Train in Vain

I'm glad to see the Democratic debate turn once again to the subject of Iraq and national security issues where I think there may be more substantive differences between the candidates than you see on the domestic sphere. In an interview with The New York Times's Michael Gordon, for example, John Edwards underscores his opposition to a prolonged US "training" mission that would keep the US military engaged in Iraq's civil conflicts for an extended period of time. I think Edwards is completely correct on this (see, e.g. Brian Katulis' "Killing the Patient") but it's an issue that lots of Democrats in good standing are divided about and thus something it makes sense to have the candidates debating.

The Obama and Clinton campaigns seem to me to be deliberately trying to stay vague on forward-looking Iraq issues, the better to keep their options open for the campaign and for governing purposes. That makes sense, obviously, and there's a decent chance either of them would wind up doing the right thing in the end, but it's even better to see a candidate who's willing to actually stake out that position.

US Army photo by Staff Sgt. Jon Soucy

Comments

Edwards is smart in being the only candidate to consistently describe Iraq as an occupation.

If you want to change things in 2009, a smart leader gets the rhetoric in place now.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 10:11 AM

The political window for bailing on Iraq has closed. The time to do so for Dems would have been this year, but their attempts to legislate that last year failed. If a Dem is elected president next year, he or she will follow the trajectory set by Bush/Petraeus/Gates/Crocker. That means we will have a commitment of some kind in Iraq for at least another decade, and probably longer (albeit at more sustainable levels).

Posted by Fred | January 2, 2008 10:25 AM

This was, and is, my peimary reservation about Edwards. In the event of an "event" I think Republicans can generate a very powerful foreign policy attack on Edwards in the general. And President Bush can create an event and the irrational national response.

There just haven't been many "peace" candidates elected in this country for a long time. Maybe somebody like Eisenhower could manage it, but not Edwards. His populism needs a muted nationalism, and left on the economy and left on war is too much left if FP gets crazy.

Posted by bob mcmanus | January 2, 2008 10:28 AM

People clamor for the U.S. to vacate Iraq. They seldom advocate a similar total withdrawal from South Korea. We live with a large contingent of troops on the peninsula because of a perceived security interest. In the Middle East there is oil, Israel (we've committed to assisting them in a case of imminent peril), the Suez Canal and a host of other security issues we can lay claim to. Why aren't our security concerns in Iraq addressed more prominently by the politicians wanting us to leave? Are Iraq and South Korea at least marginally analogous? If the North/South Korea conflict had proven a violent, intractable mess would we still be there these many years later? The original goals for invading Iraq were a pack of lies but now that we're there and in Colin Powells's words have broken all the pottery what is our responsiblity to that nation? After all they did have power and water and schools and an economy that for the most part all worked before we destroyed them all. And now we're just supposed to leave for little more reason than the mere sake of it? Bush and Cheney should hang for all this. Whoever gets stuck cleaning up after them is getting a disaster not of their making. Still, if a 2 year old knocks a lamp off the table and breaks it you don't task him with the chore of picking up the shards. We broke Iraq so we are responsible for fixing it.

Posted by steve duncan | January 2, 2008 10:31 AM

"left on the economy and left on war is too much"

But ending the Iraq occupation is a pretty centrist idea at this point.

Edwards is just the only one of the Democratic candidates with enough confidence in his connection with the electorate to be able to tell the truth.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 10:31 AM

There are some potentially radical solutions for the Iraq war being offered around the blogosphere:

http://badassbard.blogspot.com/2007/12/something-must-be-done.html

and

http://flwp.blogspot.com/2007/09/end-iraq-war-by-dissolving-iraq.html

for instance.

But, I don't see candidates even discussing such ideas. First, campaigning isn't about substantiative issues and second, the spin on the war works so fast and so aggressively that no statement about it would withstand the wringing it would get, no matter how good or bad the idea.

Posted by Thomas | January 2, 2008 10:32 AM

Well let's be honest here. I think this week is a good time to be only horse-race focused and what does this say when Edwards clarify such an important detail the DAY BEFORE the caucus ? If that was so important why didn't he do it earlier ? Smells like someone is not happy with the way things are shaping up and is trying to gain Richardson seconds. That's all this is about, I am sorry to say.

