Victory i Iraq

[Faithfulee]

You do realize that mortars are still being lobbed into the Green Zone from Sadr City and killling US roops?


And that the US is building a wall in Sadr City to divide it in half and cut people off from each other?

al Sadre agreed to giving up weapons like morters and that is a big step forward.  I haven't heard of any recent mortar attacks.

I am aware of the wall, but so what??

Just a point that if democracy does succeed to get established in Iraq, don't expect it to be pro-western or pro-American.  The Shi'i form the majority, and they are a group that is not likely to become buddy-buddy with us if previous history tells us anything.

I don't anticipate that it will be Pro American,  but it will be better than sad man and better than a Islamic dictatorship. 

Most important is the fact that the government can defend itself against radical Islamists.  That is the big problem and the reason for all the violence today.  Various sects are violently seeking political control of the Country. 

[WorldWarrior]

FFLee says--

"I am aware of the wall, but so what??"

People cut off from family members.

Can't get to their jobs.

Having trouble getting water and food.


That's what the Sadr City wall being built by Americans is doing.

Is any of that a problem for you?

[Faithfulee]

If it is a problem it is for the Iraq People to resolve.

Is the shelling of innocent Iraqis that comes from Sadre City a problem for you?  If so, what do you recommend we do??

And please note that President McCain says OBL will be dead by the end of his term and the Iraq War won.  I see this happening before this if we stick to our guns.

[metis]

I don't anticipate that it will be Pro American,  but it will be better than sad man and better than a Islamic dictatorship. 

Most important is the fact that the government can defend itself against radical Islamists.  That is the big problem and the reason for all the violence today.  Various sects are violently seeking political control of the Country. 

It very well may end up operating under sharia if the Shi'i continue to dominate, which they probably will.  They were a highly repressed majority that now has an axe to grind against the Sunnis and their closest affiliation is towards Iran, although I do not expect a complete merger with Iran.  And once they attain power, do not expect any kind of democracy that even gets close to what we have in the west.  We probably will see something similar to the "democracy" that we now see in Iran in the long run.  

Part of the problem is that the longer we stay there, the more we appear as an occupation force in an area that was highly subjected to that for almost two centuries, and it was very painful for them.  According to a BBC poll taken last year, over 2/3 of the people in Iraq now view us as such.  However, I do take that stat with a grain of salt since much of that simply may reflect the frustration of a very slow recovery.  

Therefore, the situation we're in is a choice between various terrible decisions we have to make.  We need to get out as soon as possible without leaving a power vacuum, but how do we do that?  Again, the eventual "solution" is not a military victory, and pretty much everyone is aware of that.  It's going to be diplomatic and it's going to be resolved mostly by the people who are directly affected by this conflict, namely the people who live there.  We simply do not have the ability to impose a solution that'll work in the long run.    

[metis]

And please note that President McCain says OBL will be dead by the end of his term and the Iraq War won.  I see this happening before this if we stick to our guns.

Where have we heard this before? 

BTW, killing binLaden, although it might be satisfying for us from an emotional point of view, wouldn't likely change much of anything.  Al Queda is no longer a centralized organization and, if anything, he would be considered a martyr. 

[Faithfulee]

I don't anticipate that it will be Pro American,  but it will be better than sad man and better than a Islamic dictatorship. 

Most important is the fact that the government can defend itself against radical Islamists.  That is the big problem and the reason for all the violence today.  Various sects are violently seeking political control of the Country. 

It very well may end up operating under sharia if the Shi'i continue to dominate, which they probably will.  They were a highly repressed majority that now has an axe to grind against the Sunnis and their closest affiliation is towards Iran, although I do not expect a complete merger with Iran.  And once they attain power, do not expect any kind of democracy that even gets close to what we have in the west.  We probably will see something similar to the "democracy" that we now see in Iran in the long run.  

Part of the problem is that the longer we stay there, the more we appear as an occupation force in an area that was highly subjected to that for almost two centuries, and it was very painful for them.  According to a BBC poll taken last year, over 2/3 of the people in Iraq now view us as such.  However, I do take that stat with a grain of salt since much of that simply may reflect the frustration of a very slow recovery.  

Therefore, the situation we're in is a choice between various terrible decisions we have to make.  We need to get out as soon as possible without leaving a power vacuum, but how do we do that?  Again, the eventual "solution" is not a military victory, and pretty much everyone is aware of that.  It's going to be diplomatic and it's going to be resolved mostly by the people who are directly affected by this conflict, namely the people who live there.  We simply do not have the ability to impose a solution that'll work in the long run.    

I appreciate your comments and thank you for the contribution.

You hit the nail on the head with the dillema.  It will not be a military victory, but our military are now and for the longer term will be helpful in supporting the government in it's need to maintain security and protect the citizens from the radical Islamic forces that oppose democracy and want Sharia law. 

