Yes, there are a few bright spots in the country, but so what if the Iraqis can’t or won’t take over from us and keep it going. Are we just prolonging the inevitable? This article details the problems with the report Bush’s press conference danced around with.
The outrageous White House report on Iraq
The White House report released today, on how far Iraq has progressed toward 18 political and military benchmarks, is a sham.
According to the report, which was required by Congress, progress has been “satisfactory” on eight of the benchmarks, “unsatisfactory” on another eight, and mixed on two. At his press conference this morning, President Bush, seeing the glass half full, pronounced the report “a cause for optimism”—and for staying on course.
Yet a close look at the 25-page report reveals a far more dismal picture and a deliberately distorted assessment. The eight instances of “satisfactory” progress are not at all satisfactory by any reasonable measure—or, in some cases, they indicate a purely procedural advance. The eight “unsatisfactory” categories concern the central issues of Iraqi politics—the disputes that must be resolved if Iraq is to be a viable state and if the U.S. mission is to have the slightest chance of success.
Here’s another article that discusses the “disconnect between the military and political views” on the war.
Iraq Report May Mean Longer U.S. Surge
While many in Congress are pushing President Bush to alter course in Iraq by September if not sooner, his new status report on the war strongly implies that the administration believes its military strategy will take many more months to meet its goals.
The report cited no specific timeframe, but its language suggests what some U.S. commanders have hinted at recently: The troop reinforcements that Bush ordered in January may need to remain until spring 2008.
The one reason I can see to stay is — as Bush stated — to keep Iraq from becoming a terrorist enclave (which it already is), a situation we created by starting the war. But is that worth the price?
#29 – Well, as I’ve said before, whoopdie-fucking-doo. If the Iraquis choose not to take responsiblity for their own country, how many more young Americans should we throw into Dumbya’s meatgrinder?
So if you lead a squad of guys to my 3 story house and demolish it and then start building a summer cottage, do you think its my responsibility to pitch in?
The Iraqis didn’t invade themselves.
Yes. This is the neocon’s fault. But we (sort of) elected this leadership and this nation must rise to take responsibility for the immeasurable fuck up it has caused in the Middle East.
Bush has to answer for the needless deaths in Iraq and the breaking of this country to boot… But you don’t get to throw your hands up and walk away because you don’t agree with what the President did… And no one should agree with what the Fucktard in Chief did… But the United States is responsible here.
Well, I’m not necessarily suggesting just “walking away”. I agree that the Fucktard in Chief started this, and we have to finish it off. But how? And don’t talk about me burning down your house and building a summer cottage. More like me burning down your jail cell, and setting up one of the circles of Hell.
Maybe we should recall the Iraqi fucktards from vacation, and waterboard them (we’re good at that, you know) until they agree to try and do for their own fucking country. And if they don’t want to? Fuck ’em. Life’s a bitch. People piss on other people all the time, and we pissed on Iraq. Wasn’t the first time we pissed on somebody, won’t be the last time. So what? We just “stay the course” until everybody eligible for military service is dead? Like I said, life’s a bitch, and you have to make hard decisions sometimes. I don’t think we should be feeding young Americans into Dumbya’s meat grinder for the next 50 years, or whenever it is tt the Vacationing Iraquis decide to do something to save their fucking country.
MikeN (#17),
Last night I was watching the O’Reilly Factor on Fox News and he was about to interview Tony Snow , he cited a survey by D3 that said 46% of Iraqis strongly resent our presence in Iraq and 36% resent our presence. Doesn’t really sound like they want us there either…
OK, ethanol. If a neocon suckass like Bill “Loofah Pad” O’Reilly admits that 82% of the Iraquis don’t want us there, I’m willing to buy that. Just imagine what moveon.org would say about the percentages.
They don’t want us, they won’t do squat for themselves. And the reason we’re still there is……??
I guess the Halliburton stock options aren’t high enough yet for President Cheney.
Adding to my previous post:
Just watched the talking points again –
D3 Systems Poll of Iraqis, February 25 – March 5, 2007
Do you support the presence of coalition forces in Iraq?
Strongly Support – 6%
Somewhat Support – 16%
Somewhat Oppose – 32%
Strongly Oppose – 46%
Again, they don’t want us there either…
I agree with you Mister Mustard, just making the point that even Neo Cons are starting to see the mistake…
#37 – Neocons see the mistake, moderate right-wingers see the mistake, centrists see the mistake, the left-wing liberar commie pinko fags see the mistake, just about EVERYBODY sees the mistake. Except for Dumbya and his handlers (Presidents Cheney/Rove) and those politicians too busy fucking page boys to be paying attention.
Sheesh.
#24
1) I agree James should be heard, if just because all should be free to exercise any of the right granted us by our constitution; even if he is a fan of an administration that wants to destroy those rights.