Posted by Benjamin | January 2, 2008 10:36 AM

In the event of an "event" I think Republicans can generate a very powerful foreign policy attack on Edwards in the general.

Maybe. But I think that an "event" in the sense of something really terrible whose effects are wildly unpredictable is the best shot the Republicans have.

Unless something horrible happens, attacks on foreign policy only serve to help the Democrats. The American people want the war to end. They're not divided like they were in 2004.

Also, I expect Romney to tack left immediately on Iraq the moment he gets the nomination. Thompson and Huckabee would do the same. That would place them in a very different position than they are now, in terms of FP.

Posted by DivGuy | January 2, 2008 10:37 AM

"There are some potentially radical solutions for the Iraq war being offered around the blogosphere"

Even Edwards isn't proposing anything that stupid (as far as I know). Some people just shouldn't blog.

Posted by Fred | January 2, 2008 10:46 AM

"If that was so important why didn't he do it earlier?"

Edwards has been talking about Iraq being an "occupation" for quite a while now.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 10:48 AM

In an interview with The New York Times's Michael Gordon, for example, John Edwards underscores his opposition to a prolonged US "training" mission that would keep the US military engaged in Iraq's civil conflicts for an extended period of time.

Yes, but then he and Elizabeth seemed to take some of it back at the end of the interview by saying that Edwards is still interested in training Iraqis - just outside the country. (I assume this means Kuwait of thereabouts.) This made the whole statement look like a bit of a late campaign gimmick.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 2, 2008 10:50 AM

"Yes, but then he and Elizabeth seemed to take some of it back at the end of the interview by saying that Edwards is still interested in training Iraqis - just outside the country."

Edwards' focus seems to be on ending the occupation.

And if you want to end the occupation, doing training at bases that aren't in Iraq seems relatively crucial at the moment.

If you're doing training at bases inside Iraq, you need to have forces to protect those bases. And before you know it, you've got 50,000 troops in Iraq to do your "training mission".

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 11:01 AM

That makes sense, obviously, and there's a decent chance either of them would wind up doing the right thing in the end

Hillary's ties with AIPAC, and relative coziness with the neocon-lite DNC crowd, leave me with absolutely no confidence in her doing the right thing over there.

With regard to Edwards, I think McManus's analysis above is spot-on, which leaves me with Obama. He's our best hope. The fact that he consistently refuses to embrace the rhetoric of fear convinces me he'll make the right moves.

Posted by Brautigan | January 2, 2008 11:18 AM

I hate to throw cold water on things, but one other point to remember: by the time the next president takes office, most likely Iraq will have already signed a long-term bilateral security agreement with the U.S. See, for example, "Iraq Seeks Long-Term U.S. Security Pact", and "U.S., Iraq sign plan for long-term relations".

So, again, the political window for bailing on Iraq has already closed.

Posted by Fred | January 2, 2008 11:57 AM

"They seldom advocate a similar total withdrawal from South Kore"

How many thousands of US soldiers are dying every year in South Korea? How many thousands of South Korean civilians are killed each year?

Posted by mad6798j | January 2, 2008 12:20 PM

"They seldom advocate a similar total withdrawal from South Kore"

How many thousands of US soldiers are dying every year in South Korea? How many thousands of South Korean civilians are killed each year?

Posted by mad6798j | January 2, 2008 12:20 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I purposely inserted a caveat dealing with that aspect: "If the North/South Korea conflict had proven a violent, intractable mess would we still be there these many years later?"

Obviously to no avail.............

Posted by steve duncan | January 2, 2008 1:01 PM

Whenever I hear this bullshit about training Iraqis, I calm myself - though my actual anger increases - by opening "The Best and the Brightest"

Halberstam makes a great point that when people say "Oh, it's just going to be a training mission", it's never, ever just a training mission.

From the instant the US has actual units on the ground, there is enormous pressure to protect those units. How do we do that? Perhaps by stationing an air wing or two for CAS.

But to base them in the country, we need to protect the air strips. Which means another company or battalion per air wing. And then those units are isolated, so we need to commit, say, a division, to provide overall security. And then that division finds itself forced into a hundred places and missions at once. So our hypothetical Military Assistance Command Iraq (like MACV) calls for more troops to "protect our boys" and to make sure "they don't die in vain".

