A True Iraqi Patriot and Ally of the U.S. Martyred as the Holy Month of Ramadan Begins

Loading

By Patrick Baz, AFP/Getty Images The tribal leader greets U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, in Ramadi, in March.

From USA TODAY:

Bomb kills top Sunni ally working with U.S. in Iraq

BAGHDAD (AP) — The most prominent figure in a U.S.-backed revolt of Sunni sheiks against al-Qaeda in Iraq was killed Thursday by a bomb planted near his home in Anbar province, 10 days after he met with President Bush, police and tribal leaders said.

Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha was leader of the Anbar Salvation Council, also known as the Anbar Awakening — an alliance of clans backing the Iraqi government and U.S. forces.

The death of the charismatic young sheik dealt a blow to American efforts to recruit tribal leaders to fight the terror network.

This is definitely a huge blow. Eli Lake described Sheik Abdul Sattar Al-Rishawi as "Iraq’s Most Important Man":

As he [Rishawi] told the AP’s Todd Pittman on March 25, "I was always against these terrorists . . . They brainwashed people into thinking Americans were against them. They said foreigners wanted to occupy our land and destroy our mosques. They told us, ‘We’ll wage a jihad. We’ll help you defeat them.’"

Bill Roggio described him thus:

"Sheikh Sattar is authentic to his culture, supports the tribal system in the confines of democracy, and despises al Qaeda in Iraq," said Colonel John A. Koenig (USMC), the head of the II Marine Expeditionary Force G-5 (Governance and Economics), in a recent interview. Sheikh Sattar is also described as both a nationalist and a friend of America. "In Sattar’s office, there are two flags – one is Iraqi, the other American." Sattar, according to Col Koenig and other sources in the military and intelligence establishment, wants to build a nationalist, non secular party.

Here is Roggio’s post in wake of the murder of Sheik Abdul Sattar.

I think Steve Schippert’s article is when I first began paying attention to the name "Sheik Abdul Sattar Al-Rishawi" and when I began hearing about the Anbar Province Awakening:

The most significant local ally of Coalition and Iraqi government in Anbar province — and surely in all of Iraq — is Sheikh Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, or, more properly, Sheikh Abd al-Sattar, where “Abd” translates into “slave” or “totally subordinated” (to God, of course). Sheikh Abdul Sattar is instrumental in fighting and defeating al Qaeda; the incredibly influential Ramadi man sees al Qaeda as terrorists who seek to destroy his country and who are exploiting and murdering his people, Sunni and Shia alike. Al Qaeda wants him dead more than any other man in Iraq, and they have tried numerous times to kill him.

Sattar said recently, “The time for dictatorship is gone, and we are welcoming the new dawn of democracy and freedom here.” He is a powerful Sunni from Anbar province, and, on Iraqi national television, he has pledged his allegiance to Prime Minister al-Maliki — a Shia — and to the democratically elected Iraqi government. In an overt (and televised) gesture of his determination and solidarity with the Iraqi government, Sheikh Abdul Sattar sliced the palm of his hand with a knife and proceeded to pound the blade into the table before him.

The Implications of Sattar

Most Americans are unaware of this. Many of those who are aware fail to understand the profound significance it holds, even amid their own proclamations about the brutal sectarian violence and civil war in Iraq. Senators Reid and Schumer are almost certainly among those Americans. They seem oblivious to the importance of Sheikh Abdul Sattar’s indigenous leadership in counterterrorism.

The perceived civil war in Iraq is in many ways more a product of foreign Iranian and al Qaeda instigation than internal Iraqi hatred. Had al Qaeda not bombed the Shia al-Askari Mosque and had Iran not provided arms and funds to both sides of the ensuing sectarian killings, there is no telling where Iraq would be right now. It certainly was not in civil war then. Both Iran and al Qaeda require chaos and instability in order to achieve their aims in Iraq. Sattar’s mission is to foil their plans.

The Sheikh’s Movement

Some may think Sheikh Abdul Sattar’s graphic televised display of slicing open his palm merely the action of yet another barbaric man in a violent land. Those same would be quite surprised to learn that Sattar is currently digesting early American and other Western political writings, as well as Greek philosophy, with vigor, interest, and intelligent questions. The 35-year-old sheikh was only five when Saddam Hussein seized power. And like the rest of Iraqis, particularly those in Sunni Anbar province, he was steeped in an iron-fisted Baathist socialism dictated by a man whose political idol was Joseph Stalin. Suddenly, in various American and Western political writings, he has discovered a quite different way, perhaps foreign and unfamiliar, but intriguing, inviting, and appealing. This is counterterrorism.

Sheikh Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi is a true martyr. He knew full well that he was a marked man by al-Qaeda. Yet he is said to have been unafraid.

 What is the cost of fighting al-Qaeda?

And what are the costs of appeasement and surrender to those who are driven to extreme acts of barbarism and savagery, by embracing a ruthless and violent ideology of intolerance and hatred?

Note:  Mike also highlights mention of the Sheikh in President Bush’s speech.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
44 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This is a true martyr. God bless his soul and his family.
Iraq, we weep with you.
May his sacrifice bear much fruit.

Actually, when Eli Lake went to Iraq, he changed his mind and said something like “this guy is just a gang leader”. But go on, believe in your fairy tales about Noble Islamic Warriors, you good dhimmi.

Nikolay,

I don’t think I ever said this guy is just a gang leader. And if you want to know what I think of him read my paper’s coverage of his tragic murder. He was, in my estimation, a hero in this war.

September 14, 2007 Edition > Section: Foreign >
Printer-Friendly Version

‘A Terrible Loss … for All of Iraq’

BY ELI LAKE – Staff Reporter of the Sun
September 14, 2007

WASHINGTON — The pro-American Sunni sheiks who drove
Al Qaeda from its Iraqi base in Anbar province are
scrambling to settle who will succeed Sheik Abdul
Sattar al-Rishawi after he was murdered yesterday by a
bomb placed beneath his car.

The murder of the sheik, who headed the Anbar
Awakening, the organization now sending hundreds of
volunteers to join the Iraqi national police and army,
stunned residents of Anbar as well as their allies in
the American military. The 35-year-old sheik was
handing out certificates for food and medicine to the
poor at his country villa for the first day of
Ramadan. After the Ramadan ritual, the sheik traveled
to the provincial offices for Anbar when along the
road a bomb under his car exploded.

After news spread of the murder, the head of
provincial security, Colonel Tariq Yusuf, placed Anbar
under martial law with 24-hour patrols by his security
officers. The Shiite-led Interior Ministry sent a team
to investigate the murder and announced it would build
a shrine at the entrance to Anbar province, on the
road that connects Ramadi to Baghdad.

Rishawi, also known as Abu Risha, defied Al Qaeda in
Iraq last September and managed to build the
organization that was touted this week in testimony on
Capitol Hill by General David Petraeus and by
President Bush in a surprise visit earlier this month
to the province, which until then had been too
dangerous for American senior leaders to visit.

In a televised address to the nation last night, Mr.
Bush praised the numerous successes in Anbar, though
he conceded that most of the benchmark goals for the
Iraqi government and security forces have not yet been
met.

The murder of Rishawi sent tremors throughout
Washington. General Petraeus, the top American
commander in Iraq, issued a statement calling the
bombing a “terrible loss for Anbar and all of Iraq.”
The general pinned the bombing on Al Qaeda in Iraq,
which had targeted the sheik for months, but said he
was confident that the work of the Anbar Awakening and
its military wing, known as the Anbar Salvation Front,
would continue.

A military officer monitoring the situation closely
said the early forensic reports on yesterday’s attack
suggest the work of Osama bin Laden’s organization
because of the sophisticated nature of the bomb, which
evaded electronic countermeasures and bomb-sniffing
dogs. “The working theory is that a senior, highly
trained Al Qaeda operative disguised himself as a
beggar and managed to slip the bomb under the sheik’s
car,” the officer, who requested anonymity, said.

A hunt in Anbar, led by Colonel Yusuf, has already
commenced to track down the bomber. Meanwhile,
jihadist Web sites affiliated with Al Qaeda have
claimed credit for the assassination, though in the
past such sites have claimed false credit for
terrorist acts.

Mr. Bush also acknowledged the bombing in his speech
last night announcing the drawdown of some five combat
brigades by next summer. “In Anbar, the enemy remains
active and deadly,” Mr. Bush said. “Earlier today, one
of the brave tribal sheiks who helped lead the revolt
against Al Qaeda was murdered. In response, a fellow
Sunni leader declared: ‘We are determined to strike
back and continue our work.’ And as they do, they can
count on the continued support of the United States.”

Last night, the Anbar Awakening’s leadership was
searching for Ahmad Zezia al-Rishawi, a brother of the
slain Abu Risha. If Mr. Rishawi was not with his
brother when the car exploded and is alive, he would
become the interim leader of the group. If he is dead,
one possible successor could come from outside the
Risha tribe, the group’s chief of national political
operations, Sheik Hamid Farhan al-Hays, said. The
sheik will oversee the funeral of Abu Risha.

September 14, 2007 Edition > Section: Foreign >
Printer-Friendly Version

September 14, 2007 Edition > Section: Editorials >
Printer-Friendly Version

Abdul Sattar al Rishawi

New York Sun Staff Editorial
September 14, 2007

The assassination of Sheikh Abdul Sattar al Rishawi,
coming as it does during a crescendo of cynicism in
the anti-war camp in Washington, is a reminder of the
extraordinary risks that free Iraqis are prepared to
take to side with America and the liberty for which we
stand. The sheikh was killed by a bomb planted under
his car yesterday at Ramadi, ten days after his
90-minute meeting with President Bush and two days
after the anniversary of the attacks of September 11,
2001. The sheikh was on his way back from an event to
hand out food, money and medicine to the poor.

We never had the honor of meeting this particular
risk-taker for freedom, but the reporting of our Eli
Lake and others have left no doubt about the
significance of his entry into the lists and his
accession to leadership in the rebellion against Al
Qaeda in the heart of Anbar. At a time when our GIs
and Iraq’s sheikhs are fighting for the prospect of
politics itself, Sheikh Abu Risha, as Iraqis called
him, was the model of the warrior statesman.

Abu Risha was one of the sheikhs who rose up against
Al Qaeda last September and began the awakening model
now employed throughout the Euphrates River Valley.
Others before him had challenged Osama bin Laden’s
terrorists, but he was the first to do so publicly and
survive — until his murder. He strengthened his ties
with the United States Marines in the spring, when Al
Qaeda thugs left in front of the main hospital at
Ramadi an ice cooler filled with the heads of the
children of slain sheikhs.

That is the kind of terror he was facing. His actions
taught Al Qaeda that its barbarity would only earn
greater enmity from their new Sunni foes. With his
newly found popularity, Sheikh Rishawi did not make
the mistake of so many other Iraqi leaders who placed
the interest of their sects over the good of the
nation. He took steps in March to integrate his
militia into the Shi’ia dominated government. On the
day of his murder it was the Shi’ia led Interior
Ministry that announced the Iraqi government would
build a shrine to Sheikh Abu Risha on the road that
leads to the Anbar Province.

The sheikh also made an impression on General
Petraeus, who presented him with an Arabic version of
Machiavelli’s “The Prince” and yesterday called his
murder a “terrible loss for Anbar and all of Iraq.” We
hear that Abu Risha privately told General Petraeus of
his dream to lead an Arab army to the caves of
Pakistan and the Mosques of Saudi Arabia to chase the
enemy that Americans and so many Iraqis now share.
That promise is the kind of thing that draws the
laughter of the Democrats, but not of those who take
this war seriously.

The sheikh from Anbar had his detractors. Sunni
leaders who tolerated Al Qaeda and were once courted
by the Central Intelligence Agency, such as Harith al
Dhari, who called the sheikh a fraud. Among the
sheikhs in Anbar he had his rivals, some of whom
spread rumors about him to the foreign press. Abu
Risha certainly meted out his own rough justice to
terrorists who had enslaved so many Anbaris before the
revolt. But the scenes of purple fingers and dancing
voters will be but a memory if others do not continue
the prince of Anbar’s struggle for democratic polity.

There are, even in this tragedy, grounds for hope.
Part of Abu Risha’s genius was that he built an
organization. Already the sheikh’s advisers are
planning to finish the work of fighting the death
cults — both Sunni and increasingly Shi’ia — that seek
to enslave Iraq. The legacy of these cults are hamlets
and provinces where smokers get their fingers cut off,
wives are forced to become comfort girls, and children
are murdered in front of their parents. Abu Risha’s
rebellion was evidence that it is possible for the
human spirit to triumph over evil. May his martyrdom
strengthen our will here and in Iraq never to relent
until our enemy is vanquished and liberty secured.

September 14, 2007 Edition > Section: Editorials >
Printer-Friendly Version

This good guy is known to have been killing US forces and had only agreed to start working with us, with a fist full of cash. So he is now a martyr. There is a twilight zone element to Iraq. I just wish there was a REAL logical sense to anything being said or done in Iraq at present.

Eli,

Thanks for the links to your article and staff editorial.

This good guy is known to have been killing US forces and had only agreed to start working with us, with a fist full of cash.

T-Ray, do you really believe that was his motivation? Cash? Is that what motivated the Sunni tribes in Anbar to turn on al-Qaeda? How about, al-Qaeda killing some of the sheikh’s children? Do you suppose that had anything to do with it? Putting the severed heads of children in coolers to deliver to the sheikhs?

There are still Japanese war vets who killed American soldiers during WWII. Should we still treat them with the hatred of an enemy?

Do you believe that it is right for the CIA to deal with unsavory characters, willing to sell out their government as spies and informants?

I don’t care if the Sheikh was a saint or a “gang leader”, for the same reason that it was in America’s best interest to keep the Shah of Iran in power rather than allow him to be overthrown, because he did not meet our sanctimonious standards of “human rights”. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. The military realizes that the alliance with the Sunni tribes is one of convenience, and that we could be “friends today, and enemy once again” tomorrow. Our soldiers are working alongside former insurgents who they know were shooting at them and killing them before.

So he is now a martyr.

You tell me if he was martyred by al-Qaeda or not:

Sunni Arab tribesmen have vowed revenge for the killing of a leader who had become a focal point for opposition to al-Qaeda in Iraq.

More than 1,500 mourners attended the funeral of Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, who was killed in a bomb attack in the city of Ramadi, Anbar province, on Thursday.

…

Iraq’s national security adviser, interior minister and defence minister all attended the funeral in Ramadi, along with the second-in-command of US forces in Iraq, Lt-Gen Raymond Odierno.

…

Mourners chanted “We will take our revenge” and “There is no God but Allah and al-Qaeda is the enemy of Allah” as the procession continued to the family cemetery.