2) I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you are of collage age (18-24). If I could be so bold – perhaps if you really believe – I mean really believe in this war and this President, how about serving a tour in Iraq?
Now if you are already preparing to do so, than you’re a better man than James Hill, who never served a day in his life for anyone but himself (I have asked).
If you’re not serving or ready to serve, perhaps you think like our president or our vice pres that you are too important to do so, than I ask you why should anyone fight a war you are unwilling to fight yourself, or at least pay some sacrifice for.
Hah, a little tyrannical occupation and we’ll never have to worry about terrists[sic] ever again! Pass the kool-aid, neo-tards.
#19…Stars&Bars…..WOW….that sure is relevant. No wonder we are losing our ass in Iraq….the Democratic controlled county of Alameda has to have a new vote on controlling Medical marijuana clinics.
And all this time I thought it was 9/11 and Bush that brought us to war.
Go figure!!!
#18….hhopper…..I guess you guys know better than the rest of us, but James Hill has as much right to post as any of the others here.
I actually don’t agree with him very often, but I do sometimes and I find James far, far less obnoxious than one or two others that post here.
I realize that your most likely joking, but maybe you need to *joke* about a couple of others who’s posts are actually offensive, ideological and bordering on hate speech, but never get shot down like James Hill was above. 🙂
I wish his father would have pulled out.
#42 – I think they think James isn’t a person, but a complex bot… If that is true, they should ban him (or it). But technologically, they may not have the tools to do it, and even if they don’t, he surely doesn’t bother me.
If he’s a human, then I actually like his style, even if his opinions are almost always wrong and the pompous-ass manner in which he struts around the PC in his mamma’s basement is off-putting to some.
#41 joshua
WOW….that sure is relevant.
One of the greatest threats to this country is the Diebold and similar voting machine. Votes must be verifiable not hackable.
#24. I noticed you made no mention of the fact that fewer ISF brigades are at Level 1 capability now than when the surge began. If the political goal is reconciliation, and the military goal is to have the ISF “stand up,” then one is stagnant and the other one is actually declining.
not only is the glass not half full, it is below half and leaking rapidly.
the plan for next year that I have heard is not to fully withdraw US forces, but to greatly diminish the number, relegate them to protecting the Green Zone (something they are having trouble doing now – mortar rounds fall there with distressing frequency) and training the ISF. Plus some SF guys to stomp AQiM whenever it rears its head.
that seems sensible. people need to stop portraying the false choice between “stay the course” and total withdrawal.
if the Iraqis decide to fight it out to the finish amongst themselves, well then so be it – if the only thing keeping that from happening is the presence of US troops, the simple fact is that we are not going to stay there forever, so they might as well get it over with.
#18: *sighs* It’s tough being a noob. Thanks for the headsup.
#24,
Why link to a Slate article, why not just go strait to the source over at whitehouse.gov?
Geeze, and you say you go to school??? As if the White House will release unbiased information. Slate is biased, yes, but their writers have have also responsibly analyzed the situation and are more aware then the average Joe and apparently much more astute than you.
The rest of your post is just a waste of time. Either you must be failing your classes or your teachers are really bad. You don’t even show what is quoted or where it is quoted from. If the entire rest of your post IS from the report, then you are an even bigger laggard. You can’t even write your own posts, you have to quote someone else extensively.
Use your effen brain. Think first, then write YOUR thoughts. Back them up with cites when needed. The Professors prefer that.
#42, joshua,
…but James Hill has as much right to post as any of the others here.
Aaahhh, nope. Read the posting guidlines.
In case your “conservative” values have left you, this site is owned by John Dvorak*. If he doesn’t like anyone’s sorry ass (mine included) then he has all the power, right, and authority to ban that person or IP address from posting at all.
Posting comments is a privilege I appreciate. Hill is still a dweeb.
#31 – Calling a president names because of a flaw in personality is something I don’t come across a lot, except in blogs. Making witty remarks like #43, I enjoy those.
For another of your points about political slanting, yes I do such things, but I try to keep those comments in another paragraph, away from the objective analysis or as objective as I can make it. I define the loony left as a group of people, similar to the radical right, that let their personal political passions stand in the way of objective reasoning. Case in point, Mr. Fusion or Mr. Mustard. Also, I have had a professor who was extremely left, and my friend, who is a Bill Clinton Democrat, often supported the view that she falls into the loony left category. I enjoy discussing things with an opposing viewpoint, just so long as the person is rational, like yourself, sounds the alarm, or doug. For the record also, I enjoy Slate, mainly for Christopher Hitchens, but for this case the reader would be better of studying the document for himself/herself.
#39 – I think I’ve answered this before but yes I plan on enlisting in January, however I have a training schedule of 3 years than 2 years deployment so I’m not quite sure what the situation will look. I’d assume for the better, but I’m an optimistic type.
