Bush's Iraq Escalation Speech

[AuntieEmma[$]]

I would guess that Alawi is not going to become the next prime minister. Maybe somebody more aligned with Sistani and/or with Iran??

[erik_kosberg]

Chalabi! Chalabi! Chalabi! Just kidding.....

But, yeah, Allawi is probably dreaming.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

erik_kosberg said

Chalabi! Chalabi! Chalabi! Just kidding.....

Ha ha. I was thinking of that!

[erik_kosberg]

"The Myth of AQI: Fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq is the last big argument for keeping U.S. troops in the country. But the military's estimation of the threat is alarmingly wrong."



Last one out, turn off the lights.

[erik_kosberg]

Amidst all of the spin that Team Bush and their minions will be pumping out this week, keep this in mind.

And this: ‘Crisis in Confidence’

We know, for example, when Petraeus and Crocker testify today and tomorrow, they’re going to argue that there’s been progress in Iraq. There hasn’t. They’re going to insist that the policy is working. It isn’t. They’re going to suggest that more time will produce better results. It won’t.

[erik_kosberg]

"The takeaway from yesterday's round of Iraq hearings: President Bush is content to leave the hard decisions on Iraq for the next President."

Well, it's nice to know that the buck stops somewhere.

[erik_kosberg]

“...the worst speech he’s ever given on the war in Iraq, and that’s saying a lot. Every premise, every proposal, nearly every substantive point was sheer fiction. The only question is whether he was being deceptive or delusional.”

Aw, come on, tell us what you really think.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

I thought the surge was always meant to be temporary. I thought that's why they called it a "surge" in the first place, and not a "troop increase."

Unless my memory is really failing me, I think I remember the discussion/debate, back when the surge was first proposed, taking for granted that it would be temporary. (And that there was even some criticism along the lines that temporary measures wouldn't help, etc.)

But now Bush is presenting the upcoming end of the surge as if it were a troop reduction, and as it were a sign of success. This is leaving me feeling even more off-balance then I usually do when I listen to his speeches.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Oh, just read the article at Erik's link. The Times editorial quoted there said the same thing I did. So, good. I'm not imagining things. The surge really was presented as a temporary measure when it was first introduced.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

P.S. As long as I'm talking about feeling disoriented ....

When (and why) did "Al Qaeda in Iraq" (sometimes referred to by its acronym AQI) become "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia"??

It seems like one day everyone was using the first, and then the next day everybody started using the second.

[erik_kosberg]

"Iraqis give up on surge policy goal"

In other words, Bush's plan is a complete failure.

Surprise, surprise.

[erik_kosberg]

So much for the AQI rationale.

[drmomentum[$]]

I was actually going to post "but this is good news for a change, right?"

Until I read the following which triggered my mutant snark gene:

But as the White House and its military commanders plan the next phase of the war, other officials have cautioned against taking what they see as a premature step that could create strategic and political difficulties for the United States. Such a declaration could fuel criticism that the Iraq conflict has become a civil war in which U.S. combat forces should not be involved.

Now defeating al Qaeda is a bad thing?

So that's where all the good news in Iraq went.

-JP

[slick4591[$]]

erik_kosberg said

"Iraqis give up on surge policy goal"

In other words, Bush's plan is a complete failure.

Surprise, surprise.

BAGHDAD, Oct 22 (Reuters) - Violence in Iraq has dropped by 70 percent since the end of June, when U.S. forces completed their build-up of 30,000 extra troops to stabilise the war-torn country, the Interior Ministry said on Monday.

Complete. Failure.

[erik_kosberg]

same article said

But in the northern province of Nineveh, where many al Qaeda and other Sunni Arab militants fled to escape the crackdown in Baghdad and surrounding region, there had been a 129 percent rise in car bombings and a corresponding 114 percent increase in the number of people killed in violence.

Yes, complete failure. The entire point of the "surge", stated by Team Bush again and again, was to improve conditions so that a political settlement could ensue. That ain't happened. Whack-a-mole was never a stated goal of the "surge" so pointing to whack-a-mole results isn't anything other than obfuscation.

