The war in Iraq has been won.....

[Calanen]

The war in Iraq has been won

By Andrew Bolt

November 02, 2007 01:00am
Article from: http://www.news.com.au/images/sources/h14_dailytelegraph.gif</IMG> (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/)


THERE is a reason Iraq has almost disappeared as an election issue.

Here it is: The battle is actually over. Iraq has been won.

I know this will seem to many of you an insane claim. Ridiculous!

After all, haven't you read countless stories that Iraq is a "disaster", turned by a "civil war" into a "killing field"?

Didn't Labor leader Kevin Rudd, in one of his few campaign references to Iraq, say it was the "greatest ... national security policy disaster that our country has seen since Vietnam"?

You have. And you have been misled.

Here is just the latest underreported news, out this week.

Just 27 American soldiers were killed in action in Iraq in October - the lowest monthly figure since March last year. (This is a provisional figure and may alter over the next week.)

The number of Iraqi civilians killed last month - mostly by Islamist and fascist terrorists - was around 760, according to Iraqi Government sources.

That is still tragically high, but the monthly toll has plummeted since January's grim total of 1990.

What measures of success do critics of Iraq's liberation now demand?

Violence is falling fast. Al Qaida has been crippled.

The Shiites, Kurds and Marsh Arabs no longer face genocide.

What's more, the country has stayed unified. The majority now rules.

Despite that, minority Sunni leaders are co-operating in government with Shiite ones.

There is no civil war. The Kurds have not broken away. Iran has not turned Iraq into its puppet.

And the country's institutions are getting stronger. The Iraqi army is now at full strength, at least in numbers.

The country has a vigorous media. A democratic constitution has been adopted and backed by a popular vote.

Election after election has Iraqis turning up in their millions.

Add it all up. Iraq not only remains a democracy, but shows no sign of collapse.

I repeat: the battle for a free Iraq has been won.

Now the task is one familiar to every democracy, and especially any in the Middle East: eternal vigilance.

If you doubt my assessment of Iraq, ask Osama bin Laden.

Al-Qaida's media arm last week released a video on the internet in which bin Laden - or a man masquerading as him - revealed how disastrously his war against democracy in Iraq was going.

He called for intensified fighting against the Americans and pleaded for Muslims in the region to come help.

"Where are the soldiers of the Levant and the reinforcements from Yemen?" he demanded.

"Where are the knights of Egypt and the lions of Hejaz (in Saudi Arabia)? Come to the aid of your brothers in Iraq."

Bin Laden even let slip how badly al-Qaida has been mauled by the Sunni sheiks who have stopped fighting the US troops and turned on bin Laden's killers instead, by pleading for "unity" from the Sunnis and admitting "mistakes" had been made.

Take that as an admission of defeat for the terrorists, and a sign of victory for Iraq and its liberators.

To talk like this will, I know, choke many critics of the war with fury.

How angry so many are to hear good news from Iraq. And how suspicious is their reaction. Don't we all actually wish for Iraq to be democratic, safe and free from tyranny?

But, they'll splutter, but, but, but...

I can hear them already.

But the bloodshed in Iraq is terrible! Call that victory?

And, yes, the killings are ghastly. Iraq is nowhere near safe, and our help is still needed to make it so. Yet the violence now does not threaten the country or its government.

Go back to the days when American forces were fighting Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi army for control of Najaf, or al-Qaida and its allies for Fallujah.

Such battles for territory are over. Al-Sadr has maintained a ceasefire for more than two years, and is even part of Iraq's Government.

American troops are now based in his Shiite heartland of Sadr City, and no Iraqi city is now under terrorist control as Fallujah once was. "Insurgents" rule nowhere.

But we went to war on a lie!

Actually, we went to war to free Iraq from a tyrant who had used weapons of mass destruction, and would not guarantee he would not do so again.

No lie. Job done.

In any case, whatever you may think of the arguments put in 2003, the argument today is whether Iraq will survive as a democracy, and whether we should help it.

The answers must be yes, and yes. Mustn't they? Hello?

But if Iraq is "won", why are so many Iraqis still dying?

Because some of the killers are just criminals, or are trying to kill their way to a piece of the action, or are - inevitably after so much cruelty and oppression - settling scores.

Others are agents of Iran, which wants to make America pay and Iraq obey.

And more - and the worst - are fanatics who just want to kill for their creed, and are killing Iraqis as they are killing Pakistanis, Algerians, Egyptians, Israelis and anyone else in the way of their jihad.

Iraq remains an ugly place, with lethal hatreds, yet none of these killers are winning and Iraq will not fall to them.

Consider: Iraq's official estimate of civilian deaths from violence is now about 25 a day.

In South Africa, with twice the population, the official murder toll is 52 a day. That's a rate of killing equal to Iraq's.

Do you think those murders will topple South Africa?

And does anyone say of South Africa that these killings just prove freedom was not worth it?

But how can you call this winning when Iraq's power supply is terrible, its police untrustworthy, its regions divided over how to share oil revenues, and its borders threatened by Turkey, which wants to hit back at Kurdish terrorists encamped in Iraq's north?

True, Iraq has plenty of problems. Which Arab country does not? But it will solve them better without Saddam than with.

And perfection is nowhere.

But, but, but ... but it wasn't worth it! See how many died!

And here is the only objection that can be made with integrity.

Yes, people have died, mainly at the hands of fellow Muslims. How many, no one knows.

Perhaps 100,000 since the war in 2003? More?

A ghastly loss, and thank God the killings are at last dwindling.

But Iraq was no Eden under Saddam. If the deaths today are bad, the misery before was worse.

As, of course, was the threat.

The battle for Iraq always involved a grim calculus: would liberation save more people than it killed?

So let's calculate how many died under Saddam.

In 1980, the dictator invaded Iran, starting a war in which at least 500,000 people died. In 1987, he crushed the Kurds, killing perhaps 100,000 or more.

In 1990, he invaded Kuwait, starting a war that killed more than 23,000.

On his defeat, he killed some 100,000 Shiites who rebelled.

Add the mass executions he ordered, the purges he unleashed, the opposition activists he shot, the terrorist attacks he paid for.

Remember also the children who died, robbed of medicines by his regime.

Add them all up, and even by the most conservative count you see Saddam did not just threaten the West, but cost the lives of more than 100 Muslims a day, every day, for the 24 years of his barbaric rule.

That's four times more than are being killed in Iraq today, often by Saddam's heirs and Saddam's like.

Was Iraq worth it? Yes. It stands, it stays, and the winning of Iraq was worth it, indeed.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22689634-5007146,00.html

[Pandy]

Funny, bet you money that someone is gonna disagree here in the next 15 minutes.

From the sounds of things, we did win.

[little icebear]

Funny, bet you money that someone is gonna disagree here in the next 15 minutes.


23 minutes. p-)

[Chulo]

i would tend to agree, but the liberal media cant seem to accept any hint of progress, but if a democrat did win the white house, the Iraq issue would be "won" by them - 10 seconds after they are sworn in

[tipsovr]

Calanen- Very nice post. It is nice to hear positive news form Iraq. Our media is so dead set against anything positive that we have heard nearly nothing of the information you posted.

God help the Democrats if this good news continues. What will they have to fall back on next.... Oh yes, there is always Global Warming.

[Chulo]

Calanen- Very nice post. It is nice to hear positive news form Iraq. Our media is so dead set against anything positive that we have heard nearly nothing of the information you posted.

God help the Democrats if this good news continues. What will they have to fall back on next.... Oh yes, there is always Global Warming.
george bush dont like humans, he started global warming

[JKD]

The war in Iraq has been won


Su-weet! Time to leave.

[Skutatos]

Hmm, alright...well the author went over the top and it screwed the article over, obviously many people will be turned off by it immediately...unfortunately.

