Victory i Iraq

[WorldWarrior]

Watch the video and see just how complex the many problems of the Middle East--as exacerbated by the Bush invasion of Iraq--really are.


The complex conditions and ideas cannot be communicated in a few sentences--even though this is what the Bush administration has been trying for six years to convince people they can do.


And we see where that kind of simplistic "thinking" by the Bush administration has led us and left us.

[Faithfulee]

bump

[Acumen]

"Perhaps, rather than simply beat people over the head with hour-long videos and snarky ad hominem over the span of two or three lines in this forum, it would be best to present a fact-based argument and analysis from the video itself. "


You're asking for a short "summary" of a half hour complex and detailed discussion by two expert Islamists?

You need to quit playing games.  It's getting a little annoying.

[Faithfulee]

don’t get annoyed just . . . . .

bump 

when you get inanae responses

[WorldWarrior]

"You need to quit playing games.  It's getting a little annoying."


Trying to make someone to reduce a complex and detailed half hour discussion of the Middle East and Iraq into a short summary is " the game."

One I am too aware of nuances to play.

[Faithfulee]

It is always better to post ones opinion or quotes than to refer to the article or book,  a link will do if the opinion is challanged. 

I have been disappoint by Charley Rose so often that I won't go there,  my time is more valuable.

From reports on the meeting yesterday Between President Bush and PM Brown.

Appearing together, Messrs. Bush and Brown traded compliments about each other and their commitments to two war zones, Afghanistan and Iraq. They also offered a united front on Iran, Zimbabwe, Myanmar and Darfur and expressed hopes for reaching a global trade pact.
On at least two matters, Mr. Brown came ready with news that Mr. Bush wanted to hear.
Questioned about Iraq, Mr. Bush said that history will judge how the U.S. waged the war, whether more troops should have been deployed and whether they should have been positioned differently. But he said he had no doubts about deposing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. "Absolutely it's necessary," the president said.

Mr. Brown showed no distance from Mr. Bush on the strategy in Iraq. The prime minister said he wouldn't order an arbitrary withdrawal of the 4,000 remaining British troops until the task is done, even as his government was announcing that it would bolster its forces in Afghanistan to its highest level ever.

"The policy is showing success," Mr. Brown said of Iraq. "In Iraq, there is a job to be done and we will continue to do the job and there will be no artificial timetable."

We have two world leaders finally agreeing with the message of FFLee has been promoting for years.

VICTORY IN IRAQ WILL BE A REALITY  if we don't surrender first that is.

[Thorolf]

"Perhaps, rather than simply beat people over the head with hour-long videos and snarky ad hominem over the span of two or three lines in this forum, it would be best to present a fact-based argument and analysis from the video itself. "


You're asking for a short "summary" of a half hour complex and detailed discussion by two expert Islamists?

No... I'm asking you to post your own thoughts, based on the information you glean from these videos or just things you come up with on your own. I don't want you to summarize anything... I want you to engage in an open and honest discussion - one that is actually what YOU think (emphasis on the word "think"), complete with possible rational and realistic solutions to real problems, and not just mindless accusations of how it's all Bush's fault.

[WorldWarrior]

"No... I'm asking you to post your own thoughts, based on the information you glean from these videos or just things you come up with on your own. I don't want you to summarize anything... I want you to engage in an open and honest discussion - one that is actually what YOU think (emphasis on the word "think"), complete with possible rational and realistic solutions to real problems, and not just mindless accusations of how it's all Bush's fault."



But you see--I don't form an opinion until I have read and listened to multiple expert and informed sources.


That''s called an "Informed Opinion."

[Thorolf]

Yeah, right....

But in any event, that's what I'm asking for... your own informed opinion in the form of an actual argument and dialogue.

Novel idea, I know.

[Faithfulee]

Yeah, right....

But in any event, that's what I'm asking for... your own informed opinion in the form of an actual argument and dialogue.

Novel idea, I know.

I think we have to give it up on WW

I stopped answering here inane questions and SUPERMAN locked the discussion 

From now on, I will just respond by repeating the most recent post on the topic.

[WorldWarrior]

T--is there a problem with complex answers to complex questions?


For situations like the disastrous Bush administrations policies and actions in Iraq there are no easy and simple answers.


That's why the situation generates half hour detailed and complex discussions by experts in the area which need to be heard in toto in order to be understood.

[TENAC]

T--is there a problem with complex answers to complex questions?


For situations like the disastrous Bush administrations policies and actions in Iraq there are no easy and simple answers.


That's why the situation generates half hour detailed and complex discussions by experts in the area which need to be heard in toto in order to be understood.

So based on such informed experts, what is your informed opinion?

[Faithfulee]

Obama met with Iraq's Foreign Minister Zebari today.
Zabari said of the meeting 

The foreign minister said "my message" to Mr. Obama "was very clear. . . . Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress." He said he was reassured by the candidate's response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising a visit, Mr. Obama said that "if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field."