I am much more hopeful than you are because I believe in Democracy and I have some hope that radcal Islam will one day be defeated (It will be quite some time), especially in their killing of Muslims.  In invite you to join  that discussion in my topic "Christianity vs Islam"

And please note that President McCain says OBL will be dead by the end of his term and the Iraq War won.  I see this happening before this if we stick to our guns.

Where have we heard this before? 

BTW, killing binLaden, although it might be satisfying for us from an emotional point of view, wouldn't likely change much of anything.  Al Queda is no longer a centralized organization and, if anything, he would be considered a martyr. 

He is already considered a martyr, and is directing the war from his hideout in Pakistan.  I am more optomistic that events are moving away from Islamic Terror, but the war will continue.  I think that the events in Pakistan are hopeful from my point of view.

A Victory in Iraq will set the stage for other countries to deal with the Islamists.  Remember their goal is to destroy democracy and install Sharia law world wide. 

[WorldWarrior]

FFLee says--

"I am much more hopeful than you are because I believe in Democracy and I have some hope that radcal Islam will one day be defeated (It will be quite some time), especially in their killing of Muslims."


What does this have to do with Iraq?

Do you not realize that the Iraqis are fighting a Civil War under conditions created by the US' invading their country and destroying their infreastructure and government?

It has nothing to do with "radical Islam" and everything to do with getting foreign invaders--the US--out of their country.

[metis]

Faithfulee, thanks for the kind words and the invite.  I may be able to get to the other thread early next week because there's simply too much going on this week.  Hope to see you there Monday or so.  Back to Iraq.

As much as I am concerned about Iraq, I think there well may be even a greater problem in Afghanistan/Pakistan.  We no longer can rely on Pakistan's help (as little as it was before), and the more militant groups there, including the Taliban, are making a resurgence.  Even though they will not be strong enough to defeat our troops there, they'll undoubtedly conduct a war of attrition as they have been. 

Where the greater danger lies is with the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons along with a very sizable militant population.  If this latter group(s) is/are able to eventually take over in Pakistan, the scenario becomes nightmarish.  India would probably be the country most threatened immediately, and it could be conceivable that a radicalized Pakistan might be tempted to launch a nuclear first strike if the conditions got gnarly between India and Pakistan.  They well know that they cannot take India on head to head, but if they can get a first lick in, that could change the picture.

As bazaar as that sounds to us, since much of Pakistan would probably be destroyed, we have to remember that these radical elements really don't look at death the same as we do in the west.  For many, martyrdom is simply a grand graduation. 

[Faithfulee]

Metis

That was a very thoughtful post (again) and I share your concerns.

We should discuss this on another topic inasmuch as it should be of great concern to all freedom loving people.

It is related to the war In Iraq inasmuch as we are fighting a world wide "JIhad against Western Civilization"  In all cases the Islamic radicals want to destroy democracy and install Sharia law world wide. 

The best way for the civilized world to combat that is to start in Iraq.  See that a stable democracy is formed and one that can protect itself from Islamic extremeists.

[Faithfulee]

There is lots of Good News from Iraq these days.

The trend is to believe that we can achieve Victory in Iraq
Defined as Victory is leaving Iraq with a Democratic Government that can maintain its own security against Islamic terrorists.

It will also be a campaign issue, this fall and will result in President McCain who WILL achieve a Victory  in Iraq and bring our troops home with pride in their efforts in bringing it about.

In an exclusive Newsmax interview, Koch says McCain “has no equal” when it comes to opposing Islamic terrorism. Though Koch says he disagrees with most of McCain’s positions on domestic issues, he could support him because of his strong national security credentials.

ON the other hand we have Obama, the empty suit, who is promoting surrender.

[metis]

ON the other hand we have Obama, the empty suit, who is promoting surrender.

That's simply not true, and I'll leave it at that.

[Faithfulee]

ON the other hand we have Obama, the empty suit, who is promoting surrender.

That's simply not true, and I'll leave it at that.

The alternate to Victory is Surrender

McCain will make the US victorious in Iraq.

What does Oboma promise??

[metis]

What does Oboma promise??

First of all, there will be no military victories in Iraq-- only diplomatic ones.  Secondly, Obama has said that it's time for the Iraqis to pick up the slack so we can gradually get our troops out.  And the process will be gradual no matter who becomes President next January.  Instead of remaining bogged down in Iraq, it's very important to move more troops into Afghanistan, and we can only feasibly do so by removing some of our forces from Iraq. 

 

[Faithfulee]

What does Oboma promise??

First of all, there will be no military victories in Iraq-- only diplomatic ones.  Secondly, Obama has said that it's time for the Iraqis to pick up the slack so we can gradually get our troops out.  And the process will be gradual no matter who becomes President next January.  Instead of remaining bogged down in Iraq, it's very important to move more troops into Afghanistan, and we can only feasibly do so by removing some of our forces from Iraq. 
 

