What's tha matter with you??? Don't you realize that we heard the "a few more months, a few thousand more troops" mantra for years during Vietnam, and you know how that turned out. Right? Right?? Oh, right. You probably do know how that turned out. More deaths during Nixon's years of "ending the war," then during the "gonna build up and win this damn thing" phase of LBJ. D&D. Impeach George W. Nixon and Cheney.
LOL. Congrats on posting photos of rivers instead of lakes. I'm glad you've learned something during your tenure here.
Perhaps you should consider that the problem isn't with the MSM being out of line with the median view of reality, but the fact that you are so biased that attempts at neutrality and fairness appear to you to be leftist propaganda? Are you are so cocooned in your own little world of Karl Rove Republican Machine BS that you are loosing the ability to differentiate honesty from partisan spin? Blaming the MSM for not being part of the ‘Republican team’ and reporting the team line is a tired, passé form of self-delusion. Try something more creative. What is even worse is that the post starts of so well when you don't try and claim that the numbers are confabulated as a part of a pinko Libpig plot to discredit the President's massive support among the American people, but you finish up with something equally divorced from reality. Oh well. Baby steps, I guess?
AP: It's working http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=D8QRMCU00&show_article=1 [rquoter]Analysis: Military Shows Gains in Iraq Aug 6 02:18 PM US/Eastern By ROBERT BURNS AP Military Writer BAGHDAD (AP) - AP Video The new U.S. military strategy in Iraq, unveiled six months ago to little acclaim, is working. In two weeks of observing the U.S. military on the ground and interviewing commanders, strategists and intelligence officers, it's apparent that the war has entered a new phase in its fifth year. It is a phase with fresh promise yet the same old worry: Iraq may be too fractured to make whole. No matter how well or how long the U.S. military carries out its counterinsurgency mission, it cannot guarantee victory. Only the Iraqis can. And to do so they probably need many more months of heavy U.S. military involvement. Even then, it is far from certain that they are capable of putting this shattered country together again. It's been an uphill struggle from the start to build Iraqi security forces that are able to fight and—more importantly at this juncture—able to divorce themselves from deep-rooted sectarian loyalties. It is the latter requirement—evenhandedness and reliability—that is furthest from being fulfilled. There is no magic formula for success. And magic is what it may take to turn military gains into the strategy's ultimate goal: a political process that moves Iraq's rival Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds from the brink of civil war to the threshold of peace—and to get there on a timetable that takes account of growing war fatigue in the United States. Efforts at Iraqi reconciliation saw another blow Monday: Five Cabinet ministers loyal to Iraq's first post-Saddam Hussein leader decided to boycott government meetings, further deepening a crisis that threatens Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The boycott would leave the Shiite-led government with no Sunni participants, at least temporarily. Despite political setbacks, American commanders are clinging to a hope that stability might be built from the bottom up—with local groups joining or aiding U.S. efforts to root out extremists—rather than from the top down, where national leaders have failed to act. Commanders are encouraged by signs that more Iraqis are growing fed up with violence. They are also counting on improvements in the Iraqi army and police, which are burdened by religious rivalries and are not ready to take over national defense duties from U.S. troops this year. U.S. military leaders want Congress and President Bush to give them more time to keep trying—to reach a point, perhaps in 2009, when the Iraqis will be closer to reconciliation and ready to provide much of their own security. The idea, after all, is not to kill or capture every terrorist and insurgent. That can't be done. The idea is to create a security environment more favorable to political action by the government, to provide breathing space for leaders of rival factions to work out a peaceful way to share power. The U.S. military, partnering in many instances with Iraqi forces, is now creating that security cushion—not everywhere, but in much of the north, the west and most importantly in key areas of Baghdad. Sectarian killings continue and extremist groups remain a threat, yet they are being squeezed harder. The U.S. military has caught some momentum, thanks to the extra 30,000 troops—for a total of 159,000 on the ground—that Bush agreed to send as part of the new counterinsurgency