Status Report
By Mitch Berg
Kimberly and Frederick Kagan in the Wall Street Journal on the current status of the war in Iraq:
Conclusion (emphasis added by me):
The war is not over. Enemy groups are reforming, rearming and preparing new attacks. Al Qaeda in Iraq will conduct spectacular attacks in 2008 wherever it can. Special Groups and their JAM affiliates will probably reconstitute within a few months and launch new offensives timed to influence both the American and Iraqi elections in the fall.
And for all its progress and success, the ISF is not yet able to stand on its own. Coalition forces continue to play key support roles, maintaining stability and security in cleared but threatened areas, and serving as impartial and honest brokers between Iraqi groups working toward reconciliation.
But success is in sight. Compared with the seemingly insurmountable obstacles already overcome, the remaining challenges in Iraq are eminently solvable – if we continue to pursue a determined strategy that builds on success rather than throwing our accomplishments away. No one in December 2006 could have imagined how far we would have come in 18 months. Having come this far, we must see this critical effort through to the end.
Read the whole thing. Draw your own conclusions.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:25 am
“and serving as impartial and honest brokers between Iraqi groups working toward reconciliation.”
Other than a blind assumption of our own good intentions, there is clearly no evidence for this. The Iraqis clearly don’t believe this. That is why we are hated and unpopular.
Far from an ‘honest broker’, the U.S. is attempting to coerce one set of politicians into granting the U.S. some enduring military presence in opposition to the vast majority of the Iraq population. We are also attempting to subvert local elections esp. in the South, in order to prevent Sadr from winning more power though democratic means.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:28 am
“Other than a blind assumption of our own good intentions, there is clearly no evidence for this. The Iraqis clearly don’t believe this. That is why we are hated and unpopular.”
That’s quite a clear statement. Been to Iraq yourself lately to vouch personally for all this clearness? Or do you prefer, as usual, to site dubious sources and pull such clear statements out of yer, you know what?
As far as your last statement, I see you have no problem that avowed terrorist, supported by and hiding out in Iran, is to take power – as long as it is by “democratic” means.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:48 am
“I see you have no problem that avowed terrorist, supported by and hiding out in Iran, is to take power – as long as it is by “democratic” means.”
You prove my point with this awesome bit of honest brokering. Any U.S. representative will judge Iraqi actors strictly in accordance with their perceived friendliness to U.S. interests, just like you do. This precludes honest brokering.
Not only does our self-interest prevent honest brokering, but our raw ignorance about Iraqi politics also prevents honest brokering. For example, Sadr is obviously less supportive of Iran then the U.S. backed Malaki and his SIIC allies. Your stupid war put the most pro-Iranian Iraqi faction in control of Bagdahd.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Except Mitch (of course) that the ‘progress’ (which I put in quotes not because there isn’t reduced violence, but because the mechanism to it has been pretty contrived) – was SUPPOSED to lead to political progress.
It hasn’t – that canard failed, yet again.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:04 am
And Rick, you left out that our long-term presence is under the pretext of:
1. No accountability
2. Complete authority to determine what constitutes an attack, no matter how capricious such a decision might be.
3. No restriction to get approval for taking military actions inside the borders of another sovereign nation
4. No restrictions on involving Iraq in a conflict with Iran.
Honest brokering – hardly.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:34 am
“you left out that our long-term presence is under the pretext”
I just don’t think the long term agreement will get signed or last, because the Iranians can easily stop it. They prefer the Dawa/SIIC coalition to Sadr both for idealogical reasons and because as exile groups with little local support they are more compliant with Iranian wishes. They also don’t mind a short term U.S. presence because it keeps the U.S. tied down in a no win war. 160,000 U.S. hostages in Iraq is their first line of defense against a U.S. attack. That is why they are willing to back the same parties the U.S. backs. But if Dawa/SIIC ever moved to grant the U.S. permanent bases, they could easily switch to Sadr and that would be a very short fight.