…

He told the Reuters news agency: “All the tribes agreed to fight al-Qaeda until the last child in Anbar.”

Al-Qaida have made another serious mistake by killing the sheikh.

http://patdollard.com/2007/09/14/sunnis-vow-revenge-on-al-qaeda/

…………..Mourners vowed revenge and perseverance Friday at the funeral of the leader of the Sunni Arab revolt against al-Qaida terrorists who was assassinated just 10 days after meeting with President Bush in Iraq’s Anbar province.

More than 1,500 mourners marched along the highway near the home of Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, who was killed along with two bodyguards and a driver Thursday by a bomb hidden near his house, just west of Ramadi.

Scores of Iraqi police and U.S. military vehicles lined the route to protect the procession as it followed the black SUV carrying the sheik’s Iraqi-flag draped coffin.

“We will take our revenge,” the mourners chanted along the 10 kilometer (6 mile) route to Risha’s family cemetery, many of them crying. “We will continue the march of Abu Risha.”

Abu Risha was buried one year after the goateed, charismatic, chain- smoking young sheik organized 25 Sunni Arab clans under the umbrella of the Anbar Awakening Council, an alliance against al-Qaida in Iraq, to drive terrorists from sanctuaries where they had flourished after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

No group claimed responsibility for the assassination, but it was widely assumed to have been carried out by al-Qaida, which already had killed four of Abu Risha’s brothers and six other relatives for working with the U.S. military………….

What T-Ray said! This Sheik was hardly pro-American and was only recently and temporarily on our side. He was responsible for the deaths of many Americans and only switched sides to get rid of AQI because they were threatening his piece of the pie. Once they were gone, he would have gone right back to killing GIs. Now the rest of his “coalition” will have to do that without him. Rest assured, that is just what they will do as soon as they have gotten what they want from this “collaborative effort”.

This guy (http://monkeytenniscentre.blogspot.com/2007/09/there-are-plenty-more-like-abu-risha.html) had a nice take on the NUtroots reaction to the demise of our ally, The Shiek. I believe that information highway in Anbar is rather tight, and someone will have the Shiek’s back and take out the scum-bag Jihadi’s that booby trapped his back door.

From Time: “Sheikh Sattar, whose tribe is notorious for highway banditry, is also building a personal militia, loyal not to the Iraqi government but only to him. Other tribes — even those who want no truck with terrorists — complain they are being forced to kowtow to him. Those who refuse risk being branded as friends of al-Qaeda and tossed in jail, or worse. In Baghdad, government delight at the Anbar Front’s impact on al-Qaeda is tempered by concern that the Marines have unwittingly turned Sheikh Sattar into a warlord who will turn the province into his personal fiefdom.”

From the Post:
“Ali Hatem Ali Suleiman, 35, a leader of the Dulaim confederation, the largest tribal organization in Anbar, said that the Anbar Salvation Council would be dissolved because of growing internal dissatisfaction over its cooperation with U.S. soldiers and the behavior of the council’s most prominent member, Abdul Sattar Abu Risha. Suleiman called Abu Risha a “traitor” who “sells his beliefs, his religion and his people for money.””

Stepping into the pork stew of life, gives us more grist for our philosophic mill. The Nazi numbskulls (Boener, Leiberman, Cheney, et al..), play their parts well. My only salient reaction was, “What the hell did minimally educated peckerheads see in these people that clearly isn’t there?” We live with the pain of our choices. We stigmatize those around us, in refutation of the fact that these are choices we have made. Drug enhanced paranoia as well as religion, is a part of the diagnostic paradigm. I am always fascinated how isolated some people become after their teenage years. What happens is a process of faulty thinking being confirmed because critical thinking doesn’t get presented to a information starved public. Rather we hold these ideas out to the little rodent of our psyches which runs the mobius wheel of our egos. One of the most common statements mentioned by neighbors after they pull the bullet riddled body of the sniper from the top of the water tower, “He was a good neighbor, though I never talked to him, he seemed to keep to himself. He kept his lawn mowed. He put a flag out on 4th of July. I guess he loved his mother.” But there’s plenty of culpability to go around. Remember, the only sin committed by the protagonist in Camus’ “The Stranger,” was indifference.

This “True Patriot and ally of the U.S.” was jus a month or two ago killing American soldiers, and just one year ago one of Rummy’s so called dead-enders Sunni Insurgents.

Tell me something dear blog, have you ever heard of the word consistency, because you guys are showing none.

The Sunni turn their back on an al-Quaida that was put there by an invasion created and supported by Right Wing Republicans, and now they are “heroes” for standing up to it???? I would call them more like desperate to try and get their comunities back. Let’s be honest, Abdul Sattar is only a hero today, because he decided in desperation to shoose the lesser of two percieved evils by the Sunni. But make no mistake, the Sunni are no friends of ours, and will want us out of their land the moment the eliminate al-Quaida.

Let me explain the reality here. George Bush so called Presidency is now an extended holding action, and the Iraqi “strategy” by this White House is simply to send the mess to the next Administration. Donald Rumsfeld, the former Secretary of Defense and the best friend al-Quaida ever had (other than Bush), once described the Iraqi Sunni Resistance — THAT WOULD BE PEOPLE LIKE ABDUL SATTAR— as “Just a few dead-enders who refuse to acknowledge that the world around them has changed, and continue to lie to themselves thinking that they can win”

Don’t you find it ironic to see Rummy out in disgrace, and the “dead-enders” looked upon as “heroes” by the very same Right Wing that just in 2003 treated them as cast outs from a bad movie? Who is the dead-ender now Right Wingers??? Dont you find it ironic to see the President talk about the “much better security in the al Ambar province” just hours after Abdul Sattar the leader of the Sunni in al Ambar is blown to bits by al-Quaida??? If this was a play in a theater I would demand my money back.

Tell me Right Wingers, don’t you ever get embarrassed of beeing so wrong so often??? I know your President does not, he is in fact the biggest liar I have ever seen in my 50 years of life.

The Sunni were our natural allies, not “protectors of al-Quaida” as pre-war Bush would have us believe. Saddam if it was such a treat could have been delt personally. No invasion was needed and this dear friends is no 20-20 hindsight talk. If you dear Right Wingers care to look up Dick Cheneys 4/15/2004 TV Interview all over the web you will see that the man HAD AN EXACT IDEA of what would happen in an invasion to Iraq. He said “We can’t invade Iraq because the Shiite, the SUnni, and the Kurds will turn on each other and a civil war will follow living our troops stuck in a quagmire”.

No dear Republicans, this war was planned with the full knowledge of what the consecuences would be by every member of this Administration. So next time some one tells you that “we are doing better” in Iraq just be reminded that “better” is a very relative term. In invading Iraq in the first place, there is no “Better” any more– Is only from bad to worst— And this Administration knew it from the get go.

OH, what we won’t do for oil.

Carl Gordon: wtf? That’s 10 seconds of my life I’ll never get back. Go learn how to write proper prose before you type such nonsensical drivel here again.

Gil….you should feel embarrassed for yourself. Do you not follow the comments thread, to make sure that your points haven’t already been addressed?

The way you people think, we’d still be at war with the British for having shot at Americans in 1775.

Part of counterinsurgency is winning over hearts and minds; turning hostile natives into allies. This is exactly what we have been doing.

Tell me something dear blog, have you ever heard of the word consistency, because you guys are showing none.

How about “logical fallacy”? Because you are stuffed full of it.

Michael Yon reports about working alongside Abu Ali of the 1920s Revolution Brigades.

They most likely have killed Americans; and we’ve more than likely killed many more of them. Do we work together against a common foe and lay aside old grudges, to move forward? Or do we remain stuck in a quagmire of perpetuating violence against one another, until one side is exterminated?

The military is not naive, and are “cautiously” optimistic, and realize that this may only be a temporary alliance of convenience with these former insurgent tribes. But at the same time, some of the former insurgents are coming around, as they get to know our soldiers through personal contact, and by being able to communicate. They are then aware we have common shared interests and goals, one of which involves leaving Iraq. Forming bonds, understanding, reconciliation, perhaps even friendships. What is so hard to fathom here?

Read Bill Ardolino’s post, as he interviews a Fallujan interpreter on why Fallujans had fought Americans.

Tsk, tsk, tsk… Wordsmith: picking on the poor moonbats again!

Don’t you know they can’t help themselves? They’re nothing but integrity challenged, intellectual featherweights who have been pre-programmed for years to display more bile than brains at every opportunity.

Instead of picking on these poor souls you should try and assist them in getting the help they so desperately need.

Surely, we could direct them to seek mental health counseling, or perhaps recommend a book or two on history to help guide the less psychotic back to something approaching a normal frame of life.

Now, if you really need to skewer one or two, call in an expert. I’m always standing by to help. 🙂

Wordsmith.

If you don’t agree with my ideas try to debate them. Now if the extent of your debate is comments like ” How about logical fallacy because you are stuffed full of it”, or “You should be embarrassed for yourself. Don’t you follow the comments thread to make sure that your points haven’t been adressed”— Then my friend all you have is insults.

SO in answer to your question; No one, and certainly not you, has adressed my comments. What I got from you is insults, and generalities. What is false about my posts?? Try to be more specific, and more importantly OFFER PROOF THAT MY REMARKS ARE FALSE— Or shut up.

Did it not Rummy called the Sunni Insurgents “Dead-enders” ??? Are these Sunni Insurgents not the exact same ones that we now call our “allies”??? Are these not the same Insurgents that just two months ago were killing our soldiers???? Was there any Insurgency and al-Quaida terrorists in Iraq prior to our invasion????

And you call this Counter-Insurgency!!!!

I pointed out to you the way your side “fights” Insurgents: First you make them, second you ignore them, and finally when they have killed enough soldiers you become their ally!!! That’s the extend of your strategy. So in order for any Republican to come here and tell me that you are doing this or that in counter-insurgency and be credible, don’t you think that you should have a record of achievement in the past?? I wonder what’s yours in Iraq??

Finally, we are talking about Insurgents in al-Ambar. Let me remind you of the big picture here. By your own standards put forward by Bush himself, the “surge” was a failure. The surge was supposed to have given the Iraqi Government room to have the compromises needed to put Iraq in a path of peace— Instead the Iraqi Government went on an extended vacation, and today they are further appart than ever…. And we talk about local battles in al-Ambar (again) as the show case of “success”.

There will allways be a success to point to when our troops are involved. There always have, al-Ambar has been a “success” several times already in the past, and you know it. So here we are again with the con-man in chief trying to spin success out of a Sunni province that had turned against al-Quaida BEFORE the surge, and was not the reason at all for the surge. To put it in other words pal, al-Ambar Sunni leaders would have gone against al-Quaida and become our “allies”, surge or no surge.

OH and another thing pal. If tomorrow you kill every al-Quaida terrorist in Iraq, you will still have a civil war going on, you will still have our Army in a quagmire in Iraq, you will still have the strong possibility of every nut in the Middle East crossing the Iraqi borders to go kill Americans. THAT’S A FACT.

So congratulations on “liberating” al-Ambar ….. for the third time since 2003. Just one word of advice. If you think the Sunni will not use the weapons, and money we are giving them against our soldiers in the future once they solve their problem with al-Quaida you are delusional.

You people are a bunch of contradictions. We are supposed to support a central Shiite Government in Baghdad and thousands of our soldiers have died for that— And now, we are going sectarian, and local supporting Sunni tribe leaders that will no doubt (The Iraqi Government has said as much) use their weapons against the central government and U.S. soldiers in the future.

Why don’t you just admit it— You have no idea what the hell you are doing in Iraq!!! Remember the Taliban in Afghanistan? They were the “heroes, and patriots” we helped –Until they became Osama’s best friends.

We are doing it again, and calling it “Winning hearths and minds” You guys are dumb pure and simple.

Mike’s America.

Do you realise that your entire post was about nothing??

Look, let me explain the way adults are supposed to debate– If you don’t agree with some ones ideas, you point out to that some, that you don’t and then you proceed to give that some one your counter-points.

You on the other hand come to this blog to make a bunch of stupid remarks about moonbaths, and other B.S. that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and call that in your own deficient brain a “response” to the Left.

Let me make one thing clear to you– The only thing you show with your remarks is your absolute lack of understanding about the topic of this blog, but your nevertheless tendency to open your mouth and say something, just for the sake of saying something, even if you come across as an ignorant with a mouth bigger than a brain.

If you don’t agree with my ideas try to debate them. Now if the extent of
your debate is comments like ” How about logical fallacy because you are
stuffed full of it”, or “You should be embarrassed for yourself. Don’t you
follow the comments thread to make sure that your points haven’t been
adressed”— Then my friend all you have is insults.

You’re the one who set the tone of the “debate”. Go back and read your own comment and tell me if that merits serious debate and civil discourse. It’s pompous, derisive, condescending; and so yes, “full of yourself”.

SO in answer to your question; No one, and certainly not you, has adressed
my comments. What I got from you is insults, and generalities. What is
false about my posts?? Try to be more specific, and more importantly OFFER
PROOF THAT MY REMARKS ARE FALSE— Or shut up.

Frankly, as a blogger, when you have long-winded commenters demanding attention from you, it can get tiresome to respond to every single attention-seeker. But I’ll try to indulge you.

Did it not Rummy called the Sunni Insurgents “Dead-enders” ???

What the hell does that matter? Are you searching for a “gotcha” moment? I’m not seeing it.

Here’s how Rumsfeld views his label, which he had also used to describe Taliban fighters:
March 2002 on CNN
BLITZER: Now, when you say deadenders, tell our viewers what you mean by that.


RUMSFELD: Well, I mean, we’d be happy to have them surrender, but we haven’t seen anyone coming in and surrendering. We’ve seen them try to sneak out, and we’re stopping them. And we’ve seen some people trying to sneak in — small numbers, ones, twos, threes, nothing like 10s or 20s or 30s. These are very small numbers.


And, of course, it’s very rough terrain, extremely cold. It’s up between 8,000 and 11,000 feet where most of these battles take place. Just trying to breath up there is, for people who weren’t acclimated to that altitude, was not easy.

BLITZER: Well, you say they’re deadenders, that means they’re ready to fight to the death.

RUMSFELD: Well, we won’t know that till they’re dead. But thus far, we’ve not seen them surrender.


BLITZER: Does that mean that the U.S. rules of engagement in dealing with these so-called deadenders has to change? Because if someone wants to surrender, you don’t if that person is wired with a bomb, ready to commit suicide and kill a lot of U.S. troops in the process.


RUMSFELD: Well, we’ve had that happen, as you know, although they’ve not killed large numbers of U.S. troops in the process. But we have had people come out with grenades and various types of explosives taped to their bodies, not in this operation but previously.


And our folks are trained to deal with that. If people want to surrender we have ways of letting them surrender without putting our people at risk that they’re going to be blown up.

