The "surge" is a success?

[Wezil]

from the 2nd thread:

Mad Viking -

I don't think the "war" went much different than expected. I thought it would be a little faster, but with slightly higher casualties. The coalition slowed down a bit, did some extra recon, and reduced the casualties.

However, enjoy your celebration, because it won't get any better than this.

Obviously the people who aren't thrilled are not going to be out in the street protesting. So you only see the ones who are happy. You can be sure that many remain who are p!ssed.

The BEST CASE scenario for the future:
1. Thousands of militant guerillas engage in hit and run tactics against occupying forces.
(How many of the Iraqi RG etc remain at large?)

2. Competing and incompatible political interests in Iraq prove unable to effecting govern the country. The coalition inserts leadership that lacks widespread support. (like in Afganistan). Without strong central control backed by force, warlords and strongmen locally vie for power. Skirmishes and bombings are commonplace. Coalition and/or UN peacekeepers maintain the semblance of control, which deteriorates as the numbers of foreign troops are reduced over the following months.

3. Eventually, a competent, ruthless military leader, manages to establish control over the country, using whatever means necessary to repress incompatible competing interests.

4. The US announces that the previous regime was corrupt and establishes diplomatic relations with the new leader.

5. This leader, call him Hassam Suddein, calls an election. Widespread reports of fraud do not impede him from declaring a decisive victory. The US seems uninterested in the electoral irregularities in Iraq.

5. Over the years, he grows more powerful and becomes increasingly independent of the US. Eventually, the American military intervenes to protect their interests. The US announces that Iraq is once again a member of the Axis of Evil.

Bullseye.

[Kidlicious]

I miss Mad Viking

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Wezil
Bullseye.

Except for like, er, the second half.

[Wezil]

Wait for it.

[Lorizael]

I won't deny the possibility. But I wouldn't be surprised by anything that happened in Iraq now. We shall see.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Wezil
from the 2nd thread:

Mad Viking -

Bullseye.

Totally!

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Arrian
Another good one:

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83062

Ah, the triumphalism!

-Arrian

Should be available in about 1 hour...6MB, takes a while to upload on a modem

Boy, my life sucked in 2003.

[GePap]

Ah, the memories.

What gets me is that right before the war, after Bush's ultimatum speech, I started this thread in which my first post was a condensation of all my thoughs pre-war - but no one replied, so if wasn't saved in the OT archives....

At least my spelling has improved.


What I find obnoxious is that a year or so ago there was the mini controversy about seeking to give militants who had fought the US amnesty, and all these politicians from all parts of the government left and right threw hissy fits about giving amnesty to guys with "American blood on their hands." Now we are arming the same guys in Anbar to go after AQ, and it is a great success. Do people even remember what has happened in iraq a month before?!?

[Dr Strangelove]

There have been temporary dips in the casualty rate before. That doesn't necessarily mean the enemy has been worn down. Since they don't have a central command and since each bombing requires a degree of preparation which given the nature of the guerilla forces involved means a period of time between attacks, it is reasonable to assume that there will be a fair amount of random variation in the monthly attack rate.

It would be sweet if we could convince the Sunnis and Shiites to lay off of each other for a month or more inorder to give them time to notice that the al_Qaeda maniacs are equal opportunity butchers. Even if they both realised that it was time to wipe the floor with al-Qaeda that doesn't guarentee that afterwards they wouldn't go back to hammering each other.

[Ramo]

For Ramo:

quote:
Rep. Nancy Boyda, a Kansas Democrat, recently found reports of progress unendurable. She left a hearing of the Armed Services Committee because retired Gen. Jack Keane was saying things Boyda thinks might "further divide this country," such as that Iraq's "schools are open. The markets are teeming with people." Boyda explained: "There is only so much you can take until we in fact had to leave the room for a while . . . after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7082202402.html

Ah, almost missed this gem from Dino. I really like it how George Will (who isn't the least bit partisan, of course) puts sentence fragments that are clearly out of context, and tries to make a coherent story out of it. This is almost as sad and pathetic as your Clyburn smear...

Her full statement BTW:

“But let me just first say that the description of Iraq as if some way or another that it’s a place that I might take the family for a vacation, things are going so well, those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country instead of saying here’s the reality of the problem and people, we have to come together and deal with the reality of this issue.”

Will takes a sentence fragment out of this passage:

General Jack Keane: Well I think it’s going better than we had expected, particularly as it pertains to the security operation. […] Because all the schools are open. The markets are teaming with people. Some operating at full capacity; some not quite there because of the level of violence in their neighborhood and some of the construction that was being done, but nonetheless a steady improvement. Government services are being administrated in the neighborhoods and again some of that is uneven because of the nature of the government of itself, but nonetheless there is an attempt to provide essential services to the population where in ‘06 there were none.

And so those atmospherics are real, and I have spoken to hundreds of Iraqis in those neighborhoods and almost to a person they believe the security situation is improving. They want Americans to stay with the Iraqis to help protect them, and in the neighborhoods where the violence took place in ‘06. They almost tremble at the thought of that ‘06 violence. You can hear it in their voices when they talk about what that meant to them and their children.

http://www.onublog.com/post-25853

n.b. According to the AP, civilian deaths during the past 2/3 of the year are already 1000 more than the entirety of '06. The death rate for July of this year is nearly double that for July of last year. The NIE shows key infrastructure metrics down from June/July of last year (electricity down 4%, diesel down 22%, gas down 24%, etc.). Leaving aside that Will dishonestly portrayed Boyda's comments, Boyda was dead on in substance.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20440397/

[Arrian]

Mad Viking certainly was spot on with his first two predictions.

3-5 are obviously still speculative at this point, but are plausible.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

Ramo, I am not exactly sure why you bolded those portions of your last quotes, as they are rather damning to your position in this thread.

And Dino's quote of Boyoda was spot on, the full quote is even more damne. "Please, don't describe what you actually saw or feel, as that might mislead the public about how things actually are." Excuse me Ramo, are you actually going to defend that?

[Ramo]

I bolded those portions because they were wrong.

The point Boyda was making, and the point I am making, is that Keane was dead wrong. In both of the metrics he was talking about - civilian casualties and infrastructure, Keane was misleading the Congress. In civilian casualties, in particular.

The George Will quote is a dishonest smear. Boyda was not saying anything of the sort, but "don't mislead us."

[Patroklos]

The George Will quote is a dishonest smear. Boyda was not saying anything of the sort, but "don't mislead us."

That’s not what she was saying. I find it odd, you knowing what complete retards all of our legislators are, you refuse to acknowledge the idiocies of half of them because you are loosely affiliated with their party.

She didn't want to listen because they were telling her what she knew must not be the truth. Anything not exactly what she expected to hear must be a lie. Defend her if you want, that is exactly what she said.

Where did Keane lie?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
This is almost as sad and pathetic as your Clyburn smear...

Well I do have to admit to still being interested as to how there would be a real great problem for thier to be reports of progress from Iraq as Clyburn opined if his objective was as you suggest to see progress in Iraq rather than what seems plainly obvious even by your quote of him. That of a desire to shut it down and fears that such reports would derail his efforts.