And that's why leaving any substantial unit incountry will just force us back in, maybe not in a year, but perhaps two or five or ten. And all the while the insurgents learn...

Posted by Greg | January 2, 2008 1:15 PM

The problem with Edwards on Iraq is he supported the war. Obama, in contrast, was right from the start. (Hillary is the worst of both worlds.)

Therefore, even if you like Edwards' current position on the war, rewarding his vote to murder 3,800 brave American servicemembers by awarding the guy the Presidency will simply reinforce the political incentives to support dumb wars. And frankly, I think the man needs some more time in the wilderness to reflect on what an evil thing he did by voting to kill those brave Americans.

Honestly, if you really want to get out of Iraq, you should vote for Kucinich or Richardson (or Ron Paul in the other party). Unfortunately, none of those guys are going to win.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 2, 2008 1:25 PM

Greg,

I can understand your zeal to shoe-horn Iraq into a Vietnam narrative, but the training comparison seems to be almost completely the opposite. In Vietnam, our involvement started with a training mission, and then mushroomed into a full-fledged combat mission; in Iraq, our involvement started with a full-fledged combat mission, and some are proposing it be scaled down to a training mission.

Posted by Fred | January 2, 2008 1:26 PM

"Therefore, even if you like Edwards' current position on the war, rewarding his vote..."

The Obama folks think this election is about the candidates. The Edwards folks understand this election is about us.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 1:30 PM

Fred, I realize that, but my point was, rather, the country's poison. As long as we remain there with some visible presence, we have a good chance of getting drawn back in.

Unless we did something really clever and abominable before we leave, like massive ethnic cleansing. The Iraqis themselves have already started this, but we *could* do it better.

That is, for many reasons, repugnant, not the least for moral reasons. But it would work.

Posted by Greg | January 2, 2008 1:33 PM

Why, exactly, do we have to train Iraqis? Seems to me they had both an army and a police force under Saddam Hussein. Don't tell me Saddam carried away the special knowledge of how to do police work to his death.

Posted by Glenn | January 2, 2008 1:46 PM

"The Obama folks think this election is about the candidates. The Edwards folks understand this election is about us."

Sounds deep, like a Zen koan. I was tempted to respond with something trite like, "This election is about the future of the country", but it isn't really. At least not to any great extent. This is no epochal election, and there won't be any radical policy changes in America in the next four or eight years. That's good news, since this country is in pretty good shape anyway.

Posted by Fred | January 2, 2008 1:50 PM

"This is no epochal election, and there won't be any radical policy changes in America in the next four or eight years. "

I'm sure there were plenty of Dems who thought that way in January 1980, Fred.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 1:52 PM

"I'm sure there were plenty of Dems who thought that way in January 1980, Fred."

Maybe they were right? I mean, aside from the long-overdue reduction of the 70% top marginal income tax rate, a stronger military, and the drive for victory in the Cold War, what was the radical partisan change? The Social Security patch was the product of a bipartisan commission. The big tax reform of 1987 was a bipartisan effort as well.

Posted by Fred | January 2, 2008 2:01 PM

1. The bilateral defense pact will pass. Iraq is in the middle of a very dangerous area with lots of water and resources wealth and advanced (for Arabs) infrastructure - surrounded by modern armies that warred with or occupied Iraq (the Turks) in the recent past. They need us there for a while. Right now, without us, the Israeli and Turk AF could roam there skies and attack at will, the Iranians could land 100,000 sophisticated Quds Forces and march to the Southern oil fields with little to stop them except Shiite militia irregulars.

2. Al Qaeda has lost 75% of it's combat forces in Iraq, and lost it's resupply lines through Syria, for the most part. Interogating the 2,000 we have captured and tracing the dead Jihadis back to their native countries has messed up radical Islamist efforts elsewhere.

3. The US retains UN authorization to be Iraq's Naval and Airspace defender until the Iraqi defense forces once again can manage to train up, rebuild and take over those missions - which is 5-10 years off.

4. Good signs that the Surge boosted success of not just the Abbar awakening, but is spreading restoration of peace elsewhere in Iraq. The Iranians who provided the weapons that killed hundreds of GIs have laid off. After 4 years of misery fighting the US and 10 years of misery before that, it is finally sinking in to Iraqis they don't want a Forever War against America and lethal sectarian payback, but a stable and prosperous country. Which is quite attainable when they boost oil and gas production. Companies are literally lined up telling the Iraqis get your shit together and we will help find and produce the oil to double your standard of living.