His term of affection for these fighters or former Baathists and insurgents could be scumbuckets, for all I care. What does that have to do with our alliance with them now? We called Germans krauts and Japanese Nips; they’re now our allies, so who the frak cares?

Are these
Sunni Insurgents not the exact same ones that we now call our “allies”???
Are these not the same Insurgents that just two months ago were killing our
soldiers????

This is what I mean by not reading the comments section before you speak. Read my response to T-Ray, and re-read my response to you. I did address you with more than just dismissive annoyance.

Was there any Insurgency and al-Quaida terrorists in Iraq
prior to our invasion????

Insurgency? No. Just Iraqis under the thumbnails of a brutal dictator and his sons. Have you not paid attention to the mass graves and stories by Iraqis who lived under his rule?

As for al-Qaeda in Iraq, not to any significant degree; but you see the category button over in the sidebar of this blog? If you click that, you might learn a few things. Unfortunately, I don’t think Curt has categorized all of his posts very well, as I searched for some previous posts, and see that not all of them are labeled. Still, click on “al-Qaeda/Saddam links”.

You can also learn a thing or two if you go to Regime of Terror.

And you call this Counter-Insurgency!!!!

You’re setting up strawman arguments and conclusions, sunshine.

Go back on my previous comments, read with a clear mind, and then try again.

I pointed out to you the way your side “fights” Insurgents: First you make
them, second you ignore them, and finally when they have killed enough
soldiers you become their ally!!! That’s the extend of your strategy.

This is why I have trouble restraining myself from calling you a knucklehead.

Knucklehead.

I bet you did not bother to click on the links I provided in my previous comment, did you? I linked for a reason. I provided you with a link to Bill Ardolino and Michael Yon. Read, and maybe you’ll understand a bit deeper, counterinsurgency, and some reasons why some Iraqis turned to the insurgency; and why they are now allies.
Here’s Bill Roggio:
“We’re certainly allied with people who fought us, probably less than a year ago,” said Roggio. “But this is, in the end, how you win insurgencies. How you break them apart and turn the more moderate elements against the more radical elements.”

Michael Yon: “And so, former insurgents showed up in Humvees, outnumbered us, and now were helping us find the bomb and bombers. A very strange world indeed.”

Yet, all you wish to point out is that they used to be shooting at us. Yet why should I be surprised by those who continue to address the problems of today with yesterday’s arguments?

Get over it.

So in
order for any Republican to come here and tell me that you are doing this
or that in counter-insurgency and be credible, don’t you think that you
should have a record of achievement in the past?? I wonder what’s yours in
Iraq??

What are your credentials in conducting counter-insurgency strategies? David Petraeus coauthored Field Manual 3-24. It’s based upon his own successes in Mosul, and is now the Army’s official counterinsurgency doctrine. It’s not a “Bush” thing. It’s not a “Republican” thing. Your criticism is based upon ignorance, as you inadvertently are criticizing our military by attacking the counterinsurgency measures implemented by Petraeus.

Finally, we are talking about Insurgents in al-Ambar. Let me remind you of
the big picture here. By your own standards put forward by Bush himself,
the “surge” was a failure.

Do you just listen to the talking heads, or did you pay any attention at all to what Petraeus and Crocker said last week?

The surge was supposed to have given the Iraqi
Government room to have the compromises needed to put Iraq in a path of
peace— Instead the Iraqi Government went on an extended vacation, and
today they are further appart than ever…. And we talk about local battles
in al-Ambar (again) as the show case of “success”.

Despite what Senator Jack Reed said in his Democrat Rebuttal to President Bush’s speech, the full thrust of the surge with five brigade combat teams did not happen until a couple of months ago. You expect things to change overnight? Meanwhile, we have an active enemy in al-Qaeda and Iran doing everything they can to stir up sectarian violence, chaos, and instability, and pay close attention to how they affect things back here at home. Does America have the political will? Or is America a paper tiger?

We cannot even get our own Congress to pass legislation in a timely manner. And as the President put it, “we’ve had 200 years of practice”. The problem here, is unrealistic expectations; and inflexibility, based upon your political partisanship, to changing tactics and adaptation to to the fortunes of war, in order to “stay the course”. Anyone with a brain knows, that no plan survives after the first contact. Meaning, you constantly readjust, re-evaluate, adapt to the fluidity of war and the adjustment in tactics made by the enemy. Sniping about “changes” made to deal with the here and now, is just….excuse me, but retarded.

We are still “staying the course”. The goal is victory. The tactics in place on how you get there can change. If you keep doing what you’ve been doing, you’re going to probably continue to get the same results. Stupidity is expecting a different outcome to occur.

There will allways be a success to point to when our troops are involved.
There always have, al-Ambar has been a “success” several times already in
the past, and you know it. So here we are again with the con-man in chief
trying to spin success out of a Sunni province that had turned against
al-Quaida BEFORE the surge, and was not the reason at all for the surge.

You’re crackers! But what can one expect from a parrot of Chuck Schumer’s?
I’ll be a parrot for Bill Ardolino, since I like crackers myself:
This assessment differs from the opinion expressed to me by a volunteer for the “Fallujah Protectors,” the city’s new neighborhood watch:

“Before [the Iraqi Police] did not have enough cover to hold their city. But right now, they got cover, like what you see: every single IP station has marines with them, to give them support every time the IP want it. Another thing? They didn’t have weapons, but right now they have weapons, so they can do the right thing, kill the terrorists and survive.”

And the opinion of a Fallujan interpreter, on the change that empowered the local police to improve the security situation:

“I think, what made (the) change, (is) the American support, the USA support to the IPs (Iraqi Police) and … support to all the western region, and that’s what’s different from now and then.”

To
put it in other words pal, al-Ambar Sunni leaders would have gone against
al-Quaida and become our “allies”, surge or no surge.

The point is, buddy, Sunni Sheikhs came to us, seeking U.S. alliance. Many came to understand through communication, that we don’t want to be in Iraq any more than they want us there. That our motives are not what they were led to believe.
Of course Sunnis would turn on al-Qaeda all on their own; but they stand a better chance for success by forming an alliance with those who are the ones helping to rebuild their country’s infrastructure.

OH and another thing pal. If tomorrow you kill every al-Quaida terrorist in
Iraq, you will still have a civil war going on, you will still have our
Army in a quagmire in Iraq, you will still have the strong possibility of
every nut in the Middle East crossing the Iraqi borders to go kill
Americans. THAT’S A FACT.

Because you typed in all caps? Ugh….so now you’re a prophet and a seer?

So congratulations on “liberating” al-Ambar ….. for the third time since
2003. Just one word of advice. If you think the Sunni will not use the
weapons, and money we are giving them against our soldiers in the future
once they solve their problem with al-Quaida you are delusional.

Get your FACTS straight. We are not “arming” the Sunnis.

You people are a bunch of contradictions.

Ever thought it might be your understanding comprehension skills?

Why don’t you just admit it— You have no idea what the hell you are
doing in Iraq!!! Remember the Taliban in Afghanistan? They were the
“heroes, and patriots” we helped –Until they became Osama’s best friends.

Oh….they weren’t the ones who became the Northern Alliance?

Guess who else was an ally at one time in history? Stalin. Was that the right thing to do at the time?

Note: The links may or may not work. For some odd reason, when I hit “preview”, the links become scrambled with “no follow”.

Wordsmith.

“Who cares what Rumsfeld said”

people like you did. People like Bush did. Te entire Republican party did.

Now is Rummy who??

Let me remind you that when you make statements in reference to “Counter-insurgency” the war in Iraq has 4 1/2 years of your so called efforts on counter-insurgency. Or do you believe that Gen. Petraeus is the first General that has applied counter-insurgency in Iraq?

Rumsfeld stands as testament of your past efforts in counter-insurgecy and you can’t run from that. In order for counter-insurgency to succeed you have to have the support of the government we have spent half a trillion Dollars to support. Tell me Sir what is you strategy here????

PLEASE DO ANSWER ME THE QUESTION

If we went to Iraq to establish a Democracy with a central Government in Iraq elected by all the people of Iraq. If we then went ahead and spent half a trillion Dollars and counting to support that government. If we spent hundreds of billions of Dollars to train and equip the Iraqi Army. If we send 30,000 on the latest surge to help the Iraqi Government make the hard compromises.

Why then are you talking about Counter-Insurgency in al-Ambar as the proof of success in Iraq??

What part don’t you understand, of “you can kill every al-Quaida terrorists in Iraq tomorrow, and you will still have a mess in Iraq, and you will still have our soldiers stuck in a quagmire, and you will still have the al-Quaida nuts crossing the Iraqi border” ?????? I am quoting myself here, because you don’t acknowledge the obvios, prefering instead of talking in circles about counter-insurgency.

What part of the SUnni in the future turning against us and the SHiite in your so called counter-insurgency effort don’t you understand??? Do you actually believe that a fully armed Sunni Insurgency will not turn against a Shiite Iraqi Government??????? You know, the same Government we are spending lives and treasure to support?????

WHY DON’T YOU ANSWER ME THOSE QUESTIONS!!!!!!

Hey let’s put some rules to our debate, and maibe we can get somwhere. Let’s agree to three questions you ask me, and I HAVE TO ANSWER, and the same for you. It is clear that we are talking past each other. NO ONE IS AGAINST COUNTER-INSURGENCY But let’s be honest here for once and understand that al-Ambar counter-insurgecny efforts GO AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE VERY SAME GOVERNMENT (AL-MALAKI’S) we are supposed to support– So what’s the plan Sir??? Support a Government with the right hand, and support an insurgency that will turn against that government with the left hand????

I ask because that is exactly what your side is doing. If you want counter-insurgency and you want to support the Sunni fine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But don’t forget that in doing so you are allianating the Shiite, and the Kurds that happen to be in charge of Iraq. In that context your counter-insurgency efforts will only be successful in SUNNI AREAS and in the focus of al-Quaida but nowhere else in Iraq, and not in the context of Sunni-Shiite fighting.

By the way Sir, al-Quaida is in Sunni areas because the Kurds and the Shiite will kill al-quaida terrorists on sight. Now the Sunni are against al-Quaida– That will make 100% of the Iraqi people against al-Quaida. That in my book means a concensus– SO why are we not asking the FEDERAL Iraqi troops with PH’ds in training (we have trained them for five years now) TO GO INTO AL-AMBAR AND DO THEIR JOB INSTEAD OF YOU AND ME DEBATING OF THE NEED FOR COUNTER-INSURGENCY!!!!

We trained the Iraqi Army for years to protect the Iraqi people precisely from terrorists like al-Quaida. Now after all these years, all these money, all these lost American lives is —— Counter-insurgecy with Sunni ex-terrorists, ex-dead-enders is the solution!!!! Pal, do we at least get our money back for all that wasted training, or is it more of “The Iraqi Army is improving” .

It is clear to any one that the way your side opperates is putting forward a policy “We will train the Iraqi Army, and we will stand down, when they stend up” — Then spending lives, time, and treasure in the policy BUT NEVER IMPLEMENTING THE POLICY, AND NEVER HOLDING ANY ONE ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT’S FAILURE.

There is no question that the Iraqi Army has been trained, but if that Army was any good why then the need for a “Counter-insurgency” alliance with the Sunni in al-Ambar??????? Let me answer my own question: After years of training the Iraqi Army, the result is they can’t fight al-Quaida effectively so now we are forced to make alliances with the very same people we trained the Iraqi Army to fight against. The alliance with the Sunni in al-Ambar has nothing to do with the surge (another point you continue to ignore) , and most importantly the alliance with the sunni came with a POLITICAL agreement first, that gave in turn the opportunity to the security forces (our Army) to succeed in the field of battle— Or in other words you Republicans have the logic opside down and your own “success” in al-Ambar shows it.

It;s not create security first, and then make the political compromises as Bush keeps on repeating. It’s MAKE THE POLITICAL COMPROMISES FIRST, AND THEN ENFORCE THE COMPROMISES IN THE FIELD. As your own “success in al-Ambar has demonstrated. As it is your side will keep our soldiers “securing” parts of Iraq forever running in circles. I mentioned (and again you ignored it) that the very same al-Ambar province we are talking about today as a “Success” has been a “success story THREE TIMES BEFORE. Just like now our troops go in, they establish security, they run out al-Quaida, and then they have to live because of rotation reasons——– And after that all hell brakes loose again. Guess what is about to happen again. In the Spring the surge ends– And al-Ambar will no longer have the U.S. troops to help. I don’t have to tell you what will happen, because by now it should be obvios to any one with some sense of intellectual honesty.The Sunni will start having problems with al-Quaida again, the Sunni Insurgents now armed will star attacking SHiite, and the Shiite Government we support, and we are back to square one.

So much for your counter-insurgency. Your counter-insurgency (for the 10th time) IS TEMPORARY, IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, AND IS LOCAL AND CAN’T SPREAD TO THE REST OF IRAQ. So in that FACTUAL context your Counter-Insurgency will win you a temporary reprieve (as before) but not much more. THAT IS THE FACT.

Now you can blow up the success and call it “something new” , but pal, don’t insult my intelligence and pretend that it has not been tried before, or that it will give us any victory, because it simply will not.

Wordsmith.

ANother thing I need to explain to you.

Your Counter-Insurgency debate focuses on the obvios. That is to say if we talk to ouw former enemies, and turn them into our allies and make them help us fight our common enemy (al-Quaida terrorists) and that’s good!!!!!

Hey pal, you most think you are talking to some moron here–Or as you put it a ” kuncklehead” .Trust me on this one I am not. Maibe instead of calling me names you should put more attention at what I have been saying.

Gen. Petraeus counter-insurgency tactics are absolutely text-book correct. The counter-insurgency in al-Ambar has been applied correctly, and I am not crticizing Gen. Petraeus tactics, god knows he is smarter than Bush. IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU NOW????

BUT HERE IS WHERE WE PART COMPANY.

Gen. Petraeus, or the Lord all mighty himslef will not be able to translate a LOCAL counter-insurgency success CONDITIONED by the Sunni to al-Quaida, and al-Quaida only into turning Bush’s Iraq STRATEGIC policy into a success and a victory. The reason is because the policy is wrong.

You guys remind me of a House Contractor that started building a house with the wrong blue-prints, calls a brilliant Architect to help, has the Architect fix the plumbing, and calls that a “success”.

Yes it is a success, but that will not change your wrong blue-prints. And the contractor will have “good plumbing” in a house that can’t be finished.

What part of the SUnni in the future turning against us and the SHiite in your so called counter-insurgency effort don’t you understand??? Do you actually believe that a fully armed Sunni Insurgency will not turn against a Shiite Iraqi Government??????? You know, the same Government we are spending lives and treasure to support?????

