Victory? Please define

[Sandman]

Originally posted by PLATO
If the result is a viable, stable Iraq, then what is the problem of taking the 5 years or so that it will take to get things right? We have already been there for nearly 5 already.

There's no reason to assume that the US has the ability to get things right. Probably a fresh batch of mistakes will be made.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by PLATO
The real problem in Iraq is the artificial timeline that the libs keep insisting on. The solutions to that country's problems will take time and are worthwhile. To leave in the middle will create disaster and is simply irresponsible.

That's the "real" problem? LOL!

If the Dems finally get a timeline approved and actually implement it and the country ends up in chaos THEN it becomes the "real" problem. As it stands there's no timeline right now so quit throwing the blame on the disaster on the other side of the spectrum when so far the war is being run the way Bush and co. want it.

Btw, a lot of conservatives are sick of the war too. You should make note of that before branding everyone who is in favor of a timeline a "lib".

[Ramo]

I am really amazed at your lack of understanding. The inability of the US forces to raise a force capable of providing enough stability for the goverment to function is the reason for the surge.

I'm amazed by your lack of reading comprehension. That's exactly the point that you missed. Iraq is not going to get a viable army until the pols work out their disagreements. That's what the Bush Admin finally realized back in January. That's why Petraeus switched our role from training Iraqi forces to "step up so we can step down" to protecting civilian populations.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo
No, he claimed that the major stumbling block was to create a viable army. The lack of a viable army follows from the lack of political compromise. In other words, we're not going to get a viable army before the Iraqi political factions work out a compromise.

No, what he said was that a creating a viable army was due to the inability to craft a political compromise due to the instability. This is in addition to the problems withthe recruits once they actually do sign up. It has taken quite a bit of effort to build the core professional force that they have now (and it is certainly still much to small). The surge is beginning to provide an environment where some political stability can form...and from that we are seeing increases in Iraqi participation in the armed forces...as well as quality increases.

Once again, the major problem on both the political and military fronts is the artificial timelines for withdrawal. If I was an Iraqi politician, I would certainly be thinking about what will happen if the US pulls out early. How could I make a tough decision in that environment? If I were an Iraqi civilian, am I going to sign up for the US backed military when they may just vanish in a few months?

It is time to admit two things. 1.) A worthwhile solution in Iraq will take time and it is in our interest to have one, and 2.) the political bickering and posturing by the liberals is now part of the Iraq problem and in and of itself makes a positive solution much more difficult.

[Ramo]

The real problem in Iraq is the artificial timeline that the libs keep insisting on.

And the April deadline is not artificial. Our army simply can't sustain the surge past then.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo

I am really amazed at your lack of understanding. The inability of the US forces to raise a force capable of providing enough stability for the goverment to function is the reason for the surge.

I'm amazed by your lack of reading comprehension. That's exactly the point that you missed. Iraq is not going to get a viable army until the pols work out their disagreements. That's what the Bush Admin finally realized back in January. That's why Petraeus switched our role from training Iraqi forces to "step up so we can step down" to protecting civilian populations.

Hello! We are still very havily involved in training Iraqi forces as is NATO.

Once again...this is a "next step" in the same policy...not a "new policy" The goal is still exactly the same and the longterm policy has not changed. Granted that this "next step" should not have taken the idiots running this war this long to figure out, but nonetheless...

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Patroklos
The point of the surge is to establish security from which all else will follow, which is exactly what PLATO said.

We didn't have parliamentary lockins and hope security would follow.

And considering security is politically motivated it might very well help to make the necessary compromises and concessions before expecting the attacks to decrease. You've had 4 years and a carte blanche to bring security to the country and you've failed: maybe it's time to bite your tongue and start considering the fact that until there's no political solution (both between the Iraqis themselves as well as with their neighbors, mainly Iran) then solving the security issue will be much much harder.

(Of course you can always bring more air power... yeehaw!)

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo

The real problem in Iraq is the artificial timeline that the libs keep insisting on.

And the April deadline is not artificial. Our army simply can't sustain the surge past then.

Indeed...given the current make up of forces. Clearly the Defense department should have asked Congress to authorize an additional division or two in 2003.

