First, they said we had no plan.
Then, when a new plan was proposed called “the surge,” they said it was the same as the old plan (you know, the one that didn’t exist) and had no real chance of succeeding.
Then, when it was no longer deniable that it was succeeding, they began declaring that things got so much better in Iraq for reasons other than the Surge plan.
You know, the surge plan that was no different from the old plan which didn’t exist.
It’s funny, watching this stuff unfold over the years. I’m looking forward to the next stage in this little game, which should crop up within the next 10 years: the Iraqis would have overthrown Saddam, stopped sponsoring international terrorism, and established a liberal democracy much sooner if it hadn’t been for the disastrous actions of the Americans when they invaded.
Because that’s just the way some people think.
{ 13 comments }
It’s funny, watching this stuff unfold over the years. I’m looking forward to the next stage in this little game, which should crop up within the next 10 years: the Iraqis would have overthrown Saddam, stopped sponsoring international terrorism, and established a liberal democracy much sooner if it hadn’t been for the disastrous actions of the Americans when they invaded.
Because that’s just the way some people think.
Osama, the architect of transnational terrorism and 9/11, is still hiding in the Afghanistan/Pakistan mountains and inspiring terrorist attack around the world. Our commanders in Afghanistan say they need more troops to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda, but we just do not have any reserves. We sent them all too Iraq as part of the surge. We will not have any more troops to send to Afghanistan until sometime next year.
Yes, we have overthrown, captured and executed Saddam, but we are bogged down in a nation building project in Iraq. The US army cannot stand up an Iraqi government. The Iraqis have to do that. The Iraqis have made some progress on that in the last year, but there is still a long ways to go.
The Iraq war/nation building project has done nothing so far to reduce terrorism. In fact it has done exactly the opposite. The Iraq war has trained a new generation of terrorists which have now mostly been forced to flee Iraq and scatter back all over the world. We will be living with blow back of the Iraq war for the next 10-20 years.
The war on terrorism should be over now, and we should have won. That is the greatest strategic failure in US history. We let a bunch of fanatics hiding in the mountains on the other side of the world get away with blowing up the tallest build in the US and part of the Pentagon without even trying very hard to catch them. Anyone that refuses to admit today that the Iraq war was a serious strategic error, is incompetent to lead our country.
Yes, we have overthrown, captured and executed Saddam, but we are bogged down in a nation building project in Iraq.
Well first it was bogged down in an no-win situation. Then it was bogged down in a civil war between Sunni and Shiite. When the factions stopped fighting it was the Surge won’t work. Now we are back to being bogged down in nation building. Dean is right, you keep changing the story and moving the goal posts.
The US army cannot stand up an Iraqi government. The Iraqis have to do that. The Iraqis have made some progress on that in the last year, but there is still a long ways to go.
Sure there is much room for improvement. But still they are moving forward every day. You sound like the guy watching pigs fly by complaining that they were not keeping very good formation.
Mikeca,
We let a bunch of fanatics hiding in the mountains on the other side of the world get away with blowing up the tallest build in the US and part of the Pentagon without even trying very hard to catch them.
Wrong interpretation.
Here’s a better one: We were lax for 10 years while Al Queda, declarated war on us, culminating in the horrific suicide murders on 9/11.
Afterwards, we destroyed the Taliban in Afghanistan, who had provided a safe harbor to a roving, mobile band of terrorists (Al Queda), put the big hurt on them in Iraq, after deposing a brutal dictator Saddam, and have prevented any further terrorist attacks on US soil.
The objective isn’t to "catch" Osama. This isn’t an old episode of "The Fugitive". The objective is to sufficiently disable Al Queda so as to greatly reduce the threat of it repeating another 9/11 attack (or worse) against our fellow citizens.
We’ve done so.
HankB
Well first it was bogged down in an no-win situation. Then it was bogged down in a civil war between Sunni and Shiite. When the factions stopped fighting it was the Surge won’t work. Now we are back to being bogged down in nation building. Dean is right, you keep changing the story and moving the goal posts.
Obviously, you did not read my comment.
The Sunni have stopped fighting because the US is paying the former Sunni insurgent groups to be a militia and restore order in Sunni areas. The plan was for those Sunni militias to be absorbed into the Iraqi security forces, but so far the Iraqi government has refused to consider this. So the US is continuing to pay the Sunni while the Iraqi government drags its feet on real political reconciliation.
The Mahdi army has appeared to just stand down and disappear. No one is sure what that means. Sadr may have decided that the fastest route to power is through the political process and election, or maybe he is just waiting for US forces to leave Iraq.
Both the Sunni and Sadr definitely want US forces out of Iraq. The Kurds are the only group that really wants US forces in Iraq. No matter who is elected, US forces are not going to be in most of Iraq much longer.
In the end the future of Iraq is in Iraqi hands. The current Iraqi government was happy to have us there fighting the Sunni resistance and al Qaeda, but now that the US is paying the former Sunni resistance and al Qaeda has largely been defeated, they don’t have much use for us. We are training and equipping the Sunni militias they may have to fight. They will either come to some political settlement with the Sunni or they will have their civil war after we leave.
All of this, of course, has nothing to do with the terrorists who have declared war on the US, destroyed the tallest building in the US and attacked the Pentagon. Because of this “nation building” project and the surge we don’t even have the troops to fight those terrorists. Invading Iraq was the biggest strategic error in US history. All the plans and tactical maneuvers in Iraq don’t change that.
Well, mikeca is right that Sadr is an international mastermind of teh terror. I mean, just look at him. Suave and debonnaire. That Bond guy has nothing on him, I’d think. We’re just playing into his pudgy hands so we should prob’ly just run away. Saddam never took him out, so there’s your proof – he’s teh freedom fighter par excellance.