5. The ME is of key geostrategic importance to not just the US, but other nations. Leaving Israel entirely out of it for sake of argument. Just on oil, Suez, trade routes, home of radical Islam - it is still a most critical strategic area. I'd rather have US troops there than radical Islamists or the Chinese with control. We ended the occupation of the Holy Land, something unacceptable to many Muslims, as soon as we beat the conventional Iraqi forces and ended nuke threats from Libya, the AQ Kahn Network, Saddams stated plan to US and Iraqi interrogators that he was going to go for the Bomb as soon as sanctions ended plus biowar and nerve gas. We also appear to have stopped the Iranian A-Bomb design work (though not enrichment), ended their desire to reprocess Russian fuel rods outside IAEA regulations...and picked up Syrian efforts which are the target of at least one bombing and now extensive monitoring from Turkish, Iraqi, and Israeli territory.

All for very light casualties as wars go, though the expense and waste and postwar incompetence - costing hundreds of billions and hundreds of unecessary deaths -was humongous. Still, we seem to be prevailing and Left screams that we all voted that we lost, we have a wonderful humbling like in their glory days of Vietname and we need to immediately run in defeat - seems odder by the day.

Posted by Chris Ford | January 2, 2008 2:03 PM

"Why, exactly, do we have to train Iraqis? Seems to me they had both an army and a police force under Saddam Hussein. Don't tell me Saddam carried away the special knowledge of how to do police work to his death."

Glenn, I think you well know that the sort of police work Saddam engaged in is a little, no, it's light years more brutal than anything we can do.

He kept the country from erupting via a cold, hard, iron fist.

Posted by Greg | January 2, 2008 2:04 PM

"Maybe they were right? I mean, aside from the long-overdue reduction of the 70% top marginal income tax rate, a stronger military, and the drive for victory in the Cold War, what was the radical partisan change?"

The radical tax cuts and radical boost in military spending seem like pretty big deals to me.

But, of course, the biggest thing Reagan changed was the definition of the political mainstream inside the Beltway. And after universal healthcare and ending the occupation, that'd be the biggest thing Edwards would change as well.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 2:07 PM

Chris, you're out of your mind.

You realize that those Shia militias would welcome the Iranians right? That if we attacked Iran, those militias would make the current insurgency seem like a couple of barfights?

Or that Al Qaeda has no "combat troops"?

Or that the Anbar Awakening, according to every report from the area, represents tribal authorities *temporarily* giving us and the Shia a truce so that they can purge their territories of foreigners who threaten their power?

Or that every day we remain in Iraq, we drive more Muslims into the arms of those who call us evil crusading imperialists?

Seriously, you're absolutely batshit crazy. And radical Islam? That's redundancy.

Finally, if the Chinese were in control, there'd be no insurgency, because the Chinese don't mind killing people in heaps. We're idiotically sensitive imperialists hated all over the world and *especially* by the Iraqis, and you think this is a victory?

Posted by Greg | January 2, 2008 2:11 PM

Petey,

If you want a new universal health care entitlement, how about first reforming our current entitlement programs so they are fiscally sustainable? Wouldn't that be the reality-based approach?

Posted by Fred | January 2, 2008 2:15 PM

"If you want a new universal health care entitlement, how about first reforming our current entitlement programs so they are fiscally sustainable? Wouldn't that be the reality-based approach?"

I think SS is fiscally sustainable.

Universal healthcare is the first step towards rationalizing the overall healthcare system, making Medicare more manageable.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 2:26 PM

How many thousands of US soldiers are dying every year in South Korea?

I'm betting less than one "thousands". Which would be just like Iraq.

Posted by Al | January 2, 2008 2:33 PM

Since the US mission in Iraq is clearly mandated by United Nations resolution and the request of the host country, this makes John Edwards a cowboy with a "go it alone" foreign policy.

heh

Ray Robison is the author of Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents

Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents

Posted by Ray Robison | January 2, 2008 2:36 PM

"The year was a strategic catastrophe for Islamist terrorists - and possibly a historic turning point in the struggle against al Qaeda and its affiliates.