That being said, I do generally agree with the article.

[Cralis]

I think a better way to say it is "we are over the hump in the mountain." The title is going to have people swearing up and down without bothering to read the article, but what he's saying is effectively right (barring some major change in the situation).

I have buddies over there again who said that they've been in less firefights and had less IED's go off in the 3 months they've been there now then in the first week they were there a year ago.

Its too bad that the secular-progressives here in the states aren't going to care about the facts and politicize it. I think the real crime is that a lot of people are going to believe their lies.

[TheSteve]

And does anyone say of South Africa that these killings just prove freedom was not worth it?

True, Iraq has plenty of problems. Which Arab country does not? But it will solve them better without Saddam than with.

Thats why we went into the country right? To get ride of Saddam and to bring freedom, or what is it find weapons of mass destruction? I can't remember.

If we leave Iraq, its bad. If we stay, its bad. I don't like this article at all. Sure Iraq is getting "better" but we still have 160,000 troops in a country that we invaded for false reasons.

At the same token, to simply pack up and leave is just ridiculous. The Iraqi military and police are both completely unprepared and incapable of doing their jobs without us.

I hate the "Oh well we shouldn't of gone in, but we are there now and we can't just leave" logic, but its true. We can't just leave, its irresponsible. But we can't stay forever either and the fact that none of our troops should have entered the country is still important.

[LMAV]

i would tend to agree, but the liberal media cant seem to accept any hint of progress, but if a democrat did win the white house, the Iraq issue would be "won" by them - 10 seconds after they are sworn in

Its because they have been setting themselves up to benefit from disaster all this time, instead of helping and hoping for victory.


Thats why we went into the country right? To get ride of Saddam and to bring freedom, or what is it find weapons of mass destruction? I can't remember.

Both reasons were prominently given in the run up to war.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

The Daily Telegraph is Australia's version of FoxNews

:)

[muck]

The war in Iraq has been won, yes - Saddam and his army were defeated. But that's all. It's kinda ridiculous to label the current situation as a victory.

[little icebear]

I hate the "Oh well we shouldn't of gone in, but we are there now and we can't just leave" logic, but its true. We can't just leave, its irresponsible. But we can't stay forever either and the fact that none of our troops should have entered the country is still important.

I see it the same way.

[Calanen]

The Daily Telegraph is Australia's version of FoxNews

:)

FOX News is Australia's version of FOX News - Newscorp owns FOX remember, which is an Australian company.

[mas-36]

The war in Iraq has been won, yes - Saddam and his army were defeated. But that's all. It's kinda ridiculous to label the current situation as a victory.

I agree completely. The current situation is merely an extension of the of the initial invasion which was succesfull. It reminds me of the "declare victory and pull out" advice the president recieved (LBJ or Nixon?) in regards to Vietnam, which allows many even today to insist that our policies there was won by force of arms, and that the South Vietnam regime is responsible for the subsequent loss.

[Firefly26]

As much as I agree with this article, I hope it doesn't get read. I am already a little worried that this month's low death toll will be presented as a target to the insurgents. When nothing is reported by the media, they don't have a target to sabotage. All it's going to take are some little half -a$$ attacks that happen in generally the same time period and it will get labeled as a Tet offensive, and and all this progress will be shrunken in size in the the public's eye.

[Clearday-TRForce]

The war in Iraq has been won

1 mls Iraqians death and still dying...no democracy, green line protects governors, USA cant find diplomats and voluntary soldiers to send there, coz diplomats refuse to go Iraq (USA also announces they have to go or must leave this job...), the country divided 3 parts, shiis, kurdish, sunnies (and also Turkomens in N.Iraq) Iran is more powerfull effects on Iraq and shii population now, Turkey gets ready to enter N.Iraq...


Does it a joke? or a therapy seance?

Q; Who will believe in these?
A; Ultra-Optimists Association Members?



G'Moorning Vietnam,
regards,
CDTRF

[achilles]

If "winning the war" = "creating a bloody mess", then yes the war in Iraq is won.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

[vryhpyammoadded]

Not to be a naysayer, I’m all for the Iraq plan but, we “politically” lost an insurgency about forty years ago in a political/tactical pattern very similar to today’s. Anyone remember Tet, the resultant media melodrama, the 68 elections, congressional funding cuts, the following nincompoops marching about bitching about war? Then we had Watergate and the goons who’ve been screwing this nation from 74 till today. There inheritors know this and I’ve even heard some of their common sheeple during lunch talking about a repeat big win if it happens. (I live near a major college campus where the leftist kids are scary indoctrinated)

America has a frightfully important election year coming; its soul is in the balance and the corrupt collectivist forces in the US badly desire to coerce and manipulate a win leveraging the main stream medias almost certain 68 like portrayal that will ensue should the bad guys over there pull off there own version of the surge. All they need is the perception of hopelessness by generating enough carnage to cross the American publics turn and flee tripwire or more importantly the point where the collectivists in the government feel they can leverage public opinion enough to sweep the elections in 08.

I worry 2008 will become a desperate last ditch effort by the enemy. They are smart enough to know this and have the backing of a nearby safe haven arms supplier. Imadinnerjacket is more than happy to accommodate. The setting is just too ripe for it and I hope the military is on top of this or that the enemy is truly beaten down beyond the ability to replicate something like Tet. The war isn’t over till its over. Remember though art mortal… Stay sharp.

[dangerclose]

Wait, if we've won in Iraq why hasn't CNN and the rest of the mainstream media covered it? You'd think that would be a major news story with the election ... around the .. corner ... and... all.....

[Chulo]

Wait, if we've won in Iraq why hasn't CNN and the rest of the mainstream media covered it? You'd think that would be a major news story with the election ... around the .. corner ... and... all.....
right now they are looking for stories to cover up that thing they called a "failed surge" since it didnt fail ... i think George Bush started those wild fires..

[dangerclose]

right now they are looking for stories to cover up that thing they called a "failed surge" since it didnt fail ... i think George Bush started those wild fires..

Either George Bush or ... Blackwater.

[Freibier]

Another rallying call or "Durchhalteparole" as we call it.
Well done folks, now go and win some more

[Chulo]

Either George Bush or ... Blackwater.
maybe he hired blackwater to get all the oil out of texas and alaska to start the fires so that when the world is colder/hotter due to global warming he can build the deathstar and have **** Chaney incharge of it .. once Chaney comes out of stasis

[Mastermind]

I think we should immediately being a withdrawal...But, timed to coincide with the election...big speeches to the effect, "Welcome Home, Boys" rather than "Victory is ours!" There is not ever going to be a "Victory" declaration...not after Bush & Co were dragged naked over the hot coals for their "Mission Accomplished" party.

Besides, there is still plenty to bash the pubbies and the "then they voted for it Dems" with about the trillion bucks flushed down to who knows where and they can always dredge up all the smelly media-made scandals that took place. Winding down is the perfect time for this idiotic congress to begin their "Investigations" and "Re-investigations" into the "Murdering Marines" and the "Quorans on toilets" horse siht. And what ARE we going to do with all those poor innocent “boys of Medina” we have all snug in Gitmo?

The lap-dog elite media will gladly play those old songs over and over just to remind the general voters of how “really horrible and disgusting” it all was...And, don't forget Cindy and Valerie and Murtah and Kerry and Teddy are still out there luridly lurking about to play the right tunes to the extra lefties. It's going to be a very long political season for everyone ...no matter how good things turn out in Iraq.

[Dasein]

An actual victory in Iraq would benefit the Democrats more than Republicans at this point. While Bush would get a boost, the Republican party itself is moving away from Bush, and the Bush administration has no real stake in the current elections. However, if Iraq was really won, then the Republicans could no longer run on a platform of finishing the job we started, not cutting and running, etc., while the Democrats could focus on domestic policy, where they are far stronger than the Republicans.