Is Mickea for real? He just sounds like he’s apeing the mindless drivel of the Obama crowd.
Scott,
mikeca is for real. I don’t agree with him often, but he makes a serious study of matters in the Middle East. He is far more informed than the typical partisan Democrat hack.
And Sandi, while there are Democrat hacks who keep moving the goal post, mikeca isn’t one of them. If you go back to Dean’s World archives from July 2007, he was predicting then what we’re seeing now. Unlike most Democrats of the time, he wasn’t predicting the Surge was doomed to failure; he was predicting that military success was already in the works due to the Iraqis, and that the Surge was irrelevant.
I disagree with the way mikeca presumes the worst; and I think his obsession with catching Bin Laden blinds him to the overwhelming damage that has been done to al Qaeda both in Iraq and world wide. But he’s honestly arguing the situation as he sees it, not just shaping his argument to fit his partisan goals.
I don’t really think OBL is alive anymore. Alive as a symbol, maybe, but how can you kill/capture that?
Alive as a symbol, maybe, but how can you kill/capture that?
Destroying the value of the symbol is one way. That seems to be working out fairly well.
The Iraq war has trained a new generation of terrorists which have now mostly been forced to flee Iraq and scatter back all over the world.
How is this any different from Afghanistan or any other place we confront terrorists?
If we win and send the terrorists fleeing – we lose.
If we lose and the terrorists stay where they are – we lose.
It seems we can’t win in your book.
al-Qaeda is an ideology. We have shown that ideology to be weak. It is the "weak horse" that no one wants to back, to use OBL’s analogy describing the United States.
al-Qaeda’s action in Iraq targeting other Muslims has proven it’s ideology is bankrupt amongst Muslims. It is less popular today in the Islamic world – not more.
Your beliefs are also pretty convenient. If there is no terrorism, we’re just waiting for the hammer to fall with "blowback" from the Iraq war. If we do suffer another attack, then it’s our fault for our actions in Iraq.
It’s all just defeatism. Jimmy Carter must be proud. So how do we win, Mike?
Comments on Mikeca’s comment:
The Sunni have stopped fighting because the US is paying the former Sunni insurgent groups to be a militia and restore order in Sunni areas.
The Sunni stopped fighting (the US and Iraqi government) because they were losing their society to al Qaeda and needed to take it back, and because they were weakened by the opposing forces of US/Iraqi government and the conflict with radical extremists. US pay to the wider Sunni labor pool has been a factor, no doubt, but it is a mistake to view that as the only or even main factor.
If you don’t believe me, ask yourself why the Iraqi Security forces were so unpopular and weak in Sunni areas for so many years, seeing as they were essentially extremely high paying jobs programs funded by the US.
The plan was for those Sunni militias to be absorbed into the Iraqi security forces, but so far the Iraqi government has refused to consider this. So the US is continuing to pay the Sunni while the Iraqi government drags its feet on real political reconciliation.
The GOI is dragging its feet, you are totally correct. But some forces have recently been integrated into the ISF, and the GOI is now paying some neighborhood watches in Baghdad. This problem needs to ameliorate, but it is also a function of mistrust. You say that the Iraqi government is worried about the US funding Sunni militias, and yet you want the Iraqi government to throw open the Iraqi Security forces to what are essentially Sunni militias. To some extent (not totally), Iraqi government mistrust is based on a rational fear of militia infiltration.
The Mahdi army has appeared to just stand down and disappear. No one is sure what that means. Sadr may have decided that the fastest route to power is through the political process and election, or maybe he is just waiting for US forces to leave Iraq.
The Mahdi Army was:
1. Recently routed by the IA and US, taking thousands of casualties in a few short weeks and losing control of Sadr City and Basra.
2. Has become pretty damn unpopular with the locals, having alientaed its constituency by shooting mortars into civilian areas, extorting people and placing IEDs in front of homes.
Combined with almost total Sadrist isolation in the political process/Iraqi coalition government, Sadr has been forced to regroup.
Both the Sunni and Sadr definitely want US forces out of Iraq.
This is almost 50% wrong. The main Sunni bloc in the current parliament want the US out. They are not representative of the Sunni. The Sunni led by the Awakening movement are more representative of "the Sunni," and they want the US to stay as a broker of the political process.
We are training and equipping the Sunni militias they may have to fight.
This is almost 100% wrong. We are not equipping the neighborhood watches and “training” is cursory, and includes things like ethics training as a focus. As for the Iraqi police in the Sunni areas? the Government of Iraq is now paying and equipping them.
In the end the future of Iraq is in Iraqi hands.
This is largely correct.
Just a quick comment on why the Sunnis stopped fighting, at least in Al Anbar/Ramadi. There’s an interesting article from then-Colonel  Macfarland about the 1st BCT/1st AD’s tour of Ramadi in June 2006 to March 2007 that is definitely worth reading
http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/MarApr08/Smith_AnbarEngMarApr08.pdf
Seems to me that the Sunnis stopped fighting U.S. soldiers when Al Qaida started pissing them off more than the Americans were. The fighting between the tribes and AQI goes back to at least late 2005 when AQI wiped out a tribe who had started to fight against them. The difference between late 2005 and August 2006 seems to be that the American commander went to great lengths to help the Sunnis take back Ramadi from AQI.
Final comment: Everyone should know the names of Travis Patriquin and Sean Macfarland. They were responsible, in large parts, for turning the tide in Ramadi. Of course, credit should go to Sattar as well. The battle of Ramadi in 2006 is a largely untold story, I think.
Of course, credit should go to Sattar as well. The battle of Ramadi in 2006 is a largely untold story, I think.
Yes. An intel official at the Pentagon tells me that they have drone video of Sattar’s folks going hand to hand with AQ after all the ammunition ran out in a days-long pitched battle.
Comments on this entry are closed.