#46 – Could you provide a link to the amount of level 1 brigades. I’ve looked over the DoD status reports and haven’t found any decrease, but the reports are not as current as they should be. If in fact this is the case, that there are fewer level 1’s, I would suspect that is because they either remixed units to fit deployment times better, or the brigades that were independently operating are not in supporting roles. Could you also explain in some more detail how the ISF participation is declining?
The Baghdad Security Operation, “the Surge,” kicked off 3+ weeks ago, and has already shown meaningful progress. The secure neighborhoods, or “gated communities,” have only finished being setup, and these will have a substantial impact on civilian casualties.
With regards to mortar attacks, some militants setting up 40 or 60 mm mortars shooting off some rounds than quickly displacing, does not constitute a major security set-back, at least in my eyes.
Finally, what benchmarks do you think could have been met with respect to the political scene?
#48 – That’s great.
As always I’d suggest that anyone who is interested in the security/political side of the Baghdad Security Operation check out Blog Week in Review. It is a podcast, available on iTunes, and download the one from June 13, 2007, as a staff member of Gen. Petraeus is interviewed about his specialty, counter-insurgency. If audio be not your thing here is an article from him on Small War Journal: http://tinyurl.com/32vja9
>>but for this case the reader would be better of studying
>>the document for himself/herself
Correct. That’s why I’m mystified that you suggest people go to whitehouse.gov the most partial, biased, self-serving, lowest-common-denominater filtering of “the document” that could possibly be found on the web.
As to “Calling a president names because of a flaw in personality “, well heh. hehehh. heheheheheh. If only it were a “flaw in personality”, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. Bill Clinton has personality flaws. JFK had personality flaws. Abraham Lincoln had personality flaws. What Dumbya has goes so far beyond “personality flaws”, it’s an insult to people with flawed personalities. I imagine there’s some sort of limit on how much you can post in a message on tihs blog, so I’m not even going to start in on all his flaws. If you really want to know try googling “dishonest” “cowardly”, “self-serving”, “entitled”, “ignorant”, “dry drunk”, “stupid” and things along that line.
I would add “ugly enough to pass as a gargoyle”, but that would be a value judgement. And I guess one man’s gargoyle is another man’s sex machine. Ughh.
The document that was submitted to congress, and reviewed by the author from Slate, is located at whitehouse.gov. What is so complex about this statement.
>>What is so complex about this statement.
Well, the implementation of “this statement” is a little more complex than you would have us believe, Frat Boy. I went to whitehouse.gov, reviewed the posted links, and used their search engine. I found plenty of links titled “President Bush discusses Iraq report”, “The Rest of the Report…Report Contains Optimism”, “Many Parts Of Gen. McCaffrey’s Report Paint A Positive Picture”, and a bunch of other outdated bullshit, most of which were irrelevant to the report in question. No apparent links to the report itself, though.
If you could post a link to the actual REPORT (which is classified, btw), that would go a long way toward establishing your college creds.
Otherwise, just accept that res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself. Dumbya’s Iraq war “policy” was a failure right from the get-go. He couldn’t start the war without lying about why we were invading, he couldn’t manage the role of “wartime president”, and even in the autumn of his reign, the dishonesty, deceit, and cowardice continue.
#50. Level 1 capabilities of ISF declining:
http://tinyurl.com/crcut
And if civilian casualties are declining in Baghdad, it is because the insurgents are getting better at their end of the whack-a-mole and have moved to different areas, where they launch devastating attacks like the one noted in the Washington Post story.
On the political end, it has become clear that the Shiite government has little interest in either undoing Bremer’s catastrophic de-Baathification order or equitably sharing out oil revenues. Their position is being secured through the deaths of American soldiers and I expect action not excuses.
Finally, it is utter shameful folly to have US policy dictated by the capabilities and willingness to act of a third world Army and Government. The US is the superpower and it should be dictating to them, not vice-versa.
#53
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/iraq/2007/FinalBenchmarkReport.pdf
It is on the front page.
Doug, not to nit-pick but that story is from September 2005. I would assume that the Generals, probably Sec. Rumsfeld, pushed too hard a couple of battalions to be status 1, when in fact they should not have been. If you head over to globalsecurity.com (http://tinyurl.com/yuewgt) that report to congress is from March ’07. The second chart down has 24 battalions status 1 as of June 05. As of Feb. 07 there are 92 battalions status 1. If you scroll down to the “Combat Operations” graph that shows a trend line that is could be interpreted as disconcerting. The amount of solo ISF combat operations has fallen from a peak of 33% in May 06 to 7% as of Jan 07. I think that trend has to do with the shift away from Gen. Casey & Abizaid’s strategy to King David’s. The positive trend in that graph is the rise of combined efforts from 37% to 58%. The operations that were carried out during Casey’s period were mostly disastrous, some good ISF brigades did emerge, but overall without coalition help/oversight results were less than desirable. The current plan of joint-operations has shown positive signs as the Iraqis know the area & people the best, while the U.S. has the hardware and training to instill confidence in the Iraqi counterparts. Of course, this is not a long-term solution, but I think from this strategy of join cooperation, staggered withdrawal will be a real and plausible possibility.
