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

Zing. You're right. I'm a terrible American.

...I'm a Canadian.

 

Seems like Iraq agrees with Obama.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/07/iraq_insists_on_withdrawal_tim.php

Iraq insists on withdrawal timetable

On the other hand, it looks like Bush is flip-flopping on the issue. In 2007, he said if Iraq asked us to leave, we would. Now that they are, he's decided that's no longer the case.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/07/maliki-timeline/

Administration Rebuffs Maliki’s Timetable As ‘Artificial,’ Questions Whether Media Made Transcription Error»

 

Yeay, the surge did work!

nevermind that one of the principles of unconventional warfare is to retreat, when the opposition launches a strategic offense. Nevermind that attacks in afghanistan have increased. I'm sure it's all coincidence.


If you really cared about the troops, you would ask your party to remove them from combat. You would ask your party for a vet's hospital in the valley, so a family wouldn't have to drive four hours to San antonio for care.
It's so easy to support a war, when it's not your arses fighting in the frontlines.

 

I think that's great news. That means that we can start withdrawing troops due to Iraqi request and we can leave it in their hands, which is the closest we're gonna get to declaring victory here. The surge and the troops have done their job admirably.

 

lol even better. now it makes sense.

 

It better, the friends I have in Afghanistan are waiting to come home alive sooner rather then later.

 

I love the first response to that link...

That’s right, nuke the goalposts, so no one can tell they were ever there…

 

The situation in Iraq has improved -- unfortunately we didn't build a billion dollar plus <del>fortress</del> embassy in Iraq with the intent of leaving.

We want your oil ~ slurp.

 

PWNED!

 

I agree with you factually but not opinion wise. Yes the change in strategy to coopt, bribe, the Sunni Sheiks and Shiite militias to lay down their arms and fight Al Qaeda and work with the government had a lot to do with the relative drop in violence. IMO that is the primary reason the surge is working and not the influx of US troops. While this is essentially buying protection I don't think it is that bad of a thing and might've been better than trying to pacify the country using US and poorly trained Iraqi troops alone. Something that I don't think is possible given US troop numbers and the poor performanc of Iraqi troops at the start of the surge.

 

I think in the short run there isn't going to be much difference between Obama and McCain on Iraq. We're not going to see US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2009 no matter who is president. The difference is in the long run in where either candidate sees Iraq years from now. McCain is willing to stay for as long as it takes to win. Now since there isn't a clear defintion of what it means to win in Iraq McCain as a hawk will more likely take a stance of looking to keep troops in Iraq to secure a nebulous victory. While Obama recognizes a rapid haphazard withdrawl from Iraq that looks like Vietnam will be bad as someone who is mostly a dove he will be looking for opportunity to withdraw. So the difference I see is one is more inclined to stay while one is more inclined to leave. Neither want to leave when things are disastrous but given that any opinion on Iraq at any moment is going to be very subjective they will be looking at the situation through different lenses.

 

I just think we should leave when we have a good out like this...that way if things end up going south after we go (and they probably will a year or a hundred years from now) we can just say "We did our job, freed and secured your country and left when you said you were ready...we won, so it's not our fault you suck."

Iraq gets what they want, we leave claiming the all important victory , and soldiers much younger than me stop dying. Win-Win...Win.

 

the surge has worked; it only validates the judgement / opinion of General Eric Sensaki.

General Sensaki testified in Congress, before the "shock and Awe" campaign, that the US requires a large miliatary force---too large for the NeoCons who were swindled by Chalibi---to effectively occupy Iraq. For his honesty and sound judgement, he was unceremoniously fired by Rumsfeld.

 

dude, don't you understand, the neocons have the moral authority on this subject even though they wrong about it for five years. its astounding for guys like trader to come in here and brag when he supported the idiots who let iraq fall into a mess because the opposed this for so long.

 

This is good enough for Americans who opposed the war from the beginning and many of those who initially supported the war. This is not good enough for Bush, McCain and the neo-con types who brought us the war. It is very doubtful that McCain would consider this victory.

What the Iraqis, who never asked for this war, want is obviously irrelevant.

 

It is interesting to hear those who supported the war back two years ago saying things were actually going well in Iraq and it was all the media's fault for hiding the truth now saying that things are going well thanks to the surge.