strategy announced in January. The troops are interacting more with the local people and are protecting them more effectively. At this stage, however, there is precious little evidence that Iraqi leaders are inclined to take advantage of that. Even so, U.S. officers seem convinced that it is too soon to stop, that by tamping down the sectarian violence, at least in Baghdad, they are giving the Iraqis a chance to come together. They insist it is unrealistic to expect the Iraqis to resolve their problems in a matter of months. And they argue that withdrawing would only lead to bigger problems, for the U.S. and for Iraq. That is likely to be the message that Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. officials in Iraq, convey to Congress and to Bush in September. They are in no position to predict how long it might take the Iraqi government to achieve reconciliation, but they are likely to concede, if asked, that if the Iraqis do not take key steps in the months ahead the entire U.S. approach may unravel. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, whose views on how to proceed in Iraq also will figure prominently in Bush's decisions, says the administration, in hoping for movement toward political reconciliation this year, underestimated the depth of mistrust between rival sects. The culture of fear in Baghdad is ingrained. The Shiites, now in power after decades of being dominated by the minority Sunnis during Saddam Hussein's rule, remain fearful of a Sunni revival. The Sunnis see their own survival at stake. Kurds have enjoyed more than a decade of semi-autonomy in the north, where control over oil wealth is in play. Which gets to two matters that underlie much of the conviction in Congress that it is time to get out of Iraq. First: Do the potential benefits of sticking with the war strategy outweigh the cost, in American blood and treasure? Total U.S. war deaths now exceed 3,665 and are climbing by more than two per day, on average. And second: Would Iraqi political leaders be more likely to settle their sectarian differences if they knew that America's patience was ending and that its troops were leaving—at least the combat forces? There is clearly a consensus among senior U.S. commanders in Iraq that the answer to the first question is yes. They feel that so much has been sacrificed already that it makes no sense to quit now. Lt. Gen. James Dubik, in charge of training and equipping Iraqi forces, said the counterinsurgency strategy, not fully implemented until June, has finally wrested the initiative from the insurgents. "It was fought over and died for, and there's no reason to give it back right now," Dubik told AP. On compelling Iraq's political leaders to move toward reconciliation, few American officers appear to believe that an early pullout would do the trick. They think it would propel the country further into chaos. Crocker is explicit on that point. "A massive human catastrophe (could follow), with the bloodshed among the Iraqi civilians on a scale we have not seen and may find hard to imagine," he told AP. Nonetheless, leaving—in at least a limited way—appears likely to begin in 2008. Petraeus might be inclined to send home, perhaps as early as January, one of the extra five Army brigades that Bush sent to Baghdad. Some of the roughly 4,000 extra Marines in Anbar province might head out by then, too. If that happens, and if Bush overcomes congressional pressure to get out faster in a presidential election year, Petraeus probably would stretch out the troop drawdown over many months. He might also switch some units from one part of the country to another, reflecting an uneven pace of security progress, while leaving the bulk of the force in place at least until 2009, when a new president will be in the White House. ___ EDITOR'S NOTE—AP Military Writer Robert Burns, on his 18th reporting trip to Iraq since the start of the war in 2003, has written about U.S. military involvement in Iraq and the Middle East since the 1991 Gulf War, mostly from his base in Washington.[/rquoter] There's a consensus Deckard- join it.
Yeah, once a consensus builds, the lemmings, oops, I mean liberals, will all migrate mindlessly over to it. CNN and the other liberal media outlets have capitalized on this herd mentality of the weak-minded in their biased coverage of the War on Terror. Forget thinking for your self and sticking to your beliefs, just go with the crowd and with what the liberal media tells you!
As opposed to what we are seeing now? In addition like you always do this ignores the fact that few if any plans for withdraw don't put into place other security forces. It isn't like we are just leaving and nothing will be there. Please wake up, and answer the questions earnestly posed to you by others and myself. You keep running, and I will have to keep reminding you that you are avoiding real issues connected to your arguments.