Obama appears to be pivoting to share in the Victory.

Where will that leave the Bush haters, and the Democrats who want us to abandon the mission in Iraq??  Obama is a turncoat.

or according to the Wall Street Jouranal

on the upside, it would show political courage and open-mindedness, two qualities his supporters are eager to ascribe to him but so far on the basis of evidence that is somewhere between scant and nonexistent. Those who do want America to win in Iraq would no longer have to vote against Obama for that reason

I particularly like the comment on courage . .and it's absence from Obama's resume

But then 'POLITICAL COURAGE IS AN OXYMORON'  per FFlee

[Faithfulee]

NYTimes admits we have Won in Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/opinion/22rich.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Frank Rich, no fan of President Bush, admits that the surge has made a difference.

He  summarized Obama’s position as

The fact is that Mr. Obama frequently recognizes “the reduction of violence in Iraq” (his words) and has said he is “encouraged” by it. He has never said that he would refuse to consult with commanders on the ground, and he has never called for a precipitous withdrawal. His mantra on Iraq, to the point of tedium, has always been that “we must be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.” His roughly 16-month timetable isn’t hasty and isn’t “retreat.” As The Economist, a supporter of the war, recently put it, a safer Iraq does not necessarily validate Mr. McCain’s “insistence on America staying indefinitely” and might make Mr. Obama’s 16-month framework “more feasible.”

This is fudging the real issue.  Obama admits that We  are winning the war in Iraq, but  his liberal allies are so committed to defeat that he must once again turn, change his mind and promote something that he pledged to do  from the beginning.  Surrender and withdraw the US troops as fast as possible.

Another comment, denigrates the sacrifices of our brave military

Not that the Obama policy is foolproof either. As everyone knows, there are no good options in Iraq. Our best hope for a bipartisan resolution of this disaster may be for a President Obama to appoint Mr. McCain as a special envoy to Baghdad, where he can stay for as long as he needs to administer our withdrawal or 100 years, whichever comes first

Well the American public is ready to accept the good option in Iraq.
Build up the second Democracy in the ME,  develop it’s oil resources to benefit the economy and help the Iraq people pay the US back for the deposing of sad man, the liberation and of course the establishment of a democratic government.

And the comment on McCain is idiotic to say the least.

[Thorolf]

Frank Rich was a lousy theatre critic, and he's an even worse political pundit wannabe.

I'm not sure if that means even the most abject moron can see that the surge is making a difference, or if I'm doubting the surge because Rich says something positive about it...

[Faithfulee]

This also from the NYTimes by Jsson Campbel, Micharl O’Hanlon and Amy Unikewicz is more intelligtent

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/opinion/22ohanlon.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

IRAQ remains a violent country plagued by high unemployment, raw wounds from sectarian conflict, extremist militias aided by Iran, more than four million people still displaced by violence, and very limited government capacity to meet the country’s core needs. There has, however, been major progress this spring on two fronts. Together they give reason for hope that the major improvement in security resulting from the surge of American forces may endure even as the surge itself ends this July.

First, the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki showed real backbone by undertaking major military operations that ultimately reclaimed Iraq’s chief southern city of Basra, the Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, and much of the northern city of Mosul. Iraq’s government now controls almost all of the country for the first time since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Second, in these recent battles the Iraqi security forces performed far better than previously. While American (and British) combat support and advisory teams remain critical, Iraqis are doing much of the fighting now. Although some units performed badly, as with the Iraqi Army’s inexperienced 52nd Brigade in the Basra operation, the reasons have been identified and addressed. The Pentagon now rates about 55 percent of the Iraqi security forces as “good” or “very good” — and for the first time, such American metrics seem accurate.

On the whole, we feel that the Iraqi government is about halfway to meeting the 11 “Iraq index” benchmarks we have laid out, which include steps like establishing provincial election laws, reaching an oil-revenue sharing accord and enacting pension and amnesty laws. (Our system allows a score of 0, 0.5, or 1 for each category, and is dynamic, meaning we can subtract points for backsliding.)

It would be too much to talk of imminent victory in Iraq. But we may at least be able to avert strategic defeat with a careful plan for gradual handoff of more responsibility to the Iraqi government over the coming years.

But Obama is talking about defeat.  What an Obamanation

[TENAC]

NJ,

Even David Brooks posted this column today:


The Bush Paradox


By DAVID BROOKS
Published: June 24, 2008

Let’s go back and consider how the world looked in the winter of 2006-2007. Iraq was in free fall, with horrific massacres and ethnic cleansing that sent a steady stream of bad news across the world media. The American public delivered a stunning electoral judgment against the Iraq war, the Republican Party and President Bush.