Dawa/SIIC goal is simply to bilk Petreaus and U.S. tax payers for as much cash and arms as they can get for as long as they can get it. They will drag this out and maybe even sign some temporary extension, but they will never sign a permanent deal.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:42 am
You gotta love how someone can sit in their jammies 8000 miles away and blather on about the “blind assumption of our own good intentions”.
So how much does the David Letterman School of Foriegn Affairs charge per credit?
June 12th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Kermit:
We both suffer under the disadvantages of living 8000 miles away and little knowledge of Iraq. Your favored course of action calls for us to get more involved in Iraqi politics. Mine calls for us to get less involved. I think my course of action reflects our limited knowledge of Iraq.
Second, if you want to contradict some part of my analysis feel free. For starters which party in Iraq do you think is more supportive of Iranian interests?
June 12th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
When RickDFL said:
“our raw ignorance about Iraqi politics”
“I think my course of action reflects our limited knowledge of Iraq”
it should probably be assumed that he refers to penigma and himself. To presume otherwise would mean that RickDFL thinks that no one knows more about Iraq and it’s politics than himself, and that would be laughable.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Rick, I listen to both the mainstream (read Left) media and the the conservative “new” media, which actually presents first-hand accounts and analysis. Unlike Jon Stewart. Or Katie Couric.
The simple fact is our efforts in Iraq are succeeding. As to the political equation, that is always a difficult matter.
You worry about which parties will be more amenable to Iran. Iran is not as stable as it would like the world to think. It’s only been 30 years since it’s last revolution. It is distinctly possible that in the near future Iraq will be influencing Iranian internal politics.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Troy:
“To presume otherwise would mean that RickDFL thinks that no one knows more about Iraq and it’s politics than himself”
I don’t think you understand the rules of logical implication. I think the Iraqis understand their politics a lot better than Americans (you and me included). My plan for Iraq involves letting them sort out their own political issues.
Terry:
“which actually presents first-hand accounts and analysis”
Please cite some first-hand accounts from Iraqis in such sources.
“the political equation, that is always a difficult matter”
The only ‘difficult’ part of Iraqi politics is trying to find a solution acceptable to both the Bush administration and the Iraqi people. Eliminate Bush’s need to admit failure and the Iraqis can govern themselves.
“It is distinctly possible that in the near future Iraq will be influencing Iranian internal politics.”
How “near” and how much do you want to bet? Seriously this was the best laugh I had all day. We will certainly laugh at this one for a long time to come.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
“Any U.S. representative will judge Iraqi actors strictly in accordance with their perceived friendliness to U.S. interests, just like you do
Let’s see, Sadr targeted and blew up more Iraqis than US servicemen. He is the one supported by and is hiding out in Iran, not Maliki – last time I checked, but you may have a clearer picture from your throne in MN.
“Not only does our self-interest prevent honest brokering”
I see you went to Chamberlain school of diplomacy. I can just see it – “If you only had a chance to talk to Hitler!”
June 12th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
JPA:
“Sadr targeted and blew up more Iraqis than US servicemen”. Which has not prevented him from becoming the most popular person in Iraq (outside the Kurdish provinces), maybe excepting Sistani. Care to dispute that? Want to name a more popular politician? How many votes did Chalabi get?
“He is the one supported by and is hiding out in Iran, not Maliki – last time I checked, but you may have a clearer picture from your throne in MN.”
The view looks pretty clear from here:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/08/iraq.iran/index.html
Like I said, all Shia parties are supported by Iran, but Sadr gets less help than the others for a variety of reasons. Tell you what, find someone willing to say Sadr is more closely tied to Iran than Dawa or SIIC and we will talk. Sadr is is Iran in part to get more religious training which only helps enhance his prestige and popularity. Its like saying Josh Harnett isn’t popular in St. Paul, because he had to move to Hollywood.
“I see you went to Chamberlain school of diplomacy”
WTF. Your going to have to explain that one. Your the one saying we can sit the Iraqi factions down and broker a settlement. Isn’t saying the Iraqi just need a honest broker, just like Borah saying he could settle the problems between Poland and Germany.