Yes. I along with most intellectually honest people believe that the Sunni bloc now understand that to play a part in the government they need to go about it politically, not with bombs.

But let’s be honest here for once and understand that al-Ambar counter-insurgecny efforts GO AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE VERY SAME GOVERNMENT (AL-MALAKI’S) we are supposed to support– So what’s the plan Sir???

Are you insane? You honestly believe The Surge went against the wishes of the Iraqi government?

Wow.

How long have you been playing with this fool Word?

I ask because that is exactly what your side is doing. If you want counter-insurgency and you want to support the Sunni fine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But don’t forget that in doing so you are allianating the Shiite, and the Kurds that happen to be in charge of Iraq.

Are you really this naive? Our government is a bit more intelligent then you would have us believe sir. They are NOT choosing one side over another but are in fact working with all three factions. AQ was stationed in Anbar so we went in and cleaned it out, the Sunni’s there now understand how evil AQ is so they are working with us just as Shiites now want to work with us to get rid of AQ.

By the way Sir, al-Quaida is in Sunni areas because the Kurds and the Shiite will kill al-quaida terrorists on sight. Now the Sunni are against al-Quaida– That will make 100% of the Iraqi people against al-Quaida. That in my book means a concensus– SO why are we not asking the FEDERAL Iraqi troops with PH’ds in training (we have trained them for five years now) TO GO INTO AL-AMBAR AND DO THEIR JOB INSTEAD OF YOU AND ME DEBATING OF THE NEED FOR COUNTER-INSURGENCY!!!!

Holy crap!

There ARE Iraqi army units working hand in hand with our forces. Units which have been deemed completely trained are even planning and executing their own operations with our forces in support mode.

Do you honestly think that a nations armed forces can be made from scratch and trained to completion in four years? Hundreds of thousands of troops would just magically become a cohesive fighting force in your world.

It is clear to any one that the way your side opperates is putting forward a policy “We will train the Iraqi Army, and we will stand down, when they stend up” — Then spending lives, time, and treasure in the policy BUT NEVER IMPLEMENTING THE POLICY, AND NEVER HOLDING ANY ONE ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT’S FAILURE.

Never implementing the policy? Let me see, 140 Iraqi army battalions now exist….95 of those battalions are deemed capable of running operations on their own, meaning they are now completely trained. All they wait for is a trained logistic units.

U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Dana Pittard:

When I left here in Iraq from the last tour in early 2005, there really were only two, possibly four Iraqi army divisions, all of which were struggling. Now we have 10 fairly capable Iraq army divisions, and soon there will be an 11th, 12th, and a 13th division by early 2008. Again, part of that is from the embedded transition teams making a difference as far as their advisory effort, and then being partnered with coalition force battalions, brigade combat teams and regimental combat teams throughout Iraq.

That is called progress. Nothing happens overnight and I have to say your whole comment comes across as someone a little bit out of touch with reality.

Demanding answers, getting answers but dismissing them, and then demanding answers again to questions that are just naive.

WOrdsmith.

Another thing that I would appreciate and will halp us debate like adults is the following, and I’ll give you an example of the way you respond.

This is what you try to pass as a “response” to part of my post:

“You people are full of contradictions”

And you answer:

“Ever tough it might be your understanding, comprehension”

That’s is a dishonest take on what I said. And there’s nothing wrong with my “comprehension”. I fully understand reality thank you very much. I do disagree with your’s but I don’t need to insult you to make my point.

This is my full quote, and please if you are going to disagree with parts of it do feel free to HONESTLY ANSWER IT.

“You people are a bunch of contradictions. We are supposed to support a Central Government in Baghdad, and thousands of our soldiers have died for that—- And now we are going sectarian, and local in supporting Sunni tribes Leaders that will no doubt (The Iraqi Government has said as much) turn their weapons against the very same central government we support, and our own soldiers in Iraq”

Now can you please tell me where “My understanding comprehension” come into play on this quote?????

Hey, you are right on one thing — Neither me, or the rest of the world can understand how can we on one hand help an Iraqi Central Government, while on the other hand we also help the enemies of that same Central Government— And call that a coherent plan.

So please indulge me with your “logic” here will you?

After all I am just a “knucklehead”, and you apparently are an expert in Mental contortions.

Curt.

Am I insane for telling you that the al-Malaki Government does not agree with America giving help to the Sunni Leaders in al Ambar??? That’s your question right?

NO sir I am not insane, you are just missinformed, and don’t know what you are talking about. Fact, that nevertheless does not stop you from calling me insane. The al-Malaki Government opposes our alliance with the Sunni. And this by the way should not be a surprise to any one that even remotely understands the region.

“The Sunni bloc now understand that the need to go about it politically not with bombs” And I am supposed to “understand this”. Here again you show clearly that you don’t have a clue of what you are talking about, but neverthelss feel free to correct me. Your Sunni bloc, along with the Shiite, and Kurd bloc are not any closer today to an agreement than they were before the surge, or two years ago for that matter. The Sunni bloc that you apparently make reference (The al-Ambar province leaders) are not making any alliance with the Shiite, the Shiite Central Government, or the Kurds. They are making an alliance with the American Military to fight al-Quaida period. No one in his/her right mind would extrapolate from this that the Sunni are now about to let the Shiite rule them for life.

Am I naive, you ask??? Let’s see who is naive here. You are telling me that we can go into al-Anbar FOR THE THIRD TIME, come to an agreement with the Sunni, give them money to arm themselves, fight along side them—- And the Shiite are going to say OH great, let’s have some more of that because some American thinks is fine !!!! LET ME SPELL THIS FOR YOU NICE AND SLOW BECAUSE FRANKLY I AM STARTING TO FEEL LIKE A BROKEN RECORD. The al-Malaki SHiite Government has come out publically AGAINST this alliance. SO now are they naive also??????? You are saying that we can make alliances now with the Shiite Militias in Southern Iraq, with the Kurd Pashmerga in Northern Iraq, with Sunni Insurgents in Central Iraq, but we can still keep a credible Central Government!!!! No pal, that’s called UNDERMINING THE AUTHORITY OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WE HAVE TRIED SO HARD TO INSTALL. Make up your mind PAL…… Do you want to deal with a Central Government, or with regional leaders. One or the other, but don’t YOU BE NAIVE IN PRETENDING THAT WE CAN DO THE TWO OF THEM AND RESOLVE THE MESS IN IRAQ!!!! If you deal with Sunni, Shiite, and Kurds in a separate way then you are PARTISIONING THE COUNTRY, and I tought your side’s plan was to have a Democracy with a Central Government.

“The Iraqi troops are working with our soldiers”. Two problems with that remark. Problem no. 1 In al-Ambar we are making an alliance with the local population because the Iraqi Army units are not stopping al-Quaida. Let me repeat this again because you people are not registering it— THIS IS THE THIRD TIME WE GO INTO AL-AMBAR as in the Iraqi troops can’t hold the gains we keep on giving them. For you to say that the Iraqi troops are working with our soldiers is a half truth at best. Yes, the Iraqi troops have been working with our soldier since day one, but no the Iraqi soldiers are not, and will not in a very long time if ever be able to support their government in power. SO PLEASE STOP TRYING TO SOUND LIKE BUSH.

If the Iraqi troops were any good we would not be talking about surges, or alliances with insurgents would we???? Stop your intellectual dishonesty. If you want to argue about the merits and real relevance of the Iraqi Army do it HONESTLY.

As for Republicans “never implementing the policy” what I ment was IMPLEMENTING THE POLICY IN A SUCCESSFULL WAY– But then again I tought my meaning was obvious. “We will stand down when they will stand up” IMplementing a policy in a successful way means that by now four years and counting the Iraqi Army should have been long ago able to stand up (as in IMPLEMENTING THE POLICY)– Instead you guys keep on saying (as you just did) that the Iraqi Army is cooperating, and is fighting— But no they are not ready, or will be in many more years to come.

Tell me Sir are you simply a naive person, or intellectualy dishonest? Do you realize that the Kurd Pashmerga is the biggest, best trained, best equiped force in Iraq second only to our own military???? Do you realize that that force 100,000 troops strong, never recieved one second of training by the U.S. Military????? So why does your side continues to want to have it both ways??? On one hand the Iraqi Army as you just said, is helping the American troops every step of the way, but on the other the Iraqi Army is not even close enough to take control of it’s own country!!!

Fuunny, but the Pashmerga is doing just fine protecting Kurdistan, and in the South the Shiite Militias are in control of their land and not thanks to any Iraqi Military, or our troops— So, can we have some honesty in our arguments here, or are we going to keep on making pretend that the Iraqi Army is not ready because they need more training, but when convenient for the argument (like now) all of the sudden they become ready, and fight along side us.

Like you said “nothing happens overnight”, only that your definition of “overnight” is as most comments in your post intellectualy dishonest. No one can call 4 1/2 years of training of the Iraqi forces as demanding something to happen “overnight”. Tell me pal, are they training for the Olimpics or a College Degree maibe??? By now they are should be going for their Masters you know. Do you take people for morons??? Does it register on you that the Pashmerga, the Shiite Militias, the Sunni Insurgents have been fighting for years with no prior training???

This Administration will have us “progressing” all the way to the last day of it’s term. That’s the kind of progress we don’t need you see. That’s the kind of progress that kills people, but achieves nothing more than buying time for still more talk of progress. Or does your so called progress is going to give us victory now?

OH NO!!! Things don’t happen overnight you see.

That’s the perfect line for some one that does not want to be held accountable. Think about it— you start say, a College education, you go on, and on for years without ever finishing, flunking away, and every time you parents ask you when will you be able to finish, you tell them that you are making “progress” . And if your parents become exasperated with your never ending “progress” talk, you answer to them by telling them that if they loose faith in your ability to be victorious in your quest, then they will be to blame, not you.

HOW CONVENIENT !!!! and HOW DISHONEST.

Curt.

Since you call yourself an intellectualy honest person can you answer me this question.

What Sunni bloc understands that “now to be a part in the government, they need to go politically and not with bombs”.
Are you saying that the Sunni will no longer attack Shiite, is that what you are saying??

So why is there over one thousand daily attacks just in Baghdad related to Sunni Vs. Shiite violence???

Hey, you are intellectualy honest remember?? So answer my question, let’s find out what your interpretation of honesty is.

Wordsmith.

“Who cares what Rumsfeld said”

people like you did. People like Bush did. Te entire Republican party did.

This is why I think you have trouble reading and understanding. Please quote my accurately next time, and in context. What I said was, “What the hell does that matter?”, and also:

His term of affection for these fighters or former Baathists and insurgents could be scumbuckets, for all I care. What does that have to do with our alliance with them now? We called Germans krauts and Japanese Nips; they’re now our allies, so who the frak cares?

I also gave you a transcript from a CNN interview which might illuminate Rumsfeld’s use of the term (as if it’s some kind of big deal).

This is why I think you are comprehension deficient. It’s not an insult. It’s my fair and balanced honest opinion of you, just as you probably have a fake but accurate opinion about me.

Let me remind you that when you make statements in reference to “Counter-insurgency” the war in Iraq has 4 1/2 years of your so called efforts on counter-insurgency. Or do you believe that Gen. Petraeus is the first General that has applied counter-insurgency in Iraq?

What I believe, is that the strategy we had wasn’t working, obviously. That happens in war. You know….things going wrong? And then you have to adapt to the unexpected contingencies, like the bombing of the al-Askari Mosque.

I don’t understand why you think this is taking “far too long”. 4 1/2 years is far too long?! Do conflicts have expiration dates? What would have been an acceptable timeline for you?

Historically, insurgencies take on average 10 years, to quell.

If you even bothered to click my link to Field Manual 3-24, you’d see that for decades, the army did not have a counterinsurgency doctrine in place.

The new manual states what is needed to defeat an insurgency:

•An understanding of local society;

•Good intelligence about the enemy;

•Establishing security and a rule of law;

•Establishing a long-term commitment.

Rumsfeld stands as testament of your past efforts in counter-insurgecy and you can’t run from that.

Who is running from what????!!

Really, you are bogged down by misperceptions and preconceptions and setting up strawmans to blow down.

Rather than try and attack us by calling us RIGHTWINGERS, like we all have one mindthink, why don’t you address myself or Curt, based upon what we’ve said here, or elsewhere?

You probably have no clue what I think about Rumsfeld.

Streamlining our forces for the major combat operations to move fast into Baghdad? Brilliant! Probably the most successful military campaign ever, if not one of the most.

The post-war operations? Not so stellar. And now he has resigned and we have a new Secretary of Defense.

So what’s your problem?

Why then are you talking about Counter-Insurgency in al-Ambar as the proof of success in Iraq??

Because it’s proof that there are fluid changes happening in Iraq. Just as the bombing of the Golden Mosque (by al-Qaeda to foment sectarian violence- the so-called “civil war”) set us back, and things have spiraled out of control in 2006, so now we have the Anbar Awakening, with subsequent successes in places like Diyala Province, where the locals are just tired of the violence from al-Qaeda.

What part don’t you understand, of “you can kill every al-Quaida terrorists in Iraq tomorrow, and you will still have a mess in Iraq, and you will still have our soldiers stuck in a quagmire, and you will still have the al-Quaida nuts crossing the Iraqi border” ??????

What I don’t understand is the nut factor injected into the premise of your question.

There is no point in it, because it’s not a serious question. It’s bloviated and bloated with presumptions and logical fallacies.

I am quoting myself here, because you don’t acknowledge the obvios, prefering instead of talking in circles about counter-insurgency.

What part of the SUnni in the future turning against us and the SHiite in your so called counter-insurgency effort don’t you understand??? Do you actually believe that a fully armed Sunni Insurgency will not turn against a Shiite Iraqi Government??????? You know, the same Government we are spending lives and treasure to support?????

WHY DON’T YOU ANSWER ME THOSE QUESTIONS!!!!!!

LMAO! Are you shouting at your computer monitor? Does typing in all caps make you feel any better?

Hey let’s put some rules to our debate, and maibe we can get somwhere. Let’s agree to three questions you ask me, and I HAVE TO ANSWER, and the same for you.

……?……?…….?!

I have no real desire to ask you 3 questions. If I happen to ask, I happen to ask. But I’m not going to pre-plan 3 questions for you.

I don’t know why you even care what I think, as I’m not really interested in this conversation. You lost me at “hello”.

I’m just indulging you. I have other things I’d rather be doing than be held hostage in this comment thread, by you. But I’m trying to be a good host to my uninvited guest.

It is clear that we are talking past each other.

Not, really. You’ve been the one talking past from the beginning.

But, yes, I haven’t been taking you too seriously. There’s just something about the way you talk….

….breath mint?

