, does not grow up in poverty, and has the best best public schools in the world."
I want to focus on this line:
"Osama himself believed the US to be a paper tiger. I can think of no better source for proving your contention that they don't think of us as going to fold. They were planning on it before Iraq and Afghanistan."
It's always interesting to me that the right takes bin Laden as an authority. It makes me feel that conservatives see themselves as having more in common with bin Laden than the rest of the country.
What's bin Laden going to say to motivate his people--that the U. S. is unbeatable and his people should all surrender?
What the world outside the American right (and bin Laden) sees is that right-wing arrogance has alienated most people and most governments from our cause.
What the world also sees is that the U. S. invasion of Iraq provides a constant stimulus to global terrorism. That's what keeps al-Qaeda going not the perception of imminent American withdrawal. Instead of weakening terrorism, we're strengthening it.
What the world also saw is that the U. S. would get bogged down in religious sectarianism issues, and we have.
The situation in Iraq is getting to be like Bush's two failed oil businesses. We're throwing good money and good soldiers into an increasingly pointless effort.
We should withdraw from Iraq and find a way to effectively redeploy.
You're right professor. Our decision to get out of Vietnam, then Somalia (Which Al Qaeda claims to have been directly involved in) couldn't possibly have entered into his thinking in any way. And I was wrong for thinking he may be an authority for what he himself was thinking.
I mean, just 'cause he said so, Hitler didn't really hate the jews. He was just trying to perk up the German spirit.
It's always interesting to me that the right takes bin Laden as an authority. It makes me feel that conservatives see themselves as having more in common with bin Laden than the rest of the country.
Well, we are all religious zealots and secretly in cahoots to opress liberalism. I have to ask though, did you even consider this comment in light of your Romney/Strangelove post?
We're throwing good money and good soldiers into an increasingly pointless effort.
Which is worse: Continuing on an effort which may be pointless, but you belive is the right thing to do and have a chance at pulling off, or Continuing on with an effort you believe to be pointless, but might help you to pick up the White House and soem Senate seats?
From where I'm sitting it looks like the Dems are willing to exploit the deaths of soldiers for political power. Bush may turn out to be wrong, but at least he believes he's doing the right thing.
Instead, they look at the Bush administration and the American right and your arrogance and stupidity and sees us as being a bigger problem for them than al-Qaeda or Iran. It's no big surprise. We have a $573 billion dollar military. Al-Qaeda is a rag tag organization and Iran has a $6.2 billion military budget. In the proportion of things (which we never recognize), we're the bigger problem.
This is one of the most mind-numbingly stupid things I have read in quite some time, which is no small feat. To even imagine that we are anywhere near the problem of Iran or terrorists is simply extraordinary.
Sure, people look at us as a bigger problem than pipsqueaks like Iran.
1. The invasion of Iraq was a big problem for the Europeans and Russians because it stimulated men to support Islamic terrorism and start their own plots. We did al-Qaeda's recruiting for them and did a hell of a lot better job than bin Laden ever did.
2. The extraordinary rendition program meant that innocent citizens of Canada, Germany, and other places could be targeted for kidnapping and torture.
3. People viewed conservative agitation to invade Syria and Iran as much more dangerous than anything Syria or Iran did.
Of course, the vast majority of the world's population did have the pleasure of reflecting on how they were right and we were wrong about Iraq.
Anon, I'll sort of agree with Caric here (sorry) in sying that the perception of the magnitude of the problem is not in anyway linked to the actual magnitude of the problem. Public opinion does not always track with reality.
On the flip side....
2. should read.... the extraordinary rendition program means that illegal combatants, as defined by international law, could be detained, regardless of national origin, for detention and interrogation.... It's a matter of perspective, but I think mine tracks more closely to international and national law.
Post a Comment