The "surge" is a success?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
I don't get why you even try Ramo. You could burry PLATO and Pati in a mountain of papers written by every expert in the middle east, and they would demand that you brought them God to tell them before, maybe, they would reconsider their positions, which have led to mistaken assumptions about Iraq form the beginning.

So what is the point anymore? It doesn;t matter how many times you tell them what is accurate, since it does not fit into their world view, they will never see it. Its a common liberal assumption that people can be educate upwards, that knowledge is what solves ignorance. But most ignorance is self-imposed. PLATO and Pati have no whish to end their self-imposed one when it comes to Iraq.

Hey Gepap! Good to see ya! I acknowledge your mastery on self-imposed ignorance. Carry on!

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo
I don't know GePap. I though Dan actually wanted a real argument, but of course he never does. But I am glad to get wonderful insights like the idea that George Soros is unfairly trying to make Muqtada al-Sadr look like a thug. I guess it's because Sadr is Republican...

"Seriously, if you're going to post something, it should be, you know, not retarded."

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO


Hey Gepap! Good to see ya! I acknowledge your mastery on self-imposed ignorance. Carry on!

You are a nice guy PLATO, but when it comes to Iraq, there is no point anymore.

[Ramo]

Okay...first of all I never argued about who is running Basra. My argument has been that for the last six to eight months that there has been extensive vetting of people coming into the Iraqi armed forces...particularly the officer corp. The only thing I say in any of your articles is a mention of sectarian problems in the police force. Two different organiztions.

That's false. The Independent article mentioned the army. My articles on the Kurds were talking about the Army. As an added bonus, here's the center-right Times of London:

Shia militias, such as al-Mahdi Army, have infiltrated the police and army, effectively controlling parts of Basra where the British no longer have a presence. Oil smuggling and political corruption are widespread, while the locals believe that basic services remain poor at best.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2195711.ece

And I kept emphasizing that the police is more infiltrated by the militias than the army. I think I made that qualifier in virtually every post about it in this thread.

Secondl, every article you have quoted is from a liberal to very liberal source. Yet you claim to be well read and get your information from many sources. It does you no good if they are all liberal. Perhaps this is, in and of itself, good evidence that their might just be some disagreement on the pure gloom picture you paint about all aspects of Iraq.

The BBC is one of the strongest sources on Iraq. Better than virtually everything else. Particularly in a place like Basra. It's pretty much the definition of reputability.

And I read a wide variety of sources (true, more left wing than right), but to make a quick point I link to the first reputable source on google news.

Thirdly, if you don't recognize an agenda by people like Soros when he has made no secret of it, then I am afraid that any amount of evidence would do little to change your entrenched opinion. And, I dare say, that your opinion is entrenched.

As is yours... And everyone has a point of view. Soros has worked on democracy development for a while and he has something to add to the conversation.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


You are a nice guy PLATO, but when it comes to Iraq, there is no point anymore.

Thanks GePap. I feel exactly the same way about you...in all respects.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo

Okay...first of all I never argued about who is running Basra. My argument has been that for the last six to eight months that there has been extensive vetting of people coming into the Iraqi armed forces...particularly the officer corp. The only thing I say in any of your articles is a mention of sectarian problems in the police force. Two different organiztions.

That's false. The Independent article mentioned the army. My articles on the Kurds were talking about the Army. As an added bonus, here's the center-right Times of London:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2195711.ece

Secondl, every article you have quoted is from a liberal to very liberal source. Yet you claim to be well read and get your information from many sources. It does you no good if they are all liberal. Perhaps this is, in and of itself, good evidence that their might just be some disagreement on the pure gloom picture you paint about all aspects of Iraq.

The BBC is one of the strongest sources on Iraq. Better than virtually everything else. Particularly in a place like Basra. I read a wide variety of sources (true, more left wing than right), but to make a quick point I link to the first reputable source on google news.

Thirdly, if you don't recognize an agenda by people like Soros when he has made no secret of it, then I am afraid that any amount of evidence would do little to change your entrenched opinion. And, I dare say, that your opinion is entrenched.

As is yours... And everyone has a point of view. Soros has worked on democracy development for a while and he has something to add to the conversation.

On the first part...I stand corrected. I had only skimmed your article and not fully read it. It does indeed reference the army as well. However(you knew there had to be a "however", didn't you? ), I think you are missing what I am saying. There have certainly been infiltration problems and many of those units and officers remain. The newer units are being severly vetted now. Even the Times article you quoted also had this to say:

British officers are quick to emphasise that the Shia-dominated south lacks the internecine tensions found in central Iraq. About 90 per cent of the violence is directed against British forces, they say, while the rest is a mixture of mafia-style gangsterism and “ordinary decent crime”. Their belief is that once Britain is removed from the equation, rival Shia militias, tribes and political parties are expected to settle down together after a brief power struggle.

Which would seem to indicate that the militia problem in Basra is not as bad as some of the other sources you cite would indicate.

As to the BBC. I certainly agree that the BBC is a very strong source on Iraq. I read it daily on my Blackberry (Great World Wide coverage for that matter). It is also without a doubt a left leaning source.

WRT Soros. Soros addition to the agenda is to further his own agenda. I dare say that he has no interest, at this point, in a stable Iraq emerging from any administration efforts.