While al Qaeda in Iraq can still launch suicide missions, such acts now serve only to further alienate the Iraqi people, who've come to hate the grisly foreign interlopers with a passion you have to encounter first-hand to appreciate.

That fundamental change in outlook, especially among Sunni Arabs, may well mark last year as Islamist terrorism's high-water mark, the point at which fellow Muslims by the tens of millions publicly rejected the message and methods of self-styled holy warriors who revel in the slaughter of the innocent."

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/01022008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/terror_on_the_run_136042.htm

Posted by Mr. Forward | January 2, 2008 4:00 PM

Mr. Forward,

In case you didn't remember, to them, we're "grisly foreign interlopers" too.

Posted by Greg | January 2, 2008 4:03 PM

"Universal healthcare is the first step towards rationalizing the overall healthcare system, making Medicare more manageable."

Imaginative, but does your candidate even believe this? If he did, he would propose a net savings from his UHC plan, instead of a net cost.

Posted by Fred | January 2, 2008 4:08 PM

"A reconciliation meeting between the tribal leaders of Khalis and Hibhib in Diyala province was held at the Governance Center in Baquba, Iraq, Dec. 27. The meeting marked the end of Operation Raider Reaper, a month-long campaign conducted by the 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division and several companies of the Iraqi army 5th Division. The operation’s focus was to clear al-Qaida and insurgents from Diyala province. The meeting focused on keeping the peace post Raider Reaper, ending sectarian violence and finding a means to bring displaced families back to their homes.

Every sheik who attended the meeting took an oath and signed a written agreement. The agreement stated that the sheiks will work together to stop attacks against Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces, deny use of land for insurgents, follow the government’s laws, resolve tribal conflict through the sheiks, guarantee equal rights regardless of sect, and allow the displaced families of Diyala to return to their homes regardless of sect.

These men are swearing on the Koran to destroy al-Qaeda. Not because the US pays them to, or because we hold guns to their heads. They are doing it all across Iraq because al-Qaeda’s bloody atrocities made them their enemies. And that made them our allies. Both Iraqis and Americans have been victims of al-Qaeda’s blood lust. It is no surprise we find ourselves on the same side in this war on terror."

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/4879

Posted by Mr. Forward | January 2, 2008 4:17 PM

Mr. Forward, they are swearing to destroy Al Qaeda. They are not swearing allegience to the US or even the central government. They are saying they want this threat to their power eliminated. That says exactly nothing about what they will do when AQI is gone. Considering that for the previous three and a half years they were killing our guys, I suspect that their post-AQI plan involves more of the same.

Posted by Greg | January 2, 2008 5:14 PM

The Obama folks think this election is about the candidates. The Edwards folks understand this election is about us.

Petey, this election is about making sure that the next time the right wing proposes some disasterous war, your evil Southern White Male Neoconservative Hawk jerk of a presidential candidate doesn't go along and murder another 3,800 brave American servicemembers.

You are right. It is not about Edwards. It is about us-- and the grave harm that your candidate has done to us and will continue to do to us if elected, as well as the grave harm that will be done by others who will imitate him by supporting murderous wars in the future.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 2, 2008 6:06 PM

"That says exactly nothing about what they will do when AQI is gone."

In most of the Sunni areas AQI is gone.

"...they were killing our guys, I suspect that their post-AQI plan involves more of the same.

US casualties are down.

Posted by Mr. Forward | January 2, 2008 6:36 PM

US casualties are down in the past couple months. Which is when the tribes have been fighting AQI.

My expectation is for them to rise again in the New Year.

Posted by Greg | January 2, 2008 6:57 PM

And far more likely than that, the Sunnis will probably start killing central gov't Shia again.

Posted by Greg | January 2, 2008 7:06 PM

US casualties are down seven months in a row. Your expectations are also misinformed.

Posted by Mr. Forward | January 2, 2008 7:22 PM

Mr. Forward,
In case you didn't remember, to them, we're "grisly foreign interlopers" too.
Posted by Greg

You're just engaged in Lefty wishful thinking to attempt to draw the "fact" of moral equivalence between us and AQ in the eyes of others.

That of course is not true.