I follow my own path, but in this case, mine happens to be the same as the vast majority of Americans... this is a catastrophe, and we should get out, leaving assets in the area, and perhaps parts of the country, that rely on special forces and intelligence to go after the fanatics and their supporters, with powerful forces "over the horizon," if needed. Iraq, however, must sort itself out. We cannot defeat the insurgents, who are really a host of different groups fighting for an Iraq free of occupation, in most cases so they can put their own group in power. To continue to pretend that is possible is as delusional as the Vietnam years. The damage done to Iraq in incalculable. We are responsible, but we cannot "win," whatever that means now. Bush made a mistake (to use as kind a word as I can imagine) and the American people, the Iraqis, and the world are paying for it. Obviously, you continue in your artificial construct of Bush glory, bubbling in your imagination, too busy slandering the majority who thinks this is a world class cockup to see reality. I would feel sorry for you, and used to, but you have become so much like the Trader_J's, Limbaughs and Roves of this country, that you've fallen completely into the deep end. Sorry, but your small fanatical minority are just **** out of luck. You backed the wrong guy, who happened to be grossly incompetent, and arguably mentally ill, in my opinion. Did you see Master and Commander? You're like the Jonah clutching the cannonball, sinking in the depths during the graveyard watch, a flickering face for a moment in the lamplight, and then gone. Bush is your cannonball. When his term ends, he'll be gone. And what you do then will be your affair. It won't save Iraq. D&D. Impeach Bush and Cheney.
This is the Repub meme these days... it's an attempt to make any other option but the status quo seem scarier then the status quo. They learned their lesson well with health care when they pegged Clinton's proposals as scarier then having a bunch of people un- and under-insured and now they're doing the same thing with Iraq. Notice that it wasn't a military guy who said this but a political appointee. In fact, several scenarios done by the military suggests that a balanced pullout would not lead to this type of thing. Oh, it won't be good, but that is where this administration has led us... we only have bad and terrible options, no good ones.
I heard Senate Democratic Richard Durbin (the number two Democrat in the Senate) on NPR today, he had just returned from Iraq. Even he said that progress is being made and it looks like improvement has been made. Of course, he said that is a result of the military and not Bush, and that he still favors troop withdrawal. But now you have the number two dem saying that there is positive momentum in Iraq. Looks like I'm not alone in having some renewed optimism.
I guess you only hear the parts that you want to hear? If you chopped off about 90% of the conversation, your characterization of his comments would be sort of correct. Anybody who wants to listen for themselves: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12586293 The fact that you can't even accurately recount what he said speaks volumes about the willful ability of the ‘turning the corner’ crowd to ignore the parts of reality that you don’t like or that don't fit your message.
reasonable people know that the current military operations are, at the VERY LEAST, showing some productivity. However, not all are reasonable or are too pridefull to admit that...which in reality isnt admitting much, but for whatever reason its a big thing. people have been fed the "total failure" line so much that they refuse to even admit the possibility of something being salvaged. Of course there is a long road ahead and much to be done (mostly in terms of the iraqis political and civil responsibilities). But failure is not proven by what iraq is or has been like for the last few years...its what happens over the next many years.
