Would ANY of you be willing to go out on a limb and predict when you think we'll be out of Iraq?

I doubt any of you will.

I'd estimate at least 5 years, probably 10 years, but it really all depends on what happens in Iran and to a lessor extent Syria and SA.

You must have read the NYT OPED today. It's not just us "righties" thinking this way these days. This from the Liberal Brookings Institution.

A War We Just Might Win
By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
Published: July 30, 2007

VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.

In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.

In Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.

We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.

But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).

In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.

In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.

The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.

In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.

Another surprise was how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.

In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to dozens of military officers who before the war had known little about governance or business but were now ably immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi with a decent life.

Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control.

so are his commanders. It all begins at the top however, the Chain of the Command is a two way street.

With Donald Rumsfeld, he did not want to listen to his Army Commanders and it showed. It showed with wrong tactics i.e. shock and awe. wrong equipment i.e. Hummers with no armor and wrong attitude i.e. "we go to war with the army we have". The boots knew what needed to be done from day one and now we have leaders who are listening to them.

"Clear and Hold" will work. The death toll is lowest it has been in 8-months. By the way, you can tell the article was written by a liberal, they have the military nomenclature all mixed up. Its funny, thats all.

who supported the initial invasion and supported Bush's troop surge. What next? Are you going to quote the "liberal" Sen. Liebermann?

The Brookings Institute has long been considered liberal.

In case you were sleeping, lotsa libs supported the invasion. Even some open minded ones supported the "surge"

-- Modified on 7/31/2007 8:29:08 PM

-- Modified on 7/31/2007 8:43:30 PM

than Northern Ireland for your answer. From our form of government, language, economic and foreign policies to intelligence and military tactics we have followed the English.

In Ireland the English have been fighting insurgency battles since the 1920’s and Northern Ireland for over 38 years. Only today on our year of the Lord 2007, the British Army formally ended its 38-year mission in Northern Ireland. The 5,000 soldiers remaining in this part of the United Kingdom will now be ordered to Iraq.  Since the conflict began, close to 4,000 people died from sectarian violence. See the attached article and you will see the Coalition forces battle plans for the remainder of the war in Iraq.

As far as Iraq is concerned, our military finally has the leadership and plans to make it work.  Our political leadership now must work on the critical economic component so that we can win and that is we must as a Nation coalesce to develop a comprehensive energy policy. Currently 18 percent of our oil is derived from the Persian Gulf. You tell me how make up the deficit of oil and the sooner our boys will come home.

I see a timeline more or less 20-years that is if we do not elect a Democrat. If we do, then the violence will spread to our shores and we will be out of oil and dead.

least bit newsworthy of two guys who supported the invasion and the surge continuing to support the invasion and the surge. They have been saying the same shit for four years. What makes this any different?

Compare MacArthur's famous quote "There is no substitute for victory" with the blatantly obvious bet-hedging and equivocations of O'Hanlon and Pollack:

"Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with."

Yeah, i'm sure that would be easily recognizable to US Grant, or General Sherman, or Patton, or Chesty Puller, or....  --  "A sustainable stability that both we and the iraqis could live with."  Doesn't quite have the ring of unconditional surrender, does it now?  Bring us back, please, to those halcyon days of Hussein's toppled ststue.

No knock on Secretary Gates, General Petraeus, and the men and women serving, but to think that this sows' ear of a policy is ever going to yield a silk purse is, well, let's say it's not very realistic.

I'll leave it to others to point out the many similar statements about turning corners, witnessing progress, winning hearts and minds, securing the civilian populations, etc.. made during the Wietnam War, statement which O'Hanlon and Pollack probabbly do not even have the imagination nor the wit to realize they're parroting.  Certainly, not the self-awareness.

And to listen to Pollack, of all NeoCon blockheads, about anything having to do with Iraq, well, that's curious indeed, as this fellow was one of the loudest and most fervant advocates of that very  same policy of deposing Hussein via invasion, the bitter, spoils fruits of which we are now asked to accept and to settle for, "sustainable stability."  Quite a fall from the democratization of the ME, and the road to peace in the ME running through Baghdad, and  bestowing the blessings of liberty, democracy and freedom upon the Iraqi people.  When you're stuck with lemons, you're advised to make lemonade.  I suspect Pollack is mixing up a batch of Jim Jones Kool-Ade instead.

In the 1950s, the "China Hands" were driven from public service becuase they were believed to have greased the skids for the Chinese Nationalists in favor of the Chinese Communists.  If only such a condign punishment could be in store for these NeoConMen and their policy equivalent of the Ebola Virus.

Yep, can't wait for the ticker-tape  parade up the Canyon of Heroes  in honor of "...a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis can live with."

Nixon and Kissinger, bless their duplicitous realpolitical hearts, had a more honest, if less tactful term for the snakeoil O'Hanlon and Pollack now seek to sell us:  "Decent Interval." Yeah, and that sure worked out just great between January 1973 and April 1975.

And as a late, extra bonus, attached is a link by Rand Beers [who i believe is/was one of Albert Gore's or John Kerry's FP advisers, fleshing out the Vietnam "light at the end of the tunnel" analogies unknowing being echoed by Pollock and O'hanlon.  He's far to kind to speculate that the light we see is probably that of an onrushing express train.



-- Modified on 8/5/2007 10:55:38 AM

1. old wine in new bottles

2. new whine in new bottles

3. old whine in new bottles

4. old whine in old bottles.

Take you pick, it's unpalable no matter which one you choose.

We could have won the war on Terror much easier, smarter and faster than that! You guys think this a good thing?