My thoughts were that you were talking of a general redeployment and not just a redeployment from the increased troop levels. Certainly the two are different and I agree that the surge level would be difficult to maintain without massive stop loss orders. However, the Iraqi force is improving at far more than a linear rate. Hopefully they will be able to step into pacified areas and retain control.

[Ramo]

No, what he said was that a creating a viable army was due to the inability to craft a political compromise due to the instability.

What you said is this:
"The major stumbling block is not the insurgency...not the relationship with the Sunni...not the fact that the Iraqis elected themselves a real crappy government. It is simply the difficulty of being able to create a force that can accomplish the objective."

This is completely and utterly wrong. I understand why you're trying to backtrack from that, because it's such a ridiculous statement.

I should add that violence was markedly lower for the first three years of the occupation (i.e. before the al-Askariya mosque bombing) than it is right now. Things didn't get any better. The major stumbling block is and always has been that the pols need to work out a compromise.

[Ramo]

Hello! We are still very havily involved in training Iraqi forces as is NATO.

Hello! I was talking about the emphasis of our policy. And it's on getting a political compromise, not training a viable army. That emphasis, as I apparantly have to keep saying, switched several months ago.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo

No, what he said was that a creating a viable army was due to the inability to craft a political compromise due to the instability.

What you said is this:
"The major stumbling block is not the insurgency...not the relationship with the Sunni...not the fact that the Iraqis elected themselves a real crappy government. It is simply the difficulty of being able to create a force that can accomplish the objective."

This is completely and utterly wrong. I understand why you're trying to backtrack from that, because it's such a ridiculous statement.

I should add that violence was markedly lower for the first three years of the occupation (i.e. before the al-Askariya mosque bombing) than it is right now. Things didn't get any better. The major stumbling block is and always has been that the pols need to work out a compromise.

My statement is absolutely true and correct. I back track from it not in the least. What is ridiculous and why I have tried to expand the single sentence is that you obviously chose not to read the context of what I have been saying.

Certainly violence accelerated after foriegn influences begin to try and cause sectarian strife. However, it can hardly be said that the security environment existed for the free and unfettered working of the government.

[Patroklos]

No, he claimed that the major stumbling block was to create a viable army. The lack of a viable army follows from the lack of political compromise.

Why do you think this when reality on the ground is showing it to not be so?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo

Hello! We are still very havily involved in training Iraqi forces as is NATO.

Hello! I was talking about the emphasis of our policy. And it's on getting a political compromise, not training a viable army. That emphasis, as I apparantly have to keep saying, switched several months ago.

Wrong again! Just as you were the first time!

The training of the Iraq army remains one of the principle functions of US policy in Iraq. The surge is an addition not a replacement

But I do appreciate the vigor you are pushing your incorrect facts with.

[Ramo]

Why do you think this when reality on the ground is showing it to not be so?

I'm not convinced that there is a viable Iraq army, opinion pieces from war supporters aside..

Wrong again! Just as you were the first time!

The training of the Iraq army remains one of the principle functions of US policy in Iraq. The surge is an addition not a replacement

But I do appreciate the vigor you are pushing your incorrect facts with.

Protecting civilian populations is THE principal function of the US army in Iraq. Saying otherwise denies all connection to reality. Training the Iraqi army is a clear secondary function.

Edit: Go ahead and read what Petraeus, Kagan and Keane, Bush, etc. were saying back in January. Republicans are only now emphasizing the military because the dashing of hopes for Iraqi political compromise, and therefore the entire logic behind the strategy.

My statement is absolutely true and correct. I back track from it not in the least. What is ridiculous and why I have tried to expand the single sentence is that you obviously chose not to read the context of what I have been saying.

But let's analyze your ridiculous statement for meaning:

The major stumbling block is not the insurgency...not the relationship with the Sunni...not the fact that the Iraqis elected themselves a real crappy government. It is simply the difficulty of being able to create a force that can accomplish the objective.

Let's recap. Insurgent violence, a major cause of sectarian animosities, isn't the primary stumbling black. Nor is sectarian animosity. Nor are those sectarian animosities manifested in a government unwilling to compromise and reinforcing these sectarian animosities. So what is the stumbling block? A viable Army!



Utterly, utterly ridiculous. A totally backwards understanding of the situation in Iraq.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by PLATO
The real problem in Iraq is the artificial timeline that the libs keep insisting on.

I think teh real problem is that hundreds of people are being killed every month