Expert and elite opinion swung behind the Baker-Hamilton report, which called for handing more of the problems off to the Iraqi military and wooing Iran and Syria. Republicans on Capitol Hill were quietly contemptuous of the president while Democrats were loudly so.

Democratic leaders like Senator Harry Reid considered the war lost. Barack Obama called for a U.S. withdrawal starting in the spring of 2007
, while Senator Reid offered legislation calling for a complete U.S. pullback by March 2008.

The arguments floating around the op-ed pages and seminar rooms were overwhelmingly against the idea of a surge — a mere 20,000 additional troops would not make a difference. The U.S. presence provoked violence, rather than diminishing it. The more the U.S. did, the less the Iraqis would step up to do. Iraq was in the middle of a civil war, and it was insanity to put American troops in the middle of it.

When President Bush consulted his own generals, the story was much the same. Almost every top general, inCondoleezza Ricecluding Abizaid, Schoomaker and Casey, were against the surge. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was against it, according to recent reports. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki called for a smaller U.S. presence, not a bigger one.

In these circumstances, it’s amazing that George Bush decided on the surge. And looking back, one thing is clear: Every personal trait that led Bush to make a hash of the first years of the war led him to make a successful decision when it came to this crucial call.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/opinion/24brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Pretty remarkable coming from Brooks.

[Faithfulee]

NJ,

Even David Brooks posted this column today:


The Bush Paradox


By DAVID BROOKS
Published: June 24, 2008

Let’s go back and consider how the world looked in the winter of 2006-2007. Iraq was in free fall, with horrific massacres and ethnic cleansing that sent a steady stream of bad news across the world media. The American public delivered a stunning electoral judgment against the Iraq war, the Republican Party and President Bush.

Expert and elite opinion swung behind the Baker-Hamilton report, which called for handing more of the problems off to the Iraqi military and wooing Iran and Syria. Republicans on Capitol Hill were quietly contemptuous of the president while Democrats were loudly so.

Democratic leaders like Senator Harry Reid considered the war lost. Barack Obama called for a U.S. withdrawal starting in the spring of 2007
, while Senator Reid offered legislation calling for a complete U.S. pullback by March 2008.

The arguments floating around the op-ed pages and seminar rooms were overwhelmingly against the idea of a surge — a mere 20,000 additional troops would not make a difference. The U.S. presence provoked violence, rather than diminishing it. The more the U.S. did, the less the Iraqis would step up to do. Iraq was in the middle of a civil war, and it was insanity to put American troops in the middle of it.

When President Bush consulted his own generals, the story was much the same. Almost every top general, inCondoleezza Ricecluding Abizaid, Schoomaker and Casey, were against the surge. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was against it, according to recent reports. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki called for a smaller U.S. presence, not a bigger one.

In these circumstances, it’s amazing that George Bush decided on the surge. And looking back, one thing is clear: Every personal trait that led Bush to make a hash of the first years of the war led him to make a successful decision when it came to this crucial call.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/opinion/24brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Pretty remarkable coming from Brooks.

It is worth reading (for a change) and repeating. 

McCain will win in November if we make the "victory" in Iraq the issue.  Obama is an Obamanation but sadly the dims are willing to reject our incredible success, the leadership of President Bush, and they obviously are enamoured by the empty rhetoric of the messiah.

[Faithfulee]

We have all the signs of an astonishing victory in Iraq, thanks to President Bush and the US Military under his command.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121617045543756423.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

All of the most important objectives of the surge have been accomplished in Iraq. The sectarian civil war is ended; al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has been dealt a devastating blow; and the Sadrist militia and other Iranian-backed militant groups have been disrupted.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government has accomplished almost all of the legislative benchmarks set by the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration. More important, it is gaining wider legitimacy among the population. The attention of Iraqis across the country is focused on the upcoming provincial elections, which will be a pivotal moment in Iraq's development
There has veen virtually no sectarian killing recorded in the past 10 weeks and Sunnis are rurning in Sunnis and Shia turning in Shia.

This has all the earmarks of a Victory that America can be proud of.

But we have the junior Senator and presidential Candidate who wants to turn victory into defeat by removing troops to quickly and giving AQI , aided by Iran, the opportunity to reemerge and threaten Iraq Stability.

Also of note is the fact that Iraq oil is set to flow in quantities that will lower American Fuel prices.  We need a stable Iraq for this to happen.

I say use the fruits of this Victory to prevent us from becoming an Obamanation.

[Faithfulee]

What a difference the surge has made in the past year.

The defeat that the dims were licking their chops in anticipation over has turned into a Victory.

President Bush and the leaders of Iraq have agreed to conditions where the Coalition forces can leave and when Iraq can arrange for its own security.  That has been my definitio of victory for years.

Sadly, only Barack Obama is stll calling for surrender.  I hope he doesnt' change his message.  McCain will properly call Iraq a Victory and Americans will realize what real leadership is about, and return Republicans to the Executive branch of the USA.