Thanks for bringing us all down with your cockamamie Fuck-ups and stupid solutions to terrorism. WE really appreciate it.

I love how you phrase it as if you want to control our thinking to what you deem to be "correct" thinking.

Just a little tutoring in logic for ya: "thoughts" cannot be "correct" or "incorrect". They are just thoughts. Now, the actions taken as a result of those thoughts can be "correct" or "incorrect". Like the ACTION TAKEN TO INVADE IRAQ which was massively INCORRECT!

You guys have consistently CLAIMED PREMATURE VICTORY in this stupid war and now you are doing it again! We've seen this how many times before -- what 3, 4, 5 times now?

Not to mention that your stupid solution to terrorism has already taken  WAY too long and COST WAY too much in lives, fortune and good will around the globe and the huge INCREASE  in terrorists as a result! You think this is good?

Talk about pathetic! We can do MUCH better than this. This has been an incredibly huge failure even if Iraq gets their shit together -- not to mention having it last 5 to 10 more years! Maybe longer! This has made the problem WORSE -- not better!

This isn't Ireland! What are you freaking talking about? Plus, if you wanna use the British as an example, look at what happened to THEM when they invaded the Middle East to "westernize" them during the Crusades! They FAILED!

This is not Korea or Vietnam or WWII either so stop to making all those stupid comparison that don't apply! After 5 years we're going in the opposite direction of where we should be going!

Winning? WHF? Even if we "win" we've lost! Surely you can see that?

10 MORE FREAKING YEARS?? Thanks alot for this stupid, fucked-up, smelly, piece of shit you've all hung around this country's neck! Thanks alot!



-- Modified on 8/1/2007 7:18:17 AM

in the Middle East since the 1980’s. On 23 January 1980 in his State of the Union Address, Carter stated:

"An attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

In 1990, President George H.W. Bush used the Carter Doctrine to issue the military orders to send my ass to Saudi Arabia in Operation Desert Shield. The New World Order was a ruse for the real deal.  We all knew the deal. Now don’t get me wrong, I supported my President and I was honored and privileged to do so, but I also knew I wouldn’t be there if Kuwait only grew Broccoli. Here are the facts:

1. Saudi Arabia holds one-fourth of the global oil reserves providing nearly 10-percent of our oil.
2.  About half of Saudi Arabian oil capacity comes from one oil field. Two thirds of Saudi Oil goes through one processing plant and two terminals.

Oil is the lifeblood for our economy. Shutdown the oil and the western economies including those of the EC and US will have a cardiac arrest. Al Qa’eda calls oil the “umbilical cord and lifeline of the crusader community”.

Now oil or energy is one aspect of this war on terror. The second part of the equation is the Palestinian Israeli Conflict and it’s resolution. Those are two parts of the equation for final resolution i.e. oil and Israel, in order to answer your question: “when do we this war?” That’s the easy part.

The third part of the equation is the most problematic and is hard for me to explain and even today I have trouble grasping and that is we are in a Holy War. I have trouble grasping this thought because it is rather pessimistic and not in my worldview paradigm. This country has fought for liberty and land.  We have fought a civil war and fought the great evil of Nazism. We have however never fought a Holy War against an enemy so righteous and resolute in their thoughts and hearts. This Holy War my friend has no boundaries, and no timeline.  Oil and even the Palestinian Israeli problem can be negotiated through time, land and even money but not a Holy War.

When I was in country back in 1990, I was able to talk to a couple of Saudis and their way of thinking still has me confounded. They told me that many Muslims still believe Saladin was wrong in being so magnanimous to Richard the Lionhearted in the Third Crusades. They spoke of the Crusades as though they just heard it on the six-o-clock news. They believed Saladin should have driven the Crusaders all the way to London. Today what has changed is that they believe the Crusaders must now be stopped in Washington DC. These extremists have transformed the peaceful words of the Prophet Muhammad into a practice of Jihad i.e. armed warfare over the infidels. That is you and I. 9-11 was only precursor.

I wish I could give a quick answer as to when we win this war on terror but to the Jihadists they have been waging this war close to a thousand years. If takes another thousand years, our enemies say so be it.


-- Modified on 8/1/2007 8:07:34 PM

Point 1:
I never mentioned anything about Ireland. Are you responding in your sleep?

Question 1:
OK, It's September 12th, 2001. What's YOUR plan?

Question 2:
It's today. What's YOUR plan?

You don't wanna even listen do you? How many times do any number of us need to post this?

ANSWERS:

#1: Okay, so you did not say anything about Ireland. But someone of your ilk did -- so that is my whole response to all the neocon bullshit examples they try to compare this war to.

#2: Go after the real terrorists -- NOT THE WRONG GUY!!! How many times do we have to repeat that? Is it really that hard to understand?

#3: Get out of Iraq as soon as we can with the least amount of pain and GO GET THE REAL FREAKING TERRORISTS in Pakistan & Afghanistan before they strike us again!!!! How hard is this concept to comprehend?


YOUR QUESTIONS:
Point 1:
I never mentioned anything about Ireland. Are you responding in your sleep?

Question 1:
OK, It's September 12th, 2001. What's YOUR plan?

Question 2:
It's today. What's YOUR plan?

Christopher Durang responds to VP Cheney's take on the O'Hanlon/Pollock eaasy.  Yes, it's from The Huffington Post, but I held my nose and read it in spite of that.

Durand, a playright, has no particular expertise in ME polical analysis, but his take makes some interesting points.

And, given everything, how ironic is it that the US Ambassador to Iraq sports the oh-so-painful [in this context] name "Crocker"?  See, God does have asense of humor.  Or at least some sunversive element in Dubya's administration does?