Are Things Changing For The Better In Iraq?
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in War — Comments (34) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The number of truck bombs and other large al-Qaeda-style attacks in Iraq have declined nearly 50% since the United States started increasing troop levels in Iraq about six months ago, according to the U.S. military command in Iraq.
The high-profile attacks -- generally large bombs hitting markets, mosques or other "soft" targets that produce mass casualties -- have dropped to about 70 in July from a high during the past year of about 130 in March, according to the Multi-National Force -- Iraq.
Military officers say the decline reflects progress in damaging al-Qaeda's networks in Iraq. The military has launched offensives around Baghdad aimed at al-Qaeda sanctuaries and bases.
"The enemy had the initiative and the momentum in '06," said Jack Keane, a retired general who is a chief architect of the increase in troop levels and mentor to Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. "We've got it now."
Keane spoke from Iraq.
I am certain that no one ought to be counting chickens yet. But this is very good news and may very well reflect a trend. One hopes that this trend is kept in mind when General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker present their September 15th report.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Cheney Warned Of Iraq 'Quagmire' — Comments (21) »
Are Things Changing For The Better In Iraq? 34 Comments (0 topical, 34 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
was to involve you as an IED inspector. I'm surprised you haven't been contacted. A black helicopter will be landing in your yard tonight, thanks for contacting us.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
You're a raving lunatic and I don't bother with things like you.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
My initial post was definitely off the wall, I'll grant you that. But seriously, this is my first post on any conservative website. I thought I'd give it a go, since I figure most people are reasonable. Is there no chance you could refute one of my talking points?
b.s. It's too familiar...it was a couple weeks ago,...same crap...presented the same way....I'll think of it...
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
of them and did it without any personal insults so have at it.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
the British are so smart that after acknowledging that their pullback was a disaster that they now believe the proper thing to do is full withdrawal. Let's slow down on quoting the British as far as wise military analysis.
So, in six months there hasn't been any political progress in a country torn by war.
Let's see in six months there has been no political progress in this country. Israel continues to have no political progress and a PM with single digit approval ratings.
As Michael Yon points out...
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/three-marks-on-the-horizon.htm
there has been political progress however it is on the local level. Basically, you libs are moving the goal posts since there is progress. Six months wasn't really enough time to measure any progress and yet there has been clear and measurable and so you libs latch onto anything that is isn't progressing. The political end is working however on the local rather than national level.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Thanks for your reply mike.
That article was insightful. I'm prepared to accept that there is local progress in some areas.
Michael Yon says:
1. Iraqis are uniting across sectarian lines to drive al Qaeda in all its disguises out of Iraq, and they are empowered by the success they are having, each one creating a ripple effect of active citizenship.
This is encouraging. So do you agree that if we left Iraq we would not, as Bush & Cheney have said, create a safe haven for al-Qaeda?
I'm just looking for an honest framing of the debate. So the reason we're there is to protect the Iraqi citizens and to try and build a democracy? That is a noble ambition & worth our effort. You concur that Iraq is not the central front on the war on terror?
Or was it a raving lunatic. At any rate, you prove my point. Al Qaeda says that Iraq is the central front of their war on the infidel. Iran is heavily invested in helping them as is Syria.
If you're interested in pursuing that argument, please contact CAIR or the Iranian Embassy somewhere and take it up with them.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
First of all, you've been here less than 2 hours, so if you come on here and start posting like your garden-variety Kossack, don't be surprised when you're treated like one.
Second, you're exhibiting jumps in logic that would put Bo & Luke Duke to shame; you've managed to leap from 'the surge is making progress' to 'we could pull out of Iraq right now and the Iraqis would be able to take care of themselves just fine against al-Qaeda, so why are we there', which is a greater chasm than the General Lee ever jumped.
Third, quit trying to put words in people's mouths: "You concur that Iraq is not the central front on the war on terror?" No, we don't concur, and that doesn't follow from anything you've said.
If you are in fact 'just looking for an honest framing of the debate', then try being honest yourself. Or better yet, try reading some of the stuff that's been posted here over the last several years (hint: we didn't just start talking about Iraq yesterday here), and maybe, just maybe, you'll learn something.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
As it happens, I'm from Ireland, just looking to get a better understanding of both sides. Anyway, I could try and debate your last entry but I found your response patronising & aggressive. I might have a look back through the archives. As for posting here again, not so much.
I will respond. First, we are in Iraq for many reasons. The idea that building democracies in the middle east is divorced from the War on Terror does nothing more than ignores the Bush Doctrine. You may or may not agree with it but Bush firmly believes that the only way to win the War on Terror is to remove despots and replace them with Democracies. Now, the reasons that we went in are plentiful and need not be listed again, however to say that creating a democracy and defeating AQ there are divorced is again pure fantasy. The two are intertwined so building a democracy would defeat AQ. Note, that doesn't mean that the government must succeed a number of benchmarks in six months, but it certainly must mean that there is a relative amount of safety. It is the central front because that is how AQ has made it. They have sent in their top people to creat havoc, to create a failed state that they can then use as their new Tora Bora. That is what they want. If we withdraw that is exactly what they will have. You can pretend that it isn't so, but that won't change reality.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
you want patronizing and aggressive, it's me you need to be responding to not volpe. To summarize, thanks for letting us know you're from Ireland. We know now why the Irish won't be ruling the world. Have a nice time in the archives and feel free to post again when you've learned something and have a better understanding of what rational thought is. Which will likely be a couple of reincarnations from now.