I have addressed some of your questions, even though you’ve come in here with presumptions, without ever knowing what I’ve said or felt about Rumsfeld in the past. You’ve characterized us “RIGHT WINGERS” (as you put) it in your first comment, and set about talking like you were making some sort of astute observation…ending it with a very dramatic “OH, what we won’t do for oil.” Was I supposed to clap or cry?

On the flip side, whereas I’ve been kind enough to dissect your responses and address most of them point by point, you’ve ignored links I provided you. Here’s one question for you: What do you make of Michael Yon, Bill Roggio, and Bill Ardolino? Do you think they would share your view on “reality”? Would they dissent on the conclusions you’ve drawn?

You’ve taken complex issues and boxed them into adamant, politically self-serving, self-assurances on the nature of Sunni-Shia conflict, the Maliki government, and our relationship in all this.

I purposefully linked to the embeds, because I figured you would find some of your answers, by reading what they have to say. So why should I take seriously your “ANSWER ME!!!!” demands, and waste anymore time with you?

Through them, I assumed you’d have enough sense to get out of your “determinism” mindset, that Sunni and Shia cannot possibly work together.

What you point out, in regards to the sectarian struggles for reconciliation, is true. But these are also true:

U.S. detains Iraqi commander suspected of ordering attacks on Americans.

Maliki has helped to crack down on Shia militias and clean up the infiltration by those who are sabotaging efforts for a unified Iraq. You can look for the cloud in the silver lining (you won’t be telling me anything I haven’t already read), but you really should not ignore the silver linings.

Here’s one of many other stories that are not so pessimistically determinist as you are, in whether or not Shia and Sunni and Kurds can get along.

I might have already posted this one to you (I don’t remember and am too lazy to look back through this comment section for it):

With all the talk of sectarian violence, on the surface it seems very simple: Group A hates group B, group B feels it is OK to rob, steal and murder people from group A, so retaliation leads to frustration and hostilities escalate, or at least that’s the media translation. But the reality is a bit more complicated — or simpler — depending on your point of view.

You see, in Baghdad, where I interviewed many Iraqis on the subject of old hatreds, religious sects or ethnic cleansing, almost all of them said there is no difference between Shia and Sunni. In fact, historically many neighborhoods have been very mixed, with Shia and Sunni marriages not uncommon. This may be where confusion in language and culture comes in, because in Baghdad violence often takes place along ethnic lines, but the reasons are possibly simpler than religious ideology.

Greed. The angry man knew very well who had forced him to leave his home, because the aggressors were mostly his neighbors, people he knew.

Here’s what Major General James E. Simmons, Deputy Commander for Support of Multi-National Forces, Iraq, had to say when asked about sectarian divisions:

My dealings with the Iraqi people here is that there are many, many well educated, reasonable, middle of the road people who want to come to a political settlement to the differences here between the different political parties, the different sects that are here in Iraq. And I do not believe there needs to be any kind of bloodbath in Iraq to solve inter-religious or inter-sect problems here in Iraq.

The situation is complex, but not hopeless and the outcome not determined.

During the nation-building of Japan, many nay-sayers were saying the Japanese could never be democratized.

By the way Sir, al-Quaida is in Sunni areas because the Kurds and the Shiite will kill al-quaida terrorists on sight. Now the Sunni are against al-Quaida– That will make 100% of the Iraqi people against al-Quaida. That in my book means a concensus– SO why are we not asking the FEDERAL Iraqi troops with PH’ds in training (we have trained them for five years now) TO GO INTO AL-AMBAR AND DO THEIR JOB INSTEAD OF YOU AND ME DEBATING OF THE NEED FOR COUNTER-INSURGENCY!!!!

Are you yelling at me again? lol. I love how you begin with a calm, civil “Sir”…like you’re restraining your smouldering anger at me…..then build up to a nice crescendo of typing in all caps.

In addition to what Curt said, I’d like to also add that training an officer corp takes time and patience. Under Saddam, leadership was about entitlement. I’ve heard it said, that Saddam’s army had no real officer corp; so we’ve really had to build them up from scratch.

We trained the Iraqi Army for years to protect the Iraqi people precisely from terrorists like al-Quaida. Now after all these years, all these money, all these lost American lives is —— Counter-insurgecy with Sunni ex-terrorists, ex-dead-enders is the solution!!!! Pal, do we at least get our money back for all that wasted training, or is it more of “The Iraqi Army is improving”

You have very unrealistic expectations, sir. Instant gratification or bust?

It is clear to any one that the way your side opperates is putting forward a policy “We will train the Iraqi Army, and we will stand down, when they stend up” — Then spending lives, time, and treasure in the policy BUT NEVER IMPLEMENTING THE POLICY, AND NEVER HOLDING ANY ONE ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT’S FAILURE.

You seem to invest all of your opinions based upon cute soundbytes.

Read something substantive for a change.

The alliance with the Sunni in al-Ambar has nothing to do with the surge (another point you continue to ignore) ,

Obviously, you ignored my response. Go back and read my quote from Bill Ardolino regarding Fallujans who disagree with Chuck Schumer’s politically self-serving comment on the surge.

I mentioned (and again you ignored it) that the very same al-Ambar province we are talking about today as a “Success” has been a “success story THREE TIMES BEFORE. Just like now our troops go in, they establish security, they run out al-Quaida, and then they have to live because of rotation reasons——– And after that all hell brakes loose again. Guess what is about to happen again. In the Spring the surge ends– And al-Ambar will no longer have the U.S. troops to help. I don’t have to tell you what will happen, because by now it should be obvios to any one with some sense of intellectual honesty.The Sunni will start having problems with al-Quaida again, the Sunni Insurgents now armed will star attacking SHiite, and the Shiite Government we support, and we are back to square one.

It is unfortunate that we announce to our enemies our timeline dates. It is unfortunate that our troops are strained, and also due to politics, the surge will end next year. Hopefully, between now and then, the Iraqi army and security forces will continue with progress forward in the right direction, as well as political reconciliation. Sunnis are being encouraged by their Sheikhs to join the police force.

So much for your counter-insurgency. Your counter-insurgency (for the 10th time) IS TEMPORARY, IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, AND IS LOCAL AND CAN’T SPREAD TO THE REST OF IRAQ. So in that FACTUAL context your Counter-Insurgency will win you a temporary reprieve (as before) but not much more. THAT IS THE FACT.

Why? Because you type it out in all caps? It is your opinion and your perspective.

In addition to what Curt said on this “point” of yours, the “surge” wasn’t meant to “SPREAD TO THE REST OF IRAQ” as you capped it. About 14 or 15 of the 18 provinces have not been a problem. The surge is meant to secure Baghdad, to give room for the political process. Whether or not that moves forward, we’ll see. Nothing is a sure thing, so quit chicken-littling like it’s already written in the stars.

And the New Baghdad Security Plan is a different strategy from the one we had before, where we would clear an area, then leave, only to have the place taken over again by insurgents or al-Qaeda.

Now you can blow up the success and call it “something new” , but pal, don’t insult my intelligence

Hard to insult what you don’t have…

….sorry, you set yourself up for that cheapshot.

(C’mon…quit getting so uptight and show some sense of humor!)

At your expense, of course.

Wordsmith.

ANother thing I need to explain to you.

You should learn to control your urges. Some are not too healthy, in excess.

Your Counter-Insurgency debate focuses on the obvios. That is to say if we talk to ouw former enemies, and turn them into our allies and make them help us fight our common enemy (al-Quaida terrorists) and that’s good!!!!!

I had to point out the obvious to you, because you typed this:

Did it not Rummy called the Sunni Insurgents “Dead-enders” ??? Are these Sunni Insurgents not the exact same ones that we now call our “allies”??? Are these not the same Insurgents that just two months ago were killing our soldiers????

and this:

I pointed out to you the way your side “fights” Insurgents: First you make them, second you ignore them, and finally when they have killed enough soldiers you become their ally!!! That’s the extend of your strategy.

You leave the impression that because we didn’t “kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out”, we aren’t being “consistent” in what we are doing in Iraq.

Hey pal, you most think you are talking to some moron here–Or as you put it a ” kuncklehead” .

Really?!? Whatever on earth gave you that impression?!

Trust me on this one I am not.

Thank you, for affirming that. I feel much better now that I know I am not talking to a knuckleheaded moron.

Hyuk, hyuk.

Maibe instead of calling me names you should put more attention at what I have been saying.

Maybe you should just grow thicker skin, ignore the insults, and comprehend some of my responses, better?

Remember: You set the tone in your first comment.

Gen. Petraeus counter-insurgency tactics are absolutely text-book correct. The counter-insurgency in al-Ambar has been applied correctly, and I am not crticizing Gen. Petraeus tactics, god knows he is smarter than Bush. IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU NOW????

Next time, can you type it in all caps? I can see it so much better….too bad you can’t enlarge the text. Then you could really express yourself in a good rant.

BUT HERE IS WHERE WE PART COMPANY.

I’m in sweet sorrow….

Gen. Petraeus, or the Lord all mighty himslef will not be able to translate a LOCAL counter-insurgency success CONDITIONED by the Sunni to al-Quaida, and al-Quaida only into turning Bush’s Iraq STRATEGIC policy into a success and a victory. The reason is because the policy is wrong.

Explain the policy.

You guys remind me of a House Contractor that started building a house with the wrong blue-prints, calls a brilliant Architect to help, has the Architect fix the plumbing, and calls that a “success”.

Yes it is a success, but that will not change your wrong blue-prints. And the contractor will have “good plumbing” in a house that can’t be finished.

I’d really flush that flawed analogy down the toilet if I were you. It’s quite a stinker!

Wordsmith.

You for the most part wrote a book, and I am going to have to answer it in several parts.

Let’s start by asking you a simple question did Donald Rumsfeld once described the Iraqi resistance as dead-enders or not?? The answer is yes. SO you gave me a quote by Rummyon CNN– is that supposed to prove something ? Is that supposed to make my comprehension any less??

Donald Rumsfeld did describe the Sunni Insurgents as dead-enders….. Do you comprehend that????

As for what Rumsfeld comment has with our alliance with them now, that goes to YOUR COMPREHENSION. What it has to do is obvious (if you comprehend) since you were talking about counter-insurgency I gave you an example of the Republican “record” on counter-insurgency trough his main proponent Donald Rumsfeld. His comment of dead-enders reflects his view of how to do counter-insurgency and it shows. Now people like you are trying to lecture us on counter-insurgency? WHERE IS YOUR RECORD MR, REPUBLICAN???

Is it not Donald Rumsfeld ex-Secretary of defense?????

COMPRENDE NOW??????

Wordsmith.

You for the most part wrote a book,

It sometimes takes a book to answer a book. But I can cut down to single syllable one word responses if you’d like.

Let’s start by asking you a simple question did Donald Rumsfeld once described the Iraqi resistance as dead-enders or not??

Yes.

The answer is yes. SO you gave me a quote by Rummyon CNN– is that supposed to prove something ? Is that supposed to make my comprehension any less??

No.

It’s supposed to make your comprehension a bit more substantive. Go back and re-read, then ask yourself why I cited that transcript.

Donald Rumsfeld did describe the Sunni Insurgents as dead-enders….. Do you comprehend that????

Yes.

(How am I doing?)

As for what Rumsfeld comment has with our alliance with them now, that goes to YOUR COMPREHENSION. What it has to do is obvious (if you comprehend) since you were talking about counter-insurgency I gave you an example of the Republican “record” on counter-insurgency trough his main proponent Donald Rumsfeld. His comment of dead-enders reflects his view of how to do counter-insurgency and it shows. Now people like you are trying to lecture us on counter-insurgency? WHERE IS YOUR RECORD MR, REPUBLICAN???

You show me mine, I’ll show you yours. No ….waitaminute…it’s the other way around right?

It’s not a “republican” thing. Really, are you this daft in the head? All you need to know has already been typed out. You just don’t get it.

Do you really need to waste anymore of my time?

Is it not Donald Rumsfeld ex-Secretary of defense?????

COMPRENDE NOW??????

Yup:

You have reading/understanding comprehension issues.

wordsmith.

“what I believe is that the strategy we had was not working”

NO it was not, and the “New and improved strategy ” is not going to work because is the same old song with a new singer. Or is pacifing al-Ambar new to you? Or is it the alliance with the Sunni to fight al-Quaida a “strategy” ??

That’s not a strategy, that’s simply taking advantage of an opening by the tribe in that particular are, it came to us, and Gen. Petraeus decided to take the risk to arm the Insurgents.

As for 4 1/2 years is not enough— I tought you would say that. When people can’t show results, they allways say that. Let me trow that one back at you if you don’t mind. If in 2008 a Democratic President decides to pull out most of our troops from Iraq, living only enough troops to conduct REAL counter-insurgency operations against al-Quaida, and that policy does not seem to work for the first 4 1/2 years, I am sure you’ll understand and support the Democrats messing things up for say the next ten years right???????

Hey, like you said conflict don’t have expirations dates— Specially if you are not winning right?

And our soldiers can keep on getting killed because we are in no hurry to ACTUALLY END THE WAR.

wordsmith.

Yes, gil?

“what I believe is that the strategy we had was not working”

NO it was not, and the “New and improved strategy ” is not going to work because is the same old song with a new singer. Or is pacifing al-Ambar new to you? Or is it the alliance with the Sunni to fight al-Quaida a “strategy” ??

Saying it’s “the same old song” is just flat out wrong. It’s a new song with a new singer/songwriter, same genre: Iraq n roll!

That’s not a strategy, that’s simply taking advantage of an opening by the tribe in that particular are, it came to us, and Gen. Petraeus decided to take the risk to arm the Insurgents.

Again. You ignore the relevant links and quotes I provide for you. Did you not see where I addressed the “arming Sunnis” statement you made before? Quit skim reading, or I’ll have to insult you by calling you “reading comprehension-challenged”.

I don’t enjoy saying it. Because then you’ll come back at me in all caps.

As for 4 1/2 years is not enough— I tought you would say that. When people can’t show results, they allways say that.

Yes, and you should listen to them for a change. But you are stuck in your own mental quagmire.

So how long should things last for? Anything?

Let me trow that one back at you if you don’t mind. If in 2008 a Democratic President decides to pull out most of our troops from Iraq, living only enough troops to conduct REAL counter-insurgency operations against al-Quaida, and that policy does not seem to work for the first 4 1/2 years, I am sure you’ll understand and support the Democrats messing things up for say the next ten years right???????

It depends. But probably so. What you don’t seem to get is that we are in a long war. Not in Iraq, specifically, but against a radical ideology. It could stretch for generations, and it’s not one that this President started. he is not the instigator.

Hey, like you said conflict don’t have expirations dates— Specially if you are not winning right?

That’s right.

We’re not losing either, btw. It’s a war of perception, as much as anything. Even one death of a soldier is terrible; but compare it to previous wars. The problem is, every molehill of a setback is magnified into a mountain of “the sky is falling! Run away! Run away!”

