Is it safe for Obama to visit Iraq?
- Thread starter Little-Acorn
- Start date
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
Yeah, they were POLITICAL strategies/solutions too. Thats the part they forget. The surge happen simultaneously with working political strategies to unite the country, end sectarian violence, and get the gov't rolling. You'll remember the splurge actually led to an increase in violence for quite some time. And since the premise of the splurge was to be temporary, it seems to me that it was an abject failure.
This is only based on the zero sum game. It pretends that Iraqi security forces will never be capable of taking over provinces, totally disregarding the fact that they are already doing that in several places.
Pretense is great, when it flows in your own direction.
The fact is, even Bush is talking about leaving, admittedly not on as strict a timeline, but there is more common ground than there has been between the two sides. With the surge the Iraqis are in better shape than they have been since we bumbled our way into Iraq, without it I believe they would be considerably worse off than they even were pre-surge.
I think that it is fully idiotic to say in month two of the surge that it is already a failure (many here did) then use pretense and prognostication based on absolutely no improvement in Iraqi forces, then say you are being all consistent when you recognize what was once an "utter failure" to many here has improved the security situation in Iraq just like others said it would.
This is movement in the right direction. I am hopeful that even the right is now seeing an end to an occupation force in Iraq.
Sure Bush is talking in amorphus terms about possably leaving. That promotes the idea that the "Surge" is "working". But Bush can do this at no political cost, he will be out of office by the time this leaving is to take place. Sure he will declare that he had the war won, but when we end the "pause" and it all falls apart he can merely claim that McCain or Obama (whoever is the next president) screwed it up.
Bush sucks; he was pissed that the Iraqis seemingly endorsed Obama's plan. He wants everything on his terms, or not at all.
I don't buy the notion that lefties "root against" things like the surge, or success in Iraq. At this point, it's just about salvaging something from this incredibly long-term & costly commitment. I don't see any scenario whatsoever where the tide of history turns, and somehow Bush is regarded as a mad genius whose vision came to fruition; there are no realistic circumstances at which I would judge the results to be "worth it" at this point, or think that invading Iraq was not a huge blunder.
I don't buy the notion that lefties "root against" things like the surge, or success in Iraq. At this point, it's just about salvaging something from this incredibly long-term & costly commitment. I don't see any scenario whatsoever where the tide of history turns, and somehow Bush is regarded as a mad genius whose vision came to fruition; there are no realistic circumstances at which I would judge the results to be "worth it" at this point, or think that invading Iraq was not a huge blunder.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
There is no military solution, yet the military solution of increasing troop numbers to provide better security has worked. You are simply stubborn (similar to Obama) on admitting that the strategy worked. Its working does not mean that the situation is perfect over there. But the military solution most certainly DID improve the situation to the point that the Iraqi forces now control 10 of the 18 provinces, numbers of violent acts are decreasing to points not seen since prior to 2004, the Iraqi government has improved its work on the 18 points etc....
To say that the military solution didn't exist is simply a childish attempt to avoid accepting the fact that you and Obama were wrong on the ability of the surge to improve the conditions to the point that we can now legitimately talk about withdrawal.
Again, I do think Obama is correct in terms of his positions on the economic impact, the image impact etc... It is just this one point on which he was wrong.
Again, this is based on a zero-sum. If nothing at all changes in the future then you would be correct. But I think that is short-sighted. Just like the idiots who charged that the surge had failed when it was two weeks in.
The government solution cannot work without security. Pretending otherwise or that the magic bliss would break out the moment all Americans leave is just pretense based on nothing but wishes. Once we allowed ourselves to bumble into there, it became a considerable responsibility. That they took so long to see that a surge was necessary was idiotic.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I agree on most of the above. Main exception is that I do not believe McCain wants to keep a large force there any longer than necessary. He is already hinting that he too could be changing his stance on withdrawal.
As for the above, I 100% agree that any attempt to stay after control is turned over by any substantial force (which to me means beyond a small force to continue to train the Iraqis and staff the embassy) would lead to a revolt the likes of which our nightmares might even fall short.
I think you will see a further drawdown start up this fall.
But aren't you ignoring all the non-military things that pre-date the surge that certainly had an impact on the security situation (not to mention the fact that the surge was limited to Baghdad) such as the Anbar Awakening, successful ethnic cleansing, walling off cities, towns and neighborhoods, and the Sadr ceasefire?
Those were not "military solutions" but they were part of the successful decline in violence across the country, not just in Baghdad.