Really, what the Republicans need is a war we are always winning but that is never won. A real, undisputed victory is a bad thing for them.

[perdurabo]

If "winning the war" = "creating a bloody mess", then yes the war in Iraq is won.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
every war was won by creating bloody mess out of your oponent p-)

[LMAV]

An actual victory in Iraq would benefit the Democrats more than Republicans at this point.

How do you figure? They have done nothing but undermine the war from the start.

[Dasein]

How do you figure? They have done nothing but undermine the war from the start.

Without the continuation of the war in Iraq, the Republicans have little in the way of actual policy, except to try and start a war in Iran. The Democrats are much stronger than the current crop of Republican candidates on domestic issues - health care, education, environmental issues and all those other things that don't have to do with 9/11, Iraq and the War on Terror. The Republicans have essentially turned themselves into a single-issue party, and if that issue is resolved, they become much less relevant.

Already, this is really a race between Clinton and Obama more than between Democrats and Republicans.

[Rictor]

I invite everyone who believes that the war has been won to take a 1-hour stroll through downtown Baghdad, without, of course, a small army of bodyguards.

...no? Anyone? Then I guess it's settled.

[ElHombre]

I invite everyone who believes that the war has been won to take a 1-hour stroll through downtown Baghdad, without, of course, a small army of bodyguards.

...no? Anyone? Then I guess it's settled.

:lol: Right on the money. This columnist can be the first one to take a stroll down the Geroge W. Bush Avenue of Victory.

And no body armor, either.

[LMAV]

Without the continuation of the war in Iraq, the Republicans have little in the way of actual policy, except to try and start a war in Iran. The Democrats are much stronger than the current crop of Republican candidates on domestic issues - health care, education, environmental issues and all those other things that don't have to do with 9/11, Iraq and the War on Terror. The Republicans have essentially turned themselves into a single-issue party, and if that issue is resolved, they become much less relevant.

Already, this is really a race between Clinton and Obama more than between Democrats and Republicans.

Yes, the Democrats have managed to take everyone eye of the ball and we will certainly pay for it.

[ElHombre]

Yes, the Democrats have managed to take everyone eye of the ball and we will certainly pay for it.

You do realize that the Rs were in charge of the gov't for the first six years of the Bush admin, don't you? :lol:

[TacitEagle]

How many times do you have to declare a victory before it actually happens? It doesn't happen till we've stopped the bullets, RPG's and IED's from killing in Iraq.

I agree progress was made with the surge and there is a lot to look forward to but...why celebrate now and drop our gaurd? When we have gotten this far why do we simply assume that all of this will just go our way from here on out? If anything history should tell us otherwise, this war isn't won and it certainly isn't over. We may have an advantage right now, but lets not forget who our enemy is. I know the grunts patrolling Baghdad don't stop and think for one second that it's safe, why should some journalist with a political agenda?

As much as I would like it to be this war isn't won.

[phoebus]

every war was won by creating bloody mess out of your oponent p-)

Agreed, but they wanted to make them a role-model Middle East Democracy blah blah blah... Although I don't see much peace in the Kurdish border areas.

[Chulo]

Agreed, but they wanted to make them a role-model Middle East Democracy blah blah blah... Although I don't see much peace in the Kurdish border areas. that area was never at peace, even with saddam around. and lets face it, human nature is aggressive, there is always war going on

[tipsovr]

Ok folks, the OP posted an Australian column. Other than W, no one has said that the war has been won. We have made great strides very recently, but much more is needed before we can exit.

If you are deadset against this war, I doubt there would be anything to change your mind. Just understand that the tide can and is changing. Hopefully this will last and Iraq will stand on its own two feet soon.

[ViktorNavorski]

Without the continuation of the war in Iraq, the Republicans have little in the way of actual policy, except to try and start a war in Iran. The Democrats are much stronger than the current crop of Republican candidates on domestic issues - health care, education, environmental issues and all those other things that don't have to do with 9/11, Iraq and the War on Terror. The Republicans have essentially turned themselves into a single-issue party, and if that issue is resolved, they become much less relevant.

Already, this is really a race between Clinton and Obama more than between Democrats and Republicans.roflOh, man, that was great, real strong on domestic issues. Who would have thunk it, nothing could get lower than GWB's approval rating...except...the current crop of Democrat controlled Congress. Impotent and haven't done squat to match any grandiose campaign promises.

[dangerclose]

I invite everyone who believes that the war has been won to take a 1-hour stroll through downtown Baghdad, without, of course, a small army of bodyguards.


:lol: Right on the money. This columnist can be the first one to take a stroll down the Geroge W. Bush Avenue of Victory.

And no body armor, either.

I invite you to take a 1-hour stroll through downtown Detroit .. with no body armor. Your odds are probably better in Baghdad. I don't hear anyone claiming Michigan is a lost cause.

The fact is the death rate has plummeted since the surge. The locals have turned against al qaeda and the tide has beyond turned. Bin Laden is pleading with his associates in Iraq to ... stay the course.

[Dasein]

roflOh, man, that was great, real strong on domestic issues. Who would have thunk it, nothing could get lower than GWB's approval rating...except...the current crop of Democrat controlled Congress. Impotent and haven't done squat to match any grandiose campaign promises.

A few points here:

1. Yes, both Obama and Clinton are stronger on domestic issues than any of the current republican candidates. This has nothing to do with the overall performance or approval of Congress.

2. Congress, without a supermajority or a cooperative president is largely impotent. Without the votes to override a veto, there's nothing Congress can do. So, what, in your opinion, should Congress do to make itself more effective and powerful in such circumstances?

3. I suspect that Congress's low approval ratings are due to their not standing up to Bush enough or with enough vigor and passion. On many issues, it seems they roll over to the whims of the Bush administration. We hired this Congress to stop Bush more than anything, and if they're not even willing to put up a fight, well, we're not going to approve of the job they're doing. Now is the time to force filibusters, sabotage legislation the president and Republicans want and generally make life very difficult for Bush and his administration. There will be plenty of time for actual legislation in 2009. Now is the time for Congress to assert itself as an equal member of the government, not merely an echo chamber for the executive.

[Dasein]

I invite you to take a 1-hour stroll through downtown Detroit .. with no body armor. Your odds are probably better in Baghdad. I don't hear anyone claiming Michigan is a lost cause.

The homicide rate in Detroit is about 380-400/year. That's a good month in Baghdad. I don't think you have any idea of the scale of violence going on in Iraq.


The fact is the death rate has plummeted since the surge. The locals have turned against al qaeda and the tide has beyond turned. Bin Laden is pleading with his associates in Iraq to ... stay the course.

The fact is, AQI is hardly the only threat in Iraq, and while one chapter of the Iraq war may be coming to a close as AQI is driven out, there are still many issues to resolve and many more grave threats to overcome. We need to realize that getting rid of Al Qaeda in Iraq has meant arming many other insurgent groups and empowering other militias. These groups are not going away as easily. Southern Iraq is also a mess, with rival Shia militias vying for control. Then there's the Kurdish situation, which could get ugly if either the Turks or the Iraqi government try to crack down on Kurdish guerrillas. Finally, Iranian meddling could cause problems for us, and an actual attack on Iran by the US could stir up even more trouble for us in the region.

Finally, wars are not won or lost by body counts. People seem to fall into the body count as score keeping mentality. We are also jumping to conclusions based on short term trends, like a drop in monthly casualties. If casualties drop substantially for years, it might be indicative of success. A monthly flux is not indicative of anything - I'm sure in World War II, German casualties in Europe were a lot lower in May of 1944 than June of 1944.

[ElHombre]

I invite you to take a 1-hour stroll through downtown Detroit .. with no body armor. Your odds are probably better in Baghdad. I don't hear anyone claiming Michigan is a lost cause.

