I usually give someone the benefit of the doubt until I find they are lying to me. How anyone can trust a word from this administration or its enablers is beyond sanity. You still haven't addressed the substance of the article, just dismiss it. And I'd like you to give Batman a straight answer, define winning.
So is it working if Levin and Warner call for the Iraqi government to oust Maliki and start over? ----------- Levin wants Iraqis to oust current government WASHINGTON (CNN) — The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee is calling for a new government in Iraq, saying his trip there last week convinced him that Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki is too sectarian and cannot create a stable Iraq. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, was blunt in a Monday conference call with reporters. “I hope the Iraqi Assembly, when it reconvenes in two weeks will vote the Maliki government out of office,” he said. Levin credited American troops with a visible decrease in violence in Iraq. But the Armed Services chairman insisted military force alone cannot stabilize the country. Levin said Iraq could erupt into more internal bloodshed, with its army dividing against itself, unless leaders in Baghdad reach tough political compromise. And he insisted Maliki can’t do that. “The Maliki government is non-functional,” the Michigan Democrat said, “and cannot produce a political settlement because it is too beholden to religious and sectarian leaders.” http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/20/levin-wants-iraqis-to-oust-current-government/
I don't trust the administration one bit. But I don't see Patreaus as a puppet of Bush like others do. I read the article and I find it intriguing that soldiers would delve into the politics of the situation - I guess these guys also studied political science and government and became experts in that area??? I'll give the observations the benefit of the doubt since they don't seem unrealistic, but their conclusions and recommendations can not be viewed as realistic assessments of all the facts, but rather based on their personal experiences and potentially encouraged or enhanced by those with political motivations. As for Batman Jones, I long ago put him on my ignore list for personal attacks and childish insults. If you want to engage in civil discourse, that's fine, but apparently he doesn't really care to do that.
The surge is working to reduce violence - even Levin agrees there. And i think re-working the gov't is necessary as well. This gov't has failed and should be dissolved and reformed.
No, it's not "spurious" to think soldiers could have written this. I've known several soldiers with English and History degrees and even one with a philosophy degree. Knowing what we know about Tillman, he could have written something like this (speaking of, I'm wondering if basso can tell me where that thread went?). And while it got published in the NY Times... Their tour of duty has not ended. They are there now. If you read the piece, you'll see one of the authors just got shot in the head, so it's safe to say there's at least one decoration among them. They have no credentials to represent 150,000 troops. They are representing themselves. You may have missed this in the first paragraph: No, they are saying about the same thing... militarily, we are superior in any particular engagement, but the political situation cannot be won. The entire second half of the piece talks about it, but here's their summary...
So basically anyone with a philosophy degree or history degree is qualified as an expert on the political situation on Iraq? I don't think they are engaged in the political side of things over there. So like I said, from an observation standpoint, what they write is fine, but their political commentary is just taking any 7 people's opinons and writing a letter. GI's aren't any more politically savvy than anyone else. Commenting on the military aspects is one thing, but the political future of iraq? c'mon.
Again We were told the mission of the surge was to give the government room to do what they need to do to reconcile the country and goverment. The government, by NewYorker's account, is a failure. Ergo, the surge is a failure. It's quite simple.
Bush says progress on local level in Iraq holds promise "Unfortunately, political progress at the national level has not matched the pace of progress at the local level," Bush said in the broadcast taped at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. "The Iraqi government in Baghdad has many important measures left to address, such as reforming the de-Baathification laws, organizing provincial elections and passing a law to formalize the sharing of oil revenues." "As reconciliation occurs in local communities across Iraq," he said, "it will help create the conditions for reconciliation in Baghdad as well." http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/18/bush.radio.ap/index.html ---------------- Second Iraqi governor killed as Shiite rifts deepen Brigadier General Kadhim al-Jayashi, chief of police in the city of Samawa, said the governor of the southern province of Muthanna, Mohammed Ali al-Hassani, was killed by a roadside bomb on his way to work. "Police leaders have imposed a curfew on Samawa after the assassination," Jayashi told AFP. "We have formed a committee to investigate." Hassani was the second Shiite governor to be killed within a fortnight, amid growing signs of conflict between rival political and militia factions within the country's majority community. On August 11, the governor of neighbouring Qadisiyah province, Khalil Jamil Hamza, was killed in a multiple bomb attack as his convoy passed through his capital Diwaniyah. Both Hamza and Hassani were members of the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council (SIIC), one of the country's most powerful parties and a bitter rival of another Shiite movement led by radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. "The governor's vehicle was thrown 10 metres (yards) by the blast before falling into a stream by the side of the road," said witness Hussein Kadhim from the Rumaitha neighbourhood of Samawa. "The whole city is paralysed after the attack. There is no movement, no shops are open and everybody is staying indoors." http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070820/wl_afp/iraq_070820134925 heck of a job!