And a cynic might add that of course violence might well be dropping off in Baghdad since most of the violence there has been of the Sunni vs. Shia variety and now that the formerly integrated city has been by and large ethnically cleansed of much of its Sunni population, the winners have less of an incentive to blow up areas of the city that they've taken from former residents. Again, rather obfuscatory "success" to be touting.

An Über-cynic might point out that the Interior Ministry has released flat-out lies in the past so that any claims made by it have to be taken with a big grain of salt. Interior Minister Jawad Bulani has ties to both Muqtada al-Sadr and Ahmed Chalabi.

[slick4591[$]]

The entire point of the "surge", stated by Team Bush again and again, was to improve conditions so that a political settlement could ensue.

Which is still in the works. Seems to me conditions are improving on a daily basis by what I'm reading. Violence is definately declining in the majority of the country, which will pave the way for a better political process if the lazy and corrupt Iraqi government wish to make it happen.

The quote you chose from the article seems to prove that once you chase all the bad guys to one section of the country they are still bad guys doing the same bad things. Just happens it's going on in a smaller area. And, if it's just ethenic cleansing that's curbing the violence, then we've not been reading the same reports. The one's I read state that it's both Sunni and Shite turning on the AQI and others that are causing problems.

I can't argue the lies and I'm not a Bush protector, but if you fail to see that there's not progress in his plan then we've not been reading the same articles.

[drmomentum[$]]

I thought this article was interesting, for its analysis of why al Qaeda in Iraq has become a popular term. This next bit was somehting I hadn't thought of:

The second benefactor is the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, often the first to blame specific attacks on AQI. Talking about "al-Qaeda" offers the government a politically correct way of talking about Sunni violence without seeming to blame the Sunnis themselves, to whom they are ostensibly trying to reach out in a unity government. On a deeper level, however, the al-Maliki regime has very limited popular support, and the government officials and ruling Islamic Dawa Party feel an imperative to include Iraqi troubles in the broader "global war in terrorism" in order to keep U.S. troops in the country. In June, when faced with increasingly uncomfortable pressure from the Americans for his failure to resolve key political issues, al-Maliki warned that Iraqi intelligence had found evidence of a "widespread and dangerous plan by the terrorist al-Qaeda organization" to mount attacks outside of Iraq.

The Myth of AQI - Andrew Tilghman

-JP

[erik_kosberg]

Which is still in the works.

With a few more Friedman Units, anything is possible?

Back when this escalation was announced, even Republicans in Congress were saying that we needed to see tangible political results by September. That's come and gone. The benchmarks were not met, not even close. And those 30,000 extra troops was a last gasp push, U.S. troop numbers will be dropping over the next several months simply because we cannot maintain the current level.

[slick4591[$]]

Conditions are improving even if you don't want to admit it. Therefore, it creates a climate more receptive to reaching the goals stated. I think most people knew that reaching that goal by September was never going to happen. Even though September is in the past conditions still improve daily and that in itself gives me greater hope.

This information in the link might be one reason we're able to start pulling troops. But don't kid yourself, we are able to hold levels under the current conditions.

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch points to what the military calls "Concerned Citizens" — both Shiites and Sunnis who have joined the American fight. He says he's signed up 20,000 of them in the past four months.

[erik_kosberg]

we are able to hold levels under the current conditions.

The Chairman of the JCS doesn't believe that; why should anyone else?

[slick4591[$]]

I haven't stayed up on a daily basis with everything Admiral Mullen has said, but the closest thing I remember and could find was this:

“I think it would be high risk to hang our hat on that this is going to be (counterinsurgency) for a long, long time."

Hopefully, you have a different statement in mind.

[erik_kosberg]

Joint Chiefs Nominee Notes Toll on Military, Need to Plan for Iraq Drawdown - washingtonpost.com

Appearing in a confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mullen, 60, acknowledged that the increase in U.S. forces cannot continue past April 2008 under the military's current force structure. He also cautioned that Iraqi political reconciliation is not keeping pace with security improvements.

BTW, troop numbers are only part of the so-called-surge. The shift towards more use of air power could easily backfire.