We stupidly managed to piss off the Sunnis with the disastrous Bush People-Bremer decisions of DeBa'athification and disbanding the military. We got Kurd support and grudging Shiite support though we faced trouble from the most radical Shiites, Iran's stooges, and the general agreement we were doing a fucked up occupation and needed to leave or shift roles soon.

But the fullbore Sunni revolt ended when they saw what real monsters the AQ Jihadis were that the Americans weren't, over time.

*********************
Esper - Petey, this election is about making sure that the next time the right wing proposes some disasterous war, your evil Southern White Male Neoconservative Hawk jerk of a presidential candidate doesn't go along and murder another 3,800 brave American servicemembers.

God! And surely you must be speechless over the 40,000 brave servicemembers Truman murdered, or the 38,000 LBJ slew, or the 420,000 and 660,000 the archcriminal butchers FDR and Lincoln had killed.....

Oh, the humanity!!! Surely the Anti-America Left will be out soon demanding the memorials to FDR and Lincoln in DC be torn down and a monument to Lincoln's many murders be put up.
**********************************

George Or that every day we remain in Iraq, we drive more Muslims into the arms of those who call us evil crusading imperialists?

You may swallow the Lefty pabulum of the more terrorists we kill, the more we create. But after whacking 9,000 of the assholes and capturing another 2,000 - the interrogations of which has led to mass roundups of another 4500-5000 Jihadis from Sweden to Indonesia - AQ has lost 75% of its combat capability and ability to terrorize people on bin Laden's "Central Front" against the Zionist Crusaders.

George - (Chris you are crazy if you don't realize)...that Al Qaeda has no "combat troops"?

Oh, so the unlawful enemy combatants with full auto machine guns, RPGs, truckloads of high explosives and torturing devices all under a military command structure.

I stand corrected. They must either be innocent goatherders that got lost in Saudi Arabia and somehow stumbled into Iraq....or they are misguided common criminals in need of an ACLU lawyer and a sympathetic judge who will factor in the poor Jihadis troubled life before he fell into minor crimes like headchopping and truck bombing.

Got it, George!

Posted by Chris Ford | January 2, 2008 10:04 PM

Chris, I never said that I thought we were "grisly foreign interlopers", I said they think we are.

It's irrelevant whether I think we ought to be there - I supported the invasion for godsakes, and I'm probably more right wing than you. I also seem to have a greater grasp on sanity.

What's important is that the Iraqis do not want us there. The trend in polling since the summer of 2003 has been in that direction.

Posted by Greg | January 2, 2008 11:05 PM

Chris, I never said that I thought we were "grisly foreign interlopers", I said they think we are.

It's irrelevant whether I think we ought to be there - I supported the invasion for godsakes, and I'm probably more right wing than you. I also seem to have a greater grasp on sanity.

What's important is that the Iraqis do not want us there. The trend in polling since the summer of 2003 has been in that direction. This means that as long as we're still around, we'll be targets. And not just for AQI.

Posted by Greg | January 2, 2008 11:09 PM

Fred: "That means we will have a commitment of some kind in Iraq for at least another decade,"

Yeah, right. What the Iraqi government thinks it can negotiate and what the Iraqi people in the form of al-Sadr, the Sunni insurgents, and Iran can "negotiate" are two different things.

The US will not be in Iraq for more than another year or two at most, is my guess.

The US military will either leave on their own accord, or they will get their asses kicked out at some point. It may take another five years to do the latter, but it WILL happen if they don't leave early.

When eighty percent of 20 million people (used to be 25 million, but we killed or displaced five million of them) decide they don't want you around, you ain't gonna be around long.

You can take that to the bank.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 3, 2008 1:38 AM

Fred: "since this country is in pretty good shape anyway."

Right. I'll buy that for a dollar - oops, less than a dollar today.

Anybody who thinks this country is in "good shape" is living with a serious mescaline overdose.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 3, 2008 1:42 AM

Forward: "In most of the Sunni areas AQI is gone."

Wrong. Even the US military admits that. Reduction in attacks does not equal "gone." It equals reduced operational efficiency. Which means, apparently, they moved north of Baghdad, if recent reports are any indication.

Ford: "AQ has lost 75% of its combat capability"

This is complete bullshit. No such figures exist. Al Qaeda in Iraq was estimated at the most to be about 7% of the insurgency, which would be around 6-7,000 effectives, if that. Probably closer to 2,000 if you assume the total insurgency (not counting the Shia militias) was around 40,000. Since it could be twice that, I upped the figure.