This is why Osama labeled us a paper tiger.

George Washington was losing battle after battle, up until the time that we won the war.

And our soldiers can keep on getting killed because we are in no hurry to ACTUALLY END THE WAR.

Of course we are in a hurry. We Americans are always in a hurry.

The war will end when it ends.

wordsmith.

I believe you do waste a lot of time trying to argue about battles that like in Nam we allways win, and loose sight of the policy by the Bush administration, that for the most part is and will remain the same.

We all (if we are honest) agree that the war in Iraq was a war of choice, and that’s no 20-20 hindsight talk. All you have to do is look at Dick Cheney’s interview in 4/15/2004 to understand that this Administartion knew EXACTLY what they were getting into. We all agree that the pre-war preparations, and the post-war execution was atrocious to the point of criminal, and yet the Republican Party not only looked the other way, but supported this incompetence for 4 long years. It took the Republicans loosing Congress for the President to finally fire Rumsfeld.

I can understand why you don’t want to talk about Rumsfeld, but unfortunatelly for you and your party, it is the ex-Defense Secretary the one figure you can honestly show as your “record” in Iraq. And your “record” frankly sucks. Now, since in real life we are only as good as our record , I believe me and hundreds of millions of Americans do have the right to question the credibility of anithing that comes out of this Administration. Gen. Petraeus has a boss, and that boss is Bush. So he might be Napoleon re-encarnate, and still could not win in Iraq— Because Bush still is President, and Bush is still hell bent in persuing his basic flawed plan for Iraq.

That is to say to have a Central Government and a Democracy that only exists in his demented mind. There is no Central Government in Iraq. We just went to two days of arguing about an alliance OUTSIDE of the Central Government. There is no agreement forcoming between the Sunni, Shiite, and Kurds. There is no Democracy. I am not a pesimist, I am a realist. Some things in life are either done, or not. Every day that goes by with more sectarian killing the possibility of the Shiite and Sunni getting to agree on anithing diminish– That’s just a fact of life, that you would do well to accept.

When you say that there are no time limits in wars, you are correct. But every war is different, and in the Iraq war time is not your friend, and that’s where you are wrong. Every day we spent with our Army trapped in Iraq is a day that al-Quaida has won. Every day that we continue to support a Government that is allied to Iran is a day that we have lost.

You can’t say that because a war can last X amount of years, you can extrapolate that into Iraq. For one thing the American people WILL NOT TOLERATE MUCH MORE OF THIS WAR AND YOU KNOW IT—- AND THEY ARE RIGHT NOT TO TOLERATE IT.
And for another as I said the Iraqi people are only becoming more radicalized as time goes by, not less. I don’t blame them, me and you would be radicals by now if If we were seeing our people attacked every day simply because they happen to be Sunni, or Shiite. Millions have left Iraq, the best in fact are gone. Millions more are refugees in their own country. And the killing will go on, and on and on. The radicals can’t be stopped, if they could don’t you think that the strongest Army in the world would have done it by now after 4 1/2/ years and counting?

And while all of this is going on, Bush marches on determined to end his Presidency and live the mess to some one else. That’s the REAL extent of his policy. Let’ sat least be honest on that.

In Iraq there are no good solutions left. Bush took care of that a long time ago. We will have to be in Iraq for a long time to come. But if the next President has any brains, he/she will have to acknowledge that in Iraq time’s up. The American people will no longer support an open ended commitment. The Army will not support it also because they are at the end of the rope for the most part and you know it. It is no accident that we are ending the surge in April of next year. If there is going to be a Democracy, then let’s see it– if Not then let’s really change policy. We owe it to our soldiers. They have done their duty, now is time for Iraqi politicians to step up to the plate, or loose their country, if they ever had one . Enough is enough.

Iraq in the future will look like this in my opinion. A partisioned country that has enormous troubles and infighting among groups and tribes in the Shiite South, and the Sunni Center. An American presence limited to fortified camps, and counter-insurgency operations against al-Quaida. A kurdistan that is prosperous and allied with America.

Our troops will stay for the next 50 years or more. But the amount of troops will be kept at the lowest possible level and no more. Slowly we will see real diplomatic efforts to involve Sunni countries in helping Iraq. Slowly we will see improvement on relations with the Shiite and the Iranians. We will have to because the Iranians will own nuclear bombs– A by-product of our invasion of Iraq.

As for the war on terrorism — Get used to it because it will go on for the rest of our lives. Or until some one has the good sence to live the Arabs alone, and stop using oil for energy.

Rofl, man you are something gil. A none spelling intellectual wannabe but I’m sure spelling with crayons can be quite difficult.

You spout a lot of conclusions with no proof, no evidence. You say this group is doing that and this group is doing this but provide no links, no quotes, no nothing to back up your argument. I DID provide links and quotes, as did Word. It seems to me you are indeed intellectually dishonest and this statement proves it beyond a shadow of doubt:

So why is there over one thousand daily attacks just in Baghdad related to Sunni Vs. Shiite violence???

I’m thinking you received the 1000 daily attacks number from the lancet study, which proves you will believe anything that proves the conclusion you WANT to believe. If you didn’t get this number from lancet then you’ve made it up wholecloth, like most of the “conclusions” you make.

But hey, its your beliefs so more power to you. Have fun in your fantasy world.

Curt.

Since you are now so interested in proper spelling, I am sure that you have a problem with Bush’s misstatements, and problems with the English language right?

The man has produced a multi-million Dollar industry about “Bushisms” — But of course that does not in any way shape or form makes him a President wannabe in your eyes does it??? Actually Curt, I would have loved for Bush to mangle the English language to the point of tears , if he had shown some intelligence in the conduct of his Foreign Relations, and the conduct of the war in Iraq.

Now, since all you could coment back from all my posts was a reference to the attacks in Iraq (actually is over a thousand per day) , I’ll just take it as a sure indication of your lack of understanding on the subject.

“You spout a lot of conclusions with no proof, no evidence”

Oh, and you do????

Your very remark in the posts shows no evidence on your acusation!!! What lack of evidence are you talking about?

Is not my problem that you don’t inform yourself about the topic. Don’t confuse your ignorance with my “lack of evidence” I am not your personal teacher about Iraq. This is a blog my friend, not a book with footnotes.

Curt.

My “fantasy world” is the one that has us in Iraq for 4 1/2 years and counting till the end of Bush’s term in office with more talk about progress every step alongthe way.

My “fantasy world” indicates to me that in that period of time many more of our soldiers will die to support YOUR FANTASY WORLD.

If mine was the “fantastic” world I would be talking about a war that is over, a mess that never was, a surge that resoved the Iraqi problems, a progress that materialized into a resolution, etc. So please Mr. Realist tell me what of the above mentioned has happened?

On the other hand you talk about “progress” as the year before, and the year before that, and the year before that. Then your side talks about A Democracy with a fractured Government unable to agree to anything substantial for years now, then your side starts a war on non-existant WMD’s, and said that the war was going to be paid with Iraqi oil, and said that the latest surge was going to give the Iraqi Government the room to make the tough compromises, etc.

SO I ask you again, Mr. Realist— What of the above mentioned has happened????

You wanted evidence there it is crystal clear. The only one living in a fantasy world is you.

“My “fantasy world” is the one that has us in Iraq for 4 1/2 years and counting till the end of Bush’s term in office with more talk about progress every step alongthe way.”

yeah, keep counting those days because we all know oh-so-much is going to change in 2008.

Sen Clinton promoted the invasion of Iraq
Sen Clinton rolled over, asked her hubby if the intel threat reporting was real, and she declared it was
Sen Clinton authorized the invasion of Iraq
Sen Clinton supported the invasion of Iraq
Sen Clinton called for more troops to go to Iraq last fall
Sen Clinton has already said she’ll only withdraw combat troops from Iraq (leaving tens of thousands to continue the UN-mandated occupation of Iraq; see also UN1483 and subsequent resolutions).

I mention Sen Clinton only because she’s the likely Dem nominee, but in reality all three leading Dem and all four leading Republican potential candidates will continue the war.

So…keep counting those days, and keep believing that it’s all a neocon conspiracy like Bin Laden, Ron Paul, Kucinich, KOSsacks, DUmmies, and MoveOn all say it is. Keep counting for that day when nothing changes, and you find some other paranoid conspiracy to wrap up in and use as a Harry Potter invisibility cloak. I hear such fear is warm and comforting.

Scott Malensek

In my posts I make it clear that I believe we will be in Iraq for “the next 50 years”. Obviously that will include not only a possible Clinton Administration in 2009, but many more Democratic and Republican Administrations.

So much for your “gotcha” moment right pal?

Now, in my posts I also make it clear that the role of our Army after the 2008 elections will change. The change will be for our Army to basicaly stand down from the primary defense role they have had all trough the Bush years, to a back up position, and to counter-insurgency, and special operations against al-Quaida.

The new policy will be put forward by Democrats, and no Democrat is running from that responsibility. Just Sunday on meet the Press Sen. Kerry repeatedly said that the Democrats were not planning to abandon Iraq, and that we needed long term relation’s with the Iraqi Government on wherever for it ultimatelly takes.

The difference between any future Democratic President and the present idiot in the White House, is that the new President will inherit the mess, and the new President will get by then an over extended Army, tired to the point of exhaustion by six years of an all out effort to nowhere.

Finally, In your mention of all the things that Sen. Clinton has done, you forgot the main thing she needs to do;

Sen. Clinton will have to listen to her base, and follow the wishes of the American people to end this war, or at least end any major involvement by American troops in Iraq.

I know that your side forgot we live in a Democracy, that’s why we kindly reminded you in 2006, and will remind you again in 2008. Bush, and your side can free-lance stupid policies all you want while he is in ofice. Having said that, just be ready to pay the price if your side’s “policies” instead of solving the mess you guys created, turn instead into yet more empty “progress” rethoric, that by now the American people has turned off.

“In my posts I make it clear that I believe we will be in Iraq for “the next 50 years”. Obviously that will include not only a possible Clinton Administration in 2009, but many more Democratic and Republican Administrations. So much for your “gotcha” moment right pal?”

lol, did I say “gotcha”-methinks not

“Now, in my posts I also make it clear that the role of our Army after the 2008 elections will change. The change will be for our Army to basicaly stand down from the primary defense role they have had all trough the Bush years, to a back up position, and to counter-insurgency, and special operations against al-Quaida.”

ie, the Bush plan per that was posted in pdf form on the White House website from 2003-2006. Btw, I personally suggested and pushed for that plan to Congressman Ryan, Sen Brown, and Sen Voinovich back in the late summer of 06, and they blew it off. I wrote it up, drafted it, even drafted the bill, and they ignored it. Why? ’cause the war in Iraq isn’t about winning/losing anything in Iraq…not to DC politicians-ESPECIALLY Democrats. It’s about maintaining the political wedge issue that gets money into campaign funds, gets telephone volunteers, gets press, and gets voters to come out and vote rather than stay home and watch American Idol. Republicans stood for national security, Democrats stand opposed to it.

“The new policy will be put forward by Democrats, and no Democrat is running from that responsibility. Just Sunday on meet the Press Sen. Kerry repeatedly said that the Democrats were not planning to abandon Iraq, and that we needed long term relation’s with the Iraqi Government on wherever for it ultimatelly takes.”

Kerry’s but one loser, other Democrats are already saying the war is lost, and only a fool would pretend “redeploy” hasn’t been the core Democratic Party position since fall 2005 when the DNC called for draft Iraq strategies (ie, when Rep Murtha began calling for redeployment, when that same Sen Kerry you point to “demanded” that 20,000 troops be withdrawn immediately). No, the Democratic base-as you yourself point out later, wants out of Iraq at any cost immediately.

“The difference between any future Democratic President and the present idiot in the White House, is that the new President will inherit the mess, and the new President will get by then an over extended Army, tired to the point of exhaustion by six years of an all out effort to nowhere.”

Yeah, but those tired soldiers who’ve been declared “broken” by the Democrats for (by then) 4 years, will rise up with a renewed vigor and eagerness to fight on under the leadership of those who declared the mission a lost cause but kept funding it for (again, by then) a min of 4 yrs. Dream.

btw, I LOVE THIS FOLLOWING PART OF YOUR POST!!!!!!! (caps and punctuation there in homage)

“Finally, In your mention of all the things that Sen. Clinton has done, you forgot the main thing she needs to do;
Sen. Clinton will have to listen to her base, and follow the wishes of the American people to end this war, or at least end any major involvement by American troops in Iraq.”

See, that’s the part I love! I mean MAN!!! You hit the NAIL ON THE HEAD! Let’s see it again in slo-mo

“Sen. Clinton
will have to
listen to her base…”

There is a difference between “the base” and “the American people.”
THE BASE-Democrats etc who want out of Iraq immediately irregardless of consequences
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE-56% of the American people want success in Iraq

What you’re saying is that Sen Clinton (Pres H Clinton) will have to find a way to pander and mislead THE BASE longer so they’ll stick with her despite having demanded immediate withdrawal for (by then 4-6 YEARS), and at the same time she’s gonna have to satisfy the American people who want success in Iraq, and that’s only gonna come if she follows the Bush Plan you described above without even knowing it (ever READ the Bush plan?)

“I know that your side forgot we live in a Democracy, that’s why we kindly reminded you in 2006, and will remind you again in 2008. Bush, and your side can free-lance stupid policies all you want while he is in ofice. Having said that, just be ready to pay the price if your side’s “policies” instead of solving the mess you guys created, turn instead into yet more empty “progress” rethoric, that by now the American people has turned off.”

I like that “your side” dribble. It makes you sound like a Democrat-not citizen of the UNITED States of America, and it’s especially funny since I voted for Clinton twice, drafted plans for Iraq and submitted them to DEMOCRATS who blew them off…and now you’re advocating almost the same plan. Somehow, if someone believes the invasion was the right decision, or believes that the occupation and reconstruction is right…they can’t possibly be a Democrat, right? Must be a Lieberman, or a Baird, or a Clinton-oh wait, she’s ok. KOS likes her, so she can stay despite having been key in forming the DLC which formed the PNAC’s Mid East policy so often fingered by leftist wackos and Bin Laden as the crux of a neocon conspiracy. Yeah, she can stay.

She promoted, authorized, and supported the war, called for more troops-then immediately opposed the idea when W did it, but you’d vote for her just the same. As long as she doesn’t have that scarlett letter R on her chest.

Sounds to me like you don’t care one iota about what’s really happening over there, happened, or will happen aside from the political rancor that you can play with. Meanwhile, the enemy is embracing Democrats, and Dems see nothing wrong with that at all.

