Great job as usual by Michael Goldfarb in describing the fighting in Basra. Basically saying that those who moan and cry about Iraq always like to point out that the militia’s are still running rampant. Well now Maliki is doing something about it and what do we get? More whining. Michael:
Faced with an intractable problem, Maliki bet big and confronted the most powerful militia in Iraq. When one looks at the rest of the Middle East, it’s not at all apparent that the region’s more problematic regimes are inclined to do the same. Take Pakistan, where broad swaths of the country are controlled by militias, the Taliban, al Qaeda. If only Musharraf had the resolve to violently confront these threats to his government’s sovereignty. It’s the same in the Palestinian territories, where Mahmoud Abbas must rely on the IDF to keep him in power. Abbas might be willing to confront Hamas, but he is unable. And in Lebanon, a weak central government lacks the resolve to strike at Hezbollah. It strikes me as a good thing that Maliki can and will go after those who directly challenge his government–even to the New York Times it looks like progress.
Meanwhile Obama said this today about the fight:
“I don’t want to suggest I’ve absorbed all of the facts,” about the situation in Basra, Mr. Obama said. But, he continued, what he had heard “appears consistent with my general analysis. The presence of our troops and their excellence has resulted in some reduction in violence. It has not resolved the underlying tensions that exist in Iraq.”
Really? There are tensions in Iraq that have not gone away? Get outta here….
No one has said The Surge has done this, not Bush, not McCain, no one. Does anyone really expect tensions to ease in a few short months, or years? Hell, there are tensions in this country that have existed for centuries, from political to racial. It’s called life. And to suggest that he, or anyone else, can reduce those “tensions” by running from the fight is just naive and foolish. If we leave before that country can defend itself from outside influence, and from within, then you can bet your ass that there will a bit more going on other then some tension. There will be wholesale bloodshed as al-Qaeda takes that country as its own.
This is the all-or-nothing rhetorical game the Democrats play with Iraq. They pretend the McCain side of the debate makes outlandishly sunny claims and then they “disprove” them. They overstate non-scandalous aspects of both McCain’s Iraq plan (the hundred-year war) and our present Iraq strategy: Last Tuesday in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton said, “President Bush seems to want to keep as many people as possible in Iraq. It’s a clear admission that the surge has failed to accomplish its goals.” Wrong and wrong. And shameful, to boot.
The fact of the matter is that the Iraqi government has been criticized for not taking advantage of the reduction in violence caused by The Surge. Well, here they are stepping up and the MSM quickly steps up and gives the gloomiest reporting possible. You would think that those who want us out of Iraq would take heart in this fight…..one more step closer to getting out of there.
But not if it means they can’t bash Bush.
When 2009 rolls around, and if HillBama is in office, you better believe the reporting by the MSM and the talking points from lefty politico’s will be markedly different.
See author page
Nope need to agree to disagree High plans. Facts are facts, and my listing of them is correct.
“Scott: I disagree to some extent in each case with your contention that the list you present are lies, but frankly, I don’t think I could change your mind so lets just agree to disagree.”
war will last 100yrs-you yourself admit McCain didn’t say this, and no one has said it or advocated it, but people with political agendas have had a happy time claiming exactly that.
war cost $3trillion-maybe $4trillion, maybe $100trillion in 100yrs. The funny thing is, when you add up all the spending appropriated to the war in Iraq it’s barely $500bn in 5yrs, but people with political agendas NEVER miss the chance to combine the cost of the war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, and global war on terror as a single cost (interestingly enough while claiming the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror). Often, they’ll even toss in speculative costs done to the economy, perhaps double the combined numbers, and bammo…the highest, most alarming cost in dollars is presented as fact and fuel for opposing the war/supporting the enemy’s objective: unconditional, immediate withdrawal
war killed 2-3million Iraqis-Iraq Body Count keeps track of the bodies, and says about 100k have been killed in Iraq since it started, about 20,000 from US fire, about 30,000 caught in the crossfire, and the rest from enemy fire. Yet people with political agendas lump all these together and blame the US forces who haven’t killed even half of the bodies found, then those same political agenda types feel free to make speculative estimates that are 10x or 20x the number of real bodies found. Bammo…the most alarming cost in blood is presented as fact and fuel for opposing the war/supporting the enemy’s objective: unconditional, immediate withdrawal
no wmd threat-The ISG looked into it, wrote a 1000page report called the Duelfer report. It’s pictures alone prove there was a WMD threat (just not in the form of stockpiles). Would someone summarize the 700pg book, Moby Dick as 5 letters, “WHALE”? No, but they feel free to talk about 1000pg report with pics as 5 letters, “NOWMD”. Dr. Kay said it best (though it’s completely ignored by people with political agendas to satisfy), “It was reasonable to conclude that Iraq posed an imminent threat. What we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place potentially than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war,”
-1/28/04 Dr. David Kay
no ties to Al Queda-well, the Pentagon’s investigation into 1/6 of the captured documents from Iraq (rpt released last week) simply destroys this myth. ‘Course, the claim was always based on half truths, half quotes from investigations, and people with political agendas
Bush lied-pre-war intel on Iraq’s been investigated a dozen times by 3 countries and the UN, by independent and bi-partisan groups, and only partisan investigations have said he “distorted” or “misled”. Even they won’t say he lied. Cause guess what? He didn’t. There was very weak and limited intel, but that has a bi-partisan cause, and no one (particularly those running for President) wanted that out there.
it’s all about oil & American imperialism-This cry comes loudest from socialist (gosh, imagine that), but if it’s all about oil…why’s my gas cost so much, and if it’s about imperialism or colonialism, then why is the “economy so bad”? Nah, oil’s part of it, but the mideast has TWO major exports: oil, and terror. In the case of Iraq, it’s about terrorists, and terrorist sponsors wanting the oil, while the US wanting to fight terrorists.