On another matter, why should the "generals on the ground" trump the will of the sovereign government of Iraq and since when is it the role of generals to set policy objectives?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
1) Please explain "successful ethnic cleansing"...
2) No I am not ignoring factors such as the Sadr ceasefire. That certainly aided the effects of the surge and has also contributed to the ability of the Iraqi government gaining a firmer control over the country. This next part is simply conjecture on my part... but did he not call the ceasefire right as US troop strength maxed out and had more of a presence in Baghdad?... and would that have occured if he had not felt that increased pressure? (again, no way to prove nor disprove what "might have happened)
3) Yes, the brutality of Al Queda caused many Sunnis to turn on them. This also helped stabilize the situation and has now led to the Sunnis returning to parliament. Again, this point is another that you and I could both guess at what "might have happened". But had we pulled out as Obama suggested, would Al Queda have continued attacking the Sunni in such a manner or would they have waited till we were gone and then tried to assert control? It would be my contention that our increased presence made Al Queda more desperate and increased the violence/randomness of their attacks on not only our troops, but also on the civilians.
4) I think the rise in violence in Afghanistan is a direct result of the success in Iraq. You are now getting an increased focus by Al Queda in Afghanistan due to their inability to succeed in Iraq.
5) When did I ever say that the Generals should trump the Iraqi government. I did not. I said the Generals should trump a presumptive nominee for Presidents ideas on what should happen. (and they damn well better be given strong consideration by the current CIC). As for the Iraqi government, if they say go... we have to go. Which is why Maliki's comments seemed to have caused a shift in both Bush and McCains positions on withdrawal.
1) 2.2 million Iraqis fled the country. Neighborhoods in Baghdad were ethnically cleansed and walled off from one another. Mixed neighborhoods became dominated by one group or another. Less contact and less opportunity for contact due to segregation in Baghdad and walling off neighborhoods contributed to the declining levels of violence.
2) Sadr's ceasefire was called for in August of 2007. Whether it was due to the surge (or not) is mere conjecture.
3) The Anbar Awakening, wherein we teamed up with Sunni leaders against AL Qaeda, began in August to September of 2006, well before the surge was conceived, let alone announced or implemented and was viewed as a success ell before the surge. Given that it's focus was largely not on Baghdad but other Sunni dominated areas, whereas the surge was focused on Baghdad, the success seems to have little to nothing to do with the surge.
4) Total speculation and conjecture, particularly in light of the fact that Al Qaeda in Iraq is a small time franchise. Rather than Al Qaeda not having success in Iraq, it seems the lack of focus, attention and manpower in Afghanistan and Pakistan have allowed Al Qaeda and the Taliban to regroup and gain footholds there.
5) You imply that the generals on the ground ought to dictate policy over the president or the Iraqis with your insistence that they alone ought to dictate force levels.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
1) We disagree then on the effect of the "successful ethnic cleansing"
2) True, but given it occured after we bulked up troops in Baghdad, I think it more than likely was due to the surge.
3) if the Awakening was so successful prior to the surge.... then why did violence continue to escalate through 2006 and early 2007? Also, why did the Sunni leadership in parliament walk out? The "success" did not occur until well after the surge had begun.
4) again we disagree here. The reduction in Iraq occuring almost simultaneously with the increase in Afghanistan gives very strong support for my statement.
5) Again, since you don't seem to want to pay attention. I have never stated that the generals alone should dictate troop levels. The ONLY people I said the Generals views should outweigh are the presumptive candidates. Period. They should not supercede the CIC (though I would hope the CIC would actually listen to them given his previous FUBARing of Iraq).... and as I stated, in NO WAY should they supercede the views of the Iraqi government. Not sure if I can possibly state that any clearer. Did you comprehend it this time?
1) Fair enough, we can agree to disagree. However, the fact that substantial ethnic cleansing occurred, particularly in Baghdad cannot be disputed.
2) Fair enough, but this is not a military solution, this is part of a diplomatic and political effort.
3) If you really want to learn about the Anbar Awakening, when it occured and why it was successful you can read about it here:
http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/MarApr08/Smith_AnbarEngMarApr08.pdf
It's a piece written by the officers that actually implemented the policy in the Summer of 2006 and into early 2007, before the surge began, detailing the success of the policy.
The bottom line is that the policy, implemented in the summer of 2006, was a success before the surge began and has nothing to do with the surge.
4) Your statement is nonsense for any of a number of reasons. Correlation is not indicative of causation.
5) So, the generals should supercede potential CICs but once they are actual CICs then the generals shouldn't supercede them? That's kind of stupid but whatever. Not going to argue it with you,