Since we all agree that American troops will be in Iraq for a long, long time to come (courtesy of Mr. Bush) it would have been nice if the same President that arguably started a war of choice, and turned into a mess for the ages, could have been man enough to take responsibility and end it in his term.

Instead what we have today is an Administration on a holding action called the “surge” that will simply take Bush to the end of his term. I understand, and even agree with those that say that the present surge has had some positive effect. But having said that, it is dishonest for any one to extrapolate the success of the present surge with an ultimate victory in Iraq as the Right defines it.

Hense the obvious. If the present surge will not give us victory, but simply what can very well be a temporary drop of violence in Baghdad, and a possible alliance with the SUnni on al-Ambar thanks to the titanic effort of our troops…..What good will that do to the strategic effort and ultimate victory in Iraq if it can ever be achieved?

What you guys on this blog keep on exalting, is at best a temporary local victory in al-Ambar, and a temporary drop in violence in Bagdhad that will yet again disapear the moment our troops inevitably live. In this blog and in general, the Right keeps on ignoring that every General, every politician including Bush, every head of state around the world, has said correctly that the solution in Iraq is not military.

Yet, the Right continues to give the Military the responsability for solving Iraq’s problems. In the false pretense that Security comes first, and political compromise second, we have had our Army pin down for years and counting, while the second part of the equation continues to fail with no one holding them accountable.

I already made the observation (unchallenged) that the very success in al-Ambar shows clearly that Political compromise has to come first, and then be followed by the security equation to have any chance for success not only be true, but LASTING.

The next Administration Republican or Democrat will have to come to terms with the fact that our Army is not designed for Nation building, and that the Iraqi Government will have to compromise at last or die as a political body. Needles to say that the responsability of understanding that and acting on it beloged squarely in the shoulders of Bush, but he went AWAOL living the Army stuck, and the Republican Party in a death spiral.

Bush in my view is an incompetent, arrogant individual, and a coward at hearth. He has spent the last few years hiding behind the troops, and the last few months hiding behind Gen. Petraeus.

In the end he will not be able to hide from history.

Sounds like your beef is with Bush and everything else is just a catalyst for venting it. He’s tried to end the war, and failed. Democrats have never done a single thing to help bring about success, and have actually encouraged, supported, and promoted defeat. Were a man omnipotent, he could wave his wand and win a war, but the enemy gets a vote, and while insurgencies need 3-10x their number of fighters in the form of supporters to survive, they need the acquiescence of the opposing population to succeed, and Democrats have done nothing but capitulate more and more since the Presidential campaign squad appeared in Feb 03.

Now, gil’s got a great point that everyone says success in Iraq comes from political means-not military alone (even Pres Bush has said this going back to early 03), but the debate appears to be:

political THEN military
vs
military THEN political

in the case of the former, the second half wouldn’t be necessary, and thus the argument is an oxymoron

in the case of the latter (military bringing about security so militias can disarm and organize with the govt rather than around it and outside it), the surge has brought about that success, and while the Iraqi Parliament hasn’t met all of its benchmarks put forth by a Democratic Congress which was seeking failure talking points rather than measures of success, it is ironic that the Iraqi Parliament has passed more laws and legislation than the very Democratic Party’s Congress which is arguably the least accomplished Congress in American history to date (having passed fewer laws and legislation than the Iraqis or any previous American Congress). So, gil prefers to believe in the oxymoron strategy and the complaints of a representative govt pot calling a similar govt kettle black.

I gotta say, I really liked the part about “inheriting” a mess. That was rich. I mean, if Pres H Clinton comes is elected and 8 months later there’s a terrorist attack in the US, there will be legions of people who blame W for 911 excusing her.

Again, this looks like just another debate with a Bush hater who either doesn’t realize he’s nothing more than a paypal campaign contribution receipt to some dem, and that the entire Democratic Party effort re Iraq has been aimed at American defeat with zero examples of working towards success in Iraq. I wonder, how can a Democrat become President then bring about the success in Iraq that the majority of the American people want when no Democrat-not a one-has experience in working for success in Iraq? That’s a complete 180 degree change in effort on their part, but we’re supposed to believe they can do it? I suppose if anyone can flip around to the opposite side of a position, a Democrat can do it, but only Bush haters would be so blinded by partisan hate and political disenfranchisement as to believe it. With no GWB to whine about, the Democrats will have their nightmare scenario in Iraq:

accountability for their own actions.

scott malenske

A few observations.

When you talk about the Democrats as losers, you forget they were the ones that won the last election. The Republicans lost Congress to those “losers” on the argument of Iraq…. As a result your real loser Rummy lost his job.

But tell me scott because I am curios to know. If you lose to a loser what does that make you?

On your comment about Kerry. I posted what he said. You don’t believe me get a transcript of the program. But do not invent what he said, and call me a liar in the process. If you have a big mouth, and can’t help to trow insults around fine, just make sure you can back up the isults with facts, because if you can’t (read the transcript) then you turn yourself into a clown with a big mouth– And we don’t want that to happen do we?

Now the Democrats can say that the war is lost, or the Republicans can say that the war is won. In the end pal reasonable people will understand that the war is not about the Democrats or the Republicans. Is about a man (Bush) making a desicion that has demonstrably turned into a mess. Any one can draw conclusions, and you can call me a Bush hater….. You know what? I do hate a man that kills thousands of my country man becasue of pure incompetence. And I do deeply resent people that ignore that fact and call us “losers” for pointing out to you the fact that all you ever did was TALK about victory. And talk pal, is cheap.

“The Democrats efforts are aimed at an American defeat”. I have a hard time taking seriously a person that makes remarks like that. In fact after that remark I have to tell you that you are not worth my answering to your posts. Get yourself some sense of proportion friend, and understand that you are talking to a fellow American that loves his country just as much as you do, and will never want to see it defeated. The fact that you and I disagree on the way to win, or at least stop the losses in Iraq, does not make you a loser, or a defeatist any more than it makes me anithing other than an American with a different opinion than yours.

Go back grow up and learn how to debate without insults, and grand standings. Until then talk to some one else.

Oh man, you’ve gotta be kidding me-Kerry is not a loser? Yes, I called him a loser, and I say that other Dems who say the war is lost are losers. If one can’t grasp the idea that a person who cries, “we lost we lost” is a loser…then you need to learn more about english than just the spuhlling.

Oh, I fully believe your comment about Sen and failed Presidential candidate Kerry. I do. What’s odd is that you somehow ignore the fact that my comments were on the mark and true as well. He did DEMAND the immediate withdrawal of 20,000 Americans in late 2005 just as I said.

“In the end pal reasonable people will understand that the war is not about the Democrats or the Republicans.”

No, it’s not. Here’s where you lose it. It IS about politics. War is politics. Technically, war has been defined for hundreds of years as one nation imposing its political will upon another through violent means. Then you go off about how Bush started the war as if he were a king and not a President given authority by Congress. Democrats eager to shirk their accountability will tell you it’s “Bush’s War” just as they did earlier wars. History books are filled with Democrats talking about “Mr Lincoln’s war” or “Nixon’s war” and Republicans did it as well with “Mr Roosevelt’s war”, but you can’t see that. War is politics, and this one continues not because of Bush’s incompetence (as if he’s out there personally leading or even trying to lead troops), but because of the Democrat’s political support for the enemy.

“Get yourself some sense of proportion friend, and understand that you are talking to a fellow American that loves his country just as much as you do, and will never want to see it defeated.”

Really? Then how have you helped bring about the enemy’s defeat or America’s success while at the same time advocating the success of the enemy’s objectives?
So far, ISLAMIC TERRORISTS LOVE DEMOCRATS

“Go back grow up and learn how to debate without insults”

I have yet to begin to insult

As we watch from the comfort of the computer chair, we can see the internet’s famous moonbattus denialious;commonly known as demoonbat. These creatures are reknown in their ability not only to view conspiracy and paranoia as reality, but also in their ability to deny reality. This is a simple defense mechanism bred into its DNA, and like the instinct of the ostrich to bury its head in the sand or that of the lemmings to follow their leaders off cliffs, the moonbattus denialous-when looking out over the abyss of the reality that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror, these paranoid creatures maintain that there is no cliff, there is no fall, there is no river of crocodiles and Islamic holy warriors below. No, instead all the moonbattai see is a road home to that fictional happy place in history where everything was hunky dory, and there was no world wide war on terror. In fact, as moonbattai by the millions follow their pandering political leaders over the edge and into the abyss they remain in denial that they are even falling for their leaders’ lies.

(bumper sticker/soundbite translation for the simple-minded)
ain’t denial funny to watch?

Scott.

OH, and Scott before I forget. ABout your observation about the surge and al Ambar.

“Militarly bringing about security so militias can disarm and organize with the Government rather than around it, and outside of it, the surge has brought that success”.

It might comes at news to you, because i can see that you simply posts material with absolutely no sense, or knowledge of what you are saying…. But, no scott the Insurgents in al-Ambar are not beeing disarmed or working with the Government. It’s the opposite . The Insurgents in al-Ambar are making an alliance with the U.S. Army to fight al-Quaida. This alliance will give them U.S. money and logistical support, and this alliance is outside the Iraqi Government. In fact the Iraqi Government was very much , against it.

Not that real facts matter to you, but I tought I would let you knwo so that in the future you might grow some shame (if you have any) and try to at least research before you make a fool of yourself.

You came up with so many mistakes, misrepresentations of facts, exagerations, intellectual extremism, naked partisanship, and down right dishonesty in your posts, that frankly I would have to spend more time than is worth in answering all those remarks.

That’s another resason why I tell you to please try to behave in a more reasonable way. Sorry but one can’t debate with some one that right off the starting line considers me a traitor (Democrats are working for the defeat of America) for the simple fact that I don’t agree with Bush’s ideas.

Hey, Bush was the one that fired Rummy was he not??? I am sure he did not do it because Rummy was doing a great job right??? Funny thing was that Bush supported Rumsfeld every step of the way, and Rumsfeld policy in Iraq, was Bush’s policy in Iraq— So in the end Rummy was Bush’s sacrificial lamb for HIS policy.

So I’ll live you with this advice take or live it. Research before you post, and don’t consider your fellow Americans your enemies because they don’t agree with you—- Grow up, you live in a Democracy. The Democrats if they win, will win just like the Republicans did. With the majority of the people behind them. At that time if the Democrats come with a plan you don’t like, you are free to go against it without me calling you a defeatist, a coward, and a man that works for the defeat of America. That’s called maturity– And you need a lot of it.

Gil,
Thanks so much for informing us all on what’s happening in a”l ambar” Look man, ya can’t even begin to be considered as remotely knowledgeable on a subject…if ya can’t spell its name.

It’s al aNbar

rofl!

Now, I call your attention to the initial reporting of the “Anbar Awakening” back in May…
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/05/anbar_rising.php

please pay close attention to the section:
“The rise of the Provincial Security Forces”

You’ll find similar language and description of these tribal forces working with the govt as I described in General Petraeus’ report last week. Try spelling it right when you do the search, and ya might find it.

GIL: “In fact the Iraqi Government was very much , against it.”

REALITY: “These units have been augmented by more formalized paramilitary units of tribal fighters. Originally called Emergency Response Units, or ERUs, are battalion sized formations manned by about 750 tribal volunteers each. The ERUs have since been renamed Provincial Security Forces, or PSFs

“The PSFs fall directly under control of the Ministry of the Interior, and are controlled by the Provincial Police Chief. While the media reporting often refers to the PSFs as “militias,” they are officially sanctioned by the government of Iraq.”

Like I said, learn to spell it, and you’ll learn a lot more about what’s happening in al aNbar province.

btw, remember that claim I had about Sen Kerry back in 05 demanding immediate withdrawal?
“Noting that “it is essential to acknowledge that the insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down,” Kerry called upon the president to bring home 20,000 troops over the Christmas holidays, after the December parliamentary elections. Kerry has said that it would be reasonable to return all the troops within 12 to 15 months.”
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/10/26/589/58450

Of course, the 20k withdrawal had been announced in June months before Kerry “demanded” it with much press PR, but it’s a good thing that his pipedream of “it would be reasonable to return all the troops within 12 to 15 months.” was ignored as things were exponentially worse 12-15 months later even by his own accounts when he was whining about how bad things were in Iraq…a year after he’d have had troops leave.

“So I’ll live you with this advice take or live it. Research before you post, and don’t consider your fellow Americans your enemies because they don’t agree with you”

I don’t consider my fellow Americans enemies because they don’t agree with me, but if the enemy says, “We demand XYZ” and an American political party packed with partisans says, “Yeah! We demand XYZ too!” Then ya know what? You share the same objective as the enemy, and ISLAMIC HOLY WARRIORS LOVE DEMOCRATS is the truth. Zawahiri said vote Dem in 06, and you did. I can point to half a dozen other Islamic terrorist leaders who did so as well and as specifically, and you did their bidding. I can even point to the latest UBL tape, and show clearly how it’s a hare’s breath from a typical MoveOn.org web rant, or KOSsack crap, or even a public declaration from the DNC Chairman himself.

One last thing…a tip:
“Funny thing was that Bush supported Rumsfeld every step of the way, and Rumsfeld policy in Iraq, was Bush’s policy in Iraq— So in the end Rummy was Bush’s sacrificial lamb for HIS policy.”

You advocated that very same policy yourself earlier-thus making it Bush, Rummy, and Gil’s Iraq policy, “The change will be for our Army to basicaly stand down from the primary defense role they have had all trough the Bush years, to a back up position, and to counter-insurgency, and special operations against al-Quaida.”

US forces were not doing the defense role until the surge-that’s why the surge was needed: to defend people and places (ie create security). The US had stepped down forces per Dem demands and reduced to a largely support, logistics, and COIN role.

by any chance are you in high school?

I can understand why you don’t want to talk about Rumsfeld,

No you don’t. Where have I said I don’t want to talk about him? Your obsession over something he said- calling the insurgents “dead-enders” is just…what exactly? There’s no point there. I already asked, “what if he called them scumbuckets”? So what?! Yes, some of the former insurgents we are working with now were probably firing at our forces before. So what?! Because Rumsfeld had lumped them all together as “dead-enders”, and now we’re working with them, this is supposed to be some sort of “gotcha” moment for Rumsfeld? That we’re “contradictory”? This is why I have a hard time following your logic.

the Iraqi people are only becoming more radicalized as time goes by, not less. I don’t blame them, me and you would be radicals by now if If we were seeing our people attacked every day simply because they happen to be Sunni, or Shiite.

Yup. And many of them are turning against the ones who are instigating the violence- which ain’t us. Or have you not been paying attention to recent developments?

And while all of this is going on, Bush marches on determined to end his Presidency and live the mess to some one else. That’s the REAL extent of his policy. Let’ sat least be honest on that.

and

could have been man enough to take responsibility and end it in his term.