Hmmm. I can't seem to find any information about all those IEDs and mortar attacks daily taking place in an American city. Perhaps you could provide some evidence to back up your claim. As if you ever could. :lol:


The fact is the death rate has plummeted since the surge.

You might have heard one US officer's take on that, "They've run out of people to kill.'


The locals have turned against al qaeda and the tide has beyond turned. Bin Laden is pleading with his associates in Iraq to ... stay the course.

Would you kindly stop listening to everything OBL has to say? My interest in him stops at 'Is he dead yet?' You also need to get over your obsession with AQI. AQI could all drop dead today and there wouldn't be much improvement in Iraq. Why? Because it's a civil war which has shown no signs of abating.

[Mastermind]

Is it a civl war, where one part of the entire population vs the other part? Or is it a gang war where you have several religous sects, tribes, clans, families, political rivals all scrabbling at eachother using the "War" as a convenient cover to take out the bid for the biggest chunks of plunders and revenge. I see what is going on in Iraq as a free-for-all...something more like 1928 Detroit or 1935 New York City. There is a huge amount at stake and billions of dollars in oil money to be divided up. The WOT is merely being used, in my opinion, to cover these criminal gangs antics. The US military and the Iraqi military and police are caught up in the middle of this mess. Until they begin to ruthlessly root out the warlords (God Fathers) there will simply be a frontier-like atmosphere where the gun and IED is king and the guy who wields them mostus and fastus will be the boss of the day...until some other joker with an ego and an ambition stalks in and takes over from him....ad infinitum!

[shocker1]

You guys comparing US cities and Iraqi cities are really grasping at straws. Also telling someone to walk down the streets of Baghdad is very much an impotent means of countering the argument at hand.

[LMAV]

You do realize that the Rs were in charge of the gov't for the first six years of the Bush admin, don't you? :lol:

Yes and the whole time democrats have been trying to downplay the threat, for purely politcal reasons.

[Doublethinker]

fascist terrorists

What? Has Il Duce risen up from his grave?

[Captain_Coward]

I invite everyone who believes that the war has been won to take a 1-hour stroll through downtown Baghdad, without, of course, a small army of bodyguards.

...no? Anyone? Then I guess it's settled.

Substitute Iraq for any number of third-world countries. You don't have to be at war with someone to be killed by them.

[BugHunt]

Also telling someone to walk down the streets of Baghdad is very much an impotent means of countering the argument at hand.

You need to send a memo out to those reluctant US diplomats - its safe for democracy! :)


Victory eh? We'd all best start saving up the bunting for the parades! p-)


http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/bushmission2.jpg

[shocker1]

Maybe you need to make a better posting arguing the points of your opinion. Little one liner jabs, smilies and such only discredit your argument. Try again. Iraqis have some good news for once and I am happy for them. maybe you clowns could put partisan politics aside for once and be glad things are getting better. Thus a great reason to leave.

[Pars]

Iraq will never survive as a nation. It was a "made up" country with its borders drawn by the British. Now, I am happy that the situation is getting more stable. But it still is a bloddy mess, there's no doubt about that. As soon as US forces leave (which I hope will be soon enough) we'll see Iraq dividing itself into Shia, Sunni and Kurdish parts. With all the regional powers meddling in it. So yeah, the war was won. But the aftermath has been catastrophical for the US. Nothing good has come out of this war.

[Chulo]

Iraq will never survive as a nation. It was a "made up" country with its borders drawn by the British.
most countries after the imperial age have "made up" borders and they are doing quite well, yes there are issues, but they have been able to survive and even flourish .. look at India as an example of a "made up " country by the British that is now the largest democracy.

Nothing good has come out of this war.
a democracy, getting rid of a Dictator, removed the danger of WMDs and got rid of some terrorist could be argued as some benefits

[Pars]

most countries after the imperial age have "made up" borders and they are doing quite well, yes there are issues, but they have been able to survive and even flourish .. look at India as an example of a "made up " country by the British that is now the largest democracy.

India was a nation or a unity if you will long before the British colonized them. They had a tradition of considering themselves as so with a common history and culture. Iraq however is a different story, people who usually did not stand each other were now jammed inside a nation not unified by a leader of their kind, but by foreign powers drawing lines. Only a strong and brutal person could hold that together. Now that man is gone, and there is nothing to prevent this nation from dissolving.

There never has been a culture for democracy in Iraq. If there ever will be, it will take decades upon decades for it to evolve.

The world isn't monotone.


a democracy, getting rid of a Dictator, removed the danger of WMDs and got rid of some terrorist could be argued as some benefits


Iraq will not be a stable democracy by Western standards in the foreseeable future. For that it is too unstable and too divided to be.

The getting rid of an dictator I can agree with, but that was never the reason for war.

The WMD part, well we all know now how much bullshyte all those hard evidence turned out to be.

Getting rid of terrorists? Who, Saddam? Yeah the guy was a monumental ass and a massmurdurer (and I cheared when he was executed), but he doesn't fit into the American description of a "terrorist". As we all know, he never had any involvment with the terrorist who attacked the US.

It seems to me that Iraq is the newest and hottest breeding ground for terrorist. Something it wasn't prior to the US invasion.

[Dasein]

I disagree that we'll see Iraq split up into separate states. Only the Kurds have any real sort of separatist movement. The Sunnis are, by and large, vehemently opposed to the idea of partitioning Iraq since they'd get the worst part, controlling no oil while being landlocked. The Shias see no reason to partition anything when you can simply drive out the Sunnis and have it all.

[ElHombre]

a democracy,

A flawed one. The circumstances of its setup are exacerbating the problems of Iraqi unification rather than resolving them. Note that all the 'surge' goals involving Iraqi reconcilliation haven't been achieved. Each faction is trying to get the biggest share of the pie at the expense of the others.


getting rid of a Dictator,

And the handling of his trial and execution made the tensions among the various factions worse.


removed the danger of WMDs

How can you remove a danger that didn't exist in the first place?


and got rid of some terrorist could be argued as some benefits

Creating two terrs for every one that gets killed is not an intelligent way to win a war.

[ElHombre]

I disagree that we'll see Iraq split up into separate states. Only the Kurds have any real sort of separatist movement. The Sunnis are, by and large, vehemently opposed to the idea of partitioning Iraq since they'd get the worst part, controlling no oil while being landlocked. The Shias see no reason to partition anything when you can simply drive out the Sunnis and have it all.

An additional note: The Kurds desire annexation of Kirkuk and its oil fields. That puts them into conflict with the rest of Iraq. No one wants to share.

[harddeck]

This thread should be left for those that have been there for more than 1 tour or are there now as well as contractors with in country experience for more than 2 years......they might make a little more sense in regards to the situation than some of the shlt im reading.

Everyone else is just regergitating what they have read or seen on TV turning this thread into a debate about which news group is right and which is wrong. Unless you have been there how else can you truely know first hand what is going on!

[harddeck]

An additional note: The Kurds desire annexation of Kirkuk and its oil fields. That puts them into conflict with the rest of Iraq. No one wants to share.


The Kurds are doing just fine, by rights most see kirkuk as rightfully theirs so it doesnt put them in conflict with the rest of Iraq it puts the rest of Iraq in conflict with them.

[Dasein]

This thread should be left for those that have been there for more than 1 tour or are there now as well as contractors with in country experience for more than 2 years......they might make a little more sense in regards to the situation than some of the shlt im reading.

Everyone else is just regergitating what they have read or seen on TV turning this thread into a debate about which news group is right and which is wrong. Unless you have been there how else can you truely know first hand what is going on!

While the experiences of those actually serving there are invaluable to constructing an overall picture of the situation, they're only part of that picture. An informed reader has many news sources available, from major media outlets across the political spectrum to a number of blogs, forums and other sorts of non-traditional media.

