A 51 State Flag has already been designed
Kentucky.com | 04/20/2007 | Training Iraqi troops drops in priority for U.S. planners — This is just peachy.
Military planners have abandoned the idea that training Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now contend that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces.
Training Iraqi troops, the cornerstone of the Bush administrations Iraq policy since 2005, has dropped in priority, officials said.
No change has been announced, and a Pentagon spokesman, Col. Gary Keck, said training Iraqis remains important. “We are just adding another leg to our mission,” Keck said, referring to the greater U.S. role in establishing security that new troops arriving in Iraq will undertake.
to paraphrase a song from a children’s TV show:
this is the war that never ends, and it goes on and on my friends.
I’m really interested to see how the next president handles this mess when its his turn.
Sounds like a flip flop to me W.
it is becoming more clear to me that there is not ‘good’ way out of Iraq, but the US has a responsibility to bring stability of Iraq as soon as it is possible (this will likely take several years and probably requires a change in strategy) , regardless of the cost to Americans. The Iraqis have paid a much higher price for this war than Americans ever will.
Agreed.
The new plan is simply to ride out the Bush term and leave the Iraq fiasco to someone else’s problem.
Enough money was made by the GOP special interest groups on this deal anyway.
My, this sounds familiar.
In Viet Nam, American troops trained the hell out of the south Vietnamese forces but since their government was a bunch of thieves, torturers and murderers, somehow most of those forces never became even inadequate soldiers. Witness what happened after 1975.
Oh, yes, that was something of a civil war as well, not split by religion but by ideology. The North were dedicated Communists and the South were dedicated to nothing – just cannon fodder led by crooks and foreigners.
I realize the oil is still there but the U.S. has to invent something they can call “peace with honor” and get the hell out. Sooner would be better for the sake of all those U.S. sons and daughters being sacrificed.
What were they there for? To topple Saddam and disable those pesky Weapons of Mass Destruction. I’d say they totally succeeded and enough is enough. Perhaps the U.S. should consider letting the Iraqis figure out Iraq, no matter the cost.
#4 It is easy to forget that Iraq was under siege but internally at peace until fairly recently. Is it fair to call a conflict brought on by invasion and occupation a “Civil War”?
I confess that I haven’t been following the aftermath of the US victory in Iraq as closely as I might have, but anecdotally, it seems that the organized insurgency has been targeting the re-establishment of civil order. For example, by slaughtering Iraqi police trainees. So this news item signals success of that initiative by the insurgents. And is evidence that they are smarter (in the narrow terms of the present conflict) than the heavily-armed invaders.
I can’t believe it. The surge as WORKED! It has really really worked — in a major way.
>> President Bush said Friday that sectarian murders have dropped by half in Baghdad since the U.S.-Iraqi military buildup began in February,
http://tinyurl.com/3a826f
Dropped by half! Since February! Amazing! At this rate it will only be a few months and this war will be over.
Man, oh, man, was I wrong about that.
38 – Me, too. Totally wrong. As ut turns out, repeating actions that didn’t work and expecting different results isn’t insane after all. Who knew?
Anyone want to bet on that Blackwater et al (you know, Bush’s Waffen SS troops) will stay behind and help the puppet regime?
Leaving now would indeed cause a repeat of Vietnam, Look what hapened when America left there, and the South was slaughtered. Hopefully if America leaves here, we will at least offer weapons and air support which was withheld the last time.
Could the headline be more like… becoming a US Territory (like Puerto Rico and many others)? 51st State… yeah sure.
Of course… being sarcastic here.
Mr. W.. bring back the troops!
Stay The Course
http://tinyurl.com/2qraya
I think that people have to take off their Vietnam glasses and look at the issues in Iraq as stand alone problems. If you need a historical model to compare to I think Malaysia in the 50’s is a closer model.
8&9 I assume you guys are being sarcastic. If we put more troops in Baghdad, of course violence goes down there, but moves to other districts. We move troops to other districts, and the violence in Baghdad goes right back up again.
This has been “staying the course” or as one General called it Iraqi Whack-A Mole, for the last 3 years.