What a bizarre mind you have. So, when the previous Administration left office, everything that was ever implemented and inacted under it, should now expire when the current one comes in? I vaguely remember something about Bill Clinton saying he’d bring our troops home from Bosnia….

So you basically think things in life require expiration dates. I suppose the next time we go to war, we should do so with the understanding that the war has to end under the watch of the President who “began” the war? That we set time limits?

President Bush did not begin this war. It started before he ever stepped foot into office. And it’s one that will probably be generational. It already is, that.

Since you don’t think it’s “fair” that a future president inherits “the mess” of the previous president, maybe you’d like to suggest presidents once again be electable for more than two terms? Let’s revoke the 22nd amendment! Excellent idea, Gil. Glad you suggested it!

You wanted evidence there it is crystal clear.

What evidence?!! Seriously, all you do is spout your opinions and emphatically insist “THIS IS FACT”, and base it upon a lot of suppositions.

The difference between any future Democratic President and the present idiot in the White House, is that the new President will inherit the mess, and the new President will get by then an over extended Army, tired to the point of exhaustion by six years of an all out effort to nowhere.

Well the “present idiot” inherited the messes created by “past idiots” before him. Thanks to Jimmy Carter, we find ourselves dealing with a theocratic Iran, and one half of the rise in Islamic militants hell-bent on bringing about the end of days to make way for a new Caliphate. Under President Clinton, our military was cut back. The Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12; the Navy was reduced by a couple hundred ships. The Air Force was also scaled back, with a reduction in squadrons. Military personnel was cut way back with 90% of those who were removed from the federal payroll coming from our Armed Forces. So, in light of a reduced military force, do you think that might have played a part in our military being overstretched today? Just set aside for a moment, the arguments about whether the conflicts we are in are “optional” or “necessary”. If we did find ourselves in necessary wars on multiple fronts, we would have to “go to war with the military we have, and not the military we necessarily wish we had”.

In addition to cutting the military budget, Clinton also cut our CIA budget by over 7 billion. The Cold War was over, they felt. Why keep our military and intell strong, and on the cutting edge?

Scott responding to the same quote by gil:

Yeah, but those tired soldiers who’ve been declared “broken” by the Democrats for (by then) 4 years, will rise up with a renewed vigor and eagerness to fight on under the leadership of those who declared the mission a lost cause but kept funding it for (again, by then) a min of 4 yrs. Dream.

Re-enlistment rates are up 130%, currently. Under Clinton, re-enlistment rate plummeted.

In this blog and in general, the Right keeps on ignoring that every General, every politician including Bush, every head of state around the world, has said correctly that the solution in Iraq is not military.

This, too, is strange to me. Like the anti-Bush Democrats who constantly get confused “Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11” with “there were no links between Saddam and al-Qaeda”. The arguments are not interchangeable.

The whole purpose of the military in providing security, is to help pave the way for the political process. To give it some breathing room.

In the false pretense that Security comes first, and political compromise second, we have had our Army pin down for years and counting, while the second part of the equation continues to fail with no one holding them accountable.

How can the political process move forward, if there is no security? If governors and officials are killed? Their families threatened? How does it work?

And “holding them accountable”? Many brave Iraqis who do want to live under a democratic Iraq have given their lives to try and make it happen. You want things to happen overnight. That’s not realistic. With saboteurs creating havoc, it makes it even less likely to move any faster.

In the end he will not be able to hide from history.

Kind of like Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, and Harry S Truman?

When you talk about the Democrats as losers, you forget they were the ones that won the last election. The Republicans lost Congress to those “losers” on the argument of Iraq….

I think there are several factors on why Republicans lost; it wasn’t just a referendum on being war-weary (after all, Lieberman won against his anti-war Democratic rival).

“The Democrats efforts are aimed at an American defeat”. I have a hard time taking seriously a person that makes remarks like that. In fact after that remark I have to tell you that you are not worth my answering to your posts.

For the love of mercy! ROLFLMAO!!!!!!!!! Gil, you’ve done nothing short of being anything other than a pot to our kettle. From your opening comment, you set the tone of the “debate”.

You came up with so many mistakes, misrepresentations of facts, exagerations, intellectual extremism, naked partisanship, and down right dishonesty in your posts, that frankly I would have to spend more time than is worth in answering all those remarks.

Are you addressing Scott….or your own reflection shining through on your computer screen? Seriously, that fits you like a “Tee”.

Research before you post

Throughout, Curt, Scott and I have provided you with relevant links, and you failed to even acknowledge them, let alone demonstrated that you read and understood them. What links have you provided for your assertions? Zero.

Scott wrote:

by any chance are you in high school?

Personally….my guess was that this is probably some old geezer learning how to use the computer and navigate on blogs and the internet. Old people all the time are asking me “What exactly is “the blog” I keep hearing about in the NYTimes and CNN?”

Wordsmith.

“President Bush did not begin this war”

Wordsmith. Please try to be honest in your answer. We, last I checked were taking about the Iraq war. And Bush did start the Iraq war. And is (same as scott) extremely hard to take seriously any debater that makes those extremely dishonest remarks. After all what would you think of me if I start telling you that Bush was the one responsible for the 9-11 attack???? You will think I am some nut, and not worth your time in a debate right???? So be careful with what you post, because frankly wordsmith I had you as some one that had some sence, apparently you just have moments of sence.

Is impossible to reason, let alone debate with people that can’t even accept that Bush started the war in Iraq.

Look wordsmith.

This is the deal. I find myself here in your blog arguing with people that A) consider that the Democrats are working to defeat America, B) worry about my spelling of al-anbar , but ignore that al-anbar was not part of the surge at all, and that the Iraqi Government does not agree with the SUnni in al anbar getting help from the U.S. C) That now considers Bush’s policy the same one as the man he fired, (Rumsfeld), that I am not supposed to talk about Rumsfeld when talking about Iraq, or that he has no relebance in your pretence that you know how to do counter-insurgency(He was just fired 5 months ago), etc, etc.

Frankly wordsmith you and the other guy scott, are taking me for an Idiot. al-anbar has nothing to do with the surge (third time I say it), or the ultimate success or failure of Bush’s policies in Iraq. And al-anbar if anything validates the fact that political talks have to come before security on the grownd to be long lasting.

I find myself in one of those idiot contests where one guy picks on something you said, disagrees with you, inults you, and then makes a bunch of comments like “The Democrats want to surrender” and that’s what passes for debate. All usless, and all stupid. And now i am doing the same to you guys, and that’s not right. Frankly I should have know better that to try and debate with partisans and extremist. My fault, I took you for people that actually are open to debate with open minds. ALl I can tell you is the obvious regardless of what in you think we are doing in Iraq, the American people does not give a rat’s ass (pardon my French) about your ideas, and is either you PRODUCE or you are out. Simple as that. The time for “progress” pal is over. Maibe you believe in Santa, and think that the American people will support your effort forever, because OH my GOD!!!!!! You will call us cowards if we don’t!!!! Wrong. I would tell you to Go “progress” to some other country, and with some other taxpayers money, but I’ll just settle for cooperating to get your side out of power.

It is understood that if you find scott for example correct in saying that the Democrats want America to lose, then of course there is no missrepresentation in your eyes right???? But do you honestly believe that you would take me seriously as a debater if I start by telling you that I find Republicans to be in collusion with al-Quaida, Osama, and in general a bunch of traitors to our country????

If you and scott honestly believe that Democrats are traitors, would it not be your duty to go to the police and make that accusation??? But I am the one that sets the tone of the debate!! If I was pal, I would have been calling you a traitor a long time ago. You are no traitor Wordsmith, but you, and scott are dishonest debaters, and can’t see it if your life depended on it, I can tell.

This blog is like a buch of kids playing Indians Vs. Cowboys, and making pretend. A Traitor if there is one will be arrested, prosecuted, tried, and a sentence be given. If you people feel we Democrats are working to defeat America , then pull up guys, come and arrest me if you can, get a gun and start fighting your “traitor” fellow Americans— Or please GROW UP and learn how to properly adress decent. Is that a proper enough setting for the debate wordsmith?? now if only you can follow it we ‘ll get ourselves a serious debate. I tried to give you some sense of rules, but of course you were not interested. Instead this has degenerated into a series of accusations, counter-accusations.

Now as for this al anbar business. Nice try wordsmith, but al-anbar has not a darn thing to do with the surge, or a victory in Iraq. And when I talk about passing on the buck to the next Administartion or taking responsability– You just made my point.
You people simply refuse to accept responsability for the mistakes, and the people you supported in the past, and continue to support. Bush will pass the mess to some one else? No, what ever gave you that idea!!! Responsability, accountability foreign language to you right pal?

I would like you to tell me here in this blog the following; ” Yes we Republicans from the Right, and Neo-Cons started a war where there were no WMD’s , had no post-war preparation, mess up the occupation in a criminal way, did not held any one accountable, and now we feel we still have credibility to continue to act like we know how to fix the very same mess we created”, we kept on asking for time, and in the end we ran out of time, but not of excuses — But that would be to ask for honesty–
and accountability, and basic desency, and a sense of shame— And that would be way too much to ask from extreme partisans like you people.

SO to end this sharade we have ourselves going wordsmith, let me finish with the obvious ,

In 2008, just as in 2006 the American people will go to vote, and if as predicted by every poll the Democrats win the White House, and retain and enlarge the gains in Congress. there will be change. Now you can call that change wherever the hell you like, and you can (as you did ) continue to lie to yourself and be dishonest with others, and say that the 2006 “wipping” (Buh’s own words) was not really about Iraq. In fact Come 2008 you can say that the Martians are to blame for your Party losing again, not the war in Iraq– But in the end Sir, it would be you talking to yourself, and a very small percentage of the American extreme Right…. You know scott, and his pals.

So have a nice one. And pal, Look up the words– ACCOUNTABILITY, AND CREDIBILITY in a dictionary, and then put it in the context of LACKING. I am telling you this, because you, and your side have no idea of the meaning of those words, and unfortunately that’s why you are going to lose in 2008, just as you did in 2006. I just don’t want you to again get the wrong idea as to why you are losing.

wordsmith.

I read your web links. The question is did you?

Let me give yo an example of what’s in it ;

From Scott. http://www.talkleft.com

On the web site there is a comment from Kerry IN 2005 (of course scott forgot to mention the year the remark was made) saying that he sees a need for the pull out of 20,000 troops by December –of 2005. Based on that, Scott concludes that in effect Bush is simply following Kerry’s wishes. Never mind that today the troops are not out (there’s is simply a proposal by Bush), never mind that if and when they are out, it will be in 2008, not in 2005, and never mind that if you add 30,000 troops (because of the surge) and then you deduct 20,000 troops for the pull out you in fact have a net gain of 10,000 troops in Iraq. OH, and never mind that the real reason the troops are out is becaue their 12 month tour will be over, and the 3 month extension to the original tour will be exausted.

This is why I tell you that you and scott and of course Bush are not honest with the facts. I can’t put it more clearly that this.

Now god knows I tried, and even gave you the point that there’s progress in al anbar and a drop in violence in Baghdad. Unlike you a do accept what’s in fron of my face and I don’t have the arrogance you people display.

In accepting the progress in al Anbar and Baghdad, if you abd scott were honest (again the word) you would qualify it with the fact that NO PROGRESS WAS MADE IN THE POLITICAL FRONT — And that was the purpose of the surge after all. Furthermore, if you and scott were honest you would grant the point that the al-anbar success has nothing to do with the surge, and fially agin if you and scott were honest you would admit to the strong possibility that once the surge ends, since there’s no political agreement, we will be back to square one.

Do I need to give you web sites for what I just said? What’s the point you simply will not get arround at granting any one any sence of intellectual HONESTY. I guess is an arrogance thing with you all.

The road to learning and maturity wordsmith, starts with accepting our short commings, and confronting our mistakes.
The Iraq war was a mistake, and it’s execution has been criminal. Don’t take it from me, I can give you a long, long, long, long list of Republican politicians from the present, from the past, Republican Diplomats from the present and from the past, members of this administration, all the retired Generals that served under this Administration in Iraq, the bast majority of heads of state arounf the world, the bast mahority of the world population, the bast majority of Americans, and all the Arab Nations we were supposed to “protect” when we invaded but some how is the “Democrats” the ones that are “working to defeat America”.

That’s why I call you a dishonest debater.

Listen wordsmith I truly hope you are right, and I am wrong and that in the end after this latest surge we finally “win” in Iraq— But if we don’t, if one year from now we are at square one— Find the streght of character to say that you were wrong– And start to grow as a man.

Gil, you are a liar:
“On the web site there is a comment from Kerry IN 2005 (of course scott forgot to mention the year the remark was made) saying that he sees a need for the pull out of 20,000 troops by December –of 2005.”

Yet earlier I specifically, and repeatedly said 2005:
“Kerry’s but one loser, other Democrats are already saying the war is lost, and only a fool would pretend “redeploy” hasn’t been the core Democratic Party position since fall 2005 when the DNC called for draft Iraq strategies (ie, when Rep Murtha began calling for redeployment, when that same Sen Kerry you point to “demanded” that 20,000 troops be withdrawn immediately).”
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/13/a-true-iraqi-patriot-and-ally/index.html#comment-19095

Did ya see that 2005 in that first mention? No, then how about the next time I cited “2005”?

“What’s odd is that you somehow ignore the fact that my comments were on the mark and true as well. He did DEMAND the immediate withdrawal of 20,000 Americans in late 2005 just as I said.”
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/13/a-true-iraqi-patriot-and-ally/index.html#comment-19100

Missed it the second time? Ok, how about the third time I said 2005?
“btw, remember that claim I had about Sen Kerry back in 05 demanding immediate withdrawal?
‘Noting that “it is essential to acknowledge that the insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down,” Kerry called upon the president to bring home 20,000 troops over the Christmas holidays, after the December parliamentary elections. Kerry has said that it would be reasonable to return all the troops within 12 to 15 months.'”
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/13/a-true-iraqi-patriot-and-ally/index.html#comment-19106

Only a complete moron could miss that THREE TIMES and then call ME dishonest for somehow now mentioning 2005…that makes you either a straight up liar, or a complete moron for missing it three times then calling me one.

“NO PROGRESS WAS MADE IN THE POLITICAL FRONT”
-not true. You say NO PROGRESS, but even Democrats in their 7 minute speeches to Gen Petraeus cited some progress-just not enough. Gen Petraeus was very clear as well in HIS comments to Congress that political progress was being made at the lower levels, but just hadn’t made it to the Parliament-still ironic that the Iraqi Parliament’s passed more legislation and law than the Democrats’ Congress. Reminds me of when the Democrats’ Congress went on vacation in August and complained that the Iraqi Parliament was going to take a vacation.