The Tenuous Case for Strategic Patience in Iraq: A Trip Report Anthony H. Cordesman Date of Publication: August 6, 2007 Everyone sees Iraq differently. As one leading US official in Iraq put it, “the current situation is like playing three dimensional chess in the dark while someone is shooting at you.” It is scarcely surprising that my perceptions of a recent trip to Iraq are different from that of two of my traveling companions and those of several other recent think tank travelers to the country. From my perspective, the US now has only uncertain, high risk options in Iraq. It cannot dictate Iraq’s future, only influence it, and this presents serious problems at a time when the Iraqi political process has failed to move forward in reaching either a new consensus or some form of peaceful coexistence. It is Iraqis that will shape Iraq's ability or inability to rise above its current sectarian and ethnic conflicts, to redefine Iraq's politics and methods of governance, establish some level of stability and security, and move towards a path of economic recovery and development. So far, Iraq’s national government has failed to act at the rate necessary to move the country forward or give American military action political meaning. The attached trip report does, however, show there is still a tenuous case for strategic patience in Iraq, and for timing reductions in US forces and aid to Iraqi progress rather than arbitrary dates and uncertain benchmarks. It recognizes that strategic patience is a high risk strategy, but it also describes positive trends in the fighting, and hints of future political progress. These trends are uncertain, and must be considered in the context of a long list of serious political, military, and economic risks that are described in detail. The report also discusses major delays and problems in the original surge strategy. The new US approach to counterinsurgency warfare is making a difference, but it still seems likely from a visit to the scene that the original strategy President Bush announced in January would have failed if it had not been for the Sunni tribal awakening. Luck, however, is not something that can be ignored, and there is a window of opportunity that could significantly improve the chances of US success in Iraq if the Iraqi government acts upon it. The US also now has a country team in Iraq that is far more capable than in the past, and which may be able to develop and implement the kind of cohesive plans for US action in Iraq that have been weak or lacking to date. If that team can come forward with solid plans for an integrated approach to a sustained US effort to deal with Iraq’s plans and risks, there would be a far stronger and more bipartisan case for strategic patience. http://www.csis.org/index.php?option=com_csis_pubs&task=view&id=3994 ----------------- Media Outlets That Went Nuts Over O'Hanlon Ignoring Cordesman's Pessimism About Iraq August 8, 2007 -- Here is a list of the big news orgs and network shows -- compiled from here, here, and here -- that lavished coverage on Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack over their now-infamous Op-ed saying that we just might win the war in Iraq: Yep -- one major network. Really, it's worth stepping back and pondering just how unprofessional and dysfunctional the media's performance has been on this story to date. It starts with The Times's editors, who actually allowed these two to con the paper's readers into forgetting their unflagging support for the invasion and the surge, letting them get away with describing themselves only as war critics. That embarrassing flub then colored virtually all the coverage that followed. Because of it, the big news orgs persuaded themselves that there was something counterintuitive about their conclusion -- and proceeded to report, in one outlet after another, that these war "critics" had suddenly found reason to be hopeful. Now we have a story that's genuinely counterintuitive -- that is, that a companion of the two went along and reached very different, and far more pessimistic, conclusions about the prospects for success in Iraq. Not only is this counterintuitive, but there's also conflict here, too -- Cordesman flags his disagreement with his esteemed colleagues in the first paragraph of his synopsis. This also puts Cordesman at odds with the White House, which relentlessly flacked O'Hanlon and Pollack's findings. And the media response to Cordesman thus far? Virtual silence. -- Greg Sargent http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/08/media_outlets_t.php
i'm not really sure what your problem is with AHC's report as it contrasts to the WSJ op-ed. if you actually read them, they're fairly similar. that the one that appeared in the journal would garner more comment, well, that's to be expected. but the point of both, is that there is progress, and such progress should be supported. that you and you'r'n, should spend 500 comments, and no small amount of energy attempting to "debunk" a report of relatively modest progress says far more about you, (and urine, peepee) than about progress in Iraq. as to AHC's comment about the Sunni tribal awakening and the change it's effected, i think he's missing one rather obvious conclusion- that the surge is responsible for the sudden about face. an about face btw, which you continue to deny, even as you trumpet the article itself. interesting.
His comment regarding the military progress against insurgents was positive and highly optimistic. Naturally, as a Bush opponent, he's going to attack Bush and find flaws, but he focused on the political problems. But, ya know, I thik you're one of those who has set his views and will attack anything (or anyone) in order to maintain your delusional reality that you are some how impartial. Considering that this guy has the job of attacking Bush, for him to admit progress on the ground is tremendous. It is you who can not re-evaluate and are trying to put forth your message. I don't have a liberal or conservative agenda, I put the country first, so if there's a chance for success, I say go for it. But you have something to lose, since Democratic control of gov't is at risk to you. This is why I detest partisianship.