[harddeck]

While the experiences of those actually serving there are invaluable to constructing an overall picture of the situation, they're only part of that picture. An informed reader has many news sources available, from major media outlets across the political spectrum to a number of blogs, forums and other sorts of non-traditional media.

All writen and edited by non combatants after sitting in on a press breifing held by ranking coalition members in the IZ reading from a piece of paper with more blacked out words than high lighted phrases...........

If you wanted to know what the security situation was like in Bdad today who would you ask.....a dude in country or a guy whos been channel flicking all day.

[Desk Jockey]

All writen and edited by non combatants after sitting in on a press breifing held by ranking coalition members in the IZ reading from a piece of paper with more blacked out words than high lighted phrases...........

If you wanted to know what the security situation was like in Bdad today who would you ask.....a dude in country or a guy whos been channel flicking all day.

If this thread was restricted to those with your afore mentioned criteria of credentials then how would us without one tour in Iraq or a 2 year + experienced contractor be able to get the scoop? If we don't ask questions (which should be well thought out) or opine and give thoughts on a subject (this board smells BS quickly) then how can we be corrected if wrong and or smoked if we are being a buffoon?

I personally learn more on here first hand from dudes like Argyll or ****, and others, who have the requisite credentials you mentioned to speak with authority on the subject of Iraq, yes there is Michael Yon and other non MSM outlets and serious people out there but we cannot interact with them like we can on MP.net.

Re: the PSC situation in Iraq I read/watch the news and then hope to get the real or non nuanced story from Argyll, James, etc. on here...... You just have to be patient and filter the BS inherent to an internet board.

Kinda contradictory:), if we can't participate we can't learn.

Anyway, I read in another thread your on leave and enjoying a beer, hopefully several, when your leave is up stay safe!

[harddeck]

True........... but 3 pages of crap was as patient as i was going to be.

Cheers for the stay safe........to be honest im more at risk on the piss where I am :)

[Dasein]

All writen and edited by non combatants after sitting in on a press breifing held by ranking coalition members in the IZ reading from a piece of paper with more blacked out words than high lighted phrases...........

Many are written by actual Iraqis, or by various independent journalists. There's a huge volume of media available online from all different sources available with a little bit of digging.


If you wanted to know what the security situation was like in Bdad today who would you ask.....a dude in country or a guy whos been channel flicking all day.

I would ask the people living in Baghdad first and foremost. I'd also try to get actual statistics on violent crimes and terrorist attacks, to see the macro-level trends.

[Chulo]

I would ask the people living in Baghdad first and foremost. I'd also try to get actual statistics on violent crimes and terrorist attacks, to see the macro-level trends.
and have u been able to find them?

[Dasein]

People living in Baghdad or statistics on crime and terrorism?

[Chulo]

People living in Baghdad or statistics on crime and terrorism?

the stats .. i wouldnt mind looking at an UNBIASED report, the only problem is most of what news media uses is very biased

[harddeck]

Many are written by actual Iraqis, or by various independent journalists. There's a huge volume of media available online from all different sources available with a little bit of digging.

Never read an acurate article by an Iraqi to date............as for independents they normally spend a month or 2 in country get back home write up a programm or piece about there findings and when it is to be aired or printed the Iraq they thought they knew has totally changed.



I would ask the people living in Baghdad first and foremost. I'd also try to get actual statistics on violent crimes and terrorist attacks, to see the macro-level trends.

Half the replys in this thread have been about the lack of ability to get acurate statistics and info through modern media, hence my argumnet for haveing to be on the ground to know what really is happening.
As for LN's in Bdad who are you going to ask sunnies, shias, armenians, Kurds, muslims, christians....try getting an actual picture from a combo of all the diverse ethnic and religious groups.

[afreu]

Why would the Coalition or member of the Coalition force in Iraq be the only party in this conflict with an unbiased opinion?

[budgie]

Couldn't resist:


The war in Iraq has been won

By Andrew Bolt

November 02, 2007 01:00am
Article from: http://www.news.com.au/images/sources/h14_dailytelegraph.gif</IMG> (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/)

Just 27 American soldiers were killed in action in Iraq in October - the lowest monthly figure since March last year. (This is a provisional figure and may alter over the next week.)

It would have been zero if none had been there.


The number of Iraqi civilians killed last month - mostly by Islamist and fascist terrorists - was around 760, according to Iraqi Government sources.

Hmm...Fascists. Guess they had Mussloni posters at home. Let me [be the latest to] remind you this is not WWII here.



That is still tragically high, but the monthly toll has plummeted since January's grim total of 1990.

Well I'm glad they acknowledge it is tragically high. The toll has been up and down all over. Who's to say this will last?


Violence is falling fast. Al Qaida has been crippled.

Unproven
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14295/civilian_casualties_in_iraq.html?breadcrumb=%2F


The Shiites, Kurds and Marsh Arabs no longer face genocide
Except from one another. Or the Turkish.


What's more, the country has stayed unified. The majority now rules.

Pro-Iranian shiites. Whoopee.


There is no civil war. The Kurds have not broken away. Iran has not turned Iraq into its puppet.

And these are the only two measurements of a civil conflict. Let's just wait...


And the country's institutions are getting stronger. The Iraqi army is now at full strength, at least in numbers. The country has a vigorous media. A democratic constitution has been adopted and backed by a popular vote.

Woolly guages of success.


Election after election has Iraqis turning up in their millions.

How many elections exactly? How many governments in the past 4 years?


Add it all up. Iraq not only remains a democracy, but shows no sign of collapse.

Add it all up and not only to we get bupkes, but signs off imminent collpase as well. This is a country that has been teetering for 4 years now. And occupation hasn't brought it back from the brink yet.


I repeat: the battle for a free Iraq has been won.

http://www.cafepress.com/bettybowers/395802



If you doubt my assessment of Iraq, ask Osama bin Laden.
An excellent and available source. I'll bring it up next time we're having lunch...I'll invite Elvis while we're at it.


In any case, whatever you may think of the arguments put in 2003, the argument today is whether Iraq will survive as a democracy, and whether we should help it.

The answers must be yes, and yes. Mustn't they? Hello?

Yes, but not necessarily in Bush's preferred method.


Consider: Iraq's official estimate of civilian deaths from violence is now about 25 a day.

This week yeah. We've seen it dip and spike before.


In South Africa, with twice the population, the official murder toll is 52 a day. That's a rate of killing equal to Iraq's.

Iraq this month. Not last month or January, August or next month which were (and may well be) far higher.


Do you think those murders will topple South Africa? And does anyone say of South Africa that these killings just prove freedom was not worth it?
My teacher always said that there are no silly questions, only silly answers. this guy is testing the theory...


But how can you call this winning when Iraq's power supply is terrible, its police untrustworthy, its regions divided over how to share oil revenues, and its borders threatened by Turkey, which wants to hit back at Kurdish terrorists encamped in Iraq's north?

At last we agree on something...


True, Iraq has plenty of problems. Which Arab country does not? But it will solve them better without Saddam than with.
Well it's gonna have to - last I checked he was dead.

The battle for Iraq always involved a grim calculus: would liberation save more people than it killed?


So let's calculate how many died under Saddam.
Okay let's...


In 1980, the dictator invaded Iran, starting a war in which at least 500,000 people died. In 1987, he crushed the Kurds, killing perhaps 100,000 or more.

In 1990, he invaded Kuwait, starting a war that killed more than 23,000.

On his defeat, he killed some 100,000 Shiites who rebelled.

Add the mass executions he ordered, the purges he unleashed, the opposition activists he shot, the terrorist attacks he paid for.

Remember also the children who died, robbed of medicines by his regime.

Add them all up, and even by the most conservative count you see Saddam did not just threaten the West, but cost the lives of more than 100 Muslims a day, every day, for the 24 years of his barbaric rule.