The answer is we need a political solution, not a military one. Political means talking to Iraqi’s neighbors like Iran and Syria, which the administration is unwilling to do.
I bet that the next President, unless its John McCain or Fred Thompson, will get us out in 6 months. I wish the new Congress had the cajones to force us out sooner.
#15
If this is truly about oil (insert headlines on 200 billion in reserves) then we will never leave, regardless if it is dem or pub in office.
The fatal flaw in the plan:
THERE IS NOTHING BEING DONE TO REDUCE TENSIONS BETWEEN THE TRUE WARRING PARTIES.
The Shia hate the Sunni, the Sunni hate the Shia. And there is nothing being done to reduce or reconcile that situation.
The US is viewed at this point as an occupation force, attacked by a few for religious and patriotic reasons. The US is no longer in Iraq to obtain a military victory at this time, since a military victory is unattainable. This is not a military action between the US and anyone else. The US is a police force, trying to keep two other warring parties apart, and getting caught in the middle.
The only solution is for the local powers in the Middle East to put a stop to the warring within Iraq. The Saudi Arabians must stop the Iraqi Sunni’s, and the Iranians must stop the Shia. Without their intervention, there is little hope for peace and stability of any sort in Iraq.
Military might is irrelevant at this point… diplomacy is the only solution. The military war is lost, simply because there is no enemy to fight, and no way to stop the violence by military means.
This must be getting old. Even three months ago this would have had over 50 comments by now. Maybe we are all so tired of the Bush crap and lies that we just want to pull our troops out.
Bush, you don’t have to say anything about losing, or victory with honor, just bring the troops home. And Bush, please read #17, Awake’s post for a good reason why American troops can’t win.
Looking ahead, if Iraq is going to be the 51st state, they will need a state motto. May I suggest…..
“Duck!”
The state bird could also be the aforementioned duck or possibly the Black Hawk helicopter. But before we hastily redesign the U.S. flag with 51 stars, we should at least consider the possibility of expelling one of our existing states, keeping the total count at 50. For now, I’ll remain silent on whom I’d like to dump, but as a hint, their name rhymes with an expensive Japanese……. gosh darn it, I’ve probably already said too much
19.
California?
Gwendle, I don’t think we can get rid of California for very long. Their new state motto is “I’ll be back!”
Oh lord, where do I start. There is this fallacy of the Iraqi Army not doing anything, and I’m not quite sure where this belief is being perpetuated. Here is a link from the DoD, which has a slide show that highlights the segments of Iraq that are being handled by Iraqi security forces (http://tinyurl.com/ydlzn8). It is clear to see that they are taking on more responsibility with regards to providing security. The region on the map, more specifically Anbar province, has yet to be fully secured by I.S.F., however the rise of the Anbar Salvation Council over the past two months has been making inroads towards providing security. This political council has been one of the most encouraging signs of the developing political process. Another positive development has been the split between Al Qaeda in Iraq & Islamic Army of Iraq, due to the rise in sectarian killings perpetuated by A.Q.I.
General Pace recently commented that Iraq would only see tangible progress when security, economic, and political development grow at the same pace, the “three legs of a stool” as he calls it. Economic progress is being made, perhaps not as fast as some would like, but growing nevertheless. The political situation, relative to when Saddam was in power, has shown progress. I would point to the Anbar Salvation Council, the policies of Ali Al Sistani, and the Iraqi Parliament as evidence of this. Most certainly more progress needs to be made, but your looking at a 10-year timetable for this to reach maturity. A good indicator is to compare the civil war that waged inside of Kurdistan, where two rival political factions, the K.D.P. & P.U.K, could not agree on a unified form of government. Intense fighting continued for 10 years before they came to a conclusion.
