1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Violence in Iraq at 4-Year Lows, Local Commanders Want US to Stay

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by El_Conquistador, Jul 8, 2008.

Tags:
Page 1 of 2
  1. El_Conquistador

    El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2002
    Messages:
    15,834
    Likes Received:
    6,725
    This really should end any serious debate as to whether the surge worked. It did work. Furthermore, local US commanders want our brave troops to continue to maintain their successes on the ground by staying. Not sure where Obama's stance on Iraq is this week (other than confused), but the bottom line is that our troops are having success there. That is undeniable. McCain pinned his political hopes by fiercely advocating for a a counter-insurgency strategy (the surge) -- and was spot on. He did that in the face of criticism and a media that was hell-bent against the move. McCain's strength carried the day and he was right. He is the strong hand we need commanding our military.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121542707942732273.html?mod=world_news_whats_news

    Military Official Holds Out
    Hope for Iraq Drawdown
    Joint Chiefs' Mullen
    Sees More Pullouts
    If Conditions Hold
    By YOCHI J. DREAZEN
    July 8, 2008; Page A3

    BAGHDAD -- The U.S.'s top military official said Iraq's security situation was holding steady as the last of the 30,000 so-called surge troops departed and that he was hopeful that further withdrawals could take place later this year.

    But U.S. and Iraqi officials remained sharply divided over the terms of the future American military presence here.

    Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday that Iraq's violence was continuing to subside. He said the overall level of violence in Baghdad was down to levels last seen more than four years ago.

    Adm. Mullen, kicking off a three-day visit here, said U.S. and Iraqi forces were continuing to oust militants from their strongholds and places like the Sadr City area of Baghdad and, so far, preventing the militants from returning.

    "From all I see, security conditions are holding," he said, adding that the gains gave him "hope we can continue the drawdown."


    Washington is struggling to reach an agreement with Baghdad before a United Nations mandate authorizing the U.S. troop presence here expires at the end of the year. The Bush administration wants a formal agreement authorizing a long-term U.S. presence. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki Monday said he wants a short-term "memorandum of understanding" that would carry less legal and political weight.

    Iraqi officials said the memorandum would likely include a conditional timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, a provision opposed by the Bush administration.

    Adm. Mullen declined to directly address Mr. Maliki's new proposal but said both governments felt a "sense of urgency" to complete an agreement. "I'm optimistic that we'll come to closure on this issue sometime this year."

    Some senior U.S. officials believe the Iraqi government's increasing assertiveness in the talks is a result of the recent security improvements, which may have persuaded Iraqi leaders that they no longer need the U.S. to maintain stability in the country or to help them hold on to power.

    Senior U.S. military commanders here and in Washington face difficult decisions about whether to withdraw additional American forces after the departure later this month of the last of the surge troops. The Bush administration had deployed the additional troops to Iraq last year to calm growing sectarian violence in the country.

    U.S. troop levels here will fall to approximately 140,000 by the end of the summer, a similar level to that of earlier years of the war.


    Many Pentagon senior officers want further reductions to relieve manpower strains on the armed forces and to free up more troops for Afghanistan, where conditions have deteriorated in recent months.

    Local U.S. commanders in Iraq, by contrast, want to keep troop levels steady for as long as possible to prevent Iraq's recent security gains from eroding.

    The number of attacks in Baghdad has fallen this year from a high of 740 in April to 116 in June and just 19 so far this month, said Lt. Col. Steve Stover, a spokesman for the U.S. military command responsible for the Baghdad area.

    Col. Stover attributed much of the improvements to a U.S. military effort to use attack helicopters and unmanned drones to kill militants who fired rockets and mortars at American posts or the heavily fortified Green Zone.

    The U.S. military kept six Apache attack helicopters in the skies over Sadr City around the clock in recent weeks as part of the effort, he said. All told, the U.S. "took down" 93 rocket teams, he said.

    [​IMG]
     
    #1 El_Conquistador, Jul 8, 2008
  2. DaDakota

    DaDakota Balance wins
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 1999
    Messages:
    129,680
    Likes Received:
    40,243
    Good let the Iraqi's control their own country, if they want us to stay or have a base, let them pay for it.