June 12th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Some definitions from dictionary.com (Peev & RickDFL, pay attention)
June 12th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
How “near” and how much do you want to bet? Seriously this was the best laugh I had all day.
Which demonstrates the depth of your understanding of the region, it’s people, it’s history and it’s religion. Not very.
June 12th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Terry:
Does your Dictionary have a word for this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNKSzmM44gE
June 12th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Kermit:
Your refusal to set a time line or make a wager speaks volumes.
June 12th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Rick,
Your use of the phrase “speaks volumes” speaks…er, it says a lot about yoru argumentation style.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Mitch:
Do you want to set a timeline and take the bet?
June 12th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
You gotta love how someone can sit in their jammies 8000 miles away and blather on about the “blind assumption of our own good intentions”.
Kermit, do you seriously believe our intentions are pure when we demand:
1. Complete autonomy to select what constitutes an attack UPON IRAQ
2. To respond however we like
3. To be above and immune from prosecution for illegal/improper actions?
4. No permission from the Iraqi regime is required
Seriously?
What nation do you think would allow a foriegn power to take unilateral military action inside it’s borders without control or consequence?
Mitch – your CONSTANT use of “wrong” because you say so speaks..er, it says a lot about your argumentation style. Your CONSTANT backhand of other people’s positions with ad hominem attack speaks .. er , it says a lot about your argumentation stye. (BTW Mitch, you had a typo, go crazy)
June 12th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Our intentions are “pure”? What the heck does that even mean? How moronic. Our objective is national security, pure and simple. That is best achieved by stability in the Middle East. Stability there will not be achieved by a black Jimmy Carter trying to make the mullahs and the dictators like us.
Your list is ludicrous and impertinent.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Terry,
What I want is a responsible administration of our presence in Iraq. I also want:
1. I want our troops to be constrained by the same rules as would reasonably be required by the UN resolution, subject to international review if they cross the line, (i.e. what we were limited by in Korea, and in Vietnam and Bosnia).
2. Only to stay if staying offers some use. NOTHING, not one little tiny thing, said in this comment stream justifies the US staying.
That isn’t because there ISN’T some justification, there is, but because between you, Mitch, and Kermit, you aren’t capable (apparently) of doing anything other than spewing vile insults. You can’t put two words together of coherent argument.
Let me help you on it.
1. Our presence assists with defeating AQI
2. Our presence, for now, may prevent a re-escalation of the civil war.
HAD YOU taken the time to make that argument, your comments would have deserved respect. Instead you decided to insult my resolve, my patriotism, and my commitment and resolve. Take a flying leap. I used to respect you, I no longer do. Suggesting such simplistic motivations and ascribing to me that I lack intestinal fortitude, rather than trying to have a real discussion, is the hallmark of a fool.
Rick has the right of it, you all can’t point to targets or a timeline, you have no accountability, you won’t control our conduct, but hey, call us quitters, easily overcome (defeatists), that’ll justify it.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Do you want to set a timeline and take the bet?
Timeline? Nope.
Bet? Absolutely.
If you’re not up to those conditions, I guess it’s “no action”, right?
June 12th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Kermit,
It’s entirely pertinent, it suggests our reasons for staying aren’t either ethical or legal.
Does our national security now trump Iraqi sovereignty, you know, that thing we’ve been trying to build and establish for 5 years?
Just because you say it isn’t pertinent, doesn’t make it not pertinent. You made a comment about “blind assumption of our own good intentions” in suggesting that our intentions are ‘good.’ Our intentions are to give us access to do whatever in the sam hell we want, nothing more, nothing less. Calling it other than that, is a lie. Our continuing presence isn’t about stabilizing Iraq, it’s about having military bases, because the most likely path to success to stabilize iraq is for us to LEAVE. We aren’t wanted. That’s not defeatism, it’s opposing your EXTRAORDINARY pro-American corporation hubris done at the expense of our overall best interests.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Mitch,
You said 1 year in 2005. That was wrong,
You said maybe 13 years in 2006, now it’s ‘imperpetuity’. I understand why you don’t want to set out a timeline.
