...but no one will acknowledge it. wonder why? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article2796318.ece [rquoter]November 3, 2007 The Petraeus Curve Serious success in Iraq is not being recognised as it should be Is no news good news or bad news? In Iraq, it seems good news is deemed no news. There has been striking success in the past few months in the attempt to improve security, defeat al-Qaeda sympathisers and create the political conditions in which a settlement between the Shia and the Sunni communities can be reached. This has not been an accident but the consequence of a strategy overseen by General David Petraeus in the past several months. While summarised by the single word “surge” his efforts have not just been about putting more troops on the ground but also employing them in a more sophisticated manner. This drive has effectively broken whatever alliances might have been struck in the past by terrorist factions and aggrieved Sunnis. Cities such as Fallujah, once notorious centres of slaughter, have been transformed in a remarkable time. Indeed, on every relevant measure, the shape of the Petraeus curve is profoundly encouraging. It is not only the number of coalition deaths and injuries that has fallen sharply (October was the best month for 18 months and the second-best in almost four years), but the number of fatalities among Iraqi civilians has also tumbled similarly. This process started outside Baghdad but now even the capital itself has a sense of being much less violent and more viable. As we report today, something akin to a normal nightlife is beginning to re-emerge in the city. As the pace of reconstruction quickens, the prospects for economic recovery will be enhanced yet further. With oil at record high prices, Iraq should be an extremely prosperous nation and in a position to start planning for its future with confidence. None of this means that all the past difficulties have become history. A weakened al-Qaeda will be tempted to attempt more spectacular attacks to inflict substantial loss of life in an effort to prove that it remains in business. Although the tally of car bombings and improvised explosive devices has fallen back sharply, it would only take one blast directed at an especially large crowd or a holy site of unusual reverence for the headlines about impending civil war to be allowed another outing. The Government headed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has become more proactive since the summer, but must immediately take advantage of these favourable conditions. The supposed representatives of the Iraqi people in Baghdad need to show both responsibility and creativity if the country's potential is to be realised. The current achievements, and they are achievements, are being treated as almost an embarrassment in certain quarters. The entire context of the contest for the Democratic nomination for president has been based on the conclusion that Iraq is an absolute disaster and the first task of the next president is to extricate the United States at maximum speed. Democrats who voted for the war have either repudiated their past support completely (John Edwards) or engaged in a convoluted partial retraction (Hillary Clinton). Congressional Democrats have spent most of this year trying (and failing) to impose a timetable for an outright exit. In Britain, in a somewhat more subtle fashion admittedly, Gordon Brown assumed on becoming the Prime Minister that he should send signals to the voters that Iraq had been “Blair's War”, not one to which he or Britain were totally committed. All of these attitudes have become outdated. There are many valid complaints about the manner in which the Bush Administration and Donald Rumsfeld, in particular, managed Iraq after the 2003 military victory. But not to recognise that matters have improved vastly in the year since Mr Rumsfeld's resignation from the Pentagon was announced and General Petraeus was liberated would be ridiculous. Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic have to appreciate that Iraq is no longer, as they thought, an exercise in damage limitation but one of making the most of an opportunity. The instinct of too many people is that if Iraq is going badly we should get out because it is going badly and if it is getting better we should get out because it is getting better. This is a catastrophic miscalculation. Iraq is getting better. That is good, not bad, news. [/rquoter]
You know, that's great... I am always rooting for success, however it's not worth the toll it's taking on the military, or 300 million dollars per day.
These are the responses I just can't understand. Things are looking up, and have been for some time now, and that's still not good enough?? What would you have us do? Abandoning Iraq would only make things worse and make us look even worse, as well. Is that what you're suggesting?
This hasn't been posted as well. [bold]Iraq Dam in danger of imminent collapse, killing 500,000 Iraqis[/bold] http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Iraq_dam_could_collapse_kill_500000_1030.html
^^^ ...and the obligatory, "no we are losing!!!" post... The libs can't even accept one nugget of good news. Not one! They must counter it and try to convince everyone that our troops are failing! Makes me sick.
Troops are failing? Did you even read that article? How long have you been divorced from reality again? Are you holding another virtual argument with your imaginary advisory? It is so sad that the good deeds by those boots on the ground, will not overcome the disastrous bureaucracy of both countries. The article I posted is a prime example.
Ah the superficial - now the in-depth, by a former Iraq field officer and not a murdoch minion: http://www.slate.com/id/2177250/ Anyway - f-k it, basso I will say you are right so we can bring the troops home OK? Do you agree?
Is it possible to get the troops out of Iraq, but still fund the country and its military the hundreds of billions it receives? Is this the Democrat plan for pulling out of Iraq, basically just fund the Iraqi government until it can pull itself together? I'm asking seriously, since I really don't know what the Democrats or others who want to pull out of Iraq- I don't know what their actual plan is once the troops leave. I understand the Republican side of just keeping the troops and funding there, but wasn't sure what the other side actually wanted to do with Iraq other than bringing the troops home.
its great that things are beginning to look up but i must agree that this is very little progress considering how much we are pumping into iraq. im an advocate of keeping troops in iraq and the middle east but I saw an interview on the colbert report w/ Col. Wilkerson (retired, was chief of staff for sec. state colin powell) that was very disturbing... he stated that the army and marine corp will be broken down by dec. next year. the army is 10,000 captains short. even offering $35k resigning bonuses to retain officers... i can see bush making a speech at the end of his presidency saying how iraq and afghanistan were a success and youll only hear applause from cheney, rumsfeld, and rove... i gotta respect Bush Sr. he was a smart man. people say that Bush Sr. should have "finished the job" in iraq by removing sadaam. now we know why he chose to let him remain in power... we'd probably have to spend trillions of dollars and remain in iraq/middle east for 50+ years before stability can occur... unfortunately, i dont think the US has that type of money to spend, nor the public the stomach to endure a long drawn out guerilla war...
havent followed all the debates but from what i understand... obama and edwards pretty much want an immediate withdrawl of combat troops from iraq. obama wants to place more troops into afghanistan. clinton was a reduction in the level of combat troops in iraq.