That's four times more than are being killed in Iraq today, often by Saddam's heirs and Saddam's like.

Umm, this week, maybe...

So are the facts damn liberals too?

[dangerclose]

Originally Posted by chulo_allen
a democracy,


A flawed one. The circumstances of its setup are exacerbating the problems of Iraqi unification rather than resolving them. Note that all the 'surge' goals involving Iraqi reconcilliation haven't been achieved. Each faction is trying to get the biggest share of the pie at the expense of the others.



A flawed one compared to what? The paragon of democracy we have in Washington? The Iraqi government has gotten more accomplished than the democrat congress.

[Chulo]

How can you remove a danger that didn't exist in the first place?


oh common.. he had WMDs.. why do u think the UN inspectors were even there?
http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/index.html



Iraq's Chemical Weapon Program
Well before Operation Desert Storm or the U.N. inspections that followed it, Iraq had already begun to build chemical weapons. After launching a research effort in the 1970s, Iraq was able to use chemical weapons in its war against Iran and to kill large numbers of its own Kurdish population in the 1980s. During the first Gulf War, there were fears that Iraq would launch chemical-tipped missiles at its neighbors, particularly Israel, but Iraq refrained for fear of U.S. retaliation. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition troops again feared they might be hit with chemical weapons, though this did not come to pass.

By 1991, the United Nations had established its Special Commission (UNSCOM) and charged it with the task of destroying, removing, or rendering harmless "all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
By the time UNSCOM left Iraq in December 1998, it had eliminated a large portion of Iraq's chemical weapon potential. UNSCOM had overseen the destruction or incapacitation of more than 88,000 filled or unfilled chemical munitions, over 600 tons of weaponized or bulk chemical agents, some 4,000 tons of precursor chemicals, some 980 pieces of key production equipment, and some 300 pieces of analytical equipment. Notwithstanding these extraordinary achievements, there remained important uncertainties regarding Iraq's holdings of chemical weapons, their precursors, and munitions.



Iraq's Nuclear Weapon Program
This is a brief history of Iraq's attempt to build a nuclear weapon. The emphasis is on Iraq's technical achievements rather than its motives, and the history relies primarily on the findings of U.N. inspection teams.
Iraq faced the same two challenges that every other country trying to develop a nuclear weapon has faced. First came the need to produce a critical mass of "fissile material" - uranium 235 or plutonium - the heavy metals needed to fuel a first-generation fission bomb. The second challenge was to produce a device that could cause the uranium or plutonium to explode in a nuclear chain reaction. This second process is called weaponization. Iraq attacked both challenges simultaneously.
Iraq spread the work among four major groups, all of which operated within the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission, and more specifically within the Commission's Department of Studies and Development (also known as Department 3000). Group I was responsible for producing uranium 235 by using diffusion barriers and centrifuges. Group II tried to do the same by using chemical and electromagnetic methods. Group III was responsible for computer modeling, and Group IV performed "special tasks," another term for weaponization. The program carried the code name Petrochemical 3 (PC-3).

[quote]
The Early Years: Ambition

Saddam demonstrated his commitment to obtain a nuclear weapon over two decades.
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/deploy_link_errorIn 1968, Iraq commissioned a Russian supplied IRT-2000 research reactor and commissioned a number of other facilities that could be used for radioisotope production at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center, home of the IAEC. In the 1970s, through contracts with French and Italian firms, the IAEC built facilities at Tuwaitha that, if operational, could have allowed Iraq to attempt to produce plutonium for a weapons program. The Israeli destruction of the Tammuz 1 (Osirak) research reactor on 7 June 1981 and Iraq’s subsequent failure to replace or rebuild it compelled the Iraqis to pursue a more clandestine uranium enrichment program for a nuclear weapon by the mid-1980s.
Between 1979 and 1982, Iraq bought large quantities of uranium in various forms including yellowcake and uranium dioxide from several countries. Some of the purchases were reported to the IAEA and some were not. Iraq’s uranium purchases are detailed in its CAFCD in 2002 and in other, earlier disclosures.
Saddam’s close association with the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) stems from his service as Vice President of the Republic from 1968 until 1979 when he became President of Iraq. From 1973 to 1979, he also served as President of the IAEC and sponsored its acquisition of foreign-supplied facilities with which to support a nuclear weapons program. https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/deploy_link_errorNot long after the start of the Iraq-Iran war, Iraq began to formally pursue uranium enrichment. In January 1982, the Office of Studies and Development (OSD) was established in the IAEC to conduct research and development in uranium enrichment. The staff of OSD was drawn largely from the staff of IAEC and numbered no more than several hundred. In late 1982, the IAEC was restructured and OSD became known as Office 3000.https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap4.html




Iraq's Biological Weapon Program


This is a brief history of Iraq's attempt to build germ weapons. It begins with a chronology that emphasizes individual facilities and germs, although many important details were never revealed to the UN inspectors who were on the ground in Iraq until the end of 1998. It is their findings on which the history primarily relies. A second set of inspections in Iraq was carried out from September 2002 to March 2003, but answered few of the many remaining questions about Iraq's biological weapon program. After the chronology, a second section discusses Iraq's interest in anthrax in more detail. The third section is a primer on the effects of the germs and viruses Iraq was working on.
Iraq managed to produce anthrax, aflatoxin, botulinum toxin, gas gangrene, ricin, and wheat smut, and was also known to be working on cholera, mycotoxins, shigellosis, and viruses (including camelpox, infectious hemorrhaghic conjunctivitis and rotavirus) as well as genetic engineering. There are suspicions that Iraq was also working on smallpox.
Iraq denied that it ever had an offensive BW program until the defection of Hussein Kamal, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law and head of the WMD program in Iraq, in 1995. Even then, Iraq continued to hide as much information, equipment and material from UN inspectors as it could. Thus, many aspects of Iraq's biological weapon program remain unknown. These unknowns include the total amount of germ agent Iraq produced and the status of Iraq's unaccounted for stocks of biological growth media, agents, production equipment and handbooks, as well as munitions and warheads. Furthermore, inspectors say that Iraq became self-sufficient, meaning it no longer needed imports to fuel its BW program. The uncertainties that surround this program made it all the more threatening in the absence of inspections and monitoring.
The chronology below shows that Iraq's germ weapon program began at a single site - the Al-Hazen Institute - in the 1970s. By the end of the 1980s, Iraq had several more dedicated sites (Al Salman, Al Muthanna, the Technical Research Center at Al Salman, and Al Hakam among them) and had broadened the scope of its research to include just about every major weaponizable germ and many viruses. In the late 1980s, Iraq began field tests, although new germs and new sites were still being added. Iraq had also weaponized germ agents before the first Gulf war, and some weapons had even been deployed. Little of this activity was discovered by the UN inspectors until 1995.and if you like wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction


Just because he didnt have them during the 2nd Gulf war does it mean he NEVER had them?

[dangerclose]

Billy Clinton and Al Gore told us that he had them. They didn't lie to us did they?

[Chulo]

Billy Clinton and Al Gore told us that he had them. They didn't lie to us did they?
Iraqs WMD research had been going on since the 1960s... but then again Bush sent Darth Cheney back in time to stop that happening

[afreu]

oh common.. he had WMDs.. why do u think the UN inspectors were even there?
http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/index.html
[quote]
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap4.html

and if you like wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction


Just because he didnt have them during the 2nd Gulf war does it mean he NEVER had them?


When the decision was made to invade Iraq there was no WMD threat. Everbody knew it, only a few people refused to believe it because of their own political agenda.