Here’s a question Mitch, you know, that thing you routinely ignore. Do you believe the US should be allowed to stay under the conditions we’re demanding? If you dont’ want to answer, just answer this.
If the Iraqis tell us to leave, would you?
June 12th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Mitch:
“Timeline? Nope.
Bet? Absolutely”
So if 50 years from now when we are both (God willing) in nursing homes, Iraq finally has more influence inside Iran, you win? Doesn’t seem like a fair bet for me.
How about this? Every day (like today) Iran has more influence, you give me a dollar. Every day vice versa, I will give you a dollar. Until the first one croaks. Bet?
P.S. I got posts stuck in moderation, can you get to em before Peev fills up the whole page.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
You said 1 year in 2005. That was wrong,
Yep. We already talked about that.
You said maybe 13 years in 2006
Show me where I said that.
Do you believe the US should be allowed to stay under the conditions we’re demanding?
Not sure what you’re referring to.
If the Iraqis tell us to leave, would you?
If the legal, elected Iraqi government says so? Sure!
Now, your questions:
1. Why did you make up entire anonymous identities to try to give support to your comments and blogging? Penigma, Peevish, and now apparently Hasslington? What on earth is your rationale?
2. Why did you remove the key modifier of my key statement, to make it look like my statement about radical leftists (which was undeniably true!) was about all leftists? Are you so inept at argument that you can only engage arguments the other side doesn’t make, and has no intention of making?
3. If a blogger tells you to leave his comment section twice, for being essentially a vandal, would you?(Asked and answered, I guess!)June 12th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Peev wrote:
I want our troops to be constrained by the same rules as would reasonably be required by the UN resolution, subject to international review if they cross the line, (i.e. what we were limited by in Korea, and in Vietnam and Bosnia).
Do you ever think before you write something peev?
In Korea we stopped a little north of the 38th parallel. As a result millions of people have lived in a vile, dehumanizing, totalitarian commie dictatorship for multiple generations. They also have nukes.
In Vietnam we lost. The result of this loss was not greater respect for the US worldwide.
In Bosnia we won by virtue of targeting civilian infrastructure — something the UN doesn’t allow. But since we didn’t get UN permission to attack them in the first place (the UN tends to frown on invading sovereign nations without cause) what does it matter?
‘Defeatist’ is a description, not an insult. In none of the definitions is the word described as pejorative. Interesting that you would take it as an insult. What do you call it when some holds a mirror in front of you and all you see is five fingers pointed back at you?
June 12th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Does our national security now trump Iraqi sovereignty, you know, that thing we’ve been trying to build and establish for 5 years?
No, the two coincide. Why is that so gosh darn hard to understand?
You made a comment about “blind assumption of our own good intentions” in suggesting that our intentions are ‘good.’
No, that was Rick in suggesting our intentions are “bad”.
Our continuing presence isn’t about stabilizing Iraq, it’s about having military bases, because the most likely path to success to stabilize iraq is for us to LEAVE.
The most likely path to success is surrender. Brilliant logic.
Just because you say it isn’t pertinent, doesn’t make it not pertinent.
No it just illustrates the fact.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
RickDFL:
Terry:
“which actually presents first-hand accounts and analysis”
Please cite some first-hand accounts from Iraqis in such sources.
“the political equation, that is always a difficult matter”
I think you got the wrong author there, old bean. I didn’t write any of that.
also re:
Terry:
Does your Dictionary have a word for this?
I surf the web on a converted telegraph outfit & when I tried the URL it only made terrible clicking sound.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
RickDFL said:
“I don’t think you understand the rules of logical implication”
and I laughed and laughed.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Why did you make up entire anonymous identities to try to give support to your comments and blogging? Penigma, Peevish, and now apparently Hasslington? What on earth is your rationale?
Peev, PLEASE tell us you’re not “Hasslington”, too! If so, creating a whole other blog under that identity would be beyond sad and pathetic.