    DD
     
    #2 DaDakota, Jul 8, 2008
  3. CometsWin

    CometsWin Breaker Breaker One Nine

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    28,028
    Likes Received:
    13,051
    The "Surge"... more like the Bribe. Only in Bush's little brain is bribing the enemy to stop shooting at you a successful strategy for victory in Iraq. We went from winning hearts and minds to buying protection with our checkbook. The US is getting hit up like a corner store in a mafia controlled neihborhood. b**** better have my money every Friday or there'll be trouble.
     
    #3 CometsWin, Jul 8, 2008
  4. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    472
    That’s just it! They don’t want our bases, they don’t want the US controlling their oil reserves, and they want us out. What’s funny is that the Bush administration is doing everything within its power to make sure we do stay in a country that wants us gone. Sorry, lower level US commanders do not set policy, the Iraqi government does. At least that was the reason for the surge (not reducing violence, as Jorge would have us believe).
     
    #4 mc mark, Jul 8, 2008
  5. yaoluv

    yaoluv Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    4
    way to go USA <del>police force</del> military!
     
    #5 yaoluv, Jul 8, 2008
  6. Surfguy

    Surfguy Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 1999
    Messages:
    24,715
    Likes Received:
    12,979
    what is all this obama/iraq controversy lately? some are saying he changed his strategy about troop withdrawals? i don't care who the president is at this point...i think their iraq strategies are going to be similar...especially if they are listening to the commanders on the ground and the conditions as they exist today.

    i get the picture that some obama peeps believe he is going to end this war right away when he comes to office...and start withdrawing troops regardless of conditions on the ground and what his local commanders say. that line of thinking scares me because we could actually end up leaving too early and losing everything we set out to accomplish, i.e. a stable, democratic iraq.

    are there really any major differences between obama and mccain on iraq? they are both going to be doing what is best based on conditions on the ground and on the recommendations of commanders. i don't see obama just going against those conditions/recommendations...just to get our troops out of there faster. i know obama's favorite line is "i wouldn't have gone to war in the first place". well...f me...we are there now and we have to do what is right going forward.

    i'm not going to vote for obama on the belief that the war will be over in a year or two after he is inaugurated. i think both candidates will bring the troops home when it is the right time to bring troops home. period.
     
    #6 Surfguy, Jul 8, 2008
  7. weslinder

    weslinder Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    12,983
    Likes Received:
    291
    Everyone is missing the point. The local commanders want to stay, which means that Iraq is better than the alternative. The generally quoted alternative is sending the troops to the border. The local commanders are saying that they'd rather be in Baghdad than Laredo.
     
    #7 weslinder, Jul 8, 2008
  8. BigBenito

    BigBenito Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2002
    Messages:
    7,355
    Likes Received:
    175
    Afghanistan
     
    #8 BigBenito, Jul 8, 2008
  9. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,980
    Likes Received:
    2,365
    Kudos to the troops and our military leadership for taking the bull by the horns and getting things in order over there
     
    #9 bigtexxx, Jul 8, 2008
  10. Northside Storm

    Northside Storm Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    Saying that violence in Iraq is at "4-year" lows...so we're comparing the situation to one year after the war "officially ended"? Hmm...

    Hopefully, the debacle in Afgahnistan (which has gotten progressivly worse thanks to the focus on Iraq, what with the spring of insurgent attacks on Alliance forces) will now get more attention, which should've happened years ago, given how much of a dead end Iraq was.
     
    #10 Northside Storm, Jul 8, 2008
  11. El_Conquistador

    El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2002
    Messages:
    15,834
    Likes Received:
    6,725
    Um.... no. We are comparing it to at any time in the last four years.

    Wow, I really hope this level of logic is not indicative of how everyone on the anti-war/anti-success left thinks. Disturbing.
     
    #11 El_Conquistador, Jul 8, 2008
  12. Northside Storm

    Northside Storm Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    Saying that this is a "four-year" low means that there was something lower in the year before it, otherwise why subject yourself to a "four-year" limit? And considering that was the year "major combat operations" ended (2003), well then, isin't it ironic?