[Chulo]

When the decision was made to invade Iraq there was no WMD threat. Everbody knew it, only a few people refused to believe it because of their own political agenda.
thats not the point of my argument. If there wasnt a threat of force i dont think Saddam would have gotten rid of what he did, and 2. there is enough proof of different types of WMD processing equipment, but not in the scale that was presented - which doesnt mean he never had them.
and people with their political leaning or what ever reason, refuse to acknowledge that Saddam ever had WMDs

[Cralis]

When the decision was made to invade Iraq there was no WMD threat. Everbody knew it, only a few people refused to believe it because of their own political agenda.

Well then, I wish you'd been to a few locations I had been. While WMD's were not being manufactured at that time, those that thad not been given to Syria or dumped in the desert DID exist. I personally witnessed the existence of equipment used for them, and more than once our Marines were hit by a chemical munition that was turned into an IED after being mistaken for an explosive munition.

The fact is, that while the war is not won, it is well on the way to being won. In the same manner that it could be argued after D-day the war in Europe was "won", and after Guadalcanal the war in the Pacific was "won". Time will tell, but I believe that to be true.

And I've spent 20 months in Iraq.

And I can tell you that about 70% of whats on the media is either a lie, misrepresented, or simply wrong. From the politicians I'd say its about 75% lies and untruths, 15% twisted and misrepresented, and about 10% wrong.

So if you don't mind, rather than let the armchair warriors argue about it, I'm going to go do something more important than argue on this forum with people who don't know what they are talking about. I'd love to see this thread locked.

[khukuri]

Iraq will never survive as a nation. It was a "made up"

Beg you Iran, your country is not that homogeneous either, you have azeris, Baluch, kurds and Arabs all wanting independence.


India was a nation or a unity if you will long before the British colonized them. They had a tradition of considering themselves as so with a common history and culture.

Bs if you would have known anything about india and indian history you would know that a lot of them dont consider them selves as indians. Only 20 percent speak the official language and india had loads of internal conflict dealing with independence.


India was a nation or a unity if you will long before the British colonized them. They had a tradition of considering themselves as so with a common history and culture.

How do you know, do you have crystal ball at home? There is no instant democracy like instant coffe. These things take time but they will come.




Only a strong and brutal person could hold that together.

Thats interesting because before Saddam it was much less brutal and much less divided and much less conflict a shyte loads better! I say youre talking from your ass.

[Chulo]

India was a nation or a unity if you will long before the British colonized them. They had a tradition of considering themselves as so with a common history and culture. Iraq however is a different story, people who usually did not stand each other were now jammed inside a nation not unified by a leader of their kind, but by foreign powers drawing lines. Only a strong and brutal person could hold that together. Now that man is gone, and there is nothing to prevent this nation from dissolving.

There never has been a culture for democracy in Iraq. If there ever will be, it will take decades upon decades for it to evolve.



Beg you Iran, your country is not that homogeneous either, you have azeris, Baluch, kurds and Arabs all wanting independence.



Bs if you would have known anything about india and indian history you would know that a lot of them dont consider them selves as indians. Only 20 percent speak the official language and india had loads of internal conflict dealing with independence.



hahah how did i miss that!? So you are saying India was a democratic nation before the British came?

[harddeck]

Why would the Coalition or member of the Coalition force in Iraq be the only party in this conflict with an unbiased opinion?

If your directing this to my post......you have totally missed my point. I was trying to get across that ranking coalition ARE biased for reasons well above my paygrade , form your opinions from guys on the ground and not what you read. The most unbiased media reporting i have seen on Iraq is by al jezera....go figure. (and yes I have been there for the last 3+ years so I know who to listen to and who not to)

The difference in fighting an aposing military or an insurgency is countries dont stop life goes on in an insurgency war, giving the impression during the quiet months that things are on the up all is over and we should be home in no time.

We are at the 5 year mark now........these dirty wars are never short. The question is when will it become Iraq's dirty war, and reading shlt like the Iraqi army is good to go is utter crap they will be hammed within months of a coalition withdrawl.

IMHO the US is lucky in the fact that Islamic extremist are taking the fight to them and concentrating their efforts in Iraq instead of the US having to chase them around the globe. Iraq as terrible as it is maybe what is needed to prevent something a lot bigger that every member of this forum may have to take a part in.

[budgie]

The whole crux of this argument is the usual "Iraq is better off than it was under Saddam." It is not.

The OP uses some fuzzy math to illustrate: Yes, Iraq now democratically elects its leaders but they are riddled with factionalism and cannot agree on much. No big deal in a peaceful democracy but here every faction has guns;

The army has its numbers at near-strength, but their training and equipment sucks and they are also riddled with sectarian killers. Some police forces and military units are little more than local militias in support of their own tribe - kind of like Afghanistan. They may yet turn on each other.

Sure Saddam killed hundreds of thousands (and some of the deaths listed above can only be loosely credited to him) but that was over a period of more than two decades. Of course not as many people have died in Iraq's civil conflicts since then...not yet anyway. If this keeps up for as long as Saddam's reign, they might.

It all reminds me of a silly, yet illustrative song I heard on Air America back in 2004:

Mission Accomplished, we're done
Mission accomplished, like 'Nam
We came to liberate
Iraq's a brand new state
Mission accomplished...just wait

[Mastermind]

So, I think if that argument holds water, that you're suggesting dictators are better for Iraq than democracy. Democracy is messy...it is filled with pot holes and missing sections and frustration. A secular nation might survive the journey into democracy....a people with a strong sense of rule of law might survive that journey, too. But, a nation whose people are dedicated to the religous concept that the teachings of the local Imam are to be obeyed first at all cost over the rule of the state...now those people can never find peace in the house of democracy....why? Because the instant the Imams begin to lose power over the people they will declare the new government as sacrilige and that will end that. People will give their time and money to their government...but people who strongly belive their religion is the "end all-be all" of life ...for that they will give their very lives and souls. No government except a brutal government might survive in such an environment. That's why some may think they were better off under Saddam...just as some Germans might think they had been better off under Hitler....dictators have a way of establishing order...their version of order...but many people might think some order, even that which is enforced with horror and mass murder is better than chaos.

And who is to say they are wrong? I say reestablish a dictator who will use any means to return the nation to order...if that means a return to brutal rule, concentration camps, summary executions, gassing entire populations...so be it...I mean, they ought to do what ever makes folks in Iraq happy.

[BugHunt]

Not sure i agree there MM. People go to whomever will give them safety in a crisis. The coalition has merely not given the majority of Iraqis any options but to turn to "strongmen". Whether they wanted options or not...

How different would things be IF the invasion was carried off properly with enough planning and resources?

With enough troops to enforce a benign order there couldve been time to allow the secular leaning majority come to the fore. At least a enviroment where secular leanings wouldnt be life threatening....

Instead - carnage and the mob with greatest number of AK's wins....

Seriously would we even be "tempted" by the slightly farcial solutions of sticking a dictator in place of the dictator we just desposed but due to the fact that the US hasnt enough troops?


Whats stopping "our dictator" becoming our enemy in the future and say having a yearning for WMD? Afterall thats more or less Saddam in a nutshell!


Theres going to be half a dozen morons on here bleating about Bush hating - but LOL Bush has painted your country (and unfortunately the UK to a degree) into this corner of stupidity. Whining like a stuck bleeding neocon victim wont change those facts....

Whining and squealing loudly and displacing the blame onto whomever - from reluctant allies (whom you worked to alienate) to liberal media to Iran, Syria etcetc wont change the fact you blundered into Iraq badly without thought or planning....its your choice and largely the choice of one political party....[/rant at the unthinking Bush supporters]

[Mastermind]

Two things I can't agree with: 1) people go to whoever gives them security and 2) Us has'nt enough troops on the ground. Sadam gave them security...yet, when the coalition troops rolled in, the people ripped Saddam's images to shreds and tore down his statues and really did cheer coalition forces. 200,000 troops is not enough? howabout 500,000 or twice that? We could have put a Marine on every street corner and the bombings and assaultes would have continued. If security is all the people wanted, we could have rolled through, slaughering every "insurgent" camp and hideout...along with the civvies they were hiding with and who were hiding them....where exactly is the line of demarcation between rescuers and oppressors? How does anyone balance that?