Finally, I do not believe my opinion is entrenched beyond reason. I had very high hope for a very different Iraq when we invaded than has emerged. It is my belief that we had a real opportunity to accomplish some much needed good. I will be the first to say that George Bush and his team did not have a clue on how to accomplish that goal. Hopefully they are learning, and it is my belief that there is evidence that things are looking better. The internal Iraqi political problems are pretty much now the acknowledged linchpin. All I can say on that is, "Let's Hope..."

[Ramo]

However(you knew there had to be a "however", didn't you? ), I think you are missing what I am saying. There have certainly been infiltration problems and many of those units and officers remain. The newer units are being severly vetted now.

That's nice - and I seriously doubt that the vetting operation is all that rigorous, but militia infiltration is already pervasive. Particularly in the North where the Peshmerga and the Iraqi Army are functionally equivalent.

Which would seem to indicate that the militia problem in Basra is not as bad as some of the other sources you cite would indicate.

I don't see much of a difference between this and the ICG's description. Both describe mafia-style rule. It's just that the ICG's description is longer than a sentence. The point both articles make is that sectarian militias are running the show in the South around Basra, not a national army...

The only difference between the pieces is that the Times source a prediction. Military sources hope that in the future things might get better. Maybe. But it's gonna get a lot worse first. There's gonna be a civil war in the South between Sadr, Hakim, maybe someone else (like whomever runs Fadhila). And whoever wins out can enforce a peace. Probably not a liberal or democratic one, though.

As to the BBC. I certainly agree that the BBC is a very strong source on Iraq. I read it daily on my Blackberry (Great World Wide coverage for that matter). It is also without a doubt a left leaning source.

Compared to US sources (but there aren't too many foreign, western publications that aren't), but it's center, at most center-left in the UK.

Hopefully they are learning, and it is my belief that there is evidence that things are looking better. The internal Iraqi political problems are pretty much now the acknowledged linchpin.

Don't see it, not in the least. There are some irrelevant metrics wrt the army, but not much else.

[Patroklos]

The funny thing is Ramo (I guess I could direct this at Gepap though doing so is definitely beneath me) is that you are criticizing us for not changing our stance based on circumstances on the ground as you run around this thread screaming with your eyes closed and your hands over your ears.

The only thing anyone has said in this thead is progress is being made. Not success, not victory, not inevitable victory. All we say is words like "encouraging" "chance" "maybe" and "progress" and you go off your rocker like we just lit cigars and started pouring brandy.

How can you honestly maintain that more reliable police and military forces are not good?

If you read this thread there is only one person (two now that Gepap thinks he is important enough to comment) making predictions of what will happen and is going to happen in the end and that is you.

And just to show how close you are to desending into Gepap type douchebaggery, look how he claims victory already when the only thing he has ever predicted is complete failure followed by anarchy. Thats called being married to an outcome, no matter what the facts are, and you are so most definitely smarter than that.

In fact I don't think you believe that at all, but are irrationally overreacting to cautious and reserved statements by people you assume you already have pegged, much like I do to you most of the time. Mistakenly I might add.

[chequita guevara]

The troops say no.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.

[DinoDoc]

It would be helpful if you read the thread first rather than bringing up articles already discussed earlier in this thread.

[Patroklos]

Perhaps you should read the thread first

Perhaps you should qualify troops as 5.

[Ramo]

The funny thing is Ramo (I guess I could direct this at Gepap though doing so is definitely beneath me) is that you are criticizing us for not changing our stance based on circumstances on the ground as you run around this thread screaming with your eyes closed and your hands over your ears.

The only thing anyone has said in this thead is progress is being made. Not success, not victory, not inevitable victory. All we say is words like "encouraging" "chance" "maybe" and "progress" and you go off your rocker like we just lit cigars and started pouring brandy.

The very first post is about whether the surge is a success.

How can you honestly maintain that more reliable police and military forces are not good?

Obviously not. It's just orthogonal to the primary problems in the country.

If you read this thread there is only one person (two now that Gepap thinks he is important enough to comment) making predictions of what will happen and is going to happen in the end and that is you.

And just to show how close you are to desending into Gepap type bouchebaggery, look how he claims victory already when the only thing he has ever predicted is complete failure followed by anarchy. Thats called being married to an outcome, no matter what the facts are, and you are so most definitely smarter than that.

In fact I don't think you believe that at all, but are irrationally overreacting to cautious and reserved statements by people you assume you already have pegged, much like I do to you most of the time. Mistakenly I might add.

I'm not saying I have a magical ball that tells me what's going to happen. I'm talking about what I think is likely to happen. And the reason why I'm discussing this is not because this is an abstract academic debate, where we're all disinterested observers. Rather it's because I don't think we should be continuing this extremely inefficient policy with very dubious ends.

[East Street Trader]

Is there a published objective for the surge?

[Patroklos]

Step one, security. Step three, PROFIT!!!

[Shrapnel12]

I've ignored all the articles that have been posted so far. This is because the media has so manipulated our perceptions of the war, that they can't be trusted. They've turned into an anti-war propaganda machine and totally dismissed the rules of journalism. Anyone who bases there opinions solely on these biased reports is a fool.