via instapundit, nice to be able to get your news from the source. [rquoter] This past week has been quite a challenge with the highest level of insurgent attacks in Baghdad, ever. Not just "since I've been here" ever, but "since the war began" ever. Obviously, with GEN Petraeus' testimony coming up soon, I would really hate it if people used the insurgent attacks to undermine the incredible value added by the surge, or the vital importance of remaining here until the Government of Iraq is viable. The unclassified, open-source, bottom line is this: The insurgent attacks did not happen "in spite of" the surge. Insurgents attacked in Basrah where foreign military influence is fanning the flames of discontent over the lack of essential services. People in Basrah are upset because they don't have access to clean water, sewage, trash removal, or fuel for cooking and transportation. They know who to blame, but they don't know who to turn to to fix the problems. They lashed out, Maliki's government moved to squelch it, and the Coalition stayed largely on the sidelines. OK, we provided targets. And maybe we helped a little, if you count helicopter gunships and Predator UAVs. But essentially, this was an internal Iraqi affair. I wish you could have heard General Petraeus' steady response as the situation unfolded: very deliberate, yet calming. It was quite dramatic here, and a lesser leader might have over-reacted. I anticipate that some members of our own society will use this spate of violence to claim the surge failed and call for our immediate withdrawal. That would be a terrible decision based on a tragic misreading of what just happened. The General can expect to be grilled by Congress and the press over this, but the violence reflects on Iraqi politics and ineffective provincial government, not on the surge or the value of our continued presence here. From watching the news, you know Maliki moved to Basrah in a show of force. He made lots of blustery statements about what he was going to do to the Jayesh al Mahdi (JAM). The Baghdad arm of JAM, headquartered in Sadr City, responded with a little fireworks of their own in Maliki's absence. In hindsight, Mr Maliki may have overplayed a bit, and some feel he lost credibility in the process. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, General Petraeus quietly and deftly encouraged the central government of Iraq to: (a) concentrate not on JAM, but on the criminal element within JAM. "Anyone on the street with a weapon is a criminal." This effectively divided the JAM members. Next, (b) focus on the humanitarian element of the operation. Pushing much-needed food and water to trapped inhabitants encouraged even more JAM members to stay home and take care of family members. Finally, (c) show that fighting is not going to solve the needs of Iraq. By addressing the essential services issues and bringing central government people to the provincial sessions to address concerns, people see their government taking an active role in solving the problem. The effect was that Moqtada al Sadr got to make a point, Maliki demonstrated his resolve, the Iraqi Army and Police showed themselves to be capable and professional, and there's a sense of a better day coming in Basrah. Without the strong response of the central Government, the militia-led uprising could have very easily led to further lawlessness, mayhem, and devastation. The Coalition trained and helped equip and arm the Iraqi Army. The surge allowed us to clear and hold areas long enough to bring violence levels down, so the government could start focusing on essential services. If anything, the surge came too late because people have been without services for far too long. There is a huge problem with transparency in the Government of Iraq (GoI). Money is coming in from the sale of oil, and budgets are being drafted to pay bills and provide services. But the ministries are doing a poor job of spending their allocated money on priorities. They are doing an even worse job accounting for the money. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are putting as much pressure as humanly possible on the GoI to perform, but there is much corruption and little accountability. I don't know how long before the GoI will transform into a model government able to care for its citizenry. However, if the Coalition left suddenly at this point in time, the many tribal and sectarian militias, like JAM, would seize control from the GoI. Soldiers would return home to fight for their homes and families. The country would slip into civil war along sectarian lines over distribution of oil revenues. The Sunnis would seek partnerships with Saudi Arabia and the Shia with Iran, and you can see where that would be heading. These recent insurgent attacks cannot be allowed to undermine the incredible value added by the surge. Likewise, the vital importance of remaining here until the Government of Iraq is viable cannot be overstated.[/rquoter]
Wait basso, Just a few days ago you were telling us that Sadr surrendered. Where in this colonels report is Sadr's surrender. How did he over look such a major development. Maybe you can bold it for us.
I'm seriously amazed that you are this close to total psychosis. I've always though of you as a relatively stable person in spite of your many obvious flaws. But you are beginning to exhibit some very serious symptoms, like your very bold denial of reality here. Perhaps the pressure of being so wrong about everything is simply too much? In any case, I urge you to seek help. Your mental health is more important than your slavish devotion to your failed neocon ideology. In the long run, it is better to face reality, even when it is unpleasant. Living in your own fantasy world is not a healthy solution.
Here's how it's introduced: There's a bunch of Colonels in Baghdad. When a Colonel writes something like this: It leads me to believe the Colonel is from this unit: http://www.army.mil/institution/armypublicaffairs/ Then, there's this: http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/03/report-recruit.html
why do you hate the military so, or at least do everything you can to discredit any report that could be construed as portraying the the military in a positive light?
I don't hate the military. I hate what this administration has done to the military. I'm questioning the people running this war and their lackeys. That's a difference most normal people can readily appreciate.
blah blah blah. The obvious solution is to bomb Iran. I am sure that will solve all existing and future problems. I mean look at what we have on the ground over there. All the military hardware but our guys are not allow to fire shots. How lame is that. This is a classic example of military blue balls. We need to stop worrying and love the bomb.
Petraeus has been a very political general who has played ball with the Adminstration constantly selling their war. *************** Why did we focus on General Petraeus vs. the President or the administration? President Bush’s credibility is almost gone. That’s why he’s remained in the background this week, and relied on General Petraeus to deliver the message that things are getting better. This works as long as people in Washington are afraid to question the General’s credibility. But the truth is, the General does have a history of overstating the case for progress for political reasons. For example, just before the 2004 election he wrote a Washington Post op-ed claiming widespread gains in Iraq, which was widely viewed as a tacit endorsement of Bush.And though he said this week’s report was his and his alone, the Washington Post has documented that he been coordinating extensively with top White House political operatives. His outfit joined daily conference calls with the White House and former RNC chairman Ed Gillespie this summer to "map out ways of selling the surge." The Post reported that Gillespie's White House political unit was "hard-wired" to Petraeus' military unit. http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus_ad.html