Everyone in Iraq has a completely different idea of what "freedom" means, what security means and what kind of threat or salvation is offered by their definition of "democracy". How different do you think things would be if the coalition forces were the ones slicing throats in the middle of the night, blasting concentrations of suspected enemy to bits regardless of the civilian casualties and kidnapping entire bus loads of peole and executing them alongside the roadway?

The forces of civilized nations can not do anything except show the way...if the people continue to harbor the radical elements either through want or through fear, what possible salvation do they have regardless of the forces there supporting them? How "free" would any society be with countless bands of suicide bombers and murdering thugs roaming the streets and the night? Kill as many as you want, there are still as many crossing the borders. I suspect we would be not free at all...look how our freedoms have eroded just in the face of the idiotic "War on Drugs" and not to mention the "boogeyman War on Terror".

The problem is the western powers attempted this lunatic change of mission to turn Iraq into a democracy on the model of well establsihed nations like Britian and the USA....utter nonsense for a devastated culture like that in Iraq. Typically, when things went wrong, all that was left was to just throw money at the beast...now, a trillion bucks down the drain and we still have absolutely nothing to show for it except a few thousand more dead.

The solution is to let the Iraqis resolve the issue..We should fade back to rural bases, get out of the cities and let the events fall where they may. If Iraq turns into a blood bath...that's apparently what the people want...if it turns into an Islamic republic..Oh Well....but we should never leave and we should keep all parties concerned well aware of our determination to influence events in our own interests. But, f

[budgie]

So, I think if that argument holds water, that you're suggesting dictators are better for Iraq than democracy.

Well it's not yet a toss up between the two. Iraq doesn't have a real functioning democracy. The facade masks a deeply rooted, tribal and sectarian dishes. Very few people in Iraq would have Saddam back if he were alive and another dictator would be unable to gain control without choosing a side and massacring the rest.

It would be nice to think Iraq is "better off" now because it is a "democracy" but it is in reality, a fractured, barely functioning collection of factions and tribes, held together only by the thin thread of foreign troops, and even they might not be able to stop the country from imploding.

The "war" in Iraq was won, if you want to split hairs, when Saddam's regime toppled. Good riddance. The postwar conflicts are far from over.

And if anyone wants to believe that the war against al Qaeda, the "insurgents" and foreign terrorists is truly won, then great, let's get our people out of there. Because the conflict between Sunnis and Shiites can't be "won" by the coalition anyway.

[Dasein]

Democracy by itself is rather worthless - anyone can go through the motions of voting. What people seem to be looking for in Iraq is the development of a more sophisticated political system underlying the democratic front-end. That is, underneath the mechanics of elections, there needs to be a belief in a political system that espouses certain values like individual liberty, separation of powers and the rule of law. If that is missing, then democracy is simply an empty motion, a formality without any substance.

[Firetxmi]

Someone should tell the 853 military men and women killed in Iraq this year alone that we have won.

2007 is deadliest year for US in Iraq:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071106/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=Aj4.SLIPXMcEzJkXcdxi429vaA8F

[Mastermind]

Well, I think we have hashed this down too fine. The truth is, this war can never be "Won"...there are not going to be any victory parades, no post war era. Anyone who has not figured it out by now is a lost puppy anyway. This is not a war in the sense WWI or WWII ... in this one there can be no surrender and there can be no victory....in a religious war you must fight to the death...one side sees the reality of it all and the other side has chosen to fight in a fog of politcally correct fantasy. This is going to ultimately be a war of eradication for one side or the other. the side that is the most connected to reality will most likely be the last one standing and then it will still not be won...it will be just the start of a new slaughter as the survivors fight over the divison of the spoils and the slaves....

[BugHunt]

Two things I can't agree with: 1) people go to whoever gives them security and 2) Us has'nt enough troops on the ground. Sadam gave them security...yet, when the coalition troops rolled in, the people ripped Saddam's images to shreds and tore down his statues and really did cheer coalition forces. 200,000 troops is not enough? howabout 500,000 or twice that? We could have put a Marine on every street corner and the bombings and assaultes would have continued. If security is all the people wanted, we could have rolled through, slaughering every "insurgent" camp and hideout...along with the civvies they were hiding with and who were hiding them....where exactly is the line of demarcation between rescuers and oppressors? How does anyone balance that?


1. The people rose up against Saddam when they had OPTIONS! Heck they rose up GulfWar1 after Bush called on them too and got butchered!

Soon as they have a option THEN they can choose what they think is best.


My point now - they may think the coalition brings security and freedom they may yearn for these things! But it doesnt mean **** if there neighbourhood is run by Sadr Milita and there families throats will be cut if they work with "the invaders".
Ergo without "enough troops" without security people HAVE NO OPTIONS.


Sorry i totally disagree i think WITH a Powel style force level was the answer. Soldiers and Marines on pratically every corner to ENFORCE ORDER after the "mission was accomplished" that wouldve stopped the looting the anarchy and disorder. The first slips on the decent into civil strife and war...

If nothing else they did show how hollow the word of the occupiers were as they couldnt retain order!

Once that has been lost its a hard uphill struggle to regain....


The inadequate force levels, lack of public support and bad strategic thinking (how long did take before counterinsurgency was acknowledged or even adopted as a tactic) also lead the occuipers to focus on force protection as opposed to counterinsurgency.


Your points about there culture and priorities might be valid - theres no doubt there a inhinderance. Insurmountable? Who knows -ive heard the educated city dewellers were mainly secular leaning. The tribes are mainly rural... An example was shown by those elected in all the early elections - the elected were all 30's educated secular individuals with engineering and medical backgrounds...


But without ORDER and security those elections arguably became meaningless. Who cares if youve got a elected official if he cant stop you being bombed/kidnapped/shot randomly.....and who knows how those voters would vote know that theyve seen a failed process in action.

[Mastermind]

So, since the gvt and the Americans can not provide all the security the people seem to want, we should dissolve the gvt, pull the Americans and coalition forces out and let the peace happen...is that the answer? Actually, it sounds really great to me.

[BugHunt]

So, since the gvt and the Americans can not provide all the security the people seem to want, we should dissolve the gvt, pull the Americans and coalition forces out and let the peace happen...is that the answer? Actually, it sounds really great to me.


Two seperate areas w'ere discussing here MM -

1.Initial troop levels (and i still hold they were obviously catastrophically low).

2.What should we do now.....and honestly i dont know. The US seems more successful lately - but whether weve turned a corner or are merely papering over the cracks until the next president is in office i cant tell....


Either way what staggers me is youve still got a quite vocal minority who still think Bush is "doing a good job!".........Bush could shag a sheep on the whitehouse lawn and they would still be nodding there heads wisely and saying "i bet that sheep deserved it - he looked like a terrorist"....

[Mastermind]

Bush is not the issue...thankfully...he's really balled up. But, it seems there are just a few ways to run something like Iraq...quick and dirty or slow and painfully...it seems Mr. Bush chose the slow and paifully route and we are just stuck with it. I think he relys overly much on advisors and unfortunately, he simply made too many bad choices for his advisors. The penalty is now being paid by the Iraqis, the US Military men and women and the US taxpayer...and the final bill is still yet to come.

[Firetxmi]

Either way what staggers me is youve still got a quite vocal minority who still think Bush is "doing a good job!".........Bush could shag a sheep on the whitehouse lawn and they would still be nodding there heads wisely and saying "i bet that sheep deserved it - he looked like a terrorist"....

Ahahaha! Thats awesome!