Bye. We won't be missing you any time soon.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
...other than that, nothing to add.
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
Don't quote the article out of context. The reason they are united is because they know they have the full might of the U.S. military behind them. If we left they would be slaughtered. That is obvious to anyone that cares. How did this situation happen? The tribes came to the MNF and wanted to partner up with us and get rid of AQ. If there is no us there is no partnering up. The idea that if we leave so will AQ is pure fantasy.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
The guy is a loon. You're wasting your time.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
violence while the Iraqi forces develop their capabilities to combat terror.
This is always difficult and time consuming. Being Irish, you should know that, as 3000 people were killed in Northern Ireland & the UK during the Troubles from 1968 to 1998.
Did Congresslady Boyda have another hissy?
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
"Boyda has been a thoughtful opponent of President Bush's strategy in Iraq since coming to Congress earlier this year"
If the surge results continue and the progress holds, then the question must be asked, "Why was this not done sooner?"
There were tons of critics (me included) that complained that the number of troops was too low. We relied on force multipliers such as CAS when we really needed boots on the ground.
Critics were pilloried for this, as one Red State contributor after another took turns calling us "liberals" and worse.
I recall multiple posts by luminaries such as Streiff along the lines of the following:
The left, and increasingly a body of initial supporters of the war who have gone wobbly when confronted with the inherent difficulties in bringing your enemies to heel, seem to believe a change in strategy is necessary. The former in order to make a few cheap political points by proving the Bush Administration wrong, the latter to attempt to salvage what they see as their tattered reputation in supporting the war to begin with.
This type of thinking is the same thinking that has driven American industry into the ground. The idea that each successive quarter must show a profit has driven US steel and automakers from their former pinnacle in their respective industry and had them supplanted by strategically thinking companies who were willing to accept marginal returns or even losses in order to carry out their strategic plan. To "stay the course" and not change course with the vagaries of the wind and tide is the mark of successful men, successful businesses, and successful governments.
"Stay the course" and "we have enough troops" in 2006 suddenly became "support the surge" in 2007.
In 2006 it was, "The MSM is lying about Iraq!" In 2007, the meme became, "Okay, there are real problems. The situation in Iraq needs improvement and we need more troops."
Is the purpose of Red State to promote conservative values in a quest for truth, or is to flack for the Bush Administration?
Things are looking up in Iraq, post-surge. That's great, but then things could have been looking up prior to 2006. The Surge could have happened last year, or the year before.
It was the idea that the administration didn't know what it was doing that helped drive the defeats in 2006. The American public lost confidence and patience. Evidently the message was delivered and understood, because in 2007 we got new personnel, new commanders, and a new strategy.
This damage was completely unnecessary to the Republican Party.
And people who pointed that out were not just liberals intent on destroying the country, either.
I'll hope for a continuing improvement of the situation in Iraq.
What I would ask is probably too much for most here, but I'll throw it out anyway.
When carrying water for this administration and attacking the heretical views of other Republicans, have the common decency to remember that the policy you defend as Gospel today could be in the ash heap of history tomorrow. This administration has been so bad that headlines in NRO proclaim the need for competence in the next Republican Administration.
That should give you pause before you rip into someone who disagrees with the Bush Administration.
Yes, the person posting could be a leftie moron.
Or it could be a Republican who actually has the facts right and the Administration could be wrong.
It probably won't matter for most of you, but it should.
When you get down to it, it's not The Surge™ that's doing it.
It's what The Surge™ represents.
We have shown with The Surge™ that we are not going to leave any time soon. More than that, despite American division on the War, we are doing the oposite, we are Escalating. It is their belief that we will still be there tomorrow, and next week and next month and Next Year that has the locals working with us.
Because if we leave before they have real stability, it will be those who worked with us left holding the bag. Like t was the Last time we went in...
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
The troop surge wasn't tried for so long starts at Bush's greatest strength and weakness, his loyalty. He believed in Rumsfeld and his leaner, meaner military long after most would have dumped him. That is his nature.
It is of course easy to be a critic in war, but much harder to make policy.
Most now agree that hê should have dumped him much sooner and maybe that is true but he didn't.
He has the right strategy now.
1. As an initial matter, streiff and Pejman are not, in fact, the same person.
2. If you have a problem with streiff, which we know you do, take it up with him, and not Pejman. (That's not a suggestion, by the way.)