Greg, don't waste your time with Ford - he lives in a mescaline-induced Ku Klux Klan fever where everything is a total success for America - or will be once all Muslims are killed.

For example, he thinks the Sunni revolt is over. Every single former Sunni insurgent interviewed recently has said the opposite. They're just regrouping and rebuilding preparatory to taking the fight back to the Shia central government. If the US gets in the way, US troops will die - probably with guns purchased from the money the US troops gave them to kill Al Qaeda. (Not to mention that most of the local people killed were local rivals, not "Al Qaeda". Some of these clowns were PART of "Al Qaeda" initially.)

As for being "monsters", eighty percent of the Iraqi public know full well that probably 300,000 or more of their relatives were killed by US troops with indiscriminate bombing, indiscriminate shootings, and deliberate murders. Not to mention that the war itself has killed over a million of them and displaced four million more. The Iraqi people will not forget that for generations.

And the US economy won't forget that it cost the US taxpayer one to two trillion dollars and counting.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 3, 2008 1:59 AM

"What's important is that the Iraqis do not want us there."

Did you ever have to call the Fire Dept? You don't want the firemen there forever but you darn well don't want them to leave until the fire is out.

When the Iraq Government asks us to leave, we will. I know that's hard for Left wingers to believe but wait and see.

Posted by Mr. Forward | January 3, 2008 2:09 AM

Well, as the Iraqi government has said that the UN Mandate ending December 2008 is the last they will ask for, let's see what happens to the estimated 100,000 troops who will still be there in December, 2008.

Start coming home in January, 2009?

Yeah, right.

And the fire is not going to be out by December, 2008 - that's pretty damn clear to anyone who knows what's going on over there.

Besides which, as I said, it's not the Iraqi government that will determine when we leave, it's the Iraqi insurgency, the Shia militias, and Iran.

As I also said, when eighty percent of 20 million people don't want you around, you aren't going to be around for long - one way or the other.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 3, 2008 2:36 AM

If 80% of Iraq wanted US out NOW the Iraqi Government would not have asked for an extension of the UN mandate.

"Besides which, as I said, it's not the Iraqi government that will determine when we leave, it's the Iraqi insurgency, the Shia militias, and Iran."

If they were going to determine when we leave they probably should have done it before they got their ass kicked.

Posted by Mr. Forward | January 3, 2008 2:55 AM

Now here are two seriously ignorant remarks:

"If 80% of Iraq wanted US out NOW the Iraqi Government would not have asked for an extension of the UN mandate."

What part of "the Iraqi government has nothing to do with the Iraqi people" don't you get? The Iraqi government is considered a joke except by perhaps those Shia parties and militias that comprise the bulk of it. The Iraqi government extended the Mandate in order to keep themselves in power. When the US leaves, Iran will step to assist in that endeavor. That will be when the Sunni insurgents resume their war against the Shia. If the US does not leave, al-Sadr's militia as well as the Sunni insurgents will resume their war against the US.

"If they were going to determine when we leave they probably should have done it before they got their ass kicked."

Since they haven't "got their ass kicked", your comment is clearly ignorant.

The US has done NOTHING to defeat either the Sunni insurgency, the Shia militias, OR Al Qaeda in Iraq (it was the Sunni insurgents who dealt with AQI to some degree.)

Virtually all the Sunni insurgent groups and "former" groups interviewed recently have said they intend to resume the fight against the Shia. The Shia militia of al-Sadr also clearly remains devoted to the removal of the US occupation.

Absolutely nothing of significance has changed in Iraq in recent months. All that has happened is a lull while both sides regroup and rearm and reconsider their strategy.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 3, 2008 7:02 AM

"Absolutely nothing of significance has changed in Iraq in recent months."

LOL

Posted by Mr. Forward | January 3, 2008 8:40 AM

"BAGHDAD — The leader of Iraq’s most influential Shiite party offered surprisingly conciliatory remarks on Thursday about the former insurgents and other Sunnis who have banded together into militias to work with American forces, stating that the groups had helped improve security and should be continued."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/world/middleeast/04iraq.html

Posted by Mr. Forward | January 4, 2008 2:17 AM