I don’t think that casualties are down in Baghdad solely because the insurgents are moving around more (being chased & killed is more accurate), but a whole range of variables. The following security developments are the primary drivers: the decrease in supply of IED’s & S/VBIED’s; the difficulty to move around in Baghdad because of the numerous checkpoints and the rise of separating barriers; the effects of the four major operations, especially Marne Torch, are helping to bring security to the Baghdad belts; the Salvation Council’s ability to secure Al-Anbar, along with the help of the Marines in clearing out the Thar-Thar region; the toppling of AQI’s self-declared capital in Baqubah; and the rise of joint security patrols and numerous Joint Security Outposts.
Those political issues were not suitable the time period laid out. The oil bill is the most important piece of legislation, and I would prefer to wait another 6 months, if need be, for a comprehensive bill that everyone agrees upon, than one rushed ahead because of Washington’s discontent. De-Ba’athification efforts will take some time to get an official law enacted, in the time being case by case approvals are always an option, as well as allowing the Sunnas greater autonomy to secure and run their own provinces. Such measures are currently being done in Al-Anbar and Diyala. Plus, Chemical Ali is facing Iraqi justice in Halabja, and that seems quite fitting.
Like it or not the U.S.’s security, as well as the worlds, are in the hands of the Iraqi people. I for one am comfortable with that because I see more and more moderates coming forwards and the extremists being pushed to the side. I would not want the U.S. dictating terms, as we are their at the invitation of the Iraqi people, to help them build a better future, and leave behind the legacy of fascists like Ali Hassan al-Majid, Kurdi zin duah Ali Hassan.
Oh and Mr. Mustard, IU is not big on frats, we have the legendary Kirk(JamesT.)wood & 10+ keg house parties. Go Hoo-Hoo-Hooosiers! Go up north for frats at the lesser establishment known as Purdue.
#55. My bad, I linked the wrong story –
http://tinyurl.com/2uso24
“Combat losses, a dearth of officers and senior enlisted personnel, and an Iraqi army that has expanded faster than the equipment available for it have resulted in a “slight reduction” in the number of units designated at Level 1 status, or “capable of independent operations,” the report said.”
So, not only is Iraqi combat capability increasing, it is actually decreasing. We can clamp down Baghdad, but they will just move someplace else. That was demonstrated by the bomb that killed 150 people in Amerli, about 100 miles north of Baghdad, less than a week ago.
You may be comfortable with the security of the region being in the hands of the Iraqi people, but I am not. No great power leaves its security in the hands of others. That can really be said to be the definition of a great power – Portugal has to have others defend it, the US does not.
I am reading Dallek’s ‘Nixon and Kissinger’ book at the moment, and the parallels between the current period in Iraq and that of our winding down our participation in Vietnam are striking. The ‘Surge’ smacks of the invasions of Cambodia and Laos, which were supposed to buy the Saigon government time to take over the fight.
and we all know how that turned out.
Hey, give mxpwr03 a break. He’s from Indiana. I didn’t know that, otherwise I would not have engaged him in discussion. He’s a BushOphile, through and through. Not supporting his country by fighting for it, but hey. Just following in the footsteps of his role model, Dumbya.
#57 – Alright I saw the part of the report, and the reason I’m not to troubled (it certainly is unsatisfactory), because if one looks at a time series of level 1 the trend is undoubtedly upwards. Dropping by two mainly because of equipment to soldier ratios is not the end of the world. Besides, if you count the soldiers in the Salvation Council, which are certainly operating independently and in cooperation with the central government, the total change is probably minuscule.
Where do you think the AQI elements are going to run to next, now that they lost Al Anbar & Diyala?
#59. Trend upwards from 2003? Good god, after 4 years and billions of US taxpayer dollars the ISF should, as the Iraqi PM maintains, be able to secure Iraq all by its lonesome.
I have no doubt there are any number of places that AQiM can run to in Iraq. It is a small organization, only a couple of thousand, only some of whom are foreigners there for the long-haul. there are any number of Sunni towns that could shelter them.
and recall they are only part of the problem – those pro-Iranian Shiite militias are nasties, too.
#59 Where ever they “run” to, they’re going to take more ill-protected no-armor American lives.
BTW, as a young person and a rabid war advocate, how come YOU aren’t over there trying to prop up Dumbya’s trophy war? Bet you’re really glad there’s no draft, huh? :-))