Victory is defined as leaving a democratic Iraq that can defend itself against Islamic Terrorists.

We have made enormous progresse toward that end since "the surge".  The difference is that Obama would not promote a victory.  His commitment is to get the troops out, not Win.  McCain sees the need to win the war so that the Islamic terrorists don't return and start things all over again.  If Obama is President he wont take troops out dependent on Victory but on thecalander.  That leaves the terroists to stop fighting, thereby making Obama a hero. . . . . . until the troops are out. Then the reinvasion occurs, decimating the government forces and we are worse off than now.  And the Iraq people will be much worse off, of course..

[metis]

Victory is defined as leaving a democratic Iraq that can defend itself against Islamic Terrorists.
We have made enormous progresse toward that end since "the surge". 

Even if a democratic Iraq were to emerge, it's not likely to be a government that we'll be proud of.  The Shi'i have twice the population in Iraq than the Sunnis, and they're the ones holding the power.  Is it likely these Shi'i are going to be pro-American in the long run?  Maybe when kosher pigs fly.

Secondly, the "surge" actually is not what has been more effective in reducing hostilities there.  What occurred a bit less than two years ago set certain wheels in motion that have had a much greater effect than the surge.

First of all, al Queda in Iraq made a strategic blunder (see, we're not the only ones who can make mistakes) when they began killing fellow Sunnis in the "Sunni Triangle" area.  Supposedly binLaden was very upset with what they were doing, sent a note to try and stop it, but didn't succeed.  Essentially what happened was that al Queda was biting the hand that feeds it.

Petraeus wisely sensed an opportunity, and he essentially told the militias there that if they stopped killing American soldiers and Iraqi civilians that he would allow them to police their own areas.  It was a brilliant move, but it unfortunately has drawbacks.

These militias are still armed to the teeth (much of hidden-- btw, ever wonder why there isn't that much money that our administration anticipated was from the Iraqi oil that was going to supposedly help rebuild the country?).  So what we now see are two, well armed groups that hate each other-- Shi'i who now control the government and have tremendous access to oil revenue and Sunni militias who are very well armed.  What's the long term prognosis?

Without significant assistance from other Middle Eastern states, our work is really cut out for us.  We will not-- again, will not-- be able to sustain 120,000 troops or more for four+ years to keep the lid on.  It would hurt our country so bad that binLaden would be rolling on the floor of his cave laughing his butt off.  We need help from the countries there and, if not, the quagmire we're in now will simply not improve in all likelihood.   

[WorldWarrior]

FFLEe says--

"We have made enormous progresse toward that end since "the surge".



Did you know that 42,000 MORE US Trops are being deployed to Iraq?

If the surge was so "successful" what are all those extra Troops needed for?

[Faithfulee]

Metis

That is a good evaluation of the situation but you don’t give US and Iraq credit for the progress we have been making with the surge. 

Iraq troops seem to be in control of most of Iraq, but for Sadre city area.  Even there al Sadr  and his troops are in decline.

We will not have 120,000 troops in Iraq for the long term.  They are starting to return now and the withdrawal will continue consistent with the success of  the Iraq Gov and Army to maintain the peace from the Islamic Terrorists, and of course the Government to remain democratic and garner the support of the people.

The Kurdish situation offers hope that ther Iraq people know what is going on even better than  us Americans.  They must maintain their own country without the help of others.  Iran is actively trying to take down the government, and could never be counted on to Help..

Right now things are going pretty much the way I have said and we should support or troops and our government and leave Iraq Victorious.

WW

Our troop levels are declining according to my information.

[WorldWarrior]

"Our troop levels are declining according to my information"



Your info is wrong.

[Faithfulee]

"Our troop levels are declining according to my information"



Your info is wrong.

Is General Pretreus wrong in the following testimony before congress??

He declined to specify the size of a withdrawal he would consider but hinted it would be at most one combat brigade, or 3,000 to 5,000 troops. Backed by President Bush, Gen. Petraeus said earlier this year that troop drawdowns should come to a halt this summer, although he left open the door to re-evaluate that position, which he now appears to be doing.

There will be about 135,000 U.S. forces in Iraq when the last of the 30,000 "surge" troops return home this summer. A withdrawal along the lines Gen. Petraeus signaled would bring the overall U.S. military presence down to roughly its level in each of the previous years of the war.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121146412731714081.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news

The process of withdrawal continues.

Another important signal is that the US will NOT add troops to help the Iraqis during this falls election in Iraq.

[WorldWarrior]

Yes he is wrong.

Petraeus told Congress yesterday that he *knows* what he'll be able to say about Troop withdrawal in September.


What does that mean?

That he has a crystal ball?


Or that this is all just a plan to make the Bush admin--and therefore the Republican nominee--look "good" just before the election?