“What I disagree with is that you say the three candidates are alike in their approch to ending the war. I think the Democratic candidates are similar in that they have a rough timetable to get out, but not McCain. He thinks the surge is working and he wants to stay until we “win”, but will not define that. I want that definition. If he is going to spend $2billion a day our our maney he owes us that.”
All three candidates have said that they want to see a free, stable, and secure Iraq that is an ally in the war on terror. That’s GWB’s definition of success, McCain’s, Obama’s, and Clinton’s (though the latter two change their positions often depending on the crowd and the polls).
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/clinton_vs_obama_on_iraq.html
Dare to imagine the unthinkable:
Iraq wasn’t flooded with WMD, but inspections couldn’t possibly simultaneously check every desk drawer for a coffee can of anthrax (thus inspections couldn’t prove Iraq had no wmd), but Iraq was a WMD threat in the same way that a serial killer who always killed with a Tommy Gun sat in a room with a disassembled colt 45, empty casings, a box of hollow points ready to load, a bag of powder, and a basement setup to load his own shells. Then, when you wonder if the guy’s a threat, he says, I could kill all of you with 45cal, and I want to kill all of you. Hmmm, is this guy a threat? Uh, yeah.
Now imagine that (as captured regime leaders, captured AQ, and captured documents all confirm) Saddam’s regime was a terrorist threat. Saddam’s regime worked with groups in the Al Queda network of terrorist groups, and Saddam’s regime was more than willing to work with radical extremists-wary of them, but more than willing and historically had used them.
Lastly, imagine that as much as GWB and Republicans needed the war as a political crutch-as much as you’d imagine they would distort intel-two dozen Democrats running for President and hundreds running for office needed to oppose the war as a crutch/draw issue just as badly OR MORE SO.
Complain all y’all want about GWB and Iraq. The next President-no matter who it is-will seek to continue force drawdowns, but will continue the occupation for decades.
Scott: You are doing too much imagining.
Good viewpoint here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/03/michael-ware-interview/
Scott: This guy is an expert, at least moreso than you and I:
ESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE ON IRAQ
By William E. Odom, LT General, USA, Ret.
2 April 2008
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/32419
…nay sayers insist that our withdrawal will create regional instability. This confuses cause with effect. Our forces in Iraq and our threat to change Iran’s regime are making the region unstable. Those who link instability with a US withdrawal have it exactly backwards. Our ostrich strategy of keeping our heads buried in the sands of Iraq has done nothing but advance our enemies’ interest.
high plains, thinkprogress is one of those places that echoes the very people with political agendas I speak of. It’d be like me linking to FreeRepublic.
What part is imagining:
-the captured regime members, captured AQ, captured docs, all confirm that Saddam was a terrorist threat.
“v. Conclusion
One question remains regarding Iraq’s terrorism capability: Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against United States? Judging from examples of Saddam’s statements (Extract 34) before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is /yes/.”
[btw, no emphasis added on that ‘yes’. It’s emphasized in the report]
-the ISG Duelfer report spent 1000 pages describing how Saddam’s regime was a wmd threat, just not in the form of stockpiles.
“It was reasonable to conclude that Iraq posed an imminent threat. What we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place potentially than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war,”
-1/28/04 Dr. David Kay
-how can anyone doubt that Democrats have made opposition to the Iraq War their core issue in the past three elections? Do you really believe the professional lawyer politicians of either party?
Look High Plains, I opposed the war, didn’t believe President Bush, and I didn’t believe the opposition’s rantings either. I turned to the bi-partisan investigations and the UN’s claims instead. Take away the D or the R, and it turns out the invasion was not only necessary, but inevitable, unavoidable, and was in fact the last resort.
omg, linking to Afterdowningstreet is like linking to the PNAC. Lt Gen Odom is a Lt Gen. Gen Petraeus is a little higher in rank, intimately more familiar with the situation, but most of all…Odom’s irrelevant. All three candidates have the same plan: continue drawdowns based on conditions on the ground, then leave enough forces in Iraq to:
protect US citizens,
train Iraqis
fight al queda
all with the intent of making Iraq a secure and stable ally in the war on terror (in accordance with UN1483sec1-4)
HPJ wrote:
Aah…the general who inspired the coining of the phrase, “Odom’s Razor”:
Re: “All three candidates have the same plan: continue drawdowns based on conditions on the ground, then leave enough forces in Iraq to:
protect US citizens,
train Iraqis
fight al queda
all with the intent of making Iraq a secure and stable ally in the war on terror (in accordance with UN1483sec1-4)”
Except that John McCaibn is the only one who I belive has no intention of keeping that promise, especially if he achieves his aim of extending the war into Iran He will flip-flop on that one as fast as he did on the MLK Holiday, or his opinion of Pat Robertson.
“Bomb, Bomb, Bom
Bomb, Bomb Iran!”
Senator John McCain
By the way, how many decades will it be before Iraq becomes George W. Bush’s “Shining Example of Democracy” in the Middle East?
High Plains… INRE your comment:
Everyone can speculate all day long what will happen. But fact is, none of us have a crystal ball.
Therefore I have chosen to listen to what the enemy says what will happen when the US withdraws. From Zawahiri’s Q&A interview just this past week.
INRE the Awakening Council… those that have turned on the jihad movement’s efforts to destabilize Iraq.
I figure, from the mouth of the enemy, they plan to go full force back into battle in Iraq to to rid themselves of an “apostate” Arab government the Iraqi’s have dared to form… an “unIslamic” democracy. Or as they define their objectives after ridding Arab lands of all Crusader/Jew/UN presence and influence:
If you choose to listen to media “experts” and talking heads instead of the stated intentions of the enemy, we be in deep s*#t.