3. You make the understandable, though not necessarily accurate, assumption that What we do now would have worked if done before. Would those Sunni clan chiefs have come running to us without having their clans decimated by AQIZ? Would the Shi'i believe we were in for the long haul before? Would a heavier CO-IN presence have helped in a place that viewed us, in many ways, as occupiers?
4. If we want to drag up past, stupid, embarassing statements, how are those deeply religious Russians doing these days? Or is it the Russian Orthodox? Are they still having big love-ins with Catholics? Waging a serious war on legalized abortion and infanticide? Turning the tide of depopulation and fighting the Putin government's destruction of Russian civil society?
Number Four could be rephrased as, Grow up, jaszkowski. No one forces you to read or comment here; no one forces you to come to your own answer to such serious, honest questions as Is the purpose of Red State to promote conservative values in a quest for truth, or is to flack for the Bush Administration?; and no one cares that you are hurt that where the majority of this site goes to war with the Administration, you don't care, and where we don't, you do.
Grow up.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
I'll be in Moscow in October, I'll be happy to report back after that trip how things are going.
What exactly is it that brought on Point 4 in your screed?
The Orthodox Church has condemned abortion, of course. Only about 18% of the population is actually practicing, but a larger percentage are concerned about the ideas of the Church. And the Orthodox Church is quite interested in stopping abortion and getting the birth rate up. So is the government, but even if it succeeds then it will take time.
I'm actually Polish, and the Catholic Church in Poland would have to be described as quite alive and well. I can't really speak for the Russians, not being one myself, but I visit several times a year and have always been well treated and most of my 20 to 30 something co-workers in Moscow are doing well, and a sizable number are religious.
I've noticed a distinct amount of vitriol on this site towards Europe. The French, Dutch, and Belgians are quite soft, but what is it about modern American conservatives that leads to angry statements like you just made?
Putin is the President of Russia. Some Russians back him, a lot of my friends wish he'd just go away. What is it that gets your dander up to the point of denouncing 165 million people who live in a land you have never visited?
Are Poles spared this animosity, or because we're European then we're in the mix also? Polish society isn't politically correct, has a right-wing, pro-American government - are my relatives in Poland okay, or are you out to denounce them also?
Actually, on the times the site has gone to war with the administration, I've been pleased to see it. Harriet Myers comes to mind. How many 'me too,' posts do you really need on a topic, however?
Something about past statements about how the Russian Orthodox Church is making great strides in fighting cultural and human decay. Something about excorciating others for past statements.
Golly, no reason, I guess.
I've noticed a distinct amount of vitriol on this site towards Europe.
I have no more or less love for Europe than I do for any other group of foreign countries with foreign policies and interests that are deliberately and openly hostile to my home country's. I -- and I actually mean this sincerely -- except Poland from each of those prior statements.
Actually, on the times the site has gone to war with the administration, I've been pleased to see it. Harriet Myers comes to mind. How many 'me too,' posts do you really need on a topic, however?
Not so much that we need "me too," more like we need children to remember that before reprimanding us as lackeys of, well, anyone.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Something about past statements about how the Russian Orthodox Church is making great strides in fighting cultural and human decay. Something about excorciating others for past statements.
As I said, I visit Russian multiple times a year as a banking consultant. I deal with the 20 to 30's crowd a lot.
The Russian government is not the Russian people. The Orthodox Church has made great strides in trying to re-evangelize the country. When in Russia, I attend Mass and have no problem with it. The Russians I spend time with are very cordial and friendly people, to me both as an American and as someone who carries Polish heritage.
Putin is cozying up to China and the Russian government is more authoritarian today than it was five years ago.
What has that got to do with whether or not the average college-educated Russian is more interested in God, is less likely to abort a child, or has a positive attitude to the United States?
I call this the way I see it from ground-level as someone with personal experience with Russia or Ukraine, or Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Czech, Slovakia, and Moldava. All countries I've spent time in and have personal friends in.
Petrauas is someone finally using some brains via the constant mentioning of "expect a Tiet offensive anytime" that way if things go south "its expected", if things continue as best case "well we over planned". This simple logic of preparing the gen pop for the worst case scenario therefore near guaranteeing your success unless the enemy accomplishes beyond worst case scenario. One of Bush's worst mistakes so far in the WOT is to allow the media to use the Best Case scenario's as what is expected. That is near guaranteeing failure especially from a media more than willing to accept the best best case scenario as the bar for success.
You always prepare for the worst aka give the gen pop worst case scenario then rejoice in anything less. The Iraq phase has been a unbelievable success by all historical comparisons and the fact of it considered a failure is the media setting of impossible bars drawn from thin air.
Obviously any reduction in violence is good news. But wasn't the original goal of the surge to give breathing space for political progress? And with the Sunnis now dropping out of government, hasn't there been negative progress on the political front?
Add to the this the British prognosis that the surge "will probably fail" & it's hardly encouraging news. So with the army stretched thin, how long more should we keep up the surge to try and get the Iraqi factions to agree to govern effectively?