    Regardless, saying there is a "low" in Iraqi sectretarian violence is like saying the Bobcats aren't losing as hard as they used to. I'm personally unimpressed, since I think the focus should be on Afghanistan, but if you are willing to sacrifice American troops for what amounts to a nation building exercise (and at that, a nation that has shown dangerous signs of deviating to anti-Americanism), well then, agree to disagree.
     
    #12 Northside Storm, Jul 8, 2008
  13. El_Conquistador

    El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2002
    Messages:
    15,834
    Likes Received:
    6,725
    ^^^

    and the furious attempts to minimize our successes in Iraq have already begun by those completely and utterly unqualified to opine on such matters...

    Their outright scorn for good news in Iraq is .... troubling.

    Oh well, just keep repeating the mindless lib mantra of 'we took our eye off the ball' and totally glossing over all of the strategic implications of discontinuing our success there with the surge and leaving Iraq open to Al Qaeda and Iran by withdrawing... hey, it's easier than actually analyzing the situation! And the hopeless fantasy of the US leaving Iraq and suddenly everything is find and dandy is just so KEWL to think about! yeah!
     
    #13 El_Conquistador, Jul 8, 2008
  14. yaoluv

    yaoluv Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    4
    Of course if you have multiple apaches hovering baghdad ready to take out any mortar strikes there will be fewer mortar strikes.

    At some point though, we are going to have to leave. Running an apache police force over bagdad for 100 years, as some may want, will bankrupt us.

    Has the surge done anything to improve what will happen after we leave? Has the surge won us the hearts and minds? This is the important question.

    Its like I have a hungry lion in my room and I keep giving him 24 oz sirloin 5 times a day so he doesn't eat me. This is not a long term strategy for success.
     
    #14 yaoluv, Jul 8, 2008
  15. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    472
    poor george
     
    #15 mc mark, Jul 8, 2008
  16. El_Conquistador

    El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2002
    Messages:
    15,834
    Likes Received:
    6,725
    Yes, the surge has reduced violence (undeniable) and has improved stability, while providing time for the country/military to make great progress on 15 of the 18 goals they had set. Hard to dispute that, really, despite the media's coverage and despite the libs' vested political interest in our failure there.

    What then, is your strategy for stability in Iraq if the US is not there? Would love to hear that.
     
    #16 El_Conquistador, Jul 8, 2008
  17. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    472
    Hum …..?

    Was it the surge that reduced violence and improved stability?

    Or was it walling off entire neighborhoods and sectioning off the city?

    Or was it Sadr’s truce (that could end at any time)?

    Or was it citizens fleeing the country by the millions and leaving Baghdad a shell of a city?
     
    #17 mc mark, Jul 8, 2008
  18. Northside Storm

    Northside Storm Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    Lol.

    Dude, an opinion is an opinion, the only way you'd be unqualified to deliver a opinion would be if you lived in a dictatorial state like Mao's China and Stalin's Russia. I may not be the most qualified/educated to report on Iraq, but neither are you.

    And why should I applaud good news in Iraq? Yes, I am biased against wars I consider a waste of time, money and of good soldiers; whoda thunk. There is no way you can change my perception of events, just like I can't change your hopeless view of Iraq as something salvageable.

    With that said, I'm not proposing a full withdrawl. The idiots who planned this war have already made it almost impossible and you're right, ironically enough, Al Queda will stream into Iraq. Which I may remind you, wasn't the case with Saddam, but oh well. Still, maybe more troops will be brought to Afgahnistan, where a situation is developing that will require more troops, whether or not you want to admit it.

    ho hum
     
    #18 Northside Storm, Jul 8, 2008
  19. yaoluv

    yaoluv Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    4
    imo there is no good strategy. It sucks, but that is the situation we are in. Sometimes you just gotta face whats coming to you.

    We can either withdraw and let them sort it out now.

    or

    We can waste a ton of men and dollars over the next 100 years and then withdraw and let them sort it out.
     
    #19 yaoluv, Jul 8, 2008
  20. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,980
    Likes Received:
    2,365
    Wow. This is absolutely despicable. You're a great American :rolleyes:
     
    #20 bigtexxx, Jul 8, 2008
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page