In terms of security, and where this news article really drops the ball, the situation depends on what part of Iraq you are looking at. The Kurds continue to progress, and have become the vacation hot-spot in Iraq, and no longer do they fear Mukhabarat cleansing parties coming into northern Iraq. Kirkurk and Mosul continue to be tension regions in the north, but a new deal that is being offered seems to offer some hope for mending the wounds that were caused by Saddam’s “Arabization Program.” For the majority of the Shii’as living outside of the Baghdad region, life has gotten better. For the Baghdad region, the surge has brought tangible results. Has it been the magic bullet that some were hoping for? No, but it has brought several Iraqi Brigades into Baghdad, and through this operation, they can gain combat experience.
Derived from this point on combat experience, is where this article misses the point. Is it true that overall “Iraqi training” has decreased or taken a “lower priority” depends on how you define training. If it means new recruits going into a boot-camp-esk training program then probably yes, it has taken a “lower priority.” However, if it means soldiers going out into the field and “leveling up,” or decreasing their average cost curve vis-à-vis learning by doing, this has taken a higher priority. There are currently 334,000 trained and equipped troops, and I’d wager that about 1/2 are at a comparable XP level of American G.I.s, so the goal now becomes getting them to a higher level. This takes time, years in fact, and I would expect to see U.S. troop level reduction in late Q3 early Q4 of 2007, as a good date to assume the Iraqi security forces will have greater, and more efficient, security capabilities. As a side note, if the Democratic controlled Congress has done one thing right, it is predicting a feasible date for a substantial (meaning 1/8 to ¼ force reduction) by their timetable. Yet I don’t think President Bush wants to give them the political credit.
Everone look to Iraq… please do not look north to our oil focus on the desert on aonther continent please, thank you now go kill them iraqi’s
#22, The political situation, relative to when Saddam was in power, has shown progress.
What progress? There is a fucking civil war going on asshole. Iraqis are being killed in the dozens everyday by warring factions. This didn’t happen under Saddam regardless of how bad he was. The only government happens under the protection of the US Army.
Here is a link from the DoD, which has a slide show that highlights the segments of Iraq that are being handled by Iraqi security forces
And we all believe the Pentagon 100% for truth and accuracy.
However, if it means soldiers going out into the field and “leveling up,” or decreasing their average cost curve vis-à-vis learning by doing, this has taken a higher priority.
Do even you have any idea what the hell you are talking about?
Let me put it another way. This is a civil war. The administration refuses to accept that point. More important, Americans refuse to accept being involved in a civil war. Americans have spoken, we want out of Iraq.
#15
Sarcastic? Me?
If our President says that sectarian killing is down by 50%, I believe it.
I mean, no president would ever be so reprobate as to spin something so grave as war, would he?
I see a plan…
MAKE it WORSE…
So, that Bush jr can say..
“I TOLD YA SO….”
19, hint, their name rhymes with an expensive Japanese…….
Comment by Gary Marks — 4/21/2007 @ 11:00 am
That’s OK, you wouldn’t last two days here (troll, troll, troll your boat, and I can’t believe I took the bait, but it’s Sunday and the telescope time has been excellent)
You are, however, permitted to move to Iraq.
27…“That’s OK, you wouldn’t last two days here.”
You’re not the first Texan to warn me, Bubba, although I’ve been told that I might be able to get away with a short visit on Sunday morning, when all the truly dangerous people are in church
We get it. Liberals will deny any progress in Iraq, at least until there is a Democrat President. They just want to cry civil war and failure, depsite any accomplishments being made.
You say the political situation hasn’t improved. How many elections has Iraq had in the last 4 years?
Yep, just like the rest of the good ol’ USA, there are actually churches here, but I can’t go in one — the resulting earthquakes, lightning, floods and wrath of [insert deity of choice here] would result in worldwide panic and mass insanity. We’re talkin’ Old Testament stuff here.
Seriously, come on down to Texas, land of the high skies. You’re welcome any time.
#24 – I’d be tempted to respond if it wasn’t for the want of more maturity, more specifically, “There is a fucking civil war going on asshole.” The possibility of having a intellectually stimulating debate went right out the window.
#29 – Yea, my favorite was Harry Reid’s latest comments: “Now I believe myself . . . that this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.” He than quickly back tracts offering that in fact, the war is not lost, only that “The (Iraq) war can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically, and the president needs to come to that realization.”