Oooooohkaaaaay! The surge is temporarily reducing violence. Fine and dandy. Just how do we dissolve and "reform" the Iraqi government? You realize the plan the U.S. had for creating the government was thrown out by the Shias and it was done their way. As a result, the current government refuses to make the necessary steps to incorporate Sunnis because it's too Shia-dominated, which is EXACTLY what the influential Shias want. The Shia/Sunni split in Iraq cannot be repaired because there is no common ground. You should also realize if the U.S. decided to dissolve the current Iraqi government we would lose 100% of the small credibility we have left after propping this regime up so much. Think about it. The surge is a waste of American lives because all it does is prolong the inevitable pullout. The withdrawal should be announced now and executed starting next year. Iraq needs to be partitioned under a weak federal system. It will take quite a while for the drawdown to be complete and a significant presence will remain, especially in the Kurdish area. If they follow their usual time-line of being ~24 months late on everything, I promise you the Bush administration will admit this exact same thing after the elections next year. Nobody, nobody, nobody here yet has offered any scenario where the surge does anything more than offer temporary relief to Baghdad and other areas flooded with troops. It's all for naught and will crumble, unless the U.S. commits to a permanent, indefinite "surge" that will need even more troops to be successful. Does anyone think that is the right thing to do? By the way, I'm not a "liberal" or a Democrat, nor do I want us to fail in Iraq. I'm also sick and tired of Bush and his minions throwing labels around (like epithets) on everyone that challenges what they do. It shows how they are bankrupt of answers to legitimate questions because they use name-calling and intimidation to try and shut people up.
Progress isn't measure so absolutely. Unless one is simply trying simply to gain brownie points by winning a debate. Political solutions don't happen in a few months....it takes years. Anyone who expected us to build a gov't in a short period in not being realistic.
This is the question he and others don't want to answer. If they say yes, then we start discussing how that will debilitate and cripple our military even further. Discussing the consequences of their dreamy ideas doesn't suit them. That is how we got into this catastrophe.
No, but you were saying no GI could write that. I think many could. I guess I have a higher opinion of the military. Regarding the second half of your comment, why not discuss the political future of Iraq? There have been more than a few "politically savvy" people who have been miserable failures in predicting what would happen in Iraq. Some guys on the ground certainly are entitled to the presumption that they can do better until proven wrong. Besides, we live in a democracy where all citizens, not just "experts" can enter the marketplace of ideas and express their views. You're sounding suspiciously like basso who only wants his soldiers like Sgt. Rock or G.I. Joe. instead of the very human Americans they happen to be.
If military progress continues to be demonstrated and violence continues to drop - then the surgey should continue. I think it's pre-mature to say whether we should stay for years or set a time-table for withdrawal. We need time to assess the situation and see how things trend.
Never said that, just that it's highly suspect that GI's would write that, just like it would be suspect for a basketball team to write something like that or any other non-professional organization - because it smacks of professional editing. Anyway, anyone can discuss politics and make assessments of what will happen in Iraq. But why should anyone listen to these 7 soldiers vs. the experts? Someone is trying to use their status as soldiers to lend credence to their little political meanderings. It's quite nice how they first talk about combat observations to build credibility later on on the political subject. A very well thought-out piece of persuasive writing. And kudos on the personal attack there at the end. Man, you really play the game well. I tip my hat to you. Personally, I find you to be more like basso, simply the other side of the same coin. Say that I am insulting the military, or that a GI's opinion is just as valid as anyone since other's have been wrong. Wow - listen to yourself before you accuse me of being a basso. Really - talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
911 was an Inside job. Bush is controlled by the Globalists. This whole administration should be tried, and hung or shot. This whole system has become so cruel that it has to destroy entire nations in order to survive, and thats not a system that changes every 